@article{Bryson, author = {Bryson, Joanna}, title = {Europe Is in Danger of Using the Wrong Definition of AI}, series = {Wired}, journal = {Wired}, abstract = {Some intelligent systems are at risk of being excluded from oversight in the EU's proposed legislation. This is bad for both businesses and citizens.}, language = {en} } @incollection{DempseyMcBrideHaatajaetal., author = {Dempsey, Mark and McBride, Keegan and Haataja, Meeri and Bryson, Joanna}, title = {Transnational Digital Governance and Its Impact on Artificial Intelligence}, series = {The Oxford Handbook of AI Governance}, booktitle = {The Oxford Handbook of AI Governance}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, isbn = {9780197579329}, doi = {10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197579329.013.16}, publisher = {Hertie School}, abstract = {The rapid pace of technological advancement and innovation has put existing governance and regulatory mechanisms to the test. There is a clear need for new and innovative regulatory mechanisms that enable governments to successfully manage the integration of digital technologies into our societies, and to ensure that such integration occurs in a sustainable, beneficial, and just manner. Artificial Intelligence (AI) stands out as one of the most debated of such innovations. What exactly is it, how should it be built and deployed, how can it be used, and how should it be regulated? Yet across the period of this debate, AI is becoming widely used and addressed within existing, evolving, and bespoke regulatory contexts. The present chapter explores the extant governance of AI and, in particular, what is arguably the most successful AI regulatory approach to date, that of the European Union. The chapter explores core definitional concepts, shared understandings, values, and approaches currently in play. It argues that not only are the Union's regulations locally effective, but, due to the so-called "Brussels effect," regulatory initiatives within the European Union also have a much broader global impact. As such, they warrant close consideration.}, language = {en} } @article{Bryson, author = {Bryson, Joanna}, title = {Robot, all too human}, series = {XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students}, volume = {25}, journal = {XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students}, number = {3}, doi = {10.1145/3313131}, pages = {56 -- 59}, abstract = {Advanced robotics and artificial intelligence systems present a new challenge to human identity.}, language = {en} } @techreport{WangRichardsDorusetal., type = {Working Paper}, author = {Wang, Yifei and Richards, Marios and Dorus, Steve and Priest, Nicholas and Bryson, Joanna}, title = {Compensatory mutation can drive gene regulatory network evolution}, series = {bioRxiv}, journal = {bioRxiv}, doi = {10.1101/2019.12.18.881276}, abstract = {Gene regulatory networks underlie every aspect of life; better understanding their assembly would better our understanding of evolution more generally. For example, evolutionary theory typically assumed that low-fitness intermediary pathways are not a significant factor in evolution, yet there is substantial empirical evidence of compensatory mutation. Here we revise theoretical assumptions to explore the possibility that compensatory mutation may drive rapid evolutionary recovery. Using a well-established in silico model of gene regulatory networks, we show that assuming only that deleterious mutations are not fatal, compensatory mutation is surprisingly frequent. Further, we find that it entails biases that drive the evolution of regulatory pathways. In our simulations, we find compensatory mutation to be common during periods of relaxed selection, with 8-15\% of degraded networks having regulatory function restored by a single randomly-generated additional mutation. Though this process reduces average robustness, proportionally higher robustness is found in networks where compensatory mutations occur close to the deleterious mutation site, or where the compensatory mutation results in a large regulatory effect size. This location- and size-specific robustness systematically biases which networks are purged by selection for network stability, producing emergent changes to the population of regulatory networks. We show that over time, large-effect and co-located mutations accumulate, assuming only that episodes of relaxed selection occur, even very rarely. This accumulation results in an increase in regulatory complexity. Our findings help explain a process by which large-effect mutations structure complex regulatory networks, and may account for the speed and pervasiveness of observed occurrence of compensatory mutation, for example in the context of antibiotic resistance, which we discuss. If sustained by in vitro experiments, these results promise a significant breakthrough in the understanding of evolutionary and regulatory processes.}, language = {en} } @article{StewartMcCartyBryson, author = {Stewart, Alexander J and McCarty, Nolan and Bryson, Joanna}, title = {Polarization under rising inequality and economic decline}, series = {arXiv}, journal = {arXiv}, number = {807.11477v2}, abstract = {Social and political polarization is a significant source of conflict and poor governance in many societies. Thus, understanding its causes has become a priority of scholars across many disciplines. Here we demonstrate that shifts in socialization strategies analogous to political polarization and identity politics can arise as a locally-beneficial response to both rising wealth inequality and economic decline. Adopting a perspective of cultural evolution, we develop a framework to study the emergence of polarization under shifting economic environments. In many contexts, interacting with diverse out-groups confers benefits from innovation and exploration greater than those that arise from interacting exclusively with a homogeneous in-group. However, when the economic environment favors risk-aversion, a strategy of seeking low-risk interactions can be important to maintaining individual solvency. To capture this dynamic, we assume that in-group interactions have a lower expected outcome, but a more certain one. Thus in-group interactions are less risky than out-group interactions. Our model shows that under conditions of economic decline or increasing wealth inequality, some members of the population benefit from adopting a risk-averse, in-group favoring strategy. Moreover, we show that such in-group polarization can spread rapidly to the whole population and persist even when the conditions that produced it have reversed. Finally we offer empirical support for the role of income inequality as a driver of affective polarization in the United States, mirroring findings on a panel of developed democracies. Our work provides a framework for studying how disparate forces interplay, via cultural evolution, to shape patterns of identity, and unifies what are often seen as conflicting explanations for political polarization: identity threat versus economic anxiety.}, language = {en} } @incollection{BrysonBogani, author = {Bryson, Joanna and Bogani, Ronny}, title = {Robot Nannies Will Not Love}, series = {The Love Makers}, booktitle = {The Love Makers}, editor = {Campbell, Aifric}, publisher = {Goldsmiths Press}, address = {London}, isbn = {97819126858442}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {249 -- 258}, abstract = {How artificial intelligence and robotics are transforming the future of love and desire: a philosophical thriller and essays.A chance encounter between two women and a road trip into the future: It's Christmas Eve, and Scarlett, banker-turned-technologist, is leaving a secret underground lab to catch the last flight that will get her home in time to open presents with her three-year-old son. She offers a lift to a young woman in distress, who shares her intimate life story as they drive to the airport. These revelations will have devastating consequences for both of them. The Love Makers is a philosophical thriller about female friendship, class, motherhood, women, and work--and how artificial intelligence and robotics are transforming the future of love and desire. Aifric Campbell combines her novel with essays from leading scientists and commentators who examine what's at stake in our human-machine relationships. What is our future as friends, parents, lovers? Will advances in intelligent machines reverse decades of progress for women? From robot nannies to generative art and our ancient dreams of intelligent machines, The Love Makers blends storytelling with science communication to investigate the challenges and opportunities of emergent technologies and how we want to live. ContributorsRonny Bogani, Joanna J. Bryson, Julie Carpenter, Stephen Cave, Anita Chandran, Peter R. N. Childs, Kate Devlin, Kanta Dihal, Mary Flanagan, Margaret Rhee, Amanda Sharkey, Roberto Trotta, E. R. Truitt, and Richard Watson}, language = {en} } @incollection{Bryson, author = {Bryson, Joanna}, title = {Never Love a Robot: Romantic Companions and the Principle of Transparency}, series = {The Love Makers}, booktitle = {The Love Makers}, editor = {Campbell, Aifric}, publisher = {Goldsmiths Press}, address = {London}, isbn = {97819126858442}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {283 -- 290}, abstract = {It's Christmas Eve when Scarlett leaves an underground tech lab to catch the last flight that will get her home in time to open presents with her three year-old son. She offers a lift to a young woman in distress, who shares her intimate life story as they drive to the airport, but these revelations will have devastating consequences for both of their lives. Aifric Campbell combines her novel with essays from leading scientists and commentators who examine what's at stake in our human-machine relationships. What is our future as friends, parents, lovers? What is the future of love? Will advances in intelligent machines reverse decades of progress for women? From robot nannies to generative art and our ancient dreams of intelligent machines, The Love Makers blends storytelling with science communication to investigate the challenges and opportunities of emergent technologies and how we want to live.}, language = {en} } @article{Bryson, author = {Bryson, Joanna}, title = {The (Most) Algorithmic Animal. Unknowable Causal Structures in the Information Age}, series = {Journal for the Cognitive Science of Religion}, volume = {8}, journal = {Journal for the Cognitive Science of Religion}, number = {2}, doi = {10.1558/jcsr.23612}, pages = {115 -- 121}, abstract = {Rituals are a means of regulation - they are a means for maintaining coherence and attaining long-term goals, including social coherence. But does their efficacy depend entirely, or at all, on their opacity? In this requested commentary on Harvey Whitehouse's new book, The Ritual Animal, I discuss the utility of costly rituals in an evolutionary context, and suggest that causal opacity is only one, potentially substitutable cost. I relate this to the urgent topical concerns of polarization and of regulating sustainability globally.}, language = {en} } @article{RacineBryson, author = {Racine, Elise and Bryson, Joanna}, title = {Epidemic modeling as a means to reimagine health education and policy post-COVID}, series = {Health Education}, volume = {ahead of print}, journal = {Health Education}, issn = {0965-4283}, doi = {10.1108/HE-02-2021-0028}, abstract = {Purpose As illustrated by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), epidemic models are powerful health policy tools critical for disease prevention and control, i.e. if they are fit for purpose. How do people ensure this is the case and where does health education fit in? Design/methodology/approach This research takes a multidisciplinary approach combining qualitative secondary and primary data from a literature review, interviews and surveys. The former spans academic literature, grey literature and course curriculum, while the latter two involve discussions with various modeling stakeholders (educators, academics, students, modeling experts and policymakers) both within and outside the field of epidemiology. Findings More established approaches (compartmental models) appear to be favored over emerging techniques, like agent-based models. This study delves into how formal and informal education opportunities may be driving this preference. Drawing from other fields, the authors consider how this can be addressed. Practical implications This study offers concrete recommendations (course design routed in active learning pedagogies) as to how health education and, by extension, policy can be reimagined post-COVID to make better use of the full range of epidemic modeling methods available. Originality/value There is a lack of research exploring how these methods are taught and how this instruction influences which methods are employed. To fill this gap, this research uniquely engages with modeling stakeholders and bridges disciplinary silos to build complimentary knowledge.}, language = {en} } @incollection{McBrideKupiBryson, author = {McBride, Keegan and Kupi, Maximilian and Bryson, Joanna}, title = {Untangling Agile Government: On the Dual Necessities of Structure and Agility}, series = {Agile Government: Emerging Perspectives in Public Management}, booktitle = {Agile Government: Emerging Perspectives in Public Management}, editor = {Stephens, Melodena and Awamleh, Raed and Salem, Fadi}, publisher = {World Scientific Publishing}, address = {Singapur}, isbn = {9789811239694}, doi = {10.1142/9789811239700_0002}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {300}, abstract = {The governments of today are not able to transform and adapt to changes in the world around them, as demanded by their constituents. The nature of work, value of public goods, and the constant bombardment of crises are making the old bureaucratic structures obsolete. Agile Government is an emerging theme, that of government-wide reinvention for adaptiveness and responsiveness. It places the accountability, delivery, capture, design and creation of public value at the heart of the government. The concept of agile government is confused with terms like Agile Manifesto, agile governance, agility among others, and because of this, needs some unpacking. This book is a deep dive into this topic. It offers insights from the theoretical development of the topic of agile government, some lessons from government practices around the world, and ongoing academic and policy research. The project is spearheaded by the Mohammed Bin Rashid School of Government, which is the first teaching and research institution in the Arab world focusing on public policy and governance.}, language = {en} } @unpublished{DempseyMcBrideHaatajaetal., author = {Dempsey, Mark and McBride, Keegan and Haataja, Meeri and Bryson, Joanna}, title = {Transnational digital governance and its impact on artificial intelligence}, doi = {10.31235/osf.io/xu3jr}, pages = {20}, abstract = {The rapid pace of technological advancement and innovation has put governance and regulatory mechanisms to the test. There is a clear need for new and innovative regulatory mechanisms that enable governments to successfully manage the integration of such technologies into our societies and ensure that such integration occurs in a sustainable, beneficial, and just manner. Artificial Intelligence stands out as one of the most debated such innovations. What exactly is it, how should it be built, how can it be used, and how and should it be regulated? Yet, in this debate, AI is becoming widely utilized within both existing, evolving, and bespoke regulatory contexts. The present chapter explores in particular what is arguably the most successful AI regulatory approach to date, that of the European Union. We explore core definitional concepts, shared understandings, values, and approaches currently in play. We argue that due to the so-called 'Brussels effect', regulatory initiatives within the European Union have a much broader global impact and, therefore, warrant close inspection.}, language = {en} } @article{Bryson, author = {Bryson, Joanna}, title = {One Day, AI Will Seem as Human as Anyone. What Then?}, series = {Wired}, journal = {Wired}, language = {en} } @article{BrysonHaataja, author = {Bryson, Joanna and Haataja, Meeri}, title = {The European Parliament's AI Regulation: Should We Call It Progress?}, series = {Amicus Curiae}, volume = {4, Series 2}, journal = {Amicus Curiae}, number = {3}, doi = {10.14296/ac.v4i3.5612}, pages = {707 -- 718}, abstract = {The European Union (EU) has been leading the world with its influential digital regulation. However, the EU's legislative process is sufficiently complex and careful that some national legislation clearly influenced by the EU's AI Regulation is already in place in other countries, before the law has even been finalized in the EU. Meanwhile, other states and regions are just beginning to develop AI policy. For both the EU and such others, we here describe the outcomes of the first round of legislative action by one of the EU's two legislative bodies, the European Parliament, in terms of modifying the Artificial Intelligence Act. The Parliament has introduced a number of changes we consider to be enormously important, some in a very good way, and some in a very bad way. At stake is whether the AI Act really brings the power and strength of product law to continuously scale improved practice on products in the EU with intelligent components, or whether the law becomes window-dressing aimed only at attacking a few elite actors post hoc. We describe here the EU process, the changes and our recommendations.}, language = {en} } @techreport{DariusStockmannBrysonetal., type = {Working Paper}, author = {Darius, Philipp and Stockmann, Daniela and Bryson, Joanna and Cingolani, Luciana and Griffin, Rachel and Hammerschmid, Gerhard and Kupi, Maximilian and Mones, Haytham and Munzert, Simon and Riordan, R{\´o}n{\´a}n and Stockreiter, Simona}, title = {Implementing Data Access of the Digital Services Act: Collaboration of European Digital Service Coordinators and Researchers in Building Strong Oversight over Social Media Platforms}, doi = {10.48462/opus4-4947}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-49479}, pages = {11}, abstract = {The EU Digital Service Acts signals a move away from self-regulation towards co-regulation of social media platforms within the European Union. To address online harms and rising platform power the DSA clarifies responsibilities of platforms and outlines a new technology regulatory framework to increase oversight. One key oversight instrument constitutes Article 40 of the DSA, which lays out data access for vetted researchers, who add value to regulators and the broader public as creators of knowledge, educators, advisors, innovators, and watchdogs. Currently, the EU Commission and national governments make important decisions regarding Digital Service Coordinators (DSCs) that play a key role in implementation. Based on expertise on European public administration and political science we lay out key challenges and success factors of DSCs that will play a role in promoting successful cooperation between DSCs and researchers. We provide three recommendations: First, we recommend to strengthen transfer of scientific knowledge into policy-making by processing publicly accessible publications within public administrative bodies. To this end, capacities of DSCs need to be increased. In addition, we also point towards the database of vetted researchers collected by the Board of DSCs as important resource in order to strengthen knowledge transfer. Second, the DSC network requires agile institutions with fast response time in order to enable researchers to play a constructive role in implementation. This also includes institutional procedures between DSCs and the Intermediary Body and Data Protection Agencies. To avoid delay in implementation agile institution-building needs to start now. Finally, institutional safeguards will help to avoid strategic choice of companies of the DSC of establishment. At the same time, the Irish DSC's capacity should be strengthened compared to other national DSCs since most large intermediary services providers have their European headquarters in Ireland.}, language = {en} } @article{BaumBrysonDignumetal., author = {Baum, Kevin and Bryson, Joanna and Dignum, Frank and Dignum, Virginia and Grobelnik, Marko and Hoos, Holger and Irgens, Morten and Lukowicz, Paul and Muller, Catelijne and Rossi, Francesca and Shawe-Taylor, John and Theodorou, Andreas and Vinuesa, Ricardo}, title = {From Fear to Action: AI Governance and Opportunities for All}, series = {Frontiers in Computer Science}, volume = {5}, journal = {Frontiers in Computer Science}, doi = {10.3389/fcomp.2023.1210421}, language = {en} } @article{BackovskyBryson, author = {Backovsky, David and Bryson, Joanna}, title = {Going Nuclear? Precedents and Options for the Transnational Governance of AI}, series = {Horizons}, journal = {Horizons}, number = {Summer 2023, No.24}, issn = {2406-0402}, pages = {84 -- 95}, language = {en} } @article{Bryson, author = {Bryson, Joanna}, title = {Margaret Boden obituary: cognitive scientist who explored how machines might emulate human imagination}, series = {Nature}, volume = {644}, journal = {Nature}, number = {8077}, publisher = {Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, doi = {10.1038/d41586-025-02548-0}, pages = {603 -- 603}, language = {en} } @article{Bryson, author = {Bryson, Joanna}, title = {Human Experience and AI Regulation: What European Union Law Brings to Digital Technology Ethics}, series = {Weizenbaum Journal of the Digital Society}, volume = {3}, journal = {Weizenbaum Journal of the Digital Society}, number = {3}, issn = {2748-5625}, doi = {10.34669/WI.WJDS/3.3.8}, abstract = {Although nearly all artificial intelligence (AI) regulatory documents now reference the importance of human-centering digital systems, we frequently see AI ethics itself reduced to limited concerns, such as bias and, sometimes, power consumption. Although their impacts on human lives and our ecosystem render both of these absolutely critical, the ethical and regulatory challenges and obligations relating to AI do not stop there. Joseph Weizenbaum described the potential abuse of intelligent systems to make inhuman cruelty and acts of war more emotionally accessible to human operators. But more than this, he highlighted the need to solve the social issues that facilitate violent acts of war, and the immense potential the use of computers offers in this context. The present article reviews how the EU's digital regulatory legislation—well enforced—could help us address such concerns. I begin by reviewing why the EU leads in this area, considering the legitimacy of its actions both regionally and globally. I then review the legislation already protecting us—the General Data Protection Regulation, the Digital Services Act, and the Digital Markets Act—and consider their roles in achieving Weizenbaum's goals. Finally, I consider the almost-promulgated AI Act before concluding with a brief discussion of the potential for future enforcement and global regulatory cooperation.}, language = {en} } @inproceedings{MellmannArbuzovaKontogiorgosetal., author = {Mellmann, Heinrich and Arbuzova, Polina and Kontogiorgos, Dimosthenis and Yordanova, Magdalena and Haensel, Jennifer X. and Hafner, Verena V. and Bryson, Joanna}, title = {Effects of Transparency in Humanoid Robots - A Pilot Study}, series = {Companion of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction}, booktitle = {Companion of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction}, publisher = {Association for Computing Machinery}, address = {New York, NY, USA}, isbn = {9798400703232}, doi = {10.1145/3610978.3640613}, pages = {750 -- 754}, abstract = {Transparency is recognized as a vital feature for understanding and predicting robot behavior. Another feature that affects interaction with robots is their anthropomorphism. The relationship between these remains under-explored but is postulated to be negative. We present a pilot study investigating the effects of robot transparency in human-robot interactions, where the robot has an anthropomorphic appearance. We asked participants to evaluate and interact with the humanoid robot Pepper to examine whether visualizing the robot's goals and behavior affects perceived intelligence, anthropomorphism, and robot agency. Our preliminary findings suggest that users may attribute higher ratings of agency when interacting with a robot visualizing its goals. In this late-breaking report, we propose our experiment on the interplay between transparency and anthropomorphism in human-robot interaction and summarize insights from our preliminary pilot study.}, language = {en} } @misc{Bryson, author = {Bryson, Joanna}, title = {Governing society with flexible AI}, series = {Science}, volume = {383}, journal = {Science}, number = {6688}, issn = {0036-8075}, doi = {10.1126/science.adn6814}, pages = {1185 -- 1185}, abstract = {Policy that prioritizes human agency is possible, even in an age of artificial intelligence}, language = {en} } @techreport{SchmitzBryson, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Schmitz, Chris and Bryson, Joanna}, title = {A Moral Agency Framework for Legitimate Integration of AI in Bureaucracies}, number = {v3}, publisher = {arXiv}, doi = {10.48550/arXiv.2508.08231}, pages = {15}, abstract = {Public-sector bureaucracies seek to reap the benefits of artificial intelligence (AI), but face important concerns about accountability and transparency when using AI systems. In particular, perception or actuality of AI agency might create ethics sinks — constructs that facilitate dissipation of responsibility when AI systems of disputed moral status interface with bureaucratic structures. Here, we reject the notion that ethics sinks are a necessary consequence of introducing AI systems into bureaucracies. Rather, where they appear, they are the product of structural design decisions across both the technology and the institution deploying it. We support this claim via a systematic application of conceptions of moral agency in AI ethics to Weberian bureaucracy. We establish that it is both desirable and feasible to render AI systems as tools for the generation of organizational transparency and legibility, which continue the processes of Weberian rationalization initiated by previous waves of digitalization. We present a three-point Moral Agency Framework for legitimate integration of AI in bureaucratic structures: (a) maintain clear and just human lines of accountability, (b) ensure humans whose work is augmented by AI systems can verify the systems are functioning correctly, and (c) introduce AI only where it doesn't inhibit the capacity of bureaucracies towards either of their twin aims of legitimacy and stewardship. We suggest that AI introduced within this framework can not only improve efficiency and productivity while avoiding ethics sinks, but also improve the transparency and even the legitimacy of a bureaucracy.}, language = {en} } @incollection{Bryson, author = {Bryson, Joanna}, title = {From Definition to Regulation: Is the European Union Getting AI Right?}, series = {Artificial Intelligence and Fundamental Rights: The AI Act of the European Union and its implications for global technology regulation}, volume = {4}, booktitle = {Artificial Intelligence and Fundamental Rights: The AI Act of the European Union and its implications for global technology regulation}, editor = {Raue, Benjamin and von Ungern-Sternberg, Antje and Kumkar, Lea Katharina and R{\"u}fner, Thomas}, publisher = {Verein f{\"u}r Recht und Digitalisierung e.V. Institute for Digital LawTrier (IRDT)}, address = {Trier}, isbn = {9783565013197}, doi = {10.25353/ubtr-dab1-9b5c-1ec6}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {11 -- 34}, language = {en} } @article{EvansRobbinsBryson, author = {Evans, Katie D. and Robbins, Scott A. and Bryson, Joanna}, title = {Do We Collaborate With What We Design?}, series = {Topics in Cognitive Science}, volume = {17}, journal = {Topics in Cognitive Science}, number = {2}, doi = {10.1111/tops.12682}, pages = {392 -- 411}, abstract = {The use of terms like "collaboration" and "co-workers" to describe interactions between human beings and certain artificial intelligence (AI) systems has gained significant traction in recent years. Yet, it remains an open question whether such anthropomorphic metaphors provide either a fertile or even a purely innocuous lens through which to conceptualize designed commercial products. Rather, a respect for human dignity and the principle of transparency may require us to draw a sharp distinction between real and faux peers. At the heart of the concept of collaboration lies the assumption that the collaborating parties are (or behave as if they are) of similar status: two agents capable of comparable forms of intentional action, moral agency, or moral responsibility. In application to current AI systems, this not only seems to fail ontologically but also from a socio-political perspective. AI in the workplace is primarily an extension of capital, not of labor, and the AI "co-workers" of most individuals will likely be owned and operated by their employer. In this paper, we critically assess both the accuracy and desirability of using the term "collaboration" to describe interactions between humans and AI systems. We begin by proposing an alternative ontology of human-machine interaction, one which features not two equivalently autonomous agents, but rather one machine that exists in a relationship of heteronomy to one or more human agents. In this sense, while the machine may have a significant degree of independence concerning the means by which it achieves its ends, the ends themselves are always chosen by at least one human agent, whose interests may differ from those of the individuals interacting with the machine. We finally consider the motivations and risks inherent to the continued use of the term "collaboration," exploring its strained relation to the concept of transparency, and consequences for the future of work.}, language = {en} } @article{JuglPagelGarciaJimenezetal., author = {Jugl, Marlene and Pagel, William A. M. and Garcia Jimenez, Maria Camilla and Salendres, Jean Pierre and Lowe, Will and Malikova, Helena and Bryson, Joanna}, title = {Spamming the regulator: exploring a new lobbying strategy in EU competition procedures}, series = {Journal of Antitrust Enforcement}, volume = {12}, journal = {Journal of Antitrust Enforcement}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1093/jaenfo/jnad009}, abstract = {Regulation plays a central role in modern governance; yet, we have limited knowledge of how subjects of regulation—particularly, private actors—act in the face of potentially adverse regulatory decisions. Here, we document and examine a novel lobbying strategy in the context of competition regulation, a strategy that exploits the regulator's finite administrative capacities. Companies with merger cases under scrutiny by the European Commission's Directorate General for Competition appear to be employing a strategy of 'spamming the regulator,' through the strategic and cumulative submission of economic expert assessments. Procedural pressures may result in an undeservedly favourable assessment of the merger. Based on quantitative and qualitative analyses of an original dataset of all complex merger cases in the European Union 2005-2020, we present evidence of this new strategy and a possible learning process among private actors. We suggest remedies to ensure regulatory effectiveness in the face of this novel strategy.}, language = {en} } @techreport{BaumBryson, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Baum, Leonard and Bryson, Joanna J.}, title = {Policy lessons from China: A quantitative examination of China's new competition regime for the digital economy}, publisher = {Center for Open Science}, doi = {10.31235/osf.io/zyc6s_v3}, pages = {36}, abstract = {Growing global concern about the problems associated with concentrated market power in the digital economy is leading to a renewed interest in competition policy. Since the late 2010s, China's government has squarely confronted the problems of its own 'Big Tech' with a new competition regime for digital markets. Outcomes represent a unique learning opportunity for Western academics, competition authorities and lawmakers alike, which has so far been underutilized. However, given unreliable official figures, a new methodology is needed to assess competition in China's digital economy. This article introduces a market capitalization approach that builds on the informativeness of China's financial markets. We use Bloomberg financial data of 1142 publicly listed firms for the period 2019 to 2022 to quantitatively examine the impact of China's new digital competition regime. We find a causal link between the new governance approach and a reduction of market concentration and aggregate growth in the primary markets of China's three most dominant digital platforms - Baidu, Alibaba and Tencent (BATs). Further, our results show a robust correlation between the new competition regime and reduced market concentration and market capitalization growth rates across China's digital markets. Other empirical findings include a negative correlation between market concentration and the openness of digital markets, a non-relationship between market concentration and profits, and the inability of profit and revenue-based metrics to capture market power effectively in China's digital economy. Finally, we discuss the relevance of these insights for Western regulatory strategies, particularly as the EU and China emerge as global frontrunners in the field of digital competition regulation.}, language = {en} } @techreport{HeddesheimerBryson, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Heddesheimer, Vincent and Bryson, Joanna J.}, title = {Economic Insecurity Increases Affective Polarization and Outgroup-Aversion}, publisher = {Center for Open Science}, doi = {10.31219/osf.io/x23bj_v1}, pages = {19, S21}, abstract = {Affective polarization --- a deep emotional divide between opposing social and political groups --- has become a pressing global governance challenge, disrupting both democratic processes and policy uptake. While some degree of position polarization should be expected in a healthy, multi-party political system, the factors driving recent extremes in divisions remain unclear. One candidate factor, economic instability, has been frequently linked to rising polarization, but causal evidence to date has been limited. Using panel survey data from the Netherlands and a difference-in-differences design, we show that economic insecurity significantly increases affective polarization. The effect persists for years, with a longer (though slower) expression among men. It is also accompanied by increased distrust and social group clustering. Our findings suggest that economic insecurity is a key driver of polarization, highlighting the role of labor market stability in shaping political and social cohesion.}, language = {en} }