Evaluation of the macroeconomic stability of Central and Eastern European countries with a view toward their membership in the European Union: Multidimensional risk analysis

Pera, Jacek Article Evaluation of the macroeconomic stability of Central and Eastern European countries with a view toward their membership in the European Union: Multidimensional risk analysis Comparative Economic Research. Central and Eastern Europe Provided in Cooperation with: Institute of Economics, University of Łódź Suggested Citation: Pera, Jacek (2016) : Evaluation of the macroeconomic stability of Central and Eastern European countries with a view toward their membership in the European Union: Multidimensional risk analysis, Comparative Economic Research. Central and Eastern Europe, ISSN 2082-6737, De Gruyter, Warsaw, Vol. 19, Iss. 3, pp. 69-92, https://doi.org/10.1515/cer-2016-0021 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/184398 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0 Comparative Economic Research, Vol ume 19, Number 3, 2016 10.1515/cer-2016-0021 JACEK PERA * Evaluation Of The Macroeconomic Stability Of Central And Eastern European Countries With A View Toward Their Membership In The European Union. Multidimensional Risk Analysis Abstract The economies of European countries have been undergoing constant turbulence for several years. This is the consequence of a range of factors, in particular: the 2007 crisis; violations of the convergence criteria and fiscal discipline; problems with the liquidity of international financial markets; depreciation of the euro currency; increasing unemployment in European Union Member States; the slow increase in productivity in the majority of EU economies; growing indebtedness of public finance sectors; problems with retirement schemes – in particular with correlation between their effectiveness and unemployment and low rate of natural increase. Thus, the author posits that it is important to analyse the key aspects related to these economic parameters which may affect this process in a significant way and decide the risk of its occurrence. This is the assumed aim of this work. The work shows the results of the author’s own study, carried out with the use of different methods, such as the macroeconomic stabilisation pentagon, the Scoreboard, and Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. The variety of test methods employed results on one hand from the problem's complexity, and on the other from a profound analysis of all dependencies and risks resulting from this complexity. The conducted study shows that there is a significant correlation between the Scoreboard parameter imbalances and the intensity of crisis phenomena in * Ph.D., Cracow University of Economics, Department of Economics and International Relations, Faculty of International Economic Relations, [email protected] 70 Jacek Pera case of violations of the acceptable thresholds in terms of current account balance, net international investment position, export market shares, nominal unit labour costs, real house prices, private sector debt, government debt, and the unemployment rate. The imbalances of these eight indicators may form an adverse macroeconomic environment favouring the occurrence of intense crisis phenomena, which means that they should be subject to special monitoring. The shapes of the macroeconomic stabilisation pentagon for CEEC economies in 2014 shows that none of the analysed countries is characterised by total filling of the pentagon. This means that the economic situation in these countries is not stable and requires constant monitoring. The figures related to all analysed indicators, apart from GDP, are characterised by a flattened shape, which is characteristic for such a situation. Keywords: stability, risk, imbalance, destabilisation, divergence 1. Introduction The economies of European countries have been undergoing constant turbulence for several years. This is the consequence of a range of factors, in particular: the 2007 crisis; violations of the convergence criteria and fiscal discipline; problems with the liquidity of international financial markets; depreciation of the euro currency; increasing unemployment in European Union Member States; the slow increase in productivity in the majority of EU economies; growing indebtedness of public finance sectors; problems with retirement schemes – in particular with correlation between their effectiveness and unemployment and low rate of natural increase. Moreover, recently strong divergence tendencies can be observed, both of the eurozone and of the remaining EU Member States, which results in the problems related to Grexit or the PIIGGS-Exit. 1 All this affects the economies of the Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries which are members of the EU. There is a real threat that one of these countries may face the problem of having to exit the EU structures in the future. Thus, I believe it is important to analyse the key aspects related to these economic parameters that may affect this process in a significant way and determine the risk of its occurrence. This is the assumed aim of this work. 1 PIIGS, PIIGGS, previously PIGS – a term used to describe countries with a poor budgetary situation. The acronym PIGS originally referred to Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain. Due to the economic situation in 2010 another I (for Ireland), was included, thus creating the expanded version: PIIGS. The version PIIGGS, with an additional G standing for Great Britain is also sometimes used. Evaluation Of Macroeconomic Stability… 71 All the CEE countries which are currently members of the EU have been subjected to the analysis: Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Hungary. The period of 2007– 2015 has been analysed. As has been mentioned, all the economic parameters that can have a significant influence on these countries' economic stability have been analysed. The work shows the results of analyses carried out using different methods, such as the macroeconomic stabilisation pentagon, the Scoreboard, and Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. The variety of employed test methods results on one hand from the problem's complexity, and on the other from the profound analysis of all dependencies and risk resulting from this complexity. The aim has been accomplished on the basis of the description of the inner balance status in the CEE countries’ economies, based on the Scoreboard and crisis phenomena correlation. 2. The issue of macroeconomic balance within the EU Economic balance may be considered in its internal or external aspect. It is assumed that an economy is internally balanced when its actual production corresponds to the full use of production factors. Thus, the unemployment rate corresponds to natural unemployment and inflation is low and stable. Internal balance also refers to the balance of public finances, hence budgetary balance and public debt are also subject to assessment. External balance is mainly related to import and export, which is reflected in the balance of payments and a stable currency exchange rate (Pluciński 2004, p. 39). A long-term imbalance of an economy results in a high risk of outbreak of a crisis, and in case of the EU this poses a danger to the stability of its entire whole structure, which was proven by the events of the years 2007–2015 (Puig 2010), (Global Development Finance 2012, p. 2). This is why it is crucial to monitor the EU Member States' economic balance (Smaga 2014), (Sporek 2010, p.102). The sources and course of the crisis have shown the weak points of the existing model of the EU's functioning (Reinhart, Rogoff 2009, p. 43). One of the main causes of the crisis is believed to be the lack of Member States' sufficient fiscal discipline (Wysokińska 2014, pp. 85–89). The inability to provide countercyclical fiscal policy was mainly caused by the inefficiency of fiscal rules defined in the Maastricht Treaty and in the Stability and Growth Pact that was to complement it. Nevertheless, an unstable fiscal policy is not the basic source of crisis, but rather its consequence in many cases (Tchorek 2013, p. 2). The causes of macroeconomic problems lie in deep structural differences between the EU Member States. 72 Jacek Pera As a consequence of these processes, significant imbalances, both internal and external, have occurred ever since the eurozone was created. They are reflected in differences related to inflation and unit labour costs, as well as in the indicators of current account deficit and investment position. As a result of the financial crisis and sudden stop and reversals, the imbalances that accumulated in the real economies of the Member States in the form of excessive private debt have, when faced with the risk of financial institutions' bankruptcy, been transferred to public sector, which led to a surge in public debt (Global Financial Stability Report, 2015). A number of actions have been undertaken since 2010 as a reaction to the crisis within the EU, aimed at reducing its effect on the one hand and at reducing the risk of it being repeated in the future on the other (Council Regulation EU, 2010). One such action was the adoption of the Excessive Imbalance Procedure (Sławiński 2009, p. 56). The Excessive Imbalance Procedure was included into EU law in 2011 (European Commission 2011). Its authors' intention was to prevent the accumulation of internal and external economic imbalances within the EU Member States, which had occurred before the outbreak of 2008 financial crisis and would intensify the later course of the eurozone crisis. Previously, no mechanisms of monitoring and control of macroeconomic imbalance existed within the EU and/or the eurozone. The Procedure includes a preventive arm and a corrective arm. The preventive arm consists of two stages (www.mf.gov.pl): 1. An alarm mechanism – a yearly evaluation of the set of indicators, carried out by the European Commission (EC), which compares them with safety thresholds, aimed at identifying those countries at a significant risk. To this end, the EC has developed the so-called Scoreboard Headline Indicators, a list of 11 macroeconomic indicators and their acceptable thresholds. 2. A detailed economic analysis of these countries is done with the use of a broad range of indicators, methods, and documents. It may lead to the conclusion of: lack of imbalances, imbalances. and excessive imbalances (Janicka 2014, p. 678). In the latter case, the corrective arm may be employed – the state is obliged to provide a corrective plan to the EC, and the EC and EU Council may either accept it or find it insufficient. The states are obliged to update these plans every six months and implement their provisions in due course. The penalty for failing to fulfil this obligation is lodging an interest-bearing deposit amounting to 0.1 % of GDP, which may be transformed into a yearly financial penalty should the situation repeat itself (Kuziemska 2010, p. 92). Even though the EU has adopted the Excessive Imbalance Procedure, the risk of instability remains very large. The most severe example of such imbalances was the loss of competitiveness by Southern European producers, reflected in the faster Evaluation Of Macroeconomic Stability… 73 increase of their products' prices and labour costs when compared to the remaining eurozone states, a trade deficit in relation to foreign countries, growing external debt, and the loss of shares in export markets (www.mf.gov.pl). Currently the EC has indicated 12 countries whose macroeconomic situation must be thoroughly analysed, as there is a great risk of destabilisation in their economic balance. They are: Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Hungary, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Great Britain. Such countries as Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Romania are not included in this list because they have their own corrective plans, and Latvia is already being monitored under the program (http://www.stefczyk.info). In the case of Spain the EC will analyse the structural causes of high unemployment and the results of the mortgage boom; in the case of Italy – its high public debt and low potential for growth; and in the case of Cyprus – the high debt of companies and households as well as its decrease in exports. The EC will investigate the causes of the loss of export market shares and the consequences of debt in the cases of Belgium, France and Great Britain, whereas in the case of Bulgaria it will analyse labour costs and its productivity. In Slovenia, the EC will look into company debt and the real estate market. This market and the increasing debt will be analysed in the cases of Denmark and Sweden, whereas in Finland its deteriorating external trade will also be analysed (http://www.stefczyk.info). 3. Evaluation of the inner balance of the CEE countries’ economies 2 When undertaking the evaluation of CEE countries’ macroeconomic stability, it should first be assessed whether, and how, they fulfil the convergence criteria accepted in the Maastricht Treaty. This is a certain "barometer" of the evaluation of these countries’ stability in relation to the rules defined by the EU. Table 1 shows the fulfilment of these criteria by individual countries as of the end of 2014. 2 Analysis and own calculations, based on: Trading Economics 2015, Eurostat 2015, OECD 2015. 74 Jacek Pera Table 1. Status of CEE countries’ fulfilment of the Maastricht Treaty convergence criteria in 2014 Country The inflation criterion The budget deficit criterion The exchange rate criterion The criterion of public debt The interest rate criterion Bulgaria [BG] + + - + + Croatia [HR] + - - - + Czech Republic [CZ] + + - + + Estonia [EST] + + + + + Latvia [LV] + + + - + Lithuania [LT] + - + + + Poland [PL] + + - + + Romania [RO] + - - + + Slovakia [SK] + - + + + Slovenia [SLO] - - + + + Hungary [HU] + + - - + Source: Trading Economics 2015, Eurostat 2015, OECD 2015. Nine violations of the accepted convergence criteria were reported in 2014. The majority were reported in relation to the criterion of budget deficit (five) and of public debt (three). In addition, an alarming level of inflation was reported for Slovenia. These criteria divergences in the cases of Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Hungary may. in the long perspective, pose a major risk for these economies' stability. The risk can be compared to the variations that were experienced by peripheral Member States (Greece, Spain, Ireland and Portugal) during the first decade of the eurozone’s existence. Table 2 complements the evaluation of the aforementioned data. It includes the basic economic indicators that characterise individual CEEC economies. The following were reported in the years 2007–2012: 51 violations in relation to the reference criteria in terms of inflation. These violations refer to all analysed countries. The loss of domestic money's purchasing power at the end of 2012 was the largest in Hungary: 5.0%, Romania: 4.95% and Bulgaria: 4.20%. In the subsequent analysed years the inflation decreased significantly in all analysed countries, which reflects the effectiveness of national policies implemented in the individual countries in that regard. It is also the consequence of the EU's policy activity in terms of inflation in relation to these countries. The prognoses for 2015 are optimistic and it is expected that the referential tendency will be maintained. Hence it can be clearly stated that there is no risk of imbalance in this area with respect to all CEE countries’ economies. Evaluation Of Macroeconomic Stability… 75 The highest unemployment at the end of the analysed period was reported in Croatia (16.10%), Slovenia (12.30%), and Slovakia (11.60%). In other CEE countries’ economies the level of this indicator was acceptable or low. There are no blatant imbalances within this area as well, so it can be considered safe. As far as trade flow balance is concerned, 73 cases of this parameter's value being negative were reported in the analysed period. The countries where trade balance remains negative are: Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania. In other countries the level of trade balance fluctuates around zero. Undoubtedly the level of this factor affects the stability of the discussed countries and can reflect problems in their domestic production. In the long term trade balance may be the factor that will decide about the destabilisation of countries’ macroeconomic balance. As far as the current account deficit is concerned, violations occurred in 37 cases. The country which almost constantly maintains a deficit is Latvia, and unfortunately this situation is not expected to change. In this case, a clear imbalance is visible, which may lead to a situation similar to Greece's unless a deeper analysis is done and corrective measures are taken. The debt of the analysed group of countries is major. Its increase is reported for all CEE countries’ economies in the analysed period, which is a very alarming situation. It reflects the poor condition of these countries' finances and is the main cause of the problems they have with paying debt, which in consequence may lead to difficulties with paying it off at all. Thus, this parameter should be monitored with special attention in the upcoming years (compare: Kowanda 2012, p. 46). Table 2. A. CEEC economies stability level in the years 2007–2015 – chosen indicators Country GDP in 2014 (USD Mld) GDP in 2015* (USD Mld) Indicator Period 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015* Bulgaria (BG) 55.73 55.70 I 12.5 7.80 0.60 4.50 2.80 4.20 -1.60 -0.90 -0.20 U 6.91 6.31 7.59 9.47 10.4 11.45 11.76 10.69 9.40 Croatia (HR) 57.22 57.02 I 0.28 -0.46 -0.40 U 21.60 19.60 16.10 Czech Republic (CZ) 208.8 205.52 I 5.40 3.60 1.00 2.30 2.40 2.40 1.40 0.10 0.50 U 4.49 4.51 7.12 7.40 6.77 7.37 8.17 7.46 6.30 Estonia (EST) 24.88 25.9 I 9.57 6.98 -1.71 5.72 3.70 3.50 1.40 -0.50 -0.30 U 4.20 7.70 15.70 13.60 11.40 9.30 8.70 6.30 6.50 Latvia (LV) 0.5 1.2 I 14.00 10.40 -1.40 2.40 4.00 1.60 -0.40 0.20 0.00 U 5.40 10.10 20.10 17.20 15.00 13.90 11.30 10.20 9.80 Lithuania (LT) 0.6 0.6 I 8.10 8.50 1.30 3.80 3.40 2.80 0.40 -0.30 -0.50 U 4.10 9.00 16.60 17.40 14.10 12.70 11.40 10.00 8.50 Poland (PL) 548.00 548.00 I 4.00 3.30 3.50 3.10 4.60 2.40 0.70 -1.00 -0.70 U 11.20 9.50 11.90 12.30 12.50 13.40 13.40 11.50 10.30 Romania (RO) 199.04 190.00 I 6.60 6.30 4.80 8.00 3.14 4.95 1.60 0.80 -1.70 U 6.10 5.80 7.50 7.30 7.00 6.70 7.00 6.60 7.00 Slovakia (SK) 99.79 97.71 I 3.40 4.40 0.50 1.30 4.40 3.20 0.40 -0.10 -0.20 U 10.30 8.70 13.90 13.90 13.60 14.40 13.50 12.29 11.60 Slovenia (SLO) 49.42 47.99 I 5.60 2.10 1.80 1.90 2.00 2.70 0.70 0.20 -0.40 U 7.30 7.00 10.30 11.80 12.10 13.00 13.50 13.00 12.30 Hungary (HU) 137.00 134.00 I 7.40 3.50 5.60 4.70 4.10 5.00 0.40 -0.90 0.40 U 7,70 8,00 10,50 10,80 10,70 10,70 9,10 7,10 6,90 Legend: *-prognosis. I – Inflation in percent; U – Unemployment in percent. Source: Trading Economics 2015, OECD 2015, Eurostat 2015, Commodity Trade Statistics Database 2014. “New” Environmental Policy Of The European… 83 The study has been conducted on the basis of the calculation of: 1. violations of acceptable thresholds of the Scoreboard indicators in the years 2011–2014 – (Table 5). 2. intensity of crisis phenomena in 2014 with ∆X i indicator – (Table 6). 3. correlation of violations and crisis phenomena – (Table 7). Table 6. Intensity of crisis phenomena with ∆X i indicator in 2014 ∆X i BG 132.4 HR 69.9 CZE 65.8 EST 175.2 LV 120.3 LT 193.1 PL -1.0 RO 122.0 SL 78.3 SK 29.4 HU 48.5 Source: Own study. When considering the intensity of crisis phenomena through the prism of the relation between violations of acceptable indicator thresholds in the Scoreboard, it is clearly visible that the CEE countries’ economies can be divided into: • countries resistant to crisis phenomena (negative indicator): Poland; • countries with a moderate resistance to crisis phenomena (positive indicator): Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia, Slovakia; • countries with a low resistance to crisis phenomena (positive indicator): Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia and Romania. The indicators of correlations between violations and crisis phenomena shown in Table 7 enable us to determine the extent to which the studied features are related to one another. The strength of correlations has been determined according to Stanisz's scale (Stanisz 1998, p.55): r xy = 0 variables are not correlated, 0 < r xy ≤ 0.1 slight correlation – barely significant indicator, 0.1 < r xy ≤ 0.3 weak correlation – clear, yet weak indicator, 0.3 < r xy ≤ 0.5 average correlation – real indicator, 0.5 < r xy ≤ 0.7 high correlation – significant indicator, 84 Jacek Pera 0.7 < r xy ≤ 0.9 very high correlation – considerable indicator, 0.9 < r xy ≤ 1 almost certain correlation – certain indicator. Table 7. Correlation of the rho of violations and crisis phenomena ∆X i in 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ∑ ∆X i 1 1.00 2 0.74 1.00 3 0.91 0.92 1.00 4 0.79 0.99 0.91 1.00 5 0.83 0.97 0.72 0.89 1.00 6 0.77 0.85 0.78 0.98 0.97 1.00 7 0.88 0.78 0.75 0.78 0.88 -0.27 1.00 8 0.86 0.79 0.70 0.88 0.99 0.01 0.88 1.00 9 0.79 0.77 0.73 0.70 0.95 0.26 0.70 0.30 1.00 10 0.70 0.79 0.79 0.71 0.74 0.24 0.90 0.23 -0.11 1.00 11 0.90 0.81 0.76 0.76 0.87 -0.12 0.71 0.01 -0.23 0.78 1.00 ∑ 0.39 0.50 0.43 0.44 0.12 -0.37 0.43 0.12 -0.17 0.45 0.42 1.00 ∆X i 0.56 0.23 0.21 0.54 0.34 -0.32 0.44 0.08 -0.19 0.21 0.32 0.47 1.00 Source: Own study. The conducted study shows that there is a significant correlation between the Scoreboard parameter imbalances and the intensity of crisis phenomena in case of the violations of the acceptable thresholds in terms of CAB, NIIP, EMS, NULC, RHP, PSD, GD and UR. The imbalances of these eight indicators may create an adverse macroeconomic environment favouring the occurrence of intense crisis phenomena, which means that they should be subject to special monitoring. The remaining three indicators – REER, PSCF and TFSL – remained stable and did not have a significant influence on the occurrence of crisis phenomena. 5. Evaluation of CEE countries’ economies balance on the basis of the macroeconomic stabilisation pentagon 5 The macroeconomic stabilisation pentagon (MSP) is a method which enables one to look at several of the main economic indicators of a given country at the same time (Misala, Siek 2006, pp. 113–114). MSP provides a description of the economic condition of a country in a given year on the basis of socioeconomic indicators, such as (Babińska 2004, p. 2): 5 Analysis and own calculations based on: Trading Economics 2015. “New” Environmental Policy Of The European… 85 • GDP growth rate, • rate of unemployment, • inflation rate, • ratio of the state budget balance to GDP, • ratio of the current account balance to GDP. Each of these values is described on a separate pentagon axis. The total area of SMP is as follows: MSP = [(∆GDP x U) + (U x CPI) + (CPI x G) + (CA + ∆GDP)] x k (2) where: k = ½ sin 72° ∆GDP = GDP1 : GDP1- t U = Urt : Upt CPI = CPIt : CPIt-1 G = Gt : GDPt CA = CAt : GDPt The MSP area changes automatically whenever any triangle's area changes. Generally, as G. Kołodko states, (Kołodko 1993, p. 45) – the SMP's area enlargement indicates an improvement of economic situation, and viceversa – its reduction indicates an economy's deterioration. Table 8. Partial MSP indicators for CEEC in 2014 Period/Country/Indicator A b c d e Bulgaria 2014 0.1000 0.1069 -0.0900 0.0680 0.0010 Croatia 2014 0.1200 0.1960 -0.0460 0.0070 0.0060 Czech Republic 2014 0.4500 0.7400 0.0010 0.0060 0.0060 Estonia 2014 0.0140 0.0630 -0.0050 -0.0010 -0.0010 Latvia 2014 0.0450 0.1020 0.0020 -0.0310 0.0210 Lithuania 2014 0.0060 0.1000 -0.0030 0.0010 0.0010 Poland 2014 0.5480 0.1060 -0.0100 -0.0140 0.0010 86 Jacek Pera Romania 2014 0.0500 0.0660 0.0800 -0.0500 0.0050 Slovakia 2014 0.0470 0.1290 -0.0100 0.0100 0.0010 Slovenia 2014 0.1000 0.1300 0.0020 0.0580 0.0200 Hungary 2014 0.1300 0.0710 -0.0090 0.0410 0.0410 Source: Own study. Figure 1 and Table 8 show MSP for the CEE countries’ economies in 2014. None of the analysed countries is characterised by a total filling of the pentagon. This means that the economic situation in these countries is not stable and requires constant monitoring. The figures related to all analysed indicators, apart from GDP, are characterised by a flattened shape, which is characteristic for such a situation. MSP clearly separates the analysed economies into those where there is: • a high level of unemployment: Bulgaria, Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia, • a negative balance in the state budget: Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia and Hungary. CA and CPI are at a similar and low level in these countries. The worst situation, as far as MSP is concerned, is in Romania, where four out of five factors are at an unfavourable level. A U level, although with a clearly marked shape, is not favourable in this case as well, because it shows the relatively high unemployment in this country. The situation is favourable in Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary. The prognoses for the studied countries for 2015 remains similar or the same as for 2014. “New” Environmental Policy Of The European… 87 Figure. 1. The macroeconomic stabilisation pentagon for the CEE countries’ economies in 2014 88 Jacek Pera Legend: GDP – increase rate of GDP in %; U – unemployment rate in % of workforce; CPI – inflation rate in %; G – state budget balance % of GDP; CA – current account balance in % of GDP. Source: Own study. 6. Conclusions As the result of the analysis, the CEE countries’ macroeconomic security should be considered diverse, not guaranteeing the full macroeconomic safety of any of the studied countries. For this reason, it should be constantly monitored as part of the control mechanisms available in the EU (i.e., the Excessive Imbalance Procedure). Lack of such monitoring may lead to the occurrence of a local destabilisation, as in the case of Greece but this time within the CEE countries. In terms fulfilling the convergence criteria of Maastricht, in the CEE countries 9 cases of such violations were reported among the analysed group of countries in 2014. Alarming violations occurred with reference to the budget deficit (Croatia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia) and public debt (Croatia, Latvia, Hungary). This proves that there are fiscal problems in these countries. Unfortunately, the reported levels of these violations may, in the near future, threaten the inner stability of these countries, significantly increasing their foreign debts, and in consequence may result in the region's destabilisation. “New” Environmental Policy Of The European… 89 The prognoses concerning inflation for 2015 are optimistic and it is expected that that the tendency will be low, in accordance with the referential level. Hence, it can be clearly stated that there is no risk of imbalance in this area in any of the CEE countries. There are no blatant imbalances within the area of unemployment rate as well, so it can be considered safe. The countries where trade balance remains negative are: Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania. Undoubtedly the level of this factor affects the stability of the discussed countries and reflects their problems with domestic production. In the long term this may be the factor that will decide about the destabilisation of their macroeconomic balance. In case of budget deficits in the analysed period, Latvia is the country where a deficit has been maintained for almost for the entire period. Unfortunately, it is expected that this situation will not change in this country. In this case, a clear imbalance is visible, which may lead to a situation similar to Greece's, unless a deeper analysis is done and corrective measures are undertaken. The debt of the analysed group of countries is a major issue, and it increased in all the CEE countries in the analysed period. In this case, a clear imbalance is visible. This parameter should be particularly monitored by the EU institutions, because in case of the CEE countries there is a real danger of their insolvency. The conducted study shows that there is a significant correlation between the Scoreboard parameter imbalances and the intensity of crisis phenomena in cases of violations of the acceptable thresholds in terms of CAB, NIIP, EMS, NULC, RHP, PSD, GD and UR. The imbalances in these eight indicators may form an adverse macroeconomic environment, prompting the occurrence of intense crisis phenomena, which means that they should be subject to special monitoring. The remaining three indicators: REER, PSCF and TFSL remained stable and did not have a significant influence on the occurrence of crisis phenomena. The shapes of MSP for the CEE countries’ economies in 2014 shows that none of the analysed countries is characterised by a total filling of the pentagon. This means that the economic situation in these countries is not stable and requires constant monitoring. The figures related to all analysed indicators, apart from GDP, are characterised by a flattened shape, which is characteristic for such a situation. 90 Jacek Pera References Babińska N. (2004), Wybrane aspekty konkurencyjności Polski na tle krajów regionu Morza Bałtyckiego [in:] K. Chwesiuk (ed.), Zmiany w lądowo-morskich łańcuchach transportowych wrejonie Basenu Morza Bałtyckiego, Kreos, Szczecin. Commodity Trade Statistics Database. (2014), UN Statistics Division. Commission Staff Working Papers (2011), Scoreboard for the surveillance of macroeconomicimbalances: envisaged initial design, European Commission, Brussels. Council Regulation, Rozporządzenie Rady (UE) NR 407/2010 z dnia 11 maja 2010 r. ustanawiające europejski mechanizm stabilizacji finansowej. Eurostat. (2015). Global Financial Stability Report. (2015), Navigating Monetary Policy Challenges and Managing Risks, Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund (World economic and financial surveys). Global Development Finance. (2012), The World Bank, Washington. Global Development Finance. (2011), The World Bank, Washington. Global Development Finance. (2010), The World Bank, Washington. Graj D. (2014), Zakłócenia równowagi makroekonomicznej w UE a intensywność zjawisk kryzysowych,yadda.icm.edu.pl/yadda/element/.../c/KNUV_3_41_2014.5-19.pdf, access 01/06/2015. Janicka M. (2014), Ocena zewnętrznej stabilności Polski w latach 2000–2012, International Business and Global Economy, Łódź, No. 33. Kołodko G. (1993), Kwadratura Pięciokąta. Od załamania gospodarczego do trwałego wzrostu, Poltext, Warszawa. Kowanda C. (2012), Strefa Euro 2.0. Edukator ekonomiczny, Polityka, Warszawa, No. 38. Kuziemska K. (2010), Problem nierównowag na rachunkach obrotów bieżących w strefie euro, Acta Universitatis Lodziensis, Folia Oeconomica, Łódź, No. 238. Misala J., Siek E. (2006), Rozwój procesu stabilizacji makroekonomicznej w Polsce w okresie 1999–2004 i główne czynniki determinujące, SGH, Warszawa. Molendowski E., Stanek P. (2012), Globalny kryzys finansowo-gospodarczy i strefy euro a sytuacja fiskalna nowych państw czlonkowskich (UE-10), [in]: Globalne aspekty kryzysu strefy euro, Acta Universitatis Lodziensis, Folia Oeconomica, Łódź, No. 273. OECD Economic Outlook. (2015). Pluciński E.M. (2004), Ekonomia gospodarki otwartej. Wybrane zagadnienia teoretyczno-empiryczne z perspektywy członkostwa Polski w Unii Europejskiej, Dom Wydawniczy ELIPSA, Warszawa. Puig J. (2010), Can You Map Global Financial Stability? IMF Working Paper, WP/10/145. Reinhart M., Rogoff K.S. (2009), This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly, Princeton. “New” Environmental Policy Of The European… 91 Report from the Commission. (2012), Alert Mechanism Report. Report prepared in accordance with articles 3 and 4 of the Regulation on the prevention and correction of macro-economic imbalances, European Commission, Brussels, 14.2.2012, COM (2012) 68 final. Sławiński A. (2009), Przyczyny globalnego kryzysu bankowego, [in]: Nauki społeczne wobec kryzysu na rynkach finansowych, Kolegium Ekonomiczno-Społecznego SGH, Warszawa. Smaga P. (2014), The Concept of Systemic Risk, The London School of Economics and Political Science, SRC Special Paper No 5. Sporek T. (2010), Wpływ kryzysu finansowego na globalizację gospodarki światowej. Diagnoza i konsekwencje dla Polski, AE, Katowice. Stanisz A. (1998), Przystępny kurs statystyki, Statsoft Polska, Kraków. Statistical Annex of Alert Mechanism Report. (2014). Tchorek G. (2013), Nierównowagi fiskalne i makroekonomiczne w strefie euro a nowe rozwiązania instytucjonalne, Management and Business Administration. Central Europe, Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego, Warszawa, No. 2 (121). Trading Economics. (2015). Wajda M. (2013), Procedura Nierównowagi Makroekonomicznej – rozwiązanie wzmacniające czy nadmiernie regulujące funkcjonowanie gospodarek Unii Europejskiej, Przegląd Zachodniopomorski, Szczecin. World Economic Outlook. (2014), IMF. Wysokińska Z. (2014), Response of the EU Member States to Climate Change in the Context of EU Policy and Strategy, Comparative Economic Research, Volume 17. www.mf.gov.pl, access: 01/06/2015. Streszczenie OCENA POZIOMU STABILNOŚCI MAKROEKONOMICZNEJ KRAJÓW EUROPY ŚRODKOWO-WSCHODNIEJ W SYTUACJI ICH CZŁONKOSTWA W UNII EUROPEJSKIEJ WIELOWYMIAROWA ANALIZA RYZYKA Gospodarka krajów Unii Europejskiej od kilku lat podlega ciągłym turbulencjom. Są one konsekwencją szeregu implikacji a w szczególności: kryzysu z 2007 roku, naruszania kryteriów konwergencji oraz dyscypliny fiskalnej, problemów w płynności międzynarodowych rynków finansowych, osłabienia waluty euro, rosnącego bezrobocia w krajach członkowskich Unii Europejskiej, niskiego wzrostu produktywności większości gospodarek unijnych, 92 Jacek Pera rosnącego zadłużenia sfery finansów publicznych, problemów z systemami emerytalnymi – a w szczególności: ich korelacji między ich efektywnością a bezrobociem i niskim przyrostem naturalnym. Dlatego zdaniem autora ważnym jest przeanalizowanie kluczowych aspektów związanych z tymi parametrami gospodarczymi, które w istotny sposób mogą rzutować na ten proces i które mogą stanowić o ryzyku jego wystąpienia. I taki jest przyjęty cel opracowania. W opracowaniu zaprezentowano wyniki badań własnych w tym zakresie z użyciem różnych metod takich jak: pięciokąta stabilizacji makroekonomicznej, tabeli Scoreboard i współczynnika korelacji rang Spearmana. Różnorodność przyjętych metod badawczych wynika z jednej strony ze złożoności problemu; z drugiej zaś – dogłębnego przeanalizowania wszystkich zależności i ryzyka wynikającego z tej złożoności. Z przeprowadzonego badania wynika, że istotna zależność korelacyjna między występowaniem zakłóceń równowagi parametrów tabeli Scoreboard, a intensywnością zjawisk kryzysowych wystąpiła w przypadku naruszeń dopuszczalnych progów w zakresie: salda rachunku obrotów bieżących, międzynarodowej pozycja inwestycyjna netto, udziału w rynkach eksportowych, nominalnych jednostkowych kosztów pracy, realnych cen nieruchomości, długu sektora prywatnego, długu sektora instytucji rządowych i samorządowych i stopy bezrobocia. Zakłócenia równowagi tych ośmiu wskaźników mogą tworzyć niekorzystne środowisko makroekonomiczne sprzyjające występowaniu intensywnych zjawisk kryzysowych a to oznacza, że powinny one podlegać szczególnemu monitoringowi. Kształtowanie się pięciokąta stabilizacji makroekonomicznej dla gospodarek krajów Europy Środkowo–Wschodniej w 2014 roku, pokazuje, że żaden z analizowanych krajów nie charakteryzuje się pełnym wypełnieniem pięciokąta. Oznacza to, że sytuacja gospodarcza w tych krajach nie jest stabilna i wymaga ciągłego monitorowania. W zakresie wszystkich analizowanych mierników – poza PKB – figury charakteryzują się typowym dla takiej sytuacji spłaszczonym kształtem. Słowa kluczowe: stabilność, ryzyko, nierównowaga, destabilizacja, dywergencja