The influence of Joan Robinson on Economic thinking

 

The influence of Joan Robinson on Economic thinking

From Adam Smith to nowadays, most contributors to economic theory were men. Now that gender equality is an important issue in society, diversity is more present. For instance, Elinor Ostrom was the first female economist who received the Nobel Memorial Prize in economics in 2009 for her work in economic governance. Despite a lack of women in the history of economic thought – at least independently from their husbands, it is possible to find some strong female figures who participated in the shape of today’s economics. Joan Robinson is one of them. She was one of the leading figures of the Post-Keynesian economists and one of the members of the Keynes’ advisor group.

She became famous when she published her book The Economics of Imperfect competition in 1933. With Edward Chamberlin, she is part of an economist generation who criticised the widespread view of perfect competition and developed an imperfect competition model. Robinson’s work, together with Chamberlin’s, shifted the traditional Smith’s perspective that monopoly is in opposition with competition, to a model in which each firm in an industry behaves like a monopolist. This way, it was possible to reconcile an idea of competition with increasing returns to scale in an industry.

Robinson and Chamberlin did not work together – Robinson was based in Cambridge
England, while Chamberlin was based in America, mainly in Harvard where he did his PhD – but their ideas were very similar. They both considered an individual firm as a monopolist for the good they produce in competition with firms producing close substitutes. Then, they thought that free entry in a market implied a decrease in prices until profits were equal to zero. Thus, they concluded that the equilibrium meant marginal revenue equals marginal cost, and average revenue equals average cost. However, Robinson made some original contributions compared to Chamberlin; she is particularly remembered for her concept of monopsony, which is a market with only one buyer. In this framework, she showed that a worker was earning a wage lower than the value of his marginal product. Furthermore, she studied the case where a monopolist sell the same good in two different markets. She demonstrated that when setting prices, the firm would put a higher price in the market with the most inelastic demand.

 

TheInfluenceOfJoanRobinson_2A monopsony is a market with only one buyer. For example, there may be only one firm offering employment in an area. In this case, the wage will be below the marginal cost for the supplier, i.e the worker.

 

Her work on imperfect competition is a major contribution to the history of economic thought. Moreover, in the 1930s, Robinson was part of the Keynes’ advisory group on the General Theory. It was a gathering of prominent economists – such as James Meade, who won the Nobel Memorial Prize in economics in 1977 – who criticised Keynes’ previous theories and discussed new ideas for the constitution of the General Theory. In addition to her participation in this group, Robinson published a lot of academic papers to explain ideas that she thought were not clear, despite the publication of her book. As such, she became one of the main figures of Post-Keynesian economists. Even in the 1940s when she started exploring Marx theories, she interpreted his work along the lines of Keynes’ ideas.

Nevertheless, at the end of her life, she developed controversial views, supporting Maoist
China and North Korea. It appears that these ideas are the main reason why she did not
receive a Nobel Memorial Prize in economics in 1975. Indeed, this year, she was considered by the selection committee of the Prize and several economists thought she would be chosen. It is interesting to notice that, in the case of Joan Robinson, the obtention of the Prize was not directly related to the fact that she was a woman, even though there was much speculation on why exactly she did not receive it.

Her controversial ideas are often highlighted, as well as her strong character; for instance, when she thought someone was wasting her time with useless ideas, she stopped listening and it was then really hard to convince her. Concerning the latter, there are two hypothetical consequences related to it. According to Assar Lindbeck, a member of the selection committee for the Prize in 1975, the committee was afraid that either she would reject the Prize, or she would accept it to use this legitimization as a tool to attack mainstream economics. A friend of Joan Robinson, Geoff Harcourt – an Australian economist – gave another point of view: he thought it was more a matter of “international” relationships. Indeed, for him, Sweden and Great Britain did not treat well their respective economists – he thought British academia did not receive very well the ideas of Wicksell, a Sweden economist from the end of XIXth century and beginning of XXth century – so the Nobel committee was not so prone to award a British economist. According to Harcourt, when analysing the typical profile of British economists honoured by the Economic Prize, discrimination became almost obvious. Awarded British had to be more widely recognised, praised and with easy-going personalities than required from others nationalities; Joan Robinson, with her strong ideas, did not fit these requirements. Another reason proposed to explain why Robinson did not won the Prize was that the committee wanted to reward her for her work on imperfect competition. However, she published her book in 1933, and in 1975 – the year her candidature was discussed – she had repudiated these ideas. As it was the main corpus on which the committee wanted to reward her for, they removed her from the list of potential candidates. Once again, this shows that her work on imperfect competition was one of the most recognised economic contributions.

This lack of Nobel Prize in her curriculum vitae does not seem to be a problem for her
recognition among her peers. Her work, especially on imperfect competition, is part of
today’s economics, as well as her contributions to Keynes ideas. Then, one can say that she was a great economist, and one of the most powerful female economists of her century.

 

by Louise Damade

Women’s contribution to economic growth

Women's contribution to economic growth - 1

The French economist Alfred Sauvy highlighted a shift in workforce throughout the three sectors of the economy; there is now more workforce in the service sector – the tertiary sector – than in the primary and manufacturing ones, as technical progress increased each sector’s productivity. It seems that women have benefited from these economic-related society’s transformations since they have become wage-earners in the 1960’s in developed countries. By earning wages, their work started to be taken into account when calculating the GDP; they became recognised contributors to their country’s economic growth. We might wonder then, what was women’s contribution to economic growth before, and how has it evolved?

Historical retrospective of women’s contribution to the domestic production 

The gross domestic product – GDP – began to be used as an economic indicator in the 1930s, thanks to the American economist and statistician Simon Kuznets. GDP can be expressed as the sum of all companies’ gross value added in a country. The first usual way to measure economic growth is in terms of production. Before establishing a national accountability system, census, which recorded the working population, could give an assessment of women’s contribution to the domestic product. In the XIXth century, women contributed to the national product by working in farms, as domestics, or in factories, for instance in textile manufactures. According to the historian Sylvia Schweitzer, women have always worked: they have never represented less than a third of the workforce. However, they were not considered as contributors to the economic growth, as they did not receive any salary. Indeed, the second way to assess the GDP is in terms of distribution, that is to say, by looking at the share of the value added. After the industrial revolution, the value added  essentially stemmed from the production coming from the manufacturing sector. During the XXth century, women have progressively been evicted from factories due to gender stereotypes. Until the end of the XXth century, the labour force was overwhelmingly male. One exception is the First World War, when women have been essential to the industrial production, by working in factories while their husbands were on the battlefield. Still, their ability to be employed was again denied after the war, even though some women wanted to keep working. Indeed, in France for instance, Vichy’s Government blamed women for dispossessing men of their job and for imperilling the national demography. Furthermore, in the same country, women were not able to work without their husband’s permission until 1965. The “Thirty Glorious Years” following World War II were, according to the French economist Jean Fourastié, a turning point. Women have gradually integrated the income earning sphere, and most of them worked as employees. Nowadays, according to the OCDE’s statistics, on average in Europe, the tertiary sector accounts for 70% of the value added; and in France, according to INSEE’s statistics, women make up 55,8% of the service industry. 

The impact of women’s consumption on economic growth

If the economic situation of a country is correlated with the domestic supply, it is also affected by people’s consumption. Indeed, in a Keynesian approach, companies produce only if they foresee demand of their goods and services, which means that economic growth depends on demand. Then, the consumer society, that has dawned in the XXth century, partly explains the average 5% growth in developed countries during the “Thirty Glorious Years.” In this consumer society, it is the housewife who is targeted by advertising. For instance, typical goods which emerged during that century are household equipment, first in the United States, and then in western Europe. Even though the women were the ones targeted, at first, it is their husbands’ wages which was used to buy these goods, and which, in the end, contributed to economic growth. Afterwards, with women integrating the salary society and earning wages, the number of consumers doubled, which had a positive impact on growth according to the Keynesian multiplier effect.

 

Endogenous growth theories

However, new theories of growth emerged in the 1960s. For instance, endogenous growth theories hold that knowledge, human capital and skills play a major role in economic growth. According to the American economist Gary Becker, “economists regard expenditures on education, training, medical care, and so on as investments in human capital.” Indeed, both Theodore W. Schulz, an American economist, and Gary Becker, highlighted that human capital favours people’s productivity and in the end increases the GDP. Following these theories, women have an important contribution to growth. In fact, the social scientists Christian Baudelot and Georges Establet highlighted that nowadays on average mothers spend ten hours per week helping their children doing their homework, while their husbands only spend four hours per week for the same task. Moreover, women are also more numerous to work in the medical care.

Is GDP the best economic indicator to measure women’s contribution to the national product?

Women's contribution to economic growth 2

Finally, there are three usual ways of assessing the GDP and its contributors: in terms of supply, according to the share of the value added, or by accounting for the demand. However, GDP may not be the best economic indicator to measure women’s contribution to economic growth. Indeed, while the output for one’s own final use is posted, the GDP still does not take into account the domestic labour. According to the Eurostat definition, “output for own final use consists of goods or services that are retained for their own final use by the owners of the enterprises in which they are produced,” for instance paid domestic services. It explains the following economist’s joke: “the GDP will decrease if you marry your cleaning lady,” as her labour will no more be accounted in the GDP. According to Christine Delphy, a pioneer of the materialist feminism movement, this represents an invisibilisation and an exploitation of women’s work. To conclude, if the domestic labour was paid and posted in the GDP in France, according to the INSEE, in 2012, it would represent 33% of the GDP, and 64% of the domestic labour was done by women. As a consequence, women are more likely to work part-time than men, and they officially contribute less to economic growth. GDP is even less reliable to assess women’s contribution to economic growth in some developing countries where domestic labour done by women is all the more significant. 

by Hélène Lechêne

References :

  • Baudelot, Establet, Christian, Georges. Quoi de neuf chez les filles ? Entre stéréotypes et libertés, Nathan, coll. « L’enfance en questions », 2007.
  • Becker, Gary. Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special Reference to Education The University of Chicago Press, 1993.
  • Emploi par activité, OCDE https://data.oecd.org/fr/emp/emploi-par-activite.htm 
  • Marchand, Olivier. 50 ans de mutation de l’emploi, INSEE Première, no. 1312, 09-29-2010 https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/1283207 
  • Maruani, Meron, Margaret, Monique. Un siècle de travail des femmes en France. 1901-2011, La découverte, 2012.
  • Kuznets, Simon. “National Income, 1929-35”, report to the U.S. Congress. 1937
  • Roy, Delphine. Le travail domestique : 60 milliards d’heures en 2010, INSEE première, no. 1423, 11-22-2012 https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/2123967 
  • Sauvy, Alfred. La machine et le chômage, DUNOD, 1980.
  • Schultz, Theodore William. Investment in man: an Economist’s view. Social Service Review, vol.33, 1959.
  • Schweitzer, Sylvie. Les femmes ont toujours travaillé. Une histoire du travail des femmes aux XIXe et XXe siècles, Paris, Odile Jacob, 2002.
  • Tableaux de l’Économie Française, INSEE, 2016 https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/1906677?sommaire=1906743 

 

THE (UNDER)REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN IN ECONOMICS

The(under)representationOfWomenInEconomics

 

The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences was awarded this year to Esther Duflo and two other researchers for their work on global poverty reduction. The prize was first established in 1968, and only one woman, Elinor Ostrom, had previously been awarded in economic sciences.

In the workplace, men and women should be considered equivalent in terms of rights, benefits, obligations and opportunities. Sad to relate, in all fields of economics, women represent 19% of the workforce on average worldwide. We must ask ourselves: why do we have so few women in economics? Why is it a problem? And how can we bridge this gender gap ?

 

Why are there so few women in economics ?

Over recent years, economists have slowly started to develop an interest in the gender gap in the economic field. Data has shown the existence of a « leaky pipeline »: women struggle to advance in economics, they face barriers in publishing, promotion and tenure, and appear to be sideline the more they try to progress. In the US in 2017, according to the CSWEP – Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession, new PhD students in economics were approximately 33% females, falling to 29% for assistant professors, to 23% for tenured associate professors and to 14% for full professors. Similarly, if we take a closer look at the top 300 institutions in terms of research output, we see that they have few female researchers. This confirms the existence of a leaky pipeline, but it does not explain its damage.

In 2017, Alice Wu received a lot of attention when she published her working paper about an American professional forum dedicated to the higher education job market. She exposed sexist comments and gender stereotypes underwent by women economists. The thirty words most associated with conversation about women are disrupting: “hot”, “pregnant”, “slut”, “prostitute”, “dated”, … And the list is catastrophic. But on the male side, the trend is much different: “adviser”, “prepare”, “mathematician”, “goals”, … This scandal, largely related by newspapers, led to many reports of women in economics experiencing inappropriate behavior in job interviews, seminars, meetings and conferences.

Gender gap applies to all fields of science, but it is almost double in economics than in the others. In universities, only about 20% to 30% of undergraduate students in economics are female. A study published in 2006 found that they start introductory economics courses being more skeptical about the subject than men, and the difference increases between the start and the end of the course, despite no differences in their performance.

Moreover, if we examine shares of paper by gender composition, we see that in economics, women publish on average less papers than men. Economists have studied this difference and have shown that women are held to higher editorial standards than men in economics. Besides, women are 17% less likely to get tenure than men with similar publication records, which shows that their publications do not count fully for their promotion.

These higher expectations also occur in student evaluations of female teachers. In economics and business, student evaluations of courses are systematically worse for women teachers than those for men, and these poor evaluations can affect tenure decisions.

Capture

 

Why is the underrepresentation of women in economics a problem ?

As executive director of the Washington State Investment Board, Theresa Whitmarsh is one of very few women to wield a big influence in her industry. At the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in 2014, she said: « If you exclude 50% of the talent pool, it’s no wonder you find yourself in a war for talent ». Women are not totally excluded from economics, but the rate is very low. Theresa Whitmarsh pointed out the fateful consequence of women’s underrepresentation in economics: universities and firms lose potential employees.

Moreover, a study has shown that topics favoured by women in research are different than those favoured by men: women are more attracted by health, education and welfare than by macroeconomics and monetary economics. It has shown that male economists were more skeptical of regulation and high minimum wages, and less likely to favour redistribution, than women were. Therefore the low rate of women in economics implies less research in those topics, and less investment in them, which could lead to a non-optimisation of policy decisions.

 

What can be done ?

Gender gap in economists will not disappear naturally. It is in favour of the common good to raise the rate of women in economics, and actions can be done.

Collecting information and building solidarity is the first step to mend the leaky pipeline. The International Association for Feminist Economics has tried to collect data to understand the problem so it can be solved. One of the solutions is to support early-career pipeline and mentoring programmes; their goal is to help participants to develop skills and networks. The CSWEP sponsors these types of programmes, and economists have studied its effectiveness and report that the mentoring program had a positive effect on a number of professional outcomes, such as the number of publications.

Some economists also think that the way the subject is presented to undergraduate students should be revised. Economics are taught most of the time in a lecture format, but it has been shown that active learning increases exam scores and decreases failure rates relative to traditional lecturing, with particular benefit for women in male-dominated fields. Additionally, universities are starting to create programmes that give support to women. For instance, Harvard has created its Undergraduate Women in Economics Challenge, an initiative to encourage more undergraduate women to major in economics.

Finally, the hardest thing to remove is implicit and institutional barriers. The glass ceiling is everywhere at anytime, and universities and employers have to change their behaviour to ensure representation of women in economics. A lot can be done: removing identifiers in university exams, committing to fair and relevant admissions or hiring criteria, collecting more evidence on candidates’ competencies, scrutinizing the drop-out rate of female undergraduates, using nudges, … Some interventions are easier than others. For example, studies show that having more female teachers and female professors in universities is a powerful encouragement for women seeking postgraduate positions. But if the number of women in universities could be easily raised, the problem would already have been solved.

To conclude, underrepresentation of women in economics is not a female problem, it is an economic problem. As Lael Brainard, a member of the US Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, said, women and men should start to bring « diversity in the economics profession in order to help policy makers make better decisions in promoting a healthier economy ». We have to continue to recognise the problem, measure it objectively and find solutions. To all the actual and future female economists that are reading this article, one final comment: Go Girls!

 

by Alice Crolard 

 

References

Emmanuelle Auriol, Guido Friebel, Sascha Wilhem,  Women in European Economics, 04-2019

Kasey Buckles, University of Notre Dame, NBER and IZA, Fixing the Leaky Pipeline: Strategies for making economics work or women at every stage, 2019

Amanda Bayer, Cecilia Elena Rouse, Diversity in the economics profession: new attack on an old problem, 2016

Anne Boring, Soledad Zignano, Economics: where are the women ? Banque de France, 03-07-2018

https://blocnotesdeleco.banque-france.fr/en/blog-entry/economics-where-are-women

Donna Ginther, Women and economics, The Economist, 19-01-2017

https://www.economist.com/christmas-specials/2017/12/19/women-and-economics

Peter Vanham, To woman on a mission to close the gender gap in Finance, Forbes, 20-01-2016

https://www.forbes.com/sites/worldeconomicforum/2016/01/20/the-woman-on-a-mission-to-close-the-gender-gap-in-finance/#4dc399fb6abe

Inès Goncalves Rapaso. A few good (wo)men – on the representation of women in economics,  Bruegel, 15-01-2018

https://bruegel.org/2018/01/a-few-good-women-on-the-representation-of-women-in-economics/

 

Profit vs. Usury: difference from the point of view of Saint Thomas Aquinas

Aquin

 

 

“Main use of money is its consumption or investment” 

Saint Thomas Aquinas (1265-1274)

 

 

 

From the above quote and his works, we know that St. Thomas Aquinas considered money as a non-durable good, which by definition should be destroyed when exchanged / consumed, and thus should not be used to generate even more money. For him, if money is used to acquire goods or to obtain services, then it is not fair to ask for more money than is worth the service or good itself. Thus Aquinas makes the distinction between the true price for a good or service, and the illegitimate price for the use of such good or service. The price of the use of money is what Aquinas calls usury because when one charges for the use of a good, one charges for more than the fair price of the good. It follows that, for Aquinas, it is evil to sell goods at prices which are higher than their just price; yet he still allows merchants to make profits from their merchandise – which means that they have increased the original price of the goods they are selling. Thence, what is usury for St. Thomas Aquinas and why does he think that profit is not usury?

St. Thomas, in the same way as Aristotle, sees the just or fair price of a good as the price which corresponds to the true value of said object. With this definition, Aquinas considers that usury and profits are sins; still, he puts certain conditions under which one may charge at a different price than the fair price when selling objects, i.e., make profit. If the object provides the consumer with a lot of utility, he could pay a price higher than the fair price; similarly, if the seller does not want to sell the object, then the buyer could pay more than the fair price in case of emergency. You can also charge more than the fair price because of transport costs or modifications to the object. But the most important and valid reason to set a higher price is when the seller sells and makes profit to support his own family or to help the poor. Continuing on the previous example, the seller is a merchant whose profession is to trade, and only through the profits he makes can he can support his family and, if possible, help the needy. For this reason, Aquinas allows profit, if profit is not an end in itself but a compensation for the work of the merchant.

 Aside from purchases and sales, in general Aquinas condemns usury in an absolute way. The author Chasterton (Persky, 2007) interprets Aquinas’ thoughts in the following way: Aquinas considers that people who take loans are people who really need the money, such as poor people who have to take care of themselves and their family. To do so they ask a lender, but this lender does not need the money. Indeed, lenders have typically more resources than necessary to cover their needs and this allows them to loan money. In these circumstances, lending with interest implies two sins for lenders: first, they take advantage of the needy, and second, they want more than they need, i.e., they commit the sins of vanity and greed. Other authors, such as Wilson and Stark (Worland 1977), see a different reason behind Aquinas position on money, profit and usury. Both authors take into account the environment in which Aquinas lived, which was characterised by a “chronic low level stagnation”, i.e. a society of orders, with a predetermined status quo and a strong religious devotion among all members of society. In this context the authors, mainly Stark, believe that the reasons why Aquinas wanted to prohibit usury were not those exposed in his Summa Theology, but rather an exogenous factor: the dynamism of Capitalism was threatening the social order, threatening the status quo, and such dynamism began with the loan of money which requires interest -so that one may be able to make profit when lending money. If we follow these authors’ explanation, one could consider that Aquinas did not think that the poor were those who were going to request loans. Instead, he may have thought that only merchants would sought out such loans in order to improve their businesses and generate wealth. In turn this would boost the world economy and in this scenario, a new social order could be established.

In both interpretations of Aquinas’ thoughts, the practice of usury is wrong and detrimental to society. With the first explanation, it is possible that Aquinas outlawed usury in order to defend the poor from the exploitation of unscrupulous lenders. This defense of the poor may not even be genuine and may be due to the potential benefit that Aquinas sees that the lenders could obtain. Indeed, Bentham (1816) showed in his work how the poor were actually willing to accept any interest rate in exchange for a loan. Consequently, unimaginably high rates – that a poor person would not be able to cope with – could be the norm.

ElGreco

If the true intentions of Aquinas are those given by Wilson and Stark, then he wanted to prevent society from developing, from changing; for this reason, he prohibits usury.

Going forward, for Aquinas, usury is such a great misdeed that in the Summa Theologica he extends the sin of usury to any objects that were bought with the gain of it. Even so, he allows in certain occasions to receive some type of appreciation when money is lent. Aquinas says that it is lawful, and not sinful, “to demand in compensation for the loan, those things that are not measured, such as benevolence, friendship of the one to whom it was lent or other similar … if the gift of services or in words not it is granted by way of real obligation, but by benevolence, which does not fall under the pecuniary assessment, it is lawful to receive, demand and wait for it.” (Aquinas 1265-1274, Summa Theologiae, Second Part of the Second Part, question 78). Here, Aquinas affirms again that nothing material can be received in exchange for a loan, nothing except things that cannot be measured, things which cannot be sold or exchanged.

Therefore, we see that Aquinas distinguishes very clearly between selling goods and lending money. With selling, the fair price of the object can be modified given the preferences of the agents and given the transformations the object went through (not only physical but also due to time and location); you may do the same if you are a merchant by profession and the profit made by increasing the price is used for good. However, making profits through lending cannot be allowed. Indeed, if people were allowed to lend money and charge this service, then it could not be in order to feed their family or help the poor, because if they were really altruistic they would have used their excess money for these purposes initially. This is the main difference Aquinas sees between profit and usury and why it is strongly condemned, censored, and forbidden by him and by the Catholic Church. But Aquinas could also maintain the status quo of society, according to Stark. For it, Aquinas used the best way to hide it this double intention: coming out in defense of the poor.  In the end, even with the strong condemnation on usury, Aquinas and the Catholic Church did not manage to stop usury because it was secretly camouflaged as interest  (Persky, 2007), becoming the fundamental pillar of today’s capitalist world.

By José Alfonso Muñoz

 

References

Aquinas, T. (1265-1274). Summa Theologica. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Retrieved from https://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.pdf

Bentham, J. (1816). Defence of Usury: Showing the Impolicy of the Present Legal Restraints on the Term of Pecuniary Bargains. Payne & Foss.

Persky, J. (2007). Retrospectives: from usury to interest. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(1), 227-236.

Worland, S. T. (1977). Justum pretium: One more round in an “endless series”. History of Political Economy, 9(4), 504-521

Le patrimoine culturel en France : les dangers des modes de gestion non optimaux

CaptureAlors que nous assistions, impuissants, à l’incendie ravageant la Cathédrale Notre-Dame-de-Paris en avril 2019, un débat abordé depuis longtemps par les spécialistes est revenu sur la scène politique : la question des modes de gestion du patrimoine culturel français, et notamment du patrimoine religieux.

Comment équilibrer les recettes générées par le tourisme culturel avec les coûts d’entretien de bâtiments parfois âgés de plusieurs siècles ?

Cet article revient sur le mode actuel de gestion du patrimoine français, et plus particulièrement du patrimoine religieux, ainsi que sur les innovations proposées par l’actuel gouvernement ainsi que par des professionnels et engagés dans ce secteur.

Retour sur la définition de patrimoine

Il convient de faire un petit point sur la définition de patrimoine, ainsi que sur la distinction entre propriétaires publics et propriétaires privés.

La notion de patrimoine culturel est définie par l’article L1 du code du patrimoine comme « l’ensemble des biens, immobiliers ou mobiliers, relevant de la propriété publique ou privée, qui présentent un intérêt historique, artistique, archéologique, esthétique, scientifique ou technique ». Pour ce qui est des édifices de cultes, le régime de soumission diffère selon la période d’édification du lieu de culte. Les biens du clergé qui, en 1789, ont été constitués « Biens de la Nation », sont propriétés de personnes publiques. La loi de séparation de l’Eglise et de l’Etat de 1905 prescrivait le transfert des biens mobiliers et immobiliers religieux à des associations cultuelles constituées et a été complétée par la loi de 1908 préconisant la prise des droits de propriété des édifices cultuels par les communes s’ils ne sont ni restitués, ni revendiqué dans un délai légal. L’Eglise catholique ayant refusé la constitution d’associations cultuelles, les édifices religieux catholiques – représentant la quasi-totalité des édifices religieux en France – construits avant 1905 appartiennent donc à des personnes publiques. Le plus souvent, les cathédrales sont propriétés de l’Etat, tandis que les chapelles et les églises sont propriétés des communes (ce régime ne s’applique ni à l’Alsace-Moselle – sous le régime du Concordat – ni à la Guyane, à Mayotte et à Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon). Les lieux de culte construits ou acquis après 1905 relèvent du régime de propriété privée pour les personnes privées, et du domaine privé pour les personnes publiques. Il revient aux propriétaires, publics ou privés, d’effectuer les travaux nécessaires à l’entretien et à la conservation de leur patrimoine culturel.

Par ailleurs, les éléments du patrimoine culturel – public ou privé – peuvent être « inscrits » ou « classés » comme « monuments historiques », ce qui leur assure une certaine protection légale. L’Etat peut financer les travaux d’entretien jusqu’à 25% – pour les monuments inscrits – ou 50% – pour les monuments classés. Environ 72% de ces monuments historiques sont des habitations (châteaux, manoirs, villas, …) ou des édifices religieux.

Capture2

Le problème du financement de l’entretien et de la conservation du patrimoine culturel

Le patrimoine culturel peut bien évidemment être source de revenus importants pour les personnes publiques, soit directement – droits d’entrée, dons de particuliers, … – soit indirectement – création d’emplois, impôts directs ou indirects, taxes de séjour, … Il est donc important pour elles de valoriser au maximum leurs atouts. Malheureusement, c’est chose difficile pour certaines collectivités territoriales, pour qui les coûts surpassent parfois les produits.

En effet, la difficulté de financer l’entretien et la conservation du patrimoine culturel et des monuments historiques est de plus en plus soulevée. Pour les collectivités territoriales, qui détiennent environ 50% des monuments historiques, les fonds qu’elles doivent souvent se procurer par elles-mêmes, sont parfois difficiles à trouver. De plus, si les travaux sont à la charge des propriétaires privés de patrimoine, les fonds publics sont souvent sollicités. Les personnes publiques – en particulier les collectivités – ont du mal à s’en sortir, et sont même parfois tentées de vendre ou de détruire certains de leurs biens. Il en résulte que certains éléments du patrimoine se trouvent en situation de péril. La mission Stéphane Bern, créée en partenariat avec la Fondation du Patrimoine et confiée par Emmanuel Macron à Stéphane Bern en 2018, visant à récolter des fonds pour la sauvegarde du patrimoine, a recensé quelques 3500 signalements sur les 44 000 biens répertoriés comme monuments historiques. Parmi les projets jugés prioritaires, la grande majorité se trouvent dans des territoires ruraux ou sont gérés par de petites communes.

Le problème souvent mis en avant est que, dans des régions reculées ou en zone rurale, il peut être difficile d’attirer beaucoup de visiteurs. Si la France est le pays qui attire le plus de touristes, ils ne sont pas également répartis sur le territoire. Certains endroits comme Paris ou le sud de la France sont très prisés, quand d’autres sont délaissés.

Des prises d’initiatives par le gouvernement et les élus locaux

Avec environ 85% de la population vivant dans des communes de 10 000 habitants ou moins, le gouvernement actuel semble avoir conscience que le patrimoine français n’est pas uniquement constitué des biens des grandes métropoles, et propose donc des initiatives. Le projet de loi de finances pour 2018 présente une hausse des crédits pour les monuments historiques, ainsi que la création d’un fond d’aide à la rénovation de 15 millions d’euros pour les collectivités territoriales à faibles ressources. Le projet de loi de finance pour 2019 reste sur le budget moyen annuel alloué à la culture de 10 milliards d’euros – avec toutefois une augmentation de 17 millions d’euros. Par ailleurs, par le biais de la première édition du loto du patrimoine organisé par la Mission Stéphane Bern en partenariat avec la Française des Jeux en 2018, 22 millions d’euros avaient été récoltés pour la restauration de 269 monuments en péril. Le loto du patrimoine a été reconduit le 14 juillet 2019 et le sera en septembre 2019, lors des Journées Européennes du Patrimoine. En parallèle, on observe une volonté de démocratisation de la culture, notamment auprès des jeunes. Le Ministère de la Culture porte le projet du Pass Culture, une application gratuite qui relaie les activités culturelles et artistiques à proximité, et permet l’octroi sur demande d’une enveloppe de 500 euros aux jeunes de 18 ans à dépenser sur ce Pass – spectacles, visites, …

Des efforts encourageants, mais pour certains des réformes plus en profondeur sont nécessaires

Les initiatives du gouvernement sont louables mais seraient insuffisantes en terme de besoin financiers. Certains appellent à encourager les fonds privés pour sauver le patrimoine. La Mission Stéphane Bern en est un exemple.  Par ailleurs des régimes juridiques comme le bail emphytéotique administratif, qui confie la jouissance par une personne publique – qui en reste propriétaire – d’un bien à une personne privée, pourraient stimuler les recettes liées au tourisme et permettrait donc de mieux amortir les coûts. Le château de Versailles, par exemple, devrait prochainement accueillir un hôtel ainsi qu’un restaurant gastronomique. D’autres comme Marie-Hélène Jouzeau, directrice du Musée du château des Ducs à Nantes, dénonce un système de gratuité croissante qui, en plus de limiter les recettes, serait peu efficace pour démocratiser l’accès à la culture. En effet, si le nombre de visiteurs d’un monument augmente, cela peut être davantage parce que les habitués s’y rendent plus souvent, que par un élargissement de son public. L’impact réel de la gratuité est difficile à évaluer.

Conclusion

La conservation du patrimoine français est un sujet complexe. Il est empreint de la vision européenne de la valeur d’un bien culturel souvent liée à son authenticité – contrairement à l’Asie de l’Est par exemple, où beaucoup de monuments japonais sont traditionnellement souvent reconstruits, et où la plupart des monuments chinois que l’on peut visiter aujourd’hui ont été intégralement reconstruits dans le courant du XXème siècle. Ce soucis d’authenticité peut faire de la rénovation une tâche délicate. Néanmoins, il existe des solutions pour sauver le patrimoine, et notamment le patrimoine des petites villes, de la ruine ou de la destruction. Prendre conscience de l’état actuel du patrimoine est un premier pas. Il nous reste à déterminer la suite du chemin.

Par Rose Mba Mébiame

 

References:

https://www.missionbern.fr/

https://www.patrimoine-religieux.fr

Cariou André, Jouzeau Marie-Helene, Etes-vous pour ou contre la gratuité au musée ?, Ouest France, 26.09.2013

Zunz, Stephen, Sauver le patrimoine historique grâce au financement privé ?, Contrepoints, 16.04.2019