Institutionalizing government public

relations in Romania after 1989*

Alina Dolea, PhD

*Paper published in Public Relations Review, 38 (2012), pp. 354– 366,

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0363811111002037
 Romania – facts & figures
 South East Europe

 Capital – Bucharest

 Since December 1989 – a post

communist country

 1995 – Romania signed the official

request to become a member of
the EU
 Constant monitoring and
reporting on country’s progress

 2005 – Romania enters NATO

 2007 – Romania becomes a EU

member.
 Public Relations in Romania
 PR – a new profession emerged after 1990
 Preceded by publicity and political propaganda (Rogojinaru in
Sriramesh & Verčič, 2009a)
 Before 1990, PR was neither a domain of activity nor an area of
inquiry (Nastasia, 2009);

 1991 - First courses in PR (postgraduate) at the National University of

Political Studies and Public Administration and 1993 at the University
of Bucharest (undergraduate studies);

 1995 - Establishment of professional association - The Romanian

Association for PR Professionals. The Club of PR Companies – 2003;

 1997 – Official recognition of the profession in the national

classification of occupations in Romania – Public Relations Specialist.
Public Relations in Romania
 Education
 In 2012, every university in the major cities and regions
has a faculty or department that offers BA and/or MA
diplomas in communication and PR;
 PhD diploma in communication sciences as of 2008.

 Practitioners
 In 2005, around 15,000 practitioners in Romania (13,000
in public sector - the Agency for Governmental Strategies)
(Bortun, 2005)
 All major Com & PR international groups have branches in
Romania
 PR market estimated at: 20-25 millions EUR (according to
PR agencies)

©Alina Dolea
Public Relations in Romania
 Phases of public relations development in Romania,
Rogojinaru (2009a):

 the pioneer phase of the early 1990s (1991-1995) based

on amalgam practices of media, publicity and promotional
events;

 the exploratory phase in the second half of 1990s (1995-

2000/2001) introductory for public relations studies and
transient in practice;

 the consolidation phase from 2001 and ongoing.

Theoretical considerations
 Government PR means PR for public institutions:
 -> “publicness” of process = transparency and public
access to information;

 –> actors at intersection of politics and public

administration & public interest;

-> constant dialectic and negotiation between public

communication and political communication on the agenda
of the institution and its leaders

-> important role of the PR departments and PR practitioners

in managing the two sides of communication, keeping the
public interest as main goal.
 Theoretical considerations
 Context:
 neo-liberalist perspective - the world as a global marketplace, a
global public space with companies, states and institutions actors
competing all together in this arena to gain attention and
visibility

 -> they adopt PR, marketing and branding strategies and tactics
to impose themes on the public agenda

-> a need for an institutional understanding of PR as a strategic

function to connect, engage and build relationships with the
publics and not only as an instrument of communication.
 Literature review – Government PR

Public Administration and Public Relations

 Public administration pedagogy gave little attention to the use of PR

– Lee’s comparative study on public administration textbooks from
the 1920s to the 1950s with those of the 1980s and 1990s:
“sometimes PR is used, sometimes communication is used” (2008).

Political communication and Public Relations

 Gelders and Ihlen (2009) – “more and more definitions and ethical
guidelines about government PR and propaganda recognize that
ministers are allowed to score points in secondary order by using
government PR, as long as this is not the main goal of the
communication act”.
 Government PR in new democracies
 Public communication can more easily become political
communication
 impact not only on communication, but on public policies and on
the continuity of programs:

 -> the case of Central and Eastern European countries: Szondi

(2007) identifies as a common mistake that country promotion is
politicised and becomes the victim of domestic politics.

 -> validated also in case of Romania - the research on the

communication campaigns and initiatives of the Romanian
Government to promote Romania after 1990 (Dolea & Tarus,
2009).
 Government PR in new democracies
Major perspectives:

American perspective:

 “transformational public relations” - Grunig & Grunig (2005)

 transformation implies a more complex process: besides explaining
the transformations, PR programs need to involve the publics
affected by their consequences in decision making, not just to
inform them afterwards and try to convince that they are good.

 -> strategic management function - the principles in the Excellence

study are needed;

 -> research indicated most practitioners lack the necessary

knowledge for assuming this role and their work is limited to media
relations, product promotions and campaigns to support
privatisation and other changes.
 European perspective:

 PR in Eastern Europe = social phenomenon (Bentele, 2004)

with evolution as a continuum, a succession of developmental
strata (Bentele, 2010):
 Institutionalized PR only after 1989, but practice existed
before (Bortun, 2005);

 “transition public relations” - Lawniczak (2001)

 to describe PR in countries of CE Europe that help
organisations adapt to the changes implied by the transition
from a centered and planned economy to capitalism and from
socialism to democracy
Purpose of paper
 Identify main stages of evolution in terms of institutionalization
and professionalization of government PR in Romania after
1989 until 2010
 Correlate it with the general evolution of public relations in
Romania, thus contributing to fill the gap in Romanian
literature.

 It is the first research in Romania focused exclusively on

central government public relations in Romania
 It is part of a wider research on how the theme of country
image/brand promotion became a public issue on the
public agenda in Romania and on the role of the Romanian
Government as key actor contributing to the construction
of this public issue.
Methodology
 An exploratory research to answer questions regarding:
 the main stages of institutionalization and professionalization
of government PR in Romania between 1989 and 2010;
 the challenges faced by government PR practitioners;
 present characteristics of government PR in Romania.

 The research area is mainly made up by:

 government public communication (content of Government’s
official websites, answers and statements of government PR
specialists from ministries);
 legislative framework and Government’s decisions for the
establishment or reorganization of ministries;
 organizational charts;
 internal regulations for the organization and functioning of the
ministries.
Methodology
 Methods:
 public information requests – questionnaire with open
questions;

 organizational and documentary analysis to see how the

organisational charts of the Romanian Government and
Ministries changed in time, what were the size, functions
and role of the PR departments inside the institutions;

 content analysis of the documents, website sections and

answers received from the PR departments in response to
the request for public information to identify the main
functions carried out by the PR departments.
Methodology
 Period of research: February – May 2011

 The sample used in the study included all the 15 ministries in

the present structure of the Romanian Government.

 Only 10 ministries of 15 answered the questionnaire and some

answers were incomplete.
 answers on institutional history were completed with
information from the websites of the ministries (when
available)
 this was not possible for aspects regarding the human
resources dimension of the PR departments.

-> The research eventually focused only on the institutional

evolution of the PR departments and did not include a
section on the spokesperson and on the government PR
practitioners.
Methodology
 Two ministries did not answer the questionnaire and
communicated through their websites only the title of the
department and the organization chart, but not the functions as
such.

-> they remained part of the sample because the lack of

information on the website and of response to the public
information request show an institutional understanding of PR
and is relevant for the research.
 Methodology
 A coding scheme was created from categories of assignments
identified by Cutlip, Center and Broom (2006, pp. 34-35) and
adapted to the Romanian context. Final categories of functions:
 (1) writing and editing,
 (2) media relations and placement,
 (3) research,
 (4) management and administration,
 (5) counselling,
 (6) organising special events,
 (7) speaking,
 (8) production of materials,
 (9) training,
 (10) website administration,
 (11) representation function,
 (12) internal communication (information),
 (13) provide public information (544/2001),
 (14) crisis management.
Methodology
 the categories of functions grouped in:

 functions of a technical role associated with execution

and implementation: (1) writing and editing, (2) media
relations and placement, (6) organising special events, (8)
production of materials, (10) website administration, (12)
internal communication, (13) provide public information
(544/2001);

 functions of a managerial role associated with strategic

thinking and positioning for the organisation: 3)
research, (4) management and administration, (5)
counselling, (7) speaking, (9) training, (11) representation
function, (14) crisis management.
Findings & Analysis
 In 2011, all the 15 ministries inside the Romanian
Government have a specialized structure to manage
communication/ public relations.

 There are 7 different terms used in the names of this

structure.
 PR is the second most frequent (26%) but it only appears
in 47% of the departments names;
-> more emphasis on public communication, media relations
and information.
-> might suggest an institutional understanding of PR as a tool
used to provide information via media, rather than a
strategic and relationship building approach towards
publics.
Findings & Analysis
Most frequent terms in the title of PR structures inside Romanian Government in 2011

4% 4%
4%
26%

15%

19%
30%

Public Relations Communication Media Relations/ Press Information

Public policy Image Spokesperson
Findings & Analysis
 The distribution of the PR functions inside the ministries
of the Romanian Government in 2011 indicate a focus on
the instrumental aspects of the communication process
(see Fig 2).

 The values show a predominance of functions associated

with a technical role;

 The functions associated with a managerial role and a

strategic approach are at the end of the hierarchy.
 Findings & Analysis
Distribution of PR functions inside the Romanian Government in 2011

Writing and editing 10,08%

Media relations 9,24%

Internal communication 9,24%

Organizing special events 9,24%

Management and administration 8,40%

Provide public information 544/2001 8,40%

Representation function 7,56%

Production of materials 7,56%

Research 6,72%

Website administration 6,72%

Counseling 5,88%

Training 4,20%

Speaking 4,20%

Crisis management 2,52%

0,00% 2,00% 4,00% 6,00% 8,00% 10,00% 12,00%

 Findings & Analysis
Distribution of functions associated with Technical and Managerial PR Roles inside the Romanian Government in 2011

100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%100,00%

100,00%
100,00%
00,00%

90,00%
85,71% 85,71% 85,71%

80,00%
71,43% 71,43% 71,43% 71,43% 71,43%
70,00%

60,00% 57,14%

50,00%
42,86% 42,86%
40,00%

30,00% 28,57% 28,57% 28,57% 28,57% 28,57%

20,00%

10,00%

0,00%
0,00% 0,00% 0,00%
0,00% 0,00%
0,00%
MAI MARD MCIS MCNCH METBE MERYS MEF MFA MH MJ MLFSP MND MPF MRDT MTI

Technical Role Managerial Role

Findings & Analysis
 4 categories of departments:
 strategic and relationship building PR (first category
of departments) - MFA, MND, MPF and MAI.
 a mixture of instrumental and strategic PR (the
second category) – MJ, MERYS, MRDT
 a predominantly technical and instrumental PR (the
third category) - MTI, MCIS, METBE
 misunderstanding of PR essence and incorrect use of
the term (the forth category) – MARD, MEF, MLFSP,
MH, MCNCH.
Findings & Analysis
Access to dominant coalition inside the ministries

 The majority of the PR departments inside the Romanian

ministries are at present in the direct subordination of the
Minister (73%),while the rest of 27% are subordinated to the
Secretary General or to the State Secretary for the relations
with the Parliament.

 This shows a direct access of the PR department and its

employees (or at least of the Director of Department) to
the leaders and the primary sources of information in the
organisation, namely the dominant coalition.
Findings & Analysis
Education/professional background of PR practitioners:

 Only 53% of the PR departments inside the Romanian

Government provided data on the educational background and
profile of their employees.

 From this 53%, excepting MFA where the employees are

diplomats and MTI where they have studies in Economics, Law,
Philology and Public Administration, all the rest of the employees
currently activating inside the PR departments have studies in
Communication, Public Relations and/or Journalism.
Conclusions
 The research shows different types of departments and even
different functions united under the common title of public
relations.
 variation in terms of approaches, but a more profound
difference in understanding the role of PR inside a public
institution.
 It is this very institutional understanding of PR that shapes
the profile and activities of the PR departments and range
from:
 strategic and relationship building PR
 to a mixture of instrumental and strategic PR
 a predominantly technical and instrumental PR
 up to misunderstanding of PR essence and incorrect use
of the term (“relations with the public”)
Conclusions
 Institutionalisation of PR inside the Romanian Government
started at the beginning of 90s, before the profession was
officially recognized.

 The first stage, 1990 - 1995, is characteristic for a pioneer

work in some structures inside the strategic ministries
(defence, foreign affairs, public finance, administration and
interior)
 context - a public discourse specific to the early stages of a
new democracy and rather unidirectional.
 the public agenda was dominated by “We don’t sell our
country”, the first concept of the Romanian political
communication and slogan after 1989.
Conclusions
 After 1995, the existing PR structures inside the government
continued the institutionalisation and professionalization
processes, while others were starting to include in the
organisational charts the first communication departments

 the media landscape started to be more diverse and

commercial televisions appeared, new publication were
launched.

 On political level, Romania signed the official request to

become a member of the European Union, the approach
towards the foreign countries started changing and a right
wing political coalition won the election in 1996 with a
political platform towards the future.
Conclusions
 The passing of the Law that granted access to public
information (544/2001) and of the one that compelled
institutions to transparency (52/2003) marked the debut of a
new phase of institutionalisation.

 Starting with this point, every public institution, including

the ministries, was obliged by Law to have a department to
communicate with various audiences.

 Most probably - the exact point that led to the

misunderstanding of PR or the reduction of PR to this
administrative role reduced to the communication with the
citizens.
Final conclusions
 There is a predominance of technical role and a rather
asymmetric model of public information,
 thus confirming a conclusion of another study on public
relations in public institutions in Romania (Rogojinaru,
2009b).

 The characteristic of the government PR in Romania show

Romania is no exception for the Central and Eastern European
area, elements of transformational PR (Grunig & Grunig, 2005)
being identified inside the Romanian Government.
Future research
 Should focus on testing qualitatively these findings in order to
gather a mores profound and nuanced understanding of the
stages of professionalization, investigating the role of PR
practitioners inside Romanian Government and how they define
their functions in organisation.

 Then, correlating practitioners’ definitions with the institutional

definitions of the PR functions and roles that were reflected by
this research can be obtained a more accurate view of the
phenomenon.
Thank you!

Alina.dolea@comunicare.ro