EU ANTITRUST: HOT TOPICS & NEXT STEPS

EU ANTITRUST: HOT TOPICS & NEXT STEPS 2022

Prague, Czechia

binary but lie on the continuum whose ends (poles) they occupy and in between them there are various ‘hybrid’ governance forms which do not fit neatly either under the ‘hierarchy’ (vertical integration) or (spot) markets (Williamson 1996, p. 119, Lianos 2007, p. 652, Ménard 2008, pp. 294–302, Thompson 2003, ch 5, Kindl et al. 2021, p. 285, Ménard 2021). Franchising was, e.g., first mentioned as an example of ‘hybrid’ mode “located between market and hierarchy with respect to incentives, adaptability, and bureaucratic costs” (Williamson 1996, p. 107) and it was argued that NIE’s insights can explain some differences in treatment of various vertical arrangements such as commercial agency, franchising, or selective distribution systems (Lianos 2007, pp. 652–672, Kindl et al . 2021, pp. 285–286). When one assesses how those hybrid governance mechanisms work, one needs to take well into account that they carry out transactions neither just through a price mechanism (as the market would do) nor through directions (as it occurs in the hierarchy setting). It has been said that “[b]ecause they cannot or can only weakly rely on prices or on hierarchy to discipline partners, hybrids depend on specific mechanisms of governance for their survival” (Ménard 2008, p. 297). In other words, it is something in between which takes various forms. Even vocabulary is not uniform. They have been described as follows: “Hybrids, clusters, networks, symbiotic arrangements, and chain systems are used quite indifferently. The forms encapsulated by these fluctuating terms seem also heterogeneous. They include subcontracting, networks, alliances, franchising, collective trademarks, partnership, and even forms of cooperative. However, they are connected by the underlying idea that they participate to the same “family” of agreements among autonomous entities doing business together, mutually adjusting with little help from the price system, and sharing or exchanging technologies, capital, products, and services without a unified ownership.” (Ménard 2008, p. 295). 3.2 NIE and Sharing Economy It is well recognized that the ‘Sharing Economy’ brough about new, innovative, or simply different ways of managing some tasks that have been previously organized differently. For instance, by established (traditional) players (through traditional cab drivers or taxi dispatching services if we would take ride-sharing as an example, or through hotels and B&Bs if we would venture into Airbnb zone) or not at all (e.g., some drivers who are ready to ride-share from time to time would never think of working as a taxi driver even part-time). Hence, one could wonder where would those new ‘modes of governance’ or new ways of transactions handling fit from the NIE’s perspective. When we compare the definition of the Sharing (or Collaborative) Economy as provided for, e.g., in EC (2016a) with the explanation of what ‘hybrids’ can encompass (Ménard 2008, p. 295), it follows that they would fit in there quite neatly.

544