Search

Begin New Search Topic Regulation Publication Year within 5 Years

71. Accelerating AI in ASEAN: Addressing Disparities, Challenges, and Regional Policy Imperatives

Author:
Ikumo Isono and Hilmy Prilliadi
Publication Date:
11-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA)
Abstract:
Artificial intelligence (AI) is attracting significant attention worldwide in 2023 because of its potential to transform economies and societies. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) must accelerate the debate on AI for five compelling reasons. First, narrowing the gaps in AI readiness within ASEAN is essential to share the benefits of AI equitably. Second, there are concerns that rapid advances in AI could result in job loss, and retraining is needed. Third, AI systems must be developed from an ASEAN-centric perspective to overcome prejudice and align AI with ASEAN values. Fourth, as developed countries implement AI regulations, ASEAN needs to consider the need for its own regional policies. Finally, now is the perfect time to discuss the positioning of AI in the regional framework as ASEAN’s digital integration initiative progresses. The paper discusses the significance of AI in 2023, the challenges in ASEAN, the need for its own policies, and policy recommendations.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Regulation, Human Capital, Innovation, Artificial Intelligence, and ASEAN
Political Geography:
Southeast Asia

72. Plurilateral Controls and a New Export Control Regime are Needed to Make Export Controls More Effective and Less Counterproductive

Author:
Kevin Wolf
Publication Date:
12-2023
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
If the first rule of export control regulation is to define clearly the problem to be solved, the second, with some exceptions, is to ensure that the rule is both effective and not counterproductive. By “effective,” I mean that the rule actually stops or hinders the end users of concern from getting the items at issue from any source. My reference to “not counterproductive” means ensuring that foreign competitors of U.S. companies do not gain outsized advantages in markets to which U.S. firms no longer have access thanks to export controls. The income gained in these instances could allow the foreign competitors to out-innovate, out-compete, or even displace entirely the U.S. company. The exceptions pertain to situations where the U.S. should impose a unilateral control to express objection to and not otherwise support human rights violations or move quickly when the issue to be addressed is urgent, particularly if there is a threat to the warfighter. In both cases, the point remains that the eventual adoption of multilateral or plurilateral controls will make them more effective.
Topic:
Regulation, Exports, Unilateralism, and Economic Competition
Political Geography:
North America, Global Focus, and United States of America

73. Cooperative Federalism in India: Statutory Regulatory Authorities and the Federal System in India

Author:
K. P. Krishnan, Amrita Pillai, and Karan Gulati
Publication Date:
02-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for Policy Research, India
Abstract:
Since the 1990s, there has been a marked expansion of the regulatory state in India. Statutory Regulatory Authorities (SRAs) are empowered to create and enforce regulations in their respective fields and often have the authority to issue licenses, conduct inspections, and take enforcement action against individuals or organisations that violate their regulations. This essay recognises the twin-deficit issue with SRAs in India. It focuses on the federal deficit issue and resists exploring the more obvious democratic deficit in them. Our analysis shows that over the twenty-three-year period between 1999 and 2022, the Rajya Sabha (Council of States) has reviewed 4 regulations by SRAs. For context, the securities regulator has issued 661 regulations since its inception in 1992. Such a federal deficit of a lack of State representation disallows decentralisation and restricts means for individuals and communities to have a greater say in the decisions that affect their lives.
Topic:
Governance, Regulation, Deficit, Domestic Policy, and Cooperative Federalism
Political Geography:
South Asia and India

74. India’s Regulatory Shift: An Examination of Five Agencies of the Post- Liberalisation Era

Author:
Arkaja Singh
Publication Date:
02-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for Policy Research, India
Abstract:
This paper explores the design of Indian regulatory agencies established post-liberalisation from an administrative perspective. Regulatory agencies were set up to replace state inefficiencies, and to discipline profligate state agencies, even as much as they were a response to state-market reorganisations and the challenge of privatization. Regulation provided an opportunity for upper levels of the Indian bureaucratic state to recast their power, with the idea that it would provide a framework for economic rationality, independence and technical specialization to take centre-stage. In actual practice however, the design of each of the regulatory agencies is shaped largely by pre-existing legal frameworks and institutions, and the agencies have remained quite tied in with their counterpart departments and on retired bureaucrats. However, in spite of these limitations, these agencies have some common features imbued by legislative mandate and organisational design which are unique in the context of the Indian state. They have focus and stability, a degree of functional independence, and most importantly, a concentration of power, which enables them to think through and implement complex policy transitions from multi-year and context-specific perspectives. The paper builds on learnings from a series of conversations with regulatory agency chairpersons in order to identify what regulatory governance is, in terms of the powers and mandate of the regulatory agencies and what makes them distinctive from the rest of public administration.
Topic:
Markets, Governance, Regulation, Bureaucracy, and Liberalization
Political Geography:
South Asia and India

75. Regulating Air Quality at an Airshed Level in India

Author:
Shibani Ghosh, Bhargav Krishna, and Abinaya Sekar
Publication Date:
08-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for Policy Research, India
Abstract:
Air pollution is a pan-India problem, and whether viewed in terms of pollution sources or exposure, there is no reason to continue an urban-focus in air pollution mitigation measures. It is imperative for air quality governance in India to transition from a city-centric approach to an airshed approach. As resources to address the pollution crisis are scarce, a coordinated effort across a region, that supports consistent and uniform measures against similar pollution sources, is likely to lead to greater gains in terms of air quality. In this Paper, we unpack some of the key issues relating to airshed-level governance and what is required to make that transition in India. The current regulatory set-up is designed to primarily focus on point sources, and the jurisdictional mandate of regulatory bodies aligns with state or city boundaries. To effectively regulate pollution and reduce pollution exposure, changes need to be introduced to this regulatory architecture, making it adopt an airshed-level approach. To begin with, airsheds have to be demarcated based on several criteria. However, there is sufficient literature available to initiate necessary reform measures, and the transition to an airshed or regional approach is not contingent on perfect airshed demarcation. We propose that airsheds be notified under the Air Act by the State Governments as ‘air pollution control areas’, and the Union Government may constitute, through notification, multi-stakeholder institutions for each airshed under the EP Act. We have outlined the composition of such an institution, its powers, roles, and responsibilities. It will be a focal point for standard setting, policy guidance, planning and knowledge generation for the airshed, while not being involved in enforcement. A key ingredient for successful airshed-level governance is effective accountability mechanisms that ensure compliance by actors across the region. We envisage a role for the Union Government under the EP Act as well as for the National Green Tribunal in this regard.
Topic:
Governance, Regulation, Domestic Policy, and Air Pollution
Political Geography:
South Asia and India

76. A Health-Centred Framework for Establishing Ambient Air Quality Standards

Author:
Bhargav Krishna and Abinaya Sekar
Publication Date:
09-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for Policy Research, India
Abstract:
Air quality standards are primarily health-based standards that define the ambient concentration of air pollution to which the public can be exposed without suffering harm to their health. In India, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) is tasked with setting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1981. The NAAQS were first established in 1982 for four pollutants (suspended particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide and carbon monoxide) and subsequently revised in 1994 and 1998 to include several more. The current iteration of the NAAQS were notified in 2009 and were aligned with the World Health Organization’s (WHO) interim air quality guidelines. The most recent revision of the WHO guidelines for ambient air quality in September 2021 rendered the NAAQS as substantially weaker in comparison. The alignment of the NAAQS with these global guidelines will require integration of the wealth of new health data generated since 2009 on the deleterious effects of air pollution on health both locally and globally. The 2009 NAAQS revisions were notified through the Gazette of India with no contextual information provided on the composition of the committee tasked with the revisions, or on the kind of data or information used by the committee to draw its conclusions on the acceptable levels of exposure to various pollutants. In August 2021, the CPCB convened a committee to review and update the NAAQS. The committee’s wide-ranging remit includes an assessment of the health risks of air pollution, establishing guidelines for monitoring, identifying non-attainment areas, and revising the Air Quality Index (AQI) through which health risks are communicated to the public.
Topic:
Regulation, Public Health, and Air Pollution
Political Geography:
South Asia and India

77. Forests, foreign policy and trade

Author:
Johannes Weberling
Publication Date:
11-2023
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS)
Abstract:
The EU’s Regulation for Deforestation-free Products (EUDR) marks an important milestone in addressing demand-side deforestation governance, being the first regulation targeting deforestation driven by agriculture. Yet it must be understood as more than an effort to protect the world’s forests – it showcases the European Commission unilaterally acting to promote values and policy ideas abroad. It displays issues of transnational social justice and power discrepancies, shedding light on shifting market power dynamics in global structures. And it questions the EU’s standing as a trustworthy partner on the international stage as well as its relationships with important producer countries. Analysing the EUDR from these angles offers valuable insights that can be transferred to other due diligence instruments that are currently being drafted or negotiated, such as the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). Unilateral action may provide a semblance of control but is by nature limited in the depth of scope. As its market influence wanes, the need for the EU to position itself as a reliable partner becomes increasingly important. To prevent leakage, demand-side measures such as the EUDR must be paired with supply-side measures. The EUDR’s success will hinge on careful and efficient implementation, accompanied by meaningful consultations and engagements with producer countries. Overall, prioritising the external dimensions of such legislation must first and foremost uphold trust and strengthen collaborative relationships with partner countries.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Regulation, Trade, Forest, and Deforestation
Political Geography:
Europe

78. Gold in Ghana: A Story of Unbalanced Exchange

Author:
Léonce Ndikumana and William Godfred Cantah
Publication Date:
09-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Political Economy Research Institute (PERI), University of Massachusetts Amherst
Abstract:
his paper presents the historical and institutional context of the development of the gold sector in Ghana, which sets the stage for examining the contribution of the sector to the economy and its exposure to capital flight. The analysis sheds light on the important role that the regulatory framework and the fiscal regime that govern the gold sector have played in perpetuating a system of unequal distribution of gains from gold exploitation in terms of tax revenue and foreign exchange earnings in favour of foreign gold companies. The statistical analysis of gold export statistics reveals substantial discrepancies between Ghana’s gold exports and the recorded value of imports by its trading partners. These differences point to export underinvoicing as a conduit of capital flight, while also exhibiting a systematic lack of transparency and inconsistencies vis-a-vis established international conventions governing the recording of trade transactions, especially in the case of gold destined for South Africa which does not show up in the latter’s import statistics. Overall, the analysis suggests that the gains from the gold sector remain much below potential, but that at the same time there may be room for reforms that can improve the benefits from gold exploitation for the country.
Topic:
Development, Regulation, Capital Flight, Exchange Rates, and Gold
Political Geography:
Africa, South Africa, and Ghana

79. Artificial intelligence: Europe needs to start dreaming again

Author:
Niccolò Bianchini and Lorenzo Ancona
Publication Date:
11-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Robert Schuman Foundation (RSF)
Abstract:
To date, there is no universally accepted definition of artificial intelligence (AI). However, a number of definitions do capture the fundamental aspects, such as the one updated by the OECD, from an earlier version in 2019, which will probably be integrated into the law on artificial intelligence now under discussion in the European Union. This definition stipulates: “An AI system is one that is based on a machine which, for explicit or implicit purposes, deduces, from the inputs it receives, how to generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations or decisions that can influence physical or virtual environments. Different AI systems vary in their levels of autonomy and adaptability once deployed”. This draws a broad perimeter, which is useful for framing the largest number of existing AI technologies and, although it does not consider the human component, it clarifies the operation of AI technologies as statistical inference systems which, from the processing of inputs, generate different types of output. But this definition ignores other essential elements of artificial intelligence. As immediate as it is provocative, it must be made clear that AI is neither intelligent nor artificial. As Kate Crawford, co-founder of the University of New York’s AI Now Institute, artificial intelligence is not a synthetic product but “comprises natural resources, fuels, human labour, data, infrastructure and classifications”, which illustrate the extent to which economic, political and technical dynamics are central. As far as intelligence is concerned, Luciano Floridi, founder of the Digital Ethics Center of Yale University, speaks of “artefacts with the ability to act without being intelligent”, i.e. to carry out tasks without having any autonomous consciousness, but solely thanks to computing power and statistical inferences. These details are not mere philosophical flights of fancy, but the premises of a conscious reflection on the subject. While the general public discovered AI with ChatGPT a year ago, it is worth pointing out that generative AI, which forms its base, is just one of the different types of AI, and that various AI applications were already present in our daily lives. These include the algorithms in social networks used to recommend content, predictive analysis for finance or programmes for diagnosing and personalising therapies in medicine. Once these doubts have been dispelled, some of the considerations raised so far can be assessed. The transformative nature of this technology is clear : AI has the potential to revolutionise different areas of human experience and, more profoundly, to change reality and the very role of human beings within it[1]. Among the various fields of application, the world of work is under particular scrutiny, with several analyses which forecast major business changes and a significant impact on productivity. The challenge of AI has recently been taken up by the international community, notably at the regulatory level. Great effort is being made to ensure future-proof legislative action, given the extremely rapid evolution of AI technologies, in particular the rise of fundamental models. Although a number of recent initiatives, such as the Executive Order issued by American President Biden, the summit on AI security at Bletchley Park, the G7’s Code of Conduct and the world AI governance initiative launched by China, reflect the growing awareness of this issue, the European Union is proving to be a forerunner in regulating this technology with the law on AI. This is why, according to Anu Bradford, a theoretician behind the Brussels Effect “it is reasonable to expect that the European regulatory role will continue. What's more, the European Union is influencing other players in this field: the United States is steadily moving towards the European model, abandoning one that is purely libertarian”[2]. Beyond this, the industrial development of AI technologies has been underway for some time, and is shaping up to be a new arena of fierce confrontation between global players. Indeed, it is likely that the market-led US model, the state-led Chinese model and the rights-led European model will clash not only in a global regulatory challenge, but also in terms of technological development.
Topic:
Development, Science and Technology, Regulation, and Artificial Intelligence
Political Geography:
Europe

80. A comparative look at antitrust regulation of the digital economy in Europe and China

Author:
Aifang Ma
Publication Date:
12-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Robert Schuman Foundation (RSF)
Abstract:
Influenced by the Matthew effect[1], the digital economy tends to be a hyper-concentrated market. Large platforms with well-developed business models have far less difficulties in attracting customers and accumulating data than smaller ones. Market concentration is accentuated by certain explicitly monopolistic practices of large firms. It is not uncommon for them to deliberately design their products in such a way that they are incompatible with the devices or services offered by their competitors. The iPhone charger, for example, is not compatible with smartphones made by Samsung or Xiaomi, as this could affect the longevity of the battery. In China, consumers can only pay for their purchases on Taobao, a C2C platform of Alibaba, by using Alipay, not WeChat Pay, even though these two online payment tools work in the same way. To eliminate their competitors, established companies have embarked on aggressive mergers and acquisitions (M&A), incorporating many innovative start-ups in the process. It is estimated that Google merged 257 entities between 2006 and 2022. At the same time, Facebook acquired 94 companies between 2005 and 2021. The trajectory followed by other digital firms is similar. The boundaries of the behemoths are constantly expanding to cover a wide range of activities: social networks, entertainment, e-commerce, artificial intelligence, content sharing, etc... Cartels, abuse of the dominant position on the market, and M&A by digital giants destabilise the market. They kill the enthusiasm of small businesses for technological innovation, reduce the number of choices available to consumers, and most importantly, turn the economic power of big businesses into political power. One simply can read The Age of Surveillance Capitalism[2] to understand the close links forged between the digital empires of Silicon Valley and the American government. The latter relies on high-tech companies to develop surveillance technologies. The companies recruit former politicians to improve their chances of obtaining favourable deals. One important mission of the American association Numerama is to oversee the relations between political and economic actors. According to the association, between 2005 and 2016, Google recruited sixty-five employees from European administrations, including senior civil servants, to make its voice heard in Brussels. At the same time, fifteen employees of Google joined European administrations at various levels[3]. The unequal capacity of companies to reach key decision-makers further strengthens the position of the large to the detriment of the small. The European Union is currently the most active in the antitrust regulation of the digital economy. On the one hand, with the Digital Markets Act (DMA), the EU is the first political entity to have established specific legislations on antitrust issues in the digital economy. Furthermore, compared with their counterparts in other countries, European regulators are the most intransigent in the fight against anti-competitive practices. Record-high fines imposed on major platforms come from Europe, a subject that will be discussed later in this article. Following in its footsteps, China, which has long been laxist in this area, has been taking active measures since the end of 2020 to regulate the activities of its national champions. In July 2021, Tencent was punished six times for its illegal M&A, which led to market concentration. In October 2021, Meituan Dianping, one of the largest e-commerce platforms, was penalized for abusing its dominant position in the meal delivery market. The company was accused of forcing retailers to sign exclusive agreements with it. The Chinese regulator imposed a fine of 3.442 billion yuan (€441.8 million) to Meituan Dianping. New provisions have been proclaimed and the amendment to the anti-monopoly law was approved by the Chinese legislature on 24 June 2022. Nevertheless, challenges persist in the Middle Kingdom. The delimitation of the relevant market, an essential procedure for judging whether a firm occupies a dominant position, is difficult to apply to the digital economy. The reason is simple: most digital platforms offer products to the consumers located in different parts of China, rather than in a precise geographical area. This study examines how the European Union and China regulate anti-competitive practices in their respective digital economies. The European Union and China are chosen as the subject of study because they are currently the most active and the most advanced in institutionalizing the antitrust regulatory framework for the digital economy. They have different political systems: while the twenty-seven Member States of the EU are democracies, China is an authoritarian state. This raises many questions. For example, do China and the EU face the same challenges in legislating the antitrust-related issues? Do they fight unfair competition in the same way? This is where the originality of this article lies: by analysing the antitrust regulations of countries where the state-market power relations differs, this article can clarify on the future development of the antitrust regulation in the world’s major digital economies. Among other things, it asks whether countries with different political regimes are likely to fight unfair competition in the same way. If so, the similarity of regulatory objectives could provide a solid basis for building an international regulatory framework of the digital economy.
Topic:
Regulation, Digital Economy, and Antitrust Law
Political Geography:
China and Europe