Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T17:02:46.428Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Legislators, Bureaucrats, and Canadian Democracy: The Long and the Short of It

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2009

Lee Sigelman  and
William G. Vanderbok
Lee Sigelman
Affiliation:
Texas Tech University
William G. Vanderbok
Affiliation:
Texas Tech University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The bureaucratization of the political process that characterizes twentieth century politics in many countries has not bypassed Canada—as evidenced by skyrocketing rates of government employment and expenditure and, even more dramatically, by the ever-expanding policy-making power of Canadian bureaucracy. One observer sees the civil service as occupying an increasingly strategic role in Canadian politics, a condition that

reflects in part the expanding role of modern government into highly technical areas, which tends to augment the discretion of permanent officials because legislators are obliged to delegate to them the administration of complex affairs, including the responsibility for drafting and adjudicating great amounts of sub-legislation required to “fill in the details” of the necessarily broad, organic statutes passed by Parliament. Some indication of the scale of such discretion is found in the fact that, during the period 1963–8, an annual average of 4,130 Orders-in-Council were passed in Ottawa, a substantial proportion of which provided for delegating authority to prescribe rules and regulations to ministers and their permanent advisers. By contrast, the number of laws passed annually by Canadian federal parliaments is rarely over one hundred.

Type
Notes
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , September 1977 , pp. 615 - 624
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Overviews of these developments are presented in Hodgetts, J. E. and Dwivedi, O. P., “The Growth of Government Employment in Canada,” Canadian Public Administration 12 (1969), 224–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Byers, R. B., “Perceptions of Parliamentary Surveillance of the Executive: The Case of Canadian Defense Policy,” this Journal 5 (1972), 234–50.Google Scholar

2 Presthus, Robert, Elites in the Policy Process (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), 22–23.Google Scholar

3 Kemaghan, Kenneth, “Responsible Public Bureaucracy: A Rationale and a Framework for Analysis,” Canadian Public Administration 16 (1973), 573.Google Scholar

4 See Finer, Herman, “Administrative Responsibility in Democratic Government,” Public Administration Review 1 (1940–1941), 335–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Friedrich, Carl J., “Public Policy and the Nature of Administrative Responsibility,” in Friedrich, Carl and Mason, Edward, eds., Public Policy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1940), 3–24.Google Scholar

5 Kernaghan, “Responsible Public Bureaucracy,” 575.

6 See, e.g., Lowi, Theodore J., The End of Liberalism (New York: Norton, 1969).Google Scholar

7 Larson, Arthur D., “Representative Bureaucracy and Administrative Responsibility: A Reassessment,” Midwest Review of Public Administration 7 (1973), 79–89.Google Scholar

8 A good summary of the theory and literature of representative bureaucracy can be found in Krislov, Samuel, Representative Bureaucracy (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974).Google Scholar

9 Long, Norton, “Bureaucracy and Constitutionalism,” American Political Science Review 46 (1952), 808–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Ibid., 813.

11 For an excellent statement, see Ridley, F. F., “Responsibility and the Official: Forms and Ambiguities,” Government and Opposition 10 (1975), 444–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Krislov, Representative Bureaucracy, 130.

13 See, e.g., W. L. Guttsman, “Elite Recruitment and Political Leadership in Britain and Germany Since 1950: A Comparative Study of MPs and Cabinets,” 89–125, in Crewe, Ivor (ed.), Elites in Western Democracy (London: Croom Helm, 1974).Google Scholar In a companion study to the present research, the authors could detect few significant attitudinal or sociological differences between bureaucrats and legislators in four American settings.

14 Myers, Frank E., “Social Class and Political Change in Western Industrial Systems,” Comparative Politics 2 (1970), 389–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 Kuruvilla, P. K., “Administrative Culture in Canada: Some Perspectives,” Canadian Public Administration 16 (1973), 284–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 Rich, Harvey, “The Canadian Case for a Representative Bureaucracy,” Political Science 27 (1975), 98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 See, e.g., Jain, R. B., “Politicization of Bureaucracy: A Framework for Measurement,” Res Publica 16 (1974), 297–302.Google Scholar

18 Presthus, Elites; see also Elite Accomodation in Canadian Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973); and “Interest Groups and the Canadian Parliament: Activities, Interaction, Legitimacy, and Influence,” this Journal 4 (1971), 446–60.

19 More specifically, the number of civil servants and legislators, respectively, interviewed at each site was: Ottawa, 90 and 142; Ontario, 49 and 50; British Columbia, 36 and 34; and Quebec, 39 and 43.

20 Long, “Bureaucracy and Constitutionalism,” 816.

21 Ibid., 812.

22 Porter, John, The Vertical Mosaic (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23 Ibid. Also, Gélinas, André, “Les parlementaires et l'administration publique au Québec,” this Journal 1 (1968), 164–79Google Scholar; Rich, Harvey, “From a Study of Higher Civil Servants in Ontario,” Canadian Public Administration 17 (1974), 328–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Rich, Harvey, “Higher Civil Servants in Ontario, Canada: An Administrative Elite in Comparative Perspective,” International Review of Administrative Science 41 (1975), 67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 Porter, Vertical Mosaic, 420.

25 See, e.g., Edinger, Lewis J. and Searing, Donald D., “Social Background in Elite Analysis: A Methodological Inquiry,” American Political Science Review 61 (1967), 428–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 Presthus, Elites.

27 Kenneth J. Meier and Lloyd G. Nigro, “Representative Bureaucracy and Policy Preferences: A Study in the Attitudes of Federal Executives,” paper delivered at the 1975 meeting of the American Political Science Association.

28 Ibid.