Részletes EU Bizottsági értékelés A Konvergencia Programokról - Köztük Magyarországról Is

A Bizottság értékeli Bulgária, a Cseh Köztársaság, Dánia, Németország, Észtország, Magyarország, Hollandia, Lengyelország, Svédország, Finnország, és az Egyesült Királyság stabilitási és konvergenciaprogramját

Az Európai Bizottság 2009 február 18-án megvizsgálta 17 uniós ország, köztük Bulgária, a Cseh Köztársaság, Dánia, Németország, Észtország, Magyarország, Hollandia, Lengyelország, Svédország, Finnország és az Egyesült Királyság aktualizált stabilitási és konvergenciaprogramját[1] (az egyes programokhoz lásd az IP/09/274-et). Ezek az értékelések a súlyos gazdasági visszaesés figyelembevételével születtek. Az érintett országok többsége (a Cseh Köztársaság, Dánia, Németország, Hollandia, Lengyelország, Svédország, Finnország, és az Egyesült Királyság) 2009-ben költségvetési ösztönző intézkedéseket fogadott el a gazdasági válság leküzdése érdekében, a Bizottság által javasolt és az Unió vezetői által támogatott gazdaságélénkítési tervvel összhangban. Az Egyesült Királyságban az expanzív intézkedések és a visszaesés negatív hatásai együttesen jelentősen gyengítették az ország költségvetési helyzetét. Magyarország jelentős előrehaladást tett költségvetésének szilárdabb alapokra helyezése felé, és a befektetők bizalmának biztosítása érdekében fenn kell tartania ezt a törekvést. Hasonlóképpen, Bulgáriában és Észtországban a költségvetési politika irányvonala – helyesen – a makrogazdasági egyensúlyhiány csökkentésére irányul.

„Jelenleg nagyon súlyos válságot élünk át, amely az államháztartásokat is érinti. Szerencsére a válság kezdetekor számos ország államháztartása stabil helyzetben volt, ami lehetővé teszi számukra, hogy 2009-ben eleget tegyenek az Európai Tanács ösztönző intézkedések iránti felhívásának. Ezek az intézkedések – ha gyorsan és hatékonyan hajtják végre – a bankmentési tervekkel és a monetáris politika jelentős enyhülésével együtt az év második felében várhatóan segítenek megteremteni a fokozatos fellendülés feltételeit. Ha 2010-ben – reményeink szerint – a gazdaság lendületbe jön, a költségvetési politikát ismét konszolidációs pályára kell állítani. Ez a viszonylag kedvező helyzetben levő tagállamok számára is fontos, hogy elkerüljék államháztartásuk fenntarthatóságának tartós romlását. Ebben az összefüggésben fontos, hogy a Stabilitási és Növekedési Paktum maradjon az a keret, amelyben a Bizottság és a Tanács tanácsokat ad a tagállamoknak arra vonatkozóan, hogyan alakítsák költségvetési politikájukat", nyilatkozta Joaquín Almunia gazdasági és pénzügyi biztos.

MAGYARORSZÁG

A nagy egyensúlyhiány terén elért határozott javulás – így többek között a 2006-os, 9,3%-os költségvetési hiány 2008-ban 3½%-ra való csökkentése – ellenére Magyarországot az államadósság és a külső adósság még mindig magas szintje miatt a pénzügyi válság különösen érintette. Ezért a befektetők bizalmának helyreállítása érdekében további költségvetési kiigazításokat és szigorúbb hiánycélokat magában foglaló politikát fogadtak el.

A decemberben benyújtott, aktualizált konvergenciaprogram a kormány gazdaságpolitikai programján alapul, amelyet a pénzügyi válságra válaszul fogadtak el, és amelyet a nemzetközi pénzügyi segítségnyújtás – és ezen belül az Európai Unió által nyújtott, 6,5 milliárd eurós kölcsön – is alátámaszt.

A program az időszak elejére összpontosító konszolidációs stratégia folytatását tervezi, 2009-ben a hiánynak újabb fontos, a GDP 2,6 %-ára történő csökkentésével. Ezt követően 2011-re a GDP 2,2 %-ának megfelelő hiány felé tartó mérsékeltebb haladást tervez. A jelentősen romló makrogazdasági kilátásokra és az ezzel összefüggő költségvetési kockázatokra tekintettel a kormány február 15-én a GDP 0,7%-ának megfelelő kiegészítő korrekciós intézkedéscsomagot fogadott el és kis mértékben felfelé módosította a 2009-es hiánycélt.

Az államháztartás hosszú távú fenntarthatósága a nemrég bejelentett strukturális reformok folytatásától függ, mivel e reformlépések erősítik a hosszú távú növekedést, segítenek a költségvetési célok elérésében és csökkentik az ország sebezhetőségét.

A fenti értékelés fényében Magyarországot felkérik, hogy i. a kockázatokra figyelemmel tartson fenn megfelelő tartalékot, és tegye meg a szükséges intézkedéseket ahhoz, hogy a költségvetési hiány a GDP 3 % – a alatt maradjon, biztosítsa továbbá, hogy megfelelő legyen az előrelépés a költségvetési konszolidáció terén, miközben a GDP-arányos adósságrátát a GDP 60 % – ában kifejezett küszöbérték felé tartó csökkenő pályára állítja, (ii). biztosítsa a költségvetési felelősségről szóló törvény teljes körű végrehajtását és további strukturális reformok révén folytassa a kiadások mérséklését, valamint erősítse a pénzügyi piacok szabályozását és felügyeletét. Végül Magyarországot felkérik, hogy (iii). javítsa tovább az államháztartás hosszú távú fenntarthatóságát, nevezetesen a nyugdíj

BULGARIA

The programme's medium-term budgetary strategy aims at maintaining a sound budgetary position reflected in the high targeted general government surpluses of 3% of GDP throughout the programme period (2008-2001).

GDP growth has been high in Bulgaria at over 6% per year since 2003, accompanied by a widening external deficit and high inflation. As the impact of the global economic slowdown and financial crisis unfolds, Bulgaria faces the challenge of sustaining growth while addressing the existing macroeconomic imbalances through maintaining tight fiscal and income policies.

Bulgaria's fiscal policy is geared towards maintaining investor confidence and preserving macro-economic stability. The government's focus on structural measures to strengthen the economy's resilience also represents a timely and adequate response to the current economic outlook.

In view of the above assessment and also given the need to ensure sustainable convergence, Bulgaria is invited to: (i) continue maintaining a sound fiscal position by restraining expenditure growth, with a view to help contain existing external imbalances and counteract possible revenue shortfalls; (ii) contain public sector wage growth in order to contribute to overall wage moderation and improve competitiveness; and (iii) further strengthen the efficiency of public spending, in particular through full implementation of programme budgeting, reinforced administrative capacity and reforming the areas of labour and product markets, education and healthcare, in order to increase productivity and reduce the external deficit.

THE CZECH REPUBLIC

Starting from relatively low government deficit and debt levels, the programme targets a general government deficit of 1.6% and 1.5% of GDP in 2009 and 2010 respectively, based on favourable growth assumptions.

Against the background of the recent improvement in public finances, the Czech Republic adopted a sizeable fiscal stimulus package. This package is in line with the EU Recovery Plan, in being timely and well-target to sectors of the economy likely to be most severely affected by the slowdown. It will be important to reverse them once economic conditions improve.

While pension and health care reforms have been introduced that will reduce expenditure, concerns remain regarding long term fiscal sustainability due to a rapidly ageing population.

In view of the Commission assessment, and also given the need to ensure sustainable convergence, the Czech Republic is invited to: (i) implement the measures in line with the EERP as planned.; (ii) reverse the adverse budgetary impact of the fiscal stimulus once the economy recovers and back-up the budgetary strategy with specific measures for reducing expenditure in 2010-2011 and (iii) continue with the necessary pension and health care reforms, given the projected increase in age-related expenditures, in order to improve the long-term sustainability of public finances.

DENMARK

After a period of strong economic activity and sizeable budgetary surpluses, Denmark's economic slowdown in 2008 was rapid and pronounced, as the cyclical downturn has been exacerbated by the global economic and financial crisis.

At the current juncture and given the comfortable fiscal position, the overall fiscal stance is considered adequate in view of the discretionary fiscal expansion in 2009 and the relatively strong automatic stabilisers at play.

The government debt has been nearly halved in the present decade to a low of 26.3% of GDP in 2007, thanks to high budgetary surpluses benefiting from a strong fiscal framework.

In view of the Commission assessment, Denmark is invited to (i) implement the planned measures in line with the European Recovery Plan and (ii) identify the required structural reform measures to achieve its budgetary targets in the outer years of the programme.

FINLAND

After GDP growth above potential in 2006 and 2007 (4.9% and 4.2% respectively), the Finnish economy decelerated rapidly in 2008 and is expected to be negative this year. The Finnish Programme submitted mid December still envisaged GDP growth of 0.6 % in 2009, but this appears optimistic given the deteriorated outlook in the past months.

The fundamentals of the Finnish economy are sound, though, with a significant surplus in both the current account and the public finances. Thanks to a prudent fiscal policy in the good times, Finland is expected to continue recording surpluses in general government finances during the programme period although they could turn less important than projected.

The programme envisages a large fiscal stimulus over 2009 and 2010, complemented by new measures announced in January. This appears appropriate, provided that action will also be taken to ensure fiscal retrenchment once the economic crisis abates in order to preserve the long term sustainability of the public finances. The public debt is expected to increase somewhat from an estimated figure of less than 33% in 2008.

In view of the Commission assessment, Finland is invited to: (i) implement the measures in line with the Recovery Plan and; (ii) reverse the adverse budgetary impact of the fiscal stimulus measures once the economy recovers in order to preserve the long-term sustainability of public finances.

GERMANY

After successfully reaching a close-to-balance budget in 2007 and 2008, Germany faces a deterioration in its public finances due to overall worsened economic situation and as a result of the steps undertaken to counter the sharp slowdown caused by the global economic and financial crisis.

The Stability Programme completed at the end of January, foresees a budget deficit of 3% of GDP in 2009 and 4% of GDP in 2010. Budgetary consolidation would be resumed after 2010 with the deficit falling to 2½% in 2012. Given the sharp deterioration in the global economy and distress in the financial sector, the budgetary strategy is subject to downside risks.

Using the room of manoeuvre afforded by the budgetary consolidation during the good times, Germany adopted a sizeable fiscal stimulus package between the autumn 2008 and January 2009 in line with the EU Recovery Plan. The stimulus focuses on income support, public and private investment, access to financing, avoiding lay-offs, improving qualifications and providing measures that support the automotive industry. It is a timely and targeted response to the economic crisis, commensurate with the scale of the downturn.

But it is also important to ensure a return to a credible fiscal consolidation path once the economy recovers. In this sense, the envisaged new constitutional rule limiting federal government structural deficits to 0.35% of GDP and the debt repayment schedule are important steps. Given increasing public debt, recent ad hoc changes to the pension adjustment formula and uncertainty as to the impact of the health-care reform, preserving the achievements made to improve long-term sustainability is critical.

Therefore, Germany is invited to (i) implement the measures in line with the Recovery Plan as planned and reverse the budgetary impact of the fiscal stimulus measures in order to support budgetary consolidation once the economy recovers; (ii) strengthen the institutional fiscal framework by implementing the new budgetary rule as currently envisaged in order to underpin the necessary consolidation course after 2010; (iii) give renewed attention to measures strengthening the long-term sustainability of public finances and ensure that the deviation from the pension adjustment formula in 2008 is reversed as envisaged.

ESTONIA

After many years of strong growth, Estonia is experiencing a severe downturn. The global financial crisis and weakening external demand have added to the reversal of the cycle and speeded up the contraction of the economy. While external and internal imbalances are now clearly subsiding, the loss of cost competitiveness accumulated over the years of wage growth well in excess of productivity growth hinders an orderly economic adjustment.

Following the updated Convergence Programme's submission in early December, more recently-announced measures aim at keeping the general government deficit below 3% of GDP. The expenditure cuts, which include a reduction of the public sector wage bill, are intended to support the adjustment process and strengthen the competitiveness of the economy. This is a welcome development that anticipates the policy invitations put forward by the Commission (see below). Recent modernisation of the labour law is also a timely step to improve the responsiveness of labour market. The Estonian authorities should now ensure that these measures are implemented.

In view of the Commission assessment and also given the need to ensure sustainable convergence and a smooth participation in ERM II, Estonia is invited to: (i) strengthen the consolidation of public finances in the short term to keep the general government deficit below 3% of GDP and take necessary measures to underpin the consolidation in the medium term; (ii) implement prudent public sector wage policies to support the adjustment of the economy and to strengthen competitiveness; (iii) reinforce the medium-term budgetary framework, particularly by improving expenditure planning and efficiency.

rendszer reformjának folytatásával.

THE NETHERLANDS

Economic activity is expected to decrease sharply in 2009, as the Netherlands is set to be severely hit by the sharp fall in world trade and the financial crisis.

The Stability Programme submitted in November and updated on 18 December aimed at achieving and maintaining stable budgetary surplus between 2008 and 2011, but this scenario is subject to risks linked to the evolution of economic growth and gas prices as well as the risks associated with the sizeable guarantees given to the financial sector. However, and despite the increase in the public debt to 57% of GDP at the end of 2008 (due to the rescue plans to the financial sector), the main challenges lie in addressing the low confidence in the financial sector and supporting investment.

The Dutch government adopted two support packages, in November 2008 and January 2009, aimed at fostering private investment, protecting employment and improving credit supply. The measures are in line with the European Recovery Plan (timely, temporary and targeted), but their budgetary impact is rather limited.

In view of this assessment, the Netherlands is invited to implement measures in line with the European Recovery Plan.

POLAND

Poland's strong GDP growth is expected to slow markedly in 2009 mainly due to the impact of the global financial crisis, through the deterioration in global trade flows, the slowdown in FDI activity and the limited availability of external financing.

The updated Convergence Programme sent at the end of December targets a general government deficit of 2½% of GDP in 2009, based on rather favourable growth assumptions. Further ahead, the programme targets a budget deficit of 2.3% of GDP in 2010 based on expenditure restraint about which there is presently little information.

Poland is planning adequate fiscal stimulus measures, some of which are not temporary, which will stimulate both aggregate demand in the short term and strengthen the supply side of the Polish economy in a longer term. In line with the European Recovery Plan, the fiscal stimulus measures adopted by Poland mostly contemplate increased public investment in infrastructure as well as some cuts in income taxes which reduce the tax wedge.

In view of the Commission assessment and also given the need to ensure sustainable convergence, Poland is invited to: (i) implement the stimulus measures in line with the Recovery Plan as planned, while ensuring that the deficit remains below 3% of GDP in 2009; (ii) back up the budgetary strategy with specific deficit-reducing measures for 2010 and 2011; (iii) reinforce the budgetary framework through better control over expenditure, including the swift implementation of the amended public finance act and performance budgeting.

SWEDEN

After a prolonged period of relatively strong economic growth, Sweden is experiencing a sharp economic slowdown, which will negatively affect its budget balance this year.

However, the medium-term budgetary position of Sweden is sound. Large surpluses in good times have created space to allow fiscal policy to play an active role in the current downturn, not only by boosting demand in the short term but also by strengthening the economy's long-term growth potential.

The fiscal stance has appropriately become expansionary in 2009. However, there are short-term risks to the fiscal balance, and there is a need to strengthen the fiscal framework to ensure that the government balance improves once the economy picks up again.

In view of the Commission assessment, Sweden is invited to (i) implement the measures in response to the EERP as planned; (ii) reverse the adverse budgetary impact of the fiscal stimulus measures once the economy recovers.

THE UNITED KINGDOM

The United Kingdom's convergence programme update, submitted on 18 December, confirms a rapid deterioration in the UK's budgetary position that has considerably strained the sustainability of its public finances. The probably significantly weaker-than-envisaged outlook in the near term also entails the risk of higher government deficits throughout the programme period.

Following the rapid worsening in the macroeconomic situation, the government deficit is estimated in the programme at 5½% of GDP in 2008/09 and is forecast to peak at 8.2% in 2009/10. The budgetary projections include the cost of the fiscal stimulus package announced in November 2008.

As recommended in the EU Recovery Plan, the stimulus package is temporary and timely, with measures targeted towards supporting domestic demand in 2009. However, taking into account the probability of a worse-than-expected deterioration in the budgetary position in the near term and the heightened risks to fiscal sustainability, there is need for a more ambitious consolidation effort in the medium term.

After the expansionary fiscal measures in 2009/10, the UK authorities plan some consolidation from 2010/11 onwards, but there are risks to the achievement of this consolidation and the deficit in 2013/14 would still be above 3% of GDP. Improvements would depend on a significant economic recovery as well as the achievement of spending targets. The debt ratio, which was close to 40% of GDP in 2007/08, is now expected to rise to almost 70% of GDP by the end of the programme period.

In view of the Commission assessment, the United Kingdom is invited to (i) proceed in financial year 2009/10 with the stimulus measures consistent with the European Recovery Plan while avoiding any further deterioration of public finances; (ii) strengthen the pace of budgetary consolidation from 2010/11 onwards to ensure a rapid correction of the excessive deficit; (iii) define a fiscal framework consistent with an improvement of the long-term sustainability of its public finances.

A Tanács véleményére irányuló országspecifikus bizottsági ajánlások az alábbi címen tekinthetők meg:

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/thematic_articles/article13960_en.htm

BULGARIA

Comparison of key macroeconomic and budgetary projections

		2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
Real GDP (% change)	CP Dec 2008	6.2	6.5	4.7	5.2	5.8
	COM Jan 2009	6.2	6.4	1.8	2.5	n.a.
	CP Dec 2007	6.4	6.4	6.8	6.9	n.a.
HICP inflation (%)	CP Dec 2008	7.6	12.4	6.7	4.7	4.0
	COM Jan 2009	7.6	12.0	5.4	4.8	n.a.
	CP Dec 2007	7.2	6.9	4.4	3.7	n.a.
Output gap¹ (% of potential GDP)	CP Dec 2008	1.5	1.1	-0.7	-1.8	-1.4
	COM Jan 2009²	2.7	3.0	-0.3	-2.3	n.a.
	CP Dec 2007	0.7	-0.1	-0.6	n.a.	n.a.
Net lending/borrowing vis-à-vis the rest of the world (% of GDP)	CP Dec 2008³	-20.6	-22.9	-20.7	-18.4	-16.6
	COM Jan 2009	-21.3	-23.3	-19.1	-17.6	n.a.
	CP Dec 2007	-19.9	-20.7	-19.5	-18.6	n.a.
General government revenue (% of GDP)	CP Dec 2008	41.6	41.3	43.4	43.4	43.7
	COM Jan 2009	41.6	41.4	40.8	40.9	n.a.
	CP Dec 2007	42.2	43.7	43.9	43.9	n.a.
General government expenditure (% of GDP)	CP Dec 2008	41.5	38.3	40.4	40.4	40.7
	COM Jan 2009	41.5	38.2	38.8	38.9	n.a.
	CP Dec 2007	39.1	40.7	40.9	41.0	n.a.
General government balance (% of GDP)	CP Dec 2008	0.1	3.0	3.0	3.0	3.0
	COM Jan 2009	0.1	3.2	2.0	2.0	n.a.
	CP Dec 2007	3.1	3.0	3.0	3.0	n.a.
Primary balance (% of GDP)	CP Dec 2008	1.1	3.9	3.9	3.9	3.9
	COM Jan 2009	1.1	4.1	2.8	2.7	n.a.
	CP Dec 2007	4.3	4.0	4.0	4.0	n.a.
Cyclically-adjusted balance¹ (% of GDP)	CP Dec 2008	-0.4	2.6	3.2	3.6	3.5
	COM Jan 2009	-0.8	2.2	2.1	2.8	n.a.
	CP Dec 2007	2.8	3.1	3.3	n.a.	n.a.
Structural balance⁴(% of GDP)	CP Dec 2008	2.9	2.6	3.2	3.6	3.5
	COM Jan 2009	2.5	2.2	2.1	2.8	n.a.
	CP Dec 2007	2.9	3.1	3.3	n.a.	n.a.
Government gross debt (% of GDP)⁵	CP Dec 2008	18.2	15.4	15.4	15.3	15.2
	COM Jan 2009	18.2	13.8	12.2	10.7	n.a.
	CP Dec 2007	19.8	18.3	17.4	16.9	n.a.
Notes:
¹Output gaps and cyclically-adjusted balances according to the programmes as recalculated by Commission services on the basis of the information in the programmes.
²Based on estimated potential growth of 5.0%, 6.3%, 6.0% and 6.0% respectively in the period 2007-2010.
³The different net borrowing position in 2007 in the current update of the programme and the Commission services' January 2009 interim forecast reflects a discrepancy in the balance on goods and services component.
⁴Cyclically-adjusted balance excluding one-off and other temporary measures. Cyclically-adjusted balances according to the programmes as recalculated by the Commission services on the basis of the information in the programmes. The most recent programme provides no information on one-off and other temporary measures; according to the Commission services' January 2009 interim forecast, they are 3.3% of GDP(expenditure side) in 2007.
⁵The differing projections about the debt-to-GDP ratio in the programme compared to the Commission services' January 2009 interim forecast are due almost entirely to the higher projected accumulation of financial assets, which is not considered by the Commission services under a no-policy-change scenario.
Source:
Convergence programme (CP); Commission services' January 2009 interim forecasts (COM); Commission services' calculations

CZECH REPUBLIC

Comparison of key macroeconomic and budgetary projections

		2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
Real GDP (% change)	CP Nov 2008	6.6	4.4	3.7	4.4	5.2
	COM Jan 2009	6.0	4.2	1.7	2.3	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	5.9	5.0	5.1	5.3	n.a.
HICP inflation (%)	CP Nov 2008	3.0	6.4	2.9	3.0	2.5
	COM Jan 2009	3.0	6.3	2.6	2.3	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	2.4	3.9	2.3	2.1	n.a.
Output gap¹ (% of potential GDP)	CP Nov 2008	2.7	1.9	0.4	-0.4	-0.2
	COM Jan 2009²	3.7	3.4	0.7	-1.1	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	1.8	1.4	0.7	0.5	n.a.
Net lending/borrowing vis-à-vis the rest of the world (% of GDP)	CP Nov 2008	-0.8	-1.0	-0.5	0.4	1.2
	COM Jan 2009	-0.8	-0.3	-0.8	-1.1	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	-2.4	-1.6	-0.4	1.5	n.a.
General government revenue (% of GDP)	CP Nov 2008	41.7	41.0	40.6	39.6	39.0
	COM Jan 2009	41.6	40.7	40.7	41.1	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	39.8	39.5	38.1	37.1	n.a.
General government expenditure (% of GDP)	CP Nov 2008	42.6	42.2	42.2	41.1	40.2
	COM Jan 2009	42.6	42.0	43.2	43.4	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	43.3	42.4	40.7	39.4	n.a.
General government balance (% of GDP)	CP Nov 2008	-1.0	-1.2	-1.6	-1.5	-1.2
	COM Jan 2009	-1.0	-1.2	-2.5	-2.3	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	-3.4	-2.9	-2.6	-2.3	n.a.
Primary balance (% of GDP)	CP Nov 2008	0.2	0.0	-0.3	-0.4	-0.1
	COM Jan 2009	0.2	0.0	-1.3	-1.1	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	-2.3	-1.7	-1.3	-1.1	n.a.
Cyclically-adjusted balance¹ (% of GDP)	CP Nov 2008	-2.0	-2.0	-1.7	-1.4	-1.1
	COM Jan 2009	-2.3	-2.4	-2.8	-1.9	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	-4.1	-3.4	-2.8	-2.5	n.a.
Structural balance³(% of GDP)	CP Nov 2008	-1.7	-1.9	-1.7	-1.3	-1.1
	COM Jan 2009	-2.1	-2.4	-2.8	-1.9	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	-4.1	-3.4	-2.8	-2.5	n.a.
Government gross debt (% of GDP)	CP Nov 2008	28.9	28.8	27.9	26.8	25.5
	COM Jan 2009	28.9	27.9	29.4	30.6	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	30.4	30.3	30.2	30.0	n.a.
Notes:
¹Output gaps and cyclically-adjusted balances according to the programmes as recalculated by Commission services on the basis of the information in the programmes.
²Based on estimated potential growth of 4.5%, 4.5%, 4.4% and 4.2% respectively in the period 2007-2010.
³Cyclically-adjusted balance excluding one-off and other temporary measures. One-off and other temporary measures are 0.1% of GDP in 2008 according to the most recent programme, which but it was allocated to the normal spending categories on the basis that the components are recurring elements of government expenditure and of a small scale in the Commission services' January interim forecast.
Source:
Convergence programme (CP); Commission services' January 2009 interim forecasts (COM); Commission services' calculations

DENMARK

Comparison of key macroeconomic and budgetary projections

		2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2015
Real GDP (% change)	CP Dec 2008	1.6	0.2	-0.2	0.7	1.9	1.7	1.6
	COM Jan 2009	1.6	-0.6	-1.0	0.6	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
	CP Dec 2007	2.0	1.3	1.1	0.5	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
HICP inflation (%)	CP Dec 2008	1.7	3.6	1.3	2.1	1.4	1.8	1.8
	COM Jan 2009	1.7	3.6	1.6	1.9	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
	CP Dec 2007	1.7	2.4	1.6	1.9	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Output gap¹ (% of potential GDP)	CP Dec 2008	1.4	0.0	-1.4	-1.8	-1.2	-0.8	-0.5
	COM Jan 2009²	1.8	-0.1	-2.1	-2.4	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
	CP Dec 2007	1.0	0.3	-0.4	-1.5	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Net lending/borrowing vis-à-vis the rest of the world (% of GDP)	CP Dec 2008	0.7	1.7	1.8	2.3	2.6	2.6	1.8
	COM Jan 2009	0.7	1.7	1.5	1.5	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
	CP Dec 2007	1.7	1.3	1.9	2.2	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
General government revenue^{4, 6} (% of GDP)	CP Dec 2008	54.5	53.2	51.2	51.5	52.1	51.8	51.5
	COM Jan 2009	55.4	54.8	52.8	53.4	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
	CP Dec 2007	53.4	52.9	52.0	51.7	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
General government expenditure^{4, 6} (% of GDP)	CP Dec 2008	49.9	50.2	51.2	52.8	51.8	51.7	51.6
	COM Jan 2009	50.9	51.6	53.1	54.9	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
	CP Dec 2007	49.6	49.8	50.0	50.5	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
General government balance⁶ (% of GDP)	CP Dec 2008	4.5	3.0	0.0	-1.2	0.3	0.1	-0.1
	COM Jan 2009	4.5	3.1	-0.3	-1.5	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
	CP Dec 2007	3.8	3.0	2.0	1.2	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Primary balance (% of GDP)	CP Dec 2008	6.1	4.2	1.5	0.2	1.6	1.3	0.7
	COM Jan 2009	6.1	4.5	1.2	0.0	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
	CP Dec 2007	5.2	4.2	3.0	2.1	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Cyclically-adjusted balance¹ (% of GDP)	CP Dec 2008	3.6	3.0	0.9	0.0	1.1	0.6	0.2
	COM Jan 2009	3.3	3.2	1.0	0.1	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
	CP Dec 2007	3.1	2.8	2.3	2.2	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Structural balance^{3, 5}(% of GDP)	CP Dec 2008	3.7	4.0	2.6	1.7	1.3	0.6	0.2
	COM Jan 2009	3.3	3.8	1.1	0.9	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
	CP Dec 2007	3.5	3.4	2.5	2.5	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Government gross debt (% of GDP)	CP Dec 2008	26.3	30.3	27.9	26.3	25.4	24.6	22.6
	COM Jan 2009	26.3	30.3	28.4	27.0	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
	CP Dec 2007	25.6	21.6	19.2	18.6	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Notes:
¹Output gaps and cyclically-adjusted balances from the programmes as recalculated by Commission services on the basis of the information in the programmes.
²Based on estimated potential growth of 1.8%, 1.4%, 1.0% and 0.9% respectively in the period 2007-2010.
³Cyclically-adjusted balance excluding one-off and other temporary measures. One-off and other temporary measures are -1.0% of GDP in 2008, -1.7% in 2009 and 2010, and -0.2% in 2011, all deficit-reducing/surplus-increasing, according to the most recent programme, and -0.5% of GDP in 2008, -0.2% in 2009 and -0.8% in 2010, all deficit-reducing/surplus-increasing, according to the Commission services' January 2009 Interim economic forecast.
⁴The programme data for revenue and expenditure differ from the data reported to Eurostat, following the harmonised approach (cf. Commission Regulation No. 1500/2000), on which the Commission services' forecast is based. The difference relates primarily to the treatment of public sales of goods and services and of the consumption of fixed capital. The balance is, however, unaffected.
⁵Using the recalculated cyclically-adjusted balance, based on the information in the programme, and the definition of one-offs and other temporary measures applied by the Commission services, the structural balance would be 3.6% of GDP in 2008 and 1.1 in 2009, and 0.9 in 2010.
⁶For 2007, the figures differ from those reported to Eurostat in the October 2008 EDP notification. The figures used reflect more recent, revised data published by Statistics Denmark, which has not yet been validated by Eurostat.
Source:
Convergence programme (CP); Commission services' January 2009 interim forecasts (COM); Commission services' calculations

GERMANY

Comparison of key macroeconomic and budgetary projections

		2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
Real GDP (% change)	SP Dec 2008	2.5	1.3	-2¼	1¼	1¼	1¼
	COM Jan 2009	2.5	1.3	-2.3	0.7	n.a.	n.a.
	SP Nov 2007	2.4	2.0	1½	1½	1½	n.a.
HICP inflation (%)	SP Dec 2008	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
	COM Jan 2009	2.3	2.8	0.8	1.4	n.a.	n.a.
	SP Nov 2007	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Output gap¹ (% of potential GDP)	SP Dec 2008	2.0	2.2	-0.9	-0.7	-0.7	-1.0
	COM Jan 2009²	2.2	2.3	-1.0	-1.2	n.a.	n.a.
	SP Nov 2007	0.7	1.1	0.8	0.5	-0.1	n.a.
Net lending/borrowing vis-à-vis the rest of the world (% of GDP)	SP Dec 2008	7.6	7.1	7.0	7	7	7
	COM Jan 2009	7.6	7.1	5.2	5.4	n.a.	n.a.
	SP Nov 2007	6.1	6.1	6.3	6.3	6.3	n.a.
General government revenue (% of GDP)	SP Dec 2008	44.0	44	43½	42½	42½	43
	COM Jan 2009	43.9	43.7	43.5	42.3	n.a.	n.a.
	SP Nov 2007	44	43	43	42½	42	n.a.
General government expenditure (% of GDP)	SP Dec 2008	44.2	44	46½	46½	45½	45½
	COM Jan 2009	44.1	43.8	46.4	46.4	n.a.	n.a.
	SP Nov 2007	44	43½	43	42	41½	n.a.
General government balance (% of GDP)	SP Dec 2008	-0.2	-0	-3	-4	-3	-2½
	COM Jan 2009	-0.2	-0.1	-2.9	-4.2	n.a.	n.a.
	SP Nov 2007	0	-½	0	½	½	n.a.
Primary balance (% of GDP)	SP Dec 2008	2.6	2½	0	-1	0	½
	COM Jan 2009	2.6	2.6	-0.1	-1.3	n.a.	n.a.
	SP Nov 2007	3	2½	2½	3	3½	n.a.
Cyclically-adjusted balance¹ (% of GDP)	SP Dec 2008	-1.2	-1.2	-2.4	-3.5	-2.4	-2.1
	COM Jan 2009	-1.3	-1.3	-2.4	-3.6	n.a.	n.a.
	SP Nov 2007	-0.3	-0.8	-0.4	0.0	0.7	n.a.
Structural balance³(% of GDP)	SP Dec 2008	-0.9	-0.8	-2.5	-3.4	-2.4	-2.1
	COM Jan 2009	-1.0	-0.9	-2.4	-3.4	n.a.	n.a.
	SP Nov 2007	-0.3	-0.7	-0.3	0	0.7	n.a.
Government gross debt (% of GDP)	SP Dec 2008	65.1	65½	68½	70½	71½	72½
	COM Jan 2009	65.1	65.6	69.6	72.3	n.a.	n.a.
	SP Nov 2007	65	63	-61½	-59½	-57½	n.a.
Notes:
¹Output gaps and cyclically-adjusted balances from the programmes as recalculated by Commission services on the basis of the information in the programmes.
²Based on estimated potential growth of 1.1%, 1.2%, 0.9% and 1.0% respectively in the period 2007-2010.
³Cyclically-adjusted balance excluding one-off and other temporary measures. One-off and other temporary measures are 0.3% of GDP in 2007 and 1/2% of GDP in 2008 all deficit-increasing according to the most recent programme and 0.3% of GDP in 2007, 0.3% of GDP in 2008 and 0.1% of GDP in 2010 all deficit-increasing in the Commission services' January interim forecast.

Source:
Stability programme (SP); Commission services' January 2009 interim forecasts (COM); Commission services' calculations

ESTONIA

Comparison of key macro economic and budgetary projections

		2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
Real GDP (% change)	CP Nov 2008	6.3	-2.2	-3.5	2.6	4.8	5.0
	COM Jan 2009	6.3	-2.4	-4.7	1.2	n.a.	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	7.4	5.2	6.1	6.7	7.0	n.a.
HICP inflation (%)	CP Nov 2008	6.7	10.6	4.2	2.8	3.0	3.2
	COM Jan 2009	6.7	10.6	3.2	2.7	n.a.	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	6.6	8.6	5.6	3.6	3.5	n.a.
Output gap¹ (% of potential GDP)	CP Nov 2008	8.0	0.9	-5.7	-5.9	-3.9	-1.7
	COM Jan 2009²	9.0	2.1	-5.4	-6.4	n.a.	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	2.7	0.1	-1.2	-1.5	-1.3	n.a.
Net lending/borrowing vis-à-vis the rest of the world (% of GDP)	CP Nov 2008	-16.9	-10.5	-5.1	-5.0	-4.7	-4.7
	COM Jan 2009	-17.1	-8.8	-4.2	-2.6	n.a.	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	-14.0	-9.9	-8.2	-7.8	-7.4	n.a.
General government revenue (% of GDP)	CP Nov 2008	38.2	36.2	38.9	37.8	36.5	35.2
	COM Jan 2009	38.2	36.5	38.2	38.4	n.a.	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	37.2	38.2	38.2	37.4	36.3	n.a.
General government expenditure (% of GDP)	CP Nov 2008	35.5	38.2	40.6	38.8	36.4	35.0
	COM Jan 2009	35.5	38.5	41.4	41.6	n.a.	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	34.6	36.9	37.2	36.5	35.5	n.a.
General government balance (% of GDP)	CP Nov 2008	2.7	-1.9	-1.7	-1.0	0.1	0.2
	COM Jan 2009	2.7	-2.0	-3.2	-3.2	n.a.	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	2.6	1.3	1.0	0.9	0.8	n.a.
Primary balance (% of GDP)	CP Nov 2008	2.9	-1.8	-1.5	-0.8	0.3	0.4
	COM Jan 2009	2.9	-1.8	-3.0	-2.9	n.a.	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	2.7	1.4	1.1	1.0	0.8	n.a.
Cyclically-adjusted balance¹ (% of GDP)	CP Nov 2008	0.3	-2.2	0.0	0.8	1.3	0.7
	COM Jan 2009	-0.1	-2.6	-1.6	-1.3	n.a.	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	1.8	1.3	1.4	1.3	1.2	n.a.
Structural balance³(% of GDP)	CP Nov 2008	-0.1	-2.4	-0.1	0.4	1.2	0.7
	COM Jan 2009	-0.4	-2.8	-1.6	-1.3	n.a.	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	1.2	0.8	1.4	1.3	1.2	n.a.
Government gross debt (% of GDP)	CP Nov 2008	3.5	3.7	3.7	3.5	3.0	2.8
	COM Jan 2009	3.5	4.3	6.1	7.6	n.a.	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	2.7	2.3	2.0	1.8	1.6	n.a.
Notes:
¹Output gaps and cyclically-adjusted balances from the programmes as recalculated by Commission services on the basis of the information in the programmes.
²Based on estimated potential growth of 4.6%, 4.1%, 3.7% and 3.5% respectively in the period 2007-2010.
³Cyclically-adjusted balance excluding one-offs and other temporary measures. One-offs and other temporary measures are 0.4% of GDP in 2007, 0.2% in 2008, 0.1% in 2009, 0.4% in 2010 and 0.1% in 2011; all deficit-reducing according to the most recent programme. One-offs for the period 2009-2011 are not considered to be of a one-off nature according to the Commission services' January interim forecast.
Source: Convergence programme (CP); Commission services' January 2009 interim forecasts (COM); Commission services' calculations.

HUNGARY

Comparison of key macroeconomic and budgetary projections

		2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
Real GDP (% change)	CP Dec 2008	1.1	1.3	-0.9	1.6	2.5
	COM Jan 2009	1.1	0.9	-1.6	1.0	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	1.7	2.8	4.0	4.1	4.2
HICP inflation (%)	CP Dec 2008	7.9	6.2	4.5	3.2	3.0
	COM Jan 2009	7.9	6.1	2.8	2.2	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	7.9	4.8	3.0	2.9	2.8
Output gap¹ (% of potential GDP)	CP Dec 2008	1.9	1.1	-1.7	-1.9	-1.1
	COM Jan 2009²	2.7	2.3	-0.1	0.4	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	-0.9	-1.8	-1.5	-0.9	-0.5
Net lending/borrowing vis-à-vis the rest of the world (% of GDP)	CP Dec 2008	-5.3	-5.1	-3.7	-2.5	-1.6
	COM Jan 2009	-5.3	-6.0	-4.0	-3.5	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	-4.1	-2.3	-1.7	-1.3	-0.8
General government revenue (% of GDP)	CP Dec 2008	44.9	45.2	45.8	46.0	45.8
	COM Jan 2009	44.9	45.5	46.1	46.4	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	44.1	44.2	43.3	42.4	42.0
General government expenditure (% of GDP)	CP Dec 2008	49.8	48.6	48.4	48.5	48.0
	COM Jan 2009	49.8	48.8	48.9	49.5	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	50.3	48.2	46.5	45.1	44.2
General government balance (% of GDP)	CP Dec 2008	-5.0	-3.4	-2.6	-2.5	-2.2
	COM Jan 2009	-5.0	-3.3	-2.8	-3.0	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	-6.2	-4.0	-3.2	-2.7	-2.2
Primary balance (% of GDP)	CP Dec 2008	-0.9	0.6	1.9	2.0	2.2
	COM Jan 2009	-0.9	0.8	1.6	1.5	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	-2.2	0.1	0.6	0.8	1.1
Cyclically-adjusted balance¹ (% of GDP)	CP Dec 2008	-5.8	-3.9	-1.8	-1.6	-1.7
	COM Jan 2009	-6.2	-4.3	-2.8	-3.2	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	-6.0	-3.5	-2.8	-2.5	-2.1
Structural balance³(% of GDP)	CP Dec 2008	-4.9	-3.5	-1.8	-1.6	-1.7
	COM Jan 2009	-5.3	-4.0	-2.8	-3.2	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	-4.9	-3.7	-2.9	-2.5	-2.1
Government gross debt (% of GDP)	CP Dec 2008	65.8	71.1	72.5	72.2	69.0
	COM Jan 2009	65.8	71.9	73.8	74.0	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	65.4	65.8	64.4	63.3	61.8
Notes:
¹Output gaps and cyclically-adjusted balances according to the programmes as recalculated by Commission services on the basis of the information in the programmes.
²Based on estimated potential growth of 1.7%, 1.3%, 0.9% and 0.5% respectively in the period 2007-2010.
³Cyclically-adjusted balance excluding one-off and other temporary measures. Cyclically-adjusted balances according to the programmes as recalculated by the Commission services on the basis of the information in the programmes. One-off and other temporary measures are 0.9% of GDP in 2007 and 0.4% in 2008; all deficit-increasing, according to the most recent programme and 0.9% of GDP in 2007 and 0.3% of GDP in 2008; all deficit-increasing, according to the Commission services' January 2009 interim forecast.
Source:
Convergence programme (CP); Commission services' January 2009 interim forecasts (COM); Commission services' calculations

THE NETHERLANDS

Comparison of key macroeconomic and budgetary projections1

		2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
Real GDP (% change)	SP Dec 2008	3.5	2¼	1¼	2	2
	COM Jan 2009	3.5	1.9	-2.0	0.2	n.a.
	SP Nov 2007	2¾	2½	1¾	1¾	n.a.
HICP inflation (%)	SP Dec 2008	1.6	2½	3¼	2	2
	COM Jan 2009	1.6	2.2	1.9	1.8	n.a.
	SP Nov 2007	1½	2¼	2	2	n.a.
Output gap¹ (% of potential GDP)	SP Dec 2008	0.9	0.7	-0.1	-0.5	-0.6
	COM Jan 2009²	2.1	2.1	-1.2	-2.2	n.a.
	SP Nov 2007	1.6	2.3	2.7	n.a.	n.a.
Net lending/borrowing vis-à-vis the rest of the world (% of GDP)	SP Dec 2008	9.5	8.5	9.5	7.5	8.0
	COM Jan 2009	9.4	7.7	5.9	5.4	n.a.
	SP Nov 2007	6.6	6.5	7.2	7.5	n.a.
General government revenue (% of GDP)	SP Dec 2008	45.6	46.6	46.3	46.1	46.3
	COM Jan 2009	45.6	46.8	46.1	45.6	n.a.
	SP Nov 2007	45.9	46.9	46.9	47.2	n.a.
General government expenditure (% of GDP)	SP Dec 2008	45.3	45.4	45.1	45.3	45.2
	COM Jan 2009	45.3	45.7	47.4	48.3	n.a.
	SP Nov 2007	46.3	46.4	46.3	46.5	n.a.
General government balance (% of GDP)	SP Dec 2008	0.3	1.2	1.2	0.8	1.1
	COM Jan 2009	0.3	1.1	-1.4	-2.7	n.a.
	SP Nov 2007	-0.4	0.5	0.6	0.7	n.a.
Primary balance (% of GDP)	SP Dec 2008	2.6	3.4	3.30	2.9	3.1
	COM Jan 2009	2.6	3.5	1.2	-0.2	n.a.
	SP Nov 2007	1.8	2.7	2.7	2.7	n.a.
Cyclically-adjusted balance¹ (% of GDP)	SP Dec 2008	-0.1	0.8	1.3	1.1	1.5
	COM Jan 2009	-0.8	0.0	-0.7	-1.5	n.a.
	SP Nov 2007	-0.2	0.5	1.1	n.a.	n.a.
Structural balance³(% of GDP)	SP Dec 2008	-0.1	0.8	1.0	1.1	1.5
	COM Jan 2009	-0.8	0.0	-1.0	-1.5	n.a.
	SP Nov 2007	-0.2	0.5	0.7	n.a.	n.a.
Government gross debt (% of GDP)	SP Dec 2008	45.7	42.1	39.6	38.0	36.2
	COM Jan 2009	45.7	57.3	53.2	55.2	n.a.
	SP Nov 2007	46.8	45	43	41.2	n.a.
Notes:
¹The figures in this table reflect the baseline scenario as presented in the stability programme, they do not reflect the figures presented in the addendum to the stability programme. ²Output gaps and cyclically-adjusted balances according to the programmes as recalculated by Commission services on the basis of the information in the programmes. ³Based on estimated potential growth of 1.7%, 1.8%, 1.3% and 1.2% respectively in the period 2007-2010. ⁴Cyclically-adjusted balance excluding one-off and other temporary measures. One-off and other temporary measures are 0.3%of GDP in 2009; deficit-reducing, according to the most recent programme and in the Commission services' January interim forecast.
Source:
Stability programme (SP); Commission services' January 2009 interim forecasts (COM); Commission services' calculations

POLAND

Comparison of key macroeconomic and budgetary projections

		2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
Real GDP (% change)	CP Dec 2008	6.7	5.1	3.7	4.0	4.5
	COM Jan 2009	6.7	5.0	2.0	2.4	n.a.
	CP Mar 2008	6.5	5.3	5.0	5.0	n.a.
HICP inflation (%)	CP Dec 2008	2.6	4.2	2.9	2.5	2.5
	COM Jan 2009	2.6	4.2	2.9	2.5	n.a.
	CP Mar 2008	2.6	3.5	2.9	2.5	n.a.
Output gap¹ (% of potential GDP)	CP Dec 2008	1.3	1.0	-0.1	-0.6	-0.5
	COM Jan 2009²	2.2	2.2	0.1	-1.1	n.a.
	CP Mar 2008	1.1	0.7	-0.2	-0.9	n.a.
Net lending/borrowing vis-à-vis the rest of the world (% of GDP)	CP Dec 2008	-3.6	-4.0	-1.8	-1.3	1.5
	COM Jan 2009	-3.6	-4.1	-3.5	-2.9	n.a.
	CP Mar 2008	-2.6	-3.5	-4.2	-4.6	n.a.
General government revenue (% of GDP)	CP Dec 2008	40.0	39.8	40.7	40.0	39.7
	COM Jan 2009	40.0	39.6	40.2	40.3	n.a.
	CP Mar 2008	40.0	40.0	39.2	38.7	n.a.
General government expenditure (% of GDP)	CP Dec 2008	42.0	42.6	43.2	42.4	41.7
	COM Jan 2009	42.0	42.1	43.8	43.7	n.a.
	CP Mar 2008	42.0	42.5	41.2	40.1	n.a.
General government balance (% of GDP)	CP Dec 2008	-2.0	-2.7	-2.5	-2.3	-1.9
	COM Jan 2009	-2.0	-2.5	-3.6	-3.5	n.a.
	CP Mar 2008	-2.0	-2.5	-2.0	-1.5	n.a.
Primary balance (% of GDP)	CP Dec 2008	0.5	-0.3	0.1	0.2	0.5
	COM Jan 2009	0.5	-0.2	-1.2	-1.3	n.a.
	CP Mar 2008	0.2	-0.2	0.3	0.8	n.a.
Cyclically-adjusted balance¹ (% of GDP)	CP Dec 2008	-2.5	-3.1	-2.5	-2.1	-1.7
	COM Jan 2009	-2.8	-3.4	-3.7	-3.0	n.a.
	CP Mar 2008	0.6	0.5	0.1	-0.1	n.a.
Structural balance³(% of GDP)	CP Dec 2008	-2.5	-3.1	-2.5	-2.3	-1.7
	COM Jan 2009	-2.8	-3.4	-3.7	-2.9	n.a.
	CP Mar 2008	-2.2	-2.7	-2.1	-1.4	n.a.
Government gross debt (% of GDP)	CP Dec 2008	44.9	45.9	45.8	45.5	44.8
	COM Jan 2009	44.9	45.5	47.7	49.7	n.a.
	CP Mar 2008	44.9	44.2	43.3	42.3	n.a.
Notes:
¹Output gaps and cyclically-adjusted balances according to the programmes as recalculated by Commission services on the basis of the information in the programmes.
²Based on estimated potential growth of 5.2%, 4.9%, 4.2% and 3.7% respectively in the period 2007-2010.
³Cyclically-adjusted balance excluding one-off and other temporary measures. One-off and other temporary measures are 0.2% in 2010, deficit-increasing, and zero for other years according to the most recent programme and the Commission services' January 2009 interim forecast.

Source:
Convergence programme (CP); Commission services' January 2009 interim forecasts (COM); Commission services' calculations.

SWEDEN

Comparison of key macro economic and budgetary projections

		2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
Real GDP (% change)	CP Dec 2008	2.7	1.5	1.3	3.1	3.5
	COM Jan 2009	2.5	0.5	-1.4	1.2	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	3.2	3.2	2.5	2.2	n.a.
HICP inflation (%)	CP Dec 2008	2.5	3.6	1.5	n.a.	n.a.
	COM Jan 2009	1.7	3.3	0.7	1.0	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	1.7	2.7	2.5	2.1	n.a.
Output gap¹ (% of potential GDP)	CP Dec 2008	1.0	-0.5	-1.6	-1.0	-0.2
	COM Jan 2009²	2.5	0.7	-1.9	-2.0	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	0.6	0.9	0.6	0.0	n.a.
Net lending/borrowing vis-à-vis the rest of the world (% of GDP)	CP Dec 2008	8.4	8.2	8.2	8.3	8.1
	COM Jan 2009	8.3	6.1	6.5	6.6	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	7.1	7.2	7.4	7.7	n.a.
General government revenue (% of GDP)	CP Dec 2008	56.2	55.4	54.1	53.8	53.3
	COM Jan 2009	56.4	55.1	53.0	52.7	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	56.300	55.5	54.9	54.6	n.a.
General government expenditure (% of GDP)	CP Dec 2008	52.6	52.5	53.1	52.2	50.8
	COM Jan 2009	52.8	52.8	54.3	54.1	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	53.3	52.6	51.8	51.1	n.a.
General government balance (% of GDP)	CP Dec 2008	3.6	2.8	1.1	1.6	2.5
	COM Jan 2009	3.6	2.3	-1.3	-1.4	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	3.0	2.8	3.1	3.6	n.a.
Primary balance (% of GDP)	CP Dec 2008	5.4	4.7	2.6	3.0	3.8
	COM Jan 2009	5.4	4.1	0.2	0.1	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	4.6	4.4	4.5	4.8	n.a.
Cyclically-adjusted balance¹ (% of GDP)	CP Dec 2008	3.0	3.1	2.0	2.2	2.6
	COM Jan 2009	2.1	1.9	-0.2	-0.2	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	2.7	2.3	2.8	3.6	n.a.
Structural balance³(% of GDP)	CP Dec 2008	2.2	2.8	1.9	2.1	2.5
	COM Jan 2009	2.1	1.6	-0.3	-0.2	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	2.3	2.0	2.8	3.6	n.a.
Government gross debt (% of GDP)	CP Dec 2008	40.6	35.5	32.2	28.3	23.8
	COM Jan 2009	40.6	34.8	36.2	36.0	n.a.
	CP Nov 2007	39.7	34.8	29.8	24.5	n.a.
Notes:
¹Output gaps and cyclically-adjusted balances according to the programmes as recalculated by Commission services on the basis of the information in the programmes.
²Based on estimated potential growth of 2.6%, 2.3%, 1.3% and 1.2% respectively in the period 2007-2010.
³Cyclically-adjusted balance excluding one-off and other temporary measures. One-off and other temporary measures are 0.3% of GDP in 2008 and 0.1% in 2009-11 all deficit-reducing according to the most recent programme and 0.3 % of GDP in 2008 and 0.1% in 2009; all deficit-reducing in the Commission services' January interim forecast.

Source:
Convergence programme (CP); Commission services' January 2009 interim forecasts (COM); Commission services' calculations

FINLAND

Comparison of key macro economic and budgetary projections

		2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
Real GDP (% change)	SP Jan 2009	4.5	2.6	0.6	1.8	2.4	2.2
	COM Jan 2009	4.5	1.5	-1.2	1.2	n.a.	n.a.
	SP Nov 2007	4.4	3.3	3.0	2.5	2.1	n.a.
HICP inflation (%)	SP Jan 2009	1.6	4.0	2.3	1.9	2.0	2.0
	COM Jan 2009	1.6	3.9	1.8	1.8	n.a.	n.a.
	SP Nov 2007	2.4	2.4	2.2	2.0	2	n.a.
Output gap¹ (% of potential GDP)	SP Jan 2009	1.7	1.3	-0.6	-1.0	-1.2	-1.3
	COM Jan 2009²	2.9	1.7	-1.4	-2.1	n.a.	n.a.
	SP Nov 2007	0.6	0.7	0.5	-0.1	-0.7	n.a.
Net lending/borrowing vis-à-vis the rest of the world (% of GDP)	SP Jan 2009	5.4	4.0	3.6	3.7	3.9	3.9
	COM Jan 2009	6.4	5.2	3.7	3.3	n.a.	n.a.
	SP Nov 2007	4.9	4.6	5.0	5.0	4.8	n.a.
General government revenue (% of GDP)	SP Jan 2009	52.6	51.4	50.3	49.7	49.4	49.4
	COM Jan 2009	52.6	52.3	52.0	51.3	n.a.	n.a.
	SP Nov 2007	51.9	51.0	50.6	49.8	49.6	n.a.
General government expenditure (% of GDP)	SP Jan 2009	47.3	47.0	48.2	48.6	48.4	48.5
	COM Jan 2009	47.3	47.8	50.1	50.9	n.a.	n.a.
	SP Nov 2007	47.4	47.3	47.0	47.0	47.2	n.a.
General government balance (% of GDP)	SP Jan 2009	5.3	4.4	2.1	1.1	1.0	0.9
	COM Jan 2009	5.3	4.5	2.0	0.5	n.a.	n.a.
	SP Nov 2007	4.5	3.7	3.6	2.8	2.4	n.a.
Primary balance (% of GDP)	SP Jan 2009	6.8	5.8	3.4	2.4	2.2	2.3
	COM Jan 2009	6.8	6.0	3.3	1.8	n.a.	n.a.
	SP Nov 2007	6.0	5.2	5.0	4.1	3.6	n.a.
Cyclically-adjusted balance¹ (% of GDP)	SP Jan 2009	4.5	3.7	2.4	1.7	1.6	1.6
	COM Jan 2009	3.9	3.6	2.7	1.5	n.a.	n.a.
	SP Nov 2007	4.2	3.3	3.3	2.8	2.8	n.a.
Structural balance³(% of GDP)	SP Jan 2009	4.5	3.7	2.4	1.7	1.6	1.6
	COM Jan 2009	3.9	3.6	2.7	1.7	n.a.	n.a.
	SP Nov 2007	4.2	3.3	3.3	2.8	2.8	n.a.
Government gross debt (% of GDP)	SP Jan 2009	35.1	32.4	33.0	33.7	34.1	34.6
	COM Jan 2009	35.1	32.8	34.5	36.1	n.a.	n.a.
	SP Nov 2007	35.3	32.8	30.4	29.0	27.9	n.a.
Notes:
¹Output gaps and cyclically-adjusted balances from the programmes as recalculated by Commission services on the basis of the information in the programmes.
²Based on estimated potential growth of 2.8%, 2.6%, 2.0% and 1.9% respectively in the period 2007-2010.
³Cyclically-adjusted balance excluding one-off and other temporary measures. There are no one-off and other temporary measures in any year over the programme period according to the most recent programme. However, according to the Commission services' January interim forecast there is one deficit-increasing one-off measure of 0.2% of GDP in 2010, arising from a temporary loss of VAT revenue due to changes in the tax collection principles.

Source:
Stability programme (SP); Commission services' January 2009 interim forecasts (COM); Commission services' calculations.

UNITED KINGDOM

Comparison of key macro economic and budgetary projections

[1] A költségvetési egyenleg felügyeletének megerősítéséről és a gazdaságpolitikák felügyeletéről és összehangolásáról szóló, 1466/97/EK tanácsi rendeletnek megfelelően a tagállamoknak minden évben be kell nyújtaniuk aktualizált makrogazdasági és költségvetési előrejelzéseiket. Azon tagállamok esetében, amelyek már bevezették a közös valutát, ezeket stabilitási programnak, azon tagállamoknál pedig, amelyek még nem vezették be a közös valutát, konvergenciaprogramnak nevezik. Erre a rendeletre a Stabilitási és Növekedési Paktum prevenciós ágaként is hivatkoznak.