Policy Change and the Politics of Ideas: The Emergence of the Canada/Quebec Pension Plans (Viewpoint Essay‪)‬

IN RECENT YEARS, A GROWING NUMBER of scholars have put forward theoretical frameworks aimed at explaining policy change in advanced industrial societies (e.g., Campbell 2004; Hacker 2004; Thelen 2004). A major aspect of this debate on the sources of policy change is the claim that ideas can directly impact key policy decisions (Blyth 2002; Campbell 2004; Cox 2001; Lieberman 2002; Schmidt 2002). Using the example of the emergence of the Canada and the Quebec Pension Plans (C/QPP), this article shows how paying systematic attention to ideas can enrich the study of policy change without necessarily downplaying the potential role of other factors like political institutions and electoral competition. Adopted in 1965, the C/QPP provide earnings-related pensions to workers aged 65 and older. With a replacement rate of only 25 percent, the C/QPP are modest public pension programs that leave much room for private savings and occupational pensions (e.g., Beland and Myles 2005; Boychuk and Banting 2008; Myles 1988a). The aim of this article is to shed new light on the creation of the C/QPP by answering two closely related questions: in the mid-1960s, why did the federal government decide to create an earnings-related public pension system on the top of the existing flat-rate pension (Old Age Security [OAS])? Second, and more specifically, why did that system feature a higher than initially proposed replacement rate and a separate scheme for the province of Quebec? In order to answer these questions, the article proposes an analysis of the debates leading to the enactment of the C/QPP. Taking into account the interaction between federalism, electoral competition, and changing social policy ideas at both the federal and the provincial levels, this systematic analysis stresses the direct impact of ideas on policy change as well as the electoral and institutional conditions under which new policy ideas are more likely to shape concrete political decisions. Overall, the article suggests that, in order to explain policy change better, researchers should pay closer attention to policy ideas and to the electoral and institutional conditions under which new ideas can shape such decisions.