The document discusses the evolving regulatory landscape surrounding sharing economy platforms, emphasizing the impact of regulations such as the '90 days rule' on various sectors like tourism and job creation. It differentiates between collaborative, gig, and access economies, highlighting the need for adaptive regulatory approaches that reflect the maturity of jurisdictions. The conclusions call for a proactive, tech-driven regulatory environment that leverages the capabilities of platforms to address transnational regulatory challenges.

1. Platform as a Mirror
Understanding Regulatory Cultures
Through their interaction with
Megaplatforms
Dr. Prodromos Tsiavos
Theodoros Karounos
Dr. Petros Stefaneas
p.tsiavos@sgt.gr
karounos@netmode.ntua.gr
petros@math.ntua.gr
IPP2016
23.09.16

2. Impetus
Hypothesis
Key Issues
Regulatory Approaches
On Method
Cases
Conclusions

3. 1
Impetus

5. * August 2015: the 90 days rule
* 4 fold increase of AirBnB leases
* Increase in incoming tourism, decrease
of tax income for the government
* classic regulatory response

7. * initiated in 2012
·Citizens save 12 billion won annually
·The city saved 1.18 trillion won
·1,280 new jobs
·A 29,800 ton reduction of Co2 emissions.
* 57 Sharing organisations

9. * part of the FabLab global network
* collaboration with IAAC
* part of the p2p economy project
* FabCity

11. * part of the UK Sharing Economy
strategy
* UK as the European capital of the
Sharing Economy
* London no 3 in sharing economy
startups
* Establishment of SEUK
* The UK SE sector is set to grow from
£500m to £9bn over the next decade.
* 90 days rule
* Regulating Uber

12. 2
Hypothesis

13. Regulatory Responses to Sharing Economy
Platforms reflect the regulatory maturity of any given
jurisdiction
Hypothesis

14. 3
Key issues

15. Platforms
+ Sharing Economy
+ Collaborative Economy
“Platforms are generally known as "two-sided" or "multi-
sided" markets where users are brought together by a
platform operator in order to facilitate an interaction
(exchange of information, a commercial transaction,
etc.). In the context of digital markets, depending on a
platform's business model, users can be buyers of
products or services, sellers, advertisers, software
developers, etc.” [1]
I
[1] Commission Staff Working Document on Online Platforms, accompanying the document
"Communication on Online Platforms and the Digital Single Market" (COM(2016) 288)

16. II
Platforms
+ Sharing Economy
+ Collaborative Economy
For the purposes of this Communication, the term "collaborative economy” refers to
business models where activities are facilitated by collaborative platforms that create
an open marketplace for the temporary usage of goods or services often provided by
private individuals. The collaborative economy involves three categories of actors: (i)
service providers who share assets, resources, time and/or skills — these can be private
individuals offering services on an occasional basis (‘peers’) or service providers
acting in their professional capacity ("professional services providers"); (ii) users of
these; and (iii) intermediaries that connect — via an online platform — providers with
users and that facilitate transactions between them (‘collaborative platforms’).
Collaborative economy transactions generally do not involve a change of ownership
and can be carried out for profit or not-for-profit.
[1] COM(2016) 356 - A European agenda for the collaborative economy

17. Platforms
+ Sharing Economy
+ Collaborative Economy
“ [CoR] notes that the European Commission uses the
term "collaborative economy" rather than "sharing
economy" and has made a first effort in its recent
Communication on "Upgrading the Single Market" to
define the concept. In the view of the CoR however, the
proposed definition focuses on the commercial and
consumer aspects of the sharing (or collaborative)
economy while leaving aside the non-commercial and
commons-based approaches. Calls therefore on the
European Commission to further analyse and later
define the different forms of the sharing economy;” [1]
[1] BRIGHENTI, Benedetta, 2015 Local and regional dimension of the Sharing Economy
CDR 2698/2015
III

18. Platforms
+ Sharing Economy
+ Collaborative Economy
“The use of digital platforms or portals to reduce the
scale for viable hiring transactions or viable participation
in consumer hiring markets (i.e. 'sharing' in the sense of
hiring an asset) and thereby reduce the extent to which
assets are under-utilised.” [1]
[1] Pierre Goudin (2016) The Cost of NonEurope in the Sharing Economy European
Parliamentary Research Service PE 558.777
IV

19. Platforms
+ Sharing Economy
+ Collaborative Economy
Several aspects of the sharing economy can be distinguished:
• 'access economy', where goods and services are traded on the basis of
access rather than ownership. This form refers to renting things temporarily
rather than selling them permanently(e.g. Rent The Runway; ShareDesk;
Airbnb);
• 'gig economy', based on 'contingent work' that is transacted on a digital
marketplace (e.g. Uber;BlaBlaCar; Elance; TaskRabbit);
• 'collaborative economy' based on a peer-to-peer approach, involving users
in the design of theproductive process, transforming consumers into
'prosumers' (i.e. simultaneously producers and consumers) and clients into
community (e.g. Etsy, Kiva);
• the 'commoning economy' for initiatives that are collectively owned and
managed (e.g. Wikipedia, Kickstarter).
[1] : Jana Valant (2016) Sharing economy: They come in like a
wrecking ball EPRS PE 581.956
V

20. 4
Regulatory approaches

21. Law
Social Norms
Markets
Norms
}
Modalities
of
Regulation
[1], [2],[3], [4]
[1] Lessig, Lawrence. “The New Chicago School.” Journal of Legal Studies 27, no. June (1998): 661–91.
[2] Brownsword, Roger. “Code, Control, and Choice: Why East Is East and West Is West.” Legal Studies 25 (2005): 1–21.
[3] Brownsword, Roger. “Neither East Nor West, Is Mid-West Best?” Script-Ed 3, no. 1 (2006): 15–33.
[4] Murray, Andrew. The Regulation of Cyberspace: Control in the Online Environment. New York, Abingdon: Routledge-
Cavendish, 2007.

22. Law
Social Norms
Markets
Norms
* Indirection [1]
* Plasticity [1]
* Polycentric Regulation [2]
* Functional Simplification [3]
* Closure [3]
* CBPP vs. Extractive Techs [4], [5]
[1] Lessig, Lawrence. Code : Version 2.0 ; Lawrence Lessig. New York: BasicBooks ; [London : Perseus Running,
distributor], 2006.
[2] Black, Julia. “Proceduralising Regulation: Part I.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 20, no. 4 (2000): 597–614.
Black, Julia. “Proceduralising Regulation: Part II.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 21, no. 1 (2001): 33–58.
[3] Kallinikos, Jannis. The Consequences of Information : Institutional Implications of Technological Change.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2006. Table of contents only http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip0613/2006014313.html.
[4] Benkler, Yochai. The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven
and London: Yale University Press, 2006.
[5] Kallinikos, Jannis. (2011). Governing through technology: Information artefacts and social practice. Palgrave
Macmillan.

23. 5
On Method

24. (a) the issue of the unit of analysis [1]
(b) journeys of norms [2]
(c) disassembling regulatory artefacts [3]
(d) a two stages analysis
methodological concerns
[1] Latour, Bruno. Reassembling the Social : An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
[2] Bruno Latour, and Christophe Leclercq, eds. Reset Modernity! MIT Press, 2016.
[3] Aaltonen, Aleksi, and Giovan Francesco Lanzara. "Building governance capability in
online social production: insights from Wikipedia." Organization Studies 36.12 (2015):
1649-1673.

25. 6
Cases

27. (1) Modalities used:
- Law
(2) Community Involvement
- Low
(3) Approach
- Reactive
(4) Supra-national involvement
- Recipient
(5) Mode
Top down
(6) Scale
national

29. (1) Modalities used:
- Law
- Community
- Market
- Social Norms
(2) Community Involvement
- High
(3) Approach
- Proactive
- Incremental
(4) Supra-national involvement
- Interactive
(5) Mode
Top down
(6) Scale
local-national-global

31. (1) Modalities used:
- Technology
- Community
- Market
- Social Norms
(2) Community Involvement
- High
(3) Approach
- Proactive
- Incremental
(4) Supra-national involvement
- Interactive
(5) Mode
bottom up
(6) Scale
local-EU-global

33. (1) Modalities used:
- Law
- Market
- Social Norms
(2) Community Involvement
- High
(3) Approach
- Proactive
- Incremental
(4) Supra-national involvement
- Provider
- Interactive
(5) Mode
top down and market driven
(6) Scale
national-local-EU-global

34. 7
Conclusions

35. Understanding of the need for reg-intervention
In favour of transnational regulation (the EU effect)
Local-National-Global issue (polycentric regulation)
Need for pro-active regulation
Need for smart and tech-driven regulation
Leverage the regulatory capacity of the platform
Regulatory Accelerationism
Regulate or be Regulated

36. q a&
p.tsiavos@sgt.gr
karounos@netmode.ntua.gr
petros@math.ntua.gr
@prodromos
@karounosIPP2016 23.09.16