IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jcomle/v8y2012i3p459-468..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Search Neutrality And Referral Dominance

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel A. Crane

Abstract

Dominant Internet search engines such as Google have been accused of favoring their proprietary content and services in organic search rankings. Some commentators have proposed a “search neutrality” principle that would prohibit such favoritism and require search engines to rank results using neutral or objective criteria. Such criticisms are vulnerable to at least two important shortcomings. First, the relationship between search dominance and referral dominance is weak at best. A showing that dominant search engines distort competition in adjacent sites and services through self-referral has not been made. Second, requiring a “neutral” approach to search ranking would freeze search engines into an outdated “ten-blue-links” model and stymie search engine innovation.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel A. Crane, 2012. "Search Neutrality And Referral Dominance," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 459-468.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jcomle:v:8:y:2012:i:3:p:459-468.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/joclec/nhs014
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Justus Haucap & Torben Stühmeier, 2016. "Competition and antitrust in Internet markets," Chapters, in: Johannes M. Bauer & Michael Latzer (ed.), Handbook on the Economics of the Internet, chapter 9, pages 183-210, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Dewenter Ralf & Lüth Hendrik, 2015. "Eine alternative Definition von Suchneutralität / An alternative definition of search neutrality," ORDO. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, De Gruyter, vol. 66(1), pages 221-242, January.
    3. Wiebke Roß & Jens Weghake, 2015. "10 Jahre YouTube: Von dem Aufstieg einer Plattform und der Entwicklung neuer Märkte zum Kollateralschaden einer Google-Regulierung?," TUC Working Papers in Economics 0014, Abteilung für Volkswirtschaftslehre, Technische Universität Clausthal (Department of Economics, Technical University Clausthal).
    4. Haucap, Justus & Heimeshoff, Ulrich, 2017. "Ordnungspolitik in der digitalen Welt," DICE Ordnungspolitische Perspektiven 90, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    5. Roß Wiebke & Weghake Jens, 2015. "10 Jahre YouTube: Von dem Aufstieg einer Plattform und der Entwicklung neuer Märkte zum Kollateralschaden einer Google-Regulierung? / 10 Years YouTube: From the Arising of a Platform and the Developme," ORDO. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, De Gruyter, vol. 66(1), pages 195-220, January.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • L40 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - General
    • L41 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Monopolization; Horizontal Anticompetitive Practices
    • L86 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Information and Internet Services; Computer Software
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jcomle:v:8:y:2012:i:3:p:459-468.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jcle .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.