EIs calling for the defense of “economic sovereignty” within the framework of a “national economy” relevant in the era of globalization? Certainly if it is a political reaction to this globalization movement. But is it economically possible to reverse this movement? And if so, for whose benefit?
The idea that globalization has dismantled national economies is inaccurate. Contrary to certain preconceived ideas, there is hardly a “French” economy historically, neither in ancient times (Gaul being part of the Roman Empire) nor in medieval times (when the markets linking several regions of Europe and Asia are already important), even less in modern times when two markets dominate: local and regional markets on the one hand, and long-distance trade with the Orient, Africa and the Americas on the other. . In all these eras, the world economy is certainly not unified as it is today, but the “French” economy is not either.
The latter is a construction that is both political and economic and partly dates back to the 18th century.e century and especially the contemporary world, from the 19the century, at a time when the nation-state was consolidating. This dimension became even more evident on the ideological and economic level in the following century with the affirmation of the social state and the idea that economic policies could regulate markets.
Institutional construction
Like any other market, never “natural” nor “spontaneous”, the national economy is therefore an institutional construction. Except that in the 19the century, it is part of a liberal framework which contributes to increasing inequalities, and in the 20the from a regulationist perspective aimed rather at reducing them. This is the reason why, even today, economic sovereignty appeals to both right and left nationalism. But in either case, we forget to mention that, precisely in the 19the and XXe centuries, while the expression “national economy” is imposed, growth is in reality nourished by international trade and with the French colonies.
Even during periods when protectionist policies carried out in the name of national sovereignty triumphed, at the beginning and end of the 19th century.e century or after the crisis of 1929, the international economy is in reality very present. But its impact is distributed differently between different groups of the population compared to periods of free trade. For example, agricultural protectionism penalizes the wages of urban workers; the defense of the national economy preached at this time is in reality that of a redistribution of national income at the expense of employees.
You have 55% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.