The role of digital intermediation platforms in opening up international markets

Regulations to digitally enabled services trade and their implications for DIPs

Understanding the regulatory environment is essential to assessing the global diffusion of DIPs. These platforms depend on an open, interoperable, and predictable digital ecosystem to connect users and facilitate transactions across borders. The OECD DSTRI, whose methodology is described in (Ferencz, 2019[7]), offers a robust measurement framework to evaluate the extent to which current trade-related policies may impede cross-border provision of digitally enabled services. By systematically cataloguing regulations that affect digitally enabled services trade, the DSTRI helps identify where regulatory frictions could emerge and how they may shape market conditions for DIPs.

The DSTRI captures regulatory measures across five broad policy areas: Infrastructure and connectivity, electronic transactions, payment systems, restrictions on protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPR), and other regulatory measures on trade in digitally enabled services (Ferencz, 2019[7]). Within this framework, certain policies could hinder the ability of DIPs to scale and operate efficiently across jurisdictions. For instance, limitations on the use of communication services, regulations on cross-border data flows, or divergences from international payment security standards may increase operational complexity. Similarly, opaque licensing conditions or the absence of effective mechanisms for dispute resolution could discourage new entrants and reduce the ease of cross-border digital service delivery. In contrast, greater openness, such as in the case of open banking (Box 1), can boost trade in digitally enabled services.

Box 1. Open banking reforms under the EU PSD2

The revised EU Payment Services Directive (PSD2), adopted in 2015 and implemented in 2018, introduced a framework for open banking across EU member states. It requires banks to provide secure access to customer payment accounts through standardised application programming interfaces (APIs), enabling authorised third-party providers to initiate payments or aggregate account information.

The directive also introduced strong customer authentication requirements and clarified rules for new categories of providers such as account information service providers (AISPs) and payment initiation service providers (PISPs). By mandating access on a non-discriminatory basis, PSD2 has supported the growth of fintech providers and expanded consumer choice in payments.

National initiatives, such as the UK Open Banking programme, have operationalised PSD2 by creating common technical standards and governance arrangements. This has enabled new products such as account-to-account payments and recurring payment solutions, thus supporting greater competition in retail financial services.

Open banking reforms reduce transaction costs for DIPs, improve interoperability across payment systems, and strengthen consumer trust through enhanced security standards. They also support cross-border market openness when combined with harmonised regulatory approaches.

Sources: (European Commission, 2015[8]; Open Banking Limited, 2025[9]).

In fact, many regulatory measures to digitally enabled trade in services may disproportionately affect foreign providers. Requirements for local data storage, restrictions on online advertising, or obligations to establish a local presence to offer cross-border digital services can hamper entry for foreign-based providers, including DIPs that rely heavily on seamless data flows and remote service delivery. In addition, discriminatory forced, or coerced licensing conditions that are neither voluntary nor on mutually agreed terms, or, unequal, ineffective, unpredictable, protection and enforcement of IPR may further complicate access to new markets. These types of restrictions could not only influence whether and how foreign platforms enter a given market but also shape the broader pattern of DIP diffusion across countries.

As digital trade continues to expand, policy and regulatory discussions have gained momentum – at the multilateral level through the WTO Joint Initiative on E-commerce, in regional and digital economy agreements, and through domestic reforms (López González, Sorescu and Kaynak, 2023[10]). A prominent example of recent efforts to promote coherent digital trade rules is the Digital Economy Partnership Agreement (DEPA), presented below.

Box 2. The DEPA: Advancing digital trade integration through innovative frameworks

The DEPA – concluded between Chile, New Zealand, and Singapore in 2020 – is a pioneering, "digital-only" trade agreement designed to reduce regulatory fragmentation and establish coherent, high-standard rules for the digital economy. Its flexible, modular framework facilitates digital trade, particularly for SMEs and third-party market access, by enabling cross-border data flows while safeguarding legitimate public policy objectives such as consumer and personal data protection.

To lower trade frictions, DEPA promotes paperless trading, guarantees non-discriminatory treatment of digital products, and upholds the prohibition of customs duties on electronic transmissions. For the financial sector, it fosters the safety, efficiency, and interoperability of e-payment systems, encouraging regulatory collaboration on FinTech. By addressing these areas comprehensively, DEPA enhances the predictability required by DIPs to enter new markets and scale across borders.

The DEPA’s high-standard, modular approach underscores the complexity of measuring digital trade openness. The OECD Index of Digital Trade Integration and Openness – trade component (INDIGO-t) provides a comprehensive measure of countries’ commitments in binding trade agreements such as the DEPA. While progress continues, Figure 1 shows that global digital trade integration remains limited: the world economy is only about 8.5% of the way toward full integration and openness.

Figure 1. Global digital trade integration and openness has progressed but remains limited

OECD INDIGO-t, by type of trade agreement, 2000-2024

Notes: The figure shows the unweighted average INDIGO-t across all countries. On average, digital trade chapters in RTAs represent 10% of existing digital trade integration and openness.

Source: (OECD, 2025[11]).

Sources: (New Zealand Foreign Affairs & Trade, 2025[12]; OECD, 2025[13]; OECD, 2025[11]).

Yet, despite progress in certain areas, evidence from the DSTRI points that overall regulatory restrictiveness has increased. In particular, regulatory measures on infrastructure and connectivity – such as data localisation requirements and network security measures – have become more prominent. As shown by López González, Sorescu and Kaynak (2023[10]), the average score for this policy area rose between 2015 and 2017 and has remained relatively stable since, standing at 0.058 in 2025 compared to 0.046 in 2014 across the OECD.1

While infrastructure-related measures have driven much of the overall increase, all five DSTRI policy areas still show non-zero levels of restrictiveness. Restrictions on electronic transactions and payment systems have remained relatively stable over the past decade, with average scores of about 0.026 and 0.004, respectively, while some OECD Member countries continue to apply IPR-related measures. By contrast, “other barriers affecting trade in digitally enabled services” – including local presence requirements, licensing obligations, and advertising restrictions – have risen steadily, with their average score quadrupling between 2014 and 2024 (López González, Sorescu and Kaynak, 2023[10]). This points to a growing tendency to regulate the delivery of digital services beyond infrastructure or transaction-based measures.

The 2025 snapshot in Figure 2 highlights the uneven distribution of these regulatory measures across countries. While Australia, Canada and Switzerland have maintained minimal or zero measures, most OECD Members continue to enforce a mix of measures across different policy areas. The infrastructure and connectivity dimension remains the most restrictive area overall, particularly in countries such as Chile, Colombia and Poland. Regulatory measures related to electronic transactions and other service-related measures are also common, even in relatively open digital markets. All five dimensions of the index record non-zero scores across countries, highlighting that regulatory measures to digitally enabled services trade persist globally, and that full liberalisation has yet to be achieved in any policy area (OECD, 2026[14]).

Figure 2. Measures significantly affecting digitally enabled services trade persist in most countries

DSTRI scores by type, OECD countries, 2025

Notes: The figure presents the DSTRI scores across OECD Member countries for each policy area. Higher scores indicate greater restrictiveness. The index captures regulatory measures in five key dimensions affecting digitally enabled services trade: electronic transactions, infrastructure and connectivity, intellectual property rights, payment systems, and other measures affecting digitally enabled services. The DSTRI does not reflect changes in enforcement practices or evolving approaches in some jurisdictions to the application of competition, tax, or content moderation rules, including the levy of financial penalties.

Source: (OECD, 2026[15]), “OECD Digital Services Trade Restrictiveness Index,” OECD Going Digital Toolkit, based on the OECD Digital Services Trade Restrictiveness Index, https://goingdigital.oecd.org/indicator/73 (accessed on 23 January 2026).

Note

← 1.  These types of measures, including data localisation and restrictions on data flows, at times reflect broader regulatory, security, or industrial policy objectives (Casalini and López González, 2019[122]).