And if the economy collaborative killing the American dream? The question asked by the insidiously sociologist Marianne Cooper, a professor at Stanford University, sheds light on the negative consequences of a movement embraced by brands and consumers but does not benefit everyone.
In a report entitled " Sharing is the new purchase ," published in April 2014, Crowd Companies and Vision Critical not content to draw figures in the weight of the collaborative economy, estimated by Forbes at over EUR 3 billion in 2013 after annual growth of 25%. Their study suggested brands a roadmap to take advantage of opportunities in this new market booming. INfluencia was then analyzed its four commandments.
" Brands must embrace this movement, which has become an essential economic reality. They were inspired to use the same strategy as the crowd, just as they did in adopting social media. Sharing, crowdsourcing crowfunding and represent a new opportunity . " The recommendations of Jeremiah Owyang , founder of Crowd Companies happens to fall in line with the findings recounted by INfluencia past year. Undeniably favorable for consumers and increasingly popular with brands, is the collaborative economy as beneficial for the labor market? This is the question raised by Marianna Cooper , professor of sociology at Stanford University.
Lead researcher for Sheryl Sandberg in his bestseller Lean In , Marianne Cooper argues for a more balanced judgments about the consequences of the collaborative economy, leaving losers on the low side of the revolution. INfluencia wanted to understand his arguments essential to answer questions posed by a scheduled arrival.
INfluencia: Is it possible today to assess the positive or negative impact of the collaborative economy on the labor market?
Marianne Cooper: if today there are debates about the implications and relevance of the collaborative economy and the "gig economy", it is because their contributions vary by sectors and groups of workers there face. If you are very educated, well paid and evolve in a sought sector, free-lancing or other aspects of the collaborative economy will work perfectly for you. The causes and benefits then are the same celebration of the gig economy, which can decide his own hours, being his boss, to have more control over his work and his personal life. But there are other professional categories to which this change is experienced differently. It is those who are paid less to less demand qualities, trying to keep their jobs and work longer in a more challenging environment.
INfluencia: do you not feel that the public perceives evil in his majority this difference in earnings and has a too general vision of the collaborative economy?
Marianne Cooper: clearly, the majority holds the collaborative economy for positive change, which allows companies to raise a lot of funds and facilitate the lives of consumers. It is popular as a general benefit companies like Uber and Airbnb are evaluated or very expensive. But the essential question behind this vision and reality is who really benefits from this reorganization of jobs and labor. It is important to highlight the losers of this mutation. The model of the collaborative economy allows companies to emerge from many of their social responsibilities to their employees. The underlying ideology is that the share of risk usually associated with government and business to become the responsibility of individuals and families. This ideology can lead to economic insecurity.
INfluencia: to become sustainable and continue to develop the collaborative economy should it succeed in changing the legal and legislative basis of labor and industry can it end up taking the wall if it can not do?
Marianne Cooper: it is an economic but also moral issue. For me it is the primary moral issue of our time, for the companies and venture capitalists: what is their role to create economic security for individuals and their families? Is it the role of business or the government, or that of all at once?
INfluencia: for startups and venture capitalists that promote the sharing economy, the risk is an intrinsic value to their activities. They even make an asset for rent so obviously this notion of security is foreign to them, right?
Marianne Cooper: I do not know, honestly. That's a very good question. Somehow, I think they highlight the positive aspects to avoid answering the moral question I asked before. What is certain is that for several years, our company is close to major step of what is called the "Great Risk Shift," which for more inequality and consequences of economic insecurity and that loss of purchasing power and jobs for the middle class whose "American dream" is crumbling. Should the media ask more questions about these negative consequences to those who make the collaborative economy or do not see the benefits. All must, richer, middle class people and the poor, we wondered what society will result from these economic changes. In my view, we need new institutions that incorporate these new realities, including obvious: our job is no longer the automatic first source security. What values ill affect our personal and professional decisions? This is another question that we must ask ourselves all together.
INfluencia: do you think until we answer all these questions, the collaborative economy will be unable to achieve the most highest peak of its development?
Marianne Cooper: not she could but the question is what will be the winners and losers. Those who are certain to come out winners are those who hold shares in highly rated companies, not those working in subcontracting companies. There is nothing new in this, this is what is happening for decades and has widened the gap between winners and losers. We need a more severe criticism of the negative aspects of the same economic model of the collaborative economy. There is a general belief that ingrained think the new collaborative economy is the big bend of our economy, and once again I do not deny its positive aspects, including job creation. But we must take into account "leave to account."