Justice Principles and Judgment Practices in Allotting Emergency State Financial Aid in France
Set up in 1998 in response to a highly popular protest movement of “the unemployed and underprivileged”, the Social emergency fund (Fonds d’Urgence Sociale: FUS) had 1 billion francs to distribute. Allotment of fund money was determined by decentralized state services. In accordance with governme...
Enregistré dans:
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article ou chapitre numérique |
| Langue: | Français |
| Publié: |
2003
|
| Accès en ligne: | Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM |
| id |
cairn-RFS_445_0109 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
cairn |
| spelling |
cairn-RFS_445_0109RFS1Revue française de sociologie https://shs.cairn.info/revue-francaise-de-sociologie-1-2003-5-page-109?lang=en https://doi.org/10.3917/rfs.445.0109 Justice Principles and Judgment Practices in Allotting Emergency State Financial Aid in France Fassin, Didier2003 fre Revue française de sociologie | 44 | 5 | 2003-12-15 | p. 109-146 | 0035-2969 RFS_44586 Set up in 1998 in response to a highly popular protest movement of “the unemployed and underprivileged”, the Social emergency fund (Fonds d’Urgence Sociale: FUS) had 1 billion francs to distribute. Allotment of fund money was determined by decentralized state services. In accordance with government instructions, the procedure adopted in the department of Seine-Saint-Denis involved a kind of administrative casuistry: each request for aid was handled by an allotment commission that decided who was to receive what amount of aid on the basis of figures representing applicant’s budget realities and arguments written by applicants themselves in their own favor. Commission decisions about applicant eligibility and sum to be allotted may thus be considered a kind of tragic choice in which agents evaluated arguments aimed at demonstrating applicants’ necessity and suffering. On the basis of interviews with involved actors and a sample of three hundred applications, this article analyses the alleged principles of justice and the actual judgment practices underlying the commission’s deliberations and decisions. Eligibility was mainly decided by calculating a “remainder to live on” after expenses and with reference to a threshold value, but there were also many exceptions to this rule. While sum allotted was fixed according to a very rough scale, it could also be determined with the intention of sending the aid recipient a “message”. Analysis of the functioning of this welfare program suggests that contemporary politics of pity are structured, on the one hand, by recognition of merit and sympathy for distress, on the other, by the weight of contingency and arbitrariness.Cairn free access |
| language |
Français |
| format |
Article ou chapitre numérique |
| building |
0/Bibliothèque numérique/ 1/Bibliothèque numérique/Cairn/ |
| description |
Set up in 1998 in response to a highly popular protest movement of “the unemployed
and underprivileged”, the Social emergency fund (Fonds d’Urgence Sociale: FUS) had
1 billion francs to distribute. Allotment of fund money was determined by decentralized
state services. In accordance with government instructions, the procedure adopted in the department of Seine-Saint-Denis involved a kind of administrative casuistry: each request for
aid was handled by an allotment commission that decided who was to receive what amount
of aid on the basis of figures representing applicant’s budget realities and arguments written
by applicants themselves in their own favor. Commission decisions about applicant eligibility and sum to be allotted may thus be considered a kind of tragic choice in which agents
evaluated arguments aimed at demonstrating applicants’ necessity and suffering. On the basis of interviews with involved actors and a sample of three hundred applications, this article analyses the alleged principles of justice and the actual judgment practices underlying
the commission’s deliberations and decisions. Eligibility was mainly decided by calculating
a “remainder to live on” after expenses and with reference to a threshold value, but there
were also many exceptions to this rule. While sum allotted was fixed according to a very
rough scale, it could also be determined with the intention of sending the aid recipient a
“message”. Analysis of the functioning of this welfare program suggests that contemporary
politics of pity are structured, on the one hand, by recognition of merit and sympathy for
distress, on the other, by the weight of contingency and arbitrariness. |
| author |
Fassin, Didier |
| spellingShingle |
Fassin, Didier Justice Principles and Judgment Practices in Allotting Emergency State Financial Aid in France |
| author_facet |
Fassin, Didier |
| author_sort |
Fassin, Didier |
| title |
Justice Principles and Judgment Practices in Allotting Emergency State Financial Aid in France |
| title_short |
Justice Principles and Judgment Practices in Allotting Emergency State Financial Aid in France |
| title_full |
Justice Principles and Judgment Practices in Allotting Emergency State Financial Aid in France |
| title_fullStr |
Justice Principles and Judgment Practices in Allotting Emergency State Financial Aid in France |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Justice Principles and Judgment Practices in Allotting Emergency State Financial Aid in France |
| title_sort |
justice principles and judgment practices in allotting emergency state financial aid in france |
| publishDate |
2003 |
| container_title |
|
| container_issue |
|
| url |
https://ezproxy.univ-orleans.fr/login?url=https://shs.cairn.info/revue-francaise-de-sociologie-1-2003-5-page-109?lang=en https://ezproxy.univ-orleans.fr/login?url=https://doi.org/10.3917/rfs.445.0109 |
| _version_ |
1877246587840757760 |