Monday, November 5, 2012


I feel compelled to mark the beginning of "competitiveness week" in France. As everyone who pays any attention to these things already knows, Louis Gallois has delivered his commission's report, and the government has promised to "do something" in response, though undoubtedly less than the commission has asked for (fracking, for instance, has already been rejected). It's worth recalling a few simple facts: France's balance of payments has been sinking into the red for a decade. France's unit labor costs are high compared to those of some of its neighbors. French labor market rules are relatively restrictive. And France's social safety net is financed, to a greater extent than is the case in neighboring countries, on the basis of payroll taxes.

So the Gallois commission recommends some changes, the most important of which is the transfer of the social safety net burden to broader-based taxes such as the CSG and the VAT. One can quibble about the details and the amounts, but the basic principle is not unreasonable. Elements of the left that argue that the welfare state should be based on solidarity rather than charity are at odds with themselves when they protest that such a change would shift the burden from "corporations" to "people" or "workers." In fact, the burden borne by corporations is already passed on to consumers, and a broader-based financing is more consistent with the principle of solidarity.

To take the argument any further, however, is to get into the deep weeds of economic analysis. One has to ask about the elasticity of demand for the various components of France's national production. One has to wonder about the sensitivity of imports and exports to relative prices. One has to ask whether France would be better served by shifting its resources into new product areas or by defending those in which it has been losing market share, such as automobiles. There is plenty of room for disagreement. What is to be hoped is that the government will begin to lay out a detailed strategy rather than a blunt rejection or approval of the Gallois proposals. Everyone agrees that changes are necessary, but the time for generalities is over.


Carol Dent said...

They would do very well just looking after small entrepreneurs: Hollande doesn't like the auto-entrepreneur system and would like it abandoned. But then, as France is a country which demands a special licence just to become a professional chimney-sweep, how can small businesses flourish?

Nahidul Islam said...

Just released NYU study of President Obama and Mitt Romney's body language shows on a word by word basis what each candidate emphasizes.

be sure to click on the more info tab and read the information just so you have seen it.

Mitch Guthman said...

@ Carol Dent,

Having lived in houses in which fireplaces supplied some essential heat, I'm glad to hear that it's necessary to have some small idea of what one is doing as a chimney sweep in France It is difficult and dangerous work and, if done badly, can be very detrimental to the health and well being of the people living in the building. I am not really a great of the free market when it comes to stuff like working on cars, providing medical treatment, flying airplanes and, yes, sweeping chimneys.

FrédéricLN said...

The auto-entrepreneur system is rather fine because of its simplicity (granted, control is needed in many areas, not all). It doesn't seem to be abandoned by the new administration.

The issue was with the overly low contributions auto-entrepreneurs had to pay for social welfare. That attracted into the auto-entrepreneur status a number of people who should have had, or already had, regular statuses. For example, companies may (I dont' have the pieces of evidence) fire people or reduce working hours, and replace that by paying "auto-entrepreneur hours" to the same people, at lower costs: at the expense of social protection and the welfare budgets.

Hollande / Ayrault announced they would enforce equal taxation, wich seems relevant.