# Spillover Effect of the Minimum Wage in France: An Unconditional Quantile Regression Approach

Romain Aeberhardt, Pauline Givord, Claire Marbot

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

To cite this version:

Romain Aeberhardt, Pauline Givord, Claire Marbot. Spillover Effect of the Minimum Wage in France: An Unconditional Quantile Regression Approach. 2012. [hal-05470199](https://hal-05470199v1)

HAL Id: hal-05470199

https://insee.hal.science/hal-05470199v1

Preprint submitted on 21 Jan 2026

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

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

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

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

G 2012 / 07

Spillover Effect of the Minimum Wage in France:
An Unconditional Quantile Regression Approach

Romain AEBERHARDT, Pauline GIVORD et Claire MARBOT

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

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

G 2012 / 07

Spillover Effect of the Minimum Wage in France:
An Unconditional Quantile Regression Approach

Romain AEBERHARDT*, Pauline GIVORD**
et Claire MARBOT**

JUIIN 2012

We are grateful to Yann ALGAN, Didier BLANCHET, Gilbert CETTE, Xavier D'HAULTFOEUILLE, Marc GURGAND, Francis KRAMARZ, Guy LAROQUE, Thierry MAGNAC, Sébastien ROUX, Grégory VERDUGO and Étienne WASMER for stimulating discussions as well as seminar participants at INSEE, CREST, ESEM, EALE and Department of Treasury (Fourgeaud seminar). Preliminary research for this paper benefited from the help of Olivier TRECCO as a research assistant, and we thank him greatly for his work. All remaining errors are ours.

<footnote>* Dares-Crest</footnote>

<footnote>* Insee - Département des Études Économiques d'Ensemble - 15, bd Gabriel Péri - BP 100 - 92244 MALAKOFF CEDEX et Crest</footnote>
# Spillover Effect of the Minimum Wage in France: An Unconditional Quantile Regression Approach

## Abstract

This study evaluates the impact of the minimum wage on the earnings distribution in France, using an unconditional quantile regression method proposed by Firpo, Fortin, and Lemieux (2009). To address the endogeneity issue due to the specific French revaluation process of the minimum wage, we use a natural experiment. As several minimum wage levels coexisted because of different schedules in the French "35-hour week" application, they were forced to converge to one single level between 2003 and 2005. We find significant effects of the minimum wage on the earnings distribution of male and female employees up to the seventh decile.

**Keywords:** Minimum wage, earnings distribution, unconditional quantile regressions

# Salaire minimum et effet de diffusion en France : une approche par les regressions de quantile inconditionnel

## Résumé

Cette étude évalue l'impact du salaire minimum sur la distribution de salaires en France, en utilisant la méthode de régression de quantiles inconditionnels proposée par Firpo, Fortin et Lemieux (2009). Pour traiter la question de l'endogénéité liée au mode de revalorisation du salaire minimum en France, nous utilisons une expérience naturelle. Alors que plusieurs rémunérations minimales coexistaient du fait de l'application progressive des 35 heures, une convergence vers le haut a été imposée entre 2003 et 2005. Nous trouvons un effet significatif du salaire minimum sur les distributions des salaires des hommes et des femmes, jusqu'au septième décile.

**Mots-clés :** Salaire minimum, distribution de salaire, régressions de quantiles inconditionnelles

**Classification JEL :** J31, J38, C18
# 1 Introduction

This study aims at providing new empirical stylized facts regarding the spillover impact of the minimum wage on the wage distribution during the last decade in France. To model the effect on the wage distribution, we rely on the “unconditional quantile regression” method proposed by Firpo, Fortin, and Lemieux (2009). It allows us to directly estimate the impact of a marginal change in the minimum wage level throughout the overall wage distribution, without changing the distribution of other (observable) characteristics. Our identification strategy uses a change in the French labor market regulation that occurred in the period 2003-2005. During this period, several levels of the minimum wage coexisted and evolved at different exogenous rates. Our results suggest significant, though small, effects of the changes in the minimum wage level that occurred at this period, up to the seventh decile for full-time employees on stable position.<fnref n="1" />

The minimum wage is one of the main state interventions in the labor market. Many developed countries have adopted a minimum wage. Its original aim is to guarantee low skilled workers a “decent” standard of living, but it is also considered as a redistributive tool.<fnref n="2" /> The minimum wage could also have intended or unintended consequences on the labor market. For decades, economists have questioned its – still controversial – detrimental impact on employment. More recently, some emphasis has been placed on its potential impact on the reduction of earnings inequalities. Di Nardo, Fortin, and Lemieux (1996) and Lee (1999) for instance conclude that part of the rise in wage inequality observed in the US during the 1980s is due to a decline, in real terms, of the minimum wage level.

The minimum wage could have an impact on the overall earnings distribution through two channels. First it can have a negative impact on employment that could lead to a change in the composition and the size of the labor force, and this could affect the observed earnings distribution. Second, even in the absence of employment effect, an increase in the minimum wage level should shift the bottom of the earnings distribution. Beyond this *mechanical* effect, the wages of workers who earned more than the new minimum wage could also rise as if they benefited from a *global* increase at the bottom of the wage distribution (Katz and Krueger, 1992; Teulings, 2000, 2003). Indeed, firms can be willing to maintain an upward compensation scheme as a way to stimulate the efforts of the employees. In line with

<footnote n="1">¹In the whole study, thresholds of the deciles will be denoted “deciles” by abuse of language: here, decile *i* is the wage such that $10 * i\%$ of employees earn less and $(100 - 10 * i)\%$ earn more.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²The French law states that the minimum wage should *“ensure that employees with the lowest wages, have a guaranteed purchasing power, and participate in the Nation’s economic development”*.</footnote>
the tournament model proposed by Lazear and Rosen (1981) and Rosen (1986), Chen and Shum (2010) find that a large part of intra-firm wage differentials could be interpreted as an incentive tool. This intuition is also supported by evidence on experimental data. According to Falk, Fehr, and Zehnder (2006), the minimum wage could modify the agents’ perception of the “fair” level of remuneration (consistent with Akerlof and Yellen, 1988). It would therefore have a substantial impact on the employees’ reservation wage. This could explain the presence of significant wage increases, even beyond the level imposed by the minimum wage.

On empirical grounds, the identification of these spillover effects is a complicated empirical issue. When the minimum wage is the same for all employees (as it is the case in France), it is generally impossible to distinguish what pertains to its specific increase or to any wage trend or other cyclical effect. Identification can be achieved by spatial or sectoral variations: for the US, Lee (1999) uses state variation in the minimum wage levels and finds that the decrease, in real terms, of the minimum wage, is the main determinant of the growth in inequality in the lower tail of the distribution. Similarly, Dickens, Machin, and Manning (1999) use the coexistence of several sectoral minimum wages in the United Kingdom (until 1993), and find effects of the minimum wage up to the 40th percentile. Teulings (2000, 2003) finds that increases in the minimum wage significantly spread to higher wages in the Netherlands. However, Dickens and Manning (2004) believe that *spreading* effects were probably modest in the United Kingdom in 1999 when a national minimum wage was reintroduced. As far as we know, French studies on the impact of the minimum wage on higher wages are scarce.<fnref n="3" />

For France, the identification issue is complicated by the fact that the legal increase in the minimum wage is yearly adjusted according to the past trend in mean wages (it is indexed to the *blue-collar worker's basic hourly pay*). This makes it highly endogenous. During the period 2003-2005, however, this rule was frozen in order to harmonize the different levels of minimum wages resulting from the gradual implementation of the French Law on workweek reduction between 1998 and 2003. Monthly Guaranteed Wages (GMR) were designed to maintain the monthly wage of the lowest paid employees despite the lower number of hours worked at the time of the switch to the 35-hour week. Each year, during five years, a new GMR was created for the firms that signed an agreement that year. After five years, it had indeed resulted in the coexistence of six levels of the minimum wage in 2003. A convergence mechanism had been designed to put an end to

<footnote n="3">³The only (in French) contributions are from Koubi and Lhommeau (2007) and Goarant and Muller (2011). They both conclude that increases in the minimum wage have a significant impact up to wages as high as twice the minimum wage.</footnote>
this situation, that resulted in the application of different discretionary increases
to the different GMR between 2003 and 2005. This situation provides a natural
experiment for an evaluation of the impact of the minimum wage on the wage
distribution, as the pace of increase in the level of the minimum wage applying in
one or other firm can be considered as exogenous. The identification will rely on
the fact that the increase was quite large in firms that did not sign a reduction
agreement before 2002, while it was more modest in other firms.

Besides, modeling the overall distribution of earnings requires to use specific
tools. In particular, one wants to control for the characteristics of the labor force.
Indeed, as an increase in the minimum wage could have an impact on the em-
ployment level, it can distort the overall wage distribution of actually employed
individuals. It would thus be difficult to separate what stems from this labor force
composition effect from a real spillover effect.<fnref n="4" />

A first stream of literature uses parametric specifications (see for instance Teul-
ings, 2000; Meyer and Wise, 1983), but these specifications could be sensitive to
the functional form assumed for the distribution of wages (see for instance Dick-
ens, Machin, and Manning, 1998, on a related topic). Over the last decade, many
empirical tools have been proposed for a more detailed analysis of the entire wage
distribution. Quantile regressions is one of them. It classically deals with the
quantiles of the distribution of the variable of interest Y conditional on observable
characteristics X (see Koenker and Hallock, 2001). In the same way as linear re-
gressions approximate the conditional expectation of the variable of interest as a
linear function of observables, it models the conditional quantile of the variable of
interest as a linear function of observables. As both methods deal with conditional
quantities, they do not inform directly on the impact of a change in the distribu-
tion of observables, from F_X to G_X, on their unconditional counterpart (meaning
the expectation or quantile of our variable of interest on the whole population).
Firpo, Fortin, and Lemieux (2009) propose a more direct method to deal with un-
conditional quantities. It relies on the influence functions, and requires only local
inversion of the distribution. We use this method in this paper. This allows to
disentangle as much as possible the spillover effects from changes in the compo-
sition of the labor force resulting from the exclusion of low-productivity workers.
We focus on the impact of the minimum wage on the various deciles of the dis-
tribution of annual earnings of workers in the private sector, using administrative

<footnote n="4">⁴As noted by Lee (1999), this could create a mechanical change in the observed distribution. If we denote by $F_1$ (resp. $F_0$) the earnings distribution with a minimum wage of $w_1$ (resp. $w_0$), we would get $F_1(w) = \frac{F_0(w)-F_0(w_1)}{1-F_0(w_1)}$ for $w > w_1$ (zero otherwise). A first-order development gives the expression of the $\tau^{th}$ quantile of distribution $F_1$ related to its counterpart for distribution $F_0$ as: $q_{1\tau} = q_{0\tau} + (1-\tau)\frac{F_0(w_1)}{F_0(q_{0\tau})}$.</footnote>
business data (the DADS) that provide exhaustive records on yearly earnings of French workers in the private sector. We perform separate analysis for men and women to account for different wage settings according to gender.

Section 2 presents the revaluation mechanisms of the minimum wage with a specific focus on the convergence period of the different levels of the minimum wage. The identification strategy and the statistical method are detailed in section 3, then section 4 presents the data along with some descriptive statistics ; finally section 5 gives the results.

## 2 French labor market institutional setting: Minimum wage and workweek reduction

The French minimum wage (“SMIC”) was introduced in 1970. Its hourly value is set by the French government for all French employees.<fnref n="5" /> It amounts to 9€ per hour in 2011. The minimum wage is updated every year, according to a strict rule. By law, the minimum wage increase cannot be smaller than the inflation rate observed the current year. It even exceeds it, as the annual increase in the purchasing power of the minimum wage corresponds at least to half the annual increase in the purchasing power of blue-collar worker’s basic hourly pay (SHBO hereafter).<fnref n="6" /> Besides, the French government can add to this strict rule an additional increase (“coup de pouce” or boost).

The nominal rate of the minimum hourly wage can be written:

$$SMIC_t = SMIC_{t-1} \left( p_t/p_{t-1} + \frac{1}{2}\delta_{SHBO_t} + cdp_t \right)$$

where $\delta_{SHBO_t}$ corresponds to the growth rate in the purchasing power of blue-collar workers’ basic hourly pay and $cdp_t$ represents the discretionary increase beyond the automatic revaluation rule (boost). For instance, the SMIC received a boost of 0.45% on July 1, 1998, of 0.29% on July 1, 2001 and of 0.30% on July 1, 2006.

The gradual implementation of the new regulations on workweek reduction changed this situation. The 35-hour workweek was enacted in France by the so-called “Aubry Laws” (named after Martine Aubry, Minister of Labor), from a

<footnote n="5">⁵Rare exemptions concern for instance the catering sector because of the existence of fringe benefits as meals.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶A discussion of the consequences of this mechanism can be found in Cette and Wasmer (2010).</footnote>
previous 39-hour workweek. All firms had to decrease the normal workweek time
to 35 hours before January 1, 2000 (January 1, 2002 for the smallest ones) and
to pay hours over 35 on an overtime basis. Incentives were provided to firms that
negotiated an agreement before this binding limit, and the field implementation of
the workweek reduction was thus gradual. Maintaining the hourly wage flat would
have created a sharp drop in the monthly remuneration of workers. In order to
avoid the loss of income for lowest-wage employees, the law imposed a new regula-
tion for minimal wages. In firms that adopted the 35-hour workweek, a "monthly
guaranteed wage" (hereafter GMR) was created. This GMR guaranteed that the
monthly minimal remuneration would not be affected by the workweek reduction.
In practice, it thus corresponded to a new legal hourly minimum wage for the firms
that had signed a workweek reduction agreement. This was made possible by a
generous cut in payroll taxes, in order to avoid a detrimental impact on employ-
ment.

However, if they guaranteed a maintained monthly remuneration at the time
of the switch to the 35-hour week, the GMR did not then follow exactly the same
updating rules as the legal hourly minimum wage (that still applied to all firms
that had not signed any workweek reduction agreement yet). While the former
was updated according to changes in the blue-collar worker's basic *hourly* pay
(SHBO), the latter followed the changes in the blue-collar worker's basic *monthly*
pay (SMBO). This slight difference had unintended consequences. The monthly
wage evolved slower than the hourly wage over the period: most workweek reduc-
tion agreements ensured the maintenance of a monthly salary, which mechanically
translated into an increase in the hourly wage. From one year to another the GMR
thus benefited from lower updates than the hourly minimum wage. For firms nego-
tiating workweek reductions later, the new minimum monthly wage, which would
ensure no salary loss, was thus higher than the updated GMR of the previous year
(see Appendix A for the precise creation calendar of the different GMR and Koubi
and Lhommeau, 2007 for an illustration).

In 2003, the newly elected government put into place an adjustment mechanism
in order to retrieve a unique level of minimum wage. From 2003 to 2005, the
traditional revaluation rule of the minimum wage was frozen. While the highest
hourly minimum wage rate (that applied to firms that had signed a workweek
reduction agreement between July and December 2002) simply evolved as the
inflation, the other hourly minimum wage levels received differential *boosts* so as
to converge in 2005 to a unique hourly rate. The more they initially diverged the
higher the *boosts* were during this period (see Table 1). Again, the impact on the
labor cost was softened by substantial payroll tax exemptions.
<table><caption>Table 1: Level and evolution of real annual GMR (2002-2005)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>FGMR0</th><th>FGMR1</th><th>FGMR2</th><th>FGMR3</th><th>FGMR4</th><th>FGMR5</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="7">Level of the GMR in real terms (2007 euros)</td></tr><tr><td>2002</td><td>13,612</td><td>14,463</td><td>14,643</td><td>14,894</td><td>15,078</td><td>15,167</td></tr><tr><td>2003</td><td>14,041</td><td>14,629</td><td>14,750</td><td>14,918</td><td>15,041</td><td>15,100</td></tr><tr><td>2004</td><td>14,543</td><td>14,849</td><td>14,911</td><td>14,995</td><td>15,058</td><td>15,087</td></tr><tr><td>2005</td><td>15,068</td><td>15,068</td><td>15,068</td><td>15,068</td><td>15,068</td><td>15,068</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7">Evolution of the GMR in real terms (%)</td></tr><tr><td>2003</td><td>3.2</td><td>1.1</td><td>0.7</td><td>0.2</td><td>-0.2</td><td>-0.4</td></tr><tr><td>2004</td><td>3.6</td><td>1.5</td><td>1.1</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.1</td><td>-0.1</td></tr><tr><td>2005</td><td>3.7</td><td>1.5</td><td>1.1</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.1</td><td>-0.1</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: Calculation of the authors

Note: The annual remuneration corresponds to 35h/week i.e. 1820h/year.

# 3 Econometric Method

Our aim is to estimate the potential spillover effect of an increase in the minimum wage level over the whole distribution of earnings. Our underlying setting states that the individual wage is determined by characteristics of the employee (age, gender, qualification...) and of the firm (business sector, size...), but also partly by the minimum wage applying in this firm. This could be the case if the firm tries to maintain a certain wage hierarchy, for instance as an incentive for its employees (consistent with the wage setting in a tournament model). Very generally, we assume the following relation between wages and characteristics:

$$w_i = \phi(\underline{w}, X_i, \varepsilon_i) \quad (1)$$

where $\underline{w}$ stands for the minimum wage level, $X_i$ for observed characteristics of the firms or the employees, and $\varepsilon_i$ for potential unobserved characteristics (for instance productivity). Our empirical question is how the earnings distribution changes with an increase in the minimum wage level, keeping everything else equal.

## 3.1 Identification

The identification issue primarily comes from the fact that, in general, the minimum wage is the same for all employees. It is thus impossible to distinguish what pertains to the increase in the minimum wage from what pertains to any trend. In addition, the updating rule of the minimum wage according to the basic wage
of a worker is a natural source of endogeneity (this topic is developed for example in Cette, Chouard, and Verdugo, 2012). Indeed, unobserved components such as productivity are likely to be autocorrelated and may thus induce an omitted variable bias : they will indeed be positively correlated not only to current wages but also to past wages, which are themselves positively correlated to the minimum wage through its revaluation rule. The evaluation strategy has to take this source of endogeneity into account.

In this context, the convergence period of the different levels of the minimum wage provides an interesting natural experiment because it is characterized by the coexistence of several levels of the minimum wage with different paces of convergence over the period.

This peculiar situation creates a unique setting where we observe, during a short period of time, different legal minimum wage levels. Besides, these minimum wages exogenously increased at different paces for a three-year period. We will use this specific period for the identification of the impact of the minimum wage on earnings. More specifically, the identification relies on the fact that we observe a steady increase of the minimum wage level in firms that did not sign a reduction agreement before 2002, while this increase was more modest in other firms. The negotiation date of workweek reduction agreements is probably related to the firm's anticipated wage policy. But the convergence period, which serves our identification purposes, was imposed a few years after for most of the firms and without having been anticipated. Therefore it seems plausible to consider this as a source of exogenous variation in the levels of the minimum wage. More specifically, we assume that:

$$w_{it} \perp \varepsilon_{ijt} | X_{ijt}, e_t, e_{FGMRj} \quad (2)$$

where $e_t$ represents temporal dummies, $e_{FGMRj}$ dummies for being in a firm where the minimum wage level corresponds to GMR level $j$, $X_{ijt}$ are observable characteristics of the employee and the firm (age, socio-economic position, seniority, industry, size of the firm).

## 3.2 Estimation

Since the effects are very likely to differ depending on the position in the wage hierarchy, the goal is to go beyond the average effects to study the impact on the overall distribution. In recent years, new methods to evaluate counterfactual distributions have emerged (a detailed presentation can be found in Fortin, Lemieux, and Firpo, 2010).
The method, which is used here, is the so called unconditional quantile regression proposed by Firpo, Fortin, and Lemieux (2009). The distinction with the conditional quantile regression has to be highlighted, and the comparison with the case of a standard regression proves useful here. Linear regressions, in the usual sense, deal with the expected value of a variable of interest W conditional on determinants X. One usually assumes:

$$E(W|X) = \beta X$$

Thanks to the law of iterated expectations, one can easily derive from this formulation the impact of a change in the distribution of one covariate (from $F_X$ to $G_X$) on the (unconditional) expected value of the dependent variable W. Assume for instance that the expectation of X in the former case is $E(X) = \mu_X^F$ while it is $\mu_X^G$ in the latter, then $\Delta E(W) = \beta(\mu_X^G - \mu_X^F)$.

Quantile regressions usually rely on the same type of local linear assumption,

$$q_{\tau}(W|X) = \beta_{\tau}X$$

However, since quantiles do not have such convenient linear property, it appears much less direct to infer the consequence of a change in the distribution of one covariate X on the quantile of the overall (unconditional) distribution of W. For instance, one can invert the conditional quantiles, integrate the obtained conditional distribution $F_{W|X}$ over both distributions $F_X$ and $G_X$ and finally invert this unconditional distribution to compare unconditional quantiles of W corresponding to both $F_X$ and $G_X$ (see for instance Mata and Machado, 2005).

The estimator of Firpo, Fortin, and Lemieux (2009) allows for a more direct measure of how a marginal change in the level of one variable (in our case, the minimum wage) will affect the distribution of wages in the population, keeping the distribution of other characteristics equal. More specifically, it provides a measure of the impact of a small location shift in the distribution of covariates X, from $F_X$ to $G_X$, on some distributional statistic of a variable W, maintaining the conditional distribution of W given X unaffected. Firpo, Fortin, and Lemieux (2009) prove that this impact depends on the integration of the so-called recentered influence function over the difference of distributions $G_X$ to $F_X$ (details are provided in Appendix C). They call this notion “unconditional partial effect.”

To be more specific, for a parameter or characteristic $\nu(F_W)$ of the distribution of wages W (e.g. a quantile), let us define the influence function of observation w (with distribution $F_W$) regarding statistic $\nu$:

$$IF(w; \nu, F_W) = \frac{\partial\nu(F_{W,t\Delta w})}{\partial t}\bigg|_{t=0} = a(w) \quad (3)$$
where $\Delta_w$ is the distribution that assigns probability 1 to point $w$ and $F_{W,t\Delta_w}$ is the mixing distribution $F_{W,t\Delta_w} = (1-t)F_W + t\Delta_w$ (more details are provided in the appendix).

$IF(w_i; \nu, F_W)$ provides a measure of how $\nu$ changes when the distribution slightly changes towards the value $w_i$ taken by the variable of interest. It can also be interpreted as the influence of an observation $i$ on the empirical estimation of the distribution parameter $\nu(F_W)$. The recentered influence function (RIF) is defined as $RIF(w_i; \nu, F_W) = \nu(F_W) + IF(w_i; \nu, F_W)$.

Under some assumptions, the vector $\alpha$ of partial derivatives representing the change in the distributional statistic $\nu$ of $W$ with respect to a small location shift in the distribution of the covariates $X$ is such that:

$$ \alpha(\nu) = \int \frac{dE(RIF(W, \nu)|X = x)}{dx} dF(x) \quad (4) $$

In the case of a $\tau$th order quantile, the RIF is notably simple, as:

$$ E(RIF(W, q_{\tau})|X = x) = q_{\tau} + \tau F_{W}^{-1}(\tau) + F_{W}^{-1}(\tau)P(W > q_{\tau}|X = x). \quad (5) $$

$q_{\tau}$ and $F_W^{-1}(\tau)$ are constant and independent of $X$ and can be easily estimated. While the former is standard, the latter can for instance be approximated by an infinitesimal change around the quantile $\frac{F^{-1}(\tau+h)-F^{-1}(\tau-h)}{2h}$, with $h$ small. An expression of the optimal window can be found in Koenker (2005) and verifies (under certain conditions): $h_n = n^{-1/5} \left( \frac{4.5\phi^4(\Phi^{-1}(t))}{(2\Phi^{-1}(t)^2+1)^2} \right)^{1/5}$ where $\phi$ and $\Phi^{-1}$ respectively represent the pdf and the inverse of the cdf of the normal distribution and $n$ is the sample size.<fnref n="7" /> We note $c_{1,\tau} = F'^{-1}(\tau)$ and $c_{2,\tau} = q_{\tau} + \tau F'^{-1}(\tau)$.

We focus here on changes in the deciles $dec_j$, $j \in [1, 9]$:

$$ RIF(y_i; dec_j, F_Y) = c_{1,dec_j} P(y_i > dec_j|X = x) + c_{2,dec_j} \quad (6) $$

Once the dependence of $P(Y > q_{\tau}|X = x)$ in $x$ is specified, the impact on $\nu(F_W)$ of a modification in $X$ is obtained by differentiation of $P(W > q_{\tau}|X = x)$ with respect to $X$ and integration over the distribution of $X$.

In practice, we use the method designed as RIF-Logit in Firpo, Fortin, and Lemieux (2009), that uses a logit specification for $P(W > q_{\tau}|X = x)$. We thus apply a two-step procedure that consists in:

<footnote n="7">⁷An alternative solution, proposed in Firpo, Fortin, and Lemieux (2009) comes from the fact that $F'^{-1}(q_{\tau}) = 1/f_W(q_{\tau})$, which is the inverse of the pdf estimated at $F^{-1}(\tau) = q_{\tau}$. This density can be estimated by a kernel method, but this procedure is more computer intensive.</footnote>
1. Estimating the probabilities $\hat{T}_{idec_j}$ from the Logit specifications for $P(W > dec_j|X = x)$;

2. Estimating the average impact of one covariate $X_k$ on the decile j as:

$$ \hat{\alpha} = \hat{c}_{1dec_j} \hat{\beta}_{dec_j}^k \frac{1}{N} \sum_i \hat{T}_{idec_j} (1 - \hat{T}_{idec_j}) $$

where $\hat{\beta}_{dec_j}^k$ is given by first step estimation.

Proofs of the convergence of this estimator can be found in Firpo, Fortin, and Lemieux (2009). Confidence intervals are obtained by bootstrap.

The estimated coefficients of the model can then be interpreted directly in terms of effects of each variable on the overall quantile. If $w_i = \phi(w, X_i, \varepsilon_i)$, it can be shown under an assumption of independence (2) and provided that $h$ is monotonic in $\varepsilon$ that the vector of partial impact of a marginal change in the minimum wage for a quantile $q_\tau$ (the parameter $\alpha(q_\tau)$ defined above), which Firpo, Fortin, and Lemieux (2009) call the “unconditional quantile partial effect” (UQPE), corresponds to the integration over the distribution of covariates of a weighted partial derivative of $h$ with respect to $w$:<fnref n="8" />

$$ \alpha_{\underline{w}}(q_{\tau}) = E_{\underline{w}, X_1} \left[ \omega_{\tau}(\underline{w}, x_1) \frac{\partial h(\underline{w}, x_1, \varepsilon)}{\partial \underline{w}} \right] \quad (7) $$

with $\omega_\tau(\underline{w}, x_1) = \frac{f_{W|\underline{w}, X_1}(q_\tau, \underline{w}, x_1)}{f_W(q_\tau)}$.

# 4 Description of the sample and evidence in favor of our identification strategy

## 4.1 The DADS panel

We use the DADS panel (1/25th sample) over the period 2003-2005. This administrative business database starts in 1976 and provides data on gross earnings for all workers in the private sector.<fnref n="9" /> We restrict the sample to full-time employees aged 18 to 65, having worked all year in the same firm. This last choice is explained firstly by that of the variable of interest. Indeed, the number of hours worked is

<footnote n="8">⁸An adaptation to our case, of the proof given in Firpo, Fortin, and Lemieux, 2009, is provided in Appendix C.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹We limit the sample to companies and exclude self-employed persons.</footnote>
available in the DADS as of 1994 but the quality of this variable is sometimes questionable. The reconstruction of an hourly wage would thus be difficult. To reduce these measurement problems, we choose to estimate the distribution of gross annual earnings (expressed in euros of 2007). For these annual amounts to be comparable, the sample is restricted to full-time employees who worked full year.

In the end, we have a panel of over 157,000 firms (among which about 77,000 were present all along between 2003 and 2005) and around 425,000 employees.

## 4.2 Characteristics of the firms and wage evolution according to the GMR group

As detailed in Section 2, because of the successive workweek reduction agreements, six levels of GMR coexisted between July 2002 and July 2005. Beside the five GMR, the hourly minimum wage (which by abuse of language will be denoted by GMR 0) applied in firms which did not sign any workweek reduction agreement. More than half of the firms were in that case, but these were mainly small firms, so that the hourly minimum wage concerned only a third of all employees (Table 2). Very few firms signed workweek reduction agreements after mid 2002, as evidenced by the low number of employees belonging to FGMR 5 in our sample.

<table><caption>Table 2: Number of firms and employees for each GMR group in 2003</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>FGMR0</th><th>FGMR1</th><th>FGMR2</th><th>FGMR3</th><th>FGMR4</th><th>FGMR5</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th scope="row">Firms</th><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Number</th><td>69,490</td><td>2,954</td><td>15,414</td><td>9,598</td><td>15,432</td><td>1,563</td><td>114,451</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Share (%)</th><td>60.7</td><td>2.6</td><td>13.5</td><td>8.4</td><td>13.5</td><td>1.4</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Employees</th><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Number</th><td>111,422</td><td>17,481</td><td>96,575</td><td>45,387</td><td>25,569</td><td>3,054</td><td>299,488</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Share (%)</th><td>37.2</td><td>5.8</td><td>32.2</td><td>15.2</td><td>8.5</td><td>1.0</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: DADS panel, 1/25th sample.

Field: employees from firms of the private sector aged 18 to 65, working full-time, full-year, excluding interns and apprentices.

It is worth emphasizing that most wage earners are employed in firms that did not sign a workweek reduction agreement (FGMR0) or in firms that signed one early (FGMR2).

The signing date of a workweek reduction agreement is obviously not exogenous: in fact, the law was more restrictive for larger firms, which explains why they are overrepresented among those who contracted an agreement soon. Thus, while more
than three-quarters of the firms with less than 10 employees (and 63% of the firms with 10 to 49 employees) had not signed an agreement in June 2002 (FGMR 0 and 5), it was the case for only 16% of the firms with more than 500 employees. In addition, 60% of the firms with more than 500 employees had signed an agreement before June 30, 2000 (FGMR 1 or 2) and 80% before June 30, 2001 (FGMR 1, 2 or 3), while for firms with 50 to 499 employees, the respective proportions are 41% and 58%. Ultimately, in our sample, nearly 56% of the firms belonging to FGMR 1 and 2 employ more than 50 employees while this is the case for only 11% of the firms from FGMR 4 and 5 (Table 3). In terms of industry, in accordance to what is observed with the size, manufacturing industry is over-represented in FGMR 1, 2 and 3 while construction, agriculture and trade belong more often to FGMR 0 (no agreement signed) or FGMR 4 and 5 (late signing date).

<table><caption>Table 3: Characteristics of firms in each GMR group (2003 to 2005)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>FGMR0</th><th>FGMR1</th><th>FGMR2</th><th>FGMR3</th><th>FGMR4</th><th>FGMR5</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Number of employees (in %)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>less than 10</td><td>42.5</td><td>7.0</td><td>4.0</td><td>10.8</td><td>39.1</td><td>41.8</td><td>33.3</td></tr><tr><td>10 to 49</td><td>46.1</td><td>38.7</td><td>39.1</td><td>43.8</td><td>50.6</td><td>41.3</td><td>45.3</td></tr><tr><td>50 to 499</td><td>11.0</td><td>47.4</td><td>49.5</td><td>40.6</td><td>9.6</td><td>15.5</td><td>19.5</td></tr><tr><td>500 to 4999</td><td>0.5</td><td>6.6</td><td>7.0</td><td>4.6</td><td>0.7</td><td>1.3</td><td>1.9</td></tr><tr><td>over 5000</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.1</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Gender</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Share of women</td><td>31.1</td><td>29.0</td><td>33.9</td><td>32.6</td><td>31.7</td><td>31.1</td><td>32.9</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Industry</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Agriculture</td><td>2.2</td><td>1.5</td><td>1.2</td><td>0.6</td><td>1.6</td><td>2.3</td><td>1.8</td></tr><tr><td>Manufacturing industry</td><td>20.2</td><td>36.5</td><td>34.0</td><td>35.6</td><td>24.2</td><td>21.4</td><td>24.3</td></tr><tr><td>Construction</td><td>16.4</td><td>9.4</td><td>8.1</td><td>8.3</td><td>14.1</td><td>12.1</td><td>14.0</td></tr><tr><td>Trade</td><td>25.5</td><td>21.5</td><td>21.5</td><td>26.3</td><td>24.6</td><td>27.4</td><td>24.8</td></tr><tr><td>Services</td><td>35.8</td><td>31.1</td><td>35.3</td><td>29.1</td><td>35.6</td><td>36.7</td><td>35.0</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: DADS panel, 1/25th sample.

Field: employees from firms of the private sector aged 18 to 65, working full-time, full-year, excluding interns and apprentices.

The median annual gross wages vary strongly from one GMR group to another (see Figure 1). These differences can also be partly explained by size and industry effects, as well as by differences in total amount of worked hours. In 2005 the effective workweek in firms which had signed an agreement was close to 35 hours (around 1,820 yearly hours, see Figure 2). It is slightly higher in firms that never signed any agreement before the 2002 deadline (FGMR 0): the yearly amount is around 1,900 hours per year in 2005, that corresponds to 36 hours per week (above
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1: Median wages in each GMR group (2002-2005)</figcaption></figure>

Source: DADS panel, 1/25th sample.

Note: Wages are in euros of 2007.

Field: employees from firms of the private sector aged 18 to 65, working full-time, full-year, excluding interns and apprentices.

this level, additional hours have to be paid at a higher rate).

Besides, workweek reduction had an impact on effective workweek in firms that signed an agreement between 1997 and 2002, but it appears stable over our estimation period (2003-2005).
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2: Mean hours worked according to the GMR level (1995-2006)
Source: DADS panel, 1/25th sample.</figcaption></figure>

Field: employees from firms of the private sector aged 18 to 65, working full-time, full-year, excluding interns and apprentices.
## 4.3 Employment effects according to the GMR

We do not observe any clear trend in the employment level in firms depending on the pace of increase in the minimum wage level they experiment, nor in the proportion of employees who are not employed in the same firm or the proportion of hirings in these firms (see Table 4). While the increase in the minimum wage applying in FGMRi is all the more important that the index i is smaller, one could thus expect to observe less hirings and/or more layoffs in firms belonging to FGMR0 than in firms belonging to FGMR5. On the contrary, no clear correlation can be observed between the ratio of the number of workers disappearing between periods $t-1$ and $t$ over the number of workers in period $t-1$ and the increase in the minimum wage level. The layoff rate is very homogeneous around 24% in almost all groups in 2003 and no such pattern emerges. The pattern of the number of workers appearing between periods $t$ and $t-1$ over the number of workers in period $t-1$ is noisier, but there is no monotonic relation either with respect to the GMR level.

<table><caption>Table 4: Creation and destruction rate according to the GMR level (2002-2005)</caption><thead><tr><th>Year</th><th>FGMR 0</th><th>FGMR 1</th><th>FGMR 2</th><th>FGMR 3</th><th>FGMR 4</th><th>FGMR 5</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="8">(Workers in firms at t-1 and not t) / (workers in firms at t-1) (in %)</td></tr><tr><td>2003</td><td>25.2</td><td>25.4</td><td>24.5</td><td>22.0</td><td>23.7</td><td>29.0</td><td>24.4</td></tr><tr><td>2004</td><td>22.4</td><td>20.7</td><td>17.5</td><td>17.2</td><td>20.9</td><td>23.8</td><td>19.9</td></tr><tr><td>2005</td><td>22.8</td><td>25.3</td><td>19.2</td><td>19.2</td><td>23.1</td><td>23.5</td><td>21.4</td></tr><tr><td colspan="8">(Workers in firms at t and not t-1) / (workers in firms at t-1) (in %)</td></tr><tr><td>2003</td><td>22.4</td><td>19.7</td><td>17.1</td><td>15.3</td><td>22.1</td><td>37.7</td><td>19.6</td></tr><tr><td>2004</td><td>26.5</td><td>25.2</td><td>21.6</td><td>18.8</td><td>22.4</td><td>34.7</td><td>23.5</td></tr><tr><td>2005</td><td>29.6</td><td>24.0</td><td>21.6</td><td>19.9</td><td>23.0</td><td>27.3</td><td>24.8</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: DADS panel, 1/25th sample.

Field: employees from firms of the private sector aged 18 to 65, working full-time, full-year, excluding interns and apprentices.
# 5 Results

## 5.1 Unconditional quantile partial effect of the minimum wage

As earnings distribution and wage negotiation could differ for male and fe-
male workers, we perform separate analyses. We focus on the deciles of log yearly
wages. Several variables are added to take into account possible composition ef-
fects: besides the characteristics of the employees (age, socio-economic position,
seniority) and the firms (size, industry), we introduce fixed effects for the different
groups of GMR to capture systematic differences of wage policies in the different
firms, as well as year fixed effects. The impact of the minimum wage is there-
fore identified by the fact that we use several time periods, and that the levels of
the different groups of GMR evolved at different rates. Otherwise, it would be
difficult to separate the effect of the different levels of the minimum wage from
what comes from the different wage policies in the different groups of firms. It is
worth emphasizing that most of the identification relies on the fact that the min-
imum wage steadily increased in some specific firms (the “FGMR0”) by contrast
with other firms, where much smaller increases in the minimum wage level applied.

We use the minimum wage level lagged by one year. Indeed, until 2010 the annual update of the legal minimum wage rate took place in July,<fnref n="10" /> while wage negotiations usually take place at the end of the calendar year. Avouyi-Dovi, Fougère, and Gautier (2010) indeed observe that collective wage bargaining agreements usually take place at the end of the year and apply in the first months of the following year. We can see an example of this in Koubi and Lhommeau (2007) and more recently in Goarant and Muller (2011) : the analysis of quarterly effects shows a large peak of wage growth in the first quarter. With our annual data, it is thus more appropriate to use the level of the minimum wage in July of the previous year rather than the contemporary level. As we measure yearly earnings, that means that the level of minimum wage we use for the estimation was the actual legal reference only for the first half of the year in question. This means that at the very bottom of the distribution (for workers whose earnings correspond to the minimum wage level), the estimated coefficient could be undervalued (by a factor 2). We come back to this point later. For the rest of the distribution however, because of the usual timing of wage bargaining in French firms, it appears more relevant.

For the sake of simplicity, we present detailed results for men only, on the whole

<footnote n="10">¹⁰Except if the inflation rate was above 2%, but that did not happen during the studied period.</footnote>
sample (Tables 5 and 6). Recall that our results measure the impact of a marginal
change in the distribution of observable characteristics on each decile.

The minimum wage has a significant impact on the distribution of men’s and
women’s log-wages up to the seventh decile (see Figure 3). A one percent increase
in the minimum wage level in July of year $t-1$ has an effect on the deciles of
the distribution of the annual earnings of year $t$ always below 0.2%. For the sake
of comparison, note that the first decile (respectively seventh decile) corresponds
roughly to 1.2 times (resp. 2 times) the average minimum wages at this time (see
Table 8 in Appendix B). The first decile is thus clearly higher than the minimum
wage: while one expects a mechanical increase of earnings for employees at the
level of the minimum wage of at least one half (as the minimum wage level of the
previous year applied for half of the year only) at the bottom of the distribution,<fnref n="11" />
our results suggest that the impact fades rapidly. Another reason for this smaller
impact at the bottom of the distribution can be due to the fact that, in our sample,
a not so negligible part of the earnings are below the minimum wage (around 2%
for the male employees, 5% for the female employees). This is partly explained by
the nature of the earnings available in our data, that do not exactly correspond
to the legal definition used for the application of the minimum wage regulation.
First, the minimum wage applies on an hourly basis, while we use yearly earnings.
As we exclude part-time employees from the sample, this should be innocuous, but
hours are measured with noise in our data and we may thus keep a few part-timers
whose reported hours were mistakenly overestimated by the employer. Besides,
a few benefits other than the sole earnings declared in these administrative data
enter the legal definition of the minimum wage (see Appendix B for details), and
it is thus possible that some of the reported earnings fall below the minimum rate.
Finally, one cannot rule out that earnings are measured with noise. For all these
reasons, we perform a robustness check excluding earnings below the minimum
wage (see below).

<footnote n="11">¹¹With a different methodology Goarant and Muller (2011) and Koubi and Lhommeau (2007) obtain that a 1% increase in the minimum wage results in an increase of 0.4% in wages ranging from 1 to 1.1 times the minimum wage level.</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 5: RIF-Logit estimation for deciles (Men, 2003-2005)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>1st decile</th><th>2nd decile</th><th>3rd decile</th><th>4th decile</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Minimum wage (log)</td><td>1.90e-01***<br>(3.60e-02)</td><td>1.88e-01***<br>(3.73e-02)</td><td>2.30e-01***<br>(3.95e-02)</td><td>2.31e-01***<br>(3.96e-02)</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>2.19e-02***<br>(3.55e-04)</td><td>2.51e-02***<br>(3.33e-04)</td><td>2.81e-02***<br>(3.43e-04)</td><td>3.08e-02***<br>(3.90e-04)</td></tr><tr><td>Age<sup>2</sup></td><td>-2.46e-04***<br>(4.44e-06)</td><td>-2.71e-04***<br>(4.04e-06)</td><td>-2.94e-04***<br>(4.14e-06)</td><td>-3.16e-04***<br>(4.56e-06)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Year Dummy</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2002</td><td>ref.</td><td>ref.</td><td>ref.</td><td>ref.</td></tr><tr><td>2003</td><td>-1.86e-02***<br>(1.84e-03)</td><td>-1.39e-02***<br>(1.74e-03)</td><td>-1.16e-02***<br>(1.85e-03)</td><td>-8.78e-03***<br>(1.83e-03)</td></tr><tr><td>2004</td><td>-1.29e-02***<br>(1.35e-03)</td><td>-9.50e-03***<br>(1.27e-03)</td><td>-7.64e-03***<br>(1.34e-03)</td><td>-6.66e-03***<br>(1.28e-03)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Socio-economic position</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CEO</td><td>2.07e-01***<br>(7.41e-03)</td><td>2.99e-01***<br>(7.09e-03)</td><td>3.90e-01***<br>(6.97e-03)</td><td>4.41e-01***<br>(5.86e-03)</td></tr><tr><td>Professionals, managers</td><td>4.67e-01***<br>(7.70e-03)</td><td>5.78e-01***<br>(6.25e-03)</td><td>6.72e-01***<br>(5.44e-03)</td><td>7.06e-01***<br>(4.88e-03)</td></tr><tr><td>Technicians and associate professionals</td><td>1.99e-01***<br>(2.32e-03)</td><td>2.50e-01***<br>(2.03e-03)</td><td>2.88e-01***<br>(1.73e-03)</td><td>3.02e-01***<br>(1.55e-03)</td></tr><tr><td>Office clerks and service workers</td><td>-3.93e-02***<br>(1.29e-03)</td><td>-3.92e-02***<br>(1.34e-03)</td><td>-2.62e-02***<br>(1.42e-03)</td><td>-2.25e-03<br>(1.61e-03)</td></tr><tr><td>Skilled and unskilled workers</td><td>ref.</td><td>ref.</td><td>ref.</td><td>ref.</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Industry</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Agriculture</td><td>-5.16e-02***<br>(3.26e-03)</td><td>-6.00e-02***<br>(3.47e-03)</td><td>-6.93e-02***<br>(4.04e-03)</td><td>-6.04e-02***<br>(4.17e-03)</td></tr><tr><td>Manufacturing industry</td><td>3.97e-02***<br>(1.34e-03)</td><td>3.68e-02***<br>(1.22e-03)</td><td>4.02e-02***<br>(1.26e-03)</td><td>4.66e-02***<br>(1.23e-03)</td></tr><tr><td>Construction</td><td>1.78e-04<br>(1.46e-03)</td><td>-4.71e-03***<br>(1.46e-03)</td><td>-9.64e-03***<br>(1.48e-03)</td><td>-9.93e-03***<br>(1.52e-03)</td></tr><tr><td>Trade</td><td>-2.71e-02***<br>(1.33e-03)</td><td>-4.67e-02***<br>(1.31e-03)</td><td>-6.12e-02***<br>(1.35e-03)</td><td>-6.21e-02***<br>(1.31e-03)</td></tr><tr><td>Services</td><td>ref.</td><td>ref.</td><td>ref.</td><td>ref.</td></tr><tr><td><strong>GMR group</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>GMR 0</td><td>ref.</td><td>ref.</td><td>ref.</td><td>ref.</td></tr><tr><td>GMR 1</td><td>-1.47e-02***<br>(2.96e-03)</td><td>-1.59e-02***<br>(3.03e-03)</td><td>-1.31e-02***<br>(3.10e-03)</td><td>-8.47e-03**<br>(3.04e-03)</td></tr><tr><td>GMR 2</td><td>1.02e-02***<br>(2.26e-03)</td><td>5.47e-03**<br>(2.32e-03)</td><td>4.85e-03**<br>(2.40e-03)</td><td>4.86e-03**<br>(2.38e-03)</td></tr><tr><td>GMR 3</td><td>1.96e-02***<br>(2.23e-03)</td><td>1.33e-02***<br>(2.12e-03)</td><td>1.37e-02***<br>(2.15e-03)</td><td>1.10e-02***<br>(2.12e-03)</td></tr><tr><td>GMR 4</td><td>-2.14e-02***<br>(1.93e-03)</td><td>-2.95e-02***<br>(2.04e-03)</td><td>-3.55e-02***<br>(2.13e-03)</td><td>-4.17e-02***<br>(2.06e-03)</td></tr><tr><td>GMR 5</td><td>-8.34e-03**<br>(3.87e-03)</td><td>-1.51e-02***<br>(3.90e-03)</td><td>-2.10e-02***<br>(4.51e-03)</td><td>-2.23e-02***<br>(4.67e-03)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Size of the firm</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Size</td><td>3.57e-06***<br>(2.76e-07)</td><td>5.41e-06***<br>(2.04e-07)</td><td>6.08e-06***<br>(1.88e-07)</td><td>6.38e-06***<br>(1.84e-07)</td></tr><tr><td>Size<sup>2</sup></td><td>-8.97e-12<br>(6.25e-12)</td><td>-5.51e-11***<br>(4.30e-12)</td><td>-7.30e-11***<br>(3.92e-12)</td><td>-7.83e-11***<br>(3.84e-12)</td></tr><tr><td>Size<sup>3</sup></td><td>-4.26e-17<br>(3.14e-17)</td><td>1.99e-16***<br>(2.14e-17)</td><td>2.94e-16***<br>(1.97e-17)</td><td>3.00e-16***<br>(1.90e-17)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Seniority</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Seniority</td><td>1.75e-02***<br>(3.73e-04)</td><td>1.66e-02***<br>(3.14e-04)</td><td>1.59e-02***<br>(3.26e-04)</td><td>1.40e-02***<br>(3.14e-04)</td></tr><tr><td>Seniority<sup>2</sup></td><td>-8.94e-04***<br>(3.75e-05)</td><td>-8.39e-04***<br>(3.21e-05)</td><td>-7.85e-04***<br>(3.21e-05)</td><td>-6.75e-04***<br>(3.03e-05)</td></tr><tr><td>Seniority<sup>3</sup></td><td>1.53e-05***<br>(9.75e-07)</td><td>1.48e-05***<br>(8.25e-07)</td><td>1.38e-05***<br>(7.96e-07)</td><td>1.18e-05***<br>(7.42e-07)</td></tr><tr><td>Intercept</td><td>-3.28e-01***<br>(6.67e-03)</td><td>-4.98e-01***<br>(6.68e-03)</td><td>-6.68e-01***<br>(7.16e-03)</td><td>-8.31e-01***<br>(8.33e-03)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: DADS panel, 1/25th sample.

Field: Male employees from the private sector aged 18 to 65, working full-time, full-year, excluding interns and apprentices

Reading: a 1 % variation of the minimum wage lowers by 0.190 % the difference in the first decile of the distribution of log wages.

Note: confidence intervals at the level of 5% between brackets.
<table><caption>Table 6: RIF-Logit estimation on deciles (Men, 2003-2005)</caption><thead><tr><th>5th decile</th><th>6th decile</th><th>7th decile</th><th>8th decile</th><th>9th decile</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Minimum wage (log)</td><td>2.23e-01***<br>(4.16e-02)</td><td>1.64e-01***<br>(4.40e-02)</td><td>1.57e-01***<br>(5.16e-02)</td><td>5.35e-03<br>(6.43e-02)</td><td>-2.62e-02<br>(1.03e-01)</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>3.46e-02***<br>(4.41e-04)</td><td>3.80e-02***<br>(4.79e-04)</td><td>4.49e-02***<br>(6.38e-04)</td><td>5.52e-02***<br>(8.35e-04)</td><td>7.98e-02***<br>(1.48e-03)</td></tr><tr><td>Age<sup>2</sup></td><td>-3.46e-04***<br>(5.17e-06)</td><td>-3.73e-04***<br>(5.60e-06)</td><td>-4.31e-04***<br>(7.33e-06)</td><td>-5.16e-04***<br>(9.35e-06)</td><td>-7.24e-04***<br>(1.61e-05)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Year Dummies</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2002</td><td>ref.</td><td>ref.</td><td>ref.</td><td>ref.</td><td>ref.</td></tr><tr><td>2003</td><td>-7.35e-03***<br>(1.92e-03)</td><td>-7.78e-03***<br>(2.02e-03)</td><td>-6.89e-03***<br>(2.41e-03)</td><td>-1.38e-02***<br>(2.97e-03)</td><td>-2.41e-02***<br>(4.80e-03)</td></tr><tr><td>2004</td><td>-5.02e-03***<br>(1.32e-03)</td><td>-5.34e-03***<br>(1.51e-03)</td><td>-5.53e-03***<br>(1.78e-03)</td><td>-1.24e-02***<br>(2.24e-03)</td><td>-2.13e-02***<br>(3.54e-03)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Socio-economic position</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CEO</td><td>5.12e-01***<br>(5.29e-03)</td><td>5.65e-01***<br>(4.52e-03)</td><td>6.59e-01***<br>(4.94e-03)</td><td>8.64e-01***<br>(6.76e-03)</td><td>1.51e+00***<br>(1.66e-02)</td></tr><tr><td>Professionals, managers</td><td>7.59e-01***<br>(4.33e-03)</td><td>7.83e-01***<br>(3.57e-03)</td><td>8.29e-01***<br>(3.97e-03)</td><td>9.46e-01***<br>(6.09e-03)</td><td>1.43e+00***<br>(1.53e-02)</td></tr><tr><td>Technicians and associate professionals</td><td>3.29e-01***<br>(1.62e-03)</td><td>3.48e-01***<br>(1.59e-03)</td><td>3.82e-01***<br>(2.26e-03)</td><td>4.53e-01***<br>(4.07e-03)</td><td>6.93e-01***<br>(1.27e-02)</td></tr><tr><td>Office clerks and service workers</td><td>2.77e-02***<br>(1.82e-03)</td><td>5.89e-02***<br>(2.17e-03)</td><td>8.46e-02***<br>(3.13e-03)</td><td>1.29e-01***<br>(5.75e-03)</td><td>2.05e-01***<br>(2.15e-02)</td></tr><tr><td>Skilled and unskilled workers</td><td>ref.</td><td>ref.</td><td>ref.</td><td>ref.</td><td>ref.</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Industry</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Agriculture</td><td>-4.91e-02***<br>(5.22e-03)</td><td>-2.81e-02***<br>(6.29e-03)</td><td>9.97e-03<br>(7.95e-03)</td><td>1.36e-02<br>(1.18e-02)</td><td>-8.74e-03<br>(2.27e-02)</td></tr><tr><td>Manufacturing industry</td><td>6.13e-02***<br>(1.37e-03)</td><td>6.78e-02***<br>(1.38e-03)</td><td>6.26e-02***<br>(1.61e-03)</td><td>3.81e-02***<br>(1.99e-03)</td><td>-1.74e-02***<br>(3.08e-03)</td></tr><tr><td>Construction</td><td>-3.84e-03**<br>(1.60e-03)</td><td>6.86e-04<br>(1.90e-03)</td><td>-9.37e-03***<br>(2.41e-03)</td><td>-2.75e-02***<br>(3.19e-03)</td><td>-8.84e-02***<br>(5.62e-03)</td></tr><tr><td>Trade</td><td>-5.68e-02***<br>(1.41e-03)</td><td>-4.35e-02***<br>(1.59e-03)</td><td>-3.00e-02***<br>(1.76e-03)</td><td>-1.39e-02***<br>(2.43e-03)</td><td>-2.49e-02***<br>(3.58e-03)</td></tr><tr><td>Services</td><td>ref.</td><td>ref.</td><td>ref.</td><td>ref.</td><td>ref.</td></tr><tr><td><strong>GMR group</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>GMR 0</td><td>ref.</td><td>ref.</td><td>ref.</td><td>ref.</td><td>ref.</td></tr><tr><td>GMR 1</td><td>-8.74e-03***<br>(3.40e-03)</td><td>-1.61e-02***<br>(3.74e-03)</td><td>-2.46e-02***<br>(4.33e-03)</td><td>-2.97e-02***<br>(5.35e-03)</td><td>-2.60e-02***<br>(8.50e-03)</td></tr><tr><td>GMR 2</td><td>5.97e-03**<br>(2.52e-03)</td><td>4.38e-03*<br>(2.74e-03)</td><td>2.18e-03<br>(3.25e-03)</td><td>2.03e-04<br>(3.98e-03)</td><td>8.73e-03<br>(6.21e-03)</td></tr><tr><td>GMR 3</td><td>6.01e-03***<br>(2.35e-03)</td><td>-2.94e-03<br>(2.54e-03)</td><td>-6.94e-03***<br>(2.95e-03)</td><td>-1.15e-02***<br>(3.73e-03)</td><td>-1.53e-03<br>(5.74e-03)</td></tr><tr><td>GMR 4</td><td>-4.55e-02***<br>(2.33e-03)</td><td>-4.60e-02***<br>(2.56e-03)</td><td>-4.54e-02***<br>(3.13e-03)</td><td>-5.86e-02***<br>(4.11e-03)</td><td>-8.12e-02***<br>(6.61e-03)</td></tr><tr><td>GMR 5</td><td>-2.73e-02***<br>(5.18e-03)</td><td>-3.18e-02***<br>(5.56e-03)</td><td>-4.42e-02***<br>(6.90e-03)</td><td>-4.87e-02***<br>(8.45e-03)</td><td>-8.92e-02***<br>(1.51e-02)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Size of the firm</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Size</td><td>6.72e-06***<br>(1.91e-07)</td><td>5.29e-06***<br>(1.97e-07)</td><td>5.32e-06***<br>(2.11e-07)</td><td>5.39e-06***<br>(2.48e-07)</td><td>5.32e-06***<br>(4.10e-07)</td></tr><tr><td>Size<sup>2</sup></td><td>-8.55e-11***<br>(3.99e-12)</td><td>-6.17e-11***<br>(4.13e-12)</td><td>-7.43e-11***<br>(4.49e-12)</td><td>-9.48e-11***<br>(5.28e-12)</td><td>-1.09e-10***<br>(9.07e-12)</td></tr><tr><td>Size<sup>3</sup></td><td>3.07e-16***<br>(1.91e-17)</td><td>1.75e-16***<br>(1.98e-17)</td><td>2.37e-16***<br>(2.17e-17)</td><td>3.65e-16***<br>(2.57e-17)</td><td>4.34e-16***<br>(4.54e-17)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Seniority</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Seniority</td><td>1.23e-02***<br>(3.45e-04)</td><td>1.03e-02***<br>(3.47e-04)</td><td>9.21e-03***<br>(4.18e-04)</td><td>6.66e-03***<br>(4.75e-04)</td><td>2.66e-03***<br>(8.27e-04)</td></tr><tr><td>Seniority<sup>2</sup></td><td>-5.47e-04***<br>(3.17e-05)</td><td>-4.32e-04***<br>(3.14e-05)</td><td>-4.49e-04***<br>(3.71e-05)</td><td>-4.69e-04***<br>(4.25e-05)</td><td>-4.83e-04***<br>(6.95e-05)</td></tr><tr><td>Seniority<sup>3</sup></td><td>9.04e-06***<br>(7.50e-07)</td><td>6.38e-06***<br>(7.43e-07)</td><td>7.01e-06***<br>(8.39e-07)</td><td>8.98e-06***<br>(9.72e-07)</td><td>1.06e-05***<br>(1.50e-06)</td></tr><tr><td>Intercept</td><td>-1.04e+00***<br>(9.61e-03)</td><td>-1.25e+00***<br>(1.05e-02)</td><td>-1.60e+00***<br>(1.46e-02)</td><td>-2.12e+00***<br>(2.11e-02)</td><td>-3.50e+00***<br>(4.08e-02)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: DADS panel, 1/25th sample.

Field: Male employees from the private sector aged 18 to 65, working full-time, full-year, excluding interns and apprentices

Reading: a 1 % variation of the minimum wage lowers by 0.223 % the fifth decile of the distribution of log wages.

Note: confidence intervals at the level of 5% between brackets.
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3: Impact of the minimum wage on the different deciles</figcaption></figure>

## 5.2 Robustness checks

We perform several robustness checks. First, we check that our results are not sensitive to the logistic specification used for the estimation. Second, in order to avoid potential measurement errors in earnings we exclude all hourly wages below the hourly minimum wage. Third, we check the robustness of our results to employment effects by restricting the sample to “stable” employees. All specifications give similar results.

First, one can argue that using a logistic specification to model $P(y_i > dec_j|X = x)$ is more relevant than a linear one as we model a probability, but it is also less consistent with our difference-in-differences strategy. Estimates using a linear specification are very similar to the ones obtained with the logit specification (see Figure 4, linear specification). Firpo, Fortin, and Lemieux (2009) already emphasized the robustness of the approach to the choice of the model for $P(y_i > dec_j|X = x)$.

Second, the presence of earnings below the minimum wage level can be due to measurement errors and may induce some bias in the estimates. We thus check that excluding hourly earnings below the hourly minimum wage does not change our results (Figure 4, sample (a)). The results are qualitatively the same: a significant impact up to the seventh decile. The profile is more decreasing than with the whole sample: it is close to 0.4 for the first decile and is lower than 0.1 at the
seventh decile.

Finally, although the natural experiment we use here has clear advantages to help us solve the usual endogeneity issue related to the rise in the minimum wage, we cannot totally rule out the possibility of other concomitant effects which could disturb our analysis. The main risk is the presence of simultaneous employment effects that could induce changes in the labor force that would not be totally controlled for with our set of covariates. As stated before, the employment levels as well as the creation and destruction rates do not seem to be related to the changes in the minimum wage induced by the convergence mechanism. Still, in order to test the robustness of our results, we perform the same analysis on a restricted sample of workers who stayed in the same firm for at least two years in a row. More specifically, we consider the following two samples: (1) employees who already worked in the same firm the year before and (2) employees who are still in the same firm the year after (these samples are named (b) and (c) hereafter). This approach focuses on more *stable* workers and therefore limits the changes in the wage distribution that come from creations and destructions of firms or jobs. The results obtained for the impact of the minimum wage level are presented in Figures 4 (samples (b) and (c)) and show very similar results to the ones obtained on the full population.

It is worth emphasizing that these results were obtained on a specific population. Indeed, the full-time employees who have worked all year long are in a rather stable position and they may thus have higher bargaining power: they can obtain more easily that their wage is rescaled according to a new minimum wage level. As a consequence, the effects could be smaller for the entire wage earners population. Besides, the impact was estimated on the very specific period when the minimum wage increased at an unusually high pace in a few (rather small) firms. The external validity of these results can thus be compromised.
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4: Robustness checks: Estimation results with different specifications and different samples</figcaption></figure>
# Appendix A Schedule for the creation of different GMR

<table><caption>Table 7: Definition of the monthly guaranteed wage (GMR)</caption><thead><tr><td>GMR</td><td>Date of the RTT agreement</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>GMR1</td><td>Between June 15, 1998 and June 30, 1999</td></tr><tr><td>GMR2</td><td>Between July 1, 1999 and June 30, 2000</td></tr><tr><td>GMR3</td><td>Between July 1, 2000 and June 30, 2001</td></tr><tr><td>GMR4</td><td>Between July 1, 2001 and June 30, 2002</td></tr><tr><td>GMR5</td><td>After July 1, 2002</td></tr></tbody></table>

# Appendix B Data description

Note that even when restricting ourselves to full-time employees, who worked full year, we observe that the gross annual remuneration of certain employees falls below the annual minimum wage. Several possibilities can explain that. First, the minimum wage regulations do not apply to all occupations (e.g. in the case of employees whose working time is difficult to measure, such as some traveling salesmen). Moreover, the strict definition of the minimum wage also includes some fringe benefits that are not always valued in the DADS. Besides, this can result from error measurement in full-time status. This variable is not directly reported by employer in the original administrative database: employer only reports the number of hours worked during the year by each employee. The full-time status is then calculated by Insee, depending on a yearly reference in working time defined by activity and size of the firm. As yearly working hours may vary across firms, an employee's full-time status can be miscalculated if the yearly working hours in her firm are different from the average observed in firms in the same industry and with the same size. Finally, we cannot exclude reporting problems, for instance unearned bonuses from one year to another, or problems in the number of days worked during the year.

Note that, conversely, because of overtime or additional bonuses that do not enter the definition of the minimum wage, some employees whose basic hourly wage is the minimum wage can *in the end* have annual earnings above the annual minimum wage.<fnref n="12" />

<footnote n="12">¹²According to Faur and Demailly (2008), a quarter of the employees directly concerned by</footnote>
We restrict the analysis to the private sector and exclude a few formerly state-owned firms whose legal status changed during the period studied here. Namely we drop France Telecom, EDF and GDF.

<table><caption>Table 8: Sample variations of real earnings distribution (2003-2005)</caption><thead><tr><th>Decile (*)</th><th>Main Sample</th><th>Sample excluding employees below hourly minimum wage (Sample (a))</th><th>Employees already in the same firm the year before (Sample (b))</th><th>Employees still in the same firm the year after (Sample (c))</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Min</td><td>10,968</td><td>10,969</td><td>10,968</td><td>10,968</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>14,812</td><td>17,682</td><td>16,303</td><td>16,046</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>17,130</td><td>19,460</td><td>18,390</td><td>18,147</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>19,015</td><td>21,224</td><td>20,219</td><td>19,975</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>20,966</td><td>23,158</td><td>22,159</td><td>21,914</td></tr><tr><td>Median</td><td><strong>23,189</strong></td><td><strong>25,420</strong></td><td><strong>24,346</strong></td><td><strong>24,094</strong></td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>25,913</td><td>28,288</td><td>27,052</td><td>26,767</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>29,633</td><td>32,268</td><td>30,777</td><td>30,454</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>35,439</td><td>38,600</td><td>36,590</td><td>36,143</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>47,273</td><td>51,644</td><td>48,360</td><td>47,714</td></tr><tr><td>Max</td><td>8,142,398</td><td>8,142,398</td><td>5,833,864</td><td>5,833,864</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: DADS panel, 1/25th sample.

Note: The wages are in euros of 2007.

Field: employees from the private sector aged 18 to 65, working full-time, full-year, excluding interns and apprentices.

<footnote>a rise in the minimum wage earned in fact over 1.3 SMIC in 2002, after taking into account all elements of remuneration.</footnote>
# Appendix C Definition of the Influence Function

This appendix is a summary of Firpo, Fortin, and Lemieux (2009).

For a parameter or characteristic $\nu(F_Y)$ of the distribution of wages $Y$, the recentered influence function (RIF) is defined as:

$$RIF(y; \nu, F_Y) = \nu(F_Y) + IF(y; \nu, F_Y)$$

where $IF(y, \nu, F_Y)$ is the influence function of point $y$ on the distribution parameter $\nu(F_Y)$:

$$IF(y; \nu, F_Y) = \frac{\partial\nu(F_{Y,t\Delta_y})}{\partial t}\Big|_{t=0} = a(y)$$

where $F_{Y,t\Delta_y}$ is the mixing distribution $F_{Y,t\Delta_y} = (1-t)F_Y + t\Delta_y$.

Let us now consider the impact of changing the distribution of characteristics $X$ from $F_X$ to $G_X$, letting the conditional distribution unchanged. More precisely, we are interested in a small change in the distribution of the minimum wages. This distribution is discrete (it can be written as a mixture of several Dirac distributions):

$$f_{W_0}(w_0) = \sum_{k=0}^{6} \pi_k \delta_{GMR_k}(w_0)$$

with $\pi_k$ representing the proportion of employees in each GMR group, that we consider as constant over the period.

Firpo, Fortin, and Lemieux (2009) show that the vector of the partial derivative resulting from a change in the distribution of one covariate from $X_j$ to $X_j + t$ corresponds to

$$\alpha(\nu) = \int \frac{dE(RIF(Y; \nu, F_Y)|X = x)}{dx} dF_X(x)$$

provided that the density function $f_X$ is null on the boundary of its support. This condition does not hold for the minimum wages, that is distributed as a mixture of Dirac distributions. Following Firpo, Fortin, and Lemieux (2009), we can show however that this equality still holds assuming that conditional densities of covariates $X_1, f_{X_1|W_0}(x_1|w_k)$ is null on the boundary of their supports, for each value of the minimum wage $w_k$.

Firpo, Fortin, and Lemieux (2009) provide a formal proof of Equation (7) in section 3.2, provided the strict monotonicity of $h$ in $\epsilon$, and independence of $w_0$ to this unobserved component. In our case we rely on weaker assumption of conditional independence (2), but the proof can be adapted without difficulty. As $h$ is monotonic in $\epsilon$, for each value of $q_\tau$, and couple of observables ($X_1 = x_1, W_0 =$
$w_0$) a unique value of $\epsilon$ is defined. We thus derive:

$$ 
\begin{aligned}
P(Y \le q_{\tau} | X_1 = x_1, W_0 = w_0) &= F_{\epsilon|X_1, W_0}(h^{-1}(X_1, W_0, q_{\tau} | X_1 = x_1, W_0 = w_0)) \\
&= F_{\epsilon|X_1}(h^{-1}(X_1, W_0, q_{\tau} | X_1 = x_1))
\end{aligned}
$$

the second line is given by conditional independence of $\epsilon$ and $W_0$ (Assumption 2).

Deriving the identity $h(x_1, w_0, h^{-1}(x_1, w_0, q_{\tau})) = q_{\tau}$ and using the implicit function theorem we deduce that:

$$ \frac{\partial h^{-1}}{\partial w_0} = -\frac{\partial h}{\partial w_0} / \frac{\partial h^{-1}}{\partial q_{\tau}} $$

It is also useful to notice that:

$$ \frac{\partial P(Y \le q_{\tau} | X_1 = x_1, W_0 = w_0)}{\partial q_{\tau}} = f_{\epsilon|X_1}(\epsilon_{\tau}(x_1, w_0) | X_1 = x_1) \frac{\partial h^{-1}(x_1, w_0, q_{\tau})}{\partial q_{\tau}} $$

We have:

$$ 
\begin{aligned}
& \frac{\partial P(Y \le q_{\tau} | X_1 = x_1, W_0 = w_0)}{\partial w_0} \\
&= f_{\epsilon|X_1}(\epsilon_{\tau}(x_1, w_0) | X_1 = x_1) \frac{\partial h^{-1}(x_1, w_0, q_{\tau})}{\partial w_0} \\
&= -f_{\epsilon|X_1}(\epsilon_{\tau}(x_1, w_0) | X_1 = x_1) \frac{\partial h^{-1}(x_1, w_0, q_{\tau})}{\partial q_{\tau}} \frac{\partial h(x_1, w_0, \epsilon_{\tau}(x_1, w_0))}{\partial w_0} \\
&= -\frac{dF_{\epsilon|X_1}}{dq_{\tau}} \frac{\partial h(x_1, w_0, \epsilon_{\tau}(x_1, w_0))}{\partial w_0} \\
&= -f_{Y|X_1, W_0}(q_{\tau}, x_1, w_0) \frac{\partial h(x_1, w_0, \epsilon_{\tau}(x_1, w_0))}{\partial w_0}
\end{aligned}
$$

As

$$ \alpha_{w_0}(q_{\tau}) = -\frac{1}{f_Y(q_{\tau})} \int \frac{\partial P(Y \le q_{\tau} | X_1 = x_1, W_0 = w_0)}{\partial w_0} dF_{X_1, W_0}(x_1, w_0) $$

we finally derive equation (7).
References

AKERLOF, G. A., AND J. L. YELLEN (1988): "Fairness and Unemployment," *American Economic Review*, 78(2), 44-49.

AVOUYI-DOVI, S., D. FOUGÈRE, AND E. GAUTIER (2010): "Les négociations salariales en France : une analyse à partir de données d'entreprises (1994 - 2005)," *Economie et Statistique*, 426, 29-65.

CETTE, G., V. CHOUARD, AND G. VERDUGO (2012): "Les effets des hausses du Smic sur le salaire moyen," Banque de France.

CETTE, G., AND E. WASMER (2010): "La revalorisation automatique du SMIC," *Revue de l'OFCE*, 112(1), 139-159.

CHEN, J., AND M. SHUM (2010): "Estimating a tournament model of intra-firm wage differentials," *Journal of Econometrics*, 155(1), 39-55.

DI NARDO, J., N. M. FORTIN, AND T. LEMIEUX (1996): "Labor Market Institutions and the Distribution of Wages, 1973-1992: A Semiparametric Approach," *Econometrica*, 64(5), 1001-1044.

DICKENS, R., S. MACHIN, AND A. MANNING (1998): "Estimating the effect of minimum wages on employment from the distribution of wages: A critical view," *Labour Economics*, 5(2), 109-134.

(1999): "The Effects of Minimum Wages on Employment: Theory and Evidence from Britain," *Journal of Labor Economics*, 17(1), 1-22.

DICKENS, R., AND A. MANNING (2004): "Spikes and spill-overs: The impact of the national minimum wage on the wage distribution in a low-wage sector," *Economic Journal*, 114(494), C95-C101.

FALK, A., E. FEHR, AND C. ZEHNDER (2006): "Fairness Perceptions and Reservation Wages - The Behavioral Effects of Minimum Wage Laws," *Quarterly Journal of Economics*, 121(4), 1347-1381.

FAUR, J.-P., AND D. DEMAILLY (2008): "Le Smic," in *Salaire minimum et bas revenus: comment concilier justice sociale et efficacité économique?*, ed. by P. Cahuc, G. Cette, and A. Zylberberg, Rapport no 79, pp. 165-187.

FIRPO, S., N. M. FORTIN, AND T. LEMIEUX (2009): "Unconditional Quantile Regressions," *Econometrica*, 77(3), 953-973.
FORTIN, N., T. LEMIEUX, AND S. FIRPO (2010): “Decomposition Methods in Economics,” NBER Working Papers 16045, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

GOARANT, C., AND L. MULLER (2011): “Les effets des hausses du Smic sur les salaires mensuels dans les entreprises de 10 salariés ou plus de 2006 à 2009,” in *Emploi et salaires*.

KATZ, L. F., AND A. B. KRUEGER (1992): “The effect of the minimum wage on the fast-food industry,” *Industrial and Labor Relations Review*, 46(1), 6–21.

KOENKER, R., AND K. F. HALLOCK (2001): “Quantile Regression,” *Journal of Economic Perspectives*, 15(4), 143–156.

KOUBI, M., AND B. LHOMMEAU (2007): “Les effets de diffusion à court terme des hausses du Smic dans les grilles salariales des entreprises de dix salariés ou plus sur la période 2000-2005,” in *Les salaires en France*.

LAZEAR, E. P., AND S. ROSEN (1981): “Rank-Order Tournaments as Optimum Labor Contracts,” *Journal of Political Economy*, 89(5), 841–64.

LEE, D. S. (1999): “Wage Inequality in The United States During The 1980s: Rising Dispersion Or Falling Minimum Wage?,” *Quarterly Journal of Economics*, 114(3), 977–1023.

MATA, J., AND J. A. F. MACHADO (2005): “Counterfactual decomposition of changes in wage distributions using quantile regression,” *Journal of Applied Econometrics*, 20(4), 445–465.

MEYER, R. H., AND D. A. WISE (1983): “The Effects of the Minimum Wage on the Employment and Earnings of Youth,” *Journal of Labor Economics*, 1(1), 66–100.

ROSEN, S. (1986): “Prizes and Incentives in Elimination Tournaments,” *American Economic Review*, 76(4), 701–15.

TEULINGS, C. N. (2000): “Aggregation Bias in Elasticities of Substitution and the Minimum Wage Paradox,” *International Economic Review*, 41(2), 359–98.

——— (2003): “The contribution of minimum wages to increasing wage inequality,” *Economic Journal*, 113(490), 801–833.
<table>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9001</td>
    <td>J. FAYOLLE et M. FLEURBAEY<br/>Accumulation, profitabilité et endettement des entreprises</td>
    <td>G 9203</td>
    <td>I. STAPIC<br/>Les échanges internationaux de services de la France dans le cadre des négociations multilatérales du GATT<br/>Juin 1992 (1ère version)<br/>Novembre 1992 (version finale)</td>
    <td>G 9312</td>
    <td>L. BLOCH - B. CŒURÉ<br/>Q de Tobin marginal et transmission des chocs financiers</td>
    <td>G 9412</td>
    <td>J. BOURDIEU - B. CŒURÉ -<br/>B. COLIN-SEDILLOT<br/>Investissement, incertitude et irréversibilité<br/>Quelques développements récents de la théorie de l'investissement</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9002</td>
    <td>H. ROUSSE<br/>Détection et effets de la multicolinéarité dans les modèles linéaires ordinaires - Un prolongement de la réflexion de BELSLEY, KUH et WELSCH</td>
    <td>G 9204</td>
    <td>P. SEVESTRE<br/>L'économétrie sur données individuelles-temporelles. Une note introductive</td>
    <td>G 9313</td>
    <td>Équipes Amadeus (INSEE), Banque de France, Métric (DP)<br/>Présentation des propriétés des principaux modèles macroéconomiques du Service Public</td>
    <td>G 9413</td>
    <td>B. DORMONT - M. PAUCHET<br/>L'évaluation de l'élasticité emploi-salaire dépend-elle des structures de qualification ?</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9003</td>
    <td>P. RALLE et J. TOUJAS-BERNATE<br/>Indexation des salaires : la rupture de 1983</td>
    <td>G 9205</td>
    <td>H. ERKEL-ROUSSE<br/>Le commerce extérieur et l'environnement international dans le modèle AMADEUS (réestimation 1992)</td>
    <td>G 9314</td>
    <td>B. CREPON - E. DUGUET<br/>Research &amp; Development, competition and innovation</td>
    <td>G 9414</td>
    <td>I. KABLA<br/>Le Choix de breveter une invention</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9004</td>
    <td>D. GUELLEC et P. RALLE<br/>Compétitivité, croissance et innovation de produit</td>
    <td>G 9206</td>
    <td>N. GREENAN et D. GUELLEC<br/>Coordination within the firm and endogenous growth</td>
    <td>G 9315</td>
    <td>B. DORMONT<br/>Quelle est l'influence du coût du travail sur l'emploi ?</td>
    <td>G 9501</td>
    <td>J. BOURDIEU - B. CŒURÉ - B. SEDILLOT<br/>Irreversible Investment and Uncertainty: When is there a Value of Waiting?</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9005</td>
    <td>P. RALLE et J. TOUJAS-BERNATE<br/>Les conséquences de la désindexation. Analyse dans une maquette prix-salaires</td>
    <td>G 9207</td>
    <td>A. MAGNIER et J. TOUJAS-BERNATE<br/>Technology and trade: empirical evidences for the major five industrialized countries</td>
    <td>G 9316</td>
    <td>D. BLANCHET - C. BROUSSE<br/>Deux études sur l'âge de la retraite</td>
    <td>G 9502</td>
    <td>L. BLOCH - B. CŒURÉ<br/>Imperfections du marché du crédit, investissement des entreprises et cycle économique</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9101</td>
    <td>Équipe AMADEUS<br/>Le modèle AMADEUS - Première partie - Présentation générale</td>
    <td>G 9208</td>
    <td>B. CREPON, E. DUGUET, D. ENCAOUA et P. MOHNEN<br/>Cooperative, non cooperative R &amp; D optimal patent life</td>
    <td>G 9317</td>
    <td>D. BLANCHET<br/>Répartition du travail dans une population hétérogène : deux notes</td>
    <td>G 9503</td>
    <td>D. GOUX - E. MAURIN<br/>Les transformations de la demande de travail par qualification en France Une étude sur la période 1970-1993</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9102</td>
    <td>J.L. BRILLET<br/>Le modèle AMADEUS - Deuxième partie - Propriétés variantielles</td>
    <td>G 9209</td>
    <td>B. CREPON, E. DUGUET<br/>Research and development, competition and innovation: an application of pseudo maximum likelihood methods to Poisson models with heterogeneity</td>
    <td>G 9318</td>
    <td>D. EYSSARTIER - N. PONTY<br/>AMADEUS - an annual macro-economic model for the medium and long term</td>
    <td>G 9504</td>
    <td>N. GREENAN<br/>Technologie, changement organisationnel, qualifications et emploi : une étude empirique sur l'industrie manufacturière</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9103</td>
    <td>D. GUELLEC et P. RALLE<br/>Endogenous growth and product innovation</td>
    <td>G 9310</td>
    <td>B. CREPON et E. DUGUET<br/>Research and development, competition and innovation: an application of pseudo maximum likelihood methods to Poisson models with heterogeneity</td>
    <td>G 9319</td>
    <td>G. CETTE - Ph. CUNÉO - D. EYSSARTIER - J. GAUTIÉ<br/>Les effets sur l'emploi d'un abaissement du coût du travail des jeunes</td>
    <td>G 9505</td>
    <td>D. GOUX - E. MAURIN<br/>Persistance des hiérarchies sectorielles de salaires: un réexamen sur données françaises</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9104</td>
    <td>H. ROUSSE<br/>Le modèle AMADEUS - Troisième partie - Le commerce extérieur et l'environnement international</td>
    <td>G 9311</td>
    <td>B. CREPON et E. DUGUET<br/>Research and development, competition and innovation: an application of pseudo maximum likelihood methods to Poisson models with heterogeneity</td>
    <td>G 9401</td>
    <td>D. BLANCHET<br/>Les structures par âge importent-elles ?</td>
    <td>G 9505<br/>Bis</td>
    <td>D. GOUX - E. MAURIN<br/>Persistence of inter-industry wages differentials: a reexamination on matched worker-firm panel data</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9105</td>
    <td>H. ROUSSE<br/>Effets de demande et d'offre dans les résultats du commerce extérieur manufacturé de la France au cours des deux dernières décennies</td>
    <td>G 9312</td>
    <td>J. TOUJAS-BERNATE<br/>Commerce international et concurrence impartie : développements récents et implications pour la politique commerciale</td>
    <td>G 9402</td>
    <td>J. GAUTIÉ<br/>Le chômage des jeunes en France : problème de formation ou phénomène de file d'attente ?<br/>Quelques éléments du débat</td>
    <td>G 9506</td>
    <td>S. JACOBZONE<br/>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</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9106</td>
    <td>B. CREPON<br/>Innovation, taille et concentration : causalités et dynamiques</td>
    <td>G 9303</td>
    <td>Ch. CASES<br/>Durées de chômage et comportements d'offre de travail : une revue de la littérature</td>
    <td>G 9403</td>
    <td>P. QUIRION<br/>Les déchets en France : éléments statistiques et économiques</td>
    <td>G 9507</td>
    <td>G. CETTE - S. MAHFOUZ<br/>Le partage primaire du revenu Constat descriptif sur longue période</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9107</td>
    <td>B. AMABLE et D. GUELLEC<br/>Un panorama des théories de la croissance endogène</td>
    <td>G 9304</td>
    <td>H. ERKEL-ROUSSE<br/>Union économique et monétaire : le débat économique</td>
    <td>G 9404</td>
    <td>D. LADIRAY - M. GRUN-REHOMME<br/>Lissage par moyennes mobiles - Le problème des extrémités de série</td>
    <td>G 9601</td>
    <td>Banque de France - CEPREMAP - Direction de la Prévision - Érasme - INSEE - OFCE Structures et propriétés de cinq modèles macro-économiques français</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9108</td>
    <td>M. GLAUDE et M. MOUTARDIER<br/>Une évaluation du coût direct de l'enfant de 1979 à 1989</td>
    <td>G 9305</td>
    <td>N. GREENAN - D. GUELLEC / G. BROUSSAUDIER - L. MIOTTI<br/>Innovation organisationnelle, dynamisme technologique et performances des entreprises</td>
    <td>G 9405</td>
    <td>V. MAILLARD<br/>Théorie et pratique de la correction des effets de jours ouvrables</td>
    <td>G 9602</td>
    <td>Rapport d'activité de la DESE de l'année 1995</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9109</td>
    <td>P. RALLE et alii<br/>France - Allemagne : performances économiques comparées</td>
    <td>G 9306</td>
    <td>P. JAILLARD<br/>Le traité de Maastricht : présentation juridique et historique</td>
    <td>G 9406</td>
    <td>F. ROSENWALD<br/>La décision d'investir</td>
    <td>G 9603</td>
    <td>J. BOURDIEU - A. DRAZNIEKS<br/>L'octroi de crédit aux PME : une analyse à partir d'informations bancaires</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9110</td>
    <td>J.L. BRILLET<br/>Micro-DMS<br/>NON PARU</td>
    <td>G 9307</td>
    <td>J.L. BRILLET<br/>Micro-DMS : présentation et propriétés</td>
    <td>G 9407</td>
    <td>S. JACOBZONE<br/>Les apports de l'économie industrielle pour définir la stratégie économique de l'hôpital public</td>
    <td>G 9604</td>
    <td>A. TOPIOL-BENSAÏD<br/>Les implantations japonaises en France</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9111</td>
    <td>A. MAGNIER<br/>Effets accélérateur et multiplicateur en France depuis 1970 : quelques résultats empiriques</td>
    <td>G 9308</td>
    <td>J.L. BRILLET<br/>Micro-DMS - variantes : les tableaux</td>
    <td>G 9408</td>
    <td>L. BLOCH, J. BOURDIEU, B. COLIN-SEDILLOT<br/>Du défaut de paiement au dépôt de bilan : les banquiers face aux PME en difficulté</td>
    <td>G 9605</td>
    <td>P. GENIERIS - S. JACOBZONE<br/>Comportements de prévention, consommation d'alcool et tabagie : peut-on parler d'une gestion globale du capital santé ?<br/>Une modélisation microéconométrique empirique</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9112</td>
    <td>B. CREPON et G. DUREAU<br/>Investissement en recherche-développement : analyse de causalités dans un modèle d'accélérateur généralisé</td>
    <td>G 9309</td>
    <td>S. JACOBZONE<br/>Les grands réseaux publics français dans une perspective européenne</td>
    <td>G 9409</td>
    <td>D. EYSSARTIER, P. MAIRE<br/>Impacts macro-économiques de mesures d'aide au logement - quelques éléments d'évaluation</td>
    <td>G 9606</td>
    <td>C. DOZ - F. LENGLART<br/>Factor analysis and unobserved component models: an application to the study of French business surveys</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9113</td>
    <td>J.L. BRILLET, H. ERKEL-ROUSSE, J. TOUJAS-BERNATE<br/>"France-Allemagne Couplées" - Deux économies vues par une maquette macro-économétrique</td>
    <td>G 9310</td>
    <td>L. BLOCH - B. CŒURÉ<br/>Profitabilité de l'investissement productif et transmission des chocs financiers</td>
    <td>G 9410</td>
    <td>F. ROSENWALD<br/>Suivi conjoncturel de l'investissement</td>
    <td>G 9607</td>
    <td>N. GREENAN - D. GUELLEC<br/>La théorie coopérative de la firme</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9201</td>
    <td>W.J. ADAMS, B. CREPON, D. ENCAOUA<br/>Choix technologiques et stratégies de dissuasion d'entrée</td>
    <td>G 9311</td>
    <td>J. BOURDIEU - B. COLIN-SEDILLOT<br/>Les théories sur la structure optimale du capital : quelques points de repère</td>
    <td>G 9411</td>
    <td>C. DEFEUILLE - Ph. QUIRION<br/>Les déchets d'emballages ménagers : une analyse économique des politiques française et allemande</td>
    <td>G 9607</td>
    <td>N. GREENAN - D. GUELLEC<br/>La théorie coopérative de la firme</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>G 9202</td>
    <td>J. OLIVEIRA-MARTINS, J. TOUJAS-BERNATE</td>
    <td>G 9312</td>
    <td>J. BOURDIEU - B. COLIN-SEDILLOT<br/>Les décisions de financement des entreprises</td>
    <td>G 9412</td>
    <td>J. BOURDIEU - B. CŒURÉ - B. COLIN-SEDILLOT<br/>Investissement, incertitude et irréversibilité<br/>Quelques développements récents de la théorie de l'investissement</td>
    <td>G 9413</td>
    <td>B. DORMONT - M. PAUCHET<br/>L'évaluation de l'élasticité emploi-salaire dépend-elle des structures de qualification ?</td>
  </tr>
</table>
<table><tr><td>G 9608</td><td>N. GREENAN - D. GUELLEC<br>Technological innovation and employment<br>reallocation</td></tr><tr><td>G 9609</td><td>Ph. COUR - F. RUPPRECHT<br>L'intégration asymétrique au sein du continent<br>américain : un essai de modélisation</td></tr><tr><td>G 9610</td><td>S. DUCHENE - G. FORGEOT - A. JACQUOT<br>Analyse des évolutions récentes de la productivité apparente du travail</td></tr><tr><td>G 9611</td><td>X. BONNET - S. MAHFOUZ<br>The influence of different specifications of<br>wages-prices spirals on the measure of the<br>NAIRU: the case of France</td></tr><tr><td>G 9612</td><td>PH. COUR - E. DUBOIS, S. MAHFOUZ,<br>J. PISANI-FERRY<br>The cost of fiscal retrenchment revisited: how<br>strong is the evidence?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9613</td><td>A. JACQUOT<br>Les flexions des taux d'activité sont-elles seule-<br>ment conjoncturelles ?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9614</td><td>ZHANG Yingxiang - SONG Xueqing<br>Lexique macroéconomique Français-Chinois</td></tr><tr><td>G 9701</td><td>J.L. SCHNEIDER<br>La taxe professionnelle : éléments de cadrage<br>économique</td></tr><tr><td>G 9702</td><td>J.L. SCHNEIDER<br>Transition et stabilité politique d'un système<br>redistributif</td></tr><tr><td>G 9703</td><td>D. GOUX - E. MAURIN<br>Train or Pay: Does it Reduce Inequalities to En-<br>courage Firms to Train their Workers?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9704</td><td>P. GENIER<br>Deux contributions sur dépendance et équité</td></tr><tr><td>G 9705</td><td>E. DUGUET - N. IUNG<br>R & D Investment, Patent Life and Patent Value<br>An Econometric Analysis at the Firm Level</td></tr><tr><td>G 9706</td><td>M. HOUBEBINE - A. TOPIOL-BENSAÏD<br>Les entreprises internationales en France : une<br>analyse à partir de données individuelles</td></tr><tr><td>G 9707</td><td>M. HOUBEBINE<br>Polarisation des activités et spécialisation des<br>départements en France</td></tr><tr><td>G 9708</td><td>E. DUGUET - N. GREENAN<br>Le biais technologique : une analyse sur don-<br>nées individuelles</td></tr><tr><td>G 9709</td><td>J.L. BRILLET<br>Analyzing a small French ECM Model</td></tr><tr><td>G 9710</td><td>J.L. BRILLET<br>Formalizing the transition process: scenarios for<br>capital accumulation</td></tr><tr><td>G 9711</td><td>G. FORGEOT - J. GAUTIÉ<br>Insertion professionnelle des jeunes et proces-<br>sus de déclassement</td></tr><tr><td>G 9712</td><td>E. DUBOIS<br>High Real Interest Rates: the Consequence of a<br>Saving Investment Disequilibrium or of an in-<br>sufficient Credibility of Monetary Authorities?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9713</td><td>Bilan des activités de la Direction des Études<br>et Synthèses Économiques - 1996</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>G 9714</td><td>F. LEQUILLER<br>Does the French Consumer Price Index Over-<br>state Inflation?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9715</td><td>X. BONNET<br>Peut-on mettre en évidence les rigidités à la<br>baisse des salaires nominaux ?<br>Une étude sur quelques grands pays de l'OCDE</td></tr><tr><td>G 9716</td><td>N. IUNG - F. RUPPRECHT<br>Productivité de la recherche et rendements<br>d'échelle dans le secteur pharmaceutique<br>français</td></tr><tr><td>G 9717</td><td>E. DUGUET - I. KABLA<br>Appropriation strategy and the motivations to use<br>the patent system in France - An econometric<br>analysis at the firm level</td></tr><tr><td>G 9718</td><td>L.P. PELÉ - P. RALLE<br>Âge de la retraite : les aspects incitatifs du ré-<br>gime général</td></tr><tr><td>G 9719</td><td>ZHANG Yingxiang - SONG Xueqing<br>Lexique macroéconomique français-chinois,<br>chinois-français</td></tr><tr><td>G 9720</td><td>M. HOUBEBINE - J.L. SCHNEIDER<br>Mesurer l'influence de la fiscalité sur la locali-<br>sation des entreprises</td></tr><tr><td>G 9721</td><td>A. MOUROUGANE<br>Crédibilité, indépendance et politique monétaire<br>Une revue de la littérature</td></tr><tr><td>G 9722</td><td>P. AUGERAUD - L. BRIOT<br>Les données comptables d'entreprises<br>Le système intermédiaire d'entreprises<br>Passage des données individuelles aux données<br>sectorielles</td></tr><tr><td>G 9723</td><td>P. AUGERAUD - J.E. CHAPRON<br>Using Business Accounts for Compiling National<br>Accounts: the French Experience</td></tr><tr><td>G 9724</td><td>P. AUGERAUD<br>Les comptes d'entreprise par activités - Le pas-<br>sage aux comptes - De la comptabilité<br>d'entreprise à la comptabilité nationale - A<br>paraitre</td></tr><tr><td>G 9801</td><td>H. MICHAUDON - C. PRIGENT<br>Présentation du modèle AMADEUS</td></tr><tr><td>G 9802</td><td>J. ACCARDO<br>Une étude de comptabilité générationnelle<br>pour la France en 1996</td></tr><tr><td>G 9803</td><td>X. BONNET - S. DUCHÈNE<br>Apports et limites de la modélisation<br>« Real Business Cycles »</td></tr><tr><td>G 9804</td><td>C. BARLET - C. DUGUET -<br>D. ENCAOUA - J. PRADEL<br>The Commercial Success of Innovations<br>An econometric analysis at the firm level in<br>French manufacturing</td></tr><tr><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></tr><tr><td>G 9806</td><td>J. ACCARDO - M. JLASSI<br>La productivité globale des facteurs entre 1975<br>et 1996</td></tr><tr><td>G 9807</td><td>Bilan des activités de la Direction des Études et<br>Synthèses Économiques - 1997</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>G 9808</td><td>A. MOUROUGANE<br>Can a Conservative Governor Conduct an Ac-<br>comodative Monetary Policy?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9809</td><td>X. BONNET - E. DUBOIS - L. FAUVET<br>Asymétrie des inflations relatives et menus costs<br>: tests sur l'inflation française</td></tr><tr><td>G 9810</td><td>E. DUGUET - N. IUNG<br>Sales and Advertising with Spillovers at the firm<br>level: Estimation of a Dynamic Structural Model<br>on Panel Data</td></tr><tr><td>G 9811</td><td>J.P. BERTHIER<br>Congestion urbaine : un modèle de trafic de<br>pointe à courbe débit-vitesse et demande<br>élastique</td></tr><tr><td>G 9812</td><td>C. PRIGENT<br>La part des salaires dans la valeur ajoutée : une<br>approche macroéconomique</td></tr><tr><td>G 9813</td><td>A.Th. AERTS<br>L'évolution de la part des salaires dans la valeur<br>ajoutée en France reflète-t-elle les évolutions<br>individuelles sur la période 1979-1994 ?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9814</td><td>B. SALANIÉ<br>Guide pratique des séries non-stationnaires</td></tr><tr><td>G 9901</td><td>S. 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></tr><tr><td>G 9902</td><td>Ch. COLIN<br>Modélisation des carrières dans Destinie</td></tr><tr><td>G 9903</td><td>Ch. COLIN<br>Évolution de la dispersion des salaires : un essai<br>de prospective par microsimulation</td></tr><tr><td>G 9904</td><td>B. CREPON - N. IUNG<br>Innovation, emploi et performances</td></tr><tr><td>G 9905</td><td>B. CREPON - Ch. GIANELLA<br>Wages inequalities in France 1969-1992<br>An application of quantile regression techniques</td></tr><tr><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></tr><tr><td>G 9907</td><td>F. ROSENWALD<br>L'impact des contraintes financières dans la dé-<br>cision d'investissement</td></tr><tr><td>G 9908</td><td>Bilan des activités de la DESE - 1998</td></tr><tr><td>G 9909</td><td>J.P. ZOYEM<br>Contrat d'insertion et sortie du RMI<br>Évaluation des effets d'une politique sociale</td></tr><tr><td>G 9910</td><td>Ch. COLIN - FI. LEGROS - R. MAHIEU<br>Bilans contributifs comparés des régimes de<br>retraite du secteur privé et de la fonction<br>publique</td></tr><tr><td>G 9911</td><td>G. LAROQUE - B. SALANIÉ<br>Une décomposition du non-emploi en France</td></tr><tr><td>G 9912</td><td>B. SALANIÉ<br>Une maquette analytique de long terme du<br>marché du travail</td></tr><tr><td>G 9912<br>Bis</td><td>Ch. GIANELLA<br>Une estimation de l'élasticité de l'emploi peu<br>qualifié à son coût</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>G 9913</td><td>Division « Redistribution et Politiques Sociales »<br>Le modèle de microsimulation dynamique<br>DESTINIE</td></tr><tr><td>G 9914</td><td>E. DUGUET<br>Macro-commandes SAS pour l'économétrie des<br>panels et des variables qualitatives</td></tr><tr><td>G 9915</td><td>R. DUHAUTOIS<br>Évolution des flux d'emplois en France entre<br>1990 et 1996 : une étude empirique à partir du<br>fichier des bénéfices réels normaux (BRN)</td></tr><tr><td>G 9916</td><td>J.Y. FOURNIER<br>Extraction du cycle des affaires : la méthode de<br>Baxter et King</td></tr><tr><td>G 9917</td><td>B. CRÉPON - R. DESPLATZ - J. MAIRESSE<br>Estimating price cost margins, scale economies<br>and workers' bargaining power at the firm level</td></tr><tr><td>G 9918</td><td>Ch. GIANELLA - Ph. LAGARDE<br>Productivity of hours in the aggregate production<br>function: an evaluation on a panel of French<br>firms from the manufacturing sector</td></tr><tr><td>G 9919</td><td>S. AUDRIC - P. GIVORD - C. PROST<br>Évolution de l'emploi et des coûts par quali-<br>fication entre 1982 et 1996</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/01</td><td>R. MAHIEU<br>Les déterminants des dépenses de santé : une<br>approche macroéconomique</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/02</td><td>C. ALLARD-PRIGENT - H. GUILMEAU -<br>A. QUINET<br>The real exchange rate as the relative price of<br>nontrables in terms of tradables: theoretical<br>investigation and empirical study on French data</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/03</td><td>J.-Y. FOURNIER<br>L'approximation du filtre passe-bande proposée<br>par Christiano et Fitzgerald</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/04</td><td>Bilan des activités de la DESE - 1999</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/05</td><td>B. CREPON - F. ROSENWALD<br>Investissement et contraintes de financement : le<br>poids du cycle<br>Une estimation sur données françaises</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/06</td><td>A. FLIPO<br>Les comportements matrimoniaux de fait</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/07</td><td>R. MAHIEU - B. SÉDILLOT<br>Microsimulations of the retirement decision: a<br>supply side approach</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/08</td><td>C. AUDENIS - C. PROST<br>Déficit conjoncturel : une prise en compte des<br>conjonctures passées</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/09</td><td>R. MAHIEU - B. SÉDILLOT<br>Équivalent patrimonial de la rente et souscription<br>de retraite complémentaire</td></tr><tr><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 2000/11</td><td>G. LAROQUE - B. SALANIÉ<br>Temps partiel féminin et incitations financières à<br>l'emploi</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/12</td><td>Ch. GIANELLA<br>Local unemployment and wages</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/13</td><td>B. CREPON - Th. HECKEL<br>- Informatisation en France : une évaluation à<br>partir de données individuelles</td></tr></table>
- Computerization in France: an evaluation based on individual company data

G2001/01 F. LEQUILLER

- La nouvelle économie et la mesure du croissance du PIB

- The new economy and the measurement of GDP growth

G2001/02 S. AUDRIC

La reprise de la croissance de l'emploi profonde 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 agrégées

G2001/05 C. AUDENIS - P. BISCOURP -

N. FOURCADE - O. LOISEL

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

G2001/06 R. MAHIEU - B. SÉDILLOT

Départ à la retraite, irréversibilité et incertitude

G2001/07 Bilan des activités de la DESE - 2000

G2001/08 J. Ph. GAUDEMET

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

G2001/09 B. CRÉPON - Ch. GIANELLA

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

G2001/10 B. CRÉPON - R. DESPLATZ

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

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

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

G2002/05 P. BISCOURP - B. CRÉPON - T. HECKEL - N.

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

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

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

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

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

G2002/08 J.-P. BERTHIER

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

G2002/09 F. HILD

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

G2002/10 I. ROBERT-BOBÉE

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

G2002/11 J.-P. ZOYEM

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

G2002/12 F. HILD

Prévisions d'inflation pour la France

G2002/13 M. LECLAIR

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

G2002/14 E. WALRAET - A. VINCENT

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

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

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

G2002/16 F. MAUREL - S. GREGOIR

Les indices de compétitivité des pays : interprétation et limites

G2003/01 N. RIEDINGER - E. HAUVY

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

G2003/02 P. BISCOURP et F. KRAMARZ

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

G2003/03 Bilan des activités de la DESE - 2002

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

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

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

G2003/05 P. AUBERT

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

G2003/06 P. AUBERT - B. CRÉPON

Âge, salaire et productivité

La productivité des salariés décline-t-elle en fin de carrière ?

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

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

G2003/08 P.-O. BEFFY - B. MONFORT

Patrimoine des ménages, dynamique d'allocation et comportement de consommation

G2003/09 P. BISCOURP - N. FOURCADE

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

G2003/10 M. LECLAIR - P. PETIT

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

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

MZE: a small macro-model for the euro area

G2004/01 P. AUBERT - M. LECLAIR

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

G2004/02 M. DUÉE - C. REBILLARD

La dépendance des personnes âgées : une projection à long terme

G2004/03 S. RASPILLER - N. RIEDINGER

Régulation environnementale et choix de localisation des groupes français

G2004/04 A. NABOULET - S. RASPILLER

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

G2004/05 N. RAGACHE

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

G2004/06 M. DUÉE

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

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

New 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 microéconométrique

G2004/09 S. RASPILLER - P. SILLARD

Affiliating versus Subcontracting: the Case of Multinationals

G2004/10 J. BOISSINOT - C. L'ANGEVIN - B. MONFORT

Public Debt Sustainability: Some Results on the French Case

G2004/11 S. ANANIAN - P. AUBERT

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

G2004/12 X. BONNET - H. PONCET

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

G2004/13 C. PICART

Évaluer la rentabilité des sociétés non financières

G2004/14 J. BARDAJI - B. SÉDILLOT - E. WALRAET

Les retraites du secteur public : projections à l'horizon 2040 à l'aide du modèle de microsimulation DESTINIE

G2005/01 S. BUFFETEAU - P. GODEFROY

Conditions de départ en retraite selon l'âge de fin d'études : analyse prospective pour les générations 1945 a1974

G2005/02 C. AFSA - S. BUFFETEAU

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

G2005/03 P. AUBERT - P. SILLARD

Délocalisations et réductions d'effectifs dans l'industrie française

G2005/04 M. LECLAIR - S. ROUX

Mesure et utilisation des emplois instables dans les entreprises

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

Performances à l'exportation de la France et de l'Allemagne - Une analyse par secteur et destination géographique

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

G2005/07 S. RASPILLER

La concurrence fiscale : principaux enseignements de l'analyse économique

G2005/08 C. L'ANGEVIN - N. LAÎB

Éducation et croissance en France et dans un panel de 21 pays de l'OCDE

G2005/09 N. FERRARI

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

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

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

G2006/02 C. PICART
Les gazelles en France

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

G2006/15 L. GONZALEZ - C. PICART
Diversification, centrage 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
Microsimplifier 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 terme

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 chaînés

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

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

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

G2011/03 L. DAVEZIES
Modèles à effets fixes, à effets aléatoires, modèles mixtes ou multi-niveaux : propriétés et mises en œuvre des modélisations de l'hétérogénéité dans le cas de données groupées

G2011/04 M. ROGER - M. WASMER
Heterogeneity matters: labour productivity differentiated by age and skills

G2011/05 J.-C. BRICONGNE - J.-M. FOURNIER
V. LAPÈGUE - O. MONSO
De la crise financière à la crise économique L'impact des perturbations financières de 2007 et 2008 sur la croissance de sept pays industrialisés

G2011/06 P. CHARNOZ - É. COUDIN - M. GAINI
Wage inequalities in France 1976-2004: a quantile regression analysis

G2011/07 M. CLERC - M. GAINI - D. BLANCHET
Recommendations of the Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Report: A few illustrations

G2011/08 M. BACHELET - M. BEFFY - D. BLANCHET
Projeter l'impact des réformes des retraites sur l'activité des 55 ans et plus : une comparaison de trois modèles

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

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

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

G2011/12 C. MARBOT et D. ROY
Évaluation de la transformation de la réduction d'impôt en crédit d'impôt pour l'emploi de salariés à domicile en 2007

G2011/13 P. GIVORD - R. RATHELOT - P. SILLARD
Place-based tax exemptions and displacement effects: An evaluation of the Zones Franches Urbaines program

G2011/14 X. D'HAULTFOEUILLE - P. GIVORD - X. BOUTIN
The Environmental Effect of Green Taxation: the Case of the French "Bonus/Malus"

G2011/15 M. BARLET - M. CLERC - M. GARNEO - V. LAPÈGUE - V. MARCUS
La nouvelle version du modèle MZE, modèle macroéconométrique pour la zone euro

G2011/16 R. AEBERHARDT - I. BUONO - H. FADINGER
Learning, Incomplete Contracts and Export Dynamics: theory and Evidence form French Firms

G2011/17 C. KERDRAIN - V. LAPÈGUE
Restrictive Fiscal Policies in Europe: What are the Likely Effects?

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

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