BOFIT calculations (primarily based on Kerola (2019)) point out a slower tempo of development than formally reported. Yr-on-Yr, the straightforward common of different calculations is lower than 4%, in comparison with the 4.9% formally reported (which is on the prime quality of development charges from the choice calculations).
Supply: BOFIT.
Apparently, the Q2 hole isn’t as giant as that reported by Fernald et al. as mentioned on this submit: 3.9% vs. 6.3%. The Fernald et al. method locations higher weight on commerce information than does the varied approaches adopted by Kerola (2019), so there isn’t a explicit purpose for the estimates to match.
