Social Movements and the Politics of Bureaucratic Rights Enforcement: Insights from the Allocation of Disability Rights in France

Abstract

While research on legal mobilization shows how social movements contribute to the definition and implementation of rights, it remains excessively centered on litigation to the detriment of administrative rights enforcement. This article maps out how street‐level bureaucracies impact rights enforcement by distinguishing between allocation, access, and process, and analyzes how social movements intervene in these three aspects. It then focuses on allocation, using the case of French disability policy to analyze the forms of advocacy deployed by movement actors who take part in the rights allocation process at the local level. The article argues that conformity to institutional norms derives not so much from a pressure to conform as from the knowledge and experience of the limited means locally available to make rights effective. Further, it shows how advocacy is reframed from the defense of individual claims to a role of scrutiny and control of the bureaucratic allocation of rights.

Vulnerable Rights: The Incomplete Realization of Disability Social Rights in France

“…The former was never referred to in the interviews, and my attempts at more direct questions on the topic turned out irrelevant to the research participants: they either had no knowledge of this participation of associations in the MDPH or had no comment to make about it. This does not mean that this participation has no effect-a topic I have explored in previous research (Revillard 2017b)-but at least one can conclude that this provision did not give these claimants a feeling of participation.…”

“…This notably translated into procedural rights allotted to users and their representatives, such as guarantees in terms of timing of the answer to individual applications, or the possibility for individuals to come and argue in favor of their application in front of the decision-making committee within the MDPH, the Disabled People's Rights and Autonomy Committee (Comité des Droits et de l'Autonomie des Personnes Handicapées-CDAPH). Finally, disability organization representatives were granted a third of the seats in these committees, which was also seen as a way of promoting the "participation" of users in the process (Revillard 2017b). The sense of citizenship that accompanies right-bearing thus was likely to be enhanced in this institutional context.…”

“…In a previous research, I showed how these institutional constraints have been interiorized by disability organization representatives taking part in the CDAPH, who negotiate their role as disability rights advocates within the limits of these constraints (Revillard 2017b). The present research shows that these institutional constraints, in this case the lack of resources leading to excessive delays in file-processing, are also to some extent interiorized by disabled citizens themselves.…”

“…Since this reform was implemented, several studies have documented the insufficient funding and human resources of the bureaucracy in charge of the allocation of disability social rights, the Maison départementale des personnes handicapées (MDPH), operating at the local level of departments (the French territory is divided into 101 departments). These entail restrictions in allocation and strong territorial inequalities, as well as long delays in the processing of individual applications (Baudot et al 2013;Borelle 2015;Perrier 2013;Revillard 2017b). As a complement to these works describing the institutional sources fueling this vulnerability of disability social rights, this article analyzes how this translates into recipients' perceptions.…”

Legal Mobilization within the Bureaucracy: Disability Rights and the Implementation of Antidiscrimination Law in Sweden

“…Some scholars, even in the United States, have mentioned the need to adopt a broader definition of legal mobilization because "courts are not the only arenas in which activists invoke rights claims and attempt to give them legal force" (Southworth 2000(Southworth , 1208. They suggest taking into account the various processes through which individuals or collective actors "invoke legal norms, discourse, or symbols to influence policy or behavior" (Vanhala 2011, 5; see also Revillard 2016;Zemans 1983;Black 1973) or to challenge a violation of their rights (Lejeune and Orianne 2014;Fuller, Edelman, and Matusik 2000;Felstiner, Abel, and Sarat 1981). A broader definition of legal mobilization seems useful for understanding how the law can be a tool for collective mobilization and how it frames social protests.…”