Welfare State Restructuring and Aboriginal Governance
1-Project summary
Our goal is to assess how the ongoing process of welfare state restructuring is affecting Aboriginal governance and the relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the Canadian state more broadly.
To do so, we will first establish a comprehensive map of the historical relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the welfare state in Canada, using as an analytical lens the concept of citizenship regime (Jenson and Philips, 1996; Papillon, 2005).
Second, we will analyze the major characteristics of current changes in Aboriginal social policies at the federal level, both in terms of policy content and governance mechanisms, as well as the process leading to such changes. To do so, we anticipate using and developing selected concepts used by scholars of welfare state changes who are working in the tradition of historical institutionalism (Thelen 2004; Streeck and Thelen 2005).
Third, we will address the consequences of these developments for the overall dynamics of Aboriginal governance and for the place of Aboriginal peoples in relation to Canada’s restructured citizenship regime. This will form the bulk of our empirical research.
The key questions we hope to address are:
- What are the key characteristics of recent changes in Aboriginal social policies at the federal level?
- How are Aboriginal organisations and governing authorities engaging with the federal government in this process of welfare restructuring?
- Can ongoing changes foster greater agency (and self-determination) for Aboriginal peoples in the governance of social policies or is the emerging model simply reproducing already established patterns of state control?
- What kind of citizenship regime and model of governance is emerging from this reconfiguration process for Aboriginal peoples? Is the new welfare state better adapted to theoretical models of multi-layered citizenship associated with various conceptions of “postcolonial” Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal relations (Tully; Borrows; Macklem, etc.)?
2- Theoretical and analytical background
In order to assess the consequences of welfare state restructuring for Aboriginal peoples, we use the concept of citizenship regime. A citizenship regime consists of the rules, norms and practices established over time that structure the relations between the state and members of a political community as well as between citizens themselves. Through the recognition of particular rights (civil, political, social, cultural) a citizenship regime establishes the conditions of inclusion and exclusion in a political community. It also prescribes the rules of participation in collective decision-making though the production of governance mechanisms. And finally, through the recognition (or lack thereof) of individuals and communities, a citizenship regime contributes to the production of a sense of belonging among members of the polity.
As many analysts have pointed out, the development of the welfare state in the 20th century goes hand in hand with the consolidation of a state-centred model of universal, and many would suggest, hegemonic citizenship. In this particular citizenship regime, redistribution measures are premised on solidarity amongst equal citizens, who share the same set of constitutional rights but also a sense of belonging to a single political community, which boundaries correspond to the national state (Marshall, 1976; Banting, 1987). In such a regime, governments are the main institutions of governance, through which the norms and rules of inclusion into the shared community, as well as the conditions of redistribution, are established. In this perspective, Wolfe (1984) proposed a useful framework that remains to be adapted to take Aboriginal peoples into account.
The development of the post-war welfare state was a central element in the policy debates of the 1960’s over the status of Aboriginal peoples. The principles of universal citizenship and equality of status, at the core of welfare redistribution, entered in direct contradiction with the Indian Act regime that relegated most Aboriginal peoples to a status of pupils of the state and maintained them “outside” the mainstream citizenship regime. Pressures for greater integration of Aboriginal peoples into this citizenship regime culminated in 1969 with the proposed abolition of the Indian Act in the federal White Paper on Indian Policy. It resulted in the mobilisation of Aboriginal peoples around the recognition of their rights and against welfare-inspired integration policies.
Today, this model of citizenship associated with the post-war welfare state is undergoing profound transformations as both the capacity and the legitimacy of the state to regulate social and economic relations are being questioned by neoliberal ideas and the changing global economy. While the welfare state is not necessarily being “dismantled” as some early analysis suggested, it is certainly being reconfigured as the nature of social policies is changing. In Canada, as in other OECD countries, social policies are now less about protecting citizens and ensuring socio-economic equality through direct support and more about “enabling” citizens’ participation in the market economy (Jenson, 2003; Esping-Andersen, 2002).
The way social policies are defined and implemented is also changing in this new context, as governments increasingly engage with local communities, not for profit organisations as well as market actors in “partnership” for social development. In this new approach to welfare governance, community organisations and local governments play an increasingly important role in delivering services, managing social programs and establishing local priorities (Saint-Martin, 2004). In other words, not only the content but also the governance of the citizenship regime is changing, as the latter increasingly takes place amongst multiple actors and in multiple political spheres, from the “national” to the local (and global).
Aboriginal peoples are affected by this ongoing transformation of the welfare state and of the conditions of citizenship. Existing studies suggest Aboriginal social policies have followed this overall restructuring trend (Abele, 2000; Abele, 2004). A number of recent federal initiatives are moving away from the traditional pattern of passive welfare support towards measures aimed at engaging Aboriginal peoples and communities in the market economy. Following the tendency towards a decentralization of governance, the federal government and a number of provinces are also actively promoting new “partnerships” with Aboriginal organizations and devolution of program administration to local Aboriginal authorities (not for profit organisation, band or tribal councils).
Our objective is to map out these changes in the content and governance of social policies for Aboriginal peoples in order assess the consequences of these developments for Aboriginal peoples’ relationship with Canada’s citizenship regime and the project of Aboriginal self-determination.
3- Links between our research and the project Indigenous Peoples and Governance
Our project offers a political science (and political economy) perspective on the changing dynamics of Aboriginal governance, with a specific focus on the interactions between Aboriginal organizations and governing authorities and the Canadian (federal) state. It thus speaks to the themes associated with domain 3, which focuses on the conditions and foundations of a relationship of coexistence between Aboriginal peoples and the settlers’ state and society. The redefinition of the conditions, content as well as limits of shared citizenship is at the core of a political project seeking to redefine this relationship of coexistence. Since social policies are a central element of contemporary citizenship regimes, the current process of welfare state restructuring directly speaks to the socio-economic, institutional and ideological conditions into which this redefinition of the relationship is taking place.
The theorization and analysis of processes of governance is also at the core of our project. Our focus is on emerging mechanisms of shared governance involving the federal government and Aboriginal organizations and governing bodies in a number of areas of social policy. Governance, understood as a process of collective decision-making, involves interaction between actors in a given institutional context in which resources and authority are not distributed equally. This is especially true in governance dynamics involving the state and Aboriginal representatives. Our project will contribute to a greater understanding of the institutional and ideological constraints, beyond the strict legal framework of the relationship, facing Aboriginal organizations and governments engaged with the state in processes of shared governance characteristics of the new welfare state.
4- Possible linkages and exchanges with other project members / what we expect from these exchanges
Our research intersects with a number of themes proposed by other participants of the Indigenous peoples and Governance project. Our focus is on political dynamics of governance. As such, we would be interested in exchanging ideas on the theorization and conceptualization of the relational dimension of Aboriginal governance. How Aboriginal peoples interact with state authorities, are there common patterns emerging from the various analyses produced in the course of the project? How are these patterns changing? How is the legal framework structuring such relations limiting Aboriginal peoples role? How could alternative conceptions of Aboriginal governance, emerging from various intellectual perspectives and disciplines, inform our reading of current developments? Are alternative normative conceptions of governance helpful in providing a critical lens on the dynamics we are observing?
We would also benefit from exchanges with members of our specific domain on the conceptualization of citizenship regimes and the relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the Canadian state. Projects on federal-type governance and intergovernmental relations are directly relevant in this perspective.
Exchanges with institutional partners of the project, especially Aboriginal organizations, would also be greatly instructive for us, as a number of them are engaged on a daily basis in relations with governments in a number of policy areas relevant to our study. These exchanges could take the form of interviews or discussions on specific aspects of social policy changes and governance, but it could also involve a dialogue on the specific orientations of our research (ie. what we should look for).
Bibliography
Abele, Frances, "Small Nations and Democracy's Prospects: Indigenous Peoples in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Norway and Greenland" Inroads 10, 2000, pp. 137-149.
Abele, Frances, Urgent Need, Serious Opportunity: Towards a New Social Model for Canada’s Aboriginal Peoples, Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks, Research Report F/39, April 2004.
Banting, Keith. The Welfare State and Canadian Federalism, Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press, 1987.
Esping-Andersen, G., Why We Need a New Welfare State, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Jenson, Jane, Canada’s New Social Risks: Directions for a New Social Architecture, Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks, Research Report F/43, 2004.
Jenson, Jane and Susan Phillips, 1996.
Macklem, Patrick, Indigenous difference and the Constitution of Canada, Toronto: U of T Press, 2001.
Marshall, T.H. Class, Citizenship and Social Development.Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1976.
Papillon, Martin, “Entre l’héritage colonial et la recherche d’autonomie politique: les peuples autochtones dans la tourmente des réformes de l’État-providence,” in Lien social et Politiques- RIAC, no.53, printemps 2005, pp.129-142.
Saint-Martin, Denis, “Apprentissage et changement institutionnel: la politique de l’investissement dans l’enfance au Canada et en Grande-Bretagne” in Politique et Sociétés, vol.21, no.3, 2002.
Streeck, Wolfgang and Kathleen Thelen, eds. Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Thelen, Kathleen, How Institutions Evolve: The Political Economy of Skills in Germany, Britain, the United States and Japan. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Tully, James, Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in an Age of Diversity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Wolfe, David, “The Rise and Demise of the Keynesian Era in Canada: Economic Policy, 1930-1982” in M. Cross and G. Kealy, eds. Readings in Canadian Social History. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1984, pp 46-79.
