**Table 5. Relative discrepancies (** ∆ **_ij_ ) for sawnwood exported by European countries during 1982-97, aggregated across all importing countries.** Positive discrepancies indicate that reported imports were greater than reported exports; negative discrepancies indicate the reverse.

|_Ct_|_NC sa_<br>_Nb_|_wnwood_|_C sa_<br>_Nb_|_wnwood_|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|_ounry_|_umer of_<br>_observations_|_Mean discrepancy_|_umer of_<br>_observations_|_Mean discrepancy_<br>|
|Austria|250|0.020|335|−0.079<sup>***</sup>|
|Belgium-Lux.|320|−0.155<sup>***,†††</sup><br>|153|−0.118<sup>***</sup>|
|Croatia|90|−0.048<sup>*</sup>|-|-<br>|
|Czech Republic|64|−0.025<br>|106|−0.022<sup>††</sup><br>|
|Denmark|268|−0.095<sup>***</sup>|232|−0.114<sup>***</sup>|
|Estonia|-|-|52|0.006<sup>††</sup>|
|Finland|154|−0.085<sup>**,††</sup>|464|−0.082<sup>***</sup>|
|France|501|−0.039<sup>**</sup>|293|−0.031<sup>††</sup><br>|
|Germany|446|0.020<br>|312|−0.029<sup>††</sup>|
|Greece|84|−0.083<sup>*</sup>|-|-|
|Hungary|48|0.039|26|0.081<sup>†</sup>|
|Ireland|-|-|28|−0.128<sup>**</sup>|
|Italy|417|−0.220<sup>***,†††</sup><br>|306|−0.072<sup>**</sup><br>|
|Latvia|56|−0.228<sup>***,†††</sup>|89|−0.177<sup>***</sup><br>|
|Lithuania|46|0.003<br>|59|−0.147<sup>***</sup><br>|
|Netherlands|324|−0.214<sup>***,†††</sup>|191|−0.016<sup>††</sup>|
|Norway|70|0.035|254|−0.116<sup>***</sup>|
|Poland|197|0.052<sup>***,††</sup><br>|204|0.008<sup>†††</sup><br>|
|Portugal|109|−0.189<sup>***,†††</sup>|191|−0.109<sup>***</sup><br>|
|**_Romania_**|**_129_**|−**_0.034_**|**_124_**|−**_0.119_**<sup>**_***_**</sup>|
|Russia|60|−0.077|80|−0.122<sup>***</sup>|
|Slovakia|59|−0.031|54|−0.113<sup>***</sup>|
|Slovenia|48|0.101<sup>**,††</sup>|42|−0.251<sup>***,††</sup>|
|Spain|193|−0.183<sup>***,†††</sup>|173|−0.094<sup>***</sup>|
|Sweden|198|0.120<sup>***,†††</sup>|515|−0.086<sup>***</sup><br>|
|Switzerland|118|0.000|92|0.007<sup>†††</sup>|
|United Kingdom|256|−0.123<sup>***,††</sup>|180|−0.121<sup>***</sup>|
|Yugoslavia|187|−0.072<sup>***</sup>|98|−0.029<sup>†</sup>|

Notes: a. Table includes only countries with at least 25 observations in the EFI Database. b. Trade flows for Central and Eastern European countries in the EFI Database are mainly for the 1990s. c. Sample includes only trade flows with reported imports and exports both ≥ 100 m<sup>3</sup> . d.<sup>***</sup> ,<sup>**</sup> ,<sup>*</sup> : mean is significantly different from zero at 1%, 5%, 10% level. e.<sup>†††</sup> ,<sup>††</sup> ,<sup>†</sup> : mean is significantly different from Romanian mean at 1%, 5%, 10% level.

In a few cases, the discrepancies for NC and C sawnwood had opposite signs. This suggests that observed discrepancies might be due to intentional or unintentional misclassification of the products. We explore this possibility in the econometric analysis.

Table 6 shows the mean discrepancies for European countries’ imports of sawnwood. Two differences from the results for exports may be noted for both NC and C sawnwood: somewhat fewer of the discrepancies are significantly different from zero, especially for C sawnwood, and most of these discrepancies are positive rather than negative. European countries tend to report imports that exceed their trading countries’ reported exports. For NC sawnwood, no country has a statistically larger discrepancy than Romania’s. For C sawnwood, the very small number of 8