Talk:Economy of the European Union
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject European Union, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. |
[edit] More dross removed.
More little factoids about how the EU is soooo great compared to the United States were removed from the first paragraph, as were some facts about how the United States is soooo great compared to the EU. Those could be put someplace lower--though it's unnecessary--but they don't belong in the first paragraph. 
Chiss Boy 01:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Focus of the Page
This article is supposed to be on the Economy of the European Union, not on how the EU supposedly beats the United States in some areas. Chiss Boy 01:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unnecessary reference to the American economy removed.
The comment that the EU's GDP is larger than the United States' was removed. If the EU has the largest economy in the world, then it obviously is larger than the USA's. However, stating that it is so is debatable. The United States is a single country--the EU is not. There are several other trade blocs with an economy larger than the EU's (notably NAFTA's--for a functioning bloc, and APEC for a looser one). Chiss Boy 01:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC
[edit] GNI per capita figure
The article contains a nice figure of GNI per capita in various European countries. However, it is far from clear what figures the map is based from. In particular, they do not seem to agree with World Bank 2005 estimates. It is also not obvious why GNI should be used instead of GDP, when individual country pages in Wikipedia list GDP per capita.
At the very least, I think the caption should specify what estimates the figure is based upon.
Filur 22:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Deficit number
There seems to be a problem with the deficit number, several countries are running a surplus, yet all have a deficit in this article.
Woo, I was hoping somebody would create this. I'll try and add something to it at the weekend -- Joolz 23:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] GDP Growth
Big, BIG BIG bone of contention, I've been looking at this for a long time now. According to the Summary Template of the EU's economy, growth is 1%. Also, in several places within the article it says that "EU growth has been far behind US GDP growth for some time now". Both of these are wrong.
Using IMF figures I have complied GDP growth listing for the EU25, broken down into the EU15 and the 10 new member states and growth is as follows: EU15: 2.787% (2004) and 1.973% (2005 est.). 10 new memberstates, 5.18% (2004) and 4.63% (2005 est.).
Table for your conveniance:
Table to show IMF EU15 GDP Growth Rates, 2004 & 2005 (est.)
| Country | % GDP Growth 2004 |
% GDP Growth 2005 |
|---|---|---|
| Austria | 2.4 | 1.9 |
| Belgium | 2.7 | 1.2 |
| Denmark | 2.4 | 2.2 |
| Finland | 2.8 | 1.8 |
| France | 2 | 1.5 |
| Germany | 1.6 | 1.8 |
| Greece | 4.2 | 3.2 |
| Ireland | 5.5 | 5.0 |
| Italy | 1.2 | 0 |
| Luxembourg | 4.4 | 3.1 |
| Netherlands | 1.7 | 0.7 |
| Portugal | 1.0 | 0.5 |
| Spain | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| Sweden | 3.6 | 2.6 |
| United Kingdom | 3.2 | 1.9 |
| Averages | 2.787 | 1.973 |
A fraction of a percentile from 3% is not 1%. However this just represents part of the EU (however this does represent the vast majority of total EU GDP).
Table to show IMF GDP Growth Figures for 10 new EU Memberstates, 2004 & 2005 (est.)
| Country | % GDP Growth 2004 |
% GDP Growth 2005 |
|---|---|---|
| Cyprus | 3.7 | 3.8 |
| Czech Rep. | 4.4 | 4.1 |
| Estonia | 7.8 | 7.0 |
| Hungary | 4.2 | 3.4 |
| Latvia | 8.5 | 7.8 |
| Lithuania | 6.7 | 6.8 |
| Malta | 1.0 | 1.5 |
| Poland | 5.4 | 3.0 |
| Slovakia | 5.5 | 5.0 |
| Slovenia | 4.6 | 3.9 |
| Averages | 5.180 | 4.360 |
As can be seen the 10 new memberstates have much higher growth rates, for obvious reasons. So that brings us to a grand total, as mentioned previously:
| Country | % GDP Growth 2004 |
% GDP Growth 2005 |
|---|---|---|
| EU25 | 3.983 | 3.302 |
Now I was never good at maths, but can someone tell me how 1% = 3.989%? I don't know, maybe some smartly dressed student came up with a new theory perhaps...
Getting to the point, the EU isn't some clapped out old heap of impoverished nations about to collapse in on themselves because of "socialist social democracy", as undoubtedly some Washington Hawks and our learned friends at Timbro would like.
I will be re-entering this table removed by User:Osomec:
| Year | GDP in trillions |
% Change | % of GWP |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2001 | 10.445 | NA | 22.6% |
| 2002 | 10.693 | 2.4% | 22.2% |
| 2003 | 10.953 | 2.4% | 21.7% |
| 2004 | 11.323 | 4.0% | 21.3% |
| 2005 | 11.848 | 3.3% | 21.1% |
As this table correctly shows overall EU25 growth rates, and Global World Production share.
All my sources of information come from the International Monetary Fund, which is in the process of being used as the main Wikipedia Economic information source.
Links to specifics: Link to Growth Rates for the Eurozone
Link to non-Eurozone EU15 countries Growth Rates
Link to 10 new memberstates Growth Rates
I have been thorough so hopefully there will be no need to edit much. --JDnCoke 20:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Incorect average values of GDP growth
In the calculations cited above a wrong approach was follwed. Here is the way to do these calculations correctly: Total GDP of the EU = Sum of the GDP volumes of all member contries. GDP growth of a country = volume of GDP in one year divided by the volume of GDP in the previous year (adjusted for inflation etc). Total GDP growth of the EU = Sum of the GDP volumes of all countries in one year divided by the corresponding figure in the previous year. Hence, what we need here is a sum of weighted averages (which is a growth rate multiplied by the size of a country's economy)). That's why I deleted incorrect average values.
[edit] Contents
Why doesn't the contents show on this page ? Parmaestro 08:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- It shows fine for me. It might not have shown for you because of cache problems, or because it may have been hidden by your browser behind the economy infobox. I've rearranged the page now because with the contents it (for my browser anyway) pushed the economy infobox into the middle of the page. -- Joolz 13:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Dollar v. Euro
At the moment some figures are quoted in euros, some in dollars. It's easier if we use one currency instead of both, since at the moment it's confusing. I'd prefer the use of the dollar as it's easier to compare to most other pages which are also in dollars. -- Joolz 23:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- All other things being equal, I'd favour the usage of the Euro instead. It is the European Union's own currency after all, and (especially as its use expands over the coming years) it should soon become even easier to find statistics on the EU economy that use the euro instead of the dollar. Also I'm not sure Wikipedia should intrude the dollar on EU-related articles when such a thing is needless -- it seems a bit like intruding Americanized spellings in UK articles. But on the whole I don't feel strongly over this, one way or another -- I won't revert if the opposite decision is taken. (though perhaps we should have a poll of this if further opinions are divided) Aris Katsaris 00:39, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
-
- Maybe it's best for on the whole use the Euro, but for some figures (not all because it will clutter up the page) quote the figures in dollars as well. Otherwise I personally keep forgetting it's in the Euro, which makes me think why the figures are lower here than ones quoted elsewhere :P -- Joolz 11:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- If we're talking about national per capita income and GDP, then the standard would be the dollar. If we were to talk about how much oil prices are, it would still be the dollar -- again, it's the standard (but a few years back OPEC was thinking of switching to the Euro, though nothing has come of it). :/ But oh well, it's stupid that way. --Sean WI 15:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Regional variation
As it stands now, half the section of "regional variation" consists of an essay on why the other half is utterly meaningless.
I tried to reduce the essay-on-meaningless to half its size, but I was told it is all essential. If the meaningless of the rest of the section truly needs two whole pages to be detailed in full, then I think it's better to just remove the section in its entirety. If it's truly community consensus that the NUTS divisions are utterly useless, then don't use them. But if they are useful at all, then let's cut down on the whining. People get it already -- the regions are largely arbitrary, some figures are thus hyperinflated, all this can all be explained in *three sentences*.
Wikipedia is not a soapbox to complain about the regional divisions used by the Statistics organizations of the European Union, and it's not a place for original research either. Aris Katsaris 20:07, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
- I think you don't understand the point here. It's not about whether NUTS regions are meaningless or not. NUTS regions exist, and whatever we think of them, we use them, because we don't have any other data to provide. The reason for the lengthy explanation is because now the table compares some NUTS 1 with some NUTS 2, and so people may not understand why we do that if we don't offer an explanation beforehand. When I revised the table, I could have dispensed with an explanation altogether, but the reason I wrote this lengthy "babble" as you call it, is because I did not want to start the zillionth controversy on Wikipedia. I know there are nationalist people here and there that will complain that "their" NUTS region was downgraded in the new list (such as London or Vienna), so I thought it was necessary to explain in detail the reasons behind the changes, to avoid having people reverting the new list over and over. One thing we can do, if you want, is to put all this lengthy explanation into a new article, which we could call "Notes for the table of 10 richest areas of the EU", and simply link to that article before the table itself. Hardouin 20:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
-
- We don't create separate articles as "notes", AFAIK. Other than that, I think it's you who don't understand, but that's probably because my edit itself has only touched on half the problem, and so has largely my comment above. The thing is: the shorter the explanation, the more easily we can explain the suitability of this section to remain a part of Wikipedia. The longer and the more arbitrary the explanation, the less likely it is. What seems to me now to be the case is that you've arbitrarily joined a number of NUTS sections, downgrading, upgrading or merging as you saw fit, without using any specific criteria for doing so -- and if you've mentioned the specific criteria anywhere, I've overlooked it in the unreadable babble of words and numbers. This smacks to me of "original research": you've essentially created your own regional divisions system and are passing it off as "more useful" for statistical purposes than the one the European Statistics organizations themselves are using.
-
- Once again if NUTS 2 regions are good to use for statistical comparison, then use them, with a sufficient and succinct explanation of their flaws. If they're utterly useless, then let's not use them at all. But the arbitrary downgradings, upgradings and mergings that need an essay to explain them are original research and do not belong to Wikipedia, I believe. Aris Katsaris 20:37, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
- I've reverted most of the changes (which I've described as butchering, which I'll now explain) of the tables because it appears to be own research. The tables as they stood was all information from eurostat. These were not manipulated in any way, they were directly from their data. It was a comparison of the lowest-area level available. It's fine to say that some areas are artificially inflated because of commuters, it's certaintly not as simple as adding a land area value to the table, since that's pretty meaningless. It clearly doesn't take into account population density. Furthermore, mixing NUTS:1 and NUTS:2 levels is a dangerous thing to do because it can only be arbitary. Before the inclusion of data in the table was based on eurostat's definitions. We can discuss the costs and benefits of their definitions, but mixing regions up isn't acceptable. The "homogenous regions" table was removed completely because it's clearly your own research. It's also inaccurate - it talks of some mysterious "Greater London metropolitan area" amogst other things. This is compiled by you, not any research institution, but you. (Specifically about the London metropolitan area, it's it's frankly silly, it doesn't doesn't even match up with anything else on wikipedia, such as London commuter belt (which doesn't include oxfordshire, doesn't include all of berkshire). If you want to research your own data, that's fine, but don't do it on wikipedia. -- Joolz 23:59, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- Once again if NUTS 2 regions are good to use for statistical comparison, then use them, with a sufficient and succinct explanation of their flaws. If they're utterly useless, then let's not use them at all. But the arbitrary downgradings, upgradings and mergings that need an essay to explain them are original research and do not belong to Wikipedia, I believe. Aris Katsaris 20:37, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
Joolz, you don't seem to be aware that the so-called table of the "Top 10: economically strongest areas" as it stands now is actually mixing NUTS 1 and NUTS 2 levels. So this table presents the same flaws that you criticized above in the table that I had put and that you deleted. Specifically, in your "Top 10: economically strongest areas" table, there are four NUTS 1 regions (Brussels-Capital, Luxembourg, Hamburg, Île-de-France) and six NUTS 2 regions (Inner London, South Tyrol, Stockholm County, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire & Oxfordshire, Oberbayern, Vienna). Hardouin 11:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
In order to solve this problem, I have replaced the top 10 as it stood with a top 10 of the NUTS-1 regions. So this time all the regions are in the same category. It is not possible to provide a top 10 of the NUTS-2 regions, because there are some parts of the EU without NUTS-2 regions. For instance, Île-de-France is a NUTS-1 region that is not divided into smaller NUTS-2 regions, and Denmark is also a NUTS-1 region that is not divided into smaller NUTS-2 regions. There is still a problem with the bottom 10 list of weakest NUTS regions. 9 of the regions there are NUTS-2 regions, but one is a NUTS-1 region (Latvia). Latvia is not subdivided into smaller NUTS-2 regions, so either we change the table and put a bottom 10 list of weakest NUTS-1 regions, either we leave it as it is, but with a little note. Hardouin 13:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
- That's simply not true, Luxembourg for instance is both a NUTS:1 region and a NUTS:2 region. I advice you to read up on the EU's website. I've reverted your change. You may also note that the Top10 and bottom10 is the exact same list as supplied by Eurostat themselves (ie, they came up with the top10/bottom10 - not me). -- Joolz 13:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Check this [1]. Read the table at the bottom, not just the flashy headline on top. NUTS-1 regions are bolded, NUTS-2 regions are unbolded, it's quite clear. Besides, I really don't like your peremptory tone and your total faith in everything Eurostat say. For one, I have been following that subject since 1995, and I have seen the regional GDPs ever since 1995. Until 2000, Eurostat was highlighting the top 10 with only NUTS-1 regions. For example, in their top 10 they listed Greater London, they didn't list Inner London. Then suddenly in the beginning of the 2000s, God knows why, they started to mix NUTS-1 and NUTS-2, so that up to 2000 Luxembourg was regularly number one, but now suddenly for the last years Inner London is number 1. Why did it suddenly change? Perhaps the arrival of new bureaucrats at Eurostat (perhaps some British bureaucrats? after all Tony Blair said the UK needed to re-conquer Brussels from within... makes you wonder...). Anyway, understand that the top 10 and bottom 10 at the beginning of the document is just bogus. Just a headline to attract journalists. The real stuff is the detailed table at the bottom, and the table is pretty clear, and I have just copied numbers that are inside the table. We are not a news agency here, we are not here to report Eurostat news releases without changing dots. We are here to present information that makes sense, with an encyclopedic perspective. Hardouin 20:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
- Leaving your conspiracy theories aside, I apologise if you have found my tone less than what it should be. However I would like to draw your attention to [2] which shows how they classify regions, keeping with the example of Luxembourg, it has a population of around 450,000, so really it should be a NUTS:3 region according to eurostat, but obviously it needs to be contained by something, so it has to be a NUTS:1 and NUTS:2 region as well ([3] shows this). I also believe that we have to present information that makes sense, at the moment we're comparing one region which has 450,000 people in it with another that has over 7 million. I don't believe that that makes sense. In the interests of avoiding a revert war I won't reinstate the previous version, I think we should bring others into the discussion to resolve this. -- Joolz 22:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
- Having said that, I have removed your footnote about commuter flows as I believe it to be original research and subject to bias, there are many reasons why the figures for the different areas may not represent 100% of the actuality, there are many things which may be taken into consideration for each area, after all, none are the same. All areas will be subject to artificial inflation or deflation to varying degrees. -- Joolz 22:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
The little stars I put for commuters inflows are based on statistical information that can be found anywhere. It's not me who invented it. Brussels-Capital is known to receive 1 to 2 million commuters daily, coming from Antwerp and Ghent. Greater London is also known to receive from 3 to 4 million commuters daily, coming from Surrey, Kent, Berks., and so on. Same with Hamburg and Bremen, with commuters coming from the suburbs located outside of the states of Hamburg and Bremen. On the other hand, regions like Île-de-France or Hesse have only few commuters coming from outside the region (a few commuters from Chartres, Orléans, or Lille come into Île-de-France, a few commuters from Mainz come into Hesse), but these commuter inflows are too small to change much to the GDP per capita. I think it is important to leave the stars so that people don't get the wrong idea, especially people not familiar with statistics. For instance, someone not familiar with statistics will leave with the idea that Hamburg is the richest area of Germany, which is totally not true. If Munich was a state by itself (as Hamburg is), then this "State of Munich" would surely be on top of the list, way above Hamburg. Hardouin 19:07, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
- Guys, I read through the discussion here and I am rather confused that nobody has as of now even defined NUTS-1, NUTS-2 and NUTS-3: Judging from the definition on the eurostat-homepage [4] there are a couple of factors that determine the structure of the various NUTS regions, but most importantly there are population limits. As for the list of NUTS-1 regions given on the page here, I would suggest to include another list of NUTS-2 regions (or even replace the NUTS-1 region table) -> the official bottom 10 and top 10 are given as NUTS-2 regions as stated in footnote 3 here: [5] -> and these regions are (Inner London; Bruxelles-Capitale; Luxembourg; Hamburg; Ile de France; Wien; Berkshire &al; Bolzano; Stockholm; Oberbayern) -> they are ALL NUTS-2 regions. Themanwithoutapast 23:52, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Those are the ones that we originally had anyway. -- Joolz 02:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As you may have noticed, the NUTS regions are totally surreal, and the population criteria that user Themanwithoutapast dug out is absolutely not respected. I mean, Île-de-France, with 11,264,000 inhabitants, is absurdly considered a NUTS-2 region, although NUTS-2 regions are supposed to have 3 million inhabitants at the most. The département of Paris (2,142,800 inhabitants), of the département of Hauts-de-Seine (1,428,881 inhabitants), clearly fall into the definition of NUTS-2 regions, and their GDP per capita is higher than Inner London, in fact the highest in Europe, but no, Eurostat in its unfathomable ways decided that Paris and Hauts-de-Seine would be NUTS-3, and that Île-de-France would be both NUTS-1 and NUTS-2. Go figure! And so, tadam, Inner London is the richest area of Europe. If you think this is detail, check this [6] and this [7], and you'll understand that these "details" are actually widely expected by the press and used to promote a city over another (both articles are even confusing Inner London with London as a whole! - "Fortunately for many Londoners, they at least have the highest gross domestic product in the European Union to help them cope with their living expenses."). So I just say, we should not use Eurostat data with blind eyes, and help concur to cliches and misunderstandings. We need to select data that make sense, not just surreal data that received an official stamp. Hardouin 11:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Removed table
I have removed the table which absurdly showed that the EU economy is roaring ahead at 4.6% growth. I can only think that is the cash increase includign inflation, but inflation is always excluded when growth rates are discussed. A new table showing legitmate figures which can be compared with other entities is needed. Osomec 07:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "Low Countries" in "Economic Growth" section
What's the meaning of "Low Countries" in the "Economic Growth" section? Nederlands? Southern Europe?
Tony Bruguier 02:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- The Low Countries are The Netherlands and Flanders (Belgium).Thunderhawk89 19:25, August 8, 2006 (CET)
[edit] IMF figures vs World Bank
True, they are better for the EU but it could be a little POV. Which one is considered the most reliable?
Tony Bruguier 17:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Employment
In addition to unemployment, it would be good to know how high the actual employment is. From an economical perspective, this is much more informative since it says how many people actually work (and hence incorporates demography etc.)--Filur 06:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
This is especially true since many countries in Europe have a mandatory service requirement --- without it, EU unemployment would be substantially higher.
[edit] 2006 GDP per capita projections
Should I (or somebody else) change the GDP per capita data to the 2006 projections, taken from here[8]?
Edit: Since I know this talk page won't be visited for days I've changed to what I said above. If anybody has any problems with that then just revert back. MichaelJBuck 14:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] reorder of sections
I slightly reordered the sections. It seems much more natural to me to write about the size of the EU economy and the economies of member states first, than about the economic growth. I do hope that's fine with you guys. MikeZ 10:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Spain's poorest region
The Spain's poorest region is not Extremadura. It's Andalucía. At least that's what I've alredy know and read in Spanish wikipedia. I'm not changing anything because I'm not totaly sure but I asked for reviewing it. Sgined a Spanish guy, September 2006.
[edit] the percentage of Gross world product is decreasing
Although EU25 GDP is on the increase, the percentage of Gross world product is decreasing
is this true by back dating the economies of acceding contries,or new members ar conted as quantum leaps?--Pixel ;-) 01:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Let me explain it using an abstract example. Suppose you have two varaibles (A & B). In 2004, A had a value of 50 and so did B. Toghther thay had a combined value of 100 with A and B making up 50% of the total. The value of a A is growing at 5 points a year, the value of B is growing at 7 points a year. In 2006, after two years of mutual growth, variable A has a value of 60, while B has a value of 74. The total combined value is 134 with A making up 45% of the total and B making up 55% of the total. You see, even though both A and B increased in value, B just grew so much faster that it changed the overall breakdown. That will either help or confuse you ;-) Signaturebrendel 03:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Deficit
What does this field (see the table) [9] actually mean, could someone give a link. Regardng Budget deficit e.g Estonia: revenues: $5.126 billion; expenditures: $5.017 billion; including capital expenditures of $NA (2005 est.) (CIA World fact Book). So the -1.8 can't be this. 213.35.213.206 11:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Romania and Bulgaria
This needs to be updated to include Romania and Bulgaria.
Yes I perfectly agree. I don't understand why nobody does that, its already passed more than a month that the 2 countries have joined the EU. And the people still say that Wikipedia is an exactly and accurate source....Come on people, what do you have against these two countries??? Arthur 4 February 2007
[edit] Sources
Is there an agreement on which sources should be used? Perhaps this has been discussed somewhere else on Wikipedia? Voodoo 04:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Infobox
Table needs to be converted to the form {{Infobox Economy}}. Thanks — Jack · talk · 01:59, Monday, 19 March 2007
