Financial Accountability in the Provincial Governments of Canada: A Review of the Budgeting and Financial Management Legislation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Growing deficits and unsustainable debts were common themes across the provinces in the 1980s. Credit rating agencies began to downgrade the provinces as they perceived a higher default risk, forcing senior governments in Canada to take strict measures. Between 1990 and 1999, the Canadian provinces with fiscal rules increased from zero to eight. Since 2000, fiscal rules have been revamped to include requirements that strive for transparency. Given the evolution of fiscal rules in Canada, the purpose of this research is to examine the legal framework for budgeting and financial management in the Canadian provinces between 1980 and 2018 in order to understand the formal and political accountabilities in it. Additionally, by identifying the financial accountability mechanisms implemented during the period studied and examining them through the lens of transparency, I explore their relationship with the access to financial markets. \n\nI use Mark Philp’s distinction between formal and political accountabilities in democratic governments as it encompasses similar typologies developed by other scholars. After performing a content analysis of the document sources, I conclude the following: First, there is a clear shift from role-derived formal accountabilities to results-based political accountabilities and then to process-based formal accountabilities that strengthen transparency in budgeting and financial management. Second, transitions from one type of accountability to another occurred at different points in time for the provinces, beginning with mechanisms that involved fewer implementation issues. Third, the shifts in emphases from formal to political accountabilities and vice versa were prompted by the loss of government credibility in financial markets. Finally, the provinces that combined political and formal accountabilities were able to restore this trust more effectively by signaling a credible commitment to credit rating agencies and lenders.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".