Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Platform as a mirror 23 09_16_pdf


Published on

Objective of this paper is to explore the features of different regulatory cultures and systems through their interactions with mega-platforms. By developing a taxonomy around the regulatory and policy responses to the advent of mega-platforms, we are able to better understand both the mechanics and the nature of a regulatory culture .

Our main argument is that the more polycentric or multi-modal a regulatory system is, the more likely it is to be able to provide an adequate response to the invasion of mega-platforms in its habitat.

Published in: Law
  • Login to see the comments

  • Be the first to like this

Platform as a mirror 23 09_16_pdf

  1. 1. Platform as a Mirror Understanding Regulatory Cultures Through their interaction with Megaplatforms Dr. Prodromos Tsiavos Theodoros Karounos Dr. Petros Stefaneas IPP2016 23.09.16
  2. 2. Impetus Hypothesis Key Issues Regulatory Approaches On Method Cases Conclusions
  3. 3. 1 Impetus
  4. 4. * 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
  5. 5. * 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
  6. 6. * part of the FabLab global network * collaboration with IAAC * part of the p2p economy project * FabCity
  7. 7. * 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
  8. 8. 2 Hypothesis
  9. 9. Regulatory Responses to Sharing Economy Platforms reflect the regulatory maturity of any given jurisdiction Hypothesis
  10. 10. 3 Key issues
  11. 11. 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)
  12. 12. 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
  13. 13. 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
  14. 14. 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
  15. 15. 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
  16. 16. 4 Regulatory approaches
  17. 17. 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.
  18. 18. 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 [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.
  19. 19. 5 On Method
  20. 20. (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.
  21. 21. 6 Cases
  22. 22. (1) Modalities used: - Law (2) Community Involvement - Low (3) Approach - Reactive (4) Supra-national involvement - Recipient (5) Mode Top down (6) Scale national
  23. 23. (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
  24. 24. (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
  25. 25. (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
  26. 26. 7 Conclusions
  27. 27. 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
  28. 28. q a& @prodromos @karounosIPP2016 23.09.16