IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/hal-02021525.html

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 - LRI - Laboratoire de Recherche en Informatique - UP11 - Université Paris-Sud - Paris 11 - CentraleSupélec - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - Centre Inria de Saclay - Inria - Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique)

  • Antonio A. Casilli

    (I3 SES - Institut interdisciplinaire de l’innovation de Telecom Paris - Télécom Paris - IMT - Institut Mines-Télécom [Paris] - IP Paris - Institut Polytechnique de Paris - I3 - Institut interdisciplinaire de l’innovation - 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 A. 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.science/hal-02021525v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-02021525v1/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, 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.
    2. 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 Publications - Reports 22284, The World Bank Group.
    3. 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.
    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. Roman Lukyanenko & Andrea Wiggins & Holly K. Rosser, 0. "Citizen Science: An Information Quality Research Frontier," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-23.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Cl'ement Le Ludec & Paola Tubaro & Antonio A. Casilli, 2019. "How many people microwork in France? Estimating the size of a new labor force," Papers 1901.03889, arXiv.org.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Fiona Charnley & Fabienne Knecht & Helge Muenkel & Diana Pletosu & Victoria Rickard & Chiara Sambonet & Martina Schneider & Chunli Zhang, 2022. "Can Digital Technologies Increase Consumer Acceptance of Circular Business Models? The Case of Second Hand Fashion," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-21, April.
    9. Paola Tubaro & Clément Le Ludec & Antonio A. Casilli, 2020. "Counting ‘micro-workers’: societal and methodological challenges around new forms of labour," Post-Print hal-02898905, HAL.
    10. Xiaochuan Song & Graham H. Lowman & Peter Harms, 2020. "Justice for the Crowd: Organizational Justice and Turnover in Crowd-Based Labor," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-37, November.
    11. 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).
    12. Austin M Strange & Ryan D Enos & Mark Hill & Amy Lakeman, 2019. "Online volunteer laboratories for human subjects research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-13, August.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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).
    16. Kevin C Elliott & Aaron M McCright & Summer Allen & Thomas Dietz, 2017. "Values in environmental research: Citizens’ views of scientists who acknowledge values," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-18, October.
    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. Sergio Alessandro Castagnetti & Sebastiano Massaro & Eugenio Proto, 2021. "The Influence of Anger on Strategic Cooperative Interactions," Working Papers 2021_05, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow.
    19. 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.
    20. Tom Meyvis & Stijn M J Van Osselaer & Dahl DarrenEditor & Eileen FischerEditor & Gita JoharEditor & Vicki MorwitzEditor, 2018. "Increasing the Power of Your Study by Increasing the Effect Size," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 44(5), pages 1157-1173.

    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:hal:wpaper:hal-02021525. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.