# Homeownership and labor market outcomes: disentangling externality and composition effects

Charles-Marie Chevalier, Raphaël Lardeux

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

## To cite this version:

Charles-Marie Chevalier, Raphaël Lardeux. Homeownership and labor market outcomes: disentangling externality and composition effects. 2017. hal-05413181

HAL Id: hal-05413181

https://insee.hal.science/hal-05413181v1

Preprint submitted on 12 Dec 2025

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

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

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

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

G2017/09

Homeownership and labor market outcomes:
disentangling externality and composition effects

Charles-Marie CHEVALIER
Raphaël LARDEUX

Document de travail

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

Insee
Mesurer pour comprendre

Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>
INSTITUT NATIONAL DE LA STATISTIQUE ET DES ÉTUDES ÉCONOMIQUES

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

G2017/09

Homeownership and labor market outcomes:
disentangling externality and composition effects

Charles-Marie CHEVALIER *
Raphaël LARDEUX **

NOVEMBRE 2017

For their useful comments, we would like to thank Bruno DECREUSE, Gilles DURANTON, Pauline GIVORD, Laurent GOBILLON, Malik KOUBI, Rafael LALIVE, Yannick L'HORTY, Corinne PROST, Sébastien ROUX, Olivier SIMON, Alain TRANNOY as well as various participants at the Insee Economics Department seminar, the 2016 AFSE and French Treasury Conference on Public Policy Evaluation, the 8th TEPP Winter School in Aussois and the 7th European Meeting of the Urban Economics Association. This document does not reflect the position of Insee but only its author's view.

<footnote>* Insee-Dese - Département des études économiques » - Division « études macroéconomiques »
Crest</footnote>

<footnote>** Insee-Dese - Département des études économiques » - Division « redistribution et politiques sociales »
Cred Université Paris 2</footnote>
# Propriété immobilière et marché du travail : distinguer effets de composition et d'externalité

## Résumé

Alors que le taux de propriétaires et le taux de chômage sont positivement corrélés (Oswald, 1996), le statut de propriétaire est associé à une meilleure situation sur le marché du travail. Nous examinons ce paradoxe dans le cas français, en distinguant un effet de composition d'une externalité négative. D'une part, les propriétaires étant individuellement moins exposés au risque de chômage que les locataires, un taux de propriétaires plus élevé se traduit mécaniquement par un taux de chômage réduit. D'autre part, un taux de propriétaires plus élevé pourrait engendrer des frictions réduisant l'appariement sur le marché du travail. À partir du recensement utilisé sur longue période (1968-2011), nous menons des estimations aux niveaux à la fois individuel et agrégé, puis interprétons les résultats dans le cadre d'un modèle d'appariement sur le marché du travail illustrant ces effets de composition et d'externalité négative. Dans le cas français, le second effet l'emporte sur le premier et le taux de propriétaires est positivement corrélat au taux de chômage. Ainsi, une hausse de 10 points du taux de propriétaires local serait associée à des frictions augmentant d'environ 1 point le taux de chômage.

**Mots-clés** : propriété immobilière, marché du travail local, externalité, effet de composition

# Homeownership and labor market outcomes: disentangling externality and composition effects

## Abstract

While homeownership and unemployment rates are positively related (Oswald, 1996), owners generally have better labor market outcomes. This paper addresses this paradox, disentangling a composition effect and a negative externality. On the one hand, if owners are less likely to be unemployed than renters, a higher homeownership rate should mechanically translate into a lower unemployment rate through a composition effect. On the other hand, extended homeownership may generate a negative externality in the form of frictions impeding matching on the labor market. We carry out estimations at the individual and aggregate levels, using the French Census on a large time span (1968-2011) and interpret the results within a job matching model featuring a composition effect and a negative externality. In the French case, the latter outweighs the former and the homeownership rate is positively correlated with the unemployment rate. Finally, a 10 points rise in the local homeownership rate would be associated to frictions increasing unemployment by around 1 point.

**Keywords** : homeownership, local labor market, externality, composition effect

**Classification JEL** : J21, J31, J64, R21
# Introduction

Fluctuating around 10 percents in France since the mid-1980s, the high unemployment rate is one of the main concerns of public authorities. Besides structural reforms devoted to directly alleviate labor market frictions, housing market policies are increasingly considered as a way to stimulate workers’ geographical and professional mobility.<fnref n="1" /> Since suggestive evidence by Oswald (1996), a positive link between the homeownership rate and the unemployment rate has been found for a wide range of countries, geographical scales and time periods.<fnref n="2" /> Yet, individual level approaches converge towards better labor outcomes for homeowners (see review in Table 1).

This paper addresses this paradox between these macro- and micro-economic analyses. Specifically, in the positive correlation between homeownership and unemployment rates, we disentangle a composition effect and a potential negative externality. Indeed, on the one hand, if owners are less likely to be unemployed than renters, a higher homeownership rate should mechanically translate into a lower unemployment rate through a composition effect. Yet, on the other hand, extended homeownership may generate a negative externality impeding matching on the labor market, such as suggested by Blanchflower and Oswald (2013). Finally, aggregate outcomes are likely to result from both effects. Here, estimations at different levels rely on the same Census data on a large time span (1968-2011) favoring a micro-macro comparative analysis of long run evolutions. In addition, we illustrate within a matching model how aggregate outcomes change with composition effect and negative externality intensities. In the French case, we show here that the negative externality outweighs the composition effect and the homeownership rate is positively correlated with the unemployment rate. We show that conclusions of previous papers at the individual or at the aggregate scale are not incompatible, as long as we assume such a negative externality.

First, homeownership and unemployment rates are analyzed with a panel of employment areas using French Censuses between 1968 and 2011.<fnref n="3" /> In cross-section, the correlation between these rates is negative, reflecting strong geographical heterogeneities (Figure 1). Yet,

<footnote n="1">¹France Stratégie notably suggested a progressive reallocation of the transfer tax to the property tax to stimulate homeowners’ mobility (Schaff and Ben Jelloul, 2010).</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²See also Havet and Penot (2010) for a survey.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³An employment area is defined as a geographic space where most of active individuals live and work, and where firms can find most of their necessary workforce to fill vacant positions. This notion provides a territory partition adapted to studies on local labor markets.</footnote>
for a specific employment area over time, variations in the unemployment rate–filtered from
the national time trend and from heterogeneities between employment areas– are positively
related to variations in the homeownership rate.

Second, we use the same data at the individual level and regress the employment status
on the homeownership status and the homeownership rate in the employment area. In each
specification, the unemployment risk is around 6 points lower for owners than for renters.
Controlling for heterogeneities at the employment area level, we estimate that a 10 points
rise in the local homeownership rate would be associated with higher unemployment risks by
around 1 point. These results are robust to alternative estimation periods and specifications–
including social housing features and local economic activity–and do not vanish when we
try to control for the simultaneity bias between unemployment and the residential status.
In order to provide a broader description of labor market adjustments, we derive similar
estimates on the EU-SILC survey dataset, using the administrative gross wage as the outcome
variable. Similarly to our results for unemployment, we find that owners have higher wages
than renters, but the homeownership rate is negatively correlated with the wage.

Finally, we develop a matching model featuring renters and owners in order to illustrate
how a composition effect and a negative externality may drive labor market adjustments.
First, we assume that extended homeownership in an employment area triggers a negative
externality in the form of residential mobility frictions, preventing unemployed households
to locate in this area nearby job offers. Second, we assume that owners have a lower exit
rate from employment than renters and thus a greater value from employment. Even if a
higher homeownership rate raises the unemployment rate of each type of agent, the sign of
the correlation between the aggregate homeownership and unemployment rates depends on
which one of the two mechanisms–negative externality or composition effect–has the upper
hand. Furthermore, this simple model is consistent with our empirical results.

**Related literature.** For the US, Oswald (1996) measures that, all else being equal, a 10 points increase in the homeownership rate is associated to a 2 points increase in the unemployment rate. For European countries, a simple comparison across the 1990s and 2000s suggest that countries split into two groups (Figure 4 in Appendix): countries with homeownership rates below 51% during the 1990s have an unemployment rate between 4% and 6% during the 2010s; on the contrary, countries with homeownership rates above 64%
in the 1990s have unemployment rates between 8% and 10% during the 2010s. Beyond
this descriptive outlook, further econometric evidence at the aggregate level confirms U.S.
results by Oswald (1996) for a wide range of countries and time periods, as long as the time
dimension is taken into account on top of geographical cross-sections (Panel A Table 1).

Trying to explain the positive correlation between the homeownership rate and the un-
employment rate, an early literature assumed that homeowners were at higher risk of un-
employment and that the aggregate observation would be the result of a composition effect
(Dohmen, 2005). Indeed, job search and acceptance could be thought as hindered for home-
owners by specific costs when moving out, such as fiscal fees if the dwelling is sold, or taxes
on rental income if it is rented. However, empirical microeconomic research tends to discard
this result (see Panel B of Table 1), so raising a paradox between micro and macro scales
and invalidating earlier expectations. On top of endogeneity, homeowners may have better
employment outcomes for different reasons: they might have a preference for professional sta-
bility (Munch et al., 2006), need to maintain a regular reimbursement of mortgages (Flatau
et al., 2003; Laamanen, 2013) or even anticipate higher job search costs when unemployed.
A composition effect would then induce a negative correlation between homeownership and
unemployment rates.

Estimating both a positive relation between homeownership and unemployment rates
and a negative one between homeownership and unemployment status, the present paper
is related to another potential explanation: homeowners' lack of residential mobility may
generate a negative externality on the labor market. Oswald (1998) suggest that immobile
homeowners prevent unemployed households to locate in their area in order to find a job.<fnref n="4" />
Blanchflower and Oswald (2013) note that areas where the proportion of homeowners is high
are characterized by a lower labor mobility and conclude that immobile housing markets
might generate negative externalities on workers and firms. This work is further related
to empirical “spatial mismatch” approaches, where low residential mobility and distance
impedes the matching of workers’ skills with available jobs. Spatial mismatch and workers
immobility reduce workers’ access to information about new jobs, therefore lowering job
search and the exit rate from unemployment (L’Horty and Sari, 2015; Wasmer and Zenou,
2006; Manning and Petrongolo, 2011). Our paper thoroughly introduces in the regressions

<footnote n="4">⁴On a different aspect, he further notices that a high proportion of homeowners who commute might generate transport congestion affecting all workers.</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 1 – Elasticities in the literature</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th colspan="5" style="text-align: center;">Panel A - Aggregate data</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>Area</th><th>Time period</th><th>Method</th><th>du/dh</th><th>Elasticity</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td colspan="5" style="text-align: center;"><em>Dynamic</em></td></tr><tr><td>Oswald (1996)</td><td>OECD countries</td><td>1960-1990</td><td>OLS</td><td>0.20</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>U.S. states</td><td>1986-1995</td><td>OLS</td><td>0.21<sup>†</sup></td><td>2<sup>†</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Pehkonen (1999)</td><td>Finnish districts</td><td></td><td>OLS</td><td>0.1 - 0.2</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Nickell (1998)</td><td>20 OECD countries</td><td>1983-1994</td><td>GLS-RE</td><td></td><td>0.79<sup>*</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Belot and Van Ours (2001)</td><td>18 OECD countries</td><td>1960-1994</td><td>OLS-FE</td><td>0.19</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Nickell et al. (2005)</td><td>19 OECD countries</td><td>1961-1995</td><td>GLS-FE</td><td>NS</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Green and Hendershott (2001)</td><td>U.S. states</td><td>1970-1990</td><td>OLS-FE</td><td>0.18</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Blanchflower and Oswald (2013)</td><td>U.S. states</td><td>1985-2011</td><td>OLS-FE</td><td></td><td>1.7<sup>†</sup></td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="5" style="text-align: center;"><em>Static/spatial</em></td></tr><tr><td>Garcia and Hernandez (2004)</td><td>Spanish provinces</td><td>1991</td><td>3SLS</td><td>-0.22</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Coulson and Fisher (2009)</td><td>U.S. MSA</td><td></td><td>OLS IV</td><td>-0.11</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sari (2015)</td><td>French empl. areas</td><td>2006</td><td>OLS</td><td>-0.044</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>SAR</td><td>-0.048</td><td></td></tr></tbody><thead><tr><th></th><th colspan="5" style="text-align: center;">Panel B - Individual data</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>Data</th><th>Time period</th><th>Method</th><th>Homeowner status <sup>‡</sup></th><th>Homeowner-ship rate <sup>‡</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td colspan="5" style="text-align: center;"><em>Unemployment</em></td></tr><tr><td>Coulson and Fisher (2002)</td><td>CPS</td><td>2000</td><td>Probit</td><td>-0.23</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>PSID</td><td>1993</td><td>Probit</td><td>-0.42</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Arulampalam et al. (2000)</td><td>British BHPS</td><td>1991-1995</td><td>Probit RE</td><td>-0.46</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Flatau et al. (2003)</td><td>Australian SIHC</td><td>1993-1997</td><td>Probit IV</td><td>-0.24/-0.19</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Coulson and Fisher (2009)</td><td>CPS</td><td>1990</td><td>Probit IV</td><td>-0.49</td><td>0.0072</td></tr><tr><td>Laamanen (2013)</td><td>Finnish IDS</td><td>1990-1992</td><td>Probit IV</td><td>-0.04</td><td>9.50</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="5" style="text-align: center;"><em>Wages</em></td></tr><tr><td>Coulson and Fisher (2009)</td><td>CPS</td><td>1990</td><td>OLS IV</td><td>-0.36</td><td>0.0047</td></tr><tr><td>Munch et al. (2008)</td><td>Danish registers</td><td>1993-2001</td><td>Duration</td><td>0.06</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: †: these macro parameters correspond to long-run estimates. ‡: as these parameters stem from different econometric models, their values are not comparable. ⋆: computed from the semi-elasticity and the average of the homeownership rates provided by the author. NS: non-significant.

the homeownership rate at the employment area level to encompass these spatial mismatches likely to be influenced by common housing structural factors.

We build on Coulson and Fisher (2009), who included the local homeownership rate in individual estimations using the US Census in 1990 in an attempt to reconcile aggregate and individual mechanisms characterizing the interaction between the labor and housing markets. They rely on two models to explain their empirical findings, assume that homeowners have a lower utility from unemployment. They find that homeowners are characterized by both a lower unemployment probability and lower wages than renters. However, this second finding is rejected by the data (Munch et al., 2008).

Other previous theoretical approaches include Beugnot et al. (2014) who find that homeownership is theoretically associated to a higher equilibrium unemployment rate and a lower
wage for homeowners. Munch et al. (2006) assume a lower residential mobility for owners and predict that they are either more unemployed and have higher wages, or that they are less unemployed and have lower wages. Our model is consistent with our empirical findings and formalizes within a single framework the early motivations for considering the homeownership rate as a relevant proxy for housing market tensions (Oswald, 1996, 1998).

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 1 presents the data we use and our identification strategy. Section 2 gathers the main results and robustness issues at the aggregate and individual scale. Section 3 develops a matching model to interpret our empirical estimates in light of a composition effect and a negative externality. Finally, Section 3.3 concludes.

# 1 Empirical strategy

## 1.1 Data

*Saphir*. The analysis relies on several editions of large surveys complementary to Census between 1968 and 2011, gathered and harmonized within the Saphir database. Each edition generally covers one fourth of the population. It has the advantage of providing around forty variables about individuals, households and dwellings over a long time span. There are seven editions (1968, 1975, 1982, 1990, 1999, 2006 and 2011) with 12 to 20 millions of observations. We are then able to grasp homeownership and unemployment changes far before they stabilized in the mid-1980s (Figure 1). This database is thus chosen notably because it offers a long-time span necessary to address structural factors affecting the labor market. It also has cross-sectional depth allowing for the control of employment area heterogeneities and clustered standard errors at this specific level. The main variables of interest taken from this database are the professional and residential status. The homeownership rate is computed as the share of homeowners among adult individuals while the unemployment rate is the ratio of unemployed in the labor force.<fnref n="5" /> Socio-demographic information can be used, such as age, education, eventual former country of residence.<fnref n="6" /> Thanks to the city of residence, we also add the size of the urban area through additional geographical information. The field is restricted to metropolitan France, excluding Corsica. Finally, for individual estimates, we focus on working age heads of households between 18 and 64.

<footnote n="5">⁵These rates, and all estimations, are carried out with survey sampling weights.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶Yet, education is not provided for levels higher than high school in 1968 and 1975.</footnote>
## 1.2 Identification

Estimations will be carried out both at the aggregate and individual levels using the same dataset, which favors direct comparability. In particular, the spatial and temporal depth of the sample will allow to include both year and employment area fixed effects, which are required to filter out national unemployment trends and constant spatial heterogeneities. The aggregate equation is:

$$Y_{jt} = \Delta_j + \Delta_t + \gamma X_{jt} + Z'_{jt}\Theta + V_{jt} \quad (1)$$

where $Y_{jt}$ is the unemployment rate in employment area j and year t; $X_{jt}$ is the homeownership rate in employment area j and year t; $Z_{jt}$ denotes rates for various socio-demographic characteristics; $\Delta_j$ and $\Delta_t$ are respectively employment area and year fixed effects; and $V_{jt}$ are residuals.

The individual level equation is:

$$y_{ijt} = \delta_j + \delta_t + \alpha x_{ijt} + \beta X_{jt} + z'_{ijt}\theta + v_{jt} + \varepsilon_i \quad (2)$$

where $y_{ijt}$ is the unemployment status of an individual i living in employment area j and year t; $x_{ijt}$ is a binary variable indicating whether i is a homeowner or a renter; $X_{jt}$ is the homeownership rate in employment area j; $z_{ijt}$ denotes individual characteristics; $\delta_j$ and $\delta_t$ are respectively employment area and year fixed effects; and $v_{jt}$ are residuals.

Including both individual and local residential status features is particularly interesting in our framework.<fnref n="7" /> The inclusion of the individual residential status is a way to test if, as found in the micro-econometric literature, homeowners are less likely to be unemployed than renters on the labor market, in which case $\alpha < 0$. Averaging Equation (2) over individuals by employment areas, we have:

$$Y_{jt} = \Delta_j + \Delta_t + (\alpha + \beta) X_{jt} + Z'_{jt}\theta + v_{jt} \quad (3)$$

The aggregate average effect of the homeownership rate is captured by $\alpha + \beta$, which should be equal to the coefficient $\gamma$ in Equation (1). Thus, once we control through $\alpha$ for the composition of the population in terms of residential status, parameter $\beta$ on the local homeownership rate captures the incidence of the potentially negative externality on labor market variables. Therefore, we expect $\beta > 0$ and $\gamma < \beta$.

<footnote n="7">⁷ This framework is similar to Acemoglu and Angrist (2001) which analyzed the positive externality effects of education.</footnote>
Figure 1 – Time and cross-sectional patterns

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Panel A - Evolutions of the homeownership (blue line, left axis) and unemployment (red dotted line, right axis) rates in France since the 1970s</figcaption></figure>

Sources: Bonnet et al. (2011), Insee.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Panel B - Cross-section correlations between the homeownership and unemployment rates for different area sizes, 2009</figcaption></figure>

Source: Insee "statistiques locales". Homeownership rates are on the horizontal axis. Cities for the right panel are only within the departments Val-de-Marne, Hauts-de-Seine and Seine-Saint-Denis.

## 2 Empirical evidence

### 2.1 Aggregate data

In France, a long-term positive correlation can be observed between the homeownership rate and the unemployment rate (Figure 1, Panel A). The homeownership rate increased from 43% to 55% between 1970 and 2006 while the unemployment rate increased from 3% to 10% over the same time period. In the mid-1980s notably, there is a break in the trends of both variables. However, cross-section comparisons at different geographic scales (regions, departments or cities) rather suggest a negative correlation between the homeownership rate and the unemployment rate (Figure 1, Panel B). Generally, areas with more favorable economic
situations fit the intuitive outcomes of better financial positions going along with higher
homeownership and employment rates. Thus, time and cross-section statistics indicate dif-
ferent economic mechanisms which have to be taken into account for an overall consideration
of potential effects of homeownership: national time trend and local economic conditions.
Yet, these general statistics are uninformative with respect to any eventual remaining effect
when time and space are controlled for.

We estimate the correlation between local homeownership and local unemployment on French employment areas over the 1968 - 2011 period, controlling for age, education and potential foreign initial residence (similarly to Blanchflower and Oswald, 2013). Individuals are split in three age categories (15-24, 25-49, 50 and more). For education, data lack precision above high school achievement, in particular in 1968 and 1975, so that education controls are restricted to the fraction of high school graduates and the fraction of people without any diploma. The potential foreign initial residence is some equivalent of ethnic controls used by Blanchflower and Oswald (2013) and Coulson and Fisher (2009) relying on U.S. data. It is introduced through the share of individuals coming from North Africa and the fraction of other foreigners as in Fougère et al. (2009). All ratios are then used with logarithms.

Table 2 shows different specifications for this estimation. An OLS regression of the unemployment rate on the homeownership rate displays a positive coefficient (Column 1). Yet, these two rates have increased substantially over the sample period and the positive effect come from a common trend affecting all geographic entities. Column 2 further includes time fixed effects.<fnref n="8" /> The correlation between the two rate becomes negative, which is consistent with local cross-section insights displayed in Figure 1. Column 3 adds geographic fixed effects and the sign of the coefficient for homeownership rate gets back positive, reflecting strong geographical heterogeneities. The estimate remains around 0.40 when including controls (Column 4) and slightly increases up to 0.50 when taking into account unemployment rate autoregressivity (Column 5). As in Blanchflower and Oswald (2013), causality inference is not intended here, and estimates should only be taken as indications.

Table 3 displays three additional specifications to test the significance of the correlation between the unemployment and homeownership rates. First, Column 1 replicates the main

<footnote n="8">⁸Time fixed effects (not reported here) are consistent with observed macroeconomic trends.</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 2 – Panel main regressions on aggregate data, variables in logs</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>(1)<br>e.a.<br>levels</th><th>(2)<br>e.a.<br>levels</th><th>(3)<br>e.a.<br>levels</th><th>(4)<br>e.a.<br>levels</th><th>(5)<br>e.a.<br>levels</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Unemployment rate</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Homeownership rate</td><td>4.82***<br>(0.031)</td><td>-0.490***<br>(0.055)</td><td>0.398***<br>(0.091)</td><td>0.421***<br>(0.096)</td><td>0.501***<br>(0.092)</td></tr><tr><td>Unemployment rate (t-1)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.197***<br>(0.016)</td></tr><tr><td>Age 19-24</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.148***<br>(0.050)</td><td>0.114**<br>(0.047)</td></tr><tr><td>Age 25-49</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>2.040***<br>(0.350)</td><td>1.603***<br>(0.337)</td></tr><tr><td>Age 50+</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.523***<br>(0.121)</td><td>0.438***<br>(0.117)</td></tr><tr><td>High school graduates</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.282***<br>(0.046)</td><td>0.217***<br>(0.016)</td></tr><tr><td>No diploma</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.117***<br>(0.044)</td><td>0.140***<br>(0.043)</td></tr><tr><td>North Africa</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.001<br>(0.008)</td><td>-0.001<br>(0.008)</td></tr><tr><td>Other foreign countries</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.018*<br>(0.009)</td><td>-0.010<br>(0.010)</td></tr><tr><td>Time fixed effects</td><td>no</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td></tr><tr><td>Space fixed effects</td><td>no</td><td>no</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td>1824</td><td>1824</td><td>1824</td><td>1824</td><td>1824</td></tr></tbody></table>

Sources: Insee Census, Saphir database, 1968-2011. France, excluded Corsica and overseas territories. "t-1" does not refer the preceding year but to the preceding census. "e.a." stands for employment areas. Ratios are computed with Saphir weights.

estimation of Table 2 (Column 4), but includes the lagged rather than the current homeownership rate. Second, Column 2 consider variables in differences rather than levels. Third, Column 3 measures rates as the department level rather than at the employment areas' one. In each case, the coefficient is significantly positive and in the same order of magnitude as in the baseline estimation.<fnref n="9" />

## 2.2 Individual data

In this section, the effect of the homeownership rate is estimated at the individual level using the same Census data as in the previous section. To better isolate the effect of the

<footnote n="9">⁹In addition, although the sample period number is six and quite low, which impedes any reasonable co-integration test and to derive any satisfying conclusion from a panel error correction model, we test whether introducing residuals from the levels equation in Table 2 Column 4 within the difference equation in Table 3 Column 2 would affect this estimation. This is not the case (the homeownership rate coefficient remains highly significant at 0.68), while the estimate is consistent with the presence of feedback from deviations to the levels equation. The corresponding coefficient is quite strong at -0.93, but data in the Census sample are at the very low frequency (seven years). It means that the approximate convergence time is around 7-8 years, which is a value that quarterly models with more usual coefficients between 0 and -0.10 can also generate.</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 3 – Panel robustness regressions on aggregate data, variables in logs</caption><thead><tr><th>Unemployment rate</th><th>(1)<br>e.a.<br>levels</th><th>(2)<br>e.a.<br>diff.</th><th>(3)<br>dep.<br>levels</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Homeownership rate</td><td></td><td>0.784***<br>(0.141)</td><td>0.627***<br>(0.153)</td></tr><tr><td>Homeownership rate (t-1)</td><td>0.130*<br>(0.070)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Unemployment rate (t-1)</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.262***<br>(0.026)</td></tr><tr><td>Time fixed effects</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td></tr><tr><td>Spatial fixed effects</td><td>yes</td><td>no</td><td>yes</td></tr><tr><td>Controls</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td>1824</td><td>1520</td><td>576</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: Insee Census, Saphir database, 1968-2001. Field: metropolitan France except Corsica. Note: "t-1" does not indicate the previous year but the previous census. "e.a." stands for employment areas, "dep." for departments, and "diff." for differences.

homeownership rate, the individual level allows controlling for residential status in particular. For the sake of symmetry with respect to the aggregate approach, estimations are conducted on employment areas, including fixed effects and similar socio-demographic controls, are displayed in Table 4.

<table><caption>Table 4 – Main regressions on individual data, 1968-2011</caption><thead><tr><th>Unemployment</th><th>(1)</th><th>(2)</th><th>(3)</th><th>(4)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Homeownership status</td><td>-0.067***<br>(0.003)</td><td>-0.066***<br>(0.003)</td><td>-0.067***<br>(0.003)</td><td>-0.059***<br>(0.003)</td></tr><tr><td>Homeownership rate</td><td>0.137***<br>(0.036)</td><td>-0.004<br>(0.009)</td><td>0.128***<br>(0.019)</td><td>0.112***<br>(0.018)</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.000<br>(0.000)</td></tr><tr><td>High school graduates</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.032***<br>(0.001)</td></tr><tr><td>No diploma</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.069***<br>(0.002)</td></tr><tr><td>North Africa</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.064***<br>(0.002)</td></tr><tr><td>Other foreign countries</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.016***<br>(0.001)</td></tr><tr><td>Intercept</td><td>0.028<br>(0.020)</td><td>0.038***<br>(0.005)</td><td>-0.004<br>(0.008)</td><td>-0.076***<br>(0.008)</td></tr><tr><td>Time fixed effects</td><td>no</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td></tr><tr><td>Space fixed effects</td><td>no</td><td>no</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td>5.21 M</td><td>5.21 M</td><td>5.21 M</td><td>5.21 M</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: Insee Census, Saphir database, 1968-2011. France, excluding Corsica and overseas territories. Additional controls include three urban area size categories. "e.a." stands for employment areas. The sample consists in active heads of households between 18 and 64. Standard errors are clustered at the employment area / year level. For education, the control group consists in individuals with a diploma higher than a high school degree.
The coefficient of the residential status is always negative, and remains remarkably stable across specifications. This is consistent with a large microeconomic literature, reviewed by Havet and Penot (2010). Simultaneity is a first major driver, since employed individuals have more financial resources to purchase their homes. Second, unobserved heterogeneity, out of a preference for both professional and residential stability for instance (Munch et al., 2006), could be a strong explanation behind this recurrent negative correlation in the literature and our results. Beyond, causal mechanisms can also be invoked as secondary drivers: homeowners may have a mortgage to reimburse, increasing the burden of unemployment (Flatau et al., 2003; Laamanen, 2013), or would expect to have higher job search costs while being unemployed. More recently, Sodini et al. (2016) exploit a Swedish privatization reform of municipally-owned apartment buildings, which randomly assigned the homeownership status to some renters. This framework being appropriate to overcome the issue of unobserved heterogeneity, they show that the access to homeownership causes households to work more.

The coefficient of the homeownership rate changes sign when adding time fixed effects (Column 2) and then employment area ones (Column 3), in a similar way as in aggregate estimates. In column (1), the simplest estimate provides a positive coefficient at 0.137, which becomes insignificant when adding time fixed effects in Column (2) and gets back significantly positive when also adding employment area fixed effects. Employment area fixed effects influence results to a large extent, and both individual and aggregate specifications are quite symmetric in that respect.<fnref n="10" />

Controlling for the composition in terms of residential status, individuals are more likely to be unemployed in employment areas where the homeownership rate is high, which could be associated to a negative externality. The sum of these two parameters $\alpha + \beta$ captures the aggregate effect of homeownership on unemployment (Equation 2). Once we control for employment area fixed effects, this total effect is equal to 0.05. Overall, the negative externality stemming from the aggregate homeownership rate takes over the composition effect associated to the residential status. Controlling for the latter, and introducing socio-demographic variables, a 10 points increase in the homeownership rate is related to a 1.1 points increase in the unemployment rate (Column 4).

Interactions between labor and housing market may not be independent from social

<footnote n="10">¹⁰These results are not affected by the way the homeownership rate is computed, using total adult or active population as a basis (see Table 5 Column (5)).</footnote>
housing. Column (2) of Table 5 takes this concern into account. Households living in the public rental market could also be less mobile than private renters because of lower rents and have lower labor market outcomes. In that respect, we introduce this additional residential status at the individual level. In addition, the social housing rate of the employment area is relevant to grasp major aspects of local housing markets. Thus, we introduce also the social housing rate in the main specification (4) of Table 4. Yet, the sample period has to be restricted to 1990-2011 because of the unavailability of the corresponding information before 1982, and to its poor quality for this edition. Specification (4) is applied for this time frame in the Column (1) of Table 5, with stable results. In Column (2), the introduction of the social housing status is consistent with individuals in this situation being more likely to be unemployed than private renters. The change in the reference group (private renters) reduces slightly the effect observed for the homeownership status. The social housing rate happens to have no significant effect on individual unemployment.

<table><caption>Table 5 – Panel robustness regressions on individual data</caption><thead><tr><th>Unemployment</th><th>(1)</th><th>(2)</th><th>(3)</th><th>(4)</th><th>(5)</th><th>(6)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Homeownership status</td><td>-0.082***<br>(0.004)</td><td>-0.071***<br>(0.003)</td><td>-0.089***<br>(0.004)</td><td>-0.088***<br>(0.004)</td><td>-0.059***<br>(0.003)</td><td>-0.304***<br>(0.023)</td></tr><tr><td>Homeownership rate</td><td>0.196***<br>(0.027)</td><td>0.186***<br>(0.028)</td><td>0.146***<br>(0.049)</td><td>0.195***<br>(0.051)</td><td></td><td>0.344***<br>(0.049)</td></tr><tr><td>Social housing status</td><td></td><td>0.033***<br>(0.005)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Social housing rate</td><td></td><td>-0.030<br>(0.032)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Business tax rate</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.133***<br>(0.009)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Homeownership rate (alt.)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.114***<br>(0.021)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Time fixed effects</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td></tr><tr><td>Spatial fixed effects</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td></tr><tr><td>Controls</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td></tr><tr><td>Property tax instrument</td><td>no</td><td>no</td><td>no</td><td>no</td><td>no</td><td>yes</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td>3.56 M</td><td>3.56 M</td><td>2.07 M</td><td>2.07 M</td><td>5.21 M</td><td>2.07 M</td></tr><tr><td>Period</td><td>1990-2011</td><td>1990-2011</td><td>2006-2011</td><td>2006-2011</td><td>1968-2001</td><td>2006-2011</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: Insee Census, Saphir database, 1968-2011. France, excluding Corsica and overseas territories. Additional controls include three urban area size categories. "e.a." stands for employment areas. The sample consists in active heads of households between 18 and 64. Standard errors are clustered at the employment area / year level. For education, the control group consists in individuals with a diploma higher than a high school degree. The alternative homeownership rate used in Column (5) is computed using total active rather than adult population as a basis.

A second robustness test deals with local labor demand and firm implantation. Areas with higher economic activity may have both more owners and less unemployed people.
The use of employment area fixed effects addresses this issue to a large extent. We further investigate it using the business tax rate as an additional control variable. A higher tax rate might deter firms from locating in the employment area, therefore reducing labor demand and raising unemployment. Column (4) display results including business tax rates, which are available at the city level in 2006 and 2011. The significantly positive coefficient confirms that areas with lower tax levels are more likely to attract businesses and jobs. Including this indicator of local economic activity does not change the effects of the residential status and of the homeownership rate.

Previous estimations should be interpreted as correlations between homeownership and unemployment. Indeed, the relation between these two variables is affected by a simultaneity bias. As mentioned by Flatau et al. (2003) or Coulson and Fisher (2009), it is presumably easier for an employed worker than for an unemployed one to become a homeowner.<fnref n="11" /> As this endogeneity issue may induce an overestimation of the composition effect, we instrument the homeownership status.

The municipal property tax rate appears as a suitable instrument for two reasons. First, it enters the budget constraint of home-buyers and should thus be correlated with the residential status. Second, tax revenue are not devoted to social expenditures, so that we do not expect the property tax to be correlated with the employment status (more details are provided in Appendix). Furthermore, this choice is in line with Coulson and Fisher (2009), who rely on the "state marginal tax rate as applied to the mortgage interest deduction" as an instrument for homeownership.

As a caveat, this instrument is at the municipal level while the residential status is at the individual level. Therefore, part of the effect we highlight might still result from unobserved heterogeneity we cannot control for, inducing an endogeneity bias between the residential status and labor market outcomes.<fnref n="12" /> Column (6) of Table 5 show the results of the instrumented estimation. The sign and significance of the coefficients remain unchanged, but they are bigger than in the OLS estimation.

In order to have a better intuition of mechanisms underlying the estimates on unemploy-

<footnote n="11">¹¹First, an unemployed worker considering to buy a dwelling might face stronger credit constraints, both due to his financial and professional situation. Second, most of them might just delay house purchase plans until they find a new job, potentially far from their current location.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹²For instance, people who are strongly risk averse might prefer both residential and professional stability, and consequently be more often employed and homeowners.</footnote>
ment, we focus on labor market equilibrium and look at the links between homeownership and wages. To that purpose, we rely on the French editions of the EU-SILC, a survey on income and living conditions. This dataset offers the advantage of collecting administrative gross wages, but its short time scale and its small size make it impossible to include employment area fixed effects. Table 6 shows the estimates. We restrict our sample to employed wage-earners. Column (1) of Table 6 replicates Column (2) of Table 4 introducing the logarithm of the gross wage as the outcome. Homeowners have higher wages than renters, but a locally higher homeownership rate is associated to a lower individual wage.<fnref n="13" /> In the next section, we show that this correlation can be interpreted as a consequence of the negative externality exerted by owners on the labor market. The second column of Table 6 shows that instrumenting for the homeownership status does not qualitatively affect the results, but changes their intensity.

<table><caption>Table 6 – Wage regressions</caption><thead><tr><th>Gross wage</th><th>(1)<br>OLS</th><th>(2)<br>IV</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Homeownership status</td><td>0.218***<br>(0.012)</td><td>0.731***<br>(0.147)</td></tr><tr><td>Homeownership rate</td><td>-0.221***<br>(0.069)</td><td>-0.596***<br>(0.127)</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td>13,818</td><td>13,818</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: SILC (2004-2013 pooled). Note: Estimations on households interviewed for the first time, where the head of the household is currently employed in salaried activities, between 18 and 64 years old. Controls: age, squared age, sex, degree, matrimonial status, size of the urban area, the number of children and year dummies. Standard errors are in parenthesis. *** stands for significance at 1%, ** at 5% and * at 10%.

Table 7 displays the main specifications for owners and renters separately. OLS estimations show that the correlation between the homeownership rate and the unemployment risk is only observable for renters and does not seem to concern owners. The labor market externality raised by homeowners may specifically affect the rental market. Moreover, the presence of a clear effect of the homeownership rate among renters suggests that coefficients from previous estimates are not likely to be the outcome of any spurious interactions between the residential status and its mean at the employment area level. The negative effect of the homeownership rate on wages seems to mostly go through homeowners, who would easily

<footnote n="13">¹³In Table 4, employment area fixed effects are necessary to highlight the positive correlation between the homeownership rate and individual unemployment. When the wage is the outcome, the negative correlation between the homeownership rate and unemployment is strongly significant, even without adding local fixed effects.</footnote>
accept wage moderation in order to keep their job and pay their mortgage. The specifications have to be taken with caution because of the strong endogeneity of the residential status aforementioned. As a complement, the last two columns of Table 7 show a two-stage estimation with the Heckman correction, in the same way as Coulson and Fisher (2009). Results are very similar to the OLS estimation but less definite. In particular, the incidence of the homeownership rate would go through both groups.

<table><caption>Table 7 – Separated effects of the homeownership rate on unemployment risk and gross wages for owners and renters</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">OLS</th><th colspan="2">Heckman</th></tr><tr><th>Renters</th><th>Owners</th><th>Renters</th><th>Owners</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Unemployment</td><td>0.156<sup>***</sup><br>(0.052)</td><td>0.009<br>(0.009)</td><td>0.117<sup>**</sup><br>(0.056)</td><td>0.037<sup>*</sup><br>(0.022)</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td>2.77 M</td><td>2.43 M</td><td>15,569</td><td>15,569</td></tr><tr><td>Wage</td><td>-0.109<br>(0.110)</td><td>-0.345<sup>***</sup><br>(0.088)</td><td>-0.343<sup>***</sup><br>(0.121)</td><td>-1.148<sup>***</sup><br>(0.096)</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td>5,807</td><td>8,011</td><td>13,249</td><td>13,249</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: SILC (2004-2013 pooled). Note: Estimations on households interviewed for the first time, where the head of the household is currently employed in salaried activities, between 18 and 64 years old. Controls: age, squared age, sex, degree, matrimonial status, size of the urban area, the number of children and year dummies. Standard errors are in parenthesis. *** stands for significance at 1%, ** at 5% and * at 10%.

Finally, elasticities from individual estimates are consistent with those from the aggregate ones. Controlling for employment area fixed effects, at the aggregate level, the elasticity of the unemployment rate with respect to the homeownership rate is 0.40 (Table 2 Column 3). A 10 points increase in the homeownership rate is so related to a 0.66 points rise in the unemployment rate.<fnref n="14" /> Similar estimation on individual data provides a close coefficient (for instance, from Table 4 Column 3, $10 \times (0.128 - 0.067) = 0.61$).

Thus, once we control for spatial heterogeneities and for the residential status composition effect, a 10 points increase in the local homeownership rate implies a 1.1 to 2 points rise in the local unemployment rate (Tables 4 and 5). This effect, which is slightly lower but close to the result of Oswald (1996), is interpreted here as the consequence of a negative externality related to owners' housing behavior.

<footnote n="14">¹⁴In order to switch from the elasticity to the partial derivative, we divide roughly by 6.</footnote>
# 3 Interpretation

This section develops a conceptual framework to illustrate how the coexistence of a negative externality and a composition effect both related to the presence of owners might provide a rationale for our empirical results.

## 3.1 Discussion

In this section, we develop a matching model featuring renters and homeowners to illustrate how a composition effect and a negative externality stemming from extended homeownership may lead to these estimates. Employment areas disparities are ruled out from this framework. In particular, the negative impact of the homeownership rate on unemployment is not incompatible with a better achievement of owners on the labor market. It formally depicts how a composition effect and a negative externality could coexist, all else being equal at the employment area level or, using previous notations, how coefficients $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ can be articulated with simple and rational economic mechanisms.

Our main hypothesis is that the local share of homeowners gives rise to housing frictions, which might have a detrimental effect on the labor market. Oswald (1997) developed this argument as one of the early explanations for the positive correlation between the homeownership and unemployment rates.15 In areas where the homeownership rate is high, it might be harder for unemployed workers (homeowners or renters) to find a dwelling nearby job offers, due to the lower residential mobility of homeowners. Indeed, as stated by Davies and Huff (1972), efficient job search happen in a small area close to the place of residence. As a consequence, job seekers might have a hard time accessing information about job offers and, even if they do, it might not be interesting for them to accept this offer due to the long commuting times it would imply. The main point of this argument is that homeowners are not themselves more prone to be unemployed, but instead generate a housing friction responsible for a lower job-finding rate affecting all workers, independently from their residential status.

This housing friction takes the form of a job finding rate being affected by a multiplicative factor depending on the homeownership rate. This general specification is not micro-funded but is convenient to illustrate the way a negative externality might affect labor market

<footnote n="15">15 For instance, Oswald (1998) in a seminal work evoked that: "[P]art of the difficulty is not that unemployed people are themselves the homeowners; it is that unemployed men and women cannot move into the right places. High homeownership levels block young people's ability to enter an area to find job."</footnote>
clearing. Such an assumption also avoids relating this externality to direct specificities or preferences of individual renters and owners. This formalization is very close to Wasmer and Zenou (2006) who assume that job search efficiency is a decreasing function of the distance to job opportunities, due to a harder access to information about job openings.<fnref n="16" />

The second hypothesis states that owners have a lower exit rate from employment than renters. Table 8 present monthly job-finding and separation rates, computed using the monthly employment status in the SILC survey.<fnref n="17" /> While renters and owners have very similar job-finding rates, separation rates of the former are significantly higher each year. This finding is consistent with a large empirical literature which estimated that homeownership reduces the transition rate from employment to unemployment (van Leuvensteijn and de Graaff (2007), van Leuvensteijn and Koning (2004), Munch et al. (2008)). Therefore, we assume that the exogenous separation rate $s_i$ is higher for renters: $s_h < s_r$. This way, we do not have to assume that owners and renters derive different utilities from leisure. Furthermore, this is consistent with the idea that owners have stronger preferences for keeping their job than renters or have a loan to reimburse and can not afford to be unemployed.

<table><caption>Table 8 – Monthly job-finding rate and separation rate by residential status (in %)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Year</th><th colspan="3">Job-finding rate</th><th colspan="3">Separation rate</th></tr><tr><th>Renters (%)</th><th>Owners (%)</th><th>Diff.</th><th>Renters (%)</th><th>Owners (%)</th><th>Diff.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2006</td><td>5.83</td><td>4.94</td><td>8.9<sup>-3</sup></td><td>0.59</td><td>0.16</td><td>4.3<sup>-3**</sup></td></tr><tr><td>2008</td><td>6.03</td><td>6.27</td><td>-2.3<sup>-3</sup></td><td>0.52</td><td>0.12</td><td>3.9<sup>-3**</sup></td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>8.24</td><td>7.39</td><td>8.4<sup>-3</sup></td><td>0.84</td><td>0.19</td><td>6.4<sup>-3**</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: SILC surveys 2004-2011. Monthly job-finding (separation) rates are computed as a flux of workers entering (exiting) the labor force each month over the stock of unemployed (employed) worker this month. ** refers to a difference statistically significant at 5%.

Finally, we assume that wages are negotiated through Nash bargaining between workers and firms. As described by Coulson and Fisher (2009), wage bargaining or wage posting provides very different dynamics for employment and wages for renters and homeowners. For instance, wage posting consists in Coulson and Fisher (2009) in firms creating vacancies with a wage equal to either the renters' or the homeowners' reservation wage, and in unemployed

<footnote n="16">¹⁶Alternatively, we could have supposed that a higher share of homeowners increases congestion, traffic jams and thus imposes on employed workers a transportation cost proportional to the homeownership rate. The effect on unemployment would be similar to our findings, but not the effect on individual wages. Indeed, workers would take into account this cost during the wage bargaining process and ask for higher wages when the homeownership rate is higher, which is in contradiction with our empirical estimates.</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷While SRCV is an annual survey, unemployment status is reported for each of the previous twelve months.</footnote>
workers arriving to a vacant job either accepting its posted wage or rejecting this wage
and continuing search. In the more traditional wage bargaining approach, when firm and
workers match, the wage is settled by Nash bargaining. Here, we are not interested primarily
to discuss wage dynamics through our model in the absence of strong evidence about wages,
thus we follow the standard Nash bargaining setup for the sake of simplicity.

## 3.2 Theoretical framework

The economy is made of two types of agents, homeowners and renters, indexed by $i \in \{h, r\}$. The share of homeowners is given by $\lambda$ and the share of renters by $1 - \lambda$. We assume that unemployed workers always have to move house in order to start a new job and that moving house is costless. $p(\lambda)$ denotes the probability for an unemployed worker to move house nearby job offers. It is independent from the residential status and decreases with the homeownership rate $\lambda$, such that $p(0) = 1$ and $p(1) = 0$. By the law of large numbers, $p(\lambda)$ is also the share of the population able to move house. Without housing market frictions, this share would be equal to 1.

Firms post $v$ vacancies and $p(\lambda)u$ unemployed workers are able to compete for them. The number of matches between unemployed workers and vacancies is given by a matching function $m(p(\lambda)u, v)$ with constant returns to scale. Labor market tightness is defined as the ratio of vacancies over the efficient units of search: $\theta = v/[p(\lambda)u]$. The job-finding rate conditional on the ability of the worker to move house is defined as the number of matches per efficient units of search: $f(\theta) = m[p(\lambda)u, v]/(p(\lambda)u) = m(1, \theta)$ and the vacancy filling rate as the number of matches per vacancy: $q(\theta) = m[p(\lambda)u, v]/v = m(1/\theta, 1)$.

Both kind of workers are risk-neutral, have the same productivity $z$ and earn the same unemployment benefits $b$ when unemployed. When employed, workers earn a wage $w_i$ and lose their job with probability $s_i$. In this case, they receive unemployment benefits $b$ and find a new job with probability $p(\lambda)f(\theta)$. For a type $i$ worker, the present values of employment $V_{e,i}$ and of unemployment $V_{u,i}$ are respectively given by: $rV_{e,i} = w_i - s_i(V_{e,i} - V_{u,i})$ and $rV_{u,i} = b + p(\lambda)f(\theta)(V_{e,i} - V_{u,i})$.

Firms produce with constant returns to scale. In order to produce, they have to post a vacancy and to hire a worker. The present value of a filled job held by a type $i$ worker is given by: $rJ_{e,i} = z - w_i - s_i J_{e,i}$. This value is decreasing in $s_i$ since a worker who stays longer in a firm is a more profitable investment. Consequently, homeowners are more valuable than
renters for firms. In a free entry economy, the cost of a vacancy is equal to its expected return: $c = q(\theta) \left( \frac{\lambda u_h}{u} J_{e,h} + \frac{(1-\lambda)u_r}{u} J_{e,r} \right)$. Solving for these equations, we find the labor demand:

$$ \frac{c}{q(\theta)} = \lambda \frac{u_h}{u} \frac{z - w_h}{r + s_h} + (1 - \lambda) \frac{u_r}{u} \frac{z - w_r}{r + s_r} \quad (4) $$

Renters and owners have the same bargaining power $\chi$ and negotiate their wage with firms in order to maximize the surplus: $J_{e,i}^{1-\chi} (V_{e,i} - V_{u,i})^{\chi}$. The resulting wage of a worker $i$ is the weighted sum of productivity and reservation value, weighted by the bargaining powers of the worker and the firm respectively:<fnref n="18" />

$$ w_i = \chi z + (1 - \chi) r V_{u,i} = \frac{(r + s_i) [(1 - \chi)b + \chi z] + \chi p(\lambda) f(\theta) z}{r + s_i + \chi p(\lambda) f(\theta)} \quad (5) $$

Renters and homeowners have different separation rates such that: $s_h < s_r$. Their respective unemployment rates are $u_h$ and $u_r$ and the aggregate unemployment rate is $u = \lambda u_h + (1 - \lambda) u_r$.

The unemployment rate $u_i$ is set according to the following Beveridge curve:

$$ u_i = \frac{s_i}{s_i + p(\lambda) f(\theta)} \quad (6) $$

As the job separation rate is lower for homeowners, they have longer employment spells and a lower probability of unemployment.

The equilibrium is a set of five endogenous variables: $u_h, u_r, w_h, w_r, \theta$, solutions of the five following equations: the Beveridge curves for homeowners and renters (Equations (6)), the wage curves for both agents (Equations (5)) and the firms' labor demand (Equation (4)).

Derivation of the aggregate unemployment rate $u = \lambda u_h + (1 - \lambda) u_r$ with respect to the homeownership rate sheds light on the incidence of the composition effect and of the negative externality:

$$ \frac{\partial u}{\partial \lambda} = \underbrace{(u_h - u_r)}_{<0 \text{ (composition effect)}} + \lambda \underbrace{\frac{\partial u_h}{\partial \lambda} + (1 - \lambda) \frac{\partial u_r}{\partial \lambda}}_{>0 \text{ (negative externality)}} \quad (7) $$

Through the composition effect: an increase in the homeownership rate mechanically reduces the aggregate unemployment rate, since the unemployment rate is lower for owners. Through the negative externality: due to housing frictions, an increase in the homeownership rate

<footnote n="18">¹⁸The average wage of the economy is given by: $w = [\lambda(1 - u_h)w_h + (1 - \lambda)(1 - u_r)w_r] / (1 - u)$.</footnote>
reduces the probability for an unemployed worker to find a new job and therefore raises
the length of the unemployment spell for both types of agents. Following an increase in
the homeownership rate, the aggregate unemployment rate may either decrease or increase
depending on which one of these two effects is dominant.

Finally, note that in this setup, the homeownership rate $\lambda$ is exogenously adjusted, labor productivity $z$ and the vacancy cost $c$ are constant. Indeed, there are no spatial heterogeneities in this model. Therefore, this framework is suitable to illustrate previous estimations, highlighting the effect of the homeownership rate with employment area fixed effects. The composition effect we mention is specifically related to the local structure in terms of residential status and not generally to heterogeneities between employment areas.

## 3.3 Simulations

Figure 2 displays the evolution of unemployment and wages, both at the aggregate level (on the left) and for each type of agent (on the right) as a function of the homeownership rate.<fnref n="19" /> For both types of agents, unemployment increases with the homeownership rate. Indeed, housing frictions generated by the lower residential mobility of owners reduce the probability for an unemployed worker to locate nearby job offers and therefore increases his unemployment spell. This negative externality illustrated by Equation 7 can be expressed as the sum of the slopes of the two curves in this upper right panel, weighted by the proportion of renters and owners. This interpretation is in line with the coefficient $\beta > 0$ in the empirical section. In line with Duguet et al. (2010), the negative impact of the homeownership rate on the labor market goes through lower unemployment-to-work transitions when housing frictions are stronger. As a consequence, it is harder for firms to hire workers, so that they post less vacancies. Labor demand tightens, and the drop in the job-finding rate dampens the outside option of both workers, leading them to prefer wage reductions rather than being unemployed.

Within the employment area, the sign of the correlation between the unemployment and homeownership rates depends on the relative intensity of the composition effect and the aggregate externality (upper left panel of Figure 2). Indeed, based on the assumption we made regarding separation rates, for any given level of the homeownership rate, renters are more unemployed than owners. A rise in the local homeownership rate increases the proportion of

<footnote n="19">¹⁹This matching model is calibrated on French data (cf. Appendix for more details).</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2 – Unemployment and wage, aggregate and by residential status</figcaption></figure>

Note: In order to illustrate the incidence of the negative externality, we take $\mu = 1$. For an homeownership rate of 60%, this means that the probability to move house near by job offers is 40%. The x-axis is the homeownership rate $\lambda$. With a lower $\mu$, the negative externality is weaker. The homeownership rate has still a negative impact on employment and wages, but aggregate unemployment is a decreasing function of the homeownership rate.

owners, which reduces the aggregate unemployment rate according to a composition effect. The size of the negative externality depends on the intensity of housing frictions $p(\lambda)$.

Figure 3 shows how the unemployment curve evolves for different intensities of housing frictions: with higher frictions, the point where the negative externality dominates gets lower. Thus, our model indicate that there is no absolute rule for the link between aggregate homeownership and unemployment rates.

A positive correlation between homeownership and unemployment rates depends on three factors: the respective unemployment situation of renters and owners, the potential housing market friction intensity and the level of the homeownership rate as for any calibration, the negative externality increases relatively to the composition effect when the homeownership rate increases. From an empirical point of view, having both a positive coefficient for the homeownership rate at the individual level $\beta$ and at the aggregate one $\gamma$ reinforces the plausibility of the existence of negative externality.
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3 – Unemployment rate as a function of housing frictions and homeownership rate</figcaption></figure>

In the end, this simple matching model makes it possible to reconcile our macro and micro findings. Renters are more subject to unemployment than owners. A higher homeownership rate may increase the unemployment rate for both renters and owners, due to a negative externality, but the resulting impact on the aggregate unemployment rate depends on the relative intensity of the externality and the composition effect. Implications for wages are in line with empirical estimations. Owners negotiate higher wages than renters because they have a greater value for the firm. Agents accept wage moderation when housing frictions are stronger, with a undetermined incidence on the average wage depending on the size of composition effects.

Conclusion

In this paper, we address potential spillovers from the housing to the labor market. Home-
ownership and unemployment are related positively at the aggregate level, but negatively
at the individual one. Yet, filtering out composition effects and employment areas hetero-
geneities, we show that a negative externality could exist and be even stronger than only a
macroeconomic approach would suggest. Further research could investigate microeconomic
rationales for such a potential negative externality.

References

Acemoglu, D. and Angrist, J. (2001). How Large are Human-Capital Externalities? Evidence from Compulsory-Schooling Laws. In *NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2000, Volume 15*, NBER Chapters,
pages 9–74. National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

Andrews, D. and Sanchez, A. (2011). The evolution of home-ownership rates in selected oecd countries: Demographic and public policy influences. *OECD Journal: Economic Studies*, 1:207–243.

Arulampalam, W., Booth, A. L., and Taylor, M. P. (2000). Unemployment Persistence. *Oxford Economic Papers*, 52(1):24–50.

Belot, M. and Van Ours, J. C. (2001). Unemployment and labor market institutions: an empirical analysis. *Journal of the Japanese and International Economies*, 15(4):403–418.

Beugnot, J., Lacroix, G., and Charlot, O. (2014). Homeownership and Labour Market Outcomes: Micro versus Macro Performances. IZA Discussion Papers 8599, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).

Blanchflower, D. G. and Oswald, A. J. (2013). Does High Home-Ownership Impair the Labor Market? NBER Working Papers 19079, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

Bonnet, O., Bono, P.-H., Chapelle, G., and Wasmer, E. (2011). Le capital logement contribue-t-il aux inégalités? *LIEPP Working Papers n°25*.

Coulson, N. E. and Fisher, L. M. (2002). Tenure Choice and Labour Market Outcomes. *Housing Studies*, 17(1):35–49.

Coulson, N. E. and Fisher, L. M. (2009). Housing tenure and labor market impacts: The search goes on. *Journal of Urban Economics*, 65(3):252–264.

Davies, S. and Huff, D. L. (1972). Impact of ghettoization on black employment. *Economic Geography*, 48(4):421–427.

Dohmen, T. J. (2005). Housing, mobility and unemployment. *Regional Science and Urban Economics*, 35(3):305–325.

Duguet, E., L'Horty, Y., and Sari, F. (2010). Housing ownership, social housing and unemployment: an econometric analysis of the Paris area. Working Papers halshs-00809693, HAL.

Flatau, P., Forbes, M., and Hendershott, P. H. (2003). Homeownership and Unemployment: The Roles of Leverage and Public Housing. NBER Working Papers 10021, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

Fougère, D., Pouget, J., and Kramarz, F. (2009). Youth unemployment and crime in france. *Journal of the European Economic Association*, 7(5):909–938.

Garcia, J. A. B. and Hernandez, J. E. R. (2004). User Cost Changes, Unemployment and Homeownership: Evidence from Spain. *Urban Studies*, 41(3):563–578.

Green, R. K. and Hendershott, P. H. (2001). Home-ownership and Unemployment in the US. *Urban Studies*, 38(9):1509–1520.

Havet, N. and Penot, A. (2010). Does Homeownership Harm Labour Market Performances? A Survey. Working Papers 1012, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique (GATE), Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), Université Lyon 2, Ecole Normale Supérieure.

Laamanen, J.-P. (2013). Home-ownership and the Labour Market: Evidence from Rental Housing Market Deregulation. MPRA Paper 55256, University Library of Munich, Germany.
L'Horty, Y. and Sari, F. (2015). Why are there so many long-term unemployed in Paris? TEPP Working Paper 2015-01, TEPP.

Maguain, D. and Clément, E. (2012). Les dépenses sociales des collectivités locales. Études et résultats 822, DREES.

Manning, A. and Petrongolo, B. (2011). How local are labor markets? Evidence from a spatial job search model. *Center for Economic Performance Discussion Paper*, (1101).

Munch, J. R., Rosholm, M., and Svarer, M. (2006). Are Homeowners Really More Unemployed? *Economic Journal*, 116(514):991–1013.

Munch, J. R., Rosholm, M., and Svarer, M. (2008). Home ownership, job duration, and wages. *Journal of Urban Economics*, 63(1):130–145.

Nickell, S. (1998). Unemployment: Questions and Some Answers. *Economic Journal*, 108(448):802–16.

Nickell, S., Nunziata, L., and Ochel, W. (2005). Unemployment in the OECD Since the 1960s. What Do We Know? *Economic Journal*, 115(500):1–27.

Oswald, A. J. (1996). A Conjecture on the Explanation for High Unemployment in the Industrialized Nations: Part I. The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 475, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.

Oswald, A. J. (1997). The Housing Market and Europe's Unemployment: A non-technical Paper. Working paper.

Oswald, A. J. (1998). The missing piece of the unemployment puzzle. Cepr workshop on unemployment dynamics.

Pehkonen, J. (1999). Unemployment and home-ownership. *Applied Economics Letters*, 6(5):263-265.

Poterba, J. and Sinaï, T. (2008). Tax expenditures for owner-occupied housing: Deductions for property taxes and mortgage interest and the exclusion of imputed rental income. *American Economic Review*, 98(2):84–89.

Sari, F. (2015). Home-ownership and unemployment: a French test of the Oswald hypothesis. *Revue d'Économie Régionale & Urbaine*, 1:211–250.

Schaff, C. and Ben Jelloul, M. (2010). Favoriser la mobilité résidentielle en modifiant la fiscalité du logement. Note d'analyse 196, Centre d'analyse stratégique.

Sodini, P., Nieuwerburgh, S. V., Vestman, R., and von Lilienfeld-Toal, U. (2016). Identifying the Benefits from Home Ownership: A Swedish Experiment. NBER Working Papers 22882, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

van Leuvensteijn, M. and de Graaff, T. (2007). The impact of housing market institutions on labour mobility; a European cross-country comparison. CPB Discussion Paper 82, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.

van Leuvensteijn, M. and Koning, P. (2004). The effect of home-ownership on labor mobility in the Netherlands. *Journal of Urban Economics*, 55(3):580–596.

Wasmer, E. and Zenou, Y. (2006). Equilibrium search unemployment with explicit spatial frictions. *Labour Economics*, 13(2):143–165.
# Appendix

## Tax instruments

In France, the property tax is payed by homeowners. Its tax basis depends on cadastral rental values, the potential annual revenues from renting a dwelling, estimated by the national fiscal administration from the housing characteristics and to references dating back to 1970. Municipalities set their tax rates once the cadastral values are communicated by national authorities.

Property taxes have the drawback of not being at the individual level, but could be thought as suitable instruments for three reasons. First, they influence residential status choices in the corresponding city. The property tax is regularly considered as a determinant of the user cost of housing capital, which describes homeowners' marginal cost of purchasing additional housing services (Poterba and Sinaï, 2008). Second, we expect property tax rates to have no effect on the individual employment status. Property tax revenues are used to finance local expenditures, which are mostly dedicated to amenities. In 2010, more than 80 % of the local social expenditures are provided by the department (Maguain and Clément, 2012), while those provided at the city level are mainly devoted to the fight against social exclusion and, to a lesser extent, to financing nurseries. Property tax revenues may not be related to temporary unemployment. Third, besides the classical features of instrumental variables, property tax rates have two interesting characteristics: they are available at a very detailed level compared to the homeownership rate (there are approximately 36,500 cities and 300 employment areas in France), limiting spurious spatial correlations. Moreover, local tax rates are characterized by a strong spatial and temporal variability.<fnref n="20" />

## Model derivation

*Beveridge curve.* We consider population *i* (either renters or owners). Each unemployed worker of $u_i$ has a probability $p(\lambda)f(\theta)$ to find a new job, which is equal to his probability $p(\lambda)$ to move house times his probability $f(\theta)$ to find a job conditional on moving house. Each employed worker of $1 - u_i$ loses his job with probability $s_i$. Therefore, the law-of-motion of unemployment is given by:

$$u_i = u_i (1 - p(\lambda)f(\theta)) + (1 - u_i)s_i$$

Solving this equation for $u_i$, we find the Beveridge curve (6).

$$u_i = \frac{s_i}{s_i + p(\lambda)f(\theta)} \quad (8)$$

As the job separation rate is lower for homeowners, they have longer employment spells and a lower probability of unemployment.

*Labor demand.* A firm without workers has to pay a cost *c* is order to post a vacancy. Then, she will meet a worker with probability *q*(*θ*): with probability $\lambda u_h / u$ the worker is a homeowner and the firm gets a value $J_{e,h}$, while with probability $(1 - \lambda) u_r / u$ the worker is a renter and the firm gets a value $J_{e,r}$. With probability $1 - q(\theta)$, she meets no workers. Thus, the value of this firm $J_u$ might be expressed as:

$$J_u = -c + q(\theta) \left[ \lambda \frac{u_h}{u} J_{e,h} + (1 - \lambda) \frac{u_r}{u} J_{e,r} \right] + (1 - q(\theta)) J_u$$

In a free entry economy, firms enter production until $J_u = 0$.

$$\frac{c}{q(\theta)} = \lambda \frac{u_h}{u} J_{e,h} + (1 - \lambda) \frac{u_r}{u} J_{e,r}$$

<footnote n="20">²⁰We expect more precisely the spatial-rather than time-variability to identify our effects. Indeed, strong housing frictions imply that evolutions in these tax rates might not impact individual location decisions, due to transfer duty. The owner could become a renter and rent his own house, but then he would pay the income tax on the rent he earns.</footnote>
Replacing for $J_{e,h}$ and $J_{e,r}$ using the value of a filled job held by a type $i$ worker, we find the Equation (4) for labor demand:

$$ \frac{c}{q(\theta)} = \lambda \frac{u_h}{u} \frac{z - w_h}{r + s_h} + (1 - \lambda) \frac{u_r}{u} \frac{z - w_r}{r + s_r} \quad (9) $$

*Wage.* From a match with a type $i$ worker, the firm gets $J_{e,i} - J_u = J_{e,i}$ and the worker $V_{e,i} - V_{u,i}$. Standard Nash Bargaining implies that the wage is jointly determined by the worker and the firm in order to maximize $J_{e,i}^{\chi}(V_{e,i} - V_{u,i})^{1-\chi}$. The first-order condition is:

$$ (1 - \chi) \frac{\partial J_{e,i}}{\partial w} \frac{1}{J_{e,i}} + \chi \frac{\partial (V_{e,i} - V_{u,i})}{\partial w} \frac{1}{V_{e,i} - V_{u,i}} = 0 \quad (10) $$

The value of the firm might be expressed as: $J_{e,i} = (z - w_i)/(r + s_i)$. From the value of employment, we have:

$$ \begin{aligned} V_{e,i} &= \frac{w_i + s_i V_{u,i}}{r + s_i} \\ V_{e,i} - V_{u,i} &= \frac{w_i - r V_{u,i}}{r + s_i} \end{aligned} $$

Therefore, $\partial J_{e,i}/\partial w = -1/(r + s_i)$ and $\partial (V_{e,i} - V_{u,i})/\partial w = 1/(r + s_i)$. Replacing for $J_{e,i}, V_{e,i} - V_{u,i}$, for their partial derivatives in Equation (10) and rearranging, we find:

$$ w_i = \chi z + (1 - \chi) r V_u \quad (11) $$

Replacing for $V_{e,i} - V_{u,i}$ is the present-value of an unemployed worker, we have: $rV_{u,i} = b + p(\lambda)f(\theta) \frac{w_i - rV_{u,i}}{r + s_i}$ and we write:

$$ rV_{u,i} = \frac{(r + s_i)b + p(\lambda)f(\theta)w_i}{r + s_i + p(\lambda)f(\theta)} $$

Replacing in equation (11) and rearranging, we find the whole expression of Equation (5):

$$ w_i = \frac{(r + s_i) [(1 - \chi)b + \chi z] + \chi p(\lambda) f(\theta) z}{r + s_i + \chi p(\lambda) f(\theta)} \quad (12) $$

□

## Calibration

This model is calibrated monthly to match the French economy. The matching function is Cobb-Douglas $m = m_0 (p(\lambda)u)^\kappa v^{1-\kappa}$, where the elasticity of matches to unemployment $\kappa$ is set to 0.5. Probability to move house is $p(\lambda) = 1 - \lambda^{\frac{1}{\mu}}$, where $\mu$ takes into account the magnitude of the negative externality on the housing market$^{21}$. The Hosios condition $\chi = \kappa$ insures an efficient surplus sharing between the firm and the worker. Monthly separation rates $s_h$ and $s_r$ are respectively equal to 0.25% and 1%, following Table 8. $b$ is equal to 0.53 so that $b/w$ is equal to 55%, which is the French replacement rate according to statutory requirements. $m_0$ is set to 0.061 in order to match the unemployment rates of homeowners and renters, which are respectively 3.2% and 11.7% in our SILC sample between 2004 and 2013. The monthly interest rate $r$ is set to 0.0033, the vacancy posting cost $c$ to 0.85 and productivity $z$ is normalized to 1. Calibration is made with $\mu = 0.2$ and, consistently with our data, with a homeownership rate of 53%. This implies low housing market frictions, as the probability to find a house nearby job-offers is 96%.

<footnote>$^{21}$When $\mu \to 0$ there is no housing friction on the labor market and when $\mu \to \infty$, housing frictions are so high that it is impossible for unemployed workers to find a new job.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4 – NAIRU for European countries for 1970-2014, low homeownership rates (left) and high ones (right)</figcaption></figure>

Source: OCDE. Note: Indicated homeownership rates are taken from Andrews and Sanchez (2011) for the 1990s.

<table><caption>Table 9 – IV estimations on EU-SILC</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Unemployment</th><th>Wage</th></tr><tr><th></th><th colspan="2">First stage</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Property tax</td><td>-0.565<sup>***</sup><br>(0.048)</td><td>-0.489<sup>***</sup><br>(0.051)</td></tr><tr><th colspan="3">Second stage</th></tr><tr><td>Homeowner status</td><td>-0.243<sup>***</sup><br>(0.049)</td><td>0.731<sup>***</sup><br>(0.147)</td></tr><tr><td>Homeownership rate</td><td>0.110<sup>**</sup><br>(0.045)</td><td>-0.596<sup>***</sup><br>(0.127)</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td>15,569</td><td>13,818</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: EU-SILC (2004-2013 pooled). Note: Estimations on households interviewed for the first time, where the head of the household is currently employed in salaried activities, between 18 and 64 years old. Controls: age, squared age, sex, degree, matrimonial status, size of the urban area, the number of children and year dummies. Standard errors are in parenthesis. *** stands for significance at 1%, ** at 5% and * at 10%.
<table><tr><td>G 9001</td><td>J. FAYOLLE et M. FLEURBAEY<br>Accumulation, profitabilité et endettement des entreprises</td></tr><tr><td>G 9002</td><td>H. ROUSSE<br>Détection et effets de la multicolinéarité dans les modèles linéaires ordinaires - Un prolongement de la réflexion de BELSLEY, KUH et WELSCH</td></tr><tr><td>G 9003</td><td>P. RALLE et J. TOUJAS-BERNATE<br>Indexation des salaires : la rupture de 1983</td></tr><tr><td>G 9004</td><td>D. GUELLEC et P. RALLE<br>Compétitivité, croissance et innovation de produit</td></tr><tr><td>G 9005</td><td>P. RALLE et J. TOUJAS-BERNATE<br>Les conséquences de la désindexation. Analyse dans une maquette prix-salaires</td></tr><tr><td>G 9101</td><td>Équipe AMADEUS<br>Le modèle AMADEUS - Première partie - Présentation générale</td></tr><tr><td>G 9102</td><td>J.L. BRILLET<br>Le modèle AMADEUS - Deuxième partie - Propriétés variantielles</td></tr><tr><td>G 9103</td><td>D. GUELLEC et P. RALLE<br>Endogenous growth and product innovation</td></tr><tr><td>G 9104</td><td>H. ROUSSE<br>Le modèle AMADEUS - Troisième partie - Le commerce extérieur et l'environnement international</td></tr><tr><td>G 9105</td><td>H. ROUSSE<br>Effets de demande et d'offre dans les résultats du commerce extérieur manufacturé de la France au cours des deux dernières décennies</td></tr><tr><td>G 9106</td><td>B. CREPON<br>Innovation, taille et concentration : causalités et dynamiques</td></tr><tr><td>G 9107</td><td>B. AMABLE et D. GUELLEC<br>Un panorama des théories de la croissance endogène</td></tr><tr><td>G 9108</td><td>M. GLAUDE et M. MOUTARDIER<br>Une évaluation du coût direct de l'enfant de 1979 à 1989</td></tr><tr><td>G 9109</td><td>P. RALLE et alii<br>France - Allemagne : performances économiques comparées</td></tr><tr><td>G 9110</td><td>J.L. BRILLET<br>Micro-DMS<br>NON PARU</td></tr><tr><td>G 9111</td><td>A. MAGNIER<br>Effets accélérateur et multiplicateur en France depuis 1970 : quelques résultats empiriques</td></tr><tr><td>G 9112</td><td>B. CREPON et G. DUREAU<br>Investissement en recherche-développement : analyse de causalités dans un modèle d'accélérateur généralisé</td></tr><tr><td>G 9113</td><td>J.L. BRILLET, H. ERKEL-ROUSSE, J. TOUJAS-BERNATE<br>"France-Allemagne Couplées" - Deux économies vues par une maquette macro-économétrique</td></tr><tr><td>G 9201</td><td>W.J. ADAMS, B. CREPON, D. ENCAOUA<br>Choix technologiques et stratégies de dissuasion d'entrée</td></tr><tr><td>G 9202</td><td>J. OLIVEIRA-MARTINS, J. TOUJAS-BERNATE</td></tr></table>

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

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)

P. SEVESTRE<br>L'économie sur données individuelles-temporelles. Une note introductive

H. ERKEL-ROUSSE<br>Le commerce extérieur et l'environnement international dans le modèle AMADEUS (ré estimation 1992)

N. GREENAN et D. GUELLEC<br>Coordination within the firm and endogenous growth

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

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

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

J. TOUJAS-BERNATE<br>Commerce international et concurrence impartie : développements récents et implications pour la politique commerciale

Ch. CASES<br>Durées de chômage et comportements d'offre de travail : une revue de la littérature

H. ERKEL-ROUSSE<br>Union économique et monétaire : le débat économique

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

P. JAILLARD<br>Le traité de Maastricht : présentation juridique et historique

J.L. BRILLET<br>Micro-DMS : présentation et propriétés

J.L. BRILLET<br>Micro-DMS - variantes : les tableaux

S. JACOBZONE<br>Les grands réseaux publics français dans une perspective européenne

L. BLOCH - B. CŒURE<br>Profitabilité de l'investissement productif et transmission des chocs financiers

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

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

G 9312<br>L. BLOCH - B. CŒURÉ<br>Q de Tobin marginal et transmission des chocs financiers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

G 9405<br>V. MAILLARD<br>Theorie et pratique de la correction des effets de jours ouvrables

G 9406<br>F. ROSENWALD<br>La décision d'investir

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

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

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

G 9410<br>F. ROSENWALD<br>Suivi conjointurel de l'investissement

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

analyse économique des politiques française et allemande

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

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

G 9414<br>I. KABLA<br>Le Choix de breveter une invention

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

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

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

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

G 9505<br>D. GOUX - E. MAURIN<br>Persistance des hiérarchies sectorielles de salaires: un réexamen sur données françaises

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

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

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

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

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

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

G 9604<br>A. TOPIOL-BENSAÎD<br>Les implantations japonaises en France

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

G 9606<br>C. DOZ - F. LENGLART<br>Factor analysis and unobserved component models: an application to the study of French business surveys

G 9607<br>N. GREENAN - D. GUELLEC<br>La théorie coopérative de la firme
<table><tr><td>G 9608</td><td>N. GREENAN - D. GUELLEC<br>Technological innovation and employment reallocation</td></tr><tr><td>G 9609</td><td>Ph. COUR - F. RUPPRECHT<br>L'intégration asymétrique au sein du continent 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 wages-prices spirals on the measure of the NAIRU: the case of France</td></tr><tr><td>G 9612</td><td>PH. COUR - E. DUBOIS, S. MAHFOUZ, J. PISANI-FERRY<br>The cost of fiscal retrenchment revisited: how strong is the evidence?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9613</td><td>A. JACQUOT<br>Les flexions des taux d'activité sont-elles seulement 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 économique</td></tr><tr><td>G 9702</td><td>J.L. SCHNEIDER<br>Transition and stabilité politique d'un système redistributif</td></tr><tr><td>G 9703</td><td>D. GOUX - E. MAURIN<br>Train or Pay: Does it Reduce Inequalities to Encourage Firms to Train their Workers?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9704</td><td>P. GENIER<br>Deux contributions sur dépendance et équité</td></tr><tr><td>G 9705</td><td>E. DUGUET - N. IUNG<br>R & D Investment, Patent Life and Patent Value<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 analyse à partir de données individuelles</td></tr><tr><td>G 9707</td><td>M. HOUBEBINE<br>Polarisation des activités et spécialisation des départements en France</td></tr><tr><td>G 9708</td><td>E. DUGUET - N. GREENAN<br>Le biais technologique : une analyse sur données 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 capital accumulation</td></tr><tr><td>G 9711</td><td>G. FORGEOT - J. GAUTIÉ<br>Insertion professionnelle des jeunes et processus de déclassement</td></tr><tr><td>G 9712</td><td>E. DUBOIS<br>High Real Interest Rates: the Consequence of a Saving Investment Disequilibrium or of an insufficient Credibility of Monetary Authorities?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9713</td><td>Bilan des activités de la Direction des Études et Synthèses Économiques - 1996</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>G 9714</td><td>F. LEQUILLER<br>Does the French Consumer Price Index Overstate Inflation?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9715</td><td>X. BONNET<br>Peut-on mettre en évidence les rigidités à la 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 d'échelle dans le secteur pharmaceutique français</td></tr><tr><td>G 9717</td><td>E. DUGUET - I. KABLA<br>Appropriation strategy and the motivations to use the patent system in France - An econometric 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 régime général</td></tr><tr><td>G 9719</td><td>ZHANG Yingxiang - SONG Xueqing<br>Lexique macroéconomique français-chinois, chinois-français</td></tr><tr><td>G 9720</td><td>M. HOUBEBINE - J.L. SCHNEIDER<br>Mesurer l'influence de la fiscalité sur la localisation des entreprises</td></tr><tr><td>G 9721</td><td>A. MOUROUGANE<br>Crédibilité, indépendance et politique monétaire<br>Une 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 sectorielles</td></tr><tr><td>G 9723</td><td>P. AUGERAUD - J.E. CHAPRON<br>Using Business Accounts for Compiling National Accounts: the French Experience</td></tr><tr><td>G 9724</td><td>P. AUGERAUD<br>Les comptes d'entreprise par activités - Le passage aux comptes - De la comptabilité d'entreprise à la comptabilité nationale - A 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 pour la France en 1996</td></tr><tr><td>G 9803</td><td>X. BONNET - S. DUCHÈNE<br>Apports et limites de la modélisation « Real Business Cycles »</td></tr><tr><td>G 9804</td><td>C. BARLET - C. DUGUET - D. ENCAOUA - J. PRADEL<br>The Commercial Success of Innovations<br>An econometric analysis at the firm level in French manufacturing</td></tr><tr><td>G 9805</td><td>P. CAHUC - Ch. GIANELLA - D. GOUX - A. ZILBERBERG<br>Equalizing Wage Differences and Bargaining 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 et 1996</td></tr><tr><td>G 9807</td><td>Bilan des activités de la Direction des Études et Synthèses Économiques - 1997</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>G 9808</td><td>A. MOUROUGANE<br>Can a Conservative Governor Conduct an Accomodative Monetary Policy?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9809</td><td>X. BONNET - E. DUBOIS - L. FAUVET<br>Asymétrie des inscriptions relatives et menus costs : 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 level: Estimation of a Dynamic Structural Model on Panel Data</td></tr><tr><td>G 9811</td><td>J.P. BERTHIER<br>Congestion urbaine : un modèle de trafic de pointe à courbe débit-vitesse et demande élastique</td></tr><tr><td>G 9812</td><td>C. PRIGENT<br>La part des salaires dans la valeur ajoutée : une approche macroéconomique</td></tr><tr><td>G 9813</td><td>A.Th. AERTS<br>L'évolution de la part des salaires dans la valeur ajoutée en France reflète-t-elle les évolutions individuelles sur la période 1979-1994 ?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9814</td><td>B. SALANIÉ<br>Guide pratique des séries non-stationnaires</td></tr><tr><td>G 9901</td><td>S. DUCHÈNE - A. JACQUOT<br>Une croissance plus riche en emplois depuis le début de la décennie ? Une analyse en comparaison 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 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 intergenerational transfers - Pensions in a dynamic framework: the case of France</td></tr><tr><td>G 9907</td><td>F. ROSENWALD<br>L'impact des contraintes financières dans la décision 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 retraite du secteur privé et de la fonction 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 marché du travail</td></tr><tr><td>G 9912 Bis</td><td>Ch. GIANELLA<br>Une estimation de l'élasticité de l'emploi peu 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 panels et des variables qualitatives</td></tr><tr><td>G 9915</td><td>R. DUHAUTOIS<br>Évolution du flux d'emplois en France entre 1990 et 1996 : une étude empirique à partir du fichier des bénéfices réels normaux (BRN)</td></tr><tr><td>G 9916</td><td>J.Y. FOURNIER<br>Extraction du cycle des affaires : la méthode de Baxter et King</td></tr><tr><td>G 9917</td><td>B. CRÉPON - R. DESPLATZ - J. MAIRESSE<br>Estimating price cost margins, scale economies and workers' bargaining power at the firm level</td></tr><tr><td>G 9918</td><td>Ch. GIANELLA - Ph. LAGARDE<br>Productivity of hours in the aggregate production function: an evaluation on a panel of French firms from the manufacturing sector</td></tr><tr><td>G 9919</td><td>S. AUDRIC - P. GIVORD - C. PROST<br>Évolution de l'emploi et des coûts par qualification entre 1982 et 1996</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/01</td><td>R. MAHIEU<br>Les déterminants des dépenses de santé : une approche macroéconomique</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/02</td><td>C. ALLARD-PRIGENT - H. GUILMEAU - A. QUINET<br>The real exchange rate as the relative price of nontrables in terms of tradables: theoretical investigation and empirical study on French data</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/03</td><td>J.-Y. FOURNIER<br>L'approximation du filtre passe-bande proposée par Christiano and 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 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 supply side approach</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/08</td><td>C. AUDENIS - C. PROST<br>Déficit conjoncturel : une prise en compte des conjonctures passées</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/09</td><td>R. MAHIEU - B. SÉDILLOT<br>Équivalent patrimonial de la rente et souscription de retraite complémentaire</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/10</td><td>R. DUHAUTOIS<br>Ralentissement de l'investissement : petites ou 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 l'emploi</td></tr><tr><td>G2000/12</td><td>Ch. GIANELLA<br>Local unemployment and wages</td></tr></table>
G2000/13 B. CREPON - Th. HECKEL
- Informatisation en France : une évaluation à partir de données individuelles
- Computerisation in France: an evaluation based on individual company data

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

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

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

G2001/04 A. BEAUDU - Th. HECKEL
Le canal du crédit fonctionne-t-il en Europe ? Une étude de l'hétérogénéité des comportements d'investissement à partir de données de bilan 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
- Rétropolation des séries de FBCF et calcul du capital fixe en SEC-95 dans les comptes nationaux français

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

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

G2002/06 C. AUDENIS - J. 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 Familiale 1999

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

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

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

G2002/14 E. WALRAET - A. VINCENT
- Analyse de la redistribution intragénérationnelle dans le système de retraite des salariés du privé
- Une approche par microsimulation

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

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

G2002/16 F. MAUREL - S. GREGOIR
Les indices de compétitivité des pays : inter-prétation et limites

G2003/01 N. RIEDINGER - E.HAUVY
Le coût de dépollution atmosphérique pour les entreprises françaises : Une estimation à partir de données individuelles

G2003/02 P. BISCOURP et F. KRAMARZ
Création d'emplois, destruction d'emplois et internationalisation des entreprises industrielles françaises : une analyse sur la période 1986-1992

G2003/03 Bilan des activités de la DESE - 2002

G2003/04 P.-O. BEFFY - J. 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
Age, salaire et productivité
La productivité des salariés décline-t-elle en fin de carrière ?

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

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

G2003/09 P. BISCOURP - N. FOURCADE
Peut-on mettre en évidence l'existence de rigidités à la baisse des salaires à partir de données individuelles ? Le cas de la France à la fin des années 90

G2003/10 M. LECLAIR - P. PETIT
Présence syndicale dans les firmes : quel impact sur les inégalités salariales entre les hommes et les femmes ?

G2003/11 P.-O. BEFFY - X. BONNET - M. DARRACQ-PARIES - B. MONFORT
MZE: a small macro-model for the euro area

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

G2004/02 M. DUÉE - C. REBILLARD
La dépendance des personnes âgées : une projection à long terme

G2004/03 S. RASPILLER - N. RIEDINGER
Régulation environnementale et choix de localisation des groupes français

G2004/04 A. NABOULET - S. RASPILLER
Les déterminants de la décision d'investir : une approche par les perceptions subjectives des firmes

G2004/05 N. RAGACHE
La déclaration des enfants par les couples non mariés est-elle fiscalement optimale ?

G2004/06 M. DUÉE
L'impact du chômage des parents sur le devenir scolaire des enfants

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

G2004/08 E. DUGUET - C. LELARGE
Les brevets accroissent-ils les incitations privées à innover ? Un examen 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
<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>G2005/09</td>
      <td>N. FERRARI<br/>Prévoir l'investissement des entreprises<br/>Un indicateur des révisions dans l'enquête de<br/>conjoncture sur les investissements dans<br/>l'industrie.</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2005/10</td>
      <td>P.-O. BEFFY - C. L'ANGEVIN<br/>Chômage et boucle prix-salaires :<br/>apport d'un modèle « qualifiés/peu qualifiés »</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2005/11</td>
      <td>B. HEITZ<br/>A two-states Markov-switching model of inflation<br/>in France and the USA: credible target VS<br/>inflation spiral</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2005/12</td>
      <td>O. BIAU - H. ERKEL-ROUSSE - N. FERRARI<br/>Réponses individuelles aux enquêtes de<br/>conjoncture et prévision macroéconomiques:<br/>Exemple de la prévision de la production<br/>manufacturière</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2005/13</td>
      <td>P. AUBERT - D. BLANCHET - D. BLAU<br/>The labour market after age 50: some elements<br/>of a Franco-American comparison</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2005/14</td>
      <td>D. BLANCHET - T. DEBRAND -<br/>P. DOUGRONN - P. POLLET<br/>L'enquête SHARE : présentation et premiers<br/>résultats de l'édition française</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2005/15</td>
      <td>M. DUÈE<br/>La modélisation des comportements démogra-<br/>phiques dans le modèle de microsimulation<br/>DESTINE</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2005/16</td>
      <td>H. RAOUI - S. ROUX<br/>Étude de simulation sur la participation versée<br/>aux salariés par les entreprises</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2006/01</td>
      <td>C. BONNET - S. BUFFETEAU - P. GODEFROY<br/>Disparités de retraite de droit direct entre<br/>hommes et femmes : quelles évolutions ?</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2006/02</td>
      <td>C. PICART<br/>Les gazelles en France</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2006/03</td>
      <td>P. AUBERT - B. CRÉPON - P. ZAMORA<br/>Le rendement apparent de la formation continue<br/>dans les entreprises : effets sur la productivité et<br/>les salaires</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2006/04</td>
      <td>J.-F. OUVRARD - R. RATHELOT<br/>Demographic change and unemployment:<br/>what do macroeconometric models predict?</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2006/05</td>
      <td>D. BLANCHET - J.-F. OUVRARD<br/>Indicateurs d'engagements implicites des<br/>systèmes de retraite : chiffrages, propriétés<br/>analytiques et réactions à des chocs<br/>démographiques types</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2006/06</td>
      <td>G. BIAU - O. BIAU - L. ROUVIERE<br/>Nonparametric Forecasting of the Manufacturing<br/>Output Growth with Firm-level Survey Data</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2006/07</td>
      <td>C. AFSA - P. GIVORD<br/>Le rôle des conditions de travail dans les<br/>absences pour maladie</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2006/08</td>
      <td>P. SILLARD - C. L'ANGEVIN - S. SERRAVALLE<br/>Performances comparées à l'exportation de la<br/>France et de ses principaux partenaires<br/>Une analyse structurelle sur 12 ans</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2006/09</td>
      <td>X. BOUTIN - S. QUANTIN<br/>Une méthodologie d'évaluation comptable du<br/>coût du capital des entreprises françaises : 1984-<br/>2002</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>

<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>G2006/10</td>
      <td>C. AFSA<br/>L'estimation d'un coût implicite de la pénibilité du travail chez les travailleurs âgés</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2006/11</td>
      <td>C. LELARGE<br/>Les entreprises (industrielles) françaises sont-elles à la frontière technologique ?</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2006/12</td>
      <td>O. BIAU - N. FERRARI<br/>Théorie de l'opinion<br/>Faut-il pondérer les réponses individuelles ?</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2006/13</td>
      <td>A. KOUBI - S. ROUX<br/>Une réréprétrétation de la relation entre productivité et inégalités salariales dans les entreprises</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2006/14</td>
      <td>R. RATHELOT - P. SILLARD<br/>The impact of local taxes on plants location decision</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2006/15</td>
      <td>L. GONZALEZ - C. PICART<br/>Diversification, recentrage et poids des activités de support dans les groupes (1993-2000)</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2007/01</td>
      <td>D. SRAER<br/>Allègements de cotisations patronales et dynamique salariale</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2007/02</td>
      <td>V. ALBOUY - L. LEQUIEN<br/>Les rendements non monétaires de l'éducation : le cas de la santé</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2007/03</td>
      <td>D. BLANCHET - T. DEBRAND<br/>Aspiration à la retraite, santé et satisfaction au travail : une comparaison européenne</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2007/04</td>
      <td>M. BARLET - L. CRUSSON<br/>Quel impact des variations du prix du pétrole sur la croissance française ?</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2007/05</td>
      <td>C. PICART<br/>Flux d'emploi et de main-d'œuvre en France : un réexamen</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2007/06</td>
      <td>V. ALBOUY - C. TAVAN<br/>Massification et démocratisation de l'enseignement supérieur en France</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2007/07</td>
      <td>T. LE BARBANCHON<br/>The Changing response to oil price shocks in France: a DSGE type approach</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2007/08</td>
      <td>T. CHANEY - D. SRAER - D. THESMAR<br/>Collateral Value and Corporate Investment Evidence from the French Real Estate Market</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2007/09</td>
      <td>J. BOISSINOT<br/>Consumption over the Life Cycle: Facts for France</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2007/10</td>
      <td>C. AFSA<br/>Interpréter les variables de satisfaction : l'exemple de la durée du travail</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2007/11</td>
      <td>R. RATHELOT - P. SILLARD<br/>Zones Franches Urbaines: quels effets sur l'emploi salarié et les créations d'établissements ?</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2007/12</td>
      <td>V. ALBOUY - B. CRÉPON<br/>Aléa moral en santé : une évaluation dans le cadre du modèle causal de Rubin</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2008/01</td>
      <td>C. PICART<br/>Les PME françaises: rentables mais peu dynamiques</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>

<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>G2008/02</td>
      <td>P. BISCOURP - X. BOUTIN - T. VERGÉ<br/>The Effects of Retail Regulations on Prices<br/>Evidence form the Loi Galland</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2008/03</td>
      <td>Y. BARBESOL - A. BRIANT<br/>Économies d'agglomération et productivité des<br/>entreprises : estimation sur données individuelles<br/>françaises</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2008/04</td>
      <td>D. BLANCHET - F. LE GALLO<br/>Les projections démographiques : principaux<br/>mécanismes et retour sur l'expérience française</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2008/05</td>
      <td>D. BLANCHET - F. TOUTLEMONDE<br/>Évolutions démographiques et déformation du<br/>cycle de vie active : quelles relations ?</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2008/06</td>
      <td>M. BARLET - D. BLANCHET - L. CRUSSON<br/>Internationalisation et flux d'emplois : que dit une<br/>approche comptable ?</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2008/07</td>
      <td>C. LELARGE - D. SRAER - D. THESMAR<br/>Entrepreneurship and Credit Constraints -<br/>Evidence from a French Loan Guarantee<br/>Program</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2008/08</td>
      <td>X. BOUTIN - L. JANIN<br/>Are Prices Really Affected by Mergers?</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2008/09</td>
      <td>M. BARLET - A. BRIANT - L. CRUSSON<br/>Concentration géographique dans l'industrie<br/>manufacturière et dans les services en France :<br/>une approche par un indicateur en continu</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2008/10</td>
      <td>M. BEFFY - É. COUDIN - R. RATHELOT<br/>Who is confronted to insecure labor market<br/>histories? Some evidence based on the French<br/>labor market transition</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2008/11</td>
      <td>M. ROGER - E. WALRAET<br/>Social Security and Well-Being of the Elderly: the<br/>Case of France</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2008/12</td>
      <td>C. AFSA<br/>Analyser les composantes du bien-être et de son<br/> évolution<br/>Une approche empirique sur données<br/>individuelles</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2008/13</td>
      <td>M. BARLET - D. BLANCHET -<br/>T. LE BARBANCHON<br/>Microsimuler le marché du travail : un prototype</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2009/01</td>
      <td>P.-A. PIONNIER<br/>Le partage de la valeur ajoutée en France,<br/>1949-2007</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2009/02</td>
      <td>Laurent CLAVEL - Christelle MINODIER<br/>A Monthly Indicator of the French Business<br/>Climate</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2009/03</td>
      <td>H. ERKEL-ROUSSE - C. MINODIER<br/>Do Business Tendency Surveys in Industry and<br/>Services Help in Forecasting GDP Growth?<br/>A Real-Time Analysis on French Data</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2009/04</td>
      <td>P. GIVORD - L. WILNER<br/>Les contrats temporaires : trappe ou marchepied<br/>vers l'emploi stable ?</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2009/05</td>
      <td>G. LALANNE - P.-A. PIONNIER - O. SIMON<br/>Le partage des fruits de la croissance de 1950 à<br/>2008 : une approche par les comptes de surplus</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2009/06</td>
      <td>L. DAVEZIES - X. D'HAULTFOEUILLE<br/>Faut-il pondérer ?... Ou l'eternelle question de<br/>l'économétre confronté à des données d'enquête</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>

<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>G2009/07</td>
      <td>S. QUANTIN - S. RASPILLER - S. SERRAVALLE<br/>Commerce intragroupe, fiscalité et prix de<br/>transferts : une analyse sur données françaises</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2009/08</td>
      <td>M. CLERC - V. MARCUS<br/>Élasticités-prix des consommations énergétiques<br/>des ménages</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2009/09</td>
      <td>G. LALANNE - E. POULIQUEN - O. SIMON<br/>Prix du pétrole et croissance potentielle à long<br/>terme</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2009/10</td>
      <td>D. BLANCHET - J. LE CACHEUX - V. MARCUS<br/>Adjusted net savings and other approaches to<br/>sustainability: some theoretical background</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2009/11</td>
      <td>V. BELLAMY - G. CONSALES - M. FESSEAU -<br/>S. LE LAIDIER - É. RAYNAUD<br/>Une décomposition du compte des ménages de<br/>la comptabilité nationale par catégorie de<br/>ménage en 2003</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2009/12</td>
      <td>J. BARDAJI - F. TALLET<br/>Detecting Economic Regimes in France: a<br/>Qualitative Markov-Switching Indicator Using<br/>Mixed Frequency Data</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2009/13</td>
      <td>R. AEBERHARDT - D. FOUGÈRE -<br/>R. RATHELOT<br/>Discrimination à l'embauche : comment exploiter<br/>les procédures de testing?</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2009/14</td>
      <td>Y. BARBESOL - P. GIVORD - S. QUANTIN<br/>Partage de la valeur ajoutée, approche par<br/>données microéconomiques</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2009/15</td>
      <td>I. BUONO - G. LALANNE<br/>The Effect of the Uruguay round on the Intensive<br/>and Extensive Margins of Trade</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2010/01</td>
      <td>C. MINODIER<br/>Avantages comparés des séries des premières<br/>valeurs publiées et des séries des valeurs<br/>révisées - Un exercice de prévision en temps réel<br/>de la croissance trimestrielle du PIB en France</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2010/02</td>
      <td>V. ALBOUY - L. DAVEZIES - T. DEBRAND<br/>Health Expenditure Models: a Comparison of<br/>Five Specifications using Panel Data</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2010/03</td>
      <td>C. KLEIN - O. SIMON<br/>Le modèle MÉSANGE réestimé en base 2000<br/>Tome 1 - Version avec volumes à prix constants</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2010/04</td>
      <td>M.-É. CLERC - É. COUDIN<br/>L'IPC, miroir de l'évolution du coût de la vie en<br/>France ? Ce qu'apporte l'analyse des courbes<br/>d'Engel</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2010/05</td>
      <td>N. CECI-RENAUD - P.-A. CHEVALIER<br/>Les seuils de 10, 20 et 50 salariés : impact sur la<br/>taille des entreprises françaises</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2010/06</td>
      <td>R. AEBERHARDT - J. POUGET<br/>National Origin Differences in Wages and<br/>Hierarchical Positions - Evidence on French Full-<br/>Time Male Workers from a matched Employer-<br/>Employee Dataset</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2010/07</td>
      <td>S. BLASCO - P. GIVORD<br/>Les trajectoires professionnelles en début de vie<br/>active : quel impact des contrats temporaires ?</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G2010/08</td>
      <td>P. GIVORD<br/>Méthodes économétriques pour l'évaluation de<br/>politiques publiques</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
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

G2010/01 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 Projet l'impact des réformes des retraites sur l'activité des 55 ans et plus : une comparaison de trois modèles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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