In an article in “La Croix” on the strategic role of La Défense in the country's economy, two speakers, Yannick Quéau and Paul Sarfati, are taken as reference to pose “truths” which are not truths, but which yet will leave an impression.
The first maintains that the Defense industry, the BITD, would only employ “120.000” direct and indirect jobs in France, a highly fanciful figure. Indeed, the BITD develops an average annual turnover of €20 billion, broken down into €7 billion for programs with major effects, €8 billion for exports, and €5 billion between R&D and MCO. If direct employment represented only 100.000 jobs in France, this would put the productivity of the Defense industry two and a half times higher than that in French industry, including the aeronautical industry. Indeed, French industry deploys a productivity of €85.000 per year, whereas in the case cited, it would be €200.000 per year….
In addition, the ratio of direct jobs to indirect jobs is also largely underestimated. Indeed, the payroll represents around 50% of BITD expenditure, with 10 jobs per €m invested. The remaining €500 million is used to finance taxes, dividends, and especially subcontracting, for €350.000. This subcontracting therefore generates, based on the average employee cost in France, 5 direct jobs, then 2,5 secondary subcontracting jobs, and 1,5 tertiary subcontracting jobs, etc. There are therefore 9 indirect jobs created per million euros invested in the BITD. Surprisingly, this figure corresponds to the findings made by several field studies in the employment areas of Bourges, Lorient-Brest and Toulon. Finally, the jobs created, whether direct or indirect, created induced jobs, linked to consumption, representing, on the basis of field findings, 8 jobs for the 19 industrial jobs generated. This value is also consistent with the injection into the local economy of 30% of the distributed payroll, taking into account a threshold effect of 50%. To these 27 jobs generated by state investment, are added jobs linked to exports, i.e. 15 additional jobs on the basis of €8 billion export for €12 billion local, including 6 in the BITD, 5 sub-jobs -contracting, and 4 induced jobs, for a total of 42 jobs per m€ invested observed.
The second point concerns an equally risky comparison between “1 euro invested in education and 1 euro invested in armaments”. The conclusions according to which 1 euro invested in education would generate more employment than in the Defense industry are highly questionable. Not that it is false anyway. Indeed, With a budget of €50 billion, National Education employs 1 million people including 837.000 teachers, generating 400.000 induced jobs and 100.000 induced subcontracting jobs according to the same calculation grids. In fact, the Ministry of National Education supplies an ecosystem of 1,5 million jobs, for €50 billion, whereas the Ministry of Defense generates an ecosystem of 850.000 jobs for €35 billion; i.e. 33 jobs per €m in national education, and 27 for the Ministry of the Armed Forces.
Where the demonstration is largely open to criticism is in the opposition between two investments. Indeed, with 27 jobs per €m invested, the Ministry of Defense brings €1,1m to the State budget, taking into account the social contributions paid by these jobs, 70% of which are private. , and €1,45 million if we take into account the savings made on unemployment benefit. On the contrary, the 33 jobs generated by education only bring in, with only 35% private jobs, €700 in revenues and charges (contributions and taxes are much lower in national education than in industry de Défense), increasing to €900k taking into account the effects on unemployment.
In fact, where the comparison by the number of jobs created wants to show a greater relevance of investment in national education than in La Défense, the extension of this demonstration to the State budget reverses the process, and even shows that investment in the Defense industry generates much more revenue and budgetary savings than it costs, to the point of being able to compensate, in large part, the costs of military payroll to obtain a budget overall balancing budgetary revenues and state expenditure for the Ministry of Defense, something that the Ministry of National Education would be hard-pressed to do...
But it is above all the comparison of these two budget items which is ridiculous. National Education is a budgetary item as essential as that of La Défense to ensure the sustainability of the State. To oppose the two expenditures therefore amounts to denying the need for one vis-à-vis the other, which, given modern geopolitical and economic realities, would not only be dangerous, but also counterproductive. Furthermore, as soon as the army budget manages to reach a level of balance between expenditure and revenue, within the budgetary perimeter established for the State, there is no reason to lower it, or even not to reduce it. increase proportionally to the needs of the armies, since the crowding out effect, namely the reduction in the credits of one to supply that of the other, is neutralized.
In other words, these comparisons, and the values announced, do not result from an objective analysis, but from work aimed at supporting a given discourse. And this is certainly not what the country, nor Europe, needs today!