Droit et analyse de politiques



D02(b) - Policy Processes and Policy Change

Date: Jun 12 | Heure: 10:15am to 11:45am | Salle: 680 Sherbrooke St. West 391

Chair/Président/Présidente : Tim Heinmiller (Brock University)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Heather Millar (University of New Brunswick)

The politics of growing health care costs: Olivier Jacques (Université de Montréal)
Abstract: Population ageing and technological progress have increased health-care costs everywhere in advanced democracies. What are citizens’ preferences regarding the trade-offs incurred by growing health-care costs? Who is willing pay more taxes to pay for health care? Which groups prefer to retrench other social policies or to reduce the coverage of public health insurance to avoid tax increases? Previous studies on preferences for health-care expenditures have not analyzed trade-offs between health care, taxes and other social policies, which is an important gap in the literature considering the pressures posed by growing health-care costs. We argue that once these trade-offs are adequately measured, there is significantly less public consensus about health care than what previous studies have suggested. As a merit good whose demand increases with income, but also with age, we contend that health care is a priority for older and richer citizens who are likely to prefer cutbacks in other social policy fields to pay for growing health-care costs. In contrast, poorer and younger citizens are more likely to prefer that growing health care costs be paid for by higher taxes or, if they lean towards the right, to constrain the growth of health care costs. This paper presents the results of an original survey on policy trade-offs between health care and other social policies conducted in 2023 in four countries using wording experiments, conjoint experiments and point allocation questions. With these survey experiments, the paper highlights the political conflicts inherent to growing health-care costs.


Why Policy Change Pathways Close: Canada’s Failed Attempts at Cannabis Decriminalization: Tim Heinmiller (Brock University)
Abstract: Between 2002 and 2006, three government bills were introduced to decriminalize recreational cannabis use in Canada, but none were passed. This is a curious result given that two of the bills were introduced by governments with majority control of the House of Commons, and the third was introduced by a minority government with support from two opposition parties. It is even more curious that several attempts at decriminalization failed given that Canada subsequently legalized recreational cannabis in 2018. ACF policy change theory posits that the presence of at least one policy change pathway is necessary for major policy change to occur and, indeed, there is substantial evidence that pathways were present during the three decriminalization attempts. However, it is important to distinguish between necessity and sufficiency, and the three failed decriminalization efforts provide opportunities to investigate why policy change pathways are insufficient for major policy change, even if they are necessary. Such an investigation probes the limits of ACF policy change theory and provide insights into why some policy change pathways result in major policy change while others terminate without changing the policy status quo.


Indigenous self-determination through collaborative governance? Potential and limits of joint policymaking in Canada: Martin Papillon (Université de Montréal)
Abstract: While we tend to equate Indigenous self-determination with greater political autonomy, institutions designed to facilitate Indigenous-state coordination, or shared rule, are arguably also essential to achieving change in colonial relationships. In recent years, the development of policy through collaborative processes with Indigenous organizations and governing bodies has emerged as an informal mechanism of shared rule in Canada. There are very few systematic analyses of these policy co-development exercises. Who participates? For what purpose? To what extent do they provide an actual space for collaborative governance and, ultimately, co-decision? Drawing on the rich literature on collaborative governance and joint policymaking, this paper proposes an analytical framework to unpack these processes and assess their potential and limits. It then proceeds to illustrate the proposed framework with two case studies, the collaborative process that led to the development of a new federal fiscal policy for Indigenous self-governments and the process that led to the adoption by Parliament of the Indigenous Languages Act.