France's 35 hour workweek did not create a broad jobs boom. A new study of the reform finds it shifted employment toward managers and professionals while reducing jobs among lower skilled workers, even as the full policy package left overall employment unchanged. The split, detailed in a paper revised in November, complicates the argument over shorter hours. France cut the statutory week from 39 to 35 hours in 2000 without reducing monthly pay, while also granting firms payroll tax cuts. For workers with less bargaining power, fewer scheduled hours did not necessarily translate into a better deal.
- Statutory week
- Reduced from 39 hours to 35 hours in 2000, with monthly pay unchanged.
- Total hours worked
- Down 6% across the economy.
- Employment
- Broadly unchanged overall, with results differing by skill group.
The tax cuts changed the jobs result
France's reform cut the standard workweek from 39 to 35 hours in 2000 while keeping monthly pay unchanged. The shorter week came with payroll tax cuts for employers. The policy was phased in by firm size, with larger businesses adopting the change first and smaller firms following by 2002.
That staggered rollout helped researchers compare firms facing different timing. The five economists behind the National Bureau of Economic Research working paper found that the reform package left overall employment broadly unchanged. But the result concealed a sharp split: employment rose among managers and professionals, while lower skilled workers saw a significant decline.
The authors estimate that, without the payroll tax cuts, the shorter workweek would have reduced employment by about 4%. The subsidies offset much of that effect. The paper therefore does not show that cutting hours alone protects jobs. It finds that the outcome depended on pairing the mandate with a reduction in employers' labor costs.
Fewer hours brought a faster pace
The study also found that total hours worked fell 6%, while production declined by only 1%. Researchers estimate that productivity rose 2% as companies reorganized work to produce nearly as much in less time.
That efficiency gain had a human cost for some employees. Survey responses cited by the authors pointed to work intensification, with workers reporting more pressure and stress. In a Cornell Chronicle interview with coauthor Elio Nimier-David, he described firms changing how tasks were done while some workers had to deliver similar output in fewer hours.
Why the design still matters
The findings concern France's reform package around 2000, not a universal forecast for a four day week or a modern technology company. The study separates the effect of shorter hours from the payroll tax relief that accompanied them, and its overall employment result reflects both policies together.
For workers, the distinction matters because a shorter standard week did not distribute job gains evenly. Managers and professionals benefited from work sharing, while lower skilled employees lost employment. For policymakers, the French case shows how staffing, pay rules and employer subsidies can shape who gains when working hours are reduced.
Primary source
Check the original source
National Bureau of Economic Research working paper 35917 is the source to consult for the underlying data, statement, ruling or live context.