More Frenchmen to Algeria? F. Bastiat

tg :J.reJeric Ba6liaf (1801-1850) The French government's recent action recorded below brings to mind Bastiat's observations in 1850 concerning an earlier French effort to colo nize Africa. A NEWS dispatch of August 8, 1957, from Algeria, reports that "the French government is preparing a series of loan pro grams to encourage the people of France to invest or settle in Algeria. "The goal is not only to bring more Frenchmen to Algeria but also to create new jobs for unemployed Moslems and raise the living standards of the Moslem population. "Loans ranging from $8,700 to $10,500 are being offered to young soldiers willing to remain in Algeria after their tour of duty . . . the ex-soldier is not required to provide any capital himself, but can borrow as much as 100 per cent of the funds needed to start a modest venture [at an] interest rate of 1~ per cent on loans for farm lands and equipment, 2 per cent on industrial loans, and 3~ per cent for commercial enterprises."

Translated and condensed by Dean Russell from Selected Worb of Frederic Bastiat, Volume 2. Paris: Guillaumin; 1863. pp. 379 383. [281 ] A second dispatch of that same date reports that "twelve farm workers were killed and four wounded today in West Algeria when a rebel mine destroyed their truck. The attack brought to twenty-seven the number of persons killed in the Oran area in the last twenty-four hours." Go to the assembly and listen to the debates on Al geria. You will hear the orators declaiming many fine things about the power and glory of France, about the brilliant future of our gigantic colony in Africa, and about the advantages of sending our surplus population abroad. These magnificent orations always conclude somewhat as follows: "We must vote the necessary 50 millions to construct ports and roads in Algeria, to build houses and to encourage agriculture, and to send emi grants from France to Algeria. These measures will aid the French workingman, encourage native African labor, and stimulate the commerce of Marseilles. It would be profitable in every way."

And, of course, that is true-if you look only at where the money goes and not where it comes from; if you look only at the improvements caused by the spending of tax money, and ignore the improvements that could not be made by the taxpayers because their money was taken from them. What Is Not Seen True enough, one can see the new house that is built in Algeria with tax money. One can also see the new [282 ] harbor in Barbary and the increased commercial activity in Marseilles. And the number of French workers going to jobs in Algeria can actually be counted. But there is another side to the picture that is not seen. The 50 millions gathered by the State cannot be spent by the taxpayers. Thus an accurate accountmg demands that the beneRts claimed by the State should be balanced by the harm done to the citizens. The taxpayers would have used their money to repair their fences, fertilize their fields, buy needed tools, improve their homes, im prove their diets, purchase more clothing, educate their children better, contribute more to charity, and so on.

Those are the things that cannot be seen because the tax money sent to Algeria prevented their coming into ex istence. True enough, there are more jobs in Mrica because of the spending of the 50 millions. But what is not seen is that the absence of the 50 millions from France caused at least an equal loss of work for the local gardeners, carpenters, blacksmiths, tailors, and others. In addition to this decrease in domestic labor, the taxpayers were also deprived of the pleasure that would have accrued to them from spending their own money as they wished. When we look at Algeria and the things that can easily be seen, we should also remember these things that cannot be seen. Much is expected from the future prosperity of Algeria. Let us hope for the best. But when it is pointed out to me that each colonist sent to Algeria means an improve ment in the conditions of the workers left in France, I [283 ] must ask how that can possibly be true. The Minister of War informs us that it costs the State 8,000 francs for each person transported to Algeria. Now it is certain that these poor individuals could live very well in France on a capital of 4,000 francs. How is it an improvement to the French people to deprive them of the services of one man and the means of subsistence for two men?

Government in Business Generally speaking, it is not a good idea to use tax funds to establish enterprises. Here is why: Justice al ways suffers in some degree. The taxpayer who has labored to earn his hundred sous is at least disappointed that the tax collector takes them from him to give to an other. The State must offer good reasons for this. But, actually, the State gives a poor excuse when it says, "With these hundred SOllS, we shall employ workmen." The taxpayer can truthfully reply, "With the hundred sous, I would employ them myseH." This claimed en couragement of labor is a delusion. Whatever the State does in this direction by public spending, the private spending of the money would also have done. Therefore, the interest of <:<:labor" is not a valid issue in the case. Now it is an entirely different ma~ter when the State says to the taxpayer, <:<:We take your hundred sous to pay the policeman who saves you the trouble of providing for your own personal safety; to pave the streets that you use every day; to pay the judge who helps to protect your property and your liberty; to maintain the soldier who [284 ] protects our frontiers." My guess is that the taxpayer will pay for all that without hesitation.

But it is another thing entirely when the State says to him, "We take these hundred sous so that we may give you a bonus if you cultivate your fields well; or to teach your son something that you have no wish that he should learn; or to build a cottage in Algeria-in which case, we must tax you another hundred sous every year to support the worker who lives in it, and another hundred to main tain the soldier to protect the worker, and another hun dred to pay the general to watch the soldier," and so on. In this case, I· think I hear the poor taxpayer exclaiming, "This government seems to be a system of legalized rob bery!" A Dislocated Population Since these governmental expenditures merely change labor without increasing it, another serious objection can be raised against them: "When workers are arbitrarily shifted about, the natural distribution of population in the nation is disturbed. If the 50 millions are left in the possession of the taxpayers, labor would be encouraged throughout all the hamlets and towns of France. Since the taxpayers are everywhere, they spend their money among all kinds of workers and industries. But when the State collects the 50 millions and spends it in one place, it attracts to that place much labor. This increases the number of homeless workers. It creates a floating popula tion that is out of place. I also suspect that this displaced [285 ] population may become dangerous when the fund is used up.

This feverish activity in Algeria attracts the attention of all. The resulting construction and new jobs can be seen by anyone who looks. The people applaud the beauty and simplicity of the government's plan, and ex pect more and more. But they fail to realize that there is a reverse side to the picture, a side that is not good, a side that they do not see. [286 ] BOLIVIA: A CASE STUDY IN FOREIGN AID t'l Roger A. :J.reeman BOLIVIA rates as the South American country receiving economic aid from the United States. The program was started in 1953 to tide the country over a "temporary emergency." But for the past three years the United States has been contributing twice as much for public purposes in Bolivia as the Bolivian taxpayer. This has neither restored the economic balance nor assured sta bility in Bolivia. Plans to taper off u. S. aid are being shelved each year and appear dimmer now than ever.