France is in the midst of transition from a well-to-do modern economy that has featured

extensive government ownership and intervention to one that relies more on market
mechanisms. The government has partially or fully privatized many large companies, banks,
and insurers, and has ceded stakes in such leading firms as Air France, France Telecom,
Renault, and Thales. It maintains a strong presence in some sectors, particularly power,
public transport, and defense industries. With at least 75 million foreign tourists per year,
France is the most visited country in the world and maintains the third largest income in the
world from tourism. France's leaders remain committed to a capitalism in which they
maintain social equity by means of laws, tax policies, and social spending that reduce income
disparity and the impact of free markets on public health and welfare. France has weathered
the global economic crisis better than most other big EU economies because of more resilient
consumer and government spending, and lower exposure to the downturn in global demand.
Nonetheless, France's real GDP contracted 2.1% in 2009, while the unemployment rate
increased from 7.4% in 2008 to nearly 10%. In response to the economic crisis the
government passed a $35 billion stimulus plan in February 2009 centered on investment in
infrastructure and tax breaks for small businesses. Paris also created a $25 billion strategic
investment fund to protect French companies from foreign takeovers, and President Nicolas
SARKOZY proposed a $52 billion plan for strategic investments in science and technology.
These various stimulus and investment measures are contributing to a deterioration of
France's public finances. France's tax burden remains one of the highest in Europe - at nearly
50% of GDP. The government budget deficit rose sharply from 3.4% of GDP in 2008 to over
8% of GDP in 2009, topping the 3% euro-zone ceiling in both years. SARKOZY is expected
to seek passage of some structural reforms - notably to the pension system and government
bureaucracy - which have the potential to cut public expenditures, while he may delay
additional, more costly, reforms.

GDP (purchasing power parity):

$2.113 trillion (2009 est.)

$2.158 trillion (2008 est.)

$2.152 trillion (2007 est.)
note: data are in 2009 US dollars
[see also: GDP (purchasing power parity) country ranks ]

GDP (official exchange rate):

$2.635 trillion (2009 est.)
[see also: GDP (official exchange rate) country ranks ]

GDP - real growth rate:

-2.1% (2009 est.)

0.3% (2008 est.)

2.3% (2007 est.)
[see also: GDP - real growth rate country ranks ]

GDP - per capita (PPP):

$32,800 (2009 est.)

$33,700 (2008 est.)

$33,800 (2007 est.)
note: data are in 2009 US dollars
[see also: GDP - per capita country ranks ]

GDP - composition by sector:

agriculture: 2.1%
[see also: GDP - composition by sector - agriculture country ranks ]
industry: 19%
[see also: GDP - composition by sector - industry country ranks ]
services: 78.9% (2009 est.)
[see also: GDP - composition by sector - services country ranks ]

Labor force:
27.99 million (2009 est.)
[see also: Labor force country ranks ]

Labor force - by occupation:

agriculture: 3.8%
[see also: Labor force - by occupation - agriculture country ranks ]
industry: 24.3%
[see also: Labor force - by occupation - industry country ranks ]
services: 71.8% (2005)
[see also: Labor force - by occupation - services country ranks ]

Unemployment rate:
9.7% (2009 est.)

7.4% (2008 est.)

[see also: Unemployment rate country ranks ]

Population below poverty line:

6.2% (2004)
[see also: Population below poverty line country ranks ]

Household income or consumption by percentage share:

lowest 10%: 3%
[see also: Household income or consumption by percentage share - lowest 10% country ranks
]
highest 10%: 24.8% (2004)
[see also: Household income or consumption by percentage share - highest 10% country
ranks ]

Distribution of family income - Gini index:

32.7 (2008)

32.7 (1995)
[see also: Distribution of family income - Gini index country ranks ]
Investment (gross fixed):
20.8% of GDP (2009 est.)
[see also: Investment (gross fixed) country ranks ]

Budget:
revenues: $1.229 trillion
[see also: Budget - revenues country ranks ]
expenditures: $1.445 trillion (2009 est.)
[see also: Budget - expenditures country ranks ]

Public debt:
79.7% of GDP (2009 est.)

68.1% of GDP (2008 est.)

[see also: Public debt country ranks ]

Inflation rate (consumer prices):

0.1% (2009 est.)

2.8% (2008 est.)

[see also: Inflation rate (consumer prices) country ranks ]

Central bank discount rate:

3% (31 December 2008)

5% (31 December 2007)

note: this is the European Central Bank's rate on the marginal lending facility, which offers
overnight credit to banks in the euro area
[see also: Central bank discount rate country ranks ]

Commercial bank prime lending rate:

8.13% (31 December 2008)
[see also: Commercial bank prime lending rate country ranks ]

Stock of money:
$NA

$NA (31 December 2007)

note: see entry for the European Union for money supply in the euro area; the European
Central Bank (ECB) controls monetary policy for the 16 members of the Economic and
Monetary Union (EMU); individual members of the EMU do not control the quantity of
money and quasi money circulating within their own borders
[see also: Stock of money country ranks ]

Stock of quasi money:

$NA

$NA (31 December 2007)

[see also: Stock of quasi money country ranks ]
Stock of domestic credit:
$4.102 trillion (31 December 2008)

$3.397 trillion (31 December 2007)

[see also: Stock of domestic credit country ranks ]

Market value of publicly traded shares:

$NA (31 December 2008)

$2.771 trillion (31 December 2007)

$2.429 trillion (31 December 2006)
[see also: Market value of publicly traded shares country ranks ]

Agriculture - products:
wheat, cereals, sugar beets, potatoes, wine grapes; beef, dairy products; fish

Industries:
machinery, chemicals, automobiles, metallurgy, aircraft, electronics; textiles, food
processing; tourism

Industrial production growth rate:

-9% (2009 est.)
[see also: Industrial production growth rate country ranks ]

Electricity - production:
535.7 billion kWh (2007 est.)
[see also: Electricity - production country ranks ]

Electricity - consumption:
447.2 billion kWh (2007 est.)
[see also: Electricity - consumption country ranks ]

Electricity - exports:
58.69 billion kWh (2008 est.)
[see also: Electricity - exports country ranks ]

Electricity - imports:
10.68 billion kWh (2008 est.)
[see also: Electricity - imports country ranks ]

Oil - production:
70,800 bbl/day (2008 est.)
[see also: Oil - production country ranks ]

Oil - consumption:
1.986 million bbl/day (2008 est.)
[see also: Oil - consumption country ranks ]
Oil - exports:
554,100 bbl/day (2008 est.)
[see also: Oil - exports country ranks ]

Oil - imports:
2.346 million bbl/day (2008 est.)
[see also: Oil - imports country ranks ]

Oil - proved reserves:

103.3 million bbl (1 January 2009 est.)
[see also: Oil - proved reserves country ranks ]

Natural gas - production:

920 million cu m (2008 est.)
[see also: Natural gas - production country ranks ]

Natural gas - consumption:

49.27 billion cu m (2008 est.)
[see also: Natural gas - consumption country ranks ]

Natural gas - exports:

1 billion cu m (2008 est.)
[see also: Natural gas - exports country ranks ]

Natural gas - imports:

49.35 billion cu m (2008 est.)
[see also: Natural gas - imports country ranks ]

Natural gas - proved reserves:

6.937 billion cu m (1 January 2009 est.)
[see also: Natural gas - proved reserves country ranks ]

Current account balance:

$-43.67 billion (2009 est.)

$-52.91 billion (2008 est.)

[see also: Current account balance country ranks ]

Exports:
$456.8 billion (2009 est.)

$601.9 billion (2008 est.)

[see also: Exports country ranks ]

Exports - commodities:
machinery and transportation equipment, aircraft, plastics, chemicals, pharmaceutical
products, iron and steel, beverages
Exports - partners:
Germany 14.3%, Italy 8.7%, Spain 8.3%, UK 7.8%, Belgium 7.6%, US 5.8%, Netherlands
4.2% (2008)

Imports:
$532.2 billion (2009 est.)

$692 billion (2008 est.)

[see also: Imports country ranks ]

Imports - commodities:
machinery and equipment, vehicles, crude oil, aircraft, plastics, chemicals

Imports - partners:
Germany 17.9%, Belgium 11.7%, Italy 8.3%, Spain 6.9%, Netherlands 6.8%, UK 5.1%, US
4.3% (2008)

Reserves of foreign exchange and gold:

$NA (31 December 2009 est.)

$102.9 billion (31 December 2008 est.)

[see also: Reserves of foreign exchange and gold country ranks ]

Debt - external:
$5.021 trillion (30 June 2009 est.)

$4.935 trillion (31 December 2008 est.)

[see also: Debt - external country ranks ]

Stock of direct foreign investment - at home:

$1.202 trillion (31 December 2009 est.)

$1.147 trillion (31 December 2008 est.)

[see also: Stock of direct foreign investment - at home country ranks ]

Stock of direct foreign investment - abroad:

$1.759 trillion (31 December 2009 est.)

$1.624 trillion (31 December 2008 est.)

[see also: Stock of direct foreign investment - abroad country ranks ]

Exchange rates:
euros (EUR) per US dollar - 0.7338 (2009), 0.6827 (2008), 0.7345 (2007), 0.7964 (2006),
0.8041 (2005)
France economic stimulus package was declared in December 2008 to cushion impact of
global economic crisis and ease undesirable effects of increasing lay-offs. An economic
stimulus package to France worth $33 billion and spread over two years is mainly directed at
increasing investments in infrastructure development and help recover their ailing automobile
industry.

Automobile industry in France is a predominant economic activity since it engages over ten
percent of France’s total workforce and hence is in need of an economic stimulus package for
France. Newest France economic stimulus package is supposed to be spent over a period of
two years.

This particular France economic stimulus package is different from ones that have been
announced previously by French government. Those tried to increase consumption in order to
deal with economic crises but this one is focusing more on automobile industry of France.

This economic stimulus package of France is designed to accelerate tax rebates and credits
owed to companies thereby speeding up investments

in infrastructure. In a televised address, French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared that

France economic stimulus package is an effort of massive investment in response to a crisis
and best way to do this is to support present day competitiveness and invest in future projects.
He had taken this opportunity to caution managerial segment in taking this as an excuse to
reduce their work force and restructure their organizations.

As per European Commission guidelines, not more than 1.5 percent of a nation’s gross
domestic product (GDP) is to be allocated for growth. This France economic stimulus
package is as per guidelines of European Commission. According to President Sarkozy’s
plans, budget deficit of France is expected to rise to 4 percent of GDP as against 3 percent
limit of European Union.

In this France economic stimulus package $13.7 billion has been earmarked for infrastructure
development, $5.25 billion towards investment in state owned postal, rail and energy
projects, and $1.31 billion for mobilizing their car credit market. An additional $2.36 billion
has been allocated for building 100,000 homes to be made available to low income earners at
zero interest loans. This package further aims at hastening payment of $15 billion towards
investment credits.
France budget is largely based on growth forecast of the gross domestic product or the GDP.
The forecast for the year 2007 has been framed between 2 percent to 2.5 percent. Lately, the
French government

has been urged to cut down France budget deficit. It is reckoned that France budget deficit
will become 2.3 percent of the gross domestic product in the year 2008. The government
intends to achieve this by cutting down taxes

The target set by the French government pertaining to public deficit has been fixed at 2.4
percent for the year 2007. The public deficit was 2.5 percent more in the year 2006. With 2.4
percent, France has managed to keep the deficit much below the percentage fixed as per the
Maastricht norms. Studies reveal that France budget deficit, which is 41.7 billion euro, is
lower than 42 billion euro.

Essential features of France budget deficit:

 It is reckoned that France budget deficit will go down to 41.6 billion euro equivalent
to USD$52.8 billion.
 It is expected that the budget gap will decline in the year 2007 and is reckoned to be
2.5% of the gross domestic product. If complied with, this will be the lowest figure
attained since the year 2001.
 The budget proposed by the French government has been regarded as a “good
budget”. The budget of 2007 is regarded as employment friendly. In addition to this, it
is reckoned to be compatible with the purchasing power of euro and also plays a vital
role pertaining to reduction in debts.

Ways to handle France budget deficit:

In order to compensate for France budget deficit, the French government is taking steps to
downsize its working force by approximately, 15,019 workers. It was found out that in the
month of August, consumer spending in case of manufactured commodities escalated 3.3
percent since July, 2007. This was the highest that was recorded in the last seven years.

Future trends:

Some economists assume that public deficit would become worst in the year 2008. It is
estimated that it would be 2.5 percent to 3 percent of the gross domestic product or the GDP

. With regard to public debt, it is anticipated that it will become more stable and would be
recorded at approximately 64.2 percent of the gross domestic product or the GDP.
Economy of France manifested a sluggish growth in the penultimate quarter in the year 2006.
Despite the growth being sluggish, the finance ministry in France predicted a growth in the
gross domestic product or the GDP between 2 percent and 2.5 percent. With regard to France
budget, it was anticipated that in the year 2007 national debt is likely to reduce. It was also
predicted that there are chances that the public deficit will also decrease.

Measures adopted by the French government:

The government in France has tried to put in all efforts so that the France budget (2007)
pleases the voters. To this effect, the French government has enhanced public spending. To
make France budget a success, the government in France has increased the number of
benefits it extends to the general public. Reduction in debt is another step taken by the French
government to make France budget a success. Attracting the voters by increasing fiscal
benefits is a policy adopted by the government in France. However, there are few people who
feel that the forecast of the gross domestic product or the GDP is likely to be ranging between
1percent and 1.7 percent instead of 2 percent and 2.5 percent, as predicted by the finance
minister.

It is being assumed that revenue from privatization is likely to reduce the burden of public
debt to some extent. Records reveal that Public debt in France, in the year 2005 was 66
percent more than the gross domestic product or the GDP of the year 2005. The French
government has given key importance to the reduction of public debt in the France budget of
2007. The government has hopes that public debt will further decrease in the year 2008.
The role of France budget committee is to monitor and evaluate the national budget. It also
takes care of the different budget components of the national budget. There are times, when
the committee has to be strict about certain norms, while there are instances, when the norms
can be relaxed.In the year 2006, France had a slow growth in the economy. A 2% to 2.5%
GDP growth rate was anticipated in 2006.

France budget deficit 2007:

France budget deficit 2007 was evaluated by the France Budget committee. It was expected
that France budget deficit would fall to 41.6 billion Euros which is about 2.5 % of GDP . This
information obtained is as per the draft budget of France for the financial year 2007. France
budget committee also suggests the items that need to be added or omitted in the budget
agenda. Prior to the final budget, a draft budget is prepared for approval. The draft budget is a
skeletal outline of the final budget. Another task performed by the France budget committee
is reviewing and comparing statistics from previous years. Accounting processes also
influence budget to a great extent. The France budget for 2007, has been considered
beneficial. The budget has kept in mind issues related to debt, employment as well as
purchasing power.

Budget committees:

Many a times budget committee meetings or seminars are held to decide the changes to be
introduced in a country's financial make up. Delegates from various nations assemble to
discuss budget related topics.
 The year 2006 was marked by robust and more balanced growth in global economic activity
across virtually all regions. Thanks to this favourable international environment, the French
economy saw a return to dynamic growth conducive to employment and the reduction of
government deficits. This cyclical upturn should not, however, mask the structural difficulties
facing the French economy, which is performing less well in all these areas than its main
trading partners and which, moreover, is witnessing a further widening of its external deficit.
Against this backdrop, I should like to outline a number of analyses of the growth
environment, monetary policy, the state of the French economy and the main challenges that
it needs to rise to in order to take advantage of globalisation and make structural
improvements to growth and employment.

In 2006, the European economy entered a period of sustained and balanced growth
Growth in the euro area is sustained: after 2.9% in 2006, it could stand at 2.6% in 2007.
Such a performance – growth above 2% for two consecutive years – has not been observed
since 1999-2000. In 2006 alone, over two million jobs were created in the euro area, which
brings to 13 million the total number of jobs created since the introduction of the single
currency; this figure is slightly higher than that for the United States over the same period.
After a catch-up phase in which growth was significantly above its long-term trend, the euro
area’s GDP is currently increasing at a rate close to the economy’s potential.
This growth is balanced since all of the components of demand are contributing to it in a
harmonious fashion. In the first phases of recovery, the contribution of external demand was
decisive. But productive investment and, almost everywhere, household consumption are
now supporting the business cycle. This has enabled and led, in most countries, to a
welcome consolidation of public finances, with no adverse impact on the economy.
Concerning the future, the outlook for Europe is dominated by three questions, varied in
nature.
The first naturally concerns the international environment. Forecasts for world growth remain
good. At this juncture, the US economy appears to be absorbing the economic and financial
impact of the slowdown in the property market. Emerging market economies displayed
encouraging resilience in the face of the two episodes of financial volatility that affected
international equity markets in May 2006 and March 2007. Nevertheless, several risks
should be highlighted: that of a sudden drop in US consumption in the wake of the problems
in the property market; that of a sharp increase in commodity prices; that of a return to
volatility on financial markets, after several exceptionally calm years; and, linked to the latter,
that of a disorderly adjustment of exchange rates triggered by the build-up of international
imbalances.
The second concern relates to the extremely rapid growth of monetary and credit aggregates
in the euro area. The annual growth rate of M3, which was below 6% in 2004, gradually
accelerated and currently exceeds 10%. Loans to the private sector also continue to expand
by more than 10%. Structural changes in money and credit demand – linked to financial
innovation – may partly account for this acceleration. However, these developments must be
closely monitored in view of their implications for monetary stability and that of financial
systems. During 2004 and 2005, household borrowing was the primary source of credit
growth; in 2006, this was replaced by lending to enterprises, in line with the economic
recovery and the rise in – often highly leveraged – company buyouts. The strong profits and
financial soundness of firms facilitate and sometimes encourage increased borrowing, which
is then presented as “optimising” their liability structure. But balance sheets are weakening
and difficulties could appear in the event of a turnaround in the business cycle.
The third question concerns the acceleration of productivity observed in the euro area since
mid-2005: is it purely cyclical or does it reflect a more permanent and structural
improvement? Over such a short period, caution would favour the first answer. Nonetheless,
the conjunction of strong employment growth and a rapid rise in productivity is highly
unusual. It constitutes a reversal of the previous trend in Europe since, for over a decade,
periods in which there has been an improvement in employment have also seen a slowdown
in productivity. In general, workers that have just entered the job market are initially less
productive than more experienced employees. This effect now appears to be offset by other
more favourable and fundamental factors. The structural reforms implemented in the last few
years may account for this development.
The answers to these questions will make it possible to assess the magnitude of risks to
inflation and the capacity of the European economy to continue growing at close to its
potential rate.

Inflation and monetary policy

After several years in which globalisation fostered moderate inflation, inflationary pressures
have appeared in the international environment. Commodity prices, stimulated by strong
growth in emerging markets, now appear on an upward trend. Most of the world’s economies
– including emerging market economies – are currently close to full utilisation of their
production capacity. Lastly, global liquidity, irrespective of the indicator used to measure it, is
expanding strongly.
Against this backdrop, monetary policy has become more restrictive across all countries.
Since December 2004, key interest rates have risen from 2.25% to 5.25% in the United
States, from 4.75% to 5.75% in the United Kingdom and from 2.00% to 4.00% in the euro
area. As regards the latter, the seven increases in interest rates implemented since
December 2005 have, as mentioned above, been accompanied by strong GDP growth, and
during this period monetary policy has ensured price stability at the same time as more than
two million jobs were created.
The ECB’s monetary policy stance has aimed, in accordance with the Treaty, to maintain
price stability over the long term. In sync with the consolidation of growth in the euro area, it
has gradually been adjusted upwards, with the Governing Council striving consistently to
calibrate interest rates as precisely as possible to allow growth to firm, while ensuring it is
not jeopardised by mounting inflationary pressures.
Price stability is foremost among the objectives assigned to central banks in all countries.
This is not a random choice. It is the fruit of experience. Many countries have attempted,
over recent decades – and particularly after the oil shocks at the end of the last century – to
stimulate growth via expansive monetary policies. All of these attempts failed. Inflation rose,
sometimes to very high levels, without there being any improvement in employment.
Two lessons have been learned from this period, which still inform the conduct of monetary
policy today.
First, over the medium and long term, growth is determined by productivity, investment and
the quantity of labour mobilised in the economy. At this time horizon, there is no trade-off
between inflation and growth, and monetary policy is neutral with respect to output and
employment.
Second, inflation itself is strongly influenced by the expectations of economic agents, both
households and enterprises. These agents are increasingly well informed. They quickly
perceive developments that threaten their purchasing power or the value of their savings. If
monetary policy is likely to encourage inflation, they adjust their behaviour very rapidly, for
example by asking for higher wages, thereby triggering a wage-price spiral; or by demanding
greater remuneration of their savings, resulting in higher long-term interest rates and slower
growth.
How, in the ECB Governing Council’s view, can monetary policy make an effective
contribution to economic growth? First and foremost, by anchoring inflation expectations. If
monetary policy is credible, confidence prevails and economic agents make their decisions
in a more reliable environment. Economic signals are less blurred by concerns about
inflation. Shocks are more easily absorbed, or at least are less amplified by economic
agents’ attempts to shelter against the risk of inflationary pressures. Overall, the economy is
less volatile, business cycles less pronounced and economic growth steadier.
More fundamentally still, maintaining the internal value of money means preserving
consumers’ purchasing power. French citizens, who are clearly committed to price stability,
know this. Conversely, inflation is a form of confiscation, which primarily affects the least
privileged households. In a modern economy, the social contract is based on the confidence
that citizens have in their currency. With the euro, French citizens now possess one of the
world’s two foremost currencies, whose legitimacy is based on the stability that it bestows on
their savings and purchasing power.

The French economy

In spring 2007, the picture of the French economy is mixed.
At first glance, France’s performance is strong. Growth is above 2%, inflation is under
control, investment is dynamic and 256,000 jobs have been created over the past year (of
which 155,000 in the market economy). In 2006, the fiscal deficit decreased sharply and
government debt was cut by 2 GDP percentage points.
This assessment is, however, significantly tempered by the two following observations. First,
and for the first time for a long time, growth in France is below the euro area average.
France is following and benefiting from a European movement that it is not contributing to
fuel. This is illustrated in particular by the (negative) growth differential with Germany, which
is without precedent over the past 20 years.
Second, France records a substantial current account deficit, which deserves particular
attention. Thanks to the euro, the French economy is shielded from financial turbulence
which would, in the past under such circumstances, have jeopardised the stability of its
currency. Although the external balance is no longer a constraint on growth, it nevertheless
remains a significant and telling signal of the threats to its sustainability.
What is the cause of the deficit? French domestic demand, boosted by higher household
consumption than the European average, may have been one explanatory factor in the past,
but the main explanation lies elsewhere.
France’s declining export performance is frequently attributed to the inadequate degree of
sectoral specialisation. This is of course insufficient to explain the movement recorded over
the past three years. Specialisation tends to evolve slowly over time, whereas the decline in
the trade balance has been sudden and dramatic; and had not been anticipated by any of
the analysts who continuously study its structure and developments.
BIS Review 92/2007 3
It is clear that the price-competitiveness of French industries has deteriorated significantly in
recent years. Has the euro’s appreciation played a role in this? On the one hand, it
undoubtedly penalises export sectors whose competitors are located in other monetary
areas. But, on the other hand, it benefits those sectors which are large consumers of
imported commodities. At this stage, the overall effect on France’s growth and external
balance is not clearly apparent. Furthermore, two observations must be made: first, it is
mainly intra-euro area trade that is worsening; second, many of France’s European partners
faced with the same constraints are performing better.
French competitiveness has in particular been impacted by wage increases and catch-ups
associated with the reduction in the working week, while Germany has experienced several
consecutive years of real wage cuts. From this point of view, it is likely to be positively
affected by a strict application of the revaluation rules for the minimum wage.
In addition, industrial output has virtually stagnated over the past six years, in spite of efforts
aimed at making the French economy more attractive. France is not the only European
country in this situation. Industrial output in Italy is also fl at, while that of the United Kingdom
has dropped by 5% despite its buoyant economic growth. At the same time, however,
industrial activity in Germany and Spain has grown by 15% and 10% respectively. It is as if
the French economy had been hit by a “shock” hindering its ability to react to an increase in
domestic and, especially, world demand. We need to take a look at the origins of this shock.
Corporate investment hardly seems to account for this shock, given that it has risen by the
same proportion in France and Germany in recent years (12% in 4 years). Other gridlocks,
that are less clearly definable, are therefore hindering the industrial sector’s reaction
capacity. Although it is currently impossible to clearly identify them, labour market rigidities
have probably played a major role, especially on the supply side. Thus, despite the
significant improvement in the employment situation, the total number of hours worked in
France each year hardly increased between 2000 and 2006.
Higher costs and sluggish supply: overall, the French economy is still absorbing the effects
of the reduction in the working week and the wage catch-ups which it has given rise to over
the past ten years. And these effects have a delayed yet strong impact on the external
performance of the French economy.

Reforms
In order to reinforce the growth dynamics beyond the current cycle, it seems necessary to
considerably increase the quantity of labour. The European countries whose per capita
income is expanding most rapidly have enlarged and activated their workforce via increases
in participation and employment rates.
This assessment is encouraging for France, which has, thanks to its demography, large
growth reserves. If these could be “activated” by appropriate policies, France should, in a
few years, be able to substantially raise per capita income and catch up with, or even
overtake, the best European performers.
This catching-up is feasible and the current economic recovery provides a particularly
favourable context in which to implement ambitious reforms. It requires a radical change in
habits and policies. In addition to reducing the social contributions weighing on overtime, it is
also necessary to take measures to raise the participation rate. Some would be simple and
not too costly: for example, allowing pensioners, without any restrictions, to draw a pension
and a wage concurrently. Others require profound changes and a widespread consultation,
such as the development of part-time work or the reform of employment contracts. To
convince companies to invest and recruit, it seems essential to reassure them of their ability
to adjust their staff levels to the changes in their order books without undue delays or costs.
While the solidarity that underpins social cohesion must guarantee financial support and help
to temporarily unemployed workers seeking to re-enter the labour market, it must not expose
firms to excessive risks if it is not to deter them from developing their productive capacity
and job opportunities in France.
Reforms should not only be conducted on the labour market but also on the goods market.
The countries that have succeeded are those that have developed a virtuous circle of
activity, productivity and employment. If one link is missing, the reforms implemented
elsewhere will not have their expected effects.
We know that France has vast labour pools in market services. We also know that by their
very nature, most of these jobs cannot be moved abroad. However, many obstacles still lie
in the way of their development. It is too often difficult, even prohibited, in France to produce
or sell services.
There are a number of causes for these obstacles. First, there is a desire to protect existing
activities and to ensure that the professional quality of service provided is upheld. Second,
regulations aim to prevent excessively harsh working conditions. All of these reasons are
legitimate in themselves. But, taken together, they considerably restrict supply even though
– as foreign examples have shown – demand is potentially sizeable. These restrictions also
encourage the substitution of labour by capital and therefore result in growth that is both
constrained and has an insufficient employment content. They are sometimes based on a
notion of working rhythms that is out of step with the functioning of a modern society and
technological progress. They are very costly for the economy. And, lastly, they do a
disservice to those they set out to protect. The main victims are those for whom access to
employment requires flexibility, adaptation, and freedom to choose working hours, i.e.
primarily young people and women.
A complete overhaul of all the legal and regulatory conditions governing a wide range of
commercial and services activities therefore appears to be an urgent priority.
Lastly, in order to increase France’s productivity, a shift towards technology- and science-
based activities is essential. To do so, research and development (R&D) efforts must be
encouraged. In this respect, while the share of public R&D expenditure is comparable or
even greater than that of the country’s main trading partners, private sector R&D investment
remains well below that in Germany, the United States or Japan. The creation of poles of
competitiveness in 2005 and the Industrial Innovation Agency in 2006 contribute to achieving
this strategic objective. These recent initiatives should be pursued in order to expand the
poles of competitiveness, attract researchers and companies, and integrate SMEs and start-
ups that do not benefit from the resources available under these innovation drives.
In the main, these reforms are currently underway or being examined in our country. It is
thus becoming possible to create lasting conditions for stronger and more employment-rich
growth.

Public finances
Despite the partial consolidation seen over the past two years, public finances remain weak
and call for great vigilance.
Following the reform of the Stability and Growth Pact, France made a number of
commitments. These commitments have been made for a reason and the credibility of the
efforts undertaken elsewhere on the European stage depends on their respect. France,
which is the euro area’s second largest economy in terms of size, naturally aims to play a
key role in this area in order to enhance and develop “economic governance”.
Come what may, it is in the interest of France’s economy and citizens to consolidate public
finances. The role traditionally attributed to public spending and welfare is to contribute to a
better allocation of resources in the economy, foster the desired redistribution of income and,
if the conditions are in place, help stabilise economic cycles. These three functions are more
difficult to realise in a globalised economy that reduces leeway and creates, in practice,
latent and permanent competition between tax systems and public policies. A number of
major imperatives thus emerge.
• First, introduce a great degree of selectivity in terms of public spending. Since France is
the country in the euro area with by far, as a percentage of GDP, the highest level
of public spending, it should give priority to forward-looking spending that supports
reforms. From this point of view, a review is necessary in particular of the
“defensive” cuts in social contributions that offset the constraints, obstacles and
costs facing our companies. These cuts now exceed the equivalent of France’s
spending on higher education. More generally, the effectiveness of subsidised
contracts in the long term is questionable: they are useful, or even essential, when
they allow those deprived of equal opportunities to integrate into the labour force;
they are more dubious when, conversely, they financially compensate the effects of
rigidities in hiring decisions and the functioning of the labour market. It would be
extremely useful to conduct a thorough review of these measures on the basis of
this simple distinction.
• Second, reduce structural expenditure. France has a high quality civil service, which is a
crucial asset. Current demographic trends and the needs of a modern economy
require adjustments to be made. France must have a great civil service in terms of
quality but a less bloated one in terms of quantity. The reforms implemented over
the past decades are not necessarily consistent with this imperative: of all
developed countries, France has recorded the greatest growth in public sector jobs.
The State, in particular, has not reduced staff numbers in proportion to the posts
transferred to decentralised authorities, whereas the latter have recruited on a large
scale to fill these positions. Demographic developments provide an opportunity to
turn this trend around and create more flexibility. Recent announcements stating
that half the posts left vacant following retirements are not to be filled show that this
opportunity will be seized.
• Lastly, maintain cyclical flexibility. France, as we mentioned, is currently at a favourable
point of the business cycle that automatically increases government revenue and,
all other things being equal, reduces the deficit. This gives an impression of
affluence that may be misleading and dangerous. What counts here is the general
government structural balance. In our country, it is high (above 2% of GDP), which
means that our public finances are particularly vulnerable to an economic slowdown
or a turnaround in the business cycle. In such a case – unless we are prepared to
enter an endless downward spiral – even the forward-looking spending would have
to be sacrificed.

One imperative must ultimately dominate the management of public finances: the well-being
of future generations. It is they who will have to sustain, service and finance the public debt
that is building up today. It may be understandable and justifiable if this debt were used to
establish an economic capital that would benefit these generations. But this debt would be
economically inefficient and morally unjust if future generations had to finance current
generations’ welfare spending. Such a transfer would be especially paradoxical since
sustainable development has become a key priority and the quality of the environment
passed on to future generations has never before to such an extent inspired and guided
public action.

*
The French economy must now be allowed to fulfil its potential. While globalisation offers
opportunities, it also creates numerous insecurities. The accumulation of such sentiment
may result in slowing down or preventing the necessary reforms. But because the world
economy is changing rapidly, the refusal to adapt would lead, inevitably, to weaker growth
for France and greater insecurity for all French citizens, especially those that are least
protected.
This dilemma is not peculiar to France. All other European countries are experiencing this
friction between the natural desire for greater security and the unavoidable need to adapt. It
is important for each country, according to its traditions and culture, to find the means of
taking up this challenge.
However, France boasts numerous and decisive advantages: Europe’s most dynamic
demography; a high level of energy independence, which is an inestimable advantage in
these times of economic and geopolitical uncertainty with regard to supplies; active and
dynamic companies, which have been able to take ample advantage of the opportunities
afforded by globalisation; and lastly a highly-skilled workforce which, to some extent,
accounts for France’s high hourly productivity levels. These advantages must therefore
enable France to achieve strong growth that creates jobs in a stable monetary environment.
This opportunity must be seized.