The Sharing Economy: Issues Facing Platforms, Participants, and Regulators

Koopman, Christopher; Mitchell, Matthew D.; Thierer, Adam D.

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2610875

Cited by 33 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 4 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%

“…In the midst of controversies and legal disputes, the various regulatory essays reviewed are to some extent polarised between those radically against any intervention (Allen & Berg, 2014;Cohen & Sundararajan, 2015;Koopman, et al, 2014Koopman, et al, , 2015Sundararajan, 2014;Thierer, et al, 2015), and those that are in favour of some forms of regulation (Cannon & Chung, 2015;Edelman & Geradin, 2015;Gobble, 2015;Malhotra & Van Alstyne, 2014;McLean, 2015;Ranchordas, 2015;Rauch & Schleicher, 2015;Sunil & Noah, 2015;Zrenner, 2015). There are also some more specialist legal approaches (Barry & Caron, 2014;Cohen & Zehngebot, 2014;Daus & Russo, 2015;Miller, 2014;Miller, 2015) which propose very strict interventions in, for example, transportation services (Daus & Russo, 2015).…”

Section: Debating Regulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to a WEF report on the circular economy 'The sharing economy is driven by three of users, customers, consumers, producers and/or members' (2014, p. 24). xxxiii Neo-liberal and libertarian economists present the usual narrative on free market and no regulation (Allen & Berg, 2014;Cohen & Sundararajan, 2015;Koopman, et al, 2014Koopman, et al, , 2015Sundararajan, 2014;Thierer, et al, 2015). They expect the 'sharing' platforms to: a) increase economic activities and productivity through better use of underutilised assets or 'dead capital', and through lowering transaction costs that expand of trade; b) increase social utility and consumer welfare as a result of more competition; c) create new jobs; d) reduce information asymmetry between consumers and producers thanks to reputational ratings; e) create new markets through disruptive innovations and spur in turn further innovation among incumbent industries; f) produce a new cohort of entrepreneurs if the micro-entrepreneurs who provide services in the platforms acquire the experience and skills to progress and launch their own ventures.…”

Section: XXVmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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: Debating Regulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: XXVmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The most widespread thread in the literature, exploring reputation in a sharing economy setting, deals with the potential of a disembedded reputational systems to reduce transaction costs in sharing (Belk, 2014, Koopman, Mitchell & Thierer, 2015. Reputation systems provide a way of reducing information asymmetries (Cohen & Sundararajan, 2014;Einav, Ferronato & Levin, 2015;Thierer et al, 2015), thus enabling commercial transactions for potential 'lemons' (Akerlof, 1970), that is, goods with uncertain quality within a market characterized by heterogeneous supply and demand (Codagnone & Martens, 2016).…”

Section: Reputation As An Outcomementioning

confidence: 99%

Participation in the Sharing Economy

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…10 3 cf. Koopman/Mitchell/Thierer, 2015, p. 2, Bond, 2015, p. 77, Hamari/Sjörklint/Ukkonen, 2015, S. o. A., Fraiberger/Sundararajan, 2015, p. 5, Cusumano, 2015 cf.…”

Section: Literature On Sharing Economymentioning

confidence: 99%

Sharing Economy and Regulation

Dittmann¹

2017

JBME

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The sharing of goods and services via Internet platforms is becoming increasingly popular. The article asks the questions and answers whether the sharing economy is, in the first place, from the economic point of view, in fact a complete, revolutionary innovation, or simply a redesign of existing concepts, and secondly, how this trend can be classified from a regulatory economic point of view. In this case, a comparison of the "classic" platforms HRS and my Taxi in comparison to the currently much discussed sharing platforms AirBnB and Uber made. The results show that there are no indications of structural differences between the Standard and the Sharing Economy. The principle of sharing, which is often described as novel, is conceptually similar in its economic core to platforms that are analyzed within the framework of the theory of two-sided or multi-sided markets, and also makes use of proven economic principles. In addition, many benefits of the sharing economy, such as lower prices, stem from regulatory inequality that the sharing economy prefers. In the interests of fair competition, the regulators are in demand here, as an equal treatment of all companies is economically necessary.

show abstract

The Sharing Economy: Issues Facing Platforms, Participants, and Regulators

Cited by 33 publications

References 4 publications

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

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

Participation in the Sharing Economy

Sharing Economy and Regulation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About