魁北克抗擊貧困和社會法案的研究報告

關於魁北克抗擊貧困和社會法案的研究報告

排斥——公共政策民主共建案例

http://www.ccdonline.ca/media/socialpolicy/research-report-quebec-act-to-combat-poverty-and-social-exclusion.pdf

作者：伊夫·瓦揚古和弗朗索瓦·奧布裏

Yves Vaillancourt, professeures ,Université du Québec à Montréal: [e-mail] 

François Aubry, Centre de recherche de l'Institut universitaire de gériatrie de Montréal:  [e-mail].

CURA 消除貧困/賦予公民身份

2014年9月

作者簡介：

Yves Vaillancourt 是蒙特利爾魁北克大學 (UQAM) 社會工作學院名譽教授。他是 LAREPPS（實踐與社會政治研究實驗室）和 CRISES（社會創新研究中心）的成員。他是魁北克團結經濟聯盟（CURA）“減少貧困/賦能公民”項目的聯合研究員。他是魁北克團結經濟小組（GESQ）的成員。他也是魁北克社會民主複興聯盟的成員。

弗朗索瓦·奧布裏是一位經濟學家，也是社會實踐與政治研究實驗室（LAREPPS）研究團隊的成員。他曾在國家工會聯合會（CSN）研究部工作多年，其中五年擔任協調員。這些年來，他的研究活動主要集中在經濟和社會政策領域。他是魁北克社會民主複興聯盟的成員。

注

本報告為工作論文。本文取材於即將出版的《變遷的地形：加拿大的公共政策倡導》一書的某一章節，該書由麥吉爾-皇後大學出版社出版，由尼克·穆萊和格洛麗亞·德桑蒂斯編輯。

引言

在探討過去二十年魁北克社會和公共政策舉措的進步主義著作中，有時會有人指出，這些舉措大多是曆屆政府新自由主義傾向的產物。例如，一些研究人員和社會運動領袖認為，1996年至2000年執政的呂西安·布沙爾魁北克黨政府推行了一項社會經濟政策，其靈感源於1996年3月魁北克經濟和社會未來峰會上通過的零赤字目標，該政策在教育、衛生、社會服務和社會政策領域產生了一係列負麵影響。

在這種文獻趨勢下，一些人認為所有這些政策都具有新自由主義的性質。例如，皮埃爾·穆特德（Pierre Mouterde，2012:13）寫道：“簡單地想想最終在魁北克盛行的新自由主義經濟監管模式，尤其是在20世紀90年代中期，呂西安·布沙爾（Lucien Bouchard）及其零赤字政策的推動下。” 文森特·格裏森（Vincent Greason）則更加明確地表示：“新千年的第一個十年也是新自由主義在加拿大政府各級層麵占據主導地位的時期”（Greason，2013）。其他作者也持有類似的觀點（Piotte，2012；Lamarche，2007）。

與此相反，一種進步主義文獻潮流（我們也是其中的一員）認為，在過去二十年裏，魁北克政府常常迫於社會運動和公民社會的需求與動員，除了受新自由主義議程啟發的舉措外，還推出了許多非常進步和創新的公共政策措施。

其中包括社會住房領域的“AccesLogis”項目（Ducharme & Vaillancourt，2012） ；對自治社區組織的認可和支持（Jetté，2008）；家樂福青年就業中心（CJE）和其他社區組織網絡的製度化，這些組織的使命是幫助弱勢群體融入勞動力市場；1996年出台的“積極主動的薪酬平等法”，允許政府在2006年與“本部門員工達成全麵的薪酬平等協議”（Noël，2013：269）；一項新的社會家庭政策，其目標之一是建立一個覆蓋麵廣的低成本學齡前兒童日托中心網絡（Dandurand and Ouellette，2012；Aubry，2010b：38-43；Noël，2013：266-268）；一項地方和區域發展政策促成了全省約一百個地方發展中心網絡的建立；對社會經濟的認可和支持，以及2002年12月通過的反貧困和反社會排斥政策（第112號法案）。

這些公共政策改革代表著社會創新（Jenson，2002；Comeau等人，2001；Bourque，2008；Klein等人，2010；Lévesque，2003；Vaillancourt，2012b；Dumais，2012；Noël，2013：263-267）。它們是政府幹預的產物，但不僅僅是政府幹預。事實上，它們是在深知貧困和邊緣化人群現實的民間社會行為體和組織的參與和倡導下實施的。換句話說，這些改革是政府和民間社會共同構建的，而且在很大程度上是民主構建的，並得到了政府和民間社會的積極參與。

在本報告中，我們選擇考察和分析第112號法案，即魁北克

《消除貧困與社會排斥法案》作為公共政策民主共建的案例。本報告更新了早期的研究和工作論文（Aubry，2010a 和 2012），分為五個部分。第一部分側重於我們的概念框架，我們將格洛麗亞·德桑蒂斯（2012）使用的倡導概念與我們關於公民社會參與公共政策共建的概念進行比較。第二部分介紹了促成第112號法案（1995-2002年）產生的基層動員運動，並強調了基層公民社會組織、政府和政黨行為體之間的互動。第三部分考察了2002年12月通過的第112號法案的內容，重點關注受共建動態影響的因素。第四部分重點介紹該法案在2003年至2013年的實施情況。

第五部分則通過第一部分提出的理論視角，對第二、三和四部分的內容進行解讀，並特別關注促成公共政策倡導與民主共建相協調的條件。第五部分最後，我們對第112號法案自頒布以來在減少貧困和排斥方麵的影響進行了量化評估。

結論

在本報告中，我們以《魁北克省反貧困法》為例進行了案例研究，主要側重於審查促成該法案通過的民主進程，同時也分析了其在反貧困鬥爭中取得的成果。

至於反貧困戰略的成功，則呈現出多種多樣的局麵（附錄1）。

雖然總體趨勢是貧困率在此期間逐漸下降，並且一些重要的人口群體（例如有子女的家庭）取得了非常顯著的進步，但其他群體仍然存在問題，尤其是單身人士，他們的貧困率沒有任何改善；而以女性和殘疾人為戶主的單親家庭，盡管在此期間取得了顯著進步，但貧困率仍然很高。在加拿大的排名中，魁北克省在總體貧困率和嚴重貧困發生率方麵都取得了顯著進步（Aubry，2012）。

關於民主進程，我們將近30年的立法曆史分為兩個階段：立法的起源階段（1995-2002年）和立法的實施階段（2003-2013年）。我們從兩個角度考察了TSO的作用，尤其是那些致力於改善貧困和受排斥人群處境的TSO：首先，這些TSO是否開展了倡導實踐；其次，它們是否參與了反貧困政策的民主共建。在我們的框架中，TSO開展的倡導實踐必須與其參與民主政策的共建相結合，才能產生合理的社會政策改革。“簡而言之，在一個‘被破壞的民主’國家，幾乎沒有任何機會製定出良好的社會政策”（Evers and Guillemard，2013：381）。

為了使TSO的倡導實踐（盡管數量眾多且獨具匠心）與民主共建的視角相一致，參與式民主的要求與代議製民主的要求相輔相成。這意味著，包括服務於貧困人口的運輸服務組織 (TSO) 在內的各類公民社會行為體，需要與各類政治行為體進行辯論，以確定政策內容。

如果政策僅由公民社會或政治社會製定，則共建機製並不存在。共建機製或許存在，但如果它僅涉及政治社會中的某些行為體（例如行政部門而非立法部門）和公民社會中的某些行為體（例如某些主導性參與者，但不包括貧困人口和弱勢群體及其運輸服務組織網絡），則不能稱之為民主的。總而言之，運輸服務組織參與政策的民主共建是一個嚴苛的過程，在公共政策改革中很少遇到。

事實上，第二部分提出的《魁北克反貧困法》的哲學基礎與第一部分提出的公共政策民主共建過程的特征相一致。這些基礎可以概括如下：
消除貧困和排斥：

• 不僅僅是政府的責任；
• 主要是由窮人和被排斥者承擔的責任；
• 也是勞動力市場合作夥伴的責任；
• 也是整個魁北克社會的責任。

強調公民社會行為體的身份，旨在明確指出，消除貧困不僅是政府和國家的責任，正如某些以國家為中心的願景所倡導的那樣，這些願景可能來自政治光譜的左翼或右翼。即便如此，公民社會的參與仍然至關重要。

政治社會行為主體的多樣性在民主共建進程中依然至關重要。

換句話說，在政治領域，民主共建不僅涉及政府行政部門民選官員的參與，也涉及各政黨成員在立法機構和委員會中的參與，正如2002年全年在該法通過前的審議過程中所體現的那樣。

總而言之，民主共建意味著，在某些決定性時刻，公民社會的辯論與政治社會的辯論之間必須進行對話，這種對話並非沒有妥協，例如2002年反貧困聯盟接受一項旨在對抗、甚至消除貧困和排斥的法律時出現的對話。

我們的報告表明，在《魁北克省反貧困法》的曆史上，反貧困聯盟的交通服務組織（TSO），無論是捍衛人權的組織還是提供替代服務的組織，都參與了大量的原創倡導實踐以及民主共建活動。

這些實踐的頻率和強度多年來一直在波動：

• 倡導實踐在整個興起階段（1995-2002年）始終如一，但在實施階段則有所減弱和減少。在2003-04年和2008-10年兩個行動計劃的製定過程中，倡導實踐再次出現；

• 民主共建進程在興起階段末期（2000年11月至2002年12月）達到頂峰，並在行動計劃製定期間顯得較為謹慎；

• 倡導實踐有助於為民主共建階段做好準備。因此，從1995年到2001年，反貧困聯盟的TSO們致力於提高公眾意識、動員公民社會，並準備自己的消除貧困法案，給人的印象是他們不願與政治社會的行動者結盟；

• 事實上，這些倡導實踐是對政治社會的挑戰，因此在2000年底出現了轉折點。政治社會的機構和行動者開始回應公民社會動員帶來的要求。在2001年的一段時間裏，製定反貧困法草案的兩種途徑似乎並存，就像兩個孤島：一個在公民社會，另一個在政治社會；

• 隨後，在2001年底，一場公開辯論開始了，社會動員和政治動員之間架起了橋梁。我們稱之為“民主共建”的進程由此開啟。

總而言之，在某些社會行動和研究領域中，公共政策的民主共建概念是否可以被視為一種“轉變中的話語”？我們相信可以，但同時我們也意識到，這種方法目前在社會運動和研究界內部正受到爭議。

Research Report on the Québec Act to Combat Poverty and Social
Exclusion, a Case of Democratic Co-construction of Public Policy

http://www.ccdonline.ca/media/socialpolicy/research-report-quebec-act-to-combat-poverty-and-social-exclusion.pdf

By Yves VAILLANCOURT AND François AUBRY

CURA Disabling Poverty/Enabling Citizenship
September 2014

About the authors :

Yves Vaillancourt is Emeritus Professor at the School of Social Work at the University of Québec in Montréal (UQAM). He is a member of LAREPPS (Laboratoire de recherche sur les pratiques et les politiques sociales) and of CRISES (Centre de recherche sur les innovations sociales). He is co-researcher in the CURA « Reducing Poverty / Enabling Citizenship ». He is a member of the GESQ (Groupe d’économie solidaire du Québec). He is a member of the Québec Collective for the Renewal of Social Democracy.

François Aubry is an economist and a member of the research team at the Laboratoire de recherche sur les pratiques et les politiques sociales(LAREPPS). He worked for many years in the Research Department of the Confédération des syndicats nationaux (CSN), including five years as coordinator. During these years, his research activity was mainly in the field of economic and social policy. He is a member of the Québec Collective for the Renewal of Social Democracy.

Note 

This report is a working paper. It is a variation of a chapter in the forthcoming book The Shifting Terrain: Public Policy Advocacy in Canada to be published by McGill-Queen's University Press and edited by Nick Mulé and Gloria DeSantis.

Introduction

Within the progressive writings dealing with Quebec social and public policy initiatives of the last two decades, it is sometimes stated that most of these initiatives are the result of the neoliberal orientations of successive governments. For example, some researchers and social movement leaders will argue that the Lucien Bouchard Parti Québécois (PQ) government, in office from 1996 to 2000, introduced a socioeconomic policy inspired by the zero deficit objective adopted at the March 1996 Summit on the Economic and Social Future of Quebec which generated a series of negative effects in the fields of education, health, social services and social policy. Within that literature trend, some argue all such policies are of a neoliberal nature. For example, Pierre Mouterde (2012:13) writes: “Think simply of the neoliberal economic regulation mode that finally dominated Québec especially from the middle of the nineties with Lucien Bouchard and his zero-deficit policies”1 . Vincent Greason is even more categorical: “ The first decade of the new millennium was also a period when the neoliberal ascendancy asserted itself on all levels of Canadian government” (Greason, 2013). Other authors defend a similar position (Piotte, 2012; Lamarche, 2007).

In contrast, a progressive literature trend, of which we are part, argues that in the last two decades, the Québec government, often pressured by social movements and civil
society demands and mobilizations, has introduced alongside initiatives inspired by a
neoliberal agenda a number of very progressive and innovative public policy measures.
Among these, we find the AccesLogis program in the area of social housing (Ducharme
& Vaillancourt, 2012); the recognition and support of autonomous community organizations (Jetté, 2008); the institutionalization of the Carrefours Jeunesse Emploi
(CJE) and other networks of community based organizations whose mission is to help
vulnerable people integrate the labor market; the introduction in 1996 of “a proactive
law on pay equity” which permitted the government, in 2006, to reach “a comprehensive pay equity agreement with its own employees” (Noël, 2013: 269); a new social family policy whose goal, amongst others, is to develop a universal network of low-cost day care center spaces for pre-school children (Dandurand and Ouellette, 2012; Aubry, 2010b: 38-43; Noël, 2013: 266-268); a local and regional development policy that has led to the creation of a network of one hundred or so local development centers across the province; the acknowledgement and support of the social economy, the anti-poverty and anti social exclusion policy (Bill 112) adopted in December 2002.

These public policy reforms represent social innovations (Jenson, 2002; Comeau et al.,
2001; Bourque, 2008; Klein et al., 2010; Lévesque, 2003; Vaillancourt, 2012b; Dumais,
2012; Noël, 2013: 263-267). They are the product of government intervention, but not
only of government intervention. Indeed, they were put in place with the participation
and the advocacy practices of civil society actors and organizations well aware of the reality of the poor and marginalized people. In other words, these reforms were coconstructed and to a large extent democratically co-constructed with the participation of government and civil society actors.

In this report, we have chosen to consider and analyze Bill 112, the Quebec Act to
Combat Poverty and Social Exclusion, as a case of democratic co-construction of public
policy. Updating earlier studies and working papers (Aubry, 2010a and 2012), the
report is divided into five parts. Part I focuses on our conceptual framework where we
compare the concept of advocacy used by Gloria DeSantis (2012) with our concept of
participation of civil society in the co-construction of public policy. Part II presents the grass-roots mobilization campaign leading to the emergence of Bill 112 (1995-2002) and highlights the interactions between the grass-roots civil society organizations, the government and political party actors. Part III examines the content of Bill 112 adopted in December 2002 with an emphasis on the elements influenced by the dynamics of coconstruction. Part IV is centered on the implementation of the Bill from 2003 to 2013.

Part V proposes an interpretation of the content presented in parts II, III and IV
through the theoretical lens presented in Part I with a special focus on the conditions
which have contributed to reconcile advocacy and democratic co-construction of public
policy. We conclude Part V with a quantitative evaluation of the impact of Bill 112 on
the reduction of poverty and exclusion since its inception.

Conclusion

In this report, we have presented the case study of the Quebec Anti-Poverty Act,
focusing mainly on the review of the democratic process that led to its adoption but also on an analysis of the results obtained in the fight against poverty.

As to the success of the Anti poverty strategy, the picture is very diverse (Appendix 1).
While the overall trend is a gradual decrease in the poverty rate throughout the period,and although very significant gains were made in some important segments of the population (such as families with children), problems persist in other groups, particularly among single people where no progress whatsoever was made and single parent families headed by women and people with disabilities who, notwithstanding important gains during the period still have very high rates of poverty. In the Canadian rankings, Québec has made significant progress, both in terms of the overall poverty rate and the incidence of severe poverty (Aubry, 2012).

As to the democratic process, we have distinguished two phases in the history of the legislation which spans nearly 30 years, that of its genesis (1995-2002) and that of its implementation (2003-13). We examined the role of TSOs - especially those involved in improving the situation of the poor and excluded people - from two perspectives: first, did these TSOs deploy advocacy practices and, second, did they participate in the democratic co-construction of the anti-poverty policy. In our framework, the deployment of advocacy practices by TSOs must be combined with their participation in the co-construction of democratic policies in order to produce sound social policy reforms. “Put simply, there is hardly any chance of good social policy in a ‘spoiled
democracy’” (Evers and Guillemard, 2013: 381).

In order that the advocacy practices of TSOs, as numerous and original as they are, be
consistent with the perspective of democratic co-construction, the requirements of
participatory democracy accompany those of representative democracy. This implies
that a diversity of actors of civil society, including TSOs working with persons who live in poverty, debate with a diversity of political actors in order to define policy content.

Co-construction does not exist if the policy is developed by civil society alone or by the political society alone. Co-construction may exist, but it cannot be described as
democratic if it only concerns certain actors of the political society (for example those of the executive branch but not those of the legislative branch) and certain actors of civil society (for example certain dominant players but without the poor and excluded and their network of TSOs). In sum, the participation of TSOs in the democratic coconstruction of policies is an exacting process, rarely encountered in public policy reforms.

In fact, the philosophical foundations of the Quebec Anti-Poverty Act presented in
Section II are in harmony with the features of a democratic co-construction process of public policies presented in Section I. These foundations can be summarized as follows:
the fight against poverty and exclusion:

• Is not the responsibility of governments only;
• Is primarily the responsibility of the poor and the excluded;
• Is also the responsibility of the partners of the labor market;
• Is also the responsibility of Quebec society as a whole.

This emphasis on the identification of civil society actors aims to make it clear that the fight against poverty is not only the responsibility of governments and the state as proposed in certain state focussed visions which can come from the left or the right of the political spectrum. That being said, it remains that the participation of a diversity of actors of the political society remains essential in a democratic co-construction process.

In other words, in the political sphere, democratic co-construction involves not only the participation of elected officials in the executive branch of government, but also of members of various political parties who sit in legislative bodies and committees, as was the case throughout 2002 during deliberations preceding the adoption of the Law.
To summarize, democratic co-construction means that, in certain decisive moments,
there must be a dialogue between the debate in the civil society and the one in the
political society, a dialogue which is not without compromise such as that which
emerged in 2002 when the anti-poverty coalition accepted a law that aims to combat
rather eliminate poverty and exclusion.

Our report demonstrates that in the history of the Quebec Anti-Poverty Act, the TSOs of
the anti-poverty coalition, those who defend human rights as well as those who deliver
alternative services, participated in a plethora of original advocacy practices as well as democratic co-construction activities.

The frequency and intensity of these practices have fluctuated over the years:

• Advocacy practices were constant throughout the emergence stage (1995-2002),
but were less frequent and intense during the implementation stage. They
reappeared at the time of the preparation of the two action plans in 2003-04 and
2008-10;

• The democratic co-construction process peaked at the end of the emergence
period, from November 2000 to December 2002, and appeared more timidly
during the preparation of the action plans;

• The advocacy practices helped to prepare the phases of democratic coconstruction. Thus, from 1995 to 2001, the TSOs of the anti-poverty coalition devoted their energies to raise awareness and mobilize civil society and to
prepare their own bill to eliminate poverty, giving the impression that they did
not care to make a junction with the actors of the political society;

• In fact, these advocacy practices were a challenge to the political society, thus the turning point at the end of 2000. The institutions and actors of the political society then began to respond to the demands resulting from the mobilization of
the civil society. For a time, in 2001, it seemed that two approaches to develop a
34 draft of an anti-poverty law coexisted in the manner of two solitudes, one in the
civil society, the other in the political society; 

• And then, at the end of 2001, a public debate was initiated and bridges appeared between the social mobilization and the political mobilization. Here began the
process that we have labelled democratic co-construction.

In conclusion, can the concept of democratic co-construction of public policies used in
certain circles of social action and research be considered as a “shifting discourse”? We believe so but at the same time we recognize that this approach is currently being debated within social movements and components of the research community.