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

HAL
open science

Consumption inequality in France between 1995 and
2011

Charles-Marie Chevalier

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

To cite this version:

Charles-Marie Chevalier. Consumption inequality in France between 1995 and 2011. 2018. hal-05409653

HAL Id: hal-05409653

https://insee.hal.science/hal-05409653v1

Preprint submitted on 10 Dec 2025

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

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

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Direction des Études et Synthèses Économiques

G2018/07

Consumption inequality in France
between 1995 and 2011

Charles-Marie CHEVALIER

Document de travail

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Insee
Mesurer pour comprendre

Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>
INSTITUT NATIONAL DE LA STATISTIQUE ET DES ÉTUDES ÉCONOMIQUES

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

G2018/07

Consumption inequality in France
between 1995 and 2011

Charles-Marie CHEVALIER*

NOVEMBRE 2018

For their useful comments, I would like to thank Jérôme ACCARDO, Edouard CHALLE, Malik KOUBI, Corinne PROST, Sébastien ROUX, Olivier SIMON as well as various participants at the Insee Department of Econcomic Studies seminar and the 2018 AFSE conference.

<footnote>* Insee - Dese - Département des Études Économiques - Division « études macroéconomiques »</footnote>
# Inégalités de consommation en France entre 1995 et 2011

## Résumé

Comment ont évolué les inégalités de consommation en France durant les deux dernières décennies, et notamment en comparaison des inégalités de revenu ? Pour les États-Unis, alors que les premières mesures de ces inégalités faisaient apparaître une stabilité dans le temps, cette tendance a été remise en question par un indicateur alternatif contrôlant des sous-déclarations des dépenses de consommation et témoignant plutôt d'une hausse du même ordre que celle observée pour les inégalités de revenus (Aguiar et Bils, 2015). Cette étude développe dans un premier temps des indicateurs usuels pour la France, à partir de l'enquête *Budget de famille* entre 1995 et 2011, et les décline selon différents postes de consommation et pour différentes classes d'âge ou compositions de ménage. En prenant un échantillon de ménages et un panier de consommation standards, les inégalités de consommation ne semblent pas avoir accompagné en France la hausse des inégalités de revenu, en particulier durant la crise. Pour les biens inférieurs toutefois, le niveau des inégalités de consommation, certes moins élevé, a augmenté. Dans un second temps, pour corriger de potentiels biais de sous déclaration, un indicateur alternatif est construit, analogue à celui d'Aguiar et Bils (2015) sur les États-Unis et reposant sur les différences de dépenses en biens de luxe et de première nécessité entre les ménages des bas et hauts revenus. Toutefois, alors que de larges sous déclarations de la part des ménages de hauts revenus sont observées aux États-Unis, il ne semble pas y avoir d'incidence de tels problèmes de mesure en France. Ainsi, dans l'ensemble, qu'elles soient mesurées à partir d'indicateurs usuels ou de l'indicateur alternatif, les inégalités de consommation n'ont pas crû comme les inégalités de revenu. Ces dernières n'ayant pas elles mêmes crû fortement, cette légère divergence ne signale pas de recours préoccupant à l'endettement sur cette période comme il a pu en être pour les États-Unis.

**Mots-clés** : consommation, inégalités, épargne, cycle de vie

# Consumption inequality in France between 1995 and 2011

## Abstract

How did consumption inequalities evolve in France over the last two decades, and notably compared to disposable income? For the United States in particular, while earliest long run measures of consumption inequalities displayed stability, this pattern has been challenged by a refined indicator mitigating under-reporting and depicting an increase of the same order of magnitude as for disposable income (Aguiar and Bils, 2015). Relying on the survey *Budget de famille* between 1995 and 2011, this work first develops standard inequality measures for France and derives them with respect to consumption categories, ages and household compositions. Under a standard sample and consumption bundle, consumption inequality did not track income inequality in France especially during the crisis. By consumption category, the level of consumption inequality is lower and increased for inferior goods. Second, to correct potential systematic under-reporting errors, an alternative indicator similar to Aguiar and Bils (2015) is built relying on differences in luxuries and necessities expenditures between high- and low-income households. Yet, there seems to be no problem due to mis-measurement related to specific income groups over the whole time period in France. Relatedly, the alternative indicator of consumption inequality depicts no rising pattern, such as the one observed for the United States due to large relative underreporting by high-income respondents. Thus, both the standard and alternative inequality indicators do not illustrate consumption inequalities rising as income inequalities. As the latter did not increase to a large extent, this slight difference does not reflect an alarming surge in household indebtedness such as for the US over the same period.

**Keywords:** consumption, inequality, savings, life cycle

**Classification JEL:** D31, E21
Introduction

How did consumption inequality evolve in France over the last two decades, and notably
compared to disposable income inequality which increased in the long run (Figure 1)? In-
deed, consumption inequality brings a complementary view to the largely debated income
and wealth inequalities when it comes to well-being and economic policy redistribution anal-
ysis<fnref n="1" />. First, consumption could better reflect long-run resources. Second, if consumption
inequality does not increase as income inequality, it might reflect surging indebtedness and
financial risk. Consumption and disposable income inequalities do not have to change simi-
larly, depending on the degrees of income uncertainty and households’ ability to self-insure.<fnref n="2" />
For the United States in particular, while the earliest long run measures of consumption
inequalities displayed stability (Heathcote et al., 2010), the pattern has been called into
doubt by a refined indicator mitigating under-reporting in the Consumer Expenditure Sur-
vey (Aguiar and Bils, 2015) and depicting an increase in consumption inequalities of the
same order of magnitude as for disposable income (Figure 2).

To compare disposable income and consumption inequalities in France, this study first
implement standard measures of consumption inequalities (variance of logarithm, Gini coef-
ficient, inter-decile and inter-quantile ratios) between 1995 and 2011 using the survey *Budget
de Famille* (BdF). These measures are then derived for different consumption categories,
ages and household sizes. Then, the alternative methodology used for the United States by
Aguiar and Bils (2015) is adopted. It is based on varying consumption levels by high- and
low-income households in terms of luxuries and necessities.<fnref n="3" /> This method is likely to bring
about adjustments for France also: as in the U.S. case, aggregates from the BdF survey
undervalue total consumption by 16.5 percent in 2010 compared to the national accounts
(d'Albis and Badji, 2017) and a proportional correction based on national accounts aggre-
gates delivers unsatisfying saving rates for the lowest income quintile (Accardo et al., 2009).

<footnote n="1">¹See for instance Coibion et al. (2017) who show that contractionary monetary policy systematically increases inequality in labor earnings, total income, consumption and total expenditures in the U.S. since the 1980s.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Concerning these dimensions in France, for instance, income shocks may have been more transitory than permanent in the 2000s (Ceci-Renaud et al., 2014); the financial saving rate fluctuated between 4 and 7 percent throughout the crisis; and family transfers providing financial help involved 41 percent of French households in 2001 (Garbinti et al., 2012).</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³From an aggregate point of view, rising standards of living could be seen as a source of changes in households’ budget structure since the 1960s from food and clothing towards housing, transports, health, communications and leisures (Consales et al., 2009).</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1 – Disposable income inequality</figcaption></figure>

Source: Boiron (2016), *Enquête Revenus fiscaux et sociaux* (ERFS) between 1996 and 2004, ERFS from 2005 to 2013, Insee-DGFip-Cnaf-Cnav-CCMSA. Field: mainland France, households with positive income and whose reference person is not a student.

The main results for standard inequality indicators are the following. With the same sample and consumption category selection as the early work by Heathcote et al. (2010), consumption inequality did not track income inequality in France especially during the crisis. Yet, if households in the top and bottom 5 percent of the before-tax income distribution are excluded (to eliminate outliers as in Aguiar and Bils, 2015) and if housing consumption is included, consumption inequality can rise as income inequality by a similar extent (around 4 points of variance of logarithm). Looking at consumption inequality by consumption category, the level of consumption inequality is lower and increased (resp. higher and decreased) for necessities including food, housing and transports (resp. luxuries including clothing, health and leisure).

Moreover, there seems to be demographic effects on consumption inequality: consumption inequality rises with age. This is also the case within cohort over time. Lastly, consumption inequalities are higher (resp. lower) and increased (resp. remained stable) for single persons and one-parent families (resp. couples with less than two children).<fnref n="4" />

Then, the implementation of an alternative consumption inequality indicator provides

<footnote n="4">⁴Meyer and Sullivan (2017) find that differences between income and consumption inequality in the United States since the 1960s are notably concentrated in single parent families and single individuals.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2 – Evolution of consumption inequality in the United States</figcaption></figure>

Sources: Attanasio and Pistaferri (2016), *Consumer Expenditure Survey* and *Panel Study of Income Dynamics* with different methodologies. Consumption inequalities are measured by the variance of log consumption, deflated by the Consumer Price Index and expressed in per capita terms.

the following additional insights. There seems to be no problem of mis-measurement related to specific income groups over the whole time period. Relatedly, the alternative indicator of consumption inequality depicts no rising pattern, as observed for the United States due to large relative underreporting by high-income respondents. Thus, both the alternative indicator following Aguiar and Bils (2015) and the standard one relying on Heathcote et al. (2010) do not illustrate consumption inequalities rising between 1995 and 2011 as income inequalities.

The alternative indicator is notably robust to additional socio-demographic controls (PCS, education, employment status), changes in sample selection and restrictions by age categories, and alternative consumption spending categories. Lastly, the methodology is very sensitive to housing expenditures: its high share in household budgets is likely to bias estimates substantially.

This work is first related to the broad set of inequality analyses with a long run perspective for France. Many studies addressed income inequalities (see for instance Ceci-Renaud et al., 2014; Charnoz et al., 2011; Fraisse et al., 2012; Marc et al., 2011; Bozio et al., 2015; Boiron, 2016) or wealth disparities (among many others Cordier et al., 2006; Lamarche and Salembier, 2012; Piketty and Zucman, 2014), but no inequality analysis of this kind exists
for consumption in France over the long-run. Looking at demographic and generational patterns, life-cycle consumption and saving have yet been addressed by Antonin (2014), Boissinot (2007) or d'Albis and Badji (2017) using the same *Budget de famille* data. Here, similar estimates are carried out for consumption inequalities. More specifically, this paper provides a complementary view on long run disposable income inequalities (Boiron, 2016) and to the breakdown of consumption by household categories in the national accounts for 2003 and 2011 (Accardo et al., 2009; Accardo et al., 2017).

This work is also related to consumption inequality analysis whose measure remains a largely open debate. Initially, direct inequality measures from standard indicators were broadly used (Krueger and Perri, 2006; Heathcote et al., 2010; Krueger et al., 2010), notably for international comparisons: long-run changes in disposable income inequality were found to be larger than in consumption inequality in the United States, but also the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and Spain notably (Blundell and Ethridge, 2010; Fuchs-Schuendeln et al., 2010; Jappelli and Pistaferri, 2010; Pijoan-Mas and Sanchez-Marcos, 2010). Then, mis-reporting of consumption categories lead to prefer econometric corrections (Aguiar and Bils, 2015) or more recently to rely just on well-measured consumption categories (Meyer and Sullivan, 2017).<fnref n="5" /> This paper embraces both simple and sophisticated approaches by Heathcote et al. (2010) and Aguiar and Bils (2015), and provides additional socio-demographic insights.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 1 describes data and their treatment. Section 2 develops standard inequality indicators for consumption. Finally, Section 3 applies the alternative methodology.

# 1 Data

## 1.1 Treatments

The BdF survey is made up by cross-section databases available since 1972 and generally collected every six years generally. Household members complete questionnaires for their durable expenditures over the year and two booklets for their non durable consumptions

<footnote n="5">⁵The consumption categories depicted as well-measured by Meyer and Sullivan (2017) are food at home, rent plus utilities, gasoline and motor oil, the rental value of owner-occupied housing, and the rental value of owned vehicles. They concentrates thus on necessities.</footnote>
during two weeks.<fnref n="6" /> Income analysis became an additional objective of the survey in 1995. Since then, evolutions of income and consumption inequalities can be compared over a sufficiently long time span. In 1995, the product nomenclature also changed and was adapted to Eurostat norms (*Classification of Individual Consumption by Purpose* or COICOP).

In this study, consumption data are treated to distinguish between main consumption categories (food, clothing, housing,...) and to replicate the alternative methodology by Aguiar and Bils (2015), which requires more precision (for instance to distinguish between "food at home" and "food away from home" which varies with standards of living). In doing so, 27 consumption categories are distinguished, closely following Aguiar and Bils (2015) (Table A1).<fnref n="7" /> These categories are then related to a group encompassing durable goods or to one of seven groups of non durable goods<fnref n="8" /> and services: "food", "clothing and shoes", "housing", "health", "leisure" and "others".

In general, the BdF nomenclature allows to fit these categories by grouping 2-digit codes, even if some reallocations are necessary: for instance, in the 2-digit code "other goods and services" (91 in 1995), "vehicle insurance" is associated to the category including vehicle expenses; the corresponding insurances are also associated to housing and health. Lastly, adjustments have to be carried out for different BdF editions but are minor, as precisely reported in Table A1.

Income variables, from labor earnings to disposable income, are also computed in order to compare consumption to disposable income inequalities. In addition, disposable income is necessary for the computation of the alternative inequality indicator (see Section 3). Before-tax incomes correspond to labor incomes (for employees and independent workers) plus unemployment benefits, old-age pensions, some health benefits (benefits for dependent elderly persons and disabled adult allowances), financial and housing incomes (in particular, imputed rents for homeowners), family and housing allowances, and minimum social benefits (Table A2). Taxes used to derive disposable income are taken from the BdF spendings

<footnote n="6">⁶This time window is the same as for the Diary Survey of the U.S. *Consumer Expenditure Survey*. Coibion et al. (2017) document a decline in the frequency of shopping trips likely to affect expenditures and consumption inequality measures. For France, this area of research is let for further work.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷The same categories are used apart from "shoes and other apparel" and "children's clothing". An additional category "personal belongings" is considered, as related expenditures are likely to strongly depend on incomes. "Personal belongings" are combined with "apparel" in the group "clothing and shoes" (see Tables 3 and A1 and Aguiar and Bils (2015) Table 2).</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸Durable goods include "home appliances", "vehicle purchasing", "telecommunication equipment", "entertainment equipment", "debt reimbursement" and "renovation work".</footnote>
tables, notably the income tax, the property tax and the housing tax. There is no major
change in nomenclature.<fnref n="9" />

In order to compare standards of living derived from housing services between renters and homeowners, we impute for homeowners rents they would pay to live in a similar accommodation. Imputed rents have been available in BdF tables for homeowners since 2001. These imputed rents are used for the 2001, 2006 and 2011 editions. For 1995, they are computed as d'Albis and Badji (2017) or Antonin (2014) by the Hot Deck method: rents are first estimated for renters depending on the surface, the number of rooms, the accommodation type (apartment or house) and the construction year. Separate estimations are carried out for different urban area sizes. Imputed rents are then imputed to homeowners using the same characteristics and attributing a residual randomly taken among those for renters. The distribution of imputed rents covers the one for initial real rents to a large extent (Figure A1). The slight difference for higher values may be due to the generally better financial situations of homeowners. In the end, the new distribution for 1995 is very close to those for the following editions. Imputed rents are added to the consumption and income of homeowners.

## 1.2 Descriptive statistics

Table A3 presents the breakdown of total spendings by consumption categories and disposable income quintile. The statistics are close to the breakdowns computed for 2003 in national accounts by Accardo et al. (2009). "Food, beverages and tobacco" expenditures amount to around 25 percent of non durable spendings. For the category "Housing, utilities and furnishing" this share is at around 35 percent for the first quintile and nearly 25 percent for the last one.<fnref n="10" /> "Clothing" corresponds to 6 to 8 percent of households budget. This share grows as income rises, which is also the case for "Leisure" (15-20 percent) and to a lesser extent "Health" and "Transports". In general, there is no substantial change in these proportions through time.<fnref n="11" />

For incomes, shares in disposable incomes are similarly computed for labor incomes, so-

<footnote n="9">⁹Households in overseas departments appear in 2011 and have been removed.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰Imputed rents are considered as housing consumption as in Accardo et al. (2009).</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹The mean of non durable spendings increases between 1995 and 2006 but diminishes between 2006 and 2011 for each quintile (not reported). The gap between the values for 2006 here and those for 2003 by Accardo et al. (2009) may reflect quintile level discrepancies between national accounts and the BdF survey (see Section 3).</footnote>
cial security benefits, wealth incomes and social benefits (Table A4). For the first quintile, labor incomes (net wages and self-employment incomes) amount to around 30 percent of disposable incomes, and unemployment pensions and social benefits (including family, housing and minimum benefits) to around 7 and 25 percent. Old-age pensions are slightly above 20 percent and wealth incomes (including financial and housing incomes) are at around 7 percent.<fnref n="12" /> Taxes stand at 3 percent. The income profile of the fifth quintile is quite symmetric: the share of labor incomes is twice higher at around 65 percent; social and unemployment benefits are very small; income taxes represent 12 percent of disposable incomes; and wealth incomes reach 20 percent. Here, financial incomes are particularly underestimated (4 percent, compared to 15 percent for Accardo et al., 2009). Disposable income inequalities as derived below can thus fall short of those obtained by Boiron (2016). Mean disposable income rose between 1995 and 2006 as mean consumption, but this rise persisted between 2006 and 2011, excepting for the first quintile. There could have been specific underlying saving behaviors over this crisis period, likely to affect various inequality measures in the end.

# 2 Standard measures of consumption inequality

## 2.1 A relative stability for the whole population

Several studies find that long run evolutions of inequality for consumption are more moderate than for income, in particular in the United States but also for other developed countries.<fnref n="13" /> Table 1 Panel A displays this disjunction for the United States between 1990 and 2005 with data and methodology used by Heathcote et al. (2010). Annual data from the *Consumer Expenditure Survey* (CEX) are used here to concentrate on five-year intervals and diverse inequality measures to grasp changes at the global level (Gini coefficient, variance of logarithm) or focus on the top or the bottom of the distribution (D9/D5 and D9/D1). Generally, consumption inequality variations between 1990 and 2005 were twice lower than for incomes.

Figures for the United States provide here a benchmark for France with identical fields and methodologies (Table 1 Panel B). Consumption inequalities in France according to all indicators are weaker than in the United States. Levels and variations are much smaller than for incomes. The evolution of income inequality is also slightly upward in France for most

<footnote n="12">¹²Imputed rents are considered as housing incomes as in Accardo et al. (2009).</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³See the special issue of the *Review of Economic Dynamics* in January 2010 and Krueger et al. (2010).</footnote>
indicators, as identified by Boiron (2016), but to a much lower extent than for the United
States. Changes are three times lower for all indicators (+1 point for the Gini coefficient).<sup>14</sup>
Consumption inequality does not display any clear-cut trend over the period. Evolutions are
positive for all indicators but are twice or three times lower than for incomes in France. The
Gini coefficient indicates a relative stability around 0.28 across all BdF editions.<sup>15</sup>

Thus, standard indicators suggest that a disjunction between income and consumption inequalities occurred also in France, even if orders of magnitude are much lower than in the United States. Yet, these evolutions appear to be open to interpretation because of the sensitivity of indicators to the chosen field and methodology. In order to illustrate what underlies these statistics, derivations are next carried out with respect to different fields envisaged in the literature, and diverse age and household composition categories.

## 2.2 A high sensitivity with respect to fields and consumption categories

Studies devoted to consumption inequality rely on different samples for households. In particular, outliers and tail thresholds can lead to eliminate a varying proportion of poor quality observations at the top and/or bottom of the distribution: 0.5 percent for Heathcote et al. (2010), 2 percent for Blundell and Preston (1998) or even 5 percent for Aguiar and Bils (2015). Yet, inequality indicators can be driven by the top of the distribution, through financial incomes, or by its bottom, especially during the crisis with higher unemployment. From the raw sample of BdF observations, without income outliers, or without the left tail of the income distribution, the Gini coefficient regularly stands at around 0.29 (Table 2, variant 1 to 3).

Samples can also be restricted to households with active status or up to 60 or 64. Such choices may ease economic interpretation abstracting from old-age saving behaviors. But they can also rule out demographic effects arising from population ageing, or simply ignore inequalities related to the elderly. Indeed, this is a substantial choice, as omitting households whose reference person is above 60 reduces the number of observations from 9 552 to 6 442 in

<footnote n="14"><sup>14</sup>Levels and variations are likely to be under-estimated in view of the BdF incomplete coverage of financial incomes, while they contributed to rising income inequality to a large extent in the 2000s (Boiron, 2016).</footnote>

<footnote n="15"><sup>15</sup>Less obviously, levels of consumption inequality are similar to those for income, around 0.30 for the Gini coefficient. This is notably due to the absence of imputed and real rents in consumption in this methodology. As described below, their inclusion largely diminishes consumption inequalities. In addition, higher fiscal redistribution can also participate in narrowing the gap between income and consumption inequalities in France compared to the United States.</footnote>
Table 1 – Consumption inequality in France and in the United states

<table><caption>Panel A - United States, 1990-2005</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">year</th><th colspan="4">Income</th><th colspan="4">Consumption</th></tr><tr><th>varlog</th><th>Gini</th><th>D9/D5</th><th>D9/D1</th><th>varlog</th><th>Gini</th><th>D9/D5</th><th>D9/D1</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1990</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.35</td><td>2.19</td><td>5.50</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.30</td><td>1.97</td><td>3.71</td></tr><tr><td>1995</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.36</td><td>2.17</td><td>5.74</td><td>0.29</td><td>0.30</td><td>1.98</td><td>3.84</td></tr><tr><td>2000</td><td>0.51</td><td>0.37</td><td>2.21</td><td>5.92</td><td>0.31</td><td>0.31</td><td>2.01</td><td>4.02</td></tr><tr><td>2005</td><td>0.55</td><td>0.40</td><td>2.42</td><td>6.46</td><td>0.34</td><td>0.32</td><td>2.02</td><td>4.25</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td>2005/1990</td><td>+0.10</td><td>+0.04</td><td>+0.23</td><td>+0.96</td><td>+0.06</td><td>+0.02</td><td>+0.06</td><td>+0.54</td></tr></tfoot></table>

<table><caption>Panel B - France, 1995-2011</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">year</th><th colspan="4">Income</th><th colspan="4">Consumption</th></tr><tr><th>varlog</th><th>Gini</th><th>D9/D5</th><th>D9/D1</th><th>varlog</th><th>Gini</th><th>D9/D5</th><th>D9/D1</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1995</td><td>0.24</td><td>0.27</td><td>1.80</td><td>3.38</td><td>0.27</td><td>0.28</td><td>1.84</td><td>3.58</td></tr><tr><td>2001</td><td>0.22</td><td>0.27</td><td>1.82</td><td>3.31</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.28</td><td>1.87</td><td>3.69</td></tr><tr><td>2006</td><td>0.24</td><td>0.27</td><td>1.77</td><td>3.43</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.28</td><td>1.85</td><td>3.66</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.29</td><td>1.79</td><td>3.68</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.28</td><td>1.87</td><td>3.75</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td>2011/1995</td><td>+0.04</td><td>+0.01</td><td>-0.01</td><td>+0.30</td><td>+0.01</td><td>+0.00</td><td>+0.04</td><td>+0.17</td></tr></tfoot></table>

Source: *Budget de famille*, 1995-2011. Field: Households in mainland France. Note: For the United States, data are those used by Heathcote et al. (2010). Observations with negative income are deleted. 0.5 percent of values at the bottom of the income distribution are removed, and households headed by an individual aged 25-60 are selected as in Heathcote et al. (2010). Consumption includes all non durable consumption categories excepting imputed or real rents. Income here is disposable income. Note that inequality ratios do not use thresholds but means within deciles.

1995 for instance. This affects inequality indicators downwards slightly, by around 1 point for the Gini coefficient, and with few differences for the top and the bottom of the distribution through the D9/D5 and Q5/Q1 ratios (Table 2).<fnref n="16" /> There are also outliers whose consumption profile is inconsistent with reported income. For 0.02 percent of the sample, spendings for a single consumption category (except housing, food or vehicle purchase) represent more than half of disposable income. The impact of these observations is small, at around 1 point for the Gini coefficient (variant 5). Enlarging tail trimming to 5 percent consistently reduces all inequality indicators (variant 6), and using survey weight does not change them substantially (variant 7). Actually, the major change in inequality indicators arises from the additions of housing expenditures in total consumption, as in Aguiar and Bils (2015) but contrary to Heathcote et al. (2010). Specifically, this treatment results in an upward profile over the whole period of analysis, from 2.02 in 1995 to 2.15 in 2011 for Q5/Q1 ratio (variant 8).<fnref n="17" />

<footnote n="16">¹⁶Here, the Q5/Q1 ratio is not a ratio between quintile thresholds but between quintile means. It corresponds exactly to the other denomination "(100-S80)/S20". Q5/Q1 ratios are not displayed by Heathcote et al. (2010) on U.S. data. They are yet introduced here as the alternative indicator by Aguiar and Bils (2015) replicated for France next will be related to this measure.</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷See also Table A6 for the corresponding estimate in the context of the alternative indicator computation.</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 2 – Effect of sample selection on consumption inequality measures</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>varlog</th><th>Gini</th><th>D9/D5</th><th>Q5/Q1</th><th>obs.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">(1) Raw measure...</td><td>1995</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.29</td><td>1.89</td><td>2.46</td><td>9 605</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>0.31</td><td>0.29</td><td>1.93</td><td>2.31</td><td>9 386</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">(2) ... without negative income</td><td>1995</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.29</td><td>1.89</td><td>2.46</td><td>9 600</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>0.31</td><td>0.29</td><td>1.93</td><td>2.31</td><td>9 381</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">(3) ... without the bottom 0.5% of the after-tax income dist.</td><td>1995</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.29</td><td>1.89</td><td>2.47</td><td>9 552</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>0.31</td><td>0.29</td><td>1.93</td><td>2.31</td><td>9 335</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">(4) ... without ages above 60 (base) as in Heathcote et al. (2010)</td><td>1995</td><td>0.27</td><td>0.28</td><td>1.84</td><td>2.46</td><td>6 442</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.28</td><td>1.87</td><td>2.21</td><td>5 875</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">(5) ... without obs. where one consumption category is 50% of after-tax income</td><td>1995</td><td>0.26</td><td>0.27</td><td>1.81</td><td>2.52</td><td>6 259</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.28</td><td>1.85</td><td>2.33</td><td>5 753</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">(6) ... without the bottom and top 5% of the before-tax income dist.</td><td>1995</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.24</td><td>1.71</td><td>2.16</td><td>5 665</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>0.24</td><td>0.26</td><td>1.78</td><td>2.09</td><td>5 229</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">(7) ... with survey weights</td><td>1995</td><td>0.22</td><td>0.25</td><td>1.71</td><td>2.14</td><td>6 186</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.27</td><td>1.80</td><td>2.12</td><td>5 901</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">(8) ... with housing consumption as in Aguiar and Bils (2015)</td><td>1995</td><td>0.15</td><td>0.22</td><td>1.63</td><td>2.02</td><td>6 186</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>0.20</td><td>0.23</td><td>1.66</td><td>2.15</td><td>5 901</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: *Budget de famille*, 1995-2011. Field: Households in mainland France. Variants are cumulative in the sense that the sample from the previous variant is used with the additional change from the current variant. The sample used for estimates in Table 1 following Heathcote et al. (2010) corresponds to the one in variants 4. The sample used for estimates in Section 3 following Aguiar and Bils (2015) corresponds to the one in variant 8. Note that inequality ratios do not use thresholds but means within deciles or quintiles.

Thus, beyond sample selection issues, the relative stability of consumption inequality observed previously can encompass diverse evolutions with respect to consumption subcategories. Table 3 displays the same set of standard inequality indicators for major consumption categories and with the sample following Heathcote et al. (2010). Levels for categories corresponding to necessities are lower: this is the case for "Food" (below 0.30 in 1995 for the Gini coefficient) and "Housing", which lowers total consumption inequality substantially (see variants "Total without housing" and "Total"). On the contrary, indicators are higher for categories related to less frequent spendings, booklets being filled by surveyed households during two weeks only: "Clothing" and "Health" reflect it especially. In addition, these categories, and also "Leisure", can be affected by heterogeneities with respect to income: the D9/D5 ratio is higher. "Transports" is in an intermediary situation.

As for variations, there are discrepancies between categories which are not reflected by aggregate consumption. For "Food", "Transports" and, to some extent, "Housing", inequality rises over the period. On the contrary, inequality falls for "Clothing", "Health" and "Leisure" spendings. Necessities tend to have lower inequality levels but they evolve upwards, while luxuries have higher inequality levels which evolve downwards. This symmetry should not be over-interpreted. These evolutions might also be the outcome of varying category specific
<table><caption>Table 3 – Inequality measures by consumption category</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>varlog</th><th>Gini</th><th>D9/D5</th><th>Q5/Q1</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Food, beverages and tobacco</td><td>1995</td><td>0.35</td><td>0.27</td><td>1.71</td><td>1.45</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>0.80</td><td>0.37</td><td>2.11</td><td>1.65</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Clothing, shoes and personal belongings</td><td>1995</td><td>1.65</td><td>0.56</td><td>3.61</td><td>3.38</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>1.35</td><td>0.53</td><td>3.35</td><td>2.26</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Housing, utilities, furnishing</td><td>1995</td><td>0.27</td><td>0.29</td><td>1.99</td><td>2.10</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.28</td><td>1.82</td><td>2.32</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Health and personal care</td><td>1995</td><td>1.11</td><td>0.51</td><td>3.04</td><td>3.07</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>0.69</td><td>0.37</td><td>2.11</td><td>2.20</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Transports</td><td>1995</td><td>0.78</td><td>0.44</td><td>2.60</td><td>2.27</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>1.00</td><td>0.47</td><td>2.69</td><td>2.16</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Leisure, communication, culture, education, hotels, restaurants</td><td>1995</td><td>0.96</td><td>0.47</td><td>2.93</td><td>3.51</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>0.67</td><td>0.42</td><td>2.65</td><td>2.80</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Total without housing, utilities, furnishing</td><td>1995</td><td>0.27</td><td>0.28</td><td>1.84</td><td>2.46</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.28</td><td>1.87</td><td>2.21</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Total</td><td>1995</td><td>0.20</td><td>0.25</td><td>1.74</td><td>2.30</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>0.23</td><td>0.25</td><td>1.73</td><td>2.25</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: *Budget de famille*, 1995-2011. Field: Households in mainland France. The sample corresponds to the one used by Heathcote et al. (2010) such as in variant 4 of Table 2. Consumption categories are the same as in Table A3 (see Table A1 for their construction). Note that inequality ratios do not use thresholds but means within deciles or quintiles.

mis-measurement (Section 7).

## 2.3 Discrepancies with respect to age and household composition

In order to discern demographic effects, consumption inequality is derived for different age categories.<fnref n="18" /> Consumption inequality seems to rise with age at first glance, but this profile is not robust (Table 4). In 1995, the D9/D5 ratio for instance ranges from 1.66 for those below 30 to 1.89 for those above 70, with 1.79 for those between 50 and 59. Yet, in 2011, there is no linear relation between age and inequality for any indicator.

In terms of variations between 1995 and 2011, consumption inequalities increase for the three youngest categories (below 30, 30-39, 40-49) while they decline for most of the oldest ones (50-59 and above 70). In the end, indicators are very likely to be subject to noise from year and cohort effects.

As age, cohort and year effects are intertwined, inequalities per age are here not only illustrated generally but also by controlling for birth cohorts and survey edition years.<fnref n="19" /> In two separate estimations, age effects are distinguished from edition year effects on the

<footnote n="18">¹⁸In this subsection, the analysis with respect to age relies on the methodology and household selection by Heathcote et al. (2010). In view of the results in the previous subsection, "housing" is included in consumption.</footnote>

<footnote n="19">¹⁹No specific relation between year effects is assumed as in Deaton and Paxson (1994) and d'Albis and Badji (2017) to address collinearity between age, cohort and year. Here, the two estimations below are descriptive and follow Heathcote et al. (2010).</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 4 – Consumption inequality measures by age categories</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>varlog</th><th>Gini</th><th>D9/D5</th><th>Q5/Q1</th><th>obs.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Below 30</td><td>1995</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.23</td><td>1.66</td><td>2.04</td><td>1 103</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>0.27</td><td>0.27</td><td>1.78</td><td>2.28</td><td>888</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">30-39</td><td>1995</td><td>0.18</td><td>0.24</td><td>1.69</td><td>2.32</td><td>2 042</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>0.22</td><td>0.25</td><td>1.68</td><td>2.22</td><td>1 339</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">40-49</td><td>1995</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.24</td><td>1.72</td><td>2.26</td><td>2 151</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>0.24</td><td>0.26</td><td>1.78</td><td>2.37</td><td>1 827</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">50-59</td><td>1995</td><td>0.23</td><td>0.27</td><td>1.79</td><td>2.39</td><td>1 363</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.25</td><td>1.71</td><td>2.14</td><td>1 990</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">60-69</td><td>1995</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.26</td><td>1.81</td><td>2.28</td><td>1 473</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>0.23</td><td>0.26</td><td>1.81</td><td>2.39</td><td>1 570</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Above 70</td><td>1995</td><td>0.24</td><td>0.27</td><td>1.89</td><td>2.56</td><td>1 420</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>0.20</td><td>0.25</td><td>1.77</td><td>2.37</td><td>1 721</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">25-60</td><td>1995</td><td>0.20</td><td>0.25</td><td>1.74</td><td>2.30</td><td>6 442</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>0.23</td><td>0.24</td><td>1.73</td><td>2.25</td><td>5 875</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Whole population</td><td>1995</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.25</td><td>1.77</td><td>2.29</td><td>9 552</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>0.23</td><td>0.26</td><td>1.77</td><td>2.30</td><td>9 335</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: *Budget de famille*, 1995-2011. Field: Households in mainland France. The sample corresponds to the one used by Heathcote et al. (2010), except in the last variant for the whole population, and includes "Housing" such as in variant "Total" of Table 3. Note that inequality ratios do not use thresholds but means within deciles or quintiles.

one hand and birth cohort effects on the other hand. In Figure 3, the two upper panels correspond to the first estimation following $m_{a,c,t} = \beta_a D_a + \beta_t D_t + \epsilon_{a,c,t}$, and the two lower panels to the second one with $m_{a,c,t} = \tilde{\beta}_a D_a + \beta_c D_c + \epsilon_{a,c,t}$, where the variable $m_{a,c,t}$ is the chosen inequality indicator (here the variance of logarithm), and $D_a, D_t$ et $D_c$ are vectors for age, year and cohort dummies. Panels report values of estimated coefficients $\beta_a$ and $\beta_t$ on the one hand, and $\tilde{\beta}_a$ and $\beta_c$ on the other hand. These regressions are only illustrative. Further work in that respect should adopt a methodology closer to d'Albis and Badji (2017), with year effects summing to zero following Deaton and Paxson (1994).

The curvature of coefficients is very close to those obtained by Heathcote et al. (2010) for the United States: income and consumption inequalities are rising with age. Moreover, consumption inequality is always lower than income inequality. On the contrary, cohort and year effects are very close for income and consumption. Year effects confirm a relative stability of consumption inequality between 1995 and 2006.<fnref n="20" /> As a whole, year and cohort effects are of the same order of magnitude as the maximum values for age effects between specifications, at around 0.05 point of variance of logarithm.

Cohort effects contribute to leveling direct measures of consumption inequality by age for a given year, as they are rising since the 1950s while age effects are lower for the youngest.

<footnote n="20">²⁰They also illustrate a rise between 2006 and 2011 which may have to do with the inclusion of "Housing" in the consumption spendings specifically (cf. Table 3).</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3 – Inequality measures by age category, with controls</figcaption></figure>

Source: *Budget de famille*, 1995-2011. Field: Households in mainland France. Note: The sample corresponds to the one used by Heathcote et al. (2010), except the last variant for the whole population. and includes "Housing" such as in variant "Total" of Table 3. As ages, cohorts are gathered within 5-year classes. Reported values refer to the age class 25-29, the year 1995 and the cohort class 1935-1939.

Beyond, such cohort effects could be interpreted as in d'Albis and Badji (2017) who use
cohort effects for consumption means per age category compared to consumption variances
here: they state that inter-generational inequality in living standards has not risen over time,
contrary to the idea of privileged baby boom generations; here, cohort effects could suggest
that consumption inequalities within cohorts increased at the same time.

Lastly, over the long run, demographic effects could also be expected concerning house-
hold composition in addition to age, in view of the rise in one-parent families for instance.
Table 5 displays the evolution of consumption inequality for seven household categories along
this dimension. Single persons have the highest inequality levels (around 0.27 for the Gini
coefficient) while couples without children, with one child or with two children stand at
<table><caption>Table 5 – Inequality measures by household composition</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>varlog</th><th>Gini</th><th>D9/D5</th><th>Q5/Q1</th><th>obs.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Single persons</td><td>1995</td><td>0.23</td><td>0.27</td><td>1.88</td><td>2.38</td><td>1 054</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.28</td><td>1.81</td><td>2.38</td><td>1 364</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Couples, no children</td><td>1995</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.25</td><td>1.76</td><td>2.03</td><td>1 106</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>0.16</td><td>0.22</td><td>1.65</td><td>1.88</td><td>1 233</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Couples, 1 child</td><td>1995</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.23</td><td>1.62</td><td>2.22</td><td>1 240</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.23</td><td>1.64</td><td>2.29</td><td>932</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Couples, 2 children</td><td>1995</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.23</td><td>1.65</td><td>2.47</td><td>1 394</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.23</td><td>1.68</td><td>2.12</td><td>1 048</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Couples, more than 3 children</td><td>1995</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.25</td><td>1.81</td><td>2.67</td><td>766</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>0.27</td><td>0.28</td><td>1.72</td><td>2.82</td><td>518</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">One-parent families</td><td>1995</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.24</td><td>1.70</td><td>2.19</td><td>435</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>0.31</td><td>0.29</td><td>1.88</td><td>2.45</td><td>625</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Whole population</td><td>1995</td><td>0.20</td><td>0.25</td><td>1.74</td><td>2.30</td><td>6 442</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>0.23</td><td>0.24</td><td>1.73</td><td>2.25</td><td>5 875</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: *Budget de famille*. Field: Households in mainland France. Note: The sample corresponds to the one used by Heathcote et al. (2010) adding "Housing" such as in variant "Total" of Table 3. Note that inequality ratios do not use thresholds but means within deciles or quintiles.

around 0.23. In the bottom of the distribution, households with two working age members may be more able to maintain standards of living than single persons. Single-parent families are in an intermediary position.<fnref n="21" /> In terms of variations between 1995 and 2011, consumption inequality increased for single persons and one-parent family and remained relatively stable among couples without children, with one child or with two children. Finally, the share of single persons household has risen since the mid-1990s but may not affect aggregate consumption inequality changes as the gap with other categories is rather limited.

## 3 Alternative measure

Standard measures of consumption inequality have to be considered with caution, because of the sensitivity with respect to sample selection previously highlighted, but also in view of the gaps between aggregates from the BdF survey and those from the National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA). For the United States, the CEX aggregate consumptions undervalue NIPA figures by 14 percent in the early 1980s and by 34 percent in 2009 (Aguiar and Bils, 2015). In France, this differential is also sizable at 16.5 percent in 2011 (d'Albis and Badji, 2017): this can be explained by measurement errors for some consumption categories in the BdF survey and by differences in scope between BdF and the national accounts (d'Albis

<footnote n="21">²¹Furthermore, couples with more than 3 children have higher inequality levels than other household types. Yet, the number of consumption units may affect inequality measures in this group where the number of children is not constant.</footnote>
and Badji, 2017).<fnref n="22" /> The gap seems even wider when focusing on necessities compared to luxuries (Table A5).

This does not automatically imply that the BdF survey is not suitable to compute reliable inequality indicators, as Aguiar and Bils (2015) put it for the CEX survey. If reporting problems are uniform across income levels, inequality measures by ratios (such as the D9/D5 ratio) should not be biased. However, adjusting individual observations proportionally to conform to national accounts remains unsatisfying on French data also. With such a treatment, the saving rate of households in the first quintile markedly diverges from the one directly obtained with raw data. This problem motivates the alternative methodology by Aguiar and Bils (2015) and also prevails in France: with proportionally adjusted data, the saving rate of the first decile is inconsistent, as highlighted between 1984 and 1995 by Loisy (1999) or for 2003 by Accardo et al. (2009), reaching -11 percent in this case.<fnref n="23" /> So, the problem is also relevant in the French situation.

## 3.1 Methodology

Misreporting is supposed to take two forms: either all households wrongly report a specific consumption category similarly, or a specific type of households, for instance with different income levels, wrongly reports all consumption categories. These two misreporting behaviors are sufficient to generate biases for each consumption category and are likely to accumulate at the total consumption level. Here, the aim is to deal with both bias sources.

Households with different standards of living also have different consumption profiles with respect to consumption categories. Specifically, luxuries consumption prevails for rich households while the consumption of necessities is more homogeneously distributed. In spite of the presence of the two kinds of reporting biases, consumption profiles are still noticeable and exploitable. The relative proportions of typical consumption profiles can be followed and indicate evolutions in consumption inequality.

In the following, the main features and intuitions of the methodology are summarized (see Aguiar and Bils, 2015, for a detailed description). It is made up by two steps. First, for

<footnote n="22">²²In particular, national accounts include tourist consumption in France, as well as all households, while the BdF survey concentrates an ordinary households, who do not live in mobile or communal dwellings.</footnote>

<footnote n="23">²³To address this problem, Accardo et al. (2009) and Accardo et al. (2017) correct incomes when they are low compared to spendings and when households declare having financial difficulties. In comparison, Aguiar and Bils (2015) remove observations when spendings for a specific category exceed half of disposable income.</footnote>
a particular BdF edition, a preliminary estimation derives elasticities for each consumption category with respect to total expenditures which are instrumented to correct for cumulated mis-measurements. Second, for the other BdF editions, and the other way round, a main estimation uses these elasticities and dummies for mis-measurement by consumption quintile to obtain corrected mean consumption levels by quintile from detailed household expenditures. This step is presented first to directly focus on the alternative consumption inequality indicator.

## Main estimation

More precisely, assume that the consumption profiles are known and can be summarized through a set of total spendings elasticities for each type of consumption category $\hat{\beta}_1, ..., \hat{\beta}_J$, where the number of categories here is $J = 20$. Thus, if standards of living increase, the relative share of each consumption category is distorted in favor of those with the highest elasticities. Then, consider all observations of spendings per category and per household. Once they are controlled for category-year and quintile-year fixed effects, and for demographic factors such as age and household composition, there remains adjusted spendings likely to have variability with respect to standards of living.

As previously mentioned, total consumption is affected by mis-measurements at the category level. Ideally, it would be desirable to extract from adjusted spendings the implicit total consumption of the household and then to form a new indicator of consumption inequality. Yet, such an approach would imply estimating too many variables. Falling that, total consumption at the individual level is approached by mean total consumption of the corresponding consumption quintile. Such an approximation also allows to directly compute inequality ratios.<fnref n="24" /> In the end, the main estimation has the following form:

$$ \ln x_{hjt} - \ln \bar{x}_{jt} - \hat{\Gamma}_j Z_h = \alpha_{jt} + \phi_t^i + \ln X_{it}^* \hat{\beta}_j + \epsilon_{hjt} \quad (1) $$

where $h$ is the household index, $j$ is the good index between 1 and 20, $i$ is the quintile index between 1 and 5, $t$ corresponds to the BdF edition year, $x_{hjt}$ is the reported expenditure on good $j$ at time $t$ by household $h$, $\bar{x}_{jt}$ is the mean of households spendings for a given

<footnote n="24">²⁴In doing so, this measure has advantages and drawbacks, and cannot be absolutely considered as an indicator with higher relevance than standard ones: on the one hand, it is intended to filter reporting biases, but on the other hand, it relies on a strong approximation and on the elasticities $\beta$ whose accurate estimation is thus crucial.</footnote>
category and a given year, $\hat{\Gamma}_j$ (assumed to be known for the time being, as the elasticities $\hat{\beta}$) includes the sensitivities of spendings to socio-demographic characteristics $Z_h^{25}$, $\alpha_{jt}$ is a category-year fixed effect, $\phi_t^i$ is a quintile-year fixed effect, and $\epsilon_{hjt}$ is a residual. Lastly, $\ln X_{it}^*$ corresponds to the five levels of mean total consumption by quintile. Note here that these values are estimated coefficients in Equation (1) for given $\hat{\beta}_j$. In fine, the alternative indicator of consumption inequality is a synthetic Q5/Q1 ratio:

$$ \Delta_t = \ln X_{5t}^* - \ln X_{1t}^*. \qquad (2) $$

## Preliminary estimation

Yet, this estimation requires the prior knowledge of elasticities $\hat{\Gamma}_j$ and $\hat{\beta}_j$. Their estimation is subject to an initial econometric step, which includes two precautions. First, it has to be carried out on a BdF edition that is not used next for the "second step" corresponding to Equation (1) to avoid any correlation between first-step regressors and second-step residuals. Here, the 2001 BdF edition is chosen to extract elasticities $\hat{\Gamma}_j$ and $\hat{\beta}_j$ from a preliminary estimation (Equation (3) below) in order to use them as inputs in three main estimations (following Equation (1) above) for 1995, 2006 and 2011. This choice allows to illustrate long run evolutions between 1995 and 2006 as well as through the crisis between 2006 and 2011.<fnref n="26" /> Second, this estimation can not be based directly on total consumption by household, which could cumulate mis-measurement errors, and which is instrumented by an income quintile dummy and disposable income.<fnref n="27" /> So, the first-step estimation follows:

$$ \ln x_{hj\tau} - \ln \tilde{x}_{j\tau} = \alpha_{j\tau} + \Gamma_j Z_h + \beta_j \ln \tilde{X}_{h\tau} + \epsilon_{hj\tau}, \qquad (3) $$

where $\tau$ indicates the specific estimation year, and $\tilde{X}_{i\tau}$ is the instrumented household total consumption.<fnref n="28" />

The methodology works under two major underlying assumptions. First, an identifying assumption: first-step and second-step residuals are not correlated with quintiles of

<footnote n="25">²⁵These characteristics include an age interval (25-37, 38-50 and 51-64), the number of active persons (strictly below or higher than 2) and the household size (below 2, equal to 3 or 4, or above 5).</footnote>

<footnote n="26">²⁶Aguiar and Bils (2015) proceeds with a subsample in the middle of their full dataset.</footnote>

<footnote n="27">²⁷Aguiar and Bils (2015) also use information on household spendings over several periods available in the CEX and reach similar conclusions. Yet, the fact remains that these first-step instruments are linked to incomes, while the second-step quintile means obtained with the corresponding elasticities are interpreted as related to consumption.</footnote>

<footnote n="28">²⁸Alternative inequality levels are sensitive to the year used for the first-step. The analysis on variations is demonstrated to be robust by Aguiar and Bils (2015).</footnote>
spendings. Such a correlation could for instance correspond to the a case of systematic
under-reporting of luxuries by richer households. In this case, which is not unlikely as put
by Meyer and Sullivan (2017), the alternative indicator would have to be seen as under-
estimating consumption inequality. Second, the quality of the estimation of the coefficients
$\beta_j$ depends to a large extent to the capacity to rule out misreporting cumulated into total
consumption. So, the methodology is largely sensitive to the income instruments used in
that purpose.

## 3.2 Results

The sample selection used by Aguiar and Bils (2015) differs from previous standard
inequality measures (Table 1). Thus, Table A6 provides income and consumption indicators
in this context for the United States by Aguiar and Bils (2015) (Panel A) and for France
(Panel B). For the United States, consumption inequality rises between 1982 and 2007, but
this increase is about twice lower than the one for disposable income. For France, disposable
income inequality slightly rises between 2006 and 2011 (5 percent, compared to 1 percent
between 1995 and 2006), as a result of increasing pre-tax income inequality (1 percent then
5 percent) coming from labor income disparities (7 percent between 1995 and 2006, and 14
percent between 2006 and 2011). Consumption inequality is relatively stable between 1995
and 2006, with a surge in 2011 due to housing as already noticed (see variant 8 of Table 2).

As a preliminary step, elasticities of category spendings with respect to instrumented total
consumption are estimated with the BdF 2001 data (Table 6). By and large, the weights of
each category in total consumption correspond to those for American households in the CEX.
"Housing", "Food at home" and "Vehicle purchase, leasing, insurance" represent the most
sizeable groups and can be opposed to "Domestic services and childcare", "Personal care",
"Alcoholic beverages" or "Tobacco, other smoking".<fnref n="29" /> The elasticities reflect the differentiated
nature of consumption categories in relation to income: they are lower for "Housing"<fnref n="30" />, "Food
at home", "Vehicle purchase, leasing, insurance" and "Utilities" especially (and even negative
for "Tobacco, other smoking"), and are higher for "Cash contributions", "Entertainment fees,

<footnote n="29">²⁹Yet, the share of "Apparel" is higher here, because of the inclusion of personal belongings. The ones for "All other transportation" and "Appliance, phones, computers" are oddly weak.</footnote>

<footnote n="30">³⁰This confirms that "Housing" should be considered as a necessity as discussed by Accardo and Bujega (2009). For low-income households, the housing budget share by $m^2$ is always higher compared to high-income households and it rose since 1985.</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 6 – First-step: total spendings elasticities for each consumption category</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Good category</th><th colspan="3">France</th><th colspan="3">United-States</th></tr><tr><th>share</th><th>elas.</th><th>s.e.</th><th>share</th><th>elast.</th><th>s.e.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Housing</td><td>21.9</td><td>0.70</td><td>(0.03)</td><td>27.3</td><td>0.92</td><td>(0.02)</td></tr><tr><td>Food at home</td><td>14.5</td><td>0.52</td><td>(0.03)</td><td>11.7</td><td>0.37</td><td>(0.02)</td></tr><tr><td>Vehicle purchase, leasing, insurance</td><td>16.3</td><td>1.03</td><td>(0.07)</td><td>13.2</td><td>1.02</td><td>(0.08)</td></tr><tr><td>All other transportation</td><td>1.3</td><td>1.87</td><td>(0.22)</td><td>7.4</td><td>0.89</td><td>(0.03)</td></tr><tr><td>Utilities</td><td>5.7</td><td>0.79</td><td>(0.04)</td><td>5.2</td><td>0.47</td><td>(0.02)</td></tr><tr><td>Health expenditures inc. insurance</td><td>5.6</td><td>0.98</td><td>(0.07)</td><td>5.0</td><td>0.91</td><td>(0.06)</td></tr><tr><td>Appliances, phones, computers</td><td>0.8</td><td>1.13</td><td>(0.15)</td><td>4.9</td><td>0.87</td><td>(0.04)</td></tr><tr><td>Food away from home</td><td>6.2</td><td>1.74</td><td>(0.07)</td><td>4.6</td><td>1.33</td><td>(0.06)</td></tr><tr><td>Entertainment equipment</td><td>4.1</td><td>0.97</td><td>(0.06)</td><td>4.1</td><td>1.26</td><td>(0.07)</td></tr><tr><td>Apparel</td><td>6.0</td><td>1.23</td><td>(0.06)</td><td>2.6</td><td>1.35</td><td>(0.05)</td></tr><tr><td>Entertainment fees, admissions</td><td>5.9</td><td>1.36</td><td>(0.07)</td><td>2.2</td><td>1.74</td><td>(0.06)</td></tr><tr><td>Cash contributions</td><td>2.5</td><td>2.54</td><td>(0.17)</td><td>2.2</td><td>1.81</td><td>(0.18)</td></tr><tr><td>Furnitures and fixtures</td><td>2.5</td><td>1.89</td><td>(0.13)</td><td>1.5</td><td>1.39</td><td>(0.10)</td></tr><tr><td>Education</td><td>0.4</td><td>1.34</td><td>(0.22)</td><td>1.3</td><td>1.63</td><td>(0.18)</td></tr><tr><td>Domestic services and childcare</td><td>1.3</td><td>1.34</td><td>(0.11)</td><td>1.5</td><td>1.60</td><td>(0.13)</td></tr><tr><td>Alcoholic beverages</td><td>1.4</td><td>0.98</td><td>(0.11)</td><td>1.0</td><td>1.14</td><td>(0.09)</td></tr><tr><td>Personal care</td><td>2.3</td><td>1.13</td><td>(0.09)</td><td>1.0</td><td>0.96</td><td>(0.05)</td></tr><tr><td>Tobacco, other smoking</td><td>1.4</td><td>-0.12</td><td>(0.10)</td><td>1.0</td><td>-0.26</td><td>(0.09)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: *Budget de famille*, Aguiar and Bils (2015) and *Consumer Expenditure Survey*. Field: Households in mainland France. Note: The sample corresponds to the one used by Aguiar and Bils (2015) as in variant 8 of Table 2. The standard errors are calculated using a bootstrap with 100 replications. "Entertainment fees, admissions" includes "reading".

admissions", "Education", "Domestic services and childcare" and "Food away from home".<fnref n="31" /> Relatedly, elasticities are somehow negatively correlated with budget shares, which suggests that regressions should be also weighted for comparison purposes at least.

In second-step estimations, synthetic inter-quintile Q5/Q1 ratios are computed for the years 1995, 2006 and 2011 (Table 7). Results by Aguiar and Bils (2015) for the United States<fnref n="32" /> are also reported in Panel A. For the United States, the evolution of the inter-quintile ratio completely changes with the alternative indicator, with a rise from 0.27 to 0.48 between 1991-1993 and 2006-2008³³, compared to only 6 percent with the standard direct ratio (Column (1) versus Column (0)). This gap is robust when observations are weighted by the share of the corresponding category in total consumption (Column (2)), or when tobacco spendings or durables are also removed (Columns (3) and (4)). For the crisis period, the standard and alternative indicators are aligned, with a decrease by around 5 percent.

In the French case (Panel B), the standard indicator is stable between 1995 and 2006 (Column (0)). The alternative indicator evolves moderately downwards, between 3 and 7

<footnote n="31">³¹Only the elasticity for "All other transportation" appears high compared to the United States.</footnote>

<footnote n="32">³²That is part of Table 3 by Aguiar and Bils (2015) adapted in levels.</footnote>

<footnote n="33">³³In Aguiar and Bils (2015), data are averaged over three years to moderate substantial year-to-year movements</footnote>
Table 7 – Second step: alternative inequality measure

(a) *United States, 1980-2010* (Aguiar and Bils, 2015)

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="5">log inequality</th><th colspan="4">relative mis-measurement</th></tr><tr><th>(0)</th><th>(1)</th><th>(2)</th><th>(3)</th><th>(4)</th><th>(5)</th><th>(6)</th><th>(6)</th><th>(8)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>level, 1980-82</td><td>0.90</td><td>0.85<br>(0.07)</td><td>0.90<br>(0.06)</td><td>0.91<br>(0.06)</td><td>0.71<br>(0.05)</td><td>0.09<br>(0.06)</td><td>0.04<br>(0.05)</td><td>0.02<br>(0.05)</td><td>0.16<br>(0.05)</td></tr><tr><td>change, 1980-82/1991-93</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.27<br>(0.08)</td><td>0.17<br>(0.06)</td><td>0.15<br>(0.07)</td><td>0.27<br>(0.06)</td><td>-0.13<br>(0.06)</td><td>-0.04<br>(0.05)</td><td>-0.02<br>(0.06)</td><td>-0.16<br>(0.06)</td></tr><tr><td>change, 1980-82/2005-07</td><td>0.18</td><td>0.48<br>(0.08)</td><td>0.35<br>(0.07)</td><td>0.30<br>(0.07)</td><td>0.46<br>(0.06)</td><td>-0.30<br>(0.07)</td><td>-0.16<br>(0.05)</td><td>-0.10<br>(0.05)</td><td>-0.28<br>(0.06)</td></tr><tr><td>change, 2005-07/2008-10</td><td>-0.06</td><td>-0.06<br>(0.08)</td><td>-0.04<br>(0.06)</td><td>-0.04<br>(0.06)</td><td>-0.05<br>(0.06)</td><td>0.04<br>(0.06)</td><td>0.02<br>(0.05)</td><td>0.01<br>(0.05)</td><td>0.02<br>(0.04)</td></tr><tr><td>categories included<br>specification</td><td>all</td><td>all<br>OLS</td><td>all<br>WLS</td><td>w/ tob.<br>WLS</td><td>w/ dur.<br>WLS</td><td>all<br>OLS</td><td>all<br>WLS</td><td>w/ tob.<br>OLS</td><td>w/ dur.<br>WLS</td></tr></tbody></table>

(b) *France, 1995-2011*

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="5">log inequality</th><th colspan="4">relative mis-measurement</th></tr><tr><th>(0)</th><th>(1)</th><th>(2)</th><th>(3)</th><th>(4)</th><th>(5)</th><th>(6)</th><th>(7)</th><th>(8)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>level, 1995</td><td>0.70</td><td>0.73<br>(0.06)</td><td>0.74<br>(0.05)</td><td>0.72<br>(0.05)</td><td>0.74<br>(0.05)</td><td>0.05<br>(0.06)</td><td>0.03<br>(0.05)</td><td>0.05<br>(0.05)</td><td>0.02<br>(0.04)</td></tr><tr><td>change, 1995/2006</td><td>0.00</td><td>-0.03<br>(0.06)</td><td>-0.05<br>(0.05)</td><td>-0.07<br>(0.05)</td><td>-0.05<br>(0.05)</td><td>-0.02<br>(0.07)</td><td>0.03<br>(0.05)</td><td>0.05<br>(0.05)</td><td>0.04<br>(0.05)</td></tr><tr><td>change, 2006/2011</td><td>0.07</td><td>-0.05<br>(0.06)</td><td>-0.15<br>(0.05)</td><td>-0.17<br>(0.06)</td><td>-0.16<br>(0.06)</td><td>0.01<br>(0.07)</td><td>0.19<br>(0.05)</td><td>0.20<br>(0.06)</td><td>0.21<br>(0.05)</td></tr><tr><td>categories included<br>specification</td><td>all</td><td>all<br>OLS</td><td>all<br>WLS</td><td>w/ tob.<br>WLS</td><td>w/ dur.<br>WLS</td><td>all<br>OLS</td><td>all<br>WLS</td><td>w/ tob.<br>WLS</td><td>w/ dur.<br>WLS</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: Aguiar and Bils (2015) and Consumer Expenditure Survey for Panel A, *Budget de famille* 1995-2011 for Panel B. Field: Households in mainland France. Note: The sample corresponds to the one used by Aguiar and Bils (2015) as in variant 8 of Table 2. The standard errors are calculated using a bootstrap with 100 replications. Log inequality corresponds to the logarithm of $\Delta_t = \ln X_{5t}^* - \ln X_{1t}^*$, as in Equation (2). Relative mis-measurement corresponds to difference between income-specific measurement error for highest-income respondents relative to lowest-income respondents: $\phi^5 - \phi^1$ from Equation (1).

percent depending on specifications (Columns (1) to (4)). This is considerably lower than the 20 point upward correction for the United States. In addition, this correction is statistically weak and does not favor any interpretation of a substantial drop. So, between 1995 and 2006, all indicators underline the stability of consumption inequality and no growing under-reporting concentrated among the rich affects inequality measures as in the United States.

Between 2006 and 2011, the alternative indicator declines by 5 to 17 percent. This post-crisis pattern is comparable to the one observed for the United States. A potential explanation could be the sizable and temporary rise in financial savings by households in view of the economic uncertainty which arose with the crisis: indeed, the financial saving rate of French households grew from 4 percent in 2006 to 4.2 percent in 2008, 7.1 percent in 2009
and fell back to 6.1 percent in 2011 (French national accounts, 2010 basis). However, this
alternative indicator has to be viewed against the standard one, which increases by around
7 percent between 2006 and 2007. As all measures depend on housing to a large extent, any
interpretation for the period 2006 and 2011 is difficult but stable consumption inequality
seems more likely.

3.3 Robustness

First, the alternative methodology is carried out using the 2006 *BdF* edition rather than the 2011 one to derive first-step estimates. Generally, the elasticities and the related order of goods are relatively stable (Columns (2) in Table 8). The biggest changes can be noticed for elasticities associated to "Utilities" (from 0.79 to 0.42), to "All other transportation" (from 1.87 to 1.23), for "Cash contributions" (from 2.54 to 1.97), for "Education" (from 1.34 to 2.01), and for "Tobacco, other smoking" (-0.12 to -0.52). Yet, these categories sum up to less than 15 percent of total consumption in 2001 (Table 7) and can be expected to weigh on the final inequality indicator to a low extent. Indeed, inequality alternative indicators in levels or variations do not vary much in terms of intensity and significance for both unweighted and weighted specifications (2) and (2') in Table 9 Panel A.

Second, additional socio-demographic controls are added in the first- and second-step estimations on top of age and household size and the number of earners: in particular, the socio-professional category, the education level and the size of the urban area. Regarding first-step elasticities relying on 2006 data (Table 8, Column (2)), there is no substantial qualitative change except two cases. The income elasticity for "Education" is divided by two from 1.34 to 0.74, and the one for "Tobacco, other smoking" becomes slightly positive but is not significant anymore. In the second-step (Table 9, Panel A, specifications (3) and (3')), there is no major difference in the OLS nor the WLS estimations. The alternative indicator of consumption inequality thus seems robust to refined controls. As results are unchanged here, these additional controls are kept for other robustness tests.

Third, the analysis of standard inequality measures previously underlined their sensitivity
to the sample selection (see Table 2). Here, the alternative indicators for consumption
inequality are computed on a sample where this selection criteria is omitted, and where
additional socio-demographic controls are also included. In first-step estimations (Table 8,
Panel A, Column (4)), there is almost no major change except "Alcoholic beverages" whose
<table><caption>Table 8 – First-step: elasticities - robustness</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Good category</th><th colspan="2">(1)</th><th colspan="2">(2)</th><th colspan="2">(3)</th><th colspan="2">(4)</th></tr><tr><th>elas.</th><th>s.e.</th><th>elas.</th><th>s.e.</th><th>elas.</th><th>s.e.</th><th>elas.</th><th>s.e.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Housing</td><td>0.70</td><td>(0.03)</td><td>0.59</td><td>(0.02)</td><td>0.65</td><td>(0.03)</td><td>0.65</td><td>(0.03)</td></tr><tr><td>Food at home</td><td>0.52</td><td>(0.03)</td><td>0.61</td><td>(0.03)</td><td>0.56</td><td>(0.03)</td><td>0.57</td><td>(0.04)</td></tr><tr><td>Vehicle purchase, leasing, insurance</td><td>1.03</td><td>(0.07)</td><td>1.16</td><td>(0.07)</td><td>1.13</td><td>(0.08)</td><td>1.14</td><td>(0.09)</td></tr><tr><td>All other transportation</td><td>1.87</td><td>(0.22)</td><td>1.23</td><td>(0.18)</td><td>1.55</td><td>(0.27)</td><td>1.52</td><td>(0.30)</td></tr><tr><td>Utilities</td><td>0.79</td><td>(0.04)</td><td>0.42</td><td>(0.04)</td><td>0.95</td><td>(0.05)</td><td>0.97</td><td>(0.05)</td></tr><tr><td>Health expenditures inc. insurance</td><td>0.98</td><td>(0.07)</td><td>0.93</td><td>(0.06)</td><td>1.00</td><td>(0.09)</td><td>0.90</td><td>(0.10)</td></tr><tr><td>Appliances, phones, computers</td><td>1.13</td><td>(0.15)</td><td>1.10</td><td>(0.10)</td><td>1.12</td><td>(0.15)</td><td>1.10</td><td>(0.15)</td></tr><tr><td>Food away from home</td><td>1.74</td><td>(0.07)</td><td>1.77</td><td>(0.06)</td><td>1.45</td><td>(0.09)</td><td>1.43</td><td>(0.12)</td></tr><tr><td>Entertainment equipment</td><td>0.97</td><td>(0.06)</td><td>0.89</td><td>(0.05)</td><td>0.79</td><td>(0.09)</td><td>0.87</td><td>(0.10)</td></tr><tr><td>Apparel</td><td>1.23</td><td>(0.06)</td><td>1.35</td><td>(0.06)</td><td>1.13</td><td>(0.07)</td><td>1.14</td><td>(0.08)</td></tr><tr><td>Entertainment fees, admissions</td><td>1.36</td><td>(0.07)</td><td>1.35</td><td>(0.05)</td><td>1.28</td><td>(0.07)</td><td>1.26</td><td>(0.09)</td></tr><tr><td>Cash contributions</td><td>2.54</td><td>(0.17)</td><td>1.97</td><td>(0.14)</td><td>2.70</td><td>(0.20)</td><td>2.52</td><td>(0.27)</td></tr><tr><td>Furnitures and fixtures</td><td>1.89</td><td>(0.13)</td><td>1.86</td><td>(0.12)</td><td>2.00</td><td>(0.15)</td><td>1.75</td><td>(0.19)</td></tr><tr><td>Education</td><td>1.34</td><td>(0.22)</td><td>2.01</td><td>(0.25)</td><td>0.74</td><td>(0.26)</td><td>0.56</td><td>(0.30)</td></tr><tr><td>Domestic services and childcare</td><td>1.34</td><td>(0.11)</td><td>1.56</td><td>(0.14)</td><td>1.39</td><td>(0.12)</td><td>1.30</td><td>(0.13)</td></tr><tr><td>Alcoholic beverages</td><td>0.98</td><td>(0.11)</td><td>1.06</td><td>(0.11)</td><td>1.18</td><td>(0.13)</td><td>1.50</td><td>(0.31)</td></tr><tr><td>Personal care</td><td>1.13</td><td>(0.09)</td><td>1.17</td><td>(0.08)</td><td>1.12</td><td>(0.10)</td><td>1.11</td><td>(0.10)</td></tr><tr><td>Tobacco, other smoking</td><td>-0.12</td><td>(0.10)</td><td>-0.52</td><td>(0.12)</td><td>0.06</td><td>(0.12)</td><td>-0.01</td><td>(0.13)</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td>Specification</td><td colspan="2">baseline</td><td colspan="2">year 2006</td><td colspan="2">add. controls</td><td colspan="2">w/ 50% trunc.</td></tr></tfoot></table>

Source: *Budget de famille*, 1995-2011. Field: Households in mainland France. Note: The sample corresponds to the one used by Aguiar and Bils (2015) as in variant 8 of Table 2. The standard errors are calculated using a bootstrap with 100 replications. "Entertainment fees, admissions" includes "reading". Additional controls include socio-professional categories, education and size of urban area.

elasticity increases from 1.18 in Column (3) to 1.50. In the second-stage, the evolutions of consumption inequality are also not affected: between 1995 and 2006, the coefficient sign changes but remains insignificant, confirming stability over this period; between 2006 and 2011, the same pattern occurs as for main specifications, that is a significant moderate decline with OLS, and an accentuated one with WLS.

Fourth, alternative indicators are derived for different age categories by conditioning the sample of the second-stage while keeping the first-stage elasticities from the whole population. As indicated in specifications 2, 3 and 4 for heads of households with age in the ranges 30-39, 40-49 and 50-59 (Table 10, Panel B), the level of consumption inequality is rising with age in 1995 from 0.56 to 0.97. This controlled profile with respect to age is consistent with estimates using cohort or year controls in Figure 3. For OLS estimates, inequality changes for both 2006 and 2011 are insignificant for each age category, as for the whole population. For WLS estimates, a significant drop occurs among households whose head is between 50 and 59 contrary to the outcome for the whole population. This is still the case in 2011 for the 50-59 category but also for the 40-49 one such that the significant drop for the whole population is largely shared among the population.
<caption>Table 9 – Second step: alternative inequality measure - robustness (I)</caption>

Panel A - Year, controls, truncation

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>(1)</th><th>(1')</th><th>(2)</th><th>(2')</th><th>(3)</th><th>(3')</th><th>(4)</th><th>(4')</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>log inequality, 1995</td><td>0.73<br>(0.06)</td><td>0.74<br>(0.05)</td><td>0.70<br>(0.07)</td><td>0.71<br>(0.04)</td><td>0.71<br>(0.06)</td><td>0.71<br>(0.05)</td><td>0.68<br>(0.08)</td><td>0.69<br>(0.06)</td></tr><tr><td>log change, 1995/2001</td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.06<br>(0.07)</td><td>0.02<br>(0.04)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>log change, 1995/2006</td><td>-0.03<br>(0.06)</td><td>-0.05<br>(0.05)</td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.04<br>(0.08)</td><td>-0.03<br>(0.06)</td><td>0.08<br>(0.12)</td><td>0.08<br>(0.11)</td></tr><tr><td>log change, 2001/2011</td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.02<br>(0.07)</td><td>-0.14<br>(0.05)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>log change, 2006/2011</td><td>-0.05<br>(0.06)</td><td>-0.15<br>(0.05)</td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.05<br>(0.07)</td><td>-0.14<br>(0.06)</td><td>-0.09<br>(0.08)</td><td>-0.17<br>(0.07)</td></tr><tr><td>categories included<br>specification</td><td>all</td><td>all</td><td>all</td><td>all</td><td>all</td><td>all</td><td>all</td><td>all</td></tr><tr><td>first-step basis year</td><td>OLS</td><td>WLS</td><td>OLS</td><td>WLS</td><td>OLS</td><td>WLS</td><td>OLS</td><td>WLS</td></tr><tr><td>additional controls</td><td>2001</td><td>2001</td><td>2006</td><td>2006</td><td>2001</td><td>2001</td><td>2001</td><td>2001</td></tr><tr><td>without "50%" trunc.</td><td>no</td><td>no</td><td>no</td><td>no</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td></tr><tr><td>age</td><td>25-64</td><td>25-64</td><td>30-39</td><td>30-39</td><td>40-49</td><td>40-49</td><td>50-59</td><td>50-59</td></tr></tbody></table>

Panel B - Age

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>(1)</th><th>(1')</th><th>(2)</th><th>(2')</th><th>(3)</th><th>(3')</th><th>(4)</th><th>(4')</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>log inequality, 1995</td><td>0.68<br>(0.08)</td><td>0.69<br>(0.05)</td><td>0.56<br>(0.09)</td><td>0.49<br>(0.06)</td><td>0.68<br>(0.08)</td><td>0.71<br>(0.05)</td><td>0.97<br>(0.15)</td><td>0.95<br>(0.12)</td></tr><tr><td>log change, 1995/2006</td><td>0.08<br>(0.12)</td><td>0.08<br>(0.11)</td><td>0.06<br>(0.13)</td><td>0.09<br>(0.09)</td><td>-0.03<br>(0.06)</td><td>-0.05<br>(0.10)</td><td>-0.24<br>(0.15)</td><td>-0.21<br>(0.12)</td></tr><tr><td>log change, 2006/2011</td><td>-0.09<br>(0.08)</td><td>-0.17<br>(0.07)</td><td>0.23<br>(0.13)</td><td>-0.02<br>(0.12)</td><td>-0.11<br>(0.12)</td><td>-0.24<br>(0.08)</td><td>-0.28<br>(0.17)</td><td>-0.29<br>(0.12)</td></tr><tr><td>categories included<br>specification</td><td>all</td><td>all</td><td>all</td><td>all</td><td>all</td><td>all</td><td>all</td><td>all</td></tr><tr><td>first-step basis year</td><td>OLS</td><td>WLS</td><td>OLS</td><td>WLS</td><td>OLS</td><td>WLS</td><td>OLS</td><td>WLS</td></tr><tr><td>additional controls</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td></tr><tr><td>without "50%" trunc.</td><td>no</td><td>no</td><td>no</td><td>no</td><td>no</td><td>no</td><td>no</td><td>no</td></tr><tr><td>age</td><td>25-64</td><td>25-64</td><td>30-39</td><td>30-39</td><td>40-49</td><td>40-49</td><td>50-59</td><td>50-59</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: *Budget de famille*, 1995-2011. Field: Households in mainland France. The standard errors are calculated using a bootstrap with 100 replications. Additional controls include socio-professional categories, education and size of urban area. Log inequality corresponds to the logarithm of $\Delta_t = \ln X_{5t}^* - \ln X_{1t}^*$. as in Equation (2).

Fifth, "housing" amounts to more than one fifth of household budget so that differences between OLS and WLS results in the second-step could be affected by this category specifically. Indeed, in Table 10 Panel A, the weighted specification 2' displays a strong correction for the change between 2006 and 2011: while all previous estimates indicated a strong decline, the evolution here is also negative, but to a lower extent and insignificantly. So, the decline of the alternative consumption inequality indicator suggested by all specifications except this one is driven mainly by outcomes for the "housing" category specifically. Specification 3 is run without using imputed rents directly available in the sample but with those obtained by using the Hot Deck method for every edition and not only the 1995 one. In this
<caption>Table 10 – Second step: alternative inequality measure - robustness (II)</caption>

Panel A - Housing

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>(1)</th><th>(1')</th><th>(2)</th><th>(2')</th><th>(3)</th><th>(3')</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>log inequality, 1995</td><td>0.68<br>(0.08)</td><td>0.74<br>(0.05)</td><td>0.71<br>(0.06)</td><td>0.75<br>(0.06)</td><td>0.71<br>(0.06)</td><td>0.71<br>(0.05)</td></tr><tr><td>log change, 1995/2006</td><td>0.08<br>(0.12)</td><td>0.08<br>(0.11)</td><td>-0.04<br>(0.08)</td><td>-0.09<br>(0.07)</td><td>-0.04<br>(0.08)</td><td>-0.03<br>(0.06)</td></tr><tr><td>log change, 2006/2011</td><td>-0.09<br>(0.08)</td><td>-0.17<br>(0.07)</td><td>-0.04<br>(0.07)</td><td>-0.05<br>(0.06)</td><td>-0.05<br>(0.07)</td><td>-0.14<br>(0.06)</td></tr><tr><td>categories included</td><td>all</td><td>all</td><td>w/hou.</td><td>w/hou.</td><td>w.alt.</td><td>w.alt.</td></tr><tr><td>specification</td><td>OLS</td><td>WLS</td><td>OLS</td><td>WLS</td><td>OLS</td><td>WLS</td></tr><tr><td>first-step basis year</td><td>2001</td><td>2001</td><td>2001</td><td>2001</td><td>2001</td><td>2001</td></tr><tr><td>additional controls</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td></tr><tr><td>without "50%" trunc.</td><td>no</td><td>no</td><td>no</td><td>no</td><td>no</td><td>no</td></tr></tbody></table>

Panel B - Consumption bundles

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>(1)</th><th>(2)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>log inequality, 1995</td><td>0.78<br>(0.07)</td><td>0.91<br>(0.10)</td></tr><tr><td>log change, 1995/2006</td><td>-0.05<br>(0.07)</td><td>-0.11<br>(0.10)</td></tr><tr><td>log change, 2006/2011</td><td>-0.12<br>(0.07)</td><td>-0.16<br>(0.10)</td></tr><tr><td>categories included</td><td>necessities<br>vs. luxuries</td><td>food at home<br>vs. entertainment</td></tr><tr><td>specification</td><td>OLS</td><td>OLS</td></tr><tr><td>first-step basis year</td><td>2001</td><td>2001</td></tr><tr><td>additional controls</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td></tr><tr><td>without "50%" trunc.</td><td>no</td><td>no</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: *Budget de famille*. Field: Households in mainland France. The standard errors are calculated using a bootstrap with 100 replications. Additional controls include socio-professional categories, education and size of urban area. In specifications 2 and 2' of Panel A, all consumption category are considered except housing. "Necessities" includes consumption categories "Housing", "Food at home", "Vehicle purchase, leasing, insurance", "All other transportation", "Utilities", "Health expenditures inc. insurance", "Apparel" and "Appliances, phones and computers". "Luxuries" includes "Entertainment fees, admissions", "Education", "Personal care", "Domestic services and childcare", "Entertainment equipment", "Food away from home", "Furnitures and fixtures" and "Cash contributions".

case, there is no specific change. Lastly, the same methodology is carried with consumption bundles rather than a full set of consumption with on the one hand necessities vs. luxuries and on the other hand single representative categories for necessities and luxuries, that is "food at home" and "entertainment fees, admissions". In the former, housing is gathered with necessities and in the later housing is excluded. In both, the decline between 2006 and 2011 is not significant.

To sum up, the sharp outcomes for housing consumption suggest preferring OLS estimates to avoid deriving conclusions largely driven by a single consumption category. Clearly, the alternative method here does not suggest radical changes in the interpretation of standard
inequality indicator, and, contrary to the United States, there seems to be no obvious mis-
measurement differential between low- and high income households (Table 7) likely to cast
doubts on direct inequality measures. All in all, our preferred measure of consumption
inequality remains the one from Table 1 Panel B, as housing is excluded, as sample trimming
is more conservative (0.5 percent compared to 5 percent for alternative indicators), and as
consumption relative measurement seems less an issue for France.

Conclusion

This study produces a large set of inequality indicators for consumption inequality. Stan-
dard indicators are derived for different socio-demographic characteristics, and an alternative
indicators is computed to deal with potential mis-reporting of spendings. As for the United
States, the measures display a strong sensitivity to the selected field and consumption cate-
gories contribute differently to aggregate outcomes. There seems to be no demographic effect
of age on consumption inequality in a context of population ageing, maybe due to a simul-
taneous rise in within cohort consumption inequality over time. On the whole, consumption
inequality seems stable between 1995 and 2006. Between 2006 and 2011, distinguishing
between stability and decline remains difficult even with the alternative indicator.

References

Accardo, J., Bellamy, V., Consalès, G., Fesseau, M., Le Laidier, S., and Raynaud, E. (2009). Les inégalités entre ménages dans les comptes nationaux: une décomposition du compte des ménages. *L'économie française - Insee Références*.

Accardo, J., Billot, S., and Buron, M.-L. (2017). Les revenus, la consommation et l'épargne des ménages par grande catégorie entre 2011 et 2015. *L'économie française - Insee Références*.

Accardo, J. and Bujega, F. (2009). Le poids des dépenses de logement depuis vingt ans. *Insee Références - Cinquante ans de consommation*, pages 33-47.

Aguiar, M. and Bils, M. (2015). Has consumption inequality mirrored income inequality? *American Economic Review*, 105(9):2725-2756.

Antonin, C. (2014). Comportements d'épargne des ménages actifs et retraités : une analyse théorique et empirique sur la période 1978-2011. *mimeo*.

Attanasio, O. and Pistaferri, L. (2016). Consumption inequality. *Journal of Economic Perspectives*, 30(2):1-27.

Blundell, R. and Ethridge, B. (2010). Consumption, income and earnings inequality in Britain. *Review of Economic Dynamics*, 13(1):76-102.

Blundell, R. and Preston, I. (1998). Consumption inequality and income uncertainty. *The Quarterly Journal of Economics*, 98(2):1887-1921.
Boiron, A. (2016). Evolution des inégalités de niveau de vie entre 1970 et 2013. *Insee Références - Les revenus et le patrimoine des ménages*, pages 55-70.

Boissinot, J. (2007). Consumption over the life cycle. *Document de travail Insee-D2E*, G2007/09.

Bozio, A., Breda, T., and Guillot, M. (2015). Taxes and technological determinants of wage inequalities: France 1976-2010. *PSE Working Paper*, 2015/05.

Ceci-Renaud, N., Charnoz, P., and Gaini, M. (2014). Evolutions de la volatilité des revenus salariaux du secteur privé en France depuis 1968. *Insee/Dese Working Papers*, G2014/03.

Charnoz, P., Coudin, E., and Gaini, M. (2011). Wage inequalities in France 1973-2004. *Document de travail Insee-DEE*, G2011/06.

Coibion, O., Gorodnichenko, Y., and Koustas, D. (2017). Consumption inequality and the frequency of purchases. *NBER Working Paper*, 23357.

Consales, G., Fesseau, M., and Passeron, V. (2009). La consommation des ménages depuis cinquante ans. *Cinquante ans de consommation en France - Insee*, pages 13-31.

Cordier, M., Houdré, C., and Rougerie, C. (2006). Les inégalités de patrimoine des ménages entre 1992 et 2004. *Insee Références - Les revenus et le patrimoine des ménages*, pages 47-58.

d'Albis, H. and Badji, I. (2017). Intergenerational inequalities in standards of living in France. *Economics and Statistics*, 491-492:71-92.

Deaton, A. and Paxson, C. (1994). Intertemporal choice and inequality. *The Journal of Political Economy*, 102(3):437-467.

Fraisse, H., Horny, G., and Verdugo, G. (2012). Evolution des inégalités salariales en France: le rôle des effets de composition. *Revue économique*, 93(6):1081-1112.

Fuchs-Schuendeln, N., Krueger, D., and Sommer, M. (2010). Inequality trends for Germany in the last two decades: a tale of two countries. *Review of Economic Dynamics*, 13(1):103-132.

Garbinti, B., Lamarche, P., and Salembier, L. (2012). Héritages, donations et aides aux ascendants et descendants. *Insee Références - Les revenus et le patrimoine des ménages*, pages 57-69.

Heathcote, J., Perri, F., and Violante, G. (2010). Unequal we stand: an empirical analysis of economic inequality in the United States, 1967-2006. *Review of Economic Dynamics*, 13:15-51.

Jappelli, T. and Pistaferri, L. (2010). Does consumption inequality track income inequality in Italy? *Review of Economic Dynamics*, 13(1):133-153.

Krueger, D. and Perri, F. (2006). Does income inequality lead to consumption inequality? Evidence and theory. *Review of Economic Studies*, 73:163-193.

Krueger, D., Perri, F., Pistaferri, L., and Violante, G. (2010). Cross-sectional facts for macroeconomists. *Review of Economic Dynamics*, (13):1-14.

Lamarche, P. and Salembier, L. (2012). Les déterminants du patrimoine: facteurs personnels et conjoncturels. *Insee Références - Les revenus et le patrimoine des ménages*, pages 23-41.

Loisy, C. (1999). L'épargne des ménages de 1984 à 1995 : disparité et diversité. *Economie et Statistiques*, 324-325:113-133.

Marc, B., Missègue, N., and Rioux, L. (2011). Les écarts de revenu salarial entre personnes s'expliquent au premier chef par des différences du durée d'emploi sur l'année. *Insee Références - France, portrait social*, pages 53-75.

Meyer, B. and Sullivan, J. (2017). Consumption and income inequality in the U.S. since the 1960s. *NBER Working Paper*, 23655.

Pijoan-Mas, J. and Sanchez-Marcos, V. (2010). Spain is different: falling trends in inequality. *Review of Economic Dynamics*, 13(1):154-178.

Piketty, T. and Zucman, G. (2014). Capital is back: wealth-income ratios in rich countries 1700-2010. *Quarterly Journal of Economics*, 129(3):1255-1310.
<table><caption>Table A1 – Main consumption categories</caption><thead><tr><th>Category</th><th>Group</th><th>1995</th><th>2001</th><th>2006</th><th>2011</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Food at home</td><td>FOO</td><td>11-12-15</td><td>11-12-13</td><td>11-12</td><td>11-12-13</td></tr><tr><td>Alcoholic beverages</td><td>FOO</td><td>13</td><td>21</td><td>21</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>Tobacco</td><td>FOO</td><td>14</td><td>22</td><td>22</td><td>22-23</td></tr><tr><td>Apparel</td><td>CLO</td><td>21-22-23</td><td>31-32-33-34</td><td>31-32</td><td>31-32-33</td></tr><tr><td>Housing (rents, maintenance)</td><td>HOU</td><td>31*-91.1/91.3</td><td>41-124.2</td><td>41-124.2**</td><td>41-125.2</td></tr><tr><td>Utilities (water, gaz, electricity)</td><td>HOU</td><td>32*</td><td>44-45</td><td>44-45</td><td>44-45-46</td></tr><tr><td>Furnitures and housing repair</td><td>HOU</td><td>41</td><td>43-51</td><td>43-51</td><td>43-51</td></tr><tr><td>Home appliances</td><td>DUR</td><td>43</td><td>53</td><td>53</td><td>53</td></tr><tr><td>Home furnishing and maintenance products</td><td>LOG</td><td>42-44-45</td><td>52-54-55</td><td>52-54-55</td><td>52-54-55</td></tr><tr><td>Domestic services and childcare</td><td>HOU</td><td>46</td><td>56</td><td>56</td><td>56</td></tr><tr><td>Health expenditures</td><td>SAN</td><td>51-53-54-91.5</td><td>62-63-64-124.3</td><td>62-124.3</td><td>62-63-125.3</td></tr><tr><td>Health appliances</td><td>HEA</td><td>52</td><td>61</td><td>61</td><td>61</td></tr><tr><td>Vehicle purchasing</td><td>DUR</td><td>61</td><td>71</td><td>71</td><td>71</td></tr><tr><td>Vehicle expenses</td><td>TRA</td><td>62-91.4</td><td>72-124.4</td><td>72-124.4</td><td>72-125.4</td></tr><tr><td>Public transportation</td><td>TRA</td><td>63-65</td><td>73-74</td><td>73</td><td>73</td></tr><tr><td>Telecommunication equipment</td><td>DUR</td><td>64.11</td><td>81.2</td><td>81.2</td><td>81.2</td></tr><tr><td>Telecommunication services</td><td>LEI</td><td>64.12-64.2</td><td>81.1-81.3</td><td>81.1-81.3</td><td>81.1-81.3</td></tr><tr><td>Entertainment equipment</td><td>DUR</td><td>71</td><td>91-92</td><td>91-92</td><td>91-92</td></tr><tr><td>Entertainment spendings, leisure objects</td><td>LEI</td><td>72-73</td><td>93-94-95-96-97</td><td>93-94-95</td><td>93-94-95-96</td></tr><tr><td>Education</td><td>LEI</td><td>74</td><td>101</td><td>101</td><td>101</td></tr><tr><td>Personal care</td><td>HEA</td><td>81</td><td>121</td><td>121</td><td>121</td></tr><tr><td>Personal belongings</td><td>CLO</td><td>82</td><td>122</td><td>122</td><td>123</td></tr><tr><td>Food away from home & lodging expenses</td><td>LOI</td><td>83</td><td>111-112</td><td>111</td><td>111</td></tr><tr><td>Exceptional service expenditures</td><td>OTH</td><td>86</td><td>123-126-127</td><td>123-126</td><td>127-128</td></tr><tr><td>Financial services</td><td>OTH</td><td>85-91.6-97</td><td>125</td><td>125</td><td>126</td></tr><tr><td>Debt reimbursement</td><td>DUR</td><td>94</td><td>133</td><td>133</td><td>132</td></tr><tr><td>Renovation work</td><td>DUR</td><td>93</td><td>132</td><td>132</td><td>134</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: *Budget de famille*, 1995-2011. Field: Households in mainland France. Note: These categories are built using the BdF spending tables. "Food at home" includes food, non-alcoholic beverages and exceptional expenditures; "home furnishing" corresponding textiles, dishes and tools; "health expenditures" drugs consultations and hospitals; "public transportations" exceptional expenditures; "entertainment spendings" fees, admissions and reading; "exceptional service expenditures" funerals, layers and house moving for instance.

<table><caption>Table A2 – Main income and tax categories</caption><caption>Incomes</caption><thead><tr><th>Category</th><th>1995</th><th>2001</th><th>2006</th><th>2011</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>net wages</td><td>11-20-21-33-36</td><td>11-20-21-33</td><td>101-200-201</td><td>salaires-rev_etranger</td></tr><tr><td>self-employment income</td><td>10</td><td>10</td><td>100</td><td>revindep</td></tr><tr><td>old-age pension</td><td>23/25-30</td><td>23/25-30</td><td>203-213-204-205-300</td><td>retraites-rev507-rev508</td></tr><tr><td>unemployment pension</td><td>22-64</td><td>22-64</td><td>202-604</td><td>chomage-rev604</td></tr><tr><td>health benefits</td><td>27/29-31-48</td><td>27/29-31-48</td><td>207/209-301-408</td><td>prest_precarite_hand</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>rev500-rev520-</td></tr><tr><td>financial assets income</td><td>50/53</td><td>50/53</td><td>500-520-501/503-519</td><td>rev501/rev503-rev509-</td></tr><tr><td>housing assets income</td><td>54/58</td><td>54/58</td><td>504-508</td><td>rev519</td></tr><tr><td>imputed rents</td><td></td><td></td><td>801</td><td>rev504/rev508</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>transfers - received</td><td>70/73</td><td>70/73</td><td>700-703</td><td>rev850/rev852-</td></tr><tr><td>transfers - provided</td><td>96</td><td>135</td><td>135</td><td>rev700/rev702</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>133</td></tr><tr><td>family benefits</td><td>32-40/47</td><td>32-40/47</td><td>302-400/407-409/414</td><td>prest_fam_petite_enfance-</td></tr><tr><td>housing benefits</td><td>01-02</td><td>01</td><td>010</td><td>prest_fam_autres-rev302</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>prest_logement</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>prest_precarite_rsa-</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>rsa_act-</td></tr><tr><td>minimum benefits</td><td>26-34-35</td><td>26-34-35</td><td>206-304-305-306-307</td><td>prest_precarite_viel-</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>rev414</td></tr></tbody></table>

Taxes

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>1995</th><th>2001</th><th>2006</th><th>2011</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>taxes on estate</td><td>921/923</td><td>1311/1313</td><td>1311-1312</td><td>1311-1312</td></tr><tr><td>income tax</td><td>924</td><td>1314</td><td>1314</td><td>1314</td></tr><tr><td>other taxes (automobile)</td><td>925-926</td><td>1315-1316</td><td>1315-1316</td><td>1315-1316</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: *Budget de famille*, 1995-2011. Field: Households in mainland France. Note: These categories are built relying on the BdF income tables. "Net wages" include secondary incomes and daily allowances, "transfers" alimonies and gifts, and "old age pensions" annuities. Provided transfers and taxes are taken from the BdF spending tables. Transfers correspond to amounts regularly provided by another household.
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Figure A1 – Imputed rents</figcaption></figure>

Source: *Budget de famille*, 1995-2011. Field: Households in mainland France. Note: Values are in 2006 euros on the right side, and in logarithms on the left side. Imputed rents are computed in 1995 by the Hot Deck method using surface, number of rooms, accommodation type, construction year and urban area size.

<table><caption>Table A3 – Shares of consumption categories in households budget, in percent by income quintile</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>Q1</th><th>Q2</th><th>Q3</th><th>Q4</th><th>Q5</th><th>mean</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Food, beverages and tobacco</td><td>1995</td><td>26</td><td>26</td><td>26</td><td>23</td><td>20</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>23</td><td>23</td><td>25</td><td>23</td><td>22</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Clothing, shoes and personal belongings</td><td>1995</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>6</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Housing, utilities, furnishing</td><td>1995</td><td>34</td><td>30</td><td>27</td><td>25</td><td>24</td><td>28</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>33</td><td>33</td><td>28</td><td>24</td><td>23</td><td>28</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Health and personal care</td><td>1995</td><td>10</td><td>13</td><td>13</td><td>14</td><td>14</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>9</td><td>11</td><td>11</td><td>11</td><td>10</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Transports</td><td>1995</td><td>10</td><td>11</td><td>12</td><td>13</td><td>13</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>11</td><td>11</td><td>12</td><td>14</td><td>13</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Leisure, communication, culture, education, hotels, restaurants</td><td>1995</td><td>12</td><td>13</td><td>15</td><td>17</td><td>19</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>17</td><td>14</td><td>16</td><td>19</td><td>22</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Total spendings (2006 euros per cons. unit)</td><td>1995</td><td>10 698</td><td>13 186</td><td>15 880</td><td>19 658</td><td>27 774</td><td>17 439</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>12 066</td><td>13 585</td><td>15 950</td><td>19 813</td><td>28 466</td><td>17 976</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Non durable goods (2006 euros per cons. unit)</td><td>1995</td><td>9 513</td><td>11 002</td><td>12 389</td><td>14 918</td><td>20 235</td><td>13 611</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>10 106</td><td>11 931</td><td>13 140</td><td>15 318</td><td>20 332</td><td>14 165</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Durable goods (2006 euros per cons. unit)</td><td>1995</td><td>1 185</td><td>2 185</td><td>3 490</td><td>4 740</td><td>7 539</td><td>3 827</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>1 959</td><td>1 665</td><td>2 810</td><td>4 495</td><td>8 134</td><td>3 812</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: *Budget de famille*, 1995-2011. Field: Households in mainland France. Note: Consumption groups are built as indicated in Table A1.
<table><caption>Table A4 – Shares of income components, in percent by income quintile</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Q1</th><th>Q2</th><th>Q3</th><th>Q4</th><th>Q5</th><th>mean</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Net wages</td><td>1995 30<br>2011 27</td><td>44<br>42</td><td>50<br>48</td><td>59<br>57</td><td>60<br>59</td><td>49<br>46</td></tr><tr><td>Self employment incomes</td><td>1995 4<br>2011 1</td><td>4<br>2</td><td>3<br>2</td><td>4<br>2</td><td>8<br>7</td><td>5<br>3</td></tr><tr><td>Old-age pensions</td><td>1995 25<br>2011 20</td><td>30<br>38</td><td>29<br>26</td><td>25<br>29</td><td>23<br>25</td><td>27<br>28</td></tr><tr><td>Unemployment pensions</td><td>1995 7<br>2011 7</td><td>4<br>5</td><td>2<br>3</td><td>2<br>2</td><td>2<br>2</td><td>3<br>4</td></tr><tr><td>Health benefits</td><td>1995 3<br>2011 3</td><td>3<br>1</td><td>2<br>1</td><td>1<br>0</td><td>1<br>0</td><td>2<br>1</td></tr><tr><td>Financial assets incomes</td><td>1995 2<br>2011 2</td><td>2<br>1</td><td>2<br>1</td><td>3<br>2</td><td>4<br>3</td><td>3<br>2</td></tr><tr><td>Housing assets incomes</td><td>1995 12<br>2011 9</td><td>12<br>9</td><td>14<br>12</td><td>13<br>14</td><td>14<br>15</td><td>13<br>12</td></tr><tr><td>Family benefits</td><td>1995 8<br>2011 6</td><td>4<br>2</td><td>3<br>1</td><td>2<br>1</td><td>1<br>1</td><td>3<br>2</td></tr><tr><td>Housing benefits</td><td>1995 10<br>2011 19</td><td>2<br>2</td><td>1<br>0</td><td>0<br>0</td><td>0<br>0</td><td>3<br>4</td></tr><tr><td>Minimum benefits</td><td>1995 3<br>2011 8</td><td>1<br>1</td><td>0<br>0</td><td>0<br>0</td><td>0<br>0</td><td>1<br>2</td></tr><tr><td>Property and housing taxes</td><td>1995 -2<br>2011 -2</td><td>-2<br>-2</td><td>-2<br>-3</td><td>-2<br>-3</td><td>-3<br>-3</td><td>-2<br>-2</td></tr><tr><td>Income tax</td><td>1995 -1<br>2011 -1</td><td>-2<br>-1</td><td>-3<br>-3</td><td>-6<br>-4</td><td>-10<br>-8</td><td>-4<br>-3</td></tr><tr><td>Disposable income</td><td>1995 8 231<br>2011 8 701</td><td>12 906<br>14 905</td><td>16 673<br>19 511</td><td>21 379<br>25 209</td><td>35 325<br>42 360</td><td>18 902<br>22 137</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: *Budget de famille*, 1995-2011. Field: Households in mainland France. Note: "Net wages" includes secondary incomes and daily allowances. Income groups are built as indicated in Table A2. Disposable income is in 2006 euros per consumption unit.

<table><caption>Table A5 – Measurement discrepancy between consumption surveys and national accounts</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">National accounts</th><th colspan="2">Budget de famille</th><th colspan="2">ratio</th></tr><tr><th>1995</th><th>2011</th><th>1995</th><th>2011</th><th>1995</th><th>2011</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Necessities</td><td>512.5</td><td>686.1</td><td>461.9</td><td>553.2</td><td>0.90</td><td>0.81</td></tr><tr><td>Luxuries</td><td>255.6</td><td>342.9</td><td>227.3</td><td>279.1</td><td>0.89</td><td>0.88</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>762.1</td><td>1022.5</td><td>689.3</td><td>856.7</td><td>0.90</td><td>0.84</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: Figures are in billions of 2006 euros. "Necessities" includes food, beverages and tobacco, housing and utilities, clothing and shoes, health and transports. "Luxuries" consists in leisure, communications, culture, education, restaurants and hotels and other goods and services. National accounts data are taken from Table 2.201 for effective final consumption by households for major consumption categories (base 2010).
<caption>Table A6 – Inequality trends: ratio of high-income to low-income respondents</caption>

<table><caption>Panel A - United States, 1990-2005</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>1981</th><th>1992</th><th>2006</th><th>2009</th><th>1982-2007<br>log change</th><th>2007-2010<br>log change</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>labor earnings</td><td>6.41</td><td>8.47</td><td>7.88</td><td>8.59</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.09</td></tr><tr><td>pre-tax income</td><td>4.75</td><td>5.80</td><td>6.40</td><td>6.50</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.02</td></tr><tr><td>disposable income</td><td>4.21</td><td>5.12</td><td>5.87</td><td>5.92</td><td>0.33</td><td>0.01</td></tr><tr><td>consumption</td><td>2.31</td><td>2.58</td><td>2.76</td><td>2.62</td><td>0.18</td><td>-0.05</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Panel B - France, 1995-2011</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>1995</th><th>2001</th><th>2006</th><th>2011</th><th>1995-2006<br>log change</th><th>2006-2011<br>log change</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>labor earnings</td><td>4.96</td><td>5.23</td><td>5.33</td><td>6.14</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.14</td></tr><tr><td>pre-tax income</td><td>3.31</td><td>3.27</td><td>3.35</td><td>3.54</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.06</td></tr><tr><td>disposable income</td><td>3.14</td><td>3.06</td><td>3.17</td><td>3.34</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.05</td></tr><tr><td>consumption</td><td>2.02</td><td>2.07</td><td>2.01</td><td>2.15</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.07</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: Aguiar and Bils (2015) and *Consumer Expenditure Survey* for Panel A, *Budget de famille* between 1995 and 2011 for Panel B. Field: Households in mainland France. Note: As in Aguiar and Bils (2015), high income refers to respondents who report pre-tax household income in the eightieth through ninety-fifth percentiles (pre-tax incomes correspond to labor earnings plus government transfers). Low income refers to those in the fifth through twentieth percentiles. The elements of the first four columns are the ratio of the average of high-income respondents to the average for low-income respondent.
<table>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9001</td>
    <td>J. FAYOLLE et M. FLEURBAEY<br>Accumulation, profitabilité et endettement des entreprises</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>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9003</td>
    <td>P. RALLE et J. TOUJAS-BERNATE<br>Indexation des salaires : la rupture de 1983</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9004</td>
    <td>D. GUELLEC et P. RALLE<br>Compétitivité, croissance et innovation de produit</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>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9101</td>
    <td>Équipe AMADEUS<br>Le modèle AMADEUS - Première partie - Présentation générale</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9102</td>
    <td>J.L. BRILLET<br>Le modèle AMADEUS - Deuxième partie - Propriétés variantielles</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9103</td>
    <td>D. GUELLEC et P. RALLE<br>Endogenous growth and product innovation</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9104</td>
    <td>H. ROUSSE<br>Le modèle AMADEUS - Troisième partie - Le commerce extérieur et l'environnement international</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>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9106</td>
    <td>B. CREPON<br>Innovation, taille et concentration : causalités et dynamiques</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9107</td>
    <td>B. AMABLE et D. GUELLEC<br>Un panorama des théories de la croissance endogène</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>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9109</td>
    <td>P. RALLE et alii<br>France - Allemagne : performances économiques comparées</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9110</td>
    <td>J.L. BRILLET<br>Micro-DMS<br>NON PARU</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9111</td>
    <td>A. MAGNIER<br>Effets accélérateur et multiplicateur en France depuis 1970 : quelques résultats empiriques</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>
  </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>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9201</td>
    <td>W.J. ADAMS, B. CREPON, D. ENCAOUA<br>Choix technologiques et stratégies de dissuasion d'entrée</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9202</td>
    <td>J. OLIVEIRA-MARTINS, J. TOUJAS-BERNATE</td>
  </tr>
</table>

Macro-economic import functions with imperfect competition - An application to the E.C. Trade

G 9203
I. STAPIC
Les échanges internationaux de services de la France dans le cadre des négociations multilatérales du GATT
Juin 1992 (1ère version)
Novembre 1992 (version finale)

G 9204
P. SEVESTRE
L'économie sur données individuelles-temporelles. Une note introductive

G 9205
H. ERKEL-ROUSSE
Le commerce extérieur et l'environnement international dans le modèle AMADEUS (réestimation 1992)

G 9206
N. GREENAN et D. GUELLEC
Coordination within the firm and endogenous growth

G 9207
A. MAGNIER et J. TOUJAS-BERNATE
Technology and trade: empirical evidences for the major five industrialized countries

G 9208
B. CREPON, E. DUGUET, D. ENCAOUA et P. MOHNEN
Cooperative, non cooperative R & D and optimal patent life

G 9209
B. CREPON et E. DUGUET
Research and development, competition and innovation: an application of pseudo maximum likelihood methods to Poisson models with heterogeneity

G 9301
J. TOUJAS-BERNATE
Commerce international et concurrence impartie : développements récents et implications pour la politique commerciale

G 9302
Ch. CASES
Durées de chômage et comportements d'offre de travail : une revue de la littérature

G 9303
H. ERKEL-ROUSSE
Union économique et monétaire : le débat économique

G 9304
N. GREENAN - D. GUELLEC / G. BROUSSAUDIER - L. MIOTTI
Innovation organisationnelle, dynamisme technologique et performances des entreprises

G 9305
P. JAILLARD
Le traité de Maastricht : présentation juridique et historique

G 9306
J.L. BRILLET
Micro-DMS : présentation et propriétés

G 9307
J.L. BRILLET
Micro-DMS - variantes : les tableaux

G 9308
S. JACOBZONE
Les grands réseaux publics français dans une perspective européenne

G 9309
L. BLOCH - B. CŒURE
Profitabilité de l'investissement productif et transmission des chocs financiers

G 9310
J. BOURDIEU - B. COLIN-SEDILLOT
Les théories sur la structure optimale du capital : quelques points de repère

G 9311
J. BOURDIEU - B. COLIN-SEDILLOT
Les décisions de financement des entreprises françaises : une évaluation empirique des théories de la structure optimale du capital

G 9312
L. BLOCH - B. CŒURE
Q de Tobin marginal et transmission des chocs financiers

G 9313
Équipes Amadeus (INSEE), Banque de France, Métric (DP)
Présentation des propriétés des principaux modèles macroéconomiques du Service Public

G 9314
B. CREPON - E. DUGUET
Research & Development, competition and innovation

G 9315
B. DORMONT
Quelle est l'influence du coût du travail sur l'emploi ?

G 9316
D. BLANCHET - C. BROUSSE
Deux études sur l'âge de la retraite

G 9317
D. BLANCHET
Répartition du travail dans une population hétérogène : deux notes

G 9318
D. EYSSARTIER - N. PONTY
AMADEUS - an annual macro-economic model for the medium and long term

G 9319
G. CETTE - Ph. CUNÉO - D. EYSSARTIER - J. GAUTIÉ
Les effets sur l'emploi d'un abaissement du coût du travail des jeunes

G 9401
D. BLANCHET
Les structures par âge importent-elles ?

G 9402
J. GAUTIÉ
Le chômage des jeunes en France : problème de formation ou phénomène de file d'attente ?
Quelques éléments du débat

G 9403
P. QUIRION
Les déchets en France : éléments statistiques et économiques

G 9404
D. LADIRAY - M. GRUN-REHOMME
Lissage par moyennes mobiles - Le problème des extrémités de série

G 9405
V. MAILLARD
Théorie et pratique de la correction des effets de jours ouvrables

G 9406
F. ROSENWALD
La décision d'investir

G 9407
S. JACOBZONE
Les apports de l'économie industrielle pour définir la stratégie économique de l'hôpital public

G 9408
L. BLOCH, J. BOURDIEU, B. COLIN-SEDILLOT, G. LONGUEVILLE
Du défaut de paiement au dépôt de bilan : les banquiers face aux PME en difficulté

G 9409
D. EYSSARTIER, P. MAIRE
Impacts macro-économiques de mesures d'aide au logement - quelques éléments d'évaluation

G 9410
F. ROSENWALD
Suivi conjoncturel de l'investissement

G 9411
C. DEFEUILLEY - Ph. QUIRION
Les déchets d'emballages ménagers : une

analyse économique des politiques française et allemande

G 9412
J. BOURDIEU - B. CŒURÉ - B. COLIN-SEDILLOT
Investissement, incertitude et irréversibilité
Quelques développements récents de la théorie de l'investissement

G 9413
B. DORMONT - M. PAUCHET
L'évaluation de l'élasticité emploi-salaire dépend-elle des structures de qualification ?

G 9414
I. KABLA
Le Choix de breveter une invention

G 9501
J. BOURDIEU - B. CŒURÉ - B. SEDILLOT
Irreversible Investment and Uncertainty: When is there a Value of Waiting?

G 9502
L. BLOCH - B. CŒURÉ
Imperfections du marché du crédit, investissement des entreprises et cycle économique

G 9503
D. GOUX - E. MAURIN
Les transformations de la demande de travail par qualification en France
Une étude sur la période 1970-1993

G 9504
N. GREENAN
Technologie, changement organisationnel, qualifications et emploi : une étude empirique sur l'industrie manufacturière

G 9505
D. GOUX - E. MAURIN
Persistence des hiérarchies sectorielles de salaires: un réexamen sur données françaises

G 9505
D. GOUX - E. MAURIN
Persistence of inter-industry wages differentials: a reexamination on matched worker-firm panel data

G 9506
S. JACOBZONE
Les liens entre RMI et chômage, une mise en perspective
NON PARU - article sorti dans Économie et Prévision n° 122 (1996) - pages 95 à 113

G 9507
G. CETTE - S. MAHFOUZ
Le partage primaire du revenu
Constat descriptif sur longue période

G 9601
Banque de France - CEPREMAP - Direction de la Prévision - Érasme - INSEE - OFCE
Structures et propriétés de cinq modèles macro-économiques français

G 9602
Rapport d'activité de la DESE de l'année 1995

G 9603
J. BOURDIEU - A. DRAZNIEKS
L'octroi de crédit aux PME : une analyse à partir d'informations bancaires

G 9604
A. TOPIOL-BENSAÏD
Les implantations japonaises en France

G 9605
P. GENIER - S. JACOBZONE
Comportements de prévention, consommation d'alcool et tabagie : peut-on parler d'une gestion globale du capital santé ?

G 9606
Une modélisation microéconométrique empirique

G 9607
C. DOZ - F. LENGLART
Factor analysis and unobserved component models: an application to the study of French business surveys

G 9607
N. GREENAN - D. GUELLEC
La théorie coopérative de la firme
<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 9807</td>
      <td>Bilan des activités de la Direction des Études<br>et Synthèses Économiques - 1997</td>
      <td>Bis</td>
      <td>Une estimation de l'élasticité de l'emploi peu<br>qualifié à son coût</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 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 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 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'économie des<br>panels et des variables qualitatives</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 9611</td>
      <td>X. BONNET - S. MAHFOUZ<br>The influence of different specifications of wages-<br>prices spirals on the measure of the NAIRU: the<br>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 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>Évolution des flux d'emplois en France entre<br>1990 et 1996 : une étude empirique à partir du<br>fichier des bénéfices réels normaux (BRN)</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 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 régime<br>général</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 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 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. MAIRESSÉ<br>Estimating price cost margins, scale economies<br>and workers' bargaining power at the firm level</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 9614</td>
      <td>ZHANG Yingxiang - SONG Xueqing<br>Lexique macroéconomique Français-Chinois</td>
      <td>G 9720</td>
      <td>M. HOUDEBINE - J.L. SCHNEIDER<br>Mesurer l'influence de la fiscalité sur la locali-<br>sation des entreprises</td>
      <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 firms<br>from the manufacturing sector</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>A revenue de la littérature</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>Évolution de l'emploi et des coûts par quali-<br>fication entre 1982 et 1996</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 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 2000/01</td>
      <td>R. MAHIEU<br>Les déterminants des dépenses de santé : une<br>approche macroéconomique</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 9902</td>
      <td>Ch. COLIN<br>Modélisation des carrières dans Destinie</td>
      <td>G 2000/02</td>
      <td>C. ALLARD-PRIGENT - H. GUILMEAU -<br>A. QUINET<br>The real exchange rate as the relative price of<br>nontrables in terms of tradables: theoretical<br>investigation and empirical study on French data</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 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 9903</td>
      <td>Ch. COLIN<br>Évolution de la dispersion des salaires : un essai<br>de prospective par microsimulation</td>
      <td>G 2000/03</td>
      <td>J.-Y. FOURNIER<br>L'approximation du filtre passe-bande proposée<br>par Christiano et Fitzgerald</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 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 9904</td>
      <td>B. CREPON - N. IUNG<br>Innovation, emploi et performances</td>
      <td>G 2000/04</td>
      <td>Bilan des activités de la DESE - 1999</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 9706</td>
      <td>M. HOUDEBINE - A. TOPIOL-BENSAÏD<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 9905</td>
      <td>B. CREPON - Ch. GIANELLA<br>Wages inequalities in France 1969-1992<br>An application of quantile regression techniques</td>
      <td>G 2000/05</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 9707</td>
      <td>M. HOUDEBINE<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 9906</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 2000/06</td>
      <td>A. FLIPO<br>Les comportements matrimoniaux de fait</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 9708</td>
      <td>E. DUGUET - N. GREENAN<br>Le biais technologique : une analyse sur données<br>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 9907</td>
      <td>F. ROSENWALD<br>L'impact des contraintes financières dans la dé-<br>cision d'investissement</td>
      <td>G 2000/07</td>
      <td>R. MAHIEU - B. SÉDILLOT<br>Microsimulations of the retirement decision: a<br>supply side approach</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 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 9908</td>
      <td>Bilan des activités de la DESE - 1998</td>
      <td>G 2000/08</td>
      <td>C. AUDENIS - C. PROST<br>Déficit conjoncturel : une prise en compte des<br>conjonctures passées</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 et<br>1996</td>
      <td>G 9909</td>
      <td>J.P. ZOYEM<br>Contrat d'insertion et sortie du RMI<br>Évaluation des effets d'une politique sociale</td>
      <td>G 2000/09</td>
      <td>R. MAHIEU - B. SÉDILLOT<br>Équivalent patrimonial de la rente et souscription<br>de retraite complémentaire</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 9711</td>
      <td>G. FORGEOT - J. GAUTIÉ<br>Insertion professionnelle des jeunes et processus<br>de déclassement</td>
      <td>G 9912</td>
      <td>G. LAROQUE - B. SALANIÉ<br>Une décomposition du non-emploi en France</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 publique</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 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 9912</td>
      <td>B. SALANIÉ<br>Une maquette analytique de long terme du<br>marché du travail</td>
      <td>G 9912</td>
      <td>G. LAROQUE - B. SALANIÉ<br>Temps partiel féminin et incitations financières à<br>l'emploi</td>
      <td>G 2000/11</td>
      <td>G. LAROQUE - B. SALANIÉ<br>Ch. GIANELLA<br>Local unemployment and wages</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G 9713</td>
      <td>Bilan des activités de la Direction des Études<br>et Synthèses Économiques - 1996</td>
      <td>G 9912</td>
      <td>Ch. GIANELLA</td>
      <td></td>
      <td></td>
      <td>G 2000/12</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
G2000/13 B. CREPON - Th. HECKEL
- Informatisation en France : une évaluation à partir de données individuelles
- Computerization in France: an evaluation based on individual company data

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

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

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

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

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

- Retropolation 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? Microeconometric evidence for France based on a production function approach

G2002/06 C. AUDENIS - J. DERROYON - 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 Familiale 1999

G2002/11 J.-P. ZOYEM
La dynamique des bas revenus : une analyse des entrées-sorties de pauvreté

G2002/12 F. HILD
Prévisions d'inflation pour la France

G2002/13 M. LECLAIR
Réduction du temps de travail et tensions sur les facteurs de production

G2002/14 E. WALRAET - A. VINCENT
- Analyse de la redistribution intragénérationnelle dans le système de retraite des salariés du privé - Une approche par microsimulation
- Intragenerational distributional analysis in the french private sector pension scheme - A microsimulation approach

G2002/15 P. CHONE - D. LE BLANC - I. ROBERT-BOBEE
Offre de travail féminine et garde des jeunes enfants

G2002/16 F. MAUREL - S. GREGOIR
Les indices de compétitivité des pays : inter-prétation et 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. DERROYON - 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
Age, salaire et productivité
La productivité des salariés décline-t-elle en fin de carrière ?

G2003/07 H. BARON - P.O. BEFFY - N. FOURCADE - R. 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 Technologies, 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 à 1974

G2005/02 C. AFSA - S. BUFFETEAU
L'évolution de l'activité féminine en France : une approche par pseudo-panel

G2005/03 P. AUBERT - P. SILLARD
Délocalisations et réductions d'effectifs dans l'industrie française

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

G2005/05 C. L'ANGEVIN - S. SERRAVALLE
Performances à l'exportation de la France 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 « qualifiés/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. DOUGRONN - 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 macroeconomic 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 croissance potentielle à long
termes

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

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

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

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

G2011/03 L. DAVEZIES Modèles à effets fixes, à effets aléatoires, modèles mixtes ou multi-niveaux: propriétés et mises en œuvre des modélisations de l'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 entreprises sur la base des contrôles fiscaux et son insertion dans les comptes nationaux

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

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

G2011/12 C. MARBOT - D. ROY 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

G2012/02 N. CECI-RENAUD - V. COTTET Politique salariale et performance des entreprises

G2012/03 P. FÉVRIER - L. WILNER Do Consumers Correctly Expect Price Reductions? Testing Dynamic Behavior

G2012/04 M. GAINI - A. LEDUC - A. VICARD School as a shelter? School leaving-age and the business cycle in France

G2012/05 M. GAINI - A. LEDUC - A. VICARD A scarred generation? French evidence on young people entering into a tough labour market

G2012/06 P. AUBERT - M. BACHELET Disparités de montant de pension et redistribution dans le système de retraite français

G2012/07 R. AEBERHARDT - P GIVORD - C. MARBOT Spillover Effect of the Minimum Wage in France: An Unconditional Quantile Regression Approach

G2012/08 A. EIDELMAN - F. LANGUMIER - A. VICARD Prélèvements obligatoires reposant sur les ménages : des canaux redistributifs différents en 1990 et 2010

G2012/09 O. BARGAIN - A. VICARD Le RMI et son successeur le RSA découragent-ils certains jeunes de travailler ? Une analyse sur les jeunes autour de 25 ans

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

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

G2012/12 V. COTTET - S. QUANTIN - V. RÉGNIER Coût du travail et allègements de charges : une estimation au niveau établissement de 1996 à 2008

G2012/13 X. D'HAULTFOEUILLE - P. FÉVRIER - L. WILNER Demand Estimation in the Presence of Revenue Management

G2012/14 D. BLANCHET - S. LE MINEZ Joint macro/micro evaluations of accrued-to-date pension liabilities: an application to French reforms

G2013/01- F1301 T. DERDYON - A. MONTAUT - P-A PIONNIER Utilisation rétrospective de l'enquête Emploi à une fréquence mensuelle: apport d'une modélisation espace-état

G2013/02- F1302 Habiter en HLM: quel avantage monétaire et quel impact sur les conditions de logement ?

G2013/03 A. POISSONNIER Temporal disaggregation of stock variables - The Chow-Lin method extended to dynamic models

G2013/04 P. GIVORD - C. MARBOT Does the cost of child care affect female labor market participation? An evaluation of a French reform of childcare subsidies

G2013/05 G. LAME - M. LEQUIEN - P.-A. PIONNIER Interpretation and limits of sustainability tests in public finance

G2013/06 C. BELLEGO - V. DORTET-BERNADET La participation aux pôles de compétitivité : quelle incidence sur les dépenses de R&D et l'activité des PME et ETI ?

G2013/07 P.-Y. CABANNES - A. MONTAUT - P.-A. PIONNIER Évaluer la productivité globale des facteurs en France : l'apport d'une mesure de la qualité du capital et du travail

G2013/08 R. AEBERHARDT - C. MARBOT Evolution of Instability on the French Labour Market During the Last Thirty Years

G2013/09 J-B. BERNARD - G. CLÉAUD Oil price: the nature of the shocks and the impact on the French economy

G2013/10 G. LAME Was there a « Greenspan Conundrum » in the Euro area?

G2013/11 P. CHONÉ - F. EVAIN - L. WILNER - E. YILMAZ Introducing activity-based payment in the hospital industry: Evidence from French data

G2013/12 C. GRISLAIN-LETRÉMY Natural Disasters: Exposure and Underinsurance

G2013/13 P.-Y. CABANNES - V. COTTET - Y. DUBOIS - C. LELARGE - M. SICSIC French Firms in the Face of the 2008/2009 Crisis

G2013/14 A. POISSONNIER - D. ROY Households Satellite Account for France in 2010. Methodological issues on the assessment of domestic production

G2013/15 G. CLÉAUD - M. LEMOINE - P.-A. PIONNIER Which size and evolution of the government expenditure multiplier in France (1980-2010)?

G2014/01 M. BACHELET - A. LEDUC - A. MARINO Les biographies du modèle Destinie II: rebasage et projection

G2014/02 B. GARBINTI L'achat de la résidence principale et la création d'entreprises sont-ils favorisés par les donations et héritages ?

G2014/03 N. CECI-RENAUD - P. CHARNOZ - M. GAINI Évolution de la volatilité des revenus salariaux du secteur privé en France depuis 1968

G2014/04 P. AUBERT Modalités d'application des réformes des retraites et prévisibilité du montant de pension

G2014/05 C. GRISLAIN-LETRÉMY - A. KATOSSKY The Impact of Hazardous Industrial Facilities on Housing Prices: A Comparison of Parametric and Semiparametric Hedonic Price Models

G2014/06 J.-M. DAUSSIN-BENICHOU - A. MAUROUX Turning the heat up. How sensitive are households to fiscal incentives on energy efficiency investments?

G2014/07 C. LABONNE - G. LAMÉ Credit Growth and Capital Requirements: Binding or Not?

G2014/08 C. GRISLAIN-LETRÉMY et C. TREVIEN The Impact of Housing Subsidies on the Rental Sector: the French Example

G2014/09 M. LEQUIEN et A. MONTAUT Croissance potentielle en France et en zone euro : un tour d'horizon des méthodes d'estimation

G2014/10 B. GARBINTI - P. LAMARCHE Les hauts revenus épargnent-ils davantage ?

G2014/11 D. AUDENAERT - J. BARDAJI - R. LARDEUX - M. ORAND - M. SICSIC Wage Resilience in France since the Great Recession

G2014/12 F. ARNAUD - J. BOUSSARD - A. POISSONNIER - H. SOUAL Computing additive contributions to growth and other issues for chain-linked quarterly aggregates

G2014/13 H. FRAISSE - F. KRAMARZ - C. PROST Labor Disputes and Job Flows
G2014/14 P. GIVORD - C. GRISLAIN-LETRÉMY - H. NAEGELE
How does fuel taxation impact new car purchases? An evaluation using French consumer-level dataset

G2014/15 P. AUBERT - S. RABATÉ
Durée passée en carrière et durée de vie en retraite : quel partage des gains d'espérance de vie ?

G2015/01 A. POISSONNIER
The walking dead Euler equation
Addressing a challenge to monetary policy models

G2015/02 Y. DUBOIS - A. MARINO
Indicateurs de rendement du système de retraite français

G2015/03 T. MAYER - C. TREVIEN
The impacts of Urban Public Transportation: Evidence from the Paris Region

G2015/04 S.T. LY - A. RIEGERT
Measuring Social Environment Mobility

G2015/05 M. A. BEN HALIMA - V. HYAFIL-SOLELHAC
M. KOUBI - C. REGAERT
Quel est l'impact du système d'indemnisation maladie sur la durée des arrêts de travail pour maladie ?

G2015/06 Y. DUBOIS - A. MARINO
Disparités de rendement du système de retraite dans le secteur privé : approches intergénérationnelle et intragénérationnelle

G2015/07 B. CAMPAGNE - V. ALHENC-GELAS - J.-B. BERNARD
No evidence of financial accelerator in France

G2015/08 Q. LAFFÉTER - M. PAK
Élasticités des recettes fiscales au cycle économique : étude de trois impôts sur la période 1979-2013 en France

G2015/09 J.-M. DAUSSIN-BENICHOU, S. IDMACHICHE, A. LEDUC et E. POULIQUEN
Les déterminants de l'attractivité de la fonction publique de l'État

G2015/10 P. AUBERT
La modulation du montant de pension selon la durée de carrière et l'âge de la retraite : quelles disparités entre assurés ?

G2015/11 V. DORTET-BERNADET - M. SICSIC
Effet des aides publiques sur l'emploi en R&D dans les petites entreprises

G2015/12 S. GEORGES-KOT
Annual and lifetime incidence of the value-added tax in France

G2015/13 M. POULHÈS
Are Enterprise Zones Benefits Capitalized into Commercial Property Values? The French Case

G2015/14 J.-B. BERNARD - Q. LAFFÉTER
Effet de l'activité et des prix sur le revenu salarial des différentes catégories socioprofessionnelles

G2015/15 C. GEAY - M. KOUBI - G de LAGASNERIE
Projections des dépenses de soins de ville, construction d'un module pour Destinie

G2015/16 J. BARDAJI - J.-C. BRICONGNE - B. CAMPAGNE - G. GAULIER
Compared performances of French companies on the domestic and foreign markets

G2015/17 C. BELLÉGO - R. DE NIJS
The redistributive effect of online piracy on the box office performance of American movies in foreign markets

G2015/18 J.-B. BERNARD - L. BERTHET
French households financial wealth: which changes in 20 years?

G2015/19 M. POULHÈS
Fenêtre sur Cour ou Chambre avec Vue ?
Les prix hédoniques de l'immobilier parisien

G2016/01 B. GARBINTI - S. GEORGES-KOT
Time to smell the roses? Risk aversion, the timing of inheritance receipt, and retirement

G2016/02 P. CHARNOZ - C. LELARGE - C. TREVIEN
Communication Costs and the Internal Organization of Multi-Plant Businesses: Evidence from the Impact of the French High-Speed Rail

G2016/03 C. BONNET - B. GARBINTI - A. SOLAZ
Gender Inequality after Divorce: The Flip Side of Marital Specialization - Evidence from a French Administrative Database

G2016/04 D. BLANCHET - E. CAROLI - C. PROST - M. ROGER
Health capacity to work at older ages in France

G2016/05 B. CAMPAGNE - A. POISSONNIER
MELEZE: A DSGE model for France within the Euro Area

G2016/06 B. CAMPAGNE - A. POISSONNIER
Laffer curves and fiscal multipliers: lessons from Mélèze model

G2016/07 B. CAMPAGNE - A. POISSONNIER
Structural reforms in DSGE models: a case for sensitivity analyses

G2016/08 Y. DUBOIS et M. KOUBI
Relèvement de l'âge de départ à la retraite : quel impact sur l'activité des séniors de la réforme des retraites de 2010 ?

G2016/09 A. NAOUAS - M. ORAND - I. SLIMANI HOUTI
Les entreprises employant des salariés au Smic : quelles caractéristiques et quelle rentabilité ?

G2016/10 T. BLANCHET - Y. DUBOIS - A. MARINO - M. ROGER
Patrimoine privé et retraite en France

G2016/11 M. PAK - A. POISSONNIER
Accounting for technology, trade and final consumption in employment: an Input-Output decomposition

G2017/01 D. FOUGÈRE - E. GAUTIER - S. ROUX
Understanding Wage Floor Setting in Industry-Level Agreements: Evidence from France

G2017/02 Y. DUBOIS - M. KOUBI
Règles d'indexation des pensions et sensibilité des dépenses de retraites à la croissance économique et aux chocs démographiques

G2017/03 A. CAZENAVE-LACROUTZ - F. GODET
L'espérance de vie en retraite sans incapacité sévère des générations nées entre 1960 et 1990 : une projection à partir du modèle Destinie

G2017/04 J. BARDAJI - B. CAMPAGNE - M.-B. KHDER - Q. LAFFÉTER - O. SIMON (Insee)
A.-S. DUFERNEZ - C. ELEZAAR - P. LEBLANC - E. MASSON - H. PARTOUCHE (DG-Trésor)
Le modèle macroéconométrique Mésange : réestimation et nouveautés

G2017/05 J. BOUSSARD - B. CAMPAGNE
Fiscal Policy Coordination in a Monetary Union at the Zero-Lower-Bound

G2017/06 A. CAZENAVE-LACROUTZ - A. GODZINSKI
Effects of the one-day waiting period for sick leave on health-related absences in the French central civil service

G2017/07 P. CHARNOZ - M. ORAND
Qualification, progrès technique et marchés du travail locaux en France, 1990-2011

G2017/08 K. MILIN
Modélisation de l'inflation en France par une approche macrosectorielle

G2017/09 C.-M. CHEVALIER - R. LARDEUX
Homeownership and labor market outcomes: disentangling externality and composition effects

G2017/10 P. BEAUMONT
Time is Money: Cash-Flow Risk and Export Market Behavior

G2018/01 S. ROUX - F. SAVIGNAC
SMEs' financing: Divergence across Euro area countries?

G2018/02 C.-M. CHEVALIER - A. LUCIANI
Computerization, labor productivity and employment: impacts across industries vary with technological level

G2018/03 R. MONIN - M. SUAREZ CASTILLO
L'effet du CICE sur les prix : une double analyse sur données sectorielles et individuelles

G2018/04 R. LARDEUX
Who Understands The French Income Tax? Bunching Where Tax Liabilities Start

G2018/05 C.-M. CHEVALIER
Financial constraints of innovative firms and sectoral growth

G2018/06 R. S.-H. LEE - M. PAK
Pro-competitive effects of globalisation on prices, productivity and markups: Evidence in the Euro Area

G2018/07 C.-M. CHEVALIER
Consumption inequality in France between 1995 and 2011