Alternative measures of macroeconomic imbalances in the EU – design and verification

Kološta, Stanislav; Kráľ, Pavol; Flaška, Filip

doi:10.15240/tul/001/2019-1-003

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Catão and Milesi-Ferretti (2014), Knedlik (2014) as well as Siranova and Radvanský (2018) have also shown that NIIP is one of the significant explanatory variables for crises. Positive and stable values of NIIP (and also current account balance) are important for macroeconomic stability of EU countries (Kološta et al, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Macroeconomic imbalance procedure (MIP) scoreboard indicators and their predictive strength of ?multidimensional crises?

Biegun

Karwowski

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research background: The evaluation of the predictive strength of MIP indicators in relation to crises is extremely important for the process of coordinating the economic policies of the EU countries. MIP is one of the pillars of the economic crisis prevention procedure. Predictive power of individual indicators has not been tested before their introduction. Purpose of the article: Evaluation of the predictive strength of fourteen MIP indicators in relation to multidimensional crises in the EU countries. Methods: We used ordered probit model to test the ability of MIP indicators to correctly predict episodes of “multidimensional crises” (as defined by the authors) in the period between 2008 and 2017 in all EU Member States. Findings & Value added: We defined “multidimensional crises”, combining several negative phenomena into one limited dependent variable. This work is also novel in its application of probit regression to test the predictive strength of MIP indicators with an ordered probit model. We identified five MIP variables which were statistically significant in predicting “multidimensional crises” for all EU countries: net international investment position, nominal unit labour cost index, house price index, private sector credit flow and general government gross debt. Other variables turned out to be less important or not effective in crises prediction.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Macroeconomic imbalance procedure (MIP) scoreboard indicators and their predictive strength of ?multidimensional crises?

Biegun

Karwowski

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Comparative analysis of the theoretical basis for assessing the level of macroeconomic stability of the national economy (Lyulyov & Shvindina, 2017;Remeikienė et al, 2019;Kološta et al, 2019;Biegun & Karwowski, 2020;Roszko-Wójtowicz & Grzelak, 2020;Zolkover & Renkas, 2020b ) testified that to the greatest extent the requirement to ensure the reliability of comparisons of different countries and achieve the main goals of the state stabilization policy is met using the concept of the pentagon of macroeconomic stability. As a kind of analysis of macroeconomic stability, the director of the Institute of Finance in Warsaw, Professor of Economics Kolodko G. W. (1993), proposed a model of the pentagon of macroeconomic stability "Macroeconomic stabilization Pentagon" (MSP).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of tax gap on macroeconomic stability: Assessment using panel VEC approach

Lyulyov

Lyeonov

Tiutiunyk

et al. 2021

Journal of International Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Alternative measures of macroeconomic imbalances in the EU – design and verification

Cited by 2 publications

References 21 publications

Macroeconomic imbalance procedure (MIP) scoreboard indicators and their predictive strength of ?multidimensional crises?

Macroeconomic imbalance procedure (MIP) scoreboard indicators and their predictive strength of ?multidimensional crises?

The impact of tax gap on macroeconomic stability: Assessment using panel VEC approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About