Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T06:16:33.525Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Canadian Federalism and Change in Policy Attention: A Comparison with the United Kingdom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 November 2012

Éric Montpetit  and
Martial Foucault
Éric Montpetit*
Affiliation:
Université de Montréal
Martial Foucault*
Affiliation:
Université de Montréal
*
Éric Montpetit, Département de science politique, Université de Montréal, C.P. 6128 succ. Centre-ville, Montréal, QC H3C 3J7, [email protected]
Martial Foucault, Département de science politique, Université de Montréal, C.P. 6128 succ. Centre-ville, Montréal, QC H3C 3J7, [email protected] (currently a visiting scholar at Science po Paris).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. Federal systems empower multiple policy actors from different levels of governments. For some scholars, the disagreements arising within such a diverse group of actors create policy stalemates. Others contend instead that new ideas are more likely to arise and diffuse from such a diverse group. This article is a contribution to this scholarly debate, proposing an original contribution on policy agendas. It argues that both perspectives are useful to understanding the dynamic of policy making within federal systems. Looking at change in policy attention in Canadian and British speeches from the throne, the article argues that federalism constrains change immediately following a party turnover in government. In the following years, however, federal arrangements encourage larger changes in policy attention than arrangements where power is centralized.

Résumé. Les systèmes fédéraux rassemblent plusieurs acteurs politiques issus de différents niveaux de gouvernement. Pour certains chercheurs, l'existence de potentiels désaccords entre de tels décideurs est susceptible de créer des impasses politiques. D'autres soutiennent au contraire que les nouvelles idées sont plus susceptibles d'émerger et de se diffuser à partir d'un tel groupe diversifié. Cet article s'inscrit dans ce débat sur le fédéralisme et propose une contribution originale en termes de mise à l'agenda des politiques publiques. Il soutient que les deux perspectives sont nécessaires à la compréhension de la dynamique de l'élaboration des politiques au sein des systèmes fédéraux. En mesurant le changement de l'attention politique dans les discours du Trône canadiens et britanniques, l'article affirme que le fédéralisme freine le changement de politique immédiatement après un changement de parti au gouvernement. Au cours d'une législature, toutefois, les institutions fédérales encouragent de plus grands changements dans l'attention des politiques que dans des systèmes unitaires où le pouvoir est centralisé.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , September 2012 , pp. 635 - 656
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 2012

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

Bachrach, Peter and Baratz, Morton. 1962. “The Two Faces of Power.” American Political Science Review 56 (4): 947–52.Google Scholar
Bakvis, Herman and Brown, Douglas. 2010. “Policy Coordination in Federal Systems: Comparing Intergovernmental Processes and Outcomes in Canada and the United States.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 40 (3): 484–507.Google Scholar
Bakvis, Herman and Skogstad, Grace. 2002. “Canadian Federalism: Performance, Effectiveness, and Legitimacy.” In Canadian Federalism: Performance, Effectiveness, and Legitimacy, ed. Bakvis, Herman and Skogstad, Grace. Don Mills ON: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bélanger, Éric. 2003. “Issue Ownership by Canadian Political Parties 1953–2001.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 36 (3): 539–58.Google Scholar
Blais, André, Blake, Donald E. and Dion, Stéphane. 1997. Governments, Parties and Public Sector Employees: Canada, United States, Britain and France. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.Google Scholar
Boismenu, Gérard and Graefe, Peter. 2004. “The New Federal Tool Belt: Attempts to Rebuild the Social Policy Leadership.” Canadian Public Policy 30 (1): 71–89.Google Scholar
Boychuk, Gerard W. 2008. National Health Insurance in the United States and Canada: Race, Territory and the Roots of Difference. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Brambor, Thomas, Clark, William Roberts and Golder, Matt. 2006. “Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses.” Political Analysis 14: 63–82.Google Scholar
Braun, Dietmar. 2000. “The Territorial Division of Power in Comparative Public Policy Research: An Assessment.” In Public Policy and Federalism, ed. Braun, Dietmar. Aldershot UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Breunig, Christian, Green-Pedersen, Christoffer and Mortensen, Peter B.. 2010. “What Influences the Composition of Executive Agendas? A New Approach to Agenda Setting Dynamics.” Paper presented at the 17th Conference of the Council for European Studies, Montreal.Google Scholar
Broschek, Jörg. 2010. “Federalism and Political Change: Canada and Germany in Historical-Institutionalist Perspective.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 43 (1): 1–24.Google Scholar
Cairney, Paul. 2009a. “Implementation and the Governance Problem: A Pressure Participant Perspective.” Public Policy and Administration 24 (4): 355–77.Google Scholar
Cairney, Paul. 2009b. “Intergovernmental Relations in Scotland before and after the SNP.” Paper prepared for the ESRC Seminar Series. Exeter, February 12–13.Google Scholar
Castles, Francis G. 1982. “The Impact of Parties on Public Expenditure.” In The impact of parties, ed. Castles, Francis G.. Beverly Hills CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Clarke, Harold D., Jenson, Jane, LeDuc, Lawrence and Pammett, Jon H.. 1996. Absent Mandate: Canadian Electoral Politics in an Era of Restructuring. 3rd ed.Vancouver: Gage.Google Scholar
Constantelos, John. 2010. “Playing the Field: Federalism and the Politics of Venue Shopping in the United States and Canada.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 40 (3): 460–83.Google Scholar
Dupré, J. Stefan. 1988. “Reflections on the Workability of Executive Federalism.” In Perspectives on Canadian Federalism, ed. Olling, Randy D. and Westmascott, Martin W.. Scarborough ON: Prentice-Hall Canada.Google Scholar
Green-Pedersen, Christoffer and Wilkerson, John. 2006. “How Agenda-setting Attributes Shape Politics: Problem Attention, Agenda Dynamics and Comparative Health Policy Developments in the US and Denmark.” Journal of European Public Policy 13 (7): 1039–52.Google Scholar
Howlett, Michael. 1999. “Federalism and Public Policy.” In Canadian Politics, ed. Bickerton, James and Gagnon, Alain-G.. 3rd ed, Peterborough ON: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
Jennings, Will, Bevan, Shaun and John, Peter. 2011. “The British Government's Political Agenda: the Speech from the Throne, 1911–2008.” Political Studies 59 (1): 74–98.Google Scholar
Jennings, Will, and John, Peter. 2009. “The Dynamics of Political Attention: Public Opinion and the Queen's Speech in the United Kingdom.” American Journal of Political Science 53 (4): 838–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, Peter and Jennings, Will. 2010. “Punctuations and Turning Points in British Politics: The Policy Agenda of the Queen's Speech, 1940–2005.” British Journal of Political Science 40 (3): 561–86.Google Scholar
Johns, Carolyn M., O'Reilly, Patricia L. and Inwood, Gregory J.. 2007. “Formal and Informal Dimensions of Intergovernmental Administrative Relations in Canada.” Canadian Public Administration 50 (1): 21–41.Google Scholar
Johns, Carolyn M., O'Reilly, Patricia L. and Inwood, Gregory J.. 2006. “Intergovernmental Innovation and the Administrative State in Canada.” Governance 19 (4): 627–49.Google Scholar
Keating, Michael. 2002. “Devolution and Public Policy in the United Kingdom: Divergence or Convergence.” In Devolution in Practice: Public Policy Differences within the UK, ed. Adams, J. and Robinson, P.. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.Google Scholar
Klingemann, Hans-Dieter., Hofferbert, Richard I. and Budge, Ian. 1994. Parties, policies, and democracy. Boulder CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Montpetit, Éric. 2002. “Policy Networks, Federal Arrangements and the Development of Environmental Regulations: A Comparison of the Canadian and American Agricultural Sectors.” Governance 15: 1–20.Google Scholar
Petry, François. 1988. “The Policy Impact of Canadian Party Programs: Public Expenditure Growth and Contagion from the Left.” Canadian Public Policy XIV (4): 376–89.Google Scholar
Petry, François, Imbeau, Louis M., Crête, Jean and Clavet, Michel. 1999. “Electoral and Partisan Cycles in the Canadian Provinces.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 32: 273–92.Google Scholar
Rabe, Barry G. 1999. “Federalism and Entrepreneurship: Explaining American and Canadian Innovation in Pollution Prevention and Regulatory Integration.” Policy Studies Journal 27: 288–306.Google Scholar
Robertson, Gordon. 1988. “The Role of Interministerial Conferences in the Decision-making Process.” In Perspectives on Canadian Federalism, ed. Olling, Randy D. and Westmacott, Martin W.. Scarborough ON: Prentice-Hall Canada.Google Scholar
Rocher, François and Rouillard, Christian. 1998. “Décentralisation, subsidiarité et néo-libéralisme au Canada.” Canadian Public Policy 24 (2): 233–58.Google Scholar
Rose, Richard and Davies, Phillip L.. 1994. Inheritance in Public Policy Change without Choice in Britain. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Scharpf, Fritz W. 1988. “The Joint Decision Trap: Lessons from German Federalism and European Integration.” Public Administration 66: 239–78.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, Elmer E. 1960. The Semi-sovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Simeon, Richard. 1972. Federal–Provincial Diplomacy: The Making of Recent Policy in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Simeon, Richard and Robinson, Ian. 2009. “The Dynamics of Canadian Federalism.” In Canadian Politics, ed. Bickerton, James and Gagnon, Alain-G.. 5th ed.Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Soroka, Stuart and Wlezien, Christopher. 2010. “Public Opinion and Public Policy.” In Oxford Handbook of Canadian Politics, ed. Courtney, John C. and Smith, David E.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stevenson, Garth. 1995. “Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations.” In Canadian Politics in the 1990s, ed. Whittington, Michael S. and Williams, Glen. Toronto: Nelson Canada.Google Scholar
Trench, Alain. 2007. Devolution and Power in the United Kingdom. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, George. 1995. “Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicamerialism and Multipartyism.” British Journal of Political Science 25: 289–325.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, George. 2003. “Federalism and Veto Players.” In Der Preis des Föderalismus, ed. Wagschal, U. and Rentsch, H.. Zurich: Orell Füssli.Google Scholar