The Right to Housing in France: Still a Long Way to Go from Intention to Implementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this essay is to examine the implementation of housing rights in France. Legislation adopted in March 2007 opened the possibility of an enforceable right, which can be asserted before a court. However, it also created new inequalities before the law. Indeed, the conditions required to access that right exclude people who do not have permanent residence or a valid temporary resident permit. The implementation of this right is also limited due to the lack of available housing, especially at Ile-de-France, and to competition between people with priority entitlements. The horrible fire at a furnished Parisian hotel in which 24 people— mostly immigrants—died in April 2005 demonstrated that the emergency housing system has its limits. While French law may impose obligations to shelter people in distress, the amount of housing and shelter space is not sufficient to meet the needs in this area. A review of the establishment of a housing right for all also demonstrated possible conflicts of interest between various decision-makers: the state (represented by the prefect), territorial authorities, and social housing authorities. This essay first examines legislation regarding the right to housing and explores the origins of the right to housing. The selection process is then analyzed. The essay concludes with a reflection on the social consequences of the implementation of the right to housing, and on what failures in its implementation reveal regarding the state of social protections offered by the post-welfare society.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".