La réforme de la réglementation en France: Renforcer l’ouverture du marché à travers la réforme de la réglementation

Moïsé, Evdokia and Ghafele, Roya (2002): La réforme de la réglementation en France: Renforcer l’ouverture du marché à travers la réforme de la réglementation. Published in: OECD (2004): pp. 1-56.

Abstract

As traditional barriers to trade have fallen, the impact of domestic regulations on international trade and investment has become more apparent than ever before. While regulations aim at improving the functioning of market economies in a range of fields, such as market competition, business conduct, the labour market, consumer protection, public health and safety or the environment, they may directly or indirectly distort international competition and prevent market participants from taking full advantage of competitive markets. Maintaining an open world trading system requires regulation that promotes global competition and economic integration, thereby avoiding trade disputes and improving trust and mutual confidence across borders. This chapter assesses how the French regulatory system performs from these perspectives and how regulatory reform may contribute to enhancing market openness and the benefits which consumers and producers can reap from open markets. From the perspective of opening the market to international competition, the French record is on the whole positive. The French government and administration have gradually distanced themselves from the interventionist and paternalistic tradition of the State and have committed themselves to developing a regulatory framework supportive of sound market functioning. Nevertheless, there are still some shortcomings in terms of achieving a market-friendly regulatory environment, and these need to be addressed for the country to retain benefits from the progress achieved to date. Available evidence shows that the principles of favouring harmonised standards and of streamlining conformity assessment procedures are widely respected in practice, in particular under the influence of EU and WTO disciplines. Observance of competition principles also offers sound guarantees for the international openness of the French market, and the telecommunications sector offers a good example of such successful opening to competition. In sectors where incumbents still dominate the market, like in the electricity and gas sectors, the role of incumbents will be soon modified owing to the liberalisation of the European market. With respect to the other principles underlying market openness, a number of official or unofficial steps in the right direction have recently been taken. The principles relating to transparency and openness of the decision-making process are also well respected. Prior consultation with interested parties is becoming normal practice with the French administration, although the openness of the decision making process could be improved if such consultation were put on a formal and systematic basis. The principle of nondiscrimination is generally observed in regulatory practices, although a number of exceptions persist. From the viewpoint of market openness, the major weakness in the French regulatory framework has long been the cumbersome rigidity of a system that generated unnecessary restrictions on trade and was regularly criticized by economic players. A number of measures have been taken in recent years to improve and simplify the regulatory framework, and still others are in the course of preparation. These measures are likely to improve the quality of regulation and to create a regulatory environment supportive of market openness, but they are still handicapped to some extent by the persistence of old practices within the administration and the climate of mistrust that has long existed between the administration and the business world. The effectiveness of measures under way can only be assessed in the long term, but France will need to ensure that adopted plans of action translate into concrete changes in the day-to-day workings of government and backed up with communication efforts directed at the business community.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• English Title: Regulatory Reform and Market Openness in France
• Language: French
• Keywords: Institutional Reform, Market Openness, International Trade, Trade Policy
• Subjects: F - International Economics > F1 - Trade > F13 - Trade Policy ; International Trade Organizations; F - International Economics > F1 - Trade > F14 - Empirical Studies of Trade

References

Agence d’Énergie Internationale (AEI)/ OCDE (2000). Energy Policies of IEA countries : France 2000 Review.(never been translated) Paris.

Autorité de régulation des télécommunications (ART) (2001). Rapport Public d’activité. Paris.

Assemblé nationale (2000). Loi de la modernisation et du développement du service public de l’électricité no. 2000-108. 10 février. Paris

Assemblé nationale (2003). Projet de loi constitutionnelle relatif à la décentralisation. Paris

Commission européenne (1994). Guide for the application of European directives based on the New Approach and the Global Approach. Luxembourg.

Commission européenne (1996). Documents on the New Approach and the Global Approach. Bruxelles.

Commission européenne (1996). Regulating Products. Practical experience with measures to eliminate barriers in the Single Market. Bruxelles.

Commission européenne (1998a). Action Plan to Promote Entrepreneurship and Competitiveness. Document COM(1998)550 final. Bruxelles.

Commission européenne (1998b). The Business Test Panel. A Pilot Project. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Bruxelles.

Commission européenne European Commission (1998c). Report of the Business Environment Simplification Task Force. Bruxelles.

Commission européenne (1999a). Single Market Scoreboard, Nr.5 (November). Bruxelles.

Commission européenne (1999b). Fifth Report on the Implementation of the Telecommunications Regulatory Package. Document COM(1999)537. Bruxelles.

Commission européenne (1999c). The Strategy for Europe’s Internal Market. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Document COM(1999)464. Bruxelles.

Commission européenne (1999d). Principle of Mutual Recognition: Working Towards more Effective Implementation. Single Market News Nr. 17 (July). Bruxelles.

Commission européenne (2000a). Review of SLIM: Simpler Legislation for the Internal Market. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Document COM(2000)104. Bruxelles.

Commission européenne (2000b). Single Market Scoreboard, Nr. 6 (May). Bruxelles.

Commission européenne (2001). The White Paper on European Governance. Bruxelles.

Commission européenne (2002). Distribution and Servicing of Motor Vehicles in the European Union. Bruxelles.

Comité des Constructeurs Français d’automobile (CCFA) (2003). Faits et Chiffres : France. Paris.

Direction Générale de l’énergie et des matières premières (DGEMP) (2003). Marchés énergétiques. http://www.senat.fr/rap/l02-016/l02-01614.html

Duguit Léon (1929). Traité de droit constitutionnel. t. II. 3è. ed. Lachaume Jean-François (1989). Grands services publics. Masson. Paris.

Du Marais (2002). L’État à l’épreuve du principe de concurrence : analyse et prospective juridique. No.1 (mars). Revue politiques et management public. Institut de management public.

Électricité de France (EDF) (2002). Rapport Annuel 2002 du groupe EDF. Paris.

European Telecommunications Standardization Institute (Institut européen des normes de télécommunication) (ETSI) (1996). European standards, a win-win situation. Bruxelles.

Global Trade Information Services (2001). World Trade Atlas. Columbia.

Gordon Mathews (2000). Global Culture/Individual Identity. Searching for Home in the Cultural Supermarket. Routledge. London/New York.

IMD (2002). World Competitiveness Yearbook 2002. Lausanne. Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques (INSEE) (2003). Comptes nationaux.Paris.

Lalumière Catherine (2000). La bataille de la « diversité culturelle ». No.38 (janvier). Le Monde Diplomatique.

OCDE (2001a). Monthly Statistics of International Trade/Statistiques mensuelles du commerce international. Paris.

OCDE (2001b). Economic Survey: France/ Etude économique de la France. Paris.

OCDE (2002a). Bilateral Trade Database/Base de données des statistiques bilatéraux.. Paris.

OCDE (2002b). International Trade by Commodity Statistics/ Statistiques du commerce international par produit. Paris.

OCDE (2002c). International Investment Perspectives/Perspectives de l’investissement international. Paris.

OCDE (2002d). International Direct Investment Statistics/ Statistiques de l’investissement direct étranger.Paris.

OCDE (2003a). Statistics on International Trade in Services/Statistiques sur les échanges internationaux de services. Paris.

OCDE (2003b). Communications Outlook; Information and Communciations Technologies. Paris.

OCDE (2003c). Economic Survey: France. Paris.

Porter, M., J. Sachs, P. Cornelius, and K. Schwab (2002). The Global Competitiveness Report 2001-2002. Oxford University Press. Oxford/New York. Standard and Poors (2003). Company Ratings: Bouygues S.A.; Cegetel. www.standardandpoors.com

Swann Dennis (1995). The Economics of the Common Market. Pinguin. London

The Economist Intelligence Unit (2002a). Country Profile France. London.

The Economist Intelligence Unit (November 2002b). Monthly Country Report France. London.

Organisation Internationale des Constructeurs d’automobiles (OICA) (2001/02). World Motor Vehicle Production. Paris.