FRANCE · PUBLIC FINANCE · STRUCTURAL REFORM

How can France restore its public finances?

A documentary hub separating official statistics, interpretation and the proposals contained in David Salvan’s Plan de Rupture. The purpose is to make each number traceable and each proposal open to scrutiny.

Visual cover for the structural reform of the French State

Property & housing freedom

Inheritance & family

Lifetime transfer allowance, blended families and international comparisons.

Open the new package →

Private rental

Rental permits, energy certificates, incident register, renovation, capital gains and home-improvement freedom.

Open rental doctrine →

Family inheritance: updated rule

Read the inheritance decision →

New consolidation layer

Open the executable deduplication graph →

— Financing engine for the 30% target

The site now separates the political objective of sharply reducing levies from the decisive question: how far can taxes fall without recreating the deficit?

— Business, procurement, public service and constitutional review

The current doctrine adds four cross-cutting workstreams: simple 15–30% corporate taxation, CIR abolition and anti-avoidance, sovereign public procurement with AI controls and a markup ceiling, public-service pay and integrity, and abolition/replacement of the Constitutional Council.

· New

Universal social protection for employees, self-employed workers and directors

The model now strictly separates corporate profit tax from work-related social contributions. A company with no employees bears no employer payroll contribution. Healthcare follows the person; additional contributory rights follow one personal contribution on professional income. The reform also addresses self-employed unemployment and occupational-accident gaps.

Open the full file →

CORE ARCHITECTURE

Before permanent tax cuts: make ordinary structural deficits legally inadmissible

The Plan de Rupture first rests on a constitutional balance rule, independent pre-vote review, automatic correction and personal accountability for deliberate breaches by top decision-makers. Asset-based penalties would only follow due process and a final judgment.

Official data

The orders of magnitude that frame the debate

France’s general government deficit reached EUR 152.5 billion in 2025, equal to 5.1% of gross domestic product. At the end of the first quarter of 2026, Maastricht public debt stood at EUR 3,536.1 billion, or 117.5% of GDP. General government expenditure represented about 57.3% of GDP in 2025, while compulsory levies represented 43.6% of GDP. The budgeted cost of French State debt is EUR 59.3 billion for 2026.

€3,536.1bnMaastricht public debtQ1 2026 · 117.5% of GDP
€152.5bnGeneral government deficit2025 · 5.1% of GDP
57.3%Expenditure / GDP2025
€59.3bnBudgeted State debt cost2026 budget
Do not mix perimeters. The general government deficit is not the same as the central State budget balance. Maastricht public debt is not the same as negotiable State debt. The Observatory documents the definition, period, unit and primary source of every figure.

Three levels that must remain distinct

Verified fact

Institutional data

A value, unit, period, perimeter and primary source. Revisions by the producing institution are recorded rather than hidden.

Analysis

Interpretation of the data

An explanation of trends, causes, legal constraints and trade-offs. Different interpretations can coexist.

Author’s proposal

A possible policy change

A measure with a responsible authority, legal path, gross effect, transition cost, net effect, risks and indicators.

France’s problem is not merely an accounting gap

Public administration is a system of missions, laws, personnel, public bodies, information systems, controls and political responsibility. When accountability is fragmented, additional structures and procedures can accumulate without improving the service received by citizens.

The central question is therefore: which missions should be guaranteed, by which level of government, with what resources, controls and measurable results? Reform that fails to answer this question can merely transfer costs from one institution to another.

David Salvan’s dossier advocates a structured transformation: identify essential functions, merge overlapping bodies, reintegrate some functions, close obsolete structures, simplify rules, automate under human oversight and redeploy resources to priority services. The potential of up to EUR 350 billion per year is explicitly presented as the author’s maximum scenario, not an official forecast. It requires measure-by-measure audit and removal of double counting and transition costs.

Questions the reform portal is designed to answer

A reform method that includes the cost of reform itself

Every measure should carry a stable identifier, objective, baseline, responsible authority, required legal change, implementation schedule, gross estimate, transition cost, net effect, risks and performance indicators. This prevents a shifted or deferred expense from being presented as an immediate saving.

  1. Define whether the mission is essential, useful, overlapping or obsolete.
  2. Map all authorities already performing the same function.
  3. Identify rights, guarantees and appeal mechanisms that must remain.
  4. Price contracts, IT migration, staff transition and property.
  5. Separate gross savings, transition costs, net savings and redeployment.
  6. Measure timeliness, quality, accessibility and user outcomes.

One hundred days, two years and five years

First 100 days

Freeze non-essential new structures, publish inventories, define essential missions, open performance data, start overlap audits and create a public register of measures. This phase creates knowledge and legal preparation; it does not create instant savings.

First two years

Pass legislation, merge compatible functions, migrate information systems, negotiate staff transitions and test new service pathways. Spending can initially rise because two systems may have to operate in parallel.

Five-year horizon

Measure net effects, correct implementation failures, close transitional structures and verify that service quality has not deteriorated. Reform is not complete until the former system has actually been retired.

Objections and conditions for credibility

“The proposed savings are too large.” The maximum scenario must not be treated as a guaranteed budget yield. Each measure requires independent scrutiny and a classification of savings, revenue, redeployment and indirect effects.

“Closing a body does not remove its mission.” Correct. The mission must be removed, simplified, transferred or reintegrated.

“AI can create new administrative risks.” Correct. Automated decisions require traceability, explanation, cybersecurity, human review and an identifiable responsible authority.

“Rapid reform can destabilise essential services.” Correct. Political decisions, legal preparation, operational migration and outcome measurement must be separated.

Financial consolidation of all 155 measures

All twelve categories have been audited. The cross-category consolidation ledger now fixes the financial-owner rule, booking treatment and deduplication links for every measure before any global total.

Frequently asked questions

Why does France run persistent public deficits?

Because general government expenditure exceeds general government revenue. The annual balance also depends on the economic cycle, tax measures, benefits, payroll, investment and interest expenditure. A sound explanation separates central government, local government, social security and other public bodies.

Are public debt and French State debt the same concept?

No. Maastricht public debt covers all general government subsectors and is consolidated. Negotiable State debt managed by Agence France Trésor covers only part of that perimeter.

Can expenditure be reduced without destroying public services?

Only if reform targets organisation, overlaps, procedures, standards and priorities, while accounting for transition costs. An across-the-board cut is not a structural reform.

Is the potential of EUR 350 billion an official estimate?

No. It is the author’s maximum scenario potential. It requires measure-by-measure audit, removal of double counting and a separation between savings, revenue, redeployment and indirect effects.

Pedagogical guides on debt, deficit and interest costs

Guides on spending, levies and administrative reform

Comparison, workforce and reform method

Justice package: resources, recruitment and artificial intelligence

Justice, artificial intelligence and implementation

The programme becomes a complete implementation corpus

Health Reform Legal Package

Tax Reform Legal Package

Primary official sources

  1. INSEE Première no. 2106 — General Government Accounts in 2025.
  2. INSEE — Maastricht public debt at the end of Q1 2026.
  3. Agence France Trésor — 2026 State financing and debt-service budget.
  4. French Budget Directorate — Key figures for the 2026 State budget.

Documentary verification: 5 August 2026. Official values may later be revised by the producing institutions.

New: work, competitiveness and social-protection pact

A separate strategic layer studies a 30% tax target, gross-to-net pay, social benefits, housing, production taxes, micro-business thresholds and a 120-day permit.

Open the pact →

From a catalogue to an auditable fiscal model

The 155-measure consolidation now includes a deduplication ledger and an accounting ownership and timing matrix. The baselines, years and primary sources register is now inserted before each flow is assigned to one unique owning line. The aim is to recalculate savings scenarios without mechanical addition or double counting.