Page 199 - Critical Political Economy of the Media

178 Critical investigations in political economy

If policy matters to CPE because of outcomes, analysts have also been con-
cerned to examine how policy-making processes influence those outcomes. In
liberal democratic systems, policy-making is legitimised by its relative openness
to the widest range of interested parties and their ability to inform decisions and
influence outcomes. For CPE scholars, policy is political action marked by con-
flict. Policy-making is a process in which different political positions fight for
‘material advantages … and for ideological legitimation’ whereby certain ideas
are normalised and others problematised (Freedman 2008: 3).
Defining the terms of debate within media policy has been central to the
contest for power to implement and legitimate change. Recognising this, critical
scholars have given greater attention to discursive power and ordering. They
have also given particular attention to the way power is ordered within policy
networks and their links to broader social formations, sometimes adopting a neo-
Gramscian perspective. Analytically this draws attention to the ways in which the
policy process is ordered, and the structured inequality of access and influence
that tends to be downplayed in liberal-pluralist accounts. Liberal pluralism relies
on claims that media policy-making is open to and influenced by a range of
interests within society none of which are systematically dominant – if not some
other account (such as elite domination) must be invoked. Yet, CPE accounts
have been rightly criticised for adopting limited, mechanistic, instrumentalist or
conspiracy theories, and so more synthesising perspectives are required.

Neoliberalism in communications policies

Neoliberalism (see chapter three) has been the dominant (ideological) force in
media policy since the 1980s in most advanced economies although it has also
been contested, resulting in more mixed, diverse and less predictable policy
outcomes. It has also been rejected in various ‘post-neoliberal’ systems, such as
the left/populist democracies in South America (Bolivia, Venezuela, Argentina,
Ecuador). For media, neoliberals have espoused the dismantling of public subsidies
and market interventions, such as public service media, and advocated relaxation
of regulations on media ownership and content as barriers to a functioning
market. The guiding principles of neoliberalism are the substitution of market
mechanisms for statist interventions. This has certainly provided ideological
support for processes of marketisation that have shifted media resources and
controls from public to private. Yet a key focus for CPE analysts has been to
challenge the ideological framing of neoliberalism in order to highlight contra-
dictions, anomalies and the highly selective manner in which state intervention is
repudiated. One focus, already examined, concerns selectivity towards market
competition. Since policy influences, and sometimes determines, the conditions
for market entry and exit, this is one source of contradiction when firms
espousing liberalisation of regulation also seek to uphold incumbency rights and
regulatory barriers to competitors. US scholars have challenged the premise that
the state should not be involved in free enterprise by highlighting the extent to