Thomas Angeletti shows that as a collective entity and category of public action, the French economy has taken shape relatively recently. He then proposed to look at the instruments, or “ Foving devices Which give him his consistency and his political power.
Why is the government to evoke the poor health of the French economy to legitimize calls for “ make an effort »Addressed to workers ? Why the economists have the power to discredit a political reform by the simple affirmation that the latter would be harmful to the French economy ? How is it that despite the multiple attempts to leave, re-dynamize, relaunch the French economy, it seems to follow its own independent, unpredictable and often marked crises of crises ? These questions are at the heart of The invention of the French economy of Thomas Angeletti, who returns to the emergence of this object during the XXe century.
Its main thesis is as follows: as a clearly delimited collective entity, the French economy was “ invented »During the second half of the XXeby the gathering of various data, indicators and instruments making it possible to account for it. The author therefore proposes to investigate the processes which give its consistency to such an entity, by arguing that they make the economy an object biface: it becomes on the one hand a category of public action on which one acts, and it is granted on the other hand a autonomy, its spontaneous movements then imposing on the State to act in a certain way. It is in particular this contradiction between agie and acting economy that Angeletti retraces in the work.
The interest of such a socio-historical investigation is also political: the economy, naturalized, exercises an important political power which, if it is sometimes criticized, very rarely sees its existence called into question. Returning to the instruments that allowed this naturalization then makes it possible to deepen and support criticism addressed to the continuous growth of growth. Furthermore, the economy having become one of the most important areas of intervention of the State (if not the main one), its consistency goes hand in hand with the development of specific economic policies that shape it, and it is therefore also their developments that it is a question of grasping.
Gather the traces of the French economy under construction
The investigation opens on the interwar period, during which economists try to demonstrate the existence of the French economy. During this period, various quantification companies (economic sectors, “ Business cycles », National income, etc.) are carried out, in a context of instability of the institutions that are responsible for it. It was at the end of the Second World War that the consistency of the French economy accelerates. The implementation in European countries of national accounts, giving rise to the first quantifications of the gross domestic product (GDP), gives a structure to the economy as well as a quantity to measure it. It is sometimes first designated by the terms “ income ” Or “ national production », And has moving characteristics. The figure of GDPvery quickly widely disseminated and used in public debate, establishes for the author a “ Political paradigm of growth ». Thus, in a context of planning the economy, through the definition by a general police station dedicated to “ Plans Pluriannuals describing French economic objectives and measures to achieve them, growth becomes a full -fledged political objective.
Angeletti highlights the major role of economists during this period. IELES help to erase the political connotations of economic knowledge, participate in laying the foundations of macroeconomics (sub-discipline dedicated to the study of the French economy) and informs policies of the time. In doing so, Iels are reflected as spokesperson for the entity “ French economy »During manufacture.
A model “ physico-financial »»
The book then looks at the macroeconomic model “ Fifi ” For “ physico-financial », Built and used in the 1960s with the aim of preparing the Vie Plan. The author shows how technical choices reflect the conceptions of the political and economic role of planning defended by the modeler. Some examples thus say a lot about the version of the economy captured by Fifi : the incorporation of social hierarchies in the model, via socio-professional categories, is quickly evacuated because it is considered too expensive to implement ; While the abandonment of a representation of financial flows is less obvious and is only done after many unsuccessful attempts. It already appears at this stage of the book, and it is one of the important results of the survey, that the choices of formatting the economy condition the type of policies that can be envisaged. To give another example, the unemployment rate and the level of wages are described in the model Fifi Like modeling results and not variables that could be modified by state interventions: their qualification as an instrument of public action is then excluded. By selection and quantification operations of phenomena worthy of being included in the model, but also through the modeling of economic trajectories in the form of variants, the model thus determines the levers of action of the State which are, or not, possible. The creation of the model Fifi Also complete to give economists a major place in economic policy, and their mission becomes to equip and guide political decisions.
The impossible criticism of the economy ?
The rest of the book highlights the criticisms formulated by certain actor-rates in the face of the French economy as it is captured by the model Fifiand is interested in the effectiveness of these criticisms. The unions, already opposed to the use of economic forecasts, see their position weakened by the results of the model which invisibrate political elements on which they usually rely: workers and their mobilizations. If there CGT try to criticize some of the model’s hypotheses, concerning the impossibility of acting directly on wages for example, by calling into question their evidence, it does not have a technical device as convincing as that of the model makers of Fifi. Involved in a debate around modeling variants, political actors are therefore obliged to accept, at least in part, the design of the economy advanced by the model, or to leave the discussion table. In parallel, in the newspapers, the modelizers of Fifi face controversy: while they imagined Fifi In apolitical mediator, they are accused of bringing about an economy which forces the space of possible economic policies too much, and which is not suitable for employers which demands higher growth rates. However, these debates end up falling back. THE “ cooling »The formatting system that is Fifi Go hand in hand with a de-personalization of the work of politicians and an increase in the price to be paid to reopen certain debates closed by the model: the economy then imposes its necessity a little more.
The book ends with an analysis of the “ forecasting crisis »From the 1970s and 1980s, concomitant to an economic crisis as well as the multiplication of forecasting bodies within and outside the State (Direction of forecasting, OfceBanque de France, etc.). A plurality of economic expertise is gradually replacing the plurality of social groups that characterized the commissions in terms of. These developments cause a displacement of what the French economy is: State interventions on this object are less and less envisaged, its national scale is questioned while its movement autonomy is strengthened, more forcing political decisions. Angeletti then considers that this “ Return of the economy Economists lose the power to act that they had sought to set up.
Socially constructed, but solid entities: what objectives for constructivism ?
Angeletti’s work, very rich and informed, provides a case of study speaking to question the challenges carried out by constructivism and the interest of the procedures of denaturalization of social entities. Thus, if the different chapters demonstrate the socially constructed character of the French economy, by exposing the devices which give it form, it is not with the aim of denying its consistency. It is not enough to show that a certain entity or collective structure (here the French economy, one can also think of the structure of gender, social classes, but also of capitalism or the State to cite examples given by the author) has a date of birth and that it owes its existence to specific operations (here accounting and forecast in particular) to make it collapse and remove its power. On the contrary, such collective entities are active because they rely on instruments with proven effectiveness: what are the objectives of a denaturalization approach ? Angeletti offers two critical tracks to follow: appropriating the categories and instruments which give its strength to such an entity to change it, or make visible, by alternative formatting devices, which overflows, which it has been able to invisible or deny.
The socio-historical approach started by Angeletti, namely to describe precisely the instruments which give the French economy its consistency and its power, is therefore rich in political perspectives. His work contributes to anchor and equip criticism from the French economy, whether reformists or radical. It also provides sockets to continue a characterization of this collective entity, from the devices which give it shape. State levers designated by the model Fifi did not make it possible to envisage collective action and its effects on the economy: what are more generally the political orientations carried by the instruments of quantification of the economy and its future ? More broadly, social inequalities, gender, race, are evacuated by macroeconomic tools: how does this result in the characteristics and powers conferred on the economy ? Deepening these issues, which Angeletti Esquisse’s work will support the criticism addressed to the form taken by the French economy and its political power.