Blog Post

Is “losing” Alstom really a symbol of France’s relative decline?

Irrespective of the economics, the factual observation remains unambiguous. French-headquartered companies are well represented among the population of global business giants, and increasingly so. France may have ninety-nine problems, but an extinction of corporate champions is not one of them. 

By: Date: May 5, 2014

The bid from GE, a leading US-headquartered conglomerate, over the power division of Alstom, a maker of turbines and trains, has prompted much soul-searching in France. It is widely commented in France as a symbol of the country’s relative decline. The argument is that the glorious France of yesteryear could muster an array of vigorous national corporate champions, but these are disappearing or leaving the French territory one after the other.

The same litany of loss is repeated again and again. Pechiney, an aluminium producer, was purchased by Canada’s Alcan in 2003. Arcelor, the heir to France’s historically strategic steel industry, was merged into ArcelorMittal in 2006. More recently, Publicis, a communications behemoth, has considered moving its headquarters to the Netherlands as a consequence of its merger with Omnicom; Lafarge, a cement maker, is similarly moving its head office to Switzerland while merging with Holcim; and the purchase of SFR, France’s second-largest mobile phone company, implies it will become a subsidiary of Altice, a Luxembourg-based group. France is described as at risk of being left without economic centers of decision, a vassal of foreign business powers.

The description of mass corporate exodus fits a narrative of national decay. France’s exports are slumping. Its tax burden has grown unbearably high, feeding an inadequate state-centered economic model. Its credit has been downgraded by the leading rating agencies. It is unable to match either the performance of Germany, or the structural reform of its Southern neighbors. Its best minds and entrepreneurs are emigrating, discouraged by the lack of opportunity at home. It is rapidly losing soft power. Its cherished language is increasingly neglected internationally. Even its restaurants are falling behind.

Except that on the specific issue of corporate champions, the story is not backed by the facts. Compared with the rest of the world and of Europe, France is not losing ground as headquarters location of major companies – if anything, the opposite is true.

To get a sense of the bigger picture, let’s have a look at a comprehensive set of the world’s largest companies, France’s position, and its evolution over time. A good proxy is to look at the 500 biggest listed companies by market capitalization, as published regularly by the Financial Times (FT 500), with minor corrections on head office location (which we define as the main center of corporate decision-making, while the FT refers to the place of listing or incorporation – in the vast majority of cases this makes no difference anyway). The omission of non-listed companies creates little distortion in the case of France, most of whose large companies have been publicly listed since at least the early 1990s – the name of the local stock index, known as CAC 40, is routinely used as shorthand for the country’s largest businesses. Market value is subject to financial cycles, but, as these tend to be largely synchronous, it is a good measure for cross-country and cross-sector comparisons.

The following charts show the findings for the latest ranking, as of end-2013, and the earliest one, in September 1996. For each date, we look at the number of FT 500 companies headquartered in a given country in proportion to that country’s Gross Domestic Product (at market exchange rates, from the International Monetary Fund’s World Economic Outlook database), and compare the ratio to the global average. If the corresponding number is above 1, the country is overrepresented in the global population of corporate champions in comparison to its economic importance; if the number is less than 1, the country is underrepresented. The same calculation is then made on the basis of aggregate market capitalization instead of number of companies, to account for differences of corporate size within the FT 500 list. (The numbers are unaffected by the eventual fate of Alstom, Lafarge and Publicis, whose respective market values are not large enough to be included among the 27 French companies in the list.)

As the chart illustrates, France is ahead of the EU average, let alone its peers in the euro area. Arch-rival Germany is well behind. The US, the world’s leading corporate powerhouse, does even better, but not by a wide margin. Corporate champions from China (which in this calculation includes Hong Kong and Macau) and the other BRICs remain well underrepresented in the global landscape, and would be even more so if the measure of GDP used was calculated at purchasing-power parity. When measured by market capitalization, the US and Switzerland are further ahead, as they are disproportionately home to very large corporate concerns. But France’s relative position is largely unaffected in comparison with its European peers, which suggests that its champions are not particularly lagging towards the bottom of the FT 500 list.

Trend-wise, and shocking as it may sound to Parisian pundits, France is actually doing better in this competition than it used to. The earliest available FT 500 list shows France’s corporate champions comparatively underrepresented, and slightly behind the EU average, both in terms of numbers of companies and of aggregate market value. (This list shortly predates the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98 and illustrates a temporary overrepresentation of some Asian countries, but this factor does not create much distortion from a global perspective and only marginally affects the relative positions of European countries and the US.) Strikingly, in less than two decades France has gained considerable ground in comparison with the two traditionally headquarters-rich EU countries, the UK and Netherlands, and even with Switzerland, whose stability, discretion and tax restraint has made a global magnet for corporate head offices.

Why factors lie behind France’s position? No general explanation is ventured here. Many factors influence the rise and fall of companies in the FT 500 list. However, one may note one aspect which resonates with the current Alstom saga. Of the 18 French companies in the 1996 list, four have been absorbed by a French peer but none by a foreign buyer; by contrast, among the 108 other European groups in that same list, 21 (or almost one in five) have been the targets of a cross-border acquisition. When Arnaud Montebourg, France’s opinionated Economics Minister, recently commented that “French companies are not prey,” he was in a way making a statement of fact. This specificity is likely to be at least partly policy-driven – i.e., the French government is more determined than its European peers to prevent its national champions being taken over, and when such an outcome is unavoidable, it tends to favor national mergers over cross-border ones. This hypothesis chimes with anecdotal evidence, such as when the French authorities appeared to dissuade Novartis from bidding for Aventis in 2004, PepsiCo from Danone in 2005, unnamed interested parties from Société Générale in early 2008, or indeed Siemens for Alstom, also in 2004.

Whether this policy serves the French national interest, as opposed to the special interests of the respective companies’ management and shareholders, is a matter of debate. Both the French elites and the wider public seem to take it as an article of faith that the more national champions, the better. In business matters, the French often appear to believe in intelligent design: incumbency is viewed favorably, and any evolution in the corporate landscape is viewed with suspicion. Thus, the implicit prior of many discussions in France is that protecting, promoting or otherwise helping the established champions is good for the country.

By contrast, the economic case for such “neo-Colbertism” is far from self-evident. On the one hand, companies may have a home bias in locating their investments, and headquarters themselves are a source of high-quality jobs. On the other hand, the home bias appears to have decreased over time as the champions internationalize their production infrastructure, and increasingly their research and development operations as well; the protection of incumbents erodes market discipline and encourages rent-seeking and ineffectiveness; and more dynamic new entrants are discouraged from the national market. The cost-benefit analysis of France’s “economic patriotism” is made even more difficult by the opaqueness of tax arrangements made with large companies (in France as in other countries), and the fact that, more generally, many of the corresponding costs are hidden. More economic research is needed on these trade-offs, the terms of which are continuously modified by globalization and technical change.

Irrespective of the economics, however, the factual observation remains unambiguous. French-headquartered companies are well represented among the population of global business giants, and increasingly so. France may have ninety-nine problems, but an extinction of corporate champions is not one of them. 

Topics

Comments

Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Jérémie Cohen-Setton

The history of the macroeconomic divide

What’s at stake: Following up on his mathiness critique that economic theory is becoming a sloppy mixture of words and symbols, Paul Romer wrote a series of blog posts over the past few weeks discussing how things went so far off in the macroeconomic field, where a group (often referred as fresh-water economists) completely retreated from scientific engagement with macroeconomists who disagreed with them and gave up on using evidence to evaluate models.

By: Jérémie Cohen-Setton Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: August 24, 2015
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Silvia Merler

Greece budget update - August

The Greek finance ministry published last week the latest budget execution bulletin. The state budget primary balance increased significantly during July. Greece recorded a primary surplus of 1.6 billion euros in July, which takes the cumulated primary surplus for the first six months of the year at 3.5 billion euros, against a primary surplus target of 2.99 billion euros. This is the highest monthly value for the primary surplus since August 2014.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: August 17, 2015
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

Guntram B. Wolff

Greece: Lessons for Europe

It was inevitable that Greece would have to make cuts. Yet, if it is ever to pay back its debts, what the country needs most of all is a growth strategy.

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: August 13, 2015
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

Grégory Claeys

Los trémulos cimientos del 'plan Juncker'

Los detalles del plan alimentan el escepticismo

By: Grégory Claeys Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: August 7, 2015
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Ashoka Mody

Wolfgang Schäuble, Debt Relief, and the Future of the Eurozone

The German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble has had enough. Greece, he says, cannot receive debt relief from European creditors because European official creditors are forbidden by European treaties to grant relief. But this cannot be true. Once a loan has been made, any lender exposes himself to a default risk.

By: Ashoka Mody Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: August 6, 2015
Read article More on this topic

Opinion

Guntram B. Wolff

Greece’s debt burden can and must be lightened within the Euro

The current link between debt servicing and membership of the single currency leads to a vicious circle that increases uncertainty, weakens growth and makes full debt repayment less likely. There will be no confidence and no growth in Greece without a solution to the debt problem.

By: Armin von Bogdandy, Marcel Fratzscher and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: August 5, 2015
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Silvia Merler

Now you see it, now you don’t

The first Italian case of bail-in.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: August 3, 2015
Read article Download PDF More on this topic More by this author

Policy Contribution

Reform momentum and its impact on Greek growth

Reform momentum and its impact on Greek growth

The time is ripe to analyse in fine detail the conditions attached to the Greek programmes and to look in particular at the degree of structural reform implementation under the first and second programmes, the speed at which implementation took place, and the headings under which reforms were enacted, especially compared to the other euro-area programme countries.

By: Alessio Terzi Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: July 29, 2015
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Video

Video

Competitive gains in the Economic and Monetary Union

This event was organised in the frame of the 10th Anniversary of Bruegel. It brought together a panel of high level economic experts to discuss the competitive gains achievable through reinforcing the Internal Market and structural reforms.

By: Bruegel Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: July 22, 2015
Read article More on this topic

Opinion

Guntram B. Wolff

Griechenlands Schuldenlast kann und muss im Euroraum erleichtert werden

Die Verknüpfung von Schuldendienst mit der Mitgliedschaft in der Währungsunion führt zu einem Teufelskreis, der das Wachstum schwächt und damit eine Rückzahlung der Schulden unwahrscheinlicher macht. Wir schlagen vor, den Teufelskreis durch eine Bindung der Kreditzinsen an das Wachstum der griechischen Wirtschaft zu durchbrechen. Ein Griechenland ohne Wachstum soll keine Zinsen und keine Tilgung zahlen. Je stärker das Wachstum, desto höher die Zinsen und Rückzahlungen an die europäischen Gläubiger. 

By: Armin von Bogdandy, Marcel Fratzscher and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: July 22, 2015
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Jérémie Cohen-Setton

Understanding the Neo-Fisherite rebellion

The idea that low interest rates are deflationary – that we’ve had the sign on monetary policy wrong! – started as a fringe theory on the corners of the blogosphere 3 years ago. Michael Woodford has now confirmed that modern theory, indeed, implies the Neo-Fisherian view when people’s expectations are infinitely rational.

By: Jérémie Cohen-Setton Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: July 19, 2015
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Silvia Merler

Greece budget update

Primary surplus picked up in June, but July is the key month to watch.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: July 16, 2015
Load more posts