IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/m42uh.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Big Telcos Aren’t Necessarily Better: A Case Study of EU versus US Market Concentration

Author

Listed:
  • Bryson, Joanna J.

    (Hertie School)

  • Malikova, Helena
  • Garbe, Lisa
  • Backovsky, David

Abstract

Telecommunications companies (telcos) provide infrastructure essential to the delivery of digital content. The competitiveness of European Union businesses is presently seen as critically dependent on expansion of next-generation communication technologies. Yet, EU telcos are displaying returns on capital that disappoint private investors, leading in some cases to depressed share prices, and potentially making them vulnerable to takeovers bids by financial investors. Given their essential role, the prospect of EU telcos falling into mostly foreign-owned, fiercely profit-maximizing, and/or cost-cutting investors is unappealing for policy makers, at both the national and the European level. One solution suggested by the telcos themselves is that they be allowed to consolidate. Economic theory does not provide a clear answer to how such concentration might affect investment in infrastructure. In this paper, we provide a comparative empirical analysis of the relationship between market concentration and investment in infrastructure in the telco sector. First, we compare investment rates in infrastructure by major telco companies in both the EU and the more concentrated US market. We find more value being returned to customers in the form of infrastructure investment in the less-concentrated EU market. Second, we compare telcos' profitability with that of other corporations involved in the information or ``eye-ball'' value chain. We find operating profits of telcos on both sides of the Atlantic are broadly in line with other companies of the value chain, with the notable exception of the highly concentrated digital ad exchange business. This evidence suggests that lack of incentives rather than lack of ability explains the larger portion of profits invested into infrastructure in the EU compared to the US. Rather than allowing market concentration, which could raise consumer prices and lower infrastructure investment incentives, EU regulators might consider other fund-raising mechanisms, such as redistributing profits from digital ad exchanges.

Suggested Citation

  • Bryson, Joanna J. & Malikova, Helena & Garbe, Lisa & Backovsky, David, 2023. "Big Telcos Aren’t Necessarily Better: A Case Study of EU versus US Market Concentration," SocArXiv m42uh, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:m42uh
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/m42uh
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/63bd311b49680d02ec93daef/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/m42uh?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matias Covarrubias & Germán Gutiérrez & Thomas Philippon, 2019. "From Good to Bad Concentration? US Industries over the Past 30 Years," NBER Chapters, in: NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2019, volume 34, pages 1-46, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Jay Pil Choi & Doh†Shin Jeon & Byung†Cheol Kim, 2018. "Net Neutrality, Network Capacity, and Innovation at the Edges," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(1), pages 172-204, March.
    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. Gilbert Cette & Lorraine Koehl & Thomas Philippon, 2019. "The Labor Share in the Long Term: A Decline?," Economie et Statistique / Economics and Statistics, Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques (INSEE), issue 510-511-5, pages 35-51.
    2. Saruta, Fuyuki, 2021. "Effects of Vertical Integration on Internet Service Providers' Zero-rating Choice," MPRA Paper 110288, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Axel Gautier & Jean-Christophe Poudou & Michel Roland, 2024. "Net Neutrality and Universal Service Obligations: It’s All About Bandwidth," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 64(4), pages 581-614, June.
    4. Fernández-Villaverde, Jesús & Mandelman, Federico & Yu, Yang & Zanetti, Francesco, 2021. "The “Matthew effect” and market concentration: Search complementarities and monopsony power," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 62-90.
    5. Emilio Colombo & Alberto Marcato, 2021. "Skill Demand and Labour Market Concentration: Theory and Evidence from Italian Vacancies," DISEIS - Quaderni del Dipartimento di Economia internazionale, delle istituzioni e dello sviluppo dis2104, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Dipartimento di Economia internazionale, delle istituzioni e dello sviluppo (DISEIS).
    6. Davies, Charlotte & Davies, Stephen, 2021. "Assessing competition in the hip implant industry in the light of recent policy guidance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 287(C).
    7. Ferrando, Annalisa & McAdam, Peter & Petroulakis, Filippos & Vives, Xavier, 2021. "Product market structure and monetary policy: evidence from the Euro Area," Working Paper Series 2632, European Central Bank.
    8. Poudou, Jean-Christophe & Sand-Zantman, Wilfried, 2023. "The environmental impact of Internet regulation," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    9. Lorenzon, Emmanuel, 2022. "Zero-rating, content quality, and network capacity," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    10. Edmond Baranes & Cuong Hung Vuong, 2020. "Investment in Quality Upgrade and Regulation of the Internet," CESifo Working Paper Series 8074, CESifo.
    11. Stocker Volker & Knieps Guenter, 2018. "Network Neutrality Through the Lens of Network Economics," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 17(3), pages 115-150, September.
    12. Naudé, Wim, 2020. "From the Entrepreneurial to the Ossified Economy: Evidence, Explanations and a New Perspective," GLO Discussion Paper Series 539, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    13. Gautier, Axel & Somogyi, Robert, 2020. "Prioritization vs zero-rating: Discrimination on the internet," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    14. Li, Dongxu, 2024. "Horizontal mergers and heterogeneous firm investments: evidence from the United States," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    15. Has van Vlokhoven, 2024. "Estimating the Cost of Capital and the Profit Share," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 134(661), pages 2175-2206.
    16. Lodge, David & Pérez, Javier J. & Albrizio, Silvia & Everett, Mary & De Bandt, Olivier & Georgiadis, Georgios & Ca' Zorzi, Michele & Lastauskas, Povilas & Carluccio, Juan & Parrága, Susana & Carvalho,, 2021. "The implications of globalisation for the ECB monetary policy strategy," Occasional Paper Series 263, European Central Bank.
    17. Steven Callander & Dana Foarta & Takuo Sugaya, 2022. "Market Competition and Political Influence: An Integrated Approach," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(6), pages 2723-2753, November.
    18. Claudia Fontanari & Antonella Palumbo, 2023. "Permanent scars: The effects of wages on productivity," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(2), pages 351-389, May.
    19. Romain Duval & Davide Furceri & Raphaël Lee & Marina M. Tavares, 2024. "Market power and monetary policy transmission," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 91(362), pages 669-700, April.
    20. Germán Gutiérrez & Thomas Philippon, 2019. "The Failure of Free Entry," NBER Working Papers 26001, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    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:osf:socarx:m42uh. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.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.