punched through previous peak employment levels. here is the job creation record of the so - called mega - states within the united states since 1990. and last, and just for fun, here is the record of texas ’ job creation over the past two decades versus resource - rich countries, such as australia and canada, as well as versus the major countries of europe, the u. s. and japan. bis central bankers ’ speeches indulge me for a minute here. i share these with you not to engage in stereotypical “ texas brag ” or because st. andrews has become a popular destination for recent generations of undergraduate scholars from texas. i do so to illustrate a point, specifically the influence of fiscal policy on the effectiveness of monetary policy. the limits of monetary policy and the importance of fiscal policy here is the rub. as mentioned, the fomc sets monetary policy for the nation, for all 50 states – its influence is uniform across america. the same rate of interest is charged on bank loans to businesses and individuals in texas as is charged new yorkers or the good people of illinois or californians ; texans pay the same rates on mortgages and so on. why is it that the texas economy has radically outperformed the rest of the states? a cheap answer is to revert to the hackneyed argument that texas has oil and gas. it is true that we produce as much oil as norway and almost as much natural gas as canada. and we have some 60 percent of the refineries of the united states. but remember that the numbers i showed you are employment numbers. only 2 percent of employment in texas is directly generated by oil and gas and mining and related services. we are grateful that we are energy rich. but we are a diversified economy not unlike the united states, where business and financial services, health care, travel and leisure activities and education account for similar portions of our workforce. why, then, do we outperform the rest of the united states? bis central bankers ’ speeches to me, the answer is obvious : we have state and local governments whose tax, spending and regulatory policies are oriented toward job creation. we have the same monetary policy as all the rest ; our income is taxed at the same federal tax rate ; and we are equally impacted by washington ’ s tax, spending and regulatory policies. but we have better fiscal policy at the state level. we have no state income tax ; we are a right - to - work state ;

0. 5 pp from what we expected in february. this was done by other relevant international institutions as well, such as the international monetary fund, european bank for reconstruction and development ( ebrd ) and consensus forecasts, though it is important to note that serbia ’ s economic growth outlook was revised down almost the least among the countries of the region. the key factors behind the downward revision of real gdp growth include international developments – the negative effects of the conflict and estimates of lower economic growth in the euro area and countries of the region. chart 10 contributions to real gdp growth, expenditure side ( in pp ) 7. 4 4. 5 4. 3 2. 0 1. 8 0. 5 4. 5 4. 5 4. 0 3. 3 2. 9 chart 11 changes in economic growth estimates in 2022 and 2023 by country in january - april 0. 0 - 0. 5 2. 1 - 1. 0 * nbs estimate. serbia slovenia 2023 * albania bosnia and herzegovina poland north macedonia bulgaria hungary sources : sors and nbs. montenegro - 8 - 2. 5 croatia - 6 - 2. 0 slovakia - 4 - 1. 5 romania - 0. 9 change in inventories net exports government consumption gross fixed capital formation household consumption gdp ( in % ) - 1. 6 czech republic - 0. 7 - 2 source : consensus forecasts. assuming that geopolitical tensions would not heighten further and that the global gas supply would not be discontinued, we have kept our medium ‐ term gdp growth projection of 4 – 5 % per annum unchanged, with a further increase in employment. a favourable medium ‐ term outlook is sustained by serbia ’ s preserved macroeconomic and financial stability, as well as investment and consumer confidence, but also by increased production capacities, primarily in the tradable sectors, and the anticipated implementation of planned strategic infrastructure projects. as a result, the share of fixed investment in gdp should exceed the desirable level of 25 % next year and continue up. elevated energy import, resulting mostly from higher import prices, led to a widening of the current account deficit and added to depreciation pressures in the domestic fx market since the start of the year. for this reason, we have also revised our current account deficit projection for this year from below 5 %, which is what we expected in february, to 6. 5 % of gdp. it is, however, important to note that this continues to be a deficit which, both in our and