No abstract

No abstract

The orthodox view that Canada's ideological tradition is more supportive of an active state cannot explain earlier innovations in social and labour policy in the United States. A neo-pluralist and neo-institutionalist synthesis is used to contrast these nations. Organic ideologies of labour, agrarian, business and professional groups reveal no consistent national differences in support for state action. Initial state interventions were similar and limited. But institutional development occurred in different contexts, producing more effective executive leadership in Canada. American policy was constrained by the Congress, with its opportunities for blocking, and by inadequate executive power. Frustration with inaction plus greater social well-being reduced demands in the US for state action. Canada's institutions allowed more creative policy and fostered greater support for state action, especially where the weak economy exacted costs on social groups. But constitutional change could replicate American gridlock, and reduce the capacity for new state action.

This essay seeks to evaluate the popular hypothesis that ethnoregional factors have created a neo-nationalist and interventionist state “ethic” in Quebec. The study provides a comprehensive categorization of all new legislative enactments adopted in Ontario and Quebec between 1960 and 1980, using refinements of typologies originally employed by Lionel Ouellet. Similarities and differences in the amount of legislation adopted by each province in various policy fields are then assessed. Some significant differences are discovered in such areas as economic stimulation, state corporations, national symbols, international affairs, education, and social assistance policy which may reflect ethnoregional variations. However, the amount of legislation adopted by each state in numerous other fields is quite similar, suggesting that many modern challenges have been dealt with in like fashion by the two provinces.

No abstract