1,721,226 research outputs found
L'acquisizione della prova tra limiti territoriali e cooperazione tra autorità straniere
No full textDivieto di testimonianza indiretta degli ufficiali e degli agenti di p.g.: il punto di vista della difesa
No full text
Conclusions
No full textA point of departure of the book was the recognition of the incontestable complex nature of the EU political system due to its multi- level organization and to its polycentric governance structure. In this context, it’s argued, public communication serves as a “transmission belt” for information, meanings and values among the various publics.
Communication performs a crucial legitimating function among EU publics at a twofold level: systemic and organizational. Through public communication, in fact, the EU could reach different types of public, collect information about their concerns, inform them about its policies and processes, and justify its actions. But in order to be really effective, public communication requires also the EU to have in place a management approach that allows to choose and to adapt messages to each public and to transmit them using the more appropriate channel.
In this perspective, the well-known EU “communicative deficit” could be intended both as a systemic and organizational deficit. The EU has, in fact, been along blamed for having not provided to citizens sufficient and clear information on policies allowing their political participation. But it has been also criticized for having not managed those activities in a coherent and integrated way.
Authors in the book portrayed a partially different picture. If we look at the communication strategy elaborated across the years by the EU and the Commission, what clearly emerges is that the EU has developed a quite differentiated communication approach, targeting different publics — individual citizens, journalists, civil society organizations, experts, etc. — and adopting different tools.
EU institutions and, particularly, the Commission, have until now approached communication in a pragmatic way, as a mean to improve policy effectiveness or, at least, as an instrument of propaganda in times of crises. This approach has changed when it has become evident that output legitimacy cannot support by itself EU democratization and that citizens have to voice their needs and opinions. But a sort of “dirigiste” approach to public communication still persists. Problems of co-ordination and integration, in fact, have arisen since the Commission has centralised its communication activities in spite of the recent calls for de-centralisation. The Commission should solve several questions, partially connected each other, in order to implement effectively its public communication strategy: how to ameliorate its relations with national media and their news management logic; how to effectively empower the local level within the communicative process; how to assure the whole effective co-ordination of activities especially at the inter-institutional level; how to move from the widely recognised elitist approach toward a more participatory one; how to strengthen the role of EU policy communication in the process of democratisation and legitimation of the EU.
The EU communication strategy has become the central focus ofseveral studies in the field of media studies, political science, and political philosophy. The complex and still evolving nature of the EU calls scholars for experiencing new theoretical and empirical paths. The book
has had the ambitious to demonstrate how important the adoption of a multi-disciplinary approach is in order to better grasp the evolution of the EU public communication
Introduction
No full textThe launch of the Convention on the Future of Europe in 2002 and the signature of the Constitutional Treaty in Rome in 2004 had a profound symbolic impact on European supporters’ imaginations. The hope for a new direction in the process of integration was palpable as it opened up new perspectives for the creation of a real democratic, united, supranational polity that would replace the present economic and political Union.
But the failure of the ratification of the Constitution after the negative referenda in France and the Netherlands in 2005 dramatically dashed all those expectations, paving the way for the “period of reflection” about the future European Union (EU), its institutions, activities, and perspectives.
Thus the President of the Commission, José Barroso, and Vice- President Wallström have launched a communication plan to improve the public understanding of EU and its activities and to strengthen a common sense of belonging between citizens.
The importance assumed by the information and communication policy among the EU institutions and the interest risen around the European Commission’s initiatives to improve the dialogue with citizens have stimulated a wide academic debate on the EU, its democratic legitimacy and its communicative efforts.
The greater part of the scientific literature developed on EU communication is focused on the concept of “public sphere”, which is generally referred to as the place where the public opinion takes form through the discussion of problems, political issues and decisions and where the political power is placed under scrutiny.
The book, instead, analyses the EU communication activities against the backdrop of the theory of input and output legitimacy elaborated by Scharpf (1999). This approach will help us in investigating all the different dimensions of the institutional communication process. It would also offer an alternative normative model against which assessing the relationship between communication and democratic legitimacy in the EU.
Especially for the EU, communication is a particularly important strategic resource that covers different dimensions of communicating towards, with and by different publics, such as journalists, citizens, civil society organisations, companies, civil servants, Member States’ governments, etc. For EU institutions, the number of potential and active publics is extremely large due to its multi-level nature that encompasses different institutional settings (supranational, national, and local) and different types of actors involved in the policy-making (governments, administrations, experts, civil society organisations, associations, etc). Knowing how the EU communicates with its different publics can help to better grasp to what extent the EU is still suffering from a legitimacy deficit, and how communication could help in solving this problem
- …
