Socialism and economics “à la française”

France, my home country, offers a remarkable confluence between comfortable socialism, “elastic” economic, financial concepts and reluctance to confront hard and painful issues. Simply said, all the benefits earned and accrued over time, could be likened to what’s called a no-return mechanism, used in any winch, namely a ratchet and pawl system. 

This ratchet effect didn’t appear overnight. It grew out of the post‑war social contract, reinforced by strong unions and a political culture where the street is considered the legitimate and most potent arena of democratic expression. 

This means that any social benefits earned over the years cannot be removed and if there were any attempt to impose it, no matter the reason, it seems that the populace would come down in the street to protest and oftentimes, break, burn and loot around. 

This might seem like a hostage-taking scheme and it probably is. So if you are thinking of retirement age (62), numbers of hours worked in a week (35) or a host of other hard-earned benefits as well as the most robust social safety net in the world, forget even thinking of changing or reducing any them. It’s in a way similar to our US Constitution, it’s set in stone and practically unchangeable. 

France’s social architecture, admirable in many ways, now collides with a global economy that rewards flexibility, innovation, and rapid adaptation — qualities the French system often suppresses. Yet, the work around us change, each nation ends up being in economic competition against its neighbor and this onerous social net is now paralyzing a French government held hostage by demonstrations that always have the potential of choking the Nation. 

French demonstrations oscillate between peaceful mass mobilization and disruptive unrest. Both forms are part of a long tradition where public protest acts as a counter‑power To change this would require political courage that Macron, and the traditional right before him were woefully unable to muster. Today, by taking a page from the Trump playbook, LePen would probably dare to do so if she can managed to be elected, which I still doubt. The next obvious candidate, the leftist Mélanchon if elected, wouldn’t be able to achieve much either with a divided parliament. 

Successive governments — left, right, and centrist — have struggled to reform the system because any attempt to adjust the ratchet triggers massive resistance. Whether future leaders can overcome this dynamic remains uncertain. France’s ratchet‑and‑pawl system has preserved social gains admirably, but it has also created a political equilibrium where change is nearly impossible. Whether this equilibrium can endure in a rapidly shifting world is the question France must eventually confront.