Search

Begin New Search Topic Markets Author Bertin Martens

1. Catch-up with the US or prosper below the tech frontier? An EU artificial intelligence strategy

Author:
Bertin Martens
Publication Date:
10-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
European Union policymakers want to close the artificial intelligence innovation gap with the United States, as a way to accelerate lagging productivity growth. The EU focus is on expanding an existing supercomputer network with more AI hardware and computing infrastructure, with taxpayer support. However, this computing infrastructure is not adapted to AI modelling. The cost of catching up with leading big tech AI computing centres is already prohibitive for EU budgets, and is set to become even more so. The hardware focus overlooks missing EU markets for complementary services that are required to set up a successful AI business: large-scale business outlets for frontier generative AI models to generate sufficient revenues to cover huge fixed model training costs, hyperscale cloud-computing infrastructure and private equity financing for AI start-ups. In the absence of (or with insufficient) complementary services markets in the EU, start-ups are forced to collaborate with US big tech firms. Injecting taxpayer subsidies to make up for these missing markets may further distort EU markets. Regulatory compliance costs, including uncertainty about the implementation arrangements for the EU Artificial Intelligence Act, add to market problems. The EU should address a wider range of market failures in its policy initiatives. It should strive to increase productivity growth below the AI technology frontier, by facilitating investment and applications of AI-driven services produced by derived and specialised generative AI models, or AI-applications that build on top of existing generative AI models. Building these below-frontier AI applications requires far less computing capacity and less heavy investment costs. Promoting the uptake of AI application services across a wide range of industries can substantially stimulate productivity growth. That requires a razor-sharp focus on pro-innovation guidelines, standards and implementation provisions for the EU AI Act, shortening the Act’s regulatory uncertainty horizon as much as possible, and facilitating collaborations between EU AI startups and big tech companies. Widening and deepening the EU private equity and venture capital market would also be very helpful.
Topic:
Markets, Science and Technology, European Union, Investment, and Artificial Intelligence
Political Geography:
Europe and United States of America

2. Pro- and anti-competitive provisions in the proposed European Union Data Act

Author:
Bertin Martens
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
The proposed European Union Data Act gives users access and portability rights to the data generated by their use of tangible digital products and devices. This pro-competitive measure weakens the de-facto monopolistic control product manufacturers have over product data. However, the Data Act would also grant manufacturers a de-jure right to monopolistic pricing of data transfers to third-party service providers, restoring their control over data markets. Other anti-competitive provisions include restrictions on the use of data for competition purposes and a prohibition on transfering data to platforms identified as gatekeepers under the EU Digital Markets Act. Unnecessarily fuzzy definitions of products and data that fall under the Data Act would create uncertainty in implementation and incoherence with other EU data regulations. The Data Act should be simplified by dropping anti-competitive provisions and granting users and third-parties selected by users free access to all data generated by the use of a product or a service. This would increase competition in data-driven services and prevent users paying twice for their data. It would not disincentivise producers from investing in data-driven products and services. A further step could be the creation of a level playing field between producers and users in data-access rights. This can be achieved by introducing the principle of mutual exhaustion of data rights at point of sale. This would put all data co-generating parties in a position to generate economies of scale and scope in data aggregation, or data-driven externalities, to maximise innovation.
Topic:
Markets, Governance, European Union, and Digital Economy
Political Geography:
Europe

3. Towards efficient information sharing in network markets

Author:
Georgios Petropoulous, Bertin Martens, Marshall Van Alstyne, and Geoffrey Parker
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
Digital platforms facilitate interactions between consumers and merchants that allow collection of profiling information, which drives innovation and welfare. Private incentives, however, lead to information asymmetries resulting in market failures both on-platform, among merchants, and off-platform, among competing platforms. This paper develops two product-differentiation models to study private and social incentives to share information within and between platforms. We show that there is scope for ex-ante regulation of mandatory data sharing that improves social welfare better than competing interventions, such as barring entry, break-up, forced divestiture or limiting recommendation steering. These alternate proposals do not make efficient use of information. We argue that the location of data access matters and develop a regulatory framework that introduces a new data right for platform users, the in-situ data right, which is associated with positive welfare gains. By construction, this right enables effective sharing of information together with its context, without reducing the value created by network effects. It also enables regulatory oversight but limits data privacy leakages. We discuss crucial elements of its implementation in order to achieve innovation-friendly and competitive digital markets.
Topic:
Markets, Science and Technology, Data, and Information
Political Geography:
Global Focus