Portugal's first-quarter contraction confirmed, exports fall
LISBON, May 30 (Reuters) - Portugal's economy shrank 0.5% in the first quarter from the previous three months, when it grew 1.4%, as exports fell and imports rose in anticipation of higher tariffs amid global trade tensions, official data showed on Friday, confirming the flash estimate.
In its second reading of gross domestic product, the National Institute of Statistics (INE) also confirmed its year-on-year growth figure of 1.6% released at the beginning of the month. In the fourth quarter, Portugal's economy grew 2.8%.
INE said the contribution of net external demand to the quarter-on-quarter GDP was minus 0.7 percentage points, while in the fourth quarter it had contributed positively with 0.7 pp, "reflecting a decline in exports and an increase in imports".
Exports of goods and services, including the key tourism sector, fell 0.4% from the previous three months.
Meanwhile, imports increased 1% anticipating the tariffs announced by U.S. President Donald Trump - most of which have been temporarily suspended - and a potential response from the European Union.
INE said the positive contribution of domestic demand also decreased to 0.1 pp, from 0.7 pp in the fourth quarter, "with a reduction in private consumption", which fell 1.1% in the first three months after growing 2.8%.
Total investment increased by 3.8% with the help of European Union funds, after it fell 5.0% in the previous quarter.
The Bank of Portugal has forecast the economy should grow 2.3% this year in an acceleration from last year's 1.9%, but it said a tariff war could reduce that projected growth by 0.9 percentage points.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
26 minutes ago
- The Guardian
NPR lawsuit aims to strike a blow for press freedom against Trump's attacks
In the Trump administration's unprecedented war on the American media, a lawsuit brought by public broadcasters could mark a much-needed strike back for press freedom. The lawsuit, brought by NPR and three Colorado-based public radio stations, challenges an executive order that cut federal funding to what Donald Trump described as 'biased media', with lawyers arguing that the order violated the first amendment right to free speech. The decision by NPR, KSUT, Roaring Fork and Colorado Public Radio to take on Donald Trump comes as the president has targeted multiple news organizations through lawsuits and investigations – and as experts warn some outlets are acquiescing to Trump's war on the media. NPR's lawsuit could be a prominent pushback against that. The lawsuit argues that Trump's executive order, signed on 1 May, violates the first amendment by targeting NPR for news coverage the president considers 'biased'. NPR and its partners are aiming to have the order, which would strip direct and indirect funding from NPR and PBS, permanently blocked and declared unconstitutional. Experts believe NPR has a strong case, and that it could be Trump's attacks on public media that could hand NPR a win. The president and the White House have described NPR and PBS as being 'leftwing propaganda', and has criticized the network for discussing LGBTQ themes. 'Trump's honesty about why he wants to eviscerate federal funding for NPR and PBS could be his legal downfall,' Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School and host of the Passing Judgment podcast, wrote in an op-ed for MSNBC. 'NPR has thus argued that Trump admitted that he's using his power as head of the executive branch of our government to target NPR and PBS because he disagrees with the content of their speech.' Levinson wrote: 'The Trump administration isn't targeting NPR because it covers political news. To the contrary; the administration appears to have explicitly admitted that it's targeting NPR because of what Trump considers to be its bias as it covers political news. NPR's lawsuit argues that, therefore, Trump's executive order is 'textbook retaliation and viewpoint-based discrimination.'' Trump's pursuit of NPR follows a pattern of the president's second term, with Trump keen to target media organizations he believes have reported on him negatively. The Associated Press, one of the world's premier news agencies which is relied upon by thousands of news outlets, was banned from the Oval Office and Air Force One after it refused to use Trump's preferred term of 'Gulf of America' to refer to the Gulf of Mexico. Trump is suing the owner of CBS News for $10bn, alleging the channel selectively edited an interview with Kamala Harris, which the network denies, and the Des Moines Register newspaper, which he accuses of 'election interference' over a poll from before the election that showed Kamala Harris leading Trump in Iowa. NPR has been vocal in its opposition to the lawsuit. 'It is evident from the president's executive order, as well as statements released by the White House and prior statements by the president that we are being punished for our editorial choices,' Katherine Maher, the CEO of NPR, said in an interview with the station this week. Maher added: 'We are not choosing to do this out of politics. We are choosing to do this as a matter of necessity and principle. All of our rights that we enjoy in this democracy flow from the first amendment: freedom of speech, association, freedom of the press. When we see those rights infringed upon, we have an obligation to challenge them.' The funding cut, NPR said, 'would have a devastating impact on American communities across the nation', adding: 'Locally owned public media stations represent a proud American tradition of public-private partnership for our shared common good.' 'The Corporation for Public Broadcasting [which distributes funds NPR and other public media] is creating media to support a particular political party on the taxpayers' dime,' Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement. 'Therefore, the president is exercising his lawful authority to limit funding to NPR and PBS. The president was elected with a mandate to ensure efficient use of taxpayer dollars, and he will continue to use his lawful authority to achieve that objective.'
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Disney+ viewers could be slapped with whopping £1,000 fine if they tune into huge new sports boost – don't take the risk
DISNEY+ viewers should be wary of an upcoming boost in sports content that could land them a £1,000 fine just for watching. Earlier this week, the streaming giant announced it had won the broadcasting rights for the UEFA Women's Champions League across Europe for the next five years. 2 It means that from October, fans will be able to watch every match live through their Disney+ subscription - at no extra cost. However, sports fans should be cautious of TV Licensing rules. Households require a TV Licence to watch live content - even through a streaming platform like Disney+. And being caught without a TV Licence can result in a hefty £1,000 fine. On-demand content - shows you can watch at any given moment - don't require the extra fee. It only applies if you tune into live shows and matches. In the days when streaming services hosted exclusively on-demand content, they were safe to use without a TV Licence. But with an increasing number of streamers picking up live TV content, particularly in the realm of sports, the chances of households breaking TV licensing rules has jumped. Households were given similar warning last year, when Netflix took over rights to WWE with live broadcasts taking place on the app more than ever before. TV Licensing previously reiterated the rules to The Sun in November ahead of Netflix's Jake Paul vs Mike Tyson live fight. "A TV Licence is needed to watch live content on streaming services, watch or record a TV programme on any channel and when using BBC iPlayer," a rep said at the time. "Further information is available on the TV Licensing website or via the customer services team, who can help with any queries." The TV Licence fee was recently increased by £5, jumping from £169.50 previously to £174.50 since April 1. What are the TV Licence rules? Jamie Harris, Assistant Technology and Science Editor at The Sun, explains: A TV Licence currently costs £169.50. Some people mistakenly believe that you only need a TV Licence if you have a TV or watch BBC channels. You aren't breaking the law if you own a TV without a licence, as long as it's not hooked up to an aerial or other live broadcasting equipment - so you can use it with your PS5 for gaming for example. The basic principle is, that if you are accessing any live broadcast from any channel, whether it be through a TV or online, you must have a TV Licence. If you are recording a live broadcast to watch later, you also need a TV Licence. Watching on-demand content does not require a TV Licence - except if you're watching BBC iPlayer. Image credit: Alamy
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Can Nigel Farage really boost Britain's birth rate?
As Sir Keir Starmer continued to drag his feet over one of the most contentious policy issues among Labour MPs and voters, Nigel Farage spotted an opportunity. Proclaiming during a speech last week that Britain had 'lost our sense of focus of just how important family is', the Reform UK leader unveiled plans to lure frustrated Labour voters while also attempting to arrest a decline in the UK's birth rate. Farage pledged that an elected Reform would scrap the two-child benefit cap and introduce a transferable tax allowance for married couples, in a bid to encourage people to have children. 'This is part of a bigger package and policy that we are putting together to try and make the family a more important element in British life,' said Farage. It marks the party's move into pro-natalist policies. Reform's proposed transferable tax allowance for married couples takes inspiration from central Europe. During his time in office Viktor Orbán, the Hungarian prime minister, has placed significant focus on the importance of birth rates and traditional families. Earlier this week, Farage said he was 'not moralising' on the significance of marriage and added that having been divorced twice his 'track record was not so good on this'. Reform's policy would exempt one partner in a marriage from paying tax on the first £25,000 of their salary. Ben Ramanauskas, a senior fellow in economics at the Policy Exchange, says the proposal would bring the UK 'into a territory where most European countries are'. He adds: 'They have a much more generous system when it comes to taxing households and families.' However, Ramanauskas cast doubt on the idea that the measure could encourage couples to have children: 'The proposal itself won't have much of an impact on what Farage is aiming for in terms of hoping to increase the birth rate.' Reform's plans also miss out a key group of would-be parents. More than half of children in the UK are born to couples out of wedlock. So with the transferable tax allowance only reserved for married couples, the baby boosting effect of the policy is unclear. The party has also said it would scrap the two child benefit cap, a pledge which is estimated to cost £3.4bn, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Tomáš Sobotka, deputy director at the Vienna Institute of Demography, says abolishing the cap would help to lift children out of poverty but its impact on Britain's birth rate is likely to be 'marginal'. 'Most parents today don't desire more than two kids so it's a select group of women and families who are having a third or a fourth child,' he says. 'Providing a bit more in services … will not change fertility planning among many couples.' In Hungary, Orbán's attempts to fix the country's birth crisis mean it spends around 5pc of its GDP on measures aimed at encouraging couples to have children. The most significant of these measures is the country's large tax breaks. Currently mothers under 30 pay no income tax and mothers with three or more children are exempt from paying income tax for life. Orbán has also pledged to extend the measure to mothers of two children by January 2026. The government also offers loans to newly-weds that can be partially or fully written off if the couple has two or three children – as well as subsidies for family car purchases and housing. Despite Orbán's significant spending and hopes of a baby boom, Hungary's birth rate stood at 1.52 children per woman in 2022, in the UK it was 1.53 children per woman in 2021. For context, a country needs a fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman to ensure it has a stable population, without immigration. 'In the last few years Hungary has experienced fertility declines to the same extent as other countries and it now has exactly the same fertility rate as the European average ... from that perspective Hungarian policies are not bringing in tremendous success,' says Sobotka. But Orbán's focus on large families is helping to deliver an uptick in the number of households with three or more children, Sobotka adds. In the Nordics, the picture isn't any clearer. Finland pioneered the introduction of family friendly policies including parental leave and childcare from the 1980s onwards. The country reported a rise in its birth rates in the 1990s despite going through a financial crisis. 'Introducing these kinds of policies if they are long term … longer parental leave and especially affordable childcare have been shown in a wealth of studies both in the Nordic countries and from other countries to be associated with somewhat higher fertility,' says Anna Rotkirch, of the Family Federation of Finland's Population Research Institute. 'No silver bullet policy' However, she warns these measures 'are not enough for today's situation,' and that 'there's no silver bullet policy.' Indeed, the initial boost to Finland's birth rate in the late 20th century has waned and since 2010 the country has seen its birth rate decline by a third. Yet, Rotkirch says that while government spending and Reform's proposed policies might not have much of a demographic impact they were an important element in reducing child poverty. 'The cost of parenting is real and it is also economic,' she adds. 'Why do we have a society where you get poorer if you have a child?' Over in South Korea the picture is even more challenging. In May 2024, the then-president Yoon Suk Yeol asked for the parliament's cooperation to establish the Ministry of Low Birth Rate Counter-planning. 'We will mobilise all of the nation's capabilities to overcome the low birth rate, which can be considered a national emergency,' he said. The country has gone through a raft of measures including baby bonuses, subsidised fertility treatments and housing assistance but the country's fertility rate stood at 0.78 children per woman in 2024. Melinda Mills, a professor of demography at Oxford University say: 'They've also shown that throwing a lot of money at it doesn't work so you have to get to the root of people's lives. What are their work hours? Where do they live and work? Where's childcare?' One nation that has a slight edge in the birth rate compared to its European neighbours is France. Mills added that France's more comprehensive package of subsidised childcare, parental leave and school support goes some way in encouraging couples to have children. Indeed the measures seem to be having a small effect on the country's fertility rate, which was 1.8 children per woman in 2021 compared to the EU average of 1.53 during the same year. 'It's harder work than throwing a baby bonus and trying to think you could do a silver bullet but actually creating an ecosystem that has childcare, that has good maternity and paternity leave, has a good work-life balance – that's where France has done very well,' says Mills. However, it's clear that there is no one pro-natalist policy which will act as a catalyst to boost birth rates. While Farage's proposed Hungarian-style tax breaks look unlikely to persuade couples to have children, Mills explained that measures which addressed quality of life were likely to be more impactful. 'People need a good life, they need good jobs, be able to get a house, childcare,' says Mills. 'It's about wellbeing, it's about work-life balance. That's not as sexy … but these are the things that have been shown to be more effective.'
