IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/decisn/v52y2025i3d10.1007_s40622-025-00422-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Unequal gigs: developing a scale to measure socio-economic disparities among gig workers

Author

Listed:
  • S. Ramesh

    (Tumkur University
    B M S Government First Grade College)

  • C. Shobha

    (University College of Arts, Tumkur University)

Abstract

The study aims to develop and validate a scale to measure socio-economic disparities among gig workers, focusing on key dimensions such as income stability, job security and benefits, work flexibility, and career progression and skills development. A mixed-method approach was adopted, involving interviews with gig workers to identify socio-economic constructs and generate an initial item pool. The pilot study was conducted with 50 participants, followed by a larger survey of 400 gig workers. Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were used to refine and validate the scale. The analysis identified a 30-item scale comprising four factors: income stability, job security and benefits, work flexibility, and career progression and skills development. The model exhibited a good fit, with significant relationships among the factors. The scale demonstrated strong reliability and validity. This scale can be used to assess the socio-economic challenges faced by gig workers, providing a tool for future research and policy-making aimed at addressing the disparities within the gig economy. It offers insights into income volatility, lack of benefits, and limited career advancement, especially among low-skilled workers. The study contributes to the growing literature on the gig economy by developing the first comprehensive tool to measure socio-economic inequalities specific to gig work, considering its unique structure and challenges.

Suggested Citation

  • S. Ramesh & C. Shobha, 2025. "Unequal gigs: developing a scale to measure socio-economic disparities among gig workers," DECISION: Official Journal of the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Springer;Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, vol. 52(3), pages 355-368, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:decisn:v:52:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1007_s40622-025-00422-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s40622-025-00422-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40622-025-00422-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40622-025-00422-6?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark Graham & Isis Hjorth & Vili Lehdonvirta, 2017. "Digital labour and development: impacts of global digital labour platforms and the gig economy on worker livelihoods," Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, , vol. 23(2), pages 135-162, May.
    2. Lawrence F. Katz & Alan B. Krueger, 2016. "The Rise and Nature of Alternative Work Arrangements in the United States, 1995-2015," NBER Working Papers 22667, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. repec:cdl:indrel:qt4c8862zj is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Berg, Janine., 2016. "Income security in the on-demand economy : findings and policy lessons from a survey of crowdworkers," ILO Working Papers 994906483402676, International Labour Organization.
    6. Cyrille Schwellnus & Assaf Geva & Mathilde Pak & Rafael Veiel, 2019. "Gig economy platforms: Boon or Bane?," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 1550, OECD Publishing.
    7. Richard B. Freeman & James L. Medoff, 1984. "Trade Unions and Productivity: Some New Evidence on an Old Issue," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 473(1), pages 149-164, May.
    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. Werner Eichhorst & Ulf Rinne, 2017. "Digital Challenges for the Welfare State," CESifo Forum, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 18(04), pages 03-08, December.
    2. Maria Cesira Urzi Brancati & Annarosa Pesole & Enrique Fernandez Macias, 2019. "Digital Labour Platforms in Europe: Numbers, Profiles, and Employment Status of Platform Workers," JRC Research Reports JRC117330, Joint Research Centre.
    3. Argilés-Bosch, Josep Mª & Ravenda, Diego & Garcia-Blandón, Josep, 2021. "E-commerce and labour tax avoidance," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    4. Adermon, Adrian & Hensvik, Lena, 2022. "Gig-jobs: Stepping stones or dead ends?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    5. Werner Eichhorst, 2017. "Labor Market Institutions and the Future of Work: Good Jobs for All?," Working Papers id:11689, eSocialSciences.
    6. Annarosa Pesole & Enrique Fernandez-Macias & Cesira Urzi Brancati & Estrella Gomez Herrera, 2019. "How to quantify what is not seen? Two proposals for measuring platform work," JRC Working Papers on Labour, Education and Technology 2019-01, Joint Research Centre.
    7. Francesco Bogliacino & Valeria Cirillo & Cristiano Codagnone & Marta Fana & Francisco Lupanez-Villanueva & Giuseppe A Veltri, 2019. "Shaping individual preferences for social protection: the case of platform workers," LEM Papers Series 2019/21, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    8. Chris Warhurst & Wil Hunt, 2019. "The Digitalisation of Future Work and Employment. Possible impact and policy responses," JRC Working Papers on Labour, Education and Technology 2019-05, Joint Research Centre.
    9. Michele Cantarella & Chiara Strozzi, 2018. "Labour market effects of crowdwork in US and EU: an empirical investigation," Department of Economics 0139, University of Modena and Reggio E., Faculty of Economics "Marco Biagi".
    10. Sabine Pfeiffer & Sandra Kawalec, 2020. "Justice expectations in crowd and platform-mediated work," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 31(4), pages 483-501, December.
    11. Heiland, Heiner, 2020. "Workers' Voice in platform labour: An Overview," WSI Studies 21, The Institute of Economic and Social Research (WSI), Hans Böckler Foundation.
    12. Borchert, Kathrin & Hirth, Matthias & Kummer, Michael E. & Laitenberger, Ulrich & Slivko, Olga & Viete, Steffen, 2018. "Unemployment and online labor," ZEW Discussion Papers 18-023, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    13. Agnieszka Piasna & Jan Drahokoupil, 2017. "Gender inequalities in the new world of work," Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, , vol. 23(3), pages 313-332, August.
    14. Kolade, Oluwaseun & Owoseni, Adebowale, 2022. "Employment 5.0: The work of the future and the future of work," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    15. Radosław Malik & Anna Visvizi & Małgorzata Skrzek-Lubasińska, 2021. "The Gig Economy: Current Issues, the Debate, and the New Avenues of Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-20, April.
    16. Rani Uma & Furrer Marianne, 2019. "On-Demand Digital Economy: Can Experience Ensure Work and Income Security for Microtask Workers?," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 239(3), pages 565-597, June.
    17. Kate Minter, 2017. "Negotiating labour standards in the gig economy: Airtasker and Unions New South Wales," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 28(3), pages 438-454, September.
    18. Michele Cantarella & Chiara Strozzi, 2018. "Labour market effects of crowdwork in the US and EU: an empirical investigation," Center for Economic Research (RECent) 140, University of Modena and Reggio E., Dept. of Economics "Marco Biagi".
    19. Cristiano Codagnone & Fabienne Abadie & Federico Biagi, 2016. "The Future of Work in the ‘Sharing Economy’. Market Efficiency and Equitable Opportunities or Unfair Precarisation?," JRC Research Reports JRC101280, Joint Research Centre.
    20. Ensar Balkaya & İkram Yusuf Yarbaşı & Muhammed İkbal Tepeler, 2023. "Determinants of Demand in Digital Platform-Mediated Service Work in Turkey: An Empirical Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-18, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:spr:decisn:v:52:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1007_s40622-025-00422-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.