Transcript French & British Economies - London School of Economics and

What the French and British
economies can learn from each
other
Howard Davies, Director
The London School of Economics
British Embassy, Paris.
13 October 2005
Evolution du PIB/tête à prix courant (en
milliers de Dollars US) de 1980 à 2002
28
24
20
16
12
8
1980
1990
Royaume-Uni
2000
2002
France
Source: OCDE, dernières
données disponsibles 2002
Evolution des taux d’emploi et PIB/tête en
France et au Royaume-Uni depuis 30 ans
PIB/tete
(milliers USD)
Taux d'emploi (% )
75
28
26
70
24
22
65
20
18
60
16
14
55
12
10
Royaume-Uni Taux d'emploi
Royaume-Uni PIB/tete
France Taux d'emploi
France PIB/tete
20
02
20
00
19
98
19
96
19
94
19
92
19
90
19
88
19
86
19
84
19
82
19
80
8
19
78
19
76
50
Employment statistics for France & UK
France
Royaume-Uni
Population totale
61.6 M
59.9 M
Taux d’emploi
62.8 %
71.8 %
Taux de croissance
0.5 %
2.2 %
Taux de croissance de l’emploi
0.2 %
0.8 %
Total des dépenses en measures actives
d’aide à la création d’emplois (2002)
€ 12.7 Md
€1.5 Md
Total des dépenses en measures
passives (ASSEDIC/Job seeker
allowance)
€ 22.4 Md
€ 6.1 Md
TOTAL
€ 35.1 Md
€ 7.6 Md
9.8 %
4.7 %
Taux de chômage BIT
Source: Eurostat 2003
Quantitativement – Des emplois répartis
sur tout le spectre de la population active
France
RoyaumeUni
Δ
43.6%
49.5%
+5.9pts
PIB par tête (en millers de US dollars)
24.1
26.5
+10%
Emplois marchands (sur l’emploi total)
72.7%
80.0%
+7.3pts
Emplois publics (sur l’emploi total)
27.3%
20.0%
-7.3pts
Emplois dans les services (sur l’emploi total)
73.5%
79.2%
+5.7pts
Taux d’emploi des 55-64
36.8%
55.5%
+18.7pts
Taux d’emploi des femmes
56.7%
65.3%
+8.6pts
58.8
62.3
+3.5ans
649,000
1,165,000
+80%
40.7h
43.8h
+3.1 h
% Population active dans population totale
Age moyen de départ à la retraite
Nombre de deuxièmes emplois
Temps de travail hebdomadaire, temps plein
Source: Eurostat 2003
Relativiser l’instabilité de l’emploi au
Royaume-Uni
France
Royaume-Uni
3,119 M
1,643 M
Temps partiel (% de l’emploi
total)
16.7%
25.5%
Temps partiel involontaire
(% total emploi partiel total)
25.0%
9.0%
CDD
Source: Eurostat 2003
Changes in wage differentials, early 80s to
late 90s
Sweden (80/98)
Finland (80/99)
Netherlands (80/99)
Japan (80/99)
1980 (or
early 1980s)
Germany (84/98)
2000 (or late
1990s)
France (80/98)
Australia (80/00)
UK (80/00)
New Zealand (84/97)
USA (80/00)
0
1
2
3
4
Ratio between cut-offs for top and bottom ten per cent
5
Source: Inequality and the Sate,
John Hills, CASE, LSE
Gains from tax/benefit changes (UK):
2004-05 versus price-linked 97 system
Source: Sutherland 2004
Share of the top 1% in income of top 10%
Source: Atkinson 2003, quoted in
John Hills, Inequality and the State
% agreeing that the gap between the rich
and poor is too large
0
20
40
60
80
100
USA
Japan
Northern Ireland
Canada
Sweden
West Germany
Great Britain
Austria
France
Spain
East Germany
Portugal
Source: ISSP, quoted in John Hills,
Inequality and the State
Why do people live in need?
Laziness
UK
Luck
Inevitable
Injustice
1986
19
11
37
25
1994
15
15
33
30
2000
23
15
34
21
Portugal
29
18
10
34
France
16
16
19
40
Sweden
9
13
27
42
EU
18
18
22
31
Sources: BSA survey; Eurobarometer
Current Account Balance of Payments
1999-2003 (% of GDP)
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
France
UK
% of GDP
0.0
-1.0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
-2.0
-3.0
Year
Source: OECD Factbook, 2005
The Macroeconomic picture on
productivity - Relative total factor productivity (US
indexed to 100)
120
100 100
100
85
84
80
77
81
70
78
60
40
20
0
U.S
Germany
Manufacturing sector
France
U.K.
Market Economy
Source: O’Mahoney and De
Boer, 2002
Management practice scores across
countries
US
3.39
Germany
3.2
France
UK
3.13
3.07
Management practice alone
can account for 10-15% of
the U.S. – U.K. productivity
gap
Source: Corporate assessment interviews;
McKinsey/LSE analysis
Management practice assessment scores show
greater intra-country variation than inter-country
variation (% of companies, by management practice score)
U.S: Average = 3.39
1
2
Germany: Average = 3.2
3
4
1
5
2
France: Average = 3.13
1
2
3
4
5
U.K: Average = 3.07
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Consistency with selection and vintage
effects when split by competition
Implications
0.15
• Higher
competition tends
to eliminate poorer
managed firms so
average
management scores
are higher
0.1
0.05
0
• Younger firms
appear to be
deploying better
Management
practices
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
2
4
6
8
10
High competition
15
25
40
50
100
Low competition
Corporate assessment interviews;
McKinsey/CEP analysis
Negative effects of labour regulations
Index of firing and dismissal costs (Botero et al 2005)
US
UK
0.22
0.63
Germany
1.06
France
1.29
• Regulatory “bite” significantly higher when manager has been in the job for a long time
• Implies regulations may enable workers and managers to block change
• Older workers and managers dislike change
• Heavy firing costs may provide them with the security to oppose change
Trends in cohort size and the number of
students passing the baccalauréat exam
2.1
1.9
1.7
1.5
1.3
1.1
Baccalaureat
1976
1975
1974
1973
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
1964
0.9
0.7
0.5
Cohort size
The size of the chort for year t corresponds to the number of people born at t minus 19 (19 is median age of candidates).
The two series are normalised to 1 in 1945.
Sources: French ministry of Education
and French statistical office
The net effects of birth cohort on the probability
of having at least a university diploma and on the
probability of being in an upper-level white-collar
position
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
1946
1947
1948
Cohort effects on college diploma
1949
1950
1951
1952
Cohort effects on occupational level
Sources: French ministry of education and the
French Statistical Office