The Government [Finally] Takes Advantage of the Collaborative Economy

In light of the recent pivotal controversy involving government interaction in the shared economy, a new ecosystem has arrived, specifically focused on sharing government resources. MuniRent is a platform that makes it very easy for local governments to lease heavy duty equipment to other governments. Based out of Ann Arbor Michigan, MunitRent is one of few peer-to-peer platforms among businesses.

MuniRent.co

The site gives municipalities access to hundreds of pieces of equipment available with photos, machine specifications, and locations.  "There are early adopters who are excited about the sharing economy coming to the government level," says CEO Alan Mond. "Our vision is to be the hub for collaborative government."

The potential for both parties is cost. MuniRent claims that renters can give equipment up to 70% cheaper than on the open market, and the renting municipality can use the cash to offset equipment upkeep. 

FastCoExist's Ben Schiller spoke with CEO Alan Mond who reckons that governments are more likely to share than businesses, because, aside from political differences, they don't compete. "If you have two construction companies, one of them may not want to rent a crane to the other one. Governments are all trying to do sewer maintenance on reduced budgets. They're not competing. They just happen to be in different jurisdictions," he says.

It's incredible to see the government get involved in the collaborative economy to save the taxpayer dollar. We'd be interested to see if they'll continue this onto other services as well, and if their involvement will cause them to alter current views on sharing economy policy.

Check out the full article on MuniRent in FastCoExist and let us know what you think. Where else could the government benefit from sharing economy platforms?

The Sharing Economy: What's in a Name?

One of the first things opposition of the shared economy will point out is that members are not actually sharing anything. There have been debates based solely on the name of this economic model. The only thing I can equate this to is how the rest of the world must feel about American Football. Misleading title and not technically true (at least for the majority of playtime). Supporters of the sharing economy can't argue too hard because most of the larger platforms aren't exactly sharing or collaborating. Airbnb hosts receive payment for the usage of their homes, and TaskRabbit's receive payment for their services. To share would mean that there was no payment required for goods or services, and therefore, opposition is correct. However, this has no affect on how supporters feel about the shared economy in the same way that Americans will continue to defy the world with the word soccer. 

Andrew Geant, CEO and Co-Founder of WyzAnt, a tutor search website, recently wrote an article for Entrepreneur regarding the naming of the shared economy. Geant's article, The Sharing Economy is Misnamed But Deserves Celebration Anyway, takes a look at what we could be calling the sharing economy instead.

"Certainly there are common threads among these businesses and reasons why several of them have grown exponentially to multibillion dollar valuations. But sharing and collaboration are not part of the secret sauce.  What makes these businesses special and successful are the concepts of participation and utilization."

"'Participation' and 'utilization'' are better terms for this new sector of the economy because these adjectives describe concepts that sharing and collaboration have never fully captured."

In the article Geant goes onto to explain where and when "Participation" and "Utilization" fit:

"Participation: noun; the action of taking part in something.Businesses like Uber, Airbnb and Etsy increase accessibility to goods and services that were historically limited by regulation, price, awareness and other factors.  This is true for both supply and demand (riders and drivers, hosts and travelers, and buyers and sellers). These businesses cause participation to increase among all parties."

"Utilization: noun; putting to use; turning to profitable account.Utilization is another way of saying that these businesses take advantage of excess supply and latent demand. This is where the term “sharing” is often substituted incorrectly ( When I rent a spare bedroom on Airbnb, it is a business transaction, not sharing. I'm motivated by profit to utilize a resource I control)."

Geant reviews a handful of sharing platforms and where they would fall into his new categories. Check out the rest of his article for more information.

What do you think? Does the sharing economy need a technically correct title? And if so what do you think of Participation and Utilization? 

Lyft Continues it's Battle to Expand to NYC

Lyft has expanded to 60 US cities and had hoped make it 61 with the addition of New York City last Friday. However, NYC has declared Lyft an "unauthorized service" and threatened legal consequences if the ride-share app launched. Lyft held off as long as they could before announcing they would work with the Taxi and Limousine Commission:

"Today we agreed in New York State Supreme Court to put off the launch of Lyft's peer-to-peer model in New York City and we will not proceed with this model unless it complies with New York City Taxi and Limousine regulations. We will meet with the TLC beginning Monday to work on a new version of Lyft that is fully-licensed by the TLC, and we will launch immediately upon the TLC's approval."

Lyft assured the public that there was no TRO (temporary restraining order) or injunction, but that everyone agreed to meet Monday if Lyft held off on their launch. Wall Street Journal reports that the decision was less nonchalant than Lyft lets on. They state that familiar face, New York Attorney General Eric. T, Schneiderman (from the Airbnb's subpoena in NYC earlier this year) and plaintiff Benjamin Lawsky, filed court papers on Lyft's original launch date in order to stop the company from operating in the state. 

"Lyft's arguments are a disingenuous attempt to disguise old-fashioned lawbreaking that jeopardizes public safety," Messrs. Schneiderman and Lawsky said in a news release. Schneiderman is no new face to opposition of the shared economy and knows that NYC will set a standard for other cities worldwide. 

Lyft's competition Uber, managed to get licensed in NYC after initially launching without the TLC's approval. Some have speculated that this was because Uber had recently hired Ashwini Chhabra, the then TLC deputy commissioner for policy and planning. Many within the taxi industry find this to be very suspicious:

"About 4-5 weeks ago, [we] ... accused Ashwini of working for Uber presently and in the past," Evgeny Freidman, who owns one of the largest taxi fleets in New York, wrote to TLC Commissioner Meera Joshi shortly after Chhabra's hire, according to the New York Observer. "I would insist as a major stake holder in this industry ‎that the TLC open a [Department of Investigation] investigation into this matter."

However, several industry experts believe that Chhabra's hiring had nothing to do with Uber's licensing but rather that Uber agreed to play by the TLC's rules, which up until now, Lyft has refused to do. Uber has embraced regulations and operates only with city-licensed vehicles. TLC spokesman, Russell Murphy states:

"From our perspective, … Lyft is unique from Uber in a larger sense because they’re not following TLC regulations. Uber, at least from what the TLC says and what Uber says, is following all the regulations,"
 

So yet another legal battle to watch in the sharing economy. Let us know what you think, will NYC grant Lyft a license? Or use them to set an example for other "unauthorized services"? To read more check out the Business Insider article on Why NYC's Lyft Crackdown Probably Isn't Linked To Uber and Wall Street Journal's coverage of Friday's decision.