Cabinet decision-making in provincial governments: Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbi

The subject of this investigation is cabinet decision-making in the provincial governments of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia. Specifically, it attempts to examine the forces that underlie the initiation and persistence of cabinet institutionalization in the post-war period.;The post-war period has witnessed the replacement of the unaided (or traditional) cabinet by the institutionalized (or structured) cabinet. In other words, unstructured and relatively uncoordinated central executives have given way to those which are more structured, more collegial and more prone to emphasize planning and coordination. There is not one basic form of institutionalized cabinet, but they all share one characteristic: the premier's role grows from that of mere personnel choice to that of organizational architect with regard to the structure and decision-making processes of cabinet.;The factors promoting initial cabinet institutionalization in the three provinces were a mixture of ideology, pragmatism and historical precedent unique to each province. T. C. Douglas in Saskatchewan was influenced by left-wing ideology from which subsidiary considerations flowed. In Manitoba, Duff Roblin and Walter Weir were subject to a unique blend of ideology, pragmatism and management factors. In British Columbia, W. R. Bennett began with right-wing ideological premises; the path to institutionalization was made easier by the fact that developments under his two predecessors had foreshadowed it.;There were both endogenous factors (those growing from within government) and exogenous factors (those acting from without) which affected the persistence of institutionalized cabinets. They were common to more than one province but their relative weight differed between premiers. Endogenous factors included the premier's quest for influence, the unsatisfactory aspects of the unaided cabinet, emulation of predecessors, cabinet's quest both for political control and for financial control, the urge to decongest decision-making, ideology, and the momentum of past reforms. Exogenous factors included the impact of other governments, "semaphore" (or symbolic messages to concerned publics), social science rationalism and facilitation of interest group input.;Not surprisingly, the institutionalization of provincial Cabinets has had major effects on political actors and functions in the three provinces studied. Cabinet structure has both changed, and been changed by, power relations within Cabinet. Full Cabinet appears to have been over-shadowed as a decision-making centre. It is apparent that central agencies and central departments do not always yield similar political effects. Lastly, planning and budgeting have grown in both complexity and complementarity.