Search

Begin New Search Topic Science and Technology Author Matthias Bauer

1. EU Export of Regulatory Overreach: The Case of the Digital Markets Act (DMA)

Author:
Matthias Bauer, Dyuti Pandya, and Vanika Sharma
Publication Date:
04-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
The EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) exemplifies the “Brussels Effect,” extending the EU’s regulatory influence beyond its borders and shaping global digital competition policies. While intended to curb the market power of large technology platforms and promote fair competition, its broad, rigid, and pre-emptive approach risks stifling technological development, deterring investment, and creating legal uncertainty, particularly in emerging markets still building digital infrastructure and seeking to attract foreign investment. Large technology firms play a pivotal role in global economic development, driving innovation, infrastructure upgrading, and consumer welfare. However, increasing regulatory scrutiny, particularly under DMA-like frameworks, could inadvertently harm the very markets they help grow by imposing compliance burdens that hinder business expansion and technology diffusion. Countries with weaker institutions and regulatory capacity – such as India, Brazil, South Africa, and other emerging market and developing economies (EMDEs) like Indonesia – could face greater risks of regulatory capture, corruption, and enforcement challenges if they replicate the EU’s approach without adapting it to their economic realities (Section 2). A key concern with the DMA is the departure from traditional case-by-case enforcement in competition policy, instead relying on broad, pre-emptive obligations based on ambiguous concepts such as fairness and contestability. This shift reduces legal certainty, increases the risk of inconsistent enforcement, and may inhibit dynamic competition, which is essential for innovation-driven sectors like fintech, e-commerce, ICT, and edtech. By prioritising static over dynamic competition, the DMA could impede technological progress, limiting consumer choice and long-term economic benefits (Section 3). The global adoption of DMA-like regulations risks further regulatory fragmentation and may create unintended consequences, particularly in emerging economies where regulatory frameworks, institutional quality, and market structures differ significantly from the EU. Broad prohibitions on business practices, such as self-preferencing and data-sharing, could limit opportunities for local firms to scale internationally, weaken cybersecurity protections, and reduce incentives for large technology firms to invest in these regions (Section 4). To ensure proportionate and effective competition enforcement, governments outside the EU should prioritise regulatory flexibility and case-by-case assessments over broad, static restrictions. OECD best practices on competition policy emphasise clear objectives, legal certainty, and regulatory proportionality, ensuring that competition enforcement supports, rather than stifles, innovation and investment (Section 5). Moreover, the risks of corruption and regulatory overreach in developing countries make broad ex-ante regulations especially problematic. Excessive discretionary power granted to local authorities could increase the risk of politically motivated enforcement, deter foreign investment, and undermine long-term economic growth. A more effective approach would be to strengthen institutional frameworks, enhance transparency, and adopt supply-side policies that support technology neutrality, free trade, and economic freedom.
Topic:
Science and Technology, European Union, Regulation, Digital Markets Act (DMA), and Economic Competition
Political Geography:
Europe

2. Enhancing Technology Diffusion in the EU amid Tough Structural Challenges

Author:
Matthias Bauer, Elena Sisto, and Oscar du Roy
Publication Date:
09-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
To remain globally competitive, the EU must empower firms to adopt the best technology solutions available on global markets. Building on a strong tradition of innovation, the EU relies on corporations across industries to drive the diffusion of technology through the commercialisation of technological innovations. Technology diffusion is crucial for embedding new technologies into society and is essential for sustaining industrial competitiveness. EU and Member State governments must prioritise enhancing the EU’s “diffusion capacity” – the ability to effectively spread and adopt innovations across Member States.
Topic:
Science and Technology, European Union, Digital Economy, and Services
Political Geography:
Europe

3. The Economic Impacts of the Proposed EUCS Exclusionary Requirements: Estimates for EU Member States

Author:
Matthias Bauer and Philipp Lamprecht
Publication Date:
10-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
The EU Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA) is proposing a far-reaching “European Cybersecurity Certification Scheme for Cloud Services“ (EUCS) to be established in the European Union (EU). According to the latest draft of August 2023, leaked by Politico in September 2023, the proposed EUCS would by design prevent non-European vendors from providing “high assurance level” cloud services in the EU. In this study, we show that the proposed “immunity” requirements, i.e., foreign ownership and headquarter restrictions, local staff requirements, and data localisation would lead to significant losses in Member States’ aggregate economic activity and drive a big wedge between economic growth in the EU and the growth of non-EU economies. The projected losses in annual EU GDP will vary from EUR 610 billion to EUR 29 billion within approx. two years of implementation, contingent upon the specific sectoral coverage of high-assurance use cases under the cloud service evaluation level CS-EL4. The results fit into the overall picture of EU digital policy, which has weakened rather than strengthened the competitiveness of EU industries in the past. Our findings align with the broader impacts of EU digital policy, which runs the risk of exacerbating the growth gap and technology disparity between the EU and other advanced economies. Cloud services have become increasingly popular and integral to Europe’s economy. Cloud services are granting businesses of all sizes equal access to global data and resources, stimulating collaboration, and bolstering competitiveness. Advanced cloud services are levelling the playing field in domestic commerce and international trade. Smaller enterprises can harness advanced IT capabilities, particularly cloud-based supply chain management, to streamline their operations. Cloud computing solutions are also playing a crucial role in modernising public services, offering transformative potential for government administrations and service quality. Cloud services adoption is expected to grow substantially in the years ahead, driven by data analytics, AI applications as well as quantum and edge commuting solutions. The global cloud computing market is on a rapid growth trajectory and is expected to reach some EUR 2,080 billion by 2030. Industry forecasts indicate that cloud services and transversal cloud-based technologies like AI applications, quantum, and edge computing will experience consistent growth in innovation and are increasingly finding broader applications across various industries. Overall, the global market for IT services is highly competitive and dynamic, with global cloud service providers competing against a broad range of IT service providers of varying scale, including on-premises hardware vendors, private and co-located data centre providers and software providers. Despite showing a trade deficit in international cloud services trade, trade in ICT and digitally enabled services is not a one-way-street for the EU. Recent trade data reveals that the total value of EU exports in digital and digitally enabled services to the rest of the world is roughly equivalent to the total value of EU imports from the rest of the world. This balance in trade is also observed in EU digital trade with the US, where EU exports of ICT services to the US nearly match US exports of digital services to the EU. The proposed EUCS exclusionary requirements entail various negative consequences. As recognised by the European Commission’s latest progress report on digitisation in the EU, European companies have yet to reach the “Digital Decade” targets, especially when it comes to embracing cloud-supported technologies such as AI and big data, as the adoption of digital technologies remains significantly below these objectives.[1] Exclusionary requirements would create operational inefficiencies and increased production costs for cloud services providers and cloud adopters. They would undermine investments in the domestic economy, resulting in reduced international trade, competition, and innovation. The imposition of exclusionary requirements by the EU could create a domino effect of restrictions caused by retaliation and protectionism. Data localisation and nationality requirements stifle innovation and competition, particularly in data-driven industries. The creation of redundant capacities in the EU would have adverse environmental impacts, including increased energy consumption, land use, and electronic waste. Immunity requirements would increase rather than mitigate cybersecurity risks, creating a security deficit for EU cloud adopters that lose access to proven global risk detection and prevention solutions. This study provides estimates of potential GDP and industry output effects from the implementation of exclusionary requirements under the proposed EUCS framework.[2] It is shown that the strict “immunity” requirements in the EUCS cybersecurity certification framework would severely limit European customers’ access to advanced technologies, innovation and global ICT industry growth trends. The study’s findings highlight the significant economic consequences of potential restrictions on access to global cloud services across three scenarios of different sectoral coverage. It is shown that even in the least restrictive scenario, where “immunity” requirements would only be applied to a narrow spectrum of sectors and highly critical use cases, the reduction in the EU’s annual GDP could be substantial. In scenario 1 (broad critical sector coverage), reflecting political demands of the current French government, the EU’s annual GDP is projected to decrease by 3.9% when accounting for lost cloud capacities and forgone cloud capacity and productivity growth, within 2 years of implementation. For scenario 2 (medium critical sector coverage) and scenario 3 (narrow critical sector coverage), the estimated annual losses in GDP amount to -2% and -0.2%, respectively. In terms of current EU GDP, annual losses would amount to EUR 610 billion, EUR 317 billion, and EUR 29 billion, respectively, underscoring the significant magnitude of the potential impacts. For the broad critical sector coverage scenario, our results also show that the EU’s annual GDP losses accumulate over longer periods of time. After 5 years following the implementation of exclusionary EUCS requirements, the annual growth losses for the EU and its Member States remain significant. This is due to the inability of European businesses and the EU’s public sector to tap into the worldwide innovation and productivity gains offered by globally accessible technologies and services. For the EU, we estimate the annual GDP loss to be -3.6%, with a trend to further accumulate in subsequent years.
Topic:
Science and Technology, European Union, Cybersecurity, Digital Economy, and Digitization
Political Geography:
Europe

4. The Imperative of International Cooperation for EU Competitiveness and Resilience in Technology-Driven Industries

Author:
Matthias Bauer, Renata Zilli, and Dyuti Pandya
Publication Date:
11-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
The EU must embrace international cooperation and collaboration in technology-driven industries to ensure competitiveness and global relevance, while also considering the drawbacks of isolationist policies. The EU’s commitment to open markets and global cooperation has historically been its strength, and EU policymakers should continue to prioritise on these principles. Global markets, international R&D collaboration and global industry-led standards are crucial for innovation and efficiency in technology-intensive industries. Various sectors, including pharmaceuticals, ICT, aerospace, and defence, heavily rely on global partnerships to stay competitive and advance technologically. International cooperation in economic and security affairs, as exemplified by EU participation in global value chains of advanced semiconductors, the traditional EU approach to industry-led technology standardisation, and EU involvement in the international F-35 fighter development program, is critical for leveraging industry expertise, sharing technological advancements, and collectively addressing challenges in strategic sectors, thereby enhancing Europe’s economic resilience and security capabilities. Trust and legal certainty form the foundation for international partnerships in high-tech and defence sectors. Collaborations among like-minded partners enable secure information sharing, intellectual property protection, financial commitments, and compliance with regulations, while ensuring adherence to key EU values like human rights and the rule of law.
Topic:
International Cooperation, Science and Technology, European Union, Trade, Resilience, and Competition
Political Geography:
Europe

5. Europe’s Quest for Technology Sovereignty: Opportunities and Pitfalls

Author:
Fredrik Erixon and Matthias Bauer
Publication Date:
05-2020
Content Type:
Research Paper
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
Covid-19 and its broader implications have highlighted the importance of Europe’s digital transformation to ensure Europeans’ social and economic well-being. It provides important new learnings about Europe’s quest for “technology sovereignty”. While the debate about technology sovereignty is timely, the precise meaning of sovereignty or autonomy in the realm of technologies remains ambiguous. It should be noted that the political discussions about European technology sovereignty emerged far before the outbreak of the Coronavirus. The European Commission’s recently updated industrial and digital policy strategies “institutionalised” different notions of sovereignty, reflecting perceptions that more EU action is needed to defend perceived European values and to secure Europe’s industrial competitiveness. Often the political rhetoric reflected perceptions that Europe is losing global economic clout and geopolitical influence. It was said that dependency on technological solutions, often originating abroad, would require a European industrial and regulatory response. Against this background, the Corona crisis provides two important lessons for EU technology policymaking. Firstly, during the crisis digital technologies and solutions made European citizens stronger. Technology kept Europe open for business despite the lock-down by enabling Europeans to work from home, receive essential home deliveries, home schooling, online deliveries and to use online payments, etc. In addition, Europe’s citizens became more sovereign with respect to accessing information and data that helped track and contain the spread of the virus. Secondly, the crisis tested Europe’s resilience and perceived dependency on (foreign) technology solutions. Early developments indicate that Member States’ homemade solutions did not fare better than existing European and international solutions. A few national and EU IT solutions failed while existing European and global solutions, from cloud infrastructure to communications, payments to streaming services, all continued to work well. Politically, however, the crisis could be used to justify more EU or national government interference in Europe’s digital transformation. Indeed, for some the debate about European technology sovereignty is largely about designing prescriptive policies, which paradoxically risk reducing Europeans’ access to the innovative technologies, products and services that helped Europe through the crisis. Policies taken into consideration include new subsidies to politically picked companies, or new rules and obligations for certain online business models. Policy-makers advocating for such policies tend to ignore critical insights from the Covid-19 crisis and failed industrial policy initiatives, including sunk public investments and protracted subsidies for industrial laggards. In a time of economic hardship, the EU and national governments should be wary of spending even more taxpayer money to replicate existing world-class technology solutions, that in most cases are used in combination with local technologies, with “Made in EU” services of inferior quality and reliability. Moreover, due to different levels of economic development and differences in regulatory cultures, prescriptive technology policies would exclude many Member States from utilising existing and new opportunities that arise from digitalisation, slowing down economic renewal and convergence. The EU cannot be considered a monolithic block that thrives on a unique set of prescriptive technology policies. Before the Corona pandemic, initiatives towards European technology sovereignty were mainly pushed by France and Germany, fed by concerns over their companies’ industrial strength in times of growing economic and geopolitical competition. Industrial and technology policies favoured by the EU’s two largest countries will have a disproportionately negative impact on Europe’s smaller open economies, whose companies and citizens could be deprived from cutting-edge technologies, new economic opportunities and partnerships on global markets, undermining these economies’ development and international competitiveness. Any EU-imposed technology protectionism along the lines suggested by some policy-makers in large EU Member States would leave the entire EU worse off. It would disproportionately hurt countries in Europe’s northern, eastern and southern countries more than the large countries whose economies are generally more diverse than Europe’s smaller Member States. It would, however, make sense for the EU to agree on a shared definition of “technology sovereignty”. Different interpretations could cause serious policy inconsistencies, undermining the effectiveness of EU and national economic policies. Anchored in technological openness, technology sovereignty can indeed be a useful ambition to let Europe’s highly diverse economies leapfrog by using existing technologies. To become more sovereign in a global economy, Europeans need to focus on becoming global leaders in economic innovation – not just in regulation. If anchored in mercantilist or protectionist ideas, technological sovereignty would make it harder for many Member States to access modern technologies, adopt new business models and attract foreign investment – with adverse implications on future global competitiveness, economic renewal and economic convergence. Policymaking towards a European technology sovereignty that benefits the greatest number of Europeans – not just a few politically selected “winners” – should aim for a regulatory environment in which technology companies and technology adopters can thrive across EU Member States’ national borders. The European Single Market has deteriorated in recent years and significantly during the crisis. The new von der Leyen Commission has now repeatedly called for a strengthening of the Single Market. Becoming a world leader in innovation requires a real Single Market in which companies can scale up, with as few hurdles as possible, and then compete globally. It should be supplemented by pro-competitive policies and incentives for research and investment. Brussels cannot set the global standards in technology policymaking alone. Europe’s policy-makers should aim for closer market integration and regulatory cooperation with trustworthy international partners such as the G7 or the larger group of the OECD countries. It is in the EU’s self-interest to advocate for a rules-based international order with open markets. International cooperation should be extended beyond trade to include cooperation on technology policies, e.g. artificial intelligence. Regulatory cooperation with allies such as the USA is essential to jointly set global standards that are based on shared values. Both the EU and the US have much more to gain if they prioritise such alignment, to advance a shared vision for a revamped open international trading system, in a world increasingly influenced by regimes with fundamentally different views on state intervention and human rights. Anchored in technological openness, the EU and the US can promote technology sovereignty that allows for development and renewal elsewhere in the world.
Topic:
Industrial Policy, International Political Economy, Science and Technology, Sovereignty, European Union, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
United States, Europe, and Global Focus