There is some initial evidence from Millennials in the U.S. but would be interesting to know whether this is a trend that is structural in nature instead of a passing fad.
The initial evidence is the preference for sharing rather than owning, renting rather than buying etc.
The economic consequences of such a structural shift? For instance ownership tends to lead to commitment and therefore savings and investment. The abandonment of ownership for accessibility may change the preference structure as indicated by indifference maps?
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116993/millennials-are-abandoning-cars-bikes-carshare-will-it-stick
http://www.amazon.com/The-Mesh-Future-Business-Sharing/dp/1591843715
http://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21572914-collaborative-consumption-technology-makes-it-easier-people-rent-items
That's a great topic. I really like related concepts as Bourriaud's semionaut or Fernández Porta's homo sampler. Also, Oleza's works in this area are great; he made a great research about authorship and ownership in the contemporary society. I've worked their texts from the Literature Studies perspective more than the economic one, but if you're interested I can share a few references.
This has nothing to do with capatalism but with greed, which appears, alaas, to be nature for some of our species. Part of our kind just wants to own more then the people arround them. You can only own more if you have somekind of ownership (be it perminent or temperary) over goods your neigbour does not have.
But this is, again, not capatalism, it has also occured in socialism, pre-capatialist societies and then like. Societies were this greed has not occured are few if any.
"Unlimited greed for gain" writes Max Weber, "is not in the least identical with capitalism, and is still less its spirit. Capitalism may even be identical with the restraint, or at least a rational tempering, of this irrational impulse."
I don't think 'accessibility' will ever trump 'ownership' in capitalist societies. It all depends on what you mean by 'accessibility', which may mean that in modern capitalist society people are having more chances as society become increasing more 'open' compare to premodern society characterised by closeness i.e., 'closed society' (Karl Popper, 1945 'Open society and its Enemies).
My argument is that even though people are now having more chances or accessibility it doesn't mean they would stop owning things like buying properties (eg, cars and house) as opposed to just renting. We live in a very high mobile and sophisticated society compare to previous epoch. So I wouldn't see what you observe as increasing accessibility as a trend that will pass away. It is already an enduring feature of post-modern society and will always remain so (structural).
Part of the enduring features of post-industrial and knowledge-based societies like contemporary American society is that such societies have become increasingly more much 'open societies' (Popper), due to more efficient democratic institutions, globalisation factors, technological advancement and ICT explosion, to the extent that the rates of 'connectivity' and 'mobility' have become so high and sophisticated.
This is why it makes more sense for an American Urban Teenager to use modern high-tech speed trains or cozy city trams to go around their day-to-day activities in today's much more densely populated urban cities with less car parking slots, speed cameras and so on than owning a car.
It is also more rational to own 'smart phones' and other high-tech gadgets than owing cars, for example. And mind you with the advent of 'Facebook' and other social media platforms, virtual communities and interactions via the net have become an enduring feature of post-industrialised and informational capitalist societies like America.
So seeing declining rate in car ownership among American Teenagers does not mean that the notion of 'OWNING' has been trumped by 'ACCESSIBILITY' fad.
Teenagers now own more smart phones and high-tech gadgets than previously. Many people who even own cars today don't even drive them much often nowadays because we now have better improved and efficient transport systems and better 'connectivities'.All these might have altered previous obsession with owing cars for owing sake.
Moreover, People today have become sophisticated with how they make choices which is now more 'customized' and individualized. Peer-pressure on car owership might have declined as well; while incidentally due to improved connectivity peer-pressure on owning smart phones, communicating via social media and so on may have increased drastically and tended to dictate contemporary American Teenagers choice-making.
I do believe there is a shift in emphasis from ownership of stuff to access to it. Uber is the largest taxi company and it owns no taxis. AirBnB is the largest accommodations company and yet it owns no hotel rooms or real estate.
In a world of driverless cars, if you can summon one with an app and the car will take you where you need to go and then drop you off, and another can pick you up later on to take you home, nobody will need to own a car anymore privately..
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Teaching