Search

This paper compares the public indebtedness of the Canadian provinces and the US states (including a share of the federal debt) over the 2000–2007 period. It presents rankings of the most indebted subnational jurisdictions based on five public debt concepts. Among the provinces, Quebec (with the lowest average rank) and Alberta (with the highest average rank) display the most stable position across the rankings. All other provinces show important fluctuations in their position in the rankings. Hence, allocating the federal debt to subnational states and the specific debt concept being considered significantly influence the rankings, quite spectacularly in some instances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article argues that the prospects for US state and Canadian provincial climate policy innovation and diffusion are limited in several respects. Subnational climate leaders tend already to be the cleanest states and provinces, and even they have been strategic in the sectors they regulate and the instruments they employ. In some cases, this selectivity appears to be motivated by opportunities to shift compliance costs to other states. Efforts to pool risks through state and provincial collaboration also are flagging in the wake of the Canadian and US federal governments' failure to adopt nation-wide policies to level the playing field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on use of comparativist-structural approaches for judicial interpretation of the spending power needs in the federalist system under the U.S. comparative constitutional law. It analyzes the features of the scholarly debates focusing on the nation's spending power and also finds the main constraints on the federal spending power. It compares the U.S. comparativist perspectives on the spending power with the present state of federal systems of Canada and commonwealth of Australia. It discusses two possible interpretations of the spending power Clause under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in context to the two U.S. Supreme Court cases United States v. Butler and South Dakota v. Dole.

The article offers information on the vaccination laws in the U.S. and Canada and discusses if the law of the U.S. can be used in Canada. It mentions that the U.S. federal government's delegate the public health authority to state officials and accordingly states are required to govern vaccinations within their borders. It cites that the U.S. vaccination laws face several deficiencies to maintain their herd immunity, the current issues of bioterrorism and inconsistencies in the enforcement of vaccination laws. It highlights that U.S. should implement a voluntary vaccination system and implement a uniform federal compulsory vaccination law to allow only for narrow medical exemptions.

Research on interest group strategies in federal systems is converging with the venue shopping and multilevel lobbying literature in the European Union. Drawing on both literatures, the article compares the lobbying strategies of U.S. and Canadian interest groups during the economic crisis of 2008–2009. The impact of political institutional and political partisan factors on venue choice is analyzed in a comparative crucial case study of Michigan and Ontario. Statistical analysis of original survey data from ninety-eight business, trade, and professional associations indicates that neither interest group financial resources nor the severity of the crisis predict lobbying frequencies or targets. Two factors strongly influence where interest groups lobby: the relative importance of the government levels and the partisan control of government. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

While there are many important points of comparison and contrast between the American and Canadian foundings, perhaps none is more important than the role of political theory. Both the United States and Canada share much in common historically, structurally, and theoretically, yet each established a very different form of federalism that has in turn developed in strikingly different ways. Starting from a common British inheritance, different theoretical applications resulted in divergent conceptions of sovereignty and representation that affected the system of federalism in each country. Our findings demonstrate the crucial importance for understanding the political philosophy of the founding relative to the ongoing dialectic of the Great Conversation. In these two nations, the federalism that developed resulted in substantive differences in representation and constitutional structures. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Federations exist to divide power and to promote diversity. Nonetheless, in federations interdependence requires degrees of policy coordination across governments. We examine two means of coordinating policies in the U.S. and Canadian federations: administrative and jurisdictional federalism. The former, with its centralized coordinative mechanisms, is thought to produce more uniform national policy outcomes; the latter, operating in the context of non-hierarchical relationships, greater policy variation. An analysis of cases in three policy areas in both countries indicates that despite contrasting coordinative practices, outcomes in actual policies implemented in the two federations are relatively similar. Hierarchical administrative federalism in the United States does not always produce the degree of coordination one might anticipate while a decentralized non-hierarchical system in Canada can achieve surprising degrees of coordination. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This article illustrates the challenges involved in preparing a systematic comparison of two federal countries. It examines questions as to what explains similarities and differences in federal systems. It rejects any single-variable approach to explaining federalism but gives primacy to ideas and to institutions. While there are fundamental differences in founding ideas and historical legacies, there are major similarities between these two federations. We conclude this analysis by underlining the value of comparison. Comparison helps clarify explanations for both variation and similarity, corrects misconceived perceptions of differences, and suggests areas of learning from one another. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Contributing to the gender and federalism debate, this article explores how characteristics and historical legacies of the Canadian and U.S. federations shape women’s activism. Following discussion of three positions gender scholars and activists hold regarding federalism, their shared view that federalism is gendered is explored. Reversing the causal arrow to compare how organized women circumvent or change obstructive federal arrangements, the text uses abortion rights campaigning to illustrate. It shows that the weaker pan-Canadian women’s movement succeeded in effecting constitutional and judicial change because of a favorable division of powers and preoccupation with Quebec. But a negative historical legacy and division of powers, counter-movements and partisan polarization limited the stronger U.S. movement to circumvention strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Canada and the United States have significantly different arrangements for the provision of health care. They also have contrasting federal systems. While much research has considered the implication of these factors in terms of national health outcomes, there is little consideration of how these differences affect subpopulations within the countries. This article compares rural health outcomes between the two countries and how the variant federal arrangements address rural health. It is found that rural health outcomes are similar in spite of significant divergence in their institutional and intergovernmental responsibilities. Thus, it appears that rural health disparities are best understood as a function of social and economic environments of rural areas rather than institutional and policy assignments flowing from differences in their federal systems. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]