Making money from your idle capacity – be that time and skills, or assets such as your spare room, car, or driveway – is made easy by firms offering platforms to connect supply and demand in the collaborative economy. Indeed, drivers for Uber, hosts on AirBnB, or ‘taskers’ doing odd jobs on TaskRabbit, are increasingly described as ‘micropreneurs’. Internationally, the collaborative or sharing economy (variously conceived) encompasses everything from labour hire (TaskRabbit; Handy) to pet care (DogVacay; PawShake), parking (ParkHound; MonkeyParking) and equipment rental (Spinlister; Snapgoods).
Such platforms, many initially based on connecting neighbours and communities, and/or driven by a social purpose (hence the earlier label of the sharing economy), have also led to the emergence of global giants, some with capital valuations of over US$70 billion. Their profit-driven business models are also disruptive for traditional industries, such as transport, accommodation, and logistics. These ‘peer to peer marketplaces’ are also emerging in more specialised industries such as professional services, for instance, online marketplaces for legal services. Peer to peer market places are also emerging in financial services with crowd sourced equity platforms for start-ups (www.crowdcube.com), peer-to-peer lending (www.zopa.com), insurance (www.friendsurance.com), to disrupting traditional forms of philanthropy (www.chuffed.org).
The rise of collaborative consumption or the sharing economy is fundamentally reshaping how consumers buy and sell services. The main attraction for suppliers, or rather ‘workers’, on these platforms, is – unsurprisingly – the flexibility they offer in earning extra income. But on the down side, a lot of uncertainty comes with such work. This wouldn’t surprise those who are already freelancers, moving from gig to gig. Newcomers, however, have to come to grips with having less security and no guaranteed income, fixed benefits, or other standard worker protections. From a government perspective, while these services have proven popular with consumers, they often exist in a regulatory grey area or in outright contravention of existing laws. Furthermore, they often raise serious issues in relation to public safety, workers’ rights, tax (such as tourism and hotel taxes), and accessibility. There are also broader questions on the impacts on public amenity and utility and potential market distortions, such as AirBnB’s impact on access to the traditional rental market, or the visual and safety fall-out from dockless shared bikes.
The Australian government, like many governments globally, is attempting to respond to the rise of collaborative innovation and the phenomena of ‘micropreneurship’. Your task is to provide an analytical report to inform such government inquiries. For the purposes of this assignment, you are to:
1. Briefly explain the advantages and disadvantages of the collaborative economy – for
workers, businesses and the government; Made sense of what are ambiguous, overlapping and to some extent, contested concepts (e.g. sharing economy, peer economy, collaborative consumption etc.).
2. Select one industry that is being challenged by a collaborative economy model. *Apply at least two analytical framework ( Business Model Canvas, porter’s Five forces, SWOT, PESTELE )Explain this industry’s traditional business model (incumbent model) and means of creating and
capturing value (you may use an example of a leading incumbent firm here, as well as a
description of the traditional industry);
3. Select one existing collaborative economy firm within this industry (as described above) and analyse how this new business model is able to create and capture superior value. Include
consideration of how (or how not) this challenger model may maintain a competitive advantage. Detailed compare and contrast between incumbent and collaborative economy business.Analysis draws upon multiple sources of data, reports and analysis.Note that neither AirBnb nor Uber can be the focal organisation.
4. Identify and reflect upon some of the unintended consequences of the success of this model
(as analysed above) in terms of who wins and who loses.
Hypotheses of Realism for State Behavior Explanations Distributed: eighteenth October, 2017 Last Edited: eighteenth October, 2017 Disclaimer: This exposition has been put together by an understudy. This isn't a case of the work composed by our expert paper essayists. You can see tests of our expert work here. Any feelings, discoveries, conclusions or suggestions communicated in this material are those of the writers and don't really mirror the perspectives of UK Essays. "How well do the diverse sorts of authenticity (traditional, auxiliary and neoclassical) clarify state conduct?" Word tally: 2,765 Course Tutor: Aijan Sharshenova Authenticity is an essential routine with regards to worldwide legislative issues, a key hypothesis here of concentrate as it encourages us to comprehend the contemporary world, and additionally the difficulties that we currently confront. Authenticity accentuates this part of country state with the conviction that all states are roused by their own self-interests, organizing regional honesty and anchoring political self-rule. The relations inside local legislative issues and global relations are on the other hand examined by various pragmatists, from Thucydides (460-395BC) to E.H. Carr (1892-1982) indicating considerable contrasts inside authenticity itself. Right off the bat, established authenticity gets from Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527), Thucydides and Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) to give some examples. The investigation of legislative issues amid this time was determined to the establishments of human instinct. Thucydides introduced his conviction through exchange writings, displaying how human instinct has influenced us to pine for control regardless of anything else. Then again, auxiliary pragmatists, for example, Kenneth Waltz (1924-2013) trusted that power is an unfortunate chore yet a definitive point of a person, and additionally state, is survival. The two sorts of authenticity hypotheses have experienced much commentator in the previous couple of decades, with just a generally ongoing perspective surfacing. This is known as neoclassical authenticity, a blend of established and basic ('neorealism') authenticity, concentrating on precise factors of inner and outer variables. My line of contention amid this exposition will be that neoclassical authenticity holds the most feasible clarification for state conduct, because of its contemporary examination and thought of methodical weights through different factors, broadly and universally. I will set out first by talking about the traditional authenticity hypothesis, in which I will examine the impact of human instinct, intrigue and equity and how these inner variables impact the states conduct. Furthermore, I will examine auxiliary authenticity and the hypotheses premise of framework structure of the world states, which don't consider inside variables. At long last, I will fundamentally survey whether neoclassical authenticity can genuinely clarify state conduct, regardless of its confinements. In spite of the fact that there is certainly not a bound together arrangement of convictions of authenticity, it is considered by all that the worldwide framework is a rebel domain, which is critical to consolidate in my paper since it thus exhibits how states don't have anybody to hold fast to in the global framework because of absence of hierarchal figures. The revolutionary framework is upheld by Waltz's portrayal of worldwide legislative issues as 'being flicked with particles of government and alloyed with components of network – supranational associations whether all inclusive or territorial, partnership, multinational co-tasks, system of exchange and so forth. Worldwide political frameworks are thought of as being pretty much anarchic.' (1979:114)1. This at that point additionally shows how inward and outer variables are expected to comprehend state conduct, which gives off an impression of being a noteworthy blemish in the understandings of traditional and auxiliary authenticity. I will later talk about whether neoclassical authenticity can represent the adjustments in the country states personal conduct standards because of these interceding factors. Traditional Realism Traditional authenticity is basically about power, which is estimated through material capacities. At the point when striped back to the most straightforward of social associations, it turns into the inborn gatherings and their opposition for assets, which demonstrate that power (battles) have dependably been a piece of society. This is then interlinked, by Hobbes, with the examination of the individual and the state – where human instinct is endangered of basically control and the substance to survive, known as the 'condition of nature', connecting to what the traditional pragmatist accept to be the states needs. This is promoted by the absence of sway in the worldwide framework, making it hence rebel, diminishing state conduct to its own national intrigue and its own particular security keeping in mind the end goal to keep up its capacity and survival. The possibility of this boastful self-intrigue was first created by Thucydides, who comprehended human instinct as self-intrigue will conquer moral standards. In Book 1 of The History of the Peloponnesian War , amid a discussion in Sparta, Thucydides states how the contemplations of good and bad have 'never diverted individuals beside the chances of glorification offered by unrivaled quality.' (Chapter 1:76).2 Although this view slights the teleological thoughts of political advance, it is upheld by the time of beginning amid the interwar period. Driving on from this, Thucydides, and Hans Morgenthau, additionally dismisses the qualification amongst universal and residential frameworks, urging us to comprehend them as comparative results. Thucydides utilizes both inward and outer advancements alike as explanation behind state conduct. For instance, when common bonds inside a framework are solid, as in pre-Peloponnesian War in Greece, the laws help to control performing artists. Subsequently, when network separates, so does this request because of the loss of authenticity in impact. This matches with Aristotle's perception that law 'has no capacity to propel dutifulness next to the power of habit.'3 This thought of network is promoted by the traditional pragmatist's conviction that equity is the establishment of connections so as to make these networks where security and impact are safeguarded. Thucydides relates his content to the significance of intrigue and equity and how they come as one – with the relationship winding up more intense because of war. A case of this is in Pericles' Athens' which Thucydides indicated out be under a veneer of vote based system lead, when in actuality it was only limited (Pericles) administering. The equitable philosophy that accompanied this lead caused class strains, which elevated after some time, bringing about the awful topple of 'popular government'. After this, equity at that point turned into the establishments for what was known as a more serene nation.2 Established pragmatists discover equity an essential impact as it decides the comprehension and reactions performing artists have with each other. Despite the fact that impact can be paid off, its cost for its characteristically brief upkeep, makes it an absurd ventures. Hence, strategies that have acknowledged moral methodologies make a regarded authenticity that will probably be taken after, making a more productive effective reach, which can likewise be meant control. To add to this, the duty to equity was one that demonstrated the quality of poise a performer has. For example, weaker states carry on because of the outside imperatives that they confront, though more ground-breaking states are more disposed to think they are in charge. However, this causes silliness of the pioneers, urging them to settle on perilous choices. These miscounts regularly prompt disaster, with key cases of Athens, Napoleon and Hitler. Along these lines, inward and outside requirements are firmly interconnected, as patience prompts conduct as per the standards of equity, supporting the hegemonic structure that makes adequate impact conceivable. In any case, traditional pragmatists missed the mark concerning including all the imperative parts of global relations, including that co-activity that can happen between countries. Looking from a contemporary view, with the incorporation of globalization, traditional authenticity appears to be extremely unbending and obsolete. Besides, the statist framework has been demonstrated wrong by Transnational Corporations (TNC's) who in reality have a bigger economy than some littler states, giving them more power even in material abilities, with a few enterprises having a type of military. This additionally demonstrates states can't be viewed as unitary performing artists. Auxiliary Realism Kenneth Waltz, the author of auxiliary authenticity, portrays the universal framework through each state considering the hazard and cost-investigation of nonsensical activity, which thusly results in dependability being kept up. Despite the fact that the framework isn't in a steady condition of war, it is thought of as 'each state chooses for itself regardless of whether to utilize drive; war may break out whenever.' (Waltz 1979:111).1 Conflict is constantly conceivable in disorder, in spite of the fact that the relative shot of it happening is what is imperative, as opposed to its likelihood. Along these lines, auxiliary pragmatists trust that a state should never let down its watch and dependably be set up for the most dire outcome imaginable. This outcomes in what pragmatists trust that states need to ensure they generally have military use at maximum capacity keeping in mind the end goal to have the capacity to safeguard against conceivable aggressors. Basic pragmatists trust that states need to embrace the most pessimistic scenario center so as to guarantee the states don't get found napping, which could be contended, would have considerably heavier expenses. 'Political rivalry among states is significantly more risky business than financial intercourse; it can prompt war, and war frequently implies mass killings on the combat zone and even mass murder of regular people. In outrageous cases, war can even prompt aggregate decimation of the state.'1 Consequently, cautious projects are thought of as the main trustworthy insura>GET ANSWER