Section 2 - Description of Proposed Research (A11. Summary):

Modern governance takes place in a much different context than that encountered by governments in earlier era's. New problems such as environmental degradation, globalization, and fiscal crises affect many states. However, what is most significant is not the nature of the problems with which government must grapple, but the different set of tools available to address these issues.1 As Kickert, Klijn and Koppenjan have pointed out, in previous eras:

The development of ideas and theories on public policy and governance has long been based on an image of government as standing above society and being able to 'steer' it. Policy was approached from a strongly rational-technical point of view with a strict division between politics and policy. Emphasis was placed on the neutral implementation of the policy formulated by the political system.2

In previous eras the focus of governance was upon directive planning and the use of command and control regulatory measures. In the modern era, however, as societies have become more complex and states and societies more interdependent at both the domestic and international levels, a shift in technique has been made towards more different methods of governance; methods which involve an emphasis on de-centralized procedural and structural manipulation of policy processes.3

These new modes of governance are based on the analysis and management of policy subsystems.4 For these techniques to be effective, governments must have an understanding not only of how such subsystems are structured, but of how differences in structure affect subsystem behaviour and, most importantly, policy outcomes. Unfortunately, the relationship between subsystem structure and policy outcome is not well understood.5

This project will conduct an empirical evaluation of the impact of policy subsystem configurations, structure and behaviour on policy outcomes. Phase I of the proposed project will construct a dataset relating to the institutional and individual membership of policy subsystems in several sectors of the Canadian economy and society, and classify these subsystems according to their structural characteristics. Phase II will examine policy histories in these sectors in order to determine the nature of recent policy development and change in each. Phase III will compare the sectoral dynamics with subsystem structure in order to determine the impact that subsystem structure has on policy outcomes.

This research will make a significant contribution to the development of the policy sciences in Canada. It will do so in three ways. First, empirically, it will provide a database of subsystem composition which will be of use to other members of the Canadian policy studies community. Second, methodologically, it represents the first large scale application to Canadian policy data of policy domain or social network analysis. This study will help train Canadian researchers in their use and popularize their application. Third, theoretically, it advances the field of policy studies by filling a major gap in the understanding of the functioning of policy processes and the role played within them by subsystems. Until this study is completed, modern governance efforts in Canada will continue to be hampered by a lack of detailed understanding of how policy subsystems in this country are configured and behave, and in what ways those configurations and behaviour affect policy processes and outcomes.

A12. Detailed Description

Objective:

The notion of a policy subsystem is a powerful concept in policy analysis both from a theoretical and practical perspective. Conceptually, it helps to answer several important questions about policy-making relating to the role of actors, ideas and interests in the public policy-making process. By organizing policy actors and institutions into identifiable sets of policy-relevant interactions, the subsystem concept facilitates policy analysis by helping to transcend the limitations of either a purely behavioral or a purely institutional mode of analysis.6 Practically, it provides a model of the structure and operation of policy processes which governments and other policy actors can use to design and affect policy processes and outcomes.7

Within the policy sciences, many analyses have focussed on the conceptual aspects of policy subsystems. This has resulted in the generation of a series of rival conceptual schemes and taxonomies attempting to identify the relevant aspects of subsystem composition and conceptualize the variations observed in subsystem configuration.8 The generation of workable taxonomies is the first step in understanding the role subsystems play in the policy process and Canadian researchers have played a major role in these efforts. Atkinson, Coleman and Skogstad, for example, have developed a scheme based on the organization of state and society, and the links between the two, which is widely utilized throughout the world.9

Canadian researchers have also recognized the difficulties posed for subsystem analysis and governance by an over-emphasis on taxonomy and the failure to come to grips with the nature of the relationship existing between subsystem structure and policy outcome.10 Evert Lindquist, for example, has noted that a major problem in subsystem analysis is "the proliferation of concepts attempting to capture different kinds of communities, networks and associations that often intersect, overlap or operate at different levels of analysis". Without better empirical evaluation contemporary debates over terminology promise "to yield little in the way of additional explanatory power or conceptual integration".11 For policy analysis to aid modern governance, studies must move beyond typologies to effective implementation.12

Following the methodology established by Knoke, Laumann and their colleagues,13 Phase I of the proposed project will construct a dataset relating to the institutional and individual membership of policy subsystems in several sectors of the Canadian economy and society, and classify these subsystems according to their structural characteristics. Following the methodology established by Hall and others,14 Phase II will examine these sectors in order to determine the nature of recent policy development and change in each. Phase III will compare the sectoral dynamics with subsystem structure in order to determine the impact that subsystem structure has on policy outcomes.

The study advances the field of policy and governance studies by filling a major gap in the understanding of the functioning of policy processes. Until this study is completed, understanding of Canadian policy processes will continue to be limited due to lack of detailed understanding of how policy subsystems in Canada are actually affect policy processes and outcomes. Such an understanding is essential if the analysis of subsystems is to continue to move beyond theory and become an active component of modern governance.

Context:

The notion of a policy subsystem is a flexible concept designed to capture the complex interplay between actors and institutions, and knowledge and interests, in the policy-making process. It is a critical component of most modern approaches to the study of policy-making such as discourse analysis or network analysis,15 providing as it does the "glue" linking actors, ideas and interests together as they affect policy processes and choices.16 Moreover it promises to become a significant aspect of governmental praxis as planning and policy design move further and further from coercive centralized methods towards the more flexible and complex public management strategies in the current era of governance.17

The oldest conception of a policy subsystem was developed in the United States by early critics of pluralism. They developed the notion of the "sub-government" consisting of groupings of societal and state actors into routinized patterns of interaction.18 This concept was developed on the basis of the observation that interest groups, congressional committees, and government agencies in the United States had developed a system of mutual support in the course of constant interaction over legislative and regulatory matters. These three-sided relationships in areas such as agriculture, transportation, and education were often dubbed iron triangles to capture the essence of their iron-clad control over many aspects of the policy process.19 These groupings were condemned for having "captured" the policy process, which subverted the principles of popular democracy by ensuring that their own self-interests prevailed over those of the general public.20

Further research into the American case in the 1960s and 1970s, however, revealed that these subgovernments were not all-powerful, and that in fact their influence on policy-making varied across issues and over time.21 Soon, a more flexible and less rigid notion of a policy subsystem evolved, called the issue network by Hugh Heclo.22 Building on his earlier work on social policies in Britain and Sweden,23 Heclo argued that while some areas of American political life were organized in an institutionalized system of interest representation, other were not. As he put it:

Preoccupied with trying to find the few truly powerful actors, observers tend to overlook the power and influence that arise out of the configurations through which leading policy makers move and do business with each other. Looking for the closed triangles of control, we tend to miss the fairly open networks of people that increasingly impinge upon government. (p. 88)

Heclo's alternative interpretation of the nature of the policy subsystems involved in policy formulation fostered several studies in Europe and North America intended to refine the concept.24 By the end of the 1980s, efforts turned to developing a more consistent method of classifying and analyzing policy subsystems.25

Several workable taxonomies now exist. Rhodes, for example, argues that networks vary according to their level of "integration", which was a function of their stability of membership; restrictiveness of membership; degree of insulation from other networks and the public; and the nature of the resources they controlled. Similar attributes are specified by Hamm in the United States who argues that subgovernments can be differentiated according to their: "internal complexity, functional autonomy, and (levels of internal and external) cooperation or conflict".26 In a major study of European industrial policy-making Wilks and Wright endorsed Rhodes' typology, arguing that networks varied along five key dimensions: "The interests of the members of the network, the membership, the extent of members' interdependence, the extent to which the network is isolated from other networks, and the variations in the distribution of resources between the members."27 Franz Van Waarden has developed a synthetic scheme in which subsystems can be seen to vary according to seven criteria: number and type of actors; function of networks; structure; institutionalization; rules of conduct; power relations; and actor strategies.28

While studies of policy change have hinted at the significance of structure to propensity for change, this has not been examined in a systemic fashion. The most popular assumption found in the literature associates only one dimension of network structure, the permeability of network boundaries, with policy change. That is, as researchers such as Paul Sabatier and Frank Baumgartner and Bryan Jones have argued, subsystems tend to become institutionalized, establish "policy monopolies", and serve to filter out new ideas and actors thus limiting the possibility of their influencing significant policy change.29 As such, most research has focussed on the manner in which subsystems are re-structured through such exogenous processes as "venue-change",30 "subsystem spill-over",31 and "paradigm change"32 As Daugbjerg has noted, however, other change types exist.33 These include most importantly, changes in network structure that can arise from endogenous, internal, processes such as policy learning.34

Existing Canadian studies have provided some anecdotal evidence linking aspects of subsystem structure to distinct patterns of policy outcomes.35 The project proposed herein will provide the empirical data required to make a systematic assessment of this critical question facing policy analysts working in the subsystem approach, and thereby provide the basis required for its systematic application in the practice of modern governance.

Methodology:

The first step in the research involves selecting policy domains for analysis.36 In the U.S., sociologically-inspired social network analysis has proven fruitful and has aided both conceptual clarification and empirical policy analysis of complex social interactions.37 This form of analysis relies upon the identification of individual members of social networks and the quantitative analysis of their interactions.38 It has dealt with a number of obvious methodological difficulties associated with such methods and has generally succeeded in operationalizing key concepts and developing statistical techniques for their analysis.39

Salisbury, Heinz, Laumann and Nelson's work remains at the leading edge of empirical research into policy subsystem structure .40 Phase I of the research program outlined here closely follows the methods utilized in these U.S. studies. It involves: (1) identifying a number of cases to be investigated as examples of existing Canadian policy subsystems; (2) constructing a dataset relating to the institutional and individual membership of each subsystem over the past decade; (3) conducting interviews with a sample of institutional representatives and other subsystem members to determine the structure, nature and extent of their policy interactions; and (4) subjecting the interview results to quantitative analysis in order to determine the strengths and direction of membership inter-relationships.

The choice of cases to be examined is, of course, critical.41 A number of criteria have determined the selection of cases. First, given the nature of Canada's federal form of government, the selection of policy domains should reflect the different networks that exist at each level of government: federal, provincial, and federal-provincial. Second, since existing analyses have focussed on the role played by institutionalization, the choice should include some newer and some older policy areas. Thirdly, given the potential for comparative research comparing Canadian cases with the results of similar studies in other countries, case selection should include examples of cases examined in other countries using similar methodologies. Fourthly, since the results of this proposed project will ultimately be integrated with the results of the author's previous SSHRC research program on agenda-setting,42 some overlap with already studied domains is also important. A fifth criterion for case selection relates to the ease of availability of current and historical data on subsystem composition and membership. Taking these criteria into account, the subsystems which have been chosen for examination in this project are Finance; Native Affairs; Forestry; Environment; and Health. These sectors provide (1) representation of federal (Finance), provincial (Forestry) and federal-provincial subsystems (Environment); (2) a basis for comparison of older, highly institutionalized sectors (Health and Finance) and newer or less well institutionalized sectors (Environment, Forestry); (3) the basis for comparisons with studies completed in other countries (Health); and allow (4) the integration of the findings from this study with those from the author's 1995-1997 study of Canadian agenda-setting (Environment, Native Affairs). These will be examined, following Van Waarden, to determine their number and type of actors; function; structure; institutionalization; rules of conduct; power relations; and actor strategies.43

A database of relevant organizations in each domain will be established through the inventory of organizations listed in newspaper reports and presenting briefs to Parliamentary or Legislative Committees and to relevant commissions and inquiries in the domains under examination. A subset of the private and public sector organizations so identified will be contacted and lists of individuals active in policy development in each organization created. Telephone surveys of a subset of these individuals will then be conducted in order to determine the amount, extent and nature of interaction present in these subsystems. Questions posed to participants will detail the history of that individual's involvement in policy-making, their interactions with government and private sector organizations; and the nature and frequency of those interactions. The survey instrument will be designed so as to allow the creation of two-dimensional smallest space representation of influence structures in the subsystems under consideration. The results of these surveys will be analyzed using statistical procedures for network analysis (especially multi-dimensional scaling using the ALSCAL procedure in SPSS).44 The analysis will define the borders of the subsystems and allow the analysis of how those boundaries have shifted over the period of study. Further, the analysis will allow for the quantitative analysis of influence relations and interactions among survey participants, including their structure of conflict and cleavage on specific issue areas.

Phase II of the project will be carried out concurrently with Phase I. This phase involves legal, textual and interview research into the nature of the evolution of each policy sector during the period under investigation. Peter Hall's threefold typology of policy change45 has proven useful in establishing the parameters and boundaries of policy dynamics and has been successfully applied in the cases of both endogenous and exogenous processes of policy change.46 Following Hall, each sector will be disaggregated into a number of issue areas and each policy issue examined in order to discern whether change in the sector has primarily affected (1) the settings of policy instruments, (2) the nature of type of instruments themselves, or (3) the goals established for the policy.

In the final phase of the study, the results from the first and second parts will be compared in order to establish the effect subsystem structure has had on policy change in each sector. Results of similar studies carried out in other jurisdictions have provided a set of hypotheses which can be tested in the Canadian case. These include Daugbjerg's finding in the case of agricultural policy that cohesive policy networks promote moderate reforms while non-cohesive networks are more closely associated with fundamental reform; 47 Baumgartner and Jones' argument that competitive subsystems are closely linked with substantial policy change and monopolistic subsystems with policy stability,48 and Zahariadis and Allen's suggestion that large, loosely integrated, networks tend to be associated with incremental change and smaller, more highly integrated, ones with more rapid, fundamental change.49

Communication of Results:

The results of this research will be made available to interested scholars and the public in a variety of ways. All data generated in the analysis will be deposited with the Research Data Library of Simon Fraser University. Access will be open to the public in both paper and electronic versions. The theoretical and practical consequences of this analysis will be made available to the academic policy community through dissemination in scholarly journals, conferences, and conference proceedings. Another output from the research program will be its contribution to a book length monograph providing a detailed empirical examination of the nature of Canadian policy subsystems and sectoral policy processes.

References:

A14 Training:

Much of the work of data collection, input and analysis will be carried out by graduate student research assistants under my supervision. They will receive training in the general subjects under investigation as well as in the specific elements and statistical techniques related to the development of survey instruments and the analysis of survey results. This high-level study will greatly aid their on-going and future academic program of study and their post-graduate employment prospects.

PART B - Record of Research Achievement/Section 2 - Research Contributions

B8 Research Contributions (Last Six Years Only) (R) = refereed (*) = SSHRC financed

NOTE: A Complete listing of Books, Articles, Conference Papers, Reviews etc. for the past six years runs to over six pages. I have included only Books, Refereed Articles and Conference Papers here due to space limitations. A complete list of Book Chapters and other publications is available upon request

Books

* (R) Forest Policies in Canada: Resource Constraints and Political Conflicts in the Canadian Forest Sector (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1999) - forthcoming

* (R) Canadian Natural Resource and Environmental Policy: Political Economy and Public Policy (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1997) - with Melody Hessing

(R) Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems, (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1995) - with M. Ramesh

(R) The Political Economy of Canada: An Introduction (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1992) - with M. Ramesh (Second Edition forthcoming, 1999- Oxford University Press)

Edited Books

* (R) Canadian Forest Policy: Regimes, Policy Dynamics and Institutional Adaptations (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999) - Edited forthcoming

The Provincial State: Politics in Canada's Provinces and Territories (Toronto: Copp Clark Pitman, 1992) - Edited with K. Brownsey (Second Edition forthcoming 1999 - Irwin)

The Puzzles of Power: Introductory Readings in Political Science (Toronto: Copp Clark Longman, 1994) - Edited with David Laycock (Second Edition 1998) - Oxford University Press)

* (R) Innovation Systems in a Regional Context: The North American Experience (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1998) - Edited with R. Anderson, T. Cohn, C. Day and C, Murray

(R) Policy Studies in Canada: The State of the Art (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996) - Edited with Laurent Dobuzinskis and David Laycock

Refereed Articles

* (R) "Legitimacy and Governance: Re-Discovering Procedural Policy Instruments" in Policy Studies Journal 1999 forthcoming

* (R) "How Does Politics Matter? Towards A Post-Positivist Model of Policy Change" in Policy Studies Journal 1998 forthcoming - with M. Ramesh

* (R) "Predictable and Unpredictable Policy Windows: Issue, Institutional and Exogenous Correlates of Canadian Federal Agenda-Setting" in Canadian Journal of Political Science, 1998 forthcoming

* (R) "Issue-Attention and Punctuated Equilibria Models Reconsidered: An Empirical Examination of the Dynamics of Agenda-Setting in Canada" in Canadian Journal of Political Science, 1997

(R) "The New Interventionism in Canada: An Assessment of Recent Experiences at the Federal and Provincial Levels" in Australian Journal of Political Economy 1996 - with S. McBride and M. Ramesh

(R) "Opening up the Woods?: The Origins and Future of Contemporary Canadian Forest Policy Conflicts" in National History, 1996 with Jeremy Rayner

(R) Do Ideas Matter? Policy Subsystem Configurations and the Continuing Conflict Over Canadian Forest Policy" in Canadian Public Administration, Winter 1995 - with Jeremy Rayner

(R) "Policy Paradigms and Policy Change: Lessons from the Old and New Canadian Policies Towards Aboriginal Peoples" in Policy Studies Journal (U.S) 22(4), 1995

(R) "The Judicialization of Canadian Environmental Policy 1980-1990 - A Test of the Canada-U.S. Convergence Hypothesis" in Canadian Journal of Political Science, 27 (1), 1994

(R) "Post Keynesianism in Canada in the 1990s: An Emerging Paradigm or a Hopeless Muddle" in American Journal of Canadian Studies, (U.S.) 1993 (539-564) - with M. Ramesh

(R) "Patterns of Policy Instrument Choice Policy Styles, Policy Learning and the Privatization Experience" in Policy Studies Review (U.S.), 12(1) 1993 - with M. Ramesh

(R) "The Limits of Post-Keynesianism: Lessons From the Canadian Experience" Political Science (New Zealand) 1993 - with M. Ramesh

(R) "Policy Learning, Policy Instruments, and Privatization: Theorizing Changes in Patterns of Instrument Choice" in Politische Vierteljahresschrift,(Germany), 1993 - with M. Ramesh

(R) "The Lessons of Learning: Reconciling Theories of Policy Learning and Policy Change" in Policy Sciences , (Netherlands) 1993 - with Colin Bennett

(R) "Constructing the Environmental Spectacle: Green Ads and the Corporate Image, 1910-1990" in Environmental History Review, (U.S.) 1993 - with Rebecca Raglon

(R) "A Difference of Opinion: Round Tables, Policy Networks and the Failure of Canadian Environmental Strategy" in Alternatives, 1992 - with Jim Bruton

Conference Papers

Hard Issues, Negative Decisions, and Policy Change: Tenure Reform in British Columbia Forest Policy, Paper Presented to the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, June 1998

Policy Learning and Policy Change: Reconciling Knowledge and Interests in the Policy Process, Paper Presented to the European Union Conference on National Forest Policy, Freiburg, Germany May 1998).

Policy Venues, Policy Images, and Policy Change: Aboriginal Rights and British Columbia Forest Policy, Paper Presented to the Annual Meeting of the British Columbia Political Science Association. May 1998

Legitimacy and Governance: A Preliminary Taxonomy and Analysis of Procedural Policy Instruments, paper Presented to the Annual Meeting of the British Columbia Political Studies Association, Vancouver, 1997

* Agenda-Setting in Canada: Evidence from Six Case Studies, paper Presented to the Annual Meeting of the British Columbia Political Studies Association, Prince George, 1996

* Issue Attention Cycles Re-considered: Agenda Setting and Policy Dynamics in Canada: ,Paper Presented to the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal, 1995

Policy Subsystems, Policy Learning and Policy Change: A Model and a Test of Aboriginal Land Claims in British Columbia, Paper Presented to the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Calgary, 1994

Policy Paradigms and Policy Change: Lessons from the Old and New Canadian Native Policies, Paper Presented to the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Ottawa, 1993

Canadian Environmental Policy and the Law: Standing and Judicial Review in the 1980's, University of Northern British Columbia Public Lecture, 1993

Post-Keynesianism in Canada in the 1990's: An Emerging Paradigm or a Hopeless Muddle? Paper Presented to the Australia and New Zealand Association for Canadian Studies, Wellington New Zealand, 1992

The Judicialization of Canadian Environmental Policy 1980-1989: A Test of the Canada-U.S. Convergence Thesis, Paper Presented to the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Charlottetown, PEI, 1992

Book, and Article Reviews

Book reviews for Canadian Public Policy, Canadian Public Administration, Labour/Le Travail, Policy Options, Canadian Journal of Political Science, Environment and Planning A.

Book Manuscript reviews for McClelland and Stewart Ltd., Harcourt Brace Canada, Prentice Hall Canada, Greenwood Press/Policy Studies Organization, University of Toronto Press

Article Manuscript reviews for Policy Studies Journal, Canadian Journal of Political Science, Canadian Public Policy, Environmental Politics (U.K.), BC Studies, Canadian Public Administration, Journal of Canadian Studies

B9 Other Contributions (Last Six Years Only)

Membership in Editorial Boards

1996 - Present, Member, Editorial Board, Canadian Public Administration

1995 - Present, Member, Editorial Committee, Comparative Studies in Political Economy and Public Policy - University of Toronto Press

1992-Present, Member, Editorial Board, Policy Studies Journal (U.S.)

Other

1995 - Present - Manager, Canadian Political Science Association WWW homepage

1995 - Present - Manager, British Columbia Political Science Association WWW homepage

1995 - Present - Treasurer, British Columbia Political Science Association

1995 - 1997 - Manager, Canadian Political Science Association POLCAN Listserver

1998 - Member, Organizing Committee, Globalization and Its Discontents Conference, SFU

1997 - Program Chair, Third Annual General Meeting, British Columbia Political Studies Association.

1995 - Co-organizer, First Annual General meeting of the British Columbia Political Studies Association, SFU

1994-1997, Member at Large, Executive Committee, Institute of Public Administration of Canada, Vancouver Branch

1994-1995 - Member, Steering Committee, SFU bid for a National Centre of Excellence on Trade, Innovation, Competitiveness and Sustainability

1994 - Member, Steering Committee, Trinational Summer Institute on Innovation, Competitiveness and Sustainability

1994 - Co-organizer, "Restructuring Government" Conference, Institute of Public Administration of Canada (Vancouver Region) and Governance Research Group, SFU.

1993 - Member, 1994 Program Committee, Canadian Political Science Association

1993 - Co-Organizer, Dual Workshop on "Policy Studies in Canada: Retrospect and Prospect", Annual General Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Carleton University

B10 Contributions to Training (Last Six Years Only)

Note: A Ph.D. program in political science was created at Simon Fraser University with the first entrants into the program admitted in September 1997. Until 1997 only an MA program existed. In 1994 a Field Exam option was introduced to the MA program, largely replacing the MA Thesis option.

PHD Supervisor, Comprehensive Exam or Thesis Examination Committee MemberCompleted

1998 - Joanna Beyers (Faculty of Environmental Studies - York University)

1997 - David Skinner (School of Communications - SFU)

PHD Supervisor, Comprehensive Exam or Thesis Examination Committee Member In Progress

1998 - Karen Lochhead (Department of Political Science - SFU)

1997 - Alan Davidson (School of Health Policy - University of British Columbia)

MA Thesis Supervision Completed

1998 - Lynda Jovanovich, "Clientelism in U.S. Policy-Making: The Cases of the 1990-1991 U.S. Clean Air Act Amendments" with L. Dobuzinskis.

1998 - Dagmar Timmer, "Who's Buy-In It? Network Management in the Canadian and Netherlands National Environmental Strategies" with P. Smith (Senior)

1997 - Mark Zschoch, "On a Common Wavelength: Policy Convergence in Canadian Telecommunications Policy" - with Catherine Murray.

1993 - Dominic Darmanin, "Environmental Tariffs: Protectionism or Ecological Imperative? A Unilateral Approach to International Public Policy Recognizing the Failure of International Treaties in a Realist/Mercantilist World" - with Douglas Ross

1993 - Paul Rose, "Aboriginal Communities: The Sechelt Self-Government Agreement, the State, and Interest Intermediation in British Columbia"- with Patrick Smith

1993 - Robert Gould, "Policy Formulation and Decision-Making on the Pacific Salmon Commission: Evaluating Public Policy in the Pacific Salmon Fishery" - with Patrick Smith

1993 - Gonzalo Carrasco, "Democracy's Interest in Groups: Corporatist Theory and Interest Group Democracy" - MA Thesis, with David Laycock (Senior)

1993 - Tony Pagliacci, "The Dispute Resolution Procedures for Countervailing Duties Under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement: A Regime Analysis" - MA Thesis, with Theodore Cohn (Senior)

1993 - Natalie Minunzie, "The Chainsaw Revolution: Environmental Activism in B.C.'s Forest Industry" - MA Thesis, with Patrick Smith (Senior)

Graduate MA Field Exam Supervisions Completed

1994 - Robert Barraclough, Public Policy and Canadian Politics- with P. Smith

1994 - Jeff McKeil, Canadian Politics - with David Laycock

1995 - Steve Pashkewych, Canadian Politics - with Andrew Heard

1995 - Margaret Mahan, Public Policy and Canadian Politics- with P. Smith

1995- Maria Hatzagiannakis, Canadian Politics and Public Policy - with P. Smith

1996 - Paula Rodriguez, Public Policy and Canadian Politics - with Laurent Dobuzinskis

1998 - Minh Ngo, Public Policy - with P. Smith

Graduate MA Thesis Supervisions in Progress

Tom Syer - B.C. CORE Experience

Aaron Laing - Canadian Political Economy

Shona Steven - Alternative Dispute Resolution

Dave Pearson - Aboriginal Education Policy in British Columbia

Alexandra Flynn - Aboriginal Housing Policy in the Northwest Territories

Hugo Cameron - Environment and Trade Regimes

Linda Young - Globalization and Trade

B11 Career Interruptions

During my period as a Limited Term Instructor as SFU (1989-1991), I taught a total of 15 courses over five consecutive semesters with one research semester in a two year period. The normal teaching load for permanent faculty members was four courses per year over no more than two consecutive semesters; or 8 courses with two research semesters over a two year period.

B12 Grant Activity (Last Six Years Only)

Results of Most Recent SSHRC Grant

In 1993 I received a three year SSHRC grant to investigate agenda-setting in Canada. This has resulted in the completion of an extensive computerized database of issue mentions from media and Parliamentary sources for the period 1977-1992. Statistical analysis of the results contributed to the completion of two conference papers and two refereed journal articles, both in the Canadian Journal of Political Science: "Predictable and Unpredictable Policy Windows: Issue, Institutional and Exogenous Correlates of Canadian Federal Agenda-Setting" in Canadian Journal of Political Science, 1998 forthcoming

and "Issue-Attention and Punctuated Equilibria Models Reconsidered: An Empirical Examination of the Dynamics of Agenda-Setting in Canada" in Canadian Journal of Political Science, 1997. Additional articles and chapters in a book length monograph are planned. This project aided the research activities of five graduate students. Of these students, Fang Xuhui, is completing his MA program at SFU. Lynda Jovanovich, Katarina Hutter and Leslie Banks have completed their degrees and are employed in Thailand, Australia, and Vienna. Burt Schoeppe has entered a Ph.D. program at the University of Alberta.

Other Grants (Last Six Years Only)

External Grants

1998: SSHRC Trends Project/Policy Research Initiative - Governance and the Environment ($8,000)

1997: SSHRC Small Grants - The Hollow Core - Methodological Aspects ($4,400)

1996: SSHRC Small Grants - Defining Policy Domains ($4,500)

1996: B.C. Challenge96 Research Grant - Simon Fraser University ($2,500)

1994-1996: SSHRC Research Grant ($28,500) - Agenda Setting in Canada

1995: B.C. Challenge95 Research Grant - Simon Fraser University ($2,500)

1994: SSHRC/NSF/CONACyT Special Summer Institute Grant ($250,000) - co-investigator - Innovation, Competitiveness and Sustainability in the North American Region.

1994: B.C. Challenge94 Research Grant - Simon Fraser University ($2,500)

1994: Research Grant - Canadian Institute for Resources Law ($7,500) - Canadian Forest Policy

1993: B.C. Challenge93 Research Grant - Simon Fraser University ($2,500)

1992: SSHRC International Conference Travel Grant ($1,000)

1992: B.C. Challenge92 Research Grant - Simon Fraser University ($2,500)

1991: B.C. Challenge91 Research Grant - Simon Fraser University ($2,500)

1991- 1992 Research Grant - Energy, Mines and Resources Canada ($17,000) - Aboriginal Land Claims in Canada - Resource Implications

Internal Grants

1998 : Research Semester Research Grant - Simon Fraser University ($6,500)

1994: Research Semester Research Grant - Simon Fraser University ($10,000)

1993: Research Semester Research Grant - Simon Fraser University ($10,000)

1992: Research Semester Research Grant - Simon Fraser University ($4,500)

1991: Research Semester Research Grant - Simon Fraser University ($4,500)

1991: Publications Grant - Simon Fraser University ($4,000)

1991-1998: B.C. Work-Study Research Grants (20) - Simon Fraser

University ( $25,000)

PART C - BUDGET

Section 2 - Budget Justification

A large part of the data collection will be undertaken by graduate student research assistants under my supervision. I have estimated their cost at $4,000 per semester for an MA or Ph.D. level student. In Years I, II and III one student will be employed each semester to help compile the first dataset on subsystem organizational membership, carry out the organization and completion of individual surveys, and conduct the survey of policy histories in the sectors under investigation.

Surveys will be completed by phone for both the organizations and individuals involved. The original phone survey of organizations is expected to generate 500 calls at approximately $2 each. The survey of individuals will be smaller but the approximately 100 calls involved are expected to be of longer duration and cost on average $10 each.

Software purchases in the order of $500 are required to process the data. A Power Mac computer ($2,500) is required to run the software.

Dissemination expenses include $1,000 in each of years II and III to allow for travel costs to conferences in order to present papers and workshops on the findings of the research program.

1Hans A. de Bruijn and Hans A.M. Hufen, "The Traditional Approach to Policy Instruments" in B. Guy Peters and F. K. M. Van Nispen, eds. Public Policy Instruments : Evaluating the Tools of Public Administration New York: Edward Elgar Pub 1998) pp. 11-32 and Leslie A. Pal, Beyond Policy Analysis: Public Issue Management in Turbulent Times (Toronto: ITP Nelson, 1997) p. 54

2 W.J.M. Kickert, E-H. Klijn, and J.F.M. Koppenjan, "Introduction: A Management Perspective on Policy Networks" in W.J.M. Kickert, E-H. Klijn and J.F.M. Koppenjan eds., Managing Complex Networks: Strategies for the Public Sector (London: Sage, 1997) p. 4

3 Michael Howlett, "Legitimacy and Governance: Re-Discovering Procedural Policy Instruments" in Policy Studies Journal 1999 forthcoming

4Erik-Hans Klijn, "Analyzing and Managing Policy Processes in Complex Networks: A Theoretical Examination of the Concept Policy Network and Its Problems" in Administration and Society 28(1) 1996 pp. 90-119 and Jan Kooiman, "Governance and Governability: Using Complexity, Dynamics and Diversity" in J. Kooiman ed. Modern Governance (London: Sage, 1993) pp. 35-50

5Keith Dowding, "Model or Metaphor? A Critical Review of the Policy Network Approach" in Political Studies 43, 1995 pp. 136-158.

6 Michael Howlett and M. Ramesh. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1995

7 Johan A. de Bruijn and Ernst F. ten Heuvelhof, "Policy Networks and Governance" in David L. Weimer ed., Institutional Design Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995

8See Grant Jordan and Klaus Schubert, "A Preliminary Ordering of Policy Network Labels", European Journal of Political Research, 21, 1992, pp. 7-27 and Grant Jordan, "Sub-governments, Policy Communities and Networks: Refilling the Old Bottles?", Journal of Theoretical Politics, 2, 1990, pp. 319-338.

9In their view, the two critical questions are whether societal interests are centrally organized and whether the state has the capacity to develop policies independently of them - in other words, its level of state autonomy from societal actors. See Michael Atkinson and William Coleman, "Strong States and Weak States: Sectoral Policy Networks in Advanced Capitalist Economies", British Journal of Political Science, 19, 1989, p. 54, and William D. Coleman and Grace Skogstad eds., Policy Communities and Public Policy in Canada: A Structural Approach (Toronto: Copp Clark, Pitman, 1990)

10 See Michael Atkinson and William Coleman, "Policy Networks, Policy Communities and the Problems of Governance" in Governance 5(1) , 1992

11Evert A. Lindquist, "New Agendas for Research on Policy Communities: Policy Analysis, Administration, and Governance" in Laurent Dobuzinskis, Michael Howlett and David Laycock, eds., Policy Studies in Canada: The State of the Art. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996. pp. 219

12 W.J.M. Kickert and J.F.M. Koppenjan, "Public Management and Network Management: An Overview" in W.J.M. Kickert, E-H. Klijn and J.F.M. Koppenjan eds., Managing Complex Networks: Strategies for the Public Sector (London: Sage, 1997) pp. 35-61

13On the general methodology to be followed see Edward O. Laumann and David Knoke, The Organizational State: Social Choice in National Policy Domains. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1987; David Knoke, Political Networks: The Structural Perspective Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987; John P. Heinz. et al. The Hollow Core: Private Interests in National Policy Making. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993 and John P. Heinz, Edward O. Laumann, Robert H. Salisbury, and Robert L. Nelson, "Inner Circles or Hollow Cores", Journal of Politics, 52, 1990, pp. 356-390. See also Edward O. Laumann, David Knoke, and Yong-Hak Kim. "An Organizational Approach to State Policy Formation: A Comparative Study of Energy and Health Domains." American Sociological Review. 50, no. February (1985): 1-19

14See Peter A. Hall, "Policy Paradigms, Social Learning and the State: The Case of Economic Policy-Making in Britain." Comparative Politics 25:3(1993): 275-96.

15Laurent Dobuzinskis, Michael Howlett and David Laycock, eds., Policy Studies in Canada: The State of the Art. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996 and Paul A. Sabatier, "Political Science and Public Policy: An Assessment" in William N. Dunn and Rita Mae Kelly eds., Advances in Policy Studies Since 1950. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1992 pp. 27-58

16For an overview of the literature see Michael Howlett and M. Ramesh. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1995.

17See R.A.W. Rhodes, Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability (Buckingham: Open University Press, 1997) and Hubert Heinelt and Randall Smith eds., Policy Networks and European Structural Funds (London: Avebury, 1996)

18Lance deHaven-Smith and Carl E. Van Horn, "Subgovernment Conflict in Public Policy", Policy Studies Journal, 12, 1984, pp. 627-642.

19Douglas Cater, Power in Washington: A Critical Look at Today's Struggle in the Nation's Capital, New York: Random House, 1964.

20Marver H. Bernstein, Regulating Business by Independent Commission, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955; Samuel P. Huntington, "The Marasmus of the ICC: The Commissions, the Railroads and the Public Interest", Yale Law Review, 61: 4, 1952, pp. 467-509; Theodore Lowi, The End of Liberalism: Ideology, Policy and the Crisis of Public Authority, New York: Norton, 1969.

21Michael T. Hayes, "The Semi-Sovereign Pressure Groups: A Critique of Current Theory and an Alternative Typology", Journal of Politics, 40, 1978, pp. 134-161; Randall B. Ripley and Grace A. Franklin, Congress, the Bureaucracy, and Public Policy, Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press, 1980.

22Hugh Heclo, "Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment", Anthony King (ed.), The New American Political System, Washington D. C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1978, pp. 87-124.

23Hugh Heclo, Modern Social Politics in Britain and Sweden: From Relief to Income Maintenance, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974, pp. 308-310.

24Paul A Sabatier and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith, "The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Assessment, Revisions, and implications for Scholars and Practitioners", Paul A. Sabatier and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith (eds.), Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach, Boulder: Westview, 1993. See also R. A. W. Rhodes, "Power-Dependence, Policy Communities and Intergovernmental Networks", Public Administration Bulletin 49, 1984, pp. 4-31 and Peter M. Haas, "introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination" in International Organization 46, 1992

25Daniel McCool, "Subgovernments and the Impact of Policy Fragmentation and Accommodation," Policy Studies Review, 8, 1989, pp. 264-287.

26Keith E. Hamm, "Patterns of Influence Among Committees, Agencies, and Interest Groups", Legislative Studies Quarterly, 8, 1983, p. 415.

27Stephen Wilks and Maurice Wright, "Conclusion: Comparing Government-Industry Relations: States, Sectors, and Networks", Stephen Wilks and Maurice Wright (eds.), Comparative Government-Industry Relations: Western Europe, the United States, and Japan, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987, p. 301.

28Frans Van Waarden, "Dimensions and Types of Policy Networks", European Journal of Political Research, 21, 1992, pp. 29-52.

29Frank Baumgartner and Bryan Jones, Agendas and Instability in American Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993) and Paul Sabatier, "An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-Oriented Learning Therein" in Policy Sciences 21, 1988 pp. 129-168

30See Frank R. Baumgartner and Bryan D. Jones, "Agenda Dynamics and Policy Subsystems" in The Journal of Politics 53 (4) 1991 pp. 1044-1074.

31Wyn Grant and Anne MacNamara, "When Policy Communities Intersect: The Cases of Agriculture and banking" in Political Studies 43, 1995 pp. 509-515.

32See Peter Hall, "Policy Paradigms, Social Learning and the State: The Case of Economic Policy-Making in Britain" in Comparative Politics 25 (3) 1993 pp. 275-296; and Peter A. Hall, "The Change from Keynesianism to Monetarism: Institutional Analysis and British Economic Policy in the 1970s" in Sven Steinmo, Kathleen Thelen and Frank Longstreth eds., Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1992 pp. 90-114;

33 See Carsten Daugbjerg, "Policy Networks and Agricultural Policy Reforms: Explaining Deregulation in Sweden and Re-regulation in the European Community" in Governance 10(2) 1997 pp. 123-142 and Carsten Daugbjerg, Policy Networks Under Pressure: Pollution Control, Policy Reform and the Power of Farmers (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998)

34Richard Rose, Lesson-Drawing in Public Policy: A Guide to Learning Across Time and Space (Chatham: Chatham House Publishing, 1993); Colin J. Bennett, "Understanding Ripple Effects: The Cross-National Adoption of Policy Instruments for Bureaucratic Accountability" in Governance 10(3) 19979 pp. 213-233 and Paul Sabatier, "Knowledge, Policy-Oriented Learning, and Policy Change." Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 8, no. 4 1987 pp. 649-692. More generally, see David Dolowitz and David Marsh, "Who Learns What From Whom: A Review of the Policy Transfer Literature" in Political Studies 44, 1996 pp. 343-357

35Michael Howlett and Jeremy Rayner, "Do Ideas Matter? Policy Subsystem Configurations and the Continuing Conflict Over Canadian Forest Policy" in Canadian Public Administration, Winter 1995; G. Hoberg and E. Morawaski, "Policy Change Through Sector Intersection: Forest and Aboriginal Policy in Clayoquot Sound" in Canadian Public Administration 40(3) 1997 pp. 387-414; Ken Lertzman, Jeremy Rayner and Jeremy Wilson, "Learning and Change in the BC Forest Sector: A Consideration of Sabatier's Advocacy Coalition Framework" in Canadian Journal of Political Science 29(1) 1996 pp. 111-133 and George Hoberg, "Putting Ideas in Their Place: A Response to "Learning and Change in the British Columbia Forest Policy Sector" in Canadian Journal of Political Science 29(1) 1996 pp. 135-144; and William D. Coleman, Grace D. Skogstad, and Michael M. Atkinson, "Paradigm Shifts and Policy Networks: Cumulative Change in Agriculture" in Journal of Public Policy 16 (3) 1996 pp. 273-302

36 Paul Burstein, "Policy Domains: Organization, Culture and Policy Outcomes" in Annual Review of Sociology 17, 1991 pp. 327-350

37 On applied network analysis see Ronald S. Burt, and Michael J. Minor. Applied Network Analysis : A Methodological Introduction. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1983. Linton C. Freeman, Douglas R. White, and A. Kimball Romney, ed. Research Methods in Social Network Analysis. Fairfax: George Mason University Press, 1989; John Scott, Social Network Analysis : A Handbook. London: Sage Publications, 1991; and Stanley Wasserman, Social Network Analysis : Methods and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

38 See Bernard H. Russell et al. "Comparing Four Different Methods for Measuring Personal Social Networks." Social Networks. 12(1990): 179-215 and Seymour Sudman, "Experiments in the Measurement of the Size of Social Networks." Social Networks. 7(1985): 127-151. .

39 See Edward O. Laumann, Peter V. Marsden and David Prensky. "The Boundary Specification Problem in Network Analysis." In Applied Network Analysis: A Methodological Introduction, edited by R. S. Burt and M. J. Minor. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1983 18-34; S. D. Berkowitz, An introduction to structural analysis: the network approach to social research. Toronto: Butterworth, 1982 and David Knoke, and James H. Kuklinski. Network Analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982.

40 Heinz, John P. et al. The Hollow Core: Private Interests in National Policy Making. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993. See also John P. Heinz, Edward O. Laumann, Robert H. Salisbury, and Robert L. Nelson, "Inner Circles or Hollow Cores", Journal of Politics, 52, 1990, pp. 356-390; and Robert H. Salisbury, John P. Heinz, Edward O. Laumann, and Robert L. Nelson, "Who Works with Whom? Interest Group Alliances and Opposition," American Political Science Review, 81, 1987, pp. 1217-1234.

41 On this issue see Alexander L. George, "Case Studies and Theory Development: The Method of Structured, Focused Comparison" in Paul Gordon Lauren, ed., Diplomacy: New Approaches in History, Theory and Policy (New York: Free Press, 1979) pp. 43-68 and Harry Eckstein, "Case Study and Theory in Political Science" in F.I. Greenstein and N.W. Polsby eds., Handbook of Political Science (Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley, 1975) VII pp. 79-138

42 Michael Howlett, "Issue-Attention and Punctuated Equilibria Models Reconsidered: An Empirical Examination of the Dynamics of Agenda-Setting in Canada" in Canadian Journal of Political Science, 1996 and Michael Howlett, "Predictable and Unpredictable Policy Windows: Issue, Institutional and Exogenous Correlates of Canadian Federal Agenda-Setting" in Canadian Journal of Political Science, 1998 forthcoming

43Frans Van Waarden, "Dimensions and Types of Policy Networks", European Journal of Political Research, 21, 1992, pp. 29-52.

44See Mark L. Davison, Multidimensional Scaling. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1983. See also Leland Wilkinson, MaryAnn Hill, and Erin Vang. SYSTAT: Statistics, Version 5.2. Edition. Evanston: SYSTAT, Inc., 1992 and SPSS, SPSS 6.1. (Chicago: SPSS Inc, 1994). These techniques are being applied with great success in American and European social studies but have yet to be fully recognized and utilized in Canada. A comparative study utilizing this methodology is D. Knoke, F. Pappi, J. Broadbent and Y. Tsunjinaka eds., Comparative Policy Networks: Labour Politics in the U.S., Germany and Japan Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. The state-of-the-art in Canada is represented by the pathbreaking work of Susan Phillips. See Susan D. Phillips, "Meaning and Structure in Social Movements: Mapping the Network of National Canadian Women's Organizations Canadian Journal of Political Science 24 (4) 1991 pp. 755-782. Phillips study, of course, deals with only one case.

45Peter A. Hall, "Policy Paradigms, Social Learning and the State: The Case of Economic Policy-Making in Britain." Comparative Politics 25:3(1993): 275-96.

46See Colin J. Bennett, and Michael Howlett, "The Lessons of Learning: Reconciling Theories of Policy Learning and Policy Change", Policy Sciences, 25, 1992, pp. 275-94; and Carsten Daugbjerg, "Policy Networks and Agricultural Policy Reforms: Explaining Deregulation in Sweden and Re-regulation in the European Community" in Governance 10(2) 1997 pp. 123-142

47 Carsten Daugbjerg, "Policy Networks and Agricultural Policy Reforms: Explaining Deregulation in Sweden and Re-regulation in the European Community" in Governance 10(2) 1997 pp. 123-142

48 Frank Baumgartner and Bryan Jones, Agendas and Instability in American Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993) . See also James A. Thurber, "Dynamics of Policy Subsystems in American Politics" in Allan J. Cigler and Burdett A. Loomis, eds., Interest Group Politics: Third Edition (Washington D.C. CQ Press, 1991) pp. 319-343

49 See Nikoloas Zahariadis and Christopher S. Allen, "Ideas, Networks, and Policy Streams: Privatization in Britain and Germany" in Policy Studies Review 14(1/2) 1995 pp. 71-98

Howlett - SSHRC 1998

Howlett - Hollow Core