Talk:Economy of the European Union/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Not respected by Eurostat?

I think this section is problematic: "The NUTS Regulation lays down a minimum population size of 3 million and a maximum size of 7 million for the average NUTS-1 region, whereas a minimum of 800,000 and a maximum of 3 million for NUTS-2 regions ¹ [22]. This definition, however, is not respected by Eurostat. E.g.: the région of Île-de-France, with 11.6 million inhabitants, is treated as a NUTS-2 region, while the state Free Hanseatic City of Bremen, with only 664,000 inhabitants, is treated as a NUTS-1 region." In my understanding, the rules only consider the average population size of each level, so that Île-de-France is a région, and regions of France has an average of 2.9 million inhabitants, and therefore regions are the definition of NUTS-2 in Francs. And bundesländer with an average of 5.0 million inhabitants qualify as the NUTS-1 definition of Germany. If that is the case, the rules are respected by Eurostat, and the text should be edited accordingly. I couldn't however find the exact rules for NUTS (the links from this article was broken). Boivie (talk) 08:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The sentence including "not respected" is original research and incorrect as stated. As the example given shows, there may well be a problem if a region with a larger population (such as NUTS-1 region FR1 or NUTS-2 region FR10) is compared with region with a smaller population (such as NUTS-1 region DE5 or NUTS-2 region DE50) as listed in the NUTS region classification, Commission Regulation (EC) 105/2007, but it is not proper to present this as a problem of Eurostat not respecting the classification. Eurostat seems to provide data for FR1 and FR10 and for DE5 and DE50. If the article is to discuss statistical problems, we need to provide sources that discuss those statistical problems; so we should probably remove that whole paragraph (unless we have sources that discuss the problems). --Boson (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

update

I will update all the statistics on this page using the officials dates from IMF, WB, Eurostat, CIA, etc. And I will do my best to do this all the time so as to keep the page updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damian Radu (talk • contribs) 19:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

GDP per capita and inflation are IMF estimates made in May 2008!!

Need urgent update!! --Plus Area Item (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

2005-2014 GDP Growth figures do not take into account compound growth

The table of EU member states' economic growth simply takes the annual percentage growth of each year and adds them up to give a total percentage growth 2005-2014. This is mathematically incorrect. If you want to see the 2005-2014 percentage growth, the base has to be 2005, but each year's percentage growth takes as its base the previous year. For example, Poland's GDP in 2005 was US$ 304,411,705,932 and in 2014 was US$ 548,003,360,279. That is growth of 80%, not 38% as the table says. GDP figures here: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD/countries 82.16.1.6 (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this was resolved or not, but this does not appear to be the case any more. Instead it cites a Eurostat table, which shows the size of the economy by each year relative to 2005. However, it only goes up to 2013, yet the article says 2014. This is quite strange. I'm thinking that perhaps the data was previously there and Eurostat have removed it. It may have to be bumped down to 2005-2013 or 2004-2013 if this isn't resolved. Jolly Ω Janner 19:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Source for 2014 GDP per capita (PPP)

As it currently stands the Eurostat source for 2014 GDP per capita (PPP) returns a 404. I have tried searching for this data on the site, but can only find 2013 data or nominal data for 2014. Is anyone able to assist, as I noticed an IP edit today changing one of the cells; without a source, I'm not able to check if our current data or their edit is correct. If this remains unresolved, I think the only option will be to use 2013 data. Regards Jolly Ω Janner 19:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database --> Database by themes: Economy and Finance: National Accounts (ESA2010): Annual National Accounts: Auxiliary indicators (population, GDP per capita and productivity): Main GDP aggregates per capita!!! Open the link and change the unit of measure into "PPS per capita"Olliyeah (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Have you updated the table in the variance section to this data? I believe I am looking at the table you described, but it does not match up with our current table. Jolly Ω Janner 20:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

they have updated the 2014 figures today! Will change it now - thank you Olliyeah (talk) 08:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I've just updated the nominal and ppp per capita figures in the "Economic variation" sectionOlliyeah (talk) 09:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Good stuff, maybe Eurostat is watching this page?! I have updated the source for the data in the article, using Eurostat's bookmarking tool. This should link someone to the most up to date version of the table, so finding 2015 data will be a bit easier next year. Jolly Ω Janner 19:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Inflation - Economies of member states

Using red and green colours for Inflation is a bit clumsy. It makes sense in other categories, for example GDP, where higher GDP means better. You can then separate the states in two groups: above average (green) and below average (red). However, lower inflation doesn't always mean better. Some countries purposly try to hit higher target inflation (e.g 2.0 %). For them, 2.0% is better than 1.0%. Other countries might have a different preferece. Generaly speaking, inflation is negative (harmful) only in its extremes. But there is no fixed borders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.196.248.114 (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

All the columns are sortable, so the colours are utterly redundant... Also, we have a section on "economic variation", which is the same thing as "economies of member states". It's almost as if someone throw a bunch of tables onto a page and tried to fit the article around it. If there's no opposition, I'll remove the colour-coding and do away with the "economic variation" table. Thanks for raising the issue. Jolly Ω Janner 11:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the colours - but I'd rather keep the Eurostat figures than the IMF figures. I'd use GDP billions, GDP per capita (nominal and PPP), percentage in PPP, public debt, deficit, inflation and unemployment. If you want to I can try to edit it and then you tell me what you think.Olliyeah (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Member state sorted by GDP	GDP in billions of euro (2015)	GDP (Nominal) per capita 2015 euro	GDP (PPP) per capita 2014 euro	GDP (PPP) per capita 2014 EU28 = 100	Public debt % of GDP (2014)	Deficit (-)/ Surplus (+) % of GDP (2014)	Inflation % Annual (2015)	Unemp. % 2016 M1
European Union	13,958.4(2014)	27,400(2014)	27,400	100%	86.8	−3.0	0.0	8.9
Germany	3,026.6	37,100	34,500	124%	74.9	0.3	0.1	4.3
United Kingdom	2,568.1	39,400	29,900	109%	88.2	−5.7	1.5(2014)	5.1(M11)
France	2,183.6	32,200(2014)	29,300	107%	95.6	−3.9	0.1	10.2
Italy	1,636.4	26,900	26,400	96%	132.3	−3.0	0.1	11.5

Like this?? Olliyeah (talk) 14:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Olli. Considering that we can sort the table by GDP per capita, I find the GDP per capita anomaly overly detailed and would prefer it removed. On the issue of IMF vs Eurostat, the priority is to get a group of statistics ideally from the same year. Whichever one publishes most of the sources from the same year should be preferred, as it improves the comparability of the member states (people can always go to the country's own economy article if they want the latest information). This method also reduces the amount of updates needed to be done to this article. A final point would be to use footnotes for any date which isn't in the year given at the top of the column's header. All in all, a pretty good start! It's a little awkward on my screen's resolution, so we definitely shouldn't look to expanding it. Do we have any sources which we could refer to that list certain statistics to look for in describing an economy? Could be of help. I think the end result would be to move it to List of economies in the European Union, because it's a bit too heavy for an article that should be made with prose. That's probably a separate matter, as there are so many tables here, it's hard to know where to start. Jolly Ω Janner 22:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd use the Eurostat figures (1. They are much faster in updating the figures 2. The rest of the article uses Eurostat as well). So you wanna get rid of all the GDP per capita figures? Not sure about that :D Olliyeah (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

While those two points are both advantages to Eurostat, how does it compare in the above factors (i.e. covers the same time period). Also, I would only suggest removing the GDP per capita anomaly, not the absolute figures. Also, is the total GDP figure nominal or based on PPP? It should be noted which is used. Jolly Ω Janner 02:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Eurostat covers (exept for the regional figures) the same time period. I think Eurostat will release all the nominal GDP figures for 2015 by March, while the PPP figures, debt, deficit etc. will be released by June/July. The absolute GDP figure is nominal - I noted it in the article.Olliyeah (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Economic variation section

I think this section is a bit confusing. First we have absolute GDP numbers (nominal - could maybe be specified in the table), than GPD per capita (PPP), GPD per capita (nominal) and finally GDP per capita (PPP) in percentage of EU. This back and forth between nominal and PPP is a bit weird. If we keep the total GDP (first row) in nominal terms, than it would maybe be better to put the nominal GPD per capita in front of the GDP (PPP) per capita. Otherwise we could show the absolute GDP in PPP terms, which would make more sense so that comparisons between countries with different price levels can be made more easily. What do you think? Olliyeah (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Forget everything I said. I've just realized that in the section it points out that the first row is intended to be listed as PPP. Someone must have changed the absolute GDP from PPP to nominal - I will fix that now.Olliyeah (talk) 13:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we should use nominal GDP, then GDP nominal per capita then GDP (PPP) per capita and then Eurozone. I don't see the significance of population and GDP (PPP) per capita percentage. Jolly Ω Janner 02:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The first paragraph specifies gdp as €16.5 trillion. The text box to the right specifies gdp as $16.5 trillion. Dollar or Euro, which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.110.66.194 (talk) 13:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

GDP (PPP) should be added

List of sovereign states in Europe by GDP (PPP) Xx236 (talk) 09:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

These numbers are already included, so I don't get your point here? Arnoutf (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the proposal is here. Jolly Ω Janner 20:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The table in the Economies of member states section contains per capita GDP (PPP) but not the total numbers. A similar table for the Ehole Europe exists in another place, what is the problem with the PPP for the EU states?Xx236 (talk) 06:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I see no problem with including it. Looks like there's still room for another column on my screen's resolution. Jolly Ω Janner 07:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Might be ok. We have to be a bit careful not to overload the tables too much, but I think this might fit. Arnoutf (talk) 10:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

In an ideal world, there would only be one mainstream measure of GDP. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the way the world works. There was also more extended discussion on it at Olliyeah's talk page. I didn't think there were many other editors involved. I probably should have transferred the discussion to here. Jolly Ω Janner 17:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Richest and poorest NUTS regions (GDP PPP 2014) has an error

the value for Belgium has an extra 0 added, easily fixable. User:sweetoats (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

OECD data puts EU GDP at 22 trillion, I think this should be included in the article

According to the latest OECD data, the combined GDP of EU countries are now at $22 trillion. You can see this page to verify it. This page shows the per capita by default, so to change that, click "US dollars/capita" and change it to "Millions of US dollars" and you will see the country's total GDP.

Currently, the IMF data is mainly relied on, which puts the 🇪🇺 EU GDP at $16.5 trillion. Should we change that to the OECD data? Or keep IMF? And why? I welcome your thoughts. Amin (Talk) 06:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Why not both? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.188.179 (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Economy of the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Pointless table "EU member states GDP (nominal) in billions of €". Per capita table would be better.

I suspect that this comment may contradict earlier discussions above, but to my eye this table takes a lot of space to state the obvious: Germany, the largest member state, has the highest absolute GDP and Malta, the smallest, has the lowest. No surprise there.

IMO, it would be far more useful to show the per capita data. The default sort order would have to be by most recent year given that there changes in the pecking order from one year to the next. Comments? --Red King (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The per-capita table is already there, below the one you are referring to. I am strongly opposed to the removal of the GDP table: somewhere it must be reported what the full GDP of each country is. Yes, it might sound "obvious" that Germany has a higher GDP than Malta, but it's actually not. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

My mistake, don't know how I missed it. --Red King (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Economy of the European Union vs Economy of the United Kingdom

"Economy of the European Union" states "The European Union economy consists of an internal market of mixed economies based on free market and advanced social models." "Economy of the United Kingdom" states "The economy of the United Kingdom is highly developed and market-orientated."

I was just wondering how far is the UK from the EU or the EU of the UK, in terms of mixed economies, free market, and market-orientated. That is what kind of things makes such economy like this and such other economy like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.215.218 (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

The UK has now left the EU (As of 31st January 2020)

As of 31st January 2020 the UK has now officially left the EU, it has been confirmed into law by both the UK Parliament and EU Parliament. The UK is now a totally independent sovereign country free to make it's own laws and economic policies without EU oversight or influence.

Therefore the page needs to be updated to reflect this huge economic shift to the EU, along with many other pages such as ranking GDP per capita, PPP etc also requiring updates with the UK's figures and contributions removing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.114.232.241 (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hold up a minute there, going forward it should not be included as you say, but leaving now doesn't mean the UK wasn't a member in 2019, 2018 or before. The UK figures should be included up until the year of departure, that much should be obvious.

Why have the historical figures been removed? put them back. MrPoletski (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Capital Markets Union

Hello, we have a project to write an article on the "Capital Markets Union" of the European Union. It turns out that when we search for it, it redirects to this page. Given the fact that there is an already existing article on the EMU and on the Banking Union, we find it relevant to create one separate article about the CMU project and for that we need to create consensus in this page. The link to the draft is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Capital_Markets_Union Tell us what you think. It is very important, not just for us but for wikipedia in general and for the content related to the European Union. Thank you a lot. --JoaoPillon (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Very good idea ! This article was missing. I really don't understand why it hasn't been accepted for submission.--Jvillebrun (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Jvillebrun for your reply. I really appreciate. Any more suggestions from other people are mostly welcomed.--JoaoPillon (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jvillebrun:, see reviewer assessment. Acceptance was witheld (not refused) pending demonstration of consensus that the article is needed, as there are already quite a few EU articles. The OP is requesting comment to demonstrate whether (or not) there is a consensus in favour of acceptance. --Red King (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I support acceptance of this draft. --Red King (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Red King

I think it is a very important and constructive idea. This is a current and hot topic in the discussions about the EU economy and it should be somehow included in one page alone as it is a whole project per se. I'm pleased that someone took this initiative. Rossanovillagran (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Rossanovillagran.

Edit

Why was incorrect information on EU exports posted! EU exports to the uk are 7% not what is posted! I would like to see evidence! Anthony Burke Ireland (talk) 11:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Here --Elishop (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Historical data

I removed the United Kingdom from the data tables. My change was reverted, with a perfectly reasonable rationale. However, on reflection, I think this needs some discussion. What is the purpose of the historical data tables?

1. To show the economy of the European Union as it existed historically

In this case, the data for Croatia prior to 2013 should be removed.

2. To show how the economy of the current European Union has evolved

In this case, the data for Croatia should be retained, and the data for the UK should be removed. Perhaps a separate article could be created about the economic history of the European Union.

3. Both

In this case, there should be two EU-wide totals for each of the tables - one for (1) and one for (2).

The difference is going to become quite stark when we start getting figures for 2020 next year. Mibblepedia (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)