ture. This conception is fundamentally different fromrnthat which makes the individual (autonomous and isolated)rnthe basic unit of society, which would then consist,rnsimply, of one individual added after another. This secondrnperspective ends up in the notion of the individualistrnfamily . . . the family becomes an option, one mode ofrnsocial existence among others.rnTo illustrate concretely the difference between therntwo ways of conceiving of the family, we may say that thernfirst justifies marriage regarded as a social fact while, withrnthe second, the formation of couples will be able to bernconsidered a strictiy private afi^air. .. .rnA family policy worked out in the context of a planrnmaking the family the basic unit of societ}’ will step in, arnpriori, to promote, to privilege, and —quite simplv—tornprevent harm from coming to this mode of life. Startingrnfrom the point at which the family is considered betterrnand more balanced when it rests on the lasting unions ofrnmen and women who intend to rear children and thatrnindividuals are naturally destined to thrie in this setting,rnfamily policy will be conceived as a means to providingrnboth incentives and preventive measures. On the otherrnhand, from the individualist perspective, the point willrnbe to insure that each individual can associate himselfrnunder the best conditions when he considers that it isrnnecessan,’ for his success in life. In the end, interventionrnwill be made, a posteriori, if his choice entails negativerneffects. Family life becomes a risk; the State interenesrnto correct the situation on behalf of social justice.rnThe main point to bear in mind, in a question of family policy,rnis, first, that it must rest on a precise analysis of social organization,rnand second, that it is by its very nahire preventive, notrnonly to the extent that intervention is made a priori in favor of arnsocial organization that is a given of human society, but also becausernthis action must contribute to reduce the importance ofrnwelfare assistance. Unfortunately, to make famih’ policy on thernbasis of social policy means that intervention is a posteriori in favorrnof certain categories of persons, to correct failures or compensaternthem for hardships they have encountered, whetherrnthey are the consequences of deliberate choice or simply thernexpression of differences among human beings. .. .rnIn France, actions taken in the realm of fiimily policy are, becausernof the complexity, not easy to interpret. In particular,rnthe number of family allowances that are paid (28 differentrntypes, currently) makes it a delicate task to evaluate the residts.rnAt the same time, it seems difificult to simplify the system withoutrnpenalizing this or that category of family. Nonetheless, onernuseful step that could be taken, which would eliminate muchrnof the confusion, is to spell out tire specific objectives of the differentrnprograms. A group of experts directed by Madame FI.rnGisscrot lias, in fact, issued a report that makes considerablernprogress in this direction. According to the report:rnFamily policy, insofar as allowances are concerned,rnshould seek to reestablish equity between persons responsiblernfor a child and those who are not; in the logicrnof compensation, allowances should not be, on the levelrnof principle, made conditional on income and resourcesrnnor subject to taxation; [such a policy should also seek]rnto recognize the parents’ participation in the creation ofrnwealth; finally, in providing resources for certain familiesrnto make them solvent—this assistance is distinct fromrnfamily allowances and belongs more to a guaranteedrnminimum familial income than to a recognition of familyrninvestment.rnThis statement does a good job of putting together the givensrnof the problem. Based on a recognition of the family as the basicrnunit of societ)’, an operational family policy requires: re-establishmentrnof equity and additional resources for particularrnfamilies, but also recognition of the parents’ role in creatingrntrue wealth. When this objective is overlooked, the end resultrnis a failure to hold on to any dimension of family policy that isrnnot “social,” i.e., that is not welfare assistance.rnThe slide from family policy toward welfare policy entailsrnseveral difficulties. The first of them is connected with thernneed to establish thresholds beyond which all assistance wouldrnbe suppressed.rnThis is the case when there are plans to fix an upper limit onrnthe income and resources of a family that is eligible for support.rnIn 1998, the French government announced a relatively lowstandardrn(25,000 francs for a couple) without being able to jus-rnT “•he French experience helpsrnus to see that, as family policyrnhas been transformed step by steprninto welfare policy, it has ceasedrnto be effective.rntify this total. It is, however, difficult to decree that someone isrnrich or poor solely on the basis that he has a few francs more orrnless than a certain total; in addition, the progressixe diminutionrnof the number of beneficiaries is an inevitable fault of a procedurernthat regularly reevaluates the threshold. To this mechanicalrndifficulh is added the much more delicate problem of selectingrnwhich resources to include, as well as the need to definernthe appropriate scales of equivalence. (This is a problem in thernmost favorable scenario, where family size is taken into account.)rnEven the evaluation of wealth levels deried from incomernwould desen’c long discussions, to say nothing of an additionalrnsource of discrimination —the desire not to help “thernrich” in their task of forming human capital, resulting in the establishmentrnof a different ceiling depending on whetiier therernare one or two sources of income.rnMore serious, obviously, are the consequences of welfare assistancernwhen they result in the creation of a eritable povert}’-rntrap. This is the case when government actions maintain thernbeneficiaries of a.ssistance in their dependency instead of helpingrnthem to escape. A bondage of this type is the result ofrnAF’DC programs in the United States, where it is legitimate tornwonder if welfare does not end up encouraging women not tornacknowledge the father of their children. The result is an increasernin die number of single-parent families, which is para-rnMAY 1999/19rnrnrn