IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v12y2023i10p579-d1263057.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Socio-Labour Inclusion of Low-Income Women in the Digital Economy: A Comparison between Corporate and Cooperative Domestic Work Platforms

Author

Listed:
  • Denise Kasparian

    (Faculty of Social Sciences, Gino Germani Research Institute, University of Buenos Aires, National Scientific and Technical Research Council, Buenos Aires C1114AAD, Argentina)

  • Agustina Súnico

    (Faculty of Social Sciences, Gino Germani Research Institute, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires C1114AAD, Argentina)

  • Julieta Grasas

    (Faculty of Social Sciences, Gino Germani Research Institute, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires C1114AAD, Argentina)

  • Julia Cófreces

    (Department of Philosophy, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires C1406CQJ, Argentina)

Abstract

It is often argued that digital labour platforms entail an expansion of opportunities for women for several reasons. They facilitate the balance between paid work and household chores as a result of time flexibility, they eliminate entry and permanence barriers for typically male work sectors, they enable economic independence, and they favour the creation of professional networks. Several studies, however, have shown that the wage gap, the sexual division of labour, occupational segregation, and gender stereotypes still persist. Hence, to what extent do the new forms of labour mediated by digital platforms lead to an expansion of opportunities for women? This article analyses the socio-labour inclusion of low-income women in digital labour platforms by contrasting the model of corporate platforms against the emerging alternative of platform cooperatives. The movement of platform cooperativism advocates for the creation of platform companies based on democratic ownership and governance models that reduce inequalities in a broad sense. The methodological approach is based on the comparison of two platforms: Zolvers, which was founded in 2013 with headquarters in Argentina and which operates as an intermediary or marketplace between those who offer and those who require home cleaning services, and Up & Go, which was founded in 2017 in New York and is owned by six worker cooperatives that use the platform to offer various services on demand, particularly home cleaning services. Whereas Zolvers offers job opportunities with possibilities of formalisation but no guarantee of stability, Up & Go is owned and managed by worker cooperatives that seek to guarantee living wages for their worker-members. Concerning working conditions, Zolvers reproduces power asymmetries of domestic work, subordinating workers to the platform and the hirers. On the contrary, Up & Go empowers women workers to decide on their schedules and hirers, among other issues. Finally, whereas Zolvers does not enable the participation of workers either in governance or in technology design, the cooperative nature of Up & Go promotes their involvement.

Suggested Citation

  • Denise Kasparian & Agustina Súnico & Julieta Grasas & Julia Cófreces, 2023. "Socio-Labour Inclusion of Low-Income Women in the Digital Economy: A Comparison between Corporate and Cooperative Domestic Work Platforms," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-18, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:12:y:2023:i:10:p:579-:d:1263057
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/12/10/579/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/12/10/579/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cody Cook & Rebecca Diamond & Jonathan V Hall & John A List & Paul Oyer, 2021. "The Gender Earnings Gap in the Gig Economy: Evidence from over a Million Rideshare Drivers [Measuring the Gig Economy: Current Knowledge and Open Issues]," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 88(5), pages 2210-2238.
    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. Committee, Nobel Prize, 2023. "Scientific Background to the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2023," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2023-2, Nobel Prize Committee.
    2. Julian Kolev & Yuly Fuentes-Medel & Fiona Murray, 2019. "Is Blinded Review Enough? How Gendered Outcomes Arise Even Under Anonymous Evaluation," NBER Working Papers 25759, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Chen, Xinwei & Wang, Tong & Thomas, Barrett W. & Ulmer, Marlin W., 2023. "Same-day delivery with fair customer service," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 308(2), pages 738-751.
    4. Fangzhi Wanga & Hua Liao & Richard S.J. Tol, 2023. "Baumol’s Climate Disease," Working Paper Series 0723, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    5. Chen Liang & Yili Hong & Bin Gu & Jing Peng, 2018. "Gender Wage Gap in Online Gig Economy and Gender Differences in Job Preferences," Working Papers 18-03, NET Institute.
    6. Mosquera, Roberto, 2024. "Stuck in traffic: Measuring congestion externalities with negative supply shocks," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    7. David P. Baron, 2018. "Disruptive Entrepreneurship and Dual Purpose Strategies: The Case of Uber," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(2), pages 439-462, June.
    8. Bari Lauren, 2020. "Who are solo self-employed women? Analysis of the trends and characteristics of solo self-employed women in Ireland 2003–2019," The Irish Journal of Management, Sciendo, vol. 40(1), pages 42-60, July.
    9. Peter Blair & Benjamin Posmanick, 2023. "Why Did Gender Wage Convergence in the United States Stall?," Working Papers 2023-001, Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group.
    10. Hu, Youxin & Huang, Shaoqing & Jiang, Ming & Xu, Xiaoshu, 2024. "Traffic violations and economic preferences: Evidence from full-time drivers of a large transportation network company in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    11. Peter T. Calcagno & Meg M. Montgomery, 2021. "The gender wage gap: an analysis of US congressional staff members," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 188(1), pages 183-201, July.
    12. Andreas Menzel & Christopher Woodruff, 2019. "Gender Wage Gaps and Worker Mobility: Evidence from the Garment Sector in Bangladesh," NBER Working Papers 25982, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. 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.
    14. Oliver Alexander & Jeff Borland & Andrew Charlton & Amit Singh, 2022. "The Labour Market for Uber Drivers in Australia," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 55(2), pages 177-194, June.
    15. Spencer Bastani & Thomas Giebe & Oliver Gürtler, 2023. "Overconfidence and Gender Equality in the Labor Market," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 220, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    16. Gerber, Christine, 2022. "Gender and precarity in platform work: Old inequalities in the new world of work," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 37(2), pages 206-230.
    17. Popan, Cosmin & Anaya-Boig, Esther, 2021. "The intersectional precarity of platform cycle delivery workers," SocArXiv tk6v8, Center for Open Science.
    18. Ausseil, Rosemonde & Ulmer, Marlin W. & Pazour, Jennifer A., 2024. "Online acceptance probability approximation in peer-to-peer transportation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    19. John List, 2021. "2021 Summary Data of Artefactual Field Experiments Published on Fieldexperiments.com," Artefactual Field Experiments 00749, The Field Experiments Website.
    20. Bharat Chandar & Ali Hortacsu & John List & Ian Muir & Jeffrey Wooldridge, 2019. "Design and Analysis of Cluster-Randomized Field Experiments in Panel Data Settings," Natural Field Experiments 00681, The Field Experiments Website.

    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:gam:jscscx:v:12:y:2023:i:10:p:579-:d:1263057. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.