1. Information Policy in European Integration in pre-accession era.

2. CONTENT -CONTEXT -POLICY GOALS -REALISATION -CONCLUSION

3. CONTEXT -COMECON experience - Government managing information? -Demand / wishful attitude -Political culture -Initial enthusiasm -Decision making on the information strategy -Public debate

4. CONTEXT Other pre-conditions Information Society Era Political Marketing „Spectacularisation ”

5. LEARN ON YOUR NEIGHBOURS MISTAKES -1995 enlargement -Other candidate states

6. PUBLIC DEBATE PROs budget flows elimination of border barriers in economic traffic better terms of trade with “third countries” farming sector – subsidies credibility of the country gradual opening of labour markets participation in mechanism of currency stabilisation abolition of multi-certificate system liberalisation, opening of new markets ecological standards education and research

7. PUBLIC DEBATE CONs sovereignty asymmetry of potential and domination problem “brain drainage” VAT goes up Fulfilling ecological standards costs money Movements of prices as the process of harmonisation of prices in UE

8. PUBLIC OPINION – dynamics

9. INFORMATION POLICY GOALS -The goals of PIS (Program of Informing the Society): -informing on forecasted results of integrating Poland into EU (benefits and costs) both for the whole country as well as for individual citizens – building rational and constant support for integration -increasing the society’s interest with integration topics and creating demand for information

10. INFORMATION POLICY GOALS The goals of PIS (continuation): -preparing society for future membership – making people aware what changes this will bring -achieving wide and constant, based on knowledge approval of the society for the integration process -activating partners in the society: self-governments, NGOs, media, churches, etc.

11. REALISATION - 40 mln PLN (10 mln EURO) -Allocation by tenders : NGOs, MEDIA other ORG - Limited self-initiated actions -Publications -www pages - EURO INFO center + RCIE

12. “Nation-wide Information Program” GOALS: -persuade Poles that Poland negotiated good final conditions for entering UE -develop readiness for voting YES in future referendum -keeping at high (safe) level – the society’s acceptance for Poland joining UE -performing efficient campaign before referendum -achieving positive results in referendum

13. Lech Nikolski’s GOALS: -massive meetings with government representatives (every community was visited by minister or at least vice-minister) -seminars for different professional groups (farmers)

14. Attendance / Participation -50% requirement -Predictions -Shift in goals -2 days voting -Neighbours -19.00 – !!!

15. CONCLUSIONS - Too many different goals (no SMART based targeting) - „Last minute” syndrom - Inadequate organisation - Lack of consequence - Theory - practice gap - Passive beurocratic attitude

16. CONCLUSIONS continuation -Emotional sensitiviness -Source of information failure -Knowledge tests -Answers polarised according to political preferences - Citizens rarely changed their opinion in the last months -False imagination of UE and Poland’s place in it

17. CONCLUSIONS continuation - Opinion panels ignored -Negotiations team’s lack of effective communication -Consumed trust credit - Continuation of information policy

18. THANK YOU for your attention Dr Rafał Riedel rriedel@ap.edu.pl Maastricht, September 2004