Search results

The European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) calls for far-reaching changes to the way economic activity will occur in EU digital markets. Before its remedies are imposed, it is critical to assess their impacts on individual markets, the digital sector, and the overall European economy. The European Commission (EC) released an Impact Assessment in support of the DMA that purports to evaluate it using cost/benefit analysis.

An economic evaluation of the DMA should consider its full impacts on dynamic competition. The Impact Assessment neither assesses the DMA's impact on dynamic competition in the digital economy nor evaluates the impacts of specific DMA prohibitions and obligations. Instead, it considers benefits in general and largely ignores costs. We study its benefit assessments and find they are based on highly inappropriate methodologies and assumptions. A cost/benefit study using inappropriate methodologies and largely ignoring costs cannot provide a sound policy assessment.

Instead of promoting dynamic competition between platforms, the DMA will likely reinforce existing market structures, ossify market boundaries, and stunt European innovation. The DMA is likely to chill R&D by encouraging free riding on the investments of others, which discourages making those investments. Avoiding harm to innovation is critical because innovation delivers large, positive spillover benefits, driving increases in productivity, employment, wages, and prosperity.

The DMA prioritizes static over dynamic competition, with the potential to harm the European economy. Given this, the Impact Assessment does not demonstrate that the DMA will be beneficial overall, and its implementation must be carefully tailored to alleviate or lessen its potential to harm Europe’s economic performance.

Consumption taxes are an integral part of government revenue in countries around the world and are often subject to consumer evasion. The rapid rise of electronic commerce has exacerbated this problem as cross-border selling over the internet has enabled foreign businesses to sell and avoid collection and remittance of tax on their sales.

In this paper, we search for the solution to this problem through the analysis of three tax collection models: vendor, financial institution, and internet service provider (ISP). In addition, we examine administrative tools that enable more effective collection as well as inducements for taxpayers or collection agents to carry out their responsibility.

We conclude that the ISP collection model is not feasible at this time. On the other hand, we find that the vendor model, when supplemented with appropriate administrative tools and inducements, and the financial institution model, both represent viable options for policymakers to consider.

The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the increasing need for digital solutions to maintain economic and social activities remotely. Times of physical distancing made it clear that besides keeping trade running, they are crucial for education, health, work, etc. During the pandemic, e-commerce has played a growing role in global economic activity as part of the wider digital economy. As social distancing and movement restrictions become normal, businesses and consumers have become increasingly digital and provide and buy more goods and services online.

The noteworthy development in this process is that much earlier than the pandemic, in 2015, the European Commission started developing a Digital Single Market strategy which is aiming at bringing distinctive digital markets together across the Union. The Digital Single Market is a modern version of the European Union (EU) Common Market established in 1957, which allowed the free movement of goods, services, capital, and people all around the region. The fact that such an application was started long before the pandemic provided some vital advantages to the countries involved in the strategy during the pandemic process.

This study is investigating how the EU Digital Market and the policy implementations connected to it helped digital transformation of the countries of the EU. Digital Economy and Society Index, and E-Commerce and internet access data of Single Market countries are investigated within the scope of the study. The data covering 2011–2021 period is collected from the Eurostat database. When we studied the data, although it is possible to talk about a benefit for the EU in general, less developed countries of the region benefited more from the process.

This chapter aims to investigate to what extent differences in legal systems affect cross-border insolvency. Specifically, it aims to answer the following research questions: What is the relationship between multinational status and firm death rates? To what extent can the legal system affect the pattern of firms’ death across countries? How can the cross-border insolvency legal rules produce firms’ death or survival through corporate restructuring and bailout?

We apply survival methods and estimate a discrete-time hazard model in which we look for the effect of foreign ownership on firm death, controlling for firm- and industry-specific covariates. In doing this we analyse the determinants of firms’ death and crisis distinguishing Italian foreign-owned firms according to the legal system of the country where they have their ‘centre of main interests’ (COMI).

Our main findings reveal that Italian firms owned by foreign multinationals are more likely to exit and to be in crisis than national firms. In addition, Italian foreign-owned firms which have their COMI in a Common law country, compared with those having their COMI in a Civil law country, exhibit a lower risk of death and a higher likelihood of surviving the crisis.

This analysis was limited to all Italian firms. Therefore, it might be interesting to verify if there is a sort of country/sectoral heterogeneity in the firms’ behaviour. In addition, the analysis could be extended to the Italian firms investing abroad (i.e. Domestic MNEs).

Overall, our study enriches our understanding of the determinants of foreign-owned firms’ survival in Italy and highlights the important role assumed by the countries’ legal environment. Although the vast majority of legal systems establishes that business crisis management is no longer aimed at repressing and sanctioning, but rather at preserving the entrepreneurial complex, and rescuing and maintaining business activity, we provide some insights into how differences between Common law countries and Civil law countries affect cross-border insolvency.

In this chapter, using a dual approach based on managerial and legal perspectives, we examine franchisee attitudes regarding online sales in franchise networks to better understand their views of the costs and benefits of e-commerce in a franchise network. We thus explore the following research questions from a franchisee perspective: What are franchisees’ attitudes regarding online sales?; Are online sales viewed as complementary or competing sales for physical stores?; What about the opening of a franchisor’s website?; and What about the opening of a franchisee’s website? We also analyze how several different e-commerce options available to franchisors impact franchisee incentives and how they would be treated under European Union competition law.

The empirical research is based on the conduction and analysis of 46 in-depth interviews with franchisees in the retail and service industries in the French market.

We find that online sales in franchise networks raise important questions for the franchisees, and for the franchisors as well. E-commerce has to be integrated into the development strategies of franchise networks. Franchisors should facilitate the online sales practices of their franchisees in order to avoid potential conflicts with them or among the franchisees themselves, thereby maintaining the control necessary to ensure healthy network growth. Moreover, franchisors should pay attention to the sharing of Internet sales with its franchisees.

Our chapter contributes to the stream of franchising literature dealing with the use of Internet in franchise networks. Moreover, it can be viewed by franchisors, franchise experts, franchisees, and franchisee candidates as an overview of issues linked to online sales in franchise networks. It also highlights best practices when having a multichannel strategy.

In this chapter, the author offers a horizontal comparison of interpretation standards contained in international legal instruments of different origin. These legal instruments range from international treaties to model laws. They also originate from different law makers such as the United Nations or individual states as well as trade or academic organisations, mainly regulating civil and commercial matters. The author argues that this comparison can provide the basis for the development of a uniform standard in the application of such law, which is often referred to as uniform law because it provides a single source of law to regulate a multitude of situations spanning across national boundaries. The main point of reference is the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, also known as the VCLT. This UN treaty specifically provides a general interpretation standard. From there newer standards occurring in subsequent uniform laws can be integrated using the lex specialis doctrine. This, in turn, provides opportunities for comprehensive usable methods to be developed for uniform law both in a public and private law settings. These then facilitate transparency, fairness and reasonableness. The correct identification of object and purposes of any given instrument is crucial for the successful interpretation of its content. It is this point that needs further research, and this chapter offers a starting point by providing some detailed examples from a range of uniform laws of varying nature including international sales laws, arbitration laws and Double Taxation Conventions.

After more than three decades of research and legal cases pursued by the European Commission (EC) and national regulators, interchange fees for four-party consumer card transactions are capped on December 9, 2015 across the European Union (EU). Since then, the development of card scheme fees has been a raising concern for merchants. Due to their nature, these fees have not been dealt with in research or covered by the Interchange Fee Regulation (IFR). This chapter aims to assess the recent development of card scheme fees within four-party card payment networks by relying on survey data obtained from 104 merchants across the EU. Findings show that for half of the merchant population card scheme fees have increased since the regulation. Further concerns related to transparency of fees, pass-through of savings to retailers and subsequently consumers, and the development of commercial cards are discussed. In light of the EC's scheduled review of the impacts of the policy intervention in 2019 (Article 17 of the IFR), this chapter evaluates alternative arrangements for the setting of card scheme fees with a focus on the legal basis for a potential regulation. Findings shall provide a ground for further interaction between academics, practitioners, and policymakers.