# Opposing firm-level responses to the China shock: Output competition versus input supply

Aghion Philippe, Bergeaud Antonin, Lequien Matthieu, Melitz Marc, Zuber Thomas

► To cite this version:

Aghion Philippe, Bergeaud Antonin, Lequien Matthieu, Melitz Marc, Zuber Thomas. Opposing firm-level responses to the China shock: Output competition versus input supply. 2023. hal-05373292

HAL Id: hal-05373292

https://insee.hal.science/hal-05373292v1

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_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Opposing firm-level responses to the China shock : Output competition versus input supply

## Documents de travail

N° 2023-03 - Janvier 2023

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>
2023/03

# Opposing firm-level responses to the China shock: Output competition versus input supply

Philippe AGHION* Antonin BERGEAUD** Matthieu LEQUIEN***
Marc MELITZ**** Thomas ZUBER*****

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.

<footnote>* Collège de France, LSE and INSEAD</footnote>

<footnote>** Banque de France and CEP</footnote>

<footnote>*** Insee</footnote>

<footnote>**** Harvard and NBER</footnote>

<footnote>***** Banque de France</footnote>
# Réactions opposées des entreprises à la hausse des importations chinoises: concurrence sur les ventes ou sur les intrants ?

Nous décomposons le choc d'importations chinoises des années 2000 en deux composantes qui induisent des ajustements différents pour les entreprises exposées aux exportations chinoises: un choc de production affectant les entreprises vendant des biens qui sont en concurrence avec des biens chinois importés similaires, et un choc d'approvisionnement en intrants affectant les entreprises utilisant des intrants similaires aux biens chinois importés. En combinant des données administratives et fiscales, des douanes et des brevets d'entreprises françaises, nous montrons que le choc de production pénalise les ventes, l'emploi et l'innovation des entreprises. En outre, cet effet négatif est concentré sur les entreprises à faible productivité. En revanche, nous trouvons un effet positif - bien que souvent non significatif - du choc d'approvisionnement en intrants sur les ventes, l'emploi et l'innovation des entreprises.

**Mots-clés:** Concurrence, brevets, entreprises, importations

# Opposing firm-level responses to the China shock: Output competition versus input supply

We decompose the “China shock” into two components that induce different adjustments for firms exposed to Chinese exports: an output shock affecting firms selling goods that compete with similar imported Chinese goods, and an input supply shock affecting firms using inputs similar to the imported Chinese goods.

Combining French accounting, customs, and patent information at the firm-level, we show that the outp ut shock is detrimental to firms’ sales, employment, and innovation. Moreover, this negative impact is concentrated on low-productivity firms. By contrast, we find a positive effect - although often not signi ficant - of the input supply shock on firms’ sales, employment and innovation.

**Keywords:** Competition shock, patent, firms, import

**Classification JEL:** F14, O19, O31, O33, O34
# 1 Introduction

The spectacular growth of China's exports following its accession to the WTO – the eponymous “China shock” – has induced substantial adjustments in the manufacturing sectors of developed economies. Most of the literature analyzing those adjustments starts out with a measure of this shock (typically the growth rate of Chinese exports) at the sector level. According to this measure, one of the most affected sectors is apparel. Consider two subsets of French firms classified in this sector from our sample in 1999. One set of firms produced women's jackets using woven polyester as an intermediate input. The share of women's jackets imported from China (Chinese import penetration) increased by 30 percentage points (pp) between 2000 and 2007, whereas Chinese import penetration in woven polyester declined during the same period. Another set of firms produced embroidered clothing using women's trousers as intermediate input. Over that same 2000-07 period, Chinese penetration for embroidered clothes declined by 12pp, whereas Chinese penetration for women's trousers increased by 22pp. Both sets of firms were significantly impacted by the sharp rise in Chinese apparel, but in very different ways. The dominant component of the shock for the first set of firms was horizontal: a sharp increase in Chinese exports of products similar to those these firms were producing. On the other hand, the dominant component of the shock for the second set of firms was vertical: a sharp increase in Chinese exports of products used by this set of firms as intermediate inputs. Sales by firms in the first set decreased markedly between 2000 and 2007, whereas sales increased for the firms in the second set over the same period.

In this paper, we disentangle the output and input supply components of the Chinese import shock at the firm level and analyze its effects on employment, sales, and innovation. At the industry level, the output and input components of the Chinese import shock are highly correlated, which makes it difficult to interpret industry-level analyses of the China shock. Another issue with industry-level analyses is that relying only on industry-level variations makes it difficult to control for industry-level trajectories, regardless of a firm's exposure to either the output or the input supply component of the China shock. Moving from industry- to firm-level analysis allows us not only to separately identify the output and input components of the China shock but also
to control for industry-level trends. We find that more than 80% of the variance of
the input and output components of import competition is due to within-industry
variation. This variation allows us to identify those output and input components
separately from the industry-level trends.

We use French accounting records, customs, and patent information on a comprehen-
sive firm-level panel dataset spanning the period 1994-2007 and show that those two
components have opposite effects on French firms’ outcomes in 2000-07. We find that
exposure to output trade competition is detrimental to firms’ sales, employment, and
innovation. Moreover, this negative effect is concentrated among low-productivity
firms. By contrast, we find a positive effect (although often insignificant) for the input
component on firms’ sales, employment, and innovation.

More specifically, we find that including a separate control for the input component
markedly increases the negative impact of the output shock on employment. How-
ever, all of that increase stems from an industry aggregate trend. When we control
for that industry-level variation, we find that the within-industry output competition
component is vastly reduced. However, it remains negative and yields a much more
precise measure for the downsizing of the impacted French firms. On the innova-
tion side and contrary to what we find for employment, no significant industry-wide
trend emerges in the response of patenting to the China shock. After controlling for
the input component of the shock, we find a strong and significant negative impact of
increased output competition on patenting by affected firms.

Our analysis contributes to the existing literature on the China trade shock. Much
of that literature focuses on the consequences of import competition for local labor
markets: how do labor markets adjust to the shock, which skill groups are more
affected, how do governments respond. Following the seminal work of Autor et al.
(2013), a vast literature leverages industry-level variations to analyze the effects of the
China shock on those same employment, wage, and innovation outcomes. Acemoglu
et al. (2016) show that import competition from China has increased after 2000 and has
depressed US manufacturing employment and overall job dynamics through input-
output linkages.

Further studies on the effects of the China shock on employment include Iacovone et
al. (2011), Autor et al. (2016), Bombardini et al. (2017), Malgouyres (2017), and Mion
and Zhu (2013) for the US and France, and Dauth et al. (2014) for Germany.<fnref n="1" /> The effects of the shock on innovation are the focus of Bloom et al. (2016) and Autor et al. (2020a), where the former find a positive impact of the shock on innovation, whereas the latter find a negative impact.<fnref n="2" /> None of these papers, however, distinguish between the output and input components of the shock, so that they would not be able to tell us whether a e.g. positive effect of import shocks on domestic performance is due to a positive escape competition effect from increased competition in output markets or to improved access to intermediate inputs.

Acemoglu et al. (2016) and Pierce and Schott (2016) distinguish between downstream and upstream competition shocks like we do in this paper. Yet, their analysis remains at the industry level, and firms’ inputs are imputed from industry-level IO matrices. Instead, we identify the separate impact of horizontal competition in output markets from the vertical impact of imported intermediates for firms in the *same* industry using detailed firm-level output and input at a very disaggregated product level.<fnref n="3" /> In a similar spirit, Taniguchi (2019) looks at imports of intermediates versus final goods at the local labor market level in Japan. In that setting, a given good is classified either as intermediate or final. Our product-firm level information allows us to be much more precise in the sense that we distinguish between a good that is used as an input by some firms but is also the final output good for some other firms. And it allows us to separately control for industry trends that are not necessarily related to either

<footnote n="1">¹ Dauth et al. (2014) report that German firms were not only hit by a China shock but also by an Eastern Europe import shock. France, however, is much less affected by this shock than Germany (even though the free circulation of workers, especially from Eastern Europe, has had an impact on the French labor market as shown in Muñoz, 2021). To show this, Figure B1 in Appendix B shows the annual import shares for France and Germany from 9 Eastern European countries that are currently part of the EU, and compares those with the annual Chinese import shares. The pattern for the increase in Chinese imports is very similar for both France and Germany. However, the patterns are vastly different when it comes to East-European imports: Only Germany experiences a marked increase in East European imports around the time of the “China shock”.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Our analysis can shed light on these contrasting findings: indeed, we find opposite effects of the output and input supply components of the China shock on firm-level outcomes, which suggests that differences in the input-output structures in the United States versus Europe may lie behind the opposite conclusions of these two papers, and that the findings in Autor et al. (2020a) are primarily driven by the output component of the shock.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Beyond the intrinsic difficulties in estimating the impact of the China shock only using industry-level data, Acemoglu et al. (2016) and Pierce and Schott (2016) cannot disentangle the input supply shock from the input-output transmission of the China shock impacting the upstream industries. The industry fixed effects in our regressions control for these sectoral input-output linkages and thus deliver a coefficient measuring the pure input supply impact of the China shock.</footnote>
input or output components. As we mentioned, that industry variation drastically
inflates the impact of the China shock for employment.

An alternative to this econometric literature is to use quantitative trade models with input-output linkages to jointly evaluate the output and input components of the China shock. Caliendo et al. (2019) and Adao et al. (2021) are two recent examples. However, they come to very different conclusions regarding the overall impact of that shock for U.S. employment. Caliendo et al. (2019) find that the improved access to input components from China mitigates the negative impact of the shock for manufacturing employment (a smaller 0.3% decrease) and *reverse* the impact for overall employment (a 0.2% increase). Conversely, Adao et al. (2021) find that the negative impact of the output competition spillover to other sectors and *magnify* their consequences for overall U.S. employment (a 2% decrease). Those quantitative models are thus sensitive to the modeling assumptions used to incorporate the input-output structure, highlighting the importance of empirical work that evaluates those input-output linkages at the firm-level.

Also related to our analysis in this paper is a literature that identified a positive im-
pact of increased access to imported intermediate inputs on firm performance. Amiti
and Konings (2007) show that a 10 percentage points fall in input tariffs leads to a
productivity gain of 12 percent for firms that import their inputs. In the same vein,
Amiti and Khandelwal (2013) show that a reduction in import tariffs has a positive
impact on product quality for varieties close to frontier and Gopinath and Neiman
(2014) show that the devaluation of the Argentinian currency – which amounted to a
negative shock for imported capital goods – had a negative impact on aggregate pro-
ductivity.<fnref n="4" /> We contribute to this literature by performing a firm-level analysis of the
impact of the input supply component of the China shock in regressions where we
also include the output component of the shock and where we control for industry-
wide trends.

Other firm-level analyses of the relationship between trade and innovation include
Lileeva and Trefler (2010); Bustos (2011); Aw et al. (2011); Aghion et al. (2022, 2021).

<footnote n="4">⁴See also Goldberg et al. (2010); Topalova and Khandelwal (2011); Bas and Strauss-Kahn (2014, 2015) and Bas (2012).</footnote>
Using French firm-level data, Aghion et al. (2022) show how an exogenous increase
in export market size induces innovation, in particular for the most productive firms.
Aghion et al. (2021) further highlight the knowledge spillovers generated by French
exporters to firms in their export destinations. Here, we analyze how the China
import shock impacts employment and innovation, distinguishing between the output
and input components of the shock.<fnref n="5" />

Finally, our paper relates to the existing theoretical literature on trade, innovation, and growth (see Grossman and Helpman, 1991a,b, Aghion and Howitt, 2009, chapter 13) which analyzes the role of innovation decision in explaining firm dynamics in global economies. Burstein and Melitz (2013) provides a updated survey of theoretical papers looking at how firms’ innovation responds to trade liberalization and Akcigit et al. (2018) develops a dynamic general equilibrium growth model with endogenous innovation in an open economy.

The remaining part of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes our data, displays some descriptive statistics, and specifies our estimation equations. Section 3 presents our results. Section 4 concludes.

# 2 Data, measurement, and empirical strategy

## 2.1 Data

We merge different sources of information at the firm level. First, the administra-
tive and tax data set *FICUS* from Insee-DGFiP provides us with sales, employment,
profit, and detailed sector information for the universe of French firms from 1994
to 2007. Second, the French Customs database provides us with firm-level informa-
tion on exports and imports over a range of more than 5000 product categories (HS6
product-level).<fnref n="6" /> This information is completed by *BACI*, from Cepii, which provides
us with product level bilateral trade information for all country pairs. Finally, *PAT*-

<footnote n="5">⁵The literature has also explored the reverse channel of how domestic technology adoption can generate import shocks. Malgouyres et al. (2019) shows for example how access to broadband internet has led to an increase in firm-level import.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶*(Statistiques du Commerce Extérieur de la Direction Générale des Douanes et Droits Indirects)*</footnote>
STAT from the European Patent Office provides us with the patent information, which we match with firms' administrative identifiers using the matching algorithm developed by Lequien et al. (2019). This firm-level matching provides us with very precise information on total patent applications and the subset of triadic applications.<fnref n="7" />

Our various data sources run from 1994 to 2007. We use information over 1994-1999, our pre-sample period, to construct firms' exposure measures (the "share" part of our "shift-share" variables) as well as firm-level controls; and information over the 2000-2007 period to construct our shocks (the "shift" part of our shift-share shocks) and analyze their impacts on firm-level outcomes. We restrict our firm sample to privately managed manufacturing firms: (i) which record positive sales in 1999; (ii) which have 10 employees or more at least once over our whole sample period; (iii) which report export sales or imports to customs in 1999.

Table 1 shows the mean values of our main outcome variables in 1999. Going from left to right in the table, we increasingly restrict the set of French firms we consider. The first column covers all privately owned firms. The second column focuses on manufacturing firms. The third column restricts attention to the subset of manufacturing firms that report exports or imports to customs in 1999. And the fourth column further restricts our sample to firms with at least one patent between 1993 and 2007. Moving from the universe of privately owned firms to the subset of manufacturing firms that both trade and patent, we see that average firm size, whether measured by sales, employment, or value added, systematically increases. In addition to showing larger sales and employment, patenting firms also display above average levels of value-added per worker, patent flows, export-to-sales ratios, and of the number of exported and imported products, while showing a slightly lower than average labor share.

These findings are consistent with the export and innovation premia reported in Aghion et al. (2022). They are also consistent with existing studies emphasizing a negative correlation between firms' productivity and labor share (see, e.g. Autor et al., 2020b; Aghion et al., 2019), and a positive correlation between firm size and the

<footnote n="7">⁷Triadic patent families are sets of patent applications filled at the European Patent Office (EPO), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the Japan Patent Office (JPO) that share a same priority application.</footnote>
extensive margin of trade (number of exported products, e.g. Bernard et al., 2014, 2019b for the United States and Mayer et al., 2014 for France).

As of 2007, 27% of manufacturing firms present in our sample in 1999 have disappeared from our fiscal files. This amounts to an annual attrition rate of 3.8%. This rate most likely overestimates the true exit rate due to the death of the firm. If we restrict our exit count in year $t$ to firms with a negative recorded value added in $t-1$ or with a drop of more than 30% in employment between $t-2$ and $t-1$, the annual average exit rate of manufacturing firms falls down to 1.8% (14% over the entire sample period). Finally, column (4) shows that, among manufacturing firms, those engaged in innovation and patenting exhibit lower exit rates (e.g. Bernard et al., 2006).

In the remaining part of the paper, we will focus our attention on firms that engage in international trade, that is, on the subset of firms described in the last two columns of Table 1. Those are the firms for which we can construct our firm-level trade shocks.

<table><caption>Table 1: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>All mean</th><th>Manufacturing mean</th><th>Customs mean</th><th>Patenting mean</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Sales</td><td>8358.75</td><td>13592.21</td><td>17266.54</td><td>60233.90</td></tr><tr><td>Employees</td><td>40.44</td><td>60.22</td><td>81.25</td><td>259.28</td></tr><tr><td>Value added</td><td>2220.25</td><td>3236.57</td><td>4450.29</td><td>15881.26</td></tr><tr><td>Value added per worker</td><td>44.26</td><td>41.47</td><td>45.43</td><td>54.28</td></tr><tr><td>Labor share</td><td>0.58</td><td>0.60</td><td>0.59</td><td>0.52</td></tr><tr><td>Export intensity</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.21</td></tr><tr><td>Exported products</td><td>1.23</td><td>5.17</td><td>7.87</td><td>19.14</td></tr><tr><td>Imported products</td><td>1.99</td><td>8.38</td><td>12.75</td><td>27.90</td></tr><tr><td>Patent applications</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.37</td><td>2.96</td></tr><tr><td>Triadic patents</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.15</td></tr><tr><td>Exit</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.27</td><td>0.27</td><td>0.10</td></tr><tr><td>Death</td><td>0.14</td><td>0.14</td><td>0.14</td><td>0.06</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td>243056</td><td>57764</td><td>37956</td><td>4710</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Notes:** Unweighted mean of descriptive variables by firm group in 1999. All columns exclude firms recorded with less than 10 employees over all our sample period. Going from left to right we step by step restrict the set of French firms. The first column covers privately owned firms, regardless of their industry. The second column only keeps privately owned manufacturing firms. The third column only keeps all privately owned manufacturing firms that can be matched to customs data in 1999. Finally the fourth column further restricts our sample to firms that are observed in patent data at least once between 1993 and 2007. Sales and value added are expressed in thousands of euros, value added per worker in thousands of euros per worker. We use a fractional count to define firms' total patent applications and triadic patent applications in 1999. Firm exit stands for missing fiscal identifiers as of 2007 while death stands for exit combined with negative recorded value added prior to exit and/or a 30% drop in firm employment in the 2 years preceding exit. Observations provide the number of firms.
## 2.2 Measuring trade shocks

For each firm, we construct both an output trade shock and an input supply trade shock. The output shock is constructed using the firm's export data at the detailed product level to measure its exposure to increased Chinese import penetration on its outputs markets. The input supply shock is constructed using the firm's import data at the same detailed product-level to measure its exposure to the same Chinese import penetration on its inputs markets.

Formally, let $x_{f,i,t_0}$ and $m_{f,i,t_0}$ denote firm $f$'s exports and imports of product $i$ in our base year $t_0 = 1999$. And let $S_{i,t}$ denote the share of total French imports of good $i$ originating from China in year $t > t_0$. Our baseline empirical specification will regress firm $f$'s outcome on long differences in the firm's output and input exposures to Chinese import penetration. These are defined, respectively, by:

$$O_{f,t} = \sum_{i} \frac{x_{f,i,t_0}}{\sum_{j} x_{f,j,t_0}} S_{i,t} \quad \text{and} \quad I_{f,t} = \sum_{i} \frac{m_{f,i,t_0}}{\sum_{j} m_{f,j,t_0}} S_{i,t}.$$

We then define the shift-share long-run differences corresponding to measured changes in output and input exposure to Chinese import competition as:

$$\Delta O_f = \sum_i \frac{x_{f,i,t_0}}{\sum_j x_{f,j,t_0}} \Delta S_i \quad \text{and} \quad \Delta I_f = \sum_i \frac{m_{f,i,t_0}}{\sum_j m_{f,j,t_0}} \Delta S_i$$

where $\Delta S_i$ is the 2007/2000 long run difference in the share of total imports of good $i$ originating from China.<fnref n="8" /> To match trade flows to customs data, we translate all product-level variables into the HS2002 classification at the 6-digit level.

Figure 1 plots the long-run differences over the 2000-2007 period for the output and input exposure variables; at the industry level in Figure 1(a), and at the firm level controlling for industry fixed effects in Figure 1(b). The output and input exposures to Chinese import penetration are clearly correlated at the industry-level. This in turn implies that the firm-level variation displayed in Figure 1(b) is key for identifying the separate effects of output and input supply trade competition for firm-level outcomes

<footnote n="8">⁸The validity of this specification comes from an identification based on the exogenous assignment of the shocks. Borusyak et al. (2021) discuss at length the case of the China shock and argue that the associated specification can indeed reasonably be viewed as leveraging exogenous shock variations.</footnote>
(controlling for industry trends). A simple variance decomposition of our firm-level
output and input supply shocks shows that only 10% of the overall variance can
be explained by the 2-digit industry variation. The remaining variation is exhibited
between firms *within* in those industries.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1: BETWEEN AND WITHIN INDUSTRY EXPOSURE TO TRADE COMPETITION</figcaption></figure>

Notes: Panel (a) displays a scatter plot of the average long difference of the output (ΔO) and input supply (ΔI) shocks by 2-digit manufacturing industries. Panel (b) displays a scatter plot of the residual long difference of firm-level output (ΔO<sub>f</sub>) and input supply (ΔI<sub>f</sub>) shocks once 2-digit industries fixed effects have been controlled for. For statistical secrecy reasons we discretize each shock's residuals into 100 bins and plot mean values of our residualized shocks for 2,997 groups each containing at least 5 firms. All long differences are taken over the 2000/2007 period.

**Discussion of the output and input supply shocks** By construction, the output shock ΔO<sub>f</sub> captures a direct competition shock that directly impacts firm <i>f</i> at its position in the production chain. A positive ΔO<sub>f</sub> means that there is more production from China of the same goods that firm <i>f</i> produces. This is true regardless of whether firm <i>f</i> produces intermediate, final goods, or both. The input supply shock ΔI<sub>f</sub> can be seen as an input supply shock. A positive ΔI<sub>f</sub> means that there is an increase in the China share in goods that firm <i>f</i> uses as inputs. We expect such a positive shock to improve firm <i>f</i>'s access to upstream resources.

Even though firm-level measures of exposure to output and input supply trade com-
petition improve upon industry-level measures, Figure 1(b) also displays a positive
correlation between ΔO<sub>f</sub> and ΔI<sub>f</sub>.<sup>9</sup> In our data this correlation arises from the fact
that firms tend to export and import within the same detailed product category. This

<footnote n="9"><sup>9</sup>The correlation between ΔO<sub>f</sub> and ΔI<sub>f</sub> when controlling for 2-digit industry fixed effects is 0.26 in our sample.</footnote>
echoes Bernard et al. (2019a)'s finding that firms often export products that they did not themselves produce. To take into account this positive correlation between exports and imports at the firm level, a second empirical specification developed in the Appendix A splits our output and input supply shocks between: (i) a net export shock on exports that are not imported; (ii) a net import shock on imports that are not exported; (iii) a common export/import shock. Our results are robust to using this alternative specification.<fnref n="10" />

## 2.3 Empirical specification

Our baseline specification seeks to separately identify the causal impact of increased firm-level exposure to Chinese imports along the output ($\Delta O_f$) and input supply ($\Delta I_f$) dimensions. The regression equation is:

$$ \tilde{\Delta}Y_f = \alpha + \beta_O\Delta O_f + \beta_I\Delta I_f + \gamma'X_{f,t_0} + \eta_{s(f)} + \varepsilon_f, \quad (1) $$

where (i) $\tilde{\Delta}Y_f$ is the growth rate of firm $f$'s outcome of interest between 2000 and 2007; (ii) $X_{f,t_0}$ is a collection of firm-level pre-$t_0$ controls, with $t_0 = 1999$; and (iii) $\eta_{s(f)}$ are 2-digits industry fixed effects. The 2000-2007 time window, which corresponds to the spectacular increase in China's influence in international trade, is very commonly used and allows our results to be comparable with previous studies of the effects of the China shock.

In all our specifications, $X_{f,t_0}$ includes pre-1999 firm-specific levels and 5-year trends in employment and sales, as well as dummies for the firm's export/import status.<fnref n="11" /> Our regressions with patenting as the outcome variable further control for pre-1999 initial stocks and average yearly patenting rates in the relevant patent category.

We treat our raw dependent variables $Y_f$ in three different ways. First, when $Y_f$ is

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ Aghion et al. (2022) shows that export shocks induce an innovation response by French firms. In our main specification, we consider the impact of the input supply and output shock on firm patenting activities which could potentially be explained by the export channel if the export and import shocks are correlated. Our results are however unchanged when we control for the evolution of export over the time period considered.</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹Controlling for export/import dummies amounts to controlling for the sum of “shares” in our shift-share shocks, which in turn is required when using an incomplete shift-share setting as explained in Borusyak et al. (2021).</footnote>
a flow variable such as sales or employment we use its “Davis-Haltiwanger” (DH) growth rate between $t-k = 2000$ and $t = 2007$ defined as:

$$ \tilde{\Delta}Y_f = 2 \frac{Y_{f,t} - Y_{f,t-k}}{Y_{f,t} + Y_{f,t-k}} $$

Second, when looking at patenting outcomes, we first compute firm's f 1993-1999 and 2000-2007 average yearly flows of patents. We then define our dependent variable of interest $\tilde{\Delta}Y_f$ as the DH growth rate of these two average yearly patent flows. Third, we treat binary outcomes such as industry switching or firm exit using a simple linear probability model.

We address potential biases on the estimated $\beta_O$ and $\beta_I$ coefficients arising from unobservable domestic shocks by instrumenting $\Delta O_f$ and $\Delta I_f$ by their counterparts constructed using product-level Chinese import penetration measures aggregated over six advanced countries excluding France (which is similar to Autor et al., 2013's identification strategy).<fnref n="12" />

# 3 Results

## 3.1 Comparing industry- and firm-level evidence

We first show in Table 2 how the measured responses to increased trade competition of employment and patenting vary when: (a) we move from industry-level shocks to firm-level shocks; (b) we move from the overall universe of manufacturing firms to the subset of trading firms with available customs data.

Our dependent variables are the 2007/2000 DH long difference of employment and the DH growth rate of yearly average triadic patent flows over the 2007-2000 period versus the 1993-1999 period. The first industry shock is defined as the increase in Chinese import penetration in each firm's initial 3-digit NACE industry. We report the OLS and shift-share IV estimates associated with this first industry shock in columns

<footnote n="12">¹²Our instrument are the counterparts of our output and input supply shocks computed with import penetration measures from Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States.</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 2: COMPARING INDUSTRY- AND FIRM-LEVEL SHOCKS</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th colspan="6">EMPLOYMENT</th><th colspan="3">TRIADIC PATENTS</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>(1)</th><th>(2)</th><th>(3)</th><th>(4)</th><th>(5)</th><th>(6)</th><th>(7)</th><th>(8)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Output</td><td>-0.728***<br>(0.213)</td><td>-0.467*<br>(0.272)</td><td>-1.012***<br>(0.386)</td><td>-2.310***<br>(0.792)</td><td>-2.703***<br>(0.765)</td><td>-0.872***<br>(0.197)</td><td>-0.367**<br>(0.167)</td><td>-0.0130<br>(0.0311)</td></tr><tr><td>Input</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1.868*<br>(1.075)</td><td>1.833*<br>(1.003)</td><td>-0.0214<br>(0.189)</td><td>0.136<br>(0.179)</td><td>-0.0208<br>(0.0312)</td></tr><tr><td>F-Stat</td><td></td><td>131.6</td><td>119.6</td><td>17.66</td><td>14.00</td><td>160.1</td><td>142.2</td><td>142.2</td></tr><tr><td>Mean outcome</td><td>-0.0657</td><td>-0.0657</td><td>-0.0657</td><td>-0.0657</td><td>-0.108</td><td>-0.108</td><td>-0.108</td><td>0.0416</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td>42,323</td><td>42,323</td><td>42,323</td><td>42,323</td><td>27,884</td><td>27,884</td><td>27,883</td><td>27,883</td></tr><tr><th></th><th colspan="6">TRIADIC PATENTS</th><th colspan="3">TRIADIC PATENTS</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>(1)</th><th>(2)</th><th>(3)</th><th>(4)</th><th>(5)</th><th>(6)</th><th>(7)</th><th>(8)</th></tr><tr><td>Output</td><td>-0.195<br>(0.560)</td><td>-0.781<br>(0.735)</td><td>-1.074<br>(0.775)</td><td>-1.564<br>(1.572)</td><td>-1.589<br>(1.565)</td><td>-1.513***<br>(0.494)</td><td>-1.312***<br>(0.487)</td><td>0.210<br>(0.374)</td></tr><tr><td>Input</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.748<br>(2.209)</td><td>0.844<br>(2.161)</td><td>0.114<br>(0.490)</td><td>-0.179<br>(0.482)</td><td>-0.335<br>(0.359)</td></tr><tr><td>F-Stat</td><td></td><td>165.4</td><td>84.84</td><td>20.90</td><td>20.40</td><td>131.4</td><td>141.8</td><td>96.39</td></tr><tr><td>Mean outcome</td><td>0.101</td><td>0.101</td><td>0.101</td><td>0.101</td><td>0.100</td><td>0.100</td><td>0.100</td><td>0.0960</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td>5,005</td><td>5,005</td><td>5,005</td><td>5,005</td><td>4,710</td><td>4,710</td><td>4,710</td><td>4,710</td></tr><tr><td>Firm controls</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>Industry FE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sample</td><td>All Mfg</td><td>All Mfg</td><td>All Mfg</td><td>All Mfg</td><td>Trading Mfg</td><td>Trading Mfg</td><td>Trading Mfg</td><td>Trading Mfg</td></tr><tr><td>Shocks</td><td>3-dgt industry</td><td>3-dgt industry</td><td>4-dgt industry<br>(from customs)</td><td>4-dgt industry<br>(from customs)</td><td>4-dgt industry<br>(from customs)</td><td>Firm<br>(from customs)</td><td>Firm<br>(from customs)</td><td>Firm<br>(from customs)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Notes: This table compares different specifications and sources of identification when taking the 2000/2007 DH growth rate of employment and the 1993-1999 versus 2000-2007 DH growth rate of average yearly triadic patent flows as the outcome variables of interest. Columns (1) to (4) look at the universe of privately owned manufacturing firms with more than 10 employees while columns (5) to (8) restrict this sample to firms with available trade data. Columns (1) and (2) use trade shocks directly defined at the 3-digit industry. Columns (3) to (5) use product information aggregated from firm-level data to construct 4-digit industry shocks. Finally columns (6) to (8) use our preferred firm-level shocks. Column (8) is a placebo test which takes the pre-1999 DH growth rate of employment and triadic patents as our dependent variables. The detail of each specification is given in the main text. Standard errors clustered at the 4 digit industry-level are in parentheses. ***, ** and * indicate p-value of the Student test of null coefficient below 0.01, 0.05 and 0.1 respectively.

(1) and (2), respectively. As reported in several previous studies using comparable sources of identification (e.g. Autor et al., 2013; Malgouyres, 2017; Autor et al., 2020a), the employment effect of increased industry-level competition appears to be large and negative.

To assess the differences that may exist between direct industry-level measures of trade competition and our product-level approach, we build a second industry shock by aggregating our firm-level weights within each 4-digit industry. This aggregation procedure allows us to compute both an output and an input measure of industries' exposures to increased trade competition. We start in column (3) by reporting the shift-share IV estimate of the output component without controlling for its industry-level input supply counterpart. The difference between columns (2) and (3) shows that compared to product-based measures, direct industry-level measures of exposure to trade competition miss an important part of the negative output effect on employment growth. This can be attributed both to measurement error in the pure industry-level specification of column (2) and to the fact that industry-level measures
tend to aggregate the input supply and output components of trade competition. The
difference between columns (3) and (4) shows that not accounting for the positive
effect of input-supply relationships indeed leads to an upward bias on the coefficient
associated with output trade competition (omitted variable bias).

Before switching to our preferred firm-level specification, we check in column (5) that the employment effects from both input and output shocks measured in column (4) on the universe of manufacturing firms do not change significantly when we restrict our sample to the subset of trading manufacturing firms. Those are the firms for which we can compute our firm-level shocks.

From column (6) onward, Table 2 reports firms’ responses to those firm-level shocks
on that subset of trading manufacturing firms. The estimated negative effect of the
output shock is divided by 3 when we switch from the industry trade measure (col-
umn (5)) to the more accurate firm-level trade measure (column (6)) on the same sam-
ple of firms. In addition, there are other potential industry-level characteristics that
are correlated with a high Chinese export growth rate. We account for these industry
trends in column (7) by adding 2-digit industry fixed effects to our baseline specifi-
cation. Column (7), which is our preferred specification, shows the within-industry
impact of the output and input China shocks. Controlling for industry trends is partic-
ularly important if we try to isolate the impact of output competition on employment:
This impact is reduced by more than half when moving from column (6) to column
(7), yet it remains economically and statistically significant. All regressions in the
remaining part of the paper reproduce the setting of column (7) and include 2-digit
industry fixed effects as well as the usual firm-level controls. Finally, the placebo test
in column (8) shows no response from the pre-1999 employment growth rate to both
shocks.

The bottom half of Table 2 shows that moving from the industry-level to our new firm-
level measures of the China shocks also makes a big difference when assessing the
impact of the China shock on innovation (new firm patents). The negative response
of innovation to the output competition shock only becomes significant once we use
our firm-level shock and separately control for the input supply shock. On the other
hand, controlling for the industry-level trends does not have a major impact on the
negative economic magnitude of the innovation response to the shock: This response
is only slightly reduced when these controls are introduced. We view this result as a
strong argument in favor of switching to firm-level evidence whenever possible and
separating out the output and input supply components of the China shock.

3.2 Main firm-level outcomes

Table 3 extends our preferred column (7) specification from Table 2 to additional
left-hand-side firm outcome variables. The first set of variables captures additional
dimensions of the firms’ “current” status beyond employment: sales, the labor share
(in value added), exit from manufacturing (firm remains active), and firm death. We
also add a broader measure of innovation captured by the average flow of all patent
applications (not just triadic patent applications). Lastly, we add a set of variables that
capture changes to the firms’ exported product mix (we do not observe product-level
details for domestic sales). We measure the fraction of new and discontinued products
 entry/exit of an exported HS6 product between 1999 and 2007). And we quantify the
 extent to which French firms in our sample shift their production towards products
 where France had a comparative advantage relative to China in 1999.13 This variable
 is only defined for firms with available export data for both 1999 and 2007.

Our main findings can be summarized as follows: Only the output shock negatively
and significantly affects sales, employment, the firm's labor share, and patenting; the
input supply shock has no significant effect on these variables; moreover, the input
shock induces exit from manufacturing, conditional on the firm's survival. This last
result suggests that access to cheaper inputs allows firms to move away from produc-
tion tasks and instead concentrate on service activities outside of manufacturing.<fnref n="14" />

<footnote n="13">¹³We compute this firm-level measure of relative comparative advantage as an average across the set of exported products. For each HS6 product, we measure France's comparative advantage relative to China as the 1999 ratio of France's exports to the world over China's exports to the world. We then define firm-level comparative advantage as the average product-level comparative advantage over a firm's product mix, at all dates $t \ge 1999$.</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴A firm is classified as a manufacturing firm if manufactured products account for a larger share of its total sales than the other 1-digit products. A switch away from manufacturing products towards services should therefore translate into both a decrease in the share of manufacturing firms and a decrease in the share of employment devoted to manufacturing products at manufacturing firms. Using the EAE data described in detail in section 3.3, which provides the share of employment used for manufacturing tasks, we find that a 1 pp increase in input supply competition decreases this employment share by 0.364 pp (standard error at 0.16); the corresponding coefficient for the output shock stands at 0.0562 (0.29). The share of employment used in manufacturing tasks in the</footnote>
For those firms that maintain their manufacturing activities in France, the input shock induces them to stick to their current set of products: These firms are much less likely to introduce new products. On the other hand, the output shock induces a strong response in firms' product mix: affected firms switch to products where France's relative comparative advantage is stronger. Firms that benefit from increased access to Chinese imported inputs find it profitable to continue producing/exporting products where France's comparative advantage is weak.

Our findings are consistent with Autor et al. (2020a) and Pierce and Schott (2016) who both find that increased exposure to trade competition leads U.S. firms to reduce sales, employment and to shift their production away from labor intensive and high labor share production tasks into service activities. Our contribution is to show that the negative impact of the increased Chinese exposure on sales, employment, labor share, and domestic innovation is tightly linked to the output component of the trade shock. Finally, the direction of the effects of the shock on almost all firm-level outcomes is reversed when moving from the output component to the input supply component of the shock.

<table><caption>Table 3: MAIN FIRM-LEVEL OUTCOMES</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="5">Main outcomes</th><th colspan="2">Patents</th><th colspan="3">Products</th></tr><tr><th>(1)<br>Sales</th><th>(2)<br>Employment</th><th>(3)<br>Labor share</th><th>(4)<br>Exit mfg</th><th>(5)<br>Death</th><th>(6)<br>Triadic</th><th>(7)<br>Appln</th><th>(8)<br>Discontinued</th><th>(9)<br>New</th><th>(10)<br>Comp Adv</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Output</td><td>-0.417**<br>(0.197)</td><td>-0.367**<br>(0.167)</td><td>-0.255**<br>(0.106)</td><td>0.0104<br>(0.0751)</td><td>0.0707<br>(0.0798)</td><td>-1.312***<br>(0.487)</td><td>-1.488*<br>(0.854)</td><td>0.196*<br>(0.117)</td><td>0.191<br>(0.161)</td><td>0.637***<br>(0.155)</td></tr><tr><td>Input</td><td>0.0653<br>(0.186)</td><td>0.136<br>(0.179)</td><td>0.136<br>(0.114)</td><td>0.301***<br>(0.0890)</td><td>-0.0765<br>(0.0931)</td><td>-0.179<br>(0.482)</td><td>0.412<br>(0.945)</td><td>-0.133*<br>(0.0738)</td><td>-0.488***<br>(0.112)</td><td>-0.288*<br>(0.151)</td></tr><tr><td>F-stat</td><td>142.2</td><td>142.2</td><td>133.2</td><td>142.2</td><td>169.9</td><td>141.8</td><td>141.8</td><td>131.3</td><td>162.0</td><td>148.2</td></tr><tr><td>Mean outcome</td><td>0.0704</td><td>-0.108</td><td>-0.0236</td><td>0.0745</td><td>0.160</td><td>0.100</td><td>0.289</td><td>0.815</td><td>0.472</td><td>0.00161</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td>27,883</td><td>27,883</td><td>24,999</td><td>27,883</td><td>33,203</td><td>4,710</td><td>4,710</td><td>24,232</td><td>17,307</td><td>16,090</td></tr></tbody></table>

Notes: This table reports our main results when regressing firm-level outcomes on our firm-level output and input supply shocks. Columns (1) to (5) gather results for variables taken from French fiscal and administrative files. Columns (6) and (7) present results for triadic patents and patent applications. Columns (8) to (10) use exported products to construct measures of changes in a firms' product scope. We use DH growth rate for continuous variables and a simple linear probability model for dummy variables in columns (4) and (5). The share of discontinued products (8) is defined for firms with export data in 2000. The share of new products (9) is defined for firms with export data in 2007 and the DH growth rate of the relative comparative advantage content of a firm's exports (10) is defined for firms with available exports both in 2000 and 2007. The baseline sample includes all manufacturing firms with positive sales in 1999, which can be matched to customs data in 1999 and are recorded with at least 10 employees once between 1994 and 2007. Columns (6) and (7) restrict this sample to firms observed with at least one patent in our time window while columns (8) to (10) are by construction restricted to exporting firms. All models control for initial 5-years trends and level of sales and employment, export/import dummies as well as 2-digit industry fixed effects (NAF rev. 1 classification). We add 1999 stock of patents and pre-1999 trend in patenting activity for models involving patenting outcomes. Standard errors clustered at the 4 digit industry-level are in parentheses. ***, ** and * indicate p-value of the Student test of null coefficient below 0.01, 0.05 and 0.1 respectively.

manufacturing sector decreases by 8.95pp in our sample.
3.3 Extending the sample to non-trading (domestic) firms

The construction of the shocks relies on international trade data at the firm level to
precisely assess the set of products that are used as input and sold as output by
French firms. This strategy has the advantage of relying on very detailed customs
data which provides very granular details about the set of products exported and
imported by each firm (a classification that contains more than 5,000 manufacturing
products). However, this requires us to restrict the analysis to firms participating in
international trade.

In Table 2, columns (4) and (5), we have already shown that there is no significant
change when we go from the sample of all manufacturing firms (including firms that
do not trade) to our main sample of trading firms when we use industry-level mea-
sures of exposure to Chinese competition in order to obtain a proxy of the exposure
for the nontrading firms.

A related concern could be that the shocks affecting nontrading manufacturing firms
differ systematically from the shocks that we observe for the set of trading manufac-
turing firms. To investigate this question, we take advantage of an additional data set,
the “EAE Industry” (Enquête Annuelle d’Entreprises dans l’industrie). The EAE records
detailed information on the activity of a large and representative sample of manufac-
turing firms, therefore shedding light on both trading and non-trading firms.15 This
EAE product-level data (4-digit French NAF nomenclature) is substantially less de-
tailed than the product-level data that is available from customs data for the trading
firms (700 product codes versus 5,000) and does not exhibit enough within-industry
variation for our main analysis with industry fixed effects. Nonetheless, this new
data set allows us to construct an alternate measure for the firm-level output shocks
for both trading and non-trading firms, which we label “domestic”.16 The timeline for
the average “domestic” shock is displayed in Figure 2(a) below, along with our pre-
ferred “customs” shock that we used so far. As French firms are more likely to export
products for which France enjoys a comparative advantage, we can expect exported

<footnote n="15"><sup>15</sup>The sample contains approximately 40,000 manufacturing firms per year between 1995 and 2007.</footnote>

<footnote n="16">¹⁶We can only use the EAE data to compute a version of the output shock. We cannot use it to compute an input supply shock since it does not contain any information on inputs at the product level.</footnote>
products to be less exposed to increased trade competition stemming from China. As shown in Figure 2(a) we indeed find that restricting our analysis to the exported products observed in the customs data leads to an under-measurement in the *level* of Chinese import penetration. However, there is no discernible difference in the *changes* in Chinese import penetration over time that we exploit in our analysis: the two lines in Figure 2(a) are parallel. Similarly, we plot in Figure 2(b) the cross-sectional correlation between the two shocks after removing a fixed sector effect.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2: DOMESTIC VS CUSTOMS SHOCKS</figcaption></figure>

**Notes:** The left-hand side graph plots average firm level Chinese output import competition over the 2000/2007 period using (i) our main measure of output exposure to trade competition taken from firm level customs data and (ii) an alternative exposure measure constructed from the industry decomposition of firms' total sales (domestic and exported) as reported in the EAE survey dataset. The right-hand side graph plots the cross sectional relationship between these two different computations of the output shock after absorbing a sector fixed effect. Resulting data points have been binned into 50 categories.

Now we investigate further the differences between the customs shock and this alternate domestic shock for our regression results. For completeness, we also report differences due to changes in the underlying sample of firms – the trading firms in the customs data and the sample of firms (both trading and non-trading) in the EAE data. These regressions are reported in Table 4, and should be compared to our main results reported in columns (6) – without industry fixed effects – and column (7) – with industry fixed effects in Table 2. These regressions are reproduced in the first column (columns 1 and 5) of each panel (employment/patents and with/without fixed effects) of Table 4. As we have mentioned, we cannot construct an input shock using the EAE data, and therefore we drop this additional regressor throughout. However, switching to this alternative construction of the output shock barely impacts the coefficients as shown in columns (1) and (5) (which should be compared with columns (6) and (7) of Table 2).
<table><caption>Table 4: DOMESTIC VS CUSTOMS: EMPLOYMENT AND TRIADIC PATENTS</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th colspan="8">EMPLOYMENT</th></tr><tr><th></th><th colspan="4">Without industry FE (column 6 of Table 2)</th><th colspan="4">With industry FE (column 7 of Table 2)</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>(1)</th><th>(2)</th><th>(3)</th><th>(4)</th><th>(5)</th><th>(6)</th><th>(7)</th><th>(8)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Output</th><td>-0.879***<br>(0.194)</td><td>-1.017***<br>(0.227)</td><td>-0.897***<br>(0.304)</td><td>-0.894***<br>(0.301)</td><td>-0.328**<br>(0.160)</td><td>-0.434**<br>(0.190)</td><td>0.214<br>(0.435)</td><td>0.243<br>(0.437)</td></tr><tr><th>Shocks</th><td>Customs</td><td>Customs</td><td>EAE</td><td>EAE</td><td>Customs</td><td>Customs</td><td>EAE</td><td>EAE</td></tr><tr><th>Sample</th><td>Customs</td><td>Customs and EAE</td><td>Customs and EAE</td><td>EAE</td><td>Customs</td><td>Customs and EAE</td><td>Customs and EAE</td><td>EAE</td></tr><tr><th>Firm controls</th><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><th>Industry FE</th><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><th>F-Stat</th><td>310.9</td><td>161.7</td><td>89.00</td><td>75.34</td><td>232.0</td><td>141.1</td><td>104.2</td><td>96.15</td></tr><tr><th>Mean outcome</th><td>-0.108</td><td>-0.182</td><td>-0.182</td><td>-0.183</td><td>-0.108</td><td>-0.182</td><td>-0.182</td><td>-0.183</td></tr><tr><th>Observations</th><td>27884</td><td>12864</td><td>12864</td><td>14438</td><td>27883</td><td>12863</td><td>12863</td><td>14437</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th colspan="8">TRIADIC PATENTS</th></tr><tr><th></th><th colspan="4">Without industry FE (column 6 of Table 2)</th><th colspan="4">With industry FE (column 7 of Table 2)</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>(1)</th><th>(2)</th><th>(3)</th><th>(4)</th><th>(5)</th><th>(6)</th><th>(7)</th><th>(8)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Output</th><td>-1.465***<br>(0.492)</td><td>-1.789***<br>(0.569)</td><td>-1.740**<br>(0.749)</td><td>-1.740**<br>(0.749)</td><td>-1.382***<br>(0.483)</td><td>-1.470***<br>(0.545)</td><td>-1.913**<br>(0.908)</td><td>-1.913**<br>(0.908)</td></tr><tr><th>Shocks</th><td>Customs</td><td>Customs</td><td>EAE</td><td>EAE</td><td>Customs</td><td>Customs</td><td>EAE</td><td>EAE</td></tr><tr><th>Sample</th><td>Customs</td><td>Customs and EAE</td><td>Customs and EAE</td><td>EAE</td><td>Customs</td><td>Customs and EAE</td><td>Customs and EAE</td><td>EAE</td></tr><tr><th>Firm controls</th><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><th>Sector FE</th><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><th>F-Stat</th><td>176.0</td><td>130.4</td><td>155.1</td><td>155.1</td><td>159.2</td><td>128.8</td><td>149.7</td><td>149.7</td></tr><tr><th>Mean outcome</th><td>0.100</td><td>0.110</td><td>0.110</td><td>0.110</td><td>0.100</td><td>0.110</td><td>0.110</td><td>0.110</td></tr><tr><th>Observations</th><td>4710</td><td>3510</td><td>3510</td><td>3510</td><td>4710</td><td>3509</td><td>3509</td><td>3509</td></tr></tbody></table>

Notes: This table tests the specifications described in columns (6) and (7) of Table 2, both for employment (top panel) and triadic patents (bottom panel). Columns (1) and (5) reproduce these specifications but omit to control for the input shock constructed from our customs data. Columns (2) and (6) narrow the sample of firms to the subset of trading firms present in the EAE data. Columns (3) and (7) keep this sample but switch the output shock from the customs to the EAE one. Finally columns (4) and (8) keep the EAE shock but extend the sample to include all firms of the EAE sample (not just the intersection of customs and EAE firms. All models control for pre-1999 5-years trends and level of sales and employment and export/import dummies. Standard errors clustered at the 4 digit industry-level are in parentheses. ***, ** and * indicate p-value of the Student test of null coefficient below 0.01, 0.05 and 0.1 respectively.

Focusing on the panels on the left side (without fixed effects), we see that switching either the shock measure (domestic versus customs) or the firm sample (customs versus EAE) does not affect our main results (columns 1-4). The only noticeable difference is that the point estimate of the patent response using the EAE sample is larger, although substantially less precisely estimated. Focusing on the right-hand side panels, there are some more substantial differences between the results using the EAE and customs shocks. Most notably, the employment response becomes insignificant with the EAE shock. This is driven by the much coarser measure of product aggregation that is available in the EAE data relative to customs: There is no longer enough within-industry variation to be able to measure the employment response while controlling for industry fixed effects. Only 36% of the variation in the EAE shock is within industry. The comparable variation for the customs shock within-industry is substantially higher at 88%. In terms of the patenting response, we notice the same pattern as the one we had described without industry fixed effects: the patenting response with the
EAE shock is larger, although again much less precisely estimated.

Taken together, these additional results confirm that our main reported results for the impact of the output China shock (columns 6-7 in Table 2) are not specific to our sample restriction to trading firms. This allows us to use the much more detailed product classification available in the customs data while controlling for industry fixed effects; and crucially also allows us to measure the impact of the intermediate inputs supply China shock.

## 3.4 Introducing firm heterogeneity

The average firm behavior as described in Table 3 may hide heterogeneous responses between different groups of firms. Therefore, we group the firms according to their initial labor productivity measured as sales per worker in 1999. More specifically, we introduce below-median ($q = 1$) and above-median initial productivity ($q = 2$) dummies, which we interact with the input and output shocks. Table 5 reproduces the results from Table 3 but separates the response of each of these two groups of firms to the output and input China trade shocks.

<table><caption>Table 5: EVIDENCE OF HETEROGENEOUS RESPONSE</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="5">Main outcomes</th><th colspan="2">Patents</th><th colspan="3">Products</th></tr><tr><th>(1)<br>Sales</th><th>(2)<br>Employment</th><th>(3)<br>Labor share</th><th>(4)<br>Exit mfg</th><th>(5)<br>Death</th><th>(6)<br>Triadic</th><th>(7)<br>AppIn</th><th>(8)<br>Discontinued</th><th>(9)<br>New</th><th>(10)<br>Comp Adv</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Output*(q=1)</td><td>-0.409*<br>(0.247)</td><td>-0.489**<br>(0.206)</td><td>-0.244*<br>(0.127)</td><td>-0.0326<br>(0.0648)</td><td>0.0349<br>(0.116)</td><td>-1.259**<br>(0.516)</td><td>-1.888*<br>(1.058)</td><td>0.0189<br>(0.0926)</td><td>-0.0368<br>(0.192)</td><td>0.578***<br>(0.208)</td></tr><tr><td>Output*(q=2)</td><td>-0.403<br>(0.264)</td><td>-0.0778<br>(0.204)</td><td>-0.263<br>(0.168)</td><td>0.117<br>(0.127)</td><td>0.0442<br>(0.0888)</td><td>-1.159<br>(0.838)</td><td>-0.904<br>(1.372)</td><td>0.411**<br>(0.184)</td><td>0.377**<br>(0.178)</td><td>0.694***<br>(0.178)</td></tr><tr><td>Input*(q=1)</td><td>0.0185<br>(0.204)</td><td>-0.207<br>(0.200)</td><td>-0.0181<br>(0.128)</td><td>0.220***<br>(0.0740)</td><td>0.126<br>(0.110)</td><td>-0.0668<br>(0.481)</td><td>0.255<br>(1.139)</td><td>-0.0925<br>(0.0853)</td><td>-0.415**<br>(0.172)</td><td>-0.327<br>(0.213)</td></tr><tr><td>Input*(q=2)</td><td>0.117<br>(0.328)</td><td>0.488*<br>(0.282)</td><td>0.348*<br>(0.188)</td><td>0.371**<br>(0.162)</td><td>-0.322**<br>(0.143)</td><td>-0.341<br>(0.901)</td><td>0.428<br>(1.622)</td><td>-0.224*<br>(0.120)</td><td>-0.577***<br>(0.156)</td><td>-0.264<br>(0.194)</td></tr><tr><td>F-Stat</td><td>70.32</td><td>70.32</td><td>66.66</td><td>70.32</td><td>83.93</td><td>32.23</td><td>32.30</td><td>65.32</td><td>51.80</td><td>49.59</td></tr><tr><td>Mean outcome</td><td>0.0704</td><td>-0.108</td><td>-0.0236</td><td>0.0745</td><td>0.160</td><td>0.100</td><td>0.289</td><td>0.815</td><td>0.472</td><td>0.00161</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td>27,883</td><td>27,883</td><td>24,999</td><td>27,883</td><td>33,203</td><td>4,710</td><td>4,710</td><td>24,232</td><td>17,307</td><td>16,090</td></tr></tbody></table>

Notes: This table reproduces the exact specifications described in Table 3 but interacts our output and input supply shocks with below ($q = 1$) and above ($q = 2$) median dummies of sales per worker as measured in 1999. In addition to the controls described in Table 3 all models also control for the direct effects of the above/below median dummies. All models control for pre-1999 5-years trends and level of sales and employment, export/import dummies as well as 2-digit industry fixed effects (NAF rev. 1 classification). On the patent side we further add the initial stock of patents, the pre-1999 average patenting rate in the relevant patent category. Standard errors clustered at the 4 digit industry-level are in parentheses. ***, ** and * indicate p-value of the Student test of null coefficient below 0.01, 0.05 and 0.1 respectively.

The negative effects of the output shock highlighted in Table 3 on sales, employment, labor share, triadic patents, and patent applications turn out to be concentrated on
"laggard" firms with below median initial productivity. Consistent with this finding, the existing literature on competition and innovation points to a more negative effect of competition on innovation in firms far behind the technological frontier (Aghion et al., 2005).<fnref n="17" />

Columns (2) and (3) also show that the effects of the input supply shock on employment and labor share are positive and significant for the initially most productive firms: These firms appear more able to enhance their competitive advantage following an increase in Chinese penetration in their input markets. Consistent with this observation, these more productive firms have a lower probability of exit (column (5)).

Columns (8), (9), and (10) document how firms also respond to the China shock through product turnover and shifts in their product mix. When faced with higher competition on their output markets, frontier firms adjust their product mix: they stop exporting some of their products and start exporting new ones (columns 8 and 9). In contrast, when facing more intense competition in their input markets, both frontier and laggard firms introduce fewer new products. This suggests that improved access to cheaper inputs offsets the need to switch to new products. Finally, column (10) shows that both frontier and laggard firms respond to increased output competition by strongly shifting their product mix towards products where France has a comparative advantage relative to China.<fnref n="18" />

The heterogeneous response highlighted in Table 5 shows that both the output and input shocks were first-order factors in the evolution of employment and innovation over the 2000-2007 period. Indeed, using the two coefficients in column (2) significant at the 10% level, we can compute the counterfactual employment growth $\tilde{\Delta}Y_f^c$ that we would have witnessed absent the output shock to low-productivity firms and the

<footnote n="17">¹⁷In a selection of industries, Holmes and Stevens (2014) report that the largest firms, which produce standardized mass-market products, are the most affected by the competition from China imports. Our data are also consistent with these results. Table B1 reports a differentiated impact for the output and input shocks according to the initial size of the firm, measured by its total sales in 1999. As the output shock coefficient is not significant for the smallest firms, it suggests that overall, it is the large / low productivity firms that were hit more strongly by direct Chinese competition on their output markets.</footnote>

<footnote n="18">¹⁸This echoes the findings of Bernard et al. (2006) for the U.S.</footnote>
input shock to high-productivity firms using only within-industry variations:

$$ \frac{E_{f,2007}^{c} - E_{f,2000}}{\frac{E_{f,2007}^{c} + E_{f,2000}}{2}} = \tilde{\Delta}Y_{f}^{c} = \tilde{\Delta}Y_{f} - \beta_{O,q=1}\Delta O_{f,q=1}^{instr} - \beta_{I,q=2}\Delta I_{f,q=2}^{instr} $$

Summing over (a subset of) firms f in our regression sample, we can contrast the observed employment with this counterfactual employment. While French manufacturing employment in low-productivity firms decreases by 10.3% between 2000 and 2007, we predict that it would have decreased by 9.4% absent the output China shock. This implies that 8.6% of the decline in manufacturing employment in low-productivity firms can be attributed to this output China shock.<fnref n="19" />

While the negative impact of the China shock on employment runs through the output shock on the subset of low-productivity firms, its positive impact is passed on to high-productivity firms through their input supply shock. Given that high-productivity firms are larger on average, this positive supply shock can potentially reverse the impact of the negative output shock. Indeed, even though the coefficients are similar, the supply shock creates over three times more jobs than the output shock destroys. This estimate should be interpreted with caution, as it is derived from a coefficient that is only marginally significant (at the 10% level). However, it still clearly illustrates the quantitative importance and relevance of the vertical input supply channel for evaluating the overall impact of Chinese imports on French employment: its positive impact can potentially swamp the negative impact of horizontal product competition, which has been highlighted much more prominently in the literature.

On the other hand, the China shock is unambiguously detrimental to innovation, as the only significant coefficients correspond to the negative impact of the output shock on low-productivity firms (columns (6) and (7)). The China shock substantially reduces innovation at the impacted firms; yet the aggregate impact turns out to be very small because those low-productivity firms are small inventors. The observed DH growth in the yearly number of applications in low-productivity firms between 1993-1999 and 2000-2007 is 21%. Absent the (instrumented) output shock on these

<footnote n="19">¹⁹Close to our paper but using industry variations to study the impact of the China shock on French local labor markets, Malgouyres (2017) finds that direct trade competition accounted for 13% of the decline in French manufacturing employment.</footnote>
low-productivity firms, this growth rate would have been 27% (the corresponding figures for triadic patenting are 3.9% and 8.4%).

We now restrict our analysis to firms with at least one application in the 1993-1999 period, for which we can compute a counterfactual number of applications in 2000-2007. Among them, low-productivity firms have filed on average 1,800 patent applications each year in the 2000-2007 period. They would have filed 540 (or 30%) more applications without the output shock. However, taking into account patenting at high-productivity firms, these 540 additional patents only represent 4% of the total number of yearly patents. Since triadic patents are even more concentrated amongst the most productive firms, the China shock's impact on that higher-quality innovation is minimal. Indeed, among firms with at least one triadic patent over 1993-1999, low-productivity firms have filed for 47 triadic patents in an average year of 2000-2007, versus 640 for all firms. Low-productivity firms would have filed 14% more triadic patents absent the (instrumented) output China shock, which represents a mere 1% of these 640 patents.

# 4 Conclusion

In this paper, we use comprehensive firm-level panel data to analyze the effect of Chinese import shocks on sales, employment, and innovation. We separately identify firms' responses to the horizontal output and vertical input supply components of the China shock. We find that the output shock is detrimental to firm sales, employment, and innovation. In addition, this negative effect is concentrated in low-productivity firms. The output shock also strongly induces firms to switch their product mix towards products where France's comparative advantage relative to China is stronger. However, these effects are reversed when it comes to the input supply shock.

At the industry level, the output and input shocks are highly correlated, which makes it difficult to interpret industry-level analyses of the China shock. Instead, our results suggest that in order to correctly identify the effects of increased import competition, these two components of the China shock must be disentangled at the firm level and industry-wide trends must be controlled for. In particular, the contrasting findings in Bloom et al. (2016) versus Autor et al. (2020a) regarding the effects of the China shock
on domestic innovation might be explained once we consider more detailed firm-
level information and look more closely at firms’ input-output structures: indeed,
given that we found opposite effects of the output and input supply components of
the China shock on firm-level outcomes, a natural conjecture is that the differences
in the input-output structures in the United States versus Europe may lie behind
the opposite conclusions that come out of these two papers. Our finding of a negative
overall effect of the China shock on French domestic innovation is broadly in line with
Autor et al. (2020a). However, that effect is quantitatively small and concentrated on
French firms with low productivity.
References

Acemoglu, Daron, David Autor, David Dorn, Gordon H Hanson, and Brendan Price, "Import competition and the great US employment sag of the 2000s," *Journal of Labor Economics*, 2016, 34 (S1), S141-S198.

Adao, Rodrigo, Costas Arkolakis, and Federico Esposito, "General Equilibrium Effects in Space: Theory and Measurement," 2021. Unpublished.

Aghion, Philippe and Peter Howitt, *The Economics of Growth*, Cambridge, Massachusetts. London, England: MIT Press, 2009. OCLC: 610950320.

_ , Antonin Bergeaud, Matthieu Lequien, and Marc J. Melitz, "The Heterogeneous Impact of Market Size on Innovation: Evidence from French Firm-Level Exports," *The Review of Economics and Statistics*, 205 2022, pp. 1-56.

_ , _ , Timo Boppart, Peter J Klenow, and Huiyu Li, "A Theory of Falling Growth and Rising Rents," Working Paper 26448, National Bureau of Economic Research November 2019.

_ , _ , Timothee Gigout, Matthieu Lequien, and Marc Melitz, "Exporting Ideas: Knowledge Flows from Expanding Trade in Goods," 2021. Mimeo Harvard.

_ , Nicholas Bloom, Richard Blundell, Rachel Griffith, and Peter Howitt, "Competition and Innovation: an Inverted-U Relationship," *The Quarterly Journal of Economics*, 2005, 120 (2), 701-728.

Akcigit, Ufuk, Sina T. Ates, and Giammario Impullitti, "Innovation and Trade Policy in a Globalized World," NBER Working Paper 24543, National Bureau of Economic Research 2018.

Amiti, Mary and Amit K Khandelwal, "Import competition and quality upgrading,"
*Review of Economics and Statistics*, 2013, 95 (2), 476–490.

- and Jozef Konings, "Trade Liberalization, Intermediate Inputs, and Productivity: Evidence from Indonesia," *American Economic Review*, December 2007, 97 (5), 1611-1638.

Autor, David, David Dorn, Gordon H. Hanson, Gary Pisano, and Pian Shu, "Foreign Competition and Domestic Innovation: Evidence from US Patents," *American Economic Review: Insights*, September 2020a, 2 (3), 357-74.

_ , _ , Lawrence F Katz, Christina Patterson, and John Van Reenen, "The fall of the labor share and the rise of superstar firms," *The Quarterly Journal of Economics*, 2020b, 135 (2), 645-709.

Autor, David H., David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson, "The China Syndrome: Local Labor Market Effects of Import Competition in the United States," *American Economic Review*, October 2013, 103 (6), 2121-68.

_ , _ , and _ , "The China Shock: Learning from Labor-Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade," *Annual Review of Economics*, 2016, 8 (1), 205-240.
Aw, Bee Yan, Mark J Roberts, and Daniel Yi Xu, "R&D investment, exporting, and productivity dynamics," *American Economic Review*, 2011, **101** (4), 1312–44.

Bas, Maria, "Input-trade liberalization and firm export decisions: Evidence from Argentina," *Journal of Development Economics*, 2012, **97** (2), 481–493.

_ and Vanessa Strauss-Kahn, "Does importing more inputs raise exports? Firm-level evidence from France," *Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv)*, May 2014, **150** (2), 241–275.

_ and_, "Input-trade liberalization, export prices and quality upgrading," *Journal of International Economics*, 2015, **95** (2), 250–262.

Bernard, Andrew B, Emily J Blanchard, Ilke Van Beveren, and Hylke Vandenbussche, "Carry-along trade," *The Review of Economic Studies*, 2019, **86** (2), 526–563.

_ , Emmanuel Dhyne, Glenn Magerman, Kalina Manova, and Andreas Moxnes, "The origins of firm heterogeneity: A production network approach," Working Paper 25441, National Bureau of Economic Research 2019.

Bernard, Andrew B., Ilke Van Beveren, and Hylke Vandenbussche, "Multi-Product Exporters and the Margins of Trade," *The Japanese Economic Review*, June 2014, **65** (2), 142–157.

Bernard, Andrew B, J Bradford Jensen, and Peter K Schott, "Survival of the best fit: Exposure to low-wage countries and the (uneven) growth of US manufacturing plants," *Journal of international Economics*, 2006, **68** (1), 219–237.

Bloom, Nicholas, Mirko Draca, and John Van Reenen, "Trade Induced Technical Change? The Impact of Chinese Imports on Innovation, IT and Productivity," *The Review of Economic Studies*, 2016, **83** (1), 87–117.

Bombardini, Matilde, Bingjing Li, and Ruoying Wang, "Import Competition and Innovation: Evidence from China," Technical Report 2017.

Borusyak, Kirill, Peter Hull, and Xavier Jaravel, "Quasi-Experimental Shift-Share Research Designs," *The Review of Economic Studies*, 2021. rdab030.

Burstein, Ariel and Marc J Melitz, "Trade liberalization and firm dynamics," in "Advances in Economics and Econometrics Tenth World Congress. Applied Economics," Vol. 2 2013, pp. 283–328.

Bustos, Paula, "Trade Liberalization, Exports, and Technology Upgrading: Evidence on the Impact of MERCOSUR on Argentinian Firms," *American Economic Review*, 2011, **101** (1), 304–340.

Caliendo, Lorenzo, Maximiliano Dvorkin, and Fernando Parro, "Trade and labor market dynamics: General equilibrium analysis of the china trade shock," *Economicometrica*, 2019, **87** (3), 741–835.

Dauth, Wolfgang, Sebastian Findeisen, and Jens Suedekum, "The rise of the East and the Far East: German labor markets and trade integration," *Journal of the European Economic Association*, 2014, **12** (6), 1643–1675.
Goldberg, Pinelopi Koujianou, Amit Kumar Khandelwal, Nina Pavcnik, and Petia Topalova, "Imported intermediate inputs and domestic product growth: Evidence from India," *The Quarterly journal of economics*, 2010, 125 (4), 1727–1767.

Gopinath, Gita and Brent Neiman, "Trade Adjustment and Productivity in Large Crises," *American Economic Review*, March 2014, 104 (3), 793–831.

Grossman, Gene M. and Elhanan Helpman, *Innovation and growth in the global economy*, MIT Press, 1991.

__and__, "Quality Ladders in the Theory of Growth," *The Review of Economic Studies*, 1991, 58 (1), 43.

Holmes, Thomas J and John J Stevens, "An alternative theory of the plant size distribution, with geography and intra-and international trade," *Journal of Political Economy*, 2014, 122 (2), 369–421.

Iacovone, Leonardo, Wolfgang Keller, and Ferdinand Rauch, "Innovation Responses to Import Competition," 2011. Unpublished manuscript.

Lequien, Matthieu, Martin Mugnier, Loriane Py, and Paul Trichelair, "Linking patents to firms: insights with French firms," 2019. Mimeo Banque de France.

Lileeva, Alla and Daniel Trefler, "Improved access to foreign markets raises plant-level productivity... for some plants," *The Quarterly journal of economics*, 2010, 125 (3), 1051–1099.

Malgouyres, Clément, "The impact of Chinese import competition on the local structure of employment and wages: evidence from France," *Journal of Regional Science*, 2017, 57 (3), 411–441.

____, Thierry Mayer, and Clément Mazet-Sonilhac, "Technology-induced Trade Shocks? Evidence from Broadband Expansion in France," CEPR Discussion Papers 13847, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers 2019.

Mayer, Thierry, Marc J. Melitz, and Gianmarco I. P. Ottaviano, "Market Size, Competition, and the Product Mix of Exporters," *American Economic Review*, February 2014, 104 (2), 495–536.

Mion, Giordano and Linke Zhu, "Import competition from and offshoring to China: A curse or blessing for firms?," *Journal of International Economics*, 2013, 89 (1), 202–215.

Muñoz, Mathilde, "Trading Non-Tradables: The Implications of Europe's Job Posting Policy," 2021. Unpublished.

Pierce, Justin R. and Peter K. Schott, "The Surprisingly Swift Decline of US Manufacturing Employment," *American Economic Review*, July 2016, 106 (7), 1632–62.

Taniguchi, Mina, "The effect of an increase in imports from China on local labor markets in Japan," *Journal of the Japanese and International Economies*, 2019, 51, 1–18.

Topalova, Petia and Amit Khandelwal, "Trade Liberalization and Firm Productivity: The Case of India," *The Review of Economics and Statistics*, August 2011, 93 (3), 995–1009.
# Appendix

## A Controlling for the common component of firms' export/import flows

In this Appendix we split our output and input shocks between: (i) a net export shock on exports which are not imported; (ii) a net import shock on imports which are not exported; (iii) a common export/import shock. More formally:

* let $\tilde{x}_{f,i,t_0}$ denote firm f's net exports of product i in base year $t_0$:

$$ \tilde{x}_{f,i,t_0} = \max(x_{f,i,t_0} - m_{f,i,t_0}, 0) $$

* let $\tilde{m}_{f,i,t_0}$ denote firm f's net imports of product i in base year $t_0$:

$$ \tilde{m}_{f,i,t_0} = \max(m_{f,i,t_0} - x_{f,i,t_0}, 0) $$

* let $\tilde{c}_{f,i,t_0}$ denote firm f's import/export intersection of product i in base year $t_0$:

$$ \tilde{c}_{f,i,t_0} = \min(m_{f,i,t_0}, x_{f,i,t_0}). $$

We shall then define firm f's output, input, and common Chinese shift-share shocks, respectively, by:

$$ \Delta \tilde{H}_f = \sum_i \frac{\tilde{x}_{f,i,t_0}}{\sum_j \tilde{x}_{f,j,t_0}} \Delta S_i, \quad \Delta \tilde{V}_f = \sum_i \frac{\tilde{m}_{f,i,t_0}}{\sum_j \tilde{m}_{f,j,t_0}} \Delta S_i \text{ and } \Delta \tilde{C}_f = \sum_i \frac{\tilde{c}_{f,i,t_0}}{\sum_j \tilde{c}_{f,j,t_0}} \Delta S_i. $$

Our extended specification which splits our output and input shocks between a net export shock on exports which are not imported, a net import shock on imports which are not exported, and a common export/import shock, is summarized by the regression equation:

$$ \Delta_{t-k}^t Y_f = \alpha + \beta_O \Delta_{t-k}^t \tilde{H}_f + \beta_I \Delta_{t-k}^t \tilde{V}_f + \beta_C \Delta_{t-k}^t \tilde{C}_f + \gamma' X_{f,t_0} + \eta_s(f) + \epsilon_f. \quad (A) $$

Table A1 reports the results of this exercise and confirms the main messages conveyed in Table 3.

## B Additional Tables and Figures
<table><caption>Table A1: MAIN OUTCOMES CONTROLLING FOR THE COMMON EXPORT/IMPORT COMPO-
NENT</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="5">Main outcomes</th><th colspan="2">Patents</th><th colspan="3">Products</th></tr><tr><th>(1)<br>Sales</th><th>(2)<br>Employment</th><th>(3)<br>Labor share</th><th>(4)<br>Exit mfg</th><th>(5)<br>Death</th><th>(6)<br>Triadic</th><th>(7)<br>Appln</th><th>(8)<br>Discontinued</th><th>(9)<br>New</th><th>(10)<br>Comp Adv</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Output</td><td>-0.403**<br>(0.195)</td><td>-0.374**<br>(0.175)</td><td>-0.336***<br>(0.108)</td><td>0.0385<br>(0.0710)</td><td>0.0512<br>(0.0890)</td><td>-1.240**<br>(0.553)</td><td>-1.967*<br>(1.029)</td><td>0.279***<br>(0.102)</td><td>0.243<br>(0.164)</td><td>0.462***<br>(0.167)</td></tr><tr><td>Input</td><td>0.205<br>(0.202)</td><td>0.322*<br>(0.191)</td><td>0.0808<br>(0.119)</td><td>0.269***<br>(0.0828)</td><td>0.0159<br>(0.0929)</td><td>-0.560<br>(0.457)</td><td>-1.040<br>(0.799)</td><td>0.0297<br>(0.0736)</td><td>-0.225*<br>(0.129)</td><td>-0.00775<br>(0.141)</td></tr><tr><td>Common</td><td>-0.215<br>(0.222)</td><td>-0.215<br>(0.186)</td><td>0.140<br>(0.134)</td><td>0.0113<br>(0.0968)</td><td>-0.0563<br>(0.112)</td><td>-0.0744<br>(0.420)</td><td>1.104<br>(0.935)</td><td>-0.278***<br>(0.0714)</td><td>-0.288**<br>(0.131)</td><td>-0.0332<br>(0.168)</td></tr><tr><td>F</td><td>88.05</td><td>88.05</td><td>79.67</td><td>88.05</td><td>118.6</td><td>71.79</td><td>71.79</td><td>105.4</td><td>123.2</td><td>125.9</td></tr><tr><td>Mean outcome</td><td>0.0704</td><td>-0.108</td><td>-0.0236</td><td>0.0745</td><td>0.160</td><td>0.100</td><td>0.289</td><td>0.815</td><td>0.472</td><td>0.00161</td></tr><tr><td>N</td><td>27883</td><td>27883</td><td>24999</td><td>27883</td><td>33203</td><td>4710</td><td>4710</td><td>24232</td><td>17307</td><td>16090</td></tr></tbody></table>

Notes: This table reproduces the results of Table 3 but adds the common shock to the original specification. Because we add the common component of the output and input shocks, all results contained in this table control for a dummy indicating whether the firm both exported and imported in at least one HS6 product category. The definition of dependent variables and the exact specifications are otherwise unchanged. All models control for 2-digits industry fixed effects. Standard errors are clustered at the 2-digit industry-level. Standard errors clustered at the 4 digit industry-level are in parentheses. ***, ** and * indicate p-value of the Student test of null coefficient below 0.01, 0.05 and 0.1 respectively.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figure B1: IMPORTS FROM CHINA AND FROM EASTERN EUROPE</figcaption></figure>

Notes: This figure provides the share in total imports in France and Germany coming from Eastern European countries (left-hand side) and China (right-hand side). Eastern European countries include BGR, CZE, EST, HUN, LTU, LVA, POL, ROU and SVK. Source: OECD, STAN database.
<table><caption>Table B1: EVIDENCE OF HETEROGENEOUS RESPONSE BY TOTAL SALES</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>(1)<br>Sales</th><th>(2)<br>Employment</th><th>(3)<br>Labor share</th><th>(4)<br>Exit mfg</th><th>(5)<br>Death</th><th>(6)<br>Triadic</th><th>(7)<br>Appln</th><th>(8)<br>Discontinued</th><th>(9)<br>New</th><th>(10)<br>HHI</th><th>(11)<br>Comp Adv</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Horizontal*(q=1)</td><td>-0.148<br>(0.237)</td><td>-0.262<br>(0.225)</td><td>-0.334**<br>(0.137)</td><td>-0.00144<br>(0.0717)</td><td>0.110<br>(0.111)</td><td>-0.742<br>(0.520)</td><td>-0.917<br>(1.031)</td><td>0.170<br>(0.113)</td><td>0.197<br>(0.226)</td><td>-0.335***<br>(0.126)</td><td>0.666***<br>(0.231)</td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal*(q=2)</td><td>-0.804***<br>(0.270)</td><td>-0.542**<br>(0.227)</td><td>-0.142<br>(0.158)</td><td>0.0193<br>(0.117)</td><td>0.0357<br>(0.113)</td><td>-2.183**<br>(0.884)</td><td>-1.369<br>(1.415)</td><td>0.236<br>(0.153)</td><td>0.191<br>(0.175)</td><td>-0.283***<br>(0.109)</td><td>0.617***<br>(0.190)</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical*(q=1)</td><td>-0.0712<br>(0.219)</td><td>-0.0269<br>(0.224)</td><td>0.195<br>(0.136)</td><td>0.282***<br>(0.104)</td><td>-0.0197<br>(0.110)</td><td>-0.428<br>(0.438)</td><td>1.342<br>(1.047)</td><td>-0.00853<br>(0.0977)</td><td>-0.310*<br>(0.185)</td><td>0.201<br>(0.151)</td><td>-0.255<br>(0.236)</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical*(q=2)</td><td>0.328<br>(0.299)</td><td>0.368<br>(0.255)</td><td>0.0245<br>(0.179)</td><td>0.338***<br>(0.129)</td><td>-0.163<br>(0.163)</td><td>0.580<br>(1.258)</td><td>-1.384<br>(2.007)</td><td>-0.288***<br>(0.109)</td><td>-0.649***<br>(0.125)</td><td>0.0568<br>(0.129)</td><td>-0.307<br>(0.186)</td></tr><tr><td>F</td><td>68.15</td><td>68.15</td><td>65.26</td><td>68.15</td><td>81.05</td><td>33.77</td><td>33.77</td><td>65.66</td><td>84.60</td><td>75.06</td><td>75.06</td></tr><tr><td>Mean outcome</td><td>0.0704</td><td>-0.108</td><td>-0.0236</td><td>0.0745</td><td>0.160</td><td>0.100</td><td>0.289</td><td>0.815</td><td>0.472</td><td>0.0236</td><td>0.00161</td></tr><tr><td>N</td><td>27883</td><td>27883</td><td>24999</td><td>27883</td><td>33203</td><td>4710</td><td>4710</td><td>24232</td><td>17307</td><td>16090</td><td>16090</td></tr></tbody></table>

Standard errors in parentheses

* p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01

**Notes:** This table reproduces the exact specifications described in Table 3 but interacts the output and input shocks with below ($q = 1$) and above ($q = 2$) median dummies of total sales as measured in 1999. In addition to the controls described in Table 3 all models also control for the direct effects of the above/below median dummies. All models control for pre-1999 5-years trends and level of sales and employment, export/import dummies as well as 2-digit industry fixed effects (NAF rev. 1 classification). On the patent side we further add the initial stock of patents, the pre-1999 average patenting rate in the relevant patent category. Standard errors clustered at the 4 digit industry-level are in parentheses. *** , ** and * indicate p-value of the Student test of null coefficient below 0.01, 0.05 and 0.1 respectively.
## 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>Comptabilité, 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>G 9311</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 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 hétérogène : 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 extrémités 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'opérateur 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 risqueversibilité<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>Impfections 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. l'apport 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<br>J. BOURDIEU - A. DRAZNIKIE<br>L'octroi de crédit aux PME : une analyse à partir d'informations bancaires</td></tr><tr><td>G 9603</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 seule-ment conjoncturelles?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9615</td><td>Lexique macroéconomique Français-Chinois</td><td>La taxe professionnelle : éléments de cadrage économique</td></tr><tr><td>G 9701</td><td>J.L. SCHNEIDER</td><td>J.L. SCHNEIDER</td></tr><tr><td>G 9702</td><td>J.L. SCHNEIDER</td><td>Transition et stabilité politique d'un système redistributif</td></tr><tr><td>G 9703</td><td>D. GOUX - E. MAURIN</td><td>D. GOUX - E. MAURIN</td></tr><tr><td>G 9704</td><td>P. GENIER</td><td>Train or Pay: Does it Reduce Inequalities to Encourage Firms to Train their Workers?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9705</td><td>E. DUGUET - N. IUNG</td><td>R & D Investment: Patent Life and Patent Value</td></tr><tr><td>G 9706</td><td>M. HOUBEBINE - A. TOPIOL-BENSAID</td><td>An Econometric Analysis at the Firm Level</td></tr><tr><td>G 9707</td><td>M. HOUBEBINE</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>P. GENIER</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>G. FORGEOT - J. GAUTIÉ</td></tr><tr><td>G 9712</td><td>E. DUBOIS</td><td>Insertion professionnelle des jeunes et processus de déclassement</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><td>Does the French Consumer Price Index Over-state Inflation?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9715</td><td>X. BONNET</td><td>Peut-on mettre en évidence les rigidités à la baisse des salaires nominaires ?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9716</td><td>N. IUNG - F. RUPPRECHT</td><td>Une étude sur quelques grands pays de l'OCDE</td></tr><tr><td>G 9717</td><td>S. DUCHENE - G. FORGEOT - A. JACQUOT</td><td>Analyse des évolutions récentes de la productivité apparente du travail</td></tr><tr><td>G 9718</td><td>L.P. PELÉ - P. RALLE</td><td>Productivité de la recherche et rendements d'échelle dans le secteur pharmaceutique français</td></tr><tr><td>G 9719</td><td>ZHANG Yingxiang - SONG Xueqing</td><td>E. DUGUET - I. KABLA</td></tr><tr><td>G 9720</td><td>Lexique macroéconomique français-chinois, chinois-français</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 9721</td><td>M. HOUBEBINE - J.L. SCHNEIDER</td><td>Age de la retraite : les aspects incitatifs du ré-gime général</td></tr><tr><td>G 9722</td><td>P. AUGERAUD - L. BRIOT</td><td>ZHANG Yingxiang - SONG Xueqing</td></tr><tr><td>G 9723</td><td>P. AUGERAUD - J.E. CHAPRON</td><td>Lexique macroéconomique français-chinois, chinois-français</td></tr><tr><td>G 9724</td><td>Using Business Accounts for Compiling National Accounts: the French Experience</td><td>M. HOUBEBINE - J.L. SCHNEIDER</td></tr><tr><td>G 9725</td><td>P. AUGERAUD</td><td>Les données comptables d'entreprises</td></tr><tr><td>G 9726</td><td>P. AUGERAUD - J.E. CHAPRON</td><td>Le système intermédiaire d'entreprises</td></tr><tr><td>G 9727</td><td>P. AUGERAUD - J.E. CHAPRON</td><td>Les données comptables d'entreprises</td></tr><tr><td>G 9728</td><td>P. AUGERAUD - J.E. CHAPRON</td><td>Le système intermédiaire d'entreprises</td></tr><tr><td>G 9729</td><td>P. AUGERAUD - J.E. CHAPRON</td><td>Les données comptables d'entreprises</td></tr><tr><td>G 9730</td><td>P. AUGERAUD - J.E. CHAPRON</td><td>Le système intermédiaire d'entreprises</td></tr><tr><td>G 9731</td><td>P. AUGERAUD - J.E. CHAPRON</td><td>Les données comptables d'entreprises</td></tr><tr><td>G 9732</td><td>P. AUGERAUD - J.E. CHAPRON</td><td>Le système intermédiaire d'entreprises</td></tr><tr><td>G 9733</td><td>P. AUGERAUD - J.E. CHAPRON</td><td>Les données comptables d'entreprises</td></tr><tr><td>G 9734</td><td>P. AUGERAUD - J.E. CHAPRON</td><td>Le système intermédiaire d'entreprises</td></tr><tr><td>G 9735</td><td>P. AUGERAUD - J.E. CHAPRON</td><td>Les données comptables d'entreprises</td></tr><tr><td>G 9736</td><td>P. AUGERAUD - J.E. CHAPRON</td><td>Le système intermédiaire d'entreprises</td></tr><tr><td>G 9737</td><td>P. AUGERAUD - J.E. CHAPRON</td><td>Les données comptables d'entreprises</td></tr><tr><td>G 9738</td><td>P. AUGERAUD - J.E. CHAPRON</td><td>Le système intermédiaire d'entreprises</td></tr><tr><td>G 9739</td><td>P. AUGERAUD - J.E. CHAPRON</td><td>Les données comptables d'entreprises</td></tr><tr><td>G 9740</td><td>P. AUGERAUD - J.E. CHAPRON</td><td>Le système intermédiaire d'entreprises</td></tr><tr><td>G 9741</td><td>P. AUGERAUD - J.E. CHAPRON</td><td>Les données comptables d'entreprises</td></tr><tr><td>G 9742</td><td>P. AUGERAUD</td><td>Les compléments d'entreprise par activités - Le passage aux comptes - De la comptabilité d'entreprise à la comptabilité nationale - A paraître</td></tr><tr><td>G 9743</td><td>P. AUGERAUD</td><td>Presentation du modèle AMADEUS</td></tr><tr><td>G 9744</td><td>J. ACCARDO</td><td>J. ACCARDO</td></tr><tr><td>G 9745</td><td>J. ACCARDO</td><td>Une étude de comptabilité générationnelle pour la France en 1996</td></tr><tr><td>G 9746</td><td>X. BONNET - S. DUCHÈNE</td><td>X. BONNET - S. DUCHÈNE</td></tr><tr><td>G 9747</td><td>Apports et limites de la modélisation « Real Business Cycles »</td><td>Apports et limites de la modélisation « Real Business Cycles »</td></tr><tr><td>G 9748</td><td>C. BARLET - C. DUGUET - D. ENCAOUA - J. PRADEL</td><td>C. BARLET - C. DUGUET - D. ENCAOUA - J. PRADEL</td></tr><tr><td>G 9749</td><td>C. BARLET - C. DUGUET - D. ENCAOUA - J. PRADEL</td><td>The Commercial Success of Innovations</td></tr><tr><td>G 9750</td><td>C. BARLET - C. DUGUET - D. ENCAOUA - J. PRADEL</td><td>An econometric analysis at the firm level in French manufacturing</td></tr><tr><td>G 9751</td><td>P. CAHUC - Ch. GIANELLA - D. GOUX - A. ZILBERBERG</td><td>P. CAHUC - Ch. GIANELLA - D. GOUX - A. ZILBERBERG</td></tr><tr><td>G 9752</td><td>P. CAHUC - Ch. GIANELLA - D. GOUX - A. ZILBERBERG</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 Ac-comodative 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>A. Mourougane</td><td>Asymétrie des inflations relatives et menus costs - tests sur l'inflation française</td></tr><tr><td>G 9811</td><td>E. DUGUET - N. IUNG</td><td>Sales and Advertising with Spillovers at the firm level: Estimation of a Dynamic Structural Model on Panel Data</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 évolutions 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>C. ALLARD-PRIGENT - H. GUILMEAU - A. QUINET</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>Ch. COLIN</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. CREPON - N. IUNG</td><td>B. CREPON - 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. CREPON - Ch. GIANELLA</td><td>B. CREPON - Ch. GIANELLA</td></tr><tr><td>G 9825</td><td>B. CREPON - Ch. GIANELLA</td><td>Wages inequalities in France 1969-1992</td></tr><tr><td>G 9826</td><td>B. CREPON - Ch. GIANELLA</td><td>An application of quantile regression techniques</td></tr><tr><td>G 9827</td><td>C. PRIGENT</td><td>C. PRIGENT</td></tr><tr><td>G 9828</td><td>B. CREPON - R. MAHIEU</td><td>Microsimulation techniques applied to inter-generational transfers - Pensions in a dynamic framework: the case of France</td></tr><tr><td>G 9829</td><td>B. CREPON - R. MAHIEU</td><td>F. ROSENWALD</td></tr><tr><td>G 9830</td><td>B. CREPON - R. MAHIEU</td><td>L'impact des contraintes financières dans la décision d'investissement</td></tr><tr><td>G 9831</td><td>B. CREPON - R. MAHIEU</td><td>Bilan des activités de la DESE - 1998</td></tr><tr><td>G 9832</td><td>B. CREPON - R. MAHIEU</td><td>J.P. ZOYEM</td></tr><tr><td>G 9833</td><td>B. CREPON - R. MAHIEU</td><td>Contrat d'insertion et sortie du RMI</td></tr><tr><td>G 9834</td><td>B. CREPON - R. MAHIEU</td><td>Évaluation des effets d'une politique sociale</td></tr><tr><td>G 9835</td><td>B. CREPON - R. MAHIEU</td><td>Bilan contributifs comparés des régimes de retraite du secteur privé et de la fonction publique</td></tr><tr><td>G 9836</td><td>B. CREPON - R. MAHIEU</td><td>G. GAROQUE - B. SALANIE</td></tr><tr><td>G 9837</td><td>B. CREPON - R. MAHIEU</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 9912</td><td>Ch. GIANELLA</td><td>Une estimation de l'élasticité de l'emploi peu qualifié à son coût</td></tr><tr><td>G 9913</td><td>Division « Redistribution et Politiques Sociales »</td><td>Division « Redistribution et Politiques Sociales »</td></tr><tr><td>G 9914</td><td>DESTINIE</td><td>Le modèle de microsimulation dynamique</td></tr><tr><td>G 9914</td><td>E. DUGUET</td><td>Macro-commandes SAS pour l'économie des panels et des variables qualitatives</td></tr><tr><td>G 9915</td><td>R. DUHAUTOIS</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 9916</td><td>J.Y. FOURNIER</td><td>Extraction du cycle des affaires : la méthode de Baxter et King</td></tr><tr><td>G 9917</td><td>B. CRÉPON - R. DESPLATZ - J. MAIRESSÉ</td><td>B. CRÉPON - R. DESPLATZ - J. MAIRESSÉ</td></tr><tr><td>G 9918</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 9919</td><td>Ch. GIANELLA - Ph. LAGARDE</td><td>Ch. GIANELLA - Ph. LAGARDE</td></tr><tr><td>G 9920</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 9921</td><td>S. AUDRIC - P. GIVORD - C. PROST</td><td>S. AUDRIC - P. GIVORD - C. PROST</td></tr><tr><td>G 9922</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 9923</td><td>R. MAHIEU</td><td>Les déterminants des dépenses de santé : une approche macroéconomique</td></tr><tr><td>G 9924</td><td>C. ALLARD-PRIGENT - H. GUILMEAU - A. QUINET</td><td>C. ALLARD-PRIGENT - H. GUILMEAU - A. QUINET</td></tr><tr><td>G 9925</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 9926</td><td>J.-Y. FOURNIER</td><td>J.-Y. FOURNIER</td></tr><tr><td>G 9927</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 9928</td><td>Bilan des activités de la DESE - 1999</td><td>Bilan des activités de la DESE - 1999</td></tr><tr><td>G 9929</td><td>B. CREPON - F. ROSENWALD</td><td>B. CREPON - F. ROSENWALD</td></tr><tr><td>G 9930</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 9931</td><td>A. FLIPO</td><td>A. FLIPO</td></tr><tr><td>G 9932</td><td>Les comportements matrimoniaux de fait</td><td>Les comportements matrimoniaux de fait</td></tr><tr><td>G 9933</td><td>R. MAHIEU - B. SÉDILLOT</td><td>R. MAHIEU - B. SÉDILLOT</td></tr><tr><td>G 9934</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 9935</td><td>C. AUDENIS - C. PROST</td><td>C. AUDENIS - C. PROST</td></tr><tr><td>G 9936</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 9937</td><td>R. MAHIEU - B. SÉDILLOT</td><td>R. MAHIEU - B. SÉDILLOT</td></tr><tr><td>G 9938</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 9939</td><td>R. DUHAUTOIS</td><td>R. DUHAUTOIS</td></tr><tr><td>G 9940</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
Temps partiel féminin et incitations financières à l'emploi

G2000/12
Ch. GIANELLA

Local unemployment and wages

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

- Computerization in France : an evaluation based on individual company data

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

G2001/02
S. AUDRIC

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

G2001/03
I. BRAUN-LEMAIRE
Évolution et répartition du surplus de productivité

G2001/04
A. BEAUDU - Th. HECKEL
Le canal du crédit fonctionne-t-il en Europe ? Une étude de l'ethroégalité des comportements d'investissement à partir de données de bilan agrégées

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

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

G2001/06
R. MAHIEU - B. SÉDILLOT

Départ à la retraite : irréversibilité et incertitude

G2001/07
Bilan des activités de la DESE - 2000

G2001/08
J. Ph. GAUDEMET

Les dispositifs d'acquisition à titre facultatif d'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

Évaluation des effets des dispositifs d'allègements

G2001/11
J.-Y. FOURNIER

Comparaison des salaires des secteurs public et privé

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

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

G2001/13
P. BISCOURP - Ch. GIANELLA

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

G2001/14
I. ROBERT-BOBÉ

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

G2001/15
J.-P. ZOYEM

Diagnostic sur la pauvreté et calendrier de

revenus : le cas du "Panel européen des ménages »

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

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

G2001/17
C. AUDENS - P. BISCOURP - N. RIEDINGER
- Existe-t-il uneasy metrie dans la transmission 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

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

G2002/04
G. BRILHALLT

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

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

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

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

G2002/06
C. 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

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 résument-ils au mieux les réponses des entreprises aux enquêtes de conjoncture ?

G2002/10
I. ROBERT-BOBÉ

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

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

G2002/12
F. HILD

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

- 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

P. CHONE - D. LE BLANG - I. ROBERT-BOBEE
Offre de travail féminine et garde des jeunes enfants

F. MAUREL - S. GREGOIR
Les indices de compétitivité des pays : inter-prétation et limités

N. RIEDINGER - E. HAUVY
Le coût de dépollution atmosphérique pour les entreprises françaises : Une estimation à partir de données individuelles

G2003/02
P. BISCOURP et F. KRAMARZ

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

G2003/03
Bilan des activités de la DESE - 2002

G2003/04
P.-O. BEFFY - J. DEROYON - N. FOURCADE - S. GREGOIR - N. LAIB - B. MONFORT

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

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

P. AUBERT - B. CRÉPON
Age, salaire et productivité

La productivité des salarés décline-t-elle en fin de barrière ?

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

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

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

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

G2003/09
P. BISCOURP - N. FOURCADE
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

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

M. LECLAIR - S. ROUX
Mesure et utilisation des emplois instables dans les entreprises

G2005/01
P. AUBERT - P. SILLARD

Délocalisations et réductions d'effectifs dans l'industrie française

G2005/04
M. LECLAIR - S. ROUX

M. LECLAIR - C. REBILLARD

La dépendance des personnes âgées : une projection à long terme

G2005/07
S. RASPILLER

La concurrence fiscale : principaux enseignements de l'analyse économique

G2004/04
A. NABOULET - S. RASPILLER

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

G2004/05
N. RAGACHE

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

G2004/06
M. DUÈE

P. AUBERT - E. CAROLI - M. ROGER
New Technologies, Workplace Organisation and the Age Structure of the Workforce: Firm-Level Evidence

G2004/08
E. DUGUET - C. LELARGE

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

G2004/09
S. RASPILLER - P. SILLARD

Affiliating versus Subcontracting: the Case of Multinational

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

Public Debt Sustainability: Some Results on the French Case

G2004/11
S. ANANIAN - P. AUBERT
Travaillateurs âgés, nouvelles technologies et changements organisationnels, un réexamen à partir de l'enquête « REPONSE »

G2004/12
X. BONNET - H. PONCET

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

G2004/13
C. PICART

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. GODEFOROY

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

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

G2005/03
P. AUBERT - P. SILLARD

Délocalisations et réductions d'effectifs dans l'industrie française

G2005/04
M. LECLAIR - S. ROUX

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

G2005/05
C. AFSA - S. BUFFETEAU

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

G2005/06
P. AUBERT - P. SILLARD

Délocalisations et réductions d'effectifs dans l'industrie française

G2005/07
M. LECLAIR - S. ROUX

Mesure et utilisation des emplois instables dans les entreprises

G2005/08
C. L'ANGEVIN - S. SERRAVALLE

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

G2005/09
C. L'ANGEVIN - S. SERRAVALLE

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

G2005/10
Bilan des activités de la Direction des Études et Synthèses Economiques - 2004

G2005/11
S. RASPILLER

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. GODDEFROY<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. KOUB - 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'expression 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 MINODIER<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-Fousssi 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 travailler ? Une analyse sur les jeunes autour de 25 ans

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

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

G2012/12 V. COTTET - S. QUANTIN - V. RÉGNIER Coût du travail et 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

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 Wage Resilience in France since the Great Recession

G2014/12 F. ARNAUD - J. BOUSSARD - A. POISSONNIER - H. SOUAL
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
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
Ségrégation 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