IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ipt/laedte/201901.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How to quantify what is not seen? Two proposals for measuring platform work

Author

Abstract

Digital labour platforms are defined as digital networks that coordinate labour services in an algorithmic way. The rise of digital labour platforms can reshape work organisation and tasks distribution across the workforce, posing new policy challenges. A crucial problem for the design of an adequate policy response is the lack of clear estimates of the prevalence of platform workers. This paper proposes two approaches for measuring platform work. The first approach attempts to measure platform work as individual participation in the labour force through surveys, similarly to what is done by the Labour Force Survey (LFS) for traditional employment. Given the structural differences between traditional employment and platform work, the identification of the latter through surveys should include measures that assess also the regularity, intensity and significance of platform work, with a specific focus on the task performed. The second approach aims at deriving estimates of platform work as labour input. In other words, instead of asking workers if they provide services via platform, the data can be collected from the platform itself. The vast amount of information platforms collect could be used to estimate the number of hours worked via platforms and gather more detailed evidence on wages. However, the mixed use of platforms and the ambiguous identification criteria of individuals on platforms could raise issue of double counting when measuring employment using this second approach.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:ipt:laedte:201901
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC117168
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    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. Görlich, Dennis, 2010. "Complementary tasks and the limits to the division of labour," Kiel Working Papers 1670, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    4. 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.
    5. Jonathan V. Hall & Alan B. Krueger, 2015. "An Analysis of the Labor Market for Uber's Driver-Partners in the United States," Working Papers 587, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    6. De Groen, Willem Pieter & Maselli, Ilaria, 2016. "The Impact of the Collaborative Economy on the Labour Market," CEPS Papers 11625, Centre for European Policy Studies.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Csaba Mako & Miklos Illessy & Jozsef Pap & Saeed Nosratabadi, 2021. "Emerging Platform Work in the Context of the Regulatory Loophole (The Uber Fiasco in Hungary)," Papers 2105.05651, arXiv.org.
    2. Maria Cesira Urzi Brancati & Annarosa Pesole & Enrique Férnandéz-Macías, 2020. "New evidence on platform workers in Europe: Results from the second COLLEEM survey," JRC Research Reports JRC118570, Joint Research Centre.
    3. Makó, Csaba & Illéssy, Miklós & Pap, József, 2020. "Munkavégzés a platformalapú gazdaságban. A foglalkoztatás egy lehetséges modellje? [Work on the digital platform economy. Towards a new employment model for the future?]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(11), pages 1112-1129.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Sunyu Chai & Maureen A. Scully, 2019. "It’s About Distributing Rather than Sharing: Using Labor Process Theory to Probe the “Sharing” Economy," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 159(4), pages 943-960, November.
    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. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Scott Duke Kominers & Alexander Teytelboym & Vincent P Crawford, 2017. "An invitation to market design," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(4), pages 541-571.
    8. 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.
    9. Xu, Zhengtian & Yin, Yafeng & Zha, Liteng, 2017. "Optimal parking provision for ride-sourcing services," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 559-578.
    10. 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.
    11. Valerio De Stefano & Antonio Aloisi, 2018. "European legal framework for "digital labour platforms"," JRC Research Reports JRC112243, Joint Research Centre.
    12. Bauer, Johannes M., 2018. "The Internet and income inequality: Socio-economic challenges in a hyperconnected society," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 333-343.
    13. Sutirtha Bagchi, 2018. "A Tale of Two Cities: An Examination of Medallion Prices in New York and Chicago," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 53(2), pages 295-319, September.
    14. David P. Baron, 2018. "Disruptive Entrepreneurship and Dual Purpose Strategies: The Case of Uber," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(2), pages 439-462, June.
    15. Argilés-Bosch, Josep Mª & Ravenda, Diego & Garcia-Blandón, Josep, 2021. "E-commerce and labour tax avoidance," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    16. Malo, Miguel & Cueto, Begoña, 2019. "Do old and new labour market risks overlap? Automation, offshorability, and non-standard employment," MPRA Paper 95058, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Yang, Zhuo & Franz, Mark L. & Zhu, Shanjiang & Mahmoudi, Jina & Nasri, Arefeh & Zhang, Lei, 2018. "Analysis of Washington, DC taxi demand using GPS and land-use data," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 35-44.
    18. Azzellini, Dario & Greer, Ian & Umney, Charles, 2019. "Limits of the platform economy: Digitalization and marketization in live music," Working Paper Forschungsförderung 154, Hans-Böckler-Stiftung, Düsseldorf.
    19. 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.
    20. Werner Eichhorst, 2017. "Labor Market Institutions and the Future of Work: Good Jobs for All?," Working Papers id:11689, eSocialSciences.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Digital labour platform; gig workers; technological change; work organisation; employment indicators;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ipt:laedte:201901. 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: Publication Officer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipjrces.html .

    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.