Artificial intelligence, big data, platform capitalism and public policy: An evolutionary perspective
Marc Jacquinet
Please cite the paper as:
Marc Jacquinet, (2019), Artificial intelligence, big data, platform capitalism and public policy: An evolutionary perspective, World Economics Association (WEA) Conferences, No. 1 2019, Going Digital, 15th November to 20th December, 2019
Abstract
The present paper aims to discuss the change in political economy when considering the new context and complexity of social, environmental and economic issues today, and more recently all the debates around artificial intelligence, big data and platform capitalism. First, it is important that the reflection be situated in the new and latest phase of transformation of the capitalist system, either globally or locally. Second, the convergence between artificial intelligence, big data, computer science and platforms is not fortuitous and there is more than buzzwords, but new real economic processes emerging. Third, the evolutionary perspective adopted here is based on complexity theory and the recent developments in the study of innovation, technological change and institutions, from a rather heterodox view mixed with economic history. Fourth, the historical dimension of change and the need to adopt a long view of historical processes, namely because of uncertainty, ignorance and constraints on economic agents. Finally, the problem of framing political issues and measures is tackled and is related to the level of complexity of what is at stake with the digital transformation of capitalist economies and different types of democratic societies.
ICT impacts not only the real economy or society, but also economics, humanities and social sciences, including Political Economy. As human minds were treated as entities or “substantials” as physical objects, in the way by Algorithm Framework Theory, any eco-social changes would be theoretically not surprising, although analysts need further to observe, analyze, simulate and forecast them, competing with practitioners, and examining their foreseeability. Both Political Economy and Evolutionary Economics can be synthesized into the Algorithmic Economics (or Algorithmic Social Science), which takes the evolution of thought as its hardcore. Thanks.
Bin Li,
Thank you for your comments.
If I understood your first comment, I would say that yes ICT impacts the real economy and economics, and I would say economic modeling. I would add that the use of big data is further by the growing capacity of ICT to treat ever-bigger chunks of information.
My point is basically about policymaking and the framing of issues for deciding what policies to choose of favour. I would like to see how you conceive algorithmic social science, for example.
Marc Jacquinet
Dear Bin Li,
If I understand you correctly, ICT impacts the real economy and society as well as economics, and economic modeling. I agree with you. In your framework of AFT you might be right.
My aim was and is to discuss the policy-making debate in economics in relation to big data. With ever-increasing databases, ICT is expanding the availability of outcomes and forecast to make a decision.
I would maintain, however that big data does not contain all the information we need, furthermore, the data that are in that way collected are often biased, especially for research purpose.
Marc Jacquinet
In order to calrify the “Algorithmic Instance”, for example, big data is not a new problem as long as “data” was deemed a kind of economic object. Data, whatever big or small, support, constraint and shape economic activities all the time. The platform capitalism, or the sharing economy, can be found always existent, whenever in old, current or future times, as long as the Bounded Rationality is “ALgorithmically” infiltrated into perspectives of economists. Thanks.
Dear Bin Li,
I have a question about, for instance, the non-possibility of bounded rationality being infiltrated into the perspectives of economists? From your perspective, what it can leave out?
Thank you,
Marc
Dear Marc,
Thank you for your further question. I meant that bounded rationality actually deeply shaped the economy everywhere, but it was unfortunately not perceived (or under-perceived) by economists. Economics should have been built on bounded rationality much earlier. Now, big data as an economic problem is raised, which could lead us to re-think the fundamentals of economics, then data, algorithms and other hidden issues will emerge, economics would probably be “Algorithmically” corrected and re-built up. This topic relates only partially to your policy-making paper.
Thank you!
Dear Marc, I have some suggestions that can (perhaps) improve your discussion:
1. Make a better connection between the sections and clarify your aim;
2. Maybe you can add the debate of Techno Economic Paradigm (Carlota Perez) in the technological development argument;
3. Incorporate the debate of crisis and the necessity of the system to overcome (momentarily) the contradictions with new settings of configuration;
4. Complexity: the debate of self-organization. Although unstable, capitalism has its own logic of development even with the destruction of components and creation of new ones.
All the best,
Guilherme.
Dear Guilherme,
I agree the connection should be better worked out. I will work on that.
On the second remark, I know the work of Carlota Perez, Chris Freeman, and Keith Pavitt that are about the techno-economic system (of the techno-economic paradigm as it is often called by the very same author. I still have to dig deeper the issue of the environment and the sustainability of capitalism, namely from a broader perspective, like Augustin Berque, eco-techno-symbolic system.
The discussion about the green new deal in the UK, Europe, and the USA is heading in that direction, somehow.
On the third remark, I will think about it. One way to think about crisis and to overcome contradictions is to take on board a better understanding of risk (and uncertainty) and understand how the control of risk (financial risk, the profit margin in the banking sector and big corporations) is augmenting risk rather than decreasing it. In that very specific point, I rejoin the analysis of Grazia Ietto-Gillies in her keynote paper.
Finally, complexity here has to be understood not just metaphorically but also theoretically and methodologically. Futhermore, to grasp better the issue of public policy, it is important to gain a better understanding of historical processes and how we get here or are stuck in some unsatisfactory situations.
I hope I give you some convincing answers.
Thank you,
Marc Jacquinet
Dear Marc,
Thanks for sahring your ideas about the current policy challenges.
Ater reading your paper, my main questions are
1. To what degree is the digital economy changing the institutional policy background?
2. Which could be the first setps of an alternative agenda oriented to face the global digital regional challenges ?
For the second question on the first steps for an alternative agenda, I think that I could take some of the institutional issues I have highlighted as well as the following points to tackle the digital regional challenges. The first step should be taken locally, nationally and globally, wherever and whenever possible. Second, the regulatory framework should reinforce the duty of corporations and investors towards workers and communities. The current unaccountability of corporations with regard to the future prospects of their labor force and the labor force that has been laid is no acceptable and feeds political instability. It is also one mechanism that increases inequalities in terms of income, access to health services, inter alia. Third, reworking form the bottom up, from grass root movements, the labor rights and guarantees in articulation with trade unions and other associations. Fourth, tax transparency should be promoted for corporations, CEOs and other people involved in politics and decision making processes. Finally, it could be interesting to promote and strengthen real responsibility and solidarity.
To answer the first question, I would say that the digital economy, including AI and the use of big data, is changing the institutional background for policy in several ways. I will limit here some basic points. First, the problem of concentration of power and vested interest both in the political and economic spheres. It transforms citizens into data points and consumers. Related to this is the lobbying and media control of corporations versus citizens (divided and spread across spaces – real or physical or virtual). Second, the blurring of boundaries, namely between private and public sectors, between private and public interests, between politicians and businesspersons, etc. Third, there is an acceleration of change. Finally, an increasing disconnect between policy-makers and citizens.
Your paper is a very nice one. My question is : How can e-government/e-governance become fully operational and successful in developing countries?
The e-government and e-governance in developing countries should also help emerge the online public discussion of local communities, namely with regard to the investment of corporations, but also for discussing the issues of political decisions that are very often centralized.
Currently, in many developing countries, the e-government communication is usually oneway and it should get information from citizens so that government decisions are better. The enabling of citizens to use technologies is important but should also think and help people that are not able to use new communication technologies. .
To answer the first question, I would say that the digital economy, including AI and the use of big data, is changing the institutional background for policy in several ways. I will limit here some basic points. First, the problem of concentration of power and vested interest both in the political and economic spheres. It transforms citizens into data points and consumers. Related to this is the lobbying and media control of corporations versus citizens (divided and spread across spaces – real or physical or virtual). Second, the blurring of boundaries, namely between private and public sectors, between private and public interests, between politicians and businesspersons, etc. Third, there is an acceleration of change. Finally, an increasing disconnect between policy-makers and citizens.