|
13.02.2008
When tragedy turns into farceNicolas Sarkozy came to power promising a serious reform agenda - rupture everywhere, good and bad. There was hope in France that he would become an effective global political leader. I still recall on election night, how a very pompous French businessman declared that Sarkozy would change absolutely everything, , and become Europe's undisputed leader.
I never believed any of it, and wrote as much in my column in the Financial Times. But even I am surprised, how little he achieved in terms of his domestic agenda. After his election victory, I was told by a number of serious French economists, who I respect, that Sarkozy may be irritating. He may be bad for eurozone governance. And, of course, he is wrong about the ECB, and about competition. But all that does not matter if he managed to pull off one big feat - reform the French labour market. The message was: Please, give him a chance.
My scepticism was rooted in the suspicion that an unstable, hyperactive guy in permanent search for publicity stunts is not the best person to deliver reform. We have been through this in Europe time and again. Reform is the most unglamorous side of politics - often best done by unglamerous politicians. It requires seriousness, ability to prioritise, a trainspotter's interest in the nitty gritty detail of policy.
In France, reform has degenerated into a show. There is the spectacle of reform, but not reform itself. My own list of priorities is not particularly original. But then, this game is not about originality. Many economists I know would probably agree with at least two out of the following three reforms:
1. The abolition of the 35-hour week. 2. The reform of the archaic French labour contract 3. Fiscal consolidation
France is probably not going to get any of them. The promised modernisation of labour contract law has now been superseded by an ultra-soft agreement between the social partners. There are some minor changes in the 35-hour week, but the vast majority of French companies do not benefit. And the French budget position is worsening at a time when Germany's is improving.
It might have worth taking a hit in the approval rating, or loosing the municipal elections, for any or all of these policy goals. But Sarkozy has taken a hit, not because of Carla Bruni or his jet set lifestyle. The French have realised that they have elected a leader, who has lost interest in his agenda. |  |
Comments
Rachel from Belgium
Tuesday, 25-03-08 17:16
I'm french : in france we have the 35 h/week but we have the best productivity in the world so don't say 35 h is a problem !
Thanks
David Wilkins from UK
Tuesday, 19-02-08 16:42
But why would Germany, Russia and China co-operate with France when they can co-operate with successful and important countries instead?
JLS from FRANCE
Sunday, 17-02-08 22:28
I vote for Sarkozy, and I don't regret it.
As expected, for me at least, I known that Sarkozy will change few, but as many people around me , we said that Sarkozy change about 15% of what he is saying it's ok. Anyway don't forget that Fillon the Prime minister is here, he is serious man.
Sarko is very superficial and not very clever, and worst vulger.
What you call reform
"1. The abolition of the 35-hour week.
2. The reform of the archaic French labour contract
3. Fiscal consolidation"
is not very important and anyway neo-liberalism is almost over.
About USA I think that they much less important now because of the collapse of Soviet Union. Before they were important in 50s until 80s but now less.
They still have a huge military power but now it's almost irrelevant.
I think the more important country for France are
1) Germany (main country in Europe economically are demographicaly)
2) Russia (they have oil like Arabs)
3) China (The future Super Power).
JLS
David Wilkins from UK
Saturday, 16-02-08 10:03
I don't think this would be too much of a problem if the French didn't so often insist on defining Europe in terms of opposition to America - an outdated conception of Europe that is now completely at odds with majority opinion in the EU, at least since the eastern European countries joined.
It is a catastrophically destructive mind-set that has led to disastrous decisions such as that to develop Galileo - an absolutely pointless EUR multi-billion satellite positioning system - when the excellent GPS system is available free to European consumers. Its only 'drawback' is that it is American (and worse, it was originally an American military system). A blinkered Eduard Balladur rejects Tony Blair, by far the best candidate for the 'president of Europe' job on the basis that he is close to the Americans - when that is probably one of the best reasons to give him the job. Endless time has been wasted on discussing irrelevancies such as 'European' defence structures because France and one or two other countries seem utterly blind to the obvious fact that NATO, under US leadership, like it or not, is Europe's best guarantee of defence by far. France has been condemned to years of slow growth and mass unemployment because all of the glaringly obvious remedies have been stigmatised as 'Anglo-Saxon', and cannot therefore be adopted.
Against this background, I think the arrival of Sarkozy (and Merkel) has been very beneficial - of course, the underlying objective interests of the countries concerned have not changed, and difficult problems such as the extent and nature of French and German involvement in Afghanistan don't suddenly disappear. But at least the discussions about those problems, while they can still become quite heated, do not have the poisonous quality that they did when Schroeder and Chirac were around; that's got to be good for everyone.
Wolfgang Munchau from Belgium
Thursday, 14-02-08 08:44
David,
I think you have a point about b). It is important that this toxic anti-American, anti-British sentiment has to stop in France. I would give Sarkozy some Brownie points for that.
As far as a) is concerned: I don't mind that he is entertaining at all. The trouble is being entertaining has become an end in itself.
