Sharing economY definition, dynamics and debates
Koen Frenken > 20 million members (EU) > 2 million
accommodations (World)
2006 2008 > 20 million members (EU) > 2 million
accommodations (World) 2011 2011 > 100,000 members (NL) >
100,000 members (NL) D E F I N I T I O N Part 1 granting each other
temporary access to under-utilised physical assets
Definition Consumers granting each other temporary accessto
under-utilised physical assets Sharing economy Definition Consumers
granting each other temporary accessto under-utilised physical
assets (possibly for money) Sharing economy Definition Consumers
granting each other temporary accessto under-utilised physical
assets (possibly for money) Sharing economy granting each other
temporary access to under-utilised physical assets
Definition Consumers granting each other temporary accessto
under-utilised physical assets Sharing economy granting each other
temporary access to under-utilised physical assets
Definition Consumers granting each other temporary accessto
under-utilised physical assets Sharing economy Consumers granting
each other temporaryaccess to under-utilised physical assets
Consumers granting each other temporaryaccess to under-utilised
physical assets D Y N A M I C S Part 2 Why does sharing scale so
fast? Why does sharing scale so fast?
because it is based on idle capacity Country: The Netherlands.
Source: KpVV, 2014 Traditional b2c rental model Sharing-economy c2c
model
Source: Meelen et al. 2015, draft Onderzoek B2C C2C Constant
-8.574*** (1.533) -0.949 (0.672)
B2C C2C Constant -8.574*** (1.533) -0.949 (0.672) Number of cars
0.000*** (0.000) Population density 0.000* Distance to facilities
-0.052 (0.029) -0.022* (0.010) Income 0.000 % vocational education
-0.017 (0.014) -0.021*** (0.006) % university education 0.015
(0.011) 0.028*** (0.005) % one person households 0.028** 0.014**
(0.004) % age 25-45 0.060*** (0.016) 0.019* (0.009) % age 45-65
0.073*** (0.017) 0.005 (0.08) % age 65+ 0.008 (0.012) -0.008* %
Western immigrants 0.029* (0.015) -0.033*** (0.007) % green party
voters 0.246*** (0.045) 0.152*** (0.026) Municipal policy 0.388***
(0.066) 0.029 (0.031) Log Likelihood Mcfadden adj R2 0.361 0.189 N
2363 2363 Non-zero observations 438 1573 Onderzoek Onderzoek B2C
C2C Constant -8.574*** (1.533) -0.949 (0.672)
B2C C2C Constant -8.574*** (1.533) -0.949 (0.672) Number of cars
0.000*** (0.000) Population density 0.000* Distance to facilities
-0.052 (0.029) -0.022* (0.010) Income 0.000 % vocational education
-0.017 (0.014) -0.021*** (0.006) % university education 0.015
(0.011) 0.028*** (0.005) % one person households 0.028** 0.014**
(0.004) % age 25-45 0.060*** (0.016) 0.019* (0.009) % age 45-65
0.073*** (0.017) 0.005 (0.08) % age 65+ 0.008 (0.012) -0.008* %
Western immigrants 0.029* (0.015) -0.033*** (0.007) % green party
voters 0.246*** (0.045) 0.152*** (0.026) Municipal policy 0.388***
(0.066) 0.029 (0.031) Log Likelihood Mcfadden adj R2 0.361 0.189 N
2363 2363 Non-zero observations 438 1573 Onderzoek D E B A T E S
Part 3 debate Distribution of welfare *monopoly *housing market
*reputation *discrimination *(unfair) competition between old and
new business models Labour *employment effects *platform dependence
Economisation of society Privacy Rebound-effects Twitter @kfrenken
Blogs
