A comparison with our European neighbours, which share the same social model, also points to some areas where  Page 15 sur 15 our public costs appear to be significantly higher: certain social benefits, economic aid – including tax credits – and the presence of multiple layers of local and regional authorities. None of the issues I have brought up here are easy. But everything is possible, and most of it depends on us. It doesn’t depend on anyone else, on globalisation, or even on Europe. A reform drive is guaranteed to produce results, as long as it is comprehensive, long-lasting – effective implementation over several years counts for more than the initial announcement – and fair. The gains then benefit everyone, and first and foremost those who are out of employment today and the most disadvantaged, who must be assured of a national solidarity that is finally financed over the long term. Our challenge is thus to finally project ourselves once again beyond the very short term. To conclude with Henri Bergson: "To act freely is to retake possession of oneself; it is to place oneself back in pure duration ". Good luck to our dear country, and thank you for your attention. I would like to thank Antonin Bergeaud, Marion Cochard, Marie Delorme, Antoine Devulder, Matthieu Lemoine, JeanFrançois Ouvrard, Katja Schmidt and Thomas Zuber for their contributions to this speech.
I am passionately convinced of the need for a public service, and affected by its current crisis: its necessary modernisation, its re-legitimisation, recognition for civil servants, is not incompatible with its capacity to perform and innovate, on the contrary. The transformation of the Banque de France is a modest but real example. The idea is not to reduce public spending overall, but to stabilise it. Bringing spending growth down to 0.5% per year from 2023 onwards would lower the debt ratio to 100% of GDP in ten years, assuming the rate of tax and social security contributions remains constant - I insist on this condition; stabilising our spending in volume terms would enable us to reduce our debt even further, to 90% of GDP. The target to be set is obviously a matter for democratic debate. But the most important thing is that the targets set for this "overall spending limit" actually be respected, which unfortunately our country has never been able to do in the long term. The choice of priorities or savings to be made also legitimately belong to the political debate. I would just like to point out that the key issue of the quality of spending is the blind spot in our budgetary debate, whereas it can guide us here. Economic analysis shows that spending for the future – most investment, education, research – has a much better "multiplier" effect on growth over time than simple current spending.