Most quantitative, comparative welfare state research assumes that subnational welfare regimes are irrelevant or identical to their national counterparts. Many qualitative case studies, on the other hand, have underlined the differences between subnational and national regimes. In this article, we attempt to build bridges between these two strands of literature by examining the case for a Quebec model, that is, a subnational welfare state regime that is distinct from its Canadian counterpart(s). We reviewed seven publications from which we extracted 188 quantitative results relevant to the distinct subnational regime hypothesis. Although not all these results are independent nor based on conclusive evidence, they generally agree that a distinct welfare regime exists in Quebec. We conclude this article by discussing the implications of the Quebec case for the study of welfare regimes at the subnational and regional levels.
This article analyzes for the first time the fulfillment of election pledges at the regional level using data from Quebec. We theorize that pledge fulfillment by regional governments is subject to adverse effects that do not normally operate at the national level. In line with expectations, we find that regional parties in Quebec fulfill smaller percentages of campaign pledges than their federal counterparts. We identify two main causal explanations for this. The sharing of resources (jurisdictions, power, and money) with the federal government prevents provincial parties from fulfilling some pledges, and it creates jurisdictional rivalries with the federal government that lead regional parties, nationalist parties in particular, to over-pledge. In conclusion, we argue that the results from Quebec can be generalized to other regional governments.
In recent years, the new political governance, a partisan model that contributes to a permanent campaign, gained ground in public organizations. In this new context, “deliverology” is portrayed as an innovative method to help governments implement new policies and deliver on election promises. This article presents the similarities and diff erences that exist between “deliverology” and evaluation. Is deliverology really something new or is it another case of old wine in a new bottle? Is deliverology a substitute for or, instead, a complement to institutionalized evaluation? To what extent does new political governance (exemplified by deliverology and performance measurement) undermine evidence-based decision making? What is the value-added of deliverology? These questions are addressed through a critical reflection on deliverology and its value-added in Canada, where evaluation became institutionalized in many departments and agencies under the influence of results-based management, promoted by the advocates of new public management over four decades.r four decades.
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.