Tech should disrupt markets, not destroy values: taxis should be seen as a testbed for the future of digital regulation.
Tech companies can be categorised in two ways. There are those whose principle objectives are based on finance and market share. While they may be selling technology developed in the 21st Century, their ideological heritage is rooted in the 1980s – more Gordon Gekko than Jimmy Wales. These companies don’t take no for an answer, even from politicians. Silicon Valley can be so macho, right?
The second group is more big society, than big business. These companies are driven as much by a desire to make things better, as they are to make more money. And they understand that social returns and financial returns don’t have to be exclusive.
In reality, there are many companies in between. But for those interested in policymaking, this distinction has become more important over the last year, as European regulators sought to push back against many famous names from Silicon Valley.
The taxi market in London is a key example of a culture clash between these two groups. The history of regulation in the London taxi market goes back to 1636. Following laws introduced by King Charles 1 (designed to reduce the use of hackney coaches in London for fear of congestion!) reform has been ad hoc. This all changed with the sudden arrival of smartphone apps, and the dramatic disruption that followed.
There are now many well-known brands operating in London. Some are focused on protecting and developing the black cab trade and playing by the rules; others seek to create new a market for minicabs and play by some of the rules; and some don’t even know what rules are.
Whatever your view on each, the frustration from drivers, passengers and campaigners is clear to see. Regulators have yet to win the confidence of almost everyone connected to the sector. Tech is pulling the sector inside out, and fundamentally reshaping it.
The taxi and private hire sector in London should be seen as a test bed for this issue. Policymakers should show leadership, work with the recent practical set of proposals made by Caroline Pidgeon AM and the London Assembly, and set out a clear timeframe for consultation, before leading to a dedicated ‘Taxi Bill’ in the next Parliament. Crucially, the tech sector should be active participants in this process. Tech companies must be fully hardwired into the policymaking process – they should both listen and be listened to.
Finding a balance between innovation and established ways of working is far from easy. Not least when communities believe their heritage and history is being eroded; and when there are fundamental issues of safety and accessibility at risk. But it is an issue that policymakers and regulators must engage with now, before the market decides what is in its interest, rather than the public interest; and before today becomes a future none of us had a say in.
My own view is that new tech should not be used to torpedo long-standing ethical considerations, or, in some way, be exempt from commonly accepted values and standards. In the taxi sector, this is about safety, accessibility, transparency and community engagement. However the sector evolves in the future, should these not still form the backbone of the industry?
Tech should disrupt markets, not destroy values.
* Chris Hall is a Senior Consultant at Aequitas Consulting – a strategic communications and political consultancy. He is a former Head of Office for Simon Hughes MP.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Reform own goals
Following the course of the River Leen through Nottingham
Trumps' White House thuggery appals the world including most Americans
Mick Taylor
Mary Reid
Alison C
Alex Macfie
16 Comments
“a balance between innovation and established ways of working is far from easy. Not least when communities believe their heritage and history is being eroded”
Absolutely, protect the typewriter manufacturers, who wants these computer things any way?
“In the taxi sector, this is about safety, accessibility, transparency and community engagement. However the sector evolves in the future, should these not still form the backbone of the industry?”
Hmmmm, just possibly price, convenience and customer service might get a look in alongside safety?
And maybe this market is made up of the public. And I’m communicating with you via a tablet whilst sitting in an armchair – not missing the telegraph operators at all.
I have read this article and don’t really understand a word of it. But then I read that the author is “Senior Consultant at Aequitas Consulting – a strategic communications and political consultancy” so perhaps I should not be surprised.
Tony
This sounds to me like a call for legislation to organise better working conditions for elevator operators. Taxis are near to being obsolete. Leave it alone for a few years and there won’t be any need to legislate about how they should be run.
Totally flummoxed by this article. What is it trying to argue?
I’m glad this has been run up the flagpole, this bottom-up viral activity needs to be workshopped lest we drop the ball on ethics driven policy.
I’m glad I’m not the only one baffled by this article.
@Chris Hall
Good to hear from you on LDV Chris.
Transport in cities isn’t,t really a market. It’s more of a public good or service. Looking at it like that, we should have democratic control of how transport is delivered, not leave it to technocrats whose main aim is to make money..
Thanks for the comments on my article. Peer review at its best. Although, the comments about my job title are a bit much. Jenny Barnes’ comments get to the heart of the matter. There are also a wide range of connected issues around ‘public and private ownership’ of new ‘digital infrastructure’ that my article speaks to. Simply because something is ‘digital’ does this mean existing notions of the public interest and democratic accountability no longer count? The argument is more complex than simply market vs state protection / regulation. More broadly, ‘corporate responsibility’ in the tech sector will be a key theme in 2015 – not least around issues of privacy and data. All things Lib Dems care deeply about.
Sorry folks but de regulation of hackney cab licences has been an unmitigated disaster for local government .In my town we have 104 cabs chasing only 13 available stands .I am on a working group trying to sort the mess out .Now we here the government also want to allow out of town outfits to also ply for trade with no local connection .Land is in short supply in our town and city centres most of which is not owned by local authorities we also have to balance that with other road users so that our towns are acessable by all modes of transport .We are getting complaints that hackney cabs and private hire cars are dominating available parking spaces to the detriment of other road users .
government needs to go back to the drawing board on this one.
“There are those [tech companies] whose principle objectives are based on finance and market share.”
I think what you mean is that some tech companies’ business model is based on creating an opportunity for ECONOMIC RENT, basically income for themselves at the expense of providers and customers – taxi drivers and the public in this case – at a level far beyond their ongoing contribution. To traditional taxi drivers the risk are clear, to the public not so much because they often see only greater convenience, not that the way they can be ripped off too (although there are some hair-raising stores where this has become all to plain).
That’s certainly the case with Uber. Just look at its investors, Goldman Sacks, Amazon et al, all highly carnivorous rent extractors. Yes, Uber and its imitators are also a brilliant and disruptive idea and one where, I suspect, there is a natural monopoly involved. That means that regulations must change to reflect the new reality. Remember that when Britain led the world in technology and railways were new and disruptive (and also natural regional monopolies) Parliament had no compunction about legislating to restrict their power to extract monopoly rents.
GF
Are you sure it is a natural monopoly? I would say it is far to early to tell. Basing public policy on the basis that Goldman and Amazon invested in one entry in the market sounds nuts.
Social networking which people used to describe as a natural monopoly origionally had early entrants like friends reunited (remember that) do you want to legislate for that as a monopoly?
What is the going rate for writing an article for a client of Aequitas Consulting ?
I hope LDV got a share.
My thoughts exactly, Psi. As you suggest, economies are dynamic not static. Some people seem to see natural monopolies and market failures everywhere they look. Often the reference point seems to be some theoretical model of ‘perfect competition’ which does not exist outside of economics textbooks. Fortunately progress and consumer choice does not rely on perfect competition; imperfect competition is usually better than the alternatives.
jedibeeftrix
😉