The Handbook of Public Sector Communication - 2020 - Luoma Aho - Politics and Policy

10.1002/9781119263203.ch5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119263203.ch5 by Mcmaster University Library Collections L307, Wiley Online Library on [19/10/2022].
See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
5
Politics and Policy: Relationships
and Functions Within Public Sector
Communication
Leanne Glenny
Introduction
Public sector communication serves two masters—the elected officials and the public—support-
ing and implementing the political will, while facilitating citizens’ access to and participation in
government. It operates in a highly political environment, and yet is required to avoid partisan
political influence. As a bureaucratic function its separation from that political influence has
always been, and remains, a significant challenge for public servants in western, liberal demo-
cratic administrations. This is exacerbated for communication staff as they sit at the intersection
of the politicians, policy makers, bureaucrats, and the nation’s citizens. This chapter draws spe-
cific attention to the relationship between public sector communication, politics, and the politi-
cal output of policy‐making and implementation.
The position of public sector communication in the discussion of politics and policy is com-
plex as it sits across various disciplines. Historically, the writings on public administration and
policy position the communication function in a supporting role, while the public relations
discipline advocates for a much broader responsibility. Discussions of political communication
and political marketing often fail to make a clear distinction between communication for elec-
toral versus governance purposes. More recent efforts to distinguish the specific function of
public sector communication, such as this book, are adding value to the discussion.
This chapter positions public sector communication within a political and policy framework.
An initial contextualization and mapping of the field describes the relationships between the
various subdisciplines of communication and the broader concepts of politics and policy. The
literature is then examined, revealing three areas of communication focus: public sector, politi-
cal, and administrative. While recognizing that many public relations and marketing theories
contribute to understandings of public sector communication, the chapter specifically highlights
theories of the public sphere, communicative action, and mediatization that impact on the inter-
section of communication, politics, and policy. Finally, key issues regarding politicization, politi-
cal advisers, permanent campaigning, and the communication functions in policy‐making and
dissemination are considered. A greater understanding of these and other key issues and
The Handbook of Public Sector Communication, First Edition. Edited by Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel.
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
10.1002/9781119263203.ch5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119263203.ch5 by Mcmaster University Library Collections L307, Wiley Online Library on [19/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
82 Leanne Glenny
c hallenges for public sector communication has the potential to improve practice, shifting it
close to that ideal of a truly apolitical function that contributes to democracy.
Contextualizing Public Sector Communication,

Politics, and Policy
Two main frames position the perspective of public sector communication used in this chapter.
The first is a view that public sector communication extends beyond the information dissemina-
tion function. Views that focus on media relations alone, common in the field of political com-
munication, are restrictive and give cause to criticisms of public sector communication as another
“mass‐mediated ‘voice’… struggling for advantage in a competitive world,” adding to “a
cacophony of pleading and preening to public life in liberal democracy today” (Moloney, 2005,
p. 552). In contrast, a normative government public relations perspective is applied here, in
which public sector communication has the potential to enact two‐way communication, ensur-
ing that the public is not only informed but is able to access and participate in government when
required. That is, it is a strategic function, not simply a tactical tool. The challenge lies in
whether the context of politics and policy allows this normative model to succeed.
Second, this chapter also takes the position of public sector communication as a largely
bureaucratic function that attempts to take a politically neutral stance in order to facilitate the
smooth governance of the nation. Yet debates in the discipline of politics show that the distinc-
tion between politics and bureaucracy is not always clear. The common approach that describes
a political‐administrative dichotomy, where elected officials make the policy and nonelected
officials implement the policy (Demir, 2009) is too simplistic and does not take account of the
complexities in the relationships and the functions of the public sector communicator. There is
a growing discussion on the complementarity view of politics, presenting the concept of a dual-
ity, which “implies the sharing of governance, reciprocal influence, and overlapping roles
between elected officials and public administrators” (Demir, 2009, p. 877). Public sector com-
munication, as discussed in this chapter, is positioned within this frame.
Mapping the Field of Public Sector Communication,

Politics, and Policy
A multidisciplinary approach is needed to study the development of public sector communication
and its relationship to politics and policy. The challenge is that a range of specific communication
and marketing sudisciplines have emerged over the past decades, all touching on what could be
considered public sector communication to varying degrees. Much of the discussion in the litera-
ture focuses on defining those specific fields, yet the definitional challenges within each of them
result in a blurring of the boundaries. In addition, each of these subdisciplines is informed by one
or more general disciplines, from which they draw their foundations while demonstrating their
unique application of the discipline to specific contexts. Despite recognition of a “need to build
bridges between cognate areas and disciplines for the study of government communication”
(Canel & Sanders, 2013), agreement on the relationships between them will be difficult.
Mapping the relationships between all of the disciplines and subdisciplines is contentious due
to the various ways in which they can all be applied. With a focus on public sector communica-
tion, politics, and policy, however, Figure 5.1 attempts to do just this. With public sector com-
munication as the central focus, the diagram proposes a perspective of this field of research as
one with porous boundaries, overlapping with other subdisciplines of political communication,
political public relations, political marketing, and public sector marketing. These are referred to
here as subdisciplines as they tend to be branches of more widely addressed fields of study in the
Politics and Policy 83
Organisational Strategic
communication communication
P
o
l
i
c
Political Communication Political Public
y
Relations
Public sector
Public relations
Political science Communication
Political Marketing Public Sector

Marketing
Government communication
Government
Political sphere
Public Marketing
administration
Figure 5.1 The field of public sector communication, politics, and policy.
broader disciplines of communication, public relations, marketing, political science, and public
administration, represented around the edge of the diagram.
The field of research known as government communication is represented in Figure 5.1 as
embracing the other subdisciplines. Horsley, Liu, and Levenshus argue for government com-
munication to be considered as an entity in itself, rather than it being studied “within the scope
of corporate communication theory and practice” (2010, p. 269). Yet its convergence with
research in the other subdisciplines creates an additional challenge to any claim of individuality.
Each subdiscipline is defined or described differently, but at the same time, they are often used
to denote the same issues or practices. The term government communication is often used inter-
changeably with other terms such as political communication and public sector communication,
but a lack of agreement on definitions and boundaries remains.
If the sphere of government communication is taken to concern those directly responsible for
the governing of a nation, rather than all of the individuals and entities involved in the political
sphere (such as political parties and lobby groups), then the sub‐disciplines of public sector com-
munication and marketing sit within this frame. However, the subdisciplines of political com-
munication, political public relations, and political marketing extend beyond the government
framework to include the wider political context. This delineation is important for any discus-
sion that attempts to analyze the relationship between public sector communication and politics.
Table 5.1 presents some examples of the sometimes subtle and overlapping subdisciplines in
action.
The positioning of policy in this model recognizes that its development and implementation
is led by government political leaders with a heavy involvement by public sector agencies. The
involvement of other political entities and citizens is acknowledged, however the intention here
is to highlight the involvement of government and public sector communication in that
process.
Studies into each of the subdisciplines and the broader disciplines in Figure 5.1 reveal
multiple perspectives on the influence that politics and policy have had on the way public
sector entities communicate. An overview of the fields most relevant to the discussion of
84 Leanne Glenny
Table 5.1 Examples of Subdisciplines in Practice.
Subdiscipline Example
Public sector communication Government agency reminding citizens and businesses to submit their
tax returns through letters, advertising, and social media.
Public sector marketing Government agency informing citizens of the availability of
government welfare services.
Political communication Science minister announcing a new climate‐change policy at a press
conference and through social media.
Political public relations Opposition politician engaging with industry and lobby groups about
proposed changes to media laws.
Political marketing A political party election campaign.
Government communication All of the above, depending on choice of definition.
public sector communication, politics, and policy are discussed in the following sections,
identifying the major theories and issues for exploration.
The Broader Literature

The extent of the literature on all of these subdisciplines is immense and has been grouped into
three major categories in order to identify major themes. First, the relationships between the
more generic subdisciplines of government communication, public sector communication, and
government public relations are reviewed. The emphasis then turns to political communication,
and its relationship with public relations and marketing, before considering administrative
communication.
The term government communication is often used as an all‐encompassing term that links
together the related fields of study identified above. A heavy emphasis is often given to the com-
munication activities of elected officials rather than those of nonelected participants in govern-
ment or other actors in the “multilayered and organizationally diverse environment” (Canel &
Sanders, 2013). Young is more explicit when she incorporates political leaders, “major portfolio
departments…and agencies including statutory authorities, boards, committees, and govern-
ment business enterprises” in her approach to government communication (Young, 2007a,
pp. xxix–xxx). Liu and Horsley’s (2007) “government communication decision wheel” is even
more specific, focusing on the work done specifically within public sector agencies and recogniz-
ing the centrality of politics and the differences between elected and unelected officials (Liu,
Levenshus, & Horsley, 2012).
Individual examples of research that focus on communication involving public sector agencies
have explored wide‐ranging topics such as functions (Gregory, 2006, 2012; Koul, 2009), pro-
fessionalization (Sanders, 2011), ethics (Glenny, 2008, 2010), transparency (Fairbanks,
Plowman, & Rawlins, 2007; Ruijer, 2016), public segmentation and trust (Hong, Park, Lee, &
Park, 2012), and corporate social responsibility (Thomsen, 2007). There is also a growing
number of writings and case studies of communication at the local government level, often from
a diverse range of nations, and concerning social or digital media, such as Brown, Gaudin, and
Moran (2013), Sanders and Canel (2015), Wei (2010), and Heaselgrave and Simmons (2016).
This agency focus is also adopted in texts on government public relations (Lee, Neeley, &
Stewart, 2012) where public relations is seen as a tool for “the twenty‐first‐century government
administrator” (Lee, Neeley, & Stewart, 2012, p. 11).
In terms of public sector communication and policy, the most prominent research has been
conducted by European‐based researchers. Again, focusing on the narrower descriptions of the
communication role of the bureaucracy, Vos (2006) proposed four ways in which public sector
communication could be involved in policy development and implementation. Various research
teams led by Gelders focused on public sector communication about policy intentions in the
Netherlands and Belgium (Gelders, De Cock, Roe, & Neijens, 2006; Gelders & Ihlen, 2010),
as well as mapping the differences between private sector and public sector policy communica-
tion (Gelders, Bouckaert, & van Ruler, 2007). In addition to this, Kraaier (2016) examined
attempts by the Netherlands government to place “communication at the heart of policy.”
The second category of literature includes disciplines of communication, public relations, and
marketing that have a political focus. Key issues addressed within political communication have
included its professionalization and its influence on the media (Blumler & Kavanagh, 1999).
Concepts such as the “PR state” (Deacon & Golding, 1994; Ward, 2003) and “symbolic govern-
ment” (O’Shaughnessy, 2004) criticize the use of public relations in political communication and
its perceived emphasis on image management and control of messages and media. O’Shaughnessy
warns of potential consequences such as increased authoritarianism, cynicism, and manipulation
(O’Shaughnessy, 2004, pp. 185–186). Conversely, Strömbäck and Kiousis (2011, p. 8) argue
that the concept of political public relations provides a positive opportunity for a more integrative
approach to theorization and research.
The alignment of public relations with largely one‐way communication, media relations, and
reputation management (Knott Martinelli, 2011; McNair, 2004, 2011; Moloney, 2006) and its
focus on elected officials, media, and citizens, limits an understanding of its role in political com-
munication. In particular, there is often a lack of attention given to public sector agencies, as
seen in the discussion of the more generic government communication field. While Ward (2003)
and O’Shaughnessy (2004) direct most of the attention to the use of public relations by politi-
cians, they also recognize the involvement of civil servants and the departmental “public affairs
sections,” that Ward describes as one “topographical feature…[of] the landscape of the Australian
PR state” (Ward, 2003, p. 28).
The adoption of general marketing principles and the relevance of marketing theory in the
political arena triggered the emergence of a “hybrid sub‐discipline” (Hughes & Dann, 2009, p.
243) of marketing and political science. From a practical sense, ideas such as “segmentation,
market research, branding, and public relations” (Lees‐Marshment, 2014, p. 65) have been
incorporated into political communication activities. Despite broadening the original focus on
campaigns and voters to a wider range of issues and actors, the public sector’s role in this subdis-
cipline is generally passive (Hughes & Dann, 2009, p. 253) or of lower prominence (Lees‐
Marshment, 2014, p. 37; Nielsen, 2012, p. 294). The growth of public sector marketing started
to address this major limitation of political marketing, with the adoption of practices from the
business sector (Laing, 2003, p. 428) and strategic communication (Kozolanka, 2006, p. 344)
and a shift in thinking about consumers rather than citizens (Pasquier & Villeneuve, 2012, p. 5;
Walsh, 1994). The variety of functions and services provided by government agencies created the
need for different marketing approaches, from promotional and advertising activities (Lees‐
Marshment, 2014; Walsh, 1994) to specific tasks such as the provision of information about social
welfare, campaigns about public health and the justification of budgets (Head, 2007, pp. 48–49).
The final category used to review the broad literature, one that removes the focus on elected
officials, is that of administrative communication. Despite the efforts led largely by Heise (1985)
and Garnett and Kouzmin (1997), communication stills holds a relatively small place within the
field of public administration with a “disjointed” approach and a lack of attention to research in
the field compared to other areas of public administration (Garnett, 1997, p. 14). While Garnett
clearly places political communication outside its boundaries, he still accepts that administrative
communication can involve “public executives once elected” (Garnett, 1997, p. 4). He also
argues for the consideration of both “unidirectional communication” and “symmetrical and
negotiated” communication, both intended and unintended communication, and the “faulty as
well as the constructive” communication efforts [italics original] (Garnett, 1997, pp. 5–6).
86 Leanne Glenny
The potential for politicization identified in the other related subdisciplines is also a concern
in administrative communication. Garnett observes that “political appointees [are] increasingly
replacing trained professionals as head of communication units” (Garnett, 1997, p. 7). In addi-
tion, he refers to lowering levels of trust caused by the “propaganda paradox” in which persua-
sion from the public sector is viewed as “spin,” which he acknowledges is sometimes deserved
(Garnett, 1997, p. 7). The influence of public relations on the field highlights the argument for
engaging citizens rather than treating them as audiences to be persuaded (Garnett, 1997, p. 9).
Heise, however, is skeptical about the ability of public relations to do this, believing that its
advocacy role when used in the private sector is unsuitable for communication activities in the
public sector (1985, pp. 202–203).
It is in the field of administrative communication where much of the discussion of public sector
communication and policy is located. Heise outlines the need to “facilitate accurate, systematic,
and timely feedback on public policy issues from the entire community” (Heise, 1985, p. 209).
Lee also argues that the need to gain support for policies is as equally as important as the imple-
mentation of them (Lee, 2007, p. 14). Heise cautions against politicization, however, referring
to the “treacherous” but “legitimate” need for “senior public officials to employ public commu-
nication channels and resources in the governmental policy‐making, implementation, and evalu-
ation process, but… without becoming involved in electoral politics” (Heise, 1985, p. 209).
The question remains as to which senior public officials should do this and whether they are
equipped with the knowledge and skills required. Lee notes a paucity of communication training
for public servants over the years (2007, p. 7). But in his discussion of the functions of govern-
ment public relations, he focuses on public administrators rather than identifying any specific
roles for communication specialists (Lee, 2007, p. 7). It is in the discussion of policy, that Lee’s
attention is drawn from the public administrator to the more specific “agency spokesperson”
and “external communication specialist” (2007, p. 4). Suggested roles for the communication
specialist include “assessing possible external reactions to different policy scenarios” (Lee, 2007,
p. 14) and “overseeing a citizen participation program” (Heise, 1985, p. 214).
Theoretical Perspectives
Just as the field of research in public sector communication is informed by many other fields, it
can also be informed by a multidisciplinary approach to theory (Strömbäck & Kiousis, 2011,
p. 13). The previous review indicates a broad range of theoretical concepts that could inform
public sector communication in general, and its relationship to politics and policy. Some, which
are often connected to the public relations discipline, can be implied. For example, theories in
relationship management (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998) could inform the building and man-
agement of relationships between actors in public sector communication, such as those between
elected and unelected officials, and between unelected officials, citizens, and the media. Theories
of framing and agenda setting (Chong & Druckman, 2007; McCombs, 2004) would be useful
in investigating and informing the separation of government communication that supports elec-
tioneering versus governance. Three theoretical perspectives that are particularly useful for look-
ing at the topic of public sector communication, politics, and policy are addressed here: those of
the public sphere, communicative action, and mediatization.
Along with theories of deliberative democracy, Habermas’ notion of the public sphere (1989)
provides a useful foundation for debate on public sector communication, politics, and policy.
Based on the concept of participation, Habermas describes the public sphere as “a domain of our
social life where such a thing as public opinion can be formed” without coercion and in a private
capacity, rather than in a business context (Habermas, 1997, p. 105). Reflections on the practi-
cal implementation of this notion of an ideal world in which citizens rationally debate issues of
concern to society and influence the democratic governance of the nation have been varied.
The first is critical of the professionalization of the communication efforts by politicians and
government, and the impact this has in shutting down the free flow of communication within
the public sphere. Some view this as “thwarting the citizen’s exercise of rational choice” and “an
unwelcome corruption of democracy” (McNair, 2004, p. 325). A similar, critical view places
blame for the failure of the public sphere on a number of factors and institutions, suggesting that
today’s public sphere is too trivialized, too commercial, too fragmented, prefers spectacle rather
than rational argument, and causes apathy in citizens (McKee, 2005, p. 2). In contrast, others
continue to debate potential for changes in the media landscape to re‐imagine the public sphere
(Dahlgren, 2005).
Habermas’s distinction between strategic action and communicative action is also relevant
here. While strategic action models of communication focus on achieving organizational goals,
communicative action presents an opportunity for rational debate and achievement of consensus
(Habermas, 1984). Yet Habermas was a critic of public relations, suggesting that it was “public-
ity to advance the political interests of business” (Moloney, 2006, p. 49). This has implications
for the strong links between public relations and public sector communication where concerns
about political influences would also suggest the potential for a preference of strategic action
over communicative action. McIntosh White argues that public information officers (PIOs)
actually perform a mix of strategic and communicative action, admitting that their role in repre-
senting the government in health and science communication is “turning from mere advocacy
to furthering public agenda through information transfer” (McIntosh White, 2012, p. 575).
The theory of communicative action provides a framework for analyzing the wide ranging func-
tions of public sector communication to determine intent, potentially uncovering levels of politi-
cal influence. In addition, it provides guidance in terms of the equality of participants in the
communicative action through Habermas’s “ideal speech situation,” which argues that all par-
ties should have freedoms to start and engage in dialogue, challenge others, and explain their
own position while being free from manipulation and equal in their ability to influence
(Habermas, 1984).
A further theoretical lens for critical analysis of public sector communication, politics, and
policy is the concept of mediatization. The mass media plays a significant role in the dissemina-
tion of government information, and therefore its influence on political and public sector com-
munication can have serious consequences for accurate and timely information dissemination
and engagement. Although mediatization theory can be applied in many organizational con-
texts, in the political sphere it originally focused on elected representatives. Recent research,
however, has drawn attention to its application to the bureaucracies within the public sector
(Schillemans, 2016, p. 79). In mediatization theory, journalistic values that seek “dramatisa-
tion… brevity… entertain[ment]… personalisation… and…narratives” are seen to be adopted
in the political sphere, in place of “balancing interests… negotiating …and [taking actions]
through deliberation and collective decision” (Blumler & Coleman, 2015, p. 118). Internal,
organizational processes are altered in response to the pressure from media demands (Schillemans,
2016, p. 79). Schillemans’s examination of mediatization of the public sector in the Netherlands
and Australia suggested that both nations had “fairly advanced forms of mediatization”
(Schillemans, 2016, p. 92). Yet, the extent to which mediatization is leading to a negative
“media‐driven democracy” or a more “harmless process of mediatization of politics” has not
been agreed (Mazzoleni & Schulz, 1999, p. 258).
Key Issues in Politics and Public Sector

Communication—the Relationships
The impact of politics on public sector communication is clear throughout the previous discus-
sion. A number of common threads are woven between the different disciplines and theories
covered in this chapter. Some issues are agreed, some reflect different approaches, and others
88 Leanne Glenny
emerge from what is not said. This next section attempts to bring these discussions together
under two broad categories: the relationships between communication and politics, and the
function of communication in policy.
Public sector communication, as approached in this chapter, is presented as apolitical, or non-
partisan. It works to serve the government of the day and communicates on behalf of those
implementing the policies of elected officials, to facilitate the governing of the nation. It strives
to achieve an independence from the political machinations, allowing it to offer full and frank
advice, while still accepting the decisions and directions of the political leaders. This is not always
easy to achieve. Ultimately, public sector communicators are what Moloney describes as “com-
municative agents of our principals,” responsible for giving “voice” to the behaviors of others
(2005, pp. 552–553). So rather than being apolitical, O’Faircheallaigh, Wanna, and Weller
argue that “public sector management…is essentially a political exercise involving choices about
defensible structures, accountable processes and appropriate strategies” (1999, p. 16). Graber is
critical about the ability for public sector agencies to avoid political pressure, citing examples
such as needing to compromise between political and administrative goals, the dominance of
“political currents,” perceptions of additional resources for political support, and image protec-
tion (2003, pp. 7–9).
Despite this, public sector employees will often refer to themselves as apolitical, or disinter-
ested in politics. While this may appear to be a paradox, they are typically referring to their sepa-
ration from “party politics,” wanting to be seen as being neutral participants serving whichever
political party is in power at the time. For example, the values of the Australian Public Service
(Australian Public Service Commission, 2016), the UK Civil Service (Civil Service, 2015), and
the Canadian public sector (Government of Canada, 2015) all include the notion of impartiality.
The Australian document uses the term apolitical in relation to providing frank and honest
advice, the UK document refers to serving governments of different political persuasions equally,
and the Canadian document emphasizes that “a professional and non‐partisan federal public
sector is integral to our democracy” (Government of Canada, 2015, p. 2). A review of the litera-
ture about government communication in the Netherlands also shows a consensus understand-
ing that it be “non‐partisan and factual” (Kraaier, 2016, p. 76). Some of the characteristics
between political and apolitical communication are distinguished in Table 5.2.
Liu, Horsley, and Levenshus identify two types of government communication specialists:
those “representing elected officials” and “those representing bureaucrats” (Liu, Horsley, &
Levenshus, 2010, p. 196). This separation is a key issue for public sector communication. The
responsibility that the public sector communication specialist has toward the minister/secretary
and the government of the day creates particular challenges in remaining apolitical, working
with political staffers, and working in the environment of the permanent campaign. The chal-
lenge lies in juggling the need of the elected officials with the expectations of public service
Table 5.2 Characteristics of Political and Apolitical Communication.
Political Apolitical
Undertaken by Politicians Public sector communication staff

Political party operatives Public servants
Political and media advisers
Lobbyists
Goals Political ends Governance/administrative ends
Messages Partisan Nonpartisan/impartial
Persuasive Factual, transparent
Selective Persuasive (in terms of policy implementation)
Electioneering
when dealing with what Mouffe (1999) refers to as the potential antagonisms and diverse social
relations.
There is considerable coverage in the literature of the politicization of the function of public
sector communication, including discussions by Kozolanka (2006) in Canada, Sanders (2013)
in the United Kingdom, and Mulgan (2007) in Australia. Often, these cases involve very com-
plex and sensitive government business rather than the day‐to‐day activities in public sector
communication. For example, numerous scholars have reported on claims of undue political
influence on Australian and UK public servants and military public affairs officers in the lead‐up
to the Iraq conflict of 2003 (e.g., Hibbert & Simmons, 2006; Humphreys, 2005; Mulgan,
2008; Wilkie, 2004). The consequences of stepping over the political line have ramifications for
the integrity of government information, campaigns, and citizen collaboration.
A factor that appears in many of the discussions of politicization of public sector communica-
tion is the role played by political staff sitting between the politician and the public service com-
municator. Often labeled “ministerial advisors,” “special advisors,” or “political advisors,” their
role is to provide partisan support and advice to the minister regarding politics, policy, and
media. Of interest here are the specialist media advisors, often ex‐journalists, and their involve-
ment in public sector communication. Claimed benefits of political advisors include efficiency,
access, and responsiveness (OECD, 2011, p. 16; van Onselen & Errington, 2007, p. 6; Wilson,
2015, p. 456). However, there are also concerns about accountability, governance frameworks,
and inappropriate political influence (Wilson, 2015, p. 456). In particular, there has been con-
siderable criticism of ministerial media advisors (McNair, 2004; Ward, 2003), with accusations
of manipulation and spin. While some countries establish clear governance structures and/or
codify expected behaviors for ministerial advisors, how this is done varies widely, with some
limiting the responsibility of advisors and others placing them in authority over public servants
(OECD, 2011, pp. 29–31). The boundaries between the partisan media advisor and the apoliti-
cal public sector communicator are often blurred (OECD, 2011, p. 16), presenting a significant
challenge to upholding the value of impartiality in public sector communication.
The concept of the permanent campaign strains this relationship between the political media
advisors and public sector communication further. The continued use of campaigning methods
by political actors to garner the support of voters when elections are not being held has been the
subject of considerable research. Not only is it discussed and researched in different national
contexts (e.g., Funk, 2013; Koliastasis, 2016; Ornstein & Mann, 2000; Sparrow & Turner,
2001; Young, 2007b), but the increased use of social media platforms by elected officials has
given the topic a recent twist (e.g., Larsson, 2016). The issue here for public sector communica-
tion is the extent to which unelected government officials (public servants) are brought into the
permanent campaign or change their activities to align with it. The potential exists again for
politicization of the day‐to‐day functions of public sector communication; however, most of the
research into the permanent campaign has been conducted in the field of political communica-
tion with little attention given to the more specific position of public sector communication.
Key Issues in Policy and Public Sector

Communication—The Functions
The second key issue emerging from the literature relates to the function of public sector com-
munication and its role in undertaking two‐way communication on behalf of the government.
Functions that are generally accepted as belonging to public sector communication include keep-
ing citizens informed, creating awareness of government activities and influencing some behav-
iors for the social good. Less clear, however, is the function that public sector communication
plays in government policy, despite the adoption of public relations concepts, such as two‐way
90 Leanne Glenny
communication. Rather than treating citizens as passive receivers of government messages,

citizens are given the opportunity to influence government behavior (Fairbanks et al., 2007,
p. 24), in turn increasing “compliance and public support for new policies” (Lee, 1999, cited in
Fairbanks et al., 2007, p. 24). Garnett argues that this dialogue is about informing government
as much as it is about informing the citizens, a process that is “vital to government legitimacy and
effectiveness” (Garnett, 1997, p. 165). In a sense, this interaction gives public sector communica-
tion a political role.
Although communication can be seen as central to policy‐making, there is very little public
policy literature that examines the role of public sector communication in the policy process.
Politicians are primarily acknowledged as the policy makers, however, there are typically “com-
plex interactions between state and non‐state actors” (Maddison & Denniss, 2013, p. 88). The
role of the bureaucrats extends beyond simply implementing policy to include policy gatekeep-
ing, policy research, and policy design (Maddison & Denniss, 2013, p. 128). Despite the need
for communication expertise in these processes, the policy literature rarely identifies or distin-
guishes the role of public service communication staff from the broader policy workers. One of
the exceptions is Maddison and Denniss, who acknowledge the existence of “journalists in some
form of public relations capacity” within the Australian public service (Maddison & Denniss,
2013, p. 225), but their discussion on the importance of and need for communication devolves
this responsibility to the policy workers in general.
Moloney also acknowledges that senior public servants have a shared role in policy‐making
with elected officials, but he separates the functions of policy explaining and policy promoting
to the public service communicator and the political advisors respectively (Moloney, 2006, p.
120). He raises again the potential to blur the line between the political and the apolitical roles,
suggesting that the “conflation [of the merging of policy making and policy presentation] is
evidence of the high water mark of PR influence on modern UK government” (Moloney, 2006,
p. 120). Maddison and Denniss also hold some skepticism toward the public service communi-
cation function, arguing that is has the positive potential to “make a real contribution to involv-
ing citizens and stakeholders”, while also suggesting its potential to “degenerate into mere PR”
(Maddison & Denniss, 2013, p. 225). The negative portrayal of public relations in both of these
approaches dismisses the contribution that the field can make to engaging citizens through pub-
lic sector communication.
Within the literature in the communication discipline, there is some reference to policy; how-
ever, it is still a relatively underdeveloped area of scholarly debate. Vos presents a framework
aligning the communication and policy functions in the public sector in her study of the govern-
ment communication in the Netherlands (2006, pp. 254–255). She describes four categories of
policy communication: (a) communication regarding policy items; (b) communication as policy;
(c) communication for policy; and (d) communication in policy. The first category covers the
fairly common function performed by communication specialists in disseminating information
about policies that have already been determined. The second category extends this to include
communication tasks that are an integral part of the policy delivery, such as persuading citizens
to change behaviors in regard to the problem being addressed. The third category relates to the
need identified above; that of engaging others, particularly citizens, in policy‐making. The final
category concerns clear language in the policies or other outputs such as laws and regulations.
The role of public sector communication in the first, second, and fourth roles in Vos’s frame-
work are fairly well accepted in both theory and practice, although there is still minimal discus-
sion from a theoretical perspective. Gelders, Bouckaert, and van Ruler claim that the role for
communication in the early stages of policy‐making—Vos’s third role of communication for
policy—is receiving specific attention (2007, p. 326), but this is not widespread. They call for a
greater involvement of communication through all stages of the policy process; however, the
role in policy‐making is the most contentious, and any theorization in the public sector is still
relatively immature. Strömbäck and Kiousus suggest that giving communication staff a role in
the decision‐making process may be even more important in the political environment, where
contentious issues create a need for “…environmental scanning, boundary spanning, and the
strategic choice of publics and relationships to prioritize” (Strömbäck & Kiousis, 2011, p. 15).
Using public relations theory, they reinforce the argument for public relations to be a manage-
ment function in the specific political context.
The links between policy and public sector communication in practice can be seen clearly in
the intentions signaled by the UK government to move to a more strategic approach following
a major review of government communication in the early 2000s (Gregory, 2006, p. 198).
Claiming a need to involve more dialogue and become more responsive to citizens’ information
needs, the Permanent Secretary of Government Communication in 2005 spoke of a “key ele-
ment” being the “need to make the voice of the public heard at the policy table” (Gregory,
2006, p. 198). The purpose of the improved communication processes was just as much about
the government gaining a clearer understanding of the policy environment as it was about
informing the citizens about policy.
Similarly, a survey of those involved in government communication in the Netherlands identi-
fied an “increase in citizens’ involvement” as the most important communication task for their
organizations (Vos, 2006, p. 251). Included in this was a call for “interactive policy develop-
ment,” although results showed that communication involvement early in the policy‐making
process rated fairly low as an activity (Vos, 2006, p. 263). An inquiry into government commu-
nication in the Netherlands in 2001, the Commission of Future Government Communication
(see Kraaier, 2016), suggested a greater regard for the role of public sector communicators in
policy‐making, even if it is potentially more idealistic than practical. The committee’s recom-
mendation “to make communication an integral part of the policymaking process” (Kraaier,
2016, p. 75) recognized the significance of connecting and involving citizens, resulting in the
ability for the community to influence government policy and business.
In this context, Kraaier examined the role of communication specialists in the Dutch public
service, describing, in the first instance, a “mediating role” for communicators. He argues that
their responsibilities are
to gather, filter and interpret information from citizens, and, in the process, assist their policy col-
leagues – and ultimately those in power – in developing policies and legislation that receive broad
social support. (Kraaier, 2016, p. 86)
However, the study also revealed that not all communicators had the same role, with differ-
ences depending on the closeness of the communicator to those in power, raising again, the issue
of politicization of the roles and functions in public sector communication. Kraaier argues for
autonomy in public sector communication and a need to balance “participation and perception”
(Kraaier, 2016, p. 87). This political context is one of the major challenges or threats to public
sector communication, highlighting the need to separate the communication about governance
from political communication.
Conclusion
The complementarity view of politics, discussed at the beginning of this chapter, recognizes the
shared roles of elected and unelected officials in the governance of a nation and the overlap that
can occur in the performance of their duties (Demir, 2009, p. 877). This remains one of the
most challenging characteristics of public sector communication. Acknowledging that govern-
ment communication operates in a political environment, Sanders raises the need for “a distinc-
tion between communication managed to achieve a government’s political goals and
communication managed in line with overarching government obligations in relation to the
92 Leanne Glenny
common civic good” (Sanders, 2011, p. 266). This should be the distinguishing feature of the
discipline of public sector communication, separating it from related fields of political commu-
nication and marketing and the ubiquitous field of government communication with its ill‐
defined boundaries.
Yet those other fields, and the core disciplines that sit behind them, will continue to inform
public sector communication. Despite the criticisms of public relations, this discipline in particu-
lar has much to offer the development of normative models of public sector communication
based on engagement in mutually beneficial relationships in search of common understanding.
McNair agrees that public relations is not restricted to those in power, but is equally available to
all “political actors” and its application should be afforded the same scrutiny as other political
activities (McNair, 2004).
Public sector communication plays a substantial role in the governance of the nation, and its
relationship with politics and political actors is key to its success and credibility. It is a part of
politics, and the challenges of serving a political master while being accountable to the citizens
will continue. The resources and reach that public sector communication has will always be a
temptation to the political maneuvering of elected officials. However, the democratic integrity
of the function will only exist as long as efforts are made to remove or reduce partisan political
influence.
Public sector communication can also contribute to strengthening democratic processes
through policy‐making and policy implementation. A more substantial and autonomous role,
beyond that of communicating about policy would facilitate a deeper engagement of citizens in
the policy process, guiding government decision‐making. For this to occur, a greater under-
standing and recognition of the function of public sector communication within the political
process will be essential. Continuing research into a more clearly defined field of public sector
communication has potential to contribute to practice.
References
Australian Public Service Commission (APSC). 2016. “APS values and code of conduct in practice”,
Accessed August 25, 2016 http://www.apsc.gov.au/publications‐and‐media/current‐publications/
aps‐values‐and‐code‐of‐conduct‐in‐practice
Blumler, J. G., & Coleman, S. (2015). Democracy and the media—revisited. Javnost ‐ The Public, 22,
111–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2015.1041226
Blumler, J. G., & Kavanagh, D. (1999). The third age of political communication: Influences and features.
Political Communication, 16, 209–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/105846099198596
Brown, J., Gaudin, P., & Moran, W. (2013). PR and communication in local government and public services.
London: Kogan Page Publishers.
Canel, M. J., & Sanders, K. (2013). Introduction: Mapping the field of government communication. In K.
Sanders & M. J. Canel (Eds.), Government communication cases and challenges (pp. 1–26). London:
Bloomsbury Publishing.
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103–126.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054
Civil Service, UK Government. 2015. Statutory guidance: the Civil Service code. Accessed August 25,
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil‐service‐code/the‐civil‐service‐code.
Dahlgren, P. (2005). The internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and delibera-
tion. Political Communication, 22, 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600590933160
Deacon, D., & Golding, P. (1994). Taxation and representation: The media, political communication and
the poll tax. London: John Libbey.
Demir, T. (2009). The complementarity view: Exploring a continuum in political‐administrative relations.
Public Administration Review, 69, 876–888. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540‐6210.2009.02037.x
Fairbanks, J., Plowman, K. D., & Rawlins, B. L. (2007). Transparency in government communication.
Journal of Public Affairs, 7, 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.245
Funk, R. L. (2013). Chile 2012: The permanent campaign. Revista de Ciencia Politica (Santiago), 33, 83–99.
Garnett, J. L. (1997). Administrative communication: Domain, threats, and legitimacy. In J. L. Garnett &
A. Kouzmin (Eds.), Handbook of administrative communication. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker Inc.
Garnett, J. L., & Kouzmin, A. (Eds.) (1997). Handbook of administrative communication. New York, NY:
Marcel Dekker Inc.
Gelders, D., Bouckaert, G., & van Ruler, B. (2007). Communication management in the public sector:
Consequences for public communication about policy intentions. Government Information Quarterly,
24, 326–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2006.06.009
Gelders, D., De Cock, R., Roe, K., & Neijens, P. (2006). The opinion of Belgian government communica-
tion professionals on public communication about policy intentions: Pros/cons and conditions.
Government Information Quarterly, 23, 281–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2006.01.013
Gelders, D., & Ihlen, Ø. (2010). Government communication about potential policies: Public relations,
propaganda or both? Public Relations Review, 36, 59–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
pubrev.2009.08.012
Glenny, L. (2008). Perspectives of communication in the Australian public sector. Journal of Communication
Management, 12, 152–168. https://doi.org/10.1108/13632540810881965
Glenny, L. (2010). “Communication, Ethics and the Public Servant: Equality, Reciprocity, Truth and
Authenticity.” PhD thesis, University of South Australia, South Australia.
Government of Canada. (2015). Values and ethics code for the public sector, Government of Canada.
Accessed August 25, 2016 http://www.tbs‐sct.gc.ca.
Graber, D. A. (2003). The power of communication: Managing information in public organizations.
Washington: CQ Press.
Gregory, A. (2006). A development framework for government communicators. Journal of Communication
Gregory, A. (2012). UK Government communications: Full circle in the 21st century? Public Relations
Review, 38(3), 367–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.01.002
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action, volume 1: Reason and the rationalization of society.
Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bour-
geois society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Habermas, J. (1997). The public sphere. In R. E. Goodin & P. Pettit (Eds.), Contemporary political philoso-
phy: An anthology (pp. 105–108). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
Head, B. (2007). The public service and government communication: Pressures and dilemmas. In S. A.
Young (Ed.), Government communication in Australia (pp. 36–50). Melbourne, AU: Cambridge
University Press.
Heaselgrave, F., & Simmons, P. (2016). Culture, competency and policy: Why social media dialogue is
limited in Australian local government. Journal of Communication Management, 20, 133–147.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM‐07‐2015‐0059
Heise, J. A. (1985). Toward closing the confidence gap: An alternative approach to communication between
public and government. Public Administration Quarterly, 9, 196–217. http://www.jstor.org/
stable/40861057
Hibbert, Z., & Simmons, P. (2006). War reporting and Australian defence public relations, an exchange.
PRism, 4, 1–10.
Hong, H., Park, H., Lee, Y., & Park, J. (2012). Public segmentation and government–public relationship
building: A cluster analysis of publics in the United States and 19 European Countries. Journal of
Public Relations Research, 24, 37–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2012.626135
Horsley, J. S., Liu, B. F., & Levenshus, A. B. (2010). Comparisons of U.S. government communication
practices: Expanding the government communication decision wheel. Communication Theory, 20,
269–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468‐2885.2010.01363.x
Hughes, A., & Dann, S. (2009). Political marketing and stakeholder engagement. Marketing Theory, 9,
243–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593109103070
Humphreys, J. (2005). The Iraq Dossier and the meaning of spin. Parliamentary Affairs, 58, 156–170.
https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsi013
Knott Martinelli, D. (2011). Political public relations: Remembering its roots and classics. In J. Strömbäck
& S. Kiousis (Eds.), Political public relations principles and applications (pp. 33–53). New York, NY:
Routledge.
94 Leanne Glenny
Koliastasis, P. (2016). The permanent campaign strategy of prime ministers in parliamentary systems: The
case of Greece. Journal of Political Marketing, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2016.
1193835
Koul, S. (2009). Communication structure of the public sector in India: An empirical analysis. Corporate
Communications:AnInternationalJournal,14,320–332.https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280910980096
Kozolanka, K. (2006). The sponsorship scandal as communication: The rise of politicized and strategic
communications in the federal government. Canadian Journal of Communication, 31, 343–366.
Kraaier, N. M. (2016). Communication in the heart of policy and the conduct of conduct. Journal of
Communication Management, 20, 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM‐01‐2015‐0009
Laing, A. (2003). Marketing in the public sector: Towards a typology of public services. Marketing Theory,
3, 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593103042005
Larsson, A. O. (2016). Online, all the time? A quantitative assessment of the permanent campaign on
Facebook. New Media and Society, 18, 274–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814538798
Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (1998). Relationship management in public relations: Dimensions of
an organization‐public relationship. Public Relations Review, 24, 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0363‐8111(98)80020‐9
Lee, M. (2007). Public relations in public administration. In M. Lee (Ed.), Government public relations: A
reader (pp. 3–20). Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Lee, M., Neeley, G., & Stewart, K. (Eds.) (2012). The practice of government public relations. Boca Raton:
CRC Press.
Lees‐Marshment, J. (2014). Political marketing principles and applications (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Taylor
and Francis.
Liu, B. F., & Horsley, J. S. (2007). The government communication decision wheel: Toward a public rela-
tions model for the public sector. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19, 377–393. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10627260701402473
Liu, B. F., Horsley, J. S., & Levenshus, A. B. (2010). Government and corporate communication practices:
Do the differences matter? Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38, 189–213. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00909881003639528
Liu, B. F., Levenshus, A., & Horsley, J. S. (2012). Communication practices of US elected and non‐elected
officials. Journal of Communication Management, 16, 220–243. https://doi.org/10.1108/
13632541211245785
Maddison, S., & Denniss, R. (2013). An introduction to Australian public policy theory and practice (2nd
ed.). Melbourne, AU: Cambridge University Press.
Mazzoleni, G., & Schulz, W. (1999). ‘Mediatization’ of politics: A challenge for democracy? Political
Communication, 16, 247–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/105846099198613
McCombs, M. (2004). Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion. Oxford, UK: Malden–
Blackwell Publishing Inc.
McIntosh White, J. (2012). The communicative action of journalists and public information officers:
Habermas revisited. Journalism Practice, 6, 563–580. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2011.
644899
McKee, A. (2005). The public sphere: An introduction. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
McNair, B. (2004). PR must die: Spin, anti‐spin and political public relations in the UK, 1997‐2004.
Journalism Studies, 5, 325–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670042000246089
McNair, B. (2011). An introduction to political communication (5th ed.). Oxon, UK: Routledge.
Moloney, K. (2005). Trust and public relations: Center and edge. Public Relations Review, 31, 550–555.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2005.08.015
Moloney, K. (2006). Rethinking public relations: PR, propaganda and democracy (2nd ed.). London, UK:
Routledge.
Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Social Research, 66, 745–758. http://
nbn‐resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168‐ssoar‐246548
Mulgan, R. (2007). Truth in government and the politicization of public service advice. Public
Administration, 85, 569–586. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9299.2007.00663.x
Mulgan, R. (2008). How much responsiveness is too much or too little? Australian Journal of Public
Administration, 67, 345–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐8500.2008.00592.x
Nielsen, S. W. (2012). Three faces of political marketing strategy. Journal of Public Affairs, 12, 293–302.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.434
OECD (2011). The phenomenon of ministerial advisors. In E. Beth (Ed.), Ministerial advisors: Role, influ-
ence and management. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264124936‐3‐en
O’Faircheallaigh, C., Wanna, J., & Weller, P. (1999). Public sector management in Australia: New chal-
lenges, new directions (2nd ed.). South Yarra, AU: Macmillan Education AU.
Ornstein, N. J., & Mann, T. E. (2000). The permanent campaign and its future. Washington, DC: American
Enterprise Institute.
O’Shaughnessy, N. J. (2004). Politics and propaganda: Weapons of mass seduction. Manchester, UK:
Manchester University Press.
Pasquier, M., & Villeneuve, J.‐P. (2012). Marketing management and communications in the public sector.
London, UK: Routledge.
Ruijer, H. J. M. (2016). Proactive transparency in the United States and the Netherlands: The role of gov-
ernment communication officials. The American Review of Public Administration, 46, 1–22.
Sanders, K. (2011). Political public relations and government communication. In J. Strömbäck & S. Kiousis
(Eds.), Political public relations principles and applications (pp. 254–273). New York, NY: Routledge.
Sanders, K. (2013). The strategic shift of UK government communication. In K. Sanders & M. J. Canel
(Eds.), Government communication cases and challenges (pp. 79–98). London, UK: Bloomsbury
Publishing.
Sanders, K., & Canel, M. J. (2015). Mind the gap: Local government communication strategies and
Spanish Citizens’ perceptions of their cities. Public Relations Review, 41, 777–784. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.06.014
Schillemans, T. (2016). Fighting or fumbling with the beast? The mediatisation of public sector agencies in
Australia and the Netherlands. Policy and Politics, 44, 79–96. https://doi.org/10.1332/
030557315X14466438893302
Sparrow, N., & Turner, J. (2001). The permanent campaign: The integration of market research techniques
in developing strategies in a more uncertain political climate. European Journal of Marketing, 35,
984–1002. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560110400605
Strömbäck, J., & Kiousis, S. (Eds.) (2011). Political public relations: Principles and applications. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Thomsen, C. (2007). Public sector CSR communication: A dialogical approach. Hermes, 38, 41–64.
https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v20i38.25904
van Onselen, P., & Errington, W. (2007). The democratic state as a marketing tool: The permanent cam-
paign in Australia. Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 45, 78–94. https://doi.
org/10.1080/14662040601135805
Vos, M. (2006). Setting the research agenda for governmental communication. Journal of Communication
Walsh, K. (1994). Marketing and public sector management. European Journal of Marketing, 28, 63–71.
https://doi.org/10.1108/03090569410057308
Ward, I. (2003). An Australian PR state? Australian Journal of Communication, 30, 25–42.
Wei, N. (2010). Research on the local government communication mechanism from the governance per-
spective: A case study of the “11.17” Mass incident in Longnan, Gansu Province. In Management and
service science (MASS), 2010 International Conference on Management and Service Science (pp. 1–6).
Wuhan, China: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMSS.2010.5576760
Wilkie, A. (2004). Axis of deceit: The story of the intelligence officer who risked it all to tell the truth about
WMD and Iraq. Melbourne: Black Inc.
Wilson, R. P. (2015). Research note: A profile of ministerial policy staff in the Government of Canada.
Canadian Journal of Political Science, 48, 455–471. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423915000293
Young, S. (2007b). The regulation of government advertising in Australia: The politicisation of a public
policy issue. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 66, 438–452. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467‐8500.2007.00555.x
Young, S. A. (2007a). Government communication in Australia. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

The Handbook of Public Sector Communication - 2020 - Luoma Aho - Politics and Policy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Handbook of Public Sector Communication - 2020 - Luoma Aho - Politics and Policy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10.1002/9781119263203.ch5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119263203.ch5 by Mcmaster University Library Collections L307, Wiley Online Library on [19/10/2022].

Contextualizing Public Sector Communication,

Mapping the Field of Public Sector Communication,

Political Marketing Public Sector

Table 5.1 Examples of Subdisciplines in Practice.

The Broader Literature

Key Issues in Politics and Public Sector

Table 5.2 Characteristics of Political and Apolitical Communication.

Undertaken by Politicians Public sector communication staff

Key Issues in Policy and Public Sector

communication. Rather than treating citizens as passive receivers of government messages,

You might also like