Soraya Sedkaoui - Sharing Economy and Big Data Analytics

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 the following:

Contemporary economic sociology is interested in the origin of this social structure, in other words, the rules that allow it to function; it studies its different forms and researches the reasons for their evolution. This is now called the social construction of markets. Moreover, by highlighting the shareholder aspect, contemporary economic sociology is led to consider the question of self-interested behavior in this constructivist framework.

The considerations of economic sociology confirm that the economic aspect is “always socially situated”. They reaffirm that economic exchange depends on people-to-people relationships and “extra-economic factors” (Pascal 2002).

In other words, economic sociology integrates social consideration into economic activity by using concepts illustrating free trade, namely “giving and the social and solidarity economy”. It should be noted, however, that the paradigm of gifting and the solidarity economy current does not have a consensus. According to Steiner in 1999, they are “either excluded from the field of economic sociology”, or according to Levesque et al . in 2001, they are “included in it” (cited in (Lasida 2009)).

With reference to Godboult’s book (1992), giving finds its place in the economic sphere. The author integrates it into the business and corporate world with finesse. It certifies that the gift is for the “service of the circulation of things, the sale and disposal of products”.

Godboult’s latest reflection is based on Carnegie’s work, particularly his book 7on the personal development method adapted to the business world, published in 1936. He gave the giving formula to the business community and the market. In her book, Carnegie shares the lessons learned from her extremely successful experience of her years of leadership (Godboult 1992).

These lessons do not focus on power theft or career research. On the contrary, he discovered that to become more powerful and strengthen business, people had to be treated with kindness alone. The author suggests that the businessman should give before he hopes to receive. He suggests that the businessman be sincere by offering gifts before the merchandise, because the disinterest he shows is felt through the way he gestures, looks or simply does things.

Carnegie’s book describes the attitude that the businessman must adopt towards people. His behavior must emanate from the human values governing social relations (loyalty, faithfulness, impartiality, transparency, enthusiasm, team spirit) and the utilitarianism that prevails in the business world must kindly integrate the logic of giving.

The interest that giving theory evokes in economic sociology is not the same as that in economics and management. In these disciplines:

theories such as liberal theory, the neoclassical business model and the utilitarian paradigm exert an overwhelming dominance, both in scientific publications and in educational programs at universities and business schools. (Masclef 2013)

Thus, gifting remains a marginal phenomenon that does not reflect the reality of utilitarianism and exchange.

In this context, Godboult (1992) indicated that two economists, François Perroux (in 1960) and Serge Christophe Kolm (in 1984), specified three complementary economic systems: the market system, governed by interest, the planning system, governed by constraint, and the gift system, without considering the gift as an economic system.

The author unfurls his analysis by stating that:

The giving system is not primarily an economic system, but the social system of person-to-person relationships. It is not a complement to the market or the plan, but a complement to the economy and the State. And it is even more fundamental, more important than they are, as the example of disorganized countries shows. In the East, or in the Third World, where the market and the State are unable or no longer able to organize themselves, there ultimately still remains a network of interpersonal relations cemented by gift and mutual aid which, alone, makes it possible to survive in a world of madness.

Also, some analyses show that social exchanges do not oppose economic logic, on the contrary: they give it meaning (Alter 2010). Material exchanges between individuals intrinsically involve social ties and can lead to non-reciprocal economic relations. That is to say, to give without waiting for a material counterpart. In other words, in its quest for efficiency, economic activity, particularly business activity, is imbued with philanthropic and altruistic social values and is not focused on making profits.

Some global economies have understood the role of social values in the consolidation and sustainability of their business. Indeed, several researchers have been interested in the Japanese model in this context.

Japanese companies are drawing on their social culture, which is based on nine concepts:

National sentiment (pride), honor, reliance on virtue, respect for tradition (weight of history), respect for authority, social conformity, consensus (harmony), sense of work (taste for effort) and pragmatism. (Verne and Meier 2013)

These virtues give Japanese companies a specific character. The manager and employees believe in these values and act in a collective spirit of cooperation, commitment and firmness.

Companies are proud of their role in society by contributing to the “well-being and prosperity of employees, customers and suppliers, in addition to the community as a whole” (Rolland-Piégue 2011). In doing so, Japanese companies strengthen solidarity in their communities and awaken the spirit of sharing and giving in each of the stakeholders.

Thus, the gift, as an economy that supports exchange between people, lays the foundations for an economy based on social norms.

Among the theories that have been mobilized to explain the purpose of the sharing economy, is the service economy. It is an economy that offers an alternative to excessive consumption of products and favors the use of a good over its ownership.

The concept of the “service economy” appeared in 1986 at the initiative of Walter Stahel and Granini (Bourg and Buclet 2005).

“The service economy, sometimes also called the ‘performance economy’, is a concept that was developed by Walter Stahel in the 1980s and was taken over by Dominique Bourg in the 2000s.”

It was approached by two theoretical schools. The Anglo-Saxon School, whose thought processes are based on the Product Service System (PSS) model. The main contributors to this school are Walter Stahel, Buclet, Okasana. The second school is the École française de l'économie de la fonctionnalité et de la coopération (French school of service economy and cooperation or EFC), whose ideas are mainly supported by Christophe Sempels and Christian Du Terre (Chaput 2015).