International Coherence in Digital Platform Regulation: An Economic Perspective on the US and EU Proposals

Monika Schnitzer, J. Crémer, Gregory S. Crawford, David Dinielli, Amelia Fletcher, Paul Heidhues, Fiona M. Scott Morton, Katja Seim
{"title":"International Coherence in Digital Platform Regulation: An Economic Perspective on the US and EU Proposals","authors":"Monika Schnitzer, J. Crémer, Gregory S. Crawford, David Dinielli, Amelia Fletcher, Paul Heidhues, Fiona M. Scott Morton, Katja Seim","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3923604","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is broad international consensus that ex ante regulation is needed to address the market dominance of the very largest digital platforms and that there are benefits to having broadly coherent regulatory approaches across jurisdictions. Regulation in any one jurisdiction will have extra-territorial effects, and inconsistent regulation will create unnecessary costs, reduce service quality, and dampen innovation. Greater coherency in the regulation of digital markets should make regulation more effective, more proportionate, and better able to limit any negative consequences. This article considers current US and EU proposals. We compare and contrast these two proposals through an economic lens, with a focus on substance rather than legal process and enforcement. We find substantial similarity of intent and approach between the US and EU proposals but also some important divergences, which highlight areas for further consideration by the EU and the US. We note in particular that the EU proposal does not include a provision analogous to a US proposal for strengthening the merger test applicable to acquisitions by large platforms, but that it should. More generally, the more the two sets of proposals can learn from each other, the better and more coherent the final regulations are likely to be.","PeriodicalId":382921,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Regulation (European) (Topic)","volume":"115 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Regulation (European) (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3923604","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

There is broad international consensus that ex ante regulation is needed to address the market dominance of the very largest digital platforms and that there are benefits to having broadly coherent regulatory approaches across jurisdictions. Regulation in any one jurisdiction will have extra-territorial effects, and inconsistent regulation will create unnecessary costs, reduce service quality, and dampen innovation. Greater coherency in the regulation of digital markets should make regulation more effective, more proportionate, and better able to limit any negative consequences. This article considers current US and EU proposals. We compare and contrast these two proposals through an economic lens, with a focus on substance rather than legal process and enforcement. We find substantial similarity of intent and approach between the US and EU proposals but also some important divergences, which highlight areas for further consideration by the EU and the US. We note in particular that the EU proposal does not include a provision analogous to a US proposal for strengthening the merger test applicable to acquisitions by large platforms, but that it should. More generally, the more the two sets of proposals can learn from each other, the better and more coherent the final regulations are likely to be.
数字平台监管的国际一致性:美国和欧盟提案的经济视角
国际上有一个广泛的共识,即需要事前监管来解决最大的数字平台的市场主导地位,而且在各个司法管辖区采用广泛一致的监管方法是有好处的。任何一个司法管辖区的监管都会产生域外效应,不一致的监管会产生不必要的成本,降低服务质量,抑制创新。数字市场监管的更大一致性应使监管更有效、更相称,并能更好地限制任何负面后果。本文考虑了目前美国和欧盟的建议。我们从经济角度对这两项建议进行了比较和对比,重点是内容而不是法律程序和执行。我们发现美国和欧盟提案的意图和方法有很大的相似之处,但也有一些重要的分歧,这突出了欧盟和美国需要进一步考虑的领域。我们特别注意到,欧盟的提案没有包括类似于美国提案的条款,即加强适用于大型平台收购的合并测试,但它应该这样做。更普遍地说,两套提案相互学习的越多,最终的规定就可能越好、越连贯。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信