Advertisement

Austerity and Federalism

  • Jeffrey Roy
Chapter
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 2)

Abstract

Perhaps nowhere is the cleavage between novel forms of democratic engagement and the inertia of more entrenched and traditional practices greater than in the realm of fiscal planning and budgeting and the manner by which governments undertake and seek approval for their spending plans. On the one hand, over the past decade there have been widening calls for more participative experimentation in budgeting exercises. By contrast, with respect to the fundamental secrecy and top-down decision-making inherent to the Westminster model, governments have not strayed far from traditional practices—particularly at national levels. Accordingly, fiscal federalism and corresponding tensions between localized flexibility and innovation and national-centric models of democracy and government, often more rigid and traditionally hierarchical, are key determinants of public sector adaptation as mobility expands.

Keywords

Cloud Computing Public Engagement Minority Government Preceding Chapter Digital Infrastructure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Allegretti, G. (2011). From scepticism to mutual support: Towards a structural change in the relations between participatory budgeting and the information and communications technologies?.In P. Mindus, A. Greppi, M. Cuono (Eds.), Legitimacy 2.0: E-democracy and public opinion in the digital age. Selected papers from the IVR World Congress Special Workshop, Frankfurt. http://www.academiia.edu
  2. Alzner, B. (2012). Newfoundland passes Bill 29 to amend access to information legislation. The Canadian Journalism Project.Google Scholar
  3. Aucoin, P., Jarvis, M., & Turnbull, L. (2011). Democratizing the constitution: Reforming responsible government. Toronto, ON: Emond Montgomery Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P., & Grimes, J. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly, 27, 264–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P., Munson, S., & Glaisyer, T. (2010). Social media technology and government transparency. IEEE Computer Society, 43, 53–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carson, L., Gastil, J., Hartz-Karp, J., & Lubensky, R. (Eds.). (2011). The Australian citizens’ parliament and the future of deliberative democracy. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, I., & Swain, H. (2005). Distinguishing the real from the surreal in management reform: Suggestions for beleaguered administrators in the government of Canada. Canadian Public Administration, 48(4), 453–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen, R. (2012). The sorry state of cloud computing in Canada. Retrieved from Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/reuvencohen/2012/10/24/the-sorry-state-of-cloud-computing-in-canada/
  9. Dutil, P., Howard, C., Langford, J., & Roy, J. (2010). The service state—Rhetoric, reality, and promise (Governance series). Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa Press.Google Scholar
  10. Fenna, A. (2012). Intergovernmental grants and accountability in Australian federalism. COAG Reform Council.Google Scholar
  11. Habermas, J. (2011). Europe’s post-democratic era. Retrieved from the guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/10/jurgen-habermas-europe-post-democratic
  12. Hubbard, R., Paquet, G., & Wilson, C. (2012). Stewardship: Collaborative metagovernance and inquiring systems. Ottawa, ON: Invenire Books.Google Scholar
  13. Langford, J., & Roy, J. (2008). Moving towards cross-boundary citizen-centred service delivery: Challenges and lessons from Canada and around the world. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.Google Scholar
  14. Lundy, K. (2010). CeBIT 2010: Gov 2.0 building a strong foundation for open democracy. Retrieved from http://www.katelundy.com.au/2010/03/02/cebit-2010-gov-2-0-building-a-strong-foundation-for-open-democracy/
  15. McNutt, K. (2009). Citizen engagement through online consultation a comment on public involvement and e-consultation: A new era of democratic governance in Canada. Montreal, QC: IRPP.Google Scholar
  16. Osimo, D. (2008). Web 2.0 in government: Why and how? Luxembourg: European Commission Joint Research Centre.Google Scholar
  17. Paquet, G. (2004). There is more to governance than public candelabras: E-governance and Canada’s public service. In L. Oliver & L. Sanders (Eds.), E-government reconsidered: Renewal of governance for the knowledge age. Regina: Canadian Plains Research Center.Google Scholar
  18. Roy, J. (2012b). E-government & the evolution of service Canada—Transformation or stagnation? In C. G. Reddick (Ed.), Public sector transformation through E-government: Experiences from Europe and North America. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Salusinszky, I. (2012). Faith in political leaders collapses according to Newspoll survey. Retrieved from The Australian: National Affairs: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/faith-in-political-leaders-collapses-according-to-newspoll-survey/story-fn59niix-1226518493021
  20. Ubaldi, B. C., & Roy, J. (2010). E-government and federalism in Italy and Canada—A comparative assessment. In C. Reddick (Ed.), Comparative E-government (pp. 183–200). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wanna, J., & O’Flynn, J. (2008). Collaborative governance: Collaborative governance. Australia: The Australian National University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffrey Roy
    • 1
  1. 1.Dalhousie UniversityHalifaxCanada

Personalised recommendations