The institutionalization of Montreal's CDECS: from grassroots organizations to State apparatus?

Fontan, Jean-Marc ; Hamel, Pierre ; Morin, Richard 等

Resume

Durant les annees 1980, les acteurs communautaires et les mouvements urbains ont fait la promotion du developpement economique local a Montreal, en soulignant l'importance d'y inclure des preoccupations sociales et celle d'ameliorer les conditions de vie des populations defavorisees vivant dans des quartiers en declin. Des intervenants sociaux et des organismes communautaires ont alors cree des corporations de developpement economique communautaire (CDEC), don't le nombre a ete multiplie au cours des annees 1990. Ces organismes de developpement economique communautaire ont ete consideres par l'Etat comme des acteurs-cles du developpement local a Montreal, ils ont ainsi recu des fonds et des mandats des trois ordres de gouvemement. Dans cet article, les auteurs traitent du nouveau contexte metropolitain auquel le developpement economique local doit faire face, se penchent sur le processus d'institutionnalisation des CDEC montrealaises et commentent quelques aspects de l'evolution de ces organismes.

Mots cles: Developpement economique communautaire; developpement local; institutiormalisation; Montreal.

Abstract

During the 1980s, community actors and urban movements promoted local economic development in Montreal by emphasizing the importance of including social dimensions in economic development and improving living conditions for poor people in decaying neighbourhoods. Social activists and community organizations created community economic development corporations (corporations de developpement economique communautaire, CDEC), which multiplied during the 1990s. These community economic development organizations were considered by the state as key players for local development. Thus, they received funds and mandates from the three tiers of government. In this article, the authors examine the new metropolitan context that the Montreal's CDECs are facing, address the process of institutionalization of these CDECs and discuss some aspects of the evolution of these organizations.

Keywords: Community economic development; local development; institutionalization; Montreal.

Introduction

The theme of governance has emerged with economic, political, cultural and institutional transformations over the last few years. This has been associated with a questioning of the status of public bodies as well as the position of civil society. These changes help explain why the old regulation models--based on hierarchic organizational structures and centralized decision making processes--are largely put under scrutiny in numerous sectors of the human and social sciences. The issue of local economic development, as well as the policies of urban development, is also bound up with these new inquiries. However, the right paths to follow in order to enhance development while maintaining social cohesion in urban agglomerations and contemporary metropolises have not yet been designed in a satisfactory way. The conflict between a capitalistic vision and sustainable forms of development is based on value conflicts between, on the one hand, those who are betting on market virtues, and, on the other hand, those who fight against poverty, defend social justice and protect the environment. This is another way of expressing the traditional tension inscribed in modernity between the market strengths channelled through liberty and democratic virtues oriented towards equality.

Nevertheless, recent changes in the definition of public space, public policies and public action are forcing us to reconsider the social choices in the matter of local economic development. On these grounds, as in many other projects and spheres of activity, social actors at the local level have been forced to make decisions about their interventions within a context of uncertainty in which commitment is highly dependent on everyone else's choices, values and convictions. At the time of the emergence of community economic development practice in Montreal, the nature of the economy, poverty, employment and the role of the state were all in a period of flux. This is also related to new social demands that can be associated with a model of governance (Lafaye 2001) that questions older decision-making frameworks.

It is in such a context that in Montreal, starting in the 1980s, community actors and urban movements promoted local economic development by emphasizing the importance of including social dimensions and improving urban conditions for poor people living in decaying urban neighbourhoods. Their action challenged the dominant vision of local economic development that the business milieu was promoting, a vision oriented above all towards economic or financial concerns and in line with their particular or limited interests. Through their actions, community groups--following and redefining the struggles of urban movements of the 1970s and 1980s-created community economic development corporations (corporations de developpement economique communautaire, CDECs) and constituted themselves as legitimate social actors.

Almost 20 years later, they no longer enjoy the same legitimacy. As a result of the involvement of these local organizations, issues of local economic development are perceived in a different way by all of the actors participating in local development. In addition, the scale of local economic development has changed. It is now defined at a metropolitan scale and related more directly to an international economic space. The consequences for community actors involved in local economic development are numerous. They have to adjust to a new reality. What about the alliances made in the past on the basis of neighbourhoods? Are they sufficient nowadays? How to build solidarity on a metropolitan scale? With globalization, are these actors able to take advantage of the new opportunities? Are they able to resist its negative impacts? For the time being, what is the place left for these actors who were active in promoting a social vision of local economic development in the 1980s? Finally, in the face of recent economic and institutional changes, what assessment can be made of local economic development in Montreal?

The paper is divided into three parts. First, we put into context local economic development by referring to the main issues of metropolitan governance. Second, we focus on the institutionalization of local economic development, presenting the main phases that the CDECs went through. Finally, we assess the new challenges the CDECs face.

Local Economic Development and Metropolitan Governance

The social and spatial forms of contemporary metropolises have changed our perception of the so-called "urban question." The problem is no longer defined in relation to improving the planning of urban services or controlling urbanization processes. What is at stake has more to do with social integration and social exclusion. In fact, the main issue seems to bring back to the urban scene a policy agenda that is preoccupied with social justice. This is what Ray Pahl is suggesting when he writes: "So-called urban processes, if indeed there be such, are now generally accepted to be largely epiphenomenal and irrelevant" (Pahl2001 : 882). For him, urban systems alone are difficult to implement if we do not change the range of income inequality. In other words, social exclusion is produced through the increasing inequality in income. Urban consequences in terms of "spatial concentration of disadvantage" should not be overlooked, but they cannot be the total explanation. We do hOt want to come back to the old Marxist debate over urban forms, nor is it our intention to consider the choices of localization made by economic actors or the impact of class structures on the production of space. However, in many respects, the Marxist analysis of social contradictions for understanding the way our contemporary metropolises are planned--or unplanned--may be relevant anew. If the "growth machine" paradigm cannot explain all the decisions that are involved in city life, it gives us an understanding of the main trend.

Montreal is not different from other North American metropolises. Over the last 40 years, territorial sprawl has significantly changed the urban landscape of the city-region. New urban centres have been emerging. The industrial infrastructure has been moving towards a service economy. New forms of inequalities have emerged with different impacts on the working class. Also, the social composition of the city has changed. This is evident when we examine household characteristics--the aging of the population and the arrival of immigrants from parts of the world other than Europe, which was the major source of Canadian immigration after World War II. At the turn of the 20th century, Montreal was a vibrant city, the booming Canadian city. As we all know, this is no longer the case. Starting in the 1960s, as underlined by Marc V. Levine (1990), the "Reconquest" of Montreal by French Canadians has not been sufficient to overcome the economic decline that began in the 1940s and accelerated when the economic activity moved towards the west of the continent in conjunction with the collapse of Fordism as a model of development. As in other North American city-regions in the 1970s and 1980s--one can compare Montreal to Pittsburgh for instance--the agglomeration has been struck by deindustrialization and rising rates of unemployment. In the 1990s, the city half-succeeded in recovering its past dynamism. The reality is that the agglomeration is still struggling to improve its performance and regain its competitive edge in a North American playing field. In this regard, the recent report issued by the Montreal Metropolitan Community--a metropolitan tier of government created in 2000 by the Quebec government--presented the economic strategy that the city-region should promote in the next future. It gave a bleak picture of Montreal in terms of investments, productivity and education in comparison to 25 other city-regions in North America.

Michel Bassand (2001) describes two closely related faces of metropolization. Like other North American metropolises, Montreal is being transformed internally and externally as a result of globalization. Internally, social and spatial processes of restructuring changed not only the landscape of the city but also the functioning of the whole urban system which has become more decentralized, more diversified and also more segmented. The network of this agglomeration cannot be reduced to its functionality, but has become strategic in terms of connectivity (Fontan 2002) to the global system.

Externally, as a competing city Montreal has to take its place in the network of metropolises that are being constructed on a global scale. What is the tank of Montreal among the global cities? How is it connected to other major cities in the world? What is the attraction of Montreal for international activities? It is by improving its internal characteristics--the quality of urban and professional services, the quality of its urbanity and environment--that Montreal is improving its external performance and its capacity to change its rank in the world city system. But it can easily work in the other direction.

Regarding the improvement of the internal characteristics of Montreal, at least until the end of the 1980s it was clear to us that the role of urban movements had been very important. They contributed to the democratization of the management of urban services in many ways. They also acted in order to modernize traditional conceptions or visions of local economic development. In that respect, action by the CDECs has been particularly successful. They have contributed to a learning process that has to be understood in social, technical, cultural and institutional terms. In fact, to highlight their contribution, one has to recall that their action was built on the tradition of urban movements that they were following and promoting. Their action developed from the perspective of their struggle against relationships of domination that were manifest in the field of economic development. We should interpret their mobilization and their actions not only in instrumental terms, but in social, cultural and political ones as well. In this respect, their relationship with institutions revealed itself to be ambivalent. Those involved entered the international arena to negotiate support for their projects. At the same time, they remained outside these institutions, maintaining and strengthening relationships with the community organizations in urban neighbourhoods where they were active.

We also need to consider that over the last 20 years, the terrain of local economic development has changed a great deal as has our understanding of it. In the new metropolitan context, local economic development does not have the same meaning it used to have. For the decision-makers, it is no longer sufficient to favour entrepreneurship and employment in poor urban neighbourhoods in the way that they were targeted by community groups in the 1980s; rather it is the whole agglomeration--its dynamism and its economic capability--that has to be improved. The territorial character of local economic development associated with poor urban neighbourhoods is losing this past meaning to a more abstract geographical space defined in relationship to the city-region.

However, this is not clearly perceived by all of the actors involved in local economic development. In particular, this vision is ignored by the majority of CDECs. Nevertheless, they have to adjust to it and this is raising different challenges for them and for the traditional promoters of local economic development. For example, to what extent does the metropolitan level become a pertinent level of action for social, economic and political actors? Can a metropolis be considered as a collective actor? Who is benefiting from interventions at a metropolitan scale? Do the interests of all economic and social actors converge? In this situation, does competitiveness tend to widen the gap between the rich and the poor? What can and should be the strategies of community groups struggling to include social concerns and social values in urban and metropolitan development? Before trying to bring in some of the elements that can help address these questions, a better look at the trajectory of the CDECs is necessary.

The Institutionalization of Local Economic Development in Montreal: From the CDECs to the CLDs

Although there were, during the 1970s, some experiences of intervention of community organizations in the domain of the economy (Fontan 1992), it was during the 1980s that the community economic development approach appeared in a significant way in Montreal. Indeed, it was in 1984, 1985 and 1986 that the first three community economic development corporations (corporations de developpement economique communautaire, CDEC) were set up in three old industrial districts that had been in decline since the 1950s (Favreau 1989; Fontan 1992; Hamel 1991; Lemelin and Morin 1989). These districts were Pointe-Saint-Charles, Centre-Sud and Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. The first three CDECs owed their creation to the initiative of social activists and community organizations concerned about the unemployment and the poverty which affected a large portion of the population in these districts. These activists and organizations were inspired by the experience of the community development corporations (CDC) in American cities. The state, looking for solutions in order to fight against poverty and unemployment, considered these CDECs and those created subsequently as important local economic development players in Montreal. Thus, the CDECs began a process of institutionalization that we explain in subsequent sections.

The First Steps in the Process of Institutionalization

The CDECs represent an important shift in community action that was previously directed to the sphere of consumption and which was embodied in organizations promoting conflict and self-help. With the CDECs, community action was invested in the sphere of production and adopted a cooperative approach based on partnership with the state and the market. Indeed, the state played a key role in the implementation of the CDECs, being the main financial backer of these organizations. In the 1980s, it was the government of Quebec which, at the request of the local actors, gave financial support allowing the creation of the first three CDECs. Agreements signed between the CDECs and the government of Quebec in 1985 and 1987 constitute the first steps in the process of institutionalizing these organizations. According to these agreements, two main mandates are conferred upon the CDECs: the improvement of the employability of the local populations in order to help them find jobs, and the support of local entrepreneurship with the aim of protecting and creating jobs (Morin 1994-1995).

As we mentioned earlier, actors in the market were also taken into account by the initiators of the CDECs : they were seen as generators of jobs and their representatives were invited and agreed to sit on the boards of directors of the CDECs, occupying, in most cases, as many seats as did the community organizations. The presence of these to interest groups produced some tensions, but the representatives of business and community organizations succeeded in working together because they shared the same goal; the fight against unemployment.

The Second Phase of Institutionalization

The provincial government is hot the only government that was concerned by the loss of jobs and unemployment that struck Montreal during the 1970s and 1980s. In 1979, the City of Montreal, following pressures of business representatives worried about the growing economic gap between Montreal and Toronto, created the Commission d'initiatives et de developpement economique de Montreal (CIDEM). This new body was charged with elaborating and implementing a strategy of economic revitalization for the city. Its main strategy was to attract investments, but it did not manage to slow down the decline of the old industrial districts. In 1987, the City put in place an advisory committee, the Commission permanente du developpement economique, which looked for solutions to the deindustrialization and impoverishment of Montreal. In 1989, this committee proposed to the City the adoption of a strategy of local economic development based on actions conducted at the neighbourhood levels. Later in the same year, the CIDEM received the mandate to elaborate a municipal strategy of local and community economic development. In 1990, the City made public its action plan called Partenaires dans le developpement economique des quartiers ("Partners in the economic development of the neighbourhoods") in which it announced its interest in the approach to local economic development and its support for the CDECs.

Thus, the CDECs were considered as the key actors in the municipal local development strategy, but the City modified their area of intervention. Indeed, although the title of the municipal action plan makes reference to neighbourhoods, the CDECs did not intervene at this level, but rather at that of boroughs (arrondissements), new administrative units covering territories of two to five districts and corresponding to between 70,000 and 150,000 inhabitants. Thus, the technocratic logic of the City based on larger territories prevailed over the community logic based on the belonging to neighbourhoods (Favreau and Levesque 1996). With this change, the Montreal CDECs departed from the model of the CDCs in the United States, such as those in Boston and Pittsburgh, which intervene at the scale of small neighbourhoods. The action plan of the City, constituting a framework for a new agreement regarding the CDECs, was signed in 1990 and involved the City of Montreal, the government of Quebec and the federal government. This agreement marked a new step in the process of institutionalizing the CDECs. By the middle of the 1990s, there were seven CDECs in the City of Montreal. Only the city centre and a middle class borough situated in the eastern part of the municipality were not served by a CDEC. In addition to the mandates of improving the employability of local people and supporting local entrepreneurship, the CDECs also have a mandate of local mobilization--rallying local actors in order to generate economic development projects. By aiming at economic and social objectives, and by promoting local initiatives, Montreal's CDECs have demonstrated their capacity to implement an innovative approach to local development.

Politically, however, Montreal's CDECs remain in an ambivalent position. Indeed, as underlined by Eric Shragge (1993), the community economic development organizations are often seen as bodies contributing, in the tradition of social movements, to a process of collective empowerment, which gradually allows the populations concerned to elaborate a vision and take control of this development. But Montreal's CDECs gradually moved away from the local populations by putting more importance on their partnerships with representatives of local interest groups rather than on wider participation by the local community. Moreover, some of them transferred powers from the general assembly of members to the board of directors (Morin 1994-1995). The CDECs serve between 50,000 and 150,000 inhabitants. They do not have the means to mobilize all of these people, but prefer to deal with organized groups and to reach the population through the intermediary of community organizations. The pragmatism of the CDECs that leads them to privilege a fast answer to the job shortage (based on interventions targeting individuals and entrepreneurs) as a way of action that is encouraged by the assessments of their financial backers, also explains this tendency. The autonomy of the CDECs has become a central question because they remain accountable to the three tiers of government which provide funds. While the CDECs try to remain close to both grassroots community organizations and to their government partners, they sometimes have conflicts with both of them, which is a source of ongoing tension. The position of the CDECs, between the network of community organizations and the state apparatus, is ambiguous and not easy to manage.

The Third Phase of Institutionalization

The link of Montreal's CDECs with the state apparatus became more obvious by the end of the 1990s, with the creation, throughout all of Quebec, of local development centres (centres locaux de developpement, CLD). These new bodies were put in place according to the provincial government's policy of support for local and regional development. On the one hand, the CDECs, as well as the Community Future organizations financed by the federal government and implemented in Quebec outside the urban centres, acted as models that inspired the legislation (Comeau et al. 2001). Thus, every CLD would be steered by a committee of local partners based on the example of the CDECs' boards of directors. The committees are composed of representatives of unions, business and community organizations, but unlike those of the CDECs, these committees provide seats for municipal councillors and provincial representatives. Furthermore, the CLDs were not only to work for the support of private business, but also for those businesses following the mandate of the social economy. On the other hand, Montreal's CDECs felt threatened by the possible creation of many CLDs in the City of Montreal and negotiated with the municipal and provincial governments to benefit from the new policy. Through these negotiations, the provincial government agreed with the City of Montreal and the CDECs that there would be a single CLD covering the whole territory of the municipality, and that every CDEC would receive its mandate from this CLD. Thus, the process of the institutionalization of the CDECs took another step. The CDECs gained greater recognition and a higher level of financing from the state by their tight link with Montreal's CLD. At the same rime, they lost part of their jurisdiction over employability with the creation of the local employment centres (centres locaux d'emploi, CLE), local bodies created by the provincial government at the same rime as the CLDs. Thus, the linkage between job demand and job supply that has characterized the action of Montreal's CDECs became more difficult to realize. With these provincial reforms of development and employment, the CDECs are directed to support local business rather than to provide help for people excluded from the labour market. The economic mandate thus became more important than the social one.

By the beginning of the year 2000, there were eight CDECs in the City of Montreal. The local development body set up in the borough situated in the eastern part of the municipality, which receives its mandate from Montreal's CLD, has joined the other seven CDECs and the Inter-CDEC committee. There are also three other CDECs on the territory of the island of Montreal (see map): two of them received mandates from the CLD of their municipality. Indeed, besides the CLD of the City of Montreal, there are six other CLDs on the island of Montreal. Three of these CLDs cover several municipalities and the other three have mandates for one municipality each. The CLDs of these six suburbs are dedicated more to private business than to the social economy, and they show less concern than Montreal's CDECs about the connection between economic and social development (Silvestro 2001). We must also note that six of the island's municipalities do not have a CLD. We can see then that the implementation of policy in support of local and regional development has not been consistent on the Island of Montreal. Montreal is a particular case. While the Ministry of the Regions is responsible for the implementation of this law in the other regions of Quebec, it is the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Metropolis which concerns itself with the region of Montreal. This last ministry, aside from being responsible for the municipalities of the province of Quebec, has a specific mandate to support the development of the metropolitan region of Montreal.

The CDECs' Future in the New City of Montreal

In the early 2000s, the provincial government imposed the merger of the 28 municipalities on the island of Montreal. Thus, the population of the new City of Montreal grew from one to 1.8 million inhabitants. The creation of this new City will affect the CDECs. Indeed, the government of Quebec and the City of Montreal must revise the setup of the CLDs on the island of Montreal because of the merger. In 2001-2002, negotiations held by these two tiers of government with the existing CLDs and CDECs revealed opposite orientations. These negotiations ended in the acceptance of a temporary status quo. Thus, the CDECs continue to assume their mandates from the CLDs. The fact that each of the 27 boroughs created with the merger of the municipalities on the island of Montreal received a mandate of local economic development does not simplify the problem of reorganizing the CLDs in the new City of Montreal. This problem directly concerns the CDECs, which were threatened with becoming local service points for multi-borough CLDs. As a consequence, they would lose their autonomy and would no longer have a local board of directors. Furthermore, the organizations were concerned that their mandate would be reduced to the provision of programs directed exclusively at the

poor and that they would be in competition with other community organizations that have the same mandate. At the beginning of 2003 the CDECs located in the pre-merger City of Montreal succeeded in defeating these proposals. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Metropolis accorded them the mandate of CLDs. They will be called CDEC-CLDs and will thus retain their own identity. This can be considered as the fourth stage of the institutionalization of the Montreal's CDECs.

What Is at Stake for Community Economic Development?

The community economic development (CED) organizations in Montreal grew in response to rising unemployment and poverty. Creating jobs and promoting local revitalization have been the driving forces of these organizations. Job creation and training is the main strategy for addressing poverty. At the same time, the options for work are limited, the labour market being shaped by the local economy and the pressures exerted by the wider context of globalization. Local organizations in each of the boroughs bring their own traditions, interests and strategies that contribute to local development. These include the histories of mobilization and participation and the degree of local organization as well as the ways that local projects are initiated and put in place with the support of the CDECs. In addition, each area has an existing industrial or business base with respective strengths and weaknesses that form the potential capacity for economic development. External pressures, local traditions and responses to each area's conditions thus act to construct the specific practices and development of the CDECs, as well as their activities and priorities. In this section, we will look at the practices of the CDECs and how they mirror social and economic policies. Five themes will be developed: 1) economic development and the implications for social equality and poverty; 2) local governance and democratic practices; 3) innovative and new forms of economic development; 4) the CDECs and the new metropolitan institutions and 5) the CDECs' contribution to local economic development in Montreal.

Inequality and CED Practice

CED practice in the CDECs has focussed on economic development at the local level through the use of private or community-initiated business. The market and its competitive pressures are key elements in developing the local economy and contribute to its practice. The policies of the governments that provide funds and direction to the CDECs have been to promote market-oriented economic development through the provision of technical assistance and capital. The CDECs share this commitment and have supported mainly relatively small-scale enterprise and, in some cases, larger-scale high-tech developments by supporting local business in their boroughs. This is a major departure for both the government and the community sector. In the past, it was assumed that the way to address issues of unemployment and poverty was either through state programs, such as social assistance, or via the many practices of local organizations. However, with the crisis of unemployment of the early 1980s and a redefinition of the role of the state, local markets and business development have taken on new significance. Local entrepreneurs have used the CDECs' support programs to put in place a variety of initiatives that are oriented to local markets and, because they tend to be small businesses, generate few jobs. Many of these businesses have been initiated by individuals who are new arrivals or from low-income backgrounds. The larger initiatives have been carried out in partnership with the private sector in order to locate or to develop the places for industrial location. However, the latter are the exception and the small-scale private businesses tend to prevail. The larger-scale development is usually the task of municipal or provincial government agencies, and there is little consultation or local participation in decisions around these. For the most part, the CDECs are relegated to a junior role in local development, supporting business development that tends to be low-tech and that generates relatively few jobs.

Using the market and business to address poverty and inequality is an approach that began in the 1980s. The CDECs were put in place in a context of the redefinition of the operation of the state, particularly that of the provincial and municipal governments. In the first stages of their development, the three levels of government actively participated in supporting the CDECs. However, in recent years, the provincial government has become the major shaper and its policies have played a crucial role in the development of these organizations. Decentralization and regional administration are key elements in this shift. This has not necessarily brought local autonomy for the CDECs, but rather they administer local centrally defined priorities and programs. With the most recent reform, greater emphasis has been placed on local economic development and the use of funds to support the social economy. The critical shift in government policy is away from one in which the poor were given benefits with little in the way of demands for participation in the labour market. A shift to active demands--a form of "workfare"--was implemented in the late 1980s (Shragge and Deniger 1997). Furthermore, actors in the community sector have put in place many new services and programs specializing in a variety of training. There is an underlying convergence between the provincial government and the community sector that redefines poverty as social exclusion, with the solution being to find a place in society through paid work. The emphasis on local job creation and employability programs is the outcome of this shift in policy. It views poverty and inequality in individualistic terms, as problems that can be solved by investing in human capital and the creation of work, regardless of working conditions and wage levels. In an atmosphere of scarce resources, community groups redefine their agendas to fit the funding requirements of programs managed by the CDECs, particularly the social economy fund. The CDECs thus play a direct role in the definition of local practices. An element of this practice pushes social development into the market and requires that community groups modify their priorities to qualify for government support. The shift is significant and redefines the practices that address poverty, requiring that local intervention to create social outcomes have to integrate a revenue-generating component. Thus, the community sector is pushed into a marketing of social intervention, representing a shift from state responsibility to market provision.

Democratic Participation and Local Governance

The structure of the CDECs grew out of the initial partnership between local actors--business, unions and community organizations--and government representatives to respond to severe economic and social problems. These relations have been formalized through the electoral college system in which member organizations from these and other categories elect representatives to the Board of Directors of the CDECs. It can be argued that this representation enhances local democracy and creates a place for local actors to participate in the decision-making in the areas of social and economic development. For the community sector, which has not been active in economic development, adding their voice to the process should be seen as a gain. However, several factors limit these gains.

The degree of participation in the CDECs varies by borough. Some have strong traditions of mobilization, particularly those where the first CDECs were developed. Others have had these structures imposed on them and participation is much weaker, with a small membership and little active participation from the community. The democratic participation in these instances becomes largely symbolic with no accountability of the representatives of the electoral colleges to their constituents. Thus the structures give more of an appearance of involvement than takes place in reality. Another factor that limits the democratic potential is that despite the local orientation of the CDECs, the policies and programs to be administered increasingly are made at the provincial level, along with criteria for evaluation. The pressure for accountability is upwards. Because they administer local programs and provide funds, the CDECs become involved in shaping the agendas of local organizations. Thus they have become key organizations in local governance, drawing together local players to play a role in CED and shaping local practices through the administration of government programs locally.

Innovative and New Forms of Economic Development

The traditions of the community sector have been an important factor in shaping how local entrepreneurship has developed. Community organizations have moved from protest to program development and service provision. As a result of these changes, they have become significant local actors. Many organizations have responded to the economic and social shifts by putting in place new programs which have received support from their local CDECs. These practices have developed in three directions.

The first can be described as promoting social or environmental values through economic tools. Examples of the creation of alternative forms of economic development that is environmentally-oriented include the promotion of local tourism and ecological projects such as "green stores." The social economy funds have responded locally with flexibility. One example is the support accorded to an organization that promotes and supports community gardens and is involved in questions of food security. It recently received a grant for a feasibility study of a community greenhouse. In the same district, a cooperative store and cafe that sells "green products" has received support. The CDECs are not the active promoters of these initiatives.

The second practice is collective projects initiated through and with community organizations as a way of widening the scope of their activities. These involve existing organizations using and developing a new dimension of their current activities such as a magazine sold by homeless people and co-produced with them. The collective control and use of these enterprises for social ends is the goal of the organizations. In addition, some of them have used these businesses as a means of generating revenue for the organization. The third area is the implementation of new services. These have been innovative and at times contentious. Organizations have developed a wide range of activities for employability training that have strong social components. For example, community restaurants provide food, social places and training programs for low-income communities. At the same time, services related to home care have been criticized because they act as a low-wage alternative for regular state services. This has been one of the contradictions of this aspect of the work of the CDECs and in particular their social economy funds. The government has promoted these developments in the context of cuts to public sector employment and services. The CDECs have been pulled in many different directions at once as they face pressures emanating from the market, the state and the local population.

The CDECs and the New Metropolitan Institutions

The metropolitan question is not new in Montreal. However, the 1990s were marked with a renewed interest in this question, evident in the formation of a series of new bodies. Some were put in place by the provincial government, including the Montreal Island Regional Development Council (Conseil regional de developpement de l'ile de Montreal, CRDIM) which received the mandate to elaborate, together with representatives from the municipal and provincial governments and from the socio-economic milieu, a strategic plan of development for the island of Montreal, and the ministry of the Metropolis, which is responsible for the metropolitan region of Montreal and which will be integrated into the ministry of Municipal Affairs. Other bodies were created through the initiative of the private sector; namely Montreal International and Montreal Technovision, which are financed by public and private funds, and which have respectively the mission to promote the metropolitan region on the international market and to develop a world-class technological capacity for this region. This interest in the development of the Montreal metropolitan region did not slow down at the beginning of 2000s. Indeed, the government of Quebec set up the Montreal Metropolitan Community (Communaute metropolitaine de Montreal, CMM). This body is steered by representatives of the municipalities of the metropolitan region and has received many mandates, including the economic development of the region.

The CDECs do not elaborate regional development strategies with these new bodies (Fontan et al. 1999). They are represented only at the CRDIM, but this presence does not result in a linkage between their local action plans and the larger strategic plan for regional development. Montreal's CDECs have also negotiated their role regarding local development with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Metropolis, but not their role in the metropolitan area. The CDECs have no link with Montreal International or Montreal Technovision, although some of them support the development of business in the new economy that can compete on the international stage (Silvestro 2001). The implementation of the CMM is quite recent and its mandate is more regional than local: thus, the CDECs are less concerned with it. In this new metropolitan institutional context, the Montreal CDECs do hOt appear to have a place. They play in the little league of local development dedicated to neighbourhoods and boroughs, while other actors participate in the big league of metropolitan development oriented toward the world market.

The Contribution of the CDECs to Local Development

Montreal's CDECs, by focussing on the question of jobs, distance themselves from projects of urban revitalization usually undertaken by municipalities, which concentrate on housing, the built environment and public facilities. This distinguishes them from the CDCs in the United States which focus much of their energy on housing and the built environment (Gittel and Wilder 1999). Nevertheless, Montreal's CDECs are engaging actively in planning debates, arguing for measures that would benefit the local population, such as the preservation of the industrial zoning of land desired by private residential developers. The CDECs also differentiate themselves from the industrial commissioners who try to attract investments without particular concern for the valorisation of local expertise and job creation for the unemployed living in the borough. By aiming at economic and social objectives, Montreal's CDECs take an innovative approach to local development. These organizations along with their "rural" counterparts act as a model that has inspired the Quebec government's approach to local economic development. For example, participation of all sectors was maintained with the creation of the CLDs, including actors from the state, the market and civil society. As well, these organizations are dedicated to private business as well as initiatives that are part of the social economy. Thus, a wide range of actors and social preoccupations has been institutionalized within the CLDs. The CDECs have been transformed since the first three were set up in the 1980s, but they also have contributed to the transformation of the way that local economic development is undertaken, including the underlying values and objectives.

Conclusion

How should we summarize the evolution of the CDECs? What has been their contribution to the development of Montreal? To what extent have they succeeded in realizing their project? And what is their future? In many ways they have succeeded in profoundly modifying the dominant vision of local economic development that traditionally favoured the business milieu and excluded poor people from having a say in urban development. They have been given a role in local governance, bringing together local actors to negotiate and debate aspects of local development within the framework of policies and programs set out by those funding the CDECs. At the same rime, social exclusion, poverty, and poor urban conditions remain present in Montreal. In addition, if the institutionalization of the CDECs, especially since the creation of CLDs, gives them more resources, they have had difficulty in overcoming the state's shaping of their local activities by defining their funding packages and their new mandates. This does hot negate their past achievements but it brings new issues to the fore.

In the new metropolitan context, the CDECs have no choice but to face new challenges. For local economies to be successful, they have to be able to promote business in the new economy that is compatible with their labour market. However, the CDECs are asked by their financial backers to work at the local level and they are not considered as players on the metropolitan scene, which is more internationally oriented. Will the CDECs be able to play a more significant role in this metropolitan arena in order to build solidarity and equity at this level? This is an important question when we take into account the regional scale of the metropolis. However, there is a central question that brings us back to the local scale of neighbourhoods and boroughs in the context of the institutional reorganization of the CLDs in the new City of Montreal. Will Montreal's CDECs be able to maintain their position as key actors of local economic development, situated, in a fragile balance, between grassroots organizations and the state apparatus?

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Grant

This article is based on the results of a research project funded by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

References

Bassand, M. 2001. "Metropoles et metropolisation." In Enjeux de la sociologie urbaine, edited by M. Bassand, V. Kaufmann and D. Joye: 3-16. Lausanne: Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes.

Comeau, Y., L. Favreau, B. Leveque and M. Mendell. 2001. Emploi, Economie sociale, Developpement local--Les nouvelles filieres. Sainte-Foy : Presses de l'Universite du Quebec.

Favreau, L. 1989. Mouvement populaire et intervention communautaire de 1960 a nos jours--Continuites et ruptures. Montreal : Le centre de formation populaire and Les Editions du Fleuve.

Favreau, L. and B. Levesque. 1996. Developpement economique communautaire--Economie sociale et intervention. Sainte-Foy : Presses de l'Universite du Quebec.

Fontan, J.-M. 1992. Les corporations de developpement economique communautaire montrealaises. Du developpement communautaire au developpement local de l'economie, doctoral thesis, Sociology Department. Montreal : Universite de Montreal.

Fontan, J.-M. 2002. "De la connection" Organisations et Territoires 11 (1): 59-63.

Fontan, J.M., P. Hamel, R. Morin, and E. Shragge. 1999. "Community Economic Development and Metropolitan Governance: A Comparison of Montreal and Toronto" Canadian Journal of Regional Science XXII (1-2): 201-217.

Gittel, R. and M. Wilder. 1999. "Community Development Corporations: Critical Factors That Influence Success" Journal of Urban Affairs 21 (3): 341-362.

Hamel, P. 1991. Action collective et democratie locale--Les mouvements montrealais. Montreal : Les Presses de l'Universite de Montreal.

Lafaye, C. 2001. "Gouvernance et democratie : quelles reconfigurations ?" In La democratie a l'epreuve de la gouvernance, edited by L. Cardinal and C. Andrew: 57-85 Ottawa: PUO.

Lemelin, A. and R. Morin. 1991. "L'approche locale et communautaire au developpement economique des zones defavorisees : le cas de Montreal" Cahiers de geographie du Quebec 35 (95): 285-306.

Levine, M. V. 1990. The Reconquest of Montreal. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Morin, R. 1994-1995. "L'experience montrealaise des corporations de developpement economique communautaire : a la croisee des chemins" Cooperatives et developpement 26 (2) : 13-39.

Pahl, R. 2001. "Market Success and Social Cohesion" International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 25 (4): 879-883.

Shragge, E. (ed.) 1993. Community Economic Development, in Search of Empowerment. Montreal: Black Rose.

Shragge, E. and M.A. Deniger. 1997. "Workfare in Quebec." In Workfare: Ideology for a New Under-class, edited by E. Shragge: 59-80. Toronto: Garamond Press.

Jean-Marc Fontan, Departement de sociologie,

Universite du Quebec a Montreal

Pierre Hamel, Departement de sociologie, Universite de Montreal

Richard Morin, Departement d'etades urbaines et touristiques,

Universite du Quebec a Montreal

Eric Shragge, School of Community and Public Affairs,

Concordia University