The Proliferation of Identity Politics in Australia: An Analysis of Ministerial Portfolios, 1970-2000

“Expansion in Progress”: Understanding Portfolio Adoption in the Canadian Provinces, 1982–2012

“…The following analysis draws upon a new database containing instances of portfolio adoption in the Canadian provinces from 1982 to 2012. As a departure point, we use the Moon and Sayers' (1999) and Sayers and Moon's (2002) argument that portfolio adoption is a reliable indicator of government activity, especially when compared to other variables such as government expenditure as a share of GDP and public sector employment as a portion of overall labour force (also see Fells, 2003: 103).…”

“…These factors are largely products of institutional conditions, namely party system effects, caucus size effects, jurisdictional effects, government age effects and timing (each explained in greater detail below). Indeed, any of these factors can reasonably be assumed to contribute to portfolio adoption either alone or in tandem with other factors; however, similar to Fells (2003), we aim to uncover the magnitude of importance for each of these variables.…”

“…Portfolio adoption is a likely (perhaps even a strong indicator) of issue salience either in the government or public agenda. There are many possible motivations for a government to adopt a portfolio: issues could become salient and governments choose to adopt a portfolio to recognize this salience (they could react ) (Fells, 2003). Equally, governments could choose to authorize a discourse or clearly define to the public why an issue is salient and should be institutionalized into a formal department or ministry (they could pre-empt ).…”

“…Timing with respect to other provinces is particularly relevant as it may suggest which provinces are innovating in new policy areas and those that are leaders for other provinces. Fells refers to this theory of government expansion as innovation, “the entry of government into a new field of activity,” and emulation, “the adoption of innovations by other jurisdictions” (Fells, 2003: 106). Others may refer to this as experience-induced policy change or policy learning (Bennett and Howlett, 1992; Heclo, 1974; Lawlor and Lewis, 2014).…”