Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T07:22:18.246Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Dynamics of Institutional Transformation: The Case of the Canadian Wheat Board

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2005

Grace Skogstad
Grace Skogstad
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. This article provides an account of institutional transformation, the scope of which is greater than incremental adaptation but less than paradigmatic change. It highlights the role in institutional change of an institution's mechanism of reproduction, the competing discourses of its supporters and critics, the strategic actions of responsible policy makers, and the context of institutional bombardment. It argues that non-paradigmatic institutional transformation is likely in mature institutions based on a utilitarian logic, when actors internal to the institution mount a cognitive and normative discourse for institutional adaptation that is more compelling to authoritative policy makers and the relevant political community than that of critics demanding more radical reform. The success of this discursive exercise is in part determined by the context within which the debate over reform unfolds. Authoritative political actors also play a crucial role in the scope of institutional transformation by virtue of their political strategies and belief in the institution's system-wide functionality.

Résumé. Cet article décrit une transformation institutionnelle qui se situe entre l'adaptation progressive et le changement paradigmatique. La discussion met en lumière le rôle que jouent, dans les transformations institutionnelles, les mécanismes de reproduction de l'institution, les discours concurrents de ses défenseurs et de ses critiques, les actions stratégiques des décideurs publics et les conditions auxquelles fait face une institution assiégée. L'argument avancé est que ce modèle de transformation intermédiaire a tendance à se matérialiser dans les institutions bien établies, conformément à une logique utilitaire, lorsque des agents internes présentent des arguments cognitifs et normatifs en faveur d'une réforme, qui ont plus de poids auprès des décideurs et acteurs politiques que les arguments des critiques prônant une réforme plus radicale. Le succès du discours des acteurs internes dépend, en partie, du contexte dans lequel le débat se déroule. En plus, les décideurs politiques jouent un rôle essentiel dans l'envergure du processus de transformation en vertu des stratégies politiques qu'ils poursuivent et de leur confiance dans l'utilité globale de l'institution.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 38 , Issue 3 , September 2005 , pp. 529 - 548
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

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

Anonymous. 1996. “Poll shows CWB support, changes urged.” The Western Producer, January 8, 3.
Bhatia, Vandna and William D. Coleman. 2003. “Ideas and Discourse: Reform and Resistance in the Canadian and German Health Systems.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 36: 715–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleich, Erik. 2002. “Integrating Ideas into Policy-Making Analysis: Frames and Race Policies in Britain and France.” Comparative Political Studies 35: 1054–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briere, Karen. 1996. “Single-desk sales more valuable, say ag economists” The Western Producer, February 22, 4.
Briere, Karen. 1998. “The ‘silent majority’ speaks.” The Western Producer, March 12, 28–29.
Brinkman, George. 2002. “Report Card for Prairie Agriculture.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 50: 391–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canadian Wheat Board Review Panel. 1990. Report of the Review Panel to the Canadian Wheat Board. Winnipeg.
Coleman, William D., Grace D. Skogstad and Michael M. Atkinson. 1997. “Paradigm Shifts and Policy Networks: Cumulative Change in Agriculture.” Journal of Public Policy 16: 273–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collier, Ruth Berins and David Collier. 1991. Shaping the Political Arena: Critical Junctures, the Labor Movement and Regime Dynamics in Latin America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Cox, Robert Henry. 2001. “The Social Construction of an Imperative: Why Welfare Reform Happened in Denmark and the Netherlands but Not in Germany.” World Politics 53: 463–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dudley, Geoffrey and Jeremy Richardson. 1999. “Competing advocacy coalitions and the process of frame reflection: a longitudinal analysis of EU steel policy.” Journal of European Public Policy 6: 225–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewins, Adrian. 1995. “Benefits of monopoly marketing juggled during plebiscite campaign.” The Western Producer, October 26, 10.
Ewins, Adrian. 1996. “Facts and figures show CWB benefits farmers: supporters.” The Western Producer, February 22, 5.
Ewins, Adrian. 1997. “Barley study smiles on CWB; critics attack its credibility.” The Western Producer, February 6, 3.
Federal Court of Canada. Trial Division. 1997. Archibald et al. V. Her Majesty the Queen and the Canadian Wheat Board. Ottawa. T-2473–93.
Forbes, J.D., R.D. Hughes and T.K. Warley. 1982. Economic Intervention and Regulation in Canadian Agriculture. Ottawa: Economic Council of Canada.
Fouilleux, Eve. 2004. “CAP Reforms and Multilateral Trade Negotiations: Another View on Discourse Efficiency.” West European Politics 27: 235–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowke, Vernon C. 1957. The National Policy and the Wheat Economy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Genschel, Philipp. 1997. “The Dynamics of Inertia: Institutional Persistence and Change in Telecommunications and Health Care.” Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration 10: 43–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodale, Ralph. 1996a. Canada. House of Commons. Evidence: Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. March 26. http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/agfo/evidence/07_96-03-26/agfo07_blk101.html (April 15, 2004).
Goodale, Ralph. 1996b. Canada. House of Commons. Evidence: Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. December 12. http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees352/agfo/evidence/57_96-12-12/agfo57_blk101.html (April 15, 2004).
Goodale, Ralph. 1997. Canada. House of Commons. Evidence: Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. October 21.
Goodale, Ralph. 1998. Canada. House of Commons Debates. February 17.
Goodale, Ralph. 2003. In-person interview with the author. Ottawa, December 4.
Hall, Peter A. 1993. “Policy Paradigms, Social Learning and the State: The Case of Economic Policy-Making in Britain.” Comparative Politics 25: 275–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, Colin. 2002. Political Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Hay, Colin and Ben Rosamond. 2002. “Globalization, European Integration and the Discursive Construction of Economic Imperatives.” Journal of European Public Policy 9: 147–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, Colin and Daniel Wincott. 1998. “Structure, Agency and Historical Institutionalism.” Political Studies 46: 951–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hehn, Lorne. Chief Commissioner, Canadian Wheat Board. 1996. Presentation to the Western Grain Marketing Panel. Winnipeg. March 12.
Hehn, Lorne. 1997. Canada. Proceedings of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. November 4.
Johansson, Joakim. 2003. “Mid-Level Officials as Policy Makers: Anti-Corporatist Policy Change in the Swedish Employers' Confederation 1982–1985.” Scandinavian Political Studies 26: 307–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laycock, David. 1990. Populism and Democratic Thought in the Canadian Prairies, 1919–1945. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Lieberman, Robert C. 2002. “Ideas, Institutions, and Political Order: Explaining Political Change.” American Political Science Review 96: 697–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linder, Johannes. 2003. “Institutional stability and change: two sides of the same coin.” Journal of European Public Policy 10: 912–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, James. 2000. “Path Dependence in Historical Sociology.” Theory and Society 29: 507–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morriss, William E. 1987. Chosen Instrument A History of the Canadian Wheat Board: The McIvor Years. Winnipeg: The Canadian Wheat Board.
North, Douglass C. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pierson, Paul. 1993. “When Effect Becomes Cause: Policy Feedback and Political Change.” World Politics 45, 595–628.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Vivien A. 2001. “The Politics of Economic Adjustment in France and Britain: When Does Discourse Matter?” Journal of European Public Policy 8: 247–64.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Vivien A. 2002. “Does Discourse Matter in the Politics of Welfare State Adjustment?” Comparative Political Studies 35: 168–93.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Vivien A. and Claudio M. Radaelli. 2004. “Policy Change and Discourse in Europe: Conceptual and Methodological Issues.” West European Politics 27: 183–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitz, Andrew, Hartley Furtan and Katherine Baylis. 2002. Agricultural Policy, Agribusiness, and Rent-Seeking Behaviour. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Smith, David E. 1981. The Regional Decline of a National Party. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Stinchcombe, Arthur. L. 1968. Constructing Social Theories. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
Thelen, Kathleen. 1999. “Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science 2: 369–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thelen, Kathleen and Sven Steinmo. 1992. “Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics.” In Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis, eds. Sven Steinmo, Kathleen Thelen and Frank Longstreth. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, John Herd. 1996. Farmers, Governments and the Canadian Wheat Board: An Historical Perspective 1919–1987. Statement submitted to the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, Archibald et al. Versus The Queen and the Canadian Wheat Board.
Weir, Margaret. 1992. “Ideas and the Politics of Bounded Innovation.” In Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis, eds. Sven Steinmo, Kathleen Thelen and Frank Longstreth. New York: Cambridge University Press.
The Western Producer. 1996. “Pooling, cash market can't co-exist: expert.” April 11, 5.
White, Ed. 1997. “Board critics don't like the question.” The Western Producer, February 13, 43.
Wilson, Barry. 1994. “Reform Party outlines its ideas on wheat board.” The Western Producer, February 3, 12.
Wilson, Barry. 1997. “Implications of vote unclear.” The Western Producer, February 13, 42.
Wilson, Barry. 1998. “Age of reform at CWB begins as bill passes.” The Western Producer, June 18, 4.
Wilson, C.F. 1978. A Century of Canadian Grain. Saskatoon: Western Producer Prairie Books.
Wilson, William W. and Bruce Dahl. 1998. “Pressures and Challenges in Integrating the U.S.-Canada Grains Sector.” The American Review of Canadian Studies 28: 355–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiseman, Nelson. 1996. “Provincial Political Cultures.” In Provinces: Canadian Provincial Politics, ed. Christopher Dunn. Peterborough: Broadview Press.