|
Abstract:
|
"Ride-sharing platforms have challenged existing public vehicle for hire governance in two aspects: jurisdiction issues and internalization of regulatory functions into the firm. In this study, we looked at three types of governance that manage local vehicles for hire: hierarchy, market and network. However, it is hard to say that any of the three types hierarchical, market or network are always better.
In this research, public goods provision and regulatory management governance in Seoul in Korea and New York City and Maryland in the U.S. were compared, respectively, with examples of hierarchical, market and network governance. To analyze this, Institutional analysis and development framework was used. This framework analyzes institutions by three levels of action, collective choice and constitutional choice, in which the vehicle for hire governance is divided into four tiers according to the authority that accepts and delivers information. This disaggregation allows to compare how the actors communicate and accept information at each level in each governance.
In conclusion, hierarchical and market governance have the same structure, with regulatory bodies or entities monopolizing the collective choice process, but they have different regulatory actors. However, in network governance, regulators and stakeholders discuss collective choice equally. Stakeholders who wish to intervene in regulatory hearing can participate at any time. Therefore, in the process of regulating the ride-sharing service, network governance has a well-accepted system of innovation information and public needs. On the other hand, hierarchies and markets do not explicitly have a system of effective acceptance of various information."
|