• No results found

Sally Broughton Micova

4. e uropean w orks Q uoTas in Two small sTaTes

4.2 e nforcing QuoTas

Existing traditions are part of what make up the institutional core that EU policies confront at the national level. Regulatory practice can also be in-dicative of the priorities and values held within implementing institutions.

In the case of quotas, one key practice to look at is enforcement. Both Slo-venian and Macedonian laws include significant fines as potential penal-ties for non-compliance of EWQs and the domestic quotas. The Slovenian Agency for Post and Electronic Communications (APEK) monitored both radio and television compliance of domestic quotas, issuing several warn-ings in 2009 to radio stations for non-compliance of quotas for Slovene 7 Calculated from the Report on Shares of Slovenian and European Audiovisual Works for 2009 and in the Annual Report for 2009. Full reports can be found at:

http://www.apek.si/sl/delezi_lastne_produkcije_ter_delezi_slovenskih_in_evropskih_

avdiovizualnih_del &

http://www.apek.si/datoteke/File/Porocila/AnnualReport2009_final2.pdf.

8 The last two weeks of January were selected to avoid major events, such as elections or the Olympics or similar. The data were extracted from the audience measurement software of AGB/Nielson Macedonia.

75 sally BroughtoN micova / QuestioNiNgvulNeraBility

music (APEK, 2010: 68). In addition, they issued warnings to three televi-sion stations for non-compliance with domestic works quotas, and to two stations for non-compliance of EWQs (APEK, 2010: 64). Though APEK is not severe in punishing non-compliance, it monitors for both EWQs and domestic quotas. According to its 2009 Annual Report, the Broadcasting Council in Macedonia did not monitor EWQ compliance. They did moni-tor compliance of domestic quotas, and also issued warnings to several stations for non-compliance (Broadcasting Council of RM, 2010: 13-14).

This data only hints at possible trends in enforcement. Research that in-cludes interviews with individuals within the institutions may shed more light on the priorities or other factors behind the practice. Nevertheless, strict enforcement of the EU policy appears not to be a given in either case.

4.3 c

hangingopporTuniTies

One of the critiques of quotas listed above is that they may lower the ratings of television channels. Private television operates in a two-sided market in which it has to appeal to audiences in order to appeal to the advertisers from whom they draw income (Seabright and Weeds, 2007), and ratings are a key part of that relationship. Ratings can affect the finan-cial strength of the stations, as well as the power they have in their audi-ence appeal being influential in the political scene. If quotas, European or domestic, cause ratings to drop, this could undermine the position of domestic broadcast media, particularly in relation to telecommunications operators providing foreign content or even to the publishing industry.

In the case of Macedonia, the content analysis of programme schedules drawn from audience measurement software allowed for the comparison of quota compliant content to other content in terms of ratings. For the four weeks studied in 2008 and 2009, both the EWQ compliant content and the domestic content over the four stations had a very similar Aver-age Minute Rating (AMR) to all other non-news content. This means that in this case the EWQ and domestic quotas may not be damaging the over-all ratings of the private stations or negatively affecting their positions.

This preliminary exploration of the dynamics of the implementation of EWQs in two small states indicates that there is a complex story to be uncovered. Domestic quotas appear to be more of a priority both for broadcasters and regulators, albeit more so in Macedonia than in Slove-nia. Further research is needed to explore the decisions and values behind the compliance and enforcement practices at work in order to understand

76 media and communicaTion sTudies inTervenTions and inTersecTions

more fully the relationship between these aspects of the institutional core and the EWQ policy. At the same time, concerns that the EWQs may nega-tively impact one aspect of broadcasters’ positions within the domestic op-portunity structure can be questioned. Since market power is not the only indicator of power among national level stakeholders, further research should examine other avenues of influence over policy-making and policy implementation that exist in each context.

5. c

onclusion

The typology of small states media systems remains a useful analytical tool, and considering the recent expansions of the EU, it may be particu-larly relevant to understanding the situations in the Union’s newer mem-bers. However, the characteristic of vulnerability needs to be explored more thoroughly in order to grasp the potential variations of “protection-ism and intervention“protection-ism” (Puppis et al., 2009: 107) occurring at the national level. The foray into an investigation of EWQ implementation presented here shows that the way EU policy interacts with existing traditions and regulatory practices may complicate post-transposition implementation.

The conceptual tools of Europeanisation studies can be useful in further-ing research into the values, priorities and practices of national level in-stitutions affecting the extent to which these states are protectionist in the face of EU policy. These tools also provide an agenda for more investiga-tion into the dynamics between EU policy and power relainvestiga-tions among domestic stakeholders, important to a more nuanced understanding of the potential vulnerability of small states.

r

eferences

APEK (2010) Post and Electronic Communications Agency of the Republic of Slo-venia. Annual Report 2009. Ljubljana: Post and Electronic Communi-cations Agency of the Republic of Slovenia. Downloaded from http://www.apek.si/datoteke/File/Porocila/AnnualReport2009_

final2.pdf.

Anderson, C. L. (1992) ‘Canadian Content Laws and Programming Di-versity’, Canadian Public Policy / Analyse de Politiques, 18(2): 166-175.

Anderson, C. L., Swimmer, G., Suen, W. (1997) ‘An Empirical Analysis of Viewer Demand for U.S. Programming and the Effect of Canadian Broadcasting Regulations’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Manage-ment, 16(4): 525-540.

77 sally BroughtoN micova / QuestioNiNgvulNeraBility

Baehr, P. (1975) ‘Small States: A tool for analysis’, World Politics, 27(3):

456-466.

Bekkali, M. (2006) The Economics of Protection of Cultural Goods. Iowa State University, Ames.

Broadcasting Council of Republic of Macedonia. (2010) ИЗВЕШТАЈ за работата на Советот за радиодифузија на РМ за периодот од 01.01.2009 до 31.12.2009 година (Annual Report). Skopje: Broadcast-ing Council of Republic of Macedonia.

Burgelman, J.-C., Pauwels, C. (1992) ‘Audiovisual policy and cultural identity in small European states: the challenges of a unified mar-ket’, Media, culture & society, 14: 169-183.

Christmas-Moeller, W. (1983) ‘Some Thoughts on the Scientific Applica-bility of the Small State Concept: A Research History and a Discus-sion’, pp. 35-53 in O. Höll (Ed.) Small states in Europe and dependence.

Vienna: Braumuller.

Chryssochoou, D. N. (2001) Theorizing European integration. London: Sage.

CEC (1989) Council of European Communities. DIRECTIVE 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities.

CEC (2007) Council of European Communities. DIRECTIVE 2007/65/EC Audiovisual Media Services Directive. Brussels: Official Journal of the European Communities.

Dolmans, M. (1995) ‘Quotas without content: the questionable legality of European content quotas under the Television Without Frontiers Directive’, Entertainment Law Review, 6(8): 329-333.

Duina, F. G. (1999) Harmonizing Europe: Nation-states within the Common Market. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.

Falkner, G., Leiber, S. (2004) ‘Europeanization of social partnership in smaller European democracies?’, European journal of industrial rela-tions, 10(3): 245-266.

Falkner, G., Treib, O., Hartlapp, M., Lieber, S. (2005) Complying with Eu-rope: EU harmonisation and soft law in the member states. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Green Cowles, M., Caporaso, J. A., Risse-Kappen, T. (2001) Transforming Europe: Europeanization and domestic change. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

Hall, P., Taylor, R.C. (1996) ‘Political Science and the Three New Institu-tionalisms’, Political Studies, XLIV: 936-957.

Harcourt, A. (2003) ‘Media markets and regulation in accession states’, Central European political science review, 4(11): 15-34.

78 media and communicaTion sTudies inTervenTions and inTersecTions

Harcourt, A. (2005) The European Union and the regulation of media markets.

Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Harrison, J., Woods, L. (2001) ‘Defining European Public Service Broad-casting’, European journal of communication, 16(4): 477-504.

Harrison, J., Woods, L. (2007) European broadcasting law and policy. Cam-bridge: New York: Cambridge University Press.

Haverland, M. (2000) ‘National adaptation to European integration: the importance of institutional veto points’, Journal of public policy, 20(1):

83-103.

Hitchens, L. (2006) Broadcasting Pluralism and Diversity. Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.

Iosifidis, P., Steemers, J., Wheeler, M. (2005) European Television Industries.

London: British Film Institute.

Knill, C., Lenchow, A. (2001) ‘Adjusting to EU Environmental Policy:

Change and Persistence of Domestic Administrations’, pp. 116-136 in M. Green Cowles, J. Caporaso and T. Risse (Eds.) Transforming Europe: Europeanization and Domestic Change. Ithaca and London:

Cornell University Press.

Knill, C. (2001) The Europeanisation of national administrations: patterns of institutional change and persistence. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Knill, C. (1997) Implementing European policies: the impact of national admin-istrative traditions. Florence: European University Institute.

Levy, D. A. (1999) Europe’s digital revolution: broadcasting regulation, the EU and the Nation State. London: Routledge.

Luetgert, B., Dannwolf, T. (2009) ‘Mixing methods: a nested analysis of EU member state transposition patterns’, European Union politics, 10(3):

307-334.

McGonagle, T. (2008) ‘The quota quandary: an assessment of Articles 4-6 of the Television without Frontiers Directive’, pp. 187-212 in D.

Ward (Ed.) The European Union and the culture industries: regulation and the public interest. Aldershot; Burlington VT: Ashgate.

Meier, W., Trappel, J. (1991) ‘Small States in the Shadow of Giants’, pp 129-142 in K. Siune and T. Wolfgang (Eds.) Dynamics of media poli-tics: broadcast and electronic media in Western Europe. London: Sage Publications.

Motto, M., Polo, M., Rey, P., Roller, L.-H. (1997) ‘Concentration and Pub-lic PoPub-licies in the Broadcasting Industry: The Future of Television’, Economic policy, 12(25): 295-334.

Puppis, M. (2009) ‘Introduction: Media Regulation in Small States’, Inter-national communication gazette, 71(1-2): 7-17.

79 sally BroughtoN micova / QuestioNiNgvulNeraBility

Puppis, M., d’Haenens, L., Steinmaurer, T., Kaenzler, M. (2009) ‘The Euro-pean and global dimension: taking small media systems research to the next level’, International communication gazette, 71(1-2): 105-112.

Radaelli, C. (2003) ‘The Europeanization of Public Policy’, pp. 27-56 in K.

Featherstone and C. Radaelli (Eds.) The Politics of Europeanization.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Republic of Macedonia (2005) Закон за Радиодифузната Дејност (The Law on Broadcasting Activity). Downloaded from

http://srd.org.mk/images/stories/legislativa/zakon_za_radiodi-fuzija_english.pdf.

Republic of Slovenia (2007) The Mass Media Act (Zakon o medijih). Down-loaded from http://www.rtvslo.si/files/razno/mass_media_act.

pdf.

Risse, T., Green Cowles, M., Caporaso, J. (2001) ‘Europeanization and Do-mestic Change: Introduction’, pp. 1-20 in M. Green Cowles, J. Ca-poraso and T. Risse (Eds.) Transforming Europe: Europeanization and Domestic Change. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

Schimmelfennig, F., Rittberger, B. (2006) ‘Theories of European Integra-tion: Assumptions and Hypotheses’, pp. 73-96 in J. J. Richardson (Ed.) European Union: Power and Policy-making. Abingdon: Rout-ledge.

Toshkov, D. (2008) ‘Embracing European law: compliance with EU direc-tives in Central and Eastern Europe’, European Union politics, 9(3):

379-402.

Trappel, J. (1991) ‘Born Losers or Flexible Adjustment? The media policy dilemma of small states’, European journal of communication, 6: 355-Ward, D. (2003) ‘State aid or band aid? An evaluation of the European 371.

Commission’s approach to public service broadcasting’, Media, cul-ture & society, 25: 233-250.

Ward, D. (2008) ‘The European Commission’s State Aid Regime and Pub-lic Service Broadcasting’, pp. 59-80 in D. Ward (Ed.) The European Union and the culture industries: regulation and the public interest. Al-dershot, Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

The task of interpretation. Converging