François Bonnet (CNRS, UMR Pacte), Etienne
Lalé (Department of Economics, University of Bristol),
Mirna Safi (Department of
Sociology and OSC, Sciences Po) and Etienne Wasmer (Department of Economics and LIEPP, Sciences Po)
Abstract can be found: http://usj.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/07/28/0042098015596107.abstract?rss=1
Abstract can be found: http://usj.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/07/28/0042098015596107.abstract?rss=1
We started out this research with
two questions. First, is there a banlieue effect operating in the
Parisian housing market, i.e. does living in a deprived neighborhood per
se undermine the prospects for residential mobility? Second, is it possible
to separate this effect from discrimination caused by another potential stigma,
namely the ethnic origin (North-African background) of those living in the
French banlieues? Answering these questions is of importance for a broad
range of academics studying discrimination and the cumulative effects of
residential and ethnic/racial inequalities. The French context makes this task
all the more challenging and interesting. Indeed, the French Republican model
embraces a color-blind, universalistic model of race relations, which notably
implies rejecting ethnicity as the basis of categories for official statistics.
Recent studies, partly in the aftermath of the 2005 urban riots in France, have
challenged the myth of a color-blind society.[i]
They provide evidence of discrimination in the labor market. However, at
present, there is almost no audit study based evidence of discrimination in the
housing market in France.
A distinctive feature of our
research is to make complementary use of two methodological designs. We
conducted: (i) an experimental paired-testing audit study involving (fictitious)
housing applicants and (ii) a series of face-to-face interviews with
real-estate agents in Paris and the Paris region. Thus, our research has
potential of offering both statistical and discursive evidence on
discrimination in the housing market. After juxtaposing the findings from the
audit and the interviews, we do find an interesting paradox:
- While the current (alleged) residence of housing
applicants has a significant negative effect in the audit, real estate
agents clearly deny its relevance as a discriminatory factor affecting
access to housing;
- Real estate agents overwhelmingly report that
ethnic origin has a discriminatory impact, whereas ethnic origin has no
significant effect in the audit when we control for the current residence
of housing applicants.
We offer several
hypotheses that may solve this apparent paradox. We especially favour the
following two hypotheses which, in our view, should not be seen as mutually
exclusive.
First, the findings could reflect
statistical discrimination whereby real estate agents seek to proxy the risk of
non-payment of the rent (insolvency). In particular, residential and ethnic
origins could correlate with access to housing simply because real estate
agents use these characteristics to infer the risk that truly matter to them.
Real estate agents deny the relevance of residential origin as a discriminatory
factor with good reasons, in that only insolvency is relevant. In the meantime,
if residential origin is strongly correlated with the risk of insolvency, then controlling
for this variable explains why ethnic origin does not play a statistically
significant role in the audit study data.
The other hypothesis is that there
is an ethnic stigma and that residential origin is used to proxy ethnicity.
That is, it may be that overt information about ethnic origin (like, for
instance, an African name) is not used to discriminate against housing
applicants because such biased decisions appear highly undesirable. Strong
correlates with ethnicity (like, for instance, residential origin) are instead
used to select housing applicants. This would explain why real estate agents
report that residential origin is not a discriminatory factor while ethnic
origin is. This would also help understanding why, in the audit study, overtly
signalling ethnicity through the housing applicant's name did not result in
discriminatory behaviours.
The more important conclusion of our
article is that the complementary use of different methodological designs helps
overcome the shortcomings of each. In this respect, the paradox we find is
anything but a weakness of this research: it proved very instrumental in
developing rich hypotheses to understand discrimination.
[i] To our knowledge, the most comprehensive
study is the audit conducted jointly by the ministry of labour and the
International Labour Organization in 2008. The results, presented in a report
written by Eric Cediey and Fabrice Foroni (“Discrimination in access to
employment on grounds of foreign origin in France: A national survey of
discrimination based on the testing methodology of the International Labour Office”),
reveal that employers prefer candidates
perceived as being of “national” origin (French) to strictly identical
candidates of African immigrant background in 80% of all cases.
No comments:
Post a Comment