What is your takeaway from Prime Minister Michel Barnier's general policy speech in front of the National Assembly?

At this stage, there is little to retain. One positive point, in principle, is the reduction in state spending. Why not raise taxes if it is very targeted and limited in time (with firm commitments in this area). For the rest, in terms of budgeting, "the devil is (always) in the details." So, let's wait for precise measures as soon as possible (and in many areas, action can be taken within the existing legislative framework). "Let’s give the product a chance..." But for a very limited time!

The French economy is very fragile. The new Minister of Finance, Antoine Armand, has a lot on his plate! How do you see its development by the end of this year and into 2025? Is the budgetary and financial issue central to this evolution? … Michel Barnier has announced a return to the regulatory "3%" by 2029!
French politics may be unstable, but I don’t think the economy is. We need to keep perspective. When looking at the fundamentals, we can certainly detect many elements of fragility, particularly in the financial domain (this is true for the public deficit, debt, etc.), but there are also many reasons for hope. Just two examples: in terms of employment, France is in a situation it hasn't seen for at least two decades; during this period, unemployment has never been this low (although improvements are still needed). And in terms of attractiveness, our country remains the most desirable among European nations. Despite its handicaps, notably in terms of over-regulation, the quality of its workforce and, perhaps even more so, its infrastructure (railways, roads, logistics, telecommunications, etc.) make a clear difference between our country and its main competitors. At the risk of being criticized by many economists, I don't think debt (public or national) is the main concern today. Just look at the interest rates on French debt. International institutional investors are fond of our bonds. The main concern today is investment: if investment falters, our outlook will darken significantly. Let us recall here the famous equation of Helmut Schmidt, German Chancellor from 1974 to 1982: "Today's profits are tomorrow's investments and the jobs of the day after tomorrow."

Is there an issue with purchasing power while we talk about taxing the French even more? Should we implement a demand-side economic policy? Continue with a supply-side approach?

There is undoubtedly a problem with purchasing power in France. Recent elections have shown the importance of this issue for millions of French people. But choices must be made: you can't have your cake and eat it too! You can’t have both a supply-side policy and a demand-side policy at the same time. From this perspective, we must abandon populist measures like increasing the minimum wage, a symbolic and media-driven measure that destroys jobs and exacerbates inequalities. This doesn’t mean doing nothing. We must improve the purchasing power of the most disadvantaged, especially the most vulnerable. To do this, we must turn away from measures that are generous but also excessively costly. We must prioritize targeted measures. No more ready-to-wear solutions; it's time for haute couture. And priority number one must remain investment, hence supply-side measures.

Are tax cuts for businesses a burden on the budget? Or a vector for future growth and jobs?

It may seem paradoxical, but the answer is "yes" to both questions. In this domain, even more than in others, the key word must be selectivity. Just like cholesterol, there are good and bad tax cuts, and there are good and less good investments. Among the good tax cuts are those that promote business competitiveness, and among the less good investments are those that don't sufficiently incorporate technological breakthroughs. Absolute priority should therefore be given to evaluating the effects of any economic policy, which is not being done seriously today. This was the primary mission of the now-defunct General Planning Commission, a beacon of the "Trente Glorieuses" (the thirty post-war economic boom years), a mission that has been completely sidetracked.

Germany is accused of not using its budget surpluses to boost economic activity in Europe. Is this a real debate?

The answer is "yes." What needs to be understood, and what is largely underestimated, is that despite its budget surplus, Germany is in crisis, and even a severe one. This crisis is primarily demographic. This explains the massive immigration policy initiated by Angela Merkel, which has greatly contributed to the rise of the far right. But the German crisis is also, and above all, a crisis of its economic model, one that heavily relies on the export of intermediate goods (in simple terms, machinery), which are increasingly being competed with by emerging countries whose industries are moving upmarket. Hence the current necessity to strengthen the Franco-German axis, even though this theme is, to say the least, not in vogue... In the same spirit, we must return to a two-speed Europe, with a core group of 5 to 6 countries advancing without having to ask for permission from "peripheral" countries. Therefore, the principle of unanimity in decision-making must be questioned (just as, in another domain, the Schengen agreements in their current form, with the absurd Dublin Regulation making the country of first arrival solely responsible for migrants, must be reconsidered).

Europe is facing an "existential challenge" today; without major changes, Europe is condemned to "slow agony." These remarks by Mario Draghi, former President of the European Central Bank, have made an impression. Do you share this alarming view?

Although I’m not from Normandy, my answer is both "yes" and "no." "Yes," because Europe has not fully grasped the challenges it faces, particularly in the field of technology. And "no," because Europe has the capital and human resources to meet these challenges. As always, what’s missing is political will. As noted in the recent Draghi report, of the 50 largest tech companies in terms of market capitalization, only four are European. This is a tragedy. To meet this challenge, we must invest 700 billion euros annually over the next decade, much more than the Marshall Plan after World War II. Hence the need and urgency to launch one or more European loans, as Europe did during the COVID crisis. This is far removed from the anti-European complaints of extremists whose creed is a denial of reality. It's up to us — governments and citizens alike — to step up and at least assert our determination...

You speak of "launching European loans"... The Prime Minister wants to redirect savings towards an industrial fund... The report by former Governor of the Bank of France Christian Noyer proposes reviving the idea of a European long-term savings product... Would this mean redirecting life insurance in France, for example?

The idea of the Noyer report is primarily to direct French savings toward long-term investments. It’s not about siphoning off life insurance, which already invests long-term, but rather expanding the "pocket" of this type of investment. The French save a lot but are hesitant to invest in the long term. This explains the success of the Livret A. We must therefore encourage them to take (very limited) risks to promote long-term investment.

(*) Professor of Economics at Paris VIII. Latest published work: "From an Economy of Abundance to an Economy of Scarcity" with Patrick Artus. Editions Odile Jacob.