FRANCE
ATTRACTIVENESS
SCOREBOARD
2016 EDITION
Business France
in partnership with
Ministry for the Economy
and Finance
The French Commission
for Regional Equality (CGET)
WWW.BUSINESSFRANCE.FR
IN PARTNERSHIP WITH
M I N I S T È R E D E L’ É C O N O M I E
ET D E S F I NA NC E S
CONTENTS
04 / FOREWORD
12 / CHAPTER
Muriel Pénicaud
Ambassador for International
Investment
CEO of Business France
Outcome indicators
Attractiveness criteria
14 # 1 F
oreign direct investment
28 # 1 M
arket size and strength
20 # 2 Internationalization and the
opening up of economies
32 # 2 Education and human capital
06 / INTRODUCTION
08 / METHODOLOGICAL
APPROACH
10 / OVERVIEW
1
22 # 3 Strategic activities
24 # 4 Foreign skills
26 / CHAPTER
2
37 # 3 Research and innovation
APPENDICES
70 # A The dynamics of France’s
regions
77 # B Europe: a key player on the
global stage
80 # C T
he perceptions of foreign
investors
43 # 4 Infrastructure
48 # 5 A
dministrative and
regulatory environment
METHODOLOGY
52 # 6 Financial environment
84 I. Outcome indicators
55 # 7 Costs and taxation
85 II. Attractiveness criteria
62 # 8 Quality of life
65 # 9 Green growth
FOREWORD
Muriel Pénicaud
Ambassador for International
Investment
CEO of Business France
04
FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD
POSITIVE TRENDS BEING BORNE OUT
In these uncertain times, painting an unnecessarily bleak picture
becomes all too easy, particularly in economics. However, those
seeking accurate insights into the attractiveness of the French
economy should look to banish this doom and gloom, and
one good way to do this is to examine international statistics
on the subject. This is the aim of this France Attractiveness
Scoreboard, which contrasts France’s performances with those
in 13 other major OECD countries across a wide range of
investment attractiveness criteria. Careful analysis of all these
economic indicators belie the prevailing mood of unwarranted
pessimism, since whichever way France’s results are presented,
they are mostly very positive.
The first success story is that in a fast-changing world, France
continues to enjoy significant structural advantages, with
a buoyant domestic market, supported by Europe’s highest
fertility rate, and unrivalled infrastructure, including some of
the continent’s most competitive electricity rates, as well as
Paris-Charles de Gaulle airport, ranked first for cargo and
second by passenger numbers in Europe.
The second success story is that some of France’s key
strengths are ever more apparent, such as its well suited
location as a hub to other countries throughout Europe and
Africa, high hourly productivity, which has improved markedly in
the manufacturing sector (up 3.6% in 2015), and well qualified
R&D personnel, improving in line with the other countries in
this report.
The third success story is that criteria on which France
is usually less well regarded are also steadily improving.
Cost competitiveness was up in 2015, particularly due to the
competitiveness and employment tax credit (CICE), while there
was a net rise in the number of active enterprises, with foreign
investors finding it easy to access loans, ranking France fourth
in Europe, ahead of Germany the United Kingdom. In 2015,
France was ranked second in Europe for venture capital by
transaction numbers, while a billion euros invested in the first
half of 2016 saw France ranked second in Europe for startup
funding, under the burgeoning “La French Tech” initiative.
The face of French business now has a new look, in a country
increasingly seen as a business-friendly nation of entrepreneurs,
turning stereotypes of an unadventurous, risk-averse country on
their head. For France is not falling behind: it is fully engaged in
the third industrial revolution as one of its key players. When the
Executive Chairman of Cisco stated in July 2016 that “France
is Europe’s Silicon Valley”, he was merely corroborating the
tangible spirit of enterprise that has come to the fore. More and
more foreign executives also agree with this new image of the
country, as can be seen in Business France’s TNS-Sofres investor
survey. Despite a challenging economic and political climate,
75% of foreign investors interviewed in 2016 considered France
to be an attractive investment location, compared with 65% in
2014, and 53% in 2009.
However, a number of lingering or emerging weaknesses
remain to be addressed. Executive perceptions of France’s
regulatory environment, labor costs, and taxation all remain
negative, despite laudable efforts to cut red tape – only four
days are required to found a company in France, compared
with 4.5 in the United Kingdom and 10.5 in Germany – and
despite the recent reduction in labor costs, and even though
effective tax rates for businesses are much less than the nominal
rates might imply, particularly as a result of France’s research
tax credit, whose scope is unrivalled in Europe.
France’s positive foreign investment results are further proof of
the good news outlined above. In 2015, France was ranked third
in Europe for the number of job-creating foreign investments,
and first for foreign investment in industry, while inward R&D
investments continued their rise to more than 90 last year, up
130% in five years. The great variety of sectors and business
operations in which these investments were made is a reflection
of France’s broad range of key strengths. Given the reforms to
come, and those pursued in recent years that have yet to bear
all their fruit, it is not unreasonable to remain optimistic about
France’s future as an attractive place to do business.
FOREWORD
05
INTRODUCTION
06
FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD
The ‘internationalization’ of economies is very much a part
of today’s modern world, as movements of capital and
talent intensify competition between countries and regions.
Globalization can be seen in this light to pit all global economic
players against one other.
The ‘economic attractiveness’ of a location is strictly bound to
its competitiveness. However large a country or region may be,
a failure to be competitive may lead inexorably to population
decline, disinvestment and an exodus of businesses.
In just a few years, this concept of attractiveness has become a
key factor in the economic performances of different countries,
and their full participation in the global economy. The challenge
is to attract job-creating foreign investments given the major
role they play in industrialization and regional economic
development.
For the seventh consecutive year, the France Attractiveness
Scoreboard – produced by Business France in conjunction with
the Treasury Directorate at the French Ministry for the Economy,
Industry and Digital Affairs, and the French Commission for
Regional Equality (CGET) – brings an original approach to this
discipline.
It compares the key outcome indicators and attractiveness
criteria of 14 OECD countries by compiling a vast array of
economic data without resorting to data-weighted aggregate
indicators, thereby enabling an objective analysis to be made
of France as an investment location.
The Scoreboard confirms France’s openness to the world:
it is the seventh largest recipient in the world of cumulative
inward FDI stocks, one of the three most attractive European
economies in the eyes of job-creating foreign investors, Europe’s
leading recipient of foreign investment in industry for the last
15 years, and the fourth most popular destination in the world
for international students.
The France Attractiveness Scoreboard highlights that France
can count on a number of key strengths, including its large
domestic market and central location within Europe, its vibrant
demographics, excellent tertiary education system, high labor
productivity, excellent infrastructure, a dynamic entrepreneurial
environment, and superb quality of life.
It also confirms that employment law and taxation are areas
in which France must regain ground in today’s competitive
environment.
However, economic attractiveness is not simply a matter
of objective concerns, but also comprises influence as it is
perceived and generated.
Three appendices complement the analysis in this publication.
The first sheds light on France’s regional economies, and
government policy (infrastructure development, clusters, etc.)
being implemented to ensure that each region remains an
attractive investment location.
The second examines the impact of the European Single Market
in the global economy: the European Union is the world’s
largest economic power, one of its leading trading blocs, and
the most popular investment location for companies expanding
in foreign countries.
The third explores the perceptions of foreign decision makers,
which have just as much influence on a firm’s location choices
as economic indicators. France’s structural advantages, not least
the business environment provided to innovative companies, as
well as its highly productive workforce, are widely acknowledged.
Furthermore, the “La French Tech” initiative is a valuable
showcase for France’s investment attractiveness.
INTRODUCTION
07
METHODOLOGICAL
APPROACH
E
The countries compared with France
in this report are:
conomic attractiveness can be defined as the capacity to attract new business
and mobile factors of production (capital, skilled labor, etc.) to a specific location.
This capacity is related to a wide range of macroeconomic criteria.
By compiling a vast array of economic data, but without resorting to aggregate
indicators, our aim is to provide an objective view of France’s attractiveness as an
investment location.
Key indicators include market size, human capital, research and innovation, infrastructure,
administrative and financial environments, investment and labor costs (including
taxation, which plays a significant role), as well as quality of life. Each subject is discussed
with reference to specific indicators.
These countries play a major role in international investment and have similar skill
sets and/or substantial commercial relations with France. Poland has been chosen as
an example of a country from central and Eastern Europe having recently joined the
European Union. The relative performances of these 14 countries are also compared
with the EU average, while for some key indicators a comparison is made with other
countries from around the world.
European:
Non-European:
•Austria
•Japan
•Belgium
•United States
•Finland
•France
•Germany
•Ireland
•Italy
•Netherlands
•Poland
•Spain
•Sweden
•United Kingdom
FRANCE’S ATTRACTIVENESS TO INVESTORS: OBSERVED FINDINGS
Summary of principal outcome indicators
Indicators
France’s ranking
among the sample
of 14*
Leading countries among
the sample of 14
Foreign industrial investment projects in Europe (2015)
1 (1)
France, United Kingdom
Proportion of foreign students enrolled in advanced research programs (%, 2014)
2 (1)
United Kingdom, France
2 (2)**
United Kingdom, France
International students by host country (2014)
4 (4)****
United States, United Kingdom
Inward FDI stock (US$ billion, 2015)
8 (8)****
United States, Hong Kong
Contribution of foreign subsidiaries to employment in the manufacturing sector (%, 2013)
9 (9)
Ireland, Belgium
Contribution of foreign subsidiaries to value added in the manufacturing sector (%, 2013)
9 (10)
Ireland, Belgium
11 (20)****
United States, Hong Kong
Foreign investment projects in Europe*** (2015)
FDI inflows (US$ billion, 2015)
* France’s ranking in the 2015 Scoreboard in parentheses
** According to Ernst & Young, France is the third leading recipient of foreign investment in Europe.
*** These rankings are based on the 12 European countries in our sample; Japan and the United States are not included.
**** Global rankings
08
FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD
SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL ATTRACTIVENESS CRITERIA
Indicators sorted from most to least favorable
France’s ranking
among the
sample of 14*
Leading countries
among the sample of 14
Tax incentives for business enterprise R&D (% of GDP, 2013)
1 (1)
France, Belgium
Leading passenger airports in the EU-28 (Millions of passengers, 2015)
2 (2)
United Kingdom (London Heathrow),
France (Paris Charles de Gaulle)
Fixed broadband penetration rate (Subscribers per 100 inhabitants, 2015)
2 (2)
Netherlands, France
Global market share in European investment funds (%, December 2015)
3 (2)
Ireland, Germany
Electricity rates (€/kWh, H2, 2015)
3 (3)
Sweden, Finland
Rail freight transport (Millions of tonne-km, 2015)
3 (3)
Germany, Poland
Access to EU-27 markets (Index, France=100, 2015)
3 (3)
Belgium, Netherlands
Venture capital investment (% of GDP, 2015)
3 (3)
Finland, Ireland
R&D personnel (Per thousand labor force, 2014)
4 (4)
Finland, Sweden
Ease of access to loans (WEF score, 2015-2016)
4 (4)
Sweden, Finland
Patents filed (PCT procedure) (Per million inhabitants, 2013)
4 (4)
United States, Japan
Revealed technological advantage in nanotechnologies (Index, 2012)
4 (6)
Poland, Spain
5 (4)***
United States, United Kingdom
Productivity per employee (US$, at 2015 PPP)
5 (4)
Ireland, United States
Labor compensation per employee (US$, 2015)
5 (5)
Poland, Spain
Gross domestic product (US$ billion, 2015)
6 (6)***
United States, China
Gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD) (US$ billion, 2014)
6 (6)***
United States, China
Lowest income inequality (Gini coefficient, 2013)
6 (9)
Finland, Belgium
Human resources in science and technology (Share of active population, 2015)
7 (7)
Finland, Sweden
Intensity of R&D activities (% of GDP, 2014)
8 (8)
Japan, Finland
Revealed technological advantage in biotechnologies (Index, 2013)
8 (6)
Spain, Belgium
Models and industrial designs (Per million inhabitants, 2014)
9 (7)
Sweden, Austria
Indicators
Service exports (% of global exports, 2015)
GDP growth (%, 2015)
10 (10)
Social security contributions (% of total tax receipts, 2014)
10 (10)
Ireland, United Kingdom
12 (12)**
Ireland, Poland
Nominal corporate tax rate (%, 2015)
Ireland, Sweden
* France’s ranking in the 2015 Scoreboard in parentheses
** Excluding the United States and Japan
*** Global rankings
METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH
09
OVERVIEW
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Analysis of the investment attractiveness criteria detailed in
this Scoreboard reveal a number of France’s key strengths:
• The size of its domestic market (the world’s sixth largest
economy); less than two hours from major European cities, France’s
central location in Europe makes it an ideal springboard into other
European markets (ranked third for “access to EU-27 markets”).
•Its commercial power as the world’s fifth largest services exporter
and eighth largest goods exporter.
•Its skilled workforce, which can be seen by high hourly labor
productivity (ranked seventh in the world and fourth among our
sample countries), and a high proportion of researchers (9.4
researchers per thousand labor force, ranked fourth in our sample).
•Excellent global connections and high-quality infrastructure:
France has first-class airports – Paris-Charles de Gaulle is ranked
first in Europe for cargo and second by passengers carried after
London Heathrow – as well as very attractive energy access, with
an efficient and reliable electrical grid – electricity rates are among
the most competitive in Europe – and an excellent broadband
penetration rate (ranked second among our sample countries).
•Buoyant demographics: France has the best fertility rate in
Europe, with an average edging on two children per woman.
•A marked improvement in cost competitiveness in 2015,
notably due to the cost savings from the competitiveness and
employment tax credit (CICE), as well as greater productivity per
hour worked in the manufacturing sector, with an increase of 3.6%
in France in 2015, compared with 1.1% for the EU-28.
•Cost competitiveness for R&D activities, which has improved since
2008, while France also offers companies the most generous
R&D tax treatment (ranked first among our sample countries).
•Quality of life: In addition to its rich, diverse history and cultural
10
This wave of enterprise creation and development is fostered by a
favorable administrative and financial environment, especially
for startups: Paris is one of the cities to have introduced the most
effective policy initiatives in the world to catalyze entrepreneurship
and innovation, alongside San Francisco, New York and London
(City Initiatives for Technology, Innovation and Entrepreneurship,
Accenture), while France also stands out for startup access to equity
finance (Global Entrepreneurship Index 2016) and came second in
Europe for venture capital by transaction numbers in 2015.
For ease of access to loans, France continued to be ranked fourth
in 2015 among our sample countries, according to the WEF Global
Competitiveness Report 2015-16, ahead of Germany (7th) and the
United Kingdom (10th).
Labor costs and taxation are frequently flagged for attention in
both opinion surveys and international rankings.
Nevertheless, more detailed analysis of these indicators
presents a more balanced picture. France was ranked fifth among
our sample countries, ahead of Germany and the United Kingdom,
for labor compensation per employee in 2015, as salaries across
the French economy rose only 1.4%, less than in Germany (2.2%)
and the United Kingdom (1.8%). As such, France’s successful
control of hourly labor costs stands out with respect to its
leading European rivals.
Despite one of the highest nominal rates of tax on profits, corporate
tax receipts only account for a small share of GDP in France
(2.0% in 2014, compared with 2.4% in the United Kingdom and
2.6% in the United States). Corporate tax revenues are therefore
quite low compared with the OECD average (2.9% of GDP). The
French government’s “Responsibility and Solidarity Pact”
announced in 2014 provides for a reduction in the corporate
tax rate from 33.3% in 2017 to 28% in 2020, the abolition of the
temporary surcharge as of 2016, and phasing out the corporate
social solidarity contribution (C3S) between 2015 and 2017.
heritage, France’s public-sector driven social model gives citizens
access to a wide array of free high-quality services, particularly
in education and healthcare.
France’s tax system is noticeable for a high rate of corporate tax,
but a narrow tax base, reduced by a large number of waivers
and exemptions, particularly as France offers businesses more
generous R&D tax treatment than any other country.
France is a very buoyant market for net enterprise creation: The
total number of active enterprises grew by 7.2% in 2014, through
a net increase of 230,187 across the entire economy. The average
2014 growth figure for the EU-28 as a whole was just 0.9%. In the
manufacturing sector, net enterprise creation was 6.8% in 2014,
equating to a net increase in active enterprises of 16,117. These
results contrast with the rest of the EU-28, where net manufacturing
enterprise creation fell by 0.7% in 2014, as well as with Germany
(down 0.6%) and the United Kingdom (down 0.7%).
In an international environment marked by increasing mobility of
capital and heightened competition between economies, these
advantages cannot however be taken for granted. Above
and beyond France’s weaknesses that require remedial action,
every criteria upon which judgements are formed about the
attractiveness of the French economy demands constant scrutiny
and improvement. As investment attractiveness is a relative notion,
with every country seeking to enhance its performances, France
must always look to build anew on its foundations.
FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD
FRANCE’S KEY STRENGTHS
INDICATORS
FRANCE’S POSITION
LEADING COUNTRIES
2016
Change
Access to EU-27 markets
3
-
Belgium, Netherlands
Final consumption expenditure
4
-
United Kingdom, Italy
Fertility rate
1
-
France, Ireland
4
-
Finland, Sweden
I. MARKET SIZE AND STRENGTH
II. EDUCATION AND HUMAN CAPITAL
R&D personnel per thousand labor force
III. RESEARCH AND INNOVATION
Government outlays on R&D
4
-
United States, Germany
Patent applications via the PCT procedure
4
N/A
United States, Japan
Revealed technological advantage in nanotechnologies
4
2
Poland, Spain
Investment in inland transport infrastructure
1
-
France, Japan
Road freight transport
4
-
Germany, Poland
Rail freight transport
3
-
Germany, Poland
15 leading airports in the EU-28
2
-
United Kingdom (London Heathrow),
France (Paris-CDG)
Broadband penetration rate
2
-
Netherlands, France
Average download speeds
4
-
Sweden, Japan
Electricity rates
3
-
Sweden, France
Indicators for leading European office property markets
1
-
France (Paris), United Kingdom (London)
Ease of enforcing contracts
3
-
Austria, Germany
Enterprises and individuals using the internet
for interaction with public authorities
2
-
Finland, France
Estimated value of tenders
2
-
United Kingdom, France
Net growth in active enterprises - Total economy
1
-
France, United Kingdom
Net growth in active enterprises - Manufacturing sector
1
-
France, Netherlands
Enterprise start-up rate
4
-1
United Kingdom, Poland
IV. INFRASTRUCTURE
V. ADMINISTRATIVE AND REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT
VI. FINANCIAL ENVIRONMENT
Ease of access to loans
4
-
Sweden, Finland
Change in lending to non-financial corporations
1*
N/A
France, Germany
Market share of European investment funds industry
3
-1
Ireland, Germany
Venture capital investment
3
-
Finland, Ireland
VII. COSTS AND TAXATION
Business operating costs - Total economy
3*
-
Netherlands, Italy
Business operating costs - R&D sector
2*
1
Netherlands, France
Trends in unit labor costs - Total economy
3*
5
Netherlands, Spain
Trends in unit labor costs - Manufacturing sector
1*
6
France, Netherlands
Trends in productivity per hour worked - Manufacturing sector
2*
N/A
Sweden, France
Trends in cost competitiveness - Euro zone
2*
1
Spain, France
Government funding of business enterprise R&D expenditure (BERD) and R&D
tax incentives
1
-
France, Belgium
Access to healthcare
1
1
France, Poland
Public spending on social protection
1
-
France, Finland
Public spending on culture, leisure and worship
2
-
Netherlands, France
Primary energy generation from renewable sources
3
-
Germany, Italy
Carbon intensity
2
-
Sweden, France
Carbon emissions through fuel combustion per 1,000 inhabitants
2
1
Sweden, France
Energy intensity of GDP, with and without nuclear
1
-
France, Ireland
Employment in the renewable energy sector
2
-
Germany, France
Turnover in the renewable energy sector
2
-
Germany, France
VIII. QUALITY OF LIFE
IX. GREEN GROWTH
* Smaller sample (10 countries or fewer) ** Among the world’s leading economies
OVERVIEW
11
12
1
Outcome
indicators
I. Foreign direct investment
II.Internationalization and the opening up
of economies
III.Strategic activities
IV.Foreign skills
13
Foreign direct investment inflows (1995-2015)
Current US$ billion
Developed countries
United States, Hong Kong, the United
2,000
Kingdom, China, Germany, Singapore,
1,600
and Switzerland. According to Banque de
1,200
France data, inward FDI stock in France
800
amounted to €606 billion in late 2015, up
400
Transition economies
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
Global FDI flows rose substantially by 38%
2002
0
1995
€45 billion from the previous year-end.
Emerging economies
2001
and Hong Kong are combined), after the
Source: UNCTAD, 2016
2000
(FDI) in the world (or seventh, if China
Fig 1
1999
stock of inward foreign direct investment
1998
France has the eighth highest cumulative
1997
Foreign
direct
investment
U
1996
#1
NCTAD data show that global FDI flows rose 38% in
2015 to US$1,760 billion.
FDI inflows in the developed world practically doubled
to US$962 billion, as developed countries re-emerged as the
leading recipients, attracting as much as 55% of global FDI.
Inward investment received in Europe amounted to US$504 billion
(up 65%), of which US$439 billion were received by EU countries
(up 50%).
The United States (US$380 billion) became the world’s leading FDI
recipient, ahead of Hong Kong and China, after a sharp increase
in inward investment of more than 250%.
UNCTAD data highlight that France is a preferred location for
foreign investment. With a long history of openness to international
trade, France was ranked 11th among the world’s top 20 FDI
destinations in 2015, after a massive increase in inflows, which
totaled US$43 billion.
in 2015 to US$1,760 billion. Developed
countries re-emerged as the leading
recipients, attracting 55% of global FDI
flows, chief among them the United States
(US$380 billion).
Fig 2
Source: UNCTAD, 2016
Foreign direct investment inflows (2015)
Leading 20 recipients
Current US$ billion
FDI inflows in France rebounded to
300
US$43 billion in 2015, putting France into
250
11th place among the world’s top 20 FDI
200
destinations.
150
380
100
50
14
FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD
Turkey
Chile
Italy
Australia
Luxembourg
Mexico
Belgium
Germany
United Kingdom
France
India
Canada
Brazil
Singapore
Switzerland
Netherlands
Ireland
China
Hong Kong
United States
0
# 1 Foreign direct investment
As regards inward FDI stock, France is ranked eighth in the
world (or seventh, if China and Hong Kong are combined)
and third in Europe, having accumulated US$772 billion by
2015, after the United States (US$5,409 billion), Hong Kong
(US$1,572 billion), the United Kingdom (US$1,457 billion),
China (US$1,221 billion), Germany (US$1,121 billion), Singapore
(US$978 billion), and Switzerland (US$833 billion).
In terms of national wealth (FDI stock/GDP), France has
received as much foreign investment over time as Germany,
and more than Italy and the United States.
The countries with the highest proportion of FDI stock are generally
small economies, like Belgium, the Netherlands and Ireland,
where a significant proportion of FDI received is associated with
cross-border transactions involving holding companies or special
purpose entities (cf. methodology hereafter).
Fig 3
Source: UNCTAD; IMF; Business France calculations
Inward FDI stock (2015)
DIRECT INVESTMENT FLOWS,
UNCTAD
Definition
Global statistics on foreign investment flows and stocks are
collected by UNCTAD (and the IMF for stocks) from central
banks, statistics agencies and national governments. A direct
investment relationship is deemed to be established when
an individual or company (the investor) owns 10% or more
of the voting rights in the company (which is then referred
to as the direct investment company) or, failing this, 10%
of its share capital. Thereafter, all financial transactions
between the two companies are recorded as foreign direct
investment in the financial account of the host country’s
balance of payments.1
Statistics concerning FDI flows illustrate the transfer of
capital between foreign companies and their French
subsidiaries. They include:
180
• Share capital operations in the strict sense of the term,
including business creations, business acquisitions through the
acquisition of shares or earning assets, balancing subsidies,
loan consolidations, subordinated debt and bank capital.
160
• Real-estate investments.
140
• Reinvested earnings that represent the proportion of direct
investment companies’ operating income that is transferred
to the parent company over the course of a financial year,
less any dividends distributed to the parent company during
that year.
% of GDP
200
120
100
80
60
• Other transactions, including short-term and long-term
deposits, advances and loan transactions between affiliated
companies, with the exception of commercial loans and
loans and deposits between resident banks and their foreign
correspondents that are recorded under “other investments.”
40
20
Fig 4
Japan
Italy
United States
France
Germany
Finland
Austria
Spain
Poland
United Kingdom
Sweden
Netherlands
Belgium
Ireland
0
Methodological shortcomings compromise the reliability
of the UNCTAD data:
Source: UNCTAD, 2016
Inward FDI stock (2015)
Leading 15 recipients
Current US$ billion
3,000
5,587
2,500
• FDI flows are highly volatile and frequently subject to
revision. The Banque de France recently made a very
large revision to its estimate of FDI inflows to France
in 2013, revising upwards its figure to US$43 billion,
compared with US$5 billion in its previous publication.
Consequently, France remains among the 20 leading
FDI recipients in the world, moving from 11th place in
2013 to 19th place in 2014, compared with the 42nd
place it held in 2013.2
2,000
1,500
1,000
Ireland
Belgium
Brazil
Spain
Australia
Netherlands
Canada
France
Switzerland
Singapore
Germany
China
United Kingdom
Hong Kong
United States
500
0
• FDI flows comprise a wide variety of transactions –
business creations, equity stake acquisitions, real-estate
investments (included in “share capital”) and intra-group
loans – which cannot be interpreted in any meaningful way
at aggregate level, as presented by UNCTAD. Rather than
simply considering the total amount of FDI inflows, changes
in “share capital”, representing new physical investments in
France, should be subject to further analysis.
(1)
(2)
Balance of Payments method, 05-016z, November 2005.
Exact ranking not published.
CHAPTER 1 OUTCOME INDICATORS
15
Foreign direct investment # 1 FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT FLOWS, BANQUE DE FRANCE
Using the standard international method in the IMF’s Balance
of Payments Manual (Sixth Edition), the Banque de France has
recorded that FDI inflows to France in 2015 were US$37.7
billion, versus €0.2 billion in 2014.
However, rather than drawing a simplistic conclusion from the
total FDI inflows figure, changes in FDI components deserve to be
distinguished and subjected to further analysis (cf. figure below).
• Share capital investments (including real-estate investments) tripled
from 2014 to US$34.6 billion in the wake of a number of major mergers
and acquisitions in 2015, including the merger between Lafarge and
Holcim, and General Electric’s takeover of Alstom’s energy division.
• Reinvested earnings rose 38% from €5.3 billion in 2014 to
€7.3 billion in 2015.
• Intra-group loans (internal cash flows between subsidiaries
belonging to the same parent company) were €6 billion in the
red in 2015. This negative balance reflects an overall reduction in
the amount of money on loan to affiliated French companies. The
fall in this negative figure from -€15 billion in 2014 is the result of
a marked decline in the debts of French companies affiliated to
foreign corporations, and greater use of debt financing to fund
mergers and acquisitions.
Tab 1
Source: Banque de France
FDI inflows to France (€ billion)
2014
2015
Total FDI flows
0.2
35.7
Share capital
9.7
34.6
Reinvested earnings
Other transactions
5.3
7.3
-14.8
-6.2
Fig 5
Source: Banque de France, 2016
FDI inflows to France (Banque de France)
€ billion
50
Share capital, including real estate
Reinvested earnings
Intra-group loans and commercial loans
Total
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
16
2008
2009
2010
2011
FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD
2012
2013
2014
2015
•FDI flows from a balance-of-payments perspective and
methodological concerns
FDI flows from a balance-of-payments perspective and
methodological concerns
The Banque de France states that the increase in FDI flows
observed in recent years is primarily the result of intra-group loans
that partially reflect the growing role of special purpose entities
(SPEs). These SPEs are set up in tax havens and their main activity
is to hold equity securities in foreign companies on behalf of
their parent company and to manage the cash flow between the
group’s affiliates. This leads to an increase in FDI amounts and
makes it difficult to interpret foreign direct investment statistics.
The Banque de France uses two methods to compile FDI statistics:
firstly, traditional methodology, in use in most countries and
by international organizations, which remains the only way to
make international comparisons and compile FDI flow and stock
rankings by country; and secondly, “extended directional principle”
methodology, recommended by both the IMF (Sixth edition of
the IMF Balance of Payments Manual) and the OECD, but yet
to be adopted by many countries, which involves adjusting for
intragroup loans so as to obtain a single net figure for each group.
The underlying role of share capital investments (new investments
and equity acquisitions) in the 2015 figures underlines that annual
FDI flows remain extremely volatile from one year to the next,
and are often affected disproportionately by a small number of
large-value transactions. It also highlights why FDI flows cannot be
used as a benchmark for the relative attractiveness of an economy,
since they largely comprise financial transactions arising from
mergers and acquisitions driven by corporate strategies that bear
no exclusive relation to the attractiveness of the country in which
the head office of the acquisition target is located.
Consequently, the attractiveness of an economy cannot be
ascertained solely on the basis of FDI flows, as their reflection
of such wide-ranging realities makes them inherently volatile.
As such, data from individual firms must be used. The analysis
should consolidate data on job-creating foreign investment
projects, as well as data relating to the contributions that foreign
subsidiaries make to economies (employment, R&D, value added).
This is the strategy adhered to by Business France in its annual
report on job-creating investment in France.
# 1 Foreign direct investment
GOVERNMENT MEASURES TO PROMOTE COMPETITIVENESS AND INVESTMENT
Re-equipping businesses with the means to position
themselves as strong, long-term international
competitors
•The “National Pact for Growth, Competitiveness and Employment”
presented by the French Prime Minister on November 6, 2012
comprises eight competitiveness levers and 35 policy decisions, with
innovation at the heart of this strategy.
•The competitiveness and employment tax credit (CICE)
automatically applies to all companies subject to corporate tax or
income tax employing at least one employee. Since 2014, the annual
tax credit has amounted to 6% of gross payroll costs for employees
paid up to 2.5 times the statutory national minimum wage. Until 2017,
this tax credit represented a total annual tax saving for companies of
€20 billion, equivalent to 1% of France’s GDP. As of January 1, 2017,
the tax credit rate will rise from 6% to 7%.
•An Employment Act passed in the wake of an agreement between
employer federations and trade unions. It responds to the needs of
companies to adjust output, and consolidates employment security,
enabling:
•A Growth, Economic Activity and Equal Economic Opportunity
Act has provided for a number of changes:
– Reform to employment tribunals: limits fixed for compensation in
accordance with company size and the employee’s length of service.
– Clearer collective dismissal procedures, enabling affected
companies to pursue part of their business as a going concern
and to save as many jobs as possible.
– Supplementary depreciation allowance (40% of the cost price
of an investment): all businesses making a physical investment
between April 15, 2015 and April 15, 2016 will be eligible for a
one-off tax break in the form of a corporate tax deduction in line
with the amount invested. This allowance has now been extended
until April 2017 and expanded to the digital sector.
– Banking disintermediation: making it easier for companies to lend
to one another, developing savings certificates, and making it
possible to create life assurance contracts.
– Abolition of prison sentences for the offense of obstructing
employee representative bodies.
– Better anticipation of changes within companies.
– A more attractive expatriate tax system: employees can continue
to benefit from their special five-year expatriate status even if
they change jobs within a group of companies.
– The pursuit of collective solutions to adjust to changes while
safeguarding jobs.
– Reform to share warrants for entrepreneurs will make it easier for
talent to be recruited to start-ups.
– An overhaul of collective dismissal (layoff) procedures.
– More secure career paths.
•A Social Dialogue and Employment Act to enhance the effectiveness
of employer/employee relations at company level, improving employee
representation in micro-enterprises, greater possibilities for merging
different employee representation bodies, and for combining various
annual statutory negotiations, briefings and consultations with them.
•A Labor Act has recently continued down this path, by extending
the scope for collective bargaining to give companies greater leeway
to organize themselves in response to changes in the economic cycle,
particularly by adjusting working hours, and by creating a new type
of job security agreement.
•The Responsibility and Solidarity Pact, which has four components:
– Lowering labor costs and taxation on companies: Successive
measures to cut labor costs will amount to savings of nearly
€35 billion by 2017, with the abolition of the exceptional corporate
tax contribution reducing capital costs for large corporates by
€3 billion in 2016, and the removal of the corporate social solidarity
contribution for 90% of companies saving €2 billion in 2016. The
headline rate of corporate tax is also due to fall for all companies
to 28% by 2020, starting with SMEs in 2017.
– Reducing social security contributions to ensure better remuneration.
– Extending the drive to simplify corporate formalities.
– Making improvements in the field of industrial relations.
Improving commercial ecosystems and facilitating
corporate investments
•France’s public investment bank, Bpifrance, offers companies,
particularly innovative SMEs and mid-size companies, a tailored
funding service through extended financial products and advice,
thereby supporting companies at every stage of their development.
•France offers the best research tax credit in Europe, covering
30% of all R&D costs up to €100 million, and 5% above this
threshold. Eligibility has been extended from 2013 to encompass
innovation spending (prototypes and pilot equipment) by SMEs
(innovation credit of 20% up to €400,000 in expenditure). The
research tax credit is a powerful incentive to carry out public-private
partnership research, as R&D expenditure contracted out to publicsector bodies is double-counted (up to a maximum of €12 million).
In 2013, 16,531 companies benefited from France’s research tax
credit and/or innovation tax credit, obtaining a total tax receivable
of €5.6 billion set against research and innovation expenditure.
•Industry of the Future, an overarching initiative launched in May
2015 comprising nine solutions for the “New Face of Industry in
France”, provides support to companies upgrading their production
equipment with digital technology. Investments in intangible assets,
which are particularly susceptible to market failure, are eligible for
unsecured loans from Bpifrance, France’s public investment bank.
Furthermore, more than 2,000 SMEs and mid-size companies are
being supported with digital switchovers by Regional Councils, with
the technological expertise of the Industry of the Future Alliance.
CHAPTER 1 OUTCOME INDICATORS
17
Foreign direct investment # 1 The attractiveness of an economy can also be
assessed by the number of job-creating foreign
investment projects (new production facilities or
service centers) and business expansions.
These physical investments from foreign sources
have remained buoyant since the onset of the global
economic crisis: along with the United Kingdom
and Germany, France is one of the most attractive
countries for job-creating foreign investment
projects in Europe.
The number of investment decisions made by multinational firms
remained buoyant in 2015. The United States was one of the
leading investors, accounting for nearly one-third of all investments
in Europe.
The United Kingdom was the leading European recipient of
job-creating investment projects in 2015, while France attracted
13% of all foreign job-creating investments recorded in Europe.
In 2015, foreign investment projects in Europe focused primarily on
three business activities: business services (30%); decision-making
centers (29%); and production/manufacturing (23%).
Amid a global economic slowdown and budgetary adjustments
in developed countries, France remained attractive to foreign
investors, receiving 963 new projects that created or maintained
33,682 jobs. (Business France Annual Report)
Sixty percent of these investments were made by European
companies. The United States and Germany were the leading
investors, accounting for one-third of all foreign investment projects
in France.
FINLAND
Fig 6
Source: Business France Europe Observatory
1%
Distribution of job-creating foreign
investment projects in Europe (2015)
NORWAY
European market share
0.5%
SWEDEN
ESTONIA
1.2%
DENMARK
1.2%
LITHUANIA
0.9%
IRELAND
5.8%
24.1%
UNITED
KINGDOM
NETHERLANDS
4.6%
BELGIUM
2.2%
13%
FRANCE
GERMANY
6.1%
11%
POLAND
2.7%
LUXEMBOURG
0.4%
CZECH REPUBLIC
AUSTRIA
SWITZERLAND
1.4%
1.4%
HUNGARY
3.1%
2.6%
SLOVAKIA
ROMANIA
3.4%
ITALY
3%
1.3%
PORTUGAL
18
FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD
6.7%
SPAIN
BULGARIA
1.2%
# 1 Foreign direct investment
RESTRICTIONS ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT
France is open to foreign investment.
Article L.151-1 of the French Monetary and
Financial Code establishes the principle of
freedom: “France is free to conduct financial
relations with other countries.”
Like other nations however, France
reserves the option of applying limited
restrictions to this principle of openness.
Many European countries (including
Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy) and
elsewhere in the world (such as the United
States, Canada, Australia) use legislation
to restrict foreign investment in sectors
deemed to be strategic.
The provisions of articles L.151-3 and
R.153-1 and following of the Monetary
and Financial Code establish a set of
restrictions for “sensitive” investments,
which can be summarized as follows:
•The restrictions distinguish between
investments from European Union or
European Economic Area Member States
and those from third-party countries, in
order to comply with France’s obligations
under European Union treaties.
•The list of business activities subject to
prior authorization is defined in a number
of separate areas relating to public order,
public security and national defense.
The Decree no. 2014-674 of May 14,
2014 concerning foreign investments
subject to prior authorization (published
in the Official Journal of the French
Republic on May 15, 2014) updated
the sectors for which authorization
must be obtained prior to investment,
encompassing business activities deemed
crucial to France’s national interests relating
to public order, public security and national
defense in six sectors: transport, water,
energy, electronic communications, public
healthcare, and vital operations defined as
such by the French Defense Code.
The aim of these regulatory changes is
to ensure that legitimate public order
concerns are addressed by foreign
investors, whether they be from other
European Union Member States or
non-EU countries. If required, the French
government can seek specific commitments
or impose conditions upon the completion
of investments in these areas.
The conditions of such commitments are
provided for by law and must be proportionate
to France’s national interests in national
defense, public order and public security,
on a case-by-case basis.
By virtue of article R.153-7 of the French
Monetary and Financial Code, foreign
investors may obtain written confirmation
prior to their investment from the minister
responsible for the economy to clarify
whether or not the investment must obtain
prior authorization.
JOB-CREATING INVESTMENTS
Business France Annual Report
Every year since 1993, the Annual Report,
produced by Business France (and
historically by the Invest in France Agency) in
association with France’s regional economic
development agencies, has recorded the
number of job-creating investment projects
in France initiated by foreign companies. It
includes a census of the jobs created in the
first three years of each project, as well as
detailed statistics categorized by business
sector, investment type, business activity,
source country and host region.
•Types of job-creating investment recorded:
– Creations, which reflect the number of
jobs created at a new site.
– Expansions, which generate new jobs at
an existing site.
– Takeovers, which include jobs saved when a
foreign company acquires an ailing company.
– Expansions through takeovers, where
the jobs counted are those created after
a foreign investor acquires a non-ailing
French company.
– Expansions following buyouts, which
include jobs saved when a foreign
company acquires a company with no
financial difficulties.
Data gathering
EY European Investment Monitor
The data in the Business France Annual
Report are compiled from three sources:
The EIM database includes all publicly
announced job-creating foreign direct
investment projects which are either
new site creations or expansions such as
production facilities, logistics platforms,
back office centers, shared service centers,
headquarters, R&D centers, sales and
marketing offices, etc.
– Investment projects identified and
supported by Business France.
– Projects directly monitored by Business
France’s regional partners in France.
– The Business France “France Observatory”,
which monitors the international financial
press to identify foreign companies that
may wish to make an investment in France.
Every year, over 700 foreign investment
projects are added to this observatory.
Business France Europe Observatory
Since 2007, this Observatory has tracked
job-creating foreign investment projects
in Europe that have received media
coverage. Sources include press releases,
newspapers and the specialized press,
trade publications and company websites.
Every investment decision is attributed to
the investing company’s parent company.
Two types of investments are recorded: new
sites and expansions of existing sites. The
Observatory does not cover mergers and
acquisitions, equity interests or strategic
alliances.
Crossborder Investment Monitor,
fDi Markets
Since 2003, the Crossborder Investment
Monitor database, generated by fDi Markets
using the same techniques as observatories,
has been providing data on the investment
projects of foreign firms around the world.
Only “greenfield” projects (site creations)
and expansions are counted, while mergers
and acquisitions, capital interests and
strategic alliances are excluded.
The observatories only reveal a sub-section
of the investment decisions that Business
France and its regional partners verify and
record every year to compile the Annual
Report. Despite their data-gathering
limitations, the observatories are used to
assess the relative positions of countries
in Europe.
CHAPTER 1 OUTCOME INDICATORS
19
Fig 7
Source: OECD, Inward Activity of Multinationals, 2016
Contribution of foreign subsidiaries to value added (2013)
% of total value added
90
60
Ireland and Belgium, and is more evident in
50
the manufacturing sector across our sample
40
30
economy. While nearly one employee in
nine in France works for a foreign-owned
Italy
France
Spain
United States
make a substantial contribution to the French
Finland
for one percent of all companies in France,
Germany
0
Netherlands
Foreign companies, which only account
Belgium
10
United Kingdom
20
France is very open to foreign investment.
Poland
countries.
Services
70
companies is particularly noticeable in
Ireland
The contribution made by foreign-owned
Manufacturing sector
Total
80
Austria
Internationalization
and the opening up
of economies
F
Sweden
#2
oreign-owned companies (as measured by Foreign Affiliates
Trade Statistics – FATS) make a meaningful contribution to
different economies, and the following indicators illustrate the
degree of internationalization in each. In 2013, these companies
were well represented in the manufacturing sectors of all leading
developed countries: in many European Union countries, they were
responsible for more than 25% of the value added in the sector.
In France, the contribution of foreign subsidiaries to value
added was 16% in 2013 for the economy as a whole, and
was more marked in the manufacturing sector, where foreign
subsidiaries accounted for 26%.
The share of foreign investment in the
The contribution of these subsidiaries to employment varies by
country, and is also more significant in the manufacturing sector. In
Ireland, half of all manufacturing jobs are with foreign firms, while
in France, 21% of employment in the manufacturing sector is
provided by foreign-owned companies.
market capitalization of French companies
Fig 8
is further proof of the internationalization and
Contribution of foreign subsidiaries to employment (2013)
attractiveness of France’s economy.
% of total employees
subsidiary, in the manufacturing sector, this
figure is one in five.
Source: OECD, Inward Activity of Multinationals, 2016
60
Manufacturing sector
Total
Services
50
40
30
20
10
20
FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD
United States
Italy
France
Germany
Spain
Belgium
Finland
Netherlands
United Kingdom
Austria
Ireland
Sweden
Poland
0
# 2 Internationalization and the opening up of economies
The internationalization of different economies can also be
measured by comparing the contribution made by foreign
subsidiaries to domestic business enterprise R&D expenditure.
These subsidiaries play a leading role in R&D operations in Belgium,
Ireland, Austria and the United Kingdom.
Fig 9
Source: OECD, Inward Activity of Multinationals, 2016
Contribution of foreign subsidiaries to R&D (2013)
% of total R&D
70
Manufacturing sector
Total
60
Services
50
40
30
In France, foreign subsidiaries account for 28% of business
enterprise R&D expenditure.
Although this rate is lower than in Austria, Belgium or the United
Kingdom, it is higher than in Germany (22%).
At the end of 2015, non-resident equity holdings in CAC 40
companies amounted to €517 billion, or 45% of a total stock market
capitalization of €1.15 trillion. While this was a lower proportion than
at the end of 2014, it remained higher than both the low of 41.2%
in 2007 and the average for the last 10 years.
Although non-residents stepped up their acquisitions of shares in
CAC 40 companies in 2015, spending €2.1 billion, French residents
invested even more (€6.7 billion), thereby increasing their overall
share of equity holdings.
Forty-five percent of CAC 40 shares were held by non-residents
at the end of 2015, including 19.9% by investors from the euro
zone, 15.9% by American investors, and 3.5% by British investors
(cf. Banque de France Bulletin no. 207, September-October 2016).
20
Fig 10
Spain
Poland
Netherlands
Finland
United States
Germany
Italy
France
Sweden
Austria
United Kingdom
Ireland
0
Belgium
10
Source: Banque de France, 2015
Non-resident equity holdings in CAC 40 companies
Equity holdings
€ billion
600
% of total equity held
%
48%
According to the French National Institute for Statistics and
Economic Studies (INSEE), foreign subsidiaries:
•Employ nearly one-quarter of the workforce in French industry.
•Generate 29% of all turnover in French industry.
•Generate 34% of all exports in French industry.
•Account for 28% of business enterprise R&D expenditure
in France (French Ministry for Higher Education and Research,
2013).
Of the world’s top 500 companies, 29 are French, 28 are
German, and 26 are British (Fortune Global 500, 2016).
Dec. 2015
Dec. 2014
Dec. 2013
36%
Dec. 2012
0
Dec. 2011
38%
Dec. 2010
100
Dec. 2009
40%
Dec. 2008
200
Dec. 2007
42%
Dec. 2006
300
Dec. 2005
44%
Dec. 2004
400
Dec. 2003
46%
Dec. 2002
500
THE OPEN NATURE OF THE FRENCH
ECONOMY
CHAPTER 1 OUTCOME INDICATORS
21
Fig 11
Source: fDi Markets
Foreign company investment decisions (2015)
European market share (%)
Headquarters
30
25
and technology transfers.
20
Investment projects like these deserve to be
15
economy.
In 2015, France was the third leading
Austria
Sweden
and the growth potential of the French
Italy
0
Netherlands
5
Finland
to France’s investment attractiveness
10
Poland
recognized as strategic, as they contribute
Ireland
the rest of the economy through knowledge
40
35
France
multinational groups has a domino effect on
45
Germany
headquarters or registered offices of
United Kingdom
The presence of R&D centers and
R&D / Engineering
50
Belgium
Strategic
activities
F
Spain
#3
rance is one of the leading destinations in Europe for foreign
R&D projects.
France was the third leading recipient in 2015 of R&D
activities after the United Kingdom and Germany, with 11% of
all foreign R&D projects recorded in Europe.
The United Kingdom was by far the leading recipient of foreign
company headquarters, attracting 44% of all new headquarters
in Europe.
NB: Ranking by R&D / Engineering market share
recipient in Europe of new R&D investments
by foreign companies, after the United
Kingdom and Germany.
Fig 12
Source: Business France Europe Observatory
Foreign company investment decisions (2015)
European market share (%)
Production / Manufacturing
Logistics
30
25
20
15
10
5
NB: Ranking by Production / Manufacturing market share
22
FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD
Sweden
Finland
Italy
Austria
Netherlands
Belgium
Ireland
Germany
Spain
Poland
United Kingdom
France
0
# 3 Strategic activities
As in previous years, France was the leading European
recipient of foreign investment in industry, attracting 15% of all
manufacturing/production investments in Europe.
Industrial operations were mainly in the chemicals/plastics, metals,
automotive, agri-food, and machinery/mechanical equipment
sectors.
France is a preferred destination for foreign investments in the
chemicals, pharmaceuticals and biotechnologies, and electronic
components sectors, while the United Kingdom stands out for
attracting foreign investment in financial services and consulting/
engineering and business services.(1)
France was the third leading recipient in 2015 of investments in
knowledge-intensive services such as consulting and financial
services, after the United Kingdom and Germany.
(1) These are all high value-added sectors.
Fig 13
Source: Business France Europe Observatory
Foreign company investment decisions (2015)
European market share (%)
Fig 15
Source: Business France Europe Observatory
Foreign company investment decisions (2015)
European market share (%)
Chemicals / Plastics
Pharmaceuticals / Biotechnologies
25
Consulting, engineering and business services
20
Financial services
35
15
30
25
10
20
5
15
10
5
Sweden
Austria
Finland
Italy
Belgium
Poland
Spain
Ireland
France
Netherlands
NB: Ranking by Chemicals / Plastics market share
Germany
0
United
Kingdom
Ireland
Sweden
Finland
Austria
Italy
Belgium
Netherlands
Poland
Spain
Germany
France
United Kingdom
0
NB: Ranking by Consulting, engineering and business services market share
Fig 14
Source: Business France Europe Observatory
Foreign company investment decisions (2015)
European market share (%)
Electronic components
Software / IT services
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Belgium
Finland
Austria
Italy
Sweden
Spain
Poland
Netherlands
Ireland
France
Germany
United Kingdom
0
NB: Ranking by Software / IT services market share
CHAPTER 1 OUTCOME INDICATORS
23
#4
Foreign
skills
The ability to train foreign-born talent
T
here has been a significant rise in students enrolling on
courses in other countries in recent years. In 2013, nearly
four million students were educated abroad, up 1.4% from
the previous year. The number of international students continues
to rise, and may exceed 7.5 million by 2025. The resulting highly
educated workforces can be seen to improve each host country’s
innovation potential.
Home to more than 240,000 international students, France (1)
is Europe’s third leading destination (and the fourth leading
destination in the world), after the United States and the
United Kingdom. As such, France plays a key role in international
education.
In 2014, foreign students accounted for 10% of all students
enrolled in tertiary education in France, compared with 18% in
the United Kingdom and 7% in Germany.
enhances as much as it determines a
Fig 16
country’s international reputation and
Number of international students by host country (2014)
700,000
sample, with more than 240,000 international
600,000
students enrolled in tertiary education in
400,000
2014, and the fourth most popular country
200 000
300,000
education ecosystem. A high proportion of
foreign students are enrolled in advanced
research programs in France, accounting
for 40% of PhD students.
Ireland
Finland
Sweden
Poland
Belgium
Spain
Austria
Netherlands
has a positive bearing on the French tertiary
Italy
France’s increasingly international economy
Japan
0
Germany
100,000
France
in the world.
500,000
United Kingdom
third most popular destination country in our
900,000
800,000
United States
attractiveness. In this respect, France is the
Source: UNESCO, 2015
2013 data for Poland, Ireland, Netherlands, Spain, Italy and Japan
Fig 17
Source: Eurostat, 2016
Proportion of foreign students in tertiary education (2014)
Advanced research programs
All tertiary education
50
40
30
20
2013 data for Spain and the Netherlands
24
FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD
Poland
Germany
Italy
Spain
Finland
Japan
Ireland
Austria
United States
Sweden
Belgium
Netherlands
France
0
United Kingdom
10
# 4 Foreign skills
Source: Eurostat, 2016
Proportion of foreign students in advanced research
programs (2014)
Science, mathematics and computing
Engineering, manufacturing and construction
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
Italy
Japan
Sweden
Finland
Spain
Netherlands
Austria
Belgium
Poland
United Kingdom
Germany
0
(2) University degree equivalent to a doctorate.
Ireland
5
France
(1) According to the French Ministry for Primary, Secondary and Higher Education
and Research, France welcomed 309,642 foreign students in 2014-15, of whom
218,443 (73.1%) enrolled at university. Foreign students accounted for 12.1%
of all students, and 41.4% of all PhD students. UNESCO’s figures refer only to
international students, whereas the figure of 309,642 includes all students who
hold foreign citizenship.
Fig 19
United States
France stands out for its very high proportion of foreign students
who have come to enroll in advanced research programs (40%). (2)
Africa is the leading region of origin of foreign students enrolled
in tertiary education in France (41.9%), ahead of Asia (23.1%)
and Europe (17.9%). In Germany and the United Kingdom, the
proportion of European students is higher (41.7% and 25.2%,
respectively).
There is also a high proportion of foreign students in tertiary
science education in France (34.3% of students).
2012 data for Italy and Sweden
Fig 18
Source: OECD, 2016
Foreign students by region of origin (2014)
%
Italy
United States
United Kingdom
Sweden
Spain
Poland
Netherlands
Japan
Ireland
Germany
France
Finland
Belgium
Austria
0
10
Africa
20
Asia
30
Europe
40
North America
50
60
Oceania
70
80
South America
90
100
Not specified
CHAPTER 1 OUTCOME INDICATORS
25
26
2
Attractiveness
criteria
# 1 Market size and strength
# 2 Education and human capital
# 3 Research and innovation
# 4 Infrastructure
# 5 Administrative and regulatory environment
# 6 Financial environment
# 7 Costs and taxation
# 8 Quality of life
# 9 Green growth
27
Market size and
strength
The size and strength of the host country’s
market (measured inter alia by nominal and
E
* The French National Institute for Statistics and Economic Studies (INSEE) has
revised its growth figure for France in 2015 to 1.3%.
** Revised growth figure of 2.4%.
per capita GDP) are often decisive criteria for
*** Revised growth figure of 1.7%.
multinational firms deciding where to locate.
Fig 1
In 2015, with a GDP of US$2,422 billion at
GDP per capita
current prices, France was the world’s sixth
US$ at current PPP
largest market after the United States, China,
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
2009
United States
Netherlands
Ireland
Austria
Sweden
Belgium
Germany
Finland
France
United Kingdom
Italy
Spain
Japan
Poland
Japan, Germany and the United Kingdom.
Source: IMF, World Economic Outlook Database, 2016
Fig 2
2015
United States
Ireland
Netherlands
Sweden
Austria
Germany
Belgium
France
United Kingdom
Finland
Japan
Italy
Spain
Poland
#1
urope was the world’s second largest market in 2015.
EU-28 GDP was estimated to be US$16,220 billion at
current prices, compared with US$17,947 billion in the
United States.
With a GDP of US$2,422 billion at current prices, France was the
world’s sixth leading economy in 2015, after the United States,
China, Japan, Germany and the United Kingdom.
In terms of per capita GDP in 2015, France trailed Germany
and the United States, but was ahead of the United Kingdom
and Japan.
After three years of subdued growth (annual average of 0.5% in
2012-14), the French economy has enjoyed renewed momentum
since late 2014. Growth in France was 1.1%* in 2015, compared
with 2.6% in the United States, 2.2%** in the United Kingdom, and
1.5%*** in Germany.
Source: IMF, 2016; CEPII, 2012; Business France calculations
Access to EU-27 markets (2015)
Finland
Spain
Italy
Sweden
Poland
Ireland
Index France = 100
Austria
United
Kingdom
Germany
France
Netherlands
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Belgium
In comparison with France Through its location and the size of its domestic market, France
is a springboard into other European markets. A foreign company
will be minded to set up in a country where domestic demand is
high and where it can enjoy easy access to other European markets.
According to this “access to EU-27 markets” criterion, France was
ranked third in 2015, ahead of Germany and the United Kingdom.
28
FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD
# 1 Market size and strength
Fig 3
Source: IMF, World Economic Outlook Database, 2016; Business France calculations from data series in local currencies at constant prices
Compound annual rate of real GDP growth
%
14
2011-2013
12
2013-2015
2015
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
Fig 4
Finland
Japan
Italy
Austria
France
Belgium
Germany
Netherlands
United
Kingdom
United States
Spain
Poland
Sweden
-6
Ireland
-4
Source: IMF, World Economic Outlook Database, April 2016
Distribution of global wealth (2015)
Current GDP, US$ billion
Russia
Europe
Europe
North
America
North
Africa
Turkey
Middle
East
Central
America
South
America
Central
Asia
Greater
China
South
Korea
Japan
India
South East
Asia
Sub-Saharan
Africa
Australia + Oceania
Current GDP, US$ billion
3,358
738
27
Current GDP, US$ billion
19,500
12,750
8,500
4,250
300
ACCESS TO EXTERNAL MARKETS
The access to external markets variable is based on a broader concept than
GDP. It is similar to the concept of trade potential and takes a country’s external
demand into consideration.
This indicator is calculated for EU-27 markets. A country’s trade potential is
defined as the sum of the GDP of its neighboring countries weighted by the
distance between them.
CHAPTER 2 ATTRACTIVENESS CRITERIA
29
Market size and strength # 1 The French economy is well supported by final consumption
expenditure, which represented 79% of GDP in 2015.
This is slightly less than in the United Kingdom (84% of GDP), but
more than in Germany (73%) and Ireland (47%).
Fig 5
With 3.1% of global goods exports in 2015, France was the
eighth largest goods exporter in the world and the third largest
in Europe. Ranked above it were China (13.8%), the United States
(9.1%), Germany (8.1%), Japan (3.8%), the Netherlands (3.4%), South
Korea (3.2%) and Hong Kong (3.1%).
Source: Eurostat
Fig 7
Final consumption expenditure
Source: WTO; Business France calculations
Goods exports (2015)
% of GDP
90
2015
2009
80
Market share of 15 leading economies
% of global exports
70
14
60
12
50
10
40
8
30
6
4
20
France also enjoys a vibrant demographic profile, and was the
only sample country to record more than two live births per
woman (2.01) in 2014.
Forecasts looking ahead to 2080 emphasize that France’s high
fertility rate will enable it to replace its active population, while
other countries are due to see falls.
Fig 6
Source: Eurostat (EU-28), World Bank (United States and Japan)
Fertility rate (2014)
Russia
Singapore
Mexico
Belgium
Canada
Italy
United
Kingdom
France
Hong Kong
South Korea
Netherlands
Japan
Germany
EU-28
Ireland
Netherlands
Sweden
Austria
Germany
Belgium
Poland
Spain
France
Italy
United
Kingdom
Finland
0
0
United States
10
China
2
France was also the world’s fifth largest services exporter,
with 5.0% of the total, after the United States (14.7%), the United
Kingdom (7.2%), China (5.9%) and Germany (5.2%).
Fig 8
Source: UNCTAD; Business France calculations
Services exports (2015)
Market share of 15 leading economies
% of global exports
16
Live births per woman, all age groups
%
14
12
10
2.5
8
6
2.0
4
South Korea
Italy
Switzerland
Belgium
Spain
Ireland
Singapore
India
Japan
Netherlands
France
China
Germany
1.0
United
Kingdom
0
United States
2
1.5
EU-28
Spain
Poland
Italy
Japan
Austria
Germany
Finland
Netherlands
Belgium
United
Kingdom
United States
Sweden
Ireland
0.0
France
0.5
Companies tap into foreign demand by exporting or by basing
their operations overseas. Their performances in this respect
have a direct bearing on the competitiveness of countries and,
in turn, on the attractiveness of economies.
30
FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD
After a recovery virtually across the board in 2013 and a
slowdown in 2014, exports declined sharply in 2015 in nearly
all the sample countries, with the exception of Ireland (up
0.8%). Among the sample countries, exports fell the most in
Finland (down 17.3%), Belgium (down 16.3%), Japan (down
15.2%) and the Netherlands (down 14.8%). Global exports
contracted by 11.9%, while EU-28 exports fell by 11.7%.
After two years of moderate growth, French goods exports
experienced a resurgence in 2015, rising 4.3% to €455.1 billion.1
# 1 Market size and strength
France’s exports grew faster than global demand for French goods
in 2015, driven primarily by advanced economies.
A buoyant transport equipment sector (exports up 10.5%), led by
the aerospace and automotive industries, accounted for more than
half of French export growth in 2015.
France’s market share in global trade stabilized at 3.6% in 2015,
having been in decline for a number of years, like that of most
developed economies, as a result of eroding competitiveness
and the rising influence of emerging economies in international
commerce.
France is one of the world’s leading investing countries and
plays a full role in the globalized economy. In 2015, France was
the world’s fifth largest economy by outward FDI stocks (5.2%
of global stocks), after the United States (23.9%), Germany (7.2%),
the United Kingdom (6.1%) and Hong Kong (5.9%).
Fig 9
Fig 10
(1) Source: Customs data, gross estimates, CIF/FOB including military equipment
Source: UNCTAD; Business France calculations from data in current US$
Market share of outward FDI (2015)
Compound annual rate of goods and services export growth
%
Italy
Spain
Singapore
British
Virgin Islands
Ireland
China
Canada
Netherlands
Switzerland
Japan
Monde
EU-28
Finland
Belgium
Japan
Netherlands
Austria
Italy
Sweden
France
Spain
Germany
Poland
United Kingdom
-20
Ireland
-15
United States
-10
25.7%
France
0
-5
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Hong Kong
2015
United
Kingdom
2013-2015
5
Germany
2009-2013
15 leading economies
% of global outward FDI stocks
United States
10
Source: UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2016
EXPORT SUPPORT POLICIES
Further improvements were made to export support policies
in 2015:
a.Extension of the sector-based strategy set up in 2012, matching
countries and growth sectors over the coming decade. The four
priority export product families identified in 2012 – “Eat Better”,
“Treat Yourself Better”, “Live Better in the City” and “Communicate
Better” – have since been joined by two further sectors, creative/
cultural industry and tourism. Initiatives to boost French industrial
sectors, including the “New Face of Industry” plan and strategic
sector-by-sector committees, also comprise an export component.
b.Business France was formed on January 1, 2015 through a
merger between Ubifrance, the former French government agency
for international business development, and the Invest in France
Agency (IFA). This unified agency will maximize the effectiveness
of government resources to boost French exports and enhance
France’s attractiveness to foreign investment.
c.Continued improvement of resources to aid businesses and
offer more extensive customized support. The customized
export program for 1,000 growing SMEs and mid-size companies
by the end of 2015 continues to advance, with 712 businesses
having provided their agreement by late 2014 to take part. In all,
Ubifrance provided support in 2014 to 14,490 SMEs and mid-size
companies based in France.
d.Several reforms have targeted export finance to preserve
corporate competitiveness. Forming part of France’s “National
Pact for Growth, Competitiveness and Employment”, they seek
to enable French businesses to compete on a level playing field
with their competitors, through beneficial schemes in line with
best practice in other countries. Notable innovations introduced
since 2012 include extending export finance schemes (with a
new refinancing guarantee), extending the scope of specific
guarantees (opening eligibility for the ‘pure and unconditional’
aviation guarantee to exporters other than Airbus), and introducing
measures intended to make it easier for SMEs and mid-size
companies to obtain government export support (definition
and implementation of a specific action plan and creation of a
single brand, “Bpifrance export” covering all existing products).
Other export support policies were introduced in 2015. These
include increasing the number of direct loans granted – through
the launch by Bpifrance of small-scale export credits (less than €25
million) to SMEs and mid-size companies and the introduction of
interest-free or reduced-interest loans – as well as the creation of a
state export credit refinancing scheme with assignment agreements
at the SFIL public development bank, targeted at supporting
major contracts (worth at least €70 million).
e.In March 2015, an action plan was launched targeting SMEs,
overseen by a Strategic Export Committee, which includes new
simplified international support measures backed by an agreement
between Business France and chambers of commerce and industry.
It also comprises a target to increase the number of participants
in the VIE International Internships Program to 10,000 by 2017,
as well as simplified export administrative procedures. Large
corporates are to be encouraged to offer international hosting
agreements for SMEs, while work is underway to introduce a more
flexible formula for export business consortia.
CHAPTER 2 ATTRACTIVENESS CRITERIA
31
#2
Education and
human capital
W
ith an education budget of a little over 5% of GDP in
2013, France is in line with the average for OECD
countries.
If all levels of education combined (from primary to tertiary)
are considered, France spends an average of US$10,907 (PPP)
per pupil/student, less than the United Kingdom (US$13,613),
Germany (US$11,545) and the United States (US$15,720).
In tertiary education, annual expenditure per student (US$16,194)
is lower than in the United States (US$27,924) or the United
Kingdom (US$25,744).
Fig 11
Source: OECD, Education at a Glance, 2016
Total expenditure on education (2013)
% of GDP
Tertiary education
productive workforce. To maintain its
7%
competitive advantage and consolidate its
6%
human capital, France continues to invest
5%
French government since 2012.
Fig 12
Italy
Spain
Germany
Japan
Poland
Austria
Ireland
France
Sweden
in the numerous measures adopted by the
1%
0%
Netherlands
attractiveness. These priorities are reflected
2%
Finland
as spurs to competitiveness and investment
3%
Belgium
Training, higher education and research act
All levels of education
4%
United States
in the tertiary education.
United
Kingdom
France has a well-qualified and highly
Source: OECD, Education at a Glance, 2016
Total annual expenditure per student (2013)
US$ PPP Tertiary education
All levels of education
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
Poland
Spain
Italy
Ireland
France
Finland
Japan
Germany
Netherlands
Belgium
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Austria
0
United States
5,000
With the exception of the United States, Japan and the United
Kingdom, tertiary education expenditure is mostly governmentfunded. In 2013, public expenditure accounted for nearly 87.5%
of France’s total spend in the education sector, higher than in
Germany (86.5%) and the United Kingdom (76.8%), but lower
than in Finland (98.3%), Sweden (96.8%) and Austria (95.4%).
32
FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD
# 2 Education and human capital
The OECD PISA survey, which assesses the scientific literacy
of 15-year-old pupils, gives France an average ranking: 8%
of pupils attained the two highest levels in 2012, an identical
proportion to Austria and slightly higher than the United States
(7.5%), compared with 11% in the United Kingdom, 12% in
Germany and 18% in Japan.
The proportion of 25- to 64-year-old graduates in France (34%)
is lower than in the United Kingdom (43%), the United States
(45%), and Japan (50%), but higher than in Germany (28%). The
origin of this disparity is from when France was initially slow to
open up access to tertiary education, before moving to make
up lost ground.
Consequently, the 25- to 34-year-old age group in France
is particularly well qualified: 44.7% of this age group held a
tertiary qualification in 2015, a similar level to that recorded in
Sweden (46.4%) and the United States (46.5%), and lower than in
the United Kingdom (49.2%), but much higher than in Germany
(29.6%) and Italy (25.1%).
Fig 13
Fig 15
Source: OECD, Education at a Glance, 2016
Public expenditure on education (2013)
supérieur
% shareEnseignement
of total expenditure
Tertiary education
Source: OECD, Education at a Glance, 2016
Tertiary education graduates (2015)
Tous niveaux d’enseignement confondus
Proportion of 25- to 34-year-olds
%
All levels of education
60
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
50
40
30
20
Fig 14
Italy
Germany
Austria
Finland
Spain
Belgium
Poland
France
Netherlands
Sweden
United States
United
Kingdom
Ireland
0
Japan
United States
Japan
United Kingdom
Netherlands
Spain
Germany
France
Poland
Italy
Ireland
Belgium
Austria
Sweden
Finland
10
Source: OECD, 2012 PISA results (Volume I)
Scientific literacy of 15-year-old students
In descending order of mean score (in parentheses)
% of pupils ranked by level
Japan (547)
Finland (545)
Poland (526)
Germany (524)
Netherlands (522)
Ireland (522)
United Kingdom (514)
Austria (506)
Belgium (505)
France (499)
United States (497)
Spain (496)
Italy (494)
Sweden (485)
0%
< Level 1
10%
Level 1
20%
30%
Level 2
40%
Level 3
50%
60%
Level 4
70%
80%
Level 5
90%
100%
Level 6
CHAPTER 2 ATTRACTIVENESS CRITERIA
33
Education and human capital # 2 Source: Eurostat
Human resources in science and technology* (2015)
Persons employed in science and technology and/or tertiary
education graduates
Proportion of economically active 25- to 64-year-olds
%
60
2009
50
2015
40
30
20
EU-28
Italy
Poland
Spain
Germany
Austria
France
Belgium
Ireland
0
Netherlands
10
United
Kingdom
Reforms to collèges (middle schools) were adopted on May
20, 2015, with two main objectives: (i) To ensure that all pupils
acquire sufficient literacy and numeracy (customized support
for all, teaching in small groups through the provision of 4,000
extra teaching posts, and the introduction of interdisciplinary
practical sessions); and (ii) To ensure that more skills relevant
to the real world are learnt (including two foreign languages
from the age of 12, greater teamwork and oral presentations,
and extended numeracy development).
Fig 16
Sweden
In 2012, France launched a program of educational reforms
that were enacted in the Educational Reform Act of July
8, 2013. The school education budget, as implemented, has
risen from €62.3 billion in 2012 to €67.1 billion in 2016, while
the French Government Budget Bill for 2017 provides for
spending of €68.4 billion. Although the French government
is committed to reducing civil servant numbers, 42,338 jobs
were created in primary and secondary education in 2012-2016
(French Ministry for Primary, Secondary and Higher Education
and Research). It intends to have created a total of 60,000 jobs
in the sector by 2017. Primary education has been prioritized,
teacher training has been reviewed, school hours have been
altered so that primary school children receive 4.5 days of
teaching per week, and particular emphasis has been placed
on reducing the school dropout rate. Moreover, to dampen
the impact of social and economic inequality on educational
success, the “priority education” initiative for deprived areas
has been completely overhauled, while primary and junior
high school programs have also been reviewed.
Finland
THE EDUCATIONAL REFORM ACT
OF JULY 8, 2013
Human resources in science and technology (HRST) are regarded
as one of the main drivers of knowledge-based economies. In
addition to science and technology tertiary graduates, HRST
include people employed in scientific or technological occupations
that require advanced qualifications.
In France, HRST accounted for 50% of the active population in
2015. The proportion of human resources employed in science and
technology throughout the country is substantial, as in a number of
other European countries. France is ranked lower than the United
Kingdom (55.4%), but ahead of Germany (47.7%).
Researchers are also well represented. With 9.4 researchers per
1,000 members of the labor force in 2014, France was ranked sixth
among OECD countries, ahead of Germany (8.4) and the United
Kingdom (8.4).
* New indicator for the 2016 edition; the previous indicator only recorded persons employed
in science and technology; in 2015, France was ranked 8th under the previous indicator.
Fig 17
Source: OECD - MSTI
R&D personnel (2014)
Per thousand labor force
Researchers
20
Technicians and support personnel
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
* Data for 2013, only available for the number of researchers
34
FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD
EU-28
United
States*
Poland
Spain
Italy
Ireland
Japan
United
Kingdom
Belgium
Netherlands
Germany
France
Austria
Sweden
0
Finland
2
# 2 Education and human capital
This highly qualified workforce, capable of adapting to and mastering
new tools, will continue to enable companies to invest in new
technologies, an essential requirement for productivity growth.
In France, as in many developed countries, growth in hourly labor
productivity has gradually slowed. Whereas in the 1990s it hovered
between 1.5% and 2%, it has been running at less than 1% since
the global economic crisis. Nevertheless, labor productivity is high
in France on both a per-employee and hourly basis.
Between 2013 and 2015, hourly productivity continued to rise, albeit
more slowly than previously, in the United Kingdom (up 1%) and
France (up 0.4%), but fell in Japan (down 0.1%) and Italy (down 0.3%).
In 2015, hourly productivity in France grew 0.8%, a slightly lower
figure than in the United Kingdom (up 1.0%) but higher than in
Germany (up 0.5%). Only in Italy (down 0.1%) did productivity decline.
Productivity trends in manufacturing can be estimated using a
productivity indicator based on gross value added per hour
worked (see section VII). Productivity per hour worked in the
manufacturing sector rose 3.6% in France in 2015, compared
with 1.1% for the EU-28 as a whole.
A similar trend can be observed in productivity per person employed,
which increased by 3.9% in the French manufacturing sector in 2015,
compared with 1.8% for the EU-28.
Fig 18
Source: The Conference Board, 2016
THE TERTIARY EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
ACT OF JULY 22, 2013
The guiding principle of the Tertiary Education and
Research Act of July 22, 2013 was to decompartmentalize
subjects, curricula and teaching establishments. Its
aims were to simplify the tertiary education and research
landscape and to harness the recent trend that has seen
universities, schools and research organizations join forces
to pool their resources. The main reforms targeted the
structure of licence (Bachelor’s degree) courses (gradual
specialization, gateways allowing students to change
courses, and simplification of course titles), consolidation
of vocational and technological subjects, and a doubling
in the number of work-study students by 2020.
Twenty-five higher education partnerships, particularly
Communautés d’universités et d’établissements (ComUES),
have already been formed throughout France, involving
more than 1.7 million students in all.
Fig 19
Source: The Conference Board, 2016
Productivity per employee* (2015)
Hourly labor productivity* (2015)
Total economy
US$ at 2015 PPP
140,000
Total economy
US$ at 2015 PPP
80
120,000
70
60
100,000
50
80,000
40
60,000
30
40,000
* GDP per person employed
EU-28
Poland
Japan
Italy
United
Kingdom
Spain
Finland
Austria
Sweden
Germany
France
Netherlands
United
States
10
0
Belgium
EU-28
Poland
Japan
United
Kingdom
Italy
Spain
Germany
Austria
Finland
Netherlands
Sweden
France
Belgium
United
States
Ireland
0
Ireland
20
20,000
* GDP per hour worked
Fig 20
Source: The Conference Board, 2016; Business France calculations
Trends in hourly labor productivity*
* GDP per hour worked
Compound annual rate of growth - Total economy
%
2011-2013
6
2013-2015
2015
5
4
3
2
1
EU-28
Italy
Japan
United
States
Germany
Austria
Belgium
Spain
Finland
France
United
Kingdom
Netherlands
Poland
Sweden
Ireland
0
-1
CHAPTER 2 ATTRACTIVENESS CRITERIA
35
Education and human capital # 2 REFORMS TO PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT AND APPRENTICESHIPS
The Professional Development, Employment and Social
Democracy Act of March 5, 2014 initiated major changes
in professional development, by simplifying funding schemes
for companies, reducing labor costs for businesses employing
10 or more people, and being more effective in targeting
training towards the people that need it the most.
The personal training account (CPF) is now a key initiative in
managing the right to training, as well as facilitating transitions
and securing career paths. The Act also improved three key
aspects of the apprenticeship system:
•Greater career security with the creation of a permanent
employment contract for apprentices.
•Tighter ring-fencing of revenue raised by the apprenticeship
tax so that it is channeled back into apprenticeships.
•Simplification of the apprenticeship tax collection network,
specifically through a reduction in the number of collection
agencies from 150 to around 20. These measures are geared
towards improving employee mobility and employability, which
in turn should boost their productivity and maximize France’s
growth potential.
36
FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD
The adoption of this law was followed by the publication of a
roadmap building upon the results of two government-led
round tables: the third convening of a Grande Conférence
Sociale with trade unions and employer federations in July
2014, and the Assises de l’apprentissage focusing on
apprenticeships in September 2014, where the government’s
target of ensuring 500,000 apprenticeship places nationwide
by 2017 was confirmed, as were a number of other measures.
These included:
•A new €1,000 grant for businesses with fewer than 250
employees hiring a first apprentice and/or further apprentices
from July 1, 2014.
•A 50% increase in the number of apprentices working in
state-run educational establishments, and 10,000 apprentices
to be hired in the public sector by 2017.
Another new measure was announced in April 2015:
apprentices under the age of 18 hired by a micro-enterprise
(fewer than 11 employees) from July 1, 2015 will see their
salary and employer contributions paid for by the state, rather
than the employer, amounting to a combined grant and tax
break of €4,400 per apprentice per year.
Fig 21
Gross domestic expenditure on R&D (2014)
The world’s 15 leading economies
US$ billion at current PPP
300
457 369
366
since 2007.
EU-28
Turkey
Netherlands
0
France’s R&D intensity has been on the rise
Spain
and knowledge-intensive investment projects.
Australia*
50
Italy
attracting internationally mobile technology-
Canada
100
Russia
productivity gains. They are also key factors in
Taiwan
150
United
Kingdom
information technology are yielding growth and
France
200
South Korea
activities along with investment in digital and
Japan
250
United
States*
The vibrancy of existing research and innovation
Source: OECD
Germany
Research and
innovation
W
China
#3
ith gross domestic expenditure on research and
development (GERD) of US$58.8 billion (PPP) in 2014,
France was ranked sixth in the world, after the United
States, China, Japan, Germany and South Korea.
In 2014, gross domestic expenditure on R&D in France grew 0.7%,
less than in Germany (4.1%) and the United Kingdom (5.1%).
Among the other sample countries, expenditure increased sharply
in Poland (up 11.5%), but declined in Finland (down 4.2%).
* Data for 2013
France has also consolidated its position
in the most profitable technological fields,
and has been shown to have revealed
Fig 22
technological advantages in nanotechnology
Trends in gross domestic expenditure on R&D
2010-2012
To ensure that these strengths stand the test of
2012-2014
2014
10
5
0
EU-28
United States*
Finland
Sweden
Italy
Spain
Belgium
Japan
Netherlands
Austria
Germany
-5
United Kingdom
to promote innovation in France.
Poland
time, the government has redoubled its efforts
France
related technologies.
Real compound annual rate of growth
%
15
Ireland
and biotechnology, as well as in environment-
Source: OECD; Business France calculations
* Data for 2010-2012 and 2012-2013
CHAPTER 2 ATTRACTIVENESS CRITERIA
37
Research and innovation # 3 In 2014, business enterprise R&D expenditure (BERD)
increased in France (up 0.9%) but less quickly than in Germany
(up 4.6%) and the United Kingdom (up 5.9%). The strongest
growth was in Poland (up 19.1%), while the largest declines
were recorded in Finland (down 5.8%), Sweden (down 4.9%)
and Spain (down 1.4%).
R&D intensity (GERD/GDP ratio) in 2014 was 2.26% in France,
higher than in the EU-28 as a whole (1.95%). It was lower
than in Japan (3.59%), Finland (3.17%), Sweden (3.16%) and
Germany (2.90%), but higher than in the United Kingdom (1.70%).
France’s position can be explained by its industrial base, which is
smaller than in countries with higher R&D intensity, and its different
industrial specializations. This ratio was in decline from 2002 to
2007 (2.17% down to 2.02%), but has rebounded ever since.
In 2015, the French government spent more than US$17 billion on
research and development, less than the United States (US$137.2
billion), Germany (US$33 billion) and Japan (€32.8 billion), but more
than the United Kingdom (US$14.6 billion in 2014).
Fig 23
Fig 25
Source: OECD; Business France calculations
Source: OECD
Trends in business expenditure on R&D
Government outlays on R&D (2015)
Real compound annual rate of growth
%
20
(2010-2012: 35%)
US$ million at PPP
2010-2012
2012-2014
2014
50,000
137,172
45,000
15
40,000
35,000
10
30,000
25,000
5
20,000
0
15,000
10,000
-5
Source: OECD
Intensity of R&D operations
GERD / GDP
%
4
2009
2014
3
2
* Data for 2009 and 2013
38
FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD
EU-28
Poland
Spain
Italy
Ireland
United
Kingdom
Netherlands
France
Belgium
Germany
Austria
Sweden
Japan
Finland
United
States*
1
0
Ireland
Finland
Belgium*
Austria
Sweden
Poland*
Netherlands
Spain*
Italy*
United
Kingdom*
France
Japan
Germany
* Data for 2014
* Data for 2010-2012 and 2012-2013
Fig 24
United
States
EU-28
Finland
United States*
Sweden
Spain
Italy
France
Belgium
Austria
Ireland
Germany
Japan
Poland
Netherlands
0
United Kingdom
-10
5,000
Business enterprise R&D expenditure in France has been on the
rise since 2009, accounting for 65% of GERD in 2014 – compared
with 77.8% in Japan, 74.7% in Ireland, 70.6% in the United States
and 67.5% in Germany.
A positive correlation can be seen between the R&D intensity of
the countries and the proportion of R&D activities conducted by
businesses. Consequently, the countries with the most vibrant
R&D ecosystems are those whose companies place the greatest
emphasis on R&D operations.
In all the sample countries, SMEs have a lower capacity for
innovation than large corporates. France is ranked in the middle,
with 52% of SMEs and 81% of large corporates reporting
innovations in 2012.
ICT investment (acquisition of equipment and software) provides
an indication of how much effort each country is putting into
its technological development. In 2013, France was the fourth
leading sample country for such investment (2.7% of GDP),
ahead of the United Kingdom (2.4%) and Germany (2.1%). For
investment in software alone, it was ranked top.
# 3 Research and innovation
%
ICT investment (2013)
% of GDP
Software
Ireland
Spain*
Finland
Germany
IT equipment
Germany
Italy
United
Kingdom
Belgium
France
Netherlands
* Data for 2012
Austria
United
States
Japan
Sweden*
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
EU-28
Poland
Large corporates
Non-technological innovations only
(marketing or organizational)
Technological and non-technological innovations
EU-28
Source: OECD, Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2015
United Kingdom
Fig 27
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Spain
80%
Poland
75%
United
Kingdom
70%
Netherlands
65%
Netherlands
60%
Finland
55%
Finland
50%
* Data for 2013
Spain
45%
France
Contribution of the business sector to R&D (BERD/GERD)
40%
France
0.0
Austria
0.5
Sweden
1.0
Ireland
United Kingdom
Spain Italy
Poland
Belgium
Belgium
1.5
France
EU-28
Netherlands
Belgium
2.0
SMEs
Sweden
2.5
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Finland
Austria
Sweden
United States*
Germany
Austria
3.0
Japan
All sectors
%
Italy
3.5
Innovation strategies by company size (2012)
Ireland
4.0
Intensity of R&D operations (GERD/GDP)
%
Source: Eurostat, Community Innovation Survey (2012); Business France calculations
Italy
Intensity of R&D operations and contribution of the business
sector to R&D (2014)
Fig 28
Ireland
Source: OECD, Business France calculations
Germany
Fig 26
Technological innovations only (products or processes)
MAIN GOVERNMENT MEASURES TO PROMOTE INNOVATION IN FRANCE
Among the many measures introduced by
the French government are the following:
•France’s research tax credit is a taxincentive scheme to support research. It allows
companies of any size and from any sector to
deduct a portion of their total R&D investment
from their corporate tax bill. The tax credit
amounts to 30% of R&D expenses up to
€100 million and 5% of expenditure above
this threshold. Eligibility for the research tax
credit was extended in 2013 to encompass
innovation spending by SMEs (20% rate up
to €400,000): the expenses in question must
go towards the design of prototype or pilot
versions of new products.
•The “innovative new company” (jeune
entreprise innovante – JEI) status, introduced
in 2004, offers a variety of tax and social
security relief (such as partial exemption from
corporate tax and capital gains, and complete
exemption from certain employer social security
contributions) to new, independent SMEs that
are less than eight years old and devote at least
15% of their total spending to R&D. These tax
breaks, some of which had been scaled back
in 2011 (the exemption from social security
contributions used to decrease gradually as
of the fourth year), were restored in 2014.
In parallel, the “new university company”
status, offering the same advantages, was
brought in to encourage business creation by
students, recent Master’s or PhD graduates
(in the last five years), and other individuals
involved in research within higher education
establishments.
•The 2030 Innovation Commission, chaired
by Anne Lauvergeon, the former head of
French nuclear giant Areva, has identified
a finite number of major opportunities with
great potential for the French economy.
Eight key sectors for the future have been
selected: energy storage, recycling of metals,
development of marine resources, plant proteins
and plant chemistry, personalized medicine,
big data, the silver economy, as well as public
security and protection against threats.
•“La French Tech” is a major initiative intended
to stimulate France’s most vibrant regional
ecosystems and support the growth of their
startups and digital companies.
– Accelerator programs: €200 million invested in
private-sector initiatives to help digital companies
grow faster and succeed internationally.
– International investment attractiveness: €15
million to support fab labs and attract foreign
talent, entrepreneurs and investors.
•A third phase of the “National Investment
Program” has also been launched, supported
by additional funds of €10 billion, following
the first phase in 2010 (€35 billion) and the
second phase in 2014 (€12 billion). Its three
key priorities are to fund education and publicsector research, promote research, and fasttrack innovation and business development.
A more detailed analysis of the ways in which
innovation is being supported in France can
be found in France Stratégie’s recent report
(in French), entitled “Quinze ans de politiques
d’innovation en France” (“Fifteen years of
innovation policy in France”).*
* http://www.strategie.gouv.fr/publications/quinzeans-de-politiques-dinnovation-france
CHAPTER 2 ATTRACTIVENESS CRITERIA
39
Research and innovation # 3 Fig 29
Source: OECD; Eurostat; Business France calculations
Patent applications via the PCT procedure
Priority year, inventor’s country of residence
Total
2008
2013 (per million inhabitants)
2013
360
50,000
300
40,000
240
Per million inhabitants
60,000
30,000
20,000
Fig 30
EU-28
Ireland
Poland
Austria
Belgium
Spain
Finland
Italy
Sweden
Netherlands
United
Kingdom
Germany
France
United
States
0
Japan*
10,000
180
120
60
0
2013
Source: WIPO Statistics Database; Eurostat; OECD; Business France calculations
Patent indicators are often used to discern a country’s performance
in technological innovation. One important indicator is the number
of patent applications filed under the PCT international patent
procedure. In 2013, France filed 7,726 such applications, placing
it after the United States (57,266), Japan (41,739), and Germany
(17,206), but ahead of the United Kingdom (6,194).
Trademark applications are used to measure marketing innovations.
In 2014, France registered 5,368 trademarks per million
inhabitants, after Germany (8,046) and the United Kingdom
(6,550), but ahead of the United States (2,768) and Japan (1,698).
Registrations of industrial designs are a third intellectual property
indicator. In 2014, 1,013 models and industrial designs per million
inhabitants were registered by French nationals. The countries whose
citizens registered the most models were Sweden (1,953), Austria
(1,859) and Finland (1,836), while the United States only saw 339
registrations per million inhabitants.
Fig 31
Source: WIPO Statistics Database; Eurostat; OECD; Business France calculations
Trademark applications
Models and industrial designs
Total direct applications + applications via the Madrid system
Per million inhabitants
Total direct applications + applications via the Hague system
Per million inhabitants
12,000
2,000
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
* Population data for 2009 and 2013
* Population data for 2009 and 2013
PATENTS, TRADEMARKS, MODELS AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS AS INDICATORS OF INNOVATION ACTIVITY
A patent is an intellectual property title
which confers on its holder an exclusive
right of use to the patented invention, for a
limited period (normally 20 years) and in a
specified territory. Patent applications may
be for a single country or for a much wider
area (the countries of the European Union, for
example, in the case of an application to the
European Patent Office). A patent may also be
filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty
(PCT) procedure. By filing one international
patent application under the PCT, “applicants
can simultaneously seek protection for an
invention in a very large number of countries”.
Since June 2016, 151 member states have
ratified the treaty, placing the PCT at the heart
of international cooperation on intellectual
40
FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD
property. Another advantage of this procedure
is that it improves international comparability.
directly with their own national or regional
trademark office.
According to the INPI (French Patent and
Trademark Office): “As intellectual property
is defined, a trademark is a ‘sign’ used to
accurately distinguish the products or services
of a company from its competitors’ products
or services.” Filing a trademark gives the
holder exclusive rights of use in the form of
intellectual property protection. It is used
as a sign that something is new (innovations
in products, marketing and services) and
imparts advantages on the innovations when
new products are introduced on the market.
The Madrid System enables the owner to
have their trademark protected in several
countries at once by filing a single application
An industrial design or model conveys an
object’s ornamental or aesthetic aspects.
It adds to a product’s market value and
enhances its commercial potential. In most
countries, industrial designs or models
must be registered so as to be protected
by law. Depending on national legislation
and the type of design or model, it may
also be protected by copyright as a nonregistered design or model, or as a work of
art. The Hague System for the international
registration of industrial designs and models
enables owners to protect their work in
several countries at a time by filing a single
international application.
United
States
2014
Japan*
Spain
Ireland
United
Kingdom
France
Italy
Belgium
Poland
Japan*
United
States
Poland
France
Italy
Belgium
Finland
Spain
United
Kingdom
Ireland
Germany
Netherlands
Sweden
0
Austria
2,000
Germany
4,000
Netherlands
6,000
2009
Finland
8,000
Austria
2014
Sweden
2009
10,000
# 3 Research and innovation
France has consolidated its position in the most profitable
technological fields. Compared with 2009-2012, it enjoyed
a technological advantage in 2012 in biotechnology and
nanotechnology, as well as environment-related technologies.
The French ICT sector is particularly buoyant, as well as being
the leading field for registered patents. In 2012, ICT patents
accounted for 28.4% of the total number filed in France (see
methodology hereafter).
However, France’s contribution to ICT patents (2.9%) is lower than
its overall contribution to patents worldwide (4%), which reflects
its lower relative specialization in this key sector.
Fig 32
Fig 34
Source: OECD, Patent Database; Business France calculations (from global market shares)
Source: OECD, Patent Database; Business France calculations (from global market shares)
Revealed technological advantage in nanotechnology
Revealed technological advantage in biotechnology
Patent applications via the PCT procedure; priority year;
inventor’s country of residence
Patent applications via the PCT procedure; priority year;
inventor’s country of residence
3.0
2.2
2012
2009-2012
2013
2010-2013
2.0
2.5
1.8
2.0
1.6
1.4
1.5
1.2
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.5
Revealed technological advantage in ICT
EU-28
Japan
Sweden
Germany
Italy
Austria
France
Netherlands
United Kingdom
Ireland
United States
Finland
CHAPTER 2 ATTRACTIVENESS CRITERIA
EU-28
Netherlands
Poland
2010-2013
Belgium
Ireland
United States
EU-28
Italy
Poland
Austria
Spain
Germany
Belgium
France
Netherlands
0.6
United Kingdom
0.4
Ireland
0.7
United States
0.8
0.5
Austria
0.9
0.6
Italy
1.0
0.7
France
1.1
0.8
United Kingdom
1.2
0.9
Japan
1.3
1.0
Sweden
1.4
1.1
2013
Germany
1.2
Japan
Poland
1.6
2010-2013
1.5
Sweden
Belgium
Patent applications via the PCT procedure; priority year;
inventor’s country of residence
1.3
Finland
Source: OECD, Patent Database; Business France calculations (from global market shares)
Finland
2013
Fig 35
Revealed technological advantage in environmentrelated technologies
Patent applications via the PCT procedure; priority year;
inventor’s country of residence
1.4
Spain
EU-28
Finland
Italy
Austria
Ireland
Germany
Belgium
Japan
Sweden
Source: OECD, Patent Database; Business France calculations (from global market shares)
0.4
Spain
Fig 33
United Kingdom
United States
France
Netherlands
Spain
Poland
0.6
0.0
41
Research and innovation # 3 REVEALED TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANTAGE INDICATOR (RTA)
The revealed technological advantage (RTA) index shows the relative position of the various technological fields covered by patents
in a given country. It provides an indication of an economy’s degree of technological specialization by calculating the market share of
the patents filed in the country within the field in question, with respect to the global market share of the patents filed in the country.
This indicator of technological specialization of a country i, in a technological field j, is defined by the following ratio:
Market share of a country i in patent applications in a given field j
Market share of a country i in total patent applications in all fields
j
RTA i =
If RTA
j
i
> 1, country i is relatively specialized in technological field j (its market share in field j is greater than its overall market share).
The calculation for this indicator is based on patent applications filed under the Patent Community Treaty (PCT – signed by 151 countries, including France), which covers “international” patent applications requesting that protection be filed in several countries at once.
The four fields selected for this analysis – nanotechnology, biotechnology, ICT, and environment-related technologies – accounted for
41.8% of all patents filed in France in 2012 (48.7% in 2009-2012).
FRANCE’S REVEALED TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANTAGES IN KEY SECTORS
Share in 2013
Change 2012-2013
2013
Electricity
Medical technology
0.6
ICT
0.7
-50
Nanotechnology*
0.8
-40
Micro-organisms or enzymes
0.9
-30
Medical preparations
1.0
-20
Pharmaceuticals
1.1
-10
Medical technology
1.2
0
Biotechnology
1.3
10
Environmentrelated technologies
1.4
20
Electricity
1.5
30
ICT
40
Pharmaceuticals
France’s revealed technological advantages
in all key sectors
Micro-organisms or enzymes
% of all French patents filed
Source: OECD, Patent Database; Business France calculations
Environmentrelated technologies
Changing share of French patents filed in all key sectors
Fig 37
Biotechnology
Source: OECD, Patent Database; Business France calculations
Nanotechnology*
Fig 36
France enjoys a revealed technological advantage in medical
preparations (5.6% of patents in the sector are of French origin),
nanotechnology (5.1%), biotechnology (4.5%), environment-related
technologies (4.4%) and micro-organisms or enzymes (4.4%), as
France’s contribution to these sectors is greater than its contribution
to patents worldwide (3.8%).
Medical preparations
In 2013, the nine key sectors defined by the OECD accounted for
73.2% of all patents filed in France.
The leading sectors for patents filed were ICT, electricity, environmentrelated technologies, biotechnology, medical technology,
pharmaceuticals, and medical preparations.
2009-2012
* Data for 2012
42
FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD
# 4 Infrastructure
Fig 38
2015
first-class communication infrastructure, an
extensive broadband network, and electricity
at very competitive and stable rates.
* Data for 2014; ** GDP data for 2014
Fig 39
Ireland**
0
Germany
Businesses operating in France also gain from
Italy
1
Belgium
of manufacturing activities.
United Kingdom
2
Austria
advantage for the geographical distribution
United States*
3
Poland
in its investment attractiveness is a key
France
4
Netherlands
Source: OECD
Investment in inland transport infrastructure
Gross investment as a % of GDP
2.0
1.8
2009
2014
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Italy
Ireland
Belgium
United States
Netherlands
Germany
Austria
Poland
Finland
Japan
France
0.0
Sweden
Africa and the Middle East. This component
Spain
with the rest of the world, especially Europe,
2009
5
Japan*
providing fast, cost-effective connections
Finland
high-quality transport infrastructure,
Gross fixed capital formation in public services
% of GDP
6
Sweden
As an investment location, France boasts
Source: OECD; Business France calculations
Spain
Infrastructure
F
United Kingdom
#4
rance has high levels of state investment (3.5% of GDP
in 2015), higher than in the United States (3.2% in 2014),
the United Kingdom (2.7%) and Germany (2.2%). The ratio
of gross fixed capital formation to GDP in public services has
fallen in France since 2009 (down 0.8 percentage points), as
it has in nearly all the sample countries, including the United
Kingdom (down 0.7 pts), Germany (down 0.2 pts) and the United
States (down 1 pt).
Investments in transport infrastructure in 2014 were equivalent
to 1% of France’s GDP, ahead of Germany (0.6%), the United
States (0.6%) and the United Kingdom (all 0.7%).
With over 11,000 km (nearly 7,000 miles) of motorways, a rail
network of 30,000 km (over 18,000 miles) and 5,000 km (2,700
nautical miles/3,100 miles) of navigable waterways, France has an
extremely dense domestic transport network.
CHAPTER 2 ATTRACTIVENESS CRITERIA
43
Infrastructure # 4 Fig 40
Source: Eurostat; Business France calculations
Land transport infrastructure density (2014*)
km per million inhabitants
1,800
Finland
1,600
Rail network density
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
Austria
Poland
United Kingdom
Italy
Belgium Ireland
Germany
200
0
50
100
Spain
France
Netherlands
0
RAIL REFORM AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF
MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT IN FRANCE
Sweden
Motorway network density
150
200
250
300
350
* or latest year available
The volume of road transport in France is considerable. With
153,000 million tonne-km of freight in 2015, France is ranked
fourth among the European countries in the sample, after Germany,
Poland and Spain.
Fig 41
The Rail Reform Act of August 4, 2014 reorganized the
sector by setting up an integrated public industrial group
encompassing both the rail operator and the infrastructure
administrator. This new group now comprises a state-owned
“parent” company (SNCF) and two state-owned subsidiaries:
the infrastructure administrator (SNCF Réseau) and the rail
operator (SNCF Mobilités). The reform has served to bring
the administration of the country’s rail infrastructure, previously
shared between RFF and SNCF, under a single entity, SNCF
Réseau. This pooling of skills and functions is expected to lead
to productivity gains and improved network management.
The reform is also intended to bring corporate debt under
tighter control. Infrastructure development projects are due
to be prioritized for funding from the government and local
authorities.
Source: Eurostat
Road freight transport
Total load, million tonne-km
International
National
Italy
Netherlands
Sweden
Belgium
Finland
Austria
Ireland
United Kingdom*
Germany*
Poland
Spain
France
Netherlands
Sweden
Belgium
Finland
Austria
Ireland
2015
United Kingdom*
Germany*
Spain
Poland
France
Italy
450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
10,000
50,000 2010
0
* Data for 2010 and 2014
France also boasts a number of advantages in maritime transport,
being flanked by Europe’s three large coastlines (the Atlantic,
Mediterranean, English Channel/North Sea) and having access
to four oceans. In 2014, freight volumes loaded or unloaded in
its mainland ports and at its ports in overseas départements and
regions totaled 303 million tonnes, ranking France sixth among
the European countries in the sample.
Fig 43
Source: Eurostat
Maritime freight transport
Gross weight, thousand tonnes
600,000
Rail freight transport is also very extensive. With over 34,000 million
tonne-km transported in 2015, France is ranked third among the
European countries in the sample, after Germany and Poland.
2009
2014
500,000
400,000
300,000
Fig 42
Source: Eurostat
200,000
Rail freight transport
Total load, million tonne-km
120,000
60,000
Ireland
Poland
Finland
Sweden
Belgium
France
Germany
Italy
Spain
80,000
0
United
Kingdom
International
National
100,000
Netherlands
100,000
40,000
* Data for 2010 and 2014; ** No data after 2011
44
FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD
Italy
Sweden
Austria
Spain
Finland
Netherlands
Ireland*
Belgium**
United Kingdom
Germany*
Poland
France
2015
Finland
Spain
Belgium
Netherlands
Ireland*
2010
Germany*
Poland
France
Sweden
Austria
Italy
0
United Kingdom
20,000
These land and maritime networks are supplemented by an
excellent air network. France has 41 airports that each record
more than 150,000 passenger movements per year.
In 2015, two of Paris’ airports were ranked in the top 15 airports
in the EU-28, with Paris-Charles de Gaulle ranked first for cargo
and second by passengers carried after London Heathrow.
# 4 Infrastructure
Fig 44
Source: Eurostat
15 leading airports in the EU-28 (2015)
Million passengers carried
The High-Speed Broadband France Plan (France Très Haut
Débit) is an investment strategy geared towards bringing highspeed broadband (above 30Mbit/s) to the entire country by
2022. The intermediate target is to reach 50% of the population
by 2017. Launched in spring 2013, the decade-long program
will receive investment of €20 billion, to be shared between
private operators, local authorities, and central government.
Palma de Mallorca
Public telecommunication investment in 2013 was US$146 per
capita in France, ahead of the United Kingdom (US$131) and
Germany (US$104), but after the Netherlands (US$336) and the
United States (US$276).
As in all the sample countries, the broadband penetration rate has
risen sharply in France over the last few years. With a land-based
broadband subscriber rate of 40.4% in 2015, France was ranked
second among the sample countries, ahead of the United Kingdom
(37.9%) and Germany (37.6%). The disparities among countries
are more pronounced for wireless broadband connections, with
subscriber rates of 138.8% in Japan, 135.4% in Finland, 120.78%
in Sweden, and 116.8% in the United States, compared with 90.3%
in the United Kingdom, 66.8% in Germany and 73.4% in France.
The European countries in the sample offer similar monthly rates for
broadband internet access, with the exception of Spain (US$49). In
France, the average monthly price of broadband access is US$35,
much lower than in the United States (US$70).
Fig 46
Fig 45
Fig 47
Source: OECD, Digital Economy Outlook, 2015
Source: OECD, Broadband Statistics
Broadband penetration rate (December 2015)
Subscribers per 100 inhabitants
Fixed broadband
Wireless broadband
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
Poland
Italy
Ireland
Austria
Spain
Japan
United States
Finland
Sweden
Belgium
Germany
United Kingdom
Netherlands
0
France
Oslo Gardermoen
Dublin
København Kastrup
Zurich
Paris Orly
Barcelona
Roma Fiumicino
London Gatwick
München
HIGH-SPEED BROADBAND INTERNET
ACCESS
National
International
Madrid Barajas
Amsterdam Schiphol
Frankfurt/Main
Paris Charles-de-Gaulle
London Heathrow
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Source: OECD, Digital Economy Outlook 2015
Monthly pricing for broadband internet (2014)
US$ at PPP
Public telecommunication investment
US$ per capita
350
2008
2013
300
70
60
250
50
200
40
150
30
100
20
50
10
CHAPTER 2 ATTRACTIVENESS CRITERIA
United States
Spain
Netherlands
Germany
Italy
United Kingdom
France
Sweden
Poland
Austria
Belgium
Ireland
Japan
0
Finland
Poland
Austria
Germany
Spain
Italy
United Kingdom
Finland
Japan
France
Belgium
Ireland
United States
Netherlands
0
45
Infrastructure # 4 Fig 48
Source: OECD, Digital Economy Outlook 2015
Average download speeds (September 2014)
Kbit/s
250,000
200,000
150,000
Fig 49
Italy
Germany
Spain
Austria
United
Kingdom
Finland
Belgium
United
States
Poland
Ireland
France
Netherlands
Japan
50,000
0
Sweden
100,000
Source: European Commission, Digital Scoreboard
Share of fixed broadband subscriptions >= 10 Mbps (2015)
%
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
In 2014, the average download speed in France was 110 Mbit/s,
placing it fourth in the sample after Sweden (240 Mbit/s), Japan (167
Mbit/s) and the Netherlands (136 Mbit/s), but ahead of the United
Kingdom (57 Mbit/s) and Germany (45 Mbit/s).
France is making good progress in deploying IPv6 technology.
According to Cisco, its IPv6 deployment ratio was 36.1% in August
2016, which places France seventh among the sample countries.
Electricity rates are especially attractive for companies operating
in France, and are among the most competitive in Europe due
to France’s energy mix and careful management of electricity
generation and the national grid.
The variability of electricity rates in France remains low.
With less than one interruption per consumer per year, France
boasts an efficient and reliable electrical grid.
EU-28
Italy
Austria
Poland
Germany
Ireland
Finland
Sweden
Netherlands
Belgium
United Kingdom
Spain
France
Fig 51
Source: Eurostat
Electricity rates (H2, 2015)
Industrial consumers by level of consumption
Rate inc. VAT (€/kWh)
20 MWh - 500 MWh
Fig 50
2,000 MWh - 20,000 MWh
70,000 MWh - 150,000 MWh
Source: Cisco
0.25
IPv6 deployment* (August 2016)
%
0.20
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.15
0.10
EU-28
United Kingdom
Germany
Italy
Ireland
Spain
Austria
Poland
Belgium
France
Finland
Netherlands
* Ratio calculated by Cisco to measure the deployment of IPv6 technology taking into account the percentage of IPv6 prefixes,
traffic, content and internet users.
0.00
Sweden
Spain
Poland
Italy
Ireland
Austria
Sweden
Netherlands
France
Japan
United Kingdom
Finland
United States
Germany
Belgium
0.05
IPV6
IPv6 is the latest identification protocol for devices connected to
the internet, which is set to replace the previous system, IPv4. The
latter remains in widespread use and has enabled some four billion
addresses to be used. During the current transition period, due to
last for several more years, the two identification systems will co-exist.
Running IPv6-enabled infrastructure readies countries ahead of the
upcoming exhaustion of IPv4 addresses.
For end users to be able to use IPv6, the websites they visit, their
server and their internet service provider need to undergo a number
of modifications.
Cisco has devised a ratio to monitor the deployment of the protocol,
which ranges from 0 (IPv6 not deployed) to 100. This ratio is a
function of traffic, content and end users, and is calculated using
the following formula:
% TransitAS + 3 x √ % content x % user
Deployment Ratio = 
4
46
FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD
# 4 Infrastructure
Fig 52
Source: Eurostat; Business France calculations
Tab 1
Indicators for leading European office property markets
Variability of electricity rates (H2, 2013 – H2, 2015)
Industrial consumers by level of consumption
Standard deviation (%) of rates inc. VAT
20 MWh - 500 MWh
2,000 MWh - 20,000 MWh
Source: BNP Paribas Real Estate, European Office Market, 2016
Transactions (sq. m.)
2015
70,000 MWh - 150,000 MWh
2.5
2014
Vacancy rate (%)
Q4, 2015
Q4, 2014
Berlin
814,000
609,000
4.2%
4.7%
1.0
Munich
741,000
597,000
4.5%
6.2%
0.5
Warsaw
555,000
400,000
12.5%
13.5%
Hamburg
529,000
513,000
5.9%
6.3%
Madrid
451,527
370,118
15.5%
16.0%
Frankfurt
438,000
411,000
10.8%
11.4%
Milan
382 081
278,787
13.0%
13.2%
Barcelona
361,920
233,694
12.9%
15.4%
Brussels
298 323
437,777
9.8%
10.3%
Lyon
272,483
242,627
6.6%
6.2%
Dublin
259,868
246,941
10.2%
13.2%
Amsterdam
220,331
230,056
15.0%
17.3%
Vienna
210,000
250,000
6.4%
6.6%
Lille
172,086
165,791
N/A
N/A
Marseille
154,927
126,375
N/A
N/A
Helsinki
147,551
23,638
13.3%
13.0%
Rome
146,021
110,763
8.0%
8.2%
Manchester
122,301
123,802
12.6%
14.7%
Toulouse
115,963
140,063
4.9%
4.7%
Birmingham
88,608
66,283
8.4%
11.1%
Edinburgh
85 006
80 080
9.5%
12.2%
Glasgow
75 058
85 514
11.5%
16.5%
Stockholm
10,000
175,000
8.8%
9.0%
Fig 53
Italy
0.0
EU-28
1.5
United Kingdom
5.1%
Sweden
4.3%
France
1,490,932
Belgium
1,275,480
Germany
Central
London
Finland
2.0
Netherlands
8.3%
Austria
8.0%
Poland
1,864,190
Spain
1,890,047
Ireland
Central Paris
Source: CEER (Council of European Energy Regulators), 6th CEER Benchmarking Report on the Quality of Electricity and Gas Supply, 2016
Reliability and quality of electricity supply (2014)
System Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI)
Average number of interruptions per year
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Poland
Italy
Ireland
Finland
Sweden
Spain
Belgium
Austria
France
United Kingdom
Germany
Netherlands
0.0
SAIFI
The System Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI)
is a commonly used indicator to measure electrical grid
reliability. It represents the average number of electricity
supply interruptions per consumer and per year:
SAIFI = number of interruptions for consumers / number of
consumers supplied with electricity
The data used is produced by the CEER (Council of European
Energy Regulators), which was founded in 2000 and assembles
the regulators of 33 European nations, including the 28
Member States of the European Union, Norway, and Iceland.
Transactions = surface areas for which a lease or a contract of sale has been signed.
The French corporate real estate market remains buoyant. Paris
is ahead of Europe’s other major capitals, with four other French
cities also in the standings (Lyon, Lille, Marseille and Toulouse).
CHAPTER 2 ATTRACTIVENESS CRITERIA
47
Ease of enforcing contracts
Global rankings
0
48
FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD
Italy
Ireland
Netherlands
Poland
Belgium
Spain
Japan
Germany
Austria
Poland
Spain
Japan
Italy
Finland
Ease of registering property
Global rankings
Belgium
France
Germany
Spain
Japan
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Sweden
enterprise creation.
Source: World Bank, Doing Business, 2016; new methodology used in 2015 and 2016
United Kingdom
The French market also stands out for its net
Fig 56
Poland
attractive country for foreign investors.
Ireland
are among the criteria that make France an
United States
tenders and e-government development
France
highlight other key strengths: access to public
United States
administrative and regulatory environment
Netherlands
Yet a number of other aspects of the
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Netherlands
resolving insolvency).
0
Ireland
electricity, protecting minority interests, and
Global rankings
Belgium
contracts, starting a business, getting
Ease of starting a business
Italy
categories (trading across borders, enforcing
Source: World Bank, Doing Business, 2016; new methodology used in 2015 and 2016
United Kingdom
receives good marks in several important
Fig 55
Finland
France holds a middle-ranking position, but
Sweden
Bank to analyze business environments,
United Kingdom
According to the criteria used by the World
Finland
in particular is considered to be complex.
Sweden
opinion surveys. Labor market regulation
United States
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Austria
environment often provokes criticism in
Source: World Bank, Doing Business, 2016; new methodology used in 2015 and 2016
France
France’s administrative and regulatory
Fig 54
Germany
Administrative
and regulatory
environment
T
Austria
#5
he World Bank’s Doing Business report measures
the ease of doing business in 189 economies. France
was ranked 27th in the 2016 report (9th among our
Scoreboard sample countries). The ranking is based on analysis
of regulations in 10 categories: starting a business, dealing with
construction permits, getting electricity, registering property,
getting credit, protecting investors, paying taxes, trading across
borders, enforcing contracts, and resolving insolvency.
# 5 Administrative and regulatory environment
Fig 57
Source: UNPACS (United Nations Public Administration Country Studies)
E-Government development index (2016)
Fig 58
Poland
Ireland
Italy
Belgium
Spain
Austria
Germany
Japan
United
States
France
Netherlands
Sweden
Finland
%
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
Source: Eurostat
Enterprises and individuals using the internet to interact
with public authorities (2015)
%
Enterprises* Individuals
100
80
60
40
EU-28
Spain
Germany
Italy
Belgium
Poland
Netherlands
Austria
United Kingdom
* Data for 2013
Ireland
0
Sweden
20
France
The best known rankings studying competitiveness are the
World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Index, the
IMD Business School’s World Competitiveness Yearbook,
and the World Bank’s Doing Business, all of which combine
statistical indicators with the results of opinion surveys. France’s
performances vary from 22nd place (WEF) to 32nd place (IMD)
and 27th place in the World Bank’s report.
More than half the criteria used to calculate the composite
index in the IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook are derived
from surveys. Aside from the inherent difficulty of measuring
competitiveness through a single composite indicator, its
overwhelming reliance on opinion poll data means that its
results should be treated with extreme caution. Received
wisdom has long since been prejudicial to a France perceived
as overly bureaucratic and reluctant to embrace globalization,
despite being entirely open to foreign investment as the world’s
seventh largest recipient of inward FDI stock and Europe’s
leading destination for foreign investment in industry.
Furthermore, in France’s case, the representativeness of the
sample is questionable, as the analysis is based exclusively on
perceptions detailed in as few as 50 responses received from
business executives in France.
In the most recent WEF Global Competitiveness Index, France
was ranked 59th under the indicator reflecting perceptions
of “pay and productivity”, despite being the seventh leading
country in the world for hourly labor productivity.
Meanwhile, the World Bank’s Doing Business ranks Sierra Leone
– which is emerging from several decades of civil war – in 88th
place for the “investor protection” indicator, while Switzerland
is only 105th.
All these rankings should therefore be treated with some degree
of caution, due to their manifest methodological shortcomings.
United
Kingdom
FRANCE’S POOR RANKINGS ARE AT ODDS
WITH ECONOMIC REALITY
E-government is an additional strength for France. According to
the United Nations E-government Survey 2016, France is ranked
10th globally and fifth among our sample countries for e-government
development.
Since 2012, the French government has been engaged in a
wide-reaching administrative simplification program, whose
recommendations have become law through the Corporate
Simplification Act (December 2014) and the Growth, Economic
Activity and Equal Economic Opportunity Act (August 2015).
Government estimates of the gains for companies and individuals
from simplification measures adopted in 2013-2014 amount to
€3.3 billion, while the introduction in 2015-2016 of a single social
security contributions statement is due to save businesses a further
€1.6 billion.
In terms of using the internet to interact with public authorities,
France is among the best-performing EU-28 countries: in 2013, 96%
of French firms had used the internet to contact public authorities
in the previous 12 months, compared with an EU-28 average of
88%, ahead of the United Kingdom (91%) and Germany (83%).
In addition, 63% of French individuals had used the internet to
contact public authorities in the previous 12 months in 2015,
compared with an EU-28 average of just 46%, ahead of Germany
(53%) and the United Kingdom (49%).
Finland
However, the report seeks above all to evaluate transaction costs, and does
not provide an entirely accurate picture of France’s attractiveness insofar
as it fails to take account of all the benefits received, for example through
the provision of high-quality public services, first-class infrastructure, and
a highly qualified workforce. It should also be noted that changes have
been made to the methodology for the 2015 and 2016 editions.
France’s best performances are in enforcing contracts (index
based on the number of procedures, time they take in days, and
the cost as a percentage of the claim) and starting a business
(index based on the number of procedures, time they take in
days, their cost, and the minimum paid-in capital requirement as
a percentage of per capita income).
France receives a low score from the World Bank for registering
property (index based on the number of procedures, the time they
take in days, and their cost as a percentage of asset value).
The auto-entrepreneur status introduced in 2008 by the French
Economic Modernization Act (LME) simplified the operations of forprofit businesses, notably by enabling them to register the business
online.
CHAPTER 2 ATTRACTIVENESS CRITERIA
49
Administrative and regulatory environment # 5 Fig 59
Source: OECD, Employment Outlook
Employment protection (2013)
6
5
4
3
2
France
Belgium
Italy
Spain
Germany
Austria
Poland
Netherlands
Ireland
Japan
0
Sweden
1
Finland
The Employment Act of June 14, 2013 sought to consolidate
necessary safeguards for employees while granting businesses
much-needed opportunities to adjust output to maintain
economic activity and employment:
•The Act contained provisions to help withstand challenging
economic times without having to resort to job cuts (temporary
adjustments for working time and wages; a part-time work
program as an alternative to layoffs was developed, simplified
and consolidated; more flexible mobility within companies).
•It also underpinned career security by making it easier
to keep employees in a job and hire additional personnel
during a fluctuating economic climate through improvements to
collective layoff procedures. This is an important component in
the investment attractiveness of French manufacturing sites.
United Kingdom
THE 2013 EMPLOYMENT ACT
According to IMD data, strike action resulted in an annual loss of 35.9
days of work per 1,000 inhabitants in France in 2008-2010, less than
in Spain (57.6 days in 2012-14) and Belgium (39.2 days in 2012-14).
However, international comparisons should be treated with caution,
as national practices (rights to strike and strike customs) can vary
considerably between the countries.
The European Commission report Public Procurement Indicators
2014 shows that France is the second leading country in our
sample for the value of public-sector work opened to tender,
just after the United Kingdom. A total of €64.9 billion in 2014 was
put out to open tender in France.
United States
France has a relatively high level of employment protection
among the sample countries, according to the OECD’s composite
index.
This position is largely due to regulations on certain types of jobs.
However, according to the same OECD data, France is not ranked
poorly for specific requirements on collective dismissals.
Protection of regular workers against individual dismissals
Additional provisions for collective dismissals
Regulation on temporary contracts
Fig 60
THE 2016 LABOR ACT
Source: IMD, World Competitiveness Yearbook, 2016
Number of working days per year lost to strike action
(2012-2014)
Per thousand inhabitants
50
FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD
57.6
Spain
France**
United
Kingdom
Finland
Ireland
Netherlands**
Belgium
61.8
Average 2012-2014
United
States
Sweden*
Germany*
Poland*
Japan*
Average 2011-2013
Austria*
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Data for France exclude the public sector; Data for Germany exclude public services.
* Data for 2011-2013; ** Data for 2008-2010
Fig 61
Source: European Commission, Public procurement indicators, 2014
Estimated value of tenders (2014)
€ billion
Ireland
Austria
Finland
Belgium
Netherlands
Spain
Sweden
Germany
Poland
Italy
France
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
United
Kingdom
The Labor Act of August 8, 2016 struck a new labor market
compromise. The changes were threefold: better social
dialogue, greater flexibility and visibility for companies, and
enhanced protection for working people, particularly the
most vulnerable.
Dialogue between employers and employees was improved
by allowing company-level agreements to take precedence
over industry-wide agreements, provided they are approved
by a trade union representing more than 50% of employees.
Greater scope for collective bargaining and clarification of the
possible economic grounds for dismissal granted companies
greater visibility and leeway to adapt to variations in the
business cycle and economic change.
Meanwhile, greater rights and protections were introduced
for salaried and unsalaried employees alike, particularly
through the personal employment account (compte
personnel d’activité – CPA), to enable employees to keep
their entitlements (to training, for example) throughout their
careers, even as their situation changes (salaried employment,
self-employment, unemployment, etc.).
Finally, vulnerable, unemployed young people without training
can now receive assistance through the ‘Youth Guarantee’, an
allowance combined with personalized support to help them
back into employment.
# 5 Administrative and regulatory environment
Enterprise creation is buoyant in France. In 2014, the enterprise
start-up rate across the whole French economy was 9.9%, after
the United Kingdom (14.3%), but ahead of Germany (7.2%). In
manufacturing, this rate was 8.3% for France, the third highest
after Poland (10.1%) and the United Kingdom (9.8%), but ahead
of Germany (3.8%).
The total number of active enterprises grew by 7.2% in 2014,
through a net increase of 230,187 across the entire economy.
The average 2014 growth figure for the EU-28 as a whole was just
0.9%. In the manufacturing sector, net enterprise creation was 6.8%
in 2014, equating to a net increase in active enterprises of 16,117.
The vibrancy of manufacturing entrepreneurship contrasts with the
rest of the EU-28, where net manufacturing enterprise creation fell
by 0.7% in 2014, as well as with Germany (down 0.6%) and the
United Kingdom (down 0.7%).
France also boasted the sample’s second lowest enterprise
death rate (5.6%), after Belgium (3.5%) and ahead of Germany
(8.3%) and the United Kingdom (9.9%). In the manufacturing sector,
the rate was 4.6% for France, compared with 5.4% for Germany
and 8.3% for the United Kingdom.
Fig 62
THE GROWTH, ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AND
EQUAL ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF
JULY 9, 2015
The Growth, Economic Activity and Equal Economic
Opportunity Act (aka the ‘Macron Law’) became law
on August 6, 2015. Founded on three major principles –
liberalization, investment, and labor market reform – its aims
are to foster growth, investment and employment through
key measures including:
•Simplified Sunday trading rules, coupled with statutory
rights for employees
•New international tourist areas (Zones Touristiques
Internationales – ZTIs)
•Liberalization of the intercity coach travel sector
•Overhaul of regulated professions by easing set-up conditions
and revising fees to reflect real costs
•Reformed employee savings schemes to promote lending
in the economy, especially to SMEs and micro-enterprises
•Support for physical investments through a supplementary
depreciation allowance
•Greater oversight over collective dismissal procedures
•Reform to employment tribunals
•Fully extensive nationwide mobile phone coverage, with all
remaining ‘black spots’ to be resolved by late 2016
Source: Eurostat
Net growth in active enterprises (2014)
Total economy
Growth in 2014 (right axis)
8%
180,000
6%
120,000
4%
60,000
2%
EU-28*
Germany
Italy
Spain
Finland*
Austria
Sweden
-6%
Poland
-4%
-180,000
Belgium
-120,000
Netherlands
-2%
United
Kingdom
0%
-60,000
France
0
Fig 64
Source: Eurostat
Enterprise start-up rate (2014)
%
15
Total economy
Manufacturing sector
12
* Data for 2012-2013
9
Fig 63
Source: Eurostat
6
Net growth in active enterprises (2014)
Manufacturing sector
Belgium
Finland**
Ireland*
* Data for 2013; ** Data for 2012
EU-28*
Italy
Spain
Germany
United
Kingdom
Sweden
Finland*
-8%
Poland
-6%
-20,000
Belgium
-15,000
Austria
-4%
Netherlands
-2%
-10,000
Austria
0%
-5,000
Italy
2%
0
Germany
4%
5,000
Sweden
6%
10,000
Spain
15,000
0
France
8%
Netherlands
Growth in 2014 (right axis)
Poland
Net enterprise creation
United
Kingdom
3
20,000
France
EU-28*
Germany
Net enterprise creation
240,000
* Data for 2012-2013
CHAPTER 2 ATTRACTIVENESS CRITERIA
51
general, France is well placed in the various
Fig 65
financial services segments, from the health of
Ease of access to loans
5
market. As regards private equity, the venture
4
capital industry is assuming a growing and
2
vital role in helping to create new businesses
0
2014-2015
2015-2016
3
Italy
Spain
Belgium
Japan
France
United States
in innovative technology sectors.
Finland
1
Sweden
bank lending to quoted equity and the bond
Source: WEF, Global Competitiveness Report
Ireland
a strong position in asset management. In
Poland
investment attractiveness, underpinned by
United
Kingdom
constitutes another component of France’s
Austria
The vibrancy of Paris as a financial center
Netherlands
Financial
environment
A
Germany
#6
ccording to the World Economic Forum Global
Competitiveness Report compiled from opinion
survey data, France is well-placed among the sample
countries for access to bank loans. It is not ranked as high as
Sweden, Finland and the United States, but is ahead of both
Germany and the United Kingdom.
Data from the Banque de France confirm the availability of bank
credit. Corporate lending in France is predominantly buoyant, with
a solid rise in early 2014 that has gathered momentum in 2015
and 2016. Conversely, corporate lending remains flat, or in some
cases declining, in other euro zone countries.
According to the Banque de France’s quarterly corporate bank
lending survey for the second quarter of 2016, “bank lending to
SMEs was stable, and down slightly for micro-enterprises” (cf.
inset hereafter).
Furthermore, there has been an upward trend in corporate lending
from banks and the bond markets. This can be seen by today’s
extremely low yields in the corporate bond markets, particularly
in France and Germany, which are prompting bond issues to rise,
as are diminished opportunities for trading.
Key: The WEF Report is based on results of an opinion survey with 14,000 business
leaders from 148 countries; for each criteria, respondents gave a mark of one to
seven (the latter being the highest score).
Fig 66
Source: Banque de France; Business France calculations
Change in lending to non-financial corporations in the
euro zone (2007-2016)
Index = 100 in December 2007
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
France
Spain
Eurozone excluding France
Germany
Italy
Jan
Mar
May
Jul
Sep
Nov
Jan
Mar
May
Jul
Sep
Nov
Jan
Mar
May
Jul
Sep
Nov
Jan
Mar
May
Jul
Sep
Nov
Jan
Mar
May
Jul
Sep
Nov
Jan
Mar
May
Jul
Sep
Nov
Jan
Mar
May
Jul
Sep
Nov
Jan
Mar
May
Jul
Sep
Nov
Jan
Mar
May
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2014
2014
2014
2014
2014
2014
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2016
2016
2016
50
52
FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD
# 6 Financial environment
As of late 2015, the market capitalization of NYSE Euronext Europe – the
holding company for the Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels and Lisbon stock
exchanges – had remained steady since the end of 2014. In contrast,
NYSE Euronext US fell 8.1%, while NASDAQ, Japan Exchange Group
and Shanghai SE all rose (up 4.3%, 11.8% and 15.7%, respectively).
France is ranked fourth in Europe for asset management (after
Luxembourg, Ireland and Germany), with a market share of 14%
for domiciliation of collective investment undertakings, for which
it is ranked third.
France was ranked third among the sample countries for venture
capital investment in 2015, which amounted to 0.034% of French
GDP, spread evenly between the launch (0.017%) and expansion
(0.017%) phases.
Paris led the way among European cities for fundraising in the
startup phase in 2015. With nearly €2 billion raised, France
reaffirmed its clout in the European venture capital market,
holding onto second spot by transaction numbers after the United
Kingdom.
Fig 67
Fig 70
Fig 68
Source: World Federation of Exchanges (WFE)
EU-15
Italy
Later stage
Poland
Dec 2007
Feb 2008
Apr 2008
Jul 2008
Aug 2008
Oct 2008
Dec 2008
Feb 2009
Apr 2009
Jul 2009
Aug 2009
Oct 2009
Dec 2009
Feb 2010
Apr 2010
Jul 2010
Aug 2010
Oct 2010
Dec 2010
Feb 2011
Apr 2011
Jul 2011
Aug 2011
Oct 2011
Dec 2011
Feb 2012
Apr 2012
Jul 2012
Aug 2012
Oct 2012
Dec 2012
Feb 2013
Apr 2013
Jul 2013
Aug 2013
Oct 2013
Dec 2013
Feb 2014
Apr 2014
Jul 2014
Aug 2014
Oct 2014
Dec 2014
Feb 2015
Apr 2015
Jul 2015
Aug 2015
Oct 2015
Dec 2015
Feb 2016
Apr 2016
Jul 2016
0
Austria
1
Spain
2
Belgium
Bank loan rates > €1m (Euro zone)
3
Germany
4
Seed and start-up companies
United
Kingdom
Market-based financing
0.045
0.040
0.035
0.030
0.025
0.020
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000
Netherlands
Bank loan rates > €1m (France)
5
Sweden
6
% of GDP
France
%
Venture capital investment (2015)
Ireland
Change in access to corporate bond and bank lending
(2007-2016)
Source: European Private Equity & Venture Capital Association (EVCA) (via Eurostat); Business France calculations
Finland
Source: Banque de France, European Central Bank
Stock market capitalization
The 10 leading stock exchanges
€ billion
20,000
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10 000
8,000
6,000
4,000
NEW LAWS TO FACILITATE VENTURE CAPITAL
INVESTMENTS AND LENDING TO SMEs
End 2011
End 2014
End 2015
2,000
0
Shanghai
LSE
Shenzhen NYSE
Hong
Deutsche
NYSE
NASDAQ Japan
Exchange Stock
Group
Stock
Euronext
Kong
Boerse
Euronext
(US)
Group Exchange (London) Exchange (Europe) Exchanges
(US)
and
Clearing
Fig 69
TMX
Group
Source: European Fund and Asset Management Association (EFAMA)
Global market share in European investment funds
industry
%
Netherlands*
Dec 2015
Poland
Finland
Dec 2014
Austria
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
France
Germany
Ireland
Dec 2013
Belgium
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Since 2007, a number of legislative amendments have been
adopted with a view to facilitating and supporting venture capital
investment in France, and investment in SMEs in particular:
•Labor, Employment And Purchasing Power Act (2007):
Introduced an income tax credit amounting to up to 18% of an
investment made in an SME, and a wealth tax credit amounting to
up to 50% of the amount invested (subject to certain conditions).
•Crowdfunding Act (2014): Defined a simplified legal
framework for crowdfunding. The main measures included the
introduction of a crowdfunding investment advisor status (conseil
en investissement participatif – CIP) for two types of existing
operators (lenders and equity investors), loans from individuals
limited to €1,000, no threshold for equity investments, and
regulatory disclosures concerning the investors.
•Corporate Venture Investment Act (pending): Due to
enable companies investing in innovative SMEs to write off
their investments as tax over five years by acquiring an equity
stake of up to 20% in the SME.
In addition to these measures concerning venture capital,
the introduction of special PEA-PME share savings plans
to fund SMEs, passed into law as part of the 2015 French
Government Budget Amendment Act, sought to channel
savings to increase funding to the real economy and make
it easier for SMEs and mid-size companies to borrow money.
The 2015 French Government Budget Amendment Act also
introduced an income tax exemption for capital gains generated
from the sale of monetary mutual fund shares (SICAVs and
FCPs), subject to transferring the gains into a PEA-PME.
* Data for September 2015
CHAPTER 2 ATTRACTIVENESS CRITERIA
53
Financial environment # 6 BANQUE DE FRANCE QUARTERLY CORPORATE
BANK LENDING SURVEY (Q2, 2016)
The Banque de France surveys companies every three months
about their access to bank finance; approximately 4,000 SMEs
and 500 mid-size companies took part in the latest survey, as
did 2,500 micro-enterprises, through a partnership with the
French Accredited Business Management Center Federation
(Fédération des Centres de Gestion Agréés – FCGA).
Bank lending to SMEs stable, down slightly for microenterprises
In the second quarter of 2016, new loan requests from SMEs
and micro-enterprises remained stable, for both cash advances
and investment loans.
Cash advances to SMEs remained high: 84% of SMEs obtained
all or most of the loans they applied for (versus 83% in the
first quarter). Investment loans remained stable and easily
obtainable, as 94% of SMEs received all or more than 75% of
the funds they sought. Capital expenditure loan requests were
also almost entirely granted (91%).
Cash advances to micro-enterprises declined slightly to
64% (versus 68% in the previous quarter), as did investment
loans, although these remained easily obtainable: 79% of
micro-enterprises received all or most of the funds they sought.
Capital expenditure loan requests were granted in a slightly
larger majority of cases (82%).
54
FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD
# 7 Costs and taxation
BUSINESS COSTS AND LABOR COSTS
#7
Costs and
taxation
One of France’s strengths lies in the low business costs it offers
foreign companies. According to KPMG’s Competitive Alternatives
2016 survey, the total sum of these costs (labor, facility, transport,
taxes and duties, equipment and energy, etc.) is lower in France
(-9.5%) than the United States. Among the countries in KPMG’s
sample, France is ranked third after the Netherlands and Italy.
The United States, which serves as the baseline for the report, is
ranked seventh.
Fig 71
Source: KPMG, Competitive Alternatives, 2016
Business costs
weaknesses for France in opinion surveys.
5
However, France furthered its comparative
0
labor costs in France have risen by less than
labor costs.
Although taxation in France is relatively
Baseline
high, in line with the French social model, the
Fig 72
effective tax burden on businesses appears
Business costs
to be much lower than the nominal corporate
R&D services sector
%
of waivers and exemptions.
2012
2014
2016
20
10
0
Baseline
than any other country, with a large number
30
-10
-20
-30
France
offers more generous R&D tax treatment
Netherlands
tax rate would suggest, particularly as France
Source: KPMG, Competitive Alternatives, 2016
United
States
sector, accentuating the impact of falling
United
Kingdom
productivity gains in the manufacturing
France’s cost competitiveness (1) compared with the United
States has improved significantly from KPMG’s 2014 and
2012 surveys in all the report sectors, especially in the R&D
services sector, where costs are 22.6% lower. France is also
more competitive than the United States in the corporate services,
manufacturing, and digital services sectors.
Japan
in the euro zone as a whole due to high
Japan
in industry. Over the last three years, unit
Germany
-15
United
Kingdom
-10
Germany
and in controlling labor costs, particularly
-5
France
improving its cost competitiveness since 2009
2016
Italy
France has succeeded in significantly
2014
Italy
advantage in business costs in 2016.
2012
United
States
10
Netherlands
Labor costs and taxation are presented as
Total economy
%
(1) Cost competitiveness measures the ratio between unit labor costs in France
on the one hand, and those of its competitors on the other.
CHAPTER 2 ATTRACTIVENESS CRITERIA
55
Costs and taxation # 7 Fig 73
Source: OECD
Labor compensation per employee (2015)
US$ at 2015 constant prices
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
United
States
Ireland
Netherlands
United
Kingdom*
Belgium
Sweden
Finland
Austria
Germany
France
Japan
Italy
0
(2) Average annual salaries
Spain
10,000
Poland
In 2015, France was below average among the sample
countries for employee income levels (2) (around US$40,471 at
constant prices), significantly lower than in Ireland (around US$52,532
at constant prices) and the United States (around US$58,714 at
constant prices), but also preceded by the United Kingdom (around
US$49,677 at constant prices) and Germany (around US$41,716 at
constant prices).
In 2015, labor compensation per employee in France increased
across the board by 1.4%, at a lower rate than in Germany (2.2%)
and the United Kingdom (1.8%). This increase was higher than
the one recorded between 2011 and 2013 (0.6%), and slightly
higher than that recorded between 2013 and 2015 (1.2%).
* Data for 2014
KPMG COMPETITIVE ALTERNATIVES 2016
Fig 74
4
2011-2013
2013-2015
2
1
0
-1
Poland
Germany
United
States
Netherlands
United
Kingdom
Sweden
France
Finland
Spain
Fig 75
Source: Eurostat; Business France calculations
Trends in hourly labor costs
Compound annual growth rate - Total economy
%
16
14
12
2011-2013
2013-2015
2015
10
8
6
4
2
Belgium
Sweden
Spain
Netherlands
Ireland
France
Finland
Germany
Austria
Poland
United
Kingdom
EU-28
Suède
Espagne
Pays-Bas
Irlande
France
Finlande
Allemagne
Autriche
Pologne
Royaume-Uni
UE 28
0
-2
Belgique
FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD
Italy
Austria
Japan
Ireland
Belgium
-2
(3) Unit labor costs are the cost of labor per unit of value added generated, i.e.
productivity weighted labor costs.
56
2015
3
Italy
France’s successful control of hourly labor costs since 2013 stands
out with respect to its leading European rivals.
France’s hourly labor costs across the whole economy increased
slightly in 2015 by 1.2%, while greater increases were recorded
in EU-28 countries as a whole (2.0%), as well as Germany (2.5%)
and the United Kingdom (15.2%). The only decrease was in Italy
(down 0.4%).
In 2013-2015, hourly labor costs in French industry only increased
1.2%, compared with 2.0% across the EU-28.
In 2014, the annual increase in hourly labor costs in French industry
(1.3%) was lower than in the EU-28 (1.9%), Germany (2.4%) and the
United Kingdom (14.1%), while only one country, Sweden, recorded
a fall (down 1.9%).
In 2015, unit labor costs (3) for the whole economy were up in most
of the sample countries. The slight increase in France (0.4%) was
similar to that in 2013-2015, and much lower than the increase
across the EU-28 as a whole (2.5%) or in Germany (1.8%).
Trends in labor compensation per employee
Compound annual growth rate - Total economy
%
Italie
This survey compares the cost competitiveness of 111 cities in
10 countries: Canada, United States, Mexico, France, Germany,
Italy, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Australia and
Japan). It covers 19 business operations grouped into four
major sectors: manufacturing, digital services, R&D services,
and corporate services. Each representative business project
is defined, modeled and analyzed in detail.
International business costs are estimated for a series of 26
significant cost components specific to planning investment
projects: labor costs, facility costs, transport, energy, cost of
capital, as well as taxes.
The report also analyzes other non-cost-related factors that
may nonetheless influence the attractiveness of a business
location. These include labor availability and skills, economic
conditions and access to markets, innovation level, quality of
infrastructure, the regulatory environment, and also the cost
of living and quality of life.
Source: OECD; Business France calculations
# 7 Costs and taxation
Fig 76
Source: Eurostat; Business France calculations
Trends in hourly labor costs
Compound annual growth rate - Industry
%
16
2011-2013
14
2013-2015
2015
12
10
8
6
4
Belgium
France
Finland
Germany
Poland
United
Kingdom
Netherlands*
EU-28
Belgique
France
Finlande
Allemagne
Pologne
Royaume-Uni
Pays-Bas*
UE 28
Italy
Sweden
Austria
Spain
-2
Ireland
2
0
Italie
Suède
Autriche
Fig 77
Espagne
Irlande
* 2011-2013 and 2013-2014
Trends in unit labor costs
Source: OECD; Business France calculations
2011-2013
Fig 79
Source: OECD; Business France calculations
Trends in productivity* per hour worked
Compound annual growth rate - Total economy
%
4
Manufacturing sector unit labor costs also rose 2% on average
across the EU-28 in 2015. The United Kingdom (5.4%), Finland
(4.4%), Austria (1.3%) and Germany (1.0%) saw the highest
increases.
In France, meanwhile, manufacturing sector unit labor costs fell
sharply by 2.3% in 2015, after declining by 0.8% in 2013-2015.
This trend can be confirmed by a productivity measurement based
on gross value added per hour worked. Across the economy as
a whole, productivity per hour worked grew 0.4% in France in
2015 (compared with 0.7% for the EU-28). In the manufacturing
sector, productivity per hour worked increased by 3.6% in
France in 2015 (compared with 1.1% for the EU-28).
The same trends can be observed in productivity per person
employed (0.7% for the whole French economy in 2015, and
3.9% in manufacturing).
Compound annual growth rate - Total economy
%
2013-2015
2015
3
2.5
2011-2013
2.0
2013-2015
2015
1.5
2
1.0
0.5
1
0.0
0
2011-2013
2013-2015
Finland
Italy
Ireland**
Poland**
Belgium**
United
States**
Finlande
Italie
Irlande**
Pologne**
Belgique**
États-Unis**
EU-28
Germany
Allemagne
France
Spain
Netherlands
Austria
UE 28
France
Espagne
Pays-Bas
Autriche
Compound annual growth rate - Manufacturing sector
%
5
2015
2011-2013
4
5
2013-2015
2015
3
4
2
3
1
2
0
1
0
-1
UE 28
Belgique*
Pologne*
Irlande*
Royaume-Uni
Finlande
Autriche
Allemagne
Italie
Suède
Espagne
Pays-Bas
France
* 2011-2013 and 2013-2014
EU-28
Belgium**
Poland**
Ireland**
Finland
United
Kingdom
Germany
Spain
Italy
Austria
Netherlands
EU-28
Belgium*
Poland*
Ireland*
United
Kingdom
Finland
Austria
Germany
Italy
Sweden
Spain
-4
Netherlands
-3
-3
France
-2
France
-2
-1
Sweden
6
Source: OECD; Business France calculations
Trends in productivity* per hour worked
Compound annual growth rate - Manufacturing sector
%
7
Fig 80
Royaume-Uni
Source: OECD; Business France calculations
* Gross value added per hour worked
** 2011-2013 and 2013-2014
Suède
UE 28
Belgique*
Pologne*
Irlande*
États-Unis*
Trends in unit labor costs
Autriche
Allemagne
Suède
Finlande
Italie
Royaume-Uni
France
Fig 78
Espagne
Pays-Bas
* 2011-2013 and 2013-2014
United
Kingdom
EU-28
United
States*
Belgium*
Poland*
Ireland*
Austria
Germany
Sweden
Finland
Italy
United
Kingdom
-1.5
France
-2
Spain
-1.0
Netherlands
-1
Sweden
-0.5
* Gross value added per hour worked
** 2011-2013 and 2013-2014
CHAPTER 2 ATTRACTIVENESS CRITERIA
57
Costs and taxation # 7 Cost competitiveness economy-wide improved in the euro zone in
2015, according to estimates. However, this general shift obscures
diverging trends of various magnitudes from country to country,
including improved cost competitiveness in all sample countries
apart from the United Kingdom.
The slight fall in cost competitiveness in 2013 and 2014 was
mainly due to the appreciation of the euro. In 2015, France’s cost
competitiveness improved markedly, notably due to the cost
savings passed on to businesses from the new competitiveness and
employment tax credit (CICE).
Compared with the euro zone, the United States, which had
previously stood out from the other sample countries for steadily
and sustainably improving its cost competitiveness, has also been
confronted by an erosion of these gains since 2012, particularly
so in 2015. Conversely, Japan’s cost competitiveness increased
dramatically between 2012 and 2015. The main reasons for these
changes have been variations in the strength of the yen and the
dollar against other currencies.
Fig 81
TAXATION
The French tax system is noteworthy for the burden of social
security contributions (37.7% of total revenue in 2014) and,
conversely, for the low share of taxes on income, profits and capital
gains (23.1% in 2014).
Total tax revenues (4) make up a large share of France’s GDP (45.2%
in 2014, versus 36.1% in Germany, 32.6% in the United Kingdom,
and 26.0% in the United States. However, the wide range of benefits
funded by social security contributions should be factored in when
assessing this rate (see section VIII, Quality of Life).
(4) More taxes are included in this calculation than those used to calculate the
rate of compulsory deductions.
Fig 83
Structure of tax receipts (2014)
% of total receipts
Poland*
Source: OECD; Business France calculations
Trends in cost competitiveness* (2004-2015)
France
Netherlands*
Indices (base 100 = 2010)
United Kingdom
Spain
Germany
Euro zone (15 countries)
France
130
Italy
Spain
Austria
Germany
Japan*
Italy
120
Sweden
Finland
United
Kingdom
Belgium
110
100
Ireland
United
States
90
0%
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
NB: Increases in the indices represent declining cost competitiveness
* Unit labor costs / Unit labor costs of competitors
Fig 82
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
90% 100%
Taxes on goods and services
Other taxes
Fig 84
Source: OECD, Revenue Statistics
Tax receipts
Indices (base 100 = 2010)
% of GDP
Euro zone (15 countries)
80%
Taxes on payroll and workforce
Trends in cost competitiveness* (2004-2015)
United States
70%
Social security contributions
Taxes on property
* Data for 2013
Source: OECD; Business France calculations
120
Japan
110
100
50
45
40
35
30
25
2009
2014
20
90
FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD
France
Belgium
Finland
Italy
Austria
Sweden
Netherlands*
Germany
Spain
Poland*
Japan*
2015
Ireland
* Data for 2013
United Kingdom
NB: Increases in the indices represent declining cost competitiveness
* Unit labor costs / Unit labor costs of competitors
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
70
United States
15
10
5
0
80
58
10%
Taxes on income, profit and capital gains
2004
80
Source: OECD, Revenue Statistics
# 7 Costs and taxation
IMPACT OF THE CICE TAX CREDIT ON UNIT LABOR COSTS AND PRODUCTIVITY IN FRANCE
The competitiveness and employment tax credit (CICE), introduced
on January 1, 2013, provides for tax relief equating to 6% of gross
payroll (excluding all salaries exceeding 2.5 times the statutory
national minimum wage), resulting in total annual tax saving for
companies of €20 billion per year. The tax credit rate will rise to 7%
of gross payroll in 2017. In absolute terms, hourly labor costs in the
French manufacturing sector (€37.60) remained relatively high in
2015 compared with the euro zone average (€32.30) and costs in Italy
(€28.00) or Spain (€23.30), but were lower than in Germany (€38.00).
However, hourly labor costs in France have clearly dipped since
2013 compared with the euro zone following the introduction of the
CICE tax credit and the Responsibility and Solidarity Pact.
Tab 2
Source: Eurostat
Hourly labor costs (€) - Industry (excluding construction)
Germany
2000
2004
2008
2012
2013
2014
27.7
31.2
32.5
35.2
36.3
37.1
2015
38
France
25.4
29.7
33.1
36.4
36.7
37.1
37.6
United Kingdom
18.9
22.5
21.9
24.5
23.6
25.5
29.1
Italy
18.1
22.6
24.1
27.2
27.7
28
28
Spain
14.6
17.9
20.8
23
23.3
23.4
23.3
Euro zone
22.3
25.1
27.4
30.8
31.4
32
32.2
Fig 85
Source: Eurostat
Labor cost index
(manufacturing, construction, services)
5
Euro zone (17 countries)
Euro zone
2
1
0
-1
Gross salary per employee
(inc. employer contributions)
-2
94
Fig 87
Source: Eurostat; French Treasury Directorate calculations
Unit labor costs – manufacturing sector
Year-on-year variations
8%
Euro zone (17 countries)
France
France (+CICE)
Germany
6%
4%
2%
0%
-2%
-4%
-8%
Latest data: Q2, 2016
2016
-6%
2015
As such, between the fourth quarter of 2012 and the first quarter
of 2016, labor costs grew less sharply in France than the euro zone
average, not only in manufacturing, construction and services (+3.5%
in France, versus +4.7% in the euro zone), but also in manufacturing
once construction is excluded (+4.2% in France, versus +5.8% in
the euro zone).
Set against productivity, unit labor costs have increased less
quickly in France than in the euro zone over the last three years,
which is also due to high manufacturing sector productivity gains
that have enhanced the impact of falling labor costs.
Since 2009, unit labor costs throughout the French economy have
risen less sharply than in Germany in the wake of larger productivity
gains and the impact of the CICE tax credit. In the manufacturing
sector in particular, these two factors led to a decline in unit labor
costs between 2009 and 2014.
Total economy
Manufacturing sector
Key: Unit labor costs in France are shown above including the CICE tax credit.
Productivity is calculated as the difference between the change in gross salaries
(including employer contributions) and unit labor costs. Downward arrows represent
productivity gains. The changes shown are those observed between 2009 and 2015.
2011
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
Latest data:
Q1, 2016
Unit labor costs
Productivity (inverted)
2014
CICE
(first phase)
96
CICE
(second phase)
2013
98
Responsibility
Pact introduced
2012
100
90
Spain
Italy
3
102
92
France
Germany
4
106
France
Source: Eurostat
Impact of the CICE tax credit on salaries (2009-2015)
Base: Q4, 2012 = 100
104
Fig 86
CHAPTER 2 ATTRACTIVENESS CRITERIA
59
Costs and taxation # 7 The tax burden on labor is high in France. However, in 2015, Italy,
Germany, Austria and Belgium all imposed a higher tax burden than
France on a single person without children earning 100% of average
earnings. For a one-earner married couple with two children at 100%
of average earnings, France imposed the highest tax burden.
France is ranked poorly for the nominal corporate tax rate, which is
mostly due to the temporary exceptional contribution demanded
from companies with annual revenues of more than €250 million.
Since reforming its research tax credit in 2008, France has
offered businesses more generous R&D tax treatment than
any other country.
Fig 88
Fig 90
Source: OECD
Average tax wedge* (2015)
Source: Eurostat, Taxation Trends in the European Union, 2015
Nominal corporate tax rate (2015)
%
%
60
40
50
40
30
30
20
20
Fig 89
Source: OECD
Japan
Italy
Belgium
United
States
Sweden
Ireland
United
Kingdom
Austria
France
Spain
Finland
FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD
EU-28
France*
Belgium
Italy
Germany
Spain
Austria
UE 28
France*
Belgique
Italie
Allemagne
Espagne
Poland
Italy
Finland
Germany
Spain
Sweden
Japan
United Kingdom
Netherlands
Ireland
Pologne
Italie
Finlande
Allemagne
Espagne
Suède
Japon
Royaume-Uni
Pays-Bas
Irlande
États-Unis
0.5
0.0
Autriche
1.0
Belgique
Taxation and social security policy also diminishes variation in
income through what are known as automatic stabilizers.
The ‘strength of automatic stabilizers’ coefficient measures the
proportion of an initial income shock that is absorbed by the tax
system to obtain disposable income. For example, in France in
2013, 37% of an initial income shock is absorbed by the French
tax system. Conversely, 58% of a decrease in income arising from
an unemployment shock is absorbed.
France
1.5
United States
Austria
Belgium
France
2.0
Netherlands*
Autriche
20
2.5
Poland*
Netherlands
R&D tax incentives
25
0
3.0
Germany
Pays-Bas
Government funding of BERD
30
5
2014
3.5
60
Sweden
35
10
* Data for 2013
Suède
40
% of GDP
2009
United Kingdom
% GDP
15
4.0
Source: OECD
Government funding of business enterprise R&D
expenditure (BERD) and R&D tax incentives (2013)
Corporate tax receipts
4.5
Royaume-Uni
Fig 91
Despite one of the highest nominal rates of tax on profits, corporate
tax receipts only account for a small share of GDP in France
(2.0% in 2014, compared with 2.4% in the United Kingdom and
2.6% in the United States).
France’s tax system is noticeable for a high rate of corporate tax,
but a narrow tax base, reduced by a large number of waivers
and exemptions. Corporate tax revenues are therefore quite low
compared with the OECD average (2.9% of GDP).
Finlande
* Includes the temporary exceptional contribution due by companies with annual turnover
exceeding €250 million.
Irlande
* The ‘tax wedge’ on labor is equal to the difference between gross labor costs for
employers and employees’ take-home pay.
Above, it is equal to the sum of income tax plus employee and employer social security
contributions, less social protection benefits, as a percentage of total labor costs.
Finland
Ireland
0
Single person without children at 100% of average earnings
One-earner married couple with two children at 100% of average earnings
Poland
10
Pologne
Belgium
Austria
Germany
Italy
France
Finland
Sweden
Spain
Netherlands
Poland
Japan
United
States
Ireland
0
United
Kingdom
10
# 7 Costs and taxation
Fig 92
Source: OECD, Society at a Glance, 2014
Estimated strength of automatic stabilizers (2013)
0.7
Unemployment shock
Income shock
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Spain
United States
Italy
Ireland
United Kingdom
Netherlands
Finland
France
Germany
Belgium
Austria
Sweden
0.0
REFORM OF FRANCE’S RESEARCH TAX CREDIT
MAKES IT THE MOST EFFECTIVE R&D TAX
INCENTIVE IN OECD COUNTRIES
R&D tax relief varies from one country to the next, but it can
take the form of an immediate write-off of in-process R&D, tax
credits, or corporate tax relief such as in the United Kingdom.
•The research tax credit is France’s flagship tax measure to
encourage companies to expand their R&D operations. All
companies with R&D operations in France, regardless of their
size or business sector, are eligible.
In 2008, the research tax credit was enhanced, transforming
it into a very generous incentive and simplifying its
administration.
•The research tax credit is calculated solely on the basis of
total R&D spending (after the abolition of the “increase-based”
component, previously determined on the basis of the increase
in a company’s R&D spending).
•In 2013, eligibility for the research tax credit was extended
to encompass innovation spending by SMEs: For expenditure
incurred after January 1, 2013, SMEs (as per the European Union
definition) that spend on innovation to fund projects to design
prototypes, new products or install pilot equipment are eligible
for an innovation tax credit of 20%.
•Eligible innovation expenditure is capped at €400,000 annually.
As such, the maximum tax credit a company can receive is €80,000
per year (400,000 x 20%). The research tax credit is also subject
to EU rules concerning maximum aid for research, development
and innovation operations. The advance ruling procedure (rescrit)
for the research tax credit was expanded to include innovation
spending as of January 1, 2014.
•It has also been made easier to obtain tacit approval: an advance
ruling procedure (rescrit) can be initiated once R&D operations
have begun, but must be submitted at least six months before
the research tax credit declaration is made.
CHAPTER 2 ATTRACTIVENESS CRITERIA
61
#8
Quality of life
A
ccording to OECD data, France was ranked first among the
sample countries for access to healthcare in 2014, ahead
of the United Kingdom, Germany and the United States.
Access to healthcare reveals the financial support granted by
government towards national health targets. A healthcare system
which suffers from inaccessibility may lead to delayed decisions to
consult medical professionals, and major health-related and financial
consequences arising from belated hospitalization. Access to healthcare
is measured by the remaining costs per person for health services.
Fig 93
Source: OECD
Access to healthcare (2014)
France provides access to a wide array of free
high-quality services, particularly in education
and healthcare. France is the leading OECD
country for access to healthcare, with the
costs to households significantly below the
OECD average.
Italy
Finland
Spain
Ireland
Sweden
Belgium
Austria
Finlande
Espagne
Irlande
Suède
Belgique
Autriche
United
States
Germany
Italie
États-Unis
France
next. The public-sector dominated setup in
Netherlands
* Data for 2013
private sector in the provision of individual
services varies greatly from one country to the
Allemagne
The relationship between the public and
Pays-Bas
companies alike.
United
Kingdom
influence on quality of life for households and
Japan*
housing, transport, culture, etc.) has a direct
RoyaumeUni
individual services (education, healthcare,
Poland
authorities to the provision of collective and
Japon*
The contribution made by government
1,100
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
France
to the attractiveness of an economy.
Remaining costs per person
US$ PPP
Pologne
Quality of life and work-life balance contribute
The public-sector share of healthcare and education expenditure
is particularly high in France (nearly 80% and more than 90%,
respectively).
Social protection spending – covering benefits for disability, families/
children, housing, social exclusion, old age, illness and healthcare, and
unemployment – is more extensive in France than in all other OECD
countries, reflecting the very high level of universal social security.
In 2014, public spending on social protection amounted to 31.9%
of GDP in France, compared with 25.8% in Germany, 21.7% in the
United Kingdom, and 19.2% in the United States.
Fig 94
Source: OECD
Health spending (2015)
% of GDP
18
Total expenditure on health
Public expenditure on health
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD
Poland
Spain
Ireland
Italy
Finland
Austria
Belgium
United States
France
Netherlands
Sweden
United Kingdom
62
Germany
0
Japan
2
# 8 Quality of life
Fig 95
Source: OECD, Education at a Glance, 2016
Spending on educational institutions (2013)
% of GDP
7
6
Furthermore, the income interdecile ratio (S90/S10) puts France
(6.9) below the average for the sample countries (8.9), as does the
alternative interquintile indicator (S80/S20), where France’s score
(4.4) is also below the sample country average (5.1).
Fig 98
5
Source: OECD (new methodology)
Income inequality (2013)
4
3
10
0.20
8
0.15
6
0.10
4
0.05
2
0.00
0
United
States
United
Kingdom
Spain
Japan*
Italy
Ireland
Poland
Germany
France
Sweden
Netherlands
Comparative price levels (June 2016)
€ PPP
120
100
80
60
40
United
Kingdom
Sweden
Finland
Japan
Belgium
Netherlands
United
States
Austria
France
Italy
0
Germany
20
Spain
US$ PPP per capita
Source: OECD
Ireland
United States
Poland
Ireland
Source: OECD, population data for 2013
Public spending on culture, leisure and worship (2014)
United States
Japan
Italy
United
Kingdom
Poland*
Ireland
Germany
Spain
Austria
Sweden
Belgium*
Finland
France
MEASURING INCOME INEQUALITY
Netherlands
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
18
Fig 99
Public spending on culture, leisure and worship illustrates France’s
steadfast commitment to quality of life: France is the second
largest per-capita contributor, after the Netherlands, spending
US$596 PPP in 2014.
Fig 97
20
Interdecile ratio S90/S10
(right axis)
Every month, the OECD calculates a ‘comparative price levels’ indicator
in OECD member countries. Based on a representative basket of goods
and services, it can be used to obtain comparative price levels with
a baseline country. According to the indicator, prices in the United
Kingdom, Ireland, Sweden, Finland and Japan are higher than in
France, while prices in Poland, Spain, Germany and Italy are lower.
Poland
* Data for 2011
United Kingdom
Japan*
Netherlands
Germany
Spain
Sweden
Austria
Italy
Belgium
Finland
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
France
% of GDP
Austria
Public spending on social protection (2014)
Finland
Source: OECD
Gini coefficient
(left axis)
Belgium
Fig 96
Italy
Germany
Poland
Ireland
France
Netherlands
Spain
12
0.25
Japan
14
0.30
Austria
16
0.35
Sweden
0.40
Finland
0
Belgium
0.45
United States
0.50
1
United Kingdom
2
* Population data for 2012
The Gini coefficient provides a way of measuring inequality (cf.
methodology hereafter). In 2013, France’s coefficient score of 0.29
was well below that of the United Kingdom (0.36) and the United
States (0.40), and was in line with Germany (0.29).
Inequality in income distribution (revenue, living standards) within
a country is usually measured using the Gini coefficient, which
ranges from 0 (where all incomes are identical) to 1 (where a
single individual receives all the income). The closer the Gini
coefficient is to 1, the greater the inequality. Conversely, a
decrease in the Gini coefficient indicates an overall reduction in
inequalities. Income inequality can also be measured using the
income interdecile ratio between the average income shares
of the wealthiest 10% of individuals and of the poorest 10%.
CHAPTER 2 ATTRACTIVENESS CRITERIA
63
Quality of life # 8 UNDP HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX
Every year since 1990, the UNDP Human Development Report has
published the Human Development Index (HDI), which was introduced
as an alternative to conventional development measures like income
levels and economic growth rates. The HDI reflects a desire for a
broader definition of well-being.
The index was created to bring attention to the fact that the ideal measure
of a country’s development lies in people and their abilities, not simply
economic growth. It can also be used to evaluate domestic policy decisions
by studying how two countries with the same per capita gross national
income can produce such disparate levels of human development.
The HDI is a summary composite index that gauges a county’s average
achievements in three fundamental aspects of human development:
a long healthy life (health), access to knowledge (education) and a
decent standard of living (income).
In 2014, France’s index score was 0.888, placing it among countries
with a very high level of human development. France was ranked
22nd in the world, after Germany (sixth place, with an HDI score of
0.916), and the United Kingdom (14th place, with an HDI score of
0.907), but ahead of Italy (27th place, with an HDI score of 0.873)
and Spain (26th place, with an HDI score of 0.876).
REPORT BY THE COMMISSION ON THE MEASUREMENT OF ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE AND SOCIAL
PROGRESS
Statistical indicators are important when it comes to designing and
assessing policies seeking to ensure progress in society. However,
disparities exist between the statistical measurement of socioeconomic
realities and the way that citizens perceive them.
In 2009, a commission chaired by Nobel prize laureate Joseph
Stiglitz reported back to the President of France on possible avenues
to improve the measurement of economic growth and correct the
shortcomings of the long-criticized benchmark indicator, gross
domestic product (GDP).
One of the distinctions the report made was between assessing
present well-being and sustainable well-being. Present well-being
is contingent not only upon financial resources, such as income,
but also non-financial dimensions (subjective perception, natural
environment).
Although the full list of these aspects inevitably depends largely on
value judgments, there is consensus that quality of life depends on
health and education, conditions of everyday life (including the right
to decent employment and housing), participation in the political
process, people’s social and natural environment, and factors that
define personal and financial security.
enables each country to measure and compare its own quality of life
by stepping outside the conventional GDP-based statistical framework.
The index has 11 dimensions: housing, income, jobs, community,
education, environment, governance, health, life satisfaction, safety
and work-life balance – which can all be given their own weight in
accordance with user preferences.
France is ranked among the top 10 countries on several items, including:
•Average household net-adjusted disposable income, which at
US$29,759 in France is higher than the OECD average of US$29,016.
•In terms of health, life expectancy at birth in France is 82.3 years
(85.6 years for women/79 years for men), more than two years higher
than the OECD average.
•The level of atmospheric PM10 – tiny air pollutant particles small
enough to enter and cause damage to the lungs – is 14 micrograms
per cubic meter, in line with the OECD average.
•Voter turnout – a measure of public trust in government and of
citizens’ participation in the political process – was 80% during recent
elections, higher than the OECD average of 68%.
The commission also recommended establishing a series of indicators
to give the measurement of well-being more importance in economic
statistics.
In a challenging economic climate marked by a hesitant recovery,
high unemployment, unprecedented volatility in the financial markets
and high levels of government debt, individual welfare merits being
made a focal point of economic, social and environmental policies.
In this context, and in recognition of its 50th anniversary, the OECD
chose the theme “Better policies for better lives” and launched
the “Your Better Life” initiative. This is a new interactive index that
To this end, the OECD’s “How’s Life? Measuring Well-Being” report
presents a series of comparative indicators on well-being for all OECD
countries and, where possible, other large economies.
THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM REFORM ACT OF JANUARY 26, 2016
The Healthcare System Reform Act of January 26, 2016 sought to improve daily life for patients and healthcare professionals,
creating new fundamental rights, such as the ‘right to be forgotten’ (making it easier for former cancer or hepatitis C sufferers to obtain
loans and buy property). Prevention efforts were stepped up in numerous fields (including malnutrition, alcohol, tobacco products, drugs,
and HIV), while healthcare access was facilitated by introducing statutory third-party payments for all (where practitioners are paid up
front by the Social Security system).
64
FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD
# 9 Green growth
A
#9
Green growth
As energy demands continue to grow and
the environmental protection movement
gathers momentum, the ability of countries to
position themselves in energy and renewable
energy sectors has now become a factor in
their investment attractiveness.
Fig 100
Source: International Energy Agency
Share of each energy form in EU-21 electricity
generation (2015)
ccelerating global growth has led to a sharp increase in
demand for energy products, contributing to a rise in
commodity prices and greater greenhouse gas emissions.
In 2009, the EU committed itself to reducing its greenhouse gas
emissions by at least 20% by 2020 (from 1990 levels), cutting
energy consumption by 20% through improved energy efficiency,
and increasing the share of renewable energies in EU final energy
consumption to 20% (France has already met a target of 23%).
When the COP 21 took place in Paris in late 2015, it seemed these
targets were on course to be met: greenhouse gas emissions fell
23% in 2014, the intermediate targets for renewable energy sources
were met in 2013/2014, and collective efforts brought about a
17.6% reduction in primary energy consumption.
In 2015, the European Commission published a ‘Framework
Strategy for a Resilient Energy Union with a Forward-Looking
Climate Change Policy’, which seeks to create “a new momentum
to bring about the transition to a low-carbon, secure and
competitive economy”. This strategy builds on the ambitious
commitments proposed by the European Union as part of
the Paris Agreement: reducing greenhouse gas emissions by
40% by 2030 (compared with 1990 levels), increasing the share
of renewable energy sources in the energy mix to 27% by 2030,
and improving energy efficiency by 27% by 2030 (a target which
may be increased to 30%).
In the EU-28, the share of renewable energies in gross final
consumption of energy (the benchmark indicator) was 16%
in 2014 (targets have been set at 20% for 2020 and 27% for
2030). Although the target for 2020 seems set to be attained, the
European Commission is encouraging Member States to redouble
their efforts in this regard, and to “ensure that renewable energy
is better integrated into the market.”
In 2015, electricity generation by the EU-21 relied primarily on
fossil fuels (47.9%), nuclear energy (26.8%) and renewable energy
sources (25.3%). Moreover, nearly half of all renewable energy in
EU-28 countries came from hydro power (41.8%), followed by wind
(28.1%) and biomass (18.6%).
Fig 101
Source: EurObserv’ER, The state of renewable energies in Europe, 2015
Share of each energy form in EU-28 renewable
electricity generation (2014)
0.7% 0.05%
25.3%
Wind
Renewables
Nuclear
Fossil fuels
Hydro
26.8%
47.9%
Biomass
Solar
Geothermal
10.8%
18.6%
41.8%
28.1%
Marine
CHAPTER 2 ATTRACTIVENESS CRITERIA
65
Green growth # 9 Sweden stands out from the other sample countries, having
made renewable energies a substantial source for its gross
domestic energy consumption (35.8% in 2014). Austria and
Finland (29-30%) also have a high share of renewables. The share of
renewable energies in France’s gross domestic energy consumption
was nearly 9% in 2014, slightly less than in Germany (11.3%) but
higher than the figure for the United Kingdom (6.4%).
Fig 104
Source: International Energy Agency
Electricity generation breakdown (2015)
%
Austria
Sweden
Spain
Italy
Finland
Fig 102
Source: Eurostat; Business France calculations
Share of renewable energies in gross domestic energy
consumption (EU-28)
%
Ireland
Germany
United
Kingdom
France
Belgium
40
2009
35
2014
Japan
United States
30
Poland
25
Netherlands
20
EU-21
15
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
10
Nuclear
Fossil fuels
EU-28
Netherlands
Belgium
United
Kingdom
Ireland
France
Poland
Germany
Spain
Italy
Finland
Austria
Renewables
Sweden
5
0
Fig 105
Source: International Energy Agency
Electricity generation breakdown (2015)
In 2014, France was the third largest producer in the EU-28 of
primary energy from renewable sources (10.7% of the EU-28
total), after Germany (18.4%) and Italy (12.1%), but ahead of Spain
(9.2%) and Sweden (8.5%).
%
Austria
Finlande
Sweden
Japan
France
Fig 103
Source: Eurostat; Business France calculations
Primary energy generation from renewable sources
Share of EU-28 total
%
Italy
Spain
Poland
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2009
2014
Germany
United
Kingdom
Ireland
Belgium
Netherlands
EU-21
0
10
FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Other renewables (geothermal, wind, solar, etc.)
Ireland
Belgium
Netherlands
Poland
Austria
United Kingdom
Finland
Sweden
Spain
France
Italy
Germany
Hydro
Hydro power is the mainstay of renewable energy in France,
producing 66.6% of the country’s renewable output in 2015. France
is the second leading hydro power producer in Europe, generating
59.1 TWh in 2015, or 18% of EU-21 output, after Sweden (73.9
TWh, or 22.5% of EU-21 output) and ahead of Italy (44.7 TWh, or
nearly 13.6% of EU-21 output).
66
United States
Carbon dioxide emission levels per unit of GDP in European
economies are relatively low compared with other regions in the
world, and relatively uniform within the EU-28.
France’s very low carbon intensity is partly due to its electricity
mix. In 2015, 76.5% of electricity was generated from nuclear
technology, 16.3% from renewable energy sources, and more
than 7% from fossil fuels. By comparison, fossil fuels accounted
for 61.1% of electricity generated in Germany and 62.5% in the
United Kingdom.
# 9 Green growth
Fig 106
Source: Eurostat; Business France calculations
Carbon intensity
(’000 tonnes CO2 / GDP million at PPP)
60%
2009
50%
2014
40%
30%
20%
EU-28
Poland
Germany
Finland
Netherlands
Belgium
United
Kingdom
Italy
Spain
Ireland
Austria
France
0%
Sweden
10%
Not only does France boast low carbon intensity, its carbon dioxide
emissions from fuel combustion (per thousand inhabitants) are
the second lowest after Sweden.
According to the 15th edition of the EurObserv’ER “State of
Renewable Energies in Europe” (2015), 347,400 people were
employed in Germany’s renewable energy sector in 2014,
compared with 169,630 people in France, and 98,250 people in
the United Kingdom.
Renewable energy forms (solid biomass, wind, solar photovoltaic,
biofuels, heat pumps, biogas, small hydro, solar thermal, waste,
and geothermal) account for the energy needs of 0.58% of France’s
population, versus 0.85% in Germany and 0.31% in the United Kingdom.
The leading source of renewable energy employment in France is
the biomass sector, accounting for 28% of all jobs.
Turnover in the renewable energy sector in 2014 was €33.3 billion
in Germany, €18.9 billion in France, and €18.1 billion in the United
Kingdom.
Fig 109
Source: EurObserv’ER, The state of renewable energies in Europe, 2015
Employment in the renewable energy sector (2014)
400,000
Fig 107
Source: Eurostat; Business France calculations
Greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 equivalent) per 1,000
inhabitants (2014)
’000 tonnes of CO2
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
6
4
Ireland
Belgium
Netherlands
Finland
Poland
Austria*
Spain
Sweden
8
Italy
10
United
Kingdom*
Germany*
12
France
50,000
0
14
* Small and large hydro are combined for Germany, the United Kingdom and Austria;
while only small hydro is counted for other countries.
2
EU-28
Ireland
Netherlands
Germany
Belgium
Poland
Austria
United
Kingdom
Finland
Italy
Spain
France
Sweden
0
Fig 110
Source: EurObserv’ER, The state of renewable energies in Europe, 2015
Turnover in the renewable energy sector (2014)
€ million
Energy intensity of GDP measures the quantity of energy needed for
a country to produce one unit of GDP. If we exclude nuclear energy,
on which the French electricity mix is uniquely dependent, France
had the lowest energy intensity of GDP of any country in 2014.
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15 000
Ireland
Belgium
Netherlands
Finland
Poland
Spain
Sweden
Without nuclear
Austria
With nuclear
0.25
Italy
Mtoe / € million PPP
5,000
0
United
Kingdom
Energy intensity of GDP, with and without nuclear (2014)
10,000
France
Source: Eurostat; Business France calculations
Germany
Fig 108
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
EU-28
Finland
Poland
Netherlands
Belgium
Austria
Germany
Sweden
Italy
United
Kingdom
Spain
Ireland
France
0.00
CHAPTER 2 ATTRACTIVENESS CRITERIA
67
Green growth # 9 THE ENERGY TRANSITION ACT OF JULY 22,
2015
A new Energy Transition Act was adopted on July 22,
2015, providing for the construction of a “new French
energy model” within the next 15 years, and more than
100,000 jobs on a long-term basis.
The provisions of this law were based around a number
of key topics, including the energy-efficient renovation
of buildings, greater clean transport, the development of
renewable energy sources, reduced wastage and promotion
of the circular economy, as well as simpler, clearer procedures.
A number of ambitious targets have been set:
•A 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030
(from 1990 levels)
•A 30% reduction in fossil fuel consumption by 2030
(from 2012 levels)
• An increase in the share of renewable sources in final
energy consumption from 14% to 32% by 2030,
and to 40% in electricity generation
•Halving final energy consumption by 2050 (from 2012
levels), and achieving a 20% reduction by 2030
•Diversified electricity generation, reducing the share of
nuclear power to 50% by 2025
•Halving the volume of waste dumped at landfill sites
by 2050
68
FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD
THE 2015 PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT
(COP 21)
In December 2015 in Paris, the 195 negotiating state parties at
the COP 21 summit adopted a universal and legally binding
agreement to tackle climate change. The agreement aims to
limit average temperature rises to “well below two degrees
above pre-industrial levels” and to pursue efforts to limit
such rises to 1.5 °C.
The Paris Agreement entered into force on November 4,
2016, thirty days after its ratification by 55 parties accounting
for 55% of global emissions. The agreement acknowledges the
shared but differentiated responsibility of the state parties,
meaning that the efforts made will take account of the situation
and capacities of each state. Furthermore, following on from
commitments made in the 2009 Copenhagen Agreement, the
developed states committed to finance a US$100 billion-ayear Green Climate Fund by 2020 until 2025, with a new
collective target to be defined above this annual figure from
2025 onwards.
#A
The dynamics of
France’s regions
In the wake of far-reaching regional
government reform and limited growth
since the 2008-2009 financial crisis,
France’s regions in 2016 must capitalize
on the attractiveness of their economies
to ensure that vital value streams, and the
secure incomes and quality of life that these
afford, do not pass them by.
F
rance’s regions have a wide variety of key strengths and specific
features, specializations and diversifications, infrastructure
readiness (transport networks, digital technology access and
applications), business and expertise networks, and capacities to
attract and retain sizeable skilled workforces.
The characteristics of local employment markets, along with the
depth and density of the economic fabric, consequently offer a stark
contrast between large cities on the one hand, and more outlying
regions, with less access to concentrated or nearby resources,
on the other. Even within large cities, significant inequalities
in development and income persist, mainly in priority urban
development areas; similarly, rural areas and those undergoing
significant economic change follow various paths depending on
how well they are connected to development hubs and the extent
of their role in the wider business world (buyer-subcontractor
relationships, openness to inward investment from other regions,
and international business development).
a) Policies from national, regional and local government
to boost the attractiveness of regional economies
One of the key challenges in this context is to facilitate economic
development driven by ‘powerhouse’ regions that foster
connections between value-adding areas, so that momentum in
large cities and high-growth areas can generate spillover effects
elsewhere. Better connected ecosystems may then be fostered in
such a way as to promote their specific strengths within regional
value chains.
Nationwide and regionally driven business attractiveness
policies can therefore work:
•At national level: To ensure the rollout of infrastructure and
a policy framework to drive economic development and
innovation; to foster consistent decision-making and the
promotion of specific complementary regional strengths as part
of a clearer picture for regional and international stakeholders,
thereby encouraging them to invest in these regions; to support
nationwide networking between regional stakeholders through
broad sectors or subjects; to equip regional stakeholders with
the resources they need; to support learning from experience;
and to ensure a clearer picture of policy nationwide.
•
A t regional level: To foster the emergence of thriving
interconnected regional ecosystems, encompassing economic,
scientific, technological and innovative cooperation, and to
disseminate local knowledge through business networks and
the resources available to them.
In addition to making regions more competitive and attractive,
development frameworks should be provided to enhance each
region’s integration into an open, globalized economy and to
foster the creation and development of economic activity. This
entails forging new relationships between local and regional bodies
– clarified by recent local government reform, whereby regional
authorities now take the lead on economic development – and
70
FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD
# A The dynamics of France’s regions
Fig 1
Source: DGCL 2016, IGN GEOFLA 2015
15 innovative city pacts in three core areas
Area 1:
Energy
transition,
environment
Grenoble
Energy
transition
Area 2:
Smart cities
Area 3:
Economic
and mobility
excellence and
international
influence
Lille
Eco-bonus
mobility
Nantes
Agri-food
Lyon
Living Lab, digital
city
Paris
Resilient city
Nice
Smart city
Strasbourg
Rhine Ecopark:
environment
and energy
transition
Rennes
Smart mobility
Rouen
Logistics and river
mobility
Toulouse
Smart,
connected city
Aix-MarseilleProvence
Smart city,
gateway to the
Mediterranean
Bordeaux
Metropolitan
development
Brest
Marine world
campus
Montpellier
Health excellence
center
Nancy
Systemic
engineering
large cities also play a driving role at regional level, while more
tightly knit intermunicipal bodies enjoy greater scope for initiatives,
such as local development and commercial real estate.
The implementation of a Cities Agreement on June 7, 2016
covering 15 innovation challenges (including energy transition
and environment, smart cities and mobility, along with economic
excellence and international reach) will raise the profile of major
innovation and development projects in fields such as systemic
engineering (Nancy), healthcare (Montpellier), maritime activities
(Brest), sustainable cities (Aix-Marseille-Provence), energy and
environment transition (e.g. Rhine Ecopark), and key logistical
routes (such as the Seine at Rouen).
Beyond individual city initiatives, the development of contractual
approaches, whether via State-Region Planning Contracts
(CPERs), city contracts or future rural contracts, seeks to enhance
the authorities’ efforts to support the economic development
of regions and businesses. Cooperation in this way between
authorities provides a positive framework for the emergence of
more efficient and environmentally friendly development that
more fully integrates the benefits of digital technology into
infrastructure and its applications in a variety of business sectors.
b) Highlighting regional strengths, specializations, and
services policy
France’s urban fabric – stretching across the whole country,
interspersed with rural areas offering substantial resources
(space for production facilities, raw materials and bioresources,
capacity to rationalize energy consumption, high-quality
living and leisure environments, and the flagship sectors of
tourism and agri-food) – offers businesses a broad range of
opportunities, whether they are seeking specific skillsets (e.g.
industrial expertise), more space, connection to transport hubs,
pooled production infrastructure (e.g. chemical platforms) or
primary resources (e.g. renewable marine/wind energy, etc.).
Policies that promote smart regional complementarity and
specialization by fast-tracking connections between economic
and innovation potential raise the profile of opportunities
offered by regions for business development. Broader policies
covering consumer services (healthcare, utilities, networks,
etc.) help broaden the attractiveness of different regions in
light of the economic changes compelling them to reposition
themselves.
APPENDICES
71
The dynamics of France’s regions # A Fig 2
Source: SNCF Réseau
Simplified overview of the French rail network
PAYS-BAS
COLOGNE
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
II
II
II
II
I
II
II I
III
II
II
I
IIIII
II
I
I I II
II
I
I
I
II
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
III
III
III
I
I
I
I I I II I
I
I I
I
I
I I
II
I II
III
I
II
I
II
II
II
II
II
II
I
I
I
IIII
IIII
III
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
III
I
II
II
II
I
I
III
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
II I
II
II
II
II
II
I
I I
II IIII
III
I
I
II I
II
MARSEILLE
I
II
I
I I
II
II
I I II I
I I
I I
I
I
I II I I
II I I
II
Grasse
Aix-en-Provence
III
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
II
II
I IIIII I III
II
I IIIIII
III
II
III
III
I
I
II
I
II
II
I
III
II
II
II
I
II
II
II
I III
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I I I I I III
I
I
I
I
I
IIIIIII
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IIII II
I
I
I
IIIII
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
III I
III
I
I
I
I
I
II
I I
I
I
II
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
IIII I II II
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
II
II
IIIII
I
II
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
III
I
I
I
II I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
II
I I
I
II I II I I I I I I
NICE
Menton
MONACO
I II
I
TOULON
II
I
II I I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
II
I
I
I III
II
III
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IIII
III
I
I I
I
I
I
I
II I
III
II
II
II
II
II
I I I I II
I
III
II I III
IIII
II
II
II
II
II
I
II
I I
I
II
II
I
III II IIIII
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
I
I
II
II
II
I
III
III
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I I
III
III
III
I
II
II
II
II
II
II
I II
I II I I I
I IIII
I III
II
II
II
I III
IIIIII
II
II
III
II
I
II
II
II
I
I II
I
I I
III
III
III
III
I
I
I I
I
II
I I
I
II
I I
I
I
I I I II
I
I
II
II
II
I
I III
I
I
I I
I
II
I
II
I
I I I
Le Graudu-Roi
I
II
II
I
I
I
AVIGNON
I I
IIII
II
II I
II
I
I
DIGNE-LES-BAINS
I
I II I I I I I
I I
III
I
I
II
I
I
IIIIIII
III
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I I
II
I
I
II I I
I I
I I
II
III
I
I II
IIIII
I
I
ITALIE
ITALY
I I
II
II I
I I I
I I
I
TURIN
Briançon
II
I I
II I
II
I
I
I I
I
III
I
II I
I
I
III
II IIII I
I
I
IIIII
I
I
I
I
IIII
I
I
I
III II
I
II
I
I
I
I
II II
II
I
II
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
II
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
II
I
II
I
I
I
II
II
I
Modane
I
I II I
I I II I I
II
I
I
Hyères
I
I
I
II
I II I
II
II
II
II
II
I I
II
II
II
I
II
II
II
II
I
I
I
II
I
II
II
II
II
II
I I
I IIIII IIIIII
II I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
réalisation : latitude-cartagène
document non contractuel
version 3
I
I
I
II
I I
III
III
IIIIIIII IIIII
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I
GAP
II
I
I
I
I
I I
III
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
III I I II
II
II I I
III
III
III
III
III
III
II
II
II
II
I
I I I II
I
I
II
II I
IIIII
I
I
II
I
I
I
GRENOBLE
VALENCE
II
I
I
I
I
I
Cerbère
II
I
I
I
I III
I I II
I II I
I I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
IIIII
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I
I
Latour-de-Carol
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
I
I I I I
II
IIIIII
I
I
I
PERPIGNAN
I
I
III
II I
II
II
II
I
I
I
II
I
I
III
IIIII II
I
I
I
II
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I I II
I
I
I II I I I
BourgSt-Maurice
I I
II
II
I
II
IIII
I I
I
I
II
II
II
I
I
I
II III
II
I
IIIIII
I
III
I
I
I
ANNECY
III
III
II
I
II I I
III
I I II
I
I
Vallorcine
III
III
III
I
I
I
I
IIII
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NÎMES
I
I
I IIII II
I
I
I I
I
II I I
II I
I
I
I
I I
III
I
II
II
II I I I
II I I I
I
I
I
II
I
Évianles-Bains
I
I
III II
CHAMBÉRY
I
I
I
I
II
II
I
I
I
I II III
I
I
I
I I I II
I
II
II
II
I
II
III
I
I
I
I
III
I
I
I
I
III I I
I
MENDE
I
II III
II
III
I
II
II
I
I
I
GENÈVEI I I
I
II
I
I I
II
I
II I I I
I
I
IIIII
IIII
III
IIIII
I IIIII
IIIII I
I
I
II
IIII III
I
IIIII
I
IIII
I
II
II III
IIII
I
I IIII
I
I IIII I
II
I
IIII
I
IIIIII
III I
II I I I
III
II
II
III
III
III
III
III
III
II
II
I II
III I
II II
I I II
I
I
I II
I
II
I
II
I
I
II
II
II II I
II
II
II
II
II
IIII I
IIII
II I I
II
I
I IIII
I
BERNE
SUISSE
SWITZERLAND
I
I
III
II
II
II
I
II I
III I
I
I II I I I
II I I
II
I I
II
I
II I
I I
I
BÂLE
LAUSANNE
LONSLE-SAUNIER
II
I
I
I II
I
I
I
I
II
II
II
II
I
I
I
BESANÇON
I II I
II
I I I I I II
I
II
II
II
II
IIIII
I
I
I
II
I
III
III
I
I
I
IIIII
II
I
Pontarlier
I
I I II
I I
III
I IIIII I
I
I
STRASBOURG
COLMAR
Metzeral
II
II
III
II
I
I
II
I
II
I
II
I
I
II
II
I
I
I
I I I II I
I III
IIIII I
I
I I
II
I
I
III
I
BOURGEN-BRESSE
II I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I I III
II
I
II
I
IIIIII I
I
I
Quillan
I
I
III
I
I II
II
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
II
I
I
II
II
II
I I I III
I
I
I
II IIII
III
II
II
III
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I I III
II
III
III
I
IIII
I
I
I
II
IIII
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I III
I
II
II
I
II I
II
II
II
I
I
II
I
II I I I
I
PRIVAS
Narbonne
FOIX
I
I
I
I
VESOUL
II
I
Niederbronnles-Bains
I
Béziers
CARCASSONNE
I
I
I
II
II
II
I
I
ÉPINAL
I
II
II
I I I I II
I
I
I
II
II
II
I
LE PUYEN-VELAY
MONTPELLIER
I
Mazamet
III
I
I
Remiremont Kruth
II
Mulhouse I I I I
I
BELFORT
II
II
II
II
I
I
I
Sarre-Union
II
I
I
I
III I
I
I I
I
I
I
II I I I I I I I I
I
I
I
II
I
II
I
I I
I
I
I
ANDORRE
ALBI
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
III
IIII
I II
IIII
I IIIII
I
ANDORRA
I
I
NANCY
I
I
I
Sarrebruck
I
I
I
I
I
RODEZ
I
III I
I
III
II
II
II
I I
TARBES
II
I
I I
I
I
I
II I I I I I I I I I I I I
I II I
I
II
I
II
I
I
II
II
I
II
I
II
II
I
II
I I
II
I
II III
II
II
II
I
II
I
II
II
I
II
I
II
II
II
II
II
II
I I
II
II
I
II
AURILLAC
I
II
II
II
I
METZ
I
I
I I I II
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
II
I
I II
I
II
II
I
I
I I
II I
IIII
IIIIIII
I I II
I
I
I
I
III I
II
II
ESPAGNE
SPAIN
TULLE
MONTAUBAN
Luchon
échelle au 1/3 500 000ème environ
1 cm représente 35km environ
II I
I
I
I
II I I I I I
I
I
I
I
N
50 km
TOULOUSE
I
Mannheim
I
II
I
I II
III
II
II
III
II I I
I I
I I
BARLE-DUC
I
LYON
I
I
I
III
10 km
échelle au 1/700 000ème environ
1 cm représente 7km environ
AUCH
PAU
I
I
I
AGEN
I
MÂCON
I
I
I
OloronSte-Marie
St-JeanPied-de-Port
MOULINS
ST-ÉTIENNE
I I
III
III
III
IIII
Dax
c) Regional investment in research and innovation
In addition to infrastructure, France’s regions enjoy very
substantial public- and private-sector investment in innovation.
According to estimates by the French Commission for the
Assessment of Innovation Policies (Commission nationale
d’évaluation des politiques d’innovation), state funding for
research in France amounted to nearly €10 billion in 2014, or
around half a percentage point of French GDP. Local authorities
accounted for €816 million or 8.4% of this amount (including
nearly €530 million by France’s Regional Councils), together
with EU funding (€1.5 billion in ERDF funding from 2014 to
72
I
I
II
BILBAO
GretzArmainvilliers
N
I
II
II
I
IIIIII
III
IIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIII
I
I
I
Hendaye
CRÉTEIL
ÉVRY
I
I
I
Rambouillet
I II
IIII
III
III
III
Autun
Le Mont Dore
CAHORS
III
III
MONT-DE-MARSAN
I
I
I I III
BoissySt-Léger
I
I
I
Orly
IIIIII
I
I
III
IIII
II I
IIII
I
IIII
I I
II I I
I
I
I
Robinson
Massy-TGV
II
II
II
II
VERSAILLES
I
II
II
III
I IIIIIIIIIII
CLERMONTFERRAND
Sarlat
III
II
IIII
II
I
DIJON
Corbigny
NEVERS
I
III I
I
I
PARIS
Noisyle-Roi
St-Rémylès-Chevreuse
BOBIGNY
I I I II
IIIII
II I II
IIII
Gare du Nord
II
II
St-Lazare
II
IIIII
NANTERRE
IIII
IIIIII
Gare de l'Est
IIII IIIIII III
I
Marne-la-ValléeI
II
Chessy-TGV
II
de Lyon I I I
I
Austerlitz Gare
II
II III IIIIII II
I I I I I I I I I I I III
II
I
I IIII II
II I
Montparnasse
I III
Bercy
II
II
II
II
I IIII
I
I
I
II I I I I I
I
IIII
I
St-Germainen-laye
St-GermainGde-Ceinture
I
I
I
MitryClaye
I
ErmontEaubonne
Arcachon
LUXEMBOURG
I
CHAUMONT
Montluçon
II
II
I
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I
III
Mantesla-Jolie
AéroportCh. De Gaulle 2-TGV
I
I I I II
I
CHÂTEAUROUX
I
I
Brivela-Gaillarde
I
TROYES
Avallon
Felletin
PÉRIGUEUX
I
II I I
I I I
I I II
I I
CHALONS-ENCHAMPAGNE
AUXERRE
I
I
II I I I
I
I IIII
BOURGES
I
II
II
I III
BORDEAUX
I I II
ALLEMAGNE
GERMANY
LUXEMBOURG
LUXEMBOURG
CHARLEVILLEMÉZIÈRES
I II I
IIII
II
Provins
I
I
I
LIMOGES
I
I
II
GUÉRET
ANGOULÊME
II
II
I
II
NIORT
I
I
POITIERS
I
I
Coulommiers
I
I
II
II
II
II
II
I
I
II
Reims I
II
I
I
Royan
Le Verdonsur-Mer
PONTOISE
Vierzon
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
III
II III I I
LA ROCHELLE
Île-de-France
Valençay
I
I
I I I II I I
IIIII
II
II
II I I
I I I
I
II
II
II
II
I
Ville
Majorimportante
town
Autre
Other ville
town
BLOIS
I
I
II
II
II
I
ORLEANS
III
III
II
III I
II
II
II
I I
IIII
II
LA ROCHESUR-YON
Les Sablesd'Olonne
I
I
NANTES
I
II
II
I IIII IIII
I
II
I
II
II
I
I
I
II I
I
I
I
TOURS
II
I
ANGERS
II I I I
II
I
LAON
I
I
I I
LE MANS
I
I
I
I
IIII III
I
IIII
I
II
I
II
I
I II
I
I
I
I I I II I
I I
I
II
MELUN I
Malesherbes
II
III
I
IIIII
IIII
Brest
Brest
Lannion
Lannion
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
II
II
II
I I
I
I
II I I I
IIIII
I
I
I
St-GillesCroix-de-Vie
Préfecture
Préfecture de
of arégion
region
Préfecture
Préfecture de
of adépartement
département
I
I
Pornic
Ligne
fret
/ non électrifiée)
Freight
line(électrifiée
(electrified/non-electrified)
Ligne
hors réseau
ferré
national
Line outside
national
network
(LGV
/ électrifiée / non électrifiée)
(HSL/electrified/non-electrified)
I
IIIIIIII
I
I
I
III
II
I
II
I
LAVAL
I III
I
Ligne
non électrifiée
Non-electrified
line
I
I I
IIIIII II
I
I
II II
I
St-Nazaire
II
I
II
IIIII
I
VANNES
Ligne
électrifiée
Electrified
line
I
I
II
II I
I
I
II
IIIIII
IIIIII
II
II I I I II
II
II
III I I
I
Redon
I II
II
II
II
II
III
I III I I I I II I I I I II
I
III
II
I I III
I II I
I
II II
III
III
III
I
II
PARIS
I II I
II
I
I
I
I
I
LGV
construction
HSL en
under
construction
QUIMPER
QUIMPER
CHARTRES
ALENÇON
I
I
I
I III
II
Ligne
à Grande
High-speed
line Vitesse
NANTES
NANTES
I
III
III
III
I
Légende
Legend
II
II
I
III
RENNES
I
I
I
I
I
II I I I II
II
I
I
I
II
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
Lorient
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
II
II I I
I
I
I
III
I
I
QUIMPER
II
II
II
II
II
II
I
I
I
II II II
II
II
I
II
II
II I I
II I I
I I
I I II I
I
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I I
II
I
ÉVREUX
I
I
II
I
I II
I IIII
I
III I
FRANCFORT
I
II
Maubeuge
I
I
I I I II
Carhaix
I
I
Granville
St-Malo
IIIIII I
II
SAINT-BRIEUC
I
III
II
IIII
II
II
I III
I
II I I
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
IIII
I
I I
I
I
II I
I
BEAUVAIS
I
I I
II I
II
I
II
III
III
Brest
Paimpol
Lannion
Roscoff
II
CAEN
II
I
II
I
II
II I I
SAINT-LÔ
I
II
I
I I I II I
II
IIIII
II
II
II
II
ROUEN
I
I
I II I I
I I I I II
I
II I I I I
II
I
II
II
II
III
I
I
II
II
II
III
II
I
I
II
II
Le Havre
I
IIII
I I I I II I I
II I
II
II I I I I
II
I I
I
III
II
II
II
I
II
II
II
II
II
I I
I
I
II I I I
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II IIII I
I
Fécamp
I
I
I
II I
II
AMIENS
I
I
BELGIQUE
BELGIUM
Valenciennes
I
I
I
CherbourgOcteville
I
I
II
IIII I
I
II
I
I
II
Le Tréport
II
III
IIIII
II
II
I I
II
IIII II
II I
I
I IIII
II
II III
I
I
II
II I
II I
II
I
II
II
I
I
I
I
II
II
I III I I
ARRAS
Dieppe
LIÈGE
II
I III
I
II II
II
II
II
II
I
I
II
II
II
II
II
BRUXELLES
LILLE
I I
IIII II
Dunkerque
I III
II
I
III I
I
II I I I I I
II
II
CARTE SIMPLIFIÉE
II
II
II
I
II I
Calais
I
Boulogne
I
ROYAUME-UNI
UNITED
KINGDOM
LE RÉSEAU FERRÉ
FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD
2020 and €300 million in Goal 1 funding from the EAFRD, for
cohesion policy targeting ‘research, technological development
and innovation’), as well as the Horizon 2020 program (research
and innovation), providing €900 million a year in grants for French
teams in the regions. All of this funding helps to underpin the
competitiveness of regional research and innovation ecosystems,
thereby helping to attract private investment into these fields.
In total, private investment such as this comes to double the
amount of state funding for research and development. These
government-led efforts, combined with business enterprise R&D
expenditure and private-sector research, are major drivers of
regional competitiveness.
SynthèSe deS StratégieS#régionaleS
de
A The dynamics
ofl’innovation
France’s regions
en vue de la SpécialiSation intelligente deS régionS françaiSeS
Fig 3
Source : CGET
Illustration
44 : carte des 121 grappes d’entreprises en 2014
Business hubs
Initiatives et Cité
Club des Imprimeurs Artisans
Clubster Santé
Action Plasturgie Clubtex
Pôle Régional Numérique
Artois Flandres
Cluster Euralogistic
La Glass Vallée
Association des
Industries Ferroviaires
Dieppe Meca Energies
PHMA
Nord Package
Technopôle CBS
Photonics Bretagne
Silicon Sentier
RMVO Parix Mix
Intelli'N
Pôle aménagement
Le réseau de l'image
DEFI Mecatronique
ENERGIC S/T 52-55
de la maison
Capital Games
Silver Valley
AERIADES
PolePharma
Pôle Audiovisuel
ARIA-Alsace
Nouvelle Calédonie
Cinéma Multimédia
Cluster Produits de la mer,
Le Vivant
PLAB
Nutrition, Santé
et
la
Ville
OpticsValley
Green
Valley
Valbiom centre
Pêches durables
Bretagne
de Bretagne
Agrodynamic et
Supply Chain
Synergie
Pôle Textile Alsace
Dev. Durable
Breizpack
Initiative Bio
Institut
automobile
Bretagne
Nekoé
du
Mans
Rhenatic
Association pour la
Franche Comté
Les Articulteurs
Shop Expert Valley
Maintenance Durable
ACE-AgroComposites
Interactive
Lea
Valley
Cluster
St-Pierre
Neopolia
Cluster AGHIR
Eco Chantiers
Atlantic 2.0
Pôle de la Performance Wind for Future
et Miquelon
Polynésie Française
de Magny-Cours
Pôle Industriel
Novachild
Conception, construction
Cœur de France
Cluster Eco-habitat
et maintenance d'engins mobiles
Filière Nautique
Normande
IEF Aéro
Tahiti Fa'ahotu
SPN - Réseau des prof.
du numérique en Poitou-Ch.
Pôle Aliments & Santé
Guadeloupe
Atlanpack
16 000 Images
Pôle Environnement
du Limousin
PERFORMANCE-SAP
Guyane
ORkidé
Inovagro
Topos Aquitaine
Inno'vin
La Maison de la Forêt
et des Bois de Guyane
Martinique
Cluster Edit
Organics cluster
Mecanic Valley
Fruits, Légumes,
Santé, Nutrition
EuroSIMA Cluster Glisse
La Réunion
AQUI O Thermes
Eskal-Eureka
Temergie
MECABOURG
Cluster Rhône-Alpes Éco-énergies
Cluster Beaujolais
Outdoor Sports Valley
Aerospace Cluster
EDEN
AVIA
PIL’ES
Cluster
Lumière
Le Damier Nutravita
INDURA
Cluster I-Care
Sporaltec
Pôle des technologies médicales
Pôle Agroalimentaire Loire
Numélink
Logistique 42
MecaLoire
Collectif designers+
Biomeridies Pôle Industries Culturelles
DigitalPlace
et Patrimoines
Saveurs
Blé Dur
CARMA -Profil Alu
UREI PACA
Méditerranée
des Pyrénées
Cluster
PACA
Logistique
Camdib
Cluster Midi-Pyrénées
Saveurs
Pôle services PRIMI
Pyrénées Industries
à la personne
Céramiques
Riviera
Yachting Network Florisud
Pôle Action Media
Nautipôle
Méditerranée
WSM
Uztartu
Mayotte
200 KM
Les grappes d’entreprises selon leur secteur d’activité
Agriculture, agroalimentaire et pêche
Ecotechnologies, bio-ressources, gestion de l'eau
Services
Construction et habitat
Industries créatives et culturelles
Logistique
Industries diverses
Industries de la santé
Economie numérique
Mécanique et métallurgie
APPENDICES
73
The dynamics of France’s regions # A Fig 4
Innovation clusters
74
FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD
Source: CGET
# A The dynamics of France’s regions
The contexts, key strengths and specializations of each of France’s
regions are set out in a document entitled ‘Synthèse des Stratégies
Régionales de l’Innovation (SRI) en vue de la spécialisation
intelligente (S3) des régions françaises’ (‘Summary of Regional
Innovation Strategies for smart specialization (S3) in France’s
regions), which can be downloaded from http://www.europe-enfrance.gouv.fr/Centre-de-ressources/Actualites/La-S3-c-est-quoi.
With nearly 100 development agencies and nigh on 8,000
employees working in the field of economic development within
regional and local authorities or specialist organizations, regional
ecosystems are well connected to support businesses as they
develop.
As regards tertiary education and research, the creation of ‘COMUE’
communities and associations in 2013 saw universities structure
themselves into 25 groupings, allowing for greater regional
research synergies. The French government’s “National Investment
Program”, with total funding of €47 billion, has supported worldclass initiatives in numerous regions – key projects backed by
communities of institutions, laboratories and equipment, including
171 ‘Labex’ (laboratories of excellence), 88 ‘Equipex’ (teams of
excellence) and 8 ‘Idex’ (ideas of excellence). Structures have also
been created to help laboratories and businesses work together to
move R&D projects towards market applications: 8 IRTs (technology
research institutes), 8 IHUs (university hospitals), 7 ITEs (energy
transition institutes), along with accredited ‘Carnot’ institutes
to develop contractual research with companies, and 14 SATTs
(technology transfer accelerators). These projects and organizations
ensure that each region is well equipped to support businesses
working on innovation projects with research bodies.
Stakeholders involved in business support, innovation, and R&D
seeking to bring products and services to market include regional
players, with 71 innovation clusters and close to 250 other miniclusters (126 of them officially accredited as business hubs).
d) Contribution of innovation clusters to regional
attractiveness and regional innovation ecosystems
As confirmed by a recent assessment carried out in 2016 by EY,
Erdyn and Technopolis, innovation clusters have become key
stakeholders for regional attractiveness, economic development
and innovation strategies:
•They relay regional marketing strategies and form part of a region’s
brand, particularly where a cluster is the only one in its sector
nationwide and has strong ties to the region in which it is based.
•Clusters also play an important role as intermediaries between their
ecosystems and the national, European and international arenas,
actively contributing to:
• They help support investment projects in regions. For example,
clusters may be asked by local public-sector stakeholders to
welcome potential investors and act as a regional showcase, or to
provide sector-specific expertise to investors conducting research
into potential future sites.
•They are involved in finding optimum hosting solutions and
supporting businesses in the regions. For example, a number of
clusters leverage their relationships with tertiary education and
research institutions to support or even oversee the creation of
innovative generalist or specialist business incubators.
•A number of clusters have invested heavily in a site-based
approach, in one of two ways:
– Investing in sites of excellence focusing on a specific subject, for
example by helping run a business park.
– Investing in a single brand used in a number of different locations.
•Clusters are heavily involved in implementing regional innovation policy:
– Fifty-nine out of 71 clusters (83%) played a decisive role in
preparing regional smart specialization strategies, drawn up
in 2013 as part of preparatory work on the scheduling of EU
funding in 2014-2020, and continue to actively contribute to
one or more smart specialization fields, sometimes across more
than one region.
– Twenty-seven clusters can be considered as playing a particularly
vital role, having been asked by Regional Councils to draw up
strategy and lead activity in a given field or sector.
e) Regular investments to flow throughout France’s regions
An analysis of foreign direct investment inflows based on nearly
5,600 investment projects shows that, across all types of foreign
direct investment, such inflows have had a significant impact on the
15 designated major cities (métropoles) and the four conurbations/
urban communities set to become major cities under the Status
of Paris and Metropolitan Development Act, areas which have
attracted 50.6% of all foreign direct investment in France.
Nearly 39% of foreign direct investment in France has been received
by its four largest city conurbations: Greater Paris, Lyon, Toulouse
and Aix-Marseille-Provence, which have absorbed more than threequarters of foreign direct investment into major cities.
An analysis of the ability of major cities to attract foreign direct
investment into their region (prior to the reduction in number of
France’s regions from 22 to 13) identifies four categories of major city:
– Those that offer a similar profile to other hubs, attracting between
3% and 7% of investment into their region (Grenoble, Brest, Nancy,
Toulon and Saint-Étienne).
– Those that attract a significant proportion (12-19%) of investment
into their region: Nice, Rouen, Orléans and Dijon.
– Regional promotion led by local stakeholders: organizing events
on a national or even international scale.
– Those that attract a very large proportion of investment into
their region (28-44%): Rennes, Nantes, Strasbourg, Lille, Lyon
and Marseille.
– Regional promotion at exhibitions or international market survey
activities, particularly in conjunction with Business France.
– Those that attract over half of all FDI projects in their region:
Toulouse and Greater Paris (67% and 82% respectively).
APPENDICES
75
The dynamics of France’s regions # A Under France’s new regions, these weightings are more evenly
balanced: Toulouse, which used to attract 67% of regional FDI,
now accounts for 49%, while Nancy, which used to attract 5%, now
accounts for 2%; in both cases, these regions have been made
significantly larger.
More detailed analysis reveals a varied picture in terms of the
purpose of investment projects. For example, the top four major
cities account for 67% of foreign direct investment nationwide in
decision-making centers; this falls to 53.7% for business services,
50% for consumer services, 42.4% for R&D/engineering/design,
40.6% for retail outlets, and only 16.1% for logistics and 10.2% for
production/manufacturing (a category in which the ‘Grand Paris’
conurbation is only ranked fourth in terms of investment inflows).
The relative weightings of each type of FDI are fairly consistent
between major cities, with the exception of the relative weighting
of the ‘Grand Paris’ conurbation in logistics (5.1%) and production/
manufacturing (1.8%), and the higher relative weighting of certain
major cities in specific fields: Bordeaux in retail outlets and consumer
services, Lille in services (both consumer services, where it accounts
for double its national weighting, and business services), Grenoble in
Fig 5
Fig 6
Source: CGET-DST; INSEE, CLAP, LIFI 2010, IGN GEO FLA 2013
R&D (over four times its relative share of total FDI). Other major cities
have a consistent weighting across the various fields (e.g. Strasbourg).
It is noticeable that the most widely spread FDI types across nonmetropolitan areas are logistics, 71% of which goes to non-metropolitan
areas, and production/manufacturing (82% of non-metropolitan FDI).
As such, public stakeholders target FDI categories such as these,
along with company headquarters and R&D activities, due to their
significant contribution to regional economic development.
The French Commission for Regional Equality (CGET) is working
with Business France to ensure that continuity in the actions of
government bodies (development agencies) leads to regions and
local authorities highlighting their complementary strengths to
both French and foreign investors.
In this context, the international development of a region is a factor
that can open up new development opportunities, and which can be
measured through various indicators that vary from region to region.
Source: CGET-DST; INSEE, CLAP, LIFI 2010, IGN GEO FLA 2013
Employees working in a foreign firm
% of the employment area
% of the employment area
76
Employees working in a multinational firm
FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD
# B Europe: a key player on the global stage
Fig 1
Market size: GDP (2015)
Current US$ billion
US$17,908 billion, Europe is the second
25,000
largest economic power in the world. As
20,000
the global leader in the international trade
15,000
of goods and services, it is also the world’s
10,000
investment. With a market of more than 500
million consumers, it is also an investment
Fig 2
hub for the Africa-Middle East region.
Living standards (2015)
It offers high-quality, increasingly multi-
GDP per capita (current US$ at PPP)
modal logistics, a concentrated skill base
50,000
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Transition
economies
Middle East
Emerging and
developing Asia
ASEAN-5
Latin America
and the Caribbean
energy.
Transition
economies
banking, consumer products, mass-retail and
European Union
as well as global leaders in manufacturing,
G7 countries
and renowned technological infrastructure,
Source: IMF, 2016
Middle East, Africa
world’s leading destination for foreign
Latin America
and the
Caribbean
0
Europe’s structural advantages make it the
Asia
5,000
Europe
largest trading partner.
North
America
With a gross domestic product (GDP) of
Source: IMF, 2016
Africa
Europe: a key
player on the
global stage
E
Sub-Saharan Africa
#B
urope is the second largest market in the world, with an
estimated GDP of US$17,908 billion in 2015, compared
with US$20,643 billion in North America.
The European Union (EU) had a GDP of US$16,220 billion in
2015, or 22% of global GDP.
New players, specifically major developing countries and rapidly
industrializing Asian economies, are becoming forces to reckon
with in the world market. Emerging and developing countries
accounted for 39% of global GDP in 2015, up from 24% in 2005,
with the share of emerging Asian economies rising to 21%, up
from 9% in 2005.
The EU’s global economic power can be seen in its vast market
and high purchasing power. In 2015, GDP per capita at purchasing
power parity (PPP) was US$37,852 in the European Union.
Global trade volumes continued to increase slowly in 2015, rising
2.7%. Despite the growth in real trade, the value in current dollars
of global goods exports fell 14% to US$16,000 billion. Sluggish
trade in 2015 was due to a number of specific factors, including an
economic slowdown in China, a major recession in Brazil, lower oil
and other commodity prices, and greater exchange rate volatility.
APPENDICES
77
Europe: a key player on the global stage # B In 2015, Europe, Asia and North America accounted for 88% of
all trade in goods. The share of developing economies in goods
exports rose to 42% in 2015, up from 33% in 2005.
Europe is the world’s largest trading partner. It is the global
leader in the international trade of goods and services, with a
market open to the world. In 2015, Europe was responsible for
37% of global goods exports and 46% of global services exports.
The value in dollars of global commercial services exports declined
by 6% in 2015 to US$4,754 billion, with Europe accounting for a
large share of such exports.
Fig 3
Source: WTO, 2016
Goods exports (2015)
Current US$ billion
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
Global FDI inflows surged 38% in 2015 to US$1,760 billion, while
inflows in developed countries nearly doubled to US$962 billion.
In 2015, Europe received more foreign direct investment than
any other region in the world. According to UNCTAD data, Europe
had accumulated inward FDI stock of US$8,782 billion, or 35% of
global FDI stocks, with the European Union accounting for 89% of
this figure.
Inward FDI flows to the EU Europe (US$503.6 billion) in 2015 were
the second largest in the world after Asia (US$540.7 billion). FDI
inflows in European countries rose sharply, as developed economies
(US$962 billion) overtook developing economies (US$765 billion)
after the latter had led the way for three years. As FDI inflows in
European countries rose 65% in 2015, their global market share
increased to 29%.
Europe was also the leading region for investors. According to
UNCTAD data, Europe had accounted for 43% of global capital,
with the European Union responsible for 85% of outward FDI stock.
Outward FDI flows from European countries rose dramatically in
2015 by 85% to US$572.7 billion.
Fig 5
Africa
Transition
economies
Source: UNCTAD, 2016
Inward FDI stock (2015)
US$ billion
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
Current $US billion
2,500
2,000
Fig 6
1,500
Inward FDI flows (2015)
Source: UNCTAD, 2016
1,000
FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD
Fig 7
Transition
economies
Africa
Latin America
and the Caribbean
North America
Europe
Asia
Transition
economies
Source: UNCTAD, 2016
Outward FDI stock (2015)
US$ billion
Africa
Transition
economies
Latin America
and the Caribbean
Asia
North
America
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
Europe
Africa
Latin America
and the Caribbean
Middle East
North America
Asia
Europe
0
78
US$ billion
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
500
As the globalization of leading emerging economies continues
apace, developed countries have seen their market share contract.
However, Europe remains the primary global destination for
foreign investment, both in terms of foreign direct investment
(FDI) and job-creating physical investment.
In light of this position, calls can be heard for greater commitment
to further political integration within the EU so as to enhance the
global competitiveness of the European Single Market.
Transition
economies
Europe
Services exports (2015)
Africa
0
Source: WTO, 2016
Asia
Fig 4
Latin America
and the Caribbean
2,000
North
America
Latin America
and the Caribbean
Middle East
North America
Asia
Europe
1,000
0
# B Europe: a key player on the global stage
In 2015, Europe was the second leading recipient region of
physical inward investment after North America (29%), followed
by Asia-Pacific (25%), and Latin America (7%).
The three leading recipients were the United Kingdom, France
and Germany, who between them attracted half of all job-creating
investment in Europe.
Intra-European investment flows accounted for half of all foreign
investment in Europe, while American investments rose to account
for 32%. Foreign companies focused primarily on business
services (30%); decision-making centers (29%); and production/
manufacturing (23%).
Investors perceive Europe to be an attractive region, with 36%
of respondents anticipating greater investment opportunities
over the coming three years. Among Europe’s key strengths,
investors cited digital and logistics infrastructure, a highly
qualified workforce, as well as political and legal stability of the
business environment.
Fig 8
Source: fDi Markets, 2016
Global distribution of physical investment
(%, 2015)
7%
4%
5%
Middle East
Africa
29%
29%
Latin America
Europe
25%
Asia
North America
APPENDICES
79
#C
The perceptions
of foreign
investors
I
n a TNS-Sofres/Business France survey conducted in September
2016, 75% of foreign investors considered France to be an
attractive investment location (compared with 65% in 2014
and 53% in 2009).
Their confidence in France is confirmed by their plans to expand:
33% of respondents plan to increase their company’s presence
in the country.
When asked what made France attractive to investment, chief
executives of foreign companies attached greatest importance
(over 80% of respondents) to its communication and transport/
logistics infrastructure.
They also emphasized the size of the domestic market (81%), workforce
education and training (81%), and France’s industrial base (80%).
A large majority said that economic stability (77%) and regulatory
stability (76%), both contributed to France’s attractiveness.
Innovation and R&D were also cited by 75% of respondents.
Many surveys on France’s investment
Fig 1
attractiveness give the country high
The perceptions of foreign investors
marks for its excellent communication
Source: TNS-Sofres/Business France opinion poll (2016)
Would you say that France is an attractive location for
foreign investment?
and transport infrastructure, education
and training provision, skilled workforce,
5%
industrial base, and quality of life.
Strongly agree
Foreign investors are also appreciative of
32%
20%
Tend to agree
efforts at government level to enhance
France’s competitiveness.
Tend to disagree
44%
Strongly disagree
Fig 2
Source: TNS-Sofres/Business France opinion poll (2016)
The perceptions of foreign investors
Do you consider France attractive or unattractive for foreign
investment with respect to the following criteria?
15
19
19
20
23
24
26
28
28
30
38
44
85
81
81
80
77
76
75
73
72
70
62
56
Size of the domestic market
Workforce education
and training
Industrial base
Economic stability
Regulatory stability
Innovation and R&D
Strength of the
domestic economy
Business environment
Corporate taxation
Labor productivity
Labor costs
Communication
infrastructure
100
90 13
80
70
60
50
40
30 87
20
10
0
Transport and logistics
%
Attractive
80
FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD
Unattractive
# C The perceptions of foreign investors
Fig 3
Source: TNS-Sofres/Business France opinion poll (2016)
The perceptions of foreign investors
How attractive is France for inward R&D investments with
respect to the following criteria?
%
100
21
22
24
24
24
30
30
37
79
78
76
76
76
70
70
63
Potential for
research partnerships
Access to finance
Proximity to French
innovation clusters
Investment opportunities
through acquisitions
Amount of state aid
for R&D
Cost of R&D operations
80
Proximity to markets
90
70
60
50
40
30
20
0
Attractive
Unattractive
Fig 4
Quality of R&D personnel
10
Source: TNS-Sofres/Business France opinion poll (2016)
The perceptions of foreign investors
Do you think that the French ecosystem encourages
innovation?
4%
Strongly agree
25%
26%
At the same time, 44% indicated that labor costs militated against
France as an investment location, although this figure is down
seven percentage points from 2014.
Views on French labor productivity continue to improve: 62% of
those surveyed in 2016 said that France was attractive in this area,
versus 59% in 2014 and 52% in 2011.
France’s attractiveness for inward R&D investment is principally due
its proximity to markets (cited by 79% of respondents) as well as the
potential for partnerships with public-sector research laboratories.
Access to finance (76%) was also identified by foreign investors
as one of the leading criteria in France’s attractiveness for R&D
operations.
The quality of R&D personnel (76%) and the proximity of innovation
clusters were also cited by respondents.
Launched in November 2013 to boost the profile and attractiveness
of France’s digital ecosystem to foreign investment, the “La French
Tech” scheme has achieved considerable success. This major
initiative aims to boost the image and attractiveness of France’s
digital ecosystem by bringing together its regional ecosystems to
promote the growth of digital startups and companies.
Sixty-nine percent of survey respondents stated that the French
ecosystem encouraged innovation.
According to the 2015 AmCham-Bain survey, American investors
recognize the effectiveness of the measures brought forward by
the French government to boost France’s attractiveness, such as
the Growth, Economic Activity and Equal Economic Opportunity
Act (aka ‘Macron Law’, mentioned by 62% of respondents), and
the measures proposed by the Business Simplification Council
(56%). Moreover, 50% of investors consider the increase in the
rate of the competitiveness and employment tax credit (CICE) to
be beneficial, while France’s attractiveness in digital technology
was also widely recognized (by 85% of respondents).
Tend to agree
Tend to disagree
44%
Strongly disagree
TNS-SOFRES SURVEY ON FRANCE’S
ATTRACTIVENESS
In September 2016, TNS-Sofres conducted a survey of foreign
executives who had chosen to set up businesses in France. The
aim was to identify how France is perceived in terms of economic
attractiveness and to gain an insight into how investment location
decisions are made. The survey was conducted by telephone
and polled 500 foreign companies in the following countries:
United States, China, India, United Kingdom and Germany.
2015 AMCHAM-BAIN SURVEY
First conducted in 1997, the American Chamber of Commerce
in France AmCham-Bain survey gauges the confidence of
American investors in France.
The AmCham-Bain survey has a dual purpose:
• To measure the morale of American investors in France from
one year to the next and their perception of the strengths and
weaknesses of France as a business environment.
• To ground it in facts by gathering opinions from American
investors on specific topics.
In June 2015, questionnaires were sent out to executives at
French subsidiaries of American companies. Responses were
gathered from nearly 125 companies, accounting for a total of
over 50,000 employees in France and a combined turnover
of more than €40 billion.
APPENDICES
81
82
Methodology
I. Outcome indicators
II. Attractiveness criteria
83
1. Outcome indicators
INDICATORS
SOURCE
FRANCE’S
POSITION
2016
I
FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT
I-1
Foreign direct investment inflows (1995-2015), current US$ billion
UNCTAD, 2016
N/A
I-2
Foreign direct investment inflows - leading recipients (2015),
current US$ billion
UNCTAD, 2016
N/A
I-3
Inward FDI stock (2015), % of GDP
UNCTAD; IMF; Business
France calculations
I-4
Inward FDI stock (2015), current US$ billion
I-5
Distribution of job-creating foreign investment projects in Europe
(2015), European market share
II
LEADING
COUNTRIES
United States, Hong Kong
11
Ireland, Belgium
UNCTAD, 2016
7
United States, Hong Kong
Business France Europe
Observatory
2
United Kingdom, France
INTERNATIONALIZATION AND THE OPENING UP OF ECONOMIES
II-1
Contribution of foreign subsidiaries to value added (2013),
% of total value added
OECD - Inward Activity of
Multinationals, 2016
11
Ireland, Poland
II-2
Contribution of foreign subsidiaries to employment (2013),
% of total employees
OECD - Inward Activity of
Multinationals, 2016
11
Poland, Sweden
II-3
Contribution of foreign subsidiaries to R&D (2013),
% of total R&D expenditure
OECD - Inward Activity of
Multinationals, 2016
6
Belgium, Ireland
II-4
Non-resident equity holdings in CAC 40 companies (2002-2015)
Banque de France, 2016
N/A
III
STRATEGIC ACTIVITIES
Foreign company investment decisions (2015)
III-1
European market share of projects in R&D and headquarters, %
fDi Markets
3
United Kingdom, Germany
III-2
Foreign company investment decisions (2015) - European market
share of projects in production/manufacturing and logistics, %
Business France Europe
Observatory
1
France, United Kingdom
III-3
Foreign company investment decisions (2015)
European market share of projects in the pharmaceutical/
biotechnologies and chemicals sectors, %
Business France Europe
Observatory
2
United Kingdom, France
III-4
Foreign company investment decisions (2015)
European market share of projects in the electronic components and
software/IT services sectors, %
Business France Europe
Observatory
3
United Kingdom, Germany
III-6
Foreign company investment decisions (2015)
European market share of projects in consulting/engineering and
financial services/insurance sectors, %
Business France Europe
Observatory
3
United Kingdom, Germany
IV
FOREIGN SKILLS
IV-1
Number of international students by host country* (2014)
UNESCO
3
United States, United Kingdom
IV-2
Proportion of foreign students** in tertiary education (2014), %
Eurostat, 2016
2
United Kingdom, France
IV-3
Foreign students by region of origin (2014), %
OECD - Education at a Glance,
2016
IV-4
Proportion of foreign students in advanced research programs (2014)
- Sciences, Mathematics and IT, %
Eurostat, 2016
N/A
2
United States, France
* Students originally from a country other than the country of destination.
** Numbers of ‘international students’ (proportion generally lower than for ‘foreign students’), expect for France and Italy (proportion of ‘foreign students’ in tertiary education).
N/A = not applicable
84
FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD
2. Attractiveness criteria
INDICATORS
I
SOURCE
FRANCE’S
POSITION
2016
LEADING
COUNTRIES
MARKET SIZE AND STRENGTH
I-1
GDP per capita (2015), US$ at current PPP
IMF, World Economic Outlook
Database
8
United States, Ireland
I-2
Access to EU-27 markets (2015), index
IMF, CEPII
3
Belgium, Netherlands
I-3
Compound annual rate of real GDP growth (2015), %
IMF, World Economic Outlook
Database
10
Ireland, Sweden
I-4
Distribution of global wealth (2015), US$ billion
IMF, World Economic Outlook
Database
6
United States, China
I-5
Final consumption expenditure (2015), % of GDP
Eurostat
4
United Kingdom, Italy
I-6
Fertility rate (2014), live births per woman, all age groups
Eurostat, World Bank
1
France, Ireland
I-7
Goods exports (2015), % of global exports
WTO
8**
China, United States
I-8
Services exports (2015), % of global exports
UNCTAD
5**
United States, United
Kingdom
I-9
Compound annual rate of goods and services export growth (2015), %
UNCTAD
7
Ireland, United States
I-10
Market share of outward FDI (2015), % of global outward FDI stocks
UNCTAD, World Investment Report
5
United States, Germany
II
EDUCATION AND HUMAN CAPITAL
II-1
Total expenditure on education (2013), % of GDP
OECD - Education at a Glance
7
United Kingdom, United
States
II-2
Total annual expenditure per student (2013),
equivalent US$ converted using PPPs
OECD - Education at a Glance
10
United States, Austria
II-3
Public expenditure on education (2013), % share of total expenditure
OECD - Education at a Glance
8
Finland, Sweden
II-4
Scientific literacy of 15-year-old students (2012),
% of pupils ranked by level
OECD - PISA
10
Japan, Finland
II-5
Tertiary education graduates, proportion of 25-34 year-olds (2015), %
OECD - Education at a Glance
7
Japan, Ireland
II-6
HRST (2015), persons employed in science and technology and/
or tertiary education graduates, proportion of economically active
25- to 64-year-olds
Eurostat
7
Finland, Sweden
II-7
R&D personnel (2014), per thousand labor force
OECD - MSTI
4
Finland, Sweden
II-8
Productivity per employee (2015), US$ at 2015 PPP
The Conference Board and Groningen
Growth and Development Centre
5
Ireland, United States
II-9
Hourly labor productivity (2015), US$ at 2015 PPP
The Conference Board and Groningen
Growth and Development Centre
5
Ireland, Belgium
II-10
Trends in hourly productivity (2015), %
The Conference Board and Groningen
Growth and Development Centre
6
Ireland, Sweden
III
RESEARCH AND INNOVATION
III-1
Gross domestic expenditure on R&D (2014),
US$ billion at current PPP
OECD - MSTI
6**
III-2
Trends in gross domestic expenditure on R&D (2014), %
OECD - MSTI
9
Poland, United Kingdom
III-3
Trends in business expenditure on R&D (2014), %
OECD - MSTI
9
Poland, United Kingdom
III-4
Intensity of R&D operations, GERD/GDP (2014), %
OECD - MSTI
8
Japan, Finland
III-5
Government outlays on R&D (2015), US$ million at PPP
OECD - MSTI
4
United States, Germany
III-6
Correlation between intensity of R&D operations and contribution of
the business sector to R&D (2014)
OECD - MSTI
N/A
N/A
III-7
Innovation strategies by company size (2012), %
Eurostat
7/7
Germany, Ireland
III-8
Investments in ICT (2013), % of GDP
OECD
5
United States, China
Sweden, Japan
METHODOLOGY
85
INDICATORS
FRANCE’S
POSITION
2016
LEADING
COUNTRIES
II-9
Patent applications via the PCT procedure (2013), per million inhabitants
OECD; Eurostat
4
III-10
Trademark applications (2014), per million inhabitants
WIPO; Eurostat
11
Austria, Sweden
III-11
Models and industrial designs (2014), per million inhabitants
WIPO; Eurostat
9
Sweden, Austria
III-12
Revealed technological advantage in nanotechnologies (2012),
patent applications via the PCT procedure; priority year; inventor’s
country of residence
OECD, Patent Database
4
Poland, Spain
III-13
Revealed technological advantage in biotechnologies (2013), patent
applications via the PCT procedure; priority year; inventor’s country
of residence
OECD, Patent Database
8
Spain, Belgium
III-14
Revealed technological advantage in ICT (2013), patent applications
via the PCT procedure; priority year; inventor’s country of residence
OECD, Patent Database
8
Finland, Sweden
III-15
Revealed technological advantage in environmental technologies
(2013), patent applications via the PCT procedure; priority year;
inventor’s country of residence
OECD, Patent Database
7
Spain, Finland
III-16
Changing share of French patents filed in all key sectors (2013)
OECD, Patent Database
N/A
N/A
III-17
Revealed technological advantage in France in all key sectors (2013)
OECD, Patent Database
N/A
N/A
United States, Japan
INFRASTRUCTURE
IV
IV-1
Gross fixed capital formation in public services (2015), % of GDP
OECD
6
Poland, Sweden
IV-2
Investment in inland transport infrastructure (2014),
gross investment as a % of GDP
OECD
1
France, Japan
IV-3
Land transport infrastructure density (2014), km per million inhabitants
Eurostat
N/A
IV-4
Road freight transport (2015), total load, million tonne-km
Eurostat
4
Germany, Poland
IV-5
Rail freight transport (2015), total load, million tonne-km
Eurostat
3
Germany, Poland
IV-6
Maritime freight transport (2014), gross weight, thousand tonnes
Eurostat
6
Netherlands, United Kingdom
IV-7
15 leading airports in the EU-28 (2015), million passengers carried
Eurostat
2
United Kingdom, France
IV-8
Public telecommunication investment (2013), US$ per capita
OECD, Digital Economy Outlook
5
Netherlands, United States
IV-9
Broadband penetration rate (2015), subscribers per 100 inhabitants
OECD, Broadband Statistics
2
Netherlands, France
IV-10
Monthly pricing for broadband internet (2014), US$ at PPP
OECD, Communications Outlook
8
Finland, Japan
IV-11
Average download speeds (2014), Mbits/s
OECD, Communications Outlook
4
Sweden, Japan
IV-12
Share of fixed broadband subscriptions >= 10 Mbps (2015), %
European Commission, Digital
Scoreboard
1
France, Spain
IV-13
IPv6 deployment (2016), %
Cisco
7
Belgium, Germany
IV-14
Electricity rates (2015), rate inc. VAT (€/kWh)
Eurostat
3
Sweden, Finland
Eurostat
10
Ireland, Spain
Variability of electricity rates (2015), standard deviation (%)
IV-15
of rates inc. VAT
N/A
IV-16
SAIFI - Reliability and quality of electricity supply (2014),
average number of interruptions per year
CEER (Council of European Energy
Regulators)
4
Netherlands, Germany
IV-17
Indicators for leading European office property markets (2015),
transactions (sq. m.) and vacancy rates (%)
BNP Paribas Real Estate
1
France (Paris), United
Kingdom (London)
V
86
SOURCE
ADMINISTRATIVE AND REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT
V-1
Ease of enforcing contracts (2016), index
World Bank, Doing Business, 2016
3
Austria, Germany
V-2
Ease of starting a business (2016), index
World Bank, Doing Business, 2016
6
Sweden, United Kingdom
V-3
Ease of registering property (2016), index
World Bank, Doing Business, 2016
13
Sweden, Finland
V-4
E-Government Development Index (2016)
UNPACS (United Nations Public
Administration Country Studies)
5
United Kingdom, Finland
V-5
Enterprises and individuals using the internet to interact with public
authorities (2015), %
Eurostat
2
Finland, France
FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD
INDICATORS
SOURCE
FRANCE’S
POSITION
2016
LEADING
COUNTRIES
Employment protection (2013), score
OECD, Employment Outlook
14
United States, United Kingdom
V-7
Number of working days per year lost to strike action (2012-2014), days
IMD, World Competitiveness
Yearbook
11
Japan, Poland
V-8
Estimated value of tenders (2014), € billion
European Commission, Public
Procurement Indicators
2
United Kingdom, France
V-9
Net growth in active enterprises (2014) - Total economy
Eurostat
1
France, United Kingdom
V-10
Net growth in active enterprises (2014) - Manufacturing sector
Eurostat
1
France, Netherlands
V-11
Enterprise start-up rate (2014), %
Eurostat
4
United Kingdom, Poland
V-6
VI
FINANCIAL ENVIRONMENT
VI-1
Ease of access to loans (2015-2016), perception
WEF, Global Competitiveness reports
4
Sweden, Finland
VI-2
Change in lending to non-financial corporations (2016), index = 100
in December 2007
Banque de France
1*
France, Germany
VI-3
Change in access to corporate bond and bank lending (2016)
Banque de France, European Central
Bank
N/A
N/A
VI-4
Capitalization of stock markets, the 10 leading stock exchanges (2015),
€ billion
World Federation of Exchanges (WFE)
****
N/A
VI-5
Global market share in European investment funds industry (2015), %
EFAMA
3
Ireland, Germany
VI-6
Venture capital investment (2015), % of GDP
EVCA, Eurostat
3
Finland, Ireland
VII-1
Business operating costs - Total economy (2016)
% difference, in comparison with the United States (baseline)
KPMG
3*
Netherlands, Italy
VII-2
Business operating costs - R&D sector (2016)
% difference, in comparison with the United States (baseline)
KPMG
2*
Netherlands, France
VII-3
Labor compensation per employee (2015), US$ at 2015 constant prices
OECD
5
Poland, Spain
VII-4
Trends in labor compensation per employee - Total economy (2015),
compound annual growth rate
OECD
8
Belgium, Ireland
VII-5
Trends in hourly labor costs - Total economy (2015),
compound annual growth rate
Eurostat
7
Italy, Belgium
VII-6
Trends in hourly labor costs - Industry (2015), compound annual growth rate
Eurostat
7
Ireland, Spain
VII-7
Trends in unit labor costs - Total economy (2015), compound annual growth rate
OECD
3*
Netherlands, Spain
VII-8
Trends in unit labor costs - Manufacturing sector (2015), compound
annual growth rate
OECD
1*
France, Netherlands
VII-9
Trends in productivity per hour worked - Total economy (2015),
compound annual growth rate
OECD
6*
Sweden, United Kingdom
VII-10
Trends in productivity per hour worked - Manufacturing sector (2015),
compound annual growth rate
OECD
2*
Sweden, France
VII-11
Trends in cost competitiveness - France, Germany, Italy, Spain, United
Kingdom, Euro zone (2016)
OECD
2*
Spain, France
VII-12 Trends in cost competitiveness - Euro zone, United States and Japan (2016)
OECD
****
N/A
VII-13 Structure of tax receipts (2014), % of total receipts
OECD
***
N/A
VII-14 Tax receipts (2014), % of GDP
OECD
14
United States, Ireland
VII-15 Average tax wedge (2015), %
OECD
10
Ireland, United Kingdom
VII-16 Corporate tax receipts (2014), % of GDP
OECD
6
Germany, Poland
VII-17 Nominal corporate tax rate (2015), %
Eurostat, Taxation Trends in the
European Union
12
Ireland, Poland
OECD
1
France, Belgium
OECD, Society at a Glance
5
Sweden, Austria
VII
VII-18
COSTS AND TAXATION
Government funding of business enterprise R&D expenditure (BERD)
and R&D tax incentives (2013), % of GDP
VII-19 Estimated strength of automatic stabilizers (2013)
METHODOLOGY
87
INDICATORS
FRANCE’S
POSITION
2016
LEADING
COUNTRIES
QUALITY OF LIFE
VIII
VIII-1
Access to healthcare (2014), remaining costs per person, US$ PPP
OECD
1
France, Poland
VIII-2
Health spending (2015), % of GDP
OECD
5
Japan, Germany
VIII-3
Spending on educational institutions (2013), % of GDP
OECD, Education at a Glance
7
United Kingdom, United
States
VIII-4
Public spending on social protection (2014), % of GDP
OECD
1
France, Finland
VIII-5
Public spending on culture, leisure and worship (2014), US$ PPP
OECD
2
Netherlands, France
VIII-6
Income inequality (2013), Gini coefficient
OECD
6
Finland, Belgium
VIII-7
Comparative price levels (2016), € PPP
OECD
5
Poland, Spain
IX
GREEN GROWTH
IX-1
Share of each energy form in EU-21 electricity generation (2015), %
International Energy Agency
***
N/A
IX-2
Share of each energy form in EU-28 renewable electricity generation
(2014), %
EurObserv’ER
***
N/A
IX-3
Share of renewable energies in gross domestic energy consumption
(2014), %
Eurostat
8
Sweden, Austria
IX-4
Primary energy generation from renewable sources (2014), % of
EU-28 total
Eurostat
3
Germany, Italy
IX-5
Electricity generation breakdown (2015), %
International Energy Agency
***
IX-6
Renewable electricity generation breakdown (2015), %
International Energy Agency
***
IX-7
Carbon intensity (2014), ‘000 tonnes CO2 / GDP million at PPP
Eurostat
2
Sweden, France
IX-8
Carbon emissions through fuel combustion per 1,000 inhabitants
(2014), ‘000 tonnes of CO2
Eurostat
2
Sweden, France
IX-9
Energy intensity of GDP, with and without nuclear (2014), Mtoe /
million PPP
Eurostat
1
France, Ireland
IX-10 Employment in the renewable energy sector (2014)
Eurostat
2
Germany, France
IX-11 Turnover in the renewable energy sector (2014), € million
Eurostat
2
Germany, France
* Smaller sample (10 countries or fewer)
** Among the world’s leading economies
*** Structural indicator, no rankings established
**** Ranking in Europe or the euro zone
88
SOURCE
FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD
N/A
N/A
INDICATORS
The 2016 France Attractiveness Scoreboard examines a number of new indicators to provide further
analysis or replace indicators that are no longer available.
The new indicators are as follows:
2-III-8
Investments in ICT (2013), % of GDP
2-III-9
Patent applications via the PCT procedure (2013), per million inhabitants
2-IV-12
Share of fixed broadband subscriptions >= 10 Mbps (2015), %
2-V-4
E-Government Development Index (2016)
2-V-10
Net growth in active enterprises (2014), manufacturing sector
2-VII-9
Trends in productivity per hour worked - Total economy (2015), compound annual growth rate
2-VII-10
Trends in productivity per hour worked - Manufacturing sector (2015), compound annual growth rate
INDICATORS
Data for a number of indicators examined in the 2015 France Attractiveness Scoreboard are no longer
available, or have not been updated for several years. The following indicators do not feature in the 2016
Scoreboard:
1-III-5
Foreign company investment projects (2014) - European market share of projects in aerospace materials and medical
equipment sectors, %
1-IV-5
Top destination cities attracting recent graduates (2012-2013) - Share of new residents who are recent graduates, %
2-III-8
Triadic patent families (2013), per million inhabitants
2-V-9
Annual change in estimated value of tenders (2011), compound annual growth rate
2-V-10
Access to justice (2012), trial cost and length
CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY
89
This document was written with assistance from the following French government departments:
The French Treasury Directorate (DG Trésor) advises on and oversees French economic policy under the authority of the Minister for the
Economy and Finance. It also promotes French policy in Europe and throughout the world. It lends its expertise in matters relating to forecasting
and consulting, regulation, international negotiations, developmental aid, export assistance and foreign investment. The Treasury Directorate
oversees the French government’s accounts and debt management through the French Treasury Agency (Agence France Trésor – AFT) and
monitors government shareholder interests through the Government Shareholding Agency (Agence des participations de l’État – APE).
For further information, please visit www.economie.gouv.fr
The French Commission for Regional Equality (CGET), created through the merger of the Interministerial Delegation for Regional
Development and Economic Attractiveness (DATAR), the Secretariat of the Urban Planning Interministerial Committee (SGCIV) and the
National Agency for Social Cohesion and Equal Opportunities (ACSE), reports directly to the French Prime Minister. It is responsible
for designing and implementing regional equality policy nationwide as well as ensuring its effectiveness and all interministerial
coordination. The CGET is to pilot the comprehensive overhaul to urban planning policy in the wake of the Act of February 21,
2014. The CGET will also be responsible for coordinating, preparing and implementing the new contractual relations between
central government and local authorities established through the new State-Region Plan Contracts (CPER) 2014-2020, in addition
to the decisions of the Interministerial Committee for Regional Equality and the Interministerial Committee for Urban Planning.
For further information, please visit www.cget.gouv.fr
Authors:
Sylvie Montout, Senior Economist
Romain Guillard, Economist
Publication Director:
Muriel Pénicaud, Ambassador for International Investment
CEO of Business France
Translation:
David Williams
Design and layout:
Sphère Publique – [email protected] – October 2016
Business France is the national agency supporting the international
development of the French economy, responsible for fostering export growth
by French businesses, as well as promoting and facilitating international investment
in France.
It promotes France’s companies, business image and nationwide attractiveness
as an investment location, and also runs the VIE international internship
program.
Founded on January 1, 2015 through a merger between UBIFRANCE and the
Invest in France Agency, Business France has 1,500 personnel, both in France
and in 70 countries throughout the world, who work with a network of public- and
private-sector partners.
For further information, please visit: www.businessfrance.fr
Business France
77, boulevard Saint-Jacques
75680 Paris Cedex 14
Tel.: +33 1 40 73 30 00
IN PARTNERSHIP WITH
Ministry for the Economy
and Finance
Direction générale du Trésor
139, rue de Bercy
75572 Paris Cedex 12
Tel.: +33 1 40 04 04 04
www.economie.gouv.fr
The French Commission
for Regional Equality (CGET)
5, rue Pleyel
93283 Saint-Denis Cedex
Tel.: +33 1 85 58 60 00
www.cget.gouv.fr