Received: 30 May 2019 Revised: 8 October 2019 Accepted: 7 January 2020

DOI: 10.1002/pa.2080

ACADEMIC PAPER

The relationship management function of public affairs officers

in Chile: Identifying opportunities and challenges in an
emergent market

Claudia Labarca1 | Phillip C. Arceneaux2 | Guy J. Golan3

1
Communications, Pontificia Universidad
Católica de Chile Research on the public affairs profession in both South and Latin America is one of
2
College of Journalism and Communications, the leading limitations today in international public relations research. This study
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
3
helps to lessen such a gap by offering more realistic insight into the ideologies and
Center for Media & Public Opinion, TX
pressures that govern public affairs practice in Chile. In-depth interviews were con-
Correspondence
ducted with 15 experts who are current senior-level public affairs practitioners in the
Claudia Labarca, Communications, Pontificia
Universidad Católica de Chile. Chilean capital of Santiago. Results offer three key insights: First, the core function
Email: claudialabarca@uc.cl
of public affairs in Chile surrounds behaviors of lobbying and governmental relations.
Second, leveraging cohesion between organizational private interest and the public
interest is a key to leveraging pressure on elected officials and governmental agen-
cies. Lastly, there is significant concern regarding public trust in the lack of transpar-
ency in the Chilean public affairs field, facilitated by insufficient governmental
regulation. Such research offers practical and grounded insights for public affairs and
public relations scholarship.

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N public relations perspective. The focus on the relationship manage-

The field of public affairs has gained considerable attention from pub-
lic relations scholars over past decades. As a long-standing practice,
public affairs ranges across governments, corporations, interest
groups, and issue advocacy (Heath, 2013). Although the term “public
affairs” is widely used in both professional and academic circles, there
is little consensus over what the term actually means (Davidson,
2015). A review of relevant research points to two three key themes:
First, public affairs is a multidisciplinary area of scholarship that bor-
rows perspectives and theories from various fields (Fleisher, 2012).
Second, based on its relationship management function, public affairs
is viewed as a public relations subset (Heath, 2013). Finally, the ulti-
mate outcome of public affairs relationships is a direct focus on public
policy outcomes (Davidson & Rowe, 2016) through a variety of func-
tions including governmental relations, lobbying (Sadi & Meneghetti,
2019), and corporate activism (McGrath, Moss, & Harris, 2010).
The current study aims to advance knowledge on public affairs
scholarship by exploring key definitions and functions of the profes-
sion as understood by its practitioners. Although public affairs
research is multidisciplinary, our study examines the topic from a core
ment function is highlighted in White's description of public affairs as
“a specialist area of practice within public relations. It is concerned
with those relationships which are involved in the development of
public policy, legislation and regulation which may affect organiza-
tions, their interests and operations” (1991, p. 55). Recognizing the
centrality of the relationship management function to public relations,
public affairs is situated succinctly around achieving public policy out-
comes that rest at the nexus between corporate and governmental
organizations and a variety of stakeholders (Arceneaux, Borden, &
Golan, 2019; Grunig, 1983; Theaker, 2016; Toth, 1986).
Unlike many studies that focus on the United States and Europe,
this study provides a unique perspective as this research is conducted
in South America, a region largely absents in public relations research.
A key limitation of scholarship in this area is its tendency to
reappropriate empirical findings from one country across cultural
boundaries and geopolitical borders, namely, from Western countries
to other regions of the world. In the context of public relations and
public affairs, this is especially true due to the roots of the modern
profession in the United States and its prevalence in Europe. Any gen-
eralizations that ignore historical and cultural factors, however, are

J Public Affairs. 2020;e2080. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pa © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 1 of 12
https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2080
2 of 12
prone to error, especially in the context of Latin America (Molleda,
2001). As one of the most developed and economically stable nations
in South America, Chile provides a unique setting for inquiry. This
study, therefore, offers insight into the reality of public affairs practice
in Chile, a country representative of the larger public affairs industry
in South America.
2 | LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 | What is public affairs communication?
Primarily concerned with public policy outcomes, the field of public
affairs has gained considerable attention from public relations scholars
over past decades (Macnamara, 2012). As a long-standing practice,
public affairs ranges across governmental, corporate, issue advocacy,
and interest groups (Griffin, Fleisher, Brenner, & Boddewyn, 2006a;
Griffin, Fleisher, Brenner, & Boddewyn, 2006b; Heath, 2013). As aca-
demic and professional interest in public affairs continues to expand,
the field is undermined by a lack of consensus regarding the very defi-
nition of public affairs and its relation to, or differentiation from, such
areas of lobbying, government affairs, and government relations
(Fleisher & Blair, 1999; McGrath et al., 2010; Sadi & Meneghetti,
2019). As explained by Heath, public affairs is widely understood as
dealing with a “nonmarketplace context” (2015, p. 1). He presents the
following definition by Madden as a useful definition, saying that pub-
lic affairs is, “the management function responsible for interpreting an
organization's external environment, or in the case of a corporation,
its noncommercial environment, and managing an effective and
appropriate response to that environment” (2005, p. 665). This defini-
tion closely relates to the core concepts behind public relations.
The Public Relations Council (2018) goes so far as to assert that
the only meaningful difference between public relations and public
affairs is semantic. As they maintain, where public relations is cen-
tered in commercial interests, the key target audience is the client;
however, with public affairs being centered on the influence of public
policy from a wide range of organizational actors (government, corpo-
rate, issue advocacy, and interest groups), the linguistic characteriza-
tion of public affairs' target audience is widened to consist of publics
broadly defined. Likewise, the Public Affairs Council uses an equally
broad term to define the target audience of public affairs work. “It
[public affairs] combines government relations, communications,
issues management, and corporate citizenship strategies to influence
public policy, build a strong reputation, and find common ground with
stakeholders” (2018, para. 3).
Because public affairs is focused on the policy outcome of
organization-public relationships, this study argues that the term is
nearly synonymous with the concept of political public relations,
defined by Strömbäck and Kiousis as “the management process by
which an organization or individual for political purposes, through pur-
poseful communication and action, seeks to influence and to establish,
build, and maintain beneficial relationships and reputations with key
publics and stakeholders to help support its mission and achieve its
LABARCA ET AL.
goals” (2019, p. 11). The similarity between public affairs and political
public relations highlights the confusion created by widely used
umbrella terms that encompass many areas of both theory and prac-
tice. Strömbäck and Kiousis (2019) set out to define the concept of
political public relations in a manner that cut through equal amounts
of confusion and misuse as is characteristic of the public affairs
concept.
With a wide range of descriptive, theoretical, normative, and pre-
scriptive characteristics attached to public affairs by a global myriad
of scholars and practitioners, it is nearly impossible to clearly under-
stand what constitutes public affairs; much less, it is equally unclear
the relationship between public relations and political communication.
A potential explanation for the disconnect in the underlying under-
standing of public affairs may result from paradigmatic differences.
Whereas scholars approach the field from the normative perspective
of how things should be, public affairs professionals often approach
the term based on real life experience. To build on the thoughts of
Strömbäck and Kiousis (2019), what public affairs is and what it
should be are two separate matters; normative elements should not
be included in the core definition of public affairs and rather a univer-
sal understanding should be driven by practitioners in the field.
This sentiment was further mirrored by Hoffmann (2019) with
criticism toward “harmonious PR within harmonious societies.” Hoff-
mann argues that to view public relations as virtuous relationship
engagement only is to misunderstand the industry and the practice.
We suggest that such a view can be extended from public relations to
the public affairs industry. To that end, the work of a public affairs
practitioner consists of advising and directing institutional entities
how to strategically engage with key elements of the public, through
informing and persuading targeted publics to support predetermined
public policy objectives or outcomes.
To understand this basic occupational responsibility is to under-
stand that to engage in public affairs is synonymous with engaging
in political public relations. Both concepts are concerned with how
to manage relationships with the public to optimally serve a political
purpose. Bernays defines public relations as consisting of three
unique functions: “The three main elements of public relations are
practically as old as society: informing people, persuading people, or
integrating people with people” (1952, p. 12). Based on tactics and
strategies largely developed and defined by public relations litera-
ture and practice, both political public relations and public affairs
are ultimately interested in one thing, the formation and/or manipu-
lation of public opinion to serve organizational interests in the politi-
cal sphere.
2.2 | Public affairs functions
Public affairs departments are ubiquitous throughout corporations,
governments, and interest groups (Fleisher & Blair, 1999). From a pub-
lic relations perspective, public affairs deals with those organization-
stakeholder relationships that directly (or even indirectly) impact pub-
lic policy outcomes. As informed by a rich body of literature on
LABARCA ET AL.
relationship management theory (Hung, 2005; Ledingham, 2003)
organization-public relationship management aims to generate benefit
for the organization and the public alike. Ultimately, public affairs
practitioners, trained in core public relations ideologies, view their role
as creating mutually beneficial networks of relationships between
both organizations and civil society and organizations and governmen-
tal stakeholders (Sommerfeldt & Kent, 2015). At times, however,
stressing the promotion of “public interest” as their operative mission
(Feintuck, 2004; Ihlen, Raknes, Somerville, Valentini, Stachel, Lock,
et al., 2018), public affairs professionals representing special interests
have branched out into such traditional public relations functions as
corporate social responsibility and community relations.
To this end, public affairs professionals serve various relationship
centered functions, again, making it similar if not indistinguishable at
times to traditional public relations (Grunig & Grunig, 2001). For
example, Toth (1986) lists the Public Affairs Council designated activi-
ties as public affairs functions: government relations, political actions
including the communication of political issues, community involve-
ment, corporate social responsibilities including philanthropy, and
political risk assessment.
In their substantive review of the literature, McGrath et al. (2010)
argue that issue and reputation management are key functions of
public affairs. They also present findings from a 2009 study by the
Center for Corporate Affairs and the Public Affairs Council in which
they list 21 public affairs activities of which 10 can be considered tra-
ditional public relations functions. These 10 activities include corpo-
rate communications, corporate social responsibility, crisis
management, community relations, issues management, media rela-
tions, employee relations, stakeholder relations, government relations,
and trade associate oversight.
2.3 | Public affairs and relationship management
Traditionally, public relations literature was centered on a one-way
communication model, that is, how practitioners communicate to the
public. Botan and Taylor (2004) and Botan and Hazelton (2006), how-
ever, note that the field underwent a fundamental change through the
1980s and 1990s. As prompted by the work of Ferguson (1984), both
public relations and public affairs began to shift toward a newer model
that emphasized the role of public affairs as the creation and mainte-
nance of two-way communication-based relationships with public
audiences, namely, relationships that were mutually beneficial to the
involved parties. It is through this kind of relationship that organiza-
tions and individuals can more functionally manage the perception of
their image in the eyes of the public (Heath, 2001).
Such work was particularly furthered by Grunig (1993, 2001),
Grunig and Hunt (1984), Grunig and Repper (1992), and Grunig, Grunig,
and Dozier (2002). As he argues, the basis of public affairs is cemented
in the relational element through which an organization engages with,
and relates to, a public. He notes that one-way asymmetrical communi-
cation with audiences presents a variety of ethical problems (Grunig,
1993), out of which such publics often equate asymmetrical
3 of 12
communication as a key identifier of propaganda, in so far as it relates
to the pejorative connotation in the eyes of public opinion. Grunig
(2001) advocates, rather, for a two-way symmetrical communication
model that stresses genuine engagement and mutual benefits to be
shared among the entities party to the work of public relations.
As public relations scholarship evolved beyond the early theoreti-
cal work of Grunig and his coauthors, a more substantial focus was
placed on the importance of relationship management in more diverse
contexts. The introduction of relationship management theory
(Ledingham, 2003; Ledingham & Bruning, 1998, 2000) placed a deep
emphasis on the organizational investment and authentic commitment
to stakeholders as a precondition for successful practice of public rela-
tions. Heath advanced this in stating that the key to being a “good
corporate citizen” (2006, p. 100) is the ability of an organization to
consider the opinions, pressures, and needs of its stakeholders and to
engage with them in such a way that makes them feel valued, appreci-
ated, and respected.
As reflected in our review, the early writings on public affairs
were limited not only by a handful of theoretical perspectives pro-
moted by early public relations scholars but also by a United States-
centric focus that brings into question many of the fundamental
assumptions regarding the overall generalizability of research findings.
Fortunately, much progress has been made in this regard during the
course of the past two decades. As scholars reach beyond traditional
theoretical assumptions, toward the investigation of diverse phenom-
enon across the globe, modern public affairs scholarship will provide a
more robust understanding of the field and its implications.
Of interest to the current study is the growing scholarship on the
so-called Latin American School of Public Relations (Molleda, 2001).
This school of thought offers a lens into a region that is typically
defined by social, economic, and political activism, which allows organi-
zations to build relationships with stakeholders within a wider, and
often more complex, dynamic than in Europe or the United States
(Molleda, 2017). Although still growing, research in this area includes lit-
erature on Brazil (Molleda & Ferguson, 2004), Colombia (Molleda &
Moreno, 2008; Molleda & Suarez, 2005), Mexico (De Moya & Jain,
2013; Molleda & Moreno, 2008), Venezuela (Molleda, 2007; Molleda &
Moren, 2008), Ecuador (Tilson & Alozie, 2004), Peru (Sommerfeldt &
Kent, 2015), and Chile (Somma, Labarca, Gálvez, & Godoy, 2016).
Outside of the Latin American context, scholars have made head-
way in research on the politically motivated relationship management
function of public affairs. Sweetser, English, and Fernandes (2015), for
example, analyzed the role super PACs fill in policy contexts, namely,
finding that active engagement on digital platforms increased the feel-
ing of a conversational exchange and reinforced the perception of the
organization-to-public relationship. Further, Sweetser (2017) found
that the strength of an individual's relationship with a political organi-
zation is significantly impacted by the authenticity of those publicly
more representative of the organization and the level of credibility a
person prescribes to that organization.
Where public affairs is situated in a two-actor model, namely, cor-
porations and their consumers, public affairs is more accurately situ-
ated in a three-actor model consisting of corporations, governmental
4 of 12
actors, and the public. With the growing dominance of corporate
accountability via corporate social responsibility, in tandem with the
notion that the public affairs field primarily exists in democratic coun-
tries where government actors are subject to the favor of public opin-
ion, the burden falls on public affairs practitioners to create a
narrative that positions their organizations favorably in the eyes of
the public, as a means to further the organization's ability to work
with governmental actors to achieve desired policy outcomes.
2.4 | Private versus public interest
As stated, the core function of public affairs is to manage the image of
an organization in the eyes of the public so as to further that organiza-
tion's private interests in some kind of political or policy context. With
the growing prevalence of corporate social responsibility, public
affairs practitioners are now seeking to use relationship management
tactics to align the private interests of their organizations with the
public interest; that is, they seek to further their organization's inter-
ests through advocating for the public's interest (Oberman, 2017). As
Ihlen et al. suggest, “arguing for the public interest is a staple lobbying
strategy in Western-style democracies” (2018, p. 120).
Public interest is an abstract concept (Cochran, 1974; Feintuck,
2004; Sartori, 1970; Simm, 2011); ultimately, it is a malleable set of
ideals that can be influenced (Simm, 2011), or at times even hijacked,
by organized interests with substantial assets and resources. Although
the public affairs profession regularly lobbies for political influence,
part of this lobbying strategy involves influencing public interest to
converge it with the organization's private interests. Promoting an
image or narrative of the organization as invested in the public inter-
est takes advantage of the benefits of corporate social responsibility
and maximizes the social capital of the organization. It is this social
capital, conferred on the organization by positive public sentiment,
that an organization can use to leverage influence on politicians, polit-
ical parties, and governmental institutions to advance the private
policy-centered interests of the organization.
2.5 | The case of Chile
Mellado and Humanes (2012) note a continued lack of theoretically
driven research both on the Latin American, and specifically Chilean,
public relations markets. Indeed, Mellado and Barría (2012) highlight
the strong North American influence on Chilean academia due to
scarce local research. This lack of an owned theoretical approach may
be due to the recent professionalization of the public relations prac-
tice in Chile. As noted by Délano (1990), it was Augusto Pinochet's
regime and the influence of the neoliberal economic model that trig-
gered the development of the professional practice in the country.
Substantial growth within the global economy also contributed to the
professionalization of public relations in Chile, because it allowed mul-
tinational companies to settle in the country. Nevertheless, Chile is
still in a process of development (Contreras, 2006).
LABARCA ET AL.
Regarding their main professional roles, previous research indi-
cates that Chilean public relations practitioners consider themselves
as strategic communicators within organizations. They also indicate
the importance of technical short-term functions, particularly day to
day relationship with the media. Finally, Chilean public affairs practi-
tioners see themselves as having an ever-vigilant role within organiza-
tional bodies (Mellado and Barría, 2012).
The Latin American Communication Monitor (Moreno et al.,
2019) reveals that public relations practitioners in Chile provide
reports to their superiors in two main subjects: news and monitoring.
Within these two core responsibility areas, many note that engaging
with active audiences and stressing public transparency is a substan-
tially growing part of daily responsibilities.
Given the end of the Chilean authoritarian regimes of the 20th
century, and the ensuing hybridization of Chile's strategic communica-
tions sector via the merging of journalism and public relations prac-
tice, Chile makes for an ideal and budding market for study as it offers
a culturally unique take on public affairs. The foundational interest of
this article is to better understand the relationship management func-
tion of public affairs practitioners in Latin America.
As argued, although there is growing public affairs research in the
Latin American context (Biggemann, Klimovich, & Thomas, 2014;
Carbone, 2019; Fisse & Thomas, 2014; Gozetto & Thomas, 2014;
Hogenboom & Jilberto, 2012; Sadi & Meneghetti, 2019; Thomas &
Klimovich, 2013, 2014), such research is still significantly outpaced by
similar research set in the United States, European, and Asian con-
texts. Indeed, McGrath et al. (2010) recognize that perceptions of
what constitutes public affairs activities may result from geography,
supporting the underlying assumption that public relations and public
affairs research must be regionally and culturally proximate to the
environments they study. This research, therefore, helps to close this
gap by addressing the role of public affairs practitioners in the Latin
American country of Chile. Although the legislation is fairly new in the
country (Law N 20.730, 2014) and intends to regulate lobbying and
related activities, in practical terms, public affairs activities have been
going on for many years from now in Chile and have constituted regu-
lar corporate practices (Garin, 2016).
According to a UN Human Development Report (2018), Chile
leads both South America and Latin America more broadly, in a host
of social issues including health, education, income, inequality, secu-
rity, employment, business, environmental sustainability, and socio-
economic sustainability. Understanding that many of these metrics
constitute prime issues for public interest, the Chilean public affairs
industry serves as the ideal case for investigating how practitioners
view the goals and responsibilities of the profession, as well as how
such outcomes are achieved.
3 | METHODOLOGY
In order to understand the nature of public affairs in Chile, in-
depth qualitative interviews were conducted with 15 public
affairs professionals working in Santiago between December
LABARCA ET AL.
2018 and January 2019. Following Glaser (1978), an inductive
orientation in the data collection and analysis was adopted. The
research was also guided by an interpretivist approach, which
seeks to address the complexity and meaning of situations
(Black, 2006).
All 15 participants work for large corporations or public affairs
consultancies and hold senior rank within their organizations, that
is, they constitute leading public affairs professionals in Chile.
Recruitment of the participants was conducted by a scholar with
a vast professional network in Chile via professional organizations
and academic networks. To select the sample, two methods were
used: purposive and snowball sampling. As put by Patton, “The
logic and power of purposeful sampling lies in selecting
information-rich cases for study in depth. Information-rich cases
are those from which one can learn a great deal about issues of
central importance to the purpose of the research, thus the term
purposeful sampling.” (1990, p. 169). Thus, high ranking public
affairs officers and senior consultants and with considerable
expertise (at least 5 years of experience) in industries sensitive to
regulation were purposively selected. Snowball sampling was also
used, asking the same participants to suggest potential respon-
dents within their professional networks.
Participants were screened based on their direct involvement in
the field. Interviews were conducted in person or by phone. All partic-
ipants were offered anonymity and signed an informed consent form.
On average, each interview took between 30–45 min. The interviews
were recorded and translated into English by a professional translator.
Of the 15 participants, two were female; all were above the age of 40.
In-depth, semistructured interviews were utilized. Interviews are a
form of conversation (Kvale, 2008) useful to obtaining a viewpoint on
specific subjects (Bryman, 2004). To guide the conversation, a question-
naire with five major themes was developed. Themes included
(a) definition of public affairs, (b) identification and characterization of
key players, (c) role of public affairs in policy communication,
(d) relationship between public good and public affairs, and
(e) evaluation of the current public affairs professional practice in rela-
tionship with Latin America and developed countries. Participants were
also asked to give extra comments they deemed necessary or
appropriate.
An open coding scheme using a hierarchical structure (Saldaña
2019) was used to report the findings. Initially, 180 entries were
coded as descriptive themes, which then passed to the secondary
cycle of coding looking to “explain, theorize, and synthesize them.
Second-level coding includes interpretation and identifying patterns,
rules or cause-effects progressions” (Tracy, 2013, p. 194). The data
were analyzed through an iterative process to refine results, following
the methodology proposed by Tracy (2013).
4 | RESULTS
Three key themes emerged from the interview data. First, inter-
viewees agreed that the key function of public affairs includes
5 of 12
lobbying and government relations. More broadly, they identified indi-
rect influence over decision makers as a key function of the industry.
This includes indirect lobbying via news organizations or governments
and, growingly, community elites. There was no clear consensus, how-
ever, on whether public affairs needs to be understood as a subarea
of public relations, an autonomous discipline/area, or plainly equate it
to public relations itself. Second, the alignment between organiza-
tional interests and the public good was identified as a prominent
principle required for a company or an industry's long-term success,
and moreover, financial sustainability. Although the interviewees col-
lectively agreed on this theme, they also reported that they often
must manage the tension between this principle and the more short-
sighted interest of corporate boardrooms where immediate fiscal
interest is prioritized. Finally, the participants reported general con-
cern over the current state of the public affairs industry in Chile,
which suffers from inadequate regulation and a lack of transparency,
resulting in diminished trust in the profession. Cultural traits, however,
were also highlighted as a cause.
4.1 | Definition and key stakeholders
As a general result, there was agreement among participants that the
predominant function of PA is to impact public policy through rela-
tionship management with key stakeholders. This includes, but is not
limited to, the classic lobby function and government relations.
Regarding the scope of PA, however, there were nuances among par-
ticipants. To facilitate the analysis, respondents were divided broadly
into two main groups. The first group constituted those interviewees
who focused their definition on the relationship among corporations
and institutions with governmental and political authorities, most of
them to influence the decision-making process on public policy and
regulation and therefore, agreeing with the traditional definition
found in the literature review. Mostly, this group was formed by pro-
fessional lobbyists (consultants), and in the case of corporations, only
one participant was included in this group. It was also the only case in
which PA was a separate department from Communication. The fol-
lowing definition helps to understand the perspective of this first
group and sheds light on the conceptualization of public interest,
which is the second major finding in this research:
Public affairs is constituted by every relationship with
authorities on those subjects not yet regulated with
the purpose to propose new business alternatives that
benefit the country as well as protecting the company
in all those regulatory aspects, especially on conten-
tious cases involving the authority against the com-
pany. (Respondent 2, Utilities).
The second, and largely predominant, group was identified as
having a broader perspective on public affairs because they integrated
more stakeholders and functions into the analysis. This group ranged
from those that consider new nongovernmental stakeholders as key
6 of 12
in the area, to those that equate public affairs with public relations
and therefore somehow denying the discipline of public affairs as hav-
ing its own disciplinary core and corporate function.
Two common characteristics can be distinguished on this group:
First, there was a predominance of the relationship with the authori-
ties rather than the particular public affairs outcome of this relation-
ship when they conceptualized public affairs. Second, the
incorporation of new nongovernmental actors as key stakeholders in
the field was dominant. Regarding the first characteristic, and in con-
trast with the traditional definitions on public affairs that focuses on
public policy outcomes (i.e., laws and regulations), respondents
highlighted the main function of public affairs as being the relation-
ship with key stakeholders itself rather than the particular outcome of
these relations. This is not only a broader conceptualization of what
public affairs implies, but also a change of focus in its definition, as
exemplified by the experience of this Director of Communications
and Corporate Affairs from a utility company:
(Public Affairs) goes far beyond regulation. In some
occasions, authorities take decisions targeted to impact
media to have short term political revenues. Those
decisions may impact a company or even destroy a
brand… and they have not changed any regulation, but
they destroy companies anyway. Also, a fluent rela-
tionship with the authorities and the fact that they
stand by you at certain moments give positive signs to
the market, investors, and public opinion that posi-
tively impact your reputation (Respondent 15, Utilities)
As can be seen, the relationship with authority exceeds the tradi-
tional scope on PA and becomes relevant to fulfill general communica-
tion goals.
The second characteristic means that the PA relationship man-
agement function is not only targeted to create, maintain, and develop
ties with authorities (i.e., government and legislative) but with what
they call the “environment of the public sphere.” To this respect, a
succinct definition was offered; “How do we define public affairs? At
the end of the day it is the relationship that a corporation has with its
public sphere in order to develop business” (Respondent
10, Telecommunications).
Two aspects are of interest in this quote. First, the idea that pub-
lic affairs is ultimately conceived as a pillar for business, again going
beyond the scope of regulation. Second, it is not focused only on the
authorities as the main target of relationship management but on
what the majority of the respondents labelled as “public sphere,”
which overreaches governmental authorities because it includes com-
munities, influencers, business associations and, to a lesser extent,
academia, and think tanks. Unlike authorities, these groups are used
as indirect strategy to pressure decision makers. Subsequently, when
asked, respondents broadened the scope of traditional key actors by
incorporating new relevant stakeholders to fulfill PA goals, highlight-
ing the complexity necessary to understand and design strategies
targeted to different publics.
LABARCA ET AL.
In general, respondents tended to incorporate communities (territo-
rial and ideological) including political actors, business associations, think
tanks, or academics. Mass media appear with less importance in their
discourse; only three respondents mentioned it as an important actor.
The subject is complex. We can use multiple methodol-
ogies to categorize - according to relevance and the
particular market in which your company develops -
which are the key stakeholders … But this method
does not understand the field dynamics; I should
change the priority of each stakeholder depending on
the strategy … and the objectives. You can always
describe your interest groups, but this is like a domino,
you always have the same 36 pieces, but you can dis-
tribute them differently (Respondent 3, Banking).
It is worth noting that given the Chilean presidentialist regime,
congresspeople are not necessarily relevant in their legislative func-
tion but rather as opinion leaders on traditional or social media. “Pri-
vate interest always wants access to those congressmen that appear
on TV” (Respondent 5, Consultant).
Very closely related to the scope of PA is its functional relationship
with PR. For those respondents with a focused perspective of PA, spe-
cifically targeted to authorities and public policy (i.e., laws and regula-
tion) as the only outcome, PA is an independent function within a
corporation and a partner to communications. “We are one of the few
companies in which PA constitute a separate area, with all the authority
that structure implies. We are separated from communications”
(Respondent 2, Utilities). For those who understand PA as targeting not
only authorities but also a broader spectrum of stakeholders, but still
also understand PA centers on public policy as a main function, PA is a
functional subset of PR and therefore supports communications. “That
is why I understand (PA) as part of communications … A specific activ-
ity is lobby, which looks to influence decision-makers to influence pub-
lic policy. For me lobby is one of many tools of PA, as focus groups are
for marketing. Lobby is not an area but a tool” (Respondent 12, Consul-
tant). Finally, a third group matches PA with PR. “PA is confused to
(be targeting) only relationships with the government, which is the
American (U.S.) conceptualization, which is the most political one. I do
not see any difference between corporate affairs (PR) and public affairs
in Chile … I don't see any difference, the political factor is one of the
factors” (Respondent 8, Consultant). Moreover, a respondent defined
AP as “any action or initiative from a corporation that goes to the
external stakeholders” (Respondent 14, Food Industry).
4.2 | Organizational interest and public good
As it has been discussed previously, part of the PA function is to align
private corporate interests with public good. The results of this
research indicate that there is agreement among participants that
public good is vital to corporate long-term sustainability, and engaging
both interests is a critical function of PA. Thus, for all the respondents,
LABARCA ET AL.
public good is conceived strategically not only to keep reputation
among key players but as an essential component of business strat-
egy. “Public good is key for the company's operation. When a com-
pany wants to operate (or already operates) in a certain place is
important to relate the corporate project and objectives with public
good, otherwise it will not be able to succeed. You need to have local
and national support” (Respondent 7, Utilities). Moreover, public good
is an essential part within the definition of PA from a practitioner per-
spective: “(PA) concerns all those matters that constitute public inter-
est but may affect the particular interest of an organization. In
practice, this is PA” (Respondent 5, Consultant).
Although they share the strategic conceptualization of PA, partici-
pants have their differences not only as to what constitutes public
good but how this is determined. There is agreement into understand-
ing public good from a constructivist perspective but disagreement
around who builds it and how is built. To this respect, the results indi-
cate two main perspectives; the first understands public good as the
result of a negotiation and dialogue. Who wins this dialogue or negoti-
ation depends on the amount of power held by the actor and its stra-
tegic capacity to build it, thus assuming that balance of power can be
modified strategically.
In the real world (public good) is built within the influ-
ence process; a construction … For example, a very
expensive medicine needs to be subsidized by the
state, then the strategy to succeed will be probably
based on grouping patients into a pressure group … At
the end of the day, these are constructions based on
who won the discussion. (Respondent 6, Consultant).
Therefore, this perspective also implies that this negotiation
involves two opposite interest groups, which look to influence public
policy.
The second, and the majority, perspective shows a discursive
posture that, although constructivist, assumes a situation of unbal-
ance, in terms of power, in which state and governmental authori-
ties determine what constitutes the public good. “From the
consultant perspective you need to make compatible public inter-
est and public good … Public good is defined by the authority
(a right-wing government will define public good differently from a
left-wing government). But when you can do that, the rules of the
game tend to be more stable; regulation gives stability”
(Respondent 12, Consultant).
Alignment, engagement, and adaptation are the words most used
by respondents to describe the strategy PA practitioner needs to
follow.
In order to succeed you need to link private interest
with public interest, although the prevalence of private
interest is the corporate dream, because nobody will
take a decision that only benefits you. I have the duty
to engrain my (referring to corporate) interests with
the public ones … If I don't do that there will be
7 of 12
thousands of arguments to destroy that particular
interest. (Respondent 5, Consultant).
In this second case, there is a hierarchy among state and private
actors, in which the latter needs to adapt their policies and understand
the new business scenarios. “How you reach common good is also a sign
of how your business conditions change. If, for example, common good
is related to climate change this is a new sign for our business, those are
the new rules we are playing with” (Respondent 2, Utilities). Although
this is considered an ongoing process, it will be achieved because it helps
companies to sustain their own businesses on a long-term basis.
My perception is nowadays public good is gradually
being built … Big corporations are understanding that
private interest cannot be unlinked to public good. Com-
panies that are doing this are having positive results,
both in reputation and in surveys, and they are the ones
that have understood they need to change their own
business model and their strategic proposal to do this
match with public interest. (Respondent 11, Consultant).
4.3 | Regulation and practice
In 2014, Chile passed the first law that regulates “lobbying and all the
activities that represent particular interests before authorities and
government bureaucrats … with the objective to strengthen transpar-
ency and probity in the relationship and the State” (Law 20,730,
2018). The law defines lobbying as a paid activity, whether this is
developed by a natural person or legal entity, whose objective is to
promote, defend, and represent any interest to influence decisions
that government authorities take during their period in office. Simply,
the law makes it mandatory for professional lobbyists to be registered
in a public list. Also, authorities are compelled to have a public docu-
ment in which meetings with lobbyists, that have the purpose
described by the law, need to be registered and described.
Respondents tend to agree that having a law that regulates the
activity is necessary for transparency and for sustaining democracy
and avoid corruption. Most of them, especially consultants and pro-
fessional lobbysts, criticize the law as weak and unfair.
To have a law that regulates lobbying helps to legitimize
it. In fact, the mere existence of the law helps to define
it, clarify its scope and regulate it (what is allowed, for-
bidden and how). In the case of Chile, we have a very
light and simple law (in terms of regulation), that high-
lights the role of the subject of the lobbying activities
(i.e., authorities) more than the lobbyist itself, but a good
regulation should allow equal access to decision making
process (Respondent 12, Consultant).
This critique addresses the registering and public agenda with the
formal meetings and the definition of lobby as a “paid activity.”
8 of 12
Although this is recognized as important for transparency, they argue
that the law leaves out an important aspect of Chilean actual lobby:
informal meetings that may occur in spaces outside the formal offices.
This is very important in a society, as is the case in Chile, in which cli-
entelism is still a cultural aspect (Barozet 2006) and bonding social capi-
tal prevails (Cousiño & Valenzuela, 2000). For example, lunch at any
restaurant or informal conversations in a club do not count as lobbying.
One example of this is highlighted by a professional lobbyist saying,
Informal lobbying is the main focus of corruption. For-
mal lobby is regulated. For example, because I am reg-
istered as a lobbyist, every time I have a meeting with
a congressmen everyone knows we are not going to
talk about soccer… the problem lies on those hundreds
of people that are not registered as such but in practice
they practice lobby although they are not compelled to
register any meeting or conversation with authorities
(Respondent 5, Consultant).
For example, a business association that may have important
power over the decision-making process on public policy is not con-
sidered a lobbyist, and therefore, they are not compelled to report
their behavior. On the other hand, Chilean law does not require
authorities to hear all the parties involved in a decision-making pro-
cess. “Chilean law fosters transparency insofar it creates a list of audi-
ences and lobbyist, but it does not help to reduce asymmetries of
power since it does not guarantee equal access for all … that is why
massive protests are more efficient than lobbying” (Respondent
6, Consultant). Like most of the respondents, Respondent 6 places the
United States as an example, and benchmark, of adequate regulation.
Likewise, they place Chile as leading this area within Latin America. As
can be seen, although there is recognition on some of the positive
aspects of having a law that regulates public affairs, the respondents
agreed on the fact that current legal regulation in Chile does not cover
all the areas in which PA works.
5 | DISCUSSION
Although public affairs has been an important part of public relations
since its early days, academic scholarship on the relationship between
the two topics has been scant. Recently, scholars attempted to not
only define the various dimensions of public affairs but also their rela-
tionship to the overall public relations body of literature. The current
study aims to contribute to this emergent scholarship in two ways.
First, it extends the investigation of the topic outside of the United
States, the geographic focus of most previously published studies on
the topic. Second, we examine the intersection of public versus pri-
vate interest as presented in the Chilean public affairs industry.
Three key themes emerged from the interview data. First, inter-
viewees agreed that the key function of public affairs includes lobbying
and government relations. More broadly, they identified indirect influ-
ence over decision makers as a key function of the industry. This
LABARCA ET AL.
includes indirect lobbying via news organizations or government and
community elites. These findings are consistent with previous studies
(Fleisher & Blair, 1999; Ihlen et al., 2018; McGrath et al., 2010; Sadi &
Meneghetti, 2019) that indicate that despite the broad scope of public
affairs functions, lobbying remains as a key function synonymous to
professionals within public affairs. The qualitative nature of our data
provided for an interesting finding that is to be explored by further
studies. Although the interviewees focused on lobbying, several of
them also mentioned that public affairs include elements of business
strategy. Recognizing that the business outcomes of their organizations
are directly tied to organization-government relationship outcomes,
they argued for the centrality of public affairs in the overall business
strategy of the organization.
Second, the alignment between organizational interests and the
public good was identified as a prominent principle required for a
company's or an industry's long-term success. Although these public
affairs officers collectively agreed on this theme, they also reported
that they often have to manage the tension between this principle
and the more short-sighted interest of corporate boardrooms where
immediate fiscal interest are prioritized. As argued by Ihlen et al.
(2018), the perceived alignment between the private interest of an
organization and the public interest argument is key to the success of
any public affairs campaign. The findings of our study highlight the
real-world tension between the more normative body of scholarship
on public interest communication (Arceneaux, 2018; Brunner, 2017;
Fessmann, 2017; Fitzpatrick, 2017) and the real-world constraints fac-
ing public affairs practitioners who has to adhere to boardroom
expectations that may not entirely fit best practices.
The final theme that emerged from our study pointed to a
macrolevel concern on the part of the public affairs professionals. They
reported general concern over the current state of the public affairs
industry in Chile, which suffers from inadequate regulation and lacks
transparency, resulting in diminished trust in the profession. Given that
Chile is largely viewed as one of the most developed and stable coun-
tries in Latin America in a public affairs capacity, this finding is a cause
for concern, particularly regarding to the nature, or lack thereof, of reg-
ulation, transparency, and perceived trust of public affairs practitioners
in other countries within South and Latin America. Our participants
raised a red flag of concern for those interested in the state of public
affairs in the region. As demonstrated by a substantial body of scholar-
ship, trust is a fundamental requirement for successful organization-
public relationship management (Grunig, Grunig, & Ehling, 1992; Hon &
Grunig, 1999; Kent & Taylor, 2002). As such, we argue that the regula-
tion of the public affairs industry in Latin America could potentially pro-
mote its success rather than impede it.
Ledingham and Bruning (1998) identify five key dimensions of
relationship management, including trust, openness, involvement,
investment, and commitment. In the context of our study, the Chilean
interviewees identified some areas of disconnect between organiza-
tional public affairs campaigns and the overall welfare of key stake-
holders. Our study adds to previous literature that examines the
concept of the public good, that is, public interest, as it relates to pub-
lic affairs activities (Ihlen et al., 2018). Whereas public relations
LABARCA ET AL.
scholars argue that successful relationship management entails align-
ment between organizational and public good, studies similar to the
current one that test the reality application of public affairs (Sadi &
Meneghetti, 2019), indicate that there is a gap between assumptions
held by academics and those help by practitioners. This disconnect
should inform future scholarship on the relationship management the-
ory, and the relationship management function of public affairs, where
normative assumptions on how the industry should be, ought to con-
sider real life organizational priorities that are often driven by eco-
nomic, social, and political realities.
Overall, public relations is about relationships and about harmony
between stakeholders within those relationships. Politics, however, is
ultimately about conflict and the power-based clash of ideologies. As
a field of public relations interested in governmental relations, public
affairs practitioners must find a way to use relationships as a means to
engage in politically driven discourse and action. This is regularly
achieved by using public interest communication. Public affairs practi-
tioners position an organization to be a proponent of an issue within
the public's interest; this then creates a mutually beneficial relation-
ship between the organization and public. Additionally, this mutually
beneficial organization-public relationship becomes a source of politi-
cal influence, allowing the organization to leverage governmental rela-
tionships in a conflict-driven political ecosystem. Thus, the key to
successful public affairs is to garner positive public relationships as a
kind of social currency that the organization can then use to secure its
interests in governmental and political domains.
This study contributes to public affairs and public relations
research by offering insight into the reality of the public affairs prac-
tice in a region of the world seldom studied in this area. These insights
hold merit for the evaluation of public affairs practice as represented
in public discourses of the profession versus first-hand insider experi-
ence. Further, the study sheds light on public affairs lobbying both in
and across national borders. Of course, the study is limited by its qual-
itative nature, which does not allow for generalizability. Future studies
can further expand on such research findings and help contribute to
the emergent body of scholarship on public affairs outside of the
United States and Europe.
ORCID
Claudia Labarca https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7788-4516
RE FE R ENC E S
Arceneaux, P. (2018). The public interest behind #JeSuisCharlie and
#JeSuisAhmed: Social media and hashtag virality as mechanisms for
Western cultural imperialism. Journal of Public Interest Communication,
2(1), 41–63.
Arceneaux, P., Borden, J., & Golan, G. J. (2019). The news management
function of political public relations: A theoretical approach. In
J. Strömbäck & S. Kiousis (Eds.), Political public relations: Concepts, prin-
ciples and applications (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Biggemann, S., Klimovich, K., & Thomas, C. S. (2014). Interest group
dynamics in a weak and transitional state: The case of Bolivia. Journal
of Public Affairs, 14(3–4), 254–282. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1546
Black, I. (2006). The presentation of interpretivist research. Qualitative
Market Research: An International Journal, 9(4), 319–324.
9 of 12
Botan, C. H., & Hazelton, V. (2006). Public relations theory II. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Botan, C. H., & Taylor, M. (2004). Public relations: State of the field. Jour-
nal of Communication, 54(4), 645–661. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1460-2466.2004.tb02649.x
Brunner, B. (2017). Community, engagement, and democracy: Re-
envisioning public relations and public interest communications
through civic professionalism. Journal of Public Interest Communication,
1(1), 41–63.
Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Carbone, C. A. (2019). Lobbying in developing countries: The Peruvian
case. Journal of Public Affairs, e1901. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1901
Cochran, C. E. (1974). Political science and the public interest. The Journal
of Politics, 36(2), 327–355. https://doi.org/10.2307/2129473
Contreras, D. (2006). La gestión de crisis en la comunicación organiz-
acional: el caso de Chile. Anàlisi: Quaderns de comunicació i Cultura, 34,
305–313.
Davidson, S. (2015). Everywhere and nowhere: Theorising and researching
public affairs and lobbying within public relations scholarship. Public
Relations Review, 41(5), 615–627.
Davidson, S., & Rowe, O. (2016). Emerging from the shadows? Percep-
tions, problems and potential consensus on the functional and civic
roles of public affairs practice. Public Relations Inquiry, 5(1), 5–32.
De Moya, M., & Jain, R. (2013). When tourists are your “friends”: Exploring
the brand personality of Mexico and Brazil on Facebook. Public Rela-
tions Review, 39(1), 23–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.
09.004
Délano, B. (1990). Public relations in Chile: Theory and practice. Santiago:
Chile, Editorial Universitaria.
Feintuck, M. (2004). The public interest in regulation. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Ferguson, M. A. (1984). Building theory in public relations: Inter-
organizational relationships as a public relations paradigm. Paper pres-
ented at the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication. Gainesville, FL.
Fessmann, J. (2017). Conceptual foundations of public interest communi-
cations. Journal of Public Interest Communication, 1(1), 16–30.
Fisse, H. R., & Thomas, C. S. (2014). The Chilean big business lobby: A
long-standing and major influence on public policy. Journal of Public
Affairs, 14(3–4), 310–330. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1520
Fitzpatrick, K. (2017). Public diplomacy in the public interest. Journal of
Public Interest Communication, 1(1), 78–93.
Fleisher, C. S. (2012). Anniversary retrospective, perspective and prospec-
tive of corporate public affairs: Moving from the 2000+ PA model
toward public affairs 2.0. Journal of Public Affairs, 12(1), 4–11.
Fleisher, C. S., & Blair, N. M. (1999). Tracing the parallel evolution of public
affairs and public relations: An examination of practice, scholarship
and teaching. Journal of Communication Management, 3(3), 276–292.
Garin, R. (2016). El lobby Feroz. Santiago, Chile: Editorial Catalonia.
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Gozetto, A. C. O., & Thomas, C. S. (2014). Interest groups in Brazil: A new
era and its challenges. Journal of Public Affairs, 14(3–4), 212–239.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1536
Griffin, J. J., Fleisher, C. S., Brenner, S. N., & Boddewyn, J. J. (2006a). Cor-
porate public affairs research: Chronological reference list. Part 1:
1985-2000. Journal of Public Affairs, 1(1), 9–32.
Griffin, J. J., Fleisher, C. S., Brenner, S. N., & Boddewyn, J. J. (2006b). Cor-
porate public affairs research: Chronological reference list. Part 2:
1958–84. Journal of Public Affairs, 1(2), 167–186.
Grunig, J. E. (1983). Washington reporter publics of corporate public
affairs programs. Journalism Quarterly, 60(4), 603–614.
Grunig, J. E. (1993). Public relations and international affairs: Effects,
ethics and responsibility. Journal of International Affairs, 47(1),
138–162.
10 of 12
Grunig, J. E. (2001). Two-way symmetrical public relations: Past, present,
and future. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations
(pp. 11–32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (2001). Guidelines for formative and evalua-
tive research in public affairs. A report for the department of energy
office of science.
Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York, NY:
Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Grunig, J. E., & Repper, F. C. (1992). Strategic management, publics, and
issues. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communica-
tion management (pp. 117–157). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations
and effective organizations: A study of communication management in
three countries. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Ehling, W. P. (1992). What is an effective
organization? In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and com-
munication management (pp. 65–89). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Heath, R. L. (2001). Shifting foundations: Public relations as relationship
building. In Handbook of Public Relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Heath, R. L. (Ed.). (2013). Encyclopedia of public relations. Houston, TX:
Sage Publications.
Hoffmann, J. (2019). Harmonious public relations: A deconstruction of
U.S.-based public relations textbooks. Critical Studies in Media Commu-
nication, 36(3), 289–303.
Hogenboom, B., & Jilberto, A. E. F. (2012). Neo-liberalism, big business
and the evolution of interest group activity in Latin America. Journal of
Public Affairs, 14(3–4), 283–295. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1439
Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in
public relations. Gainesville, FL: The Institute for Public Relations, Com-
mission on PR Measurement and Evaluation. http://painepublishing.
com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Guidelines_Measuring_Relation
ships.pdf
Hung, C. J. F. (2005). Exploring types of organization–public relationships
and their implications for relationship management in public relations.
Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(4), 393–426.
Ihlen, O., Raknes, K., Somerville, I., Valentini, C., Stachel, C., & Lock, I. ….
(2018). Framing “the public interest”: Comparing public lobbying cam-
paigns in four European states. Journal of Public Interest Communica-
tion, 2(1), 107–128.
Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public rela-
tions. Public Relations Review, 28(1), 21–37.
Kvale, S. (2008). Doing interviews. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Law 20,730. (2018). Historia de la Ley N 20.730. Biblioteca del Congreso
Nacional de Chile/BCN. Retrieved on May 1, 2019, from https://www.
bcn.cl/historiadelaley/fileadmin/file_ley/4396/HLD_4396_
309403626b75bac64263f6963450f8f9.pdf.
Ledingham, J. A. (2003). Explicating relationship management as a general
theory of public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15(2),
181–198.
Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, D. S. (2000). Public relations as relationship
management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public
relations. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.
Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (1998). Relationship management and
public relations: Dimensions of an organization–public relationship.
Public Relations Review, 24, 55–65.
Macnamara, J. (2012). The global shadow of functionalism and excellence
theory: An analysis of Australasian PR. Public Relations Inquiry, 1,
367–402.
McGrath, C., Moss, D., & Harris, P. (2010). The evolving discipline of public
affairs. Journal of Public Affairs, 10(4), 335–352.
Mellado, C., & Barría, S. (2012). Development of professional roles in the
practice of public relations in Chile. Public Relations Review, 38(3),
446–453.
LABARCA ET AL.
Mellado, C., & Humanes, M. S. (2012). Modeling perceived professional
autonomy in Chilean journalism. Journalism, 13(8), 985–1003. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1464884912442294
Molleda, J. C. (2001). International paradigms: The Latin American school
of public relations. Journalism Studies, 2(4), 513–530.
Molleda, J. C. (2007). Contextualized qualitative research in Venezuela:
Coercive isomorphic pressures on the socioeconomic and political
environments on public relations practices. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 20(1), 49–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726070172
7010
Molleda, J. C. (2017). Professionalization of public relations in Latin Amer-
ica: A longitudinal comparative study. Public Relations Review, 43(5),
1084–1093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.08.003
Molleda, J. C., & Ferguson, M. A. (2004). Public relations roles in Brazil:
Hierarchy eclipses gender differences. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 16(4), 327–351. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532754xjprr
1604_1
Molleda, J. C., & Moreno, A. (2008). Balancing public relations with socio-
economic and political environments in transition: Comparative, con-
textualize research in Colombia, Mexico, and Venezuela. Journalism
and Communication Monographs, 10(2), 115–174.
Molleda, J. C., & Suarez, A. M. (2005). Challenged in Colombia for public
relations professionals: A qualitative assessment of the economic and
political environments. Public Relations Review, 31(1), 21–39. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2004.10.001
Moreno, A., Molleda, J. C., Nobell, A. A.,  Herrera, M. V., Athaydes, A. &
Suárez, A. M. (2019). Latin American communication monitor
2018–2019. Bruselas: EUPRERA European Public Relations Education
and Research Association. Retrieved on October 3, 2019, from http://
latincommunicationmonitor.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/
LCM-2018-2019-WEB-1.pdf.
Oberman, W. D. (2017). Lobbying resources and strategies. In P. Harris &
C. S. Fleischer (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of international corporate and
public affairs (pp. 483–497). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Public Relations Council. (2018). Public affairs. Retrieved on June
23, 2018, from http://prcouncil.net/inside-pr/public-affairs/.
Sadi, G., & Meneghetti, M. R. (2019). A normative approach on lobbying:
Public policies and representations of interests in Argentina. Journal of
Public Affairs, e1907. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1907
Sartori, G. (1970). Concept misformation in comparative politics. American
Political Science Review, 64(4), 1033–1053. https://doi.org/10.2307/
1958356
Simm, K. (2011). The concepts of common good and public interest: From
Plato to biobanking. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 20(4),
554–562. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180111000296
Somma, N., Labarca, C., Gálvez, M., & Godoy, S. (2016). What happens
with trust when local governments become virtual ones? Exploring
trust factors in Chilean e-government. Comunicación y Sociedad, 1(25),
157–182.
Sommerfeldt, E. J., & Kent, M. L. (2015). Civil society, networks, and public
relationship management: Beyond the organization-public dyad. Inter-
national Journal of Strategic Communication, 9(3), 235–252. https://doi.
org/10.1080/1553118X.2015.1025405
Strömbäck, J., & Kiousis, S. (2019). Defining and mapping the field of the-
ory and research on political public relations. In J. Strömbäck &
S. Kiousis (Eds.), Political public relations: Concepts, principles, and appli-
cations (pp. 1–42). New York, NY: Routledge.
Sweetser, K. D. (2017). Lesser of two evils? Political organization-
public relationship in the 2016 election. American Behavioral Sci-
entist, 61(3), 345–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/000276421
7701216
Sweetser, K. D., English, K., & Fernandes, J. (2015). Super PACs and strong
relationships: The impact of digital interaction on the political
organization-public relationship. Journal of Public Relations Research,
27(2), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2014.976824
LABARCA ET AL. 11 of 12

Theaker, A. (2016). The public relations handbook (5th ed.). New York, NY:
Routledge. How to cite this article: Labarca C, Arceneaux PC, Golan GJ.
Thomas, C. S., & Klimovich, K. (2013). Interest groups and lobbying in Latin
The relationship management function of public affairs
America: Theoretical and practical considerations. Journal of Public
Affairs, 14(3–4), 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1462 officers in Chile: Identifying opportunities and challenges in an
Thomas, C. S., & Klimovich, K. (2014). Power groups, interests and interest emergent market. J Public Affairs. 2020;e2080. https://doi.
groups in Latin America: A new era or more of the same? Journal of org/10.1002/pa.2080
Public Affairs, 14(3–4), 392–422. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1539
Tilson, D. J., & Alozie, E. C. (Eds.). (2004). Toward common good: Perspective
in international public relations. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Toth, E. L. (1986). Broadening research in public affairs. Public Relations
Review, 12(2), 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(86)
80024-8
Tracy, S. (2013). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting
analysis, communicating impact. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-
Blackwell.
U.N. Human Development Report. (2018). Statistical update. New York,
USA: United Nations development programme. Retrieved on March
1, 2019, from http://hdr.undp.org/

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHI ES

Claudia Labarca is an associate professor at the School of Com-

munications, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. She holds a
PhD from the School of Government and International Affairs at
Durham University and a Master of Arts in Corporate Communi-
cation at University Autonoma de Barcelona. Her research inter-
ests are corporate communications, corporate trust, and
intercultural business communication. She is the director of the
Corporate Communication diploma.

Phillip Arceneaux (Ph.D., University of Florida) is an Assistant Pro-

fessor of Strategic Communication in the Department of Media,
Journalism, and Film at Miami University. His research interests
include political public relations, public diplomacy, computational
propaganda, and international law and policy. This interdisciplin-
ary approach studies the growing political uses and impacts of
emerging communication practices and platforms on the govern-
mental, commercial, and non-profit sectors. His work has been
published in New Media & Society, the Journal of International
Communication, the Journal of Public Interest Communication,
and the American Behavioral Scientist. He is an active member of
the International Communication Association and the Interna-
tional Studies Association.

Guy J. Golan (PhD, Florida) is the Director of the Center for

Media & Public Opinion. He has published more than 40 peer
reviewed journal articles in the field of public affairs & political
communications.
12 of 12 LABARCA ET AL.

APPENDIX A.

Table 1. List of interviewed public affairs exerts

Code Position Industry Date of interview Gender

1 Corporate & government affairs manager (CGA) Food December 7, 2018 Male
2 Public affairs director Utilities December 19, 2018 Male
3 Institutional affairs general manager Banking December 14, 2018 Male
4 Communications general manager NGO December 19, 2018 Female
5 Partner/general director Consultant January 7, 2019 Male
6 Director Consultant January 3, 2019 Male
7 Sustainability general manager Utilities January 11, 2019 Male
8 Partner/general director Consultant December 13, 2018 Male
9 Communications general manager Telecommunications December 14, 2018 Female
10 Director/ corporate affairs Telecommunications December 21, 2018 Male
11 Partner/executive director Consultant December 26, 2018 Male
12 Public affairs director Consultant January 3, 2019 Male
13 Communications manager Agroindustry January 9, 2019 Male
14 Public affairs director Telecommunications January 14, 2019 Male
14 Director of communications and corporate affairs Food January 24, 2019 Male
15 Director of communications and corporate affairs Utilities January 18, 2019 Male