ECOFRA15 B D1 Eng
ECOFRA15 B D1 Eng
ECOFRA15 B D1 Eng
In France, the balance of trade has deteriorated almost continuously since the end of the
1990s. From a surplus in 1999, France began to show a deficit in 2005, which widened until
2011, before an improvement over the next two years. Many studies have focused on losses in
export market share. But how does the performance of French companies stand up on the
domestic market?
An examination of the macroeconomic data shows that the performance of companies in
France has declined fairly sharply in exports, but that this decline has been rather smaller on
the domestic market. This difference in dynamics may be the result of the positioning of
French companies in terms of products, the way in which they are able or not to cover the
scope of domestic and foreign demand. It may also be due to the behaviour of French expor-
ting companies which may have preferred the domestic market over foreign markets.
To take the microeconomic study further, data from individual companies in the manufactu-
ring sector are analysed. At first sight, a given company’s export performance and domestic
market performance have a tendency, albeit slight, to move in opposite directions. This may
be due to factors such as a deliberate company strategy to target a specific market or the
presence of production constraints. However, our analysis shows that a positive demand
shock in the domestic market in which the company is present, resulting in a rise in domestic
sales, then leads to an increase in exports, something which had already been noted in
previous studies covering an earlier period. This complementarity seems to be driven by
small companies and could reflect the existence of liquidity constraints. Increased sales in
one market could lessen these constraints, by facilitating funding for company development
in the second market. Strong domestic demand during the pre-crisis period in France is there-
fore not an explanatory factor of losses in export market share.
Over the last fifteen years, France’s foreign trade balance has deteriorated by
almost four percentage points of GDP
In France, trade in goods and services has deteriorated almost continuously since the end
of the 1990s (Fig.1a). From a surplus of €31.1 billion in 1999, France started to show a deficit
from 2005, and this widened until 2011. In the last three years, however, this deficit has come
down, settling at €39.2 billion in 2014. All in all, over these last fifteen years, France’s foreign
trade balance has deteriorated by €70.3 billion.
* José Bardaji, Benoît Campagne, Insee ; Jean-Charles Bricongne, Guillaume Gaulier, Banque de France.
This deterioration is due mainly to trade in industrial goods which recorded a €51.2 billion
1
deficit in 2014 against a €9.3 billion surplus in 1999. Trade in other goods and services has
seen much smaller and sometimes negative variations over the period, apart from trade in
agricultural products.
At a more detailed level, the deterioration in the trade of industrial goods masks a range of
very differing dynamics (Fig.1b). Of the €60.5 billion deterioration between 1999 and 2014,
€39.1 billion was the result of energy products alone. Trade deficits in capital goods and in
other industrial products both increased by about €15 billion. The trade surplus in agro-food
goods was maintained overall, while the surplus in transport equipment fluctuated then
eventually improved and reached €10 billion.
20
–20
–40
Other goods and services
–60 Industrial goods
Total
–80
–00
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
20
–20
–40
Agri-food industry
–60
Transport equipment
–80 Energy, coking and refining
Other industrial goods
–100 Equipment goods
Total
–120
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Source: Insee, national accounts, base 2010.
1. The balance of industrial goods (€-51.2 billion in 2014) is obtained by subtracting imports including cost, insurance
and freight (CIF) from exports measured free on board (FOB); hence the value of imports from a country that does not bor-
der France includes insurance and transport costs linked with bringing goods to the French border. When the balance is
measured in this way it is skewed slightly downwards. It is therefore not directly comparable with the balance for all goods
and services (€-39.2 billion in 2014) which includes a "CIF-FOB" adjustment to correct this bias, but which is applied
overall to all products. Changes in the balance of industrial goods can nevertheless still be interpreted.
How can we account for this deterioration in the trade of industrial goods? Once again, the
underlying factors differ according to the type of goods, especially between energy products
and manufactured products.
The increase in the energy bill, which designates the import-export balance for energy
products, is closely linked to the increase in the price of oil in Euros (Fig.2). Indeed, in 2014
natural hydrocarbons, which notably include crude oil, accounted for three-quarters of this
bill, with refined petroleum products and coke accounting for the remaining quarter. So in the
space of 15 years, the price of a barrel of oil (Brent Spot Price FOB) was multiplied by four and
a half, increasing from €17 in 1999 to €74 in 2014. Thus over the same period, France’s energy
bill increased by €39 billion: it reached just over € billion in 2014, the equivalent of the trade
deficit for all industrial goods.
12 60
8 40
4 20
Energy bill
(left scale)
0 0
1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
Sources: Insee, national accounts, base 2010; U.S. Energy Information Administration.
375 125
350 100
Exports of manufactured goods (left scale)
325 75
300 50
Imports of manufactured goods (left scale)
275 21 20 23 19 25
12 15
6 7 3
-21
250 0
-6 -6 -9 -6 -1
-12
225 -25
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
-3.0 5.0
Variation (right scale) Contribution of price difference (right scale)
-6.0 2.5
-9.0 0.0
-12.0 -2.5
Contribution of exchanged volumes (right scale)
-15.0 -5.0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Note: a positive (resp. negative) foreign trade cover ratio means that exports are greater (resp. lower) than imports. Unit represents points of percentage of imports.
Source: Insee, national accounts, base 2010.
This analysis is nevertheless more complex than this accounting breakdown would suggest.
Companies can indeed vary their margins in response to fluctuations in their competitiveness
in different markets (especially in exchange rates, in markets outside the Eurozone). These
types of margin-driven behaviour, which may be more or less significant depending on the
strength of the competition, cushion the effect of shocks on sales, but as they affect companies’
investment capacity, they may have consequences in terms of non-price competitiveness.
2. However, this favourable change in the terms of trade in the manufacturing sector was by no means sufficient to
compensate for the increase in energy prices over the period. All in all, the terms of trade contributed 5 points to the cover ratio
for all industrial goods.
- by product, by destination:
This equation is similar (1st order) to the difference in export growth rate compared to that for imports,
and which can be used to calculate contributions by product or by geographical destination p where:
(tc_)XFr®p represents (the growth rate for) French exports of product p / destined for p;
(tc_)MFr¬p represents (the growth rate for) French imports of product p / from p.
X
b) export trade performance P
Export performance is defined as the ratio of exports to world demand for French products. This ratio is
calculated by volume for all goods and services using the OECD Economic Outlook no. 96 database:
X
P Fra = XFra / DMFra
However, this raw indicator is driven downwards by the increase in international trade: the arrival of
the emerging economies for inclusion in international trade most often restricts the performances of the
advanced economies by cutting back their market shares. In order to have a “pure” measurement of
performance on third markets this trend has to be removed, but is difficult to evaluate precisely. We
therefore propose an alternative indicator which roughly corrects for the increase in international trade:
XFra
X
PFra = ´ exp(– bt ) where b corresponds to the trend approximated by the mean of Dln(POCDE
X
)t
DMFra
for the 34 OECD member countries aggregated over the period 1999-2013. It is a net indicator of the
common trend in the OECD countries. This correction automatically reduces the drop in the perfor-
mance indicator whenever international trade continues to develop to the detriment of the advanced
countries, which is the case here (b is negative, at -0.9%).
MFra
MD
PFra = 1– ´ exp (– bt ) where b corresponds to the trend approximated by the mean of
PIBFra
æ M ö
Dlnçç OCDE ÷ for the 34 OECD member countries aggregated over the period 1999-2013.
÷
è PIBOCDE øt
This net indicator of the common trend across the OECD countries automatically improves the
diagnosis whenever international trade continues to develop, which is also the case here (b is positive, at
2.1%).
For these two performance indicators, the reason for privileged trade perimeter around the OECD
countries is the proximity of the constituent economies and also the availability of data concerning PX.
Losses are concentrated in capital goods and other industrial products, and in relation to trade
with China and Germany
An analysis by major product type and destination provides more detail about the
strengths and weaknesses of the French economy over this period. Between 1999 and 2014,
the cover ratio of all industrial goods (including energy goods) declined in France by
15 percentage points. As for manufactured goods, the same three periods can be seen, with a
loss of 1 point on average per year at the start of the 21st century, followed by a loss of
2.5 points between 2002 and 2008 and a slight gain since then (Fig.4).
As it has already been pointed out, losses are due mainly to energy goods, especially
during the first two periods, because of the rise in oil prices. The acceleration of this loss in the
mid-2000s was primarily due to transport equipment, while the change in the last few years
has been more or less general.
5. Main geographical contributions to the variation of foreign trade cover ratio in France
between 1999 and 2013
in points in points
0.6 0.6
25 greater losses 25 greater gains
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
-0.1 -0.1
-0.2 Contribution of exports Average losses 1999 and 2013 -0.2
-0.3 Gains between 1999 and 2013
-0.3
-0.4 T Br s
-0.4
Ind ex n
ira a
Ph Afri o
rw s
So M oneico
ain
Ni bia
ed a
ab la e
ng m
Fin esia
Ire blic
n
r m na
Au ssia
Ca eria
ite etn a
lyn ina
Ch out edo n
he ro a
ili ca
Si gdo ia
Ja re
d am
Ne tzer tan
L ria
ine h K nia
Sp m
Ta a
Sw akh taly
ec Po ibya
n
nc r a a
h ge lta
m an
ba g
Ru ay
ud ola d
lgi y
pu l
Un hail azil
Tu pt
er d
xe Ir ei
d str d
C r l
i A nd
Ne Ca ene d
te
Em ysi
No and
Re ga
ate
M no
Ar Ma ppin
SwIndi
rn cc
Un i nad
ut o si
w me ga
e
S al oo
se ore
i
pa
Le our
Be an
Sa P lan
Ki al
th lan
ni s
ite Au an
o
u
S lan
ip
Ge Chi
y
st
ra
Po nt
s
ap
h r tu
Eg
z I
M
St
b
l
n
V
A
i
Ka
Lu
Cz
Fre
d
ite
Un
On the other hand, there are two more surprising phenomena relating to the losses. The
first concerns the presence of many other countries in the Eurozone, such as Belgium, Spain,
Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal and Ireland, which slightly temper the part played by
the Euro external exchange rate in the deterioration of the French trade balance. The second
concerns exporters of commodities (Norway, Russia, Libya, Saudi Arabia) where the loss was
ultimately fairly small compared to that recorded for energy products, and there are even gains
in some cases (United Arab Emirates, Iran). This can be explained by a concurrent increase in
exports to these countries (Russia, UAE and Saudi Arabia), and also by imports of these energy
3
products via other countries such as Belgium, for example.
Gains, on the other hand, are not so strong and can be found in trade with Japan (+0.06),
some countries of South-East Asia and Oceania, and the United Kingdom.
At this point, the two limitations of these illustrations must be pointed out. The first relates
to the possible differential in demand that economies have to deal with. If domestic demand is
significantly lower than foreign demand, then imports will be less dynamic than exports. An
adjustment for differential in demand is required. The second limitation relates to competition
3. Trade flows are not adjusted for re-exports. In this specific instance, energy commodities transit through the main
Belgian ports.
The performance of the French economy has deteriorated markedly in exports, although only
moderately on the domestic market
To examine this question further, it is useful to look at the performances of the French
economy not only in France but also in third markets. Two indicators have been constructed to
demonstrate these performances. The export market indicator reports sales abroad in response
to demand for French products. The domestic market indicator corresponds to the share of
gross domestic product derived from domestic production. To see the growth in international
trade, the two indicators can be constructed net of the common trend in the OECD countries
(see Box1). A rise in these indicators would mean sales were greater than demand, or that
there were gains in both export and domestic market share. A fall, on the other hand, would
indicate losses of market share. These market share gains/losses may be due to factors such as
price competitiveness, non-price competitiveness or specialisation in domestic production.
A wealth of information can be obtained by constructing these two indicators and examin-
ing changes since 1999 (Fig.6). First, the French economy’s performance in third markets has
fallen back over the last fifteen years, especially over the period 2002-2008. If adjusted for the
common trend in the advanced countries, this decline would be more or less halved. Next,
performances on the domestic market have also declined, although to a lesser degree. The
indicator shows a moderate fall, or even near stability when corrected for growth in interna-
tional trade over the period in question, showing moderate performances or counter-perfor-
mances limited to just a few years.
105
100
95
90
85
The greatest decline in export performance could come from an intensified degree of
competition from these third markets, or because new competitors may be more present
(emerging companies in all markets). It could also be the result of company strategy and
The macroeconomic results presented above suggest a disconnect between export and
domestic market performances over the period. Is the diagnosis the same for French exporting
companies? There are many reasons why aggregated changes could be different from individ-
ual changes. First, international trade leads to a certain degree of specialisation, and French
companies do not cover the entire spectrum of demand, whether domestic or foreign. At
aggregated level, demand can reflect changes in markets where companies have little or no
presence. In addition, aggregated changes cover all trade, including that associated with new
companies or companies exporting only infrequently. What is the situation for companies that
are relatively stable in both markets, domestic and foreign? To this end, individual company
data are explored to discover the nature of the link between performances in export and on the
domestic market.
Academic studies stress that production and liquidity constraints may provide a link between
export and domestic performances
The emergence of numerous microeconomic databases has revealed how very different
companies are regarding their participation in international trade. In particular, it can be seen
that exporting companies often demonstrate a stronger productivity than their counterparts
operating exclusively on the domestic market. This is the result either of self-selection as
companies decide to join the world market, or a phenomenon of learning by exporting (see
Clerides et al., 1998).
Following on from Krugman (1980), Melitz (2003) proposes an initial reference model
describing this self-selection effect. This model starts from the premise that companies are
different and have different technologies (i.e. productivities). When faced with fixed costs but
also additional costs associated with exporting and transport to foreign markets, only produc-
tive companies persist and continue to participate actively in international trade. An empirical
application of this type of model relates to the study of the link between company perfor-
mances on the domestic and foreign markets. Several opposing forces come into play, some
moving towards substitution while others favour complementarity between performances on
each of the markets.
If a company’s strategy is to gain presence in a particular market or to strengthen its position, it
can decide on the best allocation of resources. For example, in order to maintain or conquer new
markets, spending on advertising and participation at international fairs may be increased, which
will automatically have a bearing on resources allocated to the national market. Improved perfor-
mance in the target market will then be partly detrimental to performance in the other market.
Similarly, when marginal production costs are increasing, this will result in substitutability
between foreign markets and the national market (see Artus, 1970): since an increase in sales
For French companies, performances on the domestic and foreign markets may be negatively
but only weakly linked in the short term
Depending on variations in demand for their goods on different markets, companies that
are already in place will adjust their volumes and their selling prices (intensive margin
adjustments). There may also be a change in the population of exporting companies (entering
or exiting different markets, extensive margin adjustments). This phenomenon is not studied
here because of the low representation of such companies (mainly small and medium enter-
prises) in our database. The database is made up of the main industrial companies in France
which have exported continually for at least two consecutive years; these data are not exhaustive
(see Box 2).
Distribution in the working sample of enterprises by size, type of capital holding and sector
in %, unless otherwise stated
2002-2006 2008-2012
Size
TPE 0.9 4.0
SME 81.1 80.1
ETI 17.7 15.7
GE 0.3 0.3
Type of capital holding
Independant 19.6 16.7
Groups 80.4 83.3
of which Foreigners 31.9 33.6
of which French 48.6 49.7
Activity sector
Agri-food 13.5 16.4
Coking and refining 0.8 0.3
Equipment goods 23.5 20.8
Transport equipment 4.2 4.4
Other industrial goods 57.9 58.1
Total (average annual number of enterprises) 7, 940 5, 753
Field: France.
Note: microenterprise (TPE) is a company with fewer than 10 employees, SME between 10 and 249 employees, intermediate enterprise (ETI) between 250
and 4,999 employees, and large enterprise (GE) 5,000 employees or more.
Sources: Insee, EAE-Esane, LiFi, national accounts, authors calculation; custom data; BACI.
Is there a relationship between the performances of companies in the domestic and export
markets? At company level an increase in performance in the domestic market (resp. export
market) is defined as growth in domestic sales (resp. in exports) that is greater than domestic
4
demand (resp. external demand) in markets where the companies are present. For the period
2003-2012, a moderate substitutability between the domestic market and export markets
emerges for the “average” exporting industrial company (Fig.7): a 10-point improvement in
performance on the domestic market would tend to be accompanied by a lesser performance
of 3 points for export. This result persists if the exercise is repeated on sub-samples of compa-
nies differentiated by size and sector.
4. This domestic demand corresponds to the sum of final consumption, gross fixed capital formation and intermediate
consumption at product level.
10
– 10
– 20 y = – 0.28x – 3.57
R2 = 0.90
– 30
– 40
– 50 – 40 – 30 – 20 – 10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Growth of domestic sales net of growth of internal demand (in %)
Field: France.
Note: this graph corresponds to the synthetical representation of a scatterplot. The x-axis corresponds to an equipartition of the domestic sales growth rate net of
the domestic demand growth rate in 20 sub-samples. Subsequently, the y-axis represents the mean (as well as the 1st and 3rd quartiles) of the export sales growth
rate net of the foreign demand growth rate on each of these sub-samples. The furthest point on the left on the red curve therefore corresponds to the mean export
performance (around +15 %) on the sub-sample of firms which have the lowest domestic performance (that is firms in the 1st sub-sample with -50 %).
Sources: Insee, EAE-Esane, LiFi, national accounts; Customs; CEPII, BACI; authors calculation.
The econometric analysis shows a diversity of behaviour between small and large companies
The above analysis was based on performance, defined as the ability of companies to
increase their sales more quickly (or more slowly) than demand. However, the sensitivity
of sales to demand is usually less than one: a positive shock of 10% of foreign demand
would usually be accompanied by an increase of barely 3% in foreign sales in the first year
(see Fig.8 panel a and Box 3 for the methodology used). This result therefore shows the
presence of production or liquidity constraints: companies would not have the capacity to
However, the link between exports and domestic sales is internal: many factors can influ-
ence both variables simultaneously, for example changes in transport costs or investment
prices, which may result in the company having to choose, in the short term, between the two
markets. To estimate only the impact of domestic demand shocks on exports, we apply instru-
ments to growth in domestic sales: the explanatory variable we use for exports is the result of
the regression model relating growth in domestic sales to internal demand. In this way, we
eliminate the impact on the company’s domestic sales of any factors other than internal
demand. In this instance, sales in these two markets prove to be complementary: a 10%
increase in domestic sales is accompanied by a 4% increase in exports (see Fig.8 panel b).
How is the inversion of the relationship to be explained? Here, only the impact of the growth
in domestic sales due to the overall growth of the domestic market served by the company is
considered. This preliminary adjustment means that the substitution effect resulting from the
company’s location strategy is neutralised, insofar as the instrument used is independent of the
company’s choice to serve one or other of the markets. Mirroring this, the same regressions used
for domestic sales and related to exports produce identical conclusions and of similar orders of
5
magnitude to those already found in the literature (see Berman et al., 2014). The positive link
that emerges can then be interpreted as follows: increased sales in a market provide liquidity
that can ease the supply constraint from which the company is suffering. Success in a market
can be a positive signal which facilitates external funding for companies suffering liquidity
constraints (see Berman et al., 2014), and hence increases sales in the other market.
5. Using French data for 1995-2001, the authors found a very similar effect to this and also showed substitutability when
the adjustment for instrumental variables was not made. The regressions mentioned here are presented in the forthco-
ming working document.
The decline in export performance by the French economy was considerably greater than
the decline in the domestic market during the last decade, and is the main factor to account for
the deterioration in the trade balance for manufactured products.
During this period, any improvement in company performance in one of the markets tends
to be to the detriment of the other. Export sales are indeed negatively linked to domestic sales.
Although this link is weak, it does suggest that factors specific to substitution (company strat-
egy, production costs) prevail over factors that encourage complementarity (liquidity
constraint, technology or cost shock).
However, the deterioration in the trade balance is apparently not attributable to the
dynamism of domestic demand. Indeed, for the most part, in the case of companies faced with
a domestic demand shock, at worst, their response is not to adjust sales on foreign markets,
and at best, they even take advantage of this situation to increase their exports. Given that a
large proportion of French exports involve only a small number of companies, the largest
companies, there could therefore not be any substitutability at aggregated level between
domestic and foreign sales because domestic demand is so strong.
So how can we explain France’s relatively greater losses of market share in third markets?
Apart from margin behaviour, factors concerning price and non-price competitiveness
basically act in the same way in each of the markets. The reasons are to be found more in the
difference in demand structure in the domestic market and third markets, and in French
companies’ internationalisation strategies. Our study also suggests that in the short term, many
exporting companies redirect their activity from one market to the other for reasons other than
a change in demand in these markets: as fixed costs are higher when exporting, the rise in
production costs may have prompted some companies to withdraw from those markets where
their profitability was becoming insufficient and hence to favour the domestic market. n