监管大型科技公司:从竞争政策到行业监管?

Oliver Budzinski, Juliane K. Mendelsohn
{"title":"监管大型科技公司:从竞争政策到行业监管?","authors":"Oliver Budzinski, Juliane K. Mendelsohn","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3938167","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The European Commission has proposed a new regulatory tool for the governance of digital markets. The Digital Markets Act (DMA) intents to limit the market behavior of so-called gatekeeper companies to ensure contestable and fair digital markets. We review the provisions of the DMA both from a legal and from an economics perspective. Notwithstanding a number of benefits, we identify several issues with the current proposal. When looking at the core provisions of the proposal from an economic perspective, five issues of contention arise: many of the provisions seem to be quite narrow in scope and it seems difficult to extrapolate more general rules from them; the economic harm of some of the provisions is both uncertain and in principle debatable; the alleged distinction between different types of obligations cannot be verified, and, last but not least, while the DMA seeks to control existing gatekeepers, the “tipping” of markets and the rise of further gatekeepers is not guaranteed by this proposal; this in turn leads to a larger critical analysis of the gatekeeper as DMA’s norm addressee. From a legal perspective, the first hurdle is the lack of clarity pertaining to the nature and goals of the DMA, this is further compounded by procedural provisions and an enforcement regime with many uncertainties and loopholes – all of which tend to undermine the intended stringency of the regulation and its overall chances of making digital markets systemically more contestable and fairer. Thus, we think that a reform of the competition policy regime would better suit the need of regulating big tech.","PeriodicalId":330992,"journal":{"name":"New Institutional Economics eJournal","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Regulating Big Tech: From Competition Policy to Sector Regulation?\",\"authors\":\"Oliver Budzinski, Juliane K. Mendelsohn\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3938167\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The European Commission has proposed a new regulatory tool for the governance of digital markets. The Digital Markets Act (DMA) intents to limit the market behavior of so-called gatekeeper companies to ensure contestable and fair digital markets. We review the provisions of the DMA both from a legal and from an economics perspective. Notwithstanding a number of benefits, we identify several issues with the current proposal. When looking at the core provisions of the proposal from an economic perspective, five issues of contention arise: many of the provisions seem to be quite narrow in scope and it seems difficult to extrapolate more general rules from them; the economic harm of some of the provisions is both uncertain and in principle debatable; the alleged distinction between different types of obligations cannot be verified, and, last but not least, while the DMA seeks to control existing gatekeepers, the “tipping” of markets and the rise of further gatekeepers is not guaranteed by this proposal; this in turn leads to a larger critical analysis of the gatekeeper as DMA’s norm addressee. From a legal perspective, the first hurdle is the lack of clarity pertaining to the nature and goals of the DMA, this is further compounded by procedural provisions and an enforcement regime with many uncertainties and loopholes – all of which tend to undermine the intended stringency of the regulation and its overall chances of making digital markets systemically more contestable and fairer. Thus, we think that a reform of the competition policy regime would better suit the need of regulating big tech.\",\"PeriodicalId\":330992,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"New Institutional Economics eJournal\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"New Institutional Economics eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3938167\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Institutional Economics eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3938167","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

欧盟委员会(European Commission)提出了一种新的数字市场治理监管工具。数字市场法案(DMA)旨在限制所谓的看门人公司的市场行为,以确保竞争和公平的数字市场。我们从法律和经济学的角度来审视DMA的规定。尽管有许多好处,但我们认为当前提案存在几个问题。从经济角度看提案的核心条款时,出现了五个争论问题:许多条款的范围似乎相当狭窄,似乎很难从中推断出更一般的规则;其中一些条款的经济危害既不确定,原则上也值得商榷;不同类型义务之间所谓的区别无法得到证实,最后但并非最不重要的一点是,尽管DMA试图控制现有的看门人,但该提案并不能保证市场的“倾斜”和更多看门人的出现;这反过来又导致对作为DMA规范收信人的看门人进行更大的批判性分析。从法律的角度来看,第一个障碍是缺乏关于DMA的性质和目标的明确性,这进一步加剧了程序性条款和执行机制的许多不确定性和漏洞——所有这些都倾向于破坏监管的预期严格性,以及它使数字市场系统更具竞争性和更公平的总体机会。因此,我们认为竞争政策制度的改革将更好地适应监管大型科技公司的需要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Regulating Big Tech: From Competition Policy to Sector Regulation?
The European Commission has proposed a new regulatory tool for the governance of digital markets. The Digital Markets Act (DMA) intents to limit the market behavior of so-called gatekeeper companies to ensure contestable and fair digital markets. We review the provisions of the DMA both from a legal and from an economics perspective. Notwithstanding a number of benefits, we identify several issues with the current proposal. When looking at the core provisions of the proposal from an economic perspective, five issues of contention arise: many of the provisions seem to be quite narrow in scope and it seems difficult to extrapolate more general rules from them; the economic harm of some of the provisions is both uncertain and in principle debatable; the alleged distinction between different types of obligations cannot be verified, and, last but not least, while the DMA seeks to control existing gatekeepers, the “tipping” of markets and the rise of further gatekeepers is not guaranteed by this proposal; this in turn leads to a larger critical analysis of the gatekeeper as DMA’s norm addressee. From a legal perspective, the first hurdle is the lack of clarity pertaining to the nature and goals of the DMA, this is further compounded by procedural provisions and an enforcement regime with many uncertainties and loopholes – all of which tend to undermine the intended stringency of the regulation and its overall chances of making digital markets systemically more contestable and fairer. Thus, we think that a reform of the competition policy regime would better suit the need of regulating big tech.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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