Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
EconStorarrow_drop_down
EconStor
Article . 2022
License: CC BY
Data sources: EconStor
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
DepositOnce
Article . 2022
License: CC BY
Data sources: DepositOnce
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Moving Beyond Uber

Authors: Kirchner, Stefan; Dittmar, Nele; Ziegler, Emilia Sophie;

Moving Beyond Uber

Abstract

Diskussionen über Organisationen und Arbeit in der Plattformökonomie fokussieren oft Uber als prominentes Beispiel, das auf Risikokapital und einem digitalen Marktplatz für solo-selbstständige Fahrerinnen und Fahrer aufbaut. Dieser Fokus auf Uber unterschätzt die Vielfalt organisationaler Modelle und Arbeitstypen, die sich herausbilden, wenn Firmen um die Dominanz in entstehenden Feldern kämpfen. Unsere explorativen Ergebnisse aus dem Feld der „Shared Mobility“ in Deutschland zeigen, dass die Plattformökonomie zwei Modi beinhaltet: wenige digitale Marktplätze mit Selbstständigen und viele App-gestützte Firmen, die Smartphone-Technologie nutzen, um ihre Mobilitätsdienstleistungen anzubieten und dabei Arbeitskräfte beschäftigen, die App-gestützte Arbeit erbringen. Darüber hinaus stehen nur einige Disruptoren, die als Start-Ups risikokapitalfinanziert sind, vielen anderen Firmen gegenüber, die von etablierten Unternehmen aus benachbarten Feldern finanziert werden und Plattformtechnologie absorbieren. Wir schlussfolgern, dass das Feld der „Shared Mobility“ in Deutschland eine Vielfalt organisationaler Modelle und Typen von Arbeit umfasst, die weit über das Uber-Modell hinausgeht. Nur eine genauere Analyse dieser Vielfalt ermöglicht es, die Dynamiken der Plattformökonomie besser zu verstehen.

Discussions on organizational models and work in the platform economy often center on Uber as a prominent example of a digital marketplace that relies on venture capital and gig labor from self-employed drivers. This focus on Uber underestimates the diversity of organizational models and work types that likely arise from struggles between firms seeking to dominate emerging fields. Our exploratory results coming out of the field of “shared mobility” in Germany show that the platform economy harbors two modes: a few digital marketplaces with gig labor and many app-enabled firms that build on smartphones to operate their mobility services with employees that perform app-enabled labor. In addition, some firms that rely on venture capital face several firms financed by incumbents from adjacent fields—in particular, car manufacturing. Overall, we find an absorption of platform technology by incumbents alongside disruption induced by start-ups. We conclude that German shared mobility comprises a diversity of organizational models and work types beyond the Uber model, the mapping of which helps toward a better understanding of the platform economy.

DFG, 442171088, Spielt die Makro-Ebene eine Rolle? Eine vergleichende Analyse von Institutionengefügen und Gigwork-Plattformen in Ländern der EU-28

TU Berlin, Open-Access-Mittel – 2022

Country
Germany
Related Organizations
Keywords

Arbeits- und Beschäftigungsbedingungen, Plattformkapitalismus, Markets as fields, organisationale Modelle, ddc:300, platform capitalism, labor and working conditions, Märkte als Felder, Mobility services, Organisationale Modelle, 301 Soziologie, Anthropologie, Platform capitalism, Labor and working conditions, markets as fields, Mobilität Dienstleistung, mobility services, Organizational models, organizational models

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Related to Research communities
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!