Organizing Framework for Understanding the Promises and Paradoxes of the Sharing Economy

From P2P Foundation
Jump to navigation Jump to search

* Article: Promises and paradoxes of the sharing economy: An organizing framework. By Aurélien Acquier, Thibault Daudigeos, Jonatan Pinkse. Technological Forecasting and Social Change Volume 125, December 2017, Pages 1-10

URL = https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162517309101?

Editorial introduction to a special issue of the journal.

Abstract

"In this article, we take stock of the ambivalent and contested nature of the sharing economy. Considering the ‘sharing economy’ as an umbrella construct and an essentially contested concept, we position the sharing economy as resting on three foundational cores: (1) Access economy, (2) Platform economy, and (3) Community-based economy. We show how each core holds distinct promises and paradoxes. This organizing framework shows how combining the cores can help sharing-economy initiatives to navigate certain tensions, but can also lead to new ones. We highlight the paradoxical nature of the sharing economy and make a case for balanced initiatives that combine the promises of each core while mitigating contradictions. We conclude by introducing the nine articles of the special issue, connecting their contributions to our organizing framework."


Excerpt

"Based on a review of the literature, we position the sharing economy as resting on three foundational cores:

(1) Access Economy: "Initiatives sharing underutilized assets (material resources or skills) to optimize their use."

(2) Platform Economy: "Intermediation of decentralized exchanges among peers through digital platforms"

(3) Community-Based Economy: "Coordinating through non-contractual, non-hierarchical or non-monetized forms of interactions (work, exchange, etc.)"


In the following, we define each organizing core and explain how they relate to the promises and paradoxes of the sharing economy." (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162517309101?platform=hootsuite)


From the conclusion

By Aurélien Acquier, Thibault Daudigeos, Jonatan Pinkse:

"To conclude, then, by developing an organizing framework of the sharing economy that not only shows its core principles – access, platform and community-based economy – but also reveals its promises, tensions and paradoxes, we provide a more inclusive view of what the sharing economy means for research and practice. With our framework we move beyond the definitional discord that is currently holding the debate hostage. Since the sharing economy is an umbrella construct and an essentially contested concept, scholars will probably never agree on a definition. Nonetheless, our framework allows scholars and practitioners to position their research and practice, and gain a deeper understanding of the promises and paradoxes of their specific approach.

Furthermore, by adopting a paradoxical perspective on the promises of the sharing economy we move away from the dichotomy of having either a purely ideological perspective of what the sharing economy should deliver or a defeatist perspective that the sharing economy is not living up to its potential. Rather, we argue that it is more likely for the sharing economy to deliver on its promises when it is conceptualized as a dynamic balancing act between the three different cores of our framework. A key question will be whether an ideal type that combines all three cores to leverage the different promises and mitigate most tensions will be feasible in the near future. To address this question, research will need to shift to studying the impact that the sharing economy has on the wide range of stakeholders involved. So far, most studies have focused on identifying motivations for users to participate in the sharing economy. Due to the nascent state of the sharing economy, this focus is not surprising due to a lack of reliable data. However, with the vast proliferation of sharing economy initiatives across the globe, it will become easier to collect and analyse data that will provide a more dynamic picture of the sharing economy and its impact. The contributions of this special issue raise many relevant topics for future research and present a rich variety of conceptual and empirical approaches that will help in conducting such research." (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162517309101?platform=hootsuite)

Outline of the special issue

"The scholarly debate on the sharing economy is evolving at a fast pace. With this special issue we hope to make a fruitful contribution to this ongoing debate. The nine articles included in the special issue as well as this introductory piece all share a certain enthusiasm about the sharing economy in the sense that it could hold real promise to transform the current economy. However, the articles also share a clear sense of reservation. While the focus might initially have been on the social, environmental and economic promise, the special issue's main message is that tensions are inherent in the sharing economy, both conceptually and in practice. This special issue provides different perspectives on the current state of the sharing economy with some contributions being more optimistic and others more sceptical. In the following paragraphs, we provide an outline of the nine contributions to this special issue and connect them to the organizing framework developed in this introductory article.

The first two articles – Mair and Reischauer (in this issue) and Muñoz and Cohen (in this issue) – stress the diversity and pluralism of the sharing economy. They both focus on organizations, arguing that an analysis of how organizations manage and coordinate platforms, one core of the sharing economy, leads to a deeper understanding of the dynamics and impact of the sharing economy. Mair and Reischauer (in this issue) explore conceptually how the sharing economy will manifest and evolve across different economic systems. While they develop a definition of the sharing economy, their main argument rests on there not being one type of sharing economy organization. Rather, the specific organizational form of sharing economy organizations exhibits a culturally rooted pluralism. They explain this pluralism through an institutional theory, emphasizing the pluralism of organizations as well as practices. Muñoz and Cohen (in this issue) empirically investigate the diversity of the sharing economy. They use a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fs/QCA) to derive five ideal types of sharing economy business models. Their analysis shows that not all ideal types contain all elements typically attributed to the sharing economy. It corresponds to our own framework in the sense that a triple-core initiative would be what they label a ‘utopian business model’ for which they could find very few examples to date. The next four articles – Wilhelms et al. (in this issue), Parguel et al. (in this issue), Laurell and Sandström (in this issue), and Murillo et al., in this issue) – all shed light on one or more tensions of the sharing economy that we have highlighted in our framework. Wilhelms et al. (in this issue) as well as Parguel et al. (in this issue) examine tensions related to the environmental promise and offer a rather gloomy picture. Based on a quantitative research design, Wilhelms et al. (in this issue) study peer-to-peer carsharing, i.e. an access platform (see Fig. 2). They analyse what motivates users to participate in peer-to-peer carsharing, comparing factors related to economic interest (‘earn’), quality of life (‘enjoy’), helping others (‘enrich’), and sustainability (‘enhance’). While they find a surprising balance between self-interested and altruistic motives, environmental concerns do not seem to play a role. Parguel et al. (in this issue) also use a quantitative design to study consumer behaviour in a second-hand peer-to-peer platform. They measure how likely consumers are to give in to temptation on these platforms. Among a set of factors, they find that especially materialistic and environmentally conscious consumers seem to use second-hand platforms as a way to self-license and justify indulgent consumption which undermines the environmental promise.

In their study of the framing of the sharing economy in a Swedish context, Laurell and Sandström (in this issue) focus on a different tension: the one between market and non-market logics. Using social media analytics, they corroborate Mair and Reischauer (in this issue) in the sense that the sharing economy consists of a very diverse set of market and non-market practices. However, they also come to the conclusion that the sharing economy remains rather unstable. There are many issues related to regulation and taxation that are still unresolved. While the previous three contributions examine specific tensions in more detail, Murillo et al. (in this issue) provide a comprehensive overview of all the controversies surrounding the sharing economy. In a critical analysis, they question the sharing economy for its heavy focus on the platform economy core, which undermines the social impact that the sharing economy could have.

The last three contributions – Heimstädt (in this issue), Dreyer et al. (in this issue), and Pazaitis et al. (in this issue) – go beyond identifying promises, tensions, and paradoxes of the sharing economy, and instead provide different perspectives on how such paradoxes can be navigated. Heimstädt (in this issue) investigates how organizations resolve the tension between a growing trend to share internal information with the public and an inherent preference for informational control. Based on an inductive analysis, he shows that organizations manage this tension through three forms of decoupling: selection to exclude parts of the data or the audience, bending information to retain control, and orchestrating information for a specific audience. Based on an inductive study in an emerging economy context, Dreyer et al. (in this issue) explore how sharing economy business models have a positive impact on all stakeholders involved. They find that in order to avoid unintended negative consequences it is crucial to design the business model so that it is firmly embedded in the local context. Finally, Pazaitis et al. (in this issue) show conceptually how blockchain technology facilitates the creation of a new system of value that is more conducive to the social promise. They develop a value system that consists of three layers: (a) production of value; (b) record of value; and (c) actualisation of value. They argue that blockchain technology constitutes a new medium of value to coordinate decentralized transactions for commons-based peer production. Their system thus seeks to tackle issues related to non-monetary coordination that community-based access initiatives rely on (see section 3.4)."