100 likes | 298 Views
Executive Federalism. Doug Brown Pols 321 StFX/ 2012. Executive Federalism . Response to interdependence in federal system Executive dominance comes from “Westminster” form of government Bigger role in Canada due to poor degree of regional representation in central institutions
E N D
Executive Federalism Doug Brown Pols 321 StFX/ 2012
Executive Federalism • Response to interdependence in federal system • Executive dominance comes from “Westminster” form of government • Bigger role in Canada due to poor degree of regional representation in central institutions • Growing importance over time
Why intergovernmental relations? • Inadequate or uncertain division of powers • Government interdependence • welfare state • globalization • Fiscal efficiency and equity • Regional representation
Changing role of Executive Federalism • Early inter-provincial conferences • Dominion-Provincial conferences • Post war fiscal federalism • Growth of functional ministerial conferences • First Ministers and their increasing role of regional representation • Reaching Limits: Constitutional Reform
Where Executive Federalism Happens • First Ministers Meetings • Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministerial Councils • Seniors officials meetings • Regional meetings of Premiers, etc. • Informal interaction: • Correspondence, emails, phone calls, bilateral meetings
Intergovernmental norms • Interdependence, not domination • Negotiation and discussion, not voting • Therefore: Diplomacy and Bargaining are the norm • Realist power politics (the strong win most often), but tempered by the constitutional equality of the provinces, and by the power of all the provinces vs. the feds.
Intergovernmental interests • “There are no permanent alliances, only permanent interests” (Lord Palmerston) • Provincial and territorial interests defined by geography, society, economy –but also by politics • Federal government alone does not define the “national interest” • Federal position = more than the sum of the parts?
Issues with Executive Federalism • Low level of institutional structure: no votes, no constitutional status • Few incentives to agree: a competitive political culture • Democratic deficits: • Poor accountability to legislatures • Limited nature of representation -- “white men in suits” • Secretive, bureaucratic, overly technical
Overall Spectrum of Canadian IGR • Independent governments (minimal relations) • Consultation (no binding results) • Coordination (meshing goals and strategies) • Collaborative (jointly determined outcomes) • Joint decision-making (cannot act alone) • Asymmetrical (opting out, opting in)