Se ha denunciado esta presentación.
Se está descargando tu SlideShare. ×

Promises and perils of sharing economy

Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Cargando en…3
×

Eche un vistazo a continuación

1 de 11 Anuncio
Anuncio

Más Contenido Relacionado

Presentaciones para usted (20)

Similares a Promises and perils of sharing economy (20)

Anuncio

Más reciente (20)

Promises and perils of sharing economy

  1. 1. 15/02/2017 Carmen Dibut Michaela Rojkovicova Promises & Perils Sharing Economy
  2. 2. History: Sharing Economy ● Benefitted from the financial crisis in 2008. ● The necessity of reduce costs combined with digital innovation. ● Customer become more price sensitive after have lost their houses, cars and investments. ● Create a new business model. ● Based on p2p network communication on the internet. ● Called today “Sharing Economy”, “Gig Economy”...etc. Russell Belk, 2013; Hamari et al, 2016
  3. 3. Concepts: Sharing Economy Mohamad et al, 2017; Defined P2P as a new business model. Separated Non ownership from collaborative consumption. Hamari et al, 2016; Defined Collaborative Consumption/’Sharing Economy” as a P2P-based business model of obtaining, giving, or sharing the access to goods and services, coordinated through community-based online services. Russell Belk, 2014; Make a distinction of sharing practices. Non-ownership and the Internet as main traits. Separated Sharing from CC via p2p. While in Sharing there is not ownership involved, in CC is people coordinating the acquisition and distribution of good for a fee or other compensation. Ex: swapping, trading, etc. vs Airbnb or Threadless. Juliet Schor, 2014; Sustained that a solid definition of sharing economy is impossible. She separate P2P economic activity in two classes: For-profit and Non-profit. Identifying a non-profit model of sharing economy as a powerful tool for building a new social movement centred on genuine practices of sharing and cooperation in the production and consumption of goods and services. Mark Johnson (The Economists, 2013): The use of technology to reduce the transaction costs to renting, sharing things to other people over the internet. In term of ownership, CC could be as important as the IR. (Bostman & Rogers, 2010)
  4. 4. Non-profitFor-Profit Why to buy if I can I use it for the time by & save money? What do you have to share? Data & goods Codes (Software,hardware,AI,ML) Music Information Video Reviews Feelings Personal to shared ownership “Ride Sharing” “Aim to serve needs and solved social problems at local, community level” Extra income and save money “Stay Sharing” Sharing
  5. 5. Promises • Ecological effect of “stay sharing“ Staying in existing homes decrease the demand for new hotels • “Bike sharing” reduce carbon emission → • The use of “digital technology” reduce transaction costs, bring opportunities globally in real time and crowdsource information. • “Retail sharing” allow the customisation of products and services, rather than mass production of goods.
  6. 6. Airbnb Case Study ● Staying in existing homes decrease the demand for new hotels. ● Extra income to house ownership and save money for final users. ● High level of governance of the platforms seems free to distort property prices and create unregulated market for short-term accommodation. ● Strong community culture. Users (host or guest) provide each other with a great deal of mutual support and share their knowledge and experience. ● Promote responsible home sharing to make city stronger; Airbnb request that NYC alters its laws to allow Airbnb to collect taxes on rental.
  7. 7. • Conflicts: professional, political, commercial, geographic, generational, etc. • Decline in full-time employment • UBER -- > Decreasing price of car-sharing -- > Ecological impact -- > People use less public transport -- > Pollution increased • Grey Market: no regulations • Regulations: • Distort the market and disregard important regulations • Uber: reluctant to face regulations that apply to taxis • Airbnb: Fire-escape plan map inside apartment, Hotel taxes • States could be embroiled for years in political, legal, commercial and environmental battles related to sharing Perils
  8. 8. Airbnb Case Study ● Weak local governments can’t deal with all the new planning, zoning, licensing and regulatory questions posed by this new economic model. Courts are already too crowded to handle basic functions—much less a host of new claims sparked by sharing enterprises. ● Amsterdam: occasional rent 60 days per year -- > including tourist tax -- > renting only when they are away (Sharing Economy) -- > rather than permanent renting (Not Sharing Economy) ● London: occasional rent 90 days per year (from 2017) ● Paris: occasional rent 120 days per year ● Without regulations, Airbnb would create incentive for illegal renting with negative consequences for the economy.
  9. 9. Conclusion ● Sharing economy companies are extending the market - we have to confront the ways they’re distorting it ● The philosophy of policy is important ● Try to regulate it in such way that it becomes part of sharing economy ● Occasional rather than permanent ● Legal & doesn’t disrupt other businesses and economy
  10. 10. Thank you!

×