The Role of the State

Victor Oliveira Fernandes analyzes the contributions to digital market regulation presented in Brazil’s Fair Competition Act for Digital Markets. The proposed act reflects a careful balance between antitrust orthodoxy and innovation and, in its success or failure, will pave the way for additional digital regulation in the Global South.

Steve Salop explores the anticompetitive innovation behind weight-loss giant Novo Nordisk’s offer to acquire Metsera. Novo’s proposed contract presents a new tactic by which firms with market power can preclude rival mergers that will lead to procompetitive entry.

Richard Messick summarizes the output of last April’s Global Capitalism, Trust, and Accountability Conference, co-sponsored by the Stanford Graduate School of Business and the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law. Participants explored the mechanisms of international corruption and how citizens, states, and the international community can address them.

The Google Search monopoly case focused on how Google’s agreements with Apple to set Google Search as the exclusive default search engine on Apple’s mobile devices allowed Google to solidify its monopoly in internet search. However, a less-explored dimension of these agreements is how they likewise fortified Apple’s monopoly power in the smartphone market, writes Steven C. Salop.

Beatriz Kira argues that Brazil’s proposed digital competition bill shows how the Global South can strengthen regulation of Big Tech platforms without forfeiting competitiveness. Brazil’s efforts build on global models yet chart their own course and belie the false dichotomy between encouraging national business development and protecting competition and its benefits.

Laura Phillips-Sawyer writes that history shows that antitrust and industrial policy have often served as complements to one another. Industrial policy has succeeded when it has targeted specific industries to invest in their ability to compete, rather than protect them from competition.

Europe is acutely aware it has fallen behind competitively, but it is struggling to find a way to recover lost ground. Cristina Caffarra writes that Europe did not find any inspiration in the American anti-monopoly movement, which underpinned the whole-of-government approach of the Biden administration. It is also faltering in developing a response to the vigorous array of tools deployed by the Trump administration to assert power at home and on the world stage. It does not need to be this way, as Europe has tremendous assets and capabilities. But it needs investment and leadership, boldness and experimentation in vision and policy design. Policymakers are beginning to see the urgency, but there is still too much narrow defensive posture by regulators sticking to their patch.

Eleanor M. Fox and Harry First warn that global strategies and political pressures are undercutting the neutral, rule-of-law competition system.

Xavier Vives argues that to create firms that can compete on the international level, the European Union does not need to ease its merger regime or encourage market power. Rather, encouraging European market integration will allow firms to draw in investment and scale up their operations.

Ariel Ezrachi warns about the rising trend of political instrumentalization of antitrust and competition enforcement and its consequences.