Higher participation in the labour market in France is imo desirable and feasible, particularly at the older end of the population where the retirement age at 60 could be, simply, I think, made more flexible. The problem is the now-ingrained habit of employers of not hiring anyone over fifty. It would take quite a shake-up in the "culture of enterprise" to change that.
As to maintaining a high standard of living in the face of rising commodity prices (and/or a technology gap), that's not only France's problem, and I don't believe in the neolib remedies promised by US/UK "success". Those very rising prices bring us four-square up against choices that imply, on the one hand, demand destruction, on another, innovation, and on the third (we have three hands round here), strategic programmes in renewables and energy efficiency that can provide new sources of stable jobs. There's anyway an assumption in "high standard of living" that makes me want to say, let's have sustainable living, ecologically and socially, and a great deal of that depends more on redistribution than on riding the growth tiger.
I don't entirely agree with your take on what Sarkozy's election means. He won by a clear margin but no landslide, and the demographic that gave him the victory was the over-65s. He won, in fact, by his hard-right discourse pulling over Front National voters. Right now it's a toss-up what the French think about the "necessity" for "reforms". What two of us here (Jerome a Paris and I) think of the question can be gathered here.
I think you're quite right to point out that France (not alone among "continental" countries) has a number of fairly solid advantages -- which is no reason for complacency, but, as you say, for "building on". When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind
That is not to say, however, that France's "dirigiste" model doesn't require some adjustment to be as successful in the future, particularly in the context of globalisation, European integration, and the seemingly widening disconnect (or class division) between state functionnaires and the majority of French citizens who do not enjoy the same level of acquired rights.
It is interesting that the very people who could be targeted by Sarkozy "reform" of retirement ages (the older age groups) also supported him disproportionately. Perhaps many actually want the choice/option to work. Perhaps they are just worried that their benefits will be diluted by the sheer scale of the expansion of the retired population (the I'm safely retired syndrome - but that doesn't mean I want everyone after me to share the same benefits!). notes from no w here
the seemingly widening disconnect (or class division) between state functionnaires and the majority of French citizens who do not enjoy the same level of acquired rights.
You mean, the fact that functionnaires have not seen their wages increase in the past 5-6 years, as opposed to private sector workers? The fact that their wage levels, for equal education levels, are significantly below that of the private sector (and look good overall only because of the large proportion of teachers, which are better paid than the average, but much less paid than the average university graduate is).
And, of course, the way to breach the supposed 'disconnect' is to take away rights for those that have them, rather than give the same to the others?
Sarkozy got is majority with the above -65s, ie people that will never be impacted by his supposed "reforms." And he was elected because he played the Le Pen immigrant-bashing card shamelessly, with the results we see today. He was ministry of the interior for most of the past 5 years under Chirac, and he was the n°2 of these governments - he is fully responsible for what's been happening lately in the cités, and the rise of crime that he's been riding on. But nobody cares to point that out. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Similarly, the perception that the difference in treatment between public sector (20%) and private-sector (80%) workers poses a vital problem that needs to be tackled as a priority, has been fostered by the media (in French too). It's in fact a handy angle of attack for Sarko because it's easy to be confrontational about, and to get public opinion riled up about. So, he has repeated the mantra that he will not give in over the change from 37.5 years of pension contributions to 40 (private sector and most public sector). Of course, most people don't disagree. But the point for him is not to settle a problem (concerning a tiny proportion of the working population, in fact), but to establish his image as a tough reformer. He uses it to surf on.
What matters is what follows. I just watched the head of the French bosses' union, the MEDEF, Laurence Parisot, in a TV interview. It now seems established (to hear the journalists and Mme Parisot), that the 35-hour working week is going to be abolished. But hardly had Mme Parisot explained that it was much more reasonable to fix working hours in internal negotiations, enterprise by enterprise*, that she was saying that French businesses could not go on staggering under the weight of "contributions to this social system that costs so much". This is what "reform" means in the minds of these people: to do away with the "social economy" and install an Anglo-American type of neolib free-market economy.
These are the real stakes. The public-private sectors debate is a sideshow. And, though I don't see why there should not be a fairly-negotiated review of certain pension schemes (for example), I object to the way that has been whipped up into a major essential problem. And so I come down on the strikers' side.
* Given the small size of many French businesses, that means the boss will decide without negotiation.
When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind
