Debate sparked on how transport 'sharing' apps can be equitable as well as efficient

Car-sharing: equitable and efficient allocation of transport goods?

Car-sharing: equitable and efficient allocation of transport goods?

A debate has been sparked about how apps to more efficiently allocate transport services can be both equitable and efficient.

A review in Nature published on its website today on a new book Sharing Cities: A Case for Truly Smart and Sustainable Cities says "a culture and economy of sharing" exemplified by car-sharing firms such as Zipcar and apps such as Uber are aiming to help with urbanising countries' transport problems. It comes after a UN report urged technology to facilitate greater vehicle-sharing to increase vehicle-occupancy.

But Colin Ellard, reviewing Duncan McLaren and Julian Agyeman's publication, says "commercially-mediated sharing can have a dark side," with users of Uber facing "unpredictably high fares during periods of peak demand" - excluding the lower-paid - and says alternative, non-commercial ventures offer an alternative.

"McLaren and Agyeman reveal the promise and pitfalls of such an approach at a time when neo-liberal economic policies emphasize individualistic profit often trump public goods... they present exquisitely balanced explanations of both the potential of sharing and its vulnerability to corruption by opportunistic invaders seeking to maximize profit over fairness".

"In many cases... overcoming conflicts between bottom-up and profit-driven sharing ventures demands reconfiguration of urban policy..." to "deter exclusions".