Safeguarding Public Interests in the Platform Economy

Abstract

This article examines the main public interests at stake with the rise of online platforms in the sharing economy and the gig economy. We do so by analyzing platforms in five sectors in the Netherlands: domestic cleaning (Helpling), taxi rides (UberPop), home restaurants (AirDnD), home sharing (Airbnb), and car sharing (SnappCar). The most salient public interests are a level playing field between platforms and industry incumbents, tax compliance, consumer protection, labor protection, and privacy protection. We develop four policy options (enforce, new regulation, deregulation, and toleration), and discuss the rationales for each option in safeguarding each public interest. We further stress that arguments supporting a particular policy option should take into account the sectoral context. We finally highlight the tension between the subsidiarity principle, which would call for local regulations as platforms mostly concern local transactions and innovation policies that aim to support innovation and a single digital market.

An Institutional Logics Perspective on the Gig Economy

“…Platform companies -be it in second-hand markets, social media, sharing economy, or gig economy -also control exit: they retain the right to ban users from their platform. Platforms do so in case a user does not adhere to the (otherwise implicit) norms that a platform expects users to adhere to, and they may base their decision on low ratings and reviews that a user received in the past (van Dijck et al, 2018;Frenken, Van Waes, Pelzer, Smink, & Van Est, 2019). The platform's policing capacity, which allows it to control the entry and exit of users, is de facto substituting governmentcontrolled institutions such as licenses, diplomas, and worker rights that were put in place to ensure quality, safety, and anti-discrimination.…”

“…The platform's policing capacity, which allows it to control the entry and exit of users, is de facto substituting governmentcontrolled institutions such as licenses, diplomas, and worker rights that were put in place to ensure quality, safety, and anti-discrimination. Platforms indeed frame ratings and reviews as effective quality-control mechanisms that, in their view, render license-based or diploma-based regulations redundant and outdated (Frenken et al, 2019;Pelzer, Frenken, Boon, 2019).…”

“…In both cases, individuals are constrained in growing their business. However, while the constraint in gig-economy platforms stems from the physical limitations in terms of the number of hours a single individual can offer his/her services, the business constraints on sharing economy platforms are purposefully imposed (Frenken et al, 2019). First, government regulations prohibit excessive trade among peers.…”

The Entrepreneurial Society

“…That said, carefully considering the position of workers and customers on these platforms is essential. Frenken et al (2017), for example, voice concern about the quality of work and the possibility that digital platforms may undermine social security. Additionally, privacy issues, digital rights, and consumer protection remain important areas of EU policy.…”

Information Systems In Russian Agriculture Industry Management

“…The next stage of the research will be the formation of a model for managing the region's agricultural complex with the use of digital economy tools (Musina, Yangirov, Nasyrova, & Haritonov, 2019;Musina, Kharitonov, Turganov, & Nizamova, 2019). It will be possible to answer questions about the functionality of the integrator, the architecture of the digital platform, potential customers of the industry's digital platform, potential investors, technological and technical characteristics (Frenken, van Waes, Pelzer, Smink, & van Est, 2019).…”