IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v68y2022i12p8909-8932.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Two-Sided Platform Competition in a Sharing Economy

Author

Listed:
  • Chenglong Zhang

    (School of Management and Economics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen 518172, China)

  • Jianqing Chen

    (Jindal School of Management, The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas 75080)

  • Srinivasan Raghunathan

    (Jindal School of Management, The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas 75080)

Abstract

We examine competition between two-sided platforms in a sharing economy. In sharing economies, workers self-schedule their supply based on the wage they receive. The platforms compete for workers as well as consumers. To attract workers, platforms use diverse wage schemes, including fixed commission rate , dynamic commission rate , and fixed wage . We develop a model to examine the impacts of the self-scheduled nature of the supply on competing platforms and the role of the wage scheme in the platform competition. We find that the price competition between platforms is more intense in a sharing economy compared with an economy with a fixed supply of workers if and only if the platforms serve more consumers and workers in the sharing economy than in the traditional economy, regardless of the wage scheme employed by the platforms. Further, any of the three wage schemes can be the best for the platforms and the worst for consumers and workers, depending on the market characteristics. In markets where the competition is more fierce on the demand side than on the supply side, the fixed-wage scheme results in the highest profits for the platforms and lowest surpluses for consumers and workers. In contrast, in markets where the competition on the supply side is more competitive, when the supply is highly (mildly) more competitive, the fixed-commission-rate (dynamic-commission-rate) scheme generates the highest profits for platforms, leading to the lowest surpluses for consumers and workers and the lowest social welfare. The differential impacts of the wage scheme on the price (demand side) and quantity (supply side) competition explain our findings.

Suggested Citation

  • Chenglong Zhang & Jianqing Chen & Srinivasan Raghunathan, 2022. "Two-Sided Platform Competition in a Sharing Economy," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(12), pages 8909-8932, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:68:y:2022:i:12:p:8909-8932
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2022.4302
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4302
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4302?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. Gérard P. Cachon & Kaitlin M. Daniels & Ruben Lobel, 2017. "The Role of Surge Pricing on a Service Platform with Self-Scheduling Capacity," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 19(3), pages 368-384, July.
    2. Carl Davidson & Raymond Deneckere, 1986. "Long-Run Competition in Capacity, Short-Run Competition in Price, and the Cournot Model," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(3), pages 404-415, Autumn.
    3. Kevin A. Bryan & Joshua S. Gans, 2019. "A theory of multihoming in rideshare competition," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 89-96, January.
    4. Young Kwark & Jianqing Chen & Srinivasan Raghunathan, 2014. "Online Product Reviews: Implications for Retailers and Competing Manufacturers," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(1), pages 93-110, March.
    5. Mark Armstrong, 2006. "Competition in two‐sided markets," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(3), pages 668-691, September.
    6. Nikhil Garg & Hamid Nazerzadeh, 2019. "Driver Surge Pricing," Papers 1905.07544, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2021.
    7. Amit Basu & Sreekumar Bhaskaran & Rajiv Mukherjee, 2019. "An Analysis of Search and Authentication Strategies for Online Matching Platforms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 2412-2431, May.
    8. Terry A. Taylor, 2018. "On-Demand Service Platforms," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 704-720, October.
    9. Nicholas Economides & Evangelos Katsamakas, 2006. "Two-Sided Competition of Proprietary vs. Open Source Technology Platforms and the Implications for the Software Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(7), pages 1057-1071, July.
    10. S. Chan Choi, 1991. "Price Competition in a Channel Structure with a Common Retailer," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(4), pages 271-296.
    11. Mark Armstrong & Julian Wright, 2007. "Two-sided Markets, Competitive Bottlenecks and Exclusive Contracts," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 32(2), pages 353-380, August.
    12. 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.
    13. Osborne, Martin J. & Pitchik, Carolyn, 1986. "Price competition in a capacity-constrained duopoly," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 238-260, April.
    14. Feng Zhu & Marco Iansiti, 2012. "Entry into platform‐based markets," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(1), pages 88-106, January.
    15. Stanley M. Besen & Joseph Farrell, 1994. "Choosing How to Compete: Strategies and Tactics in Standardization," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(2), pages 117-131, Spring.
    16. Eocman Lee & Jeho Lee & Jongseok Lee, 2006. "Reconsideration of the Winner-Take-All Hypothesis: Complex Networks and Local Bias," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(12), pages 1838-1848, December.
    17. David M. Kreps & Jose A. Scheinkman, 1983. "Quantity Precommitment and Bertrand Competition Yield Cournot Outcomes," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 14(2), pages 326-337, Autumn.
    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. Wentao Gao & Hao Zhang & Jianfeng Lu & Tiaojuan Han, 2023. "Research on Green Supply Chain Formation and Government Subsidy Pricing Strategy Considering an Online Trading Platform," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-24, September.

    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. Wang, Hai & Yang, Hai, 2019. "Ridesourcing systems: A framework and review," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 122-155.
    2. Jin Li & Gary Pisano & Yejia Xu & Feng Zhu, 2023. "Marketplace Scalability and Strategic Use of Platform Investment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(7), pages 3958-3975, July.
    3. Xie, Jiaping & Zhu, Weijun & Wei, Lihong & Liang, Ling, 2021. "Platform competition with partial multi-homing: When both same-side and cross-side network effects exist," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 233(C).
    4. Ron Adner & Jianqing Chen & Feng Zhu, 2020. "Frenemies in Platform Markets: Heterogeneous Profit Foci as Drivers of Compatibility Decisions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(6), pages 2432-2451, June.
    5. Ramnath K. Chellappa & Rajiv Mukherjee, 2021. "Platform Preannouncement Strategies: The Strategic Role of Information in Two-Sided Markets Competition," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 1527-1545, March.
    6. Zoë Cullen & Chiara Farronato, 2021. "Outsourcing Tasks Online: Matching Supply and Demand on Peer-to-Peer Internet Platforms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(7), pages 3985-4003, July.
    7. Cenamor, Javier, 2021. "Complementor competitive advantage: A framework for strategic decisions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 335-343.
    8. Hui Li & Qiaowei Shen & Yakov Bart, 2018. "Local Market Characteristics and Online-to-Offline Commerce: An Empirical Analysis of Groupon," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(4), pages 1860-1878, April.
    9. 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.
    10. Carrillo, Juan D. & Tan, Guofu, 2021. "Platform competition with complementary products," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    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. Kazakova, E. & Sandomirskaia, M. & Suvorov, A. & Khazhgerieva, A. & Shavshin, R., 2023. "Platforms, online labor markets, and crowdsourcing. Part 1. Traditional online labor market," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 60(3), pages 120-148.
    13. Liu, He & Li, Xuerong & Wang, Shouyang, 2021. "A bibliometric analysis of 30 years of platform research: Developing the research agenda for platforms, the associated technologies and social impacts," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    14. Timothy Simcoe & Jeremy Watson, 2019. "Forking, Fragmentation, and Splintering," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(4), pages 283-297, December.
    15. Lin, Xiaogang & Sun, Cuiying & Cao, Bin & Zhou, Yong-Wu & Chen, Chuanying, 2021. "Should ride-sharing platforms cooperate with car-rental companies? Implications for consumer surplus and driver surplus," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    16. Jørgen Veisdal, 2020. "The dynamics of entry for digital platforms in two-sided markets: a multi-case study," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 30(3), pages 539-556, September.
    17. Simon Loertscher, 2008. "Market Making Oligopoly," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(2), pages 263-289, June.
    18. Carmelo Cennamo & Hakan Ozalp & Tobias Kretschmer, 2018. "Platform Architecture and Quality Trade-offs of Multihoming Complements," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 461-478, June.
    19. Yang, Hai & Shao, Chaoyi & Wang, Hai & Ye, Jieping, 2020. "Integrated reward scheme and surge pricing in a ridesourcing market," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 126-142.
    20. Martin Poniatowski & Hedda Lüttenberg & Daniel Beverungen & Dennis Kundisch, 2022. "Three layers of abstraction: a conceptual framework for theorizing digital multi-sided platforms," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 257-283, June.

    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:ormnsc:v:68:y:2022:i:12:p:8909-8932. 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.