| dc.description | The British Columbia Political Studies Association Conference was a short, productive, no-frills conference, in which I actively participated in every session and was rewarded with a stimulating and useful discussion of my own paper. On the morning of Friday May 2, I attended a panel on “Questioning Political Theory”, in which political theorists dicussed the relative merits of foundationalism and social constructivism in recent political theory, and I contributed to the discussion by raising the relevance of Rawls’s political liberalism and of Kuhn’s and Popper’s philosophy of science to the presenters’ remarks.
Professor Barbara Arneil’s Keynote Address, “Competing Models of Social Capital Building in Diverse Communities: The Girl Scouts vs. the Boy Scouts of America” provoked a stimulating discussion that raised some intereting comparisons with Canada as well as perspectives on social capital theory. I participated vigorously in the roundtable debate on BC politics as well.
My own paper was moved to the panel on “International Public Policy”, the last full panel held on Saturday May 3. My paper received several useful comments. The official discussant, Dr. Gerald Baier of the University of British Columbia, noted that Prof. Grace Skogstad refers to trade as an instance of multilevel governance, and that future revisions should take into account the multilevel governance literature, as well Paul Pierson’s Politics in Time. He noted that the principal point of the paper was about how the more market-based health care reforms are, the less insulated we are from international trade obligations. He wondered whetehr there was a parallel concern on the U.S. side—e.g. can consulting firms doing EDS and security be challenged under ITAs? Why are Swedish corporations not specializing in health care delivery aboroad? Gail Williams was cited as saying that you “can make domestic policy through international trade agreements”---was I implying that governments are unaware of the poison pill of difficult-to-reverse privatizations? If so, this remained unproven.
Chris Kukucha (Lethbridge) commented that states are pretty autonomous—e.g. the United States is willing and able to resist international regulation. Trade policy is also a case of what Cairns has called “centralizing intrastate federalism”—i.e. provincial interests are taken into account. In Canada, most trade people are in intergovernmental affairs, so the absence of trade policy capacity in social ministries may be misleading. Ontario officials said “daycare is already on our radar” 2 or 3 years ago; Stephen Elliott-Buckley (Phd. Candidate, SFU) commented that BC was thinking about trade obligations when it made its announcement about ABC daycare centres recently (by making sure subsidies are available for everyone).
Matt James (UVIC) offered the suggestion that the arguments could be contextualized in terms of old debates from federalism and public policy—i.e. the capacity of provincial governments is something that Watkins and Gordon would tend to denigrate (echoing the earlier sentiments of centralists) whereas Pratt and Richards would speak highly of their savvy.
Implications of Conference Comments and Discussions:
I benefitted from having several discussions relating to major theoretical issues in contemporary political science. It is clear from the comments on my own paper that there is at least one line of empirical enquiry and 2 or 3 theoretical and comparative works that I need to consult before revising my paper for publication. First, I need to interview some trade policy officials to determine their influence on social policy decisions. While some statements in the press seem to indicate a degree of indifference to foreign/corporate ownership and consequent trade obligations. Secondly, I need to decide whether lack of provincial trade policy capacity is an important part of my thesis about healthcare reform, exposure to trade rules, and the nature of globalization. Thirdly, I need to examine curent theoretical works on multilevel governance—and Pierson’s and Williams’s and Cerny’s work on the nature of the modern welfare state—as well as older works such as Laski’s on the obsolescence of federalism, the provincial state, and so on. Waldron’s recent critique of risk analysis by Cass Sunstein might also be an appropriate source to consult, given my emphasis on risk analysis in my paper.
IN short, the comments have been extremely helpful in prodding me to the next stage of my work—moving beyond a fascination with the relationships described in my paper to a sharper thesis that is more theoretically nuanced, empirically grounded, and contextualized within federalism and domestic and international governance. | en |
| dc.description.abstract | The paper argues that the ostensible exemption of domestic social policy fields from the application of international trade agreements actually results in the introduction of two powerful structures potentially constraining domestic policy actors: first, the introduction of new zones of legal contestation concerning the boundaries of domestic policy; and second, the creation of a new and inverse relationship between the presence of market factors in domestic policy and the applicable scope of trade agreement exemption clauses. The result is neither the "common international policy space" theorized by Ruggie nor the pure domestic policy space which existed prior to expansion of trade agreements to include services and domestic regulation. Rather, it is a space the boundaries of which are flexible, contested, and contingent upon both legal interpretation and the choice of policy instrument. Such a policy space demonstrates both the unavoidability of globalization and the continuing importance of the nation state, and potentially exhibits some distinctively new policy dynamics. | en |
