Commentary: Is the US breaking the taxi franchise mechanism after Internet companies Uber and Lyft launch Internet leasing services and profitable rides? The answer is no. Although all parts of the United States have passed legislation to set various conditions to regulate Internet taxiing companies to engage in taxi leasing and renting taxis, and to gradually standardize the profitable combination of traditional taxi operations, the United States Did not break the taxi franchise mechanism.
In the early 1970s, the United States raised a trend of anti-government control, arguing that government control "rarely can do the right thing" and relying on market mechanisms "rarely can do wrong things." The government restricts the freedom of access in an industry and does not allow the market competition mechanism to determine the price is completely contrary to the US free economy. The government pricing and industry access system will inevitably lead to waste of resources and inefficient services, while limiting the choice of services for transport services. The type and price system is even an administrative monopoly.
Even though some scholars suggested that it was the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, market failures gave rise to government access and price controls. However, under the strong impetus of this trend of thought, the United States began to partially or completely lift the control of almost all transportation services. It involves most modes of transportation such as aviation, roads and railways. The taxi deregulation campaign was also launched in this wave of free economic tide.
Those who oppose the taxi industry's regulatory policies believe that the free market is able to allocate resources most efficiently, provide taxi passengers with the best price and service mix, promote service quality and price reduction, and facilitate innovative services. This view has a crucial impact on the regulation of the taxi industry. From 1965 to 1983, 18 cities in the United States and Canada abandoned the taxi access mechanism to encourage competition and encourage innovation. However, after the relaxation of the rental controls, the number of taxis in these cities in the United States and Canada has been excessive, the driver's revenue has been greatly reduced, and some have been unable to maintain the minimum income requirements and update the vehicle requirements. Drivers continue to raise prices, picking up passengers, short-distance refusal, "detour", quality degradation and other kinds of taxi habits are even more serious. Due to the unsatisfactory deregulation effect, 14 cities including Boston, Baltimore, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, and Seattle regained the taxi control system, which also gave the initial 18 cities a quit to the taxi number control system. It is marked with a full stop. The remaining cities have also returned to taxi control ideas after a period of time.
The taxi control system is an important measure based on the characteristics of taxi services to ensure the steady development of taxis. However, if the implementation of the process of neglecting the quantitative, service quality, price, driver revenue dynamic coordination mechanism, the taxi market is also easy to form various Criticism, including contradiction between supply and demand, regional service capacity differences, price rigidity, labor conflicts, vested interests hinder adjustment. The current franchise system implemented by the “Cruise Taxi†in the country is to protect the public interest and prevent the operator from obtaining monopoly profits. After the franchise operation in the taxi market, if the dynamic quantity control mechanism is missing, it will cause contradiction to the difficulty of taxiing; if the lack of price dynamic control mechanism will cause the taxi driver's income and labor conflicts; if the lack of service quality control will result in a taxi The service level is low. There are many problems in the domestic taxi market today, which need to be improved and improved.
In contrast, the current regulatory status of taxi franchise in the United States, after the Internet companies Uber and Lyft launched Internet lease services and profitable integration platform, is the United States breaking the taxi franchise mechanism? The answer is no. Although all parts of the United States have passed legislation to set various conditions to regulate Internet taxiing companies to engage in taxi leasing and renting taxis, and to gradually standardize the profitable combination of traditional taxi operations, the United States It has not broken the taxi franchise mechanism. Of course, many cities have also reviewed the impact of the Internet on traditional taxis when formulating Internet lease control regulations, and optimized the control system (such as requiring drivers to use taxis mandatory). Software, price mechanism improvement, reduced license fees, etc.).
Uber, driven by capital power, has expanded to 277 cities around the world, and these cities have not broken the franchise mechanism of taxis. Some American cities that were not regulated in the past are still in the control. At a time when the characteristics of taxi services have not changed fundamentally, the taxi franchise mechanism is still necessary. This is a safeguard mechanism to maintain the public's ability to continue to enjoy stable and fair passenger services. However, the taxi management right under the franchise mechanism should not be a hotbed of rights and capital rent-seeking. The taxi management right should not be alienated into an investment asset and monopolize the monopoly income. This requires reform and improvement. In addition, to alleviate the difficulty of taxi taxis, poor service, single form, etc., it is necessary to improve the control mechanism, rationally locate the taxi function, dynamically evaluate the number and price of taxis, increase the number of cruise taxis in a timely manner, and vigorously develop legal car rentals and rides. . The impact of the Internet on taxis must continue to be observed, and changes in the service characteristics of taxis can determine the reform of regulatory methods.
Indoor Air Purification System
Indoor Air Purification System ,Home Air Filtration System,Air Purifier Whole House,Whole Home Air Filtration System
ZHEJIANG LIVEWELL ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY CO.,LTD. , https://www.livewellpure.com