The ascendancy of competition in the telecommunications industry suggests the emergence of a new public policy paradigm. By tracing the progress of two first movers – the United States and the United Kingdom – the technological, industrial and economic pressures for change can be observed. In this paper we present the underlying assumptions, effects and expected benefits of the competitive paradigm. We argue, however, that the outcomes experienced by early adopters of this paradigm may not be the same for later entrants. Evidence from other industries, economic development theory, and social equity literature questions the assumption that all nations should progress along identical telecommunications policy paths.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BachtierJ. (1986). Issues in European Economic Development (Centre for Study of Public Policy, Strathclyde University).
2.
BellD. (1973). The Coming of Post-Industrial Society (Basic Books, New York).
3.
BellD., and MeehanN. (1988). International telecommunications deregulation and Ireland's domestic communications policy. Journal of Communication, 38, 70–84.
4.
FukuyamaF. (1989). The end of history?The National Interest, Summer, 16, 3–18.
5.
GarnhamN. (1990). Telecommunications in the U.K.: A Policy for the 1990's (Fabian Society, London).
6.
GrantW. (1989). Government and Industry (Edward Elgar, London).
7.
HillsJ. (1989). Universal service: liberalisation and privitisation of telecommunications. Telecommunications Policy, 13, 129–144.
8.
HudsonH. (1979). The Role of Telecommunications in Socio-Economic Development (ITV, Brookline, MA).
9.
HuntleyJ.A.K., and PittD.C. (1990). Judicial policy making: the greening of U.S. telecommunications. International Review of Law and Economics, June, 10, 77–100.
10.
HuntleyJ.A.K., PittD.C., and TrauthE.M. (1990). Post-fortressism – trade, telecommunications, and the new Europe. Proceedings of the European Trade and Technology Conference, Sunderland Polytechnic, September, 109–113.
KruseA.H. (1985). The potential impact of USA deregulation on Europe. Telecommunications, April, 66aa–66dd.
13.
KuhnT. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolution (University Press, Chicago).
14.
National Consumer Council (1991). New Telephone Price Controls Urgently Needed (National Consumer Council, London).
15.
O'MalleyE. (1989). Industry and Economic Development: The Challenge for the Latecomer (Gill and Macmillan, Dublin).
16.
PittD.C. (1980). Bureaucratic Adaptation: A Case-Study of the British Post Office Telecommunications Function (Saxon House, Farnborough).
17.
PittD.C., and MorganK. (1989). Bureaucracy, deregulation and technology: the ‘ramping’ of British Telecom and AT&T. Business in the Contemporary World, Winter, 109–121.
18.
PittD.C., TeskeP., and MorganK. (1990). Laboratory of Democracy, Testbed of Telematics? The New Telecommunications Federalism (Strathclyde Papers on Government and Politics, Strathclyde University).
19.
PoratM. (1977). The Information Economy (Office of Telecommunications, Washington, D.C).
20.
SchillerD. (1982). Telematics and Government (Ablex Publishing Corp., Norwood, NJ).
21.
SchonD. (1971). Beyond the Stable StatePenguin, Harmondsware).
22.
TeminP., and GalambosL. (1987). The Fall of the Bell System (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
23.
TofflerA. (1985). The Adaptive Corporation (Pan Books, London).
24.
TrauthE.M. (1981). Data transmission via cable-regulatory problems. Proceedings of the National Online Meeting 1981.Learned Information Inc., Medford, NJ, 463–468.
25.
TrauthE.M., TrauthD.M., and HuffmanJ.L. (1983). The impact of deregulation on marketplace diversity in the USA. Telecommunications Policy,!, 111–120.
26.
White Paper (Cm1461) (1991). Competition and Choice: Telecommunications Policy for the 1990's (HMSO, London).
27.
28 Federal Communications Commission 2d 267 (1971).
28.
77 Federal Communications Commission 2d 384 (1980).
