The increasing ability of people to exchange goods, services and labor directly via online platforms is transforming how modern economies operate. However, to ensure that the rise of the “sharing economy” works efficiently and improves conditions for all parties, some regulation is needed.
People can now circumvent many traditional service businesses. They can share transport, using Uber, Lyft or RelayRides; provide accommodation through Airbnb; tender household chores via TaskRabbit, Fiverr or Amazon’s Mechanical Turk and arrange their grocery deliveries using Favor and Instacart.
Similarly, crowdfunding platforms, such as Kickstarter and Lending Club, allow startups to raise grants, loans or investment from the general population, rather than relying on a financial intermediary.
Illustration: Lance Liu
By cutting out the middleman, these online platforms empower individuals, reduce transaction costs and create a more inclusive economy, but their evolution is far from straightforward and many such services will require careful regulation if they are to flourish — as protests and court rulings in Europe against Uber demonstrate.
One reason why Uber and other sharing-economy pioneers are so disruptive is that they represent a highly efficient form of peer-to-peer capitalism. Buyers and sellers can agree directly on the price of every transaction and business reputations depend on transparent customer feedback, generating continuous pressure to improve performance.
The sharing economy also boosts entrepreneurship, as people see new ways to fill gaps in the market. What began as a simple way for households to boost incomes — by renting out one’s apartment or car — has become a formidable disruptive force. Forbes magazine estimates that the sharing economy’s revenues topped US$3.5 billion last year. During this year’s soccer World Cup in Brazil, a nation with a chronic shortage of hotel rooms, more than 100,000 people used home-sharing Web sites to find accommodation.
The opportunity to buy or sell has also become much more inclusive: Half of Airbnb hosts in the US have low to moderate incomes and 90 percent of hosts globally rent their primary residence.
Several cities have recognized the benefits to be gained from promoting a sharing economy. Seattle, for example, has deregulated its transportation and hospitality sectors, challenging the city’s taxi and hotel monopolies.
However, economic change of this magnitude inevitably has its opponents, some with legitimate concerns. Do peer-to-peer businesses undercut incumbents by not paying similar taxes? Are such businesses — flush with venture capital — running their operations at a loss in order to capture market share? And should these firms be allowed to access telecoms data to learn about customers’ habits and movements, thus giving them an unfair advantage?
Some firms have set their own operating standards. TaskRabbit, which subcontracts household jobs like assembling Ikea furniture, requires participants to pay a minimum wage and has launched an insurance scheme to protect its US workers. On the other hand, technology platforms that use “algorithmic scheduling” to automatically align workers’ shifts and hours with business cycles continue to disrupt family life and cause unnecessary stress. Policymakers need to stay ahead of these sharing-economy trends.
As services and software converge, public officials must enhance their technical skills and work with the private sector to ensure market fairness and efficiency. For example, they must prevent the manipulation of reviews and other practices that mislead consumers trying to assess the quality of a company’s service. Airbnb and the online travel agent Expedia allow reviews only by customers who have actually used their services; that could become a regulatory norm throughout the sharing economy.
Governments also have a broader role to play. As more people adopt “portfolio careers” — relying on several sources of income, rather than a single job — it becomes harder to collect and analyze labor-market data.
Governments will need new accounting and reporting standards to calculate wages, forecast incomes and categorize workers within the growing ranks of the self-employed. Such standards, coupled with data-sharing guidelines, will help determine when — and how much — to tax sharing-economy transactions.
None of this will be easy. Though self-employment and part-time labor are hardly new, the sharing economy is different because it allows freelancers to become “nano-workers,” shifting among employers not just monthly or even weekly, but several times a day.
As US and European unemployment rates remain high and wages stagnate, people increasingly rely on such diverse income streams. Today, almost 27 million people in the US survive on part-time and project-based incomes.
With nearly half of all services jobs in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development at risk of automation, the sharing economy can smooth the disruption caused to displaced workers as they upgrade their skills. Indeed, sharing-economy data can help governments identify those workers at greatest risk and support their retraining.
The sharing economy reflects the convergence of entrepreneurialism and technological connectivity.
Taxi drivers and hotel owners may feel threatened, but the sharing economy has the potential to increase and redistribute earnings in cities that are already struggling with poverty and inequality.
Those who are displaced will have far better prospects in the more prosperous and inclusive environment that the sharing economy promises to create.
Ayesha Khanna is chief executive of Technology Quotient, an education and skills development company. Parag Khanna is a senior fellow at the New America Foundation.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS