How the Internet, the Sharing Economy, and Reputational Feedback Mechanisms Solve the 'Lemons Problem'

Thierer, Adam D.; Koopman, Christopher; Hobson, Anne; Kuiper, Chris

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2610255

Cited by 77 publications

(83 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Whereas only three out of the 140 reviewed sources are entirely focussed on rhetorical and discourse analysis (i.e., Cohen & Muñoz, 2015;Dredge & Gyimóthy, 2015;Martin, 2016), a large number of other sources contain either critical assessment of these discourses (Belk, 2014a(Belk, , 2014bJohn, 2013aJohn, , 2013bLee, 2015;Walker, 2015), or are themselves a source of normative and rhetorical narratives of both an overly optimistic or overly pessimistic nature (Agyeman et al, 2013;Allen & Berg, 2014;Caldararo, 2014;Cohen & Sundararajan, 2015;Guttentag, 2013;Heimans & Timms, 2014;Heinrichs, 2013;Koopman et al, 2014Koopman et al, , 2015Kuttner, 2013;Matzler & Kathan, 2015;Morgan & Kuch, 2015;O'Regan, 2009;Sundararajan, 2014;Thierer et al, 2015;WEF, 2013WEF, , 2014Wittel, 2011;Wosskow, 2014). The latter type of sources can be divided into (i) social utopianism xxxi , (ii) business xxxii and economics laissez-faire xxxiii driven optimism, and (iii) social pessimism xxxiv .…”

Section: Rhetorical and More Tangible 'Battles'mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The reliability of reputational rating systems is a regulatory relevant topic as it is claimed that they reduce information asymmetry and are a reliable form of self-regulation. It is also claimed that they ensure consumer protection and security and should not be altered by any form of regulatory intervention (Allen & Berg, 2014;Koopman, et al, 2014;Thierer, et al, 2015).…”

Section: Platforms Functioning: Matching and Ratingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Passions and the Interests: Unpacking the 'Sharing Economy'

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Digital platforms generally placed under the 'sharing economy' and various other labels match different groups of users and providers and enable the increase in scale and speed for traditional transactions such as selling, renting, lending, labour trade, and provision of services. In many cases, these platform-mediated activities involve peer-topeer or peer-to-business transactions that occur in a regulatory vacuum. Since 2014, the phenomenal growth of a few large commercial 'sharing' platforms, the increasing number of economic sectors affected, and the conflicting interests among the stakeholders involved have made the 'sharing economy' a domain of conflictual rhetoric and public controversies, legal disputes, and even violent protests. The various expressions used to refer to 'sharing' platforms, by now appropriated by practitioners and stakeholders, are 'floating signifiers' for all sorts of different activities, in what can be called the rhetorical politics of platformisation. Terms and concepts are used in such confused and confusing ways that it is at times difficult to ascertain whether advocates, opponents, regulators, and policy makers are discussing the same phenomenon. There is a closed self-reproducing loop between conceptual ambiguity, rhetorical controversies, and lack of sound measurement and empirical evidence. This loop, in turn, limits the space for a rational debate of alternative policy options and contributes to the fragmented regulatory approaches which currently address the 'sharing economy'. This theoretically-inspired and empirically-informed critical essay (i) unpacks the 'sharing economy' rhetoric, (ii) clears the field of semantic and conceptual ambiguity by providing a heuristicallyuseful and empirically-grounded typology, (iii) maps the controversies against available empirical evidence on the functioning and on the impacts of 'sharing' platforms, (iv) reviews the debate and the literature which focuses on regulatory and policy issues, and (v) discusses all these aspects in terms of their policy implications, and of future European research on this topic. It does so in a unique way, because of the extensive evidence base used and the inter-disciplinary approach it takes in which theoretical and empirical economics, sociology, anthropology, regulatory and legal studies, and rhetorical analysis converge. The evidence comprises: a) 120 media items (newspapers and magazine articles; blogs especially by 'sharing economy' advocacy groups and organisations; industry briefs etc.); b) in-depth analysis of a purposive sample of 70 platforms (website, blog, public relations and self-reports, etc.); c) 140 sources, consisting of scientific items (115) and broadly defined reports (25), selected using a formalised protocol and systematically reviewed; c) about 60 reports released by interested parties (industrial associations, platforms own reports and public relation materials); d) 70 indirectly relevant scientific contributions and policy reports.

show abstract

Section: Rhetorical and More Tangible 'Battles'mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Platforms Functioning: Matching and Ratingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Passions and the Interests: Unpacking the 'Sharing Economy'

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Via the consumer facing PDP dashboard, they receive a means to transparently co-create, preview, purchase, execute, delete, renew and monitor the PDPs. In line with best practice in a sharing economy [51], PDP consumers also receive the ability to validate the quality of the data to which they are buying access and the validity of the models they are incorporating into their products via a fair and transparent rating systems whereby the market can give feedback on the validity and utility of the models.…”

Section: Service Concept Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Designing a Primary Personal Information Market as an Industry Platform:_a Service Innovation Approach

Farrelly

Chew

2017

Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2017)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such a system creates transparency about behaviours in the marketplaces, facilitates ex-post quality control and enables trust. As online reputation has become a central element for providers and users, regulators may want to explore real time reputational mechanisms as a complementary tool to regulate markets (Thierer et al, 2015). Access to sound data and credible crosscountry assessments would be crucial steps towards building innovative regulatory tools.…”

Section: Enhancing Job Quality In Non-traditional Work Arrangementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

New Markets and New Jobs

2016

OECD Digital Economy Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How the Internet, the Sharing Economy, and Reputational Feedback Mechanisms Solve the 'Lemons Problem'

Cited by 77 publications

References 12 publications

The Passions and the Interests: Unpacking the 'Sharing Economy'

The Passions and the Interests: Unpacking the 'Sharing Economy'

Designing a Primary Personal Information Market as an Industry Platform:_a Service Innovation Approach

New Markets and New Jobs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About