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% 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, numerousemployment-promoting measures have been implemented, such as the “Emplois Francs” program, the “1 Young Person, 1 Solution” plan, and the “Cités de l’Emploi” initiative.
Ousama Bouiss, University of Montpellier
However, in its report assessing these measures between 2015 and 2021, the Court of Auditors made an unequivocal finding:
“Employment support programs, as they are currently designed and implemented, are not capable of narrowing the gaps between [priority neighborhoods] and the rest of the population.”
How can we explain this persistent failure of public policy?
Inadequate measures
According to the Court of Auditors:
“The specific characteristics of the priority neighborhoods targeted by urban policy and 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 interrelated factors appear to be more significant and lead to a vicious cycle: poverty and dropping out of school. This point 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 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 low-income individuals and 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 accurately assessing the amount of expenditures and their specific allocations. According to the report by the Court of Auditors:
“The Ministry of Labor is unable to calculate the total amount of public funds allocated to promote employment opportunities for residents of priority neighborhoods under the urban policy (QPV), not even for the budgetary appropriations under its direct responsibility.”
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 budget for this initiative amounts to 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 priority neighborhoods (QPVs), the amount spent would be approximately 563 million euros, or 9% of the total—a percentage lower than the proportion of young people from QPVs in the country as a whole and the share of young people from QPVs who are looking for work.
Added to this is a second challenge: “these programs often benefit those 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 assessment conducted in 2021 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 qualifications 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 distribution of these programs 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 such that competing initiatives are implemented; as illustrated by the case of 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.
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 yet to be 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.”
This therefore means designing appropriate measures in collaboration with the citizens concerned. The aim is to break with an urban policy that, according to Cyprien Avenel, a sociologist specializing in “sensitive neighborhoods”:
"promotes participatory democracy but fosters a paternalistic relationship with the public and implements top-down initiatives (service provision)."
In this regard, the sociologist’s work on the mechanisms of this participation 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 barrier to meaningful progress. At the local level, establishing “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 nations or classes, it strays from its true tradition […]. If it bases itself on the idea of justice, 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.