2014
DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.12115
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Historical Institutionalist Understanding of Participatory Governance and Aboriginal Peoples: The Case of Policy Change in Ontario's Mining Sector*

Abstract: Objective. Natural resource policy has been a constant source of conflict between "Aboriginal" and "non-Aboriginal" stakeholders in Canada. We employ a historical institutionalist analysis to examine the extent to which changes to the Canadian Constitution in 1982 and Ontario's Mining Act in 2009 enabled Aboriginal communities to become equal partners in participatory governance arrangements in mineral resource sectors. Methods. We analyze primary sources consisting of federal and provincial legislation and in… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 21 publications
(25 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Agreements between mining companies and local communities thereby come to be seen as a more or less private matter, albeit regulated to some extent through legislation. In Canada, for example, private mining companies are now compelled by law to sign impact and benefit agreements with indigenous communities before extraction may begin, formally removing the central state from the equation (Campbell & Prémont, 2017;Craik et al, 2017;Grant et al, 2014). Such developments have been criticised as a form of commodification of what should ultimately be a central state responsibility, and for burdening private companies with responsibilities for which they are not suited (Harvey, 2014;Stanley, 2016).…”
Section: Decentralisation and Privatisation Of Resource Governance Inmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Agreements between mining companies and local communities thereby come to be seen as a more or less private matter, albeit regulated to some extent through legislation. In Canada, for example, private mining companies are now compelled by law to sign impact and benefit agreements with indigenous communities before extraction may begin, formally removing the central state from the equation (Campbell & Prémont, 2017;Craik et al, 2017;Grant et al, 2014). Such developments have been criticised as a form of commodification of what should ultimately be a central state responsibility, and for burdening private companies with responsibilities for which they are not suited (Harvey, 2014;Stanley, 2016).…”
Section: Decentralisation and Privatisation Of Resource Governance Inmentioning
confidence: 99%