No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

The study is about federalism in Iraq. It examines Iraq as a federation not just as a post-conflict state, as much of the existing literature does. The thesis investigates the origin and formation of the Iraqi federation, as one of the new federal models, and analyses how the process of formation impacts on the operation of the Iraqi federal system. It argues that both the process of formation of the federal state and its operation are of crucial theoretical and empirical significance. The originality of this thesis lies in the fact that it is the first study to link this new federal model to classic federal theory as regards the origins and formation of federations, focusing on the new approach in the formation of federations and the deficiency of classic federal theory in general to explain the origins and formation of the new federal models of which Iraq is the most recent. This thesis considers the different approaches that have been taken by various theorists in the past and in particular bargain theory as put forward by William H. Riker. I argue that although in some respects Riker’s bargain theory can be applied to the formation of the Iraqi federation, in others it is deficient to explain it completely. New literature designed to expose the need to revise the classic federal theory, and the bargain theory in light of formation of the new federal models has only just begun to emerge. Therefore, this thesis contributes to the scholarship by updating and refining classic federal theory in general and the bargain theory in particular. Moreover, by drawing on elite interviews with contemporary political players in Iraq this thesis adds to our understanding of how one of the newest federal states operates in a practical sense. It concludes by looking at the empirical significance of the Iraqi federal model in the context of some comparative perspectives.

This thesis discusses the governmental institutional dynamics that structure the formulation and coordination of spatial policy within the federal Canadian intergovernmental system and presents methods to improve it. The research utilises the three traditions of new institutionalism - historical, rational choice and sociological - to develop a crosscutting assessment of intergovernmental spatial policy coordination. An embedded case study approach is then used to discuss intergovernmental spatial policy coordination between the governments of Canada, British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. Research findings highlight the uniqueness of the institutional environments that exist within each government, and to a lesser extent each department, which structure policymakers’ understandings of intergovernmental spatial policy coordination. Policymakers demonstrate a distinct awareness of spatial issues, but they are often constrained in their ability formally to articulate this in the development of public policy, particularly in relation to intergovernmental interactions. The decentralised federal nature of Canada is shown to be a highly influential reason for this, with issues of history, equity, politics and strong regional government cultures playing important roles in impeding intergovernmental spatial policy coordination. The thesis explores these constraints, discussing how both formal and informal institutional structures interact to discourage the use of spatial policy, and discusses the ways in which intergovernmental spatial policy coordination could be enhanced in the specific context of Canada. The institutional framework developed in this research is shown to be a useful method for conceptualising the competing federal principles of unity and diversity in the study of intergovernmental spatial policy coordination. Ultimately this thesis argues that while intergovernmental spatial policy coordination is poorly developed in Canada, policymaker awareness of spatial issues influences the decision-making processes employed to develop and coordinate public policy.

The thesis seeks to develop understandings of dynamics in federal political systems in crisis, the nature of the relationship between crisis and process, and the range of tools available for conflict reduction that extend beyond those available in the constitutional frameworks of each system. The dissertation explores these through a comparative study of a small n of cases that meet the criterion of a period of crisis as the independent variable: the Staten Island secession crisis in New York City, the existential crisis of Quebec's relationship with the rest of Canada, and the crisis of the UK and European integration at the time of Maastricht. The data collection process for each is framed on a temporal basis, within the duration of crisis as defined, and spatially, within the territorial extent of the system. The thesis uses data gathered from primary and secondary written sources based on the relevance to the research questions and conceptual framework. The analysis, located in the comparative section, identifies a number of important findings that contribute to theoretical understandings of federalism. The evidence gives support to, and extends the understanding of, federalism by demonstrating that the crisis potential in each case becomes evident because of challenges to some communities' values that arise from the process-based nature of federalism, through identifiable demands and counter-demands made by actors. Moreover, it highlights how the constraining nature of constitutional frameworks makes the use of extra-constitutional arrangements essential, in particular with the use of instrumentalities. The thesis also develops an understanding of how federal power sharing evolves post-crisis with flexible understandings of the division of competences, and the potential for a return to crisis in systems in the absence of a deeper understanding and application of federal principles by political elites.