Politique comparée



B16(a) - Multilevel Governance, Policy, and Participation

Date: Jun 14 | Heure: 08:30am to 10:00am | Salle:

Chair/Président/Présidente : Manon Laurent (Collège de France)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Lauchlan Munro (University of Ottawa)

Innovation in Korea and Sweden: Policies and Pathways: Shirley Anne Scharf (Centre for International Governance Innovation)
Abstract: Canadian innovation policy has stood as a continuing challenge throughout the twenty-first century (Scharf 2022, unpublished https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/43951?mode=full). In contrast, the Republic of Korea and Sweden have been able to launch, and generally sustain, successful innovation growth dynamics. The research question to be pursued is how have public policies in Korea and Sweden fed into the innovation success found in these economies? The theoretical framework is the Development Network State (DNS) (Block and Keller 2011; Mazzucato 2015, 2018). There has been very little application of the DNS in a comparative context; nor has there been DNS work on Korea and Sweden. This paper would make an original contribution to the field. Four dimensions in the paper will be examined: - why a DNS approach is a unique lens for this comparative study; - a comparison of Korean and Swedish innovation policy with respect to mission consistency and policy durability; - a comparison with respect to targeted resourcing of innovation; - a comparison with respect to access to venture capital. Methodologically, the paper will study the 2000 to 2023 time period, reaching across key crisis points (the Great Recession, the pandemic) and how these countries have weathered these. It will examine government documents, legislation enacted, expert studies, relevant academic literature, as well as a range of standard OECD innovation indicators. The paper will also make an original contribution in that it will include not just traditional information and communications industries but also Artificial Intelligence, moving beyond what are now more dated renditions of “high-tech.”


Implementation of EU Data Protection Instruments: Compliance and Discretion at the Subnational Level: Matthieu Niederhauser (University of Lausanne)
Abstract: The subnational implementation of international instruments in federal states is an under-explored process. Subnational entities regularly enjoy a degree of sovereignty, which raises questions such as whether––and how––international instruments are implemented at the subnational level. This paper aims to observe how international instruments are legally implemented in subnational legislations and implemented in practice. To structure our analysis, we ask four questions: 1. What is the level of legal and practical compliance with international law at the subnational level? 2. To what extent do subnational entities customize the implementation of international law? 3. What discretion do civil servants enjoy in the legal and practical implementation of international law? 4. How does such discretion influence compliance? To explore these questions, we analyse the implementation of EU data protection law in Switzerland, where we expect a high level of compliance and little discretion by subnational civil servants. We carried out an in-depth documents analysis and 28 interviews with national and subnational actors involved in the regulation of data protection in Switzerland. The findings from the research highlight a low degree of legal and practical compliance with EU data protection law, contrary to our expectations. The paper identifies factors behind this lack of compliance, such as delays in legal implementation, lack of expertise and of financial resources. We also test two competitive models (principal-agent and stewardship) to explain civil servants’ discretion in implementation. We find that the stewardship model is better equipped to explain civil servants’ discretion, meaning that they identify with the norms and values of the instruments and work toward their implementation. The study concludes with a discussion on two separate issues: our understanding of the relation between discretion and compliance, and the gap between ambitious international instruments and the realities of the ground.


National Orphan Drug Policy Development in Canada: Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations as a Barrier to International Policy Transfer: Samuel Henderson (University of Toronto)
Abstract: This paper investigates why Canada has not adopted a national orphan drug policy (NODP). Following the lead of the American Orphan Drug Act, most developed countries have adopted NODPs to facilitate the approval of orphan drugs, or drugs for rare diseases and disorders. Yet, Canada remains one of few developed countries without one. This paper argues that the spread of NODPs constitutes a case of policy transfer through the mechanism of policy learning, with Canada serving as a negative case where a policy has been considered but never adopted. Using 20 semi-structured interviews and primary document analysis, this paper finds that policymaking has been plagued by issues of problem definition and policy design as policymakers and experts have long debated the nature of the problem of orphan drug inaccessibility and how best to address it. A lack of a formal venue for information sharing and collaboration, inconsistent leadership from the federal government, and a lack of reciprocal norms of cooperation in Canadian pharmaceutical policy have hindered the collaboration and consensus-building necessary to overcome these challenges, preventing policy transfer from occurring. The findings provide important insights into how negative cases of policy transfer emerge and the role federalism and intergovernmental relations can play in shaping this process. They also emphasize the importance of norms of cooperation for intergovernmental policymaking and the need to develop these norms with stakeholders outside of government.


Just Urban Futures? Examining Canadian Participation in the 100 Resilient Cities Network: Marlene Terstiege (University of Toronto), Sarah E. Sharma (University of Victoria)
Abstract: 100 Resilient Cities (100RC), established by the Rockefeller Foundation in 2013, sought to lead urban centers in a transnational resilience network. The 100RC Network aimed to change the way municipalities address contemporary risks posed by the physical, economic, and social challenges of the 21st century. In 2019, the Network was abruptly concluded, leading us to examine the outcomes of the 100RC approach in four participating Canadian cities: Calgary, Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. We ask: how did Canadian cities design and implement resilience through the 100RC in terms of two vital focuses of the network, namely climate and social equity/justice? We employ mixed-methods, including a large-N policy database and interviews, to understand how the four Canadian 100RC cities understood and pursued resilience policy as well as the extent of ongoing commitment to the 100RC approach to resilience. We argue that resilience was leveraged to suit individual municipal agendas in Canada, reflecting the malleability of this policy approach. Moreover, our analysis indicates that not only local, but also provincial and national politics influenced whether each of the four cities fully realized 100RC's potential for a resilience-focused policy-lens enabling effective and equitable urban climate futures.