FOREIGN TRADE UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ECONOMETRICS 2
MIDTERM ASSIGNMENT

TOPIC: ANALYZING THE DEPENDENCY OF

ECONOMIC GROWTH ON THE SOCIAL FACTORS IN
EUROPEAN UNION FROM 2011 TO 2021

Class: KTEE318(GD2-HK2-2223)BS.1

Lecturer: Dr. Dinh Thanh Binh

GROUP: 04

Hanoi, June 2023

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................... 1

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 2

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 4

2.1. Social factors and social factor indicators ........................................................... 4

2.2. Theoretical perspective on the relationship between Social Factors and
Economic growth ......................................................................................................... 5
2.3. Empirical Studies on the Relationship between Social Factors and Economic
Growth .......................................................................................................................... 6
2.4. Research gap ......................................................................................................... 7
2.5. Research hypothesis .............................................................................................. 7
3. MODEL SPECIFICATION AND DATA ............................................................. 9

3.1. Methodology .......................................................................................................... 9

3.1.1. Method used to collect data ............................................................................. 9
3.1.2. Method used to analyze data ........................................................................... 9
3.2. Empirical Model ................................................................................................... 9
3.2.1. Model Specification ........................................................................................ 9
3.2.2. Variables Description .................................................................................... 10
3.3. Data ..................................................................................................................... 13
4. STATISTIC DESCRIPTION OF VARIABLES ................................................ 14

4.1. Description Statistics and Interpretation for each variable .............................. 14

4.2. Correlation matrix between variables ................................................................ 15
5. QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS ............................................................................ 18

5.1. Model selection Testing ...................................................................................... 18

5.2. Model defect identification ................................................................................. 19
5.2.1. Multicollinearity Test .................................................................................... 19
5.2.2. Heteroskedasticity Test ................................................................................. 20
5.2.3. Test the autocorrelation of model .................................................................. 21
5.2.4. Test for cross-section correlation .................................................................. 21
5.3. Remedy model defect .......................................................................................... 22
6. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 25

REFERENCE ............................................................................................................... 27

APPENDIX ................................................................................................................... 31
 INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT

No. Name Student ID Contribution level

1 Hoàng Hà 2113450027 25%

2 Nguyễn Thảo Linh 2113450019 25%

3 Nguyễn Hà Phương 2112450079 25%

4 Nguyễn Minh Phương 2113450027 25%

 ABSTRACT

This research aims to analyze the dependency of economic growth on social factors
within the European Union from 2011 to 2021 using quantitative methods. The study
utilizes data from reputable sources such as the World Bank and Eurostat. The social
factors examined include the poverty rate, life expectancy, expected years of schooling,
and unemployment rate. Through econometric analysis, the study identifies the
relationships between these social factors and economic growth, providing valuable
insights for policymakers. The findings emphasize the significance of addressing
poverty, enhancing human development, promoting education, reducing income
inequality, improving healthcare, and addressing unemployment to foster sustainable
and inclusive economic growth. The study acknowledges limitations such as potential
data biases and the narrow focus on the European Union during a specific time period.
Recommendations for future research include incorporating qualitative methods,
exploring additional variables, and extending the analysis to other regions and
timeframes. By implementing evidence-based policies derived from this research,
policymakers can contribute to the advancement and prosperity of the European Union
as well as ROW.

1
 1. INTRODUCTION

Social factors and economic development are intricately linked, with social factors
playing a pivotal role as important backbones of economic growth and development.
According to Méndez-Picazo et al.,2021, social factors can stimulate economic
activities that can lead to sustainable development. Social factors serve as crucial
foundations that influence individuals' decisions regarding employment, housing,
education, health, and personal growth, which hold significant importance in their lives.
However, certain social factors are found to exert adverse effects on economic growth.
These encompass indicators such as poverty rates, hunger, crime rates, and
environmental degradation, which can impede the progress and prosperity of a society.
According to Popa (2012), poverty and unemployment rates provide a negative
relationship between economic growth based on the study conducted in Romania and
among European countries. Over time, the concept of economic development and its
factors has changed drastically. Traditionally, economic development centered on the
enhancement of welfare, as indicated by the growth rate and per capita GDP. However,
the scope of economic development has broadened to encompass social dimensions
such as poverty alleviation, improved education and healthcare, and more equitable
income distribution. The long-term perspective on economic development also
emphasizes sustainability, ensuring that present advancements do not compromise the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Popa (2012) argued that it is
imperative to recognize the significance of various social factors and their economic
implications. Méndez-Picazo et al. (2021) also suggested that it is necessary to
introduce additional variables that capture the relevance of social factors. Realizing the
significance of analyzing the relationship between economic growth and various social
factors in the EU, this research focuses on “Analyzing the dependency of economic
growth on the social factors in the European Union from 2011 to 2021”. The
purpose of this research is to investigate the impact of various social factors on
economic growth of 27 countries of the EU in the period of 2011-2021, shedding light
on the intricate interplay between these domains and providing insights into potential
drivers and barriers to growth within the region. In this research, 4 indicators including
poverty rate, expected years of schooling, life expectancy, and unemployment rate are

2
used to represent the social factors. By focusing on this specific time frame, this research
aims to capture the effects of social factors on economic growth and identify any
temporal patterns or shifts in their relationship over the past decade. We collect
secondary data sources from OECD, Eurostat, UNDP and employ panel regression
analysis to answer the research question “Do indicators for social factors have a positive
or negative effect on economic growth in the EU from 2011 to 2021?”

This research has the following structure.: The first section is the introduction followed
by section 2, which will cover the literature review, overview of theories about social
factors, economic growth, and previous research. Section 3 will provide the
methodology and model specification. Statistical description of variables will be
discussed in section 4. Based on quantitative analyses about model selection testing as
well as model defect identification and remedies in section 5, we can propose some
recommendations toward the topic in the final section.

During the process of doing this thesis, we can figure out many conclusions regarding
the effects of chosen variables. However, limitations are inevitable. Thus, we hope to
receive your comments and feedback on our work so that we can better our thesis. We’d
like to thank Mrs. Dinh Thanh Binh for your dedication and careful guidance for us
throughout the course.

3
 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Social factors and social factor indicators

Social factors refer to the various aspects of society that influence individuals' well-
being, behavior, and interactions. These factors play a crucial role in shaping economic,
political, and cultural landscapes, and have major impact on development outcomes,
including economic growth (Harrison & Huntington, 2001). The citizens of a country
can become valuable human capital resources that contribute to economic growth and
development when they receive social benefits that motivate them to be more
productive (Langelett, G., 2002). Social factors, which encompass non-economic
variables affecting citizens' living standards, are influenced by complex interplay
between genetic and environmental factors (McGowan et al., 2014). Many countries
allocate budgetary resources for these social factors, including institutions focusing on
population, health, education, labor, development, environment, national security, and
other social issues. These investments are important components of public finance
decisions, ensuring the social well-being of citizens and fostering effective human
capital that embodies physical capacities and human values. Failure to invest in social
development results in missed opportunities for citizens to improve their living
standards and social conditions, and may even lead to economic decline, social unrest,
and negative cultural outcomes such as gambling, drug abuse, alcoholism, and lack of
skills due to inadequate training and education.

Social factors significantly shape citizens' choices regarding employment, housing,

education, health, and personal growth. For instance, a healthy population leads to
increased productivity and reduced household spending on healthcare. An educated
population has greater employment opportunities and income potential. Reducing
unemployment stimulates the market and increases the demand and supply of goods and
services (Méndez-Picazo et al., 2021). When citizens are secure and healthy, they
actively participate in the provision of goods and services, fostering development,
entrepreneurship, and market opportunities. Overall, citizens contribute to national
taxes when they receive various social benefits, providing the government with more
resources to enhance social and developmental projects. Consequently, a positive

4
relationship between social factors and economic development is expected. In contrast,
some social factors have a negative impact on economic growth.

Popa and Ana - Maria (2012) conducted a study in Romania and other European Union
states to explore the relationship between economic growth and social determinants.
The findings revealed that certain social factors, such as life expectancy and years of
schooling, showed a positive correlation with economic growth. On the other hand,
variables like the unemployment rate and poverty risk were found to have a negative
correlation with economic growth.

2.2. Theoretical perspective on the relationship between Social Factors and Economic
growth

Economic growth refers to an increase in the production of goods and services over
time, typically measured using indicators such as gross national product (GNP) or gross
domestic product (GDP). In this study, real GDP per capita will serve as a variable to
represent economic growth, which provides a measure of the value of output per person,
serving as an indirect indicator of per capita income (World Bank, 2010).

Human Capital Theory (HCT) provides insights into the relationship between
education, human capital development, and economic growth. According to Theodore
Schultz (1961), education plays a crucial role in the development of human capital.
Through education, individuals acquire knowledge, skills, and abilities that enhance
their productivity and contribute to economic growth. Gary Becker (1994) further
emphasized the impact of education on economic growth. He argued that investments
in education lead to higher levels of human capital, which in turn drive productivity,
innovation, and economic development.

Based on HCT, human capital, which encompasses personal attributes such as habits,
knowledge, and social and personality attributes, plays a vital role in producing
economic value (Breton, 2014). It asserts that humans are essential components
alongside physical capital, as their intellectual capacity enables countries and firms to
achieve goals, foster growth, and promote innovation. Furthermore, this study expands
the scope by integrating national social factors and positing that if every country's
citizens can benefit from other social factors, it can lead to economic growth. Although
5
social development requires substantial public expenditure in the short-term, investing
in human capital yields long-term economic growth and development (Alawamleh et
al., 2019). For example, improved education and health lead to longer life expectancy,
resulting in higher productivity and lower depreciation of human capital assets.
Additionally, individuals with enhanced human capital can generate income, meet their
basic needs, and reduce extreme poverty and hunger.

According to neoclassical growth theory, an increase in capital and labor inputs can
contribute to economic growth, as both factors are involved in the production process
(Solow, 1956). Furthermore, capital and labor are complementary factors, and their
combined contribution enhances overall productivity (Jorgenson & Griliches, 1967).
However, the impact of capital and labor on economic growth depends on the quality
of these inputs and the efficiency of the production process (Mankiw, Romer, & Weil,
1992).

Overall, human capital development positively influences economic growth by

fostering new ideas, technological innovations, expertise, and an improved labor force
(Pradhan & Abraham, 2002). By considering these perspectives, policymakers and
researchers can gain a deeper understanding of the mechanisms through which social
factors influence economic growth.

2.3. Empirical Studies on the Relationship between Social Factors and Economic
Growth

Research “The impact of social factors on economic growth: Empirical evidence for
Romania and European Union countries” (2012) of Popa and Ana - Maria, examined
the changes in the social and economic environment worldwide and establishes a clear
connection between human development and economic well-being. The study utilized
an econometric analysis performed using panel data consisting in annual data extracted
from 2005-2009 for EU countries. The model had a dependent variable - real GDP per
capita (indicator for economic growth) and 4 independent variables representing social
factors: expected years of schooling, life expectancy, population at risk of poverty and
unemployment rate. The findings of the research demonstrate a positive correlation
between certain social factors (independent variables: expected years of schooling and

6
life expectancy) and economic growth (dependent variable). Conversely, there is a
negative correlation between other social factors (such as the population at risk of
poverty and the unemployment rate) and economic growth.

Gerry O. Gatawa conducted research “The Effect of Social Factors to Economic

Growth” (2022) and stated that social factors play a crucial role in driving economic
growth and can lead to tangible benefits that promote sustainable development. The
study analyzed the impact of social factors on economic growth by conducting a time
series analysis involving 58 countries and 290 data points spanning the period from
2014 to 2018. Through correlation and regression analyses, the research reveals
significant relationships between social factors, including population, health, education,
development, labor force, environment, military, and geography, and various indicators
of economic growth such as GDP, GDP growth, GDP-per-capita, GNI, GNI-per-capita,
manufacturing, and tourism. The findings highlight the significant influence of social
factors on economic growth outcomes.

2.4. Research gap

The main problem of the related research is the 4 -year limit of the database of the social
factor indicators. This could be insufficient for macroeconomic factors to provide a
precise evaluation for the real GDP per capita in the researched nations. Another
problem related to the theories is that the independent variables and control variables in
the model are from different papers, which means that this study will cover more
broadly the economic growth. Therefore, the result of the new regression model could
be ensured in terms of accuracy rate and might differ from the result of these mentioned
papers.

2.5. Research hypothesis

Based on the point of view of other scholars on economic growth, all the variables
representing social factors such as expected years of schooling, life expectancy, poverty
rate and unemployment rate are believed to have an impact on economic growth. To be
more specific, expected years of schooling and life expectancy are expected to have a
positive impact on economic growth, which has been represented by the Real GDP per

7
capita variable. While the poverty rate and unemployment rate have a negative influence
on economic growth.

H1: Poverty rate has a negative effect on real GDP per capita.

H2: Expected years of schooling has a positive effect on real GDP per capita.

H3: Life expectancy has a positive effect on real GDP per capita.

H4: Unemployment rate has a negative effect on real GDP per capita

8
 3. MODEL SPECIFICATION AND DATA

3.1. Methodology

3.1.1. Method used to collect data

For the research paper on analyzing the dependency of economic growth on social
factors in the European Union from 2011 to 2021, a mixed-method approach was
employed to collect data. The primary data sources were OECD, EuroStat, and Global
Lab, which provided comprehensive datasets covering various socio-economic
indicators. The four independent variables considered in this study were poverty rate
(POV), expected years of schooling, income, life expectancy, and unemployment rate.
Quantitative data analysis techniques, such as descriptive statistics, regression analysis,
and correlation analysis, were applied to examine the relationships between economic
growth and these social factors. The combination of these data sources and analytical
methods enabled a comprehensive assessment of the interdependencies between
economic growth and the selected social factors within the European Union over the
specified period.

3.1.2. Method used to analyze data

Descriptive statistics and regression analysis were employed to examine the

relationships between economic growth and these social factors. By leveraging the rich
datasets from these sources and employing strict statistical analysis, the study aims to
provide comprehensive insights into the interdependencies between economic growth
and the selected social factors within the European Union during the specified time
frame. Diagnostic tests of heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation are performed to
evaluate the reliability of the model.

3.2. Empirical Model

3.2.1. Model Specification

For the research paper analyzing the dependency of economic growth (represented by
the variable real GDP per capita) on social factors in the European Union from 2011 to
2021, four independent variables are included in the model, including poverty rate

9
(POV), expected years of schooling (EYS), life expectancy (LE), and unemployment
rate (UR). Therefore, the theoretical model of this study is as follows:

logGDPpcit = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1.POVit + 𝛽2.EYSit + 𝛽3.LEit + 𝛽4.URit + uit

In which:

logGDPpci: dependent variable, represent the economic growth

Social factor indicators: POVi , EYSi , LEi , URi

i, t: country and time indices respectively

uit: the residuals

3.2.2. Variables Description

In contemporary economic research, understanding the intricate relationship between

economic growth and social factors has gained significant attention. In our study, four
macroeconomic factors were used to describe economic growth, and their impact on the
27-Europe countries’ economies was analyzed. In our model, the four indicators will be
the independent factors of the regression model.

Table 1: Definition of variables used in the model

Expected
Variable Name Meaning Unit Reference
sign

Dependent variable

Measurement of the
total economic Elistia et al.
output of a country (2018);
Real GDP Euro per
GDPpci divided by the Méndez-
per capita capita
number of people Picazo et al.
and adjusted for (2021)
inflation

10
 Independent variables

Percentage of Barro, R. J.
population below the (1991);
POVi Poverty rate Ratio (-)
income threshold Banerjee &
defining poverty. Duflo (2011)

Average years of
Hanushek &
Expected formal education an
Woessmann
EYSi years of individual is Year (+)
(2012); Barro
schooling expected to complete
& Lee (2013)
in their lifetime.

Pritchett &
Summers
The average number (1996);
Life
LEi of years a person is Year (+) Bloom et al.
expectancy
expected to live (2001);
Cutler et al.
(2006)

Blanchard &
The proportion of
Unemploy- Summers
URi individuals who are Ratio (-)
ment rate (1986); Lin &
without employment
Huang (2009)

Source: The authors (2023)

Dependent variable

Real GDP per capita (GDPpc): Méndez-Picazo et al. (2021) conducted a study and
discovered that social factors significantly impact sustainable development.
Consequently, they recommend that public policies should prioritize the enhancement
of human capital, employment opportunities, and the promotion of free markets, while

11
simultaneously addressing negative social factors. Furthermore, economic growth plays
a crucial role in the overall development of a nation. The rate of growth is typically
measured through the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per Capita, as highlighted by
Elistia et al. (2018). Based on those researches, the Real GDP per capita (GDPpc) will
serve as the basis for examining the relationship between Social Factors and Economic
Growth.

Independent variables

Poverty rate (POV): Several theoretical frameworks provide insights into the negative
relationship between poverty rate and economic growth. The most prominent is the
poverty trap theory, which suggests that high levels of poverty can perpetuate a cycle
of low productivity, limited human capital investment, and reduced economic growth
(Banerjee & Duflo, 2011). Barro, R. J. (1991) conducted a study that examined the
determinants of economic growth across countries, including the impact of poverty rate.
It employed econometric techniques to analyze data and found that high poverty rates
are associated with lower economic growth.

Expected years of schooling (EYS): Expected years of schooling reflect the access to
education, which play a vital role in human capital development and long-term
economic growth (Barro & Lee, 2013). A research by Hanushek & Woessmann (2012)
used Cross-country growth regressions to generate a close relationship between
educational achievement and GDP growth. The result showed that higher levels of
education have been associated with higher labor productivity, technological
advancements, and economic competitiveness.

Life expectancy (LE): Healthier populations tend to be more productive and contribute
to economic development. Longer life expectancy is linked to a reduction in mortality
rates, improved labor force participation, and increased human capital accumulation
(Bloom et al., 2004; Cutler et al., 2006). Additionally, investments in healthcare systems
and improved public health measures can lead to a more productive workforce and
higher economic output (Pritchett & Summers, 1996).

Unemployment rate (UR): The labor market theory suggests that high levels of
unemployment can lead to reduced labor productivity and hinder economic growth
12
(Blanchard & Summers, 1986). Ozekicioglu, H. (2019) employed a panel data analysis
to investigate the relationship between unemployment and economic growth across 23
OECD countries. Their results supported the negative impact of unemployment on
economic growth, highlighting the importance of reducing unemployment for sustained
economic development.

3.3. Data

To investigate the topic, our group collected time-series data from 27 countries in the
European Union in the period 2011-2021. Since the United Kingdom officially left the
EU in 2020, we excluded all UK data from the dataset, resulting in a total of 297
observations. The data of all five variables in the model, which are real GDP per capita
(GDPpc), Poverty rate (POVi), Expected years of schooling (EYSi), Life expectancy
(LEi ), and Unemployment rate (URi ), originates from World Bank and EUROSTAT.

Table 2: Data source

Variable Source

GDPpci Eurostat

POVi Eurostat

EYSi World Bank

LEi World Bank

URi Eurostat

Source: The authors (2023)

13
 4. STATISTIC DESCRIPTION OF VARIABLES

4.1. Description Statistics and Interpretation for each variable

To estimate the model determined the dependent relationship between the indicators of
the social factors and economic growth in the EU-27, we decided to choose the research
sample in the 11-year period from 2011 to 2021 with a total of 297 observations.

A statistical description of the indicators used in the regression model - i.e., minimum,
maximum, mean, and standard deviation.

Table 3: Descriptive statistics

Variable Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max

logGDPpci 297 9.9223 0.8533 1.8579 11.3475

POVi 297 0.1659 0.0382 0.086 0.254

EYSi 297 16.334 1.2761 13.79 18

LEi 297 79.57189 2.8102 71.8 83.8

URi 297 0.0886 0.0469 0.02 0.278

Source: The authors (2023)

With 297 observations, from 2011 to 2021, we can see that the EU now is more diligent
on developing social factors, thereby promoting outstanding economic development:

- The average value of lnGDPpc is 9.9223, the highest value is 11.3475, the lowest
is 1.8579. The huge difference between these data illustrates a diverse
distribution of different levels in the data sample.

- About the variable POV, the poverty rate in European countries is maintained at
a low level with an average of 0.1659% with the highest rate at 0.254% and a
standard deviation of 0.0382%, which indicates uneven development across the
countries studied.

14
 - The subsequent variable to consider is EYS, which assesses the duration of
schooling in different countries, and favorable educational advancements in
Europe where, on average, each child receives 16,334 years of education. The
standard deviation of 1.2761, with the highest rate of 18 years and the lowest at
13.79, signifies the varying levels of educational interest observed across the 27
countries.

- The issue of limited job opportunities for individuals in European countries is

also highlighted by the unemployment rate. With the lowest rate recorded at 0.02
and the highest reaching 0.278, a notable disparity is evident between countries
in terms of unemployment levels.

Furthermore, the social indicators of life expectancy (LE) exhibit a notably elevated
mean value and standard deviation, indicating variables used by significant dispersion.
This signifies a significant rise in the average life expectancy across European nations
in recent decades, preeminently attributed to advancements in scientific knowledge and
an advanced medical landscape. However, due to disparities in the development of
medical facilities and healthcare standards among the countries under study, the
findings reveal significant variations among nations.

In general, the data sample shows a wide range of levels distributed in different ways
and the variables are normally distributed; therefore, this data sample can represent the
population.

4.2. Correlation matrix between variables

The table below clearly illustrates the correlation, which is the degree of linear
association between the dependent variable and the independent variables.

Table 4: Correlation matrix between variables

logGDP POV EYS LE UR

logGDP 1.0000

POV -0.3842 1.0000

15
 EYS 0.3364 -0.2545 1.0000

LE 0.6233 -0.3486 0.4956 1.0000

UR -0.1187 0.4112 0.0962 0.0496 1.0000

Source: The authors (2023)

As can be seen from the table, the correlation between the dependent variable and
independent variables completely meets the expectation. The correlation coefficient
between Real GDP per capita and LE and EYS is among the highest (0.6233 and 0.3364
respectively) and positive, which indicates a strong relationship between these variables
as expected. However, the correlation value between GDP and POV is -0.3842, and -
0.1187 for the UR variable showing a weak and inverse relationship. These results are
consistent with the author's hypothesis.

Regarding the correlation among independent variables, it fluctuates from -0.3486 to

0.4956. The correlation between life expectancy and expected years of schooling (r(LE,
EYS) = 0.4956) is the strongest while the correlation between life expectancy and the
poverty rate is the weakest (r(LE, POV) = -0.3486). Furthermore, the correlation
between expected years of schooling and poverty rate as well as the correlation between
life expectancy and poverty rate, is negative.

The negative correlation between the expected number of years of schooling and the
poverty rate has been widely discussed in literature. Several studies have found that
higher levels of education are associated with lower poverty rates. For example,
Safarova, N. (2021) conducted a study across multiple countries and found that an
increase in education attainment is significantly associated with a reduction in poverty.

Similarly, the negative correlation between life expectancy and the poverty rate has also
been well-documented. Numerous studies have shown that poverty is linked to poorer
health outcomes and lower life expectancy. For instance, Sen (2000) argued that poverty
limits access to healthcare and adequate nutrition, leading to increased mortality rates
and lower life expectancy.

16
These findings highlight the importance of addressing poverty in order to improve
educational outcomes and enhance overall well-being. Investing in education and
healthcare can contribute to reducing poverty rates and improving life expectancy,
thereby fostering socio-economic development.

In general, the degree of correlation between the independent variables is not high, all
less than 80%, so we can predict that the model does not suffer from multicollinearity.

17
 5. QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS

5.1. Model selection Testing

We analyze the regression model with panel data:

logGDPpcit = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1.POVit + 𝛽2.EYSit + 𝛽3.LEit + 𝛽4.URit + uit

and get the estimation and testing results which are described in Table 4 as follow:

Table 5: Estimation and testing results

POLS FE RE
Variables
logGDPpc logGDPpc logGDPpc

-3.1937** -3.8522** -4.3151

POV
(1.2022) (3.4173) (1.8571)

0.0197 0.1080** 0.0358

EYS
(0.0346) (0.1037) (0.0577)

0.1710 0.418928** 0.1483

LE
(0.0162) (0.0707) (0.0280)

-1.6487 -0.5265** -0.4734

UR
(0.9160) (1.4391) (1.1210)

-3.3347** 5.5091** -1.7073**

Intercept
(1.2464) (5.3083) (2.1099)

Number of
297 297 297
observations

R-squared 0.4268 0.3358 0.4217

18
 Model selection Testing

chibar2(01) = 69.02
Lagrange multiplier test
Prob > chibar2 = 0.0000

chi2(5) = (b-B)'[(V_b-V_B)^(-1)](b-B) = 4.63

Hausman test
Prob>chi2 = 0.3277

Standard errors in parentheses ***p<0.01, **p<0.05,*p<0.1

Source: The authors (2023)

The test to determine the appropriate model in three pooled regression models (POLS),
fixed effects model (FE) and random effects model (RE) was based on the results of
Breusch and Pagan Lagrangian multiplier test for random effects and Hausman test are
shown in Table 4. The authors conducted a Lagrange test, the results p-value = 0.0000
< α = 0.05. So, the POLS model is not suitable. After that, the authors continued to use
the Hausman test to choose between RE and FE models, p-value = 0.3277 > α = 0.05
and RE model was selected.

5.2. Model defect identification

5.2.1. Multicollinearity Test

Set up hypothesis H0, H1

H0: The model does not exist multicollinearity

H1: The model exists multicollinearity

In STATA, by using vif, we have the result as follow:

Table 6: Multicollinearity Test

Variable VIF 1/VIF

POV 1.48 677.527

LE 1.46 687.266

EYS 1.37 731.006

19
 UR 1.30 771.914

Mean VIF 1.40

Source: The authors (2023)

From the above result, mean VIF = 1.40 < 10 → Do not reject H0

Conclusion: The model does not exist multicollinearity at the significance level of 1%,
5% and 10%.

5.2.2. Heteroskedasticity Test

Set up hypothesis H0, H1

H0: The model has homoskedasticity

H1: The model has heteroskedastic

We use Breush-Pagan test for heteroscedastic, the result as follow:

Table 7: Heteroskedastic test

Number of obs = 297

Source SS df MS
99999.00
F(4, 292) >

Model 34581.6045 4 8645.4011 Prob > F = 0.0000

Residual 17.1839 292 0.0588 R-squared = 0.9995

Adj R-squared = 0.9995

Total 34598.7884 296 116.8878
Root MSE = 0.2426

residualsq Coef. Std. Err. t P>t [95% Conf. Interval]

POV -59.8160 0.4483 -133.41 0.000 -60.6985 -58.9335

EYS 0.4236 0.0129 32.78 0.000 0.3982 0.4490

LE 3.3174 0.0060 548.12 0.000 3.3055 3.3293

20
UR -34.0792 0.3416 -99.75 0.000 -34.7517 -33.4069

_cons -159.1918 0.4648 -342.44 0.000 -160.1067 -158.2769

Source: The authors (2023)

From the above result, all p-value = 0.000 < 𝜶 = 0.05 → Reject H0

Conclusion: The model has heteroskedasticity at the significance level of 5%

5.2.3. Test the autocorrelation of model

Set up hypothesis H0, H1

H0: There is no first-order autocorrelation

H1: There is first-order autocorrelation

We use Wooldridge test for autocorrelation in panel data, the result as follow:

Table 8: Wooldridge Autocorrelation Test findings

Wooldridge test for autocorrelation in panel

data

H0: no first order autocorrelation

F(1, 26) = 214.037

Prob > F = 0.0000

Source: The authors (2023)

From the above result, Prob >F = 0.0000 < 𝜶 = 0.05 → Reject H0

Conclusion: The model has autocorrelation at the significance level of 5%

5.2.4. Test for cross-section correlation

Set up hypothesis H0, H1

H0: The model doesn’t have cross-section correlation

H1: The model has cross-section correlation

We use Pesaran test for cross-section correlation, the result as follow:

21
 Table 9: Pesaran test for cross-section correlation result

Pesaran’s test of cross-sectional independence = 10.509, Pr = 0.0000

Average absolute value of the off-diagonal elements = 0.430

Source: The authors (2023)

From the above result, P-value < 5% → Reject H0

Conclusion: The model has cross-section correlation at the significance level of 5%

5.3. Remedy model defect

Realizing that the model had 3 defects: heteroskedasticity, autocorrelation and cross-
section correlation, the authors have overcome those defects by using generalized least
squares (GLS) estimation with command “xtgls lnGDPpc POV EYS LE UR, corr(ar1)
panels(hetero) force” in STATA. The result as follow:

Table 10: Remedy model defect result

Number of obs = 297

Estimated Covariances = 27

Estimated autocorrelations = 1 Number of groups = 27

Estimated coefficient = 5
Time periods = 11

Wald chi2(4) = 437.83

Prob > chi2 = 0.0000

logGDPpc Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]

POV -2.4912 0.4991 -4.99 0.000 -3.4696 -1.5129

EYS 0.0826 0.0154 5.34 0.000 0.0523 0.1129

LE 0.0966 0.0075 12.86 0.000 0.0819 0.1113

UR -2.1564 0.3913 -5.51 0.000 -2.9235 -1.3893

_cons 1.5982 0.6224 2.57 0.000 0.3783 2.8180

22
 Source: The authors (2023)

After conducting the estimation and testing procedures, the research team has selected
the most appropriate model for the dataset, which is the random effects regression
model (RE model). The estimated regression equation obtained from the model is as
follows:

logGDPpcit = 1.5982 - 2.4912POVit + 0.0826EYSit + 0.0966LEit - 2.1564URit

The regression results of the model show that: Among the 4 variables included in the
model, at 5% significance level, the explanatory variables are all statistically significant
and can explain the relationship with the dependent variable which is Real GDP per
capita.

- The coefficient for the poverty rate (POV) is -2.4912, indicating that a 1%
increase in the poverty rate is associated with a decrease of 2.4912% in GDP per
capita, holding other variables constant. This suggests that higher levels of
poverty negatively impact economic development as expected.

- The coefficient for expected years of schooling (EYS) is 0.0826, indicating that
a 1-year increase in expected years of schooling is associated with a 0.0826%
increase in GDP per capita, holding other variables constant. This suggests that
investing in education can have a positive effect on economic growth as
expected.

- The coefficient for life expectancy (LE) is 0.0966, suggesting that a 1-year
increase in life expectancy is associated with a 0.0966% increase in GDP per
capita, holding other variables constant. This implies that improvements in
healthcare and longevity can contribute to economic development as expected.

- The coefficient for the unemployment rate (UR) is -2.1564, indicating that a 1%
increase in the unemployment rate is associated with a decrease of 2.1564% in
GDP per capita, holding other variables constant. This implies that higher
unemployment levels can have a detrimental effect on economic growth as
expected.

23
Overall, the model suggests that lower poverty rates, higher levels of education, longer
life expectancy, and lower unemployment rates are associated with higher GDP per
capita, indicating their importance for promoting economic development.

24
 6. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this quantitative study has provided valuable insights into the relationship
between economic growth and social factors within the European Union from 2011 to
2021. The findings demonstrate significant associations between the dependent
variable, economic growth, and the independent variables of poverty rate, life
expectancy, expected years of schooling, and unemployment rate. The results
emphasize the importance of addressing poverty, enhancing human development,
promoting education and skills development, addressing unemployment, and improving
healthcare and life expectancy in fostering sustainable and inclusive economic growth.

To effectively reduce poverty within the European Union, policymakers should

prioritize a comprehensive set of recommendations aimed at addressing the
multifaceted nature of the issue. Firstly, implementing targeted poverty reduction
measures is essential to provide support and resources to vulnerable populations. This
entails expanding social safety nets, such as social assistance programs and income
support, to ensure a basic level of well-being. Additionally, investing in equitable access
to quality education and vocational training programs is vital to equip individuals with
the necessary skills and knowledge for sustainable employment and upward mobility.

Furthermore, improving healthcare infrastructure and ensuring universal access to

healthcare services are imperative to alleviate the burden of healthcare costs on low-
income individuals and families. By investing in healthcare systems and promoting
preventive care, policymakers can enhance health outcomes and reduce health
disparities among disadvantaged communities. Creating inclusive employment
opportunities is another key recommendation, which involves promoting job creation,
particularly in sectors with growth potential, and supporting entrepreneurship and small
business development. Accessible financing, business development programs, and
mentorship initiatives can empower aspiring entrepreneurs from marginalized
backgrounds to establish sustainable livelihoods. Lastly, fostering social cohesion and
community engagement is critical to addressing the root causes of poverty. Encouraging
collaboration between local communities, civil society organizations, and government
entities can lead to targeted interventions that promote social inclusion, community

25
development, and active participation. By adopting this comprehensive approach,
policymakers can make substantial progress in reducing poverty, fostering sustainable
economic growth, and creating a more inclusive and prosperous European Union for all
its citizens.

However, it is crucial to acknowledge the limitations of this study. First, the analysis is
based on available quantitative data, which may have inherent limitations and potential
biases. Second, the complex interdependencies among social factors and economic
growth require further exploration, as this study captures only a subset of relevant
variables. Moreover, the study's focus on the European Union from 2011 to 2021 may
limit the generalizability of the findings to other regions or time periods.

To enhance future research in this area, it is recommended to employ a more

comprehensive approach, incorporating qualitative methods and additional variables
that capture the multifaceted nature of social factors. Longitudinal studies can provide
a deeper understanding of the long-term impact of social factors on economic growth.
Additionally, qualitative research can offer insights into the specific mechanisms and
contextual factors underlying the observed relationships.

Despite these limitations, the findings of this study offer valuable guidance for
policymakers within the European Union. By addressing the recommendations outlined
in this research, policymakers can create an environment conducive to social well-
being, and sustained economic prosperity.

Although there exist inevitable flaws in our report-making phases such as finding the
relevant and coherent articles, choosing variables, collecting data, interpreting the
results, our group has tried our best to deliver a report with the best quality within a
restricted time. We would like to express our gratitude to Mrs. Dinh Thanh Binh, our
teacher and supervisor, for her dedicated instruction during the course. We hope to
receive your feedback to improve our report.

26
 REFERENCE

Book

1. Banerjee, A., & Duflo, E. (2011, June 9). Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking
of the Way to Fight Global Poverty.
2. Becker, G. (1964) Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with
Special Reference to Education. Columbia University Press, New York
3. Blanchard, O., & Summers, L. H. (1986). Hysteresis and the European
Unemployment Problem. NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 1, 15-90
https://www.nber.org/books-and-chapters/nber-macroeconomics-annual-1986-
volume-1/hysteresis-and-european-unemployment-problem
4. Harrison, L. E., & Huntington, S. P. (2001, April 5). Culture Matters: How
Values Shape Human Progress. https://doi.org/10.1604/9780465031764

Article

1. Alawamleh, M., Bani Ismail, L., Aqeel, D. & Alawamleh, J. (2019). The
bilateral relationship between human capital investment and innovation in
Jordan. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 8 (6).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-019-0101-3
2. Barro, R. J. (1991). Economic Growth in a Cross Section of Countries. The
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(2), 407–443.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2937943
3. Barro, Robert J. & Lee, Jong Wha, 2013. "A new data set of educational
attainment in the world, 1950–2010," Journal of Development Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 184-198
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2012.10.001
4. Bloom, D. E., Canning, D., & Sevilla, J. (2004, January). The Effect of Health
on Economic Growth: A Production Function Approach. World Development,
32(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2003.07.002
5. Breton, T. R. (2014, June 22). A Human Capital Theory of Growth: New
Evidence for an Old Idea. A Human Capital Theory of Growth: New Evidence

27
 for an Old Idea by Theodore R. Breton :: SSRN.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2456903
6. Cutler, D., Deaton, A., & Lleras-Muney, A. (2006, May 1). The Determinants of
Mortality. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(3), 97–120.
https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.20.3.97
7. Elistia, E., & Syahzuni, B. A. (2018). the Correlation of the Human Development
Index (Hdi) Towards Economic Growth (Gdp Per Capita) in 10 Asean Member
Countries. Jhss (Journal of Humanities and Social Studies), 2(2), 40–46.
https://doi.org/10.33751/jhss.v2i2.949
8. Fu, H., Ge, R., Huang, J., & Shi, X. (2022, April). The effect of education on
health and health behaviors: Evidence from the college enrollment expansion in
China. China Economic Review, 72, 101768.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2022.101768
9. Gatawa, G. (2022). The Effect of Social Factors to Economic Growth (Version
1). Advance. https://doi.org/10.31124/advance.19397081.v1
10. Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2012, July 14). Do better schools lead to
more growth? Cognitive skills, economic outcomes, and causation. Journal of
Economic Growth, 17(4), 267–321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10887-012-9081-x
11. Jorgenson, D. W., & Griliches, Z. (1967). The Explanation of Productivity
Change. The Review of Economic Studies, 34(3), 249–283.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2296675
12. Langelett, G. (2002). Human Capital: A Summary of the 20th Century Research.
Journal of Education Finance, 28(1), 1–23.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40704155
13. Mankiw, N. G., Romer, D., & Weil, D. N. (1992, May 1). A Contribution to the
Empirics of Economic Growth*. OUP Academic.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2118477
14. McGowan, P. O., Sasaki, A. Roth, T. L. (2014). The social environment and
epigenetics in psychiatry. Epigenetics in Psychiatry, pp. 547-562.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-417114-5.00026-7

28
 15. Méndez-Picazo, M. T., Galindo-Martín, M.A. & Castaño-Matínez, M. S. (2021).
Effects of sociocultural and economic factors on social entrepreneurship and
sustainable development. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 6, 69-77.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2020.06.001
16. Ozekicioglu, H. (2019, September 15). Relationship Between Migration and
Unemployment: Panel Data Analysis for Selected OECD Countries.
Montenegrin Journal of Economics, 15(3), 101–111.
https://doi.org/10.14254/1800-5845/2019.15-3.7
17. Popa, A. M. (n.d.). EconStor: The impact of social factors on economic growth:
Empirical evidence for Romania and European Union countries. EconStor: The
Impact of Social Factors on Economic Growth: Empirical Evidence for Romania
and European Union Countries. https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/107942
18. Pradhan, J. P., & Abraham, V. (2002). Does Human Development Policy Matter
for Economic Growth? Evidence from Indian States. South Asia Economic
Journal, 3(1), 77–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/139156140200300105
19. Pritchett, L., & Summers, L. H. (1996). Wealthier is Healthier. The Journal of
Human Resources, 31(4), 841–868. https://doi.org/10.2307/146149
20. Robert M. Solow, A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth, The
Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 70, Issue 1, February 1956, Pages 65–
94, https://doi.org/10.2307/1884513
21. Safarova, N. (2021, March 31). CROSS-COUNTRY ANALYSIS OF THE
IMPACT OF EDUCATION ON POVERTY REDUCTION. Конференции.
https://doi.org/10.47100/conferences.v1i1.957
22. Schultz, T. W. (1961). Investment in Human Capital. The American Economic
Review, 51(1), 1–17. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1818907
23. Sen, A. (2000, September 1). Development As Freedom. Anchor.
https://doi.org/10.1604/9780385720274

Website

1. Real GDP per capita (European Union)

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/sdg_08_10/default/table

29
2. Poverty rate (European Union)
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/TESPM010/default/table?lang=
en&category=es.tespm
3. Expected year of schooling (European Union)
https://genderdata.worldbank.org/indicators/se-sch-life/?gender=total
4. Life expectancy (European Union)
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN
5. Unemployment rate (European Union)
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tps00203/default/table

30
 APPENDIX

Do file STATA
mport excel "C:\Users\user\Downloads\Data 2011-2021.xlsx", sheet("Data") firstrow
encode Country, generate (country)
gen lnGDP=ln(GDPpc)

**Khai báo panel-data**

xtset country Year
**Kiểm tra mô hình có biến nhiễu ai không**
xtreg lnGDP POV EYS LE UR, re
xttest0

**Lựa chọn mô hình Fe or RE**

xtreg lnGDP POV EYS LE UR, fe
est sto fe
xtreg lnGDP POV EYS LE UR, re
est sto re
hausman fe re, sigmaless

**Kiểm định khuyết tật của mô hình RE**

*Đa cộng tuyến: Nếu mean vif<10 --> ko có đa cộng tuyến*
reg lnGDP POV EYS LE UR
vif

**Kiểm định: PSSS thay đổi**

predict residual
gen residualsq= residual^2
reg residualsq POV EYS LE UR

**Tương quan chuỗi: p-value=0.0000<0.05-->bác bỏ H0--> có tương quan chuỗi**

findit xtserial
xtserial lnGDP POV EYS LE UR
p-value=0.000-->Có tương quan chuỗi

**Tương quan chéo: p-value<0.05-->bác bỏ H0--> có tương quan chéo**

xtreg lnGDP POV EYS LE UR , re
ssc install xtcsd
xtcsd, pesaran abs

***Khắc phục khuyết tật***

31
xtgls lnGPD POV II EYE LE UR, corr(ar1) panels(hetero) force

Kết quả STATA

32
33
34
35
Data
- 27 countries in EU
- Time: 2011 – 2021
Country Year GDPpc POV EYS LE UR
Austria 2011 36300 0.145 16.03 80.83 0.049
Belgium 2011 33460 0.153 18.00 80.37 0.072
Bulgaria 2011 5320 0.222 14.49 74.19 0.123
Croatia 2011 10680 0.209 14.55 77.22 0.137
Republic of Cyprus 2011 22970 0.148 13.80 80.00 0.079
Czech Republic 2011 15310 0.098 16.08 77.82 0.067
Denmark 2011 44240 0.121 18.00 79.79 0.078
Estonia 2011 11890 0.175 16.50 76.47 0.123
Finland 2011 35810 0.137 17.06 80.39 0.08
France 2011 31210 0.140 15.19 81.81 0.092
Germany 2011 33200 0.158 16.63 80.36 0.055
Greece 2011 18130 0.214 16.87 80.55 0.181

36
 Hungary 2011 10190 0.141 15.20 74.92 0.107
Ireland 2011 36860 0.152 17.94 80.63 0.154
Italy 2011 27030 0.198 16.71 82.24 0.085
Latvia 2011 8940 0.190 15.53 73.69 0.163
Lithuania 2011 9820 0.192 16.85 73.93 0.154
Luxembourg 2011 82490 0.136 13.91 80.77 0.049
Malta 2011 16450 0.156 15.00 80.99 0.064
Netherlands 2011 38880 0.110 17.86 81.10 0.06
Poland 2011 9790 0.177 15.22 76.65 0.1
Portugal 2011 16720 0.180 16.22 80.50 0.135
Romania 2011 6650 0.223 15.19 74.43 0.091
Slovakia 2011 13080 0.130 14.95 76.02 0.135
Slovenia 2011 17870 0.136 17.00 79.99 0.082
Spain 2011 22770 0.206 16.63 82.20 0.214
Sweden 2011 40920 0.154 15.78 81.76 0.08
Austria 2012 36390 0.144 16.09 80.84 0.052
Belgium 2012 33490 0.153 18.00 80.26 0.076
Bulgaria 2012 5390 0.212 14.53 74.36 0.133
Croatia 2012 10460 0.204 14.79 77.34 0.16
Republic of Cyprus 2012 21840 0.147 13.79 80.11 0.119
Czech Republic 2012 15170 0.096 16.08 78.01 0.07
Denmark 2012 44170 0.120 18.00 80.08 0.078
Estonia 2012 12320 0.175 16.51 76.55 0.099
Finland 2012 35140 0.132 17.07 80.50 0.079
France 2012 31160 0.141 15.26 81.77 0.098
Germany 2012 33280 0.161 16.68 80.51 0.051
Greece 2012 16940 0.231 17.16 80.34 0.248
Hungary 2012 10120 0.143 15.24 75.18 0.107
Ireland 2012 36710 0.163 17.96 80.75 0.155
Italy 2012 26160 0.195 16.47 82.26 0.109
Latvia 2012 9680 0.192 15.39 73.75 0.151
Lithuania 2012 10330 0.186 16.67 74.20 0.134
Luxembourg 2012 81940 0.151 13.88 80.98 0.051
Malta 2012 16970 0.151 15.20 81.22 0.062
Netherlands 2012 38340 0.101 17.83 81.05 0.068
Poland 2012 9940 0.171 15.34 76.71 0.104
Portugal 2012 16110 0.179 16.30 80.48 0.166
Romania 2012 6810 0.229 14.61 74.39 0.087
Slovakia 2012 13230 0.132 14.95 76.18 0.139
Slovenia 2012 17360 0.135 16.99 80.13 0.089

37
 Spain 2012 22080 0.208 16.96 82.21 0.248
Sweden 2012 40380 0.152 15.79 81.73 0.081
Austria 2013 36180 0.144 15.85 81.08 0.057
Belgium 2013 33490 0.151 18.00 80.47 0.086
Bulgaria 2013 5390 0.210 14.91 74.85 0.139
Croatia 2013 10450 0.195 15.17 77.84 0.173
Republic of Cyprus 2013 20450 0.153 14.00 80.40 0.159
Czech Republic 2013 15160 0.086 16.61 78.18 0.07
Denmark 2013 44410 0.119 18.00 80.30 0.074
Estonia 2013 12540 0.186 16.42 77.13 0.086
Finland 2013 34660 0.118 18.00 80.88 0.083
France 2013 31170 0.137 15.41 82.02 0.103
Germany 2013 33330 0.161 16.73 80.46 0.05
Greece 2013 16630 0.231 17.34 80.97 0.278
Hungary 2013 10330 0.150 15.62 75.68 0.098
Ireland 2013 36940 0.157 18.00 80.97 0.138
Italy 2013 25620 0.193 16.19 82.66 0.124
Latvia 2013 9980 0.194 15.83 74.18 0.119
Lithuania 2013 10810 0.206 16.61 74.31 0.118
Luxembourg 2013 82400 0.159 13.94 81.37 0.059
Malta 2013 17650 0.158 15.30 81.45 0.061
Netherlands 2013 38180 0.104 17.91 81.29 0.082
Poland 2013 10030 0.173 16.31 76.97 0.106
Portugal 2013 16050 0.187 16.75 80.82 0.172
Romania 2013 6860 0.230 14.62 74.98 0.09
Slovakia 2013 13300 0.128 14.93 76.51 0.141
Slovenia 2013 17160 0.145 17.71 80.34 0.101
Spain 2013 21850 0.204 17.17 82.72 0.261
Sweden 2013 40510 0.160 18.00 81.94 0.082
Austria 2014 36130 0.141 15.86 81.39 0.06
Belgium 2014 33870 0.155 18.00 81.08 0.087
Bulgaria 2014 5470 0.218 15.09 74.48 0.124
Croatia 2014 10460 0.194 15.27 77.95 0.173
Republic of Cyprus 2014 20310 0.144 14.26 80.77 0.161
Czech Republic 2014 15480 0.097 16.75 78.76 0.061
Denmark 2014 44890 0.121 18.00 80.63 0.069
Estonia 2014 12960 0.218 16.22 77.14 0.073
Finland 2014 34390 0.128 18.00 81.01 0.087
France 2014 31320 0.133 15.44 82.48 0.103
Germany 2014 33920 0.167 16.74 80.92 0.047

38
 Greece 2014 16830 0.221 17.90 81.01 0.266
Hungary 2014 10790 0.150 15.43 75.85 0.075
Ireland 2014 39860 0.168 18.00 81.31 0.119
Italy 2014 25620 0.194 16.11 82.91 0.129
Latvia 2014 10270 0.212 15.82 74.43 0.109
Lithuania 2014 11290 0.191 16.46 74.84 0.107
Luxembourg 2014 82590 0.164 14.00 81.73 0.059
Malta 2014 18610 0.158 15.40 81.62 0.057
Netherlands 2014 38580 0.116 18.00 81.64 0.084
Poland 2014 10420 0.170 15.98 77.57 0.092
Portugal 2014 16260 0.195 16.52 81.22 0.146
Romania 2014 7160 0.251 14.62 74.93 0.086
Slovakia 2014 13640 0.126 14.80 76.85 0.131
Slovenia 2014 17620 0.145 17.34 80.94 0.097
Spain 2014 22220 0.222 17.29 82.86 0.245
Sweden 2014 41180 0.156 18.00 82.22 0.081
Austria 2015 36140 0.139 15.95 81.16 0.061
Belgium 2015 34360 0.149 18.00 80.89 0.087
Bulgaria 2015 5700 0.220 14.95 74.63 0.101
Croatia 2015 10790 0.200 15.23 77.56 0.162
Republic of Cyprus 2015 21120 0.162 14.57 80.97 0.15
Czech Republic 2015 16290 0.097 16.86 78.58 0.051
Denmark 2015 45630 0.122 18.00 80.74 0.063
Estonia 2015 13230 0.216 16.12 77.66 0.064
Finland 2015 34460 0.124 18.00 81.42 0.094
France 2015 31540 0.136 15.42 82.19 0.103
Germany 2015 34130 0.167 16.79 80.57 0.044
Greece 2015 16900 0.214 18.00 80.67 0.25
Hungary 2015 11220 0.149 15.22 75.65 0.066
Ireland 2015 49110 0.162 18.00 81.42 0.099
Italy 2015 25860 0.199 16.03 82.53 0.12
Latvia 2015 10760 0.225 15.83 74.69 0.099
Lithuania 2015 11620 0.222 16.45 74.61 0.091
Luxembourg 2015 82820 0.153 14.07 81.84 0.067
Malta 2015 19920 0.166 15.70 81.79 0.054
Netherlands 2015 39170 0.116 18.00 81.48 0.079
Poland 2015 10890 0.176 16.02 77.42 0.077
Portugal 2015 16620 0.195 16.45 81.21 0.13
Romania 2015 7420 0.254 14.63 74.79 0.084
Slovakia 2015 14340 0.123 14.68 76.65 0.115

39
 Slovenia 2015 17990 0.143 17.29 80.82 0.09
Spain 2015 23090 0.221 17.47 82.65 0.221
Sweden 2015 42580 0.163 18.00 82.18 0.076
Austria 2016 36390 0.141 16.08 81.59 0.065
Belgium 2016 34620 0.155 18.00 81.27 0.079
Bulgaria 2016 5910 0.229 14.65 74.83 0.086
Croatia 2016 11270 0.195 15.19 78.23 0.131
Republic of Cyprus 2016 22410 0.161 14.74 81.06 0.13
Czech Republic 2016 16670 0.097 16.83 79.00 0.04
Denmark 2016 46720 0.119 18.00 80.88 0.06
Estonia 2016 13620 0.217 16.06 77.82 0.068
Finland 2016 35330 0.116 18.00 81.29 0.089
France 2016 31770 0.136 15.53 82.44 0.101
Germany 2016 34610 0.165 16.88 80.85 0.039
Greece 2016 16890 0.212 18.00 81.16 0.239
Hungary 2016 11500 0.145 15.12 76.16 0.05
Ireland 2016 49540 0.168 18.00 81.55 0.084
Italy 2016 26240 0.206 15.98 83.05 0.117
Latvia 2016 11110 0.218 15.98 74.75 0.097
Lithuania 2016 12070 0.219 16.50 74.88 0.079
Luxembourg 2016 84750 0.158 14.23 82.05 0.063
Malta 2016 20130 0.165 15.80 81.95 0.047
Netherlands 2016 39810 0.127 18.00 81.55 0.07
Poland 2016 11220 0.173 16.05 77.80 0.063
Portugal 2016 17010 0.190 16.37 81.23 0.115
Romania 2016 7680 0.253 14.32 75.25 0.072
Slovakia 2016 14590 0.127 14.53 77.22 0.096
Slovenia 2016 18550 0.139 17.50 81.16 0.08
Spain 2016 23780 0.223 17.54 83.04 0.196
Sweden 2016 42920 0.162 18.00 82.34 0.071
Austria 2017 36980 0.144 16.09 81.64 0.059
Belgium 2017 35050 0.159 18.00 81.36 0.072
Bulgaria 2017 6120 0.234 14.41 74.80 0.072
Croatia 2017 11770 0.200 15.23 78.08 0.112
Republic of Cyprus 2017 23470 0.157 15.17 81.33 0.111
Czech Republic 2017 17490 0.091 16.79 78.96 0.029
Denmark 2017 47740 0.124 18.00 81.11 0.058
Estonia 2017 14410 0.210 15.92 77.98 0.058
Finland 2017 36380 0.115 18.00 81.50 0.087
France 2017 32360 0.132 15.65 82.47 0.094

40
 Germany 2017 35410 0.161 16.98 80.94 0.036
Greece 2017 17110 0.202 18.00 80.85 0.218
Hungary 2017 12020 0.134 15.20 76.01 0.04
Ireland 2017 53400 0.156 18.00 81.92 0.067
Italy 2017 26730 0.203 16.09 82.73 0.113
Latvia 2017 11590 0.221 16.17 74.81 0.087
Lithuania 2017 12760 0.229 16.64 75.44 0.071
Luxembourg 2017 84020 0.164 14.26 81.73 0.055
Malta 2017 21700 0.167 16.10 82.12 0.04
Netherlands 2017 40730 0.132 18.00 81.73 0.059
Poland 2017 11800 0.150 16.08 77.72 0.05
Portugal 2017 17650 0.183 16.54 81.50 0.092
Romania 2017 8360 0.236 14.26 75.95 0.061
Slovakia 2017 15000 0.124 14.49 77.22 0.081
Slovenia 2017 19440 0.133 17.57 81.07 0.066
Spain 2017 24440 0.216 17.62 83.03 0.172
Sweden 2017 43430 0.158 18.00 82.44 0.068
Austria 2018 37690 0.143 16.07 81.69 0.052
Belgium 2018 35510 0.164 18.00 81.48 0.06
Bulgaria 2018 6330 0.220 14.20 74.90 0.062
Croatia 2018 12220 0.193 15.18 78.34 0.085
Republic of Cyprus 2018 24500 0.154 15.36 81.38 0.084
Czech Republic 2018 17990 0.096 16.24 79.00 0.022
Denmark 2018 48450 0.127 18.00 80.99 0.051
Estonia 2018 14920 0.219 15.91 78.14 0.054
Finland 2018 36740 0.120 18.00 81.63 0.075
France 2018 32800 0.134 15.74 82.59 0.09
Germany 2018 35650 0.160 16.93 81.17 0.032
Greece 2018 17430 0.185 18.00 81.39 0.197
Hungary 2018 12690 0.128 15.13 76.20 0.036
Ireland 2018 57260 0.149 18.00 82.09 0.058
Italy 2018 27030 0.203 16.18 83.19 0.106
Latvia 2018 12140 0.233 16.23 75.00 0.074
Lithuania 2018 13400 0.229 16.57 75.68 0.062
Luxembourg 2018 83390 0.167 14.32 81.80 0.056
Malta 2018 22250 0.168 16.60 82.29 0.037
Netherlands 2018 41450 0.133 18.00 81.77 0.049
Poland 2018 12500 0.148 16.03 77.63 0.039
Portugal 2018 18190 0.173 16.72 81.40 0.072
Romania 2018 8920 0.235 14.28 76.16 0.053

41
 Slovakia 2018 15580 0.122 14.48 77.26 0.065
Slovenia 2018 20240 0.133 17.60 81.36 0.051
Spain 2018 24890 0.215 17.76 83.14 0.153
Sweden 2018 43760 0.164 18.00 82.53 0.065
Austria 2019 38090 0.133 16.01 81.91 0.048
Belgium 2019 36110 0.148 18.00 81.83 0.055
Bulgaria 2019 6630 0.226 13.90 75.06 0.052
Croatia 2019 12710 0.183 15.11 78.74 0.066
Republic of Cyprus 2019 25500 0.147 15.65 81.40 0.071
Czech Republic 2019 18460 0.101 16.22 79.24 0.02
Denmark 2019 48970 0.125 18.00 81.43 0.05
Estonia 2019 15410 0.217 15.93 78.67 0.045
Finland 2019 37150 0.116 18.00 81.87 0.068
France 2019 33250 0.136 15.81 82.73 0.084
Germany 2019 35950 0.148 17.01 81.56 0.03
Greece 2019 17780 0.179 18.00 81.25 0.179
Hungary 2019 13310 0.123 15.03 76.45 0.033
Ireland 2019 59560 0.131 18.00 82.26 0.05
Italy 2019 27230 0.201 16.23 83.55 0.099
Latvia 2019 12540 0.229 16.20 75.53 0.063
Lithuania 2019 14060 0.206 16.29 76.21 0.063
Luxembourg 2019 83590 0.175 14.40 82.14 0.056
Malta 2019 22880 0.171 16.80 82.44 0.036
Netherlands 2019 41980 0.132 18.00 82.05 0.044
Poland 2019 13070 0.154 16.03 77.93 0.033
Portugal 2019 18670 0.172 16.87 81.70 0.067
Romania 2019 9300 0.238 14.23 76.51 0.049
Slovakia 2019 15960 0.119 14.51 77.69 0.057
Slovenia 2019 20770 0.120 17.66 81.60 0.044
Spain 2019 25180 0.207 17.92 83.53 0.141
Sweden 2019 44180 0.171 18.00 83.05 0.07
Austria 2020 35480 0.139 16.01 81.50 0.06
Belgium 2020 34010 0.141 18.00 80.79 0.058
Bulgaria 2020 6 0.238 13.90 73.65 0.061
Croatia 2020 11680 0.183 15.11 77.99 0.075
Republic of Cyprus 2020 24110 0.143 15.65 81.39 0.076
Czech Republic 2020 17400 0.095 16.22 78.58 0.026
Denmark 2020 48 0.121 18.00 81.55 0.056
Estonia 2020 15280 0.207 15.93 78.34 0.069
Finland 2020 36270 0.122 18.00 81.87 0.077

42
 France 2020 30550 0.142 15.81 82.21 0.08
Germany 2020 34590 0.161 17.01 81.15 0.037
Greece 2020 16210 0.177 18.00 80.91 0.176
Hungary 2020 12730 0.123 15.03 75.73 0.041
Ireland 2020 62570 0.138 18.00 82.47 0.059
Italy 2020 24890 0.200 16.23 82.40 0.093
Latvia 2020 12340 0.216 16.20 75.45 0.081
Lithuania 2020 14050 0.209 16.29 75.07 0.085
Luxembourg 2020 81660 0.174 14.40 81.43 0.068
Malta 2020 20460 0.169 16.80 82.60 0.044
Netherlands 2020 40130 0.134 18.00 81.64 0.049
Poland 2020 12810 0.148 16.03 76.94 0.032
Portugal 2020 17100 0.162 16.87 81.06 0.07
Romania 2020 9020 0.234 14.23 75.35 0.061
Slovakia 2020 15400 0.114 14.51 77.01 0.067
Slovenia 2020 19740 0.124 17.66 80.44 0.05
Spain 2020 22210 0.210 17.92 82.29 0.155
Sweden 2020 42910 0.161 18.00 82.43 0.085
Austria 2021 36950 0.147 16.01 81.58 0.062
Belgium 2021 36010 0.127 18.00 81.88 0.063
Bulgaria 2021 6950 0.221 13.90 71.8 0.053
Croatia 2021 13510 0.192 15.11 77.58 0.076
Republic of Cyprus 2021 25480 0.138 15.65 81.2 0.075
Czech Republic 2021 18020 0.087 16.22 77.73 0.028
Denmark 2021 50010 0.123 18.00 81.38 0.051
Estonia 2021 16490 0.206 15.93 77.14 0.062
Finland 2021 37250 0.108 18.00 82.04 0.077
France 2021 32490 0.143 15.81 82.5 0.079
Germany 2021 35480 0.160 17.01 80.63 0.037
Greece 2021 17670 0.196 18.00 80.11 0.147
Hungary 2021 13710 0.126 15.03 74.53 0.041
Ireland 2021 70530 0.129 18.00 82 0.062
Italy 2021 26780 0.201 16.23 82.85 0.095
Latvia 2021 12980 0.234 16.20 73.58 0.076
Lithuania 2021 14820 0.200 16.29 73.72 0.071
Luxembourg 2021 84490 0.181 14.40 82.63 0.053
Malta 2021 22750 0.169 16.80 83.8 0.034
Netherlands 2021 41860 0.144 18.00 81.69 0.042
Poland 2021 13770 0.148 16.03 76.46 0.034
Portugal 2021 18060 0.184 16.87 81.04 0.066

43
Romania 2021 9610 0.225 14.23 74.19 0.056
Slovakia 2021 16210 0.123 14.51 74.91 0.068
Slovenia 2021 21310 0.117 17.66 80.69 0.048
Spain 2021 23450 0.217 17.92 83.01 0.148
Sweden 2021 45280 0.157 18.00 82.98 0.088

44