Sarkozy was elected because the French needed and still need to do some domestic housecleaning. Chirac was conservative in the sense that after some feeble attempts he didn't dare to reform France's labour and business laws.

The basic problems in France are due, on the one hand, to a cosy élite whose career path consists of moving between the upper echelons of government and business (a meritocracy, they are anciens élèves of the grandes écoles, similar to the old Chinese civil service) and, on the other hand, to labour leaders, who have managed to gain very advantageous labour contracts over the years. Ultimately, as a solution to the unmeployment problem, the French government enacted a thirty-five hour workweek. This reform resulted in even more problems for the French economy.

Sarkozy never made it into the meritocracy, while Chirac did. He had to scramble to get ahead. So he has a hard side.

Sarkozy doesn't speak English, while Chirac does (he spent time in the US). Perhaps the need to experience Americans second-hand has helped him to be pro-American.

Ultimately, whether a leader is pro- or anti- a country is a question of interests, not of love or admiration. Merkel for all her desire to be pro-American has continued the close economic ties between Germany and Russia (partly cemented by Putin's charm and excellent German). Now, she will be speaking Russian with the new leader, Dmitry Medvedev.

Albert

"Ultimately, as a solution to the unmeployment problem, the French government enacted a thirty-five hour workweek. This reform resulted in even more problems for the French economy."

What sort of problems?

The French are facing numerous problems: economic, demographic, fiscal and social for a start. As part of the Euro bloc, they are affected by inflation (3.2% currently) caused in part by the oil crisis (le choc pétrolier). They benefit by being part of that bloc but are hurt by the largest trade deficit ever (€40 billion in 2007) while the Germans are enjoying a record trade surplus (€160.5 billion). Consequently, Germany has no interest in devaluing the Euro, whereas France would. France has a budget deficit of €63.2 billion (31 July 2007) as well. Another problem is the low rate of employment (under 70% of the population between 15 and 64). Finally, the demographic situation is not so much related to the growth of the population (about 2%) but to the inability of French society to deal with African immigrants from the largely Moslem Maghreb and Black Africa (e.g., Senegal).

Albert

As I understand it, the economy continued to provide all of the essential goods and services to the population while allowing people to spend less time working. This sounds like a good thing to me. It may not have reduced unemployment but the unemployment problem existed before the implementation of the 35-hour week and was not caused by it (correct me if I'm wrong about this).

My reaction to this would be to reduce work hours further. If the production of essential goods and services suffered as a result, that would be a sign that the reduction should be reversed. Otherwise, the reduction should be considered a success, since people would be able to spend less time working. Eventually, more people may be drawn into the work force, reducing unemployment.

As a worker, I find the concept of job creation offensive. The purpose of an economy is to provide goods and services, not jobs. A job is a byproduct, a demand on people's time. No one has the right to refuse to work to produce the goods and services he or she consumes. But no one has the right to demand that someone give up some of the limited amount of time we all have in this world to produce unnecessary or harmful goods and services just so that they have a job.