Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-ns2hh Total loading time: 0.574 Render date: 2022-10-04T21:25:41.607Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Ordo-Responsibility in the Sharing Economy: A Social Contracts Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2021

Stefan Hielscher
Affiliation:
University of Bath
Sebastian Everding
Affiliation:
Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg
Ingo Pies
Affiliation:
Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg

Abstract

Can private companies legitimately regulate sharing markets, and if yes, how? Whereas scholars have either criticized sharing platforms for expanding into private and public arenas or welcomed them to counterbalance encroaching government regulations, studies document their unbridled popularity. On the basis of a special version of social contracts theory pioneered by James Buchanan, we develop a heuristics that helps guide reasoning about the legitimacy of the sharing economy’s regulatory function. First, we discuss the conditions under which free and responsible individuals deliberately subject themselves to rules without their prior direct participation, that is, exit, voice, and constitutional limits. Second, we suggest sharing platforms can use novel ordo-responsibilities to establish a sharing constitution that takes these conditions into account. Third, we argue that sharing platforms can legitimately do so within an enabling institutional environment in society, the provision of which relies on the joint efforts of sharing platforms, political actors, and civil society.

Type
Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for Business Ethics

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Abrahao, B., Parigi, P., Gupta, A., & Karen, S. C. 2017. Reputation offsets trust judgments based on social biases among Airbnb users. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(37): 9848–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Acquier, A. 2018. Uberization meets organizational theory: Platform capitalism and the rebirth of the putting-out system. In Davidson, N., Finck, M., & Infranca, J. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the law of the sharing economy: 1326. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Acquier, A., Daudigeos, T., & Pinkse, J. 2017. Promises and paradoxes of the sharing economy: An organizing framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 125: 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Airbnb, . 2014. Host protection insurance. https://www.airbnb.com/host-protection-insurance.Google Scholar
Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. 2017. Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31: 211–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bai, G., & Velamuri, S. R. 2021. Contextualizing the sharing economy. Journal of Management Studies, 58: 9771001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbe, A.-S., & Hussler, C. 2019. “The war of the worlds won’t occur”: Decentralized evaluation systems and orders of worth in market organizations of the sharing economy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 143: 6475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckmann, M., & Pies, I. 2008. Ordo-responsibility—conceptual reflections towards a semantic innovation. In Conill, J., Lütge, C., & Schönwälder-Kuntze, T. (Eds.), Corporate citizenship, contractarianism and ethical theory: 87115. Farnham, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Berkowitz, H., & Souchaud, A. 2019. (Self-)regulation of sharing economy platforms through partial meta-organizing. Journal of Business Ethics, 159: 961–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bicchieri, C. 2005. The grammar of society—the nature and dynamics of social norms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binmore, K. 1989. Social contract I: Harsanyi and Rawls. The Economic Journal, 99(395): 84102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binmore, K. 1997. Just playing: Game theory and the social contract, vol. 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Binmore, K. 2005. Natural justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boettcher, E. 1980. Die Genossenschaft in der Marktwirtschaft—Einzelwirtschaftliche Theorie der Genossenschaften. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Bonus, H. 1986. The cooperative association as a business enterprise: A study in the economics of transactions. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 142: 310–39.Google Scholar
Bowles, S. 2009. Microeconomics: Behavior, institutions, and evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, G., & Buchanan, J. M. 1985. The reason of rules: Constitutional political economy. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brennan, J., & Jaworski, P. 2016. Markets without limits. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brescia, R. H. 2016. Regulating the sharing economy: New and old insights into an oversight regime for the peer-to-peer economy. Nebraska Law Review, 95(1): 87145.Google Scholar
Buchanan, J. M. 1975. The limits of liberty: Between anarchy and Leviathan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Buchanan, J. M. 1990. The domain of constitutional economics. Constitutional Political Economy, 1: 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burtch, G., Carnahan, S., & Greenwood, B. 2018. Can you gig it? An empirical examination of the gig economy and entrepreneurial activity. Management Science, 64(12): 5497–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Califf, C. B., Brooks, S., & Longstreet, P. 2020. Human-like and system-like trust in the sharing economy: The role of context and humanness. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 154: 119968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calo, R., & Rosenblat, A. 2017. The taking economy: Uber, information, and power. Columbia Law Review, 117(6): 1623–90.Google Scholar
Chaffee, E. C., & Rapp, G. C. 2012. Regulating online peer-to-peer lending in the aftermath of Dodd-Frank: In search of an evolving regulatory regime for an evolving industry. Washington and Lee Law Review, 69(2): 485533.Google Scholar
Chai, S., & Scully, M. 2019. It’s about distributing rather than sharing: Using labor process theory to robe the sharing economy. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(4): 943–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, M. K., Chevalier, J. A., Rossi, P. E., & Oehlsen, E. 2019.The value of flexible work: Evidence from Uber drivers. Journal of Political Economy, 127: 2735–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coase, R. H. 1937. The nature of the firm. Economica, 4(16): 386405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cockayne, D. G. 2016. Sharing and neoliberal discourse: The economic function of sharing in the digital on-demand economy. Geoforum, 77: 7382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, B., & Muñoz, P. 2016. Sharing cities and sustainable consumption and production: Towards an integrated framework, Journal of Cleaner Production, 134(A): 8797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conger, K. 2020. Uber and Lyft drivers in California will remain contractors. New York Times, November 4. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/04/technology/california-uber-lyft-prop-22.html.Google Scholar
Cowen, T. 2017. London’s Uber ban is a big Brexit mistake: Why would tech companies want to invest in the U.K. and subject themselves to such a slap in the face? Bloomberg View, September 22. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-09-22/london-s-uber-ban-is-a-big-brexit-mistake.Google Scholar
de Botton, A., & Chesky, B. 2015. The new art of travel. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Department of Industrial Relations. 2020. Labor commissioner’s office files lawsuits against Uber and Lyft for engaging in systemic wage theft. News release 2020-65, State of California, Salinas.Google Scholar
Dreyer, B., Lüdeke-Freund, F., Hamann, R., & Faccer, K. 2017. Upsides and downsides of the sharing economy: Collaborative consumption business models’ stakeholder value impacts and their relationship to context. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 125: 87104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egyptian Streets. 2018. “Fyonka” all-female ride hailing service seeks empowering Egyptian women. December 11. https://egyptianstreets.com/2018/12/11/fyonka-all-female-ride-hailing-service-seeks-empowering-egyptian-women/.Google Scholar
Etter, M., Fieseler, C., & Whelan, G. 2019. Sharing economy, sharing responsibility? Corporate social responsibility in the digital age. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(4): 935–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Court of Justice. 2017. The service provided by Uber connecting individuals with non-professional drivers is covered by services in the field of transport. Press release 136/17, Court of Justice of the European Union, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
Evans, M. S. 2009. Zelizer’s theory of money and the case of local currencies. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 41(5): 1026–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faillo, M., Ottone, S., & Sacconi, L. 2015. The social contract in the laboratory: An experimental analysis of self-enforcing impartial agreements. Public Choice, 163: 225–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farren, M., Koopman, C., & Mitchell, M. 2016. Rethinking taxi regulations: The case for fundamental reform. Arlington, VA: Mercatus Center at George Mason University.Google Scholar
Flyverbom, M., Deibert, R., & Matten, D. 2017. The governance of digital technology, big data, and the internet: New roles and responsibilities for business. Business and Society, 58(1): 319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geanakoplos, J., Pearce, D., & Stacchetti, E. 1989. Psychological games and sequential rationality. Games and Economic Behavior, 1(1): 6079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerwe, O., & Silva, R. 2020. Clarifying the sharing economy: Conceptualization, typology, antecedents, and effects. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34: 6596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greif, A. 2000. The fundamental problem of exchange: A research agenda in historical institutional analysis. European Review of Economic History, 4(3): 251–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimalda, G., & Sacconi, L. 2005. The constitution of the not-for-profit organisation: Reciprocal conformity to morality. Constitutional Political Economy, 16: 249–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, J. V., & Krueger, A. B. 2018. An analysis of the labor market for Uber’s driver-partners in the United States. ILR Review, 71(3): 705–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harsanyi, J. 1953. Cardinal utility in welfare economics and in the theory of risk-taking. Journal of Political Economy, 61: 434–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harsanyi, J. 1955. Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparisons of utility. Journal of Political Economy, 63: 309–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartl, B., Hofmann, E., & Kirchler, E. 2016. Do we need rules for “what’s mine is yours”? Governance in collaborative consumption communities. Journal of Business Research, 69(89): 2756–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasnas, J. 1998. The normative theories of business ethics: A guide for the perplexed. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(1): 1942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasnas, J. 2013. Teaching business ethics: The principles approach. Journal of Business Ethics Education, 10: 275304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, J. 2014. Morality, competition, and the firm: The market failures approach to business ethics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hielscher, S., Beckmann, M., & Pies, I. 2014. Participation versus consent: Should corporations be run according to democratic principles? Business Ethics Quarterly, 24(4): 533–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hielscher, S., & Everding, S. 2021. Trust me if you can: How can sharing institutions address contractual, property, and human rights? Unpublished manuscript, University of Bath.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hielscher, S., Winkin, J., Crack, A., & Pies, I. 2017. Saving the moral capital of NGOs: Identifying one-sided and many-sided social dilemmas in NGO Accountability. VOLUNTAS, 28(4): 1562–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschman, A. O. 1970. Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hobbes, T. 1642/1839. De Cive. London: Bohn.Google Scholar
Hobbes, T. 1651/1998. Leviathan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Horan, H. 2019. Uber’s “academic research” program: How to use famous economists to spread corporate narratives. Pro Market, December 5. https://promarket.org/ubers-academic-research-program-how-to-use-famous-economists-to-spread-corporate-narratives/.Google Scholar
Jaworski, P. 2014. An absurd tax on our fellow citizens: The ethics of rent seeking in the market failures (or self-regulation) approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(3): 467–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, I. 1795/1991. Perpetual peace: A philosophical sketch In Reiss, H. S. (Ed.), Kant: Political writings : 93130. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Katz, M. L. 2019. Platform economics and antitrust enforcement: A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 28(1): 138–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, V. 2015. Regulating the sharing economy. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 30(4): 10671126.Google Scholar
Koopman, C., Mitchell, M. D., & Thierer, A. D. 2015. The sharing economy and consumer protection regulation: The case for policy change. Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship, and the Law, 8(2): 529–45.Google Scholar
Kreps, D. M. 1990. Corporate culture and economic theory. In Alt, J. E. & Shepsle, K. A. (Eds.), Perspectives on positive political economy: 90143. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laamanen, T., Pfeffer, J., Rong, K., & Van de Ven, A. 2018. Editors’ introduction: Business models, ecosystems, and society in the sharing economy. Academy of Management Discovery, 4(3): 213–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, D. 2016. How Airbnb short-term rentals exacerbate Los Angeles’s affordable housing crisis: Analysis and policy recommendations. Harvard Law and Policy Review, 10: 229–53.Google Scholar
Lobel, O. 2019. Regulating the sharing economy: Self-governance, efficiency and values. Paper 19-419, San Diego Legal Studies.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luce, R. D., & Raiffa, H. 1957. Games and decisions: Introduction and critical survey. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Mair, J., & Reischauer, G. 2017. Capturing the dynamics of the sharing economy: Institutional research on the plural forms and practices of sharing economy organizations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 125: 1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, C. J. 2016. The sharing economy: A pathway to sustainability or a nightmarish form of neoliberal capitalism? Ecological Economics, 121: 149–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marzen, C., Prum, D. A., & Aalberts, R. J. 2017. The new sharing economy: The role of property, tort, and contract law for managing the Airbnb model. New York University Journal of Law and Business, 13(2): 295336.Google Scholar
Matten, D., & Crane, A. 2005. Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30(1): 166–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazzella, F., Sundararajan, A., D’Espous, V., & Möhlmann, M. 2016. How digital trust powers the sharing economy. IESE Insight, Third Quarter, 30: 2430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, J. 2016. Uber-positive: Why Americans love the sharing economy. New York: Encounter Books.Google Scholar
Munger, M. C. 2018. Tomorrow 3.0: Transaction costs and the sharing economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munger, M. C. 2019. Starting from where we are: The importance of the status quo in James Buchanan. In Wagner, R. E. (Ed.), James M. Buchanan: A theorist of political economy and social philosophy: 3964. Fairfax, VA: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Murillo, D., Buckland, H., & Val, E. 2017. When the sharing economy becomes neoliberalism on steroids: Unravelling the controversies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 125: 6676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nash, J. 1953. Two-person cooperative games. Econometrica, 21: 128–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
North, D. C. 1990. Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, M. 1965. The logic of collective action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
O’Reilly, T. 2017. WTF? What’s the future and why it’s up to us. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. G. 2006. Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66: 7188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parigi, P., State, B., Dakhlallah, D., Corten, R., & Cook, K. 2013. A community of strangers: The dis-embedding of social ties. PLOS ONE, 8(7): e67388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peticca-Harris, A., deGama, N., & Ravishankar, M. N. 2020. Postcapitalist precarious work and those in the “drivers” seat: Exploring the motivations and lived experiences of Uber drivers in Canada. Organization, 27(1): 3659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pies, I. 2011. Introduction: Corporate citizenship and new governance—The political role of corporations. In Pies, I. & Koslowski, P. (Eds.), Corporate citizenship and new governance—the political role of corporations: 16. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pies, I., Beckmann, M., & Hielscher, S. 2010. Value creation, management competencies, and global corporate citizenship: An ordonomic approach to business ethics in the age of globalization. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(2): 265–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pies, I., Beckmann, M., & Hielscher, S. 2014. The political role of the business firm: An ordonomic concept of corporate citizenship developed in comparison with the Aristotelian idea of individual citizenship. Business and Society, 53(2): 226–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pies, I., & Hielscher, S. 2019. Fighting corruption: How binding commitments of business firms can help to activate the self-regulating forces of competitive markets. Discussion paper 2019-04, Chair of Economic Ethics, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg.Google Scholar
Pies, I., Hielscher, S., & Beckmann, M. 2009. Moral commitments and the societal role of business: An ordonomic approach to corporate citizenship. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(3): 375401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pies, I., Hielscher, S., & Everding, S. 2020. Do hybrids impede sustainability? How semantic reorientations and governance reforms can produce and preserve sustainability in sharing business models. Journal of Business Research, 115: 174–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pies, I., & Koslowski, P. 2011. Corporate citizenship and new governance: The political role of corporations. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pies, I., & Sass, P. 2008. Wie sozialschädlich ist Korruption?—Ein Überblick zum Erkenntnis- stand der empirischen Forschung. In Pies, I. (Ed.), Wie bekämpft man Korruption? Lektionen der Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik für eine “Ordnungspolitik zweiter Ordnung”: 978. Berlin: wvb.Google Scholar
Pitas, C. 2021. Uber faces UK supreme court ruling on worker rights in gig economy test. Reuters, February 19. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-britain-idUSKBN2AJ007.Google Scholar
Posen, H. A. 2015. Ridesharing in the sharing economy: Should regulators impose über regulations on Uber. Iowa Law Review, 101(1): 405–34.Google Scholar
Prager University v. Google LLC, FKA Google, Inc., YouTube, LLC (Wash. 9th Cir., 2020).Google Scholar
Prakash, A., & Potoski, M. 2007. Collective action through voluntary environmental programs: A club theory perspective. Policy Studies Journal, 35(4): 773–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabin, M. 1993. Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. American Economic Review, 83(5): 1281–302.Google Scholar
Rao, P. S. 2017. Uber hit with new blow in London as panel says drivers aren’t self-employed. New York Times, November 10. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/10/business/uk-uber-london.html.Google Scholar
Rauf, A. A. 2021. New moralities for new media? Assessing the role of social media in acts of terror and providing points of deliberation for business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 170: 229–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ravenelle, A. 2017. Sharing economy workers: Selling, not sharing. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economics and Society, 10(2): 281–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reischauer, G., & Mair, J. 2018. How organizations strategically govern online communities: Lessons from the sharing economy. Academy of Management Discoveries, 4(3): 220–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenblat, A., & Stark, L. 2016. Algorithmic labor and information asymmetries: A case study of Uber’s drivers. International Journal of Communication, 10: 3758–82.Google Scholar
Schelling, T. 1960/2003. The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schelling, T. 2006. Strategies of commitment and other essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. 2011. The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48: 899931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Matten, D. 2009. Introduction to the special issue: Globalization as a challenge for business responsibilities. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(3): 327–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Matten, D. 2014. The business firm as a political actor: A new theory of the firm for a globalized world. Business and Society, 53(2): 143–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schor, J. B., Fitzmaurice, C., Carfagna, L. B., & Attwood-Charles, W. 2016. Paradoxes of openness and distinction in the sharing economy. Poetics, 54: 6681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schor, J. B., & Vallas, S. P. 2021. The sharing economy: Rhetoric and reality. Annual Review of Sociology, 47(1): 368–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Subbaraman, N. 2011. Airbnb’s small army of photographers are making you (and them) look good. Fast Company, October 17. http://www.fastcompany.com/1786980/airbnbs-small-army-photographers-are-making-you-and-them-look-good.Google Scholar
Suchman, M. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 571610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundararajan, A. 2016. The sharing economy: The end of employment and the rise of crowd-based capitalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. 2017. #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thierer, A., Koopman, C., Hobson, A., & Kuiper, C. 2016. How the internet, the sharing economy, and reputational feedback mechanisms solve the lemons problem. University of Miami Law Review, 70(3): 830–78.Google Scholar
Transport for London. 2017. Licensing decision on Uber London Limited. September 22. https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2017/september/licensing-decision-on-uber-london-limited.Google Scholar
Uzunca, B., Coen Rigtering, J. P., & Ozcan, P. 2018. Sharing and shaping: A cross-country comparison of how sharing economy firms shape their institutional environment to gain legitimacy. Academy of Management Discoveries, 4(3): 248–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westminster Magistrates’ Court. 2020. The matter of an appeal under the private hire vehicles. London: Westminster Magistrates’ Court.Google Scholar
Williamson, O. 1983. Credible commitments: Using hostages to support exchange. American Economic Review, 73(4): 519–40.Google Scholar
Williamson, O. 2010. Transaction cost economics: The natural progression. American Economic Review, 100(3): 673–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zingales, L., & Lancieri, F. M. 2019. Stigler committee on digital platforms. Chicago: Stigler Center.Google Scholar

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Ordo-Responsibility in the Sharing Economy: A Social Contracts Perspective
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Ordo-Responsibility in the Sharing Economy: A Social Contracts Perspective
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Ordo-Responsibility in the Sharing Economy: A Social Contracts Perspective
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *