The Sharing Economy and its Paradoxes: A Sociological Study of Sharing Communities in Russia
Over the past decade, there has been an increase in alternative forms of economic organization: sharing economics is an insufficiently theorized and controversial empirical phenomenon. A variety of practices and motivations in the world economy.
| Рубрика | Экономика и экономическая теория |
| Вид | статья |
| Язык | английский |
| Дата добавления | 24.08.2020 |
| Размер файла | 201,3 K |
Отправить свою хорошую работу в базу знаний просто. Используйте форму, расположенную ниже
Студенты, аспиранты, молодые ученые, использующие базу знаний в своей учебе и работе, будут вам очень благодарны.
Those looking for accommodation, perhaps, play a greater role in ensuring cultural exchange. It also depends on the host, how deeply the visiting couchsurfer immerses themselves in the local environment. Striving to share their space, the host proposes not only their living space but also their personal space and daily routine. This is a much closer relationship than the one that the "accomplices" experience at the Darudar meetings discussed above, because the parties of exchange in couchsurfing communicate literally day and night.
"I welcome to my home those who want to communicate and walk together. I tell them about local routines, answer their questions, we walk together, such as to the colonnade [of St. Isaac's Cathedral] and along the rivers, we rent bicycles, meet other couchers, play board games, cook" (female, 31, marketer).
Each visit by a guest is a journey without leaving your home. By opening the door to a traveler, the host not only strives to show their hospitality in showing their city, but they want to derive an immaterial benefit for themselves from the stay of the "other" in their house. Just like the guest, the host wants to get an impression - by cooking or by listening to stories from the couchsurfer's life. In the long run, the host gets an important contact: they have friends elsewhere in the world.
Returning to the professional environment of Time Bank, we noted the proclivity of its participants to be socially responsible. Professionals say that in the long run they are attracted by the non-monetized benefits of a range even wider than you can find working for short-term profits in the market. Stressing the contrast between the inanimate market and the highly personified Time Bank community, informants in the latter case note the openness and sincerity of communication, cohesion, and a "pleasant bustle".
"Judging by myself, we promote our interests and realize our needs, such as helping, giving, being useful, carrying out some kind of mission. Not only to cash in here and now, money- money-money. We must still give" (female, 33, seamstress).
What meanings underlie such desires? Community members emphasize that they are not an interests-based community but are united by a commonality of values. They are led not by commercial interest but by a desire to interact with other people. With them, regular communication accompanies any transaction, and it intensifies at their regular meetings, at Time Bank events and at participant master classes. They engender interest not only in their activities but also for the people who carry out them. A Time Bank participant is thought of not only due to his or her professionalism but also as a "pleasant interlocutor", "interesting person", "extraordinary", "developed", "interested in his own growth and development", and capable of satisfying many needs at a time, which is not encountered in the market.
We are positive that many people participate in the sharing economy in order not to feel existential loneliness. Offering their resources (be it a material object, service or access to property); figuratively, the participant distributes particles of themselves to others, be it their talents and capabilities, their ability to communicate and empathy. By being involved in sharing, people involve in social activity and overcome alienation.
In the ordinary sense, social alienation is a lack of close contacts or cold, superficial and mistrustful relationships. Modern communication technologies exacerbate the problem: in constant indirect interaction, face-to-face dialogue is replaced by communication simulacra, and the while people's own representations in internet- based social networks is an idealized virtual construct, an illusory imprint of the real "I". The abundance of superficial communication atrophies the need to establish deep relationships, thus contributing to loneliness. In his "Escape from Freedom" Fromm writes about moral solitude, or the lack of value-based connectedness to others [Fromm 1994]. This situation is worse than physical loneliness, because what is lost is the very sense of belonging to a community. Overcoming this loneliness is possible, as shown by the participants of the communities that we studied.
"You find yourself in an apartment, in a family where people share with you their real lives. You are neither a tourist nor a traveler, you are a friend. The older we become, the less socially acceptable are chances to start communicating with other people. And this is just a very good chance: you find people who are absolutely the same as you are" (female, 41, teacher).
Informal expectations of collaborative consumption are growing exponentially: the further the exchange is removed from the market, the more informal commitments it creates. When one side of the exchange is deprived of the opportunity to simply pay and part ways, the exchange ritualizes and intertwines into social relations. Participants of Darudar incessantly maintain and create novel practices of involvement; Couchsurfing stands out by its cultivating hospitality, and Time Bank supports its participants in their desire to be thought of by others. Involvement in these processes creates multiple motivations to be part of a community, to build and prove their belonging, to show loyalty to a community.
Conclusion
Starting with the idea that the sharing economy is an innovative and unique in its rationality social phenomenon, we strived to unpack its functional principles.
This phenomenon receives various interpretations in the literature, by using different concepts explaining the organization of economics. The logic of the market and reciprocity become the main antagonists of collaborative consumption. Theorists of the sharing economy maintain that an unclaimed asset in personal possession has the potential for commercialization and, eventually, for a sharing economy [Botsman, Rogers 2011; Gansky 2010]. Some large-scale market players are also not far behind: internet-based businesses specializing in coupling supply and demand within P2P networks (like AirBnb or Zipcar car rental) are not shy to promote their services under the sharing economy label. Researchers locate hybrids within collaborative consumption by representing it either as an exclusive system of ownership rights [Lessig 2008] or as a system of redistribution located somewhere between gift exchange and the market.
In this study, we theorize sharing as a separate principle of resource allocation, defined by the primacy of the good rather than by the relationship of the donor and the recipient. This implies that sharing exceeds the boundaries of kindred, friend, partner, and other personal relationships - the counterparty is selected from among participants in an extended social network. The communities of people who can enjoy the benefits of shared access to resources include thousands of users of a virtual sharing platform. This requirement separates the sharing economy from small-scale local goods re-use initiatives. The platforms that we portray as part of the sharing economy exist in a virtual and anonymous social world. Moreover, we refer to a community as part of the sharing economy if it is non-profit and self-organized. We introduce the following definition of the sharing economy: it is a non-profit exchange via a digital platform and an anonymous P2P network, whose members invest their individual resources and use resources of others.
We have applied this theory to the empirical cases of three Russian platforms, previously unstudied in the paradigm of sharing. Avoiding a conventional framework for considering non-economic forms of exchange, such as "survival strategies" connecting personal ties, we assumed that sharing is focused on the object of exchange rather than on the agents of exchange and their relationships.
Likewise, the specificity of the object of exchange, and not the agent, determines the fulcrum of the sharing economy, where entry is the offer either of property or of labor. The three cases that we have selected for the field study meet this specificity: Darudar is a platform for matching the supply and demand for goods; Couchsurfing is a platform that creates temporary access to a global housing stock by registered participants; and Time Bank is a coordinated network for gratis labor activities.
The three qualitatively different cases show us that a close interweaving of formal rules and informal norms and practices determines the individual strategies of participant interaction. Table 2 summarizes the main organizational aspects of these communities.
Table 2. Main organizational aspects of the communities under study
|
Communities |
Darudar |
Time Bank |
Couchsurfing |
|
|
Resources |
Second-hand commodities |
Services |
Accommodation |
|
|
Size of community |
Approximately 500 thousand |
5,5 thousand |
14 million |
|
|
Management |
Self-administration (minimal moderation) |
Centralization (leader's authority) |
''Controlled anarchy" |
|
|
Degree of formalization |
Formally, direct exchange is prohibited. Informal norms of communication (informal sanctions) |
Strict formal rules (formal sanctions are specified) |
Informal interaction regulated by morals and ethics |
|
|
Establishment of contact |
Via personal communication |
Via coordinating center |
Via personal communication |
|
|
Subject of choice |
Donor |
Both client and provider |
Both host and guest |
|
|
Criteria of choice |
Argumentation of need |
Coordinator's recommendation |
Matching life-styles and expectations of stay |
The sharing principle involves three points. First, there needs to be the accumulation of a critical mass - at which point the system becomes stable enough due to the number of participants and the diversity of their resource potential. Second, there is a heterogeneous social portrait of participation and lifestyles. Thirdly, there is the ability to self-regulate. The latter feature, as we argue, serves as a driving mechanism for sharing. Constant communication between participants sustains the community and contributes to the practices of community-building. We found, that ongoing social activity is what legitimizes membership in the sharing community. Making a resource ready for exchange, choosing its recipient, communication before, during and after become a full- fledged part of social life.
Discussion: social underpinnings of the sharing economy
Benkler laid the foundation for the development of ideas on the sharing economy by revealing a combination of emerging technology and unutilized assets that drive the sharing mechanism [Benkler 2002]. What motivates individuals to share instead of commercialize on secondary markets, when it comes to underutilized capacities? When technology allows the widespread distribution of small volumes of surplus capacities, social exchange surpasses secondary markets. This could be explained by intrinsic motivation and a reduction in transaction costs [Benkler 2004]. Further research has made this phenomenon dependent on social rather than economic assumptions, showing that in the long term, it is not transaction costs, but rather community-building which motivates people to join the sharing economy movement [Lessig 2008].
However, the connection between technological development and the growing need for social communication has been highlighted in the classic sociological literature. Durkheim expanded on the atomizing effect of technology, increasing individualism and the division of labor: "the latter's chief characteristic is to have swept cleanly away all the older social forms of organization. One after another, they have disappeared either through the slow usury of time or through great disturbances, but without being replaced" [Durkheim 2005, p. 355]. Social psychology continues the thought, offering to solve a paradox: our contacts gather like a snowball, but we do not become less lonely. A key argument of such research is the fact that technological developments, which were conceived as connecting, have created alienation between people. Social relations degrade in constant interaction with artificial intelligence. As Turkle puts it, "digital connections and the sociable robot may offer the illusion of companionship without the demands of friendship. Our networked life allows us to hide from each other, even as we are tethered to each other" [Turkle 2011, p. 1].
Is the social practice of sharing able to solve this paradox? To help overcome social alienation? Participants of the communities studied are clearly aware of their position and understand that the exchange situation, in which they put themselves, differs both from the market and from the neighboring community . What is their rationale for sharing? It is the desire for a community that leads them to send their "I" to an aggregate level, starting with someone immediate, with whom they share their good. Both the act of separation from material property and the feeling of sharing your possession improve the sense of belonging to an imagined community of consumption by making our "I" an integral part. In a practical sense, sharing is transformed into a chain of activities: preparing your resources for exchange, choosing the recipient, and communication before, during and after, which help develop a comprehensive social life. When offering to share material and non-material objects, participants offer their recipients a part of themselves - talents and opportunities, communicative abilities, empathy and belonging to a cultural tradition - in return receiving an opportunity to brighten their day and engendering a feeling of unity.
References
1. Albinsson P.A., Yasanthi Perera B. (2012) Alternative Marketplaces in the 21st Century: Building Community through Sharing Events". Journal of Consumer Behaviour, vol. 11, no 4, pp. 303-315.
2. Anderson B. (1991) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism,
3. London: Verso.
4. Andreotti A., Anselmi G., Eichhorn T., Hoffmann C.P., Micheli M. (2017) Participation in the Sharing Economy. Report for the EU Horizon 2020 project Ps2Share: Participation, Privacy, and Power in the Sharing Economy.
5. Barsukova S. (2003) Setevaya vzaimopomoshch' rossijskikh domokhozayjstv: teoriya i praktika ekonomiki dara [Network Assistance of Russian Households: Theory and Practice of the Gift Economy]. MirRossii, vol. 12, no 2, pp. 81-122.
6. Belk R.W. (1988) Possessions and the Extended Self. Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 15, no 2, pp. 139-168.
7. Belk R. (2010) Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 36, no 54, pp. 715-734.
8. Belk R.W. (2013) Extended Self in a Digital World. Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 40, no 3, pp. 477-500.
9. Belk R. (2014) Sharing versus Pseudo-sharing in Web 2.0. Anthropologist, vol. 18, no 1, pp. 7-23.
10. Benkler Y. (2002) Coase's Penguin, or, Linux and "The Nature of the Firm". Yale Law Journal, vol. 112, no 3, pp. 369-446.
11. Benkler Y. (2004) Sharing Nicely: On Shareable Goods and the Emergence of Sharing as a Modality of Economic Production. Yale Law Journal, vol. 114, no 2, pp. 273-358.
12. Botsman R., Rogers R. (2011) What's Mine Is Yours: How Collaborative Consumption is Changing the Way We Live, London: HarperCollins.
13. Brewer J. (2000) Ethnography, Buckingham: Open University Press.
14. Creswell J.W. (2007) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches (2nd ed.), Thousand Oaks: Sage.
15. Del Moral L., Pais I. (2015) Collaborative Economy and the Digitalization of Timebanking: Opportunities and Challenges. Studi di Sociologia, no 1, pp. 3-21.
16. Dubois E., Schor J., Carfagna L. (2014) New Cultures of Connection in a Boston Time Bank. Practicing Plenitude (eds. Schor J.B., Thompson C.J.), New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 95-124.
17. Durkheim E. (2005) Suicide: A Study in Sociology, London; New York: Routledge.
18. Eckhardt G.M., Bardhi F. (2015) The Sharing Economy Isn't About Sharing at All. Harvard Business Review, January 28, 2015. Available at:
19. https://hbr.org/2015/01/the-sharing-economy-isnt-about-sharing-at-all, accessed 31.01.2019.
20. Fromm E. (1994) Escape from Freedom, New York: Macmillan.
21. Gansky L. (2010) The Mesh: Why the Future of Business is Sharing, New York: Portfolio Penguin.
22. Gold R.L. (1958) Roles in Sociological Field Observations. Social Forces, vol. 36, no 3, pp. 217-223.
23. Hamari J., Sjoklint M., Ukkonen A. (2015) The Sharing Economy: Why People Participate in Collaborative Consumption. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, vol. 67, no 9, pp. 2047-2059.
24. Huurne M., Ronteltap A., Corten R., Buskens V (2017) Antecedents of Trust in the Sharing Economy: A Systematic Review. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, vol. 16, no 6, pp. 485-498.
25. Kalamar A. (2013) Sharewashing is the New Greenwashing. OpEdNews, May 13, 2013. Available at: https://www.opednews.com/articles/Sharewashing-is-the-New-Gr-by-Anthony- Kalamar-130513-834.html, accessed 31.01.2019.
26. Kolm S.C. (2006) Introduction to the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity. Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity (eds. Kolm S.C., Jean Mercier Ythier J.M.), Elsevier, pp. 1-122.
27. Kozinets R. (2009) Netnography: Doing Ethnographic Research Online (1st edition), Thousand Oaks: Sage.
28. Ledeneva A.V (1998) Russia's Economy of Favours: Blat, Networking and Informal Exchange, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29. Lessig L. (2008) Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy, New York: Penguin Press.
30. Nelson M.R., Rademacher M.A., Paek H.J. (2007) Downshifting Consumer = Upshifting Citizen? An Examination of a Local Freecycle Community. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 611, no 1, pp. 141-156.
31. North P. (2010) Alternative Currency Networks as Utopian Practice. Global Ecological Politics (Advances in Ecopolitics, Volume 5) (eds. Liam Leonard, John Barry), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 73-88.
32. Ozanne L.K., Ballantine P.W. (2010) Sharing as a Form of Anti-consumption? An Examination of Toy Library Users. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, vol. 9, no 6, pp. 485-498.
33. Ozanne L.K., Ozanne J.L. (2009) Parental Mediation Of The Market's Influence On Their Children: Toy Libraries As Safe Havens. Paper presented at the Academy of Marketing, Leeds, pp. 7-9.
34. Pais I., Provasi G. (2015) Sharing Economy: A Step towards the Re-Embeddedness of the Economy? Stato e Mercato, vol. 35, no 3, pp. 347-378.
35. Polanyi K. (1957 [1968]) The Economy as Instituted Process. Primitive, Archaic and Modern Economies. Essays of Karl Polanyi (ed. Dalton G.), New York: Anchor Books, pp. 139-174.
36. Polanyi K. (1999) O vere v ekonomicheskij determinism [Belief in Economic Determinism]. Neformalnaya ekonomika: Rossiya i mir [Informal Economy: Russia and The World] (ed. Shanin T.), Moscow: Logos, pp. 503-513.
37. Price J.A. (1975) Sharing: The Integration of Intimate Economies. Anthropologica, vol. 17, no 1, pp. 3-27.
38. Rosen D., Lafontaine P.R., Hendrickson B. (2011) CouchSurfing: Belonging and Trust in a Globally Cooperative Online Social Network. New Media & Society, vol. 13, pp. 981-998.
39. Schor J. (2014) Debating the Sharing Economy, Great Transition Initiative. Great Transition Initiative, October, 2014. Available at: http://greattransition.org/publication/debating-the-sharing-economy, accessed 31.01.2019.
40. Schor J.B., Fitzmaurice C.J. (2015) Collaborating and Connecting: The Emergence of the Sharing Economy. Handbook of Research on Sustainable Consumption (eds. Reisch L.A., Th0gersen J.), Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 410-425.
41. Shared Benefits: How the Sharing Economy Is Reshaping Business across Europe (2016). PricewaterhouseCoopers. Available at: http://www.pwc.co.uk/issues/megatrends/
42. collisions/sharingeconomy/future-of-the-sharing-economy-in-europe-2016.html, accessed 31.01.2019.
43. Shmidt M. (2017) People Who Care, Share. Book Review: Widlok T (2017) Anthropology and the Economy of Sharing, Abingdon, Oxon; New York: Routledge. Journal of Economic Sociology, vol. 18, no 5, pp. 159-167.
44. Steinberg I. (2002) Real'naya praktika strategij vyzhivaniya sel'skoj sem'i - "setevye resursy" [The Real Practice of Rural Survival Strategies - "Network Resources"]. Kuda idetRossiya [Where Russia Goes] (ed. Zaslavskaya T.), Moscow: MSSES, pp. 183-189.
45. Turkle S. (2011) Alone Together. Why We Expect More from Technology And Less from Each Other, New York: Basic Books.
46. Vogl S. (2013) Telephone versus Face-to-face Interviews: Mode Effect on Semistructured Interviews with Children. Sociological Methodology, vol. 43, no 1, pp. 133-177.
47. Walsh B. (2011) 10 Ideas That Will Change the World. Time, March 17, 2011. Available at: http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2059521_2059717,00. html, accessed 31.01.2019.
48. Widlok T. (2013) Sharing: Allowing Others to Take What Is Valued. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, vol. 3, no 2, pp. 11-31.
49. Widlok T. (2017) Anthropology and the Economy of Sharing, London: Routledge.
50. Литература
51. Барсукова С.Ю. (2003) Сетевая взаимопомощь российских домохозяйств: теория и практика экономики дара // Мир России. Т 12. № 2. С. 81-122.
52. Поланьи К. (1999) О вере в экономический детерминизм // Шанин Т (ред.) Неформальная экономика: Россия и мир. М.: Логос. С. 503-513.
53. Штейнберг И. (2002) Реальная практика стратегий выживания сельской семьи - "сетевые ресурсы" // Заславская Т (ред.) Куда идет Россия. М.: МВШСЭН. С. 183-189.
54. Albinsson P.A., Yasanthi Perera B. (2012) Alternative Marketplaces in the 21st Century: Building Community through Sharing Events" // Journal of Consumer Behaviour, vol. 11, no 4, pp. 303-315.
55. Anderson B. (1991) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, London: Verso.
56. Andreotti A., Anselmi G., Eichhorn T., Hoffmann C.P., Micheli M. (2017) Participation in the Sharing Economy. Report for the EU Horizon 2020 project Ps2Share: Participation, Privacy, and Power in the Sharing Economy.
57. Belk R.W. (1988) Possessions and the Extended Self // Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 15, no 2, pp. 139-168.
58. Belk R. (2010) Sharing // Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 36, no 54, pp. 715-734.
59. Belk R.W. (2013) Extended Self in a Digital World // Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 40, no 3, pp. 477-500.
60. Belk R. (2014) Sharing versus Pseudo-sharing in Web 2.0 // Anthropologist, vol. 18, no 1, pp. 7-23.
61. Benkler Y. (2002) Coase's Penguin, or, Linux and "The Nature of the Firm" // Yale Law Journal, vol. 112, no 3, pp. 369-446.
62. Benkler Y. (2004) Sharing Nicely: On Shareable Goods and the Emergence of Sharing as a Modality of Economic Production // Yale Law Journal, vol. 114, no 2, pp. 273-358.
63. Botsman R., Rogers R. (2011) What's Mine Is Yours: How Collaborative Consumption is Changing the Way We Live, London: HarperCollins.
64. Brewer J. (2000) Ethnography, Buckingham: Open University Press.
65. Creswell J.W. (2007) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches (2nd ed.), Thousand Oaks: Sage.
66. Del Moral L., Pais I. (2015) Collaborative Economy and the Digitalization of Timebanking: Opportunities and Challenges // Studi di Sociologia, no 1, pp. 3-21.
67. Dubois E., Schor J., Carfagna L. (2014) New Cultures of Connection in a Boston Time Bank // Practicing Plenitude (eds. Schor J.B., Thompson C.J.), New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 95-124.
68. Durkheim E. (2005) Suicide: A Study in Sociology, London; New York: Routledge.
69. Eckhardt G.M., Bardhi F. (2015) The Sharing Economy Isn't About
70. Sharing at All // Harvard Business Review, January 28, 2015 //
71. https://hbr.org/2015/01/the-sharing-economy-isnt-about-sharing-at-all
72. Fromm E. (1994) Escape from Freedom, New York: Macmillan.
73. Gansky L. (2010) The Mesh: Why the Future of Business is Sharing, New York: Portfolio Penguin.
74. Gold R.L. (1958) Roles in Sociological Field Observations // Social Forces, vol. 36, no 3, pp. 217-223.
75. Hamari J., Sjoklint M., Ukkonen A. (2015) The Sharing Economy: Why People Participate in Collaborative Consumption // Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, vol. 67, no 9, pp. 2047-2059.
76. Huurne M., Ronteltap A., Corten R., Buskens V. (2017) Antecedents of Trust in the Sharing Economy: A Systematic Review // Journal of Consumer Behaviour, vol. 16, no 6, pp. 485-498.
77. Kalamar A. (2013) Sharewashing is the New Greenwashing // OpEdNews, May 13, 2013 // https://www.opednews.com/articles/Sharewashing-is-the-New-Gr-by-Anthony-Kalamar- 130513-834.html
78. Kolm S.C. (2006) Introduction to the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity // Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity (eds. Kolm S.C., JeanMercierYthier J.M.), Elsevier, pp. 1-122.
79. Kozinets R. (2009) Netnography: Doing Ethnographic Research Online (1st edition), Thousand Oaks: Sage.
80. Ledeneva A.V (1998) Russia's Economy of Favours: Blat, Networking and Informal Exchange, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
81. Lessig L. (2008) Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy, New York: Penguin Press.
82. Nelson M.R., Rademacher M.A., Paek H.J. (2007) Downshifting Consumer = Upshifting Citizen? An Examination of a Local Freecycle Community // The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 611, no 1, pp. 141-156.
83. North P. (2010) Alternative Currency Networks as Utopian Practice // Global Ecological Politics (Advances in Ecopolitics, Volume 5) (eds. Liam Leonard, John Barry), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 73-88.
84. Ozanne L.K., Ballantine P.W. (2010) Sharing as a Form of Anti-consumption? An Examination of Toy Library Users // Journal of Consumer Behaviour, vol. 9, no 6, pp. 485-498.
85. Ozanne L.K., Ozanne J.L. (2009) Parental Mediation Of The Market's Influence On Their Children: Toy Libraries As Safe Havens. Paper presented at the Academy of Marketing, Leeds, pp. 7-9.
86. Pais I., Provasi G. (2015) Sharing Economy: A Step towards the Re-Embeddedness of the Economy? // Stato e Mercato, vol. 35, no 3, pp. 347-378.
87. Polanyi K. (1957 [1968]) The Economy as Instituted Process // Primitive, Archaic and Modern Economies. Essays of Karl Polanyi (ed. Dalton G.), New York: Anchor Books, pp. 139-174.
88. Price J.A. (1975) Sharing: The Integration of Intimate Economies // Anthropologica, vol. 17, no 1, pp. 3-27.
89. Rosen D., Lafontaine P.R., Hendrickson B. (2011) CouchSurfing: Belonging and Trust in a Globally Cooperative Online Social Network // New Media & Society, vol. 13, pp. 981-998.
90. Schor J. (2014) Debating the Sharing Economy, Great Transition Initiative // Great Transition Initiative, October, 2014 //
91. http://greattransition.org/publication/debating-the-sharing-economy
92. Schor J.B., Fitzmaurice C.J. (2015) Collaborating and Connecting: The Emergence of the Sharing Economy // Handbook of Research on Sustainable Consumption (eds. Reisch L.A., Th0gersen J.), Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 410-425.
93. Shared Benefits: How the Sharing Economy Is Reshaping Business across Europe (2016) // PricewaterhouseCoopers // http://www.pwc.co.uk/issues/megatrends/collisions/ sharingeconomy/future-of-the-sharing-economy-in-europe-2016.html
94. Shmidt M. (2017) People Who Care, Share. Book Review: Widlok T (2017) Anthropology and the Economy of Sharing, Abingdon, Oxon; New York: Routledge // Journal of Economic Sociology, vol. 18, no 5, pp. 159-167.
95. Turkle S. (2011) Alone Together. Why We Expect More from Technology And Less from Each Other, New York: Basic Books.
96. Vogl S. (2013) Telephone versus Face-to-face Interviews: Mode Effect on Semistructured Interviews with Children // Sociological Methodology, vol. 43, no 1, pp. 133-177.
97. Walsh B. (2011) 10 Ideas That Will Change the World // Time, March 17, 2011 // http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2059521_2059717,00.html
98. Widlok T. (2013) Sharing: Allowing Others to Take What Is Valued // HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, vol. 3, no 2, pp. 11-31.
99. Widlok T. (2017) Anthropology and the Economy of Sharing, London: Routledge.
Размещено на Allbest.ru
...Подобные документы
The major structural elements of economic safety of a national economy branches. The structural analysis of economic activity. Share of wages in ВВП, of productivity of Russia and western countries. The essence of the economic taxes and their purpose.
статья [166,3 K], добавлен 12.04.2012A variety of economy of Kazakhstan, introduction of the international technical, financial, business standards, the introduction to the WTO. The measures planned in the new Tax code. Corporation surtax. Surtax reform. Economic growth and development.
реферат [27,2 K], добавлен 26.02.2012Defining the role of developed countries in the world economy and their impact in the political, economic, technical, scientific and cultural spheres.The level and quality of life. Industrialised countries: the distinctive features and way of development.
курсовая работа [455,2 K], добавлен 27.05.2015Concept of competitiveness and competition, models. Russia’s endowment. Engendered structural dominance and performance. The state of Russian competitiveness according to the Global Competitiveness Index. Place in the world, main growth in detail.
курсовая работа [1,2 M], добавлен 28.05.2014Assessment of the rate of unemployment in capitalist (the USA, Germany, England, France, Japan) and backward countries (Russia, Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan). Influence of corruption, merges of business and bureaucracy on progress of market economy.
реферат [15,5 K], добавлен 12.04.2012Short and long run macroeconomic model. Saving and Investment in Italy, small open economy. Government expenditure and saving scatterplot. Loanable market equilibrium in closed economy in the USA. Okun’s Law in the USA and Italy, keynesian cross.
курсовая работа [1,6 M], добавлен 20.11.2013Socio-economic and geographical description of the United states of America. Analysis of volumes of export and import of the USA. Development and state of agroindustrial complex, industry and sphere of services as basic sectors of economy of the USA.
курсовая работа [264,5 K], добавлен 06.06.2014Concept and program of transitive economy, foreign experience of transition. Strategic reference points of long-term economic development. Direction of the transition to an innovative community-oriented type of development. Features of transitive economy.
курсовая работа [29,4 K], добавлен 09.06.2012Evolutionary and revolutionary ways of development of mankind. Most appreciable for mankind by stages of development of a civilization. The disclosing of secret of genome of the man. Recession in an economy and in morality in Russia. Decision of problems.
статья [12,1 K], добавлен 12.04.2012Chinese economy: history and problems. Problems of Economic Growth. The history of Chinese agriculture. The ratio of exports and imports of goods and service to gross domestic product at current prices. Inefficiencies in the agricultural market.
курсовая работа [162,1 K], добавлен 17.05.2014Negative consequences proceeding in real sector of economy. Social stratification in a society. Estimation of efficiency of economic safety. The parity of the manufacturers of commodity production. Main problems of the size of pension of common people.
статья [15,4 K], добавлен 12.04.2012Priority for the importance of Economy of Ukraine. Sources, functions, structure of income Household as a politico-economic category. Family income - the economic basis of reproduction. Levels of income of the population. The structure of family income.
реферат [22,5 K], добавлен 28.10.2011Рrogress in adapting its economy from the Soviet model to a 21st century economy in the globalized market. Pension reforms, undertaken in 2011. Cancellation of grain export quotas and reversal of a proposal for the monopolisation of grain exports.
презентация [476,2 K], добавлен 08.04.2015The stock market and economic growth: theoretical and analytical questions. Analysis of the mechanism of the financial market on the efficient allocation of resources in the economy and to define the specific role of stock market prices in the process.
дипломная работа [5,3 M], добавлен 07.07.2013State intervention in the economy. Assessment and the role of teaching Veblen. Economic development of the society. Process of long-term loan and the inclusion of investor-banker in industrial production. Negative aspects of American institucionalism.
реферат [27,4 K], добавлен 14.11.2012The experiments related to alcohol and economic decision-making. First study attempting to test 3 sets of embedded hypotheses regarding how alcohol influences our choices. Conducting games, showing the effects of alcohol on the decision-making process.
статья [268,5 K], добавлен 04.11.2015Stereotypes that influence on economic relations between the European Union countries and Russia. Consequences of influence of stereotypes on economic relations between EU and Russia. Results of first attempts solving problem. General conclusion.
реферат [19,0 K], добавлен 19.11.2007The levers of management of a national economy, regions and enterprises. The prices for the goods. Taxes to the proceeds from realization of commodity production. Proceeds from realization of services to the population, establishments and organizations.
реферат [18,7 K], добавлен 12.04.2012Analysis of the status and role of small business in the economy of China in the global financial crisis. The definition of the legal regulations on its establishment. Description of the policy of the state to reduce their reliance on the banking sector.
реферат [17,5 K], добавлен 17.05.2016The influence of corruption on Ukrainian economy. Negative effects of corruption. The common trends and consequences of increasing corruption. Crimes of organized groups and criminal organizations. Statistical data of crime in some regions of Ukraine.
статья [26,7 K], добавлен 04.01.2014
