MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2051901434 · doi:10.1111/j.1754-7121.2009.00086.x

CPA special issue 2009: Federalism, public policy and municipalities – Introduction

2009· article· en· W2051901434 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Barbara Wake Carroll, Katherine A. Graham

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Public Administration · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiquePolitical Systems and Governance
Établissements canadiensCarleton UniversityMcMaster University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésFederalismPublic administrationPolitical scienceGovernment (linguistics)Public policyCorporate governanceCollaborative governanceSociologyManagementLawPoliticsEconomics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

It is with great pleasure that we introduce this special issue of Canadian Public Administration on “federalism, public policy and municipalities.” It has been a number of years since municipal government and its relationship to federalism, in particular, has been featured in the Journal. This series of federal overview studies is intended to inform subsequent studies of federal involvement in specific policy fields and of federal interventions especially salient to Canadian municipalities. The first five articles are the outgrowth of the SSHRC-funded Major Collaborative Research Initiative (MCRI) project “Multilevel Governance and Public Policy in Canadian Municipalities.” The project was funded in 2004 for five years and has involved more than ninety scholars in all provinces, and almost as many graduate students. The project has been directed by Dr. Robert Young of the University of Western Ontario. It has been the subject of two conferences, and a third, “Cities and Public Policy,” co-sponsored by the Institute of Public Administration of Canada, takes place in September 2009 in Toronto, Canada. The project has produced three books, and more are forthcoming. The goal has been not only to focus attention on multilevel governance and municipal government but to look towards practical improvements. To that end, this issue should be of interest to both academics and practitioners. For more information about the project, please visit http://www.ppm-ppm.ca. The first question to be asked as part of the overview is why municipal policy issues rise on the federal policy agenda in Canada. Robert Young and Kelly McCarthy have undertaken the first systematic study of this question, examining the rise and fall of municipal policy issues, between Confederation and 2005. From their analysis, three logical explanations of why and when municipal issues might rise on the federal agenda – rapid population growth in cities, significant municipal restructuring, and municipal financial stress – are not borne out in any systematic way. They have concluded that history and the specifics of the moment may be determining factors. We then proceed to two articles that look at the institutions of government at the federal level for municipal issues. Christopher Stoney and Katherine Graham provide an overview of the federal machinery, while John Chenier looks at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Canadian municipalities' lobby in Ottawa. Stoney and Graham examine the risks and rewards of federal involvement in municipal affairs. Examining the period since the 1960s, they conclude that there have been three eras of federal involvement. In each case, a variety of organizational approaches and instruments have been used. However, over time, the focus has shifted from building machinery to buying influence. Chenier analyses the approaches that the FCM has used to sustain itself, in the face of ongoing tensions that result from its membership base and structure. He also assesses its role as an advocate and as a think tank on policy for its membership and the federal government. He argues for a strengthened policy research role, both to serve its membership and the federal government, which he views as having a dearth of policy expertise on municipal matters. Katherine Graham and Gene Swimmer examine the locus of federal intelligence about municipalities by looking at the distribution of federal employment across Canada. After looking at federal reports on public-service reform and other third-party analyses and conducting their own regression analysis to explain the variations in the relative federal presence across local areas and over time, they conclude that an “Ottawa syndrome” remains predominant. Federal employment is growing in the National Capital Region relative to other locations. Furthermore, NCR employment is more “knowledge-based” than elsewhere. This suggests potential challenges for local understanding at the federal level. It is impossible to have a full understanding of public policy and municipalities without looking at fiscal federalism. The article by Fabio Bojorquez, Eric Champagne and François Vaillancourt provides this important background. They look at the impact of federal grants on capital expenditures by municipalities, from 1988 to 2008, and note that the recent transition from a Liberal to a Conservative government has not resulted in a decrease in grant levels. Overall, this article concludes that there is a “flypaper effect” of federal capital grants to municipalities. These grants do shape municipal expenditure on infrastructure, including municipal investment of own-source revenues. In the case of a number of federal infrastructure programs, the role of provinces as intermediaries and funding partners is also crucial. This special issue concludes with an article by Jean-François Simard, which provides a provincial parallel about the dynamics of provincial-local relations in an attempt to realize a “grand plan” for local development. He looks at the history and impact of the Bureau d'aménagement de l'Est du Québec and its failure to deliver as a comprehensive planning agency for the eastern part of Quebec. The exigencies of federal-provincial dynamics around the Quiet Revolution and the 1969 regional development agreement are an important element in this case study.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,914
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,874

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,026
Tête enseignante GPT0,299
Écart entre enseignants0,273 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2009
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian Public AdministrationMême sujetPolitical Systems and GovernanceTravaux en français237 207