In the context of public concern and negative media portrayals in regard to the civic impact of the public relations specialism of public affairs and lobbying, this article seeks to theorise normative roles in democracies alongside benchmarking the self-perception of practitioners against those of opinion forming elites. The article also explores how practitioners interpret their roles and locates a consensus in regard to their functional and civic contributions. A potential research agenda for testing the validity of these claims of a positive civic contribution is discussed. The article analyses the results of quantitative surveys of a representative sample of British members of parliament, and 722 UK opinion formers, plus 260 interviews with opinion formers in Washington DC. The results were complemented by a Delphi survey of UK public affairs practitioners that sought to identify and test areas of consensus in regard to both organisational and civic functions. The research finds that lobbying is perceived as legitimate by elites, but there are concerns over the quality of the information subsidy that is provided. Practitioners share an understanding with the public relations literature of their functional roles, and believe they make a social contribution by assisting policy-making, connecting society to politicians and as facilitators of participation and civic dialogue. This research will potentially be less applicable to the relationship between public affairs and society in other regions of the world, or in authoritarian states with low levels of interest group pluralism.
BaumgartnerFRBerryJMHojnackiM. (2009) Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
2.
BergKT (2012) The ethics of lobbying: Testing an ethical framework for advocacy in public relations. Journal of Mass Media Ethics27(2): 97–114.
3.
Beurer-ZuelligBFieselerCMeckelM (2009) A descriptive inquiry into the corporate communication profession in Europe. Public Relations Review35(3): 270–279.
4.
BoddewynJ (2012) Beyond ‘the evolving discipline of public affairs’. Journal of Public Affairs12(1): 98–104.
5.
BouwenP (2002) Corporate lobbying in the European Union: The logic of access. Journal of European Public Policy9(3): 365–390.
6.
Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement (CCSDE) (2013) Non-party campaigning ahead of election. Report no. 1, October2013. Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement.
7.
ChaseW (1984) Issue Management: Origins of the Future. Stamford, CT: Issue Action Publications.
DavidsonS (2014) Everywhere and nowhere: Theorising and researching public affairs and lobbying within public relations scholarship. Public Relations Review. Epub ahead of print 24March. DOI: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.02.023.
12.
De LangeRLindersP (2006) Public affairs as reality construction: An established paradigm with new implications. Journal of Public Affairs6(2): 131–146.
13.
DinanWMillerD (2007) Thinker, Faker, Spinner, Spy: Corporate PR and the Assault on Democracy. London: Pluto Press.
FleisherC (2003) The development of competencies in international public affairs. Journal of Public Affairs3(1) 76–82.
16.
FleisherC (2007) Developing the public affairs body of knowledge. Journal of Public Affairs7(3): 281–290.
17.
FleisherCC (2012) Anniversary retrospective, perspective and prospective of corporate public affairs: Moving from the 2000+ PA Model toward Public Affairs 2.0. Journal of Public Affairs12(1): 4–11.
GandyOH (1992) Public relations and public policy: The structuration of dominance in the information age. In: TothELHeathRL (eds) Rhetorical and Critical Approaches to Public Relations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, pp.131–164.
20.
GilensMPageBI (2014) Testing theories of American politics: Elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspectives on Politics12(3): 564–581.
21.
GodwinRKAinsworthSGodwinEK (2012) Lobbying and Policymaking. Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press.
22.
GornallJ (2014) Under the influence. British Medical Journal. 348: f7646.
23.
GrunigLAGrunigJEDozierDM (2002) Excellent Public Relations and Effective Organizations: A Study of Communication Management in Three Countries. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
24.
HallRDeardorffA (2006) Lobbying as legislative subsidy. American Political Science Review100(1): 69–84.
25.
HarrisPMossD (2001) In search of public affairs: A function in search of an identity. Journal of Public Affairs1(2): 102–110.
26.
HawkinsT (2013) The Government’s response to Mercer – the wrong solution to a different problem. Statement on PRCA website by Tom Hawkins, policy manager. Available at: http://www.prca.org.uk/%5CThe%20GovernmentsresponsetoMercer (accessed September 2013).
27.
HeathR (1997) Strategic Issues Management: Organizations and Public Policy Challenges. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
HeathR (2001) A rhetorical enactment rationale for public relations: The good organization communicating well. In: HeathRL (ed.) Handbook of Public Relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.31–50.
29.
HeathRWaymerD (2011) Corporate issues management and political public relations. In: StrömbäckJKiousisS (eds) Political Public Relations and Applications. New York: Routledge, pp.138–176.
HillmanA. (2002). Public affairs, issue management and political strategy: Methodological issues that count – a different view. Journal of Public Affairs, 1/2(4/1): 356–361.
32.
HortenM (2013) A Copyright Masquerade: How Corporate Lobbying Threatens Online Freedoms. London: Zed Books.
33.
KennedyH (2004) Enhancing Delphi research: Methods and results. Journal of Advanced Nursing45(5): 504–511.
34.
KimballDCBaumgartnerFRBerryJM. (2012) Who cares about the lobbying agenda. Interest groups & Advocacy1(1): 5–25.
35.
KoepplP (2001) The acceptance, relevance and dominance of lobbying the EU commission – A first-time survey of the EU commission’s civil servants. Journal of Public Affairs1: 69–80.
36.
LarssonL (2007) Public trust in the PR industry and its actors. Journal of Communication Management11(3): 222–234.
37.
L’EtangJ (2004) Public Relations in Britain: A History of Professional Practice in the 20th Century. Mahwah: NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
38.
LoweryDGrayV (2004) A neopluralist perspective on research on organized interests. Political Research Quarterly57(1) 164–175.
39.
Luoma-ahoV (2009) On Putnam: Bowling together – applying putnam’s theories of community and social capital to public relation. In: IhlenØvan RulerBFredrikssonM (eds) Public Relations and Social Theory: Key Figures and Concepts. New York: Routledge, pp.231–251.
40.
McGrathC (2007) Framing lobbying messages: Defining and communicating political issues persuasively. Journal of Public Affairs7(3): 269–280.
41.
McGrathC (2011) Lobbying in Ireland: A reform agenda. Journal of Public Affairs11(2): 127–134.
42.
McGrathC (2015) Learning to lobby. Interest Groups & Advocacy4: 1–6.
43.
McGrathCMossDHarrisP (2010) The evolving discipline of public affairs. Journal of Public Affairs10(4): 335–352.
44.
MeznarMNighD (1995) Buffer or bridge? Environmental and organizational determinants of public affairs activities in American firms. Academy of Management Journal38(4): 975–996.
45.
MilbrathL (1963) The Washington Lobbyists. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
46.
MillerDHarkinsC (2010) Corporate strategy, corporate capture: Food and alcohol industry lobbying and public health. Critical Social Policy30(4): 564–589.
47.
MoloneyK (2006) Rethinking Public Relations: PR Propaganda and Democracy. London: Routledge.
48.
MoserC (2001) How open is ‘open as possible’? Three different approaches to transparency and openness in regulating access to EU documents. Political science series no. 80. November2001. Princeton, NJ: Institute for Advanced Studies.
OECD (2012) Lobbyists, governments and public trust: Promoting integrity through self-regulation, vol. 2. Paris: OECD Publishing.
51.
ParvinP (2007) Friend or Foe: Lobbying in British Democracy. London: Hansard Society. Available at: http://bit.ly/f8eTOL
52.
PieczkaM (2011) Public relations as dialogic expertise?Journal of Communication Management15(2) 108–124.
53.
PutnamRD (1995) Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy6: 65–78.
54.
RenfroW (1993) Issues Management in Strategic Planning. Westport: CT: Quorum Books.
55.
RoweO (2014) The reputation of the household energy market. Chapter Four in Energy, Politics and the Consumer. Report published by You Gov Plc/Cambridge Programme, 11April. Available at: http://bit.ly/1oJpyjN (accessed 28 November 2015).
56.
SchlozmanKLVerbaSBradyHE (2012) Unequal Advocacy: Political Voice and the Promise of American Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
57.
SmithMA (2000) American Business and Political Power: Public Opinion, Elections, and Democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
58.
SomervilleI (2011) Managing public affairs and lobbying: Persuasive communication in the policy sphere. In: MossDDeSantoB (eds) Public Relations: A Managerial Perspective: London: Sage, pp.167–193.
59.
SommerfeldtE (2013) The civility of social capital: Public relations in the public sphere, civil society, and democracy. Public Relations Review39(4): 280–289.
TaylorM (2009) Civil society as a rhetorical public relations process. In: HeathRWaymerD (eds) Rhetorical and Critical Approaches to Public Relations II. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.76–91.
WhiteJBlamphinJ (1994) Priorities for Research into Public Relations Practice in the United Kingdom. London: City University Business School/Rapier Research.
69.
YangATaylorM (2013) The relationship between the professionalization of public relations, societal social capital and democracy: Evidence from a cross-national study. Public Relations Review39(4): 257–270.
70.
ZochLMMolledaJC (2006) Building a theoretical model of media relations using framing, information subsidies, and agenda-building. In: BotanCHazletonV (eds) Public Relations Theory II. London: Routledge, pp.279–308.
