Provincial and Territorial Politics in Canada and Beyond

J13 - Federalism in Crisis: Policy Convergence, Secession, and the Role of Courts

Date: Jun 4 | Time: 01:45pm to 03:15pm | Location:

Chair/Président/Présidente : Tracy Fenwick (Australian National University)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Zemelak Ayele (Addis Ababa University)

Crisis Consensus? Measuring Provincial Policy Convergence during COVID-19 in Canada: Liddell Hastings (Western University), Cameron Anderson (Western University)
Abstract: Jurisdictions across the globe responded to the COVID-19 pandemic with policy designed to contain or prevent the crisis (referred to as COVID-19 stringency). However, the architecture of institutional design such as federalism conditioned policy responses. Decentralized federal systems are expected to have lower levels of policy convergence (Boyd 2017, Lele 2023), in Canada, policy variations have often been attributed to the ingrained regionalism and diverse political cultures between provinces (Wiseman 2007, Cochrane and Perrella 2012, McGrane and Berdahl 2013). Yet, times of crises often lead to periods of increased policy convergence (Cole et al. 2015, Hernes 2018). Thus, a puzzle is presented: what is stronger between the opposing forces of decentralized federalism and the converging pressures of a crisis in terms of policy outcomes? This paper utilizes COVID-19 stringency data to study the convergence/divergence of COVID-19 policy between Canada’s ten provinces during the pandemic using time series methods. This paper tests this puzzle in two parts. First, it measures the level of policy convergence throughout the pandemic, anticipating that policy converges most when the pandemic is most severe. Additionally, this paper hypothesizes that Canadian regionalism will dictate which provinces converge together and to what extent. The second section of this paper borrows the question of “who leads and who follows” (Barberá et al. 2019) and asks whether policy convergence is partially caused by “influential provinces” that act as policy benchmarks. To test this hypothesis, the second section will employ vector auto-regressions to test relevant regional/influential groupings (identified using section one’s correlational data). This paper offers a novel analysis of policy convergence within the Canadian federal system during a time of crisis. Barberá, P., Casas, A., Nagler, J., Egan, P. J., Bonneau, R., Jost, J. T., & Tucker, J. A. (2019). Who leads? Who follows? Measuring issue attention and agenda setting by legislators and the mass public using social media data. American Political Science Review, 113(4), 883-901. Boyd, B. (2017). Working together on climate change: Policy transfer and convergence in four Canadian provinces. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 47(4), 546-571. Cochrane, C., & Perrella, A. (2012). Regions, regionalism and regional differences in Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique, 45(4), 829-853. Cole, A., Harguindéguy, J. B., Stafford, I., Pasquier, R., & De Visscher, C. (2015). States of convergence in territorial governance. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 45(2), 297-321. Hernes, V. (2018). Cross-national convergence in times of crisis? Integration policies before, during and after the refugee crisis. West European Politics, 41(6), 1305-1329. Lele, G. (2023). Policy Convergence under Decentralization: Lessons from Indonesia’s Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic. Policy & Governance Review, 7(3), 280-297. McGrane, D., & Berdahl, L. (2013). ‘Small worlds’ no more: reconsidering provincial political cultures in Canada. Regional & Federal Studies, 23(4), 479-493. Wiseman, N. (2008). In search of Canadian political culture. University of British Columbia Press.

Success and Failure of Federal Systems: Alan Fenna (Curtin University)
Abstract: Prompted by the increasing diversity of settings where federal arrangements are being applied and the ongoing prospect of secession in a number of states, this paper revisits the question of federalism’s “success or failure”. Diagnosing the causes of federal failure has been an on-again, off-again, enterprise since the brief flourishing of post-colonial federal experiments in the mid-twentieth century. This paper reviews those theoretical efforts, drawing conclusions about they different ways “failure” might be defined, assessed and explained. In doing so, it draws on current challenges as well as historical experiences, focusing in particular on the challenge of identity-based claims to territory and autonomy.

The courts in Kenya: Agents of centralization or federalism?: Yonatan Fessha (University of the Western Cape), Beza Dessalegn (University of the Western Cape)
Abstract: Kenya is without a doubt a unitary state, according to the courts. "Kenya's devolved system...is not federal in nature,", they have declared. Arguably, this understanding of the Kenyan system will influence the way in which the courts interpret the nature and scope of county powers. The fear is that the courts, as a result, might nudge the devolved system toward centralization. The impact of the courts on the operation of the devolved system of government has not been as adverse as the aforementioned pronouncements of the court might suggest. The courts, despite their apprehensive rhetoric directed at devolution, remain protective of county powers. To be precise, there were occasions where the courts have ruled against county governments, upholding the exercise of power by the national government. There is, however, no evidence to suggest that the courts’ understanding of the Kenyan system as unitary has led to an overly restrictive interpretation of county powers and centralization of the devolved system.

Internal Secession and Displacement: The Challenges of Ethnic Federalism in Ethiopia: Nejat Hussein (University of the Western Cape)
Abstract: Academic Supervisor: Professor Yonatan Fessha The Ethiopian Constitution uniquely elevates the right of ethnic groups to demand the establishment of a new constituent unit (internal secession) to the status of a constitutional right. Unlike other federal systems, this right is exclusively granted to ethnic groups and is not accessible based on alternative criteria such as territorial, economic, or administrative claims. Furthermore, it appears that the federal and regional governments play no decisive role in the process. Consequently, this represents a significant departure from other federal jurisdictions, which impose limitations on the creation of new constituent units by allowing regional parliaments or other concerned constituent units to participate in the process. Where the deconstruction of the state is constantly fuelled by evolving relations of control, consent, power and authority, it is unsurprising that such a process would be subject to a host of logistical and administrative issues. A key issue is the unresolved boundary disputes that result in significant communal conflict. Due to these conflicts, Ethiopia has one of the highest internally displaced persons (IDP) populations in the IGAD region. Consequently, this paper explores the logistical issues associated with boundary demarcation in the aftermath of internal secession in Ethiopia and its impact on the internal migration dynamics. The focus will be on the role of the Constitution in enabling population movements linked to ethnic and administrative restructuring by examining persistent communal violence and forced migration. Additionally, it will address the federal and regional government's conflict resolution strategies.