Paying the price for facing down austerity scolds

Punishment of France reflects ideological agenda, writes Paul Krugman

Olli Rehn: Two months ago, Europe’s commissioner for economic and monetary affairs  dismissed France’s seemingly exemplary fiscal policy. Photograph: David Sleator/The Irish Times

Olli Rehn: Two months ago, Europe’s commissioner for economic and monetary affairs dismissed France’s seemingly exemplary fiscal policy. Photograph: David Sleator/The Irish Times


On Friday, Standard & Poor’s downgraded France. The move made headlines, with many reports suggesting that France is in crisis. But markets yawned: French borrowing costs, which are near historic lows, barely budged.

So what’s going on here? The answer is that S&P’s action needs to be seen in the context of the broader politics of fiscal austerity. And I do mean politics, not economics. For the plot against France is one clear demonstration that in Europe, as in America, fiscal scolds don’t care about deficits. Instead, they’re using debt fears to advance an ideological agenda. And France, which refuses to play along, has become the target of incessant negative propaganda.

Let me give you an idea of what we’re talking about. A year ago the magazine the Economist declared France “the time bomb at the heart of Europe,” with problems that could dwarf those of Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy. In January 2013, CNN Money’s senior editor-at-large declared France in “free fall,” a nation “heading toward an economic Bastille”. Similar sentiments can be found all over economic newsletters.

Given such rhetoric, one comes to French data expecting to see the worst. What you find instead is a country experiencing economic difficulties – who isn’t? – but in general performing as well as or better than most of its neighbours, with the admittedly big exception of Germany.

Recent French growth has been sluggish, but much better than that of, say, the Netherlands, which is still rated AAA. According to estimates, French workers were actually a bit more productive than their German counterparts a dozen years ago – and guess what, they still are.

Meanwhile, French fiscal prospects look distinctly non-alarming. The budget deficit has fallen sharply since 2010, and the International Monetary Fund expects the ratio of debt to GDP to be roughly stable over the next five years.

What about the longer-run burden of an ageing population? This is a problem in France, as it is in all wealthy nations. But France has a higher birthrate than most of Europe – in part because of government programmes that encourage births and ease the lives of working mothers – so that its demographic projections are much better than those of its neighbours, Germany included. Meanwhile, France’s remarkable healthcare system, which delivers high quality at low cost, is going to be a big fiscal advantage looking forward.

By the numbers, then, it’s hard to see why France deserves any particular opprobrium. So again, what’s going on?

Here’s a clue: Two months ago Olli Rehn, Europe’s commissioner for economic and monetary affairs – and one of the prime movers behind harsh austerity policies – dismissed France’s seemingly exemplary fiscal policy. Why? Because it was based on tax increases rather than spending cuts – and tax hikes, he declared, would “destroy growth and handicap the creation of jobs”.

In other words, never mind what I said about fiscal discipline, you’re supposed to be dismantling the safety net.

S&P’s explanation of its downgrade, though less clearly stated, amounted to the same thing: France was being downgraded because “the French government’s current approach to budgetary and structural reforms to taxation, as well as to product, services and labour markets, is unlikely to substantially raise France’s medium-term growth prospects”. Again, never mind the budget numbers, where are the tax cuts and deregulation?

Solid evidence
You might think that Rehn and S&P were basing their demands on solid evidence that spending cuts are in fact better for the economy than tax increases. But they weren’t. In fact, research at the IMF suggests that when you’re trying to reduce deficits in a recession, the opposite is true: temporary tax hikes do much less damage than spending cuts.

Oh, and when people start talking about the wonders of “structural reform”, take it with a large heaping of salt. It’s mainly a code phrase for deregulation – and the evidence on the virtues of deregulation is decidedly mixed. Remember, Ireland received high praise for its structural reforms in the 1990s and 2000s. How did that turn out?

France has committed the unforgivable sin of being fiscally responsible without inflicting pain on the poor and unlucky. And it must be punished.

Sign In

Forgot Password?

Sign Up

The name that will appear beside your comments.

Have an account? Sign In

Forgot Password?

Please enter your email address so we can send you a link to reset your password.

Sign In or Sign Up

Thank you

You should receive instructions for resetting your password. When you have reset your password, you can Sign In.

Hello, .

Please choose a screen name. This name will appear beside any comments you post. Your screen name should follow the standards set out in our community standards.

Thank you for registering. Please check your email to verify your account.

Your Comments
We reserve the right to remove any content at any time from this Community, including without limitation if it violates the Community Standards. We ask that you report content that you in good faith believe violates the above rules by clicking the Flag link next to the offending comment or by filling out this form. New comments are only accepted for 3 days from the date of publication.