Intergovernmental Innovation and the Administrative State in Canada

Abstract

Canadian federalism has experienced considerable pressure for change and innovation in recent years. There have been calls for more collaborative federalism and demands for public sector reforms consistent with the precepts of New Public Management. This article examines the hypothesis that these pressures might be expected to have resulted in some intergovernmental institutional innovation in the arena of federal–provincial–territorial relations. Using a conceptual distinction between federalism, intergovernmental relations, and intergovernmental management (IGM) as the basis of analyzing institutional innovation at six levels in the Canadian intergovernmental administrative state, the authors find a differentiated impact with more institutional innovation evident at the micro levels of IGM and innovation more constrained at the macro levels of the administrative state by the traditional institutional infrastructure of executive federalism.

Governing Infrastructure in the Age of the “Art of the Deal”: Logics of Governance and Scales of Visibility

“…In infrastructure planning, as in other areas, public sector innovation could arise from within if public officials were properly incentivized to do some research and generate their own “best practices.” It is generally assumed, however, that even within government itself, public sector innovation comes from adopting private sector methods, habits, and even norms. One sees this, for instance, in Daglio, Gerson, and Kitchen's (2015) background paper for the Organization for Economic Co‐operation and Development's 2014 conference, Innovation in the Public Sector (see Considine and Lewis ; Johns, O'Reilly, and Inwood ).…”

Understanding innovation

“…These debates underpin the second theme, which questions where innovation happens. The locations range from creative and or entrepreneurial individuals (Mostert 2007;Schumpeter 1934;Schumpeter 1939;Watson 2007), individuals interacting, groups, and complex multilevel systems (Watson 2007), creative cities (Berry 2005), knowledge clusters (Pohoryles 2007), networks (Considine and Lewis 2007;Dewick and Miozzo 2004;Garcia-Lorenzo 2006;Marceau 1999;Pittaway et al 2004), and particular governance structures (Johns et al 2006). If there is a conclusion that can be reached regarding this literature, it is that innovation is ubiquitous.…”

Understanding Innovation for Sustainability within the Australian Building Industry: An Evolutionary Social Learning Model

“…(Harty 2005) These debates underpin the second theme, which questions where innovation happens. These range from creative and/or entrepreneurial individuals (Mostert 2007;Schumpeter 1934Schumpeter , 1939Watson 2007), individuals interacting, groups, and complex multilevel systems (Watson 2007), creative cities (Berry 2005), knowledge clusters (Pohoryles 2007), networks (Considine & Lewis 2007;Dewick & Miozzo 2004;Garcia-Lorenzo 2006;Marceau 1999;Pittaway et al 2004), and particular governance structures (Johns, O'Reilly & Inwood 2006). If there is a conclusion that can be reached regarding this literature, it is that innovation is ubiquitous.…”