The publication of the results of the EY survey on the number of foreign investments made in Europe, which placed France in the lead, as well as the announcements relating to the amount of foreign projects on the national territory on the occasion of the "Choose France" event, could suggest that the re-industrialization process is on the right track. The country is now on a trajectory that will allow it to regain its growth and its internal and external balances thanks to the economic policy followed for more than ten years to support companies by promoting supply.

The reality is not so bright. While France remains largely in the lead in terms of the number of projects, these are down compared to 2023, as in other countries, but above all are mainly made up of extensions of existing facilities and create few jobs (30 on average) with a total of 29,000 new jobs, a figure down 29% over one year. Projects are down sharply in industry but up in energy. The announcements made on the eve of the Versailles meetings may be impressive in their amount, but the projects will be spread over several years and past experience also shows that some will not be carried out.

France therefore remains an attractive country thanks to its geographical position, the quality of its transport infrastructure, which is an essential factor for supply chains, and the existence of a qualified workforce and high-level researchers capable of contributing their skills in innovation. The comments as well as the remarks of the Head of State attributing this attractiveness to the success of the economic policy he has been pursuing for eight years and in which he participated in the government preceding his election, are however very debatable, if only because none of the results relating to growth, employment or especially foreign trade allow us to display such satisfaction.

Economic policy is the action taken by a state to remedy imbalances that market mechanisms have not been able to restore. Keynes was one of the first to note this deficiency and recommended, in order to mitigate the consequences of the 1929 crisis, to use the budget by increasing public spending in order to support the recovery of activity. His great competitor, on the theoretical level, was Milton Friedman, who saw monetary policy, through the level of interest rates and the creation of money or, on the contrary, its restrictions, as the preferred tool in the hands of states.

The opening up of markets and globalization have been a new factor generating imbalances. It then became necessary to support companies so that they can regain their competitiveness in the event of excessive external deficits and insufficient growth. In France, the first example was given in 1982 when, after nationalization, the State offered privileged means of financing to companies in difficulty so that they could restructure and have the means to modernize their production facilities. Keynes's money was then put on the supply side but in a targeted way, as an instrument of industrial policy. 20 years later, foreign trade had returned to balance.

But this recovery has been called into question by the policy of relocation and costly acquisitions abroad on the part of certain large groups, first and foremost Renault with the argument that the labor cost in France is too high. A policy of reducing the tax and social security contributions of companies was then put in place, which, unlike the action carried out in the early 80s, was not targeted and was not accompanied by conditions. This analysis was also questionable since there were very large differences in the performance of the different industrial branches while they were subject to the same constraints in terms of social security contributions.

First, the research tax credit was introduced, a tax loophole that consisted of deducting its research and development expenses from the tax owed by the company. Its cost is now estimated at nearly €9 billion, even though it was not subject to any obligation of result and could benefit any company that requested it, whether or not it was subject to international competition. It was also very difficult to check the reality of the research effort.

But the most significant measure, still without compensation, was the creation of the CICE granted to all companies regardless of their sector of activity. It followed the report requested in 2012 from Louis Gallois on competitiveness. But he had focused his thoughts on industry. The CICE was then transformed into a definitive reduction in contributions, which also applies to all companies. But those exposed to international competition, such as industry or tourism-related services, represent only a maximum of 25% of the country's GDP. This means that 75% of the relief granted has had no effect on competitiveness, the main beneficiaries being the financial sector, the Post Office and the supermarkets.

These reductions, amounting to more than 50 billion per year, have been the main factor in the increase in public deficits and debt. Household tax increases were introduced to address this, which weighed on growth at the time, but only partially helped to make up for the revenue losses. A new step has been taken, still without any compensation requested, with the reduction of corporate tax reduced to 25% from 33% previously.

The government today persists and attributes to its economic policy choices what it considers to be successes. But the reality is quite different. Never has French growth been so weak, the trade deficit so heavy and the public finance situation so worrying. Worse, the tax decisions of successive governments have increased inequality. The "flat tax" has reduced the taxation of taxpayers with incomes above the 30% tax threshold, just as the abolition of the housing tax, which cost a total of nearly 20 billion, has benefited the wealthiest 20% of households to the tune of 8 billion.

As this policy had no positive effect on growth in France, companies did not use the new means at their disposal to invest and create jobs, but simply increased their margins. In 2024, the margin rate reached 32.2% and the cash flow rate 87.1% after a record level of 95.8% in 2023. Instead of re-establishing the serious imbalances affecting the French economy, in accordance with the stated objectives and the merit attributed to the supply-side policy, this policy has essentially benefited shareholders. In 2024, companies distributed a record level of dividends (€72.8 billion, or +8%) and carried out share buybacks of €25 billion.

It was as if for nearly fifteen years the State's action had benefited shareholders and not employees, whose purchasing power has increased only slightly.

The consequences of this policy, of which France did not have a monopoly, have been heavy in Europe but also in the United States with the election of Donald Trump. The rise in inequality to the detriment of the middle classes has benefited extremist parties everywhere. As the left, in France as well as in Germany, had been associated with it and sometimes even initiated it, as in France in 2013, it was the first victim.