魁北克抗击贫困和社会法案的研究报告

关于魁北克抗击贫困和社会法案的研究报告

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·瓦扬古和弗朗索瓦·奥布里

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 消除贫困/赋予公民身份

2014年9月

作者简介：

Yves Vaillancourt 是蒙特利尔魁北克大学 (UQAM) 社会工作学院名誉教授。他是 LAREPPS（实践与社会政治研究实验室）和 CRISES（社会创新研究中心）的成员。他是魁北克团结经济联盟（CURA）“减少贫困/赋能公民”项目的联合研究员。他是魁北克团结经济小组（GESQ）的成员。他也是魁北克社会民主复兴联盟的成员。

弗朗索瓦·奥布里是一位经济学家，也是社会实践与政治研究实验室（LAREPPS）研究团队的成员。他曾在国家工会联合会（CSN）研究部工作多年，其中五年担任协调员。这些年来，他的研究活动主要集中在经济和社会政策领域。他是魁北克社会民主复兴联盟的成员。

注

本报告为工作论文。本文取材于即将出版的《变迁的地形：加拿大的公共政策倡导》一书的某一章节，该书由麦吉尔-皇后大学出版社出版，由尼克·穆莱和格洛丽亚·德桑蒂斯编辑。

引言

在探讨过去二十年魁北克社会和公共政策举措的进步主义著作中，有时会有人指出，这些举措大多是历届政府新自由主义倾向的产物。例如，一些研究人员和社会运动领袖认为，1996年至2000年执政的吕西安·布沙尔魁北克党政府推行了一项社会经济政策，其灵感源于1996年3月魁北克经济和社会未来峰会上通过的零赤字目标，该政策在教育、卫生、社会服务和社会政策领域产生了一系列负面影响。

在这种文献趋势下，一些人认为所有这些政策都具有新自由主义的性质。例如，皮埃尔·穆特德（Pierre Mouterde，2012:13）写道：“简单地想想最终在魁北克盛行的新自由主义经济监管模式，尤其是在20世纪90年代中期，吕西安·布沙尔（Lucien Bouchard）及其零赤字政策的推动下。” 文森特·格里森（Vincent Greason）则更加明确地表示：“新千年的第一个十年也是新自由主义在加拿大政府各级层面占据主导地位的时期”（Greason，2013）。其他作者也持有类似的观点（Piotte，2012；Lamarche，2007）。

与此相反，一种进步主义文献潮流（我们也是其中的一员）认为，在过去二十年里，魁北克政府常常迫于社会运动和公民社会的需求与动员，除了受新自由主义议程启发的举措外，还推出了许多非常进步和创新的公共政策措施。

其中包括社会住房领域的“AccesLogis”项目（Ducharme & Vaillancourt，2012） ；对自治社区组织的认可和支持（Jetté，2008）；家乐福青年就业中心（CJE）和其他社区组织网络的制度化，这些组织的使命是帮助弱势群体融入劳动力市场；1996年出台的“积极主动的薪酬平等法”，允许政府在2006年与“本部门员工达成全面的薪酬平等协议”（Noël，2013：269）；一项新的社会家庭政策，其目标之一是建立一个覆盖面广的低成本学龄前儿童日托中心网络（Dandurand and Ouellette，2012；Aubry，2010b：38-43；Noël，2013：266-268）；一项地方和区域发展政策促成了全省约一百个地方发展中心网络的建立；对社会经济的认可和支持，以及2002年12月通过的反贫困和反社会排斥政策（第112号法案）。

这些公共政策改革代表着社会创新（Jenson，2002；Comeau等人，2001；Bourque，2008；Klein等人，2010；Lévesque，2003；Vaillancourt，2012b；Dumais，2012；Noël，2013：263-267）。它们是政府干预的产物，但不仅仅是政府干预。事实上，它们是在深知贫困和边缘化人群现实的民间社会行为体和组织的参与和倡导下实施的。换句话说，这些改革是政府和民间社会共同构建的，而且在很大程度上是民主构建的，并得到了政府和民间社会的积极参与。

在本报告中，我们选择考察和分析第112号法案，即魁北克

《消除贫困与社会排斥法案》作为公共政策民主共建的案例。本报告更新了早期的研究和工作论文（Aubry，2010a 和 2012），分为五个部分。第一部分侧重于我们的概念框架，我们将格洛丽亚·德桑蒂斯（2012）使用的倡导概念与我们关于公民社会参与公共政策共建的概念进行比较。第二部分介绍了促成第112号法案（1995-2002年）产生的基层动员运动，并强调了基层公民社会组织、政府和政党行为体之间的互动。第三部分考察了2002年12月通过的第112号法案的内容，重点关注受共建动态影响的因素。第四部分重点介绍该法案在2003年至2013年的实施情况。

第五部分则通过第一部分提出的理论视角，对第二、三和四部分的内容进行解读，并特别关注促成公共政策倡导与民主共建相协调的条件。第五部分最后，我们对第112号法案自颁布以来在减少贫困和排斥方面的影响进行了量化评估。

结论

在本报告中，我们以《魁北克省反贫困法》为例进行了案例研究，主要侧重于审查促成该法案通过的民主进程，同时也分析了其在反贫困斗争中取得的成果。

至于反贫困战略的成功，则呈现出多种多样的局面（附录1）。

虽然总体趋势是贫困率在此期间逐渐下降，并且一些重要的人口群体（例如有子女的家庭）取得了非常显著的进步，但其他群体仍然存在问题，尤其是单身人士，他们的贫困率没有任何改善；而以女性和残疾人为户主的单亲家庭，尽管在此期间取得了显著进步，但贫困率仍然很高。在加拿大的排名中，魁北克省在总体贫困率和严重贫困发生率方面都取得了显著进步（Aubry，2012）。

关于民主进程，我们将近30年的立法历史分为两个阶段：立法的起源阶段（1995-2002年）和立法的实施阶段（2003-2013年）。我们从两个角度考察了TSO的作用，尤其是那些致力于改善贫困和受排斥人群处境的TSO：首先，这些TSO是否开展了倡导实践；其次，它们是否参与了反贫困政策的民主共建。在我们的框架中，TSO开展的倡导实践必须与其参与民主政策的共建相结合，才能产生合理的社会政策改革。“简而言之，在一个‘被破坏的民主’国家，几乎没有任何机会制定出良好的社会政策”（Evers and Guillemard，2013：381）。

为了使TSO的倡导实践（尽管数量众多且独具匠心）与民主共建的视角相一致，参与式民主的要求与代议制民主的要求相辅相成。这意味着，包括服务于贫困人口的运输服务组织 (TSO) 在内的各类公民社会行为体，需要与各类政治行为体进行辩论，以确定政策内容。

如果政策仅由公民社会或政治社会制定，则共建机制并不存在。共建机制或许存在，但如果它仅涉及政治社会中的某些行为体（例如行政部门而非立法部门）和公民社会中的某些行为体（例如某些主导性参与者，但不包括贫困人口和弱势群体及其运输服务组织网络），则不能称之为民主的。总而言之，运输服务组织参与政策的民主共建是一个严苛的过程，在公共政策改革中很少遇到。

事实上，第二部分提出的《魁北克反贫困法》的哲学基础与第一部分提出的公共政策民主共建过程的特征相一致。这些基础可以概括如下：
消除贫困和排斥：

• 不仅仅是政府的责任；
• 主要是由穷人和被排斥者承担的责任；
• 也是劳动力市场合作伙伴的责任；
• 也是整个魁北克社会的责任。

强调公民社会行为体的身份，旨在明确指出，消除贫困不仅是政府和国家的责任，正如某些以国家为中心的愿景所倡导的那样，这些愿景可能来自政治光谱的左翼或右翼。即便如此，公民社会的参与仍然至关重要。

政治社会行为主体的多样性在民主共建进程中依然至关重要。

换句话说，在政治领域，民主共建不仅涉及政府行政部门民选官员的参与，也涉及各政党成员在立法机构和委员会中的参与，正如2002年全年在该法通过前的审议过程中所体现的那样。

总而言之，民主共建意味着，在某些决定性时刻，公民社会的辩论与政治社会的辩论之间必须进行对话，这种对话并非没有妥协，例如2002年反贫困联盟接受一项旨在对抗、甚至消除贫困和排斥的法律时出现的对话。

我们的报告表明，在《魁北克省反贫困法》的历史上，反贫困联盟的交通服务组织（TSO），无论是捍卫人权的组织还是提供替代服务的组织，都参与了大量的原创倡导实践以及民主共建活动。

这些实践的频率和强度多年来一直在波动：

• 倡导实践在整个兴起阶段（1995-2002年）始终如一，但在实施阶段则有所减弱和减少。在2003-04年和2008-10年两个行动计划的制定过程中，倡导实践再次出现；

• 民主共建进程在兴起阶段末期（2000年11月至2002年12月）达到顶峰，并在行动计划制定期间显得较为谨慎；

• 倡导实践有助于为民主共建阶段做好准备。因此，从1995年到2001年，反贫困联盟的TSO们致力于提高公众意识、动员公民社会，并准备自己的消除贫困法案，给人的印象是他们不愿与政治社会的行动者结盟；

• 事实上，这些倡导实践是对政治社会的挑战，因此在2000年底出现了转折点。政治社会的机构和行动者开始回应公民社会动员带来的要求。在2001年的一段时间里，制定反贫困法草案的两种途径似乎并存，就像两个孤岛：一个在公民社会，另一个在政治社会；

• 随后，在2001年底，一场公开辩论开始了，社会动员和政治动员之间架起了桥梁。我们称之为“民主共建”的进程由此开启。

总而言之，在某些社会行动和研究领域中，公共政策的民主共建概念是否可以被视为一种“转变中的话语”？我们相信可以，但同时我们也意识到，这种方法目前在社会运动和研究界内部正受到争议。

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.