Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T19:54:12.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Deep Federalism: Respecting Community Difference in National Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2006

Christopher Leo
Christopher Leo
Affiliation:
University of Winnipeg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. The literatures of both federalism and urban politics conclude that economic, technological and political changes on a global scale have produced limitations on the capacities of national governments, while enhancing the economic and political importance of urban-centred regions. A practical implication is that cities have become central to the study of federalism. This article attempts a synthesis of what we can learn from the federalism and urban politics literatures about the governance of cities in the twenty-first century. It considers the argument in favour of charter cities, as well as the advocacy of a stronger central government to preserve the social safety net, and concludes that both positions are premised on a traditional, hierarchical view of intergovernmental relations, a view that is out of keeping with the exigencies of a borderless world. Instead, it poses the following question: How can we have policies that are truly national and yet fully take into account the very significant differences among regions and communities? The article draws on recent research on the impact of federal policies regarding homelessness and immigration in Vancouver, Winnipeg and Saint John, as well as other research, to consider whether the federal government is doing the best it can to preserve national standards while respecting community difference. It concludes by defining three policy models that show varying degrees of promise in achieving that objective.

Résumé. Les recherches courantes sur le fédéralisme et sur la politique urbaine avancent que les changements économiques, technologiques et politiques qui se produisent à l'échelle mondiale affaiblissent les capacités des gouvernements nationaux tout en renforçant l'importance économique et politique des centres urbains. Il en découle, sur le plan pratique, que les centres urbains sont devenus un sujet essentiel de l'étude du fédéralisme. Le présent article tente de faire une synthèse de ce que les recherches sur le fédéralisme et la politique urbaine peuvent nous enseigner sur la gouvernance des villes au 21e siècle. Après avoir examiné l'argument en faveur des villes à charte et celui qui préconise un renforcement du gouvernement central pour préserver le filet de sécurité sociale, l'article conclut que les deux arguments sont fondés sur une conception traditionnelle et hiérarchique des relations intergouvernementales, et que cette conception ne répond plus aux exigences d'un monde sans frontières. Puis, il pose la question suivante : comment peut-on formuler des politiques qui soient véritablement nationales et qui, en même temps, tiennent compte des différences importantes entre les régions et les communautés? S'inspirant principalement d'une enquête récente sur le retentissement des politiques fédérales sur les problèmes des sans-abri et de l'immigration à Vancouver, à Winnipeg et à Saint-Jean N.-B., l'article examine dans quelle mesure le gouvernement fédéral s'efforce de sauvegarder des normes nationales tout en respectant les différences régionales. En conclusion, il propose trois modèles politiques qui seraient susceptibles, à des degrés divers, d'atteindre cet objectif.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 39 , Issue 3 , September 2006 , pp. 481 - 506
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

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

Aalberts, Tanja E. 2004. “The Future of Sovereignty in Multilevel Governance Europe: A Constructivist Reading.” Journal of Common Market Studies 42 (1): 23–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrew, Caroline. 1995. “Provincial-municipal relations: or hyper-fractionalized quasi-subordination revisited.” In Canadian Metropolitics, ed. James Lightbody. Toronto: Copp Clark Pitman.
August, Martine and Christopher Leo. 2006. “Homelessness in Saint John: Has the federal response lived up to its claims?” Winnipeg: unpublished manuscript.
Bakvis, Herman and Luc Juillet. 2004. The horizontal challenge: Line departments, central agencies and leadership. Ottawa: Canada School of Public Service.
Banting, Keith G., Douglas M. Brown and Thomas J. Courchene. 1994. “The future of fiscal federalism: An overview.” In The future of fiscal federalism, eds. Keith G. Banting, Douglas M. Brown and Thomas J. Courchene. Kingston: School of Policy Studies, Queen's University.
Barnes, William R. and Larry C. Ledebur. 1998. The new regional economies: The US common market and the global economy. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Big City Mayors' Caucus. 2002 Model Framework for a City Charter. Toronto: Federation of Canadian Municipalities discussion paper, May 30, 2002. http://www.canadascities.ca/background.htm (July 4, 2005).
Blatter, Joachim. 2004. “From ‘Spaces of Place’ to ‘Spaces of Flows’? Territorial and Functional Governance in Cross-border Regions in Europe and North America.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 28 (3): 530–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradford, Neil. 2005. Place-based public policy: Towards a new urban and community agenda for Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks.
Brenner, Neil. 2004. New State Spaces: Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cameron, David and Richard Simeon. 2002. “Intergovernmental Relations in Canada: The Emergence of Collaborative Federalism.” Publius 32 (2): 49–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canada, Manitoba, Winnipeg. 1998. Winnipeg Development Agreement. Winnipeg: Canada, Manitoba, Winnipeg.
Castells, Manuel. 1996. The rise of the network society. Oxford: Blackwell.
Clarke, Susan E. and Gary L. Gaile. 1998. The Work of Cities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Courchene, Thomas J. 1994. “Canada's social policy deficit: Implications for fiscal federalism.” In The future of fiscal federalism, eds. Keith Banting, Douglas M. Brown and Thomas J. Courchene. Kingston: School of Policy Studies.
Courchene, Thomas J. 1995. Celebrating flexibility: An interpretive essay on the evolution of Canadian federalism. Montreal: CD Howe Institute.
Courchene, Thomas J. 2005. Citistates and the State of Cities: Political Economy and Fiscal Federalism Dimensions. Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy.
Doremus, Paul N., William W. Keller, Louis W. Pauly and Simon Reich. 1999. The Myth of the Global Corporation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Elkins, David J. 1995. Beyond Sovereignty: Territory and Political Economy in the Twenty-First Century. Toronto: University of Toronto.
Federal/Provincial/Territorial Ministerial Council on Social Policy Renewal. 2003. Three Year Review of the Social Union Framework Agreement. June. http://www.gov.bc.ca/igrs/rpts/reports.htm (April 21, 2006).
Federal, provincial and territorial governments of Canada. 2003. The National Child Benefit: Progress Report 2002. Ottawa: Queen's Printer, July. http://www.nationalchildbenefit.ca (8 June 2006).
Greater Vancouver Regional District. 2005. Homeless count 2005: Preliminary results. Vancouver. http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/homelessness/pdfs/HomelessnessCount2005.pdf (June 16, 2005).
Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri. 2000. Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Healey, Patsy. 2004. “The Treatment of Space and Place in the New Strategic Spatial Planning in Europe.” International Journal of Urban & Regional Research 28 (1): 45–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooghe, Liesbet and Gary Marks. 1996. “'Europe with the Regions': Channels of Regional Representation in the European Union.” Publius 26 (1): 73–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooghe, Liesbet and Gary Marks. 2002. “Types of Multi-Level Governance.” Cahiers Européen de Sciences Po 3: 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulchanski, J. David. 2000. A New Canadian Pastime? Counting Homeless People. Toronto: Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto, December.
Jacobs, Jane. 1969. The Economy of Cities. New York: Random House.
Jacobs, Jane. 1984. Cities and the Wealth of Nations. New York: Vintage.
James, Royson. 2005. “ It's a New Day for Ontario Cities.” http://www.torontoalliance.ca/urban_challenges/new_fiscal_deal/articles.asp?articleID-311 (June 20, 2006).
Jamieson, Walter and Kent C. Smith. 1979. An evaluation of the implementation of the Neighbourhood Improvement Program: a case study of the North St. Boniface neighbourhood in Winnipeg. Calgary: Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary.
Jeffery, Charlie. 2000. “Sub-National Mobilization and European Integration: Does It Make Any Difference?” Journal of Common Market Studies 38 (1): 1–23.Google Scholar
Jessop, Bob. 1993. “Towards a Schumpeterian Workfare State? Preliminary Remarks on Post-Fordist Political Economy.” Studies in Political Economy 40: 7–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keating, Michael. 2003. “The Invention of Regions: Political Restructuring and Territorial Governance in Western Europe.” In State/Space: A Reader, eds. N. Brenner, B. Jessop, M. Jones and G. Macleod. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lazar, Harvey. 2002. Shifting Roles: Active Labour Market Development in Canada under the Labour Market Development agreements. Canadian Policy Research Networks. http://www.cprn.com (8 June 2006).
Leo, Christopher. 1994. “The urban economy and the power of the local state: the politics of planning in Edmonton and Vancouver.” In The Changing Canadian Metropolis: Contemporary Perspectives, vol. 2, ed. Frances Frisken. Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies Press, University of California, 657–98.
Leo, Christopher. 1995. “The State in the City: A Political Economy Perspective on Growth and Decay.” In Canadian Metropolitics, ed. James Lightbody. Toronto: Copp Clark Pitman.
Leo, Christopher and Kathryn Anderson. 2005. “Being Realistic About Urban Growth.” Journal of Urban Affairs 28: 169–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leo, Christopher and Martine August. 2005. The Federal Government and Homelessness: Community Initiation or Dictation from Above? Winnipeg: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
Leo, Christopher and Martine August. 2006. “Not Your Grandfather's Immigration Policy: Manitoba's Responsive Approach to Immigration and Settlement.” Winnipeg: unpublished manuscript.
Leo, Christopher and Wilson Brown. 2000. “Slow growth and urban development policy.” Journal of Urban Affairs 22 (2): 193–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leo, Christopher and Jeremy Enns. 2006. “Immigrant Integration in Vancouver.” Winnipeg: Unpublished manuscript.
Leo, Christopher and Robert Fenton. 1990. “'Mediated Enforcement' and the Evolution of the State: Development Corporations in Canadian City Centres.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 14 (2): 185–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipietz, Alain. 1992. “ Towards a New Economic Order: Post-Fordism, Ecology and Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Lyon, Deborah and Lynda H. Newman. 1986. The Neighbourhood Improvement Programme, 1973–83: A national Review of an Intergovernmental Initiative. Winnipeg: Institute of Urban Studies, University of Winnipeg.
Macleod Institute. 2004. In the spirit of the Vancouver agreement: A governance case study. Calgary: Macleod Institute.
Magnusson, Warren. 1996. The search for political space: Globalization, social movements, and the urban experience. Toronto: University of Toronto.
Magnusson, Warren and Rob Walker. 1988. “De-Centring the State: Political Theory and Canadian Political Economy.” Studies in Political Economy 26: 37–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahon, Rianne. 2003. “Yet Another ‘R’?” The Redesign and Rescaling of Welfare Regimes.” Toronto: Committee on Poverty, Social Welfare and Social Policy, International Sociology Association.
Manitoba Intergovernmental Affairs, andTrade. 2004. Winnipeg Partnership Agreement. Winnipeg: Manitoba Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade. http://www.gov.mb.ca/ia/programs/wpg_partnership (July 7, 2005).
Marcuse, Peter and Ronald van Kempen. 2000. Globalizing cities: A new spatial order? Oxford: Blackwell.
Sassen, Saskia. 1991. The global city: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton: Princeton University.
Sernau, Scott. 2000. Bound: Living in the globalized world. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian.
Simeon, Richard and Elaine Willis. 1997. “Democracy and performance: Governance in Canada and the United States.” In Degrees of freedom: Canada and the United States in a changing world, ed. George Hoberg, Richard Simeon and Keith Banting. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.
Statistics Canada. 2001. Community Profiles. http://www12.statcan.ca/english/profil01/PlaceSearchForm1.cfm (January 25, 2005).
Strange, Susan. 1996. The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Winnipeg Core Area Initiative. 1992. Partnerships for Renewal: Winnipeg Core Area Initiative 1981–1992. Winnipeg: Winnipeg Core Area Initiative.