Depuis quelques années déjà, au Québec, au Canada et dans d’autres pays (France, Royaume-Uni et États-Unis notamment), on s’inquiète de nouveau de l’existence de quartiers de pauvreté dans les grandes métropoles. Dans ces pays ont été développées des politiques que l’on peut regrouper sous le vocable générique d’interventions de revitalisation urbaine intégrée. Ce modèle d’intervention a été retenu dans trois micro-zones montréalaises pour des projets pilotes tout juste amorcés. Cela nous sert de prétexte pour nous interroger sur les modalités générales de ce modèle d’intervention. Deux postulats de ce modèle et leurs écueils sous-jacents sont analysés et discutés. Le premier veut que la société locale puisse et doive se prendre en main. Le second veut que la lutte contre la pauvreté urbaine concentrée soit une affaire de mise aux normes du « milieu ». Sont abordés ensuite les problèmes que pose la délimitation des zones d’intervention. Nous concluons en nous interrogeant sur la place que doit tenir la lutte territorialisée contre la pauvreté dans l’ensemble des dispositifs de lutte contre la pauvreté.For a number of years in Quebec and Canada as well as several other places (particularly France, the United Kingdom and the United States) there has been growing attention to poor neighbourhoods within large metropolitan areas. One response has been the development of policies that can be labelled generically as an “integrated urban revitalization approach.” This model was recently deployed as pilot projects in three micro-zones in Montreal. Therefore, a critical examination of the general form of the model is appropriate, in the form of an analysis of two axioms of the model and the stumbling blocks. The first axiom is that the local society can and must take itself in hand. The second is that fighting concentrated urban poverty requires improving standards to conform better to local norms. The article ends with attention to the relative importance of a place-based anti-poverty strategy within the larger set of anti-poverty programmes

Cet article esquisse un portrait général de la place de l’administration publique dans la gouvernance multiniveau infranationale impliquant le palier local, surtout à partir de la littérature et avec un accent particulier sur la situation canadienne. Il propose d’abord un cadre général qui permet de situer les travaux selon les acteurs, les périmètres, les relations et les sites étudiés. Il examine ensuite la pratique administrative dans les relations multiniveaux en soulignant les lacunes dans les connaissances à la fois sur les dispositifs, les rôles et la façon dont sont relevés quelques défis administratifs classiques. Il évoque en terminant quelques chantiers de recherche qui permettraient de mieux comprendre l’apport de divers acteurs dans la restructuration de l’État et de l’action publique.This article sketches out an overview of the role of public administration in subnational multi-level governance involving local authorities; it works primarily from the literature and is focused on the situation in Canada. To begin with, we set out a general framework serving to situate research according to the actors, perimeters, relationships and sites studied. We then examine administrative practice in multi-level relationships, emphasizing gaps in knowledge pertaining to mechanisms and roles and the way several classic administrative challenges are tackled. To conclude, we suggest several lines of research that would aid in understanding the contribution of various actors in the restructuration of government and public action

Evaluating the performance of local environment activation strategies, set forth in many central policies, is an exercise fraught with challenges. Based on an analysis of 10 Integrated Territorial Approach initiatives, which were rolled out in Quebec's fight against poverty, this article proposes a framework to better assess their various effects. These strategies are characterised by a partnership process and a collective focus. Performance occurs at micro-, meso-and macro-levels and is observable not only in the production of deliverables, but also on three other process dimensions, which are characteristic of such strategies: fostering the maintenance of local mobilisation drivers; improving the quality of locally productive elements; and learning strategic coherence. This understanding of collective performance takes public managers out of their comfort zone. Beyond having to develop collaborative skills, as is now well-documented in the literature, it leads them to develop an investor mindset and to become logisticians of the collective, not just efficient service providers. Points for practitionersPublic managers sometimes feel disadvantaged in local collective action strategies because their performance depends on the contribution of a number of partners whose actions are driven by logics that differ from theirs. By outlining the many possible facets of performance in local collaborative strategies, the statements made in this article could give them greater peace of mind, as well as point out the systemic stumbling blocks that they may face.

No abstract