See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/227441027

The main determinants of inflation of the EU and the US economy: a panel

time-series analysis

Article  in  International Journal of Trade and Global Markets · January 2011

DOI: 10.1504/IJTGM.2011.041762 · Source: RePEc

CITATIONS READS

5 637

1 author:

Dimitris Kalimeris

16 PUBLICATIONS   34 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Dimitris Kalimeris on 02 January 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Int. J. Trade and Global Markets, Vol. 4, No. 3, 2011 279

The main determinants of inflation of the EU

and the US economy: a panel time-series analysis

Dimitris Kalimeris
International European Studies,
Alexander Technological Educational Institute of Thessaloniki,
Accounting Department,
School of Economics and Business,
57400 Greece
E-mail: dimitris_kal@hotmail.com

Abstract: This paper uses the panel analysis approach to deal with the impact
of oil price shocks, unemployment and interest rates on the most fundamental
macroeconomic variable, inflation. A data set ranging from 1997 to 2007 is
used, separately for the US and the EU economy. In both sets of data, current
inflation is heavily affected by unemployment, as expected. The worth noticing
difference is that in the US economy, interest rates have a negative relationship
with inflation (unlike in the case of the EU), while unemployment plays a more
substantial role in the USA in affecting inflation level. Oil prices tend to play a
small and distinctive role.

Keywords: inflation determinants; panel analysis.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Kalimeris, D. (2011)

‘The main determinants of inflation of the EU and the US economy: a panel
time-series analysis’, Int. J. Trade and Global Markets, Vol. 4, No. 3,
pp.279–289.

Biographical notes: Dimitris Kalimeris is collaborator Economics teacher at

ATEI in Thessaloniki and TEI of Western Macedonia. He teaches
Microeconomics, Macroeconomics and International Economic Relations.
He holds a PhD in International Economics in the area of Mergers and
Acquisitions. His current scientific interests are the effects of macroeconomic
variables on south-eastern European economies, the case of income inequality
distribution, and competitiveness issues.

1 Introduction

Trade-off between inflation and unemployment is a main concern not only for the
developed but for the developing countries as well. The level of the problem’s urgency
is dealt differently, depending on whether an economy wishes to stabilise its domestic
prices and boost aggregate demand or aims at social goals, like increasing personal
disposable income and dealing with all of the bilateral impacts that unemployment
brings.
Except unemployment, there exist other economic variables that tend to affect the
level of inflation. The macroeconomic impact of oil price changes is considered one of

Copyright © 2011 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

280 D. Kalimeris

the most important issues regarding its impact not only on inflation but also on
consumption and interest rates, among others. In countries like the USA and Germany,
where oil is an important factor of production, average Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
figures seem to have a constant effect from changes in the oil prices. Many firms with
oil-consumption-based production tend to use the changes in oil prices (oil price shocks)
as an excuse for raising their final product prices, therefore negatively contributing to the
vicious circle of inflation.
The effects of oil price shocks differ substantially across countries due to different
levels of importance of energy consumption. In particular, the USA and Japan use far
more oil per dollar of GDP in production than other developed countries and therefore are
far more sensitive to oil price shocks. On the other hand, there are opinions that focus on
the energy-efficiency levels of countries like the USA, saying that:
“…energy demand as a share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is about 2.5%
now compared to 5.0% in the mid-1970s; … the energy intensity of the USA
has been reduced by about half since the early 1970s. All of these statements
refer to the fact that the ratio of barrels of oil consumed to real GDP has been
cut in half between 1973 and today.” (Saltzman, 2005)
This study deals with the determinants of inflation, namely, with the impact of
unemployment, oil prices and interest rates on consumer price levels. The latter seem
to significantly contribute to inflation changes since they affect investment decisions
and can heavily affect money demand conditions. The present paper is organised as
follows. Section 1 explains the reason for selecting the particular subject for analysis.
Section 2 consists of the literature that deals with similar topics, while Section 3 explains
the methodology used and presents the data details analytically. Section 4 discusses
the empirical results, and Section 5 presents the conclusions derived from these results.
Finally, the Appendix presents explanatory tables for the data, namely the descriptive
statistics, separately for the European and the US economy.

2 Literature review

2.1 Theoretical concepts of demand-pull and cost-push inflation

Using the European Commission’s QUEST model (an international macroeconomic
model that stands in the tradition of dynamic equilibrium), Roeger (2005) concluded that
oil prices affect production directly to the extend to which it is used as an intermediate
input and it affects consumption directly to the extend to which households use oil as a
component of their energy demand. The direct effects are the passing on of oil prices to
producer prices and consumer price index deflator, while monetary policy, changes in the
exchange rate and domestic wage levels are regarded as indirect effects.
Rotemberg and Woodford (1996) attempt to show that, by assuming that competition
is imperfect, and therefore modifying the standard neoclassical growth model, it is easier
to explain the size of the declines in output and real wages that follow increases in the
price of oil.
 The main determinants of inflation of the EU and the US economy 281

2.2 Empirical literature

A close link between political events in the Middle East and changes in the oil prices, and
in turn, from oil price changes to macroeconomic performance in developed countries
has been investigated by Barsky and Kilian (2004). Nevertheless, they conclude that
political events are only one out of many factors, while they differ greatly from one event
to the next in accordance with variations in demand conditions in the oil market and the
global macroeconomic conditions. Furthermore, the timing of oil shocks and recessions is
consistent with the notion that oil price shocks may contribute to recessions without
necessarily being pivotal.
LeBlanc and Chinn (2004) tried to estimate the effects of oil price changes on
inflation for the USA, UK, France, Germany, and Japan using an augmented Phillips
curve framework. Their statistical estimates show that current oil price increases are
likely to have only a modest effect on inflation in the USA, Japan, and Europe. Should oil
prices increase of 10 percentage points it will lead to a direct inflationary increase of
about 0.1–0.8 percentage points in the USA and the EU.
A thorough study of the US inflation was carried out by Hooker (2002), in which
he refers to the structural break in core US inflation Phillips curves before and after 1981.
Using the typical Phillips curve, he found that oil price changes substantially contributed
to inflation before 1981, while monetary policy appears to have shown smaller responses
to oil price changes in the period since 1979, despite a greater sensitivity to changes in
inflation.
An in-depth analysis of oil price changes and macroeconomic variables comes from
Cunado and Perez de Gracia (2003), who analysed the impact of oil prices on inflation
and industrial production indexes for 13 European countries using quarterly data for the
period 1960–1999. A different point of their research is that they used a world oil price
index instead of the crude oil price index, which led to specific results that were different
from the results obtained when they used a national real price index for each economy.
In short, the actual oil price was found to increase in 1999, having a greater impact in
Europe than in the USA due the weakness of the euro at that time.
Kalimeris (2009) using the Phillips curve model in comparison with the VAR
approach investigated the effect of oil price shocks on fundamental macroeconomic
variables, namely inflation, unemployment and interest rates, for both the USA and the
EU economies. Interestingly enough, inflation in Europe seems to be less sensitive to oil
prices than in the USA. On the contrary, the VAR approach showed that in the case of the
EU economy, a disturbance at the EU oil prices level leads to increased volatility in the
other variables, unlike in the US economy. As for the two different approaches, the VAR
approach seems to capture in more detail the effects of oil price shocks on the rest of the
macroeconomic variables than the Phillips curve model since the latter only examines the
linear relationship of the variables.
In her multivariate vector-autoregression approach, Papapetrou (2001) investigates
the dynamic relationship among oil prices, real stock prices, interest rates, real economic
activity and employment in Greece. The results show that oil price shocks explain
a significant proportion of the fluctuations in output growth and employment growth.
It seems that oil price shocks tend to have an immediate negative effect on industrial
production and employment. The importance of oil price changes lies in the fact that
they can be used to explain stock price movements. On the other hand, interest rates
and growth in industrial production are negatively associated, which suggests that a
282 D. Kalimeris

rise in interest rates is likely to be associated with a lower growth in industrial

production.
In an effort to statistically analyse the way cointegrating vectors behave, Johansen
(1988) tried to derive maximum likelihood estimators of the cointegration vectors for an
autoregressive process with independent Gaussian errors, and to derive a likelihood ratio
test for the hypothesis that there is a given number of these. His results are of valuable
help in giving good estimates and t statistics in dealing with nonstationary cointegrating
variables.

3 Methodology and data

3.1 Methodology
The fundamental reason for choosing panel data analysis is because it allows studying the
dynamics of changes in the data. Furthermore, by combing time-series of different
cross-sectional observations, one can draw more informative data, worrying less about
collinerarity and lack of degrees of freedom.
The model that we estimated using the panel analysis approach can be written as
yit = α it + χ it′ β i + ε it (1)

where yit is the dependant variable and χ it′ and βi are vectors of non-constant regressors,
while the parameters are i = 1, 2, …, n cross-sectional units. The dated periods for which
the data are observed is t = 1, 2, … 124 months, from January 1997 until April 2007.
More specifically, our variables of the panel analysis are
πit: Inflation at time period t
oit: Oil prices at time period t
uit: Unemployment at time period t
irit: Interest rate at time period t.
The pooled least squares equation, therefore, takes the form
π it = α i + β1oit + β2 uit + β3irit + ε it . (2)

We chose to use the fixed effects method for the estimator of the coefficient αi. This
means that although the intercept maybe different across individual data set, each
data set’s intercept does not vary over time, i.e., it is time invariant. Therefore, each
cross-sectional unit has a coefficient different from the other. Algebraically, fixed effects
are computed by subtracting the inner mean from each variable and estimating an OLS
using the following formula:
yi − yi = β ( χ i − χ i ) + (ε i − ε i )

where

yi =
∑ t
yit
, χi =
∑ t
χ it
, and ε i =
∑ε
t it
.
T T T
 The main determinants of inflation of the EU and the US economy 283

3.2 Data
The literature on inflation lacks research focused on comparing average numbered
variables between EU and the USA for the specific time period and using the specific
country members that the current research uses. Apart from that, use of variables such as
crude oil prices or interest rates can differ, depending on the research’s needs and goals.
In trying to contribute to the literature, we used a unique combination of data variables,
as we can read in the following part. Data details are explained as follows:
Inflation is measured as the monthly Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices for both
the USA and the EU. The unemployment gap is measured as the demographically
adjusted unemployment rate less the estimated Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of
Unemployment, which varies through time. As far as the interest rates is concerned, for
the EU part of the analysis, rates are taken from the money market; specifically, we have
accounted the last traded price of 1-year Euribor (Euro Interbank Offered Rate),
as provided by the European Central Bank (ECB). For the US interest rates, we used the
average of the prime rate charged by US banks. The reason for including interest rates in
the analysis is because we aim to capture any monetary policy effects, not forgetting to
mention that the assumption that monetary policy works only through interest rates is
conservative, as it ignores other options.
As far as the oil prices data are concerned, for the US data, we use the US spot price
FOB (free-on-board) weighted by estimated import volume in dollars per barrel, while
for the rest of the world oil prices, we use the crude oil domestic first-purchase price.
To clarify the meaning of world price as used in the analysis, it is defined as the only
existing long-term price series that exists is the US average wellhead or first-purchase
price of crude oil. Generally, when discussing long-term price behaviour, there seems
to be a problem since the US imposed price controls on domestic production from
late 1973 to January 1981. In order to present a consistent series and also to reflect
the difference between international prices and US prices, a world oil price series
was created by databases and institutions that was consistent with the US wellhead
price, adjusting the wellhead price by adding the difference between the refiners’
acquisition price of imported crude1 and the refiners’ average acquisition price of
domestic crude.
All the above variables are in monthly data form, ranging from January 1997 to
April 2007. The size of the EU used in the research is composed of the 15 countries that
already existed after the Maastricht treaty (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy,
Luxembourg, Holland, Denmark, Ireland, UK, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Austria, Finland
and Sweden), plus the 12 new members that joined in 2004 and 2007, namely, Cyprus,
Czech Republic, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, Malta, Slovenia,
Bulgaria and Romania.
For the EU economy, we use the crude oil domestic first-purchase price in dollars
per barrel. As far as both the European and the US economy data are concerned, they
were examined, firstly, for any stationarity issues. As we can clearly see from the
unit root test tables, in Tables 1 and 2 the inflation and unemployment data of the
European economic data are stationary, while data on interest rates and oil prices are
stationary at 1st differences.
284 D. Kalimeris

Table 1 (a)–(d) Unit root tests of the European economic data

(a) Inflation
Null hypothesis: INF_EU has a unit root
Exogenous: Constant, linear trend
Lag length: 1 (Automatic based on SIC, MAXLAG = 12)
t-Statistic Prob.
Augmented Dickey-Fuller test statistic –4.123670 0.0076
Test critical values: 1% level –4.034997
5% level –3.447072
10% level –3.148578
(b) Interest rates
Null hypothesis: D(IR_EU) has a unit root
Exogenous: Constant, linear trend
Lag length: 0 (Automatic based on SIC, MAXLAG = 12)
t-Statistic Prob.
Augmented Dickey-Fuller test statistic –6.161266 0.0000
Test critical values: 1% level –4.034997
5% level –3.447072
10% level –3.148578
(c) Oil prices (world data)
Null hypothesis: D(OIL_WO) a unit root
Exogenous: Constant, linear trend
Lag length: 0 (Automatic based on SIC, MAXLAG = 12)
t-Statistic Prob.
Augmented Dickey-Fuller test statistic –9.271885 0.0000
Test critical values: 1% level –4.034997
5% level –3.447072
10% level –3.148578
(d) Unemployment
Null hypothesis: UN_EU has a unit root
Exogenous: Constant, linear trend
Lag length: 10 (Automatic based on SIC, MAXLAG = 12)
t-Statistic Prob.
Augmented Dickey-Fuller test statistic –4.749193 0.0010
Test critical values: 1% level –4.041280
5% level –3.450073
10% level –3.150336

Testing the US economic data for stationarity at levels showed that there exists
nonstationarity; unit root tests (Table 2(a)–(d)) at 1st differences show that the
nonstationarity problem is eliminated for all the data series.
 The main determinants of inflation of the EU and the US economy 285

Table 2 (a)–(d) Unit root tests of the US economic data

(a) Inflation
Null hypothesis: D(INF_US) has a unit root
Exogenous: Constant
Lag length: 1 (Automatic based on SIC, MAXLAG = 10)
t-Statistic Prob.*
Augmented Dickey-Fuller test statistic –10.70945 0.0000
Test critical values: 1% level –3.485115
5% level –2.885450
10% level –2.579598
(b) Interest rates
Null hypothesis: D(IR_US) has a unit root
Exogenous: Constant
Lag length: 1 (Automatic based on SIC, MAXLAG = 12)
t-Statistic Prob.*
Augmented Dickey-Fuller test statistic –3.743246 0.0046
Test critical values: 1% level –3.485115
5% level –2.885450
10% level –2.579598
(c) Oil prices (world data)
Null hypothesis: D(OIL_US) has a unit root
Exogenous: Constant
Lag length: 0 (Automatic based on SIC, MAXLAG = 12)
t-Statistic Prob.*
Augmented Dickey-Fuller test statistic –10.02147 0.0000
Test critical values: 1% level –3.484653
5% level –2.885249
10% level –2.579491
(d) Unemployment
Null hypothesis: D(UN_US) has a unit root
Exogenous: Constant
Lag length: 0 (Automatic based on SIC, MAXLAG = 12)
t-Statistic Prob.*
Augmented Dickey-Fuller test statistic –12.26289 0.0000
Test critical values: 1% level –3.484653
5% level –2.885249
10% level –2.579491
The Prob.*denotes rejection of the hypothesis at the 0.05 level.
286 D. Kalimeris

4 Empirical results

The results of the EU inflation analysis using the panel research method are shown in
Table 3:

Table 3 EU results

Dependent variable: INF_EU

Method: Pooled least squares
Included observations: 124
Total panel (balanced) observations: 124
White heteroskedasticity-consistent standard errors and covariance
Variable Coefficient Std. error t-Statistic Prob.
OIL_WO 0.011142 0.002475 4.501384 0.0000
UN_EU –0.139943 0.040462 –3.458632 0.0006
IR_EU 0.035788 0.031279 1.144138 0.2537
Fixed effects
_WO–C 2.636391
R-squared 0.406234 Mean dependent var 1.870968
Adjusted R-squared 0.388916 SD dependent var 0.407376
SE of regression 0.318454 Sum squared resid 24.33904
Log likelihood –64.04970 F-statistic 23.45710
Durbin-Watson stat 0.318631 Prob (F-statistic) 0.000000

Coefficients of world oil prices and interest rates are statistically significant.
By substituting our findings in equation (2), we get:
π it = α i + β1oit + β2 uit + β3irit + ε it
⇒ πEU = 2.636390975 + 0.01114242424*Ot
– 0.1399427036*Ut + 0.03578766*IRt.
It is clear that current inflation levels depend heavily on unemployment. Surprisingly
enough, oil price changes have the smallest effect on inflation (0.0111), while interest
rates (1-year Euribor rates) play a significant part in affecting inflation levels. One way
of explaining this fact is that fluctuations of interest rates tend to follow fluctuations of
oil price changes and therefore incorporate more influences from other economic
features, like the demand for mortgage loans, which in turn can affect the balance of
demand and supply of money.
On the other hand, results for the US economy are shown in Table 4:
By substituting our findings in equation (2), we have:
π it = α i + β1oit + β2 uit + β3irit + ε it
⇒ πUS = 3.682942382 – 0.4103081211*Ut
+ 0.03382894717*Ot – 0.01587840318*IRt.
 The main determinants of inflation of the EU and the US economy 287

The significant difference from our EU results is that the US inflation level depends more
on unemployment than anything else. Current inflation levels are heavily affected by
unemployment at a percentage of 41.03%. Oil price changes seem to have a rather small
effect (0.03382), but greater than the one in the EU economy. This can be explained from
the fact that the US economy is more dependent on industrial production based on oil
products and usage. Interest rates seem to have a negative effect (–0.0158) on inflation,
while the opposite holds for the EU economy. This could mean that a small rise in
interest rates would lead to lower consumption motives (because of higher savings or
investments).

Table 4 US economy results

Dependent variable: INF_US

Method: Pooled least squares
Sample: 1124
Included observations: 124
Total pool (balanced) observations: 124
White cross-section standard errors and covariance (d.f. corrected)
Variable Coefficient Std. error t-Statistic Prob.
C 3.682942 1.389638 2.650289 0.0091
UN_US –0.410308 0.189094 –2.169868 0.0320
OIL_US 0.033829 0.004432 7.633073 0.0000
IR_US –0.015878 0.069427 –0.228706 0.8195
R-squared 0.455714 Mean dependent var 2.543226
Adjusted R-squared 0.442107 S.D. dependent var 0.824119
S.E. of regression 0.615553 Akaike info criterion 1.899134
Sum squared resid 45.46861 Schwarz criterion 1.990111
Log likelihood –113.7463 F-statistic 33.49079
Durbin-Watson stat 0.317729 Prob. (F-statistic) 0.000000

5 Conclusions

Several economic predictions have take place for the year 2010 as far as the US economy
is concerned, the most pessimistic being the one that expects a sharp rise in oil prices
(above $100 per barrel). Not only that, but this rise is believed to be solely due to
inflation, regardless of a substantial decline in oil demand from the USA. Common sense
tells us that any decrease in demand from the USA will be more than made up for by
increasing demand from China and India. In addition, the fact that no new major oil
discoveries took place in the last decades makes the mid-term scenarios for inflation
rather inauspicious.
The zero percent interest rates imposed by the Federal Reserve led to a temporary
economic euphoria, with the US stocks going up and stabilising the prices of US
consumer goods. But record bonuses were enjoyed by corporate employees of institutes
288 D. Kalimeris

like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan; it is only a matter of time before this large amount
of money works its way through the system.
The current rate of US inflation based on the US government’s reported CPI index on
a year-over-year basis is 1.84%. However, many believe that the US government’s CPI
index is understating inflation and that real price inflation in the USA is already well
above 5%. The CPI index is no longer calculated based on Americans maintaining the
same standard of living, but is calculated based on an expected continual decline in the
standard of living in America.
As far as the EU is concerned, oil prices have buffeted the headline CPI in the
eurozone over the last year and a half, pushing it to a high of 4.0% in the middle of 2008.
However, core inflation remained largely unchanged at just below 2.0% throughout that
period, highlighting the leading role of oil. Indeed, since July 2008, when oil prices began
plunging, headline inflation has decelerated precipitously, falling by almost 3.5% to just
0.6% by March 2009. Headline inflation is expected to fall further, partly because oil
prices are expected to remain stable at the first quarter of year 2010, and partially because
core inflation moderates slightly in the sluggish economic environment. CPI inflation
then is expected to re-accelerate as the effects of the recent oil price decline fall out of the
year-over-year calculation. But, nevertheless, inflation remains well inside the ECB’s
target, averaging just 0.7% in 2009 and 1.3% in 2010.

References
Barsky, R. and Kilian, L. (2004) ‘Oil and the macroeconomy since the 1970s’, Journal of
Economic Perspectives, Vol. 18, No 4, pp.115–134.
Cunado, J. and Perez de Gracia, F. (2003) ‘Do oil price shocks matter? Evidence for some
European countries’, Energy Economics, Vol. 25, pp.137–154.
Hooker, M.A. (2002) ‘Are oil shocks inflationary? Asymmetric and nonlinear specifications versus
changes in regime’, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp.540–561.
Johansen, S. (1988) ‘Statistical and hypothesis testing of cointegrating vectors’, Journal of
Economic Dynamics Control, Vol. 12, pp.231–254.
Kalimeris, D. (2009) ‘The impact of oil shocks and inflation according to the phillips curve model
and the VAR approach’, International Journal of Economic Research, Vol. 6, No. 1,
pp.109–127.
LeBlanc, M. and Chinn, M. (2004) ‘Do high oil prices presage inflation?’, Business Economics,
April, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp.38–48.
Papapetrou, E. (2001) ‘Oil price shocks, stock market, economic activity and employment in
Greece’, Energy Economics, Vol. 23, No 5, pp.511–532.
Roeger, W. (2005) ‘International oil price changes: impact of oil prices on growth and inflation
in the EU/OECD’, International Economics and Economic Policy, July, Vol. 2, No. 1,
pp.15–25.
Rotemberg, J. and Woodford, M. (1996) ‘Imperfect competition and the effects of energy price
increases on economic activity’, Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, Part 1, Working
Paper, Vol. 28, No. 4, November, pp.550–577.
Saltzman, C. (2005) ‘Oil prices, inflation, and the stock market’, Journal of Financial Service
Professionals, Vol. 59, No. 4, July, pp.10–12.
 The main determinants of inflation of the EU and the US economy 289

Note
1
Crude oil prices help test the proposition that petroleum prices are not only important in
production, but also as a forerunner of inflationary pressure, which may exceed its importance as a
productive input.

Appendix

Descriptive stats EU

INF_EU IR_EU OIL_WO UN_EU

Mean 1.870968 3.447419 29.67234 8.713710
Median 1.900000 3.545000 25.28000 8.600000
Maximum 2.900000 5.250000 67.72000 10.70000
Minimum 0.900000 2.010000 8.030000 7.100000
Std. dev. 0.408203 0.906918 15.70028 0.904760
Skewness –0.439948 0.040673 0.795518 0.751484
Kurtosis 2.790439 1.837021 2.554973 2.716873
Jarque-Bera 4.227017 7.022213 14.10213 12.08520
Probability 0.120813 0.029864 0.000866 0.002375
Sum 232.0000 427.4800 3679.370 1080.500
Sum sq. dev. 20.49548 101.1676 30319.37 100.6867
Observations 124 124 124 124

Descriptive stats US

INF_EU OIL_WO UN_EU IR_EU

Mean 1.870968 29.67234 8.713710 3.447419
Median 1.900000 25.28000 8.600000 3.545000
Maximum 2.900000 67.72000 10.70000 5.250000
Minimum 0.900000 8.030000 7.100000 2.010000
Std. dev. 0.408203 15.70028 0.904760 0.906918
Skewness –0.439948 0.795518 0.751484 0.040673
Kurtosis 2.790439 2.554973 2.716873 1.837021
Jarque-Bera 4.227017 14.10213 12.08520 7.022213
Probability 0.120813 0.000866 0.002375 0.029864
Sum 232.0000 3679.370 1080.500 427.4800
Sum sq. dev. 20.49548 30319.37 100.6867 101.1676
Observations 124 124 124 124

Acronyms

ECB European Central Bank

HICP Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices
VAR Vector Auto Regression

View publication stats