an alternative to state-market dualism: the sharing ......vallat d. (2016), “an alternative to...

An Alternative to State-Market Dualism: The Sharing

Economy. Practical and Epistemological Questions

David Vallat

To cite this version:

David Vallat. An Alternative to State-Market Dualism: The Sharing Economy. Practicaland Epistemological Questions . SASE 28th Annual Conference, ”Moral Economies, EconomicMoralities”, Jun 2016, Berkeley, United States. 2016. <halshs-01331107>

HAL Id: halshs-01331107

https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01331107

Submitted on 13 Jun 2016

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open accessarchive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-entific research documents, whether they are pub-lished or not. The documents may come fromteaching and research institutions in France orabroad, or from public or private research centers.

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, estdestinee au depot et a la diffusion de documentsscientifiques de niveau recherche, publies ou non,emanant des etablissements d’enseignement et derecherche francais ou etrangers, des laboratoirespublics ou prives.

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr

https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01331107

VallatD.(2016),“AnAlternativetoState-MarketDualism:TheSharingEconomy.PracticalandEpistemologicalQuestions”,SASE28thAnnualConference,June24-26,2016,UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley.

1

SASE28thAnnualConference

MoralEconomies,EconomicMoralitiesJune24-26,2016-UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley

mini-conference#1

APlatformEconomy?ASharingEconomy?AGigEconomy?TheChangingNatureofWork,Employment,andMarketCompetition

AnAlternativetoState-MarketDualism:TheSharingEconomy.PracticalandEpistemologicalQuestions

DavidVALLAT(UniversitéLyon1,laboratoireTRIANGLE,UMRCNRS5206)

[email protected]

“Betweenbeingandknowing:doing”PaulValéry

Theproponentsof the sharingeconomyhold that its values (i.e., openness, collaboration,equality, empowerment, reciprocity) allow it to propose a more credible alternative tocapitalism insofar as it addresses changepragmatically, taking into account the very realcontextofeconomiccrisis,ecologicalcrisis,a technologicalrevolutionthat isdramaticallylowering marginal costs and facilitating exchanges within and the structuring ofcommunities(Rifkin,2014;Tapscott&Williams,2007),aswellasthatofchangingvalues(relatedtotheriseofGenerationYintheworkforce–Dagnaud,2013).Several scholarshaveendeavored todefine the contoursof thesharingeconomy(Servet,2014;Botsman&Rogers,2011;Bauwens,2015;Filippova,2015).Theundertakingistrickybutnecessary,as thesubjectgeneratesmuchconfusion. Inexamining thematter,wewillfirst underscore two major dimensions of this economic form. Second, after havingperformedthisinitialcategorization,wewillventuretogiveitmoredepthbyemphasizingtheoriginalityoftheepistemologicalapproachinherentincertainsharingeconomiesthatleadtoaprofoundquestioningofourmodelsof(economic)rationality.

I.TheParadoxesoftheSharingEconomyThesharingeconomycontainsacertaincontradictioninterms,accompaniedbystrongstructuralcharacteristics.

1.1.The“sharingeconomy”andit’scontradictionsThesharingeconomycoversamultitudeofactivitiesfocusedonproduction,consumption,finance,andtrade.Onemightask justwhat thecommonalitiesarebetweenAirbnb,Uber,


2

Wikipedia,Ulule, Blablacar, LaRuchequi ditOui!, Leboncoin, Linux, fab labs, LETS (localexchange trading systems), accorderies, andworker cooperatives. It is rather difficult toanswer this question, as the sharing economy concerns more than just a few specificeconomic activities – it spreads into all spheres of economic activity 1 (exchange,consumption, production, finance): from second-hand markets (Ebay, Leboncoin),ridesharing(Blablacar) to transportation(Uber) to lodgingrentals(Airbnb),consumptionof local agriculture (La Ruche qui dit Oui!, Les Paniers de Martin), crowdfunding(Kickstarter, Ulule, KissKissBankBank), complementary currencies (Brixton pound),knowledge pooling (Wikipedia, Wikia, reciprocal knowledge exchange networks, Linux),production (fab lab, hackerspace, SCOP worker cooperatives), exchange of goods andservices(accorderies,localexchangetradingsystems),andsoon.Rachel Botsman’s work claims that the sharing economy originated in the context ofeconomic and ecological crisis with the desire to privilege the use of goods over theirownership(Botsman&Roger,2011)2.Whilecollaborativeconsumptionisindeedrelevantandextensive(isn’titmoreimportanttohaveaccesstoadrillratherthantoownitifyouonlyneeditonceortwiceayear?),thesharingeconomyisvasteryet.JeremyRifkin(2014,p.326ff.)shedslightonthesubjectfromalogisticalangle.Thesharingofinformationandresources(warehouses,unoccupiedcarseats,freeroomsinanapartment,parkingspaces,drills,etc.)enablesanoptimizationof theiruseand thus theavoidanceof colossalwaste.Somecompaniesareredefiningtheirobjectivessoastoprivilegeuseoverpropertyintheaim of sustainable development. As such, they fall under the category of the function-orientedeconomy(ortheproduct-servicesystem)3.Here isa firstpossiblesegmentation:betweenasharingeconomywhosestartingpoint isthehorizontalizationof interpersonal relationshipsmediatedbydigitalplatformsusedas“weaponsofmasscollaboration”(Tapscott&Williams,2007)andanothersharingeconomywhose starting point is amore vertical, traditional organization (companies aswe knowthem now) that redefines its values and business model so as to integratecooperation/collaborationintoitsstrategicobjectivesand/oritsorganizationalmode.Theformer refers to sharing economy and collaborative consumption initiatives; the latterconcerns the function-oriented economy, circular economy4, production cooperatives, ormorebroadlythefieldofsocialeconomy(Laville,1994,1999;Demoustier,2001;Draperi,2011).We find, then, that the borders of the sharing economy are not easily defined insofar astheseinitiativesmayoriginateinastrictcommerciallogicjustastheymayemergefromanaspirationforsolidarity(andsometimeswithasavvyblendofboth).TheFrenchthinktankOuiShare(ouishare.net),animportantmediuminthesharingeconomybothinFranceandthroughout theworld, founded in 2011, groups the following five phenomena under theterm “sharing economy”: collaborative consumption; crowdfunding (peer-to-peerfinancing); open knowledge (open data, open education, open governance); the maker

1Foracoupleoftaxonomicessaysonthesharingeconomy,seeBauwens(2012)andServet(2014).2Alsocalledcollaborativeconsumption.3http://www.club-economie-fonctionnalite.fr4http://www.institut-economie-circulaire.fr

Office 2004 Test Drive User� 7/2/y 15:09Commentaire [1]: platform?


3

movement (open design and manufacturing, DIY); and open and horizontal governance(participatorybudgeting,cooperatives,do-ocracy,holacracy).It is therefore necessary to deepen our understanding of the sharing economy byunderscoringsomeofitsdistinguishingcharacteristics.

1.2.Horizontalcultureandthereturnofthe“invisiblehand”The sharing economy’s actors have embraced the “horizontal” culture of the internet(Castells, 1996, 2002), where power, responsibilities, information, and knowledge aredistributedandshared,andthe linesbetweenproducerandconsumerblur(Rifkin,2014,speaksofthe“prosumer”torefertoarealitywhereindividualscansimultaneouslybebothproducers and consumers). Networks form around shared values in digital and physicalcommunitiestoprovidepersonalizedanswerstospecificproblemsandtotherebypavethewayforaneweconomicmodel:the“longtail”(thesale/offerofalargevarietyofproducts,eachinsmallquantity–Anderson,2004).Digital auctioneers (Uber’s, Airbnb’s, and Kickstarter’s algorithms play this role) thatmediatepeer-to-peer(P2P)exchangesactlikesomany“invisiblehands”.Couldthisbethereturn of Smith? Or Hayek? The question deserves to be asked when the founder ofWikipedia, JimmyWales,affirmsthat“Hayek’sworkonpricetheory iscentral tomyownthinkingabouthowtomanagetheWikipediaproject”(Mangu-Ward,2007).Indeed,“prosumers”cangetwhattheywantdirectlyfromother“prosumers”withminimalorevennotransactioncost(inthe“zeromarginalcostsociety”describedbyRifkin,2014).AccordingtoRifkin,thiscollaborativemodelwillprogressivelypushcapitalismaside.Takefor example the fact that Airbnb has a largermarket capitalization than theHyatt groupwithout owning a single hotel5. The accumulation of capital (the basis of capitalism) isthereforenolongertheguaranteeofeconomichegemony.Thesharingeconomyfacilitatesthetransformationofprivategoods(car,apartment,drill,etc.)intoproductivegoods.Thisoriginates,inpart,fromaneconomyoffrugalityfoundatthe intersection of ecologicalmotivations and economic crisis. All of these little invisiblehands are actingwithin a regulatory framework ill-suited to the sharing economy6. Thisnewmodel isaccompaniedbyamarked increase in independentworkers inbothFranceandtheUnitedStates7–asortresurgenceof theputting-outsystemoranaccelerationoftheSecondIndustrialDivide (Piore&Sabel,1984)betweenmassproductionandartisanalproduction.Acorollarytothismovementhasbeenqualifiedasthe“Uberizationofwork”,inreferencetothecompanyUber,whoseUberPopserviceputspeopleseekingsupplementalincome(orafullincome)toworkunderveryprecariousconditions.

5http://www.lefigaro.fr/secteur/high-tech/2014/03/21/32001-20140321ARTFIG00367-la-start-up-airbnb-vaut-aussi-cher-que-les-grandes-chaines-d-hotellerie.php6http://www.lemonde.fr/entreprises/article/2015/03/14/uber-bouscule-la-loi-thevenoud_4593581_1656994.html7 http://telos-eu.com/fr/politique-economique/economie-collaborative-un-programme-politique-pour.html.In America, this is referred to as the Gig Economy: http://www.wired.com/insights/2013/09/the-gig-economy-the-force-that-could-save-the-american-worker/


4

Inanyevent,itisdifficulttopretendthatthesharingeconomydoesn’texistwhenweknowthatthewealthcreatedbythissectorcouldreachupto335billionUSDby2025fromits15billionin20148.Apparentlyfrugalityisn’taconcernforallofthesharingeconomy’sactors.But what about Uber or Airbnb has to do with sharing or collaboration? The notion ofcollaboration is ambiguous (Servet, 2014).Andonwhat level is it situated? Is sharingorcollaborationabetterterm?Thealgorithmsthatmanagetheconnectionof individualsonthesedigitalplatformsarenotopenaccess,noraretheclientdatabases.Forsome,UberandAirbnbshouldnotbeconsideredapartofthesharingeconomy9,whichrefersmore to the formation of self-organized communities of interest and peer-to-peerrelationshipsaswellaswiththeconstructionandmanagementofcommongoods(Servet,2014;Bauwens,2015).HowthenshouldwemakeadistinctionbetweenasharingeconomybasedinacapitalismfoundedonthemassiveuseofdigitaltoolsthankstotheInternet(a“netarchical capitalism” as Bauwens puts it, 2015) and another sharing economy, to bedefined,basedonacommunalproject?

II.CharacterizingtheSharingEconomyOfcourse,thesharingeconomypromotesadistributedviewoftheeconomy(Rifkin,2012,p. 155) in which the consumer becomes involved in production by making their goodsavailable to a third party. The pooling of goods, facilitated by the mediation of digitalplatforms10, aims to save money, to use fewer resources, to reduce consumption andpollution, and to redefine consumer necessities (to shift away from goods and towardrelationships). Peer-to-peer exchanges enable collaborative arrangements of productionand exchange without being weighed down by institutions or organizations – it is aneconomybasedondemand,wheretheconsumeractsinthefieldofproduction(Bauwens,2015).Thepeer-to-peerapproachproposesaviewof theeconomy’splace insociety thatwasfirstenvisionedbytheeconomicsociologistKarlPolanyiinthemid-20thcentury.Thisvision is based on the desire to change economic relationships and to organize theircooperativemanagement.

2.1.Thesharingeconomy–aneconomyre-embeddedinsociety?The sharing economy produces social innovation (Klein et al., 2014) by mobilizingeconomic behaviors that reinforce social cohesion whereas mercantile exchange is abehaviorthattendstodepersonalizeexchanges. KarlPolanyidiscussedthisphenomenonatlength(Maucourantetal.,1998),beginningwithhisidentificationofthetwomeaningsof“economy”.Thepolysemyofthiswordisthesourceofmanyimprecisionsinthedominantdiscourse(Polanyi,1977,p.19).Initsformalsense,theeconomyconnectsmeanstoends–it is a question of maximizing interest (profit) by avoiding waste – that is, by saving(throughefficiency).Assuch,theeconomyistheprerogativeofaselectfewfirms,namelythoseorganizedby theprinciplesof economic liberalism.The substantivemeaningof theeconomy is altogether different, concerning a much larger number of companies. In the8http://www.paristechreview.com/2014/12/31/economie-partage-reglementation/).9http://www.lemonde.fr/entreprises/article/2015/06/25/michel-bauwens-uber-et-airbnb-n-ont-rien-a-voir-avec-l-economie-de-partage_4661680_1656994.html10http://www.brie.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/PlatformEconomy2DistributeJune21.pdf


5

substantive sense, the economy is the process that enables the livelihood of humankind(throughefficiency).This livelihoodcirculates through interactionswithotherpeopleandwith their natural environment, and interactions with other people fit into a socialframework, as humans cannot survive outside of society. Economics is thus immersed –embedded–inthesocial.

Polanyiidentifiedfourprinciplesofeconomicbehavior:threeinthesubstantivesenseandthe last in the formal sense. These principles are associated with institutional modelsoperativeinagivensociety,whichareinturnintendedtofacilitatetheimplementationofeconomicprinciplesofbehavior.

The first principle is reciprocity, which consists of giving when one has received.Reciprocity can take many forms, but it’s essential characteristic is that it concernsindividuals that identify with one another in some respect. “Reciprocity is enormouslyfacilitatedbytheinstitutionalpatternofsymmetry,afrequentfeatureofsocialorganizationamongnonliteratepeoples” (Polanyi,1944,p.78).Redistribution, the secondprincipleofeconomicbehavior, canbe sketchedas an initialmovementofproducts towarda centralauthority which then disseminates them. “The institutional pattern of centricity […]providesatrackforthecollection,storage,andredistributionofgoodsandservices”(ibid.).Finally,theprincipalofdomesticadministration,whichroughlyconsistsofconsumingwhatoneproducesoneself, isbasedonthemodeloftheclosedgroup(ibid.,p.83).Thesethreeprinciples of economic behavior, which are not mutually exclusive, represent forms ofintegration into a group. They rely on institutional models generated by the collective.Respecting and adhering to these principles allows the individual to fit into theircommunity(ibid.,p.86).

Thefourthprincipleismercantileexchangebasedontheinstitutionalmodelofthemarket.Inthiscase,societydoesnotdeterminetheindividual’splaceaccordingto“customandlaw,magicandreligion”.It isratherthemarket’sfunctiontoestablishtheindividual’splaceinsocietyinapurelymechanicalmannerbyintersectingtheindividual’soffers/demandswiththose of other buyers/sellers on themarket in question. In such cases, themarket risksbecomingthesole“social”linkduetoitstendencytodepersonalizeexchanges(Durkheim,1991).

Different formsofsharingeconomymobilize theseprinciples tovariousdegrees.Onecanalready see that Uber, Airbnb, and Ebay fall within the category of mercantile exchangebasedontheinstitutionalmodelofthemarketdespitethefactthattheexchangesarepeer-to-peer (P2P).Wikipedia (Rifkin, 2014), fab labs (Lallement, 2015), and LETS (Ferraton,Vallat,2012),however,primarilyfunctionaccordingtotheprincipleofreciprocitybasedonthe institutional model of symmetry. This principle of reciprocity characterizes the“concernforothers”(Servet,2007)foundingroupswherethepursuitofthecommongoodtakes precedence over the pursuit of individual interests. The sharing economy, in aPolanyian framework, refers toasubstantiveconceptionof theeconomy(theeconomy isembeddedinandworksintheserviceofsociety).Economicactionisthusorientedtowardthe production of social utility, as is the casewith solidarity economyprojects (FerratonandVallat,2005;Gadrey,2006).


6

Withthesepointsinmind,wecanenrichourdescriptionofthesharingeconomytobegindistinguishingseveralformsofsharingeconomyaccordingtothePolanyianframework.Forexample, it is possible to act within a mercantile structure while having a substantiveconceptionoftheeconomy(thisisthecaseincirculareconomies,product-servicesystems,and worker cooperatives). Likewise, it is possible for several principles of economicbehaviortocoexistwithinthesameorganization:afablaboraneighborhooddevelopmentcommitteepartiallysubsidizedbypublic fundscanfunctionaccordingtotheprinciplesofreciprocityorredistribution(Demoustier,Vallat,2005).

Economicbehaviordoesnotseemasufficientcriteriontomakedistinctionsbetweenactorsin the sharing economy, thus we will explore a second criterion, pertaining to thecooperativemanagementoftheeconomy.

2.2.Acooperativelymanagedeconomy?Thesharingeconomyseemstoofferathirdway,betweentheStateandthemarket–thatoftheCollaborativeCommons(Rifkin,2014),which,aimingtoproduce,innovate,andmanagecooperatively(Ostrom,1990;Hess&Ostrom,2007),isbasedonthecommunity’sinterests(economy in the substantive sense) rather than on the satisfaction of individual desiresalone (economy in the formal sense).Thisperspective is in linewithopenaccess culture(Suber, 2012), a prominent part of Internet culture (Benkler, 2002). The collaborativecultureassociatedwiththeInternetdrawsfromitsacademicbeginnings(Castells,2002,p.18-49),andmoregenerallyfromopensourceculture(whilethisculturaltraithasnotbeentheonlyonetocreateInternetculture, itdoesconstituteamajorfoundationaccordingtoCastells–2002,p.50-82).Thusthecollective/collaborativeproductionofcontent(ofwhichWikipedia is emblematic) has been seeping into organizations, if only by way ofgenerational effect (generation Y11), and is said to contribute to the construction of anadaptive,creative,collectiveintelligence(WilliamsWoolleyetal.,2010).Collaborativepracticescreatevalueforthegroup/society,andthefreesoftwaremovementis at the forefront of this idea of producing value cooperatively to the benefit of all(Mangolte, 2015). In this context, knowledge is the good being collaborativelymanaged.TheLinuxoperatingsystem,theFirefoxwebbrowser,andtheArduinoboardsareexamplesof the innovative fruits of distributed, democratized development (vonHippel, 2005). Astheworldeconomyislargelybasedontheproductionanddistributionofknowledge12,thismeans there is great temptation to appropriate collaboratively produced knowledge forprofit. Economist Elinor Ostrom’s work on the commons establishes a framework forthinkingaboutthemanagementofthesegoods.Thenotionof the commonswas first used to speakof common-pool resources requiringcommunalmanagement (Ostrom, 1990) in order to avoid the “tragedy of the commons”(Hardin,1968)–whichistosay,theexcessiveexploitationofacommonlimitedresourcetoprivateends(e.g., fishstocks).After initialworkonthecommonswaspublishednear theendof the1970s,with its focusonthemanagementofrareresources(Ostrom&Ostrom,

11SeeDagnaud,2013andPalfrey&Gasser,2008.12SeeOECD(2012a),OECD(2012b),EuropeanCommission(2010).


7

1977),thecommonswasreimaginedwithaparticularfocusonculture(Bertacchinietal.,2012), the Internet (Benkler, 1998), and knowledge (Ostrom & Hess, 2011). It is thuspossibletogiveageneraldefinitionofcommons:

Commons is a general term that refers to a resource shared by a group of people. In a commons, the resource can be small and serve a tiny group (the family refrigerator), it can be a community-level (sidewalks, playgrounds, libraries, and so on), or it can extend to international and global levels (deep seas, the atmosphere, the internet, and scientific knowledge). The commons can be well bounded (a community park or library); transboundary (the Danube River, migrating wildlife, the Internet); or without clear boundaries (knowledge, the ozone layer). (Ostrom & Hess, 2011, p. 4-5)13

Knowledge is a particular kind of commons – it grows as it is shared. The more thisresourceiscalledupon,themoreitdevelops;andthisdevelopmenthasbeenmademucheasier as information and communications technology bring the cost of sharing down tonearly nothing (Rifkin, 2014). Within our Polanyian framework, we would say that theproductionofknowledgereliesupontheeconomicbehaviormodelofreciprocity,basedonthe institutional model of symmetry– the symmetry of all knowledge producers whosecreativity is recognized by all14. This is themodel that allows for the democratization ofinnovation(vonHippel,2005).Knowledge is,ofcourse,anon-rivalrousgood,but it canbe improperlyappropriatedandthuscallsintoquestiontheestablishmentofpropertyrights(Orsi,2015).Privatizationisaconstant threat to common resources (Polanyi gives the example of the creation ofenclosuresinthe18thcenturyas“arevolutionoftherichagainstthepoor”–Polanyi,1944),whichexplainstheresistancemovementsagainstprivatizationinthedomainofknowledge(Latrive,2004)thatadvocateforopenaccess(Suber,2012)andfreecultureprotectedbyCreativeCommonslicenses(Lessig,2004).We may further characterize the different forms of sharing economy by adding adiscriminatingcriterionbasedonthecommunalmanagementofresources(especially theresourceofknowledge,butnotexclusiveoffinancialresources,i.e.,thesharingoffindingsrelated to a given activity). The representatives of “netarchical capitalism” do not sharetheir algorithms for putting peers into contact nor do they share their profits or clientdatabases(whicharefurnishedbytheclientsthemselves).Thesharingeconomyisnotapoliticalmovement;whileitsustainswhatmaybeconsideredautopianproject(MichelBauwens’bookistitled“ToSavetheWorld”–2015,andJeremyRifkinspeaksof“eclipsingcapitalism”–2014), it isbasedinadiagnosisoftheactualthatleadsonetothink:“thestructureofoursocietyisprofoundlyoutofsyncwiththeprinciplesof contribution, participation, and cooperation on which the digital and the sharingeconomy rely” (Filippova, back cover). This conclusion iswidely shared (Castelles, 1996;Anderson, 2012; Tapscott & Williams, 2007; Botsman & Rogers, 2011). Beyond thisdiagnosis, the supporters of the sharing economy advocate action – participation in the

13Foramorein-depthdefinition,seeCoriat(2015).14TheInternetmakesallproductionavailable(especiallyknowledge)andtherebydemocratizescreativity(Anderson,2011,2012;Serres,2012).


8

creation of this new world by being an agent of change. Action becomes the means oftestingideasandovercomingthemovement’sinternalcontradictions15.

III.TheSharingEconomyIsConceivedthroughActionSharingeconomiesareunitedinaction.Certaininitiativesaremanagedcollectively,basedonreciprocity,andremainnonprofit.Others–victimsoftheirsuccess–shifttothesideof“netarchical capitalism”. Nomatterwhere they end up, they appear to share an originalimpetus–toact,tomake,whichcontributestothetransformationofourworldview.

3.1.ThesharingeconomyencouragesustobricolerWhatdoesitmeanto“make”(Lallement,2015;Anderson,2012)?Itismorethanapoliticalagenda, it is away of life: to no longer be a passive consumer – to join the ranks of theproducers. Production liberates, as Proudhon emphasized (in hackerspaceswe approachtheProuhoniannotionofmutualismthatwasopposedtotheMarxistvisionofcommunalownership of the means of production) – production in places where space, tools,experiences andknowledge (fab labs andhackerspaces) are shared,production to affirmone’sidentity,incollaborationandforcollaboration’ssake.Tomakeistolearnbydoing–itisapracticeofproduction/personalliberationthatfostersempowerment16;itistheunionofart and technique (whichencouragesdisciplinarydecompartmentalization).Onemightask if the sharing economy announces the triumph of pragmatism over ideology, of themakerovertheprofessional.The3dprinters, lasercutters,andotherdigitalmachining tools thatone finds in fab labsgiveaccesstoanewformofmakingthatisnolongersimplyindividual,butinterconnected(Anderson, 2011; 2012). The Internet hasn’t only made possible the implementation ofmore horizontalized relationships that facilitate collaboration, it has revealed andpromotedthe imageof themakerthateachofuscanbe(in thedigitaland/ortheanalogworld) (Castells, 1996; Rifkin, 2014). These transformations obviously call for us toquestion the way in which we think about society and organizations (Castells, 2002).Indeed, the idea ofbricolage [DIY, tinkering] can shed light on the process of innovation(Gundryetal.,2003;Garud&Karnøe,2003),onthechoicesofentrepreneurs,andontheunderstandingoforganizations(DuymedianandRüling,2010).Wewillshowthat,bywayofitspragmatism,bricolagealsocallsintoquestionthewayweunderstandtheconstructionofknowledge.In his book The Savage Mind (published in 196217), Claude Lévi-Strauss developed theconcept of bricolage to characterize a mode of understanding the world based onexperimentation–a“scienceoftheconcrete”(Lévi-Strauss,2014,p.30)thathedefinesasfollows:

In its old sense the verb ‘bricoler’ applied to ball games and billiards, to hunting, shooting and riding. It was however always used with reference to some extraneous movement: a ball rebounding, a dog

15http://telos-eu.com/fr/politique-economique/economie-collaborative-un-programme-politique-pour.html16SeeFerraton&Vallat,2004.17Thereferencesgivenherecorrespondtothe2014edition.


9

straying or a horse swerving from its direct course to avoid an obstacle. And in our own time the ‘bricoleur’ is still someone who works with his hands and uses devious means compared to those of a craftsman. (ibid.)

By using the analogy of DIY making, Lévi-Strauss attempts to escape what he calls the“Neolithicparadox”(ibid.,p.26).TheNeolithicperiodsawtheadventofpottery,weaving,agriculture, animal husbandry,metallurgy, andmore technologies that do not come intoexistence by simple chance, but neither did these discoveries appear as the results of a“modern”(analytical)scientificapproachasthatformalizedbyDescartesseveralcenturieslater. Thus two scientific approaches coexist in history– one incarnated by thebricoleurandtheotherbytheengineer:

The ‘bricoleur’ is adept at performing a large number of diverse tasks; but, unlike the engineer, he does not subordinate each of them to the availability of raw materials and tools conceived and procured for the purpose of the project. His universe of instruments is closed and the rules of his game are always to make do with ‘whatever is at hand’ […].The set of the ‘bricoleur’s’ means cannot therefore be defined in terms of a project (which would presuppose besides, that, as in the case of the engineer, there were, at least in theory, as many sets of tools and materials or ‘instrumental sets’, as there are different kinds of projects). It is to be defined only by its potential use or, putting this another way and in the language of the ‘bricoleur’ himself, because the elements are collected or retained on the principle that ‘they may always come in handy’. (ibid., p. 31)

3.2.CobblingtogetheraconstructionoftheworldScienceseekstounderstand,whereasthebricoleurseekstobuild,whichisanythingbutabarriertounderstanding.Onthecontrary,itremindsusthattheconstructionofknowledgeisinconceivablewithoutaction:“alldoingisknowing,allknowingisdoing”(Maturanaetal.,1987).Thisconstructionofknowledgeiscreatedindialoguewiththeworld.Thescientistobserves,whereas thebricoleurdialogues; thebricoleur is in theworld–he is theworld.This is why the bricoleur accepts “[…] the incorporation of a certain amount of humanculture into reality” (Lévi-Strauss, 2014, p. 34). Hence the term bricolage qualifies(teleologically)boththemodeofproductionanditsresult.

Finally, themakermovement and its DIY approach encourage us to be/make theworld,challengingourrelationshiptoknowledgeaswellascallingintoquestiontheplaceoftheengineerandthebricoleurmorebroadly.Thefigureofthebricoleur leadsustoconsideraprofound ontological hypothesis: the real does not exist in and of itself – the projectcontributes to its creation. This hypothesis has already been discussed at length in thesciences in its relationship to pragmatic epistemological (Bazzoli & Dutraive, 2015) andconstructivistapproaches(LeMoigne,2012)18. Itcertainlydeservestobediscussedmuchmoreinthecontextoforganizationalmanagementandpoliticalaction19.Doinggoesbeyondideological discourse by implementing concrete shared solutions (Wikipedia,OpenstreetMap, Linux, etc.) based on togetherness (or an economy in the substantive18“Radicalconstructivism,thus,isradicalbecauseitbreakswithconventionanddevelopsatheoryofknowledgeinwhichknowledgedoesnotreflectan‘objective’ontologicalreality,butexclusivelyanorderingandorganizationofaworldconstitutedbyourexperience.Theradicalconstructivisthasrelinquished‘metaphysicalrealism’onceandforall,andfindshimselfinfullagreementwithPiaget,whosays:‘Intelligenceorganizestheworldbyorganizingitself’”(vonGlasersfeld,1984).19Wemightinquireintothecapacityofagivensharingeconomytocorrespondtoareturntopoliticalengagementbywayofcommunityinvolvement(Putnam,1995,2000).


10

sense).

AProvisionalConclusionOntheonehand,wehaveopenaccessculture(Suber,2012),wherepeersjointogetherinsupportofasociallyusefulprojectandproducecollectively;ontheotherhandaregiganticcommercial enterprises thatprofit from theopportunitiesmadeavailableby the Internetand seek to establish a “netarchical capitalism”20. The sharing economy concentratescontradictions of which the field’s actors are clearly aware and which are simply thereflectionof thecomplexityofoursocieties.This iswhywedistinguishdifferent formsofsharing economy. Certain of them may appear as the culmination of the new spirit ofcapitalism (Boltanski & Chiapello, 1999) and others as its reassessment. Some of theseinitiatives,“victims”ofworldwidesuccess(Airbnb),succumbtoinstitutionalisomorphism(DiMaggio&Powell,1983),reproducingorganizationalformsofthepastastheyblendintoanewcapitalismsupportedbydigitalnetworks.Otherstakepart inthedesiretomake inordertoaffirmone’sexistenceintheworld(tore-affiliateoneself–Castel,1995),oreventotransformtheworldandtocobbletogetheraconcreteutopia.Makersshakeuptheorderlyarrangementofthescientificorganizationofwork(Anderson,2011, 2012)21, prosumers throw into question theworkings of capitalism (Rifkin, 2014),and hackers challenge ownership (Latrive, 2004): all of them open new horizons forresearchers to explore, as the established knowledge does not exhaust this new context.Thewayisopentocobbletogethernewknowledge.

20http://www.liberation.fr/economie/2015/03/20/le-peer-to-peer-induit-que-la-production-emane-de-la-societe-civile_122500221Workercooperativeshavebeenabletoplaythisrole,butonasmallerscale.


11

Bibliography

Anderson,C.(2004),TheLongTail,downloadableat:http://web.archive.org/web/20041127085645/http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html

Anderson,C.(2011),Lalonguetraine,Pearson.

Anderson,C.(2012),Makers,Pearson.

Bauwens,M.,(2012),“SyntheticOverviewoftheCollaborativeEconomy”,P2PFoundationReport

Bauwens,M.,(2015),Sauverlemonde.Versuneéconomiepost-capitalisteaveclepeer-to-peer,LesLiensquilibèrent.

Bazzoli,L.andDutraive,V.(2014),“D’unedémocratiecréatriceàuncapitalismeraisonnable,lecturecroiséedelaphilosophiedeJ.Deweyetdel’économiedeJ.R.Commons”,RevueEconomique,specialissueon"Economy,RulesandNorms"editedbyE.BertrandandN.Sigot,vol.65,n°2,March,p.357-372.

Benkler,Y.(2006),TheWealthofNetworks:HowSocialProductionTransformsMarketsandFreedom,YaleUniversityPress.

Benkler,Y.(2002),“Coase’spenguin,orLinuxandthenatureofthefirm”,YaleLawJournal,112,369–446:http://www.yale.edu/yalelj/112/BenklerWEB.pdf

Benkler,Y.(1998),“OvercomingAgoraphobia:BuildingtheCommonsoftheDigitallyNetworkedEnvironment”,HarvardJournalofLawandTechnology,11,p.287.

Bertacchini,E.,Bravo,G.,Marrelli,M.andSantagata,W.,eds.,(2012),CulturalCommons.ANewPerspectiveontheProductionandEvolutionofCultures,EdwardElgar.

Boltanski,L.andChiapello,E.,(1999),Lenouvelespritducapitalisme,Paris:Gallimard.

Botsman,R.andRogers,R.(2011),What’sMineIsYours:TheRiseofCollaborativeConsumption,NewYork,HarperCollins.

Castel,R.(1995),LesMétamorphosesdelaquestionsociale,Paris:Fayard.

Castells,M.(1996),TheRiseoftheNetworkSociety,TheInformationAge:Economy,SocietyandCultureVol.I.Cambridge,MA;Oxford,UK:Blackwell.

Castells,M.(2002),LagalaxieInternet,Paris:Fayard.

Coase,R.(1937),“TheNatureoftheFirm”,Economica,4,p.386-405.

Coriat,B.(2015),ed.,Leretourdescommuns.Lacrisedel’idéologiepropriétaire,LesLiensquiLibèrent

Dagnaud,M.(2013),GénérationY.Lesjeunesetlesréseauxsociaux,deladérisionàlasubversion,Paris,PressesdeSciencesPo,“Nouveauxdébats”series,updatedandaugmented2ndedition,1stedition2011.

Demoustier,D.(2001),L’économiesocialeetsolidaire,Paris:LaDécouverteetSyros,2001.

Demoustier,D.andVallat,D.(2005),“Economiesocialeetsolidaire,développementéconomiquelocaletpolitiquedelaville»,Revuedesétudescoopératives,mutualistesetassociatives,n°296,May2005,84thyear,p.70-82.

DiMaggio,P.J.,andPowell,W.W.(1983).“TheIronCageRevisited:InstitutionalIsomorphismandCollectiveRationalityinOrganizationalFields”,AmericanSociologicalReview,48(2),p.147-160.

Draperi,J.-F.(2011),L’économiesocialeetsolidaire:uneréponseàlacrise,Paris,Dunod,2011.

Durkheim,E.(1991),Deladivisiondutravailsocial,Paris:PUF(Quadrige),[1893]1991.

Duymedjian,R.andRüling,C.C.(2010),“TowardsaFoundationofBricolageinOrganizationandManagementTheory”,OrganizationStudies,31(2),p.133–151.


12

EuropeanCommission(2010),Europe2020,Unestratégiepourunecroissanceintelligente,durableetinclusive,Brussels,Commissiondocument:http://ec.europa.eu/archives/commission_2010-2014/president/news/documents/pdf/20100303_1_fr.pdf

FerratonC.andVallat,D.(2005),“Economiesocialeetsolidaire,créationd’activitéetutilitésociale”,Revuedel’économieméridionale,vol.53,n°211,3/2005,p.289-307.

FerratonC.andVallatD.(2004),“Lacréationd’activité:delaprised’autonomieàl’actioncollective”,AnnalsofPublicandCooperativeEconomics,CIRIEC,UniversitédeLiège,June2004.

Filippova,D.(2015),Sociétécollaborative.Lafindeshiérarchies,éditionsRuedel’échiquier.

Gadrey,J.(2006).“L’utilitésocialeenquestion,àlarecherchedeconventions,decritèresdeméthodesd’évaluation”,inJean-NoëlChopart,GuyNeyretandDanielRault(eds.),Lesdynamiquesdel’économiesocialeetsolidaire,Paris,LaDécouverte,“Recherches”collection.

Garud,R.andKarnøe,P.(2003),“BricolageVersusBreakthrough:DistributedandEmbeddedAgencyinTechnologyEntrepreneurship”,ResearchPolicy,32(2),p.277-300.

Glasersfeld,Ernstvon(1984),“AnIntroductiontoRadicalConstructivism”inP.Watzlawick(ed.),TheInventedReality,NewYork:Norton,1984.Downloadedfromhttp://www.vonglasersfeld.com.

Gundry,L.K.,Kickul,J.R.,Griffiths,M.D.,andBacq,S.C.(2011)“EntrepreneurialBricolageandInnovationEcology:PrecursorstoSocialInnovation?”FrontiersofEntrepreneurshipResearch,Vol.13:No.19,Article3.

Hardin,G.(1968),“TheTragedyoftheCommons”,Science,NewSeries,Vol.162,No.3859(Dec.13,1968),p.1243-1248.

Klein,J.-L.,Laville,J.-L.,andMoulaert,F.(2014),eds,L’innovationsociale,Erès.

Lallement,M.(2015),L’âgedufaire.Hacking,travail,anarchie,LeSeuil.

Latrive,F.(2004),Dubonusagedelapiraterie:culturelibre,sciencesouvertes,EditionsExils.

Laville,J.-L.(ed.),(1994),L’Économiesolidaire,uneperspectiveinternationale,Paris,DescléedeBrouwer.

Laville,J.-L.,(1999)UneTroisièmevoiepourletravail,Paris,DescléedeBrouwer.

LeMoigne,J.-L.(2012),LesÉpistémologiesConstructivistes,PUF,Quesais-je?,4eédition.

LeMoigne,J.-L.andMorin,E.(1999),L’intelligencedelacomplexité,Paris:l’Harmattan.

Lévi-Strauss,C.(2014),Lapenséesauvage,Plon,“Agora”collection.

Mangolte,P.-A.(2015),“Lelogiciellibrecommecommuncréateurderichesses”,inCoriat,B.(2015),ed.,Leretourdescommuns.Lacrisedel’idéologiepropriétaire,LesLiensquiLibèrent.

Mangu-Ward,K.(2007),“WikipediaandBeyond:JimmyWales’SprawlingVision”,Reason39(2),June2007.

Maturana,H.R.,andVarela,F.J.(1987),TheTreeofKnowledge:TheBiologicalRootsofHumanUnderstanding.Boston,MA:NewScienceLibrary/ShambhalaPublications.

Maucourant,J.,Servet,J.-M.andTiran,A.,eds.(1998),LamodernitédeKarlPolanyi,Paris:l’Harmattan(Logiquessociales).

OECD(2012a),ConnectedMinds:TechnologyandToday'sLearners,EducationalResearchandInnovation,OECDPublishing.

OECD(2012b),Etudeséconomiquesdel’OCDE2012/8(n°8).

Orsi,F.(2015),“Revisiterlapropriétépourconstruirelescommuns”,inCoriat,B.(2015),ed.,Leretourdescommuns.Lacrisedel’idéologiepropriétaire,LesLiensquiLibèrent.

Ostrom,E.(1990),GoverningtheCommons:TheEvolutionofInstitutionsforCollectiveAction,CambridgeUniversityPress.


13

Ostrom,E.andHess,C.,eds.(2011),UnderstandingKnowledgeasaCommons:FromTheorytoPractice,1stedition2007,Cambridge:MITPress.

Ostrom,V.andOstrom,E.(1977),“PublicGoodsandPublicChoices”inSavas,E.S.(ed.),AlternativesforDeliveringPublicServices:TowardImprovedPerformance,Boulder,co:WestviewPress.

Piore,M.J.&Sabel,C.F.(1984),TheSecondIndustrialDivide,NewYork:BasicBooks.

Polanyi,K.(1944),LaGrandeTransformation.Auxoriginespolitiquesetéconomiquesdenotretemps,Paris:Gallimard,[1944]1983.

Polanyi,K.(1977),TheLivelihoodofMan,AcademicPress:NewYork-SanFrancisco-London,1977.

Putnam,R.D.(1995),“BowlingAlone:America'sDecliningSocialCapital”,JournalofDemocracy6(1):p.65–78.

Putnam,R.D.(2000),BowlingAlone:TheCollapseandRevivalofAmericanCommunity.NewYork:Simon&Schuster.

Rifkin,J.(2012),Latroisièmerévolutionindustrielle,Lesliensquilibèrent,2012.

Rifkin,J.(2014),Lanouvellesociétéducoûtmarginalzéro,Lesliensquilibèrent,2014.

Serres,M.(2012),PetitePoucette,Paris:ÉditionsLePommier.

Servet,J.-M.(2007),“LeprincipederéciprocitéchezKarlPolanyi,contributionàunedéfinitiondel'économiesolidaire.”,RevueTiersMonde2/2007(n°190),p.255-273.

Servet,J.-M.(2014),“Denouvellesformesdepartage:lasolidaritéaudelàdel’économiecollaborative”,InstitutVeblen,downloadableat:http://www.veblen-institute.org/De-nouvelles-formes-de-partage-la

Smith,A.(1776),Recherchesurlanatureetlescausesdelarichessedesnations,Paris:Economica,[1776]2000.

Suber,P.(2012),OpenAccess,MITPressEssentialKnowledge,Cambridge,Mass:TheMITPress.

Tapscott,D.andWilliamsA.D.(2007),Wikinomics:HowMassCollaborationChangesEverything,NewYork:Penguin.

Valéry,P.(1973),Cahiers,TomeI,BibliothèquedelaPléiade,Gallimard,Paris.

VonHippel,E.(2005),DemocratizingInnovation.Cambridge,Mass.:TheMITPress.

Abstract:Thevaluesof thecollaborativeeconomy(openness, cooperation,equality,empowerment,reciprocity)allowittoproposeanalternativetocapitalism.Weattempttocharacterizethisformofeconomybyinquiringintoitsintentions(withaPolanyianframework),itsmodeofgovernance(collective),anditsrelationshiptoactofproduction.

an alternative to state-market dualism: the sharing ......vallat d. (2016), “an alternative to...

Documents