Page 77 - Communication Cultural and Media Studies The Key Concepts

DEREGULATION

reduction or rejection by government of existing policies that impose
rules (in the form of regulation) on both private industry (e.g. media
corporations) and public organisations (the BBC, for example).
Deregulation was the political buzzword of the Reagan–Thatcher
era in the 1980s, when wealthy New Right foundations commissioned
economists to produce studies hostile to regulatory activity and
‘targeted the media to be conquered, second only to direct political
power itself’ (Tunstall, 1986: 12). Since then it has developed into a
much more general policy direction for governments of all
persuasions.
In the US, deregulation of the communications industry was
justified by technological convergence. As technological barriers
between distinct industries began to dissolve, companies were
encouraged to diversify their markets in order to increase efficiency
and innovation. This in part required a relaxation of antitrust laws
(regulation designed to prevent monopolies). It was assumed that
competition, rather than regulation, was an appropriate means to
overcome market bottlenecks.
Although competition can result in positive market outcomes,
effectively introducing it can be problematic. Deregulation has been
criticised for encouraging mergers and acquisitions throughout the
communications industry, squeezing out smaller players and causing a
reduction in diversity and choice. Competition through deregulation
has also, in some instances, led to the abandonment of community
obligations and public interest requirements for the benefit of industry
(see Caporaso and Levine, 1992).
Recent thinking on effective policy-making seeks to overcome the
intellectual stalemate of the pro-market (deregulation) vs pro-public
(regulation) positions by looking to responsive policy processes that
seek cooperation between government regulation, industry self-
regulation and community mobilisation. Known as ‘New Progressi-
vism’, or ‘the Third Way’, the intention of these approaches is to foster
wealth creation and innovation through the provision of education,
healthcare reform and urban regeneration (Giddens, 2000).
As Tunstall has argued, deregulation does not remove an industry
from politics or political attention. To deregulate is to release an
industry from bureaucratic control, making it subject to commercial
interests and the attention of political lobbying. When there are fewer
rules, the significance of the rules that remain becomes greater. But,
‘the abolition of some rules also makes the surviving rules seem more
ambiguous and more vulnerable to alteration or abolition’ (Tunstall,
1986: 6).

62