Читать книгу Sharing Economy and Big Data Analytics - Soraya Sedkaoui - Страница 31

“[…] You will then have a fairly good idea of the kind of economy that is at present laboriously in gestation. We see it already functioning in certain economic groupings, and in the hearts of the masses, who possess very often better than their leaders, a sense of their own interests, and of the common interest. Perhaps by studying these obscure aspects of social life, we shall succeed in throwing a little light upon the path that our nations must follow, both in their morality and in their economy.”

These disciplines try to explain the embedding of economics in the norms that control social relations. Embedding in Polanyi’s⁶ sense refers to the inclusion of the economy, as a means of satisfying human needs, in political and cultural orders that govern certain forms of movement of goods and services (Carvalho and Dzimira 2000).

Much research has focused on the issues of the role of giving in a business and the market value of the deed of giving. In the economic context, gifting is subtly integrated into the behavior of economic agents. “For many economists and managers, it is a social practice, of an emotional or moral nature, that is beyond their area of competence” (Gomez et al. 2015).

The logic of giving is an exception in commercial society. It is the opposite of merchant exchange, it is one-way. The donor does not expect any consideration when he decides to bequeath ownership of his property (Lasida 2009).

For some, to evoke giving in economics is an absurdity, they believe that several obstacles stand in the way of the gift being able to design a new economic model. For them, an economic good (or service) has an immediate value in use, in other words, it must have a monetary value to be exchanged.

However, if the issue of giving in the economy or market economy is addressed in a social context, it is likely to foster the social relationships that have developed in the market (Lasida 2009).

In their book on giving in a company, Gomez et al. (2015) argue that giving and free donation are found throughout the company and in markets:

The helping hand to a colleague, the return of an elevator, the free transfer of information, corporate gifts, free discounts to the customer, the service provided without being obliged to do so, etc.

This approach will help us to explain the “presence of the gift” in economic activity. Indeed, if we are in the new economic sociology, the market, in addition to being the (geographical or virtual) place where the supplier and the demander meet, “characterizes a specific form of social relationship: one in which prices determine relationships to things and individuals, even if these prices result from a struggle between agents before the results of this struggle are imposed on them” (Steiner 2012).

Economic sociology considers the market as a social structure. Steiner (2005) uses Swedberg’s (Swedberg and Smelser 1994) thought process to support this idea:

My main objective, however, will be to examine markets from a particular perspective, such as a specific type of social structure. Although social structure can be defined in different ways, this term is generally understood as a kind of recurrent and structured interaction between agents, maintained by means of sanctions.

Thus, he argues the following:

Contemporary economic sociology is interested in the origin of this social structure, in other words, the rules that allow it to function; it studies its different forms and researches the reasons for their evolution. This is now called the social construction of markets. Moreover, by highlighting the shareholder aspect, contemporary economic sociology is led to consider the question of self-interested behavior in this constructivist framework.

The considerations of economic sociology confirm that the economic aspect is “always socially situated”. They reaffirm that economic exchange depends on people-to-people relationships and “extra-economic factors” (Pascal 2002).

In other words, economic sociology integrates social consideration into economic activity by using concepts illustrating free trade, namely “giving and the social and solidarity economy”. It should be noted, however, that the paradigm of gifting and the solidarity economy current does not have a consensus. According to Steiner in 1999, they are “either excluded from the field of economic sociology”, or according to Levesque et al. in 2001, they are “included in it” (cited in (Lasida 2009)).

With reference to Godboult’s book (1992), giving finds its place in the economic sphere. The author integrates it into the business and corporate world with finesse. It certifies that the gift is for the “service of the circulation of things, the sale and disposal of products”.

Godboult’s latest reflection is based on Carnegie’s work, particularly his book⁷ on the personal development method adapted to the business world, published in 1936. He gave the giving formula to the business community and the market. In her book, Carnegie shares the lessons learned from her extremely successful experience of her years of leadership (Godboult 1992).

These lessons do not focus on power theft or career research. On the contrary, he discovered that to become more powerful and strengthen business, people had to be treated with kindness alone. The author suggests that the businessman should give before he hopes to receive. He suggests that the businessman be sincere by offering gifts before the merchandise, because the disinterest he shows is felt through the way he gestures, looks or simply does things.

Carnegie’s book describes the attitude that the businessman must adopt towards people. His behavior must emanate from the human values governing social relations (loyalty, faithfulness, impartiality, transparency, enthusiasm, team spirit) and the utilitarianism that prevails in the business world must kindly integrate the logic of giving.

The interest that giving theory evokes in economic sociology is not the same as that in economics and management. In these disciplines:

theories such as liberal theory, the neoclassical business model and the utilitarian paradigm exert an overwhelming dominance, both in scientific publications and in educational programs at universities and business schools. (Masclef 2013)

Thus, gifting remains a marginal phenomenon that does not reflect the reality of utilitarianism and exchange.

In this context, Godboult (1992) indicated that two economists, François Perroux (in 1960) and Serge Christophe Kolm (in 1984), specified three complementary economic systems: the market system, governed by interest, the planning system, governed by constraint, and the gift system, without considering the gift as an economic system.

The author unfurls his analysis by stating that:

The giving system is not primarily an economic system, but the social system of person-to-person relationships. It is not a complement to the market or the plan, but a complement to the economy and the State. And it is even more fundamental, more important than they are, as the example of disorganized countries shows. In the East, or in the Third World, where the market and the State are unable or no longer able to organize themselves, there ultimately still remains a network of interpersonal relations cemented by gift and mutual aid which, alone, makes it possible to survive in a world of madness.

Also, some analyses show that social exchanges do not oppose economic logic, on the contrary: they give it meaning (Alter 2010). Material exchanges between individuals intrinsically involve social ties and can lead to non-reciprocal economic relations. That is to say, to give without waiting for a material counterpart. In other words, in its quest for efficiency, economic activity, particularly business activity, is imbued with philanthropic and altruistic social values and is not focused on making profits.

Some global economies have understood the role of social values in the consolidation and sustainability of their business. Indeed, several researchers have been interested in the Japanese model in this context.

Japanese companies are drawing on their social culture, which is based on nine concepts:

National sentiment (pride), honor, reliance on virtue, respect for tradition (weight of history), respect for authority, social conformity, consensus (harmony), sense of work (taste for effort) and pragmatism. (Verne and Meier 2013)

These virtues give Japanese companies a specific character. The manager and employees believe in these values and act in a collective spirit of cooperation, commitment and firmness.

Companies are proud of their role in society by contributing to the “well-being and prosperity of employees, customers and suppliers, in addition to the community as a whole” (Rolland-Piégue 2011). In doing so, Japanese companies strengthen solidarity in their communities and awaken the spirit of sharing and giving in each of the stakeholders.

Thus, the gift, as an economy that supports exchange between people, lays the foundations for an economy based on social norms.