Article Category: Theoretical Paper
Published Online: Dec 31, 2019
Page range: 346 - 368
Received: Jul 28, 2018
Accepted: Dec 20, 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ijme-2019-0026
Keywords
© 2019 Anna Rutkowska-Gurak et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.
Figure 1
Figure 2
![Cumulative funding for asset-sharing start-ups from 2010 to 2016.Source: Wallenstein and Shelat, BCG analysis [2017], p. 5.](https://sciendo-parsed.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/6471f95d215d2f6c89db739f/j_ijme-2019-0026_fig_002.jpg?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20240519T064301Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=18000&X-Amz-Credential=AKIA6AP2G7AKP25APDM2%2F20240519%2Feu-central-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Signature=a9e9a25df25d20fb9868f0f740346c509054946c16999b60e8b3eb77d0f3e6a3)
City as an arena of contrasting interests, represented by different stakeholders
| + | Connect citizens: drivers–riders and landlords–guests to generate revenues (gain loyalty) Successfully attack the market position of incumbent companies Have low entry barriers Gain profits from platforms: revenues from users and advertisers, selling databases, etc. Create new jobs for contractors/employees, including people who were not previously employed Generate additional demand Contribute to new socialization by creation of a community Lower transaction costs | |
| ------ | ---------------- | |
| − | Face fierce competition in sharing economy sector Face increasing resistance of incumbents and rising (governmental, municipal) restrictions on sharing services | |
| + | Face competitiveness, which leads to higher standard of services | |
| ---------- | ------------------ | |
| − | Are under disruptive impact of sharing companies with reference to revenue and profits Question legality, price policy, and tax policy of ridesharing and lodging, because of their status as unlicensed (Uber, Blablacar) and lower-priced competitors (Uber, Blablacar, and Airbnb) using peer-to-peer low-cost service practices with low capital entry with reference to possession (Blablacar carpooling, Airbnb) Suffer decline in standard of living due to lower wages | |
Save money by getting cheap access to goods and services offered by sharing companies | ||
| + | Save money by getting cheaper access to traditional services being under competitive pressure Benefiting from improved standard of living | |
| ------- | ------------------ | |
| − | Become less dependent on ownership Are exposed to risk (quality of goods and services) | |
| ---------- | ---------- | ------------------ |
Earn money paid for peer-to-peer jobs | ||
| + | Earn money paid for assets owned by them Have more flexibility Appreciate participation in communities created by users of platforms Benefiting from improved standard of living | |
| ----- | ------------------ | |
| − | Are exposed to risk of lack of payments, poor working conditions, etc. | |
| ---------- | ----- | ------------------ |
| Nonusers | + | Use tourist-driven demand to earn money |
| ---------- | ------------------ | |
| − | Complain about tourists behavior in neighborhood areas | |
| ---------- | ----- | ------------------ |
| All residents | + | Favor better quality of life (environmental aspects) |
| ----- | ------------------ | |
| − | Have unequal access to sharing services operating for different segments of population (ridesharing) | |
| + | Sharing businesses contribute to jobs and local economic growth induced by increasing demand (total and sectorial, e.g., tourism) Help to solve transportation problems (urban planners are provided with data, which helps design cities in a way that would reduce congestion and reduce car usage) Offer alternative possibilities of services, such as commuting and apartment renting Favor social inclusion (particularly for disadvantaged groups of citizens and strangers) Shape sociocultural features desirable for entrepreneurial attitudes, such as openness and innovativeness Contribute to the creation of sharing communities Help to develop new functions in cites (cultural, tourist activities) Ease environmental problems due to better use of underused assets: e.g., cars, apartments; and help to create more environmentally friendly urban environment for all citizens Help to enhance quality of life in the city Change possibilities of city and intercity transportation (additional alternatives, more frequent traveling, lower cost of travel) Totally change future of urban transportation (self-driving cars, vertical-take-off-and-landing planes) | |
| ------- | ------------------ | |
Concern about tax losses associated with growing “black” economy are aroused | ||
| − | Problems in local labor market are induced (e.g., massive protests of incumbent companies threatened by the risk of decreasing revenues and even bankruptcy) Position of traditional urban transportation (taxis, buses, trams, and trains) is threatened Stability of local real estate markets is threatened due to increases in real estate prices Problems of overtourism might arouse and be increased | |
Timeframe and expansion of the three studied companies
| Uber | spread of activity from US to all regions of the world
2011 San Francisco 2018 >400 cities worldwide in >60 countries |
| BlaBlaCar | spread of activity between cities from France across Europe to 19 countries, as well as to Asia (India) and Latin America (Brazil, Mexico) diversification of activities aimed at cities, with mytaxi match being an application only for urban dwellers
2017 Warsaw 2018 70 cities in 12 countries in Europe e.g., Hamburg, Vienna, Zurich, Barcelona, Madrid spread of activity (diversification of carpooling) between cities to daily commute through BlaBlalines: pilot launch in France
2018 Reims-Châlons-en-Champagne and Toulouse-Montauban |
| Airbnb | spread of activity from US to all regions of the world
2008 San Francisco 2018 >190 countries in 81,000 cities |
Different scales and applications of the sharing paradigm in modern communities
| Individual | Swapping, bartering, gifting | Ridesharing, couchsharing | Skill sharing |
| Collective | Car clubs, tool banks, fab-labs | Childcare, time banks, crowdfunding | Sports, clubs, open-source software |
| Public | Libraries, freecycling | Health services, public transport | Politics, public space |
European comparison of the number of Airbnb listings per user
| City | 1 listing | 2 Listings | 3 Listings | 4 Listings | 5 or more listings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Paris | 90,97% | 6,73% | 1,16% | 0,36% | 0,77% |
| Nantes | 89,03% | 8,61% | 1,60% | 0,35% | 0,42% |
| Cologne | 88,55% | 8,33% | 1,46% | 0,66% | 0,99% |
| Amsterdam | 88,53% | 7,92% | 1,85% | 0,69% | 1,01% |
| Strasbourg | 88,53% | 9,01% | 1,27% | 0,47% | 0,72% |
| Toulouse | 87,55% | 9,30% | 1,53% | 0,37% | 1,15% |
| Munich | 87,30% | 9,47% | 1,81% | 0,79% | 0,63% |
| Berlin | 86,18% | 9,73% | 2,19% | 0,72% | 1,07% |
| Frankfurt | 86,18% | 10,34% | 1,88% | 0,86% | 0,74% |
| Glasgow | 83,50% | 11,97% | 2,45% | 1,09% | 1,00% |
| London | 80,89% | 12,03% | 3,12% | 1,27% | 2,69% |
| Manchester | 78,61% | 13,18% | 3,72% | 1,62% | 2,87% |
| Edinburg | 77,88% | 14,03% | 4,11% | 1,66% | 2,31% |
| Barcelona | 69,37% | 16,57% | 6,11% | 2,65% | 5,30% |