Диссертация (1136841), страница 18
Текст из файла (страница 18)
Did anything change in the eyes of business, the authorities, expertsand journalists?After Russia’s accession, all of the judgments about its consequences can beroughly classified into three domains: consequences for consumers, for producers(micro-consequences) and for the economy as a whole (macro-consequences)(see Figure 5).Businessmen essentially stopped discussing the macro-consequences of theaccession after Russia joined the WTO. The spectrum of their argumentscontracted significantly and became too focused on the risk posed by theaccession to particular industries.
On the other hand, the expert communitylargely repeated its attention to the WTO’s impact on the macroeconomicsituation. However, that community was also quite concerned with themicroeconomic consequences for consumers. In contrast, government officialstended to interpret real and potential changes related to the WTO accession fromthe producers’ point of view. Finally, journalists accepted the role of consumeradvocate by focusing on such issues as reduced prices, GMOs and low-qualityimports (see Table 6).VOL.
47 / N°4 – DÉCEMBRE 201665Russia’s Accession to the WTOCONCLUSIONSThe negotiations for Russia’s accession to the WTO took 18 years tocomplete. Throughout this entire period, Russia’s intention to join the WTO wasconstantly debated in Russia’s mass media. However, the intensity of thisdiscussion, along with the standpoints of the debaters themselves, was neverstable. Relative indifference to the WTO issue in the 1990s was replaced bybroad interest in the 2000s. Postponement of the accession date due to variousunresolved issues was always followed by a decrease in interest, whereas eachsuccess of Russia’s negotiators revived the discussion. In addition, it was notuntil the spring-summer of 2012, when the accession finally took place, that theWTO issue became the most heavily sensitized.
Moreover, since that time, thedebate has gradually faded.After comparing the character of this discussion in the Russian print mediabefore and after the accession, one may summarize by saying that the debatebecame less optimistic and emotional and more focused on the terms that affectparticular economic sectors.
Most attention was given to the problems of Russianagriculture and pork producers. The change in the character of the discussion wasprimarily associated with a change in the composition of debaters. Politiciansand officials—the major supporters of Russia’s accession to the WTO—abandoned the debate soon after Russia became a member. Those debaters wereprimarily replaced with representatives of the business community, who werelargely skeptical about the usefulness of Russia being a part of the WTO on theterms that were eventually accepted.
After the accession, businessmen tried toturn their skepticism into a legitimate form of lobbying by demanding more statesupport and preferences to mitigate the losses caused by Russia’s WTOmembership. The assertion of devastating effects for certain sectors of theRussian economy was an attempt to manipulate public opinion, thus legitimizingthe demand for additional state support.And these efforts were not in vain.
For example, pork producers as the mostactive media campaign participants (not only in print media, but also on TV andradio) received government subsidies. Moreover, the government furthersupports local producers by occasionally finding a threat to citizens’ health fromimported pork. For instance, in February 2013 Russia banned meat imports fromthe USA, justifying the move by the growth stimulators used in the USA.
Theban on pork imported from the EU was justified by African Swine Fever(detected in Poland and in Lithuania). Clearly these actions were connected withthe political confrontation between Russia and the West. More specifically, inVOL. 47 / N°4 – DÉCEMBRE 201666Russia’s Accession to the WTOthe first case the ban coincided with the Magnitsky Act, and in the second casewith the conflict with the EU over Ukraine. Nevertheless, pork producersmanaged to benefit from the situation by leveraging the political context. Theimage of “victims” (of Russia’s accession to the WTO) created in the mediaplayed an important role here.
Producers successfully leveraged the “victim” role(created through media campaigns) and became major recipients of governmentsubsidies.Despite the fact that the Russian media are not completely independent, andare under pressure from the authorities, in the debate on Russia’s WTO accessionthe positions of supporters and opponents of the decision were equallyrepresented. Thus, we may assume that, in spite of the existing restrictions,different sides of the debate had the opportunity to express views on the subjectin the public space. Therefore, the activity of interest groups significantlyinfluenced the nature of the discussion.
In very broad terms, before Russia’saccession to the WTO the primary argument unfolded between optimists(represented by politicians and government officials, i.e., mostly activists) on theone hand, and pessimists (mostly businessmen, i.e., practical people) on the other.Moreover, it was only after accession became a fact that representatives of thebusiness milieu began to take over the argument about the WTO issue in theRussian print media.REFERENCESBARSUKOVA Svetlana (2013), “Prisoedinenie Rossii k VTO: neizbežnje poteri i vozmožnjepriobretenija dlja agrobiznesa” [Russia’s accession to the WTO: inevitable losses and possibleacquisitions for agribusiness], Statistical issues, no.
3, pp. 76–81. (In Russian.)BERELSON Вernard (1960), “Communications and Public Opinion”, in W. Schramm (ed.), MassCommunications, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, pp. 527–543.BERGER Peter L. & LUCKMANN Thomas (1966), The Social Construction of Reality. A Treatiseon sociology of Knowledge, N.Y.: Irvington Publishers.BEST Joel (2003), “Social problems”, in L.T. Reynolds & N.J. Herman-Kinney (eds.), Handbookof symbolic interactionism, Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, pp.
981–996.BIKBOV Aleksandr (2012), “Metodologija issledovanija ‘vnezapnogo’ uličnogo aktivizma(rossijskie mitingi i uličnye lagerja, dekabr’ 2011 - iyun’ 2012)” [The methodology of studying“spontaneous” street activism (Russian protests and street camps, December 2011-July 2012)],Laboratorium, no.
2, pp. 130–163.BLUMER Herbert (1971), “Social Problems as Collective Behavior”, Social Problems, vol. 18, no. 3,pp. 298–306.VOL. 47 / N°4 – DÉCEMBRE 201667Russia’s Accession to the WTOBOYDSTUN Amber E. (2013), Making the News: Politics, the Media, and Agenda Setting,Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CARROLL Craig E., ed. (2012), Corporate Reputation and the News Media: Agenda-Settingwithin Business News Coverage in Developed, Emerging, and Frontier Markets, New York:Routledge.COHEN Bernard Cecil (1963), The press and foreign policy, New York: Harcourt.COHEN Jeffrey E.
(1995), “Presidential Rhetoric & the Public Agenda”, American Journalof Political Science, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 87–107.CREEMERS Rogier (2012), “Marching In: China’s Cultural Trade in Official and PressDiscourse”, China Рerspectives, no. 1, pp. 29–37.DAUCÉ Françoise (2016), “Dzhinsa”, in A. Ledeneva (ed.), Encyclopedia of informal practices(in print).DEARING James W.
& ROGERS Everett M. (1987), “Agenda-setting, Where Has It Been, WhereIs It Going?”, Communication Yearbook 11. L.A.EDELMAN Murray (1988), Constructing the political spectacle, Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.ERBRING Lutz, GOLDENBERG Edie N. & MILLER Arthur H. (1980), “Front-Page News andReal-World Cues: A New Look at Agenda-Setting by the Media”, American Journal of PoliticalScience, vol. 24, no.
1, pp. 16–49.FULLER Richard C., MYERS Richard R. (1941), “The Natural History of a Social Problem”,American Sociological Review, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 320–326.GRABER Doris (1980), Mass Media and American Politics, Washington, DC: CQ Press.GREENACRE Michael & HASTIE Trevor (1987) “The Geometric Interpretation ofCorrespondence-Analysis”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 82, no. 398,pp.
437–447.HENDERSHOT M. (2004), “Does Seattle Matter? An Empirical Analysis of Media ReportsSurrounding the Protest of the World Trade Organization,” Midwestern Political ScienceAssociation. Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL. pp. 1–42.HILGARTNER Stephen & BOSK Charles L.
(1988), “The Rise and Fall of Social Problems:A Public Arenas Model”, The American Journal of Sociology, vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 53–78.HILL Anne & WATSON James (2000), Dictionary of Media and Communication Studies, 5th ed.London : Arnold ; New York : Oxford University Press.IBARRA Peter R. & KITSUSE John I. (2003), “Claims-making Discourse and VernacularResources”, in G. Miller & J.
A. Holstein (eds.), Challenges and Choices: ConstructionistPerspectives on Social Problems, Hawthorne, N.Y. : Aldine de Gruyter, pp. 17–50.KAZUN Anastasia (2014), “Otnošenie naselenija k vstupleniju Rossii v VTO” [Public attitudetowards Russia’s accession to the WTO], Monitoring of public opinion: economic and socialchanges, no. 6, pp.
98–111. (In Russian.)VOL. 47 / N°4 – DÉCEMBRE 201668Russia’s Accession to the WTOKAZUN Anastasia (2015), “Konstruirovanie publičnoj diskussii i strategii deproblematizacii vstuplenijaRossii v VTO” [Construction of public debate and strategies of deproblematization of Russia’s accessionto the WTO], Journal of Institutional Studies, no. 1, pp. 95–111. (In Russian.)KOLTSOVA Olessia (2001), “Kto i kak vlijaet na proizvodstvo novostej v sovremennoj Rossii”[Who and how influences on the production of news in modern Russia], Pro et Contra, no. 2, pp.80–106. (In Russian.)KOLTSOVA Olessia (2006), News Media and Power in Russia, L., N.Y.: Routledge.KOLTSOVA Olessia & YASAVEEV Iskender (2013), “Konstruirovanie problemy politsejskogonasilija v Rossijskoj blogosfere: ritorika, lejtmotivy i stili [Construction problem of police violence inthe Russian blogosphere: rhetoric, leitmotivs and styles], The Journal of Sociology and SocialAnthropology, no.
3, pp. 81–100. (In Russian.)KONG Ying (1997), U.S. Regional Newspapers’ coverage on China’s entry into the WTO—A regionaleconomy approach, Beijing Normal University.LASSWELL Harold D. (1927), Propaganda Technique in the World War, London: K. Paul,Trench, Trubner & co., ltd., New York: A. A. Knopf.LEIGHLEY, Jan E. (2004), Mass Media and Politics: A Social Science Perspective, Boston:Houghton Mifflin Co..Levada.ru (2012), Research by the Levada-Center. September’s approval ratings, the situation in thecountry and the memorable events of the last month (2012); http://www.levada.ru/26-09-2012LEVAŠOV V.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
