Regulatory capture
EMFA Implementation Challenges in the Balkans
A 2024 regional assessment by the Balkan Free Media Initiative (BFMI) examined how the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) is likely to function across six Balkan countries. The central finding is clear: regulatory capture is the primary obstacle to EMFA’s effectiveness. Even strong EU-level rules cannot be implemented where national regulators are politicised, where ownership is opaque, or where foreign-backed media dominate public information spaces.
This case illustrates why legal transposition alone is not enough, and why donors must address the political economy of regulation, not just the wording of media laws. It also shows how foreign influence, market concentration and weak oversight interact to undermine media freedom—reinforcing the need for a whole-of-system approach under Principle 3.
What regulatory capture looks like in practice
The Balkan findings highlight several forms of regulatory capture that hinder EMFA-aligned reforms:
Bulgaria
Frequent political turnover has prevented stable capture but also undermines continuity. Reform depends entirely on short-lived governments, making regulators susceptible to political reshaping with each transition.
Greece
The regulator is widely perceived as politicised, with oversight functions aligned to powerful oligarchic interests. Public service media face chronic political pressure. EMFA obligations on independence and governance will be difficult to enforce without structural reform.
Slovenia
Although comparatively stronger, enforcement of media rules is inconsistent, and key legislation is outdated. Political appointments and susceptibility to foreign influence weaken long-term stability.
Serbia
Regulatory bodies are aligned with the ruling party, enabling systemic disinformation and government control of major broadcasters. Recent legislative changes have increased the state's ability to influence media markets and suppress independent journalism.
Montenegro & Bosnia and Herzegovina
Because both countries share a language with Serbia, Serbian state-aligned media dominate their information environment. National regulators lack the authority or political support to counter cross-border influence operations.
Why regulatory capture matters for EMFA
EMFA sets out rules on:
media ownership transparency
independence of regulators
protection of public service media
safeguards against political interference
However, none of these provisions self-enforce. In captured systems:
Regulators may comply on paper but not in practice.
Ownership transparency can be selectively applied.
Public funding rules can be weaponised to reward friendly outlets.
Anti-interference protections may be ignored or misinterpreted.
This reinforces the argument under Principle 1 - Do No Harm: well-intentioned reforms can be co-opted by captured institutions, sometimes worsening the situation for independent media.
Implications for EU institutions
DG NEAR / ENEST
Support to candidate countries must integrate political-economy analysis and consider cross-border influence, not just formal legal alignment. This case directly reinforces recommendations in the Internationally-Focused DGs guidance.
EU Delegations
Delegations should anticipate that regulators and line ministries may be captured or politically influenced. Programmes should prioritise:
independent watchdogs and observatories
risk-based visibility and communication decisions
support for local media councils and accountability bodies
These practices are outlined in the EU Delegations guidance.
DG CONNECT & DG JUST
At EU level, oversight of EMFA cannot rely solely on national regulators. DG CONNECT and DG JUST should invest in:
early-warning indicators of capture
cross-border monitoring
independent data sources
collaboration with civil society watchdogs
See DG CONNECT guidance.
System-wide lessons for donor practice
This case demonstrates why donors must integrate structural and long-term measures when supporting media freedom:
Regulatory capture is often informal, network-based and persistent.
Ownership transparency laws are ineffective without political will to enforce them.
Public service media independence depends on governance structures, not only legislation.
Foreign influence can bypass national regulators entirely.
Local watchdogs, journalist unions and media observatories are essential checks, yet chronically underfunded.
These takeaways directly support Principle 4 and Principle 5, particularly the need for local leadership, donor alignment, and sustained monitoring.
Recommendations (from BFMI and adapted for EU operational practice)
Strengthen regulator independence through governance safeguards, transparent appointments and EU-supported capacity building.
Increase ownership transparency, including cross-border mapping and beneficial ownership data.
Ensure public funding mechanisms are governed by independent, accountable bodies.
Support public service media reforms that shield boards and management from political appointment cycles.
Treat cross-border disinformation as a regional security issue, not only a media issue.
Invest in local independent research bodies to monitor EMFA-related indicators.
Last updated
Was this helpful?