No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
“Expansion in Progress”: Understanding Portfolio Adoption in the Canadian Provinces, 1982–2012
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 February 2015
Abstract
While the act of adopting a new portfolio raises a number of interesting queries, little attention has been paid to portfolio adoption, what motivates and what conditions predicate it. The Canadian case provides an excellent laboratory to test some broadly held assumptions about portfolio adoption, particularly given the contrast of the ten provinces' unique political cultures with their shared jurisdictional roles. We illustrate our case using a dataset that contains information on 85 portfolio adoptions in the Canadian provinces since 1982. Findings suggest little by way of a clear set of partisan or institutional motivations for portfolio adoption, although there is some evidence that governments are more likely to adopt portfolios in the first 100 days of governing and they are more likely to do so when elected with larger caucuses, possibly because of the need to find larger roles for party loyalists.
Résumé
Bien que le fait d’adopter un nouveau portefeuille soulève un certain nombre de questions intéressantes, peu d’attention a été accordée à l’adoption du portefeuille, ce qui motive l’adoption et les conditions sur lesquelles elle repose. Le cas du Canada représente un excellent exemple pour tester certaines hypothèses largement retenues à propos de l’adoption du portefeuille, plus précisément en raison du contraste entre les cultures politiques uniques des dix provinces et de leurs compétences partagées. Nous illustrons notre cas en utilisant un ensemble de données qui contient des informations sur 85 adoptions de portefeuille dans les provinces canadiennes depuis 1982. Les résultats ne fournissent que très peu d’explication quant à un ensemble clair de motivations partisanes ou institutionnelles pour l’adoption du portefeuille, mais il existe des preuves que les gouvernements sont plus susceptibles d’adopter des portefeuilles dans les 100 premiers jours de leur arrivée au pouvoir et de passer à l’action lorsqu’élus avec un grand caucus, possiblement en raison de la nécessité de trouver un rôle plus important pour les membres loyaux du parti.
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. 29 - 50
- Copyright
- Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 2015
References
Aucoin, Peter, and Bakvis, Herman. 1993. “Consolidating Cabinet Portfolios: Australian Lessons for Canada.” Canadian Public Administration
36 (3): 392–420.Google Scholar
Bennett, Colin J. and Howlett, Michael. 1992. “The Lessons of Learning: Reconciling Theories of Policy Learning and Policy Change.” Policy Sciences
25 (3): 275–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernier, Luc, Brownsey, Keith and Howlett, Michael. 2005. “Conclusion: Executive Institutional Development in Canada's Provinces.” In Executive Styles in Canada: Cabinet Structures and Leadership Practices in Canadian Government, ed. Bernier, Luc, Brownsey, Keith and Howlett, Michael. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borre, O. and Goldsmith, M.. 1995. “The Scope of Government.” In The Scope of Government, ed. Borre, O. and Scarborough, E.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cairns, Alan. 1977. “The Governments and Societies of Canadian Federalism.” Canadian Journal of Political Science
10 (4): 695–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carty, R. Kenneth. 2006. “Political Turbulence in a Dominant Party System.” PS: Political Science & Politics
39 (4): 825–27.Google Scholar
Dormer, Dave. 2013. “Newly Named to Cabinet Post That Includes Bullying Issues.” Calgary Sun, July 28.Google Scholar
Dunn, Christopher. 1995. The Institutionalized Cabinet: Governing the Western Provinces, Kingston. The Institute of Public Administration of Canada.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fells, Elizabeth. 2003. “The Proliferation of Identity Politics in Australia: An Analysis of Ministerial Portfolios, 1970–2000.” Australian Journal of Political Science
38 (1): 101–17.Google Scholar
Ferris, J. Stephen and Winer, Stanley L.. 2007. “Just How Much Bigger Is Government in Canada? A Comparative Analysis of the Size and Structure of the Public Sectors in Canada and the United States, 1929–2004.” Canadian Public Policy
33 (2): 173–206.Google Scholar
Gow, James Iain. 1992. “Diffusion of Administrative Innovations in Canadian Public Administrations.” Administration & Society
23 (4): 430–54.Google Scholar
Gray, Clive and Wingfield, Melvin. 2011. “Are Government Culture Departments Important? An Empirical Investigation.” International Journal of Cultural Policy
16 (5): 590–604.Google Scholar
Heclo, Hugh. 1974. Modern Social Politics in Britain and Sweden: From Relief to Income Maintenance. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hughes, Colin A.
1984. “The Proliferation of Portfolios.” Australian Journal of Public Administration
43 (3): 257–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Indridason, Indridi and Bowler, Shaun. 2014. “Determinants of Cabinet Size.” European Journal of Political Research
53: 381–403.Google Scholar
Lawlor, Andrea and Lewis, J.P.. 2014. “Evolving Structure of Governments: Portfolio Adoption across the Canadian Provinces from 1867–2012.” Canadian Public Administration
57 (4): 589–608.Google Scholar
Lutz, James M.
1989. “Emulation and Policy Adoptions in the Canadian Provinces.” Canadian Journal of Political Science
22 (1): 147–54.Google Scholar
Moon, Jeremy and Sayers, Anthony. 1999. “The Dynamics of Governmental Activity: A Long-Run Analysis of the Changing Scope and Profile of Australian Ministerial Portfolios.” Australian Journal of Political Science
34 (2): 149–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oates, Wallace E.
1999. “An Essay on Fiscal Federalism.” Journal of Economic Literature
37 (3): 1120–49.Google Scholar
Petry, François, Imbeau, Louis M., Crête, Jean and Clavet, M.. 1999. “Electoral and Partisan Cycles in the Canadian Provinces.” Canadian Journal of Political Science
32 (3): 273–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poel, Dale H.
1976. “The Diffusion of Legislation among the Canadian Provinces: A Statistical Analysis.” Canadian Journal of Political Science
9 (4): 605–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, Bradford G.
1998. “Endogenous Elections, Electoral Budget Cycles and Canadian Provincial Governments.” Public Choice
97 (1/2): 35–48.Google Scholar
Rose, Richard. 1976. “On Priorities of Government: A Developmental Analysis of Public Policies.” European Journal of Political Research
4: 247–89.Google Scholar
Savoie, Donald. 1999. Governing from the Centre: The Concentration of Power in Canadian Politics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Sawer, Marian. 2003. “Debate: ‘The Proliferation of Identity Politics in Australia’: A Critique.” Australian Journal of Political Science
38 (3): 557–60.Google Scholar
Sayers, Anthony and Moon, Jeremy. 2002. “State Government Convergence and Partisanship: A Long-Run Analysis of Australian Ministerial Portfolios.” Canadian Journal of Political Science
35 (3): 589–612.Google Scholar
Smith, David E.
1991. “Empire, Crown and Canadian Federalism.” Canadian Journal of Political Science
24 (3): 451–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, David K. and Carty, R. Kenneth. 2008. “Many Political Words? Provincial Parties and Party Systems.” In Provinces: Canadian Provincial Politics, ed. Dunn, Christopher. 2nd ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar