Abstract
Platform innovations like Uber and Airbnb allow peers to transact outside established market
institutions. From an institutional perspective, platform companies follow a reverse innovation
process compared to innovation within traditional regulatory systems: they first launch their
online platform and ask for government permission only later. We analyze the emergence of Uber
as an institutional entrepreneur in The Netherlands and the strategies it employed in a failed
attempt to get its UberPop service legalized through changes in Dutch taxi law. We conclude that
Uber’s failure to change the Dutch taxi law stemmed from the difficulty to leverage pragmatic
legitimacy among users into favorable regulatory changes in a highly institutionalized regime,
because Uber’s institutional work strategies were not aligned.
institutions. From an institutional perspective, platform companies follow a reverse innovation
process compared to innovation within traditional regulatory systems: they first launch their
online platform and ask for government permission only later. We analyze the emergence of Uber
as an institutional entrepreneur in The Netherlands and the strategies it employed in a failed
attempt to get its UberPop service legalized through changes in Dutch taxi law. We conclude that
Uber’s failure to change the Dutch taxi law stemmed from the difficulty to leverage pragmatic
legitimacy among users into favorable regulatory changes in a highly institutionalized regime,
because Uber’s institutional work strategies were not aligned.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1-12 |
| Number of pages | 12 |
| Journal | Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions |
| Volume | 33 |
| Early online date | 2019 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2019 |