[governance] reality check on economics

[Guru गुरु]

On 20/05/12 06:44, Avri Doria wrote:
> On 18 May 2012, at 12:51, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> But if these markets are competitive then no one is requiring consumers to use those online businesses, no? So we are back to the problem of monopoly
> Certainly in many of the American and European countries people have a choice (i hate thinking of people as consumers - as it signifies that their role as part of so called market is their only relevance).  But i have been given to understand, and my knowledge is second hand because I have not researched it myself, that in many areas in Asia and Africa, and perhaps some in the Americas and Europe, large parts of the population are captive of one company or another, i.e some of these companies get local monopoly, for some definition of local.
>
> The question i have then, beyond the regional/local problem of countries etc that allow such local capture, is there a global way to help with this.  I think there may be, and thus it is worth discussing.  Except for a very few companies, and these rather incompletely, most companies do not make social ethics a high priority and thus will take market power whenever they can, by whatever means they can get it.  Unfortunately, it is only regulatory frameworks that stop most companies from this sort of behavior.  So what can be done at a global level to keep local/regional monopolies from happening.
>
> avri
>
Avri,

I think you have begun a useful thread of thought - the need for global 
regulation of business. This is an extension of the national regulation 
of business, to a global space as the Internet, and much required. The 
lack of global regulation has led to so many abuses of market power and 
political power.

My question for you is - in the processes of framing national 
regulation, would you have the concerned companies "on an equal footing" 
as with the other stakeholders, wherein a verizon or google can veto any 
definition of net neutrality other than theirs. Or is it that each 
stakeholder group has an important yet distinct role  - and that of 
business is certainly to forward arguments for their practices and 
provide any expertise... but business given their very nature/need to 
maximise their shareholder wealth cannot be expected to protect public 
interest or 'make social ethics their priority' as you put it. What is 
the implication of this for defining the nature of MSH?

You must be familiar with the ALEC lobbying efforts in USA, and the 
impact on US regulation in the past few years. How can we ensure 
regulation/policy making to be based on negotiation of perceptions of 
public interest? What would be the implications of allowing powerful 
corporates 'equal place' at the policy table? How would it work?

regards
Guru


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t