 |
The Rules Of The Game by Lucian Bebchuk |
 |
War and Peace by Shlomo Ben-Ami |
 |
 |
Transatlantic Perspectives by Boskin, Sinn |
 |
Crossing Cultures by Ian Buruma |
 |
 |
 |
The Statesmen's Debate by Castaneda, Haass, Rocard |
 |
 |
Finance in the 21st Century by Davies, Shiller |
 |
Anatomy of the Global Economy by J. Bradford DeLong |
 |
Net World by Esther Dyson |
 |
The Next Financial Order by Barry Eichengreen |
 |
The Magic of the Market by Martin Feldstein |
 |
The Rebel Realist by Joschka Fischer |
 |
Capitalism Then and Now by Harold James |
 |
Global Warning by Bjorn Lomborg |
 |
European Observer by Dominique Moisi |
 |
Of Might and Right by Joseph S. Nye |
 |
History in Motion by Chris Patten |
 |
Roads to Prosperity by Dani Rodrik |
 |
The Unbound Economy by Kenneth Rogoff |
 |
After the Storm by Nouriel Roubini |
 |
Economics and Justice by Jeffrey D. Sachs |
 |
The Ethics of Life by Peter Singer |
 |
Against the Current by Robert Skidelsky |
 |
I Dissent: Unconventional Economic Wisdom by Joseph E. Stiglitz |
 |
Awakening India by Shashi Tharoor |
 |
The Next Wave by Naomi Wolf |
In France’s pre-presidential electoral campaign, European affairs are mentioned or whispered, but almost never debated. France is mostly concerned with its own problems, particularly the supposed malfunctioning of its political class and the apparent laziness of the French public, which is blamed for weak economic growth, especially when compared to the United States. France needs a debate on European Union affairs, but only as long as it does not degenerate – as is common in Europe – into self-flagellation.
But the germ of such a debate exists, and it sounds very different from that which dominated the failed constitutional referendum campaign in France two years ago. The operation of European institutions – the European Central Bank, the European Commission, and the Stability Pact – is facing severe criticism, but not in the name of a nostalgia for national sovereignty. Europe is not being rejected; instead, the criticism has been in the spirit of improving European institutions in the name of the common good.
Both of the major candidates for the French presidency, Ségolène Royal and Nicholas Sarkozy, have called for the creation of an economic government for the euro zone. Of course, such a “government” already exists in the form of the European Central Bank. But what is needed is an institutional framework that would establish greater political responsibility concerning the primary economic objectives that Europe should pursue – full employment and growth – and that would at least partly close the democratic deficit implied by the ECB’s takeover of monetary policy from euro-zone states.
A moment of seeming political disunity, such as exists today, may not seem the right one to initiate such a project. But, historically, Europe has succeeded when, at moments of danger, it has initiated irreversible processes that outweigh any other consideration. Europe’s founding fathers understood this when they hatched the idea of creating the European Coal and Steel Community: encouraging old enemies to pool some of the most powerful tools of war under the pretext of advancing their economic interests was a strategy of rare intelligence.
We now live in a similar moment of uncertainty and danger, and this time, too, there is a project, both economic and political, that can unite the Union: energy independence, a key factor in national sovereignty. Today, there is nothing on a pan-European scale that guarantees the responsibility of each member state to ensure the security of its future supplies.
The European Commission is weary of trying to build a single energy market, which has required it to persuade governments that they must dismantle their existing monopoly operators – a prerequisite to competition. Although member states appear to have resigned themselves to this, they fervently resist other European firms taking control of their “national champion” companies.
To be sure, governments cannot escape their responsibilities to their citizens, and only the most naïve technocrat believes that the market alone can ensure energy independence. At the same time, however, purely bilateral negotiations between individual EU members and oil- and gas-producing countries weakens the member states’ bargaining power, as well as undermining Europe’s geopolitical weight in world affairs.
Yet, fortunately, there is no need for resignation. There is an obvious solution, similar to the Coal and Steel Community implemented by our founding fathers: a European energy, environment, and research community (E3RC). It is a mistake to believe that ecological concerns can be addressed only through negative growth. In fact, the opposite is true. New energy and environmental technologies will undoubtedly drive growth in the future.
But only if research is doubled to create new energy-efficient technologies will we eventually consume less energy overall and more energy in an environmentally friendly way. The ecological disasters that today’s economic activity has already produced and the catastrophic potential of those to come have at last brought home the fact that energy policy and environmental protection cannot be separated.
As it is, the E3RC would pursue two directly related objectives: European energy independence, which would be helped by new energy and environmental technologies, and Europe’s increased bargaining power in global markets. Its creation would also send out a new message to the European public: competition alone is not the only thing on Europe’s horizon. Above all, the EU requires cooperation.
Jean-Paul Fitoussi, president of the French Observatory of Economic Conditions (OFCE).
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2007.
www.project-syndicate.org
