Addressing the Sharing Economy—Some (Potential) Inconsistencies of Its Emancipatory Defense

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article provides a needed discussion on the shared economy. The article has improved since its last version and I believe the themes it discusses are better presented.

I appreciate the author spends time defining what the shared economy is. The issue with definitions is that, since we’re living in a liquid modernity, this is something that always changes, and the shared economy is something that is subject to this. Economists and other thinkers aligned with neoclassical economics (or other libertarian views, such as the Austrian one, represented by Hayek; I noticed reference 3 is published by the Institute of Public Affairs, a notorious libertarian-conservative organization) tend to see this as an unambiguously good thing (as mentioned in section 3.1).

The users of the shared economy have to depend on the platform, that is usually ran by executives who work for-profit, while a good part of its users might be “barefoot entrepreneurs”, who engage in entrepreneurship to guarantee a minimal income (Imas et al, 2012), which in theory would be the most benefitted of this new technology. This creates tension because, the users have to rely on the whims of corporate decisions: suppose a food delivery app decides to lower prices to the consumer for a period of time – low budget restaurants have to accede to the lower prices, which means their relative operational costs increase and their marginal benefit from the app (and the shared economy itself) lowers, which might force them into a precarized condition. This is an issue of consumer sovereignty as well, because if it “works”, then defenders will use it to justify their models (this is why I spoke about Olsen’s book in the previous review). This entire paragraph is more of a comment than a suggestion, since I understand you want to focus on other aspects, but the equality principle is part of the emancipatory view, but that is questionable when there is a dependency relationship between the providers and the users, because they come from different “circuits” of the urban economy (of the Global South, mostly), according to Milton Santos (Almeida, Silva, 2023).

I noticed you mention Commons, but you could expand on him a bit, since there are applications of his works to issues of shared economy, and how his work can be used to show that this emancipatory view might be seriously flawed, especially on how it might preserve unequal work and power relations. See Spithoven (2021) and Jeronimo et al (2022) for direct applications of Commons’s ideas to the sharing economy.

Line 448-9: if you’d like you can mention the “as-if” approach proposed by Friedman (1953), which is the foundation for this idea that the human mind is ontogenetically designed. Friedman (1953) tends to be the only academic economic methodology text that mainstream economists would approach.

Line 518: I recommend write as “original institutional economics”, because in recent economic literature, the original institutional economics is not really considered a “school”, and more of a “movement”.

References

Almeida, R. G.; Silva, H. The Entrepreneur Between Two Circuits: The Critical Contribution of Milton Santos to Entrepreneurship Studies. Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, 41B, 2023.

Friedman, M. Methodology of positive economics. 1953. In Essays in Positive Economics, 1966.

Imas, J. M. et al. Barefoot entrepreneurs. Organizations, 19(5), 2012.

Jeronimo, R. C. et al. From the Rule of Thumb to the Rule of the Algorithms: Command and Control in Ride-Hailing Platforms. Journal of Economic Issues, 56(2), 2022.

Spithoven, A. Gig Workers and Policies of Minimal Social Dislocation. Journal of Economic Issues, 55(2), 2021

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Line 35: “facilitated”

Line 86: “baseline”

Line 361: remove “just”

Line 373: “typically”

Line 378: what is “Abelian”?

Line 422: “probably”

Line 624: “economics”

Author Response

Comment n.1. I noticed you mention Commons, but you could expand on him a bit, since there are applications of his works to issues of shared economy, and how his work can be used to show that this emancipatory view might be seriously flawed, especially on how it might preserve unequal work and power relations. See Spithoven (2021) and Jeronimo et al (2022) for direct applications of Commons’s ideas to the sharing economy.

Thank you for this useful bibliographical suggestion, worth exploring in more detail. However, as long as I am not pretending to extend my analysis on Commons’ work but just use it as a reminder of the “institutional” nature of any economic system —including the SE—, I would prefer to use this suggestion as an additional note (the new final note n.8), which is as follows:

“To further expand Commons’ critical perspective of neoclassical economics and extend it on the a-institutional character of the emancipatory view of the SE, see: Antoon Spithoven [80] and Rodrigo Constantino Jeronimo et al. [28]. I am grateful to one of the anonymous reviewers for suggesting me these valuable references.”

Comment n.2. Line 448-9: if you’d like you can mention the “as-if” approach proposed by Friedman (1953), which is the foundation for this idea that the human mind is ontogenetically designed. Friedman (1953) tends to be the only academic economic methodology text that mainstream economists would approach.

Thank you for this suggestion, too. Needless to say, Friedman is one of the most referred authors, which would be of use here. However, similar to the previous comment on Common’s work, I would prefer not to go into details of his work. This may turn into a major issue (i.e.: discussing one of the major references in this field) which my paper is not aiming to address systematically. Moreover, addressing his work goes beyond the paper’s specific thematic discussion. Alternatively, I think final note n.6, and additionally n. 7, are sufficiently detailed in referring to, and also, addressing the most significant conceptual features of neoclassical economic theory. They also provide extending readings [Ref. 1, 8, and 54] on its main critics, and additionally, another bibliographical reference on its terminological, historical track.

Comment n.3. Line 518: I recommend write as “original institutional economics”, because in recent economic literature, the original institutional economics is not really considered a “school”, and more of a “movement”.

Thank you for drawing my attention to this, as well. As Reviewer 1 suggests [lines referred are 782-783], I have added the term “original”, a quite necessary adjective. Moreover, I replaced “school” with “approach” to not go into details/controversies about whether “institutional economics” must be better understood as a school or simply as a conceptual approach –implying a much less internal thematic and analytical cohesion and then a broader understanding of economic phenomenon without entailing a particular, systematic intellectual framework. Following this suggestion, therefore, I think the new expression (“In the mid-twentieth century, for instance, the original institutional economics approach was at its zenith”) is a less controversial expression as well as equally informative as it used to be in its original formulation.

Comment n.4. Line 35: “facilitated”

It is now checked [now in line 37]. Thank you. I very much appreciate you drawing my attention to this typo.

Comment n.5. Line 86: “baseline”

It is now checked [now in line 92]. Once again, thank you, I very much appreciate you drawing my attention to this.

Comment n.6. Line 361: remove “just”

As the Reviewer recommends, I have removed “just” replacing it with “only” [it is now in line 600, as I added some new paragraphs]. In this sense, I maintain the idea of emphasising that there were “only” four (and no more) relational models, without suggesting there were just “a few” models. I find the expression much more accurate with a less pejorative sense.

Comment n.7. Line 373: “typically”

The reviewer’s suggestion is certainly right. I have checked this expression [which now corresponds to line 612]. Thank you again for letting me know about this typo.

Comment n.8. Line 378: what is “Abelian”?

Thank you for noticing this too, as long as some readers may not be familiar with mathematical terminology [the new line 617]. Because of that, I added another final note (the new n.4) which provides the abelian group’s definition and main features, where I highlight the fact that its main (mathematical) attribute is the “addition” which refers to the “equality” idea among any group’s members. I think it is worth maintaining this mathematical terminology, not only when talking about equivalence, hierarchy, equality and proportionality, but also in other sections of the manuscript to gain terminological and analytical precision and robustness.

Comment n.9. Line 422: “probably”

It is now checked and corrected, too [now, line 669]. Despite various proofreadings, some errors/typos remained, then I very much appreciate the Reviewer’s careful revision.

Comment n.10. Line 624: “economics”

The same [now, line 707]. Thank you again, very much appreciate it.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See comments to author(s).  English is generally good, though I had difficulty following the argument in some key spots.

Author Response

Comment n.1. [divided into different comments, as follows]

Comment 1.1. This is complicated by the fact that Author does not attempt to give a proper characterization of SE.

Reply 1.1.: This is exactly what this paper is about. It does not scrutinize any particular author/theory. What it rather does is to discuss the logical, conceptual and analytical difficulties in trying to define and operationalize such a concept. My aim is then not to offer a definitive, particular, convincing definition, but rather to emphasise such difficulties.

Comment 1.2. (and, indeed, spends some sections of the paper arguing that no such characterization can be given)

Reply 1.2.: I am not arguing that such a definition cannot be found (nor even that it should not be so), but rather that it is really hard to find/set up a convincing definition. In this line, see for example, lines 376-380, where I argue: “It is worth clarifying, however, that we are not asserting the impossibility of finding an accurate definition or achieving effective operationalization. Rather, we are merely underscoring the considerable conceptual and analytical challenges inherent in these tasks.” Moreover, to emphasise such a difficulty —to properly grasp a polysemic concept from a conceptual and analytical perspective—, I added a couple of sentences to this paragraph, arguing that such a difficulty is even increased by the fact that it entails multiple and even contradictory political-normative implications and interpretations. See, in this regard, lines 381-389:

“Nevertheless, it is worth noting that, in addition to the quantitative and qualitative transformations that the SE has undergone in recent years which we have identified as two possible reasons explaining the difficulties in defining and operationalising this concept, a third factor should be added. Indeed, what makes the SE truly challenging to apprehend conceptually and analytically is not merely its highly polysemic nature but also, and perhaps most significantly, its multiple and contradictory political-normative implications and interpretations.”

Comment 1.3. but this then allows Author to cite out-of-context quotations from a very wide and non-unified set of materials in order to suggest that the quotations collectively establish the claim that people are arguing for [F], [G], and [H]. […] much more needs to be done to establish these points. […] To put it briefly, what this paper is most desperately in need of is a clear presentation of those theorists who argue for what I will label claim [E*]: that SE is emancipatory and post-capitalist in precisely the ways Author suggests.

Reply 1.3.: Thank you for noting this again, though I believed it was clear in my previous response. In order to solve this, however, I added a new paragraph in the end of Section 3 stating that: (1) not a single, unique definition of “the emancipatory perspective” can be found in the literature —nor even in the real, political debates either; to highlight this, (2) I also emphasised the idea that we are not referring to “a theory”, but to “a perspective” —which is quite different; (3) I also rewritten some adjectives and articles of the following paragraph to emphasise this very idea (i.e. I am not talking about “a” theory, nor about something “unified” or “comprehensible”, but to a bulk of opinions and views that, due to their similitudes, can be grouped under this label (i.e. an emancipatory perspective). To solve this possible misinterpretation, I added a new paragraph (lines 476-541) which states that:

“Nevertheless, to conduct this analysis appropriately, it is first essential to acknowledge that there exists no singular emancipatory perspective on SE to which we can refer in the singular. Due to the inherently polysemous nature of this concept and the varied, often contradictory, political-normative interpretations it has generated, it is epistemically unfeasible to identify a singular, comprehensive, or monopolistic theory that might be regarded as “the” emancipatory theory of SE. Rather, when reviewing the literature as well as predominant discourses on the subject, we encounter a bulk of views, diagnoses, and proposals that share certain common and cross-cutting elements, allowing us to identify, group, and differentiate among diverse conceptual approaches. Thus, what we observe is not a unified and conceptually coherent “theory” but rather a broad “perspective” under which various more or less comparable and commensurable—yet also divergent and at times contradictory—conceptions are gathered. Indeed, politically considered, the SE is itself a contradiction [83]. Nevertheless, this difficulty in identifying a singular, unified conceptual and normative framework is not unique to the emancipatory perspective, nor to the two alternative perspectives of the SE; rather, it is an inherent challenge in any attempt to address, define, and characterise complex constructs, such as, “capitalism,” “emancipation,” “inclusivity,” or “neoliberalism.” In light of these challenges, this paper does not endeavour to provide an exhaustive or singular definition of what constitutes the “emancipatory perspective,” primarily because it is, in essence, a highly conflictive (and probably, infeasibility) task. It rather aims to identify and discuss certain conceptual deficiencies or limitations that may arise in much of the literature grouped under the label of the “emancipatory perspective of the SE.”

Comment 1.4. The section where this is to be done is 3.3; this section consists of a mere two paragraphs. No theorists who argue for this position are mentioned by name; instead, what we get are a series of citations. None of the cited authors seem to be arguing for [E*].

Reply 1.4.: It is because of that that Section 3.3 does not (and cannot) offer a single, unified, systematic definition (mostly because—as I explain in new lines 476-541—this is probably unfeasible). Rather, what section 3.3. is about is simply introducing this third, emancipatory perspective by briefly explaining its core argument (i.e. to democratize the economic system or to transcend the capitalist economy). Therefore, instead of presenting a full list of the emancipatory perspective's features in Section 3.3. I found it much more appropriate and useful to provide these characteristics across  Section 4, where I can present them and discuss one by one. Finally, as I see it, this refers to the manner of organizing the various sections and parts of the paper and not a matter of thematic or substantive discussion. To clarify and to explain why section 3.3. does not pretend to do so, I added that (lines 469-475):

“As stated above, however, this paper does not seek to discern which perspective is the most accurate regarding the actual development of the SE nor defend which is the most preferable from a normative point of view. Similarly, our objective is neither to provide a comprehensive definition of the emancipatory proposal nor to conduct a critical and detailed exposition of all its potential characteristics. Our aim it rather to critically examine some of the conceptual and methodological limitations challenging this third perspective.”

Comment 1.5. The four cited references are to Rashmi Dyal-Chand (“Regulating sharing”) [28], Trebor Scholz (Uberworked and underpaid) [70], Johan Östman (“Information, expression, participation”) [64], and Wei Wang (“The differentially associated sharing economy”) [81]. The choice of these four authors is extremely curious. None talk about a “pathway towards a post-capitalist horizon”. Östman barely talks about SE at all; his article is about the impact of user-generated content on political engagement among young people. (Engagement with the user-generated content is facilitated by online platforms; this is the only connection, and it is a very minor part of Östman’s article.) And Östman does not talk about the economy at all. Wang at least talks about SE, but Wang’s article looks very specifically at ride-sharing practices, and in particular looks at how some ride-sharing practices have arisen in China which are distinct from the major ride-sharing practices of SE (namely, through services like Uber, Didi, etc.). Scholz says that his book “was written for the people who feel stuck in this [sharing] economy, who don’t have the time to write about it, and who are looking for a future of work that they can wholeheartedly embrace” (pp. 4–5). Scholz does not argue that SE is emancipatory; he explicitly states that he thinks SE is bleak and undesirable. Nor does Scholz seem to think that a world with an abundance of SE labor is “post-capitalist” in any meaningful sense. The Dyal-Chand article is perhaps the closest to doing what Author needs, but it, too, fails to even attempt to make the claims that Author ascribes to it. Dyal-Chand is focused on the regulatory environment surrounding SE, and argues that regulators must understand that SE practices are not unfair, but are instead “a different form of capitalism” (247). To quote Dyal-Chand, “This Article asserts that the sharing economy is a nascent version of a mature system of capitalism that has been labeled by ‘varieties of capitalism’ scholars as a ‘coordinated market economy’…” (247–248). Thus, none of the cited authors are arguing for the claim that Author wants to argue against: that there is an emancipatory way to view SE, that the emancipation is a good thing, that the emancipation is founded in collaborative and reciprocative practices, and that the emancipation leads to an anti-capitalist or post-capitalist economy. The resulting feeling is that Author is arguing against a poorly-defined strawman—and, since the argument against the strawman is the heart of the paper, my conclusion is that the paper as it stands does not make an adequate contribution to the literature.

Reply 1.5.: Thank you for drawing my attention on this. Certainly, Reviewer 2 is right in noting these authors must not be properly identified within the emancipatory perspective, despite some of their thoughts and sentences may certainly be identified as such. In this sense, and to try to gain accuracy in the use of the literature, I have removed these references across the entire Section 3.3 (which I identified as the most controversial one in this sense), by adding new ones which are more sympathetically oriented with the emancipatory view or explicitly endorsing it. In some cases, I just added a new author/reference (i.e. Albert, 2004 [ref.2]; Widlok, 2019 [ref.86]), in others also quoting some of their texts (i.e. Alegre, 2015 [ref.3]; Komarraju et al, 2021 [ref.50), and in others (i.e. Gibson-Graham, 2006 [ref.39]) quoting the reference more appropriately. These new references (also added to the Reference list) or the ones which I relocated in more adequate parts, include:

• [2] Albert, M. Life after Capitalism; London: Verso, UK, 2004.
• [3] Alegre, J. Economía colaborativa: un salto cuántico. In: Economistas frente a la crisis. June 4, 2015.
• [39] Gibson-Graham, J. K. A Postcapitalist Politics; University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2006.
• [50] Komarraju, S. A.; Arora, P.; Raman, U. Agency and servitude in platform labour: a feminist analysis of blended cultures. Media, Culture & Society 2021, 44 (4), 672–689.
• [60] Mason, P. Postcapitalism: A Guide to Our Future; Farrar, Strauss & Giroux: New York, NY, USA, 2013.
• [61] Moreno, J.A. Semillas de economía alternativa: ¿construyendo otro mundo? Mediterráneo económico 2014, 26, 291–
• [80] Spithoven, A. Gig Workers and Policies of Minimal Social Dislocation. Journal of Economic Issues 2021, 55 (2), 516–
• [83] Sützl, W. The anti-economy of sharing. Else Art Journal 2014, 1, 122–140.
• [86] Widlok, T. Sharing as an alternative economy activity. In Handbook of the Sharing Economy; Belk, R., Eckhardt, G. M., Bardhi, F., Eds.; Edward Elgar Pub: Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MASS. USA, 2019, 27–

Thank you also for pointing out my paper’s risk of seeming to be discussing a strawman, which, certainly, would make the paper’s argumentative strategy much less consistent. To prevent readers from this potential impression, I rewrote some parts of the introduction to solve this from the very outset. The new paragraph (lines 62-74) says:

“Aligned with the growing scholarly attention, the third section of this paper turns to its political-normative discussion by briefly presenting the three main perspectives identifiable in the debate: i) the SE viewed as inclusive capitalism, ii) as an advancement of the neoliberal agenda, and iii) as an emancipatory economy. We introduce the two first perspectives very briefly as we would rather focus on the last one. Note, however, we are not discussing against an imaginary contender. In other words, we do not assert the existence of a single emancipatory theory or paradigm of the SE that can be unified around clearly defined parameters distinguishing it from other intellectual positions, nor do we claim that this perspective constitutes a monolithic ideological programme opposed to others. Likewise, we do not aim to subsume all cited authors under a single perspective or to exhaustively analyse their work to transform it into a strawman against whom to direct our criticisms. Such an approach would be as complex as unjust, given that the diversity of opinions and nuances is a fundamental characteristic of this debate.”

Comment 1.6. Let me start with claims [A] and [B]. My main worry is that I don’t know why Author makes [A] and [B] at all; it seems to me that the paper would work equally well without them, since nothing in [A] or [B] affect Author’s conclusions (as far as I can tell). Why doesn’t Author just start with [C]? At most, Author could have a paragraph or so establishing points [A] and [B], rather than two whole sections. Given that [A] and [B] are in the paper, I have some concerns about how they are defended. First, Author does not do a good job of explaining why we need a definition or operationalization of SE in the first place, or why it matters for Author’s argument. Author approvingly cites Aristotle to suggest that we need a definition, but then goes on to cite Schor and Slee, who both argue that we cannot give an easy definition of SE. So if it is already established that we cannot easily give a definition of SE—and if neither Schor nor Slee see a problem in proceeding without a definition—then why does Author need to make claim [A] in the first place? Another way to put it: why doesn’t Author merely say something like the following: “I want to talk about SE. Giving a definition of SE is hard, for the reasons that Schor and Slee identify, and giving an operationalization is hard, for other reasons, but we can just look at SE through these lenses and avoid definitions and operationalizations entirely”? On this point, less is more, because the arguments Author gives for why we can’t give a definition are unpersuasive and don’t engage with the debate, so since it’s not needed I suggest Author skip it.

Reply 1.6.: Thank you for nothing this, since according to Reviewer 2, this would be one of the weakest points of the paper. I do think Aristotle’s and Schor/Slee’s statements are not contradictory at all, but rather complementary. We may say one thing is hard to grasp/define, without denying to try to do so. This is what the very science is about, right? I mean, the whole paper’s argument is an attempt to understand what SE is about. I first try to deal with it through a conceptual definition, then arguing there is a trade-off between its informativeness and veracity. Secondly, I propose to operationalize it, by finally concluding this is a similar hard task due to the logical inconsistencies of operationalize a concept which is amorphic in mathematical, logical terms. I therefore maintain that it is important, utile and even necessary to offer robust definitions of the concepts we aim to analyse (i.e. Aristotle). However, due to the difficulties entailing doing so, we conclude by acknowledging that this is hard (i.e. Schor/Slee). In other words, the two first sections deal with the epistemic debate around this concept (SE), while the third, and particularly the fourth one, deals with its substantive, real implications (i.e. the political-normative discourses surrounding it). Because the two discussions or approaches are utile and even necessary when trying to understand and study any concept I do think they both are equally important and then necessary to remain in the paper altogether. To illustrate such a requirement (conducting both an epistemic and substantive analysis) I added two new paragraphs. The first (lines 355-375) states that, due to the real historical transformations of the SE, its polysemic nature has also increased enormously:

“This trade-off between informativeness and veracity is inherent in any attempt to define and operationalise a complex concept. However, in the case of the SE, this is particularly challenging. This may stem from several factors, notably one quantitative and one qualitative. On the one hand, the socio-economic practices associated with consumption, knowledge, production, and finance within the SE have expanded and multiplied rapidly in recent years, largely due to the decreasing cost and increasing accessibility of new digital technologies. On the other hand, since it first began to be theorised and conceptualised, the SE has evolved from a set of more or less minor, marginal, and potentially disruptive initiatives, often operating outside the formal channels of the market economy, to now occupy a near-central position within global chains of production, distribution, and income accumulation. As a result of both transformations, the polysemic nature of the concept of SE itself has increased exponentially, along with the challenges involved in defining and operationalising it appropriately.”

The second one, just before Section 3, states that the very qualitative and quantitative transformations the SE has undergone over the last years have also increased its political-normative interpretations. This new paragraph (lines 381-389) is as follows:

“Nevertheless, it is worth noting that, in addition to the quantitative and qualitative transformations that the SE has undergone in recent years which we have identified as two possible reasons explaining the difficulties in defining and operationalising this concept, a third factor should be added. Indeed, what makes the SE truly challenging to apprehend conceptually and analytically is not merely its highly polysemic nature but also, and perhaps most significantly, its multiple and contradictory political-normative implications and interpretations which have also increased enormously along with the same quantitative and qualitative transformations the very SE has undergone.”

Additionally, I also highlighted this necessity of completing the connection between the epistemic discussion (defining and operationalizing) with the political-normative discussion with the newly added formula (lines 284-288):

“Henceforth, and to continue to understand SE adequately, we propose to approach it not from discussing its epistemic status (by discussing its conceptual or analytical dimension), but rather from the real or substantive implications it entails—that is, from its political dimension.”

Thanks to these new paragraphs, the connection between the epistemic (conceptual) and substantive (political) discussion should be much more justified.

Comment 1.7.: (Side note: Author responded to my earlier comment that “explanandum” was not the appropriate word to capture “the concept to be defined” (109) by now using the phrase “explanandum or definiendum”. This has not solved the problem, however. Explananda and definienda are different things. Saying “X” when one really means “Y” is incorrect, but saying “X or Y” when one really means “Y” is also incorrect.).

Reply 1.7.: Thank you for drawing my attention to this too. Since I see this may be quite controversial, I decided to remove any use of the terms “explanans”, “explanandum”, explananda” or “definienda” from the text. I find their use too controversial, even more, when removing them does not imply losing either precision in my explanations or eroding the precision of my conceptual and logical argumentation, as now noted when replacing them in lines: 129, 130, 131, 133, 142, 144, 318, 326, 740, and 741. Thus, I would thank the Reviewer’s comments on this point.

Comment 1.8.: Moving on, Author does not explain how an operationalization is different from a definition. Author characterizes operationalizations in the following way: “A concept can be operationalized by identifying and classifying its constituent components or main parts” (145–146). But again, it’s not clear to me how “identifying and classifying constituent components” is different from providing a definition. I assume that Author is working with a notion of “definition” such that we have a definition of some concept so long as we have a set of necessary and sufficient conditions which suffice to precisely classify things as either belonging to the concept or not belonging to the concept. And I assume that the “constituent components or main parts” identified by an operationalization are not necessary and sufficient conditions. (Though perhaps they are necessary conditions?) But these are assumptions of mine; I would be more confident that I knew what Author intended if Author used the language of necessary and sufficient conditions, or if Author otherwise made clear what the difference between definitions and operationalizations is.

Reply 1.8.: Thank you for this clarification, too. I am just referring to definitions that attempt to explain something in conceptual terms. This means I am referring precisely to “conceptual definitions” to epistemological set “what” exactly should be explained, studied... In contrast, I use the shorter label “operationalization” to precisely refer to an “operational definition” which articulates “how” to ontologically capture, measure, and decompose a concept in substantive terms (in the case of the SE, this operationalization means to substantively divide its main economic components or activities). Nevertheless, as long as the use of these two labels is extremely ambiguous and given the fact that, in common, non-expert usages, people use both terms without going into their epistemic details, I find their use appropriate enough in this text, mostly when I use them in two different, quite well-explained sections, the first (2.1) aiming to discuss a proper “conceptual definition”, while the second (2.2) attempting to discuss the manner literature usually divide or classify it main internal components, subsectors or economic activities.   

Comment 1.9.: The argument for [C] is again a bit misleading; given that the first two lenses (inclusive capitalism and neoliberal) play absolutely no role in Author’s argument, it is surprising that they are given just as much space in this section as the emancipatory lens. (Moreover, this might just be a pet peeve of mine, but Author should avoid the practice of writing things like “several authors say X” or “some think that Y” without naming those authors directly. I should be able to know who Author thinks holds a neoliberal perspective on SE without needing to dig through footnotes.)

Reply 1.9.: As I previously explained, the three political perspectives are given the same space in the text in Section 3, although Section 4 is the one precisely and more exhaustively discussing the last, emancipatory perspective. Therefore, I would like to stress the idea that Section 3 is just used to briefly introduce the three perspectives, while the last one is much more fully discussed in Section 4. Additionally, references such as “several authors” or “other authors” have been removed, a reference to a particular author has been included (lines 129-148) or has or replaced (lines 448-449, for example, saying: “Nonetheless, in contrast to this perspective, the SE has often attributed a much more emancipatory character”, instead of saying “some authors attribute…”, or lines 556-557, where I now said  “defending or conceptualizing” instead of saying “some authors defend or conceptualize..”). Thanks to this comment, some of my assertions or statements are now much more justified and properly referred.

Comment 1.10.: Which brings me to a minor point about [D]: Author does not actually establish that the first two lenses have been extensively theorized; each section had a limited number of citations, and many of them had the same quirks as the author’s citations about the emancipatory lens. (Some of the citations were apt, at least—but I did not look them all up.)

Reply 1.10.: Well, I referred to 6 different authors when introducing the “inclusive capitalism” approach, while 11 more authors are cited when briefly talking about the “advancement of the neoliberal agenda” view. I sincerely think this is enough to briefly present these two perspectives, mostly when I explicitly explain in several parts the paper’s goal is not to discuss these two first perspectives. In this regard, see, for example, the Abstract or the Introduction. In this case, I removed the reference to the idea that the two first perspectives are sufficiently discussed by the literature on the matter. Instead, I now say: “We introduce the two first perspectives very briefly as we would rather focus on the last one.”. This should solve the potential mistake/limitation Reviewer 2 is stating when pointing out I am not justifying where/how literature is already addressing these debates, since I am just saying “I am not pretending to address them, but just focus on the latter”. Additionally, in the new lines 469-475, I explain pretty much the same drawing the readers’ attention to the fact that we are solely focussing on some of the ‘potential’ conceptual pitfalls emancipatory view may fail into:

“As stated above, however, this paper does not seek to discern which perspective is the most accurate regarding the actual development of the SE nor defend which is the most preferable from a normative point of view. Similarly, our objective is neither to provide a comprehensive definition of the emancipatory proposal nor to conduct a critical and detailed exposition of all its potential characteristics. Rather, we aim to critically examine some of conceptual and methodological limitations challenging the third perspective.”

Comment 1.11.: I have no real comments about [E]; it is hard to prove a negative. Still, as previously mentioned, since Author’s paper is a negative paper, there must be some things people have said about emancipation and SE that Author is responding to.

Reply 1.11.: What I am referring to here is that there exists not so much literature discussing the pitfalls or shortcomings of defending the SE from an emancipatory perspective. As the Reviewer says, it is hard (not to say impossible) to prove that not so much has been written on this, precisely because there exists no literature on the matter. On the other hand, I mentioned some criticisms of the supposedly SE’s emancipatory character. For example, new references 59 and 77 (discussing the “community” scale of the emancipatory SE), or reference n.55 (highlighting how SE may be dangerous to work relations…”).

Comment 1.12.: Finally, I will note that the current draft, while an improvement in many ways over the first draft I evaluated, is still unacceptably sloppy in many ways. Some of the sloppiness is in what might be simple typos, e.g. writing “Julian Schor” instead of the correct “Juliet Schor” (line 150). Some of the sloppiness is in sentences that express unclear claims, e.g. “In short, the SE aims to provide more alternatives to the system rather than serving as an alternative to it” (lines 277–278). Other sloppiness in the paper consists in Author not clearly attributing claims to other scholars. As already mentioned, Author often makes claims with vague referents, e.g. “However, several authors are questioning whether it tends to challenge or rather reinforce the capitalist mode of production” (lines 278–280) or “Nonetheless, in contrast to this perspective, other authors attribute a more emancipatory character to the SE” (lines 293–294), neither of which is followed up by references. At other times, Author cites articles but the quotations seem to be wrong; in lines 434–435 the quote here refers to Zamagni 2012, which is listed as follows in the bibliography: “Zamagni, S. Por una economía del bien común; Ciudad Nueva: Madrid, Spain, 2012.” I can’t easily find this source; it seems to be a Spanish translation of a book that was originally published in Italian, Per un’economia a misura di persona. The quote in the article is in English. Is the quote Author’s own translation? This is, at best, sloppy citation practice. I did some searching for the quoted text and cannot find it. Author also characterizes Bowles and Gintis’s work on homo reciprocans in a somewhat idiosyncratic way; Bowles and Gintis are not primarily interested one-to-one “I do something for you and you do something for me” exchanges, but rather are interested in altruistic practices of punishing people for failing to contribute to the collective good in group contexts. These examples are representative, but not exhaustive.

Reply 1.12.: Thank you again for these kinds of observations which notably improve the whole quality of the paper. In particular, “Julian Schor” has been replaced by “Juliet” as well as the quotation in the new line 419 (formerly 277-278) has been correctly cited within the quotation marks, as it is a literal quotation from A. Cañigueral (Ref. 25, p. 22). Likewise, other vague references, for example, the former sentences “However, several authors are questioning whether it tends to challenge or rather reinforce the capitalist mode of production” (lines 278–280)” or “Nonetheless, in contrast to this perspective, other authors attribute a more emancipatory character to the SE” (lines 293-294) have been replaced by the use of non-personal formulas, such as “However, it is often questioned whether the SE tends to challenge or rather reinforce the capitalist mode of production“; and “Nonetheless, in contrast to this perspective, the SE is often attributed a much more emancipatory character.” [now lines 420-421, and 448-449, respectively].

Regarding Zamagni’s reference, I have checked it and it is certainly right as I put it. As Reviewer says, the work I quote here is: Zamagni, S. Por una economía del bien común; Ciudad Nueva: Madrid, Spain, 2012, which is the translation from the original L’economia del bene comune, Città Nuova Editrice: Roma Italy, 2008. As long as I do not have this original work, I translated it from the original. I have Philosphies’ Reference styles is quite ambiguous, but even though I added the translator to this work in the reference list. Thank you for pointing this out, too.

Regarding Bowles and Gintis’ work, I did not mean they defend this idea; if that had been the case I would have quoted them between quotation marks. What I was referring to was solely the label “homo reciprocans”. Thank you for pointing this out too, however, since it was not clear enough what I was referring to, whether simply this name or rather the idea of “I do something for you...”. Therefore, in this case, I removed their reference from this idea (lines 697-699) and just kept it when discussing the scalability limits of communities (lines 649-651) which is much more justified and utile.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is reasonable for a paper of this length and clearly engages a significant literature. The arguments significantly advance important discussions of the sharing economy and the assumptions undergirding analysis of the sharing economy.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Fine.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the exhaustive task you underwent in the first round. I found my paper very much improved after that and this last round of reviews. Minor editing English typos and errors have been systematically detected and corrected, and some arguments have also improved after several revisions. Thank you again.

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this article. I am attaching a file with detailed comments and suggestions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment n.1. The author identifies a trade-off between informativeness and veracity in the various definitions of the sharing economy. The author correctly mentions that this trade-off is inherent to any definition. However, is it particularly acute when trying to define the “sharing economy”? If so, why? Is there a common (positive or negative) characteristic of the wide variety of practices encompassed under the “sharing economy” term that might explain why this trade-off is so strong? In this respect, exploring how these practices differ(ed) (especially in their first years) from ‘pure’, traditional forms of coordination within established organizations (e.g., hierarchy within the firm, price mechanisms in markets) could offer an explanation. This is not to say this is the correct and or sole explanation. Nor that the author should necessarily include this discussion in the revised version. The suggested interpretation is meant to provide the author a possible path that is compatible with the political economy stance of the article. My point is that delving into the explanation of why the aforementioned trade-off is relevant (for example, if the author argues that it is particularly strong in the case of the sharing economy) would help highlighting the relevance of the discussion presented in the first part of the article beyond the fact that the sharing economy is prevalent today. As per my following comment, I believe it can also help the author showing a stronger connection between the two contributions of the article.

Reply 1.: Thank you for pointing this out, as long as my paper has benefited notably from this suggestion. The question of why this trade-off is particularly conceptually and thematically demanding is now much more justified according to the new paragraph I added in lines 355-375, which states that:

“This trade-off between informativeness and veracity is inherent in any attempt to define and operationalise a complex concept. However, in the case of the SE, this is particularly challenging. This may stem from several factors, notably one quantitative and one qualitative. On the one hand, the socio-economic practices associated with consumption, knowledge, production, and finance within the SE have expanded and multiplied rapidly in recent years, largely due to the decreasing cost and increasing accessibility of new digital technologies. On the other hand, since it first began to be theorised and conceptualised, the SE has evolved from a set of more or less minor, marginal, and potentially disruptive initiatives, often operating outside the formal channels of the market economy, to now occupy a near-central position within global chains of production, distribution, and income accumulation. As a result of both transformations, the polysemic nature of the concept of SE itself has increased exponentially, along with the challenges involved in defining and operationalising it appropriately.”

Comment n. 2. The article makes two contributions. In the first part, it shows how the various and conflicting definitions and operationalisations of the “sharing economy” object suffer from a trade-off between informativeness and veracity within the explanandum. In the second part, it develops three criticisms of the “emancipatory view” of the sharing economy. While both contributions are solid, their connection could be strengthened. The two parts of the article read at present as two related but separate contributions. I encourage the author to show more explicitly how these two contributions relate to each other. The article already provides some hints, but does not spend time (a paragraph would do in my view) showing how these two problems relate to each other. Is the aforementioned (particularly-strong) trade-off leading to such opposed views political conceptions about the object of study? Or, on the contrary, have these polarized political conceptions shaped the object of study so as to generate a (particularly-strong) trade-off? Could there be a third factor explaining both?

Reply 2.: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have added some new paragraphs justifying why these two “supposedly” parts of the text are part of the same discussion/argument, which is, in short, that some concepts which are really hard to grasp in epistemic/conceptual terms are also profoundly discussed in political terms. The first difficulties lead (almost necessarily) to the second ones. In order to highlight this connection, I added (lines 381-389):

“Nevertheless, it is worth noting that, in addition to the quantitative and qualitative transformations that the SE has undergone in recent years which we have identified as two possible reasons explaining the difficulties in defining and operationalising this concept, a third factor should be added. Indeed, what makes the SE truly challenging to apprehend conceptually and analytically is not merely its highly polysemic nature but also, and perhaps most significantly, its multiple and contradictory political-normative implications and interpretations which have also increased enormously along with the same quantitative and qualitative transformations the very SE has undergone.”

I have also added a couple of sentences (lines 392-395) reinforcing this idea in order to merge these two “apparently” separate sections of the paper (i.e. that the epistemic discussion, many times, requires continuing it by addressing its political, substantive dimensions). In this regard, I added:

“Henceforth, and with the aim of continuing to understand SE adequately, we propose to approach it not from discussing its epistemic status (by discussing its conceptual or analytical dimension), but rather from the real or substantive implications it entails—that is, from its political dimension. In this regard …”

Comment n.3. […] author could make a stronger case by showing the connection between the three identified shortcomings of the “emancipatory view” of the sharing economy. For example, is the a-institutional and overly psychological conception of the economy (third shortcoming) an epistemological pre-requisite to sustain a motivational monism view (second shortcoming)? This is just an example. More generally, I would like to see the author shedding some light on the internal structure of the emancipatory view’s logic to make sense of the well-identified shortcomings as a whole.

Reply 3.: Thank you again for drawing my attention to this gap in better merging the “two thematic” sections of the manuscript. I formerly believed it was justified enough (i.e.: “as long as a conceptual definition is hard to find, let’s jump into its political-normative dimension”), but it was surely not the case. Now, I re-emphasised this connection by re-justifying what drives me to jump from one thematic discussion to another, which is the fact that the SE is not solely a complex concept in analytical terms, but also that it is also difficult to apprehend because its multiple political-normative implications. In order to highlight and somehow re-justify this necessary shift in the focus of my analysis, I completed the last paragraph before Section n.3, as follows:

“Nevertheless, it is worth noting that, in addition to the quantitative and qualitative transformations that the SE has undergone in recent years that we have identified as two possible reasons explaining the difficulty in defining and operationalising this concept, a third factor should be added. Indeed, what makes the SE truly challenging to apprehend conceptually and analytically is not merely its highly polysemic nature but also, and perhaps most significantly, its multiple and contradictory political-normative implications and interpretations.”

Additionally, I also added a new sentence in Section 3, stating the same to justify why these apparent two parts go indeed altogether:

“Henceforth, and to continue to understand SE adequately, we propose to approach it not from discussing its epistemic status (by discussing its conceptual or analytical dimension), but rather from the real or substantive implications it entails—that is, from its political dimension. In this regard…”

Comment n.4. In the introduction, some factors driving the growth of the sharing economy are mentioned. I was surprised not to see the rise of digital technologies that facilitated these practices there. Although these are by no means inherent or necessary to the sharing economy, they have certainly played a role in expanding it.

Thank you for drawing my attention to this fundamental gap in identifying the role of new digital technologies. I emphasised their active character by adding or extending the third sentence of the introduction. The new formula (lines 27-30) states that:

“The effect was the increase in consumers and suppliers directly exchanging, selling, lending, or renting out goods and services, mostly driven by the sharp expansion of new digital technologies and, particularly, the exponential access to mobile devices as fundamental economic tools.”

Additionally, I also added a reference to it a few lines below, when arguing that SE reduces some costs. The new sentence is as follows (lines 40-41): Proponents argue that:

“mostly derived the aforementioned rise of digital technologies, the SE reduces the costs of certain products while allowing users to generate additional income by promoting forms of interpersonal exchange.”

Finally, I also added a new paragraph signalling the main transformations the ‘original’ SE may have undergone (lines 355-375):

“This trade-off between informativeness and veracity is inherent in any attempt to define and operationalise a complex concept. However, in the case of the SE, this is particularly challenging. This may stem from several factors, notably one quantitative and one qualitative. On the one hand, the socio-economic practices associated with consumption, knowledge, production, and finance within the SE have expanded and multiplied rapidly in recent years, largely due to the decreasing cost and increasing accessibility of new digital technologies. On the other hand, since it first began to be theorised and conceptualised, the SE has evolved from a set of more or less minor, marginal, and potentially disruptive initiatives, often operating outside the formal channels of the market economy, to now occupy a near-central position within global chains of production, distribution, and income accumulation. As a result of both transformations, the polysemic nature of the concept of SE itself has increased exponentially, along with the challenges involved in defining and operationalising it appropriately.”

 Comment n.5. When discussing the limitations of the emancipatory view of the sharing economy, the author says that it naively assumes “that the strong ties of communities and their para-equality relations can be scaled to the whole society to efficiently respond to its main economic challenges” (p.9, end of the second paragraph). While I think this criticism is fair, the author should also acknowledge that is common for proponents of the emancipatory view to support the federation of (small) communities to overcome the scale problem. Mentioning this alternative would be fair. Moreover, any criticism the author might have of it would help strengthening the article’s view.

This is certainly true and I may have oversimplified this critique. In this sense, I have tried to be more accurate in signalling this “possible” error by removing the last part of the last paragraph of Section 4.1, and adding a new short comment. Moreover, I have reinforced the idea that communities do not necessarily perform isolated or disconnected from each other but they may (and in fact, they do) coordinate themselves into federations or networks to become more efficient, both explicitly and through two now bibliographical references directly arguing this. Altogether, when removing that oversimplification and adding this new comment/references, the new version (lines 6797-693) is as follows:

“This critique does not imply that the role of communities may not be fundamental to the advancement of an emancipatory economic model, nor that they are, in fact, a necessary condition for transitioning towards it. Collaborative communities can, and indeed must, be capable of coordinating and federating to address complex organisational challenges and undertake macro-level tasks that would otherwise be unfeasible if approached in isolation or without any coordination. Indeed, the literature in this field has largely proposed institutional designs aimed at enabling community-based initiatives in economic innovation and democratic deepening to achieve high levels of organisational efficiency and operational effectiveness (Martiskainen, 2017 Ref.59; Shuman, 2000 Ref. 77). What we are pointing out here in particular is that most emancipatory visions of the SE appear to assume, somewhat naïvely, that the strong ties and para-equality relations characteristic of locally based communities can and should scale effortlessly to the macro-social level. In doing so, they overlook alternative organisational structures and relational patterns that, indeed, may be equally or even more effective than community structures and para-equality relations for advancing towards greater levels of socio-economic justice and emancipation.”

In short, I added this new paragraph along with two new bibliographical references:

• Martiskainen, M. The role of community leadership in the development of grassroots innovations. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 2017, 22, 78–
• Shuman M. Going Local: Creating Self-Reliant Communities in a Global Age; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2000.

Comment n.6. Typos detected

• Abstract: where it says “catch-up concept” it should say “catch-all concept”

Checked and corrected it. Thank you for drawing my attention to it. Despite various proof readings, some errors still remain.

• 5, second paragraph: where it says “there exist” it should say “there exists” (missing ‘s’)

Checked and corrected [now line 315]. Tank you again for noticing it.

• 9, second paragraph: where it says “was provably wrong” it should say “was probably wrong” (replace the ‘v’ with a ‘b’).

Thank you again [now line 676]. Reviewer 1 already noticed that and I fixed it.

• 12, first paragraph: where it says “inevitably commit these same errors” it should say “inevitably make the same errors”

Thank you, though I would prefer to maintain the expression “commit” rather than using the term “makes” since the former is a more accurate and formal expression, despite both may be used interchangeably, as synonyms.

• Footnote 5: where it says “the individual agen” it should say “the individual agent” (missing ‘t’).

Surely, thank you once again [now line 933]. I already detected this mistake myself and so corrected it.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Referee report for “Why the emancipatory conception of the sharing economy is (or may be) inconsistent”

 

(Note: I will refer to the author or authors of the article as “Author” throughout.)

 

The article “Why the emancipatory conception of the sharing economy is (or may be) inconsistent” evaluates what it calls the sharing economy, and in particular the “emancipatory conception” of the sharing economy, which is the view that the sharing economy is (or is a precursor to) a post-capitalist economic system in which some or all of the flaws of classical economic capitalist systems are remedied.  Author concludes that the emancipatory conception of the sharing economy fails for three main reasons.  The first reason the emancipatory conception fails is that the emancipatory conception requires that community be the sole basis of economic institutions, whereas there are important economic values and institutions that cannot be captured by community alone (namely, those values which are realized by hierarchical or centralized instituions).  The second reason the emancipatory conception fails is that it relies on the “conceptual toolkit” of neoclassical economics, which derives individual choices from “motivational monism”.  Motivational monism is false, Author argues, and therefore the sharing economy fails as an economic system.  Author presents a third objection to the sharing economy which is a bit more difficult for me to understand; this third objection seems to be that the sharing economy does not pay sufficient attention to the role of institutions in distributing goods, and that no economic system that ignores institutions can guarantee a just distribution of goods.

 

The general topic is potentially important.  To the extent that there are theorists who are making the sorts of emancipatory claims about the sharing economy that Author attributes to them, it is important to write a paper examining and critiquing those claims.  The paper currently poses a number of difficulties for the reader, however, and those difficulties make it difficult to assess the contribution of this paper to the literature.

 

My first primary concern is that the structure of the argument is simply not sufficiently clear, and key terms and concepts are either misused or not defined at all.  Section 2 attempts to define what Author means by “sharing economy”, but after having read the section multiple times I do not understand what Author means by the phrase.  (It does not help that Author uses phrases like “explanandum” in this section when I believe Author intends “definiendum”, and likewise for “explanans” and “definiens”.  Section 2.1 seems unnecessary for this paper.  Author’s attempted characterization of “sharing economy” comes in 2.2, but this is confusing because none of the “operationalized” concepts presented in 2.2 factor into Author’s analysis of sharing economies in Section 4.  This is problematic because Author makes specific claims about the sharing economy in Section 4 (e.g. that the sharing economy is built upon a neoclassical foundation) that don’t seem to follow from the characterization in Section 2.  If Wikipedia is part of the sharing economy, then how many of the claims made in Section 4 apply to Wikipedia?  Or consider collective or P2P finance institutions—a lot would seem to depend on the details of how those institutions are formed.

 

Author seems to be making the claim that the sharing economy cannot be defined or operationalized, and therefore the sharing economy cannot be analyzed.  This is a weak argument; it becomes more important for Author to give some account of the sharing economy that can be analyzed (or, even better, rely on the definitions used by whoever is claiming that the sharing economy is emancipatory).  Unfortunately, this is another area where the paper is too weak; Author does not clearly present arguments to the effect that the sharing economy is emancipatory.  The relevant section of the paper is 3.3; this section takes up two paragraphs!  Most of the references here are simply cited, with no analysis whatsoever.  The citations seem appropriate (though I have not read all of the cited works), but the reader will have no idea what the cited authors are claiming.  Author absolutely must provide a reconstruction of the arguments or analysis of these works if they are going to play such an important role in Author’s argument.

 

Likewise, Author does not provide a sufficient account of their own argument.  Author’s argument that the sharing economy can only satisfy one or two functions of an economic system, and therefore the sharing economy cannot be emancipatory, seems clearly fallacious.  An emancipatory economy can handle some part of market exchanges better, while also relying on other institutions to handle the other parts.  Or an emancipatory economy can be one (necessary) step along the way to a better economic system.  Author’s argument seems to be that any economic system which is not perfect is therefore not emancipatory; that argument seems to misunderstand what “emancipation” amounts to.  (Someone can be emancipated from a bad situation even though they are not immediately living in paradise; American Blacks who were enslaved and then emancipated did not enter into a perfect system, but they were emancipated from slavery nonetheless.)

 

As mentioned above, I don’t know why Author claims that the sharing economy is necessarily a kind of neoclassical economy.

 

And, I do not know why a sharing economy cannot coexist with other institutions, and that together, those institutions might allow for just distributions of goods.

 

I should mention in addition that I have attempted to limit my comments here to the content, but that it was often very difficult to understand the author’s claims because of the unclarity of the language.  This is not merely a problem of awkard phrases; I often simply could not understand what claim Author was making.  I would strongly encourage Author to make more precise the language and the concepts; otherwise the reader simply cannot evaluate whether or not the conclusions follow from the premises or even what the argumentative structure is supposed to be.

 

Author mostly uses references well; I do worry that Author sometimes adds references for no clear reason (such as the quotes by Aristotle and Searle).  References should be necessary to make a point; they should not be used to add the appearance of erudition.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is mostly readable and of good quality, but the use of key concepts is very unclear and must be improved.  All concepts that play an important part of the argument should be clearly defined or explained, and very few of these concepts were defined or explained to an adequate degree.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-written article and I recommend its publications. The only comments I have are minor and I believe it wouldn’t take a lot of the authors’ time.

The article wrote concisely on the issues of the sharing economy, presenting an overview of the issue to the readers of this journal and using the tools crafted by philosophers and other scholars to present the issues with the sharing economy. The article is also quite focused on presenting the issues from a philosophical perspective and analyzing critically in the later sections of the article. Also I appreciate how the authors don’t just say “business coopts the shared economy”, but also go in details of why this happens, so that even alternative or even anticapitalist attempts to break with this hegemony end up not succeeding.

That being said, I still have a few comments:

I think the title can be shortened to “Why the emancipatory conception of the sharing economy might be inconsistent”. It already launches doubt on the concept, so that’s why I can see it being shortened would improve it. In fact, in my opinion, the current title is more fitting as a subtitle; if you had an effect phrase to place as the main title (having the current one as subtitle), it could attract more attention, but don’t feel pressured to do it.

One of my favorite parts of your article is how you framed the debate on the sharing economy using explicit philosophical terms (like explanandum), it does make things clearer. So, I believe a brief note explaining what neoclassical theory is would be useful; readers of Philosophies might not be aware of different strands of economic theory because, unless they’ve studied more deeply, they learn economics from standard sources like newspapers and scientific divulgation books and articles and they tend to see “economics” as just “neoclassical economics” (unlike, for example, a reader from Economies, but considering how dominant the neoclassical paradigm is, it’s probably a lot of economists might not even be aware that other schools exist). The fact you made a distinction in first place is something that pleases me.

Line 191: I think there’s something missing in “…publishing a book a Creative Commons license…”

Reading line 366 made me think of how the shared economy came to be because of the idea of “sovereign consumer”, explored by Olsen (2019). The idea of making everything “customer-friendly”, allied to the development in information technologies, made the shared economy possible to what it is today. Olsen’s book goes in more details, but another reason why it’s so easy for the shared economy to be coopted and not fully succeed with its emancipatory proposal (also worth noting that you cite Hayek and Olsen cites Mises and both weren’t neoclassicals; even today studies on entrepreneurship are usually avoided by neoclassical economists because of how difficult it is to incorporate entrepreneurial variables in the homo oeconomicus framework, so it's mostly a field studied among heterodox economists, so, if you accept my suggestion to include a note on neoclassical economics, I'd also suggest to mention this).

A practical example of this failure is Gold’s (2019) analysis of AirBnB negative effects in communities, instead of emancipating, it could segregate even more – but it emphasizes how the sharing economy could emancipate some, but only at the cost of others, and it raises the question if the supposed emancipated are doing this without following the capitalist playbook. If that’s the case that’s, as they say, “just business as usual”. Although it’s not the objective of the article to analyze examples directly, it shows the practical applications of this argument.

Line 455: should be “classicals”

References

Gold, Allyson. Community consequences of AirBnB. Washington Law Review, v. 94, 2019.

Olsen, Niklas. The sovereign consumer. Cham: Palgrave, 2019.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the "sharing economy," though not new, as the author admits, continue to make major waves in studies of contemporary capitalism. Though the article consolidates much that is known, I don't see how it furthers the field or sheds radical new light on the topic, especially because its critical engagement is at most tepid. That is, one wonders why the two main motivations for the inception of the SE, greater efficiency in the utilization of materials (equipment, resources, labor, etc.) and the freedom to work when one wants (the so-called Gig Economy which is never mentioned in the article), are not more thoroughly engaged with all the radical critiques already undertaken. For example, even when the author cites books on the topic, there is no mention how wonderfully deceptive one's "freedom to work" has been weaponized by capitalist platforms to make those workers work even harder than ever before without any of the benefits of full-time jobs (like vacation, sick days, health insurance, pension, etc.). I'd direct the author to Sassower's The Quest for Prosperity Ch. 13, for example, for a more satisfying approach to the topic. Merely to claim that one needs a shared definition for the shred economy is disappointing.

Also, the method of citation of texts is frustrating as in some cases the author's name is not mentioned, and given the awkward style of References of this journal (not alphabetical but according to appearance in the article), a scholar interested in the topic will be quite challenged. 

Another concern with the article: the author uses the notion of the political very loosely, so it is unclear what is meant here; wee, for example, what Wendy Brown does with the distinction and collapse of the economic and the political in her Undoing the Demos.

Finally, it seems awkward to throw in a citation by Adam Smith with some citations by Institutional Thought scholars; if the context is Institutionalism, say so, and then proceed; if you wish to draw continuity of capitalist practices (and their practical ambivalence), say so; but if you want to offer a new critique of the latest capitalist mode of extraction, then be clear about it! Here is what I mean: the so-called SE isn't about "sharing" in any collaborative or cooperative sense of the term once capitalist platforms figure their way of capitalizing on these practices: see the stock prices (see Uber etc.) and the IPOs that drive these so-called people-to-people relationships to be monetized. It is this feature of the latest iteration of capitalism (captured well by Zuboff's Surveillance Capitalism) that should remind critics and consumers that there is no free lunch, that capitalists are still out there to extract profits, and that any personal relationship (social and moral) cannot and should not be monetized.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I recommend someone proof-read the article as some sentences are inomplete or use odd terms. Not terrible, but still could use some help.