You can not only find someone online willing to rent you a room in their house, but someone who will share their car, their desk, their power tools or their child’s toys. You can find someone to walk your dog, deliver your dinner, assemble your furniture, lend you clothes or hold your place in line for the latest iPhone.
This is the “sharing economy,” hailed by the government for creating “micro-entrepreneurs” and by economists for putting “excess capacity” to use. Traditional businesses and workers — from hotel owners to taxi drivers — have been less welcoming.
The sector is growing fast. Airbnb claims to have more than 1 million rooms available, compared with the 13 million rooms provided by formal hotel chains (not including bed and breakfasts). Uber can claim thousands of drivers — some poached from other lift services or working for more than one. Not all companies are doing so well: TaskRabbit, which puts people in touch with vetted “taskers” to take whatever chore you want off your hands, has struggled to grow beyond its current 19 cities, including London.
Illustration: Mountain people
As poster children for the sharing economy — even if Uber shrugs off the title — both Uber and Airbnb have been accused of riding roughshod over the regulations other companies have to play by. The list of places where Uber has been banned now runs to Germany; the US state of Virginia; New Delhi; Belgium; the state of New South Wales in Australia; Spain; Portland, Oregon (it went ahead anyway); Thailand and Seoul, South Korea. A number of those bans were later lifted. Taiwan and Chongqing, China, are also reported to be mulling bans.
The ride-hailing service, started by Travis Kalanick after he found he could not use his smartphone to hail a cab in Paris, has been the lightning rod for much of the anger at the disruption being caused by these new companies.
In a number of cities, including London and Paris, taxi drivers have protested at the presence of the firm, claiming its avoidance of many regulations enables it to undercut them on price; in other cities, Uber “drivers” — the company insists they are not its employees — have protested too.
Meanwhile Airbnb, started by two designers who in 2008 hosted three people looking for a temporary place to stay, has had a series of run-ins with US regulators. New York state in particular has taken the company to task over whether its activity constitutes sub-letting, thus breaking the leases of many residents who offered rooms or homes. In April, New York state authorities found that two-thirds of the apartments being offered there broke the law in that way.
In Amsterdam last week the company agreed to collect potentially millions of euros in tourist taxes after complaints from hoteliers.
However, for Patrick Robinson, Airbnb’s public policy director in Europe, there is no question its users should enjoy lighter regulation than some other businesses.
“It’s manifestly obvious to me that somebody renting out their flat shouldn’t have to obey the same rules as a Park Lane hotel,” he said.
His views were echoed by a government-commissioned report last month that recommended “[existing] regulations must be examined to ensure they are still fit for purpose and meet peoples’ expectations — particularly for accommodation and task-sharing platforms.”
The recommendation was that regulations should change, but only for those small groups — and the government seems broadly sympathetic. In a foreword to the report, British Business and Energy Minister Matthew Hancock said that new services such as Airbnb and PeoplePerHour “are unlocking a new generation of micro-entrepreneurs.”
The report itself was written by Debbie Wosskow, who runs Love Home Swap, described as a “peer-to-peer travel club.” That irked the British Hospitality Association (BHA), whose members view many “sharing economy” participants as enjoying a free ride, with no oversight apart from the cumulative reviews on the site itself. By contrast, hotels and B&Bs, the BHA’s members, face constant scrutiny.
The court cases hoteliers have faced in recent years over whether they can turn away would-be clients are in stark contrast to the laissez-faire approach of Internet-based rivals which are free to reject anyone, risking nothing worse than damaging their online reputation, which might affect future bookings.
The key that has enabled all this is the Internet and smartphones: as commerce moves online and the Internet pervades so many areas of life, it has become easier to create businesses linking people who want to be on either side of a deal. In effect, it seems every transaction can be managed by a sort of dating site.
A classical economist would argue that these systems are releasing surplus capacity into the economy: there are car seats going begging on various journeys that could be more efficiently shared, and the exchange of value (read: payment) between participants would be good for all. It should increase efficiency and lower the price of those goods; so you might expect that the arrival of ride-sharing services would drive down prices for existing, regulated services.
There are signs that this is happening in some areas. In New York the cost of a “medallion” for an official yellow cab has fallen from its US$1 million peak recently. However, both Robinson and the BHA say there is no sign that Airbnb is pushing down the price of hotels, or official bed and breakfast accommodation.
New Economics Foundation head of finance and business Tony Greenham said that in many cases the label of the “sharing economy” is a fig leaf for companies that are just as rapacious as any around now.
“The starting point has to be realizing that the label has been used to describe wildly different things. At one end there’s Uber, which is trying to dress a traditionally capitalist business model in the cuddly clothes of ‘sharing,’ but that doesn’t mean the whole area is just marketing,” he said.
There are also potential downsides, or what economists call “externalities.”
“Driving down the cost of taxis encourages people off buses and into taxis. That means you’re actually using more resources, at an overall higher cost to everyone because you have all these people owning and running cars,” Greenham said.
He added that every driver and passenger is rated by each other; if a driver’s rating falls too far below 5/5, they are liable to be dropped.
“It’s really important to question whether these services make the relationship between people more or less uneven,” Greenham said. “Uber has all the power in this relationship. It reminds me of nothing so much as longshoremen turning up at docks a century ago hoping to be hired by the foreman — the sort of situation that led to the formation of unions.”
With accommodation services, there are other immediate concerns: BHA legal and policy director Jackie Grech cites loud parties disturbing neighbors, even premises being used as brothels.
For Airbnb, Robinson said the company has brought benefits through the hiring of cleaners for accommodation, adding that “a two-bedroom bed and breakfast has the same requirements placed on it as a two-bedroom Airbnbhost.” There are no compulsory safety inspections on either.
He also said that the expectation placed on the company is far higher: “Inviting somebody into your home is a big step.”
However, what would happen if an Airbnb guest was harmed by fire, or a carbon monoxide leak — a constant concern for hotels. Airbnb’s site says owners “should” make sure they have a functioning carbon monoxide detector and are following gas safety regulations. However, although the money for any stay is paid via Airbnb, Robinson said he does not know who would be responsible if someone were injured that way.
“I’m not a lawyer,” Robinson said.
It seems surprising that the eventuality has not come up in business meetings, but Robinson declines to discuss it.
It is a scenario that has exercised insurance companies, which are wrestling with the question of who is liable in a collision involving a car being driven on an Uber journey, or one of the other car rental services, or a complaint involving Airbnb clients. Premiums might rise, or need extra tweaking.
Everyone involved agrees that these businesses look unstoppable. The question is how far regulations are going to shape them to behave more like the traditional businesses that they are trying to supplant.
“What I would be impressed by is the ‘sharing economy’ companies trying to get social justice,” Greenham said. “The whole concept of sharing isn’t very compatible with the accumulation of private capital, after all. What’s irreversible is the technological element, but maybe some of these platforms would be more socially responsible if they were owned by the users, rather than venture capitalists in Silicon Valley.”
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers