I first would like to thank the Institute of economics Affairs and
John Blundell for the invitation to speak in front of such a great crowd.
I am very honoured.
As you certainly do not know yet who I am, I would like to introduce
myself. I do not need to insist upon the fact that I am French (my
accent speaks for myself). I am an economist. I had the great honor to
have Pascal Salin as my PhD's director and I also am the happy founder
and director of a francophone free-market think-tank named after the
economist-journalist Gustave de Molinari. The institute is now 4 years
old and this is certainly because I am a Young European that John asked
me to speak about the appeal of capitalism to people from my generation.
You need to know that it is a difficult issue for a French woman because
it is very Anglo-Saxon like (very empirical). We usually prefer to deal
with very theoretical and analytic issues. But I thought that it was a
great opportunity to use the network of think-tanks I work with across
Europe and this is what I did. I actually asked the question to my
friends who are in the battle of ideas and they fed my thought with
their insights. It's been an interesting exercise.
Indeed, it is very difficult to get a sense of what is going on in Italy
or in Lithuania while one lives in France. Young Italians are different
from young French or young Spanish.
What actually seems to be a common ground in Europe is that capitalism
is not becoming more popular, even in some former communist countries
like Lithuania where according to the director of the Lithuanian free-market
think-tank "anticapitalism is becoming more and more popular among the
young Lithuanians." In France, despite the election of Nicolas Sarkozy,
it might not come as a surprise that the concept is not yet enjoying
better times.
There was a poll conducted in January 2006 by the Program on
International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) based at the University of
Maryland. PIPA, together with the polling firm Globalscan, asked around
20,791 people in 20 large countries about their attitudes to the free
market, and globalization. The key question asked respondents if they
agreed or disagreed with the statement that "the free enterprise system
and free market economy is the best system on which to base the future
of the world." Only one country disagreed strongly: France. Only 36 per
cent of the French agreed that the free market economy is the best
system, while 50 per cent disagreed. What the French fear the most is
globalisation that is understood, as the loss of jobs. As could be
expected, the presidential candidates run on a protectionist, statist
platform filled with rhetoric against big business. And Sarkozy is no
exception.
What is very interesting in the poll that I just mentioned is that
despite the fact that most countries are rather in favour of free market
and capitalism, when it comes to specific issues, they are all very
statist. Indeed, when asked if the free market economy works best in
society's interests when accompanied by strong government regulations,
65% agree. Further, 73% consider that large companies have too much
influence over national governments, 75% think we need more regulations
on large companies to protect the environment, 74% are in favour of more
regulations to protect the rights of workers and the rights of consumers.
With such beliefs, one wonders what is left of capitalism or what room
will be made for capitalism once environmental regulations, for
instance, will cover every aspect of our lives.
As a matter of fact, the concept of capitalism is hardly understood by
anyone in the general public. Whereas the idea of freedom remains very
appealing, very few people see the capitalist system as the expression
of liberty in the realm of economics. When it comes to understand the
root of new technologies and innovations, they do not see it.
There are reasons for that.
Capitalism is difficult to understand for the non-intellectuals because
its mechanisms are not very visible: this is the famous Adam Smith's
invisible hand. Also it is not a very appealing system for intellectuals
to defend because at the difference of statist systems, it does not give
them a very powerful role.
Besides, there is a tension, between on the one hand a system that only
concerns the material aspects of life and on the other hand the finding,
common in all important civilisations, that materialism is not
necessarily the way to wisdom or happiness. The difficulty is to find a
balance between the defence of capitalism as the only just and efficient
system and the refusal of a certain materialism.
Does it mean that one should be very pessimistic about the future? I do
not think so; otherwise I would not run a free-market think-tank in
France. Indeed, a small and crucial minority is questioning the
mainstream and may thus identify favourably with "capitalism". If we are
successful, this minority might grow to one student per classroom.
Doesn't sound much, but that might be just enough for societal change.
But who are the we! And this is the answer I would like to give you
today. Capitalism is certainly not very appealing to most young
Europeans but there are more and more people in Europe who are motivated
enough to create a foundation, an institute, a think-tank that will
spread free-market ideas and more than anything else will explain what
it is exactly.
According to the Stockholm network, there are around 150 free-market
think-tanks in Europe. 100 were created in just the last 4 years. This
is an amazing number that indicates that something is growing in Europe
that might make the difference in the next 10-20 years.
Just a few examples:
• The IEM
I would like to give you some insights about what we are trying to do in
France and what have been our successes so far. When I created the
institute 4 years ago, I went to Montreal and visited the Montreal
Economic Institute. This is where I learnt my lesson: the institute will
try to reach the public opinion through all possible means: press, TV,
radio, conferences with a very plain and clear message. We would take
the public opinion where it is, meaning that we spend a lot of time
trying to understand what people are interested in and what they can
understand or not. When I started, I was told by my free-market friends
that there was no way that we would be published in the French press, as
it is known to be irremediably opposed to anything that can resemble a
free-market opinion. I discarded this belief and we started to send our
op-eds to all the French national press. Very soon, we started to be
published by the newspaper Les Echos, then la Tribune and we even
succeeded in being published by the two most left-wing newspaper: Le
Monde and Libération. It's been very hard work but it was
possible. As I knew that it would take time, I decided that we would
also send our op-eds to as many francophone newspapers as possible and
that we would target Anglophone and Europeans newspapers. As a matter of
fact, we now have a monthly column in the French newspaper Les Echos,
another one in the Swiss paper Le temps and the Quotidien du
Luxembourg. We publish in the Belgian press and even in the Canadian
one. The really great thing about that strategy is that we have seen
some of our op-eds published in foreign countries coming back to the
French press or business office.
In 2006, we (meaning three people) were able to publish more that one
article a week. This year we have already doubled the number and for the
first time we are now getting interviews on the radio and on TV because
of the publication of my book on environmental issues. Indeed, last
March, I was able to publish with a very famous French publisher my
first book. It deals with the precautionary principle, sustainable
development and explains why property rights are so important if one
wants to deal with environmental challenges. It came as a very nice
surprise that the book was quite a great success and received a lot of
media coverage and attention. It is very encouraging for the future.
This is not to say that we are now known from every single person in
France, far from it but this is to emphasize that it is possible to make
progress and there is absolutely no limit to what one can do if we find
the support and the resources that are necessary to build upon the work
that has been done so far.
• The Spanish movement
On that issue, I very much like to mention the Spanish case. It
perfectly illustrates that it does not necessarily need many people at
first to build a movement that is now invading the Spanish debate. The
story starts with two intellectuals, Joaquin and Luis Reig, who decided
to set up a seminar some 40 years ago, that would be later attended by
Jesus Huerta de Soto and many other intellectuals who would help Federico
Jiménez Losantos to be trained in economics. Jesus Huerta de Soto became
a professor and Jimenez Losantos started a radio show that would spread
sound economics about today challenges. Their investment in the last 20
years has been so great that one counts today around 50-60 intellectuals
in Spain that are well trained in economics and classical liberalism.
Many of them are now activists around the new free market think-tank the
Juan de Mariana Institute founded 3 years ago by professor Gabriel
Calzada. Still very young the institute has already 150 members. They
published 585 op-eds, 241 Daily Commentaries (usually republished in
on-line newspapers), and participated to 91 radio shows and 33 TV shows
in 2006. They also organized 69 conferences. I was told that the numbers
would double this year. They have become so well known that even a
newspaper like El Pais started to worry that they might overcome the
Internet.
Besides, convinced that intellectual ammunitions are the key in the
battle of ideas, they are now organizing every year a one week Summer
University with 45 students and 18 speakers (including some of the best
professors in Latin America and Spain). They are also setting up a brand
new Master in Economics of the Austrian School that will start next
October. Gabriel Calzada told me recently that they have attained a
record of registered students in all Master in Economics among the
public universities in Madrid (right now over 40 students from 8
countries).
These numbers are quite impressive and again tell us the power of ideas.
I did not mention the history of the Institute of Economics Affairs, but
this is of course another amazing example of what the battle of ideas
has been able to produce. The great thing about nowadays is that such
enterprises are flourishing again all over Europe.
Conclusion
To conclude, the battle of ideas is not going to end tomorrow and the
great thing is that we see a young generation of free-marketers that
consider it is important enough to dedicate part of their life to spread
classical liberal ideas. This is only with such an intellectual army -
and the financial means to build it - that we will be able to convince
young Europeans that capitalism is indeed appealing and a necessary if
not sufficient condition to our happiness.
Thank you for your attention.
|
