In the last few weeks, the Dutch government made headlines as it invoked an old law to take managerial control of Nexperia, a chip producer it wanted to protect from its Chinese investor. Yet, states taking control over firms for geoeconomic reasons is not new. On several occasions, the French government has temporarily nationalized firms that it deems strategically important or considered doing so. As countries expand their geoeconomic toolbox, it is worthwhile to look into the strategic arguments for some of the French cases.

A temporary nationalization is a government’s decision to buy a private entity and own it for an (in theory) limited period. Contrary to indefinite nationalization, it has limited impact on the national budget, since the government recovers the investment when the assets are sold again. Under French law, the government can either buy shares in a firm that are for sale, or unilaterally adopt a law to nationalize it.

With rising geopolitical tensions and a stagnant European economy, temporary nationalizations have become more fashionable. The Europresse database reveals that French politicians have discussed the temporary nationalization of eight different firms in the last ten years. Table 1 orders the cases from newest to oldest and provides details about the firm and nationalization proposal. The list shows that the suggestions for nationalizations have indeed increased, with half of the proposals being made in the last two years.

Table 1. Overview of the proposals for temporary nationalization of French firms in the period 2015-2025

* In November 2025

** The number of articles in the Europresse database mentioning the name of the firm and “nationalization” until 7 November 2025.

Although some argue for nationalization to preserve jobs, there are also geoeconomic motives. They generally follow from the concern that deindustrialization will make France dependent on foreign countries. In case of a conflict, the dependencies can be instrumentalized by adversaries to hurt the French economy. Therefore, some scholars argue that the government must stop and reverse deindustrialization by temporarily nationalizing firms in trouble. Others, however, have nuanced the deindustrialization argument. Not every product is strategic and justifies the high costs of retaining a domestic manufacturing. For a lot of products, diversified supply chains are less costly and also guarantee a steady supply. Based on this view, the deindustrialization argument is only justified for a small number of strategic industries. Hence, to further explore the geoeconomic motives, I look into the individual justifications for temporary nationalization.

The geoeconomic arguments were most prevalent in the case of Atos, as the decision to partially nationalize it was driven by a desire to preserve French sovereignty in the digital services sector. The law proposal explicitly mentions the importance of national independence for the firm’s most strategic activities, including cybersecurity, cloud computing, and supercomputers. Its products are, after all, used in French nuclear power plants and serve national defense purposes. The proposal explicitly details how the loss of the firm would render France more dependent on the U.S. and, therefore, make it vulnerable to American coercion. Employment was only used as a secondary argument. Hence, the temporary nationalization of Atos had a clear geostrategic goal.

The government used a similar line of reasoning to justify the full nationalization of STX France. When the shipbuilding company was losing money in 2017, the South Korean owners planned to sell two thirds of its shares. The only candidate was Fincantieri, but for strategic reasons the French government opposed the sale to the Italian direct competitor. One concern was about the Italian firm’s joint venture with China State Shipbuilding Corporation, which could lead to unwanted technology transfers to China. Another concern was that the Italians would downsize the firm and might even close STX’s drydocks. The loss of the infrastructure would have threatened French sovereignty, as they are used for the construction of new French aircraft carriers. Hence, the French government decided to buy the shares itself and keep the fate of STX France in its own hands for national security reasons.

Strategic considerations also inspired the recent proposal to nationalize chemicals producer Vencorex. The firm’s products served as inputs for French nuclear ballistic missiles and power plants. Yet, in the case of Vencorex, the government decided that the strategic element was not important enough to justify a nationalization, as a German firm could provide the same type of products. Hence, the firm was sold to a Chinese competitor who stopped almost all Vencorex’ activities. Nevertheless, several politicians remain convinced that Vencorex should have been temporarily nationalized to preserve France’s independency in the chemical sector.

Finally, sovereignty concerns also inspired calls for temporarily nationalizing four firms in the steelmaking and metallurgy sector. While most of the arguments for nationalization in those sectors were based on the preservation of employment, policy makers were also concerned about dependency on foreign countries for steel and other metals. The materials are used in a wide range of sectors, so France would become vulnerable to economic coercion if it lacked domestic supply. Those in favor of nationalization referred to the decision of the British government to nationalize British Steel and the strict conditions for the sale of U.S. Steel to Japanese investors. Both interventions were justified on national security grounds. While the strategic arguments were not convincing enough to justify nationalizations in France, they did play a significant role in the debate.

As temporary nationalizations are increasingly popular in France, the individual cases show that the motives are often geoeconomic in nature. With the growing use of geoeconomic instruments in the EU, the French experience could provide lessons for other member states. A more thorough analysis is needed to assess the strategic value of temporary nationalizations, but while all eyes are fixed on the Netherlands, it might also be useful to look at what is happening in Paris.

The research for this blog post has been made possible by grant V447825N of The Research Foundation Flanders - FWO