Markets and Power in Digital Capitalism — Big Tech’s walled gardens - FT中文网
登录×
电子邮件/用户名
密码
记住我
请输入邮箱和密码进行绑定操作:
请输入手机号码,通过短信验证(目前仅支持中国大陆地区的手机号):
请您阅读我们的用户注册协议隐私权保护政策,点击下方按钮即视为您接受。
观点 数字经济

Markets and Power in Digital Capitalism — Big Tech’s walled gardens

Philipp Staab’s exploration of how tech giants operate like the colonising East India Company offers a nuanced critique of the fast-developing digital economy
An advertisement on a bus shelter in in New York informs passers-by of the privacy and security afforded by using Apple devices

Wander around Port Sunlight, Bournville, or Saltaire, and the genuine concern of their founders for the wellbeing of the workers is manifest in the fabric of these British model towns developed by enlightened entrepreneurs, even if it is at times oppressively paternalistic. Other company towns, like those depicted in Depression-era novels, were simply exploitative, paying workers meagre amounts in company money that could only be spent at costly company stores.

This was the comparison that came to my mind when reading Markets and Power in Digital Capitalism by Philipp Staab. The book explores what is distinctive about today’s digital capitalist economies, focusing on the extensive reach and power of the Big Tech companies, and looks back in time to find apt comparisons. Yet, rather than look to the 19th century luminaries — the Lever brothers, the Cadbury family or the mill baron Titus Salt — who developed those model towns, Staab, professor of sociology at Berlin’s Humboldt University, offers a different, earlier parallel, namely the colonising businesses of the age of empire, such as the East India Company.

Big Tech firms operate a corporate monopoly with government blessing, a “privatised mercantilism” operating through “proprietary markets”. This comparison suggests the digital capitalist economy is inherently exploitative. But the book is more nuanced — and therefore more interesting: it is not just another anti-capitalist rant.

For, as Staab admits, and as the evidence indicates, the billions of users of digital technologies greatly value the (often free) services they get. Few people would disagree about the negative aspects of Big Tech, including their immense power, but it undermines the credibility of some of the critics to ignore the positive aspects entirely. The combination of valued amenities with the exercise of control is what makes Big Tech’s walled gardens — such as the provision by the likes of Google or Apple of a world of operating systems, internet search, email, payment services, maps and so on — as reminiscent of company towns as of the East India Company. Apple’s locking in consumers and locking out other providers is at the heart of the new Department of Justice anti-trust case against the tech giant.

Given this mix of good and bad, Staab makes several interesting observations. One of the main weapons being deployed against Big Tech is competition policy, intended to limit or roll back their market power. But as Staab says, these are not like normal markets: “They are not primarily producers operating in markets but markets in which producers operate.”

In other words, the digital platforms have become the field on which many producers in the economy themselves innovate and compete. Big Tech firms have expanded their areas of operation from an initial offer (bookselling for Amazon, making computers for Apple, and so on) to provide an ever-increasing range of services. They are increasingly building their own infrastructure of data centres and undersea cables. Their ambition is that both sides of the market, producers and consumers, find everything they might need as an economic agent within the walls — the information, the means of payment, the fulfilment. The individual’s chosen Big Tech can provide their income, while filling their leisure and consumption time too — and making it ever-harder to leave.

As Staab notes, this all-embracing approach has also brought the digital economy’s potential for innovation and entrepreneurship inside the walled gardens as the only way a start-up can grow is by being acquired by Big Tech. One little-noticed implication is that competition policy might in fact torpedo this dynamic, as the US, EU and UK authorities have all recently prevented acquisitions that might previously have been nodded through.

An example is Amazon’s recent decision to drop its bid for iRobot, maker of the Roomba vacuum cleaner, in the face of likely EU and US vetoes. Old-style competition thinking would not have seen domestic cleaning robots as being in the same market as online retail and cloud computing. New-style competition policy sees that this has allowed digital companies to build massive market power and aims to stop such acquisitions. If extended, this tougher enforcement could end the get-rich quick exit strategy of the start-ups.

Other concepts in the book seem less useful. In particular, Staab argues that the economy is characterised by “superabundance” and saturated demand, so that the platforms need to profit by making it too hard for users to switch. He seems to believe everybody had everything they could need by the 1970s, which is not how I remember that decade. The fact that “sales suffered” in the early 1970s is surely more easily explained by macroeconomic events than the senescence of the previous capitalist system of accumulation. Still, for all that the book is mainly in conversation with other critics of capitalism, it is jargon-free, well-argued, and thought-provoking.

Markets and Power in Digital Capitalism By Philipp Staab Manchester University Press, £20, 184 pages

Diane Coyle is professor of public policy at the University of Cambridge

版权声明:本文版权归FT中文网所有,未经允许任何单位或个人不得转载,复制或以任何其他方式使用本文全部或部分,侵权必究。

相关话题

印度的俄罗斯石油难题

面对特朗普的施压,莫迪要么接受美国的关税,要么从俄罗斯转向其他供应国,要么尝试与特朗普达成某种妥协。

梅德韦杰夫:从自由派希望到核威胁的漫长转变

这位俄罗斯前总统在社交媒体上公开挑衅特朗普。他已从俄罗斯自由派和白宫决策者眼中的白衣骑士,变成了莫斯科的“核战争狂人”。

数千公司董事在工党税改后离开英国

FT的分析发现,从去年10月到上月,有3790名公司董事报告离开英国,阿联酋成为首选目的地。

局长遭解雇前,美国劳工统计局就已然陷入困境

经费和人员削减阻碍了美国劳工统计局汇总重要报告的能力。

FT社评:特朗普对经济数据的攻击产生寒蝉效应

特朗普解雇美国劳工统计局局长会破坏关键国家统计数据的公信力。

特朗普的阿拉斯加州液化天然气项目未能打动亚洲盟友

日本和韩国抵制美国压力,拒绝将对管道项目的承诺纳入贸易协议。
设置字号×
最小
较小
默认
较大
最大
分享×