How to contribute to genuine, transformative sharing ~ Better By Bicycle

Summary: The practical guidance on this blog is part of the real "sharing economy" - in this case, freely sharing knowledge for social benefit. This contrasts with the fake sharing economy which is driven by profit and simply monetises more human interactions and extends inequality in wealth, power, resources and access to the commons. In this post, I'll collate articles, ideas and examples that clarify these distinctions and explain how individuals can participate in genuine, transformative sharing. An immediate aim is to provide useful input into the formulation of Streetbank Australia's ethos and purpose.

Related Posts:
> How to use a local sharing site to save money, learn skills and connect with neighbours
> Why you shouldn't use Uber or companies like it

Details:
1. This post will primarily be an index of ideas related to real, transformative sharing and building better communities. The detailed insights are in the links including in Further Info
- It would take a very long post to extract and explicate all of the relevant ideas. So I've just picked out a few examples most relevant to decisions on the directions for Streetbank Australia. Most of the detailed, valuable insights will be collated in the Further Info links.

2. An overview of the key issues and opportunities involving creating genuine, transformative sharing economies
- The best overviews of the ideas, issues and opportunities relating to the sharing economy/society are linked below.

There is potential in this sector for creating new businesses that allocate value more fairly, that are more democratically organized, that reduce eco-footprints, and that can bring people together in new ways. That is why there has been so much excitement about the sharing economy. The emergence of P2P communities that share goods, space, and labor services can be the foundation of a new household model in which people are less dependent on employers and more able to diversify their access to income, goods, and services. But the early stage goodwill from the big platforms will dissipate as they become incorporated into the business-as-usual economy. We are at a critical juncture in which users’ organizing for fair treatment, demands for eco-accountability, and attention to whether human connections are strengthened through these technologies can make a critical difference in realizing the potential of the sharing model. There is an enormous amount of new economic value being created in this space. It is imperative that it flow equitably to all participants. After all, that is what we ordinarily call sharing.
Great Transition Initiative: Debating the Sharing Economy - Juliet Schor

Great Transition Initiative
> Debating the Sharing Economy - Juliet Schor
> Commentary on Debating the Sharing Economy

Sustainable Economies Law Center
> Toward a True Sharing Economy
> The Next Sharing Economy - Janelle Orsi (YouTube)

Shareable: Sharing Cities Toolkit

Community and Neighbourhood Sharing Examples (Note: not all are "real sharing")
> Unashamedly Creative: A to Z of Australian collaborative consumption
> Alternatives Journal: Share Now - Your How-to Guide to Getting More and Wasting Less

3. The "Collaborative Economy" may be a transformation in resource utilisation and decentralised, peer-to-peer markets but it's not a transformation in equality, wealth, power, human needs, the commons or sustainability
- Collaborative consumption and the collaborative economy, as described by Rachel Botsman, is a new way of generating value in the existing market economy but it is not the kind of transformation many of those attracted to "sharing" are looking for. The main driver is still private profit.
See:
> Collaborative Economy: A transformative lens not a startup trend
> Collaborative Economy innovation framework
> PandoDaily: Collaborative consumption is dead, long live the real sharing economy
> Institute of Network Cultures: Never Mind the Sharing Economy: Here’s Platform Capitalism

- The "Collaborative Commons" describes an inherent shift from commercial exchange to sharing, in areas where the marginal costs are getting close to zero. Jeremy Rifkin explains this broader economic shift:

Hundreds of millions of people are transferring bits and pieces of their economic life from capitalist markets to the global Collaborative Commons. Prosumers are not only producing and sharing their own information, entertainment, green energy and 3D-printed goods at near zero marginal cost and enrolling in massive open online college courses for nearly free, on the Collaborative Commons. They are also sharing cars, homes, clothes, tools, toys, and countless other items with one another via social media sites, rentals, redistribution clubs, and cooperatives, at low or near zero marginal cost. An increasing number of people are collaborating in "patient-driven" health-care networks to improve diagnoses and find new treatments and cures for diseases, again at near zero marginal cost. And young social entrepreneurs are establishing socially responsible businesses, crowdfunding new enterprises, and even creating alternative social currencies in the new economy. The result is that "exchange value" in the marketplace is increasingly being replaced by "shareable value" on the Collaborative Commons.
Jeremy Rifkin: The End of the Capitalist Era, and What Comes Next

See:
> Beyond Jeremy Rifkin: How Will the Phase Transition to a Commons Economy Actually Occur?
> Beyond Sustainability: The Road to Regenerative Capitalism

4. More is not better. See: The Story of Stuff
- Annie Leonard's The Story of Stuff site is very relevant to sharing, especially material goods. Her latest video on real solutions isolates how human needs and progress require focusing on better not more: "We have a problem with Stuff. We use too much, too much of it is toxic and we don’t share it very well. But that’s not the way things have to be. Together, we can build a society based on better not more, sharing not selfishness, community not division."

See:
> The Story of Stuff
> The Story of Solutions (YouTube)

5. Transactional Sharing vs Transformational Sharing
- Real sharing has been marginalised by the "sharing economy" which is about transactional exchanges, often monetised for private profit in some way. Real sharing gets even better when it is transformative - changes social relations, equalises access, switches from profit motives to social motives and facilitates co-creation and communal ownership:

While there are no absolutes, in general ‘transactional’ sharing is typically profit-driven, and more about the efficient operation of existing systems, resource efficiency and cost sharing. More efficiently using existing assets (be they physical, virtual, skills or time), whether or not monetary exchange is involved, contributes to a more effective operation of the status quo. This can be a good thing, for example when people can access what they need, when they need it; and when it results in less resource consumption. But it does not impact on existing power structures.

‘Transformational’ sharing can have some or all the characteristics of transactional sharing (more efficient use of resources, spreading costs), but there is an additional, critical element – it involves a shift in power and social relations. This means who owns and controls the processes by which sharing occurs, who benefits, and whether it is strengthening the commons or resulting in the commodification of our lives. Integral to transformational sharing is that it builds ‘social capital’, strengthening relationships and resilience of communities through sharing and co-operation. Transformational sharing can be found in the gift economy, in the co-operative movement and in not for profit social enterprise.
Transactional Sharing, Transformational Sharing

6. Voluntary Simplicity and Minimalism
- Voluntary simplicity isn't just a rejection of materialism and consumerism but asserts that real wealth, satisfaction and happiness comes from non-materialistic sources. From this perspective, freecycling and even sharing material goods is not the key to a better life or community.

Voluntary simplicity, or simple living, is a way of life that rejects the high-consumption, materialistic lifestyles of consumer cultures and affirms what is often just called ‘the simple life’ or ‘downshifting.’ The rejection of consumerism arises from the recognition that ordinary Western-style consumption habits are degrading the planet; that lives of high consumption are unethical in a world of great human need; and that the meaning of life does not and cannot consist in the consumption or accumulation of material things. This approach to life involves providing for material needs as simply and directly as possible, minimizing expenditure on consumer goods and services, and directing progressively more time and energy towards pursuing non-materialistic sources of satisfaction and meaning. This generally means accepting a lower income and a lower level of consumption, in exchange for more time and freedom to pursue other life goals, such as community or social engagements, more time with family, artistic or intellectual projects, more fulfilling employment, political participation, sustainable living, spiritual exploration, reading, contemplation, relaxation, pleasure-seeking, love, and so on.
The Simplicity Collective: What is Voluntary Simplicity?

- Minimalism as a philosophy of living has had increased attention due to two new American converts who've set off on a world tour. According to their definition: "Minimalism is a lifestyle that helps people question what things add value to their lives. By clearing the clutter from life’s path, we can all make room for the most important aspects of life: health, relationships, passion, growth, and contribution." An excellent local Melbourne perspective can be found here: Wholesome Road: The Minimalists in Melbourne

See:
> The Conversation: Life in a ‘degrowth’ economy, and why you might actually enjoy it

7. Sustainable, resilient communities and Transition towns and networks
- A common driver of those interested in real sharing is sustainability and minimising environmental impact. The "transition town" movement is particularly relevant for its community-level focus on individual and neighbourhood changes:

When we use the term "Transition" we’re talking about the changes we need to make to get to a low-carbon, socially-just, healthier and happier future, which is more enriching and more gentle on the earth than the way most of us live today. In our vision of the future, people work together to find ways to live with a lot less reliance on fossil fuels and on over-exploitation of other planetary resources, much reduced carbon emissions, improved wellbeing for all and stronger local economies.
Transition Networks: Strategy

- In Transition 2.0 is a film from Transition Network, capturing inspiring stories of Transition initiatives around the world, responding to uncertain times with creativity, solutions and 'engaged optimism'.

8. The importance of values. Intrinsic values vs Extrinsic values
- Values are closely linked to goals, attitudes, behaviours and what kind of change/activity people are interested in. The type of sharing individuals are attracted to is based in their values.

This terminology (intrinsic vs extrinsic values) is pretty familiar to many people now, and it’s particularly useful for telling a simple story of how our society has become more materialistic, more unequal and more selfish – shifting from intrinsic to extrinsic – like George Monbiot recently did in the Guardian.
Common Cause: On having more than two sides: how do you describe values?

Common Cause: On having more than two sides: how do you describe values?

See:
> George Monbiot: Unchallenged by craven Labour, Britain slides towards ever more selfishness

9. Creating neighbourhood assets and ensuring equitable access to them
- A very interesting video from San Francisco beautifully highlighted how the transactional sharing economy clashes with transformative sharing - in particular values around inclusion, equity, community decision making and the commons:

It depicts an incident that occurred, in August, at the soccer field at Mission Playground, a public park in San Francisco’s historically Latino but increasingly gentrified Mission District. In the video, a group of adults - mostly white males - approach a dozen or so Latino teen-agers and ask them to forfeit the field. A college student named Kai, who seems to be the leader of the neighborhood kids, explains the pickup rules (seven on seven, no time limit, whoever scores first keeps the field) and asks the men how long they’ve lived in the neighborhood. “Who gives a shit? Who cares about the neighborhood?,” one of the men mutters off-screen. The men explain that they paid to reserve the field, and a man named Conor arrives with a printed document. “It’s pretty simple, man. We paid twenty-seven dollars to reserve the field for an hour,” Conor says to Kai, holding the piece of paper up to his face. “Read it. Read it.” “I know how to read,” Kai says. “I’m an educated person. I also know that this field has always been a pickup field where you play seven on seven and wait your turn. You guys think that just because you have money you can buy the field and play.”
New Yorker: Dropbox, AirBnb and the fight over San Francisco's public spaces

As to which of the two groups you should side with, I think the answer is obviously the neighborhood kids. Not only are they more sympathetic people in all of this, but the pick-up system that they are insisting upon is egalitarian and totally effective. The tech people’s proposed permit system operates so as to evict the neighborhood kids from the field on the basis of who has the most money. The neighborhood kids’ pick-up system operates so as to include everybody, including the tech people, to play against one another on an established rotating basis. An egalitarian system that is totally inclusive and facilitates people from all backgrounds playing simultaneously with one another: who can be mad at that?
Matt Bruenig: Wonderful Property Rights Dispute In San Francisco

YouTube: Mission Playground is Not For Sale

See:
> New Yorker: Dropbox, AirBnb and the fight over San Francisco's public spaces
> DropBox employees drop money for Mission soccer field, kick out neighborhood kids
> Wonderful Property Rights Dispute In San Francisco

10. About "The Commons" and its role in transformative sharing
- "The commons is the essential form of wealth that we inherit or create together, and which must be shared in a sustainable and equitable way." The commons are critical to building equitable, resilient, productive and connected communities. The current capitalist system is always seeking to privatise and exploit the commons to benefit existing elites.

On the Commons: A Framework for the Commons

See:
> On the Commons
> Switchboard NRDC: Sustainability and the urban commons (Part 1 of 2)
> David Bollier

11. About social capital and its connection to sharing
- Sharing and cooperation in communities builds social capital - something very different to physical capital or human capital:

The central thesis of social capital theory is that ‘relationships matter’. The central idea is that ‘social networks are a valuable asset’. Interaction enables people to build communities, to commit themselves to each other, and to knit the social fabric. A sense of belonging and the concrete experience of social networks (and the relationships of trust and tolerance that can be involved) can, it is argued, bring great benefits to people.
Infed.org: Social Capital

See:
> Better Together: Social capital

12. About Timebanks, Local Energy Trading Systems (LETS) and Community Currencies
- These are alternatives to monetary transactions which formalise contributions and extend their value by recording them and allowing credits to be flexibly re-used. The best way of understanding how this works in Australia is via the below sites:
> Community Exchange System Australia
> Shareable: Timebanks
> Timebanks.org

13. About Co-ownership and Cooperatives
- "Cooperatives embody the values of sharing: distributed risk, common purpose, shared rewards, and solidarity. Ranging from factories to bakeries to cleaning services to buyers clubs, cooperatives offer a new way to structure enterprises that place value in the hands of all of those involved in creating it." See: Shareable: 8 Awesome Ways Cooperatives Strengthen Communities
See:
> 16 Worker Coops Redefining the Cooperative Movement
> Resilience: Owning is the new sharing
> Shareable: The Sharing Economy Just Got Real

14. Free Community-owned Assets and Physical Sharing Spaces
- There are a few examples around the world of thriving physical community sharing spaces and community assets and this is a key element of better neighbourhoods which both provide equitable access and facilitate skillsharing, communities of interest and social interaction. In my view, the key to their success is being free, donation-based or very low cost - thus no barriers to entry or usage.

- In contrast, examples I've seen in Australia tend to have barriers to membership and usage (typically fees) that are too high and thus are severely underutilised. For example, the Brunswick Tool Library charges annual memberships of $40-$100 but is only open for 8 hours per week.
See:
> Wikipedia: List of tool-lending libraries

15. About Co-housing and establishing idealised neighbour interactions
- "Co-housing communities are intentional communities. They are created and run by their residents. Each household has a self-contained, personal and private home but residents come together to manage their community, share activities, eat together." See: UK Cohousing Network

- Proper co-housing opportunities are rare and take a lot of work and time to establish. However, they are of relevance to everyone in being able to tangibly consider the idealised forms of neighbourhoods and neighbour interactions and what aspects can feasibly be improved without co-housing as a pre-condition.
See:
> The Guardian: How to create happy communities through co-housing
> Shareable: Policies for a Shareable City #5: Shareable Housing

The Guardian: How to create happy communities through co-housing

16. Crowdfunding, ownership and control in the sharing economy
- Crowdfunding can exist on a spectrum - used by extractive startups and also opensource, non-profit, social enterprises. Thus crowdfunding in and of itself isn't a transformative solution, the type of enterprise, ownership model and extent to which it's profit-driven is what matters. The best crowdfunding platforms share ownership and decision making in return for funding rather than just exploiting it as a profit and business enhancing vehicle.
See:
> Shareable: Crowdfunding and Ownership in the Sharing Economy
> Pozible

17. Earthsharing, gentrification, housing and how it all relates to land and the commons
- Building and sustaining thriving communities is vitally dependent on fair and efficient access, usage and ownership of land, natural resources and the commons - including ensuring the unearned gains from ownership accrue to the community. Access to this natural wealth allows individuals and communities to focus their time and energies on sharing and co-creating better lifestyles. Earthsharing is about establishing laws, taxes and norms that optimise these outcomes.

How can we create walkable cities with affordable housing, a strong sense of community, more parks, the means to innovate, explore, create art, enjoy nature, and all of the other things that make communities thrive? What’s the secret?
Earthsharing.org - Visualizing Earth Sharing

> Earthsharing.org
> Earthsharing Australia

18. About the D.I.Y. and Localist Economies
- Do-It-Yourself and Localist economies are a move toward self-sufficiency and value-creation at local levels (individuals, neighbourhoods, communities).

See:
> Thrivable: DIY Economy (Jean Russell)
> Americans Leading a 'Do It Yourself Economy' As Washington Stalls
> BALLE (Be a Localist)

Thrivable: DIY Economy (Jean Russell)

19. Holistic lifestyle transformation visions, frameworks and initiatives
- There are various frameworks that take a holistic, encompassing approach to many of these ideas, typically based around a particular goal like sustainability. For example, the European Union completed the Sustainable Lifestyle 2050 project to compile a holistic vision of future sustainable lifestyles. It's useful to collate and review these outputs in determining how specific initiatives fit into the bigger vision and best contribute to either transformation or just gradual improvement.

Visualising connections between EU lifestyle impacts, behaviour drivers, infrastructure enablers and promising practices (pdf)

20. Freecycling is actually a symptom of a problem and thus has inherent dangers
- Freecycling (free recycling of goods from one person to another) sounds like an unmitigated positive but it's not. It's actually a symptom of a problem with the current norms - we buy or acquire stuff we don't need and replace/upgrade it when we don't have to. More frequent and efficient freecycling has the potential to lead to more unnecessary consumption.

21. Free lending often beats freecycling
- Giving things away sounds better than only lending them but many resources are unutilised most of the time if owned by only a single household (e.g. lawnmowers, tools). Often freecycled goods will simply end up just as underutilised in someone else's garage. The solution is to establish free lending with actual, regular turnover. If you can't effectively host the lending items, then some other place or person may be able to.

22. Taxation treatment of bartering and non-monetary exchange and value creation
- Non-monetary exchanges (especially barter) are still taxable if they operate in essentially the same way as commercial transactions. This is just another reason to break away from the commercial, direct exchange model and switch to transformative sharing - where value is gifted not directly exchanged. That gifting can still be measured and is not taxable.
See:
> Australian Tax Office: Bartering and barter exchanges

23. Streetbank U.K. ethos and directions
- Streetbank.com is the current neighbourhood freecycling and sharing platform for Streetbank Australia (formerly The Sharehood). Streetbank U.K. currently has a real sharing ethos and is focused on positive neighbourhood outcomes not profit. However, as it lacks a regular source of revenue to cover operating expenses, it may need to permit some private profit so as to charge fees:

Streetbank is a site that helps you share and borrow things from your neighbours. Streetbank is meant for everyone. It is not for private benefit - for individuals to make a profit or professionals to sell their services. It is for the common good. People are happier when they are are connected to each other. As we’ve grown richer we’ve become more and more disconnected until now most of us don’t know our next door neighbours. Helping someone out is a great way to make friends and build community spirit. The aim is to get people involved in their community, to foster altruism, a generosity of spirit and volunteerism. It is to help local needs to be met by local solutions, reducing poverty by building community. It makes sense environmentally. It helps people to reuse things, and for things that are under-used to be used more, and that all helps to reduce consumption.
Streetbank U.K: FAQ

See:
> Streetbank U.K: But how does Streetbank make money?!
> How to use a local sharing site to save money, learn skills and connect with neighbours

24. Using the Streetbank platform and other tools to build better neighbourhoods via transformative sharing?
- The members of the Melbourne-based, Streetbank Australia organisation (formerly The Sharehood) have to figure out what the purpose of their organisation is given the switch to using the Streetbank.com platform. Is it just to boost Australian usage of Streetbank.com for freecycling, lending and skillsharing? Or are there broader aspirations for like-minded Australian members who are interested in building better neighbourhoods - more connected, sustainable, self-sufficient, resilient, equitable, healthy, enjoyable?

- Streetbank.com is just one potential online tool. There is also the Streetbank Australia Facebook group and other coordinating apps (e.g. Meetup, Eventbrite, Forums, etc.)

- There are much more popular websites that already meet the money-based or purely utilitarian exchanges (Gumtree, Freecycle, TuShare, OpenShed, etc.). Personally, I would like Streetbank.com to proactively establish a niche around non-monetary sharing as means of building better neighbourhoods. It is worth noting that neighbourhood-based freecycling and stuff-sharing websites have limited potential if that is their primary purpose.
See:
> Five Ideas for Neighborhood Stuff Sharing
> Collaborative Chats Recap: Stuff-Sharing: Where's the Traction?

- Given my interests in voluntary simplicity (minimalism, downshifting, etc), I see freecycling and lending as simply a mechanism to meet like-minded neighbours interested in building better neighbourhoods. I'm not really keen on "neighbours" dropping by to pick up something from my front yard without even meeting me (which has happened a couple of times). And I'm extremely uninterested in acquiring more stuff for private use myself. I am interested in sharing skills and knowledge, social/recreational activities and co-creating neighbourhood assets and value. And most of this has to happen in person; the online tools are for effective facilitation or initiation purposes not the focus of the types of activity desired.

25. Carefully choosing and investing voluntary time and effort in P2P platforms that are sustainable, community-driven and ideally community-owned
- For those who are willing to invest significant time or contributions to building a community, creating inventories of goods, services and skills, and funding enhancements and operating costs, the choice of platforms is critical. Losing access later on to the platform can be a major disruption. Or the platform may never take off in membership or activity, or resolve significant functionality and useability gaps.

OhSoWe closed

26. Replacing profit-driven platforms with social-driven platforms
- Much efficient, P2P sharing and interaction is very dependent on online platforms and the best platforms require expert developers which typically has a significant cost.

While it is absolutely true that internet marketplaces and digital platforms can reduce transaction costs, the claim that they cut out the middleman is pure fantasy. As one blogger puts it: “Sure, many of the old middlemen and retailers disappear but only to be replaced by much more powerful gatekeepers.
Institute of Network Cultures: Never Mind the Sharing Economy: Here’s Platform Capitalism

- It would be brilliant if the platform websites/apps that were the most useful, useable and sustainable were also free (or very low-cost) and community owned and driven, but this is very rare. Nevertheless, there will be ongoing initiatives by communities/users seeking to build and own their own high-utility platforms. Loomio is the best example I know of and is worth supporting and trying to emulate in other domains.

Whoever owns the platforms that help us share decides who accumulates wealth from them, and how. Rather than giving up on ownership, people are looking for a different way of practicing it. OuiShare, for instance, is starting to prioritize supporting new projects that bake new models of ownership — that is, real sharing — deep into their business model. Soon, Knight went from the perfect movement to the perfect tech company. He and fellow Occupiers took the best of what they’d seen in Occupy’s kind of direct democracy and made it available to the world in the form of an app — Loomio, they called it. And they built their organization to reflect Occupy values as thoroughly as they could: It’s a worker-owned cooperative that produces open-source software to help people practice consensus — though they prefer the term “collaboration” — about decisions that affect their lives.
Resilience: Owning is the new sharing

See:
> Forbes: Why Uber And Airbnb Might Be In Big Trouble
> Shareable: Why Banning Uber Makes Seoul Even More of a Sharing City
> Institute of Network Cultures: Never Mind the Sharing Economy: Here’s Platform Capitalism

27. Co-opt popular, useful profit-driven platforms and use them for non-monetary exchange
- Generally, the most popular, functional and useable platforms are established with charging for P2P exchanges in mind but they let users set their own prices. There is often no barrier to setting a price of zero (or very little) and noting that you are interested in reciprocal arrangements or simply helping others for free. Almost all sites have the potential to let you connect with each other and determine your own free, reciprocal, barter, timebank or thankyou arrangements.

- For example, I could use Streetbank to seek a cat minder when we are away but there are much more users on the purpose-built site Pet Home Stay that are seeking reciprocal cat-minding arrangements or just love animals and would be prepared to accept generosity in some other way.