Federalism

government   2.  Federalism:  reconciliation  of  unity  and  diversity  via  autonomy   Most  countries  are  not  federalist  countries   • Most  are  unitary  states

12-04-16 11:14 PM

1.  Federation:  state  institutions  that  divide  sovereignty  between  two  or  more  levels  of  

[1]  Federalism  as  an  idea  [set  of  principles] • • • modern  idea,  reflects  liberalism  and  nationalism reconciliation  of  diversity developed  in  the  last  200-­‐300  years  

[i]  liberal  view,  divide  the  government     • • US  fed  started  here  (1792) limitation  of  power,  protect  the  individual:  separation  of  powers,  the  bill  of   rights  &  federalism   • Germany • • Came  together  late,  composed  of  different  units units  were  autonomous,  had  different  dialects,  but  saw  themselves  as  one  nation   WW2-­‐post  Germany,  was  there  a  US  influence?

Key:  protecting  the  individual So  real  fed  needs  lib-­‐dem? • • Examples:  USSR,  Russia,  etc Under  the  Soviet  union,  even  though  the  doc  stated  states  could  leave,  no  one  left   and  everything  was  centralized  in  Moscow • Modern  day  Russia  is  also  largely  authoritarian,  because  there  is  no  real  division   of  sovereignty   [ii]  autonomy  for  nations  and  ethnicities   • also  a  modern  concept

• •

reconcile  the  multiplicity Swiss  ex  (1847)  classic  case  after  500  years  of  confederation:  4  languages,  2   religions,  etc The  lower  levels  of  the  government  were  given  powers Different  communities  are  allowed  self  government  over  key  decisions   Turned  to  fed  from  confederation Confederation  could  only  act  form  the  national  level  when  all  CUs  agreed  (EU  is  a   confederation  today)  

• • • •

Mover  from  the  delegated  system  from  the  lower  to  the  upper,  the  upper  was  not   sovereignty  in  the  confederation Fed  sovereignty  each  sovereignty  in  its  own  right

Canada  (1867)  centralized,  was  not  a  confed,  was  called  a  confederation Belgium  (1993)  language  divisions Key:  protecting  communities • • •   [iii]  Sheer  size?  (other  factors  of  federalism)   • Australia  (1901)     Eng  and  French  had  to  be  reconciled And  the  maritime  provinces  with  the  central  prov Communities  are  of  interest

[2]    Federation  as  (variable)  institution   • • Variations  within  federation There  are  different  ways  in  which  power  can  be  divided hard  to  measure Canada,  now,  is  a  highly  decentralized  federation,  there  is  a  lot  of  power  at  the   provincial  level • how  to  measure?

[i]  the  degree  of  centralization   • •

formal  divisions  of  power?    The  constitution,  BNA  (s91,  92),  there  might  be  a   difference  between  the  doc  and  the  way  fed  is  practiced

• •

Ottawa  has  less  power  in  some  spheres  and  more  powers  in  others Can  declare  something  of  national  importance  and  can  nationalize  it,  but   declaration  power  is  dead  

HI  (health  insurance)  prov,  the  fed  uses  conditional  grants  to  influence  what  the   prov  are  doing,  more  than  the  official  doc Money  (own-­‐source  revenues:  revenues  you  can  rise  on  your  own,  income  taxes,   the  sales  tax,  tariffs  (fed),  property  taxes  (prov))  who  has  more  money Transfer  payments The  degree  of  conditionality 1950  hospital  insurance,  initially  the  fed  gave  the  money  with  a  lot  of  strings   attached,  eventually  the  money  was  given  with  almost  no  stings   Formal  division  did  not  change  

• • •

1.  unitary/centralized:  UK,  France,  Italy  +  13  others   • UK:  moved  form  1  to  3  recently welfare  state  is  administered  by  the  municipal  gov what  the  municipal  government  does  is  controlled  by  the  central  government national  gov  can  change  anything  if  they  wanted  to Spain there  are  CU  which  are  sovereign,  but  they  can  be  controlled  by  the  fed

2.  unitary/decentralized:  Japan,  4  Nordic  nations   • • •

3.  semi-­‐federal:  Spain  and  Netherlands   •

4.  fed/  centralized • 5.  fed/  decentralized • • Canada  is  decentralized Canada  is  more  decentralized  than  others  now

Decentralized  Canada 1.  how  much  spending  do  lower  governments  control

 French  language   Not  asymmetrical  powers  but  distinctive  features Constitutional  debate Meech  Lake  and  Charlottetown  Accords  would  have  made  Canada  an   asymmetrical  power • • • • • • Would  make  Quebec  a  distinct  society  in  Canada  Would  have  the  power  to  protect  the  French  language Was  not  clear  what  it  would  mean   Quebec  would  have  additional  powers   Rejected  by  the  English  Canada   Eng  Canada  believes  that  Quebec  was  getting  special  status  and  would  have   special  powers  and  the  Quebec  citizens  would  become  special  citizens   Why  did  it  fail? • • • Liberal  motivation  v  communitarian  motivation Historically  Canada  became  fed  for  communitarian  reasons   by  1980s  and  1990s  was  individualistic  [Eng  Can] Asymmetry  more  common  in  non  fed  states • • • Spain.  UK.• “lower  controlled”  the  money  that  the  prov  raised  on  its  own  or  it  an   unconditional  transfer  payment   • in  Canada  over  half  of  the  money  is  lower  controlled   [ii]  symmetry/asymmetry • • • • Canada?  BNA:  distinctive  features  for  QC:  civil  law.  Italy Parts  are  given  their  own  assemblies evolution  without  giving  up  sovereignty   Are  steps  being  made  towards  federalism? [iii]  classical  v  coordinative  federalism   .

 the  representatives  of  the  upper  house  are  delegates   from  the  lower  level  of  government to  pass  any  leg.  Portugal.  top-­‐down.  collaborative  decisions  (Germany.  but  the  lower  has  power  at  the  center   (Germany  is  the  classical  case)  the  lander  is  not  weak  because  when  the  fed   wants  to  pass  leg.  if  was  practically  viable.  two  would  be   separate  in  their  sphere  and  there  would  be  no  relations  between  the  national   and  the  prov  govs intra-­‐state:  federal  may  have  more  power.  is  like  what  goes  on  between  the  prov   and  the  fed.  UK.  technocratic  [France.  muddling  thought  (US.  Austria.  they  have  to  have  the  say  so  of  the  lower  level  of  the  government   the  Germans  like  to  cooperate  and  collaborate • • • [3]  What  about  local  governments? The  local  government  have  delegate  powers • • • the  city  of  Toronto  Act  passed  in  Queen’s  Park the  prov  can  abolish  the  Act  at  any  time sometimes  the  local  governments  have  sovereignty 3RD  Order  of  Government •   Cities:  creative  new  governing  means  or  dysfunctional?     In  fed.• inter-­‐state:  divides  power  between  two  levels  to  create  less  interaction.  but  municipal  role  varies     [1]  Anglo-­‐Saxon  informal.  Quebec]   [4]  Globalization  &  Multilevel  governance     • Is  globalization  pushing  the  power  up  and  down sovereign  in  their  own  domain .  Italy.  Cdn)   [2]  Germany:  formal.  its  passes  through  the  lower  house.  but  a  lot   of  interaction  will  happen  anyway.  but  they  also  have  the  leg   passed  in  the  upper  house.  Belgium)     • What  goes  on  form  the  prov  and  the  cities.  the  delegation  is  usually  from  the  lower  levels.  Spain.  Greece.  there  a  collaborative  bodies  and  law [3]  France:  formal.

 truimpth  of  the  market   may  be  multilevel  government  is  how  we  adapt  to  globalization o may  be  it  will  deal  with  greater  capacities o nation  state  is  too  small  for  big  issues  and  too  big  for  small  issues • • • • • •   The  nation  state  is  not  going  away   Regions  are  also  expanding:  UK.  Spain.  Belgium   based  on  the  principle  of  the  subsidiary   .• • Glocalization Since  the  1960s  and  70s  the  fed  government  has  been  loosing  or  transferring   powers  to  the  provinces Provinces  are  giving  powers  to  the  municipalities   Power  is  seeping  down-­‐wards   Power  is  also  moving  up  (NAFTA)  and  other  global  organizations  (WTO/UN)   regional  and  global multilayered  system  of  government   result.  weaken  capacity  of  the  state  to  solve  problems.

 more  information  to  support  the  argument     Collect  information  to  portray  more  information     Additional  information  is  key  and  different  sources  is  key  [books.  American  political    science  review.  the  method   The  formal  features  are  the  same   The  addition  thing  is  the  research   There  are  more  pages.  the  distinction  between  the  ideology  [set  of  values  and  norms]  and  structure   [institutions]     Canada  is  now  decentralized       • •   This  is  not  how  the  federations  started   • • High  centralized  in  the  beginning   The  BNA  Act  was  highly  centralizing   Canada  and  Switzerland  are  the  most  decentralized   The  lower  tier  control  more  money     .The  Evolution  of  Canadian  Federalism The  Essay  assignment     • • • • • • • • Before  the  readings  were  limited   12-04-16 11:14 PM   The  topic.  the  newspaper  articles  are  useful  for  the  case  studies     Academic  sources  for  the  general  theme   Globalization  and  the  federal  government’s  position  on  the  environmental   change   Federalism  and  health  policy  “health  care  Canada”  “mediacare  Canada”   “healthcare  federal”  I  am  looking  for  the  federal  and  provincial  relationship  over   health  care  in  Canada.  different  subject  headings     Each  topic  is  about  a  general  question  and  its  relevance  to  Canada  and  the  case   study.  the  minister  of  health  care  in  Canada   • • • • • •   Federalism.  the  position  and  the  proof  of  the  position.  the  hypothesis.  journals]   Canadian  journal  of  political  sciences.  these   are  the  most  demanding  things  to  read   Collections  by  different  authors   Newspaper  articles.

 unless  the  power  is  given  to  the  provinces   o Everything  not  given  to  the  provinces.  all  the  security  powers  were  to   the  federal.  they  show  which  tier  is  the  more  power   o Where  the  residue  will  go   o Someone  in  advance  are  given  the  residual  powers     o Americans  gave  the  residual  powers  to  the  states   o At  the  time  America  was  in  the  midst  of  a  civil  war   o CND  saw  that  the  states  were  given  more  power   o Every  fed  constitution  has  residual  powers  because  everything  cannot  be   foreseen  when  the  constitution  was  written     • Main  economic  powers:  T&C.  banking.  any  tax.  Indians.  Ottawa  more  powers   2.  making  the  powers  more  federal  than  provincial     1.In  the  BNA   • • • • BNA   • • •   More  powers   • Residual  power  [sec  91]   o Main  federal  powers   o Peace.  order  and  good  government  –  the  fed  government  may  legislate  to   achieve  this.  treaty  powers     Concurrent  powers:  agriculture  and  immigration.  but  feds  have  the  supremacy   in  those  fields.  criminal  law.  at  the  time  the  government  mostly  protected  the  boarders   • •   rights  to  invade  the  provincial  jurisdiction   Security  issues:  military.  the  federal  government  takes  all   the  power     o Residual  powers  are  important.  Rights  to  invade   3.  Modest  provincial  powers  in  1867   Ottawa  could  almost  walk  over  the  provinces     The  almost  have  no  sovereignty  in  the  BNA   Ottawa  more  powers  and  right  to  invade     Wanted  a  centralized  federation   .

 they  can  pass  it  to  the  fed  government  and   decide  whether  royal  assent  will  be  given.  to  block  provincial  legislation  with  the  help  of  the  LG   disallow  the  legislation   o within  a  certain  amount  of  time.  the  head  of  state  for  federal  business.  not  really  a  colonial   emissary  from  London   • • • reservation.  sales  tax  when  you  buy  something  at  a  store   • • • customs  duties  were  big  in  the  1867   natural  resources  were  not  as  important  in  1867   social  institutions  were  given  to  the  provinces   o hospitals   o charities   o education   o municipal  and  local  government     .  income  tax  is  direct     indirect  -­‐  the  person  collects  the  money  and  then  passes  the  money  on  to   someone  else.• lieutenant  governor:  represents  the  crown  on  the  provincial  level  and  this  is   appointed  by  the  GG  (actually  the  prime  minister)   o colonial  type  of  a  relationship  between  the  fed  and  the  province     o if  a  provinces  passes  a  statue.  the  federal  government  can  overturn   provincial  jurisdiction   declaratory  power  –  building  of  the  transnational  highway   o Trans-­‐Canada  highway   o Declared  the  highway  being  of  national  importance   o Even  though  transportation  was  in  prov  jurisdiction     •   modest  provincial  powers   • • • • • • [sec  92]     fewer  fiscal  resources  -­‐  direct  taxes  [2]  and  natural  resources  [5]   direct  and  indirect  taxes   J  S  Mill  is  the  source  of  the  distinction   direct  -­‐  the  person  who  pays  it  is  being  charges.  this  could  be  in  the  provincial   jurisdiction     governor  general.

 1867  –  1930s   the  provinces  rose  in  importance  because:   1.  the  judicial  committee  of  the  privy  council  (JCPC)   • • • • • • • • • • • Alcohol  regulation  –  who  controls  is?   • • • .  must  be  residual.  gave  more  power  to  provinces   interpreted  the  text  in  favor  of  the  provinces   saw  fed  predominance  as  dangerous     converted  centralist  federalism  into  classical  federalism     the  two  tiers  are  more  or  less  equal   key  thing  of  how  it  treated  the  POGG  [peace  order  of  the  government]     POGG  was  the  basis  for  fed  claim  in  disputed  areas     Fed  -­‐  Not  written.  checked  government     saw  the  fed  as  being  too  powerful.  POGG   Prov  -­‐  property  and  civil  rights     Local  prohibition  Casa  (1896)  JCPC  drastically  restricted  POGG   o Ontario  was  fighting  Ottawa  the  most     o The  court  POGG  is  not  everything   o Make  sure  its  not  on  the  provincial  list   there  was  no  welfare  state     2.  small.o property  and  civil  rights  (civil  and  private  law)   •     [2]  Decline  of  the  federal  dominances.  fiscal  means  rose  in  importance  [income  and  sales  tax.  the  welfare  state   had  to  be  done  on  the  prov  level   until  1949  this  was  the  highest  court  in  the  land  in  Canada   the  SCC  is  appointed  by  the  federal  government     no  one  in  the  JCPC  owned  their  job  to  Ottawa   committed  to  a  liberal  view  of  the  world.  property  tax]   • • • • • the  feds  can  do  these  taxes  as  well   direct  taxes  are  the  most  important  taxes     both  levels  can  tax  whatever  they  want   social  policy  changed.

 but  its  not  federal     o No.  it  may  be  residual.o It  has  to  be  nationally  important. Only  matters  of  national  importance     2.  POGG  only  gave  Ottawa  disputed  powers  in  an   emergency   • • • • Strike  in  the  hydro  sector   Federal  government  tried  to  resolve  the  conflict     JCPC  said  the  fed  had  nothing  to  do  in  this  area     Went  one  step  further.  but  Ottawa  still  has  all  the  money   The  difference  b/w  1940  and  1945  is  that  fed  has  all  the  money     Depression  not  an  emergency   No  new  deal  in  Canada     .  Ottawa  can  never  use  its  POGG  power  to  impinge  on  the   provinces  unless  there  is  emergency     Restrictions  of  POGG   1. Only  in  emergencies       Social  insurance  Act  Reference  (1937)  Blocked  Bennett’s  New  Deal     • •   1987  Ottawa  had  pervasive  powers    JCPC  pushed  hard  against  federal    Ottawa  could   not  even  enact  a  New  Deal       [3]  Wartime  centralization.  even  if  POGG  says  what  it  says.  may  be  not  at  the  peace  time    [emergency  view  of  POGG]   Went  from  being  highly  decentralized  to  centralized   Took  all  the  taxes     War  ends.  1939-­‐45   • JCPC  allows  Ottawa  to  use  the  War  Time  Measures  acts  to  take  proc  taxes  and   powers  needed  in  wartime     • • • • • • The  war  measures  allows  to  suspend  liberties   Its  an  emergency.  the  power  may  still  be  provincial     o May  sound  like  they  should  not  have  done  this   o Reduced  fed  power   Snyder  Case  (1925)  went  further.  local  prohibition  is  not  national   important.

 Quebec  went  along  eventually.• • •   The  feds  the  provincial  bag  of  money   The  province  could  create  a  new  bag    by  raising  the  taxes     The  feds  controlled  the  loot  after  1945     [4]  Cooperative  federalism.  one  was  senior  and  the   other  one  junior     [5]  The  country  changed  between  1960s  –   • • • • The  quite  revolution  in  Quebec   At  this  period  Quebec  also  began  challenged  the  federal  government     its  no  longer  the  courts.  but  the  federal  was  being  challenged     in  the  1970s  the  western  provinces  began  challenge  the  federal  government   (natural  resource  boom)   Province  building  (a  lot  during  the  1960s  and  1970s)   .  brits  allowed  this   pension  [‘51  and  ‘65]   this  is  under  control  of  the  feds  because  the  constitution  was  amended  by  the   british  court   • • in  other  cases.  there  is  not  much  they  could  do.  things  under  provinces  stated  under  provicnes   provincial  jurisdiction.  1945-­‐65   • • • • After  WWII  the  welfare  state  is  built  under  federal  leadership   1943  CCF  was  gaining  power   Liberals  in  order  to  offset  CCF  offered  the  welfare  state  reform     Because  the  war  was  fought  for  the  country  no  the  provinces  it  was  seen  as   necessary  that  there  would  be  a  national  welfare  states     • • • 1940  unemployment  insurance  was  read  by  the  feds.   there  was  a  nationalistic  atmosphere  after  the  WWII.  with  Ottawa  handing  back  some  of  that  money  to  covel   the  costs     • the  fed  gave  them  money  but  the  money  came  with  strings  attached  [conditional   grants]  preserving  much  of  the  federal  power   • • poor  provinces  also  get  equalization  payments     This  was  cooperative  because  the  provinces  were  weak  and  they  would  not   object  that  much.

 for  the   universities  not  conditional.  we  will  punch  you     in  1995  grant  extended  to  social  assistance  [unconditional]   almost  no  fully  conditional  grants  remain     those  changed  by  the  constitution  amendment  are  still  at  the  federal  jurisdiction   the  money  given  to  the  provinces  was  cut     Ottawa  lead  the  conduction  of  the  welfare  state  and  then  lead  to  its  dismantling   Constitutional  negotiations       would  have  restricted  federal  powers  [spacial  powers]   • • Meech  lake  and  Chrlottetown     had  it  gone  through  federal  spending  power  would  have  decreased     Federal  government  can  raise  and  spend  money  anywhere  it  wants     • •   Is  Canada  too  decentralized?   • • • • Changed  back  and  forth  from  centralized  to  decentralized   At  the  begging  centralized   1930  decentralied   war  time  –  centralized   It  can  spend  money  in  the  prov  jurisdiction  but  they  cannot  regulate  it     Over  the  years.  capacity  to  plan  for  themselves   by  now  the  powers  to  intervene  were  extinct  by  extinction     [5]  Competitive  federalism  .  provinces  complained  about  being  bribed  by  the  federal  government     .  the  provinces  that  spending  power  should  be  constitutionally   limited.  health  –  modestly  conditional         • • • • • health  –  if  you  don’t  meet  standards  in  the  health  care  system.• • •   The  building  of  the  welfare  states    hire  bureaucrats    these  have  to  be  experts   Provinces  had  large  staffs  .  1965-­‐95   • • • • • • Friction  and  conflict     The  fed  is  being  pushed  back  by  the  provinces     Over  the  30  years  there  is  a  lot  of  pushback   the  fed  wanted  to  spend  less     there  was  substantial  decentralization   In  1977  block  grants  for  health.  universities  –  was  a  lot  less  conditional  .

 Ottawa  offers  new  health  finding  formula  with  no  provincial  input   [there  is  no  collaboration  here]  -­‐  no  talk  of  priority  areas   • •   Too  decentralized?       Political  matter.  disengaging.   The  provinces  rose  up  and  challenged  traditional  powers     From  mid  1990s  –  collaborative  period?     • •   health  care     • • • •     a  little  bit  collaborative   • • • priority  spending   shortages  of  services   spend  more  money  but  spend  it  more  wisely   limited  collaboration   health  accords    [1999.  the  provinces  have  increasingly  took  more  authority     Co-­‐operative  era  –  greater  equality  between  the  two     the  provinces  never  agreed  to  dictation/monitoring  from  fed   • • • conclusion.  there  is  some  revision  &  restoration  of  the  funds   there  is    a  little  collaboration     Disengaged.  ending  1945  overlap   .  2000.  conservatives  and  liberals/ndp  differ   • • • priorities  and  parameters  for  programs   standards     some  national  standard  setting  [for  libs  and  ndp]   Harper  does  not  seem  to  give  a  fuck  about  health  care     No  promise  of  oversight   in  1995  the  transfers  were  slashed     provinces  had  to  down  size  their  health  care  systems   since  then.  2004]  restored  1995  transfer  cuts   in  2012.

[1]  Legislatures  [January  10,  2012]
224  Lecture  1  |  January  10,  2012  |  Legislatures   Legislatures   • • Strong  role:  making  laws   Weak  roles:  represent,  deliberate,  audit    

12-04-16 11:14 PM

Has  the  strong  role  has  been  lost?   Depends  on  the  country,  power  depends  on:     How  strong  should  legislature  be?  Trade  off  between  efficiency  and  inclusiveness   Canada   Party  discipline  is  very  high   How  does  the  cabinet  control  the  PR?   Government  caucus:  sticks  and  carrots   Control  of  the  opposition   PR’s  remaining  roles   Strong  ones  are  dead,  but  what  about  the  weak  ones?   Media  politics   Throne  speech  debates   Budget  debate   Opposition  days   Oral  question  period   Standing  committees   Legislative  committees   What  are  standing  orders?  

Lecture  [January  10  2012]  Legislatures      
Legislatures:  the  formal  bodies  in  democracies,  they  change  and  create  laws   Legislatures  have  two  kings  of  roles   Strong  (making  or  not  making  statutes)   Weak  (representation,  deliberation,  audit  of  the  executive)   Represent  the  votes  that  elected  them  in  Ottawa   Deliberation  over  the  scope  of  ideas   Audit  of  the  executive,  making  sure  that  the  EX  is  not  crooked  and  is  acting  responsibly     Question  #  1:  Has  the  strong  role  been  lost,  endangering  the  weak  one?  

The  formal  role  of  passing  laws  is  still  there,  but  the  PR  has  lost  the  ability  to  control  the   process,  the  process  is  now  controlled  by  the  EX   This  made  representation  and  deliberation  matter  less   PR  has  become  a  rubber  stamp  on  the  statutes  created  by  the  cabinet   Is  this  true?   Depends  on  the  country  in  question,  while  in  US  the  LEGI  is  powerful,  in  Canada  it  has   become  secondary     This  variability  depends  on  two  factors:   Is  the  power  fused  or  separates     How  strong  is  the  PD  (how  much  do  legislatures  have  to  follow  the  party  line)     SoP  +  Weak  PD  =  strong  LEGI  ||  Fused  +  Strong  PD  =  weak  LEGI   PD  has  reversed  the  power  relationship  because  the  cabinet  can  now  control  the  other  MPs     FUSED   SEPARATED   STRONG  PD   Parliament  (Canada,  UK)   Weak  Congress  (S.  Korean,   Argentina)   WEAK  PD   Strong  PR  (Italy,  Poland)   Strong  congress  (USA)  

  The  problem  is  not  equally  pressing  everywhere  (the  loss  of  the  strong  role)   America  and  imperial  presidency  (only  in  FP,  not  domestic  politics)   Questions  #  2:  How  strong  should  the  legislature  be?   In  PR  systems  they  are  quite  weak   There  is  a  trade  off  between  efficiency  and  inclusiveness   Even  though  the  American  congress  is  more  inclusive,  its  probably  not  representative  of   the  American  society   In  America,  in  order  to  pass  something  there  is  a  number  of  block  needed  to  be  passed   The  veto  points  in  the  American  system   The  bill  must  pass  both  the  house  and  the  senate   PD  is  weak,  there  is  no  guarantee  that  the  party  will  vote  with  the  president   Strong  and  powerful  committee  system   Veto  points  allow  the  privileged  interests  to  get  involved  in  the  system     Canada  and  the  Golden  Age     The  golden  age  1840-­‐1870,  before  PD   1878  secret  ballot  is  introduced     Now  PD  is  very  high,  even  when  compared  with  the  UK   If  an  MP  votes  against  the  party,  on  budge  for  example,  he  risks  being  kicked  out   How  does  the  cabinet  control  the  PR?   Government  caucus:  discipline  the  party  and  reign  in  the  opposition       There  is  a  reliance  on  the  back  bench  MPs  who  want  to  move  up  in  the  system   Draw  on  the  ambition  of  those  people,  because  all  they  want  is  controlled  by  the  PM  and   the  cabinet   Sticks  dismissal  from  the  caucus,  withholding  of  funds,  not  signing  the  nomination  papers,   nominating  other  candidates     Money  is  usually  raised  by  party’s  central  apparatus   Maverick  MPs,  those  MPs  who  are  not  going  anywhere     Carrots  promotion  to  committee  chairs   Those  who  are  higher  up  in  the  party  hierarchy  have  better  chance  of  being  re-­‐elected   The  party’s  big  cheese:  money,  status,  re-­‐election    

 parliamentary  secretary.   cabinet   Secretary  of  the  state  is  not  in  the  cabinet.The  movement  within  parties:  committees.  because  there  is  discipline  there  as  well   Shadows  the  cabinet  in  particular  policy  fields   Control  of  the  opposition   Convention:  the  government  must  govern     Opposition  may  delay/object.  but  may  have  EX  power   Cabinet:  decision-­‐making  apparatus   Sticks  and  carrots  affect  MPs   Party  whip   Oversees  the  discipline   Important  for  the  opposition  as  well.  create  dialogue  and  audit  the  government         .  secretary  of  state.

 hard  to  form  majority     minority  gov  v  coalition  government   if  they  know  they  will  never  form  majority  would  form  coalitions   policy  preferences  -­‐  for  a  coalition     Min  votes  –  majority  government   3rd  parties  –  always  punished     Who  supports  PR?   .Electoral Systems and Democratic Reform 12-04-16 11:14 PM The  electoral  systems     • • • •   why  do  electoral  matter   • • they  affect  the  expression  of  the  popular  will   we  elect  the  people  who  will  govern  us   single  member  plurality  system     different  systems  can  lead  to  different  out  comes  [even  if  everything  remains  the   same]   • SMP  v  PR   PR:  a  party’s  seas  =  %  votes  [35%  of  the  votes  gets  355  of  the  seats]   SMP  –  first  past  the  post   • • • • the  country  is  chopped  into  many  units   they  are  like  308  horse  races     over  rewards  the  1st  party   will  punish  the  weaker  parties   the  last  four  elections  with  a  majority   the  winning  party  always  gets  more  seats  than  they  got  votes   NDP  less  seats  than  votes   the  system  of  elections  leads  to  results  that  the  %  of  votes  does  not  accurately   reflect  the  amount  of  votes   the  electoral  system   • • in  2011  with  PR  Canada  would  have  more  coalition  government     • • • • • rare  for  a  party  to  get  over  50%  of  the  votes   in  any  system  that  has  a  PR  system.

 no  short  term   demands.  Preferential  ballot  or  alternative  vote   • • • • .  so  many  parties  –  do   not  know  who  to  blame  or  reward   SMP  is  particularly  undesirable  in  Canada  because  it  rewards  division  regional  parties     • •   Alternatives     1. Two  candidate  majoritarian  [France].  the  first  and  the  second  have  a  run  off     • In  France  there  is  a  run  off  between  1st  and  2nd  candidates   voters  rank  them  in  district   you  rank  them  from  1  to  4  if  there  are  4   there  is  still  only  one  distict   drop  with  fewest  1st  choice.  talk  to  each  other.• • •   Non  governing  parties   federal  ndp  used  to  like  it   provincial  ndp  can  win  elections  with  SMP   SMP:  distortion  of  democracy  or  source  of  stable  government   • • leg  should  reflect  the  will  of  the  people   the  major  counter  argument.  unstable.  respect  each  other  more     political  system  over  all  would  be  less  polarized     with  PR  there  are  always  going  to  be  coalitions.  distribute  their  votes  to  their  2nd    choices   2.  after  the  term  –  holding  the  government  responsible  or  support  him     •   SMP  –  adversarial  politics?   • • •   Cairns  thesis  and  Canada  [1968]   • • disadvantages  of  the  SMP   survived  a  long  time  and  still  relevant   In  the  Canadian  politics  only  makes  the  situation  worse   punishes  weaker  national  parties     The  US  and  Canada   more  coalitions.  in  the  4  elections  the  minority  of  votes  was   converted  into  majority  government  means  stable  government.

• • • • does  any  one  have  50%  if  not.  transfer  6%  to  second  prefererences   repeat  for  all  those  with  surplus   boosts  3rd  candidate   you  go  to  the  bottom  with  least  1st  place  votes  and  trasfer  them  to  others   eventually  you’ll  get  5  people  with  20%   mixed  member  proportional  [mmp]     modified  PR  system   PR  for  overall  party  balance.  but  with  individual  districts   2  ballots.  1  for  SMP  member  and  1  for  the  party  list   parties  with  lowest  %  SMP  sears  than  votes  compensate  with  extra  seats  form   the  list     Candidate  debate     • In  recent  years  the  debate  has  gone  outside  of  ths   in  Germany     • • • How  can  the  district  system  lead  to  proportional  representation   • • .  repeat  until  there  is  majority     the  winner  is  the  lest  disliked  candidate   first  choice  might  not  win   so  she  looses  because  she  is  disliked  by  everyone  else   3.  Single  transferable  vote  (STV)   • • • • • • • • • Ireland  –  multi-­‐member  districts  [ex  5]   you  rank  the  preferences  from  1  to  how  ever  many  candidates  there  are     candidate  needs  a  certain  %  to  win  a  sea  [20%  of  the  first  choice]   you  need  five  people  to  win     If  top  gets  26%.

 but  are  important  for  the  state   12-04-16 11:14 PM non-­‐state  organizations.  private  –  not  part  of  the  government   their  objective  is  to  control  or  influence  the  state  ex  [the  government]   share  the  objective  of  influencing  the  ex.  the  balance  power     the  parties  which  matter  to  each  other     all  members  are  important   they  have  more  or  less  power  over  you   the  conduct  in  the  home  situation.  status.  the  character  of  personality  affect  each  other.  in  the  home  environment  there  is  a  web  of   relationships  which  exist  in  the  home     party  systems  –  are  more  important     • • • • Party  system   • • party  systems  are  like  families   • • • • the  conduct.  but  they  themselves  are  not  a  part  of   the  state.  power.  they  are  “private  club”   consists  of  people:   • • may  have  other  objectives   effective  number  of  parties  which  exists  in  a  system.  affect   you  and  you  affect  them   [1]  types  of  parties   .Parties and the party system Parties  –  section  C  of  the  course  outline    part  1    –  broad  overview  of  the  state   • outside  inst  setting  of  the  state   past  2  –  the  constitution  and  the  institution   •   what  is  a  political  party   • • protection  of  civil  liberties     part  3  –  things  outside  the  formal  state.  the  power  of  each  and  the   relations  among  them   the  important  ones  are  the  more  powerful  ones   so  the  communist  party  of  Canada  does  not  matter     effective  parties  are  those  which  are  big  enough  to  matter  to  other  parties   Who  has  the  power.

 experts.a.  along  cadre  lines  [libs  and  conservatives]   NDP  –  mass  party     PC  –  mass  party   no  party  is  a  pure  example  of  either  category   there  is  spectrum   iron  law  of  oligarchy   if  parties  want  to  win  and  parties  want  to  win  because  they  want  to  control  the   government     why  does  this  happen   • • the  elite  is  more  likely  to  have  PO  polls.    loose  coalitions  of  parties  lead  to  more  organized  parties   tend  to  be  run  by  leaders   large  membership   gives  regular  people  more  say   the  const  say  that  conventions  have  to  be  held  frequently   resolutions  can  be  proposed  by  members   usually  non-­‐PR  origin   unions.  not  in  the  society  as  a  whole   most  early  parties  in  the  19th     UK.  NGO's  -­‐  union  base     tend  to  carry  over  the  mass  base     Emerged  in  19th.  farmers.  etc   if  you  want  to  win  you  have  to  use  this  information   start  in  legislature   • • mass  parties   • • • • • • after  become  a  party   • Canada   • • • real  world   • • overtime  there  is  tendency  to  centralize   • • .  19th.  who  controls  the  party   • • • • elite  or  mass   elite  parties  are  controlled  by  a  small  group  of  people   emerge  in  legislature.

 brokerage  v  ideological  parties     .  the  party  has  to  be  big   money  is  importnat  to  fiance  the  campaign   have  to  convince  people  to  join  and  give  money   set  of  loyal  followers     the  party  const  has  to  have  the  capacity  to  elect  people  to  make  sure  that  people   still  think  they  have  power  in  the  parties     • there  needs  to  be  an  opening  up   have  they  broadened  for  policies?   policy  resolutions  passed  by  the  masses  can  and  usually  are  ignored   large  apparatus  to  be  successful     interested  to  get  money.  may  not  be  consistent  with   opinions   • • • weakening  of  the  mass   there  are  some  with  more  mass  orientation   but  the  successful  ones  will  usually  have  an  elitist  orientation   Committed  to  separating  from  Canada   Its  mass  orientation  has  remained  stronger  than  for  the  fed  NDP   this  is  an  exception  which  proves  the  rule     they  run  into  problems  because  the  members  can  prevent  leaders  from  going   into  the  direction  they  want  to  go   Canada  –  PC   • • • • • the  leadership  will  tend  to  do  what  it  wants     oligarchy  is  still  trying  to  empower  itself     resisting  the  iron  law  of  the  oligarchy   •   parties  need  members  and  money  to  win   • • • • • even  for  an  elitist  party.  but  they  will  have  a  tendency  to  more  toward  the  elite   oligarchic  tendencies     • •   b.• mass  membership  can  propose  crazy  resolutions.  not  interested  to  hear  your  opinions   Elite  parties   • • mass  parties  can  persist.

 will  move  to  elitist  system   not  as  easy  to  say  that  they  will  move  from  ideology  to  brokerage   these  often  have  mass  origin   car  manufacturer   can  be  on  a  continuum  between  brokerage  and  ideology     do  successful  parties  form  cartels?   what  are  cartels?   • Once  there  is  a  stable  set  of  parties.brokerage  –  aggregate  interests.  the  character  of  the  parties  is  shaped  by  the  system   • • parties  act  positionally  in  systems   reflect  broader  social  cleavages     who  is  dominants  and  subordinate   19c  parties  followed  national  revolutions  [emergence  of  the  nation  state]   those  with  limited  support  –  status  if  the  party  may  be  eliminated     social  cleavages   • • .  each  member  act  position-­‐ally   within  the  system.  but  in  long  term  the   benefits  would  be  great     • •   the  fate  of  the  parties   • • mass  parties.  enough  for  them  to  win   • • • there  are  no  underling  philosophical  believes   different  interests  are  lumped  together   elite  parties  tend  to  have  this  orientation     ideologies   • • • wants  to  change  the  world     articulates  ideals  and  interests     green  parties  –  no  one  wants  to  pay  more  in  short  term.  they  work  together  to  keep  other  parties   from  coming  into  existence   • how  they  are  finance  and  regulated  –  collusion  between  existing  ones  from   coming  into  existence.  over  time.  how  much  money  you  can  spend  depend  on  how  many   votes  you  got  in  the  previous  election   •   [2]  The  party  system  [social  origins]  the  system  as  a  whole.

 the  conservatives  took  on  another  cleavage   • • the  secular  v  religious   if  the  conservatives  did  not  do  this.  challenge  the  working  class   after  1917  the  communist  parties  split  off  form  latter.  catholic  parties  emerged   industrial  revolution   • • • • • universal  suffrage   new  parties   by  early  20th  century   large  industrial  base   masses     agrarian  parties  –  challenge  urban  dominance   socialists  –  to  rep  workers.  challenge  reformists   • • revolution  rather  than  gradual  change   splitting  the  working  class  vote   social  and  communist   threat  to  traditional  ways  of  life     fascists    emerge  to  challenge  those     • •   cleavage  structure  frozen  after  1920s   • • • • • cleavage  structures  were  largely  frozen     small  farm  parties  started  to  merge  into  urban  parties   the  NDP  does  not  get  most  of  its  votes  from  blue  collar  voters   while  collar.• social  conflict  within  the  new  system  came  inst  with  parties     emergence  of  two  parties   • • • • • the  libs  tended  to  emerge  in  the  conflict  with  the  conservatives   there  was  no  universal  suffrage.  public  sector  employees   the  social  base  could  change  over  time   there  are  waves  of  parties  after  the  extension  of  suffrage     .  property  qualifications     poor  people  were  not  in  the  party  system     only  capitalists  could  vote   the  parties  –  reflect  competition  between  capitalists  and  aristocrats   in  some  countries.

• once  party  is  in  place.  small  towns   big  business  will  support  this  party   late  19th  out  of  the  working  class  party   not  socialist  anymore   free  market   strong  party   2  social  democratic  party  of  Germany  [socialist]  [SPD]   • • 3  free  democratic  party  [liberal]  [FDP]   • 4  green  party  [post  materialist]  [1970s]   • 5  left  party  [post  community]  [1980s  and  90s]   • • 1989  after  the  wall  collapsed   most  people  in  the  east  were  happy  to  get  rid  of  the  communist  system   6.  catholic]  [CDU]   • • • • • one  of  the  two  main  parties   embraced  the  catholic  vote   aristocrats  are  not  as  important  anymore   tradition.  new  left  parties   feminist  parties  did  not  survive   most  did  not  survive   decline  of  values   rejection  of  new  ideas   Wide  range  of  possible  parties   Different  origins   Firm  social  foundation   System  partly  freezes.  new  additions  in  the  60s     to  challenge  post  materialism  –  new  right   • • Parties   • • • •   The  German  party  system   1  Christian  democratic  union  [conservative.  can  shift  its  base  but  cleavage  structure  remains   post  materialism  cause  parties  to  thaw   • • • green  parties.  Christian  social  union   .

 this  happens  in  Canada     because  people  are  so  regionalize  people  give  different  votes  to  different  parties   what  is  SMP  combines  with  regional  voting   • • • • • .  5  or  6  in  a  PR  type  system   different  social  cleavages  represented  in  the  multiparty  system   US  –  two  parties.  etc  [all  other  systems]   Duverger's  Law  SMP  -­‐  2  parties  and  PR  -­‐  multiparty  system     small  parties  tend  to  be  killed  off  under  smp   the  German  case.• • •   Bavarian  equivalent  of  CDU   very  catholic     regional  replica  of  the  CDU   map  of  German  history  in  the  party  system  &  different  social  components     institutions  also  affect  parties   • • • social  foundations  to  political  parties   the  social  make  up  is  not  the  only  thing  that  matters   not  all  social  cleavages  [may  die  out.  SMP   SMP  -­‐  more  cleavages  overlap  or  they  die  out   progressive  party   there  is  no  base  for  the  party  to  survive   exception  to  the  law     highly  relational  voting.  good  example  is  the  US:  REP  and  DEM  –  overlap  in  the  us   • there  is  the  same  thing  in  Canada  –  liberals  and  NDP   what  determines  with  how  many  parties  you  end  up  with?   Institutions  influence  whether  cleavages  lead  to  part  divisions     • [a]  electoral  systems  are  important  for  this     • • • • • • • • • SMP  favor  big  parties  and  punish  small  ones.  there  are  few  true  Christian  parties]  lead  to   differences  in  parties.  Canada     the  law  will  probably  not  apply   a  lot  of  parties  in  the  system.  over  more  than  one  social   cleavage.  contrast  PR.  farmer  parties  do  not  exist  anymore  same  with   communists  and  fascists   • possible  for  them  to  overlap  with  1  party  division.

 even  though  there  are  exceptions   Decentralized  federation  –  regional  parties   • • • •   parties   • • •   wouldn’t  parties  have  an    interest  in  manipulating  institutions?   • If  they  shape  the  party  system  and  Im  in  the  party  system  ill  have  an  interest  in   manipulating  institutions     • • • how  many  parties?  How  focused  they  are  in  the  federal  level   how  do  parties  respond  to  this   early  20  almost  all  countries  had  SMP   most  moved  to  the  PR  systems  in  the  early  20th  century   why  did  they  change?   Socialists  threatened  liberals  and  conservatives     before  the  rise  of  mass  franchise.  capitalists  v  aristocracy     old  elites  face  a  threat  form  the  socialists   social  origins  –  layering  –  different  groups  create  parties     institutions  mediate  on  how  the  party  system  works  [smp  v  pr]  &  federalism     both  matter  –  society  and  institutions     Regional  parties  represent  regional  views   Weaker  fed  and  provincial  links:  CDN!   Liberals  on  the  prov  and  the  fed  levels  differs     where  the  lower  level  of  government  has  more  power     almost  universal  SMP  system   • • The  social  foundation  –  mass  franchise     • • • .•   Canada  –  two  party  system   what  kind  of  a  law  has  exceptions?    Is  it  not  a  law  at  all   how  do  you  measure  what  is  an  effective  party?     federalism  also  matters     • the  electoral  system  law  is  generally  true  .

 CCF  won  many  sears  but  was  in   minority     PR  was  desirable  because  it  would  prevent  the  socialists  from  winning  vs  divided  right     • example  BC  CND  1952   • •       .• in  the  SMP  –  the  socialists  may  come  between  the  two  and  take  over  the   government     • not  a  problem  in  the  US  and  Canada.  or  uk  where  the  old  party  dies  out  [liberals]   Would  win  the  government.  even  though  might  not  have  majority  of  vote   CCF  most  popular  party  in  the  county   in  the  last  minute  the  system  was  changes.

 then  parties  might  want  to  manipulate  institutions   theory  by  Downs.   parties  will  not  differ  fundamentally   this  is  because  parties  want  tot  win   they  will  want  to  attract  as  many  voters  as  possible   will  move  to  the  center  to  capture  the  marginal  voters   the  central  voter  is  the  marginal  voter  and  they  decide  the  election   who  ever  gets  the  51st  vote  of  there  are  101  votes   right  at  the  center   there  was  a  lot  of  post-­‐industrial  theories  that  the  politics  are  over   not  everything  is  like  this   what  if  there  are  many  voters  on  the  left  and  on  the  right  and  less  in  the  center   multi-­‐party  system  –  harder  to  move  to  the  center   this  is  so  because  other  parties  might  cater  to  the  extremist  voter   looks  like  the  camel’s  hump   there  are  less  willing  in  this  system  for  the  parties  to  move  to  the  center   • • • • • • during  the  time  of  Downs   • • • • • bi-­‐modal  distribution     • •   may  be  we  are  not  in  the  center  and  may  be  parties  still  differ  b/w  each  other   • •   different  countries  and  how  this  changed  over  time   is  there  convergence  of  parties   .  if  the  voters  are  normally  distributed  with  most  in  the  middle.Canada’s party system the  difference  between  Canadian  and  other  parties   • • • • •   Do  parties  differ?   to  what  extend  does  it  matter  which  party  get  elected?   • CDN  –brokerage  parties   social  cleavages  –  create  different  parties   the  party  system  also  reflects  the  political  institutions     if  its  SMP  the  number  of  parties  is  reduced   12-04-16 11:14 PM if  inst  work.

  Canada's  party  system   • • •   1]  The  Canadian  Anomalies     a]  until  2011  the  main  parties  have  been  the  lib’s  and  the  conserve’s   • • • • • • • other  countries  developed  other  parties   in  Canada  the  originating  parties  stuck  on  as  the  main  parties  in  the  system   they  were  able  to  stick  because  they  are  not  divided  along  social/class  cleavages       the  did  not  have  a  clear  social  basis     as  a  result  there  are  no  ideological  difference.  as  we  see  in  Europe   there  are  no  set  interests     ideology  does  not  matter  as  much.  etc   • mould     • •   2]  why  are  parties  like  this?   social  credit.  under  a  firm  policy  mandate   c]  the  large  parties  were  challenged  by  minor  parties  but  they  were  unable  to  break  the   the  framework  in  the  developed  world   fair  to  say  that  Canada  has  some  anomalies  in  regards  to  its  party  structure   Canada  is  becoming  less  different     b]  main  parties    franchise  structure     • • • • • [election  never  about  class  and  ideology]   .  those  who  can  form  a  successful  coalition  is   more  important       • more  brokerage  than  ideological     franchise  structure:  think  of  mcdonalds  –  regulations  are  set  by  the  elites     hyper-­‐cadre  on  policy  [super  elitist]   choosing  of  candidates  is  decentralized   local  campaigns   but  there  is  a  move  on  the  part  of  the  leadership  trying  to  involve  more   minorities.  women.  etc   there  is  a  tendency  for  the  small  parties  to  also  move  to  cadre  structures   local  elections  are  at  the  local  level.

 so  they  tended  to  create  deals     were  good  at  offering  people  things  they  wanted  so  they  were  able  to  win   the  party  was  not  liberal  and  not  a  conservative   .  religion   o revenge  of  the  cradle     o their  numbers  declines  but  not  very  much   convention  of  DM  emerged  quickly  in  CDN  history     the  choice  was  made  to  compromise   to  win  you  had  to  make  a  deal  which  would  bring  together  the  two  different   people     • • • governments  became  about  deal-­‐making   • • • • • • • the  party  which  came  together  in  the  province  of  Canada   the  liberal  conservative  party  was  the  original  party   then  becomes  conservative.  later  progressive  conservative     this  system  expanded  to  the  rest  of  Canada   the  lib  conser  extended  their  power  to  the  rest  of  the  Canada   they  were  not  ideological.  language]  the  social  class  was   not  the  most  important  distinguishing  factor  there  were  others  more  visible   ones  –  language.  region.  religion.    there  is  the  province  of  Canada   the  province  has  a  unified  legislature   when  they  created.• • • • • • Underhill  –  the  origins  of  the  CDN  party  system   to  understand  the  system  you  have  to  go  to  the  beginning     in  the  being.  the  number  of  seats  were  the  same  for  ont  and  que   this  state  was  deeply  divided  and  these  two  communities  were  equally   represented  in  the  government  [different  religion.  urban/rural   double  majority  convention   in  1837  there  was  a  rebellion  against  the  UK  colonists   before  they  were  separate   we  will  put  them  together  and  we  assume  that  Quebec  will  assimilate  into   English  Ontario   • • • • • • but  people  knew  better  that  the  Quebec  will  not  assimilate     their  weapons   o language.

 they  were  more  ideological.  if  it  intervenes  in   Manitoba  now  what  stops  the  government  from  intervening  in  Quebec     • talk  to  different  people  about  different  things   winning  requires  money   • • • parties  were  not  subsidized  by  the  government     in  CND  the  only  place  to  get  money  was  the  business  community   to  win.  in  the  west  particularly   o farmers  and  workers   o wanted  free  trade  and  BB  wanted  tariffs   o then  NDP  and  social  credit   •   business  links  provided  the  pathway  for  small  parties  after  the  war   • .• •   its  only  goal  was  to  win  through  deal-­‐making   later  the  liberals  came  about.  but  they  lost   1896  the  system  becomes  fully  brokerage   • • • • • • both  parties  had  to  do  this  and  not  rely  on  ideology   the  libs  won  after  they  adapted  the  brokerage  methods    the  libs  became  better  at  brokerage  than  the  conserve’s   by  1890s  the  people  in  Manitoba  were  English.  parties  had  to  be  good  to  business   if  parties  cannot  move  away  from  big  business  they  will  not  be  able  to  broker  all   interest   • 1921-­‐  the  progs  won.  so  they  out  numbered  the  French   the  conserve’s  wanted  to  intervene  in  the  school  question   but  the  libs  had  a  different  plan  1]  told  quebce  that  they  should  not  care  about   Manitoba  2]  the  question  was  about  government  power.

Interest groups and new social movements12-04-16 11:14 PM There  are  sub  components     •     Interest  groups  and  social  movements   [1]  Interest  groups  in  Canada  &  the  US     interest  group  –  non-­‐government  organization  with  common  interest     • • •   groups   • •   the  reading   • • • • • •   [a]  North  America:  A  pluralist  setting     • IG  work  in  a  pluralist  environment   seek  to  influence  the  government  in  free  and  unregulated  free  for  all   anyone  can  set  up  a  groups   there  tends  to  be  a  multiplicity  of  groups   different  groups  are  powerful  in  different  sectors   Pluralism:  mostly  competitive  &  unregulated  policy  environment   • • • • is  it  really  true  that  interest  groups  are  bad   interest  groups  form  to  make  a  contribution  to  gov  (according  to  him)     not  all  IG  want  to  contribute  to  government   IG  are  formed  for  selfish  reasons     no  one  forms  an  IG  because  they  want  Canada  to  be  a  better  place   IG  want  specifics     promotion  of  common  interests   stay  outside  the  government  apparatus   they  seek  to  influence  the  state  from  the  outside  the  government  or  the  leg   contrast  this  with  parties  –  parties  participate  in  the  government     example:  green  peace  does  not  seek  office.  they  do  not  seek  to  from  the  gov   They  have  to  be  answered  separately   .

 farmers  will  succeed  and  their  benefits  are  clear   only  those  who  belong  to  the  farmer  groups  will  benefit   farmers  are  more  likely  to  succeed  because.  already  organized       institutionalization     Formal  organization   Funding   Expertise   Issue  Focus   Institutionalized   more   More   More   Broad.  prioritized   .  everyone  will  join  the  groups  because  they  want  the  subsidies     •   this  assosiation  will  be  more  powerful   how  are  you  going  to  get  that  money?   We  all  want  different  things   needs  all  the  recourses   funding  is  important   Is  they  master  selective  incentives   Business.   Pross  –  IGs  might  start  as  issue-­‐oriented  groups  and  over  time  they  might  institutionalize     Types  of  INTEREST  GROUPS   Issue  oriented   Less   Less   Less   Narrow  (one  river)     The  transition  from  one  to  the  other    institutionalization     Some  might  start  off  as  institutionalized     •   under  what  circumstances  will  institutionalization  be  successful?   •   Selective  inventive   • •   Funding     • •   The  problem  of  selective  investment     • • • • more  problematic  for  envi  groups  than  a  farmer  groups   if  a  groups  succeeds.  if  I  want  to  benefit  I  need  to  join  the   group.

 which  they  try  to  lobby  will  also  be  different   groups  come  together  to  form  policy  communities     theory  of  rational  choice  might  not  capture  everything    I  might  join  green  peace  because  it  makes  me  feel  good   The  utility  derived  from  two  groups  is  different   I  might  want  clean  air   I  might  support  the  groups   What  if  I  have  to  play  $100  for  it   Air  is  a  pure  public  good   No  envi/  group  can  create  selective  incentive   These  groups  should  be  less  successful   successful  IG  will  be  able  to  master  selective  incentive     hairdresses  monopoly   community   • • network   • • • •   Levels  of  Analysis   the  community     there  are  different  relations  between  different  entities  within  sectors   sector  level   its  not  adequate  to  look  at  them  in  isolation   organizations.  key  IGs  &  state  agencies  differ  among  sectors  …  pluralism  again     • • • the  kings  of  IG  which  are  relevant  for  shaping  policy  will  differ  b/w  sectors   state  agencies.  antagonism  exist  among  different  interest  groups   .  state  and  non-­‐state     links  of  coalition.selective  incentive:  you  only  get  the  benefit  if  you  are  a  part  of  the  organization     • •   Environmental  group   • • • • • •   Environmental  groups  appear  to  be  successful   • • •   [B]  policy  networks  and  communities    277-­‐278   1.

1.  Sector    relatively  distinct  policy  fields   3.  the  society  dominated  policy  formation     •   pluralist  –  power  flows  in  both  directions.  compare  and  contrast  with  corporatist     • • •   Successful  IGs  adapt  to  institutions     • • • • Result:  CND  and  US  groups  behave  different   If  they  change  over  time     The  groups  have  to  change  and  adapt  over  time   There  is  a  change  between  their  behavior       open  access   there  are  many  actors     the  exist  in  the  sector  level.  Macro    society  as  a  whole   2.  not  macro  level   power  from  society  to  state   policy  likely  to  be  dominated  by  the  bureaucrats     Depends  on  who  dominates   .  Micro    individual  group/agency     If  we  look  at  sectors  we  can  understand  what  is  going  on  in  the  society  overall     Political  economy  –  the  sectors  can  be  subsumed  by  the  broad  system     Business  power  –  broadly  true  –  political  economy     How  the  policy  communities  look   •   dirigiste   •   clientalist   • • the  important  actors  in  the  society   the  US  example  –  regulation  reform  –  those  who  were  affected  the  laws  drew  up   the  law.

 they  probably  lost   highly  educated   they  have  a  lot  of  expertise   they  work  behind  the  closed  doors   you  don’t  want  to  challenge  them  form  the  outside   and  you  avoid  confrontation  on  the  inside       you  take  an  inside  strategy  –  this  is  what  the  successful  groups  did     you  don’t  hear  much  about  the  successful  groups   influence  of  the  public  opinion  is  not  important  for  these  groups   they  may  target  the  cabinet  of  the  senior  bureaucracy     .  the  groups  within  the  envi  change   successful  groups  might  change  its  approach   the  important  ones  are  not  in  the  public  sphere     target  of  the  relevant  actors   positive  relationship  over  time   inside  strategy.  not  outside   this  model  developed  in  the  1970s  and  1980s     there  might  have  conclusions  made   after  IG  interests  were  alienated.   In  Canada  they  are  ex  dominated     •    Bureaucracy   • • • • • • • •   Issues  can  be  turned  around     • • •   IG  in  Canada   • • • • •   change  in  the  institutions   • •   the  changes  of  the  charter    modified  interests  and  changed  the  behaviour  of  IGs   • go  to  the  court  to  beat  the  government   with  the  changing  context.  they  can  force  the  government  to  change   but  if  they  are  public.

 etc   Standing  committees   • • • • •   with  the  changes   •   US  –  groups  have  always  been  more  confrontational   • • • • •   effective  way  to  build  a  campaign       • •   the  groups   • • • lobby  the  congress  and  ex  agency   formation  of  iron  triangles   courts     be  loud   attract  people   IG.  separation  of  power   power  is  intension     everything  is  more  open   views  of  ind  politicians  matter  a  lot  more  than  in  Canada     inst  groups  might  be  more  loud   More  powerful  even  in  the  context  of  strong  government     setting  of  agenda   might  develop  their  own  agenda   these  are  public     from  government  to  committees     .  human  rights.  lobbying  is  at  the  center  of  the  American  political  system     diverse.• • • • • •   now  outside  strategy  might  be  useful   esp  true  with  charter  issues   even  if  the  government  does  not  give  you  want  you  want   you  can  go  to  court  and  argue  your  case   this  is  important  for  some  areas   gay  marriage.

 inst  change  over  time   • • • •   Structural  control  of  the  government   • • • some  groups  do  not  have  strong  organizations  furthering  their  position     but  the  business  has  a  lot  of  organization  capacity  behind  them   this  organization  influence  allowed  them  to  gain  the  position  they  are  occupying   now   • the  business  does  not  have  a  fully  structural  power  because  when  the  public   sentiment  against  the  business  is  high.   Iron  triangles   • • •   Court   • •   In  the  US  they  are  more  visible     Are  they  more  influential?   • •   [d]  privileged  position  of  business    [the  role  of  the  non-­government  in  shaping  policy   making]  network  communities  .  the  government  is  able  to  enact  politices   agiant  business  intersets     structural  power   politics  and  markets     there  is  something  else  to  this   markets  are  a  prison  on  policy  making   the  government  respond  to  well  funded  IG  –  this  is  true   or  are  they  only  more  visible   politics  over  the  southern  pipeline  extension     long  history  of  charter  rights   interest  groups  can  use  them  as  their  outside  strategy   b/w  congressional  committees  and  agencies  and  insert  groups   form  policy  outcomes   over  time  there  is  stabilization  of  the  relationship  over  time   .

 so  that  there  will  be  economic  growth   • • •   Canadian  council  of  the  chief  executive     post  2008  bailouts     • • how  much  IG  pressure  was  used  or  needed?     The  banks  did  not  have  to  do  much     growth  is  essential  for  political  prospects   they  do  not  wait  for  the  organization  to  knock  on  their  door   they  will  do  things  which  are  most  likely  to  induce  decisions     Most  of  the  business  activity  are  done  by  business   important  for  them  to  get  re-­‐elected   economic  voting.  how  can  we  get  economic  growth?   •   In  the  long  term  –  the  government  will  be  heavily  influences  with  their  desire  to  induce   people.  the  economy  is  important  for  politicians   the  state  and  the  economy   they  are  relatively  autonomous   they  still  interact   they  are  codependent   because  the  government  need  business  and  the  business  needs  the  government   .• • • • • •   the  government  needs  the  business   the  gov  want  the  business  to  perform  their  function  well   business  will  not  awlay  get  what  it  wants     the  gov  will  act  agaist  the  busienss  sometime   but  often  they  get  what  they  want   and  this  ability  has  nothing  to  do  with  them  giving  money  to  the  government     differentiation  of  the  society   • • • • •   the  government   • •   with  differentiation.

 do  not  have  to  have  well   organized  and  financed  groups     .environmentalist.  orgs.• • •   the  government  reached  out  to  the  banks   they  induced  them  to  stay  in  business     because  theya  are  important  for  politicies   how  can  we  explain  the  government  do  anything  which  is  against  the  business  interests   • • •       NEW  SOCIAL  MOVEMENTS   social  movements  –  non-­‐government  networks.  (IGs)     new  social  movement  and  old  social  movements   • • • • in  the  1970s  and  the  1980s   post  materialism     identify  politics   political  culture  theories  –  something  was  changing  in  the  attitude  of  people  in   the  western  democracies  –  there  are  material  side.    there  is  also  a  non  material   aspect  of  the  moments     • • • •             they  are  non  –government  networks     the  goals  focus  on    post  materialist   feminism  .  etc     these  equality  seeking  and  difference  promoting     the  government  can  do  things  against  the  government   does  not  address  this   when  it  comes  to  this  one  interests.  economic.

        .

Political Economy Social  movements   • • • • • • • • •   new  social  movements   • • • •   post  materialism   • •   the  literature  on  the  new  social  movemetns   • •   anti-­‐elitism   • • •   tea  party   oppose  some  kind  of  main  stream  power  structure   feminists.  environmentalisms     some  activities  are  questionable   agendas  may  be  cultural     equality  movements   difference  promoting     non  material  basis   change  something  which  is  not  specifically  economic   gender.  envitonment   post  material  kind   Network  of  activities   Might  include  organizations   Web  of  actors   Some  organized     Some  are  individuals     Share  common  agenda  and  goal   Not  a  single  entity   Have  been  around  for  a  long  time   New  social  movements   12-04-16 11:14 PM some  time  even  conservative  causes  may  be  anti-­‐elitist  –  tea  party   .  idenity.

 but  they  seek  to  promote  ideas  which  would   benift  the  rich  over  the  poor   .• •   anti-­‐elite   difference   what  is  the  difference  between  the  new  soical  movment  and  tea  party   • • • • •   there  is  something  new  in  politics     • • • • • •   transnationalizations   • • • • • • • •   mainstreaming   • • if  a  new  movement  is  challenging  from  the  outside   trying  to  change  the  world   engleheart  –  post  material  politics   globalization  1980s  and  1990s     may  be  eroding  the  powers  of  the  state   NSM  are  seen  as  transnational.  diverse   organizations   in  sea  of  other  acitivites   sea  of  other  goals   in  the  tea  pary  there  are  a  lot  of  economic  and  non-­‐economic  issues   the  comments  by  Rush   tea  party  is  not  cool  according  to  NSM  people   tea  party  people  oppose  this   tea  party  definition  of  the  NSM  fits  quite  well   NSM  can  be  right  wing  and  anti-­‐elitist   they  say  that  they  are  anti-­‐elitist.  they  cross  boraders  more  easily   examples  on  the  slides   makes  the  movements  strong   and  flexible  and  adaptable     surprise  to  status  quo   politics  –  networked.

 extreme   overtime.  to  work  with  those  inside  you  compromise   got  too  far  on  the  inside   is  not  critical  enough  of  the  status  quo   liberal  feminism  v  extreme  feminism   tamer  version    mainstream    sold  out   may  result  form  government  funding  and  cooptation     of  oligarchy  –  start  of  as  mass  parties    evolve  over  time  into  elite  parties   in  order  to  succeed   there  is  a  lot  of  variation   NAACP  v  NAC  v  Greenpeace  as  IGs  that  are  part  of  NSMs   NAC  –  women’s  organization   NSM  group  mainstreaming     Group   NAACP   NAC   Greenpeace   Pollution  probe     outcome  of  mainstreaming  is  mixed   • • • • •     Varieties  of  Political  Economy         groups  may  be  still  successful   mainstream  is  not  necessary     evolution  is  fluid  and  variable  over  time   contrast  parties     institutionalization  may  not  lead  to  mainstreaming     Government  support   no   yes   no   No   Mainstream   yes   no   No  [?]   Yes   Healthy     yes   no   yea   yes   .• • • • • • • •   iron  law   • • • • •   danger  that  overtime  will  become  main  stream   first.

 legitimate  authority   .States  have  various  relationship  to  the  economy   • • •   the  relationship  b/w  state  and  economy   • •   all  capitalist  and  democracies   • • • •   political  economy  is  a  macro  level  analysis   • • • • •   Political  economy   1]  state  direction   2]  corporatism  and  pluralism   3]  2-­‐D  scope  for  all  countries     1)  State  direction:  strong  and  weak   • • • some  states  need  more  state  than  others   weak  is  not  necessarily  bad   take  off  capitalism  in  the  16th  and  17th  century   the  system  as  a  whole     society  as  it  transcends  spectral  differences   macro  level  to  generalizing   too  vague  and  abstract?   when  its  well  done  its  not  true   variation   diff  in  how  economy  works   how  much  equality  and  inequality     how  economically  viable  a  state  is   similar  countries  and  diff  b/w  them   the  public  [sovereignty]  and  social  life  [goods/services/value/some  are  better   off  than  others]   the  state     differentiation  from  the  other  two     state:  set  of  inst.  broader  of  social  life.

 but  this  was  all  which  req  is  some   but  not  others    UK.• •   private  sector  economic  relations    capitalist  development   supported  and  are  co-­‐dependent   differentiation   • • • • happened  to  all   but  there  are  diff  levels  of  it  for  diff  countries   economy  seemed  ineffective  to  take  care  of  itself   put  in  place  property  system    true  for  all.  US  was  sheltered     •   Early  industrialized   • • • • • • • •   weak  state   • • •   embedded   • • •   fragmented     responsive  on  a  micro  level   immediate  self  interest  of  firms   gov  reacts  to  immediate  self  interests   embedded  with  non-­‐government  interests   fragmented     laissez-­‐faire   only  needed  a  weak  state   business  people  just  did  their  thing   made  sure  that  there  are  minimal  conditions  for  economy   they  did  not  need  state  to  get  into  the  way   english  speaking     Canada  is  in  the  weak  tradition   those  who  speak  English    weak  tradition     English  tradition     US  could  easily  protect  their  domestic  market     .

• • • •   the  role  of  the  state   there  is  no  central  agency  which  drives  the  eco  agenda   diff  ministries  and  departments     at  fed  level  -­‐  energy  dep  -­‐  manufacturing  dep  -­‐  finance  dep     laissez-­‐faire   • • • • • • •   France.  Ger)  like  US  was   others  are  already  making  stuff   they  have  economies  of  scale   they  can  make  an  average  cost  for  less  cost   you’ll  pay  more   should  help  the  immediate  interests   the  core  of  weak  state     state  out  of  the  economy   for  most  part   do  not  get  into  micro  management  of  economy   don’t  define  future  economic  well  being  of  the  sector   involvement  –  short  term     how  can  you  succeed   1.  tariff  barriers   2.  strong  states     strong  states   • • • • • they  do  not  have  the  needed  business  class   with  the  needed  knowledge  and  incentive   before  WWII  in  Ger  was  highly  involved       Now  banks  are  imp  in  Ger   in  Fr  state  always  strong   .  East  Asia     • • • • • • • industrialized  later   problem   was  not  sheltered  (Fr.  Germany.

 had  to  start  over     state  protected  –  tariffs   wanted  to  get  rid  of  them  eventually   baby  capitalists  v  mature  capitalists   develop  the  talent  by  the  state   development  funds    cannot  compete  with  each  other.  which  eventually  would  decline     in  their  state   • • • • state  autonomous   • • • • •   in  from   • •   strong  state   • • • • autonomous  from  economic  interests   internally  cohesive   direct  intervention     bigger  engine  for  the  bigger  task   cheap  loads   R&  D  assistance     form  short  term  business  interests     state  has  to  plan  –  ministry  of  int  trade  and  industry   to  develop  the  agenda   has  to  be  cohesive   instead  of  laissez-­‐fair   .   Japan  of  France   • • • • • • • • • after  WWII     bombed  out.  but  over  take  the  mature  capitalists   extreme  level  of  technical  expertise  as  to  how  run  diff  aspects  of  economy   these  things  should  be  done   show  them  how  to  do  them     development  behind  a  tariff  barrier.  have  to  cooperate   purpose:  not  to  beat  competitor.

 relation  within  the  private  sector  itself   •   coordinated   • •   more  coordination     corporatism     how  actors  within  state  interact     weak  will  beat  the  strong   may  become  weaker  b/c  government  cannot  make  good  decisions   convergence  on  the  weak  state  model     this  theory  cannot  be  disproved  or  proved   1980s  1990s  privatizations     there  is  still  circulation  of  people  b/w  in  the  state  and  economy   once  the  eco  is  developed   tariff  levels  are  lowered   agreement  on  practices  internationally   once  there  is  dev.  but  weaker   guiding  the  development  of  capitalism   state  makes  long-­‐term  business  decisions   form  the  inside  the  state     .   French   • • •   Variations  over  time  and  between  space     Strong  states  tend  to  weaken  over  time   • • • • •   in  France   • •   globalization   • • • •   2.  state  cannot  keep  up  with  development     states  don’t  become  weak.

 social  benefits   variations  in  con  Europe.corporatist  environment   • • • • • • • •   Germany   •   Strong  labour  unions   • • • • • • • • • •   corporatists  -­‐  more  successful  in  manufacturing   • •   cooperation  v  pluralism   • • industry  level  resources  for  tech  and  skills     there  are  some  areas  where  they  pool  their  resources   because  there  is  cooperation   cooperation  esp  when  it  comes  to  skills   historical  relationship   business  tend  to  work  cooperatively  with  them   for  social  skills  and  benefits   company  will  give  more  money  for  training     business  will  agree  to  pay  for  skills  because  people  will  be  more  productive   industrial  workers  make  a  lot  of  money  in  Germany   trade  surplus  in  Germany     German  worker.  finance   many  be  with  union  in  skills.  despite  making  more  money.  is  of  more  value   they  are  comparative  despite  their  high  wages     because  they  export  more  aboard   business  are  linked  in  long-­‐term  to  banks  for  investments   business  cooperate  on  R&D.  east  asia   clusters  of  companies  work  around  one  investment  bank   those  relationships  are  long  term   the  loan  is  going  to  be  paid  further  down  the  road     company  does  need  to  worry  to  be  profitable  in  the  short  term   has  to  be  successful  in  long  term   .

 collaboration  is  just  a  waste  of  money     competition  is  more  effective     our  society  values  liberty  more   each  does  their  own  thing   balance  of  interests   inclusion  of  other  actors   reflects  interest  group  life   see  each  other  as  rivals     fight  unions     unions  do  not  want  to  sacrifice  in  the  short  term     less  cooperation     at  the  national  level.  relations  are  free  for  all   business  fight  each  other     weaker  unions   US.• •   in  American  this  does  not  happen   They  will  not  share  information   pluralism     • • • • •   business  fight  each  other     • • •   English  –  both  weak  and  pluralist   •   Different  emphasis  on  equity/inclusiveness  v  liberty   cooperation   • •   liberty   • •   is  pluralism  more  efficient   • • •   Germany  is  more  efficient  not   before.  Canada   .  UK.

 rich  countries  are  going  to  lose  their  manufacturing  anyway   in  anglo  saxons  countries  –  may  be  went  to  far  with  fianance   . you  only  get  is  if  you’re  extremely  needy   reduces  inequality   welfare  states  are  capitalist  democracies  b/w  absolute  inequality  and  absolute   equality   Marshall’s  social  rights     the  welfare  state   market  economies  create  inequality     there  might  be  other  structural  factors   inequality  goes  with  capitalism   reduce  inequality     reduce  the  extend  of  the  market  economy     the  amount  of  inequality  in  capitalism  is  more  than  in  democracy   may  happen  on  the  pluralist  model   there  is  less  certainty  on  this  than  before   manufactures  –  better  in  corporatist   service  –  better  in  pluralist  [good  for  finance]     argument  before.  with  4/5  distinct  clusters  of  countries     Welfare  state  variation   • • • • • • • •   welfare  and  extend  of  the  welfare  state     • •   what  is  the  welfare  state     3  main  program  types     the  building  blocks  of  the  welfare  states   1.globalization  may  =  convergence   • • • • • •   four  cell  model     A+B  –  2-­‐D  model. selective  for  most  needy    social  assistance  [welfare]   a. these  people  have  nothing  to  fall  back  on   b.

sadasdasdasd   3.  for  some  people  it  makes  more  sense  to  go  on  welfare     benefits  have  to  be  kept  low     2. asdadadad       .around  selectivity   • • • • • • • • • inexpensive   stigmatized   you  have  you  have  nothing  to  quality   there  is  a  limited  range  of  people  who  will  get  this   there  are  more  people  who  feel  like  shit  by  going  on  welfare   you  dont  have  to  worry  about  those  people   modest  –  otherwise  creates  disincentives     if  they  go  up.

12-04-16 11:15 PM there  are  differences  between  liberal  democracies   • Anglo  Saxon  countries  are  clustered  in  the  same  area   • English-­‐speaking  countries  value  their  liberty       • They  are  pluralist  with  weak  state  internvetion   Growth  rates  and  prosperity   • by  convention  measures  USA  is  the  highest  in  the  world   • human  development  inxed.  Selective  –  for  the  most  needy   • you  qualify  for  being  at  the  bottom  of  the  social  ladder   • social  assistance     • inexpensive  but  stigmatized     • ^  because  only  the  most  needy  get  it   • advantage:  those  who  structure  it.  groups  D  are  the  crisis  economies  of   today     economices   • differ  in  quite  distinctive  ways   • cooperation  and  state  intervention     Welfare  State  variation   • Marshalls  social  rights  parallel  above  varation     What  is  the  welfare  state?   • sufferning  of  the  cards   • lead  to  an  outcome  which  is  different   • the  final  outcome  is  always  more  equal     • there  is  a  change  between  how  much  equality  results  in  the  state     There  are  three  main  welfare  states   1.  benefits  must  be  low   .  the  USA  is  not  number  one     Pure  GDP     • various  of  the  models  work  pretty  well.  except  the  model  D   • growth  in  the  recent  years.

 Contributory  –  social  security   • benefits  are  related  to  contributions   • pensions.  employment  insurance   • in  the  pay  stubb  there  is  a  dediction  for  pension  and  EI   • at  65  people  qualify   • the  benifts  you  get  depend  on  the  amount  of  money  you  contributed   to  the  system   • the  more  you  earned.• low  assistance  crease  disincentives     2.  the  more  you  contributed.  the  more  you  get  at   the  end   employment  insurance   • deducated  from  pay   • as  long  as  you  get  minimal  requirement     • you  qualify  for  benefits   • those  benefits  are  roughly  proportional  to  the  amount  of  money  you   contributed   • unlike  selectivity   • this  one  gives  you  based  on  your  contributions   • beniftis  are  related  roughtly  for  your  contributions   • higher  benefits  for  many   • excludes  unemployed   • gendered   • regressive  taxes   market  income   • after  the  EI  benefits  more  equal   • those  who  contribute  are  richer   • those  who  benifit  will  be  poorer   • indirect   • exludes  the  unemployed   • you  have  to  have  contributed  to  benefit  from  them   you  have  to  be  in  the  mainstream  of  the  society   • to  benefit  form  these  progrmas   .

 we  share  this  in  common  and  believe  we  deserve  it   .  Universal  benefits  –  all  get  same  benefits   • if  you  really  want  to  reduce  inequality     • common  with  social  services   • Canada:  health  services   • education  [K-­‐12]   • university  education  is  60%  subsidized     • government  funding  if  you  have  low  income   universality   • higher  benefits  for  all   • solidarity   • expensive   everyone  gets  the  benefit   • because  everyone  gets  it   • you  have  to  give  the  poor  and  the  rich  same  health  care   • has  to  be  good  enough  for  the  middle  and  the  upper  classes   sociaology  of  health  care   • in  principle.gendered   • men  earn  more  than  women   regressive  tax   • has  a  higher  burden  on  the  poor  than  the  rich   • if  you  get  a  job  –  maximum  insurable  level   • those  who  have  lower  paying  jobs  pay  more  %-­‐wise     less  affordable  with  aging  population   • those  who  work  –  pay  for  current  pensions     • because  population  is  aging     • the  system  becomes  harder  to  sustain   • most  developed  countries  face  this     3.  they  have  access  to  the  same  health  care  system   solidarity   • all  people  identify  with  the  universal  social  benefits   • culturally.

• universality  acculturates  a  sense  of  right  to  the  benefits   the  most  expensive  one   • payments  come  from  all  the  taxes     Welfare  state  types   • welfare  states  differ  just  as  political  economies  differ   • Esping-­‐Andersen:  different  program  mixes.  different  regimes     Liberal  welfare  states   • Anglo  states   • Group  A  on  the  diagram   • liberal  means  market  orientaed     • cheapest  welfare  states   • lowest  taxes   Liberal  feature   • Most  selectivity  [cheapest]   • modest  social  insurance     • reinforces  market  workfare   • middle  class  rely  on  private  benefits     • middle  class  people  do  not  rely  on  the  minimal  programs   Canada   • Social  assistance  for  those  at  the  bottom   • Limited  resources   Americans   • social  security  system   liberal  model  :  CHEAP  SELECTIVITY   • reinforces  the    market   • workfare  -­‐  vairaint  of  selective  social  assistance   • if  you’re  employable.  you  will  be  put  to  work     • the  whole  system  is  designed  to  sustained  the  market  and  the  market   inequalities   • tries  to  get  people  to  work  hard   maximum  level  is  low   .

 keeping  them  at  the  bottom   • make  sure  they  get  less  even  if  they  worked   • pushing  them  into  the  labour  forces     • cheap  welfare.  the  health  care   • outside  the  rest  people  do  not  care  about  the  poor   • because  the  middle  class  relies  on  private  benefits   • we  do  not  really  care  what  happens  to  those  at  the  very  bottom   highest  poverty  and  inequality   • selectivity  is  the  most  directly  redistributive     • because  it  takes  from  the  rich  and  gives  to  the  poor   why  highest  level  of  poverty?   • less  eligibility.• middle  class  people     • do  not  idenify  with  those  who  are  in  the  bottom   • third  rail  of  Canadian  politics.  only  the  least  advantage   • does  not  redistribute  as  much     the  outcome     • closer  to  the  original  market  inequality       SOCIAL  DEMOCRATIC   • biggest  welfare  state   • highest  taxes   • mostly  universal   expensive  because  universal   • have  social  insurance     • middle  class  gets  public  benefits   • solidarity  with  poor  people   • Canada  has  elemets  of  solidarity  thanks  to  health  care   solidarity   • what  Swedish  people  think   • conservative  parties  will  probably  not  challenge  the  universal  system   in  Sweden   • educated  by  their  culture   .

 it  reinforces  a  set  of  beliefs     result:  lowest  poverty  and  inequality   • theres  is  varitation  b/w  countires     Conservative  welfare  state   Continental  Europe   • believing  in  the  traditional  hierarchy   • different  position  in  the  society         CANADIAN  POLITICAL  ECONOMY   PRODUCTION  TODAY.  REPRODUCTION  NEXT  WEEK     Weak  state   • protection   • pluralism   • Quebec  anomaly     Stales  Economy  and  National  policy   •  Harold  Innis:  Canadian  staples  path   • political  economist   Theory   • Based  on  staples  production   • raw  materials  and  staples   • basic  thesis  was  radical  at  the  time   • economists  though  markets  drove  things   • institutional  economists   • way  of  doing  things   • become  locked  in  place     • they  can  reproduce  themselves  overtime     how  did  candian  economy  develop   .• to  have  solidarity  and  sharing     • once  its  there.

 hydro.  oil  and  gas     what  role  does  the  state  have  all  of  this?   • State  always  has    a  role.  req  large  infrastructure     • The  cost  of  building  the  infrastructure    were  substantial  esp  because   pop  was  small   .• colony  of  European  countires   • economically  also  cololny  of  European  countires   • use  of  the  colony  for  economic  reasons   • new  france  and  new  England     • ^  did  not  expect  them  to  become  industrial  economies   • but  producesrs  of  raw  materials  for  europeans  markets   • American  colonites  –  one  of  the  problems  they  had  –  English  tried  to   stop  industrialization  in  America     political  and  economic  metropoles:  France  and  UK   UK  had  laws  to  prevent  industrialization  in  the  colonies   • After  these  laws  were  abolished     • Canada  continued  to  make  and  export  raw  materials   Succession  of  dependency     • Politically  and  economically   • by  the  mid  20th  century  –  US   Once  US  became  independent.  fur.  building   infrastructure]   • Infrastructure  costs  were  especially  high  for  Canada     • Extraction  of  raw  resources  requires  infrastructure   • Canada  is  also  very  large.  we  produce  raw  materials  for   them  and  get  their  manufactured  goods   • Poltical  dependency     • not  in  the  same  way  as  of  the  UK  and  France   • economically  dependent  on  the  US     Went  through  different  staples     • fish.  manufactures.  wheat.  minerals.  wood.  even  if  its  limited  [property.

 manufacturing  (so  ISI)     ISI   • protected  domestic  markets   • make  things  for  domestic  market   • no  access  to  other  matkerts     industry  developed   • only  ins  certain  sections   • central  Canada   • domestic  markets   • high  costs   • small  population   • economies  of  scale   • CND  manufactures  would  always  be  more  expensive   • Cannot  be  as  efficient  as  their  American  counterparts   • the  bottom  line  is  that  CND  still  exported  staples   .  succeeded  only  party   National  policy   • Build  railway   • Fill  the  country  with  immigrants  [esp  in  the  west]   • Tariffs  to  protect  manufacturing    and  create  the  manufacturing   economy  in  Canada     • if  we  had  free  trade.   Departure  after  the  confederation   • National  Policy  of  1878  of  John  A  McDonald   • challenges  path.  but  only  partly  with  limited  success   • established  the  economic  base  of  the  country   • were  close  with  the  business  elites  in  Ontario  and  Quebec   • wanted  to  depart.  immigration  =  markets  for  c.  Cdn  manufacturers  were  too  small   • Tariff  wall  at  the  Am  border   • Sold  to  people  in  Canada   a.  railway  +  b.

 the  economy  because  state  lead   .  Mackintosh:  Not  bad.C.• where  the  country  earns  its  keep  is  the  exporting  of  staples   Another  consequences   • Manufacturing  base  in  the  central  cnd   • were  not  cnd  owned   • foreign  ownership  was  extensive     • owned  by  those  who  cnd  were  tring  to  protect  themselves  in  the  first   place     overall   • weak  state   • tariffs  and  infrastructure   • the  railroads  were  very  expensive   • by  having  high  taxes  and  massive  debt   • US  railroads  were  cheaper.  more  population   • gov  involvement?   • departure  from  the  classical  weak  state  model     is  this  good  or  bad?   Innis:  what  is  good   • Resource  based  exporting  economy   • innis  thought  it  was  bad  b/e  mature  economy  needs  to  diversify  and   grow   • would  haave  preferred  stronger  state  indust  approach     • moving  off  the  natural  resource  road   • would  take  the  state  to  push  the  economy  in  the  industrial  path   W.  comparative  advantage  determine  exports  and  ours   is  in  primary   • When  free  countries  they  produce  what  they  produce  best   • CND  better  off  selling  nat  resources  and  buying  US  manufacturing     POST  WAR  WW2  1945-­‐1984   During  the  war.

 but  with  anxiety  [1960s/1980s]   .   inefficient   1965  auto-­‐pact  guaranteed  that  CDN  production  =  CDN  consumption  of  the   big  3  cars     •  signed  a  deal  with  the  US   • CDN  would  produce  cars  for  entire  NA  market   • if  CDN  consumes  10%  of  all  the  NA  markets   • we  were  guaranteed  10%  of  all  production  of  NA  cars   • important  adaptation   • crucial  sector  of  CDN  manufacturing   •  efficiency  was  associated  with  the  big  3     Prosperity.D.  Howe]   •  in  peace  times  –  free  market     • for  the  next  40  years.  largest  supported  of  the  UK     1945  the  war  time  economy  was  quickly  dismantled  [C.• Production  of  munitions   • to  help  the  UK   • biggest.    gradual  change     To  1985   • GATT  erodes  NP   GATT   • multilateral  trade  agreement   • to  erode  tariffs   In  CND  tariff  wall  was  gradually  dismantled   • trade  with  US  [which  was  strong  before  the  war]  grew   • by  1950s  &  1960s  –  70-­‐85%  of  trade  with  US   • US  direct  investment  replaces  UK  portfolio   • as  a  form  of  economic  control  is  more  direct  with  the  US     • after  the  war  –  prosperity  –  based  on  resource  production   • manufacturing  base  serivces  the  dom  market  and  was  foreign  owned.

 25  years  later  its  all  gone           .• CDN  increasingly  began  to  think  they  lived  in  a  rich  gilded  cage   • Owned  by  some  one  else   • Everything  manufactured  was  expensive   • Dependent  on  the  US     • Move  away  from  this  model  in  the  1970s?   • Industrial  policy   • From  1960s  to  1980s  under  Liberals   • Set  of  exercises   • Elements  of  a  stronger  state  model   • Since  then.

 so  the  fees  are  high     • you  cannot  be  100%  owned   .  so  they  shut  it  down     FIRA   • may  have  deterred  many  FI     • might  have  increased  productivity     Protection  of  cultural  industries   • mass  media   • cable   • telecommuncations   • cell  phones  are  owned  by  large  companies.12-04-16 11:14 PM IRAP  industrial  research  assistance  program     FIRA  foreighn  investment  review  agency     • foreign  take  over’s  require  singnifican  benefits   • review  process  for  foreign  ownerage   • is  it  of  significant  benefit?   FIRA   • FO  [forign  ownership]  decreased  FI  [foreign  investment]     Now   • review   • but  we  do  not  ming  FO  companies   • FO  has  increased     • when  it  declined  under  FIRA     closing  of  the  London  plant     CAT   • parts  manufacturer     • too  small  to  be  covered  by  investment  Canada  rules   • more  profitable  to  move  to  the  US.

put  in  place  in  the  1960s   • protected   • not  so  much  change   Petro  Canada  [1975]   • Crown  corporation     • public  oil  company     • would  be  the  major  played  among  the  big  5  or  6     Intervention   • NEP  [national  energy  progream]   • ^  to  expend  Canadian  control  in  the  energy  sector     • cannot  do  this  now  because  of  our  trade  agreements   • tax  insentives.  cheaper  for  the  CDN  company  to  do  business   • two  price  oil  system     • CDN  oil  cheaper   • regulation  of  exports   now   • cannot  privilege  CDN  ownership   NEP   • Was  going  to  have  a  shorr  or  medium  convulsions  in  the  oil  sector  in   the  west     overall   • stronger  state?   • very  nascent   • we  are  going  to  own  the  industry  and  the  technology   • ambition  to  move  into  diff  style  of  eco  policy   • japanees/French  direction     problem     • domestic  problem   .

• 1870s  national  policy  -­‐  buisness  community  linked  to  conservative   party     • by  1970s  and  1980s  business  moved  into  diff  firection   • business  did  not  belienve  in  intervetion   • ^progressive  conservatives     • Marluney  got  a  lot  of  money  from  them     • Liberal  leader  was  ineffective   • Torries  won  in  a  landslide     Business   • wanted  free  market   • exporters  or  manufacturers.  suppoted  by  conservatives     1984     • fundomnetal  change  in  orientation   • reduction  of  liberal  politices   1879   • tariff  and  the  Tory  strategy     Recently  [1984]   • FTA   • NAFTA   • WTO     Mulruney   • comprehensive  FTA  with  US  was  the  way  to  go  [1989]   • would  appease  albera  –  wanted  more  free  trade   .  but  were  FO     some  sectors   • nationalist   • but  where  a  minority   • Bay  strees  -­‐  free  trade.

• comprehensive  agreement     • upper  house.  but  culture  off  limits   • change  in  the  cell  phone  companies.  IRAP.  cheaping  away  from  the  policy     .  NEP.  Auto  Pact.  so  it  was  passed     FTA   • eliminated  almost  all  tariffs   • many  were  reduced  under  GATT  before   • eliminated  most  subsidies     interventions   • not  eliminated  by  the  free  trade  agreement  itself   • most  were  gone  by  1993   • ^  FIRA.  decided  to  block     • treaty  had  to  be  passed  through  the  PR  to  become  law   • in  1984  Mulruney  did  not  want  comprehensive  FTA  with  US   • ^  promised  not  to  implement  it   • had  an  election  over  in  in  1989.  Petro-­‐Canada  [privatized]  .   • massive  changes     • move  from  liberal  policy       exceptions   • culture   • banking     • farming       banking     • have  to  be  Canadian  owned   • protected  form  the  evils  of  F  take  over     dairy  is  also  protected       free  trade  under  mulruney.  the  senate.  etc.

 and  the  ending  of  the  liberal  route.  change  in  public  policy   which  might  effect  a  company.  in  the  reading     • both  fed  and  prov  governments  have  got  into  cultivating  new  kinds   of  tools  whicha  re  compatible  with  free  trade  agreements   .  more  or  less   irrelevant     • no  say  with  WTO   • with  WTO  we  would  have  ended  up  with  the  same  results   • would  have  been  forced  to  abandom  liberal  politices       Now:  many  non-­‐tariff  barriers  are  ended       what  is  the  conclusion?   • free  market  completely?   • no.  the  company  might  take  you  to  court     • undermining  of  the  profit  margin     • those  things  have  not  been  done  wvery  much   • but  could  happen  under  NAFTA     WTO   • multilaters  [1994]     1995  and  later   ’87  –  ‘93   • future  of  the  economy   • WTO  world  organization   • CDN  small  component   • probably  did  not  have  an  effect  over  the  treaty   • the  debate.NAFTA   • FTA  followed  by  NAFTA   • with  the  US  and  Mexisco   • non-­‐trade  barriers   • chapter  11  –  tricker  for  CDN  government.

 but  we  have  to  say  this  to  all  companies   • the  green  initiative  of  Onatrio  –  wind  tubnies  with  SUmsung   • legal  to  help.• you  can  still  assist  companies   • cannot  discrimante  based  on  their  nationality     • cannot  say.  rub  shoulders.  but  has  to  be  the  same  for  all  companies     Libs  promotion  of  high  technology   • free  trade   • develop  high  tech  sectros  w/o  tariff  and  helping  the  national   companies   clusters  and  networking   • how  eco  activity  happens  in  more  productive  environments   • the  need  to  comps  to  work  together   • think  of  the  silicon  valley   • cluster   • efficient  to  have  small  company  in  high  tech  there  than  in  Ontario   • a  lot  of  high  tech  comps  in  the  area   • same  sources  of  labour.  you  have  to  get  involved  and  nurture  clusters   • nurture  NRD  activity  regardless  of  who  ownes  them     Harper  2006   • conservatives   • more  free  market   • less  ambitions  but  this  persists   • why  shouldn’t  we  just  let  the  market  decide?   • the  government  involvement  is  less  direct   • but  the  government  is  still  involved   • as  long  as  you  do  not  protect  domestic  comps   • and  as  long  as  you  are  not  leading  the  economy       .  benift   • as  a  state.  you  invest  in  new  form  of  plastic.  we  will  give  you  RND   support.

 should  we  have  industrial  approach     • the  advocates  are  gone  now   • now  there  is  consensus  that  the  government  should  do  what  later   libs  wants  to  do    foster  NRD  but  not  lead  the  economy     • not  strong  state  traditions     • seems  to  be  the  best  economic  policy   • is  this  good  or  bad?   • can  have  one  way  or  another   • Ont  and  Quebec  are  hurt  by  the  higher  value  of  the  CND  $$   • high  prieces  ofr  resources  –  why  our  currency  is  worth  so  much     • is  there  a  policy  solution?  Cannot  do  anything   .  forestry.  mining  and  minerals   • exports  half  are  raw   • any  other  rich  country.  the  pattern  is  reversed  [may  be  no  autralia]   • exposrts  are  resource  dependent       history  of  the  economy   what  do  we  make  all  of  this   • debate  seems  to  be  gone     • debate.overall   • Ottawa  still  practises  some  intevention   • we  are  closer  to  the  weak  model  than  ever  before   • US  supports  more  on  RND  support     • silicon  valley  –  high  tech  spending  of  the  US  state  in  the  1950s  and   60s   • doing  less  than  the  US     • the  US  is  the  ultimate  free  market  economy   • w/o  state  ownership  and  tariffs   • fairly  dramatic  change   2011   • 53%  of  CDN  merchandise  exposrts  are  primary   • 28%  such  imports   • food.  energy.

dramatic  change  in  the  way  we  run  our  economy   • there  is  no  partisan  divide     • globalization   • with  some  government  stimulus   • may  be  manufacturers  will  become  more  effient  in  the  future       PLURALISM  NOT  COLLABORATION   • during  the  1970s  –  libs  thought  that  it  would  be  better  to  sit  down   with  the  business  and  the  labour   • the  model  they  drew  upon     • countries  such  as  Austria  and  Sweden  and  the  UK   UK  –  labour  was  tring  to  make  corperatism  work   • winter  1977-­‐1988     • got  even  with  the  unions  by  electing  thatcher       Canada   • nothing  so  dramatic   • unions  not  as  strong   • Trudeau  –  mandatory  wage  control     • labour  too  weak.  organizationally.  politically   • once  exception  to  the  rule       today   • union  are  weaker  than  1970s   • no  more  bargaining  on  a  corporitst  arrangment   • today  –  business  culture  is  competitive     • firm  centers   • oppose  strong  intevention     • do  not  belive  in  working  with  unions   • the  long  and  the  short  of  it   • brief  corporatism  in  the  1970s  and  1980s   • on  a  small  scale  in  englush  Canada   .

 which  became  the  slogan  of  the  entire   era.  Stronger  state   • expended  massively   • the  state  intervened  to  create  Franco  ecnomic  opportunities     • goal:  business  which  speaks  French   • French  as  the  business  lanaague   .  the  masters  of  our  own  home   • b/f  the  church  or  Ottawa  ran  quebec’s  economy     • wanted  to  become  indepenent   • use  the  state  to  run  the  province   • 80%  French   • use  the  state  to  pursuit  our  objective     • was  not  a  bad  thing   1.   Quebec     • interesting   • distinct  political  ecnomy     • strong  v  weak  stae   • pluralism  v  corporasim   • important  differences  in  the  last  50  years   • can  start  out  of  nowhere   The  Quite  Revolution   • 1960s   • dramatic  changes     • ended  in  85   • went  through  shocking  changes     • as  whole  pretty  peaceful   • rise  of  the  separatistm  movement     political  economy   • Catholic     • persieved  themselves  are  not  praticulary  enthenprenurial   • the  lib  party  used  the  slogan.

 Videotron.• above  this.  use  the  fund  for   investment  purposes.  but  are  not  good  for  business   • this  was  unaccepted  by  the  people   • doubts  were  dissolved  by  this       used  state  agencies   • funding  agencies   • to  finance  capitalism  in  quebec   • would  go  to  quebec  owned  fims   • were  French  speaking     • Caisse  de  depots  –  collect  the  money  in  the  fund.  etc     • central  to  the  quebec  economy   • instigated  by  loans  by  the  Que  government       by  1980s     • mature  firms  resist  more  intervention   • after  firms  b/c  successful  they  do  not  want  the  government  to   meddle   • since  then.  turn  to  free  economy  model   • date.  biotech.  the  bus  community  was  made  more  francophone   hydro  quebec   • 1963  nationalized  much  of  it     • major  developments   • culture  shock  for  quebec   • was  owned  by  quebec  government   • workers  were  French   • building  dams  was  high  tech  task  and  the  Quebec  people  did  it   themselves   • Catholics  –  good  people.  QUEBEC  government  still  spends  on  research  and  development   .  invetments  thoughout  the  provin  e   • SGF.  Bombardier.  SNC-­‐Lavelin.   film.  other  companies.

 the  business  would  pay  for  it   • money  would  go  to  povery  alliviation   • after  5  years  –  tax  payers  would  take  it  over     .  B&L     • ^  deal.• business  accets  owened  by  the  QUE  government  3  or  4  times  more   than  in  Ontario     move  away  from  strong  intervention   • strong/weak  mix   • NRD  in  the  free  market  envi   • more  mixed  than  strong  state   • still  diff  from  English  Canada   • more  interventionist     • compatible  with  free  trade     • start  our  own  industries.  had  high  deficit  at  the  time   • the  government  wanted  to  get  rid  of  it     • people  wanted  to  cut  beniftis     • in  the  exhcnage  for  acceptace.  povety  reduction  plan   • for  the  first  5  years.  compete  with  others     • mixed  and  far  removed  from  the  English  canda     pluralism  v  corporatist   • pluralist  from  60s  to  80s     • cooperation  with  B&L  on  economic  goal  ins  the  ‘80s   • anther  tool  to  empower  themselves   • unions  became  culturall  legitamate   • helped  to  build  their  density   • strikes  in  1970s  and  1980s   QUE  government  sat  down  with  B&L   • nationalist  society   • have  to  become  more  cooperatiove   examples   • 1996  big  summit.

 private.  small.• this  would  be  inconsivible  in  English  Canada     • there  is  no  big  business  confederation  in  English  canda       Quebec   • big  leaders  are  household  names   • they  are  always  taklking   • sometimes  agree  on  things   • stronger  unions   • strikes   • cannot  have  adverasial  envi  –  moved  into  cooperative  envi   • busienss  enterprises  –  firm  center   • competitive     • not  corporatist   • do  not  have  formalized  relationships   • have  summits  from  time  to  time  to  sit  down  and  talk     • they  are  adhoc  procedures     • b/w  pluralism  and  corporatism     • episodic  summit  meeting  approach   • diff  from  pluralist  [fight  all  the  time]   • PQ  more  favourable       Quebec  economy   • somewhere  in  betweene     • they  have  done  this  within  the  CDN  federation       Canada’s  Welfare  State     • liberal  welfare  state   • reproduction   • liberal:  selectivity.  poverty   • middle  class  will  rely  more  on  private  inst     • reading:  good  early  his  to  the  welfare  state     .  cheap.  higher  inequality.

  origins  and  history     then  transformations  [less  fundomenta]   • in  economy  radical  transformation   • less  so  in  the  welfare  state     • the  welfare  state  is  more  robust  than  purely  liberal  model       social  policy     • BNA  [1867]  soc  programs  under  the  provinces   • who  has  the  power  to  implement  the  welfare  state   • but  Ottawa  has  unlimited  spending  power   • the  fed  can  spend  money  anywhere  it  wants.  even  in  prov   jurisdictions.  but  cannot  regulate  it   • either  checks  [not  regulating]  just  sending  money     • change  the  constitution  –  change  who’s  role  it  is   • provinces  would  have  to  agree  to  cont  amendment       1939     • welfare  state  was  purely  liberal   • the  only  important  benefit  before  WWII  was  welfare     During  the  depression     • provinces  were  on  the  verge  of  bankruptcy   • did  not  have  tax  revenues   • the  feds  started  to  fund  things  using  their  spending  power     • administation  of  social  accistance   • only  did  it  b/c  it  was  an  emergency   • only  sig  b/f  WWII  workerts  comp   • ^  ensured  more  the  emplyer  than  the  emplyee     workers  comp   • after  WWI   • if  worker  got  injured.  they  would  sue     .

 esp  in  the  beggning     • regulatory.  you  have  to  agree  not  to  sue  the  emplyer   • modest  benefits   small.  selectivist  state     during  1930s:  depression  –  we  need  to  change   • had  to  more  form  the  entire  free  market  to  some  protection     1940  unemplyment  insurance   • took  constitution  amendment   • limited.  so  had  to  amend   • provinces  were  broke.  you  can  get  support   • to  get  this.  if  you  get  infured.  so  they  had  to  agree     • beyond  pure  liberal  system       WWII  political  climate  changes     • strong  uions     • strong  CCF     in  a  war   • a  lot  of  men  signed  up   • the  gov  is  spending  $   • men  would  have  been  unempl   • during  war  there  is  almost  no  unemployment     • cannot  fire  people   • because  there  are  no  where  to  replace  them   • people  started  to  demand  more  money     political  left  grew   • CCF   • CDN  are  being  killed     • fighting  to  not  go  back  to  the  liberal  model   .• implement  this.

 there  was  a  feeling  that  there  needs  to  be  more   intervention       rick  welfare  state  -­‐  left  and  labour  unions  -­‐  esping-­‐andersen     as  the  war  was  ending   • CCF  was  ahead  of  the  liberal   • liberals  wanted  to  do  something  about  this   • massive  social  policy  changes   • Kensyan  economic  method   • Rapid  fire  –  created  social  benefits   • Universal  familt  allowence     • the  mother  would  get  the  check  regardless  of  income   • sent  them  out  base  don  spending     • universal  pension   • does  not  matter  what  money  you  saved   • everyone  gets  the  same  amount   • amendment     • provicnes  made  the  argument  and  wanted  constitutional   amerndment   • could  have  done  with  spending  power  alone   • became  important  in  the  support  of  old  people       1960s   • PSE  cost-­‐sharing   • Spending  power   • Post  WWII  veterans  had  access  to  universities   • Initially  sent  money  directly.• by  the  end  of  the  war.  now  send  the  money  to  the  province     Two  stages  of  the  health  care     • 1958  hospital  insurance   • 1968  medical  care  insurance     .

• federal  cost-­‐sharing   • provinces  set  up  their  own  systems   • the  fed  gives  money  to  the  prov  and  they  spend  the  money     • universal.  everyone  gets  the  same  beniftis     • regardless  of  the  income   • do  not  have  to  pay  for  it  directly     • Quebec  –  set  up  their  own  pension  plan   •         .

Welfare state The  exam   From  the  section  B  on     From  the  middle  of  the  first  term  on       The  production   • The  size  and  the  proportions  of  the  production  pie     Changes     • protectionism  is  gone   • the  state  which  is  left  is  wea   • Quebec  is  a  bit  of  an  exception   • on  the  pluralist  side  of  things     production   • liberal.  anglo-­‐saxon  model     welfare  state   • moving  away  from  the  liberal  model   • what  is  the  liberal  model?   12-04-16 11:14 PM • middle  class  rely  on  themselves  and  the  private  market  place   • no  solidarity  with  the  poor     by  1970s   • universal  progrmas     • public  education  system     • health  care   • social  insurance  generous  and  redistributive     • in  the  welfare.  away  from  the  liberal  model     what  happened  since  then   .  Canada  moved  some  distance  away  from  US  toward   universaility.

debate   • how  much  change  did  take  place   • after  tranformation  period     • how  radical  was  it     1940-­‐1970s   • solid  eco  growth     • 1973  oil  crisis  [1st  one]   • middle  east  dominant  producers  of  oil   • OPEC  org     • dominate  the  market     • quadrupeled  the  price   • the  economy  was  highly  dependent  on  oil  then   • oil  was  a  base  products   • prices  started  to  jump  over  night     post  war  success   • low  unemploymnet     stagflation     • low  eco  growth  +  rising  prices     • deficits     economic  policies   • changed    deficits   • higher  spending  than  taxes   • did  not  return  to  surplus  unitl  1996       1980s   • globalization   • ideology  or  reality  

  globalization     • economies  of  the  world  are  becoming  more  interdependent     • under  pressure  to  reduce  social  spendind  because  we  are  competing   with  them   • true,  cannot  afford  more  taxes  and  more  spending   • might  belive  its  true,  still  cut  spending   • different  set  of  pressures     by  late  1980s   • PC  began  making  changes   • universal  pension     • 1989  universal  OAS  pension  ‘claw  back’   • made  the  system  more  selective   • close  to  universality     • smallish  departure  from  universality     1992   • universal  family  allowance  ends     • ended  over  night     • replaces  it  with  selective  benefit       UI   • expanded  to  being  very  generous   • successive  cuts,  culminating  in  1994/94   • renamed  it  employment  insurance   • in  atlanitc  Canada  still  generous   • in  Ontario  lower  than  in  many  states  in  the  US   • radical  cuts       1995   • liberal  budget:  reduces  cost-­‐sharing,  culminating  in  the  1995  budget  

• to  get  out  of  deficit,  cut  transfer  payments   • transfer  payments  -­‐  health,  PSE,  social  assistance     • from  the  fed  to  the  prov,  the  prov  had  less  money   • more  restrictions   • Ont  government  –  22%  cut  in  SA  benefits  and  freezes  them  for  8   years     • Some  prov  cut  more  than  others     • but  wend  down  overall     anything  positive?   Federal  child  tax  benefit  1993  &  1995   • selective  like  SA   • better  structured     • better  impact  than  SA;  spending  power     SA  –  goes  to  SW,  makes  sure  she  really  needs  the  money   • Does  not  have  to  see  anyone     • files  a  tax  form     • and  if  she  has  a  low  income,  will  get  money  from  the  fed  government     set  up   • graduated  system   • lose  portions  of  the  credit     • as  related  to  how  much  money  you  earn   • can  work  and  keep  some  of  the  credit     • works  differently   • selective     • making  a  difference  [statistics]     • liberal,  but  more  positive  than  typical  liberal  set  up   • the  system  b/f  –  disincentive  to  work       Universal  child  care     • on  top  of  selective  credits      

 income  transfers  [IT]     SS     • change  hard  to  measure     • service  quality  hard  to  measure     still  have  UHC     • there  are  strains     • each  prov  –  range  of  services  on  a  list   • delisting  of  the  rang  of  services   • in  Ont.  getting  your  eyes  testes   • waiting  lists  –  can  be  long     • have  built  up  in  some  areas   • cost  pressures  across  the  board   • almost  every  prov  –  health  care  45%   • aging  society   • these  pressures  will  keep  going  up   • technologies  for  treatment  are  expensive       PSE  remains  public   • tuitions  has  gone  up   • 3  times  today  since  late  1970s   • less  financial  aid     • even  mid  income  could  get  grants     • grants  are  mostly  gone     • levels  of  debt  increase   • larger  classes       .the  changes  might  have  been  not  as  drastically  bad     what  are  the  evidence   where  are  we  now   1.  soical  services  [SS]   2.

do  we  need  universal  child  care   • in  Quebec  there  is       there  has  been  buckling  but  not  breaking     • similar  system     • but  they  are  not  drastically  different       income  transfers     • we  can  use  surveys  and  be  more  precise     • how  much  $$  is  transferred  between  people   • how  much  does  it  reduce  inequality     measured  of  inequality   • SLID  data  is  better  over  time   • good  but  not  definitive   • the  survey  is  better  today  than  30  years  ago   • measurements  are  different     • people  probably  under-­‐reported  before       Social  Transfer  Payments  reduce  inequality   • starting  from  market   • incomes  taxes  too     • other  taxes  not  so  much       overall  pattern   1.  market  inequality  [before  the  government]  has  risen  in  Canada  since  1980s     • and  elsewhere  in  the  world   • globalization  increased  outsourcing     • auto  companies  might  make  parts  in  other  parts  of  the  world   • technological  change     • blue  collar  jobs  on  the  decline  due  to  tech  change     • machines  are  more  likely  to  replace  blue  collar  workers     .

 UI/EI.  SA.  just  the  market  inequality  has  increased       the  elderly   • lowest  poverty  rate  outside  Sweden   • may  increase  in  the  future   • income  security  is  just  as  strong     contrast  with  the  US   • inequality  has  risen  substantially       .  setting  the  government  impact   aside.  market  income  inequality  has  gone  up     how  to  measure  inequality   • the  gini  coefficient     • from  0  to  100   • 0  -­‐  every  one  is  equal   • 1000  -­‐  perfect  inequality.  income  taxes     • reduce  inequality     • reduce  the  gini  number     • redistribution  is  about  the  same  since  1980   • market  inequality  is  greater     welfare  state   • is  it  weaker     • or  is  it  the  same.  one  has  all  equal       after  transfer  and  tax  inequality  not  no  more  or  less     • transfers  and  taxes  are  doing  the  same  thing  as  they  did  before   • market  inequality  has  gone  up   • the  welfare  state  is  reducing  that  as  much  today  as  back  in  1980     Market  income.• there  are  many  theories  to  suggest.  Child  benefits.

 the  fed  government  pay  a  lot  for  the  services   • the  prov  have  the  ability  to  make  the  feds  pay  politically     • prevented  the  system  from  being  reduced  more     economy     • people  do  not  care  if  air  Canada  or  petro  Canada  is  privatized   • trade  deals.  capital  flows     external   • free  trade  acts  and  agreements   • ability  to  promote  dom  companies  is  harder     • less  powerful  than  internal  pressures     pressures     • to  reduce  intervention  in  the  economy   .  WTO.  the  welfare  state  should  be   stronger   • is  it  possible?  No  country  is  doing  this  today   • less  free  market  in  welfare  state   • more  free  market  in  the  economy     less  marketization  for  welfare  state  than  economy  [production]   welfare   • cuts  but  also  increases   • the  system  is  almost  as  redistributive     why  is  there  this  difference   internal   • pressures  for  welfare  state   • stronger  union  means  government  will  redistribute  more   • stronger  than  in  the  US   • political  parties  are  parties  which  favor  social  policies  more  then   dems  in  the  US   • federalism.half  full  of  half  empty   • if  market  income  is  more  unequal.

the  market  has  moved  into  free  market  direction       strong  v  weak   pluralism  v  corporatism     Canadian  economy  and  the  state       GLOBALIZATION  AND  LIBERAL  DEMOCRACIES     to  what  extend  is  globalization  reducing  the  role  of  the  government   • how  do  capitalist  countries  differ     • are  free  market  countries  winning  over  the  other  ones     will  globalization  undermine  variety?   • Will  it  lead  to  the  non-­‐liberal  models  to  fade  or  converge  on  the   liberal  model     what  is  economic  globalization   • more  trade.  MNC  outsourcing  and  capital  flows   • since  the  1970s  there  have  been  changes  to  the  whole  international   environment     • rich  countries  and  Canada   • greater  trade       FDI  is  nothing  new  for  Canada     • post  Innis   • our  economy  is  foreign  controlled     • supply  chains  from  different  parts  of  the  world     MNC  outsourcing       Broader  capital  flow   • central  to  the  fear  and  the  promise   • might  undermine  variety   .  FDI.

 countries  closed  off  their  economies   • people  closed  off  economies     • this  only  worsens  the  situation     • business  and  the  unions  always  supported  protecting  dom  industries       .  MNC]   • currency     • international  capital  flow  is  financial  side  of  international  trade     • much  of  the  money  has  nothing  to  do  with  trade.• race  to  the  bottom   • the  amount  of  money  which  flows  is  huge.  FDI  or  MNC  activity       currencies   • flexible  in  their  values     • they  are  relatively  stable   • I  might  buy  money  today  and  sell  them  tomorrow   • I  might  buy  stocks  in  a  German  company  b/c  German  currency  might   be  stronger  than  today     Post  WWII     The  Bretton  Woods  system   After  WWII   • meetings  in  BW  in  New  England   • among  big  players  in  the  world  economy     • agreed  on  broad  policies  to  promote  growth     • free  trade  [GATT]   GATT   • To  promote  gradual  introduction  of    free  trade  in  the  world     • Thought  it  was  a  good  idea  b/c   Depression  history     • Comparative  advantage  of  more  trade   • after  the  depression.  the  sums  are  vaster  than   the  post  war  era   • the  funds  are  larger  than  involved  in  the  first  three  [trade.  FDI.

 each  10  would  be  better  off  to  specialize  and  trade   • export  them  between  each  other     • the  outcome  –  specialization.  everyone  better  off  and  richer     • freer  trade       not  all  they  did   • allowed  exchange  controls  to  regulate  capital  flows       exchange  controls   • regulation  of  capital  flows     • trade  is  a  good  thing     • so  we  want  to  open  the  world   • free  flow  of  currency  would  not  be  a  very  good  thing     • major  reason.  one  country  had  a   powerful  and  secure  economy     • there  were  only  two  rich  economies  which  were  not  bombed  during   the  war   • people  would  insets  in  US  and  not  other  states     • exchange  controls  were  sever     • a  way  to  try  to  maintain  soundness  of  other  currencies     • preventing  holders  of  these  currencies  from  exchanging  them  with   american  dollars   • America  –  half  of  the  global  economy       currency  pegs     • needed  against  gold-­‐secured  US$   • regulated  and  adjustable   • wanted  to  prevent  them  from  running  into  US  dollars  [exchange   control]     Pegs   .  at  the  time.comparative  advantage     • if  there  are  10.  everyone  knew.

 in  terms  of  a  big  welfare  state     • strong  growth  –  opening  up  of  trade.  MNC  activity.• when  transaction  did  take  place   • it  would  take  place  at  a  fixed  rate   • both  nations  agree  on  the  peg     • hard  for  people  to  just  flow  the  money  into  other  currencies   • orderly  exchange  of  money     • peg  of  .  “economic  miracle”     .  state-­‐regulated   • trade  grew  but  under  state  regulation     • states  had  the  right  to  control  how  much  FDI  they  had   • the  state  oversee  s  the  gradual  opening  up  of  the  economy     embedded  liberalism  [Ruggie]   • liberalism.25  to  one  franc     • market  balance       gold  standard   • before  the  war     • exchange  their  currency  for  gold     • the  ultimate  sound  measure  of  value     • outside  US  after  the  war  did  not  want  this     For  a  long  time  $35/US$  for  an  ounce   • others  pegged  to  the  US  dollar   • and  the  system  was  controlled  by  exchange       heavy  regulation  esp  for  weak  economies     • free  markets  but  controlled     • mixture  of  the  two     • pegs  +  control  =  prevent  short  term  currency  runs       this  would  allow  trade  to  occur     • orderly  FDI.

 P  v  C   • France:  planned  economic  growth.  4  year  plans     • regulatory  mechanisms  to  borrow  money     • determined  by  the  things  they  needed  after  the  war.  like  steal       Different  welfare  states     • domestic  interests  who  lost  in  these  choices  had  limited  exit  options     • French  business  opposed  intervention   • Swedish  businessmen  did  not  like  high  taxes       exit  options   • small  for  people  who  do  not  like  those  things   • BW  prevented  people  from  exiting  the  country     • they  were  stuck  in  the  country     • they  had  to  adapt  to  the  circumstances       controlled  globalization     • prevention  of  the  losers  to  exit  the  state     •  in  the  long  term  would  be  in  a  bad  position     • both  the  French  state  and  the  Swedish  state  they  had  to  have   strategies  which  in  the  long  term  would  make  sense     • in  both  cases  good  choices  had  to  be  made     • different  kinds  of  capitalism  were  possible       .• this  growth  was  connected  with  variable  economic  system     • the  states  could  chose  how  to  engage  with  the  growth     • strong  v  weak.

 American  dollar  was  punished   • american  dollar  floats   • and  looses  value   • restore  competativenes   • cheaper  for  Americans  to  export   • am  firms  would  be  more  competitive     .12-04-16 11:14 PM globalization   • same  direction  in  rich  democracies   • common  frame  work  of  economy   • direction  of  neo  liberal  envi     • in  competitive  world  most  viable       post  war   • models  of  economy  more  market  oriented   • within  embedded  liberalism     • there  is  control  of  the  free  trade  system     • contraind  to  stay  in  the  economy  during  developmet     • business  money  was  stuck  in  that  specific  currency   • every  currency  was  pegged  to  the  dollar     1970s  and  1980s   • change  in  the  global  economy     • new  envi    globalism    neo  liberalism  will  win  out     the  money  system  began  to  be  seen  by  americans  as  not  working  for  them   • Vietnam  war   • public  was  not  happy  about  the  wat   • the  gov  did  not  want  to  raise  taxes.  ran  debt  instead   • the  am  gov  was  stimulating  the  eco  through  the  deficits   • US$  because  of  their  debt  and  trade  deficit    US$  over  valed  by  the   system     by  early  1970s     • by  holding  other  currency  to  high.

  coordinated  and  long  term  relationship     • improvements  not  fast   • notion  of  patient  capital   is  there  evidence  to  support  this   or  is  this  people  only  think  and  because  they  think  this  better.  end     • esp  for  affluent  western  countries   Eurodollars   • offshore.  lean  and  mean  economy   and  less  distribution     • because  their  yield  better  and  quicker  results     • before  long  term  relationship  between  the  bank  and  the  firm.• did  not  work  forever   free  floating  currency   • before  protected     • currency  floats  on  the  market  and  the  price  is  determined  by  the   market.  money  runs     • market  panics   • transformations  in  the  values  of  the  assets     implication  for  the  globalization  theorists     this  the  argument  of  the  globalizers   • they  think  the  world  has  been  changed     • short  term  logic  of  capital  flows  –  low  taxes.  unregulated  $$   growth  of  capital  flows   • central  to  globalization   • not  trade.  not  FDI   • speculative  dynamic  buy  and  sell  currency  or  assets   • short  term  gains   • so  when  markets  are  unhappy.  prices  for  currency  changes  from  day  to  day   exchange  control  are  difficult.  they  move  their   money  to  those  states  where  taxes  are  bad   .

 and  these  people  tend  to  be   conservative  in  their  political  and  economic  perspective       • in  the  1970s  the  French  tried  to  nationalize  a  bunch  of  firms   • as  soon  as  they  started  this   • firms  began  to  leave  the  economy     • and  they  reversed  position  quickly       Sweden  1994   • well  dev  welfare  states   • out  of  recession     • deficit   • balance  the  books  by  rising  taxes  and  cutting  spending     • immediate  run  on  the  Swedish  money     • the  government  announced  reversal  of  the  policy  the  next  day   • because  the  markets  were  unwilling  to  pay  increased  taxes     the  flight  of  the  capital  in  both  cases     • defeated  2  political  initiatives   liberal  model  is  favored     • low  tax  and  spending     what  can  happen     • in  other  models.  other  than  the  liberal  model.  the  elites  may  be   convinced  to  change  their  positions   • may  by  they  wont   • dom  pressures   • rigidities  –  factor  which  undermines  performance     • cannot  be  easily  removed     •  not  change  but  decline     • as  they  farther  behind       lib  more  efficient   .then  there  are  those  who  just  do  not  high  taxes.

 justifies  inferior  equity     • do  you  want  to  live  in  a  soc  where  there  is  more  spending   • or  do  you  want  to  live  in  place  that       societies  make  choices     • these  choice  are  constrained  by  the  power  structure  of  the  states   • values  reflect  the  power  relationship  in  the  state     • powerful  indicator  is  union  density   union   • indirect  effect  of  their  presence   • changes  the  power  relationship  within  society   • affect  what  model  you'll  end  up  with       what  about  Latin  states   • there  is  nothing  good  about  their  political  economies     • 2008  more  to  do  with  morgadge   • conseqeunces  showed  areas  of  weaknesses  in  economies   • these  economies  are  vulnerable     • external  debt  for  Greece     • sense  that  they  lack  international  markets       these  states   • clientists   • corruption     • regulation     • special  deals  behind  the  closed  doors     .  the  questions  is  of  social  choice       social  choice   • by  objective  measure.• more  immigrant  societies   • their  populations  are  growing  fasters   • is  it  enough  to  make  up  for  the  problem  of  inequity?   • ultimately.

 also  has  most  poverty  and  inequality     • cause  and  effect   • other  factors   • is  there  something  else  about  the  American  economy       B  and  C  sections  of  the  syllabus     from  October  25  on  constitutions  and  on     70%  of  the  course  material     one  question  more  or  less  equivalent  to  one  question     lecture  and  then  readings   .• getting  things  from  the  gov  depends  on  who  you  know     • taxes  based  on  corruption     • why  should  i  have  pay  those  payments     • 50  to  60  %  of  jobs  are  highly  secured   • high  youth  unemployment   • out  of  facism   • need  to  build  legitemacy  for  the  state     • clientistic  culture   will  it  change     • form  within  or  from  outside   • special  deals  for  people.  enough  people.  blockages  to  change     • bad  capitalist  models     variation  on  the  pattern   • important  to  not  generalize  too  much     • divisions  within  groups   • there  are  variation  within  groups   liberal.  US  the  richest  per  capita.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful