nd
2 INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON THE SHARING ECONOMY
How does the sharing economy disrupt individual behaviors, industries and public
regulation?
28-29 January 2016, Paris, France
Is sharing economy really (not) about sharing ?
Investigating the place of gift in sharing
Author: Olivier Babeau,
Professor, Bordeaux University (France), IRGO Laboratory
Courriel : [email protected]
Tel: (33) 6.86.77.88.53
Abstract
The expression “sharing economy” is often criticized as misleading. The mercantile
nature of the new activities it designates is supposedly incompatible with what “sharing”
means. Is sharing economy really (not) about sharing? To tackle this issue, we build from the
deep comprehension of gift proposed by sociology and anthropology. After having
established the main characteristics of gift given by literature, we try to assess its place in one
of the emblematic new activity of the so-called sharing economy: Airbnb. Our analysis of
hundreds of comments left by guests and our interviews of hosts show that various
dimensions of gift are actually present in this activity.
Keywords: gift, sharing economy, airbnb
1
Introduction:
is
sharing
economy
synonymous
or
antonymous to gift?
The concept of sharing economy, which was born with the new century, encompasses
various new forms of activities. One of its major application is the striking growing tendency
for individual owners of a good (house, car, DIY tools, etc.) to “share” it with other
individuals thanks to an internet platform putting offer and demand in relation. The power of
this tendency lies in the typical underuse of the possessed goods: a car or a drill are used a
small percentage of time, a bedroom may be empty all year long, a flat may be empty during
5 weeks a year and numerous week-ends… Several terms arise to qualify this kind of activity:
apart from sharing economy, one can find peer economy or collaborative consumption for
instance. According to Botsman and Rogers (2011), the common characteristics of this
phenomenon is to designate “distributed networks of connected individuals and communities,
as opposed to centralized institutions.” It applies to four dimensions: production,
consumption, finance and learning. For these authors, the specific area of sharing economy is
based on “sharing underutilized assets from spaces to skills to stuff for monetary or nonmonetary benefits”. Companies such as Airbnb, Couchsurfing (bedrooms) or Getaround, Lyft
and Zipcar (car sharing) belong to this category.
Among all the debates surrounding sharing economy, the name itself is one of the most
remarkable. As other phenomena accompanying the rise of new technologies (3D printing,
genetic technologies, artificial intelligence for instance), the sharing economy raises a strong
debate between opponents with clear-cut positions. As a comment on a blog on economics
2
states: “what is Uber? A paragon of free market efficiency and technological innovation
serving the general public? Or living proof for why capitalist societies require regulation?”1
On the one hand, some celebrate the new age of sharing as the victory of a new kind of
solidarity, environmental and social awareness (for instance Rifkin, 2014). On the other hand,
many (for instance Bauwens, 2015) deplore the development of a cynical and violent form of
market which is the utmost expression of its too well-known drift (domination, inequality,
alienation). The inadequacy of the term “sharing” would be based on the fact that “sharing” is
about “giving”, and that new forms of economical exchanges symbolized by Airbnb or Uber
are purely profit-oriented activities. They argue that the term of “sharing” should be banned
and replaced by more adequate words, like “collaborative”. Similarly, many critics of the socalled new-economy regret the progression of money-based relationships (in other word of
the market) detrimental to “normal” disinterested social relations. In consequence, there
would be “no sharing economy2” properly speaking mainly because the mercantile dimension
would per se exclude the idea of gift. Bauwens (2015) makes a difference between
collaborative economy and sharing economy : “Airbnb belongs to collaborative economy: you
sell, you rent, but there is no sharing, even if it allows to use unexploited resources”.
Apparently, the two approaches exclude each other: the sharing dimension is often
supposed as being entirely incompatible with the mercantile dimension. For example,
Escande and Cassini (2015) ask: “Are we on the verge of a merchant hypercapitalism where
1
Read on an economics forum « Uber and unrestrained-hypercapitalism », Aug 31 2014. Link :
http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index.php?threads/uber-and-unrestrained-hyper-capitalism.286238/
2
Matthew Yglesias, article « Ther is no « sharing economy » on Slate.fr.
bloghttp://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/12/26/myth_of_the_sharing_economy_there_s_no_such_thing.
html
3
everything will be for sale ? Or on the contrary will society convert itself to exchange and
sharing? Hell or heaven?”3
The authors quoted above seem to criticize the fact that, in Airbnb for instance, there is
only a mere exchange (I give you shelter and you give me money), when “sharing” would
include that, at a point, someone gives something he has without anything in return. The
question of sharing may then in our opinion be tackled by reference to the notion of gift.
Should we ban the term of “sharing economy”? This question has indeed two sides:
first, in what extent the concept of gift excludes mercantile for-profit exchanges? In other
words, are interested and disinterested relations mutually exclusive? Second: are some
characteristics of gift actually present in collaborative economy or do we have to mourn the
loss of free relationships in favor of an omnipresent and hegemonic commodification of social
life?
This is more than a mere question of labeling, as the label we choose to give or exclude
actually “tells something” about the content we recognize to the designated phenomenon. At a
time were many new economical phenomena and business forms are emerging, terminology
is particularly important. Names are never neutral, and words are well-known ideological
tools: they fix category and therefore determine further thinking. Behind the quarrel around
“sharing” in France for example, it is easy to spot the classical opposition between those
(namely trade-unions) who claim for a strongly protective system for workers and those who
wish to deregulate working relations.
In this paper, we will use the literature about gift in order to identify the characteristics
of this phenomenon. In a second part, we will confront these characteristics with the reality of
exchanges taking place on one of the most emblematic platform: Airbnb.
« Sommes-nous à l’aube d’un hyper capitalisme marchand où tout sera à vendre ? Ou inversement la
société va-t-elle se convertir à l’échange et au partage ? Enfer ou paradis ? »
3
4
1. Literature analysis: a broad definition of gift beyond the
opposition between interest and disinterestedness
The first part of the paper proposes a literature review of various works describing the
place and characteristics of gift in society. What is gift and what are its characteristics? To
what extent is this phenomenon considered by the literature as exclusive to merchant forprofit activity?
1.1. Is gift incompatible with interest?
The question of the title may seem surprisingly obvious: when you sell or buy
something, or a fortiori when you exchange a good or a service for another good or service,
there is no gift. We are going to see that this is not so clear when you get to the bottom of the
phenomenon.
1.1.1.
The failure of all the attempts to built a clear opposition with
interest
From the seminal study of Mauss (1923) to the work of Caillé (1996, 2000, 2012) and
Godbout (1992), all the works on gift have pinpointed the omnipresence of this phenomenon
in society. It is, as Mauss put it, the “total social phenomenon”, a fact situated in the very
heart of social life produced through relationships between individuals. But the conception of
gift used in everyday life seems to be quite different form the one developed through
anthropological studies. In the common language, it seems to have two unexpressed
conditions: first, the opposition with mercantile exchange itself. Second, the larger opposition
with interestedness in general. We are going to show that this conception is not the one
proposed by the searchers who actually investigated the issue of gift.
5
Regarding the radical opposition of gift to “normal business”, it is interesting to see that
most recent works underline the place of gift in firms (Alter, 2009), and even insist on the
idea that the firm could not function without gift. The fact that a firm, which is supposed to be
by definition based on the hegemony of market and the meeting between offer and demand
mediated by price, could be surrounded by gift and what is more, based on it, is in itself
interesting: it shows that the universes of gift and economical interest are note clearly
separated, but may live together.
To understand how and in what extent it must change our vision of gift, we must start
by a reasoning a contrario: Caillé (2002) shows the failure of every definition of gift which
tries to make a radical distinction between gift and interest.
The approach of Bourdieu (1970, 1979, 1980, 1982), as read by Caillé (e.g. 2002),
pleads for the exclusion of gift from any interest: if there is any “impurity” in the action, that
is to say if the disinterested action maybe in a way motivated by a calculus, then it is not a
gift. “As if gift had to be perfect or be not”4 (Caillé, 2202 : 248). This strict definition of gift
excluding any interest would reproduce the extreme position of Kant on morals as defined in
the Critique of Practical reason (1788): an action could not be qualified as moral if any
interest, even the tiniest one, is at stake. A conception criticized by the French poet Charles
Péguy with this famous sentence: “Kant has pure hands but he has no hands”. A way of
pinpointing the fact that such morality is probably impossible to detect in any human being…
Boltanski’s work (1990) opposes the greek notion of philia, founded on reciprocity, to
the Chrisitian agape, defined as a gift which ignores counter-gift. In the first one, calculus and
strategies have their places. Not in the second. But the possibility for a collectivity to live in
this state of agape, therefore excluding the hypocrisy of calculus, is dubious, as it would
4
« Comme si le don devait être parfait ou n’être pas.”
6
imply that “everyone are inhabited by the same disinterest for calculus” (Boltanski 1990,
quoted by Caillé 2002: 250). Pure gift does exist, in short, but it is not possible to see it as a
way the world could actually function. It may only accurately describe the quality of some
exceptional persons, such as Christian saints.
The reading of Derrida’s (1991, 1992) conception of gift is the ultimate criticism of this
strict definition. For him, gift if not only “impossible”, it is “ the impossible” (Caillé, 2002:
254). In substance : the existence of any acknowledgment of the gift, which leads to a form of
counterpart, of debt, makes the gift impure, and then destroys it. Then gift is not possible at
all! In this vision, there is no such things as gift. You would never “share” something”, in this
sense, but only enter in an exchange relationship were the counterpart may be a simple “thank
you”, or even an untold acknowledgment!
In a nutshell, these three authors each illustrate a way of deconstructing the pure
conception of gift as being opposed to interest: for Bourdieu the central place of interest in
social life overcomes any hint of real gift; for Boltanski pure gift is possible but exceptional;
for Derrida gift should remain so pure that any contact with reality destroys it! It seem to us
that the common critics of the use of the term “sharing” concerning various aspects of the new
economy is grounded on this often untold (and maybe unconscious?) strict definition of gift.
A definition that needs to be somehow rebuilt in a more realistic and practical way.
1.1.2.
Gift and interest are not incompatible, but intertwined
Having put aside the pure conception of gift, which one should we choose? It may be
useful to go back to the first author who developed the importance of the notion. Mauss
(1923) underlines the fact that the distinction between free and “not for free” relation is recent
(p.180). The system of gift described for example in the famous “potlatch” of pacific tribes is
not parallel to mercantile exchange, but is actually a primitive (in the anthropological
meaning of this word) form of mercantile exchange! Gift is what existed before money
7
allowed the domination of pre-contracted terms of exchange. The gift system “constitutes the
most ancient economic and law system that we may conceive and know”5 (227) Mauss then
suggests to rethink about the concepts we traditionally like to oppose: “freedom and
constraint, generosity, luxury and savings, interest, utility6” (Mauss, 1923: 232). He
underlines the fact that the precise typology of gift made by Malinowski (1963: 177) which
distinguishes pure gift and “barter after bargaining” is in fact “inapplicable”.
The gift Mauss describes in his seminal book is not at all free from interest. The gifts
described have a motive, they are not disinterested: “the motive of these gifts and those
fanatic consumptions, those losses, those mad destructions of wealth is in no degree,
especially in the society of potlatch, disinterested7” (Mauss, 1923: 235). There is always “an
interest” to give, but not in the sense we give to this word. That is to say not in the sense of
utilitarianism. Giving are social acts that have reasons and consequences: they manifest
power, establish hierarchy, form alliances. The gift includes the giver in the social
community, it places the receiver too in a situation of inferiority as long as he has not given
back, it fixes hierarchies, determines orders and prestige. They are at the same time
mandatory and optional for the individual, who could perfectly choose not to give (and endure
the social consequences of it). They bear a natural response, not contractually mandatory in
the modern way of the idea. But the obligation born from the first gift is in no way weaker
than the one linked to a formal contract. For example, giving hospitality implies a further visit
of the host, to give this later the possibility to give back (Mauss, 1923, 236). This precise
example will be interesting in the case of Airbnb we study, as this is precisely hospitality
« (…) constitue le plus ancien système d’économie et de droit que nous puissions constater et
concevoir.”
6
« Ces concepts de droit et d’économie que nous nous plaisons à opposer: liberté et obligation; libéralité,
générosité, luxe et épargne, intérêt, utilité, il serait bon de les remettre au creuset. »
5
7
« Mais le motif de ces dons et de ces consommations forcenées, de ces pertes et de ces destructions
folles de richesses, n’est à aucun degré, surtout dans les sociétés à potlatch, désintéressé. »
8
which is given by the host. As we will see, we tried to find in discourses and commentaries
the traces of “an obligation to give back”.
In many cases, if not always, gifts are in fact counter-gifts, responses to a precedent gift:
the chain of gifts and counter-gifts being virtually infinite, it is impossible to distinguish a
response from the original gift. That is why Mauss states that gifts “are counterparts for most
of them” (1923: 233). The real social phenomenon of gift (not the one dreamt by philosopher)
is deeply rooted in personal strategies, whichever they may be: giving a good impression to be
included on the group, satisficing the image we have of ourselves, showing affection or
friendship, etc. Caillé then states: “gift and personal interest aren’t incompatible, more than
that, they call each other”8 (2002:241).
As a way of illustrating this, we can quote a survey9 realized on US consumers which
indicated that, in addition to rational benefits such as “saving money”, “flexibility” or “doing
good for the environment”, emotional benefits were attributed to “responsible” consumption:
namely “I can help myself and other”, “makes me feel part of a larger community”. This
shows the hybrid nature of actions were moral deeds (including giving something away) are
intertwined with rational money-based reasons. Entering a market-based relationship is not a
renunciation to any social implication of the action.
1.2. The main characteristics of gift: nurturing social link
If gift is not incompatible with interestedness, what are its characteristics?
8
« Don et intérêt personnel non seulement ne sont pas incompatibles mais s’appellent l’un l’autre”
9
Carbonview Research, Consumer report on sharing economy, survey conducted the survey for
Campbell Mithun in January 2012 via online interviews with a sample size of 383 participants nationwide.
http://www.cmithun.com/national_study_quantifies_reality_of_the_sharing_economy_movement-2/
9
After having analyzed the different approaches developing strict definition of gift,
Caillé (2002) proposes “a more modest conception of gift”, freed from the modern duality
opposing “cynical realism” and “uncompromising idealism”.
At the heart of gift is religion, which is in its etymological sense is about “making
links”. Gift is a link with divinity, of course, but with society too, as society is just the
incarnation of the divine will. In fact, gift has a fundamental role to play in society: it “creates
and nurtures social link10” (Godbout et Caillé, 1992).
This function of gift implies a new definition: “may be qualified as gift any benefit
done, without any specific return, in order to nurture social link 11 (Caillé, 2012 : 270). It is
important to pinpoint the fact that this definition does rely on any exclusion, it is a positive
definition. It does not define gift as something which is not in contact with interest in general
or even profit itself, but as something that is made with a certain condition (no specific return
associated) and with a specific function (nurturing social link).
This definition seems especially accurate in the French context, where conversation is
for example in itself not only a manner of communication, as in the American culture, but is
at the same time (and often essentially), a way to “create links between speakers12” (Carroll,
1987: 44). French is a civilization where the spanning of social links is an important feature of
social interactions, even in mercantile contexts (for instance, the importance of politeness
formulas in the relation with a seller, “hello, thank you…”, or the ritual of hand-shaking in
firms).
10
« Le don crée et nourrit le lien social »
11
“ (…) est qualifiable de don toute prestation effectuée, sans attente de retour déterminé, en vue de
nourrir le lien social.”
12
« créer du lien entre les conversants »
10
In short, the result of this literature review shows that gift is at the same time distinct
from the activity of classical economic exchange (essentially because gift is defined by the
well-known three-part process “giving, receiving, giving back”) and similar in many ways:
the consequences and obligations of the process are comparable in both ways. Gift and
economics exchange are two faces of socially produced and socially embedded processes
which are often intertwined. Contrarily to the common idea, mercantile exchange may
therefore include a giving dimension, under the condition of including elements that, in a way
or another, are given without obligation in return and have the effect of nurturing social link.
2. Assessing the content of gift in sharing economy:
methodology, results and discussion
Starting from the definition of gift proposed in the previous part, we may now
investigate the reality of sharing economy in order to assess the actual place of gift in these
new exchange behaviors. In this second part, we propose to compare the concept of gift
described by literature to the reality of “sharing economy” activity.
2.1. Methodology
As pointed out in the introduction, the term of sharing economy actually covers a good
deal of diversity. Which activity should we choose as representing sharing economy? In its
typology, Schor (2014) proposes to distinguish peer to peer form business to peer providers,
and non-profit from for profit platform (see fig.1). As it seems that the place of gift is not a
real issue in non-profit exchanges (even if some comments may deny the accuracy of sharing
in this case as there is an obligation to give something in exchange !), we choose a for profit
11
platform. We therefore set aside the activities which do not involve money payment, such as
bartering.
Concerning the type provider, peer to peer activities seem more adequate as we don't
see how gift could come from a for-profit business. Even if it was the case, it seems to us that
the place of gift in business to peer activity would require a different methodology than the
one we use here.
Type of provider
Peer to Peer
Business to Peer
Non-Profit
Food Swaps,
Time Banks,
Couchsurfing,
Swouitch
Makerspaces
For Profit
Relay Rides,
Airbnb, Taskarabbit
Zipcar
Platform
Orientation
Figure 1 : Typology of sharing economy activities (Schor, 2014)
In the for profit and peer to peer category, we choose the case of Airbnb. It seems to us
this activity is where the concept of sharing economy is the purest: individuals renting their
homes to other individuals for few days thanks to the existence of a platform which helps
matching offer and demand. Hosts may be at the same time travellers themselves, and
reciprocally. The fact that hosts are never professional (the case does exist, but is a deviance
of the model, as we will mention later), contrary to the disruptive transport services like Uber
for example, makes Airbnb more interesting. It is an hybrid form of deal where the old habit
of hospitality is mixed with market functioning. Something between receiving friends and
opening a hotel. The use of the term “host” for the owner of the accommodation and “guest”
for the traveller indicates a clear will from Airbnb to identify the transaction with a situation
where someone receives a friend at home, giving him hospitality. To which extent is this
representation true?
12
In order to assess the presence of what, according to our definition of the first part, may
be designated as gift, we collected commentaries given on the plateform. We analyzed 14
offers appearing as the first results for a week-end for a couple in Bordeaux in January 2016.
We limited our request to a single room, avoiding the case of the renting of a full apartment,
which could potentially reduce the interactions between hosts an guests. The 14 offers
received, in all, near to 900 commentaries (see fig. 2 for the detail).
The rating of the offer selected range from 4 to 5. We deliberately excluded badly rated
offers, for a practical reason: the bad rate generate less deals, and then less commentaries to
be exploited. We shall discuss later the implications of this choice.
The price of the offers selected ranges from 21 to 60 euros a night. Location, size and
various characteristics of the flat may explain such a difference of price.
Night fee
(€)
Number of
commentaries
Rating
(on 5)
50
29
5
22
19
9
36
69
31
44
203
35
147
29
93
88
4
5
4,5
4
4
5
4,5
4,5
5
4,5
4,5
4,5
5
Average:
4,6
32
41
45
30
34
21
60
59
45
40
45
50
44
Average:
42,6
Total : 854
Figure 2: details of the commentaries collected
Our coding, constructed by emergence of theme, showed a unsurprisingly little number
of themes mentioned in commentaries that rarely exceed 70 words. We analyzed each
commentaries firstly by counting the apparition of 3 themes:
13

The conformity of reality with the announcement (no deceptive promises or
lies);

The material qualities of the place: quality of the bed and bathroom, view from
the room, clean state, etc.

The “welcoming conditions”: any allusion to the way the guests were received
by the host.
In addition to those 3 themes, we isolated sentences that could be associated with gift as
we defined it:

Good moment lived in the flat of the host;

“Inclusion” to a group (being welcome, feel at home…);

Existence of exchanges and discussion with the host;

Friendship and family;

Thanks expressed to the host.
We added 6 semi-centered interviews realized with users of this service (on both sides:
as host and occasional guests when travelling) in Bordeaux, using an interview guide. The
interviews are recorded and fully transcribed. Our aim in our analysis was to understand the
mutual expectations of participants to this kind of exchange and their personal conceptions of
what they were doing.
2.2. Results and discussion
The analysis of the commentaries and our interviews allow us to overcome the
oversimplifying idea that the presence of an exchange of money makes it a pure market
unworthy of being qualified as “sharing”.
Commentaries left by guests on the website are very enlightening. If the comfort of the
place is mentioned in 79% of the commentaries and the accuracy of the description in 21% of
14
them, the quality of the relationship with the host is even more mentioned (83% of the cases).
In many commentaries allusions may be found to the creation or reinforcement of a social
link between guests hosts. This appears through several dimensions, as listed below.
The idea of going above normal expectations, to give more than was included in the
contract:
« XX goes above and beyond as a host to make me feel very welcomed and
comfortable »
The warmth and authenticity of the welcoming, which is often linked with the idea of
feeling at home:
« Very welcoming and spontaneous, at XX’s, I felt as at home »
The openness and ability to discuss freely in an informal way is another topic of the
commentaries, not only to give useful insights about the city, but just to exchange ideas about
anything.
« XX is the kind of person one would want to chat and spend an evening discussing and
exchanging. »
Some commentaries underline the link of mutual trust which existed in the relation:
“XX trusted us”
“XX is a person you can totally trust”
The thematic of friendship is also sometimes present:
“We had the feeling of being welcomed as friends”
Mentioning these dimensions is clearly a way of underlining its importance for the
guests. From the point of view of guests, we find that satisfaction is not only linked to the
basic service (clean room, comfortable sheets…), but also to the degree of willingness of the
hosts to go beyond the mere exchange of service in order to share more: good restaurant
addresses, suggestions about things which are worth viewing in the town, degree of
15
willingness to make the traveller feel at home… What is specially expressed as valuable is
precisely what goes beyond the contract (money for a bed… and a breakfast). In a way, the
trip would not be entirely satisficing if the host wasn’t actually going beyond the mere
delivering of a clean room. The good experience also derives from the desire of the host to
weave social link, to add the symbolic gift of a chat or will to help to the transaction. This
“additional layer” of service seems fundamental in the good rating of the trip as it allows the
guest to “feel at home”. This expression is eloquent in itself: home, along with family and
friendship (other universes related to airbnb experience by the commentaries), is by
excellence the place where mercantile logic is absent. It is a place of intimacy, economical
disinterestedness, empathy and association with others. A place were one is not reduced to a
single identity (citizen, costumer, or any social function), but is taken as he is, a full human
being worth by himself.
Our interviews with hosts tends to confirm this idea. Hosts obviously expect money, but
the exchange does not boils down to “making money”. The role of payment is often
minimized, described as a “compensation” and a way of sharing the expenses linked with the
good.
“Of course money is important, taxes are heavy in Bordeaux… But you know there is
more to it than that.”
“I don't really think about money when I have people coming, (laughing) even if I am
happy to receive it!”
The logic of direct cost sharing linked to a better use of a good is also totally conscious
and expressed. From the point of view of many hosts, renting via Airbnb is not a way of
“making money”, in the sense of “profit”, but a way of sharing with others the burden of the
expenses linked to the possession of the good (taxes, bank loan…). The activity is then
linkable to official cost-sharing platforms like Blablacar for instance.
16
“This room was empty 99% of the time, it was absurd. Airbnb is a way of sharing this
with other, and of course dividing cost.”
Hosts appreciate the fact that, unlike a shop or an hotel, there is no “billing moment” in
the Airbnb relationship. The amount previously agreed is directly credited on the bank
account one day after arrival. This way of putting in parenthesis the mercantile nature of the
exchange is, in our opinion, a way to favor the development of its social dimension.
“I like that the money comes directly on the bank account without anyone having to
mention it”.
Moreover, the idea of a reduction of the exchange to a mere mercantile deal is often
badly viewed by hosts. They don’t consider themselves as hotel managers.
“I like to chat with my guests. It is in fact one of my greatest pleasure in the deal. If it
would be only to exchange keys and say bye bye I think I wouldn’t do it.”
“I am not an hotel tenant. This is not my job. I don’t see it like that.”
Hosts clearly don’t see the fact of being talkative and nice with the guests as mere
politeness, but as a way of creating a special atmosphere that is agreeable for them.
“I want mi guests to feel really like guests and not like clients.”
Another striking point if that the hosts often mention the motivation of giving to other
people the pleasure of enjoying a home that they enjoy themselves. Leaving in a flat or house
where they feel well is seen as a treat they want to share with tourists.
“My place is great and I am proud to share it with other, even total strangers. It gives
me pleasure to show how cool my life is (laughing).”
Meeting with people is also one reason alleged by hosts (and guests along) to justify
their choice of this activity. It makes the travel more authentic and meets its very purpose,
which is to discover the reality of life in the city.
17
“I have met so many people since the beginning of Airbnb ! More that I would have in
my whole life I guess!”
“When I travel with Airbnb, the host is often the first and best contact I have with a
local person living here. I wouldn’t have this kind of genuine contact with an hotel”.
Conclusion : granting a place to gift in sharing economy
In a nutshell, our field study confirms that the presence of money exchange does not
exclude the characteristics of gift developed in the literature. The mercantile business is just a
part of the deal, which is far from boiling down to making money. It is at the same time a way
of creating social links, living good moments through others, opening his life to unknown
individuals. In this relationship where social links are weaved, gift is fully present.
We therefore argue that the term “sharing economy” is adequate, at least to a certain
kind of exchanges developed by the digital economy, even if they imply monetary retribution.
The research presented in this paper is obviously just a first step in the question of the
place of gift in the sharing economy.
First, we focused here on a specific kind of sharing economy which may not be
representative of all the sharing industry. For example, platforms like Uber who propose a
service which is largely automated and close to a traditional taxi ride may not be as easily
associated with any gift (except maybe for the free candies and water bottle which is given in
most of the cars, but is it so far from the mere little gift that any hotel gives?). Therefore, there
is a need for a more precise typology distinguishing the various activities which are today
confounded in the “sharing” category. The typology, as we try to show in this paper, should
not limit itself to the distinction between for profit and non profit, as the gift dimension is
indeed present in both.
18
Second, platforms such as Airbnb are more and more used as real business tools with
the existence of financial investment strategies consisting in buying flats in order to rent via
Airbnb. With this multiplication of flats rented at the same time and sometimes the delegation
of the actual management of the renting activity to others (or even dedicated companies), it is
dubious that the same amount of gift is to be found in this kind of exchange. This later pretty
much boils down to classic hotel service. In what extent does this “professionalization” of
sharing economy is developing ? Is it killing the “genuine” relationship described here or just
striving in parallel? Is there a difference of perception from the guest’s point of view, and
does is show in the comments? This finally asks the question of the moment where kindness,
politeness and smile are becoming just part of a job description, as in any shop, and not the
expression genuine social exchanges.
Another question which may be tackled is the link between satisfaction and the amount
of gift. Further research could assess the hypothesis we make of a significant difference in
satisfaction rate between services which tend to take the form of traditional merchant services
(hotel rooms for example) and those who include a high content of gift. Similarly, is there a
link between high rates and the degree of gift in the offer? In other words, is gift a good
investment? As we pinpointed in the first part of this paper, this utility of gift would not
condemn the reality of gift, as this latter should not be strictly opposed to interest.
Another limit of our research is the focus made on positive comments. By choosing
hosts who have numerous commentaries, we logically select the successful ones (otherwise,
there would only be a few bad commentaries). We can’t tell if the dissatisfaction may then be
linked to a possible “lack of gift” felt by guests, or rather by mere practical problems (ugly,
dirty, far-away place…). A further study could then focus on finding the place of gift in
expressed dissatisfaction. Would a host be considered as delivering low-quality service if we
wasn’t giving a lot in top of what is expected?
19
References
ALTER, Norbert. Donner et prendre: la coopération en entreprise. La Découverte, 2009.
BAUWENS Michel, Sauver le monde, vers une société post-capitaliste avec le peer-to-peer,
Les liens qui libèrent, 2015.
BOLTANSKI Luc, L’amour et la justice comme compétences, A.M. Métailié, Paris.1990.
BOLTANSKI Luc, THEVENOT Laurent, De la justification, PUF, Paris.1991.
BOURDIEU Pierre, 1970, La reproduction, Minuit, Paris.
BOURDIEU Pierre, 1979, La distinction, Minuit, Paris.
BOURDIEU Pierre, 1980, Le sens pratique, Minuit, Paris.
BOURDIEU Pierre, 1982, Ce que parler veut dire, Minuit, Paris.
BOTSMAN, Rachel et ROGERS, Roo. What's mine is yours: how collaborative consumption
is changing the way we live. London : Collins, 2011.
CARROLL R. (1987), Evidences invisibles: Américains et Français au quotidien, Seuil,
Paris.
CAILLÉ, Alain. « Ni holisme ni individualisme méthodologiques. Marcel Mauss et le
paradigme du don: Le paradigme du don et du symbolisme ». Revue du MAUSS
semestrielle, 1996, no 8, p. 12-58.
CAILLÉ, Alain. Anthropologie du don: le tiers paradigme. Desclée de Brouwer, 2000.
CAILLÉ, Alain. Don, intérêt et désintéressement: Bourdieu, Mauss, Platon et quelques
autres. La Découverte, 2012.
DERRIDA Jacques, 1991, Donner le temps, Galilée, Paris,
DERRIDA Jacques, 1992, « Donner la mort », in L’Ethique du don ; Jacques Derrida et la
pensée du don, A.M. Métailié, Paris.
20
ESCANDE, Philippe et CASSINI, Sandrine. Bienvenue dans le capitalisme 3.0. Albin
Michel, 2015.
GODBOUT, Jacques et CAILLÉ, Alain. L'esprit du don. Paris : La découverte, 1992.
KANT, Immanuel. Critique of practical reason. Hackett Publishing, 2002 (1788).
MALINOWSKI, Bronislaw. Les argonautes du Pacifique occidental. Revue Française de
Sociologie, 1963, vol. 4, no 2, p. 224.
MAUSS, Marcel. Essai sur le don forme et raison de l'échange dans les sociétés archaïques.
L'Année sociologique (1896/1897-1924/1925), 1923, p. 30-186.
RIFKIN, Jeremy. The zero marginal cost society: The internet of things, the collaborative
commons, and the eclipse of capitalism. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.
SCHOR Juliet, “Debating the Sharing Economy,” Great Transition Initiative (October 2014).
21