The Impacts of the Sharing Economic Model on Vietnam

In recent years, there have been many new global companies investing and operating in Vietnam as a form of sharing economy (Uber, Grab, Foody, Agoda, Facebook, Google, etc). These kinds of economic models are popular in the world but very new in Vietnam. Sharing economy enterprises bring both benefit and challenges for Vietnam. Before time, there is no policy and law to govern the activities of these companies. So they make the challenges for the authority of Vietnam to manage. This paper will analyze the nature, characters, and impacts of the sharing economy in Vietnam. It also mentions the problems and recommends some solutions to manage the activities of sharing economy companies.

[3] Transport. Further information: Uber (company) and Lyft. Using a personal car to transport passengers or deliveries requires payment, or sufferance, of costs for fees deducted by the dispatching company, fuel, wear and tear, depreciation, interest, taxes, as well as adequate insurance. The driver is typically not paid for driving to an area where fares might be found in the volume necessary for high earnings, or driving to the location of a pickup or returning from a drop-off point. Mobile apps have been written that help a driver be aware of and manage such costs has been introduced. Uber, Airbnb, and other companies have had drastic effects on infrastructures such a road congestion and housing. Major cities such as San Francisco and New York City have become even more congested due to ride sharing. According to transportation analyst Charles Komanoff, "Uber-caused congestion has reduced traffic speeds in downtown Manhattan by around 8 percent".
The New York Times wrote that there was a recent corporate decision by Uber which aimed at lowering its fare rates by 15% in over 100 cities in the United States. This decision caused many Uber employee drivers to assemble and express their disagreement with the recent pay cut. Uber has made a statement claiming that "when it cut prices previously, the amount of time drivers spent waiting for fares fell, meaning drivers did more business and ultimately earned more money". A number of academics recently demonstrated that in 2015, Uber generated $6.8 billion of consumer welfare in the United States. About local Delivery, the sharing economy model of Uber has been replicated in other similar areas. Ride sharing economy gave birth to food and grocery delivery systems. Uber launched a food-ordering app called UberEATS which not only allows users to order food, but also enables users to register to be UberEATS drivers. Similar to Uber drivers, UberEATS drivers get paid for delivering food. An example of grocery delivery in sharing economy is Instakart. It has the same business model as that of sharing economy based companies like Uber, Airbnb. Instakart uses resources that are readily available, and the shoppers shop at existing grocery shops. The contract workers use their personal vehicles to deliver groceries to customers. Instacart manages to keep its cost low as it does not require any infrastructure to store goods. In addition to having contract workers, Instacart allows signing up to be a "personal shopper" for Instacart through its official web page.
The Harvard Business Review argues that "sharing economy" is a misnomer, and that the correct word for this activity is "access economy". The authors say, "When "sharing" is market-mediated-when a company is an intermediary between consumers who don't know each other-it is no longer sharing at all. Rather, consumers are paying to access someone else's goods or services." The article goes on to show that companies (such as Uber) who understand this, and whose marketing highlights the financial benefits to participants, are successful, while companies (such as Lyft) whose marketing highlights the social benefits of the service are less successful.
The notion of "sharing economy" has often been considered as an oxymoron, and a misnomer for actual commercial exchanges. Arnould and Rose proposed to replace the misleading concept of "sharing" by that of mutuality or mutualization. A distinction can therefore be made between free mutualization such as genuine sharing and for-profit mutualization in the likes of Uber, Airbnb, or Taskrabbit. To Ritzer, this current trend towards increased consumer input in commercial exchanges refers to the notion of prosumption, which, as Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 1 September 2020 doi:10.20944/preprints202008.0680.v2 [9] Business Insider wrote that companies such as Airbnb and Uber do not share their reputation data with the very users who it belongs to. This is an issue since no matter how well you behave on any one platform, your reputation doesn't travel with you. This fragmentation has some negative consequences, such as the Airbnb squatters who had previously deceived Kickstarter users to the tune of $40,000. Sharing data between these platforms could have prevented the repeat incident. Business Insider's view is that since the Sharing Economy is in its infancy, this has been accepted.
However, as the industry matures, this will need to change. Giana Eckhardt and Fleura Bardhi say that the sharing economy promotes and prioritizes cheap fares and low costs rather than personal relationships, which is tied to similar issues in crowdsourcing. For example, Zipcar is advertised as a ride-sharing service, but it's been brought into consideration that the consumers reap similar benefits from Zipcar as they would from, say, a hotel. In this example, there is minimal social interaction going on and the primary concern is the low cost.
Other examples many include myriad other sharing economies such as AirBnB or Uber. Because of this, the "sharing economy" may not be about sharing but rather about access. Giana Eckhardt and Fleura Bardhi say the "sharing" economy has taught people to prioritize cheap and easy access over interpersonal communication, and the value of going the extra mile for those interactions has diminished.

Conclusions and recommendation
The results show that participation in sharing economy is motivated by many factors such as its sustainability, enjoyment of the activity as well as economic gains. The "sharing economy" may not be about sharing but rather about access. Giana Eckhardt and Fleura Bardhi say the "sharing" economy has taught people to prioritize cheap and easy access over interpersonal communication, and the value of going the extra mile for those interactions has diminished.
In Vietnam, sharing economy bring many new valuation and make many new impaction to the people and social. It not only make benefit to the economy and clients but also challenge to the authority how to manage sharing economy enterprises. It help to boost the government and Parliament of Vietnam improve the legal system to cover and govern new kind of economy.
When the sharing economy just appear in Vietnam, the authority is confused and passive to manage. Then, they must research about sharing economy and find out some new policy to manage. The lesson is the Vietnam's leaders need to more active to enact the policy and law that have prediction and vision with the changing economy. If the Vietnam's authority have a good prediction and vision, they will avoid passive and more active to manage the sharing economy and other issue in social.