Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T08:00:37.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Who Regulates Phones, Television, and the Internet? What Makes a Communications Regulator Independent and Why It Matters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 November 2008

Irene Wu
Irene Wu
Affiliation:
School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University E-mail: irene_wu@post.harvard.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

More political scientists should engage in the debates surrounding regulation of communications networks, the infrastructure on which telecom, media, and Internet services ride. In 1990 there were 14 communications regulators worldwide, by 2007 there were 148. To fulfill World Trade Organization Agreement on Basic Telecommunications commitments, many countries aim to create regulatory agencies that are “independent.” What characterizes independence? Regulators are embedded in a political context that includes three main constituencies : other government institutions, industry, and consumers. Independent regulators are able to take action autonomously from other government institutions and industry while serving as advocates for consumers. In a survey of 18 countries, several traits emerge; a leader who cannot be dismissed arbitrarily, regulatory authority clearly distinct from policymaking, independent funding, minimal staff exchange between regulator and regulated firm, and dedicated support for consumers. It is usually easier for a regulator to be independent if operators are privatized. In a study of 4 countries, independent regulators follow decision-making procedures that give the public notice about proposed rule changes, opportunities to provide comments, and final decisions with explanation. Also, independent regulators have gift, conflict of interest, and post-employment rules, which set ethical standards and expectations for staff.

Type
Perspectives
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , December 2008 , pp. 769 - 783
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Canada, Government of. N.d. “Conflict of Interest and Post Employment, Appendix A, Part II.” Available at http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/archives/hrpubs/TB_851/CIP1-1E.asp#iGoogle Scholar
Chang, Ha-Joon. 1993. The political economy of industrial policy in Korea. Cambridge Journal of Economics 17: 131–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowhey, Peter, and McCubbins, Mathew, eds. 1995. Structure and Policy in Japan and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Doyle, Chris, and McShane, Paul. 2003. On the design and implementation of the GSM auction in Nigeria—the world's first ascending clock spectrum auction. Telecommunications Policy 27: 383–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, Geoff, and Waverman, Leonard. 2006. The effects of public ownership and regulatory independence on regulatory outcomes: a study of interconnect rates in EU telecommunications. Journal of Regulatory Economics 29 (1): 23–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hong Kong, China. N.d. Civil Service Branch Circular No. 17/92.Google Scholar
Hong Kong, China. Office of the Telecommunications Authority (OFTA). 2001. Review of the telecommunications authority's statements No. 4, 5, 6, 7 (revised) and 8 on interconnection and related competition issues. 11 September. Accessed from http://www.ofta.gov.hk in 2002.Google Scholar
International Telecommunications Union. 2007. “Chairperson's Report for the Global Symposium of Regulators,” http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/treg/Events/Seminars/GSR/GSR07/agenda-documents.html.Google Scholar
International Telecommunications Union. 2004. Trends in Telecommunications Reform 2004/2005. Geneva.Google Scholar
International Telecommunications Union. 2006. Trends in Telecommunications Reform 2006. Geneva.Google Scholar
International Telecommunications Union. 2007. Trends in Telecommunications Reform. 2007. Geneva.Google Scholar
Jordana, Jacint, and Levi-Faur, David. 2006. Toward a Latin American regulatory state? The diffusion of autonomous regulatory agencies across countries and sectors. International Journal of Public Administration 29: 335–66.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, Daniel, and Kray, Aart. 2002. Growth without governance. Washington, DC: World Bank Working Paper No. 2928, November 19.Google Scholar
Levi-Faur, David. 2003. “Herding towards a New Convention: On Herds, Shepherds, and Lost Sheep in the Liberalization of the Telecommunications and Electricity Industries.” Presented at The Internationalization of Regulatory Reform, Berkeley, CA, April 26–27.Google Scholar
Levy, Brian, and Spiller, Pablo. 1994. The institutional foundations of regulatory commitment: a comparative analysis of telecommunication regulation. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 10 (2): 201–46.Google Scholar
Majone, Gianfranco. 1996. Regulating Europe. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mariscal, Judith, and Rivera, Eugenio. 2005. New trends in Latin American telecommunications market: Telefonica and Telmex. Telecommunications Policy 29: 757–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melody, William. 1997. On the meaning and importance of “independence” in telecom reform. Telecommunications Policy 21 (3): 195–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Min, Won-ki. May 26, 2000. “Telecommunications regulations: Institutional structures and relationships.” Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Working Party on Telecommunication and Information Services Policies.Google Scholar
North, Douglass. 1978. Structure and performance: the task of economic history. Journal of Economic Literature 16 (3): 963–78.Google Scholar
Stern, Jon, and Holder, Stuart. 1999. Regulatory governance: Criteria for assessing the performance of regulatory systems: an application to infrastructure industries in the developing countries of Asia. Utilities Policy 8: 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarjanne, Pekka. 1999. Preparing for the next revolution in telecommunications: Implementing the WTO agreement. Telecommunications Policy 23: 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, Michael, and Benarcyzk, Susan. 1993. Regulatory institutions and processes in telecommunications: An international study of alternatives. Telecommunications Policy 17 (9): 650–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Kingdom. N.d. Civil Service Management Code, 4.1.3.Google Scholar
United Kingdom. Office of Telecommunications (Oftel). 2002. Protecting Consumers by Promoting Competition: Oftel's Conclusions. June 20. Accessed from http://www.oftel.gov.uk in 2002.Google Scholar
Ure, John. 2000. The era of international simple resale: Not waving, but drowning? Telecommunications Policy 24: 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, Irene. June 2004. “Traits of an Independent Communications Regulator: A Search for Indicators.” International Bureau Working Paper Series, No. 1. Federal Communications Commission. http://www.fcc.gov/ib/working_papers/Google Scholar
Wu, Irene, and Hsu, Cathleen. August 2002. Decision-making procedures and ethics rules. Available at http://www.fcc.gov/globaloutreach.Google Scholar
Yan, Xu, and Pitt, Douglas. 1999. One country, two systems: Contrasting approaches to telecommunications deregulation in Hong Kong and China. Telecommunications Policy 23: 245–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar