Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Record number of new businesses in France

by marco Sat May 5th, 2007 at 01:03:35 AM EST

This flies in the face of tons of anecdotal evidence I have heard or read that starting a business in France is a royal pain in the ass.  Out of five French people I know who have started and run their own (small) businesses in France, only one did not complain about how difficult and exasperating an endeavor it was/is.  And yet, as with youth unemployment, the statistics seem to belie the personal tales of woe:

Historic record of new business creation in France

After an increase of 2.6% in march, the number of businesses created in France since last year has reached 294,621. <...>

The number of new businesses broke a new record last month.  The strong growth recorded last month led to a total of 26,752 new businesses in March 2007, and a cumulative number of 294,621 new businesses over the twelve previous months, according to a statement by Renault Dutreil, minister for the Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, Commerce, Artisans, and Liberal Professions.

Indeed, the INSEE [French National Institute for Statistics and Economic Studies] in its last publication announced that the number of new businesses in March 2007 was 2.6% higher compared to February 2007, while the number of new businesses in the first trimester of 2007 went up by 11.1% compared to the first trimester of 2006.


Interestingly, the numbers calculated by the INSEE are based on

a new set of specifications adopted by the INSEE starting from January 2007 to respect new European guidelines.

However,

As the INSEE remarked, this European standarization did not change the profile of new businesses observed since the beginning of the 1990s.

Indeed, the trajectory of business creation between 1993 and 2006 as recalculated by the INSEE based on the new European definitions convey as before the strong dynamic starting in 2002 with a continued increase in the number of new businesses in these last years.  "The figures from the month of March 2007 establish yet again an absolute record never before reached, as shown in the historical data recalculated by the INSEE according to the new specifications," the release points out.

The article does note that the INSEE indicated last Wednesday that:

the number of business failures assessed in France in November 2006 increased by 0.9% compared to the month of October, to 3.166 in seasonally adjusted data.

On the other hand,

the Insitute pointed out that the number of failures assessed over the twelve months through November was 8.1% lower than in the twelve preceding months, 38.813 failures against 42.242 in the preceding twelve months.

Sounds like some pretty good news.  (And this coming from a a leading business reference and financial daily in France.)

Almost too good:  294,621 new business creations over the last twelve months and only 38.813 failures?  (By the way, do the fractions in these numbers come from the seasonal adjustment of the data?)

So two questions:

Did Royal mention this good news in her debate with Sarkozy, to refute his claim that France needs "reforming"?

and,

Why the discrepancy between the anecdotal data ("Starting your own business in France is a nightmare") and this glowing statistical data?  (Or is this statistical data, while perhaps good for France, actually not that good compared to other developed countries?)

Display:
I started a new business in Paris -- retail wine shop -- in 2005, but since it's the only business I've ever had a hand in creating, I cannot say whether it's more challenging in France than in, say, Ireland or the USA.

France being a "dossier country," there's an annoying amount of bureaucratic redundancy -- the bank holding my commercial accounts, the Customs authorities, the Chamber of Commerce and on and on all want paper copies of the same documents, and true to form, one or more documents are still required to complete each holder's dossier. I mitigated much of this annoyance by hiring a business lawyer to take care of these matters.

Approaching the problem as a DIY activity, it's probably more aggravating in France than elsewhere, but if you're willing to "throw money at the problem," the undertaking is relatively painless.

by Maatfan on Sat May 5th, 2007 at 03:38:32 AM EST
if you're willing to "throw money at the problem," the undertaking is relatively painless.

About how much money are we talking?  And is it a one time deal, or are we talking on a regular basis?  (I am thinking for a very very basic one-person self-employment, for example, as a translator or graphic designer or dance teacher.)

You mentioned "business lawyer".  Can they do everything for you for such a small enterprise?  Or does it also help a lot to hire an accountant (as mentioned by afew in another diary)?

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco on Sat May 5th, 2007 at 05:59:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The lawyer cost was just under € 5,000, which also included overseeing various signings (e.g., leases), ad hoc Q & A, etc. I did not shop around.

Accountancy is an entirely separate matter. It might be possible to find an outfit that provides "1-stop shopping" for all small business needs, but my accountants are not associated in any way with the lawyer.

I don't know this to be a fact, but I *suspect* that a lot of 1-person businesses here are pseudo-businesses, in that the entrepreneur seems to have a place of business, business cards, etc., but that's about it. (I'm thinking of Yoga consultants, travel-Paris-by-bike organizers, these types of businesses.) A legit business must be in possession of a K-bis, which is essentially an ID Card issued by the Chambre of Commerce. The K-bis identifies the SIRET number of the business, on which the VAT ID number is based.

by Maatfan on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 02:31:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks for the great info.

€5,000?  That is pretty steep.  Especially if that does not include accounting services.  But point taken about your not having shopped around.

Funny that you make that point about "pseudo-businesses".  See paving's comment below on "fake businesses" in the U.S.

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 06:09:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A legit business must be in possession of a K-bis, which is essentially an ID Card issued by the Chambre of Commerce. The K-bis identifies the SIRET number of the business, on which the VAT ID number is based.

The K-bis means you are registered in the Registre du commerce, which is obligatory for shopkeepers, tradesmen, craftsmen. It's administered by the Tribunal de Commerce, though the formalities may be handled by the Chamber of Commerce or the Chambre des Métiers (for trades and crafts). But don't forget farmers (registration with the Mutualité Sociale Agricole and Chambre d'Agriculture), and then self-employed persons in services, and particularly the liberal professions. These are not registered in the Registre du commerce and don't have a K-bis. Neither are they necessarily hooked up to VAT.

What identifies a "business" in all cases is the SIRET number which is delivered by INSEE, the national statistics agency.

I fail to see why self-employed people offering a service (be it Yoga consulting or tourist guidance) are "pseudo-businesses", as long as they have gone through the formalities required and are therefore answerable to the tax and social contributions authorities. You seem to be looking at this through a shopkeeper's glasses? ('scuse the pun given your activity...)

I think you're right about the "one-stop-shop" for small businesses. Accountants have their order, the legal professions theirs, and ne'er the twain shall meet.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 08:37:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Approaching the problem as a DIY activity, it's probably more aggravating in France than elsewhere, but if you're willing to "throw money at the problem," the undertaking is relatively painless.

That's what economists call "barriers to entry".

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat May 5th, 2007 at 06:12:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's a straw man.  If one is interested in starting a business, has a solid business plan and financing but does not want to do the paperwork then the "business" was false.  These are not real barriers to entry.

Barriers to entry are the minimum requirements to achieve merchant accounts, security rules for taking credit cards, insurance requirements on facilities, hiring costs, etc.

by paving on Sun May 6th, 2007 at 02:30:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Don't let's forget that the same neo-liberals who want single-market freedom for businesses in the EU also hold on like crazy to each member state's right to frame its own tax and social system. Which necessarily implies that a person setting up in business in another member state is going to come up against unfamiliar conditions.

Here, we're talking about someone coming to a new country and setting up for the first time without being familiar with the system. Either learning about the system, or hiring someone competent to handle it for you, is hardly a "barrier to entry".

(Said with my usual disclaimer: French bureaucracy re small businesses needs simplifying.)

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 08:50:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
skovgaard's and afew's comments in France is not in decline and the last thing it needs is 'reform' very relevant and duly noted.

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
by marco on Sat May 5th, 2007 at 05:47:26 AM EST
I'm copying bits of my answer on CDI terminations in France, might be useful here too:

Only 4% of CDI terminations are contested on prud'homme in France, the rest cause no problem at all.

To rephrase: 96% of CDI terminations go on without any problem in France.

Of these 4%, in 75% the employee wins at least something which mean the employer made zero attempt at negociation and did not follow basic rules.

That leaves 1% of all CDI terminations that end in an abusive recourse by the employee.

Now if you take CDI terminations because of economic conditions, only 3% get to prud'homme.

To rephrase it: 97% of CDI terminations because of economic conditions go on without problems in France. Even higher than general terminations.

And of course you can hire a contractor, no one oblige you to hire an employee. If you consider an employee, that's because you choose it and felt it was an advantage to have an employee in CDI against the "flexibility" of a contractor. Again it's your call here, if you don't want CDI, by all means get a contractor.

About trends, Prud'homme recourses have gone down 7% over the past 10 years in the context of more recourse to justice in the french society.

Data and references available in the comments here:

http://ew-econ.typepad.fr/mon_weblog/2007/03/questions_ouver.html

by Laurent GUERBY on Sat May 5th, 2007 at 02:35:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
One thing that comes out loud and clear in those comments is:  If you're going to start a business in France, know what the hell you're doing/getting into, or find someone who does.  Don't wing it!

Duly noted.

Which reminds me:  A long time ago, afew provided a very helpful comment about resources available to entrepreneurs in France (resources that I believe were made available for free) to help them navigate the rules, registrations and fees required to start a business there.  I will try to dig it up.

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco on Sat May 5th, 2007 at 09:13:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Valid of all activities everywhere on this world, nothing specific to France and business here :).

And you're vastly less likely to be ruined by stupid lawsuits in France than in the USA.

by Laurent GUERBY on Sun May 6th, 2007 at 05:01:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Valid of all activities everywhere on this world, nothing specific to France and business here :).

Yes, but far less (and more) valid in some places than others.

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco on Sun May 6th, 2007 at 07:37:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Wow. I don't remember myself what that was... Help!
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 08:55:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This article tells something completely opposite. You must think, France found a salvation in Sarkozy.

It rarely happens to a country that a clear opportunity is presented to it to save itself from ruin. Only once since the war has it happened to Britain, in 1979, when the people realised that the end of the road had been reached with the consensus that had prevailed since the Second World War, and it was time to start again on a different basis. Tomorrow, France can choose to have its 1979.

[Ask] any Frenchman or woman, and they will tell you of the three great economic difficulties facing their country: and they are all, of course, related to each other. The first is chomage, or unemployment. The second is the absence of croissance, or growth. And the third is the weakness of pouvoir d'achat, or purchasing power. What money people earn doesn't seem to go very far in France.

Wages for most workers, especially in France's enormous rural economy, are low. The bargain prices British tourists feel they have spotted when they buy food and wine, or pay for a meal in a restaurant, are quite often out of the reach of the average French family. The income tax threshold is high, and therefore only 48 per cent of those in work pay any.

By contrast, there are huge imposts on employing someone - and, once employed, staff are almost impossible to sack - which is part of the reason it is so hard for young people to get work, and why there is such high unemployment. It is also why so many dynamic young French people now choose to come to live and work in London, now the seventh biggest French city in the world.

Unlike in Britain, small businesses are not engines of growth, because bureaucracy and high taxes make it very hard for them to grow. In some parts of France the signs of decay are becoming ever more obvious: shops boarded up in villages in the Dordogne, property not selling except perhaps to foreigners, and resentment about freeloaders, especially if they are perceived to be immigrants. France has numerous successful multinationals, and every French town has scores of one-man bands (notably retailers), but there is less and less in between.

by das monde on Sun May 6th, 2007 at 10:45:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I once tried to set up a subsidiary in France and gave up due to the complexity and high tax burden and inflexible labor laws. However, I think it is generally not understood that the US system of inducements is functionally similar to the French system of positive barriers. The US has a huge state system of subsidies that works in favor of larger companies. For example, industrial revenue bonds and EX-IM bank subsidies are highly profitable for enterprises of sufficient size, but not really that useful for small business. Navigation of the subsidy system in the US is exceptionally complicated and the complexity itself is a subsidy of certain types of smaller businesses that act as arms of larger businesses or political powers. Furthermore, costs that are not socially distributed in the US fall more heavily on small business - health insurance being the most obvious example, but transport is also an issue.

It is a universal truth that the gravitational effects of money on the form and action of business environment favor those with the most money.

by rootless2 on Sat May 5th, 2007 at 12:05:56 PM EST
If I may try to paraphrase at the risk of oversimplifying, in your estimation, it is easier to start a company in the U.S. than in France to begin with.  However, once you start a business in the U.S., the odds are stacked against you due to massive state subsidies to larger companies rather that are not available to small companies?

If so, do these subsidies to larger businesses in the U.S. still handicap a new business even if one's ambitions are modest (e.g. opening up a cafe or a boutique line of clothing, etc.)?

On the issue of the complexity and high tax burden and inflexible labor laws in France, have you seen the exchange initiated by skovgaard's two comments in France is not in decline and the last thing it needs is 'reform'?

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco on Sat May 5th, 2007 at 09:09:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I saw the exchange and I have to say our experience was that the French system is a pain in the ass. For a small business, you need to be able to fire people for not being great or if business does not develop as fast as hoped while French labor law is designed to say if you show up every day semi-sober and don't punch out your supervisor, then you get to keep getting paid. I have noticed that for big enough companies, even in Germany, it's easy enough to get around the labor laws, so the whole system seems to be just an entry barrier protecting big companies from competition.

The US system has its own drawbacks and protections for larger companies.

 

by rootless2 on Sat May 5th, 2007 at 09:28:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The US system has its own drawbacks and protections for larger companies.

I think I just found another example of one of those:

New York Times: Many of the Self-Employed Are Simply on Their Own

The small businesses that struggle the most with health insurance may be the smallest of all: those with only one employee.

In 11 states, self-employed people have some of the same legal rights as small companies when it comes to dealing with insurers: Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Vermont.

But elsewhere, in dealing with insurance companies, the nation's estimated 20 million self-employed are on their own.

In Virginia, a state with relatively few controls on insurance rates, Clay Williams, a 59-year-old self-employed real estate agent in Falls Church, said the cost of health insurance for himself, his wife and two sons, had tripled in six years. After it ballooned last year to $1,956 a month, he angrily refused to renew.

<...>

"As an individual," Mr. Williams said, "I have absolutely no clout. What's my payment going to be in six years -- $4,000 a month?"



Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
by marco on Sun May 6th, 2007 at 12:58:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
French labor law is designed to say if you show up every day semi-sober and don't punch out your supervisor, then you get to keep getting paid

Mind if I ask you who you got your advice from on that point?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 09:07:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think on balance the US is more friendly to business startups in several respects. Even the much maligned and painful US legal system has advantages for small technology firms in that it is potential to get huge settlements from big companies that just copy your work and it is possible to shift risk to customers for B2B business. Certainly, I don't see many small product firms coming from Europe in my area - mostly services companies.
by rootless2 on Sat May 5th, 2007 at 10:09:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In the US any idiot can start any business.  Many, probably MOST "small businesses" in the US are fake. The people tend to think of mom-and-pop stores and whatnot when they hear the term "small business" but in reality the vast majority are shell games designed as tax shelters, individuals incorporating themselves or their house, etc.

I know people who rent an apartment and incorporate it.  They throw huge all-night parties every week and allow other people to throw parties there for a fee.  They write-off all housing costs against taxes.

Many, many other small businesses exist for less legitimate scams.  The USA is a mess.

by paving on Sun May 6th, 2007 at 02:34:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
but then there is Google, Intel, AOL, Microsoft, Guidant (originally Advanced Cardiovascular Systems), Boston Scientific, SciMed, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etcv.  Ma and Pa's is one of the examples of small business, but not the one I think of first.  American is a "new business" machine of innovative products and services that create jobs, wonderful new products, and wealth for tons of talented people who just jump in and make it happen.

I have a hard time coming up with a list of French startups that could compare with the thousands of American startups that have gone on to great success.

by wchurchill on Sun May 6th, 2007 at 03:40:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
From the Insee (French National Institute for Statistics and Economic Studies):

The number of creations of new businesses in the "innovative technologies" sector ["chemistry and biotechnology", "information technology material production", "information technology material wholesale trade" & "information technology services"] is stagnant while new business creations are increasing overall.  In 2006, 5.0% of new business creations in this sector, compared to 5.1% in 2005.  Only the information services sector (development and production of new software, information systems analysis) increased in 2006 by 2.2%.  The other sectors, comprising producers and suppliers of technology, are dropping.


Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
by marco on Sun May 6th, 2007 at 11:16:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Many, probably MOST "small businesses" in the US are fake. The people tend to think of mom-and-pop stores and whatnot when they hear the term "small business" but in reality the vast majority are shell games designed as tax shelters, individuals incorporating themselves or their house, etc.

Show me some numbers.

That number of 294,621 French "business creations" (233,000 if you only count "new" business creations) was bothering me: it seemed like quite a lot of new businesses for one year, so I looked it up.

And sure enough, at least based on my reading of this definition, suggests that "probably MOST" of these "businesses" are tiny as well, maybe 1-person outfits.  Wikipedia seems to confirm this:

... in France, 95% of the country's 3 million businesses are microenterprises with 0 to 3 collaborators.

Are you so sure that French people are immune from using these "businesses" as shell games for delinquent antics?  If I happened to have some anecdotal evidence about a few French people who did so, would I be in my rights as well to assert that "probably MOST small businesses" in the U.S. are fake?

Also, see wchurchill's point below.

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco on Sun May 6th, 2007 at 11:02:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
  ... in France, 95% of the country's 3 million businesses are microenterprises with 0 to 3 collaborators.

There is an immense and growing number of "micro-businesses" throughout the developed world and it is a direct consequence of the technology- driven centralisation and consolidation we know as "Globalisation".

These micro-businesses consist not only of many of the "costs" (aka human beings) who have been "cut" but also arise from the bleeding and "hollowing out" from the big corporates of all the people who have had enough, made enough and want to give back to Society in some way. And so on.

I know, because I am a living example of it. I left the IPE 10 years ago determined never to work FOR anyone ever again, but rather to work WITH them.

And I now observe that it is a new Enterprise Model with French origins/antecedents that enables new ways for microbusinesses to come together and thrive.

The "Hanseatic Microfinance Initiative" is working on just such mechanisms, well documented on ET.

One or two politicians both here in Scotland and in Norway are just beginning to realise that good policies for microbusinesses are worth a lot of votes - and it's a number increasing daily.

It seems to me that "Open Capitalism" as I call it would be something that the French could use to refute the "Anglo-Saxon" model, once they were aware of it of course....


"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 06:31:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm unhappy with the use of "micro-enterprises" here (this is not a reply to Chris Cook's post but bruno-ken's), because what Wikipedia means is very small businesses, while micro-entreprise means something quite specific in France: a very small one-person business which has a turnover below a certain threshold can opt to be considered a micro-entreprise and benefit from greatly simplified bureaucracy. But the threshold is low: about €27,000 for services and about €72,000 for commercial activities.

Using small businesses as a shell or tax shelter... That sounds unlikely to me in France because generally conditions and regulations are strict.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 09:26:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You are right about micro-entreprise, as the Wikipedia entry for très petites entreprises clarifies.

(Interestingly, it mentions, as apparently a development for the future, that:

La Commission Européenne a pris une recommandation (6 mai 2003 - 2003/361/CE) pour notamment définir les micro entreprises (entreprises qui occupent moins de 10 personnes et dont le chiffre d'affaires annuel ou le total du bilan n'excède pas 2 millions d'euros) et les petites entreprises (entreprises qui occupent moins de 50 personnes et dont le chiffre d'affaires annuel ou le total du bilan n'excède pas 10 millions d'euros.
)

Using small businesses as a shell or tax shelter... That sounds unlikely to me in France because generally conditions and regulations are strict.

If there is one benefit of the strict regulations on businesses, it does make sense that it would be harder to play fast and loose with "fake companies" in France than in the U.S.  However, I would prefer to see hard numbers on that allegation against U.S. businesses, rather than go by someone's rather biased hunch.  The ease with which you can go into business for yourself in the U.S. is a great thing for genuine entrepreneurs, and I hate to see that being attacked on unsubstantiated grounds.

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco on Mon May 7th, 2007 at 09:44:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"inflexible labor laws"

See my comment below:


To rephrase it: 97% of CDI terminations because of economic conditions go on without problems in France. Even higher than general terminations.

On the big vs small, one of the proposition from Segolene Royal is to push for a kind of "Small Business Act", in France currently things are stacked against small business getting public contracts, winners are always big corpo.

Then there is the jungle of helps, but if you've choosen your settlement, local "CCI" and city administration will likely help you get the right stuff.

by Laurent GUERBY on Sun May 6th, 2007 at 05:06:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Je suis désolée, je reste méfiante face à ce genre d'infos partielles:
  • quels sont les chiffres concernant les faillites des entreprises, en particulier des nouvelles entreprises, dont la majorité se casse la gueule dans les 2-3 premières années ?

  • c'est quoi ce "nouveau référentiel" dont parle l'INSEE ?

  • et si l'année 2006 avait été spécialement mauvaise, qu'est-ce-que ça veut dire +10% ou même +50% par rapport à 2006 ?

Des chiffres annoncés par Dutreil et relayés par la Tribune à la veille du
2nd tour, permets-moi d'avoir des doutes sur leur côté "clair et net" !

*However, I don't think she read the whole article, only the following parts I excerpted for her:

Record historique de créations d'entreprises en France

Les chiffres de la création d'entreprises ont encore franchi un nouveau record le mois dernier. La forte croissance enregistrée le mois dernier a conduit à un total de 26 752 créations en mars 2007, et à un cumul de 294 621 créations sur les 12 derniers mois, relève un communiqué publié par Renault Dutreil, ministre des PME.

Dans sa dernière publication, l'Insee a en effet annoncé que le nombre de créations d'entreprises du mois de mars 2007 est en hausse de 2,6% par rapport au mois de février 2007, tandis que le nombre de créations au premier trimestre 2007 a progressé de 11,1% par rapport au premier trimestre 2006.

<...>

"Les chiffres du mois de mars 2007 constituent une nouvelle fois un record absolu jamais atteint auparavant, comme le montrent les données historiques recalculées par l'Insee suivant le nouveau référentiel" précise le communiqué [de l'Insee].



Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
by marco on Sat May 5th, 2007 at 07:43:43 PM EST
(slightly edited)

> - quels sont les chiffres concernant les faillites des entreprises, en
> particulier des nouvelles entreprises, dont la majorité se casse la gueule
> dans les 2-3 premières années ?

Dernier texte de l'article:

Les défaillances d'entreprises ont progressé en novembre dernier

Le nombre de défaillances d'entreprises jugées en France en novembre 2006 a progressé de 0,9% par rapport au mois d'octobre, à 3.166 en données corrigées des variations saisonnières, a indiqué ce mercredi l'Insee. En revanche, le nombre de défaillances jugées au cours des 12 mois jusqu'à novembre est en baisse de 8,1% par rapport aux 12 mois précédents, a précisé l'Institut, soit 38.813 faillites contre 42.242.

Donc environ 42 faillites contre 294,621 création d'entreprises au cours des 12 mois jusqu'à novembre.  (J'avoue, ça me parait extraordinairement bas aussi comme pourcentage de faillites.)

> - c'est quoi ce "nouveau référentiel" dont parle l'INSEE ?

Troisieme paragraphe:

Ces chiffres correspondent au nouveau référentiel adopté par l'Insee à compter du 1er janvier 2007 pour respecter les nouvelles normes européennes. Comme l'a fait remarquer l'Insee, cette harmonisation européenne n'a pas modifié le profil des créations d'entreprises observées depuis le début des années 1990.

> - et si l'année 2006 avait été spécialement mauvaise, qu'est-ce-que ça veut
> dire +10% ou même +50% par rapport à 2006 ?

En effet, les courbes de créations d'entreprises entre 1993 et 2006 recalculées par l'INSEE sur la base des nouvelles définitions européennes traduisent comme précédemment la forte dynamique engagée depuis 2002, avec une progression continue du nombre de créations sur ces dernières années.

> Des chiffres annoncés par Dutreil et relayés par la Tribune à la veille du
> 2nd tour, permets-moi d'avoir des doutes sur leur côté "clair et net" !

Je me suis posé la meme question!  Supposant que La Tribune supporte Sarkozy plutot que Royal, pourquoi annoncer des chiffres d'affaires/économiques aussi positifs et encourageants sur le statu quoi, et ainsi saboter les arguments pour a la necessite de "reforme" à la néoliberale que reclame Sarkozy?

Je ne crois pas qu'il s'agisse de la meme étude, mais j'ai trouvé un rapport sur leur site qui montre que les créations d'entreprises progressent constamment depuis plusieurs années, et meme plus rapidement depuis 2003 que jusqu'a 2002:

Les créations d'entreprises poursuivent leur hausse en 2006

surtout la graphique:

Nombre de créations pures d'entreprises par année

Source : répertoire des entreprises et des établissements (Sirene), Insee.

Cela dit, lorsqu'on regarde les chiffres par industrie, on remarqe que bien que ca marche bien dans certains secteurs comme les services aux entreprises, la construction, l'immobilier, et "éducation, santé, et action sociale", can ne va pas aussi bien dans autres secteurs ainsi que "hotellerie-restauration", "industries agroalimentaires", "commerce de gros", etc.:

Évolution des créations d'entreprises par secteur entre 2005 et 2006

Source : répertoire des entreprises et des établissements (Sirene), Insee.

I wish I studied business and/or economics -- or at least statistics! -- in college.

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco on Sat May 5th, 2007 at 08:49:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I mentioned before that I had set up a joint venture in France with a French company.  We had required board meetings by law, which I didn't forsee as a problem since we have quarterly board meetings in the US.  But when I attended the first board meeting I was shocked.  It was filled with legal issues, required documentation, and bureaucracy.  In the US the board meetings are primarily around business issues--review of results, discussion of strategy, special issues that may arise, etc.  Very, very little bureaucracy.  I found it very frustrating.  The board members of the French company were hardly interested in discussing business issues.  The French lawyer ran the meeting.
by wchurchill on Sat May 5th, 2007 at 10:56:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
sorry bruno-ken, I meant this to be a comment on the diary, and not to the specific comment I accidently replied to.
by wchurchill on Sat May 5th, 2007 at 10:57:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No worries, and thanks for information.  Did the French lawyer brief you on what the contents of the meeting would involve?  Was that a one time issue, to make sure things were in order, at the start of your venture, or were all board meetings like that?

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
by marco on Sat May 5th, 2007 at 11:17:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I only attended that one board meeting.  I did not need to attend each meeting, our head guy in Europe became our formal member on the board.  All of the board meetings were like that--perfunctory and legalistic.  We had a general manager in charge of the JV, and we just ran the business through him--treating the JV more like one of our overseas divisions.  That was fine with our French partners, as they received half of the profits during the life of the JV, and the business was very successful.  For us there was some advantage in having a French partner, and connections and insights into some of the French business praactises in our industry.  But we had to have these ritualistic board meetings.  we all thought they were a waste of time, even our French GM.  but it was c'est la vie.

It seemed to me it was just a difference in culture, and maybe legal systems.  and it wasn't worth having a blow-up about it.  we kept good friendly relationships between our senior managers and theirs.  and everything was fine.

by wchurchill on Sun May 6th, 2007 at 02:01:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
La Tribune is quite good at checking stuff, and publishes opinions from both sides of an issue. If you want to hear what unions, leftist economists and consumers have to say, strikes or jurisprudence on work law, you'll find it in La Tribune not in Le Monde or Liberation.

For example:

http://guerby.org/blog/index.php/2007/02/27/151-heures-travaillees

comes from La Tribune.

by Laurent GUERBY on Sun May 6th, 2007 at 04:59:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]