Central vs Peripheral Euro Countries

Given the low impact that changing the group of analysis had on the results of the indicators being studied, we will now focus on a specific set of countries that are known to have had the most damaging impact on the last economic crisis (Portugal, Italy, Spain and Greece - also known as PIGS when referred to together).

We will start by analysing the publication behaviors of these countries’ Central Banks when compared to the full set of Euro countries’ Central Banks, excluding the peripheral group.

Figure 21: Eurosystem Central Banks’, in peripheral countries, scientific publications trendline (1980-2017)

-20 -10 0 10

1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

Gross Capital

25 30 35 40

1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

GINI index

0 50 100

1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

Publications' volume

33 Figure 22: Eurosystem Central Banks’, in non-peripheral countries, scientific publications trendline (1980-2017)

A quick analysis on this indicator leads us to conclude that, even though a growing trend is perceived when analysing the peripheral’s Central Banks publication behavior, it is not as steady and smooth as the one that is apparent on the rest of the countries. In the peripheral case, there seem to be a back and forth movement on the 2006 to 2011 period. However, the same steep increasing behavior is seen on 2012 onwards, as the rest of the Euro countries’ Central Banks.

Figure 23: Eurosystem's peripheral countries Gross Domestic Product trendline (1980-2017)

Figure 24: Eurosystem's non-peripheral countries Gross Domestic Product trendline (1980-2017) Focusing on the Unemployment Rate, the peripheral indicator is steadily high over time, growing slightly from 1991 to 1996, decreasing from 1996 to 2001, stabilizing until the year 2006, since when it started to rise abruptly from 2007 until 2014, only when it started to decrease.

0 100 200 300

1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

Publications' volume

25000 30000 35000

1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

Gross Domestic Product

20000 24000 28000

1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

Gross Domestic Product

34 Figure 25: Eurosystem, peripheral countries, unemployment rate (1980-2017)

Comparing it to the unemployment rate of the other Euro countries, we see a lower average rate over time, but with similar fluctuations. Notice the increase until 1996, decrease until 2002, slight increase even though not as significant until 2004, followed by a deep decrease until 2007 and a vertiginous increase onwards until the year 2011 - slightly earlier then in the peripheral group - where it started to decrease.

Figure 26: Eurosystem, non-peripheral countries, unemployment rate (1980-2017)

Therefore, we can perceive some differences on this indicator when comparing both groups. The rate is lower for the non-peripheral group, and the recovery seems to be faster in this group as well.

Given the impact that this indicator has on the economy, we might expect it to cause some differences on the Central Banks interest and behavior.

Focusing on the Exports indicator, we notice worst results for the peripheral group when compared to the rest of the countries. The most significant point to make might be the same steep decrease on 2008/2009, bringing the exports to a deep low, being it particularly negative for the peripheral group. Concerning this indicator, there is no apparent trend to point out for neither of the groups.

Figure 27: Eurosystem, peripheral countries, exports of goods and services (1980-2017)

8 12 16 20

1990 2000 2010

Year

Unemployment rate

6 7 8 9 10

1990 2000 2010

Year

Unemployment rate

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10

1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

Exports of goods and services

35 Considering the other group of Central Banks, a similar behavior is found (same steep decrease), with the main difference being that the negative values are smaller, and the positive exports values are higher.

Figure 28: Eurosystem, non-peripheral countries, exports of goods and services (1980-2017) Regarding the Gross Capital indicator, more differences are found between both groups. The peripheral Central Banks show a similar pattern to the other group, with the main exception to this being the second decline that is found around the year 2012, showing two clear declines in a short period of time.

Figure 29: Eurosystem, peripheral countries, gross capital (1980-2017)

Figure 30: Eurosystem, non-peripheral countries, gross capital (1980-2017)

Regarding the Gini index, the higher values showed by the peripheral Central Banks show a higher deviation regarding the distribution on income. Note that in the 2008 and following years, as in the first years of analysis, the inequality is not stable. A different behavior is found on the other group, where we find that the inequality is stabilizes from 2000 until after the crisis, around 2014, where the differences start to show again. However, we need to consider that the range is smaller for the first group.

-10 -5 0 5 10 15

1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

Exports of goods and services

-10 0 10

1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

Gross Capital

-20 -10 0 10

1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

Gross Capital

36 Figure 31: Eurosystem, peripheral countries, Gini index (1980-2017)

Figure 32: Eurosystem, non-peripheral countries, Gini index (1980-2017)

In summary, this indicators analysis show that in the 1980-2017 period, the 2008 year can be perceived as a cut-off point due to its impact over the region being analyzed. Also, the different results this indicators show allow us to distinguish between two different groups inside this region, one being constituted by peripheral countries in the eurosytem, other with the non-peripheral countries in this same region. The first group is perceived, as demonstrated in this quick analysis as well, to have had a more meaningful negative effect with this 2008 crisis.

The significance of this analysis for the current thesis is the possibility to have a framework of analysis, as we intend to look at the possibility of macroeconomic changes impacting Central Banks’

publishing behavior, therefore having the same phenomenon analyzed accounting for the different impacts it had over different regions in the same system will reinforce our findings. Setting this as the basis for our analysis, we look forward to understand the impact of this systemic changes on the focus Central Banks give to their scientific publications objectives, given that it is not part of their central purpose. To do it, we will analyze publications via informetrics methods, analyze the relationship between macroeconomic indicators and publishing behaviors, as well as use markovchains to predict changes prior and pos 2008 crisis.

32 33 34 35 36

1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

GINI index

25 30 35 40

1990 2000 2010

Year

GINI index

37