Download TRANSITION IN SERBIA 2000 – 2005:

TRANSITION IN SERBIA 2000 – 2005:
DIFFICULTIES AND CHALLENGES
by
Kosovka Ognjenović
Jelena Laušev
Draft paper prepared for the Third ARI Atelier, 6-7 December, 2005
INTRODUCTION
Particularly, three topics of the Serbian economy will be analyzed in the period from
2000 to 2005. Firstlly, we will analyze general characteristics of macroeconomic
environment including movement in gross domestic product (GDP) as a general measure
of economic activity; inflation including movement in retail price indices; rate of
unemployment – official and ILO – as a proportion of unemployed workers, who are
looking for a job, in total number of the active labour force; growth in wages in real and
nominal terms over the growth in labour productivity and movement in the exchange rate.
Then, the subject of this analysis will be the foreign sector including growth and
development of export and import commodity, macroeconomic implications of openness

Senior researcher with the Economic Social Policy Institute (ESPI), Department for Macroecnomic
Policy. Author corespondence address: Economic Social Policy Institute, Knez Mihailova 10, 11000
Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro. Tel. +381 11 3346 086. E-mail: [email protected].

Teaching Assistant at the Faculty of Economics, University of Belgrade. Author correspondence address:
Faculty of Economics, Kamenička 6, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro. Tel. +381 11 3021 106. Email: [email protected].
and inflow of foreign direct investments. In the last part of this paper we will analyze
public expenditure in many aspects including public sector wages, budget subsidies,
social transfers, public order and safety spending, capital spending, education spending
etc. Survey of the main macroeconomic variables for the Serbian economy is availlabe in
Table 1 in Annex.
CHARACTERISTICS OF MACROECONOMIC ACTIVITY IN SERBIA
The economy of Serbia faced numerous changes in the last five years. The economic
policy changed depending on priorities which were determined by the two legally chosen
Governments, but it was also under the influence of various factors from the international
environment and economic conditions inherited from the previous regimes. In order to
perceive what changes characterized macroeconomic environment in the last five years,
we would first take a look at the basic variables of the economic activity: aggregate value
of domestic production, inflation, unemployment rate, earnings and exchange rate. The
overview of economic performances in Serbia in the period from 2000 to 2005 is given in
the Table 1 in Annex.
Gross domestic product
Serbian economy faced the end of 2000 and the beginning of economic reforms with very
low level of gross domestic product. Although real value of GDP was 5.2% higher than
the value realized in the previous year, in relation to 1989, which represents one of the
most prosperous years in the more recent economic history of Serbia, the value of GDP in
2000 went down to less than 50% of the value realized in 1989. To reach the average of
ten countries that became equal members of EU in May 2004, Serbia with the present
around US$ 3,000 GDP per capita, cannot allow itself stagnation, not to mention
recession of its economic activity in the next years.
In the past five years of economic reforms in Serbia, the highest economic growth was
realized in 2004, when the real GDP growth rate of 8.6% was measured. High growth of
gross domestic product in the last year is explained by good performances of industrial
and agricultural production, which had the highest production gross value added.
However, in the process of forming the GDP value, we have redistribution between
agriculture and fishing, industry and civil engineering and services, with the tendency
that services sector grows into the leading generator for creating value of domestic
production aggregates. Namely, in relation to 2000, when the production activities
(industry and agriculture) and civil engineering exceed half of GDP value structure, in
GDP of 2003, the sector of services created 56.2% of the value, while industry and civil
engineering contributed with 31.7% and agriculture and fishing with 12% in the total
value of GDP. Such redistribution of values between services sector and production
sector was realized owing to faster growth of services in the previous years.
And while on the production side of GDP, there are activities that generated economic
growth such as: (a) industry, (b) agriculture, (c) civil engineering, on the expenditures
side, the leading factor of GDP growth was personal consumption. The high growth of
personal consumption in the previous years was realized owing to: (a) growth of
available household income, which was guided by high real growth of earnings (real
growth of earnings significantly exceeded growth of domestic production and
productivity aggregates), (b) expansion of consumer credits at commercial banks, and (c)
replacing the sales tax with the value added tax. In the period from 2000 to 2004,
personal consumption varied in the interval from 80% to 88% of GDP value. Today the
usage structure of GDP is such that personal consumption participates in it with over
80%, and state consumption with 25%. High growth of personal consumption was
accompanied by significant growth of household indebtedness. Indicator of high
indebtedness at banks shows that real value of credits placed to population in 2004, was
increased for over 100% on the annual level. Expansion of population indebtedness is
present since 2002, and it was especially pronounced in 2004, when indebtedness of
population and households increased dramatically. The value added tax was introduced in
January 2005. Introducing the value added tax had a passing, but still significant impact
on the consumption growth at the end of 2004.
The largest part of aggregate production value belongs to non-financial sector, as this
sector participated with 57-59% in GDP structure in the last five years. The importance
of household sector is mildly reduced (share of farms and shops production dropped from
28.2%, which was its amount in 2000, to 23.5% in 2003), while state participation is
increased (state participation is increased from 7.9% in 2000 to 13.2% in 2003). Financial
sector still has small role in creating GDP value. Considering its modest participation of
only 6%, banks and other financial institutions, as well as insurance companies, are still
to face more significant role in economic activity.
Inflation
Serbia is still struggling with high inflation rates, although it started liberalization of
prices in the last quarter of 2000. Compared to other countries from the region, if we
exclude Romania, Serbia has the highest inflation, with inflation rate of 10.1% that was
realized in 2004. Since the beginning of 2005, retail prices growth was such that this year
inflation threatens to exceed the last year inflation.
Inflationary pressures in the last five years grew because of several factors, of which we
will mention: (a) deregulation of administrative-controlled prices, (b) growth of industrial
producer prices, including high growth of energy sources prices - crude oil and gas, (c)
growth of import prices that manifests itself in differences between exchange rates, etc.
The prices of industrial producers realized high growth during the five year period, which
is the result of long years of restraining their growth, increase in production costs, and in
certain number of cases, monopolistic behavior on the market as well. In 2000, with
average annual growth rate of 102.6%, growth of industrial producer prices exceeded
annual inflation which at that time amounted to 70%. The lowest growth of industrial
producer prices was marked in 2003, when industrial production dropped for 3.5%.
Revitalizing activity of manufacturing industry during 2004 was accompanied with
somewhat more intensive prices growth. The total prices growth of industrial producers
in 2004 of 9.1% was the result of increase in production costs in all three industrial
sectors.
Consequently, recession of the economic activity in 2003 resulted by much lower
inflation rate, but at price of high interest rates and mild reduction of households and
companies consumption. Monthly interest rates, during 2003, stayed on a fairly high
level, which followed inflation movements of that period. However, faster growth of
producer prices and higher inflation rates caused interest rates to grow again during 2004
and 2005, which did not cause the expected scope of investment activity. On the other
hand, high interest rates were not obstacle to population to involve in debts at banks.
Namely, to illustrate this, it should be mentioned that, in 2005, interest rates for short
term credits to population amounted even over 2.25% per month, and interest rates to
consumer credits even up to 1.67%. Weighted active interest rate of banks varies from
1.06-1.17% and interest rate to securities with which National Bank of Serbia performs
operations on the open market 1.21% - 1.51%.
Finally, it can be concluded that high inflation still does not allow faster reduction of
interest rates and thus reduces economic activity to a certain extent. Today, interest rates
and inflation in Serbia move on the level higher than 1% per month.
Unemployment and wages
For labor market in Serbia, as well as labor markets of most other transition countries, it
is characteristic that they have unfavorable unemployment structure and great gap
between labor supply and demand. Among the unemployed, the most unfavorable
position have persons with low education level, persons that wait for employment longer
than one year – long-term unemployed, workers of age group over 45 who lost their job
as a result of enterprises privatization and restructuring, young people that come to labor
market after finishing education and women.
Out of all Republics of the former SFR Yugoslavia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and
Macedonia have experiences of the highest unemployment rates, even in the region. The
registered unemployment rate in 2004 in Serbia amounted to 28%. However, the ILO rate
of unemployment calculated according to the Labor Force Survey (LFS), which measures
relation of active job seekers in relation to total active population (including individual
farmers), is somewhat lower and amounted to 18.5% in 2004. Unemployment rate in
Macedonia, evaluated according to the LFS, moved on the level of 37%, while registered
unemployment rate in Bosnia and Herzegovina amounted to more than 40% in 2004. Ten
new members of the EU have twice as high unemployment rate than 15 old members, for
which average the ILO unemployment rate moves on the level of around 7%.
The strategy of dropping high unemployment rate consists of enforcing active labor
market programs and measures, which are implemented simultaneously with the passive
measures. Around 50,000 unemployed persons pass through these programs every year
and significant budget funds are spent for their implementation. Direct creation of new
jobs is realized through subventions for encouraging self-employment and opening micro
and small enterprises.
Employment wages make more than half of the value of available households incomes in
Serbia and therefore have decisive impact on forming life standard of population in
Serbia. In the past years, high growth of wages was accumulated, both in nominal and
real terms. However, high growth of wages was realized in conditions of low
productivity. In spite of high unemployment rate, unjustifiable high growth of earnings is
a latent determinant of inflation. In 2005 high inflation rates reduced growth of wages, so
that their real growth is more inert and is developing somewhat slower that the
productivity growth.
Serbia, like other European countries, follows the practice of beneficial system of social
protection and workers rights protection. The institution of minimum wage ensures
minimum of existence to salary recipients. In Serbia, minimum wage is established two
times per year and amounts about 40% of the value of average net wage. Concerning the
problem of structural unemployment, minimum wage, apart from maintaining the social
minimum, can have negative effect in the sense of intensifying illegal job, which can be
caused by drop of demand for workers with low qualifications who dominate among the
unemployed.
Exchange rate
Exchange rate was liberalized at the end of 2000. Liberalization of the exchange rate
regime meant that from the fixed rate which was bound to currency basket, it transforms
into the managed floating exchange rate regime. All countries of ex-socialist block on the
road of transforming their economic systems had similar experiences with exchange rate.
Exchange rate and inflation in the monetary policy of pre-transition regime served as
instruments for financing quasi fiscal deficit. Therefore, it was necessary to create
conditions for realizing convertibility of exchange rate.
Significantly slower exchange rate growth of CSD in comparison with DM, that is, EUR,
in relationship to inflation, resulted in real appreciation. However, during 2004 and 2005,
we had somewhat more significant nominal depreciation of exchange rate and it now
moves on the level of around 15%. Entering the EU, that is the EMU, implies complying
to strict rules in order to introduce a pegged exchange rate. None of the ten new members
of the EU did not access to the EMU because of high exchange rate volatility of their
currencies compared to the Euro zone countries.
Serbia has long experience with badly governed exchange rate policy. Today, exchange
rate is a topic of scientific polemics. It is considered that the value of exchange rate is
underestimated and that it unfavorably manifests to current account deficit, trade deficit
and domestic economy competitiveness. On the other hand, it is also considered that
more noticeable depreciation of exchange rate would lead to disequilibrium in certain
economic sectors, so it is attempted to improve foreign trade performances by creating
better institutional conditions for economic activity.
FOREIGN SECTOR
The liberalization of Serbia’s foreign trade regime started in late 2000. However, foreign
trade liberalization brought about increase in trade deficit, which reached its maximum in
2004, amounted 2/5 of the GDP. The liberalization affected increase in trade volume,
where exports grew at a faster pace in comparison with years preceding the beginning of
reforms; imports also rose considerably relative to their volume from previous years, and
more importantly, exceeded export value by more than two times. Serbia today is a small
open economy, which is best illustrated by the fact that commodity trade in 2004
accounted for 82% of the GDP, as opposed to 2000, when this percentage was as little as
9.4%. Year 2005 has seen positive trends in foreign trade, since exports have started
growing at a faster pace than imports, resulting in slight deficit reduction.
In former Yugoslavia, about 40% of trade was taking place between their republics, and
with the disintegration of the country, Serbia lost not only foreign markets, but also a
portion of the internal market. Serbia’s leading trade partners today are the EU countries
and former republics of Yugoslavia. EU countries account for some 55% in Serbia’s total
exports and imports. In terms of specific countries, main trade partners are Italy with 12%
and Germany with 16% in Serbia’s imports. However, these two countries have a rather
small role in Serbia’s exports: Germany as little as 10% and Italy as little as 13%. Given
enormous discrepancy between exports and imports, a considerable portion of Serbia’s
deficit is generated from trade with these two countries.
As for new EU Member States, relevant import partners are Slovenia and the Czech
Republic. With regard to the former republics of Yugoslavia, Bosnia and Herzegovina
and Macedonia rank first according to trade figures. These countries, besides Italy and
Germany, dominate Serbia’s exports. However, the only two countries with whom Serbia
has considerable trade surplus are Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia. In last two
years, Romania has won an important place among importing countries.
Although Serbia’s exports have been recovering from more than a decade of negative
trends, export structure is still unfavorable. What dominate in exports are materials for
reproduction, which have accounted for more than 60% in recent years, while the share of
finished products has been in decline, constituting 28% of the total export value.
However, current export structure corresponds to the level of economic activity.
Manufacturing fields which are recording permanent output growth are also seeing export
growth. In the export structure, manufacturing products account for about 95% of the
total value, while agricultural products constitute some 4%. On import side, besides
manufacturing products which constitute 80% of the import value, the import of energy
sources, with a 13% share, also has a relevant place.
Foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows in Serbia in the period 2000 – 2005 have
amounted to US$ 4.2 billion, or US$ 550 per capita. The largest inflow was recorded in
2003 in the amount of US$ 1.4 billion. However, year 2005, with FDI totaling US$ 1.2
billion in the first nine months, is likely to be the year with the largest inflow of foreign
capital so far. The major portion of FDIs concerns inflows on the basis of privatization of
socially-owned and state-owned enterprises. The share of greenfield investments in FDIs
is still irrelevant and there is no considerable difference between Serbia and other
transition countries.
In terms of geographical distribution of FDIs in the Western Balkans so far, Croatia has
been the most attractive for foreign investors, generating more than a half of all
investments made in this part of the world. On the other hand, of all CEE transition
countries, the Czech Republic attracted most FDIs during the period of economic
transformation – more than US$ 40 billion.
As for Serbia, big public telecommunications and energy enterprises, which has not been
privatized or which has not been fully privatized so far, are expected to be a considerable
source of foreign investments in the upcoming period. Given the share of FDIs in GDP,
which ranged between irrelevant 0.3% in 2000 to a very high 7.4% in 2003, it may be
concluded that their role so far has been manifold. The main significance of FDIs can
certainly be their role in financing current account deficit, which, in the absence of
domestic savings, was a source of financing for growing consumption and investment.
PUBLIC EXPENDITURE AND TRANSITION IN SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO
In the last tragic dacade Serbia and Montenegro has been through armed conflicts,
international sanctions, hyperinflation and trade shocks resulting from the breakup of the
SFRY that led to a 50 percent output decline over 1990-1993, and a sharp increase in
unemployment and poverty.
In Serbia, progress since the 2000 elections has been extensive, with major liberalization
of prices, foreign trade, and foreign exchange; tax reform; improved privatization and
bank restructuring regimes; enhanced transparency in the budget process; and reductions
in the gray economy and smuggling.
Sustainable and accountable public finances are the keystone for broader market-oriented
reforms, strong growth and poverty alleviation outcomes, and successful re-integration
into the European and global economic structures. In both Republics, reforms affect both
the revenue side (simplified tax structure, more efficient revenue administration), and the
expenditure side (improved budget management, reform of the pension system). The new
Laws on the Budget System (LBS) adopted by Montenegro in 2001 and by Serbia in
early 2002, outline further stages of reforms.
In that process Serbia and Montenegro faced with many problems.
Owing to the halfway reforms, it was not possible to create an environment that would be
attractive to new (local and foreign) investments as the sole means of arresting the
growing balance-of-payments deficit, which was upwards of 13% of the GDP, and the
growing unemployment rate, which had reached 34%. After four years of transition, the
GDP is now estimated at about US$ 3000 per capita (about US$ 5200 according to
purchasing power parity) and a little less than 11% of the Serbian population lives below
the poverty line, while about 20% are considered to be poor.
Nevertheless, the level of public spending by the Republic and Federal Governments
combined exceeds that of many wealthier countries. Yugoslavia traditionally had an
extensive social protection system, and expectations of the society in all ex-SFRY states
that social benefits would continue may be the strongest explanation for the "stickiness"
of public expenditure at high levels.
In addition to high public expenditures the following structural characteristics of public
spending suggest that its efficiency has been very low: (i) duplication of functions across
the Federal/Republic levels of government, estimated to be "worth" over 1 percent of
Serbia's GDP; (ii) apparent excessive spending in individual categories (e.g., public
wages) and functions (e.g., defense).
According to WB staff estimates government spending in Serbia by Function in 2001 was
44.2% on Social protection, 6.3% on Education, 6.1% on General public services, 9.5%
on Defense, Public order and safety 6.7%, Economic affairs 8.3%, Health 12.8%,
Housing 6.0%, Recreation, culture and religion 0.4%.
Government Spending by Economic Category for 2001 was distributed 41% on
Transfers, 23% on Wages and Salaries, 21% on Goods and Services, 11% on Subsidies
and Net Lending, 3% Capital Expenditures and 2% on Interest Payments.
Public Sector Wages. Federal and Republic Government wage expenditures combined
are close to 10 percent of Serbia's GDP, absorbing over 23 percent of total spending.
Public wage expenditures are above the regional averages in both Republics, and in
Montenegro their level is among the highest in the region.
Interest on debt is rising steeply in both Republics, due to the normalization of their
relations with external creditors.
Defense spending has been declining in Serbia, but is still at more than twice the CEE
average.
Budget subsidies to inefficient public enterprises have declined over the past few years
in Montenegro, and are now low, but in Serbia they are above the regional averages.
Budget subsidies and loans are significant at 3-4 percent of GDP and they go almost
entirely to nine public enterprises that are the largest loss-makers.
Serbia's level of social transfers as a share of GDP is high, and close to that of much
wealthier countries, which raises affordability concerns. The actual level of social transfers
displays high volatility, suggesting serious sustainability problems.
Capital Spending. Over the past decade, and possibly longer, Serbia was under-investing
in public assets. As a share of GDP, this category was less than half the regional average.
It was also volatile, suggesting its use as an in-year balancing item. Only in 2000 was
there a rise in capital spending, related to the post-conflict reconstruction. In 2001,
substantial donor funds went into extrabudgetary capital spending, but budgeted capital
expenditure dropped sharply. Cuts in capital spending are still used to balance the budget.
Public order and safety spending is slightly above the regional comparators. It will
need to be adequate to combat crime and improve the judiciary system.
Education spending has been declining throughout the past decade. It bottomed out in
2001, reaching one of the lowest levels for the region, even if local government spending
is included. Teacher salaries dropped well below public sector averages, schools were
starved for basic education supplies and equipment, while many school buildings were
past the age that provides normal conditions for learning. In 2002, the Republic
Government acted strongly to revert the decline of public education and increased capital
spending.
Social protection programs account for close to 45 percent of the S&M consolidated
public expenditures. The two most important of these programs are pensions and health
care. The Serbian pension system faces serious sustainability challenges. It currently
absorbs 12.7 percent of GDP and is able to meet its legal obligations only with the help of
budgetary transfers amounting to 4 percent of GDP. In the absence of reforms, the
pension system's deficit will grow further. Serbia's health care system is in need of
considerable restructuring. In its current format it is not fiscally sustainable and delivers
poor quality health care in an inefficient and inequitable way. Inefficiencies are
particularly evident in the level of overcapacity of the hospital system and the high
number of non-clinical staff, such as cleaners, catering assistants, and administrators.
Inefficiencies arise from the lack of adequate incentives for cost minimization, separation
of financial responsibilities and the lack of accountability and monitoring capacity at all
levels of the system.
Aiming to contain the level of spending and to improve equity in the system, the
government introduced in late 2001 a range of parametric measures, which will reduce
the deficit but will not eliminate it entirely. Deeper structural reforms are essential to
bring the system back into balance because sustainability cannot be enhanced by a further
increase in overall tax rates, since this could damage growth. Further significant increases
in public expenditure could have adverse consequences for long-term growth and private
sector development, and the reintegration of the gray sector into the official economy.
No government can simultaneously reform all aspects of the public spending mechanism,
nor are all reforms equally pressing. However, some recommendations can be given.
Of particular relevance is the need to elaborate and implement an effective public sector
employment and wage policy. The core wages are low, and the main reason for the high
level of spending is the large number of public employees. Salary differentials between
highly skilled and unskilled labor are small and do not provide incentives to retain staff
with much-needed skills. The current organizational model of public service is not
flexible enough to attract the skills the governments need to modernize their public
expenditure systems.
Budget execution should rest upon modem treasury practices and strong commitment
controls. Decisions are currently taken within a one-year framework, which can generate
future fiscal imbalances. A multi-year perspective needs to be integrated into budget
analysis and decisions. At the same time, there exists a need for an independent external
audit institution that could safeguard the usage of public funds and the quality and
credibility of reported fiscal data. Better targeting and reform of social programs is
needed to eliminate waste and to free up resources.
Both Republics have stated their intention to begin preparations for eventual EU
accession. This should provide further impetus to expenditure reform, as they will have to
meet the Maastricht fiscal responsibility criteria. Eventually, complying with the acquis
communautaire could require an increase in spending in such areas as education,
environmental standards, and transportation but the gains from restructuring will come in
the medium term.
We can conclude that the political context of conducting reforms was much more
difficult than in other countries in transition. However, a change was called for in the first
place because (I) the balance-of-payments deficit became unsustainable, (II) public
expenditures were too high and tended to push private investment out, (III) institutional
frame is practically obstructing the further privatization of the state and socially owned
sectors, and (IV) failure of the export income to grow to any substantial extent is bringing
into question the ability to service foreign debts and threatening to give rise to a debt
crisis. This means that it would be necessary to cut subsidies and other public
expenditures, bring the wage increases in line with productivity rises and complete the
privatization of the state and socially owned firms, in addition to dealing with redundant
civil servants and public enterprise employees.
CONCLUSIONS
Serbia, as a constituent of State Union with Montenegro, still has to tackle many
problems it has been facing for years. The period in which Serbia would manage, in
terms of its economic performance, to get closer the rest of Western Balkan countries
which are the leaders in SAP – Bulgaria and Romania, that is, countries which are its
main competitors in the process of association – Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Macedonia and Albania, would certainly depend on the way it has solved economic
difficulties and how efficient it was, but also on political will in the country. Challenges
for any Government would be as follows: (a) to reduce huge public spending (in 2003 it
exceeded GDP value by 7%); (b) to reduce inflation rate; (c) to reduce foreign trade
deficit; (d) to reduce current account deficit; (e) to reduce high unemployment rate; (f) to
ensure sustainable economic growth in the medium and long term; (g) to ensure stability
of exchange rate; (h) to ensure stable conditions for doing business, etc.
Discussion issue:
“SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO AND WESTERN BALKAN COUNTRIES:
COMPARISONS OF ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE”
VALUABLE SOURCES OF INFORMATION:
1. G17 Institute, Economic Review, different issues. Available on the web site:
www.g17institut.co.yu; www.institutespi.org.
2. G17 Institute, Transition Report for Serbia and Montenegro, 2004.
4. National Bank of Serbia, Monthly Bulletin, different issues. Available on the web site:
www.nbs.yu.
5. Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia, Statistical Yearbook, different issues.
6. Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia, Studies and Analyses: The System of
National Accounts of the Republic of Serbia 2000-2003, June 2005.
7. World Bank, Transition: The First Ten Years, 2002.
Annex
Table 1. GENERAL MACROECONOMIC INDICATORS FOR SERBIA, 2000-2005
Indicator
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
(Forecast)
GDP
Real growth rate,
5.2
5.1
4.5
2.4
8.6
6.71)
%
Inflation
Annual average,
70.0
91.8
19.5
11.7
10.1
16.51)
%
End of year, %
111.9
40.7
14.8
7.8
13.7
16.01)
Producer prices
in
manufacturing
industry
Annual average,
102.6
87.8
8.8
4.6
9.1
…
%
End of year, %
143.9
29.1
6.1
4.6
12.0
…
Unemployment
rate
Registered
…
24.7
27.1
27.8
28.0
27.51)
unemployment
rate, %
Unemployment
…
12.2
13.3
14.6
18.5
…
rate according to
LFS, %
Wages
Average net
2,389
5,375
9,208
11,500
14,108
16,8001)
wage, in CSD
Nominal growth
90
125
71
25
23
19.51)
rate, %
Real growth rate,
6
16
47
14
10
4.31)
%
Exchange rates
CSD per EUR,
51.0
59.5
60.7
65.0
72.6
86.71)
annual average
CSD per USD,
54.9
66.4
64.4
57.5
58.4
661)
annual average
Foreign trade
Commodity
3.0
12.8
14.5
16.9
20.2
…
export as % of
GDP
Commodity
6.4
32.1
39.1
45.6
61.6
…
import as % of
GDP
Deficit as % of
-3.4
-19.3
-24.6
-28.8
-41.3
…
GDP
Source: GDP growth rate, inflation, producer prices, wages, export, import, trade deficit, unemploymnet
rate acccording to the Labour Force Survey (Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia, G17 Institute).
Registered unemployment rate (National Employment Service). Exchange rate (National Bank of Serbia).
1)
Forecast (G17 Institute).
… Not available.