Search results

In this chapter, we present fragments of previously unpublished correspondence between Ludwig Lachmann and G. L. S. Shackle on the nature of institutions. This correspondence allows us to rationally reconstruct a theory of institutions, which extends Lachmann’s theoretical work. Shackle pointed out to Lachmann that institutions might be inputs into economic activities and that they themselves may be reproduced and transformed by these activities. Lachmann in turn contended that institutions consist of “instruments of interpretation.” We develop the concept of “instruments of interpretation” as a subset of institutions. These instruments are mental models and cognitive tools which are (1) inputs complementary to capital goods (2) jointly produced, reproduced, and transformed through economic activity. We suggest that in contrast to privately produced capital goods, parts of the institutional infrastructure are produced jointly as shared goods because the use of certain institutional elements is non-exclusive and non-subtractable; these elements – instruments of interpretation – are produced and reproduced by sharing and contributions through a process of joint production. This chapter explicitly connects two different but essential themes in Lachmann’s work: capital, and institutions. By combining these two strands of Lachmann’s work, we are able to demonstrate that there is a cross-complementarity between institutional orders and capital structures. This connection in turn provides a thicker understanding of the workings of markets.

Attempts by mainstream economics to account for cooperative behavior expand the utility‐maximizing framework without questioning the individualistic set‐up on which it is grounded. This paper aims to develop a theory of cooperation that departs from the individualistic framework. “Communal principles” must be introduced in the analysis to account for cooperation and the relational, as opposed to atomistic, nature of individuals must be acknowledged.

The empirical study, based on data from the European Working Conditions and European Social Surveys, aims at illustrating the social benefits of cooperation. A categorical components analysis was carried out to build indicators for the notions of relational and moral goods and civic participation. Regression models were subsequently estimated to study the association between relational/moral goods at work and civic participation.

The empirical results show that high levels of relational and moral goods at work are associated with high levels of civic participation. However, substantial differences are observed between countries. Nordic countries exhibit high levels of both indicators while some Eastern and Southern European countries perform much more poorly. The study illustrates interaction between certain features of working life and civic behavior.

The theoretical contribution of the paper lies in the proposal of a new account of the sources of cooperative behavior at work. It argues that cooperation within work organizations is supported by three common goods – a common goal, relational goods and moral goods. The “goodness” of these goods does not derive simply from their generating utility but from their being commonly shared.

Public economics has recently introduced the concept of global public goods as a new category of public goods whose provision is central for promoting the well‐being of individuals in today's globalized world. The purpose of this paper is to examine the extent to which introducing this new concept in international development is helpful for understanding human well‐being enhancement.

The paper considers some implications of the concept of the common good for international development.

The concept of global public goods could be more effective if the conception of well‐being it assumes is broadened beyond the individual level. “Living well” or the “good life” does not dwell in individual lives only, but also in the lives of the communities which human beings form. A successful provision of global public goods depends on this recognition that the “good life” of the communities that people form is a constitutive component of the “good life” of individual human beings.

The paper suggests that the rediscovery of the concept of the common good, and identification of how to nurture it, constitute one of the major tasks for development theory and policy.

The rise of the sharing economy has brought with it a huge variety of new organizational forms and innovative business models. An integral part of these forms and models is the communities and members of sharing-economy organizations, since they significantly contribute to value creation for these organizations. Relying on community member contributions, though, is a challenge for these organizations because fluid community boundaries and voluntary membership makes it difficult to coordinate their activities. This chapter investigates the under-researched question of how sharing-economy organizations govern the actions of their community members. Following an abductive approach that included site visits, participant observations, and 67 interviews, we develop a framework that illustrates four different types of governance: pure market, pure clan, market-hierarchy hybrid, and clan-hierarchy hybrid. The framework explains differences among these types depending on the main activity (providing resources or producing jointly) and the primary aim of the community (business orientation or social orientation). This study thus contributes to research on both governance in general and to sharing-economy organizations in particular by capturing the variety and diversity of community forms, governance practices, and business-model configurations.

In order to guide sustainability research on the sharing economy, the purpose of this paper is to develop a comprehensive framework that captures the wide range of activities and business models that are considered to be part of the sharing economy.

Based on a systematic literature review and a content analysis, existing typologies are identified and analyzed for their conceptual intersections. Finally, categorizations from 43 documents are integrated into one framework.

Four main dimensions are identified as being used in different contexts to characterize sharing systems and were combined to form one comprehensive typology: shared good or service, market structure, market orientation, and industry sector.

The proposed typology is able to distinguish sharing activities based on their similarities and differences. Social, economic, and communicational avenues for the term “sharing” are merged into a conceptual foundation of the sharing economy. This enables researchers, practitioners, and policy makers to position their projects in the broad field of sharing. By discussing inherent tensions with regard to sustainability of the sharing economy, the offered categorizations can help to guide future research and policy intervention. Last but not least, professional managers should find valuable ideas for new business models.

This chapter aims to present and analyse the phenomenon of ‘sharing economy’ or ‘collaborative consumption’ in relation to tourism entrepreneurship. It presents and highlights the factors contributing to the growth of sharing economy and its business models, as well as strategically analyse related opportunities, challenges, concerns and threats in the field of tourism entrepreneurship.

Literature review was conducted on conceptual issues and main aspects of sharing economy, combined with examples and case studies within the tourism business environment.

This chapter highlights the fact that tourism businesses face new developments, trends and changes in tourist consumer behaviour and travel technology. It shows that sharing economy is on the rise, already affecting all segments of tourism industry, offering significant opportunities, as well as challenges and threats.

This chapter is explorative in nature because the discussed is based on a literature review.

The sharing economy/collaborative consumption is transforming the way people access goods and services changing all elements of trip planning. This is of great significance to the tourism industry, considering the business opportunities in all segments of related businesses. It is suggested that tourism entrepreneurs – existing, new and prospective – should elaborate the suitable strategies to address the new challenges.

It analyses main issues and aspects of the sharing economy within the tourism context. This analysis contributes to an improved knowledge and understanding that are very useful to all existing and prospective tourism providers.

This paper aims to focus on collaborative consumption, that is, the peer-to-peer (P2P) exchange of goods and services facilitated by online platforms. Anchored in the access paradigm, collaborative consumption (e.g. accommodation rental and ridesharing services) differs from commercial services offered by firms (e.g. business-to-customer [B2C] carsharing). The aim of this study is to examine the nuanced styles of collaborative consumption in relation to market-mediated access practices and socially mediated sharing practices.

Following the general research trend on mobility services, the context of long-distance ridesharing is chosen. Data collection was conducted using participant observation as peer service provider, 11 ethnographic interviews of consumers and a netnographic study of digital artifacts.

Using practice theory, ten ridesharing activities were identified. These activities and the nuances in the procedures, understandings and engagements in the ridesharing practice led to the distinction of three styles of collaborative consumption: communal collaborative consumption, which is when participants seek pro-social relationships in belonging to a community; consumerist collaborative consumption, performed by participants who seek status and convenience in the access lifestyle; and opportunistic collaborative consumption, when participants seek to achieve monetary gain or personal benefits from abusive activities.

By taking a phenomenological approach on collaborative consumption, this study adds to the understanding of the sharing economy as embedded in both a utilitarian/commercial economic system and a non-market/communal social system. The three styles of collaborative consumption propose a framework for future studies differentiating P2P exchanges from other practices (i.e. B2C access-based services and sharing).

The purpose of this paper is to present exploration of themes that interconnect six studies in environmentally and socially sustainable human development.

The article presents an overview of the papers included in this special issue.

As humanity threatens to undermine its habitat, a social economics returns to core concepts and themes that became expunged from neoclassical economics: serious examination of persons, seen as more than given points of desire; a broadened perspective on types of good, including a non‐neoclassical conception of public goods as publicly deliberated priority goods that are not well managed through free markets and “common goods” as shared bases vital for everyone; study of what commodities and goods do to and for people; a central role for public reasoning about which are public priority goods, rather than using only a technical definition of a public good; an acceptance of notions of ethical responsibility and responsibilities concerning the provision and maintenance of public priority goods determined through public reasoning; and attention to institutional formats for such deliberation. Amongst the greatest of public priority “goods” are the concepts of common good and responsibility.

The findings reinforce the agenda of socio‐economics for central attention to the mutual conditioning of economy, society, polity, and environment, including analysis of the sociocultural formation of economic actors and of ideas of “common good”.

Cross‐fertilization of theorization with cases from Costa Rica, Kenya, Nepal, Thailand, Rwanda, sub‐Saharan Africa and global arenas.

Collaborative consumption, such as car sharing, specifically implicates customer-to-customer interaction, which must be regulated by service providers (companies, peers and self-regulating communities), comprising different challenges for business organizations. While in conventional business relations, consumers are protected from undesirable customer behavior by laws, regulations (power) in the context of collaborative consumption are rare, so that trust becomes more relevant. It is the purpose of the study to investigate possible mechanisms to prevent undesirable customers in collaborative consumption.

In between subject designs, samples of 186 and 328 consumers filled in experimental online questionnaires with vignettes. Analyses were made of differences among car sharing companies, private persons and car sharing communities in terms of the power of providers, trust in providers and trust in other users of the shared goods, undesirable customer behavior and consumer–provider relations.

Companies, private persons and self-regulating communities differ in terms of perceived power and trust. Participants specifically perceive mainly coercive power with the car sharing company, but with the private person and the community, reason-based trust in other users is perceived as prevalent. Nevertheless, undesirable customer behavior varies only marginally over the models.

The present study is the first to investigate measures to prevent undesirable customer behavior over different collaborative consumption models. This enables appropriate identification of market segments and tailoring of services. The study identifies opportunities for companies in contrast to private persons and self-regulating communities and, in doing so, provides important stimulation for marketing strategy and theory development.