The French Protection: The Resurgence of Colbertian Statist Economics

http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=367


Economic Brief: French Protectionism


Report Drafted By:


Erich Marquardt, Dr. Federico Bordonaro


15 September 2005


On August 31, France announced that it would protect from buyouts by foreign companies domestic industries it considers as strategic. French Finance Minister Thierry Breton stated that the country's "very sensitive sectors" would be shielded from foreign bids. While the complete list of protected industries has not been made public yet, some of the protected industries were leaked to the media. As reported by Les Echos, the protected industries include defense, biotechnology, space technology, telecommunication companies, casinos, encryption, IT security, and antidote production.



France's turn toward protectionism follows a global pattern where states with advanced economies are shielding their domestic industries from foreign competition and from potential state rivals.


French Protectionism Returns


For many observers, the ongoing wave of "economic patriotism" advocated by French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin is nothing else but the renewal of French-style protectionism marked by the Colbertian tradition of statist direction of the national economy.


After rumors circulated in the summer of 2005 about a possible bid from U.S. drinks giant PepsiCo Inc. for French food giant Danone, and a Wal-Mart bid on supermarket chain Carrefour, many in the French political landscape called for an immediate reaction by the current administration so that France's industrial gems could be saved from American takeover. Therefore, on July 27, de Villepin announced that he would gather all available forces to launch a new economic patriotism.


Additionally, France bailed out its major engineering company Alstom in order to promote the French idea of creating "national champions," and avoided Switzerland's Novartis from buying out the French and German pharmaceutical company Aventis by backing Sanofi's merger with Aventis to create Sanofi-Aventis.


E.U. Concern


Protectionist acts from one of the leading states of the European Union have caused justifiable concern in Brussels. Gregor Kreuzhuber, spokesman for the E.U. Commission, told the press that the E.U. does not "want to see any disguised protectionism" and that the E.U. would review France's proposed economic policy.


Paris, predicting the concern in Brussels, quickly argued that its actions would comply with E.U. economic laws. French Budget Minister Jean-Francois Cope explained to the press, "Our move is completely consistent with community law. … Each country is allowed to define 'strategic' sectors in accordance with national interests -- for example in the defense or sensitive technology sectors." Cope further stated, "It's strictly within this framework that the government is considering measures which would be comparable to those in other European Union countries."


While it is obvious that France will try to argue that its protectionist measures abide by E.U. rules and regulations, there is concern that Paris' actions could set an example for other E.U. states to take similar protectionist measures. The fact that the French have casinos listed as one of their strategic industries -- under the notion that casinos could be used for money laundering -- exemplifies E.U. concern that France's actions are "disguised protectionism."


In its attempt to avoid the E.U. from blocking the passage of the new legislation, France will no doubt try to protect only its most vital industries so as to not draw the scorn of Brussels, but also to protect enough industries so as to appeal to domestic interests at home.


Why Protectionism?


French protectionism partly emanates from Paris' concern with foreign companies purchasing major firms in strategic or pivotal industries. Similar to the way that the U.S. Congress reacted to China National Offshore Oil Corporation's attempted purchase of the U.S. energy company Unocal, Paris does not want to see vital industries owned by outside companies tied to the governments of foreign states.


Additionally, however, Paris also wants to protect its domestic industries so that the country does not sustain a loss of jobs, such as factories closing down and moving operations to Eastern Europe or Asia. It provides the French government popularity in time for the upcoming presidential and parliamentary elections in 2007; tackling unemployment and successfully coping with globalization's challenges are vital to enhance the administration's credibility. In fact, without appreciable results in reducing the jobless figure in the country, de Villepin will hardly get the necessary support to achieve his ambitious industrial and energy policy. [See: "Intelligence Brief: French Energy Policy"]


As previously mentioned, de Villepin made the protection of French manufacturers a major policy goal after the PepsiCo Inc. bid was announced. After the bid was presented, President Jacques Chirac was reported saying that "the splitting up and the instability of the capital of certain large French businesses are risk factors for employment and for our industrial strength." It was then that de Villepin boldly announced it was time for France to display "real economic patriotism," or, in other words, economic nationalism. He argued, "When times are hard, when the world is changing, it is a question of gathering our strengths … and defending France and things French."


While Paris' rhetoric is very bold, in the end the French policy is similar to unspoken protectionist policies in other states with advanced economies, as was most recently seen in the protectionist bid by the U.S. and the E.U. against Chinese textile imports.


The important difference, however, is that the protectionist actions in the face of increased Chinese textile imports were taken by the E.U. as a whole, whereas Paris' "economic patriotism" idea is distinctly French. [See: "Economic Brief: Textile Quotas"]


Despite this concern, Les Echos reported that the list of protected industries it acquired did not list any food companies or, for instance, oil companies. However, the French Industry Ministry did state that it would reserve the right to prevent foreign takeovers of companies that had subsidiaries involved in any of the listed "sensitive sectors" and that the government would make the decision to bar a foreign takeover on a case-by-case basis.


The Bottom Line


After decades of dominating political discourse, economic liberalism looks now in a crisis because important decision-makers (such as in France) perceive it as fiction that conceals the hard reality of economic warfare and power relations among states. If France's republican and social-democratic traditions form an axis with the neo-Gaullist right-wing and prevail in the short/medium term over the neo-liberal reformists, look for a new social and political bloc to take shape around the "economic patriotism" policy in France, with considerable consequences for the European Union as a whole.

Biofuels Protectionism Trumps Climate Concerns: Just How Green is Biofuel?

http://www.reuters.com/article/GlobalAgricultureandBiofuels08/idUSN1661111120080116?sp=true


Biofuels protectionism trumps climate concerns


By Inae Riveras


Reuters


January 16, 2008


SAO PAULO (Reuters) - Despite world concerns about global warming and the impact of biofuel production on food prices, policy makers have done little to boost international trade of cheaper and more environmentally friendly fuels for consumers, experts said.


Import tariffs and trade barriers have prevented, for example, an increase in cane-based ethanol exports from Brazil, the world's most competitive producer of the biofuel. Shipments are actually expected to be lower in 2008 than last year.


In Europe, biodiesel producers have been hit by an increase in U.S. imports, which benefit from subsidies if they are blended with mineral diesel. To counterattack, the EU bloc may impose countervailing duties, industry leaders said.


The EU has also been affected by large volumes of Argentine biodiesel at cheap prices, which are encouraged by preferential taxes. The product is charged a 5 percent tariff by Argentina's government, while edible oil exports have a 30 percent duty.


"Some countries are trying to solve a world problem, which is global warming and climate change, just with national solutions," said the head of Brazil's Sugar Cane Industry Union (Unica), Marcos Jank, at the Reuters Global Agriculture and Biofuel Summit.


According to Unica, cane-based fuel has higher productivity than other feedstocks. Sugar cane yields seven liters of ethanol per hectare compared with three liters with corn.


Production costs are lower, and energy efficiency -- amount of energy used in the process versus energy resulting -- is five times higher with cane than with corn, Unica said.


Moreover, its impact on food prices is much more limited than the one caused by corn or wheat. Almost a third of the next U.S. crop may be turned into fuel, increasing upward pressure on food inflation.


But tariffs in some of the world's largest fuels markets like the U.S. and Europe will limit ethanol exports. Shipments from Brazil are to drop this year to 3.4 billion liters, down from 3.8 billion liters in 2007, Datagro consultants said.


GLOOM PERSPECTIVES


Unica argues its position is not self-promotional as cane-based ethanol could come also from Asia, Africa or South America. More than 100 countries -- most of them poor nations -- have natural conditions to grow cane.


"Europe is trying to subsidize their farmers to produce ethanol from beet and wheat instead of buying ethanol from abroad. The same happens in the U.S. Most of the ethanol there will come from corn, probably from biomass in the future, but not imported (ethanol)," Jank said.


"We believe that if these countries consider to import more from developing countries, the energy and environmental balance would be much better, and costs would be much lower."


But signals from these countries point to the opposite direction.


The chairman of the U.S. House Agriculture Committee, Rep. Collin Peterson, said on Tuesday tax credits and tariffs on ethanol would have to be maintained to create the necessary conditions for the development of cellulosic ethanol.


"We are hoping that we won't have any changes in the tax or tariffs any time soon," he said.
Brazilian ethanol is charged with a 54-cent-a-gallon tariff to enter the U.S. market. This makes direct sales possible only on specific and uncommon occasions, depending on low prices in Brazil and high prices in the United States.


And perspectives remain negative as the U.S. passed in December its Energy Bill, which sets a target for biofuel use of 36 billion gallons -- none of them imported, in principle.


"They (U.S.) won't open their market. They will stick to its import tariff and create a quota, and then administrate this quota under geopolitical criteria," said the president of Brazil's Datagro consultants, Plinio Nastari.


Wallace Tyner, professor at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, said it would be necessary either alter the mandate or change the tariff for U.S. to meet its goal.


"Brazil and a lot of Central American countries have a capacity to expand pretty quickly their ethanol production if they get signals that there's a market for it," Tyner said.

The Time For Doha Is Now

http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?articleID=129745


2008 is ‘make or break’ for Doha trade talks: World leaders


MeriNews, India

Mineguruji, 27 January 2008,

Amidst fears of a worldwide fiscal depression mounting, trade leaders at the WEF pressed businesses to push their governments to seek a successful conclusion to the Doha Round of trade talks this year or risk rise in new barriers to international business


WITH FEARS of a global economic recession growing, trade leaders at Davos urged businesses to press their governments to seek a successful conclusion to the Doha Round of trade talks in 2008, or risk seeing a rise in new barriers to international commerce.


“If it’s not concluded this year, it won’t be concluded next year - and by 2010 the caravans will have moved on elsewhere,” Peter Mandelson, commissioner, Trade, European Commission, Brussels, told participants at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2008. “Not only will the caravans have moved on in different directions of trade negotiations, but what has already been on the table, which in my view is quite substantial, will have been put into deep freeze.”


After more than six years of stop-start negotiations, the Doha talks between members of the World Trade Organization have ground to a halt. With less than a year before US President George Bush leaves office, time is rapidly running out for reaching an agreement to reduce tariffs, subsidies and promote freer and fairer trade, panelists said.


The plenary session “Threats to the Global Trading System” followed an informal lunch meeting of trade ministers in Davos. Despite important progress on technical issues over the past six months, panelists revealed, the group remains no closer to an agreement and scepticism is high. Concerns persist among developing countries that lower tariffs will unfairly expose poor rural farmers to global competition and jeopardise growth that would be a potential buffer against a global slowdown.


“The content of this Round must deliver to healthy economies in Asia, in Africa, in the Pacific and in Latin America because that’s the goose that’s laying the golden egg,” said Kamal Nath, minister of Commerce and Industry of India.


But the cost of failure is rising, panelists said. Failure in the Doha Round would be likely to increase protectionist pressures around the world and result in a rollback from the progress already made towards freer global trade. Mandelson said the negotiations had become a prisoner to some extent of the American political calendar. Campaigning is already underway for elections to replace Bush next January, and a new president is unlikely to be able to put the Doha Round at the front of the US policy agenda, he said. The new President is likely to want to review any commitments that have already been made.


President Bush remains strongly committed to reaching a trade deal, insisted US representative Susan Schwab, and bipartisan support for a deal in the US Congress means there is still time to ratify a deal if one can be reached, she said.


Pascal Lamy, director general, World Trade Organization (WTO), Geneva, said a failure in the talks could exacerbate the impact of a slowing global economy and heighten geopolitical tensions. Celso Amorim, minister of Foreign Relations of Brazil, echoing these concerns, said failure to reach a deal in 2008 would “give the wrong signals to the global economy. And this will be detrimental to everybody, most of all the developing economies.”


Indeed, continued delays had lost the negotiators’ credibility among voters and companies, said Doris Leuthard, federal councillor of Economic Affairs of the Swiss Confederation. “When we don’t get a result, national protectionism is a big threat,” she said.


While businesses may be frustrated with the lack of progress in the Doha Round, companies still have a great deal to gain from it, Mandelson stressed - and a great deal to lose if a deal is not reached. “There is very significant economic value in binding the existing openness in the global economy,” he said.


Companies, therefore, most overcome their scepticism to push for a successful deal, panelists said. “The capacity of any one of us to deliver such a package through our political systems will depend in large measure on what the private sector is doing and saying, and whether they hold accountable leaders in their countries,” said Schwab.