Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T01:24:46.674Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is there a future for sharing? A comparison of traditional and new institutions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2017

ANDERS FREMSTAD
ANDERS FREMSTAD*
Affiliation:
Economics Department, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA
*
*Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The sharing economy has raised hopes that online platforms will usher in a new era of sharing, even though economic theory suggests that income growth may reduce sharing in the long run. This paper presents evidence that that high-income people are less likely than low-income people to use traditional institutions for sharing goods, including carpools, multi-person households, and garage sales. While it first appears that high-income people are equally likely to use new institutions, such as Craigslist, Airbnb, and Zipcar, this partly reflects the fact that many low-income households in the US still lack an internet connection. Conditional on having internet access, this paper finds that online sharing platforms are also disproportionately used by the poor. The future of sharing likely depends on countervailing forces. Economic growth may continue to dampen incentives to share goods, but this effect could be offset by the proliferation of institutions, norms, and preferences that facilitate sharing.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , August 2018 , pp. 595 - 616
Copyright
Copyright © Millennium Economics Ltd 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I would like to thank Mehmet Cansoy, Arin Dube, Nancy Folbre and two anonymous referees for their valuable comments and suggestions on this paper.

References

Becker, G. (1965), ‘A theory of the allocation of time’, The Economic Journal, 75 (299): 493–517.Google Scholar
Benkler, Y. (2004), ‘Sharing nicely: on shareable goods and the emergence of sharing as a modality of economic production’, Yale Law Journal, 114 (2): 273.Google Scholar
Buchanan, J. (1965), ‘An economic theory of clubs’, Economica, 32 (125): 1–14.Google Scholar
Buckley, E. and Croson, R. (2006), ‘Income and wealth heterogeneity in the voluntary provision of linear public goods’, Journal of Public Economics, 90 (4): 935–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardenas, J. (2003), ‘Real wealth and experimental cooperation: experiments in the field lab’, Journal of Development Economics, 70 (2): 263–89.Google Scholar
Center for a New American Dream (2014), New American Dream Poll [online], Available at: http://www.newdream.org/resources/poll-2014 [accessed 6 January 2017].Google Scholar
Economist, The (2013), ‘The rise of the sharing economy’, The Economist, 9 March.Google Scholar
Ferguson, E. (1997), ‘The rise and fall of the American carpool: 1970–1990’, Transportation, 24 (4): 349–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fremstad, A. (2016), ‘Sticky norms, endogenous preferences, and shareable goods’, Review of Social Economy, 74 (2): 194–214.Google Scholar
Fremstad, A. (2017), ‘Does Craigslist reduce waste? Evidence from California and Florida’, Ecological Economics, 132: 135–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klinenberg, E. (2012), Going Solo: The Extraordinary Rise and Surprising Appeal of Living Alone, New York: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
Krugman, P. (2015), ‘Apple and the self-surveillance state’, New York Times blog: The Conscience of a Liberal, 10 April.Google Scholar
Lauterbach, D., Truong, H., Shah, T. and Adamic, L. (2009), ‘Surfing a web of trust: reputation and reciprocity on CouchSurfing.com’, Paper presented at International Conference on Computational Science and Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, 29–31 August.Google Scholar
Menzel, P. (1994), Material World: A Global Family Portrait, San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1990), Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. and Basurto, X. , X. (2011), ‘Crafting analytical tools to study institutional change’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 7 (3), 317–43.Google Scholar
Putnam, R. D. (2001), Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Safner, R. (2016), ‘Institutional entrepreneurship, Wikipedia, and the opportunity of the commons’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 12 (4), 743–71.Google Scholar
Salcedo, A., Schoellman, T. and Tertilt, M. (2012), ‘Families as roommates: changes in US household size from 1850 to 2000.’ Quantitative Economics, 3 (1): 133–75.Google Scholar
Schor, J. (2014), ‘Debating the sharing economy’, The Great Transition Initiative, Boston, MA: Tellus Institute, available at www.tellus.org/tellus/publication/debating-the-sharing-economy (accessed 15 June 2017).Google Scholar
Sundararajan, A. (2016). The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of Crowd-Based Capitalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Varian, H. (2011), ‘Micromultinationals will run the world: and cheap robots will help them do it’, Foreign Policy, 15 August, available at http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/08/15/micromultinationals-will-run-the-world/ (accessed 15 June 2017).Google Scholar
Voigt, S. (2013), ‘How (not) to measure institutions’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 9 (1): 1–26.Google Scholar
Yates, L. (2016), ‘Sharing, households and sustainable consumption’, Journal of Consumer Culture, 39 (4): 881–98.Google Scholar
Zickuhr, K. and Rainie, L. (2011), ‘Wikipedia, past and present’, Washington, DC: Pew Research Center's Internet and Life Project.Google Scholar
Zipcar (2015), ‘A simple guide to successful car sharing’, available at http://www.zipcar.com/is-it/rules#6simplerules (accessed 6 January 2017).Google Scholar