An Economic Policy Perspective on Online Platforms

132

Digital platforms are not just software‐based media, they are governing systems that control, interact, and accumulate. They also solidify markets; that is, social networks of exchange that do not necessarily leave data traces, into infrastructure, that is, material arrangements of traceable activity. This article examines the forms of domination found in this digital platform model, and corrects some existing simplistic theoretical conclusions about digital platforms. It first provides a schematic overview of digital infrastructures of governance, and the attendant systemic mechanics they engender. It then argues that we need a more syncretic, interdisciplinary approach to the platform‐based economy. The shifting emphases of different academic disciplines in relation to digital platforms are only partially grounded in their different normative biases; they can also be attributed to use of different disciplinary lenses. The field of information systems management and design studies is chiefly concerned with direct, technical interplatform affordances and connections, and with providing observations of certain systemic attributes of digital platforms. Critical political economy, by contrast, mainly considers the emerging transnational, geopolitical formations of platform capitalism. The interplay between these different systemic mechanics is summarized and presented here in the concept of “platform logic.”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Digital Platforms: a Definitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Platform markets are often comprised of systems of complements organized in layers.…”

Section: Generativity (Meso Level)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[…] A monopoly platform can be efficient because network effects are maximized when all agents manage to coordinate over a single platform. (Martens, , pp. 11–12)…”

Section: Corporate Accumulation (Macro Level)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Platform Logic: An Interdisciplinary Approach to the Platform‐Based Economy

Schwarz¹

2017

132

“…During the 2000s, following the seminal work by Rochet and Tirole (, ), the term platform has practically become another word for multi‐sided markets which are characterized by indirect network effects. For example, Martens (, p. 10) states that “In its most generic form a ‘platform’ is a market place where two or more distinct types of users (for instance, buyers and sellers) can meet to exchange goods, services information, etc.” It follows that platforms without network effects would not be considered as platforms. However, from a technological point of view, any technological basis for delivering (multiple) goods and services to end users can be a platform, whether or not its operator choses to internalize demand externalities .…”

Section: An Analytical Framework For Digital Platformsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Should We Regulate Digital Platforms? A New Framework for Evaluating Policy Options

Nooren¹,

Gorp²,

Eijk³

et al. 2018

The economic and societal impact of digital platforms raises a number of questions for policymakers, including whether existing regulatory approaches and instruments are sufficient to promote and safeguard public interests. This article develops a practical framework that provides structure and guidance to policymakers who design policies for the digital economy. The framework differs from other approaches in taking the digital business models of platforms as the starting point for the analysis. The framework consists of three pillars, namely determining a platform's characteristics, relating these to public interests, and formulating policy options. The framework then invokes a return-path analysis for assessing how the interventions affect the business model, whether it has the desired effect on public interests, and ensuring it has no undesired side-effects on public interests. The framework puts forward two key messages for current discussions on digital platforms. First, one should look at the underlying characteristics of platforms rather than trying to understand digital platforms as a single category. Second, policymakers should explore existing rules and policy options, as they seem fit to deal with several characteristics of digital platforms in a time frame that matches the rapid development of platform technologies and business models. El impacto econ omico y social de las plataformas digitales resulta en varias preguntas para los creadores de políticas, incluyendo si los acercamientos regulatorios y los instrumentos existentes son suficientes para promover y salvaguardar los intereses p ublicos. Este artículo desarrolla un marco para las pr acticas que proporciona una estructura y orientaci on para los creadores de políticas que diseñan políticas para la economía digital. El marco te orico difiere de otros acercamientos, ya que toma los modelos de negocios de las plataformas como un comienzo para el an alisis. El marco te orico consiste en tres pilares, es decir: determinar las características de una plataforma, en relaci on con estos intereses p ublicos y formular las opciones políticas. El marco te orico despu es recurre a un an alisis de trayectoria de retorno para evaluar c omo las intervenciones afectan al modelo de negocios, si tiene el efecto deseado en los intereses p ublicos y asegurando que no tenga efectos no deseados para los intereses p ublicos. El marco te orico presenta dos mensajes clave para las discusiones actuales acerca de las plataformas digitales. Primero, uno debería examinar las características subyacentes de las plataformas en vez de intentar entender las plataformas digitales como una sola categoría. Segundo, los creadores de políticas deberían explorar reglas existentes de opciones políticas, ya que parecen poder lidiar con varias características de las plataformas digitales en una secuencia de tiempo que concuerda con el desarrollo r apido de las tecnologías de plataforma y de los modelos de negocios.

Safeguarding Public Interests in the Platform Economy

Frenken¹,

Waes²,

Pelzer³

et al. 2019

This article examines the main public interests at stake with the rise of online platforms in the sharing economy and the gig economy. We do so by analyzing platforms in five sectors in the Netherlands: domestic cleaning (Helpling), taxi rides (UberPop), home restaurants (AirDnD), home sharing (Airbnb), and car sharing (SnappCar). The most salient public interests are a level playing field between platforms and industry incumbents, tax compliance, consumer protection, labor protection, and privacy protection. We develop four policy options (enforce, new regulation, deregulation, and toleration), and discuss the rationales for each option in safeguarding each public interest. We further stress that arguments supporting a particular policy option should take into account the sectoral context. We finally highlight the tension between the subsidiarity principle, which would call for local regulations as platforms mostly concern local transactions and innovation policies that aim to support innovation and a single digital market.