This paper compares access to information legislation in the United States and Canada and uses the findings of this comparison to test three theories of policymaking. In particular, the paper uses the comparison to explore the idea that the existence of access to information policies contradicts policymaking theories which stress the autonomy of the state. The paper begins with a detailed comparison of the Canadian and American legislation as it has been interpreted by the courts. This comparison finds that the two policies are very similar but three are some significant differences in the details of the two regimes and that these differences tend to make the Canadian access policy more restrictive than the American. The paper then examines whether these findings can be explained as being consistent with policy making theories which explain policy as being the result of a copying process, of interest group pressure or of institutional forces. In order to better understand the forces behind the legislation the legislative comparison is supplemented by reference to relevant policy papers and evidence from the period of the development of the two acts. The results of the analysis indicate that no one of the three theories is provides an adequate explanation of the two access policies. The legislation was a result of a combination interest group pressure and institutional forces and, in the case of the Canadian legislation, the process of copying also played a key role. The findings also indicate that explanations which stress the role of the state are not inconsistent with a policy that results in weakened state autonomy.

This paper compares access to information legislation in the United States and Canada and uses the findings of this comparison to test three theories of policymaking. In particular, the paper uses the comparison to explore the idea that the existence of access to information policies contradicts policymaking theories which stress the autonomy of the state. The paper begins with a detailed comparison of the Canadian and American legislation as it has been interpreted by the courts. This comparison finds that the two policies are very similar but three are some significant differences in the details of the two regimes and that these differences tend to make the Canadian access policy more restrictive than the American. The paper then examines whether these findings can be explained as being consistent with policy making theories which explain policy as being the result of a copying process, of interest group pressure or of institutional forces. In order to better understand the forces behind the legislation the legislative comparison is supplemented by reference to relevant policy papers and evidence from the period of the development of the two acts. The results of the analysis indicate that no one of the three theories is provides an adequate explanation of the two access policies. The legislation was a result of a combination interest group pressure and institutional forces and, in the case of the Canadian legislation, the process of copying also played a key role. The findings also indicate that explanations which stress the role of the state are not inconsistent with a policy that results in weakened state autonomy. / Arts, Faculty of / Political Science, Department of / Graduate

The John Peter Zenger Award for Freedom of the Press and the People's Right to Know, 1981 / Saving the Alton Telegraph by Stephen A. Cousley, Editor and Assistant to the Publisher, Alton, Illinois, Telegraph / Phoenix, Arizona, September 24, 1982

The John Peter Zenger Award for Freedom of the Press and the People's Right to Know, 1979 / The State of the First Amendment—1980 by Jack C. Landau, Executive Director, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Supreme Court Reporter, Newhouse Newspapers / Scottsdale, Arizona, January 11, 1980

The John Peter Zenger Award for Freedom of the Press and the People's Right to Know, 1967 / To Speak One's Mind, An Address by John S. Knight, Editorial Chairman, Knight Newspapers, Inc.

The John Peter Zenger Award for Freedom of the Press and the People's Right to Know, 1977 / Not in Vengeance, But to Inform, An Address by Robert W. Greene, Newsday

The John Peter Zenger Award for Freedom of the Press and the People's Right to Know, 1970 / The World Flow of News, An Address by Erwin D. Canham, Editor-in-Chief, The Christian Science Monitor

The John Peter Zenger Award for Freedom of the Press and the People's Right to Know, 1968 / What Halo? We Never Had One! An Address by Wes Gallagher, General Manager, The Associated Press

The John Peter Zenger Award for Freedom of the Press and the People's Right to Know, 1975 / The Reporter's Obligation, An Address by Seymour M. Hersh, The New York Times

The John Peter Zenger Award for Freedom of the Press and the People's Right to Know, 1974 / The Whitesburg Bridge, An Address by Thomas E. Gish, Editor and Publisher, The Mountain Eagle