Richard Simeon

Adaptability and change in federations

Like all other governing institutions, federal structures must be able to adapt and adjust to changing economic, political, and social circumstances. This article outlines the major drivers that call for change in the institutions and processes of federalism. These include changing citizen orientations and expectations, changing policy agendas arising from the environment, new patterns of governance and public administration, and the pressures of globalisation. Although some worry that federal institutions are rigid and inflexible, the paper describes a wide variety of mechanisms and processes through which federal institutions have been able to respond. These include constitutional amendment, judicial interpretation, coordination through intergovernmental relations and associated intergovernmental agreements, fiscal federalism, asymmetrical arrangements, the delegation of powers, and, in limited cases, the use of emergency powers.

Reflections on Diversity in Canada: Competing Models

Canada and Spain, along with just a few others such as the UK and Scotland, are perhaps pioneering new models of the post-Westphalian state.

Postscript: Many Small Worlds

A few years ago, I contacted a second-hand book seller, inquiring as to his interest in buying some surplus books. “What discipline?”, he asked. “Political Science”, I replied. “Sorry”, he said, “not interested, political science books have such a short shelf life”. So it is enormously gratifying that Small Worlds, edited by David J. Elkins and myself, has, thanks to the editor and authors of this special issue, been rescued from academic oblivion. The essays in this issue modify, critique and extend the work we and our colleagues published in 1980. They ask slightly different questions and use more sophisticated methodologies, but arrive at remarkably consistent conclusions. The central themes of the earlier work remain very much alive. An enormous amount of scholarly work now attests to the need to open the black box of the state to explore the many dimensions of variation within. This is true at many levels. At the level of identities: what is the balance between identification with the central state and local units? At the level of the kinds of cultural orientations of citizens to the political world: how do these vary across units and why? At the more immediately political level, how do citizens in different regions vary in their support for different elements of public policy? At the level of voters and parties: what is the variation between units; and to what extent are parties integrated between levels and able to bridge regional differences—or are they instead living in separate worlds? At the level of government itself: to what extent do the policies followed by sub-state units vary, and why? Over time is there convergence or divergence between states or provinces and what explains these patterns? For us, small worlds were multidimensional, as this issue again demonstrates. These were the questions explored in Small Worlds and in this issue. As the lengthy references in all the texts—especially in Ailsa Henderson’s piece—attest, the exploration of regional or territorial difference has mushroomed. And there is evidence in many countries of a growth in regional distinctiveness at every one of these levels of analysis and often of a diminished presence of central governments in the lives and minds of citizens. Three important advances are made in this issue. The first is comparison. Small Worlds focused on the Canadian case alone; it was an exercise of intra-state comparison.