Public Affairs and Social Constructionism: An Explanatory Paradigm

Rezumat

Our paper focuses on some of the controversies concerning the field of public affairs. Considered to be a constantly evolving discipline, public affairs encompass a large and diverse repertoire of tools and techniques, amongst which the most renowned is, by far, lobbying. Regardless of the formal definition preferred (the simplest one, quoted by Phil Harris and Craig Fleisher, is the totality of government affairs or relations), the nucleus of public affairs work concerns the process of policy formulation and its possible impact on corporations. Evidently, the latter entails the involvement of further stakeholders (individuals, interest groups, communities) that could be affected by the issue at stake. Usually, solving this issue proves to be dependent on legislative or regulatory bodies. When lobbyists influence the government and its policies, they actually produce relevant modifications of the external environment in terms of politics, economics or the justice system. Although these practices have quite a long history in many countries, scholars still strive to find appropriate theoretical frameworks in order to provide better explanations. Using an idea articulated by Rob de Lange and Paul Linders, we argue that constructionism represents a valuable option both in terms of explanatory power and in terms of anti-essentialist standpoint.