Implementación del modelo de la Nueva Gestión Pública (NGP) al contexto mexicano

The theory of global governance is also useful in this research because of the globalisation phenomenon. The dominance of global structures in policy making

35

comes with positive and negative spin-offs. The theory of globalisation is very crucial for this research as it problematises the ownership and control processes of policy making in a global context. In a digital converged environment, the role of states in making policies has been challenged. The section also takes into account the sovereignty of states in making policies and the influence of global factors. Various theoretical approaches of global governance theories are discussed in relation to the current research problem.

Global governance theory emerged during the end of the cold war when all the barriers to international trade and governance were eliminated (Hewson and Sinclair, 1999: 4). According to Ó Siochrú et al. (2002: 16), the importance of global governance was to enable mutual beneficial interaction and to avoid destructive warfare between countries. Therefore, international governance was created “to fulfil services that are of mutual benefit, such as setting standards or coordinating radio frequency use” (Ó Siochrú et al 2002: 21). There are objectives which can be better achieved through co-operations and agreement between more countries than an individual country. For example, the issue of interference in frequency between neighbouring countries was virtually impossible to solve without global governance.

There is a diminishing state power in policy making due to the fact that crucial policy decisions are now taken at a global arena. Today, the sovereignty of the small and marginalised states is threatened due to global power shift. Globalisation has weakened nation-state border in favour of one unified state or international regulatory body. Globalisation fosters the deep integration between states and the need for collective management (Steans, 2002:93). Therefore, the phenomenon of globalisation is seen as a hindrance to marginalised nation-state ability to make its own policies. While globalisation poses challenges to media policy-making, the sovereignty of nation-states cannot be underestimated. The sovereignty of nation- state is also evident even in the EU region where regional integration is very advanced. This makes the interplay between global, regional and domestic factors in policy making far more complex than one can imagine.

The United Nations which is at the centre of globalisation is surrounded by global conglomerates who seek to influence the direction of international public policy (Held

36

and McGrew, 2002:1). The ITU is one of the United Nations specialised agency created to deal exclusively with the communication and telecommunication programmes. The main objective of the ITU is “to provide a forum in which its members can cooperate for rational use of telecommunication” including the adoption of policies to deal with telecommunication issues in the global information economy and society (ITU, 2011). However, the US and its western counterparts are seen using the ITU and other UN institutions to advance their economic and political agendas.

In the 1980s, for instance, the US, Britain and Singapore threatened to abandon the

ITU if it refused to allow competition, privatisation and greater role for WTO in

communication and information services (Winseck, 2002: 20). As a result of these threats, the ITU bowed to the pressure by considering free trade in communications under the neoliberal principles as advocated by the WTO. According to Ó Siochrú et al. (2002: 56), the WTO is now considered the single most powerful players in the global governance of media and telecommunications. The attempts by the developing countries to push for New World Information and Communication Order were also thwarted because the west did not support such establishment.

The ITU and all UN partnering institutions are governed by neoliberal market policies. According to McChesney (2004: 7), neoliberalism refers “to the set of national and international policies that call for business domination of all social affairs with minimal countervailing force.” Neoliberal policies are therefore driven by the notion that the market is capable of delivering on society’s needs (Steans, 2002:95). However, the policies tend to turn a blind eye to the unequal distribution of resources and the citizens are no longer defined as citizens, but as consumers. Because of neoliberalism policies, media concentrations, commercialisation of the media, emergence of global media conglomerates and also the suppression of effective regulations are very common in the communications sector (Ó Siochrú, 2005:207).

Chakravartty and Sarikakis (2006:7) argue that the sovereignty of the nations is threatened by the transnational corporations which also undermine local democratic accountability. The extent to which global structures such as ITU and WTO dictates what happens on the national level threatens the social, political and cultural roles of

37

the media within their sovereign country (Ó Siochrú et al. 2002). In this kind of situation, the global companies which are mostly from the US are spreading their operations throughout the world like a wildfire (McChesney, 2004: 8). These global conglomerates define local citizens as consumers through demand and supply mechanism. Furthermore, global corporate media respect no culture or tradition if it stands in the way of profits (ibid: 15). Bagdikian cited in Baker (2006:54) also asserts that democracy would be much better was it not for the fact that 25,000 media outlets are controlled by 5 huge major conglomerates in the US. In this situation, better democracy would be attained if these 25,000 media outlets were controlled by rather diverse media owners who are autonomous (ibid).

Murdock (1995: 120) argues that “the communication industries are increasingly dominated by conglomerates with significant stakes in a range of major media markets giving them an unprecedented degree of potential control over the range and direction of cultural production.” Global conglomerates such as Time Warner and America Online are using their political power to determine the media order (Street, 2001: 124). These global corporations wield so much power to such an extent that they can make politicians look small in their presence. Furthermore, they attack regulations that threaten them and also give considerable amount of media space to politicians who support their ideology.