IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/glodps/821.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Platform Work and Economic Insecurity: Evidence from Italian Survey Data

Author

Listed:
  • Cirillo, Valeria
  • Guarascio, Dario
  • Parolin, Zachary

Abstract

The emergence of the platform economy has served as a defining feature of increasing fragmented labour markets in modern economies. Recent research on platform work, however, has struggled to quantify the socio-economic conditions of platform workers relative to other occupation groups. Moreover, it remains unclear if the socio-economic disadvantages that platform workers are likely to face are primarily channeled through lower incomes or their more precarious working conditions. This study uses representative survey data of platform workers in Italy to investigate their size, composition, and socio- economic conditions relative to individuals in other occupations. Our findings reveal that platform workers tend to be students and of younger age, but are diverse with respect to sex, educational attainment, and native-born status. We find that platform workers face greater economic insecurity relative to all other occupation classes. Strikingly, they also feature a rate of economic insecurity that is not significantly different from that of unemployed adults. Moreover, we find that the higher levels of insecurity are not primarily channeled through lower incomes; instead, higher rates of insecurity persist even when taking family incomes into account, suggesting that the precarity and volatility of platform work matter as much as income differences in shaping economic disadvantage. Results hold under analyses that account for selection into platform work. Our findings carry important consequences for understandings of the intensity and sources of socio- economic disadvantage of individuals engaged in platform work.

Suggested Citation

  • Cirillo, Valeria & Guarascio, Dario & Parolin, Zachary, 2021. "Platform Work and Economic Insecurity: Evidence from Italian Survey Data," GLO Discussion Paper Series 821, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:glodps:821
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/233011/1/GLO-DP-0821.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Valeria Cirillo & Marta Fana & Dario Guarascio, 2017. "Labour market reforms in Italy: evaluating the effects of the Jobs Act," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 34(2), pages 211-232, August.
    2. Annamaria Lusardi & Daniel Schneider & Peter Tufano, 2011. "Financially Fragile Households: Evidence and Implications," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 42(1 (Spring), pages 83-150.
    3. Bogliacino, Francesco & Codagnone, Cristiano & Cirillo, Valeria & Guarascio, Dario, 2019. "Quantity and quality of work in the platform economy," GLO Discussion Paper Series 420, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    4. Jan Drahokoupil & Agnieszka Piasna, 2017. "Work in the Platform Economy: Beyond Lower Transaction Costs," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics;Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), vol. 52(6), pages 335-340, November.
    5. Marco Caliendo & Sabine Kopeinig, 2008. "Some Practical Guidance For The Implementation Of Propensity Score Matching," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(1), pages 31-72, February.
    6. Sascha O. Becker & Andrea Ichino, 2002. "Estimation of average treatment effects based on propensity scores," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 2(4), pages 358-377, November.
    7. Kosuke Imai & Marc Ratkovic, 2014. "Covariate balancing propensity score," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 76(1), pages 243-263, January.
    8. Lawrence F. Katz & Alan B. Krueger, 2019. "Understanding Trends in Alternative Work Arrangements in the United States," NBER Working Papers 25425, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. 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.
    10. Cristiano Codagnone & Bertin Martens, 2016. "Scoping the Sharing Economy: Origins, Definitions, Impact and Regulatory Issues," JRC Working Papers on Digital Economy 2016-01, Joint Research Centre.
    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. Angela Garcia Calvo & Martin Kenney & John Zysman, 2023. "Understanding work in the online platform economy: the narrow, the broad, and the systemic perspectives," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 32(4), pages 795-814.

    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. Valeria Cirillo & Dario Guarascio & Zachary Parolin, 2021. "Platform Work and Economic Insecurity: Evidence from Representative Italian Survey Data," Working Papers in Public Economics 208, University of Rome La Sapienza, Department of Economics and Law.
    2. Cirillo, Valeria & Guarascio, Dario & Parolin, Zachary, 2023. "Platform work and economic insecurity in Italy," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 126-138.
    3. Andrea Pufahl & Christoph R. Weiss, 2009. "Evaluating the effects of farm programmes: results from propensity score matching," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 36(1), pages 79-101, March.
    4. Asad K. Ghalib & Issam Malki & Katsushi S. Imai, 2012. "Microfinance and its role in household poverty reduction: findings from Pakistan," Global Development Institute Working Paper Series 17312, GDI, The University of Manchester.
    5. Sascha O. Becker & Marco Caliendo, 2007. "Sensitivity analysis for average treatment effects," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 7(1), pages 71-83, February.
    6. Ramírez-Álvarez, Aurora Alejandra, 2019. "Land titling and its effect on the allocation of public goods: Evidence from Mexico," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 1-1.
    7. Mario A. Maggioni & Domenico Rossignoli & Simona Beretta & Sara Balestri, 2017. "Trust behind bars: a longitudinal study of inmates? prosocial preferences," DISEIS - Quaderni del Dipartimento di Economia internazionale, delle istituzioni e dello sviluppo dis1701, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Dipartimento di Economia internazionale, delle istituzioni e dello sviluppo (DISEIS).
    8. Ghisetti, Claudia, 2017. "Demand-pull and environmental innovations: Estimating the effects of innovative public procurement," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 178-187.
    9. Costa, Lorena Vieira & Helfand, Steven M. & Souza, André Portela, 2018. "No impact of rural development policies?: no synergies with conditional cash transfers?: an investigation of the IFAD-Supported Gavião Project in Brazil," Textos para discussão 489, FGV EESP - Escola de Economia de São Paulo, Fundação Getulio Vargas (Brazil).
    10. Enrico Vanino & Stephen Roper & Bettina Becker, 2020. "Knowledge to Money: Assessing the Business Performance Effects of Publicly Funded R&D Grants," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 17(04), pages 20-24, January.
    11. Marisa Coetzee, 2013. "Finding the Benefits: Estimating the Impact of The South African Child Support Grant," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 81(3), pages 427-450, September.
    12. Santosh Kumar & Ganesh Rauniyar, 2018. "The impact of rural electrification on income and education: Evidence from Bhutan," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(3), pages 1146-1165, August.
    13. Ronelle Burger & Marisa Coetzee & Carina van der Watt, 2013. "Estimating the benefits of linking ties in a deeply divided society: considering the relationship between domestic workers and their employers in South Africa," Working Papers 18/2013, Stellenbosch University, Department of Economics.
    14. Hamid R. Oskorouchi & Alfonso Sousa-Poza & David E. Bloom, 2020. "The Long-Term Cognitive and Schooling Effects of Childhood Vaccinations in China," NBER Working Papers 27217, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Manuel S. González Canché, 2017. "Financial Benefits of Rapid Student Loan Repayment: An Analytic Framework Employing Two Decades of Data," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 671(1), pages 154-182, May.
    16. Defever, Fabrice & Reyes, José-Daniel & Riaño, Alejandro & Varela, Gonzalo, 2020. "All these worlds are yours, except india: The effectiveness of cash subsidies to export in nepal," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    17. Ashok K. Mishra & Anjani Kumar & Pramod K. Joshi & Alwin D'Souza, 2018. "Cooperatives, contract farming, and farm size: The case of tomato producers in Nepal," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(4), pages 865-886, October.
    18. Sánchez-Braza, Antonio & Pablo-Romero, María del P., 2014. "Evaluation of property tax bonus to promote solar thermal systems in Andalusia (Spain)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 832-843.
    19. Manuela Deidda & Adriana Di Liberto & Marta Foddi & Giovanni Sulis, 2015. "Employment subsidies, informal economy and women’s transition into work in a depressed area: evidence from a matching approach," IZA Journal of Labor Policy, Springer;Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA), vol. 4(1), pages 1-25, December.
    20. Dan Pan, 2014. "The Impact of Agricultural Extension on Farmer Nutrient Management Behavior in Chinese Rice Production: A Household-Level Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(10), pages 1-22, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    platform work; non-standard work; economic insecurity;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J40 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Particular Labor Markets - - - General
    • J80 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor Standards - - - General
    • J81 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor Standards - - - Working Conditions

    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:zbw:glodps:821. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/glabode.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.