arbiter
JournalsAccount

Insiders and Outsiders in French Social Housing Allocation: How Conflicting Rights Exclude Disadvantaged People

Jane Ball

International Journal of Housing Policy2009https://doi.org/10.1080/14616710903138783article
ABDC B
Weight
0.47

Abstract

The ‘right to housing’ in France implies that disadvantaged people suffering poverty or housing difficulty enjoy priority access to social housing. However, the disadvantaged in fact have serious difficulty obtaining access to social housing in France. In this article, insider–outsider theory (Lindbeck & Snower, 2002 Lindbeck, A. and Snower, D. 2002. The Insider-Outsider Theory: A Survey, Germany: IZA. Discussion Paper, no. 524 [Google Scholar]) is employed to explain the exclusionary process of French social housing allocation. Insider groups of local people, existing tenants and employees are represented in this complex allocation process and obtain privileged access. Disadvantaged outsiders suffer stigmatisation and exclusion. This article demonstrates how conflicting constitutional rights and a complex written bureaucratic procedure instrumentalise this exclusion of the disadvantaged. A new ‘opposable’ right to housing could help some disadvantaged groups, though it has significant limitations. Creating a level playing field for insiders and outsiders in a simplified procedure could help to improve housing access for disadvantaged people in France.

8 citations

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14616710903138783

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{jane2009,
  title        = {{Insiders and Outsiders in French Social Housing Allocation: How Conflicting Rights Exclude Disadvantaged People}},
  author       = {Jane Ball},
  journal      = {International Journal of Housing Policy},
  year         = {2009},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14616710903138783},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Insiders and Outsiders in French Social Housing Allocation: How Conflicting Rights Exclude Disadvantaged People

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.47

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.30 × 0.4 = 0.12
M · momentum0.80 × 0.15 = 0.12
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.