www.helsinki.fi/yliopisto

Changes in the Regulatory Framework of Media and Communications: Four Explanatory Strategies and Six Researcher Profiles

Hannu NieminenUniversity of HelsinkiMoscow ReadingsNovember 14–15, 2013

19.04.23Valtiotieteellinen tiedekunta / Henkilön nimi / Esityksen nimi 1

Structure

• Based on ideas for forthcoming a book on media and communication policy

• Structure:1.Background2.Four explanatory strategies3.Six researcher profiles

1. Background • Since the 1980s, major changes in public policy in the

1980/90s in all West European countries : – Before the 1980s and 1990s: most public utilities (electricity,

water supply, transportation, telecoms, electronic media) were public monopolies

– Traditional regulatory model: govermental control (”control and command” type of regulation); promotion of Public Interest

– In the 1980s: introduction of policies of de- and re-regulation, privatisation, outsourcing

– New regulatory model: promotion of competition; emphasis on self and co-regulation; introduction of independent regulatory authorities (IRA)

Explaining the changes: why? • Basic rationale for regulation: Public Interest

– Traditonally public interest is defined as a balance between two main set of values: 1) citizens’ democratic, social and cultural needs and 2) economic-commercial interests

– In democratic societies, the balance has been based on the priority of the former value set (democratic values)

• A tension within the research community: – Widely shared consensus about a shift in European

media and communication policy from the 1980s onward: a change from democratic, social and cultural values towards the primacy of economic-commercial interests

– Different explanations on the reasons why this has happened

2. Four explanatory strategies

• Why the change? 1) Structure: a change in societal & cultural

functions of the media2) Ideas: ideological and political neo-liberalism 3) Technology: digitalisation, media convergence4) Politics: political conjuncture, non-rational

decision making

1) Structure• A change in the role and function of the media

(historical explanation) – Earlier: the media were central in the national identity

formation – they cherished a social and cultural mission• Media economy was subordinated to democratic aims

– Today: because of globalisation and transnationalisation, the national mission is only a part of the media’s role

• For the most of media, economic function is now primary – democratic function is subordinated to the economy

– From a democratic viewpoint, this leads to two possible cosequences:

• Either people receive their information and critical knowledge somewhere else than the media, or

• We are experiencing a loss in democratic citizenship

2) Ideas• Ideological and political neo-liberalism (ideas matter:

changes are explained by political will)– Earlier: the (electronic) media were public monopolies as

they were seen as public goods (social liberalism, social democracy)

• The regulatory goal: to promote equal access and availability for all

– Today: ’Old’ statist regulatory principles suffocated private innovations and competitiveness; the era of centralised, government-led regulation is over

• Media still need regulation but it must be based on the primacy of promoting global competition and efficiency – other societal values will follow (’tricle down’ theory of market regulation)

• Main aim: European single market for media and communication – to compete globally

3) Technology

• Technological change: digitalisation, media convergence (technological determinism)– Earlier: the different branches of the media (the print,

electronic, telephony, recorded media) had different regulatory solutions

• Distinct industries, institutions, legislation, uses– Today: because of technological advancement and digital

convergence, we need a new ’hybrid’ regulatory framework

• As all mediated communication will be in digital form, it should be treated eqally – despite the platform

• Regulation should be based on technological neutrality – all content-based regulation should be minimized

4) Politics• The result of political contingency: a ’window of

opportunity’ (explanation by non-rational decision making)– Earlier: regulatory frameworks resulted from a certain

historical political conjuncture• ’Window of opportunity’ opened up for certain negotiated

compromises• E.g. the birth of radio broadcasting in different national settings:

many different solutions – Today, conditions have changed and favour different kinds

of compromises• Basically: no pre-determination but an accidental choice from a

reservoire of potential solutions • New players in the field: new industries; EU; global companies

* * *•Question: is any of these explanations better than the others?•Are there more explanations?

An attempt for synthesis

• No single explanation satisfactory as such – but all include explanatory potential:– Historical-structuralist view: all EU/developed countries

facing the same regulatory problems at the same time– Neo-liberalism: all EU/developed countries are

experiencing the effects of neoliberal policy– Technology: digitalisation of communication has rendered

the old sector-based regulatory system invalid– Contingency: despite all common features, media policy &

regulation in EU countries varies much – different solutions, different practices

3. Six researcher profiles• Normativity in the studies of media policy and

regulation:– A common assumption of regulation serving democracy

(Public Interest, common good)– A common assumption of the primacy of democratic

values over economic interests (concern of fragmentation and commercialisation)

• But: – Differences in conceptualising democracy and the role of

media serving democracy – Differences in where to strike the balance between

democratic and economic interests• A normative problem:

– How to assess the changes – de-regulation, commercialisation, digitalisation, convergence?

• Six possible roles for a media scholar:1) Democratic nostalgia: a wish to revive the ’welfare

statism’ and social responsibility of the 1960s-1970s2) Radical fascination: ICT (the internet, social media)

seen as opening up totally new democratic modalities3) Foucaldian distance: power is everywhere – our task

is just to explore and disclose its different phenotypes4) Critical advocacy: activism for media reform in

grassroot and expert movements 5) Reformist expertism: scholars as a policy consultants

for governmental agencies,regulators, parliaments 6) Academic objectivity: looking for facts, trying to find

theoretical explanations without further commitment– Other potential roles?

• How to navigate between the roles? – Acknowledging the differences but also the

affinities between the roles– Critical & conscious self-positioning in the

research field– Maintaining individual integrity and political

judgement– Doing your own thing!

• Many thanks!• Comments and questions are most welcome!• hannu.nieminen@helsinki.fi