Liberal and Conservative federal governments engage in nation-building within official languages governance, seeking to align social and political norms with partisan principles. This article compares the Chrétien, Harper and Justin Trudeau governments’ instrumentalization of Canadian identity in the five action plans and roadmaps for official languages developed since 2003. These documents are comprehensive five-year outlines of the governments’ approach to official languages, interspersed with priorities, funding commitments and minister statements. This analysis is facilitated by a novel interpretive framework, drawing attention to the use of a national narrative, values and affect. Our analysis reveals the Chrétien government to have translated the Liberal, civics-based depiction of Canadian identity to suit an international focus. The Harper government portrayed Canadian identity as true to settler roots, rebuking the Liberal model. Finally, the Trudeau government established a pluralist Canadian narrative to justify Liberal civics as a means for protecting and promoting equity and diversity.

This article examines the intellectual and interventionist trajectory of American popular writer and commentator Robert Reich from his early 1980s advocacy of “industrial policy” to his time as US Secretary of Labor in the 1990s. It argues that Reich is an interesting figure to consider through the lens of “interventionist knowledges” because, although he draws selectively on social scientific data and knowledge, his syntheses of these things are more rooted in mythic thinking than in disciplined analysis. This article recounts the history of a failed bill, the Reemployment Act of 1994, to examine how Reich and those around him drew on and interpreted existing social scientific data to construct an idea of “the New Economy” and what, they claimed, it meant for national human capital policy. This article suggests that mythic visions of society and economy possibly play a large role in policy-making and issues advocacy.

Although the harm-reduction approach to policy is most familiar from debates over public health and drug abuse, it provides a perfectly general framework for thinking about normative aspects of policy in non-ideal contexts. This paper seeks to apply a generalized harm reduction approach to the problem of attitudinal racism. Psychological research suggests that racism is unlikely to be completely eradicated, as a result of which a zero-tolerance approach risks becoming both counterproductive and overly punitive. Harm reduction recommends minimization of prevalence with respect to the primary phenomenon combined with attenuation of impact for the ineliminable portion.

Low take-up of government services continues to challenge public investments in social services. Behaviorally informed interventions, so-called nudges, can overcome barriers that keep eligible individuals from accessing services. We report results from a pre-registered randomized controlled trial (RCT) to test email-based interventions to increase the take-up of publicly funded employment services in British Columbia, Canada. Our RCT design distinguishes between getting people ‘to-the-door’ (awareness and interest) and ‘through-the-door’ (enrollment). We find that emails with concise information that route individuals directly to online enrollment are most effective. The best-performing interventions more than doubled enrollment within 14 days, relative to a control group that received no communication. Using machine learning identify subgroups within the population who benefit most from our interventions. Yet despite these positive effects on take-up, we find that converting expressions of interest into enrollments remains a challenge. To increase take-up, policymakers must identify the nature of the challenge: getting people to-the-door or through-the-door. We also contribute to current debates about the quality of public service delivery.

This paper discusses the need for public policy limitation on two issues that the Nigerian Same-Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act (SSMPA) regulates. First, the paper argues that the blanket non-recognition of the benefit(s) of same-sex marriage may breach Nigeria’s conflict of laws norms in certain transnational contexts. Second, it finds the prohibition of registration of gay clubs and organizations under the SSMPA a violation of the right to freedom of expression and association which both the Nigerian Constitution and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights guarantee. The paper therefore recommends an approach that Nigerian courts might adopt in determining whether the conferral of a specific benefit of same-sex marriage conflicts with Nigerian public policy in light of recent jurisprudence.

States began passing legislation that bans transgender athletes from competing on teams that match their gender identity in 2020. Republican lawmakers largely introduced and supported athlete bans, but were party preferences the only predictor of support for these bills? What effect did legislator demographics or district-level attributes have on the likelihood that a state legislator would support or oppose an athlete ban? This study explores the voting preferences of individual state legislators in states that passed athlete bans from 2020 to 2023. Using an original dataset and multilevel modeling, this analysis looks beyond party affiliation to determine whether a relationship exists between support and less apparent indicators such as district ideology and composition, gender, race, and electoral success. While party identification is a significant predictor of support, legislators representing districts characterized by lower educational attainment and a high proportion of evangelical Protestants are more likely to support transgender athlete bans.

This article examines the effects of changes in 2018–19 to the Income Tax Act and Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) regulations that were ostensibly intended to facilitate public policy engagement by Canadian charities. The article examines a case study of charities in the international development sector through interviews with charity leaders and quantitative analysis of data from the Canada Revenue Agency, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying, and House of Commons Standing Committees. The article finds that the 2019 change in CRA regulations had very little effect on policy engagement by international development charities. Rather, a series of other factors continue to shape and constrain policy engagement by charities—including concerns about the future repoliticization of the CRA, misunderstandings of the regulations, difficulties fundraising for public policy work, fears of jeopardizing federal government funding, and a strategic preference for insider approaches to policy advocacy.

Welfarism is the idea that government should always try to make individuals’ lives go better, for them, than they otherwise would, overall. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate welfarism’s compatibility with, and potential to support, the ambitions of person-centred justice. Welfarism is a normative theory applicable to public policy generally, but one which has distinct consequences in the realm of law and legal systems. They are considered just to the extent that they generate the best possible expected welfare consequences for all of the individuals who are affected by them. Welfarism is radically person-centred because it requires lawmakers to treat each individual affected by their work as a distinct locus of value, including those who have been subordinated or ignored.

Politicians appear to overestimate how conservative public opinion is in the U.S. and other Western democracies. Whether this “conservative bias” extends to voters remains unclear but has important implications for belief formation and behavior. I examine this in the context of abortion access after the Dobbs decision. Despite the salience of the topic, original survey data collected post-Dobbs reveal consistent underestimation of public support for abortion access. Individuals identifying as “pro-life” drive most of this underestimation, suggesting the presence of egocentric biases in which “pro-life” Americans overestimate the commonality of their views. Conservative biases among voters may contribute to a skewed information environment for politicians, potentially providing leverage for further restrictions on abortion access.