IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indlaw/v53y2024i3p481-504..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Global Gig Economy: How Transport Platform Companies Adapt to Regulatory Challenges—A Comparative Analysis of Six Countries

Author

Listed:
  • James Muldoon
  • Ping Sun

Abstract

Non-standard employment practises in the gig economy have recently drawn critical attention from regulators and the courts in a number of jurisdictions across the globe. Transport platform companies have responded to these challenges in several distinct ways in an emerging global battle to preserve their business model. This article provides a typology of the different strategies employed by these companies in six countries, highlighting five key strategies of regulatory activism, strategic litigation in defence of a business model, tactical subcontracting, negotiations with labour unions and threatening to withdraw services. It then shows how the structural features of the gig economy may be diverging into four distinct models in the European Union, China, the United States and the rest of the world. The study contributes to our understanding of the global nature of the struggle for fair working conditions and how platform companies operate in different institutional and regulatory contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • James Muldoon & Ping Sun, 2024. "The Global Gig Economy: How Transport Platform Companies Adapt to Regulatory Challenges—A Comparative Analysis of Six Countries," Industrial Law Journal, Industrial Law Society, vol. 53(3), pages 481-504.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:53:y:2024:i:3:p:481-504.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/indlaw/dwae010
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    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:oup:indlaw:v:53:y:2024:i:3:p:481-504.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/ilj .

    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.