« The definancing of local communities does not promote change » – Liberation

Faced with the distrust of citizens vis-à-vis the State, institutions or politics, what role can local authorities play? Such was the object of a conference organized in Rouen by the national center of the territorial public service. An event that Release is a partner.

The economist Anne-Laure Delatte, researcher at the CNRS, proposes to condition the public funding granted to companies to ecological criteria, to reconnect the confidence of citizens towards the State.

In your book the right state in the wall (1), You see a strong break between the French and the State. In your eyes, one of its origins is in the establishment of a neoliberal regime at the service of the market, from the 1980s. How does it translate, and what about today?

In the post-war period, the State is very interventionist, it is devoted to reconstruction and social protection. But from the 1970s, the economic paradigm changed. Public action is transformed: the State does not disappear, but it is no longer a planner. The market becomes the favorite operator. Concretely, this is reflected in particular by the implementation of exemptions from social contributions for wages surrounding the minimum wage, from 1995. These exemptions have been continued and declined over the years: they cost around 60 billion euros per year today. There are also many tax credits granted shortly to businesses. All this translates great confidence in the market. In fact, the state is content to correct certain failures.

What are the consequences of this policy?

It is expensive, but ineffective. It legitimizes the discourse « we spend too much », because to compensate for the tax and social niches granted, the charge of the State increases, and public and social expenditure is put under pressure. By becoming a market manager, the State no longer protects us. In the end, the deficit has widened, the social system has impoverished, without any really positive impact on activity, or on the balance of the trade balance, or on employment.

However, there is a drop in unemployment in recent years?

From 2017, the intensification of the drop in compulsory levies on businesses, on the richest, and to a lesser extent on all households – via the removal of the housing tax – resulted in fact by a drop in the unemployment ratebut with two important limits. First, this policy cost very dear for a result that does not compensate for the losses of recipes. In addition, a large part of the new hires are underlying impaired jobs (learning in particular). Overall, there is a drop in the level of productivity, which is very worrying for our economic future.

One of the solutions you mention in your book is to rethink The numerous indirect public aid granted to companies…

In the 1990s, a tax regime was set up which is now largely under radars. It consists of tax credits And exemptions-more than 1,500 devices have existed for forty-five years-which reduce the compulsory levies of companies. This shortfall is not considered a direct expenditure, but it represents 6 % of GDP, which brings direct and indirect expenses to companies granted to companies. In fact, Public support for the economy is currently higher in France than in other rich countries. We must stop the hypocrisy which consists in taking into account only direct expenditure of public action. National accounts must be redesigned: today its rules do not allow citizens to measure the real distribution of the state budget. Public aid for companies are too opaque.

Does this opacity accentuate the distrust of citizens towards the State?

Partly, but the rupture also comes from the feeling, founded, that the State is on the side of large companies and polluting activities, rather than households and public services. There is indeed a major contradiction between a market manager of the market and a protective state of the planet, because a majority of public aid will to companies strongly carbon issues.

The same euro invested in public services does not have the same carbon impact: INSEE calculated that the use by French of education, health and social action gathered generates « only » 17 million tonnes of CO2 per year, against 200 million tonnes for industry, the energy sector and that of construction. In short, as long as the State continues to distribute public money unconditionally, the French widen their climatic falls with their taxes. To repair confidence, let’s start by removing tax and social aid towards Multinationals producing fossil fuels.

Can local political leaders act in their territories to compensate for the shortcomings of national policies, especially on the ecological level?

We sometimes have the impression that major cities enjoy a certain independence, and that they are moving towards radical choices compared to national policy. Example in Paris, which benefits from high tax resources, and whose new climate plan shows a fairly proactive policy on the ecological level. In Nantes, Grenoble or Marseille, similar initiatives are observed. Despite everything, France remains centralized: local finances and local budgets are very dependent on the State, especially in the more fragile territories. In recent years, the Definancing of local communities Do not promote change: because to act, you need money.

Today, the government is looking for billions to finance the « rearmament », but without increasing taxes, and without weighing down the deficit. What do you think?

It is not responsible. But the debate is poorly posed. We must first recall the orders of magnitude. The Minister of Defense announced last fall the objective of reaching 67 billion budget in 2030 – against 50 billion today -; President Emmanuel Macron spoke more recently to reach 3 % or even 3.5 % of GDP, which would represent 45 billion more. These quantifying differences are neither very reassuring nor very serious: these objectives seem out of the hat, without knowing the destination and performance.

As for the question of financing this « rearmament », these are important expenses, but which do not justify the current discourse on the war effort and the sacrifices. In addition, in the context of a budgetary crisis that we have been living for a year, there is an elephant in the room. Last February, the deputies voted the « zucman tax » carried by the left, which targets the heritage of ultra-rich parties partly escaping the tax. It could bring in 20 billion euros. I am not saying that you have to bet everything on this tax. But why deprive yourself of this resource? How to ask the French to accept a deterioration in social protection without demanding that ultra-rich pay their fair share? This « Zucman taxArriving in the Senate in June, I see a fair and necessary source of recipes.