Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T03:01:42.564Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Authority Contests, Power and Policy Paradigm Change: Explaining Developments in Grain Marketing Policy in Prairie Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2015

Grace Skogstad  and
Tanya Whyte
Grace Skogstad*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Tanya Whyte*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
*
Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, Sidney Smith Hall, Room 3018, 100 St. George Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 3G3, Email: skogstad@chass.utoronto.ca and tanya.whyte@mail.utoronto.ca
Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, Sidney Smith Hall, Room 3018, 100 St. George Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 3G3, Email: skogstad@chass.utoronto.ca and tanya.whyte@mail.utoronto.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article investigates the nature and role of authority contests—the claims and counterclaims about whose ideas matter on policy debates and via what procedures they should be heard—in policy paradigm contestation, reform and abandonment. Examining the authority contests around prairie Canada's grain marketing policy illustrates an additional pathway—a value-driven model—to Hall's model of endogenous policy anomalies. It further documents differences across governments in how they resolve contentious policy debates, showing that governments make fewer efforts to supplement their own representational authority with expert and/or popular authority when they enjoy majoritarian support from the affected region than when they do not and when their support for paradigm change is value-driven rather than a response to policy anomalies.

Résumé

Cet article examine la nature et le rôle des contestations de l’autorité—quelles requêtes et demandes reconventionnelles sur les débats politiques sont importantes et par quelles procédures elles devraient être entendues—en matière de contestation, de réforme et d’abandon du paradigme politique. L’examen des contestations de l’autorité concernant la politique de commercialisation du grain de la région des Prairies du Canada représente une solution supplémentaire—un modèle axé sur la valeur—au modèle de Hall concernant les anomalies de politiques endogènes. Il approfondit les différences documentaires entre les gouvernements en ce qui concerne la façon dont ils règlent les débats politiques litigieux, illustrant que les gouvernements déploient moins d’efforts pour renforcer leur propre capacité de représentation avec un expert ou leur autorité populaire, lorsqu’ils bénéficient d’un soutien majoritaire de la région touchée, que lorsqu’ils n’en ont pas et que leur soutien au changement de paradigme est axé sur la valeur plutôt qu’une réponse aux anomalies politiques.

Veuillez prendre note que des corrections ont été apportées au résumé de la version originale en ligne de cet article. L’éditeur présente ses excuses pour ces erreurs.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 79 - 100
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, Cameron. 2010. “Regional Heterogeneity and Policy Preferences in Canada: 1979–2006.” Regional and Federal Studies 20 (4–5): 447–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. 2011. Report of the Working Group on Marketing Freedom. Ottawa.Google Scholar
Anderson, David. 2011. Canada. House of Commons Debates. October 20.Google Scholar
Archibald, et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen and the Canadian Wheat Board . Federal Court of Canada. Trial Division. 1997. T-2473–93. Ottawa, April 11.Google Scholar
Atamanenko, Alex. 2011. Canada. House of Commons Debates. November 28.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F. and Jones, B.. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Benoit, Leon. 1997. Canada. House of Commons Debates. November 19.Google Scholar
Blyth, Mark. 2013. “Paradigms and Paradox: The Politics of Economic Ideas in Two Moments of Crisis.” Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 26 (2): 197–215.Google Scholar
Borotsik, Rick. 1997. Canada. House of Commons Debates. November 19.Google Scholar
Borotsik, Rick. 1998. Canada. House of Commons Debates. February 17.Google Scholar
Breitkreuz, Garry. 1998. Canada. House of Commons Debates. February 3.Google Scholar
Byrne, Gerry. 1998. Canada. House of Commons Debates. February 12.Google Scholar
Calder, Murray. 1997. Canada. House of Commons Debates. February 18.Google Scholar
Calder, Murray. 1998. Canada. House of Commons Debates. February 12.Google Scholar
Carson, Marcus, Burns, Tom R. and Calvo, Dolores, eds. 2009. Paradigms in Public Policy. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Cleary, Ryan. 2011. Canada. House of Commons Debates. October 24.Google Scholar
Cochrane, Christopher and Perrella, Andrea. 2012. “Regions, Regionalism and Regional Differences in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 45 (4): 829–853.Google Scholar
Cross, Brian. 2011. “Majority favour CWB: plebiscite.” The Western Producer (Saskatoon), September 15: 1–2.Google Scholar
Easter, Wayne. 1997. Canada. House of Commons Debates. October 7.Google Scholar
Forbes, J.D., Hughes, R.D. and Warley, T.K.. 1982. Economic Intervention and Regulation in Canadian Agriculture. Ottawa: Economic Council of Canada.Google Scholar
Friedman, Richard B. 1990. “On the Concept of Authority in Political Philosophy.” In Authority, ed. Raz, Joseph. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Goodale, Ralph. 1998. Canada. House of Commons Debates. February 17.Google Scholar
Goodale, Ralph. 2003. Interview with Grace Skogstad, Ottawa, December 4.Google Scholar
Hall, Peter A. 1993. “Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain.” Comparative Politics 25 (3): 275–96.Google Scholar
Harper, Stephen. 2002. Canada. House of Commons Debates. November 6.Google Scholar
Harper, Stephen. 2006. Canada. House of Commons Debates. October 31.Google Scholar
Harper, Stephen. 2011. Canada. House of Commons Debates. October 18.Google Scholar
Hawn, Laurie. 2011. Canada. House of Commons Debates. October 25.Google Scholar
Hill, Jay. 1998. Canada. House of Commons Debates. February 17.Google Scholar
Hoeppner, Jake. 1997. Canada. House of Commons Debates. September 26.Google Scholar
Hoeppner, Jake. 1998. Canada. House of Commons Debates. February 9.Google Scholar
Howlett, Michael and Ramesh, M.. 2002. “The Policy Effects of Internationalization: A Subsystem Adjustment Analysis of Policy Change.” Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 4: 31–50.Google Scholar
Iftody, David. 1998. Canada. House of Commons Debates. February 12.Google Scholar
Jobert, B. 1989. “The Normative Frameworks of Public Policy.” Political Studies 37: 376–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jobert, B. and Muller, P. 1987. L'état en action. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Julian, Peter. 2011. Canada. House of Commons Debates. October 20.Google Scholar
Kollman, Kelly. 2011. “Same-Sex Unions Legislation and Policy Paradigms: Something Borrowed, Yet Something New.” In Policy Paradigms, Transnationalism, and Domestic Politics, ed. Skogstad, Grace. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Krippendorf, Klaus. 1980. Content Analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Laycock, David. 2002. The New Right and Democracy in Canada: Understanding Reform and the Canadian Alliance. Don Mills: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lemieux, Pierre. 2011. Canada. House of Commons Debates. October 24.Google Scholar
Lindvall, Johannes. 2006. “The Politics of Purpose: Swedish Economic Policy after the Golden Age.” Comparative Politics 38 (3): 253–72.Google Scholar
Lindvall, Johannes. 2009. “The Real but Limited Influence of Expert Ideas.” World Politics 61 (4): 703–30.Google Scholar
Macpherson, C.B. 1953. Democracy in Alberta. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
McGuire, Joe. 1998. Canada. House of Commons Debates. February 17.Google Scholar
Orren, Karen and Skowronek, Stephen. 2004. The Search for American Political Development. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pickard, Jerry. 1997. Canada. House of Commons Debates. November 20.Google Scholar
Pickup, Mark, Sayers, Anthony, Knopff, Rainer and Archer, Keith. 2004. “Social Capital and Civic Community in Alberta.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 37 (3): 617–45.Google Scholar
Pitkin, Hannah F. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Plamondon, Bob. 2013. The Truth about Trudeau. Ottawa: Great River Media.Google Scholar
QSR International Pty Ltd. NVivo qualitative data analysis software. Version 10, 2012.Google Scholar
Ramsey, Jack. 1998. Canada. House of Commons Debates. February 9.Google Scholar
Ritz, Gerry. 2005. Canada. House of Commons Debates. April 18.Google Scholar
Ritz, Gerry. 2011a. Canada. House of Commons Debates. October 20.Google Scholar
Ritz, Gerry. 2011b. Canada. House of Commons Debates. October 25.Google Scholar
Sabatier, Paul A. 1988. “An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-Orientated Learning Therein.” Policy Sciences 21: 129–68.Google Scholar
Schön, Donald A. and Rein, Martin. 1994. Frame Reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Simeon, Richard. 1977. “Regionalism and Canadian Political Institutions.” In Canadian Federalism: Myth or Reality? ed. Meekison, J. Peter. 3rd ed. Toronto: Methuen.Google Scholar
Skogstad, Grace. 2005. “The Dynamics of Institutional Transformation: The Case of the Canadian Wheat Board.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 38 (3): 529–48.Google Scholar
Skogstad, Grace. 2008. Internationalization and Canadian Agriculture: Policy and Governing Paradigms. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Smith, David. 2007. The People's House of Commons: Theories of Democracy in Contention. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Surel, Yves. 2000. “The Role of Cognitive and Normative Frames in Policy-Making.” Journal of European Public Policy 7 (4): 495–512.Google Scholar
Triadafilopoulos, Triadafilos. 2011. “Normative Contexts, Domestic Institutions, and the Transformation of Immigration Policy Paradigms in Canada and the United States.” In Policy Paradigms, Transnationalism, and Domestic Politics, ed. Skogstad, Grace. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Uphoff, Norman. 1989. “Distinguishing Power, Authority and Legitimacy: Taking Max Weber at his Word by Using Resources-Exchange Analysis.” Polity 22 (2): 295–322.Google Scholar
Valeriote, Frank. 2011. Canada. House of Commons Debates. October 25.Google Scholar
Vanclief, Lyle. 1997. Canada. House of Commons Debates. October 7.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. 1994. Sociological Writings. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Wesley, Jared J. 2011. Code Politics: Campaigns and Cultures on the Canadian Prairies. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
White, Linda A. 2011. “Institutional ‘Stickiness’ and Ideational Resistance to Paradigm Change: Canada and Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) Policy.” In Policy Paradigms, Transnationalism, and Domestic Politics, ed. Skogstad, Grace. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
White, Ted. 1998. Canada. House of Commons Debates. February 12.Google Scholar
Wilson, Barry K. 1994. “Reform Party Outlines Its Ideas on Wheat Board.” The Western Producer (Saskatoon), February 3: 12.Google Scholar
Wilson, Barry K. 1997. “Implications of Vote Unclear.” The Western Producer (Saskatoon), February 13: 42.Google Scholar
Wilson, Barry. 2011a. “Feds' rush to pass legislation smells like a Third World rubber stamp.” Western Producer (Saskatoon), 10 November, p.10.Google Scholar
Wilson, Barry. 2011b. “Federal Court ruling on Canadian Wheat Board shakes up Parliament.” The Western Producer (Saskatoon), December 15: 10.Google Scholar
Wilson, Barry. 2012. “Appeals court sides with Ottawa on CWB issue.” The Western Producer (Saskatoon), June 21: 3.Google Scholar
Wiseman, Nelson. 2007. In Search of Canadian Political Culture. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Skogstad and Whyte Supplementary Material

Appendices

Download Skogstad and Whyte Supplementary Material(PDF)
PDF 121.8 KB