The Economist: le barriere nazionali al commercio elettronico frenano la crescita economica e lo sviluppo sociale

1. IT IS wise, in times of austerity, to do one’s Christmas shopping
early. Why put up with in ated holiday-season prices? In Brus-
sels there are cheerful ea markets aplenty and impressive ware-
houses of charity goods. And if the heart of Europe is hardly
the capital for bargains when it comes to new products, it matters
little. The euro makes it easy to compare prices across 16 coun-
tries, and the single market allows goods to move freely within
the European Union. So with a fast internet connection, it should
be easy to nd the best deals from Lisbon to Lapland. Saint Nick
need never leave home.
Time,then,toraiseaglassofmulledwinetotheEU’sfourfree-
doms of movement: people, goods, services and capital? Up to a
point.TheEUlikestothinkofitselfasacontinent-sizedmarketof
500mconsumersand20m rms.Inpractice,itisoftenanagglom-
eration of national markets, each with its rules and oddities. Ask
the French retailer, Carrefour, Europe’s biggest. It wants to buy its
own-brand cheese from the Netherlands, but is prevented from
doingsobyFrance.Why?BecauseDutchemmenthalisproduced
in 15kg (33lb) moulds, and France insists that it be made in 40kg
ones. When Carrefour ships French-made chairs to its stores in It-
aly, the French safety certi cates must be countersigned by an
Italian laboratory. Absurdly, Carrefour says it has to con rm that
the chairs will not be used for the purposes of torture.
Scan the European Commission’s consumer reports, and the
distortions are visible. Pre-tax car prices may be fairly uniform
across the EU, but the same is not true of vacuum cleaners. How
to explain that food costs 28% more in Belgium than next door in
the Netherlands, when the two countries are of broadly similar
size and wealth? Paracetamol costs14 times as much in France as
it does in the Netherlands. Some variation may be explained by
tax rates and the cost of real estate, wages and transport. Even so,
the single market is clearly not living up to its name.
In the past such di erences might just about have been sus-
tainable. Shoppers usually travel only a few kilometres from
home or work to compare prices. But in the internet age such
stubborn gaps are perplexing. Surely, consumers should be get-
ting online to take advantage of cheaper prices. And yet it is not
happening. Only a tiny share of e-commerce transactions in the
EU which themselves make up a small fraction of European
transactions overall are conducted across national borders.
In part this re ects a problem common to all European retail-
ing. Some shops like to segment their markets to maximise mar-
gins where they face less competition. Big retailers, in turn, com-
plain that suppliers impose geographical barriers: identical
goods produced in the same factory must often be bought at dif-
ferent prices to be sold in di erent countries. Eurocrats suspect
there is much market- xing going on, in breach of the EU’s ser-
vices directive. This forbids discrimination against consumers
in di erent countries, except where di erences are justi ed by
objective criteria . How these should be interpreted and en-
forced is a matter for individual countries.
In part, the obstacles to cross-border internet trading are pecu-
liar to the online world. Price-comparison websites remain obsti-
nately national. A bigger problem is that most online retailers
don’t want the hassle of 27 di erent consumer-protection laws,
VAT rules, electronic waste regulations and postal systems. Vary-
ing copyright rules hinder pan-European downloads of music
and video les, and even sales of music players and blank CDs.
In short, European shoppers and rms still think nationally.
Oddly, it is American online traders such as Dell, Amazon, eBay
and Apple that are the most active in Europe (though not without
problems). Maybe they had an early advantage. Maybe only big
players have the administrative strength to cope with so many
national rules. Or maybe Europeans just can’t think big. Whatev-
er the reason, European shoppers often nd it easier to buy goods
from America than from a neighbouring country.
Break down the barriers
The single market is perhaps the EU’s biggest achievement. At a
time of economic weakness, freeing the retail sector online and
o ine is a good way to improve competitiveness and boost
growth. But for Michel Barnier, the internal-market commission-
er, the single market is both more and more necessary, and less
and less popular . As the man who ran the failed French referen-
dum campaign to approve the European constitution in 2005, he
is acutely aware of the danger of voter backlash.
On October 27th Mr Barnier unveiled 50 proposals to re-
launch the single market, including the promotion of internet
commerce. He has tried to sugar the pill with a layer of social
policies and rhetoric. Some have been removed from the text. In
any case, ritual rea rmation of the European charter of funda-
mental rights, including workers’ right to take collective action ,
will not convince those who dislike the single market.
A better strategy would be to demonstrate its bene ts. So ex-
tend the four freedoms online. This will need more active polic-
ing of existing rules, for example on discrimination and unfair
trading practices. The commission should help countries align
the way they apply directives, and nd a way of simplifying VAT
payments. In some areas, countries should harmonise consumer
and copyright laws.
The gains will be worth it. Small and medium-sized rms will
nd it easier to grow; to succeed, though, they will have to devel-
op the same global ambition as American incumbents. With a
thrivingonlineeconomy,citizenswouldenjoygreaterchoiceand
cheaper prices; those living in remote areas, and the elderly who
struggle to go to the shops, would more easily get the goods and
services they need. That would be a tting Christmas present. 7
Europe’s need for e-freedom
Internet commerce reveals the limits of Europe’s single market. Freeing it up will bring growth and social bene ts
Charlemagne
50 Europe The Economist October 30th 2010
Economist.com/blogs/charlemagne