Provincial and Territorial Politics in Canada and Beyond
Session: J9(a) - Workshop: Context, Mechanisms and Process-Tracing: Advancing Causal Inference in the Study of Federalism and Provincial/Territorial Politics in Canada and Beyond (I)
Date: Jun 1, 2016 | Time: 02:00pm to 03:30pm | Location: Social Sciences 10
Chair/Présidente: Mireille Paquet (Concordia University)
Discussant/Commentateur: Jörg Broschek (Wilfrid Laurier University)
Participants & Authors/Auteurs:
Grace Skogstad (University of Toronto), Robert Schertzer (University of Toronto Scarborough), Andrew McDougall (University of Toronto) : Collaboration and Unilateralism: Explaining recent dynamics of intergovernmental relations in Canada
Abstract: This paper describes and explains how key institutional and ideational mechanisms affect the dynamics of intergovernmental relations (IGR) and related policy outputs in Canada. Set against a literature that tends to classify periods of time where one approach defines IGR and related policy outputs, the authors investigate the causes and consequences of the different approaches to IGR adopted in five key policy sectors in the 2006 to 2015 period.
Starting with a discussion of the main approaches to IGR and the related impacts on policy outputs, the paper focuses on how multilateral collaboration leads to evolutionary policy development and unilateral action leads to more episodic policy development. Applying this lens to describe IGR in the agriculture, health, labour market, immigration and pension sectors demonstrates that both multilateral collaboration and unilateral action have been relied upon to develop key policies over the past decade in Canada. Reflecting on this variation, the paper argues that two key mechanisms explain the different approaches to IGR and related policy outcomes: the formality of IGR institutional structures and the related norms of joint federal-provincial ownership over a policy area.
Anthony Imbrogno (McGill University) : Head of Government Summit Institutionalization in Canada and Australia
Abstract: Why does Australia have an institutionalized head of government (HoG) meeting while Canada does not given that both countries have similar characteristics and both engaged similar micro-economic reform efforts in the 1990s?
The answer lies in their internal and external trade patterns: Australia’s shift from Western to Asian trade and Canada’s reliance on USA trade directly affects intergovernmental relations (IGR), the incentive to cooperate, and the institutionalization of summits. Prior studies have focused on party systems, partisanship, and personalities as explanations of IGR system change. These provide useful insight but they also miss the important economic factors that impact the governance of multi-level systems. The mechanism of continuous negotiation is what links the political economic factors to the outcome of institutional change.
The puzzle is investigated via a comparative case study of Australia and Canada. Process tracing was used to determine why Australia founded its HoG meeting, the Council of Australian Governments, on the back of a micro-economic reform programme. Causal process observations on the mechanism and the reasons for institutionalization were gathered in archives, libraries, and interviews with key actors during fieldwork in Australia. In Canada, a similar micro-economic reform effort, the Agreement on Internal Trade, was also process traced to determine what, if any, differences were present that led to the failure to institutionalize First Ministers’ Conferences. Was the mechanism present and if so, why did it lead to a different outcome? Fieldwork was conducted in Montreal, Quebec City and Toronto, and via telephone to Edmonton and British Columbia.
Jörg Broschek (Wilfrid Laurier University), Mireille Paquet (Concordia University) : Context, Mechanisms and Process-Tracing in Comparative Federalism Research: Taking Stock
Abstract: This paper discusses how recent methodological innovations in comparative research have found their way into the study of federalism and territorial politics. We outline, first, the main contours of the debate by summarizing key questions and propositions underlying the “new methodology of qualitative research” (Mahoney 2010). Revolving around the notion of causal-process observation (as opposed to more conventional data-set observation based on regression norms), this new line of thinking about social inquiry has important implications for the definition of cases as well as for establishing linkages between theory and empirical observations through different types of causal mechanisms. Second, we identify and propose a number of consequences for the study of federal dynamics. Third, we use illustrative examples to show how to what extend this “mechanismic” approach has already informed comparative research in the field (often rather implicitly), and how these efforts could be further advanced to facilitate comparative research, as well as to establish and test causal inference on different aspects of the politics of federal and territorial dynamics.
Contemporary social science research has increasingly turned towards a mechanismic understanding of causal inference. Rather than using co-variation based on large, standardized data-set observations, mechanismic approaches engage in theory development and theory testing through the identification of complex causal configurations and the study of their distinct effects in different contextual settings. In particular, this “new methodology” (Mahoney 2010) seeks to gain more leverage for causal inference by demonstrating how causal mechanisms generate outcomes through process-tracing within particular cases. This workshop explores the promises of this methodological turn for the study of multi-level politics in Canada and beyond. It combines papers that discuss how these theoretical and methodological innovations can animate research in the field of comparative federalism, urban/provincial/subnational politics or supranationalization. Contributions using within-case will dialogue with cross-case analysis. In particular, the panels will address questions such as:
• What is the contribution of a mechanismic approach for the study of provincial, territorial and subnational politics in Canada and elsewhere?
• What mechanisms are relevant for understanding federal dynamics on the institutional and policy level (e.g. societal, institutional, ideational)?
• How do mechanisms interact with each other to generate outcomes, and how do they operate under changing contextual conditions?
• How does the temporal structure of mechanisms produce distinct effects?
•How can we deploy process-tracing to uncoverand assess the causal weight of different causal mechanisms?
Mechanisms, Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations
This panel explores the potential of the mechanismic approach for the study of federalism, intergovernmental relations and public policy. Combining papers focused on Canada and papers proposing international comparisons, it will allow for a discussion of the opportunities and pitfalls of the approach.
Back to Sessions
