DEMOCRATIZATION ON THE IAMCR/AIERI/AIECS

ADVANCES BETWEEN 2004 AND 2007 AND NEW CHALLENGES.

César R. S. Bolaño

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to present the IAMCR/AIERI/AIECS advances in the next years, in terms of its democratization and the possibilities of expansion on the Latin American participation. A central moment in this process that begins in 2004 was the restructuring of the membership fees structure. Another crucial point is the agreement with ALAIC, that will be extent to other national and international associations, and finally, the constitution of the regionalization and membership comity, in the Paris meeting, in 2007.

Key words: IAMCR/AIERI/AIECS, democratization, regionalization, Latin American participation.

Introduction

When I assumed the invitation to be a part of the Board of IAMCR/AIERI/AIECS, during the 2004 assembly in Porto Alegre, after several consults with my Latin American and Brazilian colleagues and the friends from the Political Economy Section - reservatory of the critical though in Communication Sciences - I let it clear that my bureaucratic work would be subordinated to the political activities, which aimed to increase the participation of researchers from less developed countries, in particular those from the Latin world and Latin America in particular, because of my own insertion in the field and my commitments assumed during the last two decades .

With that spirit I assumed the post and with that objective I have bean working, with the enthusiastic support of all the members of the Board and the International Council, in particular our president, Robin Mansell. At the end of the year, the bureaucratic work had revealed to be extremely complex, keeping in mind, especially, the difficulties of maintaining a fund of an international society like ours, in a country with the characteristics of Brazil. The only possible solution was to concentrate in London the accountability and most of the bureaucratic work, in the hands of the President. It occurred in two stages: The first one was concluded in Taipei, in July 2005, in the meetings of the Board and the International Council, and the other one in London, in September of the same year, in an unordinary meeting of the Board to redefine the structure of the web site, including the aspects related to the management of the data base and the finances and membership fees.

In this meeting in London, I also presented a proposition, related to the restructuring of membership structure and fees.¹ A previous diagnosis had been published in the ALAIC’s journal, based on a database research made by Robin Mansell, in Taiwan.² Some paragraphs of this text were copied here, for commodity, with formal adaptations. The data presented here in the chart and the simulations that I will mention forward can be consulted in the original texts in Portuguese.

The problem

Analyzing the number of participants in Taipei, we verify the enormous share that the United States (41 participants) and Europe (56), especially Germany (10), have in IAMCR/AIERI/AIECS. Also Australia had an important participation. The numbers relative to Taiwan (65), evidently, reflect the fact that the meeting occurred there. But it is interesting to notice, the little relative participation of the nearest Asian countries, excluding Japan (26) and Korean (11). If we don’t count these two and the hostess country, the Asian participation drops to 38 people. It is below the Northern American participation. If we also disregard the Middle East, this number drops even more (23). From the People’s Republic of China, there were only two participants. Language barriers? Acquisitive power? Politic questions regarding China? It is not important to analyze these questions here. What really matters is to simply demonstrate the hegemony of the so-called First Word countries, without exceptions. If we were to analyze the numbers of the 2004’s Conference, occurred in Porto Alegre, surely we will end up with a similar situation.

The same thing would occur if we analyze the participation of the associates on the different levels of power: Board, International Council, Sections and Work Groups Coordination. This asymmetric participation of the different national communities is related, in a way, certainly to the historical distortions of the affiliation fees policy. To quote an example, the institutional members from countries with high incomes, paid a 400 dollars per year, having the right to register up to ten individuals, what represents a 50% discount, if instead, those same individuals would have personally registered themselves, while, in the lower income countries, the annuity paid by the institutional associates was 200 dollars, what means that there was no discount. This problem was resolved, as it will be demonstrated next.

The membership and annuity balance redo: A conquest

Considering the list of catalogued members in the IAMCR/AIERI/AIECS data base up to 2004, there were 877 individual members.³ Of that total, 765 were from high income countries, while only 112 were from pour or in development countries. Considering those numbers and the World Bank economic category classification of the countries, used by the IAMCR/AIERI/AIECS, we did a few simulations to fundament the following proposals:

1. Classification of the countries in only two income groups: high (using the World Bank classification), and low income (that includes low, upper middle and lower middle income in World Bank language).⁴

2. A 50% reduction in the membership fees of associates from the pour or in development countries, excluding the regular or emeritus members.

The purpose of that suggestion was, overall, to attract students from Latin America and other low income countries, by offering them the same discounts that were offered to the professional and students from higher income countries. Even presuming that the number of those members would not be altered, if compared to those catalogued till 2004,⁵ the 2.5% loss of the total income, due to this change, was justified by what is established in the Statutes of IAMCR/AIERI/AIECS regarding to the democratization of the Communication research, because it democratized the access of participants from countries with lower incomes.

But the problem hadn’t an easy solution, because the association had experienced a conjuncture of temporary lost of a considerable amount of income due to the transfer of the treasury and the already mentioned difficulties in making the system of receipts work in Brazil, which delayed the process of the renewing the affiliations, specially of the institutional associates from the high income countries. The centralization of the financial administration in London had the purpose to solve that problem. Besides, it was also a commitment of the new Board to amplify the services offered to the associates, especially the subscription of journals, as well as, the restructure of the newsletter.

Other simulations were made, one reducing the discount to 30%. In this case, incomes would be reduced only in 1.5%. Another simulation was made, projecting a situation in which the income loss would be recovered with an increase of 10% into the membership fee charged from institutional members from high income countries, which would cover the prediction of 1.5% loss of income, due to the 30% discount offered to students and institutional members of the countries with low income.

The final solution was to maintain at any costs the equal treatment regarding the discounts beneficiating the nations with low incomes and eliminating such unjustifiable historical distortion, at the same time it defined a totally transparent structure, presenting in an explicit way the benefit offered to each kind of associate. It was defined a chart (table 1) that highlights the value of the journals subscription which each associate has access, giving the members from low income countries and students in general, the option of not receiving the journals if they believe them to be too expensive.

Table1 – Membership structure fee

INDIVIDUAL MEMBER
High income countries
Regular	130 USD*	-
Students	90 USD*	40 USD**
Emeritus	90 USD*	40 USD**
Low income countries
Regular	40 USD*	20 USD**
Students	30 USD*	15 USD**
Emeritus	30 USD*	45 USD**
INSTITUCIONAL MEMBER
High income countries
10 Members	500 USD* + 50 USD for each new member
Low income countries
10 Members	140 USD* + 14 USD for each new member

*Including journal subscription.

** Without journal subscription.

With these new changes the Board accomplishes two of its electoral promises, by amplifying the options offered to the associates and democratizing the association. The Board also restructured the web site and the payment system. The report generated from the IAMCR/AIERI/AIECS data base, in July 6, 2006, presented a total of 1,419 affiliated (table 2), which means a substantial increase (26.5%) regarding the 1,116 in July, 2005.⁶ The importance of that number can be noticed by doing a comparative analysis between the increase in July 2005 and in July 2004, that was only 2.8%.

Table 2 – Associates Members by class, country and genre - July 2006

Class of Associate
Individual	Student	Emeritus	Honorable	Permanent	Institucional	Total
485	16	66	12	31	809	1419
Distribution by category of country
High Income	Low Income					Total
466	176					1419
Distribution by genre
Masculine	Feminine					Total
384	258					1419

Obs.: the data correspond to catalogued members on the on-line system of IAMCR/AIERI/AIECS data base.

This positive and significant change must be related to the different actions of the Board, due specially to President Robin Mansell and Vice-president, Annabelle Sreberny, responsible for the new publication policy and also, I believe, to the new fee balance redo. A more defined study about that influence can’t be done because of the change in the data base in 2005. We estimate that the participation of pour countries over the total association members increased from 9.5%, in 2005, to 12.4%, in 2006. From the financial point of view, the increase in the number of associates and the new structure of fees, promoted an important income recovery. The income referent to the first six months of 2006 improved the expectations, as it can be observed in table 3.

Table 3 – Incomes from associates: estimative and results reached till February de 2006⁷

budget, IAMCR - January 2006 to December 2006
	USD	USD
	Estimated (Jan. - Dec. 2006)	Actual till 23/06/2006
Incomes from associates	40.000	36.577

The improvement of the relations with regional or national associations: the agreement between IAMCR/AIERI/AIECS and ALAIC

Even considering highly positive these results, the problem is far from being solved. A second and important step was the signature of an agreement with the Latin America association ALAIC (Asociación Latinoamericana de Investigadores de la Comunicación), that can be extended to other national and regional IAMCR/AIERI/AIECS associated members, that don’t pay a membership fee, what is very positive, but don’t have any advantages or responsibilities neither. The IAMCR/AIERI/AIECS has a comity of affiliation and participation that have tried to amplify the dialog with international entities, such as the International Communication Association (ICA), or regional ones as the Asian AMIC. The agreement between the IAMCR/AIERI/AIECS and ALAIC supports this initiative, seeking a better participation of researchers from non hegemonic countries, and a more intense dialog with the local and regional institutions that represent them.

The agreement with ALAIC was helped by my condition as a member of the board of directors from both entities, but in this moment there are already being developed negotiations for similar agreements with the Brazilian INTERCOM and the Bolivian ABOIC. With Mexican AMIC we signed yet a similar agreement in Paris. This is about a model that can be adopted, with all the flexibility, by other associations, including those out of Latin America, to amplify the possibilities of incorporating associates from less income countries. Even in the case of developed countries, it can be adapted, as we are discussing with the European regional association, ECCREA.

The original proposal, considering the few number of institutional affiliation in Latin America, was, trough a formal agreement, give to the individuals affiliated to the associative members possibility to beneficiate from the same discounts of those associated to the institutional members. Because of formal reasons, linked to the IAMCR/AIERI/AIECS web site functionality, the option was made in favor of having as a base the student value fee. The simple and final text, signed by Robin Mansell and Erick Torrico, presidents, respectively, of IAMCR/AIERI/AIECS and ALAIC stayed liked this:

The Presidents of the International Association for Media and Communication Research (IAMCR) and the Asociación Latinoamericana de Investigadores de la Comunicación (ALAIC), representing the members of both associations, agree to:

1. Reduce membership fees in IAMCR for ALAIC individual members to USD15.00 on condition that payment is made using the Paypal payment system at the IAMCR website (a discount from the full low income country individual membership fee of USD20.00). Individuals would not be entitled to receive a journal unless they pay an additional USD40.00. No alternative means of payment can be accepted by IAMCR for cost reasons.

2. In return, ALAIC will distribute IAMCR printed materials in its mailing, publicize the agreement in its journal and newsletter and pass to IAMCR its list of members annually.

3. ALAIC will organize, during each organization’s conference, meetings between representatives of the boards of IAMCR and ALAIC to elaborate cooperation plans for bilateral action.

4. ALAIC and IAMCR agree to foster interaction between working groups and sections with similar interests and to encourage meetings, publications, etc.

The objective of this agreement is to increase the number of Latin American members in IAMCR and its academic and political relevance to scholars based in Latin America, and to promote bilateral and regional actions.

There for, trough the formal agreement, the associative member compromises to make public the publicity material, brochures and applications of the IAMCR/AIERI/AIECS among there associates, trough they’re communicational means, like newsletters, journals, mailing list, websites etc. In exchange its associates receive the discounts quoted, which will not cause any negative impact in the incomes of the IAMCR/AIERI/AIECS, because, until now, there has been a low simultaneous participation on both associations.

The objective, as it became explicit, it is not just to increase the numbers of associates, but also to establish bounds with entities that are considerate priorities in the policy of regional insertion of the IAMCR/AIERI/AIECS. In the particular case of Latin America, for example, the tradition and the structure of the university system do not facilitate the institutional affiliation. A agreement with an important institution as the ALAIC, or even other important national entities as the Brazilian INTERCOM or the Mexican AMIC, on the contrary, can be a lot more productive from the point of view of the increasing the number of associates, as a fundamental challenge, like the ones I will bring up next.

Regionalization and new challenges ahead: A recent decision and proposals

The problem that interests us has structural causes. Our asymmetries reflect others, much more fundamental, linked to social economic development, to the hegemony of the English language on the academic field, and also to the hegemony of Europe and United States on the certified scientific production, followed by countries like Korea and Japan, in sum, the constitutive asymmetries of what has being called Knowledge Economy. It is not more than the new form adopted by the Capitalist Mode of Production, which reinforces the integration of industrial and academic, scientific and technological logics of production and distribution of wealth among the social structure and the countries and regions.

Certainly it is not going to be the IAMCR/AIERI/AIECS, that will solve the structure problems of capitalist production, but it is up to it to look, in its interior, to organize itself in a more democratic way, stimulating the participation and incorporation of the non hegemonic thinking in the field. An additional problem, with difficult treatment, is due to the association own global structure, that makes expensive the participation of the associates in the conferences, especially when it happens in distant locations.

But if we want to escape from the hegemonic tendency and stimulate the critic and alternative thinking, the great contribution that an association of this kind can give is the approximation between East and West, stimulating the academic dialog, approaching the African, Latin American and the Asian thinking. So we can go beyond the old Eurocentric condemnation to create a new approach. I think that we can only advance in this way trough actions that make it easer and stimulate a greater participation of the different associates in all instances of the entity, with a real regionalization policy.

This way, the agreement between IAMCR/AIERI/AIECS and ALAIC, it is worth a lot less by its functional aspects, but much more by the opportunity to rethink the regionalization policy of IAMCR/AIERI/AIECS. This could be a more effective alternative to the proposal that goes around the association, of creating regional representative for gathering new members. Instead of that, the International Council approved, in Paris, the transformation of the Membership and Participation Committee, in Membership and Regionalization Committee, chaired by Daya Thussu and me. Its composition is very representative of the different regions, and one of our main objectives is to develop the dialog with each of the regional (or even nationals) entities with strategic interest.

There is another interesting proposal that goes around the association of regionalizing the intermediate conference, realized in the odd years. This could be done with these regional partners. The IAMCR/AIERI/AIECS could also help with the horizontal dialog, promoting inter-regional discussions tables in the different regional events that it would participate.

It is also important to find ways to stimulate the direct exchange between the work groups of ALAIC, for example, and the sections of IAMCR/AIERI/AIECS, because both of them are the organized groups that constitutes the Communication field in the different cultural areas. This is evidently a very complex job, but also extremely important because it means to find a way to make the research agendas compatible between the different subfields and to define common guidelines, considering the real possibilities of joined actions.

The IAMCR/AIERI/AIECS Political Economy section can be considered a pioneer in this way. Two days before the Porto Alegre assembly, for example, it was realized a historical meeting in the Modern Art Museum of Rio Grande do Sul (MARGS), coordinated by me, as the president of the Latin Union of Political Economy of Information, Communication and Culture (ULEPICC) and coordinator of the work group of Politic Economy of ALAIC, and by Janet Wasko, chair of the IAMCR/AIERI/AIECS Political Economy Section, with a big visibility in the international field. ⁸

Finally but not less important, there is a need to make the job of sections and working groups more democratic trough a system of coordinators elections by the web or post, and stimulating on line academic events.

1* Thanks to Marcos Castañeda for technical support.

^ BOLAÑO, César Ricardo Siqueira. Anuidades IAMCR: propostas de mudanças. Aracaju, mimeo, 2005.

2 BOLAÑO, César Ricardo Siqueira. IAMCR 2005: reflexões num país tropical e bonito por natureza. Revista Latinoamericana de Ciências de la Comunicación, II (2), enero/julio de 2005, p. 154-155.

3 Treasurer’s Report, 2004: Presented by Annie Mear during the Annual IAMCR meeting in Porto Alegre.

4 The impact over the profits, according to the simulation, would be minimal. Considering this new classification, we would have the following profit structure: Of a total of 58 countries, only 9 would have a new income classification. This alteration would represent – considering stationary the relation between price and number of associates – a reduction of US$ 1.860,00 in the incomes. However the expectative was that these measures could be an attractive for new registries from pour or with irregular income distribution countries, which are still considered by the World Bank as lower middle or upper middle income.

5 In that moment, the IAMCR/AIERI/AIECS presented a total of 1,070 paying members.

6 Treasurer´s Report, 2005. Presented by César Bolaño on the annual meeting of the IAMCR in Taipei

7 All the details of the 2006 sums and results of 2004 and 2005 can be found in the Interim Financial Statement 2006. Presented by César Bolaño on the Congress of IAMCR, in Cairo. The data of the 2007 Report won’t be used in this paper for comfort, but it presents an even more important advance in both, financial statements and new members association, due to the global IAMCR policy, including the Board decision respect to reduce at its very minimum the prices for registration in Paris for new members, and the good job from Vice-president Divina Frau Meigs in organizing the Conference, with the support of UNESCO.

8 See the story in the EPnoTICias collection – www.eptic.com.br .