# Datalism and Data Monopolies in the Era of A.I.: A Research Agenda

**Authors:** Catherine E. A. Mulligan, Phil Godsiff  
**arXiv:** [2307.08049](https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.08049)  
**Date:** 2023-07-16  
**Summary page:** https://www.summarizepaper.com/en/paper/2307.08049v1/

## Key points

- The emergence of data monopolies, known as Datalists, challenges traditional definitions used within Monopoly Capital Theory (MCT)
- Datalists pursue monopolistic control over data rather than traditional market control
- Datalists heavily rely on data about humans and their creative outputs as inputs for AI algorithms
- Humans providing the data are not classified as employees and do not receive compensation or recognition for their labor
- Monopoly theory in economics needs to be reevaluated to incorporate a detailed analysis of the technologies underlying Datalism
- Future research should focus on examining the role of Datalism and its impact on economic activity
- Intangible assets such as digital data and software enable big tech companies to achieve rapid expansion at minimal cost
- The dominant neo-liberal economic paradigm may no longer be sufficient in understanding these new forms of monopolistic control
- Further research is needed to develop a theory of monopoly power that incorporates digital technology and its implications for economic activity
- Understanding Datalism's role is crucial in comprehending how data monopolies operate and their impact on markets and society.

## Summary

The paper discusses the emergence of data monopolies, referred to as Datalists, in the era of artificial intelligence (AI) and algorithms. These companies are challenging traditional definitions used within Monopoly Capital Theory (MCT) by pursuing monopolistic control over data rather than traditional market control. The productive processes of Datalists heavily rely on data about humans and their creative outputs, which are used as inputs for AI algorithms. However, these humans are not classified as employees and therefore do not receive compensation or recognition for their labor. The authors argue that this evolution necessitates a reevaluation of monopoly theory in economics. They propose that MCT should incorporate a more detailed analysis of the technologies underlying Datalism to understand the dynamics of monopoly power in the digital age. While traditional frameworks focused on price and output control, the authors suggest that future research should shift towards examining the role of Datalism and its impact on economic activity. The presence of intangible assets, such as digital data and accompanying software, has enabled big tech companies to achieve rapid expansion at minimal cost. This highlights the power of intangible assets and data as means of control for Datalists over resources rather than market prices or output. Consequently, there is a growing consensus that the dominant neo-liberal economic paradigm may no longer be sufficient or relevant in understanding these new forms of monopolistic control. In conclusion, the paper calls for further research to develop a theory of monopoly power that incorporates digital technology and its implications for economic activity. It emphasizes the need to move away from traditional frameworks and focus on understanding Datalism's role in shaping economic relationships. By doing so, economists can gain insights into how data monopolies operate and their impact on markets and society at large.