# Tax avoidance in French Firms: Evidence from the Introduction of a Tax Notch

Arthur Bauer, Martin Rotemberg

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

## To cite this version:

Arthur Bauer, Martin Rotemberg. Tax avoidance in French Firms: Evidence from the Introduction of a Tax Notch. 2020. hal-05384953

HAL Id: hal-05384953

https://insee.hal.science/hal-05384953v1

Preprint submitted on 27 Nov 2025

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

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

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

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Documents de travail

N° G2020/10

Octobre 2020

# Tax avoidance in French Firms: Evidence from the Introduction of a Tax Notch

Arthur BAUER - Martin ROTEMBERG
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques

G2020/10

# Tax avoidance in French Firms: Evidence from the Introduction of a Tax Notch

Arthur BAUER* Martin ROTEMBERG**

Octobre 2020

Département des Études Économiques - Timbre G201

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

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

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

Some of the research in this paper was conducted while the first author was an employee of the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies. Any opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies. No confidential information is disclosed in our results. We are grateful to Eve Caroli, Dominique Goux, Claire Lelarge, Étienne Lehmann and Sébastien Roux for helpful comments.

<footnote>* Faisait partie de l'Insee-Dese - Département des études économiques - Division « Marchés et entreprises » au moment de la rédaction de ce document</footnote>

<footnote>** New York University</footnote>
# L'optimisation fiscale au sein des entreprises : le cas des ajustements de chiffres d'affaires

## Résumé

Le code de l'impôt sur les sociétés peut créer des encoches; des situations où le profit après impôt diminue quand les ventes avant impôt augmentent. Les entreprises réagissent de façon endogène à ces encoches, ce qui entraîne un excès de masse dans la distribution de la taille de l'entreprise. Nous étudions une réforme fiscale transitoire mise en place en 1997 qui a augmenté l'impôt sur les bénéfices de 15 % pour les entreprises dont le chiffre d'affaires dépasse 50 millions de francs. Nous utilisons deux approches distinctes et complémentaires pour estimer l'ampleur de l'optimisation fiscale : a) le recours à des entreprises éloignées de l'encoche fiscale (et donc peu susceptibles d'y répondre) au cours de la même année et b) la répartition de la taille totale des entreprises avant la réforme fiscale. Les deux stratégies donnent des résultats semblables en ce qui concerne l'étendue de l'optimisation fiscale. Nous montrons que les entreprises qui évitent l'impôt sont celles dont les coûts d'ajustement calibrés sont les moins élevés et celles dont les bénéfices sont les plus élevés. Le comportement d'optimisation fiscale provient principalement de l'augmentation des stocks et de la diminution des ventes.

**Mots-clés** : taxes sur les entreprises, optimisation fiscale, production des entreprises

# Tax avoidance in French Firms: Evidence from the Introduction of a Tax Notch

## Abstract

Corporate tax codes can have notches; values where after-tax profits decrease in before-tax sales. Firms endogenously respond to notches, leading to excess mass in the firm-size distribution. We study a 1997 policy reform in which the French government implemented a transient tax reform that increased profit taxes by 15% for firms with over 50 million Francs in turnover. We use two distinct and complementary approaches to estimate the extent of tax avoidance: (a) using firms far away from (and therefore unlikely to be responsive to) the tax notch in the same year and (b) the entire firm size distribution before the tax reform. Both strategies generate similar results for the extent of tax avoidance. We show that the firms who avoid the tax are the ones with the lowest calibrated adjustment costs and those with the larger profits. The tax avoidance behavior comes mostly from increases in inventories and decreases in sales.

**Keywords:** Business Taxes, Tax Evasion, Firm Production

**Classification JEL** : H25 H26 H32 D24
# I Introduction

Firms avoid paying taxes through a variety of strategies, including misreporting, transfer pricing, and changing “real” behavior (Desai, Foley, and Hines, 2006; Liu, Schmidt-Eisenlohr, and Guo, 2017; Zucman, 2014). Even within the category of changed behavior, there are a variety of options available to firms: they can adjust their input mix or shift sales over time. We leverage a 1997 tax increase in France in order to quantify if and how firms adjusted their behavior to avoid paying taxes. The reform increased profit taxes for firms with over 50 million Francs in turnover by 15%. As a result, firms with fairly similar sales faced different average (and marginal) tax rates, giving firms incentives to stay just below the threshold relative to just above.

We focus our attention on two questions. First, do firms distort their behavior in order to avoid paying additional taxes? Second, are there specific types of firms who are more likely to be affected, and how do they avoid taxation? Since it is difficult to credibly survey firms on if and how they avoid taxes, we use reported firm behavior in order to back out avoidance responses.

For the first question, we are interested in measuring the endogenous response of excess mass in the firm-size distribution: “too many firms” just below the cutoff, and correspondingly “too few” just above<fnref n="1" />. We use complementary but distinct approaches to estimate the extent of excess mass. First, following a large literature<fnref n="2" /> we assume that the firm size distribution is “well behaved” in any given year. This implies that firms far away from the tax threshold do not adjust their behavior in response to the policy, and so we can use the distribution (of turnover) of those firms in order to estimate a counterfactual avoidance-free firm size distribution. We compare the avoidance-free counterfactual distribution to the actual firm-size distribution around the cutoff to back out how firms change their behavior. This approach assumes that the firm-size distribution would otherwise be “well-behaved” around the cutoff. In order to validate this assumption, we show that the method neither identifies excess mass in the years before the policy was enacted nor in the years after it was phased out.

We also use the time-series dimension of the data in order to estimate excess mass by estimating a counterfactual avoidance-free distribution using years when the policy was not

<footnote n="1">¹Almunia and Lopez-Rodriguez (2017); Bachas and Soto (2018); Garicano, Lelarge, and Van Reenen (2016); Gourio and Roys (2014); Kleven and Waseem (2013); Liu and Lockwood (2016); Onji (2009)</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Aghion et al. (2017); Bach (2015); Chetty et al. (2011); Dee et al. (2016); Diamond and Persson (2016); Kleven (2016); Kleven and Waseem (2013); Lardeux (2018); Barbanchon (2016); Saez (2010)</footnote>
in effect.

Using the cross-sectional information we find that there were around 150 firms who changed their sales in response to the new tax regime out of roughly one thousand firms concerned. We find similar results using the time-series information. This corresponds to a tax elasticity of sales of 0.16.

We then turn to identifying which firms adjust their sales. We do this by studying the ex-ante characteristics of firms below the tax cutoff (as in Diamond and Persson (2016)). If, for instance, firms who normally have high profits adjust their sales more, then we would observe more of those types of firms just below the cutoff than we would expect (for instance, by using their prevalence when the tax cutoff was not in effect).

In addition to finding that high-profit firms are more likely to avoid the tax, we also find that firms with larger adjustment costs are less likely to bunch. We start by classifying their firms using their estimated with capital adjustment costs (Asker, Collard-Wexler, and Loecker, 2014). We show that bunchers are, depending on the years, between 3% and 15% more likely to have capital adjustment cost within the lowest tercile. Furthermore, consistent with the logic that material inputs generally more flexible than capital inputs, we find that firms who bunch tend to have larger elasticity of output with respect to materials and lower elasticity of output with respect to capital.

We then turn to estimating how firms avoid the extra taxes. Firms have many potential margins of adjustment, including affecting their production decisions, prices, and inventories. As in (Diamond and Persson, 2016; Bachas and Soto, 2018; Dee et al., 2016), we note that a similar logic to the bunching estimator can help us back out firm behavior. We compare firms in the avoidance region to firms outside it (either firms who are too small/large, or firms of similar sizes in different years). If firms change some characteristics in order to shrink, then we will see differences in that characteristic in the avoidance. For instance, we find that firms avoid increasing their sales by instead increasing their inventories. In the data, this shows up as firms in the avoidance region overall having more inventories than would be predicted by the out-of-sample counterfactuals. Note that an RD-type of estimate (comparing firms just below to just above the cutoff) is unlikely to generate the causal mechanisms for tax avoidance since the firms who choose to avoid taxes are ex-ante different along a variety of dimensions. In order to avoid the selection issue, we compare all of the firms who might be affected by avoidance to those who are not.

We find that while firms do lower their production as they lower sales, the primary driver of the avoidance is an increase in change in inventories and capitalized production.
This suggests that adjusting production is relatively more costly than either stocking the production or reinvesting it in the production process. Since the changes “add up,” this implies that the values we find are real effects of tax avoidance, not just tax evasion through simple misreporting or fraud (Best et al., 2015).

# II Institutional setting and Data

## II.A Institutional Setting

As in other countries, entrepreneurs in France choose between two kinds of tax regimes: taxes on income (IR) or corporate income taxes (IS). Around 2/3 of firms, representing 1/5 of aggregate value added, is in the former group. Each firms’ sector determines what category of taxes it pays, with firms with benefits mostly from services (BNC) in one category, and firms in trade and manufacturing activity (BIC) or agricultural activity (BA) choosing between a regular (BRN) or simplified (RSI) setup. Around half of firms, but only around 5% of value added, are in the latter group. Around 90% of aggregate value added comes from firms in the regular tax regime (See Table 1 for the exact values).

Over the 1995-2000 period there were several changes in the corporate income tax rates. In 1995-1996 the basic corporate income tax was of 33.33% and firms had to pay a *contribution additionnelle* of 10%<fnref n="3" /> such that the corporate income tax rate was of 36.33%. In 1997-1998, the corporate income tax rate was increased by 15% through a *contribution exceptionnelle* (to 42.16%) for enterprise firms with sales above fifty million Francs (around seven million of Euros).<fnref n="4" /> At the same time the basic marginal tax rate on profit below 200 thousand Francs (around 38 thousand Euros) was reduced from 33% to 19% for firms with sales below the same threshold.<fnref n="5" /> In 1999 the *contribution exceptionnelle* rate was lowered to 10%. In 2000 this *contribution exceptionnelle* was removed and the reduced marginal corporate income tax rate on profits below 200 thousand Francs increased to 25%.<fnref n="6" />

The incentives to distort one firm’s behavior to avoid the *contribution exceptionnelle* and potentially benefit from the reduced marginal corporate income tax rate were small but

<footnote n="3">³https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000737653&categorieLien=id</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴Loi no 97-1026 du 10 novembre 1997 portant mesures urgentes à caractère fiscal et financier https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000185577&categorieLien=id</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵On November 27 1995, France's Prime Minister Alain Juppé announced a “plan PME pour la France”, i.e. a package of reforms that aimed at alleviating credit constraints for SME, fostering their ability to accumulate capital and to settle in urban areas and finally reducing taxes they pay. There is however no evidence that the *contribution exceptionnelle* was part of this announcement</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶Eligibility to the reduced marginal tax rate and exemption to the *contributions* were conditioned on 75% of firms' share capital owned by physical people and all of share capital paid-up.</footnote>
significant. Figure 1 shows the differential of tax rates above and below the threshold.<fnref n="7" /> This allows us to infer the gains by profit to becoming eligible to an exemption of the contribution and to taking advantage of the reduced marginal tax rate. For a firm with profits of 1.5 million Francs (roughly the sample mean), avoiding the tax would save 75 thousand Francs.

## II.B Data

We use three datasets collected by the Direction Générale des Impôts and the French National Institute of Statistics (INSEE): the BRN files, the RSI files as well as *Enquête sur les liaisons financières* (LiFi). In France, each firm has an identifier, SIREN, which facilitates its interaction with the different administrations. This identifier is present in these three datasets which allows us to merge BRN and RSI files to LiFi, and to follow firms across the years. The BRN files contain balance sheet information contained in tax forms filled by firms affiliated to the BRN regime. Those files have often been used in academic research (see for instance (Caliendo, Monte, and Rossi-Hansberg, 2015)). Recent work has integrated smaller firms as those affiliated to the RSI regime in their analysis as well (see for instance (Garicano, Lelarge, and Van Reenen, 2016). The RSI files contain balance sheet information collected from tax forms of firms affiliated to the RSI regime. LiFi contains information on firm conglomerate membership. We use it to restrict or sample to firms that could avoid the additional tax burden, as conglomerate members had to pay the additional tax *contributions* and weren't eligible to the reduced marginal tax rate even with turnover below the threshold.

With the BRN-RSI files we build a panel of firms that spans the 1995-2000 period. This period is well-suited for the analysis of the 1997-1999 reform as it contains two years before its implementation that we can use as counterfactual and one year after to analyze the persistence of its consequences.<fnref n="8" /> The BRN-RSI files contain about 1.6 million firms each year. They cover the universe of firms within the BIC category affiliated to the regular and simplified regimes.<fnref n="9" />

The BRN-RSI files provide all the relevant firms characteristics, namely inputs of productions, value-added, turnover, profits, and inventories. We use nonimal values as the eligibility threshold of 50 million Francs was not indexed to inflation. To assess the weight of BRN and RSI regimes in the economy and compare it with the excluded BNC regime (Table 1), we use

<footnote n="7">⁷Tax rates are the combination of the marginal tax rates, the *contribution additionnelle* and the *contribution exceptionnelle*.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸In 2001 there were further changes to the tax code preventing us from doing longer follow-up analyses.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹Our dataset does not include firms in the *Bénéfice Non Commercial* regime, who were unaffected by the reform, nor *Bénéfice Agricole* regime firms who tend to be very specific types of firms mostly in the agricultural sector.</footnote>
FICUS<fnref n="10" /> that also contains aggregated information on BNC firms. For our main analysis we use the BRN-RSI files instead of FICUS as FICUS doesn't provide any information on the type of tax regime firms have opted for (either IR or IS).

A drawback of BRN-RSI files relative to FICUS is that they provide rawer information. As a consequence we make two restrictions to our main sample and clean the dataset. First, we remove extreme values of capital shares above 10. Second, we exclude firms that report negative values of inputs.

We add information on conglomerate membership from the *Enquête sur les liaisons financières* (LiFi), collected by INSEE since 1980 and available every years of the 1995-2000 period. INSEE surveys every year all firms with sales above 393 million Francs, equity portfolio above 7.9 million Francs or with more than 500 employees. Moreover the institute includes in its sample firms that were in the dataset the preceding year or firms that belong to foreign firms.

We further restrict the sample to firms with turnover between 20 million Francs and 100 million Francs, as well as to firms eligible to the tax cut. The BRN-RSI dataset allows us to keep only firms affiliated to the IS regime. Due to data limitation on share capital's ownership -on which the second eligibility criteria applied- we exclude all firms that belong to a conglomerate.

Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics. The average output level is 20 million Francs, the average level of turnover is 40 million Francs, material capital and labor average values are respectively 7 million Francs, 90 million Francs and 6 million Francs. The average number of employees is 37. The average profit of firms in our sample is 1.5 million Francs. Firms in our sample are on average twice as large as than the average French firm.

### III Theoretical framework

Firms maximize revenues minus costs, where costs come from production, adjustment, taxes, and potentially inventories. The force encouraging firms to hold inventories are adjustment costs: if a firm's frictionless optimal sales level is too far from baseline (in the case of a tax increase, firms would want to produce less) then firms might want to increase their sales and put some goods in inventory.<fnref n="11" /> Pushing against this force is that inventory is also

<footnote n="10">¹⁰FICUS is a production of the French census bureau (INSEE), which confronts the balance sheet information obtained from tax forms collected by the tax office (DGFIP) and gathered in the BRN-RSI files with one of its internal sources of information, the EAE survey.</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹For simplicity of exposition, we model the choice of the firm statically: it does not take into account its current production choices on either the bliss point or the ability to draw down future inventories. We think this is reasonable for two reasons: first, it is only towards the end of the year that firms discover that they may end up benefiting from adjusting their sales, so long-term adjustments are less relevant. Second, while</footnote>
costly. Given convex inventory and adjustment costs, under some regularity assumptions the optimal choice of the firm is to produce less than the bliss point, but still put some goods in inventory.

The set-up is straightforward. Firms who sell $x$ units of a good earn profits of

$$R(x_i) - c(q_i) - \gamma_s A(q_i^* - q_i) - \tau(R(s_i) - \tilde{c}(s_i)) - I(q_i - s_i) \quad (1)$$

where $R(\cdot)$ is the revenue function, $c(\cdot)$ is the constant-returns-to-scale production cost,<fnref n="12" /> $A(\cdot)$ is the twice-differentiable convex adjustment cost coming from producing other that $q^*$, $\gamma_s$ is how expensive the adjustment cost is at the sector level, $q$ is the quantity produced $\tau(\cdot)$ is the (profits) tax, and $I(\cdot)$ is the twice-differentiable convex inventory cost.<fnref n="13" /> We solve for optimal firm behavior in two steps: first by showing that for a given $s$, there is an optimal production/inventory decision for the firm, and then solving for $s$ in the profit function.

Given $s < q^*$, a firm seeks to minimize

$$c(q_i) + \gamma_s A(q_i^* - q_i) + I(q_i - s_i).$$

Defining $c' = \phi_i$,

$$\gamma_s A'(q_i^* - q_i) = \phi_i + I'(q_i - s_i) \quad (2)$$

If the firm chooses to overproduce to the bliss point ($q_i = q_i^*$), then the left hand side is zero, and the right hand side will be positive, which will not minimize costs. If $s$ is “far enough” away from $q_i^*$ then a similar logic holds for if a firm chose to produce $q_i = s$: the left-hand-side would be larger than the right. Given the intermediate value theorem and the continuity and convexity of the adjustment and inventory costs, this implies that there is a unique production decision $q_i$ for each optimal sales quantity $s_i$, and correspondingly a convex and twice differentiable function $C(\cdot)$ which captures the production, adjustment, and inventory costs.

We can therefore rewrite Equation 1 as

$$R(s_i) - C(q_i) - \tau(R(s_i) - \tilde{c}(s_i)) \quad (3)$$

<footnote>inventories is a dynamic decision we use a static reduced-form representation.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹²We assume taxes are paid on good sold for exposition purposes with the equality $\tilde{c}(s_i) = c(q_i)$</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³The tax is a function of goods sold.</footnote>
which if $\tau(\cdot)$ is differentiable has the traditional solution of

$$R'(s_i) = C'(q_i) - \tau'(R(s_i) - \tilde{c}(s_i)) [R'(s_i) - \tilde{c}'(s_i)].$$

However, if there is a jump in the tax schedule at the threshold $\theta$:

$$\begin{cases} \tau = 0 & s_i \le \theta \\ \tau = .15 & s_i > \theta \end{cases}$$

then some firms will have to make a discrete choice: comparing profits at $s_i = \theta$ to the best choice at $\tau = .15$. As in (Kleven and Waseem, 2013) there will be a cutoff $\tilde{\theta}_i$ for which a firm would weakly prefer to sell $\theta$ then anything in $(\theta, \tilde{\theta}_i)$. Furthermore, if $q_i^* > \theta$, then it is straightforward to show that decreasing $\gamma_s$ increases $\tilde{\theta}_i$, as does decreasing $\phi_i$. One way that firms might have lower adjustment costs might be due to idiosyncratic firm-specific features, such as better access to capital markets.

Following Asker, Collard-Wexler, and Loecker (2014), we interpret the dispersion in the marginal product of the inputs of production as a proxy for idiosyncratic adjustment costs (since with no adjustment costs the dispersion would be zero). The production function literature assumes that capital adjustment costs are the largest ones, followed by labor adjustment costs and then material adjustment costs (Ackerberg, Caves, and Frazer, 2015; Asker, Collard-Wexler, and Loecker, 2014; Levinsohn and Petrin, 2003; Olley and Pakes, 1996). This assumption implies that firms whose production is relatively more sensitive to materials face in average lower adjustment costs.

# IV Empirical Approach

## IV.A Discontinuity Estimates

If firms endogenously lower their size in order to avoid the extra taxes, there will be excess mass in the distribution below the threshold and correspondingly too little mass above. We follow the standard approaches in the literature to measure excess mass, McCrary (2008).<fnref n="14" /> As a robustness test, we also follow Cattaneo, Janson, and Ma (2016), who have a similar intuition but do not require prebinning of the data.

<footnote n="14">¹⁴This approach consists in implementing the local linear density estimator and suggests a bandwidth selection algorithm.</footnote>
## IV.B Bunching Estimators

### Using Predictions from Distribution away from the Threshold as Counterfactual

An alternative approach to measuring bunching is to use firms far from the threshold. We estimate a fifth degree polynomial of the density on firms far enough from the threshold so that their distributions is not affected by the threshold but close enough so that the polynomial they allow identifying is relevant to firms at the thresholds. We then follow the polynomial to the hold-out avoidance region. Firms to estimate the counterfactual density is The difference between the estimated density and the actual density captures the extent of avoidance (and is a placebo check in years with no discontinuous tax threshold).

To be precise we estimate the following estimation:

$$c_j = \alpha + \sum_{i=1}^{5} \beta_i^{\text{prediction}} \cdot (z_j)^i + \sum_{i=r(z_L)}^{r(z_U)-1} \gamma_i^{\text{prediction}} \cdot 1[j=i] + \epsilon_i \quad (4)$$

where $c_j$ counts the number of firms in bin j. $z_j$ is turnover level in bin j.<fnref n="15" /> $r(\cdot)$ is the bin number associated to turnover $z$. Given that the variable of interest counts the number of firms per year, we follow standard practice in the literature and rely on a Poisson regression. $\beta_i^{\text{prediction}}$ is the coefficient of order i of the fifth degree polynomial in turnover. $\gamma_i^{\text{prediction}}$ identifies the excess or lack of firms in bin i compared to the counterfactual estimated with the polynomial. $z_L$ is the beginning of the avoidance region and $z_U$ its end.<fnref n="16" /> We determine $z_L$ by eyeballing the distribution (Figure 2) and $z_U$ is determined such that excess bunching,<fnref n="17" /> i.e. the sum of firms in excess below threshold in the avoidance region equals missing mass, i.e. the sum of firms that are missing compared to the counterfactual above threshold in the avoidance region.

Formally we determine $z_U$ as the smallest turnover level such that

$$\hat{M} = \sum_{i=z_T}^{z_U} \hat{c}_j^{cf} - c_j = \sum_{i=z_L}^{z_T-1} c_j - \hat{c}_j^{cf} = \hat{B}, \quad (5)$$

where $z_T$ is turnover level at the threshold, i.e. 50 million Francs. The number of firms per

<footnote n="15">¹⁵We take bins of 150 thousand Francs for all the analysis such that one of them start at the threshold.</footnote>

<footnote n="16">¹⁶When we can't eyeball any avoidance, we estimate bunching to be zero as we can't identify any avoidance region that is necessary to estimate bunching with this methodology.</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷This is the standard procedure in the literature, see e.g. (Chetty et al., 2011)</footnote>
bin in the counterfactual distribution is determined from

$$ \hat{c}_j^{cf} = \alpha + \sum_{i=1}^{5} \beta_i^{prediction} \cdot (z_j)^i. \qquad (6) $$

To normalize the amount of bunching we estimate the average bunching $b_{av}$ that is defined as the ratio of excess bunching over mean density in the avoidance region below threshold. Empirically we define it as:

$$ \hat{b}_{av} = \frac{\hat{B}}{\frac{1}{2} \sum_{i=z_L}^{z_T-1} \hat{c}_j^{cf}} \qquad (7) $$

**Using Past Years as Counterfactual** Another way to investigate the apparition of distortions in the firm-size distribution over time is to compare distributions of firms across times around the threshold. We use distributions in years during which there is no incentive to bunch as counterfactual distributions and compare them to the distribution under the policy.

To be precise we estimate the following equation:

$$ c_{jt} = \alpha \cdot \text{Post}_t + \sum_{i=r(z_L)}^{r(z_n)} \beta_i^{\text{time-series}} \cdot \mathbb{1}[j \in [i, i+2]] \mathbb{1}[i \equiv 0[3]] + \sum_{i=r(z_L)}^{r(z_n)} \gamma_i^{\text{time-series}} \cdot \mathbb{1}[j \in [i, i+2]] \mathbb{1}[i \equiv 0[3]] \ast \text{Post}_t + \epsilon_{it} \qquad (8) $$

where m is the number of bins below cutoff and n the number above cutoff. $c_{jt}$ counts the number of firms in bin j in year t. $Post_t$ refers to years 1997-1998 when the 1995-98 period is under study. $z_j$ is turnover level in bin j. Given that the variable of interest counts a number of firms per bin, the natural choice for the estimation is to rely on poisson regression.<fnref n="18" />

For the sake of clarity, we only report the coefficients of the interaction terms $\gamma_i^{time-series}$ around the threshold and report exponentiated coefficients in figure 3. It shows that there is excess bunching in the 1997-1998 distribution compared to the 1995 and 1996 distributions:<fnref n="19" /> there are three positive and significant coefficients below the threshold and three negative and significant coefficients above.

To quantify the size of the distortion we rely on an estimation procedure that looks similar to the one presented in the previous paragraph. We pool 4 consecutive years to

<footnote n="18">¹⁸In the figures we use bins that are three times larger to reduce noise.</footnote>

<footnote n="19">¹⁹We include 1996 as counterfactual year as there is no evidence of anticipation effect in the cross-section results and because we were unable to find any evidence of announcement of the reform prior to year 1997.</footnote>
increase statistical precision and because we can gather years by the actual incentive level firms face. In particular we gather years 1995 and 1996 where firms face no incentives for avoidance and years 1997 and 1998 where firms above threshold paid 15% more taxes on profit.

The coefficients of the interacted terms ($\gamma_i^{time-series}$) in equation 8 allow us to estimate missing mass and excess bunching. They indicate how many additional firms there is per bin below the cutoff. The product of the exponential of the coefficients of the interacted term $\gamma_i^{time-series}$ and of the dummy variable for bin $i$ tells us by how much we must multiply the number of firms in the excluded bin to estimate the number of firms that are in bin $i$. Subtracting the number of firms that were in this bin in years during which there was no incentives to bunch gives the number of firms that bunch in this bin. The sum of firms that bunch in each bin below the threshold where the interacted coefficients are significant gives us the amount of excess bunching. We similarly estimate the number of missing firms in bins above the threshold to obtain the missing mass.

We can describe the size of the distortion with formal expressions for excess bunching ($\hat{B}$) and missing mass ($\hat{M}$):

$$ 
\begin{aligned}
\hat{M} &= \sum_{i=z_T}^{z_U} \hat{c}_{iControl} - \hat{c}_{iTreat} \\
\hat{B} &= \sum_{i=z_L}^{z_T-1} \hat{c}_{iTreat} - \hat{c}_{iControl}
\end{aligned}
\qquad (9) $$

where: $\hat{c}_{iTreat}$ refers to the average predicted number of firms per year within bin $i$ during the period of treatment (1997-99) and $\hat{c}_{iControl}$ to the average predicted number of firms per year within this bin during control years.

$z_L$ is the turnover level of the group of bins that precedes the bunch of ones with significant coefficients below threshold.<fnref n="20" /> In our context, 47,600,000 Francs is the lower end of the valley. This is an advantage of our estimation strategy compared to usual techniques of

<footnote n="20">²⁰We do not take the smaller level of turnover of this bunch of coefficients because there might be bunchers in the group of bins that precedes it and missing them may misinform us about the characteristics of the bunchers if those that we miss have particular characteristics that would drive a change of the results. On the contrary including non bunchers in the avoidance region does not affect the estimated numbers of bunchers since the coefficient of the interaction term on this group of bins is close to zero. It does not either affect the determination of bunchers characteristics that compare the characteristics of firms below threshold in the avoidance region within years with or without incentives to bunch. Firms below threshold that are not bunching should indeed have the same characteristics in years with and in years without incentives to bunch.</footnote>
bunching that eyeball the lower end of the avoidance region.

To back out the upper end of the valley we use prediction from the estimations. We follow Kleven and Waseem (2013) and pin down $Z_U$ by the equality $\hat{M} = \hat{B}$.

### IV.C Identifying Bunchers’ Characteristics

Conditional on identifying bunching in the firm size distribution, we are also interested in understanding what are the ex-ante characteristics of the firms that avoid taxes. Below, we describe our approach, which builds on Diamond and Persson (2016).

#### Using Predictions from Distribution away from the Threshold as Counterfactual

In the language of potential outcomes, we can consider the firms below the cutoff in 1995 (before the policy reform) to be “always takers,” and firms above to be both “never takers” and “compliers.” The difference between the observed characteristics of firms above the cutoff and the no-avoidance counterfactual value is due to the compliers leaving (and similarly below the threshold). As a result, we use the difference between observed and counterfactual characteristics of firms to estimate the types of firms who change their size in response to the policy change. In particular, we estimate the characteristics of the bunchers ($X^{compliers}$) as the average of the two methods:

$$ \bar{X}^{compliers} = 0.5 * \left( \frac{N_{down}^{tot}}{N_{down}^{tot} - N_{down}} * \bar{X}^{down\_all} - \frac{N_{down}}{N_{down}^{tot} - N_{down}} * \bar{X}^{down} \right) + 0.5 * \left( \frac{N_{up}}{N_{up} - N_{up}^{tot}} * \bar{X}^{up} - \frac{N_{up}^{tot}}{N_{up} - N_{up}^{tot}} * \bar{X}^{up\_all} \right) \quad (10) $$

Where $\bar{X}^{compliers}$ is defined as the average of the mean values of X for firms that are “missing” above the threshold and for firms that are bunching. $\bar{X}^{down\_all}$ (resp. $\bar{X}^{up\_all}$) is the average of characteristic X for firms that are in the avoidance region below (resp. above) threshold. and $\bar{X}^{down}$ (resp. $\bar{X}^{up}$) is the average of X for firms that would have been in the avoidance region below threshold (resp. above threshold) had there been no avoidance.

$\bar{X}^{down}$ and $\bar{X}^{up}$ are obtained by regressing X on a polynomial of turnover of order 5 for firms outside the avoidance region and predicting levels of X within the avoidance region by extrapolating this relationship. In a sense, we extend the traditional estimation of the number of firms per bin ($c_{jt}$) to the average characteristics of firms per bins. We are able to predict the characteristics, that conditional on its turnover level, the firm would have had had there been no manipulation.
$N_{up}^{tot}$ (resp. $N_{down}^{tot}$) is the number of firms that fall into the avoidance region above (resp. below) the threshold. They are the number of never takers and the sum of the number of always takers and of compliers. $N_{up}$ (resp. $N_{down}$) is the number of firms that would have fallen into the avoidance region above (resp. below) the threshold had there been no avoidance. It is the sum of the number of never takers and the number of compliers (resp. the number of always takers). Note that the parameter $N_{up} - N_{up}^{tot}$ (resp. $N_{down}^{tot} - N_{down}$) identifies the number of compliers which we estimate using the method detailed in the previous section.

We are interested to compare the characteristics of the compliers to the characteristics of the firms that are eligible to bunching i.e. those that would have been above threshold absent avoidance. With Diamond and Persson (2016) notation this means we are interested in estimating:

$$E[\Delta X] = E[X^{compliers}] - E[\bar{X}^{up}]. \qquad (11)$$

We estimate this raw difference of means as well as a difference of means net of sector fixed effects. In practice, we restrict the sample to firms within the avoidance region. For firms above the threshold, we estimate $X_i^{up}$ the characteristics they would have had, had there been no avoidance, filling in the relation between turnover and the characteristics of interest outside the manipulation region. We duplicate the observations corresponding to those firms and flag the duplicates with a dummy compliers. For all$^{21}$ the initial observations compliers take value 1, for the duplicates it takes value 0.

We estimate for all firms within the avoidance region (the initial observations) the firm level counterpart of equation (10) i.e. for firms below threshold $X_i^{compliers} = x_i * \frac{N_{down}^{tot}}{N_{down}^{tot}-N_{down}} - \hat{x}_i * \frac{N_{down}}{N_{down}^{tot}-N_{down}}$ and for firms above the threshold $X_i^{compliers} = \hat{x}_i * \frac{N_{up}}{N_{up}-N_{up}^{tot}} - \frac{N_{up}}{N_{up}-N_{up}^{tot}} * x_i$, where $x_i$ is the observed characteristics of the firm and $\hat{x}_i$ is the characteristics it would have had, had there been no avoidance given its turnover level. We then define $X_i$ as $X_i^{up}$ when compliers takes value 0 and $X_i^{compliers}$ when compliers takes value 1. Then we estimate the following equation, with and without fixed effects:

$$X_i = \eta \cdot compliers_i + \mu_s + \epsilon_i, \qquad (12)$$

where $\mu_s$ indicates sector fixed effects at the 16-sector French classification of industries. The coefficient of interest is the $\eta$ that directly gives us the difference of means between the two populations of interest. We estimate standard errors by bootstrapping the regression.

<footnote>$^{21}$not only those above threshold</footnote>
**Using past years as counterfactual** In addition to estimating the counterfactual characteristics of firms in the avoidance region using firms in the same year who are larger, we also can do so using the observed data in the pre-policy years. After the policy change, the compliers move from above to below the cutoff, in order to avoid excess taxation. The difference between the firms above the cutoff before and after the policy change is due to the compliers leaving, and similarly the difference below the cutoff is due to the compliers joining. The expression of bunchers' characteristics become:

$$ \bar{X}^{compliers} = 0.5 * \left( \frac{N_{down}^{tot}}{N_{down}^{tot} - N_{down}} * \bar{X}_{Treatment}^{down} - \frac{N_{down}}{N_{down}^{tot} - N_{down}} * \bar{X}_{Control}^{down} \right) + 0.5 * \left( \frac{N_{up}}{N_{up} - N_{up}^{tot}} * \bar{X}_{Control}^{up} - \frac{N_{up}^{tot}}{N_{up} - N_{up}^{tot}} * \bar{X}_{Treatment}^{up} \right), \quad (13) $$

where $\bar{X}_{Treatment}^{down}$ is the average, when the policy is in place, of the mean values of X for bunching firms ("compliers") and firms that are naturally present below the threshold absent the policy ("always-takers"). It is obtained by estimating the mean of the characteristic X of interest in the avoidance region below threshold over years with incentives to bunch (treatment years). $\bar{X}_{Control}^{down}$ is the mean of the characteristic X of interest in the avoidance region below the threshold over years with no incentives to bunch (control years). It is therefore the mean of the characteristics of interest for the "always takers".

Similarly $\bar{X}_{Treatment}^{up}$ is the mean of the characteristic of interest X in the avoidance region above threshold over years with incentives to bunch. It is the average level of X for never takers. $\bar{X}_{Control}^{up}$ is the mean of the characteristic of interest X in the avoidance region above the threshold in control years. It is therefore the average of the means of X for never takers and compliers.

$N_{up}^{tot}$ (resp. $N_{down}^{tot}$) is the number of firms that fall into the avoidance region above (resp. below) the threshold in treatment years. They are the number of never takers and the sum of the number of always takers and of compliers. $N_{up}$ (resp. $N_{down}$) is the number of firms that fall into the avoidance region above (resp. below) the threshold in control years. It is the sum of the number of never takers and the number of compliers (resp. the number of always takers).

Our analysis might be subject to a change in the variables due to an underlying trend in their evolution. As a result we are interested in the de-trended variables defined as $\bar{X} = X - \bar{X}_{below}$ where $\bar{X}_{below}$ is the average of X in the region neighboring the avoidance
region below the threshold (Turnover ∈ [45000-47600]) and during years with no incentives to bunch. We use the region below the part of the avoidance region below the threshold because we are sure there is no compliers in this region in years with no incentives to bunch.

Here we also compare the characteristics of the compliers to the characteristics of the firms that would have been above threshold absent avoidance, which in this case are the firms that are in the avoidance region above threshold in years with no policy. We therefore seek to estimate:

$$E[\Delta \tilde{X}] = E[\tilde{X}^{compliers}] - E[\tilde{X}_{Control}^{up}]. \quad (14)$$

$E[\tilde{X}^{compliers}]$ is obtained as the average of the observed characteristics of firms in the avoidance region below and above threshold when or before the policy was implemented, weighted as indicated in equation 13. In practice we multiply each characteristics by the appropriate weight<fnref n="22" /> (and obtain a variable $\tilde{X}_i$ at the firm level). To estimate $E[\tilde{X}_{Control}^{up}]$, we duplicate observations in the avoidance region above threshold in years with no policy. We identify these additional observations with a dummy variable compliers that takes value 1 for the initial observations and value 0 for the new observations. When compliers takes value 0 we define $\tilde{X}_i$ as firm i characteristics. The average of $\tilde{X}_i$ over firms for which compliers take value 0 identifies $E[\tilde{X}_{Control}^{up}]$. To estimate $E[\Delta \tilde{X}]$ we simply estimate $\eta$ of the following equation with and without fixed effects:

$$\tilde{X}_i = \eta \cdot compliers_i + \mu_s + \epsilon_i. \quad (15)$$

## IV.D Measuring Adjustment Cost and Output Elasticities

One characteristic of firms that we are interested in is the cost of adjustment. First, we can measure adjustment costs using the dispersion of the revenue share of capital within each sector. Optimally, marginal products (the production function elasticity) should equal marginal costs (the revenue share, as in Asker, Collard-Wexler, and Loecker (2014); Hall (1988). Adjustment costs can prevent equalization, and so the dispersion of the revenue share is a proxy for industry-level adjustment costs. Formally we define adjustment cost as:

$$Adjustment \ cost_{it} = SD_{it}(\alpha_i + y_{jt} - k_{jt}), \quad (16)$$

where $\alpha_i$ refers to sector i logarithm of output elasticity with respect to capital, $y_{jt}$ refers

<footnote n="22">²²only the multiplication by + or - the inverse of the number of compliers as the numerators of the weights are already captured by the number of firms within the different regions</footnote>
to firm $j$ log-level of production on year $t$, $k_{jt}$ refers to firm $j$ log-level of capital on year $t$ and SD is the standard deviation operator.

Second, following a long tradition in production function estimation, e.g. Levinsohn and Petrin (2003) and Olley and Pakes (1996), we use production function elasticities themselves in order to measure the costs of adjustment. If materials are the most flexible input, the firms for whom the elasticity of output with respect to materials are the highest should have the lowest-cost in quickly adjusting their outputs (and firms with high capital elasticities the highest costs). In order to estimate production function elasticities, we follow the Wooldridge (2009) adaptation of Levinsohn and Petrin (2003).

### IV.E Identifying Bunchers’ Choices

In addition to measuring the ex-ante characteristics of the bunchers, we are also interested in what they do in order to lower their sales below the threshold. An RD strategy (comparing firms just below to those just above the cutoff) is not appropriate for estimating causal effects in this context. This is for two reasons. First, the firms who are able to (barely) avoid the extra tax may be different than those who do not, and so the RD estimate may suffer from selection bias. Second, conditional on sales the firms who are avoiding the extra tax may behave identically to non-avoiding firms.<fnref n="23" /> Note that this isn’t an issue for ex-ante characteristics, which are not directly affected by firm choices. To estimate firm choices, we compare *all* of the firms in the avoidance region to their counterfactual counterparts.

**Using Past Years as Counterfactual** In our setting, in order to compute the average value of the outcome of interest, had there been no avoidance, there is no need to predict the average value of the outcome of interest based on its relationship with the running variable outside the avoidance region. We can simply use the average value of the outcome of interest in years during which there was no incentives to bunch as counterfactual. To make sure our estimate is not driven by temporal changes in the outcome of interest, we detrend the outcome of interest by substracting from it the mean of the outcome of interest in the region neighboring the avoidance region (i.e. the regions just below and just above). Our intent to treat estimate simplifies to :

<footnote n="23">²³Consider the following stark example: sales is a deterministic (continuous) function of materials. As a result, complier firms who choose to lower their sales will have the same materials use as the never-takers, and there would be no discontinuity at the policy cutoff.</footnote>
$$ITT = E(\tilde{Y}|\text{firms avoid taxes}) - E(\tilde{Y}|\text{firms don't avoid taxes}) = E_{\text{Avoid}}^{\text{Treat}}(\tilde{Y}) - E_{\text{Avoid}}^{\text{Control}}(\tilde{Y}), \qquad (17)$$

where *Treat* in exponent indicates that the expectation is taken over observation during the treatment years, while *Control* indicates that the expectation is taken over observation in years during which there was no incentives to bunch. $\tilde{Y}$ is the de-trended characteristic of interest.

## Using Predictions from Distribution away from the Threshold as Counterfactual

We also follow Diamond and Persson (2016) as a robustness test. Their strategy consists in predicting the value of the outcome of interest for firms in the avoidance region, had there been no avoidance. In that order, we regress the characteristic of interest on a polynomial of turnover of order 5 for firms outside the avoidance region and predict levels of Y within the avoidance region by extrapolating this relationship. As a result the Intent To Treat estimator is estimated as :

$$ITT = E(\tilde{Y}|\text{firms avoid taxes}) - E(\tilde{Y}|\text{firms don't avoid taxes}) = E_{\text{Avoid}}^{\text{Observed}}(\tilde{Y}) - E_{\text{Avoid}}^{\text{Predicted}}(\tilde{Y}), \qquad (18)$$

# V Empirical Analysis

In this section we describe the results of our data analysis. First we show the existence of bunching in the firm size distribution consistent with the theory. We then describe the characteristics of firms who bunch and then the way that they do so.

## V.A Excess Mass

Figure 4 shows the raw firm size distribution around the tax cutoff. Before the tax reform (in 1995 and 1996) and after (in 2000) there is no visual break in the firm size distribution, but it is clearly visible in 1997-1999. We calculate a counterfactual distribution far away from the cutoff as a solid line. The vertical lines show the excess mass (and under mass) for those years, where the extra mass on the left is equal to the undermass on the right. The avoidance region is fairly symetric around the threshold. Figure 2c shows, just for the years 1997-1998, the observed difference in densities around the cutoff relative to the pre-reform years of 1995-1996.
Table 3 presents discontinuity estimates from McCrary (2008) estimation technique which show the bunching only appear in the years with the discrete jumps in the average tax rates.

Table 4 shows the size of the avoidance region, where both for the cross sectional and panel estimates we find excess mass of around or above 150 firms just below the increase tax rate. Column (3) shows consistent average bunching estimates using both techniques. Finally, we are able to estimate from this discontinuity the tax elasticity of sales of 0.16, using the *R* package *bunchr* that implements the methodology well described in Chetty et al. (2011).

The size of the avoidance region is not enormous. One important question is when firms realize that it may be profit maximizing to adjust their sales. In Figure 5 we show that firms who end up in the avoidance region have a wide range of turnover the previous year. Furthermore, the distribution of previous-year turnover does not shift after the policy, suggesting that it is difficult for firms to predict at the start of the financial year that the tax cutoff will be near their ultimate turnover.

## V.B Characteristics of Excess Mass

In this subsection we describe the types of firms who shrink their size in order to avoid paying taxes. First we show differential bunching by profit level. Since the tax rate is on profits, firms who, e.g., have no profits should not be affected by the policy. Consistent with this, we see in the right panel of Figure 6 that the lowest profitability firms do not demonstrate excess bunching in any of the years (while in 1997 there is a spike to the left of the cutoff, there is no corresponding valley to the right). For the most profitable firms, however, we do see sales adjustment, consistent with the theory. In Figure 7 we use firm profitability in 1995 (instead of in the current year) and find a similar result.

In Figure 8 we run the same exercise, but using adjustment costs (as measured using (Asker, Collard-Wexler, and Loecker, 2014)). The results are less clean than for profits, but again consistent with theory that firms with the lowest adjustment costs bunch the most.

Table 5 runs the estimation of equation 4, and finds consistently that the higher-profit and lower capital adjustment cost firms show more bunching

## V.C Characteristics of Compliers

An alternative approach to measuring who bunches is to instead look within the avoidance region (Diamond and Persson, 2016). In Tables 6 and 7 we report the estimates corresponding to equations 15 and 12 using respectively predictions from firms away from the threshold and previous years as counterfactual. In the first rows, we extend the results from the previous
subsection: compliers are more likely to have low adjustment costs and high profits. Results are robust to the inclusion of region and sector fixed effects as shown in the columns headed with "FE". We can also examine the production function characteristics of the compliers: they are more likely to have a lower capital elasticity and a higher materials elasticity This is consistent with the oft-stated argument that materials inputs are more flexible (Ackerberg, Caves, and Frazer, 2015; Asker, Collard-Wexler, and Loecker, 2014; Levinsohn and Petrin, 2003; Olley and Pakes, 1996): the types of firms who find it easier to adjust their sales are those whose output is more responsive to materials. As a robustness check we run the same analysis on the sub sample of firms that have input shares below 1 and for which the sum of the input shares is lower than 2. Tables C.1 and C.2 show that our results are stable to this restriction.

## V.D Behavior of Compliers

We can undertake a similar exercise to show the behavioral changes of the compliers (Tables 8 and 9 that estimate equations 17 and 18). Here we consider the entire avoidance region relative to its counterfactual prediction either in the cross section or the panel. Not surprisingly, we see that turnover is lower: this is the direct effect of tax avoidance. Sold production falls by more<fnref n="24" /> than output does: inventories and capitalized production are higher for the firms adjusting their sales. As a robustness check we run the same analysis on the sub sample of firms that have input shares below 1 and for which the sum of the input shares is lower than 2. Tables C.4 and C.3 show that our results are stable to this restriction.

The behavior of the compliers is also informative for understanding the extent to which inputs are flexible. Firms who lower their production presumably do so by decreasing their input intensity (instead of by decreasing their TFP, which would not be profit maximizing). This implies that, for a given quantity of sales, firms who adjusted inputs in order to avoid the tax should be using relativly *more* of the less flexible inputs, and correspondingly less of the more flexible inputs. In tables 11 and 10 we find evidence consistent with this. In Table 11, using cross-sectional information, we find higher capital/output and lower materials/output ratios for firms in the avoidance region. In Table 10, using the panel, we find similar effects for capital although not materials.

Revenue shares are measured with error, so as before we run robustness checks for different levels of cleaning. In Appendix Tables C.6 and C.5 we show our results are similar when we are less conservative in our data cleaning choices. In particular when instead of restricting to the sub sample of firms that have input shares below 1 and for which the sum of the input

<footnote n="24">²⁴admittedly not significantly</footnote>
shares is lower than 2, we focus our analysis to our main sample where the restriction is on
having capital shares below 10.

# VI Discussion

In this paper we describe how firms respond to increases in the profit tax. The nature of our setting, the introduction of a new tax above a specific sales threshold, allows us to estimate many important parameters determining firm responses. First, we use the firms who adjust their sales below the threshold to estimate the tax elasticity of sales. We find a value of 0.16. Second, we describe the characteristics of those firms: those with high profits (and therefore high incentives to lower their tax rate) and those with low adjustment costs, measured in several ways. Third, we show that firms adjust their turnover by lowering production and increasing inventories.

# References

Ackerberg, D., K. Caves, and G. Frazer. 2015. “Identification Properties of Recent Production Function Estimators.” *Econometrica* 83:2411–2451. III, V.C

Aghion, P., U. Akcigit, M. Lequien, and S. Stantcheva. 2017. “Do Entrepreneurship and Self-Employment Respond to Simpler Fiscal Incentives? Evidence from France.” Working paper, NBER. 2

Almunia, M., and D. Lopez-Rodriguez. 2017. “Under the Radar: The Effects of Monitoring Firms on Tax Compliance.” *American Economic Journal: Economic Policy.*, pp. 1–38. 1

Asker, J., A. Collard-Wexler, and J.D. Loecker. 2014. “Dynamic Inputs and Resource (Mis)Allocation.” *Journal of Political Economy*, pp. 1013 – 1063. I, III, IV.D, V.B, V.C, ??, 6, 7, C.1, C.2

Bach, L. 2015. “Do Sophisticated Entrepreneurs Avoid Taxes More?” Working paper, Stockholm School of Economics. 2

Bachas, P.J., and M. Soto. 2018. “Not(ch) your average tax system: corporate taxation under weak enforcement.” Policy research working paper series, The World Bank. 1, I

Barbanchon, T.L. 2016. “Optimal Partial Unemployment Insurance: Evidence from Bunching in the U.S.” Working paper. 2

Best, M., A. Brockmeyer, H. Kleven, J. Spinnewijn, and M. Waseem. 2015. “Production versus Revenue Efficiency with Limited Tax Capacity: Theory and Evidence from Pakistan.” *Journal of Political Economy*, pp. 1311 – 1355. I

Caliendo, L., F. Monte, and E. Rossi-Hansberg. 2015. “The Anatomy of French Production Hierarchies.” *Journal of Political Economy* 123:809–852. II.B
Cattaneo, Janson, and Ma. 2016. “Simple Local Regression Distribution Estimators with an Application to Manipulation Testing.” Working paper. IV.A, 3

Chetty, R., J. Friedman, O. Tore, and L. Pistaferri. 2011. “Adjustment Costs, Firm Responses, and Micro vs. Macro Labor Supply Elasticities.” *Quarterly Journal of Economics* 126:749–804. 2, 17, V.A

Dee, T.S., W. Dobbie, B.A. Jacob, and J. Rockoff. 2016. “The Causes and Consequences of Test Score Manipulation: Evidence from the New York Regents Examinations.” Working Paper No. 22165, National Bureau of Economic Research. 2, I

Desai, M.A., C.F. Foley, and J. Hines. 2006. “The demand for tax haven operations.” *Journal of Public Economics* 90:513–531. I

Diamond, R., and P. Persson. 2016. “The Long-term Consequences of Teacher Discretion in Grading of High-stakes Tests.” Working Paper No. 22207, National Bureau of Economic Research. 2, I, IV.C, IV.C, IV.E, V.C, 9, 6, 7, C.1, C.2

Garicano, L., C. Lelarge, and J. Van Reenen. 2016. “Firm Size Distortions and the Productivity Distribution: Evidence from France.” *American Economic Review* 106:3439–3479. 1, II.B

Gourio, F., and N. Roys. 2014. “Size-dependent regulations, firm size distribution, and reallocation.” *Quantitative Economics* 5:377–416. 1

Hall, R. 1988. “The Relation between Price and Marginal Cost in U.S. Industry.” *Journal of Political Economy* 96:921–47. IV.D

Kleven, H., and M. Waseem. 2013. “Using notches to uncover optimization frictions and structural elasticities: Theory and evidence from Pakistan.” *Quarterly Journal of Economics*, pp. 669–723. 1, 2, III, IV.B

Kleven, H.J. 2016. “Bunching.” *Annual Review of Economics* 8:435–464. 2

Lardeux, R. 2018. “Who Understands The French Income Tax ? Bunching Where Tax Liabilities Start.” Working paper, INSEE. 2

Levinsohn, J., and A. Petrin. 2003. “Estimating Production Functions Using Inputs to Control for Unobservables.” *Review of economic studies*, pp. 317–341. III, IV.D, V.C, 6, 7, C.1, C.2

Liu, L., and B. Lockwood. 2016. “VAT notches, voluntary registration and bunching: Theory and UK evidence.” Working paper. 1

Liu, L., T. Schmidt-Eisenlohr, and D. Guo. 2017. “International Transfer Pricing and Tax Avoidance: Evidence from Linked Trade-Tax Statistics in the UK.” *CESifo Working Paper Series No. 6594*, CESifo Group Munich. I
McCrary, J. 2008. "Manipulation of the Running Variable in the Regression Discontinuity Design: A Density Test." *Journal of Econometrics* 142:698-714. IV.A, V.A, 3

Olley, G.S., and A. Pakes. 1996. "The Dynamics of Productivity in the Telecommunications Equipment Industry." *Econometrica* 64:1263-97. III, IV.D, V.C

Onji, K. 2009. "The response of firms to eligibility thresholds: Evidence from the Japanese value-added tax." *Journal of Public Economics* 93:766-775. 1

Saez. 2010. "Do Taxpayers Bunch at Kink Points?" *American Economic Journal: Economic Policy*, pp. 180-212. 2

Wooldridge, J. 2009. "On estimating firm-level production functions using proxy variables to control for unobservables." *Economic letters*, pp. 112-114. IV.D

Zucman, G. 2014. "Taxing across Borders: Tracking Personal Wealth and Corporate Profits." *Journal of Economic Perspectives* 28:121-48. I
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1: Evolution of the Tax Schedule</figcaption></figure>

This figure presents the marginal rates of firms eligible to either the reduced corporate income tax or not. The marginal tax rates are the sum of three terms: the *contribution exceptionnelle*, the *contribution additionnelle* and the corporate income tax rate.
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3: Representing bunching compared to counterfactual obtained from years during which there was no incentive to bunch</figcaption></figure>

The figure plots the differential number of firms in bins around the threshold in years during which there was incentives to bunch compared to years during which there was no incentives. Each point comes from an interaction term between the bin indicator and the indicator of incentives. 95% confidence intervals are constructed using robust standard errors clustered at the bin level.
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2: Estimating the width of the valley</figcaption></figure>

The figure reports the avoidance region. It illustrates the lower end $z_L$ that is determined either eyeballing where the distribution starts being different from the counterfactual (a) and (b) or as the lower end of the group of bins that precede the bunch of coefficients that are significant below threshold (c). $z_U$ is determined from the equality of missing mass and excess bunching as reported in Table4
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4: A transient discontinuity in firms’ sales distribution</figcaption></figure>

The distribution of firms with sales between 28 million Francs and 73 million Francs, restricting to firms that are paying corporate income tax and excluding firms that belong to a conglomerate.
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5: Pdf Conditional on Being in the Avoidance Region the Following Year</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Figure 6: Differential bunching by profit level</figcaption></figure>

The distribution of firms with sales between 28 million Francs and 73 million Francs, restricting to firms that are paying corporate income tax and excluding firms that belong to a conglomerate.
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Figure 7: Differential bunching by profit level in 1995</figcaption></figure>

The distribution of firms with sales between 28 million Francs and 73 million Francs, restricting to firms that are paying corporate income tax and excluding firms that belong to a conglomerate, by level of profit.
<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>Figure 8: Differential bunching by Adjustment cost</figcaption></figure>

The distribution of firms with sales between 28 million Francs and 73 million Francs, restricting to firms that are paying corporate income tax and excluding firms that belong to a conglomerate, by level of adjustment cost measured as in (Asker, Collard-Wexler, and Loecker, 2014).
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>Figure 9: Assessing the Characteristics of the Bunchers</figcaption></figure>

These graphs borrow on Diamond and Persson (2016). The additional tax can be interpreted as a treatment to which bunching firms are compliers.
B Tables

<table><caption>Table 1: Share of Firms Affiliated to the Different Tax Regimes</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th>Obs.</th><th colspan="5">Share</th><th>VA value</th><th colspan="5">VA share</th></tr><tr><th>Nb</th><th>BNC</th><th>BRN</th><th>RSI</th><th>IS</th><th>IR</th><th>B Eur</th><th>BNC</th><th>BRN</th><th>RSI</th><th>IS</th><th>IR</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1995</td><td>2,034,117</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.32</td><td>0.49</td><td>0.33</td><td>0.67</td><td>611.33</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.89</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.78</td><td>0.22</td></tr><tr><td>1996</td><td>2,226,769</td><td>0.18</td><td>0.31</td><td>0.51</td><td>0.33</td><td>0.67</td><td>627.47</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.88</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.80</td><td>0.20</td></tr><tr><td>1997</td><td>2,262,301</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.51</td><td>0.34</td><td>0.66</td><td>645.21</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.88</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.82</td><td>0.18</td></tr><tr><td>1998</td><td>2,297,619</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.51</td><td>0.35</td><td>0.65</td><td>719.77</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.89</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.84</td><td>0.16</td></tr><tr><td>1999</td><td>2,323,909</td><td>0.20</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.51</td><td>0.35</td><td>0.65</td><td>792.03</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.89</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.80</td><td>0.20</td></tr><tr><td>2000</td><td>2,325,726</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.36</td><td>0.64</td><td>821.33</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.89</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.81</td><td>0.19</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: This table presents the share of firms affiliated to the different regimes in the economy. Columns 3,4,5,9,10,11 are obtained using FICUS dataset. Columns 6,7,12,13 are obtained using BRN-SI files.
<table><caption>Table 2: Descriptive statistics</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>mean</th><th>count</th><th>sd</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Sample</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Output</td><td>20,160</td><td>191,511</td><td>21,680</td></tr><tr><td>Turnover</td><td>39,546</td><td>203,609</td><td>18,870</td></tr><tr><td>Profit</td><td>1,305</td><td>203,609</td><td>9,378</td></tr><tr><td>Materials</td><td>6,999</td><td>145,538</td><td>10,366</td></tr><tr><td>Capital</td><td>8,865</td><td>199,005</td><td>37,887</td></tr><tr><td>Wage Bill</td><td>5,437</td><td>200,754</td><td>5,234</td></tr><tr><td>Employee</td><td>37</td><td>203,609</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td><strong>All firms</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Output</td><td>8,463</td><td>8,510,565</td><td>1,022,583</td></tr><tr><td>Turnover</td><td>10,060</td><td>10,682,393</td><td>925,310</td></tr><tr><td>Profit</td><td>1,028</td><td>10,682,393</td><td>277,244</td></tr><tr><td>Materials</td><td>2,867</td><td>5,498,696</td><td>207,403</td></tr><tr><td>Capital</td><td>5,414</td><td>9,147,730</td><td>796,084</td></tr><tr><td>Wage Bill</td><td>1,801</td><td>6,769,965</td><td>70,909</td></tr><tr><td>Employee</td><td>7</td><td>10,682,393</td><td>336</td></tr></tbody></table>

*Note:* The sample is restricted to eligible firms paying a corporate income tax and with turnover between 20 million Francs and 100 million Francs. We also drop observations with capital share larger than 10 and observations with negative inputs values.
<table><caption>Table 3: Discontinuity estimates</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>(McCrary, 2008) estimates</th><th>standard errors</th><th>(Cattaneo, Janson, and Ma, 2016) p-values</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>Raw dataset</strong></td></tr><tr><td>1995</td><td>.058</td><td>(.092)</td><td>0.9661</td></tr><tr><td>1996</td><td>.001</td><td>(.076)</td><td>0.6937</td></tr><tr><td>1997</td><td>-.331</td><td>(.083)</td><td>0.0002</td></tr><tr><td>1998</td><td>-.598</td><td>(.089)</td><td>0.0000</td></tr><tr><td>1999</td><td>-.714</td><td>(.114)</td><td>0.0002</td></tr><tr><td>2000</td><td>-.143</td><td>(.110)</td><td>0.1280</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>Balanced dataset</strong></td></tr><tr><td>1995</td><td>.274</td><td>(.210)</td><td>0.6291</td></tr><tr><td>1996</td><td>.110</td><td>(.184)</td><td>0.3414</td></tr><tr><td>1997</td><td>-.647</td><td>(.193)</td><td>0.0384</td></tr><tr><td>1998</td><td>-.919</td><td>(.201)</td><td>0.0153</td></tr><tr><td>1999</td><td>-.617</td><td>(.155)</td><td>0.0052</td></tr><tr><td>2000</td><td>-.056</td><td>(.150)</td><td>0.2822</td></tr></tbody></table>

*Note:* This table reports discontinuity estimates for the two samples. The balanced dataset is the dataset restricted to the set of firms that have filled tax forms each year of the 1995-2000 period. Column 1 and 2 report the point estimates and standard errors obtained from (McCrary, 2008) estimation procedure, column (3) reports the p-value.
<table><caption>Table 4: Bunching estimators</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="4">Panel A: Cross-Section Estimates</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>B̂</th><th>M̂</th><th>b̂<sub>av</sub></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1997</td><td>49.724</td><td>60.947</td><td>0.958*<br>(0.633)</td></tr><tr><td>1998</td><td>114.278</td><td>134.700</td><td>2.198***<br>(0.587)</td></tr><tr><td>1999</td><td>86.100</td><td>95.980</td><td>1.511***<br>(0.370)</td></tr></tbody><thead><tr><th colspan="4">Panel B: Time-series Estimates</th></tr><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1997-1998</td><td>204.264</td><td>225.945</td><td>0.415</td></tr></tbody></table>

*Note:* This table reports the bunching estimators estimated with usual techniques (Panel A) and the bunching estimators obtained from the technique that uses past years as counterfactual (Panel B). M̂ is missing mass and B̂ excess bunching. b̂_av refers to average bunching

<table><caption>Table 5: Bunching Estimation by Subgroups</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">Capital adjustment cost</th><th colspan="2">Profits</th><th colspan="2">Profits in 1995</th></tr><tr><th>Top</th><th>Bottom</th><th>Top</th><th>Bottom</th><th>Top</th><th>Bottom</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1997</td><td>0</td><td>1.017</td><td>0.490</td><td>0</td><td>0.329</td><td>0.651</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>-</td><td>(0.304)***</td><td>(0.332)</td><td>-</td><td>(0.321)</td><td>(0.312)**</td></tr><tr><td>1998</td><td>0.722</td><td>0.616</td><td>0.879</td><td>0</td><td>0.832</td><td>0.170</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>(0.271)***</td><td>(0.270)**</td><td>(0.210)***</td><td>-</td><td>(0.248)***</td><td>(0.374)</td></tr><tr><td>1999</td><td>0.376</td><td>0.719</td><td>0.653</td><td>0</td><td>0.657</td><td>0.288</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>(0.228)*</td><td>(0.310)**</td><td>(0.194)***</td><td>-</td><td>(0.198)***</td><td>(0.392)</td></tr></tbody></table>

*Note:* This table reports the bunching estimators for different subgroups of firms. Values are zero if we do not estimate any bunching.
<table><caption>Table 6: Characteristics of the compliers: Panel</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th colspan="2">Low adjustment<br>cost of capital</th><th colspan="2">Large profit</th><th colspan="2">Large profit<br>in 1995</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>(1)</th><th>(2)<br>FE</th><th>(3)</th><th>(4)<br>FE</th><th>(5)</th><th>(6)<br>FE</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th scope="row">Compliers</th><td>0.0364**<br>(0.0152)</td><td>0.0341**<br>(0.0133)</td><td>0.00519<br>(0.0133)</td><td>0.00144<br>(0.0133)</td><td>-0.00906<br>(0.0133)</td><td>-0.0123<br>(0.0103)</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Observations</th><td>6344</td><td>6277</td><td>6405</td><td>6338</td><td>5424</td><td>5378</td></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th colspan="7" style="text-align: left; font-weight: bold;">Production function characteristics</th></tr><tr><th></th><th colspan="2">Large elasticity<br>wrt K</th><th colspan="2">Large elasticity<br>wrt L</th><th colspan="2">Large elasticity<br>wrt M</th></tr><tr><th scope="row">[1em] Compliers</th><td>-0.0404***<br>(0.0144)</td><td>-0.0387***<br>(0.0135)</td><td>0.00849<br>(0.0131)</td><td>0.00890<br>(0.0139)</td><td>0.0363**<br>(0.0152)</td><td>0.0354**<br>(0.0142)</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Observations</th><td>6344</td><td>6277</td><td>6344</td><td>6277</td><td>6344</td><td>6277</td></tr></tbody></table>

*Note:* This table estimates the different characteristics of the bunchers compared to other firms that were eligible to bunching. Firms eligible to bunching are the firms that were above threshold in the avoidance region in years during which there was no incentives to bunch. Characteristics of the bunchers are identified following Diamond and Persson (2016) technique. Variables are centered with the mean of the variable in the region just below the avoidance region: Turnover in 45000-47600. Standard errors reported in parentheses are obtained by bootstrapping 500 times the test for the difference of characteristics. Columns (2) (4) and (6) report estimation with region and 16 industry fixed effects. Output elasticities are computed following (Levinsohn and Petrin, 2003) estimation procedure. Adjustment cost of capital is determined from (Asker, Collard-Wexler, and Loecker, 2014) estimation procedure.
<table><caption>Table 7: Characteristics of the compliers: Cross-Section</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th colspan="2">Low adjustment<br>cost of capital</th><th colspan="2">Large profit</th><th colspan="2">Large profit<br>in 1995</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>(1)</th><th>(2)</th><th>(3)</th><th>(4)</th><th>(5)</th><th>(6)</th></tr><tr><th></th><th></th><th>FE</th><th></th><th>FE</th><th></th><th>FE</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th scope="row">Compliers</th><td>0.166*<br>(0.0864)</td><td>0.166*<br>(0.0936)</td><td>0.486***<br>(0.0835)</td><td>0.441***<br>(0.0824)</td><td>0.277***<br>(0.0705)</td><td>0.241***<br>(0.0664)</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Observations</th><td>1326</td><td>1326</td><td>1334</td><td>1334</td><td>1178</td><td>1178</td></tr><tr><th colspan="7" style="text-align: left; font-weight: bold;">Production function characteristics</th></tr><tr><th></th><th colspan="2">Large elasticity<br>wrt K</th><th colspan="2">Large elasticity<br>wrt L</th><th colspan="2">Large elasticity<br>wrt M</th></tr><tr><th scope="row">[1em] Compliers</th><td>0.0123<br>(0.0906)</td><td>0.0520<br>(0.0943)</td><td>0.150*<br>(0.0847)</td><td>0.126<br>(0.0962)</td><td>0.0808<br>(0.0892)</td><td>0.0530<br>(0.0930)</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Observations</th><td>1326</td><td>1326</td><td>1326</td><td>1326</td><td>1326</td><td>1326</td></tr></tbody></table>

*Note:* This table estimates the different characteristics of the bunchers compared to other firms that were eligible to bunching. Firms eligible to bunching are the firms that were above threshold in the avoidance region in years during which there was no incentives to bunch. The sample is restricted to 1997. Characteristics of the bunchers are identified following Diamond and Persson (2016) technique. Standard errors reported in parentheses are obtained by bootstrapping 500 times the test for the difference of characteristics. Columns (2) (4) and (6) report estimation with region and 16 industry fixed effects. Output elasticities are computed following (Levinsohn and Petrin, 2003) estimation procedure. Adjustment cost of capital is determined from (Asker, Collard-Wexler, and Loecker, 2014) estimation procedure.
<table><caption>Table 8: Consequences of Avoidance on Production Process: panel</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>(1)</th><th>(2)</th><th>(3)</th><th>(4)</th><th>(5)</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>Turnover</th><th>Y</th><th>Sold production</th><th>Change in inventories</th><th>Capitalized production</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Avoidance</th><td>-86.97**<br>(38.71)</td><td>-170.3<br>(275.5)</td><td>-329.0<br>(274.4)</td><td>120.7**<br>(53.35)</td><td>38.01*<br>(22.23)</td></tr><tr><th>Observations</th><td>5274</td><td>5274</td><td>5274</td><td>5274</td><td>5274</td></tr></tbody></table>

*Note:* This table estimates bunchers' choices.

<table><caption>Table 9: Consequences of Avoidance on Production Process: Cross Section</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>(1)</th><th>(2)</th><th>(3)</th><th>(4)</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>ln Y</th><th>ln Sold production</th><th>Change in inventories</th><th>Capitalized production</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Avoidance</th><td>0.0937<br>(0.0723)</td><td>0.0839<br>(0.0771)</td><td>92.36<br>(74.63)</td><td>19.02<br>(44.13)</td></tr><tr><th>Observations</th><td>2278</td><td>2276</td><td>2278</td><td>2278</td></tr></tbody></table>

*Note:* This table estimates bunchers' choices in 1997.

<table><caption>Table 10: Consequences of Avoidance on Input Choices: Panel</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>(1)</th><th>(2)</th><th>(3)</th><th>(4)</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>Y</th><th>M over Y</th><th>L over Y</th><th>K over Y</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Avoidance</th><td>-632.7*<br>(370.2)</td><td>0.00766<br>(0.00562)</td><td>0.00388<br>(0.00463)</td><td>0.0311**<br>(0.0151)</td></tr><tr><th>Observations</th><td>3691</td><td>3691</td><td>3691</td><td>3691</td></tr></tbody></table>

*Note:* This table estimates bunchers' choices. The sample is restricted to firms without extreme values of material, labor and capital shares nor negative values of inputs.
<table><caption>Table 11: Consequences of Avoidance on Input Choices: Cross Section</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>(1)<br>ln Y</th><th>(2)<br>ln M/Y</th><th>(3)<br>ln L/Y</th><th>(4)<br>ln K/Y</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Avoidance</td><td>-0.219***<br>(0.0843)</td><td>-0.206***<br>(0.0743)</td><td>0.000148<br>(0.00963)</td><td>0.0832**<br>(0.0337)</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td>1772</td><td>1764</td><td>1764</td><td>1764</td></tr></tbody></table>

*Note:* This table estimates bunchers' choices. The sample is restricted to firms without extreme values of material, labor and capital shares nor negative values of inputs and to year 1997.
C Appendix

<table><caption>Table C.1: Characteristics of the Compliers: Panel</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th colspan="2">Low adjustment<br>cost of capital</th><th colspan="2">Large profit</th><th colspan="2">Large profit<br>in 1995</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>(1)</th><th>(2)<br>FE</th><th>(3)</th><th>(4)<br>FE</th><th>(5)</th><th>(6)<br>FE</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th colspan="7" style="text-align: left;">Adjustment cost, Incentives, Ability to bunch</th></tr><tr><th>Compliers</th><td>0.0495***<br>(0.0174)</td><td>0.0464***<br>(0.0160)</td><td>0.0277*<br>(0.0146)</td><td>0.0237*<br>(0.0143)</td><td>0.00351<br>(0.0165)</td><td>0.000422<br>(0.0163)</td></tr><tr><th>Observations</th><td>4439</td><td>4386</td><td>4494</td><td>4441</td><td>3881</td><td>3841</td></tr><tr><th colspan="7" style="text-align: left;">Production function characteristics</th></tr><tr><th></th><th colspan="2">Large elasticity<br>wrt K</th><th colspan="2">Large elasticity<br>wrt L</th><th colspan="2">Large elasticity<br>wrt M</th></tr><tr><th>[1em] Compliers</th><td>-0.0526***<br>(0.0184)</td><td>-0.0492***<br>(0.0187)</td><td>-0.00200<br>(0.0188)</td><td>-0.00163<br>(0.0173)</td><td>0.0598***<br>(0.0185)</td><td>0.0570***<br>(0.0178)</td></tr><tr><th>Observations</th><td>4439</td><td>4386</td><td>4439</td><td>4386</td><td>4439</td><td>4386</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: This table estimates the different characteristics of the bunchers compared to other firms that were eligible to bunching. The sample is restricted to firms without extreme values of input shares. Firms eligible to bunching are the firms that were above threshold in the avoidance region in years during which there was no incentives to bunch. Characteristics of the bunchers are identified adapting Diamond and Persson (2016) technique to the time series setting. Variables are centered with the mean of the variable in the region just below the avoidance region: Turnover in 45000-47600. Standard errors reported in parentheses are obtained by bootstrapping 500 times the test for the difference of characteristics. Columns (2) (4) and (6) report estimation with region and 16 industry fixed effects. Output elasticities are computed following (Levinsohn and Petrin, 2003) estimation procedure. Adjustment cost of capital is determined from (Asker, Collard-Wexler, and Loecker, 2014) estimation procedure.
<table><caption>Table C.2: Characteristics of the Compliers: Cross-Section</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th colspan="6">Adjustment Cost and Incentives to Bunch</th></tr><tr><th></th><th colspan="2">Low adjustment<br>cost of capital</th><th colspan="2">Large profit</th><th colspan="2">Large profit<br>in 1995</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>(1)</th><th>(2)</th><th>(3)</th><th>(4)</th><th>(5)</th><th>(6)</th></tr><tr><th></th><th></th><th>FE</th><th></th><th>FE</th><th></th><th>FE</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Compliers</th><td>0.205**<br>(0.0797)</td><td>0.154*<br>(0.0834)</td><td>0.270***<br>(0.0550)</td><td>0.222***<br>(0.0588)</td><td>0.181***<br>(0.0477)</td><td>0.147***<br>(0.0553)</td></tr><tr><th>Observations</th><td>906</td><td>906</td><td>912</td><td>912</td><td>801</td><td>801</td></tr><tr><th colspan="7">Production Function Characteristics</th></tr><tr><th></th><th colspan="2">Large elasticity<br>wrt K</th><th colspan="2">Large elasticity<br>wrt L</th><th colspan="2">Large elasticity<br>wrt M</th></tr><tr><th>[lem] Compliers</th><td>-0.0512<br>(0.0695)</td><td>-0.0171<br>(0.0831)</td><td>-0.0118<br>(0.0789)</td><td>-0.0417<br>(0.0907)</td><td>0.191**<br>(0.0752)</td><td>0.155*<br>(0.0831)</td></tr><tr><th>Observations</th><td>906</td><td>906</td><td>906</td><td>906</td><td>906</td><td>906</td></tr></tbody></table>

*Note:* This table estimates the different characteristics of the bunchers in 1997 compared to other firms that were eligible to bunching. Firms eligible to bunching are the firms that were above threshold in the avoidance region in years during which there was no incentives to bunch. Characteristics of the bunchers are identified following Diamond and Persson (2016) technique. Standard errors reported in parentheses are obtained by bootstrapping 500 times the test for the difference of characteristics. Column (2) (4) and (6) report estimation with region and 16 industry fixed effects. Output elasticities are computed following (Levinsohn and Petrin, 2003) estimation procedure. Adjustment cost of capital is determined from (Asker, Collard-Wexler, and Loecker, 2014) estimation procedure.
<table><caption>Table C.3: Consequences of Avoidance on Production Process: panel</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>(1)</th><th>(2)</th><th>(3)</th><th>(4)</th><th>(5)</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>Turnover</th><th>Y</th><th>Sold production</th><th>Change in inventories</th><th>Capitalized production</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Avoidance</th><td>-79.03**<br>(38.88)</td><td>-632.7*<br>(370.2)</td><td>-815.7**<br>(363.2)</td><td>130.7*<br>(72.82)</td><td>52.26*<br>(30.60)</td></tr><tr><th>Observations</th><td>3691</td><td>3691</td><td>3691</td><td>3691</td><td>3691</td></tr></tbody></table>

*Note:* This table estimates bunchers' choices. The sample is restricted to firms without extreme values of material, labor and capital shares nor negative values of inputs.

<table><caption>Table C.4: Consequences of Avoidance on Production Process: cross section</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>(1)</th><th>(2)</th><th>(3)</th><th>(4)</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>ln Y</th><th>ln Sold Production</th><th>Change in inventories</th><th>Capitalized production</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Avoidance</th><td>-0.219***<br>(0.0843)</td><td>-0.227***<br>(0.0803)</td><td>45.51<br>(53.68)</td><td>23.58<br>(61.68)</td></tr><tr><th>Observations</th><td>1772</td><td>1770</td><td>1772</td><td>1772</td></tr></tbody></table>

*Note:* This table estimates bunchers' choices. The sample is restricted to firms without extreme values of material, labor and capital shares nor negative values of inputs and to year 1997.

<table><caption>Table C.5: Consequences of Avoidance on Input Choices: Cross-Section</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>(1)</th><th>(2)</th><th>(3)</th><th>(4)</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>ln Y</th><th>ln M/Y</th><th>ln L/Y</th><th>ln K/Y</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Avoidance</th><td>0.0937<br>(0.0723)</td><td>-0.170**<br>(0.0784)</td><td>0.0546***<br>(0.0121)</td><td>0.129***<br>(0.0282)</td></tr><tr><th>Observations</th><td>2278</td><td>2270</td><td>2270</td><td>2270</td></tr></tbody></table>

*Note:* This table estimates bunchers' choices. The sample is restricted to firms without extreme values of capital shares nor negative values of inputs and to year 1997.
<table><caption>Table C.6: Consequences of Avoidance on Input Choices: Panel</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>(1)<br>Y</th><th>(2)<br>M over Y</th><th>(3)<br>L over Y</th><th>(4)<br>K over Y</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Avoidance</td><td>-170.3<br>(275.5)</td><td>-0.199<br>(0.384)</td><td>0.155<br>(0.114)</td><td>0.137**<br>(0.0550)</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td>5274</td><td>5274</td><td>5274</td><td>5274</td></tr></tbody></table>

*Note:* This table estimates bunchers' choices. The sample is restricted to firms without extreme values of capital shares nor negative values of inputs and to year 1997.
# Liste des documents de travail de la Direction des Études et Synthèses Économiques

<table>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9001</td>
    <td>J. FAYOLLE et M. FLEURBAEY<br>Accumulation, profitabilité et endettement des entreprises</td>
    <td>G 9202</td>
    <td>J. OLIVEIRA-MARTINS,<br>J. TOUJAS-BERNATE<br>Macro-economic import functions with imperfect competition - An application to the E.C. Trade</td>
    <td>G 9310</td>
    <td>J. BOURDIEU - B. COLIN-SEDILLOT<br>Les théories sur la structure optimale du capital : quelques points de repère</td>
    <td>G 9410</td>
    <td>F. ROSENWALD<br>Suivi conjoncturel de l'investissement</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9002</td>
    <td>H. ROUSSE<br>Détection et effets de la multicolinearité dans les modèles linéaires ordinaires - Un prolongement de la réflexion de BELSLEY, KUH et WELSCH</td>
    <td>G 9203</td>
    <td>I. STAPIC<br>Les échanges internationaux de services de la France dans le cadre des négociations multilatérales du GATT<br>Junin 1992 (tête version)<br>Novembre 1992 (version finale)</td>
    <td>G 9311</td>
    <td>J. BOURDIEU - B. COLIN-SEDILLOT<br>Les décisions de financement des entreprises françaises : une évaluation empirique des théories de la structure optimale du capital</td>
    <td>G 9411</td>
    <td>C. DEFEUILLEY - Ph. QUIRION<br>Les déchets d'emballages ménagers : une analyse économique des bagages français et allemande</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9003</td>
    <td>P. RALLE et J. TOUJAS-BERNATE<br>Indexation des salaires : la rupture de 1983</td>
    <td>G 9312</td>
    <td>L. BLOCH - B. CŒURÉ<br>Q de Tobin marginal et transmission des choos financiers</td>
    <td>G 9313</td>
    <td>Équipes Amadeus (INSEE), Banque de France, Métric (DP)<br>Présentation des propriétés des principaux modèles macroéconomiques du Service Public</td>
    <td>G 9413</td>
    <td>B. DORMONT - M. PAUCHET<br>L'évaluation de l'elasticité emploi-salaire dépend-elle des structures de qualification ?</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9004</td>
    <td>D. GUELEC et P. RALLE<br>Crédit, croissance et innovation de produit</td>
    <td>G 9204</td>
    <td>P. SEVESTRE<br>L'économie sur données individuelles-temporaires. Une note introductive</td>
    <td>G 9313</td>
    <td>G. CREPON - E. DUGUET<br>Research &amp; Development, competition and innovation</td>
    <td>G 9414</td>
    <td>I. KABLA<br>Le Chois de breveter une invention</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9005</td>
    <td>P. RALLE et J. TOUJAS-BERNATE<br>Les conséquences de la désindexation. Analyse dans une maquette prix-salaires</td>
    <td>G 9205</td>
    <td>H. ERKEL-ROUSSE<br>Le commerce extérieur et l'environnement international dans le modèle AMADEUS (réestimation 1992)</td>
    <td>G 9314</td>
    <td>G. BOURDIEU - B. CŒURÉ - B. SEDILLOT<br>Irreversible investment and Uncertainty:<br>When is there a Value of Waiting?</td>
    <td>G 9504</td>
    <td>J. BOURDIEU - B. CŒURÉ - B. SEDILLOT<br>Irreversible investment and Uncertainty:<br>When is there a Value of Waiting?</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9101</td>
    <td>Équipe AMADEUS<br>Le modèle AMADEUS - Première partie -Présentation générale</td>
    <td>G 9206</td>
    <td>N. GREENAN et D. GUELLEC<br>Coordination within the firm and endoge nous growth</td>
    <td>G 9315</td>
    <td>B. DORMONT<br>Quelle est l'influence du coût du travail sur l'emploi ?</td>
    <td>G 9502</td>
    <td>L. BLOCH - B. CŒURÉ<br>Impfections du marché du crédit, investissement des entreprises et cycle économique</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9102</td>
    <td>J.L. BRILLET<br>Le modèle AMADEUS - Deuxième partie -Propriétés variantielles</td>
    <td>G 9207</td>
    <td>A. MAGNIER et J. TOUJAS-BERNATE<br>Technology and trade: empirical evidences for the major five industrialized countries</td>
    <td>G 9316</td>
    <td>G. BLANCHET - C. BROUSSE<br>Deux études sur l'âge de la retraite</td>
    <td>G 9503</td>
    <td>D. GOUX - E. MAURIN<br>The transformations de la demande de travail par qualification en France<br>Une étude sur la période 1970-1993</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9103</td>
    <td>D. GUELEC et P. RALLE<br>Endogenous growth and product innovation</td>
    <td>G 9208</td>
    <td>B. CREPON, E. DUGUET, D. ENCAOUA et P. MOHINEN<br>Le modèle AMADEUS - Troisième partie - Le commerce extérieur et l'environnement international</td>
    <td>G 9317</td>
    <td>D. BLANCHET<br>Répartition du travail dans une population hétérogène : deux notes</td>
    <td>G 9503</td>
    <td>N. GREENAN<br>Technologie, changement organisationnel, qualifications et emploi : une étude empirique sur l'industrie manufacturière</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9104</td>
    <td>H. ROUSSE<br>Le modèle AMADEUS - Troisième partie - Le commerce extérieur et l'environnement international</td>
    <td>G 9209</td>
    <td>B. CREPON et E. DUGUET<br>Research and development, competition and innovation: an application of pseudo maximum likelihood methods to Poisson models with heterogeneity</td>
    <td>G 9318</td>
    <td>D. EYSSARTIER - N. PONTY<br>AMADEUS - an annual macro-economic model for the medium and long term</td>
    <td>G 9504</td>
    <td>G. DUY - E. MAURIN<br>Persistance des hérarchies sectorielles de salaires: un réexamen sur données françaises</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9105</td>
    <td>H. ROUSSE<br>Effets de demande et d'offre dans les résultats du commerce extérieur manufacturé de la France au cours des deux dernières décennies</td>
    <td>G 9301</td>
    <td>J. TOUJAS-BERNATE<br>Commerce international et concurrence impartie : développement récents et implications pour la politique commerciale</td>
    <td>G 9401</td>
    <td>D. BLANCHET<br>Les structures par âge importent-elles ?</td>
    <td>G 9505<br>Bis</td>
    <td>G. DUY - E. MAURIN<br>Persistance des hérarchies sectorielles de salaires: un réexamen sur données françaises</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9106</td>
    <td>B. CREPON<br>Innovation, taille et concentration : causalités et dynamiques</td>
    <td>G 9302</td>
    <td>Ch. CASES<br>Durées de chômage et comportements d'offre de travail : une revue de la littérature</td>
    <td>G 9402</td>
    <td>J. GAUTIÉ<br>Le chômage des jeunes en France : problème de formation ou phénomène de file d'attente ?</td>
    <td>G 9506</td>
    <td>G. DUY - E. MAURIN<br>Persistance of inter-industry wages differentials: a reexamination on matched worker-firm panel data</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9107</td>
    <td>B. AMABLE et D. GUELLEC<br>Un panorama des théories de la croissance endogène</td>
    <td>G 9303</td>
    <td>H. ERKEL-ROUSSE<br>Union économique et monétaire : le débat économique</td>
    <td>G 9403</td>
    <td>P. QUIRION<br>Les déchets en France : éléments statistiques et économiques</td>
    <td>G 9507</td>
    <td>S. JACOBZONE<br>Les liens entre RMI et chômage, une mise en perspective<br>NON PARU - article sorti dans Économie et Prévision n° 122 (1996) - pages 95 à 113</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9108</td>
    <td>M. GLAUDE et M. MOUTARDIER<br>Une évaluation du coût direct de l'enfant de 1979 à 1989</td>
    <td>G 9304</td>
    <td>N. GREENAN - D. GUELLEC / G. BROUSSAUDIER - L. MIOTTI<br>Innovation organisationnelle, dynamisme technologique et performances des entreprises</td>
    <td>G 9404</td>
    <td>D. LADIRAY - M. GRUN-REHOMME<br>Lissage par moyennes mobiles - Le problème des extrémités de série</td>
    <td>G 9601</td>
    <td>G. CETTE - S. MAHFOUZ<br>Le partage primaire du revenu<br>Constat descriptif sur longue période</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9109</td>
    <td>P. RALLE et alii<br>France - Allemagne : performances économiques comparées</td>
    <td>G 9305</td>
    <td>P. JALLARD<br>Le traité de Maastricht : présentation juridique et historique</td>
    <td>G 9405</td>
    <td>V. MAILLARD<br>Theorie et pratique de la correction des effets de jours ouvrables</td>
    <td>G 9601</td>
    <td>Banque de France - CEPREMAP - Direction de la Prévision - Érasme - INSEE - OFCE<br>Structures et propriétés de cinq modèles macroéconomiques français</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9110</td>
    <td>J.L. BRILLET<br>Micro-DMS<br>NON PARU</td>
    <td>G 9306</td>
    <td>J.L. BRILLET<br>Micro-DMS - présentation et propriétés</td>
    <td>G 9406</td>
    <td>F. ROSENWALD<br>La décision d'investir</td>
    <td>G 9602</td>
    <td>Rapport d'activité de la DESE de l'année 1995<br>J. BOURDIEU - A. DRAZNIKS<br>L'octroi de crédit aux PME : une analyse à partir d'informations bancaires</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9111</td>
    <td>A. MAGNIER<br>Effets accéléré et multiplicateur en France depuis 1970 : quelques résultats empiriques</td>
    <td>G 9307</td>
    <td>J.L. BRILLET<br>Micro-DMS - variantes : les tableaux</td>
    <td>G 9407</td>
    <td>S. JACOBZONE<br>Les apports de l'économie industrielle pour de finir la stratégie économique de l'hôpital public</td>
    <td>G 9603</td>
    <td>A. TOPIOL-BENSAID<br>Les implantations japonaises en France</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9112</td>
    <td>B. CREPON et G. DUREAU<br>Investissement en recherche-developpement : analyse de causalités dans un modèle d'accélérateur généralisé</td>
    <td>G 9308</td>
    <td>S. JACOBZONE<br>Les grands réseaux publics français dans une perspective européenne</td>
    <td>G 9408</td>
    <td>L. BLOCH, J. BOURDIEU, G. COLIN-SEDILLOT, G. LONGUEVILLE<br>Du défaut de paiement au dépôt de bilan : les banquiers face aux PME en difficulté</td>
    <td>G 9604</td>
    <td>P. GENIER - S. JACOBZONE<br>Comportements de prévention, consommation d'alcool et tabagie, peut-on paier d'une gestion globale du capital santé ?</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9113</td>
    <td>J.L. BRILLET, H. ERKEL-ROUSSE, J. TOUJAS-BERNATE<br>"France-Allemagne Couplees" - Deux économies vues par une maquette macro-économétique</td>
    <td>G 9309</td>
    <td>L. BLOCH - B. CŒURÉ<br>Profitabilité de l'investissement productif et transmission des choos financiers</td>
    <td>G 9409</td>
    <td>D. EYSSARTIER, P. MAIRE<br>Impacts macro-économiques de mesures d'aide au logement - quelques éléments d'évaluation</td>
    <td>G 9605</td>
    <td>A. TOPIOL-BENSAID<br>Les implantations japonaises en France</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9201</td>
    <td>W. J. ADAMS, B. CREPON, D. ENCAOUA<br>Choix technologiques et stratégies de dissuasion d'entrée</td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td>Une modélisation microéconométrique empirique</td>
  </tr>
</table>
<table><tr><td>G 9606</td><td>C. DOZ - F. LENGLART<br>Factor analysis and unobserved compo-<br>models; an application to the study of French<br>business surveys</td></tr><tr><td>G 9607</td><td>N. GREENAN - D. GUELLEC<br>La théorie coopérative de la firme</td></tr><tr><td>G 9608</td><td>N. GREENAN - D. GUELLEC<br>Technological innovation and employment<br>reallocation</td></tr><tr><td>G 9609</td><td>Ph. COUR - F. RUPPRECHT<br>L'intégration asymptérique au sein du continent<br>américain: un essai de modélisation</td></tr><tr><td>G 9610</td><td>S. DUCHENE - G. FORGEOT - A. JACQUOT<br>Analysis des évolutions récentes de la produc-<br>vité apparente du travail</td></tr><tr><td>G 9611</td><td>X. BONNET - S. MAHFOUZ<br>The influence of different specifications of<br>wages-prices spirals on the measure of the<br>NAIRU: the case of France</td></tr><tr><td>G 9612</td><td>PH. COUR - E. DUBOIS, S. MAHFOUZ,<br>J. PISANI-FERRY<br>The cost of fiscal retrenchment revisited: how<br>strong is the evidence?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9613</td><td>A. JACQUOT<br>Les flexions des taux d'activité sont-elles seule-<br>ment conjonctuelles ?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9614</td><td>ZHANG Yingxiang - SONG Xueqing<br>Lexique macroéconomique Français-Chinois</td></tr><tr><td>G 9701</td><td>J.L. SCHNEIDER<br>La taxe professionnelle : éléments de cadrage<br>économique</td></tr><tr><td>G 9702</td><td>J.L. SCHNEIDER<br>Transition et stabilité politique d'un système<br>redistribuit</td></tr><tr><td>G 9703</td><td>D. GOUX - E. MAURIN<br>Train or Pay: Does it Reduce Inequalities to En-<br>courage Firms to Train their Workers?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9704</td><td>P. GENIER<br>Deux contributions sur dépendance et équité</td></tr><tr><td>G 9705</td><td>E. DUGUET - N. IUNG<br>R & D investment, Patent Life and Patent Value<br>An Econometric Analysis at the Firm Level</td></tr><tr><td>G 9706</td><td>M. HOUDEBINE - A. TOPIOL-BENAID<br>Les entreprises internationales en France: une<br>analyse à partir de données individuelles</td></tr><tr><td>G 9707</td><td>M. HOUDEBINE<br>Polarisation des activités et spécialisation des<br>départements en France</td></tr><tr><td>G 9708</td><td>E. DUGUET - N. GREENAN<br>Le biais technologique: une analyse sur don-<br>nées individuelles</td></tr><tr><td>G 9709</td><td>J.L. BRILLET<br>Analysing a small French ECM Model</td></tr><tr><td>G 9710</td><td>J.L. BRILLET<br>Formalizing the transition process: scenarios for<br>capital accumulation</td></tr><tr><td>G 9711</td><td>G. FORGEOT - J. GAUTIÉ<br>Insertion professionnelle des jeunes et proces-<br>sus de déclassement</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>G 9712</td><td>E. DUBOIS<br>High Real Interest Rates: the Consequence of a<br>Saving Investment Disequilibrium or of an in-<br>sufficient Credibility of Monetary Authorities?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9713</td><td>N. GREENAN - D. GUELLEC<br>La théorie coopérative de la firme</td></tr><tr><td>G 9714</td><td>F. LEQUILLER<br>Does the French Consumer Price Index Over-<br>state Inflation?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9715</td><td>X. BONNET<br>Peut-on mettre en évidence les rigidités à la<br>baisse des salaires nominale ?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9716</td><td>N. IUNG - F. RUPPRECHT<br>Productivité de la recherche et rendements<br>d'échelle dans le secteur pharmaceutique<br>français</td></tr><tr><td>G 9717</td><td>E. DUGUET - I. KABLA<br>Appropriation strategy and the motivations to use<br>the patent system in France - An econo metric<br>analysis at the firm level</td></tr><tr><td>G 9718</td><td>L.P. PELÉ - P. RALLE<br>Àge de la retraite : les aspects incitatifs du ré-<br>gime général</td></tr><tr><td>G 9719</td><td>ZHANG Yingxiang - SONG Xueqing<br>Lexique macroéconomique français-chinois,<br>chinois-français</td></tr><tr><td>G 9720</td><td>M. HOUDEBINE - J.L. SCHNEIDER<br>Mesurer l'influence de la fiscalité sur la locali-<br>sation des entreprises</td></tr><tr><td>G 9721</td><td>A. MOUROUGANE<br>Crédibilité, indépendance et politique monétaire<br>Une redevance à la littérature</td></tr><tr><td>G 9722</td><td>P. AUGERAUD - L. BRIOT<br>Les données comptables d'entreprises<br>Le système intermédiaire d'entreprises<br>Passage des données individuelles aux données<br>sectorielles</td></tr><tr><td>G 9723</td><td>P. AUGERAUD - J.E. CHAPRON<br>Using Business Accounts for Compiling National<br>Accounts: the French Experience</td></tr><tr><td>G 9724</td><td>P. AUGERAUD<br>Les comptes d'entreprise par activités - Le pas-<br>sage aux comptes - De la comptabilité - A<br>parlaire</td></tr><tr><td>G 9801</td><td>H. MICHAUDON - C. PRIGENT<br>Presentation du modèle AMADEUS</td></tr><tr><td>G 9802</td><td>J. ACCARDO<br>Une étude de comptabilité générationnelle<br>pour la France en 1996</td></tr><tr><td>G 9803</td><td>X. BONNET - S. DUCHÉNE<br>Apports et limites de la modélisation<br>« Real Business Cycles »</td></tr><tr><td>G 9804</td><td>C. BARLET - C. DUGUET -<br>D. ENCAOUA - J. PRADEL<br>The Commercial Success of Innovations<br>An econometric analysis at the firm level in<br>French manufacturing</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>G 9805</td><td>P. CAHUC - Ch. GIANELLA -<br>D. GOUX - A. ZILBERBERG<br>Equalizing Wage Differences and Bargain ing<br>Power - Evidence form a Panel of French Firms</td></tr><tr><td>G 9806</td><td>J. ACCARDO - M. JLASSI<br>La productivité globale des facteurs entre 1975<br>et 1996</td></tr><tr><td>G 9807</td><td>Bilan des activités de la Direction des Études<br>et Synthèses Économiques - 1997</td></tr><tr><td>G 9808</td><td>X. MOUROUGANE<br>Can a Conservative Governor Conduct an Ac-<br>comodative Monetary Policy?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9809</td><td>X. BONNET - E. DUBOIS - L. FAUVET<br>Asymétrie des inflations relatives et menus<br>costs : tests sur l'infographique</td></tr><tr><td>G 9810</td><td>E. DUGUET - N. IUNG<br>Sales and Advertising with Spillovers at the firm<br>level: Estimation of a Dynamic Structural Model<br>on Panel Data</td></tr><tr><td>G 9811</td><td>J.P. BERTHIER<br>Congestion urbaine : un modèle de trafic de<br>pointe à courbe débît-vitesse et demande<br>élastique</td></tr><tr><td>G 9812</td><td>C. PRIGENT<br>La part des salaires dans la valeur ajoutée : une<br>approche macroéconomique</td></tr><tr><td>G 9813</td><td>A.Th. AERTS<br>L'évolution de la part des salaires dans la valeur<br>ajoutée en France reflète-elle les évolutions<br>individuelles sur la période 1979-1994 ?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9814</td><td>B. SALANIÉ<br>Guide pratique des séries non-stationnaires</td></tr><tr><td>G 9901</td><td>S. DUCHENE - A. JACQUOT<br>Une croissance plus riche en emplois depuis le<br>début de la décennie ? Une analyse en compa-<br>raison internationale</td></tr><tr><td>G 9902</td><td>Ch. COLIN<br>Modélisation des carrières dans Destine</td></tr><tr><td>G 9903</td><td>Ch. COLIN<br>Évolution de la dispersion des salaires : un essai<br>de prospective par microsimulation</td></tr><tr><td>G 9904</td><td>B. CREPON - N. IUNG<br>Innovation, emploi et performances</td></tr><tr><td>G 9905</td><td>B. CREPON - Ch. GIANELLA<br>Wages inequalities in France 1969-1992</td></tr><tr><td>G 9906</td><td>C. BONNET - R. MAHIEU<br>Microsimulation techniques applied to inter-<br>generational transfers - Pensions in a dy namic<br>framework: the case of France</td></tr><tr><td>G 9907</td><td>F. ROSENWALD<br>L'impact des contraintes financières dans la dé-<br>cision d'investissement</td></tr><tr><td>G 9908</td><td>Bilan des activités de la DESE - 1998</td></tr><tr><td>G 9909</td><td>J.P. ZOYEM<br>Contrat d'insertion et sortie du RMI<br>Évaluation des effets d'une politique sociale</td></tr><tr><td>G 9910</td><td>Ch. COLIN - FI. LEGROS - R. MAHIEU<br>Bilans contribués comparés des régimes de<br>retraite du secteur privé et de la fonction<br>publique</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>G 9911</td><td>G. LAROQUE - B. SALANIÉ<br>Une décomposition du non-emploi en France</td></tr><tr><td>G 9912</td><td>B. SALANIÉ<br>Une maquette analytique de long terme du<br>marché du travail</td></tr><tr><td>G 9912</td><td>Ch. GIANELLA<br>Une estimation de l'élasticité de l'emploi peu<br>qualifié à son coût</td></tr><tr><td>G 9913</td><td>Division « Redistribution et Politiques Sociales »<br>Le modèle de microsimulation dynamique<br>DESTIMIE</td></tr><tr><td>G 9914</td><td>E. DUGUET<br>Macro-commandes SAS pour l'économétrie des<br>panels et des variables qualitatives</td></tr><tr><td>G 9915</td><td>R. DUHAUTOIS<br>Évolution des flux d'emplois en France entre<br>1990 et 1996 : une étude empirique à partir du<br>fichier des bénéfices réels normaux (BRN)</td></tr><tr><td>G 9916</td><td>J.Y. FOURNIER<br>Extraction du cycle des affaires : la méthode de<br>Baxter et King</td></tr><tr><td>G 9917</td><td>B. CRÉPON - R. DESPLATZ - J. MAIRESSE<br>Estimating price cost margins, scale economies<br>and workers' bargaining power at the firm level</td></tr><tr><td>G 9918</td><td>Ch. GIANELLA - Ph. LAGARDE<br>Productivity of hours in the aggregate pro duction<br>function: an evaluation on a panel of French<br>firms from the manufacturing sector</td></tr><tr><td>G 9919</td><td>S. AUDRIC - P. GIVORD - C. PROST<br>Évolution de l'emploi et des coûts par quali-<br>fication entre 1982 et 1996</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/01</td><td>R. MAHIEU<br>Les déterminants des dépenses de santé : une<br>approche macroéconomique</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/02</td><td>C. ALLARD-PRIGENT - H. GUILMEAU -<br>A. QUINET<br>The real exchange rate as the relative price of<br>nontrables in terms of tradables: theoretical<br>investigation and empirical study on French data</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/03</td><td>J.-Y. FOURNIER<br>L'approximation du filtre passe-bande proposée<br>par Christiano et Fitzgerald</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/04</td><td>Bilan des activités de la DESE - 1999</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/05</td><td>B. CREPON - F. ROSENWALD<br>Investment et contraintes de financement : le<br>poids du cycle</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/06</td><td>Une estimation sur données françaises<br>A. FLIPO<br>Les comportements matrimoniaux de fait</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/07</td><td>R. MAHIEU - B. SÉDILLOT<br>Microsimulations of the retirement decision: a<br>supply side approach</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/08</td><td>C. AUDENS - C. PROST<br>Déficit conjoncturel : une prise en compte des<br>conjonctures passées</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/09</td><td>R. MAHIEU - B. SÉDILLOT<br>Équivalent matrimonial de la rente et souscription<br>de retraite complémentaire</td></tr></table>
<table><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 incitatives financières à l'emploi</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>Informalité 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 - The new economy and the measure 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-riploèmes ?</td></tr><tr><td>G 2001/03</td><td>I. BRAJUN-LEMAIRE</td><td>Évolution et répartition 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'haproférence des comportements d'investissement à partir de données de bilan agrégées</td></tr><tr><td>G 2001/05</td><td>C. AUDENIS - P. BISCOURP - N. FOURCADE - O. LOISEL</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>J. Ph. GAUDEMET</td><td>Bilan des activités de la DESE - 2000</td></tr><tr><td>G 2001/08</td><td>B. CRÉPON - Ch. GIANELLA</td><td>Les dispositifs d'acquisition à titre facultatif d'annuïtés viagères de retraite</td></tr><tr><td>G 2001/09</td><td>B. CRÉPON - Ch. GIANELLA</td><td>Fiscalité, 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'alégements</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-BOBEE</td><td>Modelling demographic behaviours in the French</td></tr></table>

<table><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>Évaluation de la redistribution intragénérationnelle dans le système de retraite des salariés du privé - Une approche par microsimulation</td></tr><tr><td>G2002/15</td><td>P. CHONE - D. LE BLANC - I. ROBERT-BOBEE</td><td>Offre de travail féminine et garde des jeunes enfants</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 dépollution 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>Bilan des activités de la DESE - 2002</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>G2003/04</td><td>P.-O. BEFFY - J. DEROYON - 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. O. BEFFY - B. MONFORT</td><td>Patrimoine des ménages, dynamique d'allocation et comportement de consommation</td></tr><tr><td>G2003/09</td><td>P. BISCOURP - N. FOURCADE</td><td>Peut-on mettre en évidence l'existence de rigidités à la baisse des salaires à partir de données individuelles ? Le cas de la France à la fin des années 90</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. DARRACO-PARIES - B. MONFORT</td><td>Les comportements démographiques dans le modèle de microsimulation DESTINIE - Une comparaison des estimations issues des enquêtes Jeunes et Carrières 1997 et Histoire Famillelle 1999</td></tr><tr><td>G2003/12</td><td>J.-P. ZOYEM</td><td>La dynamique des bas revenus : une analyse des entrées-sorties de pauvreté</td></tr><tr><td>G2003/13</td><td>F. HILD</td><td>Prévisions d'inflation pour la France</td></tr></table>

<table><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>Évaluation de la redistribution intragénérationnelle dans le système de retraite des salariés du privé - Une approche par microsimulation</td></tr><tr><td>G2002/15</td><td>P. CHONE - D. LE BLANC - I. ROBERT-BOBEE</td><td>Offre de travail féminine et garde des jeunes enfants</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 dépollution 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>Bilan des activités de la DESE - 2002</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>G2003/04</td><td>P.-O. BEFFY - J. DEROYON - 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. O. BEFFY - B. MONFORT</td><td>Patrimoine des ménages, dynamique d'allocation et comportement de consommation</td></tr><tr><td>G2003/09</td><td>P. BISCOURP - N. FOURCADE</td><td>Peut-on mettre en évidence l'existence de rigidités à la baisse des salaires à partir de données individuelles ? Le cas de la France à la fin des années 90</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. DARRACO-PARIES - B. MONFORT</td><td>Les comportements démographiques dans le modèle de microsimulation DESTINIE - Une comparaison des estimations issues des enquêtes Jeunes et Carrières 1997 et Histoire Famillelle 1999</td></tr><tr><td>G2003/12</td><td>J.-P. ZOYEM</td><td>La dynamique des bas revenus : une analyse des entrées-sorties de pauvreté</td></tr><tr><td>G2003/13</td><td>F. HILD</td><td>Prévisions d'inflation pour la France</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>G2004/02</td><td>M. DUÈE - 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. DUÈE</td><td>L'impact du chômage 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 acquis-ils les incitations privées à innover? Un examen microéconométique</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>Travailleurs âgés, nouvelles technologies et changements organisationalistes: 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. BUFFETEAU - P. GODEFROY</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</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>G2005/06</td><td>Bilan des activités de la Direction des Études et Synthèses 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. L'ANGEVIN - N. LAIB<br>Éducation et croissance en France et dans un panel de 21 pays de l'OCDE</td></tr><tr><td>G2005/09</td><td>N. FERRARI<br>Prévoir l'investissement des entreprises<br>Un indicateur des révisions dans l'enquête de conjoncture sur les investissements dans l'industrie</td></tr><tr><td>G2005/10</td><td>P.O. BEFFY - C. L'ANGEVIN<br>Chromage 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 enjuvés de conjoncture et prévision macroéconomiques :<br>Exemple de la prévision de la production<br>manufacturière</td></tr><tr><td>G2005/13</td><td>P. AUBERT - D. BLANCHET - D. BLAU<br>The labour market after 50: some elements of a Franco-American comparison</td></tr><tr><td>G2005/14</td><td>D. BLANCHET - T. DEBRAND -<br>P. DOUGRON - P. POLLET<br>L'enquête SHARE : présentation et premiers résultats de l'édition française</td></tr><tr><td>G2005/15</td><td>M. DUÉE<br>La modélisation des comportements démographiques dans le modèle de microsimulation<br>DESTINE</td></tr><tr><td>G2005/16</td><td>H. RAOUI - S. ROUX<br>Étude de simulation sur la participation versée aux salaires par les entreprises</td></tr><tr><td>G2006/01</td><td>C. BONNET - S. BUFFETEAU - P. GODEFROY<br>Disparités de retraite de droit direct entre hommes et femmes : quelles évolutions ?</td></tr><tr><td>G2006/02</td><td>C. PICART<br>Les gazelles en France</td></tr><tr><td>G2006/03</td><td>P. AUBERT - B. CRÉPON - P. ZAMORA<br>Le rendement apparent de la formation continue dans les entreprises : effets sur la productivité et les salaires</td></tr><tr><td>G2006/04</td><td>J.-F. OUVRARD - R. RATHELOT<br>Demographic change and unemployment:<br>what do macroeconomic models predict?</td></tr><tr><td>G2006/05</td><td>D. BLANCHET - J.-F. OUVRARD<br>Indicateurs d'engagements implicites des systèmes de retraite : chiffrages, propriétés analytiques et réactions à des chocs démographiques types</td></tr><tr><td>G2006/06</td><td>G. BIAU - O. BIAU - L. 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. L'ANGEVIN - S. SERRAVALLE<br>Performances comparées à l'exportation de la France et de ses principaux partenaires<br>Une analyse structurelle sur 12 ans</td></tr><tr><td>G2006/09</td><td>X. BOUTIN - S. QUANTIN<br>Une méthodologie d'évaluation comptable du coût du capital des entreprises françaises : 1984-2002</td></tr><tr><td>G2006/10</td><td>C. AFSA<br>L'estimation d'un coût implicite de la pénibilité du travail chez les travailleurs âgés</td></tr><tr><td>G2006/11</td><td>C. LELARGE<br>Les entreprises (industrielles) françaises sont-elles à la frontière technologique ?</td></tr><tr><td>G2006/12</td><td>O. BIAU - N. FERRARI<br>Theorie de l'opinion<br>Faut-il pondérer les réponses individuelles ?</td></tr><tr><td>G2006/13</td><td>A. KOUBI - S. ROUX<br>Une réinterprétation de la relation entre productivité et inégalités salariales dans les entreprises</td></tr><tr><td>G2006/14</td><td>R. RATHELOT - P. SILLARD<br>The impact of local taxes on plants location decision</td></tr><tr><td>G2006/15</td><td>L. GONZALEZ - C. PICART<br>Diversification, recensement et poids des activités de support dans les groupes (1995-2000)</td></tr><tr><td>G2007/01</td><td>D. SRAER<br>Allégrés de cotisations patronales et dynamique salariale</td></tr><tr><td>G2007/02</td><td>V. ALBOUY - L. LEQUIEN<br>Les rendements non monétaires de l'éducation :<br>le cas de la santé</td></tr><tr><td>G2007/03</td><td>D. BLANCHET - T. DEBRAND<br>Aspiration à la retraite, santé et satisfaction au travail : une comparaison européenne</td></tr><tr><td>G2007/04</td><td>M. BARLET - L. CRUSSON<br>Quel impact des variations du prix du pétrole sur la croissance française ?</td></tr><tr><td>G2007/05</td><td>C. PICART<br>Flux d'emploi et de main-d'œuvre en France : un réexamen</td></tr><tr><td>G2007/06</td><td>V. ALBOUY - C. 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<br>Evidence from the French Real Estate Market</td></tr><tr><td>G2007/09</td><td>J. BOISSINOT<br>Consumption over the Life Cycle: Facts for France</td></tr><tr><td>G2007/10</td><td>C. AFSA<br>Interpréter les variables de satisfaction : l'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 salarié et les créations d'établissements ?</td></tr><tr><td>G2007/12</td><td>V. ALBOUY - B. CRÉPON<br>Aléa moral en santé : une évaluation dans le cadre du modèle causal de Rubin</td></tr><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<br>Evidence form the Loi Galland</td></tr><tr><td>G2008/03</td><td>Y. BARBESOL - A. BRIANT<br>Économies d'agglomération et productivité des entreprises : estimation sur données individuelles françaises</td></tr><tr><td>G2008/04</td><td>D. BLANCHET - F. LE GALLO<br>Les projections démographiques : principaux mécanismes et retour sur l'expérience française</td></tr><tr><td>G2008/05</td><td>D. BLANCHET - F. TOUTLEMONDE<br>Évolutions démographiques et deformation du cycle de vie active : quelles relations ?</td></tr><tr><td>G2008/06</td><td>M. BARLET - D. BLANCHET - L. CRUSSON<br>Internationalisation et flux d'emplois : que d'une approche comptable ?</td></tr><tr><td>G2008/07</td><td>C. LELARGE - D. SRAER - D. THESMAR<br>Entrepreneurship and Credit Constraints - Evidence from a French Loan Guarantee Program</td></tr><tr><td>G2008/08</td><td>X. BOUTIN - L. JANIN<br>Are Prices Really Affected by Mergers?</td></tr><tr><td>G2008/09</td><td>M. BARLET - A. BRIANT - L. CRUSSON<br>Concentration géographique dans l'industrie manufacturière et dans les services en France : une approche par un indicateur en continu</td></tr><tr><td>G2008/10</td><td>M. BEFFY - É. COUDIN - R. RATHELOT<br>Who is confronted to insecure labor market histories? Some evidence based on the French labor market transition</td></tr><tr><td>G2008/11</td><td>M. ROGER - E. WALRAET<br>Social Security and Well-Being of the Elderly: the Case of France</td></tr><tr><td>G2008/12</td><td>C. AFSA<br>Analyser les composantes du bien-être et de son évolution<br>Une approche empirique sur données individuelles</td></tr><tr><td>G2008/13</td><td>M. BARLET - D. BLANCHET -<br>T. LE BARBANCHON<br>Microsimumer 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 CLAVEL - 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?<br>A Real-Time Analysis on French Data</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>G2009/04</td><td>P. GIVORD - L. WILNER<br>Les contrats temporaires : trappe ou marchéied vers l'emploi stable ?</td></tr><tr><td>G2009/05</td><td>G. LALANNE - P.-A. PIONNIER - O. SIMON<br>Le partage des fruits de la croissance de 1950 à 2008: une approche par les comptes de surplus</td></tr><tr><td>G2009/06</td><td>L. DAVEZIES - X. D'HAULTFOUEUILLE<br>Faut-il pondérer ?... Ou l'éternelle question de l'économètre confronté à des données d'enquête</td></tr><tr><td>G2009/07</td><td>S. QUANTIN - S. RASPILLER - S. SERRAVALLE<br>Commerce intragroupe, fiscalité et prix de transferts: une analyse sur données françaises</td></tr><tr><td>G2009/08</td><td>M. CLERC - V. MARCUS<br>Élastiques-prix des consommations énergétiques des ménages</td></tr><tr><td>G2009/09</td><td>G. LALANNE - E. POULIQUEN - O. SIMON<br>Prix du pétrole et croissance potentielle à long terme</td></tr><tr><td>G2009/10</td><td>D. BLANCHET - J. LE CACHEUX - V. MARCUS<br>Adjusted net savings and other approaches to sustainability: some theoretical background</td></tr><tr><td>G2009/11</td><td>V. BELAMY - G. CONSALES - M. FESSEAU -<br>S. LE LAIDÉ - 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 -<br>R. RATHELOT<br>Discrimination à l'embague: 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<br>de la croissance trimestrielle du PIB en France</td></tr><tr><td>G2010/02</td><td>V. ALBOUY - L. DAVEZIES - T. DEBRAND<br>Health Expenditure Models: a Comparison of Five Specifications using Panel Data</td></tr><tr><td>G2010/03</td><td>C. KLEIN - O. SIMON<br>Le modèle MÉSANGE réestimé en base 2000<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. CECH-RENAUD - P.-A. CHEVALIER<br>Les seuils de 10, 20 et 50 salariés : impact sur la taille des entreprises françaises</td></tr></table>
G2010/06

National Origin Differences in Wages and Hierarchical Positions - Evidence on French Full-Time Male Workers from a matched Employer-Employee Dataset

G2010/07

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

G2010/08

P. GIVORD
Méthodes éconétriques pour l'évaluation de politiques publiques

G2010/09

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

G2010/10

I. BUONO - G. LALANNE
La réaction des entreprises françaises à la baisse des tarifs douaniers étrangers

G2010/11

R. RATHELOT - P. SILLARD
L'apport des méthodes à noyaux pour mesurer la concentration géographique - Application à la concentration des immigres en France de 1968 à 1999

G2010/12

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

G2010/13

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

G2010/14

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

G2010/15

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

G2010/16

M. BEFFY - T. KAMIONKA
Public-privée wage gaps : is civil-servant human capital sector-specific?

G2010/17

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

G2010/18

R. AEBERHARDT - L. DAVEZIES
Conventional Logit with one Binary Covariate: Link between the Static and Dynamic Cases

G2011/02

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

G2011/02

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

G2011/03

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

G2011/04

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

G2011/05

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

G2011/06

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

G2011/07

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

G2011/08

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

G2011/09

C. LOUVOT-RUNAVOT
L'évaluation de l'activité dissimulée des entreprises sur la base des contrôles fiscaux et son insertion dans les complexes nationaux

G2011/10

A. SCHREIBER - A. VICARD
La terlisation de l'économie française et le ralentissement de la productivité entre 1978 et 2008

G2011/11

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

G2011/12

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

G2011/13

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

G2011/14

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

G2011/15

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

G2011/16

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

G2011/17

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

G2012/01

P. GIVORD - S. QUANTIN - C. TREVIE
A Long-Term Evaluation of the First Generation of the French Urban Enterprise Zones

G2012/02

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

G2012/03

P. FEVRIER - L. WILNER
Do Consumers Correctly Expect Price Reductions? Testing Dynamic Behavior

G2012/04

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

G2012/05

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

G2012/06

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

G2012/07

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

G2012/08

A. EIDELMAN - F. LANGUIMERT - A. VICARD
Prélevements obligatoires reposant sur les menages, des canaux redistributifs différents en 1990 et 2010

G2012/09

O. BARGAIN - A. VICARD
Le RMI et son successeur le RSA décuragent-ils certains jeunes de travailer ? Une analyse sur les jeunes autour de 25 ans

G2012/10

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

G2012/11

A. MAUROUX
Le crédit d'impôt dédié au développement durable : une évaluation éconétrique

G2012/12

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

G2012/13

X. D'HAULT-FOEUILLE - P. FEVRIER - L. WILNER
Demand Estimation in the Presence of Revenue Management

G2012/14

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

G2013/01- F1301

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

G2013/02- F1302

C. TREVIEN
Haber en HLM : quel avantage monétaire et quel impact sur les conditions de logement ?

G2013/03

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

G2013/04

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

G2013/05

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

G2013/06

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

G2012/04

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

G2012/05

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

G2012/06

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

G2012/07

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

G2012/08

A. EIDELMAN - F. LANGUIMERT - A. VICARD
Prélevements obligatoires reposant sur les menages, des canaux redistributifs différents en 1990 et 2010

G2012/09

O. BARGAIN - A. VICARD
Le RMI et son successeur le RSA décuragent-ils certains jeunes de travailer ? Une analyse sur les jeunes autour de 25 ans

G2012/10

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

G2012/11

A. MAUROUX
Le crédit d'impôt dédié au développement durable : une évaluation éconétrique

G2012/12

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

G2012/13

X. D'HAULT-FOEUILLE - P. FEVRIER - L. WILNER
Demand Estimation in the Presence of Revenue Management

G2012/14

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

G2013/01- F1301

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

G2013/02- F1302

C. TREVIEN
Haber en HLM : quel avantage monétaire et quel impact sur les conditions de logement ?

G2013/03

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

G2013/04

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

G2013/05

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

G2013/06

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

G2013/07

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

G2013/08

R. AEBERHARDT - C. MARBOT
Evolution of instability in the French Labour Market During the Last Thirty Years

G2013/09

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

G2013/10

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

G2013/11

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

G2013/12

C. GRISLAIN-LETRÉMY
Natural Disasters: Exposure and Underinsurance

G2013/13

G. MARROT - V. ROY
Projections du coût de l'APA et des caractéristiques de ses bénéficiaires à l'horizon 2040 à l'aide du modèle Destine

G2013/14

A. MAUROUX
Le crédit d'impôt dédié au développement durable : une évaluation éconétrique

G2013/15

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

G2014/01

M. BACHELET - A. LEDUC - A. MARINO
Les biographies du modèle Destine II : rebasage et projection

G2014/02

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

G2014/03

N. CECI-RENADE - P. CHARNOZ - M. GAINI
Evolution of the volatilité des revenus salariaux du secteur privé en France depuis 1968

G2014/04

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

G2014/05

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

G2014/06

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

G2014/07

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

G2014/08

C. GRISLAIN-LETRÉMY et C. TREVIE
The Impact of Housing Subsidies on the Rental Sector: the French Example

G2014/09

M. LEQUIEN et A. MONTAUT
Croissance potentielle en France et en zone euro: un tour d'h horizon des méthodes d'estimation
<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>G2014/10</td>
      <td>B. GARBINTI - P. LAMARCHE<br>Les hauts revenus epargnent-ile davantage ?</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2014/11</td>
      <td>D. AUDENAERT - J. BARDAJI - R. LARDEUX -<br>M. ORAND - M. SICNIC<br>Wage Resilience in France since the Great<br>Recession</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2014/12</td>
      <td>F. ARNAUL - J. BOUSSARD - A. POISSONNIER<br>- H. SOAL<br>Computing additive contributions to growth and<br>other issues for chain-linked quarterly<br>aggregates</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2014/13</td>
      <td>H. FRAISSE - F. KRAMARZ - C. PROST<br>Labor Disputes and Job Flows</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2014/14</td>
      <td>P. GIVORD - C. GRISLAIN-LETRÉMY<br>- H. NAEGELE<br>How does fuel taxation impact new car<br>purchases? An evaluation using French<br>consumer-level dataset</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2014/15</td>
      <td>P. AUBERT - S. RABATÉ<br>Durée passée en carrière et durée de vie en<br>retraite : quel partage des gains d'espérance de<br>vie ?</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2015/01</td>
      <td>A. POISSONNIER<br>The walking dead Euler equation<br>Addressing a challenge to monetary policy<br>models</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2015/02</td>
      <td>Y. DUBOIS - A. MARINO<br>Indicateurs de rendement du système de retraite<br>français</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2015/03</td>
      <td>T. MAYER - C. TREVIEN<br>The impacts of Urban Public Transportation:<br>Evidence from the Paris Region</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2015/04</td>
      <td>S.T. LY - A. RIEGERT<br>Measuring Social Environment Mobility</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2015/05</td>
      <td>M. A. BEN HALINA - V. HYAFIL-SOLELHAC<br>M. KOUBI - C. REGAERT<br>Quel est l'impact du système d'indemnisation<br>maladie sur la durée des arrêts de travail pour<br>maladie ?</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2015/06</td>
      <td>Y. DUBOIS - A. MARINO<br>Disparités de rendement du système de retraite<br>dans le secteur privé : approches intergénéra-<br>tionnelle et intragénérationnelle</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2015/07</td>
      <td>B. CAMPAGNE - V. ALHENC-GELAS -<br>J.-B. BERNARD<br>No evidence of financial accelerator in France</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2015/08</td>
      <td>Q. LAFFÉTER - M. PAK<br>Élastiques des recettes fiscales au cycle<br>économique : étude de trois impôts sur la<br>période 1979-2013 en France</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2015/09</td>
      <td>J.-M. DUASSIN-BENICHOU, S. IDMACHICHE,<br>A. LEDUC et E. POULIQUEN<br>Les déterminants de l'attractivité de la fonction<br>publique de l'État</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2015/10</td>
      <td>P. AUBERT<br>La modulation du montant de pension selon la<br>durée de carrière et l'âge de la retraite : quelles<br>disparités entre assurés ?</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2015/11</td>
      <td>V. DORTET-BERNADET - M. SICNIC<br>Effet des aides publiques sur l'emploi en R&D<br>dans les petites entreprises</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>

<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>G2015/12</td>
      <td>S. GEORGES-KOT<br>Annual and lifetime incidence of the value-added<br>tax in France</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2015/13</td>
      <td>M. POULHÉS<br>Are Enterprise Zones Benefits Capitalized into<br>Commercial Property Values? The French Case</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2015/14</td>
      <td>J.-B. BERNARD - Q. LAFFÉTER<br>Effet de l'activité et prix sur le revenu salarial<br>des différentes catégories socioprofessionnelles</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2015/15</td>
      <td>C. GEAY - M. KOUBI - G de LAGASNERIE<br>Projections des dépenses de soins de ville,<br>construction d'un module pour Destinine</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2015/16</td>
      <td>J. BARDAJI - J.-C. BRICONGNE -<br>B. CAMPAGNE - G. GAULIER<br>Compared performances of French companies<br>on the domestic and foreign markets</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2015/17</td>
      <td>C. BELLÉGO - R. DE NUJ<br>The redistributive effect of online piracy on the<br>box office performance of American movies in<br>foreign markets</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2015/18</td>
      <td>J.-B. BERNARD - L. BERTHET<br>French households financial wealth: which<br>changes in 20 years?</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2015/19</td>
      <td>M. POULHÉS<br>Fenêtre sur Cour ou Chambre avec Vue ?<br>Les prix hédoniques de l'immobilier parisien</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2016/01</td>
      <td>B. GARBINTI - S. GEORGES-KOT<br>Time to smell the roses? Risk aversion, the<br>timing of inheritance receipt, and retirement</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2016/02</td>
      <td>P. CHARNOZ - C. LELARGE - C. TREVIEN<br>Communication Costs and the Internal<br>Organization of Multi-Plant Businesses; Evidence<br>from the Impact of the French High-Speed Rail</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2016/03</td>
      <td>C. BONNET - B. GARBINTI - A. SOLAZ<br>C. Gender inequality after Divorce: The Flip Side of<br>Marital Specialization - Evidence from a French<br>Administrative Database</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2016/04</td>
      <td>D. BLANCHET - E. CAROLI - C. PROST -<br>M. ROGER<br>Health capacity to work at older ages in France</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2016/05</td>
      <td>B. CAMPAGNE - A. POISSONNIER<br>MELEZE: A DSGE model for France within the<br>Euro Area</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2016/06</td>
      <td>B. CAMPAGNE - A. POISSONNIER<br>Laffer curves and fiscal multipliers: lessons from<br>Mélèze model</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2016/07</td>
      <td>B. CAMPAGNE - A. POISSONNIER<br>Structural reforms in DSGE models: a case for<br>sensitivity analyses</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2016/08</td>
      <td>Y. DUBOIS et M. KOUBI<br>Relevement de l'âge de départ à la retraite : quel<br>impact sur l'activité des seniors de la réforme des<br>retraites de 2010 ?</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2016/09</td>
      <td>A. NAQUAS - M. ORAND - I. SLIMANI HOUTI<br>Les entreprises employant des salaires au Smic :<br>quelles caractéristiques et quelle rentabilité ?</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2016/10</td>
      <td>T. BLANCHET - Y. DUBOIS - A. MARINO -<br>M. ROGER<br>Patrimoine privé et retraite en France</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2016/11</td>
      <td>M. PAK - A. POISSONNIER<br>Accounting for technology, trade and final</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>

<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>G2017/01</td>
      <td>D. FOUGÈRE - E. GAUTIER - S. ROUX<br>Understanding Wage Floor Setting in Industry-<br>Level Agreements: Evidence from France</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2017/02</td>
      <td>Y. DUBOIS - M. KOUBI<br>Regles d'indexation des pensions et sensibilité<br>des dépenses de retraites à la croissance<br>économique et aux chocs démographiques</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2017/03</td>
      <td>A. CAZENAVE-LACROUTZ - F. GODET<br>L'espérance de vie en retrait sans incapacité<br>sèvère des générations nées entre 1960 et<br>1990 : une projection à partir du modèle Destinine</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2017/04</td>
      <td>J. BARDAJI - B. CAMPAGNE -<br>M.-B. KHDER - Q. LAFFÉTER - O. SIMON<br>(Insee)<br>A-S) DUFERNEZ - C. ELEZAAR -<br>P. LEBLANC - E. MASSON -<br>H. PARTOUCHE (DG-Trésor)<br>Le modèle macroéconométrique Mésange :<br>rés estimation et nouveautés</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2017/05</td>
      <td>J. BOUSSARD - B. CAMPAGNE<br>Fiscal Policy Coordination in a Monetary<br>Union at the Zero-Lower-Bound</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2017/06</td>
      <td>A. CAZENAVE-LACROUTZ -<br>A. GODZINSKI<br>Effects of the one-day waiting period for sick<br>leave on health-related absences in the<br>French central civil service</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2017/07</td>
      <td>P. CHARNOZ - M. ORAND<br>Qualification, prog ress technique et marchés<br>du travail locaux en France, 1990-2011</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2017/08</td>
      <td>K. MILIN<br>Modélisation de l'inflation en France par une<br>approche macrosectorielle</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2017/09</td>
      <td>C.-M. CHEVALIER - R. LARDEUX<br>Homeownership and labor market outcomes:<br>disentangling externality and composition<br>effects</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2017/10</td>
      <td>P. BEAUMONT<br>Time is Money: Cash-Flow Risk and Export<br>Market Behavior</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/01</td>
      <td>S. ROUX - F. SAVIGNAC<br>SMES' financing: Divergence across Euro<br>area countries?</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/02</td>
      <td>C.-M. CHEVALIER - A. LUCIANI<br>Computerization, labor productivity and<br>employment: impacts across industries vary<br>with technological level</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/03</td>
      <td>R. MONIN - M. SUAREZ CASTILLO<br>L'effet du CICE sur les prix : une double<br>analyse sur données sectorielles et<br>individuelles</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/04</td>
      <td>R. LARDEUX<br>Who Understands The French Income Tax?<br>Bunching Where Tax Liabilities Start</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>

<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/05</td>
      <td>C.-M. CHEVALIER<br>Financial constraints of innovative firms and<br>sectoral growth</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/06</td>
      <td>R. S.-H. LEE - M. PAK<br>Pro-competitive effects of globalisation on<br>prices, productivity and markups: Evidence<br>in the Euro Area</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/07</td>
      <td>C.-M. CHEVALIER<br>Consumption inequality in France between<br>1995 and 2011</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/08</td>
      <td>A. BAUER - B. GARBINTI -<br>S. GEORGES-KOT<br>Financial Constraints and Self-Employment<br>in France, 1945-2014</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/09</td>
      <td>P. BEAUMONT - A. LUCIANI<br>Prime à l'embauche dans les PME :<br>évaluation à partir des déclarations<br>d'embauche</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/10</td>
      <td>C. BELLÉGO - V. DORTET-BERNADET -<br>M. TÉPAUT<br>Collaboration de deux dispositifs d'aide à la<br>R&D collaborative public-privé</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/11</td>
      <td>R. MONIN - M. SUAREZ CASTILLO<br>Replication et rapprochement des travaux<br>d'évaluation de l'affet du CICE sur l'emploi<br>en 2013 et 2014</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2018/12</td>
      <td>A. CAZENAVE-LACROUTZ - F. GODET -<br>V. LIN<br>L'introduction d'un gradient social dans la<br>maltrité au sein du modèle Destologie 2</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2019/01</td>
      <td>M. ANDRÉ - A.-L. BIOTTEAU<br>Effets de moyen terme d'une hausse de TVA<br>sur le niveau de vie et les inégalités : une<br>approche par microsimulation</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2019/02</td>
      <td>A. BOURGEOIS - A. BRIAND<br>Le modèle Avionic : la modélisation<br>Input/Output des comptes nationaux</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2019/03</td>
      <td>A. GODZINSKI - M. SUAREZ CASTILLO<br>Short-term health effects of public transport<br>disruptions: air pollution and viral spread<br>channels</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2019/04</td>
      <td>L. AEBERHARDT - F. HATIER -<br>M. LECLAIR - B. PENTINAT - J.-D. ZAFAR<br>L'économie numérique fausse-t-elle le<br>partage volume-prix du PIB?</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2019/05</td>
      <td>A. CAZENAVE-LACROUTZ - E. YILMAZ<br>Dans quelle mesure les incitations tarifaires<br>et la procédure de mise sous accord<br>préalable ont-elles contribué au<br>développement du chirurgie ambulatoire?</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2019/06</td>
      <td>J.-P. CLING - S. EGHBAL-TEHERANI -<br>M. ORZONI - C. PLATEAU<br>The Differences between EU Countries for<br>Sustainable Development Indicators:<br>It is (mainly) the Economy!</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2019/07</td>
      <td>P. CHONÉ - L. WILNER<br>Competition on Unobserved Attributes: The<br>Case of the Hospital Industry</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
G2019/08 P. PORA – L. WILNER
Child Penalties and Financial Incentives: Exploiting Variation along the Wage Distribution

G2019/09 E. GAUTIER – S. ROUX – M. SUAREZ
CASTILLO
Do Minimum Wages make Wages more Rigid? Evidence from French Micro Data

G2019/10 M. ANDRÉ – A. SIREY JOL
Imposition des couples et des familles: effets budgétaires et redistributifs de l'impôt sur le revenu

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

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

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

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

G2019/15 G. CETTE – L. KOEHL – T. PHILIPPON
Labor Share in Some Advanced Countries

G2020/01 J. SILHOL – B. VENTELOU
Les zones d'intervention prioritaire reflètent- elles des écarts de pratiques des médecins généralistes?

G2020/02 B. BOUCHTENIK – R. LARDEUX
The Take-Up of Unemployment Benefit Extensions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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