American Civility vs. French Lack-thereof.

From looking at the presidential political campaign outside the United States one might be under the impression not only that the country is highly divided and even that it is almost on the verge of community breakdown. Then if you add the news-clips showing gun violence, religious extremism and offensive rhetoric, you may have a pretty negative picture of American society today possibly re-inforced by the magnifying effect of the the Internet and short Youtube videos that go viral.

This, however, is very far from the reality of day-to-day life of ordinary Americans.

One common reaction of many French people when they first visit the United States is how incredibly kind, smily and courteous Americans are towards them. It is so unusual to the French that they may even find it a little suspicious and wonder if there must be some ulterior motives (and they sometimes point to service jobs where people's smile may be proportionate to the expected tip, or to the abuse of the term "friend" for someone you just met).
They may be some hypocrites of course - there always are - but it is true that essentially Americans are a very generous and helpful people.

In this week's Economist, Lexington also found that civility in the United States endures:

To a visitor, America remains a strikingly courteous place, where strangers may expect to be helped and asked for help, and good manners are prized. Neighbourhoods remain neighbourly. 

This is right. Even in the midst of political tensions between France and the U.S. governments over the war in Iraq in 2003, I, as a French person, have always felt as welcome as ever and was never treated differently - I never saw "freedom fries" outside the House of Representatives cafeteria.

Statistics (see here) also seem to indicate that Americans have on of the highest levels of pro-social behaviors of all OECD countries, almost twice as much as the French (who are below OECD average). Here pro-social behavior is measured by whether the respondent has volunteered time, donated money to a charity and helped a stranger in the last month. It is hard to drawn any definite conclusion from these statistics as to why there is a such a gap between the French and the Americans, but one can make hypotheses:

In France people are more likely to rely on the government when it comes to helping the needy, which in turn makes it more acceptable to pay higher taxes, whereas in the United States, charity is more the job of private individuals. (And by the way, the major role of the State in France has nothing to do with socialism, as it is often misunderstood by Americans. It dates back way before socialism was even an idea - to at least the 17th century and Louis XIV notably when the French State unified the country around certain cultural and linguistic norms, which became the model eventually followed by the French  Republic.)

As far as helping strangers, the Economist had another suggestion for American civility:

In a big and mobile country, being a stranger is common: feeling able to trust other strangers is an economic and civic boon.

This could not be more different from the French may be the least mobile people in Europe. France is the only country that never had massive waves of emigration to North America, not even to Canada, which was founded by a relative small amount of people. This may be because the French culture grew out of rural communities whose basic unit was traditionally held by the family.

It may also be that Americans can differentiate politics from the people they meet but also that Americans tend to be less political than the French who always love a good heated debate. In my experience Americans like to keep their political views more private than the French. Moerover, a  lot of Americans may be more immune to political differences because they have tended to cluster in communities of sameness, with people with similar political beliefs (see for instance, The Big Sort, by Bill Bishop).

Whatever the explanation, it remains that social relations in America are extremely pleasant and relaxed, and one can only wish for a little more civility in the rest of the world, and particularly in France. In the end, this may be the main reason why I always need to recharge my batteries and come to the U.S. after a few months in France.

New French President, The Reasons He Won and What It (Really) Means.

As some of you may have seen in the news, France has a new President: socialist François Hollande who beat conservative Nicolas Sarkozy by 51,67% to 48,33% last night. This is a historica moment for France.

So a word or two (or more) is in order.

I read here and there that Sarkozy was ousted because of "public anger over austerity measures and economic crisis", joining a "series of other European leaders booted from office" in Italy, Spain or Greece (Business Week, Wall Street Journal,). In my opinion, this is mostly a wrong superficial analysis of France's mood. And Kevin Drum is wrong, Sarkozy is NOT merely the latest victim of the economic crisis. He is the victim of his own making and he has always been his worst enemy.
The election of Hollande was more anti-Sarkozy than pro-Hollande. There was not necessarily a lot of excitement about Hollande and there is doubt about his economic plan (the French know they're in for tougher time), but "anti-Sarkozy sentiment has become a cultural phenomenon in France." (the Guardian).
Upon hearing the result of the elections, people in French tough neighborhoods cheered loud from the windows in their projects, hunked the horns in their cars; and made all sorts of noises, - something resembling more winning the world cup than presidential elections, certainly not seen in France since 1981.

Sarkozy the Divider: One Does not Rule France by Dividing Its People

Sarkozy was the most unpopular president in French history (about 35% job approval) and his slip in the polls started fairly soon after the elections (Le Monde polls). He was criticized not only for his ostentation display of wealth, favoring the rich while leaving behind high unemployment, but also for his divisiveness and his agressive tone and style,seen as unbecoming of a president. in French culture.

The New Republic has it right:

(Sarkozy has) "constantly undercut himself, thanks to his notorious difficulty sharing the spotlight and his coarsely confrontational personal style. is no coincidence that his single best-known phrase, uttered to a protester in early 2008, is “Casse-toi, pauv’ con” (roughly, “Shove off, asshole”). It is not exactly de Gaulle’s “France cannot be France without grandeur.” (The NR).

Sarkozy may have been quick to react in times of crisis, but he was a lot of hot air, and lack any vision. He failed to see what people need in times of crisis.

 “Nicolas Sarkozy is constantly trying to create cleavages… when what people expect from a president, especially in times of crisis, is to be a unifier,” said political scientist Roland Cayrol of the Centre for Studies and Analysis. (here).

During the campaign, he went further to the right, trying to court far-right Le Pen's voters by playing on the fear of immigration, borders and Islam, missing the point that the French are more worried about the economy and high unemployment than Islam and immigration.

The French Prefer the virtues of the Tortoise to that of the Hare.

This is the allegory rightfully used by the NYTimes to describe the patience, diligence and quiet road chosen by Hollande to win over his rather impetuous rival, Sarkozy. As in the fable, Hollande was seriously underestimated by both the media and his opponent, who was overconfident.

The "New" Socialist.
A word of caution to my Anglo-saxon friends who might be afraid of the word "socialist". Even though Hollande was the candidate of the "socialist party" (which he ruled for years), I agree with Matthew Yglesias that Hollande is actually more a socio-democrat and I also think he's a pragmatist. Yes, he has promised massive taxation on revenues over 1 million euros revenues but that does not make him a socialist. As I reminded a friend the other day: in the United States the top income rate was 75% in 1939 ias high as  94% in 1944 and 1945 and remained between 90% and 70% until 1981, which did not make post-WWII America a socialist country.
Granted that those were other times, but the current crisis demands unprecedented measures and taxing the wealthy maybe one of them for its symbolism if nothing else. You cannot ask the rest of the country to face tough measures if it is not perceived as widely shared by the wealthy. After all, this something that Buffet can agree on.
The greatest challenge for Hollande is his deal with Merkel and the French debt which will require some spending cut and our president-elect has been more than evasive on the question. What is certain is that Merkel's austerity philosophy faces more and more criticism in Europe (NYTimes). Hollande wants to add growth, and that is after all what seemed to be working in the United-States. Of course, Hollande's way of achieving this may not be the same as other leaders' and he will have to compromise, but it is probably about time that someone stands against Merkel's obsessive one-eyed vision.

Franco-American Relationship:
As always in the U.S. it is likely that the election of a "socialist" president will scare some of the media, particularly on the right, the word itself is enough to spook most Americans. This unfortunate as it is largely ignorant of the particular of French and European history and ideology.
In 1981, when Mitterand name four communists in his government, a horrified Ronald Reagan sent his vice president, George H. W. Bush to voice his concern that "the future of Western democracy hung in the balance" (here and here). Yet in the end, Franco-American relations under Mitterand turned out to be one of the closest, including in the containment of Soviet Power (think of the Pershing missile controversy in 1984 or the less-well known but extraordinary Farewell spy case, (here too) or later the Gulf War for instance - LATimes)
In the same way that branding Sarkozy "American" (his view of America was superficial at best) is just as wrong and misleading as branding Hollande a "dangerous socialist".
In fact, one can argue that Hollande's platform has commonalities with Obama's (although not necessarily in the specifics):

The platform that Hollande won on, in addition to the stress it laid on restoring economic growth, echoed several other themes Obama sounded in Ohio on Saturday, when he officially launched his reëlection campaign: fairness, hope, and inclusion. (The New Yorker)

Europe's failures might even be a good lesson for the American electorate:

When the campaign turns to questions of economics, what is happening in Europe should provide Obama with plenty of arguments with which to flay his opponents. Republicans say they want to slash government spending and focus on the deficit regardless of the immediate economic situation. The Europeans have carried out that experiment, and, to say the least, it hasn’t turned out very well. (The New Yorker)

French View of Welfare Shifts towards America.

The controversy in France this week was the criticism of France’s welfare system by the Minister for European Affairs who called the excesses of French “assistanat” [a derogatory term which can be loosely translated as “nanny state”] the “cancer” of French society (France 24) – a provocative statement if any in a country where social policy has been more or less a national consensus.

In practical term, the young Minister, Laurent Wauquiez (who is seen as a moderate in the Sarkozy government) proposes to force welfare recipients to do community work in compensation for the checks.

First a note of cultural background – while this criticism of welfare may not be such a provocative statement for the conservatives in the U.S, it is something unheard of in France. It has actually created division even in the ruling conservative party (UMP) and the young Minister was strongly criticized by the Prime Minister.

That being said, it has also been suggested that the “nanny state” (l’assistanat”) could be one of Sarkozy’s themes of choice for his reelection campaign in 2012 (Le Figaro).

This leads me to think that we may be in for some serious cultural change in France.

Since World War II, “social solidarity” has been considered a universal service which guarantees a minimal level of well-being and social support for all French citizens. It is not without fault and it is very costly. For better or for worse, the notion of “solidarity” is not simply part of the French Social Protection system; it is also part of its national identity (Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité) - very much like ‘freedom’ (including economic freedom) is part of the US identity. 

First let’s look at the obvious differences between Europe and the U.S. :

• the European governments redistribute income on a much larger scale than the
• European social programs are more generous and reach a larger part of the
• The European tax systems are more progressive.
• European regulation is more intrusive, including in the labor market and in the protection of the poor.

There are various tentative explanations for these differences. As this paper by the Harvard Institute of Economic research suggests, some of those differences may derive from differences in ways of thinking and in ideologies. In other words, they may have been shaped by culture and history :

A DIFFERENT VIEW OF THE "POOR": 

According to the World Value Survey:

• 29% of Americans think that the poor are trapped in poverty;
• 60%of Europeans believe the same.
• 60% of Americans believe that the poor are lazy
• 26% of Europeans share that view.

You might think this is because the United-States has more social mobility. But as the Harvard paper explains, there is no evidence that shows America to be a significantly more mobile society than Europe. (something we have already discussed on this blog) so either Americans overestimate social mobility in their country or Europeans underestimate it. 

HISTORICAL DIFFERENCES

Another possible explanations (not favored by the Harvard paper but one I like) is that two World Wars destroyed so much of European societies that the Socialist and Communist parties were able to take hold and influence policies (even if they didn’t rule), especially after right-wing governments lost their appeal after the defeat of fascist governments throughout Europe. At the same time, in this context of ample destruction,  only governments could manage the national efforts necessary to rebuild and help the millions who lost everything. 

Besides, America had a vast ‘open’ land which allowed many workers to go west for economic opportunities instead of revolting or striking. This historical context may have made welfare and strong social policies more acceptable and necessary in Europe than in the United-States. 

The Harvard Paper has two other explanations: 

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION: 

One lies in a difference in political institutions: Contrary to Europe America has hardly any type of proportional representation which tends to empower the left, and has more checks and balances with the explicit goal of limiting political extremism and expropriation of private property by the state.

RACE

The other, according to the paper is American racial heterogeneity given than in more homogeneous societies it is easier for the relatively well-off to see the poor as themselves, and less so in a society with racial cleavages.

The paper finally evokes other possible explanations such as a culture of risk and individual success transmitted by immigrants to America or the Protestant Calvinistic views that tend to see success as God’s blessing. 

POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES

These are interesting explanations that make sense to me. But within the different cultural tendencies in Europe or the U.S. , there are also political patterns that remain along the lines of right vs. left, and in any given country, conservatives have a harsher view of the poor than progressives.

In the US it is the Republicans who are trying to trim welfare again, in France it is the conservative parties and the far-right. It is the old Victorian idea of the “undeserving poor”, and it is shared not only by rich people but also by the working poor.

At the core of this, there is the view that enough poor are taking advantage of the system and do not want to work that it is worth screening the worthy ones and make it harder for all of them. I do not deny there are bad apples, but the question is whether you believe the bad apples are numerous enough that it is worth stigmatizing an entire category of people.  Call me naïve if you wish, but  I do not subscribe to the view that most people on welfare like it this way. It is not just that a question of money but also of personal worth. 

Unfortunately, it is clear that this view is becoming increasingly popular in France, whether this is due to the economic crisis or to greater racial heterogeneity (and the view that immigrants and their children have become increasingly the beneficiaries of social welfare at the expense of the working middle-class).

A recent poll shows that 70% of the French favor the new proposed scheme that would force welfare recipients to do community work in compensation for the checks. In 2010, another poll showed that 80% of the French thought there was too much of the “nanny state” (“assistanat”) in France. This is definitely a major shift towards a much harder social system which may a sign of the times, just like the rise of the Tea Party in the U.S. or the far right in Europe.

On the Nature and Future of Government.

One of the most significant differences between France and the U.S. is the view of GOVERNMENT.

In fact, the difference of meaning of the word 'government' itself is very telling : in French the word "gouvernement" usually refers to the group of ministers and is closer to the American use of the word "administration" (le gouvernement Sarkozy Vs. the Obama administration) whereas the French use "l'état" to refer to the role of the administrative state. (The French usage is actually etymologically closer to the Greek meanig of 'govern': "to steer or pilot a ship, direct".).
But if you want to have any conversation with a French person on the "role of government" this will not suffice. There is the official meaning of the word and then there is its trickier cultural meaning.

The meaning of the word “état” in France is so particular that it doesn’t translate. It defines the country and is at the core of its identity. “L’état” has not only guaranteed stability and common good (a very important concept in France) in the last few centuries in France, but it actually created modern France out of a much divided culture (For instance, the northern langue d'oil was enforced over the langue d'oc by "l'état".)
Most countries favored federalism to accommodate the populations, but the French solution was centralization. It is thus part of the French identity and it is a concept entirely alien to Americans (and to most non-French people).

This may partly explain why government spending is such a delicate topic in France and why the French are very depressed about the current climate which calls for a diminishing role of government because of financial pressure. They feel that it is not just their way of life that's under attack but their very identity
This may also partly explain why government spending has also been constantly a greater percentage of the GDP in France than in most other nations, and definitely more than in the United-States :

On the other hand, if you look at government spending PER PERSON, you get a different picture :
This week's Economist has a special reports called "Taming Leviathan" - a metaphor that would hardly be used in a French magazine. Their main argument is that the "monstrous" state must and can be made more efficient. The problem with of a "debate about the nature of government" is that it is culturally biased - whether you are French, Chinese or American, your view will be tainted by your cultural and social-economic background.

As always with The Economist, they have some excellent points - one of which is that "the state’s growth has been encouraged by the right as well as the left, by favour-seeking companies as well as public-sector unions, by voters as well as bureaucrats.".
I would ad that despite right-wing propaganda, the increase in government spending is the result of leftist politicians - "in America a Republican, George Bush, pushed up spending more than any president since Lyndon Johnson". Where was the Tea Party then?
[Interesting point as well about the Tea-Party is that despite their radical rhetoric, "their first budget proposal did not touch defence or the [even] three great entitlement programmes, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security".]

The same is true in Europe - those on the left want more spending for health and safety, while those on the right want more spending for the war on drugs, crime and closed-circuit cameras. So the "monster' is really a creature of both the right and the left, and of popular demand:

Globalisation, for instance, has increased many people’s reliance on the state: greater job insecurity among the middle classes has increased the calls for bigger safety nets, and the greater inequality that comes with bigger markets has made voters keener on redistribution. Or look at the threat of terrorism, to which the knee-jerk response on America’s right was to build up the government in Washington.

On of my disagreements with their analysis is their assumption that "with a few small exceptions, government [productivity] lags behind the private sector". This may be true, but hard to prove because there is no way to precisely measure productivity.
How do you measure the productivity of nurse, a cop or a teacher? Good luck with that.
(Education being what I know best, I have written a few posts on the topic)

Another way to look at it, is to see well the social transfers work. For instance, the cost of social transfers in France is 19% of GDP and 16% of GDP in the U.S. yet The Economist fails to look at the "efficiency" of those social transfers.
One indication is INCOME INEQUALITY and a comparison between France and the U.S. can be useful.


OECD Source here and here.
- The average income of the richest 10% is the highest level in the OECD whereas the poorest 10% of the US citizens have an income about 20% lower than the average for OECD countries.

- The richest 10% of the French population has an income about the same as the OECD average. Similarly, the middle class have an income level similar to the OECD average whereas the poorest 10% of the French population have an income about 25% higher than the average for OECD countries.

To be fair, there are signs that things may be changing for the worse in France; Particularly worrisome is the increased inequality in French education (see here for instance).

This being said, I agree that government spending cannot increase especially under the pressure of abysmal deficits. (Look at Greece for a scary illustration!)

The Economist ends its reports on possible solutions that may be interesting for further debate :

• improving management by using technology (the Internet can a great tool that works well for the administrative processes)
• making government accountable at the local level (and yes, public services may work better at city level)
• simplifying the tax code. (Good luck with that one!)
• less power for vested interests (what the French call "privileges" of particular groups)
• redirecting social programs at the truly needy.
• too many regulations (maybe so when it comes to, say, European chesses, but not necessarily true when it comes to the banking industry)
• getting rid of some industrial and agricultural subsidies.(I would partly agree - I would add that the role of government should be more focused the essential functions of government such as education, defense, police, justice, health...)
  
• and I would add one more thing - stopping the tax-cuts for the richest in America (the Bush tax-cuts are "the single largest cause of America's structural deficit", but surprisingly -or conveniently- The Economist seems to forget about it.)
  

What is certain is that people want to have their cake and eat it too - thanks to its ballot initiative, California is the closest thing to direct democracy and the result is that "they have made government worse, protecting bits of spending yet refusing to pay for it." (see article here). Unfortunately I am afraid this may be a universal truth and that deep down WE MAY ALL BE CALIFORNIAN.
In this respect it would be nice to have some good political leadership for a change with politicians with guts and with voters willing to hear the truth.