Consumer-to-consumer exchanges: A goal theory approach in the timebanking context

www.elsevier.es/sjme

SPANISH

JOURNAL

OF

MARKETING

-

ESIC

ARTICLE

Consumer-to-consumer

exchanges:

A

goal

theory

approach

in

the

timebanking

context

C.

Valor

_,

_E.

_{Papaoikonomou}

_,

_C.

_{Martínez-de-Ibarreta}

a_{UniversidadPontificiaComillas,MarketingDepartment,AlbertoAguilera,23,28015Madrid,Spain}

b_{RoviraandVirgiliUniversity,MarketingDepartment,BusinessManagementFaculty,AvingudaUniversitat1,Reus,}

43204Tarragona,Spain

c_{UniversidadPontificiaComillas,StatisticsDepartment,AlbertoAguilera,23,28015Madrid,Spain}

Received30May2016;accepted28December2016

KEYWORDS Timebanks,goals; Participation; Exchangesystems; Consumer-to-consumer exchanges

Abstract Inrecenttimes,consumer-to-consumerexchangenetworkshavegainedpopularity. In theseexchangesystemsmembersmayadoptdifferentrolesasproducersorasconsumers ofproductsandservices.Furthermore,theparticipationinsuchsystemsmayaimtoachieve utilitarianorpoliticalandsocialgoals.Inthispaperwefocusonaparticulartypeof consumer-to-consumerexchangesystem,timebanking.Wepositthatgoalsinfluencedifferentformsof participationinthesenetworks:politicalandsocialgoalsdrivemembershipbuteconomicgoals leadtoexchanges.Wefindconfirmationforthisassumptioninadatasetof255self-administered questionnairestomembersofSpanishtimebanks.Inparticular,ourcontributionliesonfurther understandingthe natureandintensityofmembers’participation inconsumer-to-consumer exchangesystems,suchastimebanking,inrelationtothegoalstheyset.Weconcludethatto betterunderstandconsumer-to-consumerexchangenetworksitisessentialto,first,unbundle themembershipfromthecarried-outtransactions,andsecond,toseparatethetworolesthat membersperforminconsumer-to-consumermarketsasthegoalsattachedtothesemayvary. Politicalgoalsmaydrivemembershipbutnottransactions.

©2017ESIC&AEMARK.PublishedbyElsevierEspa˜na,S.L.U.Thisisanopenaccessarticleunder theCCBY-NC-NDlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

PALABRASCLAVE Bancosdetiempo, metas;

Participación; Sistemasde intercambio; Intercambiosentre consumidores

Intercambiosentreconsumidores:laaplicacióndelateoríademetasenelcontexto

debancosdetiempo

Resumen Enlosúltimosa˜noslosintercambiosentreconsumidoreshanganadopopularidad. Enlossistemasdeintercambiolosmiembrosadoptandiferentesrolescomoproductoreso con-sumidoresdeproductosyservicios.Además,laparticipaciónenestossistemaspuedeutilizarse paralograrmetaspolíticas,socialesofuncionales.Enesteartículonoscentramosenuntipo particulardesistemadeintercambioentreconsumidores,losbancosdetiempo.Proponemos

∗_{Correspondingauthorat:AlbertoAguilera,23,0402,28015Madrid,Spain.}

E-mailaddress:cvalor@upcomillas.es(C.Valor).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sjme.2016.12.002

2444-9695/©2017ESIC&AEMARK.PublishedbyElsevierEspa˜na,S.L.U.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBY-NC-NDlicense(http://

quelasmetasdelosmiembrosdelosbancosdetiempo afectanalasdiferentesformasde participaciónenestasredes:lasmetassocialesypolíticasestánrelacionadasconlaafiliación perolasmetaseconómicasllevanaintercambios.Confirmamosestahipótesisenunconjunto de datosde 255 cuestionarios demiembros de bancosde tiempo espa˜noles. Enparticular, nuestracontribuciónsebasaenentenderla naturalezaeintensidaddeparticipaciónenlos sistemas deintercambio entreconsumidores,como losbancosdetiempo,enrelaciónalas metas establecidaspor losmiembros.Concluimos quepara entendermejorlossistemas de intercambio entre consumidoreses esencial diferenciar enprimer lugarla afiliación delas transaccionesy, ensegundolugar,separarlosdosrolesquelosmiembrosejecutanenestos mercados yaque lasmetasasignadas acadarolpueden variar.Las metas políticaspueden guardarmásrelaciónconlaafiliaciónalosbancosdetiempoqueconlastransacciones. ©2017ESIC&AEMARK.PublicadoporElsevierEspa˜na,S.L.U.Esteesunart´ıculoOpenAccess bajolalicenciaCCBY-NC-ND(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Introduction

Inthelastfewyears,wehavewitnessedagrowingtrendof exchangingamongconsumers.Consumer-to-consumer(C2C hereafter)exchangesareeithertransformingexisting mar-kets (Giesler, 2008) or creating new markets (Scaraboto, 2015).TheseC2Cmarketscouldbethoughtofasaformof co-creationgivingriseto‘‘collaborativecapitalism’’(Cova, Dalli, & Zwick, 2011): if consumers feel they are capa-bleofproducing valueandwanttoavoidinteracting with brandsforfearofexploitation,theyturntooneanotherto exchangevalue,aphenomenonthatHumphreysandGrayson (2008) call collective production. Previous literature has examined C2C markets (e.g.Giesler, 2008; Plouffe, 2008; Scaraboto, 2015) but research is still limited, especially withregardtoparticipants’goalsandparticipationinsuch markets.Assuch,thestudyofC2Cmarketsandexchanges constitutesatimelyresearchlineformarketersinviting fur-therstudies.

In this study, we examine timebanking, one of such exchange networks among peers and a popular form of communitycurrencies(Dittmer,2013).Timebanks(TBs here-after) are nonprofit organizations hosting an exchange networkthatdoesnotusetendermoney;incontrast,there isadirectexchangeofservicesorproductsandtimeisused ascurrency(i.e.anhour’sworkforanhour’swork)(Peacock, 2006).Theirfunctioningissimple:anindividualprovides ser-vicestoanother individualearning timecredits that they maylaterusetoobtaina servicethattheyneed. Inturn, thepartyreceiving theservice hasa debtin timecredits andneedsto‘repay’thedebtbyofferingaservicetoany memberoftheTB.Inthisway,timeis‘banked’andmaybe usedwhenthevolunteerneedsit.Theseexchangesinclude avarietyofservicesandproductsfromgardeningtochild care(Seyfang,2006).

When examiningtheseexchangesystems,authorshave emphasized the political and social goals of timebank-ing and characterized it as a new social movement. For instance,Laamanen,Wahlen,andCampana(2015)defined itasalifestylemovement,thematerializationofthe every-day life politics, where lifestyle is the primarymeans of activism.Likewise,Collom(2011)pictureditasalocalsocial

movementorganizationandlinkedittotheantiglobalization andcommunitarianmovements.Also,severalauthors(e.g. Dittmer,2013;Seyfang&Longhurst,2013)position commu-nitycurrencies,amongwhichistimebanking,aswell-fitted withthedegrowthandsustainabledevelopmentparadigm. Dubois,Schor,andCarfagna(2014)alsohavegreatly empha-sized the socialrole thattimebanking plays,asitcreates social networks fostering bonding and bridging, the two mechanismsofsocialcapital.

Yet,theemphasisonthesocialand/orpoliticalpurpose oftimebankingmayhave obscuredthefactthattheyare, atthecore,exchangenetworks.TBsarecreatedtooffera spacefor exchangesofservicesbetweenindividuals,even thoughtheTBmayencourageotheractivities,suchassocial gatherings.Orotherwisesaid,theexchangenetworkmaybe instrumentalinachievingothergoals,beitpolitical,social, and/or social welfare goals (Collom, Lasker, & Kyriacou, 2012). Still, at thecore of timebanking is thecreation of amarketwherepeersexchangewithoneanother.TBsare marketsforexchangebetweenpeers,thus theyarea con-textofstudyformarketing.Moreover,traditionaldiscussions inmarketing(e.g.,howtobuildongoing relationships)are alsotimelyintheseC2Cmarkets.

SimilartootherC2CexchangenetworksinTBs,members mustenacttwoasynchronousroles:thatoftheproviderof services,andthatoftherecipient.ManyTBshavedevices andnormstoensurethattheirusersenactbothrolessuchas diligenttimecreditregistrationorthresholdsfortimedebit andcredit.Therefore,inordertounderstandthegoalsthat memberssetwiththeirparticipationinaTB,weshouldkeep in mindthat memberscould wellhave differentgoals for eachofthesetworoles.Forinstance,asaproviderof ser-vicess/hemaywanttotransformthe localeconomy,give back tothe community,or be part ofa largersystem for change. Yet,as arecipient onecould wanttoobtain ser-vicesthatonecannotafford,oracquirenewskills.Although TBsmayhaveamoresocialand/orpoliticalorientation,the doubleroleforparticipantsandthegoalsattachedtoeach roleareofinterestforotherC2Cnetworksandmarketsand thecollaborativeconsumptionliterature,asthisisafeature ofsuchmarketseveniftheydonothaveaclearpoliticalor socialorientation(e.g.,couchsurfingandAirbnb).

Furthermore,membersmayenactmoreofonerolethan the other role carrying out exchanges as providers or as recipientsbecauseitallowsthemtoachievetheparticular goalstheyseek.Forexample,thediscussionoftimebanking asapoliticalmovementcouldwellexplicatewhyuserswant tojoinaTBand,evenwhytheywanttoofferservices(the providerrole),butmaynotbesuitabletoexplainwhyusers demandservices(therecipientrole).

UnderstandingwhatgoalsTBmemberswanttoachieve throughtheirmembershipisof paramountimportance,as previousresearchhasdemonstrateddifferenttypesof par-ticipationinTBs:usersthatwillinglyofferseveralservices; yet,theydon’taskforany;usersthattakepartinorganizing committeesoringatherings/meetingsbutcarryoutlimited exchanges;usersthatjoinbutdon’tcarryoutanyexchanges (Valor&Papaoikonomou,2016).Thisreluctancetocarryout transactionsisthemainreasonwhyTBsfail(Papaoikonomou &Valor,2016).

ThispaperaimstoshedlightonthegoalsofTBusersto participateintheseC2Cnetworksandthereasonsleadingto agreaternumberofexchangesintimebanking.Bydrawing ongoaltheoryandnonprofitmotivationliteratures,weposit thatmemberswillcarryoutmoreexchangesiftheysetgoals thatwillbeachievedbydemandingservices(e.g.economic goals, or learning goals);in contrast,those members set-tingpoliticalgoalsandsocialgoalswillbelessactiveinthe exchangenetworkasthesegoalsmaybeachieved symboli-cally,bybeingjustmembersoftheTB.AccordingtoPieters, Baumgartner,andAllen(1995),goalsservetwomain motiva-tionalfunctions:first,theydirectbehaviorsbyestablishing mentalplanstoachievethedesiredend,second,theydefine theintensityofthebehavior.Therefore,drawingfromgoal theorycanenrichourunderstandingoftheparticipation pat-ternsinTBs,inparticular,andC2Cexchangenetworks,in general.

This paper builds on the growing literature on C2C exchanges by applying goal theory. In particular, our contributionliesinfurtherunderstandingtheongoing par-ticipationofmembersinalternativeexchangesystems,such astimebanking,inrelationtothegoalstheyset.Theresults ofthisstudyshowthattobetterunderstandC2Cexchange networksitisessentialto,first,unbundlethemembership fromthecarried-outtransactions,andsecond toseparate thetworoles---recipientanddonorsofservices---that mem-bersperform in peer-to-peer exchangenetworks because thegoalsattachedtothesemayvary.Ourfindingsareuseful inunderstandingnewandalternativetypesofmarketsand exchangeswhichhavereceivedlimitedattentionin market-ing.Thepaperisstructuredasfollows.First,TBsarefurther explainedandpreviousresearchontimebankingisprovided. Next,literature ongoaltheory and participationinsocial and political organizations is reviewed in relation to this study on timebanking. Third, the methodology employed isexplainedindepth.Finally,theresultsof thisstudyare presentedanddiscussed.

Antecedents:

timebanking

TBs were created in the 1980s in the US by the civil rights lawyer Edgar Cahn in response to the erosion of informalneighborhoodnetworks(Seyfang,2003).Thereare

different pillars to the philosophy of the TB paradigm (Seyfang, 2006, p. 6, see alsoCahn, 2001): ‘‘recognizing people as assets and that everyone has skills to share; redefining work to include the unpaid ‘core economy’ of work in the neighborhood and community; nurturing reciprocity and exchange rather than dependency; grow-ingsocial capital; encouraging learningand skills-sharing; involvingpeopleindecisionmaking’’.

Initially, TBs werepromoted asa tool tocreate social capitalespeciallyamongthe unemployed andthesocially excluded (e.g. the elderly, the disabled) and as a means to foster inclusion and equality (Collom, 2008; Kimmel, 2008), rather than as a challenge or an attack on the system.Asseveralauthorsadvocate(Collom,2008;Kimmel, 2008; Seyfang, 2006), timebanking tries todeal with the social problems created by the current system: the ero-sion of the Economy of Care due to the impossibility of reachingfull employment andthe criminalization or den-igration of non-paid jobs. Thanks to the participation in theseexchangenetworks,TBmemberscouldacquireskills thatcouldimprovetheiremployability,enlargetheirsocial networksfromwhichtheycouldlatergainsupportorhave accesstoservicesthattheycouldnotaffordotherwise.

Enlarging or improving social relations is probably the most characteristic objective of TBs. Similar tothe find-ings in the volunteer field (e.g. MacNeela, 2008), the TB study of Seyfang (2003) in the UK found that there are fivemain motives for joining, that go fromself-centered toothercentered:meetingownneeds,buildingcommunity capacity,improvingskills,helpingotherpeople,andbuilding socialcapital.Likewise,Miller’sworkinJapaneseTBs(2008) identifies companionship as an important motive to join, especially for those leaving the workplace. Dubois et al. (2014)findthat,forthosemembersthatwerenewintown, theneed tointegrateand‘‘meetnewpeople’’played an importantroletotheirjoiningtheTB,thuscontributingto thecreationofbondingsocialcapital.Othermotivesinclude nostalgiafor ‘‘neighborliness’’(p. 43), environmentalism, authenticityandholisticwellness.

Yet, previous research on collaborative consumption researchalsofoundthatparticipantsareguidedby differ-entmotives.Forexample,toylibrarysharingmaybeguided bothbythedesireforresistanceagainstconventional struc-turesandcommunityrelatedbenefits(Ozanne&Ballantine, 2010). Similarly, participants in organized sharing events aimtoreduceconsumptionandfostersustainable consump-tion,aswellastoenjoycommunityinvolvement(Albinsson & Perera, 2012). For Schor (2013), TBs are largely moti-vatedbythesocialconnectionencounteredandthesocial experience.Thus, the participation in these ‘‘community hubs’’(Gregory,2009)isexpectedtoservedifferentgoals asalsoconfirmedinarecentstudyonSpanishTB (Valor& Papaoikonomou,2016).

Participation

in

social

and

political

organizations

Previousworkonparticipationinsocialandpolitical orga-nizations has examined forms of participation (Holmes & Slater, 2012) and the factors influencing it (e.g. García-Mainar&Marcuello,2007).Threemainfactorsarethought

to influence participation (see a review García-Mainar & Marcuello,2007):personalmotivation,socioeconomic fac-torslikeeducationandincome,andstructuralfactors,such as other commitments and lack of time (Clary & Miller, 1986) or contextual factors such as governmental spend-ing in social welfare (García-Mainar & Marcuello, 2007). Furthermore,previousworkinnonprofitmarketinghas dis-tinguishedbetweenpassiveandactiveparticipationinterms ofparticipationintensity(Holmes&Slater,2012;Wollebaek &Selle,2002).

Although some studies have examined the relationship between motivation and participation, few studies have aimedtoestablishwhether theintensity andtypeof par-ticipationdepends onthe types of personal goals sought. Personalgoalscanbebroadlydefinedasindividualized rep-resentationsof‘‘statesoroutcomesthatonewouldliketo achieve(oravoid)’’(Ford,1992,p.248).Throughthe par-ticipationindifferentsocialnetworks,aswouldbethecase ofTB,individualsintendtoattaintheirgoals,whetherthey areself-relatedorother-related(Wollebaek&Selle,2002). Tschirhart, Mesch, Perry, Miller, and Lee (2001) con-cludedthatvolunteers’behaviorispurposefulandintendsto achievetheirlifegoals.Inaqualitativestudyofmembership organizations,Holmes andSlater (2012) suggested a rela-tionshipbetweentypeofgoalandpatternsofparticipation. Theauthorsidentifyfourbroadtypesofgoalsforjoininga membership organization:purposive, solidary, hobby, and material goals. Purposive goals are based on global con-cerns,suchaspromotingjusticeorfightingpoverty.Solidary goalsarerelatedtosocialinteractionandtheestablishment ofsocialgroups. Hobbygoals capture thelifelonginterest inthesubjectorsitesupportedbytheassociation.Finally, materialgoalsrefertobenefitsofamoretangiblenature, suchasdiscounts. The authors found thathobbyists were themostactiveparticipants,butfailtoofferarationaleto explainwhythisisthecase.

Previous work on participation in TBs has implicitly assumedthat,regardlessofthegoalsofparticipants,they will be active in the exchange network. Participation in TBs is depicted as a political lifestyle by several authors (Collom,2011;Dittmer,2013;Laamanenetal.,2015;North, 2006).Theseauthorsimplicitlyassumethat,forthe enact-mentofthislifestyle,memberswouldbeactiveinexchanges withoneanothertoobtainservices.Byexchangingoutside mainstreammarkets,theyresistneoliberalmarketplaceand breakfromthepowerrelationsinherentinthecapitalist sys-tem.Theseauthors’rationalesuggeststhatexchangingis, forthesemembers,aformofpoliticalemancipation(North, 2006);therefore,followingtheseauthorsweshouldexpect greaterparticipationformemberswithpoliticalgoals.

Likewise,memberswithsocialgoalsjointheTBasthey seeinthis alternativemarket aninstrumenttomeet new people, extend their social network, be of help to their neighborsand, inshort, nurturesocial capital by bonding anddevelopingtrustwithoneanother(Collom,2008;North, 2014).Therefore,itisexpectedthat,tomeetthesegoals, membersshouldexchangewithoneanother.Iftheydonot exchange,theywillfailtomeetnewpeopleandestablisha rapport,practicesthatarethebasisforthetrustcreation (Válek&Jaˇsíková, 2013).Thisrationale alsosuggeststhat memberswithsocialgoalsconductgreatertransactions.

Yet, thereis plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise. First, severalstudies have shown that moremembers are willing to offer services but reluctant to ask for any (Papaoikonomou & Valor, 2016). However, one of the key features oftimebanking is that itis based ongeneralized reciprocity.Thisprinciplemakestheworking of timebank-ingdifferentfromtraditionalformsofvolunteerism.Rather thandifferentiatingbetweenhelpersandhelped,volunteers andbeneficiaries,timebankingreliesonmembersadopting theroleofcoproducersbybothaskingforservicesand offer-ingtheirskills(Amanatidou,Gritzas,&Kavoulakos, 2015). Gregory(2012)referstothisphenomenonofreluctanceto askforservicesasthe‘‘credithoarding’’effectwhichleads tothecollapseof theTB,asitcreates asimilareffectto thatof‘‘lemonmarkets’’.Or,iftheTB doesnotcollapse, itisrestructuredasaspacefordebateandgroupactivities, butperson-to-persontransactionsremainlimitedor nonex-istent;theTBis reshapedintoacivilsociety spacewhere theexchangenetworkplaysamarginal,ifany,role(Valor& Papaoikonomou,2016).

Abounding on that, other work (Carnero, Martinez, & Sánchez-Mangas,2015)has shown thatthere isa correla-tionbetweenmembershipandunemploymentrateandthat demandofservicesismorerelatedtowantsandneeds.The aforementionedresearchbyCollom(2011)alsofoundthat userswitheconomicneedsengagedingreatertransactions. Takingthepreviousdiscussionintoaccount,wecontend thatmembersmayjointheTBinordertoachievedifferent goals;thetypeofgoal(goalcontent)willhaveabearingon theformofengagement.Therefore,weshoulddifferentiate betweengoalsthatcouldbeachievedbymeremembership andthosegoalsdemandingtransactionstobeachieved.

Weexpectthatthoseseekingaccesstoservicesthatthey cannot otherwise affordwill carryout more transactions. The samecouldbesaid aboutthosewithlearning-related goals(learnnewthings)because,toachievethisgoal, mem-bers must carry out transactions. In contrast,those with politicalandsocialgoals maynotconducttransactions,as theycanachievetheirgoalsbytakingactivepartinthe orga-nization(e.g.attendinggatheringsorassemblies, orbeing part of theorganizationalcommittee) but not necessarily in theexchangenetwork. Ifamember’sgoalis toprotest againstthecurrentsystemorfostersocialcapital,s/hemay jointhebankandremainasamemberwithoutconducting transactions.

Wesuggest thatmembership maybe sufficient for the enactmentofthelifestylethatmemberswithpoliticaland socialgoalsseektoaffiliatewith.Theyshowsupportforthe valuesthat the TB incarnatesbyjoining and offering ser-vices.Theircommitmentis symbolicallyrealized.Yet,for demandingservicesusersshouldexhibitothergoals,suchas learningoracquiringskillsand/orhavingaccesstoservices theycouldnotaffordotherwise.Thissymbolicsaturationof motivationby mereadherencehasalsobeen suggested in thenonprofitliterature.Forinstance,toexplainwhy volun-teersdropoutimmediatelyafterinitialtraining,ithasbeen suggestedthattheyhaveestablishedtheircommitmentto the‘idea’oftheproject(Yanay&Yanay,2008).Likewise,in volunteering,Hooghe(2003)arguedthatpassive participa-tionservestoachievegoals,buttheyfailedtospecifywhat goals.

Table1 Goalscited(wholesamplen=255).

Typeofgoal Focalgoal %

Intrapersonal

Affective Enjoy,haveafunexperience 42.6

Cognitive Learningnewthings/acquireskills 56.4

Bemorecreativeandfindnewwaysofsolvingproblems 49.5

Economic HaveaccesstoservicesthatotherwiseIcannotafford 44.0

Interpersonal

Political Beanactivememberofthecommunity 57.7

Beagoodneighbor 63.3

Helpothers 77.9

Social Protestingagainstthecurrentsystem 53.2

Showingotherstoberesponsible 42.5

Promoteequalityandjustice 54.8

Basedonthepreviousdiscussion,theguidingassumption ofthisstudyis:Memberswitheconomicandlearninggoals willcarryoutagreaternumberoftransactionsandbemore activeintheexchangenetwork;membersseekingtoachieve politicalorsocialgoalswillnotcarryoutmoretransactions norwilltheybemoreactiveintheexchangenetwork.

Method

Datacollectionprocess

Self-administeredquestionnairesweresenttoTBmembers by TBmanagers acted asgatekeepers:we asked for their cooperation in forwarding the questionnaire to TB mem-bers. The questionnaireconsisted ofsix mainpartsandit collectedinformationfor differentpurposes: (i)questions abouttheirparticipationinTB(e.g.timeoflasttransaction, frequencyoftransactions,numberofyearsasamember); (ii)goalssoughtwhentheyjoinedtheTBandlifegoals;(iii) evaluationofgoalachievementofthethreemostimportant goals;(iv)barrierstoengagementinTB(alistof15barriers basedonpreviousstudiesandontheinterviews withtime brokers);(v)sociodemographicvariablesoftheparticipant (age,gender,professionalsituation,typeofhousehold).

In regard to goals sought when joining the TB, users werepresentedwithalistofgoalsandaskedtorecalland report which ones they were intending to achieve when they joined the TB. A modified version of the Taxonomy ofHuman Goals(Ford& Nichols,1987) wasused.The list ofgoalswasshowninarandomordertodifferent respon-dentsin ordertoavoid primacyor recencybias.Although evidencesuggeststhatindividualsusuallypursueasmaller cluster of goals (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002), using a com-prehensive taxonomywill allow ustobetter identify goal content.Thetaxonomyincludesintrapersonalbutalso inter-personalgoals.Examplesofintrapersonalgoalsareaffective goals(e.g.Enjoymyself),cognitivegoals(Learnnewthings or Bemorecreativeand findways tosolveproblems) and economic goals (e.g. Haveaccess toservices thatI could not afford otherwise).Interpersonal goals comprise polit-ical goals (e.g. Protest against the current system, Show otherstoberesponsible,Promotejusticeandequality)and

Table2 Sampledescription(n=255).

Variable Categories %

Gender Men 32

Women 68

Age 18---29 11

30---49 58

50---64 27

Over65 4

Education Nostudies 0.5

Primary 4.5

Secondary 6

Intermediate 17

University 71

Typeof household

Alone 25

Couplenokids 42 Couplewithkids 23 Alonewithkids 8 Withtheirparents 2

Employment Employed 60

Unemployed 24

Student 4

Retired 9

Housewife 3

Memberofa nonprofit

No 46

Yes 54

socialgoals (e.g.Bean activememberofthecommunity, Bea goodneighbor,Helpothers).Only goals citedwitha frequencyofatleast40%wereusedinsubsequentanalysis (Table1).Thestructureofthegoalsasbelongingtothe cat-egoriesaffective,social,economic,politicalandsocialhas beenempiricallyassessedandaprincipalcomponent anal-ysis,withfivecomponentsretained,shows (afterVarimax rotation)thatgoalsareclusteredinaquitesimilarwayas proposed.

Table3 Descriptionofvariables.Estimationsample(n=159).

Numericvariables Mean Std.Dev. Min Max

Numberoftransactions 2.27 1.59 0 6

Lengthofmembership 25.29 21.04 3 90

#demandedservices 1.89 1.20 0 6

#offeredservices 1.84 1.08 0 5

Dichotomousandqualitativevariables %

Learningnewthings,acquireskills 61.0

HaveaccesstoservicesIcannotafford 46.5

Enjoy,havefun,haveaniceexperience 42.8

Bemorecreative 49.7

Protestingagainstthecurrentsystem 52.8

Showingothers 47.2

Justiceandequality 56.0

Beinganactivememberofcommunity 56.0

Beagoodneighbor 62.9

Helpothers 79.2

Retired 8.8

Women 67.3

Activeinthetimebank 55.1

Age

18---29 10.0

30---49 57.9

50---64 28.3

Morethan65 3.8

Education

Nostudies 0.6

Primary 4.4

Secondary 6.3

Intermediate 17.6

University 71.1

Sampleandsamplingmethod

In total, 255 questionnaireswere returned. There are no studiesthathavequantifiedordescribedtheuniverse(users ofTB);yet,accordingtoTBmanagers,theprototypical pro-fileoftheirTB is amiddle-aged,graduatewoman.This is alsothemostfrequentprofileinoursample(seeTable2). Comparedto totalSpanish population, oursample has an overrepresentation of women, middle-aged, highly edu-catedandmembersofNotforProfitOrganisations.

A disadvantage of the sampling method used is the self-selection; it is likely that the most committedusers will answer the questionnaire, and the uncommitted will be underrepresented. However, other sampling methods wereconsidered (e.g.handingoutthequestionnaires dur-ingmeetings, snowballsampling) and theywere likely to producesimilarresults.

21.1% oftotal respondentshave not done any transac-tioninthebank.This percentageis lowerthanthe figure putforwardbymostTBmanagers(rangingfrom40%to80% dependingontheTB).Togetherthosethathaveneverdone atransactionandthosethatdidatransactionsometimeago accountfor50%.

Models

Twomain modelswereestimated.The firstmodelaimsto test the first guiding assumption, that goal content influ-encesthenumberoftransactionsinthedirectionspecified above.Todoso,thetheoretical(andstylized)Eq.(1)has been specifiedtobeestimatedwiththeavailabledata.In thismodel,theexplanatoryvariablesarethegoalssought whenthepersonjoinedtheTB(submodel1).Control varia-bles includethe sociodemographicfeatures (submodel 2), and someindividuals featuresof individualactivity in the TB,asthenumberofservicesdemandedandoffered,and thedurationofmembershipintheTB(submodel3).

As the dependent variable, Number of transactions can be interpreted as a discrete count variable. A Pois-son regression model is proposedinstead of the standard linear regression model, in order to achieve more effi-cientestimates(Cameron&Trivedi,2013;Franses&Paap, 2001; Long, 1997). Length of membership in the TB has been includedastheexposurevariable(additionallytobe included as an explanatory variable) in order to control thedifferentchancesforhavingmadetransactions depend-ingonthat.Poissonregressionmodelshavebeenpreferred

Table4 Firstmodel:numberoftransactions.

Dependentvariable:numberoftransactions Poissonregression

Typeofgoal Explanatoryvariables Submodel1 Submodel2 Submodel3

Intrapersonal

Affective Enjoy,havefun,haveaniceexperience −0.069 −0.040 0.046

Cognitive Bemorecreative 0.019 −0.037 −0.091

Learningnewthings,acquireskills 0.016 0.011 0.003

Economic HaveaccesstoservicesIcannotafford 0.238** _0.245** _0.217** Interpersonal

Political Protestingagainstthecurrentsystem ₋0.018 ₋0.030 ₋0.112 Showingotherstoberesponsible 0.073 0.160 0.144 Justiceandequality −0.111 −0.019 0.005 Social Beinganactivememberofcommunity 0.018 0.031 −0.014 Beagoodneighbor −0.123 −0.133 −0.062 Helpothers 0.040 ₋0.067 ₋0.122

Sociodemographical Retired 0.436** _0.564***

Age −0.274*** _−0.194**

Education ₋0.020 ₋0.046

Women −0.182* _−0.088

Timebank activity

Lengthofmembership(ln) 1.439**

Squaredlengthofmembership(ln) −0.271***

#demandedservices 0.104**

#offeredservices −0.106**

Cons ₋0.320** _{0.498 −1.277}

N 200 159 159

Loglikelihood −366.525 −282.886 −273.142

PseudoR2 _{0.012 0.033 0.066}

AIC 755.051 595.772 584.284

* _p<0.10. ** _p<0.05. *** _p<0.01.

toNegativebinomialregressionmodelsbecausestatistical testshavenotshown anyevidenceagainstPoisson model-ing (i.e. there is not enough evidence toreject that the contagionparameteriszero)

P(numberoftransactionsi=x)

= e

−_ix i

x! i=exp(˛+goals␤+X␥+T␦+ε) (1) where i represents the average number of transactions

madebyindividual‘‘i’’,goalsisarowvectorofdichotomous variablesthatindicatesifagoalhasbeenchosenornotby theindividual,Xisarowvectorwhichincludesall sociode-mographiccontrolsandTisarowvectorthatincludesthe variablesrelatedtotheindividual’sactivityintheTB.␤,␥ and␦arecoefficient vectorsandεisthecommonrandom errorterm.

Asecondmodelwasestimatedtotestthesecond assump-tion:thatgoalcontentinfluencesactivityintheexchange networkinthedirectionspecifiedabove.Todoso,abinary logit model has been specified. The dependent variable, Activity in the research network, is measured using the answertothequestion onthefrequencyofthelast trans-actionasaproxy.Theoriginalvariablewasconvertedinto adichotomous variable,being0 (Neveror Some timeago

and1(Inthelastmonth).Inthiscase,inordertotestthe robustnessof theresults,threesubmodelshave beenalso estimated:onlygoals(submodel 1);goalsplus sociodemo-graphiccontrols(submodel2);andwiththeadditionofTB activityvariables(submodel3).

Eq.(2)showsthecompleteequationproposed:

P(activei=1)= e zi

1+ezi zi=˛+goals␤+X␥+T␦+ε (2)

Measures

Thevariablesusedineachofthesemodelsweremeasured asfollows.

Numberoftransactions.Thedependent variableisthe numberoftransactionsdoneinthelastyear,rangingfrom0 (None)to6(3perweek).

Typeofgoals.Asexplainedabove,themostcitedgoals were retained for the analysis. In particular, learning, economic, intrapersonal, social and political goals were includedinthemodel,asperthenumberofcites(Table1).

Table5 Secondmodel:activityintheexchangenetwork.

Dependentvariable:beingactiveatthetimebank(1:yes/0:no) Binarylogitmodel

Typeofgoal Explanatoryvariables Submodel1 Submodel2 Submodel3

Intrapersonal

Affective Enjoy,havefun,haveaniceexperience −0.161 −0.088 0.238

Cognitive Bemorecreative −0.176 −0.069 −0.123

Learningnewthings,acquireskills ₋0.172 0.207 0.081

Economic HaveaccesstoservicesIcannotafford 0.637** _0.736** _0.0741** Interpersonal

Political Protestingagainstthecurrentsystem 0.293 0.297 0.268 Showingotherstoberesponsible 0.290 0.291 0.133 Justiceandequality −0.398 −0.495 −0.403 Social Beinganactivememberofcommunity 0.288 0.000 −0.190 Beagoodneighbor −0.369 −0.256 −0.183

Helpothers 0.525 0.117 0.064

Sociodemographical Retired 0.297 0.904

Age −0.153 −0.221

Education ₋0.421 ₋0.532

Women −0.253 −0.149

Timebank activity

Lengthofmembership(ln) 3.561**

Squaredlengthofmembership(ln) −0.621**

#demandedservices 0.392**

#offeredservices −0.297*

Cons ₋0.286 2.42 ₋1.94

N 212 169 160

Loglikelihood −140.432 −110.126 −97.599 PseudoR2_{McFadden 0.040 0.055 0.110}

AIC 302.864 250.252 233.199

* _p<0.10. **_p<0.05.

Numberofservicesdemanded/offered. Thenumber of servicesdemandedandthenumberofferedhavebeenalso includedascomplementaryindicators.

LengthofmembershipintheTB:respondentswereasked the year and month they joined the TB. In the model, the number of months was introduced, together with a quadratic term,in ordertocapture possible non-linearity effects(invertedU-shaped)onbothnumberoftransactions andprobabilityofbeingactiveinthe TB.The logarithmic transformationwas usedtocompress their wide rangeof variationandhighpositiveskewness.

Sociodemographicfeatures:sex,age,professionalstatus (retiredor not), andeducation level.Age and education, althoughmeasured inan ordinalscale, havebeen treated asquantitative variables in the models, in order tokeep controlsassimpleaspossible.Unfortunately,thenationality wasnotrequested.However,asthestudywasconductedin Spain,wecanassumethatthedynamicsofengagementin TBarestructuredbySpanishculture.1

1_{Differences accordingto the type of TBand/or region were} testedbutnosignificantresultswereobtained.

Findings

Table3showsthemaindescriptivestatisticsofthevariables usedinestimationsampleofthesubmodel3(n=159)(that whichusesallthevariables).

Table4showstheestimatesof thefirstmodel.Table5 showstheestimatesofthesecondmodel.Itshouldbenoted that,inPoissonandLogitmodels,theusualinterpretation ofcoefficientsasmarginaleffectscannotbedirectlydone (Long,1997).However,totestthehypotheses,itissufficient toassessthesignandthesignificanceoftheparameters.The LoglikelihoodandAICindicatorsandthegrowingpseudoR2 inbothmodelsprovideevidenceofthegreaterexplanatory powerandsignificanceofthethirdsubmodel;thatis,thisis theonetobeinterpreted.Itshouldbenoticedthatthefocal variablesareconsistentlysignificantacrosssubmodels.

Theresultsofboth modelsarerathercoincident;thus, they will be interpreted together. As expected, having economic goals influences positively participation in the exchange network, as there is a positive and significant relationship betweenthisgoalandnumberof transactions (model 1) and between this goal and being active in the exchangenetwork(model2).Yet,thereisnosignificant rela-tionshipbetweenlearninggoalsandnumberoftransactions

or activityin thenetwork. Also,the relationshipbetween theinterpersonalgoalsandparticipationisnon-significant; thosewithpoliticalandsocialgoalsdonotcarryoutmore transactions,noraretheymoreactiveinthenetwork.

As a confirmation of previous results, the greater the number of demanded services,the greater the participa-tion; however, the number of services offerednegatively influences participation, either measured in number of transactions(model1)orinactivity(model2).

Length of membership (log) presents a significantly inverted U-shaped relationship with both the number of transactionsandtheprobabilityofbeingactiveintheTB. Thisshouldbeinterpretedinthefollowingway:an individ-ualmademoretransactionsandismoreactiveintheTBat thebeginningoftheirmembership,butaftersomemonths, themoretimeintheTB,thefewertransactionsamember made (or his or her probability of being an active mem-berwaslessened).Thethresholdvaluewheretheeffectof lengthofmembershipchangesitssigncanbeestimatedfrom both models(as exp[−blength/(2*bsquaredlength)]) andtakes a valueof14.2months(numberoftransactionsmodel)or17.6 months(activitymodel).

Inregardtothesociodemographicvariables,resultsare differentinbothmodels.Inthefirstmodel,agehasa neg-ativeandsignificanteffectonnumberoftransactions;also thoseretiredcarryoutmoretransactionsintheTB.Miller’s study(2008)foundthatbeingretiredhadasignificantand positive influence on participation in Japanese TB, since recentlyretiredindividualswerehighlymotivatedto partic-ipate.Intheircase,individualsafterretirementwerefound withmoreavailabletimetospend,emptyschedulestofill in and experiencein a number of skills. TB may function forthemasasmoothertransitiontoanewlifestyleby par-ticipatinginacommunity,meetinglikewiseindividualsand exercisingskillsthatmakethemfeelusefulandconfident. Theonlyexplanationtoreconcilebothfindingsisthatthose thatretirebeforetheirduetimearemorelikelytocarryout exchanges.

Conclusion

This paperhas contributed to the literature on nonprofit marketing and alternative markets by offering additional evidencethatthereisarelationshipbetweengoalcontent andtypeofparticipation.Theproposedrationaleforsucha relationshiphasbeenpartiallysupported.Wecandraw dif-ferentconclusionsfromtheresultsofthisstudythatexplain participationinTBinthelightofgoaltheories.

First,thisstudyhasidentifiedthemaingoalsthat indi-vidualssetinrelationtotheirjoiningaTB.Itisimportant tonotethatusersprincipallyjoinTBsnotforeconomic rea-sons,butinordertofeelpartofacommunity,topromote equalityandfairness,andtolearnor developskills. How-ever,notallthesegoalsareequallyrelatedtoparticipation intheexchangenetwork.

Although members may join the TB seeking political goals,thefrequencyofexchangesisexplainedby intraper-sonalorself-orientedgoals;usersconductmoretransactions iftheyobtainamaterialgain.Inlinewithsocialexchange theory, it is found that participants are interestedin the instrumental value and the individual returns that the

transactions in TB represent (Mölm, 2003). Thus, those willingtoreceiveservicesaremorelikelytobeactive par-ticipants. Ozanne and Ozanne (2011) confirm this, since the participants in their study do not want to be found in a dependency position and prefer to accumulate time priortospending it,which assimilatesto traditional mar-ketexchanges.Thisisalsoconsistentwithpreviousstudies of participation in schemes of collaborative consumption (Bardhi&Eckhardt,2012).Userswithhighscoresin polit-ical/social goals are not more active in the exchange network,whichcontradictstheexistingdescription inthe literatureontimebanking.

To improveTBs’functioningandefficiency,it is impor-tant to better communicate their instrumental value to existingand potential members without diminishing their social value. TBs can benefit from new technologies and socialnetworks.Indeed,agreaternumberofTBstendsto digitaliseexchanges but alsoapps could bedeveloped to facilitateexchanges.

From a marketing point of view, TBs may be consid-ered alternative or marginal markets when compared to mainstreammarkets; however, C2C exchange networksin generalarebecomingmorewidelyprevalentandofinterest for marketers (Plouffe, 2008). In the growing collabo-rative consumption field, a number of both commercial andsocially-orientedinitiativeshaveemergedbasedonC2C structures.Ourresultshaveimplicationsfortheseother ini-tiativesaswell.Forexample,usersofAirbnbmaybothbe consumersandprovidersoflodgingbutthegoalstheyseek throughtheirparticipationmaybedifferent,basedontheir role.InordertobetterunderstandC2Cexchangenetworks, itisessentialto, first,unbundlethemembershipfromthe carried-outtransactions, and second toseparate the two rolesthatmembersperforminC2Cexchangenetworks,as recipientand donorsofservices, asthe goals attachedto thesemayvary.Understandingwhatdrivesongoing relation-shipsinC2Cmarketsisakeycontributionofthisstudy.

Thisstudyhasotherimplications;belowwediscussthe possibilitiesofcommercialuseofTB,byputting timebank-inginthecontextofcollaborativeeconomy,aswellasthe useofnon-conventionalcurrenciesbycommercial organiza-tions.ConsideringthehighmortalityrateofTBsandtaking into account the political-social approach that most TBs adopt,thereareopportunitiesformoremarketing-oriented organizationsentering these typesof markets topromote TBasaspaceforexchanges,appealingtothosewithmore economicgoals. The entryofmorecommercially-oriented organizationsmaybesupportedbydevices,suchasappsor websites,thatmayextendthebaseofusersandfacilitate exchanges.

According to a recent PricewaterhouseCoopers report, althoughthecollaborativeeconomysectorrepresentedonly 5% of total revenue in 2013, its contribution will rise to about50%in2025sharingprofitswiththetraditionalrental sector(PwC,2014).SuchprojectionsmeanthatC2C struc-turesmay constitute a threat for companies that do not takethemintoaccount.Forexample,Zervas,Proserpio,and Byers(2014)provideempiricalevidencethatAirbnbhashad anegativeimpactonlocalhotelrevenuesandthat,beyond theeconomicimpact,collaborativeconsumptionischanging consumptionpatternsandhabits.Thisalsoprovidesfurther justificationsforresearchontheparticularitiesoftheC2C

structures,onusers’changingrolesinthesestructures,their goalsandmotivations.

Indeed, many firms arecreating marketplaces for C2C exchangesindifferentdomainssuchasaccommodation(e.g. Airbnb),transportation(e.g.carsharing),credit(Fixura)or products(e.g.Wallapop).Also,therearecommercial play-ers, such as TaskRabbit, which bring together consumers to get tasks done for a fee. However, the participation of commercially-oriented firms in timebanking has been limited.Companies,suchasViceroyandInfojobs, created TBfortheirusers,buttheseTBswerenotatthecoreoftheir offer.Incontrast,therehavebeenothercommercial incur-sionsinalternativemarketswiththeuseofotherformsof communitycurrencieswherebothconsumersandcompanies canparticipate(seetheBrixtonpoundcase).Thisisthecase ofMercadoSocialinMadrid,whereuserscanpaypartially withacommunitycurrency.Therearenotyet commercially-orientedfirmsormarketssustainedbytheexchangeoftime. Probablythelimitationsoftimeasanalternativecurrency, alreadyreportedbyValorandPapaoikonomou(2016),could explainit.Also,thelimitedpossibilitiesofmonetizationin timebankingmaydetermorecommercially-oriented organi-zationsfromfosteringsuchC2Cexchangenetworks.

TBsarestillmarginalasaforementioned.However, grow-ingparticipationinnot-for-profitTBs,alternativecurrencies and other for-profit collaborative initiatives can change consumer habitus normalizing participation in C2C struc-tures to satisfy their needs. As consumers learn and get socializedinthesharingeconomy,exchangesofthissortmay increase. Furthermore, hybrid models could be explored, promotedbybothnonprofitandcommercialorganizations, wherepaymentscanbedoneinbothtimeandconventional money.

Further research is necessary in order to understand motivationto participatein TBs or, more general,in col-laborativenonprofits.Futurestudiesshouldunderstandthe goalcontentandstructureassociatedwithbothrolesofTB’s usersandtheinfluenceofthisgoalstructureon participa-tion.Moreover,theconceptofprosumersisbecomingmore relevant tocompanies; consumers and companiesare co-participatinginvaluecreation.Thus,itisatimelyresearch line tounderstand consumers’ goals in theprocess of co-creationofvalue.

Conflict

of

interest

None.

References

Albinsson,P.A.,&Perera,B.(2012).Alternativemarketplacesinthe 21stcentury:Buildingcommunitythroughsharingevents. Jour-nalof Consumer Behaviour, 11, 303---315. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/cb.1389

Amanatidou,E.,Gritzas,G.,&Kavoulakos,K.I.(2015).Timebanks, co-production and foresight: Intertwined towards an alter-native future. Foresight, 17(4), 308---331. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1108/FS-05-2014-0035

Bardhi,F.,&Eckhardt,G.M.(2012).Access-basedconsumption:The caseofcarsharing.JournalofConsumerResearch,39,881---898.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/666376

Cahn,E.S.(2001).OnLETSandtimedollars.International Jour-nalofCommunityCurrencyResearch,5,1---4.https://ijccr.files. wordpress.com/2012/05/ijccr-vol-5-2001-2-cahn.pdf

Cameron,A.,&Trivedi,P.(2013).Regressionanalysisofcountdata

(2nded.).Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Carnero, M. A., Martinez, B., & Sánchez-Mangas, R. (2015). Explaining transactions in time banks in economic crisis. AppliedEconomicsLetters,22(9),739---744.http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/13504851.2014.975323

Clary,E.G.,&Miller,J.(1986).Socializationandsituational influ-encesonsustainedaltruism.ChildDevelopment,57,1358---1369.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1130415

Collom, E. (2008). Engagement of the elderly in time bank-ing: The potential for social capital generation in an aging society. Journal of Aging and Social Policy, 20(4), 414---436.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08959420802186282

Collom, E. (2011). Motivations and differential participation in a community currency system: The dynamics within a local socialmovementorganization.SociologicalForum,26,144---168.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1573-7861.2010.01228.x

Collom, E.,Lasker, J.,& Kyriacou, C.(2012).Equaltime, equal value:CommunitycurrenciesandtimebankingintheUS.

Wash-ington:AshgatePublishing.

Cova, B., Dalli, D., & Zwick, D. (2011). Critical perspectives onconsumers’roleas‘producers’: Broadeningthedebate on valueco-creationinmarketingprocesses.MarketingTheory,11, 231---241.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1470593111408171

Dittmer, K. (2013). Local currencies for purposive degrowth? A qualitycheckofsomeproposalsforchanging money-as-usual. Journal of Cleaner Production, 54, 3---13. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.03.044

Dubois,E.A.,Schor,J.B.,&Carfagna,L.B.(2014).Newculturesof

consumptioninaBostontimebank.InJ.B.Schor,&C.J.

Thomp-son(Eds.),Sustainablelifestylesandthequestforplenitude:

Casestudiesoftheneweconomy(pp.95---123).NewHaven:Yale

UniversityPress.

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs val-ues and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109---132.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153

Ford,M.E.(1992).Motivatinghumans.Goal,emotionsandpersonal agencybeliefs.NewburyPark,CA:SagePublishing.

Ford,M.E.,&Nichols,C.W.(1987).Ataxonomyofhumangoalsand

somepossibleapplications.InM.E.Ford,&D.H.Ford(Eds.),

Humansasself-constructingsystems:Puttingtheframeworkto

work(pp.289---311).Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.

Franses,P.H.,&Paap,R.(2001).Quantitativemodelsinmarketing research.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

García-Mainar, I., & Marcuello, C. (2007). Members, volun-teers, and donors in nonprofit organizations in Spain. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36, 100---120.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0899764006293179

Giesler, M. (2008). Conflict and compromise: Drama in market-placeevolution.Journalof ConsumerResearch, 34, 739---753.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/522098

Gregory, L. (2009). Spending time locally: The benefit of time banks for local economies. Local Economy, 24(4), 323---333.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02690940903026852

Gregory,L.(2012).Improvinghealththroughparticipation: Time-banksasasiteforco-production(Ph.D.dissertation).Cardiff:

SchoolofSocialSciences.

Holmes,K.,&Slater,A.(2012).Patternsofvoluntaryparticipation inmembershipassociations. AstudyofUKheritagesupporter groups.NonprofitandVoluntarySectorQuarterly,41,850---869.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0899764011420881

Hooghe,M.(2003).Participationinvoluntaryassociationsandvalue indicators: The effect of current and previous participation experiences.NonprofitandVoluntarySectorQuarterly,32(1), 47---69.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0899764003251198

Humphreys, A.,& Grayson, K. (2008). The intersecting roles of consumerandproducer:Acriticalperspectiveonco-production, co-creationandprosumption.SociologyCompass,2,963---980.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00112.x

Kimmel,S.D.(2008).Beyondvolunteerism:Timebankingasa

cat-alystforcommunityandeconomicregeneration.SocialPolicy,

(Fall),4---9.

Laamanen,M.,Wahlen,S.,&Campana,M.(2015).Mobilising col-laborativeconsumptionlifestyles:Acomparativeframeanalysis oftimebanking.InternationalJournalofConsumerStudies,39, 459---467.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12190

Long,J.S.(1997).Regressionmodelsforcategoricalandlimited dependentvariables.ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications.

MacNeela,P.(2008).Thegiveandtakeofvolunteering:Motives, benefits,andpersonalconnectionsamongIrishvolunteers. Vol-untas:InternationalJournalofVoluntaryandNonprofit Organi-zations,19(2),125---139.http://www.jstor.org/stable/27928112

Miller,J.(2008).Bothborrowersandlenders:Timebanksandthe agedinJapan(Ph.D.dissertation).Sydney:AustralianNational University.

Mölm, L. D. (2003). Theoretical comparisons of forms of exchange. Sociological Theory, 21, 1---17. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/1467-9558.00171

North,P.(2006).Alternativecurrency movementsasachallenge to globalisation?Acase studyof Manchester’slocalcurrency networks.Aldershot:AshgateEconomicGeographySeries.

North, P. (2014). Complementary currencies. In M. Parker, G.

Cheney,V.Fournier,&C.Land(Eds.),TheRoutledgecompanion

toalternativeorganization(pp.182---195).London:Routledge.

Ozanne, L. K.,& Ballantine, P. W. (2010). Sharing as a form of anti-consumption?An examination of toy library users. Jour-nalofConsumerBehaviour,9(6),485---498.http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/cb.334

Ozanne,L.K.,&Ozanne,J.L.(Eds.).(2011).Buildingthestrength

oflocalcommunitythroughtimebankexchanges.InThesocial

negotiationofnewtransitionalformsofexchange:From envi-ronmentalcritiquetocommunitybuilding.EuropeanAdvances inConsumerResearch(p.9).Washington:AMA.

Papaoikonomou,E.,&Valor,C.(2016).Exploringcommitmentin

peer-to-peerexchanges:Thecaseoftimebanks.Journalof

Mar-ketingManagement,32(13/14),1333---1358.

Peacock, M. S. (2006). The moral economy of parallel cur-rencies: An analysis of local exchange trading systems. AmericanJournalofEconomicsandSociology,65,1059---1083.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1536-7150.2006.00491.x

Pieters, R., Baumgartner, H., & Allen, D. (1995). A means-end chainapproachtoconsumergoalstructures.International Jour-nalofResearchinMarketing,12,227---244.http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/0167-8116(95)00023-U

Plouffe, C. R. (2008). Examining peer-to-peer (P2P) sys-tems as consumer-to-consumer (C2C) exchange. European

Journal of Marketing, 42, 1179---1202. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1108/03090560810903637

PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2014). The sharing economy. Seizing the revenue opportunity.. Available: http://www.pwc.co. uk/issues/megatrends/collisions/sharingeconomy/the-sharing-economy-sizing-the-revenue-opportunity.html

Scaraboto, D. (2015). Selling, sharing, and everything in between: The hybrid economies of collaborative networks. Journal of Consumer Research, 42, 152---176. http://dx.doi. org/10.1093/jcr/ucv004

Schor,J.B.(2013).Fromfastfashiontoconnectedconsumption:

Slowingdownthespendingtreadmill.InN.Osbaldiston(Ed.),

Cultureoftheslow:Socialdecelerationinanacceleratedworld

(pp.34---51).Basingstoke,UK:PalgraveMacmillan.

Seyfang,G.(2006). Sustainable consumptiontheneweconomics and community currencies: Developing new institutions for environmental governance. Regional Studies, 40, 781---791.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00343400600959173

Seyfang, G., & Longhurst, N. (2013). Growing green money? Mapping community currencies for sustain-able development. Ecological Economics, 86, 65---77.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.11.003

Seyfang,G.J.(2003).Growingcohesivecommunitiesonefavourat atime:Socialexclusion,activecitizenshipandtimebanks. Inter-nationalJournalofUrbanandRegionalResearch,27,699---706.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.00475

Tschirhart, M., Mesch, D. J., Perry, J. L., Miller, T. K., & Lee, G. (2001). Stipended volunteers: Their goals, expe-riences, satisfaction, and likelihood of future service. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30, 422---443.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0899764001303002

Válek, L., & Jaˇsíková, V. (2013). Time bank and sustaina-bility: The permaculture approach. Procedia --- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 92, 986---991. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.788

Valor, C., & Papaoikonomou, E. (2016). Timebanking in Spain: Exploring their structure, management and users’ pro-file. Revista Internacional de Sociología, 74(1), 1---14.

http://dx.doi.org/10.3989/ris.2016.74.1.028

Wollebaek,D.,&Selle,P.(2002).Doesparticipationinvoluntary associationscontributetosocialcapital?Theimpactofintensity, scope,andtype.NonprofitandVoluntarySectorQuarterly,31, 32---61.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0899764002311002

Yanay, G. V., & Yanay, N. (2008). The decline of moti-vation? From commitment to dropping out of volunteer-ing. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 19(1), 65---78.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nml.205

Zervas,G.,Proserpio, D.,&Byers,J.W. (2014).Theriseofthe sharingeconomy:EstimatingtheimpactofAirbnbonthehotel industry. Boston University School of Management Research PaperSeriesNo.2013-16.