No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Public Option
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 April 2022
Abstract
People value highly the digital technologies that are so pervasive in everyday life and work, certainly as measured by economists. Yet there are also evident harms associated with them, including the likelihood that they are affecting political discourse and choices. The features of digital markets mean they tend toward monopoly, so great economic and political power lies in the hands of a small number of giant companies. While tougher regulation may be one way to tackle the harms they create, it does not get at the structural problem, which is their advertising-driven business model. The hunt for people's attention drives algorithmic promotion of viral content to get ever-more clicks. An alternative policy intervention to reclaim public space would be to create a public service competitor that could drive competition along other dimensions. Online space must be reclaimed as a public space from the privately-owned US and Chinese digital giants.
- Type
- Paper
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy and the contributors 2022
References
Anderson, E., Value in ethics and economics, (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1995).Google Scholar
Arrieta-Ibarra, I., Goff, L., Jiménez-Hernández, D., Lanier, J. and Weyl, E.G., ‘Should we treat data as labor? Moving beyond ‘free’’. AEA Papers and Proceedings 108 (2018), 38-42.10.1257/pandp.20181003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Ghiat, R., Strongmen: How they rise, Why they succeed, How they fall (London: Profile Books, 2020).Google Scholar
Chung, J., Big tech, BIG Cash: Washington's new power players. (Public Citizen, 2021). Available at: https://mkus3lurbh3lbztg254fzode-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/Big-Tech-Big-Cash-Washingtons-New-Power-Players.pdfGoogle Scholar
Comin, D. and Hobijn, B., ‘An exploration of technology diffusion’, American economic review, 100 (2010), 2031–59.10.1257/aer.100.5.2031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coyle, D., ‘The Scale of the BBC’, in Mair, J., Tait, R. and Keeble, R. (eds) The BBC Today: Future Uncertain, (London: Abramis, 2015).Google Scholar
Coyle, D., ‘Homo Economicus, AIs, humans and rats: decision-making and economic welfare’, Journal of Economic Methodology, 26 (2019), 2–12.10.1080/1350178X.2018.1527135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coyle, D., Markets, State, and People: Economics for Public Policy, (Princeton University Press, 2020).Google Scholar
Coyle, D., Diepeveen, S., Wdowin, J., Tennison, J. and Kay, L., The Value of Data: Policy Implications, Bennett Institute for Public Policy (2019). Available at: https://www.bennettinstitute.cam.ac.uk/publications/value-data-policy-implications/Google Scholar
Coyle, D. and Nguyen, D., ‘Free Goods and Economic Welfare’, Economic Statistics Centre of Excellence, Discussion paper 2020–18, (2020).Google Scholar
Cremer, J., de Montjoye, Y. -A, Schweitzer, H., Competition policy for the digital era. Report prepared for the European Commission, Directorate-General for Competition, (2019).Google Scholar
Duflo, E., ‘The economist as plumber’, American Economic Review, 107 (2017), 1–26.10.1257/aer.p20171153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, D., ‘The Antitrust Economics of Two-Sided Markets’, (2002). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=332022 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.332022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, M., Essays in positive economics, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953).Google Scholar
Furman, J., Coyle, D., Fletcher, A., McAuley, D. and Marsden, P., ‘Unlocking digital competition: Report of the digital competition expert panel’. UK government publication, HM Treasury (2019).Google Scholar
Hausman, D., McPherson, M. and Satz, D., Economic analysis, moral philosophy, and public policy, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016).10.1017/9781316663011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaldor, N., ‘The economic aspects of advertising’, The review of economic studies, 18 (1950),1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mokyr, J., The Gifts of Athena: Historical Origins of the Knowledge Economy, (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2002).Google Scholar
Ofcom, Online nation. (2021). Available at: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/220414/online-nation-2021-report.pdfGoogle Scholar
Perrin, A. and Kumar, M., ‘About three-in-ten US adults say they are ‘almost constantly’ online’ Pew Research Center, 25 (2021). Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/03/26/about-three-in-ten-u-s-adults-say-they-are-almost-constantly-online/Google Scholar
Rochet, Jean-Charles and Tirole, Jean, ‘Two-Sided Markets: A Progress Report’, The RAND Journal of Economics, 37, (2006), 645–67.10.1111/j.1756-2171.2006.tb00036.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandel, M., What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets, (New York: Farrar, Strauss & Giroux, 2012).Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J., Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, (New York: Harper & Bros, 1942).Google Scholar
Sen, A., ‘Capability and Well-being’, in Nussbaum, and Sen, (eds.), The Quality of Life, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 30–53.10.1093/0198287976.003.0003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiglitz, J. and Greenwald, B., Creating A Learning Society: A New Approach to Growth, Development and Social Progress, (New York: Columbia University Press, 2014).Google Scholar
Viljoen, S., ‘Democratic Data: A Relational Theory For Data Governance’, Yale Law Journal Vol 131 (forthcoming). Available at SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3727562Google Scholar
Wu, T., The Attention Merchants: The Epic Scramble to Get Inside Our Heads, (New York: Knopf Publishing, 2016).Google Scholar