当代中国边民政策的内涵与逻辑——以“边境治理共同体”为分析视角

当前关于边民政策的认知模式存在对象分散、视角狭窄、结论互斥等弊端,亟需从“针对性认知”转向“整体性认知”。基于治理共同体理念和边境治理实践而提出的“边境治理共同体”概念,可以为认知边民政策提供一个整体框架,并对既有的碎片化研究和观点产生融通整合作用。作为边境治理共同体的核心要素,边境治理、边民有责、边民尽责、边民享有构成了重新审视边民政策的基本维度。以此观之,边民政策从属于更大的边境治理体系,以边民身份背后的权利义务关系为底层逻辑。随着边境空间功能在国家发展格局中被重新定位,边境治理共同体正在由初级形态走向高级形态。与此相适应,边民政策在丰富边民责任、规范边民履责、增进边民权益等方面呈现出新的发展趋势。

中国的边民政策:从碎片化转向体系化

当代中国的边民政策是在国家发展中逐渐形成的。在这一过程中,根据周边情势和国家发展的现实条件及实际需要,针对边民问题的突出形式和凸显程度,国家先后推出了阶段性特点鲜明的边民政策,其专项性内涵也经历了由潜在到显在、凸显到深化的发展演变过程。但由于已有边民政策并不是从国家边境治理的宏观设计来构建的,通常是以具体问题为指向,并分解到不同政策领域的形式来展开的,由此造成其在政策目标、政策内容、政策对象、政策执行等方面的碎片化特征。今天这种碎片化的边民政策已不能有效适应边境治理的新形势和新要求。相应地推进边民政策的体系化转向,构建形成以边民居边发展和守边固边为统领的体系化边民政策就成为必然选择。

边民帮扶政策与边境治理现代化——以云南省X县为例

边民帮扶政策作为中国特色的治边政策,在边境治理中发挥着促进边境稳定、维护边境安全、加快边境发展、推进边境治理现代化等作用。边境县作为执行国家边民帮扶政策的主要主体,肩负着推动边民帮扶政策落实的重任,因此以边境县作为主要研究对象是比较适宜的。研究设计的边民帮扶政策满意度评价的指标体系测示显示:云南省X县的边民帮扶政策存在着诸如政策“造血”能力偏弱、政策内卷化趋势明显、政策系统性不足、政策落实不到位等问题,应从提高帮扶政策的实效性、系统性、规范性以及提升边民家庭发展能力上加以改善。

论边境治理中边民角色的转换与重塑

边境治理的独特逻辑决定了边民应兼具治理客体和治理主体的双重角色。然而,在既有的实践和认知模式中,边民多被片面地定位为治理对象,以“边民问题”的形式受到重视。这样一种单向度的角色定位,对边民的主体身份形成了遮蔽效应,由此出现了边境治理中边民角色的失衡问题。当前,随着国家发展步入新的阶段,边境治理体系也在悄然发生变化。其中一系列专项政策的出台,使边民在边境治理中的作用前所未有地凸显了出来,标志着边民角色正处于一个新旧转换的拐点上。在这种形势下,应通过组织动员、管理培训、福利保障、政策法规等体制机制创新,有效推动边民角色中主体性的塑造与强化,从而使其在边境治理中形成一种均衡性、整体性的角色。

Immigration and Liberal Egalitarianism

My principal objective in this paper is to examine what position liberal egalitarians should take regarding the issue of immigration. Given that liberal egalitarians grant central importance to individual autonomy and the moral equality of all persons, their rejection of restrictive immigration policies appears to follow from these central normative commitments. Liberal egalitarians such as Joseph Carens and Phillip Cole have argued that those who are committed to individual autonomy and moral equality should advocate for an open borders position in immigration. I argue that it is a serious mistake for liberal egalitarians to advocate open national borders and that borders should instead be strategically regulated to reduce global economic inequalities through immigration policies systematically integrated into development programs for the poorest and most vulnerable countries. Open borders would create an open market for immigration slots to choice countries of destination, which out of practical necessity would have to delimit the number of new immigrants. It is well known in migration studies that those who are more educated, young, and have more resources are more likely to migrate than the very young, the elderly, the infirm, and the poorest individuals. Those left behind in developing countries suffer serious negative consequences from the emigration of the most highly educated, capable, and talented individuals in their society. I then argue that liberal egalitarians should grant particular moral consideration to the world＇s poorest and most vulnerable and that immigration policies strategically designed to prioritize their needs are actually more consistent with the dual commitments of individual autonomy and moral equality than an open borders position. I propose three principles of global justice that are consistent with liberal egalitarianism that should guide transnational moral obligations. I end the paper by arguing that two of these principles can be used to justify restricted immigration policies that would enable developed countries to partially discharge some of their moral obligations to developing countries while enhancing the autonomy of the world＇s most vulnerable people.