Advancing the study of political cleavages through experimentation: Revisiting regionalism and redistributive preferences in Canada

The maintenance of welfare state policies requires citizen support for the provision of a social safety net through taxation and redistribution. Research has shown that a diverse political polity presents a risk to the welfare state; however, Canada bucks the trend and does not see citizen support for economic redistribution decline in response to immigration-based population diversity. Using Canada as our case, we argue that scholars of welfare state politics and redistribution should turn their attention to other sources of population heterogeneity in an effort to better understand how different political cleavages affect citizens’ redistributive preferences. We use an online experimental survey to manipulate the in-group identity of 500 Canadians. The survey enables respondents to identify with other in-group identities along regional, linguistic, income-group, and urban/rural characteristics. Our results find that while Canadians do have a strong baseline preference for redistributive behaviour, regional and linguistic cleavages moderate this outcome.     

A Comment on Kellogg's Analysis

An American specialist on the Soviet and Russian military-industrial complex examines the economic, social and political tensions within one of the most important, closed nuclear cities in Russia. Based on an intensive examination of the city's daily newspaper, not heretofore available in the West, the author explores the implications of the current situation for prospective nuclear accidents or proliferation. Journal of Economic Literature, Classification Numbers: P29, R58, O18.     

Developments in the Law: Garcetti v. Ceballos and the Workplace Freedom of Speech Rights of Public Employees

On May 30, 2006 the Supreme Court handed down a 5–4 decision in the case of Garcetti v. Ceballos, announcing that "when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, they are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline." Previously, the Court had held in Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) that the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech generally prohibited public employers from firing or disciplining employees for speaking out on matters of "public concern." The Pickering decision established a two-part test that first required federal courts to determine whether the employee had spoken out on a matter of public concern and then whether the disruptive impact of the employee's statement justified the disciplinary action. This article argues that the Garcetti decision may deter many public employees from disclosing governmental inefficiency and misconduct and presenting dissenting viewpoints on matters of clear public concern. Consequently, the decision may make it more difficult for the leadership of public agencies to uncover inefficiency and misconduct.     

Worrying about misconduct: the control lobby and the PS 2000 reforms

Abstract: In 1989, the Canadian government announced a plan to reform the federal public service that would reduce the number of rules imposed on line managers and promote a “results-oriented, entrepreneurial” culture. Public discussion about the reforms was dominated by a community of groups and individuals, which the author characterizes as a “control lobby.” Constituents of the control lobby worried that the proposed reforms would undermine parliamentary control over the public service and increase bureaucratic misconduct. The lobby slowed implementation of, and caused modifications to, institutional reforms and undercut efforts towards culture change. The attention that it gave to incidents of perceived misconduct may also have reinforced popular beliefs about the dangers of reform. The paper describes the key members of the control lobby, their reaction to the PS 2000 reforms and attempts by reform leaders to respond to their concerns. It suggests that a major weakness of the PS 2000 initiative was its failure to anticipate and craft a response to worries expressed by the control lobby. Sommaire: En 1989, le gouvernement canadien a annoncé un plan de réforme de la Fonction publique fédérale visant à réduire le nombre de règles régissant les gérants hiérarchiques et à promouvoir un «esprit d'entreprise axé sur les résultats». Le débat public concernant ces réformes a été dominé par un ensemble de groupes et d'individus caractérisés par l'auteur comme étant des partisans du contrôle. Ces derniers s'inquiétaient du fait que les réformes proposées risquaient de soustraire la fonction publique au contrôle parlementaire et d'augmenter les vicissitudes bureaucratiques. Ce groupe de pression a ralenti la mise en oeuvre des réformes institutionnelles et les a modifiées, et il a sapé les efforts visant à faire évoluer les esprits. Ayant attiré l'attention sur les incidents où il semblait y avoir un comportement incorrect des fonctionnaires, il a peut-être aussi réussi à renforcer les croyances populaires concernant le danger des réformes. L'article décrit les principaux membres de ce groupe de pression, leur réaction face aux réformes de la FP 2000, et les efforts des leaders de la réforme pour répondre à leurs inquiétudes. II suggère que le fait de ne pas avoir prévu les inquiétudes exprimées par les partisans du contrôle et de ne pas avoir préparé de réponse adéquate constitue une faiblesse importante de l'initiative FP 2000.     

Getting a `Get' – the Limits of Law's Authority? N. v. N. (Jurisdiction: Pre-Nuptial Agreement) [1999] 2 F.L.R. 745

This note examines the decision of the Family Division of the High Court in N. v. N. (Jurisdiction: Pre-Nuptial Agreement) in which, in the context of Jewish divorce proceedings, the Court found that it had no jurisdiction to order a husband, by specific performance of a marriage agreement, to go through the procedure to obtain a ‘get’ (a hand-written bill of divorcement) allowing his wife to remarry. First, discussion of the case is contextualised broadly within the debate on the (de)merits of employing legal means in order to redress social wrongs. Secondly, adopting a theoretical perspective upon the difficulties involved in using law to achieve social change, the note goes on to examine more specifically why women from minority cultures may choose to go to the law of the dominant culture in order to obtain relief. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.