文献信息：
文献标题：Putting the sharing economy into perspective（透视共享经济）
国外作者：Koen Frenken，Juliet Schor
文献出处：《Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions》, 2017, 23:3-10
字数统计：英文3345单词，18027字符；中文5823汉字
外文文献：
Putting the sharing economy into perspective
AbstractWe develop a conceptual framework that allows us to define the sharing economy and its close cousins and we understand its sudden rise from an economic-historic perspective. We then assess the sharing economy platforms in terms of the economic, social and environmental impacts. We end with reflections on current regulations and future alternatives, and suggest a number of future research questions.
Keywords: Sharing; Platform; Sustainability; Reverse technology assessment; Regulation
1.Introduction
In the Spring of 2014, the sharing economy held an unusual gathering in San Francisco, a sort of “coming out” party. Entitled “SHARE,” the conference included not only founders, funders and fans of the sharing economy, but also harsh critics. Politically progressive insiders and outsiders raised questions about access, exclusion and the distribution of value in the sector. They discussed their vision of a fairer, lower-carbon, more transparent, participatory and socially-connected economy, and whether those goals are consistent with the actions of the large, moneyed players—the successful platforms and the venture capitalists who are backing them with vast sums of finance. More recently, a key figure from the French sharing economy think thank OuiShare even stated at their annual conference in Paris that “the sharing economy is over” as it did not live up its initial promises (De Grave, 2016).
It is clear that the sharing economy is creating enormous amounts of wealth, and that it has been using a sociallyprogressive feel-good rhetoric to do so. But will the platforms share that wealth with users—on both the provider and user sides of the market? Will the platforms ensure widespread access—by expanding their user base beyond the mostly white, highly educated, able-bodied urbanites who have comprised the bulk of users in the first stage? Will they make good on their promises to provide decent livelihoods for providers, opportunities for so-called “micro-entrepreneurs” and will they continue to provide real value to customers? Or is the rhetoric merely a thin veneer to hide a predatory business model that will ultimately appropriate value to investors and founders, once the market develops and users are locked into the platforms? Will the platforms behave like the monopolies that some seem poised to become? While it’s too early for definitive answers to answer these questions, we believe it is crucial we start asking them in a more analytical, empirical and critical manner.
Our aim with this paper is to put the sharing economy into perspective by providing a conceptual framework that allows us to define the sharing economy and its close cousins and to understand its sudden rise from an economic-historic perspective (Section 2), to assess sharing economy platforms in terms of the economic, social and environmental impacts (Section 3), and to reflect on current regulations and possible alternative platform architectures (Section 4). We end with some research questions for future research (Section 5).
2.Definitional issues
The notion of sharing of idle capacity is central to the definition of sharing economy, because it distinguishes the practice of sharing of goods from the practice of on-demand personal services. There is a fundamental difference between ordering a taxi through Uber, Lyft or Didi and sharing a ride through BlaBlaCar or another hitchhiking or carpooling platform (Meelen and Frenken, 2015). In the case of a taxi service, the consumer creates new capacity by ordering a taxi on demand to drive the passenger from A to B. Without the order, the trip would not have been made in the first place. In this case, the term now coming into common use is the on-demand economy. By contrast, in the case of hitchhiking/carpooling, the consumer occupies a seat that would otherwise not have been used as the driver had planned to go from A to B anyway. Hitchhiking and carpooling are examples of ride-sharing and part of the sharing economy (Benkler, 2004). Indeed, in the context of transportation, this distinction between on-demand economy and sharing economy has become clearer over time as mostcommentators now call Uber, Lyft and Didi ride-hailing companies instead of ride-sharing.
The notion of under-utilization is also key to the current discussion about home sharing platforms such as Airbnb. When a house owner is away for holidays or a business trip, or has a spare bedroom, the asset is not utilized. That is, the unoccupied house can be considered as temporary idle capacity. If, however, a person were to buy a second home and rent it out to tourists permanently, that constitutes running a commercial lodging site, such as a B&B or hotel.
Based on this definition, the sharing economy can be distinguished from three other types of platforms that are sharing economy examples pre-dating the Internet. In Fig. 1, the sharing economy is placed in the centre as it adheres to the three defining characteristics: consumer-to-consumer interaction (c2c), temporary access and physical goods.
Fig. 1. Sharing economy and related forms of platform economy
Consumers selling goods to each other is called the second-hand economy. This does not fall under the sharing economy as consumers grant each other permanent access, rather than temporary access to their goods. Large platforms intermediating such transactions are Ebay and Taobao. There are also platforms where people give away goods to each other, withoutpayment (including Facebook groups). This would also fall under the category of consumers who grant another permanent access. Renting goods from a company rather than from another consumer we call the product-service economy. The service provided by the company consists of giving the consumer access to a product while the company retains ownership of it. Once the product has been used and returned, it becomes available again for another renter. An example is a car rental service such as Hertz. Finally, if we are dealing with p2p service delivery instead of p2p good sharing, the term on-demand economy is used. More recently, commentators in this context also tend to speak of the “gig economy”. The on-demand or gig economy includes purchasing personal services such as a ride, a handyman or a cooked meal.
The definition that we use for sharing economy platforms, and the three other types of platforms that can be distinguished from it, accommodates the notion of sharing as a historical practice. Before the arrival of Internet platforms, people were already lending or renting out goods to others. They shared with family and friends because were known and trusted social contacts. What is new is that users now also lend goods to strangers, because the Internet has enormously decreased transaction costs between unknown others. By transaction costs, economists mean all the costs and trouble incurred in making an economic transaction (Williamson, 1981). This refers especially to the costs related to search and arranging a contract. Among strangers, these were high before the advent of the Internet, as there was little information available about supply, reliability and contract forms (Benkler, 2004). This is one reason why sharing was generally limited to a circle of friends and family. As a result of Internet platforms, the costs of the search and the contract have become much lower. Consumers now find it much easier to locate goods and services they want, and transactions are regularized via standard contracts and online payment systems. In addition, on most sharing-economy platforms information on the past behaviour and therefore trustworthiness of users is elicited as a regular feature of transactions. This further lowers transaction costs and lowers risk.
3.Assessing the sharing economy
The direct economic effects of the sharing economy are indisputably positive. People who voluntarily enter into a transaction in the sharing economy only do so if it is beneficial to both parties. Even in the case of goods lending there is a benefit: there are few costs for the lender because the person did not need the product during the lending period, whereas the borrower gains access to the product without charge. The rise in income or consumer welfare can be understood as a direct consequence of lower transaction costs. Millions of transactions now take place that did not happen in the past, because the transaction costs involved in stranger sharing were simply too high (Benkler, 2004).
Yet, the full economic effects are far more complex. First, the rise of p2p sharing markets will have indirect effects on other markets. For example, legacy businesses and their workers in related markets are likely to experience lower earnings. One study found that hotel earnings in Texas declined significantly in places where Airbnb grew (Zervas et al., 2016). Further analysis also showed that the impacts were uneven across the industry, with lower-end hotels and hotels not catering to business travellers being the most affected. This indicates that Airbnb is a partial substitute for hotel nights, especially in the cheaper segments of the hotel market. The same effect may be expected in the market for car rentals which now face increased competition due to the rise of p2p carsharing platforms. There are also potentially effects on the supply and price of housing, if home sharing becomes more widespread. This would mean that residents see their rents go up in neighbourhoods where home sharing is popular.
Second, there are externalities as third parties may experience losses as the two parties transact. This is especially a problem with house sharing with neighbours experiencing nuisance and feelings of danger from strangers. Increasingly, neighbourhoods have attempted to stop the further growth of home sharing in tourist cities like Amsterdam, Barcelona, Berlin, New York and Paris. In response, municipalities are tightening their regulations towards home sharing platforms (Woolf, 2016).
The environmental effects associated with the sharing sector are also complex. Many platforms advertise themselves as green, and particularly as carbon-footprint reducing. It is also a common belief among participants that sharing is less resource intensive (Schor and Wengronowitz, 2017). Sharing is thought to be eco-friendly because it is assumed to reduce the demand for new goods or the construction of new facilities (in the case of hotels or shared spaces). Despite these widespread beliefs, there is not yet empirical evidence on these claims, apart from car sharing where substantial reductions in CO2-emissions are realized (Chen and Kockelman, 2015; Nijland and Van Meerkerk, 2015). The standard argument on eco-impacts addresses substitutions among types of goods or services that have different technologies. This type of reasoning is what economists call partial-equilibrium analysis, which only looks at first round effects. To determine full carbon and eco-impacts it is also necessary to analyze all the changes that are set in motion in the system as a result of a new sharing practice (Schor, 2014; Frenken, 2017). For example, if the sale of a household’s used items creates earnings that are then used to buy new goods (“rebound effect”), the original sale may not reduce carbon emissions or other environmental impacts. Another second round impact can occur if sharing practices shift income across classes, because eco-impact per dollar of expenditure varies by income class.
Regarding the social benefits, there is a widespread “common good” claim by a number of platforms, as well as participants on both sides of the market which is the benefit of meeting people, making friends and getting to know others (Fitzmaurice et al., 2016). Schor (2015a) finds that the site that has been most successful at creating new social ties is Airbnb. Findings from one small interview study are that for half the Airbnb hosts social interaction was central to their motivation and practice on the site. These hosts socialized with their guests, ate with them, took them out, and in some cases became friends with them. A small group reported that they would host even if they had all the money they needed, and a few offered their homes on both Airbnb and Couchsurfing, for which they received no money. This finding is in line Böcker and Meelen (2016) who find that people who state that they are willing to share their home, often have social motivations next to economic ones. Ladegaard (2016), using a Boston area sample, further qualifies these results showing that socially-oriented hosts are eager to interact with foreign guests who are “comfortably exotic,” i.e., different enough to be interesting, but similar enough to be comfortable.
It is also possible that sharing platforms may be harmful to social cohesion as reflected in existing social ties. Platforms economize private things in the sense that at any time these stand idle, an opportunity cost arises. This in itself does not affect social relations. However, while idle capacity was generally available to family and friends for free in the past, researchers and commentators have expressed concern about the viability of non-monetized sharing within networks as people prefer earning money (Belk, 2014; Schor, 2015b). Standard economic analysis suggests this will happen, although does not offer a prediction on how large this effect will be. There is only anecdotal evidence on this issue at the moment. For example, one Airbnb host said he will now require his friends and relatives to transact with him via the platform, to insure against damage to his apartment and possessions (Ravenelle, 2016). Another host reported being unhappy about having her in-laws stay for an extended period because of the money she lost (Schor, 2015b). In these studies, however, the prevalence of crowding out of altruistic sharing thus far appears to be low.
In all, the economic, social and environmental effects of sharing economy platforms are largely unknown. While the direct economic benefits are obvious from the large volume of monetary transactions taking place, the distributional effects may be quite skewed. Since the bulk of revenue in the sharing economy accrues via home sharing, already well-off home owners will profit most. Environmental benefits mostly lie in car and ridesharing, and the overall effects of sharing economy platforms may be small due to rebound effects. Finally, social effects are complex and not necessarily inclusive.
4.Alternatives
Despite the call for scientific assessments of the sustainability impacts of sharing economy platforms, we should acknowledge that the precise impacts are likely to remain unclear for a long time to come. The reason for the lasting gap in our knowledge is not only theoretical, but also empirical. For a proper assessment of the impacts, access to the user data currently held by platforms is key. However, the platforms have been restrictive and selective in granting researchers access to their user data, citing privacy and competition concerns. Instead, platforms release their own research results (e.g., Airbnb, 2014), which tend to emphasize the direct benefits without much consideration of the more complex and indirect effects just discussed.
In this context, it has been noted that the social process of assessing the desirability of sharing platforms follows a reverse logic. Frenken (2016) speaks of “reverse technology assessment” in this context. In many countries, established sectors like food, drugs, transportation, construction, and children’s toys are subject to detailed scientific analysis and normative deliberation before new products are allowed to enter the market. Sharing economy platforms, by contrast, are introduced onto the market without consultation, and due to their fast growth they prompt ad-hoc government action without much evidentiary basis. This reverse process has advantages, as users “vote with their feet” and provide individual platforms with practical legitimacy. However, these users are likely to be less affected by externalities and second and third round effects. Given the recent backlash and opposition to particular platforms from various social groups, more systematic evidence is needed to resolve the current debate, with more room for nuanced opinions by independent actors (e.g., academics, journalists, consumer organizations, etc.).
Restricted access to user data also hampers the enforcement of regulations and, consequently, policy evaluation. Though the advent of sharing-economy platforms is recent, the volume of activity on some of these platforms is already sizeable and still growing exponentially. Understandably, calls for regulations are getting louder given the negative externalities caused by home sharing and unfair competition between platform and traditional operators in sectors like tourism, restaurants, short-stay, transport, and appliances. What is more, there is reason to assume that many avoid paying taxes or are not even aware that taxes should be paid for some activities (especially home sharing).
The typical response of regulators has been to create institutional boundaries between the sharing economy and the regular economy by putting a cap on a sharing activity. For example, an increasing number of cities allow home sharing for a fixed number of days (e.g., 30, 60 or 90 days). This “cap” logic can be applied to operators of home restaurants and owners of boats, campers, and parking spaces. The principle of a cap is consistent with our definition of sharing economy as consumers who grant each other temporary access to their under-utilized goods, as it avoids cases where people purchase goods or houses for the purpose of renting them out on a permanent basis. With caps, governments solve two problems at once because they meet the incumbent businesses halfway by creating clear boundaries between professional providers and incidental providers, and they “solve” the tax avoidance practice by users pragmatically as the sums gained by incidental providers are small enough that they can be ignored or otherwise fall under existing tax exemption levels (except for home sharing where revenues are quite skewed and the foregone tax revenues are sizeable). This logic of containment is sustainableas long as the caps can be effectively monitored. Currently, however, governments struggle to enforce such rules, since the platforms do not give them access to user data as they are protected under current privacy laws, while alternative ways of monitoring do not outweigh the costs involved. The government, thus, follows a cap logic which may turn out to hard to enforce in practice. In all, current governmental institutions have not yet come up with an adequate and credible response to the concerns of incumbent business interests and the unions.
Against this background, it is not surprising that to see various alternative platforms being founded. Serious experiments are emerging ranging from cooperative-based and crowdfunded platforms to platforms that make use of alternative currencies or more novel block-chain technology (Scholz, 2014; Scholz and Schneider, 2016). At the same time, some of the existing commercial platforms are now changing the ways in which they engage with users and governments, and are looking for workarounds to help with enforcement their regulations.
5.A research agenda
From our discussion of the delineation of the sharing economy from other platform economies, and our assessment of its impacts and alternatives, we distill a number of research questions. These questions focus on the varieties of platforms in terms of their governance, scalability and impacts.
本文来源：https://www.2haoxitong.net/k/doc/0f35b6d96394dd88d0d233d4b14e852459fb3949.html
文档为doc格式