Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T18:21:49.638Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Federalism and Policy Change: An Analytic Narrative of Indigenous Land Rights Policy in Australia (1966–1978)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 June 2013

Christa Scholtz
Christa Scholtz*
Affiliation:
McGill University
*
Christa Scholtz, Department of Political Science, McGill University, Room 414, 855 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, Quebec, CanadaH3A 2T7, christa.scholtz@mcgill.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. The paper argues that a direct causal role for federalism must link policy makers' actions to costs and uncertainties unique to federalism, those associated with maintaining jurisdictional autonomy. The paper develops a formal model of imperfect information between two government actors, one preferring policy change and the other the status quo. A government chooses to change policy (or not) in a context where two things are uncertain: the stomach for intergovernmental retaliation, and the jurisdictional bona fides of the government in the policy area. The model shows how policy change is endogenous to beliefs about whom courts will support during federalism review. The model is then used in a detailed analysis of Australian cabinet archives at the state and Commonwealth levels, pertaining to the issue of Indigenous land rights policy between 1966 and 1978.

Résumé. Le présent document soutient qu'un rôle causal direct du fédéralisme doit lier les actions des décideurs aux coûts et aux incertitudes uniques du fédéralisme : ceux associés au maintien de l'autonomie juridictionnelle. Dans cet article, je développe un modèle formel d'information imparfaite entre deux acteurs gouvernementaux, l'un préférant un changement de politique et l'autre le statu quo. Un gouvernement choisit de changer (ou non) une politique dans un contexte où deux éléments sont incertains : la propension à entrer dans des représailles intergouvernementales, et la bonne foi juridictionnelle du gouvernement dans le domaine en question. Le modèle montre que le changement de politique est endogène avec la perception de qui les tribunaux soutiendront dans un jugement de partage des compétences. Le modèle est ensuite utilisé pour analyser en détail les archives du Cabinet australien au niveau des états et du Commonwealth, relativement à la question des droits territoriaux autochtones entre 1966 et 1978.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , June 2013 , pp. 397 - 418
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alcantara, C. 2007. “Explaining Aboriginal Treaty Negotiation Outcomes in Canada: The Cases of the Inuit and Innu in Labrador.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 40 (1): 185–207.Google Scholar
Bartlett, R.H. 2000. Native Title in Australia. Sydney: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Bates, R.H., Greif, A., Levi, M., Rosenthal, J.-L. and Weingast, B.R.. 1998. Analytic Narratives. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bednar, J. 2009. The Robust Federation: Principles of Design. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brennan, F. 1992. Land Rights Queensland Style: The Struggle for Aboriginal Self-Management. St. Lucia, Qld: University of Queensland Press.Google Scholar
Breton, A. 2000. “Federalism and Decentralization: Ownership Rights and the Superiority of Federalism.” Publius 30 (2): 1–16.Google Scholar
Chesterman, J. and Galligan, B.. 1997. Citizens without Rights: Aborigines and Australian Citizenship. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coulthard, G.S. 2007. “Subjects of Empire: Indigenous Peoples and the ‘Politics of Recognition’ in Canada.” Contemporary Political Theory 6: 437–60.Google Scholar
Cox, L. 1993. Kotahitanga: The Search for Maori Political Unity. Auckland: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dunstan, D. 1981. Felicia: The Political Memoirs of Don Dunstan. South Melbourne: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Goodall, H. 1996. Invasion to Embassy: Land in Aboriginal Politics in New South Wales, 1770–1972. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Griffiths, M. 2006. Aboriginal Affairs 1967–2005: Seeking Solutions. Dural Delivery Centre, NSW: Rosenberg Publishing.Google Scholar
Kollman, K, Miller, J.H. and Page, S.E.. 2000. “Decentralization and the Search for Policy Solutions.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 16: 102–28.Google Scholar
Merlan, F. 2007. “Indigeneity as Relational Identity: The Construction of Australian Land Rights.” In Indigenous Experience Today, ed. de la Cadena, Marisol and Stam, Orin. London: Berg, 125–49.Google Scholar
Palmer, I. 1988. Buying Back the Land: Organisational Struggle and the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press for the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Povinelli, E.A. 2002. The Cunning of Recognition: Indigenous Alterities and the Making of Australian Multiculturalism. Durham NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Ritter, D. 2009. Contesting Native Title: From Controversy to Consensus in the Struggle over Indigenous Land Rights. Crow's Nest NSW: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Rodden, J. 2006. Hamilton's Paradox: The Promise and Peril of Fiscal Federalism. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rose-Ackerman, S. 1980. “Risk-taking and Re-election: Does Federalism Promote Innovation?” Journal of Legal Studies 9: 593–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowse, T. 2000. Obliged to be Difficult: Nuggett Coombs' Legacy in Indigenous Affairs. Oakleigh, Australia: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, P.H. 2005. Recognizing Aboriginal Title: The Mabo Case and Indigenous Resistance to English-Settler Colonialism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Scholtz, C. 2006. Negotiating Claims: The Emergence of Indigenous Land Claim Negotiation Policies in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Strumpf, K. 2002. “Does Government Decentralization Increase Policy Innovation?” Journal of Public Economic Theory 4: 207–241.Google Scholar
Treisman, D. 1999. “Political Decentralization and Economic Reform: A Game Theoretic Analysis.” American Journal of Political Science 43 (2): 488–517.Google Scholar
Volden, C. 2005. “Intergovernmental Political Competition in American Federalism.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (2): 327–42.Google Scholar
Weller, P. 1989. Malcolm Fraser PM: A Study in Prime Ministerial Power in Australia. Ringwood, Victoria: Penguin Books Australia.Google Scholar