France on Fire

Young protestors looted and put France to the torch this past Saturday. No doubt, there were many Frenchmen like Nathan Mimoun who arrived at his electronics store to see that over 70,000 Euros of product had been stolen. Historian Sir Niall Ferguson, in a recent FP Article, argues that the source of the youth’s frustration and violence is that the French entitlement system is rigged against the youth and for their grandparents. Our understanding of public choice can tell us why France may seemingly be at war with itself over young versus old and why the costs to such a war might be high. 

First, we know from Milton Friedman that “the use of political channels, while inevitable, tends to strain social cohesion essential for a stable society,” specifically for political decisions made without unanimity. Buchanan and Tullock sharpen this point by saying that any rule short of unanimity lets a winning coalition impose external costs on the outvoted. In France, low births for the past quarter century have meant the median voter is increasingly old. This older voting base has made it politically difficult for France to enact any entitlement reform. While it can be hard to trace the origin of any social unrest, the argument, that the massive weight of state funded pensions and entitlements is crushing France’s youth and bringing them to the street, certainly makes sense.

However, it must be said that the French youth's looting is not harmless redistribution. According to Tullock, theft actually generates a great deal of welfare loss, for both sides spend resources on a zero sum transfer. For example, because of the looting, store owners like Mimoun will now spend resources, which could otherwise be used productively, on things like security cameras and armed guards. Additionally, the thieves spend resources on things like hoods and masks for an activity that ultimately generates no welfare. In all, this theft makes everyone worse off and certainly won’t help France solve its fiscal woes.