COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT STATISTICAL ANNEX Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE Alert Mechanism Report 2015 (prepared in accordance with Articles 3 and 4 of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances)
Date: 2014-11-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, Eurostat, economic disparity, economic growth, economic statistics, financial statistics, macroeconomics, national statistics













EUR-Lex - 52014SC0346 - EN











|



52014SC0346

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT STATISTICAL ANNEX Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE Alert Mechanism Report 2015 (prepared in accordance with Articles 3 and 4 of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances) /* SWD/2014/0346 final */









Background
information   6
Statistical methodology improvements  8
Impact on MIP indicators  9
Improving the quality framework and
ongoing work   15
Chapter 1: Tables by year - Headline indicators  17
Table 1.1: MIP Scoreboard 2013  17
Table 1.2: MIP Scoreboard 2012  18
Table 1.3: MIP Scoreboard 2011  19
Table 1.4: MIP Scoreboard 2010  20
Table 1.5: MIP Scoreboard 2009  21
Table 1.6: MIP Scoreboard 2008  22
Table 1.7: MIP Scoreboard 2007  23
Table 1.8: MIP Scoreboard 2006  24
Table 1.9: MIP Scoreboard 2005  25
Table 1.10: MIP Scoreboard 2004  26
Chapter 2: Tables by year - Auxiliary indicators used in the
economic reading of the MIP scoreboard  27
Table 2.1: Auxiliary indicators, 2013  27
Table 2.1 (continued): Auxiliary indicators, 2013  28
Table 2.2: Auxiliary indicators, 2012  29
Table 2.2 (continued): Auxiliary indicators, 2012  30
Table 2.3: Auxiliary indicators, 2011  31
Table 2.3 (continued): Auxiliary indicators, 2011  32
Table 2.4: Auxiliary indicators, 2010  33
Table 2.4 (continued): Auxiliary indicators, 2010  34
Table 2.5: Auxiliary indicators, 2009  35
Table 2.5 (continued): Auxiliary indicators, 2009  36
Table 2.6: Auxiliary indicators, 2008  37
Table 2.6 (continued): Auxiliary indicators, 2008  38
Table 2.7: Auxiliary indicators, 2007  39
Table 2.7 (continued): Auxiliary indicators, 2007  40
Table 2.8: Auxiliary indicators, 2006  41
Table 2.8 (continued): Auxiliary indicators, 2006  42
Table 2.9: Auxiliary indicators, 2005  43
Table 2.9 (continued): Auxiliary indicators, 2005  44
Table 2.10: Auxiliary indicators, 2004  45
Table 2.10 (continued): Auxiliary indicators, 2004  46
Chapter 3: Tables by indicator  47
Table 3.1: 3 year average of Current Account Balance as % of
GDP   47
Table 3.2: Current Account Balance as % of GDP (BoP data) 48
Table 3.3: Net International Investment Position as % of GDP   49
Table 3.4: % change (3 years) of Real Effective Exchange Rate
(42 IC) with HIPC deflators  50
Table 3.5: % y-o-y change in Real Effective Exchange Rate (42
IC) with HIPC deflators  51
Table 3.6: % change (5 years) in Export Market Shares  52
Table 3.7: % y-o-y change in Export Market Shares  53
Table 3.8: % change (3 years) in Nominal ULC   54
Table 3.9: % y-o-y change in Nominal ULC   55
Table 3.10: % y-o-y change in Deflated House Prices  56
Table 3.11: Private Sector Credit Flow as % of GDP – CO   57
Table 3.12: Private Sector Debt as % of GDP – CO   58
Table 3.13: General Government sector Debt as % of GDP   59
Table 3.14: 3 years average of Unemployment Rate  60
Table 3.15: Unemployment Rate  61
Table 3.16: % y-o-y change in Total Financial Sector
Liabilities  62
Table 3.17: Total Financial Sector Liabilities - millions,
national currency  63
Table 3.18: % y-o-y change in real GDP   64
Table 3.19: Gross Fixed Capital Formation as % of GDP   65
Table 3.20: Gross Domestic Expenditure on R&D as % of GDP   66
Table 3.21: Net Lending / Borrowing as % of GDP, BoP data  67
Table 3.22: Net External Debt as % of GDP   68
Table 3.23: FDI Inflows as % of GDP   69
Table 3.24: Inward FDI Stocks as % of GDP   70
Table 3.25: Net Trade Balance of Energy Products as % of GDP   71
Table 3.26: % change (3 years) in REER vs. EA   72
Table 3.27: % change (5 years) in Terms of Trade  73
Table 3.28: % change (5 years) Export Performance vs.
Advanced Economies  74
Table 3.29: % y-o-y change in Export Market Shares, goods and
services, volume  75
Table 3.30: % y-o-y change in Labour Productivity  76
Table 3.31: % change (10 years) in Nominal ULC   77
Table 3.32: % change (10 years) in ULC performance relative
to the EA   78
Table 3.33: % change (3 years) in Nominal House Prices  79
Table 3.34: Residential Construction as % of GDP   80
Table 3.35: Private Sector Debt as % of GDP, NCO   81
Table 3.36: Financial Sector Leverage (debt to equity in %) 82
Table 3.37: % y-o-y change in Employment 83
Table 3.38: Activity Rate (15-64 years) 84
Table 3.39: Long-term Unemployment Rate (% of active
population) 85
Table 3.40: Youth Unemployment Rate (% of active population
in the same age group) 86
Table 3.41: Young People not in Employment, Education or
Training (% of total population) 87
Table 3.42: People At-risk of Poverty or Social Exclusion (%
of total population) 88
Table 3.43: At-risk of Poverty Rate (% of total population) 89
Table 3.44: Severe Material Deprivation (% of total
population) 90
Table 3.45: Persons Living in Households with Very Low Work
Intensity (% of population aged 0-59) 91
Chapter 4: Tables by Member States - Headline indicators  92
Table 4.1: The MIP scoreboard for Belgium   92
Table 4.2: The MIP scoreboard for Bulgaria  93
Table 4.3: The MIP scoreboard for Czech Republic  94
Table 4.4: The MIP scoreboard for Denmark  95
Table 4.5: The MIP scoreboard for Germany  96
Table 4.6: The MIP scoreboard for Estonia  97
Table 4.7: The MIP scoreboard for Ireland  98
Table 4.8: The MIP scoreboard for Greece  99
Table 4.9: The MIP scoreboard for Spain  100
Table 4.10: The MIP scoreboard for France  101
Table 4.11: The MIP scoreboard for Croatia  102
Table 4.12: The MIP scoreboard for Italy  103
Table 4.13: The MIP scoreboard for Cyprus  104
Table 4.14: The MIP scoreboard for Latvia  105
Table 4.15: The MIP scoreboard for Lithuania  106
Table 4.16: The MIP scoreboard for Luxembourg  107
Table 4.17: The MIP scoreboard for Hungary  108
Table 4.18: The MIP scoreboard for Malta  109
Table 4.19: The MIP scoreboard for Netherlands  110
Table 4.20: The MIP scoreboard for Austria  111
Table 4.21: The MIP scoreboard for Poland  112
Table 4.22: The MIP scoreboard for Portugal 113
Table 4.23: The MIP scoreboard for Romania  114
Table 4.24: The MIP scoreboard for Slovenia  115
Table 4.25: The MIP scoreboard for Slovakia  116
Table 4.26: The MIP scoreboard for Finland  117
Table 4.27: The MIP scoreboard for Sweden  118
Table 4.28: The MIP scoreboard for United Kingdom   119
Chapter 5: Tables by Member States - Auxiliary indicators
used in the economic reading of the MIP scoreboard  120
Table 5.1: Auxiliary indicators for Belgium   120
Table 5.1 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Belgium   121
Table 5.2: Auxiliary indicators for Bulgaria  122
Table 5.2 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Bulgaria  123
Table 5.3: Auxiliary indicators for Czech Republic  124
Table 5.3 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Czech
Republic  125
Table 5.4: Auxiliary indicators for Denmark  126
Table 5.4 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Denmark  127
Table 5.5: Auxiliary indicators for Germany  128
Table 5.5 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Germany  129
Table 5.6: Auxiliary indicators for Estonia  130
Table 5.6 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Estonia  131
Table 5.7: Auxiliary indicators for Ireland  132
Table 5.7 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Ireland  133
Table 5.8: Auxiliary indicators for Greece  134
Table 5.8 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Greece  135
Table 5.9: Auxiliary indicators for Spain  136
Table 5.9 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Spain  137
Table 5.10: Auxiliary indicators for France  138
Table 5.10 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for France  139
Table 5.11: Auxiliary indicators for Croatia  140
Table 5.11 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Croatia  141
Table 5.12: Auxiliary indicators for Italy  142
Table 5.12 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Italy  143
Table 5.13: Auxiliary indicators for Cyprus  144
Table 5.13 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Cyprus  145
Table 5.14: Auxiliary indicators for Latvia  146
Table 5.14 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Latvia  147
Table 5.15: Auxiliary indicators for Lithuania  148
Table 5.15 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Lithuania  149
Table 5.16: Auxiliary indicators for Luxembourg  150
Table 5.16 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Luxembourg  151
Table 5.17: Auxiliary indicators for Hungary  152
Table 5.17 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Hungary  153
Table 5.18: Auxiliary indicators for Malta  154
Table 5.18 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Malta  155
Table 5.19: Auxiliary indicators for Netherlands  156
Table 5.19 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Netherlands  157
Table 5.20: Auxiliary indicators for Austria  158
Table 5.20 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Austria  159
Table 5.21: Auxiliary indicators for Poland  160
Table 5.21 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Poland  161
Table 5.22: Auxiliary indicators for Portugal 162
Table 5.22 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Portugal 163
Table 5.23: Auxiliary indicators for Romania  164
Table 5.23 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Romania  165
Table 5.24: Auxiliary indicators for Slovenia  166
Table 5.24 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Slovenia  167
Table 5.25: Auxiliary indicators for Slovakia  168
Table 5.25 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Slovakia  169
Table 5.26: Auxiliary indicators for Finland  170
Table 5.26 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Finland  171
Table 5.27: Auxiliary indicators for Sweden  172
Table 5.27 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Sweden  173
Table 5.28: Auxiliary indicators for United Kingdom   174
Table 5.28 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for United
Kingdom   175
Background information
This
Statistical Annex to the 2015 Alert Mechanism Report (AMR) presents the
Macroeconomic Imbalances Procedure (MIP) scoreboard indicators and auxiliary
indicators used in the economic reading of the MIP scoreboard. European Union
economic policy frameworks rely more than ever on timely and high quality
socio-economic and financial statistics. The MIP scoreboard and auxiliary
indicators are mostly based on data collected under European legislation. The
indicators are mostly compiled by Eurostat. The MIP scoreboard indicators are
accompanied by indicative thresholds (used in the AMR) while no thresholds are applied
to the auxiliary indicators. Since the publication of the first Statistical
Annex in 2012, significant progress has been achieved towards enhancing the
standards and methods used for the compilation of underlying data as well as
strengthening the quality assurance framework.   
The
composition of the MIP scoreboard and the definition of the indicators did not
change compared with the 2014 AMR. 
The
MIP Scoreboard consists of eleven indicators measuring internal and external
macroeconomic imbalances and competitiveness of the EU countries. The 10 year
time series of the MIP scoreboard indicators are displayed in this document in
chapters 1 (by year) and chapter 4 (by country).  Table 1 lists the MIP
scoreboard indicators together with detailed information on their sources. 
The
cut-off date for the data, that is the date on which the data were extracted
from the Eurostat database for the preparation of this document, was the 1st
November 2014. For additional information about the data, please contact ESTAT-MIP@ec.europa.eu.

Table
1. MIP scoreboard indicators
 Indicator || Source 
 Institution || Statistical domain 
 3 year average of Current account balance as % of GDP || Eurostat || BoP/NA 
 Net international investment position as % of GDP || Eurostat/ECB || BoP/NA 
 % change (3 years) of Real effective exchange rate || DG ECFIN ||   
 % change (5 years) Share of world exports || Eurostat, IMF || BoP 
 % change (3 years) of  Nominal unit labour cost || Eurostat || NA 
 % change (1 year) of House prices - deflated || Eurostat || Price Stat/NA 
 Private credit flow as % of GDP || Eurostat || NA --> FA 
 Private debt as % of GDP || Eurostat || NA --> FA 
 General government gross debt (EDP) as % of GDP || Eurostat || GFS 
 3 year average of Unemployment rate || Eurostat || LFS 
 % change (1 year) of Total financial sector liabilities || Eurostat || NA --> FA 
Note: NA- National Accounts; BoP – Balance of
Payments; FA – Financial Accounts; GFS – Government Finance Statistics; and LFS
– Labour Force Survey/Labour Market Statistics
Supplementing
the MIP scoreboard indicators, a list of 28 auxiliary indicators (Table 2)
provides additional information on aspects linked to the general macroeconomic
situation, nominal and real convergence inside and outside the EU and the euro
area, detailed data on the external liabilities, including foreign direct
investment and net external debt, and social statistics. The auxiliary
indicators enhance the information base for understanding potential imbalances,
as well as the adjustment capacity of the economy. The auxiliary indicators are
also presented in this Statistical Annex by year (in chapter 2) and by country
(in chapter 5). 
Table 2. Auxiliary indicators
 Indicator || Source 
 Institution || Statistical domain 
 % change (1 year) of Real GDP || Eurostat || NA 
 Gross Fixed Capital Formation as % of GDP || Eurostat || NA 
 Gross Domestic Expenditure on R&D as % of GDP || Eurostat || Business Statistics/NA 
 Net Lending/Borrowing as % of GDP || Eurostat || BoP/NA 
 Net External Debt  as % of GDP || Eurostat/ECB || BoP/NA 
 Inward FDI Flows as % of GDP || Eurostat || BoP/NA 
 Inward FDI Stocks as % of GDP || Eurostat/ECB || BoP/NA 
 Net Trade Balance of Energy Products as % of GDP || Eurostat || International Trade/NA 
 % change (3 years) of Real Effective Exchange Rates - EA trading partners || DG ECFIN ||   
 % change (5 years) of Share of OECD exports || Eurostat/OECD || BoP 
 % change (5 years) of Terms of Trade || Eurostat || NA 
 % change (1 year) of Export Market Shares - in volume || IMF ||   
 % change (1 year) of Labour Productivity || Eurostat || NA 
 % change (10 years) of Nominal ULC || Eurostat || NA 
 % change (10 years) of  ULC performance related to EA || DG ECFIN ||   
 % change (3 years) of Nominal HPI || Eurostat || Price Statistics 
 Residential Construction as % of GDP || Eurostat || NA 
 Private Debt as % of GDP - non consolidated || Eurostat || NA --> FA 
 Financial Sector Leverage (debt to equity) || Eurostat || NA --> FA 
 % change (1 year) of Employment || Eurostat || NA 
 Activity Rate (15-64 years) || Eurostat || LFS 
 Long-term Unemployment Rate (% of active population) || Eurostat 
 Youth Unemployment Rate (% of active population in the same age group) || Eurostat 
 Young People not in Education, Employment or Training (% of total population) || Eurostat 
 People at Risk of Poverty or Social Exclusion (% of total population) || Eurostat || SILC 
 At risk of Poverty rate (% of total population) || Eurostat 
 Severe Materially deprived People (% of total population) || Eurostat 
 People Living in Households with Very Low Work Intensity (% of population aged 0-59) || Eurostat 
Note: NA- National Accounts; BoP – Balance of
Payments; FA – Financial Accounts; LFS – Labour Force Survey/Labour Market
Statistics; SILC – Statistics on Income and Living Conditions
In
chapter 3 the data is displayed for each MIP indicator separately allowing for
easy comparisons of countries for the 10 year time series. Additionally, in the
same chapter short descriptions of the indicators as well as detailed
information on sources and methods employed for their compilation are provided.
Statistical
methodology improvements 
In
comparison to last year, the quality of the MIP underlying data has
significantly improved in the course of 2014. In particular, the adoption of
the new accounting framework for National
Accounts (ESA 2010 replacing ESA 95) and the new manual for Balance of Payments
(BPM6 replacing BPM5) led to a better and
more harmonised measurement of national economies. In addition, for some of the
MIP indicators, the production of statistical data has been complemented by new
inventories (House Price Index), and updated quality information (Unemployment
and EDP). 
The ESA 2010 differs in scope as well as in concepts from its
predecessor ESA 95 reflecting developments with regard to measuring modern
economies, advances in methodological research and the needs of users. The
structure of the ESA 2010 is consistent with the worldwide guidelines on
national accounting set out in the System of National Accounts 2008 (2008 SNA).
Detailed information about the impact of the
implementation of ESA 2010 can be found on the
Eurostat website – ESA2010 web section.
In
addition to the new standards in the National Accounts domain, the new version
of the Balance of Payments Manual (BPM6)[1] has also been
adopted in 2014. The main changes introduced by the new manual are intended to
improve the consistency of the BoP framework with the SNA2008 and thus also
with ESA 2010 in terms of terminology, sector classification and treatment of
similar transactions in a consistent way, as well as increasing the focus on
balance sheet vulnerability issues. As a result also
the methodological consistency of the MIP indicators based on data from these
two domains has improved.
The
data according to the BPM6 is available for certain countries only with limited
back calculations. As a result, at the moment of publication of the AMR, the 10
year long time series of MIP indicators derived from Balance of Payments (see
Tables 1 and 2) are not always available on a BPM6 basis. In the data tables of
this Statistical Annex whenever only BPM5 data were available, they were marked
in italics. In addition, to illustrate the magnitude of the changes, in
the following subsection the information on the impact is provided for the
countries which supplied the data according to both standards. 
The
cumulated burden on national compilers of moving to a new methodological
standard and collection system changes may in the next few years lead to
routine revisions slightly larger than usual.
Impact on
MIP indicators
The
changes in methodology described above impacted on ten MIP scoreboard
indicators (all except the Unemployment rate). The impact was twofold: on
numerator side whenever data coming from National Accounts or Balance of
Payments have been used and/or on denominator/deflator side whenever expressed
in relation to GDP. The detailed information on the impact on the most recent
data for the eleven headline indicators is provided below. Values based on the
preceding standards (ESA 95/BPM5) are available at Eurostat
dedicated web section.
Overall,
most of the MIP relevant data are produced in statistical frameworks or domains
(as described in the Tables 1 and 2) with a long track record, well-known
quality profiles and legal framework based on domain specific regulations,
which even if not fully harmonised define the elements of basic quality
assurance. As regards the interpretation of the MIP scoreboard indicators and
the quality of related data, a summary of issues to be noted per domain
follows. 
External
imbalances
The
combined effect of the introduction of BPM6 and ESA2010 and of the other
statistical changes has not been homogenous across Member States in terms of
sign and size for the BoP related MIP indicators. In some cases it has been
moderate and in others quite large. However, as a general consideration, the
overall effect was more driven by the impact of BMP6 on the numerator than the
impact of ESA2010 on GDP. This was particularly true for the Current Account
scoreboard indicator. The effect has been positive for some Member States and
negative for others. In some cases this has not been homogenous on the 10 years
of analysis either. For example, Latvian three years average of Current Account
and International Investment Position moved upwards with the new methodologies
until 2009 and downwards from 2010 to 2013. 
Table
3. Impact on 3 years average of Current Account balance as % of GDP 
 3.5 pp to 0.5 pp || MT, HU, ES, FR 
 0.5 pp to 0 pp || PT, CZ, PL, BE, RO, SE, UK 
 0 pp to - 0.5 pp || EL, HR, IT, SI, DK, LT, FI, LU 
 -0.5 pp to -3.5 pp || DE, EE, AT, LV, IE 
Note:
3years BPM6 data for Bulgaria, Cyprus, Netherlands and Slovakia are missing.
Concerning
the impact of the new methodologies on the three years average of Current
Account expressed as percentage of GDP, this has on average shifted the
ratio downward by 0.3 percentage points between 2011 and 2013. Nevertheless,
the effect has not been homogenous across the countries. For 2013 the impact
ranged between -2.9 p.p. for Ireland and 3.1 p.p. for Malta. In both cases the
difference was mostly driven by the incorporation of Special Purpose Entities
(SPE). Table 3 summarises the impact at Member State level on the Current
Account ratio to GDP.
Table
4. Impact on Net International Investment Position as % of GDP 
 35 pp to 8 pp || LU, MT, FR, HU 
 8  pp to 0 pp || ES, CZ, PT, PL, SI, EE 
 0 pp to - 8 pp || LV, RO, LT, AT, IT, EL, SE, DE, FI 
 -8 pp to -75 pp || UK, NL, CY 
Note:
France is based on 2012 data. BPM6 data for Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark,
Ireland, Croatia, Slovakia are missing 
Table
4 summarises the impact at Member State level on the Net International
Investment Position ratio to GDP. The impact on Net International
Investment Position expressed in % of GDP was also diverse among countries yet
on average larger. Disregarding the sign, the impact between 2011 and 2013 has
been on average 8.2 p.p. whereas it was only 0.5 p.p. for the three years
Current Account average. The average effect taking into account the sign of the
changes has been an increase by 0.3 percentage points of the International
Investment Positions.
Two
countries were particularly affected by the change, Cyprus where the IIP/GDP
data for 2013 is 71.1 p.p. lower than with the previous methodology and
Luxembourg where the indicator for the same year is 32.3 p.p. higher.
Methodological changes in the treatment of SPEs and their operations are the
main reason underpinning these divergences.
Regarding
the Export Market Shares indicator, the overall balance of goods and
services has not changed substantially with implementation of BPM6, but on the
individual accounts (goods and services separately) the changes have a
considerable impact, mostly because of the new treatment of merchanting, the
application of the economic ownership principle and the treatment of financial
intermediation services changes indirectly measured (impacting services). Table
5 summarises the impact at Member State level on the export market shares
indicator.
Table
5. Impact on % change (5 years) Share of world exports 
 over 4pp || EE, HR,LU,RO 
 0pp to 4pp || BE,IE,LT,PT,SE,UK,AT 
 -1pp to 0pp || CZ,DK,IT,HU 
 - 4pp to -1pp || DE,FR,LV,FI 
Note:
BPM6 data for Bulgaria, Greece, Spain, Cyprus, Malta, Netherlands, Poland,
Slovenia and Slovakia are missing
The
magnitude of the impact is more pronounced for countries having a significant
participation in trade of goods for processing, especially for small open
economies like Latvia, Romania or Estonia. For certain countries the impact
might be explained by the high importance of financial services in their
economies (e.g. Luxembourg or Ireland). 
The
numerator was built on the data using BPM5 and BPM6 standards. Priority has
been given to the information according to BPM6, whenever available, and BPM5
data has been used only for completing the scoreboard. The data based on the
preceding standard is marked in italics in the tables of this
Statistical Annex. In order to compute the scoreboard indicators on Export
Market Shares of world total (headline indicator) and OECD total (auxiliary
one), the data for their denominators come from IMF and OECD sources
respectively. The aggregated data used as denominator, published by these two
institutions, are based on BPM5 standard.
As
regards Real Effective Exchange Rate (REER), the headline indicator has
been impacted by the introduction of the new ESA only in terms of changes to
domestic supplies used in the construction of double export weights. The
magnitude of the impact was small – of around 0.1-0.2 pp difference comparing
to the previous standards. 
The
impact on the Nominal Unit Labour Cost (3-year percentage change) of the
implementation of the ESA 2010 methodology and other statistical modifications
(e.g., benchmarking on the 2011 Population Census results and the improvement
of the labour force survey methodology) varied somewhat across Member States.
Among the 27 Member States with data available based on the old and the new ESA
compilation standards, the difference clustered from -1.5 to 1.5 percentage
points in 2013 for two-thirds  of the countries (2012 for Poland), whereas a
larger difference of up to +4.3 percentage points was observed in the rest of
countries. Overall, the change introduced by the methodological change and
quality improvement was not very pronounced in a great majority of the
countries. Table 6 summarises the impact at Member
State level on the Nominal Unit Labour cost indicator.
Table
6. Impact on % change (3 years) in Nominal unit
labour cost 
 1.5pp to 4.5pp || SK, LV, SI, BG, EL, SE, IE 
 0 to 1.5pp || AT, CZ, CY, DE, NL, FI, DK, ES, EE, PL, RO, MT 
 -4.5pp to 0 || UK, PT, LU, FR, LT, IT, BE, HU 
Note:
ESA 2010 data for Croatia is missing. Figures for 2013, except Poland (2012).
For
the Unit Labour Cost indicator, some values were affected by the use of the
Population Census 2011 results, this is the case e.g. for Latvia. For some
Member States the indicator was affected by the revision of the questionnaire
of the Labour Force Survey, e.g. Poland.[2]
Internal
imbalances
The
implementation of ESA 2010 requirements and incorporation of other statistical
adjustments had an impact on the revised time series of Private Sector
Credit Flow statistics. The impact has not been homogenous across Member
States in terms of sign and size for the MIP scoreboard indicator. In most
countries the upwards change has concerned only the recent years, whereas in
few others downwards revisions were visible on the whole 10 year long time
series. Moreover, for some countries the values slightly decreased or increased
in non-subsequent years during the whole 10 years period. Table 7 summarises
the impact at Member State level on the Private Sector Credit Flow ratio to
GDP. 
Table
7. Impact on Private Sector Credit Flow as % of GDP

 over 3pp || BE, EE, LU 
 0pp to 3pp || CZ, DK, EL, ES, FR, IT, LT, MT, NL, PL, PT, SI, UK 
 -2pp to 0pp || BG, DE, IE, HR, LV, HU, RO, SK, FI, SE 
 over -2pp || CY, AT 
The
new ESA and incorporation of other statistical adjustments resulted in
decreased values of Private Sector Debt as % of GDP for most of the
Member States. This downwards change could be attributed mainly to the
increased level of GDP used in the denominator; some countries reported,
however, revised data which resulted in an increase of the indicator. The
reclassification of SPE to the non-financial corporations and of the holding
companies from non-financial corporations to the financial corporations, were
the major reasons for the changes in some of these countries with an effect on
the consolidated data within the impacted sector. A certain part of the changes
relates to the benchmark changes and other data source improvements. Few
countries reported a significant change of Private Sector Debt underlying
statistics. However, high revisions concerned only particular years. Table 8
summarises the impact at Member State level on the Private Sector Debt ratio to
GDP:
Table
8. Impact on Private Sector Debt as % of GDP
 over 14pp || BE, CY, LU 
 0pp to 14pp || EL, LV, NL 
 -15pp to 0pp || CZ, DK, DE, EE, ES, FR, HR, IT, LT, MT, PL, RO, SI, SK, FI, SE, UK 
 over -15pp || BG, IE, HU, AT, PT 
As
regards the House Price Indices indicator, among the statistical gaps
highlighted by the financial and economic crisis, real estate price statistics
was considered one of the areas to be urgently developed. Particular attention
has been devoted to developing internationally comparable House Price Indices
(HPI). Since the beginning of 2013, with the entering into force of the
reference legislation[3],
the monitoring of changes in house prices is based on data regularly compiled
by the Member States and transmitted to Eurostat. The regulation ensures
coverage and timeliness of house price data and metadata, delivered by 22
Member States in Euro-SDMX Metadata Structure (ESMS) format. In addition, 27 Member
States (all but Greece) submitted to Eurostat the HPI Inventory of sources and
methods by September 2014. 
Compared
with other indicators, officially released House Price Indices (HPI) had, for
some Member States, a shorter historical coverage. The Member States, Eurostat,
ECB, OECD and BIS have continued working on this to improve the length of the
annual series by using all available proxy data and by applying relevant
econometric techniques. With respect to the last year, long time series
covering the last 10 years (from 2004 onwards) are now available for five
additional Member States: for Austria and Greece, data from the respective
National Central Banks are currently used. For Spain, Latvia and Cyprus, data
were back-calculated by Eurostat and approved by the NSIs. Starting years of
back-calculated series are flagged accordingly.
The
denominator (national accounts deflator for private final consumption
expenditure of households and NPIs) of this indicator has been affected by the
new ESA 2010. The impact at Member States level is minimal on the 2013 values
of the indicator.
The
adoption of ESA 2010 impacted the General Government Debt as a
percentage of GDP. Table 9 summarises the impact at Member State level on the
2013 value, where a positive sign means a higher government debt relative to
GDP and a negative sign a lower debt. In many cases the reclassification of
units inside the government sector impacted the figures of the general
government debt nominator (these units mainly concerned: public financial
defeasance structures, oil stockholding agencies, deposit guarantee funds and
public captive financial institutions). For three countries (Estonia, Greece,
and Poland) the time series in ESA 2010 are shorter than 10 years, For the
purpose of this document Eurostat completed the missing years by ESA 95 series.

Table
9. Impact on General Government Debt as % of GDP
 over 4pp || BE, IE, HR, AT 
 1pp to 4pp || DK, CZ, FR, PT, FI, UK 
 0pp to 1pp || DE, EE, EL, ES, IT, CY, LV, LU, HU, RO, SI, SK 
 -1pp to 0pp || BG, LT, MT, NL, PL, SE 
By
regular checking of the application of general methodological rules and its
methodological decisions related to the general government sector debt, by
analysing the data reported by Member States in the EDP notification tables,
questionnaire related to the notification tables, supplementary tables on
financial crisis, as well as through discussions with national authorities
during EDP standard dialogue visits, Eurostat keeps strengthening its
verification procedures. 
Concerning
Total Financial Sector Liabilities, a large majority of Member States do
not show any change as compared to the ESA2010 and ESA1995 for year 2012 in
terms of the indicator (year on year change). For the remaining countries the
changes are very limited, mainly due to reclassification of units into the
financial corporation. 
Regarding
the Unemployment Rate indicator, the inclusion of the Population Census
2011 results is an important source of improved population estimates, which has
led to backward revisions for unemployment data in a number of Member States.
Compared to the 2014 Statistical Annex, for several Member States the
Population Census 2011 results are now included in their revised unemployment
time series. Reconstructed series are flagged accordingly. The unemployment rate of France has been
revised downwards. This revision is mainly due to methodological changes to the
LFS.
Improving
the quality framework and ongoing work                    
The
reliability of the MIP and its smooth implementation depends to a great extent
on the availability and quality of the MIP relevant statistics. The statistical
information has to be relevant and fit for the purpose. For that reason, the
scoreboard indicators are regularly reviewed; the underlying statistical
methodology and the statistical production process are constantly improved. 
On
three occasions (November 2011, 2012 and 2013), the ECOFIN Council invited the
Commission (Eurostat) to take all necessary initiatives to assure a reliable
procedure for the compilation of all these indicators as well as a continuous
improvement of the underlying statistical information. At the same time, the
Council invited the European Statistical System (ESS) and the European System
of Central Banks (ESCB) to work together on improving underlying statistics and
to ensure their comparability[4]. 

In
response to the Council requests, the Commission adopted on 7 June 2013 a
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the
provision and quality of statistics for the macroeconomic imbalances procedure
(COM(2013) 342 final). This Proposal (the MIP Statistics Quality Regulation)
put forward by the Commission aims to set up an enhanced and harmonised quality
and monitoring framework for MIP- relevant statistics. The MIP Statistics
Quality Regulation is currently under discussion in the Council and the
European Parliament.  
As
the statistics underlying the MIP indicators are based on EU legislation but
compiled by the European Statistical System (ESS) and the European System of Central
Banks (ESCB), the Committee on Monetary, Financial and Balance of Payment
Statistics (CMFB) set up a Task Force on the quality of the statistics
underlying the MIP indicators in 2013. In its final report presented to the
CMFB in 2014 a concrete set of actions in the form of a work programme was
proposed and further updated in an ESS-ESCB communication/work programme on
quality assurance of the statistics underlying the MIP. 
Following
the implementation of the new standards in the field of Balance of Payments,
Eurostat is actively working together with the responsible national authorities
on ensuring the provision of longer time series. On the basis of the more
exhaustive statistical information an in-depth analysis of the impact of the
new standards will be carried out in 2015. Eurostat foresees to undertake
similar actions in the domain of Financial Accounts and other domains where the
metadata information is lacking. 
Chapter
1: Tables by year - Headline indicators
Table 1.1: MIP Scoreboard 2013
Table 1.2: MIP Scoreboard 2012
Table 1.3: MIP Scoreboard 2011
Table 1.4: MIP Scoreboard 2010
Table 1.5: MIP Scoreboard 2009
Table 1.6: MIP Scoreboard 2008
Table 1.7: MIP Scoreboard 2007
Table 1.8: MIP Scoreboard 2006
Table 1.9: MIP Scoreboard 2005
Table 1.10: MIP Scoreboard 2004
Chapter
2: Tables by year - Auxiliary indicators used in the economic reading of the
MIP scoreboard
Table 2.1: Auxiliary indicators, 2013
Table 2.1 (continued): Auxiliary
indicators, 2013
Table 2.2: Auxiliary indicators, 2012
Table 2.2 (continued): Auxiliary
indicators, 2012
Table 2.3: Auxiliary indicators, 2011
Table 2.3 (continued): Auxiliary
indicators, 2011
Table 2.4: Auxiliary indicators, 2010
Table 2.4 (continued): Auxiliary indicators,
2010
Table 2.5: Auxiliary indicators, 2009
Table 2.5 (continued): Auxiliary
indicators, 2009
Table 2.6: Auxiliary indicators, 2008
Table 2.6 (continued): Auxiliary
indicators, 2008
Table 2.7: Auxiliary indicators, 2007
Table 2.7 (continued): Auxiliary
indicators, 2007
Table 2.8: Auxiliary indicators, 2006
Table 2.8 (continued): Auxiliary
indicators, 2006
Table 2.9: Auxiliary indicators, 2005
Table 2.9 (continued): Auxiliary
indicators, 2005
Table 2.10: Auxiliary indicators, 2004
Table 2.10 (continued): Auxiliary
indicators, 2004
Chapter
3: Tables by indicator
Table 3.1: 3 year average of Current
Account Balance as % of GDP
Table 3.2: Current Account Balance as %
of GDP (BoP data)
Table 3.3: Net International Investment
Position as % of GDP
Table 3.4: % change (3 years) of Real
Effective Exchange Rate (42 IC) with HIPC deflators
Table 3.5: % y-o-y change in Real
Effective Exchange Rate (42 IC) with HIPC deflators
Table 3.6: % change (5 years) in Export
Market Shares
Table 3.7: % y-o-y change in Export
Market Shares
Table 3.8: % change (3 years) in Nominal
ULC
Table 3.9: % y-o-y change in Nominal ULC
Table 3.10: % y-o-y change in Deflated
House Prices
Table 3.11: Private Sector Credit Flow
as % of GDP – CO
Table 3.12: Private Sector Debt as % of
GDP – CO
Table 3.13: General Government sector
Debt as % of GDP
Table 3.14: 3 years average of
Unemployment Rate
Table 3.15: Unemployment Rate
Table 3.16: % y-o-y change in Total
Financial Sector Liabilities
Table 3.17: Total Financial Sector
Liabilities - millions, national currency
Table 3.18: % y-o-y change in real GDP
Table 3.19: Gross Fixed Capital
Formation as % of GDP
Table 3.20: Gross Domestic Expenditure
on R&D as % of GDP
Table 3.21: Net Lending / Borrowing as %
of GDP, BoP data
Table 3.22: Net External Debt as % of
GDP
Table 3.23: FDI Inflows as % of GDP
Table 3.24: Inward FDI Stocks as % of
GDP
Table 3.25: Net Trade Balance of Energy
Products as % of GDP
Table 3.26: % change (3 years) in REER
vs. EA
Table 3.27: % change (5 years) in Terms
of Trade
Table 3.28: % change (5 years) Export
Performance vs. Advanced Economies
Table 3.29: % y-o-y change in Export
Market Shares, goods and services, volume
Table 3.30: % y-o-y change in Labour
Productivity
Table 3.31: % change (10 years) in
Nominal ULC
Table 3.32: % change (10 years) in ULC
performance relative to the EA
Table 3.33: % change (3 years) in
Nominal House Prices
Table 3.34: Residential Construction as
% of GDP
Table 3.35: Private Sector Debt as % of
GDP, NCO
Table 3.36: Financial Sector Leverage
(debt to equity in %)
Table 3.37: % y-o-y change in Employment
Table 3.38: Activity Rate (15-64 years)
Table 3.39: Long-term Unemployment Rate
(% of active population)
Table 3.40: Youth Unemployment Rate (%
of active population in the same age group)
Table 3.41: Young People not in
Employment, Education or Training (% of total population)
Table 3.42: People At-risk of Poverty or
Social Exclusion (% of total population)
Table 3.43: At-risk of Poverty Rate (%
of total population)
Table 3.44: Severe Material Deprivation
(% of total population)
Table 3.45: Persons Living in Households
with Very Low Work Intensity (% of population aged 0-59)
Chapter
4: Tables by Member States - Headline indicators
Table 4.1: The MIP scoreboard for
Belgium
Table 4.2: The MIP scoreboard for
Bulgaria
Table 4.3: The MIP scoreboard for Czech
Republic
Table 4.4: The MIP scoreboard for
Denmark
Table 4.5: The MIP scoreboard for
Germany
Table 4.6: The MIP scoreboard for
Estonia
Table 4.7: The MIP scoreboard for
Ireland
Table 4.8: The MIP scoreboard for Greece
Table 4.9: The MIP scoreboard for Spain
Table 4.10: The MIP scoreboard for
France
Table 4.11: The MIP scoreboard for
Croatia
Table 4.12: The MIP scoreboard for Italy
Table 4.13: The MIP scoreboard for
Cyprus
Table 4.14: The MIP scoreboard for
Latvia
Table 4.15: The MIP scoreboard for
Lithuania
Table 4.16: The MIP scoreboard for
Luxembourg
Table 4.17: The MIP scoreboard for
Hungary
Table 4.18: The MIP scoreboard for Malta
Table 4.19: The MIP scoreboard for
Netherlands
Table 4.20: The MIP scoreboard for
Austria
Table 4.21: The MIP scoreboard for
Poland
Table 4.22: The MIP scoreboard for
Portugal
Table 4.23: The MIP scoreboard for
Romania
Table 4.24: The MIP scoreboard for
Slovenia
Table 4.25: The MIP scoreboard for
Slovakia
Table 4.26: The MIP scoreboard for
Finland
Table 4.27: The MIP scoreboard for
Sweden
Table 4.28: The MIP scoreboard for
United Kingdom
Chapter
5: Tables by Member States - Auxiliary indicators used in the economic reading
of the MIP scoreboard
Table 5.1: Auxiliary indicators for
Belgium
Table 5.1 (continued): Auxiliary
indicators for Belgium
Table 5.2: Auxiliary indicators for
Bulgaria
Table 5.2 (continued): Auxiliary
indicators for Bulgaria
Table 5.3: Auxiliary indicators for
Czech Republic
Table 5.3 (continued): Auxiliary
indicators for Czech Republic
Table 5.4: Auxiliary indicators for
Denmark
Table 5.4 (continued): Auxiliary
indicators for Denmark
Table 5.5: Auxiliary indicators for
Germany
Table 5.5 (continued): Auxiliary
indicators for Germany
Table 5.6: Auxiliary indicators for
Estonia
Table 5.6 (continued): Auxiliary
indicators for Estonia
Table 5.7: Auxiliary indicators for
Ireland
Table 5.7 (continued): Auxiliary
indicators for Ireland
Table 5.8: Auxiliary indicators for Greece
Table 5.8 (continued): Auxiliary
indicators for Greece
Table 5.9: Auxiliary indicators for
Spain
Table 5.9 (continued): Auxiliary
indicators for Spain
Table 5.10: Auxiliary indicators for
France
Table 5.10 (continued): Auxiliary indicators
for France
Table 5.11: Auxiliary indicators for
Croatia
Table 5.11 (continued): Auxiliary
indicators for Croatia
Table 5.12: Auxiliary indicators for
Italy
Table 5.12 (continued): Auxiliary
indicators for Italy
Table 5.13: Auxiliary indicators for
Cyprus
Table 5.13 (continued): Auxiliary
indicators for Cyprus
Table 5.14: Auxiliary indicators for
Latvia
Table 5.14 (continued): Auxiliary
indicators for Latvia
Table 5.15: Auxiliary indicators for
Lithuania
Table 5.15 (continued): Auxiliary
indicators for Lithuania
Table 5.16: Auxiliary indicators for
Luxembourg
Table 5.16 (continued): Auxiliary
indicators for Luxembourg
Table 5.17: Auxiliary indicators for
Hungary
Table 5.17 (continued): Auxiliary
indicators for Hungary
Table 5.18: Auxiliary indicators for
Malta
Table 5.18 (continued): Auxiliary
indicators for Malta
Table 5.19: Auxiliary indicators for
Netherlands
Table 5.19 (continued): Auxiliary
indicators for Netherlands
Table 5.20: Auxiliary indicators for
Austria
Table 5.20 (continued): Auxiliary
indicators for Austria
Table 5.21: Auxiliary indicators for
Poland
Table 5.21 (continued): Auxiliary
indicators for Poland
Table 5.22: Auxiliary indicators for
Portugal
Table 5.22 (continued): Auxiliary
indicators for Portugal
Table 5.23: Auxiliary indicators for
Romania
Table 5.23 (continued): Auxiliary
indicators for Romania
Table 5.24: Auxiliary indicators for
Slovenia
Table 5.24 (continued): Auxiliary
indicators for Slovenia
Table 5.25: Auxiliary indicators for
Slovakia
Table 5.25 (continued): Auxiliary
indicators for Slovakia
Table 5.26: Auxiliary indicators for
Finland
Table 5.26 (continued): Auxiliary
indicators for Finland
Table 5.27: Auxiliary indicators for
Sweden
Table 5.27 (continued): Auxiliary
indicators for Sweden
Table 5.28: Auxiliary indicators for
United Kingdom
Table 5.28 (continued): Auxiliary
indicators for United Kingdom
[1] The full range of changes may be found on: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/bop/2007/bop6comp.htm
 (see Appendix 1 of BPM6 “Conversion
Matrix from BPM5 to BPM6”).
[2] See footnotes in tables for indication of breaks in the time series
of concerned Member States
[3] Commission Regulation (EU) 93/2013 as regards establishing
owner-occupied housing price indices
[4] Council
Conclusions of ECOFIN Council meeting, 9 November 2011,13 November 2012 and 15
November 2013 
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/st15/st15781-re02.en11.pdf