Is this inevitableLet me clarify a point

You say in your book "The moral consequences of economic growth", which economic growth makes it fairer and more open societies. Can you talk about the periods of the history proving that it is growth that has had beneficial effects on the virtue of populations and not vice versa

Let's start in the US over the years 1865-1869, after the American civil war. At this time, the growth is stimulated by reconstruction and the first steps of the industrial revolution. This economic improvement leads to a better functioning of the company sign the most obvious is the end of a period of quite severe violence against immigrants. Continue with the decades that preceded the first world war, always in the United States. There again, it is restarting growth which has led to change social, and not the reverse. A long period of reforms followed, who has changed not only the political game, but also the social game. Number of large institutions social American date from this time. Continue with a more familiar example, 1950s and 1960s. With the baby boom, the dissemination of the automobile, a policy favourable to employment and many innovations, the American economy experienced strong growth. Between 1959 and 1973, the per capita income grew by 3 per year. American society has not become more open immediately after the war. But with time, it has changed. From 1965, Blacks have actually vote while it was assumed they have been assigned in 1870. Emphasis was also placed on the need to be more generous to the poor, with the extension of the retirement system and the development of the health system. In these three examples, I have no reason to doubt that the social progress in turn fueled economic growth. The effect of training is going in both directions.

You also explain that crisis resolve more quickly in periods of economic growth.

I don't pretend to be an expert in the history of France. But the comparison between the consequences of the Georges Boulanger and the Pierre poujade seems to me a good example. The Pierre poujade captures French society from 1956 for a period of economic growth robust. The France quickly turned the page. Conversely, the Georges Boulanger spread at the end of the 1880s, in the midst of stagnation. Its effects were more serious and became felt longer. As an outside observer, the weight of the national Front now me the type of pathology that many countries know when their economy is stagnating. I am not gone in France recently, but I'll regularly in Germany and my impression is that the heart of Europe is stagnant in economic terms. The Spain, where I am from time to time, bathes in a different atmosphere. It is dynamic and the people are more optimistic. This creates a State of mind conducive to the resolution of problems.

Can growth bring democracy

See the Korea. Fifty years ago, the North was considered the richest part. Thirty years ago, the South was a military dictatorship. Today, it is a true democracy. Economic growth has played a major role in this evolution.

The same opening happen in China

It is an interesting test. Since the reforms put in place by Deng Xiaoping in 1979, China experienced very strong growth. And the company began to evolve: the Chinese have much greater economic freedom, they can decide where they want to work, create a company, hire staff... There is also a beginning of democratization at the local level. On the other hand, the political structure at the national level remains frozen. The Chinese coming to end of the military dictatorship I predict that if the standard of living in China continues its progression over the next quarter century, they will make significant progress towards democracy. Perhaps not exactly the same as in France or in the United States, but this is not the problem.

If growth produces more fair and more open societies, is this not at the expense of the environment

He must distinguish two aspects. The first is pollution. The most polluted places are not the France and the United States, but countries which made much less progress. Look at how the air quality is improved in New York over the past decades! Less well off people don't want to of course live in an atmosphere degraded with polluted water, but they do not have the means to do otherwise. The second aspect is the depletion of resources. This is question for years. But in reality, most of the natural resources worth less than thirty years ago, once their prices adjusted for inflation. This comes largely from technological change. If we were in Boston in 1855, we would have discussed the risk of shortage of cause of disappearance of whale oil. The scenario that it consume some resources takes place over a very long period, which gives way to many opportunities of technological change. In two hundred and fifty years, it may be lack of oil, but

With the risk of climate change, is it reasonable to stimulate economic growth

Again, the impact of growth on the environment is less obvious is suggested. Of course, as a first step, development increases pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. But in a second time, the economy is moving towards services and its actors are becoming less and less careless environmental. On the issue of greenhouse gases, technical progress is accelerating. The capture of gases greenhouse out of factories to sequester soil seems more credible. With current technology, this increases the energy bill of 30 to 50. Finally, this additional cost is not huge and it will decrease in near future. In General, these environmental issues, we should perhaps ask the problem thus: pollution in Shanghai and Beijing has opportunities to decrease if the standard of living drops The answer is very clear.

Strong global growth in recent years was accompanied by a strengthening of inequalities. Is - this inevitable

Let me clarify a point. Growth, that I think should stimulate, is not just the simple increase of the total production of a country: it is an increase in the level of life shared by a large part of the population. In recent years, production has increased significantly in the United States but the distribution of wealth thus created was very unequal. In the majority of American households, wages are not inflation. In 2004, for the fifth consecutive year, the median Americans less increased to a price index. This is not the right path. This will change one day. The sooner the better. Otherwise, some of the pathologies of the stagnation or decline will reappear.

Beyond the contemporary United States, there is ample evidence that economic growth does not necessarily increase inequality. Inside of a country first of all, the usual scheme is simple: when the country adopts a new technology, inequality deepens for some time because some skills are rare. Then the supply of skills is increasing. In the United States, as in France, in the last twenty-five years, the salaries of graduates have progressed faster than those of the rest of the population. The computer revolution, in particular, increased inequality. But this has not always been the case. My friend Richard Freeman wrote a book called "The Overeducated American" "(the American suréduqué") he came up the idea because, at the time, the premium associated with degrees decreased.

At the international level, then the evidence that the rich become richer and the poor poorer are inconclusive. What is certain is that the number of people living below the poverty line declined very quickly today, sustained growth with two giants of China and the India. Revenues in these countries become increasingly unequal, but the fruits of growth nevertheless spread widely. Conversely, countries which chose to divert the growth and globalization have paid an exorbitant price. See the Korea of the North and Burma.

The pursuit of growth does not encourage individualism

On the contrary! People care more the more lacking. They are more attentive to the good functioning of democracy. It is when they do not have the feeling of moving forward that they protect themselves by erecting or maintaining religious prejudice racial barriers.

Which countries are best to encourage growth and to share all of their population

I would say the India or China. I could find one or two examples in the developed world, perhaps the Canada or the Spain. But I am little favour at the pace or shape that is growth in rich countries. It is far from evenly distributed, and this will inevitably have consequences for our collective future. We should seriously think about organizing it differently.

How, then, make this "fair growth" to which you seek

Market alone cannot create sufficient growth. Public policies have an important role to play to exploit physical economy and human resources. The Royal way is of course the productivity (in a country like the United States where the work week is long, work still more would not add to the economic well-being). It can be increased through better education and investing more. In the United States, major universities are of excellent quality, primary and secondary schools must clearly improve. And investment, the effort of the private sector is now significantly lower than it was in the 1960s and 1970s. This weakness is related to the tendency of Americans to consume. And the State borrows heavily, absorbing little personal savings. Public policy priorities should be as follows: limit public spending, reconsider the cuts taxes for the richest of the first term of President Bush, raise the retirement age and improve the educational system. These are difficult, sometimes radical choices.