Jean Arthuis knows Michel Barnier well. The two men were both ministers between May 1995 and June 1997, when Alain Juppé was at Matignon. The first in Economic Development, then in Economy and Finance. The second in European Affairs, after having learned the ropes in Environment. As the presentation of the 2025 budget approaches, the completion of which promises to be acrobatic, and at a time when the latest pension reform is being called into question, Jean Arthuis is calling for a “shared diagnosis” of the state of our public finances.
A specialist in these issues, the former MEP stresses that the fate of our retirement system is closely linked to the way the State manages its funds. Faced with the deterioration of the public deficit, we must “produce more and work more”, he insists. Jean Arthuis also advocates a return “to the principle of reality” among our governments, and a better pedagogy of reforms among citizens. A vast project.
L’Express: Today we are talking about the repeal of pension reform, freezing, adjustment… What do these debates inspire in you?
Jean Arthuis: Pension reform is inseparable from the worrying situation of public finances. Even before defining the desirable reform, we must become aware of the state of our pensions to see that we cannot continue as the system operates. There is a very heavy annual deficitof more than thirty billion euros, and it is on the basis of this observation that we must, with all partners and the French people, project ourselves into the future and design a credible, sustainable, equitable and lasting system. Our social pact has a duty to ensure decent pensions for all those who, when they reach old age, stop living off their work income.
So reform is essential?
Given our dual deficit, budgetary and commercial, there is no other way out than to produce more and therefore work more. Our trade balance is in deficit, which means that we consume more than we produce. Emmanuel Macron said two years ago that it was the end of abundance. However, we practice abundance on credit and we support purchasing power by indebting the State. True purchasing power results from what we produce.
What does working more mean? Entering the world of work a little more quickly, in particular by developing apprenticeships, because we tend to extend our studies a little more than elsewhere and leave the labour market earlier. Similarly, while the demographic trend predicts a reduction in the number of working people, the relationship with work has unfortunately deteriorated somewhat. It is on these observations that we must establish a consensus to draw conclusions. No doubt agree to extend the working life as most of our European neighbours have done. Without forgetting to encourage the return to work of those who left before retirement age.
What message should we send to the French?
For fifty years, our public finances have been in deficit and the public debt has increased from 15% of GDP to more than 110%. To help our fellow citizens take the measure of our vulnerability, it is important to finally present the overall situation of our public finances, by aggregating the accounts of the State and those of Social Security, through a financial situation and an income statement. These documents, in an intelligible form, condition the pedagogy of reforms. We must restore the principle of reality in public governance and prevent the illusionism that prevails in political debates. For decades, every candidate has believed that they must go before the voters with a Christmas tree in their arms.
What’s wrong with public governance?
The problem we have is that basically, the Fifth Republic, outside of periods of cohabitation, has placed most of the power in the hands of the president and the executive, with that of Parliament being very limited. This has resulted in an incantatory drift suggesting that any problem can only be resolved by additional means. In other words, the practical sense of responsibility is not sufficiently exalted.
Our institutions are showing their limits. To elect the President of the Republic, we choose in the first round, and we eliminate in the second. The winner can be elected after a modest score in the first round, which does not give him strong legitimacy for the implementation of his program. We therefore need a responsible Parliament. The pension issue must be addressed in coherence with other major reforms. Public governance requires a global, forward-looking vision, while paving the way for genuine and broad decentralization.
The Borne government has never been able to clearly explain why it was carrying out this pension reform, based on erroneous forecasts. As regards public finances, we have seen again recently that Bercy has revised its deficit forecasts upwards. How can this be explained?
We live in the tyranny of the short term where announcements always take over. It is certainly necessary to say positive things that give optimism. But politics cannot be satisfied with illusionism and must from time to time demonstrate realism. The dilemma is insoluble for the Minister of Economy and Finance. If he bases his budget project on cautious growth forecasts, he risks triggering a wave of pessimism. Conversely, excessive optimism gives joy, but encourages procrastination in budgetary arbitrations, reforms to be carried out and debates to be launched. I am thinking of the one relating to production taxes. Continuing to finance health and family policies through contributions based on work pushes towards outsourcing and deindustrialization.
You say that pension reform is inseparable from the worrying situation of public finances. How did we get to this point?
Every year, we construct financial laws with a growth hypothesis that is never verified and this has been the case for decades. Annuality is an exercise that borders on the absurd. So, we invoke the plane, a blind and brutal instrument, a source of additional dysfunctions and which provokes various reactions among public actors to protect themselves from it. The real issue is to arrive, at the beginning of the legislature, at a multi-annual programming law. There are no reforms that bear fruit immediately. Any instant display of the effects of a reform, with all the gratifying communication that this may have, is doubtful. It is unfortunately artifice and cosmetics.
We certainly lack an independent public finance authority, with the mission of shedding light on the sustainability of forecasts and providing neutral, high-level expertise on long-term trajectories and the assessment of the cost of reforms. In my view, the High Council of Public Finances is too close to the Court of Auditors. The latter has become the auditor responsible for certifying the sincerity of the balance sheet and results of the State as well as the branches of Social Security. But this responsibility raises questions when we see the coming and going of magistrates, between the Court and ministerial offices or the general management of major public services.
What form could this independent body take?
To be recognized by public opinion, this independent watchdog cannot be suspected of conflict of interest, nor of partisanship. As in many countries, it would be composed of experts, economists, statisticians or senior officials from the Treasury, the Bank of France or the European Central Bank. Its mission would aim to set growth forecasts and realistically assess the trajectories of public finances in the medium and long term. This authority should also speak to the French. Unfortunately, custom easily camps in self-interest, chiaroscuro and short-termism.
Could she check at the end of the year that the draft finance bill has been implemented?
The verification of actual execution is the mission of the Court of Auditors. It certifies the sincerity of the balance sheet and the income statement, but these financial statements are not the subject of any debate. I observe that in companies and associations, importance is attached to the rendering of accounts, in the form of a balance sheet and an income statement that are readable and intelligible by all stakeholders. In the public sphere, the debate focuses only on the project for the coming year.
Parliament spends almost a quarter examining in detail the draft finance bill for the State and the draft social security financing bill. Despite the avalanche of amendments, their number having become the indicator of parliamentary performance, the final text will not be very different from the initial text, with or without recourse to article 49-3. On the other hand, when the time comes for the settlement bill and the approval of the accounts, the formal discussion is settled in a few hours, amid general indifference. There is an urgent need to put accountability back at the heart of public debate.
Nobody gives a discharge, in short…
A stunning phenomenon, the dreaded arbiter is called Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s or Fitch. On the eve of the publication date of the rating of one or other of these international agencies, the Minister of Finance feels obliged to announce that he is going to take his plane and eliminate billions of credits. This is then to avoid a deterioration of the rating, because this could result in the sanction of the financial markets. Intelligible accounts, giving a true picture of the financial situation and the result, would make the rating of the agencies superfluous.
Should we also fear the response of the European Commission, which has just placed France in excessive deficit procedure?
The Brussels bogeyman grumbles, but he has never whipped. Since the creation of the euro, we have committed ourselves to being accountable to our Eurogroup partners. Our commitments take the form of a five-year stability programme each year. Those presented by France have never been respected. What is the political credibility of a member of a community that does not keep its commitments, and lives in a way on the credit of others?
.