IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orstsc/v3y2018i2p439-462.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Disruptive Entrepreneurship and Dual Purpose Strategies: The Case of Uber

Author

Listed:
  • David P. Baron

    (Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305)

Abstract

Uber provides a two-sided platform that matches travelers with drivers who choose when, where, and how long to drive using their own vehicles. Uber disrupts local markets with an incumbent taxi industry, and the industry fights back in both its market and institutional environments. This paper focuses on Uber’s strategy for addressing the challenges from the taxi industry with an emphasis on dual-purpose strategies that provide in a complementary manner benefits both in the marketplace and in the institutional environment. The focus is on three issues important to Uber’s success. The first is whether Uber is a platform company or a transportation service that falls under the jurisdiction of local regulators. The second is whether Uber drivers are classified under the law as independent contractors or as employees. The third is passenger safety and the qualifications required for ride-hailing drivers. The corresponding dual-purpose strategies considered are market engagement, work enhancement, and accommodation. Implementing these dual-purpose strategies involves lobbying, stakeholder mobilization, and institutional venue shifting. A model of a local transportation market is presented as a framework for analyzing market competition and for identifying the incentives of market and institutional participants, including Uber, its drivers and passengers, taxi companies and their drivers, and safety advocates, to challenge or support Uber and ride-hailing. The model distinguishes between full-time and part-time drivers, frequent and infrequent travelers, and whether taxi drivers or taxi companies own the taxi medallions.

Suggested Citation

  • David P. Baron, 2018. "Disruptive Entrepreneurship and Dual Purpose Strategies: The Case of Uber," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(2), pages 439-462, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:orstsc:v:3:y:2018:i:2:p:439-462
    DOI: 10.1287/stsc.2018.0059
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2018.0059
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/stsc.2018.0059?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. M. Keith Chen & Judith A. Chevalier & Peter E. Rossi & Emily Oehlsen, 2019. "The Value of Flexible Work: Evidence from Uber Drivers," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 127(6), pages 2735-2794.
    2. Mark Armstrong, 2006. "Competition in two‐sided markets," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(3), pages 668-691, September.
    3. Jean‐Charles Rochet & Jean Tirole, 2006. "Two‐sided markets: a progress report," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(3), pages 645-667, September.
    4. Jonathan V. Hall & Alan B. Krueger, 2015. "An Analysis of the Labor Market for Uber's Driver-Partners in the United States," Working Papers 587, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    5. Judd Cramer & Alan B. Krueger, 2016. "Disruptive Change in the Taxi Business: The Case of Uber," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(5), pages 177-182, May.
    6. Jean-Charles Rochet & Jean Tirole, 2003. "Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 1(4), pages 990-1029, June.
    7. E. Glen Weyl, 2010. "A Price Theory of Multi-sided Platforms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1642-1672, September.
    8. Cody Cook & Rebecca Diamond & Jonathan V Hall & John A List & Paul Oyer, 2021. "The Gender Earnings Gap in the Gig Economy: Evidence from over a Million Rideshare Drivers [Measuring the Gig Economy: Current Knowledge and Open Issues]," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 88(5), pages 2210-2238.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Michael Etter & Christian Fieseler & Glen Whelan, 2019. "Sharing Economy, Sharing Responsibility? Corporate Social Responsibility in the Digital Age," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 159(4), pages 935-942, November.
    2. Guilherme Fowler A. Monteiro & Bruno Varella Miranda, 2023. "Disentangling the role of the institutional environment in the ownership competence framework: A comment on Foss et al. (2021)," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(8), pages 1939-1954, August.
    3. Joan Enric Ricart & Yuliya Snihur & Carlos Carrasco-Farré & Pascual Berrone, 2020. "Grassroots Resistance to Digital Platforms and Relational Business Model Design to Overcome It: A Conceptual Framework," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(3), pages 271-291, September.
    4. Loa, Patrick & Nurul Habib, Khandker, 2021. "Examining the influence of attitudinal factors on the use of ride-hailing services in Toronto," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 13-28.
    5. Mike W. Peng & Joyce C. Wang & Nishant Kathuria & Jia Shen & Miranda J. Welbourne Eleazar, 2023. "Toward an institution-based paradigm," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 353-382, June.
    6. Jiang, Guoyin & Yang, Wanqiang, 2023. "Signal effect of government regulations on ride-hailing drivers’ intention to mobile-based transportation platform governance: Evidence from China," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 63-78.
    7. Sunyu Chai & Maureen A. Scully, 2019. "It’s About Distributing Rather than Sharing: Using Labor Process Theory to Probe the “Sharing” Economy," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 159(4), pages 943-960, November.
    8. Jovana Karanović & Hans Berends & Yuval Engel, 2021. "Regulated Dependence: Platform Workers’ Responses to New Forms of Organizing," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(4), pages 1070-1106, June.
    9. Wen, Yuni, 2023. "Rightful resistance: How do digital platforms achieve policy change?," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    10. Gautam Ahuja & Laurence Capron & Michael Lenox & Dennis A. Yao, 2018. "Strategy and the Institutional Envelope," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(2), pages 1-1, June.
    11. Syed Tariq Anwar, 2023. "The sharing economy and collaborative consumption: Strategic issues and global entrepreneurial opportunities," Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 60-88, March.
    12. Nyberg, Daniel & Murray, John, 2023. "Corporate populism: How corporations construct and represent ‘the people’ in political contestations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    13. Yuliya Snihur & Christoph Zott & Raphael (Raffi) Amit, 2021. "Managing the Value Appropriation Dilemma in Business Model Innovation," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 22-38, March.
    14. Douglas P. Hannah & Ron Tidhar & Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, 2021. "Analytic models in strategy, organizations, and management research: A guide for consumers," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(2), pages 329-360, February.
    15. Wang, Hai & Yang, Hai, 2019. "Ridesourcing systems: A framework and review," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 122-155.
    16. Amiya K. Chakravarty, 2021. "Blending Capacity on a Rideshare Platform: Independent and Dedicated Drivers," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(8), pages 2522-2546, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Scott Duke Kominers & Alexander Teytelboym & Vincent P Crawford, 2017. "An invitation to market design," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(4), pages 541-571.
    2. Wang, Hai & Yang, Hai, 2019. "Ridesourcing systems: A framework and review," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 122-155.
    3. Yongwook Paik & Christos A. Makridis, 2023. "The social value of a ridesharing platform: a hedonic pricing approach," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 64(5), pages 2125-2150, May.
    4. Jiayi Joey Yu & Christopher S. Tang & Zuo-Jun Max Shen & Xiqun Michael Chen, 2020. "A Balancing Act of Regulating On-Demand Ride Services," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(7), pages 2975-2992, July.
    5. Moraga-Gonzalez, Jose L. & Wildenbeest, Matthijs R., 2011. "Comparison sites," IESE Research Papers D/933, IESE Business School.
      • Jose Luis Moraga-Gonzalez & Matthijs R. Wildenbeest, 2011. "Comparison Sites," Working Papers 2011-04, Indiana University, Kelley School of Business, Department of Business Economics and Public Policy.
    6. Marco Antonielli & Lapo Filistrucchi, 2011. "Collusion and the political differentiation of newspapers," Working Papers 11-26, NET Institute, revised Nov 2011.
    7. Doh-Shin Jeon & Nikrooz Nasr, 2016. "News Aggregators and Competition among Newspapers on the Internet," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 91-114, November.
    8. Lapo Filistrucchi & Damien Geradin & Eric van Damme, 2012. "Identifying Two-Sided Markets," Working Papers - Economics wp2012_01.rdf, Universita' degli Studi di Firenze, Dipartimento di Scienze per l'Economia e l'Impresa.
    9. Carrillo, Juan D. & Tan, Guofu, 2021. "Platform competition with complementary products," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    10. Charles Angelucci & Julia Cagé, 2019. "Newspapers in Times of Low Advertising Revenues," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 319-364, August.
    11. Jullien, Bruno & Pavan, Alessandro & Rysman, Marc, 2021. "Two-sided Markets, Pricing, and Network Effects," TSE Working Papers 21-1238, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    12. Jullien, Bruno & Sand-Zantman, Wilfried, 2021. "The Economics of Platforms: A Theory Guide for Competition Policy," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    13. Justus Haucap & Torben Stühmeier, 2016. "Competition and antitrust in Internet markets," Chapters, in: Johannes M. Bauer & Michael Latzer (ed.), Handbook on the Economics of the Internet, chapter 9, pages 183-210, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Wilfred Amaldoss & Jinzhao Du & Woochoel Shin, 2021. "Media Platforms’ Content Provision Strategies and Sources of Profits," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(3), pages 527-547, May.
    15. Santiago Carbó-Valverde & Sujit Chakravorti & Francisco Rodríguez-Fernández, 2009. "Regulating two-sided markets: an empirical investigation," Working Paper Series WP-09-11, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
    16. Jeon, Doh-Shin & Jullien, Bruno & Klimenko, Mikhail, 2021. "Language, internet and platform competition," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    17. Simon P. Anderson & Bruno Jullien, 2015. "The advertising-financed business model in two-sided media markets," Post-Print hal-02866192, HAL.
    18. Jingtao Yi & Jinqiu He & Lihong Yang, 2019. "Platform heterogeneity, platform governance and complementors’ product performance: an empirical study of the mobile application industry," Frontiers of Business Research in China, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 1-20, December.
    19. Economides, Nicholas & Tåg, Joacim, 2012. "Network neutrality on the Internet: A two-sided market analysis," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 91-104.
    20. Anil K. Jain & Robert M. Townsend, 2021. "The economics of platforms in a Walrasian framework," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 71(3), pages 877-924, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:orstsc:v:3:y:2018:i:2:p:439-462. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.