S-Space College of Social Sciences (사회과학대학) Institute of Communication Research (언론정보연구소) Journal of Communication Research (언론정보연구) Journal of Communication Research (언론정보연구) vol.45(2) (2008)
경합형 공공방송기금론의 전개와 함의
Contestable Public Service Broadcasting Fund:Development and Implications
- 강형철; 오하영; 김효진; 배정근
- Issue Date
- Journal of Communication Research, Vol.45 No.2. pp. 69-102
- This paper aims to explore the contestable public service broadcasting funding system by which public monies for the provision of public interest broadcasting are distributed not to one or two public service broadcasters but to any applicant in open competition. It traces, to this end, debates on the issue of funding public service broadcasting on the contestable basis and attempts to classify this funding system into several types. In addition, the possibility of introducing the contestable funding system into South Korea is examined. Arguments for funding public service broadcasting through open competition are based on the notion that competition will improve both the competitiveness and the accountability of public service broadcasters. Contestants for the fund have to demonstrate their suitability to discharge the public interest functions in question against rival potential suppliers. A similar approach in Western Europe has already become the norm for the distribution of public funds in fields other than broadcasting such as public transportation, electricity supply and health care. According to a policy report of UK Conservative Party, the contestable funding system is to provide not only a means of guaranteeing diversity of voice, but also a way of ensuring high creative standards. The authors divide this contestable funding system into five models: 'Funding Producers for Program Making', 'Funding Broadcasters for Program Making', 'Funding Broadcasters for Broadcasting Operation', 'Franchising Public Broadcasting Service', and 'Broadcaster's Program Commissioning'. First, 'Funding Producers for Program Making' is a competition model by which public fund is distributed through a government agency or an independent organization to producers for each program making. Second, under 'Funding Broadcasters for Program Making' model, broadcasters receive public fund for their total cost for public interest program making. Third, 'Funding Broadcasters for Broadcasting Operation' is a model by which broadcasters receive public fund for their operation cost in addition to total cost for public interest program making. Fourth, under 'Franchising Public Broadcasting Service' model, broadcasters would compete to run PSB channels. Fifth, 'Broadcaster's Program Commissioning' model would turn a public service broadcaster into a commissioner without any production, instead filling its broadcast schedule with programs made by independent producers. Objectors to the use of contestable funding such as BBC have argued that it would not be an efficient or effective use of public funding, since it would both spread limited resources more thinly, and could increasingly substitute for other sources of investment. Nevertheless, it might be expected that competition for public funding will introduce a quality driver comparable to the pressure under this current 'battle-for-ratings' system. If a society would introduce this competition model of public funding for broadcasting, it should guarantee beforehand two preconditions: the one is the distribution body's independence from political pressures and its capability of exercising adequate creative judgment and the other is to increase the volume of current PSB fund.