You are on page 1of 14

# ASSIGNMENT

SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTORY
ECONOMETRICS

SUBMITTED BY:
SHAGUN GUPTA (13/24022)
B.A. ECONOMICS (H)
SEMESTER IV
SECTION A
ABSTRACT:
The following report is concerned with examining few economic variables and their brief analysis
using basic econometric tools, essentially by running regression. For carrying out regression,
computer software by the name of GRETL has been used. The purpose of this activity was to get
familiarized with this software and use of theoretical concepts of econometrics to real data set. OLS
estimation is used to run regression though the variables. The economic theories that are tested in the
following report are:

1. Relationship between money supply & income on the basis of Quantity Theory of Money, which
states that Money supply = k*Price Level*Income. Thus in this model we will expect a positive
sign between M1 and Disposable Income.(Model 1)
2. Relationship between income & FDI: according to economic theory,
Income (or output) = Consumption + Investment + Govt. Expenditure + Net Exports. So in this
model we will expect a positive relationship between FDI and Disposable Income, FDI being a
form of investment. (Model 2)
3. Relationship between income & savings rate: according to economic theory there is a negative
relation between income and savings rate as higher the savings rate, lesser is there left to
consume, thus not adding to the total income.(Model 3)
4. Relationship between consumption & savings rate, income, money stock: according to economic
theory there is negative relation between consumption and savings (since Savings = Income
Consumption), a positive relation between consumption and income (since Consumption =
Autonomous Consumption + c*Income), and a positive relationship between consumption and
money stock (as possession of more liquid money leads to more fluidity of money and thus more
expenditure). (Model 4)

Further, all the 4 models are converted from linear to log linear form. Then MWD test and the
Ramsey RESET test is conducted for all the models

Finally, in the last example (Model 5), the problem that arises due to multicollinearity is exhibited.

VARIABLE NAME DESCRIPTION LABEL UNIT OF MEASUREMENT
RDPIPC Real disposable income: per capita \$ million
PSR Personal savings rate %
FDI Foreign direct investment \$ million
M1 M1 money stock \$ billion
PCE Personal consumption expenditure \$ million

This is a panel dataset, for the US economy, for the time period 1959 to 2014 (thus total number of
observations = 56)

SOURCE OF DATASET:
The data has been taken from the following website: https://research.stlouisfed.org/.
TESTS CONDUCTED:
T-test for significance of i (i.e. coefficient of variable Xi (or ln Xi )

H1: i 0
Test statistic:

## where: n = number of observations

k = number of parameters to e estimated
= level of significance

H1: not H0
Test statistic:

MWD TEST:

## Hypothesis setting: H0: linear model is better fit

H1: log-linear model is better fit

We reject the null in case t-ratio for Z1 is significant and t-ratio for Z2 is insignificant.

## Hypothesis Setting: H0: Y = 1 + 2 (X) + ui is a better fit to the model

H1: Y = 1 + 2(X) + 3 + 4 +i is a better
model.

We reject the null in case 3 and 4 together come out to be significant through F-test of 2nd models
new R2 and old R2.
REGRESSION MODELS & THEIR ANALYSIS:

MODEL: 1
ECONOMIC THEORY: Relationship between money supply & income on the basis of QTM

## Model 1A: Linear Model

OLS, using observations 1959-2014 (T = 56)
Dependent variable: RDPIPC

## Coefficient Std. Error t-ratio p-value

Const 14986.6 653.851 22.9205 <0.00001
M1 0.954105 0.0525702 18.1492 <0.00001

## Mean dependent var 24287.46 S.D. dependent var 8023.073

Sum squared resid 4.99e+08 S.E. of regression 3038.790
F(1, 54) 329.3918 P-value(F) 1.21e-24
Log-likelihood 527.5183 Akaike criterion 1059.037
Schwarz criterion 1063.087 Hannan-Quinn 1060.607
Rho 0.945789 Durbin-Watson 0.102050

INTERPRETATION:
2 here is +0.954105: this implies that a unit increase in M1 will lead to an increase of 0.954105
units in the expected value of RDPIPC. This model is consistent with the quantity theory of money
which states that: Money supply = k*GDP*(General Price level), which shows that money supply is
directly proportional to GDP. Thus the positive sign of 2 here is consistent with the background
economic theory.
Another route through which the direct relationship can be explained between M1 and RDPIPC is
that when money supply increases, it reduces the rate of interest, thus increasing the investment done
in the economy. Hence the income or output also increases.
Since here the t-ratio for 2 is 18.1492, thus M1 is a significant variable in this model.

## Model 1B: Log-linear or Semi-log Model

OLS, using observations 1959-2014 (T = 56)
Dependent variable: ln RDPIPC

## Coefficient Std. Error t-ratio p-value

Const 6.66415 0.0921821 72.2934 <0.00001
Ln M1 0.382302 0.0103861 36.8089 <0.00001
Mean dependent var 10.04022 S.D. dependent var 0.349579
Sum squared resid 0.257613 S.E. of regression 0.069070
F(1, 54) 1354.894 P-value(F) 6.26e-40
Log-likelihood 71.22560 Akaike criterion 138.4512
Schwarz criterion 134.4005 Hannan-Quinn 136.8808
Rho 0.931636 Durbin-Watson 0.121488
INTERPRETATION:
2 (= +0.38) here represents elasticity, which implies that 1% increase in M1 will to 38% increase in
expected value of RDPIPC. Since the value of 2 (= +0.38) is less than 1, thus real income is
inelastic with respect to money supply.

## THE MWD TEST:

Model 1C:
OLS, using observations 1959-2014 (T = 56)
Dependent variable: RDPIPC

## Coefficient Std. Error t-ratio p-value

Const 16641.8 452.204 36.8014 <0.00001
M1 0.82827 0.0360417 22.9809 <0.00001
Z1 26643.9 2943.1 -9.0530 <0.00001

As we can see that t-ratio for Z1 is pretty significant with a value of -9.0530. Thus we reject H0,
implying that log-linear model is better.

Model 1D:
OLS, using observations 1959-2014 (T = 56)
Dependent variable: ln RDPIPC

## Coefficient Std. Error t-ratio p-value

Const 5.66971 0.421432 13.4534 <0.00001
ln M1 0.545551 0.0683743 7.9789 <0.00001
Z2 1.84447e-05 7.64301e-06 2.4133 0.01930

As we can see that t-ratio for Z2 is 2.4133, which will be rejected at 0.5% significance. Thus we
conclude that log- linear is better fit.

## Auxiliary regression for RESET specification test

OLS, using observations 1959-2014 (T = 56)
Dependent variable: RDPIPC

## coefficient std. error t-ratio p-value

const 18762.2 7500.70 2.501 0.0156 **
M1 2.81724 1.17219 2.403 0.0198 **
3.31578e-05 4.30372e-05 0.7704 0.4445

## Test statistic: F = 63.776706,

with p-value = P (F(2,52) > 63.7767) = 1.02e-014.
Since, p-value = P(F(2,52) > 63.7767) = 1.02e-014 is a very small probability, we reject H0. This
implies that the earlier model was incorrectly specified and that the new model is a better fit.
MODEL: 2
ECONOMIC THEORY: Relationship between income & FDI

## Model 2A: Linear Model

OLS, using observations 1959-2014 (T = 56)
Dependent variable: RDPIPC

## Coefficient Std. Error t-ratio p-value

Const 18478.7 577.104 32.0197 <0.00001
FDI 0.00739124 0.000459879 16.0721 <0.00001

## Mean dependent var 24287.46 S.D. dependent var 8023.073

Sum squared resid 6.12e+08 S.E. of regression 3366.872
F(1, 54) 258.3135 P-value(F) 3.12e-22
Log-likelihood 533.2597 Akaike criterion 1070.519
Schwarz criterion 1074.570 Hannan-Quinn 1072.090
Rho 0.969882 Durbin-Watson 0.032155

INTERPRETATION:
2 is +0.00739124: this implies that a unit increase in FDI will lead to a increase of 0.00739124 units
in expected value of RDPIPC. This model again is consistent with the economic theory- an increase
in FDI adds to an economys investment component of the GDP (= C + I + G + X-M), thus giving a
positive relation between FDI and RDPIPC.
Since here the absolute t-ratio for 2 is 16.0721, thus FDI is a significant variable.

## Model 2B: Log- linear Model

OLS, using observations 1959-2014 (T = 56)
Dependent variable: ln RDPIPC

## Coefficient Std. Error t-ratio p-value

const 8.11613 0.0541899 149.7721 <0.00001
ln FDI 0.158583 0.0043984 36.0547 <0.00001

## Mean dependent var 10.04022 S.D. dependent var 0.349579

Sum squared resid 0.268068 S.E. of regression 0.070457
F(1, 54) 1299.944 P-value(F) 1.84e-39
Log-likelihood 70.11166 Akaike criterion 136.2233
Schwarz criterion 132.1726 Hannan-Quinn 134.6529
rho 0.911982 Durbin-Watson 0.112327

INTERPRETATION:
2 (= +0.158) here represents elasticity, which implies that 1% increase in FDI will to 15.8% increase
in the expected value of RDPIPC. Since the value of 2 (= +0.158) is less than 1, thus real income is
inelastic with respect to FDI.
THE MWD TEST:

Model 2C:
OLS, using observations 1959-2014 (T = 56)
Dependent variable: RDPIPC

## Coefficient Std. Error t-ratio p-value

Const 18999.8 218.63 86.9041 <0.00001
FDI 0.00716209 0.000173174 41.3579 <0.00001
Z1 17574.1 967.642 -18.1618 <0.00001

As we can see that t-ratio for Z1 is -18.1618, which is pretty significant. Thus we conclude that log-
linear is better fit.

Model 2D:
OLS, using observations 1959-2014 (T = 56)
Dependent variable: ln RDPIPC

## Coefficient Std. Error t-ratio p-value

Const 8.04051 0.057239 140.4726 <0.00001
Z2 7.69856e-06 2.6728e-06 -2.8803 0.00572
ln FDI 0.164778 0.00465494 35.3985 <0.00001

As we can see that t-ratio for Z2 is 2.8803, which is also significant. Thus we cannot conclude that
log- linear is better fit.

## Auxiliary regression for RESET specification test

OLS, using observations 1959-2014 (T = 56)
Dependent variable: RDPIPC

## coefficient std. error t-ratio p-value

const 131814 19464.0 6.772 1.14e-08 ***
FDI 0.106560 0.0152784 6.975 5.43e-09 ***
0.000413496 7.25655e-05 5.698 5.74e-07 ***
3.99585e-09 8.18339e-010 4.883 1.04e-05 ***

## Test statistic: F = 74.383011,

with p-value = P(F(2,52) > 74.383) = 5.57e-016

Since, p-value = P(F(2,52) > 74.383) = 5.57e-016 is a very small probability, we reject H0. This
implies that the earlier model was incorrectly specified and that the new model is a better fit.
MODEL: 3
ECONOMIC THEORY: Relationship between income & PSR

## Model 3A: Linear Model

OLS, using observations 1959-2014 (T = 56)
Dependent variable: RDPIPC

## Coefficient Std. Error t-ratio p-value

Const 43913.6 1482.82 29.6150 <0.00001
PSR 2332.48 165.859 -14.0631 <0.00001

## Mean dependent var 24287.46 S.D. dependent var 8023.073

Sum squared resid 7.59e+08 S.E. of regression 3749.905
F(1, 54) 197.7697 P-value(F) 1.08e-19
Log-likelihood 539.2935 Akaike criterion 1082.587
Schwarz criterion 1086.638 Hannan-Quinn 1084.157
Rho 0.754371 Durbin-Watson 0.421582

INTERPRETATION:
2 is -2332.48: this implies that a unit increase in PSR will lead to a decrease of 2332.48 units in the
expected value of RDPIPC. The negative sign of 2 is consistent with the economic theory as
increase in savings leads to decrease in current years consumption and thus income. (However
higher current savings lead to higher investment in future.)
Since here the absolute t-ratio for 2 is 14.063, thus PSR is significant variable.

## Model 3B: Log-linear Model

OLS, using observations 1959-2014 (T = 56)
Dependent variable: ln RDPIPC
Coefficient Std. Error t-ratio p-value
Const 11.464 0.131847 86.9493 <0.00001
ln PSR 0.693721 0.0629631 -11.0179 <0.00001
Mean dependent var 10.04022 S.D. dependent var 0.349579
Sum squared resid 2.069337 S.E. of regression 0.195758
F(1, 54) 121.3941 P-value(F) 1.98e-15
Log-likelihood 12.88690 Akaike criterion 21.77381
Schwarz criterion 17.72310 Hannan-Quinn 20.20336
rho 0.776045 Durbin-Watson 0.348991

INTERPRETATION:
2 (= -0.693) here represents elasticity, which implies that 1% decrease in PSR will to 69.3%
increase in expected value of RDPIPC. Since the value of 2 (= -0.693) is less than -1, thus real
income is inelastic with respect to savings rate.
THE MWD TEST:

Model 3C:
OLS, using observations 1959-2014 (T = 56)
Dependent variable: RDPIPC

## Coefficient Std. Error t-ratio p-value

const 44128.8 1522.28 28.9886 <0.00001
PSR 2352.1 169.071 -13.9119 <0.00001
Z1 3736.03 5409.77 -0.6906 0.49283

As we can see that t-ratio for Z1 is -0.6906, which is not significant. Thus we conclude that linear
model is a better fit.

Model 3D:
OLS, using observations 1959-2014 (T = 56)
Dependent variable: ln RDPIPC

## Coefficient Std. Error t-ratio p-value

Const 11.5361 0.134743 85.6159 <0.00001
ln PSR 0.728703 0.0644319 -11.3097 <0.00001
Z2 8.69879e-06 4.70112e-06 -1.8504 0.06984

As we can see that t-ratio for Z2 is -1.8504, which is not significant. Thus we conclude that log-
linear is better fit.

Since there is a contradiction in this particular models test, we can use both the models.

## Auxiliary regression for RESET specification test

OLS, using observations 1959-2014 (T = 56)
Dependent variable: RDPIPC

## coefficient std. error t-ratio p-value

const 359199 90248.2 3.980 0.0002 ***
PSR 23668.1 5814.29 4.071 0.0002 ***
0.000453623 0.000102538 4.424 4.98e-05 ***
5.87651e-09 1.35628e-09 4.333 6.75e-05 ***

## Test statistic: F = 10.033524,

with p-value = P(F(2,52) > 10.0335) = 0.000207

Since, p-value = P(F(2,52) > 10.0335) = 0.000207 is a very small probability, we reject H0. This
implies that the earlier model was incorrectly specified and that the new model is a better fit.
MODEL: 4
ECONOMIC THEORY: Relationship between PCE & income, PSR, M1

## Model 4A: Linear Model

OLS, using observations 1959-2014 (T = 56)
Dependent variable: PCE

## Coefficient Std. Error t-ratio p-value

Const 1757.61 1063.4 -1.6528 0.10439
RDPIPC 0.19951 0.0342657 5.8224 <0.00001
PSR 131.742 56.8957 -2.3155 0.02456
M1 0.22002 0.0274612 8.0120 <0.00001

## Mean dependent var 4124.284 S.D. dependent var 3651.325

Sum squared resid 18264541 S.E. of regression 592.6560
F(3, 52) 678.5510 P-value(F) 1.16e-41
Log-likelihood 434.9239 Akaike criterion 877.8479
Schwarz criterion 885.9493 Hannan-Quinn 880.9888
Rho 0.933880 Durbin-Watson 0.118955

INTERPRETATION:
2 here is equal to +0.19951, which means that when RDPIPC increases by 1 unit, expected value of
PCE will increase by 0.19951 units. The positive relation between PCE and RDPIPC is in
accordance with the Keynesian consumption function (C = Ca + cY), thus giving a positive sign for
2 .
3 is equal to -131.742, which implies that an increase of a unit in PSR will lead to a 131.742 fall in
expected value of PCE. The negative relation between PSR and PCE is in consistence with the
economic theory that income has 2 components: savings and consumption (Y = S + C, => C = Y
S).
4 is equal to +0.22002 which means that an increase in M1 by a unit will lead to an increase of
0.22002 in expected value of PCE. The positive relation seen between PCE and M1 is due to the fact
that more money supply available in the market, the more people will have in hand to spend.
Since the t-ratio for all the 3 coefficients are high are large enough (>2), hence all 3 variables are
significant in the above model.

## Model 4B: Log-linear Model

OLS, using observations 1959-2014 (T = 56)
Dependent variable: ln PCE

## Coefficient Std. Error t-ratio p-value

Const 14.4303 1.38149 -10.4455 <0.00001
ln M1 0.623549 0.0723566 8.6177 <0.00001
ln RDPIPC 1.68079 0.19108 8.7963 <0.00001
ln PSR 0.0826155 0.0546069 -1.5129 0.13636

## Mean dependent var 7.782194 S.D. dependent var 1.173651

Sum squared resid 0.460513 S.E. of regression 0.094106
F(3, 52) 2834.219 P-value(F) 1.39e-57
Log-likelihood 54.96091 Akaike criterion 101.9218
Schwarz criterion 93.82041 Hannan-Quinn 98.78092
Rho 0.996777 Durbin-Watson 0.141312

2 (= +0.623) here represents elasticity of PCE w.r.t M1, which implies that 1% increase in M1 will
to 62.3% increase in expected value of PCE and also since the value of 2 (= +0.623) is less than 1,
thus personal consumption is inelastic with respect to money supply.
3 (= +1.68) here represents elasticity of PCE w.r.t RDPIPC, which implies that 1% increase in
RDPIPC will to 168% increase in expected value of PCE, and also since the value of 3 (= +1.68) is
more than 1, thus personal consumption is elastic with respect to real income.
4 (= -0.0826) here represents elasticity of PCE w.r.t PSR, which implies that 1% increase in PSR
will to 8.26% decrease in expected value of PCE, and also since the value of 3 (= +-0.0826) is less
than 1, thus personal consumption is inelastic with respect to savings rate.

## THE MWD TEST:

Model 4C:
OLS, using observations 1959-2014 (T = 56)
Dependent variable: PCE

## Coefficient Std. Error t-ratio p-value

const 6282.16 1172.06 -5.3599 <0.00001
PSR 31.0721 53.8641 0.5769 0.56657
RDPIPC 0.348592 0.0381772 9.1309 <0.00001
M1 0.153448 0.0248974 6.1632 <0.00001
z1 0.170437 0.0305497 -5.5790 <0.00001

As we can see that t-ratio for Z1 is -5.5790, which is pretty significant. Thus we conclude that log-
linear is better fit.

Model 4D:
OLS, using observations 1959-2014 (T = 56)
Dependent variable: ln PCE

## Coefficient Std. Error t-ratio p-value

Const 13.8138 1.06754 -12.9398 <0.00001
ln M1 0.646331 0.0557862 11.5859 <0.00001
ln RDPIPC 1.60763 0.14748 10.9007 <0.00001
ln PSR 0.120443 0.0424654 -2.8363 0.00653
z2 6.97553e-05 1.14868e-05 -6.0726 <0.00001

As we can see that t-ratio for Z1 is -6.0726, which is pretty significant. Thus we conclude that linear
model is a better fit.
THE RAMSEY TEST:

## Auxiliary regression for RESET specification test

OLS, using observations 1959-2014 (T = 56)
Dependent variable: PCE

## coefficient std. error t-ratio p-value

const 1890.19 385.860 4.899 1.05e-05 ***
RDPIPC 0.134992 0.0174267 7.746 4.11e-010 ***
PSR 57.9357 28.1500 2.058 0.0448 **
M1 0.109034 0.0224540 4.856 1.22e-05 ***
0.000177672 1.34777e-05 13.18 6.78e-018 ***
7.94443e-09 8.92335e-010 8.903 6.90e-012 ***
Test statistic: F = 174.209520,
with p-value = P(F(2,50) > 174.21) = 2.92e-023

Since, p-value = P(F(2,52) > 174.21) = 2.92e-023 is a very small probability, we reject H0, and thus
the restricted model is not a good fit/ misspecified.

MODEL: 5
OLS, using observations 1959-2014 (T = 56)
Dependent variable: RDPIPC

## Coefficient Std. Error t-ratio p-value

Const 7031.99 1638.23 4.2924 0.00008
M1 0.10594 0.0716105 -1.4794 0.14519
PCE 5.23158 0.353286 14.8083 <0.00001
PSR 497.864 128.344 3.8791 0.00030
FDI 0.00951452 0.000874324 -10.8821 <0.00001

As it can be seen that when regression is carried out with RDIPC as dependent variable and FDI,
PSR, M1 & PCE as explanatory variables, the whole regression analysis falls apart as there is no
consistency with economic theory (except in the case of PCE). This problem arises due to
multicollinearity. Hence no interpretation can be given for this model without first analyzing the
effect of this multicollinearity in detail.
CONCLUSION:
The study conducted above for the period of 56 years on U.S economy has displayed the validity of
all the economic theories mentioned in the abstract beforehand, viz.,

1. Model 1 showed a positive relationship between money supply and real income, thus
validating QTM. It also showed that money supply is significant variable in the model, hence
the model was a good fit, though income was inelastic with respect to it. Also, according to
the MWD test, we find that the log linear model is a better fit that the simple linear model,
which is also stressed by the Ramsey test- it concludes that the original model was not as
good as the new unrestricted model. (for the un/restricted models see the abstract)

2. Model 2 showed a positive relationship between FDI and real disposable income, thus
confirming the economic theory that suggests that investment is a component in determining
the total income of an economy. Even though FDI is a significant variable in the model, real
disposable income is inelastic with respect to FDI. The MWD test suggests that the log linear
model is a better fit than the simple linear model. The Ramsey test says that the originally
specified model is incorrect and the new model is a better fit.

3. Model 3 showed a negative relation saving rate and the real disposable income, thus
confirming the economic theory that suggest that consumption and savings rate are negatively
related, thus savings is negatively related to current years real income (as consumption is a
vital component in determining the income. The t-test suggests that the PSR is a significant
variable in the model, although inelastic w.r.t savings rate. The MWD gives an indecisive
conclusion regarding the fitness of the log-linear or simple linear model, thus we can use both.
The Ramsey test shows that the initial model is incorrectly specified and the new unrestricted
model is better.

4. Model 4 also confirms all the economic theory once again- consumption expenditure is
positively related to real income and money supply, while negatively related to savings rate.
All the explanatory variables are significant while only income induces an elastic behavior to
consumption. The MWD says both models- linear and log linear are appropriate fit, while
Ramsey suggests that the simple linear model is misspecified.

Since all the economic theories are validated in this study, we can conclude all the above 4
models as suitable.
APPENDIX:
The dataset:

YEAR PSR FDI RDPIPC PCE M1 YEAR PSR FDI RDPIPC PCE M1
1959 10.3 6604 11811 317.5 1685 1987 7.3 334552 23929 3092.1 8922.7
1960 10.1 6925 11877 331.6 1683.7 1988 7.8 401766 24826 3346.9 9297.1
1961 11.3 7253 12097 342 1716.6 1989 7.8 467886 25340 3592.8 9385.8
1962 11.1 7555 12482 363.1 1757.9 1990 7.8 505346 25555 3825.6 9726.8
1963 10.6 7835 12766 382.5 1811.5 1991 8.2 533404 25395 3960.2 10307.8
1964 11.5 8147 13485 411.2 1881 1992 8.9 540270 26133 4215.7 11590.3
1965 11.3 8532 14144 443.6 1961 1993 7.3 593313 26216 4471 12940.7
1966 11.1 8947 14726 480.6 2051.6 1994 6.3 617982 26611 4741 13742.6
1967 12.2 9708 15198 507.4 2132.4 1995 6.4 680066 27180 4984.2 13716.1
1968 11.2 10468 15728 557.4 2280.9 1996 5.9 745619 27719 5268.1 13281.8
1969 10.7 11684 16102 604.5 2416.7 1997 5.7 824136 28397 5560.7 12842.8
1970 12.6 13224 16643 647.7 2509.1 1998 6.2 920044 29723 5903 12967.4
1971 13.3 13622 17191 701 2677.5 1999 4.4 1101709 30350 6307 13227.6
1972 12.1 14737 17821 769.4 2868.3 2000 4.2 1421017 31524 6792.4 13244.7
1973 13.1 17845 18725 851.1 3075.7 2001 4.3 1518473 32075 7103.1 13683
1974 12.9 22606 18343 932 3229.7 2002 5 1499952 32754 7384.1 14359.8
1975 13 25209 18613 1033 3375.9 2003 4.8 1580994 33342 7765.5 15286
1976 11.1 47528 19002 1150 3566.3 2004 4.5 1742716 34221 8260 16131.2
1977 10.2 55413 19406 1277 3838.6 2005 2.5 1905979 34424 8794.1 16461.5
1978 10.2 68976 20080 1426 4153.8 2006 3.3 2154062 35458 9304 16497.6
1979 9.8 88579 20248 1590 4470.7 2007 3 2345923 35866 9750.5 16471
1980 10.6 127105 20158 1755 4748.2 2008 4.9 2397396 36078 10013.6 17212.6
1981 11.2 164623 20458 1938 5099.6 2009 6.1 2398208 35616 9847 19652.6
1982 11.5 184842 20685 2074 5435.7 2010 5.6 2623646 35684 10202.2 20906
1983 9.5 193708 21214 2287 6038 2011 6 2798681 36298 10689.3 24119.4
1984 10.7 223538 22480 2498 6463.7 2012 7.2 2994341 37126 11083.1 27742.9
1985 8.6 247223 22960 2723 7043.4 2013 4.9 3176877 36772 11484.3 30542.2
1986 8.2 284701 23632 2898 7995.1 2014 4.9 3298932 37411 11928.6 33675