Employment: Why Have Public Policies Targeting Priority Neighborhoods Failed?
In 2022, the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (INSEE) estimated the poverty rate in so-called “priority” neighborhoods at 42.6% (compared to 14.8% nationwide) and the unemployment rate at over 19.6% for men and 16.5% for women (compared to approximately 7.5% and 7.1% nationwide, respectively). In response to these persistent economic inequalities, numerousemployment-promotion measures have been implemented, such as the “emplois francs” program, the “1 jeune, 1 solution” initiative, and the “Cités de l’emploi” program.
Ousama Bouiss, University of Montpellier
However, in its report assessing these measures between 2015 and 2021, the Court of Auditors reached an unequivocal conclusion:
"Employment support programs, as they are currently designed and implemented, are not capable of reducing the disparities between [priority neighborhoods] and the rest of the population."
How can we explain this persistent failure of public policies?
Inadequate measures
According to the Court of Auditors:
"The specific characteristics of the priority neighborhoods under the urban policy and of their residents are not sufficiently taken into account."
Contrary to popular belief, residential mobility and drug trafficking alone do not fully explain economic insecurity.
Rather, two complementary causes seem more compelling and lead to a vicious cycle: poverty and dropping out of school. This observation was already highlighted by the Economic Analysis Council (CAE) in a report released in April 2017:
“Children, in a sense, ‘inherit’ their parents’ poverty: they live in disadvantaged areas, face greater academic challenges, and consequently have a harder time finding employment.”
However, employment support measures focus on only three areas: assistance with returning to work, support to facilitate hiring, and program coordination. As a result, the root cause of the problem of school dropout is still largely overlooked, leading to investments in measures that focus more on the final consequences than on the underlying causes.
As stated in the aforementioned note:
“To break this vicious cycle of intergenerational poverty, it is essential to go beyond providing financial assistance to the poorest and to address the root causes of poverty: academic failure, the difficulties faced by those with few or no credentials in entering the workforce, and the concentration of poverty in certain neighborhoods, which contributes to its persistence.”
A poorly targeted investment
Furthermore, it is worth noting the difficulty in rigorously assessing the amount of expenditures and their budget line items. According to the report by the Court of Auditors:
“The ministry responsible for employment is unable to calculate the amount of public funds allocated to promote access to employment for residents of priority neighborhoods under the urban policy (QPV), not even based solely on the budget appropriations for which it is responsible.”
Furthermore, the share of spending allocated to priority neighborhoods remains insufficient. Take, for example , the “1 Youth, 1 Solution” plan, which is primarily aimed at funding apprenticeships. The total amount allocated to this plan is 6.26 billion euros.
[More than 85,000 readers rely on The Conversation’s newsletters to better understand the world’s major issues. Subscribe today]
However, for residents of QPVs, the amount spent would be approximately 563 million euros, or 9% of the total—a percentage lower than both the proportion of young people from QPVs nationwide and the share of young people from QPVs who are looking for work.
Added to this is a second challenge: “these programs often benefit residents who are least in need.” The case of the “Jobs for the Future” initiative, implemented between November 2012 and January 2018, clearly illustrates this situation. According to the 2021 assessment conducted by the Directorate for Research, Studies, and Statistics (which reports to the Ministry of Labor):
"The program is less effective in helping young people with few educational credentials or those living in disadvantaged areas find employment, even though they are the primary target group for the 'Jobs for the Future' initiative."
An overly complex organization
Furthermore, the very way these programs are organized appears problematic. On the one hand, the sheer number of programs and the lack of communication contribute to the most vulnerable individuals feeling disconnected from them. According to a survey conducted by the Court of Auditors, 65% of residents consider these programs to be little known. This proportion rises to 72% among those under 35. Furthermore, whether for businesses or users, the fact that these programs are spread across different institutions makes them difficult to understand and access.
On the other hand, at the national level, the shared management between the Ministries of Labor and Urban Affairs remains ineffective due to a “siloed” approach. This compartmentalization is so pronounced that competing initiatives are being implemented, as illustrated by the “Public Service for Integration and Employment” (Ministry of Labor) and the “Cités de l’emploi” (Urban Policy). Added to this is the complete absence of the Ministry of National Education, whose role remains central in the fight against school dropout rates.
A Paradigm Shift
What, then, are the solutions to ensure that these policies are effective? First and foremost, the unified approach that sets the fundamental framework for public policy must be centered on the citizen, not on the systems themselves. As the Court of Auditors points out,
“One strategy that has not yet been explored would be to adapt to the circumstances of the people we support in all their dimensions—social, educational, professional, and so on—rather than constantly asking them to adapt to the systems.”
Consequently, this means designing appropriate measures in collaboration with the citizens concerned. The goal is to break with an urban policy that, according to Cyprien Avenel, a sociologist specializing in “sensitive neighborhoods”:
"promotes participatory democracy but develops a paternalistic relationship with the population and implements a top-down approach (service provision)."
In this regard, the sociologist’s work on the ways in which this participation takes place is invaluable for better understanding the challenges of such an initiative.
Finally, the organizational structure itself must be reviewed, particularly at the national level, where breaking down administrative silos is essential, as these silos act as a major obstacle to constructive progress. At the local level, the establishment of “What Work Centers” based on the British model—whose role would be to support pilot projects in order to address their shortcomings and demonstrate their effectiveness—represents an unexplored avenue that appears to be a promising approach.
Finally, the ideal of social justice must remain the central driving force. If there is an order to be defended, it is not one of security but of law—the order that underpins the dignity and freedom of individuals and compels us to act justly. As the19th-century French philosopher Alfred Fouillée put it:
“Whenever France allows itself to be dominated by notions of self-interest, or by notions of power, the struggle for survival, or war between nationalities or classes, it strays from its true tradition […]. Let it be guided by the idea of justice, and it will remain true to its own spirit.”
Ousama Bouiss, Ph.D. candidate in strategy and organizational theory, University of Montpellier
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Readthe original article.