A deux reprises, nous avons discuté, ensemble et de manière intense, sur ce blog la problématique du modèle social français. Les deux notes que j’avais proposées à votre lecture, Le modèle social français:"Sortir du champ de bataille idéologique" et Retour sur le modèle social, avaient suscité de votre part pas moins de 70 commentaires.
Tout montre que l'article que Eric Le Boucher a publié dansLe Monde du 23 octobre 2005 prend le même chemin si j’en juge par le nombre de commentaires qu’il provoque sur le site de ce journal. Il est vrai que constater, comme il le fait, que "le modèle français est facteur d’anxiété sociale, comme l’américain", mérite de retenir l’attention.
Sa réflexion est inspirée par une étude d’André Sapir que ce Professeur à l’institut de recherche bruxellois Bruegel a préparé à l’intention de la réunion informelle des ministres de l’économie et des finances de l’Union européenne qui s’est tenue à Manchester le 9 septembre 2005.
Ce document, dont l'adresse a été fournie par Gwendal sur le site du Monde , ne semble malheureusement être disponible sur le web qu’en anglais. Tel quel cependant, il constitue une tentative méritoire de formalisation et de rationalisation du débat sur le concept de "modèle social", que ce modèle soit national, européen ou américain et peut être utilement consulté en plus de l’article de Eric Le Boucher.
Les extraits suivants donnent un aperçu de l’analyse d’André Sapir :
"All Nordic and Anglo-Saxon countries rank above average in terms of overall employment rate, whereas most continental (with the exception of Austria) and Mediterranean (with the exception of Portugal) countries rank below average. Comparing figures 2 and 3 indicates a strong connection between the employment rate generated by a social system and the instrument it uses to protect workers from the vagaries of the labour market. The stricter the employment protection legislation of a model, the lower its employment rate.4 By contrast, the generosity of unemployment only plays a secondary role.This means that protecting jobs with employment legislation is definitely detrimental to employment, whereas protecting workers with unemployment insurance is potentially useful for employment.”
“Nordic and Mediterranean countries apparently face no (...) trade-off (between efficiency and equity). Nordics enjoy an envious position, with a social model that delivers both efficiency and equity, whereas Mediterraneans live in a social system that delivers neither efficiency nor equity.On the other hand, Anglo-Saxon and continental countries both seem to face a trade-off between efficiency and equity. Anglo-Saxons have an efficient but inequitable social model, while continentals enjoy far more equity but far less efficiency.”
“In conclusion, there is a strong case for reforming European labour market and social policies, especially in continental and Mediterranean countries. There are two overriding reasons for focusing on these two groups of countries. First, in many of them the welfare state system has become highly inefficient. By relying on strict employment protection laws at a time of rapid change when old jobs and practices are no longer warranted, it discourages adaptation to change and preserves the status quo. The system therefore reduces overall employment and raises unemployment. For a long time “median voters” were largely spared from growing unemployment, the burden falling mainly on the young and the immigrants,11 while older workers exited the labour market through generous early retirement schemes. Today, however, the political equilibrium has changed. Median voters are no more insulated from the ever-growing pressure of globalisation and also realise that the combination of population ageing and low employment rates jeopardises their future pension benefits. The second reason for focusing on the continental and Mediterranean countries is simple arithmetic. The combined GDP of the nine continental and Mediterranean countries accounts for two-thirds that of the entire EU-25 and 90 per cent that of the 12-member eurozone. The economic and social health of these countries is therefore of paramount importance for the smooth functioning of the entire European Union and of the eurozone.”
