It remains to highlight the contradictions that emerged between the objectives of development planning (the Fourth Plan and later the Fifth Plan) and stabilization policy. It now appears evident that, in seeking to achieve internal monetary equilibrium and strengthen France’s external competitiveness, the Stabilization Plan ultimately constrained growth. It contributed to rising and more persistent unemployment in declining sectors, such as textiles, and in underdeveloped regions like western France.
This conflict between development planning and monetary balance is often framed in political terms. Broadly speaking, those on the political left tend to prioritize growth and social progress over strict monetary equilibrium, while those on the right emphasize monetary stability, viewing price stability as a prerequisite for sustainable progress. However, economic analysis should focus on underlying mechanisms rather than political debate.
Scientific analysis shows that inflation-driven growth cannot be sustained indefinitely, as it undermines the competitiveness of firms in international markets. Countries experiencing persistent price increases are often forced into successive devaluations, which erode confidence in their currency—something France experienced multiple times after the First World War. Conversely, countries that pursue prolonged deflationary policies aimed at preserving monetary stability risk stagnation or weak growth, as occurred in Great Britain from the mid-1950s onward. France could have faced a similar outcome if the pressure of the Stabilization Plan had not been relaxed in 1965.
Between these two extremes lies the challenge of identifying the conditions for maximum growth compatible with monetary equilibrium. This is both a matter of economic research and of policy choice informed by that research.
In the context of European integration and international free trade, some sectors of the business community have emphasized stabilization policies. However, the French General Planning Commission sought to reconcile these pressures with development objectives, as reflected in the Fourth Plan. The decision to target a 24% increase in GDP was a central strategic choice, shaping both economic and monetary policy for the years ahead. Although such targets are not entirely fixed, the Plan determines a significant portion of national investment, establishing a pace that is difficult to reverse without disruption.
Two years in advance, the authors of the Fourth Plan warned the government about the risks of an overly abrupt slowdown in growth. François Perroux described this tension as a structural conflict: planning defines long-term economic objectives for the nation, while monetary and financial policy provides—or restricts—the means to achieve them. When stabilization policies dominate, they can impose adjustments that fundamentally alter the structure of the Plan.
Interest in French planning extended beyond national borders. During a 1961 conference at the National Institute for Economic and Social Research in London, British economists examined the French model despite its divergence from traditional market doctrines. What attracted attention was not the theory itself but the relatively satisfactory results. Many observers concluded that France’s economic performance was partly due to the coordinated efforts of economic actors within the framework of planning.
By contrast, the absence of such a system in Great Britain led some analysts to question whether this lack of planning contributed to its near economic stagnation. Eventually, the British government introduced elements of flexible planning through the creation of the National Economic Development Council.
Planning within a capitalist system remains a paradoxical but significant experience. It relies on a combination of analytical research and continuous dialogue among economic actors. The state has the capacity to advance further by developing a comprehensive income policy that cannot be reduced solely to wage control.
As Pierre Massé suggested, French planning has managed to reconcile national production objectives with the freedom of markets for goods and services. Extending this approach to income policy would involve reconciling collective objectives with individual and collective agreements. The path opened by the Plan is one of sustained dialogue leading to negotiated outcomes.
The challenges are considerable, but gradual progress through dialogue offers a way to align growth with monetary stability, allowing economic coordination to function as a collective process grounded in both analysis and cooperation.
I