nach oben

Erschienen in:

2024 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

2. International Trade in a Global Digital Economy

verfasst von : Roman Pascal Kalin

Erschienen in: Digital Trade and Data Privacy

Verlag: Springer Nature Switzerland

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The digital paradigm has far-reaching implications for the global economy and for cross-border trade. Digital technologies are driving a new phase of global economic integration. With respect to international trade, it is generally acknowledged that the digital transformation changes what is traded, who trades and how trade is conducted. Data has emerged as a vital economic resource in the digital economy, leading to an exponential increase in global data exchange and a surge in cross-border data flows. The economic shift from tangible to intangible assets in a digital economy is resulting in the emergence of a digital paradigm for cross-border trade. This chapter is dedicated to illustrating the novel dimensions of cross-border economic activity in the era of digital globalisation. This chapter lays the groundwork for analysing the development of regulations for these new elements within a trade context and provides a background for analysing the nexus with data privacy regulations.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Introduction to the Nexus of Digital Trade and Data Privacy

Nächstes Kapitel The Emergence of Digital Trade Regulation

See for example Tapscott (1996), p. 6. See infra Sect. 2.2.2.2.

See in this context for example Brynjolfsson and McAfee (2014); Lee (2018); McAfee and Brynjolfsson (2017); Schmidt and Cohen (2013); Schwab (2016).

This trend from tangible towards intangible assets is illustrated by Fritz Machlup’s compelling analysis of an expanding “knowledge industry”, cf. Machlup (1962), p. 37.

See for a definition of the concept of “digitisation” as distinct from “digitalisation” supra Sect. 1.3. See for further explanation of the concept of “datafication” infra Sect. 2.2.2.1.3.

The term “Big Data” is usually used vaguely and without consensus on a definition. Generally, it refers to novel insights generated by the exploitation of large amounts of unstructured data, see Mayer-Schönberger and Cukier (2014), p. 6: “Big Data refers to things one can do at a large scale that cannot be done at a smaller one, to extract new insights or create new forms of value, in ways that change markets, organizations, the relationship between citizens and governments, and more.”. See also infra Sect. 2.2.2.1.3.

Research on the subject of artificial intelligence (AI) has been carried out with moderate success for decades. Only recently researchers succeeded in making essential progress in this area, turning the field an important building block in the advancement of the digital age. See further particularly with respect to the technological development of AI Peng et al. (2021), pp. 3–6.

The concept of a “post-industrial” age was popularized by Daniel Bell, see Bell (2010).

See with regard to digital data Bantjes (2008). See further infra Sect. 2.2.2.1.3.

WTO (2018), pp. 16–19.

See Manyika et al. (2013), p. 24 for graphical representation of the data provided by the “Maddison Project” database “Statistics on world population, GDP and per capita GDP, 1–2008 AD”.

See for a discussion of the merits of the GPT concept Field (2008).

See Jovanovic and Rousseau (2005), pp. 1181–1186. See generally Bresnahan and Trajtenberg (1995). Cf. also Bekar et al. (2018), p. 1008. The authors employ a rather comprehensive definition of GPT that lists six key characteristics: (1) Complementarities with a cluster of technologies that define and support it, (2) Complementarities with a cluster of technologies that it enables, (3) Complementarities with a cluster of technologies that typically include those that are socially, politically and economically transformative, (4) No close substitutes, (5) Wide array of applications and (6) Initially crude but evolving in complexity.

Field (2008), p. 9. See for a more detailed analysis of ICT development David and Wright (2003).

Certainly, such immense transformations are not easily pinpointed to historical milestones. Rather, the interaction of technological innovation, socioeconomic development and economic globalization forms a historical fabric that can be dissected into different phases depending on the points of reference. For example, the relationship between technological upheaval, the concept of a self-regulating market, and the historical catastrophe of World War II has been identified within the context of a period of transformation, see Polanyi (2010).

WTO (2018), pp. 16–19.

Dreher et al. (2008), pp. 5–23; O’Rourke and Williamson (2002), p. 45.

Baldwin (2019), pp. 29–30.

Dreher et al. (2008), p. 8.

OECD (1969), p. 27. The section goes on “Directly or indirectly, the steam engine paved the way to the industrial society by making large quantities of cheap power available in any geographical location; computers are doing the same thing for another intangible commodity, information”.

Richard Baldwin identifies a four-step progression of the impact of disruptive technologies: economic transformation, upheaval, backlash and resolution. The author applies this pattern to the disruptive developments of the ICT revolution and forecasts a “globotic upheaval”, originating from the synchronisation of automation and globalisation, Baldwin (2019).

See for an introduction, Godin (2008), p. 8.

See for a concise description, Bell (2010), Forword 1976, XC: “The concept “post-industrial” is counterposed to that of “pre-industrial” and “industrial”. A pre-industrial sector is primarily extractive, its economy is based on agriculture, mining, fishing, timber and other resources such as natural gas or oil. An industrial sector is primarily fabricating, using energy and machine technology, for the manufacture of goods. A post-industrial sector is one of processing in which telecommunications and computer are strategic for the exchange of information and knowledge.”.

In this context, the pioneering work of Fritz Machlup merits attention, Machlup (1962), p. 9: “The production of knowledge is an economic activity, an industry, if you like. Economists have analysed agriculture, mining, iron and steel production, the paper industry, transportation, retailing, the production of all sorts of goods and services, but they have neglected to analyse the production of knowledge.”.

“An economy can be separated into two domains: The first is involved in the transformation of matter and energy from one form into another. The second is involved in transforming/information from one pattern into another. The two domains are linked and inseparable.[…] The question is the relative contribution of each partner in producing economic wealth.”, Porat (1977), p. 2.

Brynjolfsson and McAfee (2014), pp. 119–121.

Haskel and Westlake (2017), pp. 7–15.

Corrado et al. (2005), pp. 22–30.

Corrado et al. (2009), p. 662.

See only Corrado et al. (2005), pp. 11–15. As rising productivity constitutes a crucial driver of economic growth, the early debate on the relevance of intangible assets for growth is frequently associated with a so-called productivity paradox, which was described by US economist Robert Solow as follows: “You can see the computer age everywhere except in the productivity statistics”, cf. Solow (1987).

OECD (2013a), pp. 26–29.

Negroponte (1996), p. 163.

Abbate (2000), p. 1.

Brynjolfsson and McAfee (2014).

Dosi and Galambos (2013).

See further Schwab (2016).

In view of differing perceptions, a 2018 background note for the G20 Working Group on Trade and Investment, which compiles the perspectives of various international organisations such as OECD, UNCTAD and WTO, simply suggests the term “New Industrial Revolution”, see OECD (2018).

These three elements are frequently identified as the building blocks of the digital era, see for example WTO (2018), pp. 24–28.

The term Moore’s Law is based on the statement of the co-founder of the Intel Corporation (at the time head of research and development for Fairchild Semiconductor), Gordon Moore, who in 1965 predicted, that the number of transistors on a semiconductor would double annually, see Moore (1965). In the mid-1970s, Moore corrected this forecast to a period of about two years. “Moore’s Law”, however, is not the only “law” that shapes the digital era. “Gilder’s Law”, for example, states that bandwidth grows at least three times faster than computing power and according to “Metcalfe’s Law” the value of a network scales as the square of the number of those connected to it, see Wilson (2012).

Hilbert and López (2011), pp. 63–65.

The problem of grasping the underlying mathematical implications of exponential growth is famously described by an old fable about the invention of the chessboard in which the inventor demands as reward one grain of rice on the first square of the chessboard, then two on the next, adding up to 2⁶⁴ grains of rice. Kurzweil (2001) describes this as follows: “By the end of the first half of the chess board, the inventor had accumulated one large field’s worth (4 billion grains), and the emperor did start to take notice. It was as they progressed through the second half of the chessboard that the situation quickly deteriorated.”.

Brynjolfsson and McAfee (2014), pp. 45–47. In reference to the analogy to the chessboard (see fn. above), Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee point out that starting in 1958 (the first time the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis noted “information technology” as a distinct corporate investment category) exponential growth of processing power would have reached the second half of the chessboard (32 doublings) in 2006.

Moore (1965), p. 114.

For example, see Simonite (2016).

See for example McBride (2019).

World Bank Group (2016), pp. 42–46. See further Clarke et al. (2015); Manyika et al. (2013), pp. 24–28; OECD (2013b), pp. 9–12.

See Mueller et al. (2007), p. 244. There is another frequently cited definition adopted by the U.S. Federal Networking Council (FNC): ““Internet” refers to the global information system that -- (i) is logically linked together by a globally unique address space based on the Internet Protocol (IP) or its subsequent extensions/follow-ons; (ii) is able to support communications using the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) suite or its subsequent extensions/follow-ons, and/or other IP-compatible protocols; and (iii) provides, uses or makes accessible, either publicly or privately, high level services layered on the communications and related infrastructure described herein.”, FNC (1995). Internet Society (2015).

United States International Trade Commission (2013), pp. 1–9.

OECD (2017b), p. 18.

UNCTAD (2015a), pp. 34–43.

World Bank Group (2016), pp. 42–46.

Tapscott (1996), p. 17.

Schumpeter (1949), pp. 65–74. Such “combinatorial innovation” is not a new phenomenon of the digital era, it is a pattern that has already been observed in previous transformational phases and has recently been described in connection with the Internet as follows “Every now and then a technology, or set of technologies, comes along that offers a rich set of components that can be combined and recombined to create new products. The arrival of these components then sets off a technology boom as innovators work through the possibilities.”, cf. Varian (2004), pp. 1–48.

“Open Source” in this context means that the source code of a piece of software is open and freely accessible.

McAfee and Brynjolfsson (2017), p. 231. The authors define the “crowd” as new participants and practices enabled by the net and its attendant technologies.

Thierer (2014), p. 3 defines permissionless innovation as “the tinkering and continuous exploration that takes place at multiple levels—from professional designers to amateur coders; from big content creators to dorm-room bloggers; from nationwide communications and broadband infrastructure providers to small community network-builders.”.

The terms data, information and knowledge are usually put into precisely this sequence within the context of epistemology, cf. Casalini and López González (2019), p. 11.

In this particular context Lord Kelvin may be quoted: “I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind[…]”, William Thomson (1891), p. 73. From here it was only a short way to management theory’s influential author Peter Ducker’s quote: “What you can’t measure, you can’t manage”.

OECD (2015c), p. 449.

See only Capgemini Consulting (2012), p. 7. See supra Sect. 1.3 for an explanation of the scopes of “digitisation” used in this context, in particular in distinction to what is referred to as the process of “digitalisation”.

Tapscott (1996), pp. 96–97.

Hilbert and López (2011), p. 63.

Cukier (2010); World Bank Group (2016), p. 244.

Reinsel et al. (2018), p. 3. One zettabyte corresponds to 10 to the power of 21 bytes, 1000 exabytes or one billion terabytes.

This is a dynamic field of research which can only be presented here in the broad outlines required for a legal assessment, see for example Carrière-Swallow and Haksar (2019), pp. 13–19. See further Jones and Tonetti (2020); MIT Technology Review (2016).

Mayer-Schönberger and Cukier (2014), pp. 102–104.

Viktor Mayer-Schönberger and Kenneth Cukier describe “datafication” as putting a phenomenon in a “quantified format so it can be tabulated and analysed”, Mayer-Schönberger and Cukier (2014), p. 78. This marks a clear demarcation from “digitisation” as the mere fact of transforming analogue information into a computer-readable format, Mayer-Schönberger and Cukier (2014), p. 83.

Mayer-Schönberger and Cukier (2014), p. 76, p. 83. See also Lycett (2013), p. 382.

Brynjolfsson and McAfee (2014), pp. 50–51.

Cf. for a definition Boswarthick et al. (2012), p. 2: “The role of M2M is to establish the conditions that allow a device to (bidirectionally) exchange information with a business application via a communication network, so that the device and/or application can act as the basis for this information exchange.”.

OECD (2017b), p. 19.

In this context, the term “data exhaust” has emerged for the digital trace that people leave and the data that is lost in the word as a by-product of people’s actions and movements, Mayer-Schönberger and Cukier (2014), pp. 113–116.

For an overview of Big Data techniques and technologies, cf. Manyika et al. (2011), pp. 27–36. However, some commentators emphasize that the observation of an abundance of data tends to obscure the fact that there is actually a scarcity of relevant data MIT Technology Review (2016), p. 3. See regarding the difference between AI and Big Data Peng et al. (2021), pp. 6–8.

Mayer-Schönberger and Cukier (2014), p. 7. See also Boyd and Crawford (2012), p. 663.

Boyd and Crawford (2012), p. 665; Cukier (2010).

In view of these paradigmatic shifts, some have already declared the end of the theory, see Anderson (2008). This, however, probably proves to be premature, see Boyd and Crawford (2012), p. 666; Mayer-Schönberger and Cukier (2014), pp. 70–72.

Lane (1999), p. 317. See for further references and an account of the many definitions established to date OECD (2020), pp. 34–47; Willemyns (2021), pp. 47–51. Similarly, the term “Internet Economy” has been used by the OECD to underscore the significance of the Internet as a critical economic infrastructure of the “new” economy, see for example OECD (2013b), pp. 6–7. See also OECD (2008).

UNCTAD (2017a), p. 156.

Hofheinz and Mandel (2015), p. 4; OECD (2019b), p. 17. Economies of scale are not a unique feature of the digital economy. Rather, they have driven the industrial economy before, for example, in the case of mass production. Yet, digital business models tend to scale “without mass”, see Brynjolfsson et al. (2008), p. 23.

United States International Trade Commission (2013), pp. 2–31.

Brynjolfsson and McAfee (2014), pp. 61–63.

Andreessen (2011) has stated in this context: “Six decades into the computer revolution, four decades since the invention of the microprocessor, and two decades into the rise of the modern Internet, all of the technology required to transform industries through software finally works and can be widely delivered at global scale.”.

OECD (2019b), p. 17.

Burri (2017a), p. 6.

Mims (2018).

Nguyen and Paczos (2020), pp. 10–12. On p. 5 the report explains: “[…] data-enabled businesses are companies that have developed revenue generation strategies fully reliant on data and that would not exist without access to large amounts of data and advanced data analytics. On the other hand, data-enhanced businesses exploit data to better coordinate pre-existing business operations, facilitate decision-making and to introduce new goods and services; data does not alter or determine their core business models.”.

MIT Technology Review (2016), p. 1.

Carrière-Swallow and Haksar (2019), pp. 19–29 summarize the current state of research in this context.

Pélissié du Rausas et al. (2011), p. 22.

Brynjolfsson and McAfee (2014), pp. 107–124; IMF (2018).

See with regard to cross-border data flows infra Sect. 2.3.2.3.

Cf. for a review of approaches to measuring the economic value of data Nguyen and Paczos (2020), pp. 32–36.

Carrière-Swallow and Haksar (2019), pp. 9–19.

MIT Technology Review (2016), p. 4.

Carrière-Swallow and Haksar (2019), pp. 13–14; Jones and Tonetti (2020), p. 2820; Mandel (2017), p. 4; MIT Technology Review (2016), p. 4.

Pistor (2020), p. 106. See also with regard to regulatory implications Aaronson (2021).

Pistor (2020), pp. 104–111.

See Nguyen and Paczos (2020), pp. 20–21.

OECD (2015c), pp. 22–32.

100

OECD (2019b), p. 19; The Economist (2013).

101

OECD (2013c).

102

OECD (2019c), pp. 20–21.

103

Kenney et al. (2021), pp. 38–40.

104

Goldfarb and Tucker (2017), pp. 6–15.

McRae (2015).

Lane (1999), p. 319.

Johnston (2018).

See further Ayyagari et al. (2018).

109

Brynjolfsson and McAfee (2014), p. 60. The term “network effect” describes the fact that a network has a greater value for a user with increasing participation of other users in the same network. Classic examples are social media services and AppStores or so-called platform companies such as AirBnB and Uber.

110

McAfee and Brynjolfsson (2017), pp. 211–218.

111

Atluri et al. (2018), pp. 8–11; United States International Trade Commission (2013), pp. 2–3.

112

Wolf (2005), p. 14, p. 19.

113

Baldwin (2011); WTO (2018), pp. 16–19.

114

See for example Manyika et al. (2016), pp. 23–43; Negroponte (1996), pp. 165–167; Tapscott (1996), pp. 64–66.

115

Lund and Manyika (2016), p. 2 identify three distinct ways digital technologies transform globalisation: (1) The proliferation of digital goods such as books and movies that can be delivered cost-effectively at a global scale; (2) “Digital wrappers” around traditional products such as sensors that enable other types of flows; (3) The emergence of online platforms for production, exchange and consumption. See also Manyika et al. (2016), pp. 33–41.

116

Castro and McQuinn (2015), pp. 2–8; OECD (2015c), pp. 71–91.

117

Lund et al. (2019), pp. 5–9, pp. 14–17.

118

See also the explanation at Ashton-Hart (2016), pp. 140–142; Casalini and López González (2019), pp. 10–11.

119

Ashton-Hart (2016), pp. 133–138. However, the Internet is not a fully global phenomenon, see Manyika et al. (2016), pp. 39–41.

120

López González and Jouanjean (2017), p. 7.

121

Friedman (2000), p. 9. Consequently, the transformation initiated by the disruptive force of technological innovation leads some to proclaim globalisation 4.0, cf. World Economic Forum (2019).

122

McNamara and Newman (2020), pp. E71–E73.

123

The Economist (2010).

124

See with further references OECD (2015a), pp. 35–42.

125

López González and Ferencz (2018); ICC (2016); Lund et al. (2019); Meltzer (2014a); United States International Trade Commission (2017); WTO (2018).

126

Goldsmith and Wu (2006), pp. 147–177.

127

Burri (2017a); Meltzer (2015); WTO (2018), pp. 19–20.

128

3D-printing is a prime example of emerging data-, and service-centric dimensions in international trade. While the printing instructions can be made available digitally via the Internet, a tangible product can be generated on the recipient side thus shortening or potentially entirely bypassing current value chains. See Fan and Meixner (2020); WTO (2018), pp. 93–95.

129

In 2016 the value of imports of digitisable goods by WTO Members (not accounting for EU-intra trade), constituted around 0.8% of total imports, plummeting from 2.86% in 2000, WTO (2018), pp. 92–93.

130

International Trade Centre (2016), pp. 43–44.

131

Lund and Tyson (2018).

132

Cf. for example Burri (2017a), pp. 9–14; López González and Ferencz (2018), pp. 9–12.

133

Anderson and van Wincoop (2004), p. 691.

134

Anderson and van Wincoop (2004), p. 691; WTO (2018), pp. 64–66.

135

Freund and Weinhold (2004), p. 178. According to the econometric model of the USITC, the Internet significantly reduces trade costs of US imports and exports in digitally intensive sectors by about 26% on average, United States International Trade Commission (2014), pp. 65–66. See also with further information Riker (2014), pp. 3–4.

136

Allen (2014); WTO (2018), p. 64. In trade in services, information and transaction costs are the most important trade barriers, accounting for 30% of the total trade costs variation, WTO (2018), p. 65.

137

Terzi (2011), pp. 747–748.

138

Lendle et al. (2012), p. 19. Using a dataset on eBay cross-border transactions and comparable offline trade flows, the authors estimated a distance effect on trade flows about 65% smaller online than offline. However, physical distance is likely to reduce trade even in online products and services that are essentially free of trade costs, see further Blum and Goldfarb (2006).

139

Lund and Manyika (2016), p. 5; UNCTAD (2017c), pp. 53–55.

140

Evans and Gawer (2016), pp. 5–6.

141

OECD (2019c), pp. 28–32.

142

See further Manyika et al. (2016), p. 32.

143

A 2011 McKinsey & Co. survey of more than 4800 SMEs in 12 countries showed that on average, companies using Internet with a high intensity grow twice as quickly as low-web-intensity companies, export twice as much as they do, and create more than twice as many jobs, cf. Lund and Manyika (2016), p. 8; Pélissié du Rausas et al. (2011), pp. 17–18.

144

See for example Meltzer (2014a). The strengthening of SMEs, for example in LDCs, is, however, counterbalanced by the growing competitive advantage of the developed nations, which, due to advancing technological development, can rarely be compensated for by economically underdeveloped regions and therefore requires strategic political intervention, see UNCTAD (2017b), p. 17.

145

Varian (2005); Manyika et al. (2016), pp. 43–44.

146

Hofheinz and Mandel (2015), pp. 4–5; Meltzer (2014a), pp. 5–7.

147

Vézina and Melin (2013).

148

Lund and Manyika (2016), p. 8; OECD (2017a), pp. 27–28.

149

WTO Members have refrained from formally defining the term “trade facilitation”, both because of the inability to agree on the delimitation and because of the desire not to exclude aspects of future work. It can be, however, broadly described as “the simplification, modernization, and harmonization of export and import processes”, WTO (2015), pp. 34–36.

150

Paperless trading is defined by UNESCAP as “taking place on the basis of electronic communications, including exchange of trade-related data and documents in electronic form”, UNESCAP (2016), Article 3 (a).

151

Duval and Kong (2017), p. 1.

152

Ferencz et al. (2022), p. 12.

153

Manyika et al. (2016), pp. 35–36; WTO (2018), pp. 84–87.

154

OECD (2017a), pp. 11–33.

155

WTO (2019), pp. 14–16.

156

OECD (2017a), pp. 24–31; UNCTAD (2015b), p. 2; WTO (2019), pp. 14–16.

157

Chander (2009), p. 281.

158

Chander (2009), p. 282.

159

Lanz and Maurer (2015), pp. 2–8; Low (2013), p. 63; Miroudot and Cadestin (2017), pp. 9–13; World Bank Group et al. (2017), pp. 141–152.

160

Lund et al. (2019), pp. 25–41.

161

See for the rationale of measuring trade in value added terms, Elms and Low (2013), pp. 83–159.

162

Low (2013), p. 61; OECD (2017a), p. 30.

163

WTO (2019), p. 45. Cf. in this context OECD and WTO (2024) for a TiVA (Trade in Value Added) database.

164

See with regard to services, in particular, Chander (2009). Anupam Chander also expects further “dematerialisation” of the service infrastructure, i.e., the systems and practices that create trust, promote social objectives and resolve disputes, cf. Chander (2009), pp. 304–308.

165

See generally WTO (2019), pp. 14–16.

166

See with regard to the relevant debate in WTO law infra Sect. 3.3.2.1.

167

Vandermerwe and Rada (1988), p. 318.

168

Vandermerwe and Rada (1988), p. 314.

169

Companies increasingly provide ancillary services to their clients, in some cases transforming a simple sale into a contract for a larger package of services, often tied to a long-term lease, OECD (2019b), p. 18. See for example Marr (2015).

170

This phenomena of integrating digital technologies into manufacturing is widely described as Industry 4.0, see Lee et al. (2014), p. 8.

171

This term was coined by Vandermerwe and Rada (1988). Other authors reference this effect as “servicizing” or the “manuservice”, see Low (2013), p. 66. Cf. for an in-depth definition Miroudot and Cadestin (2017), p. 8, here it is explained that: “the word ‘servicification’ was introduced later to describe a broader shift towards services not only in sales of firms but also in the way they produce”. See also Lanz and Maurer (2015); Willemyns (2021), pp. 44–46.

172

Vandermerwe and Rada (1988), p. 314.

173

See with further references Carrière-Swallow and Haksar (2019), p. 13.

174

See OECD (2014b), pp. 8–9. There is no standard definition for Cloud Computing. The U.S. Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) defines it as “a model for enabling ubiquitous, convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, servers, storage applications, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction”, see Mell and Grance (2011), p. 2. See for an introduction to the legal principles governing this technology Hon (2017); Millard (2013).

175

United States International Trade Commission (2013), pp. 2-27–2-35.

176

Van der Marel (2019), p. 737.

177

Chander (2012), p. 31; Manyika et al. (2016), p. 38.

178

Meltzer (2014a), pp. 17–20; Nguyen and Paczos (2020), p. 28.

179

United States International Trade Commission (2013), pp. 5-1–5-2. See also with further references Burri (2017a), pp. 13–14; Nguyen and Paczos (2020), p. 28; U.S. Department of Commerce (2016), pp. 4–7.

180

Chander and Lê (2015), pp. 713–735; Pasadilla (2020).

181

Sen (2018), pp. 325–327.

182

Casalini and López González (2019), pp. 14–15.

183

Ferracane (2017), p. 2.

184

WTO (2018), pp. 135–136. See in this context the OECD Digital Services Trade Restrictiveness Index Regulatory Database which identifies and catalogues barriers that affect trade in digitally enabled services across 50 countries OECD (2024).

185

Ferracane and van der Marel (2018), p. 15.

186

Chander and Lê (2015); Cory (2018), pp. 3–5. See with further references regarding allegations of digital protectionism Aaronson (2019), p. 546.

187

Castro and McQuinn (2015), pp. 2–8.

188

Manyika et al. (2016), pp. 73–79; National Board of Trade (2014), pp. 9–12; Nguyen and Paczos (2020), pp. 24–25.

189

Casalini and López González (2019), p. 8.

190

López González and Jouanjean (2017), p. 10; Willemyns (2021), pp. 27–30.

191

OECD (2015a), pp. 90–93.

192

See for a historical perspective Drake (1995), p. 267; Tietje (2012), pp. 46–49.

193

Manyika et al. (2016), pp. 23–42; OECD (2015b), p. 5.

194

This is the case in particular for transfers involving personal data, see Kuner (2013), p. 27.

195

Schwartz (2013), p. 1628.

196

Kuner (2013), p. 2.

197

Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (2012), p. 17.

198

Hon (2017), p. 134.

199

OECD (2015b), p. 5. For example, Voice-over-the-Internet Protocol (VoIP) has generated a surge in global cross-border telephone calls and cross-border computer-to-computer Skype calling has similarly skyrocketed, see Lund and Manyika (2016), p. 2.

200

Aaronson and Leblond (2018), p. 250.

201

United States International Trade Commission (2017), pp. 45–49.

202

Manyika et al. (2016), pp. 30–31.

203

Lund et al. (2019), p. 72.

204

Meltzer (2016), p. 8.

205

Manyika et al. (2016), p. 73.

206

See for example Casalini and López González (2019). Beyond the trade context (often in the context of addressing aspects of data privacy), the synonymous terms of transnational or transborder data flows are more frequently employed, cf. for example Drake (2016), p. 8.

207

See on the relationship between political geography and the rise of digital technologies, Drake (1995); de La Chapelle and Fehlinger (2016).

208

Gresser (2013).

209

See for example Aaronson (2021), p. 344; Streinz (2019), p. 323.

210

Ashton-Hart (2016), pp. 135–143.

211

Ashton-Hart (2016), p. 138.

212

Ashton-Hart (2016), pp. 136–140; Casalini and López González (2019), pp. 9–10.

213

Streinz (2019), pp. 323–324.

214

Aaronson (2021), p. 344; Streinz (2019), p. 323.

215

Ashton-Hart (2016), p. 141.

216

See only OECD (2014a), pp. 18–23.

217

See only OECD (2013b). See also supra Sect. 2.2.1.2.

218

Admittedly, the challenges of measuring the wider digital economy are generally of a broader nature, see OECD (2013b), pp. 12–14. However, there are overlaps, for example, in the area of the typification of the relevant actors of digital transactions due to similar classification of digital transactions on a national and global level, see OECD (2019a), p. 238; OECD and IMF (2017), p. 4; OECD and IMF (2018), p. 5.

219

Mandel (2014), p. 2; OECD (2015a), pp. 78–95; Nguyen and Paczos (2020), pp. 29–31; U.S. Department of Commerce (2016), p. 6; Yakovleva and Irion (2020), p. 206.

220

Aaronson and Leblond (2018), p. 249; Mandel (2014), pp. 10–13; U.S. Department of Commerce (2016), pp. 7–10.

221

OECD (2015a), p. 34.

222

Mandel (2014).

223

Manyika et al. (2014), pp. 30–31.

224

Manyika et al. (2016).

225

Hofheinz and Mandel (2015).

226

Alaveras and Martens (2015), pp. 6–10; Mandel (2014), pp. 9–10; OECD (2015a), p. 78; Yakovleva and Irion (2020), pp. 205–207.

227

Alaveras and Martens (2015), pp. 6–10.

228

Manyika et al. (2016), pp. 30–31; Lund et al. (2019), p. 72.

229

OECD (2015a), p. 78; Yakovleva and Irion (2020), p. 206.

230

Nguyen and Paczos (2020), p. 19.

231

Cf. National Board of Trade (2014), p. 8. See also with further references, Sen (2018), pp. 343–345. The widely recognized category of “personal data” is further elaborated infra Sect. 4.2.3.

232

Casalini and López González (2019), pp. 11–12.

233

U.S. Department of Commerce (2016), p. IV. In a recent trade policy review the EU has set out “To better assess the size and value of cross-border data flows the Commission will create a European analytical framework for measuring data flows.”, European Commission (2021), p. 15, para. 3.2.3.

234

U.S. Department of Commerce (2016), p. 3. The categorization was initially introduced by a report of the Commerce Department’s Office of the Chief Economist.

235

U.S. Department of Commerce (2016), p. 1.

236

U.S. Department of Commerce (2016), pp. 7–16.

237

Nguyen and Paczos (2020), p. 29. See also supra Sect. 2.2.2.1.3.

238

López González and Jouanjean (2017), p. 10.

239

Mandel (2014), pp. 5–7.

240

U.S. Department of Commerce (2016), p. 7.

241

Mandel (2014), pp. 2–3; Meltzer (2019), pp. 27–28; U.S. Department of Commerce (2016), p. 3, p. 8.

242

Meltzer (2014b), p. 8.

243

See for further challenges in the measurement of “digital trade” OECD (2019a), p. 238.

244

See for example Meltzer (2014a). See further Nicholson and Noonan (2014), p. 5. Digitally Deliverable Services are defined therein as “services that are principally or largely enabled by information and communication technologies (ICT)”.

245

van der Marel (2015).

246

Cf. UNCTAD (2015b), pp. 8–15. The report defines ICT-Enabled Services as “services products delivered remotely over ICT networks”.

247

U.S. Department of Commerce (2016), pp. 11–12.

248

Mandel (2014), p. 2. This is acknowledged by Jessica R. Nicholson and Ryan Noonan, who primarily refer to category two of the above introduced typology of data flows by the U.S. Economics and Statistics Administration referring to “flows of data that are traded between a seller and buyer at a market price”, Nicholson and Noonan (2014), p. 4.

249

See with further references Yakovleva and Irion (2020), p. 206.

250

See for example WTO (2017), p. 2, para. 1.9: “There is value embedded in the control, management, and flow of data, and the way developing countries treat it will determine which development path they take in the digital age.”.

251

Meltzer (2019), p. 35; Mitchell and Mishra (2019), pp. 396–397.

252

Casalini and López González (2019), p. 15; Ferracane (2017), p. 2.

253

See Burri (2017b), p. 70; Chander and Lê (2015), pp. 679–713; Goldsmith and Wu (2006), pp. 13–29, pp. 49–63.

254

See with regard to a fragmentation of the Internet generally Hill (2012).

255

Cory and Dascoli (2021); Willemyns (2021), pp. 64–73.

256

Chander and Lê (2015), p. 680.

257

Ferracane (2017), p. 2. See further Mishra (2019), pp. 1–2; Svantesson (2020), pp. 8–11. See also Article 3 (5) Regulation (EU) 2018/1807 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 on a framework for the free flow of non-personal data in the EU, defining data localisation requirement as: “any obligation, prohibition, condition, limit or other requirement provided for in the laws, regulations or administrative provisions of a Member State or resulting from general and consistent administrative practices in a Member State and in bodies governed by public law, including in the field of public procurement, without prejudice to Directive 2014/24/EU, which imposes the processing of data in the territory of a specific Member State or hinders the processing of data in any other Member State.”.

258

Casalini and López González (2019), pp. 16–24; Svantesson (2020), pp. 8–9.

259

Mishra (2019), p. 2; Willemyns (2021), pp. 64–69.

260

Ferracane (2017), p. 3.

261

Ferracane (2017), p. 4.

262

Ferracane (2017), p. 5.

263

Kaplan and Rowshankish (2015), p. 1.

264

Casalini and López González (2019), pp. 16–24; National Board of Trade (2014), pp. 12–16.

265

Casalini and López González (2019), p. 13; Chander and Lê (2015), pp. 713–735; Mishra (2015), pp. 144–151. See with further references Nguyen and Paczos (2020), pp. 28–29.

266

See with regard to data privacy infra Sect. 4.3.3.4.

267

Svantesson (2020), p. 8.

268

Negroponte (1996), p. 11.

269

Schumpeter (1994), pp. 81–87.

270

Dyson et al. (1996), p. 295: “In technology, economics, and the politics of nations, wealth - in the form of physical resources - has been losing value and significance.”.

271

OECD (2013b), p. 12.

272

López González and Jouanjean (2017), pp. 7–12; WTO (2018), p. 9.

Aaronson SA (2019) What are we talking about when we talk about digital protectionism? World Trade Rev 18(4):541–577. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474745618000198CrossRef

Aaronson SA (2021) Data is different, so policymakers should pay close attention to its governance. In: Burri M (ed) Big data and global trade law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 340–360CrossRef

Aaronson SA, Leblond P (2018) Another digital divide: the rise of data realms and its implications for the WTO. J Int Econ Law 21(2):245–272. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgy019CrossRef

Abbate J (2000) Inventing the Internet, 3. print. Inside technology. MIT Press, Cambridge

Alaveras G, Martens B (2015) International trade in online services. European Commission Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. Digital Economy Working Paper. https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2015-10/JRC97233_Workingpaper_Alaveras_Martens_InternationalTrade_Online_services_191015.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Allen T (2014) Information frictions in trade. Econometrica 82(6):2041–2083. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA10984CrossRef

Anderson C (2008) The end of theory: the data deluge makes the scientific method obsolete. https://www.wired.com/2008/06/pb-theory/. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Anderson JE, van Wincoop E (2004) Trade costs. J Econ Lit 42(3):691–751CrossRef

Andreessen M (2011) Why software is eating the world. https://a16z.com/2011/08/20/why-software-is-eating-the-world/. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (2012) Opinion 05/2012 on Cloud Computing. 01037/12/EN WP 196

Ashton-Hart N (2016) What is the “networked economy”? In: Braga CAP, Hoekman B (eds) Future of the global trade order. First Edition. Global Governance Programme. EUI, Florence, pp 133–157. https://doi.org/10.2870/560499CrossRef

Atluri V, Dietz M, Henke N (2018) The rise of ecosystems: competing in a world of sectors without borders. In: McKinsey Analytics (ed) Analytics comes of age, pp 6–17

Ayyagari M, Demirgüç-Kunt A, Maksimovic V (2018) Superstar firms, market power, and corporate inequality: the role of intangible capital. https://voxeu.org/article/role-intangible-capital-explaining-superstar-firms. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Baldwin RE (2011) Trade and industrialisation after globalisation’s 2nd unbundling: how building and joining a supply chain are different and why it matters. NBER Working Paper 17716. Cambridge, Massachusetts

Baldwin RE (2019) The globotics upheaval: globalisation, robotics, and the future of work. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London

Bantjes M (2008) The Petabyte Age: because more isn’t just more - more is different. Wired. https://www.wired.com/2008/06/pb-intro/. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Bekar C, Carlaw K, Lipsey R (2018) General purpose technologies in theory, application and controversy: a review. J Evol Econ 28(5):1005–1033. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-017-0546-0CrossRef

Bell D (2010) The coming of post-industrial society: a venture in social forecasting. Basic Books, New York

Blum BS, Goldfarb A (2006) Does the internet defy the law of gravity? J Int Econ 70(2):384–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2005.10.002CrossRef

Boswarthick D, Elloumi O, Hersent O (2012) M2M communications: a systems approach. Wiley, HobokenCrossRef

Boyd D, Crawford K (2012) Critical questions for big data. Inform Commun Soc 15(5):662–679. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878CrossRef

Bresnahan TF, Trajtenberg M (1995) General purpose technologies ‘Engines of growth’? J Econom 65(1):83–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)01598-TCrossRef

Brynjolfsson E, McAfee A (2014) The second machine age: work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. W.W. Norton & Company, New York

Brynjolfsson E, McAfee A, Sorell M, Zhu F (2008) Scale without mass: business process replication and industry dynamics. Harvard Business School Technology & Operations Mgt. Unit Research Paper No. 07-016. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.980568

Burri M (2017a) Current and emerging trends in disruptive technologies: implications for the present and future of EU’s trade policy. EP/EXPO/B/INTA/2017/06. https://doi.org/10.2861/96860

Burri M (2017b) The governance of data and data flows in trade agreements: the pitfalls of legal adaptation. UC Davis Law Rev 51:65–132

Capgemini Consulting (2012) The digital advantage: how digital leaders outperform their peers in every industry. https://www.capgemini.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/The_Digital_Advantage__How_Digital_Leaders_Outperform_their_Peers_in_Every_Industry.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Carrière-Swallow Y, Haksar V (2019) The economics and implications of data: an integrated perspective. International Monetary Fund, Strategy, Policy, and Review Department. No. 19/16. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Departmental-Papers-Policy-Papers/Issues/2019/09/20/The-Economics-and-Implications-of-Data-An-Integrated-Perspective-48596. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Casalini F, López González J (2019) Trade and cross-border data flows. OECD Trade Policy Papers No. 220. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/b2023a47-en

Castro D, McQuinn A (2015) Cross-border data flows enable growth in all industries. Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF). https://www2.itif.org/2015-cross-border-data-flows.pdf?_ga=1.8208626.1580578791.1473954628. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Chander A (2009) Trade 2.0. Yale J Int Law 34(2):281–330

Chander A (2012) Principles for trade 2.0. In: Burri M, Cottier T (eds) Trade governance in the digital age. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 17–44CrossRef

Chander A, Lê UP (2015) Data nationalism. Empory Law J 64:677–739

Clarke GRG, Qiang CZ, Xu LC (2015) The internet as a general-purpose technology: firm-level evidence from around the world. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/630411468338366817/pdf/WPS7192.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Corrado C, Hulten C, Sichel D (2005) Measuring capital and technology: an expanded framework. In: Corrado C, Haltiwanger J, Sichel D (eds) Measuring capital in the new economy. NBER-Studies in Income and Wealth. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Corrado C, Hulten C, Sichel D (2009) Intangible capital and U.S. economic growth. Rev Income Wealth 55(3):661–685. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4991.2009.00343.xCrossRef

Cory N (2018) Testimony before the United States International Trade Commission on Global Digital Trade. Information Technology & Innovation Foundation. https://itif.org/publications/2018/03/29/testimony-united-states-international-trade-commission-global-digital-trade/. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Cory N, Dascoli L (2021) How barriers to cross-border data flows are spreading globally, what they cost, and how to address them. Information Technology & Innovation Foundation. https://itif.org/publications/2021/07/19/how-barriers-cross-border-data-flows-are-spreading-globally-what-they-cost/. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Cukier K (2010) Data, data everywhere. https://www.economist.com/special-report/2010/02/27/data-data-everywhere. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

David PA, Wright G (2003) General purpose technologies and productivity surges: historical reflections on the future of the ICT revolution. Nuffield College (University of Oxford). https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:f7410c97-0cc6-4483-9661-38424a3bbab. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

de La Chapelle B, Fehlinger P (2016) Jurisdiction on the Internet: from legal arms race to transnational cooperation. Centre for International Governance Innovation and Chatham House. Paper Series No. 28. https://www.cigionline.org/publications/jurisdiction-internet-legal-arms-race-transnational-cooperation/. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Dosi G, Galambos L (eds) (2013) The third industrial revolution in global business. Comparative perspectives in business history. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Drake WJ (1995) Territoriality and intangibility: transborder data flows and national sovereignty. In: Nordenstreng K, Schiller HI (eds) Beyond national sovereignty: international communication in the 1990s, Rev. ed., 2. printing. Communication and information science series. Ablex Publ, Norwood

Drake WJ (2016) Background Paper for the workshop on data localization and barriers to transborder data flows. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/Background_Paper_Forum_workshop%2009.2016.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Dreher A, Gaston N, Martens P (2008) Measuring globalisation. Springer, New YorkCrossRef

Duval Y, Kong M (2017) Digital trade facilitation: paperless trade in regional trade agreements. Asian Development Bank Institute Working Paper, No. 74. https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/321851/adbi-wp747.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Dyson E, Gilder G, Keyworth G, Toffler A (1996) Cyberspace and the American Dream: a MagnaCarta for the knowledge age. Inf Soc 12:295–308CrossRef

Elms DK, Low P (eds) (2013) Global value chains in a changing world. WTO, Geneva. https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/aid4tradeglobalvalue13_e.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

European Commission (2021) Communication from the European Commission: Trade Policy Review - An Open, Sustainable and Assertive Trade Policy. COM(2021) 66 final

Evans CP, Gawer A (2016) The rise of the platform enterprise: a global survey. The Center for Global Enterprise. https://www.thecge.net/app/uploads/2016/01/PDF-WEB-Platform-Survey_01_12.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Fan Z, Meixner L (2020) 3D printing: a guide for decision-makers. World Economic Forum White Paper. https://www.weforum.org/whitepapers/3d-printing-a-guide-for-decision-makers. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Ferencz J, González JL, García IO (2022) Artificial Intelligence and international trade: some preliminary implications. OECD Trade Policy Papers No. 260. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/13212d3e-en

Ferracane M (2017) Restrictions on cross-border data flows: a taxonomy. ECIPE Working Paper No. 1/2017. https://ecipe.org/publications/restrictions-to-cross-border-data-flows-a-taxonomy/. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Ferracane M, van der Marel E (2018) Do data policy restrictions inhibit trade in services? DTE Working Paper Series No. 2. https://ecipe.org/publications/do-data-policy-restrictions-inhibit-trade-in-services/. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Field AJ (2008) Does economic history need GPTs? SSRN Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1275023

FNC (1995) FNC Resolution. Definition of “Internet”. https://www.nitrd.gov/historical/fnc/internet_res.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Freund CL, Weinhold D (2004) The effect of the Internet on international trade. J Int Econ 62(1):171–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1996(03)00059-XCrossRef

Friedman TL (2000) The Lexus and the olive tree, first edition. Anchor Books, New York

Godin B (2008) The information economy: the history of a concept through its measurement, 1949-2005. Project on History and Sociology of S&T Statistics Working Paper No. 38. https://www.csiic.ca/PDF/Godin_38.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Goldfarb A, Tucker C (2017) Digital economics. NBER Working Paper No. 23684. https://doi.org/10.3386/w23684

Goldsmith JL, Wu T (2006) Who controls the Internet?: Illusions of a borderless world. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRef

González JL, Ferencz J (2018) Digital trade and market openness. OECD Trade Policy Papers No. 217. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/1bd89c9a-en

Gresser E (2013) Testimony: the era of digital trade. https://usitc.gov/press_room/documents/testimony/332_531_003.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Haskel J, Westlake S (2017) Capitalism without capital: the rise of the intangible economy. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRef

Hilbert M, López P (2011) The world’s technological capacity to store, communicate, and compute information. Science 332(6025):60–65. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1200970CrossRef

Hill JF (2012) Internet fragmentation: highlighting the major technical, governance and diplomatic challenges for U.S. Policy Makers. Berkman Center Research Paper, Harvard Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs Working Paper. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2439486

Hofheinz P, Mandel M (2015) Uncovering the hidden value of digital trade: towards a 21st century agenda of transatlantic prosperity. Progressive Policy Institute (PPI). https://www.progressivepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2015.07-Mandel-Hofeinz-Uncovering-the-Value-of-Digital-Trade_Towards-a-21st-Century-Agenda-of-Transatlantic-Prosperity.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Hon WK (ed) (2017) Data localization laws and policy: the EU data protection international transfers restriction through a cloud computing lens. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham

ICC (2016) Trade in the digital economy: a primer on global data flows for policymakers. https://iccwbo.org/news-publications/policies-reports/trade-in-the-digital-economy-a-primer-on-global-data-flows-for-policymakers/. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

IMF (2018) Measuring the digital economy. Staff Report, Washington, D.C. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Policy-Papers/Issues/2018/04/03/022818-measuring-the-digital-economy. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

International Trade Centre (2016) Bringing SMEs onto the E-commerce Highway, Geneva. https://intracen.org/file/bringingsmesontotheecommercehighwayfinal250516lowrespdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Internet Society (2015) Internet interconnection: an internet society public policy brief. https://www.internetsociety.org/policybriefs/internetinterconnection/. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Johnston S (2018) Largest companies 2008 vs. 2018, a lot has changed. https://milfordasset.com/insights/largest-companies-2008-vs-2018-lot-changed. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Jones CI, Tonetti C (2020) Nonrivalry and the economics of data. Am Econ Rev 110(9):2819–2858. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20191330CrossRef

Jovanovic B, Rousseau PL (2005) General purpose technologies. In: Jovanovic B, Rousseau P (eds) Handbook of economic growth, Volume 1, Part B. Elsevier, pp 1181–1224CrossRef

Kaplan JM, Rowshankish K (2015) Addressing the impact of data location regulation in financial services. CIGI Paper Series No. 14

Kenney M, Bearson D, Zysman J (2021) The platform economy matures: measuring pervasiveness and exploring power. Socio-Econ Rev 19(4):1451–1483. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwab014CrossRef

Kuner C (2013) Transborder data flows and data privacy law. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef

Kurzweil R (2001) The law of accelerating returns. https://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-accelerating-returns. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Lane N (1999) Advancing the digital economy into the 21st century. Inf Syst Front 1(3):317–320. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010010630396CrossRef

Lanz R, Maurer A (2015) Services and global value chains: some evidence on servicification of manufacturing and services network. WTO Staff Working Paper, No. ERSD-2015-03. https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/ersd201503_e.htm. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Lee K-F (2018) AI superpowers: China, Silicon Valley and the new world order. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston

Lee J, Kao H-A, Yang S (2014) Service innovation and smart analytics for Industry 4.0 and big data environment. Procedia CIRP 16:3–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2014.02.001CrossRef

Lendle A, Olarreaga M, Schropp S, Vézina P-L (2012) There goes gravity: how eBay reduces trade costs. World Bank Group Policy Research Working Paper 6253. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-6253

López González J, Jouanjean M-A (2017) Digital trade: developing a framework for analysis. OECD Trade Policy Papers, No. 205. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/524c8c83-en

Low P (2013) The role of services in global value chains. In: Elms DK, Low P (eds) Global value chains in a changing world. WTO, Geneva, pp 61–81. https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/aid4tradeglobalvalue13_e.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Lund S, Manyika J (2016) How digital trade is transforming globalisation. E15 Expert Group on the Digital Economy - Think Piece. https://www.tralac.org/images/docs/8854/how-digital-trade-is-transforming-globalisation-e15-initiative-january-2016.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Lund S, Tyson L (2018) Globalization is not in retreat: digital technology and the future of trade. Foreign Aff 97(3)

Lund S, Manyika J, Woetzel L, Bughin J, Krishnan M, Seong J, Muir M (2019) Globalization in transition: the future of trade and value chains. McKinsey Global Institute. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/innovation-and-growth/globalization-in-transition-the-future-of-trade-and-value-chains. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Lycett M (2013) ‘Datafication’: making sense of (big) data in a complex world. Eur J Inf Syst 22(4):381–386. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2013.10CrossRef

Machlup F (1962) The production and distribution of knowledge in the United States. Princeton University Press, Princeton

Mandel M (2014) Data, trade and growth. Progressive Policy Institute (PPI). https://www.progressivepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/2014.04-Mandel_Data-Trade-and-Growth.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Mandel M (2017) The economic impact of data: why data is not like oil. Progressive Policy Institute (PPI). https://www.progressivepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/PowerofData-Report_2017.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Manyika J, Chui M, Brown B, Bughin J, Dobbs R, Roxburgh C, Hung Byers A (2011) Big data: the next frontier for innovation, competition, and productivity. McKinsey Global Institute. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/big-data-the-next-frontier-for-innovation. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Manyika J, Chui M, Bughin J, Dobbs R, Bisson P, Marrs A (2013) Disruptive technologies: advances that will transform life, business and the global economy. McKinsey Global Institute. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/disruptive-technologies. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Manyika J, Lund S, Bughin J, Nottebohm O, Poulter D, Jauch S, Ramasawamy S (2014) Global flows in a digital age. McKinsey Global Institute. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/global-flows-in-a-digital-age. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Manyika J, Lund S, Bughin J, Woetzel L, Stamenov K, Dhingra D (2016) Digital globalization: the new era of global flows. McKinsey Global Institute. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/digital-globalization-the-new-era-of-global-flows. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Marr B (2015) How big data drives success at Rolls-Royce. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2015/06/01/how-big-data-drives-success-at-rolls-royce/#217a537b1d69. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Mayer-Schönberger V, Cukier K (2014) Big data: a revolution that will transform how we live, work and think, 1. Mariner Books edition

McAfee A, Brynjolfsson E (2017) Machine, platform, crowd: harnessing our digital future, First edition. W.W. Norton & Company, New York, London

McBride S (2019) These 3 computing technologies will beat Moore’s Law. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephenmcbride1/2019/04/23/these-3-computing-technologies-will-beat-moores-law/#50a392db37b0. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

McNamara KR, Newman AL (2020) The big reveal: COVID-19 and globalization’s great transformations. Int Org 74(S1):E59–E77. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818320000387CrossRef

McRae H (2015) Facebook, Airbnb, Uber, and the unstoppable rise of the content non-generators. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/hamish-mcrae/facebook-airbnb-uber-and-the-unstoppable-rise-of-the-content-non-generators-10227207.html. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Mell P, Grance T (2011) The NIST definition of cloud computing. Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology U.S. Department of Commerce. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/legacy/sp/nistspecialpublication800-145.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Meltzer JP (2014a) Supporting the internet as a platform for international trade: opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises and developing countries. Brookings Global Economy & Development Working Paper 69. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2400578

Meltzer JP (2014b) The importance of the internet and transatlantic data flows for U.S. and EU Trade and Investment. Global Economy & Development Working Paper 79

Meltzer JP (2015) The internet, cross-border data flows and international trade. Asia Pac Policy Stud 2(1):90–102. https://doi.org/10.1002/app5.60CrossRef

Meltzer JP (2016) Maximizing the opportunities of the internet for international trade. Policy Options Paper. ICTSD and World Economic Forum. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2841913

Meltzer JP (2019) Governing digital trade. World Trade Rev 18(S1):23–48. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474745618000502CrossRef

Millard C (2013) Cloud computing law. Oxford University PressCrossRef

Mims C (2018) Every company is now a tech company. https://www.wsj.com/articles/every-company-is-now-a-tech-company-1543901207. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Miroudot S, Cadestin C (2017) Services in global value chains: from inputs to value-creating activities. OECD Trade Policy Papers, No. 197. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/465f0d8b-en

Mishra N (2015) Data localization laws in a digital world: data protection or data protectionism? NUS Centre for International Law Research Paper No. 19/05. The Public Sphere

Mishra N (2019) Privacy, cybersecurity, and GATS Article XIV: a new frontier for trade and internet regulation? World Trade Rev 19(3):1–24. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474745619000120CrossRef

MIT Technology Review (2016) The rise of data capital. https://www.technologyreview.com/2016/03/21/161487/the-rise-of-data-capital/. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Mitchell AD, Mishra N (2019) Regulating cross-border data flows in a data-driven world: how WTO law can contribute. J Int Econ Law 22(3):389–416. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgz016CrossRef

Moore GE (1965) Cramming more components onto integrated circuits. Electronics 38(8):114–117

Mueller M, Mathiason J, Klein H (2007) The internet and global governance: principles and norms for a new regime. Global Gov 13(2):237–254CrossRef

National Board of Trade (2014) No transfer, no trade: the importance of cross-border data transfers for companies based in Sweden

Negroponte N (1996) Being digital. Coronet books. Hodder and Stoughton, London

Nguyen D, Paczos M (2020) Measuring the economic value of data and cross-border data flows: a business perspective. OECD Digital Economy Papers No. 297. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/6345995e-en

Nicholson JR, Noonan R (2014) Digital economy and cross-border trade: the value of digitally-deliverable services. U.S. Department of Commerce ESA Issue Brief #01-14. https://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/migrated/reports/digitaleconomyandcross-bordertrade.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

O’Rourke KH, Williamson JG (2002) When did globalisation begin? Eur Rev Econ Hist 6(1):23–50. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1361491602000023CrossRef

OECD (1969) Gaps in Technology: Electronic Computers

OECD (2008) The Seoul Declaration for the future of the internet economy. OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 147. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/230445718605

OECD (2013a) Supporting investment in knowledge capital, growth and innovation. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264193307-en

OECD (2013b) Measuring the internet economy: a contribution to the research agenda. OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 226. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/5k43gjg6r8jf-en

OECD (2013c) The App Economy. Working Party on the Information Economy DSTI/ICCP/IE(2012)1/FINAL

OECD (2014a) Measuring the digital economy: a new perspective. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264221796-en

OECD (2014b) Cloud computing: the concept, impacts and the role of government policy. Digital Economy Papers No. 240, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/5jxzf4lcc7f5-en

OECD (2015a) Economic And Social Benefits of Internet Openness: 2016 Ministerial Meeting on the Digital Economy Background Report. OECD Digital Economy Papers No. 257. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/5jlwqf2r97g5-en

OECD (2015b) The Governance of Globalized Data Flows - Current Trends and Future Challenges: Working Party on security and Privacy in the Digital Economy. DSTI/ICCP/REG(2015)3

OECD (2015c) OECD Data-Driven Innovation: Big Data and Growth for Well-Being OECD, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264229358-en

OECD (2017a) Services trade policies and the global economy. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264275232-en

OECD (2017b) OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2017: the digital transformation. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264268821-en

OECD (2018) Background Note for the G20 Trade and Investment Working Group Argentina Presidency 2018. https://www.oecd.org/g20/topics/trade-and-investment/Background-note-on-trade-investment-April-2018%20.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

OECD (2019a) Measuring the digital transformation. a roadmap for the future. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264311992-en

OECD (2019b) Vectors of Digital Transformation. OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 273. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/5ade2bba-en

OECD (2019c) An introduction to online platforms and their role in the digital transformation. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/53e5f593-en

OECD (2020) A roadmap toward a common framework for measuring the digital economy. Report for the G20 Digital Economy Task Force. https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/publications/OECDRoadmapDigitalEconomy2020.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

OECD (2024) Digital Services Trade Restrictiveness Index Regulatory Database. https://qdd.oecd.org/subject.aspx?Subject=STRI_DIGITAL. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

OECD, IMF (2017) Measuring Digital Trade: Results of OECD/IMF Stocktaking Survey. BOPCOM—17/07, Paris, France. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/bop/2017/pdf/17-07.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

OECD, IMF (2018) Towards a handbook on measuring digital trade: status update. BOPCOM - 18/07, Washington D.C. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/bop/2018/pdf/18-07.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

OECD, WTO (2024) Trade in value added. TiVA database. https://www.oecd.org/sti/ind/measuring-trade-in-value-added.htm. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Pasadilla GO (2020) Next generation non-tariff measures: emerging data policies and barriers to digital trade. ARTNeT Working Paper Series No. 187

Pélissié du Rausas M et al (2011) Internet matters: the Net’s sweeping impact on growth, jobs, and prosperity. McKinsey Global Institute. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/technology-media-and-telecommunications/our-insights/internet-matters. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Peng S, Lin C-F, Streinz T (2021) Artificial intelligence and international economic law: a research and policy agenda. In: Peng S, Lin C-F, Streinz T (eds) Artificial intelligence and international economic law: disruption, regulation, and reconfiguration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, Port Melbourne, New Delhi, Singapore, pp 1–26CrossRef

Pistor K (2020) Rule by data: the end of markets? Law Contemp Probl 83:101–124. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/lcp/vol83/iss2/6. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Polanyi K (2010) The great transformation: the political and economic origins of our time, 2. Beacon paperback edition, [reprinted]. Beacon Press, Boston, Massachusetts

Porat MU (1977) The information economy: definition and measurement. Office of Telecommunications (DOC), Washington, D.C.

Reinsel D, Gantz J, Rydning J (2018) Data Age 2025: the digitization of the world from edge to core. IDC White Paper. https://www.seagate.com/files/www-content/our-story/trends/files/idc-seagate-dataage-whitepaper.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Riker D (2014) Internet use and openness to trade. Office of Economics Working Paper, U.S. International Trade Commission. https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/ec201412c.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Schmidt E, Cohen J (2013) The new digital age: reshaping the future of people, nations and business, first edition. Knopf, New York

Schumpeter JA (1949) The theory of economic development An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest and the business cycle. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

Schumpeter JA (1994) Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. Routledge, London, New York

Schwab K (2016) The fourth industrial revolution. World Economic Forum, Cologny/Geneva

Schwartz PM (2013) Information privacy in the cloud. Univ Pa Law Rev 161(6):1623–1662

Sen N (2018) Understanding the role of the WTO in international data flows: taking the liberalization or the regulatory autonomy path? J Int Econ Law 21(2):323–348. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgy021CrossRef

Simonite T (2016) Moore’s law is dead. Now what? https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601441/moores-law-is-dead-now-what/. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Solow R (1987) We’d better watch out. New York Times Book Review, July 12, 1987

Streinz T (2019) Digital megaregulation uncontested? TPP’s model for the global digital economy. In: Kingsbury B et al (eds) Megaregulation contested. Oxford University Press, pp 312–342CrossRef

Svantesson DJB (2020) Data localisation trends and challenges: considerations for the review of the Privacy Guidelines. OECD Digital Economy Papers No. 301. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/7fbaed62-en

Tapscott D (1996) The digital economy: promise and peril in the age of networked intelligence. McGraw-Hill, New York

Terzi N (2011) The impact of e-commerce on international trade and employment. Procedia - Soc Behav Sci 24:745–753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.09.010CrossRef

The Economist (2010) The web’s new walls: how the threats to the internet’s openness can be averted. https://www.economist.com/leaders/2010/09/02/the-webs-new-walls. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

The Economist (2013) The rise of the sharing economy: on the internet, everything is for hire. https://www.economist.com/leaders/2013/03/09/the-rise-of-the-sharing-economy. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Thierer AD (2014) Permissionless innovation: the continuing case for comprehensive technological freedom. Mercatus Center, George Mason University, Arlington

Thomson W (1891) Popular lectures and addresses, vol 1. Macmillan and Co., London, New York

Tietje C (2012) Global information law. In: Burri M, Cottier T (eds) Trade governance in the digital age. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 45–62CrossRef

U.S. Department of Commerce (2016) Measuring the Value of Cross-Border Data Flows. Economics and Statistics Administration and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/measuring_cross_border_data_flows.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

UNCTAD (2015a) Unlocking the potential of e-commerce for developing countries. United Nations publication, New York. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ier2015_en.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

UNCTAD (2015b) International Trade in ICT Services and ICT-enabled Services: Proposed Indicators from the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development. Technical Notes on ICT for Development No. 3 TN/UNCTAD/ICT4D/03. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/tn_unctad_ict4d03_en.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

UNCTAD (2017a) World Investment Report 2017: Investment and the digital economy. United Nations publication, New York and Geneva. https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/publications/174/world-investment-report-2017%2D%2D-investment-and-the-digital-economy. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

UNCTAD (2017b) Rising Product Digitalisation and Losing Trade Competitiveness. UNCTAD/GDS/ECIDC/2017/3. https://unctad.org/publication/rising-product-digitalisation-and-losing-trade-competitiveness. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

UNCTAD (2017c) Information Economy Report: Digitalization, Trade and Development. United Nations publication, New York, Geneva. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ier2017_en.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

UNESCAP (2016) Resolution adopted by the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, E/ESCAP/RES/72/4, 24 May 2016

United States International Trade Commission (2013) Digital Trade in the U.S. and Global Economies, Part 1. https://www.usitc.gov/publications/industry_econ_analysis_332/2013/digital_trade_us_and_global_economies_part_1.htm. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

United States International Trade Commission (2014) Digital Trade in the U.S. and Global Economies, Part 2

United States International Trade Commission (2017) Global Digital Trade 1: Market Opportunities and Key Foreign Trade Restrictions. Publication Number: 4716; Investigation Number: 332-561

van der Marel E (2015) Disentangling the flows of data: inside or outside the multinational company? ECIPE Occasional Paper. https://ecipe.org/publications/flows-data-inside-outside-multinational-company/. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

van der Marel E (2019) Old wine in new bottles – how protectionism takes hold of digital trade. Glob Policy 10(4):737–739. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12737CrossRef

Vandermerwe S, Rada J (1988) Servitization of business: adding value by adding services. Eur Manag J 6(4):314–324CrossRef

Varian HR (2004) Competition and market power. In: Varian HR, Farrell J, Shapiro C (eds) The economics of information: an introduction. Cambridge University Press, pp 1–48CrossRef

Varian HR (2005) Technology levels the business playing field. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/25/business/technology-levels-the-business-playing-field.html. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Vézina P-L, Melin H (2013) eBay and the rise of the micro-multinationals. OECD Observer No. 295 36-37

Willemyns I (2021) Digital services in international trade law. University Press, CambridgeCrossRef

Wilson JM (2012) Computing, communication, and cognition: three laws that define the internet society: Moore’s, Gilder’s, and Metcalfe’s. https://www.jackmwilson.net/Entrepreneurship/Cases/Moores-Meltcalfes-Gilders-Law.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

Wolf M (2005) Why globalization works, 1st edn. Yale Nota Bene, New Haven

World Bank Group (2016) World Development Report 2016: Digital Dividends. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2016. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

World Bank Group, OECD, WTO (2017) Measuring and analyzing the impact of GVCs on economic development: Global value chains development report 2017. World Bank Group, Washington, DC, USA

World Economic Forum (2019) Annual Meeting 2019: Globalization 4.0: Shaping a Global Architecture in the Age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. https://www.weforum.org/publications/globalization-4-0-shaping-a-new-global-architecture-in-the-age-of-the-fourth-industrial-revolution/. Accessed 5 Apr 2024

WTO (2015) World Trade Report 2015: speeding up trade: benefits and challenges of implementing the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement. https://doi.org/10.30875/0949bcf3-en

WTO (2017) Communication from the African Group, Work Programme on Electronic Commerce JOB/GC/133, 20 July 2017

WTO (2018) World Trade Report 2018: the future of world trade: how digital technologies are transforming global commerce. https://doi.org/10.30875/0949bcf3-en

WTO (2019) World Trade Report 2019: the future of services trade. https://doi.org/10.30875/0949bcf3-en

Yakovleva S, Irion K (2020) Pitching trade against privacy: reconciling EU governance of personal data flows with external trade. Int Data Priv Law 10(3):201–221. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipaa003CrossRef

Titel: International Trade in a Global Digital Economy
verfasst von: Roman Pascal Kalin
Verlag: Springer Nature Switzerland
Buch: Digital Trade and Data Privacy
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-73856-2

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-031-73857-9

Copyright-Jahr: 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73857-9_2