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.

Brazil’s regional inequality is an important topic due to the large and persistent differences in development between states and the high levels of inequality in the country. These variations in development can potentially render survey data inaccurate since the significance of capital income varies across the states. Besides, previous studies incorporating tax and national accounts data globally have mainly focused on measuring the income distribution at the country-level. This approach can limit the understanding of inequality, especially when considering large countries such as Brazil.

The methodology used to construct these estimates follows the guidelines of the Distributional National Accounts, whose core goal is to provide income distribution measures consistent with macroeconomic aggregates and harmonized across countries and time. The procedure has three main steps: first, it corrects the survey’s underrepresentation of top incomes using tax data. Then, it accounts for national income items not included in the survey or tax data, such as imputed rents and undistributed profits. Finally, it ensures that all components match the national income.

Compared to survey-based estimations, the results reveal a new angle on the state-level inequality. This study indicates that Amazonas, Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo have a more concentrated income distribution. The top 1\% of earners in these states receives around 28\% of total pre-tax income, while the top 10\% receive nearly 60\%. On the other end, Amapá (AP), Acre (AC), Rondônia (RO) and Santa Catarina (SC) are the states where the income distribution is less concentrated. There were no significant changes in the income distribution across the states during the period analyzed.

This study combines survey, tax and national accounts data to construct new estimates of Brazil’s state-level income distribution from 2006 to 2019. Previous results only considered income captured in surveys, which usually misses a significant part of capital incomes. This limitation may bias comparisons as capital income has different importance across the states. The new estimates represent the income of top groups more accurately, account for the entire national income and enable to compare regional inequality levels consistently with other countries.

This study addresses the need for a theory-guided, rich, descriptive account of research data repositories' (RDRs) understanding of data quality and the structures of their data quality assurance (DQA) activities. Its findings can help develop operational DQA models and best practice guides and identify opportunities for innovation in the DQA activities.

The study analyzed 122 data repositories' applications for the Core Trustworthy Data Repositories, interview transcripts of 32 curators and repository managers and data curation-related webpages of their repository websites. The combined dataset represented 146 unique RDRs. The study was guided by a theoretical framework comprising activity theory and an information quality evaluation framework.

The study provided a theory-based examination of the DQA practices of RDRs summarized as a conceptual model. The authors identified three DQA activities: evaluation, intervention and communication and their structures, including activity motivations, roles played and mediating tools and rules and standards. When defining data quality, study participants went beyond the traditional definition of data quality and referenced seven facets of ethical and effective information systems in addition to data quality. Furthermore, the participants and RDRs referenced 13 dimensions in their DQA models. The study revealed that DQA activities were prioritized by data value, level of quality, available expertise, cost and funding incentives.

The study's findings can inform the design and construction of digital research data curation infrastructure components on university campuses that aim to provide access not just to big data but trustworthy data. Communities of practice focused on repositories and archives could consider adding FAIR operationalizations, extensions and metrics focused on data quality. The availability of such metrics and associated measurements can help reusers determine whether they can trust and reuse a particular dataset. The findings of this study can help to develop such data quality assessment metrics and intervention strategies in a sound and systematic way.

To the best of the authors' knowledge, this paper is the first data quality theory guided examination of DQA practices in RDRs.