# The persistence of subjective well-being: permanent happiness, transitory misery?

Lionel Wilner

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

## To cite this version:

Lionel Wilner. The persistence of subjective well-being: permanent happiness, transitory misery?. 2020. hal-05385769

HAL Id: hal-05385769

https://insee.hal.science/hal-05385769v1

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° G2020/08

Septembre 2020

The persistence of subjective well-being:
permanent happiness, transitory misery?

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

G2020/08

# The persistence of subjective well-being: permanent happiness, transitory misery?

LIONEL WILNER*

Septembre 2020

Département des Études Économiques – Timbre G201
88, avenue Verdier – CS 70 058 – 92 541 MONTROUGE CEDEX – France
Tél. : 33 (1) 87 69 59 54 – E-mail : d3e-dg@insee.fr – Site Web Insee : http://www.insee.fr

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

<footnote>* Insee-Crest. Address: 88 avenue Verdier, 92120 Montrouge, France. Tel: (+33)187695917. Email: lionel.wilner@insee.fr.</footnote>
# Persistance du bien-être subjectif : bonheur permanent, malheurs passagers ?

## Résumé

Ce travail s'attache à séparer les rôles respectifs de la dépendance d'état et de l'hétérogénéité inobservée dans l'évaluation du bien-être subjectif réalisée par les individus eux-mêmes. Il estime un modèle dynamique ordonné sur des données de panel, principalement à partir de sources françaises, mais en mobilisant également des sources allemandes, anglaises et australiennes. La satisfaction dans la vie renseignée par les individus est persistante au cours du temps, persistance omise, par définition, par des modèles statiques. Cette persistance est surtout hétérogène puisqu'elle concerne principalement le haut de la distribution de bien-être subjectif ; les insatisfactions déclarées semblent, au contraire, plus transitoires. Enfin, les conditions initiales jouent un rôle prépondérant en comparaison avec les déterminants usuels du bien-être subjectif, dépendance d'état incluse.

**Mots-clés** : Bonheur ; bien-être subjectif ; satisfaction dans la vie ; modèle dynamique ; dépendance d'état ; effets aléatoires corrélés ; conditions initiales.

# The persistence of subjective well-being: permanent happiness, transitory misery?

## Abstract:

This paper disentangles the roles played by state dependence and unobserved heterogeneity in self-assessed happiness. It estimates a dynamic nonlinear model of subjective well-being on longitudinal data, primarily from France, but also from Australia, Germany, and the UK. Life satisfaction is persistent over time, which static models ignore. This persistence is heterogeneous across individuals: it concerns mostly those already happy with their lives while, in contrast, unhappiness seems more transitory. The impact of initial conditions is large in comparison with usual determinants of happiness, or with state dependence.

**Keywords:** Happiness; subjective well-being; life satisfaction; dynamic model; state dependence; correlated random effects; initial conditions.

**Classification JEL** : I31.
# 1 Introduction

Longitudinal surveys on subjective well-being have enabled researchers to isolate the role played by different time-varying factors (e.g., income, unemployment, marriage, widowhood) on self-assessed happiness. On top of observed characteristics, unobserved heterogeneity accounts for a large part of the dispersion in individual subjective well-being: omitted variables, optimism or pessimism bias, scale effects or pure heterogeneity in preferences can nevertheless be controlled for thanks to panel data combined with appropriate econometrics, e.g., fixed effects. Surprisingly, the dynamics of self-assessed happiness has not been the object of much attention: though subjective well-being likely exhibits a strong inertia, the quantification of such an autocorrelation is rare in the literature. Yet missing the dynamic part of the picture, including initial conditions, is misleading.

In this paper, I document the persistence of subjective well-being as well as its heterogeneity. In particular, I disentangle the respective roles played by state dependence and by initial conditions. Subjective well-being is often proxied by life satisfaction and self-assessed by individuals on a Cantril scale, i.e., on a discrete scale that ranges from 0 to 10. I estimate therefore a dynamic, ordered Logit model with correlated random effects; this nonlinear model allows me to separate state dependence from unobserved heterogeneity, hence to emphasize the role of persistence in reported life satisfaction. It also enables me to deal with self-assessed life satisfaction as a polytomous variable, to model the initial condition, and thus to approximate unobserved heterogeneity as parsimoniously as possible. The current analysis is primarily based on a French panel dataset, SRCV, from 2013 to 2017, but I show that the main results also hold in Australia, in Germany and in the UK, these countries disposing of longitudinal surveys that can be easily accessed to by researchers and which include some measure of subjective well-being. The main findings can be summarized as follows: (i) state dependence is significant at usual levels; (ii) its magnitude is strong when compared to usual determinants of happiness; (iii) it is asymmetric: happier people tend to remain happy more than less happy people; put differently, happiness looks rather persistent while unhappiness is rather transitory, and (iv) even more important in the dynamics of self-assessed happiness is the role played by initial conditions, which relates to fixed unobserved heterogeneity. Usual determinants of subjective well-being remain significant once state dependence and unobserved heterogeneity have been
controlled for: having a partner improves life satisfaction while unemployment has a depressing effect -and so do deprivation indicators measuring quality of life, or negative capabilities (Sen, 1979). Current (transitory) income tends to matter less than average (permanent) income. Education, gender and occupation turn out to be mostly non-significant at usual levels. However, the empirical evidence at stake suggests that misspecification of static models is substantial, given the magnitude of the autocorrelation at stake: for instance, top past happiness would cushion the impact of unemployment, poor health and weak social ties altogether. The corresponding impact of initial conditions is even higher. More generally, controlling for persistence and unobserved heterogeneity achieves both a better fit and a more accurate description of the whole story of individual happiness.

These results are robust to parametric assumptions, to endogenous attrition concerns as well as to balancing issues. Moreover, in order to be sure that these findings are specific neither to my dataset, nor to France, I resort to three other panels: (i) the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey, (ii) the UK Understanding Society (UKUS) survey that took over the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS), with 8 waves from 2009 to 2018, and (iii) the German SOcio Economic Panel (GSOEP) available from 1984 to 2017. Both descriptive transition matrices of subjective well-being at the individual level and estimations from the same econometric model as before concur to similar findings. Once again, happiness is significantly persistent, especially at the top of the distribution. These results are obtained after neutralizing the role played by the institutional setting, including survey design; they strengthen previous empirical evidence and give some credit to the idea of unveiling some empirical regularity of individual behavior in the data.

Where does state dependence in self-assessed life satisfaction come from? Autocorrelation might arise from people not changing their mind every year about their subjective well-being. A possible explanation could lie in individuals evaluating once-and-for-all their average, permanent satisfaction with life, from which they would rarely deviate across different waves of longitudinal surveys, but depart from it when they experience good or bad shocks. Such a behavior would resemble to anchoring effects according to which agents would stick to initial or past self-evaluation. Interestingly, the revealed heterogeneity in happiness persistence, namely the asymmetry between upward and downward mobility in reported
subjective well-being, suggests that unhappiness is more transitory. This might indicate that it is more difficult to revise downwards one's self-evaluation of life satisfaction, due to psychological costs for instance.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The next section is devoted to a literature review. Section 3 describes the French SRCV data and the econometric model is presented in Section 4. Results are discussed in Section 5 and Section 6 investigates some robustness checks, including the estimation on data from other countries. Section 7 concludes.

## 2 Literature

Key determinants of subjective well-being, often proxied by life satisfaction, have been widely documented by the literature: see, for instance, the excellent survey by Layard et al. (2015). The main types of determinants of life satisfaction are: (i) individual determinants (income: Easterlin (1974), Clark et al. (1996), Clark et al. (2005), Senik (2005), Clark and Senik (2010), age: Clark et al. (1996), labor force status<fnref n="1" /> family status, objective indicators of the quality of life: Godefroy and Lollivier (2014); education, gender, occupation are seldom significant, but can be invoked depending on the country); (ii) macroeconomic determinants (GDP growth, unemployment rate, inflation, inequality, environmental issues, government and unions, not pretending to be exhaustive; their identification requires variation across countries, hence they are often absent in a one-country econometric analysis): see, e.g., Tella et al. (2003) on that topic; (iii) spatial determinants (rural versus urban areas: Easterlin et al. (2011), regional effects: Oswald and Wu (2010), the price of gasoline: Boyd-Swan and Herbst (2012), among others). However, the dynamics of subjective well-being, often proxied by life satisfaction, has been often ignored.

From a methodological perspective, subjective well-being is specific in the sense that individuals are asked to report their life satisfaction on an ordered, discrete scale. To deal with ordinality, researchers have estimated ordered polytomous models that rely on a latent, unobserved but cardinal propensity to happiness. In

<footnote n="1">¹Being unemployed causes significant, persistent losses (Clark and Oswald, 1994). Interestingly, Clark et al. (2008) show that the recovery after such unfortunate career shocks is much slower than it is after personal events like widowhood.</footnote>
practice though, estimating linear models does not affect the sign of the covariates,<fnref n="2" />
and yields qualitatively similar results.

Moreover, many studies on subjective well-being relied first on cross-sectional data, which limits the ability of the researcher to control for unobserved heterogeneity. As soon as panel data have been available on that topic, econometric specifications have included individual effects, which do a better job at controlling for unobserved heterogeneity, and hence limit omitted variable biases (see Ferrer-i Carbonell and Frijters (2004) on that topic). For instance, the problem of optimism (or pessimism) arises as soon as one seeks to explain the level of subjective well-being from a cross-sectional analysis: two individuals may well report very different answers as regards their life satisfaction, though they look close in the sense that their observed characteristics are similar. To take unobserved heterogeneity into account, but also to avoid the problem of incidental parameters, the literature has estimated conditional ordered Logit models with fixed effects, see, e.g., Frijters et al. (2004). Though such models are powerful tools to capture unobserved heterogeneity, their identification relies on a subset of movers; empirically, this restriction induces likely a dramatic selection.

According to Hsiao (2003), state dependence and individual heterogeneity offer "diametrically opposite" explanations of persistence in life satisfaction outcome. Few dynamic models have been considered so far: the role of state dependence has rarely been explored *per se*, though recommended by Clark (2018). Exceptions include Frijters et al. (2011) who considered the dynamics of covariates and assessed how current life satisfaction depends on past events like getting married or divorced, becoming unemployed, widowhood, etc. Bottan and Truglia (2011) tries to disentangle a "specific habituation" channel, namely the causal effect of lagged covariates, from a "general habituation" channel, which has trait to the persistent nature of subjective well-being *per se*. According to Wunder (2012) who exhibits an "adaptation" channel, individuals update their expectations as a response to changing circumstances. However, none of these papers address the ordinal nature of the data, which I propose to do here by estimating a nonlinear, ordered polytomous model that fits better the data. On top of that, I investigate the heterogeneity of persistence across reported levels of life satisfaction: to the best of my knowledge, this has not been the object of any attention up to now.

<footnote n="2">²That sign is identified non-parametrically.</footnote>
# 3 Data

Many papers in happiness economics have used data from Germany, from the UK or from Australia since all these countries dispose of longitudinal surveys (resp. GSOEP, BHPS and HILDA) that enable researchers to follow individuals over time and to learn about changes in their subjective well-being. Following the recommendation of the Stiglitz et al. (2009) commission, France has also started to ask individuals directly how they felt about their lives. The Insee produces the SRCV survey (enquête Statistique sur les Ressources et Conditions de Vie) targeting about 10,000 households every year. From 2010 onwards, it has included several questions related to individual life satisfaction, job satisfaction, and satisfaction with family and friends. On top of these measures of subjective well-being, it offers usual information at the individual level: gender, age, education, occupation, family status and labor force status. Income is measured at the household level; in what follows, I consider the logarithm of the CPI-deflated annual household income, i.e., the sum of real incomes from all members in the household divided by the number of units of consumption as defined by the OECD scale.<fnref n="3" />

The unit in charge of SRCV at Insee indicates that, though the survey has started in 2010, its reliability casts doubts before 2013. The questionnaire has been modified in 2013: questions relative to life satisfaction have been placed after those relative to income. *De facto*, a break in the time series of life satisfaction can be observed from that date. Hence I assume that the first reliable wave, common to all individuals, is 2013.

Table 1 shows some descriptive statistics relative to the working sample, an unbalanced panel of 19,253 individuals followed from 2013 to 2017 with at least two consecutive observations, which will matter for a proper identification of the role played by state dependence and whose annual income exceeds €1. Subjective well-being is measured on a Cantril scale ranging from 0 to 10. It has an average score of 7.17, it is rather concentrated around levels 7 and 8 (see Figure 1), it nevertheless uses the whole support of the distribution and it has a cross-sectional coefficient of variation as small as .23. Women and elders are slightly over-represented (62% of the sample aged 55 on average), which is usual in French household surveys.

<footnote n="3">³According to this scale, the first adult in the household has weight 1, the other adults or children aged at least 14 have a weight equal to .5, and children aged less than 14 have a weight equal to .3.</footnote>
The average income amounts to nearly €26,000 per year. Income exhibits sizeable dispersion: its coefficient of variation is roughly 1.4 and the top 1% earns more than €86,000 a year. As regards education, 32% of individuals in the sample have a vocational degree, 29% graduated from high-school, 16% from college while 23% don't have any degree. As far as labor force status is concerned, about 47% of the sample is employed while 39% is retired. The remaining part of the sample is either unemployed or inactive. One half of the sample is made up of current or former clerks (28%) or individuals with an intermediate occupation (22%); the others are (or were) mainly blue collars (17%) or white collars (13%). Regarding family status, singles account for one quarter of the sample, while nearly 40% of individuals are living with a partner; then come parents of two children (11%), one child (9%), three children at least (5%) and single parents (4%). Finally, indicators measuring the objective quality of life are available in the survey: the exposition to psycho-social hazard, health problems, environment troubles, poor living conditions, (economic or general) insecurity as well as the weakness of social ties. Between 2% and 14% of individuals are exposed to at least one of such problems.

Turning to the persistence of subjective well-being, the main insight from Figure 1 which depicts the evolution of aggregate subjective well-being from 2013 to 2017 in France is that the distribution of answers is rather stable from year to year.

Focusing now at the *individual* level, about 1/5 of surveyed individuals report systematically the same level of life satisfaction over the five waves (Table 2). For slightly more than 1/3 of them, the difference between the highest and the lowest self-assessed level of life satisfaction is equal to one, while for about 1/4 of them, this difference is equal to two. That difference exceeds three for a last 1/4 of individuals, which suggests that subjective well-being is persistent over time at the individual level. It is therefore consistent with the hypothesis that individuals have some anchor in mind, from which they depart in case of favorable or less favorable shocks.

Table 3 provides with the transition matrix of individual levels of life satisfaction, and confirms that persistence of subjective well-being over time is strong. Its diagonal is heavy, which means that the probability of reporting the same level of life satisfaction as the year before is high. The most plausible past level of life
satisfaction, given any current, self-assessed level of life satisfaction, is that very
same level, few exceptions aside (namely, levels 2, 4 and 9). Yet most models
of subjective well-being are static and ignore state dependence, i.e., they do not
include any lagged variable as an explanatory variable. Hence they assume that
each destination state has the same probability, regardless of the initial state. The
main lesson from this descriptive analysis is that this assumption is rejected on the
data: this transition matrix suggests that happiness is almost an absorbing state.

Interestingly, this persistence looks asymmetric: happiest individuals tend to stay happy, while unhappiness tends to be more transitory. As one gets higher in the distribution of reported levels of life satisfaction, the annual probabilities of reporting the same level of subjective well-being as before increase: the coefficients on the diagonal may be as high as 52.2% (level 8), and do not fall below 35.4% (level 9). By contrast, they are comprised between 11.4% (level 2) and 24.5% (level 0) at the bottom of that distribution. Even though upward mobility is mechanically more frequent at the bottom, it is striking to see that individuals reporting a level less than 4 have at least nearly 3/4 chance to see their life satisfaction increase next year. Intermediate levels 5 and 6 exhibit a slightly upward-biased trend, too: their annual persistence ranges from 26% to 31% with a probability of having a higher subjective well-being higher than 1/2. To sum up, from levels 0 to 6, upward mobility is more likely while inertia is more plausible from level 7 onwards. Put differently, defining happiness as reporting a level 8 or higher, the transition matrix of the latter would be symmetric with 3/4 on its diagonal and equally distributed states among the population; doing the same with unhappiness defined as reporting a level 5 or less would yield a 40% chance of departing from unhappiness for the 6% concerned individuals.

To confirm previous eyeball impressions and to check that they are not the
mere consequence of both observed and unobserved heterogeneity, an econometric
model that disentangles carefully state dependence from heterogeneity is however
needed.

4 Model

To take both state dependence and unobserved heterogeneity into account, I con-
sider an econometric specification that relies on a dynamic, ordered Logit with
correlated random effects and unknown thresholds. Let $y_{it}$ be the dependent variable, i.e., subjective well-being, ranging from $j = 0$ to $j = J \equiv 10.4$ To deal with ordinal preferences, the ordered polytomous model assumes the existence of an explicit relationship between the observed variable $y_{it}$ and some unobserved, latent variable $y_{it}^*$ such that $\forall j \in [0, J]$,

$$y_{it} = j \iff y_{it}^* \in [s_j, s_{j+1}]$$

or equivalently,

$$y_{it} = \sum_{j=0}^{J} j \mathbb{1}\{s_j \le y_{it}^* < s_{j+1}\}. \quad (1)$$

The main advantage of this approach consists in retrieving both linearity and cardinality for the latent variable $y_{it}^*$. $\{s_j\}_{j=1}^J$ are the unknown thresholds with $s_0 = -\infty$ and $s_{J+1} = +\infty$.

I consider a dynamic model on the latent variable of the form:

$$y_{it}^* = \sum_j \rho_j \mathbb{1}[y_{i,t-1} = j] + x_{it}\beta + \alpha_i + \varepsilon_{it},$$

where idiosyncratic shocks $\varepsilon_{it}$ follow the logistic distribution with mean 0 and variance $\frac{\pi^2}{3}$. As in Wooldridge (2005), state dependence is allowed to be nonlinear, too – namely specific to every value of past subjective well-being: the $\rho_j$ coefficient is related to lagged $j$-value of life satisfaction.

At this stage, a first option could be to posit individual fixed effects, i.e., in making no parametric assumption on the distribution of $\alpha_i$. This solution requires however to overcome the incidental parameter problem (Neyman et al., 1948; Lan-caster, 2000). When the model is linear, differencing enables the econometrician to get rid of individual fixed effects. By contrast, in nonlinear models, the max-imum likelihood estimator (MLE) is generally not consistent and asymptotically normal (CAN) due to the presence of numerous incidental parameters. In the Logit case, a well-known trick consists in conditioning the likelihood of an ob-served sequence $(y_{i1}, \dots, y_{iT})$ by a sufficient statistics in order to make the fixed effects disappear of the likelihood. This so-called conditional likelihood estima-

<footnote n="4">⁴It is possible to consider a model with a smaller number of groups, say 7, to mimic the UK case after grouping 0-2, 3-4 and 5-6 levels for instance. The corresponding estimates are available upon request: the results are robust to such an aggregation choice.</footnote>
tion (CLE) has been used by Rasch (1960); Andersen (1973); Chamberlain (1980); Honoré and Kyriazidou (2000); Magnac (2000); Frijters et al. (2004). In the case of a dynamic Logit model with fixed effects, a sufficient statistics corresponds to the number of occurrences of each state in the observed sequence of outcomes, initial and terminal conditions aside; in the binary case, Bartolucci and Nigro (2010, 2012) refer to total scores. This method is the analog, in spirit, to first-differencing in linear models. However, its cost is rather high since it requires to compute the denominator of the conditional likelihood which is composed of numerous terms. Moreover, the identification of the model relies on a subset of individuals only, the "movers", i.e., individuals whose sequence is not constant over time; these supplementary exclusion restrictions may be problematic in practice since they often constrain the estimation to rely on small sub-samples.

Another option consists in assuming some parametric form for the individual effects $\alpha_i$, typically a normal distribution: this solution corresponds namely to the random effect approach. To enrich the latter, I consider rather the correlated random effects (CRE) solution à la Chamberlain (1982). Its main advantages are (i) to approximate fixed effects as much as possible by allowing for an explicit relationship between the individual effect and the covariates; (ii) to solve the initial condition problem that arises in dynamic models. Once again, two options are possible. As put by Arulampalam and Stewart (2009), "the Heckman (1981) estimator approximates the joint probability of the full observed y sequence ($y_0, y_1, \dots, y_T$). Wooldridge (2005) on the other hand, has proposed an alternative conditional maximum likelihood estimator that considers the distribution of ($y_1, y_2, \dots, y_T$) conditional on the initial period value $y_0$ (and exogenous variables)". I follow the latter approach and assume that

$$ \alpha_i|y_{i0}, \boldsymbol{x}_{\boldsymbol{i}} \sim \mathcal{N} \left( \sum_{j=0}^{J} \rho_j^0 1[y_{i0} = j] + \boldsymbol{x}_{\boldsymbol{i}0}^{\prime} \boldsymbol{\gamma}^{\boldsymbol{0}} + \overline{\boldsymbol{x}_{\boldsymbol{i}}^{\prime}} \boldsymbol{\gamma}, \sigma_u^2 \right), \quad (2) $$

where $\boldsymbol{x}_{\boldsymbol{i}} = (x_{i0}, \dots, x_{i,T_i-1})$ if the researcher disposes of $T_i$ observations for individual $i$. This parametric restriction enables me (i) to get rid of the incidental parameter problem; (ii) to model the initial condition; (iii) to avoid programming the maximization of the conditional likelihood. Lastly, I follow Rabe-Hesketh and Skrondal (2013) who propose a more parsimonious specification of the individual effect. They show that including initial $\boldsymbol{x}_{i0}$ and mean values of covariates $\overline{\boldsymbol{x}_{\boldsymbol{i}}}$
is sufficient,<fnref n="5" /> as opposed to including the whole set of covariates at all dates (Wooldridge, 2005). This approximation of unobserved heterogeneity is reminiscent of Mundlak (1978).

In the end, the estimating equation is:

$$y_{it}^* = \sum_{j=0}^{J} (\rho_j 1[y_{i,t-1} = j] + \rho_j^0 1[y_{i0} = j]) + x'_{it}\beta + x'_{i0}\gamma^0 + \overline{x'_{i}}\gamma + u_i + \epsilon_{it} \quad (3)$$

with $u_i \sim N(0, \sigma_u^2)$.<fnref n="6" />

As usual in dynamic models, strict exogeneity can't be assumed because of the presence of lagged variables in (3), which is a source of endogeneity, i.e., of correlation between current shocks and past outcomes. The identification of the model requires predetermination, but also strict exogeneity of the covariates $x_i$ conditional on the individual effects $\alpha_i$.

Two normalizations are required for the joint identification of agents preferences and of unknown thresholds viewed as parameters to be estimated: (i) location: $\beta_0 = 0$, for shifting the constant and the thresholds simultaneously by some constant yields an observationally equivalent model; (ii) scale $\sigma_\epsilon^2 = \pi^2/3$ (Logit) or $\sigma_\epsilon^2 = 1$ (Probit), for multiplying the latent and all its parameters yields the same likelihood. Under these normalizations, the vector of parameters $\theta = (\beta, \gamma, \gamma^0, \rho, \rho^0, s, \sigma_u)$ is identified.

As regards estimation, Wooldridge (2005) shows that the MLE is CAN as $N$ grows large even for small, fixed $T$. This holds as soon as $T \ge 3$, which is required in order to disentangle the role of initial from that of past subjective well-being.

Two ways may still be ahead as far as the idiosyncratic shocks $\epsilon$ are concerned, a standard normal distribution (Probit) or a logistic distribution (Logit). Empirically, the latter produces a better fit, i.e., yields a higher likelihood.<fnref n="7" /> Robustness checks are nevertheless provided with respect to that choice in section 6.1. Besides, average partial effects are close in both specifications. Moreover, the Logit permits an interpretation in terms of odds ratios, which the Probit does not allow.

<footnote n="5">⁵Time-constant variables and time dummies are dropped from the list of initial and mean covariates.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶Lee (2016) considered an equation of this form when focusing on health status in Korea.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷Due to the fatter tails of the logistic distribution, the Logit model puts more weight on extreme events.</footnote>
A last concern is the selection of covariates, i.e., of explanatory variables $x_{it}$ in the estimating equation. First, the literature devoted to the individual determinants of subjective well-being provides with some guidance. Second, statistical methods based either on the BIC, on the (rigorous) Lasso, or on a stepwise algorithm provide with useful tools to select the most relevant variables. In practice, I find that both the literature and statistical criteria (estimated on the static model) are globally consistent: the list of relevant covariates include objective quality of life, labor force status, family status, income and age. To be exhaustive though, education, occupation, gender and year dummies are also included.

# 5 Results

Tables 4 to 6 display the results from the main specification, namely equation (3), estimated on the unbalanced panel.<fnref n="8" /> Carefully comparing columns allows me to disentangle the role played by unobserved heterogeneity from that played by state dependence. While column (1) omits individual effects in a pooled, cross-sectional regression fashion, column (2) includes a pure, random effect that is uncorrelated with covariates. Column (3) consists of the same correlated random effect approach as in column (4) but does not include the lagged dependent variable as an explanatory covariate, which column (4) does. Put differently, column (3) imposes the constraint $ρ = 0$ with respect to the dynamic model of column (4), the preferred specification; column (2) assumes further that $γ = γ^0 = ρ^0 = 0$ and column (1) adds up $u_i = u, ∀i$. On the one hand, state dependence is encompassed by $ρ$: hence its role can be isolated by a direct comparison between columns (3) and (4), given that the sample is voluntarily identical (hence the need of restricting our attention to individuals with at least two consecutive observations), so that observations contributing to the identification of the parameters of the model are the same in all columns. On the other hand, $γ, γ^0, ρ^0$ as well as the residual variance account for unobserved heterogeneity, the role of initial conditions being encompassed by $ρ^0$. As a caveat, an eyeball, quantitative comparison across columns would be misleading since the coefficients do not have a common scale (see, e.g., Contoyannis et al., 2004); however, this warning concerns neither rel-

<footnote n="8">⁸For the sake of readability, the same Table of results has been cut into three parts. Though available upon request, $γ$ and $γ_0$ coefficients are not reported, at the exception of the estimate corresponding to mean income.</footnote>
ative, nor qualitative comparisons (namely, significance). Average partial effects
permit nevertheless a quantitative comparison across columns.

I find empirical evidence of state dependence, which confirms the eyeball im-
pression given by Table 3. The estimated autocorrelation vector ρ is statistically
significant at usual levels: H₀ : ρ₁ = ... = ρ₁₀ = 0 is rejected at 5%, the χ²(10)
statistic being 196.99. Moreover, state dependence turns to have a nonlinear im-
pact on the latent propensity to happiness: H₀ : ρⱼ − ρⱼ₊₁ = ρⱼ₊₁ − ρⱼ₊₂, ∀j =
0, ..., K − 2, is also rejected at 5% with a χ²(9) statistic of 57.57, which justifies
the specification of state dependence adopted here with respect to a more par-
simonious, linear one. It is striking to notice that only the highest levels of life
satisfaction exhibit state dependence, while the lowest levels of subjective well-
being have less inertia: this evidence confirms the asymmetry observed in the
descriptive analysis. Formally, H₀ : ρ₁ = ... = ρ₆ = 0 is rejected at 5%, the χ²(6)
statistics being 22.29 with a p-value of .001, while H₀ : ρ₁ = ... = ρ₅ = 0 cannot
be rejected at 5%, the χ²(5) statistics being 10.55 with a p-value of .06. In that
sense, happiness, defined as a reported level of life satisfaction higher than 7, is
persistent, while unhappiness, defined as a reported level of life satisfaction lower
than 5, is not.

Moreover, the role played by the initial condition, measured by ρ⁰, is strong,
as in Wooldridge (2005). In particular, it is a first-order issue to explain the
persistence of subjective well-being even when compared to state dependence: the
magnitude of the impact of initial conditions ρ⁰ exceeds the one related to the
lagged dependent variable ρ.

Average partial effects (APEs)<fnref n="9" /> enable me to quantify previous statements, to
compare the relative effects of state dependence and of other explanatory variables,
and to answer the question: by how much is the impact of the main determinants
of subjective well-being attenuated when taking initial conditions and state depen-
dence into account? Though APEs are computed for all covariates and for each
of the eleven levels of self-assessed life satisfaction, Table 7 summarizes the APEs
of selected variables only (current and mean income, unemployed, some kinds of
marital status, poor health, weak social ties and lagged life satisfaction) on the
probability to report the highest level, i.e., level 10, of life satisfaction – for the

<footnote n="9">⁹For continuous regressors such as income, these APEs are obtained by taking the derivative of the ordered Logit probabilities with respect to the variable in question. For discrete regressors, such as lagged life satisfaction, they are obtained by taking differences.</footnote>
sake of readability.<fnref n="10" /> We already knew that unemployment diminished that probability, we now learn that controlling neither for unobserved heterogeneity, nor for state dependence leads to overestimate its impact by 1/3. The same holds as regards weak social ties and poor health, for which the overestimation bias is even more pronounced, the attenuation factor being strictly higher than 2. It is also confirmed that parents of more than 2 children do not report more frequently level 10 than other couples, contrary to what a naive analysis would conclude. Having a partner raises by 2pp the propensity of being most satisfied with one's life. A 1% increase in permanent income raises that probability by 1.6pp. Interestingly, the effect of pure state dependence, i.e., of reporting level 10 the year before, increases the probability of reporting that very level by 7.1 points: for the sake of comparison, unemployment, poor health and weak social ties altogether make this probability decrease by nearly the same amount.

The current analysis encompasses main stylized facts in happiness economics. It must yet be acknowledged that the identifying source of variation for the effects of covariates differs substantially when moving from a RE specification (column (2)) to a CRE specification (column (3)). The former relies on inter-individual differences while the latter stems mostly from intra-individual, or temporal, differences. On top of that, the CRE specification considered here allows to disentangle the role played by average covariates (say, the *level*) from the one played by initial covariates (say, the *growth*). First, objective deprivation indicators measuring the quality of life are the strongest predictors of a lower life satisfaction, especially the weakness of social ties, poor living conditions, and poor health, which is consistent with the previous evidence found by Godefroy and Lollivier (2014). The $\gamma^0$ coefficients<fnref n="11" /> for these indicators are significantly positive while corresponding $\beta$ and $\gamma$ coefficients<fnref n="12" /> are significantly negative, which suggests that the effect stems from both between and within dimensions. Put differently, people with a poor objective quality of life tend to report lower levels of subjective well-being, and an individual who becomes deprived declares herself more unhappy, too -as individuals with a trend towards deprivation do. Second, unemployment is a major cause of misery, and stems mostly from the fact of losing one's job. Third, the role of family status can be precised: partners and parents do not differ much from singles in the sense

<footnote n="10">¹⁰All other APEs are available upon request.</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹not reported in the Tables for the sake of readability, available upon request.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹²Same as footnote 11.</footnote>
that their $\gamma$ coefficients are not significantly different from zero at usual levels. However, finding a partner and having children increases self-assessed well-being: their $\beta$ (and $\gamma^0$) coefficients are positive and significant. In other words, these people are not happier *per se* but unions and children make them (temporarily) happier. However, this interpretation is complicated by composition effects, the reference category here being the "always singles", and not the "once singles" as in the RE specification. Fourth, the CRE approach makes it possible to identify the channel through which income matters, i.e., average income. In other words, *transitory income*, i.e., current shocks of income viewed as deviations from average or *permanent income*, matter less than the latter, which is reminiscent of the result obtained by Frijters et al. (2004), among many others. Moreover, the corresponding $\gamma^0$ being negative suggests that income growth is correlated with a higher life satisfaction. Fifth, the U-shape with age is retrieved. Sixth, gender does not matter. Seventh, neither does education. Eighth, neither does occupation – farmers aside, who are significantly far less satisfied with their lives.

Finally, from a purely statistical perspective, the fit of the model, as measured by the average individual log-likelihood, reaches -1.51 in the restricted model. Put differently, the average likelihood of an observation is .22, which is quite satisfying. By construction, the fit improves as one moves from most constrained specification (column 1) to least constrained specification (column 4). A likelihood-ratio test confirms that this improvement is significant at usual levels for (i) the random effect, i.e., moving from column 1 to column 2: the test statistic is 8,380 while the .95 quantile of the $\chi^2(1)$ is 3.84, (ii) the CRE specification, i.e., moving from column 2 to column 3: the test statistic is 7,661 while the .95 quantile of the $\chi^2(66)$ is 85.97, and (iii) the lagged dependent variable, i.e., moving from column 3 to column 4: the test statistic is 316 while the .95 quantile of the $\chi^2(10)$ is 18.31. Moreover, the residual variance in subjective well-being, i.e., the dispersion of subjective well-being that remains unexplained by the full model including covariates, correlated random effects and state dependence, shrinks also mechanically as one moves from column (2) to column (4): it has been divided by a factor 2 (resp. 3 in the dynamic CRE specification) in comparison with a pure RE specification.
# 6 Robustness checks

I perform several robustness checks to assess the sensitivity of previous results with respect to (i) functional form; (ii) attrition; (iii) data. The last point deserves particular attention since it guarantees that the point made in this paper unveils some empirical regularity that is not specific to the French database; on the contrary, I find that it is common to several countries.

## 6.1 Parametric assumptions

First, I estimate an alternative parametric specification, namely a Probit model. I replicate the entire analysis by assuming that the idiosyncratic error terms $\varepsilon_{it}$ follow a normal distribution instead of a logistic distribution, although both the fit, as measured by the log-likelihood, and the parsimony, proxied by the BIC, would be worsened. From a qualitative point of view, they turn out to be very close to the previous ones. From a quantitative point of view, the same holds as regards average partial effects.<fnref n="13" />

## 6.2 Attrition

Second, I address statistical concerns related to endogenous attrition. Tables 8 to 10 display the estimates obtained on the balanced panel. From a qualitative point of view, they yield similar results as those obtained on the unbalanced panel. The main qualitative difference is related to the age effect, which disappears after controlling for state dependence on top of unobserved heterogeneity. However, this loss of significance stems from a lack of statistical power that is due to low sample size, which is less worrying.

I explore next the role played by sample attrition. I resort to a statistical test for possible attrition bias as recommended by Verbeek and Nijman (1992). Their test consists in introducing a dummy for being part of the balanced panel and the number of times an individual is present in the unbalanced sample as further explanatory variables in the previous model. In practice, both covariates turn out to be non-significant, which indicates that endogenous attrition is not too much of a problem here.<fnref n="14" />

<footnote n="13">¹³All these estimates are available upon request.</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴In case it were, a method to deal with it could have been to use the inverse probability weighting solution proposed by Wooldridge (2002).</footnote>
6.3 Replication: Australia, Germany and the UK

Third, I replicate the current analysis on other databases issued from three other
countries (Australia, Germany and the UK), which permits to neutralize the role
played by the institutional setting (including survey design). In all these countries,
stylized facts of subjective well-being are retrieved.

First, I use the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA)
Survey for which I resort to 17 waves from 2001 to 2017.15 More than 20,000 indi-
viduals report their self-assessed overall satisfaction with life on a similar Cantril
scale. Table 11 depicts annual transitions of individual answers to that question; it
suggests once again that state dependence can’t be ignored, in particular for indi-
viduals who are already satisfied with their life. An econometric analysis confirms
this impression. The same model as previously is estimated, except that quality of
life indicators are missing in the survey. Controls include age, age squared, gender,
income (measured at the household level), education, labor force status and family
status. Table 12 suggests that the very same results as those found in France hold
in Australia. To be precise, state dependence is all the more pronounced that one
gets higher in the distribution of subjective well-being, and the respective effects
of initial conditions and of state dependence look pretty similar.

Second, I resort to the GSOEP in Germany. This exceptional longitudinal
survey has been available from 1984 to 2017¹⁶ and has no less than 34 waves, which
permits to follow accurately the evolution of life satisfaction for more than 50,000
individuals. As in Australia and in France, the latter is self-reported on a Cantril
scale. Tables 13 and 14 display very similar results as before, from a qualitative
point of view. State dependence is increasing all over the distribution of subjective
well-being. The GSOEP is the unique case where the initial condition (namely, the
vector of coefficients ρ⁰) matters less than state dependence encompassed by ρ,
which is conform to the rationale: the initial condition in the GSOEP may date
back up to 33 years ago.

Third, I use the UK Understanding Society (UKUS) panel. This survey takes
over the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS), starting from 2009. Eight waves
are available for about 50,000 individuals. These people are asked about their
overall satisfaction with life and their answer is available on a discrete, ordered scale

<footnote n="15">¹⁵My code is adapted from the one provided by PanelWhiz on http://www panelwhiz eu.</footnote>

<footnote n="16">¹⁶In West Germany only; East Germany has been surveyed from the reunification onwards.</footnote>
ranging from 1 to 7. Table 15 suggests as previously that state dependence can't
be ignored, in particular for individuals who are already satisfied with their life,
which is confirmed by a *ceteris paribus* analysis. Following the recommendations
of Clark and Georgellis (2013) on how to estimate subjective well-being equations
on the BHPS, I control for age, age squared, gender, income (measured at the
household level), the number of children, dummies for married, unemployed and
self-employed individuals, as well as dummies for having a high or a medium degree,
on top of year dummies. Table 16 exhibits very similar results to those that prevail
in the other countries. Yet state dependence exhibits some non-monotonicity,
namely a U-shape here: it is more pronounced for level 2 than it is for level 3,
which suggests that bad states of life satisfaction are somehow more persistent
in the UK. Interestingly, the asymmetry observed in Australia, in France and in
Germany as regards persistence at the top and at the bottom of the distribution of
happiness was thus neither a mechanical effect, nor a statistical artifact. Finally,
initial conditions matter more than state dependence, as was the case in Australia
and in France.

7 Conclusion

This paper has disentangled the roles played by state dependence and unobserved
heterogeneity in self-assessed life satisfaction, a much ignored issue in happiness
economics. Not only is subjective well-being persistent over time at both aggre-
gate and individual levels, but this persistence turns out to be more pronounced
at the top of the distribution of self-reported happiness. Thanks to the estimation
of a dynamic, ordered Logit model with correlated random effects which permits
to take unobserved heterogeneity into account, I have shown that this empirical
evidence held in at least three other countries (Australia, Germany and the UK),
neutralizing hence the role played by the institutional setting (including survey
design). In the UK, the asymmetry is slightly less pronounced: bad states are per-
sistent, too. I have also quantified the impact of initial conditions, which is rather
large compared with the roles played by other usual determinants of happiness.

From an econometric perspective, there are at least two limits of the current
approach. First, the dynamic, nonlinear model estimated here does not include
fixed effects. A natural extension would thus consist in considering a dynamic,
ordered model with fixed effects in the vein of Frijters et al. (2004), Bartolucci and
Nigro (2010) or Carro and Traferri (2014). Second, state dependence could be modelled by higher-order Markov processes than the first-order process used here: more lags could be included in the estimating equation.

From a social science perspective, further research should try to understand which mechanisms explain such an inertia. Are cognitive biases at stake? Do anchoring effects matter? Why is it revealed as more costly for individuals to revise downwards their self-assessed evaluation of life satisfaction? Why does unhappiness look more transitory? Determining the profound causes that lie behind persistence of happiness sounds like a challenging and exciting task.

## References

Andersen, E. B. (1973). A goodness of fit test for the Rasch model. *Psychometrika*, 38(1):123–140.

Arulampalam, W. and Stewart, M. B. (2009). Simplified implementation of the Heckman estimator of the dynamic Probit model and a comparison with alternative estimators. *Oxford bulletin of economics and statistics*, 71(5):659–681.

Bartolucci, F. and Nigro, V. (2010). A dynamic model for binary panel data with unobserved heterogeneity admitting a $\sqrt{n}$-consistent conditional estimator. *Econometrica*, 78(2):719–733.

Bartolucci, F. and Nigro, V. (2012). Pseudo conditional maximum likelihood estimation of the dynamic Logit model for binary panel data. *Journal of Econometrics*, 170(1):102–116.

Bottan, N. L. and Truglia, R. P. (2011). Deconstructing the hedonic treadmill: Is happiness autoregressive? *The Journal of Socio-Economics*, 40(3):224–236.

Boyd-Swan, C. and Herbst, C. M. (2012). Pain at the pump: Gasoline prices and subjective well-being. *Journal of Urban Economics*, 72(2-3):160–175.

Carro, J. M. and Traferri, A. (2014). State dependence and heterogeneity in health using a bias-corrected fixed-effects estimator. *Journal of Applied Econometrics*, 29(2):181–207.
Chamberlain, G. (1980). Analysis of covariance with qualitative data. *The Review of Economic Studies*, 47(1):225-38.

Chamberlain, G. (1982). Multivariate regression models for panel data. *Journal of Econometrics*, 18(1):5-46.

Clark, A., Etilé, F., Postel-Vinay, F., Senik, C., and Van der Straeten, K. (2005). Heterogeneity in reported well-being: Evidence from twelve European countries. *The Economic Journal*, 115(502):C118-C132.

Clark, A., Oswald, A., and Warr, P. (1996). Is job satisfaction U-shaped in age? *Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology*, 69(1):57-81.

Clark, A. E. (2018). Four decades of the economics of happiness: Where next? *Review of Income and Wealth*, 64(2):245-269.

Clark, A. E., Diener, E., Georgellis, Y., and Lucas, R. E. (2008). Lags and leads in life satisfaction: A test of the baseline hypothesis. *The Economic Journal*, 118(529):F222-F243.

Clark, A. E. and Georgellis, Y. (2013). Back to baseline in Britain: Adaptation in the British Household Panel Survey. *Economica*, 80(319):496-512.

Clark, A. E. and Oswald, A. J. (1994). Unhappiness and unemployment. *The Economic Journal*, 104(424):648-659.

Clark, A. E. and Senik, C. (2010). Who compares to whom? The anatomy of income comparisons in Europe. *The Economic Journal*, 120(544):573-594.

Contoyannis, P., Jones, A. M., and Rice, N. (2004). The dynamics of health in the British Household Panel Survey. *Journal of Applied Econometrics*, 19(4):473-503.

Easterlin, R. A. (1974). Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence. In *Nations and households in economic growth*, pages 89-125. Elsevier.

Easterlin, R. A., Angelescu, L., and Zweig, J. S. (2011). The impact of modern economic growth on urban-rural differences in subjective well-being. *World development*, 39(12):2187-2198.
Ferrer-i Carbonell, A. and Frijters, P. (2004). How important is methodology for the estimates of the determinants of happiness? *The Economic Journal*, 114(497):641–659.

Frijters, P., Haisken-DeNew, J. P., and Shields, M. A. (2004). Money does matter! Evidence from increasing real income and life satisfaction in East Germany following reunification. *The American Economic Review*, 94(3):730–740.

Frijters, P., Johnston, D. W., and Shields, M. A. (2011). Life satisfaction dynamics with quarterly life event data. *Scandinavian Journal of Economics*, 113(1):190–211.

Godefroy, P. and Lollivier, S. (2014). Satisfaction et qualité de vie. *Économie et Statistique*, 469(1):199–232.

Heckman, J. J. (1981). Heterogeneity and state dependence. In *Studies in labor markets*, pages 91–140. University of Chicago Press.

Honoré, B. E. and Kyriazidou, E. (2000). Panel data discrete choice models with lagged dependent variables. *Econometrica*, 68(4):839–74.

Hsiao, C. (2003). *Analysis of panel data*. Cambridge University Press, Econometric Society Monographs, 2nd edition.

Lancaster, T. (2000). The incidental parameter problem since 1948. *Journal of Econometrics*, 95(2):391–413.

Layard, R. A., Clark, A., and Senik, C. (2015). The causes of happiness and misery. In *World Happiness Report, Chapter 3*. United Nations.

Lee, Y.-W. (2016). State dependence, unobserved heterogeneity, and health dynamics in Korea. *Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics*, 57(2):195–221.

Magnac, T. (2000). Subsidised training and youth employment: Distinguishing unobserved heterogeneity from state dependence in labour market histories. *The Economic Journal*, 110(466):805–837.

Mundlak, Y. (1978). On the pooling of time series and cross section data. *Econometrica*, pages 69–85.
Neyman, J., Scott, E. L., et al. (1948). Consistent estimates based on partially consistent observations. *Econometrica*, 16(1):1–32.

Oswald, A. J. and Wu, S. (2010). Objective confirmation of subjective measures of human well-being: Evidence from the USA. *Science*, 327(5965):576–579.

Rabe-Hesketh, S. and Skrondal, A. (2013). Avoiding biased versions of Wooldridge's simple solution to the initial conditions problem. *Economics Letters*, 120(2):346–349.

Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. In *Studies in mathematical psychology: 1*. Nielsen & Lydiche.

Sen, A. (1979). Equality of what? *The Tanner lecture on human values*, 1.

Senik, C. (2005). Income distribution and well-being: What can we learn from subjective data? *Journal of Economic Surveys*, 19(1):43–63.

Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A. K., Fitoussi, J.-P., et al. (2009). Rapport de la commission sur la mesure des performances économiques et du progrès social.

Tella, R. D., MacCulloch, R. J., and Oswald, A. J. (2003). The macroeconomics of happiness. *The Review of Economics and Statistics*, 85(4):809–827.

Verbeek, M. and Nijman, T. (1992). Testing for selectivity bias in panel data models. *International Economic Review*, 33:681–703.

Wooldridge, J. (2002). Inverse probability weighted M-estimators for sample stratification, attrition and stratification. *Portuguese Economic Journal*, 1:117–139.

Wooldridge, J. M. (2005). Simple solutions to the initial conditions problem in dynamic, nonlinear panel data models with unobserved heterogeneity. *Journal of Applied Econometrics*, 20(1):39–54.

Wunder, C. (2012). Does subjective well-being dynamically adjust to circumstances? *Economics Letters*, 117(3):750–752.
A Figures

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1: Evolution of life satisfaction in France</figcaption></figure>
B Tables

<table><caption>Table 1: Summary statistics</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>mean</th><th>sd</th><th>min</th><th>max</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Life satisfaction</td><td>7.17</td><td>1.67</td><td>0</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>0.62</td><td>0.49</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>55.0</td><td>16.8</td><td>17</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Income</td><td>25,799</td><td>36,408</td><td>20</td><td>4,468,733</td></tr><tr><td>Education</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No degree</td><td>0.23</td><td>0.42</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>High-school</td><td>0.29</td><td>0.45</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Vocational</td><td>0.32</td><td>0.47</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>College</td><td>0.16</td><td>0.37</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Other degree</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.06</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Labor force status</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Employed</td><td>0.47</td><td>0.50</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Unemployed</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.23</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Student</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.12</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Inactive</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.23</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Retired</td><td>0.39</td><td>0.49</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Undetermined</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.13</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Occupation</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Clerk</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.45</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Farmer</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.17</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>White collar</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.34</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Self-employed</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.23</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Intermediate</td><td>0.22</td><td>0.42</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Blue collar</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.38</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.30</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Family status</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Single</td><td>0.24</td><td>0.42</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Two adults, w/o child</td><td>0.39</td><td>0.49</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Two adults, 1 child</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.29</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Two adults, 2 children</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.32</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Two adults, 3+ children</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.22</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Single parent</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.20</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Others w/o child</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.22</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Others with children</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.16</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Undetermined</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.08</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Quality of life</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Poor living conditions</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.30</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental troubles</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.18</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Psycho-social hazard</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.33</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Economic insecurity</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.16</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Poor health</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.29</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Insecurity</td><td>0.14</td><td>0.35</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Weak social ties</td><td>0.14</td><td>0.34</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td colspan="4">44,085</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source. French SRCV survey, 2013-2017.

Sample. Unbalanced panel of 19,253 individuals with at least two consecutive observations.
<table><caption>Table 2: Within-individual heterogeneity in reported life satisfaction</caption><thead><tr><th>Absolute maximal difference in reported life satisfaction</th><th>Frequency (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0</td><td>19.4</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>36.0</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>23.7</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>12.0</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>4.6</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>2.8</td></tr><tr><td>6-10</td><td>1.6</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source. French SRCV survey, 2013-2017.

Sample. Unbalanced panel of 19,253 individuals with at least two consecutive observations.

Lecture. Highest minus lowest level of life satisfaction over the period.

<table><caption>Table 3: Life satisfaction in France: annual transitions</caption><thead><tr><th>Destination →<br>Initial ↓</th><th>0</th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>6</th><th>7</th><th>8</th><th>9</th><th>10</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>0</th><td>24.5</td><td>5.1</td><td>10.2</td><td>9.2</td><td>9.2</td><td>22.5</td><td>6.1</td><td>7.1</td><td>4.1</td><td>0.0</td><td>2.0</td></tr><tr><th>1</th><td>3.5</td><td>15.5</td><td>13.8</td><td>10.3</td><td>3.5</td><td>22.4</td><td>5.2</td><td>5.2</td><td>17.2</td><td>0.0</td><td>3.5</td></tr><tr><th>2</th><td>4.4</td><td>7.0</td><td>11.4</td><td>10.8</td><td>13.3</td><td>23.4</td><td>12.7</td><td>12.0</td><td>2.5</td><td>2.5</td><td>0.0</td></tr><tr><th>3</th><td>2.7</td><td>2.2</td><td>6.2</td><td>15.4</td><td>19.2</td><td>26.8</td><td>12.2</td><td>9.2</td><td>4.9</td><td>1.1</td><td>0.3</td></tr><tr><th>4</th><td>1.7</td><td>0.3</td><td>4.3</td><td>9.8</td><td>15.1</td><td>32.3</td><td>16.1</td><td>11.7</td><td>6.3</td><td>1.9</td><td>0.6</td></tr><tr><th>5</th><td>0.6</td><td>0.3</td><td>1.8</td><td>4.2</td><td>7.5</td><td>32.4</td><td>20.3</td><td>18.4</td><td>11.3</td><td>1.9</td><td>1.4</td></tr><tr><th>6</th><td>0.2</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.5</td><td>2.0</td><td>4.0</td><td>16.6</td><td>25.8</td><td>31.6</td><td>15.7</td><td>2.4</td><td>1.1</td></tr><tr><th>7</th><td>0.1</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.7</td><td>1.4</td><td>7.7</td><td>13.8</td><td>40.0</td><td>30.3</td><td>4.5</td><td>1.3</td></tr><tr><th>8</th><td>0.0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.6</td><td>4.0</td><td>5.5</td><td>20.9</td><td>52.2</td><td>12.9</td><td>3.5</td></tr><tr><th>9</th><td>0.1</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.5</td><td>1.1</td><td>2.3</td><td>10.1</td><td>38.9</td><td>35.4</td><td>11.3</td></tr><tr><th>10</th><td>0.1</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.2</td><td>2.2</td><td>2.2</td><td>6.5</td><td>24.0</td><td>24.9</td><td>39.3</td></tr><tr><th>Total</th><td>0.4</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.7</td><td>1.6</td><td>2.6</td><td>10.2</td><td>11.1</td><td>23.8</td><td>33.1</td><td>11.1</td><td>5.2</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source. French SRCV survey, 2013-2017.

Sample. Unbalanced panel of 19,253 individuals with at least two consecutive observations.
<table><caption>Table 4: Dynamic ordered Logit model - unbalanced panel (1)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Dependent</th><th colspan="4">Life satisfaction (LS<sub>t</sub>)</th></tr><tr><th>(1)</th><th>(2)</th><th>(3)</th><th>(4)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Current log income (β)</td><td>0.408***<br>(0.028)</td><td>0.510***<br>(0.038)</td><td>0.073<br>(0.055)</td><td>0.046<br>(0.053)</td></tr><tr><td>Mean log income (γ)</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.430***<br>(0.114)</td><td>0.400***<br>(0.105)</td></tr><tr><td>Initial log income (γ<sup>0</sup>)</td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.154**<br>(0.076)</td><td>-0.141**<br>(0.067)</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>-0.039***<br>(0.005)</td><td>-0.060***<br>(0.007)</td><td>-0.025***<br>(0.006)</td><td>-0.022***<br>(0.006)</td></tr><tr><td>Age<sup>2</sup>/100</td><td>0.026***<br>(0.004)</td><td>0.039***<br>(0.007)</td><td>0.013**<br>(0.006)</td><td>0.011**<br>(0.005)</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>-0.005<br>(0.026)</td><td>-0.003<br>(0.039)</td><td>-0.023<br>(0.033)</td><td>-0.021<br>(0.029)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">Education (ref=no degree)</td></tr><tr><td>High-school</td><td>-0.051<br>(0.041)</td><td>-0.028<br>(0.060)</td><td>-0.124<br>(0.258)</td><td>-0.114<br>(0.246)</td></tr><tr><td>Vocational</td><td>-0.092**<br>(0.036)</td><td>-0.096*<br>(0.053)</td><td>0.071<br>(0.229)</td><td>0.065<br>(0.219)</td></tr><tr><td>College</td><td>0.018<br>(0.050)</td><td>0.104<br>(0.074)</td><td>0.038<br>(0.304)</td><td>0.046<br>(0.289)</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>-0.051<br>(0.199)</td><td>0.206<br>(0.300)</td><td>0.411<br>(0.345)</td><td>0.434<br>(0.313)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">Labor force status (ref=employed)</td></tr><tr><td>Unemployed</td><td>-0.817***<br>(0.054)</td><td>-1.164***<br>(0.073)</td><td>-0.771***<br>(0.108)</td><td>-0.716***<br>(0.105)</td></tr><tr><td>Student</td><td>-0.012<br>(0.101)</td><td>-0.006<br>(0.144)</td><td>-0.338<br>(0.270)</td><td>-0.381<br>(0.262)</td></tr><tr><td>Inactive</td><td>-0.168***<br>(0.064)</td><td>-0.374***<br>(0.091)</td><td>-0.439**<br>(0.174)</td><td>-0.426**<br>(0.167)</td></tr><tr><td>Retired</td><td>-0.150***<br>(0.043)</td><td>-0.194***<br>(0.060)</td><td>-0.256**<br>(0.113)</td><td>-0.258**<br>(0.108)</td></tr><tr><td>Undetermined</td><td>-0.508***<br>(0.098)</td><td>-0.690***<br>(0.126)</td><td>-0.392**<br>(0.189)</td><td>-0.394**<br>(0.181)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">Occupation (ref=clerk)</td></tr><tr><td>Farmer</td><td>-0.503***<br>(0.077)</td><td>-0.715***<br>(0.113)</td><td>-1.761**<br>(0.696)</td><td>-1.715**<br>(0.671)</td></tr><tr><td>Blue collar</td><td>0.006<br>(0.039)</td><td>-0.011<br>(0.056)</td><td>-0.227<br>(0.152)</td><td>-0.204<br>(0.145)</td></tr><tr><td>Intermediate</td><td>0.033<br>(0.034)</td><td>0.125**<br>(0.050)</td><td>-0.146<br>(0.133)</td><td>-0.160<br>(0.128)</td></tr><tr><td>White collar</td><td>0.154***<br>(0.045)</td><td>0.329***<br>(0.065)</td><td>0.142<br>(0.169)</td><td>0.089<br>(0.162)</td></tr><tr><td>Self-employed</td><td>-0.126**<br>(0.058)</td><td>-0.142*<br>(0.084)</td><td>-0.114<br>(0.235)</td><td>-0.175<br>(0.226)</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>0.034<br>(0.052)</td><td>0.017<br>(0.076)</td><td>-0.311**<br>(0.154)</td><td>-0.287*<br>(0.147)</td></tr><tr><td>Undetermined</td><td>0.010<br>(0.183)</td><td>-0.183<br>(0.232)</td><td>-0.760**<br>(0.320)</td><td>-0.739**<br>(0.312)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">Family status (ref=single)</td></tr><tr><td>Two adults (no child)</td><td>0.554***<br>(0.031)</td><td>0.881***<br>(0.046)</td><td>0.732***<br>(0.117)</td><td>0.637***<br>(0.112)</td></tr><tr><td>Other (no child)</td><td>0.495***<br>(0.058)</td><td>0.741***<br>(0.078)</td><td>0.479***<br>(0.155)</td><td>0.380**<br>(0.148)</td></tr><tr><td>Single parent</td><td>-0.049<br>(0.060)</td><td>-0.026<br>(0.086)</td><td>0.246<br>(0.169)</td><td>0.184<br>(0.161)</td></tr><tr><td>Two adults (1 child)</td><td>0.557***<br>(0.044)</td><td>0.862***<br>(0.064)</td><td>0.692***<br>(0.144)</td><td>0.575***<br>(0.137)</td></tr><tr><td>Two adults (2 children)</td><td>0.672***<br>(0.043)</td><td>0.978***<br>(0.064)</td><td>0.592***<br>(0.165)</td><td>0.481***<br>(0.157)</td></tr><tr><td>Two adults (3+ children)</td><td>0.763***<br>(0.058)</td><td>1.112***<br>(0.085)</td><td>0.695***<br>(0.205)</td><td>0.568***<br>(0.196)</td></tr><tr><td>Other (children)</td><td>0.690***<br>(0.071)</td><td>0.938***<br>(0.093)</td><td>0.653***<br>(0.176)</td><td>0.563***<br>(0.168)</td></tr><tr><td>Undetermined</td><td>0.657***<br>(0.126)</td><td>1.088***<br>(0.163)</td><td>0.910***<br>(0.221)</td><td>0.811***<br>(0.215)</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 5: Ordered Logit model - unbalanced panel (2)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Quality of life</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Poor living conditions</td><td>-1.258***<br>(0.041)</td><td>-1.494***<br>(0.055)</td><td>-0.718***<br>(0.070)</td><td>-0.693***<br>(0.068)</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental troubles</td><td>-0.367***<br>(0.055)</td><td>-0.391***<br>(0.069)</td><td>-0.076<br>(0.083)</td><td>-0.071<br>(0.082)</td></tr><tr><td>Insecurity</td><td>-0.233***<br>(0.029)</td><td>-0.229***<br>(0.037)</td><td>-0.053<br>(0.043)</td><td>-0.056<br>(0.043)</td></tr><tr><td>Weak social ties</td><td>-1.157***<br>(0.032)</td><td>-1.269***<br>(0.041)</td><td>-0.687***<br>(0.049)</td><td>-0.670***<br>(0.048)</td></tr><tr><td>Psycho-social hazard</td><td>-0.614***<br>(0.031)</td><td>-0.703***<br>(0.041)</td><td>-0.393***<br>(0.050)</td><td>-0.384***<br>(0.049)</td></tr><tr><td>Economic insecurity</td><td>-0.344***<br>(0.063)</td><td>-0.358***<br>(0.087)</td><td>-0.049<br>(0.108)</td><td>-0.023<br>(0.104)</td></tr><tr><td>Poor health</td><td>-1.087***<br>(0.042)</td><td>-1.252***<br>(0.053)</td><td>-0.713***<br>(0.065)</td><td>-0.675***<br>(0.063)</td></tr><tr><td>Initial life satisfaction (ρ<sup>0</sup>) - (ref=0)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>2013</sub> = 1</td><td></td><td>-0.127<br>(0.441)</td><td></td><td>-0.385<br>(0.440)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>2013</sub> = 2</td><td></td><td>0.388<br>(0.327)</td><td></td><td>0.168<br>(0.333)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>2013</sub> = 3</td><td></td><td>1.154***<br>(0.296)</td><td></td><td>0.878***<br>(0.297)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>2013</sub> = 4</td><td></td><td>1.240***<br>(0.281)</td><td></td><td>0.922***<br>(0.290)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>2013</sub> = 5</td><td></td><td>1.963***<br>(0.273)</td><td></td><td>1.504***<br>(0.283)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>2013</sub> = 6</td><td></td><td>2.399***<br>(0.274)</td><td></td><td>1.839***<br>(0.284)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>2013</sub> = 7</td><td></td><td>3.103***<br>(0.274)</td><td></td><td>2.363***<br>(0.286)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>2013</sub> = 8</td><td></td><td>4.228***<br>(0.275)</td><td></td><td>3.234***<br>(0.291)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>2013</sub> = 9</td><td></td><td>5.469***<br>(0.280)</td><td></td><td>4.157***<br>(0.300)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>2013</sub> = 10</td><td></td><td>6.479***<br>(0.286)</td><td></td><td>4.817***<br>(0.312)</td></tr><tr><td>Past LS (ρ) - (ref=0)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 1</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.558<br>(0.383)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 2</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.367<br>(0.274)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 3</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.348<br>(0.246)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 4</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.465*<br>(0.247)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 5</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.580**<br>(0.242)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 6</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.712***<br>(0.244)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 7</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.936***<br>(0.246)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 8</td><td></td><td></td><td>1.200***<br>(0.251)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 9</td><td></td><td></td><td>1.555***<br>(0.258)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 10</td><td></td><td></td><td>2.023***<br>(0.270)</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 6: Ordered Logit model - unbalanced panel (3)</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="5">Cut-offs</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>s<sub>1</sub></td><td>-3.551<sup>***</sup><br>(0.301)</td><td>-5.406<sup>***</sup><br>(0.415)</td><td>-2.610<sup>***</sup><br>(0.721)</td><td>-2.324<sup>***</sup><br>(0.665)</td></tr><tr><td>s<sub>2</sub></td><td>-3.082<sup>***</sup><br>(0.297)</td><td>-4.846<sup>***</sup><br>(0.411)</td><td>-2.046<sup>***</sup><br>(0.719)</td><td>-1.781<sup>***</sup><br>(0.663)</td></tr><tr><td>s<sub>3</sub></td><td>-2.305<sup>***</sup><br>(0.293)</td><td>-3.894<sup>***</sup><br>(0.408)</td><td>-1.087<br>(0.717)</td><td>-0.861<br>(0.661)</td></tr><tr><td>s<sub>4</sub></td><td>-1.462<sup>***</sup><br>(0.291)</td><td>-2.819<sup>***</sup><br>(0.406)</td><td>-0.011<br>(0.717)</td><td>0.171<br>(0.661)</td></tr><tr><td>s<sub>5</sub></td><td>-0.709<sup>**</sup><br>(0.291)</td><td>-1.824<sup>***</sup><br>(0.405)</td><td>0.984<br>(0.717)</td><td>1.121<sup>*</sup><br>(0.661)</td></tr><tr><td>s<sub>6</sub></td><td>0.680<sup>**</sup><br>(0.291)</td><td>0.110<br>(0.404)</td><td>2.924<sup>***</sup><br>(0.718)</td><td>2.967<sup>***</sup><br>(0.662)</td></tr><tr><td>s<sub>7</sub></td><td>1.504<sup>***</sup><br>(0.291)</td><td>1.329<sup>***</sup><br>(0.404)</td><td>4.153<sup>***</sup><br>(0.719)</td><td>4.134<sup>***</sup><br>(0.663)</td></tr><tr><td>s<sub>8</sub></td><td>2.723<sup>***</sup><br>(0.292)</td><td>3.217<sup>***</sup><br>(0.404)</td><td>6.067<sup>***</sup><br>(0.719)</td><td>5.948<sup>***</sup><br>(0.664)</td></tr><tr><td>s<sub>9</sub></td><td>4.491<sup>***</sup><br>(0.293)</td><td>5.978<sup>***</sup><br>(0.406)</td><td>8.873<sup>***</sup><br>(0.722)</td><td>8.610<sup>***</sup><br>(0.667)</td></tr><tr><td>s<sub>10</sub></td><td>5.724<sup>***</sup><br>(0.294)</td><td>7.763<sup>***</sup><br>(0.408)</td><td>10.682<sup>***</sup><br>(0.724)</td><td>10.332<sup>***</sup><br>(0.670)</td></tr><tr><td>σ<sup>2</sup><sub>u</sub></td><td></td><td>3.952<sup>***</sup><br>(0.105)</td><td>2.196<sup>***</sup><br>(0.069)</td><td>1.379<sup>***</sup><br>(0.083)</td></tr><tr><td>Year dummies</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Individual effects</td><td>No</td><td>RE</td><td>CRE</td><td>CRE</td></tr><tr><td># of individuals</td><td>19,253</td><td>19,253</td><td>19,253</td><td>19,253</td></tr><tr><td># of observations</td><td>44,085</td><td>44,085</td><td>44,085</td><td>44,085</td></tr><tr><td>log(L)/N</td><td>-1.699</td><td>-1.604</td><td>-1.517</td><td>-1.514</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source. French SRCV survey, 2013-2017.

Sample. 19,253 individuals with at least two consecutive observations.

Robust standard errors clustered at the individual level.

Estimates for initial and average covariates not reported (income inside).
<table><caption>Table 7: Average partial effects on probability of reporting level 10 of life satisfaction (selected variables only)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Dependent</th><th colspan="4">Life satisfaction (LS<sub>t</sub>)</th></tr><tr><th>(1)</th><th>(2)</th><th>(3)</th><th>(4)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Current log income - (β)</td><td>0.022***<br>(0.002)</td><td>0.019***<br>(0.001)</td><td>0.003<br>(0.002)</td><td>0.002<br>(0.002)</td></tr><tr><td>Mean log income - (γ)</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.017***<br>(0.004)</td><td>0.016***<br>(0.004)</td></tr><tr><td>Unemployed</td><td>-0.034***<br>(0.002)</td><td>-0.034***<br>(0.002)</td><td>-0.027***<br>(0.003)</td><td>-0.025***<br>(0.003)</td></tr><tr><td>Two adults (no child)</td><td>0.025***<br>(0.001)</td><td>0.028***<br>(0.002)</td><td>0.026***<br>(0.004)</td><td>0.023***<br>(0.004)</td></tr><tr><td>Two adults (1 child)</td><td>0.025***<br>(0.002)</td><td>0.028***<br>(0.002)</td><td>0.024***<br>(0.005)</td><td>0.021***<br>(0.005)</td></tr><tr><td>Two adults (2 children)</td><td>0.032***<br>(0.002)</td><td>0.033***<br>(0.002)</td><td>0.020***<br>(0.006)</td><td>0.017***<br>(0.006)</td></tr><tr><td>Two adults (3+ children)</td><td>0.038***<br>(0.004)</td><td>0.039***<br>(0.004)</td><td>0.025***<br>(0.008)</td><td>0.020***<br>(0.008)</td></tr><tr><td>Weak social ties</td><td>-0.061***<br>(0.002)</td><td>-0.048***<br>(0.002)</td><td>-0.027***<br>(0.003)</td><td>-0.027***<br>(0.002)</td></tr><tr><td>Poor health</td><td>-0.057***<br>(0.003)</td><td>-0.047***<br>(0.002)</td><td>-0.028***<br>(0.003)</td><td>-0.027***<br>(0.003)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">Past life satisfaction (ρ) - (ref=0)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.011<br>(0.008)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.006<br>(0.005)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.006<br>(0.004)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 4</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.009**<br>(0.004)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 5</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.011***<br>(0.004)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 6</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.015***<br>(0.004)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 7</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.021***<br>(0.004)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 8</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.030***<br>(0.004)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 9</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.045***<br>(0.005)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 10</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.071***<br>(0.006)</td></tr><tr><td>Individual effects</td><td>No</td><td>RE</td><td>CRE</td><td>CRE</td></tr><tr><td># of individuals</td><td>19,253</td><td>19,253</td><td>19,253</td><td>19,253</td></tr><tr><td># of observations</td><td>44,085</td><td>44,085</td><td>44,085</td><td>44,085</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source. French SRCV survey, 2013-2017.

Sample. Unbalanced panel of 19,253 individuals with at least two consecutive observations.

Robust standard errors clustered at the individual level.
<table><caption>Table 8: Dynamic ordered Logit model - balanced panel (1)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Dependent</th><th colspan="4">Life satisfaction (LS<sub>i</sub>)</th></tr><tr><th>(1)</th><th>(2)</th><th>(3)</th><th>(4)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Current log income (β)</td><td>0.412***<br>(0.050)</td><td>0.438***<br>(0.062)</td><td>0.139*<br>(0.082)</td><td>0.094<br>(0.081)</td></tr><tr><td>Mean log income (γ)</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.337*<br>(0.183)</td><td>0.322*<br>(0.169)</td></tr><tr><td>Initial log income (γ<sup>0</sup>)</td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.052<br>(0.127)</td><td>-0.048<br>(0.113)</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>-0.036***<br>(0.009)</td><td>-0.054***<br>(0.014)</td><td>-0.017<br>(0.013)</td><td>-0.015<br>(0.011)</td></tr><tr><td>Age<sup>2</sup>/100</td><td>0.026***<br>(0.009)</td><td>0.038***<br>(0.013)</td><td>0.008<br>(0.012)</td><td>0.007<br>(0.010)</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>-0.028<br>(0.049)</td><td>-0.067<br>(0.076)</td><td>-0.039<br>(0.062)</td><td>-0.033<br>(0.054)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">Education (ref=no degree)</td></tr><tr><td>High-school</td><td>0.012<br>(0.077)</td><td>0.140<br>(0.116)</td><td>-0.349<br>(0.467)</td><td>-0.329<br>(0.443)</td></tr><tr><td>Vocational</td><td>-0.023<br>(0.068)</td><td>0.045<br>(0.101)</td><td>-0.315<br>(0.375)</td><td>-0.306<br>(0.356)</td></tr><tr><td>College</td><td>0.075<br>(0.094)</td><td>0.220<br>(0.141)</td><td>-0.470<br>(0.507)</td><td>-0.451<br>(0.484)</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>0.092<br>(0.446)</td><td>1.000*<br>(0.519)</td><td>1.355**<br>(0.572)</td><td>1.424***<br>(0.519)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">Labor force status (ref=employed)</td></tr><tr><td>Unemployed</td><td>-0.681***<br>(0.108)</td><td>-0.976***<br>(0.133)</td><td>-0.694***<br>(0.165)</td><td>-0.641***<br>(0.163)</td></tr><tr><td>Student</td><td>-0.138<br>(0.289)</td><td>-0.268<br>(0.311)</td><td>-0.158<br>(0.387)</td><td>-0.243<br>(0.390)</td></tr><tr><td>Inactive</td><td>-0.079<br>(0.110)</td><td>-0.168<br>(0.148)</td><td>0.160<br>(0.242)</td><td>0.131<br>(0.234)</td></tr><tr><td>Retired</td><td>-0.133*<br>(0.076)</td><td>-0.121<br>(0.102)</td><td>-0.070<br>(0.155)</td><td>-0.089<br>(0.150)</td></tr><tr><td>Undetermined</td><td>-0.471***<br>(0.181)</td><td>-0.492**<br>(0.212)</td><td>0.026<br>(0.280)</td><td>-0.018<br>(0.271)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">Occupation (ref=clerk)</td></tr><tr><td>Farmer</td><td>-0.424***<br>(0.142)</td><td>-0.609***<br>(0.221)</td><td>-1.458<br>(1.034)</td><td>-1.322<br>(0.989)</td></tr><tr><td>Blue collar</td><td>0.010<br>(0.073)</td><td>-0.114<br>(0.105)</td><td>-0.547**<br>(0.221)</td><td>-0.505**<br>(0.211)</td></tr><tr><td>Intermediate</td><td>-0.001<br>(0.063)</td><td>0.028<br>(0.092)</td><td>-0.222<br>(0.199)</td><td>-0.223<br>(0.196)</td></tr><tr><td>White collar</td><td>0.142*<br>(0.084)</td><td>0.291**<br>(0.121)</td><td>0.211<br>(0.251)</td><td>0.189<br>(0.244)</td></tr><tr><td>Self-employed</td><td>-0.041<br>(0.108)</td><td>0.020<br>(0.157)</td><td>0.141<br>(0.330)</td><td>0.095<br>(0.325)</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>-0.032<br>(0.085)</td><td>-0.196<br>(0.124)</td><td>-0.669***<br>(0.232)</td><td>-0.616***<br>(0.227)</td></tr><tr><td>Undetermined</td><td>0.048<br>(0.441)</td><td>-0.161<br>(0.425)</td><td>-0.626<br>(0.489)</td><td>-0.599<br>(0.483)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">Family status (ref=single)</td></tr><tr><td>Two adults (no child)</td><td>0.533***<br>(0.055)</td><td>0.840***<br>(0.079)</td><td>0.694***<br>(0.162)</td><td>0.609***<br>(0.156)</td></tr><tr><td>Other (no child)</td><td>0.495***<br>(0.112)</td><td>0.663***<br>(0.146)</td><td>0.334<br>(0.231)</td><td>0.254<br>(0.224)</td></tr><tr><td>Single parent</td><td>0.003<br>(0.108)</td><td>0.140<br>(0.149)</td><td>0.269<br>(0.232)</td><td>0.218<br>(0.224)</td></tr><tr><td>Two adults (1 child)</td><td>0.631***<br>(0.081)</td><td>0.927***<br>(0.117)</td><td>0.617***<br>(0.210)</td><td>0.498**<br>(0.203)</td></tr><tr><td>Two adults (2 children)</td><td>0.713***<br>(0.083)</td><td>1.042***<br>(0.120)</td><td>0.580**<br>(0.239)</td><td>0.463**<br>(0.229)</td></tr><tr><td>Two adults (3+ children)</td><td>0.928***<br>(0.114)</td><td>1.200***<br>(0.163)</td><td>0.405<br>(0.291)</td><td>0.270<br>(0.283)</td></tr><tr><td>Other (children)</td><td>1.039***<br>(0.139)</td><td>1.142***<br>(0.156)</td><td>0.464*<br>(0.253)</td><td>0.366<br>(0.245)</td></tr><tr><td>Undetermined</td><td>0.169<br>(0.171)</td><td>0.727***<br>(0.228)</td><td>0.595**<br>(0.292)</td><td>0.527*<br>(0.290)</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 9: Ordered Logit model - balanced panel (2)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4">Quality of life</td></tr><tr><td>Poor living conditions</td><td>-1.237***<br>(0.074)</td><td>-1.249***<br>(0.095)</td><td>-0.776***<br>(0.110)</td><td>-0.755***<br>(0.108)</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental troubles</td><td>-0.480***<br>(0.099)</td><td>-0.343***<br>(0.113)</td><td>-0.092<br>(0.118)</td><td>-0.098<br>(0.116)</td></tr><tr><td>Insecurity</td><td>-0.236***<br>(0.050)</td><td>-0.128**<br>(0.057)</td><td>0.058<br>(0.062)</td><td>0.050<br>(0.061)</td></tr><tr><td>Weak social ties</td><td>-1.207***<br>(0.058)</td><td>-1.155***<br>(0.068)</td><td>-0.771***<br>(0.074)</td><td>-0.751***<br>(0.073)</td></tr><tr><td>Psycho-social hazard</td><td>-0.564***<br>(0.057)</td><td>-0.624***<br>(0.067)</td><td>-0.475***<br>(0.074)</td><td>-0.473***<br>(0.074)</td></tr><tr><td>Economic insecurity</td><td>-0.237**<br>(0.120)</td><td>-0.206<br>(0.147)</td><td>-0.019<br>(0.157)</td><td>0.022<br>(0.154)</td></tr><tr><td>Poor health</td><td>-1.105***<br>(0.073)</td><td>-1.083***<br>(0.085)</td><td>-0.724***<br>(0.093)</td><td>-0.694***<br>(0.092)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">Initial LS (ρ<sup>0</sup>) - (ref=0)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>2013</sub> = 1</td><td></td><td>-1.084<br>(0.675)</td><td>-1.443*<br>(0.745)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>2013</sub> = 2</td><td></td><td>-0.112<br>(0.673)</td><td>-0.248<br>(0.672)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>2013</sub> = 3</td><td></td><td>0.485<br>(0.619)</td><td>0.355<br>(0.615)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>2013</sub> = 4</td><td></td><td>0.335<br>(0.606)</td><td>0.227<br>(0.610)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>2013</sub> = 5</td><td></td><td>1.210**<br>(0.590)</td><td>0.999*<br>(0.598)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>2013</sub> = 6</td><td></td><td>1.454**<br>(0.590)</td><td>1.197**<br>(0.598)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>2013</sub> = 7</td><td></td><td>2.158***<br>(0.589)</td><td>1.758***<br>(0.598)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>2013</sub> = 8</td><td></td><td>3.126***<br>(0.590)</td><td>2.543***<br>(0.601)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>2013</sub> = 9</td><td></td><td>4.348***<br>(0.596)</td><td>3.533***<br>(0.611)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>2013</sub> = 10</td><td></td><td>5.530***<br>(0.611)</td><td>4.432***<br>(0.631)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">Past LS (ρ) - (ref=0)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 1</td><td></td><td></td><td>1.049<br>(0.750)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 2</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.490<br>(0.492)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 3</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.405<br>(0.414)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 4</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.380<br>(0.414)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 5</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.432<br>(0.410)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 6</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.597<br>(0.413)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 7</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.821**<br>(0.413)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 8</td><td></td><td></td><td>1.095***<br>(0.417)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 9</td><td></td><td></td><td>1.418***<br>(0.425)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 10</td><td></td><td></td><td>1.889***<br>(0.442)</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 10: Ordered Logit model - balanced panel (3)</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="5">Cut-offs</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>s<sub>1</sub></td><td>-3.576***<br>(0.545)</td><td>-5.734***<br>(0.714)</td><td>-2.379*<br>(1.413)</td><td>-2.284*<br>(1.284)</td></tr><tr><td>s<sub>2</sub></td><td>-2.980***<br>(0.534)</td><td>-5.053***<br>(0.705)</td><td>-1.698<br>(1.406)</td><td>-1.616<br>(1.277)</td></tr><tr><td>s<sub>3</sub></td><td>-2.316***<br>(0.526)</td><td>-4.283***<br>(0.697)</td><td>-0.925<br>(1.401)</td><td>-0.858<br>(1.272)</td></tr><tr><td>s<sub>4</sub></td><td>-1.389***<br>(0.524)</td><td>-3.168***<br>(0.695)</td><td>0.197<br>(1.401)</td><td>0.241<br>(1.272)</td></tr><tr><td>s<sub>5</sub></td><td>-0.581<br>(0.523)</td><td>-2.159***<br>(0.693)</td><td>1.208<br>(1.402)</td><td>1.227<br>(1.273)</td></tr><tr><td>s<sub>6</sub></td><td>0.846<br>(0.524)</td><td>-0.248<br>(0.693)</td><td>3.121**<br>(1.404)</td><td>3.084**<br>(1.276)</td></tr><tr><td>s<sub>7</sub></td><td>1.689***<br>(0.525)</td><td>0.971<br>(0.693)</td><td>4.343***<br>(1.405)</td><td>4.269***<br>(1.277)</td></tr><tr><td>s<sub>8</sub></td><td>2.950***<br>(0.526)</td><td>2.890***<br>(0.693)</td><td>6.272***<br>(1.406)</td><td>6.135***<br>(1.279)</td></tr><tr><td>s<sub>9</sub></td><td>4.794***<br>(0.528)</td><td>5.729***<br>(0.696)</td><td>9.138***<br>(1.409)</td><td>8.912***<br>(1.283)</td></tr><tr><td>s<sub>10</sub></td><td>6.144***<br>(0.530)</td><td>7.648***<br>(0.701)</td><td>11.082***<br>(1.414)</td><td>10.799***<br>(1.288)</td></tr><tr><td>σ<sup>2</sup><sub>u</sub></td><td></td><td>3.729***<br>(0.154)</td><td>2.044***<br>(0.094)</td><td>1.379***<br>(0.100)</td></tr><tr><td>Year dummies</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Individual effects</td><td>No</td><td>RE</td><td>CRE</td><td>CRE</td></tr><tr><td># of individuals</td><td>4,081</td><td>4,081</td><td>4,081</td><td>4,081</td></tr><tr><td># of observations</td><td>16,324</td><td>16,324</td><td>16,324</td><td>16,324</td></tr><tr><td>log(L)/N</td><td>-1.667</td><td>-1.534</td><td>-1.473</td><td>-1.468</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source. French SRCV survey, 2013-2017.

Sample. Balanced panel of 4,081 individuals.

Robust standard errors clustered at the individual level.

Estimates for initial and average covariates not reported (income inside).
# C Appendix

## C.1 Australia

<table><caption>Table 11: Life satisfaction in Australia: annual transitions</caption><thead><tr><th>Destination →<br>Initial ↓</th><th>0</th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>6</th><th>7</th><th>8</th><th>9</th><th>10</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>0</th><td>14.1</td><td>11.1</td><td>13.1</td><td>9.1</td><td>4.0</td><td>21.2</td><td>7.1</td><td>3.5</td><td>7.6</td><td>2.5</td><td>6.6</td></tr><tr><th>1</th><td>4.3</td><td>12.7</td><td>12.4</td><td>16.2</td><td>8.5</td><td>17.8</td><td>7.3</td><td>8.1</td><td>7.0</td><td>4.6</td><td>1.2</td></tr><tr><th>2</th><td>3.1</td><td>6.2</td><td>12.2</td><td>13.7</td><td>8.8</td><td>20.7</td><td>9.4</td><td>11.3</td><td>10.8</td><td>2.3</td><td>1.5</td></tr><tr><th>3</th><td>1.3</td><td>2.9</td><td>6.6</td><td>13.0</td><td>11.5</td><td>22.2</td><td>14.6</td><td>14.0</td><td>9.3</td><td>2.9</td><td>1.7</td></tr><tr><th>4</th><td>0.6</td><td>0.9</td><td>3.2</td><td>7.5</td><td>12.8</td><td>23.0</td><td>18.2</td><td>17.9</td><td>10.2</td><td>3.7</td><td>2.0</td></tr><tr><th>5</th><td>0.6</td><td>0.7</td><td>1.7</td><td>3.2</td><td>6.2</td><td>23.9</td><td>17.9</td><td>23.0</td><td>15.7</td><td>4.1</td><td>3.0</td></tr><tr><th>6</th><td>0.1</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.6</td><td>1.7</td><td>3.9</td><td>11.4</td><td>21.9</td><td>34.2</td><td>19.3</td><td>4.7</td><td>2.0</td></tr><tr><th>7</th><td>0.1</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.5</td><td>1.1</td><td>4.4</td><td>10.4</td><td>40.0</td><td>34.2</td><td>7.2</td><td>1.9</td></tr><tr><th>8</th><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.4</td><td>1.9</td><td>3.3</td><td>19.4</td><td>49.7</td><td>20.4</td><td>4.5</td></tr><tr><th>9</th><td>0.0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.8</td><td>1.2</td><td>6.5</td><td>32.1</td><td>46.2</td><td>12.8</td></tr><tr><th>10</th><td>0.1</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.2</td><td>1.1</td><td>1.1</td><td>3.5</td><td>14.9</td><td>26.2</td><td>52.8</td></tr><tr><th>Total</th><td>0.1</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.7</td><td>1.1</td><td>3.9</td><td>5.9</td><td>19.6</td><td>34.7</td><td>22.3</td><td>11.2</td></tr></tbody></table>

*Source.* The Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA), 2001-2017.

*Sample.* Unbalanced panel of 24,305 individuals with at least two consecutive observations.
<table><caption>Table 12: Dynamic ordered Logit model of life satisfaction in Australia</caption><thead><tr><th>Dependent</th><th>Life satisfaction (LS<sub>t</sub>)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="2">Initial life satisfaction (ref=0)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>0</sub> = 1</td><td>-0.384<br>(0.498)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>0</sub> = 2</td><td>-0.030<br>(0.359)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>0</sub> = 3</td><td>-0.212<br>(0.357)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>0</sub> = 4</td><td>0.187<br>(0.343)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>0</sub> = 5</td><td>0.501<br>(0.332)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>0</sub> = 6</td><td>0.669**<br>(0.330)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>0</sub> = 7</td><td>1.194***<br>(0.329)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>0</sub> = 8</td><td>1.857***<br>(0.329)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>0</sub> = 9</td><td>2.589***<br>(0.330)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>0</sub> = 10</td><td>3.507***<br>(0.331)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Past life satisfaction - (ref=0)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 1</td><td>0.313<br>(0.266)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 2</td><td>0.644**<br>(0.252)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 3</td><td>1.005***<br>(0.243)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 4</td><td>1.229***<br>(0.242)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 5</td><td>1.534***<br>(0.240)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 6</td><td>1.811***<br>(0.239)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 7</td><td>2.176***<br>(0.239)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 8</td><td>2.631***<br>(0.240)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 9</td><td>3.108***<br>(0.241)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 10</td><td>3.765***<br>(0.243)</td></tr><tr><td>Controls</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Year dummies</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Individual effects</td><td>CRE</td></tr><tr><td># of individuals</td><td>24,305</td></tr><tr><td># of observations</td><td>208,003</td></tr><tr><td>log(L)/N</td><td>-1.374</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source. HILDA, 2001-2017.

Sample. Unbalanced panel of 24,305 individuals with at least two consecutive observations.

Model. Dynamic ordered Logit with correlated random effects (CRE): see Tables 4 to 6, column 3. age, age squared, gender, income, education, labor market status, family status.

Robust standard errors clustered at the individual level.
## C.2 Germany

<table><caption>Table 13: Life satisfaction in Germany: annual transitions</caption><thead><tr><th>Destination →<br>Initial ↓</th><th>0</th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>6</th><th>7</th><th>8</th><th>9</th><th>10</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>0</th><td>21.9</td><td>8.7</td><td>11.4</td><td>11.6</td><td>6.7</td><td>19.2</td><td>5.3</td><td>5.5</td><td>6.0</td><td>1.7</td><td>2.1</td></tr><tr><th>1</th><td>8.7</td><td>12.1</td><td>15.0</td><td>14.9</td><td>9.4</td><td>17.0</td><td>6.2</td><td>6.9</td><td>5.0</td><td>3.3</td><td>1.7</td></tr><tr><th>2</th><td>3.6</td><td>5.3</td><td>15.2</td><td>17.5</td><td>11.3</td><td>18.9</td><td>8.8</td><td>8.3</td><td>8.0</td><td>2.3</td><td>1.0</td></tr><tr><th>3</th><td>1.6</td><td>2.4</td><td>8.2</td><td>16.9</td><td>15.0</td><td>22.9</td><td>11.9</td><td>10.9</td><td>7.8</td><td>1.7</td><td>0.8</td></tr><tr><th>4</th><td>0.8</td><td>1.2</td><td>4.2</td><td>10.8</td><td>16.2</td><td>26.2</td><td>15.8</td><td>14.2</td><td>8.5</td><td>1.7</td><td>0.5</td></tr><tr><th>5</th><td>0.7</td><td>0.6</td><td>2.0</td><td>5.0</td><td>7.9</td><td>33.3</td><td>17.5</td><td>17.4</td><td>12.2</td><td>2.2</td><td>1.3</td></tr><tr><th>6</th><td>0.2</td><td>0.3</td><td>1.0</td><td>2.7</td><td>5.0</td><td>18.2</td><td>23.6</td><td>28.2</td><td>16.9</td><td>2.7</td><td>1.2</td></tr><tr><th>7</th><td>0.1</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.5</td><td>1.5</td><td>2.3</td><td>9.3</td><td>14.4</td><td>35.7</td><td>29.8</td><td>4.9</td><td>1.4</td></tr><tr><th>8</th><td>0.1</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.7</td><td>1.0</td><td>4.8</td><td>6.5</td><td>22.0</td><td>47.5</td><td>13.7</td><td>3.3</td></tr><tr><th>9</th><td>0.1</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.6</td><td>2.4</td><td>3.0</td><td>9.8</td><td>37.7</td><td>36.7</td><td>9.1</td></tr><tr><th>10</th><td>0.2</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.6</td><td>3.7</td><td>2.6</td><td>6.8</td><td>22.5</td><td>23.9</td><td>38.8</td></tr><tr><th>Total</th><td>0.4</td><td>0.4</td><td>1.2</td><td>2.6</td><td>3.5</td><td>11.7</td><td>11.2</td><td>22.1</td><td>30.6</td><td>11.5</td><td>4.7</td></tr></tbody></table>

*Source.* The German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP), 1984-2017.

*Sample.* Unbalanced panel of 57,637 individuals with at least two consecutive observations.
<table><caption>Table 14: Dynamic ordered Logit model of life satisfaction in Germany</caption><thead><tr><th>Dependent</th><th>Life satisfaction (LS<sub>t</sub>)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="2">Initial life satisfaction (ref=0)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>0</sub> = 1</td><td>-0.090<br>(0.173)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>0</sub> = 2</td><td>-0.047<br>(0.137)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>0</sub> = 3</td><td>0.108<br>(0.124)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>0</sub> = 4</td><td>0.316***<br>(0.119)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>0</sub> = 5</td><td>0.514***<br>(0.114)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>0</sub> = 6</td><td>0.744***<br>(0.115)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>0</sub> = 7</td><td>1.063***<br>(0.114)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>0</sub> = 8</td><td>1.526***<br>(0.114)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>0</sub> = 9</td><td>2.071***<br>(0.115)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>0</sub> = 10</td><td>2.472***<br>(0.117)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Past life satisfaction (ref=0)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 1</td><td>0.198**<br>(0.096)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 2</td><td>0.531***<br>(0.081)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 3</td><td>0.798***<br>(0.079)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 4</td><td>1.049***<br>(0.078)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 5</td><td>1.377***<br>(0.077)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 6</td><td>1.664***<br>(0.078)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 7</td><td>2.026***<br>(0.078)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 8</td><td>2.454***<br>(0.078)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 9</td><td>2.944***<br>(0.080)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 10</td><td>3.477***<br>(0.082)</td></tr><tr><td>Controls</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Year dummies</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Individual effects</td><td>CRE</td></tr><tr><td># of individuals</td><td>57,637</td></tr><tr><td># of observations</td><td>469,408</td></tr><tr><td>log(L)/N</td><td>-1.615</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source. GSOEP, 1984-2017.

Sample. Unbalanced panel of 57,637 individuals with at least two consecutive observations.

Model. Dynamic ordered Logit with correlated random effects (CRE): see Tables 4 to 6, column 3. age, age squared, gender, income, education, labor market status, family status.

Robust standard errors clustered at the individual level.
C.3 The UK

<table><caption>Table 15: Life satisfaction in the UK: annual transitions</caption><thead><tr><th>Destination →<br>Initial ↓</th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>6</th><th>7</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>1</th><td>24.1</td><td>16.0</td><td>8.7</td><td>7.6</td><td>6.7</td><td>19.9</td><td>17.0</td></tr><tr><th>2</th><td>6.5</td><td>20.3</td><td>14.8</td><td>10.0</td><td>12.7</td><td>31.3</td><td>4.3</td></tr><tr><th>3</th><td>2.6</td><td>11.1</td><td>28.9</td><td>18.2</td><td>20.4</td><td>17.2</td><td>1.7</td></tr><tr><th>4</th><td>1.7</td><td>5.8</td><td>15.4</td><td>28.2</td><td>23.8</td><td>22.3</td><td>2.7</td></tr><tr><th>5</th><td>0.8</td><td>4.3</td><td>9.8</td><td>12.8</td><td>31.3</td><td>37.7</td><td>3.4</td></tr><tr><th>6</th><td>1.0</td><td>3.7</td><td>3.0</td><td>4.5</td><td>14.1</td><td>63.9</td><td>9.8</td></tr><tr><th>7</th><td>3.4</td><td>2.3</td><td>1.3</td><td>2.5</td><td>5.4</td><td>40.5</td><td>44.7</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><th>Total</th><td>2.3</td><td>5.6</td><td>7.9</td><td>9.3</td><td>17.2</td><td>46.5</td><td>11.2</td></tr></tfoot></table>

*Source.* The United Kingdom Understanding Society (UKUS) survey, waves 1 to 8.

*Sample.* Unbalanced panel of 54,593 individuals with at least two consecutive observations.
<table><caption>Table 16: Dynamic ordered Logit model of life satisfaction in the UK</caption><thead><tr><th>Dependent</th><th>Life satisfaction (LS<sub>t</sub>)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="2">Initial life satisfaction (ref=1)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>0</sub> = 2</td><td>0.234<sup>***</sup><br>(0.083)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>0</sub> = 3</td><td>0.156<sup>**</sup><br>(0.078)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>0</sub> = 4</td><td>0.523<sup>***</sup><br>(0.077)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>0</sub> = 5</td><td>0.931<sup>***</sup><br>(0.077)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>0</sub> = 6</td><td>1.691<sup>***</sup><br>(0.077)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>0</sub> = 7</td><td>2.745<sup>***</sup><br>(0.082)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Past life satisfaction (ref=1)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 2</td><td>0.120<sup>**</sup><br>(0.054)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 3</td><td>-0.061<br>(0.053)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 4</td><td>0.098<sup>*</sup><br>(0.053)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 5</td><td>0.309<sup>***</sup><br>(0.053)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 6</td><td>0.688<sup>***</sup><br>(0.055)</td></tr><tr><td>LS<sub>t-1</sub> = 7</td><td>1.297<sup>***</sup><br>(0.062)</td></tr><tr><td>Controls</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Year dummies</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Individual effects</td><td>CRE</td></tr><tr><td># of individuals</td><td>54,593</td></tr><tr><td># of observations</td><td>213,256</td></tr><tr><td>log(L)/N</td><td>-1.403</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source. UKUS, waves 1 to 8.

Sample. Unbalanced panel of 54,593 individuals with at least two consecutive observations.

Model. Dynamic ordered Logit with correlated random effects (CRE): see Tables 4 to 6, column 3.

Controls: age, age squared, gender, income, education, labor market status, family status.

Robust standard errors clustered at the individual level.
## 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/>Juin 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/>Presentation des propriétés des principaux modèles macroéconomiques du Service Public</td><td>G 9413</td><td>J. BOURDIEU - B. CŒURÉ - B. COLIN-SEDILLOT<br/>Investissement, incertitude et irréversibilité<br/>Quelques développements récents de la théorie de l'investissement</td></tr><tr><td>G 9004</td><td>D. GUELEC et P. RALLE<br/>Cognitivité, croissance et innovation de produit</td><td>G 9204</td><td>P. SEVESTRE<br/>L'économie sur données individuelles- temporales. Une note introdutive</td><td>G 9313</td><td>Équipes Amadeus (INSEE), Banque de France, Métric (DP)<br/>Presentation des propriétés des principaux modèles macroéconomiques du Service Public</td><td>G 9414</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 9005</td><td>P. RALLE et J. TOUJAS-BERNATE<br/>Les consequences 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. CREPON - E. DUGUET<br/>Research & Development, competition and innovation</td><td>G 9414</td><td>I. KABLA<br/>Le Chois de breveter une invention</td></tr><tr><td>G 9101</td><td>Équipe AMADEUS - Première partie<br/>Le modèle AMADEUS - Deuxième 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>J. BOURDIEU - B. CŒURÉ - B. SEDILLOT<br/>Irreversible investment and Uncertainty:<br/>When is there a Value of Waiting?</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 9502</td><td>L. BLOCH - B. CŒURÉ<br/>Impfections du marché du crédit, investissement des entreprises et cycle économique</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>D. GOUX - E. MAURIN<br/>Les transformations de la demande de travail par qualification en France<br/>Une étude sur la période 1970-1993</td></tr><tr><td>G 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>N. GREENAN<br/>Technologie, changement organisationnel, qualifications et emploi : une étude empirique sur l'industrie manufacturière</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>B. CREPON<br/>Innovation, taille et concentration : causalités et dynamiques</td><td>G 9319</td><td>G. CETTE - Ph. CUNÉO - D. EYSSARTIER<br/>J. GAUTIÉ<br/>Les effets sur l'emploi d'un abaissement du coût du travail des jeunes</td><td>G 9505</td><td>D. GOUX - E. MAURIN<br/>Persistance des hérarchies sectorielles de sa- laires: 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 9319</td><td>D. BLANCHET<br/>Les structures par âge importent-elles ?</td><td>G 9505<br/>Bis</td><td>D. GOUX - E. MAURIN<br/>Persistence of inter-industry wages differentials: a reexamination on matched worker-firm panel data</td></tr><tr><td>G 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 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>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 9507</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/>Théorie 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 macro-économiques 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</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 - variants : 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>J. BOURDIEU - A. DRAZNIKS<br/>L'octroi de crédit aux PME : une analyse à partir d'informations bancaires</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,<br/>B. 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>A. TOPIOL-BENSAID<br/>Les implantations japonaises en France</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>P. GENIER - S. JACOBZONE<br/>Comportements de prévention, consommation d'alcool et tabagie, peut-on paier d'une gestion globale du capital santé ?<br/>Une modélisation microéconométrique empirique</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></td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>G 9606</td><td>C. DOZ - F. LENGLART<br>Factor analysis and unobserved component models; an application to the study of French business surveys</td></tr><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 reallocation</td></tr><tr><td>G 9609</td><td>Ph. COUR - F. RUPPRECHT<br>L'intégration asymptérique au sein du continent 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 productivité apparente du travail</td></tr><tr><td>G 9611</td><td>X. BONNET - S. MAHFOUZ<br>The influence of different specifications of wages-prices spirals on the measure of the NAIRU: the case of France</td></tr><tr><td>G 9612</td><td>PH. COUR - E. DUBOIS, S. MAHFOUZ, J. PISANI-FERRY<br>The cost of fiscal retrenchment revisited: how strong is the evidence?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9613</td><td>A. JACQUOT<br>Les flexions des taux d'activité sont-elles seulement conjoncturielles ?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9614</td><td>ZHANG Yingxiang - SONG Xueqing<br>Lexique macroéconomique Français-Chinois</td></tr><tr><td>G 9701</td><td>J.L. SCHNEIDER<br>La taxe professionnelle : éléments de cadrage économique</td></tr><tr><td>G 9702</td><td>J.L. SCHNEIDER<br>Transition et stabilité politique d'un système redistributif</td></tr><tr><td>G 9703</td><td>D. GOUX - E. MAURIN<br>Train or Pay: Does it Reduce Inequalities to Encourage Firms to Train their Workers?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9704</td><td>P. GENIER<br>Deux contributions sur dépendance et équité</td></tr><tr><td>G 9705</td><td>E. DUGUET - N. IUNG<br>R & D investment, Patent Life and Patent Value</td></tr><tr><td>G 9706</td><td>M. HOUDEBINE - A. TOPIOL-BENAID<br>Les entreprises internationales en France: une analyse à partir de données individuelles</td></tr><tr><td>G 9707</td><td>M. HOUDEBINE<br>Polarisation des activités et spécialisation des départements en France</td></tr><tr><td>G 9708</td><td>E. DUGUET - N. GREENAN<br>Le biais technique : une analyse sur données 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 capital accumulation</td></tr><tr><td>G 9711</td><td>G. FORGEOT - J. GAUTIÉ<br>Insertion professionnelle des jeunes et proces-sus de déclassement</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>G 9712</td><td>E. DUBOIS<br>High Real Interest Rates: the Consequence of a Saving Investment Disequilibrium or of an insufficient Credibility of Monetary Authorities?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9713</td><td>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-state Inflation?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9715</td><td>X. BONNET<br>Peut-on mettre en évidence les rigidités à la baisse des salaires nominale?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9716</td><td>N. IUNG - F. RUPPRECHT<br>Productivité de la recherche et rendements d'échelle dans le secteur pharmaceutique français</td></tr><tr><td>G 9717</td><td>E. DUGUET - I. KABLA<br>Appropriation strategy and the motivations to use the patent system in France - An econo metric 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-gime général</td></tr><tr><td>G 9719</td><td>ZHANG Yingxiang - SONG Xueqing<br>Lexique macroéconomique français-chinois, chinois-français</td></tr><tr><td>G 9720</td><td>M. HOUDEBINE - J.L. SCHNEIDER<br>Mesurer l'influence de la fiscalité sur la localisation des entreprises</td></tr><tr><td>G 9721</td><td>A. MOUROUGANE<br>Crédibilité, indépendance et politique monétaire<br>Une 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 sectorielles</td></tr><tr><td>G 9723</td><td>P. AUGERAUD - J.E. CHAPRON<br>Using Business Accounts for Compiling National Accounts: the French Experience</td></tr><tr><td>G 9724</td><td>P. AUGERAUD<br>Les comptes d'entreprise par activités - Le passage aux comptes - De la comptabilité nationale - A paraître</td></tr><tr><td>G 9801</td><td>H. MICHAUDON - C. PRIGENT<br>Presentation du modèle AIMADEUS</td></tr><tr><td>G 9802</td><td>J. ACCARDO<br>Une étude de comptabilité générationnelle pour la France en 1996</td></tr><tr><td>G 9803</td><td>X. BONNET - S. DUCHENE<br>Apports et limites de la modélisation « Real Business Cycles »</td></tr><tr><td>G 9804</td><td>C. BARLET - C. DUGUET - D. ENCAOUA - J. PRADEL<br>The Commercial Success of Innovations<br>An econometric analysis at the firm level in French manufacturing</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>G 9805</td><td>P. CAHUC - Ch. GIANELLA - D. GOUX - A. ZILBERBERG<br>Equalizing Wage Differences and Bargaining in Power - Evidence from a Panel of French Firms</td></tr><tr><td>G 9806</td><td>J. ACCARDO - M. JLASSI<br>La productivité globale des facteurs entre 1975 et 1996</td></tr><tr><td>G 9807</td><td>Bilan des activités de la Direction des Études et Synthèses Économiques - 1997</td></tr><tr><td>G 9808</td><td>X. MOUROUGANE<br>Can a Conservative Governor Conduct an Ac-commodative Monetary Policy?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9809</td><td>X. BONNET - E. DUBOIS - L. FAUVET<br>Asymétrie des inflations relatives et menus costs : tests sur l'infographique</td></tr><tr><td>G 9810</td><td>E. DUGUET - N. IUNG<br>Sales and Advertising with Spillovers at the firm level: Estimation of a Dynamic Structural Model on Panel Data</td></tr><tr><td>G 9811</td><td>J.P. BERTHIER<br>Congestion urbaine : un modèle de trafic de pointe à courbe débît-vitesse et demande élastique</td></tr><tr><td>G 9812</td><td>C. PRIGENT<br>La part des salaires dans la valeur ajoutée : une approche macroéconomique</td></tr><tr><td>G 9813</td><td>A.Th. AERTS<br>L'évolution de la part des salaires dans la valeur ajoutée en France reflète-elle les évolutions individuelles sur la période 1979-1994 ?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9814</td><td>B. SALANIÉ<br>Guide pratique des séries non-stationnaires</td></tr><tr><td>G 9901</td><td>S. DUCHENE - A. JACQUOT<br>Une croissance plus riche en emplois depuis le début de la décennie ? Une analyse en comp-aison 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 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-generational transfers - Pensions in a dynamic framework: the case of France</td></tr><tr><td>G 9907</td><td>F. ROSENWALD<br>L'impact des contraintes financières dans la dé-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 - F. LEGROS - R. MAHIEU<br>Bilans contribuables comparés des régimes de retraite du secteur privé et de la fonction 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 marché du travail</td></tr><tr><td>G 9912</td><td>Ch. GIANELLA<br>Une estimation de l'élasticité de l'emploi peu qualifié à son coût</td></tr><tr><td>G 9913</td><td>Division « Redistribution et Politiques Sociales »<br>Le modèle de microsimulation dynamique DESTIMIE</td></tr><tr><td>G 9914</td><td>E. DUGUET<br>Macro-commandes SAS pour l'économétrie des panels et des variables qualitatives</td></tr><tr><td>G 9915</td><td>R. DUHAUTOIS<br>Évolution des flux d'emplois en France entre 1990 et 1996 : une étude empirique à partir du fichier des bénéfices réels normaux (BRN)</td></tr><tr><td>G 9916</td><td>J.Y. FOURNIER<br>Extraction du cycle des affaires : la méthode de Baxter et King</td></tr><tr><td>G 9917</td><td>B. CRÉPON - R. DESPLATZ - J. MAIRESSE<br>Estimating price cost margins, scale economies and workers' bargaining power at the firm level</td></tr><tr><td>G 9918</td><td>Ch. GIANELLA - Ph. LAGARDE<br>Productivity of hours in the aggregate production function: an evaluation on a panel of French firms from the manufacturing sector</td></tr><tr><td>G 9919</td><td>S. AUDRIC - P. GIVORD - C. PROST<br>Évolution de l'emploi et des coûts par qualification entre 1982 et 1996</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/01</td><td>R. MAHIEU<br>Les déterminants des dépenses de santé : une approche macroéconomique</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/02</td><td>C. ALLARD-PRIGENT - H. GUILMEAU - A. QUINET<br>The real exchange rate as the relative price of nontrables in terms of tradables: theoretical investigation and empirical study on French data</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/03</td><td>J.-Y. FOURNIER<br>L'approximation du filtre passe-bande proposée par Christiano 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 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 supply side approach</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/08</td><td>C. AUDENS - C. PROST<br>Déficit conjoncturel : une prise en compte des conjonctures passées</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/09</td><td>R. MAHIEU - B. SÉDILLOT<br>Équivalent matrimonial de la rente et souscription de retraite complémentaire</td></tr></table>
G 2000/10 R. DUHAUTOIS

Ralentissement de l'investissement : petites ou grandes entreprises ? industrie ou tertiaire ?

G 2000/11 G. LAROQUE - B. SALANIÉ

Temps partiel féminin et incitatives financières à l'emploi

G2000/12 Ch. GIANELLA

Local unemployment and wages

G2000/13 B. CREPON - Th. HECKEL

- Informalisation en France : une évaluation à partir de données individuelles

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

G2001/01 F. LEQUILLER

- La nouvelle économie et la mesure de la croissance du PIB

- The new economy and the measure of GDP growth

G2001/02 S. AUDRIC

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

G2001/03 I. BRAJUN-LEMAIRE

Évolution et répartition du surplus de productivité

G2001/04 A. BEAUDU - Th. HECKEL

Le canal du crédit fonctionne-t-il en Europe ? Une étude de l'hapérologie des comportements d'investissement à partir de données de bilan agrégées

G2001/05 C. AUDENIS - P. BISCOURP -

N. FOURCADE - O. LOISEL

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

G2001/06 R. MAHIEU - B. SÉDILLOT

Départ à la retraite, irréversibilité et incertitude

G2001/07 G. CREPON - Ch. GIANELLA

J. Ph. GAUDEMET

Les dispositifs d'acquisition à titre facultatif d'annuïtés viagères de retraite

G2001/09 B. CRÉPON - Ch. GIANELLA

Fiscalité, coût d'usage du capital et demande de facteurs : une analyse sur données individuelles

G2001/10 B. CRÉPON - R. DESPLATZ

Évaluation des effets des dispositifs d'alégements

G2001/11 J.-Y. FOURNIER

Comparaison des salaires des secteurs public et privé

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

R. CONVENEVOLE - S. PISANI

Une méthodologie de comparaison entre consommations intermédiaires de source fiscale et de comptabilité nationale

G2001/13 P. BISCOURP - Ch. GIANELLA

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

G2001/14 I. ROBERT-BOBEE

Modelling demographic behaviours in the French

G2001/15 J.-P. ZOYEM

Diagnostic sur la pauvreté et calendrier de revenus : le cas du "Panel européen des ménages »

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

Local unemployment and wages

G2001/17 F. MAGNIEN - J.-L. TAVERNIER - D. THESMAR

Les statistiques internationales de PIB par habitant en standard de pouvoir d'achat : une analyse des résultats

G2002/01 F. MAGNIEN - J.-L. TAVERNIER - D. THESMAR

Les statistiques internationales de PIB par habitant en standard de pouvoir d'achat : une analyse des résultats

G2002/02 B. SÉDILLOT - E. WALRAET

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

G2002/03 B. SÉDILLOT - E. WALRAET

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

G2002/04 G. BRILHAULT

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

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

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

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

G2002/06 C. AUDENIS - J. DEROYON - N. FOURCADE

L'impact des nouvelles technologies de l'information et de la communication sur l'économie française - un bouclage macro-économique

G2002/07 J. BARDAJI - B. SÉDILLOT - E. WALRAET

Évaluation de trois réformes du Régime Général d'assurance vieilless à l'aide du modèle de microsimulation DESTINIE

G2002/08 J.-P. BERTHIER

Réflexions sur les différentes notions de volume dans les comptes nationaux : comptes aux prix d'une année fixe ou aux prix de l'année précédente, séries chaînées

G2002/09 F. HILD

Les soldes d'opinion résument-ils au mieux les réponses des entreprises aux enquêtes de conjoncture ?

G2002/10 I. ROBERT-BOBEE

Les comportements démographiques dans le modèle de microsimulation DESTINIE - Une comparaison des estimations issues des enquêtes Jeunes et Carrières 1997 et Histoire Famillelle 1999

G2002/11 J.-P. ZOYEM

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

G2002/12 F. HILD

Prévisions d'inflation pour la France

G2002/13 M. LECLAIR

Réduction du temps de travail et tensions sur les facteurs de production

G2002/14 E. WALRAET - A. VINCENT

- Analyse de la redistribution intragénérationnelle dans le système de retraite des salariés du privé - Une approche par microsimulation

- Intragenerational distributional analysis in the french private sector pension scheme - A microsimulation approach

G2002/15 P. CHONE - D. LE BLANC - I. ROBERT-BOBEE

Offre de travail féminine et garde des jeunes enfants

G2002/16 F. MAUREL - S. GREGOIR

Les indices de compétitivité des pays : inter-prétation et limités

G2003/01 N. RIEDINGER - E. HAUVY

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

G2003/02 P. BISCOURP - F. KRAMARZ

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

G2003/03 Bilan des activités de la DESE - 2002

G2003/04 P.-O. BEFFY - J. DEROYON -

N. FOURCADE - S. GREGOIR - N. LAIB - B. MONFORT

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

G2003/05 P. AUBERT

La situation des salariés de plus de cinquante ans dans le secteur privé

G2003/06 P. AUBERT - B. CRÉPON

Age, salaire et productivité. La productivité des salariés décline-t-elle en fin de carrière ?

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

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

G2003/08 P. BISCOURP - N. FOURCADE

Peut-on mettre en évidence l'existence de rigidités à la baisse des salaires à partir de données individuelles ? Le cas de la France à la fin des années 90

G2003/10 M. LECLAIR - P. PETIT

Présence syndicale dans les firmes : quel impact sur les inégalités salariales entre les hommes et les femmes ?

G2003/11 P.-O. BEFFY - X. BONNET - M. DARRACO-PARIES - B. MONFORT

G2004/01 P. AUBERT - M. LECLAIR

La compétitivité exprimée dans les enquêtes trimestrales sur la situation et les perspectives dans l'industrie

G2004/02 M. DUÉE - C. REBILLARD

La dépendance des personnes âgées : une projection à long terme

G2004/03 S. RASPILLER - N. RIEDINGER

Régulation environnementale et choix de localisation des groupes français

G2004/04 A. NABOULET - S. RASPILLER

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

G2004/05 N. RAGACHE

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

G2004/06 M. DUÈE

L'impact du chômage des parents sur le devenir scolaire des enfants

G2004/07 P. AUBERT - E. CAROLI - M. ROGER

New Technologies, Workplace Organisation and the Age Structure of the Workforce: Firm-Level Evidence

G2004/08 E. DUGUET - C. LELARGE

Les brevets acquis-ils les incitations privées à innover ? Un examen microéconométique

G2004/09 S. RASPILLER - P. SILLARD

Affiliating versus Subcontracting: the Case of Multinationals

G2004/10 J. BOISSINOT - C. L'ANGEVIN - B. MONFORT
Public Debt Sustainability: Some Results on the French Case

G2004/11 S. ANANIAN - P. AUBERT

Travailleurs âgés, nouvelles technologies et changements organisatoires : un réexamen à partir de l'enquête « REPONSE »

G2004/12 X. BONNET - H. PONCET

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

G2004/13 C. PICART

Évaluer la rentabilité des sociétés non financières

G2004/14 J. BARDAJI - B. SÉDILLOT - E. WALRAET
Les retraites du secteur public : projections à l'horizon 2040 à l'aide du modèle de microsimulation DESTINIE

G2005/01 S. BUFFETEAU - P. GODEFROY

Conditions de départ en retraite selon l'âge de fin d'études : analyse prospective pour les générations 1945 à 1974

G2005/02 C. AFSA - S. BUFFETEAU

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

G2005/03 P. AUBERT - P. SILLARD

Délocalisations et réductions d'effectifs dans l'industrie française

G2005/04 M. LECLAIR - S. ROUX
Mesure et utilisation des emplois instables dans les entreprises

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

Performances à l'exportation de la France
<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>Pévoir 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 reactions 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 monotaires 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 :<br>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 - 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 - 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. BARDAI - F. TALLET<br>Detecting Economic Regimes in France: a Qualitative Markov-Switching Indicator Using Mixed Frequency Data</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G2009/13</td>
    <td>R. AEBERHARDT - D. FOUGÈRE - R. RATHELOT<br>Discrimination à l'embauche: comment exploiter les procédures de testing ?</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G2009/14</td>
    <td>Y. BARBESOL - P. GIVORD - S. QUANTIN<br>Partage de la valeur ajoutée, approche par données microéconomiques</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G2009/15</td>
    <td>I. BUONO - G. LALANNE<br>The Effect of the Uruguay round on the Intensive and Extensive Margins of Trade</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G2010/01</td>
    <td>C. MINODIER<br>Avantages comparés des séries des premières valeurs publiées et des séries des valeurs révisées - Un exercice de prévision en temps réel<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>Le partage 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

G2010/18

R. AEBERHARDT - L. DAVEZIES
Tome 2 - Version avec volumes à prix chaînes

G2011/01

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

G2011/02

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

G2011/03

L. DAVEZIES
Modeles à effets fixes, à effets aléatoires, modeles 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 contrôle fiscaux et son insertion dans les complexes nationaux

G2011/10

A. SCHREIBER - A. VICARD
La télélisation 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-FOUEILLE - 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
Disparities 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. LANGUIMIER - A. VICARD
Prélevements obligatoires reposant sur les menaces, 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 Destinie

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-FOUEILLE - 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

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

G2013/02

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
Disparities 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. LANGUIMIER - A. VICARD
Prélevements obligatoires reposant sur les menaces, 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 Destinie

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-FOUEILLE - 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

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

G2013/02

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

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

G2013/12

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

G2013/13

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

G2013/14

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

G2013/15

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

G2014/01

M. BACHELET - A. LEDUC - A. MARINO
Les biographies du modèle Destinie 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

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

G2014/04

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

G2014/05

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

G2014/06

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

G2014/07

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

G2014/08

C. GRISLAIN-LETRÉMY et C. TREVIE
Interpretation and limits of sustainability tests in public finance

G2014/09

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 ?

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><tr><td>G2014/10</td><td>B. GARBINTI - P. LAMARCHE<br>Les hauts revenus epargne-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. ARNAAL - 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'éspérance 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>Élasticités 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></table>

<table><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 Destinie</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></table>

<table><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'éspérance de vie en retraite sans incapacité<br>sèvère des générations nées entre 1960 et<br>1990 : une projection à partir du modèle Destinie</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></table>

<table><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 du effet 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 Destinie 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<br>F1903</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></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?