Employment: why have public policies targeting priority neighborhoods not worked?
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% nationally) and the unemployment rate at over 19.6% for men and 16.5% for women (compared to approximately 7.5% and 7.1% nationally, respectively). In response to these persistent economic inequalities, numerous measures to promoteemployment have been implemented, such as "emplois francs"(tax-free jobs), the "1 young person, 1 solution" plan, and "les Cités de l'emploi" (employment cities).
Ousama Bouiss, University of Montpellier
However, in its report assessing these measures between 2015 and 2021, the Court of Auditors made a clear statement:
"Employment support measures, as they are currently designed and implemented, are not capable of reducing the gaps between [priority neighborhoods] and the rest of the population."
How can we explain this persistent failure of public policy?
Inadequate devices
According to the Court of Auditors:
"The specific characteristics of priority neighborhoods in urban policy and their residents are not sufficiently taken into account."
Contrary to popular belief, residential mobility and drug trafficking are not sufficient to explain economic insecurity.
Rather, two complementary causes seem more robust and lead to a vicious circle: poverty and school dropout. This observation was already highlighted by the Economic Analysis Council (CAE) in a note published in April 2017:
Children "inherit" their parents' poverty in a way: they live in disadvantaged areas, have more difficulties at school, and therefore find it harder to get a job.
However, employment support measures focus on only three areas: assistance in returning to work, support to facilitate recruitment, and program coordination. As a result, the root cause of the problem of school dropouts remains largely unaddressed, leading to investment in measures that focus more on the end results than on the root causes.
As indicated in the aforementioned note:
"To break this vicious cycle of poverty, it is essential to go beyond providing financial assistance to the most disadvantaged and tackle the root causes of poverty: academic failure, difficulties in finding employment for those with few or no qualifications, and the concentration of poverty in certain neighborhoods, which contributes to its persistence."
A poorly targeted investment
Furthermore, it should be noted that it is difficult to accurately assess the amount of expenditure and its allocation. 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 helping residents of priority neighborhoods (QPV) find employment, even when considering only the budgetary appropriations for which it is responsible."
Furthermore, the share of spending allocated to priority neighborhoods remains insufficient. Take, for example, the "1 young person, 1 solution" plan, whose main objective is to finance apprenticeships. The total amount allocated to this plan is €6.26 billion.
[More than 85,000 readers trust The Conversation's newsletters to help them better understand the world's major issues. Subscribe today]
However, for residents of QPVs, the amount spent would be around €563 million, or 9% of the total, which is "a percentage lower than the proportion of young people from QPVs in the country and the share of young people from QPVs looking for work."
Added to this is a second difficulty: "the schemes often benefit those who are least in need." The case of the "jobs for the future" program, rolled out between November 2012 and January 2018, illustrates this situation well. According to the assessment carried out in 2021 by the Directorate for Research, Studies, and Statistics (which reports to the Ministry of Labor):
"The program is less effective in terms of job placement for young people with few qualifications or those living in disadvantaged areas, who are nevertheless the core target group for jobs of the future."
An overly complex organization
Furthermore, the very organization of the rollout of these measures appears problematic. On the one hand, the multiplicity of measures and the lack of communication reinforce the alienation of the most vulnerable people from them. According to the survey conducted by the Court of Auditors, 65% of residents consider the measures to be little known. This proportion rises to 72% for those under 35. Furthermore, for both businesses and users, the distribution of these measures among different institutions makes them difficult to understand and access.
On the other hand, at the national level, shared management between the Ministries of Labor and Urban Affairs remains ineffective due to a "silo" approach. This compartmentalization is such that competing actions are implemented, as illustrated by the case of the "Public Service for Integration and Employment" (Ministry of Labor) and the "Cities of Employment" (Urban Policy). Added to this is the total absence of the Ministry of National Education, whose role remains central in the fight against school dropout.
Paradigm shift
What, then, are the solutions to make these policies effective? First, the unity of action that sets the fundamental framework for public policy must be at the level of the citizen, not the mechanisms. As the Court of Auditors points out,
"The strategy that has not yet been explored would consist of adapting to the situation of the people being supported in all its dimensions (social, educational, professional, etc.) rather than constantly asking them to adapt to the systems."
This therefore involves designing appropriate measures with the citizens concerned. It means breaking with an urban policy which, according to Cyprien Avenel, a sociologist specializing in "sensitive neighborhoods, "
"encourages participatory democracy but develops a paternalistic relationship with the population and implements top-down action (service provision)."
In this sense, the sociologist's work on the modalities of this participation is invaluable in helping us to better understand the challenges of such an undertaking.
Finally, the organization itself must be reviewed, particularly at the national level, where breaking down administrative barriers is essential, as these barriers hinder constructive progress. At the local level, the establishment of "What Works Centers" based on the British model, whose role would be to support experiments in order to address their shortcomings and demonstrate their effectiveness, is an unexplored avenue that would seem relevant.
Finally, the ideal of social justice must remain the central driving force. If there is an order to defend, it is not security but law; the order that underpins the dignity and freedom of individuals and compels us to seek justice. As the French philosopher Alfred Fouillée stated in the19thcentury:
"Whenever France allows itself to be dominated by ideas of self-interest, or by ideas of force, of the struggle for life, of war between nationalities or between classes, it strays from its true tradition [...]. If it bases itself on the idea of justice, it will remain faithful to its own spirit."
Ousama Bouiss, PhD student in strategy and organizational theory, University of Montpellier
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Readthe original article.