Table 6.7 General Government Change in Debt, 2000-04*
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Spring of Spring of Spring of Spring of Spring of
|
2001 |
2001 |
2003 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
2004 |
2005 |
2006 |
2005 |
2006 | |
|
Belgium |
0.3 |
0.4 |
0.2 |
2.0 |
1.9 |
1.6 |
-0.1 |
0.3 |
0.3 |
-2.1 |
-2.1 |
-2.0 |
0.5 |
0.8 |
|
Denmark |
-2.5 |
-2.6 |
-2.6 |
-0.5 |
-0.4 |
-0.6 |
1.0 |
0.7 |
0.7 |
-1.2 |
-1.3 |
-1.3 |
-0.4 |
0.0 |
|
Germany |
0.8 |
0.6 |
0.6 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
2.4 |
2.4 |
2.4 |
3.9 |
3.9 |
4.1 |
3.3 |
3.2 |
|
Greece |
6.4 |
6.3 |
8.7 |
4.0 |
8.3 |
8.3 |
5.7 |
5.6 |
5.8 |
5.9 |
5.8 |
5.7 |
9.1 |
8.9 |
|
Spain |
1.8 |
1.8 |
2.0 |
0.7 |
0.3 |
0.4 |
0.5 |
0.6 |
0.8 |
-0.3 |
-0.2 |
-0.2 |
1.0 |
0.8 |
|
France |
1.4 |
1.4 |
1.4 |
1.8 |
1.8 |
1.8 |
3.8 |
3.7 |
4.0 |
5.5 |
6.0 |
5.8 |
4.3 |
4.5 |
|
Ireland |
-3.8 |
-3.8 |
-3.6 |
1.6 |
1.4 |
1.7 |
0.5 |
0.3 |
0.3 |
1.1 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
0.4 |
0.3 |
|
Italy |
1.5 |
1.6 |
1.5 |
3.5 |
3.8 |
4.2 |
0.5 |
1.0 |
1.1 |
1.6 |
1.6 |
1.9 |
3.5 |
3.6 |
|
Luxembourg |
0.1 |
0.3 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
0.1 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
0.3 |
0.5 |
-0.6 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
0.9 |
0.6 |
|
Netherlands |
-2.7 |
-2.8 |
-2.9 |
0.2 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
1.6 |
1.6 |
1.6 |
3.3 |
2.7 |
2.6 |
2.7 |
2.0 |
|
Austria |
1.0 |
1.3 |
2.6 |
0.0 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
1.8 |
1.2 |
1.2 |
0.1 |
0.4 |
0.2 |
2.0 |
1.9 |
|
Portugal |
2.2 |
2.5 |
2.5 |
5.5 |
5.5 |
5.5 |
5.2 |
5.2 |
5.2 |
2.5 |
2.5 |
2.3 |
3.8 |
3.7 |
|
Finland |
0.9 |
1.0 |
1.2 |
0.9 |
1.1 |
1.1 |
0.2 |
0.1 |
0.2 |
3.7 |
3.8 |
3.6 |
1.7 |
1.7 |
|
Sweden |
-6.8 |
-6.8 |
-6.5 |
2.4 |
3.2 |
3.2 |
-0.2 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
1.3 |
1.4 |
1.7 |
1.3 |
1.0 |
|
UK |
-0.7 |
-0.8 |
-0.8 |
-1.4 |
-1.4 |
-1.4 |
1.4 |
1.4 |
1.4 |
3.4 |
3.4 |
3.4 |
3.8 |
3.7 |
|
Euro area ** |
0.9 |
0.9 |
1.0 |
1.6 |
1.7 |
1.8 |
2.1 |
2.1 |
2.2 |
2.9 |
3.1 |
3.2 |
3.3 |
3.3 |
Notes: * Spring notifications’ initial estimates and subsequent revisions (as a percentage of GDP)
** Excluding Greece in 2000.
181
More intriguing information
1. A production model and maintenance planning model for the process industry2. Notes on an Endogenous Growth Model with two Capital Stocks II: The Stochastic Case
3. MULTIPLE COMPARISONS WITH THE BEST: BAYESIAN PRECISION MEASURES OF EFFICIENCY RANKINGS
4. The name is absent
5. The name is absent
6. The Structure Performance Hypothesis and The Efficient Structure Performance Hypothesis-Revisited: The Case of Agribusiness Commodity and Food Products Truck Carriers in the South
7. The name is absent
8. A Classical Probabilistic Computer Model of Consciousness
9. The name is absent
10. Analyzing the Agricultural Trade Impacts of the Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement