On the economics of co-opting in energy sector
Abstract
The purpose of the work is to formulate the main provisions of the co-opting economy and detail them using the case method in the field of energy.
Elizabeth Watkins and David Stark from Columbia University (USA) put forward the concept of Möbius organizational forms. Unlike traditional forms in business, Möbius forms do not Make, Buy or Cooperate, they Co-opt assets that do not belong to them. In 2019, the author of this work proposed the term "paraphernalia", which reflects the essence of the theory, but the name is more suitable for the Global Informality Project online encyclopedia, in which it was published. The co-opting economics is a social science about the production, distribution, exchange and consumption of goods and services with non-violent, but non-cooperative appropriation of assets belonging to others to satisfy one's own needs. The original formula of the co-opting economy is: money-commodity-money with a dash and an additional commodity (good) received for free, which is produced with the help of assets belonging to other owners.
Theoretical studies were carried out using the case method.
The effect of the co-opting economy is demonstrated on the example of the Sukha Balka mine (Kryvyi Rih). The mine has shafts hoists. In the process of moving loads, hoist generate electricity that is recovered and fed back into the network. The author introduces the conditional category "Mechanics", whose asset is mine hoist, and the category "Energeticians", whose asset is power distribution networks. The additional energy resource received by the Mechanics flows through the network to the Energeticians and becomes their property. There is a co-optation of assets that do not belong to Energeticians, with the receipt of a product that they use to meet their own needs.
Such a virtual power plant does not belong to any energy company, but helps it to overcome the shortage of electricity during times of maximum load. Here, too, energy companies adhere to the economy of co-optation, because the generating assets they use are not their property.
By adopting legislative acts on the introduction of the active consumer category, the state indirectly contributes to the development of the co-optation economy.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDF (Українська)
References
Cherevatskyi D. Yu. (2019). General actors of Möbius Economy. Економіка промисло-вості. № 4 (88). С. 92-103. DOI: http://doi.org/10.15407/econindustry2019.04.092
Cherevatskyi D., Shaparovska I. (2019). Nakhlebnichestvo. Global Informality Project. Online Enciclopedia. URL: https://www.in-formality.com/wiki/index.php?title=Nakhlebnichestvo_(Russia,_Ukraine,_and_FSU) (дата звернення: 05.05. 2024).
Christian D. (1991). The Case for "Big History". Journal of World History. № 22. Р. 223-238.
Gao H., Jin T., Feng C., Li C., Chen Q., Kang C. (2024). Review of virtual power plant operations: Resource coordination and multidimensional interaction. Applied Energy. № 357. Art. 122284. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.122284
Grabher G., van Tuijl E. (2020). Uber-production: From global networks to digital platforms. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space. № 52 (5). Р. 1005-1016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X20916507
Kotliarov I. (2022). A taxonomy of business organizations: Transport industry and beyond. Transportation Research Procedia. № 63. Р. 2165-2171. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2022.06.243
Lorenz E.N. (1995). Predictability: does the flap of a butterfly's wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas? 139th Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (29 Dec. 1972), in Essence of Chaos. Appendix 1, 181.
Makris N.C. Ratilal P., Symonds D.T., Jagannathan S., Lee S., Nero R.W. (2006). Fish population and behavior revealed by instantaneous continental shelf-scale imaging. Science. № 311(5761). Р. 660-663. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1121756
Mallon E., Pratt S., Franks N. (2001). Individual and collective decision-making during nest site selection by the ant Leptothorax albipennis. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. № 50. Р. 352-359. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s002650100377
Ménard C. (2004). The economics of hybrid organizations. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics JITE. № 160 (3). Р. 345-376. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1628/0932456041960605
Miller M.B., Bassler B.L. (2001). Quorum sensing in bacteria. Annual Reviews in Microbiology. № 55(1). Р. 165-199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.micro.55.1.165
Morstyn T., Chilcott M., McCulloch M.D. (2019). Gravity energy storage with suspended weights for abandoned mine shafts. Applied energy. № 239. Р. 201-206. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.01.226
Ness I., Ovetz R., Roque I., Swidler E M., Zwick A. (Eds.). (2023). The Routledge handbook of the gig economy. London: Routledge. 550 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003161875
Stark D., Pais, I. (2020). Algorithmic management in the platform economy. Sociologica. № 14(3). Р. 47-72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1971-8853/12221
Vallas S., Schor J.B. (2020). What do platforms do? Understanding the gig economy. Annual review of sociology. № 46. Р. 273-294. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054857
Vijay R. (2018). Quorum sensing driven bacterial swarm optimization to solve practical dynamic power ecological emission economic dispatch. International Journal of Computational Methods. № 15(03). Art. 1850089. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219876218500895
Watkins E.A., Stark D. (2018). The Möbius Organizational Form: Make, Buy, Cooperate, or Co-opt. Sociologica (International Journal for Sociological Debate). № 12(1). Р. 65-80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1971-8853/8364
Williamson O.E. (1991). Comparative Economic Organization: The Analysis of Discrete Structural Alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly. № 36 (2). Р. 269-296.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15407/econindustry2024.02.042
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.