The Role of the State

In new research, Francisco E. Beneke Avila proposes a multifactor test to distinguish between the legitimate exercise of the right to lobbying and efforts to capture areas of public policy. He argues that the latter is an abuse of the firm’s political rights that can justify the intervention of EU competition authorities when corporate political activity leads to a lessening of competition. 

Shishene Jing argues that the fair use doctrine's central question—whether a use is sufficiently transformative to avoid licensing requirements—breaks down when applied to AI. Transformativeness worked as a test because transformative uses rarely competed financially with the originals. AI training severs that relationship, as it is both the most transformative use of copyrighted material and the use best equipped to displace their markets.

In new research, Benjamin Rosa finds that when states ban affirmative action, minority- and women-run businesses become smaller than other contractors and are less likely to enter the market, but are no more likely to close their businesses entirely. 

In new research, Ricardo Perez-Truglia and Jeffrey Yusof study what drives Americans’ support for antitrust enforcement. They find that information about traditional consumer welfare harms, such as higher prices or less choice, has the largest and most durable impact.

In new research, Li Azinovic-Yang, John D. Kepler, Ava E. Speros, and Christopher R. Stewart find that over the last two decades, companies in the United States have grown to expect customer relationships to last longer, mostly due to higher costs associated with switching to competitors’ products. Over the long term, this lock-in reduces competition and consumer welfare.

Google built and maintains its AI leadership from cash, compute, and data accumulated illegally from its monopoly in internet search. Its control over internet search, advertisement, mobile phone operating systems, and cloud computing continues to give it an advantage in AI that its competitors lack. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit must consider this entrenched and vertically integrated market position when it revisits the lower court’s lax remedies, write Asad Ramzanali and Joel Thayer.

The following is an excerpt from Pentagon Capitalism: How the Cold War US Military Modeled Itself on Private Business by A. J. Murphy, now out at Harvard University Press.

The dynamic competition school claims that competition authorities, by analyzing firms’ capabilities, can protect what this school calls dynamic competition.  Competition authorities, however, cannot adequately analyze firms’ capabilities. This school, therefore, lacks any framework which the authorities can use to analyze what they call dynamic competition. Any framework to protect dynamic competition, or what some call competition to innovate, must instead first identify the future products the competing firms are trying to make, writes Larry Landman.

The recent case of Chinese online travel platform Ctrip ignoring the warnings of provincial competition authorities until the central government stepped in reveals the limits of China’s decentralized regulatory system. Chun-Kit (Kitson) Ng suggests several ways that China can reform its system to empower the provincial authorities and fulfill the regulatory system’s design to avoid drawing on the central government’s resources.

Summary Teaser: In new research, Jitendra Aswani and William W. Xiong show that countries facing greater risks to their natural assets, from overfishing to deforestation, pay more to borrow, as investors discount their long-run growth prospects. Governments can reduce that premium by implementing green projects that address the risks they actually face, but announcing an intention to do so is not enough.