France's 54 billion euro 2030 initiative faces criticism for poor management and delayed funding distribution, according to the Court of Audit.
France 2030 initiative criticized
France's France 2030 initiative, a major public investment plan with a 54 billion euro budget from 2022 to 2026, has been criticized by the Court of Audit for its financial structure, selection of beneficiaries, and management approach. The court pointed out that the program lacks a comprehensive innovation strategy and a clear framework for mid-term goals.Comparison to other countries suggested
The Court of Audit suggested that France could have drawn inspiration from countries like Germany, South Korea, and Japan, which have more structured approaches to innovation and economic development. It criticized the government for launching the initiative quickly after the pandemic, relying heavily on subsidies rather than more strategic tools like public procurement or regulatory changes.Governance and funding issues
The governance of the France 2030 plan is described as complex and not transparent enough, with insufficient strategic direction despite some improvements at the inter-ministerial level. The Court recommends holding the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Innovation (C2I) at least every two years to update sectoral roadmaps based on evaluations.Slow disbursement of funds
As of the end of 2025, 33 billion euros had been subject to contractualization under the France 2030 initiative, but only 14 billion had been paid out to beneficiaries. The Court highlighted that the funds are not being distributed quickly enough and are often directed toward actors best equipped to handle complex projects, potentially leading to a windfall for certain beneficiaries.Uncertain results and management challenges
The government faces challenges in achieving its goals under the France 2030 initiative, with the Court noting that the results are still uncertain and that monitoring and management functions remain underdeveloped. The first evaluations suggest that the plan had a triggering effect for only about half of the supported projects. The Court emphasized the need for better targeting, management, and evaluation of future innovation support.