The EU’s regulatory bodies seem to be particularly hostile toward Google.
In June last year, the European Commission fined the company 2.42 billion euros (US$2.77 billion) for breaching EU antitrust rules, after concluding that “Google has abused its market dominance as a search engine by giving an illegal advantage to another Google product, its comparison shopping service.”
Last month, the commission went after Google again, fining it 4.34 billion euros for “illegal practices regarding Android mobile devices.”
Google had made agreements with mobile-device manufacturers and network operators “to preinstall the Google search app and browser app [Chrome].”
Moreover, it seems that the European Parliament and several EU member states would like to dismantle Google by separating its search engine from other possible revenue sources.
There is no doubt that Google holds a unique position on the Internet. In terms of search activity, it has commanded about 90 percent of the market for more than a decade, leading many soi-disant defenders of competition to denounce it for “abusing” its “dominant position.”
However, most of these attacks are driven by a mix of misconceptions and questionable claims of harm by Google’s competitors.
Google’s critics would define a monopoly as any firm that has a 100 percent market share, or at least a share large enough to make credible competition seem impossible.
Traditional economic theory holds that a monopoly can take advantage of consumers by imposing higher prices than would otherwise be possible under conditions of “pure and perfect competition.” By this simple reasoning, legislators and judges must rein in monopolistic “despoilers” by imposing heavy fines or by breaking them up, as has happened many times throughout history.
Yet to follow to this line of thinking, one must ignore a fundamental distinction between two kinds of monopolies: those that emerge from the free operation of the market and those that are a result of state coercion.
Traditionally, “pure and perfect competition” is taken to mean that many firms are producing the same good with the same techniques. However, this definition takes a static approach, measuring market outcomes at a single point in time, even though the economy itself is dynamic.
Consider the case of a firm that is launching an innovative product. By definition, its market share will be 100 percent, at least for a while. The firm owes its “dominant position” to merit and because consumers appreciate its product.
As this scenario demonstrates, competition should not be defined by some arbitrary number of producers, but by whether other firms are free to enter the market.
Ultimately, market entry is the key prerequisite of innovation. If the state imposes constraints on that freedom in such a way as to establish or maintain a single private or public producer’s market dominance, then it has created a harmful monopoly by severely limiting opportunities for innovation.
In the case of Google, no one has prevented others from entering the Internet search market. Google thus owes its reputation in this area to talent and ingenuity.
When it entered the market, it was not the first search engine, and any firm around the world had the freedom to pursue the same opportunity. Google prevailed because it provided a better service than anyone else, and it did so early.
Google should not be punished for this success. In the absence of state coercion, the word “dominant” has no purchase, and the complaints of Google’s potential competitors have no legitimacy. They should have acted when they had the chance.
Today, Google makes freely available important services such as e-mail, translation, video hosting and more. It is able to do this because it makes profits on other activities, namely online advertising connected to its search service.
By dismantling Google, one risks undercutting its means of survival and imposing high costs on consumers.
Let us return to the EU’s recent actions. The commission levied its fine in June last year because Google prioritized its own “comparative shopping service” over those of its competitors. Yet, anyone who uses Google and its various services does so freely, not because Google is somehow forcing them to.
They could just as well use other services, so their decision to use Google must mean that Google provides the service most useful to them.
Likewise, Google did not use coercion in the case for which it was fined last month. It entered into voluntary contracts with device manufacturers, who agreed to preinstall some of its services.
There was no “abuse” of its “powerful market position.” There was only innovation in the context of free contracts and free markets.
If there has been any “abuse” of one’s “dominant position,” it has been committed by the EU. Through coercion, the state is constraining individuals and firms from making their own decisions in the market, and innovative firms are being punished as a result.
Pascal Salin is an honorary professor of economics at Paris-Dauphine University and former president of the Mont Pelerin Society.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US