Exam Task of Basic Element of Northern Development SO341S 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submitted
By:

Pratik
Bhatta

Candidate
No: 9

 

 

 

What is Multilevel
Governance? Using examples from the readings, explain how the multilevel governance affects political autonomy of Inuit
peoples in Northern Canada.

 

Multilevel
Governance (MLG) is an approach in political science and public administration
theory that was originated from studies on European Integration. The MLG was
developed by Political scientists Liesbet Hooghe and Gary Marks through their
studies of European integration in 1992. This approach has continually focused
on the challenges created by the distribution of public policy decision-making
and the relation between domestic and international levels of authority. Dispersion
of power can be observed both vertically, amongst sub-national units through
processes of decentralization and regionalization; and horizontally because of
increased participation by non-governmental and quasi-governmental actors in
policy making (Marks & Hooghe, 2004).

 MLG refers to where public authorities in
charge of a given policy domain belong to various levels of authority and
policy competences, and budgetary resources are distributed across these levels
of government. This increases co-ordination between actors, organizations,
agendas and polices to achieve consistent policies. Schmitter (2003: 72)
discussed the emergence of the different forms of multilevel and polycentric
governance as a product of gradual and incremental institutional formation at
European Union (EU) level and as an attempt to inject a dose of flexibility
into an otherwise cumbersome policy process.

            Authors have defined MLG in
different ways. Despite the different definitions, there are few definitions
which give clear concept of MLG. MLG refers to the concept that decision making
at various territorial levels and have increased participation of non-state
actors. On the other hand, Authors defined MLG as the identification of discrete
or nested territorial levels of decision-making, which is becoming more
difficult in the context of complex overlapping networks. Contrary to this, few
authors agree that in MLG the role of state is to transform as state actors to
develop new strategies of coordination between different factors to enhance
state autonomy. Alcantara & Nelles (2014) defines MLG as a process of
political decision making in which governments engage with a broad range of
actors embedded in different territorial scales to pursue collaborative
solutions to complex problems.

 

Types of Coordination in Multilevel
Governance

·       Vertical
Coordination:

Vertical
Coordination refers to coordination between higher and lower levels of
government. For example: coordination between State- County – Municipality.

·       Horizontal
Coordination

Horizontal
coordination refers to the coordination between policy fields or functional
sectors agencies at the same level. Coordination between regions, coordination
between municipalities are the example of horizontal coordination.

 

Role of Multilevel Governance for
Innovation Policy

The
governance of innovation policy refers to a shift from the national level
design and execution of innovation policy to international as well as
sub-national level. Both levels have observed a rise in relevance and an
increment in policy activity in innovation, while targeting same innovation
actors.

·       Increase in globalization and
internationalization of innovation policy

Research and Development and innovation activities
are increasingly global, thanks to the shifting international organization of
functions within multinational enterprises, which are internationalizing their
Research and Development at faster pace and on a larger scale than before (OECD
2010a). Increasing ramification of innovation drive towards the much broader
partnerships. This trend persuades National innovation policies to aim at
encouraging domestic potential innovation and developing local skills, in order
to raise the attractiveness of the country for global innovation performers.

 

·       Role of regional level in
innovation policy

The importance of regions in
innovation policy is linked to the following two trends (OECD 2011):

·                 
The
inclusion of regions and their assets in national innovation policies, in
recognition of the importance of places and proximity linkages for innovation
promotion.

·                 
A
shift in regional development policy paradigms, with an increasing focus on the
mobilization of knowledge assets and the promotion of innovation for endogenous
growth, while moving away from a redistribution policy paradigm.

Multilevel Governance and Inuit people in Northern
Canada.

The Inuit peoples of the territorial and provincial
North have made significant progress in terms of institutionalizing regional
self-government and establishing multilevel linkage with other government with
Canada’s federal system. MLG
structure established by Nunavut Land Claim Agreement and the creation of
Nunavut in 1999 represents the unique model of governance between a public
government that serves an Inuit population and a nonprofit beneficiary
organization representing the Inuit of Nunavut. In addition to Nunavut
three other autonomous Inuit regions in Canadian Arctic i.e Nunatsiavut in
Northern Labrador, Nunavik in Northern Quebes, and the Inuvialuit Settlement
Region are moving towards greater self-government. Although all of Inuit regions
have common historical and cultural connections, three regions differentiate
from Nunavut because they are politically and administratively nested within
existing constituent units of the federation (Wilson 2008).

Power
dispersion occurs between public institutions and indigenous institutions in
the case of aboriginal land claims settlements in Canada. Inuit regions signed
comprehensive land claims agreements with the federal government and their
territorial governments at different stage in their political development (Alcantara
& Wilson 2013).  The Inuit of
Nunatsiavut, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Government of
Canada signed the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement in 2005; this agreement
not only provided land rights and funds, it provided self-government. Although,
Nunavik and Inuvialuit Settlement Region signed land agreements before Nunatsiavut,
their agreement did not provide for self-government. Contrary to Nunatsiavut,
these two regions are administrated by several regional public Aboriginal
agencies and bodies, including development corporations that deals the land
claims agreements on behalf of Inuit beneficiaries (Rodon & Grey 2009)

Traditionally,
public interest was determined and promoted by public governments, Aboriginal
organizations questioned and re-evaluate this assumption and concluded that
Aboriginal interests cannot be represented by traditional governments.
Increasing involvement of non-traditional governance actors in the policy
process illustrates that Canada is rapidly moving toward intergovernmental
relations between the federal and provincial/ territorial government, diversity
and multilevel of governance structure rather than the traditional model of
federalism. Involvement of non-state actors in the administration of Inuit
regions exemplifies vertical and horizontal dimensions of multilevel system. National
and transactional Inuit organizations along with regional bodies interact with
horizontal level governance and vertical level governance in search of polices
that improves living standard of the inhabitants of their region. Aboriginal
land claims organizations are legally established corporations with broad
resources and operations. Comprehensive land-claims agreements are mostly
handled by these organizations and they execute various activities in their
respective regions, including the provision of services and employment. Beyond
this, they are accountable to the Inuit beneficiaries of the agreements, not to
publicly-elected governments (Wilson & Alcantara, 2012).

Multilevel Governance impact on
Inuit Regions

Nunavik

Nunavik
covers all the Quebec territory, an area of 443,684.71 square Kilometer, with
approximately 12,090 people living in 14 communities, of whom 90% are Inuit
(Census 2011). Inuit of Nunavik signed the James Bay and Northern Quibec
Agreement (JBNQA) in 1975. JBNQA created governance system centered on Kativik
School Board (KSB), Nunavik Regional Board of Health and Social Services
(NRBHSS), and Kativik Regional Government. These three-administrative body
operate independently; and are individually funded through a series of transfer
agreements with respective parent department and financial support through
special programs. Rodon (2015) described Makivik Corporation as a powerful
actor, politically as well as economically; Makivik Corporation protect the rights
and interests of Nunavik Inuit.

Although
education level in Nunavik is the lowest in the Inuit regions, education in
Nunavik is an example of moderately classical administrative devolvement, with
significant level of regional autonomy. Kativik School Board (KSB) has average
autonomy over curriculum development and language instruction.

Similarly,
as Education Policies, Housing policies in Nunavik presents a good example of
multilevel governance processes that are developed in land claims settlement
regions. Federal government’s enrollment into a multilevel accord with Quebec
and Nunavik institutions and organizations resulted substantial involvement
from governmental, quasi-governmental, and non-governmental actors in policy
development and execution.  Due to
provincial government and federal government held the official decision-making
power, cooperative decision is not as substantial. Despite of this fact,
consultation processes and dispute settlement mechanisms provide Nunavik
actors’ influence over decision-making processes in an area of housing.

Inuvialuit Settlement Region

Inuvialuit
Settlement Region, located in Canada’s western Arctic, were one of the first
Aboriginal groups to sign land claims agreement in 1984, designated the
Inuvialuit Final Agreement. Agreement rewarded Inuvialuit with 435,000 square
kilometers of land in the Northwest Territories and Yukon Territory; and 13,000
square kilometers of mineral rights and other responsibilities. Land claim
agreements encountered up and down in implementation. Federal government denied
negotiating with any Aboriginal group. After the policy changed, many group are
negotiating self-government agreements separately or at the same time with
their land claims agreements (Alcantara 2013). This resulted the territorial
government to be dominant government actors in the region. Funds administration
and Final Agreement was administered by two land claim organizations, The
Inuvialuit Game Council (IGC), and Inuvialuit Regional Corporation (IRC).
Notzke 1995 observed that The Inuvialuit have been able to engage in a range of
crucial government activities, including political representation, creation and
administration of programs and services for Inuvialuit, and input into policies
making for Inuvialuit beneficiaries.

            Inuvialuit Settlement Region found
education as a challenging issue. High school diploma rate was significantly
below the territorial average. Government of Northwest Territories (GNWT), who
gained full control over education from federal government in 1960s through
devolvement was fully responsible for the over primary and secondary education (Clancy
1990).  Although, GNWT in coordination
with Beaufort Delta Education Council (BDEC) worked in the area of education,
there is not enough evidence of multilevel governance in the area of education
for primary and secondary education. IGC and IRG ‘s involvement in development
of education was minimal, rather than, these organizations were involved in
irregular public consultation and focusing on post-secondary programs.

Multilevel
governance in housing seems very poor. Although each Inuvialuit community has
their local housing organizations, none of them are appointed by an Inuvialuit
claims organization. Instead of reporting to those Inuvialuit Claims
organizations, local housing corporations report to Northwest Territories
Housing Corporation (NWTHC).

Nunatsiavut

Nunatsiavut
is an autonomous area claimed by the Inuit in Newfoundland and Labrador,
Canada. The Inuit of Nunatsiavut singed the Labrador Inuit Lands Claims
Agreement (LILCA) with the federal and provincial governments covering 72,520
square kilometers of land in 2005. Agreement provide the Inuit with special
rights related to traditional land use, and Designated Labrador Inuit Lands
(15,800 square kilometer) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunatsiavut). Rodon
and Grey (2009) emphasis that Nunatsiavut adopted an “ethnically based” form of
government in which only beneficiaries can fully participate. Nunatsiavut have
a public governance structures and, is consists of two level government: 1)
Regional Government, and 2) Community Government. Regional government consists
of seven departments and, one Inuit Community Government in each of the five
communities.

Lane
(2013) in paper entitled “If we tore down the barriers would we still be equal:
Nunatsiavut Students and Post- Secondary education” depicts that Nunatsiavut
has the highest graduation rate among all the Inuit regions, contrary to this,
graduation rates in the Labrador School District are still below the provincial
average.   High school and post-secondary
rate for 2011 difference from one community to another. Labrador School Board
(LSB) is responsible to provide primary and secondary education in Nunatsiavut.
LSB is direct and funded by Provincial Department of Education. Several
government department work collaboratively with LSB to address various areas of
concern in primary and secondary education (Nunatsiavut Government 2014b).
Provincial government is autonomous in education policy making. Federal
government is not involved in education, whereas, LILCA elaborated the vertical
range of actors involved in education by creating the legal-constitutional
basis for regional education authority. 
Provincial government, with the Department of Education has right of
decision making.

            Nunatsiavut is facing quality and
quantity of housing policy like many Canadian Aboriginal communities. Houses
with mould, high number of people living in a single house describes substantial
health and safety threats to the residents of Nunatsiavut. Egeland 2010 found
Overcrowding as the important issue in Nunatsiavut, particularly in homes with
children. Nunatsiavut is the only jurisdiction where the percentage of homes
requiring major repairs has not risen (Minich et al. 2011). LILCA (2005) described that “The Nunatsiavut Government may make laws with respect to the development
of Labrador Inuit Lands for housing purposes and for the construction,
maintenance, allocation, control, improvement, renovation and removal of
housing in Labrador Inuit Lands and housing owned by an Inuit Government in the
Inuit Communities”. Nunatsiavut Government in collaboration with Torngat
Regional Housing Association (TRHA) take responsibility to build housing on
land provided by community governments. Similarly, as in Education, there is no
involvement of federal government in the area of housing. Multilevel governance
in not be able to set an example due to ambiguous about the responsibility
between the level of government.

Conclusion

The
Inuit peoples of the territorial and provincial North have made significant
progress in terms of institutionalizing regional self-government and
establishing multilevel linkage with other government with Canada’s federal
system (Wilson and Alcantara 2012). MLG structure established by Nunavut Land
Claim Agreement and the creation of Nunavut in 1999 represents the unique model
of governance between a public government that serves an Inuit population and a
nonprofit beneficiary organization representing the Inuit of Nunavut. Comprehensive land claim agreement in
Northern Canada Region have allowed for the development in a
variety of different multilevel relationships between political actors at
federal, provincial/ territorial, regional and local levels (Wilson and
Alcantara 2012). These agreements provide the legal foundation for multilevel
governance to egress.

From
the study of three Inuit regions, it can be concluded that multilevel
governance has become a permanent characteristic of Canadian Political System.
By comparative study of two important policy fields education and housing, we
found that decision-making in education and housing is dominated by the
provincial and territorial governments. 
Nunavik’s governance actors have most important and authoritative access
in development of housing and education.

In
invauvialuit settlement region land claims agreements encountered up and down
in implementation. Federal government denied negotiating with any Aboriginal
group .After the policy changed, many group are negotiating self-government
agreements separately or at the same time with their land claims agreements.
This resulted the territorial government to be dominant government actors in
the region. Funds administration and Final Agreement was administered by two
land claim organizations, The Inuvialuit Game Council (IGC), and Inuvialuit
Regional Corporation (IRC).

From
the study, it can be concluded that there is power decentralization from
central government to the Inuit government which grant them a status with a new
system and provides more opportunities for exploring themselves. After the
application of multilevel governance in northern Canada many representative of
Inuit community entered in politics for the sake of the community which becomes
helpful in the development of different means of infrastructure in northern
part through designing a decision in favor of their community and even it lead
Inuit community to involve in different occupation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

Alcantara, C. (2013). Negotiating the Deal: Comprehensive Land
Claims Agreements in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Alcantara,
C., and Wilson, G.N. (2013). “The Dynamics of Intra-Jurisdictional Relations in
the Inuit Regions and the Canadian Arctic: An Institutionalist Perspective.” Regional and Federal Studies 23 (4):
1-19.

Alcantara,
C., and Nelles, J. (2014). “Indigenous Peoples and the State in Settler
Societies: Towards a More Robust Definition of Multilevel Governance.” Publius: Journal of Federalism. 44 (1):
183-204

Bache, I. and Flinders,
M. (2004). Multi-Level Governance Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Clancy, P. (1990). “Pos by Remote Control: Historical Perspectives
on Devolution in Canada’s North.” In Devolution and Constitutional
Development in the Canadian North, edited by G. Dacks, 13-42. Ottawa:
Carleton University Press.

Egeland, G.M. (2010). Inuit Health Survey 2007/2008:
Nunatsiavut. Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, QC: Centre for Indigenous Peoples’
Nutrition and Environment.

http://www.nunatsiavut.com/index.php/nunatsiavut-secretariat/intergovernmental-affairs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunatsiavut

Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement. 2005. Accessed 22 January
2014. Avaibale at: http://www.exec.gov.nl.ca/exec/igas/land_claims/agreement.html.

Lane, J. 2013. “If We Tore Down the Barriers Would We Still Be
Equal: Nunatsiavut Students and Post-Secondary Education.” Morning Watch:
Education and Social Analysis 40 (3-4): 42-9.

Marks, Gary, and
Liesbet Hooghe. (2004). “Contrasting Visions of Multi-level Governance.”

Minich, K., H. Saudny, C. Lennie, M. Wood, L. Williamson-Bathory,
Z. Cao, and G. Egeland. 2011. “Inuit Housing and Homelessness: Results from the
International Polar Year Inuit Health Survey, 2007–2008.” International
Journal of Circumpolar Health 70: 520-31.

Notzke, C. 1995. “The Resource Co-Management Regime in the
Inuvialuit Settlement Region.” In Northern Aboriginal Communities: Economies
and Development, edited by P.D. Elias. Concord, ON: Captus Press.

OECD
(2010a), The OECD Innovation Strategy: Getting a Head Start on Tomorrow, OECD
Publishing, Paris.

OECD
(2011), Regions and Innovation Policy, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Rodon, T. 2015. “Land Claim Organizations and the Social Economy
in Nunavut and Nunavik.” In Northern Communities Working Together: The
Social Economy of Canada’s North, edited by C. Southcott. Toronto: University
of Toronto Press

Rodon, T., and M. Grey. 2009. “The Long and Winding Road to
Self-Government: The Nunavik and Nunatsiavut Experiences.” In The Arts of
the State IV: Northern Exposure: Peoples, Powers and Prospects in Canada’s
North, edited by F. Abele, T.J. Courchene, F.L. Seidle, and F. St. Hilaire,
317-44. Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy.

Rodon, T., and M. Grey. 2009. “The Long and Winding Road to
Self-Government: The Nunavik and Nunatsiavut Experiences.” In The Arts of
the State IV: Northern Exposure: Peoples, Powers and Prospects in Canada’s
North, edited by F. Abele, T.J. Courchene, F.L. Seidle, and F. St. Hilaire,
317-44. Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy.

Schmitter,
Philippe C. (2003): Democracy in Europe and Europe’s Democratization, in:
Journal of Democracy 14: 4, 71-85.

Wilson,
G.N. (2008). “Nested Federalism in Arctic Quebec: A Comparative Perspective.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 41
(1): 71-92.

Wilson,
G.N. and Alcantara, C. (2012), Mixing Politics and Business in the Canadian
Arctic: Inuit Corporate Governance in Nunavik and the Inuvialuit Settlement
Region, Canadian Journal of Political
Science, Vol.45, No.4, pp 781-804.