Abstract:In the past five years, “sharing economy” firms like Uber, ZipCar, AirBnB and TaskRabbit have generated both huge market valuations and fierce regulatory contests in America’s cities. Incumbent firms in the taxi, hotel and other industries, as well consumer protection, labor and neighborhood activists, have pushed for regulations stifling or banning new sharing economy entrants. Sharing firms have fought back, using their popularity with consumers and novel political strategies, lobbying for freedom to operate as broadly as possible without government interference. But to date, both participants and observers of these “sharing wars” have relied on an unstated assumption: if the sharing firms win these fights, their future will be largely free from government regulation. Local governments will either shut sharing down, or they will leave it alone. But this assumption is almost surely wrong. If sharing firms prevail in the current fights over the right to operate (and indications suggest they will), it is unlikely that cities and states ignore them. Instead, as sharing economy firms move from being upstarts to important and permanent players in key urban industries like transportation, hospitality and dining, local and state governments are likely to adopt the type of mixed regulatory strategies they apply to types of firms with whom sharing firms share important traits, from property developers to incumbent taxi operators. Using tools of agglomeration economics and public choice, this Article sketches the future of such policy regimes. Specifically, local and state governments will adopt some combination of the following policies in addition to insisting on consumer/incumbent protections: (1) subsidizing sharing firms to encourage expansion of services that produce public goods, generate substantial consumer surplus and/or minimize the need for excessive regulation of the property market; (2) harnessing sharing firms as a tool for redistribution; and/or (3) contracting with sharing firms to provide traditional government services. The future of sharing economy regulation will be very different from its present, and the changes will pose profound legal, political and ethical questions for our cities.

The sharing economy, regulations, and the role of local government

No Uber, no tourists? Public attitudes toward municipal regulation of the sharing economy

Modeling Residents’ Attitudes toward Short-term Vacation Rentals

"Airbnb in the City": assessing short-term rental regulation in Bordeaux

First Principles for Regulating the Sharing Economy

Tourism, financialization, and short-term rentals: the political economy of Dublin’s housing crisis

Touristification, rent gap and the local political economy of Airbnb in Salzburg (Austria)

Adaptive governance, status quo bias, and political competition: Why the sharing economy is welcome in some cities but not in others

Market Shifts in the Sharing Economy: The Impact of Airbnb on Housing Rentals

Like Uber, But for Local Governmental Policy: The Future of Local Regulation of the 'Sharing Economy'

Political organizing and narrative framing in the sharing economyAirbnb host clubs in New York City

Why did it not work? Reflections on regulating Airbnb and the complexity and agency of platform capitalism

Who Benefits from the "Sharing" Economy of Airbnb?

The Impact of Short-Term Rental Accommodation in Urban Tourism: A Comparative Analysis of Tourists’ and Residents’ Perspectives

Is Airbnb a Sharing Economy Superstar? Evidence from Five Global Cities

Urban Challenges and the Gig Economy: How German Cities Cope with the Rise of Airbnb

A mixed approach to the heterogeneity of the short-term rentals' regulation in Spain

The dark side of the sharing economy: A systematic literature review of externalities and their regulation

Prospects and challenges of sharing economy for the public sector

Roles of government in regulating the sharing economy: A case study of bike sharing in China