Christopher Alcantara

Rethinking Multilevel Governance as an Instance of Multilevel Politics: A Conceptual Strategy

Abstract This paper introduces a new approach to the comparative analysis of multilevel governance (MLG). Using water governance in North America as an illustrative example, it advances an innovative approach for scrutinizing the varieties of actor constellations in multilevel settings. While MLG is commonly conceptualized rather broadly as a system, we define MLG instead as an instance of a specific actor configuration that can rigorously be distinguished from other configurations, most notably intergovernmental relations (IGR). With this more conceptually bounded classification, we suggest that scholars can now more fruitfully engage in systematic analyses of MLG and IGR across different types of political systems (e.g. unitary, federal and supranational). Our hope is that this paper will provide some much needed conceptual and analytical clarification to an increasingly nebulous debate on what MLG actually is and what it means for students of political science, public policy and public administration.

The Candidate Effect: Does the Local Candidate Matter?

Abstract This paper considers how the quality of the local candidate affects vote choice. Specifically, we address three questions: Does the quality of the local candidate influence vote choice? What impact do individual-level differences have on the relationship between vote choice and local candidates? Finally, what is the potential magnitude of candidate effects in terms of change in vote support? To answer these questions, we analyze data gathered from an online voting experiment. Our findings suggest that a local candidate can influence vote choice significantly, but that such effects are tempered by political awareness and partisanship.

Negotiating Aboriginal Self-Government Agreements in Canada: An Analysis of the Inuvialuit Experience

In 1973, the federal government of Canada invited Aboriginal groups to enter into comprehensive land claims negotiations to settle outstanding claims not addressed by historical treaties. After eight years of negotiations, the Inuvialuit became the second group in Canada to sign a modern treaty, doing so in 1984. Missing from that agreement, however, was a self-government chapter, which was not open to negotiation at that time. In 1996, the Inuvialuit initiated self-government negotiations with the Crown but have yet to conclude an agreement despite increased institutional capacity. What explains this puzzle? Drawing upon the existing literature on land claims negotiations, Aboriginal self-government and historical institutionalism, we analyze a variety of primary and secondary sources to argue that a number of institutional and non-institutional factors have prevented the Inuvialuit from successfully completing self-government negotiations with the Crown.

Preferences, Perceptions, and Veto Players: Explaining Devolution Negotiation Outcomes in the Canadian Territorial North

Since the early part of the 20th century, the federal government has engaged in a long and slow process of devolution in the Canadian Arctic. Although the range of powers devolved to the territorial governments has been substantial over the years, the federal government still maintains control over the single most important jurisdiction in the region, territorial lands and resources, which it controls in two of the three territories, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. This fact is significant for territorial governments because gaining jurisdiction over their lands and resources is seen as necessary for dramatically improving the lives of residents and governments in the Canadian north. Relying on archival materials, secondary sources, and 33 elite interviews, this paper uses a rational choice framework to explain why the Yukon territorial government was able to complete a final devolution agreement relating to lands and resources in 2001 and why the governments of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut have not. It finds that the nature and distance of federal-territorial preferences, combined with government perceptions of aboriginal consent and federal perceptions of territorial capacity and maturity, explain the divergent outcomes experienced by the three territorial governments in the Canadian arctic. The following acronyms are employed: AIP: Agreement-in-Principle; DTA: Devolution Transfer Agreement; GEB: gross expenditure base; GN: Government of Nunavut; GNWT: Government of Northwest Territories; NCLA: Nunavut Land Claims Agreement; NTI: Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated; NWT; Northwest Territories; ON: Ontario; TFF: Territorial Formula Financing; UFA: Umbrella Final Agreement; YDTA: Yukon Devolution Transfer Agreement; YTG: Yukon Territorial Government; YK: Yukon;

Old Wine in New Bottles?: Instrumental Policy Learning and the Evolution of the Certainty Provision in Comprehensive Land Claims Agreements

Comprehensive land claims agreements are important tools for empowering Aboriginal peoples. A crucial part of these treaties is the certainty provision, which deals with the nature of Aboriginal rights and title once a treaty is signed. Up until 1986, the Crown insisted on one certainty formula for all treaties. After 1986, however, Aboriginal groups were able to negotiate alternatives to the original certainty provision. This paper seeks to explain why alternatives to the original certainty provision emerged after 1986. It suggests that government perceptions of policy failure, generated by Aboriginal opposition to the extinguishment clause, resulted in the Crown engaging in instrumental learning.

Explaining the Emergence of Indigenous–Local Intergovernmental Relations in Settler Societies A Theoretical Framework

There has been growing interest among practitioners and academics in the emergence of intergovernmental relations between local and Aboriginal governments in Canada. Initial research has focused on describing the nature of these relations but has yet to develop any theoretical expectations regarding why some communities are more likely to cooperate than others. We address this lacuna by developing a theoretical framework for explaining the emergence of cooperation between Aboriginal and local governments. After identifying a set of variables and specifying how they are likely to affect the propensity of communities to cooperate, we conclude with a discussion of how future researchers might use this framework to investigate cooperation and noncooperation between Aboriginal and local governments in Canada and in other settler societies.

A Quiet Evolution: The Emergence of Indigenous-Local Intergovernmental Partnerships in Canada

Christopher Alcantara is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Western University in London, Ontario. Much of Dr. Alcantara’s research examines the roots of collective action and intergovernmental cooperation in Canada, especially between Indigenous communities and the other three levels government. He has written several books, including “Negotiating the Deal: Comprehensive Land Claims Agreements in Canada” (Published by University of Toronto Press, 2013) and “Beyond the Indian Act: Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights” (Published by McGillQueen’s University Press in 2010).

The Dynamics of Intra-jurisdictional Relations in the Inuit Regions of the Canadian Arctic: An Institutionalist Perspective

One of the most exciting developments in Canadian federalism has been the emergence of Aboriginal self-governing regions. This paper constructs a theoretical framework for exploring the evolution of intra-jurisdictional relations in the self-governing Inuit regions of the Canadian Arctic. Intra-jurisdictional relations in these regions are characterized by a unique set of relationships between elected governments and organizations that represent the beneficiaries of land-claims agreements. Using the literature on historical institutionalism, we argue that the nature of Inuit intra-jurisdictional relations following the establishment of self-government can be explained by the institutional choices made prior to the signing of land-claims agreements and/or self-government agreements. To illustrate the potential of our framework for analysing Inuit intra-jurisdictional relations, we briefly examine the experiences of Nunavut, an Inuit-dominated region and the newest territory in the Canadian federation.

Indigenous multilevel governance and power relations

ABSTRACT Indigenous communities have enjoyed varied success in challenging the authority and colonial nature of countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. To make sense of these developments, some scholars have turned to multilevel governance (MLG), a concept developed to analyse the dispersion and fragmentation of authority within and beyond states. In this paper, we contribute to the burgeoning literature on Indigenous MLG by incorporating notions of power into the concept, something that has not yet been done despite a robust literature on power relations in the context of the European Union. We illustrate the importance of this conceptual clarification by examining the role of power relations in Indigenous MLG arrangements on a theoretical level and as they pertain empirically to impact and benefit agreements in Canada.

Fighting Fire with Fire: The Implications of (Not) Going Negative in a Multiparty Election Campaign

This paper draws upon data collected from an online voting experiment to test the implications of “going negative” in a multiparty election campaign. Specifically, we investigate two sets of questions: First, does the attention and vote share that candidates receive vary according to the tone (positive/negative) of their election campaign? Second, does the attention and vote share that candidates receive vary according to whether or not all candidates engage in similar (positive/negative) campaigns? While studies of “negative campaigning” have been prominent in the American context, our work builds upon this literature by using an experimental design to test for their effects in a multiparty setting.