In recent years, I've been involved in a collective research project whose aim is to trace the rise of economic expertise and economic theory in France between 1939 and 1945, a period largely ignored by historians of economic thought to date. The research project is The Making of Economic Expertise in France (ExEco). The project is being conducted with Raphaël Fèvre.

ExEco

The renewal of the historiography of the Occupation, initiated by Robert Paxton's seminal work (1973), has emphasized the diversity of practices and attitudes toward the German occupiers. Indeed, far from being a homogeneous entity, the Vichy regime was characterized by internal conflicts among competing tendencies. A particularly emblematic case is the drafting of the Labor Charter (October 1941), an innovative yet ultimately unfinished document whose chaotic composition highlighted sharp divisions among various economic and social factions (LeCrom, 1995). This historiographical shift has also contributed to challenging the perception of Vichy as merely a historical "parenthesis," disconnected from pre- and post-war France. By questioning the ideological and political unity of the regime, the continuity between what was conceived and produced by different actors within the French State (both institutionally and intellectually) and France’s post-1945 reconstruction emerges as a crucial issue (Nord, 2010).

In this context, the project "The Making of Economic Expertise in France (ExEco)" aims primarily to describe and analyze the development of economic theory in France from 1939 to 1945, as well as the connections economists maintained with economic and political authorities. By investigating these developments, the project also seeks to elucidate the emergence of economics as a discipline becoming increasingly independent.

Many academic economists were involved, directly or indirectly, with the Vichy regime. Some had close relationships with the ruling authorities, while others joined research institutions supported by the new regime. For certain members of a profession still seeking definition, Vichy provided an opportunity to affirm their expert status. It is important to recall that, at the outbreak of World War II, economics was still considered an ancillary discipline to law, characterized by a threefold desire for emancipation that had been growing since the end of World War I. First, there was an academic emancipation from legal scholarship, as economists were still required to pass the law aggregation (agrégation de droit). Second, a theoretical emancipation was taking place, symbolized by the rise of mathematical economics. Third, economists sought political emancipation by asserting their role as experts within emerging economic governance institutions. These aspirations found expression in the 1930s through X-Crise, an extra-academic organization open to new methods and positioned as a crucible for novel political proposals (Armatte, 2010). Our working hypothesis is that although these technocratic aspirations existed before World War II, the Occupation period represented a significant break during which research institutions emerged that were larger, more structured, and more closely connected to political power than those, such as X-Crise, had been previously. In this sense, the Vichy regime served as an important vehicle for promoting economic expertise.

The EDEV research project, jointly led by GREDEG and the Centre Walras-Pareto, examines how the Vichy regime contributed to establishing an institutional framework that partially fulfilled economists’ professional aspirations. A central focus of our work is the Fondation française pour l'étude des problèmes humains, better known as the "Fondation Carrel," once directed by François Perroux, a leading post-war economist. Notably, within this foundation was the Centre d’échange de théorie économique (CETE), directed by Henri Denis. Key figures who significantly influenced the post-war era participated in CETE, which foreshadowed the Institut de science économique appliquée founded by Perroux in 1944. Our initial hypothesis is that the CETE, embedded within a dense institutional network, contributed significantly to establishing the figure of the economist as an expert. However, the establishment of a stronghold where economists recognized by political authorities could develop ideas and issue recommendations does not necessarily imply that their recommendations directly influenced the economic policies enacted by Vichy. We will also examine this issue in light of the extensive scholarship on Vichy's economic policy history (Rousso, 1979; Kuisel, 1984; Margairaz, 2009; Grenard, Le Bot, and Perrin, 2017).

A core question is thus determining the extent to which the institutional study of the economic and academic fields sheds light on the specific theoretical content of the period. This content is notably distinctive regarding its relation to facts, methods, and the role of expertise within the French context, as well as its place within the broader theoretical discussions occurring simultaneously across Europe.

Regarding the growing use of tools such as statistics by economists, the Vichy period accelerated a movement already underway in the 1930s. This acceleration was achieved both through the creation of new institutions (e.g., the Service National de Statistique, which absorbed Alfred Sauvy’s Statistique Nationale de France) and through an expansion of available economic data. Specifically, the planning structure implemented by the regime (organized around the occupational committees and justified by the imperatives of an occupation economy) provided unprecedented access to corporate data previously unavailable. Thus, the foundations of a statistical system serving economic policy and expertise emerged under Vichy. We will examine how access to new data influenced theoretical economic practices.

References

François Perroux: the career of a Vichy economist

Studies devoted to the work and persona of François Perroux (1903-1987) primarily focus on the post-1945 period. At least two reasons explain this interest in the “later” Perroux. Firstly, it is during the post-war years—particularly while holding the Chair of Economic and Social Analysis at the Collège de France (1955-1976)—that Perroux produced what are now considered his main contributions to economic thought, naturally drawing historians of the discipline toward this period. Secondly—and this is the point that particularly interests us—Perroux's intellectual and institutional trajectory during the interwar years presents scholars with significant difficulties, notably in characterizing his relationship to corporatist currents, narratives of the "Révolution Nationale," and ultimately his position within Vichy France (July 10, 1940 – August 20, 1944).

If we are not mistaken,

 fascism, like communism, will contribute 

its stone to the edifice of the new humanism. 

François Perroux (1936)

François Perroux's role within the "État Français," after a prolonged period of scholarly neglect, has recently become the subject of renewed academic attention (notably by Bernard Bruneteau and Antonin Cohen). Raphaël Fèvre and I are especially interested in exploring the trajectory of this French economist between the 1920s and 1945, as it potentially sheds light on the dynamics connecting the institutionalization of economics as a discipline and the establishment of an authoritarian regime.

Perroux made his ill-fated prediction at the peak of his analysis of European authoritarian regimes. He was an informed observer of both the practical achievements and the ideological aspirations of fascist states, drawing insights from extensive research stays in Austria, Germany, and Italy (and more briefly in Portugal), notably undertaken between 1934 and 1935 as a Rockefeller Fellow. As suggested by the excerpt above, Perroux’s appetite for a profound “renewal” of European parliamentary democracies led him to consider these authoritarian regimes as potential sources of inspiration, despite the criticisms he articulated against them. Perroux was convinced that France should learn—both negatively and positively—from fascist experiences to overcome the limitations of an impotent political regime, an unstable economic system, and a secularized national mythos.

This tension between critical international analysis and national expectations is evident in the literature on Perroux during the interwar period. While some commentators highlight his “passionate lucidity,” immune to “the political currents of extremism,” others, less forgiving, describe him as “fascinated” by his subject. Perroux’s institutional and intellectual stance during the Occupation further complicates interpretations of his earlier activities: he participated in drafting Vichy's constitutional project between June and October 1941, was involved in at least two major institutions training the regime's elites (École des cadres d’Uriage and École nationale des cadres de Mayet de Montagne), served as Secretary General of the Fondation Carrel from September 1, 1942, to February 23, 1943, and was a member of the Conseil d’étude économique under Yves Bouthillier (Minister of Finance from 1940 to 1942). Beyond these institutional roles, his intellectual output was notably prolific between 1940 and 1944: he authored dozens of articles in academic journals, newspapers, and pamphlets, and gave lectures to diverse audiences, as evidenced by numerous manuscripts found in his archives. Moreover, he explicitly supported the Révolution Nationale, politically and theoretically endorsing Philippe Pétain's positions and expressing enthusiasm when Pétain, in his famous speech in Saint-Étienne, employed the concept of the “working community,” which Perroux held dear. He even dedicated an entire course to the Labor Charter, a key component of the regime's social doctrine, an endeavor that drew sharp criticism from Gaëtan Pirou for the “ardent doctrinal passion” it displayed. Ultimately, Perroux was enthusiastic about Marshal Pétain's early government initiatives and sought actively to influence Vichy reforms to align them with his communitarian ideals.