as ‘co-creation of value’.
Tapscott and Williams (2006) consider the prosumer as part of the new Wikinomic3 model, where companies put consumers to work.
In his book Cult of the Amateur, Andrew Keen (2007) opposes this idea and criticizes this model, as well as any thought process that promotes consumer dependence on the producer. However, Beer and Burrows (2007) see new relationships between production and consumption emerging, particularly on the web.
2.3. Poverty: a target in the spotlight of the shared economy
The shared economy is a way to boost the economy, especially in times of crisis. Rooted in the principles of sustainable development, it aspires to participate in the objectives of the third millennium, particularly with regard to poverty and inequality between populations.
So how can it be a means of pressure to shape a new economic model?
The shared economy represents an opportunity for society by having the capacity to reduce poverty and therefore inequalities. Before considering an answer or answers to this question, it should be noted that the relationship between the poor or precarious population and the initiatives offered by digital platforms, within the framework of the sharing economy, is not the same as that of the wealthiest class of society.
Wouldn’t using the shared economy “risk a bias between public policies, based on collective reliability and social action that is highly linked to charitable practices”? (King Baudouin Foundation4 2016). The study of King Baudouin’s foundation showed that the insecure population does not have access to the range of offers that fall within the scope of the sharing economy, in particular that of the business model, since it is not free. Furthermore, the activities of the sharing economy are carried out with digital tools that cost a significant amount. In addition, this segment of society feels inferior with regard to their inability to benefit from this kind of sharing.
The objective of the sharing economy is to create an egalitarian society through exchange platforms. These must guarantee access for all and at a lower cost for the duration of time for which it is needed, such as a car in town, tools, housing and many other goods that would otherwise be very expensive if they were acquired through the classical economy (Pasquier and Daudigeos 2016).
By definition, poverty is a person’s inability to satisfy his or her most basic needs: food, shelter, clothing, education, health, possession of comfort goods (car, travel, etc.).
Box 2.2. Poverty’s two perspectives
Poverty can be understood through two perspectives: “The first focuses on the resources, including goods and services, that are owned or available to characterize the level of poverty.” It is a monetary analysis of poverty. The second focuses on what people are able to do or be using the resources at their disposal. It is an analysis on “human capabilities” (Lasida et al. 2009).
In light of this definition, one wonders what a population living in poverty can share if it does not have the essentials to meet its most basic needs. Will access to platforms be enough to restore a sense of social reintegration to people that are living in modest circumstances?
Indeed, it is necessary to have an asset base in order to be able to perform any exchanges:
In this perspective, economic capital would be measured more in terms of access to property, than in terms of heritage. This new relationship with goods is therefore supposed to create a tremendous leverage effect for the poorest populations: what could not be bought yesterday because of a lack of resources can be borrowed or rented the next day at reasonable rates. (Pasquier and Daudigeos 2016)
Also, a study by Williams and Windebank (2005) showed that people of modest circumstances express negative feelings of social exclusion in relation to second-hand purchases.
Paradoxically, they are simultaneously driven by “positive feelings of agency power over purchasing decisions, because second-hand purchases sometimes remain preferable to donations, loans or non-purchases” (Benoît-Moreau et al. 2017). In practice, this means that collaborative platforms offer people with opportunities to acquire goods and feel reintegrated into society through the collaborative economy niche.
But ideas that advocate the reliability of the sharing economy to institute equality for all are not shared by everyone. The literature on this issue is divided between those who support the idea that digital platforms contribute to social integration, and those who consider them to be reserved for a wealthy population.
A study in 2016, by Benoît-Moreau, Delacroix and Parguel, on the economic benefits brought by purchase-sale practices on collaborative platforms, which integrated the “psychosocial benefits”5 variant for the first time and was associated with the economic benefits gained, revealed that the economic benefits increase when purchase and sale transactions are practiced on the platforms (they allow them to make gains on their budgets and close the month-end).
In contrast, from a psychological point of view, this activity does not provide any satisfaction for people in financial difficulty. Instead, it reinforces the feeling of social exclusion because it is perceived as a “stigmatizing constraint”. The only psychological satisfaction is that of making a financial gain (Benoît-Moreau 2017).
Without claiming to be utopian, collaborative platforms offer economic opportunities for a section of the population that are in financial difficulty. They give that section of the population a sense of satisfaction by allowing them to perform the act of buying with dignity, instead of begging or getting into debt.
2.4. Controversies on economic opportunities of the sharing economy
The sharing economy is a growing phenomenon. Thus, the turnover of sharing platforms is growing rapidly, “the revenues generated by all these players in the European Union have increased from 1 billion dollars in 2013 to 3.6 billion dollars in 2015” (Winkler 2017).
While the sharing economy provides profits, it also causes disproportionate effects in society, particularly in regard to employment disruptions. It promotes self-employment, commonly known as freelance.
This new approach to job searching will fundamentally change labor market regulation:
Activity is rarely regulated by an employment contract. Self-employed workers generally do not benefit from any form of social protection (unemployment, health or retirement) and are therefore, with age or in the event of a turnaround in the economy, faced with an increased risk of poverty. (Winkler 2017)
Box 2.3. Strong points of Internet use
The Internet provides knowledge, information and opportunities worldwide. How can more people benefit from these digital dividends?
– 250 million people in Europe and Central Asia are on the wrong side of the digital divide.
– In Europe and Central Asia, the number of Internet users is higher than the number of bank account holders, but not everyone has equal access to digital dividends from the Internet.
– The European Union has almost universal access to the Internet, so where are the European Google and Facebook?
– In Central Asia, 60% of people do not have access to the Internet.
–
