Regulating the Digital: White Papers and Red Tape
Volledige vakbeschrijving
Facebook-founder Mark Zuckerberg famously used the motto ‘move fast and break things’ – a slogan in favour of disruptive innovation and minimal state interference. The tech industry is notoriously regulation averse, justifying their position by the claim that state regulation would impede innovation. Critics, however, have pointed out that governments have played a key (facilitating) role in many technological breakthroughs, including the development of the Internet. As digital technologies have become engrained in all aspects of society, governments also increasingly push back against this notion and put in place regulatory frameworks, e.g. to protect critical infrastructures or citizens’ rights. At the same time, media coverage and political debates exposing the risks and vulnerabilities of digital technologies can stir anxiety among the general public and give rise to calls for increased governmental intervention. Some even posit that Internet access should be seen as a public good, thus recasting users or consumers into citizens with digital rights. While the digital is increasingly subject to regulation, the very process of regulating and governing is transforming in parallel, for example through the adoption of algorithmic decision-making.
While the general consensus is that regulation is necessary, the extent and means by which state intervention should occur is subject to debate. To what extent can the market take care of addressing any imbalances and negative outcomes? When should the state step in to create a market in fields where none exists and competition is desired? Does it suffice to extend and apply existing legislative frameworks (e.g. competition law, protection of intellectual property rights) or should digital technologies be regulated separately? To what extent do the various policy domains in which digitalisation processes take place differ in this respect?
In this course, you will study how various manifestations of digitalisation are regulated and governed at the local, national and international levels. Throughout the course, you will be introduced to key public policy and legal concepts. You apply these concepts onto a policy area (e.g. transport, health) of your choice, while exploring if and how this area should be regulated on the basis of four key themes:
· Public vs. private sector
· Human rights
· Public goods
In addition to sharpening your debating skills in a policy debate, you will write a final paper on a policy issue or regulatory instrument of your choice within your policy area, demonstrating your understanding of the particularities of policymaking in the digital domain. This can be, for example, the local regulation of Uber in Paris or privacy regulations in health care. Since many of the questions that arise as a result of digitalization concern transnational problems, services and/or corporations, the level at which they should be addressed is up for debate. Can the issue best be addressed by individual states, or should norms be established in international organisations? In turn, each of these levels involves its own dynamics and limitations that result from different cultural and other norms.
Doelstellingen van dit vak
At the end of this course, you will be able to:
- Understand the theoretical aspects of studying public policy, and how the policy cycle can be applied to different domains in local, national and international policymaking;
- Apply the tools of public policy analysis to a specific initiative in a given policy domain;
- Analyse the relationship between regulation and innovation in a given policy domain;
- Reflect upon how the context and conditions of policymaking can shape policy outcomes.
Aanbevolen literatuur
- Audouin, M., & Finger, M. (2018). The development of Mobility-as-a-Service in the Helsinki metropolitan area: A multi-level governance analysis. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 27, 24–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2018.09.001
- Berard, B. (2018). I second that emoji: The standards, structures, and social production of the emoji. First Monday, 23(9). http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v23i9.9381
- Bowles, N. (2016, April 27). Uber, Google and others form self-driving car lobby to shape US policy. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/26/uber-google-lyft-ford-volvo-self-driving-car-lobby
- Clarke, J. (2009). Governance puzzles. In L. Budd & L. Harris, Lisa (Eds.), e-Governance: Managing or Governing. Routledge e-Business (pp. 29–52). Routledge. http://oro.open.ac.uk/18135/2/D868E856.pdf
- Crootof, R. (2019). Regulating new weapons technology. In E. T. Jensen & R. T. P. Alcala (Eds.), The Impact of Emerging Technologies on the Law of Armed Conflict (pp. 3–25). Oxford University Press.
- DeNardis, L. (2014). The global war for Internet governance. Yale University Press (pp. 1–25).
- Dupont, B. (2017). Bots, cops, and corporations: on the limits of enforcement and the promise of polycentric regulation as a way to control large-scale cybercrime. Crime, Law and Social Change: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 67(1), 97–116.
- European Commission. (2020). White paper on Artificial Intelligence: A European approach to excellence and trust. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/commission-white-paper-artificial-intelligence-feb2020_en.pdf
- Gorwa, R., & Peez, A. (2019). Big tech hits the diplomatic circuit. Berlin Policy Journal. https://berlinpolicyjournal.com/big-tech-hits-the-diplomatic-circuit/
- Hofmann, J. (2016). Multi-stakeholderism in Internet governance: Putting a fiction into practice. Journal of Cyber Policy, 1(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/23738871.2016.1158303
- Jørgensen, R. (2018). Human rights and private actors in the online domain. In M. Land & J. Aronson (Eds.), New Technologies for Human Rights Law and Practice (pp. 243–269). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316838952.011
- Kaul, I., & Mendoza, R. U. (2003). Advancing the concept of public goods. In I. Kaul, P. Conceição, K. Le Goulven, & R. U. Mendoza (Eds.), Providing Global Public Good: Managing Globalization (pp. 78–111). Oxford University Press.
- Mazzucato, M. (2013). The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking public vs. private sector myths. Anthem Press. (pp. 15–28).
- Metcalfe, P., & Dencik, L. (2019). The politics of big borders: Data (in)justice and the governance of refugees. First Monday, 24(4). https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/9934/7749
- Princen, S. (2010). Agenda-setting. In E. Versluis, M. van Keulen & P. Stephenson, Analysing the European Union Policy Process (pp. 107–131). Palgrave Macmillan.
- Zepeda, L. M. (2002). A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 17(1), 71–90