72 M. E. Kreinin
Table 9: OED Projections of GAP Deflator Naive Model
95 t 2
1 t
Conf. Country
Coef. Stat.
R
2
interv. N
United States Coef.
0.8 5.8
0.6 0.5–1.0
27 Constant
1.2 1.5
2 0.4–2.8
Japan Coef.
0.7 4.2
0.4 0.3–1.0
27 Constant
1.3 1.4
2 0.6–3.2
Germany Coef.
0.6 4.2
0.4 0.3–0.9
27 Constant
1.6 2.4
0.2–3.0 France
Coef. 0.9
9.5 0.8
0.7–1.1 27
Constant 0.6
0.8 2
0.9–2.1 United Kingdom
Coef. 0.7
4.7 0.5
0.4–1.0 27
Constant 2.6
1.8 2
0.4–5.7 Canada
Coef. 0.8
6.6 0.6
0.6–1.1 27
Constant 0.9
1.1 2
0.8–2.6 Italy
Coef. 0.9
10.3 0.8
0.7–1.1 27
Constant 1.1
1.1 2
1.0–3.2 Australia
Coef. 0.9
7.5 0.7
0.7–1.2 22
Constant 0.4
0.3 2
1.9–2.7
in 9 out of 10 years; and the Naive forecasts gives equally unbiased results Table 11.
4. UNEMPLOYMENT
Table 12 shows the OECD unemployment projections, where the U.S. results are the “best” of the eight countries, but the dual
criterion is met in six of them.
2
The midyear forecast shows a clear improvement over the year-earlier one. However, only in
half of the smaller OECD countries was the dual criterion met. In the cross-sectional analysis, the dual criterion was met in 25
out of 27 years. But the Naive model shows equally good if not better results for the eight countries as well as for the small OECD
countries Table 13. Similar observations can be made about the IMF projections not shown; but available from the author upon
request.
5. TRADE BALANCES
Only the OECD and not the IMF provide projections of trade balances. Table 14 shows the combined cross-section and time
2
The time series and cross-section combined are available from the author upon request.
ACCURACY
OF OECD
AND IMF
P ROJECTION
73
Table 10: IMF Projections of the GAP Deflator–Time Series
95 95
t 2 1
t Conf.
t 2 12
t Conf.
Country Coef.
Stat. R
2
Interv. N
Coef. Stat.
R
2
interv. N
United States Coef.
1.2 4.6
0.7 0.6–1.8
10 1.0
21.4 0.97
0.9–1.1 14
Constant 2
1.1 2
1.2 2
3.4–1.1 0.1
0.4 2
0.4–0.6 Japan
Coef. 0.2
0.3 2
0.1 2
1.1–1.5 10
0.3 2.7
0.3 0.1–0.6
14 Constant
1.0 1.0
2 1.1–3.0
0.9 2.7
0.2–1.6 Germany
Coef. 1.1
3.2 0.5
0.3–2.0 10
0.9 6.0
0.7 0.6–1.3
14 Constant
2 0.1
2 0.1
2 2.5–2.3
2 0.0
2 0.0
2 1.3–1.3
France Coef.
1.1 7.1
0.8 0.8–1.5
10 0.9
18.0 0.96
0.8–1.1 14
Constant 2
0.5 2
0.9 2
1.7–0.7 0.3
0.8 2
0.5–1.1 United Kingdom
Coef. 1.5
3.1 0.5
0.4–2.6 10
1.0 14.6
0.94 0.8–1.1
14 Constant
2 1.9
2 0.9
2 7.0–3.2
0.1 0.2
2 1.0–1.2
Canada Coef.
0.7 1.6
0.2 2
0.3–1.6 10
0.8 6.0
0.7 0.5–1.1
14 Constant
0.5 0.3
2 2.9–3.9
0.0 0.0
2 1.6–1.7
Itlay Coef.
0.6 2.8
0.4 0.1–1.1
10 1.0
16.3 0.95
0.9–1.1 14
Constant 2.7
2.0 2
0.4–5.8 0.2
0.3 2
1.3–1.7 Other OECD
Coef. 0.1
0.2 2
0.1 2
1.0–1.1 10
0.7 4.9
0.6 0.4–1.1
14 Constant
4.8 2.5
0.4–9.3 2.2
2.4 0.2–4.2
74 M. E. Kreinin
Table 11: IMF Data on Real GDP Growth Rate–Time Series Naive Model
95 t 2
1 t
Conf. Country
Coef. Stat.
R
2
interv. N
United States Coef.
0.7 5.5
0.7 0.4–1.0
14 Constant
0.8 1.1
2 0.7–2.2
Japan Coef.
0.5 2.0
0.2 2
0.4–1.1 14
Constant 0.6
1.3 2
0.1–1.7 Germany
Coef. 0.6
2.5 0.3
0.1–1.1 14
Constant 1.2
1.5 2
0.5–3.0 France
Coef. 0.9
12.3 0.9
0.7–1.1 14
Constant 2
0.2 2
0.4 2
1.3–0.9 United Kingdom
Coef. 0.5
5.6 0.7
0.3–0.7 14
Constant 2.4
3.5 0.9–3.8
Canada Coef.
0.7 5.9
0.7 0.4–0.9
14 Constant
0.7 1.3
2 0.5–1.9
Italy Coef.
0.8 8.5
0.8 0.6–1.0
14 Constant
0.7 0.6
2 1.7–3.1
Other Coef.
0.9 6.4
0.8 0.6–1.3
14 Europe
Constant 2
0.0 2
0.0 2
2.2–2.2
series regressions. The trade balances forecast is shown to be unbiased, with robust statistical properties, and superior to that
of the Naive model. The midyear projection is even better. As shown in Tables 15 and 16, the unbiasness exists in the G-5 coun-
tries in the time series analysis, and for 11 of the small OECD countries. In the cross-sectional analysis the dual criterion was
met in 21 out of 27 years 1967–94. In the Naive model, the dual criterion is met in the G-7 countries and in all the small countries
except Turkey. On the other hand, in the cross-sectional analysis the dual criterion was met in only 10 years.
6. CONCLUSION
