Personal Trust and System Trust in the Sharing Economy: A Comparison of Community- and Platform-Based Models.

Currently, new business models created in the sharing economy differ considerably and they differ in the formation of trust as well. If and how trust can be created is shown by a comparison of two examples which diverge in their founding philosophy. The chosen example of community-based economy, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), no longer trusts the capitalist system and therefore distances itself and creates its own environment including a new business model. It is implemented within rather small groups where trust is created by personal relations and face-to-face communication. On the contrary, the example of a platform economy, the accommodation-provider company Airbnb, shows trust in the system and pushes technological innovations through the use of platform applications. It promotes trust and confidence in the progress of technology. For the conceptual analysis, the distinction between personal trust and system trust defined by Niklas Luhmann is adopted. The analysis describes two different modes of trust formation and how they push distrust or improve trust. Grounded on these analyses, assumptions on the process of trust formation within varying models of the sharing economy are formulated as well as a hypothesis about possible developments is introduced for further research.

International comparison of minimum volume standards for hospitals.

INTRODUCTION: Minimum volume standards have been implemented in various countries for quality or safety policies. We present minimum volume standards in an international comparison, focusing on regulatory approaches, selected sets of procedures and thresholds as well as predetermined consequences of non-compliance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We combined a comprehensive literature search in electronic databases in March 2016 with a hand-search of governmental and related organisations' webpages. We also contacted international experts to verify the information we found in the literature and to obtain additional data. RESULTS: Minimum volume standards have been introduced in different countries predominantly for highly specialized surgical procedures. The same evidence has led to different definitions and ways of implementation of minimum volume standards in Germany, Canada (Ontario), the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Austria. The regulatory approaches to minimum volume standards and the predetermined consequences of non-compliance differ across the countries. CONCLUSION: The sets of procedures for which minimum volume standards and corresponding thresholds have been introduced vary across countries, possibly due to different regulatory approaches. In addition, key attributes of the health care system might affect the development and implementation of minimum volume standards. Therefore, it is not feasible to formulate uniform recommendations that are applicable to all countries. Our results provide a comprehensive overview of international minimum volume standards and can be used to inform policy decisions.