Platform and Data Co-Operatives amidst European Pandemic Citizenship
1. Introduction: Amidst European Pandemic Citizenship
2. Rationale: European Pandemic Citizenship and Platform/Data Co-operatives at Stake
3. Research Design and Methodology: The Research Question, Two Interrelated Hypotheses, and Action Research Triangulation
- the Delphi method (Table 1);
- The Delphi method involved approaching key experts on platform and data co-operatives to deconstruct these concepts and the post-COVID-19 context (Table 1);
- Lastly, given the importance of territorial conditions for the emergence of co-operatives, the methodology includes a fieldwork research analysis conducted in Tallinn (driven by the public sector), in Glasgow (driven by the private sector), and in Barcelona (driven by civil society) (Table 5).
3.1. Delphi Method
- Platform Co-operatives by Trebor Scholz [7,8,37,39], who coordinates the www.platform.coop main projects, with several related sub-projects at www.ioo.coop/directory, www.whoowntheworld.org, and www.platformobservatory.eu. Most recently, Scholz, from the New School of New York, Institute for the Co-operative Digital Economy (ICDE), has partnered with the well-known Mondragon Co-operative Corporation  (www.mondragon-corporation.com) to launch the first online course on platform co-operatives worldwide. The Mondragon Co-operative Corporation is the most popular and largest industrial co-operative experience and has been based in the Basque Country since 1956;
3.2. Taxonomy for Platform and Data Co-operatives
- Broadly, platform co-operatives focus on business models, while data co-operatives mutualize and store data;
- Regarding flow, platform co-operatives manage labor exchange and distribute content while aggregating the data of some members/citizens.
- Consortia Worker Platforms:
- Co-operatively owned online labor brokerages and marketplaces. This co-operative is the most common platform. Workers/citizens own the company, receive dividends, and have an input in running the company;
- Union-backed labor platforms. Unionized workers/citizens can create their own companies as a result of the collaboration between unions and workers.
- Producer-led Platforms (as the merge of users and producers). Users and producers own the platform, through which producers can sell their work;
- Multistakeholder/Community Platforms:
- City-owned platforms. This model in practice would involve a collaboration between a large number of cities, which would pool their resources to create a software platform for any kind of service—short-term rentals, utilities, and so on (e.g., CCDR);
- Co-operatives from within. This case exists when workers/citizens from a sharing economy platform like Uber use the technical infrastructure of the company to run their own enterprise. Worker co-operatives form inside the belly of the sharing economy (Mensakas).
- Data co-operatives can be considered a sub-typology of platform co-operatives, also known as data consortia platforms.
- Worker—this typology refers to the flow of labor exchange and revolves around co-operativizing work (stemming from mobility services);
- Producer (a merging of users and producers)—this typology refers to the flow of content distribution and revolves around co-operativizing the outcome, resulting in the exchange between users and producers (stemming from culture, agriculture, food, software, websites, hosting, start-up support, videoconferencing, etc.);
- Multistakeholder—this typology refers to the flow of content distribution and revolves around co-operativizing community services (stemming from healthcare, delivery riders, media, rental, housing, land, etc.);
- Data (this fits into data co-operatives)—this typology refers to the flow of data aggregation and revolves around co-operativizing and mutualizing data (particularly data related to finance, health, security, etc.).
3.3. Identification of Cases by Typology
- Platform co-operatives—within this category, data co-operatives are embedded as a subcategory. Out of 302 cases, 156 (52%) were identified as platform co-operatives, and inside those cases, data co-operatives accounted for 39 (25%) of the 156;
- Ecosystem—the remaining cases were embryonic initiatives that might become platform or data co-operatives (48%) or simply disappear, or have already disappeared.
- Worker Platform Co-operatives represented 19%;
- Producer Platform Co-operatives represented 24%;
- Multistakeholder Platform Co-operatives represented 32%;
- Data Platform Co-operatives represented 25%.
3.4. Territorial Fieldwork Analysis in Three European City-Regions
- Tallinn is eminently an innovative city in terms of digital policy and active entrepreneurship in the public sector, and fieldwork revealed that it could expect a new brand generation of co-operatives as a result of the dynamism of the local ecosystem. However, the interviewee acknowledged some reluctance toward co-operatives due to the historic Soviet legacy. The current strategic pathway has started to show prominent initiatives, such as Open Knowledge Estonia, that may be insightful in the near future. Fieldwork research also revealed the substantial role that Estonia Co-operation Assembly is playing in incentivizing initiatives from the civil society, still very much grounded in niche entrepreneurial domains. Not surprisingly though, interviewees anticipated a collective action to share data, gather data collectively, or even own platforms as a response to the COVID-19 crisis, possibly in line with the successful initiative called Scottish Tech Army currently taking place in Glasgow;
- Glasgow showed a rich and highly emergent digital landscape, increasingly pushed by post-COVID-19 momentum, with not only outstanding initiatives such as the Scottish Tech Army but also cutting-edge sites such as Scotland 5G Centre. Though fieldwork revealed a growing awareness driven by the private sector, it remains to be seen how and when co-operatives may start entering into this fertile digital landscape. Thus, it seems a matter of time before we observe an emergence of platform and data co-operatives in this city-regional location, as a result of a proliferation of a large amount of initiatives that may determine the position of Glasgow as a new member of the CCDR;
- Barcelona, as a city equipped with a libertarian municipalist spirit, is well positioned to lead the platform and data co-operative field in Europe. As interviews revealed, Barcelona, being the chief city of the CCDR, may well make a strong case in the post-COVID-19 era for encouraging pandemic citizens to establish co-operatives in the healthcare system, such as the successful case of Salus Coop. It goes without saying that the strategic program known as DECODE-DECIDIM-METADECIDIM that has assisted Barcelona since 2015 was clearly mentioned by interviewees as the source of the digital transformation process occurring in the city-region. Furthermore, the ongoing networking activities of the CCDR at the international level, related to AI, data commons, and city-to-city-learning, may well establish Barcelona among the rest of the 41 global city-regions in a leading position for influencing smart city policies that could protect European “pandemic citizens’” digital rights. Consequently, Barcelona’s position will likely foster platform and data co-operatives in the near future.
Conflicts of Interest
- Kapecki, T. Elements of sustainable development in the context of the environmental and financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKinsey. The Future of Work. Available online: https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-work/the-future-of-work-in-europe?cid=soc-web# (accessed on 1 July 2020).
- MIT. The Work of the Future: Shaping Technology and Institutions; MIT Work of the Future: Cambrigde, MA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Moradi, P.; Levy, K. The Future of Work in the Age of AI: Displacement or Risk-Shifting? In The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of AI; Dubber, M.D., Pasquale, F., Das, S., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2020; pp. 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orlik, J. Workers Are Struggling to Adapt to an Uncertain World. Available online: https://www.nesta.org.uk/blog/workers-are-struggling-adapt-uncertain-world/ (accessed on 1 July 2020).
- Pierantoni, I.; Pierantozzi, M.; Sargolini, M. COVID 19—A qualitative review for the reorganisation of human living environments. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scholz, T. Digital Labor: The Internet as Playground and Factory; Routledge: New York, NY, USA; London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Scholz, T. Uberworked and Underpaid: How Workers Are Disrupting the Digital Economy; Polity Press: Cambridge, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- WEF (World Economic Forum). Chater of Principles for Good Platform Work; WEF: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Calzada, I. Emerging Citizenship Regimes and Rescaling (European) Nation-States: Algorithmic, Liquid, Metropolitan and Stateless Citizenship Ideal Types. In Handbook on the Changing Geographies of the State: New Spaces of Geopolitics; Moisio, S., Koch, N., Jonas, A.E.G., Lizotte, C., Luukkonen, J., Eds.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenhman, UK; Northampton, MA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barns, S. Platform Urbanism: Negotiating Platform Ecosystems in Connected Cities; Springer: Singapore, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Syed, I.U.B. Labor exploitation and health inequalities among market migrants: A political economy perspective. J. Int. Migr. Integr. 2015, 17, 449–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stucke, M.E. Should We Be Concerned about Data-opolies? 2 Georget. Law Technol. Rev. 2018, 275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belloc, F. Why Isn’t Uber Worker-Managed? A Model of Digital Platform Cooperatives; CESifo Working Papers No. 7708; University of Siena: Siena, Italy, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- De Marco, C.E.; Di Minin, A.; Marullo, C.; Nepelski, D. Digital Platform Innovation in European SMEs: An Analysis of SME Instrument Business Proposals and Case Studies; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Digital Future Society. The Future of Work in the Digital Era: The Rise of Labour Platforms; DFS: Barcelona, Spain, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Fairwork Foundation. How Is the Platform Economy Responding to COVID-19? Open Democracy. Available online: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/how-platform-economy-responding-covid-19/ (accessed on 1 July 2020).
- Helberger, N.; Pierson, J.; Poell, T. Governing online platforms: From contested to cooperative responsibility. Inf. Soc. 2018, 34, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kilhoffer, Z.; de Groen, W.P.; Lenaerts, K.; Smits, I.; Hauben, H.; Waeyaert, W.; Giacumacatos, E.; Lhernould, J.-P.; Robin-Olivier, S. Study to Gather Evidence on the Working Conditions of Platform Workers; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Lane, M. Regulating Platform Work in the Digital Age. Going Digital Toolkit Policy Note, No. 1. 2020. Available online: https://goingdigital.oecd.org/toolkitnotes/regulating-platform-work-in-the-digital-age.pdf (accessed on 1 July 2020).
- Riso, S. Digital Age: Mapping the Countours of the Platform Economy; Eurofound: Dublin, Ireland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Stehlin, J.; Hodson, M.; McMeekin, A. Platform Mobilities and the Production of Urban Space: Toward a Typology of Platformization Trajectories. In Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space; Sage Publications: Thousand Ouks, CA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taylor, A. The People’s Platform: Taking Back Power and Culture in the Digital Age; Metropolitan Books: New York, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Calzada, I. Knowledge Building and Organizational Behavior: The Mondragon Case from a Social Innovation Perspective. In International Handbook on Social Innovation: Collective Action, Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Research; Moulaert, F., MacCallum, D., Mehmood, A., Hamdouch, A., Eds.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenhman, UK; Northampton, MA, USA, 2013; pp. 219–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, C. The Co-Operative Model as a ‘Living Experiment in Democracy’. J. Co-Oper. Organ. Manag. 2014, 2, 98–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moulaert, F.; MacCallum, D. Advanced Introduction to Social Innovation; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Calzada, I. Will Covid-19 Be the End of the Global Citizen? Apolitical. Available online: https://apolitical.co/en/solution_article/will-covid-19-be-the-end-of-the-global-citizen (accessed on 1 July 2020).
- Morozov, E. The Tech ‘Solutions’ for Coronavirus Take the Surveillance State to the Next Level’. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/15/tech-coronavirus-surveilance-state-digital-disrupt (accessed on 1 July 2020).
- Zuboff, S. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power; Profile: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Berditchevskaia, A.; Baeck, P. The Future of Minds and Machines: How Artificial Intelligence Can Enhance Collective Intelligence; NESTA: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Bigo, D.; Isin, E.; Ruppert, E. Data Politics; Routledge: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Calzada, I. Benchmarking future city-regions beyond nation-states. Reg. Stud. Reg. Sci. 2015, 2, 351–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calzada, I. Smart City Citizenship; Elsevier Science Publishing Co Inc.: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; ISBN 978-0-12-815300-0. [Google Scholar]
- Borkin, S. Platform Co-Operatives—Solving the Capital Conumdrum; NESTA: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Cherry, M. Legal and Governance Structures Built to Share: The Rise of Platform Co-Operatives; Legat Studies Research Paper Series; Saint Louis University School of Law: Saint Louis, MO, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- McCann, D.; Yazici, E. Disrupting Together: The Challenges (and Opportunities) for Platform Co-Operatives; NEF: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Scholz, T. Platform Cooperativism: Challenging the Corporate Sharing Economy; Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Schneider, N. An Internet of ownership: Democratic design for the online economy. Sociol. Rev. 2018, 66, 320–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Scholz, T.; Schneider, N. Ours to Hack and to Own; OR Books: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Blasimme, A.; Vayena, E.; Hafen, E. Democratizing health research through data cooperatives. Philos. Technol. 2018, 31, 473–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Hardjono, T.; Pentland, A. Data cooperatives: Towards a foundation for decentralized personal data management. arXiv 2019, arXiv:1905.08819. [Google Scholar]
- Hafen, E. Personal Data Cooperatives—A New Data Governance Framework for Data Donations and Precision Health. In The Ethics of Medical Data Donation; Krutzinna, J., Floridi, L., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 141–149. [Google Scholar]
- Hafen, E.; Kossmann, D.; Brand, A. Health data cooperatives: Citizen empowerment. Methods Inf. Med. 2014, 53, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Mòdol, J.R. Citizens’ Cooperation in the Reuse of Their Personal Data: The Case of Data Cooperatives in Healthcare. In Collaboration in the Digital Age: How Technology Enables Individuals, Teams and Businesses; Riemer, K., Schellhammer, S., Meinert, M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 159–185. [Google Scholar]
- Pentland, A.; Hardjono, T.; Penn, J.; Colclough, C.; Ducharmee, B.; Mandel, L. Data Cooperatives: Digital Empowerment of Citizens and Workers; MIT Connnection Science: Boston, MA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- International Co-operative Alliance. Co-Operative Governance Fit to Build Resilience in the Face of Complexity; Report, 2015; International Co-operative Alliance: Brussels, Belgium, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Bengu, R. What Can South Africa Learn from Mondragon? The Answer Lies in Community Ownership. Available online: https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2018-10-26-what-can-south-africa-learn-from-mondragon-the-answer-lies-in-community-ownership/ (accessed on 1 July 2020).
- Clamp, C.A.; Innocentus, A. Social entrepreneurship in the Mondragon Co-Operative Corporation and the challenges of successful replication. J. Entrep. 2010, 19, 149–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellerman, D.P. Entrepreneurship in the Mondragon Cooperatives. Rev. Soc. Econ. 1984, 42, 272–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heales, C.; Hodgson, M.; Rich, H. Humanity at Work: Mondragon, a Social Innovation Ecosystem Case Study; The Young Foundation: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Apolitical. The Italian Region Where 30% of GDP Comes from Cooperatives. Available online: https://apolitical.co/en/solution_article/italian-region-30-gdp-comes-cooperatives (accessed on 1 July 2020).
- Battilani, P.; Zamagni, V. The Managerial Transformation of Italian Co-Operative Enterprises 1946–2010. Bus. Hist. 2012, 54, 964–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Borzaga, C.; Galera, G. The concept and practice of social entreprise. Lesson from the Italian experience. Int. Rev. Soc. Res. 2012, 2, 85–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Gonzales, V. Italian social cooperatives and the development of civic capacity: A case of cooperative renewal? Affin. A J. Radic. Theory Cult. Action 2010, 4, 225–251. [Google Scholar]
- Menzani, T.; Zamagni, V. Cooperative networks in the Italian economy. Enterp. Soc. 2010, 11, 98–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schneider, N. Tech New Deal: Policies for Community-Owned; University of Colorado Boulder: Boulder, CO, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Dixson-Declève, S. Protect, Prepare and Transform Europe: Recovery and Resilience Post Covid-19; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Eubanks, V. Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor; St. Martin’s Press: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Dyer-Witheford, N. Left populism and platform capitalism. Triple C: J. A Glob. Sustain. Inf. Soc. 2020, 18, 116–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Delacroix, S.; Lawrence, N.D. Bottom-up Data Trusts: Disturbing the ‘One Size Fits All’ Approach to Data Governance. Int. Data Priv. Law 2019, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Duran, X. El Imperio de los Datos; Universitat de Valencia: Valencia, Spain, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Calzada, I.; Almirall, E. Data ecosystems for protecting European citizens’ digital rights. Transform. Gov. People Process Policy 2020, 14, 133–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morozov, E. Digital Socialism? The calculation debate in the age of big data. New Left Rev. 2019, 116, 33–67. [Google Scholar]
- Dyer-Witherford, N.; Kjosen, M.; Steinhoff, J. Inhuman Power: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Capitalism; Pluto Press: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Hand, D.J. Dark Data; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Misuraca, G.; van Noordt, C. Overview of the Use and Impact of AI in Public Services in the EU; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Wong, P.-H. Cultural differences as excuses? Human rights and cultural values in global ethics and governance of AI. Philos. Technol. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rikap, C. Amazon: A story of accummulation through intellectual rentiership and predation. Compet. Change 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vinuesa, R.; Azizpour, H.; Leite, I.; Balaam, M.; Dignum, V.; Domisch, S.; Felländer, A.; Langhans, S.D.; Tegmark, M.; Fuso Nerini, F. The role of artificial intelligence in achieving the SDGs. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Democratizing Work. Available online: www.democratizingwork.org (accessed on 1 July 2020).
- Saltelli, A.; Bammer, G.; Bruno, I.; Charters, E.; Di Fiore, M.; Didier, E.; Espeland, W.N.; Kay, J.; Lo Piano, S.; Mayo, D.; et al. Five ways to ensure that models serve society: Manifesto. Nature 2020, 582, 483–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beckett, A. The New Left Economics: How a Network of Thinkers Is Transforming Capitalism. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/jun/25/the-new-left-economics-how-a-network-of-thinkers-is-transforming-capitalism (accessed on 1 July 2020).
- Alosi, A. Commoditized workers: Case study research on labor law issues arising from a set of on-demand/gig economy platforms. Comp. Labor Law Policy J. 2016, 37, 653–690. [Google Scholar]
- Hayes, R. Worker-Owned Apps Are Trying to Fix the Gig Economy’s Exploitation; Motherboard, Tech by Vice: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Lutz, C. Digital inequalities in the age of artificial intelligence and big data. Hum. Behav. Emerg. Technol. 2019, 1, 141–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Woodcock, J.; Graham, M. The Gig Economy: A Critical Introduction; Polity: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Gillespie, T. The politics of ‘platforms’. New Media Soc. 2020, 12, 347–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DiEM25. Technological Sovereignty: Democratising Technology and Innovation; Green Paper No. 3; DIEM25: Brussels, Belgium, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Luxemburg, R. Reform or Revolution. Militant Publications: London. 1900. Available online: https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/ch07.htm (accessed on 1 July 2020).
- Sandoval, M. Entrepreneurial Activism? Platform Cooperativism between Subversion and Co-Optation. Crit. Soc. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siapera, E.; Papadopoulou, L. Entrepreneurialism or Cooperativism? J. Pract. 2016, 10, 178–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mos, E. Digital Platforms and the (Re)Organization of Solidarity. Available online: https://platformlabor.net/blog/digital-platforms-and-the-reorganization-of-solidarity (accessed on 1 July 2020).
- Bastani, A. Fully Automated Luxury Communism; Verso: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Cooperatives Europe. Available online: https://coopseurope.coop/resources/news/covid-19-coop-response (accessed on 1 July 2020).
- Lee, J.Y.; Woods, O.; Kong, L. Towards More Inclusive Smart Cities: Reconciling the Divergent Realities of Data and Discourse at the Margins. Geogr. Compass 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duarte, F.; Álvarez, R. The data politics of the urban age. Palgrave Commun. 2019, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Karpf, D. Two provocations for the study of digital politics in time. J. Inf. Technol. Politics 2020, 17, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Flaherty, K. Zoom’s a Lifeline during COVID-19: This Is Why It’s also a Privacy Risk. Available online: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2020/03/25/zooms-a-lifeline-during-covid-19-this-is-why-its-also-a-privacy-risk (accessed on 1 July 2020).
- The Online Meeting Co-operative. 2020. Available online: www.org.meet.coop (accessed on 1 July 2020).
- Kitchin, R. Civil Liberties or Public Health, or Civil Liberties and Public Health? Using Surveillance Technologies to Tackle the Spread of Covid-19. Space Polity 2020, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beroche, H. Urban AI, London. 2020. Available online: https://smartworld-ai.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/URBAN-AI-1.pdf (accessed on 30 September 2020).
- Calzada, I. Algorithmic Nations: Seeing like a city-regional and techno-political conceptual assemblage. Reg. Stud. Reg. Sci. 2018, 5, 267–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Bridle, J. Algorithmic citizenship, digital statelessness. Geohumanities 2016, 2, 377–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheney-Lippold, J. A new algorithmic identity: Soft biopolitics and the modulation of control. Theory Cult. Soc. 2011, 28, 164–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Palm, T. Perestroika in Estonia: The cooperatives. J. Balt. Stud. 1989, 20, 127–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Datta, A. Self (Ie)-governance: Technologies of intimate surveillance in India under COVID-19. Dialogues Hum. Geogr. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lucas, E. Pandemic Democracy. Available online: https://www.cepa.org/pandemic-democracy (accessed on 1 July 2020).
- Pickard, V.W. Cooptation and cooperation: Institutional exemplars of democratic internet technology. New Media Soc. 2008, 10, 625–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Aho, B.; Duffield, R. Beyond surveillance capitalism: Privacy, regulation and big data in Europe and China. Econ. Soc. 2020, 49, 187–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DPO (Democratic Public Ownership). Democratic Digital Infrastructure; Common Wealth: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Gekker, A.; Hind, S. Infrastructural surveillance. New Med. Soc. 2019, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hintz, A.; Dencik, L.; Wahl-Jorgensen, K. Digital citizenship and surveillance society. Int. J. Commun. 2017, 11, 731–739. [Google Scholar]
- MAIEI (Montreal AI Ethics Institute). The State of AI Ethics; MAIEI: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Calzada, I. Technological sovereignty: Protecting citizens’ digital rights in the AI-driven and post-GDPR algorithmic and city-regional European realm. Reg. eZine 2019, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Arroyo, L.; Amjad, O.; Murillo, D. My Data, My Rules: From Data Extractivism to Digital Empowerment; ESADE, Institute for Social Innovation: Barcelona, Spain, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- GaiaX. A Federated Data Infrastructure for Europe. Available online: www.data-infrastructure.eu (accessed on 1 July 2020).
- Craglia, M. (Ed.) Artificial Intelligence: A European Perspective; European Commission—JRC: Luxembourg, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Craglia, M. (Ed.) Artificial Intelligence, a European Perspective: Lessons from the COVID-19 Crisis; European Commission—JRC: Luxembourg, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- EPRS. Artificial Intelligence: From Ethics to Policy; STOA: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Calzada, I. (Smart) citizens from data providers to decision makers? The case study of Barcelona. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Calzada, I. Replicating smart cities: The City-to-City Learning Programme in the Replicate EC-H2020-SCC Project. Smart Cities 2020, 3, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neff, G.; McGrath, M.; Prakash, N. AI @ Work; OII: Oxford, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Lnenicka, M.; Komarkova, J. Big and Open Linked Data Analytics Ecosystem: Theoretical Background and Essential Elements. Gov. Inf. Q. 2019, 36, 129–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oliveira, S.; Barros Lima, M.I.; Farias Lóscio, B. Investigations into Data Ecosystems: A Systematic Mapping Study. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 2019, 61, 589–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kostka, G. China’s social credit systems and public opinion: Explaining high levels of approval. New Med. Soc. 2019, 21, 1565–1593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beardman, S. Altruism and the Experimental Data on Helping Behavior. Ethical Theory Moral Pract. 2012, 15, 547–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blok, A.; Courmont, A.; Hoyng, R.; Marquet, C.; Minor, K.; Nold, C.; Young, M. Data Platforms and Cities. Tecnoscienza: Ital. J. Sci. Technol. Stud. 2017, 8, 175–219. [Google Scholar]
- Como, E.; Mathis, A.; Tognetti, M.; Rapisardi, A. Cooperative platforms in a European landscape: An exploratory study. In Proceedings of the ISIRC Conference, Glasgow, UK, 1 September 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Ho, C.; Chuangt, T. Governance of Communal Data Sharing. In Good Data; Daly, A., Devitt, K., Mann, M., Eds.; Institute of Network Cultures: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 202–213. [Google Scholar]
- Forester, J.; Kuitenbrouwer, M.; Laws, D. Enacting reflective and deliberative practices in action research. Policy Stud. 2019, 40, 456–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bragaglia, F. Social innovation as a ‘magic concept’ for policy-makers and its implications for urban governance. Plan. Theory 2020, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fielding, N.G. Triangulation and mixed methods designs: Data integration with new research technologies. J. Mix. Methods Res. 2012, 6, 124–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Yin, R.K. Applications of Case Study Research; SAGE: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Bauwens, M.; Vasilis, K. From the Communism of Capital to Capital for the Commons: Towards an Open Cooperativism. Triple C: Commun. Capital. Crit. 2014, 12, 356–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bauwens, M.; Kostakis, V.; Pazaitis, A. Peer to Peer: The Commons Manifesto; University of Westminster Press: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Bauwens, M.; Pazaitis, A. P2P Accounting for Planetary Survival. P2P Foundation, Guerrilla Foundation and Schoepflin Foundation: Ghent, Belgium, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Hardjono, T.; Pentland, A. Empowering artists, songwriters & musicians in a data cooperative through blockchains and smart contracts. arXiv 2019, arXiv:1911.10433v1. [Google Scholar]
- OECD. Social Economy and the COVID-19 Crisis: Current and Future Roles; OECD: Paris, France, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Novara Media. Reclaiming Work: The Cycle Couriers Subverting the Gig Economy. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0Z5PBgwu60 (accessed on 1 August 2020).
- ECFR (European Council on Foreign Relations). Europe’s Digital Sovereignty: From Rulemaker to Superpower in the Age of US-China Rivalry; ECFR: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Floridi, L. The fight for digital sovereignty: What it is, and why it matters, especially for the EU. Philos. Technol. 2020, 33, 369–378. Available online: https://thephilosophyofinformation.blogspot.com/2020/08/the-fight-for-digital-sovereignty-what.html (accessed on 12 August 2020). [CrossRef]
- Johar, I.; Begovic, M. A Way Forward: Governing in an Age of Emergence; Dark Matter Labs & UNDP: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
|Paradigm||P2P/Commons||Platform Co-Operatives||Data Co-Operatives|
|Expert||Michel Bauwens||Trebor Scholz |
|Thomas Hardjono |
|Platform Co-Operatives||Data Co-Operatives|
|A platform cooperative, or platform co-op, is a cooperatively owned, democratically governed business that establishes a computing platform, and uses a website, mobile app or a protocol to facilitate the sale of goods and services. Platform cooperatives are an alternative to venture capital-funded platforms insofar as they are owned and governed by those who depend on them most—workers, users, and other relevant stakeholders.||Cooperative structures could enable the creation of open data and personal data stores for mutual benefit; they could rebalance what many perceive as an asymmetric relationship between data subjects (people with personal data) and data users (people who use data to develop services and products. |
Members of a community voluntarily pool their data to create a commons pool for mutual benefits.
This common pool of data acts as a commons resource of collective ownership upon a framework which is collectively discussed and agreed upon.
|Oriented to||Platform Co-operatives||Flow||Typologies|
|Business||Labor exchange||1. Consortia Worker Platform1. |
1.1. Co-operatively Owned Online Labor Brokerages and Market Places
1.2. Union-Backed Labor Platforms
|Content distribution||2. Producer-led Platform||2.|
|3. Multistakeholder/Community Platform |
3.1. City-Owned Platforms
3.2. Co-operatives from Within
|Data aggregation||4. Data Consortia Platform||4.|
|Mobility||Culture, agriculture, food, software, websites, hosting, start-up support, videoconferencing||Healthcare, delivery riders, media, rental, housing, land||Health, finance, security|
|City-Regional Fieldwork Action Research |
|Potentially Pushed by||Public Sector||Civil Society||Private Sector|
|Current and active co-operatives||Fieldwork revealed several initiatives:|
© 2020 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Calzada, I. Platform and Data Co-Operatives amidst European Pandemic Citizenship. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8309. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208309
Calzada I. Platform and Data Co-Operatives amidst European Pandemic Citizenship. Sustainability. 2020; 12(20):8309. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208309Chicago/Turabian Style
Calzada, Igor. 2020. "Platform and Data Co-Operatives amidst European Pandemic Citizenship" Sustainability 12, no. 20: 8309. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208309