Workshop Proposal Outline form for prospective Workshop Directors for the ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops

Transcription

1 Workshop Proposal Outline form for prospective Workshop Directors for the ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops Please complete this form, providing the requested additional information in order to support your Joint Sessions Workshop Proposal. Further information can be found on the new How to Propose a Workshop and Information for Workshop Directors pages of the ECPR website. Title of proposed Workshop: Public Communication in International Politics: Analyzing Capacities, Strategies, and Impact The importance of public communication has a long history in Political Science and in International Relations but in somewhat quite different circumstances. While scholars of Comparative Politics and Political Sociology have widely addressed how domestic elites aim to communicate their policies to the public (and how this public responds to it), IR researchers have focused by and large on how state leaders, non-governmental actors as well as international organizations interact with each other and how such actions might (or might not) have an influence on international regulation. However, both strands of research seem to increasingly realize and explore a common interest in the role of public communication of a plurality of governmental and non-governmental actors that seek public resonance for their definition Outline of topic: of problems and preferences. This common interest can be attributed to a number of trends and linkages of the domestic and international arenas. First, due to the international shocks like environmental disasters, the increase of transnational terrorist movements, and international financial crises which have repeatedly appeared since the end of the 20 th century, domestic publics i.e., the recipients have become more aware of international interdependencies and the increasing interconnectedness of levels of decision making in global governance (Rosenau 1995). In addition, international organizations such as the United Nations or the European Union which have for long been considered to be publically accepted in the form of a permissive consensus, are now becoming more and more objects of political contestation and demands (O Brian et al. 2001; Zürn et al. 2012). As a result, public opinion toward foreign policy and IR issues became increasingly important for the evaluation of and, accordingly, the decision-

2 making of domestic governments over past decades (De Vries/Hobolt 2012, Arnold/Franklin 2012). Second, and in close connection, the number and range of actors who seek to influence public opinion has enormously increased. Governments are no longer considered to be the only voices heard regarding issues of international relations, but non-governmental actors such as Amnesty, Oxfam or Doctors without Borders and especially international organizations (IOs), such as the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank or international courts, have been shown to be powerful agenda setters and credible testimonials for public and elite opinion (e.g. Chapman 2009, Grieco et al. 2011, Ecker-Ehrhardt 2012a). Hence, domestic governments as well as NGOs, interest groups and IOs are now deemed important actors in public debates on and as parts of international politics. Consequently, we see an increasing output of studies about how different actors build communication capacities, choose strategies to communicate and affect the way public debates and opinions evolve. However, we note a considerable gap in communication between studies of different intellectual origins although they share a common interest in public communication in international politics. This workshop seeks to address this lacuna by assembling researchers interested in the public communication of international politics by international organizations, domestic governments, NGOs, classical interest groups or media organizations. It wants to shed light on related bundle of big questions : - How do international organizations communicate their policies to the public? How successful are they in shaping public and elite opinion across the world? - How do governmental actors and other domestic elites react to shock events in IR in order to secure or gain domestic support? How successful are they in doing so? And under which conditions are they successful or not? - How do NGOs and interest groups seek support for their position toward international policies such as the TTIP or the fight against Islamic Terror? How successful are they in shaping public and elite opinion across the world? - How and to what extent do the different communication strategies by different actors collide or coincide? Under which conditions does one strategy win over another one?

3 The workshop seeks to (re)connect current debates in IR, political communication and sociology that all share an interest in the role of strategic communication in international politics and its impact on how relevant publics think and (inter)act. Relevant strands can be clustered, first, by types of communicators (governments, parties, new social movements, NGOs, etc.) and, second, by objects of concerns (global issues, foreign policy decisions, IOs etc.). According to the first logic, relevant research has first of all highlighted the importance of on domestic governments communication strategies of gaining approval for their foreign policy decisions (e.g., Thussu 2013). Following a more transnational perspective, a legion of studies has already focused on how movements have had in enormous impact on public understanding of international politics by protesting against multiple inequalities as well as global institutions and the virtue of classical protest strategies in the public realm (e.g. della Porta 2007) as well as connective action in social networks (e.g. Bennett/Segerberg 2013). In addition, research has considered civil society organizations (CSOs) impact on Relation to existing research: international politics by focussing on transnational advocacy campaigns and how they affect public as well as political agendas (e.g. Hahn/Holzscheiter 2013, Simons 2014). Furthermore, relevant in this regard are also those contributions that have focused on domestic party politics, showing how parties give citizens important cues for how to understand the complexities of globalisation (e.g. Díez Medrano/Braun 2009) and its management by IOs (e.g. Kriesi et al., 2008, Ecker-Ehrhardt 2014a). Lastly, IOs role as active agents in the public realms has only recently become a major concern of research that claims a remarkable trend of IOs to go public by intensifying public communication activities. For example, some studies have argued the campaigning activities of the WHO (Servaes 2007), UNESCO (Defourny 2007), or the Worldbank (Nay 2014) are effective in teaching knowledge, norms as well as awareness for important issues such as children s rights or sustainable development. Also, recent research demonstrates that international organizations are themselves becoming more and more involved into diplomatic international interactions as actors rather than being merely the objects of these interactions (e.g. Adler-Nissen 2014, Babbit 2012). Other authors have recently started to research communication strategies of IOs as deliberate acts of self-legitimation (Biegoń 2013, Zaum 2013). According to this reading, increasing levels of

4 politicization of IOs my cause or facilitate organizational crisis and lead IOs to enhanced capacities strategic communication in order to manage public contestation of IOs procedures and decisions (Meyer 2009). Aiming at political influence in and on international politics, all these varieties of strategic communication are at the core of what has been termed global governance (Rosenau 1995) and soft power (Nye 2004). Its impact has most often been discussed with a focus on public discourse and how strategic interventions of actors have been successful in terms of publicity and resonance. However, a second broader strand of relevant research has tried to gauge the impact of strategic communication on the formation of individual attitudes on international politics. For one, several authors have recently started out to analyze the effects of IOs and other outsiders as neutral instances providing credible opinions to which citizens can turn to if they do not trust their domestic elites (Grieco et al. 2011, Linos 2011, Johns/Davies 2014). This has been connected to a more traditional research focusing on factors influencing public support for governmental foreign policies including the question of going to war or not (e.g., Davies/Johns 2013, Perla 2011, Tomz 2007). For another, the research on public attitudes toward international organizations such as the EU or the UN and toward international ideas such as free trade has vastly increased over the last ten years (for only some of the most recent examples, see Dellmuth / Tallberg 2014, 2013, Ecker- Ehrhardt 2012b, 2014b, Kaltenthaler/Miller 2013, Boomgarden et al. 2011). Yet, while some of this research has turned to the effects of elite communication on citizens attitudes (De Vries / Edwards 2009, Steenbergen et al. 2007), more recent research indicates that previous findings on the substantial influence of trust in domestic elites is to be interpreted as an interpolation of trust and not as citizens taking cues from elite positions (Harteveld et al. 2013), pointing once more to the question whether elite communication actually influences citizens attitudes. Finally, and somewhat connected to this strand of research, studies of crisis communication behavior have analyzed the communication strategies of domestic elites, especially regarding the blaming of external actors for domestic economic or welfare hardships (on general models of blaming in crisis, see Schultz/Raupp 2010, Boin et al. 2009). Such research has intensified in Europe due to the devastating domestic effects of the internationally rooted financial crisis and due to the intervention of international actors in domestic settings (Wagner 2014, Vasilopoulou et al.

5 2014, Fernandez-Albertos et al. 2013). In addition, recent research on crisis communication has also turned to international organizations as actors defining crises per se (Simons 2014). Likely participants: Likely participants range from PhD candidates in later stages of their PhD research to senior researchers of all career statuses. Examples for paper topics include research on the internal and external communication strategies of international financial institutions, on the rhetorical strategies of regional organizations such as ASEAN and its effect on Type of Papers required: governmental actions, and on the framing and counter-framing strategies of European domestic elites to secure or challenge public support for further European integration. Regardless of the specific topic, we are interested mainly in empirical research which confronts one of topics included in the workshops bundle of big questions by using a quantitative and/or qualitative design, without per se excluding theoretical research Funding: The Workshop organizers are aiming to secure additional funding within the frameworks of their research projects (see biographical notes). Bernd Schlipphak is a Professor (Juniorprofessor) for Quantitative Methods at the Department of Political Science, University of Münster, and Principal Investigator of the research project: Foreign States and International Organizations in Arab Public Perception, funded by the German Research Foundation as part of the Cluster of Excellence Religion and Politics. His current research focuses, first, on the effects of international relations (and Biographical notes: of its public perceptions) on domestic attitudes and, second, on the measurement of legitimacy of international organizations. Recent publications of Bernd include Measuring Attitudes Toward Regional Organizations Outside Europe. Review of International Organizations (published online first) and Actions and Attitudes Matter: International Public Opinion Towards the European Union. European Union Politics (2013).

6 Matthias Ecker-Ehrhardt, Dr. Phil., is a researcher at the Center for Transnational Relations, Foreign and Security Policy at Freie Universität Berlin and Principal Investigator of the research project: The Communicated IO: Public Relations, Civil Society Inclusion and Global Politicization of International Organizations which is funded by the German Research Foundation (EC 323/2-1). His current research focuses on the politicization and legitimacy of international organizations, i.e. how they are perceived, evaluated and recognized by societal actors such as ordinary citizens, nongovernmental organizations and political parties. Recent publications of Matthias include Why do Citizens want the UN to decide? Cosmopolitan Ideas, Particularism and Global Authority. International Review of Political Science (2014), Why Parties Politicize International Governance: On Globalization Backlash and Authority Contestation. Review of International Political Economy (2014), But the UN Said So : International Organizations as Discursive Authorities. Global Society (2012), and Cosmopolitan Politicization? Relating Public Perceptions of Interdependence and Expectations in Internationalized Governance. European Journal of International Relations (2012). Adler-Nissen, R. (2014). Symbolic power in European diplomacy: the struggle between national foreign services and the EU's External Action Service. Review of International Studies 40:4, Arnold, C. and Franklin, M.N. (2012). Introduction: Issue Congruence and Political Responsiveness. West European Politics 35:6, Babbitt, E. F. (2012). Preventive Diplomacy by Intergovernmental Organizations: Learning from Practice. International Negotiation 17:3, References: Bennett, L. and Segerberg, A. 2013: The Logic of Connective Action: Digital Media and the Personalization of Contentious Politics. Cambridge. Boin, A., Hart, P., and McConnell, A. (2009). Crisis exploitation: political and policy impacts of framing contests. Journal of European Public Policy 16:1, Boomgarden, H.G., Schuck, A.R.T., Elenbaas, M. and De Vreese, C.H. (2011). Mapping EU Attitudes: Conceptual and empirical dimensions of Euroscepticism and EU support. European Union Politics 12:2, Chapman, T.L. (2009). Audience Beliefs and International Organization

7 Legitimacy. International Organization 63:3, Davies, G.A. and Johns, R. (2013). Audience Costs among the British Public: The Impact of Escalation, Crisis Type, and Prime Ministerial Rhetoric. International Studies Quarterly 57:4, De Vries, C.E. and Edwards, E.E. (2009). Taking Europe to Its Extremes. Extremist Parties and Public Euroscepticism. Party Politics 15:1, De Vries, C.E. and Hobolt, S.B. (2012). When dimensions collide: The electoral success of issue entrepreneurs. European Union Politics 12:2, Defourny, V. (2003). Public Information in the UNESCO: Towards a strategic role. In: K. Sriramesh/D. Vercic (Eds.): The Global Public Relations Handbook. Theory, Research, and Practice. Mahwah, della Porta, D. (2007). The Global Justice Movement: Cross-national and Transnational Perspectives. Boulder. Dellmuth, L. and Tallberg, J. (2014). The Social Legitimacy of International Organizations. Review of International Studies (published online first). Díez Medrano, J. and Braun, M. (2012) Uninformed citizens and support for free trade. Review of International Political Economy, 19(3): Ecker-Ehrhardt, M. (2012a). "But the UN Said So...": International Organizations as Discursive Authorities. Global Society 26: 4, Ecker-Ehrhardt, M. (2012b). Cosmopolitan Politicization? Relating Public Perceptions of Interdependence and Expectations in Internationalized Governance. European Journal of International Relations 18: 3, Ecker-Ehrhardt, M. (2014a). Why Parties Politicize International Governance: On Globalization Backlash and Authority Contestation. Review of International Political Economy 21:6, Ecker-Ehrhardt, M. (2014b): Why do Citizens Want the UN to Decide? Cosmopolitan Ideas, Particularism and Global Authority. International Political Science Review. Published online before print; DOI: / Fernández-Albertos, J., Kuo, A., and Balcells, L. (2013). Economic Crisis, Globalization, and Partisan Bias: Evidence from Spain. International Studies Quarterly 57:4, Grieco, J.M., Gelpi, C., Reifler, J., and Feaver, P.D. (2011). Let s Get a Second Opinion: International Institutions and American Public Support for War. International Studies Quarterly 55: 2, Biegoń, D. (2013). Specifying the Arena of Possibilities: Post-Structuralist Narrative Analysis and the European Commission s Legitimation

8 Strategies. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 51: 2, Harteveld, E.; Meer, T. v. d.; and de Vries, C. E. (2013). In Europe We Trust? Exploring Three Logics of Trust in the European Union. European Union Politics 14:4, Hahn, K. and Holzscheiter, A. (2013). The Ambivalence of Advocacy: Representation and Contestation in Global NGO Advocacy for Child Workers and Sex Workers. Global Society 27: 4, Johns, R. and Davies, G. (2014). Coalitions of the Willing? International Backing and British Public Support for Military Action. Journal of Peace Research 51:6, Kaltenthaler, K. and Miller, W.M. (2013). Social Psychology and Public Support for Trade Liberalization. International Studies Quarterly 57:4, Kriesi, H. et al. (2008) West European Politics in the Age of Globalization. Cambridge. Linos, K. (2011). Diffusion through Democracy. American Journal of Political Science 55:3, Meyer, C.O. (2009). Does European Union politics become mediatized? The case of the European Commission. Journal of European Public Policy 16: 7, Nay, O. (2014). International Organisations and the Production of Hegemonic Knowledge: How the World Bank and the OECD helped invent the Fragile State Concept. Third World Quarterly 35:2, Nye, Jr., J.S. (2004) Soft Power. The Means to Success in World Politics. New York. O'Brian, R., Goetz, A.-M., Scholte, J.A., and Williams, M. (2000). Contesting Global Governance: Multilateral Institutions and Global Social Movements. Cambridge. Perla, H. Jr. (2011). Explaining Public Support for the Use of Military Force. International Organization 65:1, Rosenau, J. N. (1995). Governance in the Twenty-First Century, Global Governance 1: 1, Schlipphak, B. (2013). Actions and Attitudes Matter: International Public Opinion Towards the European Union. European Union Politics 14:4, Schultz, F. and Raupp, J. (2010). The Social Construction of Crisis in Governmental and Corporate Communications. Public Relations Review 36:2, Servaes, J. (2007). Harnessing the UN System Into a Common Approach On

9 Communication for Development. International Communication Gazette 69: 6, Simons, G. (2014). The International Crisis Group and the manufacturing and communicating of crises. Third World Quarterly, 35(4), Steenbergen, M.R., Edwards, E.E., and De Vries, C.E. (2007). Who s Cueing Whom? Mass-Elite Linkages and the Future of European Integration. European Union Politics 8:1, Thussu, D. (2013). Communicating India s soft power: Buddha to Bollywood. New York. Tomz, M. (2007). Domestic Audience Costs in International Relations. International Organization 61:4, Vasilopoulou, S., Halikiopoulou, D. and Exadaktylos, T. (2014). Greece in Crisis: Austerity, Populism and the Politics of Blame. Journal of Common Market Studies 52:2, Wagner, M. (2014). Fear and Anger in Great Britain: Blame Assignment and Emotional Reactions to the Financial Crisis. Political Behavior 36:3, Zaum, D. (2013). International Organizations, Legitimacy, and Legitimation. Oxford. Zürn, M., Binder, M. and Ecker-Ehrhardt, M. (2012) International Authority and Its Politicization. International Theory 4:1, For further information, please contact: Marcia Taylor, Conference Coordinator, ECPR Central Services, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester CO4 3SQ, Essex UK.