Sandcastles of hope? Civil society organizations and the working conditions of migrant farmworkers in North America

This research explores whether civil society organizations (CSOs) can contribute to more effectively regulating the working conditions of temporary migrant farmworkers in North America. This dissertation unfolds in five parts. The first part of the dissertation sets out the background context. The context includes the political economy of agriculture and temporary migrant labour more broadly. It also includes the political economy of the legal regulations that govern immigration and work relations. The second part of the research builds an analytical model for studying the operation of CSOs active in working with the migrant farmworker population. The purpose of the analytical framework is to make sense of real-world examples by providing categories for analysis and a means to get at the channels of influence that CSOs utilize to achieve their aims. To this end, the model incorporates the insights from three significant bodies of literature—regulatory studies, labour studies, and economic sociology. The third part of the dissertation suggests some key strategic issues that CSOs should consider when intervening to assist migrant farmworkers, and also proposes a series of hypotheses about how CSOs can participate in the regulatory process. The fourth part probes and extends these hypotheses by empirically investigating the operation of three CSOs that are currently active in assisting migrant farm workers in North America: the Agricultural Workers Alliance (Canada), Global Workers’ Justice Alliance (USA), and the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (USA). The fifth and final part draws together lessons from the empirical work and concluded that CSOs can fill gaps left by the waning power of actors, such as trade unions and labour inspectorates, as well as act in ways that these traditional actors can not.

A Framework for Citizen-Centred Social Statistics and Analysis (Working Paper 48)

Economic policy-making has long been more integrated than social policy-making in part because the statistics and much of the analysis that supports economic policy are based on a common conceptual framework – the system of national accounts. People interested in economic analysis and economic policy share a common language of communication, one that includes both concepts and numbers. This paper examines early attempts to develop a system of social statistics that would mirror the system of national accounts, particular the work on the development of social accounts that took place mainly in the 60s and 70s. It explores the reasons why these early initiatives failed but argues that the preconditions now exist to develop a new conceptual framework to support integrated social statistics – and hence a more coherent, effective social policy. Optimism is warranted for two reasons. First, we can make use of the radical transformation that has taken place in information technology both in processing data and in providing wide access to the knowledge that can flow from the data. Second, the conditions exist to begin to shift away from the straight jacket of government-centric social statistics, with its implicit assumption that governments must be the primary actors in finding solutions to social problems. By supporting the decision-making of all the players (particularly individual citizens) who affect social trends and outcomes, we can start to move beyond the sterile, ideological discussions that have dominated much social discourse in the past and begin to build social systems and structures that evolve, almost automatically, based on empirical evidence of ‘what works best for whom’. The paper describes a Canadian approach to developing a framework, or common language, to support the evolution of an integrated, citizen-centric system of social statistics and social analysis. This language supports the traditional social policy that we have today; nothing is lost. However, it also supports a quite different social policy world, one where individual citizens and families (not governments) are seen as the central players – a more empirically-driven world that we have referred to as the ‘enabling society’.

Reform and Redesign: A Review of the Changing Role of the Public Purposes in R&D and Technology Institutes (Working Paper 17)

As the globalization of knowledge has taken hold over the past decade, and as governments around the world review their new roles in support of the production of knowledge, several factors have shaped the context in governments’ approach to public research. Arguably, none has been more affected by these pressures for reform than government scientific and technology laboratories or institutes. Often ignored in the re-shaping of national systems of innovation, these organizations play an important role in advancing national economic and social objectives. This paper, by reviewing examples of reforms underway in several countries, including Canada, France, Germany, the UK, Japan, USA and Latin America, will argue that government research and technology institutes — often historically surrogates for industrial research — are gradually re-defining their mandates to meet the new pressures of globalization as well as satisfying growing public demands for increased relevance and efficiency in responding to citizens’ and industry needs.

See you in Geneva? Democracy, the Rule of Law and the WTO (Working Paper 16)

This paper is a constructivist attempt to understand a global political space where states as actors (the traditional domain of international relations theory and international law) are joined by international organizations, firms, NGOs, and others. Today we know that many supposedly private or international orders (meaning sources of order other than the central institutions of the territorial state) are engaged in the regulation of large domains of collective life in a world where the sources of power are multiple, sovereignties are overlapping, and anarchy is meaningless. The paper begins with an attempt, discussed in the first section, to sort out what the rule of law might mean in the context of the WTO, where we soon see that it can only be understood by also considering the meaning of Administrative Law. Much of the debate about rule of law depends on positivist and centralist theories of “law,” whose inadequacy for my purposes leads, in the second section, to a discussion of legal pluralism and implicit law in legal theory. These approaches offer an alternative theoretical framework that respects the role of the state while not seeing it as the only source of normativity. The third section looks directly at WTO law and dispute settlement. I tr y to show that the sources and interpretations of law in the WTO and the trading system cannot be reduced to the Dispute Settlement Body. I conclude in the fourth section with some suggestions on how a WTO rule of law could be understood as democratic.

Sustaining a Relationship : Insights from Canada on Linking the Government and Third Sector (Working Paper 1)

The embedding of third sector organisations in the policy world is fraught with tensions. Accountability and autonomy become oppositional forces causing an uneasy relationship. Government agencies are concerned that their equity and efficiency goals and objectives be met when they enter partnerships with the third sector for the delivery of programs and services. Third sector agencies question the impact of accountability mechanisms on their independence and identities. Even if the relationship between government and third sector agencies seems to be based on cooperation, concerns about cooptation (for nonprofits) and capturing (for governments) may linger calling the legitimacy of the partnership into question. Two means of improving the relationship between the governing and third sectors have been proposed recently in Canada by the Panel on Accountability and Governance in the Voluntary Sector (PAGVS) and the Joint Tables sponsored by the Voluntary Sector Task Force (VSTF). The two endeavours represent a historic undertaking in Canada aimed at improving and facilitating the relationship between the federal government and the nonprofit sector. The reports borrow on other country models but offer new insights into mediating the relationship, including new models for a regulatory body and a charity compact for Canada. Do these recommendations adequately address concerns of autonomy, accountability and cooptation or capturing? The Canadian reports do offer new insights into resolving the four tensions inherent in partnerships between the governing and third sector but also raise important questions about the nature of these relationships and the evolution of democracy within the Canadian political system.