Jump to content

User:Danish Expert/sandbox: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Sancbox created for my proposed new "Convergence status" chapter for the Latvian euro coins article. Feel free to upload your changes if you have any, and/or to post your comment at the articles talkpage
Improved formulation for the 2nd+3rd+4th Introduction paragraphs ahead of the data table
Line 3: Line 3:




The chapter below is a direct copy of my previously uploaded "new version" (as of [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Latvian_euro_coins&oldid=544129476 16:19, 14 March 2013‎]) for the "Convergence Status" chapter in the [[Latvian euro coins]] article. The appropriateness of displaying monthly data has been questioned at the [[Talk:Latvian euro coins#Latvia and the Maastricht criteria|article's talkpage]]. This sandbox has been created in order to still have visible content for the purposes of keeping the content visible while debating, and getting the opportunity to adjust introduction lines ahead of the table so that it satisfy the minds of the engaged wikipedians in the debate. All editors in the debate are of course allowed to visit this sandbox and upload their own suggestion for how the chapter should be.
The chapter below is a direct copy of my previously uploaded "new version" (as of [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Latvian_euro_coins&oldid=544129476 16:19, 14 March 2013‎]) with a later reformulation of the 2nd+3rd+4th "introduction paragraph" into more neutral language on 16 March 2013. The idea is, that this material should either be copied into the [[Latvian euro coins]] article as a new "Convergence Status" chapter or into a subarticle (i.e. entitled [[Latvia and the euro]]). The appropriateness of displaying monthly data has been questioned at the [[Talk:Latvian euro coins#Latvia and the Maastricht criteria|article's talkpage]]. This sandbox has been created in order to still have visible content for the purposes of keeping the content visible while debating, and getting the opportunity to adjust the introduction lines ahead of the table, so that it satisfy the minds of the engaged wikipedians in the debate. All editors in the debate are of course allowed to visit this sandbox and upload their own suggestion for how the chapter should be.


== Convergence Status ==
== Convergence Status ==
The [[Maastricht Treaty]] originally required that all members of the [[European Union]] join the euro once certain [[Convergence criteria|economic criteria]] are met. In April 2012, when Latvia last time was officially evaluated by ECB, it met 3 out of the 5 criteria. Latvia has announced that they will request that another evaluation be conducted in March 2013.<ref name="LATPLAN">{{citeweb|url=http://www.euractiv.com/euro-finance/latvian-parliament-paves-way-eur-news-517513|title=Latvian parliament paves way to euro switch|date=2013-02-01|accessdate=2013-02-03|publisher=EurActiv}}</ref> [[Prime Minister of Latvia|Latvian Prime Minister]] [[Valdis Dombrovskis]] stated in January 2013 that Latvia "are currently fulfilling the Maastricht [euro adoption] criteria with a considerable reserve, therefore I don't see any basis on which this convergence report would be negative."<ref name="LATPLAN"/>
The [[Maastricht Treaty]] originally required that all members of the [[European Union]] join the euro once certain [[Convergence criteria|economic criteria]] are met. In April 2012, when Latvia last time was officially evaluated by ECB, it met 3 out of the 5 criteria. Latvia has announced that they will request that another evaluation be conducted in March 2013.<ref name="LATPLAN">{{citeweb|url=http://www.euractiv.com/euro-finance/latvian-parliament-paves-way-eur-news-517513|title=Latvian parliament paves way to euro switch|date=2013-02-01|accessdate=2013-02-03|publisher=EurActiv}}</ref> [[Prime Minister of Latvia|Latvian Prime Minister]] [[Valdis Dombrovskis]] stated in January 2013 that Latvia "are currently fulfilling the Maastricht [euro adoption] criteria with a considerable reserve, therefore I don't see any basis on which this convergence report would be negative."<ref name="LATPLAN"/>


The table below display Latvia's convergence status throughout the past year, based on ECB's official assesment method, with Greece and Ireland treated as an interest rate outlier during the assesment months in June 2012 - January 2013 <small>(being excluded for the calculation of the interest rate reference value limit, meaning it throughout this period was only based on Swedish data)</small>. According to the data table, where calculation of the reference values for HICP inflation and interest rates all have been verified by the Polish Ministry of Finance, the first assesment month where Latvia managed to indicate compliance with all criteria was February 2013. This finding was however recently contradicted by an inaccurate statement made by the [[National Bank of Latvia|Latvian Central Bank]] in a recently published investor presentation, where they incorrectly claimed Latvia to have fully complied with all criteria since September 2012 (equal to the assement month in October 2012), based on their view that Ireland from that point of time no longer should be classified as an "interest rate outlier" and that their forecast fiscal figures for 2012 showed compliance with the fiscal criteria.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.kase.gov.lv/uploaded_files/Banneri/Latvia_Investor-_resentation_FINAL_Dec_2012.pdf|title=Republic of Latvia Investor Presentation (December 2012)|format=PDF|publisher=National Bank of Latvia|date=December 2012|accessdate=12 March 2013}}</ref>
The table below display an indication for Latvia's convergence status throughout the past year, based on ECB's official assesment method, where calculation of the monthly reference values for HICP inflation and interest rates (since the first values published by the ECB report for April 2012), all have been verified by the Polish Ministry of Finance. According to the table, the first assesment month where Latvia managed to indicate a full compliance with all criteria values was March 2013. Back in December 2012, the [[National Bank of Latvia|Latvian Central Bank]] claimed the country had fully complied with all convergence criteria since September 2012 (equal to the assement month in October 2012).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.kase.gov.lv/uploaded_files/Banneri/Latvia_Investor-_resentation_FINAL_Dec_2012.pdf|title=Republic of Latvia Investor Presentation (December 2012)|format=PDF|publisher=National Bank of Latvia|date=December 2012|accessdate=12 March 2013}}</ref> As the claim by the Latvian Central Bank was based on a different data approach for the fiscal criteria, where they compared "forecasted deficit and debt for the ongoing year (2012)", instead of adopting the ECB methods data approach where fiscal compliance is only judged upon "final deficit and debt data published by Eurostat for the last full calendar year (meaning 2011)", the conclusion from the central bank should however only be considered as being a forecast for what to expect, rather than an indication of how the compliance situation was for the specific month in concern when evaluated strictly according to the data approach as outlined by the published official ECB method.


:'''Proof that the claim made by the Latvian Central Bank was incorrect:''' According to the official ECB method, it is however no matter the outcome of the uncertain "Irish situation", about wether or not they should have been involved in the calculation of the reference value limit for interest rates in September-December 2012 (or classified as an outlier being more than 2.0% above the eurozone average), without any doubt directly incorrect when the Latvian Central Bank claim full compliance with all Maastricht criteria during the assesment months in September-December 2012. Claiming a full Latvian compliance throughout the last months of 2012 strives against the ECB methods clear rule, that compliance towards the fiscal criteria shall always be measured according to whether or not an open ongoing EDP exists for the country (as defined by the EU treaty's [[Wikisource:Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union/Title VIII: Economic and Monetary Policy#Article 140|art.140 and 126(6)]] referral to the [[Wikisource:Consolidated protocols, annexes and declarations attached to the treaties of the European Union/Protocols#PROTOCOL (No 12) ON THE EXCESSIVE DEFICIT PROCEDURE|Protocol on the Excessive Deficit Procedure]]), meaning that a country need to comply with the fiscal criteria by its official fiscal data (published by the European Commission's statistical agency [[Eurostat]]) for the last full calendar year. As Latvia did not comply with the deficit criteria by its published 2011 fiscal data, their EDP was not abrogated throughout 2012,<ref name="Latvia's EDP status">{{cite web|title=Excessive deficit procedure for Latvia |url=http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/economic_governance/sgp/deficit/countries/latvia_en.htm |publisher=European Commission (Economic and Financial Affairs)| date=4 October 2011 |accessdate=12 March 2013}}</ref> and thus the country did not comply with the euro adoption deficit criteria throughout 2012. It shall be noted that the European Commission's latest economic forecast,<ref name="EC-winter-forecast 2013">{{cite web|title=European economic forecast - winter 2013 |url=http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/european_economy/2013/pdf/ee1_en.pdf |url=http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/eu/forecasts/2013_winter_forecast_en.htm |publisher=European Commission | date=22 February 2013 |accessdate=22 February 2013}}</ref> indicate that Latvia's EDP will be abrogated shortly after Eurostat publish the country's official deficit and debt data for fiscal year 2012, which according to the release calendar will happen on 22 April 2013.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/release_calendars/news_releases|title=Release Calendar for Euro Indicators|publisher=Eurostat|accessdate=18 December 2012}}</ref>
:'''Note:''' According to the official ECB method a compliance towards the fiscal criteria shall always be measured according to whether or not an open ongoing EDP exists for the country (as defined by the EU treaty's [[Wikisource:Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union/Title VIII: Economic and Monetary Policy#Article 140|art.140 and 126(6)]] referral to the [[Wikisource:Consolidated protocols, annexes and declarations attached to the treaties of the European Union/Protocols#PROTOCOL (No 12) ON THE EXCESSIVE DEFICIT PROCEDURE|Protocol on the Excessive Deficit Procedure]]), meaning that a country need to comply with the fiscal criteria by its official fiscal data (published by the European Commission's statistical agency [[Eurostat]]) for the last full calendar year. As Latvia did not comply with the deficit criteria by its published 2011 fiscal data, their EDP was not abrogated throughout 2012,<ref name="Latvia's EDP status">{{cite web|title=Excessive deficit procedure for Latvia |url=http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/economic_governance/sgp/deficit/countries/latvia_en.htm |publisher=European Commission (Economic and Financial Affairs)| date=4 October 2011 |accessdate=12 March 2013}}</ref> and thus the country did not comply with the euro adoption deficit criteria throughout 2012. It shall be noted that the European Commission's latest economic forecast,<ref name="EC-winter-forecast 2013">{{cite web|title=European economic forecast - winter 2013 |url=http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/european_economy/2013/pdf/ee1_en.pdf |url=http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/eu/forecasts/2013_winter_forecast_en.htm |publisher=European Commission | date=22 February 2013 |accessdate=22 February 2013}}</ref> indicate that Latvia's EDP will be abrogated shortly after Eurostat publish the country's official deficit and debt data for fiscal year 2012, which according to the release calendar will happen on 22 April 2013.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/release_calendars/news_releases|title=Release Calendar for Euro Indicators|publisher=Eurostat|accessdate=18 December 2012}}</ref>


According to the previously published "ECB method" being applied by the data table below (with the monthly reference values verified by the [[Ministry of Finance (Poland)|Polish Ministry of Finance]]), it is only correct to claim that Latvia has indicated a full compliance with all [[Euro convergence criteria|Maastricht criteria]] since the data month January 2013, understood as being since the "assessment month" February 2013. The official confirmation about Latvia's potential compliance with all five criteria, will however only be known when published by the ordered ECB convergence report, which currently await Eurostat's publication of Latvia's finally recorded 2012 fiscal data on 22 April 2013.
According to the previously published "ECB method" being applied by the data table below (with the monthly reference values verified by the [[Ministry of Finance (Poland)|Polish Ministry of Finance]]), Latvia has indicated a full compliance with all [[Euro convergence criteria|Maastricht criteria]] since the data month February 2013, understood as being since the "assessment month" March 2013. The official confirmation about Latvia's potential compliance with all five criteria, will however only be known when published by the ordered ECB convergence report, which currently await Eurostat's publication of Latvia's finally recorded 2012 fiscal data on 22 April 2013.


{{trim|{{Euro convergence criteria|TOP}}}}
{{trim|{{Euro convergence criteria|TOP}}}}

Revision as of 10:58, 16 March 2013


The chapter below is a direct copy of my previously uploaded "new version" (as of 16:19, 14 March 2013‎) with a later reformulation of the 2nd+3rd+4th "introduction paragraph" into more neutral language on 16 March 2013. The idea is, that this material should either be copied into the Latvian euro coins article as a new "Convergence Status" chapter or into a subarticle (i.e. entitled Latvia and the euro). The appropriateness of displaying monthly data has been questioned at the article's talkpage. This sandbox has been created in order to still have visible content for the purposes of keeping the content visible while debating, and getting the opportunity to adjust the introduction lines ahead of the table, so that it satisfy the minds of the engaged wikipedians in the debate. All editors in the debate are of course allowed to visit this sandbox and upload their own suggestion for how the chapter should be.

Convergence Status

The Maastricht Treaty originally required that all members of the European Union join the euro once certain economic criteria are met. In April 2012, when Latvia last time was officially evaluated by ECB, it met 3 out of the 5 criteria. Latvia has announced that they will request that another evaluation be conducted in March 2013.[1] Latvian Prime Minister Valdis Dombrovskis stated in January 2013 that Latvia "are currently fulfilling the Maastricht [euro adoption] criteria with a considerable reserve, therefore I don't see any basis on which this convergence report would be negative."[1]

The table below display an indication for Latvia's convergence status throughout the past year, based on ECB's official assesment method, where calculation of the monthly reference values for HICP inflation and interest rates (since the first values published by the ECB report for April 2012), all have been verified by the Polish Ministry of Finance. According to the table, the first assesment month where Latvia managed to indicate a full compliance with all criteria values was March 2013. Back in December 2012, the Latvian Central Bank claimed the country had fully complied with all convergence criteria since September 2012 (equal to the assement month in October 2012).[2] As the claim by the Latvian Central Bank was based on a different data approach for the fiscal criteria, where they compared "forecasted deficit and debt for the ongoing year (2012)", instead of adopting the ECB methods data approach where fiscal compliance is only judged upon "final deficit and debt data published by Eurostat for the last full calendar year (meaning 2011)", the conclusion from the central bank should however only be considered as being a forecast for what to expect, rather than an indication of how the compliance situation was for the specific month in concern when evaluated strictly according to the data approach as outlined by the published official ECB method.

Note: According to the official ECB method a compliance towards the fiscal criteria shall always be measured according to whether or not an open ongoing EDP exists for the country (as defined by the EU treaty's art.140 and 126(6) referral to the Protocol on the Excessive Deficit Procedure), meaning that a country need to comply with the fiscal criteria by its official fiscal data (published by the European Commission's statistical agency Eurostat) for the last full calendar year. As Latvia did not comply with the deficit criteria by its published 2011 fiscal data, their EDP was not abrogated throughout 2012,[3] and thus the country did not comply with the euro adoption deficit criteria throughout 2012. It shall be noted that the European Commission's latest economic forecast,[4] indicate that Latvia's EDP will be abrogated shortly after Eurostat publish the country's official deficit and debt data for fiscal year 2012, which according to the release calendar will happen on 22 April 2013.[5]

According to the previously published "ECB method" being applied by the data table below (with the monthly reference values verified by the Polish Ministry of Finance), Latvia has indicated a full compliance with all Maastricht criteria since the data month February 2013, understood as being since the "assessment month" March 2013. The official confirmation about Latvia's potential compliance with all five criteria, will however only be known when published by the ordered ECB convergence report, which currently await Eurostat's publication of Latvia's finally recorded 2012 fiscal data on 22 April 2013.


Convergence criteria
Assessment month Country HICP inflation rate[6][nb 1] Excessive deficit procedure[7] Exchange rate Long-term interest rate[8][nb 2] Compatibility of legislation
Budget deficit to GDP[9] Debt-to-GDP ratio[10] ERM II member[11] Change in rate[12][13][nb 3]
2012 ECB Report[nb 4] Reference values Max. 3.1%[nb 5]
(as of 31 Mar 2012) 		None open (as of 31 March 2012) Min. 2 years
(as of 31 Mar 2012) 		Max. ±15%[nb 6]
(for 2011) 		Max. 5.80%[nb 7]
(as of 31 Mar 2012) 		Yes[14][15]
(as of 31 Mar 2012)
Max. 3.0%
(Fiscal year 2011)[16] 		Max. 60%
(Fiscal year 2011)[16]
Latvia Latvia 4.1% Open 6 years, 11 months 0.3% 5.77% No
3.5% 42.6%
May 2012 Reference values max. 3.1%[17][nb 8][nb 9]
(as of 30 Apr 2012) 		max. 3.0%
(Fiscal year 2011)[nb 10] 		max. 60%, or declining
(Fiscal year 2011)[nb 10] 		min. 2 years
(as of 30 Apr 2012) 		max. 5.77%[17][nb 8][nb 11]
(as of 30 Apr 2012)
 Latvia 4.0% 3.5% 42.6% 2 May 2005 5.65%
June 2012 Reference values max. 3.1%[19][nb 12][nb 13]
(as of 31 May 2012) 		max. 3.0%
(Fiscal year 2011)[nb 10] 		max. 60%, or declining
(Fiscal year 2011)[nb 10] 		min. 2 years
(as of 31 May 2012) 		max. 3.98%[19][nb 12][nb 14]
(as of 31 May 2012)
 Latvia 3.7% 3.5% 42.6% 2 May 2005 5.55%
July 2012 Reference values max. 3.0%[20][nb 15][nb 16]
(as of 30 Jun 2012) 		max. 3.0%
(Fiscal year 2011)[nb 10] 		max. 60%, or declining
(Fiscal year 2011)[nb 10] 		min. 2 years
(as of 30 Jun 2012) 		max. 3.86%[20][nb 15][nb 17]
(as of 30 Jun 2012)
 Latvia 3.5% 3.5% 42.6% 2 May 2005 5.48%
August 2012 Reference values max. 3.0%[21][nb 18][nb 19]
(as of 31 Jul 2012) 		max. 3.0%
(Fiscal year 2011)[nb 10] 		max. 60%, or declining
(Fiscal year 2011)[nb 10] 		min. 2 years
(as of 31 Jul 2012) 		max. 3.74%[21][nb 18][nb 20]
(as of 31 Jul 2012)
 Latvia 3.3% 3.5% 42.6% 2 May 2005 5.40%
September 2012 Reference values max. 3.0%[22][nb 21][nb 22]
(as of 31 Aug 2012) 		max. 3.0%
(Fiscal year 2011)[nb 10] 		max. 60%, or declining
(Fiscal year 2011)[nb 10] 		min. 2 years
(as of 31 Aug 2012) 		max. 3.68%[22][nb 21][nb 23]
(as of 31 Aug 2012)
 Latvia 3.1% 3.5% 42.6% 2 May 2005 5.31%
October 2012 Reference values max. 3.0%[23][nb 24][nb 25]
(as of 30 Sep 2012) 		max. 3.0%
(Fiscal year 2011)[nb 10] 		max. 60%, or declining
(Fiscal year 2011)[nb 10] 		min. 2 years
(as of 30 Sep 2012) 		max. 3.66%[23][nb 24][nb 26]
(as of 30 Sep 2012)
 Latvia 2.9% 3.5% 42.6% 2 May 2005 5.17%
November 2012 Reference values max. 2.9%[24][nb 27][nb 28]
(as of 31 Oct 2012) 		max. 3.0%
(Fiscal year 2011)[nb 29] 		max. 60%, or declining
(Fiscal year 2011)[nb 29] 		min. 2 years
(as of 31 Oct 2012) 		max. 3.63%[24][nb 27][nb 30]
(as of 31 Oct 2012)
 Latvia 2.7% 3.4% 42.2% 2 May 2005 4.99%
December 2012 Reference values max. 2.8%[26][nb 31][nb 32]
(as of 30 Nov 2012) 		max. 3.0%
(Fiscal year 2011)[nb 29] 		max. 60%, or declining
(Fiscal year 2011)[nb 29] 		min. 2 years
(as of 30 Nov 2012) 		max. 3.61%[26][nb 31][nb 33]
(as of 30 Nov 2012)
 Latvia 2.5% 3.4% 42.2% 2 May 2005 4.79%
January 2013 Reference values max. 2.8%[27][nb 34][nb 35]
(as of 31 Dec 2012) 		max. 3.0%
(Forecast of fiscal year 2012)[nb 36] 		max. 60%, or declining
(Forecast of fiscal year 2012)[nb 36] 		min. 2 years
(as of 31 Dec 2012) 		max. 3.59%[27][nb 34][nb 37]
(as of 31 Dec 2012)
 Latvia 2.3% 1.7% 41.9% 2 May 2005 4.57%
2024 ECB Report[nb 38] Reference values Max. 3.3%[nb 39]
(as of May 2024) 		None open (as of 19 June 2024) Min. 2 years
(as of 19 June 2024) 		Max. ±15%[nb 6]
(for 2023) 		Max. 4.8%[nb 39]
(as of May 2024) 		Yes[28][29]
(as of 27 March 2024)
Max. 3.0%
(Fiscal year 2023)[28] 		Max. 60%
(Fiscal year 2023)[28]
  Criterion fulfilled
  Criterion potentially fulfilled: If the budget deficit exceeds the 3% limit, but is "close" to this value (the European Commission has deemed 3.5% to be close by in the past),[30] then the criteria can still potentially be fulfilled if either the deficits in the previous two years are significantly declining towards the 3% limit, or if the excessive deficit is the result of exceptional circumstances which are temporary in nature (i.e. one-off expenditures triggered by a significant economic downturn, or by the implementation of economic reforms that are expected to deliver a significant positive impact on the government's future fiscal budgets). However, even if such "special circumstances" are found to exist, additional criteria must also be met to comply with the fiscal budget criterion.[31][32] Additionally, if the debt-to-GDP ratio exceeds 60% but is "sufficiently diminishing and approaching the reference value at a satisfactory pace" it can be deemed to be in compliance.[32]
  Criterion not fulfilled
Notes
  1. ^ The rate of increase of the 12-month average HICP over the prior 12-month average must be no more than 1.5% larger than the unweighted arithmetic average of the similar HICP inflation rates in the 3 EU member states with the lowest HICP inflation. If any of these 3 states have a HICP rate significantly below the similarly averaged HICP rate for the eurozone (which according to ECB practice means more than 2% below), and if this low HICP rate has been primarily caused by exceptional circumstances (i.e. severe wage cuts or a strong recession), then such a state is not included in the calculation of the reference value and is replaced by the EU state with the fourth lowest HICP rate.
  2. ^ The arithmetic average of the annual yield of 10-year government bonds as of the end of the past 12 months must be no more than 2.0% larger than the unweighted arithmetic average of the bond yields in the 3 EU member states with the lowest HICP inflation. If any of these states have bond yields which are significantly larger than the similarly averaged yield for the eurozone (which according to previous ECB reports means more than 2% above) and at the same time does not have complete funding access to financial markets (which is the case for as long as a government receives bailout funds), then such a state is not to be included in the calculation of the reference value.
  3. ^ The change in the annual average exchange rate against the euro.
  4. ^ Reference values from the ECB convergence report of May 2012.[14]
  5. ^ Sweden, Ireland and Slovenia were the reference states.[14]
  6. ^ a b The maximum allowed change in rate is ± 2.25% for Denmark.
  7. ^ Sweden and Slovenia were the reference states, with Ireland excluded as an outlier.[14]
  8. ^ a b The reference values for HICP inflation and long-term interest rates are calculated based on the "calculation principle" outlined in the 2012 ECB Convergence Report,[18] with the input of forecasted data for the sliding assessment year 1 May 2011 - 30 April 2012.
  9. ^ The 3 best performing countries in regards to HICP inflation were Sweden (1.2%), Ireland (1.5%) and Slovenia (2.2%), with no outliers detected.
  10. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l These values are final recorded data - as reported by the European Commission's Spring 2012 Economic Forecast report.[16] Cite error: The named reference "2011 fiscal data from the May 2012 report" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  11. ^ As Ireland (4.46% above average) is part of a bailout program, and at the same time also suffered from elevated interest rates "significantly above" the eurozone average (meaning they were more than 2.0% higher), this country was excluded from the calculation of the reference limit for "long term interest rates" leaving the benchmark calculated on basis of Sweden (with a 12m-average interest rate of 2.11%) and Slovenia (with a 12m-average interest rate of 5.42%).
  12. ^ a b The reference values for HICP inflation and long-term interest rates are calculated based on the "calculation principle" outlined in the 2012 ECB Convergence Report,[18] with the input of forecasted data for the sliding assessment year 1 June 2011 - 31 May 2012.
  13. ^ The 3 best performing countries in regards to HICP inflation were Sweden (1.1%), Ireland (1.5%) and Greece (2.1%), with no outliers detected.
  14. ^ As Greece (16.13% above average) and Ireland (4.19% above average) are both part of a bailout program, and both suffered from elevated interest rates "significantly above" the eurozone average (meaning they were more than 2.0% higher), these two countries were excluded from the calculation of the reference limit for "long term interest rates" leaving just Sweden (with a 12m-average interest rate of 1.98%) as a benchmark country.
  15. ^ a b The reference values for HICP inflation and long-term interest rates are calculated based on the "calculation principle" outlined in the 2012 ECB Convergence Report,[18] with the input of forecasted data for the sliding assessment year 1 July 2011 - 30 June 2012.
  16. ^ The 3 best performing countries in regards to HICP inflation were Sweden (1.1%), Ireland (1.6%) and Greece (1.9%), with no outliers detected.
  17. ^ As Greece (17.08% above average) and Ireland (3.84% above average) are both part of a bailout program, and both suffered from elevated interest rates "significantly above" the eurozone average (meaning they were more than 2.0% higher), these two countries were excluded from the calculation of the reference limit for "long term interest rates" leaving just Sweden (with a 12m-average interest rate of 1.86%) as a benchmark country.
  18. ^ a b The reference values for HICP inflation and long-term interest rates are calculated based on the "calculation principle" outlined in the 2012 ECB Convergence Report,[18] with the input of forecasted data for the sliding assessment year 1 August 2011 - 31 July 2012.
  19. ^ The 3 best performing countries in regards to HICP inflation were Sweden (1.0%), Ireland (1.6%) and Greece (1.8%), with no outliers detected.
  20. ^ As Greece (17.92% above average) and Ireland (3.36% above average) are both part of a bailout program, and both suffered from elevated interest rates "significantly above" the eurozone average (meaning they were more than 2.0% higher), these two countries were excluded from the calculation of the reference limit for "long term interest rates" leaving just Sweden (with a 12m-average interest rate of 1.74%) as a benchmark country.
  21. ^ a b The reference values for HICP inflation and long-term interest rates are calculated based on the "calculation principle" outlined in the 2012 ECB Convergence Report,[18] with the input of forecasted data for the sliding assessment year 1 September 2011 - 31 August 2012.
  22. ^ The 3 best performing countries in regards to HICP inflation were Sweden (1.0%), Ireland (1.8%) and Greece (1.8%), with no outliers detected.
  23. ^ As Greece (18.64% above average) and Ireland (3.06% above average) are both part of a bailout program, and both suffered from elevated interest rates "significantly above" the eurozone average (meaning they were more than 2.0% higher), these two countries were excluded from the calculation of the reference limit for "long term interest rates" leaving just Sweden (with a 12m-average interest rate of 1.68%) as a benchmark country.
  24. ^ a b The reference values for HICP inflation and long-term interest rates are calculated based on the "calculation principle" outlined in the 2012 ECB Convergence Report,[18] with the input of forecasted data for the sliding assessment year 1 October 2011 - 30 September 2012.
  25. ^ The 3 best performing countries in regards to HICP inflation were Sweden (0.9%), Greece (1.6%) and Ireland (1.9%), with no outliers detected.
  26. ^ As Greece (18.92% above average) and Ireland (2.81% above average) are both part of a bailout program, and both suffered from elevated interest rates "significantly above" the eurozone average (meaning they were more than 2.0% higher), these two countries were excluded from the calculation of the reference limit for "long term interest rates" leaving just Sweden (with a 12m-average interest rate of 1.66%) as a benchmark country.
  27. ^ a b The reference values for HICP inflation and long-term interest rates are calculated based on the "calculation principle" outlined in the 2012 ECB Convergence Report,[18] with the input of forecasted data for the sliding assessment year 1 November 2011 - 31 October 2012.
  28. ^ The 3 best performing countries in regards to HICP inflation were Sweden (0.9%), Greece (1.4%) and Ireland (1.9%), with no outliers detected.
  29. ^ a b c d These values are final recorded data - as reported by the European Commission's Autumn 2012 Economic Forecast report.[25] Cite error: The named reference "2011 fiscal data from the Nov 2012 report" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  30. ^ As Greece (18.97% above average) and Ireland (2.59% above average) are both part of a bailout program, and both suffered from elevated interest rates "significantly above" the eurozone average (meaning they were more than 2.0% higher), these two countries were excluded from the calculation of the reference limit for "long term interest rates" leaving just Sweden (with a 12m-average interest rate of 1.63%) as a benchmark country.
  31. ^ a b The reference values for HICP inflation and long-term interest rates are calculated based on the "calculation principle" outlined in the 2012 ECB Convergence Report,[18] with the input of forecasted data for the sliding assessment year 1 December 2011 - 30 November 2012.
  32. ^ The 3 best performing countries in regards to HICP inflation were Sweden (0.9%), Greece (1.2%) and Ireland (1.9%), with no outliers detected.
  33. ^ As Greece (19.01% above average) and Ireland (2.37% above average) are both part of a bailout program, and both suffered from elevated interest rates "significantly above" the eurozone average (meaning they were more than 2.0% higher), these two countries were excluded from the calculation of the reference limit for "long term interest rates" leaving just Sweden (with a 12m-average interest rate of 1.61%) as a benchmark country.
  34. ^ a b The reference values for HICP inflation and long-term interest rates are calculated based on the "calculation principle" outlined in the 2012 ECB Convergence Report,[18] with the input of forecasted data for the sliding assessment year 1 January 2012 - 31 December 2012.
  35. ^ The 3 best performing countries in regards to HICP inflation were Sweden (0.94%), Greece (1.04%) and Ireland (1.92%), with no outliers detected.
  36. ^ a b These values are forecasts from the Autumn 2012 Economic Forecast of the European Commission.[25]
  37. ^ As Greece (18.48% above average) and Ireland (2.15% above average) are both part of a bailout program, and both suffered from elevated interest rates "significantly above" the eurozone average (meaning they were more than 2.0% higher), these two countries were excluded from the calculation of the reference limit for "long term interest rates" leaving just Sweden (with a 12m-average interest rate of 1.59%) as a benchmark country.
  38. ^ Reference values from the Convergence Report of June 2024.[28]
  39. ^ a b Belgium, Denmark, and the Netherlands were the reference states.[28]

References

  1. ^ a b "Latvian parliament paves way to euro switch". EurActiv. 2013-02-01. Retrieved 2013-02-03.
  2. ^ "Republic of Latvia Investor Presentation (December 2012)" (PDF). National Bank of Latvia. December 2012. Retrieved 12 March 2013.
  3. ^ "Excessive deficit procedure for Latvia". European Commission (Economic and Financial Affairs). 4 October 2011. Retrieved 12 March 2013.
  4. ^ "European economic forecast - winter 2013". European Commission. 22 February 2013. Retrieved 22 February 2013.
  5. ^ "Release Calendar for Euro Indicators". Eurostat. Retrieved 18 December 2012.
  6. ^ "HICP (2005=100): Monthly data (12-month average rate of annual change)". Eurostat. 16 August 2012. Retrieved 14 March 2024.
  7. ^ "The corrective arm/ Excessive Deficit Procedure". European Commission. Retrieved 14 March 2024.
  8. ^ "Long-term interest rate statistics for EU Member States (monthly data for the average of the past year)". Eurostat. Retrieved 18 December 2012.
  9. ^ "Government deficit/surplus, debt and associated data". Eurostat. 22 April 2013. Retrieved 22 April 2013.
  10. ^ "General government debt". Eurostat. Retrieved 2018-06-02.
  11. ^ "ERM II – the EU's Exchange Rate Mechanism". European Commission. Retrieved 14 March 2024.
  12. ^ "Euro/ECU exchange rates - annual data". Eurostat. Retrieved 14 March 2024.
  13. ^ "Former euro area national currencies vs. euro/ECU - annual data". Eurostat. Retrieved 14 March 2024.
  14. ^ a b c d "Convergence Report May 2012" (PDF). European Central Bank. May 2012. Retrieved 2013-01-20.
  15. ^ "Convergence Report - 2012" (PDF). European Commission. March 2012. Retrieved 2014-09-26.
  16. ^ a b c d e f g h "European economic forecast - spring 2012" (PDF). European Commission. 1 May 2012. Retrieved 1 September 2012. Cite error: The named reference "EC Spring Forecast 2012" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  17. ^ a b ECB reference values as per 30 Apr 2012
  18. ^ a b c d e f g h i "Convergence report 2012" (PDF). European Central Bank. May 2012. Retrieved 2013-01-15.
  19. ^ a b ECB reference values as per 31 May 2012
  20. ^ a b ECB reference values as per 30 Jun 2012
  21. ^ a b ECB reference values as per 31 Jul 2012
  22. ^ a b ECB reference values as per 31 Aug 2012
  23. ^ a b ECB reference values as per 30 Sep 2012
  24. ^ a b ECB reference values as per 31 Oct 2012
  25. ^ a b c "European economic forecast - autumn 2012" (PDF). European Commission. 7 November 2012. Retrieved 7 November 2012.
  26. ^ a b ECB reference values as per 30 Nov 2012
  27. ^ a b ECB reference values as per 31 Dec 2012
  28. ^ a b c d e "Convergence Report June 2024" (PDF). European Central Bank. 2024-06-26. Retrieved 2024-06-26.
  29. ^ "Convergence Report 2024" (PDF). European Commission. 2024-06-26. Retrieved 2024-06-26.
  30. ^ "Luxembourg Report prepared in accordance with Article 126(3) of the Treaty" (PDF). European Commission. 12 May 2010. Retrieved 18 November 2012.
  31. ^ "EMI Annual Report 1994" (PDF). European Monetary Institute (EMI). April 1995. Retrieved 22 November 2012.
  32. ^ a b "Progress towards convergence - November 1995 (report prepared in accordance with article 7 of the EMI statute)" (PDF). European Monetary Institute (EMI). November 1995. Retrieved 22 November 2012.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Danish_Expert/sandbox&oldid=544613469"