Quite why, you might wonder, is a country with wonderful infrastructure, beautiful towns and countryside, world-class companies and highly productive workers tearing itself apart again?
Over the past couple of weeks, we've seen millions of French people -- students, trade unionists and pretty much any other group you care to mention -- protesting on the streets against a small change in labor laws.
The protests have been bigger, though less violent, than last summer's riots in many of France's poor suburbs, home to many of its immigrants, which sent TV pictures of burning cars beaming around the world.
The reason can be summed up in one word: jobs. It is a problem that has existed for two decades and one that France's ruling elite, to its shame, has failed to do anything about. Mind you, given the scale of the protests whenever they do, maybe that is no surprise.
The protesters have been angered by a law introducing a "first job contract" (contrat premiere embauche or CPE), which makes it easier for French employers to fire a young worker within his or her first two years. The idea is to make employers less reluctant to hire young people. The protesters see it as an increase in job insecurity. They are also unhappy at the way the prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, forced the law on to the statute books last week without any real discussion.
Youth jobs
His motivation was clear: to try and do something about France's chronic youth unemployment, which is running at 23 percent, rising to 50 percent among the children of immigrants in the suburbs that burnt last summer. Unemployment among the whole population is 9.2 percent, almost double the rate in Britain. Employment levels are also very low in France, at 64 percent of the workforce, compared with a record high of 72 percent in Britain, on internationally standardized numbers.
Why is unemployment so high in France? There are a number of reasons, mostly related to rigidities in the labor market. Non-wage costs are very high, making people expensive to hire. Firing people is difficult and costly. This has made firms over the years more and more reluctant to take people on, preferring instead to hire more machines.
This is where the higher productivity of French workers compared with their British counterparts comes from. The French have 80 percent more capital employed for each worker than the British do. So in many ways high French productivity is the flipside of high unemployment. The French say it is right to have high protection for workers. The trouble with that, says labor market economist John Philpott, is that it leads to a classic "insider-outsider" problem.
"There [are] lots of protection for prime working age males, but this tends to exclude other groups, particularly the young," he says.
Once on the inside, which is where all the protesting youths want to be, jobs are very comfortable, with a 35-hour week and lots of computers and other capital to work with. These are typically the people who defend the French "social model," looking down on what they see as the UK and US' "Anglo-Saxon" model with its "hire-and-fire" jobs market and long working hours. In fact, Britain's average work week is 37 hours, according to the ONS, the government statistician -- that is little different to France's.
Time for a refit?
At the aggregate level, France's model is simply not working. Unemployment is so high that it has depressed wage growth to well below British rates. A social model that provides neither jobs nor rising living standards is not easy to defend. Nor has the French economy grown as fast as Britain's over the past decade, as the graphs also show, allowing national income per head to slip behind Britain's. Indeed, the French model has so excluded many young French people that they have come across the channel in huge numbers in recent years looking for work in an economy that has created 2.5 million jobs over the past decade. They have got good jobs and like living in London. The money is better too, they say. They may not have the same level of job security as back home but they have jobs, and that, they say, is what matters.
The French are valued workers in London. Many are highly qualified in mathematics and engineering and have easily found work in London. Thus they contribute to the British economy and pay taxes here rather than at home. It is unfortunate for France that its labor market encourages its keen, educated young workers to go abroad in such numbers.
The flows of French coming to Britain each year outweigh those British people, mostly older or retired, going in the opposite direction. It seems there are as many, if not more, French people living in London than there are British in France. For anyone living in London, this will not come as a surprise. Nearly three-quarters of the 300,000 to 400,000 now estimated to be living here are in Greater London. And most are under 35.
It is reminiscent of a Thatcher minister's advice to the unemployed in the 1980s -- "On your bike!" The modern equivalent would be "On the Eurostar!" except no one has had to urge these young French people to do it, they have made their own decision to come and look for work, and good for them. This is, after all, what the EU is about.
It is strange, though, how the myth persists in France that the Bristish economy is made up of low-paid, low-quality jobs.
In fact, figures show that more French people work on the minimum wage than British people do. The two are set at broadly similar levels although a key difference is that the French do not have a lower rate for young workers, as we do.
Adair Turner, who has just completed a pensions review for the Blair government, but was until recently head of its UK's Low Pay Commission, says this has been crucial in keeping youth unemployment high in France. Attempts to introduce a lower rate in the mid-1990s led to riots similar to those we are seeing in France at the moment.
Political challenge
The French like to point out that their workers are more productive than the British, but this is not really an answer. There are plenty of economies, especially the US, but also the Scandinavian countries, that have managed the dream combination of high employment and high productivity.
Realizing this, British policy has been geared, now that full employment has been more or less achieved, to raising the productivity of the British workforce by raising spending on education and skills and other measures. There is little sign of it yet, unfortunately, but you wouldn't bet against it happening suddenly, rather as it did in the US in the mid-1990s.
France's challenge, to boost employment, is a more difficult problem, especially given the mass opposition to the slightest change. It is depressing that the very group that Villepin is trying to help are the ones protesting loudest.
Clearly he and his predecessors should have explained more clearly what was needed -- and the French also need to wake up to what is going on -- yet these are the politicians who are now trying to shut out foreign companies from takeovers in France, even though French companies are active in foreign markets, making the most of the opportunities globalization offers them.
But it is not only the politicians who have an attitude problem. Two-thirds of French people in a recent poll said their ambition was to become a civil servant. And only a third of the population think the free market system is the best way for the world in the future, compared with two-thirds in most other countries, including Russia.
These are disturbing facts and show that France's problems will not be solved any time soon.
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