Canterbury Christ Church University’s repository of research outputs http://create.canterbury.ac.uk Copyright © and Moral Rights for this thesis are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder/s. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given e.g. Bransden, S. (2017) A Comparative study of dynamics in federal political systems in times of crisis. Ph.D. thesis, Canterbury Christ Church University. Contact: [email protected] A Comparative Study of Dynamics in Federal Political Systems in Times of Crisis By Simon Mark Bransden Canterbury Christ Church University Thesis submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2017 Abstract 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. i Acknowledgements Embarking on a project as long and complex as a PhD was far from my mind when confronted, in 2008, with the stark choice of facing unemployment, or a return to school to finish my education. This was only possible through the process, almost Monnet like, of small steps; and from the outset, those who were responsible for my education, in the broadest sense, gave me the support and encouragement to set out on, and continue, this path. So, my thanks and acknowledgements go out to Laura Cashman, John Bulaitis, Tom Hennessey, Ken Kennard, Chris Ware, Richard Eales, Martin Watts, Sara Lieberman, John Groom, Amelia Hadfield, Soeren Keil, and David Bates at Canterbury for their support and encouragement that enabled me to achieve my initial goals of returning to FE, and then HE. Further thanks are due to the last of these three, and in particular Soeren Keil and David Bates, for their support and advice in taking on post-graduate studies – and enabling the kind of frank and honest relationship between a candidate and their supervisors that is essential in completing a PhD. I also extend my gratitude to the ever-helpful and supportive staff at the Graduate School at CCCU, and to my friends and colleagues in the post- graduate community for their support and encouragement. Through the process, I have also been fortunate to have the love and support of my children, Nathan and Hannah, my brothers Charles and Paul, and my partner, Chrissie to whom I dedicate this work with love. ii Table of Abbreviations BP Borough President (NYC) BNAA British North America Act (1867) BofE Board of Estimates CBC Canadian Broadcasting System CFSP Common Foreign and Security Policy EC European Community (1965-1993) ECB European Central Bank ECSC European Coal and Steel Community EEC European Economic Community EFTA European Free Trade Area EMU Economic and Monetary Union EP European Parliament EPU European Political Union ERM Exchange Rate Mechanism EU European Union (Post- 1993) FLQ Front de Libération du Québec FPS federal political system(s) FPTP first past the post IGC Intergovernmental Conference IR International Relations JHA Justice and Home Affairs LPC Liberal Party of Canada MDSD Most Different System Design MS European Member State(s) MSA Mouvement de Souverainté-Association MSSD Most Similar System Design NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organisation NJ New Jersey NYC New York City NYS New York State PC Progressive Conservative Party PQ Parti Québécois PR proportional representation QLP Quebec Liberal Party iii QMV Qualified majority voting ROC Rest of Canada SEA Single European Act (1987) SI Staten Island TUC UK Trades Union Congress U.n. Union nationale Party UKIP United Kingdom Independence Party WEU Western European Union WMA War Measures Act (1970) WWII World War II iv Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ i Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ ii Table of Abbreviations .................................................................................................................. iii Table of Figures .............................................................................................................................. x 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. The Topic .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.2. Methodological Concerns ...................................................................................................... 2 1.2.1. Comparative Methodology and Interpretive Explanatory Approaches .......................... 3 1.2.2. Comparative Method Design used in The Thesis .......................................................... 6 1.3. Dynamics in FPS – the Dependent Variable ....................................................................... 15 1.3.1. The Relationship of Crisis to the Dynamics of Federal Political Systems ................... 15 1.3.2. The Nature of Dynamics – the Metrics of Change ....................................................... 17 1.3.3. Application of Metrics ................................................................................................... 21 1.4. Research Design ................................................................................................................. 21 1.4.1. Conceptualizing Crisis and Federalism ....................................................................... 24 1.4.2. The Case Studies ........................................................................................................ 25 1.4.3. Comparative Analysis .................................................................................................. 28 1.4.4. Concluding Chapter ..................................................................................................... 29 1.5. Research Questions ............................................................................................................ 29 1.6. Concluding Comments ........................................................................................................ 31 2. Conceptualizing Crisis and Federalism ................................................................................. 33 2.1. Conceptualizing Crisis ......................................................................................................... 33 2.1.1. Crisis as the Independent Variable .............................................................................. 33 2.1.2. IPE and World Systems Approaches to Crisis ............................................................ 35 2.1.3. Crisis at, and Beyond, the Inter-State Level ................................................................ 39 2.1.4. Creating Frameworks for the Independent Variable: Crisis ......................................... 43 2.2. Conceptualising Federalism ................................................................................................ 48 2.2.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 48 2.2.2. Defining Characteristics of Federal Political Systems ................................................