Warum und wie die Liberalisierung des Cannabismarktes in Deutschland erfolgen sollte

Wirtschaftsdienst - Der vorliegende Beitrag fasst die Argumente für eine Legalisierung von Cannabis zusammen und macht Vorschläge zur Ausgestaltung des Regulierungsrahmens. Hauptargument...     

Competition and Competition Policy in a Data-Driven Economy

Intereconomics - Data has become a crucial resource to increase firms' efficiency in product design, production, distribution, marketing and virtually all parts of the value chain. From a...     

Google,Facebook, Amazon,eBay: Is the Internet driving competition or market monopolization?

This paper discusses the general characteristics of online markets from a competition theory perspective and the implications for competition policy. Three important Internet markets are analyzed in more detail: search engines, online auction platforms, and social networks. Given the high level of market concentration and the development of competition over time, we use our theoretical insights to examine whether (a) leading Internet platforms have non-temporary market power and, based on this analysis, (b) whether any specific market regulation beyond general competition law rules is warranted in these three online markets.     

Selective Price Cuts and Price Discrimination Bans in Network Industries

In order to encourage competition in network-based industries such as telecommunications, some jurisdictions have adopted regulatory rules which prevent the incumbent service provider from selectively cutting prices in response to market entry. Given such bans on price discrimination, the incumbent cannot react to competition by selectively adjusting prices, based on the competitive situation in a given market, but has to maintain the same price across all markets. This paper analyses the welfare effects of such a rule for both one-way networks (access model) and two-way networks (interconnection model) when consumers have switching costs. We find that, even though bans on price discrimination can induce inefficient entry for a range of parameter constellations, there are also cases where they induce efficient market entry. This is the more likely to be the case the higher the fixed costs of entry.     

Entwickeln sich wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Forschung und Politikberatung auseinander?

Most German economists show strong patterns of professional specialisation. In their work, they either focus on basic research or on policy consultancy. The evidence provided by Haucap und Mödl has been used to question work incentives in academia. The suggestion to change work incentives, however, is not supported by Richter, who rather calls into question the German tradition of research funding. He argues that Germany should devote more competitive funding to research projects and less to institutions. Schmidt et al. explore the question the other way around: do policy consultants publish in top journals? They conclude that they do. Güth/Kliemt show how precarious and limited our (technologically useful) knowledge is. The discussion of alternative policies among economic experts should be used to tease out the controversial arguments to allow for better informed political judgements. Wagner/Fratzscher take a historical view, showing that when modern economic research (and economic research institutes) apply a more pluralistic paradigm than that which prevailed in Germany for a long period after the Second World War, economic research will automatically have a more significant impact on politics, since policy advisors will produce more varied advice with the potential for realisation. Koll also claims that policy advice must not be based on a single supply-side oriented mainstream point of view. By drawing lessons from the crisis, economics must identify a new mainstream providing reliable guidance and policy advice.