Abstract
In a federal system of government, powers are shared by the national and sub-national units in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. However, the process of policy implementation may differ on the basis of allocation of power and the nature of the system. Canada and the United States of America adopted federal systems of government, and faced similar pressures for implementing policies on environmental issues. Yet, the degree of success and outcome appear to be different due to variations in the strength of the respective federalist systems. An analysis of the various aspects of the federal system in the two countries reveals noticeable differences in institutional configurations, relationship between national and sub-national units, and variances in intra-institutional relations. All these have contributed to a divergence in the past, but there is an emerging trend of convergence as both the Canadian and American governments are gradually moving away from their existing patterns of policy implementation toward a new approach involving private-sector initiatives and self-enforcement with strong inclinations toward voluntarization, corporatization and marketization.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adler, J. (2001). The ducks stop here? The environmental challenge to federalism. Supreme Court Economic Review, 9, 205–241.
Bakvis, H., & Skogstad, G. (2008). Editors, Canadian federalism: performance, effectiveness, and legitimacy (2nd ed.). Don Mills, Ont: Oxford University Press.
Bella, L. (1986). The politics of preservation: creating national parks in Canada, and in the United States, England, and Wales. Planning Perspectives, 1, 189–206.
Brooks, S., & Miljan, L. (2003). Public policy in Canada: an introduction (4th ed.). Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Cairns, R. (1992). Natural resources and Canadian federalism: decentralization, recurring conflict, and resolution. Publius, 22(1), 55–70.
Caldwell, L. (1970). Authority and responsibility for environmental administration. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 389, 107–115.
Cho, C.-L., & Wright, D. (2004). The devolution revolution in intergovernmental relations in the 1990s: changes in cooperative and coercive state-national relations as perceived by state administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, 447–468.
Comarow, M. (2006). Observations on organization and management. In T. Stanton (Ed.), Meeting the challenge of 9/11: blueprints for more effective government (pp. 155–165). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Constitution Act of 1867, Canada.
Constitution of the United States of America, As last amended November 6, 1990.
Council on Environmental Quality, http://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/
Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. (2003). The struggle to govern the commons. Science, 302, 1907–1912.
Dye, T. (2008). Understanding public policy (12th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Elazar, D. (1990). Opening the third century of American federalism: Issues and prospects. The Annals, 509, 11–21.
Elazar, D. (1993). The scope of co-operation. In L. O’Toole, Jr. (Ed.), American intergovernmental relations (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
Fomby, T., & Lin, L. (2006). A change point analysis of the impact of “Environmental Federalism” on aggregate air quality in the United States: 1940–98. Economic Inquiry, 44, 109–120.
Forster, A., Shojania, K., & van Walraven, C. (2005). Improving patient safety: moving beyond the ‘Hype’ of medical errors. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 173, 1503–11.
Gibson, D. (1973). Constitutional jurisdiction over environmental management in Canada. The University of Toronto Law Journal, 23(1), 54–87.
Glicksman, R. (2006). From cooperative to inoperative federalism: the perverse mutation of environmental law and policy. Wake Forest Law Review, 41, 719–803.
Gormley, W. (1989). Taming the bureaucracy: muscles, prayers and other strategies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Greve, M. (1999). Real federalism. Washington, DC: AEI.
Hanf, K. (1993). Enforcing environmental laws: the social regulation of co-production. In M. Hill (Ed.), New agendas in the study of the policy process (pp. 88–109). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Harrison K (2000a) Intergovernmental relations and environmental policy: concepts and context. In P. Fafard & K. Harrison (eds.), Managing the Environmental Union: Intergovernmental relations and Environmental Policy in Canada. School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University: 3–19.
Harrison K (2000b). The origins of national standards: comparing federal government involvement in environmental policy in Canada and the United States. In P. Fafard & K. Harrison (eds.), Managing the Environmental Union: Intergovernmental relations and Environmental Policy in Canada. School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University: 49–80.
Hessing, M., Howlett, M., & Summerville, T. (2005). Canadian natural resource and environmental policy. Vancouver: UBC.
Hoberg, G., & Harrison, K. (1994). It’s not easy being green: the politics of Canada’s green plan. Canadian Public Policy, 20(2), 119–137.
Hogwood, B., & Gunn, L. (1984). Policy analysis for the real world. New York: Oxford University Press.
Howlett, M. (2000). Beyond legalism: policy ideas, implementation styles and emulation-based convergence in Canadian and U.S. environmental policy. Journal of Public Policy, 20(3), 305–329.
Keleman, D. (2004). Environmental federalism in the United States and the European Union. In N. Vig & M. Faure (Eds.), Green giants? Environmental policies of the United States and the European union (pp. 113–134). Cambridge, Massachussets: The MIT.
Kincaid, J. (1990). From cooperative to coercive federalism. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 509, 139–152.
Kraft, M., & Scheberle, D. (1998). Environmental federalism at decade’s end: new approaches and strategies. Publius, 28(1), 131–146.
Krajnc, A. (2000). Whither Ontario’s environment? Neo-conservatism and the decline of the environment ministry. Canadian Public Policy, 26(1), 111–127.
Lester, J. (1986). New federalism and environmental policy. Publius, 16(1), 149–165.
Livingston, W. (1956). Federalism and constitutional change. Oxford: Clarendan.
Lowry, W. (1999). Providing intergenerational goods: implementation of national park system plans in Canada and the United States. Policy Studies Journal, 27(2), 328–346.
Lowry, W. (1994). Paved with political intentions: the impact of structure on the national park services of Canada and the United States. Policy Studies Journal, 22(1), 44–58.
Miller, L. (1986). The burger court’s vie of intergovernmental relations. In J. E. Benton & D. R. Morgan (Eds.), Intergovernmental relations and public policy. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Nagel, R. (2001). The implosion of American federalism. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nice, D. (1987). Federalism: the politics of intergovernmental relations. New York: St. Martin’s.
O’Toole, L. (1993). Overview. In L. J. O’Toole (Ed.), American intergovernmental relations (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: CQ.
Paehlke, R. (2000). Environmentalism in one country: Canadian environmental policy in an era of globalization. Policy Studies Journal, 28(1), 160–175.
Parson, E. (2000). Environmental trends and environmental governance in Canada. Canadian Public Policy, 26(2), 123–143.
Pressman, J., & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation: how great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Rabe, B. (1999). Federalism and entrepreneurship: explaining American and Canadian innovation in pollution prevention and regulatory integration. Policy Studies Journal, 27(2), 288–306.
Schoenbrod, D. (1997). Why States, Not EPA, should set pollution standards. In T. Anderson & P. Hill (Eds.), Environmental federalism. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
Smiley, D. (1987). The federal condition in Canada. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
Stewart, R. (1977). Pyramids of sacrifice? Problems of federalism in mandating state implementation of national environmental policy. The Yale Law Journal, 86(6), 1196–1272.
Timoney, K., & Lee, P. (2001). Environmental management in resource-rich Alberta, Canada: first world jurisdiction, third world analogue? Journal of Environmental Management, 63, 387–405.
Toner, G., & Conway, T. (1996). Environmental policy. In B. Doern, L. Pal & B. Tomlin (Eds.), Border crossings: the internationalization of Canadian public policy (pp. 108–144). Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Valiante, M. (2002). Legal foundations of Canadian environmental policy: underlining our values in a shifting landscape. In D. VanNijnatten & R. Boardman (Eds.), Canadian environmental policy: context and cases (pp. 5–24). Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Vig, N. (1999). Introduction: governing the international environment. In N. Vig & R. Axelrod (eds.), The Global Environment: Institutions, Law and Policy: 1–26.
Walker, D. (2000). The rebirth of federalism (2nd ed.). New York: Chatham House.
Welborn, D. (1988). Conjoint federalism and environmental regulation in the United States. Publius, 18(1), 27–43.
Welch, S., Gruhl, J., Comer, J., & Rigdon, S. (2004). American government (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thompson/Wasdworth.
Wright, D. (1988). Understanding intergovernmental relations (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Huque, A.S., Watton, N. Federalism and the Implementation of Environmental Policy: Changing Trends in Canada and the United States. Public Organ Rev 10, 71–88 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-009-0089-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-009-0089-4