Introduction

One of the most persistent characterizations of public policy in the provinces is that the focus is on policy development and implementation, in contrast with the more developed policy capacity of the federal government with its focus on analysis and planning (Drummond, 2011; Cappe, 2011). While this basic outline has been confirmed by some recent literature it is also true that provincial governments do not have an inferiority complex when it comes to policymaking and have invested substantially in their policy capacity over the years (Howlett et al., 2017; Evans et al., 2007). Most provinces have been eager participants in the arms’ race around policy capacity, although they have mostly hidden it within the organizational labyrinth that is to be found even in the smallest provincial governments (Bernier et al., 2005). This stands in opposition to the federal government, which has made a significant display of its policy capacity—locating it in high-powered central agencies and within well-resourced and well-staffed policy units in all departments. The federal government even has a “forecasting policy group” called Policy Horizons that employs a staff of 20 and a full-time chief futurologist. Provinces have been more circumspect, but nonetheless eager to ensure that they have the resources needed to deal with their continuously evolving and increasingly contested public policy landscape.

The reason that the policy resources of provincial governments appear less visible gets to the core of policymaking in the provinces. Due to the constitutional division of powers, provinces remain focused on service delivery and thus have a strong client/citizen focus. With few macroeconomic management tools at their disposal, provinces are often dependent on federal transfer payments. They therefore tend to be more focused on policy delivery, including performance reporting, analysing existing policy implementation problems, and supporting ministers and the premier—a focus that has been described as troubleshooting as opposed to rational planning or analysis (Howlett, 2009a).

This focus on delivery orientation and constant issues management stands in contrast with both the classic policy analysis models associated with the academic literature and the more developed policy approach found at the federal level beginning in the 1970s (French, 1984).