为数字市场设计补救措施:反垄断与监管之间的相互作用

IF 1.3 4区 社会学 Q3 ECONOMICS
Filippo Lancieri, Caio Mario S Pereira Neto
{"title":"为数字市场设计补救措施:反垄断与监管之间的相互作用","authors":"Filippo Lancieri, Caio Mario S Pereira Neto","doi":"10.1093/joclec/nhab022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Regulatory interventions aimed at promoting competition in digital markets face a challenge: How to design remedies that actually improve welfare? This article helps provide an answer to this question. First, it maps out the frontier of remedy design: Part II.A summarizes antitrust and regulatory remedies imposed on digital companies over the past decades, while Part II.B reviews nineteen reports on competition in digital markets to identify proposals to advance antitrust or regulatory interventions. Part III, the core of the article, builds on this review to propose a new, two-level framework for remedy design that integrates pro-competition antitrust and regulatory interventions as part of a single policy. First, at the substantive level, it develops a compounded error-cost framework that helps authorities to choose between different remedies applicableto a given conduct: when policymakers accept higher risks of over-enforcement in deciding to intervene, they should compensate by taking lower risks of over-enforcement in remedy design and vice-versa. Second, at the institutional level, the article proposes that authorities consider separating three connected but different key activities in remedy design: (i) identifying harmful behavior, (ii) designing interventions, and (iii) monitoring and adapting remedies. It also outlines four criteria (legal mandate, need for technical expertise, relative risks of regulatory capture, and overall administrative costs) that can help authorities allocate these tasks among different regulators. Part IV concludes by applying this framework to seven types of conduct that Part II identified as potentially problematic: (i) discrimination, unfair treatment, and self-preferencing; (ii) exclusivity contracts; (iii) tying or bundling; (iv) MFNs and other price parity clauses; (v) refusals to deal, limited interoperability, and lack of data portability; (vi) exploitative or exclusionary terms of service; and (vii) nudges, sludges, and other concerns around user interfaces.","PeriodicalId":45547,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Competition Law & Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Designing Remedies for Digital Markets: The Interplay Between Antitrust and Regulation\",\"authors\":\"Filippo Lancieri, Caio Mario S Pereira Neto\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/joclec/nhab022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Regulatory interventions aimed at promoting competition in digital markets face a challenge: How to design remedies that actually improve welfare? This article helps provide an answer to this question. First, it maps out the frontier of remedy design: Part II.A summarizes antitrust and regulatory remedies imposed on digital companies over the past decades, while Part II.B reviews nineteen reports on competition in digital markets to identify proposals to advance antitrust or regulatory interventions. Part III, the core of the article, builds on this review to propose a new, two-level framework for remedy design that integrates pro-competition antitrust and regulatory interventions as part of a single policy. First, at the substantive level, it develops a compounded error-cost framework that helps authorities to choose between different remedies applicableto a given conduct: when policymakers accept higher risks of over-enforcement in deciding to intervene, they should compensate by taking lower risks of over-enforcement in remedy design and vice-versa. Second, at the institutional level, the article proposes that authorities consider separating three connected but different key activities in remedy design: (i) identifying harmful behavior, (ii) designing interventions, and (iii) monitoring and adapting remedies. It also outlines four criteria (legal mandate, need for technical expertise, relative risks of regulatory capture, and overall administrative costs) that can help authorities allocate these tasks among different regulators. Part IV concludes by applying this framework to seven types of conduct that Part II identified as potentially problematic: (i) discrimination, unfair treatment, and self-preferencing; (ii) exclusivity contracts; (iii) tying or bundling; (iv) MFNs and other price parity clauses; (v) refusals to deal, limited interoperability, and lack of data portability; (vi) exploitative or exclusionary terms of service; and (vii) nudges, sludges, and other concerns around user interfaces.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45547,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Competition Law & Economics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Competition Law & Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/joclec/nhab022\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Competition Law & Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/joclec/nhab022","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

旨在促进数字市场竞争的监管干预面临着一个挑战:如何设计真正改善福利的补救措施?本文有助于回答这个问题。第二部分:救济设计的前沿。A部分总结了过去几十年来对数字公司实施的反垄断和监管补救措施,而第二部分。B审查了19份关于数字市场竞争的报告,以确定推进反垄断或监管干预的建议。第三部分是本文的核心,在此综述的基础上提出了一个新的两级补救设计框架,该框架将支持竞争的反垄断和监管干预作为单一政策的一部分整合在一起。首先,在实质性层面,它开发了一个复合错误成本框架,帮助当局在适用于特定行为的不同补救措施之间进行选择:当政策制定者在决定干预时接受过度执行的较高风险时,他们应该通过在补救措施设计中承担较低的过度执行风险来进行补偿,反之亦然。其次,在制度层面,本文建议当局考虑在补救措施设计中分离三个相互关联但不同的关键活动:(i)识别有害行为,(ii)设计干预措施,以及(iii)监测和调整补救措施。它还概述了四个标准(法律授权、对技术专长的需求、监管俘获的相对风险和总体行政成本),这些标准可以帮助当局在不同的监管机构之间分配这些任务。第四部分最后将这一框架应用于第二部分确定为潜在问题的七种行为:(i)歧视、不公平待遇和自我偏爱;(ii)排他性合同;(iii)捆绑或捆扎;最惠国待遇和其他价格平价条款;(v)拒绝处理、有限的互操作性和缺乏数据可移植性;(vi)剥削性或排他性的服务条款;(7)对用户界面的推搡、污蔑和其他担忧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Designing Remedies for Digital Markets: The Interplay Between Antitrust and Regulation
Regulatory interventions aimed at promoting competition in digital markets face a challenge: How to design remedies that actually improve welfare? This article helps provide an answer to this question. First, it maps out the frontier of remedy design: Part II.A summarizes antitrust and regulatory remedies imposed on digital companies over the past decades, while Part II.B reviews nineteen reports on competition in digital markets to identify proposals to advance antitrust or regulatory interventions. Part III, the core of the article, builds on this review to propose a new, two-level framework for remedy design that integrates pro-competition antitrust and regulatory interventions as part of a single policy. First, at the substantive level, it develops a compounded error-cost framework that helps authorities to choose between different remedies applicableto a given conduct: when policymakers accept higher risks of over-enforcement in deciding to intervene, they should compensate by taking lower risks of over-enforcement in remedy design and vice-versa. Second, at the institutional level, the article proposes that authorities consider separating three connected but different key activities in remedy design: (i) identifying harmful behavior, (ii) designing interventions, and (iii) monitoring and adapting remedies. It also outlines four criteria (legal mandate, need for technical expertise, relative risks of regulatory capture, and overall administrative costs) that can help authorities allocate these tasks among different regulators. Part IV concludes by applying this framework to seven types of conduct that Part II identified as potentially problematic: (i) discrimination, unfair treatment, and self-preferencing; (ii) exclusivity contracts; (iii) tying or bundling; (iv) MFNs and other price parity clauses; (v) refusals to deal, limited interoperability, and lack of data portability; (vi) exploitative or exclusionary terms of service; and (vii) nudges, sludges, and other concerns around user interfaces.
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
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
26.70%
发文量
16
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信