natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Iôáëßá : Ðëçèùñéóìüò âÜóåé ôïõ ÅíÄÔÊ ( åôÞóéåò åêáôïóôéáßåò ìåôáâïëÝò ) 1996 Ðëçèùñéóìüò âÜóåé ôïõ ÅíÄÔÊ ÔéìÞ áíáöïñÜò ÐçãÞ : ÅõñùðáúêÞ ÅðéôñïðÞ .
Italy : HICP inflation ( annual percentage changes ) 1996 HICP inflation Reference value Source : European Commission .
ÍïÝ . 97 1,8 -
Nov 97 1.8 -
Äåê . 97 1,8 -
Dec 97 1.8 -
Éôáëßá : Äåßêôåò ðëçèùñéóìïý êáé óõíáöåßò äåßêôåò ( åôÞóéåò åêáôïóôéáßåò ìåôáâïëÝò , åêôüò åÜí áíáöÝñåôáé äéáöïñåôéêÜ ) 1990 Äåßêôåò ðëçèùñéóìïý Äåßêôçò Ôéìþí ÊáôáíáëùôÞ ( ÄÔÊ ) 6,1 ÄÔÊ ÷ ùñßò ìåôáâïëÝò êáèáñþí Ýììåóùí öüñùí ( â ) 5,7 ÁðïðëçèùñéóôÞò éäéùôéêÞò êáôáíÜëùóçò 6,3 ÁðïðëçèùñéóôÞò ÁÅÐ 7,6 ÔéìÝò ðáñáãùãïý 4,1 Óõíáöåßò äåßêôåò Áýîçóç ðñáãìáôéêïý ÁÅÐ 2,2 Ðáñáãùãéêü êåíü ( åêáôïóôéáßåò ìïíÜäåò ) 2,5 Ðïóïóôü áíåñãßáò (%)( ã ) 9,1 Êüóôïò åñãáóßáò áíÜ ìïíÜäá ðñïúüíôïò , óýíïëï ïéêïíïìßáò 9,3 Áðïæçìßùóç áíÜ áðáó ÷ ïëïýìåíï , óýíïëï ïéêïíïìßáò 10,7 Ðáñáãùãéêüôçôá åñãáóßáò , óýíïëï ïéêïíïìßáò 1,3 ÁðïðëçèùñéóôÞò ôéìþí åéóáãïìÝíùí - 0,5 2,6 Áíáôßìçóç íïìßóìáôïò ( ä ) ÐñïóöïñÜ ÷ ñÞìáôïò ìå åõñåßá Ýííïéá ( Åíáñì .
Italy : 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 ( b ) Private consumption deflator GDP deflator Producer prices Related indicators Real GDP growth Output gap ( p.pt s ) Unemployment rate (%)( c ) Unit labour costs , whole economy Compensation per employee , whole economy Labour productivity , whole economy Import price deflator Exchange rate appreciation ( d ) Broad monetary aggregate ( M3H )( e ) Stock prices House prices 6.1 5.7 6.3 7.6 4.1 2.2 2.5 9.1 9.3 10.7 1.3 - 0.5 2.6 6.9 0.7 -
Ì3 )( å ) 6,9 ÔéìÝò ìåôï ÷ þí 0,7 ÔéìÝò êáôïéêéþí 1991 6,4 6,0 6,9 7,7 3,3 1,1 1,9 8,6 8,5 8,7 0,2 - 0,3 - 1,7 5,7 - 15,3 1992 5,4 5,2 5,6 4,7 1,9 0,6 0,7 8,8 3,7 5,8 2,0 1,1 - 3,1 2,8 - 16,8 1993 4,2 4,2 5,1 4,4 3,8 - 1,2 - 2,0 10,2 1,4 3,7 2,3 11,6 - 16,4 3,0 18,5 1994 3,9 3,6 4,6 3,5 3,7 2,2 - 1,5 11,3 - 0,4 2,9 3,4 5,1 - 4,6 3,5 24,7 1995 5,4 4,7 5,7 5,1 7,9 2,9 - 0,2 12,0 1,8 4,8 2,9 12,2 - 9,5 - 2,3 - 8,4 1996 1997 ( á ) 3,9 3,8 4,4 5,0 1,9 0,7 - 1,2 12,1 4,9 5,5 0,6 - 1,8 9,5 - 0,7 0,6 1,7 1,7 2,2 2,6 1,3 1,5 - 1,4 12,3 3,1 4,6 1,5 - 0,1 0,7 9,9 36,9 -
1995 5.4 4.7 5.7 5.1 7.9 2.9 - 0.2 12.0 1.8 4.8 2.9 12.2 - 9.5 - 2.3 - 8.4 - 1996 1997 ( a ) 3.9 3.8 4.4 5.0 1.9 0.7 - 1.2 12.1 4.9 5.5 0.6 - 1.8 9.5 - 0.7 0.6 1.7 1.7 2.2 2.6 1.3 1.5 - 1.4 12.3 3.1 4.6 1.5 - 0.1 0.7 9.9 36.9 -
( ã ) Ôá óôïé ÷ åßá ðñéí ôï 1993 Ý ÷ ïõí äéïñèùèåß ùò ðñïò ôõ ÷ üí áóõíÝ ÷ åéåò .
( c ) Data prior to 1993 have been adjusted for breaks .
( 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 Source : European Commission ( spring 1998 forecasts ) , OECD and IMF . 1998 1.9 2.4 2.1
176 ÉÉ
Fiscal developments
ÄçìïóéïíïìéêÝò åîåëßîåéò Ðßíáêáò 4
Table 4 Italy : General government f inancial position ( as a percentage of GDP )
Éôáëßá : ¸ 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 - 6,7 - 3 - 4,4 124,0 60 1997 - 2,7 - 3 - 0,3 121,6 60 1998 ( á ) - 2,5 - 3 .
General government surplus (+) / deficit (-) Reference value Surplus (+) / deficit (-) , net of public investment expenditure ( b ) General government gross debt Reference value 1996 - 6.7 - 3 - 4.4 124.0 60
Ðßíáêáò 5 Éôáëßá : ÄéÜñèñùóç áêáèÜñéóôïõ ÷ ñÝïõò åõñýôåñïõ êõâåñíçôéêïý ôïìÝá 1990 Óõíïëéêü ÷ ñÝïò (% ôïõ ÁÅÐ ) ÄéÜñèñùóç êáôÜ íüìéóìá (% óõíüëïõ ) Óå åã ÷ þñéï íüìéóìá Óå îÝíá íïìßóìáôá Åóùôåñéêü ÷ ñÝïò (% óõíüëïõ ) ÌÝóç äéÜñêåéá ( á ) ( Ýôç ) ÄéÜñèñùóç êáôÜ äéÜñêåéá ( â ) (% óõíüëïõ ) Âñá ÷ õðñüèåóìç ( < 1 Ýôïò) Ìåóïðñüèåóìç (1-5 Ýôç) Ìáêñïðñüèåóìç (> 5 Ýôç ) 67,3 21,1 11,6 66,9 18,2 15,0 65,0 19,4 15,6 60,6 23,0 16,4 51,7 26,8 21,5 51,0 26,6 22,4 51,5 25,6 22,9 49,4 25,8 24,8 94,0 6,0 94,5 2,4 94,3 5,7 93,8 2,8 93,9 6,1 92,8 2,8 93,0 7,0 88,8 3,0 93,0 7,0 86,8 4,5 92,7 7,3 85,4 4,3 93,4 6,6 82,8 4,3 93,1 6,9 79,0 4,5 98,0 1991 101,5 1992 108,7 1993 119,1 1994 124,9 1995 124,2 1996 1997 124,0 121,6
Italy : General government gross debt str uctural features Total debt ( as a percentage of GDP ) Composition by currency (% of total ) In domestic currency In foreign currencies Domestic ownership (% of total ) Average maturity ( a ) ( years ) Composition by maturity ( b ) (% of total ) Short-term ( < 1 year) Medium-term (1-5 years) Long-term (> 5 years ) 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 98.0 101.5 108.7 119.1 124.9 124.2 124.0 121.6 94.0 6.0 94.5 2.4 67.3 21.1 11.6 94.3 5.7 93.8 2.8 66.9 18.2 15.0 93.9 6.1 92.8 2.8 65.0 19.4 15.6 93.0 7.0 88.8 3.0 60.6 23.0 16.4 93.0 7.0 86.8 4.5 51.7 26.8 21.5 92.7 7.3 85.4 4.3 51.0 26.6 22.4 93.4 6.6 82.8 4.3 51.5 25.6 22.9 93.1 6.9 79.0 4.5 49.4 25.8 24.8
ÄéÜãñáììá 4
163 Chart 4
ÐçãÞ : ÅõñùðáúêÞ ÅðéôñïðÞ ( ðñïâëÝøåéò Üíïéîçò 1998 ) . 179
40 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Source : European Commission ( spring 1998 forecasts ) .
Éôáëßá : ¸ óïäá êáé äáðÜíåò åõñýôåñïõ êõâåñíçôéêïý ôïìÝá ( ùò ðïóïóôü ôïõ ÁÅÐ ) 1990 Óýíïëï ôñå ÷ üíôùí åóüäùí Öüñïé ÅéóöïñÝò êïéíùíéêÞò áóöÜëéóçò ¢ ëëá ôñÝ ÷ ïíôá Ýóïäá Óýíïëï äáðáíþí ÔñÝ ÷ ïõóåò ìåôáâéâÜóåéò ÊáôáâëçèÝíôåò ôüêïé Äçìüóéá êáôáíÜëùóç ÊáèáñÝò êåöáëáéáêÝò äáðÜíåò Ðëåüíáóìá (+) Þ Ýëëåéììá (-) ÐñùôïãåíÝò áðïôÝëåóìá Ðëåüíáóìá (+) Þ Ýëëåéììá (-) , ÷ ùñßò ôéò äáðÜíåò äçìüóéùí åðåíäýóåùí ( á ) .
Italy : General government budgetary position ( as a percentage of GDP ) Total current receipts Taxes Social security contributions Other current receipts Total expenditure Current transfers Actual interest payments Public consumption Net capital expenditure Surplus (+) or deficit (-) Primary balance Surplus (+) or deficit (-) , net of public investment expenditure ( a )
áðïôÝëåóìá ( Ýëëåéììá : (-) , ðëåüíáóìá (+)) 1997 121,6 1998 118,1 1997 - 2,7 1998 - 2,5 2002 11,0 * 10,4 ** Óõíïëéêü áðïôÝëåóìá ðïõ åðéôñÝðåé ìåßùóç ôïõ ÷ ñÝïõò óôï 60 % ôïõ ÁÅÐ ôï Ýôïò 2007 3,1 * 2,5 ** 2012 0,9 * 0,3 **
surplus (+)) 1997 1998 - 2.7 - 2.5 Overall fiscal balance consistent with reduction of debt level to 60 % of GDP in 2002 2007 2012 11.0 * 3.1 * 0.9 * ** ** 10.4 2.5 0.3 **
(*) Ïé õðïëïãéóìïß õðïäçëþíïõí üôé ï ëüãïò ôïõ ÷ ñÝïõò èá ìåéùèåß óôï 60 % ôï 2002 , 2007 êáé 2012 áíôßóôïé ÷ á , åÜí ôá óõíïëéêÜ äçìïóéïíïìéêÜ áðïôåëÝóìáôá äéáìïñöùèïýí ôï 1998 óýìöùíá ìå ôçí ðñüâëåøç êáé áðü ôï 1999 êáé åîÞò äéáôçñçèïýí óôï 11,0% , 3,1% êáé 0,9% ôïõ ÁÅÐ áíôßóôïé ÷ á .
(*) Calculations indicate that the debt ratio would fall to 60 % in 2002 , 2007 and 2012 respectively , if the overall fiscal balance for 1998 is as forecast and the overall fiscal balances were maintained at 11.0% , 3.1% and 0.9% of GDP respectively , from 1999 onwards .
Ïé õðïëïãéóìïß âáóßæïíôáé óôéò åîÞò ðáñáäï ÷ Ýò : áýîçóç ðñáãìáôéêïý ÁÅÐ ôï 1998 : 1,8% , üðùò åêôéìÜôáé áðü ôçí ÅðéôñïðÞ êáé ðëçèùñéóìüò : 2 %.
The underlying assumptions are a real trend GDP growth rate of 1.8% in 1998 , as estimated by the Commission , and an inflation rate of 2 %.
(**) Ïé õðïëïãéóìïß õðïäçëþíïõí üôé ï ëüãïò ôïõ ÷ ñÝïõò èá ìåéùèåß óôï 60 % ôï 2002 , 2007 êáé 2012 áíôßóôïé ÷ á , åÜí ôá óõíïëéêÜ äçìïóéïíïìéêÜ áðïôåëÝóìáôá äéáìïñöùèïýí ôï 1998 óýìöùíá ìå ôçí ðñüâëåøç êáé áðü ôï 1999 êáé åîÞò äéáôçñçèïýí óôï 10,4% , 2,5% êáé 0,3% ôïõ ÁÅÐ áíôßóôïé ÷ á .
Stock-flow adjustments are disregarded . (**) Calculations indicate that the debt ratio would fall to 60 % in 2002 , 2007 and 2012 respectively , if the overall fiscal balance for 1998 is as forecast and the overall fiscal balances were maintained at 10.4% , 2.5% and 0.3% of GDP respectively , from 1999 onwards .
Ïé õðïëïãéóìïß âáóßæïíôáé óôéò åîÞò ðáñáäï ÷ Ýò : áýîçóç ðñáãìáôéêïý ÁÅÐ : 2,5% êáé ðëçèùñéóìüò : 2 %.
The underlying assumptions are a real GDP growth rate of 2.5% and an inflation rate of 2 %.
( â ) ÂÜóåé ôùí ðñùôïãåíþí äçìïóéïíïìéêþí áðïôåëåóìÜôùí ( ùò ðïóïóôü ôïõ ÁÅÐ ) Óõíïëéêü áêáèÜñéóôï ÷ ñÝïò ÐñùôïãåíÝò áðïôÝëåóìá ÐñùôïãåíÝò áðïôÝëåóìá ðïõ åðéôñÝðåé ìåßùóç ôïõ ÷ ñÝïõò óôï 60 % ôïõ ÁÅÐ ôï Ýôïò 1997 121,6 1998 118,1 1997 6,8 1998 5,5 2002 16,6 * 15,9 ** 2007 8,4 * 7,8 ** 2012 6,1 * 5,5 **
Primary fiscal balance 1997 6.8 1998 5.5 Primary fiscal balance consistent with reduction of debt level to 60 % of GDP in 2002 2007 2012 8.4 * 6.1 * 16.6 * 15.9 ** 7.8 ** 5.5 **
(*) Ïé õðïëïãéóìïß äçëþíïõí üôé ï ëüãïò ôïõ ÷ ñÝïõò èá ìåéùèåß óôï 60 % ôï 2002 , 2007 êáé 2012 áíôßóôïé ÷ á , åÜí ôá ðñùôïãåíÞ äçìïóéïíïìéêÜ áðïôåëÝóìáôá äéáìïñöùèïýí ôï 1998 óýìöùíá ìå ôçí ðñüâëåøç êáé áðü ôï 1999 êáé åîÞò äéáôçñçèïýí óôï 16,6% , 8,4% êáé 6,1% ôïõ ÁÅÐ áíôßóôïé ÷ á .
(*) Calculations indicate that the debt ratio would fall to 60 % in 2002 , 2007 and 2012 respectively , if the primary fiscal balance for 1998 is as forecast and the primary fiscal balances were maintained at 16.6% , 8.4% and 6.1% of GDP respectively , from 1999 onwards .
Ïé õðïëïãéóìïß âáóßæïíôáé óôéò åîÞò ðáñáäï ÷ Ýò : áýîçóç ðñáãìáôéêïý ÁÅÐ ôï 1998 : 1,8% , üðùò åêôéìÜôáé áðü ôçí ÅðéôñïðÞ , ðëçèùñéóìüò : 2 % êáé ïíïìáóôéêü åðéôüêéï : 6 %.
The underlying assumptions are a real trend GDP growth rate of 1.8% in 1998 , as estimated by the Commission , an inflation rate of 2 % and a nominal interest rate of 6 %.
(**) Ïé õðïëïãéóìïß õðïäçëþíïõí üôé ï ëüãïò ôïõ ÷ ñÝïõò èá ìåéùèåß óôï 60 % ôï 2002 , 2007 êáé 2012 áíôß ÷ ôïé ÷ á , åÜí ôá ðñùôïãåíÞ äçìïóéïíïìéêÜ áðïôåëÝóìáôá äéáìïñöùèïýí ôï 1998 óýìöùíá ìå ôçí ðñüâëåøç êáé áðü ôï 1999 êáé åîÞò äéáôçñçèïýí óôï 15,9% , 7,8% êáé 5,5% ôïõ ÁÅÐ áíôß ÷ ôïé ÷ á .
Stock-flow adjustments are disregarded . (**) Calculations indicate that the debt ratio would fall to 60 % in 2002 , 2007 and 2012 respectively , if the primary fiscal balance for 1998 is as forecast and the primary fiscal balances were maintained at 15.9% , 7.8% and 5.5% of GDP respectively , from 1999 onwards .
Ïé õðïëïãéóìïß âáóßæïíôáé óôéò åîÞò ðáñáäï ÷ Ýò : áýîçóç ðñáãìáôéêïý ÁÅÐ : 2,5% , ðëçèùñéóìüò : 2 % êáé ïíïìáóôéêü åðéôüêéï : 6 %.
The underlying assumptions are a real GDP growth rate of 2.5% , an inflation rate of 2 % and a nominal interest rate of 6 %.
( á ) Áýîçóç ðñáãìáôéêïý ÁÅÐ : 1,8% Óôáèåñü óõíïëéêü áðïôÝë . Óôáèåñü ðñùôïãåíÝò áðïôÝëåóìá ÉóïóêåëéóìÝíïò ðñïûðïëïãéóìüò
( a ) Real GDP growth rate : 1.8% Constant overall balance 125 100 75 50 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Constant primary balance Balanced budget
Ôá ôñßá óåíÜñéá õðïèÝôïõí üôé ï ëüãïò ôïõ ÷ ñÝïõò èá äéáìïñöùèåß ôï 1998 óýìöùíá ìå ôçí ðñüâëåøç ( 118,1% ) êáé üôé åßôå ôï óõíïëéêü áðïôÝëåóìá (- 2,5% ) Þ ôï ðñùôïãåíÝò áðïôÝëåóìá ( 5,5% ) èá äéáôçñçèåß óôáèåñü êáôÜ ôï ðáñáðÜíù äéÜóôçìá , åßôå üôé ï ðñïûðïëïãéóìüò èá åßíáé éóïóêåëéóìÝíïò áðü ôï 1999 êáé åîÞò . ¢ ëëåò ðáñáäï ÷ Ýò åßíáé : áýîçóç ðñáãìáôéêïý ÁÅÐ : 1,8% ôï 1998 , üðùò ôï åêôéìÜ ç ÅðéôñïðÞ , ðëçèùñéóìüò : 2 % êáé , óôï óåíÜñéï ôïõ óôáèåñïý ðñùôïãåíïýò áðïôåëÝóìáôïò , ïíïìáóôéêü åðéôüêéï : 6 %.
Note : The three scenarios assume that the debt ratio of 118.1% of GDP for 1998 is as forecast and that the 1998 overall balance of - 2.5% of GDP or the primary balance of 5.5% of GDP will be kept constant over the period considered ( as a percentage of GDP ) , or , alternatively , that a balanced budget is maintained from 1999 onwards . The underlying assumptions are a real trend GDP growth rate in 1998 of 1.8% as estimated by the Commission ;
( â ) Áýîçóç ðñáãìáôéêïý ÁÅÐ : 2,5% Óôáèåñü óõíïëéêü áðïôÝë . Óôáèåñü ðñùôïãåíÝò áðïôÝëåóìá ÉóïóêåëéóìÝíïò ðñïûðïëïãéóìüò
( b ) Real GDP growth rate : 2.5% Constant overall balance 125 100 75 50 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Constant primary balance Balanced budget
Ôá ôñßá óåíÜñéá õðïèÝôïõí üôé ï ëüãïò ôïõ ÷ ñÝïõò èá äéáìïñöùèåß ôï 1998 óýìöùíá ìå ôçí ðñüâëåøç ( 118,1% ) êáé üôé åßôå ôï óõíïëéêü áðïôÝëåóìá (- 2,5% ) Þ ôï ðñùôïãåíÝò áðïôÝëåóìá ( 5,5% ) èá äéáôçñçèåß óôáèåñü êáôÜ ôï ðáñáðÜíù äéÜóôçìá , åßôå üôé ï ðñïûðïëïãéóìüò èá åßíáé éóïóêåëéóìÝíïò áðü ôï 1999 êáé åîÞò . ¢ ëëåò ðáñáäï ÷ Ýò åßíáé : áýîçóç ðñáãìáôéêïý ÁÅÐ : 2,5% ôï 1998 , ðëçèùñéóìüò : 2 % êáé , óôï óåíÜñéï ôïõ óôáèåñïý ðñùôïãåíïýò áðïôåëÝóìáôïò , ïíïìáóôéêü åðéôüêéï : 6 %.
Note : The three scenarios assume that the debt ratio of 118.1% of GDP for 1998 is as forecast and that the 1998 overall balance of - 2.5% of GDP or the primary balance of 5.5% of GDP will be kept constant over the period considered ( as a percentage of GDP ) , or , alternatively , that a balanced budget is maintained from 1999 onwards . The underlying assumptions are a real GDP growth rate of 2.5% ;
Ïé ðñïóáñìïãÝò ìåôáâëçôþí ñïÞò êáé áðïèÝìáôïò äåí ëáìâÜíïíôáé õðüøç . Ðßíáêáò 8
and , in the constant primary balance scenario , a nominal interest rate of 6 %. Stock-flow adjustments are disregarded .
Éôáëßá : Äåßêôçò åîÜñôçóçò çëéêéùìÝíùí : ðñïâëÝøåéò 1990 Äåßêôçò åîÜñôçóçò çëéêéùìÝíùí ( ðëçèõóìüò 65 åôþí êáé Üíù åðß ôïõ óõíüëïõ ôïõ ðëçèõóìïý çëéêßáò 15-64 åôþí ) 21,6 26,5 31,2 37,5 48,3 ÐçãÞ : Bos , E. et al. ( 1994 ) , World population projections 1994-95 , ÄéåèíÞò ÔñÜðåæá , ÏõÜóéãêôïí . 2000
Italy : Projections of elderly dependency ratio 1990 Elderly dependency ratio ( population aged 65 and over as a proportion of the population aged 15-64 ) 21.6 2000 26.5 2010 31.2 2020 37.5 2030 48.3 Source : Bos , E. et al. ( 1994 ) , World population projections 1994-95 , World Bank , Washington DC .
( á ) Éôáëßá : Óôáèåñüôçôá óõíáëëáãìáôéêÞò éóïôéìßáò ( 1 Ìáñôßïõ 1996 - 27 Öåâñïõáñßïõ 1998 ) Óõììåôï ÷ Þ óôï Ìç ÷ áíéóìü Óõíáëëáãìáôéêþí Éóïôéìéþí ( ÌÓÉ ) Óõììåôï ÷ Þ áðü Õðïôßìçóç äéìåñïýò êåíôñéêÞò éóïôéìßáò ìå ðñùôïâïõëßá ôçò ÷ þñáò ÌÝãéóôåò ðñïò ôá Üíù (+) êáé ðñïò ôá êÜôù (-) áðïêëßóåéò áðü ôéò êåíôñéêÝò éóïôéìßåò óôï ðëÝãìá éóïôéìéþí ôïõ ÌÓÉ (%) Ýíáíôé ( á ) ÖñÜãêïõ Âåëãßïõ Êïñþíáò Äáíßáò ÌÜñêïõ Ãåñìáíßáò ÐåóÝôáò Éóðáíßáò ÖñÜãêïõ Ãáëëßáò Ëßñáò Éñëáíäßáò Öéïñéíßïõ Ïëëáíäßáò Óåëéíßïõ Áõóôñßáò Åóêïýäïõ Ðïñôïãáëßáò ÌÜñêïõ Öéëáíäßáò ÐçãÞ : ÅõñùðáúêÞ ÅðéôñïðÞ êáé õðïëïãéóìïß ÅÍÉ .
( a ) Italy : Exchange rate stability ( 25 November 1996 - 27 February 1998 ) Membership of the Exchange Rate Mechanism ( ERM ) Membership since Devaluation of bilateral central rate on country 's own initiative Maximum upward (+) and downward (-) deviations from central rates in the ERM grid (%) against ( a ) Belgian franc Danish krone Deutsche Mark Spanish peseta French franc Irish pound Dutch guilder Austrian schilling Portuguese escudo Finnish markka Source : European Commission and EMI calculations .
Íáé 25 Íïåìâñßïõ 1996 ¼÷ é
Yes 25 November 1996 No
( â ) Âáóéêïß äåßêôåò ðéÝóåùí óôç ëßñá Éôáëßáò ÌÝóïò üñïò 3 ìçíþí Ýùò : Ìåôáâëçôüôçôá óõíáëëáã / êÞò éóïôéìßáò ( á ) ÌÜé .
( b ) Key indicators of exchange rate pressure for the Italian lira Average of 3 months ending : Exchange rate volatility ( a ) Short-term interest rate differentials ( b ) May 96 Aug 96 Nov 96 Feb 97 May 97 Aug 97 Nov 97 Feb 98 6.4 6.0 5.5 5.3 4.5 4.7 4.5 4.1 4.1 3.8 3.0 3.6 2.5 3.1 1.1 2.5
éóïôéìßåò ÌÓÉ ( çìåñÞóéá óôïé ÷ åßá , åêáôïóôéáßåò ìïíÜäåò , 1.3.96 - 27.2.98 ) ITL / BEF ITL / DKK ITL / DEM ITL / ESP ITL / FRF ITL / IEP
1 March 1996 to 27 February 1998 ) ITL / BEF 15 10 5 0 - 5 - 10 - 15 Q2 1996 ITL / NLG Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 1997 Q3 Q4 Q1 ITL / DKK ITL / DEM ITL / ESP ITL / FRF
ITL / NLG
ITL / IEP 15 10 5 0 - 5 - 10 - 15 Q2
Óçìåßùóç : Ç êÜèåôç ãñáììÞ äçëþíåé ôçí çìåñïìçíßá åðáíÝíôáîçò ôçò Éôáëßáò óôï ÌÓÉ ( 25 Íïåìâñßïõ 1996 ) .
Note : The vertical line indicates when Italy rejoined the ERM ( 25 November 1996 ) .
Ïé áðïêëßóåéò ðñéí ôéò 25 Íïåìâñßïõ 1996 áöïñïýí ôéò äéìåñåßò êåíôñéêÝò éóïôéìßåò ôçò ëßñáò Éôáëßáò üðùò ïñßóôçêáí êáôÜ ôçí åðáíÝíôáîç .
Deviations prior to 25 November 1996 refer to the Italian lira s bilateral central rates as established upon ERM re-entry . Table 10
184 Ðßíáêáò 10
Italian lira : Measures of the real effective exchange rate vis - - vis ERM Member States ( monthly data ;
Ëßñá Éôáëßáò : Äåßêôåò ðñáãìáôéêÞò óôáèìéóìÝíçò óõíáëëáãìáôéêÞò éóïôéìßáò Ýíáíôé ôùí Êñáôþí-Ìåëþí ôïõ ÌÓÉ ÌÝóïò üñïò ÐñáãìáôéêÝò óôáèìéóìÝíåò óõíáëëáãìáôéêÝò éóïôéìßåò : ÂÜóåé ôïõ ÄÔÊ ÂÜóåé ôïõ Äåßêôç Ôéìþí Ðáñáãùãïý /× ïíäñéêÞò Õðüìíçóç : ÏíïìáóôéêÞ óôáèìéóìÝíç óõíáëëáãìáôéêÞ éóïôéìßá - 36,1 - 13,0 - 0,2 - 4,4 - 4,5 - 3,2 ÌÝóïò üñïò
February 1998 compared with different benchmark periods ) Average Apr 73-Feb 98 Real effective exchange rates : CPI-based PPI / WPI-based Memo item : Nominal effective exchange rate Source : BIS and EMI calculations .
( ìçíéáßá óôïé ÷ åßá , åêáôïóôéáßåò áðïêëßóåéò , ÖåâñïõÜñéïò 1998 óå óýãêñéóç ìå äéáöïñåôéêÝò ðåñéüäïõò âÜóçò ) ÌÝóïò üñïò 1987 - 8,6 - 9,9 - 25,2 Áðñ .
Note : A positive ( negative ) sign indicates an appreciation ( depreciation ) . Average Jan 87-Feb 98 - 4.5 - 3.2 - 13.0
73 - Öåâ . 98 Éáí .
Average 1987 - 8.6 - 9.9 - 25.2
Óçìåßùóç : Ôï èåôéêü ( áñíçôéêü ) ðñüóçìï óçìáßíåé áíáôßìçóç ( õðïôßìçóç ) . Ðßíáêáò 11
Table 11 Italy : External developments ( as a percentage of GDP )
Éôáëßá : ÅîùôåñéêÝò åîåëßîåéò ( ùò ðïóïóôü ôïõ ÁÅÐ ) 1990 Éóïæýãéï ôñå ÷ ïõóþí óõíáëëáãþí óõí êßíçóç êåöáëáßùí ( â ) ÊáèáñÞ èåôéêÞ (+) Þ áñíçôéêÞ (-) åîùô . èÝóç ( ã ) ÅîáãùãÝò ( áãáèÜ êáé õðçñåóßåò )( ä ) ÅéóáãùãÝò ( áãáèÜ êáé õðçñåóßåò )( å ) - 1,5 - 7,4 20,0 20,0 - 2,1 - 8,6 19,8 20,4 - 2,4 - 10,9 21,1 21,8 1,0 - 9,4 23,4 20,1 1,4 - 7,2 25,2 21,1 2,5 - 4,8 27,4 22,3 3,4 - 3,2 27,0 21,6 3,1 - 0,5 28,0 23,6 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 ( á )
Current account plus new capital account ( b ) Net foreign assets (+) or liabilities (-) ( c ) Exports ( goods and services )( d ) Imports ( goods and services ) ( e ) 1990 - 1.5 - 7.4 20.0 20.0
Ãéá åîáãùãÝò - åéóáãùãÝò : ÅõñùðáúêÞ ÅðéôñïðÞ , ðñïâëÝøåéò , Üíïéîç 1998 . ( á ) Åí ìÝñåé êáô  åêôßìçóç .
1996 1997 ( a ) 3.4 3.1 - 3.2 - 0.5 27.0 28.0 21.6 23.6 Source : National data except exports and imports ( European Commission , spring 1998 forecasts ) .
( â ) Óýìöùíá ìå ôçí 5ç Ýêäïóç ôïõ Åã ÷ åéñéäßïõ Éóïæõãßïõ Ðëçñùìþí ôïõ ÄÍÔ .
( a ) Partly estimated .
( ä ) ÅíäïêïéíïôéêÝò åîáãùãÝò åðß ôïõ óõíüëïõ ôùí åèíéêþí åîáãùãþí áãáèþí , 1996 : 55,4% , Direction of Trade Statistics Yearbook 1997 , ÄÍÔ .
( d ) In 1996 the share of intra-EU exports of goods in total national exports of goods was 55.4% ; Direction of Trade Statistics Yearbook 1997 , IMF .
( å ) ÅíäïêïéíïôéêÝò åéóáãùãÝò åðß ôïõ óõíüëïõ ôùí åèíéêþí åéóáãùãþí áãáèþí , 1996 : 60,8% , Direction of Trade Statistics Yearbook 1997 , ÄÍÔ .
( e ) In 1996 the share of intra-EU imports of goods in total national imports of goods was 60.8% ; Direction of Trade Statistics Yearbook 1997 , IMF .
Éôáëßá : Ìáêñïðñüèåóìá åðéôüêéá ( åðß ôïéò åêáôü ) 1996 Ìáêñïðñüèåóìï åðéôüêéï ÔéìÞ áíáöïñÜò ÐçãÞ : ÅõñùðáúêÞ ÅðéôñïðÞ .
Italy : Long-term interest rates ( percentages ) 1996 Long-term interest rate Reference value Source : European Commission .
Éáí . 98 5,4 -
Jan 98 Feb 97 - Jan 98 5.4 6.7 7.8
ËÏÕÎÅÌÂÏÕÑÃÏ Ç åîÝëéîç ôùí ôéìþí Óôç äéÜñêåéá ôçò ðåñéüäïõ áíáöïñÜò ( ÖåâñïõÜñéïò 1997-ÉáíïõÜñéïò 1998 ) , ï ìÝóïò ñõèìüò ðëçèùñéóìïý âÜóåé ôïõ ÅíÄÔÊ óôï Ëïõîåìâïýñãï Þôáí 1,4% , äçë . áñêåôÜ êÜôù áðü ôçí ôéìÞ áíáöïñÜò 2,7% .
LUXEMBOURG Price developments Over the reference period from February 1997 to January 1998 the average rate of HICP inflation in Luxembourg was 1.4% , i.e. well below the reference value of 2.7% .
Ôï 1996 ï ìÝóïò ðëçèùñéóìüò ( ÅíÄÔÊ ) Þôáí 1,2% ( âë . Ðßíáêá 1 ) .
In 1996 average HICP inflation was 1.2% ( see Table 1 ) .
Áðü ôçí åîÝôáóç ôùí ìÝ ÷ ñé óÞìåñá åîåëßîåùí ðñïêýðôåé üôé ï ðëçèùñéóìüò ôéìþí êáôáíáëùôÞ óôï Ëïõîåìâïýñãï , üðùò ìåôñåßôáé âÜóåé ôïõ ÄÔÊ , áêïëïýèçóå ãåíéêþò êáèïäéêÞ ðïñåßá áðü ôéò áñ ÷ Ýò ôçò äåêáåôßáò ôïõ 1990 ( âë . ÄéÜãñáììá 1 ) .
Looking back , consumer price inflation in Luxembourg , as measured on the basis of the CPI , has followed a broad downward trend since the early 1990s ( see Chart 1 ) .
Ç ìåßùóç ôïõ ðëçèùñéóìïý óôç äéÜñêåéá ôçò äåêáåôßáò ôïõ 1990 åðéôåý ÷ èçêå ìÝóá óå Ýíá ó ÷ åôéêÜ åõíïúêü ìáêñïïéêïíïìéêü ðåñéâÜëëïí , ðáñüëï ðïõ ï ñõèìüò ïéêïíïìéêÞò áíÜðôõîçò åðéâñáäýíèçêå ìåôáîý 1993 êáé 1996 áðü ðåñßðïõ 9 % óå 3 % ( âë . Ðßíáêá 2 ) .
The reduction in inflation during the 1990s has been achieved within the context of a relatively buoyant macroeconomic environment , although growth decelerated between 1993 and 1996 from around 9 % to 3 % ( see Table 2 ) .
Ôï 1997 óçìåéþèçêå åðéôÜ ÷ õíóç .
In 1997 an acceleration took place .
ÄåäïìÝíïõ üôé ç óôáèìéóìÝíç óõíáëëáãìáôéêÞ éóïôéìßá äåí ðáñïõóßáóå óçìáíôéêÝò ìåôáâïëÝò , ïé áõîÞóåéò ôùí ôéìþí ôùí åéóáãïìÝíùí óôç äåêáåôßá ôïõ 1990 õðÞñîáí õðïôïíéêÝò Þ áñíçôéêÝò , óõìâÜëëïíôáò Ýôóé óôçí åîáóèÝíçóç ôùí ðëçèùñéóôéêþí ðéÝóåùí .
Reflecting the absence of significant effective exchange rate movements , import price increases in the 1990s have been subdued or negative , thus contributing to the curbing of inflationary pressures .
Ïé ÷ áìçëïß ñõèìïß ðëçèùñéóìïý ðñïêýðôïõí êáé áðü Üëëïõò óõíáöåßò äåßêôåò ôéìþí ( âë . Ðßíáêá 2 ) .
Low rates of inflation are also apparent when it is measured in terms of other relevant price indices ( see Table 2 ) .
¼ óïí áöïñÜ ôéò ðñüóöáôåò ôÜóåéò êáé ðñïâëÝøåéò , ïé óçìåñéíïß ñõèìïß ðëçèùñéóìïý , ìå âÜóç ôï äùäåêÜìçíï ñõèìü áýîçóçò ôïõ äåßêôç ôéìþí êáôáíáëùôÞ , ìåéþíïíôáé óôï 1,5% êáé õðÜñ ÷ ïõí ëßãåò ìüíï åíäåßîåéò üôé èá åêäçëùèïýí Üìåóåò áíïäéêÝò ðéÝóåéò , üðùò ðñïêýðôåé áðü ôïõò äåßêôåò ôïõ Ðßíáêá 3á .
Looking at recent trends and forecasts , current outturns for consumer price inflation ( measured as a percentage change over the corresponding month a year earlier ) have been decreasing to 1‰ % and there is little sign of immediate upward pressure on the basis of the measures shown in Table 3a .
ÐñïâëÝðåôáé ñõèìüò ðëçèùñéóìïý ìåôáîý 1,5% êáé 2 % ãéá ôï 1998 êáé 1999 ( âë . Ðßíáêá 3â ) .
Forecasts of inflation suggest rates of between 1‰ and 2 % for 1998 and 1999 ( see Table 3b ) .
ÄçìïóéïíïìéêÝò åîåëßîåéò Óôï Ýôïò áíáöïñÜò ( 1997 ) ï ðñïûðïëïãéóìüò ôïõ åõñýôåñïõ êõâåñíçôéêïý ôïìÝá åìöÜíéóå ðëåüíáóìá 1,7% ôïõ ÁÅÐ êáé Ýôóé åðéôåý ÷ èçêå Üíåôá ç ôéìÞ áíáöïñÜò 3 % ãéá ôï ëüãï ôïõ åëëåßììáôïò .
Fiscal developments In the reference year 1997 the general government budget balance showed a surplus of 1.7% of GDP , hence the 3 % reference value for the deficit ratio was comfortably met .
Ï ëüãïò ôïõ ÷ ñÝïõò Þôáí 6,7% , äçë . ðïëý êÜôù áðü ôçí ôéìÞ áíáöïñÜò 60 %.
The debt ratio was 6.7% , i.e. far below the 60 % reference value .
Óå óýãêñéóç ìå ôï ðñïçãïýìåíï Ýôïò , ôï äçìïóéïíïìéêü ðëåüíáóìá õðï ÷ þñçóå êáôÜ 0,8 åêáôïóôéáßåò ìïíÜäåò , åíþ ï ëüãïò ôïõ ÷ ñÝïõò áõîÞèçêå ïñéáêÜ .
Compared with the previous year , the fiscal surplus has decreased by 0.8 percentage point , while the debt ratio has increased marginally .
1998 ôï ðëåüíáóìá ðñïâëÝðåôáé íá ìåéùèåß óôï 1,0% ôïõ ÁÅÐ , åíþ ï ëüãïò ôïõ ÷ ñÝïõò ðñïâëÝðåôáé íá áõîçèåß óå 7,1% ( âë . Ðßíáêá 4 ) .
In 1998 the surplus is forecast to decrease to 1.0% of GDP , while the debt ratio is projected to increase to 7.1% ( see Table 4 ) .
Áðü ôçí åîÝôáóç ôùí åôþí 1990-1997 ðñïêýðôåé üôé ï ëüãïò ÷ ñÝïõò / ÁÅÐ ôïõ Ëïõîåìâïýñãïõ áõîÞèçêå óôáäéáêÜ êáôÜ 2,0 åêáôïóôéáßåò ìïíÜäåò ( âë . ÄéÜãñáììá 2á ) .
Looking back over the years 1990 to 1997 , Luxembourg s debt-to-GDP ratio gradually increased by 2.0 percentage points ( see Chart 2a ) .
¼ ðùò öáßíåôáé ëåðôïìåñÝóôåñá óôï ÄéÜãñáììá 2â , ï ëüãïò ôïõ ÷ ñÝïõò åîåëß ÷ èçêå ùò åîÞò : ôá ðñùôïãåíÞ ðëåïíÜóìáôá áíôéóôÜèìéóáí åí ìÝñåé ôçí áõîçôéêÞ åðßäñáóç åðß ôïõ ÷ ñÝïõò ôçí ïðïßá Üóêçóáí ïé  ðñïóáñìïãÝò ìåôáâëçôþí ñïÞò êáé ìåôáâëçôþí áðïèÝìáôïò .
As is shown in greater detail in Chart 2b , the typical pattern is that primary surpluses partly compensated for the debtincreasing effects resulting from the stockflow adjustment item .