| This thesis examines the evolution of Canadian unemployment insurance policy in the context of Cabinet's overall fiscal and social priorities. We suggest that the basically nine phase pattern in the evolution of state social welfare effort since 1919 can be understood as the result of the strategies of the party-in-government (Cabinet) seeking to maintain itself in office in the context of socio-economic change and one-party dominance.;Three sets of propositions were tested: (1) Party strategy as formulated by senior Cabinet ministers (including the prime minister) determines the major parameters of social policy (timing, size of budget, scope, administrative machinery, etc.). In some cases, Cabinet control over social policy is exercised directly, in others through reliance on a particular element of the bureaucracy. The influence of a particular element of the bureaucracy on social policy is dependent on the extent to which it holds the confidence of Cabinet. (2) Political factors (electoral competition, extent and distribution of support, left wing pressure, etc.) have the greatest influence on party strategy, although economic and social considerations are also relevant. In essence, this means that the impact of socio-economic change is transmitted more through political variables than directly. (3) The responsiveness of cabinet to public demands for increased social security is greatest when the party is politically threatened. However, the Liberal party, following the logic of oligopolistic competition has, in non-competitive periods, attempted to reduce or ignore public expectations regarding social reform.;These empirical propositions were tested and confirmed through an examination of Cabinet and bureaucratic decision-making with respect to unemployment insurance for the period 1919 to 1978. A number of theoretical implications were drawn regarding: (1) the relative importance of economic versus political variables; (2) the analysis of bureaucratic power; (3) the significance of dynamic models which can illustrate the cumulative inter-dependence of events; (4) the significance of the logic of party competition in determining policy outcomes; and (5) the requirement for a clear delineation of the political domain from the economic and social, as well as a recognition of their interdependencies. |
