MIGDAL GOES CANADIAN: Deconstructing the ‘Executive’ in the Study of Canadian Federalism

Abstract

Over the 20 th century the field of comparative politics was subject to a debate about the proper way of theorizing the state. Society-centric scholars initially put the state in the background, while later state-centric authors brought the state back in, making it the focal point of their analysis. Dissatisfied with both, Joel S Migdal published State in Society (2001), which advocated for a rethinking of the study of the state. Migdal argued that the state must be considered as a fragmented actor among many others in society. This theory of fragmentation of the state would seem to be naturally applicable to the study of federalism. Yet this has not been the case. This paper argues that Migdal's approach would be a useful addition to the study of federalism and intergovernmental relations, using Canada as a test case. A brief review of some key literature first places Migdal's approach in terms of the broader debate between 'societalists' and 'statists'. Migdal's approach is then applied to a particular facet of the literature on Canadian federalism: executive federalism. The paper concludes that although federalism in Canada has been studied extensively, Migdal's notion of 'state in society' would provide us a useful way to further our understanding of federalism and intergovernmental relations.

Why Can't We Be Friends? Informal Relations, Public Policy, and Federalism in Canada

“…Both works demonstrated the fact that politics in Canada were often dependent on negotiations between the political executives of the provinces and the federal government. The notion of executive federalism is now a standard part of the literature on Canadian federalism although, as many scholars have argued, there is an increasing disjuncture between the very general notion of executive federalism and the study of particular policy areas, which are typically presented as being multifaceted and nuanced (Collins, 2012;Skogstad, 2009;Smith, 2005a).…”