【作者】 楼苏萍；

【导师】 郁建兴；

【作者基本信息】 浙江大学 ， 行政管理， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 进入新世纪以来,社会政策在“统筹发展”、“更加注重公平”、“和谐社会建设”、“民生”等话语中成为我国公共讨论的焦点、社会科学研究的新兴领域。如何理解、评估我国改革开放以来社会政策的发展历程成为重要议题。在社会政策研究的已有理论中,体制研究传统提供了宏观考察的理论基础与基本方法,结合中国社会的特殊性及社会政策的阶段性目标,中国社会政策的体制分析框架可以包括福利供给结构及福利结果两个维度。对福利供给结构的考察发现,中国的国家福利角色在市场化改革中发生了重大转变,并导致了福利供给主体的多元化。在国家福利及家庭福利之外,市场、第三部门不同程度地成为福利服务的提供者。然而,无论是市场还是第三部门,其在福利保障供给中的作用都极为有限。同时,家庭的福利功能日益受到挑战,国家在福利供给体系中一直占据着举足轻重位置,尽管与计划经济时期的国家-单位制福利相比,当前的国家更多以制度供给者及福利组织者的新面貌出现。福利供给结构的变化必然导致特定的福利结果,社会权利是衡量福利结果的标准之一。与改革前社会权利建立在城市人与单位人的身份基础上不同,改革后的社会权利建立在一系列国家干预的契约关系之上。20世纪80年代中期到20世纪末,社会权利主要建立在劳动契约基础上,突出地与城市正规就业相关联,相应地,大部分社会成员缺失社会权利。新世纪以来,社会权利获得了两方面发展:一方面,公民身份成为一些福利计划的唯一资格条件,如义务教育及审查式的最低社会保障;另一方面,在收入维持及健康保障领域,福利资格日益与覆盖范围更广的个人贡献相关联。社会权利的这些变化是社会政策的重要进展。尽管如此,中国公民所享有的社会权利仍然有限:首先,建立在公民资格基础上的社会权利非常有限,且水平较低;其次,贡献关联的福利资格虽然大大扩展了社会权利享有者的范围,但它使社会权利受制于个人的收入水平,从而或加重最低生活保障的负担,或将一部分社会成员排除在福利体制之外。社会政策的分层——流动效应是衡量福利结果的第二项标准。从20世纪80年代到20世纪末,社会政策的分层——流动效应首先体现在国家干预(包括福利安排)对社会结构的“解制”之上。此外,社会政策安排仍然体现了对公共部门雇员阶层的优先保护,政府公务员及行政事业单位工作人员、以及国有企业在岗工人享受了较好的福利待遇。因此,这一时期社会政策的分层效应体现为享有较好福利的公共部门就业人员与大部分几乎没有什么福利待遇的私人部门就业人员、自雇者、农业劳动者之间的二元分化。而且,福利资格与户籍制度之间的关联也使社会政策不支持社会流动,特别是农村居民的向上流动。新世纪以来推出的社会政策计划将更多社会成员纳入到差异化甚至碎片化的福利体制中,形成了福利待遇与贡献程度相匹配的分层化的福利受益体系。因此,它的再分配效应较低,并倾向于强化已有的收入分层结构。总之,中国改革开放以来的社会政策发展呈现出渐进性、保守性以及国家角色持续强化等特征。国家角色的转型与强化,表现为国家多以福利的组织者而非融资者或分配者的姿态出现,通过有针对性的制度供给及组织动员初步形成了分层保障的合作保险型福利体系。中国社会政策的上述特征可以从国家干预的历史遗产及当前的威权政治中得到解释。更多还原

【Abstract】 Since the beginning of new century, social policy has become the focus of public debate. Social policy thus draws more attention in social science study in China, particularly with the rising of discourses such as "Balancing Development", "Pay more attention on equality," "Harmonious society", "Livelihood" etc. How to understand and assess the social policy development process since China’s Reform and Opening-up thus become an important research issue. Among various Social Policy theories, the regime analysis tradition provides a theoretical foundation and a specific approach for macro social policy analysis. Given the characteristics of Chinese society and goals of social policy in current stage, a theoretical framework which includes welfare mix and welfare outcomes has been introduced to explore the development of social policy in China.An investigation on the welfare mix found that there was a changing role of the state in the welfare provision in China since the marketilization reform. Except for the State and family, market and the third sectors became new agents of social welfare provision, although both the market and the third sectors have only played limited roles in the welfare mix. At the same time, the welfare function of family has increasingly faced challenge; while the role of the state became significantly important. However, the role of State in welfare area a since Reform and Opening-up was not the same role as it was in the State-Danwei welfare regime during Planned Economy period; the state was much more like an institute supplier and welfare organizer rather than a financer or direct welfare distributor.Changes of welfare mix result in changes of welfare outcome. Social right is one of the two dimensions in the measurement of welfare outcomes. Differed from the pre-reform period, social rights after Reform were based on a series of intervened contractual relationships rather than identities such as registral citizenship or membership of certain Danwei. From 1980s to 2000s, social rights were mainly based on employment contracts, thus associated welfare entitlement with formal employment, resulting in the lack of social rights of majority members in society. Since the new century, social rights in china have improved in following twofold; firstly, citizenship becomes sufficient eligibility for some social policy programs such as elementary education and social assistant program. Secondly, the coverage of social right has been much wider than before since it is contribution now premises individual’s welfare entitlement in the policy field such as income maintenance and healthy security. However, the social right Chinese citizens enjoyed are still narrow. On the one hand, welfare benefit based on citizenship is rare and low; on the other hand, social right now largely depends on income level and individual budget constrain. And this either excludes low income group from social welfare system or aggravates the expense of social assistant program.The stratified and mobilized effect of social policy is the second dimension to measure the welfare outcomes. From 1980s to 2000s, the stratified and mobilized effect of social policy can be understood as a kind of de-regulation effect of the state intervention on the social structure; although public sector employees including civil servants, staff of administrative departments and institutions and on-the-job workers of state-owned enterprises still enjoyed priorities on the welfare benefit. Therefore, social policies during this period reflected the stratification between minority well-protected public employees and majority private sector employees, self-employed person and peasants who are olny eligible for bounded welfare benefit. Moreover, the association between welfare entitlement and the household registration system blocked the opportunity of social mobility of rural residents. Since 2000s, new social policy programs have covered different groups of people into a benefit-contribution-matched and stratified welfare system. Consequently social policy tends to strengthen the income stratification. The redistribution effect of china’s current social policy system is low. Finally, the social policy development in China since Reform and Open-up demonstrates features as incrementalism, conservatism and a transformed and strengthening role of State in the welfare area. Recent policy innovations continued the organizational function of the state in the welfare governance. An institutionalism perspective shows that those can be explained by China’s historical heritage of state intervention and current authoritarian politics.更多还原