Public Opinion on Federalism in Canada, Mexico, and the United States in 2003

This research reports on public opinion surveys on intergovernmentaland federal issues conducted in Canada, Mexico, and the UnitedStates in March and April 2003. In all three countries, respondentsmost often see their federal government as being the least effective,least efficient, and least trustworthy. Respondents from Canadaappear least supportive of their federal government and mostsupportive of their local governments; those from Mexico appearmost supportive of their state governments; respondents fromthe United States appear more "balanced" in their support ofthe various orders of government. Also, far greater regionaldifferences in opinion exist in Canada than in Mexico or theUnited States. Support for more decentralized federalism isfound to be strong in all these federal countries. This researchalso updates long-term trend data for the United States. Comparedwith respondents from previous years, U.S. respondents in 2003showed a measurable uplick in support for the federal government,compared with state and local governments. This support seemsto be a carryover from the terrorist attacks of 11 September2001.     

Public Opinion and American Federalism: Perspectives on Taxes, Spending, and Trust--An ACIR Update

The research reported here updates for 1999 some public opiniondata previously provided by the U. S. Advisory Commission onIntergovernmental Relations. The 1999 survey results indicatea general continuation of opinion trends established by thelate 1970s to the mid-1980s. Local government is viewed as givingcitizens the most for their money, followed by state governmentand the federal government. Americans still regard the federalincome tax as the worst tax, followed by the local propertytax. Likewise, Americans express the most trust and confidencein local government and the least trust and confidence in thefederal government, although confidence in all governments increasedover comparable data for 1992. Race and party identificationand, in one case, region are significant factors differentiatingopinions about the federal, state, and local governments andtheir taxes.     

Public Opinion on Federalism and Federal Political Culture in Canada, Mexico, and the United States, 2004

This study reports on public opinion surveys on fiscal value,taxation, trust and confidence in governments, and federal politicalculture conducted in Canada, Mexico, and the United States inJune 2004. Compared to past years, support for the federal governmentremains high in the United States, with support for local governmentsurging substantially in 2004. The local property lax is viewedas the worst U.S. lax, followed secondly but distantly by thefederal income tax. Canadians are less supportive of their federalgovernment, and more supportive of their local governments,than Mexicans and Americans. However, Mexicans show low trustand confidence in all their governments, while Americans reportfairly high trust and confidence in all their governments. Onmeasures of federal political culture, Canadians scored highest,Mexicans scored lowest, and Americans fell in between.     

Federalism and America's Public Works

On 24 February 1988, the National Council on Public Works Improvementsubmitted its final report on the nation's public works to thepresident and the Congress. The report concluded that America'sinfrastructure is not in ruins, as charged by the landmark bookentitled America in Ruins. The report did say, however, thatthe nation's infrastructure is only barely adequate and gettingworse. The council urged the nation to reverse course and givegreater attention to infrastructure renewal and expansion. Inthe council's view, federalism will be a major factor in thesuccess of the needed turnaround. Such change will require sharedresponsibilities involving the federal, state, and local governmentsplus the private sector. Significant changes in the relationshipsamong these actors have made the 1980s a decade of transition,diminishing federal influence on infrastructure issues.     

Public Opinion on Federalism in the United States and Canada in 2002: The Aftermath of Terrorism

This research reports on a public-opinion survey on intergovernmentaland border issues in Canada and the United States conductedin mid-April 2002. In the United States, there was an upsurgein public support for the federal government in 2002 over 2001,and a slight decline in public evaluations of state and localgovernments. Increased support for the federal government wasespecially notable among whites, Republicans, and respondentswith post-undergraduate education-groups that previously registeredlow support for the federal government. Canadians reported lesssatisfaction with all governments in their federal system, lowersupport for their federal government, and much more regionaland partisan division over intergovernmental issues. On internationalborder issues, Americans and Canadians generally agreed thata common border-security policy would be a good idea, thoughCanadians were slightly more likely than Americans to preferease of cross-border trade over improved border security.     

Public Opinion, Public Policy and the Welfare State

A recurring problem in political analysis is to link public opinion to public policy. Public opinion has often come to mean the replies to structured questions in representative surveys. The task of connecting opinion and policy is complicated by the difficulty in interpreting replies to these surveys. The burgeoning literature on public opinion and the crisis of the welfare state has failed to provide a consistent account of what aspects of policy might be driven by public demand or vice versa. The interpretations of survey data are either misleading or highly selective. This applies to two crucial areas, attitudes towards poor minorities and opinions about state and private welfare. In order to provide a better understanding of the problems of linking policy and opinion and to offer some guiding principles for research in this area, this paper attempts to clarify some of these difficulties.     

公共管理与公众舆论

自18世纪开始兴起的公众舆论推动了近代西方民主思想的形成,而20世纪公共管理的勃兴正是这种民主思想体制化的必然结果。对于公众舆论的理性与非理性认识分野,受制于背后复杂的权力博弈。在近代公众舆论观向现代公众舆论观转型的过程中,公众权力论逐渐让位于管理控制论。由于国家-市场-市民社会的关系失衡,当代公众舆论面临着环境危机。在目前善治的要求下,公共管理从公共利益出发,必须以保护公众舆论的自由和多元为己任,确立自身被监督者、反馈者和配给者的多重角色,做到有所为和有所不为。     

Australian Public Policy, Federalism, and Intergovernmental Relations: The Federal Factor

Public policy is the overt activity of governing and what governmentshave as their primary purpose. This is so whether the politicalsystem is unitary or federal. There are many more elements thatcomplicate policymaking in a federal system. In particular,constitutional, financial, and political issues intrude becauseof the necessary interdependence of otherwise independent andautonomous national and subnational components. This articleaddresses this complexity of joint action through use of theideas about federalism, the structure of governing institutions,and the processes of policymaking. The extent to which an outcomedepends on the mixture of independence and interdependence isconceptualized as degrees of the federal factor. Linking thisconcept to particular policy arenas may provide a better understandingof federal systems than explanation from centralization or decentralizationor dependence or independence.     

Public Sector Reform, Intergovernmental Relations and the Future of Australian Federalism

Recent developments in the reform of intergovernmental relations have been influenced by contemporary models of public sector reform. Their systematic application to intergovernmental administration, in particular the manner in which jointly funded and managed programs are organised, may have profound and unanticipated effects on the federal system. When viewed in the context of a recent history of collaborative policymaking between political executives, the possibility that new forms of intergovernmental joint policy-making and program management might become the norm poses serious challenges to federal traditions of dual government. Arm's length and collaborative forms of joint decision making are contrasted as ideal types, and then used to analyse two case studies in collaborative intergovernmental decision-making — National Competition Policy and the National Training Agreement. It is concluded that the system-wide implications are profound if they are part of a broader trend, but caution is expressed about the powers of inertia and resistance in traditional forms of federal politics.     

Motivated Reasoning,Public Opinion,and Presidential Approval

Political Behavior - Presidential approval is a desirable commodity for US presidents, one that bolsters re-election chances and the prospects of legislative success. An important question, then,...     

Public Sector Politics, Modernization, and Federalism: The Canadian and American Experiences

The focus of this analysis is an attempt to compare Canadianand American federalism in terms of Samuel Beer's modernizationtheory. In Canada, it is argued that modernization had led tothe enhancement of provincial power rather than the centralizationof the federal system. The Westminster model of parliamentarygovernment contributed to these developments, although the wayin which power is organized in government has been even moreimportant in determining the directions taken by Canadian federalism.     

Federalism, Political Structure, and Public Policy in the United States and Canada

Two of the three large countries on the North American continent—the United States and Canada—share a number of similarities that often make it difficult for the untrained observer to differentiate between the two nations. On the surface, the two are structured similarly as federal systems that, by definition, exhibit shared power between the national government and provincial or state political entities.Although there are other important social and economic characteristics of the two countries that help explain differences in policy processes and outcomes, it is the contention of this article that one gets the clearest sense of what Elazar has called thinking federal by utilizing an analytical approach that joins questions related to federalism with some conceptual frameworks of the public policy field. Two frameworks undergird the argument in this article—the Lowi typology of different types of policies and Deil Wright's typology of different models that describe the American inter-governmental system.In both countries, policies must be sensitive to the greater interdependencies between units of government as well as to linkages between policy areas. The mechanisms or instrumentalities for dealing with policy issues are intrinsically complex. It is also clear that the intergovernmental networks that exist in both the U.S. and Canada are composed of an array of actors. The differing political structures of the systems do impact the types of intergovernmental policies that have emerged in the two countries. The executive dominance so imbedded in Canadian governments has contributed to their ability to adopt and implement certain controversial redistributive policies, such as a national health insurance program. By contrast, the fragmentation of the U.S. system makes redistributive policies more difficult.     

Public Opinion, Political Communication and the Internet

In contemporary society public opinion is generally mediated by the mass media, which has come to encompass the Habermasian 'public sphere'. This arena is now characterised by the conflict between market and democratic principles, by competing interests of politicians and the media. The presentation of information for debate becomes distorted. The opinion of the 'public' is no longer created through deliberation, but is constructed through systems of communication, in conflict with political actors, who seek to retain control of the dissemination of information. The expansion of the internet as a new method of communication provides a potential challenge to the primacy of the traditional media and political parties as formers of public opinion.     

Unanimity, Discord, and the Communication of Public Opinion

This article is concerned with the political communication of opinion that occurs through networks of associated citizens. Its primary attention focuses on opinion variance within populations and networks and how such variance affects communication among and between individuals. Particularly in the context of ambiguous or infrequent communication, people may experience difficulty in forming judgments regarding the opinions of others. In such situations, environmental priors become useful devices for reaching these judgments, but a problem arises related to the utility of these environmental priors when discord rather than unanimity characterizes the contextual distribution of opinion. The article's argument is that dyadic discussions between two citizens are most enlightening, and environmental priors least enlightening, when surrounding opinion is marked by higher levels of disagreement. The analyses are based on data taken from the 1996 Indianapolis-St. Louis study .     

Public Opinion and Collective Obligations

This article attempts to identify the general principles that underlie public reasoning about collective obligations and that help explain when political parties can create new obligations or defend existing ones. I use these principles to President Clinton’s unsuccessful attempt to create government health-care plan and attempts by President Bush to privatize Social Security. The success of a party in selling – or defeating – an obligation depends upon what people believe about the competence and capacity of government and the value of autonomy – choices made by each citizen; whether people perceive the obligation as providing floors or establishing ceilings by limiting choice or otherwise restricting opportunities for the better-off; and whether the program is more like insurance or more like welfare. A party’s ability to maintain credibility with voters also depends upon whether party leaders can suppress issues that threaten intra-party elite pacts. When attempts to suppress “taboo” issues like “stem cells” or “black crime” fail, the party loses credibility with its voters and attempts to defend or sell obligations fail.