IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/use/tkiwps/0513.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Does Public Service Broadcasting Serve the Public? The Future of Television in the Changing Media Landscape

Author

Listed:
  • M. van Dijk
  • R. Nahuis
  • D. Waagmeester

Abstract

The media landscape is subject to substantial technological change. In this Discussion Paper we analyse how technological trends affect the economic rationale for PSB. After identifying the aims and nature of PSB, we derive eight possible market failures from the specific economic characteristics of information. The changing relevance of these market failures is subsequently discussed in the light of the technological changes. Based on this analysis, we argue that public service broadcasting (PSB) for the digital age should be light in the sense that it has a much smaller mandate. The main reason for this conclusion is that, due to technological developments, many market failures in the broadcasting industry are no longer relevant. The broadcasting market thus functions more and more like a normal market. This implies that the allocation tends to the efficient outcome, as long as consumer valuation is properly accounted for. This is not the case when there are externalities and possibly not when it comes to valuing quality. In the presence of these market failures, an efficient allocation is not warranted in the broadcasting industry. It is these remaining market failures that give a future PSB a right to exist.

Suggested Citation

  • M. van Dijk & R. Nahuis & D. Waagmeester, 2005. "Does Public Service Broadcasting Serve the Public? The Future of Television in the Changing Media Landscape," Working Papers 05-13, Utrecht School of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:use:tkiwps:0513
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/309956/05_13_1.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frank Windmeijer & Eric de Laat & Rudy Douven & Esther Mot, 2006. "Pharmaceutical promotion and GP prescription behaviour," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(1), pages 5-18, January.
    2. Peter Mulder & Henri Groot, 2007. "Sectoral Energy- and Labour-Productivity Convergence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 36(1), pages 85-112, January.
    3. Victor Ginsburgh & David Throsby, 2006. "Handbook of the economics of art and culture," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/1673, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    4. Henri de Groot, 2001. "On the optimal timing of reductions of CO2 emissions; an economists' perspective on the debate on "when flexibility"," CPB Discussion Paper 1, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    5. Simon P. Anderson & Stephen Coate, 2005. "Market Provision of Broadcasting: A Welfare Analysis," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 72(4), pages 947-972.
    6. George, Lisa, 2007. "What's fit to print: The effect of ownership concentration on product variety in daily newspaper markets," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 19(3-4), pages 285-303, October.
    7. N. Gregory Mankiw & Michael D. Whinston, 1986. "Free Entry and Social Inefficiency," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(1), pages 48-58, Spring.
    8. Bourreau, Marc, 2003. "Mimicking vs. counter-programming strategies for television programs," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 35-54, March.
    9. Anderson, Simon P. & Gabszewicz, Jean J., 2006. "The Media and Advertising: A Tale of Two-Sided Markets," Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, in: V.A. Ginsburgh & D. Throsby (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 18, pages 567-614, Elsevier.
    10. Michael Spence & Bruce Owen, 1977. "Television Programming, Monopolistic Competition, and Welfare," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 91(1), pages 103-126.
    11. Richard Nahuis & Paul Tang, 2002. "Strategic competition with public infrastructure; ineffective and unwelcome?," CPB Discussion Paper 8.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    12. Free Huizinga & Peter Broer, 2004. "Wage moderation and labour productivity," CPB Discussion Paper 28, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    13. Richard Nahuis & Paul Tang, 2002. "Strategic competition with public infrastructure; ineffective and unwelcome?," CPB Discussion Paper 8, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    14. Free Huizinga & Peter Broer, 2004. "Wage moderation and labour productivity," CPB Discussion Paper 28.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    15. Richard Nahuis & A. Parikh, 2002. "Factor mobility and regional disparities; east, west, home's best?," CPB Discussion Paper 4, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    16. Massimo Motta & Michele Polo, 1997. "Concentration and public policies in the broadcasting industry: the future of television," Economic Policy, CEPR;CES;MSH, vol. 12(25), pages 294-334.
    17. Barry Nalebuff, 2000. "Competing Against Bundles," Yale School of Management Working Papers ysm157, Yale School of Management.
    18. Hansen, Claus Thustrup & Kyhl, Soren, 2001. "Pay-per-view broadcasting of outstanding events: consequences of a ban," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(3-4), pages 589-609, March.
    19. Sendhil Mullainathan & Andrei Shleifer, 2005. "The Market for News," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 1031-1053, September.
    20. Yannis Bakos & Erik Brynjolfsson, 1999. "Bundling Information Goods: Pricing, Profits, and Efficiency," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(12), pages 1613-1630, December.
    21. George A. Akerlof, 1970. "The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 84(3), pages 488-500.
    22. Mark Armstrong, 2005. "Public service broadcasting," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 26(3), pages 281-299, September.
    23. Henri de Groot, 2001. "On the optimal timing of reductions of CO2 emissions; an economists' perspective on the debate on "when flexibility"," CPB Discussion Paper 1.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    24. Harry ter Rele & G. van Steen, 2001. "Housing subsidisation in the Netherlands; measuring its distortionary and distributional effects," CPB Discussion Paper 2, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nadine Lindstädt, 2010. "Germany’s PSB going online – is there an economic justification for Public Service Media online?," Working Papers 102/10, University of Southern Denmark, Department of Sociology, Environmental and Business Economics.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Machiel van Dijk & Richard Nahuis & Daniël Waagmeester, 2005. "Does public service broadcasting serve the public? The future of television in the changing media landscape," CPB Discussion Paper 43, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    2. Machiel Dijk & Richard Nahuis & Daniel Waagmeester, 2006. "Does Public Service Broadcasting Serve The Public? The Future of Television in the Changing Media Landscape," De Economist, Springer, vol. 154(2), pages 251-276, June.
    3. Torben Stühmeier, 2019. "Media market concentration and pluralism," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(2), pages 247-259, April.
    4. Marco Antonielli & Lapo Filistrucchi, 2011. "Collusion and the political differentiation of newspapers," Working Papers 11-26, NET Institute, revised Nov 2011.
    5. Peitz, Martin & Valletti, Tommaso M., 2008. "Content and advertising in the media: Pay-tv versus free-to-air," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 949-965, July.
    6. Behringer, Stefan & Filistrucchi, Lapo, 2015. "Hotelling competition and political differentiation with more than two newspapers," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 36-49.
    7. Monic Sun & Feng Zhu, 2011. "Ad Revenue and Content Commercialization: Evidence from Blogs," Working Papers 11-32, NET Institute.
    8. Marco Antonielli & Lapo Filistrucchi, 2011. "Collusion and the political differentiation of newspapers," Working Papers 11-26, NET Institute, revised Nov 2011.
    9. Julia Rothbauer & Gernot Sieg, 2013. "Public Service Broadcasting of Sport, Shows, and News to Mitigate Rational Ignorance," Journal of Media Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1), pages 21-40, March.
    10. Attila Ambrus & Emilio Calvano & Markus Reisinger, 2016. "Either or Both Competition: A "Two-Sided" Theory of Advertising with Overlapping Viewerships," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(3), pages 189-222, August.
    11. Hans Jarle Kind & Tore Nilssen & Lars Sørgard, 2007. "Competition for Viewers and Advertisers in a TV Oligopoly," Journal of Media Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 211-233.
    12. Simon P. Anderson & Stephen Coate, 2005. "Market Provision of Broadcasting: A Welfare Analysis," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 72(4), pages 947-972.
    13. Anderson, Simon P. & Gabszewicz, Jean J., 2006. "The Media and Advertising: A Tale of Two-Sided Markets," Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, in: V.A. Ginsburgh & D. Throsby (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 18, pages 567-614, Elsevier.
    14. Simon P. Anderson & Joshua S. Gans, 2011. "Platform Siphoning: Ad-Avoidance and Media Content," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 3(4), pages 1-34, November.
    15. Miguel González-Maestre & Francisco Martínez-Sánchez, 2015. "Quality choice and advertising regulation in broadcasting markets," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 114(2), pages 107-126, March.
    16. Sahm, Marco & Greiner, Tanja, 2016. "How Effective Are Advertising Bans? On the Demand for Quality in Two-Sided Media Markets," VfS Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145724, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    17. Miguel González-Maestre & Francisco Martínez-Sánchez, 2014. "The role of platform quality and publicly owned platforms in the free-to-air broadcasting industry," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 105-124, March.
    18. Simon P. Anderson & Øystein Foros & Hans Jarle Kind, 2018. "Competition for Advertisers and for Viewers in Media Markets," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 128(608), pages 34-54, February.
    19. Ramon Casadesus-Masanell & Feng Zhu, 2009. "Strategies to Fight Ad-sponsored Rivals," Working Papers 09-09, NET Institute, revised Sep 2009.
    20. Mark Armstrong & Helen Weeds, 2005. "Public Service Broadcasting in the Digital World," Industrial Organization 0507010, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • L3 - Industrial Organization - - Nonprofit Organizations and Public Enterprise
    • H4 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:use:tkiwps:0513. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eiruunl.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Marina Muilwijk (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eiruunl.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.