Suchergebnisse

Conciliating economic efficiency with equity is a key issue in the implementation of infrastructure-building projects that have public interest content. This issue can be related to another one, i.e. the link between the economic evaluation of public projects and administrative law. The paper focuses on the two dimensions; it looks for the 'equity content' in both economic and legal processes. Section 1 argues that the respected fields of economics and law are not at the same level : public economic calculus is a substantive discourse since projects evaluation gives a quantitative measure of collective surplus while French administrative law is procedural. It does not give any substantive definition of the public interest but sets up mandatory formal procedures that have to be followed. Section 2 expands on the equity issue. Integrating equity criteria within economic calculus is not an easy matter. Administrative law rules do not concretize the French Republican notion of equity which underlies the principle of equality of people towards public nuisances. Interests of people suffering of public nuisance are not treated as equal. Public policies promoting the democratization of public choice through public debates go not make a step towards in that way. Owing to the dead-ends in public policies, section 3 explores some ways to ensure a better coupling of efficiency and equity : integrating a rawlsian principle of justice within economic calculus, or reforming the institutional patterns of projects implementation in order to make sure that the interests of populations are equally treated whatever their socio-economic level and location in space are. ; La conciliation de l'efficacité économique et de l'équité est une question importante dans le déroulement de la réalisation de projets d'infrastructures d'utilité publique, notamment en matière de transport terrestre. Elle pose la question de l'articulation du calcul économique public et des dispositifs de droit administratif. Le texte se saisit de ces deux ...

governance and financial reporting are changing. Managing, governing and controlling have become familiar words, but their real importance for the sustainability of our societies has been forgotten. The latest amendment to the accounting standards adopted in 2002 by the European Parliament will not only result in the valuation of assets at their historical cost, but at their "fair value". It will also aim for greater transparency for better governance. This contribution aims to explore the correlation between these two factors. After briefly presenting the different forms of governance not completely disconnected from the banking systems in the countries concerned (Part 1), the changes in terminology concerning accounting and financial communication (Part 2) will be discussed. We will try to demonstrate that they report on the change of vision of corporate governance in general (Part 3) and its impact on the organisation of real factors in the company and on the value distribution key among the different stakeholders in the company's business (part 4). ; Corporate governance and financial information are at the core of the recent debate of the management of enterprises. The new IAS rules aim to greater transparency which will induce a more efficient governance for firms. The objective of this paper is then to study the correlation between these two concepts. After having briefly presented the different forms of corporate governance in correlation with the banking systems existing in the given country (section 1), the new terminology of the financial communication will be discussed. The final aim is then to exhibit that these changes are conformed to the actual evolution of corporate governance and try to better take into account the fair value (or creation of value) for companies. ; governance and financial reporting are changing. Managing, governing and controlling have become familiar words, but their real importance for the sustainability of our societies has been forgotten. The latest amendment to the ...

Conciliating economic efficiency with equity is a key issue in the implementation of infrastructure-building projects that have public interest content. This issue can be related to another one, i.e. the link between the economic evaluation of public projects and administrative law. The paper focuses on the two dimensions; it looks for the 'equity content' in both economic and legal processes. Section 1 argues that the respected fields of economics and law are not at the same level : public economic calculus is a substantive discourse since projects evaluation gives a quantitative measure of collective surplus while French administrative law is procedural. It does not give any substantive definition of the public interest but sets up mandatory formal procedures that have to be followed. Section 2 expands on the equity issue. Integrating equity criteria within economic calculus is not an easy matter. Administrative law rules do not concretize the French Republican notion of equity which underlies the principle of equality of people towards public nuisances. Interests of people suffering of public nuisance are not treated as equal. Public policies promoting the democratization of public choice through public debates go not make a step towards in that way. Owing to the dead-ends in public policies, section 3 explores some ways to ensure a better coupling of efficiency and equity : integrating a rawlsian principle of justice within economic calculus, or reforming the institutional patterns of projects implementation in order to make sure that the interests of populations are equally treated whatever their socio-economic level and location in space are. ; La conciliation de l'efficacité économique et de l'équité est une question importante dans le déroulement de la réalisation de projets d'infrastructures d'utilité publique, notamment en matière de transport terrestre. Elle pose la question de l'articulation du calcul économique public et des dispositifs de droit administratif. Le texte se saisit de ces deux ...

Conciliating economic efficiency with equity is a key issue in the implementation of infrastructure-building projects that have public interest content. This issue can be related to another one, i.e. the link between the economic evaluation of public projects and administrative law. The paper focuses on the two dimensions; it looks for the 'equity content' in both economic and legal processes. Section 1 argues that the respected fields of economics and law are not at the same level : public economic calculus is a substantive discourse since projects evaluation gives a quantitative measure of collective surplus while French administrative law is procedural. It does not give any substantive definition of the public interest but sets up mandatory formal procedures that have to be followed. Section 2 expands on the equity issue. Integrating equity criteria within economic calculus is not an easy matter. Administrative law rules do not concretize the French Republican notion of equity which underlies the principle of equality of people towards public nuisances. Interests of people suffering of public nuisance are not treated as equal. Public policies promoting the democratization of public choice through public debates go not make a step towards in that way. Owing to the dead-ends in public policies, section 3 explores some ways to ensure a better coupling of efficiency and equity : integrating a rawlsian principle of justice within economic calculus, or reforming the institutional patterns of projects implementation in order to make sure that the interests of populations are equally treated whatever their socio-economic level and location in space are. ; La conciliation de l'efficacité économique et de l'équité est une question importante dans le déroulement de la réalisation de projets d'infrastructures d'utilité publique, notamment en matière de transport terrestre. Elle pose la question de l'articulation du calcul économique public et des dispositifs de droit administratif. Le texte se saisit de ces deux ...

Conciliating economic efficiency with equity is a key issue in the implementation of infrastructure-building projects that have public interest content. This issue can be related to another one, i.e. the link between the economic evaluation of public projects and administrative law. The paper focuses on the two dimensions; it looks for the 'equity content' in both economic and legal processes. Section 1 argues that the respected fields of economics and law are not at the same level : public economic calculus is a substantive discourse since projects evaluation gives a quantitative measure of collective surplus while French administrative law is procedural. It does not give any substantive definition of the public interest but sets up mandatory formal procedures that have to be followed. Section 2 expands on the equity issue. Integrating equity criteria within economic calculus is not an easy matter. Administrative law rules do not concretize the French Republican notion of equity which underlies the principle of equality of people towards public nuisances. Interests of people suffering of public nuisance are not treated as equal. Public policies promoting the democratization of public choice through public debates go not make a step towards in that way. Owing to the dead-ends in public policies, section 3 explores some ways to ensure a better coupling of efficiency and equity : integrating a rawlsian principle of justice within economic calculus, or reforming the institutional patterns of projects implementation in order to make sure that the interests of populations are equally treated whatever their socio-economic level and location in space are. ; La conciliation de l'efficacité économique et de l'équité est une question importante dans le déroulement de la réalisation de projets d'infrastructures d'utilité publique, notamment en matière de transport terrestre. Elle pose la question de l'articulation du calcul économique public et des dispositifs de droit administratif. Le texte se saisit de ces deux dimensions en en cherchant le contenu en équité dans l'exposition aux nuisances des infrastructures. La première section soutient que les mondes du droit et de l'économie ne sont pas situés sur le même plan : le calcul économique est substantiel au sens où l'évaluation des projets ou des tracés donne des résultats quantifiés et mesure le surplus collectif alors que le droit administratif français est procédural. Il ne donne pas de substance à l'intérêt public mais organise les procédures formelles applicables au déroulement de l'opération. La deuxième section aborde plus centralement le problème de l'équité. Son intégration dans le calcul économique n'est pas chose aisée ; les dispositifs juridiques ne donnent pas une réalité au principe républicain d'équité porté par le dogme de l'égalité devant les charges publiques. Les intérêts des populations exposées aux nuisances d'infrastructures d'utilité collective ne sont pas traités de manière égale. Les procédures de démocratisation des choix publics ne sont pas un progrès dans cette voie. Compte tenu de ces impasses, la troisième section formule une réflexion exploratoire sur les moyens de concilier efficacité et équité républicaine : faire entrer l'équité dans le calcul économique et la décision publique d'un manière rawlsienne, territorialiser les évaluations des projets, ou assurer la représentation systématique des intérêts des populations par leurs représentants issus du vote et de la délégation.

Conciliating economic efficiency with equity is a key issue in the implementation of infrastructure-building projects that have public interest content. This issue can be related to another one, i.e. the link between the economic evaluation of public projects and administrative law. The paper focuses on the two dimensions; it looks for the 'equity content' in both economic and legal processes. Section 1 argues that the respected fields of economics and law are not at the same level : public economic calculus is a substantive discourse since projects evaluation gives a quantitative measure of collective surplus while French administrative law is procedural. It does not give any substantive definition of the public interest but sets up mandatory formal procedures that have to be followed. Section 2 expands on the equity issue. Integrating equity criteria within economic calculus is not an easy matter. Administrative law rules do not concretize the French Republican notion of equity which underlies the principle of equality of people towards public nuisances. Interests of people suffering of public nuisance are not treated as equal. Public policies promoting the democratization of public choice through public debates go not make a step towards in that way. Owing to the dead-ends in public policies, section 3 explores some ways to ensure a better coupling of efficiency and equity : integrating a rawlsian principle of justice within economic calculus, or reforming the institutional patterns of projects implementation in order to make sure that the interests of populations are equally treated whatever their socio-economic level and location in space are. ; La conciliation de l'efficacité économique et de l'équité est une question importante dans le déroulement de la réalisation de projets d'infrastructures d'utilité publique, notamment en matière de transport terrestre. Elle pose la question de l'articulation du calcul économique public et des dispositifs de droit administratif. Le texte se saisit de ces deux dimensions en en cherchant le contenu en équité dans l'exposition aux nuisances des infrastructures. La première section soutient que les mondes du droit et de l'économie ne sont pas situés sur le même plan : le calcul économique est substantiel au sens où l'évaluation des projets ou des tracés donne des résultats quantifiés et mesure le surplus collectif alors que le droit administratif français est procédural. Il ne donne pas de substance à l'intérêt public mais organise les procédures formelles applicables au déroulement de l'opération. La deuxième section aborde plus centralement le problème de l'équité. Son intégration dans le calcul économique n'est pas chose aisée ; les dispositifs juridiques ne donnent pas une réalité au principe républicain d'équité porté par le dogme de l'égalité devant les charges publiques. Les intérêts des populations exposées aux nuisances d'infrastructures d'utilité collective ne sont pas traités de manière égale. Les procédures de démocratisation des choix publics ne sont pas un progrès dans cette voie. Compte tenu de ces impasses, la troisième section formule une réflexion exploratoire sur les moyens de concilier efficacité et équité républicaine : faire entrer l'équité dans le calcul économique et la décision publique d'un manière rawlsienne, territorialiser les évaluations des projets, ou assurer la représentation systématique des intérêts des populations par leurs représentants issus du vote et de la délégation.

Conciliating economic efficiency with equity is a key issue in the implementation of infrastructure-building projects that have public interest content. This issue can be related to another one, i.e. the link between the economic evaluation of public projects and administrative law. The paper focuses on the two dimensions; it looks for the 'equity content' in both economic and legal processes. Section 1 argues that the respected fields of economics and law are not at the same level : public economic calculus is a substantive discourse since projects evaluation gives a quantitative measure of collective surplus while French administrative law is procedural. It does not give any substantive definition of the public interest but sets up mandatory formal procedures that have to be followed. Section 2 expands on the equity issue. Integrating equity criteria within economic calculus is not an easy matter. Administrative law rules do not concretize the French Republican notion of equity which underlies the principle of equality of people towards public nuisances. Interests of people suffering of public nuisance are not treated as equal. Public policies promoting the democratization of public choice through public debates go not make a step towards in that way. Owing to the dead-ends in public policies, section 3 explores some ways to ensure a better coupling of efficiency and equity : integrating a rawlsian principle of justice within economic calculus, or reforming the institutional patterns of projects implementation in order to make sure that the interests of populations are equally treated whatever their socio-economic level and location in space are. ; La conciliation de l'efficacité économique et de l'équité est une question importante dans le déroulement de la réalisation de projets d'infrastructures d'utilité publique, notamment en matière de transport terrestre. Elle pose la question de l'articulation du calcul économique public et des dispositifs de droit administratif. Le texte se saisit de ces deux dimensions en en cherchant le contenu en équité dans l'exposition aux nuisances des infrastructures. La première section soutient que les mondes du droit et de l'économie ne sont pas situés sur le même plan : le calcul économique est substantiel au sens où l'évaluation des projets ou des tracés donne des résultats quantifiés et mesure le surplus collectif alors que le droit administratif français est procédural. Il ne donne pas de substance à l'intérêt public mais organise les procédures formelles applicables au déroulement de l'opération. La deuxième section aborde plus centralement le problème de l'équité. Son intégration dans le calcul économique n'est pas chose aisée ; les dispositifs juridiques ne donnent pas une réalité au principe républicain d'équité porté par le dogme de l'égalité devant les charges publiques. Les intérêts des populations exposées aux nuisances d'infrastructures d'utilité collective ne sont pas traités de manière égale. Les procédures de démocratisation des choix publics ne sont pas un progrès dans cette voie. Compte tenu de ces impasses, la troisième section formule une réflexion exploratoire sur les moyens de concilier efficacité et équité républicaine : faire entrer l'équité dans le calcul économique et la décision publique d'un manière rawlsienne, territorialiser les évaluations des projets, ou assurer la représentation systématique des intérêts des populations par leurs représentants issus du vote et de la délégation.

Conciliating economic efficiency with equity is a key issue in the implementation of infrastructure-building projects that have public interest content. This issue can be related to another one, i.e. the link between the economic evaluation of public projects and administrative law. The paper focuses on the two dimensions; it looks for the 'equity content' in both economic and legal processes. Section 1 argues that the respected fields of economics and law are not at the same level : public economic calculus is a substantive discourse since projects evaluation gives a quantitative measure of collective surplus while French administrative law is procedural. It does not give any substantive definition of the public interest but sets up mandatory formal procedures that have to be followed. Section 2 expands on the equity issue. Integrating equity criteria within economic calculus is not an easy matter. Administrative law rules do not concretize the French Republican notion of equity which underlies the principle of equality of people towards public nuisances. Interests of people suffering of public nuisance are not treated as equal. Public policies promoting the democratization of public choice through public debates go not make a step towards in that way. Owing to the dead-ends in public policies, section 3 explores some ways to ensure a better coupling of efficiency and equity : integrating a rawlsian principle of justice within economic calculus, or reforming the institutional patterns of projects implementation in order to make sure that the interests of populations are equally treated whatever their socio-economic level and location in space are. ; La conciliation de l'efficacité économique et de l'équité est une question importante dans le déroulement de la réalisation de projets d'infrastructures d'utilité publique, notamment en matière de transport terrestre. Elle pose la question de l'articulation du calcul économique public et des dispositifs de droit administratif. Le texte se saisit de ces deux ...

Conciliating economic efficiency with equity is a key issue in the implementation of infrastructure-building projects that have public interest content. This issue can be related to another one, i.e. the link between the economic evaluation of public projects and administrative law. The paper focuses on the two dimensions; it looks for the 'equity content' in both economic and legal processes. Section 1 argues that the respected fields of economics and law are not at the same level : public economic calculus is a substantive discourse since projects evaluation gives a quantitative measure of collective surplus while French administrative law is procedural. It does not give any substantive definition of the public interest but sets up mandatory formal procedures that have to be followed. Section 2 expands on the equity issue. Integrating equity criteria within economic calculus is not an easy matter. Administrative law rules do not concretize the French Republican notion of equity which underlies the principle of equality of people towards public nuisances. Interests of people suffering of public nuisance are not treated as equal. Public policies promoting the democratization of public choice through public debates go not make a step towards in that way. Owing to the dead-ends in public policies, section 3 explores some ways to ensure a better coupling of efficiency and equity : integrating a rawlsian principle of justice within economic calculus, or reforming the institutional patterns of projects implementation in order to make sure that the interests of populations are equally treated whatever their socio-economic level and location in space are. ; La conciliation de l'efficacité économique et de l'équité est une question importante dans le déroulement de la réalisation de projets d'infrastructures d'utilité publique, notamment en matière de transport terrestre. Elle pose la question de l'articulation du calcul économique public et des dispositifs de droit administratif. Le texte se saisit de ces deux ...

Conciliating economic efficiency with equity is a key issue in the implementation of infrastructure-building projects that have public interest content. This issue can be related to another one, i.e. the link between the economic evaluation of public projects and administrative law. The paper focuses on the two dimensions; it looks for the 'equity content' in both economic and legal processes. Section 1 argues that the respected fields of economics and law are not at the same level : public economic calculus is a substantive discourse since projects evaluation gives a quantitative measure of collective surplus while French administrative law is procedural. It does not give any substantive definition of the public interest but sets up mandatory formal procedures that have to be followed. Section 2 expands on the equity issue. Integrating equity criteria within economic calculus is not an easy matter. Administrative law rules do not concretize the French Republican notion of equity which underlies the principle of equality of people towards public nuisances. Interests of people suffering of public nuisance are not treated as equal. Public policies promoting the democratization of public choice through public debates go not make a step towards in that way. Owing to the dead-ends in public policies, section 3 explores some ways to ensure a better coupling of efficiency and equity : integrating a rawlsian principle of justice within economic calculus, or reforming the institutional patterns of projects implementation in order to make sure that the interests of populations are equally treated whatever their socio-economic level and location in space are. ; La conciliation de l'efficacité économique et de l'équité est une question importante dans le déroulement de la réalisation de projets d'infrastructures d'utilité publique, notamment en matière de transport terrestre. Elle pose la question de l'articulation du calcul économique public et des dispositifs de droit administratif. Le texte se saisit de ces deux ...

In this paper, we try to measure the impact of the changes in French bankruptcy law in the 19th century focusing on the behaviour of economic agents as users of bankruptcy law for the sake of finding the best solution to their economic problems. Debtors used bankruptcy law in order to minimize their debt level when facing difficulties in servicing it, but they had to convince their creditors and/or the courts of their good faith, and faced the adverse effects of bankruptcy on their reputation and on the smooth functioning of their business. Creditors used bankruptcy law in order to force their debtors to pay, if they could. Judges - who in the French system of specialized commercial courts were elected entrepreneurs - applied the law within a specific economic context (both a specific local context and at a specific moment in the business cycle) which could affect them. The first part of the paper presents the evolution of French bankruptcy law during the 19th century in its historical context. The second part briefly describes the theoretical model we use in order to understand the choices facing debtors and creditors in the face of financial distress. The last part proposes some major stylized facts concerning bankruptcies during that period (based on contemporary official statistics) and tries to understand their relationship with the legal evolution described before. ; Cet article propose une méthode pour évaluer l'impact des changements du droit des faillites sur l'économie en se concentrant sur le comportement des agents utilisant les dispositifs juridiques disponibles pour régler au mieux leurs difficultés. Les débiteurs utilisent le droit des faillites pour minimiser leur niveau de dette lorsqu'ils font face à des difficultés de paiement, mais doivent convaincre les créanciers et les tribunaux de leur bonne foi et anticipent les effets négatifs de la faillite sur leur réputation et sur la survie de leur entreprise. Les créanciers utilisent si nécessaire le droit pour forcer les débiteurs à payer, sachant ...

This paper studies the implementation of bankruptcy law in 19th century France. It uses two sources: first, the annual exhaustive statistical appraisal of bankruptcies published from 1840 on; second, individual bankruptcy files conserved at the Paris Merchant Court archives. We show that the changes in bankruptcy law cannot explain the changes in the number and size of bankruptcies, suggesting changes in the practice of the courts as well as in the behaviour of firms. Most importantly, the Parisian example suggests that the courts didn't treat all firms on the same basis, privileging the important ones. This gives new arguments against a purely legalistic and retrospective vision of the impact of bankruptcy law on economic activity, and in favour of an empirical study of its concrete implementation. ; Cet article étudie l'application de la législation sur les faillites en France au XIXème siècle. Il utilise deux sources : la statistique annuelle des faillites mise en place à partir de 1840 par le Ministère de la Justice et les dossiers individuels de faillite conservés par les archives du Tribunal de commerce de Paris. Il montre que l'évolution de la législation ne peut pas suffire à expliquer les comportements en matière de faillite, qui reflètent aussi des transformations économiques. Surtout, il démontre à partir de l'exemple parisien que les tribunaux ne traitent pas toujours à l'identique toutes les entreprises, accordant un traitement de faveur aux plus grandes d'entre elles. Ce travail donne ainsi de nouveaux arguments contre une vision légaliste et rétrospective de l'impact de la législation des faillites sur l'activité économique et en faveur d'une étude empirique de son application concrète.

In this paper, we try to measure the impact of the changes in French bankruptcy law in the 19th century focusing on the behaviour of economic agents as users of bankruptcy law for the sake of finding the best solution to their economic problems. Debtors used bankruptcy law in order to minimize their debt level when facing difficulties in servicing it, but they had to convince their creditors and/or the courts of their good faith, and faced the adverse effects of bankruptcy on their reputation and on the smooth functioning of their business. Creditors used bankruptcy law in order to force their debtors to pay, if they could. Judges - who in the French system of specialized commercial courts were elected entrepreneurs - applied the law within a specific economic context (both a specific local context and at a specific moment in the business cycle) which could affect them. The first part of the paper presents the evolution of French bankruptcy law during the 19th century in its historical context. The second part briefly describes the theoretical model we use in order to understand the choices facing debtors and creditors in the face of financial distress. The last part proposes some major stylized facts concerning bankruptcies during that period (based on contemporary official statistics) and tries to understand their relationship with the legal evolution described before. ; Cet article propose une méthode pour évaluer l'impact des changements du droit des faillites sur l'économie en se concentrant sur le comportement des agents utilisant les dispositifs juridiques disponibles pour régler au mieux leurs difficultés. Les débiteurs utilisent le droit des faillites pour minimiser leur niveau de dette lorsqu'ils font face à des difficultés de paiement, mais doivent convaincre les créanciers et les tribunaux de leur bonne foi et anticipent les effets négatifs de la faillite sur leur réputation et sur la survie de leur entreprise. Les créanciers utilisent si nécessaire le droit pour forcer les débiteurs à payer, sachant que le recours aux tribunaux a des coûts. La première partie rappelle les grands traits de l'évolution du droit des faillites français au 19ème siècle dans son contexte ; la seconde partie propose un modèle théorique simple d'analyse des choix. La troisième propose de lire à la lumière de ce modèle et des changements législatifs quelques grands traits stylisés de l'évolution des faillites telle qu'elle est mesurée par les statistiques du Compte général de la Justice.

In this paper, we try to measure the impact of the changes in French bankruptcy law in the 19th century focusing on the behaviour of economic agents as users of bankruptcy law for the sake of finding the best solution to their economic problems. Debtors used bankruptcy law in order to minimize their debt level when facing difficulties in servicing it, but they had to convince their creditors and/or the courts of their good faith, and faced the adverse effects of bankruptcy on their reputation and on the smooth functioning of their business. Creditors used bankruptcy law in order to force their debtors to pay, if they could. Judges - who in the French system of specialized commercial courts were elected entrepreneurs - applied the law within a specific economic context (both a specific local context and at a specific moment in the business cycle) which could affect them. The first part of the paper presents the evolution of French bankruptcy law during the 19th century in its historical context. The second part briefly describes the theoretical model we use in order to understand the choices facing debtors and creditors in the face of financial distress. The last part proposes some major stylized facts concerning bankruptcies during that period (based on contemporary official statistics) and tries to understand their relationship with the legal evolution described before. ; Cet article propose une méthode pour évaluer l'impact des changements du droit des faillites sur l'économie en se concentrant sur le comportement des agents utilisant les dispositifs juridiques disponibles pour régler au mieux leurs difficultés. Les débiteurs utilisent le droit des faillites pour minimiser leur niveau de dette lorsqu'ils font face à des difficultés de paiement, mais doivent convaincre les créanciers et les tribunaux de leur bonne foi et anticipent les effets négatifs de la faillite sur leur réputation et sur la survie de leur entreprise. Les créanciers utilisent si nécessaire le droit pour forcer les débiteurs à payer, sachant que le recours aux tribunaux a des coûts. La première partie rappelle les grands traits de l'évolution du droit des faillites français au 19ème siècle dans son contexte ; la seconde partie propose un modèle théorique simple d'analyse des choix. La troisième propose de lire à la lumière de ce modèle et des changements législatifs quelques grands traits stylisés de l'évolution des faillites telle qu'elle est mesurée par les statistiques du Compte général de la Justice.

This paper studies the implementation of bankruptcy law in 19th century France. It uses two sources: first, the annual exhaustive statistical appraisal of bankruptcies published from 1840 on; second, individual bankruptcy files conserved at the Paris Merchant Court archives. We show that the changes in bankruptcy law cannot explain the changes in the number and size of bankruptcies, suggesting changes in the practice of the courts as well as in the behaviour of firms. Most importantly, the Parisian example suggests that the courts didn't treat all firms on the same basis, privileging the important ones. This gives new arguments against a purely legalistic and retrospective vision of the impact of bankruptcy law on economic activity, and in favour of an empirical study of its concrete implementation. ; Cet article étudie l'application de la législation sur les faillites en France au XIXème siècle. Il utilise deux sources : la statistique annuelle des faillites mise en place à partir de 1840 par le Ministère de la Justice et les dossiers individuels de faillite conservés par les archives du Tribunal de commerce de Paris. Il montre que l'évolution de la législation ne peut pas suffire à expliquer les comportements en matière de faillite, qui reflètent aussi des transformations économiques. Surtout, il démontre à partir de l'exemple parisien que les tribunaux ne traitent pas toujours à l'identique toutes les entreprises, accordant un traitement de faveur aux plus grandes d'entre elles. Ce travail donne ainsi de nouveaux arguments contre une vision légaliste et rétrospective de l'impact de la législation des faillites sur l'activité économique et en faveur d'une étude empirique de son application concrète.