Analysing Platform Business Regulation Controversies with Actor- Network Theory and Cartography of Controversy

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 PhD Student of Science & Technology Policy, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran

2 Associate Prof, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran.

3 Assistant Prof, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran.

Abstract

The development of information technology underpinning the Industrial 4. revolution led to increased platform businesses, which changed the economic model, the business environment, and consumer welfare. Debates about these businesses' benefits and challenges indicate that they are still in question and how to support and regulate them as an application of new science and technology development. The issues of Iranian ride-sharing platform businesses can also develop in line with this question, which has created challenges for policymakers. Since these studies have yet to draw apparent horizons for policymakers, this article aims to explain these issues under controversies, identify the actors, itemize them, and examine their relationships. Therefore, we recognize and analyze a network of actors in this field and their relationships through the Actor-Network Theory. The data of this research, which is related to the period of 1393 to 1400, was collected based on the Cartography of Controversies tool and completed the data with targeted interviews. The results show three cold disputes raised: market entry permits, prohibition of activity in some cities, illegal activity and one hot controversy: dynamic pricing in the regulatory process of platform businesses which have 62, 22, 18 and 17 actors respectively. Furthermore, creating the virtual business union, notification of the regulations, developing the relevant guidelines and issuing the permits have been resolved.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

[1] Parker, G. G., Van Alstyne, M. W., & Choudary, S. P, (2017). Platform Revolution: How Networked Markets Are Transforming the Economy and How to Make Them Work for You. London & New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
[2] Cammaerts, B., & Mansell, R., (2020). Digital Platform Policy and Regulation: Toward a Radical Democratic Turn. International Journal of Communication, 14, 135–54.
[3] Nooren, P., van Gorp, N., van Eijk, N. & R. O Fathaigh., (2018). Should We Regulate Digital Platforms? A New Framework for Evaluating Policy Options. Policy and Internet.
[4] Khalili, Z., Labafi, S., & Khajeheian, D. (2021). Presenting a Framework of Policy-Making for the Platform Businesses in Iran. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Communication and Media, 4(13), 91-67. {In Persian}.
[5] Narimani, M., Karimmian, Z., & Hosseini, S. J. (2020). An Institutional Framework for Regulating New Business Models: A Case Study of Application-based Transportation. Iranian Journal of Public Policy, 6(1), 9-34. {In Persian}. doi: 10.22059/jppolicy.2020.76998
[6] Amiramini, k. A., Abdoli, G., & safari, H, (2020) Incumbent responses to new entrants with considering the Game Theory approach (Case study: Taxi, Snapp and Tap30). qjerp; 28 (93) :149-170. {In Persian}.
[7] Soltanzadeh, J., Elyasi, M., & Narimani, M. (2021). Regulatory Stalemates Analysis of Iranian Ride-hailing Platform Business by the Advocacy Coalition Framework. Innovation Management Journal, 10(3), 153-180. {In Persian}.
[8] Soltanzadeh, J., Blind, K., & Elyasi, M. (2023). Exploring How Regulators Face Platform Business Issues in the Lifecycle Stages: Evidence of Iranian Ride-hailing Platform Business. Telecommunications Policy, 102582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2023.102582.
[9] Hassani, H., & Kalantari, A. (2020). Internet Policy: A Systematic Review of Approaches to Governance of Online and Social Media Platforms. Iranian Journal of Public Policy, 6(3), 59-79. {In Persian}. doi: 10.22059/JPPOLICY.2021.79492.
[10] Lee, S., & Seo, Y. (2022). Exploring How Interest Groups Affect Regulation and Innovation Based on the Two-level Games: The Case of Regulatory Sandboxes in Korea. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 183, 121880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121880.
[11] Latour, B.& M. Callon. (1992). Dont Throw the Baby Out with the Bath School. In a Pickering (Ed), science as practice and Culture. Chicago: Chicago University.
[12] Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oup Oxford.
[13] Venturini, T., (2010). Diving in Magma: How to Explore Controversies with Actor-Network Theory. Public understanding of science, 19(3), 258-273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662509102694.
[14] Venturini, T. (2012). Building on Faults: How to Represent Controversies with Digital Methods. Public understanding of science, 21(7), 796-812.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510387558.
[15] Marres, N. (2015). Why Map Issues? On Controversy Analysis as a Digital Method. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 40(5), 655-686.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243915574602.
[16] Lourenço, R. F., & Tomael, M. I. (2018). Actor-Network Theory and Cartography of Controversies in Information Science. Transinformação, 30, 121-140. https://doi.org/10.1590/2318-08892018000100010.
[17] Klein, A., Sørensen, C., Freitas, A. S., Pedron, C. D., & Elaluf-Calderwood, S., (2020). Understanding Controversies in Digital Platform Innovation Processes: The Google Glass Case. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 152, 1-29.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119883.
[18] Gunawong, P., & P. Gao., (2017), Understanding E-government Failure in the Developing Country Context: A Process-oriented Study. Information Technology for Development. 23 (1): 153–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2016.1269713.
[19] Ferratti, G. M., Sacomano Neto, M., & Candido, S. E. A. (2021), Controversies in an Information Technology Startup: A Critical Actor-network Analysis of the Entrepreneurial Process. Technology in Society, 66, 101623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101623.
[20] Vieira, K. C., Paiva, A. L., Alcântara, V. C., & Rezende, D. C. (2020). Opening Black Boxes of Disruptive Innovations: Controversies Involving Uber in Belo Horizonte. Revista de Administração Mackenzie, 21(3). https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-6971/eRAMR200018.
[21] Nelkin, D., (1987). Controversies and the Authority of Science, pp. 283-294 in H. Tristam Englehardt and Arthur L. Caplan (Hg.), Scientific Controversies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  
[22] Ezrahi, Y., (1990), The Descent of Icarus: Science and the Transformation of Contemporary Democracy, Harvard University Press.
[23] Nelkin, D. (1995). Science Controversies: The Dynamics of Public Disputes in the United States. Handbook of science and technology studies, 444, 456.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412990127.
[24] Dascal, M. (1998), The Study of Controversies and The Theory and History of Science. Science in Context, 11(2), 147–154. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889700002957.
[25] Wazeck, M. (2013), Marginalization Processes in Science: The Controversy About the Theory of Relativity in the 1920s. Social Studies of Science, 43(2), 163–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312712469855.
[26] Ziman, J. (1994). The Rationale of STS Education is in the Approach, Solomon. STS education: International perspectives on reform, 21-31.
[27] Chen, R. (2019). Policy and Regulatory Issues with Digital Businesses. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, (8948).
[28] Thomas, F., (2016), Innovation and Regulation. Retrieved from J. Law Econ. Ragul, 9 (2), 30–48.
[29] Hantke-Domas, M. (2003). The Public Interest Theory of Regulation: Non-existence or Misinterpretation?, European journal of law and economics, 15, 165-194. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021814416688.
[30] Lee, W. W. (2016). Innovation and Regulation: The Legal Structure of Their Relations and Legal Means to Resolve Their Mutual Conflicts. Journal of Law & Economic Regulation, 9(2).
[31] Marres, N. & Gerlitz, C., (2016). Interface Methods: Renegotiating Relations Between Digital Social Research, STS and Sociology. The Sociological Review, 64, 21-46. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.12314.
[32] Bayat, A., & Fathian, M. (2021). The Explanation of National Internet Concept by Situational Analysis and its Implications for Cyberspace Policy in Iran. Journal of Science & Technology Policy, 14(3), 91-106. {In Persian}. doi:  10.22034/JSTP.2021.14.3.1379.
[33] Rydin, Y., (2013), Using Actor-Network Theory to Understand Planning Practice: Exploring Relationships Between Actants in Regulating Low-Carbon Commercial Development, Planning Theory, 12(1), 23– 45.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095212455494.
[34] Callon, M., (1986), Some Elements of Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen. In: Law, J. (Ed.), Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge. Routledge, London.
[35] Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2014). Industry Platforms and Ecosystem Innovation. Journal of product innovation management, 31(3), 417-433. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12105.
[36] Robertson, D., & Ulrich, K. (1998). Planning for Product Platforms. Sloan management review, 39(4), 19.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics