The name is absent



Table 6.2 Total SFA and Its Components (% of GDP) before Revisions

Deficit-specific

________SFA (x)

Debt-specific

_______SFA (z)________

Total

______SFA______

Belgium

-0.3

0.3

-0.6

Denmark

0.8

0.7

0.1

Germany

0.7

0.0

0.7

Greece

5.0

-0.9

5.9

Spain

0.3

-0.3

0.7

France

0.5

0.0

0.5

Ireland

2.0

0.5

1.5

Italy

1.4

0.7

0.7

The Netherlands

-0.1

0.3

-0.5

Austria

1.2

0.5

0.7

Portugal

1.5

1.3

0.1

Finland

1.4

-0.9

2.3

Sweden

1.5

1.0

0.5

UnitedKingdom

0.4

0.4

0.1

EUaverage

_____________1.2_____________

___________0.3______________

_________0.9___________

Note: average values over 1994-2004, data before revisions occurred since 2002.

6.3 Deficit Revisions in Italy, Portugal, and Greece

Evidence supporting the usefulness of crosschecking fiscal data is provided by three case
studies of significant deficit data revisions. These revisions concerned the 2001 deficit
outcome in Italy and Portugal and the 2003 deficit outturn in Greece. In all three cases,
the initial deficit figure was consistent with the forecasts by international organisations.
This seems to indicate that by looking at the ESA95 deficit in isolation all parties
involved can get a biased view of fiscal trends.115

Italy: the 2001 Deficit Outturn

In March 2002, the Italian Statistical Office (Istat) released the first statistics concerning
the 2001 net borrowing. Back then, the deficit was estimated to be 1.4 percent of GDP.
The outcome was very close to the range of forecasts published by international
organisations. After several revisions, the 2001 deficit is currently estimated to be 3.1
percent of GDP.

Changes to the 2001 net borrowing figures took place between June 2002 and March
2006. In particular, in June 2002 Istat raised its estimate from 1.4 to 1.6 percent of GDP,
primarily on account of higher healthcare expenditure. One month later, Eurostat
announced its decision on the accounting treatment for the purposes of the excessive
deficit procedure of securitisations carried out by governmental authorities. This implied
an upward revision of Italy’s deficit to 2.2 percent of GDP. In February 2003, Istat again
published a higher figure for the 2001 deficit: 2.6 per cent of GDP. This new estimate
was due to the availability of more complete information on the different government
tiers’ economic accounts. Two years later, in March 2005, Istat once more revised
upwards the 2001 deficit, to 3.0 percent of GDP, because of the reclassification of capital
transfers from the general government to the Ferrovie dello Stato (the state-owned

This section is a summary and update of the analysis conducted in two earlier papers (Balassone et
al.
, 2004 and 2006).

168



More intriguing information

1. THE CO-EVOLUTION OF MATTER AND CONSCIOUSNESS1
2. An Intertemporal Benchmark Model for Turkey’s Current Account
3. The name is absent
4. The name is absent
5. A Dynamic Model of Conflict and Cooperation
6. The name is absent
7. AJAE Appendix: Willingness to Pay Versus Expected Consumption Value in Vickrey Auctions for New Experience Goods
8. A model-free approach to delta hedging
9. Empirical Calibration of a Least-Cost Conservation Reserve Program
10. An Empirical Analysis of the Curvature Factor of the Term Structure of Interest Rates
11. The name is absent
12. The voluntary welfare associations in Germany: An overview
13. The Importance of Global Shocks for National Policymakers: Rising Challenges for Central Banks
14. The name is absent
15. The name is absent
16. The name is absent
17. Tax systems and tax reforms in Europe: Rationale and open issue for more radical reforms
18. Non-farm businesses local economic integration level: the case of six Portuguese small and medium-sized Markettowns• - a sector approach
19. The name is absent
20. The name is absent