Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:59:26.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Institutional Politics of Territorial Redistribution: Federalism and Equalization Policy in Australia and Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 May 2013

André Lecours  and
Daniel Béland
André Lecours*
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa
Daniel Béland*
Affiliation:
Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy
*
André Lecours, University of Ottawa, 55 Laurier East, Ottawa, ON K1N 5N6, alecours@uottawa.ca
Daniel Béland, Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, 101 Diefenbaker Place, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5B8, daniel.beland@usask.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. A key challenge for comparative politics is to explain the varying degrees of political conflict triggered by the territorial redistribution of financial resources. Federal systems pose this question particularly acutely since they typically operate equalization programs that generate different levels and patterns of intergovernmental conflict. For instance, in Canada equalization has generated serious conflict between federal and provincial governments whereas in Australia it has only led to low-level grumblings on the part of some states which have taken shots at others. This article sheds light on the causes for conflict around the territorial redistribution of financial resources by explaining why equalization has produced more severe intergovernmental conflict in Canada than in Australia. It argues that institutional factors linked to the governance structures of equalization and the nature of federalism are at the heart of the cross-national difference. More specifically, the presence of an arms-length agency administrating equalization in Australia compared to executive discretion over the program in Canada and the weaker status and lesser power of states in comparison to Canadian provinces means that equalization policy is more subject to political challenges in Australia than in Canada.

Résumé. Une question majeure pour la politique comparée contemporaine, et plus particulièrement le fédéralisme comparé, est celle des conflits politiques et intergouvernementaux générés par la distribution territoriale des ressources fiscales. Au Canada, au cours de la dernière décennie, le programme de péréquation a suscité des conflits importants entre le gouvernement fédéral et les provinces, tandis qu'en Australie la péréquation ne provoque qu'un mécontentement épisodique entre les états fédérés. Cet article cherche à expliquer cette différence. Il suggère que des facteurs institutionnels liés à la gouvernance de la péréquation et à la nature des systèmes fédéraux sont au centre de l'explication. Plus précisément, l'article suggère que la présence d'une agence quasi-indépendante pour administrer la péréquation en Australie et son absence au Canada ainsi que la faiblesse relative des états australiens par rapport aux provinces canadiennes font que la péréquation au Canada est plus sujette aux attaques politiques qu'en Australie.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 93 - 113
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 2013 

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

Amoretti, Ugo M. 2004. “Political Institutions and the Mobilization of Territorial Differences.” In Federalism and Territorial Cleavages, eds. Amoretti, Ugo M. and Bermeo, Nancy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amoretti, Ugo M. and Bermeo, Nancy, eds. 2004 Federalism and Territorial Cleavages. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Association for Canadian Studies-Léger Marketing Poll, 2010.Google Scholar
Béland, Daniel and Lecours, André. 2012. Equalization at Arm's Length. Toronto: Mowat Centre for Policy Innovation.Google Scholar
Béland, Daniel and Lecours, André. Forthcoming. “The Territorial Politcs of Fiscal Redistribution: Why Is There No Federal Equilization Program in the United States?” (article under review).Google Scholar
Boadway, Robin. 2004. “The Theory and Practice of Equalization.” CESifo Economic Studies 50: 211–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boadway, Robin and Shah, Anwar. 2009. Fiscal Federalism: Principles and Practices of Multiorder Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boadway, Robin, Cuff, Katherine and Marchand, M.. 2003. “Equalization and the Decentralization of Revenue-Raising in a Federation.” Journal of Public Economic Theory 5: 221–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brisbane Times. 2009. “WA, Qld ‘axis of evil in GST battle.’” Brisbane Times, August 13.Google Scholar
Brown, A.J. 2009. “Thinking Big: Public Opinion and Options for Reform of Australia's Federal System.” Public Policy 4: 30–50.Google Scholar
Brown, Douglas M. 2002. “Fiscal Federalism: The New Equilibrium between Equity and Efficiency.” In Canadian Federalism. Performance, Effectiveness, and Legitimacy, ed. Bakvis, Herman and Skogstad, Grace. Don Mills: Oxford University Press: 59–84.Google Scholar
Bryden, Joan. 2007. “Provinces slam Tories' fiscal gap cure.” The Toronto Star, March 20.Google Scholar
Buchanan, James M. 1950. “Federalism and Fiscal Equity.” American Economic Review 40: 583–99.Google Scholar
Burgess, Michael. 2006. Comparative Federalism: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CBC News. 2007a. “NL ‘Shafted’ in Federal Budget: Williams.” March 20.Google Scholar
CBC News. 2007b. “Sask. Will Sue Over Equalization: Calvert.” June 13.Google Scholar
Commonwealth Grants Commission. 1995. Equality in Diversity. History of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. 2nd ed. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing ServicesGoogle Scholar
Commonwealth Grants Commission. 2008. The Commonwealth Grants Commission: The Last 25 Years. Canberra: Commonwealth Grants Commission.Google Scholar
Commonwealth Grants Commission. 2010. “Main Report.” Report on GST Revenue Sharing Relativities—2010 Review. vol. 1. Canberra: Commonwealth Grants Commission.Google Scholar
Commonwealth of Australia. 2012. GST Distribution Review Interim Report.Google Scholar
Collins, Hugh. 1985. “Political Ideology in Australia: The Distinctiveness of a Benthamite Society.” In Australia: The Daedalus Symposium, ed. Graubard, Stephen Richards. Sydney: Angus and Robertson Publishers: 147–69Google Scholar
Crisp, L.F. 1983. Australia's National Government. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.Google Scholar
Dunckley, Mathew. 2010. “Brumby slams GST payout formula.” The Australian Financial Review, 2 March.Google Scholar
Eisen, Ben and Milke, Mark. 2010. The Real Have-Nots in Confederation: Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. How Canada's equalization program creates generous programs and large governments in have-not provinces. Winnipeg: Frontier Centre for Public Policy.Google Scholar
Erk, Jan. 2004. “Austria: A Federation without Federalism.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 34: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Expert Panel on Equalization and Territorial Formula Financing. 2006. Achieving a National Purpose: Putting Equalization Back on Track. Ottawa.Google Scholar
Fenna, Alan. 2007. “The Malaise of Federalism: Comparative Reflections on Commonwealth–State Relations.” The Australian Journal of Public Administration 66: 298–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenna, Alan. 2012. “Fiscal Equalisation and Natural Resources in Federal Systems.” Public Policy 6: 71–80.Google Scholar
Gagnon, Alain-G, ed. 2009. Contemporary Canadian Federalism. Foundations, Traditions, Institutions. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gagnon, Alain-G. and Tully, James, eds. 2001. Multinational Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbins, Roger and Berdhal, Loleen. 2003. Western Visions, Western Futures. 2nd ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Hollander, Robyn and Patapan, Haig. 2007. “Pragmatic Federalism: Australian Federalism from Hawke to Howard.” The Australian Journal of Public Policy 66: 280–97.Google Scholar
Jeffery, Charlie. 2003. “The Politics of Territorial Finance.” Regional and Federal Studies 13: 183–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffery, Charlie and Heald, David. 2003. “Money Matters: Territorial Finance in Decentralized States.” Regional and Federal Studies, special issue, 13(4): 130–52.Google Scholar
Keating, Michael. 2000. The New Regionalism in Western Europe. Territorial Restructuring and Political Change. London: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Kenyon, Daphne A. and Kincaid, John. 1996. “Fiscal Federalism in the United States: The Reluctance to Equalize Jurisdictions.” In Finanzverfassung in Spannungsfeld zwischen Zentralstaat und Gliedstaaten, ed. Pommerehne, Werner W. and Ress, George. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verslagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Knopff, Rainer and Sayers, Anthony. 2005. “Canada.” In Constitutional Origins, Structure, and Change in Federal Countries, ed. Kincaid, John and Tarr, G. Alan. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
Lecours, André (ed.). 2005. New Institutionalism: Theory and Analysis. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lecours, André and Béland, Daniel. 2010. “Federalism and Fiscal Policy: The Politics of Equalization in Canada.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 40: 569–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1971. “Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method.” American Political Science Review 65: 682–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Livingstone, William. 1952. “A Note on the Failure of Federalism.” Political Science Quarterly 67: 81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKinnon, David. 2011. Dollars & Sense: A Case for Modernizing Canada's Transfer Agreements. Toronto: Ontario Chamber of Commerce.Google Scholar
Mieszkowski, Peter and Musgrave, Richard. 1999. “Federalism, Grants, and Fiscal Equalization.” National Tax Journal 52: 239–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milne, David. 1998. “Equalization and the Politics of Restraint.” In Equalization: Its Contribution to Canada's Fiscal and Economic Progress, ed. Boadway, Robin W. and Hobson, Paul A.R.. Kingston: John Deutsch Institute for the Study of Economic Policy: 175–203.Google Scholar
Musgrave, Richard. 1965. Essays in Fiscal Federalism. Washington DC: Brookings Institute.Google Scholar
Nicholas, Malcolm. 2003. “Financial Arrangements between the Australian Government and Australian States.” Regional and Federal Studies 13: 153–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parkin, Andrew W. and Anderson, Geoff M.. 2007. “The Howard Government, Regulatory Federalism and the Transformation of Commonwealth–State Relations.” Australian Journal of Political Science 42: 295–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, Craig. 2007. How to Map Arguments in Political Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, Christian. 2011. “The Grants Commission and the Future of the Federation.” Public Policy 6: 45–70.Google Scholar
Review of Commonwealth–State Funding. 2002. Final Report. A Review of the Allocation of Commonwealth Grants to the States and the Territories.Google Scholar
Riker, William. 1964. Federalism: Origins, Operation, Significance. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
Saunders, Cheryl. 2005. “Commonwealth of Australia.” In Constitutional Origins, Structure, and Change in Federal Countries, ed. Kincaid, John and Tarr, G. Alan. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
Shah, Anwar, ed. 2007. The Practice of Fiscal Federalism. Forum of Federations. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smiley, Donald V. 1987. The Federal Condition in Canada. Toronto: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Steinmo, Sven, Thelen, Kathleen and Longstreth, Frank, eds. 1992. Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steketee, Mike. 2010. “Federalism is a dead idea. So what now?” The Australian, April 24.Google Scholar
Sury, M.M. 2010. Finance Commissions and Fiscal Federalism in India. New Delhi: Indian Tax Foundation.Google Scholar
Warren, Neil. 2008. “Reform of the Commonwealth Grants Commission: It's all in the Detail.” University of New South Wales Law Journal 31: 530–52.Google Scholar
Watts, Ronald L. 2003. “Introduction: Comparative Research and Fiscal Federalism.” Regional and Federal Studies 4: 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, Ronald L. 2008. Comparing Federal Systems. 3rd ed. Montreal and Kingston: McGill Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
Wibbels, Erik. 2005. Federalism and the Market: Intergovernmental Conflict and Economic Reform in the Developing World. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar