The sharing economy has been booming in China. Within the sharing economy, the ridesharing sector has been a profit-generating engine. This sector is generally associated with the strikingly rapid and viral rise of major companies. However, there are alternative practices of ridesharing outside of the mainstream sphere constructed by major platforms. This article investigates these alternative practices in a prefectural area in China. They are enabled by the intertwinement of new technology usage and traditional social relations. The way in which local taxi drivers form exclusive groups resembles the differential mode of association proposed by Fei Xiaotong. Therefore, I have coined the term “differentially associated sharing economy” to describe these alternative ridesharing practices. I argue that the intersection of technology usage and traditional social relations enables resistance against platform monopoly as well as restrains the potential of technologies to kinship and friend cliques.
BuC (2003) A theoretical explanation of “the differential mode of association” and its modern implication. Sociological Studies1: 21–29.
2.
CastellsMFernandez-ArdevolMQiuJLet al. (2006) Mobile Communication and Society: A Global Perspective. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
3.
ChanAS (2013) Networking Peripheries: Technological Futures and the Myth of Digital Universalism. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
4.
ChenJY (2018) Thrown under the bus and outrunning it! The logic of Didi and taxi drivers’ labour and activism in the on-demand economy. New Media & Society20(8): 2691–2711.
5.
Das AcevedoD (2016) Regulating employment relationships in the sharing economy. Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal20(1): 1–35.
6.
DonnerJ (2009) Blurring livelihoods and lives: the social uses of mobile phones and socioeconomic development. Innovations4(1): 91–101.
7.
ErtEFleischerAMagenN (2015) Trust and reputation in the sharing economy: the role of personal photos in Airbnb. Advances in Consumer Research55: 62–73.
8.
FeiX (1992) From the Soil: The Foundations of Chinese Society (trans. WangZHamiltonCG). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
9.
FlemingP (2017) The human capital hoax: work, debt and insecurity in the era of Uberization. Organization Studies38(5): 691–709.
10.
FonerN (2013) Introduction: immigrants in New York City in the new millennium. In: FonerN (ed.) One Out of Three: Immigrant New York in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 1–34.
11.
GuoY (1994) Traditional family and kinship relations in rural modernization. Sociological Studies6: 49–58.
12.
JohnNA (2017) The Age of Sharing. Cambridge: Polity Press.
13.
LovettSSimmonsLCKaliR (1999) Guanxi versus the market: ethics and efficiency. Journal of International Business Studies30(2): 231–247.
MaR (2007) The “differential mode of association”—interpreting Chinese traditional social structure and Chinese behavior. Journal of Peking University (Philosophy and Social Sciences)44(2): 131–142.
16.
MarquisCYangZ (2014) The sharing economy in China: toward a unique local model. China Policy Review9: 109–111.
17.
PengY (2016) The legal issues in the sharing economy—using Internet car booking as an example. Administrative Law Review1: 117–131.
18.
PosenH (2015) Ridesharing in the sharing economy: should regulators impose Uber regulations on Uber?Iowa Law Review101(1): 405–433.
19.
PuschmannTAltR (2016) Sharing economy. Business & Information Systems Engineering58(1): 93–99.
20.
QiuJL (2009) Working-Class Network Society: Communication Technology and the Information Have-Less in Urban China. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
SchorJBAttwood-CharlesW (2017) The “sharing” economy: labor, inequality, and social connection on for-profit platforms. Sociology Compass11(8): 1–16.
23.
SmithJW (2016) The Uber-all economy of the future. Independent Review20(3): 383–390.
24.
SundararajanA (2016) The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of Crowd-Based Capitalism. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
25.
TsuiK (2016) Economic explanation: from sharecropping to the sharing Economy. Man and the Economy3(1): 77–96.
26.
VerbovenHVanherckL (2016) The sustainability paradox of the sharing economy. Uwf Umweltwirtschaftsforum24(4): 303–314.
27.
WallisC (2011) Mobile phones without guarantees: the promises of technology and the contingencies of culture. New Media & Society13(3): 471–485.
28.
WallisC (2013) Technomobility in China: Young Migrant Women and Mobile Phones. New York: New York University Press.
29.
WallisC (2015) Micro-entrepreneurship, new media technologies, and the reproduction and reconfiguration of gender in rural China. Chinese Journal of Communication8(1): 42–58.
30.
WangS (1987) The impact of economic institutional reform on rural social relations. Journal of Peking University (Philosophy and Social Sciences)24(3): 28–36.
31.
WirtzJTangC (2016) Uber: competing as market leader in the us versus being a distant second in China. In: WirtzJLovelockC (eds) Services Marketing: People, Technology, Strategy. 8th ed.Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific Publishing Co, pp. 626–632.
32.
XiangB (2000) Communities Transcending Boundaries: The Story of Zhejiang Village in Beijing. Beijing, China: SDX Joint Publishing Company.
33.
YangSHouH (1999) Consanguinity, affinity, kinship, and interests-the rationalization of the differential mode of association in contemporary rural Chinese society. Social Sciences in Ningxia97: 51–58.
34.
ZhaiX (2009) Rediscussing the contributions, limitations, and theoretical legacies of the “differential mode of association.”Social Sciences in China3: 152–158.
35.
ZhangHHeF (2007) The destruction of the “differential mode of association” in the changing social structures. Journal of Hunan Normal University (Social Sciences)4: 87–92.
