1995-2000年香港社會福利整筆補助政策之「制定過程」

The Process of Hong Kong’s Policy of Making Lump Sum Grants in Social Welfare, 1995-2000

新公共管理潮流下香港政府在1990年代興起改革運動，特別是1995-2000年在立法機關主導社會福利補助改革之論辯，繼之2001年實施整筆補助最令人矚目，被稱為新公共管理的改革、實踐典範或社會福利改革，迄今其後續效應仍持續影響著香港社會福利界。分析香港立法會1995-2000年有關整筆補助政策15次會議紀錄內容資料，本文發現香港政府為主導政策的行動者，利益團體及立法會議員為影響決策的利害關係者，雙方以立法機關為溝通平臺進行討論與協商，香港政府在過程中扮演的角色最為關鍵，操縱其所握有的財政資源，逐步讓利誘導非政府機構支持政策的制定，最終使該政策合法化，進而付諸實施。檢視整筆補助政策產出之意涵，其背後的邏輯為新公共管理對香港政府及香港社會福利制度的影響與作用，值得參採借鑑。2001年香港整筆補助制度終於誕生，同時也為香港社會福利界管理主義與專業主義拉鋸戰揭開了序幕。

With the trend of new public management, the pace of Hong Kong's governmental reformation rose in the 1990s. The process of Hong Kong's social welfare subvention policy was debated from 1995 to 2000 in Hong Kong's legislative council. The implementation of lump sum grants in the social welfare system was most remarkable development in 2001; this practical model or social welfare reform was part the reform of new public management. Currently its subsequent effects are still influencing relevant stakeholders in the entire field of social welfare. After an analysis of the relevant documents of Hong Kong's legislative council from 1995 to 2000, this paper finds that in the process of policy making the Hong Kong government played the administrative and dominant roles. Interest groups and members of the legislative council amended the policy of the stakeholders. Both sides discussed and negotiated in the legislative council as a communication platform. The Hong Kong Government manipulated its financial resources by “giving bonuses,” thereby gradually inducing non-governmental organizations to support their policy making. Finally it legalized and implemented the lump sum grant system. This paper reviews the logic of Hong Kong‘s policy making process of lump sum grants in social welfare, the new public management implications and its effects on Hong Kong's Government and social welfare institutions. The results should serve as reference. The use of lump sum grants in the social welfare system was enacted in 2001, and the debate between managerialism and professionalism among relevant stakeholders in the entire field of social welfare also started at the same time.