The European Semester 2017 report has been released by the European Commission. On the day that followed the International Monetary Fund released its new report with recommendations. Both documents deal with Bulgaria’s economic and social problems.

The European Semester shows a lot more criticism of Bulgaria, puts forward macroeconomic imbalances, the problems of indebtedness in the social sphere and of social inequality.

In practice the document does not contain anything unfamiliar or seen by the authorities in Sofia and comes as a proof that the policy of sharp criticism of what has been done and what has not been done in Bulgaria continues coupled with a disparaging attitude towards the real successes of this country. Experts and observers however think that this policy of treating Bulgaria which is already 10 years old has not yielded the anticipated results and the approach should change by encouraging the country’s achievements.

The second report released a day after the Semester of the European Commission was an analysis of the International Monetary Fund which also focuses on the social-economic situation in Bulgaria. IMF based in Washington DC seems closer to the positive approach because well-grounded criticism goes with positive assessments and a conclusion is made that the Bulgarian financial system is stable and well capitalized, and there is no threat for public finance.

True that inter-company indebtedness is too high and is a threat for worsening of problems in the financial sphere. True that non-serviced loans account for as much as 17% of all bank loans released to businesses. But it is also true that banks continue to make huge profits; that they are capitalized much more than required and ready to face possible challenges. At least this was suggested by stress tests that banks went through last year. In the meantime, public finances have been accumulating budget surpluses and now the authorities can unfasten the belt and become more generous to the socially weak groups of the population. And this has been happening. Generosity looks modest, for the time being at least, but it still proves that governments do not neglect social problems and take measures to play down the big gap between a great many poor people and only few rich ones.

For sure Sofia would have been more receptive to criticism from international institutions had it been coupled with acknowledgement of its achievements. Also, we can see that different approaches lead to different assessments, and at the end of the day the questions arises: whom shall we trust after all?

English Daniela Konstantinova