Survey Projections: How Accurate Are They? · 2016-08-30 · THE WORLD BANK'S UNIFIED SURVEY...

$: Survey Projections: How Accurate Are They? · 2016-08-30 · THE WORLD BANK'S UNIFIED SURVEY PROJECTIONS How Accurate Are They? An Ex-Post Evaluation of US91-US97 tf.1 - -- \ 1 Jos$
POLICY RESEARCH WORKING PAPER 2071

The World Bank's Unified The Unified Survey projectionsprepared annually by World

Survey Projections: Bank country teams are not

How Accurate Are They? optimistic and have greatlyimproved overtime - and

they are more accurate than

An Ex-Post Evaluation of US9 1-US97 the International MonetaryFund's World Economic

Outlook projections.Jos Verbeek Exogenously chosen variables

- except for exports - are

more accurate in the short

run than the indicators

calculated by the country

model used. Inaccuracy is less

pronounced in 1 995 and

1996.

The World Bank

Development EconomicsDevelopment Data Group

March 1999

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

IPOLIcy RESEARCH WORKING PAPER 2071

Summary findings

Since 1984, the Unified Survey has been the World He finds that:

Bank's principle mechanism for gathering quantitative * The Unified Suirvey projections are inaccurate when

macroeconomic information from country teams on evaluated over the whole period investigated (1 990-96).

Bank member countries. After gathering annual data However, their accuracy hias inmproved over time.

those teams also do most-likely-scenario projections. . Improvemrent; are notable in proj'ections for

Verbeek examines the numerical projections of investmient, GDP inflation, and government deficit.

macroeconomic indicators carried out by World Bank Projectionis of externial indicators -suich as import anid

country teams for Unified Surveys for fiscal years 1991- export growth - are still substantially inaccurate and

97. He studies the accuracy of short-term projects (for should be greatly improved.

the current year, first year, and three years ahead) for 23 * The Uniified Survey projections are as accurate as-

countries in the different World Bank regions. He also or more accuirate than - the WEO projections.

compares the Unified Survey projections with the - One cannot chiaracterize the United Survey

International Monetary Fund's (IMF) projections for its projections as opti'mistic.

fall World Economic Outlook (WEO). This is the first systematic attempt to evaluate the

accuracy of couintry team macroeconomiic projections

over time and the first to compare these with the IMF's

WFO projections.

This paper - a product of the Development Data Group, Development Economics - is part of a larger effort in the Bank

to evaluate its data products and its tools used to generate its quantitative projections. Copies of the paper are available free

from the World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433. Please conitact Mismake Galatis, room 04-086,

telephone 202-473-1177, fax 202-522-2753, Internet address mrgalatis(itworldbank.org. Policy Research Working Papers

are also posted on the Web at http://vwww.worldbank.org/html/dec/Publications/Workpapers/'home.html. The author may

be contacted at [email protected]. March 1999. (59 pages)

The Policy Researcb Working Paper Series disseminates the finidings of wvork in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas aboutt

development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quicklv, even if the presenttationis arc less than fully polished. Thie

papers carry the names of the authors and should he cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and contclusions expressed in this

paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the viewt of the Worldi Bank, its Execuitive Directors, or thle

Produced by the Policy Research Dissemination Center

THE WORLD BANK'S

UNIFIED SURVEY PROJECTIONS

How Accurate Are They?

An Ex-Post Evaluation of US91-US97

tf.1 - --

\ 1

Jos VerbeekDevelopment Data GroupDevelopment Economics

The World Bank

The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the author. They donot necessarily represent the views of the World Bank. I would like to thank especially Jean Adams forexcellent research assistance and Robin Lynch, Peter Moll, David McMurray, Robert Lynn, Cathy WrightOlga Plagie, and Bill Easterly for data, perceptive remarks, and constructive comments and Joost Polak forhis valuable editorial comments.

1. Introduction

This study is designed to give systematic feedback to World Bank country teamson the accuracy of the projections made in their annual Unified Surveys of developingcountry economic prospects. The Unified Survey is the World Bank's principalmechanism for gathering quantitative macroeconomic information on its membercountries. This study evaluates the accuracy of surveys for current years, and one andthree years into the future. The Unified Surveys used are those of the World Bank'sFiscal Year 1991 (US91) through FY1997 (US97). The study addresses the followingquestions:

* How accurate are the Unified Survey short-term projections, and has theiraccuracy improved or deteriorated over time?

* Are the Unified Survey projections optimistic?

* Are the Unified Survey projections better or worse than naive forecasts underwhich one assumes that this year's projection equals last year's outcome?

* How do the World Bank projections compare to the IMF's World EconomicOutlook projections?

Our main two findings are that, surprisingly, the Unified Survey projections aremore accurate than the World Economic Outlook projections done by the InternationalMonetary Fund-and that one cannot characterize the Unified Survey projections asoptimistic.

The Unified Survey projections are inaccurate when evaluated over the wholeperiod (1990-1996) under investigation. However, their accuracy has improved greatly inrecent years. The improvements are notable in projections for investment, GDP inflation,and the government deficit. Further strengthening of the projections of externalindicators, such as import and export growth, is a must, as their inaccuracies aresubstantial for the period as a whole as well as for the outer years.

This study is the first systematic attempt to evaluate the accuracy of country teammacroeconomic projections over time, and the first to compare these projections with theIMF's World Economic Outlook projections. The accuracy of the Unified Surveyprojections has been scrutinized (Hicks and Vaugeois (1990)) and criticized (Lewis(1997) by World Bank economists. Hicks and Vaugeois (1990), evaluated the accuracy ofthe Unified Surveys Projections over 1983-85. Two of their conclusions, for a sample of34 countries and 4 indicators' were that: (a) GDP growth projections tend to bemoderately optimistic and (b) the countries in the Africa region had the greatestoverestimation of all the indicators analyzed, while those for the Asian countries weregenerally underestimated. Lewis (1997) criticizes the quality of the forecasts and theappropriateness of the tools (RMSM-X) used. His main criticism is that the behavioralstructure of the Revised Minimum Standard Model eXtended (RMSM-X) (see World

l The indicators analyzed are GDP, import and export growth, plus gross domestic investment.

2

Bank 1997) is too simple to seriously answer creditworthiness questions, and that thistool is applied in a mechanical manner without much thought.

Table 1. Countries and Indicators Used in This StudyRegions Countries Indicators

Africa: Cameroon 1. GDPmp* GrowthCote d'IvoireKenya 2. Export (GNFS) growthZimbabweNigeria 3. Imports (GNFS) growthZambia

4. GDPmp InflationEastern /Central Europe Hungary

Poland 5. Gross Domestic InvestrnentTurkey as ratio to GDPmp(current

prices)Middle East/North Africa Algeria

Egypt 6. Govemment deficit as ratioEast Asia & Pacific to ratio to GDPmp (current

China prices)PhilippinesIndonesia 7. Current Account Balance as

South Asia ratio to GDPmp (curTentIndia prices)

Latin America & CaribbeanArgentinaBrazilChileColombiaEcuadorMexicoPeruVenezuela *mp: market prices

This study examines 23 countries across the world's regions (Table 1). Thecountries were selected according to data availability, their economic size in terms ofGDP, and their indebtedness. Projected and actual values were tabulated for 7 indicatorsfor each country (Table 1). The indicators can be divided into two groups: indicators thatare chosen by the country teams-GDPmp growth, export growth, GDPmp inflation-and indicators that are calculated by the macroeconomic model used-current accountbalance as ratio to GDP, import growth, gross domestic investment to GDP ratio, and thegovernment deficit as a ratio to GDP.

The main findings of the paper are that the Unified Survey projection are notoptimistic, have improved greatly over time, and that the exogenously chosen variables-except for exports-are more accurate in the short run than the indicators calculated bythe model. However, the difference in accuracy becomes less significant as the projection

2 The indicators analyzed are GDP, import and export growth, plus gross domestic investment.

3

period lengthens. The IMF's World Economic Outlook projections are less accurate thanthe World Bank Unified Survey projections when examined over the whole period underinvestigation (1990-96). The World Bank Unified Survey projections are clearly moreaccurate in the later years, 1995 and 1996.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 gives a briefdescription of the Unified Survey and the projections made with it. Section 3 explains thecontent of the database used for this study, the type of forecast that is being evaluated,and the different evaluation methods applied to the data set. Section 4 looks at theaccuracy of projections and whether their quality has improved or deteriorated over time,and addresses the issue of whether projections are optimistic or pessimistic, or show abias among the different regions. Section 5 examines the accuracy of the Unified Surveyprojections over time. Section 6 compares the World Bank Unified Survey projectionswith the IMF's World Economic Outlook projections, and Section 7 sets out the mainconclusions.

2. The Unified Survey

The Unified Survey is carried out each year within the World Bank and has beenits principal mechanism since 1984 for gathering quantitative macroeconomicinformation from country teams on member countries. Teams working on countries thatare borrowing on IBRD terms (or that have a major impact on the world economy) areasked to formulate and quantify a "most likely" scenario for a set of macroeconomicvariables.3 The main use of these macroeconomic projections is to evaluate thecreditworthiness of these countries and compare regional and global aggregates compiledfrom the Unified Survey with the Global Economic Prospects (GEP), which isindependently projected by the Bank's Development Prospects Group (DECPG). TheUnified Survey Instructions Guide (1997) describes a "most likely" scenario as follows:

* The most likely scenario is usually not the same as the base case oftenused in the Country Assistance Strategy (CAS). Traditionally the CAS hascontrasted a low-performance base case with a more favorable high caseassociated with greater policy reform and higher Bank lending programs;more recently, some CAS reports have identified the higher-performingscenario as the appropriate base for this purpose. The scenarios are oftenchosen to illustrate in quantitative terms the impact of proposed reforms, orthe potential cost of changes in domestic or international economicconditions. For the Unified Survey, country teams are asked to makejudgments and to distill the uncertainty down to a single set of projections.

* Global trade, interest rate, and commodity price assumptions on theinternational economic environment are used to the maximum extentpossible. One strength of the Unified Survey process is that it obtainssimultaneous results for a large number of countries sharing the sameexogenous external assumptions. For most economies, there is no reason tomodify the projected global trends; if it is necessary to do so in specific areas

3 Until the Unified Survey of FY98, the indicator coverage of the projection part of the survey was the same asthe C-annexes of Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) documents.

4

(e.g., because of long-term export contract arrangements), the reasons arewell documented in a memo that accompanies the submission.

* Realism is preferable to over-optimism. While it is appealing to imaginethat all economies can achieve 5 to 7 percent real GDP growth and double-digit export growth in a year or two if only the right policies are followed,for many countries this is not likely to happen. Useful analysis of risk andcreditworthiness requires the most realistic assessment of economicprospects that can be provided, rather than a rosy outlook in whichunrealistically high growth obscures all risks.

3. Data Set, Definition of Projections and Methods of Evaluation

The data set. The database for this study contains for each country andindicator the projections and outcomes for the seven Unified Surveys (US9lto US97)under scrutiny. The database contains individual country pages, a page for each region4

and an overall (world) table. See Annex A for a country (China) example, Annex B for anexample of a regional (Latin America) table, and Annex C for the overall (world) table.In the regional and the overall tables, the countries are weighted equally, as the purposeof the study is to provide feedback to the individual World Bank country teams on theaccuracy of their projections, rather than on the accuracy of projections by regions ordeveloping world as a whole5 .

Type of projections. Four kinds of projections are presented in the database: theprojection for the current, first- , second-, and a three-year average (least-square)projections.

The current-year projections are the projections for year x, say 1996, appearing inthe Unified Survey of fiscal year x+1, i.e., US97, which were carried out in the fall of19966. The first-year are projections for year x, say 1996, appearing in the US of theWorld Bank's FY96. The three-year average or least-square growth rates forecast forperiod x to x+2, say 94-96, appear in the Unified Survey of the World Bank's FY95.From now on we will use the abbreviation US97 for those projections done in the fall of1996.

There is debate in the literature about which outcomes to use, as the outcomes arerevised several times before they become final (see Aysoy and Yilmaz (1998)). Artis inhis evaluation of the Fund's World Economic Outlook (Artis 1996) has chosen the firstoutcome, arguing that confronting the forecaster with the available set of outcomes at thetime of the forecast, does not oblige him to forecast the data revision process as well.However, in this study we chose the latest actual values available at the time of this

4 We grouped Europe and Central Asia (ECA) together with Middle East and North Africa (MNA), and SouthAsia (SAS) and East Asia and the Pacific (EAP), because not enough countries in these regions were coveredin the Unified Survey exercises.

5To evaluate regional and worldwide development projections, one should compare the projections andoutcomes of the World Bank's Global Economic Prospect publication.

Fall 1996 is in the Bank's fiscal year 97 which begins on July I of calendar 1996.

5

study, which are those of the US97 and US98, prepared during the fall of 1996 and 1997respectively. Our choice is motivated by the fact that the latest data are often morereliable than the first outcome which could be, in some cases, estimates and not the finaloutcomes.

Methods of evaluation. The literature is replete with suggested techniques forevaluating forecasting exercises (see Wallis (1989) for a survey). In this paper we focuson the following five evaluation techniques:

1. The Mean Absolute Deviation (MAD). This technique has the advantage ofsimplicity. It provides information about how far projections are from outcomes bytaking the absolute value of projections minus outcomes. In its simplicity resides also itsdeficiency. It does not give a benchmark against which to appraise the performance of theprojections. Consequently, the same projections could be considered accurate by oneperson and inaccurate by another. As this forecasting error statistic depends on the scaleof the dependent variable, it can best be used as a relative measure to compare projectionsfor the same time series across different models or accross different time periods: thesmaller the error, the better the forecasting ability according to the mean absolutedeviation criterion. The formula for the mean absolute deviation is:

MAD= E Iforecast errorl / number of forecasts

=zI O °-pt I/n

where ot iS the outcome of the indicator at time t, Pt is the projection of this indicator andn is number of periods for which projections are available.

2. The Root Mean Square Error (RMSE). Like the MAD, the RMSE method is aprojection evaluation statistic that depends on the scale of the dependent variable and,hence, is best used to compare different series of projections for the same indicator. Theset of projections with the lowest RMSE is better than the others. This techniquemeasures the accuracy of a series of projections relative to others, but again fails toinform us about how efficient a single series of projections is (see outcome-projectionregression technique below). The formula of the root mean square error is:

RMSE = ( (ot - pt)2 / n)112

where the term between the outer brackets is the so-called Mean Square Error(MSE)

3. Decomposition of the Mean Square Errors. The econometrician Henri Theil(Theil, 1966) developed a simple decomposition of the MSE into three components. Eachcomponent addresses a different aspect of the accuracy of the projections. The biascomponent indicates how far the mean of the forecast is from the mean of the actualseries. The variance component indicates how far the variation of the forecast is from thevariation of the actual series and the covariance component measures the remainingunsystematic projection errors. If the projection is accurate, the bias and variancecomponents should be small such that most of the error is concentrated in the covariancecomponent. The formula of the decomposition can be written as follows:

6

MSE = (P -O)2 + (sp) 2 + 2(I - r)s0 sp

Note that the bias, variance, and covariance proportions add up to one, once wedivide both sides of the equation by the MSE.

1.0 = (P - 0)2/MSE+ (so + sp)2/MSE + 2(1 - r)s0sp/MSE

Where 0, P, s., and sp are the mean and standard deviation of the outcome andprojection respectively and r is the correlation coefficient.

4. Theil's Inequality Coefficient. The simplest model to project an indicator isthe "no-change" projection i.e. the projection for next year is equal to the outcome of thisyear. One can compare a set of projections to the "no-change" set of projections by usingthe measure introduced by Theil (Theil 1966). Theil's inequality coefficient compares theRMSE of the projections for a given indicator with the RMSE of its naive alternative i.e.the "no change" projection. If Theil's inequality coefficient is equal to 0, then the modelprojects perfectly. Smaller than 1 indicates that the model performs better than the "no-change" model. If Theil's inequality coefficient is equal to 1, then the "no-change" modelprojects as accurate as the projection model used. If the projection model performs worsethan the "no-change" model Theil's inequality coefficient is greater then 1. Note that thismeasure is scale invariant and hence is more suitable to evaluate the accuracy of themodel used to project the indicator than the MAD and RMSE. The formula of Theil'sinequality coefficient can be written as follows:

Theil's Inequality Coefficient = RMSE (model) / RMSE ("no-change" model)

5. Outcome-Projection Regression. This technique allows a test of the efficiencyof the projections. Rationality consideration suggests that a "good" (or "rational")projection should produce errors that are unbiased and not serially correlated. Evidence tothe contrary would suggest immediately that an improving correction could be made tothe projection process. The regression allows identifying clearly what parameterrestrictions would correspond to the perfect forecast. The following equation is estimated:

Ot= PO+ PiPt+ ut

Where Ot is the outcome, Pt the projection and ut an error term. The projections areefficient if the estimates of P, and PI are not significantly different from, respectively, 0and 1. However, as PBo and f8 are likely to be correlated, the appropriate test for efficiencyis a joint one.

4. Accuracy of the Unified Survey Projections.

The accuracy of the projections will be analyzed through the mean absolutedeviation (MAD), the root mean square error (RMSE), the decomposition of the RMSE'ssister, i.e., the mean square error (MSE), and Theil's inequality coefficient and anoutcome-projection regression. Note again that the first two measures, MAD & RMSE,are scale dependent and do not provide an objective benchmark to evaluate them against.The MAD & RMSE are best used for comparison of projections done over time, across

7

different projection models and/or across different regions. We will put most weight onthese two measures to compare the accuracy of the Unified Survey projections done overtime, e.g., for the US96 for the current year compared with those done for the US95 forthe current year and to compare the accuracy of projections done for the same time series,but by different regions or institutions e.g., projections for the World Bank's UnifiedSurvey and the IMF's World Economic Outlook. Hence, this section will put moreemphasis on the other three measures.

Table 2. Accuracy of Unified Survey Current Year Projections (full sample)

GDP Growth GDP Inflation GDIIGDP ratio CAB/GDP ratio GOB/GDP ratio Export Growth Import GrowthUS91-US97 US91-US97 US91-US97 US91-US97 US94-US97 US91-US97 US91-US97

Mean Dependent Variable 3.2 124.8 21.9 -2.4 -3.4 7.3 9.2

Mean Absolute Deviaton 1.7 23.8 2.3 1.4 3.1 8.3 7.7AFR 2.2 11.2 2.7 2.2 5.2 10.1 8.8SAS & EAP 0.9 2.3 2.6 0.7 3.0 5.7 5.9ECA & MNA 2.0 16.7 1.7 1.8 2.9 5.6 7.8LAC 1.4 50.3 2.3 1.0 1.8 4.1 7.7

Root Mean Squared Error 2.7 91.4 3.2 2.2 5.3 9.4 11.5AFR 3.5 20.9 3.9 3.0 8.1 14.4 12.1SAS & EAP 1.3 3.2 3.6 0.9 4.5 7.2 7.0ECA & MNA 3.2 66.0 2.5 2.8 4.7 7.3 11.4LAC 2.1 147.6 2.9 1.7 2.8 5.8 12.8

Decomposition of MSE 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0Bias Proportion 3.9 2.6 4.0 7.4 7.6 3.0 2.9Variance Proporbon 0.0 45.7 0.5 2.2 4.0 4.9 2.8Covariance Proportion 96.1 51.7 95.5 90.4 88.3 92.1 94.5

Naive Theil 55.0 14.9 120.7 58.2 178.8 66.7 56.1AFR 66.1 73.4 111.5 71.4 218.8 87.9 87.0SAS & EAP 55.1 85.0 159.2 45.5 486.6 74.9 63.6ECA & MNA 61.0 94.9 88.2 57.1 177.4 64.7 53.5LAC 39.9 13.9 138.2 45.8 83.4 59.8 51.5

Outcome-Projecton regressionAdjusted R-Squared 68.2 98.6 77.7 77.9 21.2 21.8 48.8

0.83 1.11 0.85 0.95 0.38 0.60 0.8017.5 : P ' 25 ,p, *1 3.76 -gm 3495 110 a52 4.18 2z

itic 0.98 2.65 3.78 0.47 -2.69 3.89 3.44rtes:Il.Otmnf, .0 417 045 425 212 .542 4.21 122

Joint Test for efficiency No No No No No No NoFstatistic(p, - i & ) 10.5 52.7 9.8 6.3 43.2 11.1 6.5

Table 2 for the current year and table 3 for the first year give an overview of allthe measures used to evaluate the accuracy of the Unified Survey projections for 1990-96. Tables 2 and 3 report the MAD, RMSE and Theil's inequality coefficient for theoverall sample, as well as by region. Evaluating the results for the Mean AbsoluteDeviation, it is clear that Africa has a bigger MAD for all the indicators, except for GDPinflation, for the current year as well as for the first-year projections. The Latin AmericanRegion has the highest MAD for GDP inflation projections. Asia and the Pacific Regionhave the lowest MAD for GDP growth, GDP inflation, current account balance (CAB) toGDP ratio and import growth for the current year and the first-year projections. EasternEurope and North Africa have the lowest MAD for the gross domestic investment (GDI)to GDP ratio for the current year, but are otherwise close to the MADs for each indicatorof the overall sample.

Note that the MADs for the overall period are smaller for the current-yearprojections than for the first-year projections. Only for Eastern Europe and North Africa

8

did the MAD for GDP inflation and government deficit (GBB) to GDP ratio of the first-year projections improve compared to the current-year projections.

It is worrisome that the MAD current-year projections for government deficit(GBB) to GDP, export growth and import growth which are 90%, 86% and 83%respectively of their mean outcome and which percentages increase for the first-yearprojections to 117%, 89% and 99%.

Table 3. Accuracy of Unified Survey for 'First Year' Projections (full sample)

GOP Growth GDP lnflation GDUGDP ratio CAB/GDP ratio GBBIGOP ratio ExportGrowth ImportGrowthUS91-US9S US91-US96 US91-US96 US91-US98 US94-US96 US91-US96 US91-US98

Mean Dependent Variable 3.5 63.8 22.0 -2.4 -3.5 7.6 9.9

Mean Absolute Deviabon 2.4 35.4 3.1 2.4 4.1 6.8 9.8AFR 2.7 14.0 3.5 3.2 7.8 10.2 8.0SAS & EAP 1.9 2.6 3.0 1.3 3.2 7.0 6.5ECA & MNA 2.9 8.8 3.1 3.0 2.8 5.0 8.9LAC 2.2 88.4 3.0 2.1 2.8 5.3 13.6

Root Mean Squared Error 3.4 213.7 4.1 3.2 62 9.4 13.2AFR 4.1 21.0 4.6 3.9 10.0 13.7 11.5SAS & EAP 2.5 3.4 3.9 1.7 5.0 8.7 8.0ECA & MNA 3.8 13.9 4.1 3.7 4.2 6.9 11.1LAC 2.8 369.5 4.0 2.9 3.9 6.7 17.2

Decomposition of MSE 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0Bias Proportion 0.2 2.1 0.4 3.1 10.7 3.0 11.4Variance Proportion 15.0 90.2 0.0 0.1 2.5 25.2 36.7Covaiiance Proportion 84.8 7.7 99.6 96.8 77.8 71.9 51.9

NatueTheil 71.7 36.5 148.8 84.9 206.8 67.1 61.4AFR 74.9 80.8 132 8 101.0 280.5 63.3 60.3SAS & EAP 101.8 87.8 166.6 93.8 485.2 89.0 89.5ECA & MNA 78.9 19.7 148.6 76.6 171.5 62.6 51.3LAC 5.0 38.5 156.1 78.8 105.2 74.8 65.8

Outcome-Projection regressionAdjusted R-Squared 38.7 82.2 62.5 52.7 73.4 13.1 39.1

0.90 3.55 0.79 0.71 1.00 0.72 1.28tte,I12t,.2t3 .1 1.04 .17.30 3.60 4.W 003 15 n ,,

0.49 53.31 4.85 -0.28 -1.77 3.32 2.90tt",K.f<2tp. -0 1.12 .408 364 4.05 .z2 z55 207

Joint Test for efficiency Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesFstatistic(p,= i & 0 oS) 0.7 153.7 6.7 12.8 3.1 3.3 9.3

The root mean square error (RMSE), which gives more weight to largeprojection errors compared to the MAD, shows an almost identical result as the meanabsolute deviation. The RMSE does not increase percentage wise as much as the MADwhen we go from the current-year to the first-year, except for GDP inflation. Hence, onecan conclude that the projection errors are not caused by large projection errors (outliers)(see also the paragraphs on the decomposition of the MSE).

The indicator most supportive of the accuracy of the Unified Survey projections isthe decomposition of the mean square error (MSE). None of the indicators show anysignificant part of the MSE explained by the bias component, except maybe for the first-year projections for GBB/GDP ratio (10.7%) and import growth (11.4%). Having a smallbias proportion of the MSE composition signals that the mean of the actual outcomes isnot far from the mean of the projections. (see figure 1). For the current-year projectionsonly GDP inflation has a significant proportion (45.7%) of the MSE explained the factthat the variation of the projections is different from the variation of the actual outcomes.

9

The first-year projections show a similar result for GDI/GDP, CAB/GDP and GBB/GDPratios. A bigger part of the MSE for GDP growth, GDP inflation, export and importgrowth is caused by the variance component.

Figure 1. Decomposition of the Mean Square Error (full sample)

The Theil 's inequality coefficient statistics are clearly above one for current-yearprojections for GDl/GDP and GBB/GDP ratios, indicating that the naive projection, i.e.,last year's outcome as this year's projection, would have done better. The Theil' sinequality coefficient statistic worsens significantly for the first-year projections for allthe indicators except export growth. However, for investment and government deficitdoes Theil's inequality coefficient exceed 1.

The results of the outcome-projection regressions are quite disastrous. None ofthe indicators evaluated passes the joint test for significance (El o=O and 01 =1) asmeasured by the F-statistic (Tables 2 and 3). The only indicator getting close to the 5%significant level is the current account balance as a ratio to GDP. If one takes a close lookat the R2 adusted for each variable, then inflation jumps out on the positive side with avalue for R adjusted of 98.6. Government deficit as a ratio to GDP together with exportand import growth stand out on the negative side with R 2 adjusted of 21.2, 21.8 and 48.8respectively. The outcome-projection regression results for the first-year projections arenot much better. Although the significance of GDP growth as measured by the F statisticfor the joint test greatly improves, the R2 adjusted drops from 68.2 to 38.7 leaving muchto be desired. The R 2 adjusted for the first-year projection of the government deficit asratio to GDP improves remarkably from a meager and unsatisfactory 21.2 to acomfortable 73.4. However, for all other first-year indicators the R 2 adjusted drops.

The mean absolute deviation (MAD) for the three-year least square growth ratesfor GDP and GDP inflation are in between the MAD for the current-year and the first-year projections, indicating that accuracy does not detoniate when incorporating the thirdyear of the projection period. This is not the case for export and import for which the

I 0

three-year least square growth projection is significantly more accurate than the first andcurrent-year projection. The three average projection of the current account balance,gross domestic investment and the government balance all indicate a greater deviationfrom the outcome than for the first and current-year projection.

Figure 2. Trends in Mean Absolute Deviations

40.0

1X~~~~1.

GDP INF EXp IMP CAB GDI GBB

GDP INF EXP IMP CAB GDI GBB

. Threeyear 1.9 31.5 1 4.1 5.9 24 3.3 4.6| First year 2.4 35.4 6.8 9.8 2.4 3.1 4.1

3ocurrentyear 1.7 23.8 9.4 11.5 1.4 23 3.1

Optimistic Versus Pessimistic Projections. To assess whether projections areoptimistic or pessimistic, the indicator chosen is the relative number of optimisticprojections. A projection is optimistic if it is higher (lower for inflation) than theoutcome. In this study, indicators will be considered pessimistic, neutral, or optimistic ifthe ratio of optimistic projections over the total number of projections is less than 45%,between 45 and 55% and more than 55%.

Generally speaking, the result shows that both current-year and three-year averageprojections, are slightly pessimistic (table 5). According to these criteria, all current-yearprojections, except for GDP inflation, are pessimistic. First-year projections are again all,except for the current account balance as a percentage of GDP, underestimated. The sameholds for the three-year projections. Hence, in general the projections have beenpessimistic during the period (1990-1996) under investigation. This is in sharp contrastwith the conclusions drawn by Hicks and Vaugeois (1990) in their evaluation of WorldBank projections for the period 1983-1985. They conclude that the projections are oftenoverly optimistic.

11

Table 5. Percentage of Optimistic Projections in Overall Sample

Current Year First Year Three-year

GDP 34 % 40 % 43 %

Inflation 46 % 38 % 31%

Exports 45 % 45 % 31 %

Imports 36 % 32 % 36 %

CAB 41 % 49 % 46 %

GDI 44% 44 % 42 %

GBB 39 % 44 % -

On a regional basis (figure 3), the current-year projections are overestimated onlyfor GDP inflation in MNA & ECA. Note that Africa has no more optimistic projectionsthan any of the other regions, while this was not the case in the earlier study by Hicks andVaugeois.

Figure 3. Regional Percentage of Optimistic Projections for 'Current' Year

70%

60%

50% *AFR

40% * ASIAo ECA

30% . LAC

ETOT20%

10 % GD

GDP INF EXP IMP CAB GDI GBB

The following conclusions can be drawn:

. The MADs are quite large for GBB/GDP ratio, export and importgrowth.

12

* MAD & RMSE are bigger for the first-year projections than for thecurrent-year projections.

* Africa has the largest MAD for current and first-year projections exceptfor GDP inflation (LAC).

* The decomposition of the MSE suggests that most of the MSE can becontributed to covariance. However, a significant part of the MSE forGDP inflation is explained by the variance component.

* Using last year's outcome as estimate for the current-year and first-yearprojection can more accurately project investment as a ratio to GDPand the government deficit as a ratio to GDP.

* The outcome-projection regression shows that the projections areinefficient, especially for government deficit as ratio to GDP, exportgrowth and import growth.

* The mean absolute deviation (MAD) of the three-year least squaregrowth rate for export and import show an improvement with respectto MAD of these variables for the current and first-year projections.The opposite is true for the MAD of all other variables.

* The projections are in general pessimistic and there is no regional biasfor the current-year projections.

5. Accuracy of the US Projections Over Time

It is interesting to look at the accuracy of the Unified Survey over time to see ifthe bleak picture sketched in the previous section is caused by inaccuracy of theprojections done in the earlier years, equally distributed over time or caused by increasedinaccuracy in later years. We evaluate the accuracy over time using the mean absolutedeviation (MAD) measure, the root mean square error (RMSE) measure, and theoutcome-projection regression. Tables 6 through 12 show the detailed results for eachindicator of this exercise for the current-year projections and Figure 3 shows graphicallythe results of the RMSE evaluation over time for each indicator for the first-yearprojections.

Accuracy of current-year projections over time. The RMSE and the MAD haveclearly improved for the latter years for all the variables. Whilst the RMSE was 5.3 forGDP growth for the current-year projections of the US91, it was only 0.6 for the US97.Even more striking is the improvement in the RMSE and MAD for GDP inflation. TheRMSE and the MAD for GDP inflation plummeted from a high 210.8 and 97.0respectively in the US91, to 3.8 and 2.3 respectively for the US97. Note that the decrease(see graphs in Tables 6 and 7) would be almost continuous were it not for the US96. Thelittle bubble in the US96 seemed to have been caused by the Africa region, whichprobably miscalculated the impact of the January 1995 CFAF devaluation. The outcome-projection regression for GDP growth and GDP inflation show notable increases in

13

Table 6. Evaluation of Current-year Projections Over TimeGDP Growth

US91-97 US97 US96 US95 US94 US93 US92 US91

Mean Dependent Variable 3.2 4.8 3.6 3.7 3.5 2.6 2.4 1.5

Mean Absolute Deviation 1.7 0.5 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.8 2.2 3.6AFR 2.2 0.6 2.5 1.7 1.6 2.6 2.1 4.5SAS & EAP 0.9 0.2 0.5 0.9 0.4 1.2 2.4 1.1ECA & MNA 2.0 0.5 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.9 2.1 5.6LAC 1.4 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.1 1.4 2.4 3.0

Root Mean Squared Error 2.7 0.6 2.5 1.6 1.6 2.3 2.6 5.3AFR 3.5 0.8 4.6 2.1 2.5 3.5 2.3 6.3SAS & EAP 1.3 0.3 0.6 1.0 0.5 1.4 2.5 1.4ECA&MNA 3.2 0.6 1.5 1.3 1.4 2.3 2.8 7.2LAC 2.1 0.7 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.6 2.7 4.3

Outcome-Projection regressionAdjusted R-Squared 68.2 93.1 63.5 90.9 86.3 87.3 73.0 17.5pi 0.83 0.98 0.91 0.96 0.80 0.87 0.97 0.52

ttest: if 2then 1=1 3.76 0.35 0.61 0.68 2.93 1.84 0.19 2.16

00 0.98 0.15 0.28 0.98 0.98 1.50 0.75 0.96ttest;if 2hen 60 4.17 0.49 0.37 2.85 2.76 3.75 1.21 8.62

Joint Test for efficiency No Yes Yes No No No No NoFstatistic 3,=I& 0=. 10.50 0.14 0.19 4.57 5.11 7.56 0.78 2.42

RMSE over time r MAD over time

6.0 4.0 -

5.04.0~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~3.0

* 3~~~.03.0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~2.0

2.0 -

1.0 - 1.0

0.0 .US97 US96 US95 US93,US92 US91 0.0

=Annual RMSE 0.6 2.5 1.6 2.3 2.6 5.3 | US97 US96 US95 US93 US92 US91

Overall 2.7 I 2.7 2.7 2.7 I22.72.7 iAnnuaI MAD_RMSELi_ __ I Overal MAD 0 1.3 1.2 1.8 2.2 36

l OvrallMAD .7.. 17L 1.7 1___ 1.7 1.171L ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ .. L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

EUS97 RMSE over time per region MAD over time per regionIUS96

O U894* US93

AFR SAS & ECA & LACEAP MNA AFR SAS & ECA & LAC

EAP MNA

14

Table 7. Evaluation of Current Year Projections Over TimeGDP Inflation

US91-97 US97 US96 US95 US94 US93 US92 US91


Mean Absolute Deviation 23.8 2.3 8.1 10.8 31.4 14.6 19.4 97.0AFR 11.2 3.5 24.7 7.1 13.2 10.7 2.5 13.1SAS & EAP 2.3 1.1 1.6 3.0 1.5 1.0 2.4 5.6ECA & MNA 16.7 2.5 2.2 3.9 5.0 2.9 6.9 93.8LAC 50.3 1.9 2.6 21.4 74.2 31.7 79.8 223.6

Root Mean Squared Error 91.4 3.8 20.7 34.1 123.5 47.5 47.9 210.8AFR 20.9 6.1 40.2 7.6 19.4 18.0 2.7 15.5SAS & EAP 3.2 1.6 2.0 3.2 1.9 1.0 2.7 6.4ECA & MNA 66.0 2.8 2.5 5.6 6.5 4.2 9.2 174.0LAC 147.6 2.4 3.6 56.0 204.1 79.0 106.4 347.2

Outcome-Projection regressionAdjusted R-Squared 98.6 97.7 61.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 94.0 99.11i 1.11 1.01 0.52 1.07 1.39 0.81 1.85 1.10

ttest:ff; 2then 11,=1 -9.95 -0.25 5.45 -23.72 -32.48 37.53 46.83 -3.83

Do 2.65 -0.68 11.49 -2.14 -12.48 4.03 -22.68 48.20ttest:,fc2then th=0 0.45 -8.16 2.98 -1.49 -3.62 3.12 -2.84 1.32

Joint Test for efficiency No Yes No No No No No NoFstatistic 3=1& n=0) 52.7 0.22 15.20 294.23 693.48 751.65 26.50 10.76

RMSE over time MAD over time

250.0 - 120.0 -

200.0 1- 40080.0

150.0 60.0

100.0 .40.0

20.0-50.0 -00 .0:L0.0 nq~s%u9 US9 US2 S1 -20.0 -_

, * US97 US96 US95 US93 US92 US91i US97 US96JUS95 93 US9 1

|' 'AnnualRMSE 3.8 20.7 34.1 47.5 147.9U2 USi

- Overall RMSE 91.4 91.4 .4 9. 9.Annual MAD 2.3 8.1 10.8 14.6 19.4 97.0o Overall MAD 23.8 23.8 23.8 23.8 23.8 23.8

EUS96 RMSE over time per region MAD over time per region

0US95 400 003US94 350.0 250.0 -*US93 300.0 200.0 -* US92 250.0 -

*US91 200.0 150.01500 100.0

1000 E.A _.0 1 1 L i50.0 50.00.0 . 0.0 -

AFR SAS & ECA& LAC AFR SAS & ECA & LAC| EAP MNA EAP MNA

15

Table 8Evaluation of current year projections over time

GDIIGDP ratioUS91-97 US97 US96 US95 US94 US93 US92 US91


Mean Absolute Deviation 223 1.2 1.9 2.1 2.5 2.4 3.0 3.5AFR 22 1.0 2.4 4.1 2.7 3.5 4.9 2.1SAS & EAP 2.6 1.0 1.9 2.0 3.2 1.6 4.3 4.7ECA & MNA 12 1.5 1.1 1.4 2.6 2.3 1.7 1.6LAC 223 1.2 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.2 1.1 4.6

Root Mean Squared Error 3.2 1.6 2.8 2.8 3.7 3.6 4.0 3.9AFR 329 1.4 3.4 5.8 3.4 5.2 5.8 2.3SAS & EAP 2.6 1.2 2.6 2.4 5.1 1.8 4.9 5.1ECA & MNA 2.5 2.4 1.4 1.5 3.6 3.6 2.0 1.8LAC 2.9 1.4 3.3 2.4 2.8 2.6 1.3 4.7


ttest; ifs 2 then ii, =1 3.69 0.35 1.10 3.38 .0.42 -0.05 5.83 0.70

3.78 0.48 2.73 5.51 -0.60 0.53 10.56 3.89ttest;if 2t2et e =O 4.25 0.37 1.24 3.67 -0.17 0.17 6.13 1.29

Joint Test for efficiency No Yes No No Yes Yes No NoF statistic , =1&3-=o) 9.8 0.07 0.83 6.71 0.51 0.33 18.00 2.46


5.0 3 4.0 -

4.0 3. 3.03.0 H~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

2.0 H2.00.0

US97 US96 US95 US93,US92 US911 0.0

F=Annual RMSE 1.6 2.8 2.8 3.6 4.0 3. S7U9 U9 S3U9-Overall 3. . . .3.2 .2~ Annual MAD 1.2 1.9 2.5 2.4 3.5

RMSE -_ ___ -- I Overall MAD 2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 j23

*US97 RMSE over time per region MAD over time per region*US96

03US94 6.0 -US47.0 -5.0 -*US93 6.0 -

* US92 5.0- I 4.0-

moussi 4.0- IE jf 3.0 -35.0-_Lh2.0 - J jJil 2.0-0.0 - A&i L1.0 E

AFR SAS & ECA & LAC 0.0EAP MNA AFR SAS & ECA& LAC

EAP MNA

16


CAB/GDP ratioUS91-97 US97 US96 US95 US94 US93 US9z US91

Mean Dependent Variable -2.4 -1.9 -3.0 -3.2 -3.7 -3.1 -2.5 -1.4

Mean Absolute Deviation 14 1.1 1.3 0.9 1.8 1.6 1.7 1.9AFR 22 2.0 2.4 1.3 2.2 2.9 2.1 2.9SAS & EAP 0n7 0.2 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.8 1.3 0.8ECA& MNA 2l8 1.0 2.1 0.7 2.8 1.4 1.8 2.7LAC 10 0.9 0.5 0.9 1.5 1.1 2.3 1.2

Root Mean Squared Error 2.2 2.2 1.8 1.1 2.9 2.6 1.9 2.6AFR 30 3.6 2.5 1.4 2.4 4.3 2.1 3.2SAS & EAP 0.9 0.2 1.1 0.6 0.5 0.9 1.3 1.1ECA & MNA 2-8 1.3 2.4 0.9 4.6 2.4 2.0 3.6LAC 17 1.8 0.7 1.2 2.4 1.5 2.3 1.7


t5estic2thet t}51 1.10 0.33 0.71 0.92 0.4 l.15 1.15 1.64

13s 0.47 0.54 -0.31 -0.51 0.48 0.87 1.05 1.07tlest:if'2then P0=O 2.12 0.99 -0.58 -1.83 0.54 1.41 2.26 1.88

Joint Test for efficiency No No Yes No No No No NoF statistic t=lI&5=0) 6.27 1.01 0.27 1.68 1.90 4.04 7.12 2.31


4.0 . 2.0-

3.0 1.5-

2.0 1.

1.0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~10.

0 US97US96 US95 US93 US92 US91 0D0 5

l ._ . ~~~~~~~US97 US96 US9 US93 U 91: Annual RMSE 2.2 1.8 1.1 2.6 1.9 2.6 U U

- Overall 2.2 2.2 2.2 12.2 2.2 2.2 | Annual MAD 1.1 13 1.8 1.6 1.9RMSE _ _| Overall MAD 1 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

RMSE over time per region MAD over time per region

*US97 5.0 5.0*US96 4.0 1 4.0 -

3 2US95 30 m D3USg4 20 .01.0 oh12

*US92 lI lE 1 .Eusgi 0

AFR SAS & ECA & LAC '0EAP MNA AFR SAS & EAP ECA & LAC

______ I- ____ V ___________ MNA

17


GBBIGDP ratioUS93-97 US97 US96 US95 US94 US93

Mean Dependent Variable -3.4 -2.3 -2.8 -3.5 -4.9 -4.4

Mean Absolute Deviation 3.1 1.1 1.4 1.5 7.1 7.1AFR 5.2 1.8 1.6 2.1 10.0 11.4SAS & EAP 3.0 1.0 0.3 2.3 4.6 6.6ECA & MNA 2.9 1.0 1.6 1.1 9.2 4.9LAC 1.8 0.8 1.6 1.1 4.9 2.5

Root Mean Squared Error 5.3 2.1 2.0 2.4 8.8 9.0AFR 8.1 3.5 1.7 2.8 12.1 13.1SAS & EAP 4.5 1.2 0.6 3.1 6.3 7.2.ECA & MNA 4.7 1.1 2.1 1.8 10.1 6.3LAC 2.8 1.5 2.6 2.0 5.4 2.6

Outcome-Projection regressionAdjusted R-Squared 21.2 74.4 61.8 69.1 6.7 -0.613r 0.38 0.85 0.70 0.81 0.27 0.16

ttest; lt.n2then p, =1 8.s2 1.40 2.53 1,57 3.79 5.03

Oo -2.69 -0.11 -0.95 -0.51 -4.96 -4.87t test: it < 2 then po =0 -8.42 -0.22 .1 a -o.a0 .3.43 -4.08

Joint Test for efficiency No No No No No NoFstatistic 1= & p=o) 43.2 1.15 3.26 1.25 12.24 21.69


10.0 8.0

:.0 US97 e 7.06.0

tAnnual RMSE 2.1 2.0 2.4 j8.8 9.0 0. US97 US96 US95 US941 US9 - Overall 5.3 5.3 5.3 |53 8 .5 l Annual MAD 1.1 1.14 1 5 7 71 7.1i

RMSE i |Overall MAD 3.1 |3.1 3.1 j3.1 3.1J

*US97~ RMSE over time per region MAD over time per regionII Eusge5

jOUS95 14 12.0

12094 2 1jOl <]10.0 8.0

8.0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

2.0 t 121^ IITI;L 20 2.0

0.0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

AFR SAS & ECA& LAC 0 0

EAP MNA AFR SAS & ECA & LAC. i ~~~~~~~~~~EAP MNA

18


Export GrowthUS91-97 US97 US96 US95 US94 US93 US92 US91


Mean Absolute Deviation 6.3 5.4 4.0 7.4 6.0 6.0 9.5 6.4AFR 10.1 8.7 6.6 13.0 9.9 11.7 10.6 10.1SAS & EAP 52 9.2 4.7 3.4 5.7 3.4 10.2 3.4ECA & MNA 5.6 4.7 2.4 5.2 5.8 5.6 9.6 5.8LAC 4 1 1.6 2.6 6.0 3.0 2.4 8.4 6.4

Root Mean Squared Error 94 8.2 5.5 10.2 8.4 12.2 11.7 7.6AFR 1.4 11.3 8.4 15.9 13.3 21.5 13.8 10.8SAS & EAP 7.2 11.9 5.0 3.8 6.4 4.1 10.3 4.1ECA & MNA L3 6.3 2.7 7.1 6.4 6.6 11.8 6.9LAC §.8 1.7 3.7 7.2 3.7 3.0 10.7 7.3

Outcome-Projection regressionAdjusted R-Squared 21.8 4.6 63.9 17.9 33.5 -5.2 6.7 20.401 0.60 0.55 1.02 0.67 0.84 -0.03 0.31 0.58

ttest:dcf21hen p, =1 4.18 1.14 -013 1.15 0.e6 2.44 3.29 1.50

flo 3.89 6.92 -1.05 3.40 1.93 7.77 3.09 2.24ttest: ff 2 then o =0 4.21 1.9S -0.51 1.15 0.92 2.71 1.38 0.87

Joint Test for efficiency No No Yes No Yes No No NoF statistic t=t&I=o) 43.2 2.68 0.23 0.80 0.47 4.17 5.92 1.12


150- 10.0

8.010.0 - _____

6.0

5.0 4.0H

US97 US96 US951US93 US92 3: 0.0Ur' tAnnual RMSE 8.2 5.5 110.2 12.2 11.7 7.6 __________ US97 US96 US94 US93 US91

Overall 9.4 9.4 9.4 9. .4 9.4 1 A lAnnual MAD 5.4 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.4RMSE I -_ Overall MAD 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3

elUS97 RMSE over time per region MAD over time per region

14.0_22501 1201

j 20.0 10

1! 7J, 1250ofA\1 80o-; 100;ll 1 |[| L 60

00 E~~~~~Lu EJ~~~~~u 2~800

AFR SAS& ECA& LAC 0.0EAP MNA AFR SAS& ECA& LAC

_____________-1 - EAP MNA

19


Import GrowthUS9i-97 US97 US96 US95 US94 US93 US92 US9I


Mean Absolute Deviation 77 4.1 6.8 6.1 8.6 8.8 8.9 11.9AFR 8.6 5.6 7.8 7.7 13.1 12.4 5.9 5.5SAS & EAP 59 4.3 5.4 4.5 4.0 5.5 13.2 4.5ECA&MNA >lB 4.1 6.7 3.6 11.2 2.5 11.8 16.3LAC 77 2.8 6.7 7.3 4.8 11.6 6.2 16.7

Root Mean Squared Error 11i5 5.3 8.9 7.6 12.0 13.2 11.3 19.8AFR 12 1 6.9 10.4 9.2 17.3 17.5. 6.4 7.1SAS & EAP L0 4.9 5.9 4.5 4.2 5.9 13.3 5.8ECA & MNA I14. 4.6 9.8 5.4 12.8 2.8 16.0 19.5LAC 12.8 4.3 7.9 8.5 7.1 15.4 7.2 28.6

Outcome-Projection regressionAdjusted R-Squared 48.8 72.9 59.9 79.9 46.8 57.7 71.8 -5.6PI1 0.80 0.78 0.80 1.00 1.01 1.22 0.92 -0.12

ttest;if'2then 5 =1 2.93 2.16 1.38 -0.04 -0.08 -0.95 0.61 4.88

Ni<, 3.44 2.89 3.30 4.65 3.54 5.23 -0.01 5.82tlest; if2then A.=0 3.22 2.13 1.35 3.32 1.23 1.73 0.00 1.50

Joint Test for efficiency No No No No No No Yes NoFstatistic 0,=l &=o) 11.1 2.82 1.15 5.71 0.95 4.07 0.22 13.39


25.0- 14.0 _

20.0 12.010.0+

15.08.0

10.0-6.

5.04

0.0 210 -tUS97 US96 US95 US93 US92 US91 0.0

=Annual RMSE 5.3 8.9 7.6 13.2 11.3 19.8 US97 US96 US94 US93 US91

- Overall 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 '11.5 11.5 =AnnualMAD 4.1 6.8 8.6 1 8.8 11.9RMSE _J -Overall MAD 7.7 7.7 7.7 j

RMSE over time per region MAD over time per region

18.035.0 -1601-300 1401 -250 - 12.01-O200 -1 10.0 U150 ~8 01~

5.0 3 34.00.0 A2.0

AFR SAS & ECA & LAC 0.0EAP MNA AFR SAS & ECA & LAC

_____________________________ j EAP MNA

20

efficiency and accuracy through high values for R2-adjusted in the latter years andthrough better results for the joint test for parameter relevance. Both for GDP growth andGDP inflation, the joint test for efficiency comes out positive for the current-yearprojections of the US97.

The results for the accuracy of the GDI/GDP ratio projections are encouraging asthe RMSE and the MAD are falling and its R2-adjusted is increasing over time. The jointtest for efficiency of the outcome-projection regressions comes out positive for thecurrent-year projections done for the US97, US94 and US93. Only the Eastern andCentral European and Northern Africa group of countries show a small detoriation for theUS97, but its RMSE and MAD are still below the average for the overall sample.

The current account balance as ratio to GDP shows a steady but small detoriationin the RMSE since the US95, while the MAD shows a deterioration from US95 to US96.As the RMSE puts more emphasis on large errors than the MAD, where every error isweighted equally, the difference in the path over time between the RMSE and the MADmost come from a few "large" errors in the CAB/GDP projection for the current year ofthe US97. Evaluating the regional trends in the RMSE and the MAD, it looks as if thedivergence in trends must be caused by "large" errors in the CAB/GDP projections of theAfrica countries and to a lesser extend by "large" errors of the Latin American countries.These are the only two groups of countries with increases in the RMSE from US96 toUS97. The outcome-projection regressions show a balanced picture over time. The R2-adjusted hovers around 78 and the F-statistic for joint efficiency is low, but only passingthe critical threshold for the current-year projections done for the US96.

The data for the evaluation of the current-year projections for the governmentdeficit to GDP ratio over time show a clear break for all the regions between projectionsdone for the US93 and US94 and the ones done for US95-US97. Are the projections forthe US93 and US94 absolutely hopeless, with a R2-adjusted close to zero, the accuracygreatly improves for the US95-US97 period. An important contribution to the increasedefficiency of the projections could come from the gradual replacement of the revisedminimum standard model (RMSM), which did not contain an explicit government sector,with the flow-of-funds-based revised minimum standard model extended (RMSM-X),which does include a government sector.

The accuracy over time of the current-year export growth projections is a sadstory. Although the trendlines in the graphs of the RMSE and MAD over time showimprovement, the values for the R2-adjusted are far below acceptable levels, with itsvalue for US96 as a positive exception.

The overall picture (US91-97) for the current-year projections for import growthis bleak with a MAD of 84 percent of the mean outcome and a value for the R2-adjustedof below 50. The outer years show moderate improvements, especially in the ECA &MNA and LAC countries.

21

Figure 4. Accuracy of First-year Projections

RMSE comparison for first year projection

14.0

* US (US91-US96) 3.4 2.1 9.4 1 3.2 3.2 4.1 6.2

0 US96 1.6 0.1 8.7 9.0 2.5 3.6 3.2

*The RMSE of inflation has been divided by 100.

Accuracy of first-year projections over time. Focusing on the RMSE to judgehow the accuracy of the overall sample (US91-US96)7 compares with the RMSE for theUS96, shows improvements across the board (Figure 4). However, the errors are stillquite significant for GDP inflation and export and import growth. The largestimprovements are in GDP growth (50 %), Inflation (95%) and governmnent deficit toGDP ratio (48%). The improvements in export growth (10%) and gross domesticinvestment to GDP ratio (14%) are still significant but look bleak compared to theimprovements in the other indicators.

The following conclusions can be drawn:

* Accuracy over time of the current-year projections has improved: all RMSEand MAD of US97 and US96 are below the those of the overall sample; Thesamne is true for the accuracy of the first-year projections of each indicators asits RMSE of the US96 is smaller than its RMSE of the overall sample;

* The outcome projections regressions show positive results for the joint testof efficiency for the current-year projections done for the US97 for GDPgrowth; GDP inflation and the GDIGDP ratio and for the US96 for again GDPgrowth, CAB/GDP ratio and export growth. For the period US91-US95, the

7 ot tha t the sample for the evaluation of the first-year projections excludes US97 as outcomes for 1997 werenot available at the time of this study.

22

joint test shows only significant results for GDI/GDP ratio (US94 &US93),export growth (US940 and import growth (US92).

6. Comparing the Unified Surveys and the IMF's World Economic OutlookProjections

To gain an understanding of how the quality of the Unified Survey projectionscompares with similar projections done by other institutions, the fall World EconomicOutlook (WEO) of the IMF was chosen. The reason for using the WEO projections as abenchmark is that the WEO covers the same countries and indicators as those used in thefirst part of the study, and its country projections are prepared at the same time as theUnified Survey. It is interesting to note that many World Bank economists believe thatthe IMF projections are more accurate, and prefer to use the IMF data and projections asinput in their own economic work.

Table 13a. US & WEO Comparison for US90-US97 (full sample)

Comparison of Accuracy of Unified Survey and WEO for current year projectionsGDP Growth GDP Inflation GDU1GDP ratio CAB/GDP ratioUS91-US97 US91-US97 US91-US97 US91-US97US WEO US WEO US WEO US WEO

Mean Absolute Deviation 1.7 2.0 23.8 34.5 2.3 3.0 1.4 2.3

Root Mean Squared Error 2.7 2.9 91.4 209.1 3.2 4.3 2.2 3.5

Outcome-Projection regressionAdjusted R-Squared 68.2 62.3 98.6 94.8 77.7 64.8 77.9 41.4Pi 0.83 0.96 1.11 1.39 0.85 0.83 0.95 0.70

ttest; if< 2then PI =1 3.76 0.67 -9.95 -14.40 3.69 3.25 1.10 4.41

Po 0.98 0.35 2.65 -7.64 3.78 3.15 0.47 0.32t test; if < 2 then B,, =0 4.17 1.20 0.45 -0.67 4.25 2.56 2.12 0.96

Joint Test for efficiency No No No No No No No NoFstatistic(p,= I & 30=0) 10.5 0.72 52.7 107.3 9.8 7.03 6.27 20.7

GBBIGDP ratio Export Growth Import GrowthUS94-US97 US9I-US97 US91-US97US WEO US WEO US WEO

-3.4 -2.7 7.3 7.4 9.2 9.6

Mean Absolute Deviation 3.1 1.2 6.3 7.5 7.7 10.7

RootMean Squared Error 5.3 1.9 9.4 10.6 11.5 15.1

Outcome-Projection regressionAdjusted R-Squared 21.2 65.2 21.8 13.3 48.8 23.1pi 0.38 0.80 0.60 0.48 0.80 0.66

ttest; if<2thenp 1 =1 8.52 3.27 4.18 5.06 2.93 3.41Po -2.69 -0.56 3.89 4.25 3.44 4.76

t test; if < 2 then ,, =0 -6.42 -2.26 4.21 3.96 3.22 3.30

Joint Test for efficiency No No No No No NoF statistic (3, = I& o =) 43.2 5.37 11.1 13.3 6.45 0.97

23

W EO and Unified Survey comparison: The results are quite astonishing for thecurrent-year projections as well as for the first-year projections of the overall sample(Tables 13a and 13b). Using the MAD, RMSE and the outcome-projection regression tocompare the Unified Survey with the WEO, the WEO projections are only more accuratethan the Unified Survey projections for the government deficit to GDP ratio. The RMSEof the WEO GDP inflation

Table 13b. US & WEO Comparison for US90-US97 (full sample)

Comparison of Accuracy of Unified Survey and WEO for first year projectionsGDP Growth GDP Inflation GDI/GDP ratio CABIGDP ratioUS91-US96 US91-US96 US91-US96 US9i-US96US WEO US WEO US WEO US WEO

Mean Absolute Deviation 2.4 2.9 35.4 37.7 3.1 3.6 2.4 2.7


Outcome-Projection regressionAdjusted R-Squared 38.7 20.9 82.2 78.6 62.5 51.3 52.7 20.6

Ili 0.90 0.91 3.55 2.22 0.79 0.77 0.71 0.52

ttest; if<2then 1, =1 1.04 0.59 -17.30 11.80 3.60 3.20 4.66 5.16

DO 0.49 -0.14 53.31 0.30 4.85 4.04 -0.28 -0.31ttest; if< 2 then ,I =0 1.12 0.21 -4.68 0.03 3.64 2.41 -0.86 -0.79

Joint Test for efficiency Yes No No No No No No NoF statistic (1 = 1 & 30 =0) 0.7 1.2 153.7 75.0 6.7 7.5 12.8 19.3

GBBIGDP ratio Export Growth Import GrowthUS93-US96 US91-US96 US91-US96

US WEO US WEO US WEO

MeanAbsoluteDeviation 4.1 2.0 6.8 7.9 9.8 12.5

Root Mean Squared Error 6.2 2.8 9.4 11.0 13.2 17.4

Outcome-Projection regressionAdjusted R-Squared 73.4 92.3 13.1 0.2 39.1 1.8

1Di 1.00 1.18 0.72 0.14 1.28 0.40

t test; if < 2 then ,B, =1 0.03 4.61 1.76 5.36 -1.89 2.66

o, -1.77 -0.10 3.32 6.82 2.90 7.95t test; if < 2 then I3o =0 -2.49 -0.28 2.56 5.23 2.07 3.76

Joint Test for efficiency No No No No No NoF statistic (p3 = 1 & P, =0) 3.1 10.2 3.3 16.2 9.3 7.0

projections for the first-year is smaller than the RMSE of this indicator of the US (seefigure 5), but not the MAD, indicating that the US projections for this particular indicatorhave a few more large errors than the sample of the WEO. Although section V concludedthat the Unified Survey projections were especially inaccurate for government deficit toGDP and export and import growth, data shows that the WEO projections, although moreaccurate for the GBB/GDP ratio, are even less accurate for export and import growth.While the Unified Survey shows MADs for export and import growth close to its meandependent outcome, in the case of the WEO, the MADs for these variables are larger thanthe mean dependent outcome. This is true for the current-year projections and for thefirst-year projections for export and import growth in the WEO. The outcome-projection

24

regressions show, not surprisingly, the same results: the adjusted R2 is larger only for thegovernment deficit to GDP ratio. None of the indicators pass the joint indicator test forefficiency. It is quite remarkable that the Unified Survey projections are more accuratefor the current account balance to GDP ratio and for GDP inflation as these are areas inwhich one generally expects the IMF to have a comparative advantage over the WorldBank.

Figure 5. RMSE Comparison for Current-year Projections (full sample)

18

12

C3US UWEO

Accuracy of the WEO over timne: Section 5 concluded that the bleak picture of theUnified Survey projections sketched in section 4 had greatly improved over time. Theaccuracy of the projections done for the US97 and US96 were significantly better thanthose for the overall sample. To see if the same is true for the WEO projections, the lastWEO current and first-year projections in the sample are compared with its overallsample and for benchmarking and comparison reasons again with the Unified Surveycurrent and first-year projections done for the same period. The comparison of the WIEOand the US for the last year in the sample is shown in figure 6 and tables 14a and 14b.

25

Figure 6. RMSE Comparison for Current-year Projections (US97 only)

9

76

GOP INF EXP IMP CAB GDI GBB u

I US *WEO

The WEO current-year projections show improvement for GDP growth, GDPinflation, CAB to GDP ratio and export and import growth (see figures 13 and 14). Forthe current-year projections there is no improvement for GDI/GDP ratio and a notabledeterioration in the GBB/GDP ratio. The first-year projections show generally the samepicture. The accuracy as measured by MAD and RMSE improves for the same indicatorsas mentioned above, joined this time by the GBB/GDP ratio. The results for the outcome-projection regression are less favorable: there is only improvement in the adjusted R2 forthe CAB/GDP ratio. The CAB/GDP ratio and import growth have a positive jointindicator test, their adjusted R2, however is too low to assign any significance to thisresult.

Almost the same conclusions can be drawn for the WEO when evaluating itsaccuracy over time as was done for the Unified Survey. The accuracy of the projectionshas improved over time compared to the overall sample except for the GDI/GDP ratio.This raises the question as to whether the accuracy of the WEOs has improved to theextent that they have become more accurate than the Unified Survey projections. Tables14 and figure 6 show the results of the Unified Survey and the WEO projections forcurrent and first-year for 1996 side by side. The Unified survey projections for thecurrent year are more accurate than the WEO projections except for export growth. Thefirst-year projections show that the WEO is more accurate for GBB/GDP ratio, equallyaccurate-or equally inaccurate-for export growth and less accurate for all otherindicators than the Unified Survey projections. Although import growth, CAB/GDP ratioand GDP growth show positive results for the joint indicator test for efficiency theiradjusted R2 is so low that this result becomes basically meaningless. Again, the generalconclusion that can be drawn is that the Unified Survey projections are more accuratethan the WEO projections.

26

Table 14a. US and VVEO comparison of US97

Current YearGDP Growth GDP Inflation GDI/GDP ratio CAB/GDP ratio

1996 1996 1996 1996US97 WEO US97 WEO US97 WEO US97 WEO

Mean Absolute Error 0.47 0.74 2.29 4.45 1.18 2.83 1.07 1.91



t test; if < 2 then , =1 0.35 0.01 -0.25 -1.56 0.35 1.82 0.33 0.80Po, 0.15 0.34 -0.68 0.98 0.48 4.78 0.54 0.81

t test; if < 2 then P3 =0 0.49 . 0.75 -0.62 0.56 0.37 1.44 0.99 0.99

Joint Test for efficiency Yes No Yes No Yes No No NoF statistic (3 = 1 & P, =0) 0.14 1.46 0.22 3.36 0.07 2.36 1.01 2.20

GBBIGDP ratio Export Growth Import Growth1996 1996 1996

US97 WEO US97 WEO US97 WEC

Mean Absolute Error 1.12 1.43 5.44 4.86 4.12 6.23


Outcome-Projection regressionAdjusted R-Squared 74.4 27.8 4.6 37.2 72.9 58.213, 0.85 0.62 0.55 0.53 0.78 0.81

ttest; if< 2then PI =1 1.40 1.91 1.13 3.24 2.15 1.27Po -0.11 -0.65 6.92 5.78 2.89 0.80

t test; if < 2 then Po =0 -0.22 -1.03 1.95 3.35 2.13 0.38

Joint Test for efficiency No No No No No NoF statistic ( 1 I & P3(=0) 1.15 1.83 2.68 6.29 2.82 0.97

27

Table 14b. US and WEO Comparison of US97

First YearGDP Growth GDP Inflation GDIIGDP ratio CABIGDP ratio

1996 1996 1996 1996US96 WEO US96 WEO US96 WEO US96 WEO

Mean Absolute Error 1.30 1.35 7.45 11.49 2.79 4.12 1.75 2.19


Outcome-Projection regressionAdjusted R-Squared 70.2 51.2 81.2 35.4 69.6 36.1 57.5 33.9f3r 0.81 0.98 1.39 0.88 0.84 0.60 0.91 1.06

ttest; if < 2 then i, =1 1.74 0.15 2.74 0.51 1.30 2.35 0.56 0.091.45 0.27 -0.88 7.40 3.85 7.14 0.44 0.50

ttest; if< 2 then II, =0 2.65 0.26 -0.27 1.22 1.31 1.65 0.70 0.58

Joint Test for efficiency No Yes No No No No No YesFstatistic( i =&p 0=o) 3.98 0.12 6.60 0.85 0.87 4.64 0.86 0.18

GBB/GDP ratio Export Growth Import Growth1996 1996 1996

US96 WEO US96 WEO US96 WEO

Mean Absolute Error 2.03 1.87 6.57 6.51 7.39 9.26


Outcome-Projection regressionAdjusted R-Squared 31.5 26.0 2.9 -4.2 35.5 3.5

0.87 0.61 0.48 0.17 0.62 0.58ttest; if<2then , =1 0.47 1.87 1.36 2.09 2.13 0.93

-0.63 -0.95 7.90 9.01 6.01 4.07t test; if < 2 then P,, =0 -0.77 -1.93 2.47 2.73 3.22 1.05

Joint Test for efficiency Yes No No No No YesFstatistic 1 ,=i&p10 o) 0.29 2.65 4.10 3.98 5.41 0.57

28

References

Artis, M.J., 1996, How accurate are the IMF's Short Term Forecasts? AnotherExamination of the World Economic Outlook, IMF Working Paper no. WP/96/89.

Aysoy, C., and H.H. Yilmaz, 1998, The reliability of national accounts in the WorldBank, unpublished manuscript, Development Data Group, World Bank.

Development Data Group, 1990-1997, Selected Analytical Variables for EconomicManagement (Savem), Development Data Group, World Bank.

Development Data Group, 1997, Reference guide for the Revised Minimum StandardModel eXtended (RMSM-A), World Bank.

Development Data Group, 1997, The Unified Survey Instructions Guide, DevelopmentData Group, World Bank.

Hicks, N., and Vaugeois, M., 1990, How Good (or Bad) are Country Projections, WorldBank Policy, Research and External Affairs Working Paper no. 415.

International Monetary Fund, 1990-1997, World Economic Outlook, StatisticalDepartment, International Monetary Fund.

Lewis J., 1997, Review of the Unified Survey, World Bank Office Memorandum.Theil, H., 1966, Applied Economic Forecasting. Amsterdam: North Holland.Wallis, K, 1989, Macroeconomic forecasting: A survey, The Economic Journal, Vol. 99,

28-61.

29

Annex A: Country profile example: China

CHN

Country NNW______________

Vahiable Onon erGDP Growth Prejeetio. for the Elvfl

GDP Growth US90 uS91 US92 US93 US94 US95 US96 US97 Ongoing Year*PvxvOver or under estimation - - - - - - 16.0Absolute difference 0.4 0.0 3.1 0.6 0,3 0.8 0.3 0.2difference (projection-outcome 0.4 0.0 -3.1 -0.6 -0 3 -0.8 -0.3 -0.2 K

US90 US91 t.S92 US93 US94 US95 US96 US97 12.Outcome -91i1. 2 42 7 9 VPro ection 4~5 IS 05 %3'* ¶12 1*. i i. ,

Persistence in over or under e, 0 -1 -1 -1 *1 *1

First year Projection 0GOP Growth US9O USril US92 US93 US94 US95 US96Over or under estimation I 6 - -

Absolute difference 0.2 4.2 7.5 2.0 1.1 0.5 0.2ditfirence (projection-outcome 0.2 -4.2 -7.5 -2.0 -1.1 -0.5 -0.24J

USSO US91 US92 US93 US94 US95 US96Outcome 3 8 9 2 14.2 13.5 12,6 10,5 9.7 2.Projecftion 4.0 (7 16 i.%

Second Year Projection OS90 US91i 0592 1.S93 US94 US59 US96 tIS97GOP Growth US9O US91 US92 US93 US94 US95Over or under estimation - - - - - -

Absolute difference 3.2 8.2 6.7 2.6 0.5 0.2 difference (projection-outcome -3.2 -8.2 -6.7 -2.6 -0.5 -0.2

US9O US91 US92 US93 US94 us9s 7 lO0 ,I<AlivdflevOutcome 9.2 14.2 13.5 12.6 10.5 97LrAvivd0vv9Projection W.6. A'A.'*, -- "5.

'Three year Least Square Growth rates M ''~1z~l'US90 uS91 US92 US93 US94 US95 4.11

GDP projection 100 100 100 100 100 100 Ongoing Year 104.5 103.8 106.1 113.6 113.2 111.8First year 106.7 109.0 113.2 126.7 126.2 123.02Second Year 115 2 115.5 120.9 139.3 138.8 134.7 0

GOP Outcomes 100 100 100 100 100 100 (Ongoing Year 104.1 103.8 109.2 114.2 113.5 112.6 __________

First year 108.1 113.3 124.7 129.6 127.8 124.4Second Year 118.0 129.4 141 5 145.9 141.2 136.5

Least Square Growth rate US90 U591 US92 US93 US94 USgSOver or under estimation - - - - - -Absolute difference 0.7 4.1 5.9 1.8 0.7 0.5difference (projection-outcome -0.7 -4.1 -5.9 -1.8 -0.7 -0.5

U590 US91 US92 US93 US94 US95Outcome 5.5 9.0 12.5 13.4 12.2 10.9Projections 4.7 4.9 6.5 11.7 11.5 10.4

EXPort of GNFS Growth rates (cons) ountry file Epr rwhPoetosfrte *lvm

US90 US91 U592 US93 US94 US95 Uis96 US97 30.0 On oing Year 0P,-Over or under estimation - - - I - 1- - .~ci1iOil71uvi'1

Absolute difference 0.1 2.4 6.9 4.3 5.6 7.7 8.8 2.8difference (projection-outcome -0.1 -2.4 -6.9 4.3 -5.6 -7 7 8.8 -2.8 25.01

LIM0 LS91 US92 US93 US94 US95 tUS9e US97Outcome 77.W j3 4,t 4Projection 7 , O U 20.1Persistence in over or under e -1 - -1 0 1 0

First year ProjectionExport of G3NFS Growth rates US90 US91 US92 US93 US94 US95 US96 t

Over or under estimation - - - -v - + +Absoture difference 5.2 10.2 7 4 1.8 2`16 286 2.7diffirence (projection-outcome -5 2 -10.2 -7.4 1 8 -21.6 2-6 2.7is

US90 US91 US92 US93 US94 US95 US96Outcome 12 3 15.4 15.3 9 2 28 1 9.6 74Projection 71. 2 79. 4 Jj5.5

second Year ProjectionExport of GNFS Growth rates U590 U591 US92 US93 US94 USgS .1Over or under estimation - - - - - 4- US9I US91 UJS92 11003 US94 US95 US96 11597Absolute difference 8.2 9.4 1.2 16.6' 3.0 3.5 __________________

difference (projection-outcome -8.2 -9.4 -1.2 -16.6 -3.0 3.5- - - - -

USSO U591 US92 U593 US94 USg5- - --S Outcome 15 4 15.3 9.2 28,1 9.6 7.4ItProjectionr 7:2 " - A

Three year Least Square Growth ratesU590 US9i US92 US93 US94 US9591 'v -- r

Export of GNFS Growlh rates 10 100 100 100 100 100Ongoing Year 107.0 109.9 108.5 119.6 103.7 120.4

First year 114.6 ~~~~~115.5 117.1 132.8 110.3 135.1Second Year 122.8 122.4 126.4 148.0 117.6 149.83.

Outcome 100 100 100 100 100 100 A.. ifOngoing Year 107.1 112.3 115.4 115.3 109.2 128.1 - bFirst year 120.2 129.5 133.1 126.0 139.9 140.3 ____________

Second Year 138.7 149.4 145.4 161.3 153.3 150.7

Least Square Growth rate U590 U591 US92 US93 US94 US95Over or under estimation - - - - - +difference (projection-outcome 4 5 7.6 5.4 2 8 10.9 0.1difference (projection-outcome -4.5 -7.6 -5.4 -2.8 -10.9 0.1

U590 U591 US92 US93 US94 U595Outcome 11.6 14.4 13.5 16.4 16.5 14.1Projections 7.1 6 8 8.1 13.7 5.6 14.2

CHN

GDP Growth Projection for the First Year | GDP Growth Projection for the f-1Ut GDP Growth Projection for Thme '16J) 16S::rV :s.1 tY;z '=Vs 1:Ssw 1r3P 1i5 I .t Second Year Prol I ears Using Least Squares tPomDlfl

162O

11b~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~11

(15S'X 9 I1, 15 1 (512 11593 13594 11595 11596 USSX) IIS91 US592 13593 13594 IIS95 USSIS9( 13U91 US592 US93 USO94 US595

9-l.nett ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~os (AAbltedfbrolst 2lfrss /l1sult>ArbOo1cDiltenscDoieton

31_ _ . __ .. _. ____ __ J t_ _ __= --__ __ _ _.__ _ ___._

I1,

24) ' 4' 4. 9 6 91

2. 2(11

UIS9S) 91S91 (1S92 UIS93 US94 U895 ((S96, u9 s% 51 U(S9) U,92 (J(S3O S 9154 US9I(S) SI S2 U)

1'649~~~~~~

3 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 3A 3.D~~A,ecdffnc 1fodOspsbSsr~.r(A9~u~ 6) er~) L,cc~(A6~65~2 O 2n04

CHN

Import GNFS Growth rate (cons) ]IMMo untry fileGrwh *frte EiccOngoing Year 7 ImprnteGrwt Projectionsfoth

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5 US$6 US$7 Ontgoing Year p.Over or under estimation + + + - - + 0

Absolute difference 0.5 7.65 2.2 6.4 8.3 4.6 5.9 0.2 i'

d'ifference (projection-outcome 0.5 7.6 2.2 -6.4 -8.3 4.6 5.9 0.2 iUS$0 US$1 US$2 US93 US94 US95 US96 US97

Outcome 7$ -119 1&S 2&,3 305 g.6 &6 [ Projection 8,0 453 .1&11 21,9 f2l2 . 16, I10.6 8Persistence in over or under e 0 0 0 0 0 1 I

First cyear ProjectionImport GNFS Growth rate (con US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5 US$6Ovar or under estimation + - - - - + + 5.GAbsolute difference 14.8 6.6 9.3 11.0 0.5 8.0 11.7diffirence (projection-outcome 14 $ -6 6 -9.3 -11 0 -0.6 8.0 11.703

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5 US$6-.0 oOutcome -12.9 15$9 28.3 30 5 9.3 5 0 8 6Projection 1.9a 9.3 190 19-6 6)7 $3. at

Second Year ProjectionriSImport GNFS Growth rate (con US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5-iOver or under estimation - - - + + 55I LJS9 IS9 US92 US3 1U94 uIs95 uJS96 U597Absolute difference 10 0 16.4 15 0 6.1 3 1 4.2 _____________

difference (projection-outcome -10 0 -16.4 -15 0 6.1 3.1 4.2 + + ± - + +US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5

Outcome 15.9 28 3 30.5 9.3 5.0 as1 iOuProlection 11".166 44... #0 112. 13ir

Three year Least Square Growth ratees i

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5Import GNFfSGrowth rate (con 100 100 100 100 100 100 70

Ongoing Year 108.0 $4 7 118.1 121$9 122.2 113$ 9First year 110.1 103.5 140.5 145.7 132.9 128.6 Second Year 116.5 115.9 162.3 166 1 143.6 145.0 11F5

Outcome 100 100 100 100 100 100Ongoing Year 107 5 871 irs 9 12803 13005 100 3First year s3s7 101 0 148 7 167 4 142 7 114 7Second Year 10oe 129 6 194 1 183 0 14957 124 6

Least Squsre Growth rate US$0 JS91 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5over or under estimation I~ - - - - +difference (projection-outcome 3.8 4 2 7 4 4.2 1.5 5.8difference (projection-outcome 3.8 -4 2 -7.4 -4.2 -1.5 6.8

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5Outcome 1.1 9.7 25.1 23 1 13.9 7 3Projections 4$9 5.5 17.7 19.0 12.4 13.2

GNS asa% GDP (curr) fou ontry tileOngoing Year $ GNS as of GDP Projeenen for the EUuu3

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5 US$6 US$7 sw Ongoinig Year laPoj--s,o IjOver or under estimation o - - + + -.- ~ 3 ~Absolute difference #VALUE! #VALUE' 4 5 1.7 $ 6 2.4 2.3 2.3 4533~difference (projection-outcomeNVALUEl #VALUEI 4 5 -1.7 -9.6 2.4 2 3 -2.3 .K. 5 -i

US$0 US$`1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5 US$6 US$7 4i30.Outcome 36 37`.6 37.9 '37.4 41.6 41.2 ~~ 406:.42.8Projection A..2,4 36.8 :W? 436 _4Z9 .40.3 .51

Persistence in over or under e 0 -1 -1 0 30 uFirst year ProjecConI

GNS a5ls %GOP (curr( US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5 US$6 251.0Over or under estimation+ - - 4 -

Absolute difference #VALUEi #VALUEi 3.9 7.5 1 0.6 2.3 1.1 20.0difrtrence (projection-outcome #VALUE' eVALUEi 3.9 -75 -10 6 2.3 -1. 1

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5 US$6 151Outcome 37 8 37$9 37.4 41 3 41.2 40.5 42 8Projection .. ., 41.3. 258 .30*.419 41.7

550Second Year Projection

GNS as % GOP (curr) US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5 0 0Over or under estimation - - - - L05+ us9i siss)95 JS9 19$1961170Absolute difference #VALUE! #VALUE! 1.2 8.4 10 5 0.8 __________

difference (projection-outcomeNVALUE! #VALUEI -1 2 -8.4 -10 5 -0.8 + - - +US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5

Outcome 37 9 37.4 41 3 41.2 40.5 42.6 13.5Projection -. . 40.1 -82. 3011 42.0 u1.s

Three year Averages 1US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5 7.5

GNS5as% GOP (curr( s

Ongoing Year . .42.4 35.8 31.7 43.6 I ILFirst year . . 41.3 33.8 30.6 42.9Second Year .. 40 1 32 8 30.1 42 0 IiOutcome *Ah.ol.Mrdfr--Ongoing Year 35.1 3758 37.9 37.4 41.3 41 2 ____ --- -- -.

First year 37.8 37 $ 37.4 41 3 41.2 40.5Second Year 37.9 37 4 41.3 41.2 40.5 42.8

Three year averages US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5Over or under estimation + - -Absolute difference #VALUEI #VALUEf 24 5.8 10 2 1.3difference (projection-outcomeNVALUE? #VALUEi 24 -5.8 -102 1.3

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5Outcome 36.9 37 7 38.9 40.0 41.0 41.5

|ospors Growth Projecti mpor Growth Projections for t he i rt Growth Projecttions for Thr eO~.-ei Year !PsIe:ionM the Second Year = .Proj OLeatSquas

251

20 0t 25.1 2.21111 5 Is Uss2 Us93 (U159 (1593 1s94 Uss5 sS)o ug59 usz US93 Us94 Us95

1511

+ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~+ + + + + + +

i- f I 9`+

J19~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1

_Ab. oll di=s ) _v ( o __ _ _ =

GCN S -as% o-f GDP P-roject-ion fo r th-e First UOl5w-- GNS as % of GDP Projection for the EQ 05 Thre Year average GNS as % of G01'"1--'

III1 11 Second Year UPo5Isj 50,1 Pre tion. 55

40-Il5,1

25~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2.

2(k 151

US%I UISS91 S92 tIS93 (JS94 UIs9S ((S96 U9(( IIS9I (192 11945 US94 IJS95 UISMI US91 UJS92 IJS93 1US94 IJS95

+ + ~~~~~~~11+ -

1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~13.51

- S 2 (1

CH61

Projections .. 41.3 34. 1 30.8 42.9

GDP Implicit lInflation fiM utyflOngoing Year 1 GDP Inflation Projection fao- the

US90 US91 US92 US93 US94 0595 0596 US97 Si Oti 'aOver or under estimation .t- -- - - - + ~ --

Absolute difference 3.2 7.0 2.2 1.0 3.6 4.7 2.1 0.4./16

xi/§ .

difference (projection-outcome 3.2 -7.0 2.2 -1.0 -3.6 -4.7 -2.1 0.4 2iii -

Outcome 05~~~~~~U90 0591 U592 US93 US94 US095 US96 0097

Projection . 201.4 95 1. 1".1.Persistence in over or under e 1 0 0 -1 -1 0 -~.'

First year ProjectionGDP Implicit Inflation us9O US91 US92 US93 US94 US95 US96 I 0 i

Over or under estimation I + +i - - 4- + ,

Absolute difference 8.3 3.3 3+7 3.6 9.6 0.9 2.9diffirence (projection-outcome 8.3 3.3 3.7 -3.6 -9 6 0.9 2.9 .

0590 USgi US92 UJS93 US94 0S95 0S96Outcome 5.7 6.7 7.9 14.6 19.5 13 1 6 1 Projection 140O 10.0 I t.6 11.0 49 14,0 9.0

Second Year Projection .iŽ1GDP Implicit Inflation U590 US91 U592 US93 U594 US95Over or under estimation 4- - - - UTS 9 TIS91 (iS92 US93 US594 11S95 SISIS 516 U67Absolute difference 3.3 0.1 7.9 12.0 4.2 4 9 ______ ___

difference (projection-outcome 3.3 0.1 -7.9 -12 0 -4.2 4 95JS90 US91 0S92 0S93 0S94 US95 * . - - - - +

outcome 67 7 9 14.6 19 5 13.1, 6.1 ~. ______

Projection 10-0 8.0 `6.7 7.5 sts . 11.0 Ab,.1- ditff--l~

Three year Averages1 ii~.1

.-

US9O 0S91 US92 US93 US94 US95~.~GDP Implicit Inflation 611Ongoing Year 120O -1.4 8 9 6.9 11 0 14.8 4 -First year 14 0 10.0 11 6 11.0 9.9 14.0Second Year 10.0 8.0 6.7 7.5 89 11.0 2

OutcomeOngoing Year 8,8 5 7 6.7 7 9 14 6 19.5First year 5.7 6.7 7.9 14.6 19.5 13.1Second Year 6.7 7 9 14.6 19~5 13.1 6.1

Three year averages 0590 US9I US92 US93 US94 US95Over or under estimation + - - - -Absolute difference 4.9 1+2 0.7 5 5 5.8 0.4difference (projection-outcome 4 9 -1.2 -0.7 -5 ti -5.8 0 4

0590 US91 US92 US93 0S94 US95Outcome 7+1 6.5 9.7 14 0 15.7 12.9Projections 12.0 5.5 9.1 8 5 9.9 13.3

GDt as % of GDP (curl) Sm ountr flue rD s%o D rjcinfrte aiOl

Ongoing Year13GI %oGDPrjf. f,thUS90 0691 US92 0S93 US94 US95 US96 US97 Ongoing Year,PociOi

Over or under estimation I - - + + - 51111Absolute differenice #VALUE! eVALUE' 5 6 2.1 10.2 3.7 0.0 2.0451difference (pro(ection-outconneVALUE! #VALUE! 5.6 -2.1 -10.2 3.7 0.0 -2.0

LIS9O US91 US92 U593 US94 US95 US96 US97 4011Outcome 0&0 3~47 3,4. 362 43.3 MO .405 424Projection -,4D,4 64.1 '3a1 403. 140,6 40.4 3511Persistence in over or under e - -1 1

First year Projection 30i IGD1 as % of GOP (curr) US90 US9I US92 US93 US94 US95 US96 251,Over or under estimation +0 - - + -Absolute difference #VALUEI 4.8 9+7 7.6 2.5 1.3 20111diffirence (projecton-outcome #VALUEt -34.8 4.8 -9.7 -7.6 2.5 -1.3

US9O US9I 0S92 US93 US94 US95 0JS96 11

Outcome 34 7 34.8 36.2 43 3 39.9 40.5 42.4Projection '0X 41.0 63.6 tio: 41:1

Second Year ProjectionG0I as % of GDP (curr( US90 0591 US92 US93 0S94 US95 i

Over or under estimation - - - US90 511 SSS US92 1U593 U1554 11695 91S96 1597

Absolute difference #VALUE! 2.3 6.8 8.6 0 3____difference (projection-outcomeNVALUEl -36.2 -2.3 -6.8 -8.6 0.3 +

U590 0591 US92 0S93 US94 0595Outcome 34,8 36.2 433 39 9 40 5 42 4 i

Projection - 0.0 41.6 311 31.6 42,7 v

Three year Averages I

0590 0591 US92 US93 US94 US95 s

00I as %/ of GOP (currj i iI)Ongoing Year . . 40 4 34.1 33 1 43.6First year 0.0 41.0 33.6 32.2 43.0Second Year 0+0 41+0 33.1 31 8 42.7

OutcomeaOngoing Year 36.0 34 7 34.8 36.2 43.3 399 - ---Firat year 34.7 34 8 36 2 43 3 39.9 40 5Second Year 34.83 36.2 43.3 39 9 40.5 42.4

Three year averages USgO US91 US92 US93 US94 0595Over or under estimation I- - - 4

Absolute difference #VALUEl #VALUE! 2 7 6.2 8.8 2 2difference (projection-outcarne0VALUEI #VALUE! 2.7 -62 -8.8 2 2

CHN

GDP Inflation Projection for the First Year GDP Inflation Projection for the GDP Inflation Projection for the Th-25,0 20.0eon U9o~~~OYws*FoJcOn

1109(1 USIIS 1(9 2 i 11093 IIS94 11595 US95 [1001 US91 11592 USt93 US94 US095 11S9d US901 US92 tIS93 US94 UIS9S

2(1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~4

50 1120io (Ab t ditr) , b

GDI as % of GDP Projection for the J irst MOtlOnle GD! as % of GDP Projection for the l-llcm C DI as % of GDP Projection for th 100,'1'

Year *Pojcto Second Year |-PrOilclofl Years (average) *-PtojooOooo

11S9{1 tISi 119 2 I ISI9 US 1US94 IIS95 11996 r 1 1IS99 US091 US92 US593 US94 US95 [ISI 139 ! US 1US92 [1093 UIS94 US95

5A 5,t, 4A

1.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Aill dif| Aeooe -- dilfono,c

__ _ _ __ _ _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.D*_ I._

CHN

US90 US91 US92 US93 US94 US9SOutcome 35.2 35.2 38.1 39.8 41.2 40.9Projections .. .. 40.8 336 32.4 43.1

COR Year ountr file rOR Projection for the Ongoing Yg r Year

US90 US91 US92 US93 US94 US95 US96 US97 FPoJvoo 1.

Absolute difference 0.6 0.1 237 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1

US9o USSI US92 US93 US94 US95 US96 US97 10svOutcome 9 5 3.8s 4 -2ZS 3.0 3 5 4iiProjecion OA A . s5r 6 . 2.9 - k: 3f - "3 4 _Persistence in over or under e 0 1 1 1 0 0

First year ProjectionICOR US90 US91 US92 US93 US94 US95 US9'

+ + + + - -6 l9 51 S2151 S4U9 t55U9

Absolute difference 0.5 3.3 3.3 0.4 0.1 0. 1 02

US90 US9I US92 US93 US94 US95 US96

Outcome 9 5 3.8 2.4 2 .5 3.0 35 4.1Projection 00 :I 2~ 0 ,Z .37J2.0

Second Year ProjectionCOOR US90 US90 US92 US93 US94 US95

+ * 4 + - - US9v US91 U182 1S93 1U9S US95 1159 [__9 Absolute difference 2.1 3.4 3.5 0.4 0.3 0.3

US90 US91 US92 US93 US94 US95Outcome 3.8 2 4 2.5 3.0 35 4 .1Projection s0 7.13 3 #V01 2.9 d2. 3.8

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 199 2Investment GoI (in common b 644092 644400 704288 790371 986104 1090080 129=460 0

US90 2..1US91 644092 652631 675643US92 644400 #DIVIO #D+V+IOlUS93 704288 767823 643523 ui sUS94 790371 669065 942703USg5 986104 1166721 1265812 .U

GdP (in rommon base year) 1786890 1854790 2025430 2313040 2625300 2956090 3266480 3.56+07US9OUS91 1786890 1854785 1947333 2064248 ___________

US92 1854790 1967932 2099784 2242569US93 2025430 2300389 2565637 2821233US94 2313040 2618610 2919637 3210338US95 2625300 2935093 3228601 3535309

USgi U592 US93 US94 US95Absolute difference 3.3 #-IVO! 02 0.1 3.7

US91 US92 US93 US94 US95Outcome 3.8 28 2.7 30 0.1Projectons 7.1 #DIV/0! 2.9 2.9 3.8

CAB as % of GOP (ourr) Io ounlry ue om the graph flpPjcFYnh

Ongoing Year -1.3 174 3.2 On g 0 13YearTe US90 US91 US92 US93 US94 US95 US96 US97Over or under estmation - - - -+ -Absolute difference 0.2 1 9 1.3 0.4 0.6 0 9 2+1 0.4 1difference (projection-outcome 0.2 -1 9 -1.3 0.4 0.6 -0.9 2+1 -0.4

US9O US9I US92 US93 US94 US95 US96 US9ZOutcome . 4 . .. 1,3 I'S -ao la A2Projection J 4AII- ¶7 -IA, VA04 i3-OPersistence in over or under e 0 -1 0 0 0 -1

First year ProjectionCAB as % of GDP (curr) U590 US91 US92 US93 US94 US95 US96Over or under estimation - - - - - +Absolute difference 41 2.3 1.0 2.2 30 08 0.1diffirence (projection-outcome -4.1 -2.3 -1.0 2.2 -3.0 -0.8 0.1

US90 US91 US92 US93 US94 US95 US96Outcorne 3,4 3.2 1.3 -2.0 1 3 0.2 0,5Projection OS 03. 0,2 -tl A O5K.$_i ~

Second Year ProjectionCAB as % of GDP (curr) US9O USel US92 US93 US94 U595 1

Over or under estimation - - + - - - us" m U9 tiMe US"9 [ U94 195 11S96 tJS97 Absolute difference 3.8 1.3 0.7 1.6 2.0 1.6 ___________

difference (projection-outcome -3 8 -1.3 0.7 -1.6 -2.0 -1.6US90 US91 US92 US93 US94 US9S

Outcome 32 1.3 -2.0 13 0.2 0.5 5 Projecton . .-6 0.0.0 .i~3 413 I 48.414.0151 iAb.oI-vf*r

Three year Averages 351 tvatA~ooo,fovui~~USgO US91 US92 US93 US94 Us9s 32 ~

CAB as % of GDP (curr) ,OngoingYear -1. 1 1.5 1.9 1.7 -1.4 0.4First year -0.7 0.8 0.3 0.2 -1.7 -0.5 Second Year -0.6 0.0 -1.3 -0.3 -1 8 -1.1

OutcomeOngoing Year -1.3 3.4 3.2 1.3 -2.0 1.3 __

First year 3.4 3.2 1 3 -2.0 1 3 0.2Second Year 3.2 1.3 -2.0 1.3 0.2 0.5

Three year averages US90 US91 US92 US93 US94 US9SOver or under estimation - - - + - -

CHN

ICOR Projection for the First Year *°' ICOR Projection for the Second Year rCOR Projechon for Three YearE?501[910 Period UF1O1e91iOcj

711~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

3.11~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1

2.9

91,1 USS91 U1s92 VSI91 [1S94 USs5 Z)SW9 119( U191 IS92 U1893 11894 |S95 [IS91 [IS92 [IS93 1S94 us953

4. 4D f 4|

I Year o n 1 Li00(A1o. I1 Seon Ye3 inA9ooo jecilnn on 31 er ae'g) L

' 5s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ai2 I)( Ils 2.5 ;9 19 is us ^ u zll u91 s1Us I9 S4u9

2.9 2I .

L .. ____ ____ , _J_ L___-________

CASot % of GDP Projection for the First CABos % ofGDP Projection for the Olltlomo FCAB as of GDP Projection for thoIP9l99oo4Year 4.0 clooSecond Year 4PIJO1iIIYear (average) LI! jeclons

3,1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~31

9.11~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

-211~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-.

.3.11~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~30-.

TIS901 I11191 [1992 11993 1194[195 11S96 US9( TJS9I 1192 US93 US934 US95 U9991 US9I 13S92 1JS93 11994 11S93

+ - - ~~ ~ ~~+ 11 - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5.11-

411 L 3,991015 dlffeoOlll 41'~~~~~~~~3X5

2.2 ti~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~21

.3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

7.9~~~~~~~~~~~~~O(J) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A olO ,9re n9oo,feec

L,osor 9Ab19hl1o diforooso)~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A

CHNN

Absolute difference 2.5 1.8 0.5 0.4 1.5 1.1difference (protection-outcomne -2.5 -1.8 .0.5 0.4 -1.5 -1.1

US90 US91 US92 US93 US94 US95Outcome 1.7 2.6 0.8 0.2 -0.2 0.7Projections -0.8 0.8 0.3 0.5 -1.6 -0.4

ELIT/GDP inouontry file Das%f OPretofrteOngoing Year 19 ETa fGPPoeto o h

USgo USgi US92 US93 US94 US95 US96 US97 200( 0O0n e yearOver or under estimation .. . + ; 5~z i 0ii1.2 ~ Absolute difference #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.7 0.5 0.4 1.8 1.2 801differenc,e (projection-outcome0VALUE! #VALUE' #VALUE' 0.7 0+5 0.4 -1.8 1.2

US9O US91 US92 US93 US94 US95 US96 US97Outcome,. 1S 12 P OA. 14Projection .. 7-.., i ~ 9O'* ~'$Persistence in over or under e 0 0- 0

First year ProjectionEDT/GDP US9O US91 US92 US93 US94 US95 US96Over or under estimation o - - -

Absoltute difference #VALUE! #VALUE! #fVALUEI 0.3 4.1 0.6 1.0 1.diffirence (projection-outcome #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! 0.3 -4.1 -0.6 -1.0

US9O U591 US92 US93 US94 US95 US9660Outcome 15 6 14 8 15,10 14 3 16.6 16.9 14 2Projection 4.... (..~ :~

Second Year ProjectionEDTIGDP us9O UStiI US92 US93 US94 US9SOver or under estimation - - +USolI US91 US92 US093 1S904 U8950 11S96 I107Absolute difference #iVALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! 4.7 3.3 1.3 _____

difference (projection-outcomeNVALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! -4.7 -3.3 1.3IUS90 USSi US92 US93 US94 US95 + - +

Outcome 14.8 15.0 14.3 1 8.6 16,9 14,2 -

Projection . ... 1i

Three year Averages3.

EDT/GOP ~~~~~~~~US90 US91 US92 US3 S9 U9

Ongoing Year . . .. 15.7 14 8 19.0 I

Firstyear . . .. 14.6 14 5 16.3Second Year . .13 9 13.7 15.5 i

Ongoing Year 13.1 15.6 14.8 15.0 14.3 18.6 ____

First year 15 6 14.8 15.0 14.3 18.6 16.9Second Year 14.8 15.0 14 3 18.6 16.9 14.2

Three year averages US90 US91 US92 US93 US94 US95Over or under estimation - - IAbsolute difference #VALUE' #VALUEI WiALUE, 1.2 2.3 0.4difference (projection-outcomaNVALUE! #VALUE! 8VALUE, -1.2 -2.3 0 4

US90 US91 US92 US93 US94 US95Outcome 14 5 15.1 14.7 16.0 16 6 16.6Projections . .. 14.7 14 3 15.9

TDS/XGS inouontry tileTS00%oXSPreconorfe Oiro

Ongoing Year 21 TSa fXSPoeto o hUS9O US91 US92 US93 US94 US95 LUS96 US97 13+0

Over or under estimation - - - 5 . e +Absolute difference 1.5 #VALUE! 1.7 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.2 4.2difference (projection-outcome -1.5 #VALUE! -1.7 -0.7 1.0 0.8 0.2 4.2

US9O USgI US92 US93 US94 USgS US96 U$97

Projection .'. 9 . '2 '."ja wr 42 K.19 il 109Persistence in over or under a 0 -1 I 1

First year Projectionl7TDS)IXGS US9O US9I US92 US93 US94 US95 US96Over or under estimation - - I S

Absolute difference 0 2 #VALUE' 0.7 0.8 2.0 0.5 2.8diffirenre (projection-outcome 0.2 #VALUE! -0.7 -08a 2.0 0.5 2.8

US90 US91 US92 US93 US94 US95 US9630Outcome 11 7 11.8 10.2 11.2 8.9 9 9 6.7Projection ''"1_ . 4 0.4 '104 102 IS

Second Year Proj ecti onTDS/XGS USSO US9I US92 US93 US94 US9SOver or under estimation - - +1 UOS9S1US91 tiS9O 1S93 12004 OSISOS9600 U9507Absolute difference 0.8 #VALUE! #VALUEi 0.6 1.4 3.0difference (projection-outcome -0.8 #VALUEI #VALUE! -0.6 1.4 3.0

US9O US91 US92 US93 US94 US95+ Outcome 11.8 10.2 11.2 8.9 9.9 6 7 Projection 4.5.'. ' <''..iI 12 '.

Three year Averages 0

TOS/XGS ~~~~~~~~US9O US91 US92 US93 US94 uJSg5 2.2

Ongoing Year 9.8 .. 10.1 9.5 12.1 9.7

First year 11.9 . 9.5 10.4 10.9 103 iSecond Year 11.0 . . 8.3 11.3 9.7Outcome Ebcu s

First year Ii.7 11.8 10.2 11.2 8.9 9.9Second Year 11.8 10.2 11.2 8.9 9.9 6.7

CHN

r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~cino the EDT __ _ fD

EDT as % of GDP Projection for the First ;; T as % offrh *__ i EDT as Y of GDP Projection for "m"

Year .,c0 Second Year ,o Three Year (average) pooSioso

16 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~16.0 1.

OOS0l} 119s 11s02 1IS0)3 01S34 LISOS 10596 O ISOS9 0 01092 USY 1593 US94 U1sss 0S10( ISIS9 I5JS2 US93 US94 t1195

14r-4 b - -+

100 MA

| ~~~~~~Ah oluted,ffUoreo I * j Ah los ltdiffereooco E Abooluce dilfos<ce

TS r5as%o of XGS ProJection for the First EOOOCOoj TDSao% of XGS Projeeosonforthe *Ou 1 ,c TDSas% of XGS Projetion forT !ueose

| ~~~Year EPOOOcOjo Second Year EPooooYears (average) *Proo]claSA 3 13.0

U 0S U IUS91 3S92 JS103 I1004 IS15 US06 OISOO OISOI9 uS92 US93 US94 US95 USM 0sS91 IIS92 us93 US94 us0s

L + + + + I I + + + +

frw 3zh~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. 25Z

: . ~~_ ....._ =:_ __ __JE_ ___ __ -___t __ _, _

CHN

Three year averages US9O US9I US92 US93 UJS94 US95Over or under estimation - - . +Absolute difference 0.7 #VALUE' #VALUE! 0.7 1.5 1 4difference (projection-outcome -0.7 #VALUE! #VALUE! -0.7 1.5 1.4

US90 USgi US92 US93 US94 US95Outcome 1 1.5 11-2 11.1 10.1 10.0 8.5Projections 10.9 .. 9.4 11.5 9.9

GBB as % of GOP (curr) J M ountry file_______Ongoing Year 23 GBB as % of GDP Prajection far the *OOcUS90 USgi US92 US93 US94 US9S US95 US97 2 uaigYermr17Over or under estimnation

Absolute difference #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! 3.8 2.0 0.5 0.1 0.1difference (projection-outcome#VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! 3.8 2.0 -0.5 -0. 1 0.1US9O US9I U1S92 US93 US94 US9S US96 US97

Outcome Z. .2.0 4~. 4. 4.-20.. 4A . jProjection -- -- .. 0.0 -7-f -1.7 Persistence in over or under e 1 1 -1

First year ProjectionGBB as % of GDP (curr) US90 US91 US92 US93 US94 US95 US9SOver or under estimation + + -Absolute difference #VALUE! WVALUE! #VALUE! 1.8 1 5 0.3 0.1diffirence (projection-outcome #VALLE! #VALUE! #VALUE! 1.8 1.5 -0.3 0.1

liSgo US91 US92 US93 US94 US95 US9SOutcome -2 0 -2.2 -2.3 -2.0 -1 6 -1.5 -1.6Projection.--;:< )'

Second Year Projection (.GBB as % of GOP (curr) US9O US91 US92 US93 US94 USSS 4 iOver or under estimation + - iiS9i TIS91 fIi92 VS93 iiS94 IJS95 IJS96 [IS9i7Absolute difference #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! 1.3 1.6 0.1 _______________difference (projection-outcomaVALUE1 #VALUE' #VALUE! 1 3 1.6 -0. 1 +US90 US91 US92 US93 US94 USti5

Outcome -2.2 -2.3 -2 0 -1.6 -1.5 -1 6Projection .01 ..

Three year AveragesUS9O USgI US92 US93 US94 US95

0B8 as % of GOP (currjOngoing Year . . 1 5 0.0 -2.1First year . -0.3 -0 1 -1.9 .hSecond Year . . . -0 3 -0. 1 -1.7 1.

OnongYa -2 2 -2.0 -2.2 -2 3 -2.0 -1 6 Cho+ ~TrnFirst year -2 0 -2.2 -2.3 -2.0 -1.6 -1.6Second Year -2.2 -2.3 -2.0 -1.6 -1.6 -1.6

Three year averages USgO US91 US92 US93 US94 USg5Over or under estimation Ic -Absolute difference #iVALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE' 2.3 1.7 0 3differenre (projection-outconnefVALUE! VALLIE! #iVALUE! 2.3 1 7 -0.3

US90 US91 US92 US93 US94 US95Outcomne -2.1 -2.2 -2.2 -2.0 -1 8 -1.5Projections - 0.3 -0 1 -1.9

Terms Of Trade mourintry tile Terms efTrade Praoection af imOngoing Year 25US9O US91 US92 US93 US94 US95 US96 US97 2 ne,5ya Pri4Over or under estimation I. . -Absolute differenc-e 0.1 #iVALUE! 0 3 #VALUE! 1.8 #VALUE' 0.1 #VALUE'difference (projection-outcome 0 1 #VALUE' 0.3 #VALUE' -1.5 #VALUE! 0.1 #VALUE' +~US90 US91 US92 US93 U894 US95 US96 US97Outcome .Z , .. 1 AA .Oe OA .:~1. .SProjection .. -.. . .Persistence in over or under a 0 0

First year ProjectionTerms Of Trade US9O US91 US92 US93 US94 US95 US96 Over or under estimation - - -rAbsolute difference 2.5 #VALUE' 4.7 #VALUE' 0 7 #VALUE! #VALUE!diffirence (projection-outcome -2 5 #VALUE' -4.7 #VALUE' 0.7 #VALUE! #VALUEI

Outcome ~~~~~~US90 U591 US92 US93 US94 US95 US96 ~r--Outcome O's~0. -11I -0.3 1.0 .4 -01IProjection 47 ~,7 *' 0 - *1 -

Second Year Projection --.----.Terms Of Trade U590 U591 US92 US93 US94 US95

Over or under estimation + - iSSii LiS91 12S92 11S93 tIS94 US59 1296 11997Absolute difference 0.5 #VALUE! 0.7 #VALUEJ 1.0 #VAILUE'difference (projection-outcome 0.5 SVALUE! -0 7 #VALUE! 1.0 #VALUE! + +US90 US9i US92 US93 US94 US95Outcome -1.1 -0.3 1 0 0.4 -01I61Projection .0 . 0,3

Three year Least Square Growth rates 405US9O US91 US92 US93 US94 US9S.<5, TOT 100 100 100 100 100 100 4Ongoing Year 102 1 #VALUEi 99 2 #VALUE' 99.2 #VALUEIFirst year 100.4 #VALLIE! 94.3 #VALUE! 100.2 #VAILUE!Second Year 99.7 tiVALUE' 94 5 #VALUE! 101 1#VALUE!

TOT Outcomes 100 100 100 100 100 100 ii Aour0,h+Ongoing Year 102.0 100.8 98.9 99 7 101.0 100.4L AOdi+.iFirst year 102.8 99 7 98.5 100 7 101.3 100.3

CHN

GBB as% ofGDPProjectionforthe Firt u GBB as % ofCDP Projection for the Outo°U c GBB as % of GDP Projecfion for 3 |Year Second Year _ _ Three Years (average) uom 6

t2S92 USS (S92 (2 tJS9 US9 [S[S COO 1(S1 [(593 [(94 11s S Y 5 tJ59 US9 USO4 [(SOS

l + + - + +~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~+ ± _ ++

- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ilA 'A>-> 00

Terms of Trade Projection for first year *O)uiWome Terrms of Trade Projections for SeconOP)ntc"one'| Tertms of Trade Projections fO,,tWeme

Wo ~~~~~~~~~~~~00OS~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

US0( [_S5) [JS92 [(sOS IJs US9 Us106 [Su9t us91 us92 US90 US94 us95 ussto lSs91 us-s2 us93 M uss4 usss

_~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _ . . _____________ _ _ _ _ ________ __ __

Sc~ Ol ( EI.,ule ilTh

2 V 2.( 2 Ebllls511551EAIiso&f7osu

Annex B: Regional Profile: Latin America

OS-LAO LAO

Country _ __-Vanuable

Ongoing Yesr . ALor9 AC 0MMW j l 0 A-rpff519Onr.rsfiA0 64GDP Growth US US$1 U VS92 US93 US94 US95 US$8 US$7Overorunderestnmaton _ t_ = - ,so o oor nv 0 o_1wo

AvenageDifferenceforLAC 3.3 2 2.2 1.4 2.9 2.0 1. llAloo g __ o

US$0 US91 US92 US93 US94 US95 US98 US$ 40 4sSummation of absolute eano I Poetn of¶- Ongoing Yr f SCount of obseroations . ... ŽsA ' i..Jh 24

Pest year Projectionn0GDP GrowSth US$0 U$ I US92 US93 US94 US95 US$ 0=0Over or under estimation 0I i i , ; 0 0Average Difference for LAC 3.3 3 .2 22 8 2.9 2.0 1.8

Summabonofa_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2 2._ 40 4. D4 .

US$0 US$1 US92 US93 US94 US95 US$ 30 °00 I [330 30 10 0 u vSummation of absolute erro ' 5Count of obserNations w i Projeon for Second Year

GDP Groth US$0 US91 US92 US93 US94 US95 US96A,- f0,LAC 0 6f fOverorunderestmation MI o *iQ>u_ I 2 to U oAverage Difference for LAC 3.5 39 10 3e4 4.8 5 2.8 36 00

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5 4004Summation of absolute errorCountofoobservabons *3, 0 >.. > DI

a 00~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.Leant Square Growth rate US$0 U$ 9S2 US$3 US$4 US$5Over or under estimation CE 0 5j,;, _ , | Iif _ 1.0Average Difference for LAC 1.4 $ 6 1.3 1.9 1.4 0.8

Dutcome US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5_ 17 l0 0 U0 V10104 0 _ o i M 00 oo4 Projeisons .07 . 0590 OSOl 0000 0003 0ss 0S95 0 U2' 0 0 00 0 0

Projection of fimt year Three Year Least SquaresExport of GNFS Groweth rates (cons)______________________

Ongoing Year ____-______US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 USGS US$0 US$7- 01oes

DOver orunderestimation .. 07'74 I97 RZRN ;, 0) OOriOo.oOoO 0Average Difference for LAC 4.0 11.0 7.4 3.0 3.2 5$ 2.9 1.5 W Nf-

US$0 US$1 U S$2 US$3 US$4 US$5 US$8 US$1Summation of absolute errofir7~'f. .0Count of observations M,-. ,'0, OW W

First year projection 40 4.0

Export of GNFS Growth raten US$09 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 UIS$5 US96DOver or under estimatio -Ao x , -- "- 20;

Average Difference for LAC 75 8$ $ 3 1 5 .

US$3 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5 US$0 1.00 00 00 17 3.0 3Do

cSummation of absolute erroo*49

' 0um)1 7ns 09 o s,00407 0000 000 090 0.37 0s4 0370

oun ofobsNabns a MProjection of Ongoing Year Projection for -Second Year -

Export of GNF'SGrowth rates UjS$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5Over or under estimation >~o3 ~~ nora0tomot,oc 100 Ao r - fl0v toLo 1.00Average Difference for LAC 5.2 3.0 3 1 4.0 6.9 3.5

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 _ S$4 US$5 so0Suimmation of absolute aeos- fl'MC- $S ,41 0)3

Coast of observahons 4 ,7 ,~0

Least Square Growth rateUS$0 US$1 ~US$2 US$2 US$4 US$54

Over or under estimation Ma 1' 3, t~ Va, 4Average Difference for LAC 3.4 26 3.5 2.7 4.3 4.3 220

US$0 US$1 US$2 U593 US$4 US$5 - 00Outcome NMIX0I0 0 301W0 0 00 0 2 0 0 1

Prjojction of firat year Three Year Least Squares

99'LAC LAC

report GNFS Growth rate (cionls,) ____________ __

Ongoing YearUS$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5 US$8 US$7 Di.',-'.9'*V' LAC

Over orsunder estimation 60 4 0 '0 .0 t 4D~~9Ac,99,A 9 , Av99OO.e, 99A

Average Difference for LAC 5 2 13.8 7.1 10 4 4.4 856 84 2 5 "T--ie vv.rOi'a9

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5 US$5 US87 Summation of aosolute erera 1 M 00 44 .-

Foost year Pro oot 6Import GNFS Growth rate icc US$0 USI?l US$2 U583 US$4 US$5 US$6Over or under estimation A0 to 10 4& 24 2O 10AverageODifferenceaforLAC 18 15.8 18 2 11.2 14 3 10.5 13.42

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$ US$5 99 9 9 v 9 9 40 9 j 99

Summation of absolute errors 82.2 120,7 't2L5 84 '(4 8 05 9999997.99993 59 _99 9.9 3 99 99 9999) 39

Count of observations 7.0 1.0 7.A. 0 .0 O__________Projection of Ongoing Year Projection for Second Year

Import GN FS Growth rate (C S0 U$ S2 US$3 US94 US$5 2

Ooernor under estimation 0.I *0 73 *90 :24- 8 AD,9e.2. AC19

AverageODifference forLAC 17.2 2189 10 8 1386 14.9 5.8 L,q99uih9r9999 ,-99v9 999i

9e.

US90 US1 U$4U$0S4 S59 Y9

Ai-4'.

Count of oboernations tO 1 70 00 .0 00

Leant Square Grot rate US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US596

Over or under estimation 6.0 20r 20 1 i0 'tO ' tAverageoDifferrnce for LAC 2 4 10.3 8$9 9A 78 5.044

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US95Outcome 6 t a i. rProjectons 7,0 7. .10 '1 j .0) 9909 9959 s499 99 99 I'99 9492 9293 9994 9.990

Projection of first year Three Year Least SquaresGNS as %

9GDP (aurr")_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _

Ongoing Year 50 US$0 US91 US$7 US$3 US$4 US$5 US$5 US$7 ... - Aeo-.gc999--enfo9 LAC

Over or under estimation tO -40 04 tO ).0 'ZO * 0).A99999 9e. u .9 r--i9ee9Average Difference for LAC 5.2 3$9 323 81 3.5 1.6 3.0 1 99( 9aOne9 ~ "f~<.- <9'y''

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$5 US$4 US$5 US$5 US$7Smmation of absolute errors 10.3 27.3 0.8 4(3' 24.2: -f t 'WA 0.8Count of observations 2.0 7.0 710 80 60 4~ ')

Ftrut year Projetotion IMNIGNS as % GOP (canr) US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5 US$8Over or undler estimation to ' 40 co~: 73 0 .04 2 1 Average Difference for LAC 5.5 4.3 3d 8 . 3.9 1.8 3.$

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5 US$8 99 4v 3v 5 9 9 9 393 99 3 9 9 9

Summation, of obuolute enont '014 SOS. VA0, 40*Z AM. 128 la 'tt 9s.9 9999 -s 9999 2999 9999 99996 I99 v9 99 999 9 9994 999,

Coumnt of observations 10 7. 7.0 0AD i .0 1 _____ ____

Protection of Ongoing Year Projection tor Seconid Year

GNS as ho GOP (curr) US$0 US$1 US$3 US$3 US$4 US$5Over or undernestimation '10 48.0 0.0 10 30 4.0 A.e9g--fie,eooACA91 nAverage Difference for LAC 2.7 5 1 3.4 58 456 20

US$0 US$1 US$2 U$93 US$4 US$5 7

Summation of absolute errors $A 42.9 104 39.4 't75 242 'C

Count of observations 24 7,0 PL.0 6.0 0.0 730

Least Squaae Growth rateUiS$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5

Over or under estimation f.0 4.0 A00 tao0 to, .. ' 730Average Difference for LAO 4.5 2.5 3.4 5.4 4 0 1.8 12

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5 a9999 Outcome 10 60 '1, 66.*. 10 v 9 99 999 I 9 99 99 i 99 99 39 39I9

Projections 2.' 7.0 3. 30 (0 . 999 One] 939 99993 9991 I999399 33999 U999 3399992 1 199 99

Projection of firt year Three Year Ave,agn

US-LAC LAC

GDP Implicit InflationOngoing Year 2O

US GD U I US$2 US93 US$4 USG95 US96 US$7 l18oOveror underestimation iL7%* 2. -

7. 8 | .iA

Average Difference for LAC 798 317 74.2 21.4 2.6

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 USuS US9S US57Sammation of absolute erserot 1IMA lit tsS *%$ 35tv. 1 wC ,i7AICount of observations 10&0t~ ~ , ,A ~ t S i n

Firat year ProjectieSGDP Implicit Inflation USGS US$1 US$2 US$3 US"S US9S US_ Over or under esbimation =4W "W1 C7 `Ii"' , !I~

Average Difference for LAC 4026 85 20.6 -gg 5 r229.1 8t

US$0 US91 US92 US93 US94 US95 US96 eo.0 3.v to.y e 0 5o 2u n von en Ia on eo in en,Summation of absolute errvr$ 2 .- 1 fAl 9 A ,gWw s usinm unvvum nn .5U57 Oem ii 5, ms iime iseseCount of nfbserNeaons ,Mfi, & rbUgg!OtŽii801et1 i

1< I

Prjection of Ongoing Year Proection for Second Year

GDP Impi cit Inflation US$0 U 9 S2 US$3 US$4 USGSS 02

Least Square Growtth rateb9s15

Over or under estmation ?1tvxlm I 1t l632j 104, ' 5_1i,IWIW o0 r

Average Difference forLAC rO3A 517 35 14$ GS72

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US95

Proqections ii ti - G> 1LI IS Isecni nes2ussl o2ne none359 user5 u3enn° pen °° i imne cn ,2 iS.en4 penn

Protection offbntteyear Three Year Avnge

C.umnt of obsematoGnsas of OP (urt

Ongoinguar Yerot -at 71.tUS.S US$1 US$2 US$3 USGS USGS U$ S7 AenOiOe , i

over or under estimatio 2 "U2i AM 2A stE. 20 il iIA% 1l.SS s itenCin.s ,sncencnc

Auerage Difference forLA, 430 46. 181 226. 20 20 2.53- n0Annev enn - -

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 USGS US95 UG S$ ' Summtione ofaslt ez ~1> i'~4f~i U'

First year Projectiosm ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~Pojeono frt er heeYarAerg

Golan % of DP fount) S$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 USGS USGS USGS U19 21

Over or under estimation . 4~11 "~ 9 i .... 11111.-.DAverage Differenwefor LAC 435 3314.6 37 22 . 210 23.2

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US9S USGS USn970 e na n n i v in o n nSummation of absotute error 7$ I 24 i,Anwvonne osrsnnoemoPn ie mii ssun rs v

C'ountofoobservations INE, .n First year Projecflonjm ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Poecio f noig er rtetvefo ecn Ya

GD1 en % of GDP jcutr) US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US96 S 9 2. rca 2 00Over or under estimation ))7h 4i'l(72I i.. In 0

Average Difference for LAC 205 36 1 1 14 Y. 47 36 2. 3An.ntiossCiAv 2n~o ~US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 USGS USGS US6G . . G3 . G5

Summation of absolute emo ~ >7 . 1t ~ $,s7 51Coumnt of obseevations ,; 1 tli~:7

Least Square Gromfo rate ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~roebo f noig er rjetonf S n Y.

GOIas o GD (cm) US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 USGS UISGS7 Over or under estimation -1) p .. Si~%l'9 7 'iAverage Difference for LAC 2 3 139 33 308 21 i

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 USGS US9S 5 .1

Outcafome fbolt ero*A~ mt0l'' n e n n eUn enn o in n oPrntofotetosewatiionsii, 47, nn sn 55 en en oe in 0C mivnii,n li n

Overorunderastimation ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Poecio f rt er hee(arAerg

US-'AC LAC

Ongoing YearIw , 5tySSO US$1 ~~US92 uS$2 US94 US$5 US$6 US7,n o0A 0 vu. 010

Over or under eat mation It 40 4. 5P s. - '

;. M >-r - ^.: -.: Ust~~~~~~~A ; J :0 AA, Average Difference for LAC 6.0 42.1 1.$ 16.1 66.6 0.9 1.4 3.8 iAo...008 0nA,u r 0

US90 US91 US$2 US93 US$4 US$5 US95 US$7 4 5

Summation of abtute earn 3' -- , ,0 U391 U693 U 3 U 94 .U 9 U32 -

Count of obsevations .7. .t . .' &, - S . .0 t. P

First year Projection1OCR US90 US$1 US$2 US93 US94 US95 US96Over or under estimation 4. .0 -64 -A1* 5-.4. c.% - " "2

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_ "W - ,S20>

Average Oifferenne far LAC 41 5 5.6 5.6 11.0 3.4 4.9 4.3

US$0 US$1 US92 US93 US$4 uses us$6 10 '4 ° C 0° O° n0Summation of absolute errorv 22000 44.4 553' AW4 . 27- -3B ~ 30 si00 0300509 Ooov 30 iv 00 00 5910

Count of observations t O b_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Protection of Ongoing Year Prjection for Second Yea

OfR US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$6 3A.r L 0c -

Over or under estmatuon 4 5.0 S3C 0.0 5.0 As vbns 09 LAO

Average Difference for LAC 2i4 7 4$ 1Q 19 4S8 7.1 ;-- omoa. 00 .

US90 US91 US92 US93 US94 US$S 5

Summation of absolute erroC 1*4 fiu5. :4t.0-1598

Count of obsenvations V * i: - .4

Least Square Growth rate i 5US$0 US$1 ~~US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5

Over or under estimation ~ 0.0 1,0 0. (4 '4 iI::.Average Difference for LAC #OtVIOl 7.2 ' 1VIOl 4.1 $45 14.1

Poutctiome -. U.5¢ - . 51=5 G tetS$B <8Q .;U0 U*Y1 US92 US93 US94 US$5

Projection of 6rst year Three Year PAverodCAB as % of GDP (earrn) _______________

Ongoing Year F o. Oos O.A -. 4

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5 US$6 US$ ys>Dere orndernotimatbon 411 10t 0 s.c ~ oil zAk . -74 040 U is..aou=,u.ts .oml.o..~o0oAAverage Difference for LAC 0.$ 1.1 2.3 1.1 1.5 0.5 0.5 0$-...At ros..,.

US$0 US$1 US$3 US$3 US$4 US$5 US$6 US$7 2Sumrmaton of absolute erort f6* 52 >6 O Count of observations 2050 4 t

First year IrojetiorCAB as % of GOP (curr) US$0 US$1 US$2 US$2 US$4 US$5 US$6Over or under eatimatien 1.6. 4.0 0. .$o. 110 LtOW .. 0AveagenDfferencefor LAC 4.7 3 2 1.4 1~6 2.5 1 7 1.3

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5 US$6 00 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 i 00 00 55 0 00Summarion of absolute errors V 55..957. A .¶>1 bt .Count ofvboervations t .& O . .m 50_____ ____

Projection of Ongoing YearProjection far Second Year

CAB as % of GDP (curr) US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$54

AverogeODifferenceefor LAC 3.6 35 1. $ 3. 235eorolA3.5 1.5 2.8 3.6 2-2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o5 S.oooonno

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5cSummnaion of absolute error 262 224 I's .510 '22 7Count of observations 7. o 10 7. o *

L.east Square Growth mteUS$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5

Over sou nder estimation 6. 60 0) 5 301.Average Difference for LAD 2.5 1.$ 1.7 1.4 2.4 0$80

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5 DOutcome 2lA ".45 1-'1:I lo .21 0 4 3 0 0 v00 5 0 3 s 0Proiections 70. 5. 1. . 8.0 UV,400 09 0200 09 0500 0090 001 0000 009 000 05'

Projection of $rst year Three YearAvrerge

00-LAC LA

ED7IGDPOngoing Year upn mI

US$o Y S' US92 US93 US94 US95 US9S3 USS7 20 _ 2_Overvr under estimation 00 'Pe " ' 2 ' l : 1n5 _hri0200 t f ' ooAverage Difference for -A0 #DO!VO 20. #DIV/Or 6 6 7i3 4.1 2.0 3.8L.fss,sOlono

.oS90 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US95 US$6 US$7Summation of basolute errors t 00.> aa; ." " ' A5 t3Countof oboervations 00 . . ,, '0jo 0j$ P1000

First gear ProoeYtionFrJetnoScd aEDToGDP US_o US$1 US92 US93 US94 US95 USj6 9r

Over orunder estima Aenrage Differenc,eforl-AC #OtV/0t 16.6 #DtV/0t 639 63 6. 7.0

US$0 US$1 US92 US$3 US$4 US$5 US$6 v oo 4 s0 0 0 so no 00 90 00 90Summation of aosolute errors 0I 476 "1O0 2$VS1'% 005 UsnO 0309 009 USoSS 09 090 SO S0 OSO 000 05Count of obs-ation_ 0 _ _ 0 _ _ ________,__________

Projectin of Ongoing Year Projection for Second Year

EDT/GOP S$90 US91 US92 US93 US94 US$95 US99U j6r,vov0|==A0'

Over or under estmation Di0 00- 00 10 50 0 7 ,0 5 50000 ___ . 060 LACsAverage Difference for LAoC SOOVOOt 16.4 *DlV/0i 10.2 11.1 6$5

US$0 US91 US92 US$3 US$94 US95 rSSummrqation of absolute enrors PJ0 forw SeodYa0,0Count of oberusationS N0 i,0 0^ 7.0 j(

Least Square Drowsy -ateUS$2 US$71 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$6

Over or under estinnation ~ 0l0

O' Mi. xo3 Ui,olIna 0Aserage Difference forlAC 'DiVOCO 16.7 11VOi .65 7i6 42i

US$0 US$I US$2 US93 US$4 US$6 -''-o U I..> I 6Outuome. 000,S',,Jtlwm '0

00Vi0o 9 0 3 0 9 000 3 5 5 0

Projections . 00. .T 7,0 . .0. LI 00Lif~ vaOSI 09900-9000 00 099 00 59 00 4 00099

Projection of first year Three Year Average

Ongoing YearUS$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5 US$6 US$7 i0 s~0i,o,r,u

Coos or ojoder estimation 14 4 10 50 :0 'o o0~0.iA4o4000,,. 0,000O,u4 040,Average Difference for LAC $.1 6.3 44 17.3 34.7 12.6 1 0.6 $68 14nrAO,45

0n. 00

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$94 US$5 US$6 US$7Su mmat'on of absolute error lo,, .46 '. h,21t 2t1" j~4i

First year Project on 600TDS/XGS US$0 US$1 US$2 UJS$3 US$94 US$6 US$6 00

Over or under estimationr, , , 0~ ~ ', ,

Average Difference foi LAO 20.4 6.4 $3 41.6 12.6 $.2 72 2020

US$0o US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$6 US$6 5 0 0 5 9 5 9 09 0 5 0 50 5

Summation of absolute errors 120 0S .U:' o0t-MS ,:,i 37 00IS. 090 0940 003 USS 00099 OsS. U900 I50 000 190 03 0994 US9rCount of obsematio'rs Joo,.,'. 4.~ 0 70 '4 00 ___________. I

Projection of Ongoing Year Projection for Second Year

TDS!XGS US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 LUS$4 US$5Coosror under estimnation in..''"', >l 0-4 . W`o M. A00694 ,,,0, 0,Lt 00 .Su OOS,,O,LG,'i

AvrgDfte,Snce ton LAO 16.0 7.5 aDIVIO! 13.2 7.6 4.3Merage 0 t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~v,rolor'00,,. .i44 .344000000

U0590 US$1 US$2 US9$3 U-S$4 US$5 1 CSunmmationof absoluteermors 1155 4. 00 $0 "UX'

0

Count of obsewvations ~ 00 ,:o. .7 .. 0

Least Square Growth rateUS$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5 0. 0

Over or under estimation 4 ~'.3 00 0$''' 00 0Average Difference for LAO 12.6 5.1 #Vooiz 23.9 16 8 4.6

US$0 US$1 UJS$2 US$2 US$4 US56Outcome 500 36 . . 02.10. Projections 7.v tE00 7 710 R0 060AS 94OO 09 9909 00 0909400 00 09

Projectio offrstyear rThree Year Average

US-,~AC LoAC

GBB as % of GDP (curr)Ongoing Year iII 20I

US90 US91 US92 US93 US94 US$8 US9 US$7 60 0 f- 1o oj

Over or under est2matbon . ... . . ; Z....... -_ e..- -u 1. _." 9 ' M .............. vx b0 _A(:o 16f1I3fr>'f.,2'

Average Difference for LAC 8.3 #DIV/' #DtVlO! 2.8 49 13 3 18 0.8 ..." . !US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5 US98 US$7 U OO O6 S0 60 0 oU US 6 5 _

Sumnmatin of absolute errora T YFirst year Projeteotios1 m 30

068 aa % of GDP (curr) US$0 US$1 US$2 USa3 US$4 US$5 US$8 Dover or under esfimabon '404 0041.:A 0.0 ** ,S "A IC-1 Average Difference for LAC 0.3 #DtVID! #DfV/0! 2$8 4,3 1 4 3.2

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5 US$89 n s o 0 0 .9 0 0 0 09. 9, 40 00Summation of absolute erross 0. 4; .. 4 -¶1 .#4 onus socon49 9009 On M ls 09 00 90.4 499Count of oboervations -- O 0 t 10 I -iI_ _

Projection of Ongoing Year Projection for Second Year

G BB as%of GDP (uotr) US$0 US$f US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5Over or under easfmatoon _4 TO O A .M inoWv.sn0r0 09- AnogOsoooOOACf 9P9<~-nAnerage Difference for [AC 1.0 MOVIDi #OtVIG1 2$ 3.7 3.0 <A~W_ 80 - . IA n, coo-

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5 I7Summation of absolute erront *0 20 -90OT "ECunt of obseovations tO-> A

Least Square Groweth rate400US$0 US$1 UJS$2 US$3 US$4 US$5 33

Over or unuer estimation '104 ot O 400 ±0A 45O I tO-Average Difference for [AC 286 $Df /O! $01 V/C 2.7 4.3 1 8

US$0 US$1 LIUS$ US$3 US$4 US$5Outcome J; L"R)F>- 7~ tProtections t % 4 d90 9 99 0 29 909 0 0 29 i

Projection of firat year Three Year Anarage

Annex C: World Profile (full sample)

Unified Survey World Tables

Ongoing Year ff9Ogil0hO.r.. i90td. 6.0 Ao0m.0.o4 00GOP Growth US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5 US$8 US$7 -Loi- AI.or9 0 DI,tt.i.o (A-puomu 0iiO-.Over estimation tO 1$ e. 0 4f

iOK S. 3 4 2.3 tO8 12 1.2 1.3 056

JS$4 US 1 US$2 US$3 US$4 UIS$5 US$6 US$7Summation of absolute errors 20. 60'S40. 2.7 ,5"4 4 1.67 3 1Count ofovbservations 2f 1. 2f I 4h 1

First year Projection 2GOP Growth US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5 US$6Overestimation 100 'SSJ0 I.O 00ff 1*9' "1f .Average Difference for World 3.4 3.3 356 2 0 2.4 2.4 1.3

US$0 lJS$t US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5 US$6 I 000 081 009 009 054 Uss ¶0590 -50 050 39 55 05 104 iSommaton ofabsolute errors 04S 'U591 0 s92 M53 U5414J-5-___ __________ ___'IS"_U_ ___M__I_ll

Con f observations 11 1 00 30 ~ pf 30Prjeotioe Of Ongoing Year Poetx a eogYa

GOP G3rowtht US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5 Aogte,no3 ol A,G 9 9 tmv 5

Over estimation *O WoO '" ' ,6i0 2*4 'O0 4W toortrnt0oo .iv.ioruOirro

Average Difference forWorid 2 7 3.7 2.7 2.7 3.4 1685

US$0 US$0 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$54 4DSummation of absoluteerrors 74 ,$ . #7 AW>1~Cornto obevtos3* 16 2o Rw.0

a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o2Least Square Growth rate US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5Over estimatrio 10,0 fA to 'to tffo 0 iAverage Differencefor Wodd 3.1 3.1 2.2 1.4 15 1.1

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5 19u_ 5 15 65 10 60 1. s 0 g x 9Outcome 4&* -61$ 4.2 'A"064 'tA 1.6$ 0W09 02050535 0300 40 091 00 109lss 09

Projections ao no 1U U.0 4* ul.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Pojctonof$r ea Tre Ya Leas Sqa-resEaport ef GNFS Greowth rates (co*ne)Pjdno itya TreYa es qae

Ongoing Year--US$0 US$1 US$2 US$2 US$4 ,US$5 US$6 US$7 iAorornrrerWtvciu' 0 o ~r¶Wv

Overestimation to * 1 o- 'o .51 Q< 6*'Uxrlio.o40.u ponetsgos go

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 U$$4 US$5 US$6 US$7cSummation of absolate error 501 '4, 35 1. 0C.'~0 ."l½.,0Count of oboervations V P01. 1 10 ~ f .r:r 5

Firot year Projecton 4 400Export ofGONFS Gmmthmrtes f US$0 US$91 US$2 US$2 US$4 US$05 US$6 Over esti matio 00 .1. 00 1.0 70l'4f., .2Average Difference for World $6. 73 723 568 $4 468 6.4

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$2 US$4 U S$5 US96tO 9 19 95 9 10 lOtO 02 0 09 O 50 0Su Mmation of absolate error - 0 5. 43 104 '009 0100 93vte09 0009 39 1i09209 39 30Count of otiservations ~ $' 714 2fvtSti'14L....._____ __ __-_ _ _

Projectioo of Ongoing Year Prteotion for Second Year

Export of GONFS Growh rates~ (C. US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$0 DI---GOon0 0', mWS 1 ,Overestimation $00 10 6.0 ' IO. O '3 714 le.lmoeOOo 001 0vo.,ir,.or o 100AverageODifferrnrcnforWotld 750 5 6 6.7 $ 7 52 6.4

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US9$00 Summration of absolute errors 1*03 11225 134,7 i.0* "5$f 34Count of observabons 60Q Z0 20 0 2* 2 0

Leas S-ur. Go,th6te04 9

Least qaareGrowft rate US$0 US$1 U S$2 US$3 US$4 US$5 cWOver estimat.ion70 1 79 7TO .I <40 <4#'2Average Oiffe,e,ce fvrWvld 368 405 St 3.2 4.6 43 2

OutconnUS$0 US$1 US$0 US$ US$4 US$0 . .. ,.o.. ,1c otA v L r.n

Projections M60 2. 3,' 280. * 0co 03o 0092 000 03990 3093 51-9 U 000 0395 092 09 095li

Projectioo of timt year Thiree Year Least Squamos


Import GNFS Growth mte (cens_ _ _ _ _ _ _Ongoing Year -o 2

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$2 US$4 US$5 US96 US$7 _ 220

Over oesmatmon >iR t14 R<T IjZ*0'' o r r j m

3i . •ff -

8P7 10.1 Sit R 82 558 8.7 3.8 _ _:.

US$0 UIS$1 UIS$2 US$2 US$4 US$5 US$6 US$1r 2Summation of abosolote erors A' of *t 4Count of observotations ro_o1 A 74 i 4 _ 0 0 97 0 3U

First year Projection of 0tImpost GNES Growte rate (coo US$0 Us$ US L US$3 US$4 US$5 US$6Over estimation 44 So 05 o r i PA 1Average Difference for World - 10'4 11. 1.8 to. 8.8 78 2.4

Uss$ US91 US$2 US93 US4 U$ 105 S$8 US9i 44 6o 0

Summetiono of absoluti e eroro -~O3~>~ 000034i 300 040000 4950300040 040j034i 042 of44 finst 03040

Count of Observationos go ti539>olProjection of Ongoing Year Projoclono for Second Year

Import GNFS Growth rote (tons US$0 US$1 US$2 US$2 US$4 US$50Over estimation o R3 7 *00<!0Aorg DOhoo 00OoodW.fBoo O)3,ooo030Wd

Average D,ffrrefoutrWorId 143t 128 117 10 11.2 7.2 UoDiAeootf-oo -- 0.oolOoovviuo

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$2 US$4 US$0 4 :

Summratio of absolute errors 03lIW 2oCount ofovbservetiors IM,X) A3'7930~ (iV ~ '0. 0

Least Square Gowutho rate US0 ULIS2 U$2 U$ S$5Over estimationl 51o Average Dtferncetfnr World 43 72 $8 8$ 8

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$2 US$4 US$5Outcome 03 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~033

o" 0303 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~.9 30 4 40 00 00 50 40il 0 0 04 9 44Projections <3f <j 0~4 ~,09 04000000040000044 49 L ov 009 043 y 339

Projecton of first year T1rev Your Loast S-quaersGNS as ta GDP (non-)

Ongoing Year 0 US$0 US$1 ~~~US$2 US$2 US$4 US$0 US$8 US$7 A4100oO44

0W4.0. \oro oooo.o Oou

Over estimataion 00003*. 09 tgi'0e9ons2fsoo 3 0 "Yo0009

o90oo

on 486 38 326 4.6 2$ 2$ 2$ t8

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$2 US$4 US$5 U588 US$7 6Summation at absolute errors ~fConut of obse-vtions .03 03

First year Prnojetionn3GNS as %GOP bour) US$0 US$1 US$2 US$53 US$4 US$5 US$8 Over estimatio KOM offl 1N N 4 Average Oifferencefor World 8~2 3.4 4 5 4 8 2

US$5 US$1 US$2 US$2 US$4 US58 US84 54 0 S 00 70 4 40 44i 09 40 0 00 40 r,1Summation of absolute errors o000 3 . 0Oo 003. MW1* > 4339 030i 041 440004 0304 304o0 44 304 -34 3)0- 03,44 34 34 39

Count of obseNationnsProjectior of Ongoing Year Projotion for Second Year

0NS as % GDP (ours) US$0 US$1 U$ 9S3 US$4 US$0 0rOve estimation -315 M WEE 9 0 5 A,.o00i4004404 0

30Oo Oootufoofod 00

Average Difor-eovnraWnrld 2~5 64 2D0 4 . "3,,(O 40,0034 0

USg 0 US$1 US$2 US$2 US$4 US$5 Summsation of absolute en-os N'4 003L 0 I 0.0 ~ 3 0

Count of lbservaonno< t.s 033

Tomee year average US$0 US$1 US$2 US$2 US$4 US$83 Over estimatieon000 0 0 00

Average Difference for Wiorld 41 222 4 . .

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$2 US$4 US$8

Projections $3,A93 03. oo 34 0i00004000 34 09 000 33 39 0 39 030

Projection of Smut year Three Year Average

Unified Survey Word Tables

GDP Implicit InflationOngo,ing IYea f 41

US$0 US$1 US92 US$3 US$4 1)55 US$6 tJS7sOverestimabion 'to' I'�'i0$ t - fl nreuDfp.rv3,

84e0 930. 19.4 14608 6.. 7 8.1 3.S m. 3 883

US$0 USi$1 US92 US$2 US$4 US S US$79 9S-

Summaton of absolute errors . 3t ,u ra7- < v

Count of obsermaioa '- * * ' ' j ic@ 40

First yearPromjectioei - 3 'asPfcGDP Implicit loflaflon us$o US91 U892 US93 US94 US$5 USf)_96 0 ' $ 4Overestfimatio 4WA.,, J, - 1 fl nAverage Differe,nce for Worud 141 3 11.2 10*6 75.9 67.1 65 7.4

US$0 US91 US$2 US93 US94 US95 US$6 td ai 70 a iSummation of absotute erors 262 25. IS 1741.3 24044 -2 TM 000 ml Vat2 0 ABB 000043 .1306 6007 cns, I0) :a3 000 00Counttofoboervations | *4, 23 80 I 40 23* 5OD d 34

Pmjection of Ongoing Year ProJection for Second Year

00P Implicit Inflation US$0 US$i US92 US$3 US94 us5s f., V%uOvr estimation JA~0 4 *J* 14 1 jn ½as.-mu. I34 ,0/

Average DifferencefnrWorld 03 1928 7.0 101.2 19e7 64t3a3<L&330083 3'A%

US90 US91 US92 US93 US$4 US95 7. . 6. , <2-r33Summation of absolute errrs 452t0 < W 0,iCount of observatioans IG ~ 4 $4 ~* 0 0

toa

v e ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i mrlA~e .iO6cmv 6 w * f*t

Three year average US$0 US91 US92 US93 US$4 US95 0Over estimation $0 .6.0 941 -74P t fi reiAnerage Difference for Worid 44.3 32 2 12.0 54.7 38.1 7.6 ao'~7/82K - 0

US$0 US$1 US592 US$2 US$4 US$5 00Outcome ,6l. el 08 50 O n .y 8 05 3 0 v 0 v

Projection .1'first yearTrvYaAnagGDt ase% of GDP (currn) ..

Ongoing Year - 7.nb3imvWUS$90 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5 US$6 US$7 An.~biv.v v vi3

4.2 3.5 3.0 2.4 2.5 2t1 1$ 1.2

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$0 US$6 US$7Sammativon of absolute errors VA *.0 42.1 4th i, A$4:- AW6%40

Court ofvobservations o 41* VA 337A- ... t430 .1* Z ,A . 3* t#26

First year Prvjectimn%~G03 as 11 of GOP 10um) US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5 US$6Ocer estimto aO 4 4< o . 14AverageODiffarenc for World 4.3 2$9 4.0 3 7 332 2.3 2.0

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$5, US$6 004 43 33 33 S0 80 ivy 14O 33 13 3 80 83 33cSummation of absolute errors SA:my t * t . 6 ' t033OiCv 3063 0U03 033 633 Us3 333 'Iylu 6300 330 6333Count of observations t <T0 3* 5* S" 7 W " .

Projecton of Ongoing Year Protection for Second Year

GD1 as % of GOP (cum) US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 1)595 Overeetimafion.2 $00 70 4 't 8Avov0O3v.v

3.6.3 9 n630,904

Average Difference for World 2.6 3.5 2$0 327 3.8 2.6-i.ium ,v3 .. v0 3

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$0Summabon of absolute error 2* 50 S9 24 mo4Count aof observations40 7 $10 9, '.So

Three year average US90 US$1 US$3 US$3 US$4 US$5 2r

Over-etimatio-1 , , 2 0 "Average Difference for World 3.5 31 2$9 31I 3.0 2.00

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$2 US$4 U)895 Outcome 1' ~ ". S'i 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 v 3 3 3 0Projections 0 70 1. * 4.935063 63333363463 030 369 3633 lvO 30 633

Projection of tlrotyear The ou vrage


ICOROngoing Year

1)890 1)891 1)8S92 1)883 1)894 )899 1)896 1)897-todtoc Over esilaionalv M~ U C0 0 0 "R,2*0M 2i2RRMA2l@ ow mj?g4m AOOsrsroouie .rvorvis e.iffvr

297/ 194 41 3 12.2 24.4 4.7 321 6.9 - (slneA,OiMlsssoo 80

U8SIX 1)591 1)92 1)893 U)894 1)899 1)896 US897Summation of absolute errors ~ M V

Count of observations

First year Projeetioom)COR 1)90 US91 1)92 1)893 US94 1)898 1)96Over estimation yt22 iiAverage Difference for World 210 44 18 01 84 6 .

1)590 1)891 U)92 1)893 1)894 1)898 1)896 ' O 0iO ioio10 5 0 io lv io in 0

Sommation ofalbsolute eros II ii v ecvn m srer m m on 00mOn uo Go m ln

Count of obsernafions f f0 O ______ __________Projection of Ongoing Year Projection foeodYea-r

lOOR US9 181 )92 1)893 1)894 1)898 1Over estimation di$i)i gp j4lfi sroDtnofowd

AveageODifference frsWsrld 17 11.5 fi39407 tosiroat n EAonoooo.tiWI

1)890 1)891 1)892 1)893 1)894 1)899 502 Summation of absolute erors '00ifCoont of ubseruotions ~ ~ ~ t 9

ICOP (three years) US9 181 )92 1)93 1)884 1)898Over estimation 1 <0< iiI;fl &>.25

Average Difference for Wordd 91VS 122 901)14 199 73.2 12.

1)595 1)91 1)892 1)893 1)894 1)898 OutcomernsYo2<. r(2 ., M so i 1o it ia. Ms too io o o s is n i

Projentinno ~ ~ ~ t.214~%~$Q~ 0000 eset 0005 tirm 3000 orer coos core Gosi Gore von, voos usM.sr.1

Projection of first year CO (three years)CAB as % of GDP (cam)

Ongoing Year

1)890 1)91 US892 1)893 US894 1)895 1)896 1)8977

Sunrvmnton of absolute erroers Y~~7V.Count ofobseroatin-s.2vt%A "ij)l

First year ProteebonCAB as % of GOP (nurr) 1)898 1)91 1)892 1)892 1)89 1)899 1)9896Ovrerstimation > ,> l))4li. 2ti25, Anerags Difference for Wotld 47 29 3.4 2.95 . .1 .

1)595 1)91 1)89 1)893 1)894 1)895 U)89 as so i7O a nn s o e n Lu is is iSommation of absolute errr- ,lii 7

Count of obseroot son l, ~~~~~~''~~#A4iP %il .iv2~~~~ . Projection of OngoingrojetiYear OngoPnrYearbje nfonfor SendYYaa

CAB us % of GOP (etir) 1)890 1)89 1892 1)892 1)894 U)895O-orestimation pmp.K$i'" D 'i ff. I. vrassnsooorod nosasusoosmvson

Averge Difference for World 42' 33 3.3 2. 3.1 2.2 6.oaio,oiOrm e0i

1)890 1)891 1)892 1)893 1)894 1)895Summation of absolute errrs Count of observations

Three year auerag. 1)9 11 )92 1)89 1)894 US"9Oner estimation 22:i9 i < 1 55 1 Average Differense for Wordd 33 1 1 1. . .

ff90 1)891 1)892 1)893 1)894 1)899 Ouseome so s.c ~g Nllpls I..' n so 50 50 itProjections ure Ussi erso Goon91 Ucmv' esor yos Grn o -o irn m G

Projeotion of trot year Three Year Anerage


EDT/GDPOngoig.. YearMM

US$0 usD1 US92 US93 US94 US95 US$8 USD7 200 -4 Overeseimation $4 7 t 10.5 15.5 14.2 1.7 ' OA"

*DNO)Vb 2889 #sON/Si 89 11.4 7.0; 8.7 9.6ASn ,,t,a,oat t

USD0 US91 US92 US93 US94 US95 US96 USD7 Is 7Countofobservations t.o0 -973. ' '-- '25 $ ojeti;g420r 23.0 #00too

First year P-jertio,,EDTIGDP U5 S0 US91 US92 US93 US94 US95 US$6 to|Over estimation .0 0g 0 "04 tf 1. -'1f2 14jAverage Difference forWold D1V13 28.1 80DM00 16.5 10.5 14.2 1217

US$0 US$o US$2 USD3 US$4 US$5 U0 0o 0 O 0 90 00 to itt 9 0Sjmmatin of absolute ro.00 031 -0 0 52 -32Dvn sivs snrt rots ott6 Io ot vo I ot rOs 7oo rloa tonC-otofobs-emann 0.0 trO .0.0 2Q04 25 5f.250 -___i~ ~

Projection of Ongoing Year Projecton for Sewnd Year

TDSIXGS _ I__ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ___

E ng/GDP USD0 US$1 US92 US93 US$4 US95 Ur

Coer estimation iso '- I.0 tO .3 .- 0 _Average Diferenrce fcr World 128//Ol 23. 7.2S 1624 9.0 6.D 7. U 0 jgo ooWald A ton 0

USD0 US91 US92 US93 US94 US95 U15Summabon of aoso]ute errorn 0.0 46.t| 1159 |4 US20 V9Count of observa.tons 04 $00 04 20.0 2.0.25* too

5 - r - r - - I~~~~~mo .;

Three year average US$0 US$1 US$2 USD3 US$4 USD5Over astimanon 8~~~~~~~.0 A4 '0.0o tO 94,0 So4OrSo

Average Diffreoof onvord #D10V/S 201 t oVI! 10$ 12$ 10Db S, SJ00

US$0Q US$1 US92 US$3 US94 US95 ,, Oi onOutcor,e t3070 t3,Z -0O0 211.0 25l aa 0 9 0 i. la i O 50 00 t.t it ianPro,ettion 0e,0 $0.0v 0.05 -2.0- 23f.3--US0 * onto oti so- onto rota Jns into o usi root root mo 0 uS95

Projection of fint year Thbee Year AverageOngoing Year " _________ . -

US$0 US$1 UjS$2 US$3 USD4 USD5 US$8 USD7 A0o.Oito.,atoO00n *vonOto..rnWOOverestin,atiOn A-s ,0 5. 0.0 '04 1-- 22 $t. raan ,,ootrd 0

9.1 lbS5 3A4 11 0 17.1 8.8 7.1 6.00

US$0 USD5I US$92 USD3 USD4 USD5 US$8 US$7 Is.rOvo-Maton of absolute enroro $V. 17. SA 234 050 D%l i0Q

Cont o fobs eNations 00 701; 10 2,0 ,* IE ZZt to. IotFirst year Poeto

TOS/XGS USD5 USD1 US$2 US$2 USD4 US$5 US$861Over esti,rabo 30 $. O 100 04 14' 4Average Cifler-rr for WVotd 1286 13.7 7.2 184 8~0 6.1 7.1

USD2 USD1 US$2 US$3 USD4 USD0 USD8 It. S. 14- ..I III__2____Summnno sot ros 220. 246.1 93. 530.9 417$? $ otvt tort rt tooo ot vt 1 0000 rot von votCovt ofobservatono 48 6. 3 teS ~ Z 0 ~ 0_ _ _ ------. _ _

Projectioo of OngoinD Year Projeotton for Second Year

TDSiXGS US$0 USD1 US$2 US$3 USD4 USD5Over etimiSbon ft,0 1/&0 0.0 $8.0 li , :50% 200Aneng`o Diference fo-owndo 11.1 10.3 *$OtV0 $8 7.8 6.9 ,nOtO0,OWd

US$0O US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 USD5 'ISOorS-mmatmnof oabsolute eroo 200.0 M4 : JOA 1484 $ $44A9

00t"95in

Court ofvDboermatitn$80 M 4 .y 0,0 340 15 24 annvooat

Thooe year averuge US$0 UJS$1 US$2 US$3 USD4 US$0Ovesrentimaiot 12:0 10,0 .5 0 102.0 444 1014 orAverge CiSffernoe for VVrotS 706 7 0 901IVtO! 12 4 10 2 6.9

US$0 USD1 US$2 US$3 US$4 USD9 O toOstoomo $~~~~~~~~~37.6 052.0 1.01 1504 125j '038.to isi - O to no no i rO rt rn v a a

Projectiono 180 ', 0,,0 241,0 1200 2.~voora oo ir ounon00 ot io ra ono nv m

Projection of first year Threo year average


G8B as % of SOP (cuff)Ongoing Year so m mD

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 U.1$4 US$8 UJS$8 US$7 A,gDI go

Over eotinmation $ Acrg Dfcnnwfo ord 9~~ 48 $OOVIOi~~~~~~~4 #OrvtVS' 7.1 I 186 1.4 1.1

US$0 US$1 US92 US93 US94 US$6 US$8 V597Sum,mation of absolute errors 32Count of bsersalions

First year ProtectionS08$ as foot GOOP (curr) US$0 U$ 9S2 US$3 US$4 US$5 US$8Over estimation tO iP 9 9if j 417 tAverage Difference for Wontd 18e $DIV9i #iVt~ 856 7.1 1.8 2.0

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 U$98 us$8o%0 0 o vo o n 0 0 0 iv 0 ~Summation of absolute erros M" fiii M -~~4 4"~~~tsO051 0U200 0409 150909 Osl 01 9 00 100 90

Count of observations ' 4 '~i,,0 4 4 *, ZProjection of Ongoing Year Projection for Se...nd Year

GB$ asfo of GDP (cu-) US$ S1 U$92 US$3 US$4 US$50 Over estimation 90 &* 90r49 '~

Average Difference for Wortd 2.8 MIMIb $btV0I! 54 8 3 oM a ithno o ol 9 o,g0itioo o ir

U$90 US$91 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$8 Summation of absolute errorn 6i i

Count of volser,ationes 44 4 9 4

Three year average US$8 O US1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$53 Over estimation 0 44 4 ~ o

44'g

4 4 fAverage Difference for World 22 #cOlVio wotwol e 08 1.7

US$0 US$1 US$2 US$3 US$4 US$8Outcome l 44'' 0406 225 .0 90 i n30 o 4

Projectionso UMj4 2 A.A .t"09 949 000 W950 940 905 10i LOn 4900 -S0 0990 -19

Projectino of first year Three near average

Policy Research Working Paper Seriec

Contactiaua Author Date for pa,a"

WVPS2046 Retrudcuri. g of insider-Dominated Simeon Djankov January 1999 R. VoFirms 33722

WPS2007 O-vievship Structure and Enterprise Simeon Djankov February 1999 R. Vorestrueiuring in Six Newly 33722

irdapandunt States

WB6046 Cororupt ia in Economie Shang-Jin Wei February 1999 C. BernardoDaveloprmeit: Beneficial Grease, 31148Minor Annoyance, or Major Obstacle?

VYPS204& i;usahold Labor Supply, Kaushik Basu February 1999 M. MasonUrnemnployment, and Minimum Wage Garance Genicot 30809Legisiation Joseph E. Stiglitz

WPS2J50 Measuving Aid Flows: A New Charles C. Chang February 1999 E. KhineApproach Eduardo Fern6ndez-Arias 37471

Luis Serv6n

WPS2051 Hmo Stronger Protection of Carsten Fink February 1999 L WillemsIntellzetual Property Rights Affects Carlos A. Primo Braga 85153Srternational Trade Flows

WPS2052 Tha MEcro Wage Curve and Labor Dorte Verner February 1999 H. VargasMarket Flaxibility in Zimbabwe 37871

WPS203 tMarnaging Foreign Labor in Singapore Elizabeth Ruppert February 1999 A. SperiingAnd Ma5aysia: Are There Lessons for 37079GCOCountries?

WPS20Ob Who Contlr Is East Asian Stijn Claessens February 1999 R. VoCorporations? Simeon Djankov 33722

Larry H. P. Lang

WPS2Gt5 Soc.a7 S curity Reform, Income Carlos Serrano February 1999 'M. de Leoa,rza

DJis`tution, Fiscal Policy, and 38902

Capital Acciumulation

WS 7S2U68d Duezs a7 Or, Foreign Exchange Hong G. Min February 1999 K M 37. i

6ack<tA Lesad to Destabilizing Judith A. McDonald 31 9'''

a Speculation in theAv-ian Crisis Countries?

WRSBv7C t-la v arand the Sources of Growth Thorsten Beck February 1999 K ab77i-

Ross Levine 31 o 0' 1Norman Loayza

VV-82056 Dcf DCposit0ors Punish Banks for Maria Soledad Martinez Fe7buary 1999 A. san*7>

Ead" hahavior? Market Discpline Peria 3EB26in Ar7antina, Chile, and Mexico Sergio L. Schmukler

Policy Research Working Paper Series

ContactTM&h Author Date for papr

WPS2046 Restructuring of Insider-Dominated Simeon Djankov January 1999 R. VoFirms 33722

WPS2947 Ovnsrsahip Structure and Enterprise Simeon Djankov February 1999 R. VaRestructuring in Six Newiy 33722Independent States

WPS2048 Coruption in Economic Shang-Jin Wei February 1999 C. BernardoDevelopment: Beneficial Grease, 31148Minor Annoyance, or Major Obstacle?

WP52049 Household Labor Supply, Kaushik Basu February 1999 M. MasonUnemployment, and Minimum Wage Garance Genicot 30809Legislation Joseph E. Stiglitz

WPS2050 Measuing, A,d Flows: A New Charles C. Chang February 1999 E. KhineApp7roach Eduardo Fernmndez-Arias 37471

Luis Servdn

WPS2051 How Sranger Protection of Carsten Fink February 1999 L. Willemsinte5lectual Property Rights Affects Carlos A. Primo Braga 85153International Trade Flows

WPS2052 The Mscro Wage Curve and Labor Dorte Verner February 1999 H. VargasMarket Flexibility in Zimbabwe 37871

WPS2053 aran8ging Foreign Labor in Singapore Elizabeth Ruppert February 1999 A. Spa, ingAnd Malaysia: Are There Lessons for 37079GCC Courntries?

WPS2054 Who Controls East Asian Stijn Claessens February 1999 R. VoCorporations? Simeon Djankov 33722

Larry H. P. Lang

WPS20.5 Socia3 Security Reform, Income Carlos Serrano February 1999 Wt. de LoayzaDistribution, Fiscal Policy, and 38902Capital Accumulation

WPS2056 DoE-s a Thin Foreign Exchange Hong G. Min February 1999 K. Lab7ieMarkee Lead to Destabilizing Judith A. McDonald 3 100ICa,piftalarket Speculation in theAsian Crisis Countries?

WBPS2iS7 Finance and the Sources of Growth Thorsten Beck February 1999 K. 11abrieRoss Levine 31001Norman Loayza

WPS2058 Do Depositors Punish Banks for Maria Soledad Martinez February 1999 A. Yaptanuu'ad' Behavior? Market Discpline Peria 3852eiAe Argentina, Chile, and Mexico Sergio L. Schmukler

Survey Projections: How Accurate Are They? · 2016-08-30 · THE WORLD BANK'S UNIFIED SURVEY...

Documents

Transcript of Survey Projections: How Accurate Are They? · 2016-08-30 · THE WORLD BANK'S UNIFIED SURVEY...