Commentary

A recent working paper found that a 1-unit increase in the proxy variable for digital intensity was associated with a 5.8 percent increase in the likelihood that a firm would export.

Establishing the Foundation for Energy Security and Innovation (FESI) was a vital initial step, but its value will depend on what happens next.

Neo-Brandeisians have launched a campaign to discredit the argument that breaking up or shackling America’s large technology multinationals would be a boon for China. But they’re wrong.

Congress and other stakeholders would do well to ignore SOPA as a relic of the past and instead focus on those stakeholders who want to engage on the substantial and growing body of evidence from around the world.

A recent working paper suggests that trade and technology restrictions in the U.S. not only reduce consumer welfare and exports, but also negatively influence other indicators such as foreign investment due to declines in associated technology transfer.

Policymakers should ignore neo-Brandeisian calls to regulate or break up large companies. Another study has found large firms can benefit the economy and are crucial for optimal productivity.

Canada needs a productivity commission. But instead of emulating Australia’s model, which is driven by orthodox neoclassical economics, it should take guidance from “productionists” with a deep understanding of firm, industry, and technology dynamics.

On the Australian Productivity Commission’s watch, productivity growth in Australia over the last two decades is at its lowest for 60 years, with accompanying real wage stagnation.

The EU Commission is charting the wrong course by investigating large American technology companies under the Digital Markets Act for competitive behavior like anti-steering rules.

Instead of making a Faustian bargain with neo-Brandeisians, conservatives must come to grips with what the neo-Brandeisian movement really is: a revolutionary assault on corporate America operating under the guise of “protecting democracy.”