TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search results
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search resultsEurope should reject US-style competitiveness
A better approach would not promote any version of competition, but rather encourage firms to compete and succeed in ways that produce broad-based benefits.
Change text size
Gift Premium Articles
to Anyone
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
A man passes a light sign reading “State of the European Union“ on the day of EU Commission President's annual State of the Union address during a plenary session on Sept. 10, 2025, at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France. (AFP/Sebastien Bozon)
E
ven before United States President Donald Trump ratcheted up his demand for control of Greenland, European leaders were feverishly reassessing every aspect of the transatlantic relationship, from security to trade. One area of particular concern has been the European Union’s supposed “competitiveness” deficit with the US.
The conventional wisdom nowadays, on both sides of the Atlantic, is that Europe can no longer keep up. The US, for example, boasts most of the world’s tech behemoths. It is also home to nine of the world’s 10 most valuable companies, with the Taiwan-based chip producer TSMC the only exception.
But there is more to economic success than market capitalization. One problem with the prevailing narrative on “competitiveness” is that it treats competition as a one-dimensional quantity that can be dialed up or down. In reality, competition has a qualitative component, and can take many forms, only some of which are socially advantageous.
When we think of competition, we typically think of a constructive version of it, in which firms make sales and capture market share by offering attractive prices or delivering new and improved products. After Apple introduced the iPhone in 2007, other firms worked to develop smartphones with similar features, but at a lower price point. This sort of competition has clear benefits for consumers.
But competition can also take more pernicious forms. For example, firms may deceive the public with false claims about their products or those of their rivals. Soon after Apple launched the iPhone, propelling a revolution in wireless communications, Volkswagen built up a large market for diesel passenger cars in the US. It marketed these vehicles as “clean,” even though they did not meet US environmental standards and worsened air quality in many places. For years, Volkswagen profited from this deception.
Some of the US tech giants’ competitive practices are patently injurious to consumers and workers. Facebook and Google became digital advertising giants by systematically surveilling users to develop detailed profiles of them, while minimizing transparency and user control. This enabled them to direct advertising and other content with greater precision than traditional media could.
As pioneers of the “gig economy,” Uber and DoorDash grew rapidly not just by making it more convenient to hail rides and order food, but also by misclassifying their workers as independent contractors, thereby avoiding their legal responsibility to pay drivers minimum wage and to provide overtime pay and benefits. Both firms also came under fire for altering their app designs to discourage tipping, an action that proved very costly for delivery partners.
