Taxi Drivers and Taxidars: A Case Study of Uber and Ola in Delhi

Abstract

This article examines the role of the sharing economy in India’s development through the examples of aggregated taxis such as Uber and Ola in Delhi.1 Based on a general survey of Uber and Ola drivers and users in Delhi, we argue that Uber and Ola do not measure up to their expected potential in the development of India’s economy on the parameters of ecological sustainability, employment through renting out assets and reduction in the need to own assets. Yet, Uber and Ola are notable for the creation of viable employment opportunities for drivers, and their many benefits for urban middle class users. Unique to the Uber and Ola phenomenon in India is the interception of driver opportunities by taxidars (taxi-owners). This tweaked Uber model for the Indian market allows the middle class individual—the police official, bureaucrat, property dealer, transporter or a professional—an entry into the aggregated taxi market.

The Consequences of Participating in the Sharing Economy: A Transparency-Based Sharing Framework

“…In the car- and ride-sharing sector, providers and users benefit from trust-based commercial sharing. Drivers face lower entry barriers into the driving market and receive better pay while having more flexible working hours than they often do at traditional taxi companies (Kashyap & Bhatia, 2018; Vaclavik & Pithan, 2018). Users in turn profit from increased efficiency and affordability, in particular when using carpooling options, such as UberPool or Lyft Line (Sarriera, Álvarez, Blynn, Alesbury, Scully, & Zhao, 2017).…”

“…Multiple studies across various platforms document the appeal of reducing resource use in general and lowering the carbon footprint in particular (Cherry & Pidgeon, 2018; Mun, 2013; Richter et al, 2017; Smol et al, 2018). Namely, a positive environmental impact is achieved in the ride-sharing sector (Kashyap & Bhatia, 2018; Punel et al, 2018; Punel & Stathopoulos, 2017; Rai et al, 2017; Sarriera et al, 2017), peer-to-peer tourism (Bernardi, 2018; Toni et al, 2016), and appliance sharing (Edbring et al, 2016; Fremstad, 2016).…”

“…From an economic perspective, providers suffer from disadvantageous employment conditions. Drivers on ride-sharing platforms face severe pressure to meet incentive-based work schemes while not receiving pay for extra work when not driving their own car and lacking insurance (Kashyap & Bhatia, 2018). Providers often face heavy workloads (L.…”

“…Trust-based commercial sharing can harm other (traditional) markets, too, such as adverse effects of ride-sharing services on taxis and auto rickshaws (Kashyap & Bhatia, 2018). Similarly, peer-to-peer accommodation can incur costs for the traditional hotel sector (Apostolidis & Haeussler, 2018; Varma et al, 2016; see also Aznar, Sayeras, Galiana, & Rocafort, 2016).…”

The Ride-Hailing Mobile Application for Personalized Travelling

“…In literature, the implications of Uber in the urban transportation system has been studied for metropolitan cities e.g. London (Glöss et al, 2016), Toronto (Haider, Donaldson, &Nourinejad, 2015), Delhi (Kashyap, 2018). Studies have been also heighted DiDi-another strong company in the ride-hailing industry (Jacquet, 2018;Jiang, Chen, Mislove, & Wilson, 2018;Zhang, Guo, Li, & Liu, 2016).…”