IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/hal-02021525.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Combien de personnes micro-travaillent en France ? Estimer l'ampleur d'une nouvelle forme de travail

Author

Listed:
  • Clément Le Ludec

    (MSH Paris-Saclay - Maison des Sciences de l'Homme - Paris Saclay - UVSQ - Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines - UP11 - Université Paris-Sud - Paris 11 - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - ENS Paris Saclay - Ecole Normale Supérieure Paris-Saclay)

  • Paola Tubaro

    () (LRI - Laboratoire de Recherche en Informatique - UP11 - Université Paris-Sud - Paris 11 - CentraleSupélec - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, TAU - TAckling the Underspecified - Inria Saclay - Ile de France - Inria - Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique - LRI - Laboratoire de Recherche en Informatique - UP11 - Université Paris-Sud - Paris 11 - CentraleSupélec - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Antonio Casilli

    () (I3, une unité mixte de recherche CNRS (UMR 9217) - Institut interdisciplinaire de l’innovation - X - École polytechnique - Télécom ParisTech - MINES ParisTech - École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris - PSL - Université Paris sciences et lettres - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

Les plateformes de micro-travail allouent des tâches fragmentées à des foules de prestataires dont la rémunération peut être aussi faible que quelques centimes. Indispensables pour développer les intelligences artificielles actuelles, ces micro-tâches poussent à l'extrême les logiques de précarité déjà constatées à l'égard des travailleurs « uberisés ». Cet article propose une estimation du nombre de personnes concernées par la micro-travail en France, sur la base des résultats de l'enquête DiPLab. Nous détectons trois types de micro-travailleurs, correspondant à différents modes d'engagement : un groupe de 14.903 individus « très actifs », dont la plupart sont présents sur ces plateformes au moins une fois par semaine ; un deuxième accueillant 52.337 usagers « réguliers », plus sélectifs et présents au moins une fois par mois ; un troisième de 266.126 « occasionnels », plus hétérogènes et qui alternent entre l'inactivité et une pratique plus intensive du micro-travail. Ces résultats montrent que le microtravail a une incidence comparable voire supérieure aux effectifs des plateformes VTC et de livraison-express en France. Il n'est donc pas un phénomène anecdotique et il mérite une grande attention de la part des chercheurs, des partenaires sociaux et des décideurs publics.

Suggested Citation

  • Clément Le Ludec & Paola Tubaro & Antonio Casilli, 2019. "Combien de personnes micro-travaillent en France ? Estimer l'ampleur d'une nouvelle forme de travail," Working Papers hal-02021525, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-02021525
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02021525
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02021525/document
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Neil Stewart & Christoph Ungemach & Adam J. L. Harris & Daniel M. Bartels & Ben R. Newell & Gabriele Paolacci & Jesse Chandler, "undated". "The Average Laboratory Samples a Population of 7,300 Amazon Mechanical Turk Workers," Mathematica Policy Research Reports f97b669c7b3e4c2ab95c9f805, Mathematica Policy Research.
    2. Neil Stewart & Christoph Ungemach & Adam J. L. Harris & Daniel M. Bartels & Ben R. Newell & Gabriele Paolacci & Jesse Chandler, 2015. "The average laboratory samples a population of 7,300 Amazon Mechanical Turk workers," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(5), pages 479-491, September.
    3. Siou Chew Kuek & Cecilia Paradi-Guilford & Toks Fayomi & Saori Imaizumi & Panos Ipeirotis & Patricia Pina & Manpreet Singh, 2015. "The Global Opportunity in Online Outsourcing," World Bank Other Operational Studies 22284, The World Bank.
    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. Cloos, Janis & Greiff, Matthias & Rusch, Hannes, 2020. "Geographical Concentration and Editorial Favoritism within the Field of Laboratory Experimental Economics (RM/19/029-revised-)," Research Memorandum 014, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    2. Clément Le Ludec & Paola Tubaro & Antonio Casilli, 2019. "How many people microwork in France? Estimating the size of a new labor force," Working Papers hal-02012731, HAL.
    3. David Ronayne & Daniel Sgroi, 2018. "On the motivations for the dual-use of electronic and traditional cigarettes," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(12), pages 830-834, July.
    4. Christ, Margaret H. & Vance, Thomas W., 2018. "Cascading controls: The effects of managers’ incentives on subordinate effort to help or harm," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 20-32.
    5. Antonio A. Arechar & Simon Gächter & Lucas Molleman, 2018. "Conducting interactive experiments online," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(1), pages 99-131, March.
    6. Keela S. Thomson & Daniel M. Oppenheimer, 2016. "Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(1), pages 99-113, January.
    7. Capraro, Valerio & Schulz, Jonathan & Rand, David G., 2019. "Time pressure and honesty in a deception game," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 93-99.
    8. Jonathan Robinson & Cheskie Rosenzweig & Aaron J Moss & Leib Litman, 2019. "Tapped out or barely tapped? Recommendations for how to harness the vast and largely unused potential of the Mechanical Turk participant pool," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-29, December.
    9. Stevenson, Regan M. & Josefy, Matthew, 2019. "Knocking at the gate: The path to publication for entrepreneurship experiments through the lens of gatekeeping theory," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 242-260.
    10. Anthony M. Evans & Joachim I. Krueger, 2017. "Ambiguity and expectation-neglect in dilemmas of interpersonal trust," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(6), pages 584-595, November.
    11. Brandi S. Morris & Polymeros Chrysochou & Jacob Dalgaard Christensen & Jacob L. Orquin & Jorge Barraza & Paul J. Zak & Panagiotis Mitkidis, 2019. "Stories vs. facts: triggering emotion and action-taking on climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 19-36, May.
    12. Christian Stummer & Dennis Kundisch & Reinhold Decker, 2018. "Platform Launch Strategies," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 60(2), pages 167-173, April.
    13. Kässi, Otto & Lehdonvirta, Vili, 2018. "Online labour index: Measuring the online gig economy for policy and research," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 241-248.
    14. Cloos, Janis & Greiff, Matthias & Rusch, Hannes, 2019. "Geographical Concentration and Editorial Favoritism within the Field of Laboratory Experimental Economics," Research Memorandum 029, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    15. 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 (Seville site).
    16. Paola Tubaro & Antonio A. Casilli, 2019. "Micro-work, artificial intelligence and the automotive industry," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 46(3), pages 333-345, September.
    17. Palan, Stefan & Schitter, Christian, 2018. "Prolific.ac—A subject pool for online experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 22-27.
    18. Paola Tubaro & Antonio Casilli & Marion Coville, 2020. "The trainer, the verifier, the imitator: Three ways in which human platform workers support artificial intelligence," Post-Print hal-02554196, HAL.
    19. Muhammad Ataur Rahman & Mohammad Masudur Rahman, 2017. "Factors, Impacts, Problems and Solutions of Freelance Earning in the context of Bangladesh," Business & Entrepreneurship Journal, SCIENPRESS Ltd, vol. 6(1), pages 1-1.
    20. Logan S. Casey & Jesse Chandler & Adam Seth Levine & Andrew Proctor & Dara Z. Strolovitch, 2017. "Intertemporal Differences Among MTurk Workers: Time-Based Sample Variations and Implications for Online Data Collection," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(2), pages 21582440177, June.

    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:hal:wpaper:hal-02021525. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (CCSD). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.