Abstract
Recent transformations of public policies have led to the emergence of new coordination measures for local governments and to changes in the role of street-level bureaucrats. Previous researches highlight a trend toward individualization of social policies and ever-greater autonomy of bureaucrats. On the basis of an ethnographic study conducted in low-rent housing organizations in two French cities, this chapter provides a critical discussion of the general hypothesis of social policies’ individualization. Through extensive interviews and direct observations of agents at work, it looks into the way target publics are defined and identified in practice. It considers the processes of qualification and categorization according to which frontline workers make their selection, questioning boundaries that are drawn by the administration between the insiders and the outsiders of social housing. This chapter first analyses how housing authorities elaborate rules to deal with legal uncertainties. It also shows how these categories are taken up and actualized by bureaucrats in their everyday practices. More broadly, it sheds light on regularly occurring selection mechanisms which led to a deeper understanding of individualization’s process.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In France, social housing is also called HLM housing. HLM means Habitat à Loyer Modéré (homes at a moderate rent).
- 2.
The social landlords are the key actors in social housing chain. They own 16% of French principal residences, housing ten million people. Two types of social landlords should be distinguished: public organizations called offices publics HLM (OPHLM) and private organizations called entreprises sociales pour l’habitat. The offices publics are attached to local governments whereas the entreprises sociales pour l’habitat are commercial companies.
- 3.
Loi Solidarité et renouvellement urbain.
- 4.
The names of sites, organizations and individuals have been changed in order to ensure the anonymity of interviewees.
- 5.
In France, the application for social housing passes through the hands of the receiving agent, then on to the social landlords and, finally, is before the allocation commission. All allocation commissions have six members, plus the Mayor of the city where the home is located (or its representative) who has a casting vote.
- 6.
In France, private employers must deduct 0, 95% from their wages bill to assist the housing effort. In return, they have the possibility to propose candidates.
- 7.
The scoring grid is based on several criteria which encourage housing for the poor, such as homelessness or housing need, residual costs resulting from rent, precariousness, conditions regarding financial means and case processing times.
- 8.
Alexandre, General manager in charge of renting, Smalltown, November 29, 2013
- 9.
RSA means Revenu de Solidarité Active which is an earned income supplement.
- 10.
Alexandre, General manager in charge of renting, Smalltown, November 29, 2013.
- 11.
Samia, HLM agent, Smalltown, December 9, 2013.
- 12.
Alexandre, General manager in charge of renting, Smalltown, November 29, 2013.
- 13.
Idem.
- 14.
Rozenn, Director in charge of renting, Mediumcity, January 15, 2013.
- 15.
In France, multiculturalism is tightly associated to “communitarianism” which is seen as a threat to national identity and republican values. It is negatively perceived as the opposite of the French republican “model of integration”.
- 16.
The support Fund for Integration and the Prevention of Discrimination (Fasild) is a public institution that finances operations in favor of the integration of immigrants.
- 17.
The High Authority to Combat Discrimination (Halde) was created in 2005 and dissolved in 2011. It was competent to address “all forms of discrimination, direct or indirect, prohibited by law or by an international agreement which France is a party”.
- 18.
Christian, Elected representative in charge of social housing, Mediumcity, February 28, 2012.
- 19.
Loi de mobilisation pour le logement et la lutte contre l’exclusion, 2009.
- 20.
A “boubou” is an African traditional clothing.
- 21.
This classification can be applied in other policy areas: for instance, Watkins-Hayes (2009) distinguished similarly three kind of social workers.
- 22.
Alexandre, Director-General in charge of renting, Smalltown, November 29, 2013.
References
Achterberg, P., Raven, J., & Van der Veen, R. (2013). Individualization: A doubleedged sword: Welfare, the experience of social risks and the need for social insurance in the Netherlands. Current Sociology, 61(7), 949–965.
Astier, I. (2000). Droit à l’emploi et magistratures sociales: vers une politique des situations. Droit et société, 44–45, 143–155.
Ball, J. (2012). Housing disadvantaged people? Insiders and outsiders in french social housing. London: Routledge.
Ballain, R., & Benguigui, F. (1995). Loger les personnes défavorisées. Paris: La documentation française.
Barrault-Stella, L. (2011). Une politique auto-subversive: l’attribution des dérogations scolaires. Sociétés contemporaines, 82, 31–58.
Barrault-Stella, L. (2013). Gouverner par accommodements. Paris: Dalloz-Sirey.
Bourgeois, C. (1996). L’attribution des logements sociaux: politiques publiques et jeux d’acteurs. Paris: Le Harmattan.
Bourgeois, M. (2013). Choisir les locataires du parc social? Une approche ethnographique de la gestion des HLM. Sociologie du travail, 55, 56–75.
Brodkin, E. Z. (2011). Policy work: street-level organizations under new managerialism. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(2), 1253–1277.
Caswell, D., Marston, G., & Larsen, J. E. (2010). Unemployed citizen or “at risk” client? Classification systems and employment services in Denmark and Australia. Critical Social Policy, 30, 384–404.
Douillet, A.-C., Faure, A., Halpern, C., & Leresche, J.-P. (2012). L’action publique locale dans tous ses états. Différenciation et standardisation. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Dubois, V. (2010a). The bureaucrat and the poor. Farnham: Ashgate.
Dubois, V. (2010b). Politiques au guichet, politique du guichet. In O. Borraz & V. Guiraudon (Eds.), Politiques publiques 2, Changer la société (pp. 265–286). Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.
Dupuy, C., & Pollard, J. (2014). A dethroned king? The limits of state infrastructural power in France. Public Administration, 92(4), 359–374.
Durose, C. (2011). Revisiting lipsky: Front-line work in UK local governance. Political Studies, 59, 978–995.
Ellis, K. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy revisited: The changing face of frontline discretion in adult social care in England. Social Policy & Administration, 45, 221–244.
Evans, T., & Harris, J. (2004). Street-level bureaucracy, social work and the (exaggerated) death of discretion. British Journal of Social Work, 34(6), 871–895.
Eymard-Duvernay, F., & Marchal, E. (1997). Façons de recruter. Le jugement des compétences sur le marché du travail. Paris: Métailié.
Ferge, Z. (1997). The changed welfare paradigm. The individualization of the social. Social policy and administration., 31(1), 20–44.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs: PrenticeHall.
Henman, P., & Fenger, M. (Eds.). (2006). Administering welfare reform: International transformations in welfare governance. Bristol: Policy Press.
Houard, N. (2009). Droit au logement et mixité: les contradictions du logement social. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Hupe, P., & Buffat, A. (2014). A public service gap: Capturing contexts in a comparative approach of street-level bureaucracy. Public Management Review, 16(4), 548–569.
Jenkins, R. (2000). Categorization: Identity, social process and epistemology. Current Sociology, 48(3), 7–25.
Kirschenman, J., & Neckerman, K. (1991). “We’de Love to Hire Them, But...”: The meaning of race for employers. In C. Jencks & P. E. Peterson (Eds.), The urban underclass (pp. 203–232). Washington DC: The Brookinks Institution.
Kirszbaum, T. (2008). Mixité sociale dans l’habitat. Revue de littérature dans une perspective comparative. Paris: La Documentation Française.
Lamont, M., & Molnar, V. (2002). The study of boundaries across the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 167–195.
Lascoumes, P. (1990). Normes juridiques et politiques publiques. Année sociologique, 40, 43–51.
Lascoumes, L., & Le Galès, P. (2007). Sociologie de l’action publique. Paris: Armand Colin.
Lima, L. (2013). L’expertise sur autrui: L’individualisation des politiques sociales entre droit et jugements. Bruxelles: Peter Lang.
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
Maynard-Moody, S. W., & Musheno, M. C. (2003). Cops, teachers, counselors: Stories from the front lines of public service. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Morel Journel, C., & Sala Pala, V. (2011). Le peuplement, catégorie montante des politiques urbaines néolibérales ? Le cas de Saint-Etienne, Métropoles, 10.
Pan Ké Shon, J.-L. (2009). Ségrégation ethnique et ségrégation sociale en quartiers sensibles. Revue française de sociologie, 50(3), 451–487.
Rice, D. (2013). Street-level bureaucrats and the welfare state: Toward a micro-institutionalist theory of policy-implementation. Administration and Society, 45, 1038–1062.
Sala Pala, V. (2006). La politique du logement social au risque du client? Attributions de logements sociaux, construction sociale des clients et discriminations ethniques en France et en Grande-Bretagne. Politiques et management public, 24, 77–92.
Sala Pala, V. (2010). Faut-il en finir avec le concept de racisme institutionnel ? Regards sociologiques, 39, 31–47.
Sala Pala, V. (2013). Discriminations ethniques. Les politiques du logement social en France et en Grande-Bretagne. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.
Schneider, H., & Ingram, A. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review, 87, 334–347.
Simon, P., & Kirszbaum, T. (2001). Les discriminations raciales et ethniques dans l’accès au logement social, Notes du GELD.
Tanter, A., & Toubon, J.-C. (1999). Mixité sociale et politique de peuplement: genèse de l’ethnicisation des opérations de réhabilitation. Sociétés contemporaines, 33–34, 59–86.
Tissot, S. (2005). Une « discrimination informelle »? Usages du concept de mixité sociale dans la gestion des attributions de logements HLM. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 159, 54–69.
Valli, M., Martin, H., & Hertz, E. (2002). Le « feeling » des agents de l’Etat providence. Analyse des logiques sous-jacentes aux régimes de l’assurance chômage et de l’aide sociale. Ethnologie française, 32(2), 221–231.
Watkins-Hayes, C. (2009). The new welfare bureaucrats. Entanglements of race, class, and policy reform. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Weill, P.-E. (2013). Le droit au service des personnes défavorisées ? Les effets pervers de la mise en œuvre du droit au logement opposable. Gouvernement et action publique, 2(2), 279–302.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bourgeois, M. (2018). From Groups to Individuals? The Making of Target Publics in the French Administration of Low-Rent Housing. In: Barrault-Stella, L., Weill, PE. (eds) Creating Target Publics for Welfare Policies. Logic, Argumentation & Reasoning, vol 17. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89596-3_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89596-3_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-89595-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-89596-3
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)