at the last regions of the continental France

In a given territory, consumption is not determined by the production, but by the presence of consumers whether they are permanent residents or tourists. The most attractive territory, some major, even predominant, economic activity comes from this use. Economist Lawrence Davezies showed the strength of this "face-to-face" economy: revenues from the production market, based export and subject to the risks of offshoring according to the international competition, are, on average, than the fifth of the income distributed in a territory. The calculation is simple: most of the regions, other than the most productive, as Ile-de-France or Rhône-Alpes, the income of pensioners accounted for 30 of the income available in the territory, those officials for 30, while remaining revenues from market productive activity, half between production for local consumption and production exported outside the territory.

Most of the local income is dependent on that indirectly the production market. In most major European countries, starting with the France, more than half of the wealth created annually been levies to be redistributed via public budgets. Spending (levies and deficit) is on average 54 of the GDP and 70 of household income. It is the wealth of individuals and companies which serves as basis for levies, then that transfers are proportional number of inhabitants of a territory.

The territories with which the income increases more quickly are precisely those believed to be the big losers of globalization: the world rural, small town or average, the Atlantic coast, cities lacking benefits "metropolitan". It is thus that the Limousin has income net (after taxes and transfers) per capita close to the average national, and even higher than that of Aquitaine, while its GDP per capita was lower by 20-national average and 10 of Aquitaine. By contrast, Ile-de-France produced 29 of the French GDP but holds only 22 of national income.

In the logic of competitiveness clusters, the firms locate to produce and export. But this production economy weighs less than the economy of consumption which attracts national and multinational companies localize to sell. However, a strategy based on the "face-to-face" economy has its limits: enriching a small space, it cannot allow economic development at the level of a country, which need to create exportable value added. The national optimum is not, in this field, the sum of local Optima.

The national debates on the poles of competitiveness for export purposes and on the attractiveness for the production must not hide those that should be on the quality of residential life and services of the France poles. It is possible to develop activity and employment in a region by encouraging income holders from elsewhere to live or to eat there. If migration balances are to be believed, the region more attractive to France is Languedoc-Roussillon... than its GDP per capita class in 21st position, i.e. at the last regions of the continental France.

"Face-to-face" economy is strengthened by the ageing and mobility of the population. Affluent retirees do not settle in the regions of old industry. And entrepreneurs tend to locate in areas that the climate, the natural environment and the wealth of facilities make attractive for their family and their managers. These criteria are more important for them than the aid to businesses.

Some territories have developed strategies to attract affluent retirees, young assets and to foster the development of activities. The winning territories of tomorrow will be those who will be able to play the card of the poles of quality of life and services, with, or non-poles of competitiveness. The champions will be able, as the région Rhône-Alpes, to play on two tables of creation and the expenditure of wealth.