Kelet-közép-európai devizaárfolyamok előrejelzése határidős árfolyamok segítségével (Forecasting the exchange rates of three Central-Eastern European currencies with forward exchange rates)

Írásunkban azt vizsgáljuk, hogy a hosszú lejáratú határidős árfolyamok stacionaritását feltételező hibakorrekciós modellek, amelyeknek korábbi számítások szerint - a világ devizapiaci forgalmának mintegy 75 százalékát kitevő fejlett ipari országokra alkalmazva - kitűnő a mintán kívüli előrejelző erejük, hogyan képesek három keletközép- európai ország devizaárfolyamát előrejelezni. A három vizsgálat alá vont deviza (cseh, magyar, lengyel) esetében az eredmények relációnként nagyon eltérnek, és összességében kedvezőtlenebbek, mint a fejlett ipari országokra kapott eredmények, amit a nem teljesen rugalmas árfolyamrezsim, a rendelkezésre álló adatsor rövidsége, az eurózóna-csatlakozáshoz kapcsolódó bizonytalanságok, a devizakockázati és a határidős kamatprémium létezése, továbbá a Balassa-Samuelson-hatás együttes befolyásaként tudunk értelmezni. JEL kód: E43, F31, F47. /===/ This paper studies whether models that assume long-maturity forward exchange rates are stationary (which proved in earlier studies to provide superior forecasting ability when applied to exchange rates of major currencies) are capable of forecasting the Euro exchange rates of three Central-East European currencies (the Czech koruna, Hungarian forint and Polish zloty). The results for the three currencies differ from each other and are generally much worse than those obtained earlier for major currencies. These unfavourable results are attributed to the consequences of managed exchange-rate systems, to the short time series available, to uncertainties related to future Euro-zone entry, to the existence of a foreign exchange and term premium, and to the Balassa–Samuelson effect.

Az agrárkereskedelem változása Magyarország és az Európai Unió között a csatlakozás után (The post-accession change in agricultural trading between Hungary and the EU)

2004-ben Magyarország kilenc közép-kelet-európai országgal együtt csatlakozott az Európai Unióhoz, ami számos változást idézett elő az agrárkereskedelem terén. A cikk célja, hogy a legfrissebb adatok és a szakirodalmi fejlemények tükrében bemutassa, hogyan alakult Magyarországon a mezőgazdasági alapanyagok és a feldolgozott termékek kereskedelme az Európai Unióval. A megnyilvánuló komparatív előnyök módszerét alkalmazva a cikk számos következtetésre jutott. Először is világossá vált, hogy a csatlakozás növelte az agrárkereskedelem intenzitását, ám negatív hatással volt a kereskedelem egyenlegére. Kimutatható továbbá, hogy Magyarország az alacsony hozzáadott értékű alapanyagexportra és a magas hozzáadott értékű feldolgozott termékek importjára koncentrált a csatlakozás után, noha ezek komparatív előnyei nagymértékben megváltoztak egy hatékony alkalmazkodási folyamat következtében. A változások tényét támasztják alá a különböző rövid és hosszú távú stabilitásvizsgálatok is, amelyek az agrártermékek megnövekedett versenyére utalnak az EU-15 piacán. Agrárpolitikai szempontból az elemzések alátámasztják a strukturális reformok szükségességét. / === / Numerous changes in agricultural trading from the EU accession of Hungary and nine other Central-East European countries in 2004. The article sets out to present, in the light of the latest figures and written contributions, how Hungary’s EU trade in agricultural raw and semi-processed products developed thereafter. It uses the method of manifest comparative advantages to reach its conclusions. First, it became clear that accession increased the intensity of agricultural trading, although it had a detrimental effect on the trade balance. It also appeared that post-accession Hungary was concentrating on exports of basic materials of low added value and imports of processed articles with high added value, although these comparative advantages were much altered by an effective process of adaptation. The fact of the changes is supported by various short and long-term stability examinations, which point to increased competition for agricultural products on EU15 markets. From the policy point of view, the analyses support the need for structural reforms.

Ethnic groups and institutions: A study of institutional engineering in four Central and Eastern European countries

The issue of institutional engineering has gained a renewed interest with the democratic transitions of the Central and Eastern European countries, as for some states it has become a matter of state survival. The four countries examined in the study – Macedonia, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria – exemplify the difficulty in establishing a stable democratic society in the context of the resurgence of national identity. The success of ethnonational minorities in achieving the desired policies affirming or expanding their rights as a group was conditioned upon the cohesion of the minority as well as the permissiveness of state institutions in terms of participation and representation of minority members. The Hungarian minorities in Slovakia and Romania, the Turkish minority in Bulgaria, and the Albanian minority in Macedonia, formed their political organizations to represent their interests. However, in some cases the divergence of strategies or goals between factions of the minority group seriously impeded its ability to obtain the desired concessions from the majority. The difficulty in the pursuit of policies favoring the expansion of minority rights was further exacerbated in some of the cases by the impermissiveness of political institutions. The political parties representing the interest of ethnonational minorities were allowed to participate in elections, although not without suspicions about their intent and even strong opposition from majority groups, but participation in elections and subsequent representation in legislative bodies did not translate into adoption of the desired policies. The ethnonational minorities' inability to effectively influence the decision-making process was the result of the inadequacy of democratic institutions to process these demands and channel them through the normal political process in the absence of majority desire to accommodate them. Despite the promise of democratic institutions to bring about a major overhaul of the policies of forceful assimilation and disregard for minority rights, the four cases analyzed in the study demonstrate that in effect ethnonational minorities continued to be at the mercy of the majority, especially if the minority was unable to position itself as a balancing actor.

F-1 Food Assistance Program State Summary, May 2016

The Food Assistance Monthly Participation Report is a monthly summary of Food Assistance program participation, statewide and for each Iowa county. Breakouts are reported for participants also in the FIP program, those only receiving Food Assistance, and those that are receiving economic assistance under other programs (primarily Medicaid). This report may also be known as the F-1 Report.

F-1 Food Assistance Program State Summary, June 2016

The Food Assistance Monthly Participation Report is a monthly summary of Food Assistance program participation, statewide and for each Iowa county. Breakouts are reported for participants also in the FIP program, those only receiving Food Assistance, and those that are receiving economic assistance under other programs (primarily Medicaid). This report may also be known as the F-1 Report.

F-1 Food Assistance Program State Summary, July 2016

The Food Assistance Monthly Participation Report is a monthly summary of Food Assistance program participation, statewide and for each Iowa county. Breakouts are reported for participants also in the FIP program, those only receiving Food Assistance, and those that are receiving economic assistance under other programs (primarily Medicaid). This report may also be known as the F-1 Report.

F-1 Food Assistance Program State Summary, May 2016

The Food Assistance Monthly Participation Report is a monthly summary of Food Assistance program participation, statewide and for each Iowa county. Breakouts are reported for participants also in the FIP program, those only receiving Food Assistance, and those that are receiving economic assistance under other programs (primarily Medicaid). This report may also be known as the F-1 Report.

F-1 Food Assistance Program State Summary, May 2016

The Food Assistance Monthly Participation Report is a monthly summary of Food Assistance program participation, statewide and for each Iowa county. Breakouts are reported for participants also in the FIP program, those only receiving Food Assistance, and those that are receiving economic assistance under other programs (primarily Medicaid). This report may also be known as the F-1 Report.

F-1 Food Assistance Program State Summary, June 2016

The Food Assistance Monthly Participation Report is a monthly summary of Food Assistance program participation, statewide and for each Iowa county. Breakouts are reported for participants also in the FIP program, those only receiving Food Assistance, and those that are receiving economic assistance under other programs (primarily Medicaid). This report may also be known as the F-1 Report.

F-1 Food Assistance Program State Summary, June 2016

The Food Assistance Monthly Participation Report is a monthly summary of Food Assistance program participation, statewide and for each Iowa county. Breakouts are reported for participants also in the FIP program, those only receiving Food Assistance, and those that are receiving economic assistance under other programs (primarily Medicaid). This report may also be known as the F-1 Report.

F-1 Food Assistance Program State Summary, July 2016

The Food Assistance Monthly Participation Report is a monthly summary of Food Assistance program participation, statewide and for each Iowa county. Breakouts are reported for participants also in the FIP program, those only receiving Food Assistance, and those that are receiving economic assistance under other programs (primarily Medicaid). This report may also be known as the F-1 Report.

F-1 Food Assistance Program State Summary, August 2016

The Food Assistance Monthly Participation Report is a monthly summary of Food Assistance program participation, statewide and for each Iowa county. Breakouts are reported for participants also in the FIP program, those only receiving Food Assistance, and those that are receiving economic assistance under other programs (primarily Medicaid). This report may also be known as the F-1 Report.

F-1 Food Assistance Program State Summary, July 2016

The Food Assistance Monthly Participation Report is a monthly summary of Food Assistance program participation, statewide and for each Iowa county. Breakouts are reported for participants also in the FIP program, those only receiving Food Assistance, and those that are receiving economic assistance under other programs (primarily Medicaid). This report may also be known as the F-1 Report.

F-1 Food Assistance Program State Summary, September 2016

The Food Assistance Monthly Participation Report is a monthly summary of Food Assistance program participation, statewide and for each Iowa county. Breakouts are reported for participants also in the FIP program, those only receiving Food Assistance, and those that are receiving economic assistance under other programs (primarily Medicaid). This report may also be known as the F-1 Report.

F-1 Food Assistance Program State Summary, September 2016

The Food Assistance Monthly Participation Report is a monthly summary of Food Assistance program participation, statewide and for each Iowa county. Breakouts are reported for participants also in the FIP program, those only receiving Food Assistance, and those that are receiving economic assistance under other programs (primarily Medicaid). This report may also be known as the F-1 Report.