IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2307.08049.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Datalism and Data Monopolies in the Era of A.I.: A Research Agenda

Author

Listed:
  • Catherine E. A. Mulligan
  • Phil Godsiff

Abstract

The increasing use of data in various parts of the economic and social systems is creating a new form of monopoly: data monopolies. We illustrate that the companies using these strategies, Datalists, are challenging the existing definitions used within Monopoly Capital Theory (MCT). Datalists are pursuing a different type of monopoly control than traditional multinational corporations. They are pursuing monopolistic control over data to feed their productive processes, increasingly controlled by algorithms and Artificial Intelligence (AI). These productive processes use information about humans and the creative outputs of humans as the inputs but do not classify those humans as employees, so they are not paid or credited for their labour. This paper provides an overview of this evolution and its impact on monopoly theory. It concludes with an outline for a research agenda for economics in this space.

Suggested Citation

  • Catherine E. A. Mulligan & Phil Godsiff, 2023. "Datalism and Data Monopolies in the Era of A.I.: A Research Agenda," Papers 2307.08049, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2307.08049
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.08049
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter Nolan & Jin Zhang & Chunhang Liu, 2008. "The global business revolution, the cascade effect, and the challenge for firms from developing countries," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 32(1), pages 29-47, January.
    2. Cowling, Keith & Sugden, Roger, 1998. "The Essence of the Modern Corporation: Markets, Strategic Decision-Making and the Theory of the Firm," The Manchester School of Economic & Social Studies, University of Manchester, vol. 66(1), pages 59-86, January.
    3. Carlota Perez, 2010. "Technological revolutions and techno-economic paradigms," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 34(1), pages 185-202, January.
    4. Pitelis, Christos N & Tomlinson, Philip R, 2017. "Industrial organisation, the degree of monopoly and macroeconomic performance – A perspective on the contribution of Keith Cowling (1936–2016)," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 182-189.
    5. Philip Faulkner & Clive Lawson & Jochen Runde, 2010. "Theorising technology," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 34(1), pages 1-16, January.
    6. Thomas E Lambert, 2019. "Monopoly capital and entrepreneurship: whither small business?," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 43(6), pages 1577-1595.
    7. David S. Evans & Andrei Hagiu & Richard Schmalensee, 2008. "Invisible Engines: How Software Platforms Drive Innovation and Transform Industries," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262550687, April.
    8. J. Stan Metcalfe, 2010. "Technology and economic theory," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 34(1), pages 153-171, January.
    9. Giovanni Dosi & Marco Grazzi, 2010. "On the nature of technologies: knowledge, procedures, artifacts and production inputs," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 34(1), pages 173-184, January.
    10. Richard Carson, 2002. "Competition, Economic Profit, and Political Capture," Carleton Economic Papers 02-09, Carleton University, Department of Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Philip Faulkner & Clive Lawson & Jochen Runde, 2010. "Theorising technology," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 34(1), pages 1-16, January.
    2. Havas, Attila, 2016. "Recent economic theorising on innovation: Lessons for analysing social innovation," MPRA Paper 77385, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Nieto-Carrillo, Ernesto & Carreira, Carlos & Teixeira, Paulino, 2024. "Industrial dynamics in the ICT technological paradigm: The case of Portugal, 1986–2018," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 155-170.
    4. Henning Schwardt, 2022. "Technology and social rules and norms in neo-Schumpeterian economics and in original institutional economics," PSL Quarterly Review, Economia civile, vol. 75(303), pages 385-401.
    5. Carpenter Juliet & Simme James & Conti Elisa & Povinelli Fabiana & Kipshagen Joschka Milan, 2012. "Innovation and New Path Creation: The Role of Niche Environments in the Development of the Wind Power Industry in Germany and the UK," European Spatial Research and Policy, Sciendo, vol. 19(2), pages 87-101, December.
    6. D’Agata, Antonio & Mori, Kenji, 2012. "A dynamic linear economy with characteristic-based endogenous technical coefficients," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 195-204.
    7. James Simmie & Rolf Sternberg & Juliet Carpenter, 2014. "New technological path creation: evidence from the British and German wind energy industries," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 875-904, September.
    8. Johan Willner, 2003. "Privatisation and Public Ownership in Finland," CESifo Working Paper Series 1012, CESifo.
    9. Marco Gallegati, 2019. "A system for dating long wave phases in economic development," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 803-822, July.
    10. Kevin J. Boudreau & Andrei Hagiu, 2009. "Platform Rules: Multi-Sided Platforms as Regulators," Chapters, in: Annabelle Gawer (ed.), Platforms, Markets and Innovation, chapter 7, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Mark Knell & Simone Vannuccini, 2022. "Tools and concepts for understanding disruptive technological change after Schumpeter," Jena Economics Research Papers 2022-005, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    12. Pietro Moncada-Paternò-Castello, 2022. "Top R&D investors, structural change and the R&D growth performance of young and old firms," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 12(1), pages 1-33, March.
    13. Claire M. Weiller & Michael G. Pollitt, 2013. "Platform markets and energy services," Working Papers EPRG 1334, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    14. Gauguier, Jean-Jacques, 2009. "L’industrialisation de l’Open Source," Economics Thesis from University Paris Dauphine, Paris Dauphine University, number 123456789/4388 edited by Toledano, Joëlle.
    15. Verrier, Brunilde & Strachan, Neil, 2024. "Sunset and sunrise business strategies shaping national energy transitions," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    16. Ekaterina Prytkova, 2021. "ICT's Wide Web: a System-Level Analysis of ICT's Industrial Diffusion with Algorithmic Links," Jena Economics Research Papers 2021-005, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    17. Yannis Bakos & Hanna Halaburda, 2022. "Overcoming the Coordination Problem in New Marketplaces via Cryptographic Tokens," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(4), pages 1368-1385, December.
    18. Falch, Morten, 2021. "Surveillance capitalism – a new techno-economic paradigm?," 23rd ITS Biennial Conference, Online Conference / Gothenburg 2021. Digital societies and industrial transformations: Policies, markets, and technologies in a post-Covid world 238019, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    19. Grazia Ietto-Gillies, 2020. "Digitalization and the Transnational Corporations," Working Papers 45, Birkbeck Centre for Innovation Management Research, revised Feb 2020.
    20. Eric Kemp‐Benedict, 2020. "Convergence of actual, warranted, and natural growth rates in a Kaleckian–Harrodian‐classical model," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(4), pages 851-881, November.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2307.08049. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.