TY - JOUR A1 - Jugl, Marlene A1 - Pagel, William A. M. A1 - Garcia Jimenez, Maria Camilla A1 - Salendres, Jean Pierre A1 - Lowe, Will A1 - Malikova, Helena A1 - Bryson, Joanna T1 - Spamming the regulator: exploring a new lobbying strategy in EU competition procedures JF - Journal of Antitrust Enforcement N2 - 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. Y1 - 2024 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1093/jaenfo/jnad009 N1 - Published: 18 April 2023 VL - 12 IS - 1 ER - TY - RPRT A1 - Baum, Leonard A1 - Bryson, Joanna J. T1 - Policy lessons from China: A quantitative examination of China's new competition regime for the digital economy N2 - 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. Y1 - 2025 U6 - https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/zyc6s_v3 PB - Center for Open Science ER - TY - RPRT A1 - Heddesheimer, Vincent A1 - Bryson, Joanna J. T1 - Economic Insecurity Increases Affective Polarization and Outgroup-Aversion N2 - 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. Y1 - 2025 U6 - https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/x23bj_v1 PB - Center for Open Science ER -