Reconciling Achievement and Ascription

A French project does not get underway solely because it is self-sustaining and will ultimately generate income, but because it is felt to be important for the hegemony of the firm. Typically French firms can easily develop large and complex projects if their top management feels they are important - regardless of the return on investment. This could be referred to as the TGV syndrome (TGV stands for Train a Grande Vitesse, the "train with great speed" developed by SNCF, the French railway company, as a matter of national priority). The TGV is an interesting example because everyone agrees that the result has been worthwhile. However, for the people involved in the project, building the thing - whatever the cost - was far more important than creating a self-sustaining activity. As it so happens, the TGV is now also profitable in commercial terms, but financial profit was not its first objective or priority. Investment á fond perdue, along these lines, is typical of French culture.

In practice, most French projects need a patron to get off the ground. The project will continue, as long as le patron, the boss, is happy; which means as long as the boss feels the project is necessary. Again, to the British or Americans, this can sound like disguised nepotism, but it is in fact the symptom of a truly different way of operating. The relationship between superior and subordinate is closer to feudalism; you have my blessing to do whatever you want, and I have your support if I need it.

Both the TGV and the supersonic airliner Concorde have incurred substantial financial losses and, by British or American standards, may not be regarded as fine achievements but as commercial failures. Yet the French admire state of the art technology and ascribe status to it. Furthermore, since accountability is difficult to define in terms of specific results, no one seems to have looked closely at the financial figures. An entire project might cost far more than can be paid back in thirty years, and it is often unclear whether the original investment will ever be recouped.

All great projects of this kind have a patron in the government and represent brilliant engineering, a work of art and science. They are supported by a relationship of trust (confiance), or rather mutual confidence between the sponsor and the executor. This relationship is mostly established based on ascribed competence, which is measured in terms of Grande École background, previous post, and general opinion rather than demonstrable results.

What is it worth to France to invest so heavily in infrastructure and be Europe's major transportation hub? Does the payoff include less automobile congestion, faster trunk roads, cheaper exports, involved investments, fuel saving, and national reputation? The truth is that the payback from better infrastructure is almost incalculably large and isn't well represented by ticket sales, but by what the alternatives would cost. After all is said and done, even the Concorde, losing as it did $40 a minute whilst flying, may well have advanced aeronautics and, in that sense, was worthwhile.

Date: 2015-01-12; view: 1291