What Explains the Paradox of Tobacco Control Policy under Federalism in the U.S. and Canada? Comparative Federalism Theory versus Multi-level Governance -super-†

Donley T. Studlar

Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 2010, vol. 40, issue 3, 389-411

Abstract: Canada is generally recognized as having more decentralized federalism than the United States. Even though the content of tobacco control policy in the two countries has been similar, the United States has had a more decentralized process, with policy usually led by the state level, while Canada has had a centralized process, with most initiatives coming from the federal government. This article examines this anomaly, utilizing two different approaches to intergovernmental relations, Kelemen's "comparative federalism" and Hooghe and Marks' "multi-level governance" (MLG). Overall, MLG is a better explanation for tobacco control policy in both countries, especially in the U.S. Discretionary implementation from the central level in parliamentary systems, unitary or federal, may be more broadly applicable than the legalistic implementation of separation-of-powers systems. Copyright 2010, Oxford University Press.

Date: 2010
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/publius/pjq003 (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:publus:v:40:y:2010:i:3:p:389-411

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://academic.oup.com/journals

Access Statistics for this article

Publius: The Journal of Federalism is currently edited by Paul Nolette and Philip Rocco

More articles in Publius: The Journal of Federalism from CSF Associates Inc. Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().