Digitalisation of the economy and its impact on labour markets —

<strong>Digitalisation</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>economy</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>its</strong> <strong>impact</strong> on labour markets
<strong>the</strong>ir having access to this service, this “common good”, which in this case is
<strong>the</strong> algorithm controlled by <strong>the</strong> company. This leads to imbalances <strong>and</strong>, at <strong>the</strong>
same time, precarity for some. When Uber sets up in Paris, <strong>its</strong> pr<strong>of</strong><strong>its</strong> go to <strong>the</strong>
shareholders in <strong>the</strong> Silicon Valley’ (Le Monde 2015).
In <strong>the</strong> fairy tale <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sharing <strong>economy</strong>, sharing most <strong>of</strong>ten entails payment,
collaboration may resemble dumping, <strong>and</strong> partnership exploitation. As for <strong>the</strong>
consumers <strong>of</strong> services such as Uber or Airbnb, <strong>the</strong>y ‘are more interested in
lower costs <strong>and</strong> convenience than <strong>the</strong>y are in fostering social relationships with
<strong>the</strong> company or o<strong>the</strong>r consumers’ (Eckhardt et al. 2015). Even though, as we
will see below, some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> less <strong>of</strong>ten quoted writers such as Michel Bauwens
or Saskia Sassen, do believe in <strong>the</strong> strong socially innovative potential <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
new technologies.
In order to gain a clearer idea <strong>of</strong> this confused mix <strong>of</strong> services, Edgar Szoc has
suggested three distinguishing criteria that can be useful as a starting point,
even if <strong>the</strong>y st<strong>and</strong> in need <strong>of</strong> some refinement:
— a monetisation criterion: are <strong>the</strong> services on <strong>of</strong>fer available free <strong>of</strong> charge
or subject to payment?
— an investment criterion: in order to take part in this market as a service
provider, is it necessary to own capital?
— a location criterion: can <strong>the</strong> services proposed be delocated? (Szoc 2015)
The first criterion appears, at a first glance, self-explanatory: Wikipedia <strong>of</strong>fers
<strong>the</strong> greatest multilingual encyclopaedia in <strong>the</strong> world to every internet user.
While it is true that it requests private donations <strong>and</strong> is built up on <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong>
open <strong>and</strong> voluntary cooperation, <strong>the</strong> service is not <strong>of</strong>fered on a monetised basis.
CouchSurfing <strong>of</strong>fers, via <strong>its</strong> online service, a form <strong>of</strong> temporary free
accommodation from person to person. Streetbank encourages <strong>the</strong> inhabitants
<strong>of</strong> a neighbourhood to give or lend one ano<strong>the</strong>r items <strong>and</strong> to supply
neighbourhood services via <strong>its</strong> app. By contrast, Ebay services entail payment,
as do those <strong>of</strong> Airbnb, even though <strong>the</strong> services on <strong>of</strong>fer are similar in kind to
those provided by Streetbank <strong>and</strong> Couchsurfing (Stokes 2015). Payment <strong>of</strong>
service providers <strong>and</strong> share investors is a core feature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> operation <strong>of</strong>
platforms such as Uber or Airbnb.
This criterion <strong>of</strong> monetisation is doubtless relevant in order to properly
distinguish <strong>the</strong> sphere <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> genuinely collaborative – or sharing – <strong>economy</strong>,
in which <strong>the</strong> intention <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ‘actors’ is not to make a pr<strong>of</strong>it on <strong>the</strong> market but
to <strong>of</strong>fer a service based on giving <strong>and</strong> reciprocity. Taken alone, however, this
criterion appears to us inadequate for moving beyond this simple distinction,
for we could place in <strong>the</strong> category <strong>of</strong> free services o<strong>the</strong>r social services such as
Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. whose shareholders do expect returns on <strong>the</strong>ir
investment. In reality, as stressed by Brynjolfsson <strong>and</strong> McAfee (2014), most <strong>of</strong>
<strong>the</strong> most popular sites in <strong>the</strong> world are free sites whose content is fed <strong>and</strong>
managed by <strong>the</strong> users <strong>the</strong>mselves even though <strong>the</strong> intention <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir founders
is not giving or voluntary service but pr<strong>of</strong>it (see <strong>the</strong> list <strong>of</strong> top sites:
www.alexa.com/topsites).
WP 2016.02
29