38%! That is the percentage of French people who consider the Rassemblement National’s economic program to be credible, according to a survey conducted byEurotrack OpinionWay – Vae Solis for Les Echos – Radio Classiqueon June 13, 2024. This figure is surprising, especially since no other program scored as high in this poll.
After the worrying paucity of debate during the last presidential campaign, it seems legitimate to welcome the return of economic and social issues to the heart of the programs: purchasing power, pensions, employment, taxation, etc. On the other hand, it is difficult to be enthusiastic about the escalation of populist announcements, which are unfortunately purely electioneering. While positions are being taken on all sides to judge the credibility or otherwise of these programs, they nevertheless sometimes remain marked by value judgments or partisan views… to the detriment of their relevance and impartiality.
The aim of this forum is not so much to validate or invalidate these programs as to warn against the fantasies and other illusions raised by the reform proposals on both sides of the political spectrum. The aim here is to call for vigilance, particularly with regard to our economic challenges: improving the education system, accelerating the energy transition, cleaning up our public finances, improving the quality of and access to public services, reducing our trade deficit, etc.
While reforms are necessary in France, their effectiveness depends above all on the accuracy of the observations that motivate them. A remedy will, by definition, be ineffective if it treats the wrong condition. And even with the right diagnosis, reforming through poorly calibrated public policies can lead to undesirable effects, or even effects that are the opposite of those sought. It is therefore crucial not to succumb to opportunistic election promises. Without being exhaustive, it would seem that several proposals in the various programs are more like false good ideas and would not provide a solution to the problems they claim to solve.
The desire to repeal the pension reform is a perfect illustration of this. Beyond its cost to public finances, raising the retirement age does not respond to, and is even antithetical to, the challenges of an aging population, the reduction in the proportion of working people relative to retirees, and the decline in productivity. The failure to take these structural components, which are inherent to the French economy, into account is perplexing. However, there is much to be done in terms of concrete proposals on related and no less important issues, such as taking into account the arduous nature of certain jobs, but also overhauling the systems for the employment of older people and promoting intragenerational solidarity, not just intergenerational solidarity.
Proposals to reduce VAT or freeze the prices of essential goods are probably based on good intentions. These measures, which have been tried and tested many times, lead to undesirable windfall effects and prove ineffective without careful targeting of the most vulnerable populations. Ultimately, these proposals reveal a lack of understanding of economic mechanisms and favor publicity stunts over reforms that may be less appealing on the surface but are significantly more effective.
Furthermore, France’s budgetary margins are not expandable. It is illusory to believe that a sharp increase in public spending would be the remedy for all our problems. Drastically increasing spending while juxtaposing it with potential revenues of uncertain amounts would most likely increase public debt and its cost. However, undermining the sustainability of this debt would ultimately be counterproductive, as it would undermine the state’s ability to fully and effectively carry out its sovereign, economic, social, and climate-related missions.
Nevertheless, hiding behind the imperatives of budgetary discipline to justify the lack of concrete measures would be a serious mistake. « Crying ruin » does not benefit society any more than proposing a package of ill-conceived populist reforms. Carrying out ambitious reforms would require abandoning dogmas and economic and political divisions that are too often binary and do not do our country credit. We must have the courage to break with systems that no longer have a place, or that may have created economic rents, in order to consider a more efficient and equitable reallocation of public resources.
To achieve this, the systematic evaluation of public policies and the strengthening of non-partisan education to simplify economic mechanisms and issues must become the norm. Demonstrating education, realism, and objectivity on the part of stakeholders in the country’s economic and political life will be just as key as the general public’s acceptance of the complexity of our society. These are two essential elements for initiating reconciliation in a fragmented society. While moments in political life are always important, some have a greater significance in that they can be turning points. These elections are precisely such a historic moment. In this context, not succumbing to illusion will probably be the key to the future.
This opinion piece is signed by Victor Lequillerier and Anthony Morlet-Lavidalie, economists at BSI Economics and respectively Vice President and Secretary General of the think tank. While the tone of the opinion piece is fully in line with the values of BSI Economics (independence, non-partisanship, promotion of economic education), it is not intended to reflect the position of all economists who are members of the association.
