Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing 9 of 71 Results in International Antitrust
Regulatory Comments The Commission’s interest in protecting the privacy of its citizens is commendable.
The Commission’s interest in protecting the privacy of its citizens is commendable. This concern, however, should be well tempered by humility, and the Commission’s ultimate decision should be guided by the understanding that contemporary technology and market innovations have afforded consumers a degree of choice unparallelled in the history of the European Union. While some firms may build their products with the requirement that consumers allow them to use personal information, others will not. And when consumers defect from products that do not meet their individual mix of privacy, price, and other preferences, firms will take notice and change their behavior accordingly.
This leads to another related point: innovation moves so quickly today that uniform prescriptive regulation intended to govern the behavior of many thousands of firms and millions of consumers is doomed to frustration if not outright failure. Moreover, broad regulations meant to bring industry to heel frequently work to the benefit of incumbents, driving out smaller competitors or making entry nearly impossible, only further narrowing consumer choices and guaranteeing less than optimal results for all of society.
With that said, there are certainly actions for the Commission to take that ensure a competitive environment in which consumer interests are adequately protected. Chief among these areas would be to enact regulations that control the damaging effects of costly data localization rules. Overall, however, the Commission would do best to leave much of the implementation of privacy regulations to the individual EU members who are most in touch with the challenges and desires of their own constituents.
TOTM Today’s Canadian Competition Bureau (CCB) Google decision marks yet another regulator joining the chorus of competition agencies around the world that have already dismissed similar . . .
Today’s Canadian Competition Bureau (CCB) Google decision marks yet another regulator joining the chorus of competition agencies around the world that have already dismissed similar complaints relating to Google’s Search or Android businesses (including the US FTC, the Korea FTC, the Taiwan FTC, and AG offices in Texas and Ohio).
A number of courts around the world have also rejected competition complaints against the company, including courts in the US, France, the UK, Germany, and Brazil.
Read the full piece here.
Regulatory Comments "The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (“TRAI”)’s tradition of regulatory humility — the “forbearance and flexibility” that has characterized its approach to telecommunications services regulation — has enabled the explosive growth of internet usage throughout India..."
“The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (“TRAI”)’s tradition of regulatory humility — the “forbearance and flexibility” that has characterized its approach to telecommunications services regulation — has enabled the explosive growth of internet usage throughout India, including an over 50% surge in the number of users of mobile internet in rural areas since 2001. But as the Authority considers regulations and rules to “ensure orderly growth… and protection of consumer interest,” it is important to keep in mind the fundamental lesson taught by decades of technology regulation throughout the world: where entrepreneurial companies are left relatively free to experiment with innovative new methods of developing and deploying technologies — particularly telecommunications technologies — consumers enjoy the largest increases in their standard of living.
The importance of humility in regulating highly innovative industries cannot be overstated. Even after decades of research, there is still much that economists cannot predict about the broad economic effects of technological innovation on economic growth and development. The unintended and unanticipated costs of preventing new methods of reaching underserved consumers can be substantial, and the consequences enormous to those in greatest need…”
“India is on the cusp of providing an economically and socially transformative service: near-ubiquitous, low-cost, high-value internet access that has the potential to create unprecedented opportunity and advantage for its citizens. The nation stands poised to increase the welfare of its poorest citizens with a rapidity seldom witnessed in human history. We strongly encourage TRAI to chart a wise course that allows for differentiated tariffs and the expanded internet access they can bring to India’s citizens.”
Written Testimonies & Filings "The Digital Single Market Strategy (“DSMS”) initiative represents a unique opportunity to unify regulation across the EU’s member states around policies that promote transparency, stability, free trade, innovation and global economic growth..."
“The Digital Single Market Strategy (“DSMS”) initiative represents a unique opportunity to unify regulation across the EU’s member states around policies that promote transparency, stability, free trade, innovation and global economic growth. As the Commission undertakes to integrate the digital economy into the EU’s single market strategy, however, care should be taken to assure that the principles driving the explosive growth of the Internet are encouraged and not suppressed.
As companies contemplate new business models, new content distribution services, new uses for data and new opportunities for valuable data exchange, it is important that regulation not create a legal environment in which valuable products are inefficiently delayed, degraded or abandoned. Effective and efficient policies flow from basic, well-established economic and legal principles that maximize welfare by, among other things, minimizing error costs, promoting innovation, encouraging voluntary and self-help remedies, prioritizing self-regulation, minimizing institutional and bureaucratic costs, and capitalizing on the incentives and informational advantages of market participants…”
“Importantly, the decision with respect to a new regulatory regime for online platforms is not made in a vacuum; rather, it is a choice between existing rules and the proposed alternatives. Justifying new rules demands a comparison to existing rules, meaning rigorous evidence not only that there is a problem, but also that any problems will be better addressed by new rules than current rules. No regulatory regime is perfect. Even if there are some identifiable problems with the current rules, that alone does not mean that any particular proposed new rules are preferable. The Commission should carefully consider existing law (like competition and consumer protection laws at both the EU and member-state levels) and whether new rules will bring the overall regulatory scheme closer to the optimal level.”
TOTM Nearly all economists from across the political spectrum agree: free trade is good. Yet free trade agreements are not always the same thing as free . . .
Nearly all economists from across the political spectrum agree: free trade is good. Yet free trade agreements are not always the same thing as free trade. Whether we’re talking about the Trans-Pacific Partnership or the European Union’s Digital Single Market (DSM) initiative, the question is always whether the agreement in question is reducing barriers to trade, or actually enacting barriers to trade into law.
Scholarship The article, written jointly by a law professor and political science professor, endeavors to explain why the United States is particularly resistant to various efforts at international harmonization of antitrust law.
Although many states have advocated for the internationalization of antitrust laws, the United States has resisted a multilateral solution. We place the conflict over antitrust laws within the larger framework of international relations and draw out some novel implications of the debate by connecting the harmonization of international economic laws with the promotion of international peace and security. The harmonization of global antitrust laws is imbued with a political dimension that confers political benefits on the United States.
By crafting institutions in which other parties must alter their domestic political structures, the United States receives a credible commitment from other states of their willingness to bear the domestic costs of adherence to the specific agreement under negotiation, helping the United States identify potential allies. Separating budding friends from probable foes is a critical task of international security, and the United States derives political benefits from international agreements in a way that transcends the substance of the agreements themselves.
Read the full paper here.
TOTM I am curious about something. AMD and Intel have been competing head to head for more than 15 years, at least since AMD released its . . .
I am curious about something. AMD and Intel have been competing head to head for more than 15 years, at least since AMD released its Intel 386 clone in the early 90s. In that time, inarguably, microprocessor prices have plumeted and processing power and other features have increased dramatically (I’m aware that we don’t know what the but-for world would look like, but these effects have been enormous).
TOTM There is an interesting profile on Intel in the WSJ. While the profile focuses on some of the technological and competitive challenges facing Intel and CEO Paul . . .
There is an interesting profile on Intel in the WSJ. While the profile focuses on some of the technological and competitive challenges facing Intel and CEO Paul Otellini, the CEO mentions the proliferation of antitrust laws across the globe, and the uncertainty associated with regulatory costs in such an environment, as one of the major potential impediments facing the company…
TOTM The Irish Competition Authority releases a report offering the stunning finding that “The retail planning system limits competition among grocery retailers and as a result . . .
The Irish Competition Authority releases a report offering the stunning finding that “The retail planning system limits competition among grocery retailers and as a result consumers are not getting the best possible choice or value for money.”
