马来西亚基于群体的再分配:两极分化、不协调、停滞不前

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Hwok-Aun Lee
{"title":"马来西亚基于群体的再分配:两极分化、不协调、停滞不前","authors":"Hwok-Aun Lee","doi":"10.17645/si.7594","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Group‐based redistribution is extensive and embedded in Malaysia, and has comprehensively transformed the country since the introduction of the New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1971. The NEP established a “two‐pronged” framework of poverty reduction irrespective of race and social restructuring to redress racial inequalities primarily through preferential programmes targeting the disadvantaged Bumiputera majority. The debate surrounding the NEP has under‐appreciated its strengths and augmented its omissions and misconceptions, which in turn have shaped policy discourses and attitudes in two ways. First, there is marked polarization, largely along ethnic lines, with the majority group overwhelmingly predisposed in favour of Bumiputera policy and minority groups generally wary of its continuation. The polarization unduly reduces the debate to monolithic pro‐NEP vs anti‐NEP dispositions, and constricts the solutions to a false binary question of continuing vs terminating the NEP. Second, a broad but incoherent consensus has consolidated around the notion that “need‐based” policies should comprehensively replace “race‐based” policies. While “need‐based” policies are widely embraced, they emphatically do not constitute a substitute for “race‐based” policies, or group‐based redistribution more generally. Surveys have captured the ethnic polarization surrounding “Malay privileges,” but also show that Malaysians unanimously support universal basic assistance. A systematic policy reformulation with universal basic needs and group‐based interventions as enduring and distinct domains might hold out possibilities for new and constructive compromise.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":"21 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Group‐Based Redistribution in Malaysia: Polarization, Incoherence, Stasis\",\"authors\":\"Hwok-Aun Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.17645/si.7594\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Group‐based redistribution is extensive and embedded in Malaysia, and has comprehensively transformed the country since the introduction of the New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1971. The NEP established a “two‐pronged” framework of poverty reduction irrespective of race and social restructuring to redress racial inequalities primarily through preferential programmes targeting the disadvantaged Bumiputera majority. The debate surrounding the NEP has under‐appreciated its strengths and augmented its omissions and misconceptions, which in turn have shaped policy discourses and attitudes in two ways. First, there is marked polarization, largely along ethnic lines, with the majority group overwhelmingly predisposed in favour of Bumiputera policy and minority groups generally wary of its continuation. The polarization unduly reduces the debate to monolithic pro‐NEP vs anti‐NEP dispositions, and constricts the solutions to a false binary question of continuing vs terminating the NEP. Second, a broad but incoherent consensus has consolidated around the notion that “need‐based” policies should comprehensively replace “race‐based” policies. While “need‐based” policies are widely embraced, they emphatically do not constitute a substitute for “race‐based” policies, or group‐based redistribution more generally. Surveys have captured the ethnic polarization surrounding “Malay privileges,” but also show that Malaysians unanimously support universal basic assistance. A systematic policy reformulation with universal basic needs and group‐based interventions as enduring and distinct domains might hold out possibilities for new and constructive compromise.\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":\"21 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17645/si.7594\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17645/si.7594","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在马来西亚,以群体为基础的再分配是广泛和根深蒂固的,自 1971 年实行新经济政策 (NEP)以来,已经全面改变了马来西亚。新经济政策建立了一个 "双管齐下 "的框架,即不分种族的减贫和社会结构调整,以纠正种族不平等,主要是通过针对处境不利的布米普特拉多数群体的优惠方案。围绕《国家经济政策》展开的辩论低估了它的优势,增加了它的疏漏和误解,这反过来又从两个方面影响了政策讨论和态度。首先,存在明显的两极分化,主要表现在种族方面,多数群体绝大多数倾向于支持文移政策,而少数群体则普遍对继续推行该政策持谨慎态度。这种两极分化不适当地将辩论简化为支持新经济政策与反对新经济政策的单一倾向,并将解决方案局限于继续执行与终止新经济政策这一错误的二元问题。其次,围绕着 "以需求为基础 "的政策应全面取代 "以种族为基础 "的政策这一理念,已经形成了广泛但不连贯的共识。虽然 "以需求为基础 "的政策得到了广泛的拥护,但它们显然不能取代 "以种族为基础 "的政策,或更普遍的以群体为基础的再分配政策。调查反映了围绕 "马来人特权 "的种族两极分化,但也表明马来西亚人一致支持全民基本援助。系统地重新制定政策,将普遍基本需求和基于群体的干预措施作为持久而独特的领域,可能会带来新的建设性妥协的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Group‐Based Redistribution in Malaysia: Polarization, Incoherence, Stasis
Group‐based redistribution is extensive and embedded in Malaysia, and has comprehensively transformed the country since the introduction of the New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1971. The NEP established a “two‐pronged” framework of poverty reduction irrespective of race and social restructuring to redress racial inequalities primarily through preferential programmes targeting the disadvantaged Bumiputera majority. The debate surrounding the NEP has under‐appreciated its strengths and augmented its omissions and misconceptions, which in turn have shaped policy discourses and attitudes in two ways. First, there is marked polarization, largely along ethnic lines, with the majority group overwhelmingly predisposed in favour of Bumiputera policy and minority groups generally wary of its continuation. The polarization unduly reduces the debate to monolithic pro‐NEP vs anti‐NEP dispositions, and constricts the solutions to a false binary question of continuing vs terminating the NEP. Second, a broad but incoherent consensus has consolidated around the notion that “need‐based” policies should comprehensively replace “race‐based” policies. While “need‐based” policies are widely embraced, they emphatically do not constitute a substitute for “race‐based” policies, or group‐based redistribution more generally. Surveys have captured the ethnic polarization surrounding “Malay privileges,” but also show that Malaysians unanimously support universal basic assistance. A systematic policy reformulation with universal basic needs and group‐based interventions as enduring and distinct domains might hold out possibilities for new and constructive compromise.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信