Monopoly, the board game, is often held up as a demonstration of capitalism, teaching us how business works. Actually, it does much more than that. While it is true that the goal of a budding capitalist is to gain as much market share as possible, the game shows that allowing one player to do so is bad for society as a whole. Now there is nothing wrong with a businessman seeking a monopoly. It is for society – through its political institutions – to protect its broader interests and to prevent monopolistic tendencies through public policy.
It should come as no surprise that technology entrepreneurs should be dreaming of an “everything app,” a smartphone application that would deliver everything to everyone. Elon Musk has become the latest investor to declare ambition to build such super-apps, saying his shotgun acquisition is Twitter’s “X, an accelerator for building apps for everything.” There are others who want to emulate the success of WeChat, a Chinese super-app that propelled Tencent, its developer, to the top of China’s tech ecosystem.
You might also like
Adani in talks with global investors to raise $10 billion
Why Indian Music Apps Are Let Down: 4 Charts
Return of GST profiteers 500 crore to customers
Why banks are buying more G-Secs than they need
Much of the immediate reaction to Musk’s announcement today centered around the difficulty of building an everything app outside of China. Yes, it is true that the timing of WeChat was instrumental in its success, that payments are difficult to integrate because financial regulations are strict and differ across all jurisdictions and that user behavior in China may differ from other countries. But these are Musk’s problems.
Of greater concern to free societies around the world is the fact that an “everything app” presents great risks to personal, economic and political freedom. As Daring Fireball’s John Gruber puts it, “It’s no coincidence that WeChat is the only ‘everything app’ one can cite, and it comes from China, an authoritarian regime. In practice, the concept is actually Only there makes sense. It doesn’t benefit users that WeChat dominates all aspects of digital life—it benefits the authoritarian Communist Party of China (and investors in Tencent, WeChat’s Chinese-government-controlled parent company) .)”
It is practically impossible for a person in China to exit WeChat. The user is socially locked into a ‘private’ company to perform any or all of the socio-economic functions. Tencent and the Chinese Communist Party have enormous power and influence over millions of Chinese citizens. The company behind the Everything app will have a greater grasp on the minds, likes and actions of citizens than religious, social and political leaders. No sovereign state, let alone a liberal democracy, should accept such an outcome.
It doesn’t matter whether all apps are foreign or indigenous. To the extent that they dominate and have influence in the markets, they threaten individual liberty and the sovereignty of the state. Instead of waiting until it’s too late, public policy should prevent apps from achieving socio-economic dominance in the first place.
This can be done in two ways. The first is to ensure that the market for apps, operating systems and platforms is competitive. Apart from enacting consumer protection and competition laws, India needs stronger privacy and data protection laws as part of the Digital India Act, which is being considered by the central government. Already home apps that started off as ride-sharing, food delivery and apartment-entry services are on the way to becoming super-apps. Legislation must inject regulatory barriers, friction and legal firewalls to prevent entrepreneurs from achieving multi-market dominance.
The second way is the promotion of open public digital infrastructure for the state and the need for interoperability. Unified Payments Interface (UPI) and the newly launched Open Network for Digital Commerce (ONDC) are examples. Even these should be steered towards greater openness, sustainable business models and greater competition.
On a deeper level, Musk’s desire to emulate the Chinese model alerts us to a lurking danger: The interests of Big Tech are separating from those of liberal democracies. It is well known that their advertising-based business models are problematic and subject to public scrutiny. What is less recognized is how reckless adoption of tech business models can undermine national interests in a way that unintentionally drives us into a dystopia of unfreedom. Engineers and managers generally lacking a comprehensive education in civics, humanities and ethics are poorly equipped to make socially responsible choices. Entrepreneurs who are inspired by Chinese apps and business models should worry us. Investors, founders and educational institutions should strive to educate tech professionals on social issues. Protecting our liberties may indeed be their most important corporate social responsibility. India’s interests will be better served if technology companies use their CSR funds to invest in liberal education to their workforce than in doing social welfare.
Tailpiece: Elizabeth Magee patented The Landlord’s Game in 1904, “to demonstrate that an economy that rewards individuals is better than an economy where the monopolist owns all property” and called it monopoly or anti-monopoly Can be played with rules. Ironically, the former has become more popular and has been the basis of the Monopoly board game since 1935. The board game market, however, is fragmented and competitive.
Nitin Pai is the co-founder and director of The Taxila Institution, an independent center for research and education in public policy.
Elsewhere in Minto
In opinion, Manu Joseph explains why the boss likes office Too many. Rajrishi Singhal finds a mango The Link Between Lone Haircuts and Freebies, Long story asks: can a Regulation for EV Manufacturers be a road bump?
catch all business News, market news, today’s fresh news events and breaking news Updates on Live Mint. download mint news app To get daily market updates.