Introduction
The Sharing Economy: Urban Phenomenon and Governance Issue
Sharing Economy as a Governance Concern
Sharing Economy as an Urban Phenomenon Evoking Ethical Tensions and Moral Dilemmas
Cities as Strategic Actors: Issue Framing and Governance Response Strategies
Data and Method
Sampling and Data Sources
City | Position paper or information website on the sharing economya | GCIb |
---|---|---|
New York City | ‘NYC reuse sector report’ (New York City 2017) | 1 |
London | ‘London: The circular economy capital’ (London Waste & Recycling Board 2015) | 2 |
Paris | ‘White paper on the circular economy of Greater Paris’ (Mairie de Paris 2015) | 3 |
Hong Kong | ‘Regulation of sharing economy platforms involving illegal commercial activities’ (Government of Hong Kong 2017) | 5 |
Chicago | ‘House-sharing reforms and protections’ (City of Chicago 2016) | 7 |
Los Angeles | ‘Sustainable city plan’ (City of Los Angeles 2015) | 8 |
Seoul | ‘Sharing city, Seoul’ (Seoul Metropolitan Government 2014) | 12 |
Berlin | ‘Von der geteilten zur teilenden Stadt’ (Berlin Projekt Zukunft 2016) | 14 |
Toronto | ‘The sharing economy’ (City of Toronto 2017) | 16 |
Sydney | 17 | |
Vienna | ‘Wir machen in Wien die Share zur Fair Economy’ (Stadt Wien 2016) | 20 |
Amsterdam | ‘Action plan sharing economy’ (City of Amsterdam 2016) | 22 |
Barcelona | ‘The impetus plan for the social and solidarity economy’ (Ajuntament de Barcelona 2016) | 24 |
Vancouver | 35 | |
Copenhagen | ‘Regional growth and development strategy’ (Greater Copenhagen 2017) | 42 |
Milan | ‘Milano sharing city’ (Comune di Milano 2014) | 43 |
Method of Data Generation
Opportunities | Challenges |
---|---|
• Public opportunities, such as − Macro-economic growth and job creation − Social and societal improvements • Market opportunities, such as − Economic diversity, new business models, and innovation − Increased consumer choice • Environmental opportunities, such as − Conserving natural resources − Reducing emissions | • Public challenges, such as − Safeguarding public interest and stability − Employee protection and social security • Market challenges, such as − Protection of existing companies and market participants − Consumer protection and issues of safety • Environmental challenges, such as − Additional resource usage − Rebound effects |
Public governance strategies | |
---|---|
• Promotion and funding of desired initiatives (‘promotion’) • Regulation by creating and enforcing laws (‘regulation’) • Information and involvement of citizens (‘information’) • Alignment and exchange with other governments (‘alignment’) • Expert knowledge and workgroups (‘expertise’) • Technology as governance mechanism (‘technology’) • Partnering with sharing economy organizations (‘partnering’) • Provision of sharing services by the government (‘provision’) |
Methods of Data Analysis
Empirical Results
Framing the Sharing Economy in Terms of Opportunities and Challenges
Factor 1 | Factor 2 | |
---|---|---|
Public opportunities | − 0.629 | 0.113 |
Market opportunities | − 0.057 | 0.996 |
Environmental opportunities | − 0.320 | − 0.505 |
Public challenges | 0.908 | 0.272 |
Market challenges | 0.789 | 0.385 |
The Amsterdam statement draws on a (positive) ‘market disruption’ framing and a ‘societal endangerment’ framing. In contrast, the Mayor of Paris (Mairie de Paris 2015) who uses the term circular economy draws on an ‘ecological transition’ and a ‘societal enhancement’ framing:“Under the banner of the sharing economy, the College [of Mayor and Alderpersons] sees new companies emerge that provide for an acceleration of innovations regarding goods and services, which often provide easier and cheaper access to goods and services for the consumer. […] This can add to the diversity of supply, which is good for the market. It remains a task for the government to preserve this fair and level playing field. […] In the face of rapidly growing companies, it is an important duty of the government to prevent the emergence of monopolies and cartels. […] The traditional labour model, in which people are employed by an organisation or earn standard hourly wages, often does not apply when working for or via a sharing platform. […] This is clearly relevant to the matter of protecting social security and labour rights.”
“The purpose of the circular economy is to end the uncoupling that has occurred between growth and environmental protection, between goods and resources and between exchange values and values in use. By substituting a logic that favors reuse over replacement, this economy allows each individual to renew, in the broadest sense, those fragile links with his or her environment without which any wealth creation must entail a depletion of resources. […] It is an economy that encourages new forms of production and consumption, as well as sociability, sharing and democracy, as opposed to a short-term profit and consumerist diktat. It also holds the promise of new business sectors with strong regional roots and quality jobs that will not be relocated.”
Public Governance Strategies in Response to the Sharing Economy
Public governance strategy | Framing of the sharing economy as … | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Societal endangerment | Societal enhancement | Market disruption | Ecological transition | |||||
Factor 1 | Inversion of factor 1 | Factor 2 | Inversion of factor 2 | |||||
cn | cs | cn | cs | cs | cs | cn | cs | |
Promotion | ||||||||
Presence | 0.65 | 0.44 | 0.81 | 0.65 | 0.71 | 0.57 | 0.64 | 0.44 |
Absence | 0.49 | 0.68 | 0.30 | 0.51 | 0.30 | 0.50 | 0.37 | 0.52 |
Regulation | ||||||||
Presence | 0.91 | 0.61 | 0.69 | 0.55 | 0.75 | 0.60 | 0.75 | 0.50 |
Absence | 0.33 | 0.47 | 0.51 | 0.87 | 0.37 | 0.64 | 0.40 | 0.57 |
Information | ||||||||
Presence | 0.63 | 0.52 | 0.65 | 0.64 | 0.53 | 0.52 | 0.75 | 0.61 |
Absence | 0.56 | 0.58 | 0.51 | 0.62 | 0.60 | 0.74 | 0.41 | 0.42 |
Alignment | ||||||||
Presence | 0.66 | 0.55 | 0.63 | 0.63 | 0.67 | 0.67 | 0.49 | 0.41 |
Absence | 0.56 | 0.56 | 0.55 | 0.66 | 0.41 | 0.49 | 0.60 | 0.60 |
Expertise | ||||||||
Presence | 0.60 | 0.51 | 0.63 | 0.63 | 0.58 | 0.58 | 0.67 | 0.57 |
Absence | 0.57 | 0.56 | 0.52 | 0.61 | 0.58 | 0.68 | 0.51 | 0.50 |
Technology | ||||||||
Presence | 0.56 | 0.52 | 0.65 | 0.71 | 0.50 | 0.55 | 0.75 | 0.69 |
Absence | 0.69 | 0.62 | 0.56 | 0.60 | 0.72 | 0.78 | 0.51 | 0.46 |
Partnering | ||||||||
Presence | 0.52 | 0.49 | 0.67 | 0.75 | 0.53 | 0.60 | 0.61 | 0.58 |
Absence | 0.74 | 0.65 | 0.59 | 0.57 | 0.63 | 0.66 | 0.57 | 0.50 |
Provision | ||||||||
Presence | 0.34 | 0.50 | 0.46 | 0.80 | 0.37 | 0.64 | 0.34 | 0.49 |
Absence | 0.86 | 0.57 | 0.71 | 0.56 | 0.70 | 0.56 | 0.76 | 0.50 |
Public Governance Strategies Associated with a ‘Societal Endangerment’ Framing
Typical public governance strategy combinations | (a) regulation* ~alignment* ~ provision | + | (b) information* ~partnering* ~ provision | + | (c) promotion*alignment* ~ expertise |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Consistency | 0.84 | 0.79 | 0.73 | ||
Raw coverage | 0.47 | 0.52 | 0.32 | ||
Unique coverage | 0.18 | 0.14 | 0.13 | ||
Cases with greater than 0.50 membership in term | Chicago (1.00, 1.00) Vancouver (0.80, 0.56) Milan (0.60, 0.59) | Vienna (0.90, 0.77) Chicago (0.80, 1.00) Milan (0.80, 0.59) Sydney (0.60, 0.66) | Amsterdam (1.00, 0.73) Sydney (0.60, 0.66) |
Public Governance Strategies Associated with a ‘Societal Enhancement’ Framing
Typical public governance strategy combinations | (d) provision*information | + | (e) ~regulation* ~ provision | + | (f) expertise* promotion*alignment |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Consistency | 0.98 | 0.91 | 0.89 | ||
Raw coverage | 0.38 | 0.41 | 0.43 | ||
Unique coverage | 0.12 | 0.18 | 0.11 | ||
Cases with greater than 0.50 membership in term | New York City (0.80, 0.90) Paris (0.60, 0.74) Berlin (0.60, 0.73) Barcelona (0.60, 0.99) | Copenhagen (1.00, 0.74) London (0.80, 1.00) Toronto (0.51, 0.42) | Paris (0.90, 0.74) Berlin (0.80, 0.73) Seoul (0.70, 0.73) Toronto (0.60, 0.42) |
Public Governance Strategies Associated with a ‘Market Disruption’ Framing
Typical public governance strategy combinations | (g) regulation* ~expertise* ~ provision | + | (h) alignment* ~information* ~ provision |
---|---|---|---|
Consistency | 0.86 | 0.83 | |
Raw coverage | 0.34 | 0.33 | |
Unique coverage | 0.16 | 0.16 | |
Cases with greater than 0.50 membership in term | Hong Kong (1.00, 1.00) Sydney (0.60, 1.00) | London (0.60, 0.94) Hong Kong (0.60, 1.00) Toronto (0.60, 0.99) |
Public Governance Strategies Associated with an ‘Ecological Transition’ Framing
Typical public governance strategy combinations | (i) information* ~alignment* ~ provision | + | (j) promotion*partnering* ~information* ~ regulation | + | (k) regulation*expertise* ~partnering* ~ provision |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Consistency | 0.75 | 0.69 | 0.66 | ||
Raw coverage | 0.36 | 0.20 | 0.41 | ||
Unique coverage | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.17 | ||
Cases with greater than 0.50 membership in term | Chicago (0.80, 0.78) Milan (0.80, 0.64) Vancouver (0.80, 0.65) | Los Angeles (0.60, 0.99) | Vienna (1.00, 0.63) Chicago (0.60, 0.78) Milan (0.60, 0.64) |