Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T00:37:21.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Canadian Regulatory System and Corporatism: Empirical Findings and Analytical Implications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2014

David Johnson
David Johnson
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Brock University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article directs attention to the regulatory system in Canada and highlights certain important organizational developments that have been largely ignored by political scientists and legal academics in their studies of this system. Most analysts assessing the nature and functioning of the regulatory system in this country have used pluralist approaches to understand the political and legal phenomena in question, and have explicitly or implicitly rejected the validity of corporatist approaches to this task. This is unwise. Evidence from various regulatory agencies in this country indicates that meso corporatist forms of organization are present in this country's regulatory system. The presence of these forms thus calls for recognition and analysis. The author argues that while a modest degree of corporatism does not invalidate the general worth of pluralist interpretative approaches, our understanding of the regulatory system can only be enhanced through an appreciation of how and why meso corporatist forms of organization arise in particular regulatory agencies and how these developments pose a challenge to agency accountability

Résumé

Cet article se penche sur I'appareil administratif canadien et souligne certains développements organisationnels importants qui ont été largement ignorés par les politicologues et les juristes dans leur étude de celui-ci. La plupart des analystes ont utilisé, dans l'évaluation de la nature et du fonctionnement de l'appareil administratif canadien, des approches pluralistes pour expliquer ce phénomène politique et juridique et ont, explicitement ou implicitement, rejeté la validité des approches corporatistes. Cette manière de faire n'est pas des plus judicieuses. De nombreux signes émanant de divers organismes administratifs canadiens témoignent de la présence de formes meso-corporatistes d'organisation au sein de l'appareil administratif. La présence de ces formes commande donc leur reconnaissance et leur analyse. Tel qu'argumenté ci-dessous, quoiqu'un degré modeste de corporatisme n'invalide pas la valeur générale des approches interprétatives pluralistes, notre compréhension de l'appareil administratif ne peut être accrue par l'analyse de l'apparition des formes meso-corporatistes d'organisation au coeur d'organismes administratifs donnés, des raisons qui ont été à l'origine de leur apparition ainsi que du défi qu'elles posent en termes de responsabilité ministérielle ou gouvernementale.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Law and Society / La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , Spring/printemps 1993 , pp. 95 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Law and Society Association 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Schultz, R., “Regulation and Public Administration” in Kernaghan, K., ed., Canadian Public Administration: Discipline and Profession (Toronto: Butterworths, 1983) 196 at 196.Google Scholar

2. See Brown-John, C. L., Canadian Regulatory Agencies (Toronto: Butterworths, 1983)Google Scholar; Doern, G. B., ed., The Regulatory Process in Canada (Toronto: Macmillan, 1978)Google Scholar; Roman, A., Governmental Control of Tribunals: Appeals, Directives and Non-Statutory Mechanisms (Toronto: Public Interest Research Centre, 1983) [unpublished].Google Scholar

3. See Mullan, D., “Administrative Tribunals: Their Evolution in Canada from 1945 to 1984” in Bernier, I. & Lajoie, A., research co-ordinators, Regulations, Crown Corporations and Administrative Tribunals (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985)Google Scholar; Arthurs, H., “Protection Against Judicial Review” in Judicial Review of Administrative Rulings (Montreal: Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice, 1983)Google Scholar; Janisch, H., “Policy-Making in Regulation: Towards a New Definition of the Status of Independent Regulatory Agencies in Canada” (1979) 17 Osgoode Hall L. J. 46.Google Scholar

4. See, for example, Brown-John, supra, note 2; Schultz, R., Federalism, Bureaucracy and Public Policy: The Politics of Highway Transport Regulation (Kingston & Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1980)Google Scholar; Kernaghan, K. & Siegel, D., Public Administration in Canada: A Text (Scarborough: Nelson, 1989).Google Scholar

5. See, for example, Bentley, A., The Process of Government (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1949)Google Scholar; Truman, D., The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion (New York: Knopf, 1964)Google Scholar; Dahl, R., A Preface to Democratic Theory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956).Google Scholar The work of Kernaghan and Siegel, ibid., is very much infused with a traditional pluralist ethos.

6. See, for example, Schattschneider, E. E., The Semi-Sovereign People (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1960)Google Scholar; Lowi, T., The End of Liberalism (New York: W. W. Norton, 1969)Google Scholar; Bachrach, P. & Baratz, M. S., Power and Poverty: Theory and Practice (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970).Google Scholar For Canadian sources, see Hartle, D., Public Policy Decision-Making and Regulation (Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy, 1979)Google Scholar; G. B. Doern, “The Regulatory Process in Canada” in Doern, supra, note 2.

7. See, for example, Peters, G., The Politics of Bureaucracy (New York: Longman, 1978)Google Scholar; Atkinson, M. & Coleman, W. D., The State, Business and Industrial Change in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8. Coleman, W. D. & Skogstad, G., “Policy Communities and Policy Networks: A Structural Approach” in Coleman, W. D. & Skogstad, G., eds., Policy Communities and Policy Networks in Canada: A Structural Approach (Mississauga: Copp Clark Pitman, 1989) 14 at 26–28Google Scholar; G. Peters, ibid., c. 6.

9. Ibid.

10. K. J. Rea & J. T. McLeod, “The Changing Role of Government and the Drift Toward Corporatism: Introduction” in Rea & McLeod, supra, note 6 at 338.

11. Ibid.

12. Pross, A. P., Group Politics and Public Policy (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1986) at 225–26.Google Scholar

13. Banting, K. G., “The State and Economic Interests: An Introduction” in Banting, K. G., research co-ordinator, The State and Economic Interests (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986) 1 at 24.Google Scholar

14. Brooks, S., Public Policy in Canada: An Introduction (Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 1989) at 237.Google Scholar

15. Panitch, L., “Corporatism in Canada?” in Schultz, R., Kruhlak, O. & Terry, J., eds., The Canadian Political Process, 3d ed. (Toronto: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1979) 53 at 54, 67–69.Google Scholar

16. L. Panitch, “The Tripartite Experience” in Banting, supra, note 13 at 42–50; idem, “Corporatism in Canada?” ibid. at 69.

17. Panitch, “The Tripartite Experience,” ibid. at 109–14; idem, “Corporatism in Canada?” ibid. at 62–69.

18. Jackson, R. & Jackson, D., Politics in Canada, 2d ed. (Scarborough: Prentice-Hall, 1990).Google Scholar

19. See Van Loon, R. & Whittington, M. S., The Canadian Political System: Environment, Structure and Process, 4th ed. (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1987)Google Scholar; Wilson, V. S., Canadian Public Policy and Administration: Theory and Environment (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1981)Google Scholar; Doern, G. B. & Phidd, R. W., Canadian Public Policy: Ideas, Structures, Process (Toronto: Methuen, 1983)Google Scholar; Adie, R. F. & Thomas, P. G., Canadian Public Administration: Problematical Perspectives (Scarborough: Prentice-Hall, 1982)Google Scholar; K. Kernaghan & D. Siegel, supra, note 4.

20. Schmitter, P. C., “Still the Century of Corporatism?”in Schmitter, P. C. & Lehmbruch, G., eds., Trends Toward Corporatist Intermediation (London & Beverly Hills: Sage, 1979) 1 at 13.Google Scholar

21. Panitch, supra, note 15 at 53.

22. Self, P., Political Theories of Modern Government: Its Role and Reform (London: Allen & Unwin, 1985) at 125.Google Scholar

23. Coleman, W. D., Business and Politics: A Study of Collective Action (Kingston & Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1988) at 75–77.Google Scholar

24. Panitch, “The Tripartite Experience” in Banting, supra, note 13 at 45.

25. Hirst, P. Q., Law, Socialism and Democracy (London: Allen & Unwin, 1986) at 121.Google Scholar

26. See the above-mentioned works of Panitch. See also Schmitter, P., “Reflections on Where the Theory of Neo-Corporatism Has Gone and Where the Praxis of Neo-Corporatism May be Going” in Lehmbruch, G. & Schmitter, P., eds., Patterns of Corporatist Policy-Making (London: Sage, 1982)Google Scholar; Newman, O., The Challenge of Corporatism (London: Macmillan Press, 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Williamson, P., Corporatism in Perspective: An Introductory Guide to Corporatist Theory (London: Sage, 1989).Google Scholar

27. Cawson, A., ed., Organized Interests and the State: Studies in Meso-Corporatism (London: Sage, 1985)Google Scholar; Cawson, A., Corporatism and Political Theory (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986).Google Scholar

28. A. Cawson, “Varieties of Corporatism: The Importance of the Meso Level of Interest Intermediation” and “Introduction” in Cawson, ibid. at 10–18.

29. Cawson, “Varieties of Corporatism: The Importance of the Meso Level of Interest Intermediation,” ibid. at 15–18.

30. Panitch, L., “Corporatism: A Growth Industry Reaches the Monopoly Stage” (1988) 21 Canadian J. of Pol. Sci. 815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31. Cawson, “Varieties of Corporatism: The Importance of the Meso Level of Interest Intermediation,” supra, note 28 at 11–12.

32. See, for example, Panitch, supra, note 15 at 64–67; idem, “The Tripartite Experience,” supra, note 16 at 109–14; Banting, supra, note 13 at 24–28.

33. M. Atkinson & W. D. Coleman, “Corporatism and Industrial Policy” in Cawson, supra, note 27 at 33–34.

34. Ibid.

35. Coleman, W. D., “The Banking Policy Community and Financial Change” in Coleman, W. D. & Skogstad, G., eds., Policy Communities and Public Policy in Canada: A Structural Approach (Mississauga: Copp Clark Pitman, 1990) 91 at 109–12.Google Scholar

36. Ibid. at 111–12.

37. A. P. Pross & S. McCorquodale, “The State, Interests, and Policy-Making in the East Coast Fishery” in Coleman & Skogstad, supra, note 35 at 53–54.

38. Ibid. at 56.

39. C. Tuohy, “Institutions and Interests in the Occupational Health Arena: The Case of Quebec” in Coleman & Skogstad, supra, note 35 at 254–59.

40. Ibid. at 261–62.

41. G. Skogstad, “The Farm Policy Community and Public Policy in Ontario and Quebec” in Coleman & Skogstad, supra, note 35 at 64–65.

42. Government of Ontario, Agencies, Boards and Commissions: A Guide (Toronto: Publications Ontario, 1991) at 34.Google Scholar

43. Sack, J. & Levinson, M., Ontario Labour Relations Board: Law and Practice, 2d ed. (Toronto: Butterworths, 1985) at 3–7.Google Scholar

44. Johnson, D., Regulation, Accountability and Democracy: A Study of Select Ontario Regulatory Agencies (doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, 1990) at 272–73 [unpublished].Google Scholar

45. Ibid. at 224–46, 252–53.

46. Ibid. at 304–14.

47. The Pay Equity Act, 1987, S.O.1987, c. 34.

48. Pross, supra, note 12; Presthus, R., Elite Accommodation in Canadian Politics (Toronto: Macmillan, 1973).Google Scholar

49. Atkinson & Coleman, supra, note 33 at 27–30.

50. Offe, C. & Keane, J., Contradictions of the Welfare State (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1984) at 188–93.Google Scholar

51. Johnson, D., “Regulatory Agencies and Accountability: An Ontario Perspective” 34 Can. Public Admin. 3 at 430–32.Google Scholar