Let us retrace the steps taken so far. Part I addressed the paradox of government activism in digital TV and identified the factors that encouraged the formulation of national transition strategies (our first research question). Parts II and III discussed the evolution of digital TV in the United States and Britain, and the first chapter of Part IV identified the main differences between the transition policies adopted in each nation (our second research question). We now turn to our third research question: why have these nations made considerably different choices in the regulation and promotion of digital TV? This task invites us to reflect more abstractly about the determinants of policy action in the communication sector. Contrasting policy outcomes across nationals is a long-standing concern of comparative politics (Eckstein and Apter, 1963; Lijphart, 1971). At the most basic level, it requires a theoretical framework that links policy outcomes to politics (Gourevitch, 1986). In other words, we need to lay out a framework that offers a conception of the state, which is ultimately where public policies are formed and implemented, a conception of the actors and organizations involved in the policy arena, and a theory that links these actors, the state, and policy outputs – that is, a theory of how the preferences and orientations of the different stakeholders are transformed into actual rules and initiatives.

Interest-group approaches stress the most visible aspect of regulatory politics – the battle between social actors advocating different policies.