Comparing Federations: Lessons from Comparing Canada and the United States

Abstract

Unlike the usual overview of the state of American Federalism, this special issue compares the state of federalism in the United States and Canada. The articles are drawn from papers delivered at a September 2009 conference on the U.S. and Canadian federalism cosponsored by Publius and the Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations Section of the American Political Science Association. 1 In this overview, we briefly highlight interesting findings and trends reported in the articles and outline some difficulties they reveal regarding comparative federalism work. There is little doubt that comparative research is challenging, even when it involves two much-studied federal systems such as Canada and the United States. Comparative data are often difficult to obtain and conclusions—including those outlined in this issue—are at best conditional, depending on each federation’s unique amalgam of properties and contexts; or what Katherine Harrison terms ‘‘it depends.’’ 2 In their contribution, Beryl Radin and Richard Simeon warn that systematic, comparative federalism research raises complex issues: such as whether comparing Canadian and the U.S. Federalism involves a similar- or different-system approach. Their framework focuses on each federation’s ‘‘big ideas,’’ institutions, and historical legacies; an approach those who think federal societies shape the development of federally governed countries will consider wrongheaded. Michael Hail and Stephen Lange’s article comparing influences on the foundings of the two federations identifies the ‘‘big ideas’’ they believe shaped the U.S. and Canadian federations. They theorize that both federations share the same underlying political philosophy despite different historical legacies and societal types.