Behavioral economics as a tool for adapting antitrust legislation to the digital transformation of society
https://doi.org/10.38044/2686-9136-2022-3-2-69-82
Abstract
Digitalization and the rapid development of society determine the need to adapt legislation and law enforcement practice to the requirements of the digital age. Antitrust policy is also changing and developing tools that allow timely response to the challenges of the digital economy. One such tool is behavioral economics, which is becoming increasingly important in today’s digital environment, and allows regulators to be flexible and contribute to the achievement of the main goals of competition law — to maintain a competitive state of the market and avoid the concentration of excessive power in the hands of one economic entity.
The practice of applying behavioral economics by antitrust authorities is becoming more extensive, as there is a large pool of data in the digital environment, including information about consumers, which can be used by companies to influence users, as well as lead to unfair competition. Thus, the paper will study the issue of using behavioral economics in terms of consumer choice by antitrust authorities in order to identify possible behavioral insights of consumers that affect the correct establishment of product markets and the identification of competition law violations by companies.
Applying the legal doctrinal approach, the descriptive method, and the comparative law method makes it possible to establish the issue’s relevance in different countries and the prospects and trajectories of the usage of behavioral economics in antitrust practice.
As a result of the study, a global trend has been established in the application of behavioral economics by antitrust authorities both in determining the boundaries of commodity markets and in detecting violations of antitrust laws. It is concluded that the use of such a tool will continue, as it contributes to the timely adaptation of existing antitrust laws to the challenges of the digital age, contributes to the achievement of competition law goals, and creates a thriving competitive environment.
About the Author
A. A. Alferova
Utrecht University
Netherlands
Netherlands
Anastasiya A. Alferova — LLM
8, Heidelberglaan, CS Utrecht, 3584
References
1. Beinhocker, E. (2006). The origin of wealth: Evolution, complexity and the radical remaking of economics. Harvard Business School Press.
2. Chernev, A., Böckenholt, U., & Goodman, J. (2015). Choice overload: A conceptual review and meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(2), 333–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.08.002
3. Desai, D, & Waller, S. (2010). Brands, competition, and the law. BYU Law Review, 2010(5), Article 1425. https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview/vol2010/iss5/1
4. Jacoby, J. (2000). Is it rational to assume consumer rationality? Some consumer psychological perspectives on rational choice theory. Roger Williams University Law Review, 6(1), Article 5. https://docs.rwu.edu/rwu_LR/vol6/iss1/5
5. Jacoby, J., Speller, D., & Kohn, C. (1974). Brand choice behavior as a function of information load. Journal of Marketing Research, 11(1), 63–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377401100106
6. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
7. Kardes, F., Cronley, M., & Cline, T. (2011). Consumer behavior. South-Western Cengage Learning.
8. Mill, J. S. (2010). Principles of political economy: With some of their applications to social philosophy. Nabu Press. (Original work published 1848)
9. Newman, J. M. (2015). Antitrust in zero-prise markets: Foundations. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 164(1), 149–206. https://www.pennlawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/164-U-Pa-L-Rev-143.pdf
10. Nicholas, H. (2012). What is the problem with neoclassical price theory? World Review of Political Economy, 3(4), 457–477. https://doi.org/10.13169/worlrevipoliecon.3.4.0457
11. Shampanier, K., Mazar, N., & Ariely, D. (2007). Zero as a special price: The true value of free products. Marketing Science, 26(6), 742–757. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1060.0254
12. Shiv, B., Carmon, Z., & Ariely, D. (2005). Placebo effects of marketing actions: Consumers may get what they pay for. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(4), 383–393. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.2005.42.4.383
13. Zalega, T. (2014). Consumer and consumer behaviour in the neoclassical and behavioural economic approach. Konsumpcja i Rozwój, 4(9), 64–79. bwmeta1.element.desklight-854d7ad4-1a66-4216-9a9d-06d73c1363c6
Review
Views:
1589
Email this article 