Suchergebnisse

Abstract.This article develops an explanation for the different approaches to existing women's policy agencies adopted by governments of the right elected to office in Aotearoa/New Zealand (in 1990) and in the province of British Columbia (in 2001). In Aotearoa/New Zealand, the Ministry of Women's Affairs remained structurally intact, while in British Columbia the Ministry of Women's Equality was eliminated and replaced with a women's policy agency that constitutes a small subunit within a much larger ministry. My analysis of these developments focuses on the impact of two institutional features of the women's ministries: (1) the nature of the activities in which they were involved and the different allocations of their budgetary resources that these activities entailed; and (2) the relationship between each ministry and community-based women's groups. I also explore the interaction between these institutional variables and the particular way in which a discourse of "special interests" has been expressed within the party of the right in each case.Résumé.Cet article développe une explication des différences d'attitude envers les agences chargées des politiques concernant les femmes entre les gouvernements de droite qui ont été élus à Aotearoa/Nouvelle-Zélande (en 1990), et en Colombie-Britannique (en 2001). À Aotearoa/Nouvelle-Zélande, la structure du ministère des Affaires des femmes est restée intacte, tandis qu'en Colombie-Britannique le ministère de l'Égalité des femmes a été éliminé et remplacé par une agence chargée des politiques concernant les femmes, qui n'est qu'une petite sous-unité d'un ministère beaucoup plus étendu. Mon analyse de ces développements porte sur l'impact de deux aspects institutionnels des ministères de la condition féminine: (1) le caractère de leurs activités et les différences correspondantes d'allocation de leurs ressources budgétaires; (2) le rapport entre chaque ministère et les groupes féministes des collectivités locales. En plus, j'explore l'interaction entre ces variables institutionnelles et la formation de l'argument d'" intérêts particuliers " avancé par le parti de droite dans chaque cas.

In this article I provide an account of the elimination of Women's Equality as a freestanding ministry in the government of the Canadian province of British Columbia and its reconfiguration as Women's Services and Social Programs, one of several organizational elements in the newly-created Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. I also present an analysis of a number of policy developments with particular significance for women that have accompanied this institutional transformation. In my discussion I argue that while many of these policy directions date from the arrival in office of the current provincial Liberal government, others did not emerge de novo after the 2001 election. Rather, they originated while the left-of-centre New Democratic Party (NDP) formed the government provincially during the 1990s. I assess the relative contributions of ideology and institutional structure to the policy changes that are detailed in the article, and conclude that the relationships between ideology, institutions and policy can best be understood as complex and recursive.

AbstractThis article explores neo-conservative ideology in the industrialized West through a comparative analysis of the arguments advanced against a strong role for the federal government in regulating child care services in the United States and Canada. Existing analyses of neo-conservatism suggest that it is composed of many different elements which may lead to contradictory policy prescriptions; this literature also downplays the presence of a "pro-family" component in the Canadian context. The article illustrates the presence of an "anti-statist," a "pro-market" and a "pro-family" strand of neo-conservatism in each country, and shows that they converge in opposing federal regulation of child care services. It also suggests that, while there appears to be a shared neo-conservative vision of the appropriate relationship between families and the state across national contexts, discussions of the state and its relationship to the market take on a distinctive tone in each country.

THIS ARTICLE EXPLORES NEO-CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGY IN THE INDUSTRIALIZED WEST THROUGH A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AGAINST A STRONG ROLE FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN REGULATING CHILD CARE SERVICES IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA. EXISTING ANALYSES OF NEO-CONSERVATISM SUGGEST THAT IT IS COMPOSED OF MANY DIFFERENT ELEMENTS WHICH MAY LEAD TO CONTRADICTORY POLICY PRESCRIPTIONS; THIS LITERATURE ALSO DOWNPLAYS THE PRESENCE OF A "PR-FAMILY" COMPONENT IN THE CANADIAN CONTEXT. THE ARTICLE ILLUSTRATES THE PRESENCE OF AN "ANTI-STATIST," A "PRO-MARKET" AND A "PRO-FAMILY" STRAND OF NEO-CONSERVATISM IN EACH COUNTRY, AND SHOWS THAT THEY CONVERGE IN OPPOSING FEDERAL REGULATION OF CHILD CARE SERVICES. IT ALSO SUGGESTS THAT, WHILE THERE APPEARS TO BE A SHARED NEO-CONSERVATIVE VISION OF THE APPROPRIATE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FAMILIES AND THE STATE ACROSS NATIONAL CONTESTS, DISCUSSIONS OF THE STATE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE MARKET TAKE ON A DISTINCTIVE TONE IN EACH COUNTRY.

Compares proposed federal legislation pertaining to child care in the US and Canada in the early 1980s, and rhetoric used to defeat it.

This article explores the impact of federal political arrangements and conservative ideology on provisions for regulating child care services embodied in the major proposals for child care legislation under consideration in Canada and the United States during the late 1980s. The initial contrast between the non‐centralized approach taken in Bill C‐144 (Canada) and the more centralized approach originally proposed in the Act for Better Child Care Services (United States) was a function of differences in the two countries' federal systems. However, conservative preferences and pressures contributed to the eventual adoption of a non‐centralized approach in both countries. Federalism facilitated this expression of conservative ideology by providing supporters of a non‐centralized approach with resources (constitutional and institutional) with which to pursue their policy preference, and a political rhetoric with which it could be justified.