IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2602.08955.html

Platform Design, Earnings Transparency and Minimum Wage Policies: Evidence from A Natural Experiment on Lyft

Author

Listed:
  • Rubing Li
  • Xiao Liu
  • Arun Sundararajan

Abstract

We study the effects of a significant design and policy change at a major ridesharing platform that altered both provider earnings and platform transparency, examining how it affected outcomes for drivers, riders, and the platform, and providing managerial insights on balancing competing stakeholder interests while avoiding unintended consequences. In February 2024, Lyft introduced a policy guaranteeing drivers a minimum fraction of rider payments while increasing per-ride earnings transparency. The staggered rollout, first in major markets, created a natural experiment to examine how earnings guarantees and transparency affect ride availability and driver engagement. Using trip-level data from over 47 million rides across a major market and adjacent markets over six months, we apply dynamic staggered difference-in-differences models combined with a geographic border strategy to estimate causal effects on supply, demand, ride production, and platform performance. We find that the policy led to substantial increases in driver engagement, with distinct effects from the guarantee and transparency. Drivers increased working hours and utilization, resulting in more completed trips and higher per-hour and per-trip earnings, with stronger effects among drivers with lower pre-policy earnings and greater income uncertainty. Increased supply also generated positive spillovers on demand. We also find evidence that greater transparency may induce strategic driver behavior. In ongoing work, we develop a counterfactual simulation framework linking driver supply and rider intents to ride production, illustrating how small changes in driver choices could further amplify policy effects. Our study shows how platform-led interventions present an intriguing alternative to government-led minimum pay regulation and provide new strategic insights into managing platform change.

Suggested Citation

  • Rubing Li & Xiao Liu & Arun Sundararajan, 2026. "Platform Design, Earnings Transparency and Minimum Wage Policies: Evidence from A Natural Experiment on Lyft," Papers 2602.08955, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2026.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2602.08955
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2602.08955
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. M. Keith Chen & Judith A. Chevalier & Peter E. Rossi & Emily Oehlsen, 2019. "The Value of Flexible Work: Evidence from Uber Drivers," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 127(6), pages 2735-2794.
    2. Jorge Mejia & Gloria Urrea & Alfonso J. Pedraza‐Martinez, 2019. "Operational Transparency on Crowdfunding Platforms: Effect on Donations for Emergency Response," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 28(7), pages 1773-1791, July.
    3. Meng Liu & Erik Brynjolfsson & Jason Dowlatabadi, 2021. "Do Digital Platforms Reduce Moral Hazard? The Case of Uber and Taxis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(8), pages 4665-4685, August.
    4. Gérard P. Cachon & Kaitlin M. Daniels & Ruben Lobel, 2017. "The Role of Surge Pricing on a Service Platform with Self-Scheduling Capacity," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 19(3), pages 368-384, July.
    5. Zoë B. Cullen & Bobak Pakzad‐Hurson, 2023. "Equilibrium Effects of Pay Transparency," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 91(3), pages 765-802, May.
    6. Sant’Anna, Pedro H.C. & Zhao, Jun, 2020. "Doubly robust difference-in-differences estimators," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 219(1), pages 101-122.
    7. Qiaochu Wang & Yan Huang & Stefanus Jasin & Param Vir Singh, 2023. "Algorithmic Transparency with Strategic Users," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(4), pages 2297-2317, April.
    8. Joshua D. Angrist & Sydnee Caldwell & Jonathan V. Hall, 2021. "Uber versus Taxi: A Driver's Eye View," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 13(3), pages 272-308, July.
    9. Zach Y. Brown & Alexander MacKay, 2023. "Competition in Pricing Algorithms," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 15(2), pages 109-156, May.
    10. Ryan W. Buell & Dennis Campbell & Frances X. Frei, 2016. "How Do Customers Respond to Increased Service Quality Competition?," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 585-607, October.
    11. Judd Cramer & Alan B. Krueger, 2016. "Disruptive Change in the Taxi Business: The Case of Uber," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(5), pages 177-182, May.
    12. Jonathan V. Hall & John J. Horton & Daniel T. Knoepfle, 2023. "Ride-Sharing Markets Re-Equilibrate," NBER Working Papers 30883, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Apostolos Filippas & Srikanth Jagabathula & Arun Sundararajan, 2023. "The Limits of Centralized Pricing in Online Marketplaces and the Value of User Control," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(12), pages 7202-7216, December.
    14. Ryan W. Buell & Michael I. Norton, 2011. "The Labor Illusion: How Operational Transparency Increases Perceived Value," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(9), pages 1564-1579, February.
    15. Geoffrey G. Parker & Marshall W. Van Alstyne, 2005. "Two-Sided Network Effects: A Theory of Information Product Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(10), pages 1494-1504, October.
    16. Callaway, Brantly & Sant’Anna, Pedro H.C., 2021. "Difference-in-Differences with multiple time periods," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 225(2), pages 200-230.
    17. Peter Cohen & Robert Hahn & Jonathan Hall & Steven Levitt & Robert Metcalfe, 2016. "Using Big Data to Estimate Consumer Surplus: The Case of Uber," NBER Working Papers 22627, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Feng Zhu & Marco Iansiti, 2012. "Entry into platform‐based markets," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(1), pages 88-106, January.
    19. Juan Camilo Castillo & Shreya Mathur, 2023. "Matching and Network Effects in Ride-Hailing," AEA Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, vol. 113, pages 244-247, 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. Rubing Li & Xiao Liu & Arun Sundararajan, 2025. "Platform Design, Earnings Transparency and Minimum Wage Policies: Evidence from A Natural Experiment on Lyft," Working Papers 25-09, NET Institute.
    2. Yongwook Paik & Christos A. Makridis, 2023. "The social value of a ridesharing platform: a hedonic pricing approach," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 64(5), pages 2125-2150, May.
    3. Wang, Hai & Yang, Hai, 2019. "Ridesourcing systems: A framework and review," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 122-155.
    4. Lam, Chungsang Tom & Liu, Meng & Hui, Xiang, 2021. "The geography of ridesharing: A case study on New York City," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    5. Tarduno, Matthew, 2025. "Elasticities and tax incidence in urban ridesharing markets: Evidence from Chicago," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    6. Soheil Ghili, 2021. "Optimal Bundling: Characterization, Interpretation, and Implications for Empirical Work," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2273, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    7. Soheil Ghili & Vineet Kumar, 2020. "Spatial Distribution of Supply and the Role of Market Thickness: Theory and Evidence from Ride Sharing," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2219, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    8. Soheil Ghili & Vineet Kumar, 2020. "Spatial Distribution of Supply and the Role of Market Thickness: Theory and Evidence from Ride Sharing," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2219R, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, revised Aug 2020.
    9. Yingjie Zhang & Beibei Li & Sean Qian, 2023. "Ridesharing and Digital Resilience for Urban Anomalies: Evidence from the New York City Taxi Market," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(4), pages 1775-1790, December.
    10. Zoë Cullen & Chiara Farronato, 2021. "Outsourcing Tasks Online: Matching Supply and Demand on Peer-to-Peer Internet Platforms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(7), pages 3985-4003, July.
    11. Yongwook Paik & Sukhun Kang & Robert Seamans, 2019. "Entrepreneurship, innovation, and political competition: How the public sector helps the sharing economy create value," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(4), pages 503-532, April.
    12. Soheil Ghili & Vineet Kumar, 2021. "Spatial Distribution of Supply and the Role of Market Thickness: Theory and Evidence from Ride Sharing," Papers 2108.05954, arXiv.org.
    13. Wang, Wei & Miao, Wei & Liu, Yongdong & Deng, Yiting & Cao, Yunfei, 2022. "The impact of COVID-19 on the ride-sharing industry and its recovery: Causal evidence from China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 128-141.
    14. Berger, Thor & Chen, Chinchih & Frey, Carl Benedikt, 2018. "Drivers of disruption? Estimating the Uber effect," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 197-210.
    15. Yuan, Gecheng & Lu, Weijie & Wu, Xinyi & Zhou, Li, 2025. "The gig economy and household financial vulnerability," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 94(PB).
    16. Lee, Junmin & Kim, Keungoui & Kim, Jiyong & Hwang, Junseok, 2022. "The relationship between shared mobility and regulation in South Korea: A system dynamics approach from the socio-technical transitions perspective," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    17. Cigdem Gedikli & Robert Hill & Oleksandr Talavera & Okan Yilmaz, 2025. "Online Real Estate Agencies and their Impact on the Housing Market," Discussion Papers 25-01, Department of Economics, University of Birmingham.
    18. Sun, Hao & Wang, Hai & Wan, Zhixi, 2019. "Model and analysis of labor supply for ride-sharing platforms in the presence of sample self-selection and endogeneity," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 76-93.
    19. Chiwei Yan & Helin Zhu & Nikita Korolko & Dawn Woodard, 2020. "Dynamic pricing and matching in ride‐hailing platforms," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 67(8), pages 705-724, December.
    20. Wang, Sicheng & Du, Rui & Lee, Annie S., 2024. "Ridesourcing regulation and traffic speeds: A New York case," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).

    More about this item

    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:arx:papers:2602.08955. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.