natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ùò ðñïò ôï 1996 , ôï ðïóïóôü ôïõ ÷ ñÝïõò ìå ìéêñÞ åíáðïìÝíïõóá äéÜñêåéá åßíáé óçìáíôéêü êáé , ëáìâáíïìÝíïõ õðüøç ôïõ óçìåñéíïý åðéðÝäïõ ôïõ ëüãïõ ôïõ ÷ ñÝïõò , ôá äçìïóéïíïìéêÜ áðïôåëÝóìáôá åßíáé ó ÷ åôéêÜ åõáßóèçôá óôéò ìåôáâïëÝò ôùí åðéôïêßùí .
With regard to 1996 , the proportion of debt with a short-term residual maturity is 74 noticeable , and , taking into account the current level of the debt ratio , fiscal balances are relatively sensitive to changes in interest rates .
ÊáôÜ ôç äéÜñêåéá ôçò äåêáåôßáò ôïõ 1990 äåí ðáñáôçñïýíôáé éäéáßôåñåò ôÜóåéò óôï ëüãï åëëåßììáôïò / ÁÅÐ , ï ïðïßïò äéáìïñöþèçêå óå 3 % ðåñßðïõ ôïõ ÁÅÐ ( âë . ÄéÜãñáììá 3á ) .
During the 1990s a relatively trendless pattern can be observed in the deficit-toGDP ratio , with outturns of around 3 % of GDP ( see Chart 3a ) .
ÓõãêñéôéêÜ ìå ôçí ðåñßïäï áìÝóùò ðñéí áðü ôçí åíïðïßçóç , ôï ãåãïíüò áõôü éóïäõíáìïýóå ìå åðéäåßíùóç ôùí äçìïóéïíïìéêþí áðïôåëåóìÜôùí , ðïõ Þôáí åëáöñþò ðëåïíáóìáôéêÜ ôï 1989 .
Compared with the period immediately prior to unification , this represented a deterioration in fiscal balances , which had been slightly in surplus in 1989 .
¼ ðùò öáßíåôáé ðéï áíáëõôéêÜ óôï ÄéÜãñáììá 3â , ôï ïðïßï åðéêåíôñþíåôáé óôéò ìåôáâïëÝò ôùí åëëåéììÜôùí , ïé êõêëéêïß ðáñÜãïíôåò åß ÷ áí Ýíôïíç áñíçôéêÞ åðßäñáóç ôï 1993 ìåôÜ áðü éó ÷ õñÞ Üíïäï ðïõ ðõñïäïôÞèçêå êõñßùò áðü ôçí õðåñâÜëëïõóá æÞôçóç ìåôÜ ôçí åíïðïßçóç , åíþ ìéêñüôåñç áñíçôéêÞ åðßäñáóç åß ÷ áí ïé ðáñÜãïíôåò áõôïß ôï 1996 .
As is shown in greater detail in Chart 3b , which focuses on changes in deficits , cyclical factors made a large negative contribution in 1993 following a strong boom mainly triggered by excessive demand in the wake of unification ; a smaller negative contribution was seen in 1996 .
Ôá äéáèÝóéìá óôïé ÷ åßá õðïäçëþíïõí üôé ìÝôñá ìå ðñïóùñéíÞ åðßäñáóç äéáäñáìÜôéóáí ñüëï óôç âåëôßùóç ôïõ äçìïóéïíïìéêïý áðïôåëÝóìáôïò ôï 1996 êáé ôï 1997 , ç åðßäñáóÞ ôïõò üìùò äåí õðåñÝâç ôï 0,2% ôïõ ÁÅÐ åôçóßùò .
Evidence available suggests that measures with a temporary effect played a role in improving the fiscal balance in 1996 and 1997 , but that the impact did not exceed 0.2% of GDP per annum .
ÄåäïìÝíïõ üôé ôá åí ëüãù ìÝôñá åß ÷ áí êõñßùò  åöÜðáî  ÷ áñáêôÞñá , ôá áíôéóôáèìéóôéêÜ ìÝôñá , ôá ïðïßá Ý ÷ ïõí Þäç óõìðåñéëçöèåß óôïõò ðñïûðïëïãéóìïýò ôïõ 1998 , èá ÷ ñåéáóôåß íá áðïäþóïõí ôá áíáìåíüìåíá áðïôåëÝóìáôÜ ôïõò ôï 1998 , ðñïêåéìÝíïõ ôá äçìïóéïíïìéêÜ áðïôåëÝóìáôá íá ðáñáìåßíïõí óôçí ðñïãñáììáôéóìÝíç ðïñåßá ôïõò .
As these measures were mainly of a one-off nature , compensating measures already introduced in 1998 budgets will need to yield their expected results in 1998 in order to keep fiscal balances on the planned path .
¼ óïí áöïñÜ ôéò ôÜóåéò Üëëùí äçìïóéïíïìéêþí äåéêôþí , áðü ôï ÄéÜãñáììá 4 ðñïêýðôåé üôé ìåôáîý 1991 êáé 1995 ï ëüãïò ôùí óõíïëéêþí äáðáíþí óçìåßùóå Üíïäï , ìå áýîçóç üëùí ôùí êáôçãïñéþí äáðáíþí , åêôüò ôùí êáèáñþí êåöáëáéáêþí äáðáíþí ( âë .
Moving on to examine trends in other fiscal indicators , it can be seen from Chart 4 that between 1991 and 1995 the total expenditure ratio rose , with all expenditure items increasing , except for net capital expenditure ( see Table 6 ) .
ÌåôÜ ôï 1995 ïé äáðÜíåò ìåéþèçêáí åîáéôßáò ôçò ìåßùóçò ôïõ ëüãïõ üëùí ôùí êõñéüôåñùí êïíäõëßùí äáðáíþí .
After 1995 expenditures declined , due to lower ratios of all major expenditure items .
ÓõíïëéêÜ , ï ëüãïò ôùí äáðáíþí ôï 1997 äéáìïñöþèçêå óå 48 %, äçë . åðáíÞëèå ðïëý êïíôÜ óôï åðßðåäï ðïõ ðáñáôçñÞèçêå ôï 1991 , áëëÜ ðáñáìÝíåé óçìáíôéêÜ õøçëüôåñïò áðü ü , ôé ìüëéò ðñéí áðü ôçí åíïðïßçóç , ïðüôå åß ÷ å âñåèåß êïíôÜ óôï 45 %.
On balance , the expenditure ratio in 1997 , at 48 %, had been brought back very close to the level seen in 1991 but it remains markedly higher than just before unification , when it had been close to 45 %.
Ôá äçìüóéá Ýóïäá óå ó ÷ Ýóç ìå ôï ÁÅÐ êïñõöþèçêáí ôï 1994 ðñéí åðáíÝëèïõí ðëçóßïí ôùí åðéðÝäùí ôïõ 1991 .
Government revenue in relation to GDP reached a peak in 1994 before returning close to the level of 1991 .
Ôá óçìåñéíü ôïõò åðßðåäï , ðåñßðïõ 45 % ôïõ ÁÅÐ , åßíáé åðßóçò ðïëý êïíôÜ óôá åðßðåäá ðïõ ðáñáôçñÞèçêáí ðñéí áðü ôçí åíïðïßçóç , ãåãïíüò üìùò ðïõ ïöåßëåôáé åí ìÝñåé óôç óõññßêíùóç ôçò öïñïëïãéêÞò âÜóçò .
The current level of around 45 % of GDP is also very close to that observed before unification , but this is partly due to the erosion of the tax base .
ÅðéðëÝïí , áðü ôï 1996 êáé Ýðåéôá , ï ëüãïò áõôüò êáèþò êáé ï ëüãïò ôùí äáðáíþí ìåéþèçêáí êáôÜ ðïóü ðïõ éóïäõíáìåß ìå 0,5% ôïõ ÁÅÐ , ëüãù ôçò íÝáò ìåôá ÷ åßñéóçò ôùí åðéäïìÜôùí ôÝêíùí .
Additionally , from 1996 onwards , this ratio as well as the expenditure ratio was reduced by an amount equivalent to ‰ % of GDP owing to the new treatment of child benefits .
Óýìöùíá ìå ôç ìåóïðñüèåóìç óôñáôçãéêÞ äçìïóéïíïìéêÞò ðïëéôéêÞò ôçò Ãåñìáíßáò , üðùò ðáñïõóéÜæåôáé óôï Ðñüãñáììá Óýãêëéóçò 1997-2000 , ôï ïðïßï ÷ ñïíïëïãåßôáé áðü ôï ÄåêÝìâñéï 1996 , ôï 1998 ðñïâëÝðåôáé üôé ï ëüãïò ôïõ åëëåßììáôïò èá ìåéùèåß óå 2,5% ôïõ ÁÅÐ êáé ï ëüãïò ôïõ ÷ ñÝïõò èá óôáèåñïðïéçèåß óå ãåíéêÝò ãñáììÝò .
According to the German medium-term fiscal policy strategy , as presented in the Convergence Programme for 1997-2000 dated December 1996 , a reduction in the deficit ratio to 2‰ % of GDP and a broad stabilisation of the debt ratio is to be achieved in 1998 .
Ï ðñïûðïëïãéóìüò ãéá ôï 1998 ðñïâëÝðåé üôé ôï Ýëëåéììá ôïõ åõñýôåñïõ êõâåñíçôéêïý ôïìÝá èá äéáìïñöùèåß óå 2,75% ôïõ ÁÅÐ êáé ï ëüãïò ôïõ ÷ ñÝïõò èá óôáèåñïðïéçèåß óå åðßðåäï ðåñßðïõ 62 % ôïõ ÁÅÐ , åíþ ïé ðñïâëÝøåéò ôçò ÅðéôñïðÞò åßíáé åëáöñþò ðéï åõíïúêÝò .
The budget plan for 1998 forecasts the general government deficit to stand at 2 % of GDP and the debt ratio to stabilise at around 62 % of GDP while Commission forecasts are slightly more favourable .
Ï ðñïûðïëïãéóìüò ôïõ 1998 83 ðñïâëÝðåé ðåñéïñéóìü ôùí äáðáíþí óå óõíäõáóìü ìå ìÝôñéåò ìüíï áõîÞóåéò ôùí åóüäùí .
The 1998 budget shows a combination of expenditure restraint and only moderate revenue increases .
Ï öüñïò ðñïóôéèÝìåíçò áîßáò èá áõîçèåß áðü ôïí Áðñßëéï ôïõ 1998 êáé ôá Ýóïäá èá ìåôáöåñèïýí óôï óýóôçìá óõíôÜîåùí , áëëÜ ï  ðñüóèåôïò öüñïò áëëçëåããýçò  Ý ÷ åé ìåéùèåß êáé ç äéáñèñùôéêÞ  áðïóýíäåóç  ôùí öïñïëïãéêþí åóüäùí áðü ôçí ïéêïíïìéêÞ áíÜðôõîç åíäÝ ÷ åôáé íá óõíå ÷ éóôåß .
Value added tax will be increased from April 1998 , with the proceeds to be transferred to the pension system , but the solidarity tax surcharge has been reduced and the structural decoupling of tax revenue from economic growth may continue .
Eðß ôïõ ðáñüíôïò , äåí õðÜñ ÷ ïõí åíäåßîåéò üôé ï ðñïûðïëïãéóìüò ôïõ 1998 ðåñéëáìâÜíåé óçìáíôéêÜ ìÝôñá ìå ðñïóùñéíÞ åðßäñáóç .
Currently , there is no evidence of significant measures with a temporary effect in the 1998 budget .
Ãéá ôï Ýôïò 2000 , ôï Ðñüãñáììá Óýãêëéóçò èÝôåé ãéá ôï Ýëëåéììá óôü ÷ ï ôçò ôÜîåùò ôïõ 1,5% ôïõ ÁÅÐ , áëëÜ ï ëüãïò ôïõ ÷ ñÝïõò ðñïâëÝðåôáé íá ðáñáìåßíåé Üíù ôïõ 60 % ãéá ôï õðüëïéðï ôçò äåêáåôßáò .
For the year 2000 , the Convergence Programme targets a deficit of 1‰ % of GDP but the debt ratio is projected to remain above 60 % of GDP for the rest of the decade .
Ç óýãêñéóç ìå ôá äçìïóéïíïìéêÜ áðïôåëÝóìáôá ðïõ ðñïâëÝðïíôáé óôï Ðñüãñáììá Óýãêëéóçò 1999-2000 äåß ÷ íåé üôé áðáéôåßôáé ðåñáéôÝñù óçìáíôéêÞ äçìïóéïíïìéêÞ åîõãßáíóç ðñïêåéìÝíïõ íá êáëõöèåß ç õóôÝñçóç ôùí öïñïëïãéêþí åóüäùí ðïõ äåí áíôáíáêëÜôáé áêüìç óôï Ðñüãñáììá Óýãêëéóçò êáé íá äéáôçñçèåß ï ìåóïðñüèåóìïò óôü ÷ ïò ôïõ Óõìöþíïõ Óôáèåñüôçôáò êáé ÁíÜðôõîçò , ôï ïðïßï èá ôåèåß óå éó ÷ ý áðü ôï 1999 êáé ðñïâëÝðåé üôé ï ðñïûðïëïãéóìüò ðñÝðåé íá åßíáé ó ÷ åäüí éóïóêåëéóìÝíïò Þ ðëåïíáóìáôéêüò .
Compared with fiscal balances projected in the Convergence Programme for 1999-2000 , further substantial fiscal consolidation is required in order to both compensate for the tax shortfalls not yet reflected in the Convergence Programme and to comply with the medium-term objective of the Stability and Growth Pact , effective from 1999 onwards , of having a budgetary position that is close to balance or in surplus .
ÁíáöïñéêÜ ìå ôç ìåßùóç ôïõ ëüãïõ ôïõ ÷ ñÝïõò óôçí ôéìÞ áíáöïñÜò 60 % ãéá ôéò ÷ þñåò üðïõ ï ëüãïò áõôüò óÞìåñá 84 õðåñâáßíåé ìüíï ïñéáêÜ ôçí ôéìÞ áíáöïñÜò , ôï ÅÍÉ ôïíßæåé üôé ôï Ýëëåéììá ìðïñåß íá ìåéùèåß ùò ðïóïóôü ôïõ ÁÅÐ ìÝóá óå óýíôïìï ÷ ñïíéêü äéÜóôçìá .
With regard to the reduction of the debt ratio to the 60 % reference value for those countries in which this ratio is currently exceeded only marginally , the EMI emphasises that debt can be brought down in relation to GDP within a short period of time .
¼ ðùò öáßíåôáé óôï ÄéÜãñáììá 5 , óôçí ðåñßðôùóç ôçò Ãåñìáíßáò , ç åðßôåõîç ôçò óõíïëéêÞò äçìïóéïíïìéêÞò êáôÜóôáóçò êáé ôùí ëüãùí ôïõ ÷ ñÝïõò ðïõ ðñïâëÝðïíôáé ãéá ôï 1998 áðü ôçí ÅõñùðáúêÞ ÅðéôñïðÞ êáé ç éóïóêÝëéóç ôïõ ðñïûðïëïãéóìïý ôï 1999 èá ìðïñïýóå íá ïäçãÞóåé óå ìåßùóç ôïõ ëüãïõ ôïõ ÷ ñÝïõò óå åðßðåäï êÜôù ôïõ 60 % ôïõ ÁÅÐ ôï ßäéï Ýôïò , åíþ åÜí ôá äçìïóéïíïìéêÜ áðïôåëÝóìáôá äéáôçñçèïýí ôá åðüìåíá Ýôç óôá åðßðåäá ðïõ ðñïâëÝðïíôáé ãéá ôï 1998 , áõôü äåí èá åßíáé åðáñêÝò ãéá ôç ìåßùóç ôïõ ëüãïõ ôïõ ÷ ñÝïõò êÜôù áðü 60 % ôïõ ÁÅÐ ìÝóá óå åýëïãï ÷ ñïíéêü äéÜóôçìá .
As may be seen from Chart 5 , in the case of Germany , achieving overall fiscal positions and debt ratios forecast by the European Commission for 1998 and realising a balanced budget in 1999 would reduce the debt ratio to below 60 % of GDP in the same year , while maintaining fiscal balances over subsequent years at the levels forecast for 1998 would not be sufficient to bring the debt ratio down to 60 % of GDP within an appropriate period of time .
Ïé õðïëïãéóìïß áõôïß âáóßæïíôáé óôçí êáíïíéóôéêÞ õðüèåóç üôé ôï ïíïìáóôéêü åðéôüêéï èá ðáñáìåßíåé óôáèåñü óôï 6 % ( 4 % ìÝóï ðñáãìáôéêü êüóôïò åîõðçñÝôçóçò ôïõ äçìüóéïõ ÷ ñÝïõò óõí 2 % ðëçèùñéóìüò ) êáé óôçí õðüèåóç üôé ï ñõèìüò áýîçóçò ôïõ ðñáãìáôéêïý ÁÅÐ èá åßíáé óôáèåñüò óôï 2,3% , üðùò åêôéìÜôáé áðü ôçí ÅðéôñïðÞ ó ÷ åôéêÜ ìå ôçí áýîçóç ôçò ôÜóçò ôïõ ðñáãìáôéêïý ÁÅÐ ôï 1998 .
Such calculations are based on the normative assumption of a constant nominal rate of interest of 6 % ( average real cost of public debt outstanding of 4 % and 2 % inflation ) and the assumption of a constant real GDP growth rate of 2.3% , as estimated by the Commission for real trend GDP growth in 1998 .
Ðáñüëï ðïõ ïé õðïëïãéóìïß áõôïß åßíáé êáèáñÜ åíäåéêôéêïß êáé äåí ìðïñïýí óå êáìßá ðåñßðôùóç íá èåùñçèïýí ùò ðñïâëÝøåéò , ùóôüóï áðåéêïíßæïõí ôçí áíÜãêç ãéá ðåñáéôÝñù óçìáíôéêÞ ðñüïäï áðü ðëåõñÜò åîõãßáíóçò , ðñïêåéìÝíïõ íá ìåéùèåß ï ëüãïò ôïõ ÷ ñÝïõò óå åðßðåäï ßóï Þ êáé ÷ áìçëüôåñï ôïõ 60 % ôïõ ÁÅÐ ìÝóá óå åýëïãï ÷ ñïíéêü äéÜóôçìá .
While they are purely illustrative , and can by no means be regarded as forecasts , these calculations provide an illustration of the need for further substantial progress in consolidation in order to reduce the debt ratio to 60 % of GDP or below within an appropriate period of time .
¼ ðùò öáßíåôáé óôïí Ðßíáêá 7 , áðü ôï 2010 êáé Ýðåéôá áíáìÝíåôáé áîéïóçìåßùôç ãÞñáíóç ôïõ ðëçèõóìïý , êáé , óôï ðëáßóéï ôïõ äéáíåìçôéêïý óõóôÞìáôïò óõíôÜîåùí , ïé äáðÜíåò ôïõ Äçìïóßïõ ãéá óõíôÜîåéò ðñïâëÝðåôáé íá áõîçèïýí ùò ðïóïóôü ôïõ ÁÅÐ , éäßùò åÜí äåí êáôáóôåß áõóôçñüôåñç ç ðïëéôéêÞ ôùí êïéíùíéêïáóöáëéóôéêþí ðáñï ÷ þí .
As is highlighted in Table 8 , from around 2010 onwards a marked ageing of the population is expected and , in the context of an unfunded pension system , public pension expenditure is projected to increase in terms of GDP , particularly if policies regarding benefits are not tightened further .
Áðü ðéï ìáêñïðñüèåóìç óêïðéÜ , äåßêôåò ôçò ðñáãìáôéêÞò óôáèìéóìÝíçò éóïôéìßáò ôïõ ãåñìáíéêïý ìÜñêïõ Ýíáíôé ôùí íïìéóìÜôùí ôùí Êñáôþí-Ìåëþí ðïõ óõììåôÝ ÷ ïõí óôï ÌÓÉ , üðùò áðåéêïíßæïíôáé óôïí Ðßíáêá 10 , õðïäçëþíïõí üôé ôá óçìåñéíÜ åðßðåäá åßíáé ðáñáðëÞóéá ìå ôéò ôéìÝò ðïõ Ý ÷ ïõí êáôÜ êáéñïýò óçìåéùèåß . Ôá åëëåßììáôá ôïõ éóïæõãßïõ ôñå ÷ ïõóþí óõíáëëáãþí ðñïÝêõøáí ùò áðüññïéá ôçò åíïðïßçóçò .
During the reference period Germany has not devalued its currency s bilateral central rate against any other Member State s currency . In a longer-term context , measures of the real effective exchange rate of the Deutsche Mark vis - - vis the currencies of ERM participating Member States depicted in Table 9 suggest that current levels are close to historical values .
Ðñüóöáôá Ý ÷ ïõí ðåñéïñéóôåß , åðéâñáäýíïíôáò Ýôóé ôï ñõèìü åðéäåßíùóçò ôçò èåôéêÞò êáèáñÞò åîùôåñéêÞò èÝóçò ( âë . Ðßíáêá 10 ) .
Current account deficits emerged as a consequence of unification ; these have narrowed more recently , thus slowing the rate of deterioration in the net external asset position ( see Table 10 ) .
Õðåíèõìßæåôáé üôé ç Ãåñìáíßá Ý ÷ åé , óýìöùíá ìå ôá ðéï ðñüóöáôá äéáèÝóéìá óôïé ÷ åßá , ëüãï åîùôåñéêïý åìðïñßïõ / ÁÅÐ 30 % ãéá ôéò åîáãùãÝò êáé 29 % ãéá ôéò åéóáãùãÝò êáé ðïóïóôü åíäïêïéíïôéêïý åìðïñßïõ 56 % ãéá ôéò åîáãùãÝò êáé 54 % ãéá ôéò åéóáãùãÝò .
It may also be recalled that Germany has , according to the most recent data available , a ratio of foreign trade to GDP of 30 % for exports and 29 % for imports , and a share of intraEU trade of 56 % for exports and 55 % for imports .
Ç åîÝëéîç ôçò óõíáëëáãìáôéêÞò éóïôéìßáò Ôï ãåñìáíéêü ìÜñêï ìåôÝ ÷ åé óôï ÌÓÉ áðü ôçí ßäñõóÞ ôïõ óôéò 13 Ìáñôßïõ 1979 , äçë . ãéá äéÜóôçìá ðïëý ìåãáëýôåñï áðü äýï ÷ ñüíéá ðñéí áðü ôçí åîÝôáóç ( âë .
Exchange rate developments The Deutsche Mark has been participating in the ERM since its inception on 13 March 1979 , i.e. for much longer than two years prior to the examination ( see Table 8a ) .
ÊáôÜ ôçí ðåñßïäï áíáöïñÜò ( áðü ôï ÌÜñôéï 1996 ìÝ ÷ ñé ôï ÖåâñïõÜñéï 1998 ) , ôï ìÜñêï êéíÞèçêå êáôÜ êáíüíá êïíôÜ óôéò êåíôñéêÝò éóïôéìßåò ôïõ Ýíáíôé ôùí Üëëùí íïìéóìÜôùí ôïõ ÌÓÉ êáé ðïëý êïíôÜ óôéò éóïôéìßåò ôïõ Ýíáíôé ôïõ âåëãéêïý öñÜãêïõ , ôïõ ïëëáíäéêïý öéïñéíßïõ êáé ôïõ áõóôñéáêïý óåëéíßïõ ( âë . ÄéÜãñáììá 6 êáé Ðßíáêá 8á ) .
Focusing on the reference period from March 1996 to February 1998 , the currency has normally traded close to its central rates against other ERM currencies and very close to those vis - - vis the Belgian franc , the Dutch guilder and the Austrian schilling ( see Chart 6 and Table 8a ) .
ÐåñéóôáóéáêÜ , ôï ãåñìáíéêü ìÜñêï äéáêõìÜíèçêå ðÝñá áðü ìéá óôåíÞ æþíç êïíôÜ óôéò êåíôñéêÝò ôïõ éóïôéìßåò Ýíáíôé áñêåôþí Üëëùí íïìéóìÜôùí ôïõ ÌÓÉ . Ïé ìÝãéóôåò áðïêëßóåéò ðñïò ôá Üíù êáé ðñïò ôá êÜôù áðü ôéò êåíôñéêÝò éóïôéìßåò , ìå âÜóç ôïõò êéíçôïýò ìÝóïõò 10 åñãÜóéìùí çìåñþí , Þôáí 2,2% êáé - 2,9% , áíôßóôïé ÷ á , ìå åîáßñåóç ôçí áõôüíïìç áíïäéêÞ ôÜóç ôçò ëßñáò Éñëáíäßáò ( âë .
On occasion the Deutsche Mark traded outside a range close to its central rates vis - - vis several partner currencies . The maximum upward and downward deviations from 76
Ç åîÝëéîç ôùí ìáêñïðñüèåóìùí åðéôïêßùí Óôç äéÜñêåéá ôçò ðåñéüäïõ áíáöïñÜò ( ÖåâñïõÜñéïò 1997-ÉáíïõÜñéïò 1998 ) ôá ìáêñïðñüèåóìá åðéôüêéá óôç Ãåñìáíßá Þôáí 5,6% óå ìÝóï üñï , äçë . áñêåôÜ êÜôù áðü ôçí ôéìÞ áíáöïñÜò 7,8% ôïõ êñéôçñßïõ ãéá ôá åðéôüêéá , ç ïðïßá ïñßæåôáé âÜóåé ôùí ôñéþí Êñáôþí-Ìåëþí ìå ôéò êáëýôåñåò åðéäüóåéò áðü Üðïøç óôáèåñüôçôáò ôéìþí .
Long-term interest rate developments Over the reference period from February 1997 to January 1998 long-term interest rates in Germany were 5.6% on average , and thus stood well below the reference value for the interest rate criterion of 7.8% set on the basis of the three best-performing Member States in terms of price stability .
Ôá ìáêñïðñüèåóìá åðéôüêéá áêïëïõèïýí ãåíéêþò êáèïäéêÞ ðïñåßá áðü ôéò áñ ÷ Ýò ôçò äåêáåôßáò ôïõ 1990 ( âë . ÄéÜãñáììá 7á ) .
Long-term interest rates have been on a broadly declining trend since the early 1990s ( see Chart 7a ) .
Ôï ìåãáëýôåñï äéÜóôçìá áðü ôéò áñ ÷ Ýò ôçò äåêáåôßáò ðáñáôçñÞèçêå 85
For most of the period since the beginning of the 1990s , a relatively narrow and typically negative gap
ó ÷ åôéêÜ ìéêñÞ êáé êáôÜ êáíüíá áñíçôéêÞ äéáöïñÜ ìåôáîý ôùí ãåñìáíéêþí ìáêñïðñüèåóìùí åðéôïêßùí êáé åêåßíùí ðïõ éó ÷ ýïõí óôéò ÷ þñåò ôçò ÅÅ ìå ôéò ÷ áìçëüôåñåò áðïäüóåéò ïìïëüãùí ( âë . ÄéÜãñáììá 7â ) .
between German long-term interest rates and those prevailing in the EU countries with the lowest bond yields has been observed ( see Chart 7b ) .
Óýíïøç óõìðåñáóìÜôùí Óôç äéÜñêåéá ôçò ðåñéüäïõ áíáöïñÜò , ç Ãåñìáíßá ðÝôõ ÷ å ñõèìü ðëçèùñéóìïý ( ÅíÄÔÊ ) 1,4% , äçë . áñêåôÜ ÷ áìçëüôåñï áðü ôçí ôéìÞ áíáöïñÜò ðïõ ïñßæåé ç ÓõíèÞêç .
Concluding summary Over the reference period Germany has achieved a rate of HICP inflation of 1.4% , which is well below the reference value stipulated by the Treaty .
Óýìöùíá ìå ôéò ðñïâëÝøåéò ï ðëçèùñéóìüò èá öèÜóåé ðåñßðïõ ôï 2 % ôï 1998 êáé ôï 1999 .
forecasts project inflation will stand at around 2 % in 1998 and 1999 .
Ôï åðßðåäï ôùí ìáêñïðñüèåóìùí åðéôïêßùí Þôáí 5,6% , äçë .
The level of long-term interest rates was 5.6% , i.e. well below the respective reference value .
Ï ëüãïò ÷ ñÝïõò / ÁÅÐ åßíáé ìüëéò áíþôåñïò áðü ôçí ôéìÞ áíáöïñÜò ( 60 %) .
The debtto-GDP ratio is just above the 60 % reference value .
Ùò ðñïò ôç äéáôçñçóéìüôçôá ôùí äçìïóéïíïìéêþí åîåëßîåùí , õðÜñ ÷ åé ðñïïðôéêÞ ãéá ïñéáêÞ ìåßùóç ôïõ ëüãïõ ôïõ ÷ ñÝïõò óå 61,2% ôïõ ÁÅÐ ôï 1998 .
Regarding the sustainability of fiscal developments , the outlook is for a marginal , decline in the debt ratio to 61.2% of GDP in 1998 .
ÊáôÜëïãïò ðéíÜêùí êáé äéáãñáììÜôùí * ÃÅÑÌÁÍÉÁ É Ç åîÝëéîç ôùí ôéìþí Ðßíáêáò 1 Ãåñìáíßá : Ðëçèùñéóìüò âÜóåé ôïõ ÅíÄÔÊ ÄéÜãñáììá 1 Ãåñìáíßá : Ç åîÝëéîç ôùí ôéìþí Ðßíáêáò 2 Ãåñìáíßá : Äåßêôåò ðëçèùñéóìïý êáé óõíáöåßò äåßêôåò Ðßíáêáò 3 Ãåñìáíßá : Ðñüóöáôåò ôÜóåéò ðëçèùñéóìïý êáé ðñïâëÝøåéò ( á ) Ðñüóöáôåò ôÜóåéò ôïõ ðëçèùñéóìïý ôéìþí êáôáíáëùôÞ ( â ) ÐñïâëÝøåéò ãéá ôïí ðëçèùñéóìü
List of Tables and Charts * GERMANY I Price developments Table 1 Chart 1 Table 2 Table 3 Germany : HICP inflation Germany : Price developments Germany : Measures of inflation and related indicators Germany : Recent inflation trends and forecasts ( a ) Recent trends in consumer price inflation ( b ) Inflation forecasts II
ÄçìïóéïíïìéêÝò åîåëßîåéò Ðßíáêáò 4 Ãåñìáíßá : ¸ ëëåéììá êáé ÷ ñÝïò åõñýôåñïõ êõâåñíçôéêïý ôïìÝá ÄéÜãñáììá 2 Ãåñìáíßá : ÁêáèÜñéóôï ÷ ñÝïò åõñýôåñïõ êõâåñíçôéêïý ôïìÝá ( á ) Åðßðåäá ( â ) ÅôÞóéåò ìåôáâïëÝò êáé ðñïóäéïñéóôéêïß ðáñÜãïíôåò Ðßíáêáò 5 Ãåñìáíßá : ÄéÜñèñùóç áêáèÜñéóôïõ ÷ ñÝïõò åõñýôåñïõ êõâåñíçôéêïý ôïìÝá ÄéÜãñáììá 3 Ãåñìáíßá : Ðëåüíáóìá (+) / Ýëëåéììá (-) åõñýôåñïõ êõâåñíçôéêïý ôïìÝá ( á ) Åðßðåäá ( â ) ÅôÞóéåò ìåôáâïëÝò êáé ðñïóäéïñéóôéêïß ðáñÜãïíôåò ÄéÜãñáììá 4 Ãåñìáíßá : ÄáðÜíåò êáé Ýóïäá åõñýôåñïõ êõâåñíçôéêïý ôïìÝá Ðßíáêáò 6 Ãåñìáíßá : ¸ óïäá êáé äáðÜíåò åõñýôåñïõ êõâåñíçôéêïý ôïìÝá ÄéÜãñáììá 5 Ãåñìáíßá : ÄõíçôéêÞ åîÝëéîç ôïõ ÷ ñÝïõò ìå åíáëëáêôéêÝò ðáñáäï ÷ Ýò ãéá ôá äçìïóéïíïìéêÜ áðïôåëÝóìáôá Ðßíáêáò 7 Ãåñìáíßá : Äåßêôçò åîÜñôçóçò çëéêéùìÝíùí : ðñïâëÝøåéò
Fiscal developments Table 4 Germany : General government financial position Chart 2 Germany : General government gross debt ( a ) Levels ( b ) Annual changes and underlying factors Table 5 Germany : General government gross debt - structural features Chart 3 Germany : General government surplus (+) / deficit (-) ( a ) Levels ( b ) Annual changes and underlying factors Chart 4 Germany : General government expenditure and receipts Table 6 Germany : General government budgetary position Chart 5 Germany : Potential future debt ratios under alternative assumptions for fiscal balance ratios Table 7 Germany : Projections of elderly dependency ratio
III Ç åîÝëéîç ôçò óõíáëëáãìáôéêÞò éóïôéìßáò Ðßíáêáò 8 ( á ) Ãåñìáíßá : Óôáèåñüôçôá óõíáëëáãìáôéêÞò éóïôéìßáò ( â ) Âáóéêïß äåßêôåò ðéÝóåùí óôï ìÜñêï Ãåñìáíßáò ÄéÜãñáììá 6 ÌÜñêï Ãåñìáíßáò : Áðïêëßóåéò áðü äéìåñåßò êåíôñéêÝò éóïôéìßåò ÌÓÉ Ðßíáêáò 9 ÌÜñêï Ãåñìáíßáò : Äåßêôåò ðñáãìáôéêÞò óôáèìéóìÝíçò óõíáëëáãìáôéêÞò éóïôéìßáò Ýíáíôé ôùí Êñáôþí-Ìåëþí ôïõ ÌÓÉ Ðßíáêáò 10 Ãåñìáíßá : ÅîùôåñéêÝò åîåëßîåéò
III Exchange rate developments Table 8 ( a ) Germany : Exchange rate stability ( b ) Key indicators of exchange rate pressure for the Deutsche Mark Chart 6 Deutsche Mark : Deviations from ERM bilateral central rates Table 9 Deutsche Mark : Measures of the real effective exchange rate vis - - vis ERM Member States Table 10 Germany : External developments
ÉV Ç åîÝëéîç ôùí ìáêñïðñüèåóìùí åðéôïêßùí Ðßíáêáò 11 Ãåñìáíßá : Ìáêñïðñüèåóìá åðéôüêéá ÄéÜãñáììá 7 ( á ) Ãåñìáíßá : Ìáêñïðñüèåóìá åðéôüêéá ( â ) Ãåñìáíßá : ÄéáöïñÝò ìáêñïðñüèåóìùí åðéôïêßùí êáé ðëçèùñéóìïý ÄÔÊ Ýíáíôé ôùí ÷ ùñþí ôçò ÅÅ ìå ôá ÷ áìçëüôåñá ìáêñïðñüèåóìá åðéôüêéá
IV Long-term interest rate developments Table 11 Germany : Long-term interest rates Chart 7 ( a ) Germany : Long-term interest rate ( b ) Germany : Long-term interest rate and CPI inflation differentials against EU countries with lowest long-term interest rates
Ãåñìáíßá : Ðëçèùñéóìüò âÜóåé ôïõ ÅíÄÔÊ ( åôÞóéåò åêáôïóôéáßåò ìåôáâïëÝò ) 1996 Ðëçèùñéóìüò âÜóåé ôïõ ÅíÄÔÊ ÔéìÞ áíáöïñÜò ÐçãÞ : ÅõñùðáúêÞ ÅðéôñïðÞ .
Germany : HICP inflation ( annual percentage changes ) 1996 HICP inflation Reference value Source : European Commission .
ÍïÝ . 97 1,4 -
Nov 97 1.4 -
Äåê . 97 1,4 -
Dec 97 1.4 -
Éáí . 98 0,8 -
Jan 98 Feb 97 - Jan 98 0.8 1.4 2.7
ÄéÜãñáììá 1 Ãåñìáíßá : Ç åîÝëéîç ôùí ôéìþí ( åôÞóéåò åêáôïóôéáßåò ìåôáâïëÝò ) ÄÔÊ Êüóôïò åñã .
Germany : Price developments ( annual percentage changes ) CPI 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 - 1 - 2 1990 Source : National data .
Ãåñìáíßá *: Äåßêôåò ðëçèùñéóìïý êáé óõíáöåßò äåßêôåò ( åôÞóéåò åêáôïóôéáßåò ìåôáâïëÝò , åêôüò åÜí áíáöÝñåôáé äéáöïñåôéêÜ ) 1990 Äåßêôåò ðëçèùñéóìïý Äåßêôçò Ôéìþí ÊáôáíáëùôÞ ( ÄÔÊ ) 2,7 ÄÔÊ ÷ ùñßò ìåôáâïëÝò êáèáñþí Ýììåóùí öüñùí ( á ) 2,7 ÁðïðëçèùñéóôÞò éäéùôéêÞò êáôáíÜëùóçò 2,7 ÁðïðëçèùñéóôÞò ÁÅÐ 3,2 ÔéìÝò ðáñáãùãïý 1,5 Óõíáöåßò äåßêôåò Áýîçóç ðñáãìáôéêïý ÁÅÐ 5,7 Ðáñáãùãéêü êåíü ( åêáôïóôéáßåò ìïíÜäåò ) 2,4 Ðïóïóôü áíåñãßáò (%) 6,4 Êüóôïò åñãáóßáò áíÜ ìïíÜäá ðñïúüíôïò , óýíïëï ïéêïíïìßáò 2,0 Áðïæçìßùóç áíÜ áðáó ÷ ïëïýìåíï , óýíïëï ïéêïíïìßáò 4,7 Ðáñáãùãéêüôçôá åñãáóßáò , óýíïëï ïéêïíïìßáò 2,7 ÁðïðëçèùñéóôÞò ôéìþí åéóáãïìÝíùí - 0,7 Áíáôßìçóç íïìßóìáôïò ( â ) 5,5 ÐñïóöïñÜ ÷ ñÞìáôïò ìå åõñåßá Ýííïéá ( Åíáñì . Ì3 )( ã ) 5,0 ÔéìÝò ìåôï ÷ þí 17,1 ÔéìÝò êáôïéêéþí ( ä ) .
Germany *: Measures of inflation and related indicators ( annual percentage changes unless otherwise stated ) 1990 Measures of inflation Consumer price index ( CPI ) CPI excluding changes in net indirect taxes ( a ) Private consumption deflator GDP deflator Producer prices Related indicators Real GDP growth Output gap ( p.pt s ) Unemployment rate (%) Unit labour costs , whole economy Compensation per employee , whole economy Labour productivity , whole economy Import price deflator Exchange rate appreciation ( b ) Broad monetary aggregate ( M3H )( c ) Stock prices House prices ( d ) 2.7 2.7 2.7 3.2 1.5 5.7 2.4 6.4 2.0 4.7 2.7 - 0.7 5.5 5.0 17.1 .
* ÁíáöÝñåôáé óôçí åíïðïéçìÝíç Ãåñìáíßá áðü ôï 1992 êáé åîÞò .
* Refers to unified Germany from 1992 onwards .
( á ) ÅèíéêÝò åêôéìÞóåéò , 1990-94 : ÄõôéêÞ Ãåñìáíßá .
( a ) National estimates , 1990-94 western Germany .
( â ) ÏíïìáóôéêÞ óôáèìéóìÝíç óõíáëëáãìáôéêÞ éóïôéìßá Ýíáíôé 25 âéïìç ÷ áíéêþí ÷ ùñþí .
( b ) Nominal effective exchange rate against 25 industrialised countries .
( â ) ÐñïâëÝøåéò ãéá ôïí ðëçèùñéóìü 1998 ÅõñùðáúêÞ ÅðéôñïðÞ ( Üíïéîç 1998 ) , ÅíÄÔÊ ÏÏÓÁ ( ÄåêÝìâñéïò 1997 ) , áðïðëçèùñéóôÞò éäéùôéêÞò êáôáíÜëùóçò ÄÍÔ ( Ïêôþâñéïò 1997 ) , ÄÔÊ ÐçãÞ : ÅõñùðáúêÞ ÅðéôñïðÞ ( ðñïâëÝøåéò Üíïéîçò 1998 ) , ÏÏÓÁ êáé ÄÍÔ .
( b ) Inflation forecasts European Commission ( spring 1998 ) , HICP OECD ( December 1997 ) , private consumption deflator IMF ( October 1997 ) , CPI 1998 1.7 1.9 2.3 1999 1.9 1.9 . 80
Ðßíáêáò 4
Table 4
Ãåñìáíßá : ¸ ëëåéììá êáé ÷ ñÝïò åõñýôåñïõ êõâåñíçôéêïý ôïìÝá ( ùò ðïóïóôü ôïõ ÁÅÐ ) 1996 Ðëåüíáóìá (+) / Ýëëåéììá (-) åõñýôåñïõ êõâåñíçôéêïý ôïìÝá ÔéìÞ áíáöïñÜò Ðëåüíáóìá (+) / Ýëëåéììá (-) , ÷ ùñßò ôéò äáðÜíåò äçìüóéùí åðåíäýóåùí ( â ) ÁêáèÜñéóôï ÷ ñÝïò åõñýôåñïõ êõâåñíçôéêïý ôïìÝá ÔéìÞ áíáöïñÜò - 3,4 - 3 - 1,4 60,4 60 1997 - 2,7 - 3 - 0,8 61,3 60 1998 ( á ) - 2,5 - 3 .
Germany : General government financial position ( as a percentage of GDP ) General government surplus (+) / deficit (-) Reference value Surplus (+) / deficit (-) , net of public investment expenditure ( b ) General government gross debt Reference value Source : European Commission ( spring 1998 forecasts ) and EMI calculations .
ÐçãÞ : ÅõñùðáúêÞ ÅðéôñïðÞ ( ðñïâëÝøåéò Üíïéîçò 1998 ) êáé õðïëïãéóìïß ÅÍÉ .
( a ) European Commission projections .
ÄéÜãñáììá 2
61.2 60 Chart 2