Table 2. Gross and net debt development
Gross debt |
Net debt |
Change in | ||
Gross debt |
Net debt | |||
2005 |
2005 |
1993 |
2005 | |
Nordic model | ||||
Sweden |
61 |
-6 |
-18 |
-16 |
Finland |
48 |
-41 |
-4 |
-24 |
Denmark |
48 |
2 |
-11 |
-23 |
Netherlands |
66 |
-28 |
-32 |
-7 |
Austria |
65 |
39 |
3 |
-2 |
Anglo-Saxon model | ||||
United Kingdom |
46 |
39 |
-3 |
6 |
Ireland |
30 |
.. |
-65 |
.. |
Portugal |
78 |
46 |
01 |
201 |
Continental model | ||||
Germany |
72 |
61 |
24 |
33 |
France |
74 |
45 |
22 |
17 |
Belgium |
100 |
90 |
-45 |
-38 |
Mediterranean model | ||||
Italy |
121 |
98 |
-51 |
-31 |
Spain |
53 |
31 |
-14 |
-10 |
Greece |
108 |
.. |
-2 |
.. |
1. 1995-2005
Source: OECD, Economic Outlook No. 77 database.
16. A similar pattern emerges when looking at growth performance and fiscal policy (Figure 4). In
the period 1999-2005, trend growth was only 1½ per cent per year on average in the three major euro area
countries, but 3¼ per cent in the smaller countries. Faster growth coincides with a strong fiscal
performance, while the contrary tends to be true for the slower-growing countries. Econometric work
provides evidence that fiscal consolidations are more likely to be undertaken and successful if trend
economic growth is high (von Hagen, 2002). At the same time, the smaller fast growing-economies were
able to maintain fairly rapid growth in public spending while keeping their government deficits in check.
Greece is of course an important exception with soaring spending and a whopping government deficit
despite strong growth.
1999-2005
Cyclically-adjusted
Source: OECD, Economic Outlook No. 77 database.
Figure 4. Trend growth and fiscal policy
average
Growth in real
50