from:
London School of  Economics
 
 
 
 
_Book  Review: The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of 
Crowd-Based  Capitalism by Arun Sundararajan_ 
(http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2016/05/31/book-review-the-sharing-economy-the-end-of-employment-an
d-the-rise-of-crowd-based-capitalism-by-arun-sundararajan/) 

 
 
While giving  someone a ride, running errands or having a guest to stay in 
your spare room  might be something you offer a friend for free, these are 
becoming the basis of  a range of services increasingly provided to strangers 
in exchange for  money. In The  Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and 
the Rise of Crowd-Based  Capitalism, Arun  Sundararajan explores this new ‘
sharing economy’ based on  peer-to-peer commercial exchange. Although the 
book provides a wealth of  interesting detail in accounting for the historical 
emergence of ‘crowd-based  capitalism’, Christopher May argues that it 
obscures the real impact of the  changes it posits on workers as well as the 
potential intensification of  economic insecurity and inequality that may be 
brought about by the ‘sharing  economy’.  
The Sharing  Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of Crowd-Based  
Capitalism. Arun Sundararajan. MIT Press.  2016. 
We’ve had post-Fordism;  we’ve seen the rise of the new economy; and now 
we are confronted with the  ‘sharing economy’. In The  Sharing Economy: The 
End of Employment and the Rise of Crowd-Based  Capitalism, Arun Sundararajan 
aims to explain both the origins and the  implications of this new way of 
working, and how the ‘asset-light’ generation’s  political economy is shaped 
by ‘sharing’. 
For Sundararajan, the  sharing economy is largely market-based, allows 
capital (material and virtual)  to be used more fully, is based on crowd-based 
networks facilitated by platforms  and, perhaps most significantly, blurs the 
lines between the personal and  professional as well as between various 
forms of employment. He notes that  ‘sharing economy’ may not be the best 
term; though using it due to its ubiquity,  he prefers ‘crowd-based capitalism’ 
which he sees as ‘an interesting middle  ground between capitalism and 
socialism’ (44): a claim to which I will  return! 
Sundararajan’s  historical account of the sharing economy goes back to the 
establishment of  eBay, Craigslist and other selling/contact sites; however, 
the key development  was the subsequent ‘digitisation of trust’ which 
allowed one-off market  exchanges to benefit from the reputational aspects of 
repeated interactions via  peer-to-peer evaluations. Arguing that the 
long-term general urbanisation of the  global political economy has promoted 
the 
condition for ‘sharing’, Sundararajan  also picks up cues from various 
analysts of the information society/economy,  sharing their breathless 
impatience 
with the past, seeing the future as nearly  here. Soon the distinction 
between market and hierarchy will dissolve (as it has  for digitised 
platforms), 
leaving a mesh/complex of continuing interactions that  will reduce the 
fixity or specificity of assets, allowing them to be used more  efficiently 
than 
when locked up in hierarchies (firms). At its most fully  developed, this 
leads to blockchain technologies, most famously underpinning  Bitcoin, where 
interactions are recorded in the code of the asset, not even  requiring a 
platform to facilitate the ‘sharing’. 

Having set out how the  new crowd-based capitalism might be organised, the 
book’s second half explores  its likely effects. Sundararajan summarises 
these as increasing the impact of  capital (enhancing its utilisation); the 
fragmentation of consumption with an  increase in choice expanding uptake of 
goods and services; a shift away from  economies of scale towards network 
effects; and the ‘democratisation of economic  opportunity that promises 
inclusive growth’ (108). He then considers how  preceding economic regulations 
might fit this new sharing economy, recognising  that many of the issues remain 
the same. However, self-identifying as an  economist, Sundararajan sees 
regulation’s benefits narrowly, only encompassing  information asymmetries and 
un-costed externalities. These, he argues, can be  dealt with in a sharing 
economy via peer-to-peer and brand-based reputational  regulation alongside 
self-regulatory systems. In this lightly regulated market,  a form of spot 
market for flexible independent contractors will revolve around  tasks, often 
referred to as the ‘gig economy’. That this will (and indeed does)  prompt 
considerable volatility in earnings, social benefits and welfare prompts  
Sundararajan to explore and support some form of universal basic income, while  
noting that there might be some difficulties funding it. 
Professor at the Stern  School of Business, NYU, Sundararajan is a 
self-avowed enthusiast for the  sharing economy, but the ‘advantages’ he 
identifies 
might look rather different  to many Uber-drivers in New York City. 
Therefore, while Sundararajan presents an  interesting and highly detailed 
discussion of the sharing economy (including a  wide range of examples, mainly 
but 
not exclusively drawn from the USA), like  many digital idealists before him 
he does not recognise continuities with modern  capitalism. Rather, he 
regards the sharing economy as a move towards a new  mid-ground between 
capitalism and socialism. If socialism is about addressing  inequalities and 
the 
socialisation of the means of production, then  Sundararajan’s argument sadly 
does not stack up against the sharing economy’s  real social relations. 
At the heart of the  book is the idea that a technological fragmentation of 
the previously more  hierarchical economy will facilitate expanded 
opportunities for individuals to  enhance their earning capacity and/or to 
become 
demi-rentiers if they have  under-used but in-demand assets. Although 
Sundararajan manages to effectively  downplay any technological determinism, it 
still underpins much of his argument;  as such, he ignores a key element to the 
processes of outsourcing that feed the  growth of this sharing economy. As 
_William Milberg and Deborah Winkler_ 
(http://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/economics/industrial-economics/outsourcing-economics-global-value-cha
ins-capitalist-development)  (2013)  have pointed out, outsourcing is 
facilitated and driven by financialisation  alongside technological 
developments; 
financialisation is an agent-centred  process prosecuted by financial and 
banking corporations in the USA and  elsewhere. So like all good political 
economists, we should ask: who benefits  from the sharing economy? A _recent 
post_ 
(http://glineq.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/why-make-america-denmark-again-will-not.html?spref=tw)
  from  Branko Milanovic is particularly apposite: he 
observes that Gerald Davis has  demonstrated that large hierarchical firms 
end up equalising rewards and  benefits as large social systems seeking to 
maintain legitimacy, while based  fragmentation of these hierarchies via 
outsourcing allows much smaller groups to  capture rewards and exposes 
contractors 
to more voracious price competition for  their labour. 
Overall then,  Sundararajan joins a long history of technological utopians 
who either willfully  ignore, or have little interest in, the actual 
economic relations they are  examining. Certainly, this book has a wealth of 
detail, but it mostly misses the  real impact of the changes it posits on 
workers. 
Sundararajan’s sharing economy  is not a new development but rather a 
revival of the share-cropping, insecure  and brutal economy of the nineteenth 
century, which social democracy did much to  (incompletely) alleviate in the 
last century. While this book may play well in  Silicon Valley, the ‘freedoms’
 of the sharing economy look a lot like Anatole  France’s observation that 
the rich and poor are equally free to sleep under  bridges. 
Sundararajan recognises  this might be an issue when he muses on universal 
income and other non-market  welfare support for contractors (_as also 
recently proposed by left-leaning US Senator  Elizabeth Warren_ 
(http://www.ft.com/cms/s/30d06228-20da-11e6-9d4d-c11776a5124d,Authorised=false.html?ftcamp=crm
/email//nbe/InTodaysFT/product&_i_location=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/30d0622
8-20da-11e6-9d4d-c11776a5124d.html?ftcamp=crm/email//nbe/InTodaysFT/product&
_i_referer=&classification=conditional_standard&iab=barrier-app#axzz49XpZIzJ
O) ), but his acceptance  that this might be politically difficult to 
establish does nothing to dampen his  enthusiasm for the sharing economy. 
Unfortunately, the sharing economy seldom  merely represents a little extra 
spending money to supplement an otherwise  stable income; for most, this new 
economy threatens only to intensify the  insecurity and inequality of their 
economic lives, and Sundararajan’s book would  have been much better if this 
future had been more central to his account of the  sharing economy’s likely 
political economy.  
____________________________________
 
Christopher  May is Professor of  Political Economy at Lancaster 
University, UK. His most recent book is Global Corporations in Global  
Governance 
(Routledge, 2015)  and he is currently editingThe Edward Elgar Research 
Handbook 
on The Rule of  Law (2017). He has published  widely on the interaction 
between law and political economy, wrote the first  independently authored 
study of the World Intellectual Property Organisation and  some years ago wrote 
The  Information Society: A Sceptical View (Polity Press,  2002)

-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to