The Trap of Success: A Paradox of Scale for Sharing Economy and Degrowth
2. Research Questions and Method
- What theoretical frameworks have been used to define the sharing economy and degrowth?
- What are the links and similarities existing between them?
- What are the main discrepancies existing between the way in which the sharing economy has been framed and the outcomes generated by practices?
- Initial screening of the collected material: The information included in the publication title, abstract, and conclusion has been read to identify the relevance of the publication outlet;
- Selection of studies: The most relevant material has then been selected and as a procedural practice, when different studies use theoretical frameworks without significant differences, only one has been retained;
- Content analysis: By reviewing the full text of the selected material, the spectrum of theoretical frameworks used to define the sharing economy and degrowth has been grouped according to the three sustainability dimensions, namely: Economic, social, and environmental;
- Mapping: By using a qualitative deductive analysis, the links and similarities existing between sharing economy and degrowth have been identified in line with the three sustainability dimensions reported above;
- Outcome of practices: A qualitative inductive reading of texts has been used to identify the outcomes generated by practices;
- Identification of discrepancies: The main discrepancies existing between the way in which the sharing economy has been framed and the outcomes generated by practices have been identified.
3.1. Sharing Economy and Degrowth: Mapping Links and Similarities
- A product service system where members shared products that are owned by companies or by private persons (e.g., Airbnb, Uber, Zipcar);
- A redistribution market, focused on re-ownership of products (e.g., NeighborGoods, Freegle, Freecycle);
- A collaborative lifestyles environment in which people share similar interests, money, space, abilities, and time (e.g., Kickstarter, TaskRabbit, Timebanking).
- Economic—Sharing economy as a business model that is able to decentralize and disrupt the traditional way of doing business: The use of internet platforms, the related development of crowdfunding initiatives, and the increasing accessibility of underutilized assets, have been described as opportunities to empower individuals and promote the development of micro-entrepreneurs . The possibility to trade outside the traditional market system, where large corporations and bureaucracy drive the market dynamics, contributed to shape the idea that the sharing economy can disrupt the traditional way of doing businesses by increasing income possibilities and opportunities [1,33]. In addition, the use of peer-to-peer platforms and the related reduction of searching and transaction costs are considered as an important element of savings, income redistribution, and wealth [34,35].
- Social—Sharing economy as a pathway to increase social bonding and collaboration: Sharing one’s possession with others is generally defined as a pro-social behavior able to increase the feeling of solidarity and sense of community [36,37,38,39]. Airbnb and the Couchsurfing providers, for example, are described as activities to engage in personal relationships and promote the development of connections, solidarity, and trust. In addition, the use of online platforms, open access, and the peer-to-peer review can contribute to changing the traditional form of sharing: From being confined among trusted individuals, such as family and friends, to be extended to people who do not know each other . Within this framework, the sharing economy has been considered as a tool to promote a more convivial and participatory society [41,42,43].
- Environmental—Sharing economy as a more sustainable form of consumption: According to , the sharing economy enables the access of underutilized resources and contributes to a transition toward a more sustainable future. Based on the idea of temporary access over ownership, the sharing economy provides consumers with the opportunity to use the excess capacity embedded into shareable goods. Defined by  as goods that are not used by the owner all the time, the shareable goods have an idle capacity that can be temporarily granted to other consumers. Typical examples are houses, cars, clothing, appliances, books, or furniture . Within this context, the sharing economy is supposed to contribute to optimize the use of assets and to disrupt the unsustainable practices of hyper-consumption [4,45].
- Economic—Degrowth economy as an economic structure that is able to redistribute income and wealth both within and between countries: Following the financial crisis of 2008, the long-standing debate around poverty and inequality has experienced a strong revival. The recent publication of studies showing how economic growth has not been able to generate an equal distribution of wealth, has spurred the debate on alternative development models [54,55]. Built around the idea that the GDP increase cannot be considered as a proxy of equality and well-being, the theory of degrowth criticizes the growth-oriented pathway of the capitalist system. Based on a large corporation and growth-or-die competition, the present system of production is leading to socio-economic disparities and wealth concentration in the hands of a few . The promotion of small and local enterprises, together with social security improvements, common management of resources, and redistributive taxation schemes are considered as a possible solution to promote a more equal and socially sustainable system .
- Social—Degrowth economy as a pathway to promote the transition from a materialistic to a convivial and participatory society: Based on the idea that human well-being is a multidimensional concept where social relationships play an important role in the definition of happiness, the theory of degrowth proposes a socio-economic system oriented to increase social interactions, community support, and conviviality. Built around the works of [57,58,59,60], the transition toward a more socially oriented society should involve a downshifted lifestyle based on sharing and reciprocity. Cohousing, local currencies, and time-banks are examples of practices implemented to reduce hyper-consumption and to increase social bonding and collaboration [61,62]. In addition, the development of information and communication technologies can support the implementation of participatory projects (e.g., online consultation and e-voting) used to foster democracy, civic consciousness, and political involvement [63,64].
- Environmental—Degrowth economy as a more sustainable form of production and consumption: Since the paradigm of sustainable economic growth has proven to be unable to reduce resources depletion and pollution, the theory of degrowth challenges the hegemony of growth and proposes to live well with less. Built around the debate on the “limits to growth” and around the idea that economic activity is a subsystem of the environment, degrowth proposes a radical downscaling of production and consumption [6,7,65,66,67,68]. The idea of “voluntary simplicity”, defined as a reduction of material needs and personal assets is a fundamental element to describe the transition toward degrowth. According to  (p. 4), “Degrowth signifies a society with a smaller metabolism, but more importantly, a society with a metabolism that has a different structure and serves new functions”. Within this context, the reduction of material consumption is not intended as deprivation or crisis, but it is viewed as a different form of using goods and services. Reciprocity, sharing, and efficient allocation of the idle capacity are examples of practices that are able to reduce consumption without sacrificing well-being [60,62,69].
3.2. Promises versus Outcomes of Practices: Analysis of the Socio-Economic and Environmental Impacts
3.3. Economic Dimension: Promises versus Impacts of Practices
- Disrupt centralized institutions and large corporations versus creation of oligopolies: According to previous studies [26,28,30,71], the network externalities and economies of scale generated using Internet platforms, has facilitated the development of oligopolies and has reduced the market for small and local enterprises. In line with the examples reported in Table 1, most of the sharing economy’s submarkets tend to be dominated by a small number of companies that earned the dominating status by designing a specific business model or through an early market entry. The large quantity of transactions, needed to compensate the costs of technological investments, has converged the successful platform toward oligopolistic structures, clearly in contrast with the idea of “disrupt centralized institutions and large corporations” included as one of the promises of sharing [72,73].
- Encourage small and local enterprise versus small-business competition: Instead of promoting small and local enterprises, the sharing economy has resulted in increased competition . The development of sharing accommodation practices, such as Airbnb or Couchsurfing, for example, has provided a substitute for hotel nights in the cheaper segment of the market and has radically changed consumers’ preferences and behavior. According to , the users of the sharing economy (generally looking for cheaper solutions, local authenticity, and more unique experiences) have shifted the demand from the traditional hotel industry toward the sharing hospitality. Therefore, the market share of the small and family-run accommodations has been reduced. In addition, the possibility to supply accommodation without the need to be compliant with the regulations affecting the hospitality sector (such as fire, health and safety standards, and taxation) represents an element of unfair competition affecting the small businesses operating in the market. The lower costs associated with a lack of standards and regulations, has contributed to drive a reduction in the average hospitality price. According to data provided by , the increased competition among small accommodation providers has generated 8–10% revenue loss in the hotel sector in Austin, Texas. In a similar way, the estimation provided by  calculated that the 416,000 guests staying in Airbnb in July 2013 has generated around one million lost room nights for city hotels in New York. On the contrary, large corporations, offering hospitality solutions for business travelers, medium-high income consumers, and package holidays do not seem to be significantly affected [76,77].
- Empowering individuals by promoting flexible employment opportunities and additional sources of income versus working-related uncertainties: The sharing economy has framed itself as a provider of flexible employment opportunities, where traditional employment contracts are substituted by short-term and freelance work . The main implications of this working structure, however, seem to benefit businesses more than workers. Classifying workers as independent contractors, allow businesses to reduce the costs and to remove the legal liability for accidents arising at work. The lack of pension and insurance, together with income instability and insecurities is, on the contrary, one of the main downsides affecting the workers involved in the sharing economy’s markets [79,80]. In addition, the rapid expansion of this underregulated and underpaid working logic, is also affecting the traditional working markets. When an increasing number of agents get involved in the logic of less security and more flexibility, the overall working conditions can decline [81,82,83]. As reported by De Stefano  (p. 6), “extreme flexibility, shifting of risks to workers and income instability have long become a reality for a portion of the workforce in current labor markets that goes far beyond the persons employed in the gig-economy.” It can indeed be argued that working on collaborative platforms is part of a much vaster trend toward the casualization of labor [84,85].
- Promote cheaper and easiest access to goods and services and provide opportunities for income redistribution, revenue, and savings versus prices increase, income disparities, and tax avoidance: As reported above, the easiest and cheapest access to goods and services has been described as an opportunity to increase consumption possibilities, particularly for the lowest-income categories. When considering the supply side of the sharing practices, however, the sharing economy can contribute to amplifying the income disparities existing in society . As reported by , for example, the additional revenue generated by sharing accommodation benefits people with a middle or upper-income level. That is because, the lower-income categories, characterized by a limited availability of goods to share, are typically excluded from the supply side of the market. Sharing accommodation, has also been criticized for the negative impacts generated on the price of the long-term renting accommodation. The increase in profitability of short-term renting has driven a reduction of long-term renting supply, with consequent impacts for the lower-income categories living in rented accommodation. According to data provided by , the average renting price in New York has increased by 11% between 2005 and 2012, with an average income rise of just 2%. The redistributive factors of the sharing activities have also been largely criticized in relation to taxation. According to data provided by , the sharing economy was estimated to be worth about $15 billion in 2015 with the potential to grow to £$335 billion in 2025. The amount of tax collected, however, is limited and controversial. Airbnb, for example, is financially located in Ireland, where the money made from transactions taking place all over the world are collected. The lack of clear accountability and the related difficulties to track income, make tax avoidance an element of unfair market competition and a major social issue. The unclear international regulation and the difficulties in public surveillance, creates a clear opportunity for fiscal avoidance, with consequent implications for social disparities and redistribution [28,72]. In addition, as reported by , the fact that platforms do not give governments the access to transactions and user data does not facilitate the enforcement of regulations and the design of clear and consistent taxation systems. The creation of institutional boundaries, such as the cap in the number of nights offered in sharing accommodation is, for example, difficult to apply without a clear track of users and suppliers.
3.4. Social Dimension: Promises versus Impacts of Practices
- Increase social bonding and collaboration versus social drivers’ reduction: As reported above, the sharing economy has often been described as a tool to generate a new form of collaborations, solidarity, and social bonding [34,90,91,92,93]. Researches have, however, highlighted that most of the sharing economy users have no desire to increase community bonds or to share communal links with other members . The ability of platforms to create social connections seems also to have decreased over scale and time. According to studies published by [94,95], when a market expands, economic reasons prevail, and interpersonal connections became more casual and less durable. In a similar way, an analysis investigating the main car sharing motivations highlight that opportunistic and self-interest behaviors play a much more significant role than socio-environmental motivations . Price convenience, savings, and accessibility seem to be the main factors driving most of the consumers’ choices toward sharing economy options [96,97,98].
- Increase conviviality and community trust versus discrimination: Instead of increasing social equality and community trust, the sharing economy seems to be characterized by some degree of exclusionary and discriminatory behaviors . Based on studies published [99,100,101,102], prejudicial discriminations in ratings and reviews have been found for Afro-American guests and Afro-American Airbnb owners and Uber drivers have reported to be discriminated in terms of longer average waiting times and more frequent cancellations.
- Networking increases versus reduction of face-to-face interactions: When the market expands and more profit-oriented actors enter in the sharing economy’s businesses, the social contacts and face-to-face interactions seem to reduce. The increasing use of online quality ratings, for example, contributes to the declining importance of personal relationships. In addition, the introduction of technological innovations, such as the smart locks on sharing accommodation, provides users with a digital service of check-in and key handover that allow for a complete avoidance of social interactions . According to , 75% of Airbnb’s overall revenue come from rentals where the owners do not share the space with users. The initial idea of social connections, interactions, and trust have been taken over by activities operating with a small degree of social and face-to-face interactions.
- Promote the use of participative online resources such as open access, open sources, and collaborative platform versus income, cultural, and aging constraints: The development of information and communication technologies has been considered as an opportunity to facilitate the use of participative online resources and to democratize the access to information. However, the difficulties that a relevant percentage of the world population are experiencing in catching-up with technological development is de facto an element of exclusion for a large amount of people with income, cultural, and ageing constraints . When applied to the context of the sharing activities, this general downside of information and communication technologies, can then exclude a specific group of people from participating in sharing exchanges. According to , for example 53% of the users are under 40 years old and across all the sharing economy industries the usage seems to decrease with an increasing age.
3.5. Environmental Dimension: Promises versus Impacts of Practices
- Reduce consumption versus consumption increase: As highlighted by , a relative cost reduction can increase the overall market demand. In the sharing economy, different elements can contribute to generate a “rebound effect” detrimental for resources:
- The development of the sharing economy platforms and the creation of new markets expand the volume of commerce and inject additional purchasing power into the economy. In addition, the development of “on demand” economy (e.g., Uber), where the consumer creates new capacity by arranging a service that would not have been made in the first place, is in contrast with the idea of reducing the overall level of demand.
- The easiest and cheapest access to goods and services can stimulate unsustainable and indulgent consumption [107,108]. The cost reduction and the accessible increase related to car sharing practices, for example, can generate additional journeys and reduce the public transport demand. The possibility to cover a part of the travelling cost, offered for example by Blablacar and Kangaride, can change the individual decision on the travelling mode and, as reported above, increase the demand for less sustainable practices [4,109].
- The large amount of information made available by the use of the Internet, provides an extensive source of evidence about past usage patterns and consumers’ preferences. The online companies, with an easy access to consumer’s information, can use targeted advertising and tailored promotions to increase sales and market share. In addition, a tension also exists in relation to the fact that city cycle schemes are usually financed through advertising of large and multinational corporations, as Santander in London or Coca-Cola in Belfast.
- Reduction of energy and material demand versus increased use of energy and resources: A lack of clear data investigating the environmental impacts of the sharing practices make it difficult to analyze the transition toward a more sustainable economy. At the present, no clear evidence exists around the reduction of energy and material demand . On the contrary, a study published by  shows that the ecological footprint of e-business is greater than conventional shopping.
- Promote reuse and responsible consumption versus lack of care: The short-term social relationships characterizing most of the sharing economy activities and the fact that consumers are paying for a temporary service, generally lead to a lack of caring attitude and reduce the incentives to treat products gently . In line with the idea of moral hazard and information asymmetries, involved with shared resources , the deterioration rate of goods can be higher than in the case of a private ownership. In addition, recent studies suggest that users’ environmental motivations are often less important than the economic ones [112,113].
4. Discussion: Paradox of Scale and Future Research Directions
Conflicts of Interest
- Botsman, R.; Rogers, R. What’s Mine is Yours. In The Rise of Collaborative Consumption; Harper Business: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Munoz, P.; Cohen, B. Mapping out the sharing economy: A configurational approach to sharing business modelling. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017, 125, 21–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Martin, C.J.; Upham, R.; Klapper, R. Democratising platform governance in the sharing economy: An analytical framework and initial empirical insights. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 166, 1395–1406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Acquier, T.; Daudigeos, T.; Pinkse, J. Promises and paradoxes of the sharing economy: An organizing framework. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017, 125, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schneider, G.; Kallis, G.; Martinez-Alier, J. Crisis or opportunity? Economic degrowth for social equity and ecological sustainability. Introduction to this special issue. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 511–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meadows, D.H.; Meadows, J.; Randers, W.; Behrens, W.W., III. The Limits to Growth; New American Library: New York, NY, USA, 1972. [Google Scholar]
- Georgescu-Roegen, N. The Entropy Law and the Economic Process; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1971. [Google Scholar]
- Sarracino, F. Social capital and subjective well-being trends: Comparing 11 western European Countries. J. Socio-Econ. 2009, 37, 1459–1480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Vemuri, A.W.; Costanza, R. The role of human, social, built and natural capital in explaining life satisfaction at the country level: Toward a national well-being index. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 58, 119–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frenken, D.; Schor, J. Putting the sharing economy into perspective. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2017, 23, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kerschener, C.; Petra, W.; Nierling, L.; Melf-Hinrich, E. Special Volume: Technology and Degrowth. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 108, 31–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Cosme, I.; Santos, R.; O’Neill, D.W. Assessing the degrowth discourse: A review and analysis of academic degrowth policy proposals. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 14915, 321–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Hanacek, K.; Roy, B.; Avila, S.; Kallis, G. Ecological economics and degrowth: Proposing a future research agenda from the margins. Ecol. Econ. 2020, 169, 196495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alcock, R. The New Rural Reconstruction Movement: A Chinese degrowth style movement? Ecol. Econ. 2019, 161, 261–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cattaneo, C.; Gavala, M. The experience of rurban squats in Collserola, Barcelona: What kind of degrowth? J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 581–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frost, K. First Nations sovereignty, Environmental Justice, and Degrowth in Northwest BC, Canada. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 162, 133–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scott Vandeventer, J.; Cattaneo, C.; Zografos, C. A Degrowth Transition: Pathways for the Degrowth Niche to Replace the Capitalist-Growth Regime. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 156, 272–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, C.M. The sharing economy: A pathway to sustainability or a nightmarish form of neoliberal capitalism? Ecol. Econ. 2016, 121, 149–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arksey, H.; O’Malley, L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2008, 8, 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Peters, M.D.; Godfrey, C.M.; Khalil, H.; McInerney, P.; Parker, D.; Soares, C. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int. J. Evid. Based Healthc. 2015, 13, 141–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Bardi, F.; Eckhardt, G.M. Access-based consumption: The case of car sharing. J. Consum. Res. 2012, 39, 881–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belk, R. Sharing. J. Consum. Res. 2010, 36, 715–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stokes, K.; Clarence, E.; Anderson, L.; Rinne, A. Making Sense of the UK Collaborative Economy; Nesta: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Netter, S.; Rahbek, E.; Pedersen, G.; Ludeke-Freud, F. Sharing economy revisited: Towards a new framework for understanding sharing models. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 221, 224–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Curtis, S.K.; Lehner, M. Defining the sharing economy for sustainability. Sustainability 2019, 11, 567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Codagnone, C.; Biagi, F.; Abadie, A. The Passions and the Interests: Unpacking the Sharing Economy. Inst. Prospect. Technol. Stud. JRC Sci. Policy Rep. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Matzler, K.; Veider, V.; Kathan, W. Apting to the sharing economy. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2015, 56, 270–277. [Google Scholar]
- Murillo, D.; Buckland, H.; Val, E. When the sharing economy becomes neoliberalism of steroids: Unravelling the controversies. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017, 125, 66–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohlmann, M. Collaborative consumption: Determinants of satisfaction and the likelihood of using a sharing economy option again. J. Consum. Behav. 2015, 14, 193–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laurell, C.; Sandstrom, C. The sharing economy in social media: Analysing tensions between market and non-market logics. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017, 125, 58–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geissinger, A.; Laurell, C.; Oberg, C.; Sandstrom, C. How sustainable is the sharing economy? On the sustainability connotations of sharing economy platforms. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 206, 419–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dreyer, B.; Ludeke-Freund, R.; Hamann, K.; Faccer, K. Upsides and downsides of the sharing economy: Collaborative consumption business models’ stakeholder value impacts and their relationship to context. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017, 125, 87–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laukkanen, M.; Tura, N. The potential of sharing economy business models for sustainable value creation. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 253, 120004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stephany, A. The Business of Sharing-Making It in the New Sharing Economy; Palgrave MacMillan: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Sacks, D. The Sharing Economy. Fast Company. 2011. Available online: https://www.fastcompany.com/1747551/sharing-economy (accessed on 1 April 2020).
- Prothero, A.; Dobscha, S.; Freund, J.; Kilbourne, W.; Luchs, M.G.; Ozanne, L.K.; Thogersen, J. Sustainable consumption: Opportunities for consumer research and public policy. J. Public Policy Mark. 2011, 30, 31–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weng, J.; Hsieh, Y.-C.; Adnan, M.Z.; Yi, L.-H. The motivation for Muslim customers’ participation in the sharing economy. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 155, 104554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hossain, M. Sharing economy: A comprehensive literature review. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 87, 102470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nadeem, W.; Al-Imamy, S. Do ethics drive value co-creation on digital sharing economy platforms? J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 55, 102095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schor, J. Debating in sharing economy. A Great Transition Initiative Essay. 2014. Available online: http://greattransition.org/publication/debating-the-sharing-economy (accessed on 1 April 2020).
- Bauwens, M. The political economy of peer production; CTheory, 2005. Available online: http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499 (accessed on 1 April 2020).
- Belk, R. You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online. J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 1595–1600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benkler, Y. Peer production, the commons, and the future of the firm. Strategy Organ. 2017, 15, 264–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benkler, Y. Sharing Nicely: On Shareable Goods and the Emergence of Sharing as a Modality of Economic Production. 114 Yale Law J. 2004, 114, 273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Heinrichs, H. Sharing Economy: A Potential New Pathway to Sustainability. Gaia 2013, 22, 228–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kallis, G. In defence of degrowth. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 873–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flipo, F.; Schneider, F. Final Declaration of the conference. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Economic Degrowth for Ecological Sustainability and Social Equity, Paris, France, 18–19 April 2008; pp. 317–318. [Google Scholar]
- D’Alisa, G.; Demaria, F.; Kallis, G. Degrowth: A Vocabulary for A New Era; Routledge: Oxon, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Latouche, S. Decoloniser L’immaginaire; Parangon: Lyon, France, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Weiss, M.; Cattaneo, C. Degrowth-Taking Stock and Reviewing an Emerging Academic Paradigm. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 137, 220–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beling, A.E.; Vanhulst, J.; Demaria, F.; Rabi, V.; Carballo, A.E.; Pelenc, J. Discursive Synergies for a “Great Transformation” Towards Sustainability: Pragmatic Contributions to a Necessary Dialogue Between Human Development, Degrowth and Buen Vivir. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 144, 304–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Martinez-Alier, R.; Pascual., R.; Vivien, F.-D.; Zaccai, E. Sustainable degrowth: Mapping the context, criticisms and future prospects of an emergent paradigm. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1741–1747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alexander, S. Voluntary simplicity and the social reconstruction of law: Degrowth form the grassroots up. Environ. Values 2013, 22, 287–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oxfam. Working for the Few: Political Capture and Economic Inequality; Oxfam: Oxford, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Picketty, T. Capital in the Twenty-first Century; The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA; London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Nesterova, I. Degrowth business framework: Implications for sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 262, 121382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gorz, A. Ecology as Politics; Pluto Press: London, UK, 1983. [Google Scholar]
- Illich, I. Deschooling Society; Marion Boyars Publisher Ltd: London, UK, 1971. [Google Scholar]
- Castoriadis, C. The Imaginary Institution of Society; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Latouche, S. Degrowth. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 519–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lietaert, M. Cohousing’s relevance to degrowth theories. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 576–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jackson, T. Prosperity without Growth-Economics of a Finite Planet; Routledge: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Dizon, M.A.C. Participatory democracy and information and communications technology: A legal pluralist perspective. Eur. J. Law Technol. 2010, 1, 3. [Google Scholar]
- Pansera, M.; Ehlers, M.-H.; Kerschner, C. Unlocking wide digital techno-futures: Contributions from the Degrowth community. Future 2019, 114, 102474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Polimeni, J.M.; Mayumi, K.; Giampietro, M.; Alcott, B. The Jevons Paradox and the Myth of Resource Efficiency Improvements; Earthscan, Press: London, UK; Sterling, VA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Heikkinen, T. A study of degrowth paths based on the von Neumann equilibrium model. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 251, 119562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schroder, P.; Bengtsson, M.; Cohen, M.; Dewick, P.; Hofstetter, J.; Sarkis, J. Degrowth within-Aligning circular economy and strong sustainability narratives. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 146, 190–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandberg, M.; Klockars, K.; Wilen, K. Green growth or degrowth? Assessing the normative justifications for environmental sustainability and economic growth through critical social theory. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 2061, 133–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andreoni, V.; Galmarini, S. How to increase well-being in a context of degrowth. Future 2014, 55, 78–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bilancini, E.; D’Alessandro, S. Long-run welfare under externalities in consumption, leisure, and production: A case for happy degrowth vs. unhappy growth. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 84, 194–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Srineck, N. Platform Capitalism; Polity Press: Malden, MA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Kasprowicz, T. The emergence of development of a sharing economy. Liberte! 2016. Available online: http://4liberty.eu/review-5-the-emergence-and-development-of-a-sharing-economy/ (accessed on 1 April 2020).
- Richardson, L. Performing the sharing economy. Geoforum 2015, 67, 121–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Demary, V. Competition in the Sharing Economy; IW Policy Paper No. 19/2015; Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft (IW): Koln, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- PwC. Sharing Economy. 2017. Available online: https://www.pwc.de/de/digitale-transformation/share-economy-report-2017.pdf (accessed on 1 April 2020).
- Zervas, G.; Proserpio, D.; Byers, J.W. The rise of the sharing economy: Estimating the impact of Airbnb on the hotel industry. J. Mark. Res. 2017, 54, 587–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Kurz, M. Airbnb’s Inroads into the Hotel Industry; HVS: Houston, TX, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Horpedahl, J. Ideology Uber Alles. Economics bloggers on Uber, Lyft and other transportation network companies. Econ. J. Watch 2015, 12, 360–374. [Google Scholar]
- Carboni, M. A new class of worker for the sharing economy. Richmond J. Law Technol. 2016, 22, 1–56. [Google Scholar]
- Lomas, N. Uber Loses Employment Tribunal in the UK. 2016. Available online: https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/28/uber-loses-employment-tribunal-in-the-uk/?renderMode=ie11 (accessed on 1 April 2020).
- De Stefano, V. The Rise of the “Just-in-Time Workforce”: On Demand Work, Crowd Work and Labour Protection in the “Gigeconomy”; ILO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Schmid-Durer, M. The Situation of Workers in the Collaborative Economy; Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy. European Parliament: Brussels, Belgium, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Aloisi, A. Commoditized workers: Case study research on labour law issues arising from a set of “on-demand/gig economy” platforms. Comp. Labor Law Policy J. 2016, 37, 3. [Google Scholar]
- Bowles, P.; MacPhail, F. Introduction to the Special Issue on Pathways from Casual Work to Economic Security: Canadian and International Perspectives. Soc. Indic. Res. 2008, 88, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campbell, I. Casual work and casualization: How does Australia compares? Labour Ind. 2004, 15, 85–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schor, J.B.; Fitzmaurice, C.; Carfagna, L.B.; Attwood-Charles, W. Paradoxes of openness and distinction in the sharing economy. Poetics 2016, 54, 66–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stein, J. Baby, You Can Drive my Car and Stay in my Guest Room. And do y Errands. In And Rent My Stuff. My Wild Ride through the New on-Demand Economy; TIME: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 32–40. [Google Scholar]
- Ellen, I.G.; Karfunkel, B. Renting in America’s Largest Metropolitan Areas; NYU Furman Center/Capital One: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- PwC. Five steps to success in the sharing economy. 2015. Available online: https://www.pwc.com (accessed on 1 April 2020).
- Victor, P. Growth degrowth and climate change: A scenario analysis. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 84, 206–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fitzmaurice, C.J.; Ladegaard, I.; Attwood-Charles, W.; Carfagna, L.; Cansoy, M.; Schor, J.; Wengronowitz, R. Domesticating the market: Moral exchange and the sharing economy. Socio Econ. Rev. 2020, 18, 81–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Bocker, L.; Meelen, T. Sharing for people, planet or profit? Analysing motivations for intended sharing economy participation. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2017, 23, 28–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Parigi, P.; State, B. Disenchanting the world: The impact of technology on relationships. Soc. Inform. 2014, 8851, 166–182. [Google Scholar]
- Parigi, P.; State, B.; Dakhlallah, D.; Corten, R.; Cook, K. A community of strangers: The dis-embedding of social ties. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e67388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Barnes, S.J.; Mattsson, F. Building tribal communities in the collaborative economy: An innovation framework. Prometheus 2017, 34, 95–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Eckhardt, G.M.; Bardhi, F. The sharing economy isn’t about sharing at all. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2015, 28, 2015. Available online: https://hbr.org/2015/01/the-sharing-economy-isnt-about-sharing-at-all (accessed on 1 April 2020).
- Tussyadiah, I.P. An exploratory study on drivers and deterrents of collaborative consumption in travel. In Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 817–830. [Google Scholar]
- Hamari, J.; Sjoklint, M.; Ukkonen, A. The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2015, 67, 2047–2763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edelman, B.G.; Luca, M. Digital discrimination: The case of Airbnb.com. Harv. Bus. Sch. Work. Pap. 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Ge, Y.; Knittel, G.R.; MacKenzie, D.; Zoepf, S. Racial and Gender Discrimination in Transportation Network Companies; NBER Working Paper Series; NBER: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Cansoy, M.; Schor, J.B. Who Gets to Share in the Sharing Economy: Racial Discrimination on Airbnb; Working Paper; Boston College: Chestnut Hill, MA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Piracha, A.; Sharples, R.; Forrest, J.; Dunn, K. Racism in the sharing economy: Regulatory challenges in a neo-liberal cyber world. Geoforum 2019, 98, 144–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slee, T. What’s Yours Is Mine: Against the Sharing Economy; OR Books: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Bastick, Z. Digital Limits of Government: The Failure of E-democracy. In Beyond Bureaucracy; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; Volume 25, pp. 3–14. [Google Scholar]
- Jevons, S.W. The Coal Question: An Inquiry Concerning the Progress of the Nation, and the Probable Exhaustion of the Coal-mines; Macmillan: London, UK, 1865. [Google Scholar]
- Parguel, B.; Lunardo, R.; Benoit-Moreau, F. Sustainability of the sharing economy in question: When second-hand peer-to-peer platforms stimulate indulgent consumption. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017, 125, 48–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- del Mar Alonso-Almeida, M.; Perramon, J.; Bagur-Femenias, L. Shedding light on sharing economy and new materialist consumption: An empirical approach. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 52, 101900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lai, M.K.; Ho, M.P.Y. Unravelling potentials and limitations of sharing economy in reducing unnecessary consumption: A social science perspective. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 153, 104546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demally, D.; Novel, A.-S. The Sharing Economy: Make It Sustainable; IDDRI: Paris, France, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Mangiaracina, R.; Marchet, G.; Perotti, S.; Tumino, A. A review of the environmental implications of B2C e-commerce: A logistics perspective. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. List. Manag. 2014, 45, 565–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arrow, K.J. Social Choice and Individual Values; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA; London, UK, 1963. [Google Scholar]
- Wilhelms, M.-P.; Henkel, S.; Falk, T. To ear is not enough: A means-end analysis to uncover peer-providers’ participation motives in peer-to-peer carsharing. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017, 125, 38–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, J.; Li, Y.-L.; Yuen, T.W.W.Y.; Lim, M.K.; Hu, J. Do green practices really attract customers? The sharing economy from the sustainable supply chain management perspective. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 149, 177–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
|Transport||Zipcar, Uber, car2go, BlaBlaCar, GoCarShare, GoGet, CarNextDoor, GoCatch, Zazcar, Locomute|
|Property||Airbnb, Noirbnb, Couchsurfing, GuestToGuest, Fairbnb|
|Food distribution||Deliveroo, EatWith, UberEATS, JustEat, foodpanda, hungryhouse|
|Goods||NeighborGoods, Freegle, Freecycle|
|Services||TaskRabbit, Needto.com, Ayoudo, Timebanking|
|Crowdfunding||Kickstarter, GoFundMe, Indiegogo, CircleUp|
|Economic||The development of internet platforms and the possibility to trade outside the traditional market system is expected to:|
|Social||The promotion of peer-to-peer and community exchange is expected to: |
|Environmental||Moving from private ownership to the temporary access of underutilized resources, the sharing economy is expected to:|
|Promises of the Sharing Economy||Outcomes of the Sharing Economy Practices|
© 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/).
Andreoni, V. The Trap of Success: A Paradox of Scale for Sharing Economy and Degrowth. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3153. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083153
Andreoni V. The Trap of Success: A Paradox of Scale for Sharing Economy and Degrowth. Sustainability. 2020; 12(8):3153. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083153Chicago/Turabian Style
Andreoni, Valeria. 2020. "The Trap of Success: A Paradox of Scale for Sharing Economy and Degrowth" Sustainability 12, no. 8: 3153. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083153