Our dependency on American big tech did not emerge from a deliberate national strategy. It is the outcome of years of pragmatic, incremental decisions. Dutch government, industry and society moved to the American cloud because this was convenient, efficient and affordable. This happened without any deliberate strategy at the executive level. This pragmatic, cost-driven mindset often characterizes the Dutch approach to technology, where the fastest or cheapest solution tends to prevail. The result is a deeply entrenched reliance. The central government operates almost entirely on the Microsoft Cloud, creating structural exposure that is increasingly hard to ignore. Also Dutch industry and academia is highly reliant on US hyperscalers. We are increasingly dependent on technologies that, if used by a geopolitical actor with malicious intent, can lead to significant insecurity and harm to public health. And the same type of digital dependence undoubtedly also occurs in other European Member States. As a result, one now hears increasingly calls for “digital autonomy”, i.e. less dependence on the “hyperscalers”.
Most policy makers looking to change this undesirable situation consider some form of regulation. For instance, regulation that favours European alternatives for American big tech. Regulation seems like the most direct route to reducing dependency on non-European tech providers. Yet in practice, this approach is not a panacea. Legislative processes in the EU take years and require consensus across many institutions.
Hard law favouring European alternatives also creates significant legal and geopolitical exposure. Measures designed to favour European solutions can trigger challenges under WTO rules for violating principles of equal market access. It could be considered as unlawful barrier to trade. Almost certainly, the American government will retaliate with tariffs. This danger is certainly realistic as can be inferred from the example that the European Commission recently abandoned its plans for a tax on digital companies. The move was reportedly part of negotiations with the U.S. government on import tariffs. A clear victory for American tech giants. Moreover, a regulatory approach may lead to similar reaction from other trading partners like China or India.
But there is another approach. Something simple and effective we can already do right now: lower the transaction costs for organisations that want to switch to European alternatives. This can for example be done by enhancing and creating public information. This is an application of nudging and behavioural economics. The idea is to change the choice architecture whereby large European users are “nudged” towards European providers. The aim is not to steer organisations away from hyperscalers by force, but to make switching feasible for those who want to explore other options. Rather than prescribing specific technologies, this ‘nudging approach’ makes alternatives visible and simplifies the decision-making process. The advantage of using nudging is that it is flexible and respects the principle of free choice. It is considered a form of “libertarian paternalism”. Moreover, providing clear information on European alternatives and presenting those in an attractive manner does not take years and is a relatively budget friendly step.
In that context, it is very surprising that apparently, very few coordinated steps have been taken in this direction. Anyone who seriously looks for European alternatives quickly notices that accessible information is scarce and difficult to locate. Comparison initiatives are very fragmented and often run on a voluntary basis.
A few examples:
● digitalalternatives.eu – run by a single volunteer, and European companies struggle to keep their proposition up to date.
● The Reddit page BuyFromEU by Laura Catz is rather unstructured and covers not only digital alternatives but also, for example, European cola.
● A blog by the company Wire: which develops its own communication tool and, naturally, does not have as its core business to provide up-to-date European counterparts for all major digital services.
Not every small business or public service provider needs the full suite of integrated products offered by hyperscalers. Many could meet their needs perfectly well with a mix of specialised European tools thus providing a reduced dependence and more digital autonomy. But small and medium enterprises do not have time and energy to take a lot of effort in finding and comparing European alternatives. It is time for governments and industry associations to take the lead themselves to stimulate knowledge about how to switch to European alternatives. Many organisations would, for instance, benefit from a platform or tool where they can enter their current tech solution (for example Notion, Zoom, Google Docs, you name it) and receive an overview of European alternatives for that specific tool, including the relevant next steps. With the help of nudging we can switch from talking about digital autonomy to actually making it happen.
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.