# The value of leisure synchronization

Simon Georges-Kot, Dominique Goux, Eric Maurin

► To cite this version:

Simon Georges-Kot, Dominique Goux, Eric Maurin. The value of leisure synchronization. 2022. [hal-05375952](https://hal HAL Id: hal-05375952)

https://insee.hal.science/hal-05375952v1

Preprint submitted on 21 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
# The value of leisure synchronization

## Documents de travail

N° 2022-05 Juin 2022

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
2022/05

# The value of leisure synchronization

Simon GEORGES-KOT* Dominique GOUX** Eric MAURIN***

Juin 2022

Département des Études Économiques – Timbre G201
88, avenue Verdier – CS 70 058 – 92 541 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>* Insee</footnote>

<footnote>** Insee and Crest-Ensae</footnote>

<footnote>*** PSE and IZA</footnote>
La valeur de la synchronisation des loisirs

Quelle valeur exactement les travailleurs accordent-ils au temps partagé avec leur conjoint ? Sont-ils prêts à échanger des jours de travail rémunérés contre des jours de loisir non rémunérés avec leurs proches ? Pour répondre à cette question, nous utilisons le fait que le nombre et le calendrier des jours fériés varient de manière quasi-aléatoire d'une année sur l'autre, la plupart des salariés bénéficiant ainsi de congés supplémentaires certaines années par rapport à d'autres. Les non salariés ne bénéficient pas des jours fériés, mais nous montrons qu'une majorité d'entre eux substituent un jour de loisir non rémunéré à un jour de travail rémunéré lorsque leur conjoint salarié bénéficie d'un tel jour de congé payé supplémentaire.

**Mots-clés** : temps de loisir, synchronisation, jours fériés

The value of leisure synchronization

This paper explores the extent to which workers are willing to trade hours worked for leisure time shared with their spouse. This parameter is essential to properly assess contemporary trends in the regulation of work and leisure time. We use the fact that the number and timing of paid vacation days to which French employees are entitled vary in a quasi-random way, from year to year, along with the dates of public holidays. Self-employed workers do not benefit from public holidays but we show that a large fraction of them substitute a day of unpaid leisure for a day of paid work whenever their spouse gets an extra day of paid leave.

**Keywords:** leisure time, synchronization, public holidays

Classification JEL : J22, D13
# 1. Introduction

Leisure complementarities between spouses have long been identified as a potentially very important determinant of family labour supply (Ashenfelter and Heckman, 1974). They also represent a key policy parameter as they provide a channel through which reforms changing the working time or working schedules of a small fraction of workers can affect a much larger proportion of the population. Leisure complementarities between spouses also represent a potentially important factor of marital quality and stability and may be associated with improvement in a wide range of outcomes, from better health status to better child development.

While leisure complementarities have deep economic and social implications, it is very difficult to assess their true importance. Such an assessment requires observing independent variation not only in the amount of leisure enjoyed by spouses, but also in the timing of their leisure time.

As Daniel Hamermesh put it twenty years ago "*Simply examining how the total of one spouse's hours affects the other's is not informative about their decisions on supplying labor as affected by what is presumably their desire to be together*" (Hamermesh, 2002). Furthermore, for variations in the amount and timing of one spouse's work hours to identify cross-hour effects (rather than cross-income effects), they must be uncorrelated with that spouse's income. In this paper, we take advantage of the features of paid leave and public holidays in France to overcome these difficulties and re-evaluate the influence that spouses actually exert on each other's work and leisure time. We highlight much larger cross-hour effects than those usually identified in the literature.

In France, employees (but not self-employed workers) are granted paid days off for eleven public holidays. Eight of these days fall on the same date every year, but not necessarily on a workday. For instance, All Saints Day (November 1) fell on a Friday in 2013, but on a Sunday in 2015. The three other days fall on the same workday every year, but not necessarily on the
same date of the year. For example, Easter Monday fell at the end of April in 2014, but at the
end of March in 2016. As a result, the timing and overall number of days off employees get
from public holidays varies year-on-year according to predetermined rules that are completely
exogenous to the potential determinants of labor supply. When, from one year to the next, an
additional public holiday falls on a workday, it increases the number of days off for employees
at that time of year, without affecting their income or their number of days off at other times of
the year. Using the French Labor Force surveys (LFS) conducted between 2013 and 2017, we
show that self-employed workers who live with employees are much more likely to stop
working on that day than self-employed workers who live with another self-employed worker.
We also show that it does not lead them to work more at other times of the year, consistent with
the idea that their response does not simply reflect intertemporal substitution effects.
Ultimately, when their spouse gets an extra day off, about 50-60% of self-employed workers
living with employees take an additional day off work on the same day, namely substitute a day
of joint leisure for a workday. For large fractions of self-employed workers, the marginal rate
of substitution of one day of joint leisure for one day of paid work appears to be larger than
their daily income.

The cross-effects on the number of days off work are highly significant, but heterogenous.
Specifically, they tend to be stronger for women than for men in families without children, but
are about twice as low for women in families with children. This result is consistent with the
idea that children tend to reduce the value of non-market time shared with family for women,
but to increase it for men.

To test the robustness of our results, we check that estimated cross-effects on work-leisure
decisions disappear after their spouses’ retirement. We also use the fact that some collective
agreements authorize work on public holidays in the hotel, restaurant or food trade industries
as well as in public services that cannot interrupt their activity (e.g., hospital or police). The
LFS data confirm that the proportion of employees who take time off work on public holidays is on average much higher outside these specific industries than within these industries. The same data reveal that self-employed workers who live with employees who work outside these specific industries are themselves much more likely to take days off on public holidays than self-employed workers who live with employees who work in these industries. This alternative identification strategy suggests that, when their spouse benefits from an additional day of paid leave, about 40% of self-employed workers living with employees in non-derogatory industries take an additional day off on the same day. Estimated cross-effects are again much weaker for women in families with children.

Our paper contributes to the literature that seeks to measure and explain leisure synchronization within couples.<fnref n="1" /> This literature has long emphasized that spouses’ work schedules are more synchronized than would occur randomly. However, it is still unclear whether this synchronization reflects spouses’ desire to spend time together rather than the fact that they tend to have similar time constraints. By focusing on workers’ response to independent changes in the amount and timing of leisure enjoyed by their spouse, we are able to identify the extent to which workers are willing to trade hours worked for leisure time shared with their spouse. This parameter is essential to properly assess contemporary trends in the regulation of work and leisure time. Weekend work and non-standard working hours (evening, night or early morning) are pervasive in many developed countries, even though a large majority of workers report that these non-standard arrangements make it very difficult to reconcile family and work life (Taiji and Mills, 2020). Our results highlight that a comprehensive evaluation of policies that give employers more flexibility to set employees’ working hours and days should take account of the specific value that individuals place on the synchronization of their schedules.

<footnote n="1">¹ See e.g., Hamermesh, (2002) Hallberg (2003); Jenkins and Osberg (2005); van Klaveren and van den Brink (2007); Connelly and Kimmel (2009); Voorpostel et al. (2010); Bredtmann (2014); Qi et al. (2017).</footnote>
More generally, our paper contributes to the long-standing literature on the interdependence of spouses' decisions within couples. There is a vast body of research that explores how workers' labor supply responds to changes in their spouses' work hours or earnings, whether at the time of their spouse's retirement, during unemployment spells or after a tax reform (e.g., Lundberg, 1988, Bingley and Lanot 2007, Gelber, 2014, Lalive and Parotta, 2017, Vedeler-Johnsen et al., 2021). These contributions provide estimates of cross-effects that are often relatively modest, but that do not necessarily reflect leisure complementarities, if only because they generally capture both cross-income and cross-hour effects. A related strand of the literature focuses on reforms that lead to an income-neutral reduction in the length of the legal workweek and this approach makes it possible to better identify cross-hour effects (Hunt, 1998, Hamermesh et al. 2017, Goux et al. 2014). By exploiting independent variation affecting not only in the amount of time worked, but also the timing of work and leisure, we extend this literature and isolate the key role played by the desire to synchronize non-market time.

From their analysis of the cross-effects of the 35-hour workweek reform on French employees, Goux et al. (2014) conclude that a 10% reduction in the length of the workweek for a wife leads to a 2.5% reduction in the length of her husband's workweek (mainly through the reduction of unpaid overtime), whereas a 10% reduction in the length of the workweek for a husband has no significant effect on his wife. From their analysis of the cross-effects of Japanese and Korean reforms, Hamermesh et al. (2017) find even smaller cross-effects. Our results suggest that these earlier findings may reflect employees having little leeway to adapt the length of their workweek, at least in the short run (e.g., Altonji and Paxson, 1988, Dickens and Lundberg, 1993, Chetty et al., 2011). Focusing on self-employed workers (and, consequently, much more elastic margins), we identify much larger cross-effects and highlight large gender differences in the willingness to synchronize one's leisure time with that of one's spouse. Our findings help to reconcile the literature exploring the magnitude of cross-effects on work and leisure time
with the literature showing that leisure synchronization is both pervasive and associated with
higher levels of well-being.<fnref n="2" />

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the French regulations pertaining to public holidays. Section 3 presents a conceptual framework for our empirical analysis and section 4 describes the data used. Section 5 outlines our main findings and section 6 concludes.

## 2. Institutional context

In France, employment contracts specify the number of days of paid leave that each employee must take during the year, and this number cannot be less than 25 workdays. In addition to these days of paid leave, French employees can also benefit from a total of up to 11 public holidays in the year.<fnref n="3" /> Eight of these public holidays occur on a specific date of the year, but on a day of the week that changes from year to year : New Year's Day (January 1st), Labour Day (May 1st), Victory in Europe Day (May 8th), Bastille Day (July 14th), Day of the Assumption of Mary (August 15th), All Saint's Day (November 1st), Armistice Day (November 11th), and Christmas (December 25th). The other three public holidays take place on specific days of the week, but on dates which vary from year to year: Easter Monday (which date is set according to the *computus*), Ascension Thursday (38 days after Easter Monday), and Pentecost Monday (49 days after Easter Monday). Figure 1 describes how the different public holidays are distributed across months and weeks of the year, for the period 2013-2017.<fnref n="4" />

<footnote n="2">² See e.g. Kingston and Nock (1987), Hill (1988), Sullivan (1996), Flood and Genadek (2016), Hamermesh (2020).</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ In three administrative districts in eastern France (Moselle, Bas Rhin, Haut Rhin), the total is even 13 holidays, since Good Friday and the Boxing Day are added to the first 11. This is a legacy of the German occupation between 1870 and 1918.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴In the US there are ten federal holidays, but they are moved to the nearest workday whenever they fall on a weekend.</footnote>
In most industries, collective agreements are such that these public holidays entitle employees to additional days of paid leave as long as they do not fall on a weekend.<fnref n="5" /> Figure 2 confirms that when a public holiday falls on a weekday (i.e., excluding Saturday and Sunday) about 80% of employees do not work, compared to only 20-25% when the same weekday is not a public holiday. However, public holidays do not necessarily fall outside of a weekend. Figure 3 focuses on the eight public holidays that do not fall on a specific day of the week and shows their distribution across the different days of the week for the period 2013-2017. It reveals that they fell on a weekend in about 22% of cases (22%=9/40), a little less than if the distribution had been uniform (i.e., 28%=2/7). In fact, the figure confirms that – over this 2013-2017 period - each of these eight public holidays falls at most once on each of the five weekdays and at most twice on weekends, reflecting the continual changes in the days of the week on which each of them falls. Finally, it should be emphasized that the law and collective agreements only apply to employees: self-employed workers are free to work whenever they want.

In this institutional setting, from one year to the next, at almost any time of the year, an employee may or may not benefit from an additional day of paid leave on the one hand, and on the other hand, in a largely independent manner, may be more or less close to periods where he or she has benefited from additional days of paid leave. If we consider, for example, All Saints Day (November 1), it corresponds to an additional paid day off in 2013, 2016 and 2017, but not in 2014 or 2015. In 2016, it is a paid day off but no other (non-weekend) public holiday falls nearby, while in 2017, it is again a paid day off and another non-weekend public holiday falls nearby (on November 11).<fnref n="6" />

<footnote n="5">⁵ To be specific, the labor code requires that when work does stop for a public holiday, all employees with more than 3 months of seniority in the firm are entitled to their full wage for that day. It should be noted that the workdays which fall between a public holiday and the weekend are days when firms can also choose to grant additional paid days off. These days are referred to as *ponts* (hereafter, bridging days) in collective agreements.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶If we consider a variable indicating that workday *d* is a public holiday and a variable indicating the number of public holidays that fall on a workday in a one-year period centred around *d* (*d* excluded) the correlation between the two variables is only about -0.15.</footnote>
In the rest of the paper, we consider self-employed workers and use these year-to-year changes
in the number and timing of public holidays to identify the effects of an extra day of paid leave
granted to their spouses on (1) their own propensity to take an extra day off work at the same
point in time (i.e., on their propensity to substitute a day of unpaid leave for a day of paid work
at that same time), as well as on (2) their own propensity to take more or fewer days off work
at more or less distant points in time. Identification will be based on the comparison of the year-
on-year adjustments made by the self-employed workers who live with an employee and the
self-employed workers who live with another self-employed worker.

**3. Conceptual framework**

In this section, we present a simple conceptual framework in order to better define the
parameters identified by our empirical strategies. In this framework, the regulation of public
holidays separately identifies a parameter measuring the taste of spouses for the
synchronization of leisure activities and a parameter measuring the degree of intertemporal
substitutability of leisure time.

The model

We consider self-employed workers who are married and whose spouses are employees. Time
is divided into intervals and each interval is divided into sub-periods (typically seasons).
Specifically, each time interval (denoted $t$) is assumed to encompass two successive sub-periods
(with $w=0$ or 1). We assume that self-employed workers have full leeway in choosing the
number and timing of their days off. By contrast, their spouses (who are employees) are entitled
to paid vacation days, the number and timing of which vary from year to year depending on the
dates of public holidays. Finally, we assume that there is no leisure substitutability across time
intervals, only across sub-periods within time intervals.
At the start of each time interval, the problem of workers is to choose the amount of leave in each sub-period. For each time interval $t$, we will denote $L_{0t}$ the amount of leave taken during the first sub-period ($w = 0$) and $L_{1t}$ the amount of leave during the second sub-period ($w = 1$). Similarly, $L_{0st}$ will represent the amount of leave taken by their spouses during the first sub-period and $L_{1st}$ the amount of leave taken during the second sub-period.

With respect to labor supply behaviors, we assume that workers seek to maximize an altruistic utility function (denoted $V_t$) which depends on their own egotistical utility ($U_t$) as well as on their spouse's egotistical utility ($U_{st}$), namely,

$$V_t = U_t + \lambda U_{st}$$

where parameter $\lambda$ captures the influence of spouses on workers' own decisions. The $U_t$ and $U_{st}$ functions depend on workers' consumption (denoted $C_t$ and $C_{st}$) and leisure time as well as on the potential externalities generated by leisure synchronization. For simplicity, we assume that $U_t$ and $U_{st}$ are linear-quadratic,

$$U_t = (\varepsilon_t + \sigma L_{st})L_t^t - 0.5L_t B L_t^t + \gamma C_t \quad \text{and} \quad U_{st} = (\varepsilon_{st} + \sigma_s L_t)L_{st}^t - 0.5L_{st} B_s L_{st}^t + \gamma_s C_{st}$$

where $L_t=(L_{0t},L_{1t})$ and $L_{st}=(L_{0st},L_{1st})$. The vectors $\varepsilon_t=(\varepsilon_{0t},\varepsilon_{1t})$ and $\varepsilon_{st}=(\varepsilon_{0st},\varepsilon_{1st})$ represent unobserved (sub-period specific) shocks to the utility of being on holidays. The $B=[b_{ij}]$ and $B_s=[b_{sij}]$ matrices represent (2,2) matrices, with $b_{ii}=b_{sii}=1$ and $b_{ij}=\phi$ (and $b_{ij}=\phi_s$) when $i \neq j$. Parameters $\sigma$ and $\sigma_s$ represent taste-for-synchronization parameters whereas parameters $\phi$ and $\phi_s$ capture intertemporal substitutability of leisure across sub-periods. With these notations, workers are assumed to take $L_{st}$ and $C_{st}$ as given and to choose $L_t$ and $C_t$ so as to maximize $V_t$ under income and time budget constraints.

### Identification of cross-effects

For self-employed workers, the total amount of vacation leave is not fixed and can be adapted from one time interval to the next. As their leave is uncompensated, the main constraint is an income budget constraint, which can be written $C_t+C_{st}=R_s+r_t(1-L_t)^t$, where $R_s$ represents the
income per time interval of the spouse (as set in his or her labor contract) while $\mathbf{r}_t=(r_{0t}, r_{1t})$
represents self-employed workers' own hourly labor income. Note that we normalized to 1 the
length of time interval, so that $\mathbf{r}_t(\mathbf{1}-\mathbf{L}_t)^t$ represents self-employed workers labor income.

In this setting, it is not difficult to show that the first-order conditions imply a linear relationship
between own and spouse's leisure demand,

$$
(1) \quad L_{wt} = \sigma_1 L_{swt} - \varphi \sigma_1 L_{s-wt} - \gamma i_{wt} + v_{wt} \quad \text{for } w=0 \text{ and } 1,
$$

where $\sigma_1=(\sigma+\lambda\sigma_s)/(1-\varphi^2)$ while $i_{wt}=(r_{wt}-\varphi r_{-wt})/(1-\varphi^2)$ and $v_{wt}=(\varepsilon_{wt}-\varphi\varepsilon_{-wt})/(1-\varphi^2)$.

The first parameter of interest in equation (1) is σ₁. It provides a measure of the work-leisure
substitution effect induced at w by an elementary change in the spouse’s leisure time at the
same point in time, holding constant the income of the spouse as well as the amount of leisure
enjoyed by the spouse at other points in time (denoted -w). It is all the greater as workers enjoy
spending time with their spouses (σ and σs large) and care about each other (λ large). The second
parameter of interest is σ₂= φσ₁. It provides a measure of the work-leisure substitution effect
induced at w by an uncompensated elementary change in the spouse’s leisure time at another
point in time. It depends on σ₁, but it also captures very directly the extent to which days of
paid leave taken at different points in time are easily substitutable with each other (φ large).

In the remainder of the paper, we identify parameters σ₁ and φσ₁ by focusing on self-employed
workers who live with employees and examining how their demand for leisure at a given point
in time responds to independent changes in the number of public holidays enjoyed by their
spouses either at the same point in time or at other points in time. Public holidays induce
arbitrary changes in the overall number of paid days off that spouses can enjoy each year in
each subperiod and our identifying assumption will be that these changes are unrelated to the
unobserved determinants of self-employed workers’ demand for leisure (as conceptualized by
both i<sub>wt</sub> and v<sub>wt</sub> in our model). As discussed below, we will provide placebo tests for this
identifying assumption by looking at reduced-form effects of public holidays on self-employed
workers whose spouses are retired.

Before moving on to the econometric analysis, it should be noted that there is a one-to-one
relationship between σ₁ and σ₂ on the one hand, and (σ+λσs) and φ on the other, so that the joint
identification of σ₁ and σ₂ provides direct information about (σ+λσs) and φ. Assuming for
instance that the estimated σ₂ is found to be negligible whereas the estimated σ₁ is found to be
very significant, it will be possible to conclude that the intertemporal substitution parameter φ
is weak and that the estimated σ₁ provides a direct measure of the importance of leisure
complementarities (as captured by the composite parameter σ+λσs).

4. Data

The data used in this paper come from the Labor Force Surveys (LFS) conducted between 2013 and 2017 by the French Statistical Office. The LFS is conducted every quarter on a representative sample of about 55,000 households. It provides information on the main socio-demographic characteristics of all household members as well as on their employment status<fnref n="7" /> and occupation (or former status and occupation, when they are retired or temporarily out of the labour force). In addition, since 2013, respondents provide detailed information on their working time during a specific week of the quarter (the “reference” week). In particular, we know the exact days of the week on which they worked. The reference weeks are uniformly distributed over the quarters. Households who have to be interviewed about what they did in a given reference week are surveyed on the following week. In case they are unreachable that

<footnote n="7">⁷ When they have several jobs, their status is defined by the "main" one (the *emploi principal*), i.e. the one they spend the most time on.</footnote>
week, other attempts are made in order to survey the household up to 2 weeks and 2 days after
the reference week.

From these surveys, we build a dataset at the (individual, day) level for the period 2013-2017,
which records whether individuals (and their spouses) worked that day. We restrict our working
sample to workdays only (Monday through Friday) and to self-employed workers whose
spouses are either employees or self-employed workers.

Table A1 in the Appendix provides some basic descriptive statistics about the distribution of
workers' leave obtained from our working sample. Their probability of taking a day off work
is on average about 0.50 when their spouse takes time off in that day against only about 0.10
when their spouse works. The gap is similar regardless of whether they live with or without
children. There is a clear tendency towards synchronization, even though the correlation
between spouses' days of leave is far from perfect. In the remainder of the paper, we investigate
the extent to which this correlation really reflects the influence that spouses exert on each other.

5. Public holidays and work-leisure substitution

In this section, we focus on our working sample of self-employed workers and we explore how
they and their spouses adjust their work and leisure time in response to year-to-year changes in
the number (and exact dates) of public holidays. For those whose spouses are employees, we
expect a larger increase in the probability that their spouses will take a day off on days of the
week that fall on a public holiday. The central question, however, is whether this increase is
accompanied by a parallel increase in the probability that self-employed workers themselves
will also take a day off, even if it means giving up a day of paid work. If so, the question will
also arise as to whether this increase in the probability of self-employed workers not working
during public holidays leads (through an intertemporal substitution effect) to a compensatory
decrease at other times of the year.

Graphical analysis

To start with, Figure 4a focuses on self-employed workers’ spouses and shows the daily variations in their probability of being off work before, during and after days of public holidays, separately for those who are employees and for those who are self-employed themselves. The figure confirms that days of public holidays coincide with a significant increase in the probability of being off work for both groups of spouses. Consistent with public holidays’ regulation, it also shows that this increase is significantly larger for employed spouses than for self-employed ones. Figure 4b focuses on the difference between employed and self-employed spouses and confirms that public holidays coincide with a very significant increase in this difference (about + 25 percentage points).

Given this fact, Figure 5a considers the same sample of self-employed workers as Figure 4a and shows the daily variation in their own probability of being off work, separately for those who live with an employee and for those who live with another self-employed worker. The figure reveals that public holidays coincide with an increase in own probability of being off work which is significantly larger for those who live with an employee than for those who live with another self-employed worker. Figure 5b focuses on the difference between those who live with an employee and those who live with another self-employed worker. It confirms that the difference is small (and not significantly different from zero) in the days before and after public holidays, but that public holidays coincide with a sharp rise of about 15 percentage points in this difference. The increase in the gap shown in Figure 5b represents about 60% of the increase in the gap shown in Figure 4b.

For comparison, Figures A1 and A2 in the Appendix consider weeks in the year that do not contain public holidays (and are not adjacent to weeks that contain public holidays) and show
that during these weeks (as during the days before and after public holidays) there are no significant differences in the probability of taking a day off between self-employed workers who live with an employee and those who live with another self-employed worker. Hence, the only days when differences appear are public holidays.

Taken together, our graphical analyses are suggestive that a majority of self-employed workers are willing to substitute joint leisure for paid work: the more public holidays their spouses enjoy the more days off they take on these particular days, without working more on the other days. In the next section, we develop simple regression models to further test the robustness of these graphical findings and explore heterogeneous effects across men and women as well as across workers living with and without children.

### Econometric analysis

For each worker $i$, we denote $Spouse_{idwt}$ a dummy indicating that the spouse of worker $i$ did not go to work on the $d$th day of week $w$ of year $t$ (with $w=1$ to 52 and $d=1$ to 5) and $E_{iwt}$ a dummy indicating whether the spouse of worker $i$ is an employee. Using these notations, our baseline regression model is written:

$$ (2) \quad \begin{aligned} Spouse_{idwt} = & \alpha_0 P_{dwt} + \beta_0 P_{dwt} \times E_{iwt} + \alpha_1 B_{-dwt} + \beta_1 B_{-dwt} \times E_{iwt} + \alpha_2 A_{-dwt} \\ & + \beta_2 A_{-dwt} \times E_{iwt} + \alpha_3 R_{-dwt} + \beta_3 R_{-dwt} \times E_{iwt} + \gamma_0 E_{iwt} + X_{idwt}\gamma_1 + u_{idwt} \end{aligned} $$

where $P_{dwt}$ is a dummy variable indicating whether day $d$ of week $w$ is a public holiday for year $t$ while variable $B_{-dwt}$ indicates the number of public holidays that do not fall on $d$ but that fall on another workday in the same week as $d$ (so-called bridging days). Variable $A_{-dwt}$ captures the number of public holidays that fall in one of the two adjacent workweeks while $R_{-dwt}$ represents the number of days of public holidays that do not fall on the same week as $d$ nor on adjacent weeks, but that fall on a workday in the rest of the one-year period surrounding $d$. Finally, $X_{idwt}$ represents an additional set of controls which includes a full set of year fixed effects, week fixed effects, day of the week fixed effects.
Model (2) distinguishes between public holidays falling in the same week as day *d*, public holidays falling in adjacent weeks, and public holidays further away. As discussed below, we also considered augmented versions of the model where we further distinguish the two weeks immediately after the two adjacent weeks, the two weeks immediately after, etc. In general, public holidays falling several weeks away from *d* have very little effect on behavior in *d*, and these augmented versions of the model do not provide additional results.

The main parameter of interest in model (2) is $\beta_0$ which captures the differential impact of public holidays on the propensity to take a day off for employed and self-employed spouses. This parameter is identified by looking at whether the difference in the probability of taking a day off between employed and self-employed spouses for a given day *d* tends to be stronger on years when a public holiday falls on *d*. The other parameters of interest are $\beta_1, \beta_2$ and $\beta_3$. They capture the differential impact of public holidays on the propensity of employed and self-employed spouses to take days off in periods more or less distant from those public holidays.

Table 1 focuses on the same sample of self-employed workers as Figures 4 and 5 and shows the regression results separately for those without children (panel A) and for those with children (panel B). In both panels A and B, the first column shows the regression results for the full subsample, while column (2) shows the results for the male subsample and column (3) for the female subsample.

Consistent with public holidays’ regulations (and with graphical findings), regression results shown in panel A confirm that when an additional public holiday falls on a workday, it induces a very strong increase in the probability that spouses take time off on that particular day and that this increase is significantly more important when the spouse is an employee than when he or she is a self-employed worker. The estimated difference $\beta_0$ is about 25 percentage points and estimates are similar for men and women. These first-stage regressions also show that there is no compensatory decline in the probability that employees take time off on adjacent workdays
or workweeks. In fact, we even observe an increase in this probability on adjacent workdays, even if this additional increase is much more modest than the one observed on public holidays (the estimated differential effect $\beta_1$ is only about 6 percentage points). This adjacent workdays' effect is in line with the fact that some employees receive additional days off on days between public holidays and weekends (so called bridging days). Panel B of the Table shows that we get similar results when we replicate these first-stage analyses on the sample living with children. These results are consistent with the fact that not working on public holidays is a constraint on employees, whether or not they have children.

Given these first-stage results, the next question is whether public holidays differentially affect own probability of being off work for self-employed workers living with employees relative to those living with self-employed workers. To explore this issue, Table 2 replicates the previous analysis using the same samples and specifications as Table 1, but using own probability to take a day off as the dependent variable (rather than the probability that the spouse takes a day off).

Panel A of Table 2 shows the results for the sample living without children while panel B shows the results for the sample living with children.

With respect to the sample without children, panel A confirms that public holidays induce an increase in the probability of being off work that is significantly more important for self-employed workers whose spouses are employees than for those whose spouses are self-employed. The estimated differential impact is about 15 percentage points for women and 11 percentage points for men, namely 60% of the first stage effect for the latter and 43% for the former. Consistent with first stage results, there is no offsetting decline in adjacent days or weeks, but rather a slight increase in the probability that self-employed workers living with employees take additional days off. Generally speaking, these regression results are consistent with our graphical analysis and suggest that a large fraction of both female and male self-
employed workers are willing to trade paid work time for joint leisure with their spouse in the event that she benefits from additional public holidays.

Panel B of Table 2 shows that we get a similar picture when we replicate our regression analyses on the sample of self-employed workers living with children. We observe even more significant bridging day effects with this sample, which is in line with first-stage results. In the presence of children, however, the gap between men and women is different, since women now appear to be half as responsive as men to an additional day off for their spouse (9.2 vs 16.1 percentage points). Among couples with children, the reduced-form impact of an additional public holiday on self-employed workers’ own probability to take a day off represents 70% of the first-stage impact for men, but only about 40% of the first-stage impact for women. Women generally spend a much greater proportion of their non-market time caring for children, which likely explains why the presence of children tends to make it less attractive for her to substitute a non-work day at home for a work day.

Finally, Tables A2 and A3 in the Appendix show the result of replicating our first-stage and reduced-form analysis when we distinguish a larger number of potential effects of public holidays that fall several weeks away from day *d* (namely the potential effect of public holidays falling 2 weeks way, 3 weeks away, 4 weeks away, 5-6 weeks away, 7-13 weeks away, beyond 13 weeks away). These additional effects are all negligible and the main results of the model are unchanged.

### Public holidays after spouses' retirement

Overall Tables 1 and 2 suggest that self-employed workers adapt their demand for leisure from one year to the next, so as to be off on the same days as their spouses, even when it involves substituting leisure time for paid work. An alternative explanation for these results is that self-employed workers living with employees have a specific predilection for being off on public holidays. To further explore this idea, we replicated our regression analysis on the sample of
self-employed whose spouses are retired. We also limit the sample to those who are no older
than 65, to focus as much as possible on those who have just retired. This analysis reveals that
public holidays induce an increase in the probability of taking a day off which is not
significantly different for self-employed workers living with former employees and for those
living with former self-employed workers (Table 3, panel A). This overall increase is also of
the same order of magnitude as that observed for self-employed workers living with non-retired
self-employed spouses. It is only before the retirement of their spouses that public holidays
induce a stronger increase in the probability to take a day off for self-employed workers living
with employees.

We replicated the same analysis by focusing on the sample of self-employed workers whose
spouse is not yet retired, but nevertheless, out-of-the-labor force after having already held a job
(Table 3, panel B). This sample is essentially composed of self-employed men whose wives
have left the labor force, at least temporarily. Again, this analysis shows that public holidays
coincide with an increase in the probability of taking a day off from work that is not different
for self-employed workers living with former self-employed workers and for self-employed
workers living with former employees.<fnref n="8" />

In the end, it is only when public holidays induce a specific increase in their spouses' probability
to take a day off that self-employed workers have a stronger probability to take a day off during
public holidays. This finding is consistent with the assumption that the stronger effect of public
holidays on self-employed workers living with employees reflects their willingness to stay
synchronized with their spouses, not their specific predilection for being off on public holidays.

<footnote n="8">⁸ We use information about the last job held to define whether a person is a former employee or a former self-employed.</footnote>
Alternative identification strategy

To further check the robustness of our findings, we developed an alternative identification
strategy building on the fact that some collective agreements authorize work on public holidays
in the hotel, restaurant or food trade sectors as well as in public services that cannot interrupt
their activity (e.g. hospital or police). Appendix B provides a list of occupations that are directly
covered by these derogating regulations (including hotel receptionists, bakery or butcher
workers, hospital orderlies, nurses...). They represent about 15% of the total number of
employees and we checked that the proportion of employees who work on public holidays is
on average much higher for these specific occupations (32%) than for the other ones (13%). In
this context, the question becomes whether self-employed workers who live with employees
whose occupations are on the derogatory list actually take less days off on public holidays than
self-employed workers who live with employees whose occupations are not on the list.

To shed light on this issue, Table 4 and Table 5 focus on the sample of self-employed workers
whose spouses are employees and replicate our first-stage and reduced-form regression analysis
using those whose spouse's occupation is on the list as "treatment" group and those whose
spouse's occupation is not on the list as "control" group. Table 4 shows the results of the first
stage regressions for individuals without children (panel A) as well as for individuals without
children (panel B). Consistent with collective agreements, these first-stage results confirm that
when an additional public holiday falls on a workday, it induces a much smaller increase in the
probability that spouses take time off on that particular day when the spouse's occupation is on
the list than when the spouse's occupation is not on the list. The estimated gaps appear to be
even larger in magnitude than the estimated gaps between employed and self-employed spouses
shown in Table 1. For example, when we focus on the sample without children, the magnitude
of the first-stage gap is about 35.9 percentage points in Table 4 (when we compare spouses on
the list and not on the list), while it only 25 percentage points in Table 1 (when we compare
employed and self-employed spouses). First-stage regressions in Table 4 also confirm that there is no offsetting rise in the probability that spouses on the list take time off on adjacent workdays or workweeks. In fact, consistent with our previous analysis, we even observe a further decrease in their probability of being off work on adjacent workdays and workweeks.

Given these first-stage results, the question is whether public holidays differentially affect own probability of being off work for self-employed workers living with employees whose occupation is on the derogatory list relative to those living with employees whose occupation is not on the list. To explore this issue, Table 5 replicates the previous analysis using own probability to take a day off as the dependent variable (rather than the probability that the spouse takes a day off).

With respect to individuals living without children, the panel A of Table 5 confirms that public holidays induce an increase in the probability of being off work that is significantly less important for self-employed workers whose spouse's occupation is on the list than for those whose spouse's occupation is not on the list. The estimated differential impact is about -13 percentage points for men and -16 percentage points for women, which corresponds to about 40% of the first stage effect for both men and women. Also, once again, there is no compensatory rise in adjacent days or weeks, but rather a slight further decrease in the probability that self-employed workers living with employees whose occupation is on the list take days off.

Consistent with our previous findings, the panel B of Table 5 shows that we get a somewhat different picture when we focus on individuals living with children. On the one hand, men living with children are as affected as men without children by an additional day off for their spouse. On the other hand, women living with children appear to be completely unaffected. The estimated reduced form impact of public holidays is about -11.3 percentage points for men (about 33% of the first stage effect) whereas it is close to zero for women. This result provides
further confirmation that in the presence of children, women are much less likely to substitute
a day with their family for a work day.

6. Concluding remarks

This article draws on French regulations of paid leave and public holidays to assess the extent
to which male and female workers synchronize their leisure time with that of their spouses.
These regulations imply that public holidays may fall quasi randomly either during the weekend
or outside the week-end, depending on the year, which generates exogenous and income-neutral
variation in the number and timing of paid days off that employees (but not self-employed
workers) are entitled to. Employees benefit, in certain years, at certain specific times of the
year, from additional days off. When comparing self-employed workers who are married to
employees with those who are married to other self-employed workers, we show that a majority
of the former choose to take more days off in years when their spouses receive additional leave
and that they take them at the same time as their spouses. By comparing couples with and
without children, we also show that the willingness to synchronize with one's spouse is more
important for women than for men when there are no children in the household, but that the
reverse is true when there are children in the household. Children tend to increase the value of
time spent with one's spouse for men, not for women.

Overall, our paper provides estimates of cross-effects on work and leisure time that are much
larger than those previously found in the literature and much more consistent with the fact that
time spent with one's spouse is generally associated with higher levels of subjective well-being.
It also highlights that the willingness to synchronize with one's spouse is unevenly distributed
across families and between men and women. Generally speaking, these results help to
understand why reforms affecting the working hours and leave entitlements of particular
categories of employees - such as reforms allowing Sunday work in shops in exchange for more
days off - can affect the working hours and well-being of many more workers, including self-
employed workers. They also suggest that the final outcome of these reforms may be very
different depending on whether they primarily affect a more female or a more male subset of
the labor force. Finally, our results also help to understand the tensions generated by regulations
that allow employers to adjust their employees' working hours and days more freely to
fluctuations in business activity. By promoting firm flexibility, these reforms aim to boost
growth and job creation, but they are not necessarily compatible with employees' own demand
for working hour flexibility, their desire to share more time with their spouses and to better
balance work and family life.

References

Altonji, Joseph G. and Paxson, Christina H.. 1992. "Labor Supply, Hours Constraints, and Job Mobility". *The Journal of Human Resources*, 27(2), 256–278.

Ashenfelter, Orley and James Heckman. 1974. "The estimation of income and substitution effects in a model of family labor supply" *Econometrica* 42(1): 73-85.

Bredtmann, Julia. 2014. “The Intra-household Division of Labor: An Empirical Analysis of Spousal Influences on Individual Time Allocation.” *Labour* 28(1): 1-39.

Bingley, Paul and Lanot, Gauthier. 2007. “Public pension programmes and the retirement of married couples in Denmark”, *Journal of Public Economics*, 91(10): 1878-1901.

Chetty, Raj, John N. Friedman, Tore Olsen, Luigi Pistaferri. 2011. “Adjustment Costs, Firm Responses, and Micro vs. Macro Labor Supply Elasticities: Evidence from Danish Tax Records”., *The Quarterly Journal of Economics*, 126(2), 749–804,

Connelly, Rachel and Kimmel, Jean. 2009. “Spousal influences on parents’ non-market time choices.” *Review of Economics of the Household* 7(4): 361-394.
Dickens, William T., and Lundberg, Shelly J., 1993, “Hours Restrictions and Labor Supply”,
*International Economic Review*, 34(1):169-192

Flood, Sarah and Katie R. Genadek. 2016. “Time for Each Other: Work and Family Constraints Among Couples” *Journal of Marriage and Family* 78(1):142-164.

Gelber, Alexander M. 2014. “Taxation and the Earnings of Husbands and Wives: Evidence from Sweden.” *Review of Economics and Statistics* 96 (2): 287–305.

Georges-Kot, Simon, Dominique Goux, and Eric Maurin. 2017. “Following the crowd: leisure complementarities beyond the household.” *Journal of Labor Economics* 35(4): 1061-1088.

Goux, Dominique, Eric Maurin, and Barbara Petrongolo. 2014. “Worktime regulations and spousal labor supply.” *American Economic Review* 104 (1): 252–276.

Hallberg, Daniel. 2003. “Synchronous leisure, jointness and household labor supply.” *Labor Economics* 10 (2): 185–203.

Hamermesh, Daniel S. Daiji Kawagushi and Jungmin Lee. 2017. “Does labor legislation benefit workers? Well-being after an hours reduction.” *Journal of Japanese and International Economics* vol 44(C): 1–12.

Hamermesh, Daniel S. 2020. “Life Satisfaction, Loneliness and Togetherness, with an Application to Covid-19 Lock-downs” *Review of Economics of the Household* 18(4): 983-1000.

Hamermesh, Daniel S. 2002. “Timing, togetherness and time windfalls.” *Journal of Population Economics* 15 (4): 601–32.

Hill, Martha S. 1988. “Marital stability and spouses’ shared leisure time. A multidisciplinary hypothesis.” *Journal of Family Issues* 9 (4): 427–51.

Hunt, Jennifer. 1998. “Hours Reductions as Work-Sharing.” *Brookings Papers on Economic Activity* (1): 339-69.
Jenkins, Stephen P., and Lars Osberg. 2005. "Nobody to play with? The implications of leisure coordination." In: *The Economics of Time Use*, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 113–145.

Kingston, P. W., and Nock, S. L. 1987. "Time together among dual-earner couples." *American Sociological Review* 52(3): 391-400.

van Klaveren, C., and van den Brink, H.M. 2007. "Intra-household work time synchronization." *Social Indicators Research* 84: 39.

Lalive, Raphael and Pierpaolo Parrotta, 2017, “How Does Pension Eligibility Affect Labor Supply in Couples?”, *Labour Economics*, 46 (C):177-188.

Lundberg, Shelly, 1988, “Labor Supply of Husbands and Wives: A Simultaneous Equations Approach” *The Review of Economics and Statistics*, May 1988, 224-235.

Qi, Liangshu, Li, Haojie and Liu, Lan. 2017. “A note on Chinese couples’ time synchronization.” *Review of Economics of the Household* 15(4): 1249-1262.

Sullivan, Oriel. 1996. "Time Co-Ordination, the Domestic Division of Labour and Affective Relations: Time Use and the Enjoyment of Activities within Couples" *Sociology* 30(1): 79-100.

Taiji, Riley and Melinda C Mills, 2020, “Non-standard Schedules, Work–Family Conflict, and the Moderating Role of National Labour Context: Evidence from 32 European Countries”, *European Sociological Review*, 36 (2) : 179–197,

Vedeler Johnsen, Julian, Kjell Vaage, Alexander Willén, 2021, “Interactions in Public Policies: Spousal Responses and Program Spillovers of Welfare Reforms”, *The Economic Journal*, forthcoming.

Voorpostel, Marieke, van der Lippe, Tanja and Gershuny, Jonathan. 2010. “Spending Time Together—Changes Over Four Decades in Leisure Time Spent with a Spouse.” *Journal of Leisure Research* 42(2): 243-265.
<table><caption>Figure 1. Distribution of public holidays across the weeks of the year, between 2013 and 2017</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>January</th><th>February</th><th>March</th><th>April</th><th>May</th><th>June</th><th>July</th><th>August</th><th>September</th><th>October</th><th>November</th><th>December</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>2013</th><td>+</td><td></td><td>++</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>2014</th><td>+</td><td></td><td></td><td>++</td><td>++</td><td>+</td><td></td><td>*</td><td>+</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>2015</th><td>+</td><td></td><td>++</td><td></td><td>++</td><td>+</td><td></td><td>+</td><td>o</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>2016</th><td>+</td><td></td><td>++</td><td></td><td>o+o+</td><td></td><td></td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>2017</th><td>o</td><td></td><td></td><td>++</td><td>++</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td></td><td></td><td>++</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: the figure shows public holidays falling during weekdays (+ symbol) and public holidays falling during weekends (o symbol) for the 2013-2017 period. The symbols in grey correspond to the two public holidays that are specific to the three Alsace Moselle districts.
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2: Public holidays and the proportion of employees not working</figcaption></figure>

Note: the figure shows the proportion of employees who work on a given workday when it falls on a public holiday (light grey bar) and when it does not fall on a public holiday (dark grey bar).

Source: Labor Force Surveys, 2013-2017, Insee.
<table><caption>Figure 3. Distribution of public holidays across the days of the week (2013-2017 period)</caption><thead><tr><th>Public holiday</th><th>Monday</th><th>Tuesday</th><th>Wednesday</th><th>Thursday</th><th>Friday</th><th>Saturday</th><th>Sunday</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>New year</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Labour</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Victory in Europe</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Bastille</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>the Assumption of Mary</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>All saints</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Armistice</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Christmas</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>6</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>8</td><td>3</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Boxing day</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Total (in Alsace Moselle)</td><td>7</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>9</td><td>4</td><td>6</td></tr></tbody></table>

Reading: between 2013 and 2017, the Labour Day (May, 1st) falls once on a Monday, once on a Wednesday, once on a Thursday, once on a Friday and once on a Sunday.
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>(b) Difference in probability of taking a day off between employed and self-employed spouses</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

Note: the figures refer to the sample of self-employed workers whose spouses are either self-employed workers or full-time employees. Figure (a) shows the proportion of spouses who do not work on a given weekday when it falls on a public holiday (d=0), as well as when it falls on one of the seven weekdays preceding that public holiday (d=-1, ..., -7) or on one of the seven weekdays following that holiday (d=1, ..., 7). The dashed line refers to self-employed spouses while the solid line refers to employed spouses. Figure (b) shows the estimated difference between the solid and dashed lines plotted in Figure (a), the average difference outside the [-7,+7] interval being taken as a reference. 95% confidence intervals are shown in dashed lines. Source: Labor Force Survey, 2013-2017, Insee.
<caption>Figure 5. Public holidays and own days off</caption>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>(b) Differences in own probability of taking a day off depending on whether the spouse is employed or not</figcaption></figure>

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

<footnote>Note: same sample and source as Figure 4. Figure (a) shows the proportion not working on a given weekday when it falls on a public holiday (d=0), as well as when it falls on one of the seven weekdays preceding that public holiday (d=-1, ..., -7) or on one of the seven weekdays following that holiday (d=1, ..., 7). The dashed line refers to those whose spouses are self-employed and the solid line to those whose spouses are employed. Figure (b) shows the estimated difference between the solid and dashed lines plotted in Figure (a), the average difference outside the [-7,+7] interval being taken as a reference. 95% confidence intervals are shown in dashed lines.</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 1. Public holidays and the probability of spouses of self-employed workers taking a day off</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>(1)<br>All</th><th>(2)<br>Male</th><th>(3)<br>Female</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>Panel A: couples without children</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Public holiday</td><td>0.347<br>(0.023)</td><td>0.324<br>(0.025)</td><td>0.373<br>(0.024)</td></tr><tr><td>Public holiday x spouse employee</td><td>0.250<br>(0.024)</td><td>0.254<br>(0.027)</td><td>0.257<br>(0.031)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. public holidays on the same week</td><td>0.017<br>(0.014)</td><td>-0.003<br>(0.017)</td><td>0.037<br>(0.016)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on same week x spouse employee</td><td>0.058<br>(0.017)</td><td>0.068<br>(0.020)</td><td>0.053<br>(0.024)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. public holiday on adjacent weeks</td><td>-0.005<br>(0.010)</td><td>-0.004<br>(0.012)</td><td>-0.004<br>(0.011)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. adjacent weeks x spouse employee</td><td>0.016<br>(0.010)</td><td>0.012<br>(0.013)</td><td>0.024<br>(0.014)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. public holiday during the rest of the year</td><td>0.000<br>(0.004)</td><td>-0.001<br>(0.005)</td><td>0.002<br>(0.005)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. rest of the year x spouse employee</td><td>0.000<br>(0.005)</td><td>0.002<br>(0.006)</td><td>-0.002<br>(0.006)</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td>79,640</td><td>47,125</td><td>32,515</td></tr><tr><td>Mean dep. var.</td><td>0.192</td><td>0.215</td><td>0.159</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>Panel B: couples with children</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Public holiday</td><td>0.333<br>(0.015)</td><td>0.326<br>(0.017)</td><td>0.341<br>(0.017)</td></tr><tr><td>Public holiday x spouse employee</td><td>0.229<br>(0.016)</td><td>0.229<br>(0.019)</td><td>0.231<br>(0.021)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. public holidays on the same week</td><td>-0.031<br>(0.010)</td><td>-0.036<br>(0.013)</td><td>-0.024<br>(0.011)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on same week x spouse employee</td><td>0.101<br>(0.011)</td><td>0.107<br>(0.014)</td><td>0.091<br>(0.014)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. public holiday on adjacent weeks</td><td>-0.009<br>(0.006)</td><td>-0.011<br>(0.008)</td><td>-0.006<br>(0.008)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. adjacent weeks x spouse employee</td><td>0.016<br>(0.007)</td><td>0.016<br>(0.009)</td><td>0.015<br>(0.009)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. public holiday during the rest of the year</td><td>0.002<br>(0.003)</td><td>0.000<br>(0.004)</td><td>0.004<br>(0.003)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. rest of the year x spouse employee</td><td>0.002<br>(0.003)</td><td>0.005<br>(0.004)</td><td>-0.002<br>(0.004)</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td>177,625</td><td>103,480</td><td>74,145</td></tr><tr><td>Mean dep. var.</td><td>0.206</td><td>0.236</td><td>0.165</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: the table refers to the same sample of self-employed as Figure 4. It shows the results of regressing a variable indicating that their spouses do not work on a given weekday *d* on variables indicating (1) that *d* is a public holiday, (2) the number of public holidays falling on the same week as *d* (but not on *d*), (3) the number of public holidays falling on adjacent weeks, (4) the number of public holidays falling within the remainder of the one-year interval surrounding *d*, as well as the interactions between these 4 variables and a dummy indicating that spouses are employees. Additional controls include full sets of day of the week, week of the year, and year of observation fixed effects, as well as controls for school holidays and controls for industry, education, age, gender, occupation. Column (1) shows the results for the full sample, while col. (2) and (3) show the results for the male and female subsamples. Standard errors clustered at the household level are reported in parentheses. Source: Labor Force Survey, 2013-2017, Insee.
<table><caption>Table 2. Public holidays and own probability of taking a day off</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>(1)<br>All</th><th>(2)<br>Male</th><th>(3)<br>Female</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>Panel A: without children</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Public holiday</td><td>0.345<br>(0.022)</td><td>0.363<br>(0.024)</td><td>0.324<br>(0.025)</td></tr><tr><td>Public holiday x spouse employee</td><td>0.129<br>(0.025)</td><td>0.110<br>(0.029)</td><td>0.154<br>(0.034)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. public holidays on the same week</td><td>0.021<br>(0.014)</td><td>0.0037<br>(0.016)</td><td>0.004<br>(0.017)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on same week x spouse employee</td><td>0.013<br>(0.016)</td><td>-0.000<br>(0.018)</td><td>0.026<br>(0.023)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. public holiday on adjacent weeks</td><td>-0.004<br>(0.010)</td><td>-0.005<br>(0.010)</td><td>-0.006<br>(0.013)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. adjacent weeks x spouse employee</td><td>0.021<br>(0.010)</td><td>0.024<br>(0.011)</td><td>0.019<br>(0.015)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. public holiday during the rest of the year</td><td>-0.002<br>(0.004)</td><td>-0.003<br>(0.005)</td><td>-0.001<br>(0.005)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. rest of the year x spouse employee</td><td>0.003<br>(0.005)</td><td>0.002<br>(0.005)</td><td>0.007<br>(0.007)</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td>79,640</td><td>47,125</td><td>32,515</td></tr><tr><td>Mean dep. var.</td><td>0.171</td><td>0.148</td><td>0.205</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>Panel B: with children</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Public holiday</td><td>0.349<br>(0.015)</td><td>0.357<br>(0.016)</td><td>0.340<br>(0.017)</td></tr><tr><td>Public holiday x spouse employee</td><td>0.137<br>(0.017)</td><td>0.161<br>(0.019)</td><td>0.092<br>(0.022)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. public holidays on the same week</td><td>-0.009<br>(0.010)</td><td>-0.006<br>(0.010)</td><td>-0.013<br>(0.013)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on same week x spouse employee</td><td>0.047<br>(0.010)</td><td>0.051<br>(0.012)</td><td>0.038<br>(0.015)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. public holiday on adjacent weeks</td><td>0.000<br>(0.006)</td><td>0.001<br>(0.007)</td><td>-0.001<br>(0.009)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. adjacent weeks x spouse employee</td><td>0.003<br>(0.006)</td><td>0.010<br>(0.007)</td><td>-0.009<br>(0.009)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. public holiday during the rest of the year</td><td>0.001<br>(0.003)</td><td>0.002<br>(0.003)</td><td>-0.000<br>(0.004)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. rest of the year x spouse employee</td><td>0.001<br>(0.003)</td><td>0.002<br>(0.003)</td><td>-0.002<br>(0.005)</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td>177,625</td><td>103,480</td><td>74,145</td></tr><tr><td>Mean dep. var.</td><td>0.181</td><td>0.138</td><td>0.242</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: the table shows the regression result of the same model as Table 1, on the same sample of self-employed workers, when the dependent variable is a dummy indicating that they (rather than their spouses) do not work on a given weekday *d*. Source: Labor Force Survey, 2013-2017, Insee. Standard errors clustered at the household level are reported in parentheses.
<table><caption>Table 3. Public holidays effects when spouses are no longer in the labor force</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>(1)<br>All</th><th>(2)<br>Male</th><th>(3)<br>Female</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>Panel A: spouse is retired</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Public holiday</td><td>0.348<br>(0.062)</td><td>0.400<br>(0.115)</td><td>0.326<br>(0.073)</td></tr><tr><td>Public holiday x spouse former employee</td><td>0.053<br>(0.065)</td><td>0.025<br>(0.116)</td><td>0.024<br>(0.081)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. public holidays on the same week</td><td>-0.003<br>(0.041)</td><td>-0.026<br>(0.076)</td><td>-0.003<br>(0.049)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on the same week x spouse<br>former employee</td><td>0.030<br>(0.042)</td><td>0.064<br>(0.077)</td><td>0.010<br>(0.053)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on adjacent weeks</td><td>0.006<br>(0.025)</td><td>-0.059<br>(0.041)</td><td>0.023<br>(0.031)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on adjacent weeks x spouse<br>former employee</td><td>-0.007<br>(0.025)</td><td>0.038<br>(0.040)</td><td>-0.010<br>(0.034)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on the rest of the year</td><td>0.019<br>(0.014)</td><td>-0.004<br>(0.026)</td><td>0.016<br>(0.015)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on the rest of the year x spouse<br>former employee</td><td>-0.021<br>(0.014)</td><td>0.002<br>(0.026)</td><td>-0.017<br>(0.017)</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td>14,355</td><td>7,610</td><td>6,745</td></tr><tr><td>Mean dep. var.</td><td>0.222</td><td>0.202</td><td>0.243</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>Panel B: spouse not retired, but out of the<br>labor force</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Public holiday</td><td>0.453<br>(0.045)</td><td>0.452<br>(0.050)</td><td>0.371<br>(0.101)</td></tr><tr><td>Public holiday x spouse former employee</td><td>0.031<br>(0.047)</td><td>0.041<br>(0.052)</td><td>0.016<br>(0.112)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. public holidays on the same week</td><td>0.013<br>(0.035)</td><td>-0.006<br>(0.041)</td><td>0.033<br>(0.072)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on the same week x spouse<br>former employee</td><td>0.027<br>(0.036)</td><td>0.054<br>(0.041)</td><td>-0.085<br>(0.080)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on adjacent weeks</td><td>0.036<br>(0.023)</td><td>0.032<br>(0.027)</td><td>0.031<br>(0.045)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on adjacent weeks x spouse<br>former employee</td><td>-0.028<br>(0.022)</td><td>-0.024<br>(0.026)</td><td>-0.046<br>(0.044)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on the rest of the year</td><td>-0.016<br>(0.009)</td><td>-0.018<br>(0.010)</td><td>-0.015<br>(0.020)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on the rest of the year x spouse<br>former employee</td><td>0.015<br>(0.009)</td><td>0.019<br>(0.010)</td><td>-0.009<br>(0.021)</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td>34,310</td><td>30,630</td><td>3,680</td></tr><tr><td>Mean dep. var.</td><td>0.185</td><td>0.177</td><td>0.244</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: the table shows the regression results of the same model as in Table 5 when the dummy indicating that spouses are employees is replaced by a dummy indicating that they are former employees. Panel A refers to the sample of self-employed whose spouses are retired (either as former self-employed or former employees) and aged 65 or less. Panel B refers to the sample of self-employed whose spouses are not retired, but out of the labor market (again, as either former self-employed or former employees) aged 65 or less. Source: Labor Force Survey, 2013-2017, Insee. Standard errors clustered at the household level are reported in parentheses.
<table><caption>Table 4. Public holidays and the probability of spouses of self-employed workers taking a day off: alternative source of identification</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>(1)<br>All</th><th>(2)<br>Male</th><th>(3)<br>Female</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>Panel A: without children</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Public holiday</td><td>0.633<br>(0.016)</td><td>0.622<br>(0.021)</td><td>0.658<br>(0.027)</td></tr><tr><td>Public holiday x spouse on the list</td><td>-0.359<br>(0.037)</td><td>-0.341<br>(0.044)</td><td>-0.420<br>(0.069)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on the same week</td><td>0.065<br>(0.016)</td><td>0.059<br>(0.020)</td><td>0.079<br>(0.025)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. same week x spouse on the list</td><td>-0.100<br>(0.032)</td><td>-0.078<br>(0.037)</td><td>-0.173<br>(0.071)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on adjacent weeks</td><td>0.009<br>(0.011)</td><td>0.013<br>(0.014)</td><td>0.004<br>(0.018)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. adjacent weeks x spouse on the list</td><td>-0.066<br>(0.020)</td><td>-0.071<br>(0.023)</td><td>-0.047<br>(0.039)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on the rest of the year</td><td>0.002<br>(0.005)</td><td>0.001<br>(0.006)</td><td>0.004<br>(0.007)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. rest of the year x spouse on list</td><td>-0.022<br>(0.008)</td><td>-0.023<br>(0.010)</td><td>-0.019<br>(0.013)</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td>40,110</td><td>27,360</td><td>12,750</td></tr><tr><td>Mean dep. var.</td><td>0.220</td><td>0.234</td><td>0.189</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>Panel B: with children</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Public holiday</td><td>0.598<br>(0.011)</td><td>0.605<br>(0.013)</td><td>0.585<br>(0.018)</td></tr><tr><td>Public holiday x spouse on the list</td><td>-0.326<br>(0.025)</td><td>-0.341<br>(0.030)</td><td>-0.286<br>(0.048)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on the same week</td><td>0.061<br>(0.010)</td><td>0.070<br>(0.012)</td><td>0.044<br>(0.016)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. same week x spouse on the list</td><td>-0.043<br>(0.020)</td><td>-0.059<br>(0.024)</td><td>-0.005<br>(0.037)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on adjacent weeks</td><td>-0.000<br>(0.007)</td><td>-0.001<br>(0.009)</td><td>0.005<br>(0.010)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. adjacent weeks x spouse on the list</td><td>-0.016<br>(0.013)</td><td>-0.004<br>(0.015)</td><td>-0.050<br>(0.023)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on the rest of the year</td><td>0.005<br>(0.003)</td><td>0.005<br>(0.003)</td><td>0.004<br>(0.004)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. rest of the year x spouse on list</td><td>-0.000<br>(0.006)</td><td>0.001<br>(0.007)</td><td>-0.003<br>(0.010)</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td>101,855</td><td>65,595</td><td>36,260</td></tr><tr><td>Mean dep. var.</td><td>0.231</td><td>0.250</td><td>0.197</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: the table refers to the sample of self-employed workers whose spouse is a full-time employee. The estimated models are the same as in Table 1, except that the dummy indicating that the spouse is an employee is replaced by a dummy indicating that the spouse's occupation is on the list in Appendix B. Source: Labor Force Survey, 2013-2017, Insee. Standard errors clustered at the household level are reported in parentheses.

.
<table><caption>Table 5: Public holidays and own probability of taking a day off: alternative source of identification</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>(1)<br>All</th><th>(2)<br>Male</th><th>(3)<br>Female</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>Panel A: without children</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Public holiday</td><td>0.473<br>(0.018)</td><td>0.476<br>(0.023)</td><td>0.459<br>(0.031)</td></tr><tr><td>Public holiday x spouse on the list</td><td>-0.134<br>(0.042)</td><td>-0.125<br>(0.049)</td><td>-0.159<br>(0.083)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on the same week</td><td>0.018<br>(0.014)</td><td>0.021<br>(0.017)</td><td>0.012<br>(0.025)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. same week x spouse on the list</td><td>-0.030<br>(0.030)</td><td>-0.015<br>(0.034)</td><td>-0.090<br>(0.058)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on adjacent weeks</td><td>0.010<br>(0.010)</td><td>0.013<br>(0.012)</td><td>-0.001<br>(0.018)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. adjacent weeks x spouse on the list</td><td>-0.031<br>(0.018)</td><td>-0.032<br>(0.021)</td><td>-0.019<br>(0.035)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on the rest of the year</td><td>-0.002<br>(0.004)</td><td>-0.002<br>(0.005)</td><td>-0.001<br>(0.007)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. rest of the year x spouse on list</td><td>-0.007<br>(0.007)</td><td>-0.009<br>(0.008)</td><td>-0.006<br>(0.014)</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td>40,110</td><td>27,360</td><td>12,750</td></tr><tr><td>Mean dep. var.</td><td>0.179</td><td>0.154</td><td>0.231</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>Panel B: with children</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Public holiday</td><td>0.494<br>(0.011)</td><td>0.537<br>(0.014)</td><td>0.422<br>(0.019)</td></tr><tr><td>Public holiday x spouse on the list</td><td>-0.077<br>(0.025)</td><td>-0.113<br>(0.030)</td><td>-0.011<br>(0.045)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on the same week</td><td>0.033<br>(0.009)</td><td>0.046<br>(0.010)</td><td>0.011<br>(0.016)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. same week x spouse on the list</td><td>0.003<br>(0.017)</td><td>-0.019<br>(0.020)</td><td>0.059<br>(0.035)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on adjacent weeks</td><td>0.003<br>(0.006)</td><td>0.011<br>(0.007)</td><td>-0.013<br>(0.011)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. adjacent weeks x spouse on the list</td><td>-0.008<br>(0.010)</td><td>-0.005<br>(0.012)</td><td>-0.024<br>(0.022)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on the rest of the year</td><td>0.002<br>(0.002)</td><td>0.004<br>(0.003)</td><td>-0.003<br>(0.004)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. rest of the year x spouse on list</td><td>0.000<br>(0.005)</td><td>-0.001<br>(0.005)</td><td>0.005<br>(0.010)</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td>101,855</td><td>65,595</td><td>36,260</td></tr><tr><td>Mean dep. var.</td><td>0.187</td><td>0.140</td><td>0.274</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: the table refers to the sample of self-employed workers whose spouse is a full-time employee. The estimated models are the same as in Table 2 except that the dummy indicating that the spouse is an employee is replaced by a dummy indicating that the spouse's occupation is on the list in Appendix B. Source: Labor Force Survey, 2013-2017, Insee. Standard errors clustered at the household level are reported in parentheses.

.
# Appendix
## Appendix A. Additional tables and figures

<table><caption>Table A1. Synchronization of days of leave in couples with and without children</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th colspan="3">Probability to take a day off</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>All<br>(1)</th><th>Male<br>(2)</th><th>Female<br>(3)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>Panel A : without children</strong></td></tr><tr><td>When spouse takes a day off</td><td>0.529</td><td>0.467</td><td>0.651</td></tr><tr><td>When spouse works</td><td>0.086</td><td>0.061</td><td>0.121</td></tr><tr><td>Number of observations</td><td>79,640</td><td>47,125</td><td>32,515</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>Panel B : with children</strong></td></tr><tr><td>When spouse takes a day off</td><td>0.491</td><td>0.409</td><td>0.654</td></tr><tr><td>When spouse works</td><td>0.101</td><td>0.054</td><td>0.161</td></tr><tr><td>Number of observations</td><td>177,625</td><td>103,480</td><td>74,145</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: the table refers to the same working sample as Table 1.

Reading: Among couples without children, the probability that self-employed workers take a day off work is 0.529 when their spouses are off work, but only 0.086 when their spouses are not off work.
<table><caption>Table A2. Public holidays and the probability that the spouse takes a day off</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>(1)<br>All</th><th>(2)<br>Male</th><th>(3)<br>Female</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>Panel A: without children</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Public holiday</td><td>0.341<br>(0.023)</td><td>0.315<br>(0.025)</td><td>0.371<br>(0.025)</td></tr><tr><td>Public holiday x spouse employee</td><td>0.252<br>(0.025)</td><td>0.258<br>(0.028)</td><td>0.254<br>(0.031)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on same week w<sub>0</sub> x spouse employee</td><td>0.060<br>(0.017)</td><td>0.071<br>(0.020)</td><td>0.049<br>(0.024)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on weeks w<sub>0</sub>-1 or w<sub>0</sub>+1 x spouse employee</td><td>0.024<br>(0.011)</td><td>0.020<br>(0.013)</td><td>0.028<br>(0.015)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on weeks w<sub>0</sub>-2 or w<sub>0</sub>+2 x spouse employee</td><td>0.002<br>(0.012)</td><td>-0.000<br>(0.015)</td><td>0.012<br>(0.016)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on weeks w<sub>0</sub>-3 or w<sub>0</sub>+3 x spouse employee</td><td>-0.018<br>(0.012)</td><td>-0.019<br>(0.015)</td><td>-0.020<br>(0.016)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on weeks w<sub>0</sub>-4 or w<sub>0</sub>+4 x spouse employee</td><td>-0.014<br>(0.012)</td><td>-0.003<br>(0.015)</td><td>-0.030<br>(0.015)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. rest of the quarter x spouse employee</td><td>-0.001<br>(0.008)</td><td>0.001<br>(0.010)</td><td>-0.007<br>(0.012)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. rest of the semester x spouse employee</td><td>0.010<br>(0.006)</td><td>0.013<br>(0.007)</td><td>0.003<br>(0.008)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. rest of the year x spouse employee</td><td>-0.002<br>(0.005)</td><td>-0.001<br>(0.006)</td><td>-0.003<br>(0.006)</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td>79,640</td><td>47,125</td><td>32,515</td></tr><tr><td>Mean dep. var.</td><td>0.192</td><td>0.215</td><td>0.159</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table A2. Public holidays and the probability that the spouse takes a day off (continued)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>(1)<br>All</th><th>(2)<br>Male</th><th>(3)<br>Female</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>Panel B: with children</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Public holiday</td><td>0.331<br>(0.016)</td><td>0.324<br>(0.018)</td><td>0.341<br>(0.018)</td></tr><tr><td>Public holiday x spouse employee</td><td>0.232<br>(0.017)</td><td>0.231<br>(0.019)</td><td>0.234<br>(0.021)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on same week w<sub>0</sub> x spouse employee</td><td>0.104<br>(0.011)</td><td>0.109<br>(0.014)</td><td>0.094<br>(0.015)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on weeks w<sub>0</sub>-1 or w<sub>0</sub>+1 x spouse employee</td><td>0.021<br>(0.007)</td><td>0.021<br>(0.009)</td><td>0.019<br>(0.009)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on weeks w<sub>0</sub>-2 or w<sub>0</sub>+2 x spouse employee</td><td>-0.006<br>(0.008)</td><td>-0.001<br>(0.010)</td><td>-0.016<br>(0.010)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on weeks w<sub>0</sub>-3 or w<sub>0</sub>+3 x spouse employee</td><td>-0.008<br>(0.008)</td><td>-0.008<br>(0.010)</td><td>-0.013<br>(0.010)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on weeks w<sub>0</sub>-4 or w<sub>0</sub>+4 x spouse employee</td><td>-0.002<br>(0.007)</td><td>0.003<br>(0.010)</td><td>-0.008<br>(0.010)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. rest of the quarter x spouse employee</td><td>-0.020<br>(0.005)</td><td>-0.023<br>(0.007)</td><td>-0.018<br>(0.007)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. rest of the semester x spouse employee</td><td>0.008<br>(0.004)</td><td>0.010<br>(0.005)</td><td>0.002<br>(0.005)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. rest of the year x spouse employee</td><td>0.001<br>(0.003)</td><td>0.004<br>(0.004)</td><td>-0.003<br>(0.004)</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td>177,625</td><td>103,480</td><td>74,145</td></tr><tr><td>Mean dep. var.</td><td>0.206</td><td>0.236</td><td>0.165</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: the table refers to the same sample of self-employed as Table 1. It shows the results of regressing a variable indicating that their spouses do not work on a given weekday *d* on variables indicating (1) that *d* falls on a public holiday, (2) the number of public holidays falling on the same week as *d* (but not on *d*), (3) the number of public holidays falling on the 2 adjacent weeks, ... etc. and (9) the number of public holidays falling within the remainder of the one-year interval surrounding *d*, as well as the interactions between these 9 variables and a dummy indicating that spouses are employees. Additional controls include full sets of day of the week, week of the year, and year of observation fixed effects, as well as controls for school holidays and controls for industry, education, age, gender, occupation. Column (1) shows the results for the whole sample, while col. (2) and (3) show the results for the male and female subsamples. Standard errors clustered at the household level are reported in parentheses. Source: Labor Force Survey, 2013-2017, Insee.
<table><caption>Table A3. Public holidays and own probability of taking a day off</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>(1)<br>All</th><th>(2)<br>Male</th><th>(3)<br>Female</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>Panel A: without children</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Public holiday</td><td>0.346<br>(0.022)</td><td>0.364<br>(0.024)</td><td>0.325<br>(0.025)</td></tr><tr><td>Public holiday x spouse employee</td><td>0.129<br>(0.026)</td><td>0.110<br>(0.029)</td><td>0.153<br>(0.034)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on same week w<sub>0</sub> x spouse employee</td><td>0.013<br>(0.016)</td><td>0.001<br>(0.018)</td><td>0.026<br>(0.023)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on weeks w<sub>0</sub>-1 or w<sub>0</sub>+1 x spouse employee</td><td>0.024<br>(0.011)</td><td>0.027<br>(0.012)</td><td>0.022<br>(0.016)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on weeks w<sub>0</sub>-2 or w<sub>0</sub>+2 x spouse employee</td><td>0.012<br>(0.011)</td><td>0.014<br>(0.013)</td><td>0.011<br>(0.016)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on weeks w<sub>0</sub>-3 or w<sub>0</sub>+3 x spouse employee</td><td>-0.006<br>(0.011)</td><td>-0.003<br>(0.013)</td><td>-0.013<br>(0.017)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on weeks w<sub>0</sub>-4 or w<sub>0</sub>+4 x spouse employee</td><td>-0.001<br>(0.011)</td><td>-0.002<br>(0.012)</td><td>-0.000<br>(0.017)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. rest of the quarter x spouse employee</td><td>-0.005<br>(0.008)</td><td>-0.003<br>(0.009)</td><td>-0.007<br>(0.012)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. rest of the semester x spouse employee</td><td>0.008<br>(0.006)</td><td>0.008<br>(0.006)</td><td>0.011<br>(0.008)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. rest of the year x spouse employee</td><td>0.002<br>(0.005)</td><td>0.000<br>(0.005)</td><td>0.007<br>(0.007)</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td>79,640</td><td>47,125</td><td>32,515</td></tr><tr><td>Mean dep. var.</td><td>0.171</td><td>0.148</td><td>0.205</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table A3. Public holidays and own probability of taking a day off (continued)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>(1)<br>All</th><th>(2)<br>Male</th><th>(3)<br>Female</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>Panel B: with children</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Public holiday</td><td>0.349<br>(0.015)</td><td>0.356<br>(0.017)</td><td>0.341<br>(0.018)</td></tr><tr><td>Public holiday x spouse employee</td><td>0.138<br>(0.017)</td><td>0.162<br>(0.019)</td><td>0.093<br>(0.022)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on same week w<sub>0</sub> x spouse employee</td><td>0.048<br>(0.011)</td><td>0.052<br>(0.012)</td><td>0.039<br>(0.016)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on weeks w<sub>0</sub>-1 or w<sub>0</sub>+1 x spouse employee</td><td>0.005<br>(0.006)</td><td>0.011<br>(0.007)</td><td>-0.007<br>(0.010)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on weeks w<sub>0</sub>-2 or w<sub>0</sub>+2 x spouse employee</td><td>-0.002<br>(0.007)</td><td>-0.004<br>(0.008)</td><td>0.004<br>(0.011)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on weeks w<sub>0</sub>-3 or w<sub>0</sub>+3 x spouse employee</td><td>-0.002<br>(0.007)</td><td>0.005<br>(0.008)</td><td>-0.010<br>(0.011)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. on weeks w<sub>0</sub>-4 or w<sub>0</sub>+4 x spouse employee</td><td>-0.000<br>(0.007)</td><td>-0.006<br>(0.008)</td><td>0.005<br>(0.011)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. rest of the quarter x spouse employee</td><td>-0.009<br>(0.005)</td><td>-0.007<br>(0.005)</td><td>-0.011<br>(0.008)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. rest of the semester x spouse employee</td><td>0.002<br>(0.004)</td><td>0.003<br>(0.004)</td><td>0.003<br>(0.006)</td></tr><tr><td>Nb. pub. hol. rest of the year x spouse employee</td><td>0.000<br>(0.003)</td><td>0.002<br>(0.003)</td><td>-0.003<br>(0.005)</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td>177,625</td><td>103,480</td><td>74,145</td></tr><tr><td>Mean dep. var.</td><td>0.181</td><td>0.138</td><td>0.242</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: the table shows the regression result of the same model as Table A2, on the same sample of self-employed workers, when the dependent variable is a dummy indicating that they (rather than their spouses) do not work during a given weekday *d*. Source: Labor Force Survey, 2013-2017, Insee. Standard errors clustered at the household level are reported in parentheses.
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Figure A1. Probability that spouses take a day off before, during and after regular workdays</figcaption></figure>

Note: the figure refers to the sample of self-employed workers whose spouses are either self-employed workers or full-time employees. It shows the proportion of spouses who do not work on a given weekday when it does not fall on a public holiday (d=0), as well as when it falls on one of the seven previous weekdays (d=-1, ..., -7) or on one of the seven following weekdays (d=1, ..., 7). The dashed line refers to self-employed spouses while the solid line refers to employed spouses. Source: Labor Force Survey, 2013-2017, Insee.
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Figure A2. Probability of taking a day off before, during and after regular workdays</figcaption></figure>

Note: the figure refers to the sample of self-employed workers whose spouses are either self-employed workers or full-time employees. It shows the proportion who do not work on a given weekday when it does not fall on a public holiday (d=0), as well as when it falls on one of the seven previous weekdays (d=-1,...-7) or on one of the seven following weekdays (d=1,...7). The dashed line refers to self-employed spouses while the solid line refers to employed spouses. Source: Labor Force Survey, 2013-2017, Insee.
Appendix B. List of occupations allowed working on public holidays

<table><thead><tr><td>Code</td><td>Label</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>334a</td><td>Officiers des Armées et de la Gendarmerie (sauf officiers généraux)</td></tr><tr><td>377a</td><td>Cadres de l'hôtellerie et de la restauration</td></tr><tr><td>462b</td><td>Maîtrise de l'exploitation des magasins de vente</td></tr><tr><td>525d</td><td>Agents de service hospitaliers (de la fonction publique ou du secteur privé)</td></tr><tr><td>554a</td><td>Vendeurs en alimentation</td></tr><tr><td>554d</td><td>Vendeurs du commerce de fleurs</td></tr><tr><td>554j</td><td>Pompistes et gérants de station-service (salariés ou mandataires)</td></tr><tr><td>554h</td><td>Vendeurs de tabac, presse et articles divers</td></tr><tr><td>563b</td><td>Aides à domicile, aides ménagères, travailleuses familiales</td></tr><tr><td>642a</td><td>Conducteurs de taxi (salariés)</td></tr><tr><td>676d</td><td>Agents non qualifiés des services d'exploitation des transports</td></tr><tr><td>389.</td><td>Ingénieurs et cadres techniques de l'exploitation des transports</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Officiers et cadres navigants techniques et commerciaux de l'aviation civile</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Officiers et cadres navigants techniques de la marine marchande</td></tr><tr><td>431.</td><td>Cadres infirmiers et assimilés</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Infirmiers psychiatriques</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Puéricultrices</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Infirmiers spécialisés (autres qu'infirmiers psychiatriques et puéricultrices)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Sages-femmes (libérales ou salariées)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Infirmiers en soins généraux, salariés</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Infirmiers libéraux</td></tr><tr><td>468.</td><td>Maîtrise de restauration : salle et service</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Maîtrise de l'hébergement : hall et étages</td></tr><tr><td>488.</td><td>Maîtrise de restauration : cuisine/production</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Maîtrise de restauration : gestion d'établissement</td></tr><tr><td>452.</td><td>Inspecteurs et officiers de police</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Adjudants-chefs, adjudants et sous-officiers de rang supérieur de l'Armée et de la Gendarmerie</td></tr><tr><td>526.</td><td>Aides-soignants (de la fonction publique ou du secteur privé)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Assistants dentaires, médicaux et vétérinaires, aides de techniciens médicaux</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Auxiliaires de puériculture</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Aides médico-psychologiques</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Ambulanciers salariés (du secteur public ou du secteur privé)</td></tr><tr><td>546.</td><td>Contrôleurs des transports (personnels roulants)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Agents des services commerciaux des transports de voyageurs et du tourisme</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Employés administratifs d'exploitation des transports de marchandises</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Hôtesses de l'air et stewards</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Autres agents et hôtesses d'accompagnement (transports, tourisme)</td></tr><tr><td>561.</td><td>Serveurs, commis de restaurant, garçons (bar, brasserie, café ou restaurant)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Aides de cuisine, apprentis de cuisine et employés polyvalents de la restauration</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Employés de l'hôtellerie : réception et hall</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Employés d'étage et employés polyvalents de l'hôtellerie</td></tr><tr><td>636.</td><td>Bouchers (sauf industrie de la viande)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Charcutiers (sauf industrie de la viande)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Boulangers, pâtissiers (sauf activité industrielle)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Cuisiniers et commis de cuisine</td></tr><tr><td>655.</td><td>Autres agents et ouvriers qualifiés (sédentaires) des services d'exploitation des transports</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Matelots de la marine marchande, capitaines et matelots timoniers de la navigation fluviale</td></tr><tr><td>656.</td><td>(salariés)</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><td>Code</td><td>Label</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>683.</td><td>Apprentis boulangers, bouchers, charcutiers</td></tr><tr><td>691.</td><td>Conducteurs d'engin agricole ou forestier</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Ouvriers de l'élevage</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Ouvriers du maraîchage ou de l'horticulture</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Ouvriers de la viticulture ou de l'arboriculture fruitière</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Ouvriers agricoles sans spécialisation particulière</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Ouvriers de l'exploitation forestière ou de la sylviculture</td></tr><tr><td>44..</td><td>Clergé, religieux</td></tr><tr><td>53..</td><td>Policiers et militaires</td></tr></tbody></table>
## Liste des documents de travail de la Direction des Études et Synthèses Économiques

ii

<table><tr><td>G 9001</td><td>J. FAYOLLE et M. FLEURBAEY</td><td>Accumulation, profitabilité et endettement des entreprises</td></tr><tr><td>G 9002</td><td>H. ROUSSE</td><td>Détection et effets de la multicolinéarité dans les modèles linéaires ordinaires - Un prolongement de la réflexion de BELSLEY, KUH et WELSCH</td></tr><tr><td>G 9003</td><td>P. RALLE et J. TOUJAS-BERNATE</td><td>Indexation des salaires : la rupture de 1983</td></tr><tr><td>G 9004</td><td>D. GUELLEC et P. RALLE</td><td>Compétitivité, croissance et innovation de produit</td></tr><tr><td>G 9005</td><td>P. RALLE et J. TOUJAS-BERNATE</td><td>Les conséquences de la désindexation. Analyse dans une maquette prix-salaires</td></tr><tr><td>G 9010</td><td>Équipe AMADEUS</td><td>Le modèle AMADEUS - Première partie - Présentation générale</td></tr><tr><td>G 9102</td><td>J.L. BRILLET</td><td>Le modèle AMADEUS - Deuxième partie - Propriétés varianteles</td></tr><tr><td>G 9103</td><td>D. GUELLEC et P. RALLE</td><td>Endogenous growth and product innovation</td></tr><tr><td>G 9104</td><td>H. ROUSSE</td><td>Le modèle AMADEUS - Troisième partie - Le commerce extérieur et l'environnement international</td></tr><tr><td>G 9105</td><td>H. ROUSSE</td><td>Effets de demande et d'offre dans les résultats du commerce extérieur manufacturé de la France au cours des deux dernières décennies</td></tr><tr><td>G 9106</td><td>B. CREPON</td><td>Innovation, taille et concentration : causnels et dynamiques</td></tr><tr><td>G 9107</td><td>B. AMABLE et D. GUELLEC</td><td>Un panorama des théories de la croissance endogène</td></tr><tr><td>G 9108</td><td>M. GLAUDE et M. MOUTARDIER</td><td>Une évaluation du coût direct de l'enfant de 1979 à 1989</td></tr><tr><td>G 9109</td><td>P. RALLE et alii</td><td>France - Allemagne : performances économiques comparées</td></tr><tr><td>G 9110</td><td>J.L. BRILLET<br>Micro-DMS</td><td>NON PARU</td></tr><tr><td>G 9111</td><td>A. MAGNIER</td><td>Effets accélérateur et multiplicateur en France depuis 1970 : quelques résultats empiriques</td></tr><tr><td>G 9112</td><td>B. CREPON et G. DUREAU</td><td>Investissement en recherche-développement : analyse de causnels dans un modèle d'accélérateur généralisé</td></tr><tr><td>G 9113</td><td>J.L. BRILLET, H. ERKEL-ROUSSE, J. TOUJAS-BERNATE</td><td>"France-Allemagne Coupées" - Deux économies vues par une maquette macro-économétrique</td></tr><tr><td>G 9201</td><td>W.J. ADAMS, B. CREPON, D. ENCAOUA</td><td>Choix technologiques et stratégies de dissuasion d'entrée</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>G 9202</td><td>J. OLIVEIRA-MARTINS, J. TOUJAS-BERNATE</td><td>Macro-economic import functions with imperfect competition - An application to the E.C. Trade</td></tr><tr><td>G 9203</td><td>I. STAPIC</td><td>Les échanges internationaux de services de la France dans le cadre des negotiations multilatérales du GATT</td></tr><tr><td>G 9204</td><td>P. SEVESTRE</td><td>L'économie sur données individuelles- temporelles. Une note introductive</td></tr><tr><td>G 9205</td><td>H. ERKEL-ROUSSE</td><td>Le commerce extérieur et l'environnement international dans le modèle AMADEUS (ré estimation 1992)</td></tr><tr><td>G 9206</td><td>N. GREENAN et D. GUELLEC</td><td>Coordination within the firm and endogenous growth</td></tr><tr><td>G 9207</td><td>A. MAGNIER et J. TOUJAS-BERNATE</td><td>Technology and trade: empirical evidences for the major five industrialized countries</td></tr><tr><td>G 9208</td><td>B. CREPON, E. DUGUET, D. ENCAOUA et P. MOHNEN</td><td>Cooperative, non cooperative R & D and optimal patent life</td></tr><tr><td>G 9209</td><td>B. CREPON et E. DUGUET</td><td>Research and development, competition and innovation: an application of pseudo maximum likelihood methods to Poisson models with heterogeneity</td></tr><tr><td>G 9301</td><td>J. TOUJAS-BERNATE</td><td>Commerce international et concurrence impartie - développements récents et implications pour la politique commerciale</td></tr><tr><td>G 9302</td><td>Ch. CASES</td><td>Durées de chômage et comportements d'offre de travail : une revue de la littérature</td></tr><tr><td>G 9303</td><td>H. ERKEL-ROUSSE</td><td>Union économique et monétaire : le débat économique</td></tr><tr><td>G 9304</td><td>N. GREENAN - D. GUELLEC / G. BROUSSAUDIER - L. MIOTTI</td><td>Innovation organisationnelle, dynamisme technologique et performances des entreprises</td></tr><tr><td>G 9305</td><td>P. JAILLARD</td><td>Le traité de Maastricht : présentation juridique et historique</td></tr><tr><td>G 9306</td><td>J.L. BRILLET</td><td>Micro-DMS : présentation et propriétés</td></tr><tr><td>G 9307</td><td>J.L. BRILLET</td><td>Micro-DMS - variantes : les tableaux</td></tr><tr><td>G 9308</td><td>S. JACOBZONE</td><td>Les grands réseaux publics français dans une perspective européenne</td></tr><tr><td>G 9309</td><td>L. BLOCH, B. CŒURÉ</td><td>Profitabilité de l'investissement productif et transmission des chocs financiers</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>G 9310</td><td>J. BOURDIEU - B. COLIN-SEDILLOT</td><td>Les théories sur la structure optimale du capital : quelques points de repère</td></tr><tr><td>G 9311</td><td>J. BOURDIEU - B. COLIN-SEDILLOT</td><td>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</td><td>Q de Robin marginal and transmission des chocs financiers</td></tr><tr><td>G 9313</td><td>Équipes Amadeus (INSEE), Banque de France, Métric (DP)</td><td>Présentation des propriétés des principaux modèles macroéconomiques du Service Public</td></tr><tr><td>G 9314</td><td>B. CREPON - E. DUGUET</td><td>Research & Development, competition and innovation</td></tr><tr><td>G 9315</td><td>B. DORMONT</td><td>Quelle est l'influence du coût du travail sur l'emploi ?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9316</td><td>D. BLANCHET - C. BROUSSE</td><td>Deux études sur l'âge de la retraite</td></tr><tr><td>G 9317</td><td>D. BLANCHET</td><td>Répartition du travail dans une population hétérogène : deux notes</td></tr><tr><td>G 9318</td><td>D. EYSSARTIER - N. PONTY</td><td>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</td><td>Les effets sur l'emploi d'un abaissement du coût du travail des jeunes</td></tr><tr><td>G 9401</td><td>D. BLANCHET</td><td>Les structures par âge importent-elles ?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9402</td><td>J. GAUTIE</td><td>Le chômage des jeunes en France : problème de formation ou phénomène de file d'attente ?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9403</td><td>P. QUIRION</td><td>Les décets en France : éléments statistiques et économiques</td></tr><tr><td>G 9404</td><td>D. LADIRAY - M. GRUN-REHOMME</td><td>Lissage par moyennes mobiles - Le problème des extrémités de série</td></tr><tr><td>G 9405</td><td>V. MAILLARD</td><td>Théorie et pratique de la correction des effets de jours ouvrables</td></tr><tr><td>G 9406</td><td>F. ROSENWALD</td><td>La décision d'investir</td></tr><tr><td>G 9407</td><td>S. JACOBZONE</td><td>Les apports de l'économie industrielle pour définir la stratégie économique de l'hôpital public</td></tr><tr><td>G 9408</td><td>L. BLOCH, J. BOURDIEU, B. COLIN-SEDILLOT, G. LONGUEVILLE</td><td>Du défaut de paiement au dépôt de blan : les banquiers face aux PME en difficulté</td></tr><tr><td>G 9409</td><td>D. EYSSARTIER, P. MAIRE</td><td>Impacts macro-économiques de mesures d'aide au logement - quelques éléments d'évaluation</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>G 9410</td><td>F. ROSENWALD</td><td>Subi conjoncturel de l'investissement</td></tr><tr><td>G 9411</td><td>C. DEFEUILLEY - Ph. QUIRION</td><td>Les décets d'emballages ménagers : une analyse économique des politiques française et allemande</td></tr><tr><td>G 9412</td><td>J. BOURDIEU - B. CŒURÉ - B. COLIN-SEDILLOT</td><td>Investissement, incertitude et irréversibilité</td></tr><tr><td>G 9413</td><td>B. DORMONT - M. PAUCHET</td><td>Quelques développements récents de la théorie de l'investissement</td></tr><tr><td>G 9414</td><td>B. DORMONT - B. CŒURÉ - B. SEDILLOT</td><td>L'évaluation de l'élaborité emploi-salaire dépend-elle des structures de qualification ?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9415</td><td>I. KABLA</td><td>Le Chok de breveter une invention</td></tr><tr><td>G 9501</td><td>J. BOURDIEU - B. CŒURÉ - B. SEDILLOT</td><td>Irreversible Investment and Uncertainty: When is there a Value of Waiting?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9502</td><td>L. BLOCH - B. CŒURÉ</td><td>Impfections du marché du crédit, investisse-ment des entreprises et cycle économique</td></tr><tr><td>G 9503</td><td>D. GOUX - E. MAURIN</td><td>Les transformations de la demande de travail par qualification en France</td></tr><tr><td>G 9504</td><td>N. GREENAN</td><td>L'industrie manufacturière</td></tr><tr><td>G 9505</td><td>D. GOUX - E. MAURIN</td><td>Perseistance des hiérarchies sectorielles de sa- liaires: un reexamen sur données françaises</td></tr><tr><td>G 9506</td><td>D. GOUX - E. MAURIN</td><td>D. SEDILLOT</td></tr><tr><td>G 9507</td><td>G. CETTE - S. MAHFOUZ</td><td>Le partage primaire du revenu</td></tr><tr><td>G 9601</td><td>Constat déscriptif sur longue période</td><td>Le partage primaire du revenu</td></tr><tr><td>G 9602</td><td>Banque de France - CEPREMAP - Direction de la Prévision - Érasme - INSEE - OFCE</td><td>Les liens entre RMI et chômage, une mise en perspective</td></tr><tr><td>G 9603</td><td>Structures et propriétés de cinq modèles macro-économiques français</td><td>NON PARU - article sorti dans Économie et Prévision n° 122 (1996) - pages 95 à 113</td></tr><tr><td>G 9604</td><td>Rapport d'activité de la DESE de l'année 1995</td><td>S. JACOBZONE</td></tr><tr><td>G 9605</td><td>J. BOURDIEU - A. DRAZNIKES</td><td>L'octroi de crédit aux PME : une analyse à partir d'informations bancaires</td></tr><tr><td>G 9606</td><td>A. TOPIOL-BENSAÍD</td><td>Les implantations japonaises en France</td></tr><tr><td>G 9607</td><td>P. GENIER - S. JACOBZONE</td><td>Comportements de prévention, consommation d'alcool et tabagé : peut-on parer d'une gestion globale du capital santé ?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9608</td><td>S. JACOBZONE</td><td>À l'implantation microéconométrique empirique</td></tr></table>
v

<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>G 2000/10</td>
      <td>R. DUHAUTOIS</td>
      <td>Ralentissement de l'investissement : petites ou grandes entreprises ? industrie ou tertiaire ?</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 2000/11</td>
      <td>G. LAROQUE - B. SALANIÉ</td>
      <td>Temps partiel féminin et incitations financières à l'emplacement</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 2000/12</td>
      <td>Ch. GIANELLA</td>
      <td>Local unemployment and wages</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 2000/13</td>
      <td>B. CREPON - Th. HECKEL</td>
      <td>Informatisation en France ; une évaluation à partir de données individuelles</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 2001/01</td>
      <td>F. LEQUILLER</td>
      <td>- La nouvelle économie et la mesure de la croissance du PIB<br/>- The new economy and the measure ment of GDP growth</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 2001/02</td>
      <td>S. AUDRIC</td>
      <td>La reprise de la croissance de l'emploi profite-t-elle aussi aux non-diplômés ?</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 2001/03</td>
      <td>I. BRAUN-LEMAIRE</td>
      <td>Évolution et repartition du surplus de productivité</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 2001/04</td>
      <td>A. BEAUDU - Th. HECKEL</td>
      <td>Le canal du crédit fonctionne-t-il en Europe ? Une étude de l'ethanolégitimité des comportements d'investissement à partir de données de bilan agregées</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 2001/05</td>
      <td>C. AUDENIS - P. BISCOURP - N. FOURCADE - O. LOISE</td>
      <td>Testing the augmented Solow growth model: An empirical reassessment using panel data</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 2001/06</td>
      <td>R. MAHIEU - B. SÉDILLOT</td>
      <td>Départ à la retraite, irréversibilité et incertitude</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 2001/07</td>
      <td>Bilan des activités de la DESE - 2000</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 2001/08</td>
      <td>J. Ph. GAUDEMET</td>
      <td>Les dispositifs d'acquisition à titre facultatif d'annuities viagères de retraite</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 2001/09</td>
      <td>B. CREPON - Ch. GIANELLA</td>
      <td>Fiscaliste, coût d'usage du capital et demande de facteurs : une analyse sur données individuelles</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 2001/10</td>
      <td>B. CRÉPON - R. DESPLATZ</td>
      <td>Évaluation des effets des dispositifs d'allégements</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 2001/11</td>
      <td>J.-Y. FOURNIER</td>
      <td>Comparaison des salaires des secteurs public et privé</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 2001/12</td>
      <td>J.-P. BERTHIER - C. JAULENT</td>
      <td>R. CONVENEVOLE - S. PISANI</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 2001/13</td>
      <td>P. BISCOURP - Ch. GIANELLA</td>
      <td>Substitution and complementarity between capital, skilled and less skilled workers: an analysis at the firm level in the French manufacturing industry</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 2001/14</td>
      <td>I. ROBERT-BOBÉE</td>
      <td>Modeling demographic behaviours in the French</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>

vi

<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>G2002/13</td>
      <td>M. LECLAIR</td>
      <td>Réduction du temps de travail et tensions sur les facteurs de production</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2002/14</td>
      <td>E. WALRAET - A. VINCENT</td>
      <td>- Analysis of the redistribution intragénérationnelle dans le système de retraites des salariés du privé</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2002/15</td>
      <td>P. CHONE - D. LE BLANC - I. ROBERT-BOBEE</td>
      <td>- Une approche par microsimulation</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2002/16</td>
      <td>F. MAUREL - S. GREGOIR</td>
      <td>Les indices de compétitivité des pays : interprétation et limites</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2003/01</td>
      <td>N. RIEDINGER - E. HAUVY</td>
      <td>Le coût de dépilation atmosphérique pour les entreprises françaises : Une estimation à partir de données individuelles</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2003/02</td>
      <td>P. BISCOURP et F. KRAMARZ</td>
      <td>Création d'emplois, destruction d'emplois et internationalisation des entreprises industrielles françaises : une analyse sur la période 1986-1992</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2003/03</td>
      <td>P.-O. BEFFY - J. DEROYON</td>
      <td>Bilan des activités de la DESE - 2002</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2003/04</td>
      <td>N. FOURCADE - S. GREGOIR - N. LAIB - B. MONFORT</td>
      <td>Évolutions démographiques et croissance : une projection macro-économique à l'horizon 2020</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2003/05</td>
      <td>P. AUBERT</td>
      <td>La situation des salariés de plus de cinquante ans dans le secteur privé</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2003/06</td>
      <td>P. AUBERT - B. CRÉPON</td>
      <td>Age, salaire et productivité</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2003/07</td>
      <td>H. BARON - P.O. BEFFY - N. FOURCADE - R. MAHIEU</td>
      <td>La productivité des salariés décline-t-elle en fin de carrière ?</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2003/08</td>
      <td>P. BISCOURP - N. FOURCADE</td>
      <td>Le renaltissement de la productivité du travail au cours des années 1990</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2003/09</td>
      <td>P. BISCOURP - B. MONFORT</td>
      <td>Patrimoine des ménages, dynamique d'allocation et comportement de consommation</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2003/10</td>
      <td>P. BISCOURP - N. FOURCADE</td>
      <td>Peu-on mettre en évidence l'existence de rigidités à la basse des salaires à partir de données individuelles ? Le cas de la France à la fin des années 90</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2003/10</td>
      <td>M. LECLAIR - P. PETIT</td>
      <td>Présence syndicale dans les firmes : quel impact sur les inégalités salariales entre les hommes et les femmes ?</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2003/11</td>
      <td>P.-O. BEFFY - X. BONNET - M. DARRACQ-PARIES - B. MONFORT</td>
      <td>Parcours : a small macro-model for the euro area</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2004/01</td>
      <td>P. AUBERT - M. LECLAIR</td>
      <td>La compétitivité exprimée dans les enquêtes trimestrielles sur la situation et les perspectives dans l'industrie</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2004/02</td>
      <td>M. DUÉE - C. REBILLARD</td>
      <td>La dépendance des personnes âgées : une projection à long terme</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2004/03</td>
      <td>S. RASPILLER - N. RIEDINGER</td>
      <td>Réglation environnementale et choix de localisation des groupes français</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2004/04</td>
      <td>A. NABOULET - S. RASPILLER</td>
      <td>Les déterminants de la décision d'investir : une approche par les perceptions subjectives des firmes</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2004/05</td>
      <td>N. RAGACHE</td>
      <td>La déclaration des enfants par les couples non mariés est-elle fiscalement optimale ?</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2004/06</td>
      <td>M. DUÉE</td>
      <td>L'impact du chomage des parents sur le devenir scolaire des enfants</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2004/07</td>
      <td>P. AUBERT - E. CAROLI - M. ROGER</td>
      <td>New Technologies, Workplace Organisation and the Age Structure of the Workforce: Firm-Level Evidence</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2004/08</td>
      <td>E. DUGUET - C. LELARGE</td>
      <td>Les brevets accroissent-ils les incitations privées à innover ? Un examen microéconométrique</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2004/09</td>
      <td>S. RASPILLER - P. SILLARD</td>
      <td>Affiliating versus Subcontracting : the Case of Multinationals</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2004/10</td>
      <td>J. BOISSINOT - C. L'ANGEVIN - B. MONFORT</td>
      <td>Public Debt Sustainability: Some Results on the French Case</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2004/11</td>
      <td>S. ANANIAN - P. AUBERT</td>
      <td>Travaillages âgés, nouvelles technologies et changements organisationnels; un réexamen à partir de l'enquête « REPONSE »</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2004/12</td>
      <td>X. BONNET - H. PONCET</td>
      <td>Structures de revenus et propensions différentes à consommer - Vers une équation de consommation des ménages plus robuste en prévision pour la France</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2004/13</td>
      <td>C. PICART</td>
      <td>Évaluer la rentabilité des sociétés non financières</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2004/14</td>
      <td>J. BARDAJI - B. SÉDILLOT - E. WALRAET</td>
      <td>Les retraites du secteur public: projections à l'horizon 2040 à l'aide du modèle de microsimulation DESTINIE</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2005/01</td>
      <td>S. RUFFEETEAU - P. GODEROY</td>
      <td>Conditions de départ en retraite selon l'âge de fin d'études : analyse prospective pour les générations 1945 à 1974</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2005/02</td>
      <td>C. AFSA - S. BUFFETEAU</td>
      <td>L'évolution de l'activité féminine en France : une approche par pseudo-panel</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2005/03</td>
      <td>P. AUBERT - P. SILLARD</td>
      <td>Délocalisations et réductions d'effectifs dans l'industrie française</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2005/04</td>
      <td>M. LECLAIR - S. ROUX</td>
      <td>Mesure et utilisation des emplois instables dans les entreprises</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2005/05</td>
      <td>C. L'ANGEVIN - S. SERRAVALLE</td>
      <td>Performances à l'exportation de la France et de l'Allemagne - Une analyse par secteur et de l'industrie géographique</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>

<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>G2004/02</td>
      <td>M. DUÉE - C. REBILLARD</td>
      <td>La dépendance des personnes âgées : une projection à long terme</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2004/03</td>
      <td>S. RASPILLER - N. RIEDINGER</td>
      <td>Réglation environnementale et choix de localisation des groupes français</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2004/04</td>
      <td>A. NABOULET - S. RASPILLER</td>
      <td>Les déterminants de la décision d'investir : une approche par les perceptions subjectives des firmes</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2004/05</td>
      <td>N. RAGACHE</td>
      <td>La déclaration des enfants par les couples non mariés est-elle fiscalement optimale ?</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2004/06</td>
      <td>M. DUÉE</td>
      <td>L'impact du chomage des parents sur le devenir scolaire des enfants</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2004/07</td>
      <td>P. AUBERT - E. CAROLI - M. ROGER</td>
      <td>New Technologies, Workplace Organisation and the Age Structure of the Workforce: Firm-Level Evidence</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2004/08</td>
      <td>E. DUGUET - C. LELARGE</td>
      <td>Les brevets accroissent-ils les incitations privées à innover ? Un examen microéconométrique</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2004/09</td>
      <td>S. RASPILLER - P. SILLARD</td>
      <td>Affiliating versus Subcontracting : the Case of Multinationals</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2004/10</td>
      <td>J. BOISSINOT - C. L'ANGEVIN - B. MONFORT</td>
      <td>Public Debt Sustainability: Some Results on the French Case</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2004/11</td>
      <td>S. ANANIAN - P. AUBERT</td>
      <td>Travaillages âgés, nouvelles technologies et changements organisationnels; un réexamen à partir de l'enquête « REPONSE »</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2004/12</td>
      <td>X. BONNET - H. PONCET</td>
      <td>Structures de revenus et propensions différentes à consommer - Vers une équation de consommation des ménages plus robuste en prévision pour la France</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2004/13</td>
      <td>C. PICART</td>
      <td>Évaluer la rentabilité des sociétés non financières</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2004/14</td>
      <td>J. BARDAJI - B. SÉDILLOT - E. WALRAET</td>
      <td>Les retraites du secteur public: projections à l'horizon 2040 à l'aide du modèle de microsimulation DESTINIE</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2005/01</td>
      <td>S. RUFFEETEAU - P. GODEROY</td>
      <td>Conditions de départ en retraite selon l'âge de fin d'études : analyse prospective pour les générations 1945 à 1974</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2005/02</td>
      <td>C. AFSA - S. BUFFETEAU</td>
      <td>L'évolution de l'activité féminine en France : une approche par pseudo-panel</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2005/03</td>
      <td>P. AUBERT - P. SILLARD</td>
      <td>Délocalisations et réductions d'effectifs dans l'industrie française</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2005/04</td>
      <td>M. LECLAIR - S. ROUX</td>
      <td>Mesure et utilisation des emplois instables dans les entreprises</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2005/05</td>
      <td>C. L'ANGEVIN - S. SERRAVALLE</td>
      <td>Performances à l'exportation de la France et de l'Allemagne - Une analyse par secteur et de l'industrie géographique</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
<table><tr><td>G2005/06</td><td>Bilan des activités de la Direction des Études et Syntheses Économiques - 2004</td></tr><tr><td>G2005/07</td><td>S. RASPILLER<br/>La concurrence fiscale : principaux enseignements de l'analyse économique</td></tr><tr><td>G2005/08</td><td>C. LANGEVIN - 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 de révisions dans l'enquête de conjoncture sur les investissements dans l'industrie</td></tr><tr><td>G2005/10</td><td>P.-O. BEFFY - C. LANGEVIN<br/>Chomage et boucle prix-salaires:<br/>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 enquetes de conjoncture et prévision macroéconomiques:<br/>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. DOURGNON - P. POLLET<br/>L'enquête SHARE: presentation et premiers résultats de l'édition française</td></tr><tr><td>G2005/15</td><td>M. DUÉ<br/>La modélisation des comportements démographiques dans le modèle de microsimulation DESTINE</td></tr><tr><td>G2005/16</td><td>H. RAQUI - S. ROUX<br/>Étude de simulation sur la participation versée aux salariés par les entreprises</td></tr><tr><td>G2006/01</td><td>C. BONNET - S. BUFFETEAU - P. GODEFROY<br/>Disparités de retraite de droit direct entre hommes et femmes: quelles évolutions?</td></tr><tr><td>G2006/02</td><td>C. PICART<br/>Les gazelles en France</td></tr><tr><td>G2006/03</td><td>P. AUBERT - B. CRÉPON - P. ZAMORA<br/>Le rendement apparent de la formation continue dans les entreprises: effets sur la productivité et des salaires</td></tr><tr><td>G2006/04</td><td>J.-F. OUVARD - R. RATHELOT<br/>Demographic change and unemployment: what do macroeconomic models predict?</td></tr><tr><td>G2006/05</td><td>D. BLANCHET - J.-F. OUVARD<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. ROUVIERE<br/>Nonparametric Forecasting of the Manufacturing Output Growth with Firm-level Survey Data</td></tr></table>

<table><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. LANGEVIN - S. SERRAVALLE<br/>Performances comparées à l'exportation de la France et de ses principaux partenaires</td></tr><tr><td>G2006/09</td><td>Une analyse structurelle sur 12 ans</td></tr><tr><td>G2006/10</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>G2006/11</td><td>C. AFSA<br/>L'estimation d'un coût implicite de la pénibilité du travail chez les travailleurs âgés</td></tr><tr><td>G2006/12</td><td>C. LELARGE<br/>Les entreprises (industrielles) françaises sont-elles à la frontière technologique ?</td></tr><tr><td>G2006/13</td><td>O. BIAU - N. FERRARI<br/>Théorie de l'opinion<br/>Faul-lui ponderer les réponses individuelles ?</td></tr><tr><td>G2006/14</td><td>A. KOUBI - S. ROUX<br/>Une réinterprétation de la relation entre productivité et inégalités salariales dans les entreprises</td></tr><tr><td>G2006/15</td><td>R. RATHELOT - P. SILLARD<br/>The impact of local taxes on plants location decision</td></tr><tr><td>G2006/16</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 monetaires 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 main-d'œuvre en France : un réexamen</td></tr><tr><td>G2007/06</td><td>V. ALBOUY - C. TAVAN<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 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'exemple de la durée du travail</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>G2007/11</td><td>R. RATHELOT - P. SILLARD<br/>Zones Franches Urbaines: quels effets sur l'emploi salaré 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><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. VERGÉ<br/>The Effects of Retail Regulations on Prices Evidence form the Loi Galand</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. LE LARGE - 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</td></tr><tr><td>G2008/13</td><td>M. BARLET - D. BLANCHET - T. LE BARBANCHON<br/>Microsimuler 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>Laurent 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></table>

<table><tr><td>G2009/04</td><td>P. GIVORD - L. WILNER<br/>Les contrats temporaires: trappe ou marchéped 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><tr><td>G2009/06</td><td>L. DAVEZIES - X. D'HAULTFEOUILLE<br/>Faul-lui ponderer "...". Ou l'étoileme question de l'économie confrontée 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 LADIER - 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/>Detecting 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'embauche: 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</td></tr><tr><td>G2010/02</td><td>de la croissance trimestrielle du PIB en France<br/>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<br/>Tome 1 - Version avec volumes à prix constants</td></tr><tr><td>G2010/04</td><td>M.-É. CLERC - É. COUDIN<br/>L'IPC, 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. CECI-RENAUD - P.-A. CHEVALIER<br/>Les seuils de 10, 20 et 50 salariés: impact sur la taille des entreprises françaises</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>G2010/06</td><td>R. AEBERHARDT - J. POUGET<br/>National Origin Differences in Wages and Hierarchical Positions - Evidence from French Full-Time Male Workers from a matched Employer-Employee Dataset</td></tr><tr><td>G2010/07</td><td>S. BLASCO - P. GIVORD<br/>Les trajectoires professionnelles en début de vie active: quel impact des contrats temporaires ?</td></tr><tr><td>G2010/08</td><td>P. GIVORD<br/>Méthodes économétriques pour l'évaluation de politiques publiques</td></tr><tr><td>G2010/09</td><td>P.-Y. CABANNES - V. LAPEGUE -<br/>E. POULIQUEN - M. BEFFY - M. GAINI<br/>Quelle croissance de moyen terme après la crise?</td></tr><tr><td>G2010/10</td><td>I. BUONO - G. LALANNE<br/>La réaction des entreprises françaises à la baisse des tarifs douanés étrangers</td></tr><tr><td>G2010/11</td><td>R. RATHELOT - P. SILLARD<br/>L'apport des méthodes à noyaux pour mesurer la concentration géographique - Application à la concentration des immigres en France de 1968 à 1999</td></tr><tr><td>G2010/12</td><td>M. BARATON - M. BEFFY - D. FOUGÈRE<br/>Une évaluation de l'effet de la réforme de 2003 sur les départs en retraite - Le cas des enseignants du second degré public</td></tr><tr><td>G2010/13</td><td>D. BLANCHET - S. BUFFETEAU - E. CRENNER<br/>Le modèle de microsimulation Destinie 2: principes caractéristiques et premiers résultats</td></tr><tr><td>G2010/14</td><td>D. BLANCHET - E. CRENNER<br/>Le bloc retraites du modèle Destinie 2: guide de l'utillerat</td></tr><tr><td>G2010/15</td><td>M. BARLET - L. CRUSSON - S. DUPUCH -<br/>F. PUECH<br/>Des services échangés aux services échan-geables: une application sur données françaises</td></tr><tr><td>G2010/16</td><td>M. BEFFY - T. KAMIONKA<br/>Public-private wage gaps: is civil-servant human capital sector-specific?</td></tr><tr><td>G2010/17</td><td>P.-Y. CABANNES - H. ERKEL-ROUSSE -<br/>G. LALANNE - O. MONSO - E. POULIQUEN<br/>Le modèle Mésange réestimé en base 2000</td></tr><tr><td>G2010/18</td><td>Tome 2 - Version avec volumes à prix chaînes<br/>R. AEBERHARDT - L. DAVEZIES<br/>Conditional Logit with one Static Covariate: Link between the Static and Dynamic Cases</td></tr><tr><td>G2011/01</td><td>T. LE BARBANCHON - B. OURLIAC - O. SIMON<br/>Les marchés du travail français et américain face aux chocs conjonctureux des années 1986 à 2007: une modélisation DSGE</td></tr><tr><td>G2011/02</td><td>C. MARBOT<br/>Une évaluation de la réduction d'impôt pour l'emploi de salariés à domicile</td></tr><tr><td>G2011/03</td><td>L. DAVEZIES<br/>Modèles à effets fixes, à effets aléatoires, modèles mixtes ou multi-niveaux: propriétés et mises en œuvre des modélisations de l'hétérogénéité dans le cas de données groupées</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>G2011/04</td><td>M. ROGER - M. WASMER<br/>Heterogeneity matters: labour productivity differentiated by age and skills</td></tr><tr><td>G2011/05</td><td>J.-C. BRICONGNE - J.-M. FOURNIER<br/>V. LAPEGUE - O. MONSO<br/>De la crise financière à la crise économique l'impact des perturbations financières de 2007 et 2008 sur la croissance de sept pays industrialisés</td></tr><tr><td>G2011/06</td><td>P. CHARNOZ - É. COUDIN - M. GAINI<br/>Wage inequalities in France 1976-2004: a quantile regression analysis</td></tr><tr><td>G2011/07</td><td>M. CLERC - M. GAINI - D. BLANCHET<br/>Recommendations of the Suèlitz-Sen-Fitoussi Report: A few illustrations</td></tr><tr><td>G2011/08</td><td>M. BACHELET - M. BEFFY - D. BLANCHET<br/>Projet l'impact des réformes des retraites sur l'activité des 55 ans et plus: une comparaison de trois modèles</td></tr><tr><td>G2011/09</td><td>C. LOUVOT-RUNAVOT<br/>L'évaluation de l'activité dissimulée des entre-prises sur la base des contrôle s fiscaux et son insertion dans les comptes nationaux</td></tr><tr><td>G2011/10</td><td>A. SCHREIBER - A. VICARD<br/>La tertiairisation de l'économie française et le ralentissement de la productivité entre 1978 et 2008</td></tr><tr><td>G2011/11</td><td>M.-É. CLERC - O. MONSO - E. POULIQUEN<br/>Les inégalités entre générations depuis le baby-boom</td></tr><tr><td>G2011/12</td><td>C. MARBOT - D. ROY<br/>Évaluation de la transformation de la réduction d'impôt en crédit d'impôt pour l'emploi de salariés à domicile en 2007</td></tr><tr><td>G2011/13</td><td>P. GIVORD - R. RATHELOT - P. SILLARD<br/>Place-based tax exemptions and displacement effects: An evaluation of the Zones Franches Urbanes program</td></tr><tr><td>G2011/14</td><td>X. D'HAULTFOEUILLE - P. GIVORD -<br/>X. BOUTIN<br/>The Environmental Effect of Green Taxation: the Case of the French "BonusMalus"</td></tr><tr><td>G2011/15</td><td>M. BARLET - M. CLERC - M. GARNEO -<br/>V. LAPEGUE - V. MARCUS<br/>La nouvelle version du modèle MZE, modèle macroéconométrique pour la zone euro</td></tr><tr><td>G2011/16</td><td>R. AEBERHARDT - I. BUONO - H. FADINGER<br/>Learning, Incomplete Contracts and Export Dynamics: Theory and Evidence form French Firms</td></tr><tr><td>G2011/17</td><td>C. KERDRAIN - V. LAPÈGUE<br/>Restrictive Fiscal Policies in Europe: What are the Likely Effects?</td></tr><tr><td>G2012/01</td><td>P. GIVORD - S. QUANTIN - C. TREVIEN<br/>A Long-Term Evaluation of the First Generation of the French Urban Enterprise Zones</td></tr><tr><td>G2012/02</td><td>N. CECI-RENAUD - V. COTTET<br/>Politique salariale et performance des entreprises</td></tr><tr><td>G2012/03</td><td>P. FÉVRIER - L. WILNER<br/>Do Consumers Correctly Expect Price Reductions? Testing Dynamic Behavior</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>G2012/04</td><td>M. GAINI - A. LEDUC - A. VICARD<br/>School as a shelter? School leaving-age and the business cycle in France</td></tr><tr><td>G2012/05</td><td>M. GAINI - A. LEDUC - A. VICARD<br/>A scarred generation? French evidence on young people entering into a tough labour market</td></tr><tr><td>G2012/06</td><td>P. AUBERT - M. BACHELET<br/>Disparités de montant de pension et redistribution dans le système de retraite français</td></tr><tr><td>G2012/07</td><td>R. AEBERHARDT - P. GIVORD - C. MARBOT<br/>Spillover Effect of the Minimum Wage in France: An Unconditional Quantile Regression Approach</td></tr><tr><td>G2012/08</td><td>A. EIDELMAN - F. LANGUMIER - A. VICARD<br/>Prélimés obligatoires reposant sur les ménages : des canaux redistributifs différents en 1990 et 2010</td></tr><tr><td>G2012/09</td><td>O. BARGAIN - A. VICARD<br/>Le RMI et son successeur le RSA, découragent-lis certains jeunes de travailler ? Une analyse sur les jeunes autour de 25 ans</td></tr><tr><td>G2012/10</td><td>C. MARBOT - D. ROY<br/>Projections du coût de l'APA et des caractéristiques de ses bénéficiaires à Horizon 2040 à l'aide du modèle Destinie</td></tr><tr><td>G2012/11</td><td>A. MAUROUX<br/>Le crédit d'impôt dédié au développement durable: une évaluation économique</td></tr><tr><td>G2012/12</td><td>V. COTTET - S. QUANTIN - V. RÉGNIER<br/>Coût du travail et allégements de charges: une estimation au niveau établissement de 1996 à 2008</td></tr><tr><td>G2012/13</td><td>X. D'HAULTFOEUILLE - P. FÉVRIER -<br/>L. WILNER<br/>Demand Estimation in the Presence of Revenue Management</td></tr><tr><td>G2012/14</td><td>D. BLANCHET - S. LE MINEZ<br/>Joint macro/micro evaluations of accrued-to-date pension liabilities: an application to French reforms</td></tr><tr><td>G2013/01</td><td>T. DEROYON - A. MONTAUT - P.-A. PIONNIER<br/>Utilisation rétrospective de l'enquête Emploi à une fréquence mensuelle: apport d'une modélisation espace-état</td></tr><tr><td>G2013/02/<br/>F1302</td><td>C. TREVIEN<br/>Habiter en HLM: quel avantage monétaire et quel impact sur les conditions de logement?</td></tr><tr><td>G2013/03</td><td>A. POISSONNIER<br/>Temporal disaggregation of stock variables - The Chow-Lin method extended to dynamic models</td></tr><tr><td>G2013/04</td><td>P. GIVORD - C. MARBOT<br/>Does the cost of child care affect female labor market participation? An evaluation of a French reform of childcare subsidies</td></tr><tr><td>G2013/05</td><td>G. LAME - M. LEQUIEN - P.-A. PIONNIER<br/>Interpretation and limits of sustainability tests in public finance</td></tr><tr><td>G2013/06</td><td>C. BELLEGO - V. DORTET-BERNADET<br/>La participation aux poles de compétitivité: quelle incidence sur les dépenses de R&D et l'activité des PME et ETI?</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>G2013/07</td><td>P.-Y. CABANNES - A. MONTAUT -<br/>P.-A. PIONNIER<br/>Évaluer la productivité globale des facteurs en France: l'apport d'une mesure de la qualité du capital et du travail</td></tr><tr><td>G2013/08</td><td>R. AEBERHARDT - C. MARBOT<br/>Evolution of Instability in the French Labour Market During the Last Thirty Years</td></tr><tr><td>G2013/09</td><td>J.-B. BERNARD - G. CLÉAUD<br/>Oil price, the nature of the shocks and the impact on the French economy</td></tr><tr><td>G2013/10</td><td>G. LAME<br/>Was there a « Greenspan Conundrum » in the Euro area?</td></tr><tr><td>G2013/11</td><td>P. CHONE - F. EVAIN - L. WILNER - E. YILMAZ<br/>Introducing activity-based payment in the hospital industry: Evidence from French data</td></tr><tr><td>G2013/12</td><td>C. GRISLAIN-LETREMY<br/>Natural Disasters: Exposure and Underinsurance</td></tr><tr><td>G2013/13</td><td>P.-Y. CABANNES - V. COTTET - Y. DUBOIS -<br/>C. LELARGE - M. SICMIC<br/>French Firms in the Face of the 2008/2009 Crisis</td></tr><tr><td>G2013/14</td><td>A. POISSONNIER - D. ROY<br/>Households Satellite Account for France in 2010, Methodological issues on the assessment of domestic production</td></tr><tr><td>G2013/15</td><td>G. CLÉAUD - M. LEMOINE - P.-A. PIONNIER<br/>Which size and evolution of the government expenditure multiplier in France (1980-2010)?</td></tr><tr><td>G2014/01</td><td>M. BACHELET - A. LEDUC - A. MARINO<br/>Les biographies du modèle Destinie II: rebassage et projection</td></tr><tr><td>G2014/02</td><td>B. GARBINTI<br/>L'achat de la résidence principale et la création d'entreprises sont-ils favorisés par les donations et héritages?</td></tr><tr><td>G2014/03</td><td>N. CECI-RENAUD - P. CHARNOZ - M. GAINI<br/>Evolution of the volatilité des revenus salariaux du secteur privé en France depuis 1968</td></tr><tr><td>G2014/04</td><td>P. AUBERT<br/>Modalités d'application des réformes des retraites et prévisibilité du montant de pension</td></tr><tr><td>G2014/05</td><td>C. GRISLAIN-LETREMY - A. KATOSSKY<br/>The Impact of Hazardous Industrial Facilities on Housing Prices: A Comparison of Parametric and Semiparametric Hedonic Price Models</td></tr><tr><td>G2014/06</td><td>J.-M. DAUSSIN-BENICHOU - A. MAUROUX<br/>Turning the heat up: How sensitive are households to fiscal incentives on energy efficiency investments?</td></tr><tr><td>G2014/07</td><td>C. LABONNE - G. LAME<br/>Credit Growth and Capital Requirements: Binding or Not?</td></tr><tr><td>G2014/08</td><td>C. GRISLAIN-LETREMY et C. TREVIEN<br/>The Impact of Housing Subsidies on the Rental Sector: the French Example</td></tr><tr><td>G2014/09</td><td>M. LEQUIEN et A. MONTAUT<br/>Croissance potentielle en France et en zone euro: un tour d'horizon des méthodes d'estimation</td></tr></table>
<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>G2014/10</td>
      <td>B. GARBINTI - P. LAMARCHE</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2014/11</td>
      <td>D. AUDENAERT - J. BARDAJI - R. LARDEUX - M. ORAND - M. SICNIC</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2014/12</td>
      <td>F. ARNAUD - J. BOUSSARD - A. POISSONNIER - H.-SOUAL</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2014/13</td>
      <td>H. FRAISSE - F. KRAMARZ - C. PROST</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2014/14</td>
      <td>P. GIVORD - C. GRISLAIN-LETRÉMY - H.-NAEGLE</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2014/15</td>
      <td>P. AUBERT - S. RABATÉ</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2015/01</td>
      <td>A. POISSONNIER</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2015/02</td>
      <td>Y. DUBOIS - A. MARINO</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2015/03</td>
      <td>T. MAYER - C. TREVIEN</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2015/04</td>
      <td>S.T. LY - A. RIEGERT</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2015/05</td>
      <td>M. A. BEN HALIMA - V. HYAFIL-SOLELHAC</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2015/06</td>
      <td>M. KOUB - C. REGAERT</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2015/07</td>
      <td>B. CAMPAGNE - V. ALHENC-GELAS - J.-B. BERNARD</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2015/08</td>
      <td>O. LAFFÉTER - M. PAK</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2015/09</td>
      <td>J.-M. DAUSSIN-BENICHOU, S. IDMACHICHE, A. LEDUC et E. POULIQUEN</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2015/10</td>
      <td>P. AUBERT</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2015/11</td>
      <td>V. DORTET-BERNADET - M. SICNIC</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>

<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>G2015/12</td>
      <td>S. GEORGES-KOT</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2015/13</td>
      <td>M. POULHÉS</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2015/14</td>
      <td>J.-B. BERNARD - Q. LAFFETER</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2015/15</td>
      <td>C. GEAF - M. KOUB - G. DE LAGASNERIE</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2015/16</td>
      <td>J. BARDAJI - J.-C. BRICONGNE - B. CAMPAGNE - G. GAULIER</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2015/17</td>
      <td>C. BELLÉGO - R. DE NIJS</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2015/18</td>
      <td>J.-B. BERNARD - L. BERTHET</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2015/19</td>
      <td>M. POULHÉS</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2016/01</td>
      <td>B. GARBINTI - S. GEORGES-KOT</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2016/02</td>
      <td>P. CHARNOZ - C. LELARGE - C. TREVIEN</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2016/03</td>
      <td>C. BONNET - B. GARBINTI - A. SOLAZ</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2016/04</td>
      <td>D. BLANCHET - E. CAROLI - C. PROST - M. ROGER</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2016/05</td>
      <td>B. CAMPAGNE - A. POISSONNIER</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2016/06</td>
      <td>B. CAMPAGNE - A. POISSONNIER</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2016/07</td>
      <td>B. CAMPAGNE - A. POISSONNIER</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2016/08</td>
      <td>A. NAOUAS - M. ORAND - I. SLIMANI-HOUTI</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2016/09</td>
      <td>T. BLANCHET - Y. DUBOIS - A. MARINO - M. ROGER</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2016/10</td>
      <td>P. AUBERT</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2016/11</td>
      <td>M. PAK - A. POISSONNIER</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>

<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>G2017/01</td>
      <td>D. FOUGÈRE - E. GAUTIER - S. ROUX</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2017/02</td>
      <td>Y. DUBOIS - M. KOUBI</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2017/03</td>
      <td>A. CAZENAVE-LACROUTZ - F. GODET</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2017/04</td>
      <td>J. BARDAJI - B. CAMPAGNE - M.-B. KHDER - Q. LAFFÉTER - O. SIMON (Insee)</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2017/05</td>
      <td>A. BELLÉGO - C. DE NIJS</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2017/06</td>
      <td>A. CAZENAVE-LACROUTZ - A. GODZINSKI</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2017/07</td>
      <td>P. CHARNOZ - M. ORAND</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2017/08</td>
      <td>K. MILIN</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2017/09</td>
      <td>C. BELLÉGO - V. DORTET-BERNADET - M. TÉPAUT</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/10</td>
      <td>R. MONIN - M. SUAREZ CASTILLO</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/11</td>
      <td>R. MONIN - M. SUAREZ CASTILLO</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/12</td>
      <td>A. CAZENAVE-LACROUTZ - F. GODET - V. LIN</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2019/01</td>
      <td>L'introduction d'un gradient social dans la mortallité au sein du modèle Destinie 2</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2019/02</td>
      <td>A. BOURGEOIS - A. BRIAND</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2019/03</td>
      <td>Le modèle Avionic : la modélisation Input/Output des comptes nationaux</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2019/04</td>
      <td>L. ABERHARDT - F. HATIER - M. LECLAIR - B. PENTINAT - J.-D. ZAFAR</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2019/05</td>
      <td>A. CAZENAVE-LACROUTZ - E. YILMAZ</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2019/06</td>
      <td>M. ORZONI - C. PLATEAU</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2019/07</td>
      <td>J.-P. CLING - S. EGIBAL-TEHERANI - M. ORZONI - C. PLATEAU</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>

<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/05</td>
      <td>C.-M. CHEVALIER</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/06</td>
      <td>R. S.-H. LEE - M. PAK</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/07</td>
      <td>C.-M. CHEVALIER</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/08</td>
      <td>Consumption inequality in France between 1985 and 2011</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/09</td>
      <td>A. BAUER - B. GARBINTI - S. GEORGES-KOT</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/10</td>
      <td>A. BEAUMONT - A. LUCIANI</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/11</td>
      <td>P. BEAUMONT - A. LUCIANI</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/12</td>
      <td>Prime à l'embauche dans les PME : évaluation à partir des déclarations d'embauche</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/13</td>
      <td>A. BAUER - B. GARBINTI - S. GEORGES-KOT</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/14</td>
      <td>Financial Constraints and Self-Employment in France, 1945-2014</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/15</td>
      <td>P. BEAUMONT - A. LUCIANI</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/16</td>
      <td>Prime à l'embauche dans les PME : évaluation à partir des déclarations d'embauche</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/17</td>
      <td>C. BELLÉGO - V. DORTET-BERNADET - M. TÉPAUT</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/18</td>
      <td>Comparaison de deux dispositifs d'aide à la R&D collaborative public-privé</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/19</td>
      <td>R. MONIN - M. SUAREZ CASTILLO</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/20</td>
      <td>RÉplication et rapprochement des travaux d'évaluation du effet du CICE sur l'emploi en 2013 et 2014</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/21</td>
      <td>A. CAZENAVE-LACROUTZ - F. GODET - V. LIN</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/22</td>
      <td>L'introduction d'un gradient social dans la mortallité au sein du modèle Destinie 2</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/23</td>
      <td>M. ANDRÉ - A.-L. BIOTTEAU</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/24</td>
      <td>Effets de moyen terme d'une hausse de TVA sur le niveau de vie et les inégalités : une approche par microsimulation</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/25</td>
      <td>A. BOURGEOIS - A. BRIAND</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/26</td>
      <td>Le modèle Avionic : la modélisation Input/Output des comptes nationaux</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/27</td>
      <td>A. GODZINSKI - M. SUAREZ CASTILLO</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/28</td>
      <td>Short-term health effects of public transport disruptions: air pollution and viral spread channels</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/29</td>
      <td>L. ABERHARDT - F. HATIER - M. LECLAIR - B. PENTINAT - J.-D. ZAFAR</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/30</td>
      <td>A. CAZENAVE-LACROUTZ - E. YILMAZ</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/31</td>
      <td>Dans quelle mesure les incitations tarifaires et la procédure de mise sous accord préalable ont-elles contribué au développement de la chirurgie ambulatoire ?</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/32</td>
      <td>A. CAZENAVE-LACROUTZ - E. YILMAZ</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/33</td>
      <td>The Differences between EU Countries for Sustainable Development Indicators: It is (mainly) the Economy?</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/34</td>
      <td>P. CHONÉ - L. WILNER</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/35</td>
      <td>Competition on Unobserved Attributes: The Case of the Hospital Industry</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
<table><tr><td>G2019/08</td><td>P. PORA – L. WILNER<br>Child Penalties and Financial Incentives;<br>Exploiting Variation along the Wage<br>Distribution</td></tr><tr><td>G2019/09</td><td>E. GAUTIER – S. ROUX – M. SUAREZ<br>CASTILLO<br>Do Minimum Wages make Wages more<br>Rigid ? Evidence from French Micro Data</td></tr><tr><td>G2019/10</td><td>M. ANDRÉ – A. SIREYJOL<br>Imposition des couples et des familles :<br>effets budgétaires et redistributifs de l'impôt<br>sur le revenu</td></tr><tr><td>G2019/11</td><td>K. MOHKAM – O. SIMON<br>L'entrepreinte matière de l'économie<br>française : une analyse par matière et<br>catégorie de produits</td></tr><tr><td>G2019/12</td><td>S. BUNEL – B. HADJIBEYLI<br>Évaluation du crédit d'impôt innovation</td></tr><tr><td>G2019/13</td><td>C. BONNET – F. GODET – A. SOLAZ<br>Gendered economic determinants of couple<br>formation over 50 in France</td></tr><tr><td>G2019/14</td><td>P. GIVORD – M. SUAREZ CASTILLO<br>Excellence for all? Heterogeneity in high<br>schools' value-added</td></tr><tr><td>G2019/15</td><td>G. CETTE – L. KOEHL – T. PHILIPPON<br>Labor Share in Some Advanced Countries</td></tr><tr><td>G2020/01</td><td>J. SILHOL – B. VENTELOU<br>Les zones d'intervention prioritaire reflétent<br>elles des écarts de pratiques des médecins<br>généralistes ?</td></tr><tr><td>G2020/02</td><td>B. BOUCHTENIK – R. LARDEUX<br>The Take-Up of Unemployment Benefit<br>Extensions</td></tr><tr><td>G2020/03</td><td>J-M. GERMAIN<br>A Welfare Based Estimate of "Real Feel<br>GDP" for Europe and the USA</td></tr><tr><td>G2020/04</td><td>J. BOUSSARD – R. LEE<br>Competition, Profit Share and Concentration</td></tr><tr><td>G2020/05</td><td>P. PORA<br>Keep Working and Spend Less?<br>Collective Childcare and Parental Earnings<br>in France</td></tr><tr><td>G2020/06</td><td>R. MONIN – M. SUAREZ CASTILLO<br>Product Switching, market power and<br>distance to core competency</td></tr><tr><td>G2020/07</td><td>L. WILNER<br>How do citizens perceive centralization<br>reforms? Evidence from the merger of<br>French regions</td></tr><tr><td>G2020/08</td><td>L. WILNER<br>The persistence of subjective well-being:<br>permanent happiness, transitory misery?</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>G2020/09</td><td>J-M. GERMAIN – T. LELLOUCH<br>Comptabilité économique de la soutenabilité<br>climatique</td></tr><tr><td>G2020/10</td><td>A. BAUER – M. ROTEMBERG<br>Tax avoidance in French Firms:<br>Evidence from the Introduction of a Tax<br>Notch</td></tr><tr><td>G2020/11</td><td>P. AGHION – A. BERGEAUD<br>M. LEQUIEN – M. J. MELITZ<br>The Heterogeneous Impact of Market Size<br>on Innovation: Evidence from French Firm-<br>Level Exports</td></tr><tr><td>G2020/12</td><td>L. GALIANA – B. SAKAROVITCH<br>F. SÉMÉCURBE – Z. SMOREDA<br>Residential segregation, daytime<br>segregation and spatial frictions : an<br>analysis</td></tr><tr><td>G2020/13</td><td>A. BAUER – J. BOUSSARD<br>Market Power and Labor Share</td></tr><tr><td>G2020/14</td><td>A. BAUER – J. BOUSSARD – D. LASHKARI<br>Information Technology and Returns to<br>Scale</td></tr><tr><td>G2020/15</td><td>V. LIN – O. MESLIN<br>Hausse des prix immobiliers et mesure du<br>niveau de vie</td></tr><tr><td>G2021/01</td><td>N. BECHICHI – G. THEBAULT<br>Students' Preferences, Capacity Constraints<br>and Post-Secondary Achievements in a<br>Non-Selective System</td></tr><tr><td>G2021/02</td><td>B. BUREAU – A. DUQUERROY<br>J. GIORGI – M. LÉ – S. SCOTT – F. VINAS<br>Une année de crise COVID : impact sur la<br>dynamique de l'activité des entreprises en<br>France<br>Une évaluation sur données individuelles</td></tr><tr><td>G2021/03</td><td>B. BUREAU – A. DUQUERROY<br>J. GIORGI – M. LÉ – S. SCOTT – F. VINAS<br>L'impact de la crise sanitaire sur la situation<br>financière des entreprises en 2020 : une<br>analyse sur données individuelles</td></tr><tr><td>G2021/04</td><td>A. GODZINSKI – M.SUAREZ CASTILLO<br>Disentangling the effects of air pollutants<br>with many instruments</td></tr><tr><td>2021/01</td><td>S. QUANTIN – S.BUNEL – C.LENOIR<br>Évaluation du dispositif Jeune entreprise<br>innovante (JEU) Un exemple d'application du<br>modèle d'analyse de sensibilité de<br>Rosenbaum</td></tr><tr><td>2021/02</td><td>L. GOBILLON – D. MEURS – S. ROUX<br>Évaluation du dispositif Jeune entreprise<br>innovante (JEU) Un exemple d'application du<br>modèle d'analyse de sensibilité de<br>Rosenbaum</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>2021/03</td><td>N. BECHICHI – J. GRENET – G.<br>THEBAULT<br>Ségrégation à l'entrée des études<br>supérieures en France et en région<br>parisienne : quels effets du passage à<br>Parcoursup ?</td></tr><tr><td>2021/04</td><td>M. ANDRÉ – O. MESLIN<br>Et pour quelques appartements de<br>plus : Étude de la propriété immobilière des<br>ménages et du profit redistributif de la taxe<br>foncière</td></tr><tr><td>2022/05</td><td>S. GEORGES-KOT – D. GOUX – E.<br>MAURIN<br>The value of leisure synchronozation</td></tr></table>