Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T05:40:14.024Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Authority Migration and Accountability in Canadian Public Governance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 May 2014

Robert Waterman
Robert Waterman*
Affiliation:
University of Western Ontario
*
University of Western Ontario, Department of Political Science, Social Science Centre Rm 4154, London, Ontario, Canada, N6A 5C2, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the tradition of democratic theory, elections are recognized as important mechanisms of accountability. However, the migration of public decision-making responsibility away from elected representatives and the emergence of new governance actors necessitate a fuller conceptualization of accountability relationships. As governments pursue partnerships with societal actors and disperse authority across multiple levels, questions of public input and accountability within the democratic governance process arise. In this paper, cases of authority migration in the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Nova Scotia between the years of 1946 and 2005 are used to examine the accountability relationships between new governance actors and both government and society. The existence and relative strength of accountability relationships are evaluated using the rules stipulated in the provincial legislation. Political ideology of governing parties, geographic scale of new jurisdictions and period in time are evaluated as predictors of the strength of the accountability relationship overall.

Résumé

Dans la tradition de la théorie démocratique, les élections sont reconnues comme d'importants mécanismes redditionnels. Cependant, la diminution du rôle des représentants élus dans la prise de décision publique et l'émergence de nouveaux acteurs de la gouvernance requièrent une conceptualisation plus complète des relations redditionnelles. Dans un contexte où les gouvernements forment des partenariats avec des intervenants sociaux et dispersent l'autorité à de multiples niveaux, il y a lieu de s'interroger sur la participation du public et la reddition des comptes au sein de la gouvernance démocratique. Dans cet article, des cas de migration de l'autorité en Colombie-Britannique, en Alberta, en Ontario et en Nouvelle-Écosse, entre 1946 et 2005, sont utilisés pour examiner les relations redditionnelles entre les nouveaux acteurs de la gouvernance et les gouvernements ainsi que la société. L'existence et la force relative des relations redditionnelles sont évaluées en utilisant les règles prévues dans la loi provinciale. On y évalue l'idéologie politique des partis au pouvoir, la portée géographique des nouvelles juridictions et la période comme éléments prédictifs de la force de la relation redditionnelle dans son ensemble.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , June 2014 , pp. 215 - 235
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

Andrew, Caroline and Goldsmith, Michael. 1998. “From Local Government to Local Governance: And beyond?” International Political Review 19: 101–17.Google Scholar
Aucoin, Peter. 2003. “Independent foundations, public money and public accountability: Whither ministerial responsibility as democratic governance?” Canadian Public Administration 46: 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aucoin, Peter and Heintzman, Ralph. 2000. “The dialectics of Accountability for Performance in Public Management Reform.” International Review of Administrative Sciences 66: 45–55.Google Scholar
Auditor General of Canada. 1999. “Chapter 23: Involving Others in Governing: Accountability at Risk.” In The November 1999 Report of the Auditor General of Canada. http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/docs/9923ce.pdf (October 30, 2012).Google Scholar
Ball, Terence and Dagger, Richard. 1995. Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal. 2nd ed. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Bickerton, James. 2001. “Nova Scotia: The Political Economy of Regime Change.” In The Provincial State in Canada: Politics in the Provinces and Territories, ed. Brownsey, Keith and Howlett, Michael. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Black, Martha and Fierlbeck, Katherine. 2006. “Whatever happened to regionalization? The curious case of Nova Scotia.” Canadian Public Administration 49: 505–26.Google Scholar
Börzel, Tanja. 2010. “European Governance: Negotiation and Competition in the Shadow of Hierarchy.” Journal of Common Market Studies 48: 191–219.Google Scholar
Bovens, Mark. 2007. “Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework.” European Law Journal 13: 447–68.Google Scholar
Chevallier, Jacque. 2003. “La Gouvernance, un Nouveau Paradigme Étatique?” Revue française d'administration publique 105/106: 203–17.Google Scholar
Corhrane, Christopher. 2010. “Left/Right Ideology and Canadian Politics.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 43: 583–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dreyer Lassen, David and Serritzlew, Søren. 2011. “Jurisdiction Size and Local Democracy: Evidence on Internal Political Efficacy from Large-scale Municipal Reform.” American Political Science Review 105: 238–58.Google Scholar
Esselment, Anna. 2010. “Fighting Elections: Cross-Level Political Party Integration in Ontario.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 43: 871–92.Google Scholar
Fearon, James. 1999. “Electoral Accountability and the Control of Politicians: Selecting Good Types versus Sanctioning Poor Performance.” In Democracy, Accountability, and Representation, ed. Przeworski, Adam, Stokes, Susan and Manin, Bernard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Frey, Bruno and Eichenberger, Reiner. 1999. The New Democratic Federalism for Europe. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth and Kollman, Ken. 2004. “Introduction- Authority Migration: Defining and Emerging Research Agenda.” PS: Political Science and Politics 37: 397–401.Google Scholar
Harmes, Adam. 2006. “Neoliberalism and Multilevel Governance.” Review of International Political Economy 13: 725–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirst, Paul. 2000. “Democracy and Governance.” in Debating Governance: Authority, Steering and Democracy, ed. Pierre, Jon. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hodgetts, J. E. 1973. The Canadian Public Service: A physiology of government, 1867–1970. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahler, Miles and Lake, David. 2004. “Governance in a Global Economy: Political Authority in Transition.” PS: Political Science and Politics 37: 409–14.Google Scholar
Lieske, Joel. 2012. “American State Cultures: Testing a New Measure and Theory.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 42: 108–33.Google Scholar
McBride, Stephen and Shields, John. 1997. Dismantling a Nation: The Transition to Corporate Rule in Canada. 2nd ed. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing.Google Scholar
Marks, Gary and Hooghe, Lisbet. 2003. “Unraveling the Central State, but How? Types of Multi-level Governance.” American Political Science Review 97: 233–43.Google Scholar
Marks, Gary and Hooghe, Lisbet. 2005. “Contrasting Visions of Multilevel Governance.” In Multi-level Governance, ed. Bache, Ian and Flinders, Matthew. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Peters, Guy. 2000. “Governance and Comparative Politics.” In Debating Governance: Authority, Steering and Democracy, ed. Pierre, Jon. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Peters, Guy and Pierre, Jon. 2005. “Multi-level Governance and Democracy: A Faustian Bargain?” In Multi-level Governance, ed. Bache, Ian and Flinders, Matthew. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Peters, Guy and Pierre, Jon. 2006. “Governance, Government and the State.” In The State: Theories and Issues, ed. Hay, Colin, Lister, Michael and Marsh, David. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Rosenau, James. 2000. “Change, Complexity and Covernance in a Globalizing Space.” In Debating Governance: Authority, Steering and Democracy, edited by Pierre, Jon. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Seabright, Paul. 1996. “Accountability and decentralization in government: An incomplete contracts model.” European Economic Review 40: 61–89.Google Scholar
Scharpf, Fritz. 1994. “Games Real Actors Could Play: Positive and Negative Coordination in Embedded Negotiations.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 6: 27–53.Google Scholar
Skelcher, Chris. 2007. “Does Democracy Matter? A Transatlantic Research Design on Democratic Performance and Special Purpose Governments.” Journal of Public Admin Research and Theory 17: 61–76.Google Scholar
Sørensen, Eva. 2006. “Metagovernance: The Changing Role of Politicians in Processes of Democratic Governance.” American Review of Public Administration 36: 98–114.Google Scholar
LP, StataCorp. 2013. Stata Base Reference Manual: Release 13. College Station, Texas: Stata Press.Google Scholar
Wallington, Tabatha, Lawrence, Geoffrey and Loechel, Barton. 2008. “Reflections on the Legitimacy of Regional Environmental Governance: Lessons from Australia's Experiment in Natural Resource Management.” Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 10: 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiseman, Nelson. 2006. “Provincial Political Cultures.” In Provinces: Canadian Provincial Politics, ed. Dunn, Christopher. 2nd ed. Canada: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Waterman Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material

Download Waterman Supplementary Material(File)
File 257.5 KB