男女羞羞视频在线观看,国产精品黄色免费,麻豆91在线视频,美女被羞羞免费软件下载,国产的一级片,亚洲熟色妇,天天操夜夜摸,一区二区三区在线电影
Global EditionASIA 中文雙語Fran?ais
Opinion
Home / Opinion / Op-Ed Contributors

Time sharing economy lived up to its name

By Wang Yiqing | China Daily | Updated: 2018-01-09 07:09
Share
Share - WeChat

Perhaps there is no term as popular, yet controversial, as "sharing economy" to be the buzzword for 2017 in China. Just as the first sentence in A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times", for the sharing economy in 2017.

The sharing economy has gained widespread popularity not only because of the capital invested in its projects but also because of the support it has got from the authorities. According to State Information Center's China Sharing Economy Development Report 2017, the trade volume of the sharing economy reached 3.45 trillion yuan ($532 billion) in 2016; and it is expected to maintain a 40 percent growth rate in the coming few years. It was even written into the 2016 and 2017 Government Work Report.

But the development trend of the sharing economy suddenly hit the brakes in the latter half of last year, even if temporarily. According to incomplete statistics, last year 27 sharing economy startups went out of business, including seven shared bicycle enterprises, seven shared power bank enterprises, four shared clothes enterprises, and three shared toy enterprises and three shared automobile enterprises. In addition, one-third of the failed sharing economy companies lasted less than one year, prompting the media to call it "the crematorium of startups", and many people to question the existing model of the sharing economy.

Ideally the sharing economy should be about pareto improvement: a neoclassical economic concept, which means an action taken in an economy that harms no one and helps at least one person. In other words, it means people and enterprises sharing idle resources through information and communications technologies to increase the utilization efficiency and reduce costs of individuals as well as society as a whole.

But the existing sharing economy business model deviated from this win-win principle. No wonder many question whether its existing business model can even be called "sharing". Take shared bikes, the most popular sharing economy business in China, as an example. Instead of using existing idle resources, shared bike companies produced and purchased huge numbers of new bicycles to put them into the market. Their business model is based on customers paying the lease for the bikes owned by the companies. Such a business model should be called "lease economy" rather than sharing economy, not least because it has created as many problems for society as the benefits it has offered.

According to the SIC statistics, till July last year, about 16 million shared bicycles were in operation nationwide, which have caused many urban problems such as illegal parking and inappropriate scrap disposal, because more than the needed numbers of bicycles were introduced to cities. Many media reports said that hundreds of thousands of scrapped shared bikes had piled up in the suburbs, which they called the "graveyard of shared bikes".

Although many major cities have required companies to stop launching new shared bikes, the companies ignored the regulations to introduce new bikes to compete with rival companies and grab a bigger share of the market.

The pseudo-sharing economy failed to activate idle resources to increase efficiency, and instead caused social chaos and tremendous waste of resources. Their economic endeavors can hardly be described as sharing economy, which is supposed to improve social welfare. It is more like naked competition to acquire market monopoly.

Worse, shared bike companies can embezzle customers' deposit. In September 2017, Kuqi, a shared bike company operating in more than 10 cities, pocketed several hundred million yuan of customers' deposit and unilaterally blocked the deposit refund channel online and offline. Such scandals undermine the development of the sharing economy.

But despite the sharing economy facing great challenges, it still has great potential to develop into a successful, win-win business model. In fact, the current chaos offers a great opportunity to reshuffle the industry, and revert to the socially and economically beneficial-for-all business model of the sharing economy. Only by following a good business and sustainable development model can the sharing economy benefit society.

The author is a writer with China Daily.

Most Viewed in 24 Hours
Top
BACK TO THE TOP
English
Copyright 1995 - . All rights reserved. The content (including but not limited to text, photo, multimedia information, etc) published in this site belongs to China Daily Information Co (CDIC). Without written authorization from CDIC, such content shall not be republished or used in any form. Note: Browsers with 1024*768 or higher resolution are suggested for this site.
License for publishing multimedia online 0108263

Registration Number: 130349
FOLLOW US
主站蜘蛛池模板: 阜新市| 韩城市| 江都市| 大宁县| 东兴市| 铜梁县| 清丰县| 桦川县| 景洪市| 吐鲁番市| 景德镇市| 修武县| 泸水县| 新疆| 鹰潭市| 潞西市| 凉城县| 新宾| 大新县| 安溪县| 阿鲁科尔沁旗| 太康县| 敦煌市| 秭归县| 南宫市| 枣阳市| 北辰区| 四平市| 芜湖县| 安福县| 濮阳市| 北海市| 长岭县| 罗山县| 丹阳市| 黑水县| 凤凰县| 星子县| 盈江县| 方正县| 大洼县| 松江区| 南丰县| 特克斯县| 庆元县| 正镶白旗| 扬州市| 乐安县| 曲靖市| 平塘县| 勐海县| 邵阳县| 大田县| 昌江| 芦溪县| 隆德县| 宜章县| 玛多县| 穆棱市| 宜良县| 苗栗市| 郯城县| 乌拉特中旗| 日土县| 屏边| 定襄县| 铜川市| 左贡县| 桓台县| 梨树县| 达拉特旗| 清苑县| 哈巴河县| 布拖县| 沧州市| 诸城市| 阿拉尔市| 宣威市| 长宁县| 乌兰县| 巴南区| 吉林省|