Bringing Cities to the Table: Child Care and Intergovernmental Relations (original) (raw)

Deep Federalism: Respecting Community Difference in National Policy

The literatures of both federalism and urban politics conclude that economic, tech- nological and political changes on a global scale have produced limitations on the capacities of national governments, while enhancing the economic and political importance of urban-centred regions. A practical implication is that cities have become central to the study of federalism. This article attempts a synthesis of what we can learn from the federalism and urban politics literatures about the governance of cities in the twenty-first century. It considers the argument in favour of charter cities, as well as the advocacy of a stronger central government to preserve the social safety net, and concludes that both positions are premised on a traditional, hierarchi- cal view of intergovernmental relations, a view that is out of keeping with the exigencies of a borderless world. Instead, it poses the following question: How can we have policies that are truly national and yet fully take into account the very significant differences among regions and communities? The article draws on recent research on the impact of federal policies regard- ing homelessness and immigration in Vancouver, Winnipeg and Saint John, as well as other research, to consider whether the federal government is doing the best it can to preserve national standards while respecting community difference. It concludes by defining three policy models that show varying degrees of promise in achieving that objective.

Plural Governance, Participation and Democracy in Cities

International Journal of Urban and …, 2008

AbstractIn recent years there has been a growing interest in new participatory forms of urban governance. This introduction provides readers with a basic review of current debates in the literature and a summary of the articles presented in the symposium. The introduction highlights two major tensions in the literature. First, many scholars operate under an assumption that plural actors can achieve a lasting and rational consensus on certain issues. Others believe that where there is consensus, there is also a silenced margin. For these critics, rather than focusing on building power-laden consensus, it is better to recognize and respect conflict and difference as normal parts of the governance process. Second, the introduction considers some of the possibilities for cross-national comparisons of participatory governance regimes. Scholars should not limit their analyses to institutional designs across countries but assess the importance of particular sociopolitical contexts in giving formal institutions their actual meanings and functions.In recent years there has been a growing interest in new participatory forms of urban governance. This introduction provides readers with a basic review of current debates in the literature and a summary of the articles presented in the symposium. The introduction highlights two major tensions in the literature. First, many scholars operate under an assumption that plural actors can achieve a lasting and rational consensus on certain issues. Others believe that where there is consensus, there is also a silenced margin. For these critics, rather than focusing on building power-laden consensus, it is better to recognize and respect conflict and difference as normal parts of the governance process. Second, the introduction considers some of the possibilities for cross-national comparisons of participatory governance regimes. Scholars should not limit their analyses to institutional designs across countries but assess the importance of particular sociopolitical contexts in giving formal institutions their actual meanings and functions.RésuméDernièrement, les nouvelles formes participatives de gouvernance urbaine ont fait l'objet d'un intérêt accru. Ce texte introductif présente un bilan rapide des débats qui animent la littérature actuelle, ainsi qu'une synthèse des articles proposés pour le symposium. On trouve deux lignes d'opposition principales dans les publications. En premier lieu, de nombreux chercheurs partent du principe qu'une pluralité d'acteurs peut atteindre un consensus durable et rationnel sur certains sujets. D'autres sont convaincus que s'il y a consensus, une minorité est également réduite au silence ; selon eux, au lieu de se consacrer à bâtir un consensus dans un rapport de force, il vaut mieux admettre et respecter conflit et différence comme des composantes normales du processus de gouvernance. En second lieu, cette introduction envisage certaines possibilités de comparaisons transnationales de systèmes de gouvernance participative; les spécialistes ne devraient pas limiter leurs analyses aux concepts institutionnels internationaux, mais évaluer plutôt l'importance des contextes sociopolitiques particuliers lorsqu'il s'agit de donner aux institutions formelles leur sens et fonctions réels.Dernièrement, les nouvelles formes participatives de gouvernance urbaine ont fait l'objet d'un intérêt accru. Ce texte introductif présente un bilan rapide des débats qui animent la littérature actuelle, ainsi qu'une synthèse des articles proposés pour le symposium. On trouve deux lignes d'opposition principales dans les publications. En premier lieu, de nombreux chercheurs partent du principe qu'une pluralité d'acteurs peut atteindre un consensus durable et rationnel sur certains sujets. D'autres sont convaincus que s'il y a consensus, une minorité est également réduite au silence ; selon eux, au lieu de se consacrer à bâtir un consensus dans un rapport de force, il vaut mieux admettre et respecter conflit et différence comme des composantes normales du processus de gouvernance. En second lieu, cette introduction envisage certaines possibilités de comparaisons transnationales de systèmes de gouvernance participative; les spécialistes ne devraient pas limiter leurs analyses aux concepts institutionnels internationaux, mais évaluer plutôt l'importance des contextes sociopolitiques particuliers lorsqu'il s'agit de donner aux institutions formelles leur sens et fonctions réels.

Of scalar hierarchies and welfare redesign: child care in three Canadian cities

Transactions of The Institute of British Geographers, 2006

Scalar theory has recently come under attack for its emphasis on hierarchy. Yet the notion of scalar hierarchies cannot be abandoned if we want to understand actually-existing social relations and the governance structures in which they are enmeshed. The conception of hierarchy employed by political economists is also more complex than that suggested by the ‘Russian dolls’ metaphor. A multiplicity of diversely structured, overlapping interscalar hierarchies operate in and across diverse policy fields. While these arrangements clearly influence what happens at the local scale, sufficient room often exists for local actors to modify the effects. The complexity of scalar hierarchies is illustrated through an analysis of the governance of child care provision in Canada. Child care arrangements are becoming integral to social reproduction in post-industrial economies, where women form an increasingly important part of the labour force. This paper focuses on child care in three of Canada's largest cities, each of which is subject to a distinct provincial regime through which federal contributions are filtered. Yet, as we shall see, these cities are more than ‘puppets on a string.’

Does the community want devolved authority? Results of deliberative polling in Ontario

CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne, 1995

To obtain and contrast the informed opinions of people in five decision-making groups that could have a role in devolved governance of health care and social services. Deliberative polling. Three rural and three urban communities selected from the 32 areas covered by a district health council in Ontario. A total of 280 citizens from five potential decision-making groups: randomly selected citizens, attendees at town-hall meetings, appointees to district health councils, elected officials and experts in health care and social services. Participants' opinions were polled during 29 structured 2-hour meetings. Participants' opinions on their personal willingness and their group's suitability to be involved in devolved decision making, desired type of decision-making involvement, information preferences, preferred areas of decision-making involvement and preferred composition of decision-making bodies. Mean attendance at each meeting was 9.6 citizens. Although there were some...