The right to belong and participate in some form of political community is the most fundamental social right there is. This dissertation argues that social rights have not been understood broadly enough, that there has not been enough attention paid to their historical roots, and that they must not be viewed as being simply passive welfare rights. Rather, they must be seen in their historical context, and they must be seen for what they are: a much larger and more substantive phenomenon than what liberal theory has projected: both theoretically and empirically. I am calling this body of discourse “the social citizenship tradition.” This dissertation hopes to show that there was more than one definition of social citizenship historically and that social rights are certainly not “new.” In surveying a vast literature in Britain, the United States, and Canada, it points to places where alternative social rights claims have entered politics and society. By looking at writings from these three countries over three centuries, the evidence points to some similarities as well as differences in how scholars approached questions of economic and social rights. In particular, similar arguments over labour and property figured prominently in all three countries. The contextual ground of right was different in each country but the voice of social action was similar. The objective here is to reunite this common tradition of social citizenship with its past. It is because of classical liberalism that social right has lost focus and power, and a whole tradition of political thinking has been lost.This tradition has been narrowed to the point that it might be unrecognizable to the more radical forces, those who also fought for it, in the American, Canadian and British pasts.

The right to belong and participate in some form of political community is the most fundamental social right there is. This dissertation argues that social rights have not been understood broadly enough, that there has not been enough attention paid to their historical roots, and that they must not be viewed as being simply passive welfare rights. Rather, they must be seen in their historical context, and they must be seen for what they are: a much larger and more substantive phenomenon than what liberal theory has projected: both theoretically and empirically. I am calling this body of discourse “the social citizenship tradition.” This dissertation hopes to show that there was more than one definition of social citizenship historically and that social rights are certainly not “new.” In surveying a vast literature in Britain, the United States, and Canada, it points to places where alternative social rights claims have entered politics and society. By looking at writings from these three countries over three centuries, the evidence points to some similarities as well as differences in how scholars approached questions of economic and social rights. In particular, similar arguments over labour and property figured prominently in all three countries. The contextual ground of right was different in each country but the voice of social action was similar. The objective here is to reunite this common tradition of social citizenship with its past. It is because of classical liberalism that social right has lost focus and power, and a whole tradition of political thinking has been lost.This tradition has been narrowed to the point that it might be unrecognizable to the more radical forces, those who also fought for it, in the American, Canadian and British pasts.

This thesis compares the public policies of campaign finance in Canada with those in the U.S. and the U.K. in the period 2000-2011. The majority of the Canadian literature on party finance demonstrates a belief in the efficacy and necessity of the enterprise. This dissertation suspends this disposition and offers a critical approach to the regulation of money in Canadian elections. This thesis situates the discussion of party finance regulation in the context of contending models of democracy. Campaign finance rule changes are conceptualized within a new institutionalist framework. Changes in campaign finance rules are seen as changes in incentives and are seen to work in configurations, that is, interacting with existing formal and informal constraints. New institutionalism provides the avenue of inquiry into the position of political parties on the boundary of the public and private spheres and how campaign finance regulation may shift that boundary. This thesis adopts a mixed-method approach, incorporating the results of 65 semi-structured interviews with academics and political practitioners with primary document research. This thesis demonstrates that campaign finance rule changes interact with other electoral rules, types of parties and the nation’s historic institutions. The need to meld Quebec’s statist and civil-code traditions with Westminster democratic traditions, the introduction of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the role of subsequent court decisions, and the role of Elections Canada in its political finance oversight capacity, constitute major catalysts for Canadian party finance rule changes and for understanding the impact of rule changes. Contrary to the majority of literature on campaign finance reform, this thesis demonstrates that there may be diminishing marginal returns to additional campaign finance regulations, at least in a mature democracy such as Canada. Campaign finance rules reveal preferences for different models of democracy. As such, they must be carefully monitored.

This thesis compares the public policies of campaign finance in Canada with those in the U.S. and the U.K. in the period 2000-2011. The majority of the Canadian literature on party finance demonstrates a belief in the efficacy and necessity of the enterprise. This dissertation suspends this disposition and offers a critical approach to the regulation of money in Canadian elections. This thesis situates the discussion of party finance regulation in the context of contending models of democracy. Campaign finance rule changes are conceptualized within a new institutionalist framework. Changes in campaign finance rules are seen as changes in incentives and are seen to work in configurations, that is, interacting with existing formal and informal constraints. New institutionalism provides the avenue of inquiry into the position of political parties on the boundary of the public and private spheres and how campaign finance regulation may shift that boundary. This thesis adopts a mixed-method approach, incorporating the results of 65 semi-structured interviews with academics and political practitioners with primary document research. This thesis demonstrates that campaign finance rule changes interact with other electoral rules, types of parties and the nation’s historic institutions. The need to meld Quebec’s statist and civil-code traditions with Westminster democratic traditions, the introduction of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the role of subsequent court decisions, and the role of Elections Canada in its political finance oversight capacity, constitute major catalysts for Canadian party finance rule changes and for understanding the impact of rule changes. Contrary to the majority of literature on campaign finance reform, this thesis demonstrates that there may be diminishing marginal returns to additional campaign finance regulations, at least in a mature democracy such as Canada. Campaign finance rules reveal preferences for different models of democracy. As such, they must be carefully monitored.