October 31, 2010
Why the French LoveSocial Conflict
By Theo Vermaelen
France is in many ways a uniquecountry. Where else in the world could you see a
15-year-old appear on TVsaying that he is striking because he would like to
retire at 60 instead of 62?Where else could you see a leading politician such
as Segolene Royalencouraging 15-year-olds to go on strike? In any other country
Ms. Royal wouldbe part of the Loony Left, but here she got 47 % of the votes in
the recentpresidential election and is considered a mainstream socialist
candidate forreplacing Sarkozy in 2012. Where else would 71 % of the people
support strikerswho block refineries so that they have to wait hours in line to
fill up theircars?
Even supposedly right-wing politicianssuch as Dominique de Villepin, ex-prime
minister under Chirac, have endorsedthe 15-year-olds' position, claiming that
if people retire later, the youngerwill have to wait longer for a job. This
statement is probably the most pureform of static economic thinking ever
pronounced -- i.e., the idea that thelabor market consists of a fixed number of
slots. If this were the case, wecould simply eliminate youth unemployment by
lowering the retirementage to 45.
After 9/11, many of us tried tounderstand why so many Saudis supported Islamic
terrorism, and the answer wasoften found in school textbooks that openly
preached hatred against the nonbelievers.A similar exercise should be done to
better understand the French mind. What dothe French learn in school to make
them support economic terrorism and chaos aslong as it is organized by the
working class?
Except for students in a specialeconomics section, French high school students
get no education in economics orfinance.So one explanation for the French
attitude is the fact that the vast majorityof the people have no basic
understanding of economics or markets. Those whoget economics training in high
school probably get a muddled message. I gotthis impression after taking a
closer look at the content of the economicscourses of the last year of the
"lycée," or high school.
The topics discussed seem moreappropriate for a sociology course. Out of the
seven courses of the curriculum,four have titles such as "Social Stratification
and Inequality,""Conflict and Social Mobilization," "Integration
andSolidarity," and "European Integration and Economic and SocialPolicies."
There is no discussion of microeconomics (demand and supply) orfirm optimizing
behavior such as profit (or value) maximization or discussionof
financialmarkets or free markets in general.
The seeds of anti-capitalism andanti-Americanism can be found throughout the
curriculum. One chapter deals with"Conflict and Social Mobilization." After a
thorough analysis ofMarxist thinking and an almost sad note that the influence
of workers has diminished(because they are fewer workers, and the ones that
became wealthier lost theirclass-identification), the authors still conclude
that
[t]he reasons for the conflict with the other socialclasses remain strong.
Although workers participate in mass consumption theyuse fewer services than
other classes: they go less on holidays than others,they have less accessto the
internet and they don't have maids or nannies.
In short, French people are stilltaught today that class warfare is the nature
of (French) society and willremain as long as not all classes are equal. Of
course, equality is notpossible, as it would require that either all maids have
maids or that therewould be no maids.
The chapter on "Work andEmployment" explains unemployment only as a result of
technologicalprogress where machines replace workers. Nowhere can a discussion
be found onhow social charges, taxes, and labor regulations (such as the
minimum wage) cancontribute to unemployment.
The icing on the cake is thestatement in the section on "Conflict and Social
Mobilization", whichis supposed to be a consolation for all of us waiting in
the gas lines:
A priori we often tend to think that conflicts are useless,they are better
avoided. Not at all what sociologists think: conflict makeschange possible.
Social conflicts, because they put individuals into action,also contribute to
form identities and develop solidarity. The first difficultyfor you in this
chapter is therefore the need to consider conflict in apositive role.
Luckily, the French government hasmore or less responded as the Saudi
government did after 9/11: starting thisyear, all high school students (not
just the ones of the economics section)will have to take a course in economics,
and the curriculum will be changed.The goal of the curriculum will be to better
understand how companies,households, and the state behave and how markets
allocate resources, includinglabor markets and financial markets. So there is
some serious hope that in thefuture, corporations will no longer be depicted as
entities to fight, butinstead as the ultimate creators of wealth.
Predictably, when the reforms wereproposed at the beginning of this year,
Francois Dubet, the only sociologist onthe curriculum committee, resigned in
protest, stating that "[n]ow thecorporation will no longer be seen as a place
where people work, or like asocial entity, but as a unit of production that has
to continuously adapt to achanging environment."
Let's hope Mr. Dubet is right. Andperhaps then the French will someday
understand that when the supply of oil iscut by striking workers, the price of
gasoline at the pump will rise.
Theo Vermaelen is Professor of Finance, INSEAD.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Cambodia Discussion (CAMDISC) - www.cambodia.org" group.
This is an unmoderated forum. Please refrain from using foul language.
Thank you for your understanding. Peace among us and in Cambodia.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/camdisc
Learn more - http://www.cambodia.org
