IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ecolab/v28y2017i3p382-401.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The resurgence of gig work: Historical and theoretical perspectives

Author

Listed:
  • Jim Stanford

Abstract

Digital platform businesses primarily utilise on-call contingent workers, using their own tools and equipment, to perform the productive work associated with the supplied service. The expansion of this business model has led some to proclaim that traditional ‘jobs’ will come to an end. Some welcome this development, others fear its consequences for the stability and quality of work – but most see it as driven primarily by technology, and therefore largely ‘inevitable’. This article provides historical and theoretical perspective on the expansion of digitally mediated work, to better understand the range of forces (technological, economic and socio-political) at work. It shows that the major features of platform work were all visible in earlier periods of capitalism, but they became less prominent with the rise of the ‘standard employment relationship’ in the 20th century. The rise and fall of the standard employment relationship is described with reference to the changing context for the labour extraction effort of private employers. A better understanding of the complete range of forces driving changes in work organisation, and a rejection of the assumption that they are technologically determined and hence inevitable, can inform regulatory and political responses to the rise of platform work.

Suggested Citation

  • Jim Stanford, 2017. "The resurgence of gig work: Historical and theoretical perspectives," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 28(3), pages 382-401, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:ecolab:v:28:y:2017:i:3:p:382-401
    DOI: 10.1177/1035304617724303
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1035304617724303
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1035304617724303?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Herbert Gintis & Herbert Gintis, 1976. "The Nature of Labor Exchange and the Theory of Capitalist Production," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 8(2), pages 36-54, July.
    2. Bowles, Samuel & Edwards, Richard & Roosevelt, Frank, 2005. "Understanding Capitalism: Competition, Command, and Change," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780195138658, Decembrie.
    3. Andrew Stewart & Jim Stanford, 2017. "Regulating work in the gig economy: What are the options?," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 28(3), pages 420-437, September.
    4. Iain Campbell & Robin Price, 2016. "Precarious work and precarious workers: Towards an improved conceptualisation," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 27(3), pages 314-332, September.
    5. Edwards, P. K., 1990. "The politics of conflict and consent : How the labor contract really works," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 41-61, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Spencer, David A, 2000. "The Demise of Radical Political Economics? An Essay on the Evolution of a Theory of Capitalist Production," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(5), pages 543-564, September.
    2. Farah Naz & Dieter Bögenhold, 2018. "A contested terrain: Re/conceptualising the well-being of homeworkers," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 29(3), pages 328-345, September.
    3. Victor Wong & Tat Chor Au-Yeung, 2019. "Autonomous precarity or precarious autonomy? Dilemmas of young workers in Hong Kong," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 30(2), pages 241-261, June.
    4. David Spencer, 2002. "Shirking the Issue? Efficiency wages, work discipline and full employment," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(3), pages 313-327.
    5. Peter James Holtum & Elnaz Irannezhad & Greg Marston & Renuka Mahadevan, 2022. "Business or Pleasure? A Comparison of Migrant and Non-Migrant Uber Drivers in Australia," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 36(2), pages 290-309, April.
    6. Mohammed SHARIF, 2000. "Inverted “S”—The complete neoclassical labour-supply function," International Labour Review, International Labour Organization, vol. 139(4), pages 409-435, December.
    7. Mohamed Mousa & Walid Chaouali & Monowar Mahmood, 2023. "The Inclusion of Gig Employees and their Career Satisfaction: Do Individual and Collaborative Job Crafting Play a Role?," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 1055-1068, September.
    8. John Burgess & Julia Connell, 2020. "New technology and work: Exploring the challenges," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 31(3), pages 310-323, September.
    9. Alex Veen & Tom Barratt & Caleb Goods, 2020. "Platform-Capital’s ‘App-etite’ for Control: A Labour Process Analysis of Food-Delivery Work in Australia," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 34(3), pages 388-406, June.
    10. Santana, Monica & Cobo, Manuel J., 2020. "What is the future of work? A science mapping analysis," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 846-862.
    11. Isabel Dias & Alexandra Lopes & José Azevedo & Ana Sofia Maia & João Santos Baptista, 2022. "Cleaning in Times of Pandemic: Perceptions of COVID-19 Risks among Workers in Facility Services," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-18, June.
    12. Paul Dalziel, 2019. "Wellbeing economics in public policy: A distinctive Australasian contribution?," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 30(4), pages 478-497, December.
    13. Candia, Jorge & Nilo, Joaquín, 2015. "La enseñanza de economía en una Universidad Jesuita: Un análisis comparativo," Estudios Nueva Economía, Estudios Nueva Economía, vol. 5(2), pages 73-80.
    14. Christian Koch, 2021. "Can reference points explain wage rigidity? Experimental evidence," Journal for Labour Market Research, Springer;Institute for Employment Research/ Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), vol. 55(1), pages 1-17, December.
    15. Tom Barratt & Caleb Goods & Alex Veen, 2020. "‘I’m my own boss…’: Active intermediation and ‘entrepreneurial’ worker agency in the Australian gig-economy," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 52(8), pages 1643-1661, November.
    16. Jayadev, Arjun & Bowles, Samuel, 2006. "Guard labor," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 328-348, April.
    17. Behl, Abhishek & Jayawardena, Nirma & Ishizaka, Alessio & Gupta, Manish & Shankar, Amit, 2022. "Gamification and gigification: A multidimensional theoretical approach," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 1378-1393.
    18. Jack Reardon, 2007. "Comments on 'Green economics: setting the scene. Aims, context, and philosophical underpinnings of the distinctive new solutions offered by green economics'," International Journal of Green Economics, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 1(3/4), pages 532-538.
    19. Daniel Belanche & Luis V. Casaló & Carlos Flavián & Alfredo Pérez-Rueda, 2021. "The role of customers in the gig economy: how perceptions of working conditions and service quality influence the use and recommendation of food delivery services," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 15(1), pages 45-75, March.
    20. Giulio Palermo, 2005. "Misconceptions of Power: From Alchian and Demsetz to Bowles and Gintis," Working Papers ubs0510, University of Brescia, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Digital work; gig work; labour extraction; labour regulation; standard employment relationship; work and technology;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J01 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - General - - - Labor Economics: General
    • J08 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - General - - - Labor Economics Policies
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:ecolab:v:28:y:2017:i:3:p:382-401. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.