# Private Wealth over the Life-Cycle: A Meeting between Microsimulation and Structural Approaches

Lino Galiana, Lionel Wilner

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

## To cite this version:

Lino Galiana, Lionel Wilner. Private Wealth over the Life-Cycle: A Meeting between Microsimulation and Structural Approaches. 2023. [https://hal-05372463v1](https://hal-05372463v1)

HAL Id: hal-05372463

[https://insee.hal.science/hal-05372463v1](https://insee.hal.science/hal-05372463v1)

Preprint submitted on 19 Nov 2025

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

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

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

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Private Wealth over the Life-Cycle:
A Meeting between Microsimulation
and Structural Approaches

Documents de travail

N° 2023-04 - Janvier 2023

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>
Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques

2023/04

# Private Wealth over the Life-Cycle: A Meeting between Microsimulation and Structural Approaches

Lino GALIANA* Lionel WILNER**

Janvier 2023

Département des Études Économiques – Timbre G201

88, avenue Verdier – CS 70058 – 92541 MONTROUGE CEDEX – France

Tél. : 33 (1) 87 69 59 54 – E-mail : d3e-dg@insee.fr – Site Web Insee : http://www.insee.fr

Ces documents de travail ne reflètent pas la position de l'Insee et n'engagent que leurs auteurs.
Working papers do not reflect the position of INSEE but only their author's views.

We are indebted to Theo Guichaoua for out-standing research assistance. We are grateful to Mathias André, Luc Arrondel, Carole Bonnet, Didier Blanchet, Nicolas Drouhin, François Le Grand, Andrée Masson, Benoît Rapoport, Sébastien Roux, Maxime Tô for valuable comments as well as to the attendees of the 37th Journées de Microéconomie Appliquée (Annecy 2021, on-line) conference, of the "Pensions and ageing" workshop (CDC Paris, 2019) and of the Insee-D2E (Paris 2019) seminar.

<footnote>* Insee</footnote>

<footnote>** Insee-Crest, 88 avenue Verdier, 91120 Montrouge, France. Phone: (+33)187695917. Please address correspondence to lionel.wilner@insee.fr.</footnote>
# L'accumulation du patrimoine au cours du cycle de vie : une approche par microsimulation comportementale

Ce travail propose d'imbriquer un modèle structurel d'accumulation du patrimoine au cours du cycle de vie au sein d'un modèle de microsimulation dynamique (Destinie 2) destiné aux projections de long terme des retraites. Dans cette approche, le sentier optimal d'épargne est déterminé par un motif de lissage de la consommation, en présence d'un risque de mortalité, ainsi que par un motif de transmission. Les paramètres de préférences sont estimés à partir de l'enquête Patrimoine dans sa version longitudinale à l'aide d'une méthode de moments simulés. Les simulations issues de ces estimations permettent de répliquer une concentration de la richesse supérieure à celle des revenus du travail. Elles permettent de calculer des niveaux de vie "augmentés" qui incluent les rendements du capital, donc de quantifier le rôle joué par l'épargne privée pour compenser la perte de revenus d'activité à la liquidation, ainsi que le rôle du risque de mortalité à cet égard.

**Mots-clés** : Microsimulation; Consommation et épargne ; Théorie du cycle de vie ; Inégalités.

# Private Wealth over the Life-Cycle: A Meeting between Microsimulation and Structural Approaches

This paper embeds a structural model of private wealth accumulation over the life-cycle within a dynamic microsimulation model (Destinie 2) designed for long-run projections of pensions. In such an environment, the optimal savings path results from consumption smoothing and bequests motives, on top of the mortality risk. Preferences are estimated based on a longitudinal wealth survey through a method of simulated moments. Simulations issued from these estimations replicate quite well a private wealth that is more concentrated than labor income. They enable us to compute "augmented" standards of living including capital income, hence to quantify both the countervailing role played by private wealth to earnings dropout after retirement and the impact of the mortality risk in this regard.

**Keywords** : Microsimulation; Intertemporal Consumer Choice; Life-cycle; Inequality.

**Classification JEL** : C63; C88; D15.
# 1 Introduction

Drawing a comprehensive picture of inter-generational equity when analyzing pensions' redistributive effects requires to include capital income in the computation of standards of living. Up to now, dynamic microsimulation models have been widely used to provide long-run projections of, say, the share of pensions' expenditures in the GDP (in PAYGO systems), but they only include labor income as opposed to other sources of earnings. Though already useful to get a sense of pension reforms' financial and redistributive effects, this approach ignores private wealth, which we propose to consider in the current study.

The optimal design of pension schemes is a complex equation that involves many parameters. Among them, the differential between the productivity growth rate and the rate of return of financial assets, which has been epitomized by the $r > g$ debate, determines partly the frontier between funded and unfunded regimes (Samuelson, 1958; Diamond, 1965). Of particular importance too, the question of the existence and intensity of eviction between public pensions and private savings has been widely discussed (see, e.g., Feldstein, 1974; Barro and MacDonald, 1979; Attanasio and Rohwedder, 2003; Attanasio and Brugiavini, 2003). Yet even within pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) systems, when the share of capital income in total income is not negligible, the previous differential matters when comparing the standard of living of retirees with the one of working individuals. The latter comparison receives in fact much attention by policy makers, social insurers and institutions in charge of consulting them on these issues like the Conseil d'Orientation des Retraites (COR) in France -as far as achieving inter-generational equity is a concern. It must be recognized that indexation rules also play a key role in this respect. When contributions are a fixed fraction of labor earnings, hence following the productivity growth rate, and when pensions are indexed on the inflation rate, as is the case in some defined contributions (DC) systems, the relative standard of living of retirees depends directly on the relative position of the productivity growth rate vis-à-vis the inflation rate. This mechanism is detrimental to retirees in low-inflation regimes, as has been the case in most OECD countries since the '90s and up to the post-Covid era. However, a countervailing effect has to do with retirees disposing of more capital income due to their location in the life-cycle: they have been accumulating private wealth over their whole career and the share of capital income based on asset returns among their total income is far from negligible. In France, about 1/6 of retirees' earnings comes from capital income (Insee, 2018).

This paper develops a structural model of private wealth accumulation plugged into a dynamic microsimulation model at the individual level, which allows for fur-
ther developments related to inequality concerns. The structural model considers an agent’s intertemporal trade-off between consumption and savings, taking the income process as exogenous. It departs from the stylized life-cycle model in that it takes inheritance into account. The agent chooses her optimal consumption path, which results in wealth accumulation over time, given consumption smooth- ing and bequest motives, on the one hand, and a sequence of income realizations, on the other hand. For the sake of simplicity, the rate of asset returns is assumed to be homogeneous. To embed this model in the microsimulation, we assume that each simulated individual behaves as that agent; the comparative advantage of this method is to rely on the microsimulation to allow for fine heterogeneity as regards in particular the age at death, the sequence of labor earnings and the fam- ily status. By construction, both the timing of death and the income process are predetermined by the microsimulation framework; we assume that only the latter is known by the agent, i.e. that she faces a mortality risk but no income risk. Admittedly, the tractability of the structural model is required in order to allevi- ate the computational burden induced by the dynamic microsimulation framework and to be able to estimate its parameters: in particular, relying on some analytic, closed-form and interior solution avoids any issue with binding constraints, which induce some non-linearity in simulated consumption and savings paths, and which are not easy to handle with in the iterative procedure. For that reason, we as- sume away any uncertainty on earnings, we neglect borrowing constraints, and we posit some *ad hoc* bequest motive: though costly in terms of realism,<fnref n="1" /> mak- ing those assumptions yield to a tractable model, the parameters of which can then be estimated through indirect inference (see below). The trade-off between consumption and savings is basically governed by the time preference rate, the curvature of the utility function and bequest motives. We estimate preferences from the observed distribution of private wealth, given simulated income realiza- tions; we rely on a method of simulated moments to match actual and simulated statistics of that distribution. Moreover, we do so either in presence or in absence of any mortality risk, which enables us to quantify the effect of the latter on the wealth accumulation process. In particular, the mortality risk being higher at old ages leads individuals to save less (and to consume more) when young, which, in turn, refrains them from consuming at old ages -hence a hump-shaped pattern of consumption over the life-cycle. We resort to two waves (2015 and 2018) of the French longitudinal wealth survey, namely the *Enquête Patrimoine*. Finally, we simulate the path of private wealth for every individual in the microsimulation

<footnote n="1">¹At the same time, the microsimulation provides us with much heterogeneity in the revenue process, compared with usual approaches based on calibrations in the literature.</footnote>
model; in particular, we assume the matrimonial property regime is a community
of acquests, whereby each member of a couple detains 50% in all property acquired
during the marriage, but disposes of her own initial wealth (before marriage) and
possibly of her own inheritances. In details, we follow current legislative rules as
regards capital's sharing rules within unions. The empirical approach developed
here replicates not only observed patterns of wealth over the life-cycle as well
as individual wealth's growth rates, but also the higher concentration for private
wealth than for labor income, for instance. We show further that even a very
parsimonious specification combined with the microsimulation yields a good fit
of the share of net worth detained by the top 1%. We conclude by quantifying
how much the inclusion of returns to capital in the definition of income affects the
relative standard of living of retirees -a crucial target parameter that intervenes
in the design of the pension system. In particular, we empirically assess the role
played by the mortality risk as regards wealth accumulation, capital returns and
the augmented standard of living of retirees.

Inheritance deserves special attention. From a theoretical viewpoint, there
could be many reasons why there is money left on the table at the time of death;
in particular, it is unclear whether agents have bequest motives related to dynastic
behavior, or whether they are uncertain about the timing of their death. From
an empirical perspective, we observe the distribution of bequests in the *Enquête
Patrimoine* wealth survey. We do not model the profound motives that govern
inheritance and that ultimately generate this empirical distribution in a structural
fashion: rather, we adopt a reduced-form specification.<fnref n="2" /> This constraint affects
his savings decisions and refrains him from consuming everything. We allow fur-
ther a fraction of individuals not to transmit anything at their death, consistently
with what is observed in the data. From the heirs' point of view, inheritance
occurs at the death of the last surviving parent as an income shock, after apply-
ing (rather complex, and hence simplified) legal inheritance rules which depend
mainly on the marital status and on the number of children of the deceased. We
estimate a reduced-form equation of bequests that depends on observed character-
istics present both in the wealth survey and in the microsimulation model. Invert-
ing the mapping between transmitted and inherited wealth, i.e., the inheritance
tax function, yields estimates of the exogenous bequest motive. While building
upon a structural approach, we do not use an overlapping generation model which

<footnote n="2">²The reason why we make this choice lies in that estimation through indirect inference would be infeasible: in the dynamic microsimulation, preferences' parameters would govern not only an ancestor's wealth accumulation path, but also the one of her descent. To avoid such "loops" of high-orders in the structural parameters, we assume instead that (for exogenous reason) every individual has some amount of capital that he wants to transmit to his descent.</footnote>
would question tractability. Importantly, modelling inheritance enables us to de-
part from the life-cycle hypothesis and hence to yield a better fit.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. A literature review is proposed
in Section 2. Section 3 presents our model composed of both the “dynamic mi-
crosimulation” part and the “structural” part, i.e., the model of consumption and
savings over the life-cycle. Section 4 is devoted to the empirical modelling of be-
quests. Section 5 is devoted to implementation, estimation and simulation. Our
results are shown in Section 6. Section 7 concludes.

2 Literature

This paper intersects two strands of literature: (i) microsimulation, and (ii) in-
tertemporal consumption and savings models.

## 2.1 Microsimulation

Microsimulation allows researchers to address the complexity of pensions systems, which more aggregate projection models cannot do. Its role in the evaluation of public policies is often undermined in empirical economics; however, it is one of the three main methods with reduced-form and structural approaches. The first dynamic microsimulation model of pensions in France was created by the French national institute in charge of economic studies and statistics, Insee (see Division-Redistribution-Politiques-Sociales, 1999), as *Destinie 1*, an acronym for *modèle Démographique, Economique et Social des Trajectoires INdividuelles sImuléEs* (demographic, social and economic model for simulated individual trajectories). This microsimulation model has been widely used for projections and for either *ex ante* or *ex post* evaluations of pension reforms. *Destinie 1* incorporated already some reduced-form attempt to model wealth accumulation that allowed to compute individual standards of living including capital income on top of labor income. However, this module has been abandoned in the current version of the model, *Destinie 2*, which has prevailed from 2010 onwards.

Starting from an Italian dynamic microsimulation model for pensions, Mor-
ciano et al. (2013) propose a supplementary module that projects the evolution of
wealth over time. They adopt a semi-structural, approximate life-cycle approach in
which reduced-form estimations are plugged into a structural model. By contrast,
here we embed a structural intertemporal consumption model, the parameters of
which are estimated on actual data, into the dynamic microsimulation model.
## 2.2 Consumption and savings over the life-cycle

Why do people save and accumulate wealth? A huge literature has been devoted to providing with some theoretical or empirical answers to that question. A first explanation deals with retirement, implies consumption smoothing over the life-cycle, and can be addressed thanks to intertemporal consumption models, see, e.g., the seminal contributions by Ramsey (1928), Modigliani and Brumberg (1954) and Friedman (1957). In certain environments, this motive explains why individuals transfer wealth across periods of time: they do so in order to equalize their marginal utility of consumption. From that viewpoint, the intertemporal elasticity of substitution (IES) which determines the curvature of the utility function is a key parameter that governs the way an agent actually smooths her consumption over time through the Euler equation. The estimation of this parameter has been the object of much attention since Hall (1978); structural estimations include at least Blundell, Browning, and Meghir (1994) and Attanasio and Weber (1995). On top of the IES, preferences for the future of both financial markets (encompassed in the interest rate) and private agents (the time preference rate, i.e., the discount factor) may also be recovered. In that vein, Hurd (1989) and Cagetti (2003) resort to indirect inference of the structural parameters of a life-cycle model with bequests based on wealth moments; we improve upon this methodology by relying on a dynamic microsimulation model in which we observe directly earnings, which avoids, e.g., some parametric approximation of the labor income path based on random walks combined with ARMA processes; moreover, our setting permits a variety of demographic trajectories. Some papers isolate the role of each parameter by resorting to different calibration values, as is done for instance by Low (2005). Another road consists in assuming financial markets and agents share the same discount rate, as Blanchet et al. (2016) do.

On top of retirement, other savings motives have been put forward, including precaution, namely the ability of facing possible future economic downturns. In uncertain environments, individuals face different risks as regards health, mortality, labor income or asset returns. In other words, individuals' life span is uncertain; they are exposed to earnings shocks, and they may detain risky assets. In such a context, precautionary savings may arise as an insurance against bad shocks, like the loss of autonomy at later ages for instance, or against the loss of revenues. This precautionary motive stems directly from agents' preferences, namely prudence behavior (Kimball et al., 1990; Eeckhoudt and Schlesinger, 2006). In that vein, a strand of papers solve numerically and simulate life-cycle models under uncertainty in order to estimate its structural parameters, including Deaton (1991), Carroll, Hall, and Zeldes (1992) and Gourinchas and Parker (2002). These
empirical papers, also including Dynan (1993), have concluded to rather mixed
evidence as regards the magnitude of this precaution motive: in France, it would
typically account for less than 10% of wealth (Arrondel and Calvo Pardo, 2008).
Cagetti (2003) estimates nevertheless that the amount of wealth at retirement
implied by a model with precaution is twice as high as that implied by a pure
life-cycle model. Our approach belongs to this strand of literature in the sense
that we simulate a life-cycle model, but we stick to a certainty equivalent model;
we depart from the standard framework in that we include a bequest motive and
rely on heterogeneous income processes as provided by the microsimulation model.
Similarly to these papers as well as to Calvet et al. (2021), we resort to a method
of simulated moments when recovering preferences.

Bequest motives may also be invoked to explain why agents accumulate wealth. Albeit seldom interpreted as altruistic behavior (Arrondel and Calvo Pardo, 2008), bequest motives result more likely from dynastic behavior according which agents seek to maximize their intertemporal utility, taking their descent's one into account. However, it has been shown that agents may form poor expectations about the timing of their death, which is a concurring explanation to why there is money left on the table at death. Determining which motive prevails empirically is beyond the scope of this paper.<fnref n="3" /> To sum up, it is uncertain whether non-zero wealth at death results from uncertainty (on the timing of death) or from bequest motives. As far as inheritance is concerned, a structural modelling is therefore more tricky<fnref n="4" />. Instead of specifying agents' preferences on transmission as Gan et al. (2015) do, we adopt a reduced-form approach here that aims at replicating the observed distribution of bequests.

# 3 Model

## 3.1 Microsimulation

We rely on *Destinie 2*, the dynamic microsimulation model for pensions developed at Insee.<fnref n="5" /> Its setting is appropriate to bring a life-cycle model to the data since it is a dynamic projection of both demographic characteristics and labor market trajectories based on wealth survey data (*Patrimoine* 2009-2010, the French

<footnote n="3">³The flows of inherited wealth may be viewed as evidence of excess saving, see also the retirement-consumption puzzle above; this may lead to low real interest rates and *in fine* secular stagnation.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴See Piketty and Saez (2013) for a structural stand on that topic.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵The model is implemented in R with C++ for efficiency reasons. The source code is available at https://github.com/InseeFr/Destinie-2.</footnote>
module of the Household Finance and Consumption Survey, HFCS). Destinie
2 is composed of two parts: (i) a demographic module that simulates births,
unions, divorces, migrations and deaths; (ii) a labor market module that simulates
transitions across several states on the job market (private sector, public sector,
unemployment, inactivity, etc.) as well as earnings dynamics. It is based on a
representative sample of the *Patrimoine* survey which provides with retrospective
information on past labor market trajectories of individuals as well as additional
characteristics related to demography and wealth. The original sample of the sur-
vey is composed of nearly 37,000 individuals, but Destinie 2 further draws with
replacement as many individuals as necessary to obtain a working sample that is
representative of French population at rate 1/1000, i.e., about 62,000 individuals.
The simulation of individual events starts from the base year, 2009, i.e., the corre-
sponding wave of *Patrimoine*, and stops in 2070. The model has three important
features. First, it incorporates stochastic volatility due to randomness at the in-
dividual level as far as personal or professional events are concerned. However, at
the aggregate level, macro outputs are statistically aligned on demographic and
labor force projections provided by Insee. The second step of the microsimulation
consists in computing pensions from previous individual trajectories generated be-
fore. Second, the statistical unit is the individual, but this individual belongs to
a household, hence it allows (i) the computation of standards of living, defined
as the ratio of available income over the number of consumption units (computed
according to the modified OECD scale: 1 for the first adult, .5 for all other indi-
viduals aged 14 or more and .3 for all other individuals aged less than 14); (ii) the
simulation of survivors benefits since family ties are available. The last feature
yields projections that include derived, or indirect, pension rights, on top of direct
rights that are usually computed by other microsimulation models based on indi-
viduals only. Third, this model simulates the three major regimes (private sector,
public sector, self-employment), which goes beyond regime-specific models. Fur-
ther details on the model are provided by Blanchet, Le Minez, and Marino (2017).
In what follows, we proceed to a once-and-for-all, unique simulation.

Assumptions have to be made as regards wealth accumulation within house-
holds, and more precisely as regards formal unions. Three marital statuses prevail
in France: (i) marriages, (ii) formal partnerships or civil unions called PACS
(*PActe Civil de Solidarité*) created in 1999, and (iii) informal unions. However,
as emphasized for instance by Frémeaux and Leturcq (2019), as soon as capital is
concerned, what matters is the marital property *regime*, as opposed to the mar-
ital status. The three main regimes are: (i) universal (or absolute) community
property, (ii) community of acquests, or (iii) separate property. In an absolute
community regime, all financial assets are joint assets whatever their status (in-
herited, acquired before or after the marriage). Income received by either spouse is
also considered to be a joint asset; so are returns to capital. However, this regime
concerns only 2% of married couples in 2004 according to Frémeaux and Leturcq
(2018). In a community of acquests, each spouse owns an undivided half-interest
in all property acquired during the marriage, except for (i) property acquired by
gift or inheritance during the marriage, which is separate property; (ii) separate
property acquired before the marriage, which remains separate property; or (iii)
property that is acquired during a period when the couple is permanently living
separately and apart (e.g., legal separation, actual or de facto), which is also sepa-
rate property. This regime has been the default matrimonial property regime since
the corresponding reform in 1965. Finally, the separate property regime concerns
about 10% of married couples in 2010 and involves a complete individualization of
wealth within the household.<fnref n="6" /> Informal unions and PACS being absent from Des-
tinie, we assume that married couples are ruled by the community of acquests that
concerns the vast majority of unions;<fnref n="7" /> an extension could consist in introducing
a share of separate property, depending on observable characteristics for instance.
By construction, the community of acquests assumes an equal (50-50) share on the
wealth acquired by the couple, while separate property is equivalent to full indi-
vidualization of wealth; in the latter case, the information on the marital status is
irrelevant. Another extension might consist in enabling couples to dispose of the
household's wealth according to some prenuptial agreement. Put differently, some
flexibility could be obtained by considering partial pooling of resources within the
household, the weight of each spouse being equal to her/his share in total income,
for instance. In France, Morin (2014) documents that the average income share
of married women amounted to 36% in 2011, which could serve as a benchmark.

In a pure life-cycle model without uncertainty on the timing of death, inheri-
tance does not exist because agents die without any wealth (net of debt). How-
ever, to replicate the actual distribution of inheritance, we introduce inheritance

<footnote n="6">⁶The share of individualized wealth exhibits an increasing trend between 1998 and 2010, driven especially by the top of the distribution of capital, which results in upward-sloping within-household inequality, hence in gender inequality. See, e.g., Frémeaux and Leturcq (2013) on that issue.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷Since 2007, separate property has been the default matrimonial regime of PACS. Between 1999 and 2006, the default regime resembled to a community of acquests. However, even though PACS constitute an increasing share of newly formed couples (the annual inflows of new contracted PACS is about 180,000, while the number of marriages is about 220,000), they are still a minority, about 1.4 millions in 2011, as far as the stock of unions is concerned (married individuals being at least 23 millions).</footnote>
to account for its weight in households’ wealth.<fnref n="8" /> To our needs, we implement
a simplified version of French inheritance rules. Basically, the inherited amount
depends on the marital status and on the number of children, which yields four
distinct situations. In the absence of children and of marriage, the heirs are the
ascendants –the parents, to simplify. When the deceased was married, the inher-
itance is split between the spouse and the parents, the former receiving one half
of the inheritance when the two parents are alive and 3/4 of it when only one
parent survives his deceased child. When the deceased had children without being
married, her descendants (her children, to simplify) receive the whole inheritance.
When the deceased was married, the inheritance is split between the spouse, on
the one hand, and equally among the children, on the other hand; the spouse
is allowed to choose between (i) the usufruct of the whole inheritance, and (ii)
1/4 of the whole inheritance, which is the solution that we will implement be-
cause allocating returns to private wealth this way makes more sense, as opposed
to what might prevail for real estate, for instance –and also for computational
reasons. Complications and numerous exceptions to these general rules arise: (i)
when there is a will; (ii) when there are children from former unions; (iii) when
individuals refuse to become heirs, etc. The idea is that freedom in inheritance
is limited by the rule of “rightful heirs”: legitimate heirs like children cannot be
spoiled even when a will is available.

3.2 Intertemporal consumption over the life-cycle

**Assumptions** We consider a stylized,<fnref n="9" /> structural model of intertemporal con-
sumption à la Yaari (1965) where the environment is uncertain as regards mortal-
ity risk but where the labor supply is fixed. In particular, there is no uncertainty
on earnings, since within the microsimulation framework there is no labor income
risk.

For now, we consider a tractable structural model, which we estimate from
microsimulated individual trajectories. We believe that a homogeneous behavior
combined with heterogeneous trajectories on both family and labor markets will
lead to reasonable, realistic dispersion in outcomes, which we will be able to verify
from our simulations below. Besides, we assume perfect financial markets, and

<footnote n="8">⁸For a summary of inheritance flows estimates and an extended discussion on the Kotlikoff-Summers-Modigliani controversy regarding the share of current wealth that comes from inheritance, see Piketty and Zucman (2015).</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹Though stylized, the model embeds Modigliani and Brumberg (1954) and Friedman (1957) as special cases.</footnote>
rule out any borrowing constraint. We consider a unique financial asset<fnref n="10" /> with
rate of return equal to the real interest rate *r* which, by assumption, is net of
depreciation. We further assume time separability of intertemporal preferences,
the agent's discount factor being denoted by *β* = 1/(1+δ) and such that 0 ≤ δ ≤ *r*.
Instantaneous preferences are represented by some Constant Relative Risk Aversion
(CRRA) utility function: *u*(*C*) = C(1-γ)/(1-γ), *γ* > 0. In this certain environment,
*γ* = 1/σ is rather the inverse of the intertemporal elasticity of substitution (IES)
than the coefficient of relative risk aversion. When *γ* = 1, the utility function
tends to the logarithm case: *u*(*C*) = log(*C*). We consider a finite horizon model
in which time is discrete, more precisely annual as is the case in the dynamic microsimulation model. Let *T* denote the maximal living age of the agent who starts
her active life at time *t* = 0 and who retires at some exogenous time 0 < *t*< *T*
that does not result from any optimization.<fnref n="11" /> During her lifetime, this individual
is alive at time *t* with probability *π*<sub>*t*</sub>, and this information is not revised over the
life-cycle. Her labor earnings process {*Y*<sub>*t*</sub><sup>*r*</sup>} is exogenous and comes from the dynamic microsimulation model. We consider inheritance as a temporary positive
income shock. The income process {*Y*<sub>*t*</sub>} may therefore integrate such exogenous
shocks; in our model, though, the only additional exogenous shocks are received
bequests from deceased parents. In other words, *Y*<sub>*t*</sub> = *Y*<sub>*t*</sub><sup>*r*</sup> + *H*<sub>*t*</sub><sup>*r*</sup> where *H*<sub>*t*</sub><sup>*r*</sup> is either
positive or equal to zero.

By assumption, the individual is endowed at the beginning of her life-cycle an
initial stock of capital K₀. One can think K₀ as an initial sum to start active
life. Besides, we impose that the agent has some bequest motive and seeks to give
some financial amount H<sup>g</sup> to her descent. As a counterpart of this transmission,
heirs incur a temporary income shock H<sup>r</sup> when they receive their inheritance, a
fraction of H<sup>g</sup>, typically at the death of the last surviving parent. The difference
between H<sup>g</sup> and H<sup>r</sup> stems from the possible presence of multiple heirs and from
the inheritance tax schedule. This “targeted bequest” is a reduced-form, convenient way of sticking to a tractable model without resorting to an overlapping
generations model, and without invoking dynastic motives that would complicate
further the analysis, on top of making the estimation possibly infeasible.

<footnote n="10">¹⁰this asset can be viewed as a portfolio composed itself of heterogeneous assets, the weighted average of their returns being equal to the real interest rate.</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹In France, most people retire at 62, which corresponds to one of the legal retirement dates, but also to the moment from which an individual may ask for his pensions rights without experiencing any penalty. Other papers depart from this assumption and have tempted to approximate the decision-making that rules the timing of retirement: see, among others, *Stock and Wise (1990)* as well as *Mahieu and Blanchet (2004)*.</footnote>
**The problem and its analytical solution** The consumer maximizes the discounted sum of her instantaneous utilities that depend only on the consumption path:<fnref n="12" />

$$ \max_{\{C_t\}} \sum_{t=0}^{T-1} \beta^t \pi_t u(C_t) \qquad (1) $$

subject to the law of private wealth accumulation, denoting by $R = 1 + r$:

$$ K_{t+1} = R(K_t + Y_t - C_t) \qquad (2) $$

where $K_t$ accounts for the stock of private wealth that is available at the beginning of time $t$. In other words, we assume that earnings and consumption decisions are made at the beginning of the period. Recursion yields:

$$ K_t = R^t K_0 + \sum_{\tau=1}^{t} R^\tau (Y_{t-\tau} - C_{t-\tau}). \qquad (3) $$

The no-Ponzi game constraint, i.e., the condition forbidding debt at death $K_T - H^g \ge 0$, leads to the following intertemporal budget constraint:

$$ \sum_{t=0}^{T-1} R^{-t} C_t \le K_0 + \sum_{t=0}^{T-1} R^{-t} Y_t - R^{-T} H^g \qquad (4) $$

This constraint binds at the optimum of the consumer's program.<fnref n="13" /> As a result, the agent ends her life with no capital left on the table, once the transmission has been accounted for. This result would not hold in the presence of uncertainty. Alternatively, this model can be thought of as some limit case of a model with pure joy of giving, or warm-glow, with a utility of bequest that is associated with a degree of altruism equal to zero. Empirically, a null degree of altruism, consistent among others with accidental bequest and uncertain lifetime, cannot be excluded: see, for instance, Cagetti (2003) on that topic.

The first-order condition of the program that consists in maximizing (1) un-

<footnote n="12">¹²Consumption should be interpreted as a marshallian demand for a composite good, which may well result from a trade-off between leisure and consumption, possibly including preference for inactivity, among others. In any case, consumption allows us to embed such programs in a single-dimension index, which helps justify the fact that the optimal pattern may be non-decreasing over time. This specification encompasses less parsimonious models including explicit preferences for non-work income, for instance.</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³If it did not, its Lagrange multiplier would be equal to zero. Hence the marginal utility of consumption would be null, which is equivalent to consumption tending to infinity, but violates the intertemporal budget constraint (4).</footnote>
der (4) yields an Euler equation:

$$ \pi_t u'(C_t) = \beta R \pi_{t+1} u'(C_{t+1}) \iff \log \frac{C_{t+1}/\pi_{t+1}^{\sigma}}{C_t/\pi_t^{\sigma}} = \sigma \log(\beta R) \quad (5) $$

Denoting by $C'_t = C_t/\pi_t^\sigma$ and combining equations (4) and (5) yields:

$$ \begin{aligned} C'_t &= C'_0(\beta R)^{\sigma t} \\ C'_0 &= \frac{K_0 + \sum_{t=0}^{T-1} R^{-t} Y_t - R^{-T} H^g}{\sum_{t=0}^{T-1} \alpha^t \pi_t^\sigma} \end{aligned} \quad (6) $$

where $\alpha = \beta^\sigma R^{\sigma-1}$. Let $S_t = R^t \frac{\sum_{\tau=0}^{T-1} \alpha^\tau \pi_\tau^\sigma}{\sum_{\tau=0}^{T-1} \alpha^\tau \pi_\tau^\sigma}$. The mortality risk generates a hump-shaped profile for consumption as documented empirically in Attanasio and Weber (1995) and theoretically in Drouhin (2015), for instance. More precisely, this pattern is due to survival probabilities $\pi_t$ decreasing sharply at old ages, which causes consumption to fall at the end of the lifetime. In contrast, at younger ages, the mortality risk can be neglected, hence consumption increases provided that agents are patient enough, i.e. such that $\beta R > 1$).

The current stock of wealth is given by:

$$ K_t = [R^t - S_t]K_0 + \left[ \sum_{\tau=1}^{t} R^\tau Y_{t-\tau} - S_t \sum_{\tau=0}^{T-1} R^{-\tau} Y_\tau \right] + S_t R^{-T} H^g \quad (7) $$

Given the simplifying assumptions adopted above, the model is tractable and admits a closed-form solution, which will be useful for simulation-based inference. Indeed, tractability is a requirement to bring a structural consumption model to a 0.1% representative population simulated over more than 60 years. Given the maximal living age $T$, the survival sequence $(\pi_t)_{0\le t\le T-1}$ and the income sequence $(Y_t)_{0\le t\le T-1}$, individual consumption and wealth dynamics are identified by the vector of parameters $(\beta, R, \sigma)$, namely: preferences for the future of both financial markets and the agent as well as the intertemporal elasticity of substitution.

## 3.3 The life-cycle model within the microsimulation framework

Bringing the previous theory to simulated data is a novel and ambitious task which requires to adapt slightly the analysis. It is now necessary to allow for heterogeneity as regards individual trajectories, including the timing of death; in the microsimulation model, this terminal moment $T_i$ actually differs across individuals. We assume therefore that each individual endowed with characteris-
tics $X_i = (\{Y_{it}^r\}_{t=0}^{T_i-1}, T_i, \{H_{it}\}_{t=0}^{T_i-1})$, where $H_{it} = (H_i^g, H_{it}^r)$, behaves as the previous agent, given her preferences encompassed by the vector of structural parameters.<fnref n="14" /> As noted earlier, in a world with perfect financial markets, inheritance is akin to a transitory income shock, from children's viewpoint. In the following, we denote $Y_{it} = Y_{it}^r + H_{it}^r$. We also assume that individuals make their choices by considering real flows instead of nominal flows.

From the previous model, the current amount of capital $K_{it}$ is a deterministic function of (i) the simulated sequence of labor earnings $\{Y_{it}\}_{t=0}^{T_i-1}$, including received bequests $H_i^r$, (ii) the time of death $T_i$, (iii) the targeted bequest $H_i^g$, and (iv) structural parameters. While the labor earnings process, net of bequests, is given by the dynamic microsimulation model, inherited wealth $H_i^r$ has to be estimated from the *Enquête Patrimoine* wealth survey and simulated as a function of sociodemographics that are common to both *Enquête Patrimoine* and *Destinie* 2, see next section on that issue. By contrast, transmitted bequests $H_i^g$ must be recovered from inherited wealth after inverting the latter given the inheritance tax schedule (the Appendix provides with more details on this tax scheme) and taking the possible presence of multiple heirs into account.

Besides, the *Enquête Patrimoine* wealth survey provides with information on the amount of private wealth $K_{i,2009}$ available for every individual $i$ surveyed in 2009, and thus in the microsimulation model. Since the initial amount of capital is:

$$K_{i0} = \frac{K_{it} - S_t R^{-T} H_i^g - \left[ \sum_{\tau=1}^{t} R^{\tau} Y_{i,t-\tau} - S_t \sum_{\tau=0}^{T_i-1} R^{-\tau} Y_{i,\tau} \right]}{R^t - S_t}, \quad (8)$$

we are able to recover the initial wealth for any given value of the vector of structural parameters, replacing $t$ by the time elapsed since school-leaving age for each individual $i$ present in the survey. We use the observed value in the survey to determine $K_{it}$, where $t$ accounts for the time that corresponds to 2009 in individual $i$'s life-cycle dynamics. This procedure is made possible because each individual in *Destinie* 2 has an identifier that can be matched to *Enquête Patrimoine*. The knowledge of $K_{i0}$ allows us to compute then the optimal consumption path for each individual of our simulated data using (6), and hence to simulate the entire wealth path from (7). As a result, observed and simulated wealth coincide in 2009, by construction. Finally, for simulated individuals who are not observed in the survey (for instance because they were not born at that time), we draw in

<footnote n="14">¹⁴This vector of structural parameters is assumed to be homogeneous here; extensions could make it vary depending on $X_i$. For instance, the rate of return of financial assets is likely to be higher for richer individuals -who may also be more patient. Such extensions might be required to replicate the extreme concentration of capital at the top of the distribution.</footnote>
the joint distribution of age and observed wealth, and compute the corresponding
initial amount of capital, i.e., the initial wealth that fits equation (8) at these
values.

As regards the real interest rate, ideally that rate of return to private wealth
assets would be derived at the equilibrium of the capital market. We choose
not to model both sides of this market here, which we feel is beyond the scope
of this paper. Moreover, even a complete model of private wealth could not be
enough since housing prices are also likely to impact this rate, see DSGE models
for instance. We take this rate as exogenous and resort to a calibration approach,
starting with r = 3%. This assumption is all the more plausible that in practice,
the discount window is determined by central banks.<fnref n="15" /> The interest rate depends
nevertheless on the asset considered: it is higher for stocks than for bonds, and
for life insurance than for savings. It tends also to increase with wealth itself due
to composition effects: richer individuals tend to own more diversified portfolios,
more risky assets, and hence to benefit from higher rates of return. Extensions
should therefore consider heterogeneous rates of return, especially as far as repli-
cating the high concentration of private wealth at the top of the distribution is a
concern.

Last, in order to compute the empirical counterparts of survival probabilities,
we consider the values provided by the Human Mortality Database (HMD). Those
values vary with age, hence over time in the spirit of our life-cycle model. They are
also heterogeneous across two supplementary dimensions: sex and year of birth.

4 Inheritance

It is not the purpose of this paper to address the empirical plausibility of different
bequest motives (accidental, altruism, exchange, warm glow, retrospective) sur-
veyed for instance by Arrondel and Masson (2006). Instead, recognizing that there
is a substantial heterogeneity in these motives, we propose simply to reproduce
the observed distribution of inherited wealth in order to simulate corresponding
bequest vector $H_i = (H_i^g, H_i^r)$ at the individual level in the microsimulation.

This exercise constitutes a module of the microsimulation model *per se*. First,
we consider a 2-step reduced-form estimation of received bequests $H_i^r$ à la Laibson
et al. (1998) and Cagetti (2003) as a function of relevant socio-demographics. More

<footnote n="15"><sup>15</sup>An alternative justification could lie in that our working sample is made up of individuals who are not numerous enough (0.1% on the whole) to influence that rate, and hence who behave as price takers.</footnote>
precisely, the Enquête Patrimoine 2014-2015 wealth survey yields information on a sub-sample of individuals about their inherited wealth. The latter information is only available in brackets: the corresponding variable in the data is ordered and polytomous. We know only that the inherited amount $H_i^r$, when positive, is (1) lower than €3,000, comprised between (2) €3,000 and €8,000, (3) €8,000 and €15,000, (4) €15,000 and €30,000, (5) €30,000 and €60,000, (6) €60,000 and €100,000, (7) €100,000 and €150,000, (8) €150,000 and €200,000, (9) €200,000 and €250,000, or (10) higher than €250,000. In a first step, we estimate a Probit model on a dummy equal to one when the individual receives some bequest (extensive margin). In a second step, conditionally on receiving some positive bequest, we resort to an ordered Probit model with known thresholds to explain the amount inherited (intensive margin). Such a model assumes a relationship between the observed variable $Y_i = \log(H_i^r)$ and some unobserved latent variable $Y_i^*$ such that $\forall k \in [1, 10]$,

$$Y_i = k \iff Y_i^* \in [s_k; s_{k+1}], \qquad (9)$$

or equivalently

$$Y_i = \sum_{k=1}^{10} k1\{s_k \le Y_i^* < s_{k+1}\}. \qquad (10)$$

We posit a linear model on the latent, unobserved variable $Y_i^*$:

$$Y_i^* = D_i'\mu + \varepsilon_i, \qquad (11)$$

where $D_i$ are socio-demographic characteristics and $\varepsilon_i$ follows a normal distribution with mean 0 and variance $\sigma_\varepsilon^2$. We use the information on thresholds $\{s_k\}_{k=1}^{11}$ which are known both by survey respondents and by the researcher ($s_1 = -\infty$, $s_2 = \log(3,000), \dots, s_{11} = +\infty$).

It will be crucial for the simulation exercise that follows to restrict our attention to covariates that are common to both the survey and the dynamic microsimulation model. Hence in our empirical specification, sociodemographics $D_i$ are composed of the logarithm of income,<fnref n="16" /> age, school-leaving age as a proxy for education, and a female dummy. We adopt an unrestricted form for school-leaving age and we include 5-year age dummies in the list of covariates.

The model is estimated under the assumption of $D_i$ being exogenous. Since the thresholds are known, both the location -the constant $\mu_0$- and the scale -$\sigma_\varepsilon$- of the model are identified. Under these assumptions, the vector $(\mu, \sigma_\varepsilon)$ can be estimated easily: the maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) is consistent and asymptotically

<footnote n="16">¹⁶Income is the sum of labor income, pensions and unemployment benefits.</footnote>
normal (CAN) as the number of individuals grows large.

Table 1 displays our estimates from a sample composed of 10,344 individuals surveyed in *Enquête Patrimoine* 2014-2015 and answering to the inheritance question. Among them, 8,012 individuals declare both positive income and positive bequests. Bequests are found to be positively correlated with both income and education. They also vary significantly over the life-cycle, highest inherited amounts being mostly found after 45.<fnref n="17" />

From previous estimates, we are then able to simulate a temporary amount of inherited wealth $H_i^r(D_i; \hat{\mu}, \hat{\sigma}_\epsilon)$ for each individual present in the dynamic microsimulation model. For individual $i$, inheritance is triggered in the year of the parent's death. Inheritance can be seen as a temporary income shock for the child perspective.<fnref n="18" /> For example, if a child $i$ were to receive $H_{it}^r = €170,000$ at time $t$, given her characteristics at the time when her parent dies, her deceased parent $j$ has to bequeath him a little more due to the inheritance tax (see the Appendix for corresponding tax schedule). This amount, denoted by $H_j^g$ in (8), is around €170,500 to take the first tax bracket into account.

As Table 2 shows, the median simulated bequest is about €27,000 while the average amounts to nearly €178,000. The simulated distribution is positively skewed and exhibits a huge excess kurtosis, which is consistent with the observed distribution of bequests. The comparison between observed and predicted bequests is provided by Figure 1. The fit of the model sounds more than correct at the intensive margin: the differential between actual and simulated shares of individuals in each bracket of inherited amount is very small. As expected, the extensive margin is slightly more difficult to fit; this is a concern for the first bracket, i.e., for the 2,332 individuals with no bequest (22,5% of the estimation sample). It turns out that the model under-predicts the number of individuals in that situation by 800; at the same time, the next two brackets are slightly over-predicted, which suggests that the model attributes small amounts of bequests to these individuals.

Second, the estimation of transmitted wealth $H_i^g$ consists in inverting the inheritance tax schedule and recover the money that has virtually been transmitted by the deceased to each heir separately. We compute therefore a weighted sum of such pecuniary amounts within a family according to the inheritance rules,

<footnote n="17">¹⁷After controlling for age, income and education, gender is not significant.</footnote>

<footnote n="18">¹⁸This way of understanding inheritance as a temporary income shock means that the child knows the date of death of the parent and does not communicate it, since the parent does not know it. This simplifying assumption, which implies considering, from the child's point of view, inheritance as an exogenous phenomenon, makes it possible to have a tractable multigeneration model</footnote>
which yields the corresponding bequest. Finally, applying the fiscal legislation to
the latter gives the predicted bequest for each of the heirs. More details on the
inheritance tax scheme are provided in Appendix.

5 Estimation

This section presents how we estimate the parameters governing agents’ prefer-
ences of the structural model combined with microsimulated data, given previous
reduced-form estimates of bequests.

5.1 Method of simulated moments

A first approach could consist in calibrating these parameters to some plausible
values reported in the literature for instance. It is tempting to invoke estimates
of both IES and time discount factor provided, among others, by Stock and Wise
(1990), Mahieu and Blanchet (2004) or Low (2005); see, e.g., Pemberton (1997)
for a summary of other references and some calibration values.

However, we believe that estimating the vector of preferences is a more satisfac-
tory approach than the calibration, the main difference being that our estimator
will be based on some statistical criterion. In this validation step, we impose that
our model matches moments, or rather auxiliary statistics, of the distribution of
private wealth observed in the data. Our empirical strategy is therefore a method
of simulated moments (Pakes, 1986; McFadden, 1989; Pakes and Pollard, 1989),
a special case of indirect inference (Gouriéroux, Monfort, and Renault, 1993) or
simulation-based inference (Gouriéroux and Monfort, 1993).

We aim at fitting empirical features of the distribution of wealth which are not
necessarily moments, but some statistics of this distribution. Namely, we consider
two sets of auxiliary statistics $s_1$ and $s_2$ of the data: (i) $s_1$ accounts for an inverse
hyperbolic sine (IHS) transform<sup>19</sup> of private wealth held by each 5-year cohort
between 20 and 85, which yields 13 "cross-sectional moments" (relying on *between*
or individual variability), and (ii) $s_2$ refers to the median growth rate of private
wealth between 2015 and 2018 for each 5-year cohort between 30 and 70, which
yields 8 "longitudinal moments" (relying on *within* or longitudinal variability).
Note that the latter auxiliary statistics resemble to the change in individual wealth-
to-income ratio used by Calvet et al. (2021) in order to identify the time preference

<footnote n="19"><sup>19</sup>The IHS transform $\log(x + \sqrt{1 + x^2})$ is well-known to accommodate very dispersed distributions like net worth with full support over the real line: see, e.g. Burbidge, Magee, and Robb (1988).</footnote>
rate, up to the normalization by earnings. In fine, we dispose of 21 moments to overidentify $\beta$ (see, e.g., Einav, Finkelstein, and Mahoney (2018) for a similar methodology).

Given the model above and these auxiliary statistics, it could be tempting to achieve overidentification of both parameters $\beta$, the discount factor, and $\gamma$ (or equivalently $\sigma$, the IES), given that the real interest rate has been calibrated. Yet a simple identification argument imposes to normalize further, say $\sigma$, to some usual value found in the literature. Remember from the model that the observation of capital-based auxiliary statistics will only enable us to recover an estimate of the parameter $\alpha = \beta^{\sigma} R^{\sigma-1}$. But then it follows that $\beta = \hat{\alpha}^{\frac{1}{\sigma}} R^{\frac{1-\sigma}{\sigma}}$: hence, provided that an estimate $\hat{\alpha}$ of $\alpha$ is available from the empirical counterpart of equation (7), the model adds up some nonlinear constraint on these parameters. It is then impossible to truly separate them in this setting; empirically, we pick up a value of the IES close to one as in Blundell, Browning, and Meghir (1994),<fnref n="20" /> and estimate $\beta$ only. As a result, the model cannot be more parsimonious in the dimension of agents’ structural preferences; recall however that it conveys much heterogeneity in individual trajectories thanks to the microsimulation.

Our estimation procedure is classical minimum distance. Our estimate of $\beta$ consists in finding $\hat{\beta}$ that minimizes the distance between theoretical (or predicted) statistics from our simulated model and its empirical counterpart. To account for the fact that the number of individuals differs across 5-year age groups, we resort first to a diagonal weighting matrix that assigns more weight to empirical moments formed by more numerous individuals. By construction, the trace of this first-step weight matrix is 2 (the sum of weights being 1 for the first “cross-sectional” set of moments and 1 for the second “longitudinal” set of moments). Formally, we denote by $g(\beta) = \omega(\hat{s} - s(\beta))$ where $s(\beta)$ is the simulated vector of statistics predicted by our model, $\hat{s}$ is its empirical counterpart, namely the sample statistics observed in the survey data, and $\omega$ designates the previous weight (equal to the share of the considered age group in the population). Our estimation procedure chooses the parameter value that results in simulated statistics matching observed statistics as closely as possible:

$$ \hat{\beta} = \arg\min_{\beta} g'(\beta) W g(\beta), \qquad (12) $$

<footnote n="20">²⁰In a different vein, using data on labor supply behavior, Chetty (2006) estimates a coefficient of relative risk aversion that is close to one, and that 2 is a tight upper bound for this parameter shaping the curve of the utility function. In a meta-analysis, he also stresses that the central estimate is near 1, quoting, e.g., the point estimate obtained by Blundell, Duncan, and Meghir (1998), 0.93. Based on a structural life-cycle model with mortality risk and bequest motives, Hurd (1989) finds a value of 1.12 for $\gamma$; he resorts to a nonlinear least squares method in order to match simulated and actual wealth moments as we do.</footnote>
In other words, we aim at minimizing an objective function usually called the “goodness-of-fit” (GoF). W is a weighting matrix; since the optimal matrix that yields an efficient estimator is unknown to us, we resort to feasible 2-step GMM in order to get an estimate for $\hat{\beta}$ (Hansen, 1982).

After minimizing the weighted difference between empirical and theoretical sets of moments, we end up with a first-stage estimate $\hat{\beta}^{(1)}$ which we use to compute an estimated residual covariance matrix, the inverse of that matrix being our optimal weighting matrix. The asymptotic distribution of the resulting estimate $\hat{\beta}^{(2)}$ minimizing the GoF function associated with that matrix is a normal distribution whose variance is given by formula (C.15) in Appendix C of Cagetti (2003). A correcting term $1 + \tau$ enters multiplicatively the usual sandwich formula of that variance-covariance matrix, which accounts for the ratio of the number of observations to the number of simulated points -more profoundly, for the variance of the estimator that stems from the simulation. Empirically, as in Cagetti (2003), this term is extremely low given our simulated sample size, and can be innocuously approximated to 1.

The practical implementation consists in resorting to Nelder and Mead (1965)'s algorithm based on the simplex method in order to find the solution of the minimization problem (12).

To build previous auxiliary statistics of the distribution of wealth, we rely on three waves of the *Patrimoine* survey, a wealth survey conducted jointly by the Insee and the French central bank. This wealth survey is the French part of the Household Finance and Consumption Survey (HFCS), a harmonized system of wealth surveys supervised by the European Central Bank. Table 3 sums up the way we used the different waves of the survey. These waves of the same longitudinal survey provide with information on the individual trajectories of private wealth accumulation between 2015 and 2018. This information was not available before 2015: merging previous *Patrimoine* surveys yields only a pseudo-panel, while from 2015 onwards, about 4,700 individuals are followed over time. Remember also that the 2009 wave corresponds to the wave that has been used to generate the microsimulated population (every individual belonging to this first wave can be matched to an individual present in Destinie 2), and that we use this information to ensure that the simulated life-cycle wealth dynamics is consistent with the observed value in 2009 thanks to (8). A methodological contribution of this paper is therefore to capitalize on the panelization of that French wealth survey in order to estimate structural parameters governing preferences over the future.
## 5.2 Implementation

Even with a tractable model derived from (8), bringing a life-cycle savings model to 60 years of microsimulated data for a sample of 62,000 individuals is computationally burdensome, especially with the supplementary ambition to estimate structural parameters from indirect inference. Hence program efficiency is a major concern. Our implementation is Rcpp based (Eddelbuettel et al., 2011) to integrate C++ efficiency within R statistical framework.<fnref n="21" /> The R implementation is itself optimized by us resorting to the data.table framework (Dowle et al., 2019). To simulate 60 years of capital accumulation over this microsimulated sample representative of French population at rate 1/1000, this optimization yields a performing model both in terms of time (a microbenchmark test yields a median time of 3.5 seconds over 50 replications<fnref n="22" />) and memory (less than 900Mb of RAM). To reduce the risk of unexpected program behavior, many unit tests checking the consistency with model hypotheses (e.g. $K_T - H^g = 0$ for all individuals) are included in the public R package.

As previously mentioned, adapting the model to a microsimulated framework requires special attention on matrimonial dynamics. Remember that we assume that the unique matrimonial regime is the community of acquests, associated with equal income splitting within couples. Since we are able to match every microsimulated agent with a true individual observed in 2009, we compute the initial wealth in (8) at the individual level. As a result, *t* is individual-specific: somebody who started to work in 1999 will have *t* = 10 while another agent closer from retirement might have a *t* equal to, say, 40. $K_{i0}$ is then determined from the structural parameters, the date of death $T_i$ as well as the income sequence ({$Y_{it}$}$_{0\le t\le T_{i-1}$}). Given $K_{i0}$, the remaining dynamics of wealth accumulation is derived thanks to equation (2).

## 5.3 Monte-Carlo analysis

To check that the above estimation method makes sense and is feasible, we perform Monte-Carlo experiments in which we pick up some values of parameters for which we simulate the model. In this exercise we neutralize the mortality risk by setting $\pi_t = 1, \forall t < T_i$. We then estimate structural parameters<fnref n="23" /> of agents'

<footnote n="21">²¹The source code is available on Gitlab at https://gitlab.insee.fr/patrimoine-destinie/capitulation and takes the form of several R packages.</footnote>

<footnote n="22">²²Tests have been performed on a 64-bit Windows Machine with an Intel Core i5-6300U 2.4GHz processor.</footnote>

<footnote n="23">²³In such an exercise we consider indifferently $\beta$ or $\gamma$ since from a statistical viewpoint there is no reason to prefer one parameter to another.</footnote>
preferences based on the indirect inference estimation procedure presented previously, and we compare these values with the ones fixed by us. Reassuringly, the auxiliary statistics chosen seem informative enough about true preferences, which gives therefore some credit to the estimation approach adopted here. In Table 4 we check that different true values of parameters (0.96 and 0.98 as regards $\beta$, 0.5 and 2 as regards $\gamma$) can actually be recovered by our estimation procedure. Changing the initial point does not seem to perturb much the estimation -neither does the restriction to moments based on the population aged between 40 and 60.

# 6 Results

## 6.1 Parameter estimation

We now present the results from the estimation issued from the overidentification of the parameter $\beta$ based on previous statistics of the empirical distribution of private wealth. Those estimates are obtained under the assumption that $r = 0.03$. Though it is possible to pick up any arbitrary value of $\gamma$ as explained above, we focus on the case where $\gamma = 1$; the latter assumption means that, since the effect of the interest rate on the consumption growth is given approximately by

$$ \frac{d \log(C_{t+1}/C_t)}{dr} \approx \frac{d \log(C_{t+1}/C_t)}{d \log(1+r)} = \sigma, $$

an increase in the real interest rate by 100bp increases consumption growth by about $\sigma = 1\%$. Table 5 reports the estimates obtained for $\beta$ given different values of $\gamma$, neutralizing the mortality risk (i.e. imposing that $\pi_t = 1$ for any $t$ before $T_i$) or not. First, all those estimates are rather high and close to 1, mostly comprised between .99 and 1.01, which suggests that much patience is required to accommodate both observed life-cycle profiles of wealth and corresponding growth rates. Yet it should be kept in mind that a lower degree of patience would be obtained in the case of a higher EIS, i.e. a lower $\gamma$, which reassuringly tempers that caveat. Second, as expected, a higher degree of patience is needed to rationalize the accumulation of wealth in the presence of a mortality risk, especially large amounts of capital observed at older ages when the survival probably begins to fall substantially. From a structural life-cycle model with mortality risk and bequest motives, Gan et al. (2015) estimate nevertheless very similar time discount factors, based on indirect inference from wealth moments, too. When $r = 0.03$, their coefficient of relative risk aversion is about 0.81 (0.18) and their time discount factor cannot be distinguished from 1. Our coefficients are therefore in line with
these estimates and previous estimates found in the literature, including Cagetti (2003). Figure 2 examines now the quality of the prediction as regards the 13 cross-sectional moments. The model performs well at middle ages from 40 to 65; it over-predicts the wealth detained by individuals aged less than 30, and under-predicts the wealth detained by those aged 70 or more. Hopefully, the vast majority of observations in the survey lie in the 40-65 range (corresponding weights in the estimation are depicted in the same Figure). More generally, the relatively poor fit at extreme ages should not be surprising: as Calvet et al. (2021) recall, simulated life-cycle models do not match well empirical patterns of wealth before 40 for at least four reasons: (i) housing purchases, (ii) transfers from relatives, (iii) investments in education, and (iv) changes in family size. The fit is also expected to be poor after retirement due to health shocks.

The model behaves quite properly in the longitudinal dimension, when it comes about replicating the accumulation of wealth as observed in the panelized sample of wealth between 2015 and 2018. Figure 3 reports the fit of the model in this dimension: old age (after 65) and the 45-50 put aside, the model yields quite satisfactory predictions in this respect. It shall be remembered that the structural part of the pure life-cycle model, i.e., leaving bequests aside, is extremely parsimonious.

Figure 4 evaluates how the model fits the cross-sectional distribution of net wealth observed in the *Enquête Patrimoine* 2017-2018, i.e., after nine annual iterations.<fnref n="24" /> Observed and simulated distributions of net wealth look very close in IHS scale. From this viewpoint, all simulated quantiles of the distribution of net wealth resemble the ones observed. The only exception concerns the bottom of the distribution, namely below the first decile. It can be explained by the absence of borrowing constraint in the model which tends mechanically to predict more negative net wealth. The fact that the IHS compresses the distribution of wealth at the extremes but expands it around zero also helps to explain the mismatch at the bottom of the distribution.

Finally, Figure 5 emphasizes the importance of introducing the mortality risk in the model in order to replicate a hump-shaped profile of consumption over the life-cycle. In the absence of any mortality risk, i.e. when $\pi_t = 1$ for any $t$ before $T$, and since $\hat{\beta}R > 1$, predicted consumption would keep on increasing over time at that power rate. By contrast, in the presence of the mortality risk (and in the absence of any income risk, i.e. of any precaution motive for savings), that consumption pattern exhibits some inverted-U shaped relationship; the corresponding acme being reached at old ages due to observed survival probabilities decreasing

<footnote n="24">²⁴Though observed wealth in 2015 is used as external validation, the model starts in 2009.</footnote>
substantially, i.e. faster than previous power rate, after 75.<fnref n="25" />

## 6.2 Simulation of net wealth patterns over the life-cycle

Given previous estimations, we now simulate life-cycle patterns of net wealth. Such simulations are performed from 2009 to 2070, i.e., to the end of the horizon of Destinie 2, but are only presented up to 2040. The results are displayed first by Figure 6 which depicts the accumulation of private wealth over the life-cycle as a series of annual cross-sections. By construction, the initial simulation coincides with the observed pattern of net wealth in *Patrimoine 2009-2010*, which corresponds to the curve in brightest red. It is striking to see how each simulation reflects the structure imposed by the model: these wealth profiles become mechanically more hump-shaped as simulated time goes by. They are consistent with empirical facts based on the 2015 wealth survey, for instance Ferrante and Solotareff (2018). These results suggest that despite its extreme parsimony, the model achieves reasonable projection properties in terms of median private wealth and its variation all over the life-cycle.

Figure 7 depicts then how the share of capital income among total income (defined as the sum of labor and financial capital income) evolves over the life-cycle. The empirical evidence is more scarce: to the best of our knowledge, the only stylized fact on French data is provided by Insee (2018). This share would be equal to 10.2% on average, but would amount to 16.6% among retirees. An important motivation for the empirical approach proposed here is precisely related to the computation of adjusted standards of living that would take capital income into account. It is therefore interesting to observe that the model is able to replicate this share, and its hump-shaped pattern over the life-cycle. At old ages, this share is roughly higher, though, than it was at younger ages, which again has implications for inter-generational equity concerns, and for the funding of pensions schemes.

## 6.3 Simulated inequality in labor and capital income

To estimate the impact of taking capital income into account when computing inequality indices, we thus resort to our simulations and confront them with observed data. We consider as before that the rate of return to private wealth, namely the real interest rate, is equal to 3%, and emphasize that our results are mechanically sensitive to that assumption.

<footnote n="25">²⁵Introducing a precautionary motive in the model would make that acme occur earlier in the life-cycle.</footnote>
Table 6 shows that the top 10% would perceive slightly less than 30% of total income; this figure is actually below the estimate from the 2015 wealth survey, 39.5%, partly because the microsimulation model Destinie 2 alone, i.e., without the structural model of wealth accumulation developed here, already underestimates the concentration of labor income. This is due to the fact that the intensive margin of labor at the individual level is absent from the microsimulation model: individuals either work full time, or don't work at all. As a result, the top 10% (resp. 1%) perceives 32% (resp. 9.3%) of labor income in the data while the model predicts 26.7% (6.1%) only.

As far as the concentration of net wealth is concerned, the model predicts a higher concentration for wealth than for labor income: see, e.g., the top shares displayed in Table 6.<fnref n="26" /> Yet it fails to replicate accurately the share detained by the top 10%, namely 66.5%: it under-predicts that share (only 48.8%). The picture looks far less dramatic as regards the top 1% where the differential between observed (22.7%) and simulated (21.3%) shares is considerably reduced. There are at least two reasons why the concentration at the top of the distribution is still reproduced inaccurately: (i) the estimation procedure implemented here aims at fitting median wealth (and their growth rates), and not higher quantiles of the distribution for instance; (ii) both observed and unobserved heterogeneity in structural parameters are missing. In particular, high income individuals likely benefit from highest rates of return. Besides, replicating the very high concentration of net worth at the top of the distribution is an active area of research (see, e.g., Blanchet, Fournier, and Piketty, 2021), which would probably require more reduced-form, statistical approaches than the structural method adopted here.

Last, the role of the mortality risk on the unequal detention of wealth can be assessed from Table 6 by comparing bottom and middle panels.<fnref n="27" /> Neutralizing the mortality risk by setting $\pi_t = 1$, for any $t$ before $T$, leads to a slight decrease in inequality: this risk, which depends on time, date of birth, and sex, amplifies slightly differences in wealth accumulation across individuals, not by much according to our simulations. In 2015, that mortality risk alone would be responsible of a higher concentration at the top, about 1.5pp (resp. 2.9pp) for the top 10% (resp. top 1%) -to be compared with the baseline 47.3% (resp. 18.6%).

To go beyond those simulations, the microsimulation combined with the struc-

<footnote n="26">²⁶The Gini coefficient amounts to about 0.65 for wealth and to nearly 0.4 for income.</footnote>

<footnote n="27">²⁷Note that the mortality risk has both a direct effect, through agents’ behavior (holding preferences unchanged), and an indirect effect, through the estimation of impatience: a higher degree of patience is required to rationalize the data in presence of mortality risk. We do not disentangle the former from the latter in the current analysis.</footnote>
tural model can be considered as a useful projection tool for policy analysis such as the one on retirement issues. Figure 8 shows the projected change in labor income inequality as well as in wealth inequality, based on projected top shares. As expected in the absence of any shock in the microsimulation environment, and especially in the absence of any mortality risk, the model predicts that this indicator remains relatively stable over time. However, the introduction of uncertainty, due to mortality risk, tends to amplify inequality as simulated time goes by.

## 6.4 Computing “augmented” standards of living

Last, we construct “augmented” standards of living defined as the ratio of total income, including both labor and capital income, over the number of consumption units in the household, according to the definition provided by the modified OECD scale. The projected evolution of the relative standard of living of retirees, defined as the ratio between the median standard of living of retirees and the one that prevails in the whole population, is then depicted by Figure 9. As simulated time goes by, the relative standard of living (based on a definition that excludes capital income) decreases: this is because pensions have been indexed on the inflation rate only since 1987 while for individuals in the labor force, earnings grow at a higher pace, namely the long-term productivity rate.<fnref n="28" /> Including capital income drives this relative standard of living upwards by slightly less than 2pp at the beginning of the projection (2010-2020), but at about +8pp twenty years after. This differential is related to retirees being older and disposing of more wealth. Note also that this gap widens as simulated time goes by because the rate of return of capital income exceeds the long-term productivity growth rate.

Figure 10 isolates further the mere role of the mortality risk in this regard: by keeping the time preference rate unchanged, namely at its estimated value in the absence of any mortality risk (about 0.994). Two curves are plotted, corresponding to projected augmented relative standards of living respectively in the absence of any mortality risk, i.e. when $\pi_t = 1, \forall t < T$ (in blue) and with some mortality risk, i.e. when $\pi_t < 1, \forall t < T$ (in red). Due to the mortality risk, aggregate wealth is lower, which hurts relatively more older individuals disposing of more wealth, those individuals being at the end of the accumulation process. Remember nevertheless that introducing the mortality risk leads to a higher estimated time preference rate in order to rationalize the data, which tempers the previous diagnosis, acts thus as a countervailing mechanism and explains why the blue dashed curve of that Figure lies, in fact, in-between the red and blue solid curves of Figure 9.

<footnote n="28">²⁸Calibrated to 1.5% in our simulations.</footnote>
# 7 Conclusion

This paper has embedded a structural model of wealth accumulation with bequests within a microsimulation framework that conveys much heterogeneity at the individual level, especially as regards career and family history. In this environment, parameters governing agents' preferences are recovered through indirect inference. Simulations based on this estimation enable us to replicate observed wealth patterns over the life-cycle as well as the dynamics of individual accumulation. It has then been possible to quantify implications on the “augmented” standard of living which includes capital income, private wealth acting as a countervailing mechanism to the relative dropout after retirement due to indexation of pensions on inflation. Last, we isolate and quantify the role of the sole mortality risk.

A challenging but necessary task in order to replicate the extreme concentration of wealth at the top of the distribution would probably require to include heterogeneity in asset returns or other structural parameters. In particular, a recent literature emphasizes that wealthy individuals benefit from much higher asset returns. Lusardi, Michaud, and Mitchell (2017) stress the role played by financial knowledge in generating higher returns. Bach, Calvet, and Sodini (2020) show that such heterogeneity explains most of the increase in top shares; according to these authors, the expected return on total gross wealth increases with household net worth, the differential being about 7.9pp per year, on average, between the top 0.01 percent and households in the second decile, for instance. In a similar vein, Fagereng et al. (2019) find that the wealthiest do not save more, but that they do face higher capital gains. Another slight modification of the current estimation procedure could consist in matching not only the median but also other (higher) quantiles of the distribution of wealth or/and its growth rate. In a different vein, the introduction of borrowing constraints could help improve the fit at the bottom of the distribution.

# References

Arrondel, L., and H. Calvo Pardo. 2008. “Les Français sont-ils prudents ? Patri moine et risque sur le marché du travail.” *Économie et Statistique* 417:27–53.

Arrondel, L., and A. Masson. 2006. “Altruism, exchange or indirect reciprocity: What do the data on family transfers show?” In *Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity, Volume 2*. Elsevier, pp. 971–1053.
Attanasio, O.P., and A. Brugiavini. 2003. “Social security and households’ saving.” *The Quarterly Journal of Economics* 118:1075–1119.

Attanasio, O.P., and S. Rohwedder. 2003. “Pension wealth and household sav-
ing: Evidence from pension reforms in the United Kingdom.” *The American
Economic Review* 93:1499–1521.

Attanasio, O.P., and G. Weber. 1995. “Is consumption growth consistent with intertemporal optimization? Evidence from the consumer expenditure survey.” *The Journal of Political Economy* 103:1121–1157.

Bach, L., L.E. Calvet, and P. Sodini. 2020. “Rich pickings? Risk, return, and skill in household wealth.” *The American Economic Review* 110:2703–47.

Barro, R.J., and G.M. MacDonald. 1979. “Social security and consumer spending in an international cross section.” *Journal of Public Economics* 11:275–289.

Blanchet, D., S. Le Minez, and A. Marino. 2017. “Building and Interpreting Macro/Micro Estimates of Accrued-to-Date Pension Liabilities: French Reforms as a Case Study.” *Review of Income and Wealth* 63:70–94.

Blanchet, T., Y. Dubois, A. Marino, and M. Roger. 2016. “Patrimoine privé et retraite en France.” *Série des documents de travail de la Direction des Etudes et Synthèses Économiques* G2016/10.

Blanchet, T., J. Fournier, and T. Piketty. 2021. “Generalized Pareto curves: theory and applications.” *Review of Income and Wealth*, pp. 1–26.

Blundell, R., M. Browning, and C. Meghir. 1994. “Consumer demand and the life-cycle allocation of household expenditures.” *The Review of Economic Studies* 61:57–80.

Blundell, R., A. Duncan, and C. Meghir. 1998. “Estimating labor supply responses using tax reforms.” *Econometrica*, pp. 827–861.

Burbidge, J.B., L. Magee, and A.L. Robb. 1988. “Alternative transformations to handle extreme values of the dependent variable.” *Journal of the American Statistical Association* 83:123–127.

Cagetti, M. 2003. “Wealth accumulation over the life cycle and precautionary savings.” *Journal of Business & Economic Statistics* 21:339–353.

Calvet, L.E., J.Y. Campbell, F. Gomes, and P. Sodini. 2021. “The cross-section of household preferences.” Working paper, NBER 28788.
Carroll, C.D., R.E. Hall, and S.P. Zeldes. 1992. "The buffer-stock theory of sav-
ing: Some macroeconomic evidence." *Brookings Papers on Economic Activity*
1992:61–156.

Chetty, R. 2006. “A new method of estimating risk aversion.” *The American Economic Review* 96:1821–1834.

Deaton, A. 1991. "Saving and liquidity constraints." *Econometrica* 59:1221-1248.

Diamond, P.A. 1965. "National debt in a neoclassical growth model." *The American Economic Review* 55:1126-1150.

Division-Redistribution-Politiques-Sociales. 1999. "Le modèle de microsimulation dynamique DESTINIE." *Série des documents de travail de la Direction des Études et Synthèses Économiques* G1999/13.

Dowle, M., A. Srinivasan, J. Gorecki, M. Chirico, P. Stetsenko, T. Short, S. Lianoglou, E. Antonyan, M. Bonsch, H. Parsonage, et al. 2019. “Package data.table.”

Drouhin, N. 2015. “A rank-dependent utility model of uncertain lifetime.” *Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control* 53:208–224.

Dynan, K.E. 1993. "How prudent are consumers?" *The Journal of Political Economy* 101:1104-1113.

Eddelbuettel, D., R. François, J. Allaire, K. Ushey, Q. Kou, N. Russel, J. Chambers, and D. Bates. 2011. “Rcpp: Seamless R and C++ integration.” *Journal of Statistical Software* 40:1–18.

Eeckhoudt, L., and H. Schlesinger. 2006. “Putting risk in its proper place.” *The American Economic Review* 96:280–289.

Einav, L., A. Finkelstein, and N. Mahoney. 2018. “Provider Incentives and Health-
care Costs: Evidence From Long-Term Care Hospitals.” *Econometrica* 86:2161–
2219.

Fagereng, A., M.B. Holm, B. Moll, and G. Natvik. 2019. “Saving behavior across the wealth distribution: The importance of capital gains.” Working paper, National Bureau of Economic Research.

Feldstein, M. 1974. "Social security, induced retirement, and aggregate capital accumulation." *The Journal of Political Economy* 82:905-926.
Ferrante, A., and R. Solotareff. 2018. "Entre 1998 et 2015, le patrimoine double, mais diminue pour les 20% les moins dotés." In *Vue d'ensemble - Les revenus et le patrimoine des ménages*. Insee Références, pp. 27-46.

Frémeaux, N., and M. Leturcq. 2019. "Individualisation du patrimoine au sein des couples: quels enjeux pour la fiscalité?" *Revue de l'OFCE*, pp. 1-31.

—. 2013. "Plus ou moins mariés: l'évolution du mariage et des régimes matrimoniaux en France." *Économie et Statistique* 462:125-151.

—. 2018. "Prenuptial agreements and matrimonial property regimes in France, 1855-2010." *Explorations in Economic History* 68:132-142.

Friedman, M. 1957. "A theory of the consumption function." In *A theory of the consumption function*. Princeton University Press.

Gan, L., G. Gong, M. Hurd, and D. McFadden. 2015. "Subjective mortality risk and bequests." *Journal of Econometrics* 188:514-525.

Gourinchas, P.O., and J.A. Parker. 2002. "Consumption over the life cycle." *Econometrica* 70:47-89.

Gouriéroux, C., and A. Monfort. 1993. "Simulation-based inference: A survey with special reference to panel data models." *Journal of Econometrics* 59:5-33.

Gouriéroux, C., A. Monfort, and E. Renault. 1993. "Indirect inference." *Journal of Applied Econometrics* 8:S85-S118.

Hall, R.E. 1978. "Stochastic implications of the life cycle-permanent income hypothesis: theory and evidence." *The Journal of Political Economy* 86:971-987.

Hansen, L.P. 1982. "Large sample properties of generalized method of moments estimators." *Econometrica*, pp. 1029-1054.

Hurd, M.D. 1989. "Mortality risk and bequests." *Econometrica*, pp. 779-813.

Insee. 2018. "Niveau de vie et pauvreté." In *Fiche 1.16 - Les revenus et le patrimoine des ménages*. Insee Références, p. 138.

Kimball, M.S., et al. 1990. "Precautionary Saving in the Small and in the Large." *Econometrica* 58:53-73.

Laibson, D.I., A. Repetto, J. Tobacman, R.E. Hall, W.G. Gale, and G.A. Akerlof. 1998. "Self-control and saving for retirement." *Brookings papers on economic activity* 1998:91-196.
Low, H. 2005. "Self-insurance in a life-cycle model of labour supply and savings." *Review of Economics Dynamics* 8:945-975.

Lusardi, A., P.C. Michaud, and O.S. Mitchell. 2017. "Optimal financial knowledge and wealth inequality." *The Journal of Political Economy* 125:431-477.

Mahieu, R., and D. Blanchet. 2004. "Estimating Models of Retirement Behavior on French Data." In *NBER Social Security Programs and Retirement around the World: Micro-Estimation*. University of Chicago Press, pp. 235-284.

McFadden, D. 1989. "A method of simulated moments for estimation of discrete response models without numerical integration." *Econometrica*, pp. 995-1026.

Modigliani, F., and R. Brumberg. 1954. "Utility Analysis and the Consumption Function: an Interpretation of Cross-Section data." In K. Kurihara, ed. *Post-Keynesian Economics*. Rutgers University Press, pp. 388-436.

Morciano, M., C. Mazzaferro, S. Tedeschi, and E. Pisano. 2013. "Modelling private wealth accumulation and spend-down in the Italian microsimulation model CAPP_DYN: A life-cycle approach." *International Journal of Microsimulation* 6:76-122.

Morin, T. 2014. "Écarts de revenus au sein des couples." *Insee Première*, pp. 1-4.

Nelder, J.A., and R. Mead. 1965. "A simplex method for function minimization." *The Computer Journal* 7:308-313.

Pakes, A. 1986. "Patents as Options: Some Estimates of the Value of Holding European Patent Stocks." *Econometrica*, pp. 755-784.

Pakes, A., and D. Pollard. 1989. "Simulation and the asymptotics of optimization estimators." *Econometrica*, pp. 1027-1057.

Pemberton, J. 1997. "The empirical failure of the life cycle model with perfect capital markets." *Oxford Economic Papers* 49:129-151.

Piketty, T., and E. Saez. 2013. "A theory of optimal inheritance taxation." *Econometrica* 81:1851-1886.

Piketty, T., and G. Zucman. 2015. "Wealth and inheritance in the long run." In *Handbook of Income Distribution*. Elsevier, vol. 2, pp. 1303-1368.

Ramsey, F.P. 1928. "A mathematical theory of saving." *The Economic Journal* 38:543-559.
Samuelson, P.A. 1958. "An exact consumption-loan model of interest with or without the social contrivance of money." *The Journal of Political Economy* 66:467-482.

Stock, J.H., and D.A. Wise. 1990. "Pensions, The Option Value of Work and Retirement." *Econometrica* 58:1151-1180.

Yaari, M.E. 1965. "Uncertain lifetime, life insurance, and the theory of the consumer." *The Review of Economic Studies* 32:137-150.
Figures

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1: Fitting the empirical distribution of bequests</figcaption></figure>

Source. Enquête Patrimoine 2014-2015.
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2: Quality of the fit - first set of moments (median wealth in 2015, by age)</figcaption></figure>

Sources: Enquête Patrimoine 2014-2015 (observed); microsimulation model Destinie 2 associated with the structural model (simulated).

*Lecture*. In 2015, the simulated median wealth of individuals aged between 40 and 45 is about 12.2 in IHS scale (around 99,000 €); the observed median wealth is equal to 12.3 in that same scale (about 110,000 €). Sample weights for each moment in the estimation procedure are in red.
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3: Quality of the fit - second set of moments (median growth rate of wealth between 2015 and 2018, by age)</figcaption></figure>

Sources: *Enquêtes Patrimoine* 2014-2015 and 2017-2018 (observed); microsimulation model *Destinie 2* associated with the structural model (simulated).

*Lecture*. Between 2015 and 2018, the observed median wealth growth rate between 2015 and 2018 was 14.4% for people aged 40 to 45; the corresponding simulated rate is 12.8%. Sample weights for each moment in the estimation procedure are in red.
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4: Fitting the empirical distribution of wealth in 2018</figcaption></figure>

Sources: Enquête Patrimoine 2017-2018 (observed); microsimulation model Destinie 2 associated with the structural model (simulated).

Lecture. In 2018, the simulated median wealth is equal to 12.22 on a IHS scale (around 100,000 €) while the observed median wealth is equal to 12.05 (around 86,000 €).

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5: Consumption pattern over the life-cycle: the role of the mortality risk</figcaption></figure>

Calibration: $\beta = 0.99, \gamma = 1, r = .03$
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Figure 6: Life-cycle patterns of wealth (simulations from 2009 to 2040)</figcaption></figure>

*Sources: Enquête Patrimoine 2014-2015 (observed); microsimulation model Destinie 2 associated with the structural model (simulated).*

*Lecture.* Life-cycle profile of wealth observed (dash) in *Enquête Patrimoine* 2014-2015. Simulations from 2009 (red) to 2040 (green) using the microsimulation model *Destinie 2* associated with the structural model. By construction, observed and simulated curves coincide in 2009 (brightest red).
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Figure 7: Capital income share over the life-cycle (simulations from 2009 to 2040)</figcaption></figure>

Sources: *Enquête Patrimoine* 2014-2015 (observed); microsimulation model *Destinie 2* associated with the structural model (simulated).

*Lecture*. Life-cycle profile of the share of capital income in total income: observed (dash) in *Enquête Patrimoine* 2014-2015; simulated from 2009 (red) to 2040 (green) using the microsimulation model *Destinie 2* associated with the structural model.
<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>Figure 8: Simulated long-run wealth inequality</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>Figure 9: Relative standard of living of retired individuals</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>Figure 10: Relative standard of living of retired individuals: Illustrating the role of the mortality risk</figcaption></figure>
# Tables

<table><caption>Table 1: Model of bequests (2-step estimation)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th colspan="2" style="text-align: center;">Dependent variable:</th></tr><tr><th></th><th style="text-align: center;">Prob. bequest (0/1)<br>(SELECTION)</th><th style="text-align: center;">Log(bequest)<br>(OUTCOME)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Constant</td><td style="text-align: center;">1.293***<br>(0.298)</td><td style="text-align: center;">8.021***<br>(0.351)</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td></td><td style="text-align: center;">0.070*<br>(0.043)</td></tr><tr><td>Log(income)</td><td></td><td style="text-align: center;">0.084***<br>(0.023)</td></tr><tr><td>log(&sigma;)</td><td></td><td style="text-align: center;">0.557***<br>(0.010)</td></tr><tr><td>Age dummies</td><td style="text-align: center;">Yes</td><td style="text-align: center;">Yes</td></tr><tr><td>School-leaving age dummies</td><td style="text-align: center;">Yes</td><td style="text-align: center;">Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td style="text-align: center;">10,344</td><td style="text-align: center;">8,012</td></tr><tr><td>Log likelihood (by obs.)</td><td style="text-align: center;">-0.478</td><td style="text-align: center;">-2.141</td></tr><tr><td>Bayesian information criterion</td><td style="text-align: center;">10,084</td><td style="text-align: center;">34,520</td></tr><tr><td>Model</td><td style="text-align: center;">Probit</td><td style="text-align: center;">Interval regression</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note:

*p<0.1; **p<0.05; ***p<0.01

Sample of individuals whom both parents are deceased.

The probability of receiving a bequest once both parents have died is estimated by a Probit model from *Enquête Patrimoine 2014-2015*. The intensity of bequest is estimated from an ordered Probit with known thresholds (a.k.a interval regression) using declared positive received bequests in the same survey.

<table><caption>Table 2: Simulated distribution of inherited wealth</caption><thead><tr><th>Q1</th><th>Median</th><th>Mean</th><th>Q3</th><th>P90</th><th># of obs.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>7,430</td><td>26,987</td><td>180,122</td><td>93,731</td><td>330,497</td><td>19,615</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 3: Estimation procedure: external validation</caption><thead><tr><th>Use</th><th>Information</th><th>Wealth survey year</th><th>Sample</th><th>Restriction to sample</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Fit K<sub>2009</sub></td><td>Individual matching with microsimulation model</td><td>2009</td><td>All</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Moment s<sub>1</sub></td><td>Median wealth held by 5-years cohort (arcsinh scaled)</td><td>2015</td><td>All</td><td>People aged from 20 to 85 in 2015 (13 moments)</td></tr><tr><td>Moment s<sub>2</sub></td><td>Median growth rate between 2015 and 2018 K<sub>i,2018</sub>/K<sub>i,2015</sub> (5 years cohorts)</td><td>2015; 2018</td><td>Panelized</td><td>People aged from 30 to 70 in 2015 with non-negative wealth (8 moments)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. Moments are weighted by the corresponding sample size in wealth surveys *Enquête Patrimoine* 2009-2010, 2014-2015 and 2017-2018.

<table><caption>Table 4: Monte-Carlo experiments</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="3">Scenario:</th><th colspan="3">Variation on β</th><th colspan="2">Variation on γ</th></tr><tr><th>(1)</th><th>(2)</th><th>(3)</th><th>(1)</th><th>(3)</th></tr><tr><th>β<sup>(0)</sup> = 0.75</th><th>β<sup>(0)</sup> = 1.2</th><th>β<sup>(0)</sup> = 0.75</th><th>γ<sup>(0)</sup> = 1.2</th><th>γ<sup>(0)</sup> = 3</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="6"><strong>All moments:</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Main specification</td><td>0.980</td><td>0.980</td><td>0.960</td><td>2.000</td><td>0.500</td></tr><tr><td>Restrict to population aged from 40 to 60</td><td>0.980</td><td>0.980</td><td>0.960</td><td>2.000</td><td>0.500</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6"><strong>First set of moments only:</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Main specification</td><td>0.980</td><td>0.980</td><td>0.960</td><td>2.000</td><td>0.500</td></tr><tr><td>Restrict to population aged from 40 to 60</td><td>0.980</td><td>0.980</td><td>0.960</td><td>2.000</td><td>0.500</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6"><strong>Second set of moments only:</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Main specification</td><td>0.980</td><td>0.980</td><td>0.960</td><td>2.000</td><td>0.500</td></tr><tr><td>Restrict to population aged from 40 to 60</td><td>0.980</td><td>0.980</td><td>0.960</td><td>2.104</td><td>0.469</td></tr></tbody></table>

Scenario: No mortality risk ($\pi_t = 1, \forall t$)

(1): ($r = 3\%, \beta = 0.98, \gamma = 2$)

(2): ($r = 8\%, \beta = 0.96, \gamma = 2$)

(3): ($r = 3\%, \beta = 0.98, \gamma = 0.5$)
<table><caption>Table 5: Estimated parameters for different values of the inverse of the IES $\gamma$</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>γ=0.8</th><th>γ = 1</th><th>γ = 1.2</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Discount factor β (model with mortality risk)</td><td>1.000<sup>***</sup><br>(2e-05)</td><td>1.006<sup>***</sup><br>(7e-05)</td><td>1.011<sup>***</sup><br>(2e-04)</td></tr><tr><td>Discount factor β (model without mortality risk)</td><td>0.989<sup>***</sup><br>(4e-04)</td><td>0.994<sup>***</sup><br>(4e-04)</td><td>0.998<sup>***</sup><br>(0.001)</td></tr><tr><td>Number of moments</td><td colspan="3">21</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note.

*p<0.1; **p<0.05; ***p<0.01

Model estimated by minimum distance between sample moments from Table 3 and simulated moments computed in the microsimulation model.

<table><caption>Table 6: Top income and wealth simulated shares (in %)</caption><thead><tr><th>GROUP</th><th>LABOR INCOME</th><th>TOTAL INCOME</th><th>NET WEALTH</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4">WEALTH SURVEY</td></tr><tr><td>Top 10 %</td><td>32</td><td>39.5</td><td>66.5</td></tr><tr><td>Top 1 %</td><td>9.3</td><td>12.6</td><td>22.7</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">SIMULATED DATA (MORTALITY RISK)</td></tr><tr><td>Top 10 %</td><td>26.7</td><td>29</td><td>48.8</td></tr><tr><td>Top 1 %</td><td>6.1</td><td>8.5</td><td>21.3</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">SIMULATED DATA (NO MORTALITY RISK)</td></tr><tr><td>Top 10 %</td><td>26.7</td><td>28.3</td><td>47.3</td></tr><tr><td>Top 1 %</td><td>6.1</td><td>7.7</td><td>18.6</td></tr></tbody></table>

In this table, total income represents labor income (labor earnings, unemployment benefits and retirement pensions) plus financial income assuming a 3% return on observed or simulated wealth. Negative wealth is bottom-coded to zero in this Table.

Wealth survey data comes from *Enquête Patrimoine 2014-2015*. Household financial wealth is individualized based on the number of spouses within the household.

Simulated data come from *Destinie* microsimulated data. Household labor income is individualized between spouses. Wealth corresponds to individual simulated wealth in 2015 based on the model developed in Section 3 and structural parameters derived from its estimation.
# Appendix

## Inheritance in France: legal rules

Donation rights depend on the nature of the family ties between the deceased and the successor. The descendants of the deceased have an inalienable right to the deceased's wealth. Regardless of the will of the deceased, the children or their successors inherit 3/4 of the deceased's wealth. A spouse either chooses to inherit 1/4 of the deceased's wealth or retains the usufruct of all the deceased's wealth. For the sake of simplicity, we consider only the first situation in our inheritance model.

Two steps are required to determine the amount of the inheritance tax:

1. Subtract a deduction from the bequest to get the taxable amount

2. Apply a progressive tax schedule to get the inherited amount

Deduction and tax rates are applied to each individuals. Tax rates differ depending on whether the heir is in direct line or not. For now, we consider only legal rates for children (see Table 7).

As explained in Section 4, since the model is estimated on children's inherited wealth, we need to invert the taxation scheme above in order to recover the amount that has been bequeathed by the deceased.

<table><caption>Table 7: Inheritance taxation rules</caption><thead><tr><td>Taxable share after deduction</td><td>Marginal tax rate</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Less than 8 072 €</td><td>5 %</td></tr><tr><td>Between 8 072 and 12 109 €</td><td>10 %</td></tr><tr><td>Between 12 109 and 15 932 €</td><td>15 %</td></tr><tr><td>Between 15 932 and 552 324 €</td><td>20 %</td></tr><tr><td>Between 552 324 and 902 838 €</td><td>30 %</td></tr><tr><td>Between 902 838 and 1 805 677 €</td><td>40 %</td></tr><tr><td>More than 1 805 677 €</td><td>45 %</td></tr></tbody></table>

France applies an automatic deduction (abattement) to inheritance taxation. Hence, to derive taxable inheritance amount, 159 325 € are automatically deduced from the amount given.
## Liste des documents de travail de la Direction des Études et Synthèses Économiques

<table><tr><td>G 9001</td><td>J. FAYOLLE et M. FLEURBAEY<br>Accumulation, profitabilité et endettement des entreprises</td><td>G 9202</td><td>J. OLIVEIRA-MARTINS, J. TOUJAS-BERNATE<br>Macro-economic import functions with imperfect competition - An application to the E.C. Trade</td></tr><tr><td>G 9002</td><td>H. ROUSSE<br>Détection et effets de la multiclinéarité dans les modèles linéaires ordinaires - Un prolongement de la réflexion de BELSLEY, KUH et WELSCH</td><td>G 9203</td><td>I. STAPIC<br>Les échanges internationaux de services de la France dans le cadre des negotiations multilatérales du GATT<br>Jun 1992 (1ère version)<br>Novembre 1992 (version finale)</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 9204</td><td>P. SEVESTRE<br>L'économie sur données individuelles-temporelles. Une note introductive</td></tr><tr><td>G 9004</td><td>D. GUELLEC et P. RALLE<br>Compétitivité, croissance et innovation de produit</td><td>G 9205</td><td>H. ERKEL-ROUSSE<br>Le commerce extérieur et l'environnement international dans le modèle AMADEUS (réestimation 1992)</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 9206</td><td>N. GREENAN et D. GUELLEC<br>Coordination within the firm and endogenous growth</td></tr><tr><td>G 9101</td><td>Équipe AMADEUS<br>Le modèle AMADEUS - Première partie - Présentation générale</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></tr><tr><td>G 9102</td><td>J.L. BRILLET<br>Le modèle AMADEUS - Deuxième partie - Propriétés variabilaires</td><td>G 9208</td><td>B. CREPON, E. DUGUET, D. ENCAOUA et P. MOHON<br>Cooperative, non cooperative R & D and optimal patent life</td></tr><tr><td>G 9103</td><td>D. GUELLEC et P. RALLE<br>Endogenous growth and product innovation</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></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 littérature commerciale</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>Cherces de chômage et comportements d'offre de travail : une revue de la littérature</td></tr><tr><td>G 9106</td><td>B. CREPON<br>Innovation, taille et concentration : causnels et dynamiques</td><td>G 9303</td><td>H. ERKEL-ROUSSE<br>Union économique et monétaire : le débat économique et monétaire : le débat</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></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 travail de Maastricht : présentation juridique et historique</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></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></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></tr><tr><td>G 9112</td><td>B. CREPON et G. DUREAU<br>Investissement en recherche-développement : analyse de causnels dans un modèle d'accélérateur généralisé</td><td>G 9309</td><td>L. BLOCH - B. CŒURÉ<br>Profitabilité de l'investissement productif et transmission des chocs financiers</td></tr><tr><td>G 9113</td><td>J.L. BRILLET, H. ERKEL-ROUSSE, J. TOUJAS-BERNATE<br>"France-Allemagne Coupées" - Deux économies vues par une maquette macro-économétrique</td><td>G 9310</td><td>J. BOURDIEU - B. COLIN-SEDILLOT<br>Les théories sur la structure optimale du capital : quelques points de repère</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></td><td></td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>G 9202</td><td>J. OLIVEIRA-MARTINS, J. TOUJAS-BERNATE<br>Macro-economic import functions with imperfect competition - An application to the E.C. Trade</td></tr><tr><td>G 9203</td><td>I. STAPIC<br>Les échanges internationaux de services de la France dans le cadre des negotiations multilatérales du GATT<br>Jun 1992 (1ère version)<br>Novembre 1992 (version finale)</td></tr><tr><td>G 9204</td><td>P. SEVESTRE<br>L'économie sur données individuelles-temporelles. Une note introductive</td></tr><tr><td>G 9205</td><td>H. ERKEL-ROUSSE<br>Le commerce extérieur et l'environnement international dans le modèle AMADEUS (réestimation 1992)</td></tr><tr><td>G 9206</td><td>N. GREENAN et D. GUELLEC<br>Coordination within the firm and endogenous growth</td></tr><tr><td>G 9207</td><td>A. MAGNIER et J. TOUJAS-BERNATE<br>Technology and trade; empirical evidences for the major five industrialized countries</td></tr><tr><td>G 9208</td><td>B. CREPON, E. DUGUET, D. ENCAOUA et P. MOHON<br>Cooperative, non cooperative R & D and optimal patent life</td></tr><tr><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></tr><tr><td>G 9301</td><td>J. TOUJAS-BERNATE<br>Commerce international et concurrence impartie - développements récents et implications pour la littérature commerciale</td></tr><tr><td>G 9302</td><td>Ch. CASES<br>Cherces de chômage et comportements d'offre de travail : une revue de la littérature</td></tr><tr><td>G 9303</td><td>H. ERKEL-ROUSSE<br>Union économique et monétaire : le débat économique et monétaire : le débat</td></tr><tr><td>G 9304</td><td>N. GREENAN - D. GUELLEC / G. BROUSSAUDIER - L. MIOTTI<br>Innovation organisationnelle, dynamisme technologique et performances des entreprises</td></tr><tr><td>G 9305</td><td>P. JAILLARD<br>Le travail de Maastricht : présentation juridique et historique</td></tr><tr><td>G 9306</td><td>J.L. BRILLET<br>Micro-DMS - présentation et propriétés</td></tr><tr><td>G 9307</td><td>J.L. BRILLET<br>Micro-DMS - variantes : les tableaux</td></tr><tr><td>G 9308</td><td>S. JACOBZONE<br>Les grands réseaux publics français dans une perspective européenne</td></tr><tr><td>G 9309</td><td>L. BLOCH - B. CŒURÉ<br>Profitabilité de l'investissement productif et transmission des chocs financiers</td></tr><tr><td>G 9310</td><td>J. BOURDIEU - B. COLIN-SEDILLOT<br>Les théories sur la structure optimale du capital : quelques points de repère</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><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></tr><tr><td>G 9312</td><td>L. BLOCH - B. CŒURÉ<br>Q de Tobin marginal et transmission des chocs financiers</td></tr><tr><td>G 9313</td><td>Équipes Amadeus (INSEE), Banque de France, Métric (DP)<br>Presentation des propriétés des principaux modèles macroéconomiques du Service Public</td></tr><tr><td>G 9314</td><td>B. CREPON - E. DUGUET<br>Research & Development, competition and innovation</td></tr><tr><td>G 9315</td><td>B. DORMONT<br>Quelle est l'influence du coût du travail sur l'emploi ?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9316</td><td>D. BLANCHET - C. BROUSSE<br>Deux études sur l'âge de la retraite</td></tr><tr><td>G 9317</td><td>D. BLANCHET<br>Répartition du travail dans une population héritière: deux notes</td></tr><tr><td>G 9318</td><td>D. EYSSARTIER - N. PONTY<br>AMADEUS - an annual macro-economic model for the medium and long term</td></tr><tr><td>G 9319</td><td>G. CETTE - Ph. CUNÉO - D. EYSSARTIER - J. GAUTIE<br>Les effets sur l'emploi d'un abaissement du coût du travail des jeunes</td></tr><tr><td>G 9401</td><td>D. BLANCHET<br>Les structures par âge importantes ?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9402</td><td>J. GAUTIE<br>Le chômage des jeunes en France: problème de formation ou phénomène de file d'attente ?<br>Quelques éléments du débat</td></tr><tr><td>G 9403</td><td>P. QUIRION<br>Les déchets en France: éléments statistiques et économiques</td></tr><tr><td>G 9404</td><td>D. LADIRAY - M. GRUN-REHOMME<br>Lissage par moyennes mobiles - Le problème des extrêmes de série</td></tr><tr><td>G 9405</td><td>V. MAILLARD<br>Theorie et pratique de la correction des effets de jours ouvrables</td></tr><tr><td>G 9406</td><td>F. ROSENWALD<br>La décision d'investir</td></tr><tr><td>G 9407</td><td>S. JACOBZONE<br>Les apports de l'économie industrielle pour définir la stratégie économique du l'ôpital public</td></tr><tr><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></tr><tr><td>G 9409</td><td>D. EYSSARTIER, P. MAIRE<br>Impacts macro-économiques de mesures d'ade au logement - quelques éléments d'évaluation</td></tr><tr><td>G 9410</td><td>F. ROSENWALD<br>Suivi conjoncturel de l'investissement</td></tr><tr><td>G 9411</td><td>C. DEFEUILLE - Ph. QUIRION<br>Les déchets d'emballages ménagers: une analyse économique des politiques française et allemande</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>G 9412</td><td>J. BOURDIEU - B. CŒURÉ - B. COLIN-SEDILLOT<br>Investissement, incertitude et risque-variabilité<br>Quelques développements récents de la théorie de l'investissement</td></tr><tr><td>G 9413</td><td>B. DORMONT - M. PAUCHET<br>L'évaluation de l'élaborétoient emploi-salaire dépend-elle des structures de qualification ?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9414</td><td>I. KABLA<br>Le Chôx de breveter une invention</td></tr><tr><td>G 9501</td><td>J. BOURDIEU - B. CŒURÉ - B. SEDILLOT<br>Irreversible Investment and Uncertainty:<br>When is there a Value of Waiting?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9502</td><td>L. BLOCH - B. CŒURÉ<br>Impairfections du marché du crédit, investissement des entreprises et cycle économique</td></tr><tr><td>G 9503</td><td>D. GOUX - E. MAURIN<br>The transformations de la demande de travail par qualification en France<br>Une étude sur la période 1970-1993</td></tr><tr><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 9505</td><td>D. GOUX - E. MAURIN<br>Persistance des hiérarchies sectorielles de salaires: un réexamen sur données françaises</td></tr><tr><td>G 9506</td><td>D. GOUX - E. MAURIN<br>Persistance of inter-industry wages differentials: a reexamination on matched worker-firm panel data</td></tr><tr><td>G 9507</td><td>S. JACOBZONE<br>Les liens entre RMI et chômage, une mise en perspective<br>NON PARU - article sorti dans Économie et Présision n° 122 (1996) - pages 95 à 113</td></tr><tr><td>G 9508</td><td>G. CETTE - S. MAHFOUZ<br>G. CETTE - S. MAHFOUZ<br>La pâtage primaire du revenu<br>Constat descriptif sur longue période</td></tr><tr><td>G 9601</td><td>Banque de France - CEPREMAP - Direction de la Présision - Érasme - INSEE - OFE<br>Structures et propriétés de cinq modèles macro-économiques français</td></tr><tr><td>G 9602</td><td>Rapport d'activité de la DESE de l'année 1995</td></tr><tr><td>G 9603</td><td>J. BOURDIEU - A. DRAZNIKIE<br>L'octroi de crédit aux PME: une analyse à partir d'informations bancaires</td></tr><tr><td>G 9604</td><td>A. TOPIL - BENSÀID<br>The implantations japonaises en France</td></tr><tr><td>G 9605</td><td>P. GENIER - S. JACOBZONE<br>Comportements de prévention, consommation d'alcool et tabagie: peu-on parier d'une gestion globale du capital santé ?<br>Une modélisation microéconométrique empirique</td></tr><tr><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></table>
<table>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9607</td>
    <td>N. GREENAN - D. GUELLEC</td>
    <td>La théorie coopérative de la firme</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9608</td>
    <td>N. GREENAN - D. GUELLEC</td>
    <td>Technological innovation and employment reallocation</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9609</td>
    <td>Ph. COUR - F. RUPPRECHT</td>
    <td>Ph. COUR - F. RUPPRECHT</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9610</td>
    <td>S. DUCHENE - G. FORGEOT - A. JACQUOT</td>
    <td>Ph. COUR - F. RUPPRECHT</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9611</td>
    <td>X. BONNET - S. MAHFOUZ</td>
    <td>Analyse des évolutions récentes de la productivité apparente du travail</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9612</td>
    <td>PH. COUR - E. DUBOIS, S. MAHFOUZ, J. PISANI-FERRY</td>
    <td>The cost of fiscal retrenchment revisited: how strong is the evidence?</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9613</td>
    <td>A. JACQUOT</td>
    <td>A. JACQUOT</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9614</td>
    <td>ZHANG Yingxiang - SONG Xueqing</td>
    <td>Les flexions des taux d'activité sont-elles seulement conjoncturelles?</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9705</td>
    <td>M. HOUEDBINE - A. TOPIOL-BENSAID</td>
    <td>Train or Pay: Does it Reduce Inequalities to Encourage Firms to Train their Workers?</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9706</td>
    <td>M. HOUEDBINE - A. TOPIOL-BENSAID</td>
    <td>An Econometric Analysis at the Firm Level</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9707</td>
    <td>M. HOUEDBINE</td>
    <td>Les entreprises internationales en France : une analyse à partir de données individuelles</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9708</td>
    <td>E. DUGUET - N. GREENAN</td>
    <td>Polarisation des activités et spécialisation des départements en France</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9709</td>
    <td>J.L. BRILLET</td>
    <td>Analyzing a small French ECM Model</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9710</td>
    <td>J.L. BRILLET</td>
    <td>Formalizing the transition process: scenarios for capital accumulation</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9711</td>
    <td>G. FORGEOT - J. GAUTIÉ</td>
    <td>Insertion professionnelle des jeunes et processus de déclassement</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9712</td>
    <td>E. DUBOIS</td>
    <td>High Real Interest Rates: The Consequences of a Saving Investment Disequilibrium or of an insufficient Credibility of Monetary Authorities?</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<table>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9713</td>
    <td>Bilan des activités de la Direction des Études et Synthèses Économiques - 1996</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9714</td>
    <td>F. LEQUILLER</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9715</td>
    <td>Does the French Consumer Price Index Over-state Inflation?</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9716</td>
    <td>X. BONNET</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9717</td>
    <td>Peut-on mettre en évidence les rigidités à la baisse des salaires nominaires ?</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9718</td>
    <td>Une étude sur quelques grands pays de l'OCDE</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9719</td>
    <td>N. IUNG - F. RUPPRECHT</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9720</td>
    <td>Productivité de la recherche et rendements d'échelle dans le secteur pharmaceutique français</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9721</td>
    <td>E. DUGUET - I. KABLA</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9722</td>
    <td>Appropriation strategy and the motivations to use the patent system in France - An econometric analysis at the firm level</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9723</td>
    <td>P. PELÉ - P. RALLE</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9724</td>
    <td>ZHANG Yingxiang - SONG Xueqing</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9725</td>
    <td>Lexique macroéconomique français-chinois, chinois-français</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9726</td>
    <td>M. HOUEDBINE - J.L. SCHNEIDER</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9727</td>
    <td>Measurer l'influence de la fiscalité sur la localisation des entreprises</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9728</td>
    <td>A. MOUROUGANE</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9729</td>
    <td>Credibilité, indépendance et politique monétaire</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9730</td>
    <td>Une revue de la littérature</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9731</td>
    <td>P. AUGERAUD - L. BRIOT</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9732</td>
    <td>Les données comptables d'entreprises</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9733</td>
    <td>Le système intermédiaire d'entreprises</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9734</td>
    <td>Passage des données individuelles aux données sectorielles</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9735</td>
    <td>P. AUGERAUD - J.E. CHAPRON</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9736</td>
    <td>Using Business Accounts for Compiling National Accounts: the French Experience</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9737</td>
    <td>P. AUGERAUD</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9738</td>
    <td>Les comptes d'entreprise par activités - Le passage aux comptes - De la comptabilité d'entreprise à la comptabilité nationale - A paraître</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9739</td>
    <td>H. MICHAUDON - C. PRIGENT</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9740</td>
    <td>P. ACCARDO</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9741</td>
    <td>Une étude de comptabilité générale pour la France en 1996</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9742</td>
    <td>X. BONNET - S. DUCHÈNE</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9743</td>
    <td>Apports et limites de la modélisation « Real Business Cycles »</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9744</td>
    <td>C. BARLET - C. DUGUET - D. ENCAOUA - J. PRADEL</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9745</td>
    <td>The Commercial Success of Innovations</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9746</td>
    <td>An econometric analysis at the firm level in French manufacturing</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9747</td>
    <td>P. CAHUC - Ch. GIANELLA - D. GOUX - A. ZILBERBERG</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9748</td>
    <td>Equalizing Wage Differences and Bargaining Power - Evidence form a Panel of French Firms</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<table>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9806</td>
    <td>J. ACCARDO - M. JLASSI</td>
    <td>La productivité globale des facteurs entre 1975 et 1996</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9807</td>
    <td>Bilan des activités de la Direction des Études et Synthèses Économiques - 1997</td>
    <td>Bilan des activités de la Direction des Études et Synthèses Économiques - 1997</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9808</td>
    <td>A. MOUROUGANE</td>
    <td>Can a Conservative Governor Conduct an Commodity Monetary Policy?</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9809</td>
    <td>X. BONNET - E. DUBOIS - L. FALVET</td>
    <td>X. BONNET - E. DUBOIS - L. FALVET</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9810</td>
    <td>E. DUGUET - N. IUNG</td>
    <td>Asymétrie des inflations relatives et menus costs - tests sur l'inflation française</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9811</td>
    <td>Sales and Advertising with Spillovers at the firm level: Estimation of a Dynamic Structural Model on Panel Data</td>
    <td>E. DUGUET - N. IUNG</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9812</td>
    <td>J.P. BERTHIER</td>
    <td>Congestion urbaine : un modèle de trafic de pointe à courbe débit-vitesse et demande élastique</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9813</td>
    <td>C. PRIGENT</td>
    <td>La part des salaires dans la valeur ajoutée : une approche macroéconomique</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9814</td>
    <td>A.Th. AERTS</td>
    <td>L'évolution de la part des salaires dans la valeur ajoutée en France refiletée-telle les evolutions individuelles sur la période 1979-1994 ?</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9815</td>
    <td>B. SALANIE</td>
    <td>Guide pratique des séries non-stationnaires</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9816</td>
    <td>S. DUCHÈNE - A. JACQUOT</td>
    <td>S. DUCHÈNE - A. JACQUOT</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9817</td>
    <td>B. CRÉPON - R. DESPLATZ - J. MAIRESSÉ</td>
    <td>Une croissance plus riche en emplois depuis le début de la dédenne ? Une analyse en comparaison internationale</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9818</td>
    <td>Ch. COLIN</td>
    <td>Ch. COLIN</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9819</td>
    <td>S. DUCHÈNE - A. JACQUOT</td>
    <td>Modélisation des carrières dans Destinie</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9820</td>
    <td>G. CRÉPON - R. MAHIEU</td>
    <td>Ch. COLIN</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9821</td>
    <td>Ch. COLIN</td>
    <td>Évolution de la dispersion des salaires : un essai de prospective par microsimulation</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9822</td>
    <td>B. CRÉPON - N. IUNG</td>
    <td>B. CRÉPON - N. IUNG</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9823</td>
    <td>Innovation, emploi et performances</td>
    <td>Innovation, emploi et performances</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9824</td>
    <td>B. CRÉPON - Ch. GIANELLA</td>
    <td>B. CRÉPON - Ch. GIANELLA</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9825</td>
    <td>Wages inequalities in France 1969-1992</td>
    <td>An application of quantile regression techniques</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9826</td>
    <td>C. CRÉPON - R. MAHIEU</td>
    <td>C. CRÉPON - R. MAHIEU</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9827</td>
    <td>Microsimulation techniques applied to inter-generational transfers - Pensions in a dynamic framework: the case of France</td>
    <td>Microsimulation techniques applied to inter-generational transfers - Pensions in a dynamic framework: the case of France</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9828</td>
    <td>F. ROSENWALD</td>
    <td>F. ROSENWALD</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9829</td>
    <td>L'impact des contraintes financières dans la décision d'investissement</td>
    <td>L'impact des contraintes financières dans la décision d'investissement</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9830</td>
    <td>Bilan des activités de la DESE - 1998</td>
    <td>Bilan des activités de la DESE - 1998</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9831</td>
    <td>J.P. ZOYEM</td>
    <td>Contrat d'insertion et sortie du RMI</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9832</td>
    <td>Ch. COLIN - FL. LEGROS - R. MAHIEU</td>
    <td>Évaluation des effets d'une politique sociale</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9833</td>
    <td>Bilans contributifs comparés des régimes de retraite du secteur privé et de la fonction publique</td>
    <td>Bilans contributifs comparés des régimes de retraite du secteur privé et de la fonction publique</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9834</td>
    <td>G. LAROQUE - B. SALANIE</td>
    <td>G. LAROQUE - B. SALANIE</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9835</td>
    <td>Une décomposition du non-emploi en France</td>
    <td>Une décomposition du non-emploi en France</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<table>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9912</td>
    <td>B. SALANIE</td>
    <td>Une maquette analytique de long terme du marché du travail</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9913</td>
    <td>Ch. GIANELLA</td>
    <td>Une estimation de l'élasticité de l'emploi peu qualifié à son coût</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9914</td>
    <td>Division « Redistribution et Politiques Sociales »</td>
    <td>Division « Redistribution et Politiques Sociales »</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9915</td>
    <td>DESTINÉ</td>
    <td>Le modèle de microsimulation dynamique</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9916</td>
    <td>E. DUGUET</td>
    <td>E. DUGUET</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9917</td>
    <td>Macro-commandes SAS pour l'économie des panels et des variables qualitatives</td>
    <td>Macro-commandes SAS pour l'économie des panels et des variables qualitatives</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9918</td>
    <td>R. DUHAUTOIS</td>
    <td>R. DUHAUTOIS</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9919</td>
    <td>Évolution des flux d'emplois en France entre 1990 et 1996 : une étude empirique à partir du fichier des bénéfices réels normaux (BRN)</td>
    <td>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 9920</td>
    <td>J.Y. FOURNIER</td>
    <td>J.Y. FOURNIER</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9921</td>
    <td>Extraction du cycle des affaires : la méthode de Baxter et King</td>
    <td>Extraction du cycle des affaires : la méthode de Baxter et King</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9922</td>
    <td>B. CRÉPON - R. DESPLATZ - J. MAIRESSÉ</td>
    <td>B. CRÉPON - R. DESPLATZ - J. MAIRESSÉ</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9923</td>
    <td>Estimating price cost margins, scale economies and workers' bargaining power at the firm level</td>
    <td>Estimating price cost margins, scale economies and workers' bargaining power at the firm level</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9924</td>
    <td>Ch. GIANELLA - Ph. LAGARDE</td>
    <td>Ch. GIANELLA - Ph. LAGARDE</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9925</td>
    <td>Productivity of hours in the aggregate production function: an evaluation on a panel of French firms from the manufacturing sector</td>
    <td>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 9926</td>
    <td>S. AUDRIC - P. GIVORD - C. PROST</td>
    <td>S. AUDRIC - P. GIVORD - C. PROST</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9927</td>
    <td>Évolution de l'emploi et des coûts par qualification entre 1982 et 1996</td>
    <td>Évolution de l'emploi et des coûts par qualification entre 1982 et 1996</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9928</td>
    <td>R. MAHIEU</td>
    <td>R. MAHIEU</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9929</td>
    <td>Les déterminants des dépenses de santé : une approche macroéconomique</td>
    <td>Les déterminants des dépenses de santé : une approche macroéconomique</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9930</td>
    <td>C. ALLARD-PRIGENT - H. GUILMEAU - A. QUINET</td>
    <td>C. ALLARD-PRIGENT - H. GUILMEAU - A. QUINET</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9931</td>
    <td>The real exchange rate as the relative price of nontrables in terms of tradables: theoretical investigation and empirical study on French data</td>
    <td>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 9932</td>
    <td>J.-Y. FOURNIER</td>
    <td>J.-Y. FOURNIER</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9933</td>
    <td>L'approximation du titre passe-bande proposée par Christiano et Fitzgerald</td>
    <td>L'approximation du titre passe-bande proposée par Christiano et Fitzgerald</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9934</td>
    <td>Bilan des activités de la DESE - 1999</td>
    <td>Bilan des activités de la DESE - 1999</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9935</td>
    <td>B. CRÉPON - F. ROSENWALD</td>
    <td>B. CRÉPON - F. ROSENWALD</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9936</td>
    <td>Investissement et contraintes de financement : le poids du cycle</td>
    <td>Investissement et contraintes de financement : le poids du cycle</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9937</td>
    <td>A. FLIPO</td>
    <td>A. FLIPO</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9938</td>
    <td>Les comportements matrimoniaux de fait</td>
    <td>Les comportements matrimoniaux de fait</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9939</td>
    <td>R. MAHIEU - B. SÉDILLOT</td>
    <td>R. MAHIEU - B. SÉDILLOT</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9940</td>
    <td>Microsimulations of the retirement decision: a supply side approach</td>
    <td>Microsimulations of the retirement decision: a supply side approach</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9941</td>
    <td>C. AUDENIS - C. PROST</td>
    <td>C. AUDENIS - C. PROST</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9942</td>
    <td>Déficit conjointuel : une prise en compte des conjonctures passées</td>
    <td>Déficit conjointuel : une prise en compte des conjonctures passées</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9943</td>
    <td>R. MAHIEU - B. SÉDILLOT</td>
    <td>R. MAHIEU - B. SÉDILLOT</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9944</td>
    <td>Équivalent patrimonial de la rente et souscription de retraite complémentaire</td>
    <td>Équivalent patrimonial de la rente et souscription de retraite complémentaire</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9945</td>
    <td>R. DUHAUTOIS</td>
    <td>R. DUHAUTOIS</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9946</td>
    <td>Ralentissement de l'investissement : petites ou grandes entreprises ? industrie ou tertière ?</td>
    <td>Ralentissement de l'investissement : petites ou grandes entreprises ? industrie ou tertière ?</td>
  </tr>
</table>
v

G 2000/11 G. LAROQUE - B. SALANIÉ
Temps partiel féminin et incitations financières à l'emploi

G2000/12 Ch. GIANELLA

G2000/13 Local unemployment and wages

G2000/13 B. CREPON - Th. HECKEL
- Informalisation en France : une évaluation à partir de données individuelles

G2001/01 f. MAGNIER - J.-L. TAVERNIER - D. THESMAR
- Computerization in France: an evaluation on individual company data

G2001/01 F. LEQUILLER

G2001/02 - La nouvelle économie et la mesure de la croissance du PIB
- The new economy and the measure of GDP growth

G2001/02 S. AUDRIC

G2001/03 La reprise de la croissance de l'emploi profite-t-elle aussi aux non-diplômés ?

G2001/03 I. BRAUN-LEMAIRE

G2001/04 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'ethroégalité des comportements d'investissement à partir de données de bilan aggrégées

G2001/05 C. AUDENS - P. BISCOURP - N. FOURCADE - O. LOISEL

G2001/06 Testing the augmented Solow growth model: An empirical reassessment using panel data

G2001/07 R. MAHIEU - B. SÉDILLOT

G2001/08 Départ à la retraite, irréversibilité et incertitude

G2001/08 G2001/08

G2001/09 J. Ph. GAUDEMET
Les dispositifs d'acquisition à titre facultatif d'annulés viagériens de retraite

G2001/09 B. CREPON - Ch. GIANELLA
Fiscalité, coût d'usage du capital et demande de facteurs, une analyse sur données individuelles

G2001/10 B. CREPON - R. DESPLATZ

G2001/10 Évaluation des effets des dispositifs d'allemens

G2001/11 de charges sociales sur les bas salaires

G2001/11 J.-Y. FOURNIER

G2001/11 Comparaison des salaires des secteurs public et privé

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

G2001/12 R. CONVÈNEVOLE - S. PISANI

G2001/13 Substitution and complementarity between capital, skilled and less skilled workers: an analysis at the firm level in the French manufacturing industry

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

G2001/13 P. BISCOURP - Ch. GIANELLA

G2001/13 Modelling demographic behaviours in the French microsimulation model Destinie: An analysis of future change in completed fertility

G2001/14 I. ROBERT-BOBEE

G2001/14 Modelling demographic behaviours in the French microsimulation model Destinie: An analysis of future change in completed fertility

G2001/15 J.-P. ZOYEM

G2001/15 Diagnostic sur la pauvreté et calendrier de

revenus : le cas du "Panel européen des ménages »

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

G2001/16 La réduction des taux d'activité aux âges extrêmes, une spécificité française ?

G2001/17 C. AUDENS - P. BISCOURP - N. RIEDINGER
- Existe-t-il une asymétrie dans la retransmission du prix du brut aux prix des carburants ?

G2002/01 F. MAGNIER - 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

G2002/04 La cessation d'activité au sein des couples : y a-t-il interdépendance des choix ?

G2002/04 G. BRILHALLT

G2002/04 - Réollolation des séries de FBCF et calcul du capital fixe en SEC-95 dans les comptes nationaux français

G2002/05 - Réollolation 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

G2002/06 How do firms respond to cheaper computers? Microeconomic evidence for France based on a production function approach

G2002/06 C. AUDENS - 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

G2002/07 Évaluation de trois réformes du Régime Général d'assurance viellieuse 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 résumés au mieux les réponses des entreprises aux enquêtes de conjoncture ?

G2002/10 I. ROBERT-BOBÉE

G2002/10 Les comportements démographiques dans le modèle de microsimulation Destinie - Une comparaison des estimations issues des enquêtes Jeunes et Carrières 1997 et Histoire Familière 1999

G2002/11 J.-P. ZOYEM

G2002/11 La dynamique des bas revenus : une analyse des entrées-sorties de pauvreté

G2002/12 F. HILD

G2002/12 Previsions 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

G2002/14 - Analyse de la redistribution intragénérationnelle

dans le système de retraite des salarés 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

G2002/16 Les indices de compétitivité des pays : inter-prétation et limitées

G2003/01 N. RIEDINGER - E. HAUVY

G2003/01 Le coût de dépollution atmosphérique pour les entreprises françaises: Une estimation à partir de données individuelles

G2003/02 P. BISCOURP et F. KRAMARZ

G2003/02 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. LAIB - B. MONFORT

G2003/04 P. AUBERT - B. CRÉPON

G2003/05 La situation des salarés de plus de cinquante ans dans le secteur privé

G2003/05 P. AUBERT
La situation des salarés de plus de cinquante ans dans le secteur privé

G2003/06 P. AUBERT - B. CRÉPON

G2003/06 Age, salaire et productivité La productivité des salarés décline-t-elle en fin de carrière ?

G2003/06 P. AUBERT - B. CRÉPON

G2003/06 Age, salaire et productivité La productivité des salarés décline-t-elle en fin de carrière ?

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

G2003/07 Le ralentissement de la productivité du travail au cours des années 1990

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

G2003/08 Patrimoine des menages, dynamique d'allocation et comportement de consommation

G2003/09 P. BISCOURP - N. FOURCADE

G2003/09 Peut-on mettre en evidence 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

G2003/10 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

G2003/11 M. LECLAIR - S. ROUX

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. DUEE - C. REBILLARD

G2004/02 La dépendance des personnes âgées : une projection à long terme

G2004/03 S. RASPILLER - N. RIEDINGER

G2004/03 Réglation environnementale et choix de localisation des groupes français

G2004/04 A. NABOULET - S. RASPILLER

G2004/05 Les déterminants de la décision d'investir : une approche par les perceptions subjectives des firmes

G2004/06 N. RAGACHE

G2004/06 La déclaration des enfants par les couples non marés est-elle fiscalement optimale ?

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

G2004/08 Les brevets accroissent-ils les incitats privées à innover ? Un examen microéconométrique

G2004/09 S. RASPILLER - P. SILLARD

G2004/09 Affiliating versus Subcontracting: the Case of Multinational

G2004/10 G. BOISSINOT - S. ANGEVIN - B. MONFORT

G2004/10 Publicly Sustainable Development: Some Results on the French Case

G2004/11 S. ANANIAN - P. AUBERT

G2004/11 Travailleurs âgés, nouvelles technologies et changements organisatoires, 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

G2004/12 S. ANANIAN - P. AUBERT

G2004/12 Travaillateurs âgés, nouvelles technologies et changements organisatoires, un réexamen à partir de l'enquête « REPONSE »

G2004/13 C. PICART

G2004/13 Évalueur 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

G2005/01 Conditions de départ en retraite selon l'âge de fin d'études : analyse prospective pour les générations 1945-à1974

G2005/02 C. AFSA - S. BUFFETEAU

G2005/02 L'évolution de l'activité féminine en France : une approche par pseudo-panel

G2005/03 P. AUBERT - P. SILLARD

G2005/03 Délocalisations et réductions d'effectifs dans l'industrie française

G2005/04 M. LECLAIR - S. ROUX

G2005/04 Mesure et utilisation des emplois instables dans les entreprises

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

G2005/05 Performances à l'exportation de la France et de l'Allemagne - Une analyse par secteur et destination géographique

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

G2005/07 S. RASPILLER

G2005/07 La concurrence fiscale : principaux enseignements de l'analyse économique

vi
<table><tr><td>G2005/08</td><td>C. L'ANGEVIN - N. LAÎB<br/>Éducation et croissance en France et dans un panel de 21 pays de l'OCDE</td></tr><tr><td>G2005/09</td><td>N. FERRARI<br/>Prévoir l'investissement des entreprises<br/>Un indicateur des révolutions dans l'enquête de conjoncture sur les investissements dans l'industrie.</td></tr><tr><td>G2005/10</td><td>P.-O. BEFFY - C. L'ANGEVIN<br/>Chômage et boucle prix-salaires : apport d'un modèle « qualifiés/peu qualifiés »</td></tr><tr><td>G2005/11</td><td>B. HEITZ<br/>A two-states Markov-switching model of inflation in France and the USA: credible target VS inflation spiral</td></tr><tr><td>G2005/12</td><td>O. BIAU - H. ERKEL-ROUSSE - N. FERRARI<br/>Réponses individuelles aux enquêtes de conjoncture et prévision macroéconomiques : Exemple de la prévision de la production manufacturière</td></tr><tr><td>G2005/13</td><td>P. AUBERT - D. BLANCHET - D. BLAU<br/>The labour market after age 50: some elements of a Franco-American comparison</td></tr><tr><td>G2005/14</td><td>D. BLANCHET - T. DEBRAND - P. DOUGRON - P. POLLET<br/>L'enquête SHARE : présentation et premiers résultats de l'édition française</td></tr><tr><td>G2005/15</td><td>M. DUÉE<br/>La modélisation des comportements démographiques dans le modèle de microsimulation DESTINIE</td></tr><tr><td>G2005/16</td><td>H. RAOUI - S. ROUX<br/>Étude de simulation sur la participation versée aux salariés par les entreprises</td></tr><tr><td>G2006/01</td><td>C. BONNET - S. BUFFETEAU - P. GODEFROY<br/>Disparités de retraite de droit direct entre hommes et femmes : quelles évolutions ?</td></tr><tr><td>G2006/02</td><td>C. PICART<br/>Les gazelles en France</td></tr><tr><td>G2006/03</td><td>P. AUBERT - B. CRÉPON - P. ZAMORA<br/>Le rendement apparent de la formation continue dans les entreprises : effets sur la productivité et les salaires</td></tr><tr><td>G2006/04</td><td>J.-F. OUVRARD - R. RATHELOT<br/>Demographic change and unemployment: what do macroeconomic models predict?</td></tr><tr><td>G2006/05</td><td>D. BLANCHET - J.-F. OUVRARD<br/>Indicateurs d'engagements implicites des systèmes de retraite : chiffrages, propriétés analytiques et réactions à des chocs démographiques types</td></tr><tr><td>G2006/06</td><td>G. BIAU - O. BIAU - L. ROLVIERE<br/>Nonparametric Forecasting of the Manufacturing Output Growth with Firm-level Survey Data</td></tr><tr><td>G2006/07</td><td>C. AFSA - P. GIVORD<br/>Le rôle des conditions de travail dans les absences pour maladie</td></tr><tr><td>G2006/08</td><td>P. SILLARD - C. L'ANGEVIN - S. SERRAVALLE<br/>Performances comparées à l'exportation de la France et de ses principaux partenaires<br/>Une analyse structurelle sur 12 ans</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>G2006/09</td><td>X. BOUTIN - S. QUANTIN<br/>Une méthodologie d'évaluation comptable du coût du capital des entreprises françaises : 1984-2002</td></tr><tr><td>G2006/10</td><td>C. AFSA<br/>L'estimation d'un coût implicite de la pénibilité du travail chez les travailleurs âgés</td></tr><tr><td>G2006/11</td><td>C. LEI ARGE<br/>Les entreprises (industrielles) françaises sont-elles à la frontière technologique ?</td></tr><tr><td>G2006/12</td><td>O. BIAU - N. FERRARI<br/>Théorie de l'opinion<br/>Fauil-l' ponderer les réponses individuelles ?</td></tr><tr><td>G2006/13</td><td>A. KOUBI - S. ROUX<br/>Une réinterprétation de la relation entre productivité et inégalités salariales dans les entreprises</td></tr><tr><td>G2006/14</td><td>R. RATHELOT - P. SILLARD<br/>The impact of local taxes on plants location decision</td></tr><tr><td>G2006/15</td><td>L. GONZALEZ - C. PICART<br/>Diversification, recentrage et poids des activités de support dans les groupes (1993-2000)</td></tr><tr><td>G2007/01</td><td>D. SRAER<br/>Allégements de cotisations patronales et dynamique salariale</td></tr><tr><td>G2007/02</td><td>V. ALBOUY - L. LEQUIEN<br/>Les rendements non monétaires de l'éducation : le cas de la santé</td></tr><tr><td>G2007/03</td><td>D. BLANCHET - T. DEBRAND<br/>Aspiration à la retraite, santé et satisfaction au travail : une comparaison européenne</td></tr><tr><td>G2007/04</td><td>M. BARLET - L. CRUSSON<br/>Quel impact des variations du prix du pétrole sur la croissance française ?</td></tr><tr><td>G2007/05</td><td>C. PICART<br/>Flux d'emploi et de main-d'œuvre en France : un réexamen</td></tr><tr><td>G2007/06</td><td>V. ALBOUY - C. TAYAN<br/>Massification et démocratisation de l'enseignement supérieur en France</td></tr><tr><td>G2007/07</td><td>T. LE BARBANCHON<br/>The Changing response to oil price shocks in France: a DSGE type approach</td></tr><tr><td>G2007/08</td><td>T. CHANEY - D. SRAER - D. THESMAR<br/>Collateral Value and Corporate Investment<br/>Evidence from the French Real Estate Market</td></tr><tr><td>G2007/09</td><td>J. BOISSINOT<br/>Consumption over the Life Cycle: Facts for France</td></tr><tr><td>G2007/10</td><td>C. AFSA<br/>Interpréter les variables de satisfaction : l'exercice de la durée du travail</td></tr><tr><td>G2007/11</td><td>R. RATHELOT - P. SILLARD<br/>Zones Franches Urbanes: quelles effets sur l'emploi salarié et les créations d'établissements ?</td></tr><tr><td>G2007/12</td><td>V. ALBOUY - B. CRÉPON<br/>Aléa moral en santé : une évaluation dans le cadre du modèle causal de Rubin</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>G2008/01</td><td>C. PICART<br/>Les PME françaises : rentables mais peu dynamiques</td></tr><tr><td>G2008/02</td><td>P. BISCOURP - X. BOUTIN - T. VERGÈ<br/>The Effects of Retail Regulations on Prices Evidence form the Loi Galland</td></tr><tr><td>G2008/03</td><td>Y. BARBESOL - A. BRIANT<br/>Économies d'agglomération et productivité des entreprises : estimation sur données individuelles françaises</td></tr><tr><td>G2008/04</td><td>D. BLANCHET - F. LE GALLO<br/>Les projections démographiques : principaux mécanismes et retour sur l'expérience française</td></tr><tr><td>G2008/05</td><td>D. BLANCHET - F. TOUTLEMONDE<br/>Évolutions démographiques et deformation du cycle de vie active : quelles relations ?</td></tr><tr><td>G2008/06</td><td>M. BARLET - D. BLANCHET - L. CRUSSON<br/>Internationalisation et flux d'emplois : que dit une approche comptable ?</td></tr><tr><td>G2008/07</td><td>C. LELARGE - D. SRAER - D. THESMAR<br/>Entrepreneurship and Credit Constraints - Evidence from a French Loan Guarantee Program</td></tr><tr><td>G2008/08</td><td>X. BOUTIN - L. JANIN<br/>Are Prices Really Affected by Mergers?</td></tr><tr><td>G2008/09</td><td>M. BARLET - A. BRIANT - L. CRUSSON<br/>Concentration géographique dans l'industrie manufacturière et dans les services en France : une approche par un indicateur en continu</td></tr><tr><td>G2008/10</td><td>M. BEFFY - É. COUDIN - R. RATHELOT<br/>Who is confronted to insecure labor market histories? Some evidence based on the French labor market transition</td></tr><tr><td>G2008/11</td><td>M. ROGER - E. WALRAET<br/>Social Security and Well-Being of the Elderly: the Case of France</td></tr><tr><td>G2008/12</td><td>C. AFSA<br/>Analyser les composantes du bien-être et de son évolution<br/>Une approche empirique sur données individuelles</td></tr><tr><td>G2008/13</td><td>M. BARLET - D. BLANCHET - T. LE BARBANCHON<br/>Microsimplifier le marché du travail : un prototype</td></tr><tr><td>G2009/01</td><td>P.-A. PIONNIER<br/>Le partage de la valeur ajoutée en France, 1949-2007</td></tr><tr><td>G2009/02</td><td>Laurat CLAYEL - Christelle MINOIER<br/>A Monthly Indicator of the French Business Climate</td></tr><tr><td>G2009/03</td><td>H. ERKEL-ROUSSE - C. MINODIER<br/>Do Business Tendency Surveys in Industry and Services Help in Forecasting GDP Growth?</td></tr><tr><td>G2009/04</td><td>P. GIVORD - L. WILNER<br/>Les contrats temporaires : trappe ou marchéied vers l'emploi stable ?</td></tr><tr><td>G2009/05</td><td>G. LALANNE - P.-A. PIONNIER - O. SIMON<br/>Le partage des fruits de la croissance de 1950 à 2008 : une approche par les comptes de surplus</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>G2009/06</td><td>L. DAVEZIES - X. D'HAULTFŒUILLE<br/>Fauil-l' ponderer ?... Ou l'éternelle question de l'économètre confronté à des données d'enquête</td></tr><tr><td>G2009/07</td><td>S. QUANTIN - S. RASPILLER - S. SERRAVALLE<br/>Commerce Intragroupe, fiscalité et prix de transferts, une analyse sur données françaises</td></tr><tr><td>G2009/08</td><td>M. CLERC - V. MARCUS<br/>Élastiques-prix des consommations énergétiques des ménages</td></tr><tr><td>G2009/09</td><td>G. LALANNE - E. POULIQUEN - O. SIMON<br/>Prix du pétrole et croissance potentielle à long terme</td></tr><tr><td>G2009/10</td><td>D. BLANCHET - J. LE CACHEUX - V. MARCUS<br/>Adjusted net savings and other approaches to sustainability, some theoretical background</td></tr><tr><td>G2009/11</td><td>V. BELLAMY - G. CONSALES - M. FESSEAU - S. LE LAIDIER - É. RAYNAUD<br/>Une décomposition du compte des ménages de la comptabilité nationale par catégorie de ménage en 2003</td></tr><tr><td>G2009/12</td><td>J. BARDAJI - F. TALLET<br/>Defecting Economic Regimes in France: a Qualitative Markov-Switching Indicator Using Mixed Frequency Data</td></tr><tr><td>G2009/13</td><td>R. AEBERHARDT - D. FOUGÈRE - R. RATHELOT<br/>Discrimination à l'embrache : comment exploiter les procédures de testing ?</td></tr><tr><td>G2009/14</td><td>Y. BARBESOL - P. GIVORD - S. QUANTIN<br/>Partage de la valeur ajoutée, approche par données microéconomiques</td></tr><tr><td>G2009/15</td><td>I. BUONO - G. LALANNE<br/>The Effect of the Uruguay round on the Intensive and Extensive Margins of Trade</td></tr><tr><td>G2010/01</td><td>C. MINODIER<br/>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</td></tr><tr><td>G2010/02</td><td>V. ALBOUY - L. DAVEZIES - T. DEBRAND<br/>Health Expenditure Models: a Comparison of Five Specifications using Panel Data</td></tr><tr><td>G2010/03</td><td>C. KLEIN - O. SIMON<br/>Le modèle MÉSANGE réestimé en base 2000 Tome 1 - Version avec volumes à prix constants</td></tr><tr><td>G2010/04</td><td>M.-É. CLERC - É. COUDIN<br/>L'IFC, miroir de l'évolution du coût de la vie en France ? Ce qu'apporte l'analyse des courbes d'Engel</td></tr><tr><td>G2010/05</td><td>N. CECL-RENAUD - P.-A. CHEVALIER<br/>Les seuls de 10, 20 et 50 salarés : impact sur la taille des entreprises françaises</td></tr><tr><td>G2010/06</td><td>R. AEBERHARDT - J. POUGET<br/>National Origin Differences in Wages and Hierarchical Positions - Evidence on French Full-Time Male Workers from a matched Employer-Employee Dataset</td></tr></table>
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. LAPÉGUE - E. POULIQUEN - M. BEFFY - M. GAINI Quelle croissance de moyens terme après la crise ?

G2010/10 I. BUONO - G. I. LALANNE La réaction des entreprises françaises à la baisse des taufs 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 : principes 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 échan-geables : 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 Mesange réestimé en base 2000

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 conjonctuels 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'égénération 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. LAPÉGUE - M. MONSO De la crise financière à la crise économique

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-Foussié Report: A few illustrations

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

G2011/09 C. LOUVOT-RUNAVOT L'évaluation de l'activité dissimulée des entre-prises sur la base des contrôles fiscaux et son insertion dans les comptes nationaux

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

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

G2011/12 C. MARBOT - D. ROY Evaluation of the 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 "BonusMalus"

G2011/15 M. BARLET - M. CLERC - M. GARNEO - V. LAPÉGUE - M. MARÇO Le 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. LAPÉGUE Restrictive Fiscal Policies in Europe: What are the Likely Effects?

G2012/01 P. GIVORD - S. QUANTIN - C. TREVIE 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. LANGUNIER - A. VICARD Prélevements 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 décourag-ils certains jeunes de travailer ? 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 allégrements de charges : une estimation au niveau établissement de 1996 à 2008

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

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

G2012/15 D. BLANCHET - S. LE MINEZ Joint macro/micro evaluations of accrued-to-date pension liabilities: an application to French reforms

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

G2013/02- F1302 C. TREVIE 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 incidence 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. MONTAULT - 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. EYAIN - L. WILNER - E. YILMAZ Introducing activity-based payment in the hospital industry: Evidence from French data

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

G2013/13 P.-Y. CABANNES - V. COTTET - Y. DUBOIS - C. LELARGE - M. SICMIC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

G2014/08 C. GRISLAIN-LETREMY et C. TREVIE N. LEQUIEN et A. MONTAULT Croissance potentielle en France et en zone euro: un tour d'horizon des méthodes d'estimation

G2014/09 G. GARBINTI - P. LAMARCHERE Les hauts revenus épartementaux-là davantage ?

G2014/10 D. AUDENAERT - J. BARDAIJ - R. LARDEUX - M. ORAND - M. SICMIC

G2014/11 D. AUDENAERT - J. BARDAIJ - R. LARDEUX - M. ORAND - M. SICMIC

G2014/12 F. ARNAUD - J. BOUSSARD - A. POISSONNIER - H. SOUAL
<table><tr><td>Computing additive contributions to growth and other issues for chain-linked quarterly aggregates</td><td>G2015/15</td><td>C. GEAY - M. KOUBI - G de LAGASNERIE</td></tr><tr><td>H. FRAISSE - F. KRAMARZ - C. PROST</td><td>G2015/16</td><td>J. BARDAJI - J.-C. BRICONGNE-G</td></tr><tr><td>Labor Disputes and Job Flows</td><td>G2015/16</td><td>B. CAMPAGNE - G. GAULIER</td></tr><tr><td>P. GIVORD - C. GRISLAIN-LETRÉMY - H. NAEGLE</td><td>G2015/17</td><td>C. BELLÉGO - R. DE NUS</td></tr><tr><td>How does fuel taxation impact new car purchases? An evaluation using French consumer-level dataset</td><td>G2015/17</td><td>The redistributive effect of online piracy on the box office performance of American movies in foreign markets</td></tr><tr><td>P. AUBERT - S. RABATÉ</td><td>G2015/18</td><td>J.-B. BERNARD - L. BERTHET</td></tr><tr><td>Durée passée en carrière et durée de vie en retraite : quel partage des gains d'espérance de vie?</td><td>G2015/18</td><td>French households financial wealth: which changes in 20 Years?</td></tr><tr><td>G2015/01</td><td>G2015/19</td><td>M. POULHÉS</td></tr><tr><td>A. POISSONNIER</td><td>G2015/19</td><td>Fenêtre sur Cour ou Chambre avec Vue ?</td></tr><tr><td>The walking dead Euler equation Addressing a challenge to monetary policy models</td><td>G2015/01</td><td>Les prix hédoniques de l'immobilier parisien</td></tr><tr><td>G2015/02</td><td>G2016/01</td><td>B. GARBINTI - S. GEORGES-KOT</td></tr><tr><td>Y. DUBOIS - A. MARINO</td><td>G2016/02</td><td>Time to smell the roses? Risk aversion, the timing of inheritance receipt, and retirement</td></tr><tr><td>Indicators of rendement du système de retraite français</td><td>G2016/02</td><td>P. CHARNOZ - C. LELARGE - C. TREVIEN</td></tr><tr><td>G2015/03</td><td>G2016/02</td><td>Communication Costs and the Internal Organization of Multi-Plant Businesses: Evidence from the Impact of the French High-Speed Rail</td></tr><tr><td>T. MAYER - C. TREVIEN</td><td>G2016/03</td><td>C. BONNET - B. GARBINTI - A. SOLAZ</td></tr><tr><td>The impacts of Urban Public Transportation: Evidence from the Paris Region</td><td>G2016/03</td><td>Gender Inequality after Divorce: The Flip Side of Marital Specialization - Evidence from a French Administrative Database</td></tr><tr><td>S.T. LY - A. RIEGERT</td><td>G2016/04</td><td>D. BLANCHET - E. CAROLI - C. PROST - M. ROGER</td></tr><tr><td>Measuring Social Environment Mobility</td><td>G2016/04</td><td>Health capacity to work at older ages in France</td></tr><tr><td>G2015/05</td><td>G2016/05</td><td>B. CAMPAGNE - A. POISSONNIER</td></tr><tr><td>M. A. BEN HALINI - V. HYAFIL-SOLELHAC</td><td>G2016/05</td><td>MELEZE: A DSGE model for France within the Euro Area</td></tr><tr><td>M. KOURI - C. REGAERT</td><td>G2016/06</td><td>B. CAMPAGNE - A. POISSONNIER</td></tr><tr><td>Quel est l'impact du système d'indemnisation maladie sur la durée des arrêts de travail pour maladie?</td><td>G2016/06</td><td>Laffer curves and fiscal multipliers: lessons from Mélèze model</td></tr><tr><td>G2015/06</td><td>G2016/07</td><td>B. CAMPAGNE - A. POISSONNIER</td></tr><tr><td>Y. DUBOIS - A. MARINO</td><td>G2016/07</td><td>Structural reforms in DSGE models: a case for sensitivity analyses</td></tr><tr><td>Disparités de rendement du système de retraite dans le secteur privé : approches intergénéra-tionnelle et intragénérationnelle</td><td>G2016/08</td><td>Y. DUBOIS et M. KOUBI</td></tr><tr><td>G2015/07</td><td>G2016/08</td><td>Relevement de l'âge de départ à la retraite : quel impact sur l'activité des seniors de la reforme des retraites de 2010?</td></tr><tr><td>B. CAMPAGNE - V. ALHENC-GELAS - J.-B. BERNARD</td><td>G2016/09</td><td>A. NAQUAS - M. ORAND - I. SUMANI HOUTTI</td></tr><tr><td>No evidence of financial accelerator in France</td><td>G2016/09</td><td>Les entreprises employant des salarés au Smic : quelles caractéristiques et quelle rentabilité ?</td></tr><tr><td>G2015/08</td><td>G2016/10</td><td>T. BLANCHET - Y. DUBOIS - A. MARINO - M. ROGER</td></tr><tr><td>Q. LAFFÉTER - M. PAK</td><td>G2016/10</td><td>Patrimoine privé et retraite en France</td></tr><tr><td>Elastiques des recettes fiscales au cycle économique - étude de trois impôts sur la période 1979-2013 en France</td><td>G2016/11</td><td>M. PAK - A. POISSONNIER</td></tr><tr><td>G2015/09</td><td>G2016/11</td><td>Accounting for technology, trade and final consumption in employment: an Input-Output decomposition</td></tr><tr><td>J.-M. DAUSSIN-BENICHOU, S. IDMACHICHE, A. LEDUC et E. POULIQUEN</td><td>G2017/01</td><td>D. FOUGÈRE - E. GAUTIER - S. ROUX</td></tr><tr><td>Les déterminants de l'attractivité de la fonction publique de l'État</td><td>G2017/01</td><td>Understanding Wage Floor Setting in Industry-Level Agreements: Evidence from France</td></tr><tr><td>G2015/10</td><td>G2017/02</td><td>Y. DUBOIS - M. KOUBI</td></tr><tr><td>P. AUBERT</td><td>G2017/02</td><td>Régies d'indexation des pensions et sensibilité des dépenses de retraites à la croissance économique et aux chocs démographiques</td></tr><tr><td>La modulation du montant de pension selon la durée de carrière et l'âge de la retraite : quelles disparités entre assurés?</td><td>G2015/11</td><td>V. DORDET-BERNADET - M. SICISC</td></tr><tr><td>G2015/11</td><td>G2015/12</td><td>Effet des aides publiques sur l'emploi en R&D dans les petites entreprises</td></tr><tr><td>S. GEORGES-KOT</td><td>G2015/12</td><td>Annual and lifetime incidence of the value-added tax in France</td></tr><tr><td>M. POULHÉS</td><td>G2015/13</td><td>Are Enterprise Zones Benefits Capitalized into Commercial Property Values? The French Case</td></tr><tr><td>G2015/13</td><td>G2015/14</td><td>J.-B. BERNARD - Q. LAFFÉTER</td></tr><tr><td>J.-B. BERNARD - Q. LAFFÉTER</td><td>G2015/14</td><td>Effet de l'activité et des prix sur le revenu salarial des différentes catégories socioprofessionnelles</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>G2017/03</td><td>A. CAZENAVE-LACROUTZ - F. GODET</td></tr><tr><td>G2017/04</td><td>J. BARDAJI - B. CAMPAGNE - M.-B. KHIDER - Q. LAFFÉTER - O. SIMON (Insee)</td></tr><tr><td>G2017/05</td><td>A-S - DUFERNEZ - C. ELEZAAR - P. LEBLANC - E. MASSON - H. PARTOUCHE (DG-Trésor)</td></tr><tr><td>G2017/05</td><td>Le modèle macroéconométrique Mésange : réestimation et nouveautés</td></tr><tr><td>G2017/06</td><td>J. BOUSSARD - B. CAMPAGNE</td></tr><tr><td>G2017/06</td><td>Fiscal Policy Coordination in a Monetary Union at the Zero-Lower-Bound</td></tr><tr><td>G2017/07</td><td>A. CAZENAVE-LACROUTZ - A. GODZINSKI</td></tr><tr><td>G2017/07</td><td>Effects of the one-day waiting period for sick leave on health-related absences in the French central civil service</td></tr><tr><td>G2017/07</td><td>P. CHARNOZ - M. ORAND</td></tr><tr><td>G2017/08</td><td>Qualification, progrès technique et marchés du travail locaux en France, 1990-2011</td></tr><tr><td>G2017/08</td><td>K. MILIN</td></tr><tr><td>G2017/09</td><td>Modélisation de l'inflation en France par une approche macrosectorielle</td></tr><tr><td>G2017/09</td><td>C.-M. CHEVALIER - R. LARDEUX</td></tr><tr><td>G2017/09</td><td>Homeownership and labor market outcomes: disentangling externality and composition effects</td></tr><tr><td>G2017/10</td><td>P. BEAUMONT</td></tr><tr><td>G2017/10</td><td>Time is Money: Cash-Flow Risk and Export Market Behavior</td></tr><tr><td>G2018/01</td><td>S. ROUX - F. SAVIGNAC</td></tr><tr><td>G2018/01</td><td>SMES' financing: Divergence across Euro area countries?</td></tr><tr><td>G2018/02</td><td>C.-M. CHEVALIER - A. LUCIANI</td></tr><tr><td>G2018/02</td><td>Computerization, labor productivity and employment impacts across industries vary with technological level</td></tr><tr><td>G2018/03</td><td>R. MONIN - M. SUAREZ CASTILLO</td></tr><tr><td>G2018/03</td><td>L'effet du CICE sur les prix une double analyse sur donnés sectorielles et individuelles</td></tr><tr><td>G2018/04</td><td>R. LARDEUX</td></tr><tr><td>G2018/04</td><td>Who Understands The French Income Tax?</td></tr><tr><td>G2018/05</td><td>Bunching Where Tax Liabilities Start</td></tr><tr><td>G2018/05</td><td>C.-M. CHEVALIER</td></tr><tr><td>G2018/05</td><td>Financial constraints of innovative firms and sectoral growth</td></tr><tr><td>G2018/06</td><td>R. S.-H. LEE - M. PAK</td></tr><tr><td>G2018/06</td><td>Pro-competitive effects of globalisation on prices, productivity and markups: Evidence in the Euro Area</td></tr><tr><td>G2018/07</td><td>C.-M. CHEVALIER</td></tr><tr><td>G2018/07</td><td>Consumption inequality in France between 1995 and 2011</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>G2018/08</td><td>A. BAUER - B. GARBINTI - S. GEORGES-KOT</td></tr><tr><td>G2018/09</td><td>P. BEAUMONT - A. LUCIANI</td></tr><tr><td>G2018/10</td><td>Prime à l'embauche dans les PME : évaluation à partir des déclarations d'embauche</td></tr><tr><td>G2018/10</td><td>C. BELLÉGO - V. DORDET-BERNADET - M. TEAUPT</td></tr><tr><td>G2018/11</td><td>Comparaison de deux dispositifs d'aide à la R&D collaborative public-privé</td></tr><tr><td>G2018/11</td><td>R. MONIN - M. SUAREZ CASTILLO</td></tr><tr><td>G2018/12</td><td>Réplication et rapprochement des travaux d'évaluation de l'effet du CICE sur l'emploi en 2013 et 2014</td></tr><tr><td>G2018/12</td><td>A. CAZENAVE-LACROUTZ - F. GODET - V. LIN</td></tr><tr><td>G2019/01</td><td>L'introduction d'un gradient social dans la mortalité au sein du modèle Destinie 2</td></tr><tr><td>G2019/01</td><td>M. ANDRÉ - A.-L. BIOTTEAU</td></tr><tr><td>G2019/02</td><td>Effets de moyen terme d'une hausse de TVA sur le niveau de vie et les inégalités: une approche par microsimulation</td></tr><tr><td>G2019/02</td><td>A. BOURGEOIS - A. BRIAND</td></tr><tr><td>G2019/03</td><td>Le modèle Avionic : la modélisation Input/Output des comptes nationaux</td></tr><tr><td>G2019/03</td><td>A. GODZINSKI - M. SUAREZ CASTILLO</td></tr><tr><td>G2019/04</td><td>Short-term health effects of public transport disruptions: air pollution and viral spread channels</td></tr><tr><td>G2019/04</td><td>L. AEBERHARDT - F. HATIER - M. LECLAIR - B. PENTINAT - J.-D. ZAFAR</td></tr><tr><td>G2019/05</td><td>L'économie numérique fausse-t-elle le partage volume-prix du PIB ?</td></tr><tr><td>G2019/05</td><td>A. CAZENAVE-LACROUTZ - E. YILMAZ</td></tr><tr><td>G2019/06</td><td>Dans quelle mesure les incitations tarifaires et la procédure de mise sous accord préalable ont-elles contribué au développement de la chirurgie ambulatoire ?</td></tr><tr><td>G2019/06</td><td>J.-P. CLING - S. EGBHAL-TEHERANI - M. ORZONI - C. PLATEAU</td></tr><tr><td>G2019/06</td><td>The Differences between EU Countries for Sustainable Development Indicators: It is (mainly) the Economy!</td></tr><tr><td>G2019/07</td><td>P. CHONÉ - L. WILNER</td></tr><tr><td>G2019/08</td><td>Competition on Unobserved Attributes: The Case of the Hospital Industry</td></tr><tr><td>G2019/08</td><td>P. PORA - L. WILNER</td></tr><tr><td>G2019/09</td><td>Child Penalties and Financial Incentives: Exploiting Variation along the Wage Distribution</td></tr><tr><td>G2019/09</td><td>E. GAUTIER - S. ROUX - M. SUAREZ CASTILLO</td></tr><tr><td>G2019/10</td><td>Do Minimum Wages make Wages more Rigid? Evidence from French Micro Data</td></tr><tr><td>G2019/10</td><td>M. ANDRÉ - A. SIREY JOL</td></tr></table>
Imposition des couples et des familles : effets budgétaires et redistributifs de l'impôt sur le revenu

G2019/11 K. MOHKAM - O. SIMON
L'empreinte matière de l'économie française : une analyse par matière et catégorie de produits

G2019/12 S. BUNEL - B. HADJIBEYLI
Évaluation du crédit d'impôt innovation

G2019/13 C. BONNET - F. GODET - A. SOLAZ
Gendered economic determinants of couple formation over 50 in France

G2019/14 P. GIVORD - M. SUAREZ CASTILLO
Excellence for all? Heterogeneity in high schools' value-added

G2019/15 G. CETTE - L. KOEHL - T. PHILIPPON

G2020/01 J. SILHOL - B. VENTELOU
Labor Share in Some Advanced Countries

G2020/02 B. BOUCHTENIK - R. LARDEUX
Les zones d'intervention prioritaire reflétent-elles des écarts de pratiques des médecins généralistes ?

G2020/03 A. BOUCHTENIK - R. LARDEUX
The Take-Up of Unemployment Benefit Extensions

G2020/03 J.-M. GERMAIN
A Welfare Based Estimate of "Real Feel GDP" for Europe and the USA

G2020/04 J. BOUSSARD - R. LEE
Competition, Profit Share and Concentration

G2020/05 P. PORA
Keep Working and Spend Less?
Collective Childcare and Parental Earnings in France

G2020/06 R. MONIN - M. SUAREZ CASTILLO
Product Switching, market power and distance to core competency

G2020/07 L. WILNER
How do citizens perceive centralization reforms? Evidence from the merger of French regions

G2020/08 L. WILNER
The persistence of subjective well-being: permanent happiness, transitory misery?

G2020/09 J.-M. GERMAIN - T. LELLOUCH
Comptabilité économique de la soutenabilité climatique

G2020/10 A. BAUER - M. ROTEMBERG
Tax avoidance in French Firms: Evidence from the Introduction of a Tax Notch

G2020/11 P. AGHION - A. BERGEAUD
M. LEQUIEN - M. J. MELITZ
The Heterogeneous Impact of Market Size on Innovation: Evidence from French Firm-Level Exports

G2020/12 L. GALIANA - B. SAKAROVITCH
F. SÉMÉCURBE - Z. SMOREDA
Residential segregation, daytime segregation and spatial frictions : an analysis

G2020/13 A. BAUER - J. BOUSSARD
Market Power and Labor Share

G2020/14 A. BAUER - J. BOUSSARD - D. LASHKARI
Information Technology and Returns to Scale

G2020/15 V. LIN - O. MESLIN
Hausse des prix immobiliers et mesure du niveau de vie

G2021/01 N. BECHICHI - G. THEBAULT
Students' Preferences, Capacity Constraints and Post-Secondary Achievements in a Non-Selective System

G2021/02 B. BUREAU - A. DUQUERROY
J. GIORGI - M. LÉ - S. SCOTT - F. VINAS
Une année de crise COVID : impact sur la dymanique des entreprises en France
Une évaluation sur données individuelles

G2021/03 B. BUREAU - A. DUQUERROY
J. GIORGI - M. LÉ - S. SCOTT - F. VINAS
L'impact de la crise sanitaire sur la situation financière des entreprises en 2020 : une analyse sur données individuelles

G2021/04 A. GODZINSKI - M. SUAREZ CASTILLO
Disentangling the effects of air pollutants with many instruments

2021/01 S. QUANTIN - S. BUNEL - C. LENOIR
Évaluation du dispositif Jeune entreprise innovante (JEI) Un exemple d'application du modèle d'analyse de sensibilité de Rosenbaum

2021/02 L. GOBILLON - D. MEURS - S. ROUX
Differences in positions along a hierarchy : Counterfactuals based on an assignment model

2021/03 N. BECHICHI - J. GRENET - G. THEBAULT
Ségregation à l'entrée des études supérieures en France et en région parisienne : quels effets du passage à Parcoursup ?

2021/04 M. ANDRÉ - O. MESLIN
Et pour quelques appartenances de plus : Étude de la propriété immobilière des ménages et du profil redistributif de la taxe foncière

2022/05 S. GEORGES-KOT - D. GOUX - E. MAURIN
The value of leisure synchronozation

2022/06 N. BECHICHI - M. FABRE - T. OLIVIA
Projections de la population active à l'horizon 2080

2022/11 S. QUANTIN - C. WELTER-MÈDÈE
Estimation des montants manquants de versements de TVA : exploitation des données du contrôle fiscal

2022/14 L. BLOCH - B. FAVETTO - A. LAGOUGE - F. SÉDILLOT
Inégalités de rendements et de patrimoine en France en 2017

2022/15 H. GENIN - S. SCOTT
Un portrait de la r'ention de main-d'oeuvre dans l'industrie française : analyse à partir des enquêtes mensuelles de conjoncture

2023/02 D. GOUX - E. MAURIN
On the seventh day you shall do not any work : the winners and losers of Sunday work deregulation

2023/03 P. AGHION - A. BERGEAUD - M. LEQUIEN - M. MELITZ - T. ZUBER
Opposing firm-level responses to the China shock: Output competition versus input
L. GALIANA - L. WILNER
Private Wealth over the Life-Cycle: A Meeting between Microsimulation and Structural Approaches