Why is Paris burning? The crisis of the welfare state and the revolt of social justice

Paris is burning! But is Europe's welfare state also sounding the alarm? In one of the world's largest economies, why are hundreds of thousands of people in the streets despite a strong social security system and high public spending? Why do citizens feel less secure while the state spends more? 

Workers are struggling with the cost of living, young people are worried about their future, and retirees are trying to protect their social rights. Rising public debt, slowing growth, and increasing living costs are putting Europe's model of economic prosperity and social justice to a difficult test. Because the success of a welfare state should not be measured by how much it spends, but by the extent to which it reduces poverty, strengthens equality of opportunity, and the kind of future it offers its citizens. 

The anger rising in the streets of Paris calls into question not only the cost of the welfare state but also its effectiveness, fairness, and sustainability. The real issue is not abandoning the welfare state; it is about who shares the prosperity, who pays the price, and what kind of burden is left to future generations. 

The warning extending from France to the whole world is clear: If economic growth does not translate into prosperity, prosperity into justice, and justice into social trust, then neither high public spending nor strong economic indicators can provide lasting peace and stability.

ANGER IN THE STREETS OF PARIS: FROM EDUCATION TO THE STRUGGLE FOR LIVELIHOOD

The reactions rising in the streets of Paris are not just a protest against educational conditions, but also an expression of economic and social discontent that has been building for years. The demonstrations, which became prominent in September with the demands of students, quickly turned into a broader objection to the cost of living, public services, and social rights. According to the statement by the French Ministry of the Interior, approximately 550 thousand people participated in the demonstrations across the country on October 17, 2026. Students, workers, unions, and supporters of the Yellow Vests movement met on the same streets with different demands.

While most of the demonstrations took place peacefully, there was looting, arson, and clashes with security forces in some cities. The right to democratic protest is indispensable; however, violence can never be a legitimate tool for any struggle for rights. Nevertheless, focusing only on burning vehicles and damaged buildings means missing the real reasons for the social anger spilling into the streets.

France is no stranger to these reactions. In 2018, the Yellow Vests were defending tax justice and purchasing power, and in 2023, those opposing pension reform were defending their social rights. Today, education, living conditions, and anxiety about the future are at the forefront. Although the demands change, the fundamental problem remains the same: Why does economic prosperity not sufficiently reflect on broad segments of society? Of course, political representation, trust in governance, and security policies are also behind the social reactions. However, one of the strongest common denominators bringing different segments together on the same street is the widening gap between today's cost of living and tomorrow's uncertainty.

THE WELFARE STATE'S DIFFICULT TEST: WHY IS EUROPE'S SOCIAL CONTRACT SHAKING?

After the Second World War, Europe's economic and social order was built on a strong understanding of the welfare state. At the heart of this model was a clear social contract: The citizen would work, produce, and pay taxes; the state would guarantee education, health, retirement, social security, and basic public services. The prosperity created by economic growth would be shared more fairly, and equality of opportunity and social solidarity would be strengthened.

This understanding provided Europe with social peace and democratic stability alongside economic development for many years. However, today the welfare state is facing three fundamental problems:

First, the problem of low growth and productivity. When the economy does not grow sufficiently, tax revenues do not increase at the same rate as social needs. Constantly increasing public spending without strengthening productivity and employment makes financing the welfare state increasingly difficult.

Second, an aging population and intergenerational justice. As retirement, health, and care expenditures rise, the financing burden on the working population becomes heavier. Weakening the education, employment, and housing opportunities of young people while trying to protect today's social rights erodes the welfare state's principle of intergenerational solidarity.

Third, rising public debt and changing budget priorities. Along with rising interest expenses, expenditures on defense, energy security, and technological transformation are narrowing the resources that can be allocated to social policies. Governments face difficult choices between increasing taxes, cutting spending, or continuing to borrow to reduce budget deficits.

However, the real problem is not just how much the welfare state spends, but who finances these expenditures, who benefits from them, and how effectively they are used. High public spending alone is not a guarantee of social justice, equality of opportunity, or social satisfaction.

The solution is not to shrink the welfare state or abandon social rights; it is to make it fairer, more effective, more productive, and financially sustainable. Because a well-functioning welfare state is not just one that distributes income; it is one that reduces poverty, develops human capital, creates equality of opportunity, and enables individuals to build their own futures.

FRANCE'S DEBT REPORT CARD AND THE QUESTION OF JUSTICE: HIGH SPENDING, LOW GROWTH

France's economic indicators clearly reveal the dilemma facing the European welfare state. According to the projections in the OECD's 2026 Economic Survey of France, the ratio of public debt to national income is expected to reach 115.5 percent in 2025, rising to 118.8 percent in 2026 and 120.9 percent in 2027. In the same period, the budget deficit is projected to be 5 percent, unemployment 8.3 percent, and economic growth only 0.7 percent. The ratio of public spending to national income is approximately 57 percent.

These figures point to a significant contradiction: Why is economic growth weak and social dissatisfaction high when the state spends an amount equal to more than half of the economy? Because high public spending does not produce prosperity on its own. The quality of expenditures, the efficient use of resources, the capacity to create employment, and the impact on income distribution are at least as important as the amount of spending.

Moreover, the constant increase in public debt raises the risk of burdening future taxpayers with today's social expenditures. However, weakening education, health, and social security services to narrow budget deficits is not the solution either. On one side is the debt burden passed on to future generations, and on the other is the cost of austerity imposed on today's low-income segments. In both cases, the fundamental problem is justice.

Therefore, the budget is not just a financial table where revenues and expenditures are collected, but a document of preference showing the state's social priorities. Reducing ineffective spending is not the same as narrowing the basic rights of citizens. Reviewing tax privileges, fighting the informal economy, increasing productivity and employment, and using public resources more efficiently are also tools of fiscal discipline.

True success is not increasing social inequalities while reducing the budget deficit; it is not condemning public finances to an unsustainable debt burden while protecting social rights. Because fiscal discipline and social justice are not alternatives to each other, but two fundamental elements of sound economic policies that complement each other.

THE FUTURE OF YOUTH, EUROPE'S NEW PRIORITIES: WHAT DOES THE WELFARE STATE PROMISE FUTURE GENERATIONS?

One of the most important promises of the European welfare state was to offer every new generation better living conditions than the previous one. Today, however, young people are questioning whether they can have a better future than their parents. Inequality of opportunity in education, rising housing costs, difficulties in finding jobs, and precarious working conditions weaken not only the lives of young people but also the trust in the future of the welfare state.

Moreover, Europe's aging population increases the pressure on resources that could be allocated to the education, employment, and housing needs of young people while increasing retirement, health, and care expenditures. How fair and sustainable can an order be that jeopardizes the future of one generation while trying to protect the acquired rights of another? The duty of the welfare state is not to pit generations against each other, but to distribute resources and opportunities fairly among generations.

Europe's increasing defense, energy security, and technological transformation expenditures are also added to this picture. Investing in security in the face of geopolitical risks is, of course, necessary. However, neglecting education, health, social protection, and the future of young people while allocating more resources to defense brings with it the risk of the society weakening from within. Because security is not just about protecting borders, but also about protecting the citizen's livelihood, living conditions, and trust in the future.

The real issue is not choosing between defense and the welfare state, but being able to distribute public resources in a balanced way between social needs and long-term priorities. It is also the state's responsibility to leave not just public debt, but quality education, productive employment, strong institutions, and a livable society to future generations.

FROM PARIS TO TURKEY: DIFFERENT ECONOMIES, A COMMON PROBLEM OF JUSTICE

France and Turkey's economic structures, income levels, and social security systems are different from each other. However, the reactions rising from the streets of Paris bring an important question to the agenda for Turkey as well: Why does the citizen's prosperity not increase to the same extent while the economy grows? Because the true measure of economic success is not just growth, inflation, or budget indicators; it is how much the improvement in these indicators reflects on the living conditions of society.

As I emphasized in my previous articles on income distribution and tax justice published on 12punto, two different economic realities can be experienced in the same country. On one side are those who grow their wealth with asset income, and on the other are millions trying to cover rent, food, and transportation expenses with their wages. A decrease in inflation does not necessarily mean that prices have fallen, and an increase in wages does not necessarily mean that purchasing power has risen. If the fruits of growth are not shared fairly, the improvement in economic indicators does not translate into social prosperity.

The tax system is also at the center of the social justice debate in Turkey. The weight of indirect taxes such as VAT and SCT increases the burden on low-income segments. Tax justice is not only about who pays how much tax, but also about who earns how much and which public services they benefit from in return for the tax they pay. Tax privileges, the informal economy, the effectiveness of public spending, and off-budget liabilities should therefore be evaluated together.

Moreover, the welfare state is not just one that distributes aid, but one that creates the conditions that will save people from being constantly in need of aid. Quality education, accessible health, childcare, social housing, and secure employment are the foundation that enables a person to build their future with their own labor. Municipalities can also strengthen this foundation with transportation, daycare, and social services; however, they need predictable resources compatible with their duties. The success of social policy depends on central and local institutions complementing each other, aid reaching those in real need, and moving individuals not toward constant dependence on support, but toward stronger life opportunities.

The fundamental lesson to be learned from Paris to Turkey is clear: The success of the welfare state should not be measured by how much resources it distributes, but by the extent to which it reduces poverty, strengthens equality of opportunity, and the kind of future it offers its citizens. Because true social justice is not just alleviating the consequences of poverty, but being able to change the economic and institutional conditions that make it permanent.

CONCLUSION: STRONG STATE, NOT A LARGE BUDGET; A FAIR AND SECURE FUTURE

What is happening in the streets of Paris is an important warning that not only France but all countries that weaken the link between economic growth and social prosperity should think about. Economic development, high public spending, and strong social security institutions are not, by themselves, a guarantee of social peace and justice.

A country's economy may grow; but if the citizen's purchasing power does not increase, the social return of this growth should be questioned. The state's budget may grow; but if education, health, and social security services do not meet needs, the effectiveness of spending should be debated. Fiscal discipline may be achieved; but if low-income groups and future generations are constantly paying the price for this, the sense of justice is damaged.

The real issue is not abandoning the welfare state; it is making it fairer, more effective, inclusive, and financially sustainable. Because a strong welfare state is not just one that alleviates the consequences of poverty, but one that reduces poverty; not just one that transfers income, but one that creates equality of opportunity; not just one that meets today's needs, but one that also protects the rights of future generations.

The lesson to be learned from France to Turkey is clear: The true measure of economic success is how much it reflects on the citizen's table, the workers' purchasing power, children's education, youth employment, and the living conditions of retirees, rather than growth figures. Using public resources effectively, maintaining fiscal discipline, and strengthening social justice are not alternatives to each other, but complementary conditions of sustainable prosperity.

Today, the social discontent rising from the streets of Paris reminds all countries of four fundamental questions again: For whom is the economy growing? Who is earning the prosperity? Who is paying the price for crises? Who is carrying the burden of the future?

No economic model that cannot provide fair and convincing answers to these questions can maintain social trust by relying solely on growth figures and high public spending.

Let us not forget: A strong economy is not just one that grows, and a strong state is not just one that spends a lot. True power lies in being able to share the produced prosperity fairly, use public resources effectively, and offer a more secure future to every generation. Because if economic growth does not turn into prosperity, prosperity into justice, and justice into social trust, no stability is permanent.