Institutionalisation of Sharing in Cities

Transcription

1 First International Workshop on the Sharing Economy 4 June 2015, Utrecht, The Netherlands Institutionalisation of Sharing in Cities Yuliya Voytenko, PhD, postdoctoral researcher IIIEE, Lund University Co-authors: Patrycja M. Długosz, Oksana Mont 1

2 Why Cities? URBANISATION 2015: >50% of world and 75% of European population lives in cities 2020: 80% in Europe; 2050: 70% in the world Asia and Africa - 90% of the future urban growth CHALLENGES resource consumption, waste, pollution, climate impact, poverty, inequality, segregation SOLUTIONS Sharing City

3 Why Sharing? UTILISATION OF UNUSED RESOURCES 80% of items owned in the UK and the USA used less than once per month (Botsman & Rogers 2011) 30% of clothes bought by British households never worn (Gracey & Moon 2012) 29 mln personally owned vehicles in the USA are used 1 h/day (Botsman & Rogers 2011) ACCESS via online and physical platforms to share, exchange, resell, hire, rent Products difficult to find on formal markets Luxurious and expensive goods

4 Bright Sides of Sharing Individual savings from not buying Individual earning by lending Local economic growth Communal connections Collective well-being Social capital Reduced resource use Reduced waste Reduced emissions

5 Research Question and Methods RQ: How do sharing practices become institutionalised in cities? Data collection: 3 case cities When? Why? What? Who? Where? How? 3 continents (regional sharing role models), 3 population sizes, 3 drivers for sharing Variety of sharing initiatives in 4 domains: food, mobility, housing and jobs 10 deep interviews with main stakeholders and literature analysis Data analysis: Neo-institutional theory San Francisco Berlin Seoul

6 Neo-institutional Theory To explain how nascent sharing practices can successfully emerge and prosper within mainstream markets Gaining legitimacy by a new sharing venture is key to its institutionalisation Cognitive legitimacy- understanding and knowledge of urban sharing schemes by city dwellers. Socio-political legitimacy acceptance of urban sharing schemes by the policy makers, city officials and opinion leaders. (Based on Aldrich and Fiol 1991)

7 Theoretical Framework Analysis level Cognitive legitimacy Socio-political legitimacy Organisational Have the founders of urban sharing schemes communicated their activity to general public in simple and symbolic way? Intra-industrial Have urban sharing schemes imitated similar initiatives in the city or beyond? Inter-industrial Have urban sharing schemes promoted their activities via thirdparty actors or formed professional associations? Institutional Has an educational institution been engaged in facilitating or testing an urban sharing scheme? Have they communicated their business idea consistently both internally and externally? Have urban sharing schemes joined efforts to achieve their goals and exercised collective action? Have urban sharing schemes formed reliable relationships with established industries, negotiated or compromised? Have urban sharing schemes lobbied the government agencies or solicited governmental support? (Based on Aldrich and Fiol 1991)

8 Organisational Level Value creation models: for-profit, non-profit, hybrid Non-transparent monetary flows and questionable ethical practices? Clear, consistent and transparent internal and external COMMUNICATION is key!

9 Intra-industrial Level IMITABLE INNOVATIONS collective action San Francisco: 100s of sharing (mobility and housing) Seoul: No celebrity businesses New sharing schemes rather compete than collaborate COLLECTIVE ACTION More standardised services easier to understand for users and lobby the government for support Perceptions of reliability more accepted on the markets

10 Inter-industrial Level THIRD-PARTY Promotion and mobilisation? San Francisco Sharing Economy Group: to account for sharing in modernised legislation 9 city departments, community actors, sharing economy companies Sharing Cities Network: 50+ cities, info on sharing in cities, promotion of participating cities Seoul protects its programmes on sharing Berlin banned Uber after protests from taxis New York conflicted with AirBnB

11 Institutional Level RELIABILITY & REPUTATION among other industries San Francisco: Car2Go by Mercedes Berlin: DriveNow by BMW EDUCATION Seoul City: educational events ( Sharing Economy Start School, Sharing Week Day, Sharing Hub Days ) but NO formal education San Francisco: NGO Shareable LOBBYING San Francisco: Sharing Economy Working Group ensures that (new) policies account for interests of sharing actors Seoul: the city is active in promoting sharing Berlin: no major efforts

12 Conclusions Three cities a palette of sharing initiatives, and evergrowing sharing scene Different levels of institutionalisation: Non-profits face difficulties surviving For-profits are disruptors, become market leaders and resemble business-as-usual (AirBnB, Uber) Some are bought by mainstream businesses (ZipCar by AVIS) Seoul city driven, socio-political legitimacy Berlin individual driven, cognitive legitimacy San Francisco business and city driven, sociopolitical and cognitive legitimacy

13 THANK YOU!!!

14 IIIEE research Sharing City Seoul, San Francisco & Berlin (article 2015, MSc thesis 2014) AirBnB and sustainability (MSc thesis 2015) Clothes Library Klädotecket, Malmö (MSc thesis 2015) Urban Reconomy: The role of sharing and collaborative consumption for circular resource efficiency (project, FORMAS, ) Urban Farming Malmö & Minneapolis (MSc thesis 2014) Sharing in Lund Brunnshög area (student report 2014, MSc thesis 2015) Dark sides of sharing (student report 2015)

15 Dark Sides of Sharing Labour exploitation? Is sharing legal? What about ethics? What about safety? How are the profits distributed? Who creates and benefits from sharing markets? What about taxes? What about established businesses? Purchasing more new staff? Increased consumption for new users? Impacts in the use phase of goods? On what activities is the saved money spent? What are people ready to share and how?

16 Sharing What? Products Spaces Experience Time Skills Services