The Ideational Dimension of Federalism: The ‘Australian Model’ and the Politics of Equalisation in Canada

Abstract

This article examines the ideational dimension of federalism and its consequences for the analysis of policy development. With this objective in mind, the article offers an explanation for Canada's rejection of the two main aspects of the ‘Australian model’ of equalisation: the assessment of expenditure needs and the existence of an arms-length commission to determine payments. As argued, the ideological prevalence of provincial autonomy in Canada explains why federal officials opted to reject the ‘Australian model’ as they prepared to establish the country's program and why subsequent reforms never introduced a needs-assessment dimension or created an arms-length agency to administer equalisation. At the theoretical level, this article shows how ideational factors can shape policy outcomes.

Notes

¹At a more general level, this issue is typically discussed by students of ‘policy transfer’ and ‘lesson drawing’ (Dolowitz and Marsh 2000; Rose 2004).

²At first, the program penalised large families, which were overrepresented in Quebec's Catholic society (Marshall 1994).

³This paragraph draws directly on Courchene (2007). On the history of equalisation since 1957 see also Courchene (1984), MacNevin (2004), Milne (1998) and Perry (1997).

⁴Australian federalism has arguably been more than ever driven by considerations of efficiency in the last decade (Parkin and Anderson 2007) although some have argued that global process have given states some leverage (Galligan and Wright 2002).

⁵There are, of course, indigenous populations in both states, but this cleavage is not central to federalism in either case.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Daniel Béland

Daniel Béland holds the Canada Research Chair in Public Policy at the Johnson–Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy (University of Saskatchewan campus). André Lecours is an Associate Professor in the School of Political Studies at the University of Ottawa. The authors acknowledge support from Canada's Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). They also thank Tracy Beck Fenwick, Angela Kempf, and the AJPS reviewers for their comments and suggestions. Finally, Daniel Béland acknowledges support from the Canada Research Chairs Program.