The discussion explored how technology, data, and public policy are changing the rules of competition and raising new questions for investors, operators, and policymakers. Drawing on political economy and history, the speakers narrowed in on the question of who will own, govern, and benefit from data in the economy of the future.
The event included a public fireside chat, facilitated by Dominica Wambold (MBA ’26) and Josué Silva (MBA ’26), followed by a more intimate student roundtable. Across both sessions, Santos and Zingales examined the evolving balance of power among markets, government, Big Tech, and citizens to inform how operators, investors, and policymakers can navigate the future of competition, technology, and regulation in democratic societies.
Markets, knowledge, and AI
The discussion began with economist Friedrich Hayek’s classic argument that prices in free markets communicate information across society in ways that central planning cannot match. Santos and Zingales noted that the rise of information technology and AI have complicated the question of the “knowledge problem,” as digital platforms and algorithms have facilitated the collection and dissemination of data while simultaneously making it easier for large companies to keep information private for competitive advantage.
This does not make markets irrelevant, but it does raise new questions about who controls knowledge, how it is used, and whether information that could benefit society is becoming concentrated inside a small number of firms. The answer may determine whether firms use data to spur innovation or stifle experimentation in the years ahead.
Data, competition, and value creation
Another major theme of the conversation was the economic nature of data. Unlike physical assets, data can often be used by multiple actors at the same time, creating a challenge for traditional ways of thinking about ownership and property rights.
Professors Santos and Zingales discussed historical examples in which the diffusion of knowledge helped unlock innovation and contrasted these examples with a digital economy in which control over proprietary data may allow incumbents to extract maximum surplus through mechanisms such as dynamic pricing.
This question is especially important in an AI-driven economy, as the most valuable firms may not be those with only the best engineering talent or the most capital, but those with access to the data needed to train, refine, and deploy increasingly powerful systems. Because of this shift, an evolution of property rights and institutional design may be more effective than the interventionist or redistributive approaches that sometimes dominate popular discourse.
Technology and democratic institutions
In the student-led roundtable, the conversation turned to the relationship between technology and democracy. Participants raised questions about AI regulation, platform liability, industrial policy, venture capital, off-balance-sheet financing, and the future of work. They also asked how policymakers can regulate fast-moving technologies without undermining innovation or entrenching incumbents.
Santos and Zingales have written together about the ways large digital platforms can shape or undermine civic life, social trust, and democratic participation. In the discussion, they returned to the central question of the role of individuals in society when businesses are increasingly dependent on capturing attention, shaping information flows, and monetizing user engagement via these platforms.
Beyond market power, democracies face consequential choices about how to structure competition, accountability, and the rules that govern digital markets in society.
Industrial policy, innovation, and capture
The discussion highlighted the renewed role of government in shaping markets and how firms can no longer treat public policy as a peripheral issue. Government has historically played a key role in shaping and propelling U.S. innovation and some of the dominant industries of today, from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s role in the development of the internet to the National Institutes of Health’s role in pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. Yet active intervention raises concerns of regulatory capture and inefficient competition, two forces that work against market efficiency and sustained economic performance.
As the U.S., China, and Europe compete over AI, semiconductors, energy, and advanced manufacturing, industrial policy has returned to the center of economic debate. Santos and Zingales discussed the distinction between policy that builds genuine capacity and policy that entrenches incumbents or socializes risk.
What It means for business leaders
The central takeaway was that the next generation of business leaders will need to think carefully about how markets work, who controls the key inputs to innovation, and what kinds of institutions are needed to sustain both prosperity and democratic legitimacy.
