IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wus045/4911.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Framing the Collaborative Economy

Author

Listed:
  • Gruszka, Katarzyna

Abstract

Within the context of multiple crises and change, a range of practices discussed under the umbrella term of collaborative (or sharing) economy have been gaining considerable attention. Supporters build an idealistic vision of collaborative societies. Critics have been stripping the concept of its visionary potential, questioning its revolutionary nature. In the study, these debates are brought down to the local level in search for common perceptions among the co-creators of the concept in Vienna, Austria. Towards this aim a Q study is conducted, i.e. a mixed method enabling analyses of subjective perceptions on socially contested topics. Four voices are identified: True Believers, Market Optimists, Dedicated Critics, and Healthy Sceptics, each bringing their values, visions, and practical goals characteristic of different understanding of the collaborative economy. The study questions the need for building a globally-applicable definition of the concept, calls for more context-sensitivity, and the need for further exploratory approaches. (author's abstract)

Suggested Citation

  • Gruszka, Katarzyna, 2016. "Framing the Collaborative Economy," Ecological Economic Papers 11, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    • Handle: RePEc:wiw:wus045:4911
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://epub.wu.ac.at/4911/
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Toddi A. Steelman & Lynn A. Maguire, 1999. "Understanding participant perspectives: Q-methodology in national forest management," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 361-388.
    2. Davies, Ben B. & Hodge, Ian D., 2012. "Shifting environmental perspectives in agriculture: Repeated Q analysis and the stability of preference structures," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 51-57.
    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. Schnitzler, Tobias Joachim, 2020. "Success factors of transformative learning for sustainable development," ÖFSE-Forum, Austrian Foundation for Development Research (ÖFSE), volume 75, number 75.
    2. Murillo, David & Buckland, Heloise & Val, Esther, 2017. "When the sharing economy becomes neoliberalism on steroids: Unravelling the controversies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 66-76.

    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. Huaranca, Laura Liliana & Iribarnegaray, Martín Alejandro & Albesa, Federico & Volante, José Norberto & Brannstrom, Christian & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2019. "Social Perspectives on Deforestation, Land Use Change, and Economic Development in an Expanding Agricultural Frontier in Northern Argentina," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-1.
    2. Katarzyna Gruszka, 2016. "Framing the Collaborative Economy," Ecological Economics Papers ieep11, Institute of Ecological Economics.
    3. Setiawan, Andri D. & Cuppen, Eefje, 2013. "Stakeholder perspectives on carbon capture and storage in Indonesia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1188-1199.
    4. Elena Zepharovich & Michele Graziano Ceddia & Stephan Rist, 2020. "Land-Use Conflict in the Gran Chaco: Finding Common Ground through Use of the Q Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-16, September.
    5. Raymond, Christopher M. & Kenter, Jasper O. & Plieninger, Tobias & Turner, Nancy J. & Alexander, Karen A., 2014. "Comparing instrumental and deliberative paradigms underpinning the assessment of social values for cultural ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 145-156.
    6. Schulz, Tobias & Ohmura, Tamaki & Troxler, David & Lieberherr, Eva, 2024. "Forest clearances, compensatory afforestation and biodiversity offsetting in forests: Balancing flexibility and equivalency in Switzerland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    7. Clare Hall & Anita Wreford, 2012. "Adaptation to climate change: the attitudes of stakeholders in the livestock industry," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 207-222, February.
    8. Huber, Robert & Bartkowski, Bartosz & Brown, Calum & El Benni, Nadja & Feil, Jan-Henning & Grohmann, Pascal & Joormann, Ineke & Leonhardt, Heidi & Mitter, Hermine & Müller, Birgit, 2024. "Farm typologies for understanding farm systems and improving agricultural policy," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    9. Zepharovich, Elena & Ceddia, M. Graziano & Rist, Stephan, 2020. "Perceptions of deforestation in the Argentinean Chaco: Combining Q-method and environmental justice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    10. Robin Hickman & Neil Lopez & Mengqiu Cao & Beatriz Mella Lira & Jose Bienvenido Manuel Biona, 2018. "“I Drive outside of Peak Time to Avoid Traffic Jams—Public Transport Is Not Attractive Here.” Challenging Discourses on Travel to the University Campus in Manila," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-21, May.
    11. Liu, Wenjuan & Agusdinata, Datu B. & Eakin, Hallie & Romero, Hugo, 2022. "Sustainable minerals extraction for electric vehicles: A pilot study of consumers’ perceptions of impacts," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    12. Katarzyna Gruszka & Annika Scharbert & Michael Soder, 2016. "Changing the world one student at a time? Uncovering subjective understandings of economics instructors' roles," Ecological Economics Papers ieep7, Institute of Ecological Economics.
    13. Leonhardt, Heidi & Braito, Michael & Uehleke, Reinhard, 2021. "Who participates in agri-environmental schemes? A mixed-methods approach to investigate the role of farmer archetypes in scheme uptake and participation level," FORLand Working Papers 27 (2021), Humboldt University Berlin, DFG Research Unit 2569 FORLand "Agricultural Land Markets – Efficiency and Regulation".
    14. Pereira, Mariana A. & Fairweather, John R. & Woodford, Keith B. & Nuthall, Peter L., 2016. "Assessing the diversity of values and goals amongst Brazilian commercial-scale progressive beef farmers using Q-methodology," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 1-8.
    15. Nadine Lehrer & Gretchen Sneegas, 2018. "Beyond polarization: using Q methodology to explore stakeholders’ views on pesticide use, and related risks for agricultural workers, in Washington State’s tree fruit industry," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 35(1), pages 131-147, March.
    16. Rajé, Fiona, 2007. "Using Q methodology to develop more perceptive insights on transport and social inclusion," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(6), pages 467-477, November.
    17. Maarten Wolsink, 2004. "Policy Beliefs in Spatial Decisions: Contrasting Core Beliefs Concerning Space-making for Waste Infrastructure," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 41(13), pages 2669-2690, December.
    18. Eduardo Araral & Alberto Asquer & Yahua Wang, 2017. "Regulatory Constructivism: Application of Q Methodology in Italy and China," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 31(8), pages 2497-2521, June.
    19. Gruszka, Katarzyna & Scharbert, Annika Regine & Soder, Michael, 2017. "Leaving the mainstream behind? Uncovering subjective understandings of economics instructors' roles," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 485-498.
    20. Matthew Cotton & Patrick Devine-Wright, 2011. "Discourses of Energy Infrastructure Development: A Q-Method Study of Electricity Transmission Line Siting in the UK," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 43(4), pages 942-960, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    collaborative economy; sharing economy; Q study;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wiw:wus045:4911. 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: WU Library (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://research.wu.ac.at/ .

    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.