The Rencontres d'Aix is a great success every year, as evidenced by the growing number of participants to the point that it is beginning to be described as a "little summer Davos". This success stems from several factors. First of all, there is a perfect organization. Each session starts and ends on time and the speakers have a good handle on the speaking time assigned to them. Then there is the diversity of the speakers who come from the five continents and who have or have had various responsibilities, in politics, in business or in the academic world. Finally, the choice of subjects corresponds well to the major challenges of today's world.
The challenges posed to countries, especially in Europe, by the new geopolitical tensions were discussed at length and the most diverse points of view were presented. The question of sovereignty in strategic sectors such as energy or new technologies was the subject of intense debate, as well as, in the context of the heat wave that reigned in the amphitheatres, as well as the consequences of global warming and the measures to be taken to slow it down. Finally, the presence of several central bank leaders allowed for very rich economic debates, particularly on the complementarity between monetary policy and fiscal policy.
Politics was not absent since several potential candidates for the next French presidential election were present and the Prime Minister gave the closing speech of the first morning of the Conference. However, three subjects have not been the subject of sufficiently in-depth debate: the causes of the apparent decline in Europe's influence in the world, the remedies to be brought to the technological stall of the Old Continent and the measures to be taken in the face of the climate challenge.
The "European stall" was first presented on the basis of economic and financial statistics: lagging productivity, lower growth, absence of star companies in new technologies. Comparisons in terms of productivity are difficult to make but it is indisputable that the European bureaucratic increase has consequences on the efficiency of companies but this does not affect competitiveness since the European Union has a large trade surplus and a positive balance of payments year after year. The low growth is mainly due to demography, as in Japan, which has never been described as a country in decline. But it is indisputable, and this is not the first time in history, that American companies have been the most innovative and this can be seen in their market capitalization. But again, this is not the first time and it is not necessarily sustainable, as we have seen with IBM and General Electric.
The real reason, and it did not appear during the various round tables on the subject, for this perception of a European decline, is the absence of an incarnation of Europe. The United States has Donald Trump, China Xi Jinping and Russia Vladimir Putin. Europe has no one. In a world with media coverage, this is a weakness. It seems to be absent from the debates even though it is there but without being represented. When we talk about the reforms to be undertaken, we quote the Draghi report, but at no time do we imagine that its author could carry the European voice thanks to a reform of the institutions giving him this power and this mission, as Jacques Delors did at the time.
The second question is about "financing for the future". It was widely discussed and led to the conclusion that the United States has a very large lead, followed by China, which relies less on the inflow of capital than on an effort to train young people largely oriented towards the technical professions. More engineering and technical qualifications are awarded each year than in any other country combined. If the size of the country and the will of its leaders explain this domination, there is nothing, on the contrary, to justify that so much financial resources should be directed from abroad to the United States.
Europe is a rich continent even if some states are highly indebted. Household financial savings exceed €30,000 billion and the euro area has a structural surplus in its capital balance. Why are these surpluses going to be invested in the United States and contribute to the financing of the future and not on the continent? It would have been interesting to collect the analyses of the participants and to go beyond the traditional explanation of highlighting the special status of the dollar.
Other explanations deserve to be further explored, such as the constraints that Europe imposes on its companies, which weigh on their profitability and therefore on their attractiveness, with ESG standards or reporting obligations, which are more restrictive than in the United States. There is above all the role of the large funds to which European savers entrust their savings. However, the majority of them are American. They are naturally inclined to favour investments in markets that they master, whether debt or equities. The rebalancing of European savings is based on awareness of the causes of this imbalance.
The third question is more national and it was all the more topical as the Rencontres took place in a very hot environment despite the efforts of the organisers to mitigate its effects. Several round tables with speakers of a wide variety of nationalities focused on climate change. But the debate focused on two points: convincing the skeptics, which given the ambient temperature was not very difficult, and looking for the best ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But the essential thing is no longer there because the action of a country, especially if it is very low emitting like France, has no consequence on its own climate. From the moment that disruption is considered certain, the priority is to look for the best investments to make to protect populations and businesses.
However, the discussions focused, as they have for too long, on the role of renewable energies and on the investments to be made to decarbonise the economy, while progress could be made in improving the insulation of public buildings that accommodate pupils or the elderly or people with health problems. Nothing has been said about the consequences of this disruption on the supply of energy, and in particular electricity. Thus, for example, the development of air conditioning in homes requires consumption at night that cannot be provided by solar panels and wind turbines.
The debates between politicians and economists, which are reported in the media, too often focus on the role of nuclear power, on the abandonment of internal combustion engine vehicles or on the setting of emission reduction targets for each State. They are now obsolete, except of course for the major emitters such as China, the United States or India. Since the movement is irreversible, it is urgent to prepare for it in order to mitigate its consequences. As for those who are really responsible for this situation today, the time has come in their relations with Europe to put pressure on them to finally adopt effective policies to combat this disruption.
In an increasingly complex world driven by divergent interests, organising meetings where points of view intersect is increasingly important and Aix has just provided proof of this, even if not all the subjects have been addressed.