硅谷时代的城市权力:评价优步进入美国城市后的市政监管反应

IF 2.4 3区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY
A. Wolf
{"title":"硅谷时代的城市权力:评价优步进入美国城市后的市政监管反应","authors":"A. Wolf","doi":"10.1177/15356841211066931","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article recasts the debate over the employment status of gig economy workers as a question about the power of municipal governance. Gig employers are challenging urban regulatory regimes through their disavowal of an employment relationship and their refusal to obtain taxi licenses. As the recent literature argues, there has been a resurgence of municipal power driven by a labor-antipoverty coalition. One might view the gig economy’s independent contractor model as an attempt to circumvent this power. Analyzing the case of gig taxi companies like Uber, this article tracks the response of U.S. cities to a business model predicated on ignoring their regulations. Utilizing original data, this study investigates urban regulatory responses to Uber through descriptive statistics and multivariate modeling. The findings show that almost half of cities failed to regulate. Those that took action had historically greater levels of regulation and faced driver protests—a sign of a stronger labor-antipoverty coalition. Additional evidence indicates a learning effect in which cities became more likely to regulate over time. The article ends with a discussion of how workers and unions are responding to this challenge.","PeriodicalId":47486,"journal":{"name":"City & Community","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"City Power in the Age of Silicon Valley: Evaluating Municipal Regulatory Response to the Entry of Uber to the American City\",\"authors\":\"A. Wolf\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15356841211066931\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article recasts the debate over the employment status of gig economy workers as a question about the power of municipal governance. Gig employers are challenging urban regulatory regimes through their disavowal of an employment relationship and their refusal to obtain taxi licenses. As the recent literature argues, there has been a resurgence of municipal power driven by a labor-antipoverty coalition. One might view the gig economy’s independent contractor model as an attempt to circumvent this power. Analyzing the case of gig taxi companies like Uber, this article tracks the response of U.S. cities to a business model predicated on ignoring their regulations. Utilizing original data, this study investigates urban regulatory responses to Uber through descriptive statistics and multivariate modeling. The findings show that almost half of cities failed to regulate. Those that took action had historically greater levels of regulation and faced driver protests—a sign of a stronger labor-antipoverty coalition. Additional evidence indicates a learning effect in which cities became more likely to regulate over time. The article ends with a discussion of how workers and unions are responding to this challenge.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47486,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"City & Community\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"City & Community\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15356841211066931\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"City & Community","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15356841211066931","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

本文将围绕零工经济工人就业状况的争论重新定位为一个关于市政治理权力的问题。零工雇主通过解除雇佣关系和拒绝获得出租车执照,正在挑战城市监管制度。正如最近的文献所述,在劳工反贫困联盟的推动下,市政权力重新抬头。有人可能会认为,零工经济的独立承包商模式是一种规避这种权力的尝试。本文分析了像Uber这样的零工出租车公司的案例,追踪了美国城市对这种以无视监管为基础的商业模式的反应。本研究利用原始数据,通过描述性统计和多元模型研究城市对Uber的监管反应。调查结果显示,几乎一半的城市没有进行监管。那些采取行动的国家历来监管力度更大,面临司机抗议——这是劳工反贫困联盟更强大的一个迹象。其他证据表明,随着时间的推移,城市变得更有可能进行监管,这是一种学习效应。文章最后讨论了工人和工会如何应对这一挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
City Power in the Age of Silicon Valley: Evaluating Municipal Regulatory Response to the Entry of Uber to the American City
This article recasts the debate over the employment status of gig economy workers as a question about the power of municipal governance. Gig employers are challenging urban regulatory regimes through their disavowal of an employment relationship and their refusal to obtain taxi licenses. As the recent literature argues, there has been a resurgence of municipal power driven by a labor-antipoverty coalition. One might view the gig economy’s independent contractor model as an attempt to circumvent this power. Analyzing the case of gig taxi companies like Uber, this article tracks the response of U.S. cities to a business model predicated on ignoring their regulations. Utilizing original data, this study investigates urban regulatory responses to Uber through descriptive statistics and multivariate modeling. The findings show that almost half of cities failed to regulate. Those that took action had historically greater levels of regulation and faced driver protests—a sign of a stronger labor-antipoverty coalition. Additional evidence indicates a learning effect in which cities became more likely to regulate over time. The article ends with a discussion of how workers and unions are responding to this challenge.
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
City & Community
City & Community Multiple-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
8.00%
发文量
27
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信