Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The regulation of audiovisual content: quotas and conflicting objectives

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Regulatory Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Governments use a range of instruments to influence television content. The paper finds that under plausible conditions, content measures ostensibly designed to increase the production of certain programs may, paradoxically, reduce the size of the audience watching them. As well, quotas seemingly intended to boost the audience of certain programs, may in fact reduce their production and lower the number of viewers of these programs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allens Arthur Robinson. (2004). The FTA and Pay-TV, local content regulation: Quotas to increase? at www.aar.com.au/pubs/cmt/ftamar04.htm.

  • Brown A. and Cave M. (1992). The economics of television regulation: A survey with application to Australia. The Economic Record 68(202): 377–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chae S. (1998). A bargaining model of retransmission consent and must-carry rule. Information Economics and Policy 10: 369–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corts K.S. (1995). Regulation of a multi-product monopolist: Effects on pricing and bundling. Journal of Industrial Economics 43(4): 377–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crampes C. and Hollander A. (2005). Product specification, multi-product screening and bundling: The case of Pay TV. Information Economics and policy 17: 35–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunbar, L. E., & Leblanc, C. (2007). Review of the regulatory framework for broadcasting services in Canada, Report to Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunication Commission, available at www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/reports/dunbarleblanc.pdf.

  • European Commission. (1998). Audiovisual policy of the European Union. DG X, Brussels. see www.ec.europa.eu/avpolicy/index_en.htm.

  • European Council. (1998). Council recommendation of 24 September 1998 on the development of the competitiveness of the European audiovisual and information services industry by promoting national frameworks aimed at achieving a comparable and effective level of protection of minors and human dignity. 98/560/EC, Official Journal of the European Communities L 270/48 7.

  • Hansen C.T. and Kyhl S. (2001). Pay-per-view broadcasting of outstanding events: Consequence of a Ban. International Journal of Industrial Organization 19: 589–609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Machet, E., Pertzinidou, E., & Ward, D. (2002). A comparative analysis of television programming regulation in seven European countries: A benchmark study. The European Institute for the Media.

  • Maskin E. and Riley J. (1984). Monopoly with incomplete information. Rand Journal of Economics 15: 171–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2007). Policy considerations for audio-visual content distribution in a multiplatform environment. Working party on telecommunication and information services policies, (DSTI/ICCP/TISP(2006)3/FINAL), available at www.oecd.org/dataoecd/21/41/37868139.pdf.

  • Richardson, M. (2004a). Cultural quotas in broadcasting I: A model. School of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Commerce, Australian National University, www.ecocomm.anu.edu.au/research/papers/pdf/wp442.pdf.

  • Richardson, M. (2004b). Cultural quotas in broadcasting II: Policy. School of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Commerce. Australian National University, www.ecocomm.anu.edu.au/research/papers/pdf/wp443.pdf.

  • Schultz, R. (1996). Canadian content and the I-way. Policy Options, October, 7–11.

  • Stanbury, W. T. (1996). Cancon rules should be canned. Policy Options, October, 25–28; available at http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/articles/sovereignty_identity/cancon_rules.cfm.

  • Vita M.G. (1997). Must carry regulations for cable television systems: An empirical analysis. Journal of Regulatory Economics 12(1): 159–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unesco. (2004). Preliminary draft of a convention on the protection of the diversity of cultural contents and artistic expressions. CLT/CPD/2004/CONF-201/2, Paris, www.incd.net/docs/UNESCOdraft04.pdf.

  • Wiley R.E. and Secrest L.W. (2005). Recent Developments in Program Content Regulation. Federal Communications Law Journal 57(2): 235–242

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Toulouse School of Economics (Gremaq and Idei, UT1), Universite des Sciences Sociales de Toulouse, Place Anatole-France, 31042, Toulouse Cedex 9, France

    Claude Crampes

  2. Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Abraham Hollander

Authors
  1. Claude Crampes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abraham Hollander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claude Crampes.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Crampes, C., Hollander, A. The regulation of audiovisual content: quotas and conflicting objectives. J Regul Econ 34, 195–219 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11149-008-9068-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11149-008-9068-x

Keywords

JEL Classifications

Search

Navigation