Reviews/Comptes rendus
Do Think Tanks Matter?: Assessing the Impact
of Public Policy Institutes
by Donald E. Abelson. Montreal and Kingston:
McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2002.
Donald E. Abelson’s Do Think Tanks Matter? is a
well written, carefully documented and articulate
case for the antithesis of the title — namely that it
is both impossible to know, and, it may not, in the
larger scheme of things, actually matter, whether
think tanks matter.
Which is not to detract in any way from the careful work Abelson has done in looking at datasets on
media impact, amount of studies published, number
of appearances before House of Commons and Senate committees, and comparative analysis of think
tanks in other places. In this regard, Abelson’s book
is a valuable treasure trove of interesting and not
unimportant information. And, for those in academe,
students interested in public policy careers outside
government, or business leaders, media and public
service professionals, this reference book notes the
many studies that were published, the comparative
budgets, and the staff complements.
To be sure, it is almost impossible to assess salience of impact from numerical additions and accounts. If think tank A published 25 studies in a year,
appeared before six committees of the House, and
was mentioned in 14 media reports, while think tank
B did less of that, but issued a major report that received major notice and parliamentary debate —
which is more salient? Add to all that the fickle nature of media timing and momentum; an outstanding and truly newsworthy report issued the morning
of an afternoon plane crash may have no impact —
for reasons utterly unrelated to the content or intrinsic newsworthiness of the report. A relatively
mediocre research report, issued during a slow news
cycle can migrate to the top of the media charts and
talk show agendas simply because of when it was
released. Market timing is frowned on in serous investment circles, and is probably, over the long run,
just as irrelevant in the marketplace of ideas. But
127
events can conspire unduly to heighten public interest. It is what emerges from the whole idea of
“public impact” analysis that is really fundamental
to the understanding of Abelson’s work in a real time
and real life context.
One point of differentiation between think tanks
is the issue of advocacy. While the Fraser Institute
has a strong belief in the positive effect of market
forces in most if not all areas of public policy, and
the Institute of Research for Public Policy would be
viewed as more centrist on that front, they are both
alike, along with C.D. Howe, or the Centre for Policy
Alternatives, in that they are part of the public
debate/deliberation model. They publish empirical
research, hold symposia, produce publications, and
contribute to op-ed articles to encourage informed
debate in Parliament, in the legislatures, in the media and elsewhere. Other think tanks, such as
Caledon and the Canadian Policy Research Network
(CPRN) do much of that, but are also prepared to
go inside to advise from within government. Ken
Battle, president of Caledon, for example, has done
immense public work on the Child Tax Benefit, and
has offered advice to ministers and to members of
Cabinet. Judith Maxwell of CPRN is also of immense value as an advisor to the present government. Providing advice to governments is an
important part of what think tanks should do. When
that advice is offered in private, it can, depending
on the circumstances, enhance its impact while it
dilutes the public role of the think tank as a disinterested and non-partisan critic. This, on occasion,
can be helpful.
Abelson has a fascinating section on the role that
Canadian think tanks played in the consultations
preceding the final Charlottetown Accord negotiations in 1991–92. It was apparent from the outset
why think tanks were chosen to hold consultation
meetings after the collapse of the joint Senate-House
committee (collapse meaning public meetings that
no one attended). The think tanks had credibility
among policy elites, among the media, and were seen
by non-governmental organizations with their own
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
VOL. XXX , NO. 1 2004
128 Reviews/Comptes rendus
agendas to be fair-minded conveyors of public debate and consultation. Civil society (the term used
to mean people who care about issues locally and
nationally and do not work for the government)
needs honest brokers who can play that role from
time to time. In the end, therefore, the real issue for
think tanks may be credibility as opposed to impact,
sadly, a concept equally hard to assess and even
harder to measure.
each Canadian think tank’s profile and history, and
various quantitative assessments of activity and output — is that at their best, think tanks are peripheral organizations that contribute constructively with
research and analysis to public debate and the policy
processes of a democracy. At their worst, they are
narrowly ideological, with predictable findings on
any question, and are therefore discounted. But at
the beginning and at the end they are still peripheral.
One of the conclusions that some readers may
reach — even while appreciating and benefiting
from the myriad points of comparative analysis with
the United States, a reasonably insightful look at
HUGH SEGAL, Institute for Research on Public Policy,
Montreal and School of Policy Studies, Queen’s
University
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
VOL . XXX, NO . 1 2004
Reviews/Comptes rendus
Unnatural Law: Rethinking Canadian
Environmental Law and Policy
by David R. Boyd. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2003. Pp. xvi, 469.
Boyd, “an environmental lawyer, professor, writer,
and activist” in British Columbia, has drawn on all
of these strengths in order to produce a comprehensive and detailed book whose three purposes are
clearly stated at the beginning: (i) to provide an accurate assessment of the effectiveness in this area, (ii) to
examine the progress, or lack of same, being made,
and (iii) to provide some constructive guidance.
In the first section on “Examination,” Boyd demonstrates that although nature is a key Canadian
value, Canada does better on environmental impact
than only the United States among OECD countries.
Other evidence, when available (and there are some
embarrassing gaps), points in the same direction.
The gap between stated values and actual deeds is
laid bare. Boyd then examines issues surrounding
water, air, and land. Despite the myth of boundless
water, shortages and pollution are increasing. Boyd
contrasts well the steps taken to ensure safe water
with the existing guidelines (not standards) and uneven legislation producing a “moth-eaten patch
work” (p. 27). Water pollution is still a problem,
with cutbacks in monitoring programs and the approach that “dilution is the solution.” Some stunning data are presented: for example, in the pulp
and paper industry in Quebec there were 1,700 violations and zero prosecutions. And the equivalent
of seven Exxon Valdez oil spills is produced by Canadians each year. Boyd, laudably drawing attention to new threats such as endocrine-disrupting
compounds, somberly concludes that “more disasters like Walkerton are almost inevitable” (p. 41).
Legislation and federal and provincial policies are
inadequate for wise water use and conservation, despite some municipal programs, results in only “a
snail’s pace” of improvement. The thorny issue of
water exports is beset with “all kinds of problems”
due to the multiplicity of laws.
129
With respect to ozone depletion, Canada has
shown leadership and accrued economic benefits.
Despite the major impact of climate change on
Canada, our country has received the “fossil-of-theday” award and is viewed by Boyd as a rogue state.
With industrial and provincial opposition, the situation is actually deteriorating. The sources and impacts of smog are well examined, especially in
comparison with the United States, with existing
federal and provincial objectives “out of date and
unenforceable” (p. 102) and “off the rails” (p. 108).
Use of land is focused on pesticides, forests, and
biodiversity. The acute and chronic impacts of pesticides on humans and their environment are examined. Some 60, which are available in Canada have
been banned elsewhere, and the federal Pest Management Regulatory Agency works under a veil of
secrecy. Internationally, Canada suffers by comparison and within our country there are damning
exposés. Non-sustainable forest exploitation continues with entrenched industry-province links despite
increasing international pressures. More generally,
despite governmental fanfare on harmonization, environmental assessment is heavily criticized.
Biodiversity is scrutinized in terms of parks and
protected areas, endangered species, and marine
biodiversity. Despite a theme of ecological integrity, parks are under great human and financial
stress, and a long way from Canada’s international
commitment of 12 percent of land. Again, despite
the Species at Risk Act and associated bureaucracy,
protecting Canada’s endangered species “falls far
short” due to inadequate guarantees for habitat. The
threats to marine biodiversity, and the role that the
federal government could play, are highlighted.
In the second section on “Diagnosis,” the reasons
why some nations have made good progress and why
Canada has lagged are discussed. The progressive
forces include strong institutions socially, politically, and economically, international pressure, effective legislation, forward-looking courts, proactive
local governments, and an involved public. Boyd’s
chapter on systemic weaknesses is crucial, with its
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
VOL. XXX , NO. 1 2004
130 Reviews/Comptes rendus
litany of missing laws and policies, an emphasis on
discretion rather than duty, failure to reflect contemporary scientific understanding, inadequate implementation and enforcement, lack of meaningful public
participation, and narrow approaches.
Depressingly, the next chapter documents further
obstacles including economic interests, international
liberalization of trade, barriers to an effective role
of the courts, and especially Canadian constitutional
issues.
In the more hopeful third section on “Prescription,” Boyd outlines a program of improved legislation, the promotion of sustainability, and suggests
the Netherlands and Sweden as holistic role models
for Canada. The analysis of reducing consumption
leads directly to a greener economics in which
“externalities” are included in a framework of efficient living. The wider problems of population
growth and global sustainability frame Canada’s
international commitments. Boyd concludes that if
Canada is again to lead internationally, a radical shift
in values and priority-setting is urgently needed.
tive. Readers involved with the Canadian environment in any way will find themselves nodding in
agreement on many occasions. The text is heavily
referenced and the style direct and, as the above
quotations demonstrate, pungent. Conflicting epigraphs are used astutely to contrast sources. The
book is conceptually rich, drawing on such items as
an ecological footprint and the precautionary principle, and the list of acronyms is very helpful. The
scientific background of each environmental issue
is well summarized at the beginning of each discussion. International comparisons with the United
States and Europe, both legislatively and judicially,
are used effectively to illustrate how inadequate are
the Canadian efforts. The repeated refutation of
claims by the Fraser Institute deeply undercuts the
credibility of this source. This is a very rational book,
with superbly detailed and supported analysis. If it has
any failing, it is how the irrational, emotional political
will is to be created. This book should be read by everyone concerned about Canada’s environment.
PATRICK W. COLGAN, Emeritus Director of Research
and Natural Lands, Royal Botanical Gardens,
Burlington, ON
The Foreword by Thomas Berger and the comments by environmentalists are appropriately posi-
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
VOL . XXX, NO . 1 2004
Reviews/Comptes rendus
The Revolution in Military Affairs:
Implications for Canada and NATO
by Elinor C. Sloan. Montreal and Kingston: McGillQueen’s University Press, 2002. Pp. xiii, 188, notes,
bibliography.
Over the past two years, for the first time in 40 years,
Canadian elites have come to treat defence seriously,
and to agree that Canada must increase its military
spending. They are less certain about what that
money should be spent on and why. They seem to
think that, as in the Cold War, Canada should aid
North American defence and maintain small but
excellent regular forces, prepared perhaps for a niche
in peacekeeping. Canadians dislike thinking in terms
of interests and power, but they recognize some of
the external drivers for defence policy, like the pressure of Washington or al Qaeda. They do not understand the internal drivers, including the Revolution
in Military Affairs (RMA). The RMA is a complex
matter — in fact, a moving target — involving a
head-on collision between ideas, doctrines, service
policies, bureaucratic politics, weapons systems,
budgets, visions of the future, and the roadmaps
needed to get there. Crudely defined by the formula
“precision weapons + IT = RMA,” the idea is that
effective use of changes in technology can transform armed forces, power, and war. Exponents of
the RMA envisage a fine-tuned machine, using
netcentric warfare (NCW, forces organized flexibly
on the Internet), “sensors to shooters” systems and
“one shot, one kill” weapons, to strike targets precisely and immediately. This requires large numbers
of expensive weapons and IT systems and trained
personnel. All-out pursuit of the RMA will be costly
and make existing and world-leading American
forces obsolete. Much of the US military opposes
“transformation,” which will slow if the US reduces
its share of gross national product allocated to defence. Yet no matter how fast or how far the US
moves, it will do more than anyone else, the only
question being: by how much? By 2002, US defence
spending equalled the next 15 countries combined.
After the 2003 Iraq War, British and Australian defence officials questioned whether they can retain
131
their position relative to the US without massively
increasing their defence budgets, which are far larger
than those of Canada, per capita.
Elinor Sloan’s work is a good and readable introduction to the RMA, although it has its limits.
The analysis of the RMA could have been deeper,
while the field (and the world) moves so quickly
that to be one year behind the times has costs. Sloan
refers to 9/11 only in passing, misses the buzzword
of 2002, Rapid Decisive Operations, and cannot
comment on the recent Gulf War, the first serious
test of the RMA. This experience suggests the RMA
has multiplied American strengths without reducing its weaknesses. It owns airpower and seapower;
it can strike targets with unprecedented speed, range,
and precision and demolish most third world armies;
yet it is no better able than before to handle guerrillas or peacekeeping. Despite these limits, Sloan’s
work addresses the main points of the RMA with
intelligence, and it possesses one rare strength. It
focuses not just on American ideas and practices,
but on those of most western states. Sloan offers
the best comparative account on record of how advanced states are attempting to address the RMA.
She shows that it poses greater problems for countries like Germany and France (with large conscript
armies pinned in Europe) than Canada, but still it
threatens to upset our defence policy. The entry costs
for the RMA are high. If we want simply to stay
where we are, over the next decade we must replace
all of our major weapons systems and also make big
investments in IT and personnel to fit them for the
RMA. This burden will magnify stresses between
the services. The RCN and the RCAF can do NCW
with the USN and USAF better than anyone else on
earth, but they can maintain that ability only at great
expense, and for what reasons beyond politics? To
do so with the army will create a small, high cost,
and high-tech force, useful for cooperating with the
US, but not much else, including peacekeeping; what
will happen to the army if it does not do so? North
American defence now is linked to ballistic missile
defence (BMD), a bad idea whose time has come;
the RMA has transformed the meaning of small but
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
VOL. XXX , NO. 1 2004
132 Reviews/Comptes rendus
excellent forces, peacekeeping has become a form
of warfare by other means. There are many dangers
before us. We may refuse to adapt to change, and
weaken ourselves; or we may allocate more to defence, but divide it between expensive niche investments which suit us less than the US, like BMD,
thus dissipating our resources and putting disconnected bricks in a wall of someone else’s design,
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
instead of a cohesive and effective plan of our own.
Only a clear policy will let us use our forces to
defend our interests, and be a source of national
strength rather than weakness. Sloan’s book should
be read by anyone concerned with these issues.
JOHN F ERRIS, University of Calgary
VOL . XXX, NO . 1 2004
Reviews/Comptes rendus
Restoration of the Great Lakes: Promises,
Practices, Performances
by Mark Sproule-Jones. Vancouver: UBC Press,
2002. Pp. 149.
The Great Lakes are an incredible resource, supporting a variety of economic activities for two nations.
They have provided means for transportation, fisheries, hydroelectric power, industrial uses and most
notably, waste dumping. Anthropogenic impacts
were observed in the nineteenth century with overharvesting of native fish species, but the most serious impacts resulted during twentieth-century
population growth and industrial activities. The public became aware of serious reductions in water quality and impaired uses around the Great Lakes when
Lake Erie was described as the “dead inland Sea.”
Initially, problems of cultural eutrophication were
apparent from nutrients in untreated sewage, but
soon attention was drawn to an array of man-made
toxic substances which are persistent and accumulate in wildlife. Following legislation and agreements on water quality by both Canadian and US
governments in the 1970s, along with substantial
monetary investments, improvements were made by
treating sewage and reducing phosphates in detergents. However, sites around the Great Lakes maintained severe degradations in water and habitat
quality from a variety of environmental stressors.
Intense monitoring and research activities resulted
in identifying 43 Areas of Concern (AOCs). By
1985, an ecosystem planning approach referred to
as Remedial Action Plans (RAP) evolved to identify specific problems and solutions for each of the
AOCs.
The thesis of this remarkable book is to evaluate
the success of the RAP as an institutional process
unlike other models for evaluating and managing
environmental problems at the ecosystem level.
Sproule-Jones aptly identifies RAPs as experiments
in collective choice. The situation in most AOCs is
complex with legislations from governments of two
133
nations, several states and up to two provinces. The
purpose of the RAP is a “promise” for restoring
beneficial uses in the AOCs through a collaboration
of identified local stakeholders who are resource
users, regulators, and any interested parties. This
complex intersection of public and private
stakeholders was to identify problems, recommend
solutions and develop implementation strategies
while taking into account required uses for the AOC.
As equal partners, local stakeholders were expected
to have incentives to restore beneficial uses to their
AOC. This approach differs from typical mechanisms of restoring areas subject to “tragedies of the
commons” through often ineffectual legislative
means such as limiting access.
Sproule-Jones begins by clearly identifying the
relevant background information needed to understand and assess the RAP process. The first chapter
offers an informative overview of the history of use
and abuse in the Great Lakes with some generalized discussion of the theory of environmental policy
and management of multiple-use, interdependent
resources that are common pools (common-property
resources).
Chapters 2 to 5 outline the information needed
to comprehend the RAPs. Major uses of the Great
Lakes are reviewed along with indicators of ecosystem degradation, followed by a summary of institutions governing the Great Lakes. This includes
chronological development of the major treaties
between Canada and the United States leading to
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreements and establishment of the AOCs as recognition of the need
for an ecosystem approach to environmental management in the Great Lakes Basin. There is a brief
review of regulations and regulatory bodies within
each nation. Sproule-Jones then provides a detailed
theory of rules for common pools usage and environmental management. The AOC s are identified
by small-scale common pools where some subset
of interdependent users have specific purposes.
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
VOL. XXX , NO. 1 2004
134 Reviews/Comptes rendus
The remaining chapters highlight the results and
analysis of the RAP, drawing upon four selected examples which vary with respect to jurisdictional
boundaries. Two of these examples share international boundaries and two are exclusively within
either Canada or the US, illustrating the many difficulties in multiple jurisdiction AOCs. Sproule-Jones
concludes that, with few exceptions, the RAP process has not been successful in fulfilling their purpose because of inappropriate institutional designs.
This book provides a thoughtful synthesis of the
RAP process and an interesting discussion about the
applied framework for decision-making, remediating,
and managing environmentally degraded areas. The
insights generated by this analysis should be of significant interest to many, including those involved
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
in RAPs or with environmental concerns, the environmental scientists, educators, policymakers, political scientists, and economists. The book is well
laid out and the clear presentation of ideas draws
the reader through Sproule-Jone’s interpretation of
the RAP process. The one shortcoming possibly is
that the discussion could benefit from some more
details about the actual process in the RAPs chosen
as highlighted examples. However, there is important information to be learned from this process, as
Sproule-Jones succinctly indicates, and it is hoped
that this will help guide management strategies to
more successful outcomes.
E LLEN B ENTZEN , Department of Biology, Trent
University
VOL . XXX, NO . 1 2004
Reviews/Comptes rendus
Regulating Eden: The Nature of Order in
North American Parks
by Joe Hermer. Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
2002.
To the best of my understanding, the central argument in Regulating Eden is that Canadian governments establish and regulate parks in order to divert
public attention away from the “toxification of the
environment” by large corporations.
I say “to the best of my understanding” because
this book is so heavily laden with esoteric jargon
and obscure allusions that it is highly unlikely that
those outside a narrow group of academic sociologists could make sense of it. What, for example, can
be made of the following sentence?
Emparkment is the product of textually mediated
expertise which stabilizes the ontological relationship between the production of material space
and the production of representational forms of
this space. (pp. 114-15, emphasis in original)
Because this book was published by the University of Toronto Press, I assume that there is an audience for whom this sentence, and the many others
like it in this book, has meaning. I am confident,
however, that most students of park policy will be
as baffled by the arguments in Regulating Eden as I
was. I cannot, therefore, recommend it to the interdisciplinary audience to which Canadian Public
Policy is directed.
That having been said, however, let me try to reproduce the fundamental argument as I understand
it. Hermer begins by noting that there is a fundamental conflict inherent in park policy. On the one
hand, voters appear to view parks as being preserves
of wilderness. On the other, however, they wish to
“consume” that wilderness by visiting the areas that
have been (in Hermer’s terminology) “emparked.”
But, of course, if visitors are given free access, parks
will no longer be “wild.”
135
Much of the book is spent discussing techniques
that park authorities employ to constrain access
while still offering visitors the perception that they
have had a wilderness experience. In Hermer’s view,
for example, signs (in his terms, “official grafitti”)
informing visitors of “dangers,” such as wild animals and steep slopes, are not intended to warn of
true risks, but are designed to provide visitors with
the (mis)perception that they are in a wilderness
area — much as the signs in a carnival haunted house
are placed specifically to create a false sense of danger. Trails are designed to offer the maximum variety
of experiences of nature while using the minimum
number of acres of space. And park buildings are
disguised to appear to be part of the natural environment, to obfuscate the fact that visitors are actually in a “constructed space.”
More importantly, Hermer appears to imply that
these policies are also intended to lead park visitors
to believe that the primary threats to the environment come from concrete “dangers” — such as river
bank erosion and pine beetle infestations — and not
from intangible “risks” — such as radioactivity, toxins, and pollutants. Furthermore, because visitors
to parks are shown that dangers are easily managed
by humans, they are left with the impression that
they need to have no concern for the environment,
that the government is handling these dangers
effectively.
If this is Hermer’s thesis, I have two fundamental criticisms. First, by area, most of Canada’s parks
are remote from urban development. Very few people
visit them. Hermer’s model does not appear to be
able to explain why the government would introduce these parks.
Second, my own experience suggests that most
Canadians are much more concerned with riskrelated environmental harms, such as air and water
pollution, than they are with “dangers” to threatened species or to erosion of geological formations.
Canadians say they want government to spend more
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
VOL. XXX , NO. 1 2004
136 Reviews/Comptes rendus
to protect wildlife, but where they insist that expenditures be made is on the preservation of clean,
healthy air and water. If I am correct in this, it appears that government policy toward parks, as
Hermer perceives it, has failed.
CHRISTOPHER BRUCE, Department of Economics, University of Calgary
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
VOL . XXX, NO . 1 2004