Interview with Bernier, Brownsey, Howlett
IPAC passed an important milestone in May 2005 when it published the 10th book in the IPAC Series in Public Management and Governance at the University of Toronto Press. The book in question is Executive Styles in Canada: Cabinet Structures and Leadership Practices in Canadian Government, a collection of essays edited by Luc Bernier of the École nationale d’administration publique, Keith Brownsey of Mount Royal College in Calgary and Michael Howlett at Simon Fraser University. Patrice Dutil, IPAC’s Director of Research, recently discussed the book with the editors.
Patrice Dutil: You have chosen a theme for this book that has no precedent in
Canadian scholarship. What do you mean by "style"? Is this a reflection of regional administrative characteristics, of institutional features, or are you looking at cultural aspects--how people actually behave?
Michael Howlett: There is a growing sense in the public administration literature that civil service systems over time develop their own particular ways and means of doing things, and that these structural and behavioural characteristics can be thought of as composing an “administrative style”. These styles are difficult to change and are an important element of a jurisdiction's administrative and policy practices and outcomes. We adapted this thinking to the study of political practice, arguing that cabinets, too, tend to develop structural and behavioural characteristics that affect the kinds and types of decisions which emerge from them. This is what we mean by an 'executive style'.
Keith Brownsey: The focus on “style” came from a sense of frustration with existing conceptual terms in public administration and political science. The term derives from the European Union experience. The EU enacts a regulation or some new rule yet its application varies across jurisdictions. In Canada we found the same pattern. Certain administrative changes were found in all provinces, yet there were variations between them.
The term “political culture” has been used to explain these differences. But it has such varied meaning that it has been made almost useless. There is the idea that if nothing else fits, political culture can be used as an explanation. The use of such a vague phrase is inappropriate and explains little. Style refers to the historical patterns of administration; the ways of doing that become embedded in society. All this is the result of economic, social, and political circumstances as well as the actions of individuals and groups.
Luc Bernier: Les dix provinces canadiennes et le gouvernement fédéral offrent collectivement un laboratoire fascinant pour analyser les variations sur un même thème. Onze gouvernements issus du même système parlementaire britannique ont évolué chacun selon leur trajectoire, un style. Nous cherchions une explication qui tienne compte à la fois de la culture mais aussi de la transformation des institutions politiques et le concept d’« executive style » offre un cadre analytique riche qui permet de rendre compte de ces trajectoires.
Patrice Dutil: Does style change with time? What provokes these changes?
Michael Howlett: Administrative styles tend to change very slowly in response to both internal and environmental effects, although sudden changes caused by events such as wars or revolutions, of course, also occur, but much less frequently. Our expectation was that this same kind of 'punctuated equilibrium' pattern would exist with Executive Styles and this is indeed that we found in the case studies we undertook in Canada at the federal and provincial levels. We found that the general models put forward by scholars such as Christopher Dunn, Donald Savoie and Stefan Dupré in their own works on Canadian cabinet formation served as a good template for our discussion of styles. These included the transitions in most governments from the unaided cabinet of the 19th century to the traditional or Departmentalized cabinet of the early 20th century, followed by the 'institutionalized' or central agency-led cabinet of the late 20th century
and, finally, the 'post-institutional' or premier-centric cabinet found in some Canadian jurisdictions in the present era. Part of the purpose of the book was to describe the processes by which these transitions took place in different jurisdictions in Canada to try to find the key factors which led to changes occurring (or not, as the case may be). Factors such as the increasing scale of government activities, the examples set by other jurisdictions, and the skills and temperament of individual leaders all proved important in understanding these changes.
Keith Brownsey: Administrative style can change with time. Events, individuals, ideas can have an impact on style. Cataclysmic events such as war and depressions (I am referring here to the prairies), individuals (W.A.C. Bennett in British Columbia) and ideas (the neo-conservative agenda) can change administrative styles. In Canada we seem to be witnessing a change of style with the concentration of power in the office of provincial premiers, smaller cabinets (the Martin cabinet may be the exception) and a less structured decision-making process – all of which we have labeled the post-institutionalized cabinet. The causes for this are varied, but it is occurring (differently) in almost all provincial capitals.
Luc Bernier: Les styles peuvent changer mais l’équation contient un certain nombre de variables qui rendent ces mouvements complexes. Qui plus est, certaines tendances lourdes demeurent incontournables pour les provinces. Comme les différents chapitres l’illustrent, le développement économique a toujours été une priorité des provinces qui ont créé des comités ministériels sous diverses formes pour s’en occuper. De la même façon, elles ont du gérer certains des mêmes problèmes. Par exemple, la réduction du déficit a été en même temps un enjeu majeur pour les gouvernements Harris en Ontario et Bouchard au Québec mais avec une rhétorique radicalement différente. Les relations fédérales-provinciales ont aussi teinté la transformation du centre des gouvernements provinciaux. L’évolution du fédéralisme canadien a forcé leur centralisation.
Patrice Dutil: How important is the Chief Elected Officer (PM or Premier) in determining the "style" of a government executive?
Michael Howlett: This is certainly a significant factor but, as mentioned above, it is not the only factor involved in affecting these transitions. Leaders can slow down or accelerate changes, but these changes tend to occur for larger 'environmental' or contextual reasons (such as the growth in the scope or complexity of governments and governance challenges). Leadership aspects, like those related to bureaucratic complexity or administrative learning from other jurisdictions, tend to affect the timing of the changes that occur, but not the start or end of a change process.
Keith Brownsey: The premier is central. Within certain parameters individuals can have a dramatic impact on decision-making structures. But there are very few political leaders who have an interest in these processes. Those who do make changes can alter the “style” of their government to some degree. Those individuals who make the changes such as Douglas in Saskatchewan, Klein in Alberta or Bill Bennett in British Columbia can alter the administrative style of a province. When the reform-minded minister or premier coalesces with a seminal event such as the Great Depression or constitutional change the impact can be dramatic. We must remember, however, that these events occur infrequently.
Luc Bernier: L’importance des premiers ministres varie. Trois directeurs pour ce livre et trois opinions différentes ! Lorsque nous avons fait des recherches sur les styles de gouvernement, un des facteurs qui m’est apparu important est la durée des premiers ministres au pouvoir. On peut avoir des opinions très tranchées mais ne guère laisser d’héritage. Ce qui a fait que Margaret Thatcher a eu une grande importance dans l’évolution de l’État britannique, que l’on soit d’accord ou non avec ses opinions, est qu’elle a été au pouvoir onze ans. Si on prend l’exemple du Québec depuis la mort de Maurice Duplessis, 13 premiers ministres se sont succédés. Seuls trois ou quatre d’entre eux peuvent prétendre avoir eu un impact significatif. Ceci dit, l’histoire politique des gouvernements canadiens est remplie de politiciens hauts en couleurs qui ont fait leur marque. Ils ne sont pas assez connus.
Patrice Dutil: How important is the public service in this equation?
Michael Howlett: The capacity of the public service is a key factor, with a similar affect to that of leadership. That is, the capacity (or, more usually, incapacity) of the administrative system to deal with contemporary challenges is a key factor influencing the nature and extent of reform which occurs in existing executive styles.
Keith Brownsey: The public service is an essential part of the equation. If we look closely at pivotal moments in the evolution of cabinet government in Alberta, for example, the civil service was key to change. When Lougheed arrived in 1971 he found a very unstructured, unaided cabinet. He set about constructing a competent civil service for an activist government – without which his program would have stalled. Nevertheless, the strong premier-centred style remained intact, a hold-over from his predecessors.
Luc Bernier: L’importance des fonctionnaires dans le système politique canadien est sous-estimée. L’émergence des gouvernements provinciaux, le province-building, est liée fondamentalement à l’amélioration de la qualité et de la quantité des fonctions publiques provinciales. L’histoire du gouvernement de Tommy Douglas en Saskatchewan est révélatrice. Envoyer à Harvard pour leurs études de jeunes hauts-fonctionnaires a été un exemple d’une organisation apprenante des décennies avant que l’expression ne devienne à la mode. Ces fonctionnaires dont plusieurs ont ensuite travaillé à développer l’État-providence canadien et d’autres sont la ressource la plus importante dont disposent les gouvernements. Le renouvellement de ces fonctions publiques est un des grands enjeux actuels auxquels sont confrontés les gouvernements.
Patrice Dutil: How can people use this book to reflect on the "style" of their own department?
Michael Howlett: The book is pitched at the level of an entire government and does not address departmental styles, per se, which would be the subject of another volume. However, as is the case with the larger notion of an 'administrative style', the basic concepts and methodology used in the text could be applied at the more 'micro' level of the individual department or agency.
Keith Brownsey: I hope that Executive Styles will help decision makers – politicians and civil servants – to understand the context in which they work. Knowing the style of administration, of decision-making will allow politicians and decision-makers to better frame their policies at the departmental level. It might also aid in getting decisions faster if bureaucrats are able direct their recommendations.
Luc Bernier: Il arrive régulièrement que l’on devient employé du gouvernement parce qu’on est préoccupé ou fasciné par un domaine de politique ou un domaine d’intervention. On peut par exemple prendre fait et cause pour la politique environnementale mais ne pas très bien comprendre dans quel contexte fonctionne le ministère de l’environnement. Le livre contribue à éclairer ceux que la question intéresse sur ce contexte et donc permettre à ceux que la question intéresse comment ils peuvent contribuer à faire que leur ministère ou organisme s’insère mieux dans le processus au sommet pour que leur politique préférée ou leur cause progresse.
Patrice Dutil: As editors, do you have particularly favourite anecdotes that you think give a glimpse of the "style" of a government?
Michael Howlett: I like the case of W.A.C. Bennett, a strong advocate of the traditional, departmental executive style, forbidding his officials from making long-distance calls without his approval, especially to Ottawa. Or the case of John Buchanan, in Nova Scotia, also a strong advocate of the traditional cabinet, receiving advice from cabinet members while shopping for groceries!
Keith Brownsey: I have one moment that stands out. There is the perception that Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed hired the best and the brightest, individuals untainted by partisan affiliation. Well, his first appointments to high level positions were old friends, people he could trust. Competence played a role in their appointments but it was only one consideration. There is a second important event or series of events that stand out for me. This was the quality of the Douglas government in Saskatchewan in the 1940s. Decades before the federal government and the other provinces Douglas built an institutionalized cabinet structure and a civil service without equal. This was a remarkable achievement considering time and place. And it is a long overlooked event in Canadian history. A third moment stands out: Bill Bennett in British Columbia altered the decision-making style of his provincial government. Succeeding the New Democrats under Dave Barrett, Bennett did more to formalize, institutionalize executive decision-making in his province than had been ever been considered under the NDP or his father’s government in the 1950s and 1960s. It was Bennett who established the contemporary style of decision making in B.C.
Luc Bernier: Outre les exemples ci-dessus, le rôle de Joey Smallwood à Terre-Neuve vaut la peine d’être souligné Si l’aspect politique et certains personnages politiques vont demeurer, nous n’avons pas assez de mémoires et d’histoires sur le rôle des fonctionnaires. Nous n’avons pas non plus assez d’exemples de comment la politique est faite d’un mélange de chance et de profiter du bon moment. La politique internationale du Québec doit beaucoup à une série d’accidents et d’opportunités qui ont fini par faire un tout.
Patrice Dutil: What should public administrators look for as "stylistic clues" to determine what kind of political executives they are accountable to?
Michael Howlett: The book provides a list of the basic structural and behavioural attributes of the four different styles found to have existed in Canadian government executive branches. However, most contemporary officials would be concerned only with the differences between the 'institutional' and 'post-institutional' cabinets. With respect to this particular transition, the key 'symptom' is the replacement of traditional central agency authority with that of an expanded and extended premier's office, especially in the area of the centralization of government communication functions.
Keith Brownsey: I agree that the clues include a centralization of decision making in the Premier’s Office and Executive Council Office, the dismantling of the cabinet committee system, increased activity of backbench legislative members in the cabinet process. The post-institutionalized cabinet is an effort to include backbenchers in the policy process; it allows them input into decisions. But the post-institutionalized cabinet ignores the experience and capacity of the civil service. Suddenly, the civil servants are administrators or managers – policy is now the exclusive territory of the politician. This style of unaided decision making has the potential for some very poor outcomes.
Luc Bernier: Un des éléments qui ressort du livre est que la construction des institutions administratives prend du temps. Transformer trop souvent les structures administratives, fusionner et démanteler des ministères nuit grandement à leur efficacité. Il y a trop de temps perdu à réorganiser. La rotation de plus en plus rapide des hauts-fonctionnaires est, dans cette perspective, une erreur également.
Patrice Dutil: You are advancing the concept of "post-institutional" cabinet. What do you mean by this?
Michael Howlett: As we said above, this latest stage in executive development is one in which there is a great strengthening of what Donald Savoie has termed 'government from the centre'. That is, a significant enhancement of the premiers office and its ability to control the legislative, public and civil service agenda's of government, over the objections of traditional Departments and central agencies.
Keith Brownsey: This is a fascinating phenomenon. The post-institutionalized cabinet existed in Ottawa and several provinces in the 1990s. But some jurisdictions – Alberta and British Columbia – have added a new twist to two: the Government Caucus Committee in B.C. and the Standing Policy Committee in Alberta. These are modeled after American legislative committees. This is a striking example of importing institutional models into our parliamentary system. In this sense, the post-modern cabinet is the introduction of new architecture into our traditional Westminster system. It is the mingling of institutional arrangements. And this can have a profound effect on the style of any administrative and decision-making system.
Luc Bernier: Il y a eu l’administration publique puis le nouveau management public et maintenant le post-néo! Le conseil des ministres post-moderne est un aveu de la part des gouvernements que les grands systèmes administratifs qui se voulaient rationnels et rigoureux ont des limites. Ces systèmes se sont révélés inadéquats pour faire face aux problèmes qui ont assaillis les gouvernements. Le conseil des ministres post-moderne a été une réaction de réaffirmation de la primauté du politique sur l’administratif. La réponse efficace est sans doute dans des systèmes administratifs allégés et souples capables d’aider les gouvernements élus en temps opportun.
Patrice Dutil: Is the "institutionalized cabinet" finished?
Michael Howlett: We had thought so, but in fact discovered a very uneven pattern of transitions to this 'final' form. And some real resistance from many jurisdictions to this development. However, if the past is in any sense a prologue in this area, we would expect this transition to occur fairly slowly, but inevitably, in all Canadian jurisdictions. This is certainly the general pattern which has characterized the transitions in executive styles which have occurred in the past.
Keith Brownsey: The institutionalized cabinet is not finished. In fact, we may see its return. The post-institutionalized cabinet in all its variations cannot handle more than one or two major issues at a time. Governance is more complex than this. The post-institutionalized cabinet was appropriate for a focus on deficit reduction but with a more complex policy agenda returning it may not be the suitable.
Luc Bernier: Nous croyons que non parce que dans des États relativement petits comme sont certaines des provinces canadiennes, la capacité de changer de système est assez grande. Il n’y a pas de mouvement irréversible. Les gouvernements s’interrogent présentement sur la manière à utiliser pour répondre à des enjeux qui touchent de nombreux ministères. Des agences dites horizontales sont créées. Il est possible que les structures centrales et donc le conseil des ministres soient transformés dans le futur pour mieux faire face.
Patrice Dutil: This book was born out of a reaction to Donald Savoie's seminal Governing from the Centre. Looking back, how has your interpretation of this book been affected by your own work on "executive styles"?
Michael Howlett: Savoie's arguments about the federal government identified similar developments to those of Dunn and others at the provincial level. His work was key, though, in fleshing out the basic structural and behavioural characteristics of this fourth type of executive style. Our book extends his work to the provincial level and tries to set his findings in a larger historical and comparative context. Of course we also benefited from a chapter on the federal government written by Donald himself that encapsulated the findings and concepts developed in "Governing from the Centre".
Keith Brownsey: Savoie’s Governing From the Centre was critical to our thinking. And I don’t think my interpretation of it has changed. What we tried to do is expand on his work by examining what has happen in the provinces. We also have discovered patterns of executive reform across the country – uneven though they may be – in which Savoie’s own work could be situated. Savoie’s description of the Chrétien cabinet structure fits in nicely with what we found in several provinces. This was the value of the study team; we were able to take and build on Savoie. Bringing academics together to compare notes allowed a broad overview of a phenomenon that appears to be the dominant model of cabinet organization. My own wish is for comparative work with other parliamentary systems – has the post-institutionalized cabinet appeared in the U.K. or New Zealand, for example.
Luc Bernier: Savoie a écrit un livre intriguant sur la transformation du pouvoir à Ottawa. Son livre dont la richesse ne pouvait être reprise dans de courts chapitres offre une série de questions de recherche qui nous fascinaient. Est-il possible que les provinces aient connu le même processus ? La centralisation du pouvoir au centre est elle inéluctable ? Une des questions que Savoie n’aborde pas et que nous cherchions à comprendre est de savoir comment dans les grands ministères fusionnés, les arbitrages qui se faisaient au conseil des ministres se font désormais. En effet, il y a une concentration des pouvoirs au centre mais il y a également une certaine dévolution des pouvoirs. Alors qu’auparavant, certains enjeux devaient être débattus au conseil des ministres, celui-ci a une moindre importance comme forum. Dans certains cas, trois ou quatre ministres ont été remplacés par un seul. C’est au sein de son ministère que les enjeux horizontaux doivent être débattus. L’autre partie de la dévolution des pouvoirs tient à la création de partenariats, agences, etc. qui échappent en grande partie au pouvoir politique. Ce sont ces trajectoires dont nous voulions rendre compte.
Événements IAPC
