Uber and the rule of law: Should spontaneous liberalization be applauded or critized?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleProfessional

Abstract

While Uber is able to operate legally in a growing number of countries and cities, regulatory approval has proved to be elusive in other jurisdictions. Yet, in a number of regions or cities Uber decided to launch its services despite the absence of regulatory approval. The fact that Uber has decided to engage in “spontaneous liberalisation” has drawn criticism from various quarters. But should Uber be blamed for failing to comply with certain regulatory requirements or should they be applauded for pushing the boundaries of the law? Whether spontaneous liberalization should be applauded or criticized depends. While there is generally no justification for ignoring rules that are necessary to protect the services’ users and nonusers from the risks that are inherent to the carrying of passengers on public roads, there is an element of public good in testing the boundaries of public restrictions of competition. Whatever happens to Uber’s efforts to challenge rules impeding its ability to deliver certain categories of services in certain markets, the taxi industry has already changed for the better as many taxi companies have developed their own apps, either alone or with others, and efforts have been to improve their quality of service. Uber was a needed electroshock in an industry whose actors had often become complacent and failed to meet user expectations.
Original languageEnglish
Number of pages10
JournalCompetition Policy International - Antitrust Chronicle
Volume11
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 20 Mar 2016

Fingerprint

constitutional state
liberalization
industry
jurisdiction
criticism
road
Law
market
ability

Keywords

  • uber
  • online platforms
  • electronic marketplace
  • two-sided markets
  • competition
  • taxi services
  • care-sharing services
  • transportation
  • regulation
  • regulatory bariers to entry

Cite this

@article{257bac2dbd2b43ce8ff392fec72012b5,
title = "Uber and the rule of law: Should spontaneous liberalization be applauded or critized?",
abstract = "While Uber is able to operate legally in a growing number of countries and cities, regulatory approval has proved to be elusive in other jurisdictions. Yet, in a number of regions or cities Uber decided to launch its services despite the absence of regulatory approval. The fact that Uber has decided to engage in “spontaneous liberalisation” has drawn criticism from various quarters. But should Uber be blamed for failing to comply with certain regulatory requirements or should they be applauded for pushing the boundaries of the law? Whether spontaneous liberalization should be applauded or criticized depends. While there is generally no justification for ignoring rules that are necessary to protect the services’ users and nonusers from the risks that are inherent to the carrying of passengers on public roads, there is an element of public good in testing the boundaries of public restrictions of competition. Whatever happens to Uber’s efforts to challenge rules impeding its ability to deliver certain categories of services in certain markets, the taxi industry has already changed for the better as many taxi companies have developed their own apps, either alone or with others, and efforts have been to improve their quality of service. Uber was a needed electroshock in an industry whose actors had often become complacent and failed to meet user expectations.",
keywords = "uber, online platforms, electronic marketplace, two-sided markets, competition, taxi services, care-sharing services, transportation, regulation, regulatory bariers to entry",
author = "Damien Geradin",
year = "2016",
month = "3",
day = "20",
language = "English",
volume = "11",
journal = "Competition Policy International - Antitrust Chronicle",
number = "1",

}

Uber and the rule of law : Should spontaneous liberalization be applauded or critized? / Geradin, Damien.

In: Competition Policy International - Antitrust Chronicle, Vol. 11, No. 1, 20.03.2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleProfessional

TY - JOUR

T1 - Uber and the rule of law

T2 - Should spontaneous liberalization be applauded or critized?

AU - Geradin, Damien

PY - 2016/3/20

Y1 - 2016/3/20

N2 - While Uber is able to operate legally in a growing number of countries and cities, regulatory approval has proved to be elusive in other jurisdictions. Yet, in a number of regions or cities Uber decided to launch its services despite the absence of regulatory approval. The fact that Uber has decided to engage in “spontaneous liberalisation” has drawn criticism from various quarters. But should Uber be blamed for failing to comply with certain regulatory requirements or should they be applauded for pushing the boundaries of the law? Whether spontaneous liberalization should be applauded or criticized depends. While there is generally no justification for ignoring rules that are necessary to protect the services’ users and nonusers from the risks that are inherent to the carrying of passengers on public roads, there is an element of public good in testing the boundaries of public restrictions of competition. Whatever happens to Uber’s efforts to challenge rules impeding its ability to deliver certain categories of services in certain markets, the taxi industry has already changed for the better as many taxi companies have developed their own apps, either alone or with others, and efforts have been to improve their quality of service. Uber was a needed electroshock in an industry whose actors had often become complacent and failed to meet user expectations.

AB - While Uber is able to operate legally in a growing number of countries and cities, regulatory approval has proved to be elusive in other jurisdictions. Yet, in a number of regions or cities Uber decided to launch its services despite the absence of regulatory approval. The fact that Uber has decided to engage in “spontaneous liberalisation” has drawn criticism from various quarters. But should Uber be blamed for failing to comply with certain regulatory requirements or should they be applauded for pushing the boundaries of the law? Whether spontaneous liberalization should be applauded or criticized depends. While there is generally no justification for ignoring rules that are necessary to protect the services’ users and nonusers from the risks that are inherent to the carrying of passengers on public roads, there is an element of public good in testing the boundaries of public restrictions of competition. Whatever happens to Uber’s efforts to challenge rules impeding its ability to deliver certain categories of services in certain markets, the taxi industry has already changed for the better as many taxi companies have developed their own apps, either alone or with others, and efforts have been to improve their quality of service. Uber was a needed electroshock in an industry whose actors had often become complacent and failed to meet user expectations.

KW - uber

KW - online platforms

KW - electronic marketplace

KW - two-sided markets

KW - competition

KW - taxi services

KW - care-sharing services

KW - transportation

KW - regulation

KW - regulatory bariers to entry

M3 - Article

VL - 11

JO - Competition Policy International - Antitrust Chronicle

JF - Competition Policy International - Antitrust Chronicle

IS - 1

ER -