Proposing mega-policies to solve social and economic problems no longer carries much appeal for Canadian policy makers. This reluctance is a product of perceived failures of many large-scale programmes, the heightened political conflict promised by such interventions and, of course, continuing pressure to reduce government spending. Nevertheless, complex problems persist. Reliance on incremental responses is likely to prove insufficient to redress such problems and there will continue to be a need for policy responses of considerable scope. However, the nagging problem is that governments, despite possessing considerable analytic expertise, often struggle to deliver comprehensive strategies in a timely fashion. This suggests that we pay closer attention to the role of government bureaucracy in policy innovation, and recognize that the difficulty in producing comprehensive responses to problems may be due less to policy and political errors and more to organizational factors.Consider the three cases that inform this study. The first involves the disjointed efforts of the federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources (EMR) to achieve energy security following two oil crises ). 5 By the term successful, we are not referring to the content of the final design. Significant changes in policy direction are bound to be accompanied by clashes over what constitutes the appropriate policy stance. Nevertheless, we think our analysis is salient for two kinds of critics of such interventions. Critics who claim comprehensive policies were not bold enough should consider whether there was sufficient capacity to design a more ambitious programme. Critics who believe the policy went too far should look for future circumstances when such capacity has been created, and think about how to neutralize such capacity from inside and outside the government.Abstract. Governments often operate under considerable pressure to respond effectively to the emergence of increasingly complex policy dilemmas. This article first explains some key difficulties in bringing forth comprehensive policy interventions. Despite the ubiquity of social and political constraints to policy innovation, many failures can be attributed to public bureaucracies that are not designed to deal with complex problems, and which all too quickly exceed their policy-making capacities. This study then analyzes why comprehensive policy-making does sometimes occur, and links its occurrence to bureaucratic design factors, arguing that extending organizational capacity for innovation involves more than generous budgets and expertise. The article draws upon, and develops further, Mintzberg's ideas on administrative adhocracy to show how administrative units can be organized to enable bureaucracies to transcend professional compartmentalization and routine; and how structures can be designed for comprehensive policy innovation. The study focuses on Canadian federal bureaucracy, and it is supported by three case studies of recent policy experiments: energy, environment and AIDS....
Analyses efforts of the Canadian federal government to come to terms with sustainable development. It highlights innovative characteristics of Canadian policy including the 1990 Green Plan, the later establishment of the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development, and the system of departmental sustainable development strategies The chapter argues that Canada's role as an enthusiastic advocate of engagement with sustainable development slackened as the 1990s advanced. This is particularly true with respect to climate change where the government adopted a cautious approach to the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.