Competition and the Industrial Challenge for the Digital Age

Literature Cited

1. Acemoglu D, Makhdoumi A, Malekian A, Ozdaglar A. 2022.. Too much data: prices and inefficiencies in data markets. . Am. Econ. J. Macroecon. 14:(4):218–56
   [Google Scholar]
2. Aghion P, Akcigit U, Bergeaud A, Blundell R, Hemous D. 2019.. Innovation and top income inequality. . Rev. Econ. Stud. 86:(1):1–45
   [Google Scholar]
3. Allain ML, Rey P, Chambolle C. 2016.. Vertical integration as a source of hold-up. . Rev. Econ. Stud. 83:(1):1–25
   [Google Scholar]
4. Anderson SP, Bedre-Defolie Ö. 2021.. Hybrid platform model. CEPR Discuss. Pap. DP16243 , Cent. Econ. Policy Res., London:
   [Google Scholar]
5. Bajari P, Chernozhukov V, Hortaçsu A, Suzuki J. 2019.. The impact of big data on firm performance: an empirical investigation. . AEA Pap. Proc. 109::33–37
   [Google Scholar]
6. Bergemann D, Bonatti A, Gan T. 2022.. The economics of social data: an introduction. . RAND J. Econ. 53:(2):263–96
   [Google Scholar]
7. Bisceglia M, Tirole J. 2023.. Fair gatekeeping in digital ecosystems. Unpublished manuscript , Toulouse Sch. Econ., Toulouse, Fr.:
   [Google Scholar]
8. Boik A, Corts KS. 2016.. The effects of platform most-favored-nation clauses on competition and entry. . J. Law Econ. 59: (1):105–34
   [Google Scholar]
9. Bourguignon H, Gomes R, Tirole J. 2019.. Shrouded transaction costs: must-take cards, discounts and surcharges. . Int. J. Ind. Organ. 63::99–144
   [Google Scholar]
10. Bresnahan T, Orsini J, Yin PL. 2015.. Demand heterogeneity, inframarginal multihoming, and platform market stability: mobile apps. Unpublished manuscript , Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA:
    [Google Scholar]
11. Carlton D, Waldman M. 2002.. The strategic use of tying to preserve and create market power in evolving industries. . RAND J. Econ. 33:(2):194–220
    [Google Scholar]
12. Chen Z, Rey P. 2012.. Loss leading as an exploitative practice. . Am. Econ. Rev. 102:(7):3462–82
    [Google Scholar]
13. Choi JP, Jeon DS. 2021.. A leverage theory of tying in two-sided markets with non-negative price constraints. . Am. Econ. J. Macroecon. 13:(1):283–337
    [Google Scholar]
14. Choi JP, Jeon DS, Kim BC. 2019.. Privacy and personal data collection with information externalities. . J. Public Econ. 173::133–24
    [Google Scholar]
15. Choi JP, Jeon DS, Whinston M. 2022.. Tying in markets with network effects. Unpublished manuscript , Mich. State Univ., East Lansing:
    [Google Scholar]
16. Choi JP, Stefanadis C. 2001.. Tying, investment, and the dynamic leverage theory. . RAND J. Econ. 32::52–71
    [Google Scholar]
17. CMA (Compet. Mark. Auth.). 2019.. Online platforms and digital advertising market study. Rep. , Compet. Mark. Auth., London:. https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/online-platforms-and-digital-advertising-market-study
    [Google Scholar]
18. Combe E, Hyppolite PA, Michon A. 2019a.. L'Europe face aux nationalismes économiques américain et chinois (1). Study, Fond. Innov. Politique, Paris:. https://www.fondapol.org/etude/leurope-face-aux-nationalismes-economiques-americain-et-chinois-1-politique-de-concurrence-et-industrie-europeenne/
    [Google Scholar]
19. Combe E, Hyppolite PA, Michon A. 2019b.. L'Europe face aux nationalismes économiques américain et chinois (2). Study, Fond. Innov. Politique, Paris:. https://www.fondapol.org/etude/leurope-face-aux-nationalismes-economiques-americain-et-chinois-2-les-pratiques-anticoncurrentielles-etrangeres/
    [Google Scholar]
20. Combe E, Hyppolite PA, Michon A. 2019c.. L'Europe face aux nationalismes économiques américain et chinois (3). Study, Fond. Innov. Politique, Paris:. https://www.fondapol.org/etude/leurope-face-aux-nationalismes-economiques-americain-et-chinois-3-defendre-leconomie-europeenne-par-la-politique-commerciale/
    [Google Scholar]
21. Coyle D, Fletcher A, Furman J, Marsden P, McAuley D. 2019.. Unlocking digital competition: report of the digital competition expert panel. Rep. , Digit. Compet. Expert Panel, London:. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/unlocking-digital-competition-report-of-the-digital-competition-expert-panel
    [Google Scholar]
22. Coyle D, Kay L, Diepeveen S, Tennison J, Wdowin J. 2020.. The value of data: policy implications. Rep. , Bennett Inst. Public Policy, Univ. Cambridge, Cambridge, UK:. https://www.bennettinstitute.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Value_of_data_Policy_Implications_Report_26_Feb_ok4noWn.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
23. Crémer J, de Montjoye YA, Schweitzer H. 2019.. Competition policy for the digital era. Rep. , Eur. Comm., Brussels, Belg:. https://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/reports/kd0419345enn.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
24. Criscuolo C, Martin R, Overman H, Van Reenen J. 2019.. Some causal effects of an industrial policy. . Am. Econ. Rev. 109:(1):48–85
    [Google Scholar]
25. Cunningham C, Ederer F, Ma S. 2021.. Killer acquisitions. . J. Political Econ. 129:(3):649–702
    [Google Scholar]
26. Dewatripont M, Jewitt I, Tirole J. 1999.. The economics of career concerns, part II: application to missions and accountability of government agencies. . Rev. Econ. Stud. 66:(1):199–217
    [Google Scholar]
27. Dewatripont M, Tirole J. 1999.. Advocates. . J. Political Econ. 107:(1):1–39
    [Google Scholar]
28. Edelman B, Wright J. 2015.. Price coherence and excessive intermediation. . Q. J. Econ. 130:(3):1283–328
    [Google Scholar]
29. Etro F. 2021a.. Device-funded versus ad-funded platforms. . Int. J. Ind. Organ. 75::102711
    [Google Scholar]
30. Etro F. 2021b.. Platform competition with free entry of sellers. Work. Pap. Econ. 22/2021 , Univ. Florence, Florence, Italy:
    [Google Scholar]
31. Foros Ø, Kind HJ, Shaffer G. 2017.. Apple's agency model and the role of most-favored-nation clauses. . RAND J. Econ. 48:(3):673–703
    [Google Scholar]
32. Fudenberg D, Tirole J. 2000.. Pricing a network good to deter entry. . J. Ind. Econ. 48:(4):373–90
    [Google Scholar]
33. Geradin D. 2020.. Online platforms and digital advertising market study: observations on the statement of scope. TILEC Discuss. Pap. DP2020-043 , Tilburg Law Econ. Cent., Tilburg Univ., Tilburg, Neth:
    [Google Scholar]
34. Gomes R, Mantovani A. 2022.. Regulating platform fees under price parity. Work. Pap. 1325 , Toulouse Sch. Econ., Toulouse, Fr.:
    [Google Scholar]
35. Gomes R, Rey P, Tirole J. 2022.. Screening under price constraints. Unpublished manuscript , Toulouse Sch. Econ., Toulouse, Fr.:
    [Google Scholar]
36. Gomes R, Tirole J. 2018.. Missed sales and the pricing of ancillary goods. . Q. J. Econ. 133:(4):2097–169
    [Google Scholar]
37. Hagiu A, Teh TH, Wright J. 2022.. Should platforms be allowed to sell on their own marketplaces?. RAND J. Econ. 53:(2):297–327
    [Google Scholar]
38. Hagiu A, Wright J. 2020.. When data creates comparative advantage. . Harvard Business Review, Jan–Feb. https://hbr.org/2020/01/when-data-creates-competitive-advantage
    [Google Scholar]
39. Hartford-EmpireCo. v. United States 323 U.S. 386 ( 1945.
40. Hunold M, Laitenberger U, Thébaudin G. 2022.. Bye-box: an analysis of non-promotion on the Amazon marketplace. Unpublished manuscript , Toulouse Sch. Econ., Toulouse, Fr.:
    [Google Scholar]
41. Jeon DS, Rey P. 2022.. Platform competition and app development. Unpublished manuscript , Toulouse Sch. Econ., Toulouse, Fr.:
    [Google Scholar]
42. Jiménez Durán R. 2022.. The economics of content moderation: theory and experimental evidence from hate speech on Twitter. Work. Pap. 324 , Booth Sch. Bus., Univ. Chicago, Chicago:
    [Google Scholar]
43. Johansen B, Vergé T. 2017.. Platform price parity clauses with direct sales. Work. Pap. Econ. 01/17 , Univ. Bergen, Bergen, Nor.:
    [Google Scholar]
44. Johnson J. 2017.. The agency model and MFN clauses. . Rev. Econ. Stud. 84:(3):1151–85
    [Google Scholar]
45. Kühn KU, Van Reenen J. 2009.. Interoperability and market foreclosure in the European Microsoft case. . In Cases in European Competition Policy: The Economic Analysis, ed. B Lyons , pp. 50–72 Cambridge, UK:: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
46. Laffont JJ, Tirole J. 1993.. A Theory of Incentives in Regulation and Procurement. Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
47. Laffont JJ, Tirole J. 1994.. Access pricing and competition. . Eur. Econ. Rev. 38:(9):1673–710
    [Google Scholar]
48. Laffont JJ, Tirole J. 1999.. Competition in Telecommunications. Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
49. Lee KF. 2018.. AI Super-Powers: China, Silicon Valley and the New World Order. Boston, MA:: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
    [Google Scholar]
50. Lerner J, Tirole J. 2014.. A better route to tech standards. . Science 343:(6174):972–73
    [Google Scholar]
51. Lerner J, Tirole J. 2015.. Standard essential patents. . J. Political Econ. 123:(3):547–86
    [Google Scholar]
52. Liu Z, Sockin M, Xiong W. 2020.. Data privacy and temptation. Unpublished manuscript , Princeton Univ., Princeton, NJ:
    [Google Scholar]
53. Maskin E, Tirole J. 2004.. The politician and the judge: accountability in government. . Am. Econ. Rev. 94::1034–54
    [Google Scholar]
54. Moretti E, Steinwender C, Van Reenen J. 2019.. The intellectual spoils of war? Defense R&D, productivity and international spillovers. NBER Work. Pap. 26483
    [Google Scholar]
55. Motta M, Peitz M. 2021.. Big tech mergers. . Inf. Econ. Policy 54::100868
    [Google Scholar]
56. Philippon T. 2019.. The Great Reversal: How America Gave Up on Free Markets. Cambridge, MA:: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
57. Posner E, Scott Morton F, Weyl G. 2017.. A proposal to limit the anticompetitive power of institutional investors. . Antitrust Law J. 81:(3):669–728
    [Google Scholar]
58. Posner E, Weyl G. 2018.. Radical Markets: Uprooting Capitalism and Democracy for a Just Society. Princeton, NJ:: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
59. Rochet JC, Tirole J. 2002.. Cooperation among competitors: some economics of payment card associations. . RAND J. Econ. 33:(4):549–70
    [Google Scholar]
60. Rochet JC, Tirole J. 2011.. Must-take cards: merchant discounts and avoided costs. . J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 9:(3):462–95
    [Google Scholar]
61. Saxenian A. 1994.. Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge, MA:: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
62. Schaefer M, Sapi G. 2020.. Learning from data and network effects: the example of internet search. DIW Work. Pap. 1894 , Ger. Inst. Econ. Res., Berlin:
    [Google Scholar]
63. Scott Morton F, Bouvier P, Ezrachi A, Jullien B, Katz R, et al. 2019.. Committee for the Study of Digital Platforms Market Structure and Antitrust Subcommittee Report. Rep. , George J. Stigler Cent. Study Econ. State, Booth Sch. Bus., Univ. Chicago, Chicago:. https://research.chicagobooth.edu/-/media/research/stigler/pdfs/market-structure-report.pdf?la=en&hash=E08C7C9AA7367F2D612DE24F814074BA43CAED8C
    [Google Scholar]
64. Tirole J. 2017.. Economics for the Common Good. Princeton, NJ:: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
65. Tirole J. 2023.. Socially responsible agencies. . Compet. Law Policy Debate 7:(4):171–77
    [Google Scholar]
66. Wang C, Wright J. 2017.. Ad-valorem platform fees and efficient price discrimination. . RAND J. Econ. 48:(2):467–84
    [Google Scholar]
67. Wang C, Wright J. 2020.. Search platforms: showrooming and price parity clauses. . RAND J. Econ. 51:(1):3258
    [Google Scholar]
68. Wang C, Wright J. 2022.. Regulating platform fees. Unpublished manuscript , Natl. Univ. Singapore, Singapore:
    [Google Scholar]
69. Zennyo Y. 2022.. Platform encroachment and own-content bias. . J. Ind. Econ. 70:(3):684–710
    [Google Scholar]