Authoritative, top-down forms of environmental governance are presently giving way to more collaborative approaches in which decision making is an ongoing negotiation between government and non-government actors. There is growing consensus that critical environmental concerns—such as contamination of drinking water—relate as much to political, economic and social issues, as to technical and scientific issues. As the trend toward collaborative environmental governance continues, and as science-based knowledge increasingly shares a role in decision-making processes with more “local”, non-scientific knowledge, questions arise concerning how diverse knowledge contributions are understood and engaged in these governance processes. This research explored the relationships between knowledge and collaborative environmental governance processes. The purpose of the research was to identify (1) types of knowledge that individual actors bring into collaborative governance pertaining to water resource protection, (2) uses of that knowledge, and (3) features of collaborative processes that affect the engagement of actor knowledge. Collaborative water governance in New Brunswick provided the context for the research. Most actors did not see a definitive distinction between “expert”, scientific and “local”, non-scientific knowledge; they considered both to be important contributions. Nonetheless, science-based knowledge, especially natural science, was found to be a predominant knowledge type among actors involved in collaborative water governance. Science-based, expert knowledge was more readily used than local knowledge types in the various stages of collaborative governance. Leadership and the definition of actor roles were considered paramount for engaging a wide range of knowledge types in collaborative governance processes.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Memorial University of Newfoundland. / Typescript. Restricted until November 1995. Bibliography: leaves [306]-329. Also available online.

Thesis (doctoral)--Université de Grenoble III, 1985. / Includes indexes. Includes bibliographical references (p. [255]-260).

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

In this thesis, the response of a provincial government's budgetary decisions with respect to changes in Federal conditional and unconditional grants was investigated with special reference to whether or not the responses of a high income province (Ontario) differed from those of a low income province (New Brunswick). In order to facilitate the analysis, a theoretical framework (called Model I) was set forth in which a province's expenditure and tax responses to changes in net provincial product and Federal grants could be derived. Using this framework, separate equations were estimated for Ontario and for New Brunswick for those expenditures aided by the National Health Grant Program, the Trans-Canada Highway Program, the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Program, and the categorical welfare programs and the Canada Assistance Plan; and for other aided expenditures, unaided expenditures, and revenue. Since expenditure data were not available according to the definitions required for Model I, separate expenditure equations could not be estimated, within the context of Model I, for education, fish and game, forest~ and lands (settlement and agriculture). Thus, an alternative framework (called Model II) was developed. In Model II, these data difficulties were taken into account through a reformulation of the province's quadratic utility function; this allowed the magnitude of the conditional and unconditional grant coefficients to be derived and interpreted prior to estimation. Nine expenditure equations and one revenue equation were estimated for Ontario and for New Brunswick within the framework of Model II. The major difference between the dependent variables used in Model I and Medel II is that in the latter the dependent expenditure variable for each program area considered separately allows the inclusion of expenditures which may be both aided and unaided whereas in Model I the dependent variable for programs considered separately properly includes expenditures only on those goods and services which are specifically aided by federal conditional grants. On the basis of the empirical estimates of Models I and II, the following conclusions may be drawn: first, Ontario and New Brunswick do not appear to respond to changes in Federal conditional and unconditional grants in the same manner. For example, the empirical estimates of Model I reveal that only New Brunswick's expenditures responded as predicted to the receipt of Federal limited conditional grants in the three limited grant programs considered separately, namely, the General Health Grants' Program, hospital construction, and the Trans-Canada Highway. On the other hand, the empirical estimates of Model II indicate that Federal conditional grants for hospital construction, hospital insurance and diagnostic services, social welfare, and lands (settlement and agriculture) stimulated both provinces' expenditures in these areas during the period from 1948 to 1970; and that Federal grants for the Trans-Canada Highway encouraged Ontario's total road expenditures while gr'-nts received under the General Health Grants' Progran and under the various forestry programs stimulated New Brunswick's expenditures on general and public health and on forests, respectively. With regard to unconditional grants, only Ontario's expenditures on education and New Brunswick's expenditures on lands (settlement and agriculture) were stimulated by their receipt. A second conclusion is that conditional grants stimulate spending on individual programs to a greater degree than do unconditional grants; and, third, unconditional grants are used as a substitute for own source revenue in the case of New Brunswick. In addition, the theoretical models' predictions that a province responds to the same extent to changes in net provincial product and unconditional federal grants is supported in the case of both Ontario and New Brunswick. / Thesis / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

No description available.

My aim in this work is to identify and contextualize the goals driving contemporary post-secondary education reform in New Brunswick. I do this by grounding the 2007 Advantage New Brunswick Report and New Brunswick Action Plan in the general historical context of higher education. I provide a descriptive account of the policies under review with a view to the ideals of a liberal arts education. Through a critical theory framework, I relate the contents of the policies under review to neo-liberal ideology, professional, bureaucratic and managerial hegemony. My focus is on the place of the liberal arts and humanities in a system dominated by the corporate imperatives of professionalization, specialization and bureaucratization. I propose as a response to neo-liberal policies that seek to make education instrumental to the needs of the market returning to history, philosophy and classics as the core of a liberal arts education.