IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/publus/v40y2010i3p389-411.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Donley T. Studlar

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Donley T. Studlar, 2010. "What Explains the Paradox of Tobacco Control Policy under Federalism in the U.S. and Canada? Comparative Federalism Theory versus Multi-level Governance -super-†," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 40(3), pages 389-411, Summer.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:40:y:2010:i:3:p:389-411
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/publius/pjq003
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:40:y:2010:i:3:p:389-411. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/publius .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.