The national and moral borders of the 2016 French law on sex work: An analysis of the ‘prostitution exit programme’

IF 2.3 2区社会学 Q1 SOCIAL ISSUES

Critical Social Policy Pub Date : 2022-05-26 DOI:10.1177/02610183221101167

Calogero Giametta, Hélène Le Bail

引用次数: 1

Abstract

The 2016 law on prostitution in France introduced the so-called Swedish model approach to sex work, which, at the national level, criminalises those who purchase sex rather than the sex workers themselves. Alongside the repressive character of the law, lawmakers introduced a number of social policy measures through the implementation of a ‘prostitution exit programme’. Whilst some pioneering research has sought to evaluate the impact of penalising the clients of sex workers, no survey has yet focused on the outcomes of prostitution exit programmes. Based on qualitative data, including interviews with sex workers and grassroots organisations, this article aims to analyse how the programme was implemented and its overall outcomes. The interviews we conducted shed particular light on the fact that the implementation of the programme is impacted on by the application of restrictive migration policies.

查看原文本刊更多论文

2016年法国性工作法的国家和道德边界:对“卖淫退出计划”的分析

法国2016年的卖淫法引入了所谓的瑞典式性工作模式，在国家层面上，将购买性服务的人定为犯罪，而不是性工作者本身。除了法律的压制性外，立法者还通过实施“卖淫退出计划”引入了一些社会政策措施。虽然一些开创性的研究试图评估惩罚性工作者客户的影响，但尚未有调查关注卖淫退出计划的结果。基于定性数据，包括对性工作者和基层组织的采访，本文旨在分析该项目是如何实施的及其总体结果。我们进行的访谈特别说明了这一事实，即该方案的执行受到实施限制性移徙政策的影响。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Critical Social Policy Multiple-

CiteScore

4.70

自引率

8.70%

发文量

期刊介绍： Critical Social Policy provides a forum for advocacy, analysis and debate on social policy issues. We publish critical perspectives which: ·acknowledge and reflect upon differences in political, economic, social and cultural power and upon the diversity of cultures and movements shaping social policy; ·re-think conventional approaches to securing rights, meeting needs and challenging inequalities and injustices; ·include perspectives, analyses and concerns of people and groups whose voices are unheard or underrepresented in policy-making; ·reflect lived experiences of users of existing benefits and services;