This statistic shows the national debt of Greece from 2019 to 2023, with projections until 2029. In 2023, the national debt in Greece was around 382.04 billion U.S. dollars. In a ranking of debt to GDP per country, Greece is currently ranked third. Greece's struggle after the financial crisis Greece is a developed country in the EU and is highly dependent on its service sector as well as its tourism sector in order to gain profits. After going through a large economic boom from the 1950s to the 1970s as well as somewhat high GDP growth in the early to mid 2000s, Greece’s economy took a turn for the worse and struggled intensively, primarily due to the Great Recession, the Euro crisis as well as its own debt crisis. National debt within the country saw significant gains over the past decades, however roughly came to a halt due to financial rescue packages issued from the European Union in order to help Greece maintain and improve their economical situation. The nation’s continuous rise in debt has overwhelmed its estimated GDP over the years, which can be attributed to poor government execution and unnecessary spending. Large sums of financial aid were taken from major European banks to help balance out these government-induced failures and to potentially help refuel the economy to encourage more spending, which in turn would decrease the country’s continuously rising unemployment rate. Investors, consumers and workers alike are struggling to see a bright future in Greece, whose chances of an economic comeback are much lower than that of other struggling countries such as Portugal and Italy. However, Greece's financial situation might improve in the future, as it is estimated that at least its national debt will decrease - slowly, but steadily. Still, since its future participation in the European Union is in limbo as of now, these figures can only be estimates, not predictions.

Since the early 1970s the European Commission´s Standard & Special Eurobarometer are regularly monitoring the public opinion in the European Union member countries. Principal investigators are the Directorate-General Communication and on occasion other departments of the European Commission or the European Parliament. Over time, candidate and accession countries were included in the Standard Eurobarometer Series. Selected questions or modules may not have been surveyed in each sample. Please consult the basic questionnaire for more information on country filter instructions or other questionnaire routing filters. In this study all question modules are in the standard Eurobarometer context: 1. Standard EU and trend questions, 2. Europe 2020 strategy and policy priorities, 3. Financial and economic crisis and related EU policies, 4. European citizenship, 5. Media use and political information.
Topics: 1. Attitudes towards the EU (standard EU and trend questions): life satisfaction; frequency of discussions about political matters on national, European, and local level; assessment of the current situation in the following areas: own country, national economy, European economy, personal job situation, financial situation of the own household, national employment situation, provision of public services in the own country; expectations for the next twelve months regarding: personal life in general, situation in the own country in general, national economic situation, financial situation of the own household, national employment situation, personal job situation, economic situation in the EU; most important problems in the own country, personally, and in the EU; assessment of the own country’s assumed membership in the EU as a good thing; expectations of benefit from an assumed membership of the own country; assessment of the full application of EU legislation for the Turkish Cypriot Community (TCC) as a good thing; expectations of benefit from the full application of EU legislation for the Turkish Cypriot Community (TCC); general direction things are going in the own country, the EU, and in the USA; trust in selected institutions: written press, radio, television, internet, online social networks, political parties, national legal system, police, army, public administration, regional or local public authorities, national government, national parliament, European Union, United Nations; image of the EU; positive associations with the following terms: free trade, globalisation, protectionism; meaning of the EU to the respondent; most suitable attributes for describing the EU: modern, democratic, protective, efficient, remote, forward-looking; knowledge of and trust in selected institutions: European Parliament, European Commission, European Central Bank; knowledge test on the EU: number of member states, direct election of European Parliament members by the citizens of each member state, Switzerland is a member of the EU; attitude towards the following issues: European economic and monetary union with one single currency, common foreign policy of all member states, further enlargement, common defence and security policy, free trade and investment agreement between the EU and the USA, common migration policy, common energy policy, digital single market within the EU, free movement of EU citizens; satisfaction with the democracy in the own country and in the EU; approval of the following statements: respondent understands how the EU works, recognition of the own country’s interests in the EU, EU’s voice counts in the world, globalisation as an opportunity for economic growth, better development of the own country outside the EU, more decisions to be taken at EU level; optimism about the future of the EU.

1. Europe 2020 strategy and policy priorities: likelihood to reach the following objectives by 2020: three quarters of people between 20 and 64 years of age having a job, share of funds invested in research and development reaching 3% of the wealth produced in the EU each year, reduction of EU greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20% (compared to 1990), increase of the share of renewable energy in the EU by 20%, increase of energy efficiency in the EU by 20%, reduction of the share of young people leaving school without qualifications to 10%, at least 40% of the people aged 30 to 34 having a higher education degree or diploma, reduction of the number of people living below the poverty line by a quarter, increase industry’s contribution to economy to 20% of GDP; EU is going in the right direction to exit the crisis and face new global challenges; most important objectives in a European energy union; feeling towards immigration of people from: other EU member states, outside the EU; attitude towards additional measures to fight illegal immigration of people from outside the EU on EU level and / or on national level; attitude towards the right for EU citizens to: live or work in every member state of the EU, live...

In the third quarter of 2024, Greece's national debt was the highest in all the European Union, amounting to 158 percent of Greece's gross domestic product. In spite of Greece's total being high by EU standards, it marks a substantial decrease from the historical high point reached by the country's national debt of 207 percent of GDP in 2020. Italy, France, Spain, Belgium, and Portugal also all have government debt worth over one year's production of their economies, while the small Baltic country of Estonia has the smallest national debt when compared with GDP, at only 24 percent. In debitum incrementum?A country’s national debt, also known as government debt or public debt, is defined as all borrowings owed by the government of a country. It usually comprises internal debt – owed to other governmental departments – and external debt, which is held by the public and is owed to government bond owners. National debt can be caused by a struggling economy in general, or by low tax income, which usually leads to money being borrowed from other governments for support, which in turn cannot be paid back right away. At first glance, a high national debt is not always a sign of a struggling economy – but since increasing debt can slow down economic growth significantly, it is imperative for the respective government to seek a steady reduction in the long run.

Code to reproduce all findings reported in the paper. Data are publicly available for download; see instructions in "Mader_Schoen_2014_reproduction_stata2mplus.do".

Euroscepticism, the political position which opposes European integration or proposes leaving the EU, peaked in the early 2010s during the period of the Eurozone crisis. Approval of the EU had been stable at a relatively high level in the 2000s, with around half of respondents having a positive image of the Union, before sharply dropping from 2010 onwards to under a third of respondents. In spite of the spike in negative attitudes towards the EU, the total share of respondents with a negative outlook never exceeded the share of those with a positive one. By 2020, disapproval of the EU was back down to below twenty percent, and has fallen further since. The share of respondents with a positive image of the bloc has risen back to pre-financial crisis levels, signifying a remarkable turnaround in the public image of the EU. Whether this reflects a secular trend, or is the result of the external shocks of Covid-19 and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which have both forced the member states of the union to cooperate on further integration measures, is yet to be seen. The Eurozone Crisis and the rise of euroscepticism Euroscepticism in the 2010s was driven by a succession of crises in both the economic and political spheres, which were latched onto by populists of both the far-left and far-right. The Eurozone crisis was triggered in 2010 by financial market pressure on the heavily indebted countries on the EU's periphery who were also member of the Euro currency area (Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, and Spain, among others). The economies of these member states had suffered greatly during the global financial crisis and great recession, with the collapse of their housing markets and failure of their banking systems meaning that their governments had to take on increasing debt burdens. As it became clear that their debt levels were unsustainable, the yield on their government debt spiked, meaning that new borrowing became unaffordable. In most cases, the 'Troika' of the EU Commission, ECB, and IMF stepped in to provide bailouts, but with harsh austerity conditions which generated further unemployment and social discontent. The crisis was largely resolved by late 2012, as ECB chief Mario Draghi resolved to do "whatever it takes" to stabilize yields and to save the Euro. Nevertheless, Greece remained in deep trouble until after 2015, with question marks remaining about whether they would leave the Euro. Greece finally exited its Troika bailout program in 2018. Increasing migration flows and populist discontent While the Eurozone crisis was resolved (or at least delayed until a future date) by the middle of the decade, the populist political forces which it had unleashed began to have successes across the continent. The humanitarian crisis trigerred by the fleeing of millions of people from the war in Syria and other conflicts in the Middle East & North Africa towards Europe poured fuel on the fire of populism. Parties who opposed migration took power in Central & Eastern Europe, with Poland's Law and Justice Party and Hungary's Fidesz becoming some of the EU's biggest adversaries over the 2010s. Far-right parties in Western Europe such as the AfD in Germany, National Rally in France, Lega in Italy, PVV in the Netherlands, and Vox in Spain began to have unprecedented electoral success. These parties were buoyed by the Brexit referendum in the UK, where the populist challenger UKIP had forced the ruling Conservative Party to announce a vote on the UK's membership of the EU. With the referendum won by the 'leave' side, populist forces in other countries sought to capitalize on this momentum by entering government and, if not leaving the EU entirely, forcing changes to the way the union is run. While much ink was spilled over the threat this populist challenge posed to the EU, in many cases when populist parties entered government, such as Syriza in Greece and the Five Star Movement in Italy, they softened their tone towards leaving the union and focused rather on domestic politics than EU reform. Covid-19, Russia-Ukraine War, and the decline of euroscepticism? By the end of the decade of the 2010s, the populist and eurosceptic wave which had swept over the continent began to recede. Voters became dissatisfied with the achievements of many populist parties once they had entered office and a series of external shocks would further dampen the hostility towards the EU. The Covid-19 Pandemic struck in early 2020, and while the EU has been criticized for not having a united response to the crisis and being slow to organize the roll-out of vaccination programs, the pandemic focused populist energies towards anti-lockdown and anti-vaccination campaigns which targeted national governments rather than the EU. The pandemic also produced a "rally around the flag" effect, whereby the public approval of establishment forces which were seeking to contain the crisis spiked, while support f...

Austerity policies tend to be generally unpopular and national governments have been found to lose support when they implement such policies. However, during the sovereign debt crisis, governments of ‘bailout countries’ were pressured by European Union (EU) institutions to implement austerity measures. Did austerity measures affect trust in the EU? We investigate the impact of fiscal austerity on EU trust and how perceptions of responsibility and political ideology moderate this relationship. We apply multilevel models to Eurobarometer surveys and data from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to analyze changes in trust in the EU in 27 EU-countries (2013–2015). Our results indicate that austerity has a negative effect on trust in the EU, but only among those who hold the EU responsible for austerity policies. We find no significant moderating effect of ideology.

Euroscepticism, the political position which opposes European integration or proposes leaving the EU, peaked in the early 2010s during the period of the Eurozone crisis. Approval of the EU had been stable at a relatively high level in the 2000s, with around half of respondents having a positive image of the union, before sharply dropping from 2010 onwards to under a third of respondents. In spite of the spike in negative attitudes towards the EU, the total share of respondents with a negative outlook never exceeded the share of those with a positive one. By 2020, disapproval of the EU was back down to below twenty percent, and has fallen further since. The share of respondents with a positive image of the bloc has risen back to pre-financial crisis levels, signifying a remarkable turnaround in the public image of the EU. Whether this reflects a secular trend, or is the result of the external shocks of Covid-19 and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which have both forced the member states of the union to cooperate on further integration measures, is yet to be seen. The Eurozone Crisis and the rise of euroscepticism Euroscepticism in the 2010s was driven by a succession of crises in both the economic and political spheres, which were latched onto by populists of both the far-left and far-right. The Eurozone crisis was triggered in 2010 by financial market pressure on the heavily indebted countries on the EU's periphery who were also member of the Euro currency area (Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, and Spain, among others). The economies of these member states had suffered greatly during the global financial crisis and great recession, with the collapse of their housing markets and failure of their banking systems meaning that their governments had to take on increasing debt burdens. As it became clear that their debt levels were unsustainable, the yield on their government debt spiked, meaning that new borrowing became unaffordable. In most cases, the 'Troika' of the EU Commission, ECB, and IMF stepped in to provide bailouts, but with harsh austerity conditions which generated further unemployment and social discontent. The crisis was largely resolved by late 2012, as ECB chief Mario Draghi resolved to do "whatever it takes" to stabilize yields and to save the Euro. Nevertheless, Greece remained in deep trouble until after 2015, with question marks remaining about whether they would leave the Euro. Greece finally exited its Troika bailout program in 2018. Increasing migration flows and populist discontent While the Eurozone crisis was resolved (or at least delayed until a future date) by the middle of the decade, the populist political forces which it had unleashed began to have successes across the continent. The humanitarian crisis trigerred by the fleeing of millions of people from the war in Syria and other conflicts in the Middle East & North Africa towards Europe poured fuel on the fire of populism. Parties who opposed migration took power in Central & Eastern Europe, with Poland's Law and Justice Party and Hungary's Fidesz becoming some of the EU's biggest adversaries over the 2010s. Far-right parties in Western Europe such as the AfD in Germany, National Rally in France, Lega in Italy, PVV in the Netherlands, and Vox in Spain began to have unprecedented electoral success. These parties were buoyed by the Brexit referendum in the UK, where the populist challenger UKIP had forced the ruling Conservative Party to announce a vote on the UK's membership of the EU. With the referendum won by the 'leave' side, populist forces in other countries sought to capitalize on this momentum by entering government and, if not leaving the EU entirely, forcing changes to the way the union is run. While much ink was spilled over the threat this populist challenge posed to the EU, in many cases when populist parties entered government, such as Syriza in Greece and the Five Star Movement in Italy, they softened their tone towards leaving the union and focused rather on domestic politics than EU reform. Covid-19, Russia-Ukraine War, and the decline of euroscepticism? By the end of the decade of the 2010s, the populist and eurosceptic wave which had swept over the continent began to recede. Voters became dissatisfied with the achievements of many populist parties once they had entered office and a series of external shocks would further dampen the hostility towards the EU. The Covid-19 Pandemic struck in early 2020, and while the EU has been criticized for not having a united response to the crisis and being slow to organize the roll-out of vaccination programs, the pandemic focused populist energies towards anti-lockdown and anti-vaccination campaigns which targeted national governments rather than the EU. The pandemic also produced a "rally around the flag" effect, whereby the public approval of establishment forces which were seeking to contain the crisis spiked, while support fo...

This Eurobarometer survey on ‘The crisis and the economic governance in Europe is the fifth carried out by the European Parliament. It was conducted by TNS opinion between 10 and 25 March 2012, in face-to-face interviews with 26 593 Europeans aged 15 and over.

Prior to key meetings of heads of state and government on the theme of the crisis, most Europeans think that the EU has to take action to reduce public spending and boost economic growth at the same time (47%) 25 % of Europeans consider that priority must be given to measures that stimulate the economy, and 23 % are in favour of measures to reduce public spending.

The survey’s findings confirm a known trend which shows a polarisation of public opinion. Indeed, the number of people who do not have any opinion decreases from survey to survey.

Although the primary focus of the current debate between the Member States is whether or not to they should take action together, 55 % of Europeans (=) would feel better protected by measures adopted in a coordinated way with the other EU countries, while 38% (+3) of them are in favour of individual measures.

As far as the ways of tackling the crisis are concerned, there are clear differences between those inside the euro zone (61% in favour of coordination) and those outside it (43%).

Although they are in favour of solidarity, most Europeans consider that financial help for Member States in economic or financial difficulties must be made conditional on compliance with common rules (80%). They also believe that penalties should be imposed when these rules are broken (72%).

Concerning budgetary issues, some 65 % (-2) of those surveyed are in favour of preliminary consultations between European and national institutions whilst national budgets are being drawn up. Once again, there is a very big difference between those inside the euro zone (70%) and those outside it (56%) .

On the financial transaction tax (FTT) we observe, as for the other questions, a clear change in the opinion between the two surveys. Henceforth 66% of Europeans (+5) are in favour of the principle of a financial transaction tax, 73% in the euro zone and 53% in the non euro zone, a difference of 20 percentage points.

Always during these six months, we note a growing awareness of Eurobonds. Today, nearly one European in two (49 %; +7) has heard of Eurobonds. This awareness is greater inside the euro zone (53 %) than outside it (42 %).

Although most of Europeans are in favour of pooling part of the public debt of Member States, their analysis differs on the impact that this may have.

Awareness of the credit rating agencies (CRA) has also increased: 13 countries had their ratings downgraded by CRAs in the last six months. It is therefore no surprise to discover that 61 % (+11) of Europeans have heard of CRAs. Asked whether an independent European CRA should be created to counterbalance the power of the existing agencies, 67 % (+2) of Europeans were in favour. Finally, 54 % of Europeans think that in serious crisis, the CRAs should not rate countries which have been helped by other EU Member States.

Regression results by country: Explanatory variable is Gross National Income (GNI) per capita PPP-adjusted.

Formaat: AVI
Omvang: 22,7
Duur: 2:42

Online beschikbaar: [01-12-2014]
Uploaded on Oct 6, 2008

If you're confused as to why the U.S. economy is going down the drain, this should clear things up for you.
Written by Doug Moe - http://www.dougmoe.net/
Directed by Phelps Harmon - http://www.celebritydarwinism.com
Cast
Dad.........................Doug Moe
Son..........................Jeremy Rosenblum

On the eve of the European elections, it was important to measure Europeans' perceptions of the EU's actions in the face of the economic and financial crisis.

This survey, conducted via face to face interviews with 27,218 EU citizens (fieldwork mid-January/mid-February), shows a collective concern to the crisis, a demand for more coordinated actions at an EU level and also by strikingly different national interpretations of the role of the euro. It also shows very clear variations on a socio-demographic level: women are more worried and more critical of the euro, along with citizens who left school at 15 years of age or before. There are a number of significant points to note:

Europeans are very worried about the repercussions of the crisis. This anxiety, which is felt very strongly in all countries (between 80 and 90%) affects all levels of the economy: global, European and national. This relates as much to the present situation as to the future. This anxiety is not as predominant at the personal level (58% today, 56% tomorrow).

Europeans are in favour of coordinated action to fight the crisis. Their diagnosis is clear: 44% of them believe that Member States reacted in an individual manner, while 39% believe they acted in a coordinated manner. On the other hand, 61% believe that Europeans would be better protected if the Member States adopted a coordinated approach. This kind of approach is urgently called for by the EP who has taken a stand to this effect on numerous occasions.

What is the most effective level at which to fight the crisis ? This question stands out, even more than the others, due to the significant differences evident between Member States. This may be dependent on whether or not a country belongs to the G8 or on the extent of the seriousness of the economic crisis in their national territory. On average, 25% choose the G8 and 17% the EU, 15% say the USA and 14% cite the national government.

What actions should be taken at EU level ? The European Parliament has repeatedly declared itself in favour of different measures at Union level. These are largely supported by Europeans in the percentage points which vary from 66 to 71%: coordination of economic and financial politics; supervision by the EU in cases where public money is used to rescue financial institutions; surveillance of the activities of the most important international financial groups; the role of the EU at international level in regulating financial services.

The euro: a protector ? This question on the role of the euro in mitigating the negative effects of the crisis was posed in all of the member countries of the Union. Among the twenty-seven Member States, 44% of Europeans think that the euro has not mitigated the crisis as opposed to 39% who think that it has effectively mitigated this crisis, 17% did not know. Indeed, the results show that the perception of the euro varies considerably from one country to another. The detailed table (see p. 15 of the summary) shows that 17 countries responded positively to the question, among which 13 are countries in the euro zone, 3 are countries which are obliged to adopt it and 1 country which refused to adopt it.

The former national currency would have been as effective a protector as the euro ? 45% of citizens in the euro zone answered no, while another 45% of them answered yes. This average conceals significant disparities between Member States in the euro zone as in twelve of the sixteen countries, a majority does not agree with this statement.

This statistic shows public evaluation of who was to blame for the economic problems in each country as of 2012. 78 percent of respondents in Spain felt that it was the banks and financial institutions that were most to blame for the current economic problems in their own country as of 2012.

Since the early 1970s the European Commission´s Standard & Special Eurobarometer are regularly monitoring the public opinion in the European Union member countries. Principal investigators are the Directorate-General Communication and on occasion other departments of the European Commission or the European Parliament. Over time, candidate and accession countries were included in the Standard Eurobarometer Series. Selected questions or modules may not have been surveyed in each sample. Please consult the basic questionnaire for more information on country filter instructions or other questionnaire routing filters. In this study all question modules are in the standard Eurobarometer context: 1. Standard EU and trend questions, 2. Financial and economic crisis, 3. Europe 2020, 4. Globalisation, 5. European Citizenship.
Topics: 1. Attitude towards the EU (standard EU and trend questions): general life satisfaction; frequency of discussions about national, European and local political matters; personal opinion leadership; assessment of the national, the European economy and of the economy in the world; evaluation of the personal job situation and of the financial situation of the household; assessment of the employment situation in the own country and the situation of the environment; assessment of the national economy, the national employment situation, the cost of living, energy prices, the quality of life and the situation of the environment in comparison with the average of the EU countries; expectations for the future regarding the personal life situation, the economic situation of the country, the financial situation of the household, the employment situation of the country, the personal job situation, the economic situation in the EU and in the world, and the environmental situation in the country; most important problems of the country and impact on the respondent personally; the country´s membership in the EU as a good thing; favorability of the country´s membership in the EU; main reasons for the perceived benefits and disadvantages of the EU membership; development of the country, of the European Union and of the United States in the right direction; trust in institutions (in the political parties, the national government, the parliament, the European Union, the UN and local public authorities; positive or negative image of the EU; meaning of EU for the respondent; awareness of European institutions such as European Parliament, European Commission, Council of the European Union, European Central Bank, European Ombudsman, Committee of the Regions, European Council, Court of Justice of the EU, European Economic and Social Committee, and trust in these institutions; knowledge test on the European Union (the number of Member States, direct election of Members of the European Parliament, target of the Lisbon Treaty, Switzerland is a member of the EU); support of the single currency (euro) and of an enlargement of the EU; attitude towards a common foreign policy; priorities for future strengthening of the EU; preferred decision-making level (country or EU) in the areas of fighting crime, unemployment and terrorism, taxation, defense and foreign affairs, immigration, educational system, pensions, environment, health, social welfare, agriculture, consumer protection, research, support for regions facing economies difficulties, energy, competition, transport, economy, fighting inflation; satisfaction with democracy in the country and in the EU; consideration of national interests in the EU; knowledge how the EU works; optimism about the future of the European Union; awareness of the Spanish presidency of the Council of the European Union; importance of the Spanish presidency.

1. Financial and economic crisis: the impact of the crisis has reached its peak; assessment of the current situation of the own household; most important actor to tackle the economic and financial crisis (split: extension of the response categories on the closed question and change of the question text); better protection of the country while keeping the former national currency; impact of the euro on the financial crisis; preferred initiatives to improve the performance of the European economy; preferred measures of the EU to address the financial crisis; attitude towards the reform of the economic system (scale: Financial crisis makes it easier (Split A) or more difficult (Split B) to adopt reforms, promoting reforms to relieve future generations, demand for more reforms in the country (Split A), and the adopted reforms are already sufficient (Split B), demand for increased cooperation among the EU Member States, willingness to lower standards of living to secure the future of the next generations, measures to reduce the public deficit are primarily (Split A) or are not a priority (Split B); demand for a rapid reduction of public debt; it is necessary to increase public deficits to create jobs; effectiveness of selected measures...

Robustness check: Panel regression results.

With a Gross Domestic Product of over 4.18 trillion Euros, the German economy was by far the largest in Europe in 2023. The similar-sized economies of the United Kingdom and France were the second and third largest economies in Europe during this year, followed by Italy and Spain. The smallest economy in this statistic is that of the small Balkan nation of Montenegro, which had a GDP of 5.7 billion Euros. In this year, the combined GDP of the 27 member states that compose the European Union amounted to approximately 17.1 trillion Euros. The big five Germany’s economy has consistently had the largest economy in Europe since 1980, even before the reunification of West and East Germany. The United Kingdom, by contrast, has had mixed fortunes during the same time period and had a smaller economy than Italy in the late 1980s. The UK also suffered more than the other major economies during the recession of the late 2000s, meaning the French economy was the second largest on the continent for some time afterward. The Spanish economy was continually the fifth-largest in Europe in this 38-year period, and from 2004 onwards, has been worth more than one trillion Euros. The smallest GDP, the highest economic growth in Europe Despite having the smallerst GDP of Europe, Montenegro emerged as the fastest growing economy in the continent, achieving an impressive annual growth rate of 4.5 percent, surpassing Turkey's growth rate of 4 percent. Overall,this Balkan nation has shown a remarkable economic recovery since the 2010 financial crisis, with its GDP projected to grow by 28.71 percent between 2024 and 2029. Contributing to this positive trend are successful tourism seasons in recent years, along with increased private consumption and rising imports. Europe's economic stagnation Malta, Albania, Iceland, and Croatia were among the countries reporting some of the highest growth rates this year. However, Europe's overall performance reflected a general slowdown in growth compared to the trend seen in 2021, during the post-pandemic recovery. Estonia experienced the sharpest negative growth in 2023, with its economy shrinking by 2.3% compared to 2022, primarily due to the negative impact of sanctions placed on its large neighbor, Russia. Other nations, including Sweden, Germany, and Finland, also recorded slight negative growth.

Greece recorded a Government Debt to GDP of 161.90 percent of the country's Gross Domestic Product in 2023. This dataset provides the latest reported value for - Greece Government Debt to GDP - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news.

Formaat: MP4Omvang: 47,2 Mb27 February 2008Online beschikbaar: [01-12-2014]Standard Youtube LicenseUploaded on Jun 11, 2008Video summary of the ALDE workshop "The International Financial Crisis: Its causes and what to do about it?"Event date: 27/02/08 14:00 to 18:00Location: Room ASP 5G2, European Parliament, BrusselsThis workshop will bring together Members of the European Parliament, economists, academics and journalists as well as representatives of the European Commission to discuss the lessons that have to be drawn from the recent financial crisis caused by the US sub-prime mortgage market.With the view of the informal ECOFIN meeting in April which will look at the financial sector supervision and crisis management mechanisms, this workshop aims at debating a wide range of topics including:- how to improve the existing supervisory framework,- how to combat the opacity of financial markets and improve transparency requirements,- how to address the rating agencies' performance and conflict of interest,- what regulatory lessons are to be learnt in order to avoid a repetition of the sub-prime and the resulting credit crunch.PROGRAMME14:00 - 14:10 Opening remarks: Graham Watson, leader of the of the ALDE Group14:10 - 14:25 Keynote speech by Charlie McCreevy, Commissioner for the Internal Market and Services, European Commission14:25 - 14:40 Presentation by Daniel Daianu, MEP (ALDE) of his background paper14:40 - 15:30 Panel I: Current features of the financial systems and the main causes of the current international crisis.-John Purvis, MEP EPP-Eric De Keuleneer, Solvay Business School, Free University of Brussels-Nigel Phipps, Head of European Regulatory Affairs Moody's-Wolfgang Munchau, journalist Financial Times-Robert Priester, European Banking Federation (EBF), Head of Department Banking Supervision and Financial Markets-Ray Kinsella, Director of the Centre for Insurance Studies University College Dublin-Servaas Deroose, Director ECFIN.C, Macroeconomy of the euro area and the EU, European Commission-Leke Van den Burg, MEP PSE-David Smith, Visiting Professor at Derby Business School

This study examines 147 banking crises in the period of 1976-2011 documented by the International Monetary Fund. The countries affected by crises are analysed in respect of publicly available World Bank indicators in the periods of three years before the crises. Machine learning methodology for subgroup discovery is used for the analysis. It enabled identification of five subsets of crises. Two of them are identified as especially useful for the characterization of EU countries affected by the banking crises in the year 2008. Fast growing credit activity is a characteristic for the first subgroup while socioeconomic problems recognized by non-increasing quality of public health are decisive for the second subgroup. Comparative analysis of the EU countries included into the second subgroup and the EU countries affected by the banking crises but not included into this subgroup demonstrated statistically significant differences in respect of World Bank good governance indicator values for the period before the crisis. Control of corruption, rule of law, and government effectiveness are the indicators that are statistically different for these sets of countries. The result is fully in accordance with the Francisâ's model connecting governance indicators and financial fragility. The significance of the result is in the segmentation of the corpus of countries with banking crises and recognition of connections between banking crises, socioeconomic problems, and governance effectiveness in some EU countries. The conclusions of the study might be useful for the policy makers in stressing that future banking crises prevention should also focus on governance effectiveness, more strict law implementation and especially on measures against corruption.

The share of total exports from European Union member states which goes to other EU countries underwent a decline from its early 2000s high point during the global financial crisis, great recession and Eurozone crisis(2007-2012), before rebounding back to around 62 percent of total exports in the early 2020s. This share is a good indicator of the relative importance of intra-EU trade, that is, trade governed by the "four freedoms" of the European Single Market (freedom of movement for goods, services, capital, and labor), vis-a-vis international trade with partners outside of the European Union.

It is worth keeping in mind that the United Kingdom, a key trading partner of many European Union countries, left the EU in 2020, meaning that the country was added to the extra-EU share. The fact that this did not have a notable effect on the share of exports going to extra-EU countries points to the declining relative importance of the UK as a trade partner for the EU.

Since the early 1970s the European Commission´s Standard & Special Eurobarometer are regularly monitoring the public opinion in the European Union member countries. Principal investigators are the Directorate-General Communication and on occasion other departments of the European Commission or the European Parliament. Over time, candidate and accession countries were included in the Standard Eurobarometer Series. Selected questions or modules may not have been surveyed in each sample. Please consult the basic questionnaire for more information on country filter instructions or other questionnaire routing filters. In this study all question modules are in the standard Eurobarometer context: 1. Standard EU and trend questions, 2. Europe 2020 strategy, 3. Financial and economic crisis, 4. European citizenship, 5. Living conditions in the EU.
Topics: 1. Attitudes towards the EU (standard EU and trend questions): life satisfaction; assessment of the current situation in the following areas: national economy, European economy, personal job situation, financial situation of the own household, national employment situation, quality of life in the own country, quality of life in the EU; expectations for the next twelve months regarding: personal life in general, national economic situation, financial situation of the own household, national employment situation, personal job situation, economic situation in the EU; most important problems in the own country, personally, and in the EU; assessment of the own country’s assumed membership in the EU as a good thing; trust in selected institutions: political parties, national government, national parliament, European Union, United Nations, regional or local public authorities; image of the EU; meaning of the EU to the respondent; most suitable attributes for describing the EU: modern, democratic, protective, efficient, bureaucratic, remote; approval of the following statements on the EU: creates conditions for more jobs in Europe, is responsible for austerity in Europe, makes doing business easier in Europe, generates too much bureaucracy, will emerge fairer from the crisis, makes the financial sector behave more responsibly, makes the cost of living cheaper in Europe, makes quality of life better in Europe, helps tackle global threats and challenges, helps protect its citizens, needs a clearer message; knowledge of and trust in selected institutions : European Parliament, European Commission, European Central Bank; knowledge test on the EU: number of member states, direct election of the members of the European Parliament by the citizens of each member state, Switzerland is a member of the EU; attitude towards the following issues: European economic and monetary union with one single currency, common foreign policy of all member states, further enlargement, common defence and security policy; satisfaction with the democracy in the own country and in the EU; approval of the following statements: respondent understands how the EU works, globalisation as an opportunity for economic growth, better development of the own country outside the EU, further development into federation of nation states, more decisions to be taken at EU level, need for a united Europe; current and prioritized main objective in building Europe; optimism about the future of the EU.

1. Europe 2020 strategy: likelihood to reach the following objectives by 2020: three quarters of people between 20 and 64 years of age having a job, share of funds invested in research and development reaching 3% of the wealth produced in the EU each year, reduction of EU greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20% (compared to 1990), increase of the share of renewable energy in the EU by 20%, increase of energy efficiency in the EU by 20%, reduction of the share of young people leaving school without qualifications to 10%, at least 40% of the people aged 30 to 34 having a higher education degree or diploma, reduction of the number of people living below the poverty line by a quarter; EU is going in the right direction to exit the crisis and face new global challenges.

2. Financial and economic crisis: impact of the economic crisis on the job market has already reached its peak; most effective institution to fight the effects of the financial and economic crisis: national government, EU, United States, G20, International Monetary Fund; approval of the following statements: own country needs reforms to face the future, EU member states should increase cooperation to tackle financial and economic crisis, measures to reduce public deficit and debt in the own country cannot be delayed, measures to reduce public deficit and debt in the own country are not a priority for now, EU has sufficient power and tools to defend its economic interests globally; assessment of the effectiveness of selected measures to tackle the current financial and economic crisis: more important role for the EU in regulating financial services, EU...