Sixth Law: The decision about whether systems interoperate is not a technical decision. It is a political decision about the distribution of market power.
The Politics of Interoperability
The sixth structural law of the coordination economy states that interoperability — the ability of systems from different providers to work together — is a political choice rather than a technical inevitability. Systems can be designed to interoperate or to resist interoperation; the choice between these design options reflects the interests of the actors making the design decisions rather than technical constraints. The incumbent platform that could allow users to take their data and connections to a competing platform, or allow messages from competing messaging services to be received by its users, chooses not to for reasons that are transparently related to the competitive advantage that the resulting lock-in provides.
The political choice about interoperability is made at multiple levels: by the engineers who design systems, by the executives who set product strategy, by the standards bodies that govern technical specifications, and by the regulators who determine whether interoperability requirements are part of the operating conditions for platforms that achieve significant market power. At each level, the choice reflects a calculation about whose interests are served by interoperability and whose are served by its absence.
Mandatory Interoperability as Policy
The regulatory imposition of interoperability requirements — requiring platforms above certain size thresholds to allow competing services to access their APIs, to enable data portability for users, and to support messaging interoperability — is the governance mechanism for overriding the incumbent's preference for lock-in. The EU's Digital Markets Act includes interoperability requirements as a core regulatory tool. The evidence from telecommunications regulation — where mandatory interoperability produced more competitive markets and lower prices than the unregulated incumbent preference for incompatibility — supports the policy rationale. The specific implementation challenges of digital platform interoperability are real but are not evidence against the policy; they are evidence for the need to design implementation frameworks carefully.
The sixth law: interoperability is not a technical default — it is a political choice made by actors with interests in the outcome. The governance of interoperability is the governance of market structure. The regulator who does not address it has made a choice by inaction to allow the incumbent's preference for lock-in to determine the market's architecture.
Discussion