Few ideas have more profoundly poisoned the minds of more people than the notion of a “free market” existing somewhere in the universe, into which the government “intrudes.” In this view, whatever inequality or insecurity the market generates is assumed to be natural and the inevitable consequences of impersonal “market forces.” … If you aren’t paid enough to live on, so be it. If others rake in billions, they must be worth it. If millions of people are unemployed or their paychecks are shrinking or they’ll have to work two or three jobs and have no idea what they’ll be earning next month or even next week, that’s unfortunate but it’s the outcome of “market forces.”

Reich’s point is that market forces aren’t the result of a free market, which doesn’t exist, never has existed, and probably never will exist. What we do have is a highly engineered marketplace with hundreds of thousands of rules–rules most often created behind closed doors by people who will benefit from every word and comma they put into place. These rules take endless form–the tax code, appropriations bills, new laws, court rulings, executive orders, and administrative guidance to name just a few.

Democrats and Republicans alike–at all levels of government and in all three branches–design these market forces. They grant favors to local businesses, friends, and favored industries, as well as emerging and dying technologies. While these rules are more likely to limit the liability from the disastrous effects of mountain top coal removal than they are to provide tax benefits to solar energy, most industries have figured out how to play the game. They hire lobbyists, donate to politicians–and they find the benefits exponentially greater than the cost. Journalist Nicholas Kristof noted that the chemical and pharmaceutical industries alone spent $121,000 per member of Congress on lobbying last year. Research from Harvard’s Safra Center for Ethics shows that corporations in general get up to $220 return for every dollar they “invest” in lobbying Congress.

The governing classes and elected officials have always created the rules of the economic game. These legal frameworks and the systems they support affect our nation’s economy and daily life more than the most visible government programs, including social security, food stamps, or health care. 

Reich goes on to say:

The rules are the economy. … As the economic historian Karl Polanyi recognized [in his 1944 book, The Great Transformation, those who argue for “less government” are really arguing for different government—often one that favors them or their patrons. “Deregulation” of the financial sector in the 1980s and 1990s, for example, could more appropriately be described as “reregulation.” It did not mean less government. It meant a different set of rules.

In the book 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism, the University of Cambridge economist Ha-Joon Chang writes:

The free market doesn’t exist. Every market has some rules and boundaries that restrict freedom of choice. A market looks free only because we so unconditionally accept its underlying restrictions that we fail to see them. How “free” a market is cannot be objectively defined. It is a political definition. The usual claim by free-market economists that they are trying to defend the market from politically motivated interference by the government is false. Government is always involved and those free-marketeers are as politically motivated as anyone. Overcoming the myth that there is such a thing as an objectively defined “free market” is the first step towards understanding capitalism.

OUR “UNFREE MARKET”

Many opposed environmental regulations, which first appeared a few decades ago on things like cars and factory emissions, as serious infringements on our freedom to choose. Opponents asked: If people want to drive in more-polluting cars, or if factories find that more-polluting production methods are more profitable, why should government stop them? Today, most people accept these regulations, but they’re a sign of an unfree market. So some limitations on freedom (i.e., protective legislation) can be helpful. But most “unfreedoms” can be devastating. In essence, we have to choose which unfreedoms we want to live with.

Most would consider monopolies a sign of an unfree, and even an immoral market. Monsanto, through the licensing of technology with its GMO seeds, controls 90% of the soybeans and 80% of the cornplanted and grown in America. According to the Center for Food Safety, this drove up the average cost of planting a single acre of soybeans 325%. For corn, the cost has risen 2,659% between 1994 and 2011. So through its monopolized control of seeds, it is driving the price of food through the roof, ensuring the starvation of millions of people around the world.

Powdered cocaine is a drug generally preferred by rich, white Americans, while the poor tend to use crack cocaine. While both are illegal, crack carries a legal penalty 100 times longer than the same substance in powdered form. It seems that there’s also no free market when it comes to jail terms. Not surprisingly, with wealth, power, and influence come lighter criminal penalties.

Higher education has also never been part of the free market. Admissions spots at universities are “sold” more often that we we’d like to believe, whether through the influence of legal donations, or powerful friends or family.

The free market is an illusion. If some markets look free, it is only because we so totally accept the regulations that are propping them up that they become invisible.

SOCIAL INEQUITY BY DESIGN

“We can have a democracy or we can have great wealth in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.”—Louis Brandeis

An undeniable result of this unfree market is the continued consolidation of wealth and influence. On average, CEO pay has increased 937% between 1978 and 2013. The average worker’s pay increased just 10.2% over the same period. This increase has little to do with the increasing value of these CEOs, and everything to do with the power and influence they have over the rules of the system that allow them to enrich themselves. 

The real earnings of the median male have declined 19% since 1970, and the median male with only a high school diploma saw his real earnings fall 41% from 1970 to 2010. Among those classified as poor, 20.4 million people live in what is considered “deep poverty,” meaning their incomes are 50% below the official poverty line. One quarter of the nation’s Hispanics and 27% of African Americans live in poverty.

Reich writes: “There is no longer any significant countervailing force (like powerful labor unions), no force to constrain or balance the growing political strength of large corporations, Wall Street, and the very wealthy.” He also describes research conducted by Princeton professors Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, which analyzed 1,799 policy issues to determine the influence of economic elites and business groups on public policy issues compared to average citizens. It found that, “The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact on public policy.” 

The notion that we live in a democracy turns out to be just another illusion. The deteriorated state of our democracy more easily enables the wealthy and powerful to write the rules and give themselves the greatest benefits. Activists Martin Kirk and Alnoor Ladha argue that the current set of rules that articulate the values of our economic operating system can be best characterized as extractive, exploitative, greedy, selfish, elitist, hierarchical, patriarchal, life-denying, and indeed, psychotic. They invoke the Cree Indian term, wetiko, which is a cannibalistic spirit with an insatiable desire for consumption, that eventually even subsumes its host. They are essentially saying that the animating force of late-stage capitalism is the mind-virus of wetiko.

In sum, we have a system that has already chosen winners and losers. A system that elaborately ensures who gets into Ivy League colleges, gets the best jobs, makes the most money, and enjoys the most privileged lives. This is the same system that decides which businesses receive the most corporate welfare, benefit most from regulations, receive the best protection from foreign competitors, and are most likely to get the best returns on their lobbying dollars. We have, at the end of the day, the freest marketplace that money can buy. A system created by wetikos to perpetuate wetiko.

THIRTEEN WAYS TO START FIXING THE PROBLEM

The solution lies not in a freer marketplace with less government intervention, but in a marketplace that expresses the wishes and best interests of the majority, in one that fairly protects the rights of minorities with what we might call a “democratic marketplace,” driven by a commitment to justice, equity, interdependence, ecological regeneration, and the well-being of all life. 

How do we move toward this goal? Here are 13 ways to start fixing the deep psychosis of our system.

1.  Get money out of politics. We must overturn Citizens United v. FEC, support organizations like Free Speech For People (which has led an attack on the ruling), and ultimately transition to 100% publicly financed elections.

2.  Require disclosure on the source of funding for any and all documents published academically or in the public domain.

3.  Create new anti-trust laws that prevent and eliminate monopolies.

4.  End all corporate financial subsidies.

5.  End insider trading.

6. Initiate an immediate living wage and transition to a basic minimum income for all citizens.

7.  Expand the definition of unionized labor to increase the number of workers that unions represent.

8.  Set a corporate minimum tax rate of 25%.

9.  Eliminate the second home mortgage deduction.

10.  Increase funding available to fund Employee Stock Ownership Plansand build greater tax incentives for co-operatives and other forms of employee ownership.

11.  Stop transferring the cost of product externalities from business to society. The American Sustainable Business Council (which I cofounded) has a working group developing policy recommendations that would begin to move us toward full-cost accounting.

12.  Permanently eliminate payroll taxes.

13.  Mandate that women make up 50% of the directors of all public and private companies over the next three years.

This is not an exhaustive list, but rather an example of what is possible that highlights how many existing solutions already exist. We have been taught that politics and economics are separate fields. But that is an artificial distinction that serves the power elites and their agents of exploitation. We must rein in the corporate take-over of society so that we can reimagine commerce, community, and government itself, and usher in a just transition to a post-capitalist, post-wetiko world. You can .

Jeffrey Hollender (@JeffHollender) is cofounder and former CEO of Seventh Generation, and now the CEO of Sustain Natural. He is the author of six books, including How to Make the World a Better Place: A Guide to Doing Good.

Part of the Seeing Wetiko series. See all articles here. This article was originally published in Fast Company.

An earlier version of this article appeared in the Stanford Social Innovation Review on March 30, 2016.

[Photos: Flickr users Quinn Dombrowski, John Murphy, Tobin, Adam Swank, brownpau. vitaliy_73 via Shutterstock]

The post 13 Ways We Can Fix The “Free Market” So It Works For Regular People, Not Just The Rich appeared first on P2P Foundation.

This incident is likely to be treated as so many others before it: it will cause a commotion and attract attention, some fire-fighting measures will be announced, then it will slowly fade in the background and it will be business as usual.

The governor of Arizona, where the accident happened, has already withdrawn support for Uber and recalled its licence to conduct self-driving tests in Arizona. Others like Nvidia, the company providing much of the technology used in self driving cars, have called for giving Uber a chance, while at the same time holding off further testing on the streets, and rolling out simulations. It may seem preposterous to justify Uber at a time like this, but there are some important points to be made here.

It has been argued that the goal for self-driving cars is not to be perfect, but to be better than humans. This sounds like a pragmatic position. And it is true that no technology is introduced without having its side effects and its wild west period. But this was literally an accident waiting to happen.

An accident waiting to happen. Image: Reuters

Part of it has to do with the process of developing and introducing new technology, and it can be that in the long run the benefits will outweigh the side effects. But there is another part of it, the wild west part, that has to do with the lack of will and ability to oversee and regulate the use of technology.

Recent research on the deep learning algorithms used in self driving cars revealed thousands of errors. This somewhat expected outcome, given the technology’s breakneck progress and rapid application, seems to have been ignored by companies and authorities alike. In all fairness, the accident that Uber’s car was involved in may not have been related to this.

The fact that this research has been ignored however should be telling. It’s not the first time Uber has been in the limelight, scrutinized and criticized, for all the wrong reasons.

Uber is still operating in London, in you case you did not notice. Uber will continue to do so while a legal appeal process that could take a year lasts. What’s more, the fire-fighting statements and apologetic tone adopted by newly appointed Uber top management seem to appease some, including London’s mayor.

But to focus on Uber’s misconduct and ethics, to lay personal blame and to seek and accept apologies and promises is to miss the point entirely. Uber, and organizations like Uber, are neither good nor bad – they are signs of the time. Even if Uber was ran by Arizona’s Governor or London’s Mayor, it would still have the same defining qualities and effects.

Its efficiency is based on optimized and evolving algorithms, clever marketing and big data. Its self centered nature is inevitable, as it has no one to answer to except its shareholders.

Uber may be revolutionary, but not for the reasons you think. A future in which car ownership is obsolete and you can be picked up in no time and driven safely and efficiently to your destination for cheap is something many people would stand behind. Except there won’t be drivers in those cars, and it will be up to Uber to run things as it sees fit.

It’s clear that the combination of big data, processing power and algorithms can progressively automate every task to the point of making it more efficient than what humans are able to achieve. Driving and dispatching is no exception, and that’s what Uber and its ilk are doing.

But that’s only part of the reason why Uber is displacing traditional taxis. The other part is Uber’s employment model. Instead of employing full time, properly trained drivers, Uber will employ just about anyone with a car and willing to spend hours behind the wheel.

These people will be precarious workers with minimum rights and income, be manipulated to stay on the road as long as needed, and be disposed of when self driving technology and legislation are in place – which should not be too long.

In the meanwhile, Uber can sit back and watch the divide and conquer strategy that has played out so well throughout time work in its favor. Uber drivers operating as an army of low-paid disposable contractors before the algorithms take over completely are inadvertently helping dispose of everyone else’s rights and livelihoods as well.

As Wired reports, New York City’s cab drivers are in crisis, and they’re blaming Uber and Lyft. Since December, four taxi drivers have killed themselves, seemingly in response to the intense financial pressures that have accompanied an increase in for-hire vehicles on the city’s streets.

So it’s freelancers versus full time employees, and now Uber sympathizers versus the people and regulators. Uber sympathizers who have signed an Uber petition to keep it in the streets of London are closing the one million mark, citing safety and loss of jobs. Many would probably cite innovation and better service as well.

While these claims are not entirely unfounded, they are hollow. These jobs will be soon lost anyway, and there have been enough reported incidents to undermine security claims. But this brings us to the core of the issue: the emerging data driven monopolies.

Efficiency and safety are both based on a foundation of data. Data collected, processed and used by Uber to power its algorithms in complete opaqueness. By gaining market share, Uber is amassing ever more data, in a reinforcement loop that makes it harder and harder to compete against.

The fact that Uber ditches every notion of ethics and legality in the process, by doing things such as collecting data from user devices without consent even when the application is not running, using that data to drive analytics that determine pricing and using backdoors to spy on users and apps to evade control is just adding insult to injury.

But, should not the market self-regulate, and will there not be competition from other innovative companies? Let’s look at another part of the world for answers: Russia.

In Russia Uber was facing stiff competition from Yandex. Yandex is a Russia-based technology giant that dominates its home market in search, cloud services and ride hailing among other things.

Both companies have been using similar approaches to capture market share, resulting in driving prices down and owning a combined near 90% of the local market. Now Uber and Yandex Taxi have made a deal to work together, in essence forming a monopoly. What are the chances of anyone else, let alone independent drivers, competing in this landscape?

Greg Abovsky, Yandex CFO, responded to a request for comment by citing the deal is subject to approval by Russian regulators, and the argument is that since there is room for growth in the market this is not a monopoly.

Yandex is often called the Russian Google, and this does sound a bit like what Google would sound like if they said they are not a monopoly in search because more people will be searching online in the future.

First mover advantage in the big data and AI age will be tremendously important if left unchecked. There’s an interesting implication of this however. These technologies will make the market smarter and make it possible to plan and predict market forces so as to allow us to finally achieve a planned economy.

If you’re wondering where such a bold claim may be coming from, it’s none other than Jack Ma, the founder of another one in the league of giants: Alibaba. Companies of this caliber already dwarf governments in nearly every aspect, including their ability to gather and process data.

Some economists argue that the online platform monopolies resemble central planning institutions, so it would be more “legitimate and rational” for the state to become a “super-monopoly” platform.

This may sound scary and big-brother-ish. But before we get lost in the arguments in favor of one or the other monopoly, let’s think about the real issue: allegiance and control. Where does corporate allegiance lay, and how much control do we have over it? Then what about the state?

In a world that is increasingly becoming data-driven, reinventing algorithms and institutions seems like more than a realistic option – it seems inevitable. The real question is by whom, and for whom. If we want to be actors and citizens rather than users and consumers, it’s time we reinvented our collective identity and started taking control.

This assassination of character is what we should be really worried about.

This article was first published as Keep on Uberin the free world, on the Linked Data Orchestration blog.

Photo by marki1983

The post Mama, Uber just killed a man – or more appeared first on P2P Foundation.

However, this doesn’t mean that we are powerless and in a next installment, we will propose a strategy that is also learning from the innovations of platform capitalism. The following extracts have been sourced from Open Democracy:

Frank Pasquale: As digital firms move to displace more government roles over time, from room-letting to transportation to commerce, citizens will be increasingly subject to corporate, rather than democratic, control.

Economists tend to characterize the scope of regulation as a simple matter of expanding or contracting state power. But a political economy perspective emphasizes that social relations abhor a power vacuum. When state authority contracts, private parties fill the gap. That power can feel just as oppressive, and have effects just as pervasive, as garden variety administrative agency enforcement of civil law. As Robert Lee Hale stated, “There is government whenever one person or group can tell others what they must do and when those others have to obey or suffer a penalty.”

We are familiar with that power in employer-employee relationships, or when a massive firm extracts concessions from suppliers. But what about when a firm presumes to exercise juridical power, not as a party to a conflict, but the authority deciding it? I worry that such scenarios will become all the more common as massive digital platforms exercise more power over our commercial lives.

Focusing on the identity and aspirations of major digital firms. They are no longer market participants. Rather, in their fields, they are market makers, able to exert regulatory control over the terms on which others can sell goods and services. Moreover, they aspire to displace more government roles over time, replacing the logic of territorial sovereignty with functional sovereignty. In functional arenas from room-letting to transportation to commerce, persons will be increasingly subject to corporate, rather than democratic, control.

For example: Who needs city housing regulators when AirBnB can use data-driven methods to effectively regulate room-letting, then house-letting, and eventually urban planning generally? Why not let Amazon have its own jurisdiction or charter city, or establish special judicial procedures for Foxconn? Some vanguardists of functional sovereignty believe online rating systems could replace state occupational licensure—so rather than having government boards credential workers, a platform like LinkedIn could collect star ratings on them.

This shift from territorial to functional sovereignty is creating a new digital political economy.

Forward-thinking legal thinkers are helping us grasp these dynamics. For example, Rory van Loo has described the status of the “corporation as courthouse”—that is, when platforms like Amazon run dispute resolution schemes to settle conflicts between buyers and sellers. Van Loo describes both the efficiency gains that an Amazon settlement process might have over small claims court, and the potential pitfalls for consumers (such as opaque standards for deciding cases). I believe that, on top of such economic considerations, we may want to consider the political economic origins of e-commerce feudalism. For example, as consumer rights shrivel, it’s rational for buyers to turn to Amazon (rather than overwhelmed small claims courts) to press their case. The evisceration of class actions, the rise of arbitration, boilerplate contracts—all these make the judicial system an increasingly vestigial organ in consumer disputes. Individuals rationally turn to online giants for powers to impose order that libertarian legal doctrine stripped from the state. And in so doing, they reinforce the very dynamics that led to the state’s etiolation in the first place.

This weakness has become something of a joke with Amazon’s recent decision to incite a bidding war for its second headquarters. Mayors have abjectly begged Amazon to locate jobs in their jurisdictions. As readers of Richard Thaler’s “The Winner’s Curse” might have predicted, the competitive dynamics have tempted far too many to offer far too much in the way of incentives. As journalist Danny Westneat recently confirmed,

• Chicago has offered to let Amazon pocket $1.32 billion in income taxes paid by its own workers.
• Fresno has a novel plan to give Amazon special authority over how the company’s taxes are spent.
• Boston has offered to set up an “Amazon Task Force” of city employees working on the company’s behalf.

Stonecrest, Georgia even offered to cannibalize itself, to give Bezos the chance to become mayor of a 345 acre annex that would be known as “Amazon, Georgia.

The example of Amazon

Amazon’s rise is instructive. As Lina Khan explains, “the company has positioned itself at the center of e-commerce and now serves as essential infrastructure for a host of other businesses that depend upon it.” The “everything store” may seem like just another service in the economy—a virtual mall. But when a firm combines tens of millions of customers with a “marketing platform, a delivery and logistics network, a payment service, a credit lender, an auction house…a hardware manufacturer, and a leading host of cloud server space,” as Khan observes, it’s not just another shopping option.

Digital political economy helps us understand how platforms accumulate power. With online platforms, it’s not a simple narrative of “best service wins.” Network effects have been on the cyberlaw (and digital economics) agenda for over twenty years. Amazon’s dominance has exhibited how network effects can be self-reinforcing. The more merchants there are selling on (or to) Amazon, the better shoppers can be assured that they are searching all possible vendors. The more shoppers there are, the more vendors consider Amazon a “must-have” venue. As crowds build on either side of the platform, the middleman becomes ever more indispensable. Oh, sure, a new platform can enter the market—but until it gets access to the 480 million items Amazon sells (often at deep discounts), why should the median consumer defect to it? If I want garbage bags, do I really want to go over to Target.com to re-enter all my credit card details, create a new log-in, read the small print about shipping, and hope that this retailer can negotiate a better deal with Glad? Or do I, ala Sunstein, want a predictive shopping purveyor that intimately knows my past purchase habits, with satisfaction just a click away?

As artificial intelligence improves, the tracking of shopping into the Amazon groove will tend to become ever more rational for both buyers and sellers. Like a path through a forest trod ever clearer of debris, it becomes the natural default. To examine just one of many centripetal forces sucking money, data, and commerce into online behemoths, play out game theoretically how the possibility of online conflict redounds in Amazon’s favor. If you have a problem with a merchant online, do you want to pursue it as a one-off buyer? Or as someone whose reputation has been established over dozens or hundreds of transactions—and someone who can credibly threaten to deny Amazon hundreds or thousands of dollars of revenue each year? The same goes for merchants: The more tribute they can pay to Amazon, the more likely they are to achieve visibility in search results and attention (and perhaps even favor) when disputes come up. What Bruce Schneier said about security is increasingly true of commerce online: You want to be in the good graces of one of the neo-feudal giants who bring order to a lawless realm. Yet few hesitate to think about exactly how the digital lords might use their data advantages against those they ostensibly protect.

Photo by thisisbossi

The post Frank Pasquale on the Shift from Territorial to Functional Sovereignty appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Introduced in 2008 as the technology underpinning Bitcoin, a digital currency that is created and held electronically without any central authority, blockchain is a secure digital ledger for any kind of data. It simplifies record keeping and reduces transaction costs.

Its range of applications in commerce, finance and potentially politics continues to widen, and that has triggered a debate around how to regulate the tool.

Goodbye middleman

Because it does not require a centralised authority to verify and validate transactions, blockchain enables people who may not trust each other to interact and coordinate directly.

Diagrams showing how the blockchain electronic currency system works and how it could be adopted by the world of banking. Reuters

With blockchain, there is no middleman in peer-to-peer exchanges; instead, users rely on a decentralised network of computers that interact through a cryptographic, secure protocol.

Blockchain has the ability to “codify” transactions by deploying small snippets of code directly onto the blockchain. This code, generally referred to as a “smart contract”, executes automatically when certain conditions are met.

An early example of smart contracts are the corporate-oriented digital rights management (DRM) systems limiting uses of digital files. Having DRM on your ebook may restrict access to copying, editing, and printing content.

With blockchain, smart contracts have become more complex and, arguably, more secure. In theory, they will always be executed exactly as planned, since no one party has the power to alter the code binding a given transaction.

In practice, however, eliminating trusted brokers from a transaction can create some kinks.

One high-profile smart-contract failure happened to the DAO, a decentralised autonomous organisation for venture capital funding.

Launched in April 2016, the DAO quickly raised over US$150 million via crowdfunding. Three weeks later, someone managed to exploit a vulnerability in the DAO’s code, draining approximately US$50 million worth of digital currency from the fund.

The security problem originated not in the blockchain itself but rather from issues with the smart-contract code used to administer the DAO.

The DAO’s crowd-funding page in May 2016.

Questions arose about the legality of the act, with some people arguing that since the hack was actually permitted by the smart-contract code, it was a perfectly legitimate action. After all, in cyberspace, “code is law”.

The DAO debate raised this key question: should the intention of the code prevail over the wording of the code?

A new legal realm

Blockchain proponents envision a future in which entire companies and governments operate in a distributed and automated fashion.

But smart contracts pose a series of enforceability issues, which are outlined in a recent white paper by the London law firm Norton Rose Fulbright.

How can we resolve disputes arising over a self-executing smart contract? How do we identify what types of contractual terms can be properly translated into code, and which ones should instead be left to natural language? And is there a way combine the two?

It is not yet clear that code can address the necessary levels of complexity to replace legal language. After all, the vagueness inherent in the language of law is a feature, not a bug: it compensates for unforeseeable cases that must be assessed on a case-by-case basis in a court of law.

Traditional contracts acknowledge that no law can index the entire complexity of life as it is, let alone predict its future development. They also precisely define terms that can be enforced by law.

Smart contracts, by contrast, are simply snippets of code both defined and enforced by the code underpinning the blockchain infrastructure. Currently, they do not have any legal recognition. This means that when something goes wrong in a smart contract, parties have no legal recourse.

The DAO’s founders painfully learned this lesson last year.

The creative friction of the law

If blockchain technologies are ever to go mainstream, governments will have to set up new legal frameworks to accommodate such complexities.

Positive law prescribes behaviour and penalises non-compliance. It can encapsulate the normative ideal that a respective government seeks to achieve, demonstrate an ethical vision for society or reify the power structure of the current regime.

Technological developments, on the other hand, are often oriented toward profit and change.

There’s an inherent tension here. Laws may delay the development of technology and hence hurt the competitive advantage of an entrepreneur or even a state.

Take the case of nanotechnology regulation in the European Union versus in the United States. European law so mitigates risks that it may end up limiting the technology’s potential, losing its competitive edge against the US.

That’s another fact about the law: slow and reactive, it can be a gross annoyance.

But ever since technological advances began speeding along on an exponential curve last century, the law has played a critical role in helping societies maintain certain previously negotiated standards for cohabitation.

Our legal system may sometimes seem antiquated in today’s fast-moving world. But before changing our laws to accommodate new technologies that may (re)define our lives, it is important to have room for debate and time for social struggles to take place.

The law serves this function of creative friction. It can restore human agency against fierce technological development.

Given all the excitement over blockchain technologies, it is probable that interested parties will soon enough seek legal recognition and state-sanctioned enforceability of smart contracts.

These emerging technologies are still too new to have been subjected to a sufficiently thorough analysis of their social, economic and political implications. More time is also needed to assess how blockchain could be deployed in a socially beneficial way.

Blockchain technology seems poised to constitute an important component of tomorrow’s society. The legal system – slow-paced as it is – might be just what we need at this juncture to ensure that this new tool is deployed in a way consistent with established principles and values, with the common good at its core.

Cross-posted from The Conversation.

Lead Image: Name Coin/Flick

The post Can blockchain, a swiftly evolving technology, be controlled? appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Developing a Co-op commons alliance towards a Collaborative Equitable and Participatory Economy: Cooperative digital platforms Lines of research

This in-depth summary was compiled by our colleague Nicole Alix and originally published in Commons Transition.

Digital platforms are at the heart of the so-called “collaborative” economy. They are powerful tools for networking, sharing and cooperation. Through digital technology and the Internet, civil society is now able to self-organize and create value without intermediaries. This collaborative economy based on peer-to-peer operation takes two main forms, according to Michel Bauwens, co-founder of the P2P Foundation:

• Peer-to-peer “in common”, which brings people together around a common object (free software, shared design…), shared, maintained and defended by a community. There are three basic elements: the resource, the community that manages this resource and an active governance that establishes rules;
• Distributed market relations where people create, through a platform, market relations by replacing the usual intermediaries with a privatized platform. This “netarchic capitalism” allows the creation of a market by direct extraction of the value resulting from human cooperation and the production of common peers, without going through the remuneration of labour.

The problem doesn’t necessarily come from digitalisation or automation, but from the redistribution of created value. Furthermore, there are not always benefits from automation, so not always value to redistribute, according to Susana Martin Belmonte.

It is relevant to do more than complain about the way giant digital firms concentrate the market and capture the value, and about the lack of regulations towards these corporations acting above the law and social justice. The 5 December Conference in the EESC in Brussels “Towards a Collaborative Equitable and Participatory Economy: the role and place of cooperative platforms” aimed at shedding light on the future and showing diversified models of more collective, “common” solutions, for public decision makers. These often take the form of collective organizations of the social and solidarity economy: cooperatives, associations, mutual societies.

 Throughout Europe and around the world, citizens, entrepreneurs and communities invent new forms of sharing and cooperation to create, preserve, or access goods and services in “common”. They aim at equity and redistribution for the people. This is fundamentally different from digital platforms that capture the value created by their contributors and users. Using the cooperative model digital platforms ensures fair reward and representation of workers in the collaborative economy. Each user can be one holder of the platform and therefore be part of the constitution of the rules of the platform, i.e of its democratic governance. Each user can benefit from an equitable redistribution of the created value.

The “Platform Cooperativism” movement was launched in New-York at the end of 2015 with this perspective  to promote co-operative platforms governed by their users and redistributing value in the communities they animate. It has echoed the movements in Europe which call for a digital economy of justice and sharing. The cooperative model is praised for building equitable and solidarity-based digital platforms; the latter can also enable the social and solidarity-based economy to reinvent its decentralized governance model. Cooperatives Europe carried out a study, “Cooperative Platforms in a European Landscape: An Exploratory Study” presented by Louis Cousin, showing that the European cooperative movement is aware of the collaborative economy opportunity, in particular for its potential to generate innovative economic and governing models.

The diversity of forms of entrepreneurship is consubstantial with the European social model, as much as social dialogue, recalls Luca Jahier, President of Group III of the European Economic and Social Committee. Encouraging diversified dynamics, avoiding the one-size-fits-all model and polarization implying impoverishment, caring for those who are excluded from transitions, inventing new winning models; these are issues that are part of a preservation of the commons. The most fragile of these “commons”  could obviously be that of the construction of social links. The creation of models with a cooperative and mutual prevalence, carried by stakeholders of a different nature, is likely to nurture the European model of social dialogue and to reinsert the concept of social innovation into processes carried by the actors.

The EESC thus enabled 6 organizations close to the social and solidarity economy and the commons ^[1]to bring together, on the initiative of La Coop des Communs, on 5 December^[2], nearly 200 people at the EESC. The conference “Towards a Collaborative Equitable and Participatory Economy: Cooperative Digital Platforms” has been an opportunity to: 

1. Discover  innovative experiences of cooperative platforms:

SCIC 1DLab, the first equitable streaming platform, has built an ecosystem to find a collective response to several needs: the reinforcement of cultural diversity and the economic strengthening of those who carry the value (creators, producers, public distributors, public and private members). The “common” shared by all stakeholders is 1Dtouch, the first fair streaming platform where people can access the library through a library card. A mobile application is in preparation. It will allow users to discover the diversity of cities, in a different way from Airbnb and will offer an alternative to the oligopoly of the three majors (such as Vivendi Universal which concentrates 50% of the creative matter in the world).

Beescoop (Brussels Ecological, Economical Supermarket), a cooperative supermarket, aims at making sustainable food accessible to all. Each customer participates 3 hours per month. Dynamocoop, a real estate cooperative for collective creative spaces, serves the creators.

These forms of sharing can also be mobilized between companies. In France Barter, TPEs and SMEs trade together using a common currency, the Barter. Some enterprises can use assets underused by others (rooms, staff, unsold). Adjustments require a dialogue between the needs and the responses, in order to find a balance between the emissions and the consumption of Barters. Hence the importance of tools for consultation and decision-making remotely, like Loomio, a software created by Enspiral. It can create a community, test the level of commitment or the degree of support for proposals. It complements the actual dialogue without replacing it, and allows a very useful asynchronous dialogue when it comes to talking between time zones.

All these models carry confidence, according to two axes, not mutually exclusive:

1. one considers the platform as a cooperative, a common good, owned by the stakeholders who manage them. They are developing all over the world, involving workers, including poor and manual workers, and their unions. This is particularly evidenced by the Platform cooperativism movement;
2. the other aims (e.g. through multi-member cooperatives) at the creation and preservation of common goods. Beyond the sole interests of workers and users, they seek for a new sharing of value. Knowledge (like Enspiral), in-kind contributions (1DLab) is reinjected, creates localized jobs (i.e. Terre de Liens, which allows organic farmers to develop, build buildings; utilities for designers like Dynamocoop). This is reflected in the movement in favor of “Open cooperativism”.

Participatory governance issues are central to both kinds of experiences, using new techniques such as sociocracy and / or tools like Loomio.

2 – Exchange on regulatory issues:

Market regulation is a decisive element for cooperative platforms to compete in peer-to-peer market. However, such an element is usually overlooked in the current debate, explains Guido Smorto, professor of comparative law in Palermo. In order to attain the European Union’s objectives of “highly competitive market economy”, “solidarity and smart development” and “social cohesion”, we must not underestimate the legal aspects that affect:

• fairness and valued orientation: which are the distributive consequences of these economic activities, what do platforms do with the surplus generated, how do they serve the community in the strict sense – users and producers – and the society as a whole? And which (non-distributive) values do these economic practices foster? What about compliance with the principles of pricing mechanism and metadata?
• efficiency: it is generally assumed that platforms are better positioned than traditional firms to address market failures and that self-regulation should have a greater role in regulating the sharing economy. But this is true only in part: there is still much asymmetric information that platforms cannot correct or have no interest to correct. And market failures different from asymmetric information may persist despite the self-governing mechanisms created by platforms, namely externalities and monopolies. Platforms usually argue that they cannot be considered as suppliers, but just a “marketplace”, so that the rules applicable to service providers would not be applicable to them. Further, it is important to define who is a “peer” and who is a “professional”. This is why they claim that no external regulation is necessary.

Cooperative platforms may better respond to market failures by empowering consumers and protecting workers. Rules must promote a democratic governance, but in order to obtain this result platforms cooperatives need a more favorable environment: at the present time, those platforms that try to protect workers or users in a more effective way are in a position of weakness. On the contrary, we need a “level playing field” in which social economy can compete effectively and fairly, without regulatory discrimination”. In this sense, argues Guido Smorto, self-regulation and external regulation do not oppose but complement each other, and self-regulation is only possible if regulation gives it a chance to exist.

As a matter of fact, the current legal environment necessarily leads to situations of monopoly, explains Bruno Carballa, doctoral student in economics at the University Paris XIII, for at least 4 reasons:

• A network effect: the more users of the platform, the more it is supposed to be easy to use,
• Feedback from users: the more returns, the more efficient the algorithms are and the quality of the service improves; the costs of moving from one platform to another (learning, insurance and especially the cost of losing the accumulated reputation) lead to reluctance to change,
• Data collection, which represents a significant investment, hence a barrier to market entry,
• Large quantities of data, which become an essential service and block access to the market. 

Hence the central question of ownership of data. At present, the law makes the data collector the owner. It is necessary to go towards a public basis of data ownership. The collector may be the depository, but that all those who feed also own them. In this model, access to the common base is possible whenever this common base is fed; a non-cooperative platform can use the common base without reciprocity, but it has to pay. In this way, data will be accessible to research and governments. A system of adapted licenses serves the system. An exportable passport allows to switch from one platform to another.

There remains the huge question of products which no longer find merchant outlets. We still need to produce them, either through the state or through communities. Susana Martín Belmonte, a monetary economist at the Institute of Social Currencies in Madrid, suggests seeking “sustainable prosperity” via a new monetary and financial system in which money is a common one. In order to finance the infrastructure necessary to access the goods and services that exist in abundance, citizens can create money. This money has to be accepted (which implies trust and ease of use). Hence proposals (and experiences!) of social currencies which, with a guarantee of buy-back and convertibility on the part of local authorities, make it possible to finance common infrastructures by the citizens. If the system does not finally take place, it only means that the local authority will ultimately finance the infrastructure. If it works, the social currency is used as a means of payment, which is a new way to manage credit and reputation risk.

And, of course, the question of social rights and the remuneration of workers is central. It is the increase in the number of self-entrepreneurs that has reduced the unemployment rate in the United Kingdom, explains Pat Conaty, associate researcher at Co-operatives UK. Their income has decreased from €16,000 to €10,000 per year since 2008. The unions, through “Union Coops”, help them to set up cooperatives by providing advice on contract drafting, insurance and training. The support of “Business and Employment Co-operatives” and organisations like SMart promises these Union Coops to a great future.

3 – Point out their expectations vis-à-vis the European Union, States and local authorities

The European Union, explains Carole Ulmer, Director of Studies at Confrontations Europe, makes no distinction between the different forms of sharing economy. Multiple directions of the European Commission are at work: DG Connect, DG Grow, DG Internal Market, DG Social Affairs, DG Energy, DG Research and Innovation, DG Budget. The European Parliament, the EESC, the Committee of the Regions, are also producing reports. The Court of Justice, in a pending lawsuit on Uber, has to determine if Uber is a transport undertaking or a digital enterprise. Member States are either “pro-digital” in favor of “digital liberalism” (Estonia, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom being the spearhead), while Spain, France, Germany, are on a social market economy line. They are encouraged by the EU to avoid unnecessary rules. Four major themes emerge:

• Data: personal data, free flow of data, etc.,
• Financing: European budget, structural funds, entrepreneurship, Juncker plan, crowdfunding, e-money, e-commerce,
• Social protection: market and labor law, social innovation initiative, plus soft law and  sharing of experiences between Member States,
• Regulation of the market: Digital Single Market, taxation, insurance, liability, consumer protection, intellectual property.

They gave rise to some key texts:

• The Communication from the Commission on digital platforms.
• The Communication on Collaborative Economics. The prevailing idea is that there is no need for a new text. Those which already exist can be slightly adapted. The platforms are supposed to be beneficial and actors of the collaborative economy expected to agree on self-regulation.
• Copyright: recognition software is expected to verify that there is no problem.

In conclusion, according to Carole Ulmer, the Commission produces a large number of texts. Civil society is expected to express its expectations. Examples can feed  the debate. The European Union does not want to legislate at its level, concludes Marguerite Grandjean, Head of studies at Ouishare, and leaves the Member States to do so.

Neil Kay, Head of unit E3 “digitization of the internal market” at DG Grow, explains that, beyond the legal analysis that has already been done, his unit is working on economic analysis of this “market” of collaborative economics, the definition of which could be: a global set of sales of services that are delivered at the local level. This would be the third pillar of the digital economy. Its development depends on three factors: the state of digital development in the country, a critical market size, and a favorable macroeconomic climate for sharing.

The Commission can also afford technological solutions to serve regulatory objectives and new, more sustainable models. Indeed, the technology is not neutral, explains Fabrizio Sestini, expert “New generation Internet” in the DG Networks and communications. It has social and political implications, ranging from power to people to Big Brother, centralized / decentralized models. The economy of the commons is not yet integrated into these arguments, but calls for projects have already been used by cities such as Barcelona. The new call for proposals ICT-1162017 aims to promote innovative models for sustainable lifestyles. 

4 – Promote possible partnerships between cooperative worlds, commons, cities 

The best-performing platforms are those with investment capabilities, says Sandrino Graceffa, Managing Director of SMart. The funds can come from users, from the State (to fund services of general interest) or large companies of the Social and Solidarity Economy –SSE- (co-operative banks, mutual societies). Alliances are needed to foster experimentation, solutions for transgression and transition. For example, Smart promotes alternative solutions to Uber which transforms subordinate workers into self-employed workers at the price of their social protection. Taxing work for social protection is necessary. Consumers should not be their associates.

Great expectations are expressed in relation to the cooperative world, which, explains Bruno Roelants, Secretary General of CECOP, is accustomed to offer diversified solutions in all ILO member states, where they are recognized. These solutions, which have been proven for decades, are based on members’ needs. These have to be precisely expressed. In addition, the 7th cooperative principle adopted in 1995 advocates the involvement of cooperatives in their communities. Bruno Roelants encourages the world of the commons to identify and express their needs in order to find the cooperative model or models that suits them. If certain forms of co-operatives do not correspond to the needs identified by the world of the commons, for instance the evoked needs of “changing the rules of the market”, he suggests that the people concerned continue to seek an exact definition of their needs. It is indeed on this basis that the world of commons can develop its own system.

In this sense, he points out that there is no “closed” cooperative model that would oppose an “open” cooperative model. Cooperatives are open to all who are eligible, i.e. those who have the needs to which the cooperative is supposed to respond. Hence the importance of proper identification of needs. The “Commons” seem to him to be a subset of what is called a community in the 7th cooperative principle. Lastly, he stressed the importance of inter-cooperation, groups and co-operative cooperatives, which could give rise to investment funds.

With regard to governance issues, control of common ownership becomes almost more important than the very issue of ownership. Co-operative platforms should specify who makes the decisions and who controls. Democratic control does not only depend on the principle of “one person, one vote” (the “agora” component of democracy), but also through checks and balances between different bodies of the cooperative (“republican” Democracy, characterized by the balance between different powers).

Concerning the 3rd cooperative principle (financial participation of members), it should be emphasized that the partial redistribution of surplus to members in the form of rebates is a fundamentally different financial instrument from dividends distributed to shareholders. It is based not on the share of capital invested by each member, but on the latter’s transactions with the cooperative (buying, selling or remuneration transactions). It must therefore be considered as a system for adjusting prices transactions.

Louis Cousin stresses that the cooperative model, the commons and the collaborative economy are three wide – but still distinct – concepts, encompassing many different organizational forms and specificities. A conceptual reflection aiming to confront those 3 models would be interesting, but it seems that practitioners are now calling for practical experimentations and approaches. In this respect, we should focus on specific best practices demonstrating the possibility and relevance of merging these 3 concepts into one same project and organization. In addition,advocacy work is needed and currently performed at all levels (local, regional, national and European): there is a need to coordinate the variety of stakeholders around one common vision for the collaborative economy.

Benjamin Coriat, professor of economics, co-director of the research program “Encommuns” and vice-president of La Coop des Commons, addresses the questions from the needs of the commons. The commons essentially develop outside the world of wage-earning and the link of subordination, which authorizes the employer to uptake the surplus value and creates a series of rights for the employee, such as social protection. Commoners are self-employed associates, even if commons work on the market. Producing the commons is too important to be considered hobbies. Hence, the immense interest of formulas such as the cooperatives of activity and employment in France: it  preserves independence while at the same time enjoying the benefits of wage-earning as revenue is generated through business. The contract of employment shall not be regarded as a service contract.

Cooperatives are surely inspiring models. Are they sufficient, particularly for commons that do not create market value? Should new legal instruments be created to meet these needs? The example of 1DLab uses the French model of SCIC (cooperative society for collective interest), to associate diverse stakeholders, including local communities (essential in areas such as energy). Do we need a new status for the freelancers, for the self-employed? Can we go deeper in research for social drawing rights as suggested by Alain Supiot, which would give rights of social protection for those who contribute to social welfare activities?

Bruno Roelants explains that the member statutes are not uniform in all countries: sometimes salaried, sometimes self-employed (South America), sometimes both (Spain). The only country where there is a third typology is Italy. It is necessary to take the different categories of labor law in different countries into consideration. In all cases, the cooperative worker has to get access to the broadest possible social protection. Another range of solution, for the production of commons that have no market value, can be searched through social cooperatives. Local authorities may be members. They exist in Quebec, Spain, France, Portugal and Italy. One necessary condition, says Benjamin Coriat, is that a new private economic and social accounting can account for the value created. If one takes into account the positive externalities created, a whole series of activities carried out by the commoners can become profitable.

The open debate with the participants shows that the work between cooperatives and the world of commons must continue to find the most adapted tools according to the scenarios.

To questions raised by Stacco Troncoso, from the P2P Foundation,

• Cooperatives democratize ownership and governance, but do they question what they actually produce?
• Cooperatives are market entities while the commons largely exists outside of, or in the periphery of, markets. How can cooperatives create new commons?
• Can multi-stakeholder cooperatives enfranchise all the participants in the economic value chain? This means going beyond single decision-makers to work with entire communities.

Pat Conaty replied that every time the cooperative movement is mobilized, it means that we are in a crisis situation. It is true that, beyond the question of the sale of products on the market, the cooperative movement should deal with the question of land and rent. Multi-stakeholder cooperatives make it possible to approach redistribution solutions, with horizontal democracy. If one creates commons, one must guarantee that they will remain common, and are not “privatizable”. It is the role of the community that controls the cooperative platform. Benjamin Coriat calls for a “common of the commons”, a “common of the cooperatives” which provides guarantee against private appropriation; In this sense, it has something to do with the “Republic” in the strong sense.

Mayo Fuster Morell, from Procomuns in Barcelona, ​​finds two ranges of dimension: the common as a self-managed, collaborative community, which makes it look like a cooperative; and the common as a possibility of access to the common resource, raising the question of whether cooperatives produce public goods.

Barcelona is currently trying to rethink public services by mobilizing citizens: should they re-municipalize or “commonify”? It is a matter of power. In a cooperative, decisions are made according to the democratic principle “one person, one vote”, but the commons are not necessarily democratic: only those who participate decide. If 90% do not contribute, power is assured by the 10% who contribute. She considers that the open source sector  is not so equal and inclusive, specially for women. It is not necessarily a model for the commons.

Benjamin Coriat argues that public services have often become privatized public goods. Declaring water, air, etc. as common goods implies forms of governance that exclude private ownership through the control of management structure. The real power doesn’t belong to the management, but to the community.

There is also the question of the integration of the precarious. How do existing cooperatives choose to defend or not certain categories of workers? In response to Michel Bauwens’ question, Sandrino Graceffa explains that SMart is setting up an ethics committee. The workers who turn to SMart (e.g. Airbnb caretakers or delivery drivers) are welcome, but not a platform which comes to seek a solution of regularization of work.

5 – Agree on follow-up:

Partners such as REVES, cities like Barcelona, ​​the ILO, the European Trade Union Confederation are interested in the follow-up, with the organizers.

REVES, the European Network of Cities for the Social Economy, is interested in contributing to the exchange with its members. There is a need to raise the awareness of public authorities on the topic – on the different forms of this new economy that is emerging, on the potential of cooperative platforms as a general-interest-oriented alternative to purely profit-making interests, on already existing practices and on initiatives to be developed.  All of us should also try and spread a new VISION to make this kind of economy and platform accessible to all. Erdmuthe Klaer, Deputy Secretary General, states that she can also build bridges with the Committee of the Regions, the Social Economy Intergroup in the European Parliament and see how to mobilize the Structural Funds.

Mayo Fuster Morell explains that municipal policy on collaborative economics must be collaborative. This is why the Commissioner in charge of SSE in the city of Barcelona is also in charge of digital. Procomuns represents 120 recommendations on collaborative economics in Barcelona. Four criteria have been chosen to select projects within the framework of the CAPS project: non-profit making, choice of open technology, existence of social objectives, and inclusiveness and parity. She considers it very important for the EESC to support cooperative platforms.

Thibaut Weber, ETUC Confederal Secretary, argues that the digital economy is an opportunity for the EU. But the EU is not interested in social issues. We must fight the false self-employment, as the unions do in Germany with IG Metall, the cooperatives in Italy and in the Nordic countries. To do this, cooperatives and SSE in general and unions should stop being strangers. Cooperatives represent forms of solidarity, although labor law can not be limited to cooperatives alone.

This, of course, coincides with the ILO’s work on the future of work ahead of its centenary in 2019, explains Simel Esim, Programme manager. Cooperatives do not replace public services. They can involve diverse stakeholders and create jobs. We need to work on evidence of the effectiveness of cooperatives.

The organizers of the conference therefore decided to maintain a network between them and the main participants, ESS networks, municipalities, cities, partners in the world of work, and cooperatives, on three axes:

• To invite one another to the next conferences and work on cooperative platforms
• To list sites and forums which identify and document experiences
• To deepen the questions  with researchers working on those asked by the practitioners.

In summary, there are some avenues to be explored:

• Define the needs to determine the appropriate types of cooperatives or other forms of organization, considering two questions:
  • Ownership and right of platforms, right of workers, property, and
  • Integration of the common interest in the platforms
• With a sub-question on the management of public services. 

And considering the different national legal frameworks:

• Deepen the governance issues (cooperatives and common democratic functioning)
• Advocate for a fair environment for experimentation and development of cooperative platforms.

Footnotes

^[1] La Coop des Communs, Confrontations Europe, P2P Foundation, SMart, Ouishare, Cecop       

^[2] See the records and presentations on http://confrontations.org/reports/towards-a-fair-sharing-economy-the-role-and-place-of-cooperative-platforms?lang=en

Lead image by Darwin Bell. Event images by Stacco Troncoso and Lieza Dessein.

The post Developing a Coop-Commons alliance for a Collaborative Equitable and Participatory Economy appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Cities and Technological Sovereignty 6 – The Gig Economy Needs To Meet Its Responsibilities

(13 mins) Wolfgang Kowalsky – The ‘gig economy’ may sound cool but in reality many of the jobs offer a fast route back to the problems faced by day laborers of 100 years ago. The gig economy needs to grow up and meet its responsibilities to workers by turning undeclared work into declared work. Online platforms have the effect, if not the intent, of disguising the employment relationship along with facilitating avoidance of social security and tax obligations. The European Commission must stop giving an alibi for these arrangements. What about fair play? Is there a level playing field between new and old service providers when a 3-star hotel in Spain has to comply with 244 rules whereas “sharing” properties have only 12 rules to deal with? Digitalization‘s false promises for a better world need to be addressed. The future of work must be fair digital work.

Photo by mag3737

The post Wolfgang Kowalsky on How the European Union Is Failing To Regulate the So-Called Sharing Economy appeared first on P2P Foundation.

The evolution of STRs is a success story for the many STR platforms that broker transactions between STR hosts and guests, but for cities and communities dealing with the adverse social and economic impacts of the activity, STRs pose a unique new challenge.

On the one hand, STRs have a strong contingent of proponents, including the well-resourced STR platforms themselves and property owners who benefit from the flexibility and economic opportunity STRs afford them. On the other hand, unbridled STR activity has caused renters and tenants’ rights advocates to argue that profit incentives and lack of regulation have led many property owners to evict tenants and convert long-term residential rentals into STRs — removing bedrooms and entire units from the rental market and displacing and driving up housing costs for local residents.

Renters are not the only stakeholders with concerns. Hotel interests argue that unregulated STRs unfairly compete with established hotels, local regulators contend that STRs reduce local business and hotel tax revenues, and neighbors complain that a constant turnover of transient STR guests adversely impacts neighborhood quality and cohesion.

Now that the peer-to-peer economy has collided with housing, cities are being called upon to find solutions that protect public interests and meet the needs of all residents in a climate where some criticize governments for failing to adequately regulate STRs, while others criticize government for failing to embrace them.

How can cities regulate STRs in ways that generate inclusive opportunities for local wealth-creation, while still balancing the needs of all members of the community? SELC has some suggestions.

This guidebook will equip cities to respond to STRs in ways that protect public interests — including housing affordability, health and safety, neighborhood quality, and municipal revenues — while retaining reasonable latitude for city residents to host and earn money from short-term guests.  identifies key issue areas, incorporates references to sample STR ordinances from around the U.S., and provides SELC’s recommendations for best practices.

Because there is no one-size-fits all ordinance for STRs, we strongly encourage community stakeholder participation in the formation of any STR policy so that it accurately reflects local circumstances. Please share this guidebook widely: with neighbors, with community organizations, with city council members, and with mayors. We created this guidebook for people like you.

For questions or press inquiries, contact Yassi Eskandari-Qajar: yassi@theselc.org

Photo by Mechanoid Dolly

The post New SELC Report: How to Equitably Regulate Airbnb-style Short-term Rentals appeared first on P2P Foundation.

The following article, written by Emanuel Pastreich (director of The Asia Institute) in association with John Feffer, and originally published at the Foreign Policy in Focus website, highlights the magnitude of the risks derived from infrastructure oversight and the United States’ suicidal denialism in the face of real, as opposed to hyped-up, dangers.

“The greatest dangers for the United States do not lurk in terrorist cells. They come from thousands of nuclear weapons, toxic chemical dumps, radioactive waste storage facilities, complex pipelines and refineries, offshore oil rigs, and many other potentially dangerous but scarcely regulated facilities.”

The U.S. security complex is up in arms about cyberhackers and foreign terrorists targeting America’s vulnerable infrastructure. Think tank reports have highlighted the chinks in homeland security represented by unsecured ports, dams, and power plants. We’ve been bombarded by stories about outdated software that is subject to hacking and the vulnerability of our communities to bioterrorism. Reports such as the Heritage Foundation’s “Microbes and Mass Casualties: Defending America Against Bioterrorism” describe a United States that could be brought to its knees by its adversaries unless significant investments are made in “hardening” these targets.

The post America’s Homegrown Terror: Scarcely Regulated Facilities appeared first on P2P Foundation.