Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T09:23:30.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Federalism and Political Change: Canada and Germany in Historical-Institutionalist Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 March 2010

Jörg Broschek
Jörg Broschek*
Affiliation:
FernUniversität in Hagen
*
Jörg Broschek, Institut für Politikwissenschaft, Lehrgebiet I: Staat und Regieren, FernUniversität in Hagen, 58084 Hagen, Deutschland, joerg.broschek@fernuni-hagen.de.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. This paper starts from the assumption that historical institutionalism has much to offer in order to address important questions raised in the literature on comparative federalism. Historical institutionalism is a useful approach to enhancing our understanding of both the origins that drive federal system dynamics and the dynamic patterns which federal systems unfold over time. The paper conceptualizes federalism as a multi-layered political order, comprising an institutional and an ideational layer. It then introduces two models of political change, the model of path dependence and the process sequencing model, and asks how each model can contribute to explain the emergence of the federal order in Canada and Germany. I conclude that while the model of path dependence lends itself well to capturing federal system dynamics in Germany, the process sequencing model, in contrast, is better suited to explaining sources and patterns of change in Canada.

Résumé. L'article part de la position que l'institutionnalisme historique constitue une source intéressante pour aborder des questions importantes issues de la littérature sur le fédéralisme comparatif. L'institutionnalisme historique est une approche utile pour élargir notre compréhension des dynamiques politiques dans les systèmes fédéraux. Cet article conceptualise le fédéralisme comme un ordre politique à plusieurs niveaux comportant une strate institutionnelle et une strate idéationnelle. Puis, deux modèles de transformation politique sont introduits : le modèle de la dépendance du sentier et un autre qui trace les diverses séquences d'un changement dont la temporalité est décisive pour les résultats. On analyse ensuite la capacité des deux modèles d'expliquer la formation d'un ordre politique fédéral en Allemagne et au Canada. L'article conclut que le modèle de la dépendance du sentier est utile pour cerner les dynamiques du système fédéral allemand tandis que le modèle des séquences temporelles est meilleur pour expliquer les sources et les transformations du fédéralisme canadien.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 1 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 2010

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

Aminzade, Ronald. 1992. “Historical Sociology and Time.” Sociological Methods and Research 20 (4): 456–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, Christopher. 1981. The Politics of Federalism. Ontario's Relations with the Federal Government, 1867–1942. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banting, Keith. 2007. “The Three Federalisms: Social Policy and Intergovernmental Decision-Making.” In Canadian Federalism: Performance, Effectiveness, and Legitimacy, ed. Bakvis, Herman and Skogstad, Grace. 2nd ed.Don Mills: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, Andrew and Elman, Colin. 2006. “Complex Causal Relations and Case Study Methods: The Example of Path Dependence.” Political Analysis 14: 250–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benz, Arthur. 1999: “From Unitary to Asymmetric Federalism in Germany: Taking Stock after 50 Years.” Publius 29: 55–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benz, Arthur. 2008. “German Dogmatism and Canadian Pragmatism? Stability and Constitutional Change in Federal Systems.” Polis-Nr. 65/2008.Institut für Politikwissenschaft. FernUniversität in Hagen.Google Scholar
Black, Edwin and Cairns, Alan. 1966. “A Different Perspective on Canadian Federalism.” Canadian Public Administration 9: 27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolleyer, Nicole. 2006. “Federal System Dynamics in Canada, the United States, and Switzerland: How Substates' Internal Organization Affects Intergovernmental Relations.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 36: 471–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broschek, Jörg. 2009. Der kanadische Föderalismus. Eine historisch-institutionalistische Analyse. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, Michael. 1995. The British Tradition of Federalism. Madison NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.Google Scholar
Burgess, Michael. 2006. Comparative Federalism: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cairns, Alan. 1977. “The Governments and Societies of Canadian Federalism.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 10: 693–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capoccia, Giovanni and Kelemen, Daniel. 2007. “The Study of Critical Junctures: Theory, Narrative, and Counterfactuals in Historical Institutionalism.” World Politics 59: 341–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Christopher. 2007. Iron Kingdom: The Rise and Downfall of Prussia 1600–1947. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Colino, César. 2010 (forthcoming). “Understanding Federal Change: Types of Federalism and Institutional Evolution in the Spanish and German Federal Systems.” In Exploring New Avenues in Comparative Federalism, ed. Erk, Jan and Swenden, Wilfried. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cook, Ramsay. 1971. Provincial Autonomy, Minority Rights, and the Compact Theory: 1867–1921. Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism: Studies of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism 4.Ottawa: Information Canada.Google Scholar
Erk, Jan. 2007. Explaining Federalism: State, Society and Congruence in Austria, Belgium, Canada, Germany and Switzerland. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falleti, Tulia. 2005. “A Sequential Theory of Decentralization: Latin American Cases in Comparative Perspective.” American Political Science Review 99: 327–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falleti, Tulia and Lynch, Julia. 2009. “Context and Causation in Political Analysis.” Comparative Political Studies 42 (9): 1143–1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filippov, Mikhail, Ordeshook, Peter and Shvetsova, Olga. 2004. Designing Federalism: A Theory of Self-Sustainable Federal Institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Abigail. 2001. Fatherlands: State-Building and Nationhood in Nineteenth-Century Germany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Green, Abigail. 2003. “The Federal Alternative? A New View of Modern German History.” The Historical Journal 46: 187–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harty, Siobhán. 2005. “Theorizing Institutional Change.” In New Institutionalism: Theory and Analysis, ed. Lecours, André. Toronto: University of Toronto Press: 51–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howlett, Michael and Rayner, Jeremy. 2006. “Understanding the Historic Turn in the Policy Sciences: A Critique of Stochastic, Narrative, Path Dependency and Process-Sequencing Models of Policy-Making over Time.” Policy Sciences 39: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hueglin, Thomas and Fenna, Alan. 2006. Comparative Federalism: A Systematic Inquiry. Peterborough: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, Charlie. 2008. “Conclusion: Groundhog Day: The Non-Reform of German Federalism, Again.” German Politics 17: 587–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laforest, Guy. 2007. “One never knows … Sait-on jamais?” In Quebec and Canada in the New Century: New Dynamics, New Opportunities, ed. Murphy, Michael. Montreal/Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
Langewiesche, Dieter. 2000. Nation, Nationalismus, Nationalstaat in Deutschland und Europa. München: Beck.Google Scholar
LaSelva, Samuel. 1996. The Moral Foundations of Canadian Federalism: Paradoxes, Achievements and the Tragedies of Nationhood. Montreal/Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lecours, André. 2005. “New Institutionalism: Issues and Questions.” In New Institutionalism: Theory and Analysis, ed. Lecours, André. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmbruch, Gerhard. 1998. Parteienwettbewerb im Bundesstaat. 2nd ed.Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmbruch, Gerhard. 2002. “Der unitarische Bundesstaat in Deutschland: Pfadabhängigkeit und Wandel.” In Föderalismus. Analysen in entwicklungsgeschichtlicher und vergleichender Perspektive, ed. Benz, Arthur and Lehmbruch, Gerhard. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
Leslie, Peter. 1987. Federal State, National Economy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Lieberman, Robert. 2002. “Ideas, Institutions, and Political Order: Explaining Political Change.” American Political Science Review 96: 697–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Livingston, William S. 1956. Federalism and Constitutional Change. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackay, Robert. 1963 [1926]. The Unreformed Senate of Canada. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.Google Scholar
Mahoney, James. 2000. “Path Dependence in Historical Sociology.” Theory and Society 29: 507–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallory, James. 1976 [1956]. Social Credit and the Federal Power in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
McIntosh, Tom. 2004. “Intergovernmental Relations, Social Policy and Federal Transfers after Romanow.” Canadian Public Administration 47: 27–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McRoberts, Kenneth. 1997. Misconceiving Canada: The Struggle for National Unity. Don Mills: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Montpetit, Éric. 2008. “Easing Dissatisfaction with Canadian Federalism? The Promise of Disjointed Incrementalism.” Canadian Political Science Review 2 (3): 12–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, William. 1980. “Confederation 1870–1896.” In Contexts of Canada's Past: Selected Essays of William Morton, ed. McKillop, A.B.. Toronto: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nipperdey, Thomas. 1986. “Der Föderalismus in der deutschen Geschichte.” In Nachdenken über die deutsche Geschichte, ed. Nipperdey, Thomas. München: Beck.Google Scholar
Oeter, Stefan. 1998. Integration und Subsidiarität im deutschen Bundesstaatsrecht. Untersuchungen zur Bundesstaatstheorie unter dem Grundgesetz. Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
Orren, Karen and Skowronek, Stephen. 1994. “Beyond the Iconography of Order: Notes for a ‘New Institutionalism.’” In The Dynamics of American Politics: Approaches and Interpretations, ed. Dodd, Lawrence C. and Jillson, Calvin. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Orren, Karen and Skowronek, Stephen. 2004. The Search for American Political Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, Scott. 2006. “Path Dependence.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 1: 87–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, Paul. 2004. Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renzsch, Wolfgang. 1991. Finanzverfassung und Finanzausgleich. Bonn: Dietz.Google Scholar
Riker, William. 1964. Federalism: Origin, Operation, Significance. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
Rocher, François and Smith, Miriam. 2003. “The Four Dimensions of Canadian Federalism.” In New Trends in Canadian Federalism, ed. Roçher, Francois and Smith, Miriam. 2nd ed.Peterborough: Broadview.Google Scholar
Russell, Peter. 2004. Constitutional Odyssey. 3rd ed.Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Scharpf, Fritz. 1988. “The Joint-decision Trap: Lessons from German Federalism and European Integration.” Public Administration 66: 239–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scharpf, Fritz. 2005. “No Exit from the Joint-decision Trap? Can German Federalism Reform Itself?” MPIfG Working Paper 05/8. Köln.Google Scholar
Schelling, Thomas. 1960. The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schultze, Rainer-Olaf. 1990. “Föderalismus als Alternative? Überlegungen zur territorialen Reorganisation politischer Herrschaft.” Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen 21: 475–90.Google Scholar
Schultze, Rainer-Olaf. 2000. “Indirekte Entflechtung: Eine Strategie für die Föderalismusreform?” Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen 31: 681–98.Google Scholar
Simeon, Richard. 1980. “National Resource Revenues and Canadian Federalism: A Survey of the Issues.” Canadian Public Policy 6: 182–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skowronek, Stephen. 1993. The Politics Presidents Make: Leadership from John Adams to Bill Clinton. Cambridge: Belkap Press.Google Scholar
Smiley, Donald. 1975. “Canada and the Quest for a National Policy.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 8 (1): 40–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smiley, Donald. 1987. The Federal Condition in Canada. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.Google Scholar
Smith, Jennifer. 1984. “Intrastate Federalism and Confederation.” In Political Thought in Canada: Contemporary Perspectives, ed. Brooks, Stephen. Toronto: Irwin.Google Scholar
Stevenson, Garth 1989: Unfulfilled Union: Canadian Federalism and National Unity. 3rd ed.Toronto: Gage.Google Scholar
Stevenson, Garth. 1993. Ex Uno Plures: Federal-Provincial Relations in Canada, 1887–1896. Montreal/Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thelen, Kathleen. 1999. “Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science 2: 369–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorlakson, Lori. 2003. “Comparing Federal Institutions: Power and Representation in Six Federations.” West European Politics 26: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorlakson, Lori. 2007. “An Institutional Explanation of Party System Congruence: Evidence from Six Federations.” European Journal of Political Research 46: 69–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vipond, Robert. 1989. “1787 and 1867: The Federal Principle and Canadian Confederation Reconsidered.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 22: 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vipond, Robert. 1991. Liberty and Community: Canadian Federalism and the Failure of the Constitution. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Ziblatt, Daniel. 2002. “Recasting German Federalism? The Politics of Fiscal Decentralization in Post-Unification Germany.” Politische Vierteljahresschrift 43: 624–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziblatt, Daniel. 2006. Structuring the State: The Formation of Italy and Germany and the Puzzle of Federalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar