IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/102628.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Digital platform policy and regulation: toward a radical democratic turn

Author

Listed:
  • Cammaerts, Bart
  • Mansell, Robin

Abstract

This article considers challenges to policy and regulation presented by the dominant digital platforms. A radical democratic framing of the deliberative process is developed to acknowledge the full complexity of power relations that are in play in policy and regulatory debates and this view is contrasted with a liberal democratic perspective. We show how these different framings have informed historical and contemporary approaches to the challenges presented by conflicting interests in economic value and a range of public values in the context of media content, communication infrastructure and digital platform policy and regulation. We argue for an agonistic approach to digital platform policy and regulatory debate so as to encourage a denaturalization of the prevailing logics of commercial datafication. We offer some suggestions about how such a generative discourse might be encouraged in such a way that it starts to yield a new common sense about the further development of digital platforms; one that might favor a digital ecology better attuned to consumer and citizen interests in democratic societies.

Suggested Citation

  • Cammaerts, Bart & Mansell, Robin, 2020. "Digital platform policy and regulation: toward a radical democratic turn," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 102628, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:102628
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/102628/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Justus Haucap & Ulrich Heimeshoff, 2014. "Google, Facebook, Amazon, eBay: Is the Internet driving competition or market monopolization?," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 49-61, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dang, Ngoc Bich & Bertrandias, Laurent, 2023. "Social robots as healing aids: How and why powerlessness influences the intention to adopt social robots," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    2. Berg, Sebastian & Staemmler, Daniel & Thiel, Thorsten, 2022. "Political Theory of the Digital Constellation [Politische Theorie der digitalen Konstellation]," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 32(2), pages 251-265.
    3. Simon Michalke & Lisa Lohrenz & Christoph Lattemann & Susanne Robra-Bissantz, 2022. "Exploring engagement, well-being, and welfare on engagement platforms: Insight into the personal service sector from the DACH region," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(4), pages 2429-2444, December.
    4. Lähteenmäki, Jarno, 2021. "The evolution paths of neutral host businesses: Antecedents, strategies, and business models," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(10).

    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. Dolata, Ulrich, 2014. "Märkte und Macht der Internetkonzerne: Konzentration - Konkurrenz - Innovationsstrategien," Research Contributions to Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies, SOI Discussion Papers 2014-04, University of Stuttgart, Institute for Social Sciences, Department of Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies.
    2. Oliver Budzinski & Annika Stöhr, 2019. "Competition policy reform in Europe and Germany – institutional change in the light of digitization," European Competition Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 15-54, January.
    3. Rabah Arezki & Vianney Dequiedt & Rachel Yuting Fan & Carlo Maria Rossotto, 2021. "Liberalization, Technology Adoption, and Stock Returns: Evidence from Telecom," Working Papers hal-03151965, HAL.
    4. Kuchinke, Björn A. & Vidal, Miguel, 2016. "Exclusionary strategies and the rise of winner-takes-it-all markets on the Internet," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 582-592.
    5. Justus Haucap & Nima Moshgbar & W. Benedikt Schmal, 2021. "The impact of the German 'DEAL' on competition in the academic publishing market," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(8), pages 2027-2049, December.
    6. Budzinski Oliver & Köhler Karoline Henrike, 2015. "Is Amazon The Next Google?," ORDO. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, De Gruyter, vol. 66(1), pages 263-288, January.
    7. Rong, Ke & Kang, Zhengyao & Williamson, Peter J., 2022. "Liability of ecosystem integration and internationalisation of digital firms," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(4).
    8. Jan KRÄMER & Michael WOHLFARTH, 2015. "Regulating Over-the-Top Service Providers in Two-Sided Content Markets: Insights from the Economic Literature," Communications & Strategies, IDATE, Com&Strat dept., vol. 1(99), pages 71-90, 3rd quart.
    9. Fabio Caputo & Simone Pizzi, 2021. "Ethical Firms and Web Reporting: Empirical Evidence about the Voluntary Adoption of the Italian “Legality Rating”," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 14(1), pages 1-36, July.
    10. Cong Gu & Benfu Lv & Geng Peng, 2022. "Google and Alibaba s Different Stock Performances after Antitrust Investigations, the Reasons and Enlightenment," International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, Econjournals, vol. 12(2), pages 26-36, March.
    11. Cédric Durand & Wiliiam Milberg, 2020. "Intellectual monopoly in global value chains," Review of International Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(2), pages 404-429, March.
    12. Bozana Zekan & Ulrich Gunter, 2022. "Zooming into Airbnb listings of European cities: Further investigation of the sector’s competitiveness," Tourism Economics, , vol. 28(3), pages 772-794, May.
    13. Dolata, Ulrich, 2017. "Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Microsoft: Market concentration - competition - innovation strategies," Research Contributions to Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies, SOI Discussion Papers 2017-01, University of Stuttgart, Institute for Social Sciences, Department of Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies.
    14. Krämer, Jan & Wohlfarth, Michael, 2018. "Market power, regulatory convergence, and the role of data in digital markets," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 154-171.
    15. Poell, Thomas & Nieborg, David & van Dijck, José, 2019. "Platformisation," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 8(4), pages 1-13.
    16. Bertschek, Irene & Briglauer, Wolfgang & Hüschelrath, Kai & Krämer, Jan & Frübing, Stefan & Kesler, Reinhold & Saam, Marianne, 2016. "Metastudie zum Fachdialog Ordnungsrahmen für die Digitale Wirtschaft: Im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Wirtschaft und Energie (BMWi)," ZEW Expertises, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research, number 147040.
    17. Budzinski, Oliver, 2020. "The economics of international competition policy: New challenges in the light of digitization?," Ilmenau Economics Discussion Papers 135, Ilmenau University of Technology, Institute of Economics.
    18. Gruber, Harald, 2019. "Proposals for a digital industrial policy for Europe," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 116-127.
    19. Steffen, Nico & Wiewiorra, Lukas & Kroon, Peter, 2021. "Wettbewerb und Regulierung in der Plattform- und Datenökonomie," WIK Discussion Papers 481, WIK Wissenschaftliches Institut für Infrastruktur und Kommunikationsdienste GmbH.
    20. Paul J.J. Welfens, 2014. "Competition in Telecommunications and Internet Services: Problems with Asymmetric Regulations," EIIW Discussion paper disbei205, Universitätsbibliothek Wuppertal, University Library.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    digital platforms; media content; communication infrastructure; regulation; deliberation; radical democracy;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • R14 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Land Use Patterns
    • J01 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - General - - - Labor Economics: General

    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:ehl:lserod:102628. 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: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    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.