Sharing Services as the First Step of a Globalized Populace
A few years ago when I was living and working in Taiwan, I applied for a position at Uber Taiwan as an Operations Manager. Uber was just entering the Taiwanese market and usual as it is for the firm, aggressively expanding into major cities with lofty goals of overhauling the entire transport market. In the interview for the position, I noted that the advantage of a global platform like Uber is its universality. Because it is the same platform for anyone anywhere (with perhaps the exception of language), it can open up a foreign country for new foreign residents and travelers with little prior knowledge of the new destination.
What sharing services, with Uber and Airbnb as the most prominent, is to put a well-heeled foreign population directly in contact with common people in various localities around there world. The locals providing services on those sharing platforms may originally be simply doing so for extra income, but by being service providers, such locals undoubtedly provide themselves with much greater opportunities to interact with a large number of foreign residents and travelers, in ways that other "normal" members of the local society at the same income level simply do not.
Taken this way, Uber and Airbnb are more than just an online service version of McDonald's. Yes, it does aim to provide standardized services using a standardized methodology across the world, but unlike McDonald's employees, service providers on sharing platforms have to interact much more with their customers, many of whom (rather like McDonald's) are foreign. Hence, beyond economics, sharing platforms provide a rare window for non-elite local people not working in the global context to meet and understand foreigners for the very first time.
Such a benefit cannot be easily quantified and likely not considered much in various governments' considerations into whether to permit sharing platforms to operate locally. When Uber was kicked out of Taiwan a few years after my interview, I cannot help but feel just how shortsighted the decision was, given the political decision was largely economic in nature. There is no doubt that the union of taxi drivers in many countries can be politically influential, but the drivers cannot see beyond their own livelihood. Governments making decisions on allowing emerging technology must think deeper, more long-term, and more comprehensively.
The "internationalization" element of accepting services like Uber and Airbnb is particularly symbolic for places like Japan and Taiwan that are often, whether true or not, perceived as lagging behind when it comes to following the global trends on technology and business. Given the perceived "backwardness," banning sharing platforms can come off as quixotic attempt to roll back the inevitable progress of online economy to foreign industry observers. Such actions only serve to further entrench the image of technological backwardness inspired by social isolationism.
That negative perception provides no positive outcomes for potential providers and consumers of sharing services either. The lack of such globally available services not only takes away opportunities for more international interactions but more significantly, also serve to have an undeserved image of social isolationism rubbed onto the general populace when they had little role to play in banning the platforms. Fore foreign travelers used to the conveniences of such services back home and in other countries, not having it somewhere else only makes the people there "not international."
The result cannot be more ominous for future instances of globalization via business. Domestic labor unions and direct competitors are emboldened by previous success to continue pressuring the government into restricting international services on the ground that they are "not suitable for local conditions." Foreign travelers get a negative first impression of the destination even before going when they find universally available services to be unavailable and thus forced to navigate unfamiliar local systems. Local providers lose out on revenue all the while unfairly stamped "isolationist." All lose in the long term.
Perhaps the government, facing pressure from domestic players, can leverage foreign resources to fight back against entrenched unions and domestic competitors. By turning local opponents to sharing services as villains in the eyes of international media, the government can find itself freer to act without constraints as its opponents are busy tackling negative publicity from global public opinion. With domestic opponents weakened, the government can push foreign firms to be more firmly established, with the full backing of both foreign investors and potential consumers.
What sharing services, with Uber and Airbnb as the most prominent, is to put a well-heeled foreign population directly in contact with common people in various localities around there world. The locals providing services on those sharing platforms may originally be simply doing so for extra income, but by being service providers, such locals undoubtedly provide themselves with much greater opportunities to interact with a large number of foreign residents and travelers, in ways that other "normal" members of the local society at the same income level simply do not.
Taken this way, Uber and Airbnb are more than just an online service version of McDonald's. Yes, it does aim to provide standardized services using a standardized methodology across the world, but unlike McDonald's employees, service providers on sharing platforms have to interact much more with their customers, many of whom (rather like McDonald's) are foreign. Hence, beyond economics, sharing platforms provide a rare window for non-elite local people not working in the global context to meet and understand foreigners for the very first time.
Such a benefit cannot be easily quantified and likely not considered much in various governments' considerations into whether to permit sharing platforms to operate locally. When Uber was kicked out of Taiwan a few years after my interview, I cannot help but feel just how shortsighted the decision was, given the political decision was largely economic in nature. There is no doubt that the union of taxi drivers in many countries can be politically influential, but the drivers cannot see beyond their own livelihood. Governments making decisions on allowing emerging technology must think deeper, more long-term, and more comprehensively.
The "internationalization" element of accepting services like Uber and Airbnb is particularly symbolic for places like Japan and Taiwan that are often, whether true or not, perceived as lagging behind when it comes to following the global trends on technology and business. Given the perceived "backwardness," banning sharing platforms can come off as quixotic attempt to roll back the inevitable progress of online economy to foreign industry observers. Such actions only serve to further entrench the image of technological backwardness inspired by social isolationism.
That negative perception provides no positive outcomes for potential providers and consumers of sharing services either. The lack of such globally available services not only takes away opportunities for more international interactions but more significantly, also serve to have an undeserved image of social isolationism rubbed onto the general populace when they had little role to play in banning the platforms. Fore foreign travelers used to the conveniences of such services back home and in other countries, not having it somewhere else only makes the people there "not international."
The result cannot be more ominous for future instances of globalization via business. Domestic labor unions and direct competitors are emboldened by previous success to continue pressuring the government into restricting international services on the ground that they are "not suitable for local conditions." Foreign travelers get a negative first impression of the destination even before going when they find universally available services to be unavailable and thus forced to navigate unfamiliar local systems. Local providers lose out on revenue all the while unfairly stamped "isolationist." All lose in the long term.
Perhaps the government, facing pressure from domestic players, can leverage foreign resources to fight back against entrenched unions and domestic competitors. By turning local opponents to sharing services as villains in the eyes of international media, the government can find itself freer to act without constraints as its opponents are busy tackling negative publicity from global public opinion. With domestic opponents weakened, the government can push foreign firms to be more firmly established, with the full backing of both foreign investors and potential consumers.
Comments
Post a Comment