Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T15:17:41.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Power Resources and the Canadian Welfare State: Unions, Partisanship and Interprovincial Differences in Inequality and Poverty Reduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2014

Rodney Haddow
Rodney Haddow*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
*
Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, 100 St. George St., Toronto, ON, M5S 3G3, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article seeks to measure and explain interprovincial differences in inequality and poverty reduction since the 1980s for non-elderly Canadian families. These variations are compared with dissimilarities among the advanced capitalist welfare states, where they are large. Interprovincial discrepancies are shown to be ample by this international standard. The article also finds that power resources theory, which draws attention to the role of union strength and partisan incumbency in explaining welfare state variations, accounts for an important part of these interprovincial differences. These findings suggest that sub-national jurisdictions can be more consequential for welfare state outcomes than comparative research has acknowledged, and that power resources accounts deserve more attention in Canadian social policy scholarship.

Résumé

Cet article cherche à mesurer et à expliquer les différences interprovinciales en matière d'inégalités et de réduction de la pauvreté chez les familles canadiennes depuis les années 1980. Comparées avec celles existant entre certains pays membres de l'OCDE, ces différences apparaissent fort importantes. Cet article conclue également que la théorie des ressources de pouvoir, qui insiste sur le rôle des partis politiques et des syndicats, est en mesure d'expliquer dans une large mesure ces différences interprovinciales. De tels résultats démontrent donc que les juridictions sous-nationales peuvent être plus conséquentes en matière sociale que la littérature en politique comparée ne le suggère habituellement, et que la théorie des ressources de pouvoir mérite plus d'attention dans l'étude des politiques sociales au Canada.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 47 , Issue 4 , December 2014 , pp. 717 - 739
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 2014 

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

Data Sources

International Labour Organization, Social Security Department, SSI Indicators, http://www.ilo.org/dyn/ilossi/ssimain..home Google Scholar
Cross-National Data Centre in Luxembourg, Luxembourg Income Study, http://www.lisdatacenter.org/our-data/ Google Scholar
Statistics Canada, CANSIM, http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/home-accueil?lang=eng Google Scholar
Statistics Canada, Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics, http://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p2SV.pl?Function=getDataF&Item_Id=55238&SurvId=132027 Google Scholar

References

Allen, James and Scruggs, Lyle. 2004. “Political Partisanship and Welfare State Reform in Advanced Industrial Societies.” American Journal of Political Science 48 (3): 496–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel and Katz, Jonathan. 1995. “What to do (and not to do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data.” American Political Science Review 42 (4): 634–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cochrane, Christopher. 2010. “Left/Right Ideology and Canadian Politics.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 43 (3): 583–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, William and Young, Lisa. 2002. “Policy Attitudes of Party Members in Canada: Evidence of Ideological Politics.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 35 (4): 859–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esping-Andersen, Gøsta. 1990. Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, Gøsta. 1999. Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estevez-Abe, Margarita, Iversen, Torben and Soskice, David. 2001. “Social Protection and the Formation of Skills: A Reinterpretation of the Welfare State.” In Varieties of Capitalism, ed. Hall, P. and Soskice, D.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 145–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gal, John. 2010. “Is There an Extended Family of Mediterranean Welfare States?” Journal of European Social Policy 20 (4): 283–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haddow, Rodney. 2008. “How can comparative political economy explain variable change? Lessons for, and from, Canada.” In The Comparative Turn, ed. White, Linda A., Simeon, Richard, Vipond, Robert and Wallner, Jennifer. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Haddow, Rodney. 2013. “Labour Market Transfers and Redistribution: National Themes and Provincial Variations.” In Inequality and the Fading of Redistributive Politics, ed. Banting, K. and Myles, J.. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Haddow, Rodney. Comparing Quebec and Ontario: Political Economy and Public Policy at the Turn of the Millennium. Toronto: University of Toronto Press (forthcoming).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, Evelyne and Stephens, John. 2001. Development and Crisis of the Welfare State. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenson, Jane. 1989. “Different but not exceptional: Canada's permeable fordism.” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 26 (1): 69–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenworthy, Lane. 2008. Jobs with Equality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korpi, Walter and Palme, Joakim. 2003. “New Politics and Class Politics in the Context of Austerity and Globalization.” American Political Science Review 97 (3): 425–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupu, Noam and Pontusson, Jonas. 2011. “The Structure of Inequality and the Politics of Redistribution.” American Political Science Review 105 (2): 316–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahler, Vincent and Jesuit, David. 2006. “Fiscal Redistribution in the Developed Countries.” Socio-Economic Review 4 (1): 483–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myles, John. 2013. “Income Security for Seniors: System Maintenance and Policy Drift.” In Inequality and the Fading of Redistributive Politics, ed. Banting, K. and Myles, J.. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Pétry, François, Imbeau, Louis M., Crête, Jean and Clave, Michel. 1999. “Electoral Cycles and Partisan Cycles in the Canadian Provinces.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 32 (2): 273–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, Paul. 1996. “The New Politics of the Welfare State.” World Politics 48 (2): 143–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piketty, Thomas. 2014. Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Trans. Goldhammer, Arthur. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pontusson, Jonas. 2005. Inequality and Prosperity: Social Europe vs. Liberal America. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rueda, David. 2007. Social Democracy Inside Out. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tellier, Geneviève. 2005. Les dépenses des gouvernements provinciaux canadiens. Quebec City: Les presses de l'Université Laval.Google Scholar
Tuohy, Carolyn. 2013. “Health Care Policy and Universality.” In Inequality and the Fading of Redistributive Politics, ed. Banting, K. and Myles, J.. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Underhill, Frank. 1960. In Search of Canadian Liberalism. Toronto: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Wilensky, Harold and Lebeaux, Charles. 1965. Industrial Society and Social Welfare. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, Richard and Pickett, Kate. 2010. The Spirit Level. Why Equality is Better for Everyone. London: Penguin.Google Scholar