Antoine Bozio

Impact of research tax credit on R&D and innovation: evidence from the 2008 French reform

This paper presents an ex post evaluation of the 2008 reform of the French research tax credit. The tax scheme was massively overhauled, with a switch to a pure volume-based design, leading to a large increase in the number of firms applying and an important increase in the cost of the scheme. Given the timing and the characteristics of the reform, measuring its causal impact is challenging. We have relied on four unique sources of data – R&D surveys, administrative tax data, firm characteristics and patent datasets – to assess how French firms have reacted to these changes in incentives. Our empirical strategies rest on combining difference in differences with matching methods and taking advantage of the particular way the 2008 reform has affected incentives to invest in R&D. Our results suggest a positive effect of the 2008 reform on R&D at both the intensive margin and extensive margin, but a possible lower impact on innovation than could have been expected.

Discount rate heterogeneity among older households: a puzzle?

We put forward a method for estimating discount rates using wealth and income data. We build consumption from these data using the budget constraint. Consumption transitions yield discount rates by household groups. Applying this technique to a sample of older households, we find a similar distribution to those previously estimated using field data, though with a much lower mean than those found using experiments. Surprisingly, among this older population, patience is negatively correlated with education and numeracy. This goes against the positive correlation found for younger populations in experiments and some field studies. We discuss potential explanations for this result.

Comparer les efforts contributifs pour comparer les retraites entre secteur public et secteur privé

[eng] Comparisons between pension schemes are often distorted by the use of simple and misleading indicators, such as mean pensions, or mean replacement rates. Aubert and Plouhinec (this issue), comparing the calculation rules in the public and private sectors for given careers, highlight that replacement rate comparisons are not unequivocal. Such work makes it possible to gain a better understanding of the mechanisms involved, which are more complex than they first seem, and to highlight the heterogeneity of situations in the civil service. However, such comparisons do not make it possible to assess the relative generosity of the pension schemes because they are, to a large extent, contributory. This comment suggests that while comparing contribution efforts is, admittedly, complex, it is not beyond the realms of feasibility. Such a comparison would offer the advantage of being distinct from the related, but separate, issue of comparing total pay (immediate and deferred) between the public and private sectors. Finally, in the light of that work, recommendations for reforms are made, aiming to transform the “pensions” Special Account (Compte d’Affectation Speciale (CAS) “pensions”) into a pension fund for Central‑Government civil servants, and gradually to incorporate bonuses into the contribution base on which civil servants’ contributions are calculated.

Taking contributions into account in public‑private comparison of pensions. Comment on “Differences between public and private sector pensions: an analysis based on career profile simulations”

[eng] Comparisons between pension schemes are often distorted by the use of simple and misleading indicators, such as mean pensions, or mean replacement rates. Aubert and Plouhinec (this issue), comparing the calculation rules in the public and private sectors for given careers, highlight that replacement rate comparisons are not unequivocal. Such work makes it possible to gain a better understanding of the mechanisms involved, which are more complex than they first seem, and to highlight the heterogeneity of situations in the civil service. However, such comparisons do not make it possible to assess the relative generosity of the pension schemes because they are, to a large extent, contributory. This comment suggests that while comparing contribution efforts is, admittedly, complex, it is not beyond the realms of feasibility. Such a comparison would offer the advantage of being distinct from the related, but separate, issue of comparing total pay (immediate and deferred) between the public and private sectors. Finally, in the light of that work, recommendations for reforms are made, aiming to transform the “pensions” Special Account (Compte d’Affectation Speciale (CAS) “pensions”) into a pension fund for Central‑Government civil servants, and gradually to incorporate bonuses into the contribution base on which civil servants’ contributions are calculated.