Appunti INE
Reviewed
This is my exam question:
read it carefully and give me a 550 words paragraph for each sub-point.
These are the provided papers on the topic:
The answer must strictly follow the question, without going out of bounds. Enhance the answers
with critical thinkig, personal opinion, examples and paper references.
the papers provided for this topic are:
the evaluation criteria are the following: 1. Show an understanding of the topic you chose to
discuss.
2. Discuss the main issues concerning the topic.
3. Discuss the key arguments the literature has put forward in relation to the issues concerning
the topic.
4. Present your arguments in a clear and concise manner using appropriate vocabulary and
concepts.
IT & Productivity
What is the ICT productivity paradox? (0%)
The ICT productivity paradox is a paradoxical concept which stirred a great deal of turmoil among
economists: why, with such massive investment in information and communication technologies
(ICT), have we not yet seen the kind of productivity growth that people have been expecting? It was
a mystery that first gained prominence during the 1980s and 1990s, when the internet, computers,
and other information technologies were racing to extend themselves all over the globe, but
productivity growth in much of the developed world was, still, miserably sluggish. A prominent
economist, Robert Solow, had summarized the enigma with a now-extensively-quoted phrase: "You
can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics."
There are a large number of reasons why this mystery can be rational. One of the most common
grievances is that we are not actually all that good at making sure our use involves the real impact
of ICT. Much of the advantage we get from digital technology is faster communication, better coordination, free stuff on the web, and none of that shows up in how we normally measure
productivity, which is effectively an output-and-income function. For example, think of the way
navigation or search engine software improves our decision-making and productivity; these things
improve our lives every day but cannot be easily measured in GDP statistics. Another great reason
concerns time.
Even if an organization buys new computer hardware, it is not necessarily more productive
immediately. At other times it has to change the manner in which it works—i.e., training staff,
changing management style, or amending its operations. Such changes take time and generally
entail further investment in skill, purchasing, and new practices. As argued by authors like
Brynjolfsson and others, this is especially the case with broad, disruptive technologies like artificial
intelligence that need to be imbedded into current systems before anybody can gain advantage. It
is also worth remembering that not all industries, and certainly not all companies, are affected in
the same way. There is some research to suggest that industry leaders, well-managed companies
Appunti INE
1
with good management and good digital know-how from the start, are far more likely to reap ICT
benefits than smaller, less advanced companies. This creates a widening gap between industry
leaders and laggards.
Therefore, as separate companies become more productive, productivity growth in total is sluggish
only because they as an aggregate are not converging. Aside from that, the economy itself has
changed in the last few decades as well. The majority of countries have shifted from manufacturing
economies to service economies. Since services are harder to automate or measure in terms of
production, it is becoming harder to notice apparent productivity growth even if digital technologies
are employed. There are other economists who would say that the paradox is a real failure of ICT,
but it is only because there will be an extended transition period. Adjustment and learning to utilize
the new technology is costly in the short run, and the benefit does not arrive until later on. Once
adjustments have been done and computers are being used extensively, gains in productivity
become apparent. This was seen towards the close of the 1990s in America, when productivity
growth finally gained momentum after investing in the cyber world for years.
Finally, the ICT productivity paradox warns us that technology will not be propelling economic
performance in and of itself but what we are doing with it, how business and labor are adapting,
and how institutions and policy facilitate the adaptation. It is a complex story difficult to unravel but
one which is phenomenally promising if handled with care.
What are the two main views in the economic literature on
technology and productivity. (0%)
There are two broad schools of economic thought on the impact of technology upon productivity.
These strands of thought give us different explanations of why technological advance sometimes
has large impacts upon economic growth and why in other cases it appears to have a much lesser
impact. Both of these schools of thought account for why productivity growth in most developed
countries has slowed over the last few decades even when there has been frenetic digital
innovation.
The initial school is merely referred to as the "optimistic" or "complementarity" school. In this view,
technology in the form of computer technologies like ICT, AI, and automation can be a gigantic
wellspring of increased productivity, but only if coupled with other changes in firms as well as in
the economy at large. New hardware or software installation is not enough. Firms should also invest
in aspects like training, capabilities, organisational changes, and better management. These have
been, at times, referred to as "complementary assets." This view has been affirmed by numerous
studies.
For example, according to the OECD (2019), only a few productive firms, or so-called "superstar
firms," are in the position to make optimal use of digital technologies because they have superior
abilities and are able to implement new technologies very quickly. These firms drive the majority of
productivity growth in their sectors, and other firms are behind. Similarly, Brynjolfsson et al. (2020)
mentioned that the productivity benefits of general-purpose technologies like AI or cloud
computing are postponed as companies need to reorganize in such a manner that they are able to
take full advantage of these technologies. Thus, we might not experience productivity improvement
even when digital technologies are rising very swiftly. The second mainstream view is more
pessimistic or skeptical about the impact of technology on productivity. It has the implication that
currently available technologies simply aren't as effective as those available before. Economists like
Robert Gordon would argue that the innovations of the first half of the 20th century, for example,
Appunti INE
2
electricity, the internal combustion engine, or indoor plumbing, transformed daily life and work far
more dramatically than digital technology today.
By this time, though, it is no wonder that productivity growth also began to slow down, as the most
groundbreaking inventions had already run their course. This critical view also challenges if there
even is a lifting of economic activity by digital technologies. Certain authors note that many digital
uses, for example, social media or computer games, may capture our attention but not more
productive employees. Moreover, if increases in productivity do occur, they would presumably be
heavily concentrated in a few areas like technology and finance services, and the rest of the
economy does not feel much impact. Between these two extremes, there is increasing
acknowledgment that both hold something valuable. In one sense, digital technologies do
unequivocally hold the potential to transform productivity, but realizing that potential does indeed
hang in significant part on complementary investments, policy support, and broader institutional
foundations. And yet, we must not overestimate the power of technology, especially if it fails to
feed through into changes in working practices or living standards more broadly. Briefly, the
economic case for technology and productivity is one of hope and caution.
While there are others who predict that we are in the middle of a slow adjustment and the future will
hold the best for us, there are others suggesting that we need not compare the digital technologies
with such a large influence as those wonderful inventions from the past.
The truth is probably somewhere in between: technology. does matter, but how we use it—and
whether we retrain skills, organizations, and policies—matters at least as much.
Can you discuss the role of complementarities in unlocking the
ICTs productivity potential? What do you think policy makers
should do about this? (37%)
Information and communication technologies (ICTs) have transformed how we work, communicate,
and do business, And yet, despite having been introduced extensively in countries around the
globe, productivity gains have been modest for most of them. This has led economists to focus on
the concept of complementarities—that is, the notion that ICTs alone do not deliver productivity
growth unless accompanied by other complementary factors. It is an appreciation of these
complementarities that lies at the heart of realizing the full potential of digital technologies.
Complementarities are all those things that need to go along with ICT hand-in-hand if it is to be
maximally effective. These include organizational change, workers' skills, business practices, and
investment in intangible assets like software, data, and know-how. An example is when an
organization invests in new management software but does not train workers to use it properly or
redesign work flows to take advantage of it; the software itself will not boost productivity.
The OECD (2019) suggests that digital technologies are inclined towards the most productive firms
—the so-called "frontier firms"—because they already have suitable conditions. These firms know
how to rearrange processes, get skilled workers, and invest in R&D and innovation. Less productive
firms often lack these complementary conditions, and therefore they cannot effectively use digital
instruments. As a consequence, there is a productivity gap: some firms jump forward while others
remain behind.
This view is corroborated in a study by Brynjolfsson et al. (2020), describing what they call the
"Productivity J-Curve." Productivity may appear flat, even decline, following the introduction of a
new technology, because of expense and the learning curve.
Appunti INE
3
But after the necessary complements are put in place—such as new business processes or a
digitally literate workforce—productivity begins to rise sharply. This pattern explains why the payoff
to ICT may not show up for years in national productivity statistics. So what must policymakers do,
given the significance of complementarities? First, they must assist in spreading digital skills.
Numerous small and medium-sized firms lack the resources to train employees or make changes to
their routines by themselves. Governments can subsidize digital training, encourage
apprenticeship, or invest in vocational training with an emphasis on ICT-related skills. Secondly,
governments must encourage investment in intangible assets. This does not just refer to R&D, but
also data infrastructure, cloud computing services, and new management practices. Tax credits
and public subsidies can enable smaller firms to make these investments, which are risky and
expensive. Third, digital transformation requires adaptable regulation and competition policies. As
digital platforms grow, there is a risk that some markets will be dominated by a few big players.
Policymakers need to ensure that new entrants can compete on a level playing field and that
innovation is not stifled. This may mean updating competition laws or making more data available to
smaller firms and researchers.
Fourth, governments must invest in digital infrastructure, such as high-speed broadband,
particularly in disadvantaged or rural communities. Unless these communities have access to a
reliable internet and digital tools, their businesses and workers are unable to benefit from new
technologies.
Finally, digitalization in the public sector can lead by example. Governments can both become more
efficient by adopting effective digital services as well as create demand for digital solutions and
stimulate innovation in the private sector.
Overall, ICTs can be powerful productivity drivers, but only if supported by the right
complementary investments and policy framework. The role of policy-makers is not merely to
promote technology adoption, but to help bring about the conditions under which digitalisation can
benefit all, and not just some frontier firms.
Artificial Intelligence
Can you identify the characteristics that set AI apart from other
digital technologies? (0%)
Artificial Intelligence (AI) stands out from the rest of the digital technologies in that it holds a
special interest in prediction as a core activity. Unlike the traditional digital tools that
automate through well-established instructions, AI—and particularly with machine learning—
substitutes or augments human judgment by inferring patterns and making probable predictions
from data. As Agrawal, Gans, and Goldfarb (2019) also point out, AI has to be an appreciation of
AI not as general artificial thinking but as a powerful prediction machine: a machine that, with
sufficient data, can guess better about the unknowns than previous methods. Such capability
reduces many problems that appeared classically beyond prediction to prediction problems,
thereby increasing the value of automation. For example, the decision to hire is now a forecast of
future job performance, and driving is a flow of predictions of potential hazard.
In addition, AI introduces modularity in the structure of decisions. It reorganizes the production
function of the organizations by substituting or augmenting labor in predictive tasks. Compared
to past digital innovations that largely boosted productivity through the automation of process
steps in routine fashion (e.g., email, spreadsheet), AI changes the economics of information by
Appunti INE
4
enabling granular real-time decision support. This reconfiguration introduces new
complementarities whereby AI-derived predictions augment human decision-making, automate
others entirely, or make impossible decisions feasible by reducing uncertainty. The rhythm of AI
in so doing is different compared to hard-coded, rule-based digital technologies.
Besides novelty of purpose, AI is also characterized by a technological trajectory with deep
learning methods premised on big data and computing power. This trajectory, as Klinger et al.
(2020) have traced, has generated concerns about decreased research diversity and excessive
concentration on a few dominant architectures, most especially in the private industry. Unlike the
more decentralized development of prior digital technologies, modern AI is increasingly shaped by
a few powerful actors due to the high fixed costs of data and computation. This centralization
influences the direction of innovation and raises broader societal and ethical considerations,
including surveillance, discrimination, and environmental costs.
Finally, AI’s potential as a General Purpose Technology (GPT) further sets it apart. Like electricity or
the internet, it can impact a wide variety of industries by being incorporated in a host
of applications, from healthcare to transportation. But its generality lies not only in
its pervasiveness but also in its flexibility as well as complementarities with other technologies and
organizational routines. Unlike digital technologies that are platforms or infrastructures,
AI reconstitutes cognitive tasks, reshaping the boundaries between human and machine
capabilities.
In brief, what sets AI apart from other computer technologies is not merely its technical capacity for
prediction but more generally economic, organizational, and epistemic changes it makes possible.
AI reconfigures decision-making, decision-makers, and what becomes newly possible in a datarich world of uncertainty. This renders AI not only another digital technology, but a unique and
revolutionary one in the digital economy.
We have seen in class that AI is associated to complexity on three
key levels: market, organisation and society. Can you discuss
these? (48%)
Artificial Intelligence (AI) introduces tremendous complexity on three significant levels: market,
organization, and society. It is this layered complexity that distinguishes AI from earlier waves of
digital innovation, not only due to its technical promise, but due to its diffuse and recursive effects
on how economies and institutions work. At the market level, AI reconfigures competition
by rendering prediction a strategic resource. Those firms with greater access to data
and computational resources are able to make superior predictions, with feedback loops that
reinforce dominance. This generates a dynamic of rising returns to scale and
scope, and a tendency for "winner-takes-most" market forms. The behemoth platforms like Google
or Amazon are the textbook cases of this phenomenon, using AI to optimize everything from
advertising to logistics. Data accumulation becomes a source of competitive
advantage, setting up barriers to entry and altering the very nature of competition itself. Moreover,
AI creates new forms of market power—e.g., algorithmic pricing or demand forecasting—
that destabilize traditional price-setting mechanisms and antitrust institutions.
Organizational complexity is a product of the need to integrate AI into workflows, cultures, and
governance structures. Unlike typical IT systems, AI is probabilistic and
dynamic and therefore requires constant monitoring, training, and adaptation. This
challenges entrenched managerial logics rooted in determinism and control. Firms must not only
invest in technical infrastructure but also cultivate a workforce capable of bridging data science
Appunti INE
5
and domain expertise. Organizational change becomes necessary to leverage AI’s full potential:
workflows must be redesigned to include model outputs, decision rights may need redistribution,
and departments must collaborate across functional boundaries. AI also complicates accountability
within organizations. When decisions are influenced by opaque models, assigning responsibility
becomes difficult. This "black box" problem has implications for internal audit, compliance, and risk
management, particularly in high-stakes fields like finance, healthcare, or criminal justice.
At a societal level, AI presents challenging questions about ethics, fairness, and governance.
These questions go beyond firm-level solutions and involve the foundations of democratic
societies. Machine learning models trained on historical data can reproduce and even amplify
existing social biases, leading to discriminatory outcomes in areas like hiring, credit scoring, and
law enforcement. In addition, AI enables unprecedented levels of surveillance and manipulation of
behavior, as illustrated by micro-targeted advertising and algorithmic content filtering. These
applications raise concerns about privacy, autonomy, and the integrity of public discourse. In
addition, the introduction of AI is uneven across geographies and populations, adding to existing
inequalities. Areas with poorer digital infrastructure or talent can be left
behind, and targeted investment in AI in technology hubs can increase geographic imbalances. The
geopolitical dimension of AI also contributes to societal
complexity, with countries competing to attain leadership in AI
development, and generating concerns over AI arms races and regulatory fragmentation.
These levels of complexity are interconnected. Market forces shape the incentives that guide
organizational behavior; organizational decisions, in turn, shape societal
outcomes, whether in employment trends or the fairness of algorithmic determinations. Societal
norms and policy, in turn, feed back into the operation of markets and firms. For instance, strong
data privacy laws may limit the extent to which businesses can take advantage of AI at scale, while
ethical concerns may push back against certain applications altogether. Capturing the full impact of
AI thus requires a systems-level understanding that is attentive to the recursive interaction between
market pressure, organizational transformation, and social norms. The challenge is not just
in dealing with complexity in each of these domains, but in navigating their intertwinements to
ensure AI is applied to the broader public good.
Do you think AI is a general purpose technology? (29%)
Yes, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a General Purpose Technology (GPT), with important qualifications.
GPTs are technologies that can potentially radically transform economies and societies by being
widely used, having unlimited potential for improvement, and supporting complementary
innovations in industries. The steam engine, electricity, and the internet are textbook examples.
AI benefits from this description on many important dimensions: it is used more and more widely
across industries, it improves relentlessly, and it has widespread applications and spillover effects.
But its ability to change is not automatic and is subject to institutional, organizational, and
policy contingencies.
Firstly, AI does not pass the test of pervasiveness. It has already found its way into a range of
industries: from finance and healthcare to retail, logistics, and education. Its applications—namely,
in prediction, classification, pattern recognition, and natural language processing—make it
applicable to a broad set of tasks involving large-scale data processing and decisionmaking under uncertainty. Applications of AI for medical imaging, fraud
detection, targeted marketing, and supply chain
optimization provide testimony to its generalizability and versatility.
Appunti INE
6
Second, AI is ever-increasingly being enhanced. Algorithmic, computing, and availability
advancements have brought exponential improvements in core areas like image recognition,
speech processing, and machine translation. The pathway from expert systems via deep
learning to reinforcement learning is one of consistent invention. Crucially, these developments are
economic too, with falling costs of prediction and automation transforming production processes
and organizational decision-making.
Third, AI is an enabler of complementary innovations. It does not operate in isolation but pairs with
and enhances other technologies, such as robotics, cloud computing, and the Internet of Things
(IoT). This combinatorial possibility opens up new business models (e.g., AI-as-aservice), remodels value chains, and provokes the creation of entire new industries. Moreover,
as the literature notes, the economic impact of GPTs is apt to realize slowly in a "productivity Jcurve": modest productivity gains as businesses learn to reorganize around the new
technology, then a sharp upward slope when complementary assets and
capabilities have been developed.
However, the classification of AI as a GPT must be made
with certain reservations and qualifications. First, its application and impact are very uneven. Not
all companies, areas, or sectors have equal access to the information, infrastructure,
or capabilities to put AI to good use. This causes productivity divergence as only
frontier economies or companies benefit from AI adoption while others lag behind.
Second, the impact of AI is heavily dependent on institutional conditions, including regulation, data
governance, labor market policies, and ethical standards. Unlike earlier GPTs,
the negative aspects of AI—such as surveillance, bias, and displacement—call for proactive
governance to ensure private incentives serve the public interest.
Finally, the GPT status of AI is also embryonic. Its potential is
vast, but is contingent upon surmounting significant challenges: preserving research diversity,
avoiding premature technological lock-in, and managing the societal implications of its introduction.
In this sense, AI is a GPT in the making—its trajectory and ultimate contribution will depend
on the success with which we navigate the complexities of its introduction into the economy and
society.
Overall, AI satisfies the minimum requirements for a general purpose technology in its
pervasiveness, ongoing improvement, and ability to facilitate complementary innovations.
However for complete GPT potential, positive measures must be taken to provide inclusive access,
intelligent governance, and sustained investment in technology as well as in social infrastructure.
What are the emerging digital technologies and what are the
peculiarities of AI in this context? (34%)
New digital technologies encompass many innovations that are transforming economic activity,
social life, and institutional arrangements. Emerging digital technologies that include, among others,
blockchain, the Internet of Things (IoT), cloud computing, quantum computing, augmented and
virtual reality (AR/VR), and 5G networks. They are all played uniquely to the evolving digital world
but share features such as more reliance on information, more connectedness, and the ability to
automate or augment sets of human activities. Artificial Intelligence (AI), in this broader sense, has
a quite distinctive position due to its central role in enabling the functionality and interoperability of
a considerable number of other digital technologies.
One of the defining features of AI is its use as a predictive machine. Unlike blockchain, which
enables data integrity and decentralized trust, or IoT, which captures and forwards data from the
Appunti INE
7
physical world, AI recognizes and interprets data through recognizing patterns and delivering
predictions. This puts AI in the position of an integrative layer among digital technologies. For
example, in the IoT setup, sensors collect environmental or operating data, but it is AI that analyzes
the data to detect anomalies, optimize performance, or predict future states. Similarly, cloud
computing provides the platform for storing and computing data, while AI utilizes these features to
train and deploy models in bulk. In this sense, AI acts as a cognitive core that leverages the outputs
of other technologies to drive decision-making and automation.
Another peculiarity of AI within the context of emerging digital technologies is its combinatorial
potential. AI does not function in isolation; its value is often realized when combined with other
technologies. For instance, AI and 5G together enable real-time, data-intensive applications such
as autonomous vehicles or remote surgeries. AR/VR systems become more interactive and
responsive when powered by AI-based natural language processing or image detection. The
integration levels elevate the transformative capability of AI above what other technology with
lower functionalities can do.
AI further provides a level of complexity and flexibility that is not typically associated with other
digital technologies. While the majority of emerging technologies operate within pre-defined
parameters, AI systems, especially those that incorporate machine learning, can change and finetune themselves over time as they are exposed to larger and larger bodies of data. This automatic
learning capability allows AI to grow in unpredictable and uncontrollable ways, raising new
challenges regarding transparency, accountability, and governance. Other technologies can require
humans to tinker with them in order to modify or enhance, but AI can re-tune its outputs on its own
as inputs shift, leading to both valuable applications and unforeseen peril.
Finally, the social implications of AI are particularly relevant among digital technologies. Its capacity
to replicate and even surpass human intellectual functions has raised ethical issues of employment,
privacy, bias, and autonomy that are less pressing in other fields of technology. Blockchain can
disrupt financial systems and quantum computing can revolutionize encryption, but AI directly
addresses human values and social norms, so its regulation is especially critical.
In short, while AI is one member of a broader family of new digital technologies, its distinctive
features are in its ability for prediction, combination flexibility, adaptive learning, and deep societal
impact. Not only do these features distinguish AI from its digital brethren, but they also make AI a
central driver for determining the path and consequences of the digital revolution.
How does AI change the nature of knowledge? (43%)
Artificial Intelligence (AI) radically transforms the nature of knowledge by altering how it is
generated, legitimized, disseminated, and applied. Previously, knowledge has been inextricably
linked to human mind, experience, and organizational processes such as scientific research,
learning, and peer review. AI brings about a paradigm shift in the sense that it opens the door for
machines to search independently for patterns within humongous datasets and generate insights
that are not necessarily within the parameter of human thought. It brings a revolutionary effect on
epistemology—the study of knowledge—and disrupts conventional assumptions about what it
means to know something.
One of the most revolutionary shifts AI has brought about is the capacity to shift from causal to
correlational knowledge. Machine learning algorithms based on deep learning are great at
identifying high-level correlations and patterns of data without even understanding the causal
processes behind them. For example, an AI model can be good at predicting a disease from finegrained medical evidence correlations without offering a theoretical explanation. While this
Appunti INE
8
predictive power is valuable in use, it does raise the epistemic status of such knowledge into
question: Is it acceptable to forecast without comprehending? What if explanations are fuzzy or
nonexistent?
This leads us to the second revolutionary transformation: the onset of dark, counterintuitive
knowledge. AI systems are "black boxes," and they generate items that are humanly infeasible or
difficult to decode. In most cases, even the authors themselves cannot explicitly account for why a
model made a particular decision. This is a departure from classical explanations of knowledge as
justified true belief where reason transparency is needed for justification. Epistemic trust once
accorded to experts and procedures is now being accorded to statistical performance metrics and
testing against large populations, even in the absence of interpretability.
AI not only democritizes access to knowledge but also concentrates its creation. In a sense, AI
tools can democratize access to top-shelf analysis for non-technical people and lower barriers to
access in knowledge economies. On the other hand, the capability to design and optimize
sophisticated AI systems is sometimes concentrated within a cluster of institutions possessing
access to extreme computational power and insider knowledge. This two-way tendency turns
around who may produce knowledge and on what terms, perhaps reinforcing existing entrenched
epistemic power and economic asymmetries.
Furthermore, AI reorders temporality in the scenario of knowledge. Classical knowledge-making
processes are slow, involving lengthy testing, replication, and analysis. AI creates the process with
an accelerated speed, developing a capability for real-time thinking and iterative iteration. Whereas
the latter is beneficial to dynamic setups like financial markets or pandemic management, it has the
potential to miss needed reflective steps and result in a greater risk of mistakes or abuse.
Lastly, AI destroys the dichotomy between explicit and tacit knowledge. Human know-how is
generally composed of tacit elements—instincts or abilities hard to record. AI, through learning in
huge amounts of data, can reproduce or even excel at human capacity in such an area (e.g., image
recognition or translation from one language into another), effectively algorithmically representing
tacit knowledge. It not only puts to death the uniqueness of human intuition but also remakes how
knowledge is saved, traded, and accumulated throughout time.
In general, AI transforms the nature of knowledge by transforming it from explanation to prediction,
transparency to obfuscation, and human-initiated to machine-initiated processes. It offers avenues
to enhance epistemic abilities as well as challenges to ensure that knowledge is trustworthy,
accessible, and aligned with human values.
What is the effect of Gen AI for the creative industries? (34%)
Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen AI), such as models capable of generating novel material like
text, images, music, and video, is radically reconfiguring the creative economies. These sectors—
hitherto grounded in human expertise, artistic creativity, and cultural particularity—are presented
with an avalanche of algorithmic creativity that challenges traditional notions about authorship,
novelty, and human agency's contribution to the creation of art. While Gen AI opens up thrilling
possibilities for innovation and productivity, it also raises challenging questions of economic value,
ethical boundaries, and cultural authenticity.
One of the most immediate effects of Gen AI is democratizing creative production. Tools like GPT-4,
DALL·E, Midjourney, and RunwayML make it possible for even technically or artfully untrained
people to create content previously the exclusive domain of educated professionals. This lowers
the barriers to entry and enables more individuals to use creative expression. Hobbyists,
Appunti INE
9
independent creators, and small businesses can now create high-quality images, scripts, music, or
design ideas without needing access to expensive assets or proprietary know-how. Through this
manner, Gen AI expands the creative palette of tools and enables new forms of experimentation
and interdisciplinary collaboration.
However, this democratization also brings massive disruption into creative industries' labor
markets. Illustrators, designers, writers, and composers can observe some part of their work
getting automated or devalued, particularly for mundane, commercial, or time-sensitive tasks. For
instance, ad agencies can employ Gen AI to quickly prototype or post to social media, reducing
junior creatives' demand. Similarly, developers and publishers can use AI-generated assets to
speed up workflow, even replace freelance or entry-level work. Gen AI can assist human creativity
by eliminating drudgery or even providing inspiration, yet can replace human workers in a way that
challenges existing business models and professional self-conceptions.
Legally and ethically, Gen AI raises tough questions about intellectual property and authorship. A
great deal of the training data for generative models consists of copyrighted work, and that leads to
questions about whether AI-generated work violates the rights of the original creators. Moreover, if
an AI system generates a song or painting in the manner of a famous artist, is that homage,
plagiarism, or something else entirely? Existing legal frameworks tend to find it difficult to make
sense of these gray areas, and industry norms are still developing. This uncertainty will tend to be a
source of tension between tech developers, artists, and regulators, as the boundaries of creative
authorship are undermined.
Gen AI may have the potential to change society's perception of creativity and art. If computers can
mimic human styles or create entirely new styles, the originality and emotional depth traditionally
associated with human-generated art may be questioned. Critics fear AI-generated content will
over-saturate cultural markets with derivative or homogenized material diminishing artistic diversity
and authenticity. Others are convinced Gen AI has the capacity to induce new aesthetic movements
and cross-genre enrichments to the cultural landscape. Either position, however, the labor of
human curation, interpretation, and narrative is now more vital in distinguishing consequential
content from mere production.
In conclusion, Gen AI is transforming the creative economies with increased accessibility, economic
disruption, legal complexity, and cultural competition. Neither fully emancipatory nor blanketly
threatening, its impacts rather reframe the terms on which creativity is pursued, valued, and
understood. Managing this transition will require not only technological literacy but ethical thought
and policy innovation to ensure that creativity remains a richly human, diverse, and socially
embedded activity.
Infrastructure and Standards
Can you talk about the importance of standards and network
effects? (0%)
Under the digital economy, standards and network effects are at the very core of how and why
technologies and markets work and evolve. Standards facilitate compatibility and interoperability,
and network effects create value from increasing user populations. Together, they allow for the
architecture, competition, and innovation directions in networked markets to be established.
Standards are collectively agreed principles for design that allow independently created parts to
function together. They can be formal, as developed by standard-setting organizations such as the
Appunti INE
10
IEEE, or de facto, the consequence of widespread adoption of a specific technology. As Farrell and
Simcoe (2012) outline, there are four primary means to compatibility: decentralized adoption,
consensus in standard-setting organizations (SSOs), adoption of the leader's design, and technical
ones like converters or multi-homing. There are trade-offs in each method. For example,
decentralized competition in the marketplace can yield rapid take-up but is susceptible to
inefficiency through fragmentation or lock-in, while SSOs facilitate inclusiveness and coordination
but at the cost of slower decision-making.
Standards are a critical driver of creating interoperability value, enabling consumers to combine
and replace parts and reducing switching costs. Standards also lower the entry barrier for
companies since they define open technological interfaces, which induces specialization and richer
complement set of products and services. Standards of compatibility such as TCP/IP, according to
Greenstein (2020), are the basis of the Internet's ability to facilitate seamless data exchange and
service innovation in streaming, cloud computing, and web platforms.
Network effects amplify the importance of such standards. Direct network effects occur when the
value of the product increases with the user base; indirect ones occur when increasing a group of
users strengthens the value for another group, e.g., developers and users of an ecosystem of a
platform. Network effects will normally lead markets to "tip" in favor of an incumbent standard or
platform. However, as Simcoe and Watson (2019) highlight, real-world markets frequently consist of
persistent incompatibilities due to strategic behavior, varied tastes, or coordination failure. They
advance the concepts of forking, fragmentation, and splintering to explain when and how markets
may diverge despite network effects leading them to converge.
Forking happens when either companies or developers diverge away from a standard, usually for
pursuing different strategic agendas or technological paths, usually in the expense of backward
compatibility. Fragmentation happens when everyone desires a single standard but is unable to
decide on which one to support, leading to inefficiency and reduced adoption. Splintering happens
when a once single standard breaks down via localized fine-tuning or contentious implementations.
These incidents confirm that the existence of network effects in isolation will not guarantee
standard convergence or interoperability.
The economic impacts of standards and network effects extend to competition and innovation as
well. While compatibility can encourage competition by reducing entry barriers and enabling
consumers to switch providers more easily, it can reduce differentiation incentives too.
Incompatibility can yield monopoly outcomes or innovation gridlocks, though. Thus, firms need to
balance their private benefits—often linked with proprietary technologies—with coordination that
benefits the greater ecosystem.
Incentives to adopt and innovate, or to support adoption of standards, are shaped by a complex
interplay of strategic positioning, market structure, and institution support. Institutional actions,
such as antitrust policies against platform monopolies or open standards encouragement, can
become determinants in bringing private and social incentives into alignment.
Overall, standards and network effects are the pillars of infrastructure and dynamics of the digital
economy. They enable interoperability and generate value but also generate coordination issues
and strategic challenges. It is through interdependencies that both the success of integrated
platforms and the durability of incompatible, fragmented systems can be understood in
technologically interdependent markets.
Market with strong network effects should converge towards an
agreed standard, can you explain why that sometimes is not the
Appunti INE
11
case? (0%)
High-network-effect markets are generally believed to be converging toward a single dominant
standard because the value of an individual product or service would typically increase when more
users employ the same technology. As vivid as such a "tipping" effect is in information and
communication technologies, interoperability and compatibility being highly valued there, actually,
according to empirical evidence and as these theoretical expectations would lead one to expect,
such convergence doesn't necessarily occur. Several economic, strategic, and institutional factors
explain why.
One of the main reasons there is no convergence is because there are offsetting incentives across
actors. In most cases, firms have strong private incentives associated with progressing their
proprietary technologies, which can outweigh the advantages of accepting a common standard
because of coordination. Simcoe and Watson (2019) create a game-theoretic model to illustrate
how such trade-offs cause persistence in incompatibility. In their framework, firms derive an
individual advantage from using their most desirable technology and a coordination advantage from
compatibility with others. When the individual advantage exceeds the coordination advantage,
firms will rationally prefer being incompatible, leading to practices like forking or fragmentation.
Forking occurs when a firm deliberately diverges from an existing standard to create a variation that
suits its interest, typically at the expense of backward compatibility. This is a competitive tactic to
make things different, bind customers, or own a platform. For example, Google's forking of Java to
create Android—and Amazon's fork to create the Kindle Fire—shows how large firms can use
available standards to create a competitive advantage even if it introduces fragmentation to the
market.
Fragmentation, by contrast, arises not from conscious differentiation but from failure to coordinate.
Everyone may wish to move to a single standard but not agree upon one. This is often so during
periods of technological change or when various standards are being presented at the same time.
The Blu-ray/HD-DVD format war is a textbook example of the sort of thing that happens, where
competing coalitions were founded on conflicting technologies, hindering market convergence and
consumer adoption.
Splintering also makes it more difficult to standardize by introducing small, often accidental,
variations in implementations over time. They can be due to local adjustments, uneven upgrades, or
software platform evolution. While there is official consensus over a standard, its deployment can
vary quite substantially enough to annihilate interoperability, e.g., in the development of early web
browsers or cell phone messaging systems.
Institutional dynamics matter as well. The availability and structure of standard-setting
organizations (SSOs) can facilitate or hinder convergence. Whenever possible, SSOs can be slow,
bureaucratic, or susceptible to capture by incumbent firms, thus lessening their capacity to address
coordination challenges. Political or regional interests also might raise other barriers to international
standardization, especially in strategic sectors like telecommunications or cybersecurity.
Network effects in themselves can unevenly affect various firms, making them willing or unwilling
to embrace a shared standard. Incumbents with big sizes may be against compatibility where it
risks dislodging their competitive advantage, whereas entrants will support open standards to tap
existing networks. This asymmetry creates strategic incompatibility, with some players actively
resisting convergence to preserve market positions.
In summary, while network effects create powerful incentives for convergence, real-world markets
often do not tip towards a single standard due to strategic behavior, coordination failures,
Appunti INE
12
institutional susceptibility, and implementation divergences. These lessons point to the complex
interplay between economic incentives and technological interdependence in shaping the direction
of standard evolution in networked industries.
Can you describe the main issues around the geography of
internet infrastructure? (33%)
Geography of internet infrastructure is subject to a wide variety of technical, economic, and
political inputs that generate enormous digital access and skill inequalities across locations. While
the internet is a global and borderless phenomenon, its physical infrastructure-data centers, fiber
optic cables, IXPs, and cellular towers-accumulates unevenly, so connectivity, data transfers, and
digital economic development opportunities vary.
The most significant phenomenon is the geographical concentration of high-tech digital
infrastructure in certain world cities. Enormous cloud computing centers and enormous big data
centers are concentrated to a great degree in urban agglomerations in North America, Europe, and
East Asia, such as Northern Virginia, Frankfurt, and Singapore. They have economies of scale,
stable power supply systems, good climates for cooling, proximity to finance markets, and talent
pools. This agglomeration generates digital agglomeration effects in which services and firms
concentrate in well-networked areas, reaffirming existing places' dominance and marginalizing
others. Such unevenness raises valid concerns over digital inclusion and economic divergence.
Also, poor infrastructure areas face increased cost and decreased quality of internet provision,
further excluding their engagement in internet-based economic opportunities such as cloud
computing, e-commerce, or artificial intelligence. As Papadakis and Savona (2024) explained, such
geographical differences create a "digital divide" not only in access to internet-based services but
also in innovation potential and value extraction from digital technologies. This divide will likely
replicate existing socio-economic inequalities, consolidating them in the long term. The second
fundamental question is the geopolitics of data flows: data ownership, and control of underlying
infrastructure.
The location of cloud computing data centers decides data security and sovereignty. Lehdonvirta
et al. (2024) explain that the global expansion of US and Chinese firms' cloud data centers to thirdcountry markets builds novel "weaponized interdependence" systems. Similar to incumbent
players, they set up infrastructure to advance national strategic interests, a step host nations are
afraid would allow spying, protection of data, and economic dependence. Consequently,
governments have introduced data localization laws or called for sovereign cloud infrastructure,
creating even more fragmentation of the internet worldwide and deterring cross-border digital
trade. Sustainability environmental concerns are also becoming more salient in terms of internet
geography of infrastructure.
Data centers are huge facilities and they consume vast amounts of electricity and water,
particularly for cooling. The location where such facilities are set up increasingly considers
environmental and regulatory factors. Places that have renewable energy sources such as
Scandinavia's hydropower have emerged as viable locations for energy-hungry activities. This is a
quandary as far as the environment and issue of economic growth versus ecological footprint are
concerned. Public policy and private investment decision also influence the installation of
infrastructure. Telecoms and tech firms prefer to make infrastructure location decisions on the
basis of profitability and return on investment, leaving out poor or rural communities without quality
services. Public policy can bridge this gap using subsidies, public-private partnerships, and
Appunti INE
13
regulatory policies with rewards for the deployment of infrastructure in poor communities. Yet, such
attempts are beset with problems of cost, governance, and coordination.
In aggregate, the geography of internet infrastructure both reflects and amplifies overarching
disparities of access, economic opportunity, and political power. They must be tackled by a joint
combination of infrastructure investment, cross-border cooperation, and policy in favor of inclusive
and secure digital connectivity. The internet's geography is not a technical issue but a fundamental
aspect of economic and geopolitics planning for the internet era.
What are the economic features of infrastructure and what is their
implications for policy intervention (30%)
Infrastructure, and internet and digital network infrastructure in specific, has a number of specific
economic attributes that explain and govern the need for policy intervention. These include high
marginal and fixed costs, network effects, natural monopoly characteristics, public good attributes,
and the potential for positive externalities. Together, they create market failure or inefficiency that
the private sector would not necessarily address in full measure by itself, rendering infrastructure
strategically a high priority for public involvement.
Perhaps the most important feature of infrastructure is the cost structure. Internet infrastructure—
fiber-optic cable, data centers, undersea cables—is incredibly up-front intensive. Fixed costs such
as these are typically sunk costs, i.e., they can't be recovered if the project fails. Once
infrastructure is in place, however, the marginal cost of acquiring new customers is extremely low.
Such asymmetry hinders entry and disincentivizes competition in smaller or less lucrative markets.
Private firms, without policy action, will underinvest or circumvent some territories altogether,
exacerbating digital disparity.
This is strongly related to the tendency of infrastructure markets to be natural monopolies. As the
average price of the service decreases when more output is produced, it is possible that one firm
can deliver the service more efficiently than many competing firms. This is quite common in the
case of backbone internet services or broadband networks. Natural monopolies, on the other hand,
involve issues regarding pricing power, quality of service, and even innovation incentives. As
Greenstein (2020) indicates, in such cases, regulation is needed to prevent monopolistic
tendencies and ensure that providers of infrastructure operate in the public interest.
Network effects are another essential economic feature. When more users are brought onto a
network, its value increases for all parties. This is particularly the case online, where direct and
indirect network effects can give rise to explosive expansion and domination by certain platforms or
services. But network effects can also lead to market tipping and lock-in, in which a single
technology or supplier overwhelms others, potentially suffocating competition and innovation.
Policy intervention may be required in order to foster openness, suppress anticompetitive behavior,
and enable interoperability.
Infrastructure possesses public good characteristics and generates positive externalities. Not
necessarily non-rival or non-excludable, internet infrastructure has wide social and economic
benefits that are not necessarily appropriable by private investors. Illustration: universal broadband
can enhance education, health delivery, and entrepreneurship. Such wider social returns justify
governmental investment, subsidy, or regulation to provide infrastructure to under-served
communities where private provision is insufficient.
Besides, spillovers from the economic impact of infrastructure are substantial. Places with good
digital infrastructure will tend to be more attractive to investment, innovation ecosystems, and
Appunti INE
14
participation in the global digital economy. Multiplier effects reinforce the case for publicly initiated
policies for coordinating the roll-out of infrastructure with broader economic development goals.
For example, rural broadband investment directed towards places can help narrow the digital divide
and stimulate regional economies.
These traits in mind, policy intervention in infrastructure markets typically takes a few shapes.
Governments can invest directly or co-fund private projects under public-private partnerships.
They may also enforce universal service obligations, establish price regulation, or encourage open
access requirements to encourage competition and innovation. Strategic planning and coordination
at regional or national levels are also necessary to avoid duplication, encourage efficient resource
allocation, and render digital infrastructure aligned with social objectives.
Typically, the economic character of infrastructure—gigantic fixed costs, network externalities,
natural monopoly, and positive externalities—will create cases where market outcomes will be
other than socially optimal. Policy intervention not only becomes essential in order to rectify the
market failures, but also to extract the full potential of infrastructure as a spur for inclusive and
sustainable economic growth.
What are network effects and how are they relevant for standards
and infrastructure? (40%)
Network effects are the process whereby the value of a product, service, or platform increases as
more people use it. Network effects occur especially with digital and communications technologies,
in which interaction and interworking are intrinsic. Network effects are direct—such as in
telecommunication networks, where each additional user heightens others' capacity to
communicate—or indirect, such as in platform markets, where growth on one dimension (e.g.,
users) begets growth on the other (e.g., developers) and therefore positive feedback mechanisms.
For standards, network effects are significant because they amplify compatibility's benefits.
Standards are technical descriptions agreed upon formally or informally to enable interoperability
among components, systems, or services. If products are conformant to a standard, consumers
can communicate with one another easily, and complementary goods or services can coexist.
Interoperability increases the overall utility of the system, which has led to network effects
becoming a source of pressure on adopting standards. For instance, the success of USB or Wi-Fi
standards owes a great deal to the massive network effects created by widespread adoption and
device-to-device compatibility.
The theory of economics foretells that markets with network effects will "tip" — a phenomenon
whereby one standard or platform tips into dominance due to the fact that users cluster around it to
maximize personal utility. The larger the network, the more valuable it is, with higher-order returns
to adoption. But as Simcoe and Watson (2019) show, tipping is not certain. Self-interest,
coordination failure, and strategic behavior can lead to persistent fragmentation and incompatibility
even when there are strong network effects.
These relationships find network effects particularly relevant to infrastructure investments. Digital
infrastructure, that is, broadband networks, data centers, and cloud platforms, underpins digital
economies. Its value does not only depend on its technical quality but also on the number and
diversity of users connected to it. The more locations or companies connected to a high-speed
network, say, the greater the benefits to all players through shared data, services, and digital
platforms.
Appunti INE
15
Network effects also provide strong incentives for firms to extend infrastructure and tie in
customers. This can benefit when it accelerates technology diffusion and reduces costs. But it can
also be a source of monopolistic tendencies, where dominant firms use their position to smother
interoperability or exclude others. This tension occurs in platform standard and proprietary
technology wars, where firms will resist open standards to maintain control over their ecosystems.
Policy intervention may be required in order to reap the benefits of network effects without
suffering their downsides. Governments and regulators prefer setting or sanctioning standards,
particularly in industries where interoperability matters most, like telecommunications, transport,
and digital money. Promoting open standards and preventing unfair access to infrastructure, public
policy can avoid market fragmentation and see that network effects benefit society as a whole.
Besides, network effects influence investment decisions in infrastructure. Providers of
infrastructure must consider not just the initial set of users but also the extent of network extension
as well as externalities connected with it. This is especially true in less developed or rural areas,
where the initial set of users may be small but the social as well as economic value of connectivity
is significant. Universal service obligations or public subsidies may then be necessary in order to
maximize the potential benefits of network effects in such cases.
Briefly, network effects increase the worth of connectivity and standardization, resulting in
convergence and innovation for digital markets. Their presence underscores the importance of
interoperable standards and inclusive infrastructure policies so as to attain maximum collective
benefits and ensure equitable access in the digital economy.
Please briefly discuss the economic theory around standards and
the reasons why these may not always emerge (29%)
Economic theory predicts that in network effects markets, there is a compelling temptation to adopt
standard forms because it maximizes the overall value of the network. Standard facilitates
compatibility and interoperability between parts, platforms, or services and therefore facilitates
agents communicating, exchanging information, and having the ability to access more
complementary goods. The corresponding benefits are lower transaction costs, increased
competition among producers of compatible goods, and increased innovation due to modularity
and specialization.
The theoretical work is grounded on increasing returns models and coordination games. The
previous work by Katz and Shapiro (1985) and Farrell and Saloner (1986) demonstrates that when
there are network effects, the value of a standard increases with more users of the standard. As
more and more individuals or firms standardize to a single standard, marginal adoption advantage
rises, pushing the market to a dominant equilibrium. This is referred to as "market tipping." With a
frictionless world and perfect information, rational agents would standardize to the most productive
or most popular standard automatically, yielding optimal outcomes.
But in practice, markets never reach such convergence, and multiple incompatible standards can
coexist for an extended period. Simcoe and Watson (2019) elucidate such disconnection by
explaining such situations with constructs like forking, fragmentation, and splintering—various
types of coordination failures. These are caused by private vs. collective benefit asymmetries,
strategic behavior, and institutional inefficiencies.
Forking is when a firm departs from a uniform standard to create its own version, which can be
because of strategic or proprietary reasons. A firm can ignore the benefit of being compatible for
the system as a whole if it prefers control of its ecosystem or the ability to generate rents on
Appunti INE
16
proprietary complements. As an example, Google's Java modification to develop Android is a
shining instance of forking that led to more fragmentation in the market of mobile operating
systems.
Fragmentation occurs when everybody desires convergence but nobody can decide whose
standard to adopt. This is likely to occur when technology change, several competing solutions
emerge concurrently, and nobody reaches critical mass. An example is the Blu-ray versus HD-DVD
format war whereby uncertainty and competitive marketing created market delay and customer
confusion before one standard emerged victorious.
Splintering refers to divergence of implementations even where a standard has been adopted
nominally. This could be as a result of local evolutions, uneven enforcement, or attempts to
optimize the standard to fit into local conditions. Divergence undermines the original intent of the
standard and reduces its value, especially for international networks where uniformity is required.
Other challenges to standardization include intellectual property conflicts, in which technologies
that are essential to the standard are patented and various stakeholders cannot agree on licensing
terms. Governance issues in SSOs may also choke or politicize the process, preventing the
accomplishment of timely and broadly agreed-on agreements.
Moreover, economic actors may resist standards if compatibility threatens their competitive edge.
Incumbent leaders with big incumbent firms may choose proprietary ecosystems to secure user
lock-in and complementor dominance. New entrants may employ open standards to access the
incumbent's user base and generate strategic tension instead.
Overall, although economic theory identifies firm incentives towards traditional convergence in
network markets, realized dynamics like strategic agendas, coordination problems, institutional
barriers, and asymmetries in benefits distribution normally prevent efficient levels. These instances
highlight conscious governance, bargaining, and sometimes policy intervention in managing the
establishment and adoption of standards.
What are the economic arugments why standards should prevail
in the market? (8%)
Economic explanations of the prevalence and ubiquity of standards in markets rely principally on
their ability to enhance efficiency, drive competition, and induce innovation, especially in those
markets where they are vulnerable to network effects and technology-driven interdependence.
Standards are devices for coordination which remove uncertainty, enable interoperability, and are
the foundation of high-complexity product and services ecosystems. Their application will likely
generate significant welfare gains to producers and consumers.
The strongest economic argument in favor of standards is that standards encourage compatibility,
which is crucial in markets with network effects. Whereby the worth of the product rises with each
additional user who is using the same or related technologies. A shared standard allows users to
interact, exchange information, or combine devices and services easily. This interoperability
expands the size of functioning networks, making individual users' contributions more precious. As
Katz and Shapiro (1985) illustrate, these positive feedback mechanisms can propel increased
adoption and collective effectiveness in markets that otherwise collapse into incompatible systems.
Standards lower the cost of production and transaction as well. For firms, standardized parts
simplify manufacturing, reduce the complexity of inventory, and enable modular design of
products. They reduce switching and search costs to consumers by making different products and
services compatible. This compatibility frees consumers to choose from multiple vendors, thus
Appunti INE
17
promoting competition and avoiding vendor lock-in. For example, universal adoption of Wi-Fi
standards allowed consumers to choose routers, laptops, and smartphones from different
manufacturers while sparking price wars and feature upgrades simultaneously.
Another economic argument well grounded is that standards spur innovation through specialization
and division of labor. Once fundamental competence is assured, firms can specialize in designing
complementary products, extending the functionality of products, or innovating upon the basis of a
specific technological platform. This pattern of layered innovation is most easily seen in the
development of the internet, in which open protocols like TCP/IP provided a firm foundation on
which to build an enormous variety of services and business models.
Further, standards can speed up market development. Uncertainty regarding which technology is to
prevail in new markets can deter investment and adoption. A clear standard, either de facto
(through market leadership) or de jure (through consensus in standard-setting bodies), provides
guidance and precludes investment risk in stranded assets. Consumers and producers are
therefore more willing to invest in the market and hence drive its growth and development.
Standard adoption also generates beneficial externalities that will tend to be undersupplied by
uncoordinated markets. For instance, standardization of health IT or electronic payment systems
not only benefits users directly, but enhances social welfare by providing better access, fewer
mistakes, and more efficient sectors.
While these benefits hold, standards do not always emerge as a natural outcome of coordination
failures, strategic action, or conflicting interests. Nevertheless, the underlying economic rationale
for standards resides in their capacity to coordinate incentives and maximize bilateral surplus in
networked environments. They create stable environments that render scale, competition, and
technical progress possible.
In short, economically, standards have to be king since they enhance compatibility, reduce costs,
force innovation, and facilitate the smooth operation of complex markets. Standards form part of
the infrastructure and dynamics of the digital economy today where connectivity, interoperability,
and collaboration between platforms are not just improved but required.
Can you discuss different models explaining why standards do not
always prevail in markets? (43%)
While economic theory would lead us to expect that markets with strong network effects should
settle on a shared standard for efficiency and coordination benefit reasons, real-world markets are
very frequently ones that are characterized by fragmentation and incompatibility. Various models
have been proposed to explain the inability of standards to emerge, highlighting issues of
coordination failure, strategic behavior, asymmetric incentives, and institutional frictions.
One foundation is the coordination game framework, and in particular the "battle of the sexes" and
"stag hunt" metaphors used by Katz and Shapiro (1985) and Farrell and Saloner (1986). These
frameworks illustrate that even if a common standard is in the best interests of all players, they may
be unable to coordinate due to uncertainty regarding what others will do, or conflict regarding
which standard to adopt. The market may then become locked into a lesser equilibrium, where
multiple incompatible standards coexist side by side. This kind of fragmentation can delay
adoption, increase costs, and reduce network value.
Simcoe and Watson (2019) refine this model by defining three alternative types of coordination
failure: forking, fragmentation, and splintering. Forking occurs when an actor explicitly breaks
compatibility to create its own version of a technology, typically for strategic reasons. In their
Appunti INE
18
game-theoretic model, this amounts to having asymmetric coordination benefits, whereby one
player captures private benefits from incompatibility (e.g., market control, differentiation, or IP
licensing). This incentive misalignment means that even though users would be better off under
compatibility, incumbent companies may prefer to sponsor their own proprietary standards in order
to lock in their market dominance.
Fragmentation, in contrast, arises when everyone favors standardization but disagrees on the
standard to be adopted. Here, players share comparable coordination gains but divergent tastes
owing to vested interests, sunk investments, or installed user bases. The case is a multi-equilibrium
game in which coordination is feasible yet hard to realize. One classic real-world illustration is the
format battle between Blu-ray and HD-DVD, in which rival consortia endorsed dissimilar
technologies, eventually perplexing customers and postponing the spread of high-definition media.
Splintering characterizes those instances in which a standard does at first exist but, over time,
diverges into a number of partially compatible variants. This can be caused by inconsistent
implementation, local adaptations, or versioning strategies. While not necessarily driven by
strategic motives, splintering reduces the value of a standard by introducing incompatibilities over
time. It is not unusual in software development, for instance, for multiple versions of what is
nominally a shared standard to evolve independently, reducing interoperability.
A second set of models emphasizes the role of market power and strategic manipulation. Firms can
actively resist standards if they believe compatibility will reduce their competitive advantage.
Incumbents, in particular, can avoid open standards to preserve user lock-in and control of
complementary markets. Entrants, conversely, can favor interoperability to gain access to the
incumbent's installed base. These asymmetries create strategic tensions that work against
standard convergence, especially when private returns of exclusivity exceed collective payoffs of
compatibility.
Institutional and governance frameworks also explain failures to reach agreement on standards.
SSOs can be slow-moving, politicized, or captured by vested interests, and thus incapable of
reaching timely or effective agreement. Furthermore, variations in regulatory regimes across
countries can deter the adoption of international standards, leading to regionally balkanized digital
ecosystems.
In conclusion, while standards yield evident economic benefits, their emergence and persistence
are consistently threatened by coordination problems, strategic interests, and institutional
constraints. These models explain why real markets routinely fall short of the idealized outcomes
predicted by standard economic theory.
What are the benefits of standards, from a policy maker point of
view? (25%)
From the policy maker's perspective, adoption and diffusion of standards offer numerous
economic, social, and strategic benefits. Standards play an important role in fostering compatibility,
harmonizing markets, inducing innovation, and enhancing inclusiveness. All of these functions map
directly to public policy objectives such as economic efficiency, equitable access, consumer
protection, and national competitiveness. As such, policymakers are likely to support
standardization activity through regulation, coordination, and investment.
One of the primary strengths of standards is that they allow interoperability, which is necessary to
reduce transaction costs and enable different systems, devices, or services to play together in
harmony. This compatibility is vital to build sophisticated ecosystems such as the internet,
Appunti INE
19
telecommunication networks, or payment systems. Interoperability increases customer choice,
constrains lock-in, and allows strong competition by making it easier for new players to join on an
equal basis. To policymakers, they help ensure dynamic and contestable markets, a prerequisite to
innovation and consumer welfare.
Standards also promote economies of scale and prevent duplicative effort. When producers
collaborate on a standard specification, they are able to achieve cost savings in manufacturing,
design, and distribution. These cost savings are particularly precious in industries that involve
costly infrastructure investment, for example, telecommunications, where investment in
interoperability and backward compatibility prevents the industry from duplicative systems. Policywise, these efficiencies free up resources that can be reassigned to public goods or innovation.
Another benefit is the capacity of standards to speed up technology diffusion. In high-innovation
sectors, uncertainty on what technology will dominate may inhibit investment and adoption.
Government policymakers can avoid this risk through sanctioning or requiring standards, thus
clarifying and stabilizing producers and consumers. This form of regulatory intervention has been
critical in areas like mobile telephony (e.g., GSM, LTE) and digital broadcasting, where common
standards allowed for rapid growth of infrastructure and services.
Standards also generate positive externalities that can be underproduced by the market without
governmental coordination. For example, standardized health information systems improve data
exchange and healthcare delivery services, while interoperability for emergency communication
systems enhances public security. In these cases, social gains through standardization are greater
than private rewards and justify public intervention. Policymakers thus become involved to ensure
that socially beneficial standards are developed and enforced, particularly in those circumstances
where market coordination alone would be improbable.
In addition, standards can be used to the advantage of industrial and innovation policy by guiding
the direction of technological development. By the choice of what technologies to standardize,
governments are able to steer innovation into policy directions overall, such as environmental
sustainability, digital inclusion, or national security. This is especially appealing for new
technologies like AI, IoT, or quantum computing, where an early start to standardization can frame
global competitive realities.
At the global level, standards have geostrategic significance for trade and geopolitical power.
Technological preferences can be implanted into world markets by standard-setting leaders such
as inserting a competitive edge for domestic industries and reinforcing regulatory autonomy.
Membership in international standardization organizations also provides a vehicle for soft power
and diplomatic participation. Policymakers thus see standards as a means of shaping the rules of
the global digital economy.
In conclusion, standards have many benefits that policymakers get to enjoy through making
economic systems efficient, inclusive, and secure. Standards reduce market frictions, increase
innovation, and harmonize private incentives and public goals. All these are the reasons why
standards are not only technical tools but policy tools that have to be regulated prudently as well as
in cooperation with other nations.
Digital and Intangible assets
Can you explain the concept of digital non-rivalry and its
implications for marginal vs sunk costs? (32%)
Appunti INE
20
Digital non-rivalry is a typical feature of intangible capital and digital commodities. It refers to the
phenomenon that a digital good can be enjoyed by multiple agents simultaneously without
diminishing any of its value or usability for other agents. This type of feature fundamentally
transforms the economic framework of digital commodity and service costs, turning the
conventional notions of marginal and sunk costs on their heads.
Rivalrous is the character of classic economic commodities—once they are experienced by one
party, they cannot be experienced by others. Digital goods such as software, databases, or
algorithms, on the other hand, can be duplicated and used in various locations and uses without
deteriorating. According to Crouzet et al. (2022), intangibles are "non-rival in use," i.e., they can be
used as inputs to different production processes at once. This creates the potential for economies
of scale, where an individual investment in an intangible asset like a search algorithm or list of
customers can generate benefits across numerous different business units, markets, or even firms.
The economic implication of the non-rivalry is a cost structure with high fixed or sunk costs and
very low marginal costs. To produce the initial copy of a digital good typically involves a significant
investment in research, design, coding, or creative work. These are sunk costs: costs that cannot
be recovered once incurred, such as the upfront cost of creating a software platform or training a
machine learning model. However, once the intangible asset has been created, making copies and
distributing them is essentially free. The marginal cost—the expense of producing one additional
copy or serving an additional user—is zero. This is just the opposite of traditional manufacturing,
where extra units of output carry a positive and often sizable marginal cost.
Brynjolfsson et al. (2020) point out that these cost trends create new strategic implications.
Companies competing in digital markets tend to compete on scale and market leadership since
increasing the number of customers served does not add much in terms of cost. This encourages
early and big investments to create a leadership position and leverage on the scale benefits made
possible by non-rivalry. But this also carries the risk of sunk cost risk: if the investment is not
financing an enduring competitive advantage, the entire up-front cost may be lost, since the asset's
value cannot be recovered in secondary markets.
Corrado et al. (2022) also demonstrate that intangible investments are likely to be challenging to
categorize under standard accounting frameworks, thus making it harder for policymakers and
firms to evaluate their economic significance. In their view, a wide range of intangibles—software
and branding, organizational capital, etc.—has high sunk costs and low marginal costs. These
characteristics call for a re-evaluation of investment incentives and market forces, especially with
regards to how firms create and sustain value.
The two-faced character of digital non-rivalry—its scope for scale at almost-zero marginal costs,
coupled with risky, high sunk costs—means that digital and intangible-intensive sectors are prone
to winner-takes-most conditions. Firms must balance the convenience of mass use and copying of
digital content with the difficulty of capturing their full economic value, especially in property rights
regimes with poor enforcement or intense competition. This paradigm shift challenges traditional
economic frameworks and demands new frameworks for understanding investment conduct,
prices, and rivalry in the digital age.
Intangible (and digital) assets are characterised by large
econoimes of scale. Can you name and discuss the main drivers
of these? (36%)
Appunti INE
21
Intangibles and digital assets are characterized by huge economies of scale, and this simply implies
that the greater the amount produced, the lower the average unit cost. This is basically due to the
unique features of these assets—i.e., their non-rivalry, high marginal costs relative to fixed costs,
and potential for intensive and intensive repetition of use. Several interdependent drivers exist
behind the huge economies of scale associated with intangible-intensive sectors.
A prime motivation is the sunk or fixed cost of creating intangible assets. Composing software,
instructing AI algorithms, designing digital platforms, or building organizational processes usually
involves placing substantial upfront effort, knowledge, and time. But, having been created, they can
be reused over and over again at low or zero additional expense. This cost asymmetry suggests
that the larger the number of units or users across whom a company can spread such fixed costs,
the lower the average cost. For example, such a firm as Microsoft will incur high up-front costs in
developing an operating system but selling it to millions of users will effectively cost little or
nothing.
Linked with this is the feature of non-rivalry in consumption, as described by Crouzet et al. (2022).
Non-physical assets such as algorithms, databases, or brand value can be used across multiple
lines of production, users, or geographies without depletion. The same algorithm applied to search
results in a given place can be applied to another, or the same marketing strategy can service a
brand in numerous markets. It allows businesses to produce more without proportionally increasing
input, while providing significant cost advantages when size is increased.
Network effects are another significant catalyst, particularly relevant for online platforms. A
network effect occurs when an increase in the number of users increases the value of a good or
service. In a place like Facebook or Google, more users bring in more content or advertisers, and
this increases utility to everyone. These effects create a self-reinforcing mechanism by which scale
begets further scale, increasing the cost advantages of big players and diminishing the ability for
others to join in. Brynjolfsson et al. (2020) note that network effects, combined with intangible
asset scalability, lead to winner-takes-most market structures common in digital industries.
Data accumulation and recycling also generate economies of scale. Digital firms typically generate
and accumulate large reservoirs of user data, which are subsequently utilized for enhancing
products, training machine learning models, or enhancing business strategies. The marginal
expense of additional data diminishes as scale increases, and the extracted information becomes
increasingly more valuable. As Corrado et al. (2022) emphasize, data-driven decision-making and
AI applications complement the productivity of intangible goods, thereby driving returns to scale
even greater.
Organizational capital and codified knowledge such as management practices or business
processes also come into play. Best practices being well established, they can be replicated
repeatedly across units, regions, or subsidiaries. The capability to codify and diffuse enables firms
to scale up without proportionally increasing managerial or operational costs. Amazon and Apple
are examples of firms that illustrate this through standardised customer service and logistics
processes.
Briefly put, the spectacular economies of scale of intangible and digital assets arise from high sunk
costs, low marginal costs, non-rivalry of use, network effects, learning from data, and imitable
organizational practices. These drivers reinforce one another, enabling leader firms to grow rapidly
and often foreclosing on small competitors' prospects of competing on cost, scope, or
performance.
Appunti INE
22
Can you discuss the concept of intellectual monopoly and how
this can be applied to global value chains? (45%)
The concept of intellectual monopoly is the concentration of market power in firms with control
over key intangible assets, namely intellectual property in the form of patents, proprietary
technology, algorithms, trademarks, and brands. Unlike traditional monopolies based on control
over scarce physical resources, intellectual monopolies derive their power from legally enforceable
or strategically maintained exclusivity over knowledge-based inputs. This control allows them to
capture rents, shape market forces, and exercise strategic influence beyond their immediate
industry. As applied to global value chains (GVCs), the theory of intellectual monopoly helps to
explain the governance of value and power across different stages and actors in the global
economy.
Global value chain production is fragmented and dispersed across countries, yet the value is not
shared equally. Firms at the upstream or downstream ends of GVCs—those that create or possess
design, technology, and brands—have a tendency to appropriate a disproportionate share of the
economic gains. These firms are probably intellectual monopolists. For example, tech firms like
Apple, Microsoft, or Alphabet invest huge amounts in intangible investments in propriety operating
systems, user interfaces, and ecosystems of applications and services. It is not their ownership of
physical inputs, generally outsourced, but their ownership of intellectual inputs that shape and
organize the overall product offer.
Corrado et al. (2022) point out that intangible capital—especially if protected by intellectual
property rights—generates quasi-monopoly rents, as such assets are difficult to replicate and can
be used repeatedly across production processes and markets. Once a company has developed a
successful software platform or created a strong brand, it is feasible for it to take over a market
segment globally, utilizing contract manufacturers, suppliers, and logistics providers in lower-cost
environments to carry out the physical tasks. This constitutes a hierarchical structure in GVCs
where intellectual monopolists at the apex reap better profits while companies downstream are
exposed to competition and lower margins.
Intellectual monopoly imposition on GVCs is most pronounced in sectors such as electronics,
pharmaceuticals, and branded consumer goods. In electronics, firms such as Qualcomm or ARM do
not make chips but own the architectures and licenses that other makers pay to use. In
pharmaceuticals, intellectual monopolies are created through patents on drug molecules, which
allow firms to subcontract production without compromising control over pricing. In fashion and
luxury goods, brands like Louis Vuitton or Nike license their products to manufacturers while
collecting rents on the cultural and symbolic value attached to their trademarks.
Brynjolfsson et al. (2020) and Mateos-Garcia (2018) also highlight the ways digital platforms, by
controlling data, algorithms, and user networks, are intellectual monopolists. These platforms
impose conditions of engagement on businesses and users across the globe, where they often
have control over visibility, access, and monetization. They cut across borders, thus becoming hub
nodes in digital GVCs.
This framework has significant implications for global development and inequality. Countries
specializing in low-value-added stages of production may not capture the benefits of global trade
unless they develop competences in intangible asset creation. R&D support policies, education, and
institutional promotion of innovation are therefore crucial to counter the dominance of intellectual
monopolies and enable more equitable participation in global value chains.
Appunti INE
23
In effect, intellectual monopoly in GVCs reshapes traditional trade relations by consolidating value
in the hands of knowledge and innovation controllers, rather than physical producers. This offers an
explanation for recent patterns in economic hegemony, market concentration, and inequality in the
global economy.
The value of data
Is data an asset, labour, or intellectual property? (0%)
Data has a precarious place in the digital economy, in which its character and status as an
economic actor resist straightforward classification. Data is argued simultaneously to be a capital
asset, labour, and intellectual property. Each position reveals different assumptions regarding value
creation, value capture, and potential redistribution in the data economy. Seeing data as an asset
aligns with corporate accounting practice and innovation literature prevailing at the time and
particularly in the intangible capital paradigm. Businesses continually spend on data infrastructure,
analytics ability, and storage technology as part of knowledge-based capital. It is endorsed by
national accounting rules, such as the Oslo Manual, which categorize data under intangibles along
with R\&D, design, and software. In this perspective, data is capitalized into the stock of capital,
fueling the firm's productivity and competitiveness by being embedded into machine learning
systems, predictive models, and customer knowledge. Capitalization of data, however, sidesteps
where data originates and where individuals who create data through their online behaviors and
communications are.
Another understanding of data perceives it as labor. This articulation accentuates that the raw
material of the data economy—specifically personal data—is co-created by individuals,
inadvertently and without compensation. While workers are paid for their contributions to
production through labor, proponents argue that individuals who create data, especially in platforms
whose business model is data monetization from user activity, should have some entitlement to
compensation. This doctrine guides data dividends, platform cooperatives, or wage premiums in
data-intensive careers. The idea is to recognize the generative work of data creation as digital
labor, raising significant questions about fairness, ownership, and the requirement of redistribution.
Working through this model, however, is challenging, among other reasons because it is hard to
assign specific economic value to individual data contributions, and data is non-rivalrous, that is, it
can be reused without being exhausted.
A third line of thought sees data as intellectual property, potentially licensable and protected by
similar legal frameworks to patents or copyrights. This individual rights framework is individualistic
in its focus on individual rights to data and sets it out as one's property based on who owned it. In
such a scheme, information could be licensed to firms in return for compensation, with legal
frameworks ensuring that consumers retain some level of control over how their information is
used. While potentially empowering individuals and enforcing privacy, this approach has
fundamental problems with enforcement, data interoperability, and the cost of transactional data
licensing by and for individuals.
Underlying these perceptions are more fundamental questions regarding the economic nature of
information. Data is typically non-rival and best only partially excludable, depending on legal and
technical regimes. Data generates externalities—positive where exchanged among systems in
order to improve outcomes, negative where exploited to intrude into privacy. Such features tend to
make market-based approaches less straightforward and necessitate policy interventions so that
data value is not captured in the hands of a few powerful firms. As shown by Savona and others,
Appunti INE
24
the current regime of data expropriation by platforms is a barter of sorts: users surrender personal
data for free services without visible remuneration or valuation. Therefore, when data is most
usefully conceived as asset, labour, or IP, it is precisely not an issue of moral, political, or
theoretical decision, but of normative and political choice concerning justice, redistribution, and
domination of the digital economy.
How can the value of data measured? Discuss the weaknesses
and strenghts of the different approahces (0%)
The value of data can be approximated using various techniques, which can broadly be
categorized under market-based, cost-based, and non-market-based approaches. All of them
provide incomplete deductions based on implicit assumptions about data's position in economic
activity, yet all are subject to very severe constraints under the distinctive nature of data as a nonrival, partially excludable, and context-dependent asset.
Market-based techniques include income-based and stock-market valuations. Income-based
valuations determine the value of information by approximating the current and prospective income
streams it can generate. It is a common practice in corporate finance used to value intangible
assets. It is a restricted method since it measures merely some economic benefits. It tends to
overlook externalities and indirect benefits like more efficient decision-making, customer
satisfaction, or improved efficiency that are not necessarily likely to be reflected in revenues.
Moreover, market prices rarely capture the full option value of data, i.e., the future, unanticipatable
uses that might create significant value. Stock-market valuations indicate the performance of
companies that are well-equipped for data, relative to the company's peers. For instance, datacentric companies tend to have larger market capitalizations. While this approach is a sign of how
investors value data-driven skills, it counts data as part of other assets special to a company and
strategic advantages, making the raw value of the data unseparable.
Cost-based approaches try estimating value by measuring costs in procuring, cleaning, storing,
and maintaining data. It is widely used within national accounting frameworks where cost of
preparation of data for use, particularly labor and capital inputs, is recorded. Its strength is that it is
transparent and linked to observable statistics, but it does not value the worth that data can
generate when utilized. It also overlooks the fact that reuse of data has almost zero marginal cost,
meaning that the cost of creating data is not necessarily indicative of its utility or value when
utilized. Furthermore, the most valuable data (e.g., user-generated data) may be collected passively
or cheaply but can create substantial economic returns, especially when consolidated and
analyzed with machine learning algorithms.
Non-market methods attempt to measure social and economic impacts that are not visible through
outright transactions. Contingent valuation methods, for example, ask users how much they would
pay to make use of data or how much they would accept to give up their data. These methods
present an image of data's perceived value based on the user's perspective. They have been used
to put values on public information such as transport or environmental information, which guide
social planning, innovation, and business development. These methods are, nevertheless, prone to
hypothetical bias: individuals may not provide true valuations in survey settings. Additionally,
individuals tend to under- or overestimate their personal data due to ignorance or privacy concerns,
and willingness-to-pay does not necessarily correspond to economic utility.
Another form of non-market valuation is the analysis of public benefits from open data. For
example, Transport for London's open data creates an estimated millions of value by making new
apps possible, reducing congestion, and improving user information. While indicative of the social
Appunti INE
25
value of data, these approaches are based on individual cases and difficult to extrapolate
elsewhere. They also depend on counterfactual assumptions (i.e., what happens without data),
which are hypothetical.
Lastly, each method to value data measurement speaks to unique dimensions—monetary,
information, and social—but remains incomplete on its own. Market methods are based on actual
transactions but miss systemic impacts. Cost methods offer responsibility but miss use value. Nonmarket approaches identify externalities but suffer from subjectivity and methodological difficulty.
As both the Savona and Bennett Institute reports emphasize, an integrated valuation framework
must combine these approaches, acknowledge data's unique economic attributes, and be guided
by policy goals that balance efficiency, fairness, and anonymity.
What is, in your opinion, the main policy challenge concerning the
value of data? (9%)
The key policy challenge with regard to the value of data is that the redistribution of data-driven
value should create balance between economic efficiency, equity, and people's rights. As data
drives innovation, productivity, and business models with increasing vigor in the digital economy,
benefits arising from it are still in the hands of a few large platform firms. This concentration is not
merely a market outcome but a reflection of structural disparities between bargaining capacity,
infrastructure ownership, and the capability to process and extract value out of data. Policymakers
are therefore confronted with the dual challenge of enabling data-led growth while enabling
individuals and societies as a whole to benefit from their participation in the data economy.
One of the most basic issues is the asymmetry of the prevailing model of data appropriation.
Individuals, as consumers or workers, generate huge volumes of information with their movements
on the digital platform and devices. They hardly enjoy any of the value derived from these
information, which are monetized by businesses that reap, store, and process them. This existing
exchange—data for "free" internet services—has been described as a barter economy, but it is a
one with terms that are highly skewed in the direction of businesses. Users generally have no
notion of the ways that they are leveraging their data and even less ability to control or opt out.
Normative issues of equity, agency, and digital rights are presented by this on a policy basis.
The second key challenge lies in the lack of a single method of valuing and accounting for data. As
the literature has described, data is an excludable but partially rival good that generates
externalities—positive as well as negative. This complicates the use of traditional market-based
valuation methods, and by tax systems, accounting standards, and competition authorities in being
able to respond suitably to the economic contribution of data. Lacking reliable metrics,
policymakers struggle to quantify value flows in the data economy and craft interventions—taxing
or licensing—against real contributions and costs. For instance, while firms spend huge sums on
data analysis infrastructure, the underlying data often has its origin in external, uncompensated
sources: consumers, public bodies, or partner firms.
Attempts to regulate this landscape must also navigate nettlesome questions of data ownership and
control. Giving rights of ownership to citizens over their own personal information can appear to be
a method towards redistribution but raises technical and legal issues, particularly when data is
relationally or co-produced by numerous actors. There could also be a replication of inequalities if
less affluent individuals are able to sell their data on inferior terms. Redistributive models should
therefore guarantee that they do not make data rights a new axis of commodification.
The discussion has thus shifted to other models such as data trusts, collective bargaining over data
rights, or public commons of data. These aim to create institutional forms that redistribute value,
Appunti INE
26
but safeguard public interest and privacy. However, operationalizing these models requires not only
legal innovation but also political consensus and infrastructure. The risk is that incremental
regulatory measures could further entrench data monopolies by creating level compliance burdens
that only the leading firms can afford.
Finally, the basic challenge is to recast the governance of data in a way that democratizes its value.
This involves creating policies that make data open to a broader range of actors so that people
remain in meaningful agency and are rewarded from the data they produce. Bridging this
disconnect between value creation and value distribution is the central challenge for data policy in
the digital age.
Appunti INE
27