Federalism, Political Structure, and Public Policy in the United States and Canada

IF 3.9 3区 管理学 Q1 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis Pub Date : 2000-04-01 DOI:10.1080/13876980008412636
B. Radin, J. Boase
{"title":"Federalism, Political Structure, and Public Policy in the United States and Canada","authors":"B. Radin, J. Boase","doi":"10.1080/13876980008412636","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Two of the three large countries on the North American continent—the United States and Canada—share a number of similarities that often make it difficult for the untrained observer to differentiate between the two nations. On the surface, the two are structured similarly as federal systems that, by definition, exhibit shared power between the national government and provincial or state political entities.Although there are other important social and economic characteristics of the two countries that help explain differences in policy processes and outcomes, it is the contention of this article that one gets the clearest sense of what Elazar has called “thinking federal” by utilizing an analytical approach that joins questions related to federalism with some conceptual frameworks of the public policy field. Two frameworks undergird the argument in this article—the Lowi typology of different types of policies and Deil Wright's typology of different models that describe the American inter-governmental system.In both countries, policies must be sensitive to the greater interdependencies between units of government as well as to linkages between policy areas. The mechanisms or instrumentalities for dealing with policy issues are intrinsically complex. It is also clear that the intergovernmental networks that exist in both the U.S. and Canada are composed of an array of actors. The differing political structures of the systems do impact the types of intergovernmental policies that have emerged in the two countries. The executive dominance so imbedded in Canadian governments has contributed to their ability to adopt and implement certain controversial redistributive policies, such as a national health insurance program. By contrast, the fragmentation of the U.S. system makes redistributive policies more difficult.","PeriodicalId":47229,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis","volume":"2 1","pages":"65-89"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2000-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13876980008412636","citationCount":"22","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13876980008412636","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 22

Abstract

Two of the three large countries on the North American continent—the United States and Canada—share a number of similarities that often make it difficult for the untrained observer to differentiate between the two nations. On the surface, the two are structured similarly as federal systems that, by definition, exhibit shared power between the national government and provincial or state political entities.Although there are other important social and economic characteristics of the two countries that help explain differences in policy processes and outcomes, it is the contention of this article that one gets the clearest sense of what Elazar has called “thinking federal” by utilizing an analytical approach that joins questions related to federalism with some conceptual frameworks of the public policy field. Two frameworks undergird the argument in this article—the Lowi typology of different types of policies and Deil Wright's typology of different models that describe the American inter-governmental system.In both countries, policies must be sensitive to the greater interdependencies between units of government as well as to linkages between policy areas. The mechanisms or instrumentalities for dealing with policy issues are intrinsically complex. It is also clear that the intergovernmental networks that exist in both the U.S. and Canada are composed of an array of actors. The differing political structures of the systems do impact the types of intergovernmental policies that have emerged in the two countries. The executive dominance so imbedded in Canadian governments has contributed to their ability to adopt and implement certain controversial redistributive policies, such as a national health insurance program. By contrast, the fragmentation of the U.S. system makes redistributive policies more difficult.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国和加拿大的联邦制、政治结构和公共政策
北美大陆上三个大国中的两个——美国和加拿大——有许多相似之处,这往往使未经训练的观察者很难区分这两个国家。从表面上看,这两者的结构类似于联邦制度,根据定义,在国家政府和省或州的政治实体之间表现出共享的权力。尽管两国还有其他重要的社会和经济特征有助于解释政策过程和结果的差异,但本文的论点是,通过利用一种分析方法,将与联邦制相关的问题与公共政策领域的一些概念框架联系起来,人们可以最清楚地理解Elazar所说的“思考联邦”。两个框架支撑了本文的论点——不同类型政策的Lowi类型学和描述美国政府间系统的不同模型的Deil Wright类型学。在这两个国家,政策必须对政府各单位之间更大的相互依存关系以及政策领域之间的联系敏感。处理政策问题的机制或手段本质上是复杂的。同样明显的是,存在于美国和加拿大的政府间网络是由一系列行动者组成的。系统的不同政治结构确实影响了两国出现的政府间政策类型。在加拿大政府中根深蒂固的行政主导地位,使他们有能力采纳和实施某些有争议的再分配政策,如国家健康保险计划。相比之下,美国体系的碎片化使得再分配政策更加困难。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.10%
发文量
22
期刊最新文献
Peace and Conflict: Alternative Strategies of Governance and Conflict Resolution Judicial Review and the Allocation of Health Care Resources in Canada and the United Kingdom The Governance of Fiscal Policy in the United Kingdom and Canada Governance and Popular Involvement in Local Antipoverty Strategies in the U.K. and the Netherlands Analyzing Global Governance Failure: A Philosophical Framework
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1