Not at all. In France there is a huge gap between the rhetoric of political leaders and their actions, which consist largely of adaptation to globalization. This is particularly true of the Socialists, Communists and Greens, who have gone much further in the direction of adaptation than they admit. There is an advantage to doing business this way: the reforms don't meet so much resistance from public opinion. But there is also a downside: the public is not prepared for the reforms to come, which will be even more difficult.
Doesn't the "Danone Affair," which caused an outcry in public opinion when that company announced layoffs in 2001, show that French leaders still didn't understand globalization?
On the contrary, it shows the evolution of the French left. Remember that in 1981, the French left wanted to "change the system," Mitterrand campaigned against capitalism. We're a long way from that! What is true, of course, is that your political leaders are reluctant to explain capitalism to the French people. For example, they fail to tell them that you sometimes have to destroy some jobs in order to keep creating others. Americans at least seem to understand this, but not all of the French.
You talk about "future reforms," those that must still be undertaken in France. What do you have in mind?
Clearly, the most important is the reform of the state. Seen from the outside, it seems quite clear that a number of public sector jobs must be cut. This is all the more true because your pensions are going to consume a growing share of GDP. Thus you've got to look for savings elsewhere if you're going to stabilize the overall state tax take, which at 54% of GDP is already very high.
The French don't seem to mind this too much.
The very high quality of life in France is obviously a reason for this resistance—to the point of actually being a handicap! It is difficult, in France, to suggest that change is necessary. You could almost say that the situation in France is not sufficiently bad for leaders who propose change to be heard. This is the big difference with the situation of the British at the time of Thatcher's arrival or with the Americans when Reagan was elected. Politically, you can't sell sacrifices to those who are doing well.
In your view, France has already undertaken major reforms, but not really admitted it...
This is something peculiar to France. All across the world, political leaders tend to "oversell" what they're doing. In France the opposite is true: to win elections you can't admit what you've done. In a sense, this is understandable, since for a leftist government—or even, for that matter, an RPR-led government—you'll be working against the desires of the majority of your voters, who are very much attached to the role of the omnipresent state and its role as a protector. When voters expect everything from the state, you can only reduce its role by stealth.
Yet you think that the more difficult reforms still to come will have to be more explicit.
Yes, because the reforms so far undertaken could be done through gradual, partial, and discreet measures. Now, to reform health care and pensions, far-reaching changes will have to be made. To do that, you'll need different political rhetoric. But is anyone ready for this? I doubt it. When Alain Madelin, the neo-liberal candidate, is at 3% in the opinion polls, can you imagine that one of the main candidates will say "There's the recipe I'll use"? Even if the new president wins by a comfortable margin, it is not obvious that his government will have much room for maneuver. Look at Juppé's failure in 1995, even though Chirac had just won a clear victory. It is true that the economic situation had deteriorated, which made change even more difficult.
Can a "non-politician" like Nicole Notat manage to make the necessary reforms?
I don't think anything but a professional politician has much of a chance to win power, or even to be taken seriously. But one of your problems in France is in fact the lack of renewal among politicians. This contrasts with the United States where fresh faces, with new teams and new ideas, appear every four years—or at least every eight years. That makes it much easier to make far-reaching reforms.