Selbst- und Ko-Regulierung im Mediamatiksektor

Institutional variety in communications regulation. Classification scheme and empirical evidence from Austria

“…In recent decades, this traditional common pattern has been eroded, leading to a different role for the state, which inter alia includes less formalised means of regulation and the increasing involvement of private actors in regulatory processes (self-and co-regulation). This raises the question of whether the declarations of intent This section presents selected findings of the empirical analysis of the regulatory structure of the Austrian mediamatics sector (Latzer et al, 2002). 19 It is important to stress that this article deals with processes and instruments within a given institution (e.g., rule-making, ex-ante/ ex-post enforcement) but ignores interactions between different institutions.…”

“…8 See, inter alia, White paper on European governance (COM (2001)) and subsequent communications, especially COM (2002). For the reasons of this increased reliance on and advantages of alternative forms of regulation see Latzer et al (2003), Latzer, Just, Saurwein, and Slominski (2002). 9 See, for instance, Suhr (1998), Nordenstreng (1999) for the press; Boddewyn (1985Boddewyn ( , 1988 transformation of a functionally understood statehood (e.g.…”

Regulatory Choice for Alternative Modes of Regulation: How Context Matters

“…The relationships between the state and private institutions, the hybrid regulatory constellations involving public and private actors, and the role of law and the involvement of government in alternative regulatory arrangements are therefore highlighted frequently in the literature (Engel 2004; Black 2001, 1996; Ogus 2001; Baldwin and Cave 1999; Gunningham and Sinclair 1999; Doyle 1997; Cane 1987; Michael 1995). For instance, many analytical classifications suggest analysis of alternative regulatory arrangements according to varying modes and degree of state involvement (Bartle and Vass 2007; Latzer, Just, Saurwein, and Slominski 2006, 2002; Gunningham and Rees 1997). Alternative modes of regulation are replacing or supplementing traditional forms of governmental regulation.…”

“…Recently, the application of self‐ and co‐regulation in the communications sector has been extended to areas such as telephony, Internet‐based services, and digital television. In the Internet sector in particular, an increasing variety of regulatory goals are being pursued by means of self‐ and co‐regulation, ranging from consumer protection to the promotion of effective competition, Internet domain names administration, and the protection of minors (Latzer, Just, Saurwein, and Slominski 2002). 2 The communications sector (electronic media, telecommunications, Internet, print) serves as an illustrative example of the analysis of transformation processes because it displays many of the trends that are observable in institutional governance arrangement in general.…”

“…The role of government in alternative regulatory arrangements is therefore highlighted in many analytical classifications that suggest analysis of regulatory arrangements according to varying modes and degree of state involvement. Latzer, Just, Saurwein, and Slominski (2002), for instance, distinguish “state regulation” from “co‐regulation” carried out by private actors that operate on an explicit unilateral legal basis (most notably by an act), which explicitly delegates regulatory powers from government to nongovernmental actors (43). Co‐regulation may be distinguished from two forms of self‐regulation.…”