The sharing economy: a bibliometric analysis of the state-of-the-art

Abstract

PurposeQuantitative bibliometric approaches were used to statistically and objectively explore patterns in the sharing economy literature.Design/methodology/approachJournal (co-)citation analysis, author (co-)citation analysis, institution citation and co-operation analysis, keyword co-occurrence analysis, document (co-)citation analysis and burst detection analysis were conducted based on a bibliometric data set relating to sharing economy publications.FindingsSharing economy research is multi- and interdisciplinary. Journals focused upon products liability, organizing framework, profile characteristics, diverse economies, consumption system and everyday life themes. Authors focused upon profile characteristics, sharing economy organization, social connections, first principle and diverse economy themes. No institution dominated the research field. Keyword co-occurrence analysis identified organizing framework, tourism industry, consumer behavior, food waste, generous exchange and quality cue as research themes. Document co-citation analysis found research themes relating to the tourism industry, exploring public acceptability, agri-food system, commercial orientation, products liability and social connection. Most cited authors, institutions and documents are reported.Research limitations/implicationsThe study did not exclusively focus on publications in top-tier journals. Future studies could run analyses relating to top-tier journals alone, and then run analyses relating to less renowned journals alone. To address the potential fuzzy results concern, reviews could focus on business and/or management research alone. Longitudinal reviews conducted over several points in time are warranted. Future reviews could combine qualitative and quantitative approaches.Originality/valueWe contribute by analyzing information relating to the population of all sharing economy articles. In addition, we contribute by employing several quantitative bibliometric approaches that enable the identification of trends relating to the themes and patterns in the growing literature.

Sustainable Tourism Development and Economic Growth: Bibliometric Review and Analysis

“…This study is inspired by the methodology used in the previous literature on bibliometrics [47][48][49][50]. This methodology has been used to perform bibliometric analyses of specific journals [18,[49][50][51] and research areas such as tourism [10,52], Kuznets environmental curves [53], environment [54,55] and economy [56][57][58]. As a consequence, a systematic quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the literature of 668 WoS publications related to the study of the influence of sustainable tourism development on economic growth was carried out.…”

Five decades of corporate entrepreneurship research: measuring and mapping the field

“…Bibliometric methods have received increased attention in entrepreneurship (Baier-Fuentes et al 2019;Cornelius et al 2006;Filser et al 2020;Hota et al 2019;Kraus et al 2020;Lampe et al 2019;Liñán and Fayolle 2015;Martínez-Climent et al 2018;Pellegrini et al 2020;Rey-Martí et al 2016;Schildt et al 2006;Tiberius et al 2020a;Vallaster et al 2019), innovation (Di Stefano et al 2012;Fagerberg et al 2012;Randhawa et al 2016;Tiberius et al 2020b), family business (Casillas and Acedo 2007;López-Fernández et al 2016;Xi et al 2015), strategic management (Ferreira et al 2015;Ramos-Rodríguez and Ruíz-Navarro 2004), and many other fields. In contrast to systematic literature reviews (Tranfield et al 2003), bibliometric methods allow the measurement of the scientific activity in the research field based on quantitative and thus more objective methods (Garfield 1979;Zupic and Čater 2015).…”

Scientific Production on the Social Economy: A Review of Worldwide Research

“…As already stated in the report prepared by CIRIEC for the European Economic and Social Committee on the Social Economy in the European Union in 2008, the Social Economy has had different theoretical approaches, and has been identified, to a large extent, with other terms such as the third sector, non-profit organizations—proper to the English-speaking world—or the solidarity economy—very widespread in France and Latin America (Monzón & Chaves, 2008a , b ), and with other new terms that are currently being used and developed in the scientific literature around the idea of generating wealth as an alternative to capitalism, and which are not merely synonymous with the Social Economy. Among the terms that scientific production is using and developing for this broad concept of wealth generation with parameters far removed from capitalist logic, the following concepts can be highlighted: Social Economy, Nonprofit Sector (Hansmann, 1980 ); Nonprofit Organizations (NPO); Voluntary Sector (Pérez de Mendiguren, 2008 ); Social Enterprises and Third Sector (Defourny & Develtere, 2009 ; Evers & Laville, 2004 ); Solidarity Economy, Social Economy and Solidarity, Gemeinwirtschaft (Bilkhölzer, 2006 ); Economy of Communion (Bruni & Héjj, 2011 ); Civil Economy (Zamagni, 2008 ); Economy for the Common Good (Felber & Haglberg, 2017 ); Collaborative Economy (Carrasco, 1996; Díaz-Foncea et al, 2016 ); Social Enterprises (Defourny & Nyssens, 2007 ); Social Innovation (Moulaert et al, 2013 ); Circular Economy (Kirchherr et al, 2017 ); Social impact business (Spiegel, 2011 ); Social Entrepreneurship (Enciso et al, 2012 ); Popular Economy (Larraechea & Nyssen, 1994 ; Chaves & Monzón, 2008 : 32); Fourth Sector (Alessandrini, 2002 ); Alternative Economic Practices (Fickey, 2011 ); Benefit Corporations (Brakman Reiser, 2011 ); Corporate Social Responsibility (Lizcano, 2006 ); Plural Economy (Laville, 2013 ); Labor Economy (Coraggio, 2007 ); Matristic Economy (Arruda, 2004 ) or Diverse Economy (Gibson-Graham, 1996 ; Kraus et al, 2020 ; McKinnon et al, 2020 ).…”