Iuris Dictio

Miscelánea

Contribuciones recientes

Arquitectura normativa estratificada para integrar evidenciacomportamental en mercados digitales

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18272/iu.i.3977
Enviado
julio 23, 2025
Publicado
2026-06-13

Resumen

El derecho de la competencia se sustenta en la racionalidad plena, cuya validez descriptiva ha sido erosionada por la economía del comportamiento, generando tensión entre realismo empírico y estabilidad institucional. En este artículo el objetivo es analizar la viabilidad conceptual de una arquitectura normativa estratificada para integrar evidencia comportamental en mercados digitales. Los resultados proponen un modelo de dos niveles, presunción de racionalidad y modulador comportamental, que incorpora sesgos mediante umbrales probatorios y explica defaults, dark patterns y colusión algorítmica, identificando además límites institucionales. La conclusión sugiere que este enfoque concilia coherencia jurídica y realismo comportamental.

Referencias

  1. Ashby, N. J. S., & Teodorescu, K. (2019). The effect of switching costs on choice-inertia and its consequences. PLOS ONE, 14(3), e0214098. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214098
  2. Bazerman, M. H., & Moore, D. A. (2013). Judgment in managerial decision making (8th ed.). Nueva York: Wiley.
  3. Bork, R. H. (1978). The antitrust paradox: A policy at war with itself. Nueva York: Basic Books.
  4. Camerer, C. F., Loewenstein, G., y Rabin, M. (Eds.). (2003). Advances in behavioral economics. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
  5. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  6. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Nueva York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  7. Rebonato, R. (2012). Taking liberties: A critical examination of libertarian paternalism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  8. Thaler, R. H. (2015). Misbehaving: The making of behavioral economics. Nueva York: W. W. Norton.
  9. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Heaven CT.: Yale University Press.
  10. von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
  11. Fletcher, A. (2024). The role of behavioural economics in competition policy. En J. Lindeboom y D. Sokol (eds.). Cambridge handbook on the theoretical foundations of antitrust and competition law (pp. 1-26). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4389681
  12. Stephan, A. (2010). The deterrence of cartels. En C. Beaton-Wells y A. Ezrachi (eds.). Criminalising cartels: Critical studies of an international regulatory movement (pp. 68-89). Oxford: Hart Publishing.
  13. Andrade, S. (2001). Hace falta una ley que promocione y proteja la competencia económica. Iuris Dictio, 2(3), 96-114. https://doi.org/10.18272/iu.v2i4.558
  14. Calvano, E., Calzolari, G., Denicolò, V., y Pastorello, S. (2020). Artificial intelligence, algorithmic pricing, and collusion. American Economic Review, 110(10), 3267-3297. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20190623
  15. Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., et al. (2018). Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(9), 637-644. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z
  16. DellaVigna, S. (2009). Psychology and economics: Evidence from the field. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 315-372. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.47.2.315
  17. Devlin, A., & Jacobs, M. (2014). The empty promise of behavioral antitrust. Harvard Journal of Law y Public Policy, 37(3), 1009-1063. https://journals.law.harvard.edu/jlpp/wp-content/uploads/sites/90/2010/01/Devlin-Jacobs_final.pdf
  18. Duque, J. V., & Vásquez, M. E. (2019). Umbral de cuota de mercado: ¿Es compatible con el derecho a la seguridad jurídica? Iuris Dictio, 24, 75-90. https://doi.org/10.18272/iu.v24i24.1447
  19. Easterbrook, F. H. (1984). The limits of antitrust. Texas Law Review, 63(1), 1-40. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2152&context=journal_articles
  20. Ezrachi, A., & Stucke, M. E. (2017). Artificial intelligence & collusion: When computers inhibit competition. University of Illinois Law Review, 2017(5), 1775-1810. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2591874
  21. Gabaix, X., & Laibson, D. (2006). Shrouded attributes, consumer myopia, and information suppression in competitive markets. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(2), 505-540. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2006.121.2.505
  22. Grubb, M. D. (2015). Overconfident consumers in the marketplace. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(4), 9-36. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.29.4.9
  23. Harrington, J. E., Jr. (2017). Developing competition law for collusion by autonomous price-setting agents. Journal of Competition Law y Economics, 14(3), 331-363. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3037818
  24. Hovenkamp, H. (2018). The rule of reason. Florida Law Review, 70(1), 81-167. https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr/vol70/iss1/2
  25. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
  26. Kahneman, D., Lovallo, D., y Sibony, O. (2011). The big idea: Before you make that big decision... Harvard Business Review, 89(6), 50-60. https://hbr.org/2011/06/the-big-idea-before-you-make-that-big-decision
  27. Barros, L., Klein, T., Shchepetova, A., & Hogg, T. (2022). The rise of dark patterns: Does competition law make it any brighter? Competition Law Journal, 21(3), 136-148. https://doi.org/10.4337/clj.2022.03.06
  28. Laibson, D. (1997). Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 443-478. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355397555253
  29. Malmendier, U., & Tate, G. (2005). CEO overconfidence and corporate investment. Journal of Finance, 60(6), 2661-2700. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00813.x
  30. Malmendier, U., & Tate, G. (2015). Behavioral CEOs: The role of managerial overconfidence. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(4), 37-60. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.29.4.37
  31. O’Loughlin, P. (2023). The limits of behavioral antitrust. University of Baltimore Law Review, 52(2), 197-268. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4220460
  32. Posner, R. A. (1979). The Chicago school of antitrust analysis. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 127(4), 925-948. https://doi.org/10.2307/3311787
  33. Reeves, A. P., & Stucke, M. E. (2011). Behavioral antitrust. Indiana Law Journal, 86(4), 1527-1586. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1582720
  34. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99-118. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884852
  35. Sunstein, C. R. (2002). The law of group polarization. Journal of Political Philosophy, 10(2), 175-195. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9760.00148
  36. Tor, A. (2014). Understanding behavioral antitrust. Texas Law Review, 92(3), 573-667. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/296
  37. Wright, J. D. & Stone, J. E. (2012). Misbehavioral economics: The case against behavioral antitrust. Cardozo Law Review, 33(4), 1517-1553. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1686389
  38. CMA. (2022). Online choice architecture: How digital design can harm competition and consumers. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/624c27c68fa8f527710aaf58/Online_choice_architecture_discussion_paper.pdf
  39. Kaplow, L. (2011). On the choice of welfare standards in competition law. Harvard John M. Olin Center for Law, Economics, and Business Discussion Paper No. 693. https://doi.org/10.4337/9780857936615.00007
  40. Langevoort, D. C. (2001). The human nature of corporate boards: Law, norms, and the unintended consequences of independence and accountability. Georgetown University Law Center, 2000 Working Paper Series, Business, Economics, and Regulatory Law, Working Paper No. 241402 https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.241402
  41. Parliament of the United Kingdom. (2024). Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2024/13/contents
  42. Stucke, M. E. (2013). The implications of behavioral antitrust. The University of Tennesee, Knoxville, College of Law. Legal Studies Research Paper Series, Research Paper, No. 192, agosto. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2109713
  43. Unión Europea. (2022). The Digital Markets Act. https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/index_en

Descargas

Los datos de descarga todavía no están disponibles.