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

HAL
open science

# A Long-Term Evaluation of the First Generation of the French Urban Enterprise Zones

Pauline Givord, Simon Quantin, Corentin Trevien

► To cite this version:

Pauline Givord, Simon Quantin, Corentin Trevien. A Long-Term Evaluation of the First Generation of the French Urban Enterprise Zones. 2012. hal-05474268

HAL Id: hal-05474268

https://insee.hal.science/hal-05474268v1

Preprint submitted on 23 Jan 2026

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 CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
Direction des Études et Synthèses Économiques

G 2012 / 01

A Long-Term Evaluation
of the First Generation
of the French Urban Enterprise Zones

Pauline GIVORD, Simon QUANTIN et Corentin TREVIEN

Document de travail
INSTITUT NATIONAL DE LA STATISTIQUE ET DES ÉTUDES ÉCONOMIQUES

Série des documents de travail
de la Direction des Études et Synthèses Économiques

G 2012 / 01

A Long-Term Evaluation
of the First Generation
of the French Urban Enterprise Zones

Pauline GIVORD*, Simon QUANTIN**
et Corentin TREVIEN***

FÉVRIER 2012

We thank participants of INSEE and CREST seminars as well as French Applied Microeconomics Conference (Sousse, 2011, June) and on Public Policies, Labour and Regional economics (Metz, 2011, June). We thank more specifically Didier BLANCHET, Anthony BRIANT, Xavier D'HAULFOEUILLE and Laurent GOBILLON for useful comments and discussions. Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author and not of any institution.

<footnote>* Insee/Crest</footnote>

<footnote>** Dares</footnote>

<footnote>*** Département des Études Économiques d'Ensemble - Division « Marchés et Stratégies d'Entreprise » Timbre G230 - 15, bd Gabriel Péri - BP 100 - 92244 MALAKOFF CEDEX / Sciences PO et Crest</footnote>
# A Long-Term Evaluation of the First Generation of the French Urban Enterprise Zones

## Abstract

This paper provides new empirical assessment evidence on the efficiency of locally-targeted tax incentives in revitalizing distressed areas. We focus on the first generation of the French "Enterprise Zone" initiative, implemented in 1997 in continental France. We use new georeferenced panel data at the firm level over a twelve-year period. The zone designation process suggests two empirical strategies: difference-in-differences regressions with subclassification on the propensity score and regression discontinuity design. Both methods yield similar results. We highlight a strong positive impact of the Entreprise Zone policy on employment and business location during the first years of the policy. However, this favourable assessment has to be moderated because it seems mostly due to firms that are less prone to stimulate either local employment or economic activities. In addition, after some years, the early positive results are reduced as the increase in business locations is partially offset by more frequent business discontinuations.

**Keywords:** Enterprise Zones, Local Employment, Propensity Score Matching, Evaluation

## Des incitations fiscales attractives : une évaluation de long terme de la première génération des Zones Franches Urbaines

### Résumé

Cette étude propose de nouvelles estimations empiriques de l'efficacité des incitations fiscales ciblées pour revitaliser des territoires désavantagés. Nous nous concentrons sur la première génération des ZFU, mise en place en 1997 en France métropolitaine. Nous utilisons un panel de données géolocalisées au niveau entreprise sur une période de 12 ans. Le mode de désignation des zones suggère deux stratégies empiriques : une méthode de différence de différences avec une classification sur le score de propension et des régressions sur discontinuités. Les deux méthodes donnent des résultats proches. Nous mettons en évidence un fort effet positif de la politique de Zones Franches sur l'emploi et les implantations d'entreprises pendant les premières années du dispositif. Cependant, cette évaluation positive doit être nuancée, car elle semble surtout due à des entreprises qui ont peu d'impact sur l'emploi local ou l'activité économique locale. De plus, après quelques années, ces premiers résultats positifs sont atténués, l'augmentation des créations d'entreprises étant contrebalancée par des disparitions plus fréquentes.

**Mots-clés** : Zones Franches Urbaines, Emploi Local, Matching sur le score de propension, Évaluation

**Classification JEL** : C23, H71, R5
# 1 Introduction

This paper provides an evaluation of the long-run efficiency of Enterprise Zones (hereafter "EZs") in promoting economic activity and employment. This program provides generous tax incentives to small firms located in designated areas plagued by social and economic difficulties. Focusing on the first wave of EZ in continental France, created in 1997, we provide evidence that those locally targeted tax incentives have encouraged the location of small firms in deprived urban areas. According to our estimates, the French EZ initiative caused the number of firms located in the designated zones to double (compared to the baseline level that would have been achieved without tax rebates). This impact is partially offset in the long run as most of these firms subsequently disappear following the eventual expiry of the tax cuts. As far as employment is concerned, we find that jobs were created by the relocation of firms to the designated EZ areas. However, the initiative did not induce firms already operating in these areas to create new jobs.

Our findings are derived from panel data of French firms from 1995 to 2007. As EZ borders do not correspond to existing administrative boundaries, we use GIS (geographic information system) to accurately locate companies within urban areas. Our identification strategy rests on the assignment mechanism employed by the French government: the 44 designated EZs were selected according to a deprivation index based on various socio-economic criteria such as the concentration of social housing and the unemployment rate. It should also be noted that, in order to qualify as an EZ, an urban area must have a population of over 10,000. For the purposes of this study, deprived urban areas which were not selected as EZs are used as a control group. We employ two different methods: the first (and most reliable) method is based on a combination of regression and sub-classification on the propensity score, while the second method is based on regression on discontinuity and uses eligibility requirements as an alternative source of identification. Both methods yield similar results.

The first "Urban Enterprise Zones" were implemented in the 1980s in the UK, followed by several US states, in the aim of enhancing the business environment in certain neighborhoods suffering from socio-economic difficulties. More concretely, precisely delineated zones were granted "special dispensation" status, and firms who chose to locate and invest in these zones benefited from temporary incentives such as tax rebates, job trainings or relaxed regulatory barriers.

The rationale behind this policy is to compensate for the numerous disadvantages associated with socio-economically deprived areas, such as the shortage of a skilled labor force (i.e., spatial mismatch), a lack of public services and amenities such as security, a dearth of inputs and poor market potential. In a word, the EZ designation is intended to offset the deficiencies inherent to low-income neighborhoods which reduce the productivity of firms. The effectiveness of this compensatory policy is disputed amongst
economists.<fnref n="1" /> Previous empirical evaluations of EZ policies yield mixed results (Fisher and Peters 2002): although most evaluations find no significant increase in employment, a notable few do (O’Keefe 2004, Papke 1994, Busso and Kline 2008). Existing economic theory provides few tools for determining the optimal tax scheme for improving the economic performance of deprived areas. EZs usually propose a wide range of services and subsidies on certain inputs, so the effectiveness of an EZ policy depends on the relative importance of each of these inputs in the firm’s production process. The optimal EZ schema is therefore difficult to determine, as it depends on the needs of diverse firms: for instance, a labor-intensive firm would be more responsive to a labor tax reduction than would a capital-intensive one. Recent papers emphasize strong discrepancies in the effectiveness of Enterprise Zones: these discrepancies may depend on the variety of tax cuts and services provided (Bondonio and Greenbaum 2007), the manner in which the zone is managed (Kolko and Neumark 2010), or even on the age of the firm (Bondonio and Greenbaum 2007) or the sector of activity in which the firm is involved (Hanson and Rohlin 2011). Similarly, the EZ’s impact on local employment, which is usually regarded as a key indicator, also varies with the tax cuts proposed (Lynch and Zax 2008). In other words, the existing literature does not offer any general conclusions on the optimal scheme.

Compared to EZs in the US and the UK, French Enterprise Zones offer generous tax subsidies, but these subsidies are limited to small firms with less than fifty employees. To our knowledge, the first generation of French EZs has not yet been evaluated on a national scale.<fnref n="2" /> This type of evaluation is pertinent - and, indeed, necessary - because it enables the evaluation of the long-term effects of the policy. Our evaluation is made possible by the availability of accurate geo-referenced data, which has only recently been made available. Using these data, Rathelot and Sillard (2008) and Givord, Rathelot, and Sillard (2011) analyze the impact of the second generation of French EZs which were implemented in 2004. They highlight a positive but small impact on employment and business creation. Using similar data and methodology, we examine the first generation of French EZs, and find a much wider effect. The discrepancy between the effectiveness of the first and second generations of EZs can be partly explained by a temporary change in the national tax system. In the early 2000s, generous payroll tax deductions have been introduced at national scale, rendering the tax reductions available in EZs less attractive for firms<fnref n="3" />. Our results are consistent with previous evaluations, as we notice that

<footnote n="1">¹But it is still a tool widely used by policy makers. The UK government recently announced the creation of 21 new Enterprise Zones in 2012. Some new geographically targeted incentive program called “Growth Zones” could be created in the US in replacement of previous federal Empowerment Zones program, created under the Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities Act of 1993. In France, the “Zones Franches Urbaines”, firstly created in 1997, were expanded and prolonged several times: scheduled to end December 31st 2011, they were extended once again.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Since 2002, an annual administrative report presenting monitoring data for French EZs has been published but it does not provide an evaluation of the causal impact of the EZs.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Tax reliefs on low wage were implemented in France from 1993 and have been gradually increased since that time. More precesily, in 1996, French Government grants a 18.2 percent reduction for workers paid at the minimum wage, which decrease gradually and vanished at 1.33 times the minimum wage.</footnote>
the effect of EZ on business creation fades in the early 2000s, which corresponds to the implementation of both the payroll tax at a national scale and the second phase of the EZ initiative. Besides, the effect varies widely by sector of activity. The positive effect seems mostly due to firms which do not foster neither local employment nor economic activity, because they belong to sector of activity that do not need to operate in-situ or hire local workers.

These results are in line with Gobillon, Magnac, and Selod (2010). In a study on EZ in Paris region, they find no impact of first phase of the initiative on local unemployment rates in Paris metropolitan region. They detect only a small and non-persistent effect on the unemployment duration for local workers. Overall, these results suggest that firms are sensitive to tax cuts, however, they call into question the capacity of EZs to improve the local economy.

## 2 The French Enterprise Zones

Urban decay has become a main issue in the French public debate since the 1980s. Some disadvantaged neighborhoods on the outskirts of cities experience problems of failed integration of immigrants, high unemployment and violence. Many policies have been implemented in response to social and economic problems encountered by deprived outskirts of French cities. Indeed, the so-called "social fracture" ("fracture sociale") was an important theme of the 1995 presidential campaign and the social and economic issues of deprived urban areas were identified as the main causes of this "social fracture". The "stimulus for cities" law ("Pacte de relance de la ville"), passed in 1996 by the newly elected Government, aimed at addressing the issue of urban decay and reducing inequalities between urban neighborhoods.

This law resulted in the implementation of tax cuts for businesses located in those deprived areas. More precisely, this policy instituted a three-tier classification scheme for disadvantaged urban areas. The first tier is known as ZUS ("Deprived Urban Area"). They correspond to the 757 most deprived areas in France,<fnref n="4" /> according to various indicators of socio-economic development (in particular, high concentration of social housing and high unemployment rates). The second tier, the ZRU ("Urban Renewal Area"), contains the most disadvantaged ZUSs according to a global rating on social and economic position. This rating takes into account the unemployment rate, the population size, the proportion of unskilled people, the proportion of young people and the potential tax

<footnote>The last significant tax reduction has been gradually introduced from 2003. Companies benefit from a 26 percent tax cut for workers paid at the minimum wage which reduces until it reaches 1.6 times the minimum wage.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴717 in continental France and 40 ZUS in overseas departments. 4.73 millions of people lived in ZUS according to 1990 census data.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1: Distribution of EZ and ZRU according to the number of inhabitants.</figcaption></figure>

revenue of the town:<fnref n="5" /> it corresponds to the product of the four first indicators divided by the fifth one. 436 ZRUs were designated in 1996.<fnref n="6" /> Finally, the third tier is constituted by ZFU ("Urban Enterprise Zone"), hereafter EZ. These zones are chosen upon a two-stage process: only the most populous ZRUs are eligible, the official threshold being 10,000 inhabitants; amongst these areas, the most deprived ZRUs, as defined by the same global rating, are designed as Enterprise Zones. In 1997, during the first phase of this initiative, 44 areas received the EZ designation, followed by an additional 41 in 2004 and 15 more in 2007.

Figure 1 shows the distribution of the size (here the population) of ZRUs and EZs. EZs are populated by more than 10,000 inhabitants, in accordance with the threshold set by law, with the exception of four areas (two very small zones that were merged to bigger Enterprise Zones, and two areas just below the threshold with respectively 9,538 and 9,927 inhabitants). Table 1 shows that EZs are the most disadvantaged areas according to the socio-economic indicators that are components of the global rating previously mentioned. For each variable, EZs get the worst results, especially compared

<footnote n="5">⁵Potential tax revenue of the town corresponds to the product of the tax base by the medium tax rate</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶416 in continental France and 20 in overseas departments in 1996.</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 1: Average socio-economic indicators of the urban areas</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>EZ</th><th colspan="2">ZRU</th><th>ZUS</th></tr><tr><th></th><th></th><th colspan="2">> 10,000 pop</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Number of zones</td><td>45</td><td>69</td><td>282</td><td>321</td></tr><tr><td>Unemployment rate</td><td>21.9</td><td>18.2</td><td>24.3</td><td>17.9</td></tr><tr><td>Percentage of social housing</td><td>64.4</td><td>63.7</td><td>66.0</td><td>61.1</td></tr><tr><td>Percentage of foreign people</td><td>21.8</td><td>16.3</td><td>20.0</td><td>17.2</td></tr><tr><td>Percentage of unskilled people</td><td>43.1</td><td>36.4</td><td>45.8</td><td>37.9</td></tr><tr><td>Percentage of young people<br>(less than 25)</td><td>46.7</td><td>43.2</td><td>45.5</td><td>41.2</td></tr><tr><td>Average potential tax revenue<br>(in euros)</td><td>2,707</td><td>3,212</td><td>2,609</td><td>3,438</td></tr></tbody></table>

to the ZRUs populated by more than 10,000 people and which were not designated as Enterprise Zones. However, smaller ZRUs (under the 10,000 inhabitants threshold) are closer to EZs in terms of socio-economic indicators. The average unemployment rate is 22% in EZs while it is “only” 18% in big ZRUs but 24% in small ZRUs. The proportion of unskilled people is 43% in EZs while it is 36% (respectively 46%) in big (respectively small) ZRUs. The ZUSs show slightly better performance but remain close to big ZRUs.

Enterprise Zones offer remarkably generous incentives (high tax cuts on property taxes, as well as labor and business taxes). They target only small firms (establishment with less than 50 employees, with an additional condition on the sales), whether located in the area prior the introduction of EZ policy or not. Full exemption is granted for five years and decreases progressively over the following years (see the Appendix A for details). In comparison with the tax relief in EZ, ZRU and ZUS provide much less profitable tax benefits. The ZRU designation provides limited tax rebates, only for newly located businesses over a very short period (one or two years after setting up depending on the tax). Payroll tax exemption applies to wages paid to all employees in EZs, while it only applies to wages paid to newly hired employees in ZRU. Finally, the ZUS designation allows local authorities to exempt firms of local taxes, but this tax break is not mandatory.

This three-tier classification scheme has been alternatively reinforced and weakened under subsequent governments. The first generation EZs were implemented in 1997 by a right-wing government, scheduled for five year. In 1999-2000, the left-wing government partially reduced the tax breaks. As initially planned, the policy ended in 2001: business had to locate in a Enterprise Zone before December 31 to benefit from the tax rebates. However, the newly elected conservative government has reactivated EZ in 2003, and has designated 41 new areas in 2004.

All in all, the attractiveness of the EZs depends on the structure of the initial tax burden on each company. In order to roughly evaluate the effective gain for a firm, we
calculate taxes owed by a company for both normal and EZ rates. To do so, we use two administrative fiscal databases, the BRN-RSI and the DADS that are used by the French administration to calculate respectively the business taxes and the payroll taxes (social security contributions). The simulations are computed for all French companies with less than fifty employees. It assures us that our sample only contents EZ eligible companies. We use the year 1995, to avoid potential changes in the financial structure or wage distribution due to the implementation of EZ. As for business tax, eligible compagnies benefit from a full exemption below a certain amount. Note that most small firms do not pay any business tax, for instance because their yearly sales are too low. Concerning the payroll tax exemptions, firm's tax returns provide gross wages of each employee. We can apply both normal and EZ payroll tax rates for each worker. By aggregating the results, we can estimate how much a firm gains by locating in EZ.

Our simulations also take into account the fact that the employer payroll rates (social security contribution) for the lowest wages have evolved over the period (see the Appendix A). For a worker earning the minimum wage, EZ payroll tax is 10 percentage points lower than standard payroll tax (national level rates) before 2003 while it is close to zero at the end of 2007. EZ tax exemption applies to all wages (the tax reduction is applicable to the share of the wage below 1.5 minimum wage) while national exemption only applies to low wages (below 1.6 minimum wage in 2003, only 1.3 or 1.33 before). The effective gain for a company depends on its wage distribution. We simulate the tax gain (for all small companies) using the 1997 tax scheme and the 2005 tax schemes.

The exemptions of payroll taxes account for the largest share of tax reductions. The median tax cuts in payroll taxes associated with EZ is 6,000 euros and accounts for about 15% of the median wage bill (see Table 3), using the 1997 tax scheme. By contrast, more than three quarter of small companies did not pay any business tax in 1995 and logically they do not benefit from any business tax cut (see Table 2). For those paying a strictly positive amount, the median is 3,700 euros. These amounts strongly vary according to the sectors however: for instance the proportion of firms in the sector of business services that do not declare any business tax is 60%, while the rate is 85% for the building sector. Considering only firms which pay business tax, the median amount varies from 2,000 euros to 8,000 euros. The median payroll tax cut associated with EZ varies from 3,000 euros to 22,000 euros amongst sectors.

When applying for the sake of simulation the scheme of payroll taxes used since 2005, the median gain in payroll taxes for firms to be located in EZ amounts to 4,500 euros. Again, we note strong variations with sectors: from 1,700 euros (sector of household services) to 18,600 euros (car industry).
<table><caption>Table 2: Summary statistics on business taxes (1995)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Share of non-taxed firms</th><th>Median of business tax (for taxed firms – thousands of euros)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Total</strong></td><td>76.2</td><td>3.7</td></tr><tr><td>Food industry</td><td>84.9</td><td>3.8</td></tr><tr><td>Final good ind.</td><td>68.5</td><td>3.5</td></tr><tr><td>Car industry</td><td>52.0</td><td>6.1</td></tr><tr><td>Capital good ind.</td><td>62.5</td><td>5.5</td></tr><tr><td>Intermediate good ind.</td><td>55.1</td><td>7.2</td></tr><tr><td>Building</td><td>83.7</td><td>3.2</td></tr><tr><td>Energy</td><td>58.9</td><td>7.5</td></tr><tr><td>Retail</td><td>73.9</td><td>3.8</td></tr><tr><td>Transportation</td><td>79.5</td><td>4.1</td></tr><tr><td>Finance</td><td>51.7</td><td>8.2</td></tr><tr><td>Real estate</td><td>83.0</td><td>2.6</td></tr><tr><td>Business services</td><td>60.5</td><td>3.8</td></tr><tr><td>Household serv.</td><td>85.4</td><td>2.0</td></tr><tr><td>Health, educ.</td><td>57.0</td><td>3.8</td></tr></tbody></table>

Sources: Fiscal database (BRN-RSI).

Reading note: for all French companies present in 1995, we estimate the proportion that did not pay any business tax and estimate the median business tax for those having a strict positive business tax.
<table><caption>Table 3: Simulation of labor cost in French small companies and EZ payroll tax cuts, 1997 and 2005 tax schemes. (thousands of euros)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">1997 payroll tax scheme</th><th colspan="2">2005 payroll tax scheme</th></tr><tr><th>Labor cost<br>(normal rate)</th><th>EZ payroll<br>tax cuts</th><th>Labor cost</th><th>EZ payroll<br>tax cuts</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Total</strong></td><td>40.4</td><td>5.9</td><td>38.3</td><td>4.5</td></tr><tr><td>Food industry</td><td>37.7</td><td>6</td><td>35.1</td><td>3.8</td></tr><tr><td>Final good ind.</td><td>68.2</td><td>9.5</td><td>65.7</td><td>7.7</td></tr><tr><td>Car industry</td><td>148.5</td><td>22.1</td><td>145.8</td><td>18.6</td></tr><tr><td>Capital good ind.</td><td>111.8</td><td>15.8</td><td>109.2</td><td>13.5</td></tr><tr><td>Intermediate good ind.</td><td>136.0</td><td>19.2</td><td>131.8</td><td>15.5</td></tr><tr><td>Building</td><td>44.6</td><td>7.3</td><td>42.3</td><td>4.9</td></tr><tr><td>Energy</td><td>63.6</td><td>9.1</td><td>63.1</td><td>8.5</td></tr><tr><td>Retail</td><td>44.6</td><td>6.6</td><td>42.5</td><td>4.7</td></tr><tr><td>Transportation</td><td>70.5</td><td>10.6</td><td>67.8</td><td>8.4</td></tr><tr><td>Finance</td><td>42.4</td><td>5.8</td><td>41.3</td><td>4.7</td></tr><tr><td>Real estate</td><td>19.4</td><td>2.9</td><td>18.1</td><td>1.8</td></tr><tr><td>Business services</td><td>60.0</td><td>7.7</td><td>58.5</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Household serv.</td><td>23.1</td><td>3.6</td><td>21.1</td><td>1.7</td></tr><tr><td>Health, educ.</td><td>23.5</td><td>3.8</td><td>21.9</td><td>1.8</td></tr></tbody></table>

Sources: Administrative employer-employee database on wages (DADS), year 1995, restriction to small companies eligible (less than 50 employees).

Reading note: Using 1997 tax schemes (respectively 2005 tax scheme), the estimated median labor cost in French small companies is 40.4 thousands of euros (resp. 38.3). The estimated median payroll tax cuts for being in EZ is 5.9 thousands of euros (resp. 4.5).
3 Descriptive statistics

We merge two administrative datasets to obtain rich information on firm demography as well as employment in urban areas on a small scale: the employment level (broken down by skill level), the firm creations and firm stock (broken down by sector of activity). We can also determine whether a new firm location is an actual creation or a relocation. Finally, since our database is not reliable for the measure of discontinuance of business, we propose an alternative method. More precisely, we only focus on firm which disappear definitively of employment data to estimate a business closure rate.

French business register (SIRENE) displays the location, legal status, sector of activ-
ity and year of creation for all firms. The DADS (an administrative exhaustive employer-
employee database on wages) provides data on the company's workforce (mainly employ-
ment, wages and worker skills). Census data allow us to measure socio-demographic
variables used for the designation of an area as an Enterprise Zone. Firm stock and
employment data are available from 1995 to 2007 (at January 1st of each year), so this
information is available 3 years before the introduction of the EZ tax rebates and 10
years after. Business creation and relocation are also available from 1995 to 2007. Note
that business creation and relocation data are measured over a one-year period, while
data on the number of firms and level of employment record a situation at a given date.
In other words, the first data are flow data while the latter are stock data. This should
be carefully taken into account when interpreting our results. For example take the year
1997: stock data should show no effect as they describe the situation on january 1st 1997
while creation and relocation data could reveal a impact of EZ as they correspond to
a record for the whole year 1997. As a consequence, creation and relocation data are
consequently available 2 years before the beginning of the policy and 9 years after. These
data allow us to identify long-run effets of Enterprise Zones, as well as temporal delays,
mitigates or extenuations.

More important, data from INSEE locate precisely all companies in continental
France,<fnref n="7" /> which is crucial as EZ do not correspond to administrative boundaries. Us-
ing data at the ZIP code<fnref n="8" /> would have led to underestimate the impact of the tax rebates,
because companies which benefit from EZ tax rebates would have been mixed up with
companies which do not. For this evaluation, the data have been aggregated on the exact
EZ (for more details, see Appendix B). These data have been made available recently
and thus made this study possible (for a previous use on the second generation French
EZs see Givord, Rathelot, and Sillard 2011).

<footnote n="7"><sup>7</sup>Location of establishments is available by census block.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸Corresponding to the French *code commune*</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 4: Average economic outcomes in different types of urban areas in 1995</caption><thead><tr><th>Average number<br>per area</th><th>EZ</th><th>ZRU</th><th>ZUS</th></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">&gt; 10,000 pop &lt; 10,000 pop</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Firm creation</th><td>34.2</td><td>31.5</td><td>8.4</td><td>18.0</td></tr><tr><th>Firm relocation</th><td>7.6</td><td>6.8</td><td>2.0</td><td>5.1</td></tr><tr><th>Existing firm</th><td>237.4</td><td>222.3</td><td>60.0</td><td>142.3</td></tr><tr><th>Employment</th><td>708.2</td><td>533.2</td><td>175.3</td><td>350.0</td></tr></tbody></table>

Sources: Administrative employer-employee database on wages (DADS) and SIRENE

Reading note: in 1995, on average 34.2 pure business creations are observed in (future) EZ, 31.5 in ZRU with more than 10,000 inhabitants, only 8.4 in smaller ZRU and 18 in others ZUS.

The number of new and existing firms is higher in Enterprise Zones than in small ZRUs (less than 10,000 inhabitants) and ZUSs (see Table 4). Conversely, these levels are similar in big ZRU (more than 10,000 inhabitants). This is mostly due to a size effect as EZ are specifically designated amongst big ZRUs. We address this potential issue by using the logarithmic differentiation of interest variables.

# 4 Identification issue and empirical strategy

## 4.1 Identification issue

The empirical evaluation of the Enterprise Zones has to deal with the usual problem of selection. The Enterprise Zones are often located in blighted and economically depressed areas. Conversely, some areas designated as Enterprise Zones may be ripe for development; firms would have located within such areas regardless of tax incentives. The pervasive challenge for evaluation is to assess what would have happened if not for the Enterprise Zone.

Our argumentation aims to determine how selected areas would have performed in the absence of tax rebates provided by this policy. As it became standard in the ex post evaluation literature, we adopt as a baseline guideline the framework of potential outcomes known as the Roy-Rubin model. This model postulates the existence of two potential outcomes, usually denoted by $Y_{i0}$ and $Y_{i1}$: the former corresponds to the outcome (i.e. the (log) number of firms or employment level) observed in the absence of the Enterprise Zone system while the latter corresponds to the outcome we do observe with the EZ system. Our main parameter of interest is the average impact of the EZ system on Enterprise Zones (i.e. Average Treatment on the Treated). It corresponds to the average difference between the potential outcome under the EZ system and the potential outcome without the EZ system, as applied to the unit benefiting from the system (denoted by the dummy T):

$$ \delta = E(Y_{i1} - Y_{i0} | T_i = 1) $$
The so-called “fundamental problem of causal inference” relies on the fact that we do not observe $Y_{i0}$. We thus have to estimate this counterfactual outcome by using other geographical units that do not benefit from the Enterprise Zone system. More specifically, we restrict the comparison set of non-beneficiary areas (i.e. the control group) to ZRUs, which are most similar areas to EZs according to the French three-tier classification scheme for disadvantaged urban areas. However, direct comparison of all treated and all non-treated areas could lead to spurious results. As stated below, Enterprise Zones policy actually targets ZRUs stricken by multiple economic handicaps which can cripple local economic vitality. Thus, a direct comparison might wrongly attribute the effect of socio-economic differences between ZRUs and Enterprise Zones to the EZ system.

## 4.2 Empirical strategy: propensity score matching

To address this issue, our empirical strategy is based first on the use of panel data prior and after the introduction of the Enterprise Zones program, and second on an adaptation of the standard propensity score method using areas that do not benefit from the EZ initiative but are similar in terms of socio-economics characteristics.

Panel data let us eliminate the potential fixed-effect specific to each area. More precisely, our main variables of interest are (log) outcome level differentiated with its level in 1995, meaning two years prior to the introduction of the tax exemptions. Let us denote by $\Delta_{1995}Y_{it} = \log(Y_{it}) - \log(Y_{i1995})$. In order to estimate the causal impact of the EZ program we want to compare this evolution to the counterfactual evolution $\Delta_{1995}^0 Y_{it}$.

This counterfactual evolution is estimated by a propensity score method. It relies on the designation mechanism used for the French Enterprise Zones, which we actually know. As stated before, Enterprise Zones are chosen amongst the most deprived areas, according to socio-economic indicators (see section 2). Besides, (almost) only areas populated with more than 10,000 inhabitants are eligible for the EZ initiative. This latter condition assures that comparable zones (in terms of socio-economic development) could be found amongst areas under the threshold of 10,000 inhabitants, provided that the size is not a determinant of the outcome. As we work with the time-differentiated log variable, this restriction appears credible and could be informally tested. The former condition let us choose the most comparable areas, as we could estimate those having the most comparable characteristics. More specifically, our main assumption is the classic “Conditional Independence Assumption” (or unconfoundedness assumption) that states that no difference would have been observed in zones with comparable observable characteristics in the absence of the treatment:

**Assumption 4.1 (Conditional Independence)** $\Delta_{1995}^0 Y_{it} \perp T_i | X_i$

As shown by Rosenbaum and Rubin (1983), if the conditional independence assumption holds for observables $X$, it also does for the propensity score (i.e. the probability for
an area of being designated as an Enterprise Zone conditional on observables).<fnref n="9" /> We thus have:

$$E(\Delta_{1995}^0 Y_{it} | T_i = 1, p(T_i = 1 | X_i)) = E(\Delta_{1995}^0 Y_{it} | T_i = 0, p(T_i = 1 | X_i))$$

Conditioning variables are the indicators used for the designation of Enterprise Zones: unemployment rate, percentage of young people, of foreigners, of executives and of un-skilled people in the area, the rate of social housing of the area and the potential tax revenue of the town in 1996.

The eligibility condition reinforces the credibility of our identifying assumption, but it can impact the estimation of the propensity score. It indeed leads to a censoring for the observed status of the treatment. If the distribution of the propensity score is not exactly the same for the smallest areas, a naive estimate of the propensity score will be biased. We thus propose an estimation that take this specific setting into account. Details and estimates are provided in the Appendix 6.

Figure 2 shows the density of the propensity score on both treated and control group. The treated group contains 45 areas and the control group contains 331 areas.

For the final estimate of the impact of the EZ, we follow Imbens and Wooldridge (2008) and adopt a strategy that combines regression and propensity score methods. Despite the fact that our sample size is small (around 400 areas), this method can achieve some robustness to potential misspecification of the parametric specification for the propensity score. More precisely, we use a sub-classification method based on the propensity score: we define four strata corresponding to the level of the propensity score. Using units in each stratum, we perform a linear regression using observable covariates X. Within each stratum, the propensity score varies little and covariates distributions are on average similar between both groups, meaning that the regression function is not used to extrapolate far “out of sample”. The estimate of average treatment on the treated finally corresponds to the weighted average of these local estimates.

Formally and using notation of Imbens and Wooldridge (2008), we perform the linear regression in each stratum j:

$$\Delta_{1995} Y_{it} = X_i \beta_j + \delta_j T_i + u_{ij} \quad (1)$$

The final estimate of the impact of the tax subsidies on the EZ (ATT) δ<sub>ATT</sub> corresponds to:

<footnote n="9">⁹Or more generally for any balanced function of the covariates: even if we do not observe the real score, CIA could hold for an estimation of this score, provided that this estimated score balances the observables between the group of Enterprise Zones and the control group: formally $T \perp X | \hat{p}(X)$.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2: Score density for the treated and control groups</figcaption></figure>
$$ \hat{\delta}_{ATT} = \sum_{j=1}^{J} \frac{N_{jEZ}}{N_{EZ}} \hat{\delta}_{j} $$

and an estimate for its variance is:

$$ \hat{V} = \sum_{j=1}^{J} \left( \frac{N_{jEZ}}{N_{EZ}} \right)^2 \hat{V}_j $$

with $(\hat{V}_j)_{j=1,...,J}$ corresponds to the estimated variances of $(\hat{\delta}_j)_{j=1,...,J}$ (assuming that the ales for different strata are independently distributed, which is a standard assumption in this kind of method). $J$ is the number of strata (4 in our estimates). We introduce the size of the area as an additional covariate in regression 1, as an informal test of the assumption of conditional independence of outcome and size. It is never significant. This estimation turns out to be our favorite specification, but we have also performed standard kernel propensity score matching (Heckman, Ichimura, and Todd 1998) as a robustness check (results are provided in the Table 13 in the Appendix 6).

An informal test of the assumption 4.1 is provided by the fact that we have data on outcome two years prior the introduction of the EZ program. We will thus estimate the average causal effect of the program on lagged outcomes.

## 4.3 Regression on discontinuity design

The eligibility threshold also suggests to use an alternative econometric method based on regression on discontinuity design. This method can be seen as follows: the probability of being EZ is a discontinuous function of an underlying continuous variable, the size in terms of number of inhabitants. Indeed, our setting is very similar to that of Battistin and Rettore (2008), where endogenous selection occurred amongst a pool of eligible units. The estimate of the policy impact on the marginal participant (namely, Enterprise Zones with size around the threshold of 10,000 inhabitants) could be provided by classic fuzzy design estimators. This setting has the advantage of relying on a milder assumption (i.e. continuity of potential outcome at the threshold and local independence of the selection around the threshold) than the conditional independence assumption 4.1.

The fuzzy design estimator corresponds to the ratio of the difference in right and left value of respectively the outcome and the probability to be designated as an EZ at the eligibility threshold. As shown by Hahn, Todd, and Van der Klaauw (2001), an estimator of the local impact is given by:

$$ \hat{\delta}^{RDD} = \frac{\lim_{S \searrow \underline{S}^+} E(Y|S) - \lim_{S \nearrow \underline{S}^-} E(Y|S)}{\lim_{S \searrow \underline{S}^+} E(T|S) - \lim_{S \nearrow \underline{S}^-} E(T|S)} \quad (2) $$

where $S$ is the selection variable (population size) and $\underline{S}$ the threshold (10,000 inhabitants). Practical estimation can rely on local linear regression, that performs better in
this setting (estimation in a single boundary point) than standard non parametric kernel regression (Imbens and Lemieux 2008). In the simplest (and the most popular) case, the fuzzy estimator is numerically identical to two-stage-least-square on the linear regression:

$$ \Delta_{1995}Y_{it} = \alpha + \delta T_i + \beta(S_i - \underline{S})1_{S_i>\underline{S}} + \gamma(\underline{S} - S_i)1_{S_i<\underline{S}} + u_i \quad (3) $$

using the indicator $1_{S_i>\underline{S}}$ as an excluded instrument and restricting the estimation sample to units on a neighborhood around the threshold $[\underline{S} - h; \underline{S} + h]$.<fnref n="10" />

However, given the small sample size, the superiority of this method over the method based on propensity score does not appear clearly. The assumption for a valid estimator is local: it means that we should restrict estimation sample to a close vicinity of the eligibility threshold. In practice, as we have few observations, we have to use a wider sample and control for potential dependence of the outcome with the size. As already stated, this dependency appears weak as we use the differentiated log outcome, but it means that we finally rely on a similar assumption with the case of the estimator based on the propensity score.

As suggested by Battistin and Rettore (2008), our particular setting provides a local test for the assumption 4.1 at the threshold of eligibility. If this assumption is valid, estimators obtained by the regression discontinuity design should equate those obtained by propensity score method. We will thus use estimates provided by this method as a robustness check.

# 5 Results

To make the reading of the results easier, we adopt a convention such as the EZ effects are expected in 1997 for all data. This implies that the definition of the estimators differs slightly depending on the type of data. For business creation and relocation, the estimated impact $\delta_t$ for year $t$ corresponds to: $\delta_t = \Delta_{1995}Y_{i,t+1} - \Delta_{1995}^0Y_{i,t+1} = \log(Y_{i,t+1}) - \log(Y_{i,t+1}^0)$.<fnref n="11" /> For the employment and the number of firms, the estimated impact $\delta_t$ for year $t$ corresponds to: $\delta_t = \Delta_{1995}Y_{i,t} - \Delta_{1995}^0Y_{i,t} = \log(Y_{i,t}) - \log(Y_{i,t}^0)$.<fnref n="12" /> In a word, the results on business creation and relocation, which are flow data, correspond to a comparison between year 1995 and year $t$ while the results on the employment and the number of firm, which are stock data, compares January 1st, 1995 to January 1st, $t+1$.

According to our results, Enterprise Zones have a strong impact on economic activity of targeted areas. Tax rebates result in a steady increase of the number of firms (see Figure 3). In 2001, the estimate of the impact of EZs on time-differentiated log number of companies located in Enterprise Zones is 0.7. It means that the level reached in

<footnote n="10">¹⁰That corresponds to uniform kernel and the same bandwidth $h$ for estimation of the four components of 2, see again Imbens and Lemieux (2008).</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹Thus $Y_{i,t+1} = Y_{i,t+1}^0e^{\delta_t}$ and in level $Y_{i,t+1} - Y_{i,t+1}^0 = (1 - e^{-\delta_t})Y_{i,t+1}$.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹²Thus $Y_{i,t} = Y_{i,t}^0e^{\delta_t}$ and in level $Y_{i,t} - Y_{i,t}^0 = (1 - e^{-\delta_t})Y_{i,t}$.</footnote>
2001 is 2 times higher than the level that would have prevailed without the policy. This corresponds to about 1,500 companies. The impact appears to be stabilizing from this year. The estimated impact of EZs on salaried employment is similar. In 1997, which is the first year of the policy, the estimated impact is 0.38. It means that the number of salaried employees in firms in EZs is 1.5 times higher than its counterfactual level. It constantly rises afterward and then stabilizes after 2001. From 2001, the number of salaried employees in EZ firms is more than 2.5 times higher than its counterfactual level, according to our estimates. Surprisingly, this effect strongly exceeds the previous studies that evaluate the second-generation of the French Enterprise Zones (see Rathelot and Sillard 2008, Givord, Rathelot, and Sillard 2011). We discuss this point below.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3: Impact of EZs on the (log) stock of companies and (log) employment.</figcaption></figure>

Two stylized facts emerge from our study that are consistent with those results, however. First, whereas both newly located and existing firms benefit from tax rebates, EZs has no impact on employment in existing companies (see Figure 5). The higher level of employment (compared to the level that would have prevailed in the absence of the EZ policy) appears to be only due to the location of new companies. In other words, the estimated impact is exclusively due to the extensive margin. As already stated by Givord, Rathelot, and Sillard (2011), it calls for a better targeting of the tax exemptions. Second, a large part of this increase is due to business relocation rather than actual creation of new companies. However, our results highlight a larger effect than Givord, Rathelot, and Sillard (2011). The EZ impact increases between 1997 and 2001, which are respectively the first and the fifth years after the policy implementation. This trend is higher for relocations than for company creations. More precisely, the estimated impact for company relocation rises from 0.6 in 1995 to 1.8 in 2001 as it only increases from 0.6 to 1 for company creations (see Figure 4). To put it another way, the number of firm relocation in EZs was 2.5 times higher than the level that would have prevailed without tax rebates, while the number of true business creations was 2 times higher than its counterfactual level.
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4: Impact of EZ on the (log) number of company relocations and creations.</figcaption></figure>

The temporal profile of the EZ impact calls for comments. French firms strongly react to the anticipated end of tax exemptions scheduled for 2001. Recall that the policy was first announced to stop after five years. Businesses had to locate in a Enterprise Zone before December 31, 2001 to benefit from tax rebates. The anticipation of the policy end produces an interesting phenomenon. Firm location, and especially relocations, increases sharply in Enterprize Zones in 2001. Estimated impact of EZs on companies relocation and creation are respectively 6 and 2.6. This results in a dramatic drop the year after. The return of the conservative party to power in 2002 led to the reactivation of Enterprise Zones after 2003.

After 2003, the impact of EZs on relocation and creation of compagnies resumes at a slightly smaller level than during the first period of the policy. Conversely, company stock and employment become stable. These patterns can be explained by the fact that business locations are now canceled out by relocations outside the Enterprise Zone and business discontinuations. Between 1997 and 2001, EZs had a notably higher impact on business creation than on shutdown of company with salaried employees. From 2002, these levels are not significantly different (see Figure 6).
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5: Impact of EZ on (log) employment level in companies which were present before the EZ policy.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Figure 6: Impact of EZ on firm creation and destruction (restricted to companies with at least one employee).</figcaption></figure>

Note that administrative data do not provide a reliable measure of discontinuance of business.<fnref n="13" /> As we know precisely the level of employment for each firm and each year, we are able to know when a firm dismisses its last employee. That is the reason why we only focus on firm which disappear definitively from employment data to provide an approximation of business closure rate. More concretely, a company with employees closes in year $t-1$ if it declares at least one employee on year $t$ and zero employee on year $t+1$. This measurement captures potential relocations outside the area as the identification number of the companies changes in this case. Similarly, we defined an alternative measurement for firm creation in this context. Here, creation of business with salaried employees corresponds to compagnies which declare salaried employees for the first time.

The EZ impact strongly varies with sectors of activity. The impact of tax rebates is considerable for business services. The estimated impact for the number of business

<footnote n="13">¹³A file records bankruptcies, characterized by insolvency, i.e. when a company is no longer able to repay its debts. Not all legal decisions to open bankruptcy proceedings (company filing for bankruptcy as part of legal proceedings) lead to liquidation. Besides, this informs on a small part of discontinuance of business. A company can, for instance, put a stop to its activity because its owner decides to retire and his assets are not taken over.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Figure 7: EZ effect on change in the stock of companies for two sectors of activity.</figcaption></figure>

service companies in the area peaks at 1.5 in 2001, meaning that the observed level is 4.6 higher than the counterfactual level (see Figure 7). By contrast, the estimated impact on retail is much smaller and only reaches 0.43 at its highest level. This means that the number of retail businesses is 50 % higher than its counterfactual level (see Table 10 for results on other sectors of activity). These divergent results could be explained by differing production processes. Business service companies do not have to operate in-situ. Conversely, retail businesses may suffer from potential damages associated to distressed urban areas: small market potential in low-income neighborhoods, low accessibility for non-local employees, larger criminality rates...

In 2004, 41 new EZs were created. They have been chosen amongst ZRU. This could bias our main result, as our control group includes some treated areas and could be “contaminated”. Excluding areas selected for the second and third waves of Enterprise Zones from the control group does not substantially change our conclusion (see Table 12 in Appendix D). More specifically, we still observe a fading impact of EZs after 2002. This result is again fully consistent with the results of Rathelot and Sillard (2008), who find a small effect of the second wave of Enterprise Zones.
## 5.1 Robustness checks

This empirical method gives an unbiased estimate of the impact of Enterprise Zones provided that the conditional independence assumption 4.1 holds. We perform a first informal test for this assumption by computing method based on regression and sub-classification before the implementation of tax rebates as a falsification test. As data are available since 1995, we can test whether there is any difference between treated and control group prior to the introduction of the policy on January 1st, 1997 or not. We expect not to find any gap if the conditional independence assumption holds. Indeed, our estimate does not show any significant difference. Note that data are available two years before the implementation of EZ for flow data (creation and relocation) and three years before for stock data (number of firms and employment). As stated before, our estimates are computed on time-differentiated variables, therefore, we can display one estimate for firm creation and two estimates for the number of firm and employment prior the introduction of EZs. For the sake of simplicity, only key economic indicators (namely creation, stock of firms and employment) are reported. If we take as null hypothesis that belonging to an EZ as no effect before the implementation of tax rebates in 1997, we cannot reject the null hypothesis neither for firm stock, nor for employment, nor business creation (see table 5, the estimates are the same than in graphs 3 and 4). This gives us some confidence in the validity of our approach.

<table><caption>Table 5: Falsification test: effect prior to the creation of EZ</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Firm creations</th><th>Firm stock</th><th>Employment</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1995</td><td></td><td>-0.004<br>[-0.051,0.042]</td><td>0.011<br>[-0.148,0.169]</td></tr><tr><td>1996</td><td>0.097<br>[-0.17,0.364]</td><td>0.031<br>[-0.031,0.093]</td><td>0.075<br>[-0.129,0.279]</td></tr></tbody></table>

Besides, our results are robust to a change in the identification strategy. Using the eligibility threshold of 10,000 inhabitants, a regression discontinuity design method provides close results (see table 6). Although coefficients are less precisely estimated, partly because the sample size is smaller, the point estimates are very close for both methods. For instance, in 2001 we obtain an estimated impact of 0.87 with the regression discontinuity design method and 0.70 with the regression and subclassification method.
<table><caption>Table 6: EZ effect on changes in the main variables compared to 1995 level - Regression on discontinuity design</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Firm stock</th><th>Employment</th><th>Firm creations</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1995</td><td>-0.052<br/>[-0.28,0.176]</td><td>0.065<br/>[-0.575,0.705]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1996</td><td>-0.189<br/>[-0.496,0.118]</td><td>0.004<br/>[-0.755,0.764]</td><td>0.161<br/>[-0.846,1.168]</td></tr><tr><td>1997</td><td>-0.086<br/>[-0.436,0.264]</td><td>0.309<br/>[-0.542,1.159]</td><td>0.67<br/>[-0.263,1.603]</td></tr><tr><td>1998</td><td>0.169<br/>[-0.168,0.506]</td><td>0.313<br/>[-0.586,1.213]</td><td>1.244**<br/>[0.173,2.316]</td></tr><tr><td>1999</td><td>0.344*<br/>[-0.019,0.707]</td><td>0.62<br/>[-0.4,1.639]</td><td>1.339**<br/>[0.264,2.413]</td></tr><tr><td>2000</td><td>0.521**<br/>[0.121,0.921]</td><td>1.142**<br/>[0.044,2.239]</td><td>1.819***<br/>[0.671,2.967]</td></tr><tr><td>2001</td><td>0.869***<br/>[0.419,1.32]</td><td>1.19**<br/>[0.126,2.255]</td><td>1.756***<br/>[0.655,2.857]</td></tr><tr><td>2002</td><td>0.8***<br/>[0.32,1.28]</td><td>1.259**<br/>[0.185,2.334]</td><td>1.334**<br/>[0.112,2.556]</td></tr><tr><td>2003</td><td>0.704***<br/>[0.194,1.214]</td><td>1.23**<br/>[0.105,2.356]</td><td>1.345**<br/>[0.154,2.537]</td></tr><tr><td>2004</td><td>0.661**<br/>[0.136,1.187]</td><td>1.226**<br/>[0.051,2.402]</td><td>0.831<br/>[-0.242,1.904]</td></tr><tr><td>2005</td><td>0.73***<br/>[0.21,1.251]</td><td>1.029*<br/>[-0.178,2.235]</td><td>1.335**<br/>[0.265,2.404]</td></tr><tr><td>2006</td><td>0.679***<br/>[0.166,1.193]</td><td>0.941<br/>[-0.377,2.258]</td><td>0.968*<br/>[-0.17,2.105]</td></tr><tr><td>2007</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.749<br/>[-0.285,1.782]</td></tr></tbody></table>

Reading note: year t is ATT conditional DiD estimator for log variable) between year t and 1995. Confidence intervals at 95 % in brackets. Significance levels: *** 1%, ** 5%, * 10%.
# 6 Discussion

Previous results clearly highlight that French firms strongly react to EZ tax incentives. However, it calls for several comments.

Our control group is composed of ZRUs. Firms located in this type of zone benefit from some limited tax rebates. By comparing EZs and ZRUs, our method only estimates the difference between both policies, while it would have been more relevant to identify the potential economic outcomes in Enterprise Zones without any tax subsidies. In order to provide some insight on this issue, we separately evaluate the impact of the ZRU system. We apply the same methodology to estimate the impact of the ZRUs. ZRUs are now considered as the treated group. We use disadvantaged urban areas that do not benefit from systematic tax subsidies as a control group (i.e. ZUS, the first tier of the French urban policy, see section 2). According to our estimate, the tax subsidies provided by the ZRU system are inefficient to foster economic activity.

Results are provided in Table 7 and measure the sole impact of ZRU until 2004 only, as some ZRUs became EZs in 2004 and 2007. For every year but one, both business creations and firm stock in ZRUs are not significantly different than in ZUS. The findings are the same for employment, except that we cannot totally rule out a significant impact at the end of the period. This can be due to the classification of some of them as EZs, as Rathelot and Sillard (2009) exhibit a significant (but much smaller impact than for the first wave) impact of the policy on employment and business demography. These results are consistent with previous evidence. Compared to EZs, ZRUs provide much less generous tax subsidies to firms located there, which mostly consists in local business tax rebates (with a higher threshold than in EZs, however) than in payroll tax rebates (firms located in ZRU benefit from one-year subsidies for new employees only, while Firm located in EZs benefit from five-year subsidies for all workers). Recent studies suggest that this specific tax scheme is less likely to attract firms. Duranton, Gobillon, and Overman (2010) find no impact on local taxation on non-residential property on entry of English manufacturing establishments, and Rathelot and Sillard (2008) find significant but negligible impact for French firms. It is thus reasonable to think that our estimates provide the total effect of EZs on employment and business demography, and not only the gap between ZRUs and EZs as ZRU program has very little impact on economic activity.

It is not surprising that the effect of EZ on local firms eventually stabilizes. However, the fact this stabilization occurs in 2003 may be explained by two reasons. First, the consequent payroll tax subsidies for low-wage workers introduced on a national scale may have reduced the comparative advantage of EZs compared to other areas. Second, after 2003 the subsidies were more strictly contingent on hiring local workers. This so-called local employment stipulation (“clause d’emploi local” in French) was already in effect between 1997 and 2001, but evidence has been made that it was not strictly enforced (see
<table><caption>Table 7: ZRU effect on changes in the main variables compared to 1995 level - ZUS as control group</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Firm stock</th><th>Employment</th><th>Firm creations</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1995</td><td>-0.01<br/>[-0.053,0.033]</td><td>0.116*<br/>[-0.013,0.245]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1996</td><td>-0.013<br/>[-0.069,0.042]</td><td>0.05<br/>[-0.107,0.207]</td><td>-0.055<br/>[-0.27,0.161]</td></tr><tr><td>1997</td><td>-0.017<br/>[-0.078,0.045]</td><td>0.137<br/>[-0.034,0.309]</td><td>0.103<br/>[-0.084,0.291]</td></tr><tr><td>1998</td><td>-0.009<br/>[-0.07,0.052]</td><td>0.105<br/>[-0.067,0.277]</td><td>0.049<br/>[-0.161,0.258]</td></tr><tr><td>1999</td><td>0.004<br/>[-0.062,0.071]</td><td>0.13<br/>[-0.07,0.33]</td><td>0.288***<br/>[0.077,0.498]</td></tr><tr><td>2000</td><td>-0.002<br/>[-0.074,0.069]</td><td>0.124<br/>[-0.085,0.332]</td><td>0.064<br/>[-0.148,0.276]</td></tr><tr><td>2001</td><td>0.009<br/>[-0.069,0.086]</td><td>0.187*<br/>[-0.025,0.399]</td><td>-0.002<br/>[-0.217,0.213]</td></tr><tr><td>2002</td><td>0.004<br/>[-0.082,0.09]</td><td>0.17<br/>[-0.042,0.382]</td><td>0.172<br/>[-0.051,0.394]</td></tr><tr><td>2003</td><td>-0.031<br/>[-0.118,0.055]</td><td>0.163<br/>[-0.059,0.384]</td><td>0.064<br/>[-0.172,0.301]</td></tr><tr><td>2004</td><td>-0.041<br/>[-0.131,0.048]</td><td>0.191<br/>[-0.038,0.421]</td><td>0.11<br/>[-0.091,0.31]</td></tr><tr><td>2005</td><td>0.01<br/>[-0.089,0.109]</td><td>0.239*<br/>[-0.001,0.48]</td><td>0.038<br/>[-0.166,0.241]</td></tr><tr><td>2006</td><td>0.02<br/>[-0.072,0.111]</td><td>0.276**<br/>[0.013,0.539]</td><td>0.042<br/>[-0.177,0.261]</td></tr><tr><td>2007</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.217**<br/>[0.013,0.421]</td></tr></tbody></table>

Reading note: year t is ATT conditional DiD estimator for log(variable) between year t and 1995. Confidence intervals at 95 % in brackets. Significance levels: *** 1%, ** 5%, * 10%.
Appendix A). This is consistent with the fact that Gobillon, Magnac, and Selod (2010) find a very small impact on local unemployment of EZ first wave. Real or supposed difficulties to hire adequately skilled workers amongst the population of the area may have discouraged the location of new firms.<fnref n="14" /> Note that we observe that the impact of tax subsidies appears to be not significantly higher for low-skilled than for skilled and high-skilled employment (see Table 11).

All in all, the final assessment of the EZs is complex. The first wave of EZs seems to have created a long-lasting impulse on business creation. The change in stock of firms and employment from 1995 are over 75% larger that those that would have prevailed without the tax subsidies. However, several arguments mitigate this positive results. The impact strongly attenuates after the first five-year period of tax exemptions. The still steady flow of new firms do not lead to an increase in employment. Second, if companies do face difficulties in hiring local workers in distressed areas and if firms give up to move to these areas for this reason, it raises serious concerns about both the potential dissuasive impact of the obligation to hire local labor force and the effectiveness of tax cuts to resolve unemployment issues in targeted areas. Significant differences between sectors are also in line with this concern. Business service firms are less prone to foster local economic activity, given that they mostly operate outside the zones.

<footnote n="14">¹⁴In 2008, according to a qualitative survey in the EZs, companies of these zones declare major difficulties to hire employees inside the area (and minor but not major difficulties to hire outside the area), as reported in Givord, Rathelot, and Sillard (2011).</footnote>
References

BATTISTIN, E., AND E. RETTORE (2008): "Ineligibles and eligible non-participants as a double comparison group in regression-discontinuity designs," *Journal of Econometrics*, 142(2), 715-730.

BONDONIO, D., AND R. T. GREENBAUM (2007): "Do Local Taxes Incentives Affect Economic Growth? What Mean Impacts Miss in the Analysis of Enterprise Zones Policies," *Regional Science and Urban Economics*, 37, 121-136.

BUSSO, M., AND P. KLINE (2008): "Do Local Economic Development Programs Work? Evidence from the Federal Empowerment Zone Program," Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper 1638.

DURANTON, G., L. GOBILLON, AND H. G. OVERMAN (2010): "Assessing the Effects of Local Taxation using Microgeographic Data," Discussion paper.

FISHER, P. S., AND A. H. PETERS (2002): *State Enterprise Zone Programs. Have They Worked?* W.E Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, Kalamazoo, MI.

GIVORD, P., R. RATHELOT, AND P. SILLARD (2011): "Place-based tax exemptions and displacement effects: An evaluation of the Zones Franches Urbaines program," Documents de travail de la dese - working papers of the dese, Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques, DESE.

GOBILLON, L., T. MAGNAC, AND H. SELOD (2010): "Do Unemployed Workers Benefit from Enterprise Zones? The French Experience," Cepr discussion papers, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

HAHN, J., P. TODD, AND W. VAN DER KLAAUW (2001): "Identification and Estimation of Treatment Effects with a Regression-Discontinuity Design," *Econometrica*, 69(1), 201-209.

HANSON, A., AND S. ROHLIN (2011): "The Effect of Location-Based Tax Incentives on Establishment Location and Employment across Industry Sectors," *Public Finance Review*, 39(2), 195-225.

HECKMAN, J. J., H. ICHIMURA, AND P. TODD (1998): "Matching as an Econometric Evaluation Estimator," *Review of Economic Studies*, 65(2), 261-94.

IMBENS, G. W., AND T. LEMIEUX (2008): "Regression discontinuity designs: A guide to practice," *Journal of Econometrics*, 142(2), 615-635.

IMBENS, G. W., AND J. WOOLDRIDGE (2008): "Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation," *NBER Working Paper*, 14251.

KOLKO, J., AND D. NEUMARK (2010): "Do some enterprise zones create jobs?," *Journal of Policy Analysis and Management*, 29(1), 5-38.
LYNCH, D., AND J. ZAX (2008): "Incidence and substitution in Enterprise Zone Programs: The case of Colorado," mimeo.

O'KEEFE, S. (2004): "Job Creation in California's Enterprise Zones: A Comparison Utilizing a Propensity Score Matching Model," *Journal of Urban Economics*, 55, 131-150.

PAPKE, L. E. (1994): "Tax Policy and Urban Development: Evidence from the Indiana Enterprise Zone Program," *Journal of Public Economics*, 54, 37-49.

RATHELOT, R., AND P. SILLARD (2008): "The Importance of Local Corporate Taxes in Business Location Decisions: Evidence From French Micro Data," *Economic Journal*, 118(527), 499-514.

——— (2009): "Zones Franches Urbaines : quels effets sur l'emploi salarie et les creations d'etablissements ?," *Economie et Statistique*, 415-416(1), 81-96.

ROSENBAUM, P., AND D. RUBIN (1983): "The Central Role of the Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects," *Biometrika*, 70, 41-55.
# Appendix A: A brief description of the French EZ tax cuts system

Companies located in ZRU as well as companies in EZ benefit from several exemptions. Their extents vary from EZ to ZRU in terms of concerned amount and duration. Their amount and eligibility conditions are yearly modified, but the main elements could be summarized as follows:

All companies in EZ with less than 50 employees the First of January 1997 (or at the time of the first location in the EZ) benefit from a full exemption of **local business tax** for five years. In ZRU the exemption concerns companies with less than 150 employees at the current date. This exemption is limited, however, and in EZ the ceiling is much higher than in ZRU: FF3,000,000 (around 460,000 euros) per year in 2001 while it was only FF920,000 (around 139,000 euros) per year for companies created after 1997 in ZRU (and FF410,000 - around 62,000 euros- for companies present prior this date). All companies in EZ benefit from a full exemption of **corporate income tax** for five years, limited to FF400,000 (around 61,000 euros) per year and partial exemption for 5 following years. In ZRU the exemption is limited to newly created companies in the area, which benefit from full exemption for 2 years and decreasing exemption for the next 3. Besides, all buildings located in EZ belonging to companies liable for the **property tax on buildings** are exempt for 5 years. No such exemption exists in ZRU. Companies in EZ also benefit from additional exemptions on specific taxes, as the tax on property transfer for shops (to a maximum FF700,000, i.e. around 107,000 euros), fees for creation of new offices buildings in Ile-de-France (Paris metropolitan region), or total exemption for local land tax for 5 years.

Finally, companies located in EZ and ZRU benefit from exemptions for **employer payroll taxes** (occupational injury, transportation, housing, family benefit and social insurance contributions). Employees with open-ended contracts or fixed-term employment contracts of more than 12 months are exempt from employer payroll taxes, on the fraction of salary lower than 1.5 times the minimum wage (Smic). In 2006, the ceilings was lowered to 1.4 times the minimum wages. Artisans and shopkeepers benefit from a total exemption for health insurance contribution until 1.5 minimum wages. The duration of exemption is only one year in ZRU, while in EZ it comes from 5 years of completed exemption completed by a 9-year (companies with more than 5 salaried employees) to 3-year (smaller companies) decreasing exemption.

Besides, the exemptions concern only new recruits in ZRU while it benefits to all salaried workers in EZ, conditional to the fact that company hired 20% of their labor force locally ("clause d'embauche locale"). This condition was not applied in practice in the first years of the EZ, so in December 2000 a new law reinforces the firms' obligations with this respect (a specific declaration is required to benefit from tax cuts, and their amounts were reduced for transferred jobs). In December 2002, the needed proportion
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Figure 8: Gap between employer payroll tax at the national level and in EZ according to earning level.</figcaption></figure>

of local hiring was increased from 20% to 33%.

Employer payroll tax rates in general scheme changed since 2003 (“Loi Fillon”) in a way that reduces the attractiveness of the EZs. The employer payroll tax rates (social security contribution) for the lowest wages sharply decreased since 2003 compared to the level in EZ (Figure 8). However EZs remain attractive as tax exemption applies to all wages (the tax reduction is applicable to the share of the wage below 1.5 minimum wage) while national exemption only applies to low wages (below 1.6 minimum wage in 2003, 1.3 before).
# Appendix B: Database construction

Two administrative database from INSEE have been merged. The DADS database provides yearly employment for each company. The SIRENE database follows all French firms. It contents several files which provides the stock of compagnies on January 1st, each year, as well as firm relocation (the number of new firms created from the 1st of January to the 31st of December of each year). Each company is identified by a registration number. In case of relocation of the company, this registration number changes (in this case, the file corresponding to the flow of companies relates the new and the old registration number). More important, firms are precisely georeferenced. It is crucial for our study as the enterprise zone boundaries do not correspond to the usual administrative borders. The SIRENE database indicates whether the company is located within these boundaries or not, each year from 1995 to 2007.

The data have been modified for the needs of the study. First, georeferenced creation and relocation data are yearly available over the whole period 1995-2007 while the precise location is missing for some years in the data providing the “stock” of firms recorded on January the 1st of each year. More precisely, the geolocalisation are not available in this database in 1996, 1998, 2000 and 2001. This information can be extrapolated from others year, however : we indeed have access to the precise identification number of each firm. This identification number change in case of a relocation : the presence of the same identification number in year $t_1$ and $t_2$ means that the firm have not moved over the period. To be more specific, consider the case of 1998 stock data, where all firms are registered, but without precise location. If this very same firm is already registered on database of the previous years, we can use the location variable available in these database. Otherwise, it means that the firm has just located in 1998: in this case we find a record in the database for creation and relocation, that contains a location variable for all years. All in all, geolocation, and more precisely EZ location, can be retrieved for all firms.

Second, the geolocation is not always time-consistent: a company may be registered within an EZ one year and not the other, even if it is located at the exact same address, and even if EZ boundaries are not modified. This is due to some inaccuracies in the GIS. If rare, this misclassification could introduce noise in the estimation. When it is the case, we use, by convention, the first location.

Third, we take into account a subtlety of the enterprise zone boundaries. Recall that enterprise zones are selected among most disadvantaged urban areas (ZUSs). In some rare cases, an EZ merges more than one ZUS. As propensity score variables are available at the ZUS scale and the EZ scale, our study unit is the ZUS. That is why our treated group contains 44 areas whereas only 38 EZs where implemented in continental France in 1997. In addition, EZ boundaries and ZUS boundaries may not exactly match. For the sake of consistency, we choose to restrict to companies located within both a ZUS
and a ZFU.

# Appendix C: Estimation of the propensity score

We adapt the estimation of the propensity score to our specific setting. The eligibility condition creates a censored process for the treatment, where the censoring depends on a supplementary variable (the size of the area). Ignoring the fact that only most populous areas are eligible to Enterprise Zones system can bias the estimation of the propensity score, if some observable characteristics used for the score are correlated with the size of the area. Assuming conditional independence between the size and unobserved determinant of the treatment, we can separately estimate the probability of being treated on the areas with size above the threshold, and the probability of having a size, conditional to observable.

Formally, we observe $T_i$ only if $S \ge S_0$, where $S_0$ denotes the threshold of 10,000 inhabitants. Let denote by $D_i = 1_{S \ge S_0}$. Assuming a conditional independance between the treatment and the fact of having a big size conditional to observable:

**Assumption .1 (Conditional independence of treatment and size)** $D_i \perp T_i | X_i$

Under this assumption, we could write the likelihood of the sample corresponding to the couple $(D_i, T_i D_i)$ as:

$$ \ln L(\theta) = \sum_{i} (1 - D_i) \ln(1 - (P(D_i = 1 | X))) \sum_{i} D_i \ln(P(D_i = 1 | X)) \\ + \sum_{i} (1 - T_i) D_i \ln(P(T_i = 1 | X)) + \sum_{i} T_i D_i \ln(1 - (P(T_i = 1 | X))) $$

We could thus estimate separately both components. In practice, we estimate the score $P(T_i = 1 | X_i, S \ge S_0)$ and the conditional probability of having a size above the threshold of 10,000 inhabitants using logistic specifications.
<table><caption>Table 8: Logit regressions for propensity score estimation</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Area selected<br>as Enterprise Zone</th><th>More than 10,000<br>inhabitants in the area</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Intercept</td><td>-17,09**<br>(7.73)</td><td>-8,40***<br>(3.20)</td></tr><tr><td>Pct. of executives</td><td>-12,78<br>(43.33)</td><td>54,28***<br>(17.87)</td></tr><tr><td>Pct. of stable households</td><td>-1,69<br>(1.06)</td><td>0,89*<br>(0.47)</td></tr><tr><td>Unemployment rate</td><td>13,24*<br>(7.38)</td><td>-2,24<br>(2.76)</td></tr><tr><td>Pct. of young people</td><td>16,22*<br>(8.90)</td><td>4,99<br>(3.26)</td></tr><tr><td>Pct. of social housing</td><td>-3,45*<br>(2.06)</td><td>-0,85<br>(0.73)</td></tr><tr><td>Potential tax revenue</td><td>-0,001***<br>(0.0003)</td><td>0,0003**<br>(0.0001)</td></tr><tr><td>Pct. of foreigners</td><td>14,22***<br>(5.45)</td><td>-0,62<br>(1.87)</td></tr><tr><td>Pct. of unskilled people</td><td>61,86**<br>(27.53)</td><td>22,36*<br>(12.05)</td></tr><tr><td>Pct. of unskilled people<sup>2</sup></td><td>-78,58**<br>(33.18)</td><td>-32,10**<br>(14.40)</td></tr></tbody></table>
Appendix D: Detailed results

<table><caption>Table 9: EZ effect on the changes in flows and stock of firms compared to 1995 level</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Stock<br>of firm</th><th>Firm<br>creation</th><th>Firm<br>transfer</th><th>New firm<br>(DADS)</th><th>Firm dispa-<br>ration (DADS)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1995</td><td>-0.004<br>[-0.051,0.042]</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1996</td><td>0.031<br>[-0.031,0.093]</td><td>0.097<br>[-0.17,0.364]</td><td>-0.148<br>[-0.628,0.332]</td><td>0.101<br>[-0.335,0.538]</td><td>-0.058<br>[-0.377,0.26]</td></tr><tr><td>1997</td><td>0.226***<br>[0.156,0.296]</td><td>0.644***<br>[0.399,0.89]</td><td>0.919***<br>[0.371,1.468]</td><td>1.369***<br>[0.972,1.767]</td><td>-0.203<br>[-0.497,0.092]</td></tr><tr><td>1998</td><td>0.358***<br>[0.275,0.442]</td><td>0.747***<br>[0.49,1.004]</td><td>1.216***<br>[0.511,1.921]</td><td>1.151***<br>[0.71,1.593]</td><td>0.353**<br>[0.059,0.648]</td></tr><tr><td>1999</td><td>0.458***<br>[0.363,0.554]</td><td>0.748***<br>[0.473,1.023]</td><td>1.126***<br>[0.478,1.775]</td><td>1.016***<br>[0.574,1.458]</td><td>0.69***<br>[0.395,0.984]</td></tr><tr><td>2000</td><td>0.561***<br>[0.449,0.673]</td><td>0.807***<br>[0.549,1.064]</td><td>1.422***<br>[0.906,1.937]</td><td>1.243***<br>[0.81,1.686]</td><td>0.701***<br>[0.364,1.038]</td></tr><tr><td>2001</td><td>0.7***<br>[0.58,0.82]</td><td>0.962***<br>[0.683,1.242]</td><td>1.784***<br>[1.195,2.373]</td><td>1.361***<br>[0.874,1.848]</td><td>0.815***<br>[0.53,1.099]</td></tr><tr><td>2002</td><td>0.682***<br>[0.557,0.808]</td><td>0.45***<br>[0.142,0.757]</td><td>0.582**<br>[0.024,1.14]</td><td>0.61**<br>[0.069,1.15]</td><td>1.002***<br>[0.704,1.299]</td></tr><tr><td>2003</td><td>0.684***<br>[0.555,0.813]</td><td>0.694***<br>[0.36,1.027]</td><td>0.737***<br>[0.196,1.278]</td><td>0.73***<br>[0.285,1.176]</td><td>0.906***<br>[0.552,1.261]</td></tr><tr><td>2004</td><td>0.643***<br>[0.504,0.782]</td><td>0.559***<br>[0.249,0.869]</td><td>0.882***<br>[0.234,1.531]</td><td>0.831***<br>[0.395,1.267]</td><td>1.098***<br>[0.799,1.398]</td></tr><tr><td>2005</td><td>0.645***<br>[0.503,0.786]</td><td>0.635***<br>[0.372,0.899]</td><td>0.703**<br>[0.126,1.28]</td><td>0.746***<br>[0.291,1.2]</td><td>0.932***<br>[0.618,1.245]</td></tr><tr><td>2006</td><td>0.596***<br>[0.456,0.735]</td><td>0.607***<br>[0.284,0.931]</td><td>0.693**<br>[0.076,1.31]</td><td>0.597***<br>[0.206,0.988]</td><td>0.943***<br>[0.647,1.239]</td></tr><tr><td>2007</td><td></td><td>0.543***<br>[0.288,0.798]</td><td>0.755***<br>[0.188,1.322]</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Reading note: year t is ATT conditional DiD estimator for log variable) between year t and 1995. Confidence intervals at 95 % in brackets. Significance levels: *** 1%, ** 5%, * 10%.
<table><caption>Table 10: EZ effect on changes in the number of firms compared to 1995 level by sector of activity</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Business<br>services</th><th>Trade</th><th>Health,<br>education,<br>community<br>work</th><th>Building<br>trade</th><th>Industry</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1995</td><td>-0.029<br>[-0.187,0.128]</td><td>-0.026<br>[-0.096,0.044]</td><td>-0.003<br>[-0.061,0.056]</td><td>0.008<br>[-0.119,0.134]</td><td>0.01<br>[-0.109,0.129]</td></tr><tr><td>1996</td><td>0.072<br>[-0.133,0.277]</td><td>0.024<br>[-0.07,0.119]</td><td>-0.028<br>[-0.125,0.069]</td><td>-0.02<br>[-0.205,0.165]</td><td>0.068<br>[-0.1,0.236]</td></tr><tr><td>1997</td><td>0.555***<br>[0.332,0.779]</td><td>0.174***<br>[0.064,0.283]</td><td>0.038<br>[-0.092,0.168]</td><td>0.271***<br>[0.067,0.476]</td><td>0.253**<br>[0.054,0.453]</td></tr><tr><td>1998</td><td>0.895***<br>[0.628,1.162]</td><td>0.221***<br>[0.099,0.342]</td><td>0.154*<br>[-0.007,0.316]</td><td>0.502***<br>[0.288,0.715]</td><td>0.439***<br>[0.225,0.652]</td></tr><tr><td>1999</td><td>1.031***<br>[0.768,1.293]</td><td>0.296***<br>[0.156,0.435]</td><td>0.228**<br>[0.044,0.412]</td><td>0.643***<br>[0.412,0.874]</td><td>0.462***<br>[0.218,0.706]</td></tr><tr><td>2000</td><td>1.235***<br>[0.953,1.517]</td><td>0.355***<br>[0.208,0.502]</td><td>0.273***<br>[0.081,0.465]</td><td>0.737***<br>[0.473,1.001]</td><td>0.626***<br>[0.359,0.893]</td></tr><tr><td>2001</td><td>1.529***<br>[1.24,1.817]</td><td>0.435***<br>[0.282,0.588]</td><td>0.402***<br>[0.206,0.598]</td><td>0.833***<br>[0.554,1.112]</td><td>0.732***<br>[0.442,1.022]</td></tr><tr><td>2002</td><td>1.46***<br>[1.183,1.737]</td><td>0.417***<br>[0.253,0.581]</td><td>0.402***<br>[0.189,0.614]</td><td>0.869***<br>[0.584,1.154]</td><td>0.78***<br>[0.508,1.053]</td></tr><tr><td>2003</td><td>1.362***<br>[1.082,1.642]</td><td>0.432***<br>[0.262,0.602]</td><td>0.426***<br>[0.213,0.64]</td><td>0.771***<br>[0.489,1.053]</td><td>0.855***<br>[0.588,1.123]</td></tr><tr><td>2004</td><td>1.253***<br>[0.967,1.539]</td><td>0.387***<br>[0.204,0.57]</td><td>0.387***<br>[0.175,0.6]</td><td>0.684***<br>[0.387,0.981]</td><td>0.899***<br>[0.63,1.167]</td></tr><tr><td>2005</td><td>1.274***<br>[0.975,1.573]</td><td>0.401***<br>[0.226,0.577]</td><td>0.416***<br>[0.206,0.626]</td><td>0.678***<br>[0.38,0.976]</td><td>0.862***<br>[0.58,1.145]</td></tr><tr><td>2006</td><td>1.146***<br>[0.839,1.454]</td><td>0.366***<br>[0.195,0.536]</td><td>0.465***<br>[0.244,0.686]</td><td>0.655***<br>[0.362,0.948]</td><td>0.849***<br>[0.57,1.128]</td></tr></tbody></table>

Reading note: year t is ATT conditional DiD estimator for log(variable) between year t and 1995. Confidence intervals at 95 % in brackets. Significance levels: *** 1%, ** 5%, * 10%.
<table><caption>Table 11: EZ effect on changes in the employment compared to 1995 level</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Employment</th><th>Low-skilled employment</th><th>Skilled employment</th><th>High-skilled employment</th><th>Employment in firms established before 1995</th><th>Employment in firms established after 1995</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1995</td><td>0.011<br>[-0.148,0.169]</td><td>0.033<br>[-0.158,0.224]</td><td>0.015<br>[-0.159,0.19]</td><td>0.019<br>[-0.162,0.199]</td><td>-0.068<br>[-0.176,0.04]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1996</td><td>0.075<br>[-0.129,0.279]</td><td>0.144<br>[-0.138,0.427]</td><td>0.097<br>[-0.155,0.35]</td><td>-0.012<br>[-0.248,0.224]</td><td>0.029<br>[-0.117,0.175]</td><td>-0.06<br>[-0.534,0.414]</td></tr><tr><td>1997</td><td>0.375***<br>[0.148,0.602]</td><td>0.457***<br>[0.173,0.742]</td><td>0.454***<br>[0.191,0.716]</td><td>0.292**<br>[0.021,0.563]</td><td>0.065<br>[-0.104,0.234]</td><td>0.714***<br>[0.197,1.231]</td></tr><tr><td>1998</td><td>0.602***<br>[0.358,0.847]</td><td>0.602***<br>[0.277,0.927]</td><td>0.717***<br>[0.442,0.992]</td><td>0.522***<br>[0.235,0.809]</td><td>0.107<br>[-0.083,0.296]</td><td>0.984***<br>[0.456,1.512]</td></tr><tr><td>1999</td><td>0.804***<br>[0.527,1.08]</td><td>0.903***<br>[0.561,1.246]</td><td>0.867***<br>[0.537,1.196]</td><td>0.752***<br>[0.458,1.046]</td><td>0.077<br>[-0.161,0.315]</td><td>1.134***<br>[0.604,1.663]</td></tr><tr><td>2000</td><td>0.947***<br>[0.651,1.244]</td><td>1.06***<br>[0.688,1.431]</td><td>1.032***<br>[0.684,1.38]</td><td>0.876***<br>[0.567,1.186]</td><td>-0.02<br>[-0.269,0.229]</td><td>1.246***<br>[0.708,1.784]</td></tr><tr><td>2001</td><td>1.098***<br>[0.798,1.398]</td><td>1.153***<br>[0.753,1.553]</td><td>1.13***<br>[0.786,1.475]</td><td>1.12***<br>[0.783,1.456]</td><td>0.028<br>[-0.282,0.338]</td><td>1.332***<br>[0.772,1.891]</td></tr><tr><td>2002</td><td>1.123***<br>[0.822,1.424]</td><td>1.255***<br>[0.869,1.642]</td><td>1.198***<br>[0.851,1.545]</td><td>1.054***<br>[0.701,1.406]</td><td>0.05<br>[-0.272,0.372]</td><td>1.328***<br>[0.771,1.884]</td></tr><tr><td>2003</td><td>1.114***<br>[0.799,1.43]</td><td>1.325***<br>[0.922,1.728]</td><td>1.144***<br>[0.766,1.522]</td><td>1.067***<br>[0.723,1.41]</td><td>0.091<br>[-0.264,0.447]</td><td>1.273***<br>[0.708,1.839]</td></tr><tr><td>2004</td><td>1.076***<br>[0.748,1.403]</td><td>1.385***<br>[0.967,1.802]</td><td>1.127***<br>[0.732,1.521]</td><td>0.911***<br>[0.554,1.268]</td><td>0.071<br>[-0.292,0.433]</td><td>1.219***<br>[0.655,1.783]</td></tr><tr><td>2005</td><td>1.067***<br>[0.734,1.399]</td><td>1.318***<br>[0.913,1.723]</td><td>1.095***<br>[0.675,1.515]</td><td>0.988***<br>[0.638,1.337]</td><td>0.137<br>[-0.227,0.502]</td><td>1.148***<br>[0.599,1.698]</td></tr><tr><td>2006</td><td>0.926***<br>[0.582,1.269]</td><td>1.092***<br>[0.697,1.487]</td><td>0.97***<br>[0.576,1.363]</td><td>0.892***<br>[0.539,1.246]</td><td>0.173<br>[-0.211,0.557]</td><td>0.866***<br>[0.324,1.408]</td></tr></tbody></table>

Reading note: year t is ATT conditional DiD estimator for log(variable) between year t and 1995. Confidence intervals at 95 % in brackets. Significance levels: *** 1%, ** 5%, * 10%.
<table><caption>Table 12: EZ effect on changes in the main variables compared to 1995 level - 2nd and 3rd waves EZ excluded from the control group</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Stock of firm</th><th>Employment</th><th>Firm creation</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1995</td><td>-0.016<br>[-0.069,0.037]</td><td>0.108<br>[-0.129,0.344]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1996</td><td>0.014<br>[-0.062,0.091]</td><td>0.157<br>[-0.123,0.438]</td><td>0.103<br>[-0.223,0.429]</td></tr><tr><td>1997</td><td>0.194***<br>[0.101,0.287]</td><td>0.407***<br>[0.122,0.692]</td><td>0.558***<br>[0.264,0.851]</td></tr><tr><td>1998</td><td>0.337***<br>[0.228,0.446]</td><td>0.705***<br>[0.397,1.014]</td><td>0.745***<br>[0.418,1.073]</td></tr><tr><td>1999</td><td>0.444***<br>[0.321,0.568]</td><td>0.852***<br>[0.509,1.196]</td><td>0.723***<br>[0.391,1.054]</td></tr><tr><td>2000</td><td>0.546***<br>[0.404,0.688]</td><td>1.017***<br>[0.648,1.387]</td><td>0.8***<br>[0.496,1.104]</td></tr><tr><td>2001</td><td>0.696***<br>[0.537,0.856]</td><td>1.156***<br>[0.784,1.527]</td><td>1.007***<br>[0.683,1.33]</td></tr><tr><td>2002</td><td>0.685***<br>[0.516,0.853]</td><td>1.189***<br>[0.821,1.557]</td><td>0.495***<br>[0.141,0.85]</td></tr><tr><td>2003</td><td>0.687***<br>[0.506,0.868]</td><td>1.206***<br>[0.822,1.589]</td><td>0.764***<br>[0.403,1.126]</td></tr><tr><td>2004</td><td>0.675***<br>[0.488,0.862]</td><td>1.208***<br>[0.812,1.603]</td><td>0.63***<br>[0.261,0.999]</td></tr><tr><td>2005</td><td>0.709***<br>[0.52,0.897]</td><td>1.187***<br>[0.791,1.582]</td><td>0.719***<br>[0.389,1.049]</td></tr><tr><td>2006</td><td>0.688***<br>[0.51,0.867]</td><td>1.206***<br>[0.766,1.645]</td><td>0.889***<br>[0.518,1.259]</td></tr><tr><td>2007</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.729***<br>[0.428,1.029]</td></tr></tbody></table>

Reading note: year t is ATT conditional DiD estimator for log variable) between year t and 1995. Confidence intervals at 95 % in brackets. Significance levels: *** 1%, ** 5%, * 10%.
<table><caption>Table 13: EZ effect on changes in the main variables compared to 1995 level - Propensity score matching</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Stock of firm</th><th>Employment</th><th>Firm creation</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1995</td><td>-0.004<br>[-0.03,0.033]</td><td>-0.016<br>[-0.106,0.057]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1996</td><td>0.033*<br>[-0.002,0.072]</td><td>0.007<br>[-0.096,0.093]</td><td>0.151**<br>[0.015,0.285]</td></tr><tr><td>1997</td><td>0.221***<br>[0.172,0.28]</td><td>0.25***<br>[0.13,0.361]</td><td>0.55***<br>[0.387,0.701]</td></tr><tr><td>1998</td><td>0.336***<br>[0.277,0.399]</td><td>0.429***<br>[0.282,0.546]</td><td>0.642***<br>[0.472,0.791]</td></tr><tr><td>1999</td><td>0.408***<br>[0.344,0.481]</td><td>0.539***<br>[0.361,0.691]</td><td>0.574***<br>[0.386,0.733]</td></tr><tr><td>2000</td><td>0.504***<br>[0.429,0.586]</td><td>0.692***<br>[0.489,0.862]</td><td>0.698***<br>[0.516,0.84]</td></tr><tr><td>2001</td><td>0.645***<br>[0.553,0.749]</td><td>0.831***<br>[0.603,1.035]</td><td>0.979***<br>[0.755,1.169]</td></tr><tr><td>2002</td><td>0.635***<br>[0.541,0.739]</td><td>0.851***<br>[0.64,1.065]</td><td>0.326***<br>[0.13,0.499]</td></tr><tr><td>2003</td><td>0.665***<br>[0.566,0.777]</td><td>0.878***<br>[0.638,1.089]</td><td>0.666***<br>[0.47,0.84]</td></tr><tr><td>2004</td><td>0.652***<br>[0.539,0.769]</td><td>0.86***<br>[0.622,1.058]</td><td>0.572***<br>[0.351,0.753]</td></tr><tr><td>2005</td><td>0.64***<br>[0.522,0.755]</td><td>0.844***<br>[0.601,1.052]</td><td>0.557***<br>[0.374,0.725]</td></tr><tr><td>2006</td><td>0.603***<br>[0.474,0.722]</td><td>0.773***<br>[0.546,0.961]</td><td>0.584***<br>[0.391,0.769]</td></tr><tr><td>2007</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.494***<br>[0.301,0.67]</td></tr></tbody></table>

Reading note: year t is ATT conditional DiD estimator for log variable) between year t and 1995. Confidence intervals at 95 % in brackets. Significance levels: *** 1%, ** 5%, * 10%.
<table>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9001</td>
    <td>J. FAYOLLE et M. FLEURBAEY<br/>Accumulation, profitabilité et endettement des entreprises</td>
    <td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9002</td>
    <td>H. ROUSSE<br/>Détection et effets de la multicolinéarité dans les modèles linéaires ordinaires - Un prolongement de la réflexion de BELSLEY, KUH et WELSCH</td>
    <td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9003</td>
    <td>P. RALLE et J. TOUJAS-BERNATE<br/>Indexation des salaires : la rupture de 1983</td>
    <td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9004</td>
    <td>D. GUELLEC et P. RALLE<br/>Compétitivité, croissance et innovation de produit</td>
    <td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9005</td>
    <td>P. RALLE et J. TOUJAS-BERNATE<br/>Les conséquences de la désindexation. Analyse dans une maquette prix-salaires</td>
    <td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9101</td>
    <td>Equipe AMADEUS<br/>Le modèle AMADEUS - Première partie - Présentation générale</td>
    <td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9102</td>
    <td>J.L. BRILLET<br/>Le modèle AMADEUS - Deuxième partie - Propriétés variantielles</td>
    <td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9103</td>
    <td>D. GUELLEC et P. RALLE<br/>Endogenous growth and product innovation</td>
    <td></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></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></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9106</td>
    <td>B. CREPON<br/>Innovation, taille et concentration : causalités et dynamiques</td>
    <td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9107</td>
    <td>B. AMABLE et D. GUELLEC<br/>Un panorama des théories de la croissance endogène</td>
    <td></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></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9109</td>
    <td>P. RALLE et alii<br/>France - Allemagne : performances économiques comparées</td>
    <td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9110</td>
    <td>J.L. BRILLET<br/>Micro-DMS<br/>NON PARU</td>
    <td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9111</td>
    <td>A. MAGNIER<br/>Effets accélérateur et multiplicateur en France depuis 1970 : quelques résultats empiriques</td>
    <td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9112</td>
    <td>B. CREPON et G. DUREAU<br/>Investissement en recherche-développement : analyse de causalités dans un modèle d'accélérateur généralisé</td>
    <td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9113</td>
    <td>J.L. BRILLET, H. ERKEL-ROUSSE, J. TOUJAS-BERNATE<br/>"France-Allemagne Couplées" - Deux économies vues par une maquette macro-économétrique</td>
    <td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9201</td>
    <td>W.J. ADAMS, B. CREPON, D. ENCAOVA<br/>Choix technologiques et stratégies de dissuasion d'entrée</td>
    <td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9202</td>
    <td>J. OLIVEIRA-MARTINS, J. TOUJAS-BERNATE</td>
    <td></td>
  </tr>
</table>

<table>
  <tr>
    <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 (1ère version)<br/>Novembre 1992 (version finale)</td>
    <td>G 9312</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9204</td>
    <td>P. SEVESTRE<br/>L'économétrie sur données individuelles-temporelles. Une note introductive</td>
    <td>G 9313</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9205</td>
    <td>H. ERKEL-ROUSSE<br/>Le commerce extérieur et l'environnement international dans le modèle AMADEUS (réestimation 1992)</td>
    <td>G 9314</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9206</td>
    <td>N. GREENAN et D. GUELLEC<br/>Coordination within the firm and endogenous growth</td>
    <td>G 9315</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9207</td>
    <td>A. MAGNIER et J. TOUJAS-BERNATE<br/>Technology and trade : empirical evidences for the major five industrialized countries</td>
    <td>G 9316</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9208</td>
    <td>B. CREPON, E. DUGUET, D. ENCAOVA et P. MOHNEN<br/>Cooperative, non cooperative R &amp; D and optimal patent life</td>
    <td>G 9317</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9209</td>
    <td>B. CREPON et E. DUGUET<br/>Research and development, competition and innovation : an application of pseudo maximum likelihood methods to Poisson models with heterogeneity</td>
    <td>G 9318</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9301</td>
    <td>J. TOUJAS-BERNATE<br/>Commerce international et concurrence impartie : développements récents et implications pour la politique commerciale</td>
    <td>G 9401</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9302</td>
    <td>Ch. CASES<br/>Durées de chômage et comportements d'offre de travail : une revue de la littérature</td>
    <td>G 9402</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9303</td>
    <td>H. ERKEL-ROUSSE<br/>Union économique et monétaire : le débat économique</td>
    <td>G 9403</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9304</td>
    <td>N. GREENAN - D. GUELLEC / G. BROUSSAUDIER - L. MIOTTI<br/>Innovation organisationnelle, dynamisme technologique et performances des entreprises</td>
    <td>G 9404</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9305</td>
    <td>P. JAILLARD<br/>Le traité de Maastricht : présentation juridique et historique</td>
    <td>G 9405</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9306</td>
    <td>J.L. BRILLET<br/>Micro-DMS : présentation et propriétés</td>
    <td>G 9406</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9307</td>
    <td>J.L. BRILLET<br/>Micro-DMS - variantes : les tableaux</td>
    <td>G 9407</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9308</td>
    <td>S. JACOBZONE<br/>Les grands réseaux publics français dans une perspective européenne</td>
    <td>G 9408</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9309</td>
    <td>L. BLOCH - B. CŒURÉ<br/>Profitabilité de l'investissement productif et transmission des chocs financiers</td>
    <td>G 9409</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9310</td>
    <td>J. BOURDIEU - B. COLIN-SEDILLOT<br/>Les théories sur la structure optimal du capital : quelques points de repère</td>
    <td>G 9410</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9311</td>
    <td>J. BOURDIEU - B. COLIN-SEDILLOT<br/>Les décisions de financement des entreprises</td>
    <td>G 9411</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<table>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9412</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 9413</td>
    <td>B. DORMONT - M. PAUCHET<br/>L'évaluation de l'élasticité emploi-salaire dépend-elle des structures de qualification ?</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9414</td>
    <td>I. KABLA<br/>Le Choix de breveter une invention</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9501</td>
    <td>J. BOURDIEU - B. CŒURÉ - B. SEDILLOT<br/>Irreversible Investment and Uncertainty : When is there a Value of Waiting ?</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9502</td>
    <td>L. BLOCH - B. CŒURÉ<br/>Imperfections du marché du crédit, investissement des entreprises et cycle économique</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <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 9504</td>
    <td>N. GREENAN<br/>Technologie, changement organisationnel, qualifications et emploi : une étude empirique sur l'industrie manufacturière</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9505</td>
    <td>D. GOUX - E. MAURIN<br/>Persistence des hiérarchies sectorielles de salaires: un réexamen sur données françaises</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <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 9506</td>
    <td>S. JACOBZONE<br/>Les liens entre RMI et chômage, une mise en perspective<br/>NON PARU - article (sorti dans Economie et Prévision n°122 (1996) - pages 95 à 113</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <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 9601</td>
    <td>Banque de France - CEPREMAP - Direction de la Prévision - Erasme - INSEE - OFCE<br/>Structures et propriétés de cinq modèles macro-économiques français</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9602</td>
    <td>Rapport d'activité de la DESE de l'année 1995</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9603</td>
    <td>J. BOURDIEU - A. DRAZNIEKS<br/>L'octroi de crédit aux PME : une analyse à partir d'informations bancaires</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9604</td>
    <td>A. TOPIOL-BENSAÎD<br/>Les implantations japonaises en France</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9605</td>
    <td>P. GENIER - S. JACOBZONE<br/>Comportements de prévention, consommation d'alcool et tabagie : peut-on parler d'une gestion globale du capital santé ?<br/>Une modélisation microéconométrique empirique</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9606</td>
    <td>C. DOZ - F. LENGLART<br/>Factor analysis and unobserved component models: an application to the study of French business surveys</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9607</td>
    <td>N. GREENAN - D. GUELLEC<br/>La théorie coopérative de la firme</td>
  </tr>
</table>
<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>G 9608</td>
      <td>N. GREENAN - D. GUELLEC<br>Technological innovation and employment<br>reallocation</td>
      <td>G 9714</td>
      <td>F. LEQUILLER<br>Does the French Consumer Price Index Over-<br>state Inflation?</td>
      <td>G 9808</td>
      <td>A. Mourougane<br>Can a Conservative Governor Conduct an Ac-<br>comodative Monetary Policy ?</td>
      <td>G 9913</td>
      <td>Division « Redistribution et Politiques Sociales »<br>Le modèle de microsimulation dynamique<br>DESTINIE</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 9609</td>
      <td>Ph. COUR - F. RUPPRECHT<br>L'intégration asymétrique au sein du continent<br>américain : un essai de modélisation</td>
      <td>G 9715</td>
      <td>X. BONNET<br>Peut-on mettre en évidence les rigidités à la<br>baisse des salaires nominaux ?<br>Une étude sur quelques grands pays de l'OCDE</td>
      <td>G 9809</td>
      <td>X. BONNET - E. DUBOIS - L. FAUVET<br>Asymétrie des inflations relatives et menus costs<br>: tests sur l'inflation française</td>
      <td>G 9914</td>
      <td>E. DUGUET<br>Macro-commandes SAS pour l'économétrie des<br>panels et des variables qualitatives</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 9610</td>
      <td>S. DUCHENE - G. FORGEOT - A. JACQUOT<br>Analyse des évolutions récentes de la producti-<br>vité apparente du travail</td>
      <td>G 9716</td>
      <td>N. IUNG - F. RUPPRECHT<br>Productivité de la recherche et rendements<br>d'échelle dans le secteur pharmaceutique<br>français</td>
      <td>G 9810</td>
      <td>E. DUGUET - N. IUNG<br>Sales and Advertising with Spillovers at the firm<br>level: Estimation of a Dynamic Structural Model<br>on Panel Data</td>
      <td>G 9915</td>
      <td>R. DUHAUTOIS<br>Evolution des flux d'emplois en France entre<br>1990 et 1996 : une étude empirique à partir du<br>fichier des bénéfices réels normaux (BRN)</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 9611</td>
      <td>X. BONNET - S. MAHFOUZ<br>The influence of different specifications of<br>wages-prices spirals on the measure of the<br>NAIRU : the case of France</td>
      <td>G 9717</td>
      <td>E. DUGUET - I. KABLA<br>Appropriation strategy and the motivations to use<br>the patent system in France - An econometric<br>analysis at the firm level</td>
      <td>G 9811</td>
      <td>J.P. BERTHIER<br>Congestion urbaine : un modèle de trafic de<br>pointe à courbe débit-vitesse et demande<br>élastique</td>
      <td>G 9916</td>
      <td>J.Y. FOURNIER<br>Extraction du cycle des affaires : la méthode de<br>Baxter et King</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 9612</td>
      <td>PH. COUR - E. DUBOIS, S. MAHFOUZ,<br>J. PISANI-FERRY<br>The cost of fiscal retrenchment revisited: how<br>strong is the evidence ?</td>
      <td>G 9718</td>
      <td>L.P. PELÉ - P. RALLE<br>Âge de la retraite : les aspects incitatifs du ré-<br>gime général</td>
      <td>G 9812</td>
      <td>C. PRIGENT<br>La part des salaires dans la valeur ajoutée : une<br>approche macroéconomique</td>
      <td>G 9917</td>
      <td>B. CRÉPON - R. DESPLATZ - J. MAIRESSE<br>Estimating price cost margins, scale economies<br>and workers' bargaining power at the firm level</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 9613</td>
      <td>A. JACQUOT<br>Les flexions des taux d'activité sont-elles seule-<br>ment conjoncturelles ?</td>
      <td>G 9719</td>
      <td>ZHANG Yingxiang - SONG Xueqing<br>Lexique macroéconomique français-chinois,<br>chinois-français</td>
      <td>G 9813</td>
      <td>A.Th. AERTS<br>L'évolution de la part des salaires dans la valeur<br>ajoutée en France reflète-t-elle les évolutions<br>individuelles sur la période 1979-1994 ?</td>
      <td>G 9918</td>
      <td>Ch. GIANELLA - Ph. LAGARDE<br>Productivity of hours in the aggregate production<br>function: an evaluation on a panel of French<br>firms from the manufacturing sector</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 9614</td>
      <td>ZHANG Yingxiang - SONG Xueqing<br>Lexique macroéconomique Français-Chinois</td>
      <td>G 9720</td>
      <td>M. HOUBEBINE - J.L. SCHNEIDER<br>Mesurer l'influence de la fiscalité sur la locali-<br>sation des entreprises</td>
      <td>G 9814</td>
      <td>B. SALANIÉ<br>Guide pratique des séries non-stationnaires</td>
      <td>G 9919</td>
      <td>S. AUDRIC - P. GIVORD - C. PROST<br>Evolution de l'emploi et des coûts par quali-<br>fication entre 1982 et 1996</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 9701</td>
      <td>J.L. SCHNEIDER<br>La taxe professionnelle : éléments de cadrage<br>économique</td>
      <td>G 9721</td>
      <td>A. Mourougane<br>Crédibilité, indépendance et politique monétaire<br>Une revue de la littérature</td>
      <td>G 9901</td>
      <td>S. DUCHÈNE - A. JACQUOT<br>Une croissance plus riche en emplois depuis le<br>début de la décennie ? Une analyse en compa-<br>raison internationale</td>
      <td>G 2000/1</td>
      <td>R. MAHIEU<br>Les déterminants des dépenses de santé : une<br>approche macroéconomique</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 9702</td>
      <td>J.L. SCHNEIDER<br>Transition et stabilité politique d'un système<br>redistributif</td>
      <td>G 9722</td>
      <td>P. AUGERAUD - L. BRIOT<br>Les données comptables d'entreprises<br>Le système intermédiaire d'entreprises<br>Passage des données individuelles aux données<br>sectorielles</td>
      <td>G 9902</td>
      <td>Ch. COLIN<br>Modélisation des carrières dans Destinie</td>
      <td>G 2000/2</td>
      <td>C. ALLARD-PRIGENT - H. GUILMEAU -<br>A. QUINET<br>The real exchange rate as the relative price of<br>nontrables in terms of tradables: theoretical<br>investigation and empirical study on French data</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 9703</td>
      <td>D. GOUX - E. MAURIN<br>Train or Pay: Does it Reduce Inequalities to En-<br>courage Firms to Train their Workers?</td>
      <td>G 9723</td>
      <td>P. AUGERAUD - J.E. CHAPRON<br>Using Business Accounts for Compiling National<br>Accounts: the French Experience</td>
      <td>G 9904</td>
      <td>Ch. COLIN<br>Evolution de la dispersion des salaires : un essai<br>de prospective par microsimulation</td>
      <td>G 2000/3</td>
      <td>J.-Y. FOURNIER<br>L'approximation du filtre passe-bande proposée<br>par Christiano et Fitzgerald</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 9704</td>
      <td>P. GENIER<br>Deux contributions sur dépendance et équité</td>
      <td>G 9724</td>
      <td>P. AUGERAUD<br>Les comptes d'entreprise par activités - Le pas-<br>sage aux comptes - De la comptabilité<br>d'entreprise à la comptabilité nationale - A<br>paraitre</td>
      <td>G 9905</td>
      <td>B. CREPON - N. IUNG<br>Innovation, emploi et performances</td>
      <td>G 2000/4</td>
      <td>Bilan des activités de la DESE - 1999</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 9705</td>
      <td>E. DUGUET - N. IUNG<br>R & D Investment, Patent Life and Patent Value<br>An Econometric Analysis at the Firm Level</td>
      <td>G 9801</td>
      <td>H. MICHAUDON - C. PRIGENT<br>Présentation du modèle AMADEUS</td>
      <td>G 9907</td>
      <td>B. CREPON - Ch. GIANELLA<br>Wages inequalities in France 1969-1992<br>An application of quantile regression techniques</td>
      <td>G 2000/5</td>
      <td>B. CREPON - F. ROSENWALD<br>Investissement et contraintes de financement : le<br>poids du cycle<br>Une estimation sur données françaises</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 9706</td>
      <td>M. HOUBEBINE - A. TOPIOL-BENSAÎD<br>Les entreprises internationales en France : une<br>analyse à partir de données individuelles</td>
      <td>G 9802</td>
      <td>J. ACCARDO<br>Une étude de comptabilité générationnelle<br>pour la France en 1996</td>
      <td>G 9908</td>
      <td>C. BONNET - R. MAHIEU<br>Microsimulation techniques applied to inter-<br>generational transfers - Pensions in a dynamic<br>framework: the case of France</td>
      <td>G 2000/6</td>
      <td>A. FLIPO<br>Les comportements matrimoniaux de fait</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 9707</td>
      <td>M. HOUBEBINE<br>Polarisation des activités et spécialisation des<br>départements en France</td>
      <td>G 9803</td>
      <td>X. BONNET - S. DUCHÈNE<br>Apports et limites de la modélisation<br>« Real Business Cycles »</td>
      <td>G 9909</td>
      <td>F. ROSENWALD<br>L'impact des contraintes financières dans la dé-<br>cision d'investissement</td>
      <td>G 2000/7</td>
      <td>R. MAHIEU - B. SÉDILLOT<br>Microsimulations of the retirement decision: a<br>supply side approach</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 9708</td>
      <td>E. DUGUET - N. GREENAN<br>Le biais technologique : une analyse sur don-<br>nées individuelles</td>
      <td>G 9804</td>
      <td>C. BARLET - C. DUGUET -<br>D. ENCAOUA - J. PRADEL<br>The Commercial Success of Innovations<br>An econometric analysis at the firm level in<br>French manufacturing</td>
      <td>G 9910</td>
      <td>Bilan des activités de la DESE - 1998<br>J.P. ZOYEM<br>Contrat d'insertion et sortie du RMI<br>Evaluation des effets d'une politique sociale</td>
      <td>G 2000/8</td>
      <td>C. AUDENIS - C. PROST<br>Déficit conjoncturel : une prise en compte des<br>conjonctures passées</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 9709</td>
      <td>J.L. BRILLET<br>Analyzing a small French ECM Model</td>
      <td>G 9805</td>
      <td>P. CAHUC - Ch. GIANELLA -<br>D. GOUX - A. ZILBERBERG<br>Equalizing Wage Differences and Bargaining<br>Power - Evidence form a Panel of French Firms</td>
      <td>G 9911</td>
      <td>Ch. COLIN - FI. LEGROS - R. MAHIEU<br>Bilans contributifs comparés des régimes de<br>retraite du secteur privé et de la fonction<br>publique</td>
      <td>G 2000/9</td>
      <td>R. MAHIEU - B. SÉDILLOT<br>Equivalent patrimonial de la rente et souscription<br>de retraite complémentaire</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 9710</td>
      <td>J.L. BRILLET<br>Formalizing the transition process : scenarios for<br>capital accumulation</td>
      <td>G 9806</td>
      <td>J. ACCARDO - M. JLASSI<br>La productivité globale des facteurs entre 1975<br>et 1996</td>
      <td>G 9912</td>
      <td>G. LAROQUE - B. SALANIÉ<br>Une décomposition du non-emploi en France</td>
      <td>G 2000/10</td>
      <td>R. DUHAUTOIS<br>Ralentissement de l'investissement : petites ou<br>grandes entreprises ? industrie ou tertiaire ?</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 9711</td>
      <td>G. FORGEOT - J. GAUTIÉ<br>Insertion professionnelle des jeunes et proces-<br>sus de déclassement</td>
      <td>G 9807</td>
      <td>J. ACCARDO - M. JLASSI<br>La productivité globale des facteurs entre 1975<br>et 1996</td>
      <td>G 9912</td>
      <td>B. SALANIÉ<br>Une maquette analytique de long terme du<br>marché du travail</td>
      <td>G 2000/11</td>
      <td>G. LAROQUE - B. SALANIÉ<br>Temps partiel féminin et incitations financières à<br>l'emploi</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 9712</td>
      <td>E. DUBOIS<br>High Real Interest Rates: the Consequence of a<br>Saving Investment Disequilibrium or of an in-<br>sufficient Credibility of Monetary Authorities?</td>
      <td>G 9808</td>
      <td>J. ACCARDO - M. JLASSI<br>La productivité globale des facteurs entre 1975<br>et 1996</td>
      <td>G 9912</td>
      <td>Ch. GIANELLA<br>Une estimation de l'élasticité de l'emploi peu<br>qualifié à son coût</td>
      <td>G 2000/12</td>
      <td>Ch. GIANELLA<br>Local unemployment and wages</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 9713</td>
      <td>Bilan des activités de la Direction des Etudes<br>et Synthèses Economiques - 1996</td>
      <td>G 9809</td>
      <td>Bilan des activités de la Direction des Etudes et<br>Synthèses Economiques - 1997</td>
      <td>Bis</td>
      <td></td>
      <td>G 2000/13</td>
      <td>B. CREPON - Th. HECKEL<br>- Informatisation en France : une évaluation à<br>partir de données individuelles</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
- 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 measurement of GDP growth

G2001/02 S. AUDRIC
La reprise de la croissance de l'emploi profonde-t-elle aussi aux non-diplômés ?

G2001/03 I. BRAUN-LEMAIRE
Evolution 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'hétérogénéité 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 Bilan des activités de la DESE - 2000

G2001/08 J. Ph. GAUDEMET
Les dispositifs d'acquisition à titre facultatif d'annuités 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
Evaluation des effets des dispositifs d'allégements de charges sociales sur les bas salaires

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 microsimulation model Destinie: An analysis of future change in completed fertility

G2001/15 J.-P. ZOYEM
Diagnostic sur la pauvreté et calendrier de revenus : le cas du "Panel européen des ménages"

G2001/16 J.-Y. FOURNIER - P. GIVORD
La réduction des taux d'activité aux âges extrêmes, une spécificité française ?

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

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 Bilan des activités de la DESE - 2001

G2002/03 B. SÉDILLOT - E. WALRAET
La cessation d'activité au sein des couples : y a-t-il interdépendance des choix ?

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

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

G2002/05 P. BISCOURP - B. CRÉPON - T. HECKEL - N. RIEDINGER
How do firms respond to cheaper computers? Microeconomic evidence for France based on a production function approach

G2002/06 C. 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 vieillesse 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-BOBÉE
Les comportements démographiques dans le modèle de microsimulation Destinie - Une comparaison des estimations issues des enquêtes Jeunes et Carrières 1997 et Histoire Familielle 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 : interprétation et limites

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

G2003/03 Bilan des activités de la DESE - 2002

G2003/04 P.-O. BEFFY - J. DEROYON - N. FOURCADE - S. GREGOIR - N. LAÎB - 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
Âge, salaire et productivité
La productivité des salariés décline-t-elle en fin de carrière ?

G2003/07 H. BARON - P.O. BEFFY - N. FOURCADE - R. MAHIEU
Le ralentissement de la productivité du travail au cours des années 1990

G2003/08 P.-O. BEFFY - B. MONFORT
Patrimoine des ménages, dynamique d'allocation et comportement de consommation

G2003/09 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. DARRACQ-PARIES - B. MONFORT
MZE: a small macro-model for the euro area

G2004/01 P. AUBERT - M. LECLAIR
La compétitivité exprimée dans les enquêtes trimestrielles sur la situation et les perspectives dans l'industrie

G2004/02 M. 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. DUÉE
L'impact du chômage des parents sur le devenir scolaire des enfants

G2004/07 P. AUBERT - E. CAROLI - M. ROGER
New Techologies, Workplace Organisation and the Age Structure of the Workforce: Firm-Level Evidence

G2004/08 E. DUGUET - C. LELARGE
Les brevets accroissent-ils les incitations privées à innover ? Un examen microéconomique

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 organisationnels : un réexamen à partir de l'enquête « REPONSE »

G2004/12 X. BONNET - H. PONCET
Structures de revenus et propensions différentes à consommer - Vers une équation de consommation des ménages plus robuste en prévision pour la France

G2004/13 C. PICART
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 a1974

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 et de l'Allemagne - Une analyse par secteur et destination géographique

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

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

G2005/08 C. L'ANGEVIN - N. LAÎB
Éducation et croissance en France et dans un panel de 21 pays de l'OCDE

G2005/09 N. FERRARI
Prévoir l'investissement des entreprises
Un indicateur des révisions dans l'enquête de conjoncture sur les investissements dans l'industrie.
G2005/10 P.-O. BEFFY - C. L'ANGEVIN
Chômage et boucle prix-salaires : apport d'un modèle « qualifés/peu qualifiés »

G2005/11 B. HEITZ
A two-states Markov-switching model of inflation in France and the USA: credible target VS inflation spiral

G2005/12 O. BIAU - H. ERKEL-ROUSSE - N. FERRARI
Réponses individuelles aux enquêtes de conjoncture et prévision macroéconomiques : Exemple de la prévision de la production manufacturière

G2005/13 P. AUBERT - D. BLANCHET - D. BLAU
The labour market after age 50: some elements of a Franco-American comparison

G2005/14 D. BLANCHET - T. DEBRAND - P. DOURGNON - P. POLLET
L'enquête SHARE : présentation et premiers résultats de l'édition française

G2005/15 M. DUÉE
La modélisation des comportements démographiques dans le modèle de microsimulation DESTINIE

G2005/16 H. RAOUI - S. ROUX
Étude de simulation sur la participation versée aux salariés par les entreprises

G2006/01 C. BONNET - S. BUFFETEAU - P. GODEFROY
Disparités de retraite de droit direct entre hommes et femmes : quelles évolutions ?

G2006/02 C. PICART
Les gazelles en France

G2006/03 P. AUBERT - B. CRÉPON - P. ZAMORA
Le rendement apparent de la formation continue dans les entreprises : effets sur la productivité et les salaires

G2006/04 J.-F. OUVRARD - R. RATHELOT
Demographic change and unemployment: what do macroeconometric models predict?

G2006/05 D. BLANCHET - J.-F. OUVRARD
Indicateurs d'engagements implicites des systèmes de retraite : chiffrages, propriétés analytiques et réactions à des chocs démographiques types

G2006/06 G. BIAU - O. BIAU - L. ROUVIERE
Nonparametric Forecasting of the Manufacturing Output Growth with Firm-level Survey Data

G2006/07 C. AFSA - P. GIVORD
Le rôle des conditions de travail dans les absences pour maladie

G2006/08 P. SILLARD - C. L'ANGEVIN - S. SERRAVALLE
Performances comparées à l'exportation de la France et de ses principaux partenaires
Une analyse structurelle sur 12 ans

G2006/09 X. BOUTIN - S. QUANTIN
Une méthodologie d'évaluation comptable du coût du capital des entreprises françaises : 1984-2002

G2006/10 C. AFSA
L'estimation d'un coût implicite de la pénibilité du travail chez les travailleurs âgés

G2006/11 C. LELARGE
Les entreprises (industrielles) françaises sont-elles à la frontière technologique ?

G2006/12 O. BIAU - N. FERRARI
Théorie de l'opinion
Faut-il pondérer les réponses individuelles ?

G2006/13 A. KOUBI - S. ROUX
Une réinterprétation de la relation entre productivité et inégalités salariales dans les entreprises

G2006/14 R. RATHELOT - P. SILLARD
The impact of local taxes on plants location decision

G2006/15 L. GONZALEZ - C. PICART
Diversification, recentrage et poids des activités de support dans les groupes (1993-2000)

G2007/01 D. SRAER
Allègements de cotisations patronales et dynamique salariale

G2007/02 V. ALBOUY - L. LEQUIEN
Les rendements non monétaires de l'éducation : le cas de la santé

G2007/03 D. BLANCHET - T. DEBRAND
Aspiration à la retraite, santé et satisfaction au travail : une comparaison européenne

G2007/04 M. BARLET - L. CRUSSON
Quel impact des variations du prix du pétrole sur la croissance française ?

G2007/05 C. PICART
Flux d'emploi et de main-d'œuvre en France : un réexamen

G2007/06 V. ALBOUY - C. TAVAN
Massification et démocratisation de l'enseignement supérieur en France

G2007/07 T. LE BARBANCHON
The Changing response to oil price shocks in France : a DSGE type approach

G2007/08 T. CHANEY - D. SRAER - D. THESMAR
Collateral Value and Corporate Investment Evidence from the French Real Estate Market

G2007/09 J. BOISSINOT
Consumption over the Life Cycle: Facts for France

G2007/10 C. AFSA
Interpréter les variables de satisfaction : l'exemple de la durée du travail

G2007/11 R. RATHELOT - P. SILLARD
Zones Franches Urbaines : quels effets sur l'emploi salarié et les créations d'établissements ?

G2007/12 V. ALBOUY - B. CRÉPON
Aléa moral en santé : une évaluation dans le cadre du modèle causal de Rubin

G2008/01 C. PICART
Les PME françaises : rentables mais peu dynamiques

G2008/02 P. BISCOURP - X. BOUTIN - T. VERGÉ
The Effects of Retail Regulations on Prices Evidence form the Loi Galland

G2008/03 Y. BARBESOL - A. BRIANT
Économies d'agglomération et productivité des entreprises : estimation sur données individuelles françaises

G2008/04 D. BLANCHET - F. LE GALLO
Les projections démographiques : principaux mécanismes et retour sur l'expérience française

G2008/05 D. BLANCHET - F. TOUTLEMONDE
Évolutions démographiques et déformation du cycle de vie active : quelles relations ?

G2008/06 M. BARLET - D. BLANCHET - L. CRUSSON
Internationalisation et flux d'emplois : que dit une approche comptable ?

G2008/07 C. LELARGE - D. SRAER - D. THESMAR
Entrepreneurship and Credit Constraints - Evidence from a French Loan Guarantee Program

G2008/08 X. BOUTIN - L. JANIN
Are Prices Really Affected by Mergers?

G2008/09 M. BARLET - A. BRIANT - L. CRUSSON
Concentration géographique dans l'industrie manufacturière et dans les services en France : une approche par un indicateur en continu

G2008/10 M. BEFFY - É. COUDIN - R. RATHELOT
Who is confronted to insecure labor market histories? Some evidence based on the French labor market transition

G2008/11 M. ROGER - E. WALRAET
Social Security and Well-Being of the Elderly: the Case of France

G2008/12 C. AFSA
Analyser les composantes du bien-être et de son évolution
Une approche empirique sur données individuelles

G2008/13 M. BARLET - D. BLANCHET - T. LE BARBANCHON
Microsimuler le marché du travail : un prototype

G2009/01 P.-A. PIONNIER
Le partage de la valeur ajoutée en France, 1949-2007

G2009/02 Laurent CLAVEL - Christelle MINODIER
A Monthly Indicator of the French Business Climate

G2009/03 H. ERKEL-ROUSSE - C. MINODIER
Do Business Tendency Surveys in Industry and Services Help in Forecasting GDP Growth?
A Real-Time Analysis on French Data

G2009/04 P. GIVORD - L. WILNER
Les contrats temporaires : trappe ou marchepied vers l'emploi stable ?

G2009/05 G. LALANNE - P.-A. PIONNIER - O. SIMON
Le partage des fruits de la croissance de 1950 à 2008 : une approche par les comptes de surplus

G2009/06 L. DAVEZIES - X. D'HAULTFOEUILLE
Faut-il pondérer ?... Ou l'éternelle question de l'économètre confronté à des données d'enquête

G2009/07 S. QUANTIN - S. RASPILLER - S. SERRAVALLE
Commerce intragroupe, fiscalité et prix de transferts : une analyse sur données françaises

G2009/08 M. CLERC - V. MARCUS
Élasticités-prix des consommations énergétiques des ménages

G2009/09 G. LALANNE - E. POULIQUEN - O. SIMON
Prix du pétrole et croisssance potentielle à long terme

G2009/10 D. BLANCHET - J. LE CACHEUX - V. MARCUS
Adjusted net savings and other approaches to sustainability: some theroretical background

G2009/11 V. BELLAMY - G. CONSALES - M. FESSEAU - S. LE LAIDIER - É. RAYNAUD
Une décomposition du compte des ménages de la comptabilité nationale par catégorie de ménage en 2003

G2009/12 J. BARDAJI - F. TALLET
Detecting Economic Regimes in France: a Qualitative Markov-Switching Indicator Using Mixed Frequency Data

G2009/13 R. AEBERHARDT - D. FOUGÈRE - R. RATHELOT

Discrimination à l'embauche : comment exploiter les procédures de testing ?

G2009/14 Y. BARBESOL - P. GIVORD - S. QUANTIN
Partage de la valeur ajoutée, approche par données microéconomiques

G2009/15 I. BUONO - G. LALANNE
The Effect of the Uruguay round on the Intensive and Extensive Margins of Trade

G2010/01 C. MINODIER
Avantages comparés des séries des premières valeurs publiées et des séries des valeurs révisées - Un exercice de prévision en temps réel de la croissance trimestrielle du PIB en France

G2010/02 V. ALBOUY - L. DAVEZIES - T. DEBRAND
Health Expenditure Models: a Comparison of Five Specifications using Panel Data

G2010/03 C. KLEIN - O. SIMON
Le modèle MÉSANGE réestimé en base 2000
Tome 1 – Version avec volumes à prix constants

G2010/04 M.-É. CLERC - É. COUDIN
L'IPC, miroir de l'évolution du coût de la vie en France ? Ce qu'apporte l'analyse des courbes d'Engel

G2010/05 N. CECI-RENAUD - P.-A. CHEVALIER
Les seuils de 10, 20 et 50 salariés : impact sur la taille des entreprises françaises

G2010/06 R. AEBERHARDT - J. POUGET
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 économétriques 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 immigrés en France de 1968 à 1999

G2010/12 M. BARATON - M. BEFFY - D. FOUGÈRE
Une évaluation de l'effet de la réforme de 2003 sur les départs en retraite - Le cas des enseignants du second degré public

G2010/13 D. BLANCHET - S. BUFFETEAU - E. CRENNER
S. LE MINEZ
Le modèle de microsimulation Destinie 2 : 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-private wage gaps: is civil-servant human capital sector-specific?

G2010/17 P.-Y. CABANNES - H. ERKEL-ROUSSE - G. LALANNE - O. MONSO - E. POULIQUEN
Le modèle Mésange réestimé en base 2000
Tome 2 - Version avec volumes à prix chaînés

G2010/18 R. AEBERHARDT - L. DAVEZIES
Conditional Logit with one Binary Covariate: Link between the Static and Dynamic Cases

G2011/01 T. LE BARBANCHON - B. OURLIAC - O. SIMON
Les marchés du travail français et américain face aux chocs conjoncturels des années 1986 à 2007 : une modélisation DSGE

G2011/02 C. MARBOT
Une évaluation de la réduction d'impôt pour l'emploi de salariés à domicile

G2011/03 L. DAVEZIES
Modèles à effets fixes, à effets aléatoires, modèles mixtes ou multi-niveaux : propriétés et mises en œuvre des modélisations de l'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
Projeter l'impact des réformes des retraites sur l'activité des 55 ans et plus : une comparaison de trois modèles

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

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

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

G2011/12 C. MARBOT et 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'HAULTFOEUILLE - 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 Likely Effects?

G2012/01 P. GIVORD - S. QUANTIN - C. TREVIEN
A Long-Term Evaluation of the First Generation of the French Urban Enterprise Zones