# Wage Resilience in France since the Great Recession

David Audenaert, José Bardaji, Raphaël Lardeux, Michaël Orand, Michaël Sicsic

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

David Audenaert, José Bardaji, Raphaël Lardeux, Michaël Orand, Michaël Sicsic. Wage Resilience in France since the Great Recession. 2014. hal-05450898

HAL Id: hal-05450898

https://insee.hal.science/hal-05450898v1

Preprint submitted on 9 Jan 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
Direction des Études et Synthèses Économiques

G 2014 / 11

Wage Resilience in France
since the Great Recession

David AUDENAERT, José BARDAJI, Raphaël LARDEUX, Michaël ORAND, Michaël SICSIC

Document de travail
INSTITUT NATIONAL DE LA STATISTIQUE ET DES ÉTUDES ÉCONOMIQUES

Série des documents de travail
de la Direction des Études et Synthèses Économiques

G 2014 / 11

Wage Resilience in France
since the Great Recession

David AUDENAERT*, José BARDAJI*, Raphaël LARDEUX*, Michaël ORAND**, Michaël SICSIC**

OCTOBRE 2014

Nous tenons à remercier Éric DUBOIS et Corinne PROST pour leurs relectures, remarques et conseils, ainsi que Grégory VERDUGO pour la richesse de sa discussion au séminaire du D2E (janvier 2014). Nous remercions également l'ensemble des participants à ce séminaire pour leurs questions et remarques nous ayant permis d'améliorer l'étude ainsi que Claire LELARGE, Laurence RIOUX et Nicole ROTH. Nos remerciements vont enfin à Pauline CHARNOZ pour son aide dans le traitement des DADS.

<footnote>* Département des Études Économiques - Division « Études Macroéconomiques » Timbre G220 - 15, bd Gabriel Péri - BP 100 - 9244 MALAKOFF CEDEX</footnote>

<footnote>** Département des Études Économiques - Division « Marchés et Entreprises » Timbre G230 - 15, bd Gabriel Péri - BP 100 - 92244 MALAKOFF CEDEX</footnote>
# Wage Resilience in France since the Great Recession

## Abstract

From 2009 onwards, the slowdown in French real wages was less acute than that in labour productivity, which pulled French firms' margin rate down. This article deals with this recent disconnection and surveys two potential explanatory hypotheses: labour force composition effects and downward nominal wage rigidities. The first assumption is related to the impact on the average wage of increasing job losses, especially when they are concentrated on lower-paid workers. Labour force structure evolution does contribute to wage resilience, but with little difference between 2009 and the period before, in which we observe a long run increasing trend of the working population toward a higher qualification. The downward nominal wage rigidities assumption is bounded by the empirical evidence of a significant amount of wage drops, while wage freezes are rare. Furthermore, in 2009, wages decreased faster as the firm's activity dropped than they increased as the firm's situation improved. However, the estimation, done at the wage earner level, shows the low response of wages to a (positive or negative) activity shock, especially for lower wage earners and large firms. The elasticity of wages with respect to a negative shock, though increasing in 2009, remains low in absolute terms. This wage inertia would facilitate the recovery of the firms' margin rate in times of strong economic upturn.

**Keywords:** Wages, Rigidity, Labour force structure, Cointegration

## La résistance des salaires depuis la grande récession s'explique-t-elle par des rigidités à la baisse ?

## Résumé

À partir de 2009, le ralentissement des salaires réels en France a été moins prononcé que celui de la productivité des salariés, ce qui a tiré le taux de marge des entreprises françaises à la baisse. Comment expliquer cette déconnexion ? Deux facteurs sont étudiés. Le premier porte sur le changement de structure de la population salariée consécutif à une perte d'emploi plus concentrée sur les bas salaires. Ce facteur contribue bien à la résilience des salaires mais semble marginal pour expliquer cette déconnexion entre salaire et productivité. De fait, il contribuait aussi sur la période pré-crise en raison de la hausse de la qualification de la population active. Le deuxième facteur examine l'existence de rigidités nominales à la baisse des salaires. D'abord, une proportion significative des salaires a diminué et les gels de salaire ont concerné une très faible proportion de salariés. Ensuite, en 2009, les salaires ont plus baissé quand l'activité de l'entreprise a diminué qu'ils n'ont augmenté quand celle-ci a progressé. Pour autant, l'estimation économétrique effectuée au niveau des salariés montre la faiblesse de la réponse des salaires à un choc d'activité de l'entreprise du salarié, qu'il soit positif ou négatif, et ce particulièrement pour certaines catégories de personnes dont les bas-salaires, et pour les grandes entreprises. Bien qu'en nette augmentation, la réponse des salaires au choc d'activité négatif en 2009 reste ainsi faible en niveau et dans l'absolu. Celle-ci n'a donc pas permis de maintenir le partage de la valeur ajoutée au niveau d'avant-crise. En miroir, cette inertie des salaires pourrait permettre le rétablissement du taux de marge des entreprises en période de forte reprise.

**Mots-clés** : Salaires, Rigidités, Structure de la population active occupée, Cointégration

**Classification JEL** : C22, J21, J30, J31
# Sommaire

Introduction: during the crisis, wages have only slowed down, despite the fall in productivity 5

I - Section 1: macroeconomic modelling corroborates the disconnection between wage and productivity in the aftermath of the crisis 7

I.1 Model 7

I.2 Results 7

II - Section 2: the slowdown in the average wage has been slightly held back by composition effect of the labour force 9

II.1 Data 9

II.2 Descriptive statistics 9

II.3 Model: decomposition of average wage growth using the Oaxaca method 10

II.4 Results: the changes in the labour force structure limited the slowdown in wages 11

II.5 Conclusion 12

III - Section 3: downward nominal wage rigidities, another possible explanation of wage resilience 13

III.1 Data 14

III.2 Descriptive statistics: In the more restrictive meaning of the term, there were no downward nominal wage rigidities 16

III.3 A significant proportion of wages drop each year without necessarily any change in working conditions 17

III.4 Model 18

III.5 Results: During the recession, wages were adjusted both upwards and downwards depending on the activity shock specific to each firm 19

III.6 Robustness tests 20

Conclusion: The weak response of wages to an activity shock, whether positive or negative, could however indicate some wage inertia 25

Bibliography 28

Appendix 30

1- Complete results of the estimation of model (3) on turnover shocks 30

2- ECM over the 1980 - 2012 period featuring an asymmetry in productivity 31
# Introduction: during the crisis, wages have only slowed down, despite the fall in productivity

From the end of the 1980s to the 2009 Great Recession, the margin rate of non-financial companies remained remarkably stable in France, between 32% and 34% of value added. Since then, it has fallen almost continuously to a trough of 29.7% in 2013, almost 4 points below its 2007 peak (figure 1a). This drop was essentially the result of real wage<fnref n="1" /> resilience over a period of falling productivity.

Three sub-periods show up (figure 1b). Between 1990 and 2008, real wages and productivity grew at the same rate, which resulted in the stability of the margin rate. In 2009-2010, the fall in inflation was only partly passed on to nominal wages, which resulted in real wages acceleration despite the deterioration in the labour market, while productivity gains were slowing down very sharply. The margin rate fell significantly, internal terms of trade<fnref n="2" /> limiting this fall only slightly. In 2011-2013, real wages slowed down distinctly and their growth was close to that in productivity. Terms of trade had a negative effect this time, causing the margin rate to fall again.

## 1.- Margin rate of non-financial companies in France

### a. Level and variation of the margin rate

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

### b. Contribution to the variation of the margin rate of...

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Note: Margin rate at factor costs (Value added minus taxes and subsidies on production). A negative contribution of real hourly wages means that they have grown.

Source: Insee, National Accounts.

While real wages and hourly productivity followed similar trends from 1990 to 2008,<fnref n="3" /> the 2009 decline in productivity was not followed by wages. The modest upturn in 2010-2011 and relative stabilisation of activity in 2012-2013 did not bring convergence between these two variables (figure 2a). 2009 was also particular in two ways: for the first time since 1990, inflation was close to zero and hourly productivity had been strictly negative for two years (figure 2b). On account of the time taken by any adjustments, these shocks may have had an effect in 2009 as well as being taken into account by firms and workers for their 2010 wage negotiations.

<footnote n="1">¹ Deflated by consumer prices.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² The growth in sale prices (in prices of value added, to be more precise) was less than that in the consumer prices on which employees base themselves in wage negotiations to maintain their purchasing power.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ It is noteworthy that before 1990, this relation was not so well verified (see for instance the Insee report, 2009)</footnote>
## 2.- Wage, productivity and inflation in France

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>a. Wage and productivity</figcaption></figure>

Source: Insee, National Accounts.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>b. Productivity growth and inflation</figcaption></figure>

The purpose of this article is to investigate this lasting disconnection between productivity and wages. Could it result from a long lag between change in the productivity trend and wages? Did the ongoing adjustments on the labour market affect the average wage growth? Are there any downward nominal wage rigidities in France whose effect could have held back the adjustment to disinflation and productivity shocks?

In section 1, we develop a macroeconomic model of wage, in order to quantify the disconnection. Amongst other things, we find that the spontaneous indexing of wages on productivity is slow. However, in 2009 and above all in 2010, even taking account of this delayed adjustment, the disconnection remains, with a wage growth greater than expected according to its main economic determinants. Two main explanations are often met in the literature and studied in the next two sections of the paper.

In section 2, we study the assumption that the 2009-2010 disconnection could come from changes in the labour force structure. Indeed, the average wage calculation aggregates very contrasted population groups, especially in terms of income levels and vulnerability to activity shocks. It is therefore slightly sensitive to adjustments in payroll linked to employment flows. We find, through an Oaxaca decomposition, that the structure effect weights for 0.7 points each year on average wage growth, but also that this contribution was of 0.4 points prior to the Great Recession. The effect of labour force structure changes therefore seems not strong enough to explain the disconnection.

In section 3, we investigate the mechanisms of wage settings, focusing on labour force stocks rather than flows. We emphasize the impact of downward nominal wage rigidities on the average wage, which should be a more binding constraint during recessions and could thus account for the disconnection. We measure downward nominal wage rigidities according to two different meanings: a restrictive one, which states that rigidities result in a very low frequency of wage cuts, whereas the extensive one defines rigidity as an asymmetry in the response of wage to an activity shock, the adjustment being less pronounced to a negative change than to a positive one. We find that there are no downward nominal wage rigidities in the first meaning. However, a microeconometric analysis highlights the existence of an asymmetry as defined by the second meaning. In 2009, this asymmetry is nevertheless reversed: this particular year, firms that suffered a negative activity shock adjusted wages downwards and these falls were greater in scale than the rises granted by firms whose activity improved. Downward nominal wage rigidities therefore can not explain the particular 2009-2010 disconnection between wage and productivity.

We also find through the microeconometric estimation that the sensitivity of wages to firms' activity is very weak: a 10% shock on activity results in a change inferior to 1% in wages after one year. This could illustrate a more global rigidity of wage in regards to activity at a microeconomic level, which would not be asymmetrical but could yet explain the recent disconnection between wages and productivity highlighted at a macroeconomic level.
# I - Section 1: macroeconomic modelling corroborates the disconnection between wage and productivity in the aftermath of the crisis

As shown previously, the trends in real wages and hourly productivity were similar from 1990 to 2008 but disconnected in 2009: on this particular year of the Great Recession, the drop in productivity was not followed by wages, and there was no convergence, even since the upturn of 2010-2011 and the two next years. We try in this section to establish a relationship between wages and their main determinants, which is possible through a macroeconomic modelling, using French national accounts.

## I.1 Model

We choose to model gross wages in the non-agricultural market sectors on a full-time-equivalents basis (noted W hereafter, and WSG for the super-gross wage) for several reasons. First of all, this contains all the compensation of employees, including bonuses and overtime. Next, it excludes wages in non-market sectors, which are less cyclical and provide less information on what extent the shock can hit the economy. Finally, the wage in full-time-equivalents corrects a part of the structural change in working time, due to the growth in part-time work over the period, and short-term variations due to the use of flexibility mechanisms like part-time activity.

We estimate wages with their traditional determinants, that are inflation (CPI); the unemployment rate (U, as defined by the ILO), reflecting the bargaining power of workers and the degree of labour market tension; labour productivity<fnref n="4" /> (Π), tracing the trends in productivity and some cycle effects (in conjunction with the unemployment rate); internal terms of trade (ToT), defined as the ratio between the household consumption deflator and the value added of the non-agricultural market sectors deflator; the employer social contribution rate (ESC); the minimum wage stimulus (CP for *coup de pouce*), to take into account not only the accounting effect but also its spillover effect. The introduction of a dummy variable in Q3 1982 (*d82q3*) reflects a period of temporary deindexing, while a step since Q2 1983 (*sup83q2*) allows for a documented change in the wage formation process.

Finally, the modelling includes an error-correction term (Wage Setting type); in the long-term relationship, wages are indexed on prices, whereas the indexation on the productivity is not unitary. A rise of one percentage point in the unemployment rate reduces wages over the long term by 0.7% while a one-point increase in productivity improves wages by 0.46%. The estimation, performed in one step, confirms the existence of a cointegration relationship, the error-correction term being significant at a level of 10% (cf. tables given in Banerjee, Dolado and Mestre, 1998).

## I.2 Results

The results of the equation estimated over the period 1980Q1 – 2008Q4 are as follows, with an adjusted R² of 94.8% and a DW of 2.17:

$$ \Delta \ln W = \underset{(4.0)}{0.50} - \underset{(-4.1)}{0.009} \times d82q3 - \underset{(-4.0)}{0.005} \times \underset{(4.0)}{\sup} 83q2 + \underset{(4.0)}{0.26} \times \Delta \ln W_{-1} + \underset{(6.5)}{0.30} \times \Delta_2 \ln CPI + \underset{(4.0)}{0.12} \times (\Delta \ln \Pi + \Delta \ln \Pi_{-5}) \\ - \underset{(-2.7)}{0.3}\% \times (\Delta U - \Delta U_{-1}) - \underset{(-3.2)}{0.17} \times \Delta \ln ToT + \underset{(2.2)}{0.06} \times \Delta \ln CP - \underset{(-2.4)}{0.13} \times \Delta \ln(1 + ESC) + \underset{(2.5)}{0.12} \times \Delta_2 \ln(1 + ESC)_{-3} \\ - \underset{(-3.8)}{0.09} \times \left[ \ln WSG - \left( \ln CPI - \underset{(*)}{0.59} \ln ToT + \underset{(*)}{0.46} \ln \Pi - \underset{(*)}{0.007} U + \underset{(*)}{0.20} \ln CP \right) \right]_{-1} $$

<footnote n="4">⁴ More precisely, in the scope of the non-agricultural market sectors, this is productivity on a full-time-equivalent basis, corresponding to the ratio between value added in volume and full-time-equivalents employment.</footnote>
The econometric estimation indicates that spontaneous indexing of wages on productivity is particularly slow. Even once the adjustment has been made, it is not spontaneously unit indexing: all other things being equal, a slowdown in productivity does not necessarily go hand in hand with an equivalent slowdown in wages. The slowdown in productivity was particularly pronounced in 2009, even corrected for the cycle effect.

The dynamic simulation of wages was particularly satisfactory over the estimation period (figure 3). However, in 2009 and above all in 2010, even after accounting for the delayed adjustment of wages to productivity, wages growth remained significantly higher than expected (figure 4). This gap then remained: from 2011 on, real wages growth was again globally in line with its expected value according to the estimation equation, but without catching up. The years 2009-2010 are therefore highly particular.

### 3.- FTE¹ gross wage observed and simulated

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

1. Full-time-equivalents

Field: France, non-agricultural market sector.

Source: Insee, National Quarterly Accounts.

### 4.- Contribution to wage growth

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>
## II - Section 2: the slowdown in the average wage has been slightly held back by composition effect of the labour force

Our first hypothesis to explain the disconnection between productivity and wages is based on the idea that firms facing a fall in their activity adjust their payroll not only through wages, but also through their volume of labour, first cutting back on recruitments, then by laying off employees [Abowd et al., 1999]. The resilience of real wage to activity shock, highlighted for instance by Barsky et al. (1994) or Hines, et al. (2001) points out implicitly an adjustment on employment. Especially, we expect that the lowest-paid workers would be relatively more dismissed, modifying the structure of the labour force and consequently contributing to limit the fall in the average wage.

Ananian et al. (2012) provide empirical evidence about the major drop in employment between Q1 2008 and Q3 2009, which impacted employees differently according to their type of employment agreement. Especially, at the beginning of 2009, workers and clerks were the first concerned by the rise in the separation rate. Verdugo (2013) explains a huge part of the wage resilience during the Great Recession by a composition effect, people belonging to high educated/high experienced groups being less affected by the dismissals.

### II.1 Data

In this part of the paper, we use the Insee quarterly Labour Force Survey (LFS). It is available from Q1 2003 to Q4 2012, and is composed of the answers from six cohorts each quarter. Each cohort, defined by the quarter in which the first interview was conducted, is surveyed for five consecutive quarters, the first and last interviews including a questionnaire about wages. The population under study includes private-sector employees aged 15 to 64, excluding the self-employed, farmers, craftspeople, traders and CEO. The wage considered is the net monthly wage including bonuses.

### II.2 Descriptive statistics

The Great Recession was no exception to the rule that in France firms whose activity decreases adjust their payroll first by cutting back recruitments, then laying off employees: the contraction in employment was driven initially by a fall in hires in 2008, followed by a rise in job separations at the end of 2008 (figure 5). Shortly after the mid-2009 upturn, the number of people entering employment converged towards that of job separations.

The average wage per capita, computed as the payroll to employment ratio, depends on changes in the labour force structure. During recessions, the rise in unemployment hits more the less qualified, thereby reducing the proportion of low incomes in wage distribution and mechanically causing a rise in the average wage per capita. These composition effects partly mask real variations in wages on the individual basis. To what extent do composition effects impact wage dynamics during the Great Recession?

At the start of 2009, the number of people leaving a job was greater than the number of people finding one. Nonetheless, some categories of employees were less affected by the downturn; employment in these categories even increased. This was the case for the most qualified people with at least high-school education and for managers (figure 6). Conversely, employment among the least qualified and among blue-collar workers fell sharply in 2009 and 2010.
## 5. Contribution to the growth of private payroll employment of entries and separations

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

Field: Metropolitan France, private sector workers from 15 to 64 years old.

Note: cumulation on 4 quarters. Enterings and job leavings in percentage of the employment in the last quarter.

Source: Insee, LFS, author's calculations.

## 6. Contributions to employment growth by...

### a. ...educational level

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

Field: Metropolitan France, private sector workers from 15 to 64 years old.

Note: over the period 2004-2008, private salaried employment under 15 to 64 years (excluding self-employed, etc..) rose 1.3% on average per year. College graduates contributed by 0.7 points to this growth while vocational school attendants weighed up to 0.1.

Source: Insee, LFS.

### b. ...socio-economic position

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

## II.3 Model: decomposition of average wage growth using the Oaxaca method

To measure the consequences of these changes in the labour force structure on the average wage of the sample, we use the Oaxaca decomposition procedure (1973). The underlying idea of such a decomposition is, on the basis of a reference year, to compare the variation in the observed annual wage and in a counterfactual scenario based on a constant structure of the labour force. The structure of the labour force is indeed subject to long-term trends and short-term shocks between which a distinction has to be made.

This decomposition, which was initially developed to explain differences in wages between different groups (gender or ethnic groups in the United States...) can be adapted to the decomposition of variations in wages over time. To do so, an estimation was made of the logarithm of the wage of individual i (w^i) using the usual determinants (X^i), which are gender, age, socio-economic position and educational level:

$$w_i = \beta_0 + \sum_k \beta_k X_{i,k} + \varepsilon_i$$
The estimation was conducted separately for each year. The difference between two years A1 and A2 expresses the growth rate of the average wage as the sum of a composition effect and a wage effect:

$$ \bar{w}_{A2} - \bar{w}_{A1} = \hat{\beta}_{0,A2} - \hat{\beta}_{0,A1} + \sum_{k \atop \text{wage effect}} \bar{X}_{A1,k} (\hat{\beta}_{A2,k} - \hat{\beta}_{A1,k}) + \sum_{k \atop \text{composition effect}} \hat{\beta}_{A2,k} (\bar{X}_{A2,k} - \bar{X}_{A1,k}) $$

Then the contribution, through the composition effect, of each characteristic to the average wage growth is easily computed, taking the average proportion of each group and multiplying it by the corresponding estimated parameter. That way, we compute a composition effect for each category.

## II.4 Results: the changes in the labour force structure limited the slowdown in wages

Over 2004-2012, a first observation is required: changes in the labour force composition contributed to the rise in average wage each year both before and after the crisis, due to the trend rise in the level of qualification of the labour force (figure 7). Between 2005 and 2008, this effect contributed 0.4 points to annual growth in wages on average. For instance, if the structure of the labour force in 2005 had been the same as in 2004, the average wage would have grown by 1.7% instead of 2.2%.

Starting from 2009, the analysis leads to two important conclusions. First of all, it shows that composition effects are a little higher: each year from 2009 onwards, these effects exceeded 0.5 points, with a maximum of 1 point in 2010 in particular (figure 7). Next, the analysis confirmed the slowdown in the average wage per capita for an unchanged structure (average annual growth of 1.1% in 2009-2012 against 2.4% between 2005 and 2008). All in all, the growth in average wage over the period 2009-2010 came to 1.5% according to the LFS, of which 0.7 points from composition effects.

A more advanced estimation of the Oaxaca decomposition allows to compute the contribution of various individual characteristics to the composition effect. The result of such an estimation, over the 2004-2007 and 2008-2011 periods, highlights that the composition effects we measured are explained by a stronger rise during the Great Recession in the proportion of managers, the higher-educated and seniors (figure 8).

### 7.- Annual growth of average wage per capita and contribution of the composition effect

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

Note: Between 2004 and 2005, the average wage increased by 2.2% with 0.5 points from the composition effect. In 2010, the modification of the private employment structure contributed 1 percentage point to the average wage growth.

Field: Metropolitan France, private sector workers from 15 to 64 merchants and CEO.

Source: Insee, LFS.

### 8.- Contributions of characteristics to wage growth

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

Note: between 2004 and 2007, for every 1 point of growth in the average wage over the three years due to the change in the structure of the active population in employment, half came from the rise in the proportion of managers.

Years old, excluding self-employed people, farmers, craftspeople,
## II.5 Conclusion

The contribution of the composition effect to wage growth between 2008 and 2011 was close to that of Verdugo (2013), but our analysis shows that half of this effect was structural: it was linked to a long-term trend and therefore cannot explain the resilience of wages since 2009.<fnref n="5" /> In addition, this rise in the labour force education is also likely to have buoyed up average productivity. Finally, while it does show the sort of composition effect that is usually observed when labour markets deteriorate, this effect is already taken into account in the econometric model through the impact of unemployment on wages.<fnref n="6" /> All in all, the effect of the labour force composition can only explain a marginal part of the unexpected resilience of real wages in recent years.

<footnote n="5">⁵ On the basis of a decomposition of the wage distribution in France in groups formed by combining age and qualification levels, Verdugo (2013) explained the whole of the rise in the real average wage by composition effects (rise in the average real wage of 2% overall over 3 years between 2008 and 2011 against -0.8% based on a constant composition of the labour force). Verdugo (2013) also reasoned in real wage terms and seems to explain the correction in prices only by the wage effect. Other differences, of less importance, are also present: the scope of the analysis and wage variable used were not exactly the same, nor was the structure decomposition method.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ It should be noted that the macroeconomic specification was estimated in a period during which France did not experience any recessionary periods on such a scale. The behaviour of companies towards their workforce may therefore have been particular in recent years.</footnote>
### III - Section 3: downward nominal wage rigidities, another possible explanation of wage resilience

Another possible explanation of wage resilience over the period of the Great Recession relies on wage rigidities, notably downward nominal wage rigidities. 2009 being also a year of very low inflation, the average effect of such rigidities should be stronger than usual (Holden, 2004) even if Elsby (2006) provides evidence of a weak macroeconomic impact in presence of downward nominal wage rigidities due to wage increases compression. This section focuses on this explanatory factor, seeking first to specify what is meant by wage rigidities.

Economic theory defines wage rigidities as the result of mechanisms implying that wages change less than they should, whether upwards or downwards. The difficulty therefore consists in determining counterfactual variations in wages, which would have been observed in the absence of any rigidity. Two hypotheses are generally applied to these variations: they must be equal to the sum of inflation and the variation in labour productivity and their distribution must be symmetrical (Card and Hyslop, 1996). It should be noted that these two hypotheses are independent of each other: the distribution of wage variations may be perfectly symmetrical around its median, while resulting in an average value below the sum of inflation and the productivity growth. When the symmetry hypothesis is not met, we speak more specifically of downward or upward wage rigidities, depending on the type of asymmetry. Here, we are seeking to identify more particularly downward nominal wage rigidity.

Possible origins of downward nominal wage rigidities may be many and have been abundantly illustrated in the literature: regulations, the existence of a minimum wage or the risk of discouraging employees and of reducing their productivity.<fnref n="7" /> One broad category of explanations is based on behavioural models and on the idea that wage policy ensues from negotiations between an employer and employees, the result of which depends on the financial situation of the firm, the overall situation of the employees and even of the wage level in the whole economy.<fnref n="8" />

Whatever the origin of these nominal wage rigidities, a distinction can be made between two definitions. The first and most restrictive one takes downward rigidities as situations in which, for a large number of firms, wages cannot be reduced and therefore do not change at all. In this situation, the distribution of variations in wages should be characterized by a concentration around zero and by an asymmetry with a deficit of negative variations (figure 9). The second, broader definition characterizes downward nominal wage rigidities as the situation in which responses to activity shocks are asymmetrical: the drop in wages is less intense when the shock is negative. In both cases, a poor economic outlook is thought to reinforce the average effect of such rigidities on wages.

The presence of downward nominal wage rigidities has been deeply studied in the literature. Evidence of such rigidities has been brought at an international level, as shown by Kramarz (1991). Recently, Daly et al. (2012), analysing American data, observed thus a large proportion of wages that were constant from one year to the next and therefore concluded in the existence of downward nominal wage rigidities. Moreover, they showed that this proportion of rigid wages increased during recessions. In France, Heckel and al. (2008), using a survey on working conditions, underline that wages are more rigid downwards than prices. Biscourp et al. (2003) found that there were no downward rigidities in France at the end of the 1990s according to our first definition, but that a lesser adjustment in wages was indeed observed as a consequence of negative activity shocks, which corresponds to our second definition. In the meantime, international comparisons, such as Dickens et al. (2006)

<footnote n="7">⁷ According to efficiency wage theory, due to information asymmetry between employee and employer, it may be in the interest of an employer to set a wage that is higher than the equilibrium level in order to encourage employees to be more efficient.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸ See Askenazy et al. (2013) for an overview of the possible origins of wage rigidities.</footnote>
or Holden and Wulfsberg (2007) show that France is one of the countries where downward rigidities are the weakest.

9.- Theoretical nominal distribution of changes in wage with and without rigidities

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

Note: The existence of nominal downward rigidities (orange histogram) is characterised by a concentration in zero (yellow) and a deficit of negative evolution of wages compared to the theoretical distribution without rigidities (blue curve). This figure also pictures the menu costs with a little deficit of positive evolution.

III.1 Data

Additionally to the Insee LFS used in the previous section, we will use from now on the Annual Declaration of Social Data (DADS). The DADS source provides precise information about wages, hours worked and employment. The DADS panel is used for the econometric estimations as it offers the advantage of allowing continuous observation of wages.

We match the DADS data with tax returns (Ficus and Ésane databases), using the firm identification system over the period 2003-2011; the matching is of good quality, reaching 87% of the workers in the DADS. The tax returns provide financial and business data. These data allow us to extract the value added and revenue variables, but also the business sector. The field of the study is restricted to full-time private-sector employees. Our study focuses on the net annual wages growth. For this purpose we observe only the job stayers who remained in the same firm two consecutive years, and who worked there for the whole year, in order to guarantee comparability of wages as measured annually. The wage variable studied is a net one, i.e. after deduction of social security, pension and supplementary contributions. As for employee savings, these do not include incentives but do include profit-sharing when it is not invested in a firm savings plan.

For the LFS, in order to obtain variations in the net nominal wage, we match the individual responses from the same cohort at a 15 months interval (see Data in section 2). In the purpose of matching individuals at a 15 months interval, 35 re-weighted bases are created, each one covering a period running from quarter q of year n to quarter q+1 of year n+1. The population under scrutiny includes private-sector employees aged 15 to 64, excluding the self-employed, farmers, craftspeople, traders and CEO. In this section, we restrict to individuals who stated that they had more than 15 months' seniority in their firm, thereby guaranteeing that only people who had not changed firm over the period of interest were surveyed. The wage is the net monthly wage adjusted for nonresponses, including bonuses.

The wage measures provided by these two datasets are not strictly equivalent. We compare the average wage growth measured with DADS, LFS and National Accounts (figure 10). The results differ between the three sources, with differences that can sometimes reach two percentage points. The main reason of these variations is the way headcount is assessed: for the National Accounts, the average wage per head is defined as the ratio of gross payroll to average headcount over the year; for the DADS and the LFS, wage income corresponds to the ratio of payroll to total employees over the period, i.e. all individuals who have worked in the period, even only for one hour. Moreover, for the National Accounts, the wage is gross, while for DADS and the LFS it is net of the employee's social contributions and employee savings are only included in the National Accounts.
## 10.- Average wage growth

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

Field: full-time equivalent average gross wage in non-agricultural market sectors for the national accounts; full-time net average wage of employees working in the private sector for the LFS; full-time equivalent net average wage of employees working in the private market non-agricultural sector for DADS.

Sources: Insee, National accounts, LFS, DADS.

Despite these differences, wage distributions are globally similar in both the DADS and the LFS (figure 11). However, the wage distribution in the LFS shows peaks every hundred euros that are absent from the wage distribution in the DADS. While the DADS contain administrative data that are subject to audits, the LFS is declarative in nature. One of the consequences is a tendency among respondents in the survey to round off the wage values they declare.

## 11.- Distribution of the net monthly wage in 2007

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>b. In the DADS</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>

Field: France, full-time employees from the private sector working in the same firm two consecutive years for DADS; full-time private sector workers, from 15 to 64 years old, excluding self-employed people, farmers, craftspeople, merchants and CEO, and working in the same firm since at least 15 months for LFS.

Sources: Insee, LFS, DADS.

Among other things, this rounding off behaviour affects measurement of wages growth in the LFS: if the variation is less than one hundred euros, it is possible that the respondent may declare the same rounded off figure twice, in which case the measured variation will be zero. A large proportion of the wages growth is therefore zero in the LFS (figure 12), while this is not the case of the DADS: the phenomenon observed in the LFS does not necessarily shows the existence of downward nominal wage rigidities in the more restrictive meaning.
## 12.- Distribution of the wage growth in 2008

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /><figcaption>b. In the DADS</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>

Field: France, full-time employees from the private sector working in the same firm two consecutive years for DADS; full-time private sector workers, from 15 to 64 years old, excluding self-employed people, farmers, craftspeople, merchants and CEO, and working in the same firm since at least 15 months for LFS.

Note: histogram of the wage variations by increments of 1%.

Sources: Insee, LFS, DADS.

In light of this comparison, we will favour the use of the DADS, which give a more precise measure of the wage and its evolution. LFS will still be useful, for it presents many precisions about the working conditions of the employees, not included in the DADS.

## III.2 Descriptive statistics: In the more restrictive meaning of the term, there were no downward nominal wage rigidities

In order to conduct a more in-depth analysis of downward rigidities in the restrictive meaning of the term, we looked at the proportion of employees who experienced no or little variation in their wage in a given period and we analysed its change over time. It confirmed the absence of wage rigidities in the restrictive meaning of the term: like Biscourp et al. (2003) before 2000, we observed that over the period 2003-2010, the proportion of near-zero growth was very low (figure 13), with each year less than 1% of employees having a strictly stable wage and around 6% of wages showing growth of less than 0.5% in absolute value. The proportion of drops in wage is always higher than 20% and identical irrespective of firm size. For example, in 2008 the proportion of wages that dropped was 22% in enterprises with less than 20 employees, and 21% in those with more than 250 employees. 2009 and 2010 reveal the largest proportion of negative wage variations, close to one-third, which indicates wage sensitivity to the economic situation of the firms.<fnref n="9" />

### 13.- Distribution of wage changes between 2003 and 2011 (in %)

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Near-zero growth (|rate| < 0.5 %)</th><th>Negative evolution (rate < 0 %)</th><th>Strong decrease (rate < -5 %)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2003</td><td>7</td><td>28</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>2004</td><td>7</td><td>26</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>2005</td><td>6</td><td>23</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>2006</td><td>6</td><td>26</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>2007</td><td>6</td><td>22</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>2008</td><td>5</td><td>21</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>2009</td><td>7</td><td>33</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>2010</td><td>7</td><td>30</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>6</td><td>26</td><td>11</td></tr></tbody></table>

Field: France, full-time employees from the private sector working in the same firm two consecutive years.

Note: in 2010, 7% of employees have had a near-zero growth of their wage, 30% a negative evolution and 13% a strong decrease.

Source: Insee, DADS.

<footnote n="9">⁹ Information about the variable part of wages is not available in DADS. The decreases observed very likely reflect adjustments to this variable part, which can take many forms (bonuses, 13th month, employee savings, etc.).</footnote>
The distribution of wage growth is quite homogeneous on the observed individuals over the 2003-2011 period (figure 14). The largest differences can be observed according to the age and the wage level. Lower-paid workers are less subject to a reduction of their wage than higher-paid worker. This finding can be seen either as a minimum wage effect or as a result of the greater variable part of higher-paid employees' compensations. The first reason is related to an inability to cut wages near to the minimum wage threshold, whereas the second one arises from the French labour law. Indeed, when an employer decides to adjust wages downward, it is possible for him to reduce the variable component of the wage whereas it is very difficult for its fixed part because it implies to modify the employment agreement. As this variable part grows with the wage level, it is not surprising that higher paid workers are the first concerned by wage cuts. The youngest also experience less decreases in their wage than the seniors do. Given that youngest have lower wage, this can be related to the previous mechanism.

## 14.- Distribution of wage evolutions between 2003 and 2011 by characteristics of firms and individuals

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">Near-zero growth</th><th colspan="2">Negative evolution</th><th colspan="2">Strong decrease</th></tr><tr><th>Mean</th><th>Std Error</th><th>Mean</th><th>Std Error</th><th>Mean</th><th>Std Error</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>All individuals</td><td>6.1</td><td>0.8</td><td>26.1</td><td>3.7</td><td>10.7</td><td>1.7</td></tr><tr><td>Sector</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Manufacturing Industry</td><td>5.8</td><td>0.7</td><td>25.5</td><td>4.7</td><td>10.2</td><td>2.5</td></tr><tr><td>Construction</td><td>4.9</td><td>0.7</td><td>27.7</td><td>4.9</td><td>12.4</td><td>2.2</td></tr><tr><td>Trade</td><td>6.6</td><td>0.9</td><td>26.3</td><td>3.4</td><td>10.6</td><td>1.5</td></tr><tr><td>Services</td><td>6.5</td><td>0.8</td><td>25.9</td><td>3.1</td><td>11.0</td><td>1.2</td></tr><tr><td>Firm headcount</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Less than 20 employees</td><td>8.0</td><td>1.1</td><td>27.6</td><td>4.0</td><td>11.5</td><td>1.8</td></tr><tr><td>20 to 50 employees</td><td>6.2</td><td>0.9</td><td>26.4</td><td>4.7</td><td>10.8</td><td>2.3</td></tr><tr><td>50 to 500 employees</td><td>5.6</td><td>0.7</td><td>25.7</td><td>3.8</td><td>10.6</td><td>1.8</td></tr><tr><td>More than 500 employees</td><td>5.4</td><td>0.8</td><td>25.3</td><td>3.5</td><td>10.3</td><td>1.5</td></tr><tr><td>Firm status</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>In a group</td><td>5.6</td><td>0.7</td><td>25.7</td><td>3.7</td><td>10.5</td><td>1.7</td></tr><tr><td>Independent</td><td>7.2</td><td>1.1</td><td>26.9</td><td>3.9</td><td>11.2</td><td>1.8</td></tr><tr><td>Wage level</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>First quartile</td><td>5.0</td><td>0.7</td><td>20.7</td><td>2.8</td><td>8.5</td><td>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>Medium quartiles</td><td>6.3</td><td>0.8</td><td>27.2</td><td>4.2</td><td>10.7</td><td>2.0</td></tr><tr><td>Last quartile</td><td>7.0</td><td>0.8</td><td>29.7</td><td>4.0</td><td>13.0</td><td>2.1</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Men</td><td>6.2</td><td>0.8</td><td>26.4</td><td>4.1</td><td>10.5</td><td>2.0</td></tr><tr><td>Women</td><td>6.0</td><td>0.8</td><td>25.4</td><td>2.9</td><td>11.3</td><td>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Less than 30 years old</td><td>3.8</td><td>0.6</td><td>21.0</td><td>3.1</td><td>9.9</td><td>1.4</td></tr><tr><td>30 to 39 years old</td><td>5.3</td><td>0.7</td><td>25.1</td><td>3.6</td><td>10.9</td><td>1.7</td></tr><tr><td>40 to 49 years old</td><td>6.7</td><td>0.8</td><td>26.5</td><td>4.0</td><td>10.1</td><td>1.8</td></tr><tr><td>More than 50 years old</td><td>7.7</td><td>0.9</td><td>29.4</td><td>4.0</td><td>11.7</td><td>1.8</td></tr></tbody></table>

Field: France, full-time employees from the private sector working in the same firm two consecutive years.

Note: on the 2003-2011 period, an average of 6.1% of employees have experience a near-zero growth of their wage, with an inter-year standard error of 0.8.

Source: Insee, DADS.

## III.3 A significant proportion of wages drop each year without necessarily any change in working conditions

Wages are not downward rigid in the most restrictive sense of the term. However, it is worth analysing whether wage drops are linked to changes in employees working conditions (drop in the number of hours normally worked, end of night-shift work or Sunday working, etc.). In that case we could not say there were no rigidities.

The LFS contains a rich array of variables on working conditions whereas DADS data do not, and they can be used to test this hypothesis (figure 15). In the course of the 2000s, including the years of recession or sluggish growth, less than 15% of wage decreases can be related to a change in working conditions. More specifically, just 6% of employees reporting a wage decrease had their working hours reduced. It therefore appears that a large share of wage drops came without a change in working conditions, and was probably due to a reduction in the variable part of compensation.
## 15.- Loss of wages and modifications of working conditions (in %)

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>2005-2008</th><th>2009-2012</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Proportion of employees whose nominal wage has decreased</td><td>33.2</td><td>37.7</td></tr><tr><td>among whom: working hours per week has decreased</td><td>5.7</td><td>5.8</td></tr><tr><td>do not work anymore (or less) on Saturday</td><td>2.7</td><td>2.5</td></tr><tr><td>do not work anymore (or less) on Sunday</td><td>1.6</td><td>1.8</td></tr><tr><td>do not work anymore (or less) during the night</td><td>1.5</td><td>1.3</td></tr><tr><td>increase of the number of "RTT" days that the employee is entitled to</td><td>3.6</td><td>2.4</td></tr><tr><td>increase of the number of days' leave that the employee is entitled to</td><td>2.6</td><td>2.1</td></tr><tr><td>job change compared to the last survey</td><td>0.6</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>workplace change compared to the last survey</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>profession change</td><td>2.8</td><td>4.2</td></tr><tr><td>at least one of these changes</td><td>14.2</td><td>13.1</td></tr></tbody></table>

Field: Metropolitan France, full-time private sector employees, from 15 to 64 years old, with fixed-term contracts or permanent contracts, and declaring working in the same firm since at least 15 months.

Note: on average, between 2005 and 2008, 33.2% of employees have had a pay cut. Of those, a decline in seven is justified by at least one changing working conditions.

Source: Insee, LFS.

## III.4 Model

In this part we look at the broader definition of rigidities: there is downward nominal wage rigidity when wages react relatively less to a negative shock than to a positive shock on firm's activity. Thanks to the DADS/tax returns matching, we are able to measure changes in both the employee wage and the activity of the firm in which he/she is employed. Thus we can estimate an elasticity of wage with respect to activity shocks. By distinguishing in the estimation the cases when the activity increases or decreases, and then measuring the asymmetry of the wage sensitivity we are able to determine if there are any downward rigidities.

Our estimations of wage variations for individuals who were employed in the same firm for two years running use the methodology developed by Biscourp and Fourcade (2003). More specifically, we study the asymmetry in the response of wage growth to an activity shock using the following model:

$$ \Delta\ln(w_{ijt}) = (\alpha^{+} 1_{\Delta\ln(ca_{jt})>0} + \alpha^{-} 1_{\Delta\ln(ca_{jt})<0}). \Delta\ln(ca_{jt}) + \delta x_{ijt} + \eta 1_{t} + \varepsilon_{ijt} \quad (1) $$

where:

* i represents the employee, j the enterprise and t the year;

* w represents the net annual wage;

* ca represents the firm's total turnover;

* x represents a set of covariables, namely: variation in the number of hours worked, gender, socio economic position, age, firm size, unemployment rate in the employment area in which the enterprise is located, sectoral dummies according to NAF rev. 2;

* 1_t year dummies;

* ε$_{ijt}$ represents the residual of the equation.

The wage rigidities hypothesis involves testing for the difference between the two parameters α⁺ and α⁻, which respectively capture the effect of a positive or negative shock for the firm on wage variation. The case where α⁺ is significantly greater than α⁻ corresponds to downward nominal wage rigidities. The estimates by Biscourp and Fourcade (2003) covering the period 1994-2000 lead to such a situation, with a significant gap between these two parameters.

However, unlike Biscourp and Fourcade (2003) whose estimation covered a stable period of time, we expect the year 2009, and possibly 2010, to be outliers, considering the disconnection between productivity and wage observed for these particular two years.
Instead of estimating $\alpha^+$ and $\alpha^-$ for the whole period, we want to estimate them each year. In this purpose, we cross-reference both coefficients with a year dummy, leading to the model (2):

$$ \Delta\ln(w_{ijt}) = (\alpha^+ 1_{\Delta\ln(ca_{jt})>0} + \alpha^- 1_{\Delta\ln(ca_{jt})<0}).1_t \cdot \Delta\ln(ca_{jt}) + \delta x_{ijt} + \eta 1_t + \varepsilon_{ijt} \quad (2) $$

It is also noteworthy that this model can be understood in a behavioural dimension, with the idea that wage setting is the result of a bargaining between employee and employer, depending on the overall situation of the employees in the firm, the state of the economy as a whole and of course the financial situation of the firm. This reading of the model and the focus on the year 2009, which was mainly marked by a demand shock [Cabannes et al., 2013], justify the choice of this method which does not take account of any supply shocks.

The DADS provides individual panel data, which can be used to improve the estimates. So, we take into account the unobserved heterogeneity of individuals, which might skew the results, by estimating a fixed individual effects model (“Within” method). We should also note that the presence of a simultaneity bias between wage and turnover variations is always possible, but this bias has no reason to affect the relation upwards more than downwards [Biscourp and Fourcade, 2003]. This point is discussed in the robustness tests section. The estimated model is therefore as follows:

$$ \Delta\ln(w_{ijt}) = (\alpha^+ 1_{\Delta\ln(ca_{jt})>0} + \alpha^- 1_{\Delta\ln(ca_{jt})<0}).1_t \cdot \Delta\ln(ca_{jt}) + \delta x_{ijt} + \eta 1_t + e_i + \varepsilon_{ijt} \quad (3) $$

where $e_i$ represents the individual fixed effects.

Finally, as it will be shown below, we test some specifications of the model, in order to check robustness and to clarify the underlying economic phenomena we observe, among which:

* the introduction of time-lagged variables of the variation in activity of firms, in order to take account of a delayed wage adjustment;

* the use of other economic cycle variables instead of turnover: value added and productivity;

* estimation on subsets of the data, according to characteristics of the individuals or the firms.

### III.5 Results: During the recession, wages were adjusted both upwards and downwards depending on the activity shock specific to each firm

Without the cross-referencing of these coefficients with year dummies, the estimation shows a small but significant and positive gap between $\alpha^+$ and $\alpha^-$ over the 2003-2011 period ($\alpha^+$ is 0.025 and $\alpha^-$ is 0.023). In model (3), the estimation of coefficients $\alpha^+$ and $\alpha^-$ shows that year 2009 is an outlier (figure 16). For every other year, the difference between $\alpha^+$ and $\alpha^-$ is either positive or not significant, but in 2009, it is strongly negative (see Appendix 1 for the complete results of the estimation).
16.- Variation in wages following a positive or negative shock of 10% of turnover

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

Field: France, full-time employees from the private sector working in the same firm two consecutive years.

Note: in 2004, firms that have experienced a decrease (respectively an increase) of 10% of their turnover dropped wages by 0.11% (respectively increased wages by 0.25%), all else being equal. Coefficients α (green) and α' (red) were obtained by the model (3) estimation on the DADS panel from 2003 to 2011. The dashed lines represent the 95% confidence interval. Estimation on 3 771 135 observations (419 015 in average per year).

Sources: Insee, DADS, Ficus, Ésane.

Three main conclusions emerge from this first estimation:

* First, the response of wages to a specific activity shock is always very low: a 10% activity shock for a firm is passed on at a level of 0.3% to its employees' wages in the same year. This low response from wages to an activity shock was already present in Biscourp and Fourcade (2003);

* Next, in periods of medium or strong GDP growth, the increase in wages when the firm's activity grows is significantly larger than the decrease when activity falls. There is therefore an asymmetry in favour of a reaction to a positive shock which characterizes relatively stronger downward nominal wage rigidities;

* However, during periods of weak GDP growth the asymmetry disappears and is even reversed in 2009, year of the Great Recession: that year the wage dropped significantly faster when the firm experienced a negative activity shock than it increased when the firm experienced a positive activity shock. Similarly, the asymmetry in the response of wages to an activity shock disappeared in 2003, year of weak GDP growth, as well as in 2010-2011, years that followed the Great Recession.

In light of these conclusions, it seems that downward nominal wage rigidities exist in France over periods of economic stability, but they fail to explain the disconnection we observe between productivity and wages in 2009.

III.6 Robustness tests

Although model (3) takes account of the unobserved heterogeneity, there is still a potential bias in our estimation, due to a possible simultaneity within contemporary shocks. Our estimations are valid only under the hypothesis that observed activity shocks for the firms are exogenous to individual wage shocks. That might not be true, particularly in the light of the efficiency wage theory. Such an endogeneity bias could be controlled using instrumental variables, but the sources do not offer many appropriate instruments. We can not either use lagged values of the covariables, because we cross-reference the firm shocks with year dummies. The solution we chose is to use the most exogenous available activity proxy, which is turnover. Tax returns yet provide two other variables that could be used in our model: value added and productivity, the second one being measured as the ratio of value added to average headcount of the firm. In order to test the robustness of the choice of
turnover instead of these two variables, we estimate model (3) using them as explanatory variables (figure 17).

The $\alpha^+$ and $\alpha^-$ coefficients obtained with the estimations on the value added and on the turnover are rather similar: the wage response to a value added positive shock is a little weaker than the response to a turnover positive shock, but in both cases the rigidity goes downward in years of strong or medium growth, and upward in 2009.

With the productivity model, both responses to positive and negative shocks are weaker, and the difference between $\alpha^+$ and $\alpha^-$ is often not statistically significant. The reversal of the rigidities begins in 2008 rather than in 2009, mainly because of a very weak wage elasticity to a positive change in productivity this year.

## 17.- Variation in wages following a positive or negative shock of 10% of...

### a. ...value added

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

### b. ...productivity

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>

Field: France, full-time employees from the private sector working in the same firm two consecutive years.

Note: in 2004, firms that have experienced a decrease (respectively an increase) of 10% of their value added dropped wages by 0.09% (respectively increased wages by 0.17%), all else being equal. Coefficients $\alpha^+$ (green) and $\alpha^-$ (red) were obtained by the model (3) estimation on the DADS panel from 2003 to 2011. The dashed lines represent the 95% confidence interval. Estimation on 3 771 135 observations (419 015 in average per year).

Sources: Insee, DADS, Ficus, Ésane.

In the rest of this section, we will present for each estimation the results obtained using both turnover and productivity, to control their robustness. In a purpose of parsimony though, we will not present the results obtained with value added, that appear to be for each estimation very close of the turnover ones.

### The effect of activity shocks is significant on the current year and the year after, and decreases strongly two years after.

The model links wage growth to variations in turnover in the same year. However, part of wage bargainings takes place each year based on previous year's results. The macroeconomic modelling (Section I) also shows that there is a diffusion effect of productivity shocks in the following years. To take account of this potential delayed effect, we add to the model (3) time-lagged variables of the activity shocks. From now on, the change in wages is explained not only by contemporary changes in the activity of the firm, but also by variations in the activity of the two previous years. Others covariables are not modified.

First of all, we notice that the shape of the results is not modified for the contemporary shocks (figure 18a-d). The value of the coefficient is of the same order of magnitude. The effect of the previous year's activity shocks on wage growth is also of the same order of magnitude, but the difference between the elasticity to a positive or negative shock is reduced compared to the contemporary shocks. The values of the coefficients are rather stable over the time, except for the year 2008 in the productivity model. Finally, activity shocks happening two years earlier have little effect on wage evolution, with almost no difference between positive and negative shocks.
18.- Variation in wages following a...

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /><figcaption>b. ...negative shock of turnover of 10%</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /><figcaption>c. ...positive shock of productivity of 10%</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_25.png" /><figcaption>d. ...negative shock of productivity of 10%</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /></figure>

Field: France, full-time employees from the private sector working in the same firm two consecutive years.

Note: firms that experienced an increase of 10% of their turnover in 2005 have increased wages by 0.41% in 2005, 0.23% in 2006 and 0.06% in 2007, all else being equal. Estimation on 3 771 135 observations (419 015 in average per year).

Sources: Insee, DADS, Ficus, Ésane.

In light of these results, it seems that the hypothesis of a delayed effect of the activity shocks is especially relevant for the first year, for it disappears almost entirely from the second year. That is why we will rather estimate the effect of a change in activity on the next year, rather than only on the current year. There is a way to estimate the cumulative effect by adjusting model (3). Instead of estimating the effect of a shock on a yearly wage growth, we compute a two-year evolution of the wage, and use as covariables the two activity shocks the firm has experienced between these two years. The new model is:

$$
\begin{align}
\ln(w_{ijt}) - \ln(w_{ijt-2}) ={}& (\alpha_t^+ 1_{\Delta\ln(ca_{jt})>0} + \alpha_t^- 1_{\Delta\ln(ca_{jt})<0}) \cdot 1_t \cdot \Delta\ln(ca_{jt}) \nonumber \\
& + (\beta_t^+ 1_{\Delta\ln(ca_{jt-1})>0} + \beta_t^- 1_{\Delta\ln(ca_{jt-1})<0}) \cdot 1_{t-1} \cdot \Delta\ln(ca_{jt-1}) \tag{4} \\
& + (\delta_1 + \delta_2 L) \cdot x_{ijt} + \eta \cdot 1_t + e_i + \varepsilon_{ijt} \nonumber
\end{align}
$$

The α coefficients estimate the effect of the current activity shock on the two-years wage evolution, and the β coefficients are the one we are more precisely interested in: the one-year diffusion effect of the activity shock on wage. We also use a subset of time-lagged covariables, namely variation in the number of hours worked and socio-economic position ($\delta_2 L$ term).

First of all, we observe that after one year, the asymmetry between the response to positive or negative shocks is weaker than its current year value (figure 19b compared to figure 17b). Considering productivity, there are hardly any rigidities on the entire 2003-2010 period. The estimate from model (4) on turnover yet still confirms the reversal of the rigidity for 2009 shocks, whereas its estimation on productivity shows this reversal for 2010 shocks. This result confirms that these two years are outliers regarding the relation between economic activity and wage. That said, this microeconometric modelling shows that, although downward nominal wage rigidities do exist over economically stable periods, they do not constitute a valid explanation to the 2009 and 2010 disconnection revealed by the macroeconomic simulation.
19.- Effect the next year of a change of 10%...

a. ...in turnover

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /></figure>

Field: France, full-time employees from the private sector working in the same firm two consecutive years.

Note: firms that have experienced a decrease (respectively an increase) of 10% of their turnover in 2004 dropped wages by 0.37% (respectively increased wages by 0.36%) in 2005, all else being equal.

Coefficients β+ (green) and β- (red) were obtained by the model (4) estimation on the DADS panel data from 2003 to 2011. The dashed lines represent the 95% confidence interval. Estimation on 2 712 774 observations (339 097 in average per year).

Sources: Insee, DADS, Ficus, Ésane.

b. ...in productivity

<figure><img src="image_28.png" /></figure>

Wage adjustments are smaller for lower-paid employees and for large firms

Previous results have highlighted that in economically stable periods, there are some downward rigidities impacting French wages. In this part, we will investigate the strength of these rigidities on various subsets of firms or employees.

In that purpose, we estimate model (4) on turnover and productivity, with an extra simplification: since we noticed that 2009 is the main year of interest, we no longer cross-reference the α and β coefficients with all years, but with 2009 on the one hand and a cluster of all other years on the other hand. The idea is to make a distinction between “normal” rigidities and “special” ones that we observe in 2009. Table 20 shows the estimates of the β coefficients for those two periods and for the various subsets of the population we study.

Firstly, for all subsets, we observe a negative difference between $\beta^+$ and $\beta^-$ for shocks occurring in 2009. For other years, the difference (“Diff” column) is either slightly positive or not significant, due to the estimation of a delayed effect which attenuates the rigidity, as depicted on figure 19. There seems to be little difference between the subsets of the population in regard of the criterion of the sign or the amplitude of the difference between the $\beta^+$ and $\beta^-$. On the contrary, the value of these two coefficients varies strongly between subsets (“Coeff” column), underlining differences in the sensitivity to activity shocks, on which we will focus here.

Except for the construction sector, which shows a slightly stronger response to negative shocks than the other ones, the activity sector does not seem to be a relevant criterion regarding wage rigidities. On the contrary, wage rigidities change strongly according to firm size: values of the β coefficients are much higher for small firms and decrease as the size of the firm increases. With the behavioural interpretation of the model in mind, it seems that for small firms, activity weighs more in the bargaining outcome, maybe because of a smaller leeway in wage setting. It could also be seen as the consequence of an “implicit contract” between larger firms and their employees: in such firms, wage evolution is smoother but less sensitive to business cycles (see Azariadis, 1975 and Azariadis and Stiglitz, 1983).

The sensitivity of wages to activity is also weaker for lower-paid workers, and increases with the wage level. This result can be seen as an effect of the minimum wage: the first quartile includes wages close to the minimum wage and whose evolution is not decided only by local bargaining in the firm, but also by a national policy. It is thus not abnormal to observe a weaker relation between firm's activity and wage setting for this level of wage. On the contrary, for higher wage levels, wage evolution will not only be affected by minimum wage policy, but will also be more adaptable, due to a growing weight of the variable part of the wage (premia, employee savings).
Men's wages are also more sensitive to activity shocks than women's. One of the consequences is that the wage rigidity disappears for women. As for the age, it seems to have no clear influence on the elasticity of wages with respect to activity shocks.

<table><caption>20.- Effect the next year of a change of 10% in turnover/productivity, by characteristics</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2">Sign of the shock</th><th colspan="6">Turnover shocks</th><th colspan="6">Productivity shocks</th></tr><tr><th colspan="3">Other than 2009</th><th colspan="3">2009</th><th colspan="3">Other than 2009</th><th colspan="3">2009</th></tr><tr><th></th><th></th><th>Coeff</th><th>Sign.</th><th>Diff.</th><th>Coeff</th><th>Sign.</th><th>Diff.</th><th>Coeff</th><th>Sign.</th><th>Diff.</th><th>Coeff</th><th>Sign.</th><th>Diff.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="14"><strong>All individuals</strong></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Positive Shock</td><td>0.42</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.27</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.20</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.22</td><td>***</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Negative Shock</td><td>0.36</td><td>***</td><td>+0.05</td><td>0.78</td><td>***</td><td>-0.51</td><td>0.15</td><td>***</td><td>+0.04</td><td>0.30</td><td>***</td><td>-0.08</td></tr><tr><td colspan="14"><strong>Sector</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Industry</td><td>Positive Shock</td><td>0.41</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.36</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.27</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.14</td><td>***</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Negative Shock</td><td>0.39</td><td>***</td><td>n.s.</td><td>1.00</td><td>***</td><td>-0.64</td><td>0.24</td><td>***</td><td>n.s.</td><td>0.66</td><td>***</td><td>-0.52</td></tr><tr><td>Construction</td><td>Positive Shock</td><td>0.36</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.21</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.29</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.26</td><td>***</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Negative Shock</td><td>0.46</td><td>***</td><td>n.s.</td><td>0.70</td><td>***</td><td>-0.49</td><td>0.34</td><td>***</td><td>n.s.</td><td>0.70</td><td>***</td><td>-0.45</td></tr><tr><td>Trade</td><td>Positive Shock</td><td>0.39</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.37</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.20</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.17</td><td>***</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Negative Shock</td><td>0.33</td><td>***</td><td>n.s.</td><td>0.65</td><td>***</td><td>-0.28</td><td>0.19</td><td>***</td><td>n.s.</td><td>0.45</td><td>***</td><td>-0.28</td></tr><tr><td>Services</td><td>Positive Shock</td><td>0.44</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.25</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.12</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.19</td><td>***</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Negative Shock</td><td>0.34</td><td>***</td><td>+0.10</td><td>0.61</td><td>***</td><td>-0.36</td><td>0.17</td><td>***</td><td>n.s.</td><td>0.13</td><td>***</td><td>n.s.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="14"><strong>Firm headcount</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Less than 20 employees</td><td>Positive Shock</td><td>0.79</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.43</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.30</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.19</td><td>***</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Negative Shock</td><td>0.61</td><td>***</td><td>+0.18</td><td>0.95</td><td>***</td><td>-0.52</td><td>0.33</td><td>***</td><td>n.s.</td><td>0.60</td><td>***</td><td>-0.41</td></tr><tr><td>20 to 50 employees</td><td>Positive Shock</td><td>0.46</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.25</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.24</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.30</td><td>***</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Negative Shock</td><td>0.37</td><td>***</td><td>+0.09</td><td>0.81</td><td>***</td><td>-0.56</td><td>0.30</td><td>***</td><td>n.s.</td><td>0.54</td><td>***</td><td>-0.23</td></tr><tr><td>50 to 500 employees</td><td>Positive Shock</td><td>0.30</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.30</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.22</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.27</td><td>***</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Negative Shock</td><td>0.26</td><td>***</td><td>n.s.</td><td>0.57</td><td>***</td><td>-0.28</td><td>0.15</td><td>***</td><td>+0.06</td><td>0.36</td><td>***</td><td>n.s.</td></tr><tr><td>More than 500 employees</td><td>Positive Shock</td><td>0.29</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.51</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.10</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.16</td><td>***</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Negative Shock</td><td>0.22</td><td>***</td><td>+0.07</td><td>0.96</td><td>***</td><td>-0.45</td><td>0.08</td><td>***</td><td>n.s.</td><td>0.24</td><td>***</td><td>n.s.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="14"><strong>Firm status</strong></td></tr><tr><td>In a group</td><td>Positive Shock</td><td>0.30</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.29</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.15</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.22</td><td>***</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Negative Shock</td><td>0.27</td><td>***</td><td>n.s.</td><td>0.78</td><td>***</td><td>-0.48</td><td>0.16</td><td>***</td><td>n.s.</td><td>0.29</td><td>***</td><td>-0.07</td></tr><tr><td>Independent</td><td>Positive Shock</td><td>0.69</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.38</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.32</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.25</td><td>***</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Negative Shock</td><td>0.55</td><td>***</td><td>+0.14</td><td>0.84</td><td>***</td><td>-0.45</td><td>0.15</td><td>***</td><td>+0.17</td><td>0.40</td><td>***</td><td>-0.16</td></tr><tr><td colspan="14"><strong>Wage level</strong></td></tr><tr><td>First quartile</td><td>Positive Shock</td><td>0.17</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.01</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.08</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.15</td><td>***</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Negative Shock</td><td>0.25</td><td>***</td><td>-0.07</td><td>0.41</td><td>***</td><td>-0.40</td><td>0.09</td><td>***</td><td>n.s.</td><td>0.13</td><td>***</td><td>n.s.</td></tr><tr><td>Medium quartiles</td><td>Positive Shock</td><td>0.33</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.10</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.17</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.21</td><td>***</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Negative Shock</td><td>0.33</td><td>***</td><td>n.s.</td><td>0.68</td><td>***</td><td>-0.59</td><td>0.14</td><td>***</td><td>+0.04</td><td>0.27</td><td>***</td><td>-0.06</td></tr><tr><td>Last quartile</td><td>Positive Shock</td><td>0.63</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.55</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.27</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.20</td><td>***</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Negative Shock</td><td>0.40</td><td>***</td><td>+0.23</td><td>0.87</td><td>***</td><td>-0.33</td><td>0.21</td><td>***</td><td>+0.06</td><td>0.39</td><td>***</td><td>-0.19</td></tr><tr><td colspan="14"><strong>Gender</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Men</td><td>Positive Shock</td><td>0.45</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.31</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.24</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.23</td><td>***</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Negative Shock</td><td>0.40</td><td>***</td><td>+0.06</td><td>0.83</td><td>***</td><td>-0.52</td><td>0.19</td><td>***</td><td>+0.04</td><td>0.38</td><td>***</td><td>-0.15</td></tr><tr><td>Women</td><td>Positive Shock</td><td>0.33</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.19</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.12</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.18</td><td>***</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Negative Shock</td><td>0.29</td><td>***</td><td>n.s.</td><td>0.62</td><td>***</td><td>-0.43</td><td>0.10</td><td>***</td><td>n.s.</td><td>0.18</td><td>***</td><td>n.s.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="14"><strong>Age</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Less than 30 years old</td><td>Positive Shock</td><td>0.39</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.07</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.16</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.17</td><td>***</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Negative Shock</td><td>0.32</td><td>***</td><td>n.s.</td><td>0.71</td><td>***</td><td>-0.63</td><td>0.16</td><td>***</td><td>n.s.</td><td>0.24</td><td>***</td><td>n.s.</td></tr><tr><td>30 to 39 years old</td><td>Positive Shock</td><td>0.41</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.41</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.18</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.33</td><td>***</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Negative Shock</td><td>0.36</td><td>***</td><td>n.s.</td><td>0.79</td><td>***</td><td>-0.38</td><td>0.15</td><td>***</td><td>n.s.</td><td>0.26</td><td>***</td><td>n.s.</td></tr><tr><td>40 to 49 years old</td><td>Positive Shock</td><td>0.41</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.22</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.19</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.19</td><td>***</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Negative Shock</td><td>0.34</td><td>***</td><td>+0.07</td><td>0.75</td><td>***</td><td>-0.53</td><td>0.15</td><td>***</td><td>n.s.</td><td>0.31</td><td>***</td><td>-0.13</td></tr><tr><td>More than 50 years old</td><td>Positive Shock</td><td>0.38</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.26</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.20</td><td>***</td><td></td><td>0.18</td><td>***</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Negative Shock</td><td>0.36</td><td>***</td><td>n.s.</td><td>0.80</td><td>***</td><td>-0.53</td><td>0.15</td><td>***</td><td>+0.05</td><td>0.33</td><td>***</td><td>-0.14</td></tr></tbody></table>

Field: France, full-time employees from the private sector working in the same firm two consecutive years.

Note: Results of the estimation of β coefficients in model (4) with year clusters (2009 on the one side and other years on the other). Estimations done separately on each sub-population. Estimated on all individuals, the effect of a negative (respectively positive) turnover shock of 10% in 2009 results in a drop of the wage of 0.78% in 2010 (respectively an increase of 0.27%). Estimation on 2 712 774 total observations (339 097 in average per year).

\*: significant at 1% level ; \*: significant at 5% level ; \*: significant at 10% level.

n.s.: difference is not significant at 5% level.

Sources: Insee, DADS, Ficus, Ésane.
The elasticity of wages is higher for moderate turnover shocks

In this section, we test the sensitivity of our model to the choice of the threshold. In this light, we split the positive turnover shocks in two groups, according to the intensity of the shock. If this intensity is superior to 8%, we consider the shock as strong, else we consider it moderate. We estimate model (4) using these three cases of turnover shocks instead of only positive or negative.

The estimation of the elasticity on the whole period (figure 21) shows a stronger elasticity to
moderate turnover shocks than the one to stronger (negative or positive) turnover shocks,
with a significant difference between coefficients. With a year cross-referenced estimation,
results are more fragile, notably in 2005 and 2006 where the results are inverse. However,
for most years the elasticity stays higher for moderate turnover shocks. On the
macroeconomic level, we find a similar result by allowing a non-linear response of wages to
productivity shocks: the adjustment is stronger for periods of moderate shock than for
periods of intense shock (negative or positive), and the predictive power of the
macroeconomic model is strengthened (see Appendix 2).

<figure><img src="image_29.png" /><figcaption>21.- Effect the next year of a change of 10% in turnover</figcaption></figure>

Field: France, full-time employees from the private sector working in the same firm two consecutive years.

Note: Results of the estimation of β coefficients in model (4) without year cross-referencing. The blue point represents the estimation of β . The orange line represents the confidence interval (95%). A negative turnover shock of 10% results in a drop of the wage of 0.46% the year after.

Estimation on 2 712 774 total observations (339 097 in average per year).

Sources: Insee, DADS, Ficus, Ésane.
There is no evidence of downward nominal wage rigidities at a group level

The weak reaction of wages to macroeconomic activity shocks in a given year could also be explained by constraints linked to branch agreements on wage formation [Avouyi-Dovi et al., 2013] or to economic performance of the headquarter. Indeed, employees in firms that do not belong to a group also experience a stronger connection between their wages and the firm’s activity. Two non-exclusive explanations are possible: on the one hand, the activity of the firm may not be the good proxy for firms that belong to a group, because wage negotiations happen at a higher group level; on the other hand, since independent firms tend to be smaller, this could be an effect of the firms’ size. In order to further investigate this question, we compute productivity at a group level<fnref n="10" />, using data on group structures in France, and estimate model (4) with shocks on both the firm and the group productivities.

The effect of a group productivity shock on wages is of the same order of magnitude as the effect of a firm productivity shock, that is to say rather low (figure 22a-22b). Nonetheless, the asymmetry is reversed between the two levels: the response of wages is stronger when the shock is positive (resp. negative) at the firm level (resp. the group) level. The introduction of the group-level shocks does not change the effect of the positive firm-level shocks, but attenuates the effect of negative firm-level shocks as if in case of downturn the group substitute itself to the firm to moderate wages. In relation with the downward nominal wage rigidities issue, this insight gives no clear evidence, in part because our sample is reduced and confidence intervals are large.<fnref n="11" />

22.- Effect the next year of a change of 10% in productivity...

a. ...of the group

<figure><img src="image_30.png" /></figure>

b. ...of the firm

<figure><img src="image_31.png" /></figure>

Field: France, full-time employees from the private sector working in the same company two consecutive years. Firms belonging to the same group for two consecutive years.

Note: firms that have experienced a decrease (respectively an increase) of 10% of their productivity in 2004 dropped wages by 0.14% (respectively increased wages by 0.21%) in 2005, all else being equal.

Coefficients β+ (green) and β- (red) were obtained by the model (4) estimation on the DADS panel data from 2003 to 2011 with productivity shocks at both firm and group level. The dashed lines represent the 95% confidence interval. Estimation on 392 102 observations (49 013 in average per year).

Sources: Insee, DADS, Ficus, Esane, LiFi.

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ The evolution of group structures may provoke strong productivity shock at the group level, which should be uncorrelated to the workers’ wages. In order to avoid such shocks, we measure the group productivity shocks between two years using only firms that are present in the group in both years, and estimate the model (4) only on such firms. They approximatively represent 75% of the firms that belong to a group on the 2003-2011 period. We also lose some information in the computation of a group level productivity, for we need value added and headcount for every firm of our sample and missing values cause us to withdraw the whole group from the sample. In the end, we estimate our new model on almost 50 000 individual observations per year.</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹ We checked robustness of these results with an estimation of the same model using value added instead of productivity (turnover is not computable at a group level due to within-group trade). Results are unchanged.</footnote>
Conclusion: The weak response of wages to an activity shock, whether positive or negative, could however indicate some wage inertia

This article shows an asymmetry in wage response depending on the economic environment. A possible explanation for the sensitivity of these rigidities to the cycle could be found in behavioural models. A deterioration of the general economic context and a rise in unemployment affect the result of wage bargaining, strengthening employers' bargaining power. In the opposite economic context, the same transmission channels might explain the asymmetry reversal.

The disconnection between wage and productivity remains unexplained by the two core assumptions of labour force composition effects and downward nominal wage rigidities. The reason lies most likely in the singular nature of 2009 Great Recession. First, the activity shock reached an unprecedented scale since World War II. Then, the near-zero inflation probably damaged individuals' expectations. However, our contribution emphasises a significant result: the low response of wages to a (positive or negative) activity shock, especially for lower wage earners and large firms. The elasticity of wages with respect to a negative shock, though increasing in 2009, remains low in absolute terms. The weakness of this elasticity contributed to modify the share of salaries in GDP in favour of employees and then prevented to get back to pre-crisis levels.

In return, wages inertia would facilitate the recovery of the firms' margin rate in times of strong economic upturn. New estimations allowing an asymmetric response of wages to productivity provide evidence in favour of the weaker wage adjustments in response to high productivity shocks. According to Daly and Hobijn (2014), this type of mechanism has also driven wage evolution in the U.S. if downward nominal wage rigidities result in substantial pent up wage deflation, then wage inflation should remain lower than expected from the tightening of the labour market during the ensuing recovery period.
Bibliography

Abowd, J.M., Corbel, P. and F. Kramarz: « The entry and exit of workers and the growth of employment », *Review of Economics and Statistics*, 1999.

Ananian S., Debauche E. and C. Prost, « L'ajustement du marché du travail français pendant la crise de 2008-2009 », *Dares Analyses*, no. 040, June 2012.

Askenazy P., Bozio A. and C. García-Peñalosa, « Dynamique des salaires par temps de crise », *Les notes du conseil d'analyse économique*, no. 5, April 2013.

Avouyi-Dovi S., Fougère D. and E. Gautier, « Wage rigidity, collective bargaining and the minimum wage : evidence from French agreement data », *Review of Economics and Statistics*, Vol. 95, No. 4, pages 1337-1351, 2013.

Azariadis C., « Implicit Contracts and Underemployment Equilibria », *Journal of Political Economy*, 1975.

Azariadis C. and J. Stiglitz, « Implicit Contracts and fixed Price Equilibria », *The Quarterly Journal of Economics*, Vol. XCVIII, 1983.

Banerjee A., Dolado J.-J. and R. Mestre, « Error-correction mechanism tests for cointegration in a single equation framework », *Journal of Time Series Analysis*, Vol. 19, Issue 3, 1998.

Barsky R., Parker J.A. and G. Solon, « Measuring the cyclicality of real wages: how important is composition bias? », *The Quarterly Journal of Economics*, Vol. 109 no. 1, February 1994

Biscourp P. and N. Fourcade, « Downward Wage Rigidity: a Micro-Level Empirical Analysis », *Insee Working Paper* no. G2003/09, December 2003.

Cabannes P.-Y., Cottet V., Dubois Y., Lelarge C. and M. Sicsic, « French Firms in the face of the 2008/2009 crisis », *Insee Working Paper* no. G2013/13, November 2013.

Card D. and D. Hyslop, « Does inflation "grease the wheels of the labour market"? », *NBER Working Paper* no. 5538, April 1996.

Daly M.C., Hobijn B. and T.S. Wiles, "Dissecting aggregate real wage fluctuations: individual wage growth and the composition effect", *Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Working Paper Series* no. 2011-23, May 2012.

Daly M.C. and B. Hobijn, "Downward Nominal Wage Rigidities Bend the Phillips Curve", *Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Working Paper Series* no. 2013-08, January 2014.

Dickens W., Goethe L., Groshen E., Holden S., Messina J., Schweitzer M., Turunen J. and M. Ward, « How Wages Change: Micro Evidence from the International Wage Flexibility Project », *Journal of Economic Perspectives*, Vol. 21(2), pages 195-214, 2007.

Elsby M., « Evaluating the economic significance of Downward Nominal Wage Rigidity », *Journal of Monetary Economics*, Vol. 56, Issue 2, pages 154-169, March 2009.

Ericsson N.-R. and J. G. MacKinnon, "Distributions of error correction tests for cointegration", *The Econometrics Journal*, Vol 5, Issue 2, pp 285-318, December 2002.

Heckel T., Le Bihan H. and J. Montornès, « Sticky wages: evidence from quarterly microeconomic data », *American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics*, Vol. 4(3), pages 1-32, July 2012.
Hines J.R., Hoynes H. and A.B. Krueger, « Another look at whether a rising tide lifts all boats », *NBER Working paper series*, Vol 16, no. 8412, 2001.

Holden S., « Wage formation under low inflation », *University of Oslo Department of Economics Memorandum* no. 09/2004, 2004.

Holden S. and F. Wulfsberg, « Downward Nominal Wage Rigidity in the OECD », *European Central Bank Working Paper* no. 777, July 2007.

Insee, « Partage de la valeur ajoutée, partage des profits et écarts de rémunérations en France », *Rapport au Président de la République*, May 2009.

Kramarz F., « Rigid Wages: What have we learnt from Microeconometric Studies? », in *Advances in Macroeconomic Theory*, J. Drèze ed., 194-216, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2001.

Oaxaca R., « Male-female wage differentials in urban labour markets », *International economic review* no. 14, 1973.

Verdugo G., « Les salaires réels ont-ils été affectés par les évolutions du chômage en France avant et pendant la crise ? », *Bulletin de la Banque de France* no. 192, 2013.
# Appendix

## 1- Complete results of the estimation of model (3) on turnover shocks

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Coefficient</th><th>Std Error</th><th>P-Value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Positive variation of turnover in 2003</td><td>0,0258</td><td>0,0016</td><td>0,0000</td></tr><tr><td>Positive variation of turnover in 2004</td><td>0,0254</td><td>0,0015</td><td>0,0000</td></tr><tr><td>Positive variation of turnover in 2005</td><td>0,0283</td><td>0,0015</td><td>0,0000</td></tr><tr><td>Positive variation of turnover in 2006</td><td>0,0214</td><td>0,0013</td><td>0,0000</td></tr><tr><td>Positive variation of turnover in 2007</td><td>0,0338</td><td>0,0015</td><td>0,0000</td></tr><tr><td>Positive variation of turnover in 2008</td><td>0,0260</td><td>0,0014</td><td>0,0000</td></tr><tr><td>Positive variation of turnover in 2009</td><td>0,0189</td><td>0,0018</td><td>0,0000</td></tr><tr><td>Positive variation of turnover in 2010</td><td>0,0178</td><td>0,0014</td><td>0,0000</td></tr><tr><td>Positive variation of turnover in 2011</td><td>0,0312</td><td>0,0016</td><td>0,0000</td></tr><tr><td>Negative variation of turnover in 2003</td><td>0,0260</td><td>0,0016</td><td>0,0000</td></tr><tr><td>Negative variation of turnover in 2004</td><td>0,0108</td><td>0,0013</td><td>0,0000</td></tr><tr><td>Negative variation of turnover in 2005</td><td>0,0121</td><td>0,0015</td><td>0,0000</td></tr><tr><td>Negative variation of turnover in 2006</td><td>0,0122</td><td>0,0016</td><td>0,0000</td></tr><tr><td>Negative variation of turnover in 2007</td><td>0,0147</td><td>0,0016</td><td>0,0000</td></tr><tr><td>Negative variation of turnover in 2008</td><td>0,0153</td><td>0,0016</td><td>0,0000</td></tr><tr><td>Negative variation of turnover in 2009</td><td>0,0482</td><td>0,0011</td><td>0,0000</td></tr><tr><td>Negative variation of turnover in 2010</td><td>0,0193</td><td>0,0013</td><td>0,0000</td></tr><tr><td>Negative variation of turnover in 2011</td><td>0,0305</td><td>0,0018</td><td>0,0000</td></tr><tr><td>Variation in number of hours worked</td><td>0,5337</td><td>0,0008</td><td>0,0000</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>0,0003</td><td>0,0015</td><td>0,8370</td></tr><tr><td>Farmer</td><td>-0,0251</td><td>0,0269</td><td>0,3510</td></tr><tr><td>Independent</td><td>0,0364</td><td>0,0011</td><td>0,0000</td></tr><tr><td>Manager</td><td>0,0328</td><td>0,0006</td><td>0,0000</td></tr><tr><td>Technicians and associate professionals</td><td>0,0111</td><td>0,0004</td><td>0,0000</td></tr><tr><td>Employee</td><td>ref.</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Worker</td><td>-0,0033</td><td>0,0005</td><td>0,0000</td></tr><tr><td>Less than 20 employees</td><td>-0,0012</td><td>0,0005</td><td>0,0250</td></tr><tr><td>Between 20 and 200 employees</td><td>ref.</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Between 200 and 1000 employees</td><td>0,0012</td><td>0,0005</td><td>0,0180</td></tr><tr><td>More than 1000 employees</td><td>0,0012</td><td>0,0006</td><td>0,0580</td></tr><tr><td>Unemployment rate in the area</td><td>0,0000</td><td>0,0001</td><td>0,7660</td></tr><tr><td>Sector of activity</td><td colspan="3">22 dummies</td></tr><tr><td>2003</td><td>0,0050</td><td>0,0061</td><td>0,4160</td></tr><tr><td>2004</td><td>-0,0018</td><td>0,0046</td><td>0,7000</td></tr><tr><td>2005</td><td>0,0032</td><td>0,0031</td><td>0,2960</td></tr><tr><td>2006</td><td>-0,0053</td><td>0,0016</td><td>0,0010</td></tr><tr><td>2007</td><td>ref.</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2008</td><td>0,0032</td><td>0,0016</td><td>0,0380</td></tr><tr><td>2009</td><td>-0,0136</td><td>0,0031</td><td>0,0000</td></tr><tr><td>2010</td><td>-0,0225</td><td>0,0046</td><td>0,0000</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>-0,0177</td><td>0,0061</td><td>0,0040</td></tr><tr><td>Number of obs. 3 771 135 (419 015 in average per year)</td><td colspan="3">R<sup>2</sup> 28,94%</td></tr></tbody></table>
## 2- ECM over the 1980 - 2012 period featuring an asymmetry in productivity

In light of the above discussion, we can improve the macroeconomic modelling and see how it could explain the wage dynamics over the recent period. A one step approach is pursued for the estimation of the error correction model.

### a- The benchmark modelling fails estimating the 2009 - 2012 period

As shown in Section 1, the macroeconometric model fails to explain the behaviour of the wages in the aftermath of the crisis. Wages are much more dynamic than expected by their usual determinants, particularly in 2010. Then, they seem to take a more usual pattern, leaving rather large the gap between the two.

The answer that consists in extending the estimated period by years 2009-2012 is not fruitful. The resulting estimated model for the extended sample period, running from the beginning of the 80's up to the fourth quarter of 2012 is given by:

$$ \Delta \ln W = \begin{aligned} & 0.26_{(3.0)} - 0.008_{(-3.7)} \times d82q3 - 0.004_{(-3.5)} \times \sup_{(4.4)} 83q2 + 0.28_{(4.4)} \times \Delta \ln W_{-1} + 0.30_{(6.2)} \times \Delta_2 \ln CPI + 0.10_{(3.5)} \times (\Delta \ln \Pi + \Delta \ln \Pi_{-5}) \\ & - 0.4\% \times (\Delta U - \Delta U_{-1}) - 0.17_{(-3.0)} \times \Delta \ln ToT + 0.05_{(1.8)} \times \Delta \ln CP - 0.13_{(-2.3)} \times \Delta \ln(1 + ESC) + 0.12_{(2.4)} \times \Delta_2 \ln(1 + ESC)_{-3} \\ & - 0.04 \times \left[ \ln WSG - \left( \ln CPI - 1.30_{(*)} \ln ToT + 0.60_{(*)} \ln \Pi - 0.009_{(*)} U + 0.20_{(*)} \ln CP \right) \right]_{-1} \end{aligned} $$

The t-ratios for the estimated coefficients are presented between brackets. Concerning the long run relationship, it is worth mentioning that the coefficient of the error correction term (i.e. the coefficient of the wage level lagged one period) is small (equal to 0.04), which denotes some persistence concerning the evolution of the wage towards its long-run path. Within the single step framework, testing for cointegration can be performed through the significance testing of the error correction term (see Ericsson and Mackinnon, 2002). In practice, this can be realized through the t-ratio of the error correction term coefficient, called the ECM statistic. This t-ratio is used to test the null hypothesis of no cointegration and the critical values can be found in Banerjee et al. (1998). As expected, based on this cointegration test, one would not reject the null hypothesis of no cointegration at usual significance levels. The estimation invalidates the benchmark equation when this one is extended over the 2009 - 2012 period.

### b- Improvement of the initial estimation

We add a dummy variable which is equal to 1 from 2009Q1 and 0 before, in order to take into account the special behaviour of the firms since the Great Recession. We also allow for an asymmetric impact of labour productivity on wages. In particular, we split labour productivity in two different variables, depending on the strength of its growth rate. If it is included in a range between 1.0% and 1.9% (annual rate), the productivity growth is moderated (the Dummy variable is equal to 1). If it is not, the productivity growth is particularly low, if lower of 1%, or high if upper of 1.9%:<fnref n="12" />

$$ Dummy = \begin{cases} 1 & \text{if } 1\% < \Delta_4 \ln \Pi \le 1.9\% \\ 0 & \text{otherwise} \end{cases} $$

<footnote n="12">¹² These thresholds are endogenously determined to maximize the log-likelihood of the model.</footnote>
The resulting estimated model is the following:

$$ \underset{(4.9)}{0.60} - \underset{(3.3)}{0.007} \times d82q3 - \underset{(4.0)}{0.004} \times \sup 83q2 + \underset{(3.3)}{0.003} \times \sup 09q1 + \underset{(4.4)}{0.26} \times \Delta \ln W_{-1} $$

$$ \Delta \ln W = + \underset{(7.2)}{0.32} \times \Delta_2 \ln CPI + \underset{(1.6)}{0.04} \times \Delta \ln CP + \underset{(5.5)}{0.34} \times \Delta \ln \Pi \times Dummy + \underset{(3.2)}{0.14} \times \Delta \ln \Pi \times (1 - Dummy) \\ - \underset{(4.1)}{0.4\%} \times (\Delta U - \Delta U_{-1}) - \underset{(3.3)}{0.17} \times \Delta \ln ToT - \underset{(3.4)}{0.18} \times \Delta \ln(1 + ESC) + \underset{(2.7)}{0.12} \times \Delta_2 \ln(1 + ESC)_{-3} \\ - \underset{(4.7)}{0.11} \times \left[ \ln WSG - \left( \ln CPI - \underset{(*)}{0.69} \ln ToT + \underset{(*)}{0.46} \ln \Pi - \underset{(*)}{0.005} U + \underset{(*)}{0.20} \ln CP \right) \right]_{-1} $$

Overall, the results are similar to the precedent ones, with the exception of the non linear effects of labour productivity changes on wages behavior which cannot be disregarded. When productivity growth is moderate the effects are strong and statistically significant. In contrast, when productivity growth is low or high, it has a weak impact on wages in the short run.

In addition to the strong evidence regarding the significance of the labour productivity variable, one should focus on the interpretation of the results. In particular, in this model one can argue that the hypothesis of cointegration is again accepted as denoted by the fast speed adjustment to the long run equilibrium. The error correction term, equal to 0.11, is now much more statistically significant: we can now reject the hypothesis of no cointegration with a significance level of 5% (the asymptotic critical value is 4.30).

The new dynamic simulation of wages was particularly satisfactory over the whole period and the unexplained contributions are very weak also in the aftermath of the Great Recession (see figures below).

<figure><img src="image_32.png" /><figcaption>A2.- FTE<fnref n="2" /> gross wage observed and simulated</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_33.png" /><figcaption>A3.- Contribution to wage growth</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_34.png" /></figure>

<footnote n="1">1. The grey area represents periods where the productivity growth is particularly low or high.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2. Full-time-equivalents</footnote>

<footnote>Field: France, non-agricultural market sector.</footnote>

<footnote>Source: Insee, National Quarterly accounts.</footnote>
<table>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9001</td>
    <td>J. FAYOLLE et M. FLEURBAEY<br>Accumulation, profitabilité et endettement des entreprises</td>
    <td>G 9203</td>
    <td>I. STAPIC<br>Les échanges internationaux de services de la France dans le cadre des négociations multilatérales du GATT<br>Jun 1992 (1ère version)<br>Novembre 1992 (version finale)</td>
    <td>G 9312</td>
    <td>L. BLOCH - B. CŒURÉ<br>Q de Tobin marginal et transmission des chocs financiers</td>
    <td>G 9412</td>
    <td>J. BOURDIEU - B. CŒURÉ -<br>COLIN-SEDILLOT<br>Investissement, incertitude et irréversibilité<br>Quelques développements récents de la théorie de l'investissement</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9002</td>
    <td>H. ROUSSE<br>Détection et effets de la multicolinéarité dans les modèles linéaires ordinaires - Un prolongement de la réflexion de BELSLEY, KUH et WELSCH</td>
    <td>G 9204</td>
    <td>P. SEVESTRE<br>L'économétrie sur données individuelles-temporelles. Une note introductive</td>
    <td>G 9313</td>
    <td>Équipes Amadeus (INSEE), Banque de France, Métric (DP)<br>Presentation des propriétés des principaux modèles macroéconomiques du Service Public</td>
    <td>G 9413</td>
    <td>B. DORMONT - M. PAUCHET<br>L'évaluation de l'élasticité emploi-salaire dépend-elle des structures de qualification ?</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9003</td>
    <td>P. RALLE et J. TOUJAS-BERNATE<br>Indexation des salaires : la rupture de 1983</td>
    <td>G 9205</td>
    <td>H. ERKEL-ROUSSE<br>Le commerce extérieur et l'environnement international dans le modèle AMADEUS (réestimation 1992)</td>
    <td>G 9314</td>
    <td>B. CREPON - E. DUGUET<br>Research & Development, competition and innovation</td>
    <td>G 9414</td>
    <td>I. KABLA<br>Le Choix de breveter une invention</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9004</td>
    <td>D. GUELLEC et P. RALLE<br>Compétitivité, croissance et innovation de produit</td>
    <td>G 9206</td>
    <td>N. GREENAN et D. GUELLEC<br>Coordination within the firm and endogenous growth</td>
    <td>G 9315</td>
    <td>B. DORMONT<br>Quelle est l'influence du coût du travail sur l'emploi ?</td>
    <td>G 9501</td>
    <td>J. BOURDIEU - B. CŒURÉ - B. SEDILLOT<br>Irreversible Investment and Uncertainty: When is there a Value of Waiting?</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9005</td>
    <td>P. RALLE et J. TOUJAS-BERNATE<br>Les conséquences de la désindexation. Analyse dans une maquette prix-salaires</td>
    <td>G 9207</td>
    <td>A. MAGNIER et J. TOUJAS-BERNATE<br>Technology and trade: empirical evidences for the major five industrialized countries</td>
    <td>G 9316</td>
    <td>D. BLANCHET - C. BROUSSE<br>Deux études sur l'âge de la retraite</td>
    <td>G 9502</td>
    <td>L. BLOCH - B. CŒURÉ<br>Imperfections du marché du crédit, investissement des entreprises et cycle économique</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9101</td>
    <td>Équipe AMADEUS<br>Le modèle AMADEUS - Première partie - Présentation générale</td>
    <td>G 9208</td>
    <td>B. CREPON, E. DUGUET, D. ENCAOUA et P. MOHNEN<br>Cooperative, non cooperative R & D and optimal patent life</td>
    <td>G 9317</td>
    <td>D. BLANCHET<br>Répartition du travail dans une population hétérogène : deux notes</td>
    <td>G 9503</td>
    <td>D. GOUX - E. MAURIN<br>Les transformations de la demande de travail par qualification en France<br>Une étude sur la période 1970-1993</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9102</td>
    <td>J.L. BRILLET<br>Le modèle AMADEUS - Deuxième partie - Propriétés variantielles</td>
    <td>G 9209</td>
    <td>B. CREPON, E. DUGUET<br>Research and development, competition and innovation: an application of pseudo maximum likelihood methods to Poisson models with heterogeneity</td>
    <td>G 9318</td>
    <td>D. EYSSARTIER - N. PONTY<br>AMADEUS - an annual macro-economic model for the medium and long term</td>
    <td>G 9504</td>
    <td>N. GREENAN<br>Technologie, changement organisationnel, qualifications et emploi : une étude empirique sur l'industrie manufacturière</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9103</td>
    <td>D. GUELLEC et P. RALLE<br>Endogenous growth and product innovation</td>
    <td>G 9310</td>
    <td>B. CREPON et E. DUGUET<br>Research and development, competition and innovation: an application of pseudo maximum likelihood methods to Poisson models with heterogeneity</td>
    <td>G 9319</td>
    <td>G. CETTE - Ph. CUNÉO - D. EYSSARTIER - J. GAUTIÉ<br>Les effets sur l'emploi d'un abaissement du coût du travail des jeunes</td>
    <td>G 9505</td>
    <td>D. GOUX - E. MAURIN<br>Persistance des hiérarchies sectorielles de salaires: un réexamen sur données françaises</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9104</td>
    <td>H. ROUSSE<br>Le modèle AMADEUS - Troisième partie - Le commerce extérieur et l'environnement international</td>
    <td>G 9311</td>
    <td>B. CREPON et E. DUGUET<br>Research and development, competition and innovation: an application of pseudo maximum likelihood methods to Poisson models with heterogeneity</td>
    <td>G 9401</td>
    <td>D. BLANCHET<br>Les structures par âge importent-elles ?</td>
    <td>G 9505<br>Bis</td>
    <td>D. GOUX - E. MAURIN<br>Persistance of inter-industry wages differentials: a reexamination on matched worker-firm panel data</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9105</td>
    <td>H. ROUSSE<br>Effets de demande et d'offre dans les résultats du commerce extérieur manufacturé de la France au cours des deux dernières décennies</td>
    <td>G 9312</td>
    <td>J. TOUJAS-BERNATE<br>Commerce international et concurrence impartie : développements récents et implications pour la politique commerciale</td>
    <td>G 9402</td>
    <td>J. GAUTIÉ<br>Le chômage des jeunes en France : problème de formation ou phénomène de file d'attente ?<br>Quelques éléments du débat</td>
    <td>G 9506</td>
    <td>S. JACOBZONE<br>Les liens entre RMI et chômage, une mise en perspective<br>NON PARU - article sorti dans Économie et Prévision n° 122 (1996) - pages 95 à 113</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9106</td>
    <td>B. CREPON<br>Innovation, taille et concentration : causalités et dynamiques</td>
    <td>G 9303</td>
    <td>Ch. CASES<br>Durées de chômage et comportements d'offre de travail : une revue de la littérature</td>
    <td>G 9403</td>
    <td>P. QUIRION<br>Les déchets en France : éléments statistiques et économiques</td>
    <td>G 9507</td>
    <td>G. CETTE - S. MAHFOUZ<br>Le partage primaire du revenu<br>Constat descriptif sur longue période</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9107</td>
    <td>B. AMABLE et D. GUELLEC<br>Un panorama des théories de la croissance endogène</td>
    <td>G 9304</td>
    <td>H. ERKEL-ROUSSE<br>Union économique et monétaire : le débat économique</td>
    <td>G 9404</td>
    <td>D. LADIRAY - M. GRUN-REHOMME<br>Lissage par moyennes mobiles - Le problème des extrémités de série</td>
    <td>G 9601</td>
    <td>Banque de France - CEPREMAP - Direction de la Prévision - Érasme - INSEE - OFCE<br>Structures et propriétés de cinq modèles macro-économiques français</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9108</td>
    <td>M. GLAUDE et M. MOUTARDIER<br>Une évaluation du coût direct de l'enfant de 1979 à 1989</td>
    <td>G 9305</td>
    <td>N. GREENAN - D. GUELLEC / G. BROUSSAUDIER - L. MIOTTI<br>Innovation organisationnelle, dynamisme technologique et performances des entreprises</td>
    <td>G 9405</td>
    <td>V. MAILLARD<br>Theorie et pratique de la correction des effets de jours ouvrables</td>
    <td>G 9602</td>
    <td>Rapport d'activité de la DESE de l'année 1995</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9109</td>
    <td>P. RALLE et alii<br>France - Allemagne : performances économiques comparées</td>
    <td>G 9306</td>
    <td>P. JAILLARD<br>Le traité de Maastricht : présentation juridique et historique</td>
    <td>G 9406</td>
    <td>F. ROSENWALD<br>La décision d'investir</td>
    <td>G 9603</td>
    <td>J. BOURDIEU - A. DRAZNIEKS<br>L'octroi de crédit aux PME : une analyse à partir d'informations bancaires</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9110</td>
    <td>J.L. BRILLET<br>Micro-DMS<br>NON PARU</td>
    <td>G 9307</td>
    <td>J.L. BRILLET<br>Micro-DMS : présentation et propriétés</td>
    <td>G 9407</td>
    <td>S. JACOBZONE<br>Les apports de l'économie industrielle pour définir la stratégie économique de l'hôpital public</td>
    <td>G 9604</td>
    <td>A. TOPIOL-BENSAÏD<br>Les implantations japonaises en France</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9111</td>
    <td>A. MAGNIER<br>Effets accélérateur et multiplicateur en France depuis 1970 : quelques résultats empiriques</td>
    <td>G 9308</td>
    <td>J.L. BRILLET<br>Micro-DMS - variantes : les tableaux</td>
    <td>G 9408</td>
    <td>L. BLOCH, J. BOURDIEU, B. COLIN-SEDILLOT, G. LONGUEVILLE<br>Du défaut de paiement au dépôt de bilan : les banquiers face aux PME en difficulté</td>
    <td>G 9605</td>
    <td>P. GENIER - S. JACOBZONE<br>Comportements de prévention, consommation d'alcool et tabagie : peut-on parler d'une gestion globale du capital santé ?<br>Une modélisation microéconométrique empirique</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9112</td>
    <td>B. CREPON et G. DUREAU<br>Investissement en recherche-développement : analyse de causalités dans un modèle d'accélérateur généralisé</td>
    <td>G 9309</td>
    <td>S. JACOBZONE<br>Les grands réseaux publics français dans une perspective européenne</td>
    <td>G 9409</td>
    <td>D. EYSSARTIER, P. MAIRE<br>Impacts macro-économiques de mesures d'aide au logement - quelques éléments d'évaluation</td>
    <td>G 9606</td>
    <td>C. DOZ - F. LENGLART<br>Factor analysis and unobserved component models: an application to the study of French business surveys</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9113</td>
    <td>J.L. BRILLET, H. ERKEL-ROUSSE, J. TOUJAS-BERNATE<br>"France-Allemagne Couplées" - Deux économies vues par une maquette macro-économétrique</td>
    <td>G 9310</td>
    <td>L. BLOCH - B. CŒURÉ<br>Profitabilité de l'investissement productif et transmission des chocs financiers</td>
    <td>G 9410</td>
    <td>F. ROSENWALD<br>Suivi conjoncturel de l'investissement</td>
    <td>G 9607</td>
    <td>N. GREENAN - D. GUELLEC<br>La théorie coopérative de la firme</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9201</td>
    <td>W.J. ADAMS, B. CREPON, D. ENCAOUA<br>Choix technologiques et stratégies de dissuasion d'entrée</td>
    <td>G 9311</td>
    <td>J. BOURDIEU - B. COLIN-SEDILLOT<br>Les théories sur la structure optimale du capital : quelques points de repère</td>
    <td>G 9411</td>
    <td>C. DEFEUILLE - Ph. QUIRION<br>Les déchets d'emballages ménagers : une analyse économique des politiques française et allemande</td>
    <td>G 9607</td>
    <td>N. GREENAN - D. GUELLEC<br>La théorie coopérative de la firme</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9202</td>
    <td>J. OLIVEIRA-MARTINS, J. TOUJAS-BERNATE</td>
    <td></td>
    <td>J. BOURDIEU - B. COLIN-SEDILLOT<br>Les décisions de financement des entreprises</td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
  </tr>
</table>
<table>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9608</td>
    <td>N. GREENAN - D. GUELLEC<br>Technological innovation and employment<br>reallocation</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9609</td>
    <td>Ph. COUR - F. RUPPRECHT<br>L'intégration asymétrique au sein du continent<br>américain : un essai de modélisation</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9610</td>
    <td>S. DUCHENE - G. FORGEOT - A. JACQUOT<br>Analyse des évolutions récentes de la productivité apparente du travail</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9611</td>
    <td>X. BONNET - S. MAHFOUZ<br>The influence of different specifications of<br>wages-prices spirals on the measure of the<br>NAIRU: the case of France</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9612</td>
    <td>PH. COUR - E. DUBOIS, S. MAHFOUZ,<br>J. PISANI-FERRY<br>The cost of fiscal retrenchment revisited: how<br>strong is the evidence?</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9613</td>
    <td>A. JACQUOT<br>Les flexions des taux d'activité sont-elles seule-<br>ment conjoncturelles ?</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9614</td>
    <td>ZHANG Yingxiang - SONG Xueqing<br>Lexique macroéconomique Français-Chinois</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9701</td>
    <td>J.L. SCHNEIDER<br>La taxe professionnelle : éléments de cadrage<br>économique</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9702</td>
    <td>J.L. SCHNEIDER<br>Transition et stabilité politique d'un système<br>redistributif</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9703</td>
    <td>D. GOUX - E. MAURIN<br>Train or Pay: Does it Reduce Inequalities to En-<br>courage Firms to Train their Workers?</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9704</td>
    <td>P. GENIER<br>Deux contributions sur dépendance et équité</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9705</td>
    <td>E. DUGUET - N. IUNG<br>R &amp; D Investment, Patent Life and Patent Value<br>An Econometric Analysis at the Firm Level</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9706</td>
    <td>M. HOUBEBINE - A. TOPIOL-BENSAÏD<br>Les entreprises internationales en France : une<br>analyse à partir de données individuelles</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9707</td>
    <td>M. HOUBEBINE<br>Polarisation des activités et spécialisation des<br>départements en France</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9708</td>
    <td>E. DUGUET - N. GREENAN<br>Le biais technologique : une analyse sur don-<br>nées individuelles</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9709</td>
    <td>J.L. BRILLET<br>Analyzing a small French ECM Model</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9710</td>
    <td>J.L. BRILLET<br>Formalizing the transition process: scenarios for<br>capital accumulation</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9711</td>
    <td>G. FORGEOT - J. GAUTIÉ<br>Insertion professionnelle des jeunes et proces-<br>sus de déclassement</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9712</td>
    <td>E. DUBOIS<br>High Real Interest Rates: the Consequence of a<br>Saving Investment Disequilibrium or of an in-<br>sufficient Credibility of Monetary Authorities?</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9713</td>
    <td>Bilan des activités de la Direction des Études<br>et Synthèses Économiques - 1996</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<table>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9714</td>
    <td>F. LEQUILLER<br>Does the French Consumer Price Index Over-<br>state Inflation?</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9715</td>
    <td>X. BONNET<br>Peut-on mettre en évidence les rigidités à la<br>baisse des salaires nominaux ?<br>Une étude sur quelques grands pays de l'OCDE</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9716</td>
    <td>N. IUNG - F. RUPPRECHT<br>Productivité de la recherche et rendements<br>d'échelle dans le secteur pharmaceutique<br>français</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9717</td>
    <td>E. DUGUET - I. KABLA<br>Appropriation strategy and the motivations to use<br>the patent system in France - An econometric<br>analysis at the firm level</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9718</td>
    <td>L.P. PELÉ - P. RALLE<br>Âge de la retraite : les aspects incitatifs du ré-<br>gime général</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9719</td>
    <td>ZHANG Yingxiang - SONG Xueqing<br>Lexique macroéconomique français-chinois,<br>chinois-français</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9720</td>
    <td>M. HOUBEBINE - J.L. SCHNEIDER<br>Mesurer l'influence de la fiscalité sur la locali-<br>sation des entreprises</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9721</td>
    <td>A. MOUROUGANE<br>Crédibilité, indépendance et politique monétaire<br>Une revue de la littérature</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9722</td>
    <td>P. AUGERAUD - L. BRIOT<br>Les données comptables d'entreprises<br>Le système intermédiaire d'entreprises<br>Passage des données individuelles aux données<br>sectorielles</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9723</td>
    <td>P. AUGERAUD - J.E. CHAPRON<br>Using Business Accounts for Compiling National<br>Accounts: the French Experience</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9724</td>
    <td>P. AUGERAUD<br>Les comptes d'entreprise par activités - Le pas-<br>sage aux comptes - De la comptabilité<br>d'entreprise à la comptabilité nationale - A<br>paraitre</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9801</td>
    <td>H. MICHAUDON - C. PRIGENT<br>Présentation du modèle AMADEUS</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9802</td>
    <td>J. ACCARDO<br>Une étude de comptabilité générationnelle<br>pour la France en 1996</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9803</td>
    <td>X. BONNET - S. DUCHÈNE<br>Apports et limites de la modélisation<br>« Real Business Cycles »</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9804</td>
    <td>C. BARLET - C. DUGUET -<br>D. ENCAOUA - J. PRADEL<br>The Commercial Success of Innovations<br>An econometric analysis at the firm level in<br>French manufacturing</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9805</td>
    <td>P. CAHUC - Ch. GIANELLA -<br>D. GOUX - A. ZILBERBERG<br>Equalizing Wage Differences and Bargaining<br>Power - Evidence form a Panel of French Firms</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9806</td>
    <td>J. ACCARDO - M. JLASSI<br>La productivité globale des facteurs entre 1975<br>et 1996</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9807</td>
    <td>Bilan des activités de la Direction des Études et<br>Synthèses Économiques - 1997</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<table>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9808</td>
    <td>A. MOUROUGANE<br>Can a Conservative Governor Conduct an Ac-<br>comodative Monetary Policy?</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9809</td>
    <td>X. BONNET - E. DUBOIS - L. FAUVET<br>Asymétrie des inflations relatives et menus costs<br>: tests sur l'inflation française</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9810</td>
    <td>E. DUGUET - N. IUNG<br>Sales and Advertising with Spillovers at the firm<br>level: Estimation of a Dynamic Structural Model<br>on Panel Data</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9811</td>
    <td>J.P. BERTHIER<br>Congestion urbaine : un modèle de trafic de<br>pointe à courbe débit-vitesse et demande<br>élastique</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9812</td>
    <td>C. PRIGENT<br>La part des salaires dans la valeur ajoutée : une<br>approche macroéconomique</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9813</td>
    <td>A.Th. AERTS<br>L'évolution de la part des salaires dans la valeur<br>ajoutée en France reflète-t-elle les évolutions<br>individuelles sur la période 1979-1994 ?</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9814</td>
    <td>B. SALANIÉ<br>Guide pratique des séries non-stationnaires</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9901</td>
    <td>S. DUCHÈNE - A. JACQUOT<br>Une croissance plus riche en emplois depuis le<br>début de la décennie ? Une analyse en compa-<br>raison internationale</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9902</td>
    <td>Ch. COLIN<br>Modélisation des carrières dans Destinie</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9903</td>
    <td>Ch. COLIN<br>Évolution de la dispersion des salaires : un essai<br>de prospective par microsimulation</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9904</td>
    <td>B. CREPON - N. IUNG<br>Innovation, emploi et performances</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9905</td>
    <td>B. CREPON - Ch. GIANELLA<br>Wages inequalities in France 1969-1992<br>An application of quantile regression techniques</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9906</td>
    <td>C. BONNET - R. MAHIEU<br>Microsimulation techniques applied to inter-<br>generational transfers - Pensions in a dynamic<br>framework: the case of France</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9907</td>
    <td>F. ROSENWALD<br>L'impact des contraintes financières dans la dé-<br>cision d'investissement</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9908</td>
    <td>Bilan des activités de la DESE - 1998</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9909</td>
    <td>J.P. ZOYEM<br>Contrat d'insertion et sortie du RMI<br>Évaluation des effets d'une politique sociale</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9910</td>
    <td>Ch. COLIN - FI. LEGROS - R. MAHIEU<br>Bilans contributifs comparés des régimes de<br>retraite du secteur privé et de la fonction<br>publique</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9911</td>
    <td>G. LAROQUE - B. SALANIÉ<br>Une décomposition du non-emploi en France</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9912</td>
    <td>B. SALANIÉ<br>Une maquette analytique de long terme du<br>marché du travail</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9912</td>
    <td>Ch. GIANELLA<br>Une estimation de l'élasticité de l'emploi peu<br>qualifié à son coût</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<table>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9913</td>
    <td>Division « Redistribution et Politiques Sociales »<br>Le modèle de microsimulation dynamique<br>DESTINIE</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9914</td>
    <td>E. DUGUET<br>Macro-commandes SAS pour l'économétrie des<br>panels et des variables qualitatives</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9915</td>
    <td>R. DUHAUTOIS<br>Évolution des flux d'emplois en France entre<br>1990 et 1996 : une étude empirique à partir du<br>fichier des bénéfices réels normaux (BRN)</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9916</td>
    <td>J.Y. FOURNIER<br>Extraction du cycle des affaires : la méthode de<br>Baxter et King</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9917</td>
    <td>B. CRÉPON - R. DESPLATZ - J. MAIRESSE<br>Estimating price cost margins, scale economies<br>and workers' bargaining power at the firm level</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9918</td>
    <td>Ch. GIANELLA - Ph. LAGARDE<br>Productivity of hours in the aggregate production<br>function: an evaluation on a panel of French<br>firms from the manufacturing sector</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9919</td>
    <td>S. AUDRIC - P. GIVORD - C. PROST<br>Évolution de l'emploi et des coûts par quali-<br>fication entre 1982 et 1996</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 2000/01</td>
    <td>R. MAHIEU<br>Les déterminants des dépenses de santé : une<br>approche macroéconomique</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 2000/02</td>
    <td>C. ALLARD-PRIGENT - H. GUILMEAU -<br>A. QUINET<br>The real exchange rate as the relative price of<br>nontrables in terms of tradables: theoretical<br>investigation and empirical study on French data</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 2000/03</td>
    <td>J.-Y. FOURNIER<br>L'approximation du filtre passe-bande proposée<br>par Christiano et Fitzgerald</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 2000/04</td>
    <td>Bilan des activités de la DESE - 1999</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 2000/05</td>
    <td>B. CREPON - F. ROSENWALD<br>Investissement et contraintes de financement : le<br>poids du cycle<br>Une estimation sur données françaises</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 2000/06</td>
    <td>A. FLIPO<br>Les comportements matrimoniaux de fait</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 2000/07</td>
    <td>R. MAHIEU - B. SÉDILLOT<br>Microsimulations of the retirement decision: a<br>supply side approach</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 2000/08</td>
    <td>C. AUDENIS - C. PROST<br>Déficit conjoncturel : une prise en compte des<br>conjonctures passées</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 2000/09</td>
    <td>R. MAHIEU - B. SÉDILLOT<br>Équivalent patrimonial de la rente et souscription<br>de retraite complémentaire</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 2000/10</td>
    <td>R. DUHAUTOIS<br>Ralentissement de l'investissement : petites ou<br>grandes entreprises ? industrie ou tertiaire ?</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 2000/11</td>
    <td>G. LAROQUE - B. SALANIÉ<br>Temps partiel féminin et incitations financières à<br>l'emploi</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 2000/12</td>
    <td>Ch. GIANELLA<br>Local unemployment and wages</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 2000/13</td>
    <td>B. CREPON - Th. HECKEL<br>Informatisation en France : une évaluation à<br>partir de données individuelles</td>
  </tr>
</table>
- Computerization in France: an evaluation based on individual company data

G2001/01 F. LEQUILLER

- La nouvelle économie et la mesure du croissance du PIB

- The new economy and the measurement of GDP growth

G2001/02 S. AUDRIC

La reprise de la croissance de l'emploi profonde aussi aux non-diplômés ?

G2001/03 I. BRAUN-LEMAIRE

Évolution et répartition du surplus de productivité

G2001/04 A. BEAUDU - Th. HECKEL

Le canal du crédit fonctionne-t-il en Europe ? Une étude de l'hétérogénéité des comportements d'investissement à partir de données de bilan agrégées

G2001/05 C. AUDENIS - P. BISCOURP -

N. FOURCADE - O. LOISEL

Testing the augmented Solow growth model: An empirical reassessment using panel data

G2001/06 R. MAHIEU - B. SÉDILLOT

Départ à la retraite, irréversibilité et incertitude

G2001/07 Bilan des activités de la DESE - 2000

G2001/08 J. Ph. GAUDEMET

Les dispositifs d'acquisition à titre facultatif d'annuités viagères de retraite

G2001/09 B. CRÉPON - Ch. GIANELLA

Fiscalité, coût d'usage du capital et demande de facteurs : une analyse sur données individuelles

G2001/10 B. CRÉPON - R. DESPLATZ

Évaluation des effets des dispositifs d'allégements de charges sociales sur les bas salaires

G2001/11 J.-Y. FOURNIER

Comparaison des salaires des secteurs public et privé

G2001/12 J.-P. BERTHIER - C. JAULENT

R. CONVENEVOLE - S. PISANI
Une méthodologie de comparaison entre consommations intermédiaires de source fiscale et de comptabilité nationale

G2001/13 P. BISCOURP - Ch. GIANELLA

Substitution and complementarity between capital, skilled and less skilled workers: an analysis at the firm level in the French manufacturing industry

G2001/14 I. ROBERT-BOBEE

Modelling demographic behaviours in the French microsimulation model Destinie: An analysis of future change in completed fertility

G2001/15 J.-P. ZOYEM

Diagnostic sur la pauvreté et calendrier de revenus : le cas du "Panel européen des ménages"

G2001/16 J.-Y. FOURNIER - P. GIVORD

La réduction des taux d'activité aux âges extrêmes, une spécificité française ?

G2001/17 C. AUDENIS - P. BISCOURP - N. RIEDINGER

Existe-t-il une asymétrie dans la transmission du prix du brut aux prix des carburants ?

G2002/01 F. MAGNIEN - J.-L. TAVERNIER - D. THESMAR

Les statistiques internationales de PIB par habitant en standard de pouvoir d'achat : une analyse des résultats

G2002/02 Bilan des activités de la DESE - 2001

G2002/03 B. SÉDILLOT - E. WALRAET

La cessation d'activité au sein des couples : y a-t-il interdépendance des choix ?

G2002/04 G. BRILHAULT

- Rétroposition des séries de FBCF et calcul du capital fixe en SEC-95 dans les comptes nationaux français

- Retroposition of the investment series (GFCF) and estimation of fixed capital stocks on the ESA-95 basis for the French balance sheets

G2002/05 P. BISCOURP - B. CRÉPON - T. HECKEL - N.

RIEDINGER
How do firms respond to cheaper computers? Microeconomic evidence for France based on a production function approach

G2002/06 C. AUDENIS - J. DEROYON - N. FOURCADE

L'impact des nouvelles technologies de l'information et de la communication sur l'économie française - un bouclage macro-économique

G2002/07 J. BARDAJI - B. SÉDILLOT - E. WALRAET

Évaluation de trois réformes du Régime Général d'assurance vieillesse à l'aide du modèle de microsimulation DESTINIE

G2002/08 J.-P. BERTHIER

Réflexions sur les différentes notions de volume dans les comptes nationaux : comptes aux prix d'une année fixe ou aux prix de l'année précédente, séries chaînées

G2002/09 F. HILD

Les soldes d'opinion résument-ils au mieux les réponses des entreprises aux enquêtes de conjoncture ?

G2002/10 I. ROBERT-BOBÉE

Les comportements démographiques dans le modèle de microsimulation Destinie - Une comparaison des estimations issues des enquêtes Jeunes et Carrières 1997 et Histoire Familielle 1999

G2002/11 J.-P. ZOYEM

La dynamique des bas revenus : une analyse des entrées-sorties de pauvreté

G2002/12 F. HILD

Prévisions d'inflation pour la France

G2002/13 M. LECLAIR

Réduction du temps de travail et tensions sur les facteurs de production

G2002/14 E. WALRAET - A. VINCENT

- Analyse de la redistribution intragénérationnelle dans le système de retraite des salariés du privé - Une approche par microsimulation

- Intragenerational distributional analysis in the french private sector pension scheme - A microsimulation approach

G2002/15 P. CHONE - D. LE BLANC - I. ROBERT-BOBEE
Offre de travail féminine et garde des jeunes enfants

G2002/16 F. MAUREL - S. GREGOIR

Les indices de compétitivité des pays : interprétation et limites

G2003/01 N. RIEDINGER - E. HAUVY

Le coût de dépollution atmosphérique pour les entreprises françaises : Une estimation à partir de données individuelles

G2003/02 P. BISCOURP et F. KRAMARZ

Création d'emplois, destruction d'emplois et internationalisation des entreprises industrielles françaises : une analyse sur la période 1986-1992

G2003/03 Bilan des activités de la DESE - 2002

G2003/04 P.-O. BEFFY - J. DEROYON -

N. FOURCADE - S. GREGOIR - N. LAÎB - B. MONFORT

Évolutions démographiques et croissance : une projection macro-économique à l'horizon 2020

G2003/05 P. AUBERT

La situation des salariés de plus de cinquante ans dans le secteur privé

G2003/06 P. AUBERT - B. CRÉPON

Âge, salaire et productivité

La productivité des salariés décline-t-elle en fin de carrière ?

G2003/07 H. BARON - P.O. BEFFY - N. FOURCADE - R. MAHIEU

Le ralentissement de la productivité du travail au cours des années 1990

G2003/08 P.-O. BEFFY - B. MONFORT

Patrimoine des ménages, dynamique d'allocation et comportement de consommation

G2003/09 P. BISCOURP - N. FOURCADE

Peut-on mettre en évidence l'existence de rigidités à la baisse des salaires à partir de données individuelles ? Le cas de la France à la fin des années 90

G2003/10 M. LECLAIR - P. PETIT

Présence syndicale dans les firmes : quel impact sur les inégalités salariales entre les hommes et les femmes ?

G2003/11 P.-O. BEFFY - X. BONNET - M. DARRACQ-PARIES - B. MONFORT

MZE: a small macro-model for the euro area

G2004/01 P. AUBERT - M. LECLAIR

La compétitivité exprimée dans les enquêtes trimestrielles sur la situation et les perspectives dans l'industrie

G2004/02 M. DUÉE - C. REBILLARD

La dépendance des personnes âgées : une projection à long terme

G2004/03 S. RASPILLER - N. RIEDINGER

Régulation environnementale et choix de localisation des groupes français

G2004/04 A. NABOULET - S. RASPILLER

Les déterminants de la décision d'investir : une approche par les perceptions subjectives des firmes

G2004/05 N. RAGACHE

La déclaration des enfants par les couples non mariés est-elle fiscalement optimale ?

G2004/06 M. DUÉE

L'impact du chômage des parents sur le devenir scolaire des enfants

G2004/07 P. AUBERT - E. CAROLI - M. ROGER

New Technologies, Workplace Organisation and the Age Structure of the Workforce: Firm-Level Evidence

G2004/08 E. DUGUET - C. LELARGE

Les brevets accroissent-ils les incitations privées à innover ? Un examen microéconométrique

G2004/09 S. RASPILLER - P. SILLARD

Affiliating versus Subcontracting: the Case of Multinationals

G2004/10 J. BOISSINOT - C. L'ANGEVIN - B. MONFORT

Public Debt Sustainability: Some Results on the French Case

G2004/11 S. ANANIAN - P. AUBERT

Travailleurs âgés, nouvelles technologies et changements organisationnels : un réexamen à partir de l'enquête « REPONSE »

G2004/12 X. BONNET - H. PONCET

Structures de revenus et propensions différentes à consommer - Vers une équation de consommation des ménages plus robuste en prévision pour la France

G2004/13 C. PICART

Évaluer la rentabilité des sociétés non financières

G2004/14 J. BARDAJI - B. SÉDILLOT - E. WALRAET

Les retraites du secteur public : projections à l'horizon 2040 à l'aide du modèle de microsimulation DESTINIE

G2005/01 S. BUFFETEAU - P. GODEFROY

Conditions de départ en retraite selon l'âge de fin d'études : analyse prospective pour les générations 1945 a1974

G2005/02 C. AFSA - S. BUFFETEAU

L'évolution de l'activité féminine en France : une approche par pseudo-panel

G2005/03 P. AUBERT - P. SILLARD

Délocalisations et réductions d'effectifs dans l'industrie française

G2005/04 M. LECLAIR - S. ROUX

Mesure et utilisation des emplois instables dans les entreprises

G2005/05 C. L'ANGEVIN - S. SERRAVALLE

Performances à l'exportation de la France et de l'Allemagne - Une analyse par secteur et destination géographique

G2005/06 Bilan des activités de la Direction des Études et Synthèses Economiques - 2004

G2005/07 S. RASPILLER

La concurrence fiscale : principaux enseignements de l'analyse économique

G2005/08 C. L'ANGEVIN - N. LAÎB

Éducation et croissance en France et dans un panel de 21 pays de l'OCDE

G2005/09 N. FERRARI

Prévoir l'investissement des entreprises Un indicateur des révisions dans l'enquête de conjoncture sur les investissements dans l'industrie.
G2005/10 P.-O. BEFFY - C. L'ANGEVIN
Chômage et boucle prix-salaires : apport d'un modèle « qualifiés/peu qualifiés »

G2005/11 B. HEITZ
A two-states Markov-switching model of inflation in France and the USA: credible target VS inflation spiral

G2005/12 O. BIAU - H. ERKEL-ROUSSE - N. FERRARI
Réponses individuelles aux enquêtes de conjoncture et prévision macroéconomiques : Exemple de la prévision de la production manufacturière

G2005/13 P. AUBERT - D. BLANCHET - D. BLAU
The labour market after age 50: some elements of a Franco-American comparison

G2005/14 D. BLANCHET - T. DEBRAND - P. DOURGNON - P. POLLET
L'enquête SHARE : présentation et premiers résultats de l'édition française

G2005/15 M. DUÉE
La modélisation des comportements démographiques dans le modèle de microsimulation DESTINE

G2005/16 H. RAOUI - S. ROUX
Étude de simulation sur la participation versée aux salariés par les entreprises

G2006/01 C. BONNET - S. BUFFETEAU - P. GODEFROY
Disparités de retraite de droit direct entre hommes et femmes : quelles évolutions ?

G2006/02 C. PICART
Les gazelles en France

G2006/03 P. AUBERT - B. CRÉPON - P. ZAMORA
Le rendement apparent de la formation continue dans les entreprises : effets sur la productivité et les salaires

G2006/04 J.-F. OUVRARD - R. RATHELOT
Demographic change and unemployment: what do macroeconomic models predict?

G2006/05 D. BLANCHET - J.-F. OUVRARD
Indicateurs d'engagements implicites des systèmes de retraite : chiffrages, propriétés analytiques et réactions à des chocs démographiques types

G2006/06 G. BIAU - O. BIAU - L. ROUVIERE
Nonparametric Forecasting of the Manufacturing Output Growth with Firm-level Survey Data

G2006/07 C. AFSA - P. GIVORD
Le rôle des conditions de travail dans les absences pour maladie

G2006/08 P. SILLARD - C. L'ANGEVIN - S. SERRAVALLE
Performances comparées à l'exportation de la France et de ses principaux partenaires
Une analyse structurelle sur 12 ans

G2006/09 X. BOUTIN - S. QUANTIN
Une méthodologie d'évaluation comptable du coût du capital des entreprises françaises : 1984-2002

G2006/10 C. AFSA
L'estimation d'un coût implicite de la pénibilité du travail chez les travailleurs âgés

G2006/11 C. LELARGE
Les entreprises (industrielles) françaises sont-elles à la frontière technologique ?

G2006/12 O. BIAU - N. FERRARI
Théorie de l'opinion Faut-il pondérer les réponses individuelles ?

G2006/13 A. KOUBI - S. ROUX
Une réinterprétation de la relation entre productivité et inégalités salariales dans les entreprises

G2006/14 R. RATHELOT - P. SILLARD
The impact of local taxes on plants location decision

G2006/15 L. GONZALEZ - C. PICART
Diversification, centrage et poids des activités de support dans les groupes (1993-2000)

G2007/01 D. SRAER
Allègements de cotisations patronales et dynamique salariale

G2007/02 V. ALBOUY - L. LEQUIEN
Les rendements non monétaires de l'éducation : le cas de la santé

G2007/03 D. BLANCHET - T. DEBRAND
Aspiration à la retraite, santé et satisfaction au travail : une comparaison européenne

G2007/04 M. BARLET - L. CRUSSON
Quel impact des variations du prix du pétrole sur la croissance française ?

G2007/05 C. PICART
Flux d'emploi et de main-d'œuvre en France : un réexamen

G2007/06 V. ALBOUY - C. TAVAN
Massification et démocratisation de l'enseignement supérieur en France

G2007/07 T. LE BARBANCHON
The Changing response to oil price shocks in France: a DSGE type approach

G2007/08 T. CHANEY - D. SRAER - D. THESMAR
Collateral Value and Corporate Investment Evidence from the French Real Estate Market

G2007/09 J. BOISSINOT
Consumption over the Life Cycle: Facts for France

G2007/10 C. AFSA
Interpréter les variables de satisfaction : l'exemple de la durée du travail

G2007/11 R. RATHELOT - P. SILLARD
Zones Franches Urbaines : quels effets sur l'emploi salarié et les créations d'établissements ?

G2007/12 V. ALBOUY - B. CRÉPON
Aléa moral en santé : une évaluation dans le cadre du modèle causal de Rubin

G2008/01 C. PICART
Les PME françaises : rentables mais peu dynamiques

G2008/02 P. BISCOURP - X. BOUTIN - T. VERGÉ
The Effects of Retail Regulations on Prices Evidence form the Loi Galland

G2008/03 Y. BARBESOL - A. BRIANT
Économies d'agglomération et productivité des entreprises : estimation sur données individuelles françaises

G2008/04 D. BLANCHET - F. LE GALLO
Les projections démographiques : principaux mécanismes et retour sur l'expérience française

G2008/05 D. BLANCHET - F. TOUTLEMONDE
Évolutions démographiques et déformation du cycle de vie active : quelles relations ?

G2008/06 M. BARLET - D. BLANCHET - L. CRUSSON
Internationalisation et flux d'emplois : que dit une approche comptable ?

G2008/07 C. LELARGE - D. SRAER - D. THESMAR
Entrepreneurship and Credit Constraints - Evidence from a French Loan Guarantee Program

G2008/08 X. BOUTIN - L. JANIN
Are Prices Really Affected by Mergers?

G2008/09 M. BARLET - A. BRIANT - L. CRUSSON
Concentration géographique dans l'industrie manufacturière et dans les services en France : une approche par un indicateur en continu

G2008/10 M. BEFFY - É. COUDIN - R. RATHELOT
Who is confronted to insecure labor market histories? Some evidence based on the French labor market transition

G2008/11 M. ROGER - E. WALRAET
Social Security and Well-Being of the Elderly: the Case of France

G2008/12 C. AFSA
Analyser les composantes du bien-être et de son évolution
Une approche empirique sur données individuelles

G2008/13 M. BARLET - D. BLANCHET - T. LE BARBANCHON
Microsimplifier le marché du travail : un prototype

G2009/01 P.-A. PIONNIER
Le partage de la valeur ajoutée en France, 1949-2007

G2009/02 Laurent CLAVEL - Christelle MINODIER
A Monthly Indicator of the French Business Climate

G2009/03 H. ERKEL-ROUSSE - C. MINODIER
Do Business Tendency Surveys in Industry and Services Help in Forecasting GDP Growth? A Real-Time Analysis on French Data

G2009/04 P. GIVORD - L. WILNER
Les contrats temporaires : trappe ou marchepied vers l'emploi stable ?

G2009/05 G. LALANNE - P.-A. PIONNIER - O. SIMON
Le partage des fruits de la croissance de 1950 à 2008 : une approche par les comptes de surplus

G2009/06 L. DAVEZIES - X. D'HAULTFOEUILLE
Faut-il pondérer ?... Ou l'éternelle question de l'économètre confronté à des données d'enquête

G2009/07 S. QUANTIN - S. RASPILLER - S. SERRAVALLE
Commerce intragroupe, fiscalité et prix de transferts : une analyse sur données françaises

G2009/08 M. CLERC - V. MARCUS
Élasticités-prix des consommations énergétiques des ménages

G2009/09 G. LALANNE - E. POULIQUEN - O. SIMON
Prix du pétrole et croissance potentielle à long terme

G2009/10 D. BLANCHET - J. LE CACHEUX - V. MARCUS
Adjusted net savings and other approaches to sustainability: some theoretical background

G2009/11 V. BELLAMY - G. CONSALES - M. FESSEAU - S. LE LAIDIER - É. RAYNAUD
Une décomposition du compte des ménages de la comptabilité nationale par catégorie de ménage en 2003

G2009/12 J. BARDAJI - F. TALLET
Detecting Economic Regimes in France: a Qualitative Markov-Switching Indicator Using Mixed Frequency Data

G2009/13 R. AEBERHARDT - D. FOUGÈRE - R. RATHELOT

Discrimination à l'embauche : comment exploiter les procédures de testing ?

G2009/14 Y. BARBESOL - P. GIVORD - S. QUANTIN
Partage de la valeur ajoutée, approche par données microéconomiques

G2009/15 I. BUONO - G. LALANNE
The Effect of the Uruguay round on the Intensive and Extensive Margins of Trade

G2010/01 C. MINODIER
Avantages comparés des séries des premières valeurs publiées et des séries des valeurs révisées - Un exercice de prévision en temps réel de la croissance trimestrielle du PIB en France

G2010/02 V. ALBOUY - L. DAVEZIES - T. DEBRAND
Health Expenditure Models: a Comparison of Five Specifications using Panel Data

G2010/03 C. KLEIN - O. SIMON
Le modèle MÉSANGE réestimé en base 2000 Tome 1 – Version avec volumes à prix constants

G2010/04 M.-É. CLERC - É. COUDIN
L'IPC, miroir de l'évolution du coût de la vie en France ? Ce qu'apporte l'analyse des courbes d'Engel

G2010/05 N. CECI-RENAUD - P.-A. CHEVALIER
Les seuils de 10, 20 et 50 salariés : impact sur la taille des entreprises françaises

G2010/06 R. AEBERHARDT - J. POUGET
National Origin Differences in Wages and Hierarchical Positions - Evidence on French Full-Time Male Workers from a matched Employer-Employee Dataset

G2010/07 S. BLASCO - P. GIVORD
Les trajectoires professionnelles en début de vie active : quel impact des contrats temporaires ?

G2010/08 P. GIVORD
Méthodes économétriques pour l'évaluation de politiques publiques

G2010/09 P.-Y. CABANNES - V. LAPÈGUE - E. POULIQUEN - M. BEFFY - M. GAINI
Quelle croissance de moyen terme après la crise ?

G2010/10 I. BUONO - G. LALANNE
La réaction des entreprises françaises à la baisse des tarifs douaniers étrangers
G2010/11 R. RATHELOT - P. SILLARD
L'apport des méthodes à noyaux pour mesurer la concentration géographique - Application à la concentration des immigrés en France de 1968 à 1999

G2010/12 M. BARATON - M. BEFFY - D. FOUGÈRE
Une évaluation de l'effet de la réforme de 2003 sur les départs en retraite - Le cas des enseignants du second degré public

G2010/13 D. BLANCHET - S. BUFFETEAU - E. CRENNER
S. LE MINEZ
Le modèle de microsimulation Destinie 2 : principales caractéristiques et premiers résultats

G2010/14 D. BLANCHET - E. CRENNER
Le bloc retraites du modèle Destinie 2 : guide de l'utilisateur

G2010/15 M. BARLET - L. CRUSSON - S. DUPUCH - F. PUECH
Des services échangés aux services échangeables : une application sur données françaises

G2010/16 M. BEFFY - T. KAMIONKA
Public-private wage gaps: is civil-servant human capital sector-specific?

G2010/17 P.-Y. CABANNES - H. ERKEL-ROUSSE - G. LALANNE - O. MONSO - E. POULIQUEN
Le modèle Mésange réestimé en base 2000 Tome 2 - Version avec volumes à prix chaînés

G2010/18 R. AEBERHARDT - L. DAVEZIES
Conditional Logit with one Binary Covariate: Link between the Static and Dynamic Cases

G2011/01 T. LE BARBANCHON - B. OURLIAC - O. SIMON
Les marchés du travail français et américain face aux chocs conjoncturels des années 1986 à 2007 : une modélisation DSGE

G2011/02 C. MARBOT
Une évaluation de la réduction d'impôt pour l'emploi de salariés à domicile

G2011/03 L. DAVEZIES
Modèles à effets fixes, à effets aléatoires, modèles mixtes ou multi-niveaux : propriétés et mises en œuvre des modélisations de l'hétérogénéité dans le cas de données groupées

G2011/04 M. ROGER - M. WASMER
Heterogeneity matters: labour productivity differentiated by age and skills

G2011/05 J.-C. BRICONGNE - J.-M. FOURNIER
V. LAPÈGUE - O. MONSO
De la crise financière à la crise économique L'impact des perturbations financières de 2007 et 2008 sur la croissance de sept pays industrialisés

G2011/06 P. CHARNOZ - É. COUDIN - M. GAINI
Wage inequalities in France 1976-2004: a quantile regression analysis

G2011/07 M. CLERC - M. GAINI - D. BLANCHET
Recommendations of the Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Report: A few illustrations

G2011/08 M. BACHELET - M. BEFFY - D. BLANCHET
Projet l'impact des réformes des retraites sur l'activité des 55 ans et plus : une comparaison de trois modèles

G2011/09 C. LOUVOT-RUNAVOT
L'évaluation de l'activité dissimulée des entre-

prises sur la base des contrôles fiscaux et son insertion dans les comptes nationaux

G2011/10 A. SCHREIBER - A. VICARD
La tertiairisation de l'économie française et le ralentissement de la productivité entre 1978 et 2008

G2011/11 M.-É. CLERC - O. MONSO - E. POULIQUEN
Les inégalités entre générations depuis le baby-boom

G2011/12 C. MARBOT - D. ROY
Évaluation de la transformation de la réduction d'impôt en crédit d'impôt pour l'emploi de salariés à domicile en 2007

G2011/13 P. GIVORD - R. RATHELOT - P. SILLARD
Place-based tax exemptions and displacement effects: An evaluation of the Zones Franches Urbaines program

G2011/14 X. D'HAULTFOEUILLE - P. GIVORD - X. BOUTIN
The Environmental Effect of Green Taxation: the Case of the French "Bonus/Malus"

G2011/15 M. BARLET - M. CLERC - M. GARNEO - V. LAPÈGUE - V. MARCUS
La nouvelle version du modèle MZE, modèle macroéconométrique pour la zone euro

G2011/16 R. AEBERHARDT - I. BUONO - H. FADINGER
Learning, Incomplete Contracts and Export Dynamics: theory and Evidence form French Firms

G2011/17 C. KERDRAIN - V. LAPÈGUE
Restrictive Fiscal Policies in Europe: What are the Likely Effects?

G2012/01 P. GIVORD - S. QUANTIN - C. TREVIEN
A Long-Term Evaluation of the First Generation of the French Urban Enterprise Zones

G2012/02 N. CECI-RENAUD - V. COTTET
Politique salariale et performance des entreprises

G2012/03 P. FÉVRIER - L. WILNER
Do Consumers Correctly Expect Price Reductions? Testing Dynamic Behavior

G2012/04 M. GAINI - A. LEDUC - A. VICARD
School as a shelter? School leaving-age and the business cycle in France

G2012/05 M. GAINI - A. LEDUC - A. VICARD
A scarred generation? French evidence on young people entering into a tough labour market

G2012/06 P. AUBERT - M. BACHELET
Disparités de montant de pension et redistribution dans le système de retraite français

G2012/07 R. AEBERHARDT - P GIVORD - C. MARBOT
Spillover Effect of the Minimum Wage in France: An Unconditional Quantile Regression Approach

G2012/08 A. EIDELMAN - F. LANGUMIER - A. VICARD
Prélèvements obligatoires reposant sur les ménages : des canaux redistributifs différents en 1990 et 2010

G2012/09 O. BARGAIN - A. VICARD
Le RMI et son successeur le RSA découragent-ils certains jeunes de travailler ? Une analyse sur les jeunes autour de 25 ans

G2012/10 C. MARBOT - D. ROY
Projections du coût de l'APA et des caractéristiques de ses bénéficiaires à l'horizon 2040 à l'aide du modèle Destinie

G2012/11 A. MAUROUX
Le crédit d'impôt dédié au développement durable : une évaluation économique

G2012/12 V. COTTET - S. QUANTIN - V. RÉGNIER
Coût du travail et allègements de charges : une estimation au niveau établissement de 1996 à 2008

G2012/13 X. D'HAULTFOEUILLE - P. FÉVRIER - L. WILNER
Demand Estimation in the Presence of Revenue Management

G2012/14 D. BLANCHET - S. LE MINEZ
Joint macro/micro evaluations of accrued-to-date pension liabilities: an application to French reforms

G2013/01 T. DEROYON - A. MONTAUT - P-A PIONNIER
Utilisation rétrospective de l'enquête Emploi à une fréquence mensuelle: apport d'une modélisation espace-état

G2013/02 C. TREVIEN
Habiter en HLM: quel avantage monétaire et quel impact sur les conditions de logement ?

G2013/03 A. POISSONNIER
Temporal disaggregation of stock variables - The Chow-Lin method extended to dynamic models

G2013/04 P. GIVORD - C. MARBOT
Does the cost of child care affect female labor market participation? An evaluation of a French reform of childcare subsidies

G2013/05 G. LAME - M. LEQUIEN - P.-A. PIONNIER
Interpretation and limits of sustainability tests in public finance

G2013/06 C. BELLEGO - V. DORTET-BERNADET
La participation aux pôles de compétitivité : quelle incidence sur les dépenses de R&D et l'activité des PME et ETI ?

G2013/07 P.-Y. CABANNES - A. MONTAUT - P.-A. PIONNIER
Évaluer la productivité globale des facteurs en France : l'apport d'une mesure de la qualité du capital et du travail

G2013/08 R. AEBERHARDT - C. MARBOT
Evolution of Instability on the French Labour Market During the Last Thirty Years

G2013/09 J-B. BERNARD - G. CLÉAUD
Oil price: the nature of the shocks and the impact on the French economy

G2013/10 G. LAME
Was there a « Greenspan Conundrum » in the Euro area?

G2013/11 P. CHONÉ - F. EVAIN - L. WILNER - E. YILMAZ
Introducing activity-based payment in the hospital industry : Evidence from French data

G2013/12 C. GRISLAIN-LETRÉMY
Natural Disasters: Exposure and Underinsurance

G2013/13 P.-Y. CABANNES - V. COTTET - Y. DUBOIS - C. LELARGE - M. SICSIC
French Firms in the Face of the 2008/2009 Crisis

G2013/14 A. POISSONNIER - D. ROY
Households Satellite Account for France in 2010. Methodological issues on the assessment of domestic production

G2013/15 G. CLÉAUD - M. LEMOINE - P.-A. PIONNIER
Which size and evolution of the government expenditure multiplier in France (1980-2010)?

G2014/01 M. BACHELET - A. LEDUC - A. MARINO
Les biographies du modèle Destinie II : rebasage et projection

G2014/02 B. GARBINTI
L'achat de la résidence principale et la création d'entreprises sont-ils favorisés par les donations et héritages ?

G2014/03 N. CECI-RENAUD - P. CHARNOZ - M. GAINI
Évolution de la volatilité des revenus salariaux du secteur privé en France depuis 1968

G2014/04 P. AUBERT
Modalités d'application des réformes des retraites et prévisibilité du montant de pension

G2014/05 C. GRISLAIN-LETRÉMY - A. KATOSSKY
The Impact of Hazardous Industrial Facilities on Housing Prices: A Comparison of Parametric and Semiparametric Hedonic Price Models

G2014/06 J.-M. DAUSSIN-BENICHOU - A. MAUROUX
Turning the heat up. How sensitive are households to fiscal incentives on energy efficiency investments?

G2014/07 C. LABONNE - G. LAMÉ
Credit Growth and Capital Requirements: Binding or Not?

G2014/08 C. GRISLAIN-LETRÉMY et C. TREVIEN
The Impact of Housing Subsidies on the Rental Sector: the French Example

G2014/09 M. LEQUIEN et A. MONTAUT
Croissance potentielle en France et en zone euro : un tour d'horizon des méthodes d'estimation

G2014/10 B. GARBINTI - P. LAMARCHE
Les hauts revenus épargnent-ils davantage ?

G2014/11 D. AUDENAERT - J. BARDAJI - R. LARDEUX - M. ORAND - M. SICSIC
Wage Resilience in France since the Great Recession