“The priority districts of the city policy reflect inequalities that are growing sharply”

Montpellier illustre le fossé qui se creuse entre les QPV (ici Mosson) et le reste du territoire environnant. J.-M.M.

François Valegeas is a lecturer in planning and urban development at Paul-Valéry University – Montpellier 3. For Midi Libre, he deciphers the INSEE study which highlighted the record poverty of priority urban policy districts (QPV) in Occitanie.

François Valegeas, lecturer at Paul-Valéry University – Montpellier 3. DR

Insee, in its latest study, shows that the population living in QPVs is particularly poor. Is this a phenomenon that is increasing ?

The priority neighborhoods of the city policy (QPV) are defined as the state of neighborhoods poorer than the rest of the city in which they are located. This policy was implemented in the 1980s-90s with a catch-up objective, but which has evolved considerably according to government policy guidelines. These neighborhoods are currently facing a dual process: both an increased precariousness of the neighborhoods' residents, and an arrival of even more precarious populations. In some neighborhoods, the situation is therefore very complicated, but we must not forget that they reflect inequalities that are increasing very sharply in France, with on the one hand a precariousness of a part of the population, and on the other processes that can be described as separatism of the most affluent categories. In these poor neighborhoods, we are thus witnessing the relegation of the poorest populations, the most discriminated against, etc. These poor households do not only live in QPVs, but they are concentrated in these neighborhoods, whether they are mainly social housing or private housing (degraded condominiums, substandard housing, for example). The latest INSEE studies also show a diversity of situations in these QPVs: there are neighborhoods or territories that are doing better than others, depending in particular on the employment situation, training, and the ability to have a change in social or residential conditions for certain households. The geographical location of the districts is a key factor: a working-class district in the city centre, a large housing estate from the 1960s on the outskirts or a run-down old centre of an isolated town do not have the same characteristics, and their inhabitants will not have the same ability to improve their living conditions.

The 5 poorest QPVs in France are all located in the former Languedoc-Roussillon. Why is this poverty even more prevalent in our region? ?

The INSEE note reflects a fairly sensitive reality: these very poor QPVs are located in a region that concentrates significant poverty. To give some telling figures: the poverty rate in the QPVs of Occitanie is 51% (the highest rate among French regions, the national average being 44%), but more broadly the overall poverty rate in the region is already the highest in mainland France (17.5% compared to 14.9%). This very present poverty must be seen in light of very strong inequalities: for example, in the Montpellier urban area, we observe a concentration of poverty in the QPVs, but also in parallel concentrations of very well-off households in neighborhoods or municipalities that are not very mixed, particularly to the north of Montpellier. These very well-off households choose to live in very socially homogeneous municipalities, away from social diversity, in what can sometimes be described as strategies of social separatism. The working classes are subject to both precarious employment (seasonal, temporary, self-employed, etc.) and heavy charges (for example, particularly high rents in Montpellier). They are forced to live in the most financially accessible areas, in sometimes poor quality housing, in energy insecurity, etc. The figures from the Abbé-Pierre Foundation, for example, clearly reflect these local situations.

This poverty seems to be explained by a low employment rate, itself the cause of a low level of qualifications. Is there a problem of access to education in these areas? ?

The integrative role of schools is increasingly being called into question. Schooling and study conditions are often more complicated in QPVs despite the measures implemented, and resources remain less significant in these neighborhoods than in wealthy municipalities, which increases inequalities. The further one advances in education, the more these inequalities are significant: this is the case from primary school onwards, and we observe that access to a diploma (baccalaureate, higher education diploma) is increasingly selective. The multiplication of forms of social selection can be observed at several levels. Parcoursup or other platforms of this type have had significant unequal effects, and are an additional obstacle for families who do not have the social capital to promote their children's applications.

Another study by INSEE in September highlighted low mobility in these neighbourhoods and that those who enter them often do so because their standard of living has fallen. There would therefore not be enough social diversity in these QPVs ?

The question of diversity must be asked at the city level: where do the different social categories live ? How to ensure that they cross paths, or even mix ? How to reduce inequalities ? INSEE shows great inequalities in a city like Montpellier: it is a city with a significant proportion of working classes, whether in the QPVs or more diffusely in the city, but above all there are very strong inequalities, with wealthy and very unmixed municipalities or neighborhoods. A part of the population, which has the means to escape diversity, has little contact with the majority of the city's population. Some municipalities choose to filter their population, for example by not respecting their obligations to build social housing. At the other end of the social hierarchy, the poorest, who only have access to social housing and are therefore dependent on their location, are forced to live in the least valued sectors, in addition to suffering employment difficulties or discrimination. It is an accumulation of difficulties.

Diversity is a very complicated watchword: how to improve the living conditions of the most precarious ? How to ensure that more stable households remain in the working-class neighborhoods where they have their ties ? Urban policy attempts to implement social diversity in working-class neighborhoods. But conversely, how to ensure that social diversity is imposed in the most affluent municipalities, which are often the least mixed ? Reasoning only on the scale of QPVs does not allow us to think about coexistence in the city and inequalities. It is sometimes even counterproductive, by placing the burden of this diversity solely on the working classes.

Do urban planning policies in these neighborhoods, particularly those of the ANRU, have positive effects or should we go beyond the issue of buildings? ?

The city policy originally had the ambition to change the lives of the inhabitants of these neighborhoods through both urban and social policies. Urban renewal projects have been able to improve certain neighborhoods, certain housing situations, and have been able to change the image of certain neighborhoods (for example by inserting facilities or new, higher-quality housing, etc.). But the cursor has been placed very much on the urban: if the conditions of employment, studies, access to rights, the fight against discrimination, etc. do not change, we will have improved the living environment, but the objective of reducing inequalities will not have been achieved. Social policies are essential, even though they have been under attack for thirty years. Residents' associations in working-class neighborhoods have a demand that seems fundamental to me: to already have the same rights as others. But we see that these neighborhoods suffer from a weaker presence of public services, degraded conditions of education, training, access to employment, even more difficult access to justice or health… We must listen to them, and think about the future of these neighborhoods with those who live there.

You are also a specialist in eco-neighborhoods. Can we transform these QPVs into sustainable neighborhoods? ?

Environmental policies and sustainable urban projects should start with those who are most affected by the dual effect of social difficulties and the effects of climate change. The inhabitants of these neighborhoods suffer from energy insecurity, difficulties in getting around, accessing quality food, benefiting from nearby nature, etc. We should take advantage of the urban transformations of the QPVs to initiate a large-scale social and ecological transition to make them popular and sustainable neighborhoods.

I subscribe to read the rest