Systemic Racial Discrimination in Public Housing in France and the U.S.

Zeynep Onur

Public housing has evolved markedly over past decades in both the United States and France. While both countries have taken different paths to advance public housing, neither nation has achieved broadly favorable outcomes for low-income and marginalized households. In both countries, societies are fighting with the important consequences of housing policies that have impeded access to affordable housing and deepened existing inequalities. 

To address the growing disparities, policy makers must take a versatile approach that includes increased funding, innovative policies, and collaboration among government, housing authorities and community organizations to ensure accessible and quality housing options for all.

This blog aims to look at the intersection of socioeconomic factors and housing policies in the United States and France with a goal of creating a deeper understanding of the challenges facing both societies.

The U.S. experience

In the 1930s, the Chicago School studied the organization of diverse populations seeking to define what they took to be the inherent territorial dimension of human activity and to understand social activity and organization in urban areas. This period marked a critical juncture in the evolution of public housing in the United States. Racially discriminatory practices, including redlining1 were common, especially in cities with diverse populations. State budgets failed to provide Black communities with adequate public services including education, government insurance programs, and housing subsidies. Such racial discrimination in the public sector fit neatly with and reinforced discrimination from both landlords and lending institutions. 

With the Housing Act of 1937, the United States took a step towards creating permanent public housing programs. With the goal of providing affordable and decent housing to its residents, a few initiatives were put in place in the United States; however, these efforts still had racially discriminatory impacts. Levittown-type developments, for example, were intended to build homes for World War II veterans, with secured guaranteed loans from the FHA2. Yet, African Americans were systematically excluded. Over time, some of the major housing programs that started under the New Deal became “state sponsored systems of segregation” (Rochstein, 2017).  Another housing project that ended up in exclusionary practices was the optimistically named HOPE VI program in 1992. Despite guarantees to residents to be able to return to the new housing after the old was demolished or gut rehabbed, Black families often found themselves permanently displaced. The demolition of viable units and the subsequent relocation of residents resulted in gentrification in certain areas, furthering marginalization and displacement of low-income communities.

Currently, there is almost no new construction of public housing developments. Instead, brick and mortar public housing has been largely replaced with voucher programs that allow recipients to move to private rental housing whose landlords accept such vouchers. However, this shift to the voucher system has created many new challenges to prospective renters and landlords. The scarcity of vouchers, lengthy waiting lists, scrutiny of qualifications, and hesitant landlords in various communities have created even more barriers for low-income households in finding decent affordable housing in desirable neighborhoods.

The situation in France

In the early 20th century, French political leaders began taking steps towards ensuring opportunities for disadvantaged communities. Social movements fought for, and to some extent, achieved legislation aimed at overcoming historic disadvantages in low-income communities. Through applications of municipal socialism in France, socialist3 political leaders aimed to reform and extend public assistance. One of their main objectives was to create a “social republic” where municipal public action would be carried out in favor of the working class. They advocated for equal rights and used local action for financial aid, public housing and for overall assistance for the working class. They also encouraged the creation of unions to strengthen workers’ ability to defend their interests. These socialist initiatives accompanied the growth of trade unionism, which was one of the prominent movements of the 20th century in France. Unions and workers, with a strong influence of Marxism at the time, began to organize themselves in order to protect their interests, including the right to housing.

These organizing efforts also brought with them innovations at the legislative level. The Loucher law, passed in 1928, mandated public housing, including the construction of 200,000 affordable dwellings and 60,000 HLM4 (or habitation à loyer modéré)  units within a span  of 5 years. This law prioritized State intervention rather than private initiatives and also allowed workers to purchase houses in the suburbs of major cities. However, with the onset of World War II, the weakened economy led to its discontinuation after just 5 years in force. 

Modern policies and the efficacy question 

Today, the Solidarity and Urban Renewal (SRU)5 law in France requires municipalities with more than 3,500 inhabitants to have a minimum of 20 percent public housing (HLM) in their total housing stock6. However, this requirement does not adequately meet the rising demand for this type of housing. The current system of public housing in France emerged in response to the housing crisis of the 1960’s and 1970’s. During the post-war period, cities faced a shortage in labor force, which led to an influx of workers to urban areas from rural communities. This wave of migrants created a strong demand for affordable public housing. Today, 17 percent of all households live in HLM (Acolin, 2021).

Meeting the needs of underserved communities in France and in the U.S.

It is apparent that racial inequalities still exist within both countries. In France, North African and Sub-Saharan households face significant barriers to access public housing. Admission to public housing operates through a “selection process” that takes ethnicity into account. This discriminatory method is embedded in several social systems and administrative institutions. In order to ensure social diversity7, the French system refuses to allow the concentration of a particular population in one area and promotes the cohabitation of different populations everywhere. However, in practice, this diversity ruling has been used to justify discriminatory outcomes. Non-European households face longer periods of access to housing (Bonnal et al. , 2013). The difficult entry process and disagreeable housing options make public housing relatively inaccessible for the most low-income households. 

A similar condition exists in the United States where Black households make up 48 percent of the tenants in public housing but only 19 percent of all renter households (HUD, 1995). Moreover, 60 percent of households receiving assistance are African American and Hispanic (44 and 16 percent respectively). These numbers highlight the fact that marginalized communities occupy public housing at higher levels. Housing affordability is also an obvious problem. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines cost-burdened families as those “who pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing”. In 2019, over half of Black and Hispanic renter households were cost burdened (see Figure 1). These high housing cost overburden rates especially affect low-income families within these marginalized communities. 

Figure 1: Share of renter households with cost burdens

Source: JCHS tabulations of US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimate

To outlaw discrimination in access to housing, the Fair Housing Act was passed in 1968. However even with new legislation, the long tradition of prioritizing White households had significant consequences. In the mortgage market, Black homeowners still face hardships today. According to the report8 of the National Association of Realtors (NAR) , in 2022, 88 percent of buyers were white while only 3 percent identified as  Black.

Final points on the future of public housing

Despite government efforts to make housing more affordable, obstacles for low-income residents remain substantial in both countries. While progress has been made, commitment and further policy advancements are necessary to ensure that housing policies in both the United States and France are truly inclusive and effectively address the housing needs of marginalized communities. In order to promote inclusivity in housing, policymakers and advocates should be working towards strengthening housing developments and voucher programs, while also addressing systemic problems and social inequalities that continue to exist in housing markets. 

Endnotes

1Especially with the National Housing Act of 1934, the government started to put in place lending programs to possible homeowners. However, the neighborhoods with a high population of Black residents were marked in red and often denied mortgages.

2Federal Housing Administration of the United States

3Members of the Socialist Party in France or SFIO (Section française de l’internationale ouvrière)

4There are different types of public housing, however this category of public housing (HLM) is the most represented. HLM offers cost-based rental housing to low-income tenants.

5la loi Solidarité et Renouvellement Urbain. Article 55 of the law requires that certain municipalities have a minimum number of public housing units.

6It is important to note that the requirement varies in each town. For example the limit of habitants in the in the Paris conurbation is more than 1,500 inhabitants.

7Defined as the social composition of each district.

 8Profile of homebuyers and sellers, 2022

References

  1. Social History and the History of Socialism: French Socialist Municipalities in the 1890’s on JSTOR. (n.d.). https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3778012.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Ad8a3e2ab77d94d3227ccdba864426a0c&ab_segments=&origin=&initiator=&acceptTC=1
  2. Laferrère, A. and Le Blanc, D. (2006). Housing Policy: Low-Income Households in France. In A Companion to Urban Economics (eds R.J. Arnott and D.P. McMillen) 
  3. Ministère de la Transition écologique et de la Cohésion des Territoires & Ministère de la Transition énergétique (2021). L’article 55 de la loi Solidarité et renouvellement urbain (SRU), mode d’emploi. Consulted June 7, 2023. from: https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/larticle-55-loi-solidarite-et-renouvellement-urbain-sru-mode-demploi
  4. Palazova-Lebleu, D. (2008). L'application de la loi Loucheur dans la région lilloise. Les modèles architecturaux. Revue du Nord, 374, 173-181. https://doi.org/10.3917/rdn.374.0173
  5. Race, Equity and Housing: The Early Years - The National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO). (2021, February 1). The National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO). https://www.nahro.org/journal_article/race-equity-and-housing-the-early-years/#:~:text=Ickes%20authorized%20the%20%E2%80%9Cneighborhood%20composition,neighborhood%20where%20it%20was%20built.
  6. Rental Burdens: Rethinking Affordability Measures | HUD USER. (n.d.-b). https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_article_092214.html
  7. The Fair Housing Act | Habitat for Humanity. (n.d.). Habitat for Humanity. https://www.habitat.org/stories/fair-housing-act
  8. Tissot, S. (2006). Logement social : une discrimination en douceur. Plein droit, 68, 25-28. https://doi.org/10.3917/pld.068.0025
  9. USHMC 95: Public Housing: Image Versus Facts. (n.d.). https://www.huduser.gov/periodicals/ushmc/spring95/spring95.html#:~:text=Forty%2Deight%20percent%20of%20public,percent%20of%20all%20renter%20households.&text=Taking%20income%20into%20account%20does,for%20public%20housing%20are%20black.
  10. Verdugo, G. (2011). Logement social et ségrégation résidentielle des immigrés en France, 1968-1999. Population, 66, 171-196. https://doi.org/10.3917/popu.1101.0171