<p>I den snabbt växande litteraturen om idéer i policyprocessen, som ibland kallats ”the ideational turn” tänker man sig ofta att idéer och språk styr politikens aktörer, snarare än styrs av dem. Hur politiska problem formuleras styr vilka lösningar som ter sig rimliga. Intresset riktas mot politik som <em>intellektuell verksamhet</em>.<em> </em>Dessutom tänker man sig att de resulterande tänkesätten kring problem och lösningar – tolkningsramarna eller problembilderna – tenderar att börja leva sitt eget liv, och utanför aktörernas direkta kontroll påverka det politiska beslutsfattandet. Påståenden om verkligheten och värderingspåståenden blir alltså med ett sådant perspektiv väsentliga, eftersom de antas utgöra utgångspunkt och ram för den fortsatta formuleringen av den offentliga politiken. De stänger in och riktar blicken. I den här avhandlingen ska ett antal teorier, med stor tilltro till slagkraftiga idéers förmåga att styra och organisera tanke och handling vid utformning och upprätthållande av offentlig politik, skärskådas och prövas teoretiskt. Målet är att urskilja huruvida dessa innehåller empiriskt prövvärda teoretiska påståenden om idéers funktion i policyprocesser.</p><p>Med utgångspunkt i en teorigenomgång argumenterar jag för att det verkar rimligt att förvänta sig att stabila eller instängande idéstrukturer hänger samman med stabil interaktion i policyprocesser. I så fall är det likaledes rimligt att undersöka hur reproduktion av idéer, och tröghet i förändring av policy, förhåller sig till det sätt på vilket politiken och policyproduktionen är organiserad. Ett sådant perspektiv innebär alltså att policyproduktion bör undersökas utifrån de organisatoriska och institutionella villkor som präglar den konkreta intellektuella verksamhet som krävs för att policybeslut ska materialiseras.</p><p>Teorier som tycks svara mot detta krav är Maarten Hajers Discourse Coalition Framework<em>, </em>Paul Sabatier och Hank Jenkins-Smiths Advocacy Coalition Framework<em> </em>och Frank Baumgartners och Bryan Jones Punctuated Equilibrium Theory<em>.</em> De valda teoretikerna beskriver idéer som mer eller mindre trögrörliga <em>sociala konstruktioner, </em>som både är förankrade i<em> och </em>organiserar policyprocessen – även om de inte själva uttrycker det så. De kan alltså ses som olika teoribildningar inom samma teoriperspektiv.</p><p>I avhandlingen identifieras flera problem i detta teorperspektiv. De handlar alla om de <em>kognitiva låsningar</em> som teorierna förutsätter som förklaringar till stabil policyproduktion. Jag menar att teorierna, för det första, inte på ett tillfredställande sätt lyckas lösa struktur-aktörproblemet utan glider mellan en föreställning om individen som ömsom strukturernas slav och ömsom dess herre, mer beroende på vad som behövs för att lösa förklaringsekvationen än på vad som verkar rimligt och troligt. För det andra ifrågasätter jag, mot bakgrund av det begränsade sociala sammanhang som en policysektor oftast är, rimligheten i att anta att det normala är att den diskurs som präglar ett politikområde förmår definiera världen för policyprocessens aktörer. För det tredje argumenterar jag för att sättet att beskriva de politiska aktörerna som i tanken ”infärgade” av en organisatoriskt, institutionellt eller socialt förankrad diskurs begränsar möjligheten att göra policyanalys till politisk <em>maktanalys</em>.</p><p>Ett särskilt kapitel ägnas därför åt olika möjligheter att konceptualisera idéstrukturernas relation till aktörerna i policyprocesser. Detta hänger också ihop med förståelsen av makt. Jag menar nämligen att frågan om vad idéstrukturerna <em>gör</em> med aktörerna i policyprocessen är nära sammankopplad med hur vi ska förstå maktrelationerna i denna process. I centrum för avsnittet står den idéernas sociala praktik som är <em>språk</em>, <em>kommunikation</em> och <em>samtal</em>: den språkliga praktik där idéer kommer till uttryck. Frågan som ställs i detta kapitel är om det finns andra sätt än teoriernas antagande om ”kognitiv inlåsning” att tala om politiska idéer som en faktor för makt och inflytande. Detta i sin tur beror på huruvida det finns alternativa sätt att förstå idéstrukturers effekter på policyprocessens aktörer. Och om det går att på ett rimligare och mer konsistent sätt beskriva hur idéer kan skapa maktrelationer, kan vi därmed omvärdera Baumgartner och Jones, Sabatier och Jenkins Smiths, och Hajers teorier i ljuset av dessa insikter? I föreliggande text argumenterar jag för att svaret är ja på båda dessa frågor.</p><p>Det nästföljande kapitlet ägnas därför åter dessa teorier, nu med fokus på hur de ska prövas empiriskt. Jag diskuterar dels olikheter mellan teorierna beträffande vilka konkreta arenor och aktörer de menar spelar roll för stabilitet i och förändring av policy, dels hur dessa påståenden kan ”översättas” till en prövning i svensk kontext. Diskussionen summeras i ett antal ur teorierna härledda prövbara, delvis konkurrerande, påståenden om hur idéer strukturerar policyprocessen. Det femte avslutande kapitlet summerar hela avhandlingen.</p>

I den snabbt växande litteraturen om idéer i policyprocessen, som ibland kallats ”the ideational turn” tänker man sig ofta att idéer och språk styr politikens aktörer, snarare än styrs av dem. Hur politiska problem formuleras styr vilka lösningar som ter sig rimliga. Intresset riktas mot politik som intellektuell verksamhet. Dessutom tänker man sig att de resulterande tänkesätten kring problem och lösningar – tolkningsramarna eller problembilderna – tenderar att börja leva sitt eget liv, och utanför aktörernas direkta kontroll påverka det politiska beslutsfattandet. Påståenden om verkligheten och värderingspåståenden blir alltså med ett sådant perspektiv väsentliga, eftersom de antas utgöra utgångspunkt och ram för den fortsatta formuleringen av den offentliga politiken. De stänger in och riktar blicken. I den här avhandlingen ska ett antal teorier, med stor tilltro till slagkraftiga idéers förmåga att styra och organisera tanke och handling vid utformning och upprätthållande av offentlig politik, skärskådas och prövas teoretiskt. Målet är att urskilja huruvida dessa innehåller empiriskt prövvärda teoretiska påståenden om idéers funktion i policyprocesser. Med utgångspunkt i en teorigenomgång argumenterar jag för att det verkar rimligt att förvänta sig att stabila eller instängande idéstrukturer hänger samman med stabil interaktion i policyprocesser. I så fall är det likaledes rimligt att undersöka hur reproduktion av idéer, och tröghet i förändring av policy, förhåller sig till det sätt på vilket politiken och policyproduktionen är organiserad. Ett sådant perspektiv innebär alltså att policyproduktion bör undersökas utifrån de organisatoriska och institutionella villkor som präglar den konkreta intellektuella verksamhet som krävs för att policybeslut ska materialiseras. Teorier som tycks svara mot detta krav är Maarten Hajers Discourse Coalition Framework, Paul Sabatier och Hank Jenkins-Smiths Advocacy Coalition Framework och Frank Baumgartners och Bryan Jones Punctuated Equilibrium Theory. De valda teoretikerna beskriver idéer som mer eller mindre trögrörliga sociala konstruktioner, som både är förankrade i och organiserar policyprocessen – även om de inte själva uttrycker det så. De kan alltså ses som olika teoribildningar inom samma teoriperspektiv. I avhandlingen identifieras flera problem i detta teorperspektiv. De handlar alla om de kognitiva låsningar som teorierna förutsätter som förklaringar till stabil policyproduktion. Jag menar att teorierna, för det första, inte på ett tillfredställande sätt lyckas lösa struktur-aktörproblemet utan glider mellan en föreställning om individen som ömsom strukturernas slav och ömsom dess herre, mer beroende på vad som behövs för att lösa förklaringsekvationen än på vad som verkar rimligt och troligt. För det andra ifrågasätter jag, mot bakgrund av det begränsade sociala sammanhang som en policysektor oftast är, rimligheten i att anta att det normala är att den diskurs som präglar ett politikområde förmår definiera världen för policyprocessens aktörer. För det tredje argumenterar jag för att sättet att beskriva de politiska aktörerna som i tanken ”infärgade” av en organisatoriskt, institutionellt eller socialt förankrad diskurs begränsar möjligheten att göra policyanalys till politisk maktanalys. Ett särskilt kapitel ägnas därför åt olika möjligheter att konceptualisera idéstrukturernas relation till aktörerna i policyprocesser. Detta hänger också ihop med förståelsen av makt. Jag menar nämligen att frågan om vad idéstrukturerna gör med aktörerna i policyprocessen är nära sammankopplad med hur vi ska förstå maktrelationerna i denna process. I centrum för avsnittet står den idéernas sociala praktik som är språk, kommunikation och samtal: den språkliga praktik där idéer kommer till uttryck. Frågan som ställs i detta kapitel är om det finns andra sätt än teoriernas antagande om ”kognitiv inlåsning” att tala om politiska idéer som en faktor för makt och inflytande. Detta i sin tur beror på huruvida det finns alternativa sätt att förstå idéstrukturers effekter på policyprocessens aktörer. Och om det går att på ett rimligare och mer konsistent sätt beskriva hur idéer kan skapa maktrelationer, kan vi därmed omvärdera Baumgartner och Jones, Sabatier och Jenkins Smiths, och Hajers teorier i ljuset av dessa insikter? I föreliggande text argumenterar jag för att svaret är ja på båda dessa frågor. Det nästföljande kapitlet ägnas därför åter dessa teorier, nu med fokus på hur de ska prövas empiriskt. Jag diskuterar dels olikheter mellan teorierna beträffande vilka konkreta arenor och aktörer de menar spelar roll för stabilitet i och förändring av policy, dels hur dessa påståenden kan ”översättas” till en prövning i svensk kontext. Diskussionen summeras i ett antal ur teorierna härledda prövbara, delvis konkurrerande, påståenden om hur idéer strukturerar policyprocessen. Det femte avslutande kapitlet summerar hela avhandlingen.

The transition from an industrial to a global knowledge-based economy has put universities in the spotlight of public policies as the new drivers of innovation and sustained economic growth. Consequently, societal expectations towards the academic community have changed and so has, under the influence of neo-liberal ideas, the public governance of higher education. This is particularly true in federalist systems, such as Germany, Australia and the European Union, where the roles of each government level in governing the higher education sector had to be renegotiated and clarified. In Canada, however, despite repeated recommendations by policymakers, scholars and international organisations, the respective responsibilities have not yet been clarified and, to date, there are still no mechanisms to coordinate the post-secondary education policies of the federal and provincial governments. This paper inquires into the reasons for this exception. In the academic literature, this has generally been explained in terms of Canada’s uniqueness with respect to its federalist system and the decentralized higher education sector. We attempt to go beyond this traditional federalism, state-centered approach, which is predominant in the Canadian higher education literature. Instead, based on interviews and official documents and inspired by the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), we shall be looking at the belief systems of the major actors in the policy process and the degree of coordination among them. Our analysis comes to the conclusion that, on the one hand, proponents of a pan-Canadian approach are divided over their fundamental beliefs regarding the compatibility of inclusiveness and excellence. Some argue that the federal government must legislate common standards to ensure equal opportunities for all Canadians. Others propose a New Governance-inspired approach to create a differentiated and competitive university sector that meets the demands of the global knowledge-based economy more efficiently. On the other hand, even though the provinces differ in their beliefs regarding the equal opportunity versus economic efficiency debate, they share the same strong belief with respect to the role of the federal government. According to this view, post-secondary education is exclusively a provincial responsibility and the role of the federal government is solely to help them ‘fix the problems’. Moreover, contrary to the proponents of more intergovernmental collaboration, the provinces have successfully strengthened the coordination among themselves to block further perceived federal intrusions into provincial jurisdiction. We come to the conclusion that the absence of intergovernmental mechanisms to govern post-secondary education is a consequence of the diverging belief systems and the establishment of formal coordination structures among the provinces to block – as they perceive - further federal intrusions. Also, there is less of a sense of urgency to act compared to, say, health care. Finally, remembering the near-separation of Quebec in 1995, there is very little appetite to reopen the constitutional debates. Therefore, based on our analysis, we argue that contrary to suggestions by some higher education scholars, the establishment of intergovernmental coordinating mechanisms appears unlikely in the near future.

The transition from an industrial to a global knowledge-based economy has put universities in the spotlight of public policies as the new drivers of innovation and sustained economic growth. Consequently, societal expectations towards the academic community have changed and so has, under the influence of neo-liberal ideas, the public governance of higher education. This is particularly true in federalist systems, such as Germany, Australia and the European Union, where the roles of each government level in governing the higher education sector had to be renegotiated and clarified. In Canada, however, despite repeated recommendations by policymakers, scholars and international organisations, the respective responsibilities have not yet been clarified and, to date, there are still no mechanisms to coordinate the post-secondary education policies of the federal and provincial governments. This paper inquires into the reasons for this exception. In the academic literature, this has generally been explained in terms of Canada’s uniqueness with respect to its federalist system and the decentralized higher education sector. We attempt to go beyond this traditional federalism, state-centered approach, which is predominant in the Canadian higher education literature. Instead, based on interviews and official documents and inspired by the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), we shall be looking at the belief systems of the major actors in the policy process and the degree of coordination among them. Our analysis comes to the conclusion that, on the one hand, proponents of a pan-Canadian approach are divided over their fundamental beliefs regarding the compatibility of inclusiveness and excellence. Some argue that the federal government must legislate common standards to ensure equal opportunities for all Canadians. Others propose a New Governance-inspired approach to create a differentiated and competitive university sector that meets the demands of the global knowledge-based economy more efficiently. On the other hand, even though the provinces differ in their beliefs regarding the equal opportunity versus economic efficiency debate, they share the same strong belief with respect to the role of the federal government. According to this view, post-secondary education is exclusively a provincial responsibility and the role of the federal government is solely to help them ‘fix the problems’. Moreover, contrary to the proponents of more intergovernmental collaboration, the provinces have successfully strengthened the coordination among themselves to block further perceived federal intrusions into provincial jurisdiction. We come to the conclusion that the absence of intergovernmental mechanisms to govern post-secondary education is a consequence of the diverging belief systems and the establishment of formal coordination structures among the provinces to block – as they perceive - further federal intrusions. Also, there is less of a sense of urgency to act compared to, say, health care. Finally, remembering the near-separation of Quebec in 1995, there is very little appetite to reopen the constitutional debates. Therefore, based on our analysis, we argue that contrary to suggestions by some higher education scholars, the establishment of intergovernmental coordinating mechanisms appears unlikely in the near future.

A case study of the first 35 years, 1945 to 1980, of the Swedish nuclear institution. The purpose is to discover which actors that have shaped the Swedish nuclear institution. By using the theories of historical institutionalism and advocacy coalition framework I have analyzed these 35 years in three separate parts. Historical institutionalism puts emphasis on the creation of an institution, and so have I. The creation phase goes from 1945 to 1972. The following two parts are critical junctures that spans the years 1973-1978 and 1978-1980. The first critical juncture deals with the Centre Party's reversal in their opinion on nuclear power, the 1976 election and the outcome of that election. The third juncture starts with the Harrisburg accident and ends after the 1980 referendum. Using the advocacy coalition framework to analyze the actions or actors and coalitions during these three phases, I have come to the conclusion that the industry actors, those that have built the reactors, have been the most successful in pushing their coalition's agendas, over the years. Their influence was considerable during the years of institutional creation, while the coalitions that opposed nuclear power were quite weak during this time frame, which is consistent with historical institutionalism's focus on the creation, and path dependence.

La questione portante della mia ricerca è la verifica dell'eventuale appartenenza dei think tank a modelli di Comunità Epistemiche o Advocacy Coalition. La struttura della tesi rispecchia quindi parte del percorso che ho sviluppato, partendo da una analisi della definizione dell'oggetto di ricerca Think Tank, della sua struttura ed azione, con la finalità di influenzare il processo di policy making. La seconda sezione analizza gli approcci metodologici principali all'analisi del processo di formazione delle politiche pubbliche, mentre il terzo capitolo affronta la ricerca sui casi di studio selezionati: l'Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI), l'Istituto per gli Studi di Politica Internazionale (ISPI) e lo European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR). / The fundamental question supporting my research is to verify the membership of the think tank to the Epistemic Communities or Advocacy Coalition model. The structure of the thesis, therefore, reflects the path that I developed, starting from an analysis of the definition of the research think tank, its structure and action, with the objective of influencing the policy making process. The second section discusses the main methodological approaches to the analysis of the formation of public policy, while the third chapter discusses research on selected case studies: the Institute of International Affairs (IAI), the Institute for the Study of International Politics (ISPI) and the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR).

The transition from an industrial to a global knowledge-based economy has put universities in the spotlight of public policies as the new drivers of innovation and sustained economic growth. Consequently, societal expectations towards the academic community have changed and so has, under the influence of neo-liberal ideas, the public governance of higher education. This is particularly true in federalist systems, such as Germany, Australia and the European Union, where the roles of each government level in governing the higher education sector had to be renegotiated and clarified. In Canada, however, despite repeated recommendations by policymakers, scholars and international organisations, the respective responsibilities have not yet been clarified and, to date, there are still no mechanisms to coordinate the post-secondary education policies of the federal and provincial governments. This paper inquires into the reasons for this exception. In the academic literature, this has generally been explained in terms of Canada’s uniqueness with respect to its federalist system and the decentralized higher education sector. We attempt to go beyond this traditional federalism, state-centered approach, which is predominant in the Canadian higher education literature. Instead, based on interviews and official documents and inspired by the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), we shall be looking at the belief systems of the major actors in the policy process and the degree of coordination among them. Our analysis comes to the conclusion that, on the one hand, proponents of a pan-Canadian approach are divided over their fundamental beliefs regarding the compatibility of inclusiveness and excellence. Some argue that the federal government must legislate common standards to ensure equal opportunities for all Canadians. Others propose a New Governance-inspired approach to create a differentiated and competitive university sector that meets the demands of the global knowledge-based economy more efficiently. On the other hand, even though the provinces differ in their beliefs regarding the equal opportunity versus economic efficiency debate, they share the same strong belief with respect to the role of the federal government. According to this view, post-secondary education is exclusively a provincial responsibility and the role of the federal government is solely to help them ‘fix the problems’. Moreover, contrary to the proponents of more intergovernmental collaboration, the provinces have successfully strengthened the coordination among themselves to block further perceived federal intrusions into provincial jurisdiction. We come to the conclusion that the absence of intergovernmental mechanisms to govern post-secondary education is a consequence of the diverging belief systems and the establishment of formal coordination structures among the provinces to block – as they perceive - further federal intrusions. Also, there is less of a sense of urgency to act compared to, say, health care. Finally, remembering the near-separation of Quebec in 1995, there is very little appetite to reopen the constitutional debates. Therefore, based on our analysis, we argue that contrary to suggestions by some higher education scholars, the establishment of intergovernmental coordinating mechanisms appears unlikely in the near future.

This study assesses the value of two analytical models explaining particular contemporary political events. This is undertaken through the comparative evaluation of two international models: the Advocacy Coalition Framework and Rhodes’s model of Governance. These approaches are evaluated against an single case study: the censorship of computer network (“online”) content in Australia. Through comparison evaluation, criticism, and reformulation, these approaches are presented as useful tools of policy analysis in Australia. / The first part of the thesis presents the theoretical basis of the research and the methodologies employed to apply them. It begins by examining how the disciplines of political science and public policy have focused on the role of politically-active “interest”, groups in the process of policy development and implementation. This focus has lead to ideas about the role of the state actors in policy making, and attempts to describe and explain the interface between public and private groups in developing and implementing public policies. These, largely British and American, theories have impacted upon Australian researchers who have applied these ideas to local conditions. The majority of this part, however, is spent introducing the two research approaches: Paul Sabatier’s Advocacy Coalitions Framework and Rod Rhodes’s theory of Governance. Stemming from dissatisfaction with research into implementation, Sabatier’s framework attempts to show how competing clusters of groups and individuals compete for policy “wins” in a discrete subsystem by using political strategies to effect favourable decisions and information to change the views of other groups. Governance, on the other hand, attempts to apply Rhodes’s observations to the changing nature of the British state (and by implication other liberal democracies) to show the importance of self-organising networks of organisations who monopolise power and insulate the processes of decision making and implementation from the wider community and state organs. Finally, the methodologies of the thesis are presented, based on the preferred research methods of the two authors. / The second part introduces the case serving as the basis for evaluating the models, namely, censorship of the content of computer networks in Australia between 1987 and 2000. This case arises in the late 1980s with the computerisation of society and technological developments leading to the introduction of, first publicly-accessible computer bulletin boards, and then the technology of the Internet. From a small hobbyists’ concern, the uptake of this technology combined with wider censorship issues leads to the consideration of online content by Australian Governments, seeking a system of regulation to apply to this technology. As the emerging Internet becomes popularised, and in the face of adverse media attention on, especially pornographic, online content, during the mid to late 1990s two Federal governments establish a series of policy processes that eventually lead to the introduction of the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act 1999, a policy decision bringing online content into Australia’s intergovernmental censorship system. / The final part analyses the case study using the two theoretical approaches. What this shows is that, from the perspective of the Advocacy Coalition Framework, debate over online content does not form a substantive policy subsystem until 1995, and within this three, relatively stable, competing coalitions emerge, each pressuring for different levels of action and intervention (from no regulation, to a strong regulatory model). While conflict within the subsystem varied, overall the framework’s analysis shows the dominance of a coalition consisting largely of professional and business interests favouring a light, co-regulatory approach to online content. From the perspective of Governance, the issue of online content is subject to a range of intra- and inter-governmental conflict in the period 1995-7, finally settling into a negotiated position where a complex policy community emerges based largely on structurally-determined resource dependencies. What this means is that policy making in the case was not autonomous of state institutions, but highly dependent on institutional power relations. Overall, in comparing the findings it becomes apparent that the approaches lack the capacity to fully explain the role of key sovereigns, defined here as those individuals with legal authority over decision making in the policy process, because of their methodological and normative assumptions about the policy process. By showing these individuals as part of wider networks of power-dependencies, and exploring the complex bundle of real, pseudo, symbolic, and nonsense elements that make up a policy, the role of Ministers as “semi-sovereign sovereigns” can be accommodated in the two approaches.

This study examines the advocacy coalitions in Russia. Using the Advocacy Coalition Framework, it looks at the power resource distribution amongst the coalitions, and how this distribution affects Russian foreign policy. The power resources examined are: Formal Legal Authority; Public Opinion; Information; Mobilizable Troops; and Financial Resources. In addition to this, the study used quantitative and qualitative methods to identify these resources. There are a couple of conclusions we may draw from this study. The method is useful in identifying power resources. It is not enough to use only the distribution of resources amongst coalitions in order to explain policy changes. It is found that the distribution of resources, coupled with coalition interaction, is enough to explain changes in Russian foreign policy.

The transition from an industrial to a global knowledge-based economy has put universities in the spotlight of public policies as the new drivers of innovation and sustained economic growth. Consequently, societal expectations towards the academic community have changed and so has, under the influence of neo-liberal ideas, the public governance of higher education. This is particularly true in federalist systems, such as Germany, Australia and the European Union, where the roles of each government level in governing the higher education sector had to be renegotiated and clarified. In Canada, however, despite repeated recommendations by policymakers, scholars and international organisations, the respective responsibilities have not yet been clarified and, to date, there are still no mechanisms to coordinate the post-secondary education policies of the federal and provincial governments. This paper inquires into the reasons for this exception. In the academic literature, this has generally been explained in terms of Canada’s uniqueness with respect to its federalist system and the decentralized higher education sector. We attempt to go beyond this traditional federalism, state-centered approach, which is predominant in the Canadian higher education literature. Instead, based on interviews and official documents and inspired by the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), we shall be looking at the belief systems of the major actors in the policy process and the degree of coordination among them. Our analysis comes to the conclusion that, on the one hand, proponents of a pan-Canadian approach are divided over their fundamental beliefs regarding the compatibility of inclusiveness and excellence. Some argue that the federal government must legislate common standards to ensure equal opportunities for all Canadians. Others propose a New Governance-inspired approach to create a differentiated and competitive university sector that meets the demands of the global knowledge-based economy more efficiently. On the other hand, even though the provinces differ in their beliefs regarding the equal opportunity versus economic efficiency debate, they share the same strong belief with respect to the role of the federal government. According to this view, post-secondary education is exclusively a provincial responsibility and the role of the federal government is solely to help them ‘fix the problems’. Moreover, contrary to the proponents of more intergovernmental collaboration, the provinces have successfully strengthened the coordination among themselves to block further perceived federal intrusions into provincial jurisdiction. We come to the conclusion that the absence of intergovernmental mechanisms to govern post-secondary education is a consequence of the diverging belief systems and the establishment of formal coordination structures among the provinces to block – as they perceive - further federal intrusions. Also, there is less of a sense of urgency to act compared to, say, health care. Finally, remembering the near-separation of Quebec in 1995, there is very little appetite to reopen the constitutional debates. Therefore, based on our analysis, we argue that contrary to suggestions by some higher education scholars, the establishment of intergovernmental coordinating mechanisms appears unlikely in the near future.