Platform Teknolojileri ve Temsiliyet Sorunu: Uber ve Booking.com Vakaları

Booking.com ve Uber firmaları vaka analizlerine odaklanmaktadır. Bu çalışma ile, bu firmalarınfaaliyet gösterdikleri piyasaların yapısını değiştirmesi, çıkar ilişkilerini tetiklemesi ve yeni müdahalealanları yaratması irdelenirken bu alanlarda ortaya çıkan temsiliyet sorunları incelenmektedir.Booking.com ve Uber’in bu çalışma dahilinde vaka örnekleri olarak seçilmesinin sebepleri arasındaiki firmanın da Türkiye’de yasal takipte olması; geleneksel piyasaya karşı yenilikçi uygulamalara sahipolmaları; dünyada da bu firmalar ile ilgili farklı yasaklama ve yasal düzenleme getirilmiş olması yeralmaktadır. Literatürde, dijital platformların yasal değişimleri nasıl kışkırttığına ilişkin olarak dörtyöntem kategorize edilmektedir. Bu yöntemler şu şekildedir: (1) Yasayı ihlal etmek ya da yasalardankaynaklanan gri alanlardan istifade etmek; (2) Piyasada yasaklanamayacak kadar bir büyüme sağlamak;(3) Tüketicileri ve diğer paydaşları siyasi güç için harekete geçirmek; (4) Daha ziyade geleneksel siyasiteknikler uygulamak. Söz konusu bu çalışma temsiliyet sorununun formal olan ve formal olmayan ilesiyasi ve politik ikilemlerinin ötesinde dijital platform firmalarının nasıl muğlak, çetrefilli ve belirsizyeni siyaset alanlarını oluşturduğu ve yine bu alanlardaki müdahale süreçlerinde nasıl daha çetrefillitemsiliyet problemleri yarattığını incelemektedir. Ayrıca, bu çalışma, sözü geçen siyaset alanlarıiçerisindeki aktörlerin koşullara bağlı yaklaşım ve etkileşimlerini temsiliyet sorunu çerçevesindeirdelerken, bu hizmetlerden mahrum kalan gruplar açısından temsiliyet boşlukları olduğunu ortayaçıkarmaktadır. Meslek birliklerinin, yenilikçi teknoloji ve yeni ekonomi piyasası temsiliyetindeboşluklar yaratacak şekilde çıkar faaliyetlerine girerek temsiliyet boşlukları yarattığı görülmektedir.Bu temsiliyet boşluğu aynı sektördeki STK’lar arasında da çatışma alanları yaratmaktadır. Bu analizışığında, temsiliyet sorunu 6 faktör açısından söz konusu vaka analizleri üzerinden sonuçlandırılabilir.Bu faktörler şu şekildedir: (1) Kurumsal tercihler, (2) Kimin katıldığı, (3) Kimin dışlandığı, (4) Nasılkatılım sağlandığı, (5) Katılımın gerekçeleri, (6) Sonuç üzerindeki etki. Buna göre, çalışma şu sonuçları ortaya çıkarmıştır: (1) Türkiye’de dijital platform firmaları özelinde onların da haklarını koruyucubir regülasyon olmaması; (2) Yeni teknolojilerin tetiklediği regülasyonların farklı müdahale alanlarıve ilişki formları yaratması; (3) Seçimle gelen tepeden-aşağıya temsiliyet ile betimsel ve semboliktemsiliyet arasında yeni iletişim, yönetişim ve etkileşim alanlarının geliştirilmesi gereği. Bu çalışmavaka analizi metodunu benimserken kalitatif görüşmeler, telefon mülakatları ve katılımcı gözlemler iledoküman analizlerine dayanmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Temsiliyet, Uber, Booking.com, Yeni Ekonomiler, Platform Teknolojileri, Yasal Regülasyon

Platform Technologies and Representatin Problem: Uber and Booking.com Cases

By examining the company cases of Booking.com and Uber, this study focuses on the representationalgaps in new areas of politics, which are created by the new economy. By analyzing the problems ofrepresentation in these new areas, this study focuses on how these firms have changed the marketstructure, triggered the interest relations and created new areas of intervention. The reasons of theselection of Uber and Booking.com as case examples include that: both have engaged with legalproceedings in Turkey; they have innovative practices as a challenge to the traditional market; thereare different prohibitions and regulations about these firms around the world. While digital platformfirms are defined as ‘regulatory entrepreneurs’, there are three categories of how these digital platformsprovoke legal changes: (1) Violating the law or taking advantage of the gray areas of law; (2) Ensuringa significant growth in the market so that they cannot be prohibited; (3) Mobilizing consumers andother stakeholders for political power; (4) More traditional political techniques to apply. Therefore,beyond the formal-non-formal and politics-political dilemmas of the representation problem, thisstudy analyzes how digital platform firms create ambiguous, contradictory, and uncertain areas ofpolitics. Moreover, this study examines how these firms constitute again more contradictory problemsof representation during the intervention processes. As such, by probing the conditional approachesand interactions of the actors, this study also indirectly reveals the gaps in the representation of thosewho are in favor of these services as well as firms that provide these services. Therefore, this studypresents that professional associations have created the representational gaps by engaging interestbasedactivities that seem to result in creating the gaps in the representation of innovative technologiesand markets of the new economy. Moreover, this gap in representation creates the areas of conflicteven among NGOs within the same sector. In light of this insight, the case analysis results with 6factors to analyze the problem of representation. These factors are as follows: (1) Institutional choices,(2) Who participated, (3) Who is excluded, (4) How is participated, (5) Reasons for participation, (6)Impact on the outcome. Therefore, the outcomes of this study might be summarized as follows: (1)There is a lack of regulation on protecting the rights of digital platform firms and their services inTurkey; (2) Regulations triggered by new technologies create different intervention areas and forms ofrelationships; (3) There is a need for the development of the new areas of communication, governanceand interaction between election-based top-down representation, on the one hand; and descriptive andsymbolic representation, on the other hand. By adopting the case analysis method, this study is basedon qualitative interviews, telephone interviews, participant observations and document analyses.

Keywords:

Representation, Uber, Booking.com, New Economy, Platform Technologies, Legal Regulation,

PDF

___

Ankersmit, F. R. (2002). Political representation. Stanford University Press: Chicago Aslan, Mehmet, G. Kaya (2004). “1980 Sonrası Türkiye’de Siyasal Katılımda Sivil Toplum Kuruluları”, Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, C. 5, S. 1, s. 213-223. Avritzer, L. (2008). Civil society, participatory institutions, and representation: From authorization to the legitimacy of action. Dados, 4(SE), 0-0. Barnes, S. J., Mattsson, J. (2016). Understanding current and future issues in collaborative consumption: A four-stage Delphi study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 104, 200-211. Belk, R. (2014). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1595-1600. Bloomberg. (2018). UBER ve taksiler arasındaki gerilim sürüyor. http://www.bloomberght.com/haberler/ haber/2103003-uber-ve-taksiler-arasindaki-gerilim-suruyor. Botsman, R., Rogers, R. (2010). What’s mine is yours. The rise of collaborative consumption. Cannon, S., Summers, L. H. (2014). How Uber and the sharing economy can win over regulators. Harvard business review, 13(10), 24-28. Chaudhry, A., Garner, P. (2007). Do governments suppress growth? Institutions, rent‐seeking, and innovation blocking in a model of Schumpeterian growth. Economics & Politics, 19(1), 35-52. Cock, J. (1989). Keeping the fires burning: Militarisation and the politics of gender in South Africa. Review of African Political Economy, 16(45-46), 50-64. Cramer, J., Krueger, A. B. (2016). Disruptive change in the taxi business: The case of Uber. American Economic Review, 106(5), 177-82. Dahlstedt, M. (2008). Now you see it, now you don’t: reconsidering the problem of representation. Policy Studies, 29(2), 233-248. Dovi, S. (2006). Political representation. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://stanford.library. sydney.edu.au/entries/political-representation/. Nisan 01, 2018. ECJ.(2017).http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf ?text=&docid=199626&pageIndex =0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=367386. Evans, D. S., Schmalensee, R. (2016). Matchmakers: The new economics of multisided platforms. Harvard Business Review Press. Finck, M., Ranchordás, S. (2016). Sharing and the City. Vand. J. Transnat’l L., 49, 1299. Frenken, K., Schor, J. (2017). Putting the sharing economy into perspective. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 23, 3-10. Fuentes-Bracamontes, R. (2016). Is unbundling electricity services the way forward for the power sector?. The Electricity Journal, 29(9), 16-20. Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public administration review, 66(s1), 66- 75. Godelnik, R. (2017). Millennials and the sharing economy: Lessons from a ‘buy nothing new, share everything month’project. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 23, 40-52. Görün, M. (2006). “Yerel Demokrasi Ve Katılım: İzmir, Konya ve Ağrı İl Genel Meclis Üyeleri Üzerinde Bir Araştırma”, Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 4(2), 159-184. Grant, R. W., Keohane, R. O. (2005). Accountability and abuses of power in world politics. American Political Science Review, 99(1), 29-43. Guttentag, D. (2015). Airbnb: disruptive innovation and the rise of an informal tourism accommodation sector. Current issues in Tourism, 18(12), 1192-1217. Held, D., KoenigArchibugi, M. (2005). Global Governance and Public Accountability. Blackwell: London. Hennart, J. F. (2010). Transaction cost theory and international business. Journal of Retailing, 86(3), 257- 269. Huber, A. (2017). Theorising the dynamics of collaborative consumption practices: A comparison of peerto- peer accommodation and cohousing. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 23, 53-69. Kandiyoti, D. (1991). Identity and its Discontents: Women and the Nation. Millennium, 20(3), 429-443. Kaypak, Ş. (2013). “Kent Konseyleri ve Sivil Toplum Kuruluları İlişkisi Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme”, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10(1), 183-199. Kenney, M., Zysman, J. (2015, June). Choosing a future in the platform economy: the implications and consequences of digital platforms. In Kauffman Foundation New Entrepreneurial Growth Conference (Vol. 156160). Kung, Ling-Chieh, G.Y. Zhong. (2017). “The optimal pricing strategy for two-sided platform delivery in the sharing economy.” Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review. 101, 1-12. Lijphart, A. (2002). Negotiation democracy versus consensus democracy: Parallel conclusions and recommendations. European Journal of Political Research, 41(1), 107-113. Lucio, M. M. (2010). Dimensions of internationalism and the politics of the labour movement: Understanding the political and organisational aspects of labour networking and co-ordination. Employee Relations, 32(6), 538-556. Mbeche, R. (2017). Climbing the ladder of participation: symbolic or substantive representation in preparing Uganda for REDD+?. Conservation and Society, 15(4), 426-438. McKee, D. (2017). Neoliberalism and the legality of peer platform markets. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 23, 105-113. Mitchell, M. D. (2012). The pathology of privilege: The economic consequences of government favoritism. Molz, J. G. (2013). Social networking technologies and the moral economy of alternative tourism: The case of couchsurfing. org. Annals of Tourism Research, 43, 210-230. Motala, M. (2016). The” Taxi Cab Problem” Revisited: Law and Ubernomics in the Sharing Economy. Banking & Finance Law Review, 31(3), 467. Mouffe, C., Moreno, H. (1993). Feminismo, ciudadanía y política democrática radical. Debate feminista, 7, 3-22. Palabıyık, H., Görün, M. (2004). Belediye Meclislerinde Temsil ve Katılım: Çanakkale Belediye Meclisi Örneği. Yerel Yönetimler Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabı, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi, 257-272. Parker, G. G., Van Alstyne, M. W., Choudary, S. P. (2016). Platform Revolution: How Networked Markets Are Transforming the Economyand How to Make Them Work for You. WW Norton & Company. Petropoulos, G. (2016). Uber and the economic impact of sharing economy platforms. Breugel. org) http:// bruegel. org/2016/02/uber-and-the-economic-impact-ofsharing-economy-platforms/, checked on, 2(29), 2016. Pitkin, H. (1964). Hobbes’s Concept of Representation—II. American Political Science Review, 58(4), 902- 918. Pollman, E., Barry, J. M. (2016). Regulatory Entrepreneurship. S. Cal. L. Rev., 90, 383. Powell Jr, G. B. (2004). Political representation in comparative politics. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci., 7, 273-296. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the horizon, 9(5), 1-6. Redner, H. (1994). A New Science of Representation: Towards an Integrated Theory of Representation in Science, Politics, and Art. Westview Press: Boulder. Richardson, Lizzie. “Performing the sharing economy.” Geoforum 67 (2015): 121-129. Rodrik, D. (2014). When ideas trump interests: Preferences, worldviews, and policy innovations. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28(1), 189-208. Schneider, H. (2017). Uber: Innovation in Society. Springer. Schor, J.B., Fitzmaurice, C.J., 2015. Collaborating and connecting: the emergence of the sharing economy. In: Reisch, L.A., Thøgersen, J. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Sustainable Consumption. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK, s. 410–425. Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak?. Can the subaltern speak? Reflections on the history of an idea, 21-78. Strolovitch, D. Z. (2008). Affirmative advocacy: Race, class, and gender in interest group politics. University of Chicago Press. Tapscott, D. (1996). The digital economy: Promise and peril in the age of networked intelligence (Vol. 1). New York: McGraw-Hill. Tekin Bilbil, E. (2018a, Inprint). New Governance and Digital Platform Companies: The Case of Uber. Tekin Bilbil, E. (2018b, Inprint). Platform Coopetition in the Tourism Industry: The Case of Booking. com’s Closure in Turkey. Urbinati, N., & Warren, M. E. (2008). The concept of representation in contemporary democratic theory. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci., 11, 387-412. Üste, R. B. (2005). Yerel yönetimlerde demokratikleşme. Türk İdare Dergisi, 448, 49-60. Warren, M. E. (2009). Governance-driven democratization. Critical policy studies, 3(1), 3-13. Wilhelms, M. P., Henkel, S., Falk, T. (2017). To earn is not enough: A means-end analysis to uncover peerproviders’ participation motives in peer-to-peer carsharing. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 125, 38-47. YAVAŞ, H., DEMİR, K. A. (2014). KENT YÖNETİMLERİNDE SİYASAL KATILIM VE TEMSİLİYET SORUNU: BELEDİYE MECLİSLERİNİN ETKİLİLİĞİ ÜZERİNE KURAMSAL BİR TARTIŞMA. Journal of International Social Research, 7(34). Yetim, S. (2015). UBER, HUKUKİ SORUNLAR VE ÇÖZÜM ÖNERİLERİ. Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi Dergisi, 6. Young, A. M., Hinesly, M. D. (2012). Identifying Millennials’ key influencers from early childhood: insights into current consumer preferences. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 29(2), 146-155.

Marmara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilimler Dergisi-Cover

Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 2 Sayı
Başlangıç: 2013
Yayıncı: Marmara Üniversitesi

Arşiv