By Guillaume Allègre and Xavier Timbeau

In his book Capital in the 21st Century, Thomas Piketty offers a critical analysis of the dynamics of capital accumulation. The book is at the level of its very high ambitions: it addresses a crucial issue, it draws on a very substantial statistical effort that sheds new light on the dynamics of distribution, and it advances public policy proposals. Thomas Piketty combines the approach of the great classical authors (Smith, Ricardo, Marx, Walras) with impressive empirical work that was inaccessible to his illustrious predecessors.

Thomas Piketty shows the mechanisms pushing towards a convergence or divergence in the distribution of wealth and highlights how the strength of divergence is generally underestimated: if the return on capital (r) is higher than economic growth (g), which historically has almost always been the case, then it is almost inevitable that inherited wealth will dominate built-up wealth, and the concentration of capital will reach extremely high levels: “The entrepreneur inevitably tends to become a rentier , more and more dominant over those who own nothing but their labour. Once constituted, capital reproduces itself faster than output increases. The past devours the future.”

The book thus seeks the basis for inequality in macroeconomics (r> g), whereas the usual suspects are found at the microeconomic level. In OFCE Working document no. 2014-06 [in French], we argue that this macro-foundation for inequality is not convincing and that the same facts can be interpreted using a different causality, in which inequality arises from the operation of (imperfect) markets, scarcity rents and the establishment of property rights. It is not r>g that turns entrepreneurs into rentiers, but the establishment of mechanisms that allow the extraction of a perpetual rent that explains the historical constancy of r>g.

This different interpretation of the same phenomena has consequences for public policy. The ex post taxation of capital, where necessary, can only be a second-level choice: first the constraints of scarcity have to be removed and the definition of property rights and the rights of owners and non-owners must be defined. Are landlords going to be free to charge any rent they like? Can they limit other construction around their property? How much protection is labour law going to give workers? To what extent can they influence managerial decisions within the company? In our opinion it is the answers to these questions that determine the relationship between economic growth and the return on capital, as well as capital’s weight in the economy. The point is to prevent owners of capital from exploiting a favourable balance of power. In this respect, while its shape has changed, capital in the twenty-first century is much like it was in the late nineteenth century. Dealing with it will require more than a tax on capital.

For more information, see: “La critique du capital au XXI^e siècle : à la recherche des fondements macroéconomiques des inégalités”, Document de travail de l’OFCE, n°2014-06.

By Guillaume Allègre, @g_allegre

The Responsibility Pact, the CICE competitiveness tax break, reductions on social security charges … is it possible to reduce the evaluation of such measures to the cost in euros of each job created? While such an assessment is obviously important, the final figure is often subject to misinterpretation or misuse in the public debate, sometimes in perfectly good faith. For some commentators, a very high cost per job created, generally higher than the average real cost of a public (or private) job, represents a waste of public money that would be better used elsewhere, for nurseries, education or the national police.

This kind of logic is based on a misinterpretation of the billions involved. To understand this, let’s do the following thought experiment: take two tax measures, A and B, which are intended to reduce the cost of labour in order to generate jobs. Measure A creates 200,000 jobs and costs the State and government ex post (that is to say, after taking into account the jobs created and interaction with the social security and tax systems) 20 billion and 1 euros. The cost per job created is thus 100,000 euros, which seems excessive. Measure B creates 180,000 jobs and has an ex post cost of 20 billion euros, 111,111 euros per job, which is even worse. At first glance, there’s no point in implementing either Measure A or B: the cost per job created is far too great. Now, suppose it is also possible to enact Measure –A or –B which, conversely to A and B, push up the cost of labour (through higher payroll taxes) with symmetrical effects on employment. Suppose also that the impact on employment and the cost are additive when two measures are implemented at the same time. It now seems clear that we should implement [A–B][1]: reducing the cost of labour by A and increasing it by –B would create 20,000 jobs for a cost of 1 euro, or 0.00005 euros per job created! The ratio of the cost of a job created between Measure A and Measure [A–B] is 2 billion to 1 (= 100,000/0.00005)! Someone not paying attention might then say: Measure A must certainly not be implemented.

Since Ricardo, economists have known that it is often the relative advantages that count and not the absolute advantages: alone, A is not of much interest, but combined with –B it is very powerful, just as in poker a 2 of Hearts in a hand does not have the same value when it is with Jacks as when it is with the 2s of Spades, Clubs and Diamonds. Economic policy measures cannot be evaluated in isolation: they must be evaluated in their interaction with all the instruments that have already been implemented or are simply there.

In addition to the failure to take into account macroeconomic dynamics and the financing, another limitation of reasoning in terms of cost per job created is that it does not always consider the questions: who pays the bill, and who gets what? Expenditures by the State (for childcare, education or the national police) are not equivalent to tax expenditures: if they are funded, the former reduce the disposable income of households, while the latter do not (they are a transfer between households, between businesses or between households and businesses). As a consequence, it is misleading to compare the two types of expenditure only in terms of jobs created. In effect, the jobs created are simply an indirect consequence of a tax expenditure (the direct effect is the transfer from the State to households and businesses); if the measure is funded, as in [A–B], the jobs created are a second-order effect related to the different behavioural responses to A and –B. In contrast, a structural increase in government spending (and therefore in the tax burden) has the first-order effect of increasing the consumption of public goods and reducing the consumption of private goods. If you reason only in terms of jobs, there is a risk of ending up with full employment but in a completely socialized economy. To evaluate this type of transfer, parameters other than job creation also need to be considered. In particular it is necessary to take into account well-being (what is the utility of nurseries or spending on education and national police versus private spending?) and incentive effects (what is the effect of higher social contributions on economic incentives to meet consumer needs?). It is also necessary to think in terms of the tax burden. [A–B] can create jobs only by organizing transfers within households and / or businesses. The relevant questions are therefore: who are the ex post winners and losers (taking into account the jobs created and changes in prices and wages)? Do these transfers reduce or increase inequality? Do they violate horizontal equity (equal taxation on equal abilities to pay)? Are they likely to affect long-term growth (via the structure of employment, capital-labour substitution, etc.)?

By Christophe Blot

Article 127 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), i.e. former Article 105 of the Maastricht Treaty, states clearly that “the primary objective of the European System of Central Banks … shall be to maintain price stability”. However, no precise quantification of this goal is given in the Treaty. The European Central Bank has interpreted this by stating that it would target inflation that is below, but close to, 2% over the medium term. Furthermore, Article 127 of the TFEU adds that, “without prejudice to the objective of price stability , the [European System of Central Banks ] shall support the general economic policies in the Union, as laid down in Article 3 …”, which includes in particular the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, full employment and social progress. It is therefore clear that the goal of growth and employment is not abandoned but subordinated to the goal of price stability. Starting from this review of the definition of the ECB’s objectives, what conclusion can we draw on the orientation of monetary policy in the euro zone?

Since the end of 2013, a few signs of economic recovery have appeared in the euro zone. Initial estimates of growth in the fourth quarter of 2013 have confirmed that the recession is ending, with GDP up 0.3%. Nevertheless, the economy is still in poor health. As proof, simply recall that 12% of the labour force is currently unemployed, which is the highest level since 1993 (see chart). Growth is expected to accelerate in 2014 and 2015. According to the ECB forecasts announced in March 2014, growth will hit 1.2% in 2014 and 1.5% in 2015, a pace that is still insufficient to lead to a rapid or significant reduction in the unemployment rate. In addition, since the end of 2013 inflation has dropped below the threshold of 1% and is coming dangerously close to a point where deflation is a risk. Furthermore, still according to the ECB forecasts, inflation should not exceed 1.0% in 2014, before pushing up to 1.3% in 2015 and 1.5% in 2016. It is in any case far from the mid-term target of 2%. The objective of price stability as defined by the ECB will therefore not be met. At his press conference in March, Mario Draghi announced that the maintenance of the ECB key interest rate [1] at 0.25% and the absence of additional (so-called unconventional) measures could stimulate the euro zone. The status quo was justified by the absence of signs of a more rapid fall in inflation. By taking this stand, the ECB President is indicating that he is satisfied with a situation where inflation remains permanently below the 2% level and where the euro zone is marked by persistent mass unemployment. Are we therefore supposed to reinterpret the definition of price stability invoked by the ECB and accept that the term below is more important in the eyes of the members of the ECB Governing Council than the term close to 2%? The answer to this question is obviously not neutral, since it would reflect a certain asymmetry in the central bank’s reaction to inflation, with the ECB reacting more quickly when inflation exceeds 2% than when it falls below 2%, including over the forecast horizon of its own team. But however its main objective is interpreted, the fact remains that the risk to price stability is not currently a barrier to the implementation of a more expansionary monetary policy. In these conditions, the ECB has all the room it needs to be actively concerned about its other objectives, including first of all growth and unemployment.

So what tools does the ECB have available, knowing that with the benchmark rate at 0.25% it has only very limited manoeuvring room for a downward adjustment? The ECB must therefore use other levers. Communication by the central banks has played an increasing role in the implementation of monetary policy, as this can be used to influence agents’ expectations and hence the impact of decisions on inflation and growth. In this respect, the central bank has recently (July 2013) engaged in what is called forward guidance by stating that the key rate will be maintained at a low level for an extended period [2]. The ECB could go further by conditioning a hike in the key interest rate on a target unemployment rate, as both the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve have done; this would give added substance to its objectives on employment and growth. In addition, unconventional measures could be used to strengthen the expansionary character of monetary policy. This mainly means measures that alter the size or composition of the central bank’s balance sheet, which would supplement the role of the reduction in short-term rates in influencing financing conditions. A recent report by France’s Council of Economic Analysis (see here) points in this direction, and in particular proposes that the ECB should purchase securitized small and medium enterprises’ (SME) loans in order to reduce the cost of business financing. The Outright monetary transactions (OMT) programme [3] could have been activated to support the reduction in long-term sovereign rates. The announcement of this measure did indeed contribute to lowering long-term sovereign rates in Spain and Italy, in particular because it sent a signal that the risk of collapse of the euro zone was being averted. Up to now, the ECB has not intervened in the markets to buy government securities. Yet given its unlimited capacity for intervention, doing this would help to reduce long-term rates. Note, however, that the OMT programme is currently being challenged by Germany’s Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe, which has questioned the programme’s constitutionality, with the case being referred to the European Court of Justice. A rejection or restriction of the ECB’s actions in this matter would be unfortunate. The ECB’s scope for intervention does of course need to be clarified. But it is also essential to retain the objectives of price stability and growth. The judges in Germany and at the European Court of Justice would be well advised to keep this in mind.

By Sandrine Levasseur

Under the excessive deficit procedure that Croatia has been subject to since 28 January 2014, the country’s government has been obliged to revise its projected budget for the forthcoming three years, which is the timeframe that has been set for putting its finances into “good order”, with “good order” being understood to mean a public deficit that does not exceed 3% of GDP. This new budget is being fixed in adverse economic conditions, as the government’s forecast of GDP growth for 2014 has been revised downward from 1.3% to a tiny 0.2%.

Paradoxically, the new budget could help prolong the recession in the country rather than help it recover, at least in 2014. This paradox is especially worth noting since this is also the opinion of those for whom the Croatian government is making this adjustment: first of all, the rating agencies, and second, the international institutions (or at least the IMF, as the European Commission has to keep quiet on the matter). In fact, a simple glance at the revised budget is enough to see that the fiscal adjustment being proposed by the Croatian government will not have an expansionary impact on GDP. For example, the budget provides for a hike in tax revenues, in particular through an increase in the rate of health insurance contributions from 13% to 15%.But this will also result in undermining the international competitiveness of the country’s businesses, which have already been hit hard.

The wages and bonuses of civil servants will fall (by about 6%) so as to give the public finances some breathing room. But these cuts in civil servant salaries will not help perk up domestic demand, which has been anaemic due to the adjustments consumers and businesses have made in their balance sheets. To take the latest example, to help bail out the state finances the profits of state enterprises will not be reinvested in the economy. However, the country is thereby depriving itself of a source of growth since, because of their weight in the economy, these enterprises account for a large share of productive investment.

There is no doubt that Croatia’s public finances need to be cleaned up. However, the horizon for the fiscal consolidation decided on by the Croatian government seems to us extremely “short-termist”, as it doesn’t call into question the existing model of growth or seek sources of sustainable growth. A few weeks ago, in an OFCE note we discussed the impact alternative fiscal adjustments would have on growth and the public finances. In the specific case of Croatia, the government cannot avoid the need to consider doing the following: restructuring the productive apparatus (including through privatization and concessions); improving the system of tax collection; and, more broadly, implementing an anti-corruption policy to improve the country’s “business climate”. In the meantime, in large part due to the fiscal decisions being taken, 2014 is likely to wind up as the sixth year in a row Croatia has been in recession. The IMF forecasts, which anticipate that the recessionary impact of the fiscal consolidation will be greater than that projected by the Croatian government, is expecting GDP to fall by about 0.5% to 1% in 2014. In total, the decline in GDP since 2009 will therefore come to between 11.6% and 12.5%. It’s not exactly the stuff of dreams….

By Bruno Ducoudré and Eric Heyer

Every quarter, the INSEE publishes the unemployment rate as defined by the International Labour Office (ILO): for the fourth quarter of 2013, it fell 0.1 point in France, meaning 41,000 fewer unemployed. Likewise, every month the number of jobseekers registered with the Pôle Emploi job centre is reported: during the fourth quarter of 2013, this source indicated that the number of registered jobseekers in category A rose by 23,000. In one case unemployment is down, in the other it is up – this does not lead to a clear diagnosis about where unemployment is heading at year end.

What explains the difference in diagnosis between the INSEE and Pôle emploi?

Besides differences related to methodology (an employment survey for the ILO, an administrative source for Pôle emploi), it should not be forgotten that, according to the ILO, a person must meet three conditions to be counted as unemployed: being unemployed, being available for work and performing an active job search. Simply being registered at Pôle emploi is not sufficient to fulfil this last condition. So people registered as category A at Pôle emploi who are not actively seeking work are not counted as unemployed according to the ILO. The ILO criteria are thus more restrictive. Historically, for those aged 25 and over, the number of unemployed registered at Pôle emploi is greater than the number according to the ILO criteria. For those under age 25, registering with Pôle emploi [1] is in general not as worthwhile, except during a period of active social treatment of unemployment, as was the case during the last quarter of 2013: people who wanted to benefit from a subsidized job had to be registered at the job centre.

As shown in Table 1, regardless of the age group, the situation seems less favourable using the Pôle emploi figures than according to the ILO criteria: when confronted with more than 2 years of unemployment, a certain number of discouraged jobseekers stop their active job search and are thus no longer recognized as such within the meaning of the ILO, yet continue to update their status at the job centre, and therefore remain listed in Category A.

Is the reduction in the unemployment rate calculated by ILO criteria good news?

The unemployment rate can fall for two reasons: the first one, virtuous in nature, is as a result of escaping unemployment due to improvements in the labour market; the second, less encouraging, is due to jobless people becoming discouraged and drifting into inactivity. The latest statistics from the ILO emphasize that the 0.1 point fall in the unemployment rate can be explained in full by the fall in the participation rate – which measures the percentage of the work force in the population aged 15 to 64 – and not by a resumption of employment that has remained stable. The decline in the unemployment rate is thus not due to a recovery in employment, but to discouraged jobless people who quit actively seeking employment (Table 2).

Looking more closely, the employment policy pursued by the government – “jobs for the future”, CUI “unique integration contracts” – has had a positive impact on youth employment; the employment rate rose by 0.3 percentage point during the last quarter of 2013. Among seniors, the employment rate is still continuing to rise (+0.2 percentage point) due to the decline in the actual age of retirement. ILO-defined unemployment is of course falling among seniors, but the sharp rise in enrolment at the job centre in this age group (Table 1) undoubtedly reflects a change in their job search behaviour: more and more seniors are no longer looking for work. They are now included in the “halo” of unemployment, which is continuing to rise.

Ultimately, the fall in the ILO-defined unemployment rate, which is characterized by the absence of a recovery in employment and the discouragement of jobseekers, is not such good news.

[1] To have the right to unemployment compensation and receive assistance for a return to work, it is necessary to prove a 122 day contribution period or 610 hours of work during the 28 months preceding the end of the job contract.

By Christophe Blot

Since 2008, monetary policy has been in the forefront of efforts to preserve financial stability and stem the economic crisis. Though the Great Recession was not avoided, the lessons of the crisis of the 1930s were learned. The central banks quickly cut short-term interest rates and have kept them at a level close to zero, while developing new monetary policy instruments. These so-called unconventional measures led to an increase in the size of balance sheets, which exceed 20% of GDP in the United States, the United Kingdom and the euro zone and 45% in Japan. Among the range of measures employed was the central banks’ purchase of public debt. The goal was to lower long-term interest rates, either by signalling that monetary policy will remain expansionary for an extended period, or by modifying the composition of the asset portfolios held by private agents. However, the Federal Reserve recently announced that it would gradually reduce its interventions (see here), which could cause a rapid rise in interest rates like that seen in May 2013 (Figure 1) upon the previous announcement of this type. In a context of high public debt, interest rate dynamics are crucial. The central banks need to take into account the enhanced interaction between monetary and fiscal policy by coordinating their decisions with those taken ​​by governments.

In normal times [1], monetary and fiscal policy pursue common goals, foremost among them macroeconomic stability. There are therefore interactions between the decisions taken by the two authorities. A tightening of monetary policy via an increase in interest rates could for instance counteract a fiscal expansion, and vice versa. It is thus necessary to coordinate economic policy in order to ensure the best macroeconomic balance. The implementation of unconventional monetary policy measures enhances these interactions. The adoption of unconventional measures has led central banks to buy government debt, to such an extent that, with the exception of the ECB, these banks hold a significant portion of the outstanding debt (Figure 2). In doing this, their operations are interfering with the management of debt, which is usually vested in the Treasury. The link between monetary policy and debt management is not new, though it receded as central banks became independent institutions with a primary objective of price stability, which they seek to achieve exclusively by changing the key interest rate. Goodhart [2] (2010) clarifies that this role was historically devolved on them. Nevertheless, the objectives of the central bank and of the agency responsible for issuing public debt may be contradictory (Blommestein and Turner [3], 2012), as the Treasury seeks to minimize the cost of debt service, regardless of the macroeconomic impact of its decisions. Two additional interactions can emerge. On the one hand, the government may partially counteract the central bank’s actions on long-term rates by seeking to profit from their decline through additional issues on the maturities targeted by monetary transactions. The excess demand is then partially absorbed by an additional supply for a given maturity. This is what has happened in the United States, as the average maturity of the debt rose from 48.5 months in October 2008 to 64 months in May 2012. Recent work by Chadha, Turner and Zampolli [4] (2013) suggests that this policy of managing the maturity of the public debt supply has a significant impact on interest rates. The minutes of the US Treasury meeting on 2 November 2010 illustrate the potential conflict between objectives: “It was pointed out by members of the Committee that the Fed and the Treasury are independent institutions, with two different mandates that might sometimes appear to be in conflict.  Members agreed that Treasury should adhere to its mandate of assuring the lowest cost of borrowing ….  A couple [of] members noted that the Fed was essentially a ‘large investor’ in Treasuries and that the Fed’s behavior was probably transitory. As a result, Treasury should not modify its regular and predictable issuance paradigm to accommodate a single large investor.”

On the other hand, the reduction in the portfolio of government securities held by the central bank should lead to higher long-term rates. This is in any case what is suggested by some of the recent literature on the impact of unconventional monetary policies. The dynamics of bond yields observed in May 2013 (Figure 1), the first time that the markets anticipated [5] a steady decline in purchases by the Federal Reserve, shows that the increase may be rapid and cause high volatility on the financial markets. The explanation for this increase may be related to the end of or the unwinding of arbitrage operations carried out ​​by investors who took advantage of low long-term interest rates in the industrialized countries in order to take on debt and seek more profitable investments in other markets, in particular the emerging markets. The consequences of such a scenario must be taken into account by the central banks. If the conduct of monetary policy involves making fewer central bank interventions, then the impact on debt service of this pull-back needs to be factored in. Despite the process of public debt reduction, government financing needs will stay high, and additional refinancing costs due to higher interest rates could lead States to strengthen fiscal consolidation, which would have adverse effects on economic activity. Conversely, the maintenance of low interest rates could greatly contribute to facilitating fiscal adjustment by allowing low-cost refinancing and by giving a stimulus to the economy, thereby reducing the recessionary impact of the fiscal adjustment.

Due to the nature of these interactions, to a macroeconomic context marked by a high level of public debt, and to the risk of financial instability, it is essential to coordinate monetary and fiscal policy. This necessity is illustrated perfectly in the case of the United States in an observation by James Tobin quoted by Turner[6] (2011): “The Federal Reserve cannot make rational decisions of monetary policy without knowing what kind of debt the Treasury intends to issue. The Treasury cannot rationally determine the maturity structure of the interest-bearing debt without knowing how much debt the Federal Reserve intends to monetize.”

In Europe’s case, this seems to be a second-order question, since the ECB has a small portfolio of assets (Figure 2). While taking note that this portfolio is concentrated on bonds issued by certain countries (Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Greek and Irish), whose public debt represents 42% of euro zone debt, the outstanding debt held by the ECB comes to 5% when considering only the countries in crisis. It’s regrettable that the ECB has not taken a more active monetary policy, which would have made it possible to effect a major uniform reduction in interest rates in all the euro zone countries, which would have helped to reduce the need for fiscal consolidation and mitigate its negative effects.

[1] Here the expression “in normal times” refers to the fact that the conduct of monetary policy is usually characterized by decisions taken by the central banks on the key interest rate, which is a short-term rate. During the crisis, the central banks set this key rate at a very low level, near to the zero lower bound, and so turned to new measures to strengthen the expansionary character of monetary policy.

[2] See “The changing role of central banks”, BIS Working Paper no. 326, November.

[3] See “Interactions between sovereign debt management and monetary policy under fiscal dominance and financial instability”, OECD Working Paper no. 3.

[4] See “The interest rate effects of government debt maturity”, BIS Working Paper no. 415, June.

[5] These expectations were initially fuelled by the improving jobs situation in the United States and then by Ben Bernanke’s statement confirming a possible pull-back by the Federal Reserve. These elements are described in more detail by the BIS in its Quarterly Review, September 2013.

[6] See  “Fiscal dominance and the long-term interest rate”, 2011, Financial markets group special paper series 199, May.

By Xavier Timbeau, @XTimbeau, OFCE

The original French text was published in the “Rebonds” section of the newspaper Libération on 28 February 2014.

Is the policy supply-side or demand-side? This debate takes us back decades to a time when the advocates of supply-side policy, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, wanted to put Keynesian practices into the closet. With respect to the responsibility pact, the debate is moot. There is a clear diagnosis that companies are suffering from such low margin rates that their very survival is threatened. The losses of market share since the 2000s cannot be explained solely by the transition to a post-industrial society. It is thus a priority to boost corporate margins by whatever means necessary. But the restoration of business margins will not be sufficient to put them back on a path of increasing productivity, ensuring their competitiveness in the medium term. Getting back on this path will require numerous reforms, ranging from a better education system to a stable tax system that is as neutral as possible, while making use of the impact of agglomeration and specialization. Coordinating everyone’s projects around a comprehensive strategy to make the energy transition is also a powerful instrument. But the responsibility pact remains silent on this.

To be clear, the responsibility pact aims to improve the situation of business, which could partially offset the decline in activity resulting from the 2008 crisis and the French economy’s loss of competitiveness relative to its partners undergoing deflation (including Spain) or due to a rise in the euro. In so far as the pact is financed by taxes or spending cuts, this will constitute a tax depreciation, which will make consumers, employees and those on social benefits pay for the reduction in business costs. When the decrease in the cost of doing business is more focused on lower wages, then we can expect the creation of something like 130,000 jobs in five years, taking into account the financing (see for example the article by Heyer and Plane in the revue de l’OFCE no. 126).  The counterparties, the support of the trade unions and the MEDEF employer association and the general mobilization around a shared bleak diagnosis, will not lead to the revolution that some expect, but it is part of the solution.

A fiscal devaluation at a time when the countries of southern Europe are flirting with deflation and everyone is chasing after a balanced current account, including by curbing domestic demand, will of course not lead the euro zone out of crisis, but instead keep it in prolonged stagnation. Fiscal devaluation is not the right policy for Europe. But so long as Europe has no path other than mass suicide, then fiscal devaluation is the logical response for France.

130,000 jobs will not be sufficient to reverse the trend in unemployment. In the face of the more than one million additional unemployed since 2008, it is downright derisory. But the responsibility pact could be something other than a fiscal devaluation. The obligation of a result, namely to reduce unemployment, does not leave much choice. For the responsibility pact to be accompanied by a significant reduction in unemployment, the key is not to finance it. The proposal to be made to our partners consists of laxity on our public deficit trajectory in exchange for reforms that everyone would consider structural. Public spending cuts, favourable taxation of business, the prioritization of competitiveness, are all measures that can generate some manoeuvring room.

France has made a commitment to Brussels to reduce its structural deficit by 50 billion euros. If this fiscal effort is made by 2017, almost 1 point of growth will be lopped off every year, and unemployment will virtually not decline at all by 2017. In fact, only the public deficit would be reduced, to 1.2 percent of GDP; this would open up very favourable prospects after 2017, since the public debt will fall without further budgetary cuts and therefore without hindering the decline in unemployment. It’s a comfortable scenario for François Hollande’s successor, assuming there is one, as they can even use the situation to lower taxes for the rich. With a combination of lower taxes, lower unemployment and a declining public debt, it will look like a “magician” has succeeded an “incompetent”.

On the other hand, using the flexibility offered by the 50 billion euros, that is to say, renouncing the 50 billion goal for structural deficit reduction, would yield a very different result. Simulations at the OFCE indicate that unemployment could be cut by nearly 2 points by 2017. Admittedly, the structural deficit would remain unchanged, but the public deficit, what we see, would be on a downward trajectory: in 2017, it would come to just over 2 GDP points (against 4.2 points at end 2013), bringing the public debt into the region of a reduction in the debt-to-GDP ratio. The situation on the eve of the presidential election would be better, and the voting more open.

To develop this manoeuvring room, our partners (and the European Commission) need to be convinced of just how drastic the situation is. The results of the European elections are likely to remind them and make the obligation of a result clear to all.

Reagan had a great ability to look towards fiscal policy for the motor of his supply-side policy. He thus created the myth that lowering taxes on the rich is good for growth, with consequences for inequality that we are still seeing today. Thatcher believed until the end that reducing the public debt was the right policy. This merely prepared the ground for Tony Blair a few years later. This is the way that political cycles are made, based on results. In the same way, we are responsible for the long-term consequences of the choices we make today.