IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/zbw/iprjir/214016.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Defining the relevant market in the sharing economy

Author

Listed:
  • Russo, Francesco
  • Stasi, Maria Luisa

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Russo, Francesco & Stasi, Maria Luisa, 2016. "Defining the relevant market in the sharing economy," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 5(2), pages 1-13.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:iprjir:214016
    DOI: 10.14763/2016.2.418
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/214016/1/IntPolRev-2016-2-418.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.14763/2016.2.418?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lapo Filistrucchi & Damien Geradin & Eric van Damme & Pauline Affeldt, 2014. "Market Definition In Two-Sided Markets: Theory And Practice," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 293-339.
    2. Peitz, Martin & Valletti, Tommaso, 2015. "Reassessing competition concerns in electronic communications markets," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 896-912.
    3. Caillaud, Bernard & Jullien, Bruno, 2003. "Chicken & Egg: Competition among Intermediation Service Providers," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 34(2), pages 309-328, Summer.
    4. Marc Rysman, 2009. "The Economics of Two-Sided Markets," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 23(3), pages 125-143, Summer.
    5. Philippe Aghion & Stefan Bechtold & Lea Cassar & Holger Herz, 2018. "The Causal Effects of Competition on Innovation: Experimental Evidence," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(2), pages 162-195.
    6. Ron Adner & Rahul Kapoor, 2010. "Value creation in innovation ecosystems: how the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3), pages 306-333, March.
    7. Jean‐Charles Rochet & Jean Tirole, 2006. "Two‐sided markets: a progress report," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(3), pages 645-667, September.
    8. Genakos, Christos & Valletti, Tommaso, 2012. "Regulating prices in two-sided markets: The waterbed experience in mobile telephony," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 360-368.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marco Cucculelli & Riccardo Cappelli & Jasmine Mondolo, 2024. "Does market power drive business model innovation? Evidence from Italian family manufacturing firms," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 63(1), pages 447-475, June.
    2. Carolina Isaza Espinosa & Juan Carlos Henao & Santiago Tellez Cañas, 2021. "Disrupción tecnológica, transformación digital y sociedad. Tomo II, Políticas y públicas y regulación en las tecnologías disruptivas," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Derecho, number 1281.
    3. Cristina Pérez-Pérez & Diana Benito-Osorio & Susana María García-Moreno, 2021. "New Puppets in the Old School: The Applicability of Traditional Internationalisation Theories in the Sharing Economy," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-24, September.
    4. Anzhelika Gerasymenko & Svitlana Afendikova, 2018. "The Relevant Temporal Market Definition In Antitrust Analysis," Baltic Journal of Economic Studies, Publishing house "Baltija Publishing", vol. 4(1).
    5. Cristina Pérez-Pérez & Diana Benito-Osorio & Susana María García Moreno, 2021. "Mergers and Acquisitions within the Sharing Economy: Placing All the Players on the Board," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-21, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gawer, Annabelle, 2014. "Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1239-1249.
    2. Lapo Filistrucchi & Damien Geradin & Eric van Damme, 2012. "Identifying Two-Sided Markets," Working Papers - Economics wp2012_01.rdf, Universita' degli Studi di Firenze, Dipartimento di Scienze per l'Economia e l'Impresa.
    3. Peitz, Martin & Valletti, Tommaso, 2015. "Reassessing competition concerns in electronic communications markets," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 896-912.
    4. Liu, He & Li, Xuerong & Wang, Shouyang, 2021. "A bibliometric analysis of 30 years of platform research: Developing the research agenda for platforms, the associated technologies and social impacts," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    5. Krämer, Jan & Wohlfarth, Michael, 2018. "Market power, regulatory convergence, and the role of data in digital markets," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 154-171.
    6. Rodolphe Durand & Robert M. Grant & Tammy L. Madsen & David P. McIntyre & Arati Srinivasan, 2017. "Networks, platforms, and strategy: Emerging views and next steps," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 141-160, January.
    7. Just, Natascha, 2018. "Governing online platforms: Competition policy in times of platformization," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 386-394.
    8. Jacobides, Michael G. & Cennamo, Carmelo & Gawer, Annabelle, 2024. "Externalities and complementarities in platforms and ecosystems: From structural solutions to endogenous failures," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(1).
    9. Caccinelli, Chiara & Toledano, Joëlle, 2017. "Assessing Anticompetitive Practices in Two-Sided Markets: A Comparative Analysis of four Antitrust Proceedings against Booking.com," 28th European Regional ITS Conference, Passau 2017 169452, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    10. Lam, W., 2015. "Switching Costs in Two-sided Markets," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2015024, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    11. Renato Gomes & Alessandro Pavan, 2013. "Cross-Subsidization and Matching Design," Discussion Papers 1559, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    12. Jonathan Levin, 2011. "The Economics of Internet Markets," Discussion Papers 10-018, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    13. Bruno Jullien & Alessandro Pavan, 2013. "Platform Competition under Dispersed Information," Discussion Papers 1568, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    14. Oliver Budzinski & Annika Stöhr, 2019. "Competition policy reform in Europe and Germany – institutional change in the light of digitization," European Competition Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 15-54, January.
    15. Christian Stummer & Dennis Kundisch & Reinhold Decker, 2018. "Platform Launch Strategies," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 60(2), pages 167-173, April.
    16. Wing Man Wynne Lam, 2017. "Switching Costs in Two-Sided Markets," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(1), pages 136-182, March.
    17. Ginger Zhe Jin & Marc Rysman, 2015. "Platform Pricing at Sports Card Conventions," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(4), pages 704-735, December.
    18. Zhiyi Wang & Lusi Yang & Jungpil Hahn, 2023. "Winner Takes All? The Blockbuster Effect on Crowdfunding Platforms," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(3), pages 935-960, September.
    19. Budzinski, Oliver, 2016. "Aktuelle Herausforderungen der Wettbewerbspolitik durch Marktplätze im Internet," Ilmenau Economics Discussion Papers 103, Ilmenau University of Technology, Institute of Economics.
    20. Charles Angelucci & Julia Cagé, 2019. "Newspapers in Times of Low Advertising Revenues," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 319-364, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:iprjir:214016. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://policyreview.info/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.