IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v110y2018icp118-127.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Creative destruction of the sharing economy in action: The case of Uber

Author

Listed:
  • Kim, Kibum
  • Baek, Chulwoo
  • Lee, Jeong-Dong

Abstract

This research aims to empirically examine how Uber has transformed the traditional taxi industry in New York. To this end, we employed a time-series regression model, controlling for various factors that may affect taxi trips, and found no direct evidence that the number of taxi trips, the revenue per driver, or occupancy rates have decreased since Uber entered the market. However, a closer investigation into other dimensions, specifically the degree of dispersion of pick-up and drop-off locations, reveals that taxi drivers have been forced to change their way of conducting business in order to retain their market position. Since Uber has crowded out taxis from the central area of Manhattan, the latter have actively responded by serving customers outside of this area. By increasing their geographic coverage and serving customers that were previously ignored, taxis were able to retain their numbers for trips and market share. Our results suggest that the incumbent taxi drivers actively responded to the disruptive threat of Uber’s entry and have consequently provided substantial benefits to consumers as taxis can now be hailed from a wider area of New York. We thus found that the sharing economy has transformed the existing market in a positive and welfare-enhancing way.

Suggested Citation

  • Kim, Kibum & Baek, Chulwoo & Lee, Jeong-Dong, 2018. "Creative destruction of the sharing economy in action: The case of Uber," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 118-127.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:110:y:2018:i:c:p:118-127
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2018.01.014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856417304627
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2018.01.014?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 1992. "A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(2), pages 323-351, March.
    2. Sampat, Bhaven N. & Mowery, David C. & Ziedonis, Arvids A., 2003. "Changes in university patent quality after the Bayh-Dole act: a re-examination," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(9), pages 1371-1390, November.
    3. 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..
    4. Hung-Hao Chang, 2017. "The Economic Effects Of Uber On Taxi Drivers In Taiwan," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 475-500.
    5. Philippe Aghion & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt & Susanne Prantl, 2004. "Entry and Productivity Growth: Evidence from Microlevel Panel Data," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 2(2-3), pages 265-276, 04/05.
    6. Jim Levinsohn & Wendy Petropoulos, 2001. "Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?: The U.S. Textile and Apparel Industries since 1972," NBER Working Papers 8348, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Fang, Bin & Ye, Qiang & Law, Rob, 2016. "Effect of sharing economy on tourism industry employment," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 264-267.
    8. Henrique Schneider, 2017. "Creative Destruction and the Sharing Economy," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 17462.
    9. Geroski, P. A., 1995. "What do we know about entry?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 421-440, December.
    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. Yongtao Peng & Bohai Chen & Eleonora Veglianti, 2022. "Platform Service Supply Chain Network Equilibrium Model with Data Empowerment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-21, April.
    2. Alina Petronela Pricope Vancia & Codruța Adina Băltescu & Gabriel Brătucu & Alina Simona Tecău & Ioana Bianca Chițu & Liliana Duguleană, 2023. "Examining the Disruptive Potential of Generation Z Tourists on the Travel Industry in the Digital Age," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-19, May.
    3. Soria, Jason & Stathopoulos, Amanda, 2021. "Investigating socio-spatial differences between solo ridehailing and pooled rides in diverse communities," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    4. Zhenfeng Liu & Jian Feng & Jinfeng Wang, 2019. "Effects of the Sharing Economy on Sequential Innovation Products," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-18, January.
    5. Wells, Peter & Wang, Xiaobei & Wang, Liqiao & Liu, Haokun & Orsato, Renato, 2020. "More friends than foes? The impact of automobility-as-a-service on the incumbent automotive industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    6. Khatua, Apalak & Ranjan Kumar, Rajeev & Kumar De, Supriya, 2023. "Institutional enablers of electric vehicle market: Evidence from 30 countries," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    7. Guangyu Cao & Ginger Zhe Jin & Xi Weng & Li‐An Zhou, 2021. "Market‐expanding or Market‐stealing? Competition with network effects in bike‐sharing," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 52(4), pages 778-814, December.
    8. Andrzej Bąk & Elżbieta Nawrocka & Daria E. Jaremen, 2022. "“Sustainability” as a Motive for Choosing Shared-Mobility Services: The Case of Polish Consumers of Uber Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-21, May.
    9. Georgina Santos, 2018. "Sustainability and Shared Mobility Models," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-13, September.
    10. Yang Si & Hongzhi Guan & Yuchao Cui, 2019. "Research on the Choice Behavior of Taxis and Express Services Based on the SEM-Logit Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-13, May.
    11. Yiyuan Ma & Ke Chen & Youzhi Xiao & Rong Fan, 2022. "Does Online Ride-Hailing Service Improve the Efficiency of Taxi Market? Evidence from Shanghai," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-16, July.
    12. Mizan Rahman & Sunny Bose & Mujahid Mohiuddin Babu & Bidit Lal Dey & Sanjit Kumar Roy & Ben Binsardi, 2019. "Value Co-Creation as a Dialectical Process: Study in Bangladesh and Indian Province of West Bengal," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 527-545, June.
    13. Yves Crozet & Georgina Santos & Jean Coldefy, 2019. "Shared mobility and MaaS: Regulatory challenges of urban mobility," Working Papers halshs-03169805, HAL.
    14. Schippers, Anouk L. & Soetevent, Adriaan R., 2024. "Sharing with minimal regulation? Evidence from neighborhood book exchange," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    15. Aleksandar Shivarov, 2020. "Circular Economy: Limitations of the Concept and Application Challenges," Izvestia Journal of the Union of Scientists - Varna. Economic Sciences Series, Union of Scientists - Varna, Economic Sciences Section, vol. 9(3), pages 144-152, December.
    16. Yuchen Gao & Jingrui Chen, 2019. "The Risk Reduction and Sustainable Development of Shared Transportation: The Chinese Online Car-hailing Policy Evaluation in the Digitalization Era," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-21, May.
    17. Mikko Hänninen & Anssi Smedlund, 2021. "Same Old Song with a Different Melody: The Paradox of Market Reach and Financial Performance on Digital Platforms," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(7), pages 1832-1868, November.
    18. Maria J. Pouri & Lorenz M. Hilty, 2018. "Conceptualizing the Digital Sharing Economy in the Context of Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-19, November.
    19. Zhicheng Weng & Pinliang Luo, 2021. "Supervision of the Default Risk of Online Car-Hailing Platform from an Evolutionary Game Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-19, January.
    20. Honorine Harlé & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2021. "A model of creative heritage for industry: designing new rules while preserving the present system of rules [Un modèle de patrimoine de création pour l'industrie: concevoir de nouvelles règles dans," Post-Print hal-03406761, HAL.
    21. Schippers, Anouk L. & Soetevent, Adriaan R., 2022. "Sharing with Minimal Regulation? Free Riding and Neighborhood Book Exchange," EconStor Preprints 249448, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    22. Aghaabbasi, Mahdi & Shekari, Zohreh Asadi & Shah, Muhammad Zaly & Olakunle, Oloruntobi & Armaghani, Danial Jahed & Moeinaddini, Mehdi, 2020. "Predicting the use frequency of ride-sourcing by off-campus university students through random forest and Bayesian network techniques," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 262-281.
    23. Lee, Junmin & Kim, Keungoui & Kim, Jiyong & Hwang, Junseok, 2022. "The relationship between shared mobility and regulation in South Korea: A system dynamics approach from the socio-technical transitions perspective," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).

    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. Viktoria Kocsis & Victoria Shestalova & Henry van der Wiel & Nick Zubanov & Ruslan Lukach & Bert Minne, 2009. "Relation entry, exit and productivity: an overview of recent theoretical and empirical literature," CPB Document 180.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    2. Niklas Elert, 2014. "What determines entry? Evidence from Sweden," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 53(1), pages 55-92, August.
    3. Javier Changoluisa & Michael Fritsch, 2020. "New Business Formation and Incumbents’ Perception of Competitive Pressure," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 56(1), pages 165-197, February.
    4. Viktoria Kocsis & Victoria Shestalova & Henry van der Wiel & Nick Zubanov & Ruslan Lukach & Bert Minne, 2009. "Relation entry, exit and productivity: an overview of recent theoretical and empirical literature," CPB Document 180, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    5. Suzanne Kok & Nicole Bosch & Anja Deelen & Rob Euwals, 2011. "Migrant Women on the Labour Market," CPB Discussion Paper 180.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    6. Renaud Bourlès & Gilbert Cette & Jimmy Lopez & Jacques Mairesse & Giuseppe Nicoletti, 2013. "Do Product Market Regulations In Upstream Sectors Curb Productivity Growth? Panel Data Evidence For OECD Countries," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(5), pages 1750-1768, December.
    7. Ornella Wanda Maietta & Fernanda Mazzotta, 2018. "Firm Survival and Innovation: Knowledge Context Matters!," CSEF Working Papers 496, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy.
    8. Richard Kneller & Danny McGowan, 2011. "Tax Policy and Firm Entry and Exit Dynamics: Evidence from OECD Countries," Discussion Papers 11/08, University of Nottingham, School of Economics.
    9. Rui Baptista & Vítor Escária & Paulo Madruga, 2008. "Entrepreneurship, regional development and job creation: the case of Portugal," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 49-58, January.
    10. Guidi, Francesco & Solomon, Edna & Trushin, Eshref & Ugur, Mehmet, 2015. "Inverted-U relationship between innovation and survival: Evidence from firm-level UK data," EconStor Preprints 110896, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    11. Philippe Aghion & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt & Susanne Prantl, 2009. "The Effects of Entry on Incumbent Innovation and Productivity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 91(1), pages 20-32, February.
    12. Dosi, Giovanni & Roventini, Andrea & Russo, Emanuele, 2019. "Endogenous growth and global divergence in a multi-country agent-based model," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 101-129.
    13. Philippe Aghion & Paul David & Dominique Foray, 2006. "Linking Policy Research and Practice in 'STIG Systems': Many Obstacles, but Some Ways Forward," Discussion Papers 06-009, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    14. Jérôme Vandenbussche & Philippe Aghion & Costas Meghir, 2006. "Growth, distance to frontier and composition of human capital," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 97-127, June.
    15. Michele Cincera, 2004. "Impact of market entry and exit on EU productivity and growth performance," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/921, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    16. Cristiano Antonelli, 2011. "The Economic Complexity of Technological Change: Knowledge Interaction and Path Dependence," Chapters, in: Cristiano Antonelli (ed.), Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Braunerhjelm, Pontus, 2010. "Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Economic Growth - past experience, current knowledge and policy implications," Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation 224, Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies.
    18. Myriam Ertz & Emine Sarigöllü, 2019. "Assessing the Potential of Sustainable Value Chains in the Collaborative Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-12, January.
    19. Deng, Paul & Jefferson, Gary, 2011. "Foreign Entry and Heterogeneous Growth of Firms: Do We Observe “Creative Destruction” in China?," MPRA Paper 51163, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Rachel Griffith & John Van Reenen, 2021. "Product market competition, creative destruction and innovation," IFS Working Papers W21/43, Institute for Fiscal Studies.

    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:eee:transa:v:110:y:2018:i:c:p:118-127. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description .

    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.