Defining the relevant market in the sharing economy

Abstract

Since the establishment of commercial sharing economy services like Uber, Blablacar, Lyft, Airbnb, TaskRabbit, etc., the debate about the sharing economy and its effects on competition has generated lively discussions, which have too often dangerously departed from a debate based on objective (market) observation to evolve into a quarrel among the supporters and opponents of the online platforms. Undoubtedly, the peculiar features of these new firms' business models create frictions with the traditional regulatory environment, which currently appears to be incapable of framing them into models and schemes typical of a previous economic phase, such as, for example, one-sided markets, no externalities, and competition mainly on price. Nevertheless, setting aside the more or less impromptu debate about the "social goodness" of these firms, we argue that competition enforcers should look at their effective market power. In fact, as the basic principles of competition law teach us, only when those firms have (more or less legitimate) significant market power, will they be subject to special responsibilities and to stringent restrictions and obligations. Toward this aim, it is first necessary to define the relevant market. And, immediately afterwards, to delimit firms' market position. This, in turn, should help to assess their compliance with the competition rules and the obligations that they are -or rather that they should be -subjected to. This exercise is not an easy one because the traditional regulatory concepts and definitions do not seem to reflect the competition dynamics that characterise the new markets on which we are reflecting. In this paper we focus on a number of challenges that are posed by the sharing economy businesses, suggesting that they could be solved with the traditional competition instruments, although adapted to the peculiar features of the markets that are at stake. These include, among others, multi-sidedness and the presence of different externalities.

New Puppets in the Old School: The Applicability of Traditional Internationalisation Theories in the Sharing Economy

“…In addition, this shift from bilateral to multilateral relationships allows members to have varying and dynamic roles through their time within the platform (Nambisan et al 2019). The effects of the SE continues to trigger an intense debate among scholars (de Streel and Larouche 2015), and traditional industries are opening to newcomers which compete with existing companies through different strategies and methods (Russo and Stasi 2016), challenging traditional ways of doing business and changing the global organization of economic activities (Vitkovic 2016).…”

Negotiating the platform pivot: From participatory digital ecosystems to infrastructures of everyday life

“…This apparent openness is central how way platforms operate as two‐sided marketplaces or ecosystems of users and producers, developers, advertisers, and consumers, who are also exchanging various kinds of value among themselves (Drahokoupil & Piasna, , p. 335; Hagel, ; Choudary, ). In economic terms, platforms lower transaction costs between users, more efficiently matching demand for labour with its supply, and facilitating the creation of microtransactions between users—whether in content sharing, or more clearly targeted service domains such as accommodation, transportation, laundry services, home improvements, and more (Drahokoupil & Piasna, , p. 3; Russo & Stasi, , p. 3). The transaction costs platform companies reduce need not be limited to lower prices; platforms actively promote improved connections of any kind.…”

“…By facilitating more efficient value‐sharing between platform participants, platform ecosystems have been described as “sharing economies” (Hirshon et al, ; Nestor, Davidson, & Infranca, ; Russo & Stasi, )—a discursive positioning exploited by platform companies to their own advantage (Gillespie, ). As home sharing platform Airbnb has put it: “Home‐sharing puts money into the pockets of regular people and spreads guests and benefits to more communities and businesses.” (Hickey & Cookney, ).…”

Promoting innovation locally: Municipal regulation as barrier or boost?

“…Second, local regulation is difficult because while many platform economy activities rely on local markets, local cultures, and local regulations to operate successfully, platform economy firms are globally scaled, thus complicating the challenge of coordinating regulation, managing multiple markets and divergent sets of rules. The diverse geography of a single platform economy firm with a global presence also means that it is not possible to enforce competition standards in a uniform fashion (Russo & Stasi, ), unless those standards are implemented globally.…”