在平台经济中维护公共利益

IF 4.1 1区文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION

Policy and Internet Pub Date : 2019-07-31 DOI:10.1002/POI3.217

K. Frenken, A. V. Waes, P. Pelzer, M. Smink, R. Est

{"title":"在平台经济中维护公共利益","authors":"K. Frenken, A. V. Waes, P. Pelzer, M. Smink, R. Est","doi":"10.1002/POI3.217","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the main public interests at stake with the rise of online platforms in the sharing economy and the gig economy. We do so by analyzing platforms in five sectors in the Netherlands: domestic cleaning (Helpling), taxi rides (UberPop), home restaurants (AirDnD), home sharing (Airbnb), and car sharing (SnappCar). The most salient public interests are a level playing field between platforms and industry incumbents, tax compliance, consumer protection, labor protection, and privacy protection. We develop four policy options (enforce, new regulation, deregulation, and toleration), and discuss the rationales for each option in safeguarding each public interest. We further stress that arguments supporting a particular policy option should take into account the sectoral context. We finally highlight the tension between the subsidiarity principle, which would call for local regulations as platforms mostly concern local transactions and innovation policies that aim to support innovation and a single digital market.","PeriodicalId":46894,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Internet","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/POI3.217","citationCount":"34","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Safeguarding Public Interests in the Platform Economy\",\"authors\":\"K. Frenken, A. V. Waes, P. Pelzer, M. Smink, R. Est\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/POI3.217\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article examines the main public interests at stake with the rise of online platforms in the sharing economy and the gig economy. We do so by analyzing platforms in five sectors in the Netherlands: domestic cleaning (Helpling), taxi rides (UberPop), home restaurants (AirDnD), home sharing (Airbnb), and car sharing (SnappCar). The most salient public interests are a level playing field between platforms and industry incumbents, tax compliance, consumer protection, labor protection, and privacy protection. We develop four policy options (enforce, new regulation, deregulation, and toleration), and discuss the rationales for each option in safeguarding each public interest. We further stress that arguments supporting a particular policy option should take into account the sectoral context. We finally highlight the tension between the subsidiarity principle, which would call for local regulations as platforms mostly concern local transactions and innovation policies that aim to support innovation and a single digital market.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46894,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Policy and Internet\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/POI3.217\",\"citationCount\":\"34\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Policy and Internet\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/POI3.217\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy and Internet","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/POI3.217","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 34

摘要

本文探讨了共享经济和零工经济中在线平台的兴起所涉及的主要公共利益。我们通过分析荷兰五个行业的平台来做到这一点:家庭清洁(Helpling)、出租车(UberPop)、家庭餐馆(airnd)、家庭共享(Airbnb)和汽车共享(SnappCar)。最突出的公共利益是平台和行业现有企业之间的公平竞争环境、税收合规、消费者保护、劳动保护和隐私保护。我们提出了四种政策选择(强制执行、新规定、放松管制和容忍)，并讨论了每种选择在维护每种公共利益方面的基本原理。我们进一步强调，支持特定政策选择的论据应考虑到部门背景。我们最后强调了辅助性原则之间的紧张关系，这将要求地方法规，因为平台主要涉及当地交易和旨在支持创新和单一数字市场的创新政策。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Safeguarding Public Interests in the Platform Economy

This article examines the main public interests at stake with the rise of online platforms in the sharing economy and the gig economy. We do so by analyzing platforms in five sectors in the Netherlands: domestic cleaning (Helpling), taxi rides (UberPop), home restaurants (AirDnD), home sharing (Airbnb), and car sharing (SnappCar). The most salient public interests are a level playing field between platforms and industry incumbents, tax compliance, consumer protection, labor protection, and privacy protection. We develop four policy options (enforce, new regulation, deregulation, and toleration), and discuss the rationales for each option in safeguarding each public interest. We further stress that arguments supporting a particular policy option should take into account the sectoral context. We finally highlight the tension between the subsidiarity principle, which would call for local regulations as platforms mostly concern local transactions and innovation policies that aim to support innovation and a single digital market.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Policy and Internet Multiple-

CiteScore

8.40

自引率

10.20%

发文量

期刊介绍： Understanding public policy in the age of the Internet requires understanding how individuals, organizations, governments and networks behave, and what motivates them in this new environment. Technological innovation and internet-mediated interaction raise both challenges and opportunities for public policy: whether in areas that have received much work already (e.g. digital divides, digital government, and privacy) or newer areas, like regulation of data-intensive technologies and platforms, the rise of precarious labour, and regulatory responses to misinformation and hate speech. We welcome innovative research in areas where the Internet already impacts public policy, where it raises new challenges or dilemmas, or provides opportunities for policy that is smart and equitable. While we welcome perspectives from any academic discipline, we look particularly for insight that can feed into social science disciplines like political science, public administration, economics, sociology, and communication. We welcome articles that introduce methodological innovation, theoretical development, or rigorous data analysis concerning a particular question or problem of public policy.