No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
The French Economic Council was once called an enlightened economic adviser of the legislature. The sort of advice which it gives and the amount of enlightenment it generates depend on the decisions reached by the members of the economic interest groups that compose the Council as they debate and vote on the specific issues brought before them. The decision-making process can be illuminated by a statistical study of the voting behavior of these interest groups. Such a study also indicates the possible future pattern of behavior of the groups as well as their attitudes towards the particular issues they have debated.
The formal structural framework within which the groups composing the Council reach their decisions is fixed by the constitution and a series of laws and decrees. Under the Constitution of 1946, the Council is empowered to “examine the bills and proposed laws within its purview in order to give its opinion thereon.” The National Assembly is to send such bills to the Council before considering them. The Council of Ministers may also consult the Council, and is required to do so “concerning the establishment of a national economic plan for full employment and the rational utilization” of the material resources of the country.
1 Journal Officiel, Débats, Assemblée Nationale, Feb. 8, 1951, p. 840Google Scholar.
2 See Seligson, Henry, “An Evaluation of the Economic Council of France”, Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 7, pp. 36–50 (March, 1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also Aubry, Maurice, “Le Conseil Économique”, Revue du Droit Public et de la Science Politique en France et à l'Étranger, Vol. 67, pp. 414–77 (April–June, 1951)Google Scholar. Aubry, M. has expanded this article in his Le Conseil Économique (Paris, 1953)Google Scholar.
3 Article 25.
4 Journal Officiel, Lois et Décrets (cited hereafter as Lois et Décrets), Oct. 28, 1946, pp. 9177 ff.Google Scholar Other details of organization are provided in the decree of Feb. 24, 1947, Lois et Décrets, Feb. 27, 1947, p. 1831Google Scholar.
5 Lois et Décrets, March 24, 1951, pp. 2979 ff.Google Scholar The actual organizations represented in the Council are named in the decree of May 10, 1951, Lois et Décrets, May 11, 1951, pp. 4905 ff.Google Scholar The minor details of the verification of powers and organization of internal services of the Council are set forth in the law of Aug. 20, 1947, Lois et Décrets, Aug. 21, 1947, pp. 8246 ff.Google Scholar as modified by the budget law of Sept. 14, 1948, Lois et Décrets, Sept. 19, 1948, pp. 9234, 9236Google Scholar.
6 The provision was inserted in the law of 1951 as an outgrowth of the informal practice which had developed in relations between the National Assembly and the Economic Council. See the exchange of letters between the respective presidents in Journal Officiel, Avis et Rapports du Conseil Économique (cited hereafter as Avis et Rapports), July 9, 1948, pp. 177 ff.Google Scholar
7 In the discussion of the law of 1951 the Council of the Republic had written in a section by which it could request advice of the Economic Council. The National Assembly struck this provision out on the ground that it was unconstitutional, but compromised to the extent of allowing the commissions of the Council of the Republic to hear the rapporteurs of the Economic Council. Journal Officiel, Débats, Assemblée Nationale, March 13, 1951, p. 1846Google Scholar.
8 In 1952, the year used herein as a sample year for analyzing the work of the Council, commissions were appointed (1) on the state of the French economy and national revenue; (2) on economic affairs and the plan; (3) on finances, credit, and fiscal affairs; (4) on industrial production; (5) on agriculture; (6) on commerce and distribution; (7) on public works, reconstruction, and urbanism; (8) on transport, posts, telephones and telegraph, and tourist affairs; (9) on social affairs; and (10) on the economy of the French Union. Bulletin du Conseil Économique, Jan. 23, 1952, no. 2.
9 Avis et Rapports, July 25, 1952, p. 325Google Scholar.
10 The major records of the work of the Council are in two forms. The Bulletin du Conseil Économique is an account of the discussions of the Council. The Journal Officiel, Avis et Rapports du Conseil Économique records the actions taken by the Council, along with the votes, but not the debates.
11 Such few figures as were mentioned in the committee discussions dated from 1936 and concerned only the numbers of people working in various sizes of enterprises. See Assemblée Nationale Constituante élue le 2 juin 1946, Séances (Paris, 1946), p. 772Google Scholar.
12 While the actual number of members in these organizations is not officially published, it has been estimated that in December, 1949, the CGT had 2,300,000 members, the Force Ouvrière 1,000,000, the CFTC 750,000, and the CGC 150,000; thus the CGT had more members than all of the others put together. See Powell, Webster, “Activities of French Labor Unions in 1949–1951“, Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 72, pp. 642–47 (June, 1951)Google Scholar.
13 See Wright, Gordon, “Agrarian Syndicalism in Postwar France”, this Review, Vol. 47, pp. 402–16 (June, 1953)Google Scholar.
14 Lois et Décrets, March 20, 1954, p. 2682Google Scholar.
15 Lois el Décrets, March 4, 1945, pp. 1137 ff.Google Scholar
16 See Cahiers Français d'Information, No. 153, pp. 7 ff. (April 1, 1950)Google Scholar.
17 Avis et Rapports, Jan. 24, 1952, p. 1Google Scholar.
18 Avis et Rapports, Jan. 24, 1952, p. 13Google Scholar.
19 Avis et Rapports, Jan. 24, 1952, p. 18Google Scholar.
20 Avis et Rapports, April 23, 1952, p. 84Google Scholar.
21 Avis et Rapports, July 25, 1952, p. 323Google Scholar.
22 Avis et Rapports, July 25, 1952, p. 325Google Scholar.
23 Avis et Rapports, May 21, 1952, p. 98Google Scholar.
24 Avis et Rapports, July 9, 1952, p. 269Google Scholar.
25 Avis et Rapports, July 24, 1952, p. 283Google Scholar.
26 Avis et Rapports, March 12, 1952, p. 31Google Scholar.
27 Avis et Rapports, Nov. 27, 1952, p. 497Google Scholar.
28 Avis et Rapports, June 18, 1952, p. 107Google Scholar.
29 Avis et Rapports, March 21, 1952, p. 39Google Scholar.
30 Avis et Rapports, June 20, 1952, p. 131Google Scholar.
31 Avis et Rapports, June 26, 1952, p. 246Google Scholar.
32 Avis et Rapports, July 24, 1952, p. 303Google Scholar.
33 Avis et Rapports, July 24, 1952, p. 295Google Scholar.
34 Avis et Rapports, Feb. 13, 1952, p. 25Google Scholar.
35 Avis et Rapports, Dec. 11, 1952, p. 521Google Scholar.
36 Avis et Rapports, Oct. 8, 1952, p. 337Google Scholar.
37 Avis et Rapports, Oct. 9, 1952, p. 345Google Scholar.
38 Avis et Rapports, Dec. 24, 1952, p. 577Google Scholar.
39 Avis et Rapports, Dec. 16, 1952, p. 549Google Scholar.
40 Avis et Rapports, July 9, 1952, p. 263Google Scholar.
41 Avis et Rapports, March 26, 1952, p. 69Google Scholar.
42 Avis et Rapports, May 21, 1952, p. 95Google Scholar. Incidentally, this report presents a valuable account of interdepartmental relations and of departmental relations with specific clients outside of the government.
43 Avis et Rapports, Nov. 14, 1952, p. 409Google Scholar.
44 Avis et Rapports, June 20, 1952, p. 232Google Scholar.
45 The groups of one or two members have been omitted on the ground that they are too small to be statistically valuable for purposes of comparison.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.