Posted on 11/08/2003 7:39:18 AM PST by knighthawk
The French are notoriously sensitive -- if not defensive -- about France's stature in the world. The French state spends vast amounts of money to propagate the French language and French culture, yet the French are painfully aware that the global position of their country is not what it once was.
No surprise, then, that during the last presidential election, the publication of a European Commission report claiming France's economic rank among European countries had fallen from 3rd to 10th place in the span of ten years caused soul-searching and controversy. Soon, President Jacques Chirac was accusing his rival, Lionel Jospin, of causing the "French decline."
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and Eurostat, the European body in charge of such data, thought they put an end to this aspect of the debate by showing that France, Germany, Italy and Great Britain all enjoy roughly equal per capita living standards. But the broader controversy wouldn't go away. Worried talk about "French decline" reappeared with this year's street protests against pension reform, mounting disputes over fiscal policy with the European Commission, and bickering with America over the war in Iraq.
Today's best-selling non-fiction book in France is a polemic by Nicolas Baverez, La France qui tombe (Falling France). Baverez's book is filled with quotations from de Gaulle and Napoleon. According to the author, France's last great achievements were in the 1970s, when the fast train, the TGV, and Airbus were launched. He castigates both former president Francois Mitterrand and Chirac for their "common talent to win elections and turn France into a loser." The book's success is itself a sign of a kind of "malaise." But of which kind?
Baverez's evidence of degeneration is not as convincing as he believes. For example, he cites the draining away of industrial jobs as the most glaring evidence of France's decline. But deindustrialization is common to all advanced countries. Indeed, France does actually better than most of its rich country rivals and, unlike Germany, the UK, or the US, has retained the same global market share in the industrial sector that it had in the early 1970s.
Moreover, according to a better measure of competitiveness -- foreign investment -- France does very well. According to a recent report by the Economic Analysis Council, direct investment in France grew to 60 billion euros (US$68.5 billion) in 2001, almost twice that of Germany. French cost competitiveness also improved (by 20 percent) in the last three decades, with higher productivity offsetting rapid wage growth.
But the core of France's long-run economic problems is precisely the fear of losing industrial jobs. France remains a strong industrial power in traditional areas such as automobile and aerospace industries, but it is falling behind in innovative markets, where smaller companies spread new technologies.
In short, Baverez's analysis points in the wrong direction. France has undergone a set of critically important reforms over the past two decades: economic and financial liberalization, elimination of price and foreign exchange controls, the end of credit restrictions, European liberalization, reduced inflation and trade deficits, the advent of the euro and the forced globalization of the country's firms. The French malaise has nothing to do with any of them.
France's problem is that it fails to recognize the new world of which it already is a part. French state capitalism is dead, and France is finding it hard to come to terms with its passing.
Indeed, France must be the only country in which a prime minister, Jospin, feels obliged to apologize the day after for saying on TV that "the state is not omnipotent."
Daniel Cohen is professor of economics at the Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris.
Having America elect Dean or Clark as President of the United States.
Both Dean and Clark have stated that they would take no military action to protect U.S. vital interests without U.N. apporaval. With the French Security Council veto, France would have control over the use of the most powerful military force in the world.
What can halt the 'French decline?'
Why hitting bottom of course!
In 100 years, who will care any more about one than about the other?
There is an important task at hand with the France of the present, however. Never before have archaelogists had such a field of opportunity.
The ruins and relics can be tagged and catalogued while actually standing, making the elaborate process of reconstructing, sometime in the 22nd century, a quaint forgotten civilization that much easier for the few scholars of that day in whom a love of the systematic might induce a mild curiousity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.