# French Firms in the face of the 2008/2009 crisis

Pierre-Yves Cabannes, Vincent Cottet, Yves Dubois, Claire Lelarge, Michaël Sicsic

► To cite this version:

Pierre-Yves Cabannes, Vincent Cottet, Yves Dubois, Claire Lelarge, Michaël Sicsic. French Firms in the face of the 2008/2009 crisis. 2013. hal-05462368

HAL Id: hal-05462368

https://insee.hal.science/hal-05462368v1

Preprint submitted on 16 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_1.png" /></figure>

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

G 2013 / 13

French Firms
in the Face of the 2008/2009 Crisis

PIERRE-YVES CABANNES - VINCENT COTTET -
YVES DUBOIS - CLAIRE LELARGE - MICHAEL 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 2013 / 13

French Firms
in the Face of the 2008/2009 Crisis

PIERRE-YVES CABANNES* - VINCENT COTTET** -
YVES DUBOIS** - CLAIRE LELARGE** - MICHAEL SICSIC**

November 2013

The authors wish to thank Cédric Audenis (discussant at the Insee internal seminar), Jean Boissinot (discussant at the Fourgeaud seminar), Corinne Prost, Éric Dubois and Jean-Luc Tavernier, as well as participants to the Insee-DSE, Insee-D2E and Fourgeaud seminars. Luc Sauvadet and Jacqueline Brasseur (Insee-DSE) contributed immensely to the data construction.

<footnote>* Département des Études Économiques - Division « Études Macroéconomiques » au moment de la rédaction
Timbre G210 - 15, bd Gabriel Péri - BP 100 - 92244 MALAKOFF CEDEX</footnote>

<footnote>** Département des Études Économiques - Division « Marchés et Entreprises » au moment de la rédaction
Timbre G230 - 15, bd Gabriel Péri - BP 100 - 92244 MALAKOFF CEDEX</footnote>
# French Firms in the face of the 2008/2009 crisis

## Abstract

During the 2008/2009 crisis French businesses were hit by a slump in domestic and world demand, while French banks encountered difficulties that may have encouraged them to tighten their credit conditions.

This crisis strongly affected the number of business start-ups as well as the initial size of these start-ups; firm growth was also slashed, in particular that of the most promising among them.

In 2008 and 2009 subsidiaries of groups experienced a sharper drop in activity than independent enterprises, particularly in the manufacturing industry. The companies that were least likely to be affected by financial constraints were those that most adjusted their short-term output, as well as their employment and investment levels. These elements suggest that in France, unlike in the United States, enterprises suffered more from a demand shock than from a credit shock.

**Keywords:** Financial crisis, financing constraints, firm growth.

# Les ajustements des entreprises françaises pendant la crise de 2008/2009

## Résumé

Durant la crise de 2008/2009, les entreprises françaises ont été affectées par un effondrement de la demande domestique et mondiale, tandis que les banques françaises rencontraient des difficultés de nature à les inciter à resserrer les conditions de crédit.

Cette crise a fortement affecté le nombre de créations d'entreprises et leur taille initiale ; la croissance des entreprises a aussi été amputée, notamment celle des plus prometteuses.

Les filiales des groupes ont connu une baisse d'activité en 2008 et 2009 plus forte que les entreprises indépendantes, en particulier dans le secteur de l'industrie manufacturière. Ce sont les entreprises les moins susceptibles d'être contraintes financièrement qui ont le plus ajusté leur volume de production à court terme, ainsi que leurs niveaux d'emploi et d'investissement. Ces éléments suggèrent qu'en France, contrairement aux États-Unis, les entreprises ont davantage pâti d'un choc de demande que d'un choc de crédit.

**Mots-clés :** Crise financière, contraintes de financement, croissance des entreprises.

**Classification JEL :** L11, G31.
A worldwide shock with a lesser effect on France, relatively speaking, than on its main
economic partners

Like that of its main industrialised partners, the French economy was hard hit by the downturn in 2008. Activity mainly shrank in Q4 2008 and Q1 2009, when the world stock markets plunged following the collapse of Lehman Brothers in mid-September 2008.

In the short-term, however, French companies were relatively less affected than their European and American counterparts: the value-added of non-financial companies grew slightly in volume between 2007 and 2008 in France (+0.5 percent), as it did in Germany (+0.8 percent), whereas it contracted in Italy (-1.8 percent), in the United Kingdom (-2.1 percent) and in the United States (-1.7 percent, figure 1). In 2009 too, the contraction in value added was not as sharp in France (-5.1 percent) as in Germany (-7.9 percent), the United States (-6.6 percent) or Italy (-7.5 percent). British companies saw a similar trend to French businesses (-5.1 percent).

This uneven situation from country to country can be ascribed to various factors: the difference in scale of the demand shock, the heterogeneous credit supply shock that companies suffered in terms of external financing, particularly from banks; and the differences between the policies implemented by national governments in response to the crisis (insert 1).

Insert 1

In France, a very business-focused response from the State

Intervention strategies in response to the crisis (amounts committed, schedule) differed from State to State.

In 2008 and 2009, the French stimulus plan corresponded to around 1.5 GDP points, which is higher than the amounts committed in Italy and Great Britain, but lower than those of the United States or Spain (OECD, 2009a and 2009b, IMF, 2009 and 2012, Minefi, 2010). On average, the countries with larger automatic stabilisers opted for smaller-scale discretionary measures.

The countries affected by the bursting of property bubbles (USA, UK, Spain, Ireland) set up stimulus plans as early as 2008 (for at least 15% of the total amounts), while the other OECD countries only did so in 2009. In France, 75% of the total amount was distributed in 2009 and 25% in 2010.

Lastly, the French plan was more focused on businesses and investment than the American and British plans, which were more targeted to households (OECD, 2009b, IMF, 2009b). Among other things, it included measures to support the financing and cash-flow of SMEs (credit mediator; interventions targeted to the banking sector), sectoral measures (benefiting the automotive industry, for example), and an infrastructure investment plan.
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1**
Value added produced by non-financial corporation: international comparisons</figcaption></figure>

Coverage: Non financial firms.

Interpretation: in Germany, the total value added produced by non-financial firms decreased by 7.9 percent in 2009 as compared to 2008.

Note: Value added has been deflated by the VA price index provided in national accounts.

Source: OECD.

**A sharp contraction in domestic demand and, above all, in world trade**

One of the most notable aspects of the 2008/2009 downturn was the collapse of world trade, which fell by 10 percent overall in 2009, according to IMF estimates (2012). The smaller participation by French companies to world trade<fnref n="1" /> (combined with their lower level of specialisation in the manufacturing industry) kept them relatively better protected from the massive contraction in this demand component than their German counterparts, for example. The contraction in exports in France came to 3.1 GDP points in 2009, and the concomitant fall in imports restricted the negative contribution of world trade to just 0.5 GDP points.

Furthermore, domestic demand was not affected by the massive wealth effects observed in some countries (USA, UK, Spain), where certain categories of over-indebted agents proceeded to a significant correction of their balance sheet [Fortin and Bouveret, 2009].

Nonetheless, the drop in French GDP was exceptionally large: –3.1 percent, a figure unmatched over the last 50 years. Corporate behaviour contributed heavily to this drop: the decline in investment by non-financial companies contributed –1.5 GDP points and the mass destocking trend –1.2 GDP points.

<footnote n="1">¹ Export weight in terms of GDP was 27 percent in France in 2008 against more than 47 percent in Germany.</footnote>
# A drastic reduction in lending to companies, although with little short-term influence on the capital structure of French companies

Outstanding bank loans to companies collapsed in the main European countries. This occurred in 2009 at the latest and as early as 2007 in Italy and the United Kingdom (figure 2).

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2
Credit distributed to non-financial firms – comparison across European countries</figcaption></figure>

Coverage: Credit distributed by financial institutions (excluding central banks) to non-financial firms.
Interpretation: credit distributed to German non-financial firms decreased by 5.2 percentage point in January 2010, as compared to January 2009.

Source: Banque de France

However, the outstanding debt of non-financial companies diminished less than their value added, so that the average debt ratio of non-financial companies continued to grow in France after Q4 2008, whereas it fell in all the other countries under study (figure 3).

We refer to a “demand shock” when companies adjust their activity downwards because of a fall in orders. However, when the drop in activity stems from companies’ inability to complete their projects due to lack of financing (in this case, because the banks exposed to the financial crisis restricted access to credit), we refer to a “credit shock”. The macroeconomic elements above suggest that in France, companies suffered more due to a demand shock than to a credit shock. An analysis of the individual behaviour of businesses in France using microeconomic data sources allows refining the diagnostic: in the same way as the impact of the crisis on various long- and short-term strategy components, the scale of the supply and demand shocks may differ substantially according to the population of enterprises under consideration. In particular, the French productive fabric is characterised by the significant economic weight of groups in terms of value added and employment, contrasting with the significant demographic weight of independent legal units [Béguin et al., 2012]: in 2009, while only 6% of legal units belonged to a group, they employed 64% of employees and produced 70% of value added.
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3**

Financial leverage (defined as outstanding debt over value added) – international comparisons</figcaption></figure>

Coverage: Non financial corporations.

Interpretation: in the first quarter of 2009, the outstanding debt of French non-financial firms represented 121% of the value added they produced.

Source: Banque de France.

In contrast, the renewal of the production fabric<fnref n="2" /> was in the main achieved by 94% of independent companies, often very small and without any access to the internal capital markets of groups: these companies might have been affected differently by the 2008 shock.

**The crisis significantly reduced the number of independent business start-ups and their initial size**

Data from the DADS and EPURE datasets contain information on employees and the companies they work for; this allows a detailed analysis of business start-up processes and the growth rate of these businesses at the start of their lifecycle (insert 2). The analysis conducted here covers independent businesses that employ at least one person.

In an unfavourable macroeconomic context, it is expected that numerous entrepreneurs would tend to postpone or abandon their decision to start up a business, or else do it on a smaller scale than previously planned (size effect). Conversely, if only the most productive companies remain capable of entering the market (selection effect) and entrepreneurs barely adjust the size of their projects when they decided to deploy them (limited-scale size effect), then the average size observed at start-up is likely to increase when the cycle is low. We assess the respective contribution of these two mechanisms thanks to a combined analysis of the start-up rate and the initial size of companies.

<footnote n="2">² The vast majority of “real” business start-ups and destructions occur among independent “legal units” (Picart, 2004; Duhautois and Lagarde, 2004; Accardo and Cordellier, 2013).</footnote>
The number of start-ups of businesses employing at least one person began to fall in number in 2008 in the non-agricultural market sector (figure 4) and the reduction was even more marked in 2009. However, the number of employer start-ups in 2009 was still slightly higher than that of 2003, which suggests that the size effect might have been stronger than the selection effect.

Figure 4

Creations of employer firms in the for-profit, non agricultural industries, from 2003 to 2009

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>2003</th><th>2004</th><th>2005</th><th>2006</th><th>2007</th><th>2008</th><th>2009</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Number</td><td>76,437</td><td>85,233</td><td>92,150</td><td>90,688</td><td>92,178</td><td>89,866</td><td>79,498</td></tr><tr><td>Index (base: 2003)</td><td>100</td><td>112</td><td>121</td><td>119</td><td>121</td><td>118</td><td>104</td></tr></tbody></table>

Coverage: French economy; firms that are active in the for-profit, non-agricultural industries and that are employer within the first year after creation. Affiliates of corporate groups are excluded.

Source: Insee, DADS and Epure datasets, matched with the LIFI survey.

Insert 2

Analysis of the business start-up and growth processes: sources and measurement

The analysis of the business start-up and growth processes is based on DADS data (annual employer declaration data) and that of the EPURE (extension of the income and employment project), which come from the payroll tax forms filled out by companies. The only companies considered were those that are independent (not belonging to any group). They were isolated by means of the LIFI survey (survey on financial ties). More precisely, to study the growth between years *n* and *n+1* of companies that were independent in year *n*, companies belonging to a group in *n* were thus excluded, although companies that were independent in *n* and joined a group in *n+1* were retained. However, they were excluded for the analysis of later transitions.

The scope of analysis includes sole proprietorships and commercial companies belonging to the non-agricultural market sector and employing at least one paid employee. This latter criterion causes a sharp divergence between this scope and the much broader scope of the series of business start-ups published by Insee (and used in e.g. Accardo and Cordellier, 2013). Our concept of size is that of full-time equivalent paid workers.

A company is considered as started up in year *n* when it is present in the DADS data in year *n+1*. Although a number of businesses are not included (those that do not survive from *n* to *n+1*), this methodology does account for the numerous companies that did not have any employees the first year (and hence did not feature in DADS that year) but hired staff after a few months.

As an illustration, for 2009 this methodology leads to a count of 79,498 independent business start-ups. This corresponds to 67,594 independent companies that started up with employees in 2009, minus the 6,488 businesses that disappeared between 2009 and 2010, plus the 18,392 companies started up in 2009 but which only had employees from 2010.

Initial size is measured at the age of one year, for the same reason: many companies have no employees in the year of their creation but hire the year after.

The businesses started up in 2008 and 2009 were also smaller, in terms of employment, than those started up previously: slightly more of them were started up with just one employee, and slightly fewer of them with more than two employees (figure 5). The differences are significant, as shown by χ² tests applied to the deviations,
taken one by one, in the size distributions of 2002 to 2007 cohorts relative to those of 2008 or 2009 cohorts<fnref n="3" />. The size effect was thus very important, and in all cases predominated over any selection effects.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5**

Firm size distribution, one year after creation, by cohort</figcaption></figure>

Coverage: French economy; firms that are active in the for-profit, non-agricultural industries and that are employer within the first year after creation. Affiliates of corporate groups are excluded.

Interpretation: Among firms that were created in 2009 and were still active in 2010, 1.9% have 6 (full-time equivalent) paid workers.

Source: Insee, DADS and Epure datasets, matched with the LIFI survey.

**The crisis also slowed down growth in young companies**

The growth of companies was also hampered by the crisis: irrespective of age, companies saw weaker growth in their workforce in 2009 and 2010 than prior to the crisis. However, this decline in growth mostly affected young companies, which normally enjoy higher growth rates. Companies can be ranked according to their “growth potential” measured from their workforce growth dynamic in the course of the period under analysis, taking account of the average dynamic for companies in the sector (insert 3). We find that among young enterprises, it was respectively those with the highest and lowest growth potentials that most suffered in the crisis; companies with intermediate growth potential were almost unaffected (figure 6).

Furthermore, Fougère et al. (2012) show those young companies saw a sharp rise in excess mortality because of the crisis, in the order of 30% in the trade sector and almost 50% in manufacturing industry.

<footnote n="3">³ For this test all companies with at least 21 employees are grouped together in a single cell, while one cell per size is retained for the rest of the distribution.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figure 6
Annual growth of firms, across firm age classes (as compared to growth in 2007)</figcaption></figure>

Coverage: French economy; firms that are active in the for-profit, non-agricultural industries and that are employer within the first year after creation. Affiliates of corporate groups are excluded.

Interpretation: "All else equal", firms having a high growth potential and which had been created in the previous year (1 year old) grew up by 3.3 percentage point less between 2009 and 2010, as compared to their growth between 2006 and 2007.

Note: These figures describe firm growth "all else equal" between year n-1 and year n, as compared to growth between 2006 and 2007. The definition of "growth potential" (75th, 50th, 25th quantiles) and the estimation method are described in insert 3.

Source: Insee, DADS and Epure datasets; LIFI survey.
Econometric modelling of firm growth

An econometric model inspired by Evans (1987) is used to analyse heterogeneity in the effects of macroeconomic shocks on corporate growth. Through this methodology we assess the economic cycle effect for different company populations defined according to their “growth potential”, and account for the fact that a company can disappear or be created.

The specification models the quantiles of the logarithm for company size (quantile regression) and takes the following form:

$$ \ln(S_{n+1}) = c(U) + \alpha(U) \ln(S_n) + X'\beta(U) + \sum_{\substack{k=2004 \\ k \neq 2007}}^{2010} \gamma_k(U) I_{[n+1=k]} $$

where $S_n$ is firm size in year $n$, and $X$ the industry where the company operates. The company’s “growth potential” $U$ is the conditional quantile in $n+1$, that is, the “ranking” (ranging between 0 and 1) of companies, ranked according to the dynamism of their growth. At given size $S_n$, sector $X$ and observation period $n$, having a higher growth potential $U$ leads to a larger size at date $n+1$. This variable $U$ captures the effect of all the unobserved company characteristics likely to affect growth over the period.

The coefficients $\gamma_k(U)$ measure the scale of macroeconomic effects on corporate growth, with 2007 as the reference year. These effects are estimated from individual company data for each quartile of growth potential $U$, and by age level (different estimates are made for companies aged 1 year, 2 years, etc.).

They are shown in figure 6 according to age and growth potential. We can see that the economic cycle was less favourable to companies with high growth potential (belonging to the last distribution quartile of $U$) in 2009 than in 2007, with 2010 being slightly better. The coefficients obtained fall sharply with age until they reach zero: this suggests that the effect of the crisis was greater for the youngest companies, which did not benefit from a catch-up effect. The same is true, although in a lesser proportion, of companies with intermediate or low growth potential. For companies with lower growth potential, 2010 was even more difficult than 2009, at least among young companies.

Among “mature” companies, affiliates of groups reduced their volume of activity by more than independent companies

The SUSE and ESANE data sources (insert 4) taken from the accounting documents filed by companies with the tax administration serve to enrich the diagnostic by comparing legal units belonging to groups with independent companies in terms of their operating accounts and financial accounts.

In the trade (section G of the NAF rev. 2 classification of activities), manufacturing industry (section C) and services to businesses (specialised, scientific and technical activities, section M) industries, the volume of activity measured by revenue fell more sharply among affiliates of corporate groups than among independent enterprises (figure 7). The 2009 shock was particularly big in the manufacturing industry and for enterprises in the trade sector, where the contraction in revenues exceeded 10% for groups and stood at around 7% for independent companies, i.e. twice as much as in the business services sector.

Adjustments made to employment were also very different according to company type and sector (figure 8). The manufacturing industry saw by far the most negative trend, particularly in 2009 and 2010, but in this sector employment was already experiencing a downward trend before the shock occurred.
Conversely, in the trade and services to businesses sectors, the 2008 downturn had limited effects: growth in employment was reduced among independent companies, while companies belonging to a group only reduced their employment slightly.

Across all sectors, firms belonging to groups made larger adjustments to both their volume of activity and their level of employment (and thus payroll). As a result of this dual behaviour, the margin rate, defined as the ratio of gross operating profits (value added minus payroll) to value added, did not vary in a particularly contrasting manner between groups and independent companies (figure 9).

<caption>**Figure 7**</caption>

Sales growth in the trade, manufacturing and business services industries

Average growth rate (%)

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

Coverage: French economy, firms reporting to the "BRN" (Bénéfice Réel Normal) tax scheme and active in the trade (NAF G), manufacturing (NAF C) and business services (NAF M) industries.

Interpretation: In 2007, the average sales growth in the trade industry was 2.4% among affiliates of groups, and 1% among standalone firms. When the confidence intervals delimited by the dashed lines do not overlap, then the average growth rates in the two groups are statistically different.

Source: Insee, BRN and Esane Information systems; LIFI survey.
<caption>**Figure 8**

Employment growth in the trade, manufacturing and business services industries</caption>

Average growth rate (%)

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

Coverage: French economy, firms reporting to the "BRN" (Bénéfice Réel Normal) tax scheme and active in the trade (NAF G), manufacturing (NAF C) and business services (NAF M) industries.

Interpretation: In 2007, the average employment growth (in full-time equivalent) in the trade industry was 0.6% among affiliates of groups, and 0.4% among standalone firms. When the confidence intervals delimited by the dashed lines do not overlap, then the average growth rates in the two groups are statistically different.

Source: Insee, BRN and Esane Information systems; LIFI survey.

Independent enterprises in the business services sector were less successful in protecting their margins, but the most significant fact is still the scale of the drop in margin rate in the manufacturing industry, both for legal units belonging to groups and for independent enterprises<fnref n="4" />.

Industry level heterogeneity in terms of variation in margin rate is not reflected in the average variation in investment (figure 10). In all sectors the amounts invested fell by around 30% in 2009 in subsidiaries of groups, before a slightly positive or barely negative variation in 2010. Once again, this slump tended to be less severe among independent companies.

<footnote n="4">⁴ According to the national accounts, the margin rate of non-financial companies deteriorated once again in 2011, after the temporary recovery in 2010.</footnote>
<caption>**Figure 9**

Evolution of the profit margin in the trade, manufacturing and business services industries</caption>

Average growth rate (%)

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

Coverage: French economy, firms reporting to the "BRN" (Bénéfice Réel Normal) tax scheme and active in the trade (NAF G), manufacturing (NAF C) and business services (NAF M) industries.

Interpretation: In 2007, the profit margin in the trade industry increased by 5.5% among affiliates of groups, and decreased by 0.3% among standalone firms. When the confidence intervals delimited by the dashed lines do not overlap, then the average growth rates in the two groups are statistically different.

Source: Insee, BRN and Esane Information systems; LIFI survey.

<caption>**Figure 10**

Evolution of investment in the trade, manufacturing and business services industries</caption>

Average growth rate (%)

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

Coverage: French economy, firms reporting to the "BRN" (Bénéfice Réel Normal) tax scheme and active in the trade (NAF G), manufacturing (NAF C) and business services (NAF M) industries.

Interpretation: In 2007, investment in tangible assets decreased by 2.5% among affiliates of groups, and by 11.5% among standalone firms. When the confidence intervals delimited by the dashed lines do not overlap, then the average growth rates in the two groups are statistically different.

Source: Insee, BRN and Esane Information systems; LIFI survey.
A predominant demand shock?

All these aggregated trends suggest that subsidiaries of groups, which are generally larger in size and have access to an internal capital market, and are thus potentially less exposed to credit constraints, suffered more during the crisis than independent companies. It appears that independents continued to finance their projects, perhaps thanks to the many support programmes for access to credit and liquidity implemented during this period and mainly targeted to SMEs (insert 1).

According to economic analysis (insert 5), this asymmetric adjustment indicates that the demand shock suffered by companies predominated over the credit shock. Moreover, subsidiaries of groups and independent enterprises suffered different demand shocks because of their differentiated exposure to international trade.

We complement the descriptive approach by regressions that allow an "all else being equal" approach. These regressions serve to compare enterprises that are active on the same markets and that initially (before the crisis) present an identical level of efficiency.

The criterion of being backed (or not) by a larger corporate group is a good indicator of probable exposure to financing constraints [Garicano and Steinwender, 2012]. However, affiliates of corporate groups and independent enterprises are only comparable in terms of their “real” corporate strategies, but not in terms of their financial strategies. Indeed, the structure of the balance sheets of groups is very specific as it is significantly affected by intra-group holdings and other borrowings. Therefore, to refine the analysis we use two additional indicators correlated with the probability of being financially constrained that have been proposed in the economic literature and that are specific to each sub-population of enterprises (affiliates on the one hand, and independent firms on the other hand).

* For independent enterprises we use collateral, since this characteristic probably determines their debt capacity [Almeida and Campello, 2007]. We measure it by fixed tangible assets per employee.

* For affiliates, we use the global wealth level of the group because this characteristic determines the ability of the internal capital market to make up for the deficiencies of the external capital market [Boutin et al, 2012]. "Wealth" is calculated as the total gross operating surplus generated by the group as a whole on the national territory plus the total net liquid assets held by French subsidiaries<fnref n="5" />.

In each case, we split the sub-population into firms having an indicator below, or above the sample median. The comparison of the results obtained with these alternative indicators of financing constraints allows assessing the robustness of our findings related to the magnitude of financing constraints during this period.

<footnote n="5">⁵ Our measure of the wealth of groups does not include foreign subsidiaries (which do not feature in our data) and thus probably underestimates the total wealth of highly internationalised groups. However, (unreported) analyses conducted on a sample excluding subsidiaries whose group head is located abroad (for which this problem is particularly severe) give very similar results to those presented, which suggests that our conclusions are robust to this measurement problem.</footnote>
## Statistical sources and methodology for the analysis of real and financial strategies of enterprises

Company tax reports (full balance sheet, profits and losses statement) contain extremely rich information about companies' choices in terms of financing, production and investment strategies. Here we use information from the most detailed tax reports from companies subject to the "Actual Profits" taxation scheme (BRN). The corresponding files cover the years 2003 to 2010. We restrict the analysis to the manufacturing (section C), trade (section G) and business services (section M) industries, for which coverage is the most comprehensive: this taxation system is compulsory for firms making revenue of over 234,000 Euros excluding VAT in the services industries, and 777,000 Euros in other sectors; but smaller companies may choose it as an option. This source therefore offers almost total coverage of the legal units of relatively large size but less coverage of smaller companies: in 2003, the coverage rate was over 80% for companies employing more than 10 people and almost 100% for those with more than 20 employees.

These files are then matched to the DADS files, as well as to the LIFI survey (financial ties) in order to reconstruct the structure of groups and analyse the functioning of internal capital markets.

The resulting file is used to describe the impact of the crisis on various dimensions of corporate strategies, financial or "real" (e.g. relating to investment or employment).

We implement a "difference in differences" estimation strategy that is very simple and intuitive. It is based on comparisons of variations in indicators between different populations of companies, which (we assume) would have been exposed differently to a potential reinforcement of credit constraints.

We introduce a rich set of control variables into the regressions (firm fixed effects controlling for differences between units that are stable over time, firm age, trends in workforce growth, capital intensity and productivity) which allow an "all else being equal" analysis. All the regressions also integrate the logarithm of global value added produced in the industry to which each enterprise belongs in order to control for potential demand shocks that are specific to each sector.

To interpret the results of our regressions we assume that for given size, sector and level of productivity, enterprises globally face the same demand shocks. The differences in growth or adjustments are then interpreted as the impact of potential financing constraints, or more precisely of their amplification, on the various strategies that we analyze.

The "all else being equal" analysis globally confirms the descriptive results found previously (figure 11) which would suggest a far more prominent role played by the demand shock than the credit shock: independent companies adjusted their production volume, be it in terms of value added or revenue, significantly less than those that were members of a group. The adjustment was also smaller for independent companies with low collateral than for those with high collateral, while the subsidiaries backed by groups with varying wealth levels did not see differentiated adjustments. Complementary analyses reported in appendix B3 and contrasting individual companies and group subsidiaries according to their export activity show that subsidiaries of groups exported more often and were in fact more exposed to the contraction in world demand. The (fewer) independent enterprises that also participated to international trade suffered a shock that was comparable in magnitude<fnref n="6" />.

Moreover, group subsidiaries ran down their inventories more often than independent enterprises over the period. This result is compatible with the hypothesis of a strong demand shock if we assume that prior to the crisis, independent companies faced tougher financing constraints: the companies which during that period were operating at an activity level close to optimum would have been forced to adjust more suddenly than those which

<footnote n="6">⁶ However, they drew from their inventories less frequently.</footnote>
had financing difficulties before 2008 and thus had a lower than optimum production. However, the result is less compatible with the hypothesis of an increase in credit constraints, which should have produced an equally asymmetric adjustment between these two populations, but in the opposite direction (see also Kremp and Sevestre, 2012).

<table><caption>**Figure 11**
The 2008/2009 shock (as compared to the 2004 to 2007 period), for sub-populations of firms that were differentially exposed to financing constraints</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2">Standalone firms<br>(A)</th><th rowspan="2">Group affiliates<br>(B)</th><th rowspan="2">Difference<br>(A) - (B)</th><th colspan="2">Standalone firms</th><th colspan="2">Affiliates of corporate<br>groups</th></tr><tr><th>low<br>collateral<br>(C)</th><th>high<br>collateral<br>(D)</th><th>cash poor<br>(E)</th><th>cash rich<br>(F)</th><th>Difference<br>(E) - (F)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Value added</td><td>-9.1 (***)<br>(0.1)</td><td>-10.4 (***)<br>(0.3)</td><td>1.3 (***)<br>(0.3)</td><td>-8.5 (***)<br>(0.1)</td><td>-9.8 (***)<br>(0.2)</td><td>1.3 (***)<br>(0.2)</td><td>-9.8 (***)<br>(0.3)</td><td>-10.5 (***)<br>(0.5)</td><td>0.6<br>(0.5)</td></tr><tr><td>Sales</td><td>-5.2 (***)<br>(0.1)</td><td>-7.7 (***)<br>(0.2)</td><td>2.5 (***)<br>(0.2)</td><td>-4.9 (***)<br>(0.1)</td><td>-5.6 (***)<br>(0.1)</td><td>0.7 (***)<br>(0.2)</td><td>-5.8 (***)<br>(0.3)</td><td>-6.2 (***)<br>(0.4)</td><td>0.4<br>(0.5)</td></tr><tr><td>Increase in<br>inventories<br>(yes / no)</td><td>0.5 (***)<br>(0.1)</td><td>2.8 (***)<br>(0.2)</td><td>-2.3 (***)<br>(0.2)</td><td>0.4 (***)<br>(0.1)</td><td>0.6 (***)<br>(0.1)</td><td>-0.2<br>(0.1)</td><td>1.8 (***)<br>(0.2)</td><td>4.0 (***)<br>(0.4)</td><td>-2.3 (***)<br>(0.4)</td></tr><tr><td>Outstanding debt</td><td>-13.2 (***)<br>(0.3)</td><td>-8.9 (***)<br>(0.8)</td><td>-4.3 (***)<br>(0.9)</td><td>-10.1 (***)<br>(0.4)</td><td>-17.4 (***)<br>(0.4)</td><td>7.3 (***)<br>(0.6)</td><td>-7.1 (***)<br>(0.010)</td><td>-13.8 (***)<br>(1.6)</td><td>6.7 (***)<br>(1.9)</td></tr><tr><td>Probability to draw on<br>credit lines</td><td>8.8 (***)<br>(0.1)</td><td>5.5 (***)<br>(0.2)</td><td>3.3 (***)<br>(0.3)</td><td>9.4 (***)<br>(0.1)</td><td>8.2 (***)<br>(0.2)</td><td>1.2 (***)<br>(0.2)</td><td>6.5 (***)<br>(0.3)</td><td>2.8 (***)<br>(0.4)</td><td>3.7***<br>(0.5)</td></tr><tr><td>Cash held</td><td>-4.9 (***)<br>(0.3)</td><td>-8.7 (***)<br>(0.9)</td><td>3.8 (***)<br>(0.9)</td><td>-5.9 (***)<br>(0.4)</td><td>-3.8 (***)<br>(0.5)</td><td>-2.1 (***)<br>(0.6)</td><td>-3.3 (***)<br>(1.1)</td><td>-19.2 (***)<br>(1.8)</td><td>15.9***<br>(2.1)</td></tr><tr><td>Operating profit<br>margin<br>(operating profit / VA)</td><td>-12.3 (***)<br>(0.2)</td><td>-11.5 (***)<br>(0.5)</td><td>-0.8<br>(0.5)</td><td>-11.0 (***)<br>(0.3)</td><td>-13.7 (***)<br>(0.3)</td><td>2.7 (***)<br>(0.4)</td><td>-12.1 (***)<br>(0.7)</td><td>-12.4 (***)<br>(0.8)</td><td>0.4<br>(1.0)</td></tr><tr><td>Savings rate<br>(net profits / VA)</td><td>-8.4 (***)<br>(0.3)</td><td>-4.9 (***)<br>(0.7)</td><td>-3.5 (***)<br>(0.8)</td><td>-6.5 (***)<br>(0.4)</td><td>-10.8 (***)<br>(0.4)</td><td>4.3 (***)<br>(0.6)</td><td>-4.3 (***)<br>(0.9)</td><td>-6.7 (***)<br>(1.2)</td><td>2.4<br>(1.5)</td></tr><tr><td>Employment</td><td>-3.9 (***)<br>(0.1)</td><td>-6.3 (***)<br>(0.2)</td><td>2.4(***)<br>(0.2)</td><td>-4.8 (***)<br>(0.1)</td><td>-2.8 (***)<br>(0.1)</td><td>-2.0 (***)<br>(0.1)</td><td>-6.1 (***)<br>(0.2)</td><td>-6.8 (***)<br>(0.3)</td><td>0.6*<br>(0.4)</td></tr><tr><td>Investment</td><td>-15.8 (***)<br>(0.4)</td><td>-12.4 (***)<br>(0.8)</td><td>-3.4 (***)<br>(0.9)</td><td>-10.7 (***)<br>(0.6)</td><td>-21.1 (***)<br>(0.6)</td><td>10.4 (***)<br>(0.8)</td><td>-13.1 (***)<br>(1.0)</td><td>-13.9 (***)<br>(1.3)</td><td>0.9<br>(1.6)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Coverage: French economy, firms reporting to the "BRN" (Bénéfice Réel Normal) tax scheme and active in the trade (NAF G), manufacturing (NAF C) and business services (NAF M) industries.

Interpretation: All else equal, group affiliates experienced a decrease in value added by 10.4% in 2008/2009 relative to 2004/2007. Standalone firms experienced a decrease by 9.1%. The difference between the two sub-populations is 1.3 percentage point and is statistically significant.

Note: These results are from regressions which include a wider set of controls: firm age, lagged employment growth, capital intensity, productivity, firm level fixed effects. All regressions also include the logarithm of the total value added produced in the industry where the firm is operating. Standard errors are reported in parentheses, *** denotes significance at the 1% level, ** denotes significance at the 5% level, and * denotes significance at the 10% level.

Source: Insee, BRN and Esane Information systems; LIFI survey.

A comparison of the variations in capital structure (outstanding debt) between populations of companies – when this comparison is interpretable (between independent companies according to their amount of collateral, or between group subsidiaries according to the wealth of the group) – shows that the adjustments made by the companies that should be facing tighter restrictions were significantly less pronounced than those made by enterprises that were initially less financially constrained. This contrasts strongly with what has been observed in the United States [Campello et al., 2010].
## Credit constraints and credit supply shocks

The notion of credit constraints is not intuitive and it is also extremely difficult to measure their magnitude empirically. Indeed a company that is refused a loan is not necessarily constrained: the loan might have been refused simply because the bank deemed the project less profitable than others submitted to it. Credit constraints appear when, at equilibrium, certain projects are not financed despite being socially profitable. This is the case in situations of information asymmetry: Stiglitz and Weiss [1981] show that when investors are not able to assess the profitability or degree of risk of each project submitted to them by entrepreneurs, then it is optimal for them to partially ration the credit.

In this situation, the credit supply corresponds to the total amount of credit offered by banks (according to the interest rate paid), while rationing, which measures the magnitude of credit constraints, corresponds to the difference between supply and demand for given levels of expected profitability and risk. In other terms, credit rationing corresponds to the proportion of businesses that do not obtain credit for projects that are similar (from the investors' viewpoint).

In such a setting, we can show that a reduction in the credit supply results in an increase in the number of rationed companies. We use this result to empirically analyse the compared scale of credit supply shocks and demand shocks on the final goods market, in the context of the 2008 crisis. Indeed, if the supply shock dominated, then the companies that were most likely to be financially constrained before the crisis are those that must have suffered most from the tightening of credit, and hence suffered most during the crisis in terms of production volume and long-term investment capacity. In contrast, if the demand shock dominated, these "credit constrained" enterprises should adjust to the drop similarly to, if not less than, the other companies given their sub-optimal scale of operation prior to the crisis.

Enterprises drew more often from their credit lines, probably in anticipation of a risk of illiquidity, as suggested by Campello et al. (2010). The change in terms of this strategy was more pronounced among credit constrained companies, which (in contrast) used their credit lines minimally before the crisis in order to limit the high financial costs associated with this type of very short-term debt. They also asked more often for advance payments on orders from their clients, in such a way that the liquidity shock was relatively limited. A more detailed, year-by-year, analysis would show that after the very large drop between 2007 and 2008, cash flow held preventively tended to increase again slightly in 2009 - 2010 as compared to the pre-crisis period, except for affiliates of groups for which this strategy was pointless because of the size of the internal capital markets upon which they could rely. The savings ratio generally fell by less than the profit margin rate, and independent companies that had little collateral experienced a less unfavourable trend as they made a sharper adjustment in terms of their employment than their collateral-rich counterparts. Lastly, all else being equal, independent companies scaled back their investment level more than group subsidiaries, contrary to what the purely descriptive analysis suggested. However, within the population of independent companies, the units that were a priori more exposed to financing constraints scaled back their investment efforts significantly less.

Further analyses are reported in appendix B3 and show that subsidiaries of multinational corporate groups<fnref n="7" /> tended to reduce their employment by more than affiliates of "fully domestic" groups. This latter pattern is not fully explained by their greater participation to international trade, which suggests that internationalised groups tended to withdraw partially from the French market, either to help offset increased difficulties on markets that were even more exposed to the 2008/2009 downturn, or to reposition their activity on more dynamic foreign markets. □

<footnote n="7">⁷ The groups owning subsidiaries abroad are identified via the LIFI survey on financial ties (insert 4).</footnote>
References

Accardo, J. and Cordellier, C., « Les entreprises indépendantes d'un groupe : un renouvellement continu et important », *Insee Première*, n° 1438, 2013.

Almeida H. and Campello M., "Financial Constraints, Asset Tangibility, and Corporate Investment", *Review of Financial Studies*, vol. 20(5), 2007.

Béguin J.-M., Hecquet V. and Lemasson J., « Un tissu productif plus concentré qu'il ne semblait - Nouvelle définition et nouvelles catégories d'entreprises », *Insee Première*, n° 1399, 2012.

Boutin X, Cestone G., Fumagalli C., Pica G., and Serrano-Velarde N., "The Deep-Pocket Effect of Internal Capital Markets", *Journal of Financial Economics*, vol. 109(1), 2013.

Cabral L. and Mata J., "On the Evolution of the Firm Size Distribution: Facts and Theory", *American Economic Review*, vol. 93(4), 2003.

Campello M., Graham J. and Harvey C., "The real effects of financial constraints: Evidence from a financial crisis", *Journal of Financial Economics*, 97(3), 2010.

Campello M., Giambona E., Graham J. and Harvey C., "Access to liquidity and corporate investment in Europe during the financial crisis", *Review of Finance*, vol. 16(2), 2012.

Duhautois R. and Lagarde P., « Entreprises indépendantes et entreprises de groupes : quel impact sur les réallocations d'emplois », *Économie et Statistique*, n°380, 2004.

Evans D., "Tests of Alternative Theories of Firm Growth", *Journal of Political Economy*, vol. 95 (4), 1987.

Fortin A. et Bouveret A, « La situation économique mondiale au printemps 2009 », *Trésor éco*, n°55, DG Trésor, 2009.

FMI, *World Economic Outlook*, October 2012.

FMI, *France: 2009 article IV consultation*, 2009.

Garicano L. and Steinwender C., "Managing for Cash: Which firm decisions are affected by the credit crunch?", *mimeo*, London School of Economics, 2012.

Givord P., Picart C. and Toutlemonde F., « La situation financière des entreprises : vue d'ensemble et situation relative des PME », *L'Économie française*, Insee, édition 2008.

Fougère, D., Golfier C., Horny G. and Kremp E., « Les défaillances d'entreprises durant la crise », document de travail de la Banque de France, 2012.

Kremp E. and Sevestre P., "Did the crisis induce credit rationing for French SMEs?", *Journal of Banking and Finance*, vol. 37(10), 2013.

Ministère de l'économie et des finances, « Rapport économique social et financier 2010 », tome 1, dossier « Pourquoi la France a-t-elle relativement bien résisté à la crise économique mondiale ? », 2010.

Observatoire du financement des entreprises, *Rapport sur l'accès au financement des TPE*, septembre 2011.

OECD, "The size and timing of fiscal packages", chapter 3, *OECD Economic Outlook*, 2009.

OECD, "Economic survey of France 2009", *OECD Economic Outlook*, 2009.

Pakes A. and Ericson R., "Empirical Implications of Alternative Models of Firm Dynamics", *Journal of Economic Theory*, vol. 79, 1998.

Picart, C., « Le tissu productif : renouvellement à la base et stabilité au sommet », *Économie et Statistique*, n°371, 2004.

Stiglitz J. E. and Weiss A., "Credit Rationing in Markets with Imperfect Information", *American Economic Review*, vol. 71(3), 1981.
# APPENDIX A

As a complement to the analyses presented in the main part of the text, we summarize in this appendix the

## Tightening credit declared by banks vs. credit constraints perceived by companies:

### What do European surveys say?

As explained in great detail in insert 5, assessing the relative magnitude of supply and demand shocks is an empirical challenge. In the context of the 2008 crisis, the challenge is to determine whether the observed decline in corporate loans was mainly caused by a decrease in loan demand from business ventures (demand shock), or by a decrease in the supply of credit by the banking system, and particularly in the latter case, if the credit constraints have increased.

Surveys at the bank level, which are collected by the various central banks, provide interesting indicators describing directly the evolution of the supply side of the credit market. They indicate that overall credit conditions (eligibility criteria, the amount of collateral required, etc.) have tightened between August and December 2008 (see Figure 12). Between August and October 2008, 65% of European banks and 80% of U.S. banks reported that they had tightened the lending conditions for businesses. In France, the tightening was stronger than in the Eurozone in the third quarter 2008, but weaker thereafter.

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 12**

Credit award criteria for companies - Central Bank survey</figcaption></figure>

Note: the insolvency ratio is the weight ratio of net interest paid, in the EBITDA

Coverage: Non financial corporation, France, United States, Euro Area

Interpretation: In the first quarter of 2008, the conditions for granting credit have tightened.

Sources: Federal Reserve Board, European Central Bank, Bank of France.
<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 13:**

**Percentage of companies having been denied a credit application - SAFE survey of the ECB**</figcaption></figure>

Coverage: Non financial corporation, France

Interpretation: 3% of small businesses were denied credit in the first quarter of 2009.

Source: ECB (SAFE survey: http://sdw.ecb.europa.eu/browse.do?node=9138811)

<table><caption>**Figure 14:**

**Summary of indicators of access to credit from three surveys of SMEs, 2010**</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Survey item:</th><th colspan="3">Credit application was partially or globally rejected</th><th colspan="3">Credit application was globally rejected</th></tr><tr><th>ECB (SAFE)</th><th>INSEE</th><th>CAPEB</th><th>ECB (SAFE)</th><th>INSEE</th><th>CAPEB</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Survey (source)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Percentage of SMEs</td><td>5.8</td><td>6.1</td><td>1.6</td><td>3.0</td><td>2.5</td><td>1.0</td></tr></tbody></table>

Coverage: SMEs, France.

Interpretation: In 2010, 2.5% of SMEs were denied credit by the INSEE survey, and 6.1% had their applications only partially granted.

Sources: INSEE (http://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/document.asp?ref_id=atf2010);

ECB (SAFE survey: http://sdw.ecb.europa.eu/browse.do?node=9138811);

Observatoire du financement des entreprises.

Surveys conducted at the firm level by the European Central Bank (SAFE surveys), INSEE or CAPEB<fnref n="8" /> enable to complete the analysis. The main take-aways are summarized in Figures 13 and 14. They show that the refusal rates remained at a relatively low level, even for smaller companies, although these firms correspond to a population with a high risk of default. In particular, changes in denied rates are not in line with the evolution of the indicator of credit conditions reported by lenders (Figure 12), suggesting that increases in the first half of 2010 and the second half of 2011 could be due to rising risks or falling profits in business ventures (ie., a demand shock) rather than to a tightening of credit conditions.

<footnote n="8">⁸ "CAPEB": Confédération de l'artisanat et des petites entreprises du bâtiment ; cf. Observatoire du financement des entreprises, 2011.</footnote>
# APPENDIX B

This appendix complements the statistical analyses reported in table 11. We first provide detailed descriptive statistics, then describe the empirical specification more precisely, and lastly propose some extensions.

## B.1 Sample description and descriptive statistics

Insert 4 provides a description of the different comprehensive data sources that were used to construct our estimation sample. Figure 15 below provides detailed descriptive statistics for both dependant and control variables, in the sub-populations of standalone firms vs. affiliate of corporate groups.

As seen in this table, affiliates of corporate groups tend to be on average an order of magnitude (ten times) larger than standalone firms, but also older, and more productive. These features of the data show that it is important to go beyond the mere descriptive statistics reported in figures 7 to 10 and to control for the structural differences between standalones and affiliates in order to document the (differential) shock experienced by these two populations of firms during the crisis.

<caption>Figure 15</caption>

### Descriptive statistics for the firm-level estimation sample, 2004 to 2010; trade, manufacturing and business services industries

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2">Observations</th><th colspan="4">Standalone firms (in the pre-crisis period)</th></tr><tr><th>Mean</th><th>P25</th><th>P50</th><th>P75</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Value added</td><td>1359978</td><td>467.0</td><td>91.5</td><td>217.2</td><td>460.2</td></tr><tr><td>Sales</td><td>1485023</td><td>1839.8</td><td>209.9</td><td>573.5</td><td>1360.0</td></tr><tr><td>Increase in inventories (Yes / No)</td><td>1485023</td><td>0.061</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>Outstanding debt</td><td>1484100</td><td>217.0</td><td>5.0</td><td>38.8</td><td>131.0</td></tr><tr><td>Probability to draw on credit lines</td><td>1485023</td><td>0.373</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>1.000</td></tr><tr><td>Cash held</td><td>1313236</td><td>116.7</td><td>9.0</td><td>33.1</td><td>95.5</td></tr><tr><td>Operating profit margin</td><td>1102187</td><td>0.297</td><td>0.116</td><td>0.223</td><td>0.395</td></tr><tr><td>Savings rate</td><td>974850</td><td>0.305</td><td>0.092</td><td>0.179</td><td>0.326</td></tr><tr><td>Employment</td><td>1184233</td><td>8.6</td><td>2.0</td><td>4.0</td><td>9.0</td></tr><tr><td>Investment</td><td>1019610</td><td>77.1</td><td>3.0</td><td>10.9</td><td>35.7</td></tr><tr><td>Productivity</td><td>1119718</td><td>40.4</td><td>21.4</td><td>31.0</td><td>46.9</td></tr><tr><td>Capital intensity<br>(tangible capital / employment)</td><td>1145353</td><td>45.0</td><td>10.0</td><td>21.4</td><td>43.5</td></tr><tr><td>Firm age</td><td>1468669</td><td>15</td><td>6</td><td>12</td><td>20</td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2">Observations</th><th colspan="4">Affiliates of corporate groups (in the pre-crisis period)</th></tr><tr><th>Mean</th><th>P25</th><th>P50</th><th>P75</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Value added</td><td>403159</td><td>5156.5</td><td>363.3</td><td>1022.5</td><td>2801.8</td></tr><tr><td>Sales</td><td>442435</td><td>24041.9</td><td>820.0</td><td>3199.0</td><td>11262.1</td></tr><tr><td>Increase in inventories (Yes / No)</td><td>442435</td><td>0.081</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>Outstanding debt</td><td>442257</td><td>8501.0</td><td>19.0</td><td>219.7</td><td>1025.0</td></tr><tr><td>Probability to draw on credit lines</td><td>442435</td><td>0.467</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>1.000</td></tr><tr><td>Cash held</td><td>401231</td><td>1080.4</td><td>20.7</td><td>97.5</td><td>360.9</td></tr><tr><td>Operating profit margin</td><td>316832</td><td>0.297</td><td>0.123</td><td>0.234</td><td>0.397</td></tr><tr><td>Savings rate</td><td>281421</td><td>0.648</td><td>0.097</td><td>0.189</td><td>0.339</td></tr><tr><td>Employment</td><td>386726</td><td>67.7</td><td>6.0</td><td>18.0</td><td>45.0</td></tr><tr><td>Investment</td><td>341810</td><td>988.5</td><td>13.1</td><td>57.4</td><td>258.2</td></tr><tr><td>Productivity</td><td>356492</td><td>65.3</td><td>22.4</td><td>32.7</td><td>52.1</td></tr><tr><td>Capital intensity<br>(tangible capital / employment)</td><td>366779</td><td>94.3</td><td>12.7</td><td>29.2</td><td>68.0</td></tr><tr><td>Firm age</td><td>440788</td><td>21</td><td>10</td><td>17</td><td>25</td></tr></tbody></table>

Coverage: French economy, firms reporting to the "BRN" (Bénéfice Réel Normal) tax scheme and active in the trade (NAF G), manufacturing (NAF C) and business services (NAF M) industries.

Note: All amounts are expressed in thousand euros, at the 2005 prices. The index of productivity has been estimated using the Levinsohn and Petrin (2003) methodology<fnref n="9" />.

Source: Insee, BRN and Esane Information systems; LIFI survey.

<footnote n="9">⁹ Levinsohn, J. and A. Petrin (2003), "Estimating Production Functions Using Inputs to Control for Unobservables", *Review of Economic Studies*, 70(2), 317-341.</footnote>
## B.2 Empirical specification

Insert 4 also contains an intuitive description of the empirical specification underlying figure 11.

The precise equation that has been estimated can be specified as follows:

$$ \ln(Y_{ijt}) = (1 - T_i) \cdot \delta_{2008/09}^{(0)} + T_i \cdot \delta_{2008/09}^{(1)} + \beta X_{ijt} + \gamma \cdot \ln(VA_j) + (T_i + u_i) + \varepsilon_{ijt} $$

where t denotes time and corresponds to either the 2004/2007 period (aggregated period 1) or to the 2008/2009 period (aggregated period 2), i denotes firms and j their industry affiliation.

$T_i$ denotes “treatment”, ie one of our three different indicators of exposure to financial constraints<fnref n="10" />; $VA_j$ is the total value added produced in the 4-digit industry where the firm is operating. The vector $X_{ijt}$ contains the following control variables: firm age (by category: one for each year until five years, and then one for each 5-year bin), lagged employment, lagged capital intensity and lagged productivity.

Coefficients of interest $\delta_{2008/09}^{(0)}$ and $\delta_{2008/09}^{(1)}$ measure the amplitude of the shock experienced by firms during the crisis period depending on their probable exposure to financial constraints, and are the only coefficients reported in figure 11, along with the difference between the two. The standard deviation of this difference is computed via delta-method.

The identifying assumption is that the pre-crisis exposure to financing constraints is un-correlated with the unobserved changes in growth opportunities between the pre-crisis and the post-crisis periods that are specific to the considered firm (since the above specification includes firm fixed effects). In particular, exposure to financial constraints should not be correlated with unobserved demand shocks that are specific to each (treated vs. un-treated) group – we go back to this assumption and challenge it in section B.3.

Under this assumption, the demand shock is fully controlled by all control variables (including fixed effects), such that coefficients $\delta_t^{(0)}$ and $\delta_t^{(1)}$ can be interpreted as the differential impact of the potential supply shock experienced by firms during the period of analysis. As a reminder, insert 5 suggests that financing constraints are amplified when the supply of credit drops, such that in this case, the shock experienced by firms that were ex ante more exposed to financing constraints should be larger than the shock experienced by firms weakly exposed to financing constraints. This point is shown more formally in the Stiglitz and Weiss (1981) setting in appendix B.4.

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ As a reminder, these indicators of exposure to financial constraints are:</footnote>

<footnote>* A dummy indicating that a firm is a standalone, as opposed to an affiliate backed by the internal capital market of a larger corporate group.</footnote>

<footnote>* Among standalones: firms having low versus high collateral (tangible capital).</footnote>

<footnote>* Among affiliates: firms being backed by cash-poor versus cash-rich corporate groups.</footnote>
## B.3 Extension: Adjustments of corporate strategies

### Depending on differential exposure to the collapse of international demand

As mentioned in the main part of the text, the asymmetry of the supposedly “supply” shock experienced by constrained vs. unconstrained firms is puzzling, since after controlling “a lot” for the demand shock, the latter seem to have experienced a more severe shock than financially constrained firms.

The answer to this puzzle is that the previous specification does not control sufficiently well for the demand shock. More specifically, we do not control separately for the evolution of the domestic and international components of demand. It appears that affiliates of corporate groups were more often participating in international trade, and that they suffered more from the larger contraction of demand originating from their foreign clients than from their domestic ones.

The fully convincing implementation of our empirical strategy would have involved a richer control structure for demand shocks, such as the following:

$$ \ln(Y_{ijt}) = (1 - T_i) \cdot \delta_{2008/09}^{(0)} + T_i \cdot \delta_{2008/09}^{(1)} + \beta X_{ijt} + \gamma_1 \cdot \ln(VA_j - EXP_j) + \gamma_2 \cdot \ln(EXP_j) + (1 - EXP_i^{pre}) \cdot \gamma_{2008/09}^{(0)} + EXP_i^{pre} \cdot \gamma_{2008/09}^{(1)} + (T_i + EXP_i^{pre} + u_i) + \varepsilon_{ijt} $$

Where $EXP_i^{pre}$ is a time invariant control indicating that the corresponding firm was operating on an international market during the pre-crisis period (as opposed to firms operating on the domestic market only).

The (un-reported) results of this estimation are that the differences<fnref n="11" /> between coefficients $\delta_{2008/09}^{(0)}$ and $\delta_{2008/09}^{(1)}$, become negligible and no longer significant: all else equal, ex-ante financially constrained firms did not experience a larger (nor a smaller) shock than financially un-constrained firms.

Figure 16 describes the results obtained for the $\gamma_{2008/09}^{(0)}$ and $\gamma_{2008/09}^{(1)}$ coefficients, which document the heterogeneity in the demand shock experienced by “domestic” $(1 - EXP_i^{pre})$ as opposed to “internationalized” $(EXP_i^{pre})$ firms. As before, we experiment with different empirical proxies for “internationalization”, and propose to contrast different sub-populations of firms:

* Standalone firms that were exporting in the pre-crisis period, versus stand-alone firms which were not exporting in that period.

* Corporate group affiliates that were exporting in the pre-crisis period, versus corporate group affiliates which were not exporting in that period. Note that this partition is a less precise indicator of participation into international trade, since we miss (for example) affiliates in the manufacturing industries which export via another affiliate of the same corporate group that specializes in trade (a phenomenon which is called intermediated trade)<fnref n="12" />.

* Lastly, affiliates of corporate groups which report at least one foreign affiliate in the LIFI/DIANE survey, versus affiliates of purely domestic groups. We hypothesize that multinationals might have been more exposed to the international demand shock than purely domestic firms.

<footnote n="11">¹¹ And the coefficients themselves, for most of the outcome variables.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹² With the information available in the fiscal files, it is impossible to affect the exports of a trade-platform to the affiliates which actually produced the goods. A more detailed analysis would require custom data at the flow level, which detailed information about products which could be matched (statistically) with the most probable producer (industry affiliation).</footnote>
The main take-away of this complementary analysis is that standalones and affiliates that were exporting in the pre-crisis period tended to experience a similar shock in terms of magnitude, be it measured in terms of value added or in terms of sales. This shock appeared to be much larger than the shock experienced by purely domestic business units. Among group affiliates, the exporting units experienced a larger drop in profit margins, while "all other things equal", standalone exporting firms decreased their employment by more than their domestic counterparts.

Lastly, figure 16 also shows that group subsidiaries based abroad tended to reduce their employment by more than their "domestic" counterparts. This latter pattern is not fully explained by their greater participation to international trade, since group affiliates contrasted according to their exporting status did not experience different evolutions in terms of employment. This result suggests that internationalised groups tended to withdraw partially from the French market, either to help offset increased difficulties on markets that were even more exposed to the 2008/2009 downturn, or to reposition their activity on more dynamic foreign markets.

Figure 16

The 2008/2009 shock (as compared to the 2004/2007 period),
for sub-populations of firms that are differentially exposed to the contraction of international demand

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="3">Standalone firms</th><th colspan="3">Affiliates of corporate groups</th><th colspan="3">Affiliates of corporate groups</th></tr><tr><th>Exporting (A)</th><th>Non-Exporting (B)</th><th>Difference (A) - (B)</th><th>Exporting (C)</th><th>Non-Exporting (D)</th><th>Difference (C) - (D)</th><th>Foreign affiliates (E)</th><th>Domestic only (F)</th><th>Difference (E) - (F)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Value added</td><td>-10.3(***)<br>(0.2)</td><td>-8.0(***)<br>(0.1)</td><td>-2.2(***)<br>(0.2)</td><td>-11.8(***)<br>(0.8)</td><td>-9.6(***)<br>(0.4)</td><td>-2.1(***)<br>(0.5)</td><td>-11.4(***)<br>(0.8)</td><td>-11.0(***)<br>(0.9)</td><td>-0.4<br>(0.6)</td></tr><tr><td>Sales</td><td>-7.5(***)<br>(0.2)</td><td>-5.1(***)<br>(0.1)</td><td>-2.4(***)<br>(0.2)</td><td>-6.3(***)<br>(0.7)</td><td>-4.4(***)<br>(0.8)</td><td>-1.9(***)<br>(0.5)</td><td>-6.0(***)<br>(0.7)</td><td>-5.5(***)<br>(0.8)</td><td>-0.4<br>(0.6)</td></tr><tr><td>Increase in inventories<br>(yes / no)</td><td>0.7(***)<br>(0.1)</td><td>0.2(***)<br>(0.1)</td><td>0.5(***)<br>(0.1)</td><td>5.0(***)<br>(0.6)</td><td>2.9(***)<br>(0.7)</td><td>2.1(***)<br>(0.4)</td><td>4.7(***)<br>(0.6)</td><td>3.8(***)<br>(0.7)</td><td>0.9(*)<br>(0.5)</td></tr><tr><td>Outstanding debt</td><td>-7.0(***)<br>(0.7)</td><td>-11.0(***)<br>(0.4)</td><td>4.0(***)<br>(0.7)</td><td>-13.2(***)<br>(2.6)</td><td>-13.4(***)<br>(2.9)</td><td>0.2<br>(1.7)</td><td>-15.4(***)<br>(2.7)</td><td>-3.6(***)<br>(2.9)</td><td>-11.8(***)<br>(2.3)</td></tr><tr><td>Probability to draw on credit lines</td><td>9.9(***)<br>(0.2)</td><td>9.2(***)<br>(0.1)</td><td>0.7(***)<br>(0.2)</td><td>0.3(***)<br>(0.8)</td><td>4.9(***)<br>(0.9)</td><td>-5.3(***)<br>(0.5)</td><td>0.1<br>(0.8)</td><td>5.1(***)<br>(0.9)</td><td>-5.2(***)<br>(0.6)</td></tr><tr><td>Cash held</td><td>-4.1(***)<br>(0.7)</td><td>-6.4(***)<br>(0.4)</td><td>1.3(***)<br>(0.7)</td><td>-19.1(***)<br>(2.9)</td><td>-19.6(***)<br>(3.1)</td><td>-0.6<br>(1.8)</td><td>-21.9(***)<br>(2.9)</td><td>-6.1(*)<br>(3.2)</td><td>-15.7(***)<br>(2.4)</td></tr><tr><td>Operating profit margin<br>(operating profit / VA)</td><td>-11.1(***)<br>(0.5)</td><td>-11.0(***)<br>(0.3)</td><td>-0.1<br>(0.5)</td><td>-15.0(***)<br>(1.6)</td><td>-12.4(***)<br>(1.7)</td><td>-2.6(***)<br>(1.0)</td><td>-14.3(***)<br>(1.6)</td><td>-14.9(***)<br>(1.9)</td><td>0.6<br>(1.3)</td></tr><tr><td>Savings rate<br>(net profits / VA)</td><td>-6.0(***)<br>(0.7)</td><td>-6.6(***)<br>(0.5)</td><td>0.6<br>(0.7)</td><td>-8.9(***)<br>(2.2)</td><td>-9.0(***)<br>(2.5)</td><td>0.1<br>(1.5)</td><td>-8.7(***)<br>(2.2)</td><td>-9.8(***)<br>(2.6)</td><td>1.1<br>(1.8)</td></tr><tr><td>Employment</td><td>-5.3(***)<br>(0.1)</td><td>-4.6(***)<br>(0.1)</td><td>-0.8(***)<br>(0.1)</td><td>-6.7(***)<br>(0.5)</td><td>-6.4(***)<br>(0.6)</td><td>-0.3<br>(0.3)</td><td>-6.8(***)<br>(0.5)</td><td>-5.8(***)<br>(0.6)</td><td>-1.0(***)<br>(0.4)</td></tr><tr><td>Investment</td><td>-9.1(***)<br>(0.8)</td><td>-11.2(***)<br>(0.5)</td><td>2.1(***)<br>(0.9)</td><td>-14.7(***)<br>(2.5)</td><td>-15.1(***)<br>(2.9)</td><td>0.4<br>(1.7)</td><td>-15.0(***)<br>(2.5)</td><td>-13.3(***)<br>(3.1)</td><td>-1.7<br>(1.9)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Coverage: French economy, firms reporting to the "BRN" (Bénéfice Réel Normal) tax scheme and active in the trade (NAF G), manufacturing (NAF C) and business services (NAF M) industries.

Note: These results are from regressions which include a wider set of controls: firm age, lagged employment growth, capital intensity, productivity, firm level fixed effects, relevant proxies for exposure to financial constraints (see main text: collateral reich vs. collateral poor firms in the sub-sample of independent firms; affiliates of cash-rich vs. cash-poor groups in the sub-sample of affiliates of corporate groups). All regressions also include the logarithm of the total value added produced in the industry where the firm is operating. Standard errors are reported in parentheses, *** denotes significance at the 1% level, ** denotes significance at the 5% level, and * denotes significance at the 10% level.

Source: Insee, BRN and Esane Information systems; LIFI survey.
## B.4 Comparative statics in the Stiglitz and Weiss (1981) framework

In this appendix, we propose a short summary of the comparative statics in the Stiglitz and Weiss (1981) framework which underlies the identifying assumption for the difference-in-differences strategy implemented in figure 11.

In a very simplified version of Stiglitz and Weiss (1981), all loans are of the same amount, and therefore all projects to be financed have the same size. The expected returns associated with each project are the same, but projects are heterogeneous in terms of riskiness.

Default is defined as:

$$ \underset{\text{colateral}}{C} + \underset{\text{return}}{R} \leq \underset{\text{loan}}{B} \cdot \left( 1 + \underset{\text{interest rate}}{r} \right) $$

Due to limited liability, realized profits for the entrepreneur (borrower) can be expressed as:

$$ \pi(R, r) = \max\{R - (1+r)B; -C\} $$

Therefore, as interest rates increase, only the riskiest projects remain profitable in expectation, which induces a selection effect: the demand for funds decreases as interest rates increase, but the corresponding projects also become riskier.

Realized returns for banks (lenders) can be written as:

$$ \rho(R, r) = \min\{R + C, B \cdot (1 + r)\} $$

Therefore, if the selection effect described above is sufficiently strong (depending on the distribution of risk across projects), then the expected return function $\rho(r)$ can be non-monotonic. Stiglitz and Weiss consider the case where it is first increasing in terms of the interest rate (weak selection effect), and then decreasing (strong selection effect), as depicted in figure 17.

<caption>Figure 17</caption>

Banks' expected return as a function of the interest rate in presence of a large selection effect

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

In this situation, the supply of funds $L^S$ remains an increasing function of expected returns $\rho$ (as is standard for the supply side), but since $\rho(r)$ is non monotonic, then the supply of funds is a non-monotonic function of interest rates $r$. At equilibrium, banks offer the interest rate that maximizes their expected returns ($\rho$).
In this setting, a negative shock on the supply of funds $L^S$, defined as a downward translation of $L^S$ in the “supply of funds / expected returns” space, generates a downward shift of the $L^S$ curve in the “supply of funds / interest rates” space as shown in figure 18.

Figure 18

Comparative statics in the Stiglitz and Weiss (1981) setting: supply shock

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

Interpretation: The lower panel is a replication of figure 17. The upper panel describes demand and supply as functions of the interest rate (not expected returns). The supply curve is computed by a variable change from the relation described in the lower panel, since credit supply is a strictly increasing function of expected returns $\rho$. Banks offer the amount of credit which maximizes their expected returns, therefore equilibrium is reached at $E_1$ or $E_2$ depending of the case considered (initial supply of credit or supply hit by a negative shock).

Let us define the share of credit rationed firms as the fraction of firms which do not obtain credit (materialized by the red double arrows on the picture) over total demand for the corresponding interest rate. If the demand for funds remains unchanged (or experiences a small shock relative to the shock experienced by the supply curve), then the share of credit rationed firms increases, ie. credit rationing is amplified by negative supply shocks.
<table>
  <tbody>
    <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>Juin 1992 (1ère version)<br>Novembre 1992 (version finale)</td>
      <td>G 9311</td>
      <td>J. BOURDIEU - B. COLIN-SEDILLOT<br>Les décisions de financement des entreprises françaises : une évaluation empirique des théories de la structure optimale du capital</td>
      <td>G 9412</td>
      <td>J. BOURDIEU - B. CŒURÉ -<br>B. 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 9312</td>
      <td>L. BLOCH - B. CŒURÉ<br>Q de Tobin marginal et transmission des chocs financiers</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 9313</td>
      <td>Équipes Amadeus (INSEE), Banque de France, Métric (DP)<br>Présentation des propriétés des principaux modèles macroéconomiques du Service Public</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. CREPON - E. DUGUET<br>Research & Development, competition and innovation</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>B. DORMONT<br>Quelle est l'influence du coût du travail sur l'emploi ?</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 9010</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 - C. BROUSSE<br>Deux études sur l'âge de la retraite</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 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 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 9300</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 9301</td>
      <td>J. TOUJAS-BERNATE<br>Commerce international et concurrence impartie : développements récents et implications pour la politique commerciale</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>Persistence 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 9302</td>
      <td>Ch. CASES<br>Durées de chômage et comportements d'offre de travail : une revue de la littérature</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>H. ERKEL-ROUSSE<br>Union économique et monétaire : le débat économique</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>N. GREENAN - D. GUELLEC / G. BROUSSAUDIER - L. MIOTTI<br>Innovation organisationnelle, dynamisme technologique et performances des entreprises</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 macroéconomiques 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>P. JAILLARD<br>Le traité de Maastricht : présentation juridique et historique</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>J.L. BRILLET<br>Micro-DMS : présentation et propriétés</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 - variantes : les tableaux</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>S. JACOBZONE<br>Les grands réseaux publics français dans une perspective européenne</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>L. BLOCH - B. CŒURE<br>Profitabilité de l'investissement productif et transmission des chocs financiers</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. CŒURE<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. DEFEUILLEY - Ph. QUIRION<br>Les déchets d'emballages ménagers : une</td>
      <td>G 9607</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</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 wages-prices spirals on the measure of the NAIRU: the case of France</td></tr><tr><td>G 9612</td><td>PH. COUR - E. DUBOIS, S. MAHFOUZ, J. PISANI-FERRY<br>The cost of fiscal retrenchment revisited: how strong is the evidence?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9613</td><td>A. JACQUOT<br>Les flexions des taux d'activité sont-elles seulement 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 économique</td></tr><tr><td>G 9702</td><td>J.L. SCHNEIDER<br>Transition et stabilité politique d'un système redistributif</td></tr><tr><td>G 9703</td><td>D. GOUX - E. MAURIN<br>Train or Pay: Does it Reduce Inequalities to Encourage 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 & 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-BENSAÎD<br>Les entreprises internationales en France : une analyse à partir de données individuelles</td></tr><tr><td>G 9707</td><td>M. HOUBEBINE<br>Polarisation des activités et spécialisation des départements en France</td></tr><tr><td>G 9708</td><td>E. DUGUET - N. GREENAN<br>Le biais technologique : une analyse sur données 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 capital accumulation</td></tr><tr><td>G 9711</td><td>G. FORGEOT - J. GAUTIÉ<br>Insertion professionnelle des jeunes et processus de déclassement</td></tr><tr><td>G 9712</td><td>E. DUBOIS<br>High Real Interest Rates: the Consequence of a Saving Investment Disequilibrium or of an insufficient Credibility of Monetary Authorities?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9713</td><td>Bilan des activités de la Direction des Études et Synthèses Économiques - 1996</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>G 9714</td><td>F. LEQUILLER<br>Does the French Consumer Price Index Overstate Inflation?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9715</td><td>X. BONNET<br>Peut-on mettre en évidence les rigidités à la 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 d'échelle dans le secteur pharmaceutique français</td></tr><tr><td>G 9717</td><td>E. DUGUET - I. KABLA<br>Appropriation strategy and the motivations to use the patent system in France - An econometric 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 régime général</td></tr><tr><td>G 9719</td><td>ZHANG Yingxiang - SONG Xueqing<br>Lexique macroéconomique français-chinois, chinois-français</td></tr><tr><td>G 9720</td><td>M. HOUBEBINE - J.L. SCHNEIDER<br>Mesurer l'influence de la fiscalité sur la localisation 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 sectorielles</td></tr><tr><td>G 9723</td><td>P. AUGERAUD - J.E. CHAPRON<br>Using Business Accounts for Compiling National Accounts: the French Experience</td></tr><tr><td>G 9724</td><td>P. AUGERAUD<br>Les comptes d'entreprise par activités - Le passage aux comptes - De la comptabilité d'entreprise à la comptabilité nationale - A 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 pour la France en 1996</td></tr><tr><td>G 9803</td><td>X. BONNET - S. DUCHÈNE<br>Apports et limites de la modélisation « Real Business Cycles »</td></tr><tr><td>G 9804</td><td>C. BARLET - C. DUGUET - D. ENCAOUA - J. PRADEL<br>The Commercial Success of Innovations<br>An econometric analysis at the firm level in French manufacturing</td></tr><tr><td>G 9805</td><td>P. CAHUC - Ch. GIANELLA - D. GOUX - A. ZILBERBERG<br>Equalizing Wage Differences and Bargaining 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 et 1996</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>G 9807</td><td>Bilan des activités de la Direction des Études et Synthèses Économiques - 1997</td></tr><tr><td>G 9808</td><td>A. MOUROUGANE<br>Can a Conservative Governor Conduct an Accomodative Monetary Policy?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9809</td><td>X. BONNET - E. DUBOIS - L. FAUVET<br>Asymétrie des inflations relatives et menus costs : 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 level: Estimation of a Dynamic Structural Model on Panel Data</td></tr><tr><td>G 9811</td><td>J.P. BERTHIER<br>Congestion urbaine : un modèle de trafic de pointe à courbe débit-vitesse et demande élastique</td></tr><tr><td>G 9812</td><td>C. PRIGENT<br>La part des salaires dans la valeur ajoutée : une approche macroéconomique</td></tr><tr><td>G 9813</td><td>A.Th. AERTS<br>L'évolution de la part des salaires dans la valeur ajoutée en France reflète-t-elle les évolutions 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 début de la décennie ? Une analyse en comparaison 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 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 intergenerational transfers - Pensions in a dynamic framework: the case of France</td></tr><tr><td>G 9907</td><td>F. ROSENWALD<br>L'impact des contraintes financières dans la décision 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 retraite du secteur privé et de la fonction 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 marché du travail</td></tr><tr><td>G 9913</td><td>Ch. GIANELLA<br>Ch. GIANELLA<br>Local unemployment and wages</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>Bis</td><td>Une estimation de l'élasticité de l'emploi peu qualifié à son coût</td></tr><tr><td>G 9913</td><td>Division « Redistribution et Politiques Sociales »<br>Le modèle de microsimulation dynamique DESTINIE</td></tr><tr><td>G 9914</td><td>E. DUGUET<br>Macro-commandes SAS pour l'économie des panels et des variables qualitatives</td></tr><tr><td>G 9915</td><td>R. DUHAUTOIS<br>Évolution des flux d'emplois en France entre 1990 et 1996 : une étude empirique à partir du 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 Baxter et King</td></tr><tr><td>G 9917</td><td>B. CRÉPON - R. DESPLATZ - J. MAIRESSE<br>Estimating price cost margins, scale economies 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 function: an evaluation on a panel of French 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 qualification entre 1982 et 1996</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/01</td><td>R. MAHIEU<br>Les déterminants des dépenses de santé : une approche macroéconomique</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/02</td><td>C. ALLARD-PRIGENT - H. GUILMEAU - A. QUINET<br>The real exchange rate as the relative price of nontrables in terms of tradables: theoretical 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 par Christiano and 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 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 supply side approach</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/08</td><td>C. AUDENIS - C. PROST<br>Déficit conjoncturel : une prise en compte des conjonctures passées</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/09</td><td>R. MAHIEU - B. SÉDILLOT<br>Équivalent patrimonial de la rente et souscription de retraite complémentaire</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/10</td><td>R. DUHAUTOIS<br>Ralentissement de l'investissement : petites ou 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 l'emploi</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/12</td><td>Ch. GIANELLA<br>Local unemployment and wages</td></tr></table>
G2001/13 B. CREPON - Th. HECKEL
- Informatisation en France : une évaluation à partir de données individuelles
- Computerization in France: an evaluation based on individual company data

G2001/01 F. LEQUILLER
- La nouvelle économie et la mesure de la croissance du PIB
- The new economy and the measurement of GDP growth

G2001/02 S. AUDRIC
La reprise de la croissance de l'emploi profite-t-elle 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
- Rétropolation des séries de FBCF et calcul du capital fixe en SEC-95 dans les comptes nationaux français

- Retropolation 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 Familiale 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
Age, 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 microéconomique

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 à 1974

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 Économiques - 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. DUÈE
La modélisation des comportements démographiques dans le modèle de microsimulation DESTINIE

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 macroeconometric 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 réréprétrétation 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, recentrage 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

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

G2008/13 M. BARLET - D. BLANCHET - T. LE BARBANCHON
A Monthly Indicator of the French Business Climate

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-prices 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 Projeter 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 entreprises 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 et 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 macroéconomique 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. FEVRIER et L. WILNER Demand Estimation in the Presence of Revenue Management

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

G2013/01- F1301 T. DEROYON - A. MONTAUT et P-A PIONNIER Utilisation rétrospective de l'enquête Emploi à une fréquence mensuelle: apport d'une modélisation espace-état

G2013/02- F1302 C. TRÉVIEN 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

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

Natural Disasters: Exposure and Underinsurance