The regulator’s trilemma: On the limits of technocratic governance in digital markets

IF 3 2区 社会学 Q2 BUSINESS Competition & Change Pub Date : 2024-07-25 DOI:10.1177/10245294241266048
Nick O'Donovan
{"title":"The regulator’s trilemma: On the limits of technocratic governance in digital markets","authors":"Nick O'Donovan","doi":"10.1177/10245294241266048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Policymakers increasingly recognise the need for regulatory intervention in the digital economy to promote competition, privacy and innovation, among other policy objectives. Much policy-focused literature presents regulation as a technical puzzle to be ‘solved’ through identification of the appropriate intervention in a particular context, though there is persistent disagreement among experts about what remedies are preferable in different digital markets. At the same time, many external observers emphasise the sheer multiplicity of public policy objectives that regulatory interventions might fulfil, claiming that conflicts between these objectives are inevitable and thus require political rather than technocratic solutions. This article attempts to bridge the gap between these perspectives through a novel theoretical analysis of digital markets characterised by strong network effects, conceptualising different markets in terms of common underlying structural characteristics. The resulting framework helps policymakers to anticipate which remedies will safeguard competition, privacy and innovation/efficiency under what circumstances, both in well-established digital markets and with respect to emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence. In so doing, it also highlights limits to the technocratic governance of digital markets, identifying circumstances in which conflicts between competing public values cannot be neatly resolved through technocratic regulatory intervention alone.","PeriodicalId":46999,"journal":{"name":"Competition & Change","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Competition & Change","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10245294241266048","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Policymakers increasingly recognise the need for regulatory intervention in the digital economy to promote competition, privacy and innovation, among other policy objectives. Much policy-focused literature presents regulation as a technical puzzle to be ‘solved’ through identification of the appropriate intervention in a particular context, though there is persistent disagreement among experts about what remedies are preferable in different digital markets. At the same time, many external observers emphasise the sheer multiplicity of public policy objectives that regulatory interventions might fulfil, claiming that conflicts between these objectives are inevitable and thus require political rather than technocratic solutions. This article attempts to bridge the gap between these perspectives through a novel theoretical analysis of digital markets characterised by strong network effects, conceptualising different markets in terms of common underlying structural characteristics. The resulting framework helps policymakers to anticipate which remedies will safeguard competition, privacy and innovation/efficiency under what circumstances, both in well-established digital markets and with respect to emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence. In so doing, it also highlights limits to the technocratic governance of digital markets, identifying circumstances in which conflicts between competing public values cannot be neatly resolved through technocratic regulatory intervention alone.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
监管者的三难困境:论数字市场技术官僚治理的局限性
政策制定者越来越认识到有必要对数字经济进行监管干预,以促进竞争、隐私和创新等政策目标。许多以政策为重点的文献将监管视为一个技术谜题,需要通过在特定情况下确定适当的干预措施来 "解决",尽管专家们对不同数字市场中哪些补救措施更可取一直存在分歧。同时,许多外部观察家强调监管干预可能实现的公共政策目标的多样性,声称这些目标之间的冲突不可避免,因此需要政治而非技术性的解决方案。本文试图通过对以强烈网络效应为特征的数字市场进行新颖的理论分析,从共同的基本结构特征角度对不同市场进行概念化,从而弥合这些观点之间的差距。由此产生的框架有助于政策制定者预测,在成熟的数字市场和人工智能等新兴技术方面,哪些补救措施能在何种情况下保障竞争、隐私和创新/效率。在此过程中,它还强调了技术官僚治理数字市场的局限性,明确了在哪些情况下,相互竞争的公共价值之间的冲突无法仅通过技术官僚的监管干预就得到妥善解决。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
7.70%
发文量
37
期刊最新文献
Making “strategic autonomy” rhyme with “fiscal austerity?” Unresolved conflicts of (geo)economic ideas in EU infrastructure policy Erratum to “An international interface: Democratic planning in a global context” The regulator’s trilemma: On the limits of technocratic governance in digital markets The invisible leverage of the rich. Absentee debtors and their hedge funds Partial organization and economic coordination: The gradual re-organization of Finnish corporatism
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1