CPSA/CAPPA section on Public Administration

K10 - Who Speaks for Whom: Lobbying, Networks and Public Consultations

Date: Jun 3 | Time: 10:30am to 12:00pm | Location:

Training New Adjudicators: Administrative Justice System and Governance Networks: Sule Tomkinson (Université Laval)
Abstract: Adjudicative tribunals provide quasi-judicial forums that affect citizens’ legal rights and obligations. They take binding decisions on various issues of social concern. One aspect that sets them apart in the justice system is their expertise, which is not limited to the knowledge of the law while conducting adjudication. In Canada, tribunals traditionally design and deliver their own training to new adjudicators. During the last decade, however, new arrangements encompassing tribunal leaders, private actors, law schools and not-for-profits have emerged. While political science scholarship has examined various governance reforms and their impacts on public administration, it has not adequately addressed these new tribunals and the new arrangements that surround them. It is not clear why and how a broad spectrum of stakeholders, inside and outside of tribunals, form these arrangements to advance the delivery of justice. Conceptualizing these new arrangements as governance networks, I conduct a theoretically grounded empirical analysis to understand the diversification of the ways in which justice institutions act. By looking at the origins and the functioning of these networks, I aim to understand how the state negotiates which mix of governance arrangements to adopt and whether or not to introduce hierarchy to circumvent the failure of governance. The analysis of these networks is innovative for studying the transformations of state and justice. Research strategy includes participant observation (by attending a 5-day training aimed at new adjudicators) and elite interviews (with individuals who organize the training and the others that are responsible for delivering it).

The Impact of Formal Public Consultations on Regulation.: Louis-Robert Beaulieu-Guay (Université de Montréal)
Abstract: Deliberation and informational exchange are put forward by scholars such as Franck Fischer and John Dryzek as a way to reconcile divergent interests and to design more enlightened policies. It does so by allowing different points of view to coexist and interact and by granting policy makers the information needed to develop a comprehensive understanding of a specific issue. When it comes to rulemaking, the theoretical advantages of seeking information from non-government actors are highlighted by the literature on “smart” and “responsive” regulation. This form of openness to outsiders is now branded as best regulatory practice by international organizations and is institutionalized into Canadian rulemaking through open and systematic consultations with the public affected by government activity. In Canada, regulators are bound to consult with citizens, advocacy groups, economic interests and any other kind of stakeholders when they design a new rule or amend an existing one. However, the empirical literature is still ambiguous on the effect of stakeholders’ inclusion to the regulatory process, and the level to which regulators effectively include information coming from outsiders is yet to be assessed in Canada. Using textual data from federal regulatory impact analysis, this study aims to inquire the impact of informational diversity on rulemaking by linking inputs gathered through public consultations to the regulatory output.

Lobbying on Pesticides in Canada: A State Captured by Private Interests?: Stéphanie Yates (Université du Québec à Montréal), Nicolas Barrau (Université du Québec à Montréal)
Abstract: In January 2019, Health Canada announced its decision to maintain the registration of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup herbicide produced by Mosanto, for the next 15 years. This decision was made despite the fact that Mosanto manipulated its studies submitted to Health Canada for the renewal of its approval. In the meantime, the European Union has taken a cautious approach to this issue by limiting glyphosate approval to a five-year period. In this context, one can question the influence that has been exerted in this case in the Canadian context. To what extent has the industry, and Mosanto in the first place (now Bayer), put pressure on public office holders to defend its interests? What was the nature of the organization’s access to public office holders? Did the revolving door, or the passage of some of its employees (or partners) within the Canadian government apparatus, help the company promote its views? Can it be argued that, in this case, the public interest has somehow been "captured" by the private interest, as the capture theory suggests? We propose to reflect on these questions based on a literature review, data available in the Canadian Lobbyists Registry, and semi-directive interviews with key players involved in this issue.

Paths of Power: Government Contracting and Corporate Lobbying in Canada: Maxime Boucher (University of Waterloo)
Abstract: In Canada, as in most democratic countries, lobbyists are seen by many as hired guns whose sole mission is to extract rents on behalf of their corporate clients. In fact, Canadian lobbyists still suffer from the stigma of the AdScam scandal and Airbus affair in which lobbyists and bureaucrats have been found guilty of corrupting public procurement processes for their own private gains. These landmark events have become firmly etched into the public consciousness. Such a pessimistic view of a structural practice like lobbying raises doubts regarding the distribution of public contracts to private contractors. However, given the influence that such extraordinary and isolated events have on our understanding of lobbying, we need to move beyond portraits based upon the behaviour of only few individuals. Drawing on recent research that shows that government contracting opens new communication channels for corporate lobbyists (Kelleher and Yackee, 2008; Dusso, Holyoke and Schatzinger, 2019), this paper systematically examines the relationship between lobbying activities and the awarding of contracts by governmental agencies in Canada. To do so, I use the data of the Canadian Registry of lobbyists and the Contract History Data (Public Works and Government Services) to test the effect that awarding contracts has on the volume of corporate lobbying in line departments of the Canadian government in the last ten years (2009-2019).

Epistemic Communities and the Role of Non-Profit Organisations: Owen Williams (Swansea University)
Abstract: The appropriate role and level of influence of ‘expert’ actors within public policymaking remains a source of contention both within and outside political science globally. One important dimension of this debate centres on the ability of experts to engage with and influence public policymaking from outside traditional academic and research institutions. This issue is especially pronounced within the qualitative sciences. This paper aims to examine this subject by taking an innovative approach. Using the epistemic communities framework, the role of non-profit organisations (NPOs) in mediating epistemic community performance will be explored, which will be set in terms of their internal functioning and their external policymaking influence. The research questions to be addressed ask what the nature of the relationship is between epistemic communities and NPOs and how do we understand epistemic community formation, sustainability, and ultimate success or failure in this context. Also under investigation is the nature of expertise as applied to epistemic communities. Chiefly, the conditions of inculcation necessary for epistemic community members to maintain and even enhance their expertise within NPOs will be explored, as well as the consequences for experts in the qualitative sciences. Case studies of epistemic community engagement with the development and implementation of cultural heritage legislation within the subnational jurisdictions of Québec and Wales will be utilised to investigate the research questions. Two NPOs within the cultural heritage sector will be selected in each case and their relationship with the epistemic communities present will be analysed and conclusions offered for discussion. This work hopes to contribute to the epistemic communities and expertise fields by demonstrating that, under certain conditions, NPOs can be effective incubators for epistemic communities in terms of their sustainability and level of influence. This can afford the experts comprising these communities crucial development spaces for their expertise and effective platforms to mobilise support for their policy goals.