No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
The Uberisation of Everything
Abstract
This chapter addresses the rise of platforms through the lens of platform economics, a particular sub-field of microeconomics active since the dot-com era. This field has developed important insights into specific tactics of platform influence. Key focus areas include the use of ‘steering’ tactics to engineer value-sharing, relational forms of platform intermediation and the framing of markets through the lens of platform ecosystems. This chapter addresses not only the widespread advocacy of platform business models across diverse economies, but also how data accumulation has emerged as a significant tactic of market ‘steering’ and value extraction within platform ecosystems, which ensure platform companies can leverage programmability and interconnection in order to entrench value capture and also influence. The financialisation of platform intermediation is also discussed in the context of key urban services, including office space provision, design and construction and transportation. The integration of platform intermediation and financialisation, achieved in the context of datafication, is discussed as being critical to the constantly speculative pursuit of platform scale.
... As much of daily life became even more enmeshed with 'the digital,' communication and on-demand consumption platforms took on a central role in mediating relations between cities and citizens. This encourages viewing current changes and trends through the analytical lens of "platform urbanism" (Barns, 2019(Barns, , 2020Graham, 2020;Hodson, Kasmire, McMeekin, Stehlin, & Ward, 2021;Lee, Mackenzie, Smith, & Box, 2020;Leszczynski, 2020). Going beyond the techno-capitalist narrative of technologically-determined and pervasive platformization, however, the paper presents an account of platformization using the city of Graz in Austria as a case study. ...
... Using buzzwords such as "platform capitalism" (Srnicek, 2017), "gig economy," and "Uberization of Everything" (Barns, 2020), digital platforms have increasingly been regarded in recent years as conceptual frameworks for analyzing and comprehending contemporary social, economic, and spatial processes. Alternating between futuristic promises and dystopian warnings, however, the historical and geographical embeddedness of platforms is too often neglected. ...
... The increasing influence of platform economies in cities has led to the term "platform urbanism" (Barns, 2019(Barns, , 2020Graham, 2020;Hodson et al., 2021;Lee et al., 2020). Platform urbanism can be understood as a mode of production of space in which platforms are central in the dynamic formation of socio-technical relations between urban space and people. ...
Digital platforms have become an increasingly central concept for reflecting societal processes, but the historical and spatial embeddedness of platformization is often neglected as dystopian warnings and promises of efficiency take center stage. The Covid-19 pandemic has further intensified discussion and speculation regarding the future of digital platforms and changing everyday routines in (post-)pandemic cities. Drawing on the case study of Graz (Austria), this paper expands generalized speculation by a concrete exploration of what alternative platform futures in (post-)pandemic cities might hold. The underlying aims are to identify case-specific socio-spatial dynamics with respect to the platformization of on-demand food delivery in Graz and to explore in what ways these dynamics were influenced by the pandemic.
The article contextualizes the development of food delivery platforms in Europe, taking into consideration long-term enabling conditions such as neoliberal restructuring, financialization and the crisis of social reproduction, but also the boom of delivery platforms during the ‘lockdowns’ related to the Covid-19 pandemic. The case study draws on qualitative interviews with company officials, delivery workers, union representatives and restaurant owners to investigate the platforms' disruptive and unequal effects. Through this storying of the development of the platform economy for food deliveries in Graz from various perspectives in the pandemic city of the year 2020, the study challenges the narrative of a capital-driven and pervasive platformization. At the same time, the findings point out limitations of the local alternative platform model and contribute to the critical discourse on urban platforms.
... Entrepreneurial firms assemble diverse technologies, and their associated solutions, to construct and stably fill new market niches (Stuart and Podolny 2007). Consider the phrase "this company is the 'Uber' of X", repeated on nearly 200,000 websites and across thousands of start-up descriptions and commentaries, where X represents everything from private jets and houses to mobile gyms, gasoline and garbage (Barns 2020;Cornelissen and Cholakova 2021). ...
Modularity is critical for the emergence and evolution of complex social, natural, and technological systems robust to exploratory failure. We consider this in the context of emerging business organizations, which can be understood as complex systems. We build a theory of organizational emergence as higher-order, modular recombination wherein successful start-ups assemble novel combinations of successful modular components, rather than engage in the lower-order combination of disparate, singular components. Lower-order combinations are critical for long-term socio-economic transformation, but manifest diffuse benefits requiring support as public goods. Higher-order combinations facilitate rapid experimentation and attract private funding. We evaluate this with U.S. venture-funded start-ups over 45 years using company descriptions. We build a dynamic semantic space with word embedding models constructed from evolving business discourse, which allow us to measure the modularity of and distance between new venture components. Using event history models, we demonstrate how ventures more likely achieve successful IPOs and high-priced acquisitions when they combine diverse modules of clustered components. We demonstrate how higher-order combination enables venture success by accelerating firm development and diversifying investment, and we reflect on its implications for social innovation.
... At the societal level, the 'sharing economy' has also been criticized for promoting the commoditization (Belk 2010) or 'Uberisation' of everything (Barns 2020). An example is the possibility to pay an extra fee in exchange for silence from a ride hailing driver (Uber Comfort mode). ...
Sharing is a complex system of resource allocation at the crossroad of developing businesses (e.g., the ‘sharing economy’) and promising societal and environmental impacts. Yet, it is suffering from adoption problems (e.g., vandalism, unwarranted privatisation, reluctance) that call for more ergonomics research. In order to contribute to research on sharing within human factors and ergonomics, the evolution of sharing is synthesised to highlight its roots, developments and societal outcomes. A subset of sharing activities, sharing physical objects, is identified. In order to provide common ground to researchers and practitioners it is defined as ‘a cooperative and distributive behavior where a user does not have exclusive interactions with a material resource which is, then, enjoyed in common’. A lack of research on shared physical objects within human factors and ergonomics is identified. Finally, seven shareability criteria (Governance, Utility, Balanced appropriation, Cooperativity, Durability, Decontamination, Onboarding/Support) are proposed in order to support practitioners when designing experiences that include sharing physical things.
Since the establishment of commercial sharing economy services like Uber, Blablacar, Lyft, Airbnb, TaskRabbit, etc., the debate about the sharing economy and its effects on competition has generated lively discussions, which have too often dangerously departed from a debate based on objective (market) observation to evolve into a quarrel among the supporters and opponents of the online platforms. Undoubtedly, the peculiar features of these new firms’ business models create frictions with the traditional regulatory environment, which currently appears to be incapable of framing them into models and schemes typical of a previous economic phase, such as, for example, one-sided markets, no externalities, and competition mainly on price. Nevertheless, setting aside the more or less impromptu debate about the “social goodness” of these firms, we argue that competition enforcers should look at their effective market power. In fact, as the basic principles of competition law teach us, only when those firms have (more or less legitimate) significant market power, will they be subject to special responsibilities and to stringent restrictions and obligations. Toward this aim, it is first necessary to define the relevant market. And, immediately afterwards, to delimit firms’ market position. This, in turn, should help to assess their compliance with the competition rules and the obligations that they are – or rather that they should be – subjected to. This exercise is not an easy one because the traditional regulatory concepts and definitions do not seem to reflect the competition dynamics that characterise the new markets on which we are reflecting. In this paper we focus on a number of challenges that are posed by the sharing economy businesses, suggesting that they could be solved with the traditional competition instruments, although adapted to the peculiar features of the markets that are at stake. These include, among others, multi-sidedness and the presence of different externalities.
The sharing economy, often phrased as ‘platform capitalism’, enables firms such as Uber and Airbnb to monetize, through specific technologies of mediation, the networks, the assets and the precarious labour of those who are described as ‘the entrepreneurs of sharing’. This article explores the urban geographies of ride‐sharing in the marketization of Uber in Cape Town, South Africa. I use empirical evidence collected during the first phase of its operations in the city, between 2013 and 2015, to show how Uber relied upon the developmental entrepreneurialism of Cape Town to embed its ride‐sharing market locally, and how the drivers enacted multiple technical, economic and ethical regimes within and without the constraints of the software platform. The research presented in this article thus contributes to understanding how the discourses of millennial development, with its promises of entrepreneurial empowerment, are adopted by global sharing‐economy firms to enact their markets in the global South. It also reveals how a different genealogy of Uber's urban transactions offers an alternative perspective on the normative rationalities of the sharing economy and on the diverse economies that exist in relation to platform capitalism in the global South.
Recognising the need to move beyond simplistic ‘smart city in a box’ solutions, which ignore complex local conditions and have failed to unlock substantive citizen engagement, today’s cities are no longer heralded as ‘smart’ simply by virtue of the technologies that underpin them, but through the ‘platforms’ they establish for ‘co-creation’ and ‘open innovation’.
The production of these platforms is being shaped by a third wave of open data publishing, characterized by new data infomediaries such as Seattle-based start up Socrata, who offer cloud publishing services to governments seeking to ‘make data social’: easily embeddable, visualized and appified. The take up of these services by city governments across the US and beyond suggest these proprietary platforms play increasingly strategic roles in the progress of localised urban innovation agendas, with service offerings closely aligned to the priorities of governments and other interest groups aiming to foster citizen engagement and government transparency in urban decision making.
However questions remain as to how these entrepreneurial agents act as quasi-public urban players, including questions of data ownership, forms of urban knowledge privileged by data scientists; questions of public access to data and the data infomediary’s role in smart urbanism policy transfer. As it begins to address these questions, this paper will be presenting initial findings of an empirical analysis of Socrata’s growth not only as an open data publishing platform (SODA) but as a new urban actor, while offering critical reflections on the emergent politics of urban knowledge transfer within networked public space.
The ‘sharing economy’ has become a new buzzword in urban life as digital technology companies set up online platforms to link together people and un- or underutilised assets with those seeking to rent them for short periods of time. While cloaked under the rhetoric of ‘sharing’, the exchanges they foster are usually profit-driven. These economic activities are having profound impacts on urban environments as they disrupt traditional forms of hospitality, transport, service industry and housing. While critical debates have focused on the challenges that sharing economy activities bring to existing labour and economic practices, it is necessary to acknowledge that they also have increasingly significant impacts on planning policy and urban governance. Using the case of Airbnb in London, this article looks at how these sharing or platform economy companies are involved in encouraging governments to change existing regulations, in this case by deregulating short-term letting. This has important implications for planning enforcement. We examine how the challenges around obtaining data to enforce new regulations are being addressed by local councils who struggle to balance corporate interests with public good. Finally, we address proposals for using algorithms and big data as means of urban governance and argue that the schism between regulation and enforcement is opening up new digitally mediated spaces of informal practices in cities.
Current research on the sharing or collaborative economy has by large adopted a user-centric approach, and studies at the meso-level (firm/organization level) have received little attention and is called for both in the literature and by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). This paper contributes to the meso-level by presenting a framework — a typology — based on the literature and an analysis of 54 services in the collaborative economy (e.g., Airbnb, Uber, and Blablacars). The paper suggest that when classifying sharing services, we need to direct our analytical lens to dimensions from the organization and strategy literature, such as two-sided business models and organizing principles, network effects and value, and other strategic dimensions. A definition of the collaborative economy that includes these dimensions is proposed, which is helpful for regulators, start-ups, and for researchers in avoiding research flaws.
Current research on the sharing or collaborative economy has by large adopted a user-centric approach, and studies at the meso-level (firm/organization level) have received little attention and is called for both in the literature and by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). This paper contributes to the meso-level by presenting a framework — a typology — based on the literature and an analysis of 54 services in the collaborative economy (e.g., Airbnb, Uber, and Blablacars). The paper suggest that when classifying sharing services, we need to direct our analytical lens to dimensions from the organization and strategy literature, such as two-sided business models and organizing principles, network effects and value, and other strategic dimensions. A definition of the collaborative economy that includes these dimensions is proposed, which is helpful for regulators, start-ups, and for researchers in avoiding research flaws.
Airbnb and other short-term rental services are a topic of increasing interest and concern for urban researchers, policymakers and activists, because of the fear that short-term rentals are facilitating gentrification. This article presents a framework for analyzing the relationship between short-term rentals and gentrification, an exploratory case study of New York City, and an agenda for future research. We argue that Airbnb has introduced a new potential revenue flow into housing markets which is systematic but geographically uneven, creating a new form of rent gap in culturally desirable and internationally recognizable neighbourhoods. This rent gap can emerge quickly—in advance of any declining property income— and requires minimal new capital to be exploited by a range of different housing actors, from developers to landlords, tenants and homeowners. Performing spatial analysis on three years of Airbnb activity in New York City, we measure new capital flows into the short- term rental market, identify neighbourhoods whose housing markets have already been significantly impacted by short-term, identify neighbourhoods which are increasingly under threat of Airbnb-induced gentrification, and measure the amount of rental housing lost to Airbnb. Finally, we conclude by offering a research agenda on gentrification and the sharing economy.
The growing collaborative consumption movement has evolved significantly in the age of Web 2.0. While much of the research has focused on its economic aspects, there are also practices that have gone largely unnoticed. This article illustrates the range of these practices by proposing a typology that accounts for the various currencies exchanged and digital technologies used to promote sharing of goods and services. This article focuses on the social aspects of the collaborative consumption movement to construct a full picture of the concept. It presents a case study of an Australian grassroots community group, MamaBake, which promotes the communal cooking and sharing of meals between mothers, and shows that even non-monetary currencies, such as the shared norms of reciprocity used by MamaBake, can be stigmatizing under certain circumstances. In doing so, it imagines alternative manifestations of the collaborative consumption movement that go beyond market orientation and instead focuses on promoting soft, non-economic values.
As ever more policy-makers, governments and organisations turn to the gig economy and digital labour as an economic development strategy to bring jobs to places that need them, it becomes important to understand better how this might influence the livelihoods of workers. Drawing on a multi-year study with digital workers in Sub-Saharan Africa and South-east Asia, this article highlights four key concerns for workers: bargaining power, economic inclusion, intermediated value chains, and upgrading. The article shows that although there are important and tangible benefits for a range of workers, there are also a range of risks and costs that unduly affect the livelihoods of digital workers. Building on those concerns, it then concludes with a reflection on four broad strategies – certification schemes, organising digital workers, regulatory strategies and democratic control of online labour platforms – that could be employed to improve conditions and livelihoods for digital workers.
How does one value something one cannot and often does not want to see? How do contemporary digital platforms and their infrastructures of connectivity, evaluation, and surveillance affect this relationship between value and visibility, when it is mediated through the problem of labor as at once a commodity and a lived experience? And how can these infrastructures be mobilized in projects that aim to build different kinds of platforms – the kinds that support the revaluation low-income service work? This essay addresses these questions by examining the gendered, racialized, and classed distribution of opportunities and vulnerabilities associated with digitally mediated service work, or what I call platform labor. The argument will unfold in four parts. First, I briefly situate the ‘on-demand’ economy within the context of neoliberal socio-economic reforms that have, over the past four decades, shaped our present circumstances. Second, I argue that labor platforms should be understood as new players in the temporary staffing industry, whose devices and practices exacerbate the already precarious conditions of contingent workers in today’s low-income service economy. They do so by (1) bolstering the immunity of platform intermediaries and clients, (2) by expanding managerial control over workers, and (3) by orchestrating a pervasive sense of fungibility and superfluity with respect to this workforce. Third, after a short overview of the gendered and racialized history of service work, I analyze how this history extends into the networked present of our platform economy. Finally, I address the potential of ethnography, on the one hand, and platform cooperativism, on the other, to critically empower low-income service workers operating through platforms.
Investment in the release of open data has become increasingly central to the implementation of smart city programs by governments around the world. Though originally arising out of a push towards “open government” and the pursuit of more transparent decision-making by public authorities at multiple scales, open data programs have more recently been adopted by municipal governments to support entrepreneurial goals of enhanced competitive positioning and attracting investment. As urban scholars now subject the smart city project to critical scrutiny for its role in advancing urban entrepreneurialism, this article considers the relevance of the open data agenda as it shapes wider understandings of the smart city. In particular, I address the collection of policy practices, aspirations, stakeholders and entrepreneurs active in framing the opportunities and values of open data for urban governments. Both the momentum of support for open data, along with a recent shift in the rhetorical aspirations of the open data movement away from the values of openness and transparency and towards a more confined focus on value generation, raise important critical questions for urban geographers concerned with the nature of urban governance in an age of big data.
Smart urbanism is emerging at the intersection of visions for the future of urban places, new technologies and infrastructures. Smart urbanism discourses are deeply rooted in seductive and normative visions of the future where digital technology stands as the primary driver for change. Yet our understanding of the opportunities, challenges, and implications of smart urbanism is limited. Research in this field is in its infancy, fragmented along disciplinary lines and often based on single city case studies. As a result, we lack both the theoretical insight and empirical evidence required to assess the implications of this potentially transformative phenomenon. Given the significant implications of smart urbanism there is an urgent need to critically engage with why, how, for whom and with what consequences smart urbanism is emerging in different urban contexts. The aim of this review is to unpack the different logics and rationales behind smart urbanism discourses and proposals, and in this way understand the ways by which imaginaries of urban futures are currently being constructed, along with their socio-technical and political implications for future research priorities.
On 4 November 2011, the trademark ‘smarter cities’ was officially registered as belonging to IBM. This was an important milestone in a struggle between IT companies over visibility and legitimacy in the smart city market. Drawing on actor-network theory and critical planning theory, the paper analyzes IBM's smarter city campaign and finds it to be storytelling, aimed at making the company an ‘obligatory passage point’ in the implementation of urban technologies. Our argument unfolds in three parts. We first trace the emergence of the term ‘smart city’ in the public sphere. Secondly, we show that IBM's influential story about smart cities is far from novel but rather mobilizes and revisits two long-standing tropes: systems thinking and utopianism. Finally, we conclude, first by addressing two critical questions raised by this discourse: technocratic reductionism and the introduction of new moral imperatives in urban management; and second, by calling for the crafting of alternative smart city stories.
"Discusses how the Internet revolution has produced a powerful counterrevolution. The explosion of innovation we have seen in the environment of the Internet was not conjured from some new, previously unimagined technological magic; instead, it came from an ideal as old as the nation. Creativity flourished there because the Internet protected an innovation commons. The Internets very design built a neutral platform upon which the widest range of creators could experiment. The legal architecture surrounding it protected this free space so that culture and information--the ideas of our era--could flow freely and inspire an unprecedented breadth of expression. But this structural design is changing, both legally and technically."
We are witnessing the emergence of a ‘planetary labour market’ for digital work. Building on a five-year study of digital work in some of the world’s economic margins, we show a planetary labour market does not do away with geography, it rather exists to take advantage of it. Digital technologies have been deployed in order to bring into being a labour market that can operate at a planetary scale, and has particular affordances and limitations that rarely bolster both the structural and associational power of workers.
The “sharing economy” concept has been embraced by governments, entrepreneurs and commentators as delivering new forms of opportunity for local and national economies. Accommodation-sharing platform Airbnb is often considered a sharing economy exemplar, and has promoted itself as helping middle-class residents to gain and retain a foothold in expensive housing markets. This narrative is particularly salient in “global cities”, where poor housing affordability and high tourist demand inevitably coexist. However, critics claim many Airbnb listings are actually permanent short-term rentals. Thus, instead of enabling new efficiencies in the use of housing assets and providing financial security for existing residents, Airbnb may be a variation on an old theme: removing properties from the market for long-term rental or purchase. This paper has three aims: it critically interrogates the sharing economy concept in relation to Airbnb; it reviews the regulatory responses to Airbnb in five global cities; and it examines Airbnb listing data in each city. Ultimately, the paper argues that while some Airbnb listings do fit the sharing economy narrative, others are part of the traditional economy of short term letting. Policy makers need to recognise the different impacts of these uses in their responses to Airbnb and the sharing economy.
Problem, research strategy, and findings: The online accommodation platform Airbnb has expanded globally, raising substantial planning and regulatory concerns. We ask whether Airbnb rentals generate significant neighborhood impacts like noise, congestion, and competition for parking; reduce the permanent rental housing supply and increase rental prices; or provide income opportunities that help “hosts” afford their own housing. We focus on Sydney, the largest region in Australia with 4.4 million people in 28 individual municipalities, which has experienced both rapidly rising housing costs and exponential growth in Airbnb listings since 2011. Airbnb’s growth has raised concerns serious enough to result in a formal Parliamentary Inquiry by the state of New South Wales. We analyze stakeholder submissions to this inquiry and review local planning regulations, Airbnb listings data, and housing market and census statistics. We find that online homesharing platforms for visitor accommodations blur traditional boundaries between residential and tourist areas so Airbnb listings may fall outside of existing land use regulations or evade detection until neighbors complain. Our findings are constrained by the difficulties of monitoring online operations and the rapid changes in the industry.
Takeaway for practice: Planners and policymakers in cities with increasing numbers of Airbnb rentals need to review how well local planning controls manage the neighborhood nuisances, traffic, and parking problems that may be associated with them while acting to protect the permanent rental housing supply. Local planners need to ensure that zoning and residential development controls distinguish between different forms of short-term Airbnb accommodation listings and their potential impacts on neighborhoods and housing markets.
Introduction: Diverse Economies as a Performative Ontological ProjectBecoming Different Academic SubjectsThe Ethics of ThinkingNew Academic Practices and PerformancesConclusion
References
This Essay offers a framework to explain large-scale effective practices of sharing private, excludable goods. It starts with case studies of carpooling and distributed computing as motivating problems. It then suggests a definition for shareable goods as goods that are "lumpy" and "mid-grained" in size, and explains why goods with these characteristics will have systematic overcapacity relative to the requirements of their owners. The Essay next uses comparative transaction costs analysis, focused on information characteristics in particular, combined with an analysis of diversity of motivations, to suggest when social sharing will be better that secondary markets at reallocating this overcapacity to nonowners who require the functionality. The Essay concludes with broader observations about the attractiveness of sharing as a modality of economic production as compared to markets and to hierarchies such as firms and government. These observations include a particular emphasis on sharing practices among individuals who are strangers or weakly related; sharing's relationship to technological change; and some implications for contemporary policy choices regarding wireless regulation, intellectual property, and communications network design.
“Open government” used to carry a hard political edge: it referred to politically sensitive disclosures of government information. The phrase was first used in the 1950s, in the debates leading up to passage of the Freedom of Information Act. But over the last few years, that traditional meaning has blurred, and has shifted toward technology. Open technologies involve sharing data over the Internet, and all kinds of governments can use them, for all kinds of reasons. Recent public policies have stretched the label “open government” to reach any public sector use of these technologies. Thus, “open government data” might refer to data that makes the government as a whole more open (that is, more accountable to the public), but might equally well refer to politically neutral public sector disclosures that are easy to reuse, but that may have nothing to do with public accountability. Today a regime can call itself “open” if it builds the right kind of web site — even if it does not become more accountable. This shift in vocabulary makes it harder for policymakers and activists to articulate clear priorities and make cogent demands.This essay proposes a more useful way for participants on all sides to frame the debate: We separate the politics of open government from the technologies of open data. Technology can make public information more adaptable, empowering third parties to contribute in exciting new ways across many aspects of civic life. But technological enhancements will not resolve debates about the best priorities for civic life, and enhancements to government services are no substitute for public accountability.
How might academic practices contribute to the exciting proliferation of economic experiments occurring worldwide in the current moment? In this paper we describe the work of a nascent research community of economic geographers and other scholars who are making the choice to bring marginalized, hidden and alternative economic activities to light in order to make them more real and more credible as objects of policy and activism. The diverse economies research program is, we argue, a performative ontological project that builds upon and draws forth a different kind of academic practice and subjectivity. Using contemporary examples, we illustrate the thinking practices of ontological reframing, re-reading for difference and cultivating creativity and we sketch out some of the productive lines of inquiry that emerge from an experimental, performative and ethical orientation to the world. The paper is accompanied by an electronic bibliography of diverse economies research with over 200 entries.
This paper was the first initiative to try to define Web2.0 and understand its implications for the next generation of software, looking at both design patterns and business modes. Web 2.0 is the network as platform, spanning all connected devices; Web 2.0 applications are those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of that platform: delivering software as a continually-updated service that gets better the more people use it, consuming and remixing data from multiple sources, including individual users, while providing their own data and services in a form that allows remixing by others, creating network effects through an "architecture of participation," and going beyond the page metaphor of Web 1.0 to deliver rich user experiences.
There’s an Uber for Everything Now
- G Fowler
Open Data and the Politics of Transparency. European European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) General Conference
- J Gray
Gray, J. (2014). Open Data and the Politics of Transparency. European European
Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) General Conference 2014.
University of Glasgow, Glasgow.
Critical Legal Thinking: Law and the Political
- D Hugill
- T Slee
Hugill, D., & Slee, T. (2016). The Sharing Economy Blues. Critical Legal
Thinking: Law and the Political. Available from: http://criticallegalthinking.
com/2016/10/03/sharing-economy-blues/.
Towards Reimagining Governance: Mapping the Pathway Towards More Effective and Engaged Governance (GovLab Research Working Papers)
- G Research
Research, G. (2013). Towards Reimagining Governance: Mapping the Pathway
Towards More Effective and Engaged Governance (GovLab Research Working
Papers).
Open Government Directive
- P Orszag
Orszag, P. (2009). Open Government Directive. In The White House (Ed.),
Memorandum No. M-10-06.
Beyond Uber and Airbnb
- P C Rowe
- Pia C. M. Rowe
Rowe, P. C. M. (2017). Beyond Uber and Airbnb: The Social Economy of
Collaborative Consumption. Social Media + Society, 3, 1-10.
Ian Kalin Joins Socrata from the White House as Director of Open Data
- Socrata
Socrata. (2013). Ian Kalin Joins Socrata from the White House as Director of Open
Data.
Hear Steve Jobs, at the Dawn of App Store, Predict the Future of Mobile. The Information
- N Wingfield
Wingfield, N. (2018). Hear Steve Jobs, at the Dawn of App Store, Predict the
Future of Mobile. The Information.
Building and Managing the Intelligent City
- Accenture
Accenture. (2011). Building and Managing the Intelligent City.
Open Data and the G20: The Value Is There to Share. The Conversation
- S Barns
Barns, S. (2014a). Open Data and the G20: The Value Is There to Share. The
Conversation.
March 12). I Invented the Web. Here Are Three Things We Need to Change to Save It. The Guardian
- T Berners Lee
Berners Lee, T. (2017, March 12). I Invented the Web. Here Are Three Things
We Need to Change to Save It. The Guardian.
Airbnb Faces Worldwide Opposition. It Plans a Movement to Rise Up in Its Defence. The Guardian
- S Hickey
- F Cookney
Hickey, S., & Cookney, F. (2016, October 30). Airbnb Faces Worldwide
Opposition. It Plans a Movement to Rise Up in Its Defence. The Guardian.
Disruptive Innovation: Risk-Shifting and Precarity in the Age of Uber
- E Isaac
Isaac, E. (2014). Disruptive Innovation: Risk-Shifting and Precarity in the
Age of Uber (BRIE Working Paper 2014-7). Berkeley Roundtable on the
International Economy, University of Berkeley.
The Sharing Economy as an Urban Phenomenon. Yale Law and Policy Review
- M Nestor
- J Davidson
- J Infranca
Nestor, M., Davidson, J., & Infranca, J. (2016). The Sharing Economy as an
Urban Phenomenon. Yale Law and Policy Review, 34.
OGPD. (2011). Open Government Partnership Directive. In GOTUSO
America (Ed.), Changing the Culture of Government.
The Next Web: TED Talk
- T Berners Lee
Berners Lee, T. (2009). The Next Web: TED Talk. Available from: https://www.
ted.com/talks/tim_berners_lee_on_the_next_web.
Winter). The Making of Airbnb
- M Brown
Sir Tim Berners-Lee Speaks Out on Data Ownership. The Guardian
- A Hern
Hern, A. (2014, October 8). Sir Tim Berners-Lee Speaks Out on Data
Ownership. The Guardian.
Open Data: Where the Movement Started and Where It’s Headed
- G Solazo
October 6). The ‘Airbnb Effect’: Is It Real, and What Is It Doing to a City Like Amsterdam? The Guardian
- R Van Der Zee
Van der Zee, R. (2016, October 6). The 'Airbnb Effect': Is It Real, and What Is
It Doing to a City Like Amsterdam? The Guardian.
The Sharing Economy Blues
- D Hugill
- T Slee
Why Couldn’t BlackBerry Keep Up?
- F Abe
Why Couldn't BlackBerry Keep Up? Harvard Business School Digital Initiative
- F Abe
Abe, F. (2015). Why Couldn't BlackBerry Keep Up? Harvard Business School
Digital Initiative.
UK Department of Business Innovation and Skills Smart Cities Background Paper
- Bis
BIS. (2013). UK Department of Business Innovation and Skills Smart Cities Background Paper.