Macroeconomic Dynamics of Slovenia and Comparable Central European EU Member States in the Period before Coronavirus Pandemic

– The article discusses the macroecono- mic dynamics of Slovenia and four other comparable Central European EU member states in the period of twenty years before the coronavirus pandemic. To examine the differences between countries in more detail, we analyzed four periods: 2000–2004, 2004– 2007, 2008–2014 and 2017–2019. We studied the in- dicators of gross domestic product, gross investment, unemployment, wages, and exports. The findings of the research show that Slovenia's position deteriorated and stagnated until a few years before the global health crisis, while the position of most other countries improved. The key message of the research is that Slovenia did not use all its favorable economic and political foundations for growth and development be- fore and in the years after joining the EU. Slovenia's process of approaching the average of the EU mem- ber states slowed down considerably until a few years before the pandemic, while the opposite happened in some of the compared Central European EU member states. The research indicates the need to study the factors of the above mentioned position of Slovenia in the observed period with the aim of preventing stag- nation and promoting development.


Introduction
In open market economies, the values of macroeconomic indicators are under the influence of economic policy, as well as the national, regional, and global socioeconomic and political context (Abramovitz, 1986;Sokoloff & Engerman, 2000). A well-formulated concept of the country's economic policy and its measures must maintain macroeconomic stability. Economic policy goals, such as gross domestic product (GDP) growth, unemployment, gross investment, wages and export dynamics, represent the success or failure of an economic policy. In many cases, the economic policy's direct and indirect effects are unknown in advance, or the negative indirect effects outweigh the positive direct effects. Important factors are also the time dimensions of the decision-making process and the adoption and enforcement of measures. By determining monetary and fiscal instruments, governments strive to maximize the social well-being represented by economic growth and price stability (Ahtik & Mencinger, 2012). Apart from economic policy, the national, regional, and global economic and socio-political context is essential, including global political and socioeconomic stability, business regulation, the rule of law, public trust in political institutions, corporate governance, media independence, etc.
In the last thirty years, Central European countries have experienced various types of transitions from a centrally planned to a market economy. Restructuring has led to different results in these economies. Czechia, Slovakia, Poland and Hungary have exhibited several similarities with Slovenia in their socioeconomic environments and ambitions to find a position in the open European market. However, in some of these countries that had lower GDP per capita than Slovenia when they joined the EU in 2004, economic development in the following years was much more evident than in Slovenia (Ovin et al., 2006;Korez Vide 2007, 2015. Also, Slovenia evidenced a longer period of recovery after the 2008 financial crisis. In the multiannual period following the 2008 financial crisis, most Central European EU member states managed to return their economies to the pre-crisis levels. Research comparisons and discussions about Slovenia's position among comparable countries in the period after gaining independence and starting the political and economic transition in the beginning of 1990s are reasonable.
The purpose of this paper is to comparatively analyze macroeconomic dynamics of Slovenia and selected Central European EU member states in the 20 years before the coronavirus pandemic. We will pay particular attention to the effects of countries' accession to the EU and the consequences of the waves of the 2008 financial crisis on macroeconomic trends in Slovenia and the other observed countries. We will determine according to which macroeconomic indicators Slovenia fell behind the observed countries.
The paper is structured as follows: in the theoretical part, we examine the macroeconomic indicators analyzed in this research, the key effects of regional economic integration with emphasis on the EU, and the key data on the 2008 financial crisis and its impact on the EU. After setting forth the hypotheses and describing the methodology and data, we will perform the empirical analysis, followed by a discussion and conclusion.

Selected macroeconomic indicators
Gross domestic product (GDP), as the amount of goods and services produced over a period in an economy, is the most established measure of a country's productive capacity (Eurostat, 2017). A process that increases the extremes of productive capacity manifests itself as economic growth. With strong GDP growth, employment is likely to grow, and with declining GDP, employment is declining too. Over time, real GDP growth fluctuates in cycles, from periods of boom to periods of slow growth or recessions (Callen, 2020). It stems from an increase in the volume of available production factors or an increase in their efficiency. Analysis of the structure and elements of GDP growth is crucial in shaping a country's economic policy. The maximum amount that the economy can produce at stable prices is described as potential GDP. Theoretically, this can be called the level of GDP at full employment. Real GDP falls for a shorter period in a recession and does not differ much from the potential GDP. However, an extended period of decline and a larger difference between actual and potential GDP is characterized as a financial crisis or depression (Samuelson & Nordhaus, 2002).
Gross investment is defined as gross fixed capital formation, which consists of the investment of domestic producers in fixed assets in a selected period (Eurostat, 2017a). Fixed assets are tangible or intangible assets produced and used for more than one year. Investment can also be defined as an increase in the stock of productive assets, such as capital goods, i.e., equipment, buildings, and stocks. The importance of gross investment is reflected in its impact on aggregate demand, which affects GDP and unemployment (Samuelson & Nordhaus, 2002). Investment leads to capital accumulation and an increase in potential GDP, and stimulates economic growth in the long run.
Unemployment rate is an essential indicator of the economies' performance and the difference between supply and demand for labor (Eurostat, 2018). Unemployment is the ratio between the number of unemployed and the number of active people. As GDP falls, the unemployment rate rises, while low unemployment levels can trigger inflation (Samuelson & Nordhaus, 2009). When the economy is growing, unemployment decreases, while cyclical unemployment increases during the economy's contraction.
Wages are an essential factor in the structure of labor supply and demand. They indirectly affect GDP and employment rates, as well as economic growth. They can be used to measure the economy's competitiveness, as usually higher wages also mean a higher standard of living. Wage growth is, among other things, affected by the increase in international trade and foreign direct investment. Like employment and unemployment, labor migration can also affect wages.
Exports increase the number of jobs, contribute to higher wages, and raise the population's living standards. When exports are higher, the difference is surplus; when exports are smaller, the difference is a deficit. International trade stimulates economic growth. Its intensity depends on the size of the country, what it produces, its self-suf-ficiency, and the level of employment (Samuelson & Nordhaus, 2009). Exports can be encouraged or restricted by trade policies and measures.

Key effects of regional economic integration
Through regional economic integration, countries want to reduce and ultimately remove barriers to the free movement of goods, services, and factors of production. Regional integration attempts to reap the benefits of free trade and investment between countries in a region. It is easier to establish such a regime within a limited number of neighboring countries than within the world community. Free trade between economic integration's member states allows them to specialize in producing goods and services that they can deliver most efficiently (Hill, 2009). The potential effects of economic integration are higher production efficiency, resulting from a higher level of specialization and economies of scale, stronger negotiating position in international markets and the political arena, and access to technological progress by the other member states. All these effects improve the scope and quality of a country's factors of production (El-Agraa, 1997). Opening a country through entering an integration stimulates economic growth. Researchers (e. g., Baldwin & Wyplosz, 2015) agree that economic integration is good for GDP growth, although the exact correlation cannot be fully explained. The problem is that it is difficult to separate the effects of integration from many other factors that can affect economic growth.

European Union and its economic benefits
Economic integration in the EU is based on four freedoms -the free movement of goods, services, people, and capital. Almost three decades after the completion of the single market, it has brought several macroeconomic benefits. Although imperfect, it has increased production and domestic demand (Mion & Ponattu, 2019). The opening of domestic economies has increased competition, reduced markups, and lowered prices. The EU's internal market has significantly increased the possibilities for economic expansion of the new members. Firms had the possibilities to enter mergers and acquisitions in a bigger market; with larger enterprises, economies of scale also became more extensive. Lower unit costs of production resulted in higher production and higher GDP per employee. Due to the better investment climate, investments in physical capital increased.
With the accession of new countries to the EU in 2004, their economies were expected to become more mature, integrate more deeply with the old members, and, over time, reduce their deficits. The long-term goals of Slovenia were to increase prosperity, economic growth and living standards, and move closer to Western European countries. Slovenia sought to increase international trade, attract foreign capital, and increase employment and economic growth. The EU has invested heavily in the new member states, which joined in 2004, to reach the EU average in terms of growth and income through its cohesion policy.

Financial crisis
A financial crisis is a situation in the economy when financial institutions or financial assets lose part of their value. Conditions considered financial crises include stock market crashes, bursts of financial bubbles, currency crises, debt, and banking crises (Kindleberger, 2005;Eichengreen, 2002). Some authors define the banking crisis as a period of financial turmoil, which causes the loss of most or all capital in the banking system (Bordo et al., 2001). The financial crisis can cause the insolvency of the banking system and trigger the decline in the value of assets, real estate, and securities. Bank debts cause the withdrawals of savings from banks out of fear that they will become insolvent. This situation results in a domino effect: it leads to a tremendous rush and even more significant withdrawals (Diamond, 2007). Crises can arise spontaneously because of crowd psychology or because of panic.

Emergence and development of the 2008 financial crisis
Real estate prices rose sharply in the years before the 2008 financial crisis due to high demand in the United States (US) and elsewhere in the world. High demand stemmed from the ample supply of »cheap« money available to banks for lending and low interest rates -these were the lowest in history (Krugman, 2012). Financial lobbies in US investment banks had become increasingly intense, and in 2004 they achieved that investment banks were exempted from the rules requiring them to have adequate financial reserves to cover potential losses. These changes allowed investment banks to assume risks that significantly exceeded their assets. In 2006, real estate prices peaked, followed by a decline. In 2007, real estate problems were transferred to banks. Mortgage receivables are said to have a low risk, as it does not happen often that people cannot repay their mortgages on time. Nevertheless, that happened, as real estate was worth up to 50% less than borrowers paid for it. Thus, the financial crisis we witnessed in 2008 began in the US with the collapse of the real estate market. Deeper causes are found in the deregulation of the financial system and the associated proliferation of financial derivatives outside the control of regulators (Krugman, 2012). After the fall in real estate prices, the disadvantages of subprime loans began to show. There was more and more real estate for which people were no longer able to pay the installments of the loans, and the banks found that it would not be possible to sell them without loss. The first holes appeared in the budgets; debt write-offs and the beginning of a financial meltdown. The value of loans thus increased, companies and individuals were unable to provide coverage, and no one wanted to finance their losses.
There was mistrust between the banks and the eternal question about the number of bad debts. Banks no longer lent money due to suspicion; the interbank market slowed down, and the credit market with it. Banks lent money only to the central bank and the state due to greater loan security. The decline in construction and household consumption, and the credit crunch plunged the US economy into recession at the end of 2007. The collapse of the investment bank Lehman Brothers in September 2008 was a turning point in the economy. Investment banks financed their investments with short-term loans, and the guarantees were given by mortgages securities. Lenders became distrustful, and interest rates rose sharply (Krugman, 2012). Interest rates rose, leaving individuals and businesses without the credit essential for their consumption and operation. This was followed by a decline in economic growth, redundancies, and bankruptcies.

The 2008 financial crisis in the European Union
The financial crisis in 2008 caused the worst economic downturn in EU history. It significantly increased public debt in most EU countries. Nevertheless, the euro protected the most vulnerable economies from devaluation risks faced by speculator attacks. The causes of the crisis varied across European countries. Some more indebted EU member states with increased budget deficits were particularly affected at the end of 2009. These had enormous consequences for economic growth, investment, employment, and fiscal position. In 2010, EU member states set up a financial stabilization mechanism for the euro area. Additionally, the member states and the EU institutions introduced specific provisions that strengthened EU economic governance. Responsible budget management and mutual financial assistance was a strategy by which the EU responded to global financial and economic change (Fontaine, 2010).
A moderate recovery happened in 2014, but the risk of deflation or secular stagnation remained high. The EU economy did not return to the pre-crisis position until 2017 (Szczepansky & Claros, 2019). The EU responded to the crisis with restrictions that have paved the way for the euro area banking union (Krugman et al., 2018). In the first steps in the fight against the recession, the euro system lowered key interest rates and ensured unlimited bank liquidity. The crisis has also forced the euro area to make the criteria for joining the monetary union more stringent and consistent in the future (Mrak & Rant, 2018).

Hypotheses
Based on the introductory observations and theoretical background, we formulated three hypotheses: H1: Slovenia deteriorated its position after the accession to the EU compared to the 2000-2004 period, while at least two other Central European EU member states improved their positions.
H2: The 2008 financial crisis hit Slovenia the most heavily compared to the other observed Central European EU member states.
H3: Slovenia and the other observed Central European EU member states had recorded positive trends of selected macroeconomic indicators in the ten years after the financial crisis.

Methodology and Data
This paper is a comparative dynamic macroeconomic study, as we analyzed the long-term trends of key macroeconomic indicators in the observed economies based on secondary data. We studied the trends of GDP per capita, GDP volume, total investment, unemployment, wages, and exports of goods and services in different periods during the 20 years before the coronavirus crisis.
We analyzed GDP per capita, PPP adjusted and calculated in relation to the EU 27 average, GDP volume growth, total investment growth, wages growth, unemployment rate, and exports of goods and services growth. Eurostat statistics was a source for GDP per capita data, while the European Commission's Economic Forecast was the source of data for all the other indicators.
The first hypothesis (H1: Slovenia deteriorated its position after its accession to the EU compared to the 2000-2004 period, while at least two other observed Central European EU member states improved their positions) was tested by comparing the average growth rates of GDP volume, total investment, wages, and exports of goods and services among the observed countries in two different periods (2000-2004 and 2004-2007). To estimate the positions of different countries we scored them according to each indicator on the 5-points scale in each observed period and established the improvement or decline of their positions. The second hypothesis (H2: The 2008 financial crisis hit Slovenia the most heavily compared to the other observed Central European EU member states) was tested by comparing the average growth rates of GDP and total investment, and growth of unemployment rates among observed countries in the period between 2008 and 2014. To estimate the positions of different countries, we scored them according to each indicator on a 5-point scale in the observed period and established their positions compared to the other observed countries. The country with the highest score achieved the best position. The third hypothesis (H3: Slovenia and the other observed Central European EU member states had recorded positive trends of selected macroeconomic indicators in the ten years after the financial crisis) was tested by analyzing growth rates of GDP, total investment, wages and exports, as well as the unemployment rates of the observed countries between 2017 and 2019.

Macroeconomic dynamics in the period before the 2008 financial crisis
Slovenia had the highest GDP per capita among the observed countries at the time of accession to the EU. Slovenia's index was 88, followed by Czechia with 80, and all the other countries far behind. Source: Eurostat, 2020 In the years before the crisis (2004-2008), when economies reached their highest growth rates, we can see that Slovenia and Czechia came very close to the EU average; the Czech Republic to 85%, and Slovenia to as much as 91% of EU GDP (Table  1). Slovakia, which grew very fast, achieved 59% of EU GDP per capita in 2004; in 2008, however, it already reached 73% of EU GDP per capita. Poland and Hungary did not make as much progress in that period. After the financial crisis in 2008, many EU countries continued to deal with the recession. The Slovenian index fell by as many as 6 points between 2008 and 2009, to 85% of the EU average, and reached its bottom in 2012, when GDP per capita in Slovenia represented 83% of the EU average.
The country did not climb out of this bottom until 2016 when the index began to rise again. Czechia also reached the bottom of the crisis in 2012, when the index was 83. However, it rose again the following year, and in 2013 Czechia overtook Slovenia as the country whose GDP per capita was closest to the European average.  Table 1 gives us an insight into the development of selected countries between 2004 and 2019, compared to the EU average. It is noticeable that all the considered member states, except Slovenia, managed to approach the EU average in terms of GDP per capita. Slovenia is the only selected country that did not have a higher index in 2019 than in 2004. Slovenia's index remained the same (88), although, before the crisis, this index had already reached 91, but it never returned to the pre-crisis levels. As mentioned, the index increased in all other countries; in Hungary, by ten index points, to 73, and the most in Poland, by 21 index points, to 73. In order to understand these data, we should not overlook that Romania and Bulgaria joined the EU in 2007 and Croatia in 2013, which reduced the average GDP per capita in the EU in the observed period.
In   In the years after the accession to the EU and before the financial crisis, the total investment growth levels in all observed countries, except in Hungary, achieved higher levels. While Hungary achieved the highest growth level of total investment before the accession to the EU, in the period after the accession to the EU and before the financial crisis in 2008, the highest growth level of total investment was reached by Poland, followed by Slovakia.
Before the accession to the EU, Slovenia evidenced the second-highest growth rate of wages (9.1%) after Hungary (Figure 3). However, after the accession to the EU, its growth rate of wages was decreasing until the crisis in 2008, when it amounted to 6.2% on average, after Slovakia and Hungary.  In the four years after the accession to the EU, Slovenia deteriorated its position among the other selected CE countries concerning the average GDP growth. However, its position concerning the average total investment growth, average exports growth, and average wages growth remained the same as in the four years before its accession to the EU.

Macroeconomic dynamics in the period between 2008 and 2014
In this subchapter, we analyze the macroeconomic dynamics of Slovenia, of the other four selected CE EU member states, and of the EU in the year when the financial crisis started and until 2014. We pay special attention to the most significant deteriorations and improvements of countries' positions according to the observed indicators.  The 2008 financial crisis also led to a sharp decline in gross investment in the EU. Slovenia recorded, on average, the most significant drop in total gross investment in this period (6.5%). Poland's total investment, however, grew in this period on average by 3.5% ( Figure 6). Total investment in the EU decreased as early as 2008, with the most significant drop in 2009, at 13%. During the recession years, 2012 and 2013, total investment growth was again negative. Over the entire period under review, EU's total investment fell by 2.2% per year.
Because of the 2008 financial crisis, the unemployment rate started to rise across the EU. If in 2008 it still amounted to 7.1% of the total active population of the EU, in the following year it started to grow, and in 2012 and 2013 it reached its peak (10.9%). It began to decrease as late as in 2014. In the observed period, Slovenia and Poland reached the highest unemployment rate the last -in 2013. All the other observed countries reached their peak earlier. Along with the Czech Republic, Slovenia had the lowest unemployment rate before the crisis, but it emerged from the crisis as a country with an unemployment rate higher than that of the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary (Table 2). Source: European Commission (2013, 2016) and own calculations In the observed period from 2008 to 2014, unemployment in Slovenia increased by more than 54%, which was the most among the observed countries. Slovenia also evidenced a significantly higher growth of the unemployment rate in this period than the EU (30.4%).

Macroeconomic dynamics in the period between 2017 and 2019
This subsection discusses the economic trends of selected countries in the period between 2017 and 2019. We compared countries based on the growth of GDP, total investment, unemployment, wages, and exports.
The period from 2017 onwards shows continuous GDP growth of the countries concerned and of the EU. Figure 7 shows that in all the countries considered, GDP grew faster than in the EU; in some countries even twice as fast. On average, GDP in the EU grew by 2% per year over the three-year period, while it grew between 3 and 5% per year in the five observed countries. Slovenia's GDP grew almost twice as fast as the EU average, and faster than the GDP of Czechia and Slovakia. The recovery from the financial crisis and recession is reflected in the data on the EU unemployment rate, which was steadily declining in 2017-2019. After a 7.6% unemployment rate in the EU in 2017, the rate was almost 1% lower in 2019. All the observed countries decreased their unemployment rate more than the EU in the last year of the observed period ( Figure 8).   Wages also grew steadily in all the observed countries over the 2017-2019 period. Their growth was higher than the EU average. The lowest wage growth among the five countries in this period was experienced by Slovenia (3.9%). The average annual wage growth in the EU was 2.5% over this period ( Figure 10).
EU exports of goods and services increased every year from 2017 to 2019. On average, they increased by 3.8% per year over these three years. Of the eight countries examined, only Slovakia had a lower export growth than the EU in the observed three-year period, mainly due to an increase of less than one percent in 2019 compared to 2018. Poland and Slovenia achieved the highest average export growth during the observed period ( Figure 11).

Hypotheses Testing 4.3.1 Testing hypothesis 1
Comparing GDP growth, we found that the other observed countries, except Hungary, achieved higher average annual GDP growth than Slovenia in the 2004-2007 period. Growth in total investment in the same period was the next indicator according to which we studied the alleged decline in Slovenia's advantage. Two of the four countries we compared with Slovenia achieved higher average annual growth rates of total investment than Slovenia. Czechia and Hungary had lower total investment growth during this period. In terms of trends in wages, Slovenia had higher growth than Czechia and Hungary in the first four years after joining the EU. In terms of total exports growth, Slovenia performed better than other countries. It had the fourth-highest average annual total exports growth among the five countries considered, followed by Czechia, Slovakia, and Hungary.
Before the accession to the EU (2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004), Slovenia achieved the third-lowest average growth of GDP and total investment, the fourth-lowest growth of wages, and the first lowest growth of total exports. In the observed period before the 2008 financial crisis (2004)(2005)(2006)(2007), Slovenia recorded the second-lowest average GDP growth, the third-lowest average total investment growth, the third-lowest average wage growth, and the second-lowest average of total exports growth. Table 3 shows the scores of each country according to its total number of points received for all the observed indicators in both periods.

Testing hypothesis 2
In the observed period between 2008 and 2014, Slovenia's GDP fell three times. All countries experienced the worst declines in 2009. Only Slovenia recorded a negative average GDP growth rate in the observed period (-0.6%). Czechia and Hungary had an average GDP growth rate below 1% in the observed period, but it was still positive. Slovakia and Poland recorded a higher average GDP growth rate of 1.9% and 3%, respectively.
Apart from Czechia, Slovenia entered the financial crisis with the lowest unemployment rate among the observed countries. In 2013, only Czechia recorded a lower unemployment rate than Slovenia; a year later, however, that was also true of Hungary and Poland. Most of the observed countries reached the peak unemployment rate already in 2010, while Slovenia's unemployment rate had been rising steadily until 2013, and started to decrease as late as in 2014. To compare the countries, we calculated the percentage increase in unemployment in the selected countries between 2008 and 2014. Calculations showed that in the observed period from 2008 to 2014, Slovenia recorded a 54.6% increase in unemployment. In the three other observed countries (Czechia, Slovakia, and Poland), unemployment increased between 21.1% and 27.9%. In Hungary, however, it even decreased by 1.3%. We can conclude that after the advent of the financial crisis, it took Slovenia the longest to decrease the unemployment rate compared to the other observed countries. In contrast, its unemployment rate increased the most among all the considered countries.
Concerning the average total investment growth, Slovenia recorded the first significant decline between 2008 and 2014. Otherwise, all the observed countries (apart from Poland) had negative growth in total investment during this period.
To test the second hypothesis, we also evaluated the countries' positions according to the changes in the average annual growth rates of GDP, total investment and unemployment rates between 2008 and 2014. The country with the lowest average GDP growth and total investment growth in the observed period received one point, whilst the one with the highest average growth received five points. The country with the lowest unemployment growth received five points, and the one with the highest unemployment growth received one point. For the country that collected the lowest score, we can argue that the financial crisis affected it the most or that it recovered the least, while the country with the highest score was the least affected by the crisis. Table  4 shows the position of Slovenia among the other observed CE countries.
It is evident from Table 4 that Slovenia gathered the lowest score among the observed countries. Based on these results, hypothesis 2 (H2: The 2008 financial crisis hit Slovenia the most heavily compared to the other observed Central European EU member states) can be confirmed, as Slovenia performed the worst in the years after the 2008 financial crisis according to the trends of the three selected macroeconomic indicators. Note: Five-point scale; 1 -the lowest average GDP and gross investment growth, 5 -the highest average GDP and gross investment growth; 1 -the highest average unemployment growth, 5 -the lowest average unemployment growth.

Testing hypothesis 3
We also observed the macroeconomic trends of the selected countries during the stabilization of the economic situation in the EU -in the period between 2017 and 2019. We hypothesized that Slovenia and the other observed Central European EU member states had recorded positive trends of selected macroeconomic indicators in the ten years after the financial crisis. Our research shows that in the period between 2017 and 2019, Slovenia and the other observed CE countries 1) experienced positive average GDP growth ( Figure 7); 2) decreased the average unemployment rate ( Figure  8); 3) recorded positive average growth of total investment ( Figure 9); 4) recorded positive average growth of wages ( Figure 10); 5) recorded positive average growth of exports ( Figure 11). Based on this analysis, we confirmed hypothesis 3.

Discussion and Conclusion
In the 1990s and at the beginning of this century, Slovenia had a clear goal: joining the EU, transforming the economy, and converging with the developed EU member states. According to the convergence theory (or the catch-up effect), the less developed country will move closer to the developed one and achieve convergence in the long run because diminishing returns are not as strong as in a developed country. Additionally, the less developed country can replicate a developed country's production methods, technologies, and institutions. Membership in economic integration can be a solid basis for convergence. However, structural reforms, human and physical capital investments, foreign investments, and an excellent macroeconomic climate are also a requisite.
In this paper, we analyzed the macroeconomic trends of Slovenia and comparable Central European EU member states in the twenty-year period before the coronavirus pandemic. We explored how membership in the EU spurred the catch-up effect through the macroeconomic dynamics of the observed countries. In 2004, when Slovenia, Czechia, Slovakia, Poland, and Hungary joined the EU, Slovenia was still the most developed country of them all in terms of GDP per capita. Therefore, Slovenia had the most favorable initial conditions for managing the transition and quickly catching up with the existing EU members. However, this advantage began to stagnate and decline, particularly after the financial crisis in 2008, while the trends of the GDP per capita of the other observed countries recorded lower drops during the 2008 financial crisis and higher increases in the whole observed period. Slovenia did not develop resilience in its economy. Therefore, the financial crisis in 2008 pushed it to the brink, and it barely avoided international aid to the then majority state-owned banking sector. In 2009 Slovenia was hit by a sharp drop in GDP. Although Slovenia reached 91% of the EU GDP per capita average in 2008, this index dropped to 83 and stagnated for four years due to the 2012 and 2013 recession. Since 2016, Slovenia has been approaching the EU average again, but it seems that Czechia has built a solid advantage. In the following years, Slovenia recovered and again achieved positive GDP growth. Comparing Slovenia with the selected economies in the observed period, we can speak about beta-convergence. The less developed countries grew faster than Slovenia when they entered the market economy at the beginning of their transition.
Based on the analysis and comparison of selected macroeconomic indicators, we managed to confirm all three hypotheses. It was evidenced that Slovenia deteriorated its position after its accession to the EU compared to the 2000-2004 period, while at least two other observed CE countries improved their positions. We confirm that compared to the other observed CE EU member states, Slovenia has been hit by the 2008 financial crisis the most heavily. It was also confirmed that Slovenia and all the other observed CE EU member states had recorded positive trends of selected macroeconomic indicators in the ten years after the financial crisis. In the research, we limited ourselves to selected macroeconomic indicators.
With the coronavirus pandemic lasting since 2020, the countries' economic situation has changed. The pandemic has had numerous negative impacts on the macroeconomic trends of the EU and its member states, which have been observed in this paper. However, Europe and the world could also learn from the pandemic crisis. Newly established and existing companies that have managed to adapt their business models to the current situation indicate technological development. New technologies will continue to revolutionize economies and the labor markets. They will affect productivity and economic growth, but they will also bring new challenges. In the future, it will be crucial for Slovenia to build resilience for mitigating the effects of similar crises and for quick recovery.
On the other hand, there is a fear that Slovenia will lose numerous years of possible development opportunities and convergence with more developed EU member states after the recent global health crisis and the consequences of the latest geopolitical instability in the world. High indebtedness, new demands from the public budget, higher energy costs and the negative impacts of the Russia-Ukraine war could slow the process of recovery. Therefore, it is crucial to draw as much financial resources as possible from the financial package of EU assistance in the 2021-2027 programming period and to build a stable political and socioeconomic environment. Notwithstan-ding the current national, regional, and global uncertainty, Slovenia should never stop striving to become one of the most prosperous European economies. V odprtih tržnih gospodarstvih so vrednosti makroekonomskih kazalnikov pod vplivom ekonomske politike, pa tudi nacionalnega, regionalnega in globalnega družbeno-ekonomskega in političnega konteksta (glej Abramovitz (1986) in Sokoloff in Engerman (2000)). Dobro oblikovan koncept gospodarske politike države in njenih ukrepov mora ohranjati makroekonomsko stabilnost. Cilji ekonomske politike, kot so rast bruto domačega proizvoda (BDP) in stopnja brezposelnosti, predstavljajo uspeh ali neuspeh ekonomske politike. Običajno so nasprotujoči si, kot sta inflacija in brezposelnost, prikazana s Phillipsovo krivuljo (Samuelson in Nordhaus, 2002). V mnogih primerih neposredni in posredni učinki ekonomske politike niso vnaprej znani ali pa so negativni posredni učinki večji od pozitivnih neposrednih učinkov. Pomembni dejavniki so tudi časovne razsežnosti postopkov odločanja ter sprejemanja in uveljavljanja ukrepov. Z določanjem denarnih in fiskalnih instrumentov si vlade prizadevajo za čim večjo družbeno blaginjo, ki jo predstavljata gospodarska rast in stabilnost cen (Ahtik in Mencinger, 2012