Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter June 19, 2013

The macroeconomic effects of the 35-h workweek regulation in France

  • Zaichao Du , Hua Yin and Lin Zhang EMAIL logo


The 35-h workweek regulation, fully adopted in France in 2000, has been one of the most significant regulatory shocks imposed on any large economy. Yet the effects of the regulation remain controversial. In this paper, we evaluate the effects of the 35-h workweek regulation on unemployment and real GDP in France using a counterfactual analysis. We exploit the dependence of unemployment and GDP growth among different economic entities and construct the counterfactuals using data from countries other than France. We find that the 35-h workweek regulation reduced France’s annual unemployment rate by 1.58% and raised the real GDP by 1.36% from 2000 to 2007.

Corresponding author: Lin Zhang, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics-Research Institute of Economics and Management, 55, Guanghua Street, Chengdu 610074, China, e-mail:


Appendix Figures 7 and 8.

Appendix Figure 7 AIC: actual and predicted real GDP from 1990:Q1 to 1999:Q4.
Appendix Figure 7

AIC: actual and predicted real GDP from 1990:Q1 to 1999:Q4.

Appendix Figure 8 AIC: actual and predicted real GDP from 2000:Q1 to 2007:Q4.
Appendix Figure 8

AIC: actual and predicted real GDP from 2000:Q1 to 2007:Q4.

  1. 1

    We thank the anonymous referee for pointing out the importance to study both the first-order and second-order effects of RWT.

  2. 2

    The main reason that we use unemployment rates rather than employment rates is because quarterly unemployment rate data are available from 1991:Q1 to 2007Q4, while only annual employment data are available from 1983 to 2007, which gives us a smaller sample.

  3. 3

    Okun’s Law says there is a negative relationship between unemployment and real output, see e.g., Okun (1962).

  4. 4

    Of course there are idiosyncratic factors driving the unemployment and the GDP growth of different countries too, but as long as they are not systematically correlated with the RWT policy in France, our method will still work.

  5. 5

    See e.g., the discussion in Hsiao, Steve Ching, and Ki Wan (2012).

  6. 6

    This also facilitates our analysis of Okun’s Law, as there is a debate on whether Okun’s Law still holds during the Great Recession, e.g., Cazes, Verick, and Al-Hussami (2011) and Ball, Leigh, and Loungani (2013).

  7. 7

    Here we follow the way of Okun (1962) to estimate Okun’s coefficient instead of the method of Prachowny (1993), Freeman (2001) and Moosa (1997), as the latter regresses the GDP growth rate on the change of unemployment rate and needs to control for changes in capital, capacity utilization and hours worked etc.

  8. 8

    We got similar results when using data before 1997 as the pre-treatment period. We do not extend the analysis further back, as we want to have more than 20 observations for the data fitting process.

We would like to thank the anonymous referee for the helpful comments that greatly improved the paper. We also thank Etienne Wasmer for his comments on the early version of the paper. Research is funded by Ministry of Education of China, 11XJC790002 and 211 Project for SWUFE.


Akaike, H. 1973. “Information Theory and an Extension of the Maximum Likelihood Principle.” In Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Information Theory, edited by B.N. Petrov and F. Csaki, 267–281. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado.Search in Google Scholar

Akaike, H. 1974. “A New Look at the Statistical Model Identification.” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19 (6): 716–723.10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705Search in Google Scholar

Bai, C., Q. Li, and M. Ouyang. 2012. “Property Taxes and Home Prices: A Tale of Two Cities.” Texas A&M University Working paper.Search in Google Scholar

Bai, J., and S. Ng. 2002. “Determining the Number of Factors in Approximate Factor Models.” Econometrica 70: 191–221.10.1111/1468-0262.00273Search in Google Scholar

Ball, L., D. Leigh, and P. Loungani. 2013. “Okuns Law: Fit at 50?” NBER Working Paper 18668, IMF Working Paper 13/10.Search in Google Scholar

Belsley, D. 1984. “Collinearity and Forecasting.” Journal of Forecasting 3 (2): 183–196.10.1002/for.3980030206Search in Google Scholar

Bunel, M. 2004. “Aides Incitatives et Déterminants des Embauches des établissements Passés à 35 Heures.” Économie et Statistique N°376–377.10.3406/estat.2004.7235Search in Google Scholar

Cazes, S., S. Verick, and F. Al-Hussami. 2011. “Diverging Trends in Unemployment in the US and Europe: Evidence from Okun’s law and the Global Financial Crisis.” Employment Working Paper, N°106, International Labor Organization.Search in Google Scholar

Chemin, M., and E. Wasmer. 2009. “Using Alsace-Moselle Local Laws to Build a Difference-in-Differences Estimation Strategy of the Employment Effects of the 35-Hour Workweek Regulation in France.” Journal of Labor Economics 27 (4): 487–524.10.1086/605426Search in Google Scholar

Crépon B., M. Leclair, and S. Roux. 2004. “RTT, Productivité et Emploi: Nouvelles Estimations Sur Données D’entreprises.” Économie et Statistique 376–377.Search in Google Scholar

Estevão, M., and F. Sá. 2008. “The 35-hour Workweek in France: Straightjacket or Welfare Improvement?” Economic Policy 23 (55): 417–463.10.1111/j.1468-0327.2008.00204.xSearch in Google Scholar

Forni, M., and L. Reichlin. 1998. “Let’s Get Real: a Factor-Analytic Approach to Disaggregated Business Cycle Dynamics.” Review of Economic Studies 65: 453–473.10.1111/1467-937X.00053Search in Google Scholar

Freeman, D. 2001. “Panel Test of Okun’s Law for Ten Industrial Countries.” Economic Inquiry 39: 511–523.10.1093/ei/39.4.511Search in Google Scholar

Gregory, A., and A. Head. 1999. “Fluctuations in Productivity, Investment, and the Current Account.” Journal of Monetary Economics 44: 423–452.10.1016/S0304-3932(99)00035-5Search in Google Scholar

Gubian A., S. Jugnot, F. Lerais, and V. Passeron. 2004. “Les Effets de la RTT Sur L’emploi: Des Simulations ex Ante Aux Évaluations Ex Post.” Économie et Statistique N°376–377.10.3406/estat.2004.7233Search in Google Scholar

Hsiao, C., H. Steve Ching, and S. Ki Wan. 2012. “A Panel Data Approach for Program Evaluation: Measuring the Benefits of Political and Economic Integration of Hong Kong with Mainland China.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 27 (5): 705–740.10.1002/jae.1230Search in Google Scholar

Hurvich, C. M., and C.-L. Tsai. 1989. “Regression and Time Series Model Selection in Small Samples.” Biometrika 76 (2): 297–307.10.1093/biomet/76.2.297Search in Google Scholar

Moosa, Imad A. 1997. “A Cross-Country Comparison of Okun’s Coefficient.” Journal of Comparative Economics 24 (3): 335–356.10.1006/jcec.1997.1433Search in Google Scholar

Okun, A. M. 1962. “Potential GNP: Its Measurement and Significance.” American Statistical Association, Proceedings of the Business and Economics Section, 98–104.Search in Google Scholar

Prachowny, Martin F. J. 1993. “Okun’s Law: Theoretical Foundations and Revised Estimates.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 75 (2): 331–336.10.2307/2109440Search in Google Scholar

Sims, C. A. 1980. “Macroeconomics and Reality.” Econometrica 48: 1–48.10.2307/1912017Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2013-06-19
Published in Print: 2013-01-01

©2013 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin Boston

Downloaded on 2.10.2023 from
Scroll to top button