Search

Begin New Search Topic Digital Economy Publication Year within 5 Years

71. A Digital Loonie among Many Digital Currencies: Prospects and Outlook

Author:
Pierre L. Siklos
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI)
Abstract:
Global interest in digitalization is growing in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and driving central banks to introduce retail central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). The successful rollout of retail CBDCs will depend on each country’s institutional capacity and the scope of international cooperation and regulation. Retail CBDCs are unlikely to replace domestic currencies but instead complement notes and coins in circulation, offering greater convenience and lower transactions costs.
Topic:
Economics, Science and Technology, Digital Economy, Currency, and Digitalization
Political Geography:
Global Focus

72. The Digital Silk Road and China’s Influence on Standard Setting

Author:
Alex He
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI)
Abstract:
China is striving to become a leader in international standard setting, and the Digital Silk Road, part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative to expand its global infrastructure and markets, is key to realizing this goal. Both roads depend on standard connectivity, fuelled by Chinese private companies that are the driving force behind China’s growing role as a leader in technology development and shaping standards in both domestic and global markets. However, China faces strong competition to gain more influence in international standard-setting bodies, which are dominated by the European Union and the United States.
Topic:
Infrastructure, Digital Economy, Trade, Digital Culture, Silk Road, and Digitalization
Political Geography:
China, Europe, Asia, North America, and United States of America

73. The Digital Economy Partnership Agreement: Should Canada Join?

Author:
Dan Ciuriak and Robert Fay
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI)
Abstract:
The Digital Economy Partnership Agreement (DEPA) provides the most comprehensive template yet for a regional trade agreement tailored for the digitally transformed economy. The DEPA lays groundwork for discussions on critical areas that go beyond the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. This policy brief makes the case that joining the DEPA early would allow Canada to develop it so that it meets small, open economies’ needs and so that new provisions meet the values that Canada holds, and recommends areas for attention and collaboration with like-minded countries.
Topic:
International Cooperation, International Trade and Finance, Intellectual Property/Copyright, and Digital Economy
Political Geography:
Canada and North America

74. The Challenges of Adapting Trade Policies to the Digital Era

Author:
Kyu Yub Lee, Won Seok Choi, Ji Hyun Park, Min Ji Kang, and Unjung Whang
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
Abstract:
This study provides evidence on barriers to digital trade and the economic effect of digital trade, based on surveys of domestic firms in Korea and data collected from random sampling. After briefly examining the prospects of e-commerce talks at the WTO and characterizing digital trade rules at the FTA level, the study concludes by providing suggestions for major policy tasks and mid- to long-term directions of Korea’s digital trade policy.
Topic:
Digital Economy, Trade Policy, and WTO
Political Geography:
Asia and South Korea

75. Analysis of U.S. International Economic Policies and its Implications

Author:
Gu Sang Kang
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
Abstract:
This study analyzes and evaluates the impact of foreign economic policies implemented during the Trump administration's four-year tenure, and aims to predict the direction of international economic policies under the Biden administration launched following the 2020 presidential election. The former President Trump put 'America First' as the slogan of economic policies and imposed import restrictions and tariffs on trading partners based on Sections 201, 232, and 301 of the U.S. trade acts. In addition, the Trump administration strongly promoted renegotiation, claiming that some existing trade agreements had been concluded unfavorably to the U.S. Furthermore, the Trump administration promoted the standardization of digital trade rules and the expansion of digital taxation in order to support the expansion of digital trade. Through the empirical analysis, we find that the Trump administration's tariff measures had a somewhat positive effect on the U.S. industrial employment, but it is difficult to say that the policy effect that President Trump initially expected was achieved as the measures also had a negative effect on industrial production. Moreover, we find that the tax reform had only a short-term effect in reducing the U.S. direct investment to foreign countries. Like the Trump administration, the Biden administration's international economic policy directions are showing strong protectionist perspectives such as maintaining tariffs on Chinese imports and reorganization of the global supply chains centered on the U.S. Based on our analysis, there are three policy implications. First, it is necessary to strengthen digital trade cooperation with middle power countries participating in the WTO e-commerce negotiations along with a detailed analysis and review of the economic impacts. Second, Korea needs to take advantage of the benefits provided by the U.S. federal government and strengthen cooperation in the supply chain based on norms with the U.S. Finally, Korea needs to reach an amicable agreement with the U.S. on trade remedies that have already been applied by raising the need to strengthen its supply chain with the U.S.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Digital Economy, Economic Policy, Trade Policy, Donald Trump, Industry, Protectionism, and Joe Biden
Political Geography:
Asia, South Korea, North America, and United States of America

76. The Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and Digital Trade in Southeast Asia

Author:
Andreyka Natalegawa and Gregory B. Poling
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Abstract:
In October 2021, the Biden administration announced the development of an Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) with partner nations to “define our shared objectives around trade facilitation, standards for the digital economy and technology, supply chain resiliency, decarbonization and clean energy, infrastructure, worker standards, and other areas of shared interest.” Details on the framework are still being worked out, but it now seems that those six areas of focus have been distilled into four negotiating “pillars.” Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Sarah Bianchi said in early February that these would include “fair and resilient trade, supply chain resilience, infrastructure and decarbonization, and tax and anticorruption.” The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) will likely lead negotiations on the first, while it appears that the Commerce Department will take the lead on the other three. The details of each pillar will be worked out in the months ahead, but the Biden administration is certain to face challenges and trade-offs across each, given the diversity of economies and political constraints across the region. USTR has said the trade pillar will be “high-ambition” and include binding commitments. But this will be complicated by the fact that the administration plans to roll out the IPEF through executive action rather than as a traditional trade deal requiring congressional approval. This pathway will help the framework sidestep political obstacles that agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership faced before Congress, but it also means that the administration cannot offer increased market access or any other concessions that would require changes to U.S. law. Moreover, moving forward with the IPEF through executive action has led to concerns among partners that the framework could be vulnerable to U.S. domestic politics or that a future administration may well roll back or abandon the framework. Given these self-imposed constraints, the administration will face headwinds trying to convince countries to sign on to high-standard provisions on digital trade, labor, and environmental standards that might run counter to their perceived short-term political or economic interests. One possible solution would have been to make the involvement in the other three pillars, where there are likely to be more tangible benefits for other countries, contingent on an agreement in the trade pillar. But that would run counter to the desire to get as many countries on board as possible. So, the administration has instead indicated that countries will be invited to engage in each pillar a la carte. And while like-mindedness in and of itself does not immediately guarantee their support for the IPEF, the likely result is that only Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and perhaps South Korea—the most developed economies which already share U.S. standards on digital trade, environment, and labor—will engage with USTR on the trade pillar. But a wider array of economies will likely join the talks with the Commerce Department on the other three.
Topic:
Economics, International Trade and Finance, Digital Economy, and Economic Cooperation
Political Geography:
Asia, Southeast Asia, and Indo-Pacific

77. Labour market effects of digital matching platforms: Experimental evidence from sub-Saharan Africa

Author:
Sam Jones and Kunal Sen
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
United Nations University
Abstract:
Can digital labour market platforms reduce search frictions in either formal or informal labour markets? We study this question using a randomized experiment embedded in a tracer study of the work transitions of graduates from technical and vocational colleges in Mozambique. We implement an encouragement design, inviting graduates by SMS to join one of two local digital platforms: Biscate, a site to find freelancers for informal manual tasks; and Emprego, a conventional formal jobs website. In contrast to positive estimates of the contribution of both platforms to job outcomes from naïve (per-treatment) estimates, both intent-to-treat and complier average treatment effects are consistently zero in the full sample, while the impact on life satisfaction is negative. However, use of the informal jobs platform leads to better work outcomes for women, especially those with manual qualifications, for whom earnings rise by over 50 per cent.
Topic:
Education, Labor Issues, Digital Economy, and Unemployment
Political Geography:
Africa and Mozambique

78. The EU Digital Markets Act: Assessing the Quality of Regulation

Author:
Matthias Bauer, Fredrik Erixon, Oscar Guinea, Erik van der Marel, and Vanika Sharma
Publication Date:
02-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
The proposed Digital Markets Act (DMA) is an opportunity to prevent and remedy anti-competitive conduct by large digital platforms. If the Act is designed in an adequate manner to target specific problems, it can improve the contestability of platform services markets and markets that rely substantially on digital services. However, the DMA takes a novel approach to regulation, and novelty in concepts and regulatory requirements can lead to outcomes that later have to be corrected. Fortunately, the EU is not alone in experimenting with new regulations that specifically target the market power of large digital platforms. There is a great scope for policymakers to learn from similar frameworks in Europe and the United States. In this study, we compare key parts of the DMA proposal with similar legislation implemented or proposed in Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States –– in light of established principles for good regulatory design. We analyse the structure and quality of these regulations, not if they go in a certain ideological, political or commercial direction. We find that there are some areas where the EU could learn from other proposals to make the DMA more fit for purpose, and avoid unintended consequences on Europe’s economy.
Topic:
European Union, Regulation, Digital Economy, and Digital Markets Act (DMA)
Political Geography:
Europe

79. After the DMA, the DSA and the New AI regulation: Mapping the Economic Consequences of and Responses to New Digital Regulations in Europe

Author:
Fredrik Erixon, Oscar Guinea, Erik van der Marel, and Elena Sisto
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
The European Union (EU) has pursued an ambitious agenda for regulating the digital economy, and it is now planning to establish a new package of regulations, including the Digital Markets Act (DMA), the Digital Services Act (DSA), and a new regulation of Artificial Intelligence (AI). These regulations build on an already established structure of digital and business regulations in Europe that is comparatively restrictive but that varies substantially between EU member states. In this study, we take stock of the new incoming regulations and review their effect on EU member states’ economies. More precisely, the paper considers how different countries in Europe will be affected by the regulations and how they should balance these effects with policies that help the economy to prosper. The European Commission’s economic analyses and impact assessments of the new regulations are thin. In fact, they are grossly inadequate for the purpose at hand: to better understand how the economy will change because of these regulations. The Commission identifies some benefits – for instance, positive competition outcomes from reduced network effects and more trust in AI-based goods and services. There are good reasons to think that these benefits are real. However, these regulations will also lead to new costs and have broader consequences for firms and resource allocation in the economy. Remarkably, the only costs identified in the impact assessments are direct compliance and administrative costs. Obviously, for far-reaching regulations such as the DMA, the DSA and the AI regulation, the main costs will not be the direct compliance burden, but the dynamic and downstream economic effects spurred by their implementation. This is because these regulations will prompt firms and markets to change their current and future behaviour: these changes are likely to define the most important costs. Furthermore, it is important to get a better idea of the distribution of these costs. It is highly unlikely that all sectors and countries will be affected equally. Some sectors will be more affected than others just as some countries will experience economic consequences that are bigger than in other countries. The question is: what factors will lead to the expected variation in the costs and consequences of the three new regulations? In this paper, we argue that two factors are important for grasping the distributive patterns of costs from digital regulations. First, the industry structure of a country is key. In the economy, countries have different endowment structures, and the modern European economy is defined by factor endowments such as data and digital competences. These factor endowments are exploited in the economy by firms and organisations that use them to create different comparative advantages. In turn, these advantages influence how a firm and a country market, sell and trade. Second, the existing structure of a country’s business and digital regulations will influence how an economy will respond to new and additional digital regulations. In fact, the restrictiveness of regulations that we know to impact on the digital economy vary substantially in the European Union – both between countries and between sectors. This variation will have consequences for the distribution of the costs of the three new regulations that are going to be implemented. This paper maps countries and country groups in the digital economy: their endowments, advantages, and flows. Especially, it evaluates the digital performance of countries in a number of key indicators and data points, and anchors the analysis in the academic literature. The paper points to some specific consequences of the DMA, the DSA and the AI regulation, and how different regulations will affect endowments structures and advantages. One key finding is that the distributive effects of the regulations will depend on size advantages and disadvantages. In short, small economies and small firms will likely carry a disproportionate part of the cost of new digital regulations. Furthermore, countries that have used their endowments to specialise in the digital economy will be more affected than others. On this score, there is a vast difference between EU countries. For instance, countries in Europe’s North – generally small, competitive, and open economies – will be most affected by these new regulatory burdens. Countries in Central and Eastern Europe will also be negatively affected, especially through risks of market exclusion effects for small firms. It is important for European policymakers to now consider how they can avoid that these new digital regulations continuously reinforce size advantages for big economies and big firms. There are some policy strategies that should be considered. First, regulations can be changed to better fit the overwhelming evidence that young, dynamic, and innovative firms drive a substantial part of productivity growth in the economy. Second, EU and national policymakers can pursue policies that make the transition into a more size-balanced economy easier, for instance by taxing and regulating small firms differently. Smaller economies can also be helped by having corporate taxes that are lower than in big economies. Third, EU and national policymakers can reform other digital and business regulations and make them less burdensome. Fourth, the EU can help to support the build-up of digital advantages in smaller economies.
Topic:
Markets, European Union, Regulation, and Digital Economy
Political Geography:
Europe

80. Measuring the intangible economy to address policy challenges

Author:
Marie Le Mouel
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
European economies exhibit the so-called ‘productivity puzzle, whereby investments’ in digital technologies and intangible assets have not delivered the hoped-for productivity gains. Explanations for this puzzle lie in the unequal ability of companies to make use of these technologies, and resulting patterns of market concentration, productivity divergence and dampened business dynamism. Access to firm-level data is essential to properly understand these rich dynamics. The purpose of the first work package of the MICROPROD project was to improve the firm-level data infrastructure, expand the measurement of intangible assets and enable cross-country analyses of these productivity trends. The MICROPROD researchers developed the Micro Data Infrastructure (MDI), a centralised platform that harmonises access to the firm-level data gathered by national statistical institutes. The data infrastructure developed through this work package offers valuable insights into the evolution of productivity across the European Union and into the effects of digitalisation and globalisation. It can thus generate important evidence for designing policies to support the European Commission’s policy objectives, especially for achieving the digital and green transitions. In addition, the research enabled by this data infrastructure and carried out within the context of MICROPROD can provide valuable lessons about the response of European economies to the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath.
Topic:
Infrastructure, European Union, Digital Economy, Economy, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Europe and Global Focus