Suchergebnisse

AbstractIn 2020, a new platform‐regulatory model was initiated in the United Kingdom. The main focus of this article is on the development of the Digital Regulators Cooperation Forum (DRCF), set up to regulate the continually changing challenges posed by major platforms. The British model has drawn on UK competition regulation, collegial governance of international banking, and international 'agile' regulation debates. The backdrop to this 'neo‐regulatory' development has been Brexit (the UK's withdrawal from the European Union). In late 2021, for the first time, the DRCF became a serious focus of parliamentary scrutiny, with recommendations for reform. Assessment of its effectiveness now largely awaits the enactment of statutory powers by the UK Parliament regarding first, 'online harms', and second, the use of pro‐competitive regulation in digital markets. Whether the DRCF's model will have exemplary appeal beyond the United Kingdom is an open question.

In 2020, a new platform-regulatory model was initiated in the United Kingdom. The main focus of this article is on the development of the Digital Regulators Cooperation Forum (DRCF), set up to regulate the continually changing challenges posed by major platforms. The British model has drawn on UK competition regulation, collegial governance of international banking, and international 'agile' regulation debates. The backdrop to this 'neo-regulatory' development has been Brexit (the UK's withdrawal from the European Union). In late 2021, for the first time, the DRCF became a serious focus of parliamentary scrutiny, with recommendations for reform. Assessment of its effectiveness now largely awaits the enactment of statutory powers by the UK Parliament regarding first, 'online harms', and second, the use of pro-competitive regulation in digital markets. Whether the DRCF's model will have exemplary appeal beyond the United Kingdom is an open question.

The idea of a public sphere has long been central to discussion of political communication. Its present condition is the topic of this essay. Debate about the public sphere has been shaped by the boundary-policing of competing political systems and ideologies. Current discussion reflects the accelerating transition from the mass media era to the ramifying entrenchment of the Internet age. It has also been influenced by the vogue for analysing populism. The present transitional phase, whose outcome remains unclear, is best described as an unstable "post-public sphere". This instability is not unusual as, over time, conceptions of the public sphere's underpinnings and scope have continually shifted. Latterly, states' responses to the development of the Internet have given rise to a new shift of focus, a "regulatory turn". This is likely to influence the future shape of the public sphere.

The idea of a public sphere has long been central to discussion of political communication. Its present condition is the topic of this essay. Debate about the public sphere has been shaped by the boundary-policing of competing political systems and ideologies. Current discussion reflects the accelerating transition from the mass media era to the ramifying entrenchment of the Internet age. It has also been influenced by the vogue for analysing populism. The present transitional phase, whose outcome remains unclear, is best described as an unstable 'post-public sphere'. This instability is not unusual as, over time, conceptions of the public sphere's underpinnings and scope have continually shifted. Latterly, states' responses to the development of the Internet have given rise to a new shift of focus, a 'regulatory turn'. This is likely to influence the future shape of the public sphere.

The idea of a public sphere has long been central to discussion of political communication. Its present condition is the topic of this essay. Debate about the public sphere has been shaped by the boundary-policing of competing political systems and ideologies. Current discussion reflects the accelerating transition from the mass media era to the ramifying entrenchment of the internet age. It has also been influenced by the vogue for analysing populism. The present transitional phase, whose outcome remains unclear, is best described as an unstable 'post-public sphere'. This instability is not unusual as, over time, conceptions of the public sphere's underpinnings and scope have continually shifted. Latterly, states' responses to the development of the internet have given rise to a new shift of focus, a 'regulatory turn'. This is likely to influence the future shape of the public sphere.

Cet article se penche, dans une première partie, sur les controverses contemporaines relatives à la politique de l'expertise, au périmètre et à la légitimité des prétentions concurrentes à détenir le savoir. Deuxièmement, il s'appuie sur les recherches récentes de l'auteur à propos de « l'économie créative » pour montrer comment, dans le cadre de l'intérêt national, les pratiques d'experts au sein de l'État britannique et d'autres organismes publics en sont venues à orienter et façonner durablement les politiques culturelles. Troisièmement, à partir de l'expérience de l'auteur comme expert culturel désigné, cet article analyse l'évolution du régime de la recherche au Royaume-Uni, la réévaluation de l'expertise qu'elle a engendrée et ses conséquences pour l'autonomie des chercheurs.

Cet article se penche, dans une première partie, sur les controverses contemporaines relatives à la politique de l'expertise, au périmètre et à la légitimité des prétentions concurrentes à détenir le savoir. Deuxièmement, il s'appuie sur les recherches récentes de l'auteur à propos de « l'économie créative » pour montrer comment, dans le cadre de l'intérêt national, les pratiques d'experts au sein de l'État britannique et d'autres organismes publics en sont venues à orienter et façonner durablement les politiques culturelles. Troisièmement, à partir de l'expérience de l'auteur comme expert culturel désigné, cet article analyse l'évolution du régime de la recherche au Royaume-Uni, la réévaluation de l'expertise qu'elle a engendrée et ses conséquences pour l'autonomie des chercheurs.

This essay offers some personal reflections regarding the impact of devolution on the author's research and public-facing activities. It begins with a discussion of research into the new post-devolution political system established at the Scottish Parliament and continues with an account of the author's subsequent involvement in a little-known communications audit in of that institution that took place in 2001. The essay concludes with brief remarks on a further use of academic expertise in representing the Scottish interest in media and communications regulation.

Introduction [Extract] There is now a substantial academic literature that addresses the creative economy. While most of this consists either of advocacy or the application of a set of increasingly orthodox ideas, there is also a growing critical response.[1] This literature is now available in several languages – although English dominates overwhelmingly – which testifies to the globalisation of the ideas in question. Flew has identified a number of policy variants in recent discussion of the Creative Industries.[2] Alongside what has emerged in the European Union (EU), distinctive approaches have also been taken in East Asia, China and Australasia. As there are comprehensive reviews of this literature, it would be otiose to repeat thorough work already done by others.[3] I shall restrict myself to a brief overall comment on the present state of play before considering my case in point, the EU, which illustrates my central contention – that when the creative economy frames the argument this shapes how we might think about the value of culture. [This article appears as a chapter in: Abbe E.L. Brown and Charlotte Waelde (eds), Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Creative Industries, Cheltenham UK, Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018, pp.11-25.] [1] See, for instance, E Bustamante (ed.), Industrias creativas: amenazas sobre la cultura digital (Gedisa Editorial 2011); P Bouquillion, B Miège and P Moeglin, L'industrialisation des biens symboliques: les industries créatives en regard des industries culturelles (Presses Universitaires de Grenoble 2013); G Lovink and N Rossiter, MyCreativity Reader: A Critique of Creative Industries (Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures 2007); G Raunig, G Ray and U Wuggenig (eds), Critique of Creativity: Precarity, Subjectivity and Resistance in the Creative Industries (MayFlyBooks 2011); MP Reich, Kultur- und Kreativwirtschaft in Deutschland: Hype oder Zukunfstchance der Stadtentwicklung? (Springer 2013); M Vötsch and R Weiskopf, 'Thank you for your ...

Introduction [Extract] There is now a substantial academic literature that addresses the creative economy. While most of this consists either of advocacy or the application of a set of increasingly orthodox ideas, there is also a growing critical response.[1] This literature is now available in several languages – although English dominates overwhelmingly – which testifies to the globalisation of the ideas in question. Flew has identified a number of policy variants in recent discussion of the Creative Industries.[2] Alongside what has emerged in the European Union (EU), distinctive approaches have also been taken in East Asia, China and Australasia. As there are comprehensive reviews of this literature, it would be otiose to repeat thorough work already done by others.[3] I shall restrict myself to a brief overall comment on the present state of play before considering my case in point, the EU, which illustrates my central contention – that when the creative economy frames the argument this shapes how we might think about the value of culture. [This article appears as a chapter in: Abbe E.L. Brown and Charlotte Waelde (eds), Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Creative Industries, Cheltenham UK, Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018, pp.11-25.] [1] See, for instance, E Bustamante (ed.), Industrias creativas: amenazas sobre la cultura digital (Gedisa Editorial 2011); P Bouquillion, B Miège and P Moeglin, L'industrialisation des biens symboliques: les industries créatives en regard des industries culturelles (Presses Universitaires de Grenoble 2013); G Lovink and N Rossiter, MyCreativity Reader: A Critique of Creative Industries (Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures 2007); G Raunig, G Ray and U Wuggenig (eds), Critique of Creativity: Precarity, Subjectivity and Resistance in the Creative Industries (MayFlyBooks 2011); MP Reich, Kultur- und Kreativwirtschaft in Deutschland: Hype oder Zukunfstchance der Stadtentwicklung? (Springer 2013); M Vötsch and R Weiskopf, 'Thank you for your ...

This essay considers how policy thinking about culture has been steadily transformed into an overwhelmingly economic subject matter whose central trope is the "creative economy". The development of current ideas and their background are discussed. Policy ideas first fully developed in the UK have had a global resonance: the illustrative examples of the European Union and the United Nations are discussed. The embedding of creative economy thinking in British cultural institutions such as the BBC and cultural support bodies is illustrated. The impact of current orthodoxy on academic institutions and research is also considered. Countervailing trends are weak. New thinking is now required.