2.1 Comparative Policy Design and Case Selection Rationale
This study employs a structured, comparative case design to examine how subnational institutional architectures mediate carbon pricing durability and industrial competitiveness across Canadian provinces. Alberta and Ontario serve as critical, highly contrasting cases within a shared federal framework. Alberta represents a resource-intensive economy with long-standing, facility-level performance standards and output-based allocations designed to mitigate carbon leakage while maintaining industrial continuity. Conversely, Ontario exemplifies a diversified manufacturing economy that transitioned from an economy-wide cap-and-trade mechanism linked with international partners to an emissions performance system following electoral volatility. By contextualising both provinces against the Pan-Canadian carbon pricing benchmark, this methodological approach isolates how regulatory stringency and equivalency criteria interact with divergent political economies (Sawyer & Stiebert, 2018). Furthermore, evaluating these distinct trajectories enables an operational comparison between explicit carbon taxation, baseline-and-credit architectures, and emissions trading systems (Introduction to Carbon Pricing, 2024). Integrating institutional durability metrics with competitiveness criteria permits systematic process tracing of how stakeholder coalitions, revenue recycling designs, and policy feedback mechanisms either entrench or destabilise market instruments over successive political cycles (Jenkins, 2019). Consequently, this comparative framework controls for national constitutional parameters while assessing subnational resilience across distinct industrial profiles.