Although governing in Canada is in transition towards a model of horizontal “governance” that emphasizes collaboration with a variety of non‐governmental actors, the contracting culture and its associated accountability regime remain a legacy of “new public management.” As part of this transition, however, contracting is being used not only as a means to control performance but also as a governance tool to guide the development of more collaborative relationships between government as a whole and entire sectors. In its relationship with the voluntary sector, the Government of Canada is caught in these contradictory trends ‐ between the control of contracting and the collaboration inherent in a governance contract. This article first examines the impact on voluntary organizations of the very stringent federal rneasures over contribution agreements that were brought in as a reaction to crisis in 2000. The effects are found to be significant and overwhelmingly negative, imposing direct financial costs on voluntary organizations and stifling innovation. The authors then consider whether the implementation of the Accord Between the Government of Canada and the Voluntary Sector and its Code of Good Practice on Funding might mitigate the negative effects of these accountability measures. Sommaire: S'il est vrai que le Canada s'oriente vers un modèle de « gouvemance horizontale « privilégiant la collaboration avec différents acteurs non‐gouvernementaux, la culture de marchés (contrats) et le régime d'imputabilité qui I'accompagne n'en demeurent pas moins un legs de la nouvelle gestion publique. Toutefois, dans le cadre de cette transition, les marchés (contrats), en plus de servir de moyen de contrôler le rendement, sont aussi un outil de gouvernance pour accroître la collaboration entre le gouvernement dam son ensemble et des secteurs tout entiers. Dam sa relation avec le secteur bénévole, le gowernement du Canada est pris dans ces tendances contradictoires ‐ entre le contrôle des marchés (contrats) et la collabordtion inhérente à un contrat de gouvernance. L'article se penche en premier sur l'incidence pour les organismes bénévoles des mesures contraignantes imposées par le gouvernement fédéral relativement aux ententes de contribution introduites pour fairc face a la crise qui a sévi en 2000. Ces impacts sont à la fois considérables et des plus négatifs, imposant des frais de financement directs aux organismes bénévoles et suffoquant l'innovation. Les auteurs cherchent ensuite a déterminer si la mise en application de l'accord passé entre le gouvernement du Canada et le secteur bénévole et son Code de boMes pratiques de financement pourraient atténuer certains effets négatifs de ces mesures d'imputabilité.
This article examines how state institutions shape the meaning of charity in Canada. It concludes that the courts have made limited changes to the meaning of charity and that the Department of Finance has resisted redefining charity. In contrast, the Canada Revenue Agency's Charities Directorate has worked to update the meaning of charity, but it does not have the power to amend the tax laws so its changes have been primarily administrative. While these administrative changes may not overcome the central public policy issue related to a narrow interpretation of the meaning of charity, they could shape future definitions depending on the voluntary sector's ability to mobilize around this issue and the receptiveness of the federal government.
This article uses a case study of non‐profit child care in Manitoba to explore whether accountability is co‐produced. Co‐production is not a new concept, but is gaining attention particularly in Europe. Co‐production involves citizens directly in the development or delivery of public goods alongside government. Through key informant interviews with parents, non‐profit organizations and government officials, this article argues that accountability is not co‐produced because citizen co‐producers are overly burdened with a disproportionate share of risk and responsibility compared to government co‐producers with minimal support.
This article examines how language and discourse have framed the issue of accountability in Indigenous child welfare devolution in Manitoba. Devolution has been officially presented by the province as a structure and process of collaborative governance -a form of governing that requires horizontal accountability among equal partners. Our examination of the accountability structures and processes reveals that, despite the rhetoric, there is continuing heavy insistence on vertical accountability to the provincial government. At best, the idea of collaborative governance is an illusion; at worst, it has serious negative impacts on Indigenous autonomy and on standards of accountability.Sommaire : Cet article examine comment le langage et le discours ont formulé la question de la responsabilisation dans le transfert des responsabilités de la protection de l'enfance autochtone au Manitoba. Le transfert des responsabilités aux autorités locales a été officiellement présenté par la province comme une structure et un processus de gouvernance collaborative -une forme de gouvernance qui exige une responsabilisation horizontale entre partenaires égaux. Notre examen des structures et processus de responsabilisation révèle qu'en dépit de la rhétorique, on continue à insister lourdement sur la responsabilisation verticale envers le gouvernement provincial. Dans le meilleur des cas, l'idée de gouvernance collaborative est une illusion; au pire, elle a de sérieuses répercussions négatives sur l'autonomie des Autochtones et sur les normes de responsabilisation. Accountability in discourse and practice: Collaboration or coercion?Child welfare policy is at the centre of any discussion on Indigenous autonomy or "self-determination". As Altamirano-Jiménez remarks, "While control over land and resources has direct economic implications
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.