As
@Indicus pointed out, the French economy was in very bad shape. Without drastic fiscal reform, matters were heading for a cliff. The mid 1780s was a horrible crop failure due to a massive volcanic erpution on Iceland, which in OTL was a direct contribution to the problems in France coming to a head. The mercantillist economic policies limited France in its ability to respond adequately to the resulting food shortages, whereas countries that were moving towards free trade, like Britain, had a much easier time of it. at the same time, the total French bankruptcy made the money needed to somehow import more food unavailable. The extent of the existing national debt made borrowing money untenable as well.
The costs of the French intervention in the ARW were a drop in the ocean (of debt), but - to mix my metophors - also the straw that broke the camel's back in OTL. That back is getting broken, by the way, no good way to really avoid that-- but without the ARW costs, France might just scrape by and get just enough credit to avoid total collapse when food shortages become dire in the late 1780s. This just means that the costs of fixing that problem become the final straw instead, so - just as
@Indicus said - there's going to be a big crash by 1800. (At the outside. I'd argue it's likely to come earlier. Whatever problem appears and costs money, France won't be able to handle. Things are going to crash.)
As has been pointed out: reform won't happen except at gunpoint. So France actually
needs that next crisis to be able to enact reforms.
The good news is that in OTL, a lot of bad things conspired to make the French Revolution the terrible, horrible no-good frenzy it became. There were politicians who committed fraud and arrogantly lied about it. There were other (and in several occasions
the same) politicians who totally misread the political atmosphere and tried to bully the Estates-General around to get their way, when 'groveling and accepting responsibility for mistakes made' was the behaviour that would have been more fitting. Finally, there was the disastrous attempt by the royal family to escape, which sealed the monarchy's fate for good.
If a crisis happens later, the same exact people won't be in charge when the crisis happens. Politician turnover in the financial department was
pretty dramatic in those turbulent days. In OTL Calonne messed everything up when he was in charge, but later saw the error of his ways. Neckers didn't listen to disgraced has-been Calonne when he warned about not repeating his mistakes, and literally
faked the government budget to make himself look good and hide the true size of the debt. Necker was also one of those who totally messed up by trying the heavy-handed approach with the Estates-General.
On the other hand, Necker was a master at securing new loans for France even when the economy was going down the drain. I hesitate to call him a 'financial wizard', as he was actually more of a charlatan: a stage magician if you will. But a talented one! So when the food crisis occurs in this no-ARW TL, let's assume necker is put in charge as per OTL. Great. In this ATL, his main goal is... to secure loans,
and fast. With France just that little less deep in debt to begin with, I have no doubt Necker can do this. That means: crisis put off for the moment, but inevitable for later. Meanwhile, Calonne remains highly critical of the 'borrow, borrow, borrow' policy. Initially, Necker is praised, but when the next crisis inevitably comes, he goes down burning.
Who better to fix things than... Calonne? The grand advocate of reform, of late. At this point, the Estates-General get assembled. I assume Calonne can handle them better than Necker did in OTL, although by this point, preserving absolute monarchy is pretty much out of the question. Less direct confrontation, more of a long-negotiated compromise ending in a reduction of royal power and a reformed fiscal system. The radicals never even get a chance, and we're all spared a whole lot of terror.
Of course, it may also just escalate, but under other circumstances. No way to tell for sure. But I think that the OTL French revolution was a big case of "boy, that escalated quickly!" -- and it didn't have to happen that way at all. The scenario above has considerably better chances of avoiding radicalisation and republicanism. (It may matter, if only a little bit, whether there was never an ARW at all, or whether Britain fought and won. The former scenario bodes well for avoiding republicanism and radiclism, since in such a scenario, there is no American republicanism to form a real-world example. On the contrary: the 'American crisis' will then have been solved by negotiation, which provides a positive example for such a negotiated resolution to the French crisis as well...)