Contested Global Digital Governance: Institutional Incompatibility and Conflicts between Digital Regimes

DHAFIN IZZANARSYA RHAZDAN HIMAWAN, Dr. Luqman-nul Hakim

2025 | Skripsi | Ilmu Hubungan Internasional

Konflik tata kelola digital kontemporer merepresentasikan bukan sengketa geopolitik temporer melainkan ketidakcocokan struktural antara ragam kapitalisme yang berbeda. Melalui analisis sistematis Amerika Serikat (Ekonomi Pasar Liberal), Uni Eropa (Ekonomi Pasar Terkoordinasi), dan China (Ekonomi Kapitalis-Negara), penelitian ini mendemonstrasikan bagaimana logika institusional domestik menghasilkan rezim digital yang tidak terdamaikan yang termanifestasi dalam konflik persisten lintas perlindungan data (GDPR vs. PIPL vs. CCPA), penegakan anti monopoli (Digital Markets Act vs. Anti-Monopoly Law vs. Sherman Act), dan tata kelola platform. Dengan memanfaatkan kerangka Varieties of Capitalism yang diadaptasi lintas lima bidang institusional, studi ini mengungkapkan bagaimana mekanisme koordinasi menciptakan pendekatan koheren namun saling tidak kompatibel terhadap tata kelola digital. Setiap sistem menghasilkan DNA institusional yang memungkinkan kesuksesan firma domestik sambil menciptakan konflik sistematis ketika beroperasi global. Studi kasus resistensi Meta terhadap persyaratan Eropa, leverage regulasi Spotify melawan Apple, dan kegagalan adaptasi institusional ByteDance mendemonstrasikan bagaimana firma membawa karakteristik institusional yang menolak akomodasi lintas ragam kapitalisme yang berbeda. Penelitian menyimpulkan bahwa konflik tata kelola digital adalah outcome struktural yang tak terhindarkan dari ketidakcocokan institusional daripada kegagalan diplomasi. Saat sistem domestik memproyeksikan logika divergen secara internasional, konflik berkelanjutan—bukan konvergensi—menjadi fitur penentu geopolitik digital, memerlukan manajemen konflik daripada pendekatan harmonisasi.

Contemporary digital governance conflicts represent not temporary geopolitical disputes but structural incompatibilities between distinct varieties of capitalism. Through systematic analysis of the United States (Liberal Market Economy), European Union (Coordinated Market Economy), and China (State-Capitalist Economy), this research demonstrates how domestic institutional logics produce irreconcilable digital regimes manifesting in persistent conflicts across data protection (GDPR vs. PIPL vs. CCPA), antitrust enforcement (Digital Markets Act vs. Anti-Monopoly Law vs. Sherman Act), and platform governance. Utilizing an adapted Varieties of Capitalism framework across five institutional spheres, this study reveals how coordination mechanisms create coherent yet mutually incompatible approaches to digital governance. Each system generates institutional DNA that enables domestic firm success, while creating systematic conflicts when operating globally. Case studies of Meta's resistance to European requirements, Spotify's regulatory leverage against Apple, and ByteDance's failed institutional adaptation demonstrate how firms carry institutional characteristics that resist accommodation across different varieties of capitalism. The research concludes that digital governance conflicts are inevitable structural outcomes of institutional incompatibilities rather than diplomatic failures. As domestic systems project divergent logics internationally, sustained conflict—not convergence—becomes the defining feature of digital geopolitics, requiring conflict management rather than harmonization approaches.

Kata Kunci : Varieties of Capitalism, Digital Governance, Institutional Incompatibility, Platform Economics, State-Market Structures, Regulatory Divergence