French President Jacques Chirac's re-election brought a sigh of relief across France and around the world. But the scare Jean-Marie Le Pen gave French politics will be for nought if Britain's political class slips back into its old hauteur and complacency.
France has always been a nation of sharp divisions. Once its divide marked the chasm between the Left and the Right. Today it marks the economy's division between its public and private sectors. Prime Minister Lionel Jospin, who was humiliated by Le Pen, had presided over a strong economy, with many new jobs created, more leisure time following the introduction of the 35-hour week, and some liberal reforms such as privatization on a scale hitherto unseen in France.
But despite all that, unemployment remained stubbornly high and a pervasive insecurity had set in. Jospin's program failed to vanquish these ills primarily because France is divided between a large public sector and a dynamic private sector, much of which is being driven outside the country because of high taxation and endless bureaucracy. Businesses that remain must bear the costs France's leviathan public sector.
That France has experienced high unemployment for over two decades is a clear sign that economic policy is amiss. French unemployed are well off compared to their counterparts abroad, but the system is costly and inefficient. Social benefits, for example, are paid only for a limited amount of time; they are then replaced by a minimum-living allowance, which represents an exclusion from society.
In August 1945, Jean Monnet told Charles de Gaulle: "You speak of grandeur, but the French are small today. There will only be grandeur when the French assume a status that justifies grandeur ... There must be more production, more productivity; [we] must transform the country from a material point of view."
The general did not need convincing. He believed that the state had an "ardent obligation" to engage in economic planning. One of Monnet's first actions was to declare that modernization could not be attained while the French worked such short hours; a 45-hour working week was the minimum that was necessary. The French put in an average of 46 hours per week through the early 1960s. Since then, work-time has steadily declined. A 32-hour work week is now deemed something worth striking for.
Monnet's effort to rebuild France by mobilizing business, unions and government authorities at all levels mutated into the "Great Organizational Myth" -- that technocrats can allocate resources better than the market. French central planning attempted to blaze a new path between communist centralization and Vichy corporatism. Five decades on, the wheels of state are still mostly spinning in that muddy middle ground.
The French state employs around 5 million people -- nearly one-fourth of the working population, including at the local level. The salaries and pensions of these people represent about 40 percent of the national budget. This trend is completely opposite that prevailing in other sectors. For example, the number of farmers fell steadily over the past three decades, yet the number of Ministry of Agriculture bureaucrats has doubled.
Compare that bloat with the French private sector. EU single-market provisions have forced French companies to compete without the crutch of traditional protectionist measures and state subsidies. The best companies have cut costs ferociously, improving productivity and expanding production abroad. Cosmetic giant L'Oreal, food maker Danone, tire-maker Michelin and tour-operator Club Mediterranee are but a few of the highly competitive companies that are more global than French. Their achievements demonstrate the strength of the external side of the economy, which is the main engine of French growth.
But "private France" cannot continue to compete and innovate while carrying the dead weight of "public France" on its shoulders. Many ill-managed public or semi-public enterprises only survive because they are saturated by state subsidies. The private sector's burden is not limited to state enterprises, but stems more generally from the vast share of national income (51 percent) that the state taxes and spends, with a large part of taxation falling on employment. Additional obstacles include a lack of labor flexibility, especially legal barriers to shedding labor.
The more immediate explanation for the lack of reforms derives from the paradox of the strength of the French economy. The situation is not bad enough to incite de-mands for serious reform. Indeed, high living standards and high social expectations make it political suicide for any party or leader to propose even the short-term sacrifices serious reform will entail. So the strength of the French private sector has created the material basis for a welfare state that is truly parasitical: it weakens its host (the private sector) without killing it.
Europe was thought by the French political class to be the solution. But Europe and the euro are increasingly catalysts for public resentment. Jospin and Chirac have done nothing to implement the large liberalization program agreed among EU members in Lisbon two years ago, which means that the benefits of liberalization are denied France at a time when the public perceives the EU as imposing all sorts of restrictions on the French way of doing business.
It is time for France to abandon the indulgence of French exceptionalism and start serious reforms that engage the French electorate. The shame of Le Pen's newfound prominence may yet prove beneficial if it forces the mainstream political establishment to heed popular concerns and address the country's problems.
Brigitte Granville is head of the international economics program at the Royal Institute for International Affairs, London. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RIIA. Copyright: Project Syndicate
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers