Another Uber post I know, but I thought it might be interesting to talk about the Better Business Bureau and the prospect of regulatory capture. This New York Times article tells us that said organization just gave Uber an F (specifically in the San Francisco area). But if you look through the complaints, many of them are anonymous. Why do we assume they necessarily came from consumers, and not rival taxi drivers. As the article goes on to note, in fact, Yelp ratings are contradictory for Uber. The organization seems to have a better rating in San Francisco (3.5 stars) than in New York (only 1 star), which is interesting because I did some digging and found out that New York medallions cost more than four times what they do in San Francisco. This at least would suggest that New York taxi drivers have more incentive to put negative ratings up on Yelp.
Moreover, it is interesting that "the surge pricing" criticized by the Better Business Bureau basically just means adjusting prices to current demand (in other words, via an open market). After all, Stigler observes that price controls are an example of favorable regulation sought by firms. Moreover, the article seems even to mention rent seeking, what with the accusations that the Better Business Bureau accepts bribes for better ratings.
None of this can quite be proved, of course, and there will be sampling issues when we deal with online reviews (maybe Yelp isn't the preferred rating website in New York, maybe San Francisco's Yelp attracts only men, etc.). For that matter, it should be noted that the Better Business Bureau is not a government organization, just a consumer watchdog--though the processes will be similar. At any rate, what the BBB says seems like it may need a grain of salt.
No comments:
Post a Comment