Sharing Economy and Big Data Analytics. Soraya Sedkaoui
use financial compensation as the main motivation, and it does not use traditional command and control methods:
It creates something common rather than a market or a state, and relies on social relationships to allocate resources, rather than a price mechanism or hierarchical system. (Evroux et al. 2014)
Bauwens’ definition considers the P2P system as a non-profit social organization, its only ambition is to share data between individuals, whether they are producers or users. It follows a protocol created by society and for society, without there being a system of supervision, and it tries to moralize the use of technology.
The Intel Working Group defines P2P as “the sharing of IT resources and services through direct exchange between systems”. Alex Weytsel of the Aberdeen Group considers P2P to be “the use of devices on the outskirts of the Internet without the customer’s ability”.
Ross Lee Graham identifies P2P according to three main requirements: possession of a server-quality operational computer, registration at an independent address, and the ability to cope with flexible connectivity (Milojicic et al. 2002).
Clay Shirky of O’Reilly and Associates is based on the following definition:
P2P is a class of applications that takes advantage of the resources – storage, cycles, content, human presence – available on Internet devices. (Evroux et al. 2014)
In this case, Shirky summarized the main operational elements of P2P into three concepts (Koulouris 2010) in 2001:
– Presence: this includes the ability to say when a resource is online. Determining the presence of a resource is necessary for P2P networks, as the permanent availability of resources is not guaranteed. Once a user or resource’s online presence is established, any number of highly personalized services can be offered. Presence is essential for the creation of user-centric systems, such as instant messaging.
– Identity: P2P networks must be able to uniquely identify available resources. The identification systems that were used were not suitable for machines permanently connected to the Internet and users without a stable IP address (see Box 1.2) could not be recognized or identified. Thus, P2P technology solves this problem by using its own naming system.
– P2P networks make it possible to use the resources available at the “limits” of the Internet: processing power, storage, content, human presence. This is in contrast to current client/server services, where usable resources are concentrated in servers: the “core” areas of the Internet. P2P services organize a grouping of resources of variable size belonging to the participants and allow them to use it collectively.
Box 1.2. IP4 address
“An IP address is simply a way to identify a device connected to a computer network. Just as a postal address is used to receive mail at home, an IP address is used to send and receive data between devices connected on the same network. Without an IP address, millions of computer devices would not be able to communicate with each other.”
Lastly, Kindberg believes that P2P system resources have independent lifespans (Deepak and Sanjay 2005).
All these definitions have outlined a profile of P2P technology, each with a specific approach. However, they all agree on two main characteristics. The first is that P2P technology can evolve, as there are no algorithmic or technical restrictions on system size. The second is that it is reliable, because the malfunction of a given node does not affect the entire system (Ding et al. 2005). It offers a wide range of opportunities and paves the way for initiatives and innovations in the field of the sharing economy.
P2P is a technical support and an asset to materialize exchanges between people. It is certainly essential, but it is not enough to make the sharing economy a realistic alternative to hyper-consumption, in terms of an economic model.
1.3.2. The gift: the abstract aspect of the sharing economy
There are subjective aspects inspired by ethics and human value that are a substantial base for sharing between people. The “gift” is one of these aspects. It is the act by which a person voluntarily disposes of a good or service for the benefit of another person (or organization), without financial compensation. If there are no monetary benefits, can we even be talking of an economic act? The question seems absurd.
Most of the time, gifting is not approached from an economic perspective, but rather from a socio-philosophical point of view. Thus, “a gift is a privileged object of anthropology and economic sociology since the essay on gifting by M. Mauss”5 (Athané 2008).
Box 1.3. The gift according to Mauss
“[…] You will then have a fairly good idea of the kind of economy that is at present laboriously in gestation. We see it already functioning in certain economic groupings, and in the hearts of the masses, who possess very often better than their leaders, a sense of their own interests, and of the common interest. Perhaps by studying these obscure aspects of social life, we shall succeed in throwing a little light upon the path that our nations must follow, both in their morality and in their economy.”
These disciplines try to explain the embedding of economics in the norms that control social relations. Embedding in Polanyi’s6 sense refers to the inclusion of the economy, as a means of satisfying human needs, in political and cultural orders that govern certain forms of movement of goods and services (Carvalho and Dzimira 2000).
Much research has focused on the issues of the role of giving in a business and the market value of the deed of giving. In the economic context, gifting is subtly integrated into the behavior of economic agents. “For many economists and managers, it is a social practice, of an emotional or moral nature, that is beyond their area of competence” (Gomez et al. 2015).
The logic of giving is an exception in commercial society. It is the opposite of merchant exchange, it is one-way. The donor does not expect any consideration when he decides to bequeath ownership of his property (Lasida 2009).
For some, to evoke giving in economics is an absurdity, they believe that several obstacles stand in the way of the gift being able to design a new economic model. For them, an economic good (or service) has an immediate value in use, in other words, it must have a monetary value to be exchanged.
However, if the issue of giving in the economy or market economy is addressed in a social context, it is likely to foster the social relationships that have developed in the market (Lasida 2009).
In their book on giving in a company, Gomez et al. (2015) argue that giving and free donation are found throughout the company and in markets:
The helping hand to a colleague, the return of an elevator, the free transfer of information, corporate gifts, free discounts to the customer, the service provided without being obliged to do so, etc.
This approach will help us to explain the “presence of the gift” in economic activity. Indeed, if we are in the new economic sociology, the market, in addition to being the (geographical or virtual) place where the supplier and the demander meet, “characterizes a specific form of social relationship: one in which prices determine relationships to things and individuals, even if these prices result from a struggle between agents before the results of this struggle are imposed on them” (Steiner 2012).
Economic sociology considers the market as a social structure. Steiner (2005) uses Swedberg’s (Swedberg and Smelser 1994) thought process to support this idea:
My main objective, however, will be to examine markets from a particular perspective, such as a specific type of social structure. Although social structure can be defined in different ways, this term is generally understood as a kind of recurrent and structured interaction between agents, maintained by means of sanctions.
Thus, he argues