Public Administration

K02 - Indigenous approaches to public administration

Date: Jun 3 | Time: 10:15am to 11:45am | Location:

Chair/Président/Présidente : Christian Schimpf (University of British Columbia)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Gabrielle Slowey (York University)

Beyond i- and s-frames: Toward a relational approach to behavioural public policy: Vincent Hopkins (University of British Columbia), Kurtis Boye (University of Saskatchewan)
Abstract: Behavioural science is changing how governments design and deliver public policy. Yet, an important debate concerns the focus of these efforts. Critics have argued that behavioural science disproportionately focuses on changing individual behaviour (“i-frames”) rather than the systems that oppress, encourage, and shape behaviour (“s-frames”). Here, we argue that the distinction between i- vs s-frames is inaccurate and unhelpful because it reflects a dualistic view of cognition rooted in the colonial project—one that contrasts human (civilized) rationality and subhuman (uncivilized) irrationality. Through examination of two case studies, we show how contemporary Indigenous governments are creating behaviourally-informed policies that reject the distinction between i- and s-frames, and instead focus on the relational/family unit. We conclude that Indigenous approaches to governance may not map onto the i- vs s-factor framework, and advocate for decolonizing behavioural science.

An Enquiry Concerning Administrative Discretion in Indigenous Consultations: Oxana Pimenova (University of Windsor)
Abstract: Statutory legislation endows a government agency with administrative discretion in structuring evidence exchanges in Indigenous consultations over resource projects. Those projects are contentious issues, and evidence shall be evaluated impartially on both sides to make a balanced decision. In ordering the evidence submissions and evaluations, an agency imposes mandatory requirements that burden the reasoning capacity of Indigenous arguers to challenge a project. The diminished reasoning capacity to disagree makes it easy for an agency to produce motivated responses toward outstanding concerns. The article aims not to challenge the validity of administrative discretion but to reveal how burdens originating from statutory discretion can be a “legal source” of motivated criticism and fallacious reasoning in a state-led adjudication.

Ministers and Consensus Government: Jerald Sabin (Carleton University)
Abstract: Nunavut and the Northwest Territories possess Westminster parliaments that operate without political parties. In this system of “consensus government”, the premier and cabinet ministers are selected by all members of the legislative assembly through secret ballot. This alternative selection process results in accountability mechanisms that differ in important ways from those of party-based legislatures. For example, while a premier can strip a minister of their portfolio, only the legislature can remove a minister from cabinet. This paper explores these key differences in parliamentary practice and theorizes their implications for democratic accountability, ministerial responsibility, and good governance. The paper examines instances of ministerial dismissal in both territories between 1999 and 2023.