{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025826446280991736, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.503355704697986, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Differentialist and Universalist Antidiscrimination Policies on the Ground: How Far They Succeed, Why They Fail: A Comparison Between Britain and France

In this article, the author compares the way in which anti-(ethnic) discrimination policies regarding access to social housing are implemented on the ground in Britain and France through case studies in Birmingham and Marseilles. Beyond sharp differences in the conceptions and “philosophies” of antidiscrimination policies in those two national “models” (a differentialist conception in Britain versus a universalist conception in France), the author shows the limits of these policies on the ground in both cases. In particular, the author shows how (a) the way in which ethnic discrimination is locally constructed as a public issue and (b) the constraints and contradictions faced by local institutions and street-level bureaucrats dealing with social housing on a day-to-day basis contribute to their failure.