The European Union prides itself on its ability to set global policy through regulatory action, a phenomenon known as the Brussels Effect. The Brussels Effect has shaped regulation across sectors including food, chemicals, and technology, often by imposing rules that other countries feel compelled to adopt in order to access EU markets. In the technology sector, prominent examples include the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), as well as more recent digital laws such as the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA). Although European policymakers often celebrate regulatory export as a diplomatic success, the mandatory adoption of EU-style digital rules amounts to regulatory imperialism for many Global South countries, limiting technology adoption, raising compliance costs, and undermining the ability of local firms to compete with Western ones. Rather than submit to the EU, Global South countries should adopt flexible rules that reflect their own local interests and goals.
Europeans frequently celebrate the EU’s reputation as a global rule maker as a diplomatic triumph. Through the Brussels Effect, the EU exports its regulations beyond its borders by setting rules that foreign governments and companies feel compelled to follow. Digital regulation provides the clearest example of this dynamic, as the GDPR and newer laws such as the DSA, the DMA, and increasingly the Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) have become global reference points.
This regulatory power carries significant costs for countries with different economic and technological realities. EU-style digital rules impose high compliance burdens, limit experimentation, and restrict data use in ways that harm innovation. For Global South countries, mirroring EU rules raises barriers to widespread technology adoption, constrains domestic firms, and entrenches the dominance of Western competitors in global markets.
Rather than harmonise with EU rules, Global South countries should assert regulatory autonomy and pursue digital governance frameworks that remain flexible, innovation-friendly, and tailored to local needs. As countries consider AI governance strategies, policymakers should avoid mimicking EU legislation and instead pursue the following priorities:
- Reject wholesale adoption of EU-style AI and data rules.
- Build flexible, interoperable, and regionally grounded AI governance models that promote innovation and economic complementarity.
- Strengthen regional cooperation to shape AI rules collectively.
