IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/canjec/v54y2021i4p1638-1666.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring the gig economy in Canada using administrative data

Author

Listed:
  • Sung‐Hee Jeon
  • Huju Liu
  • Yuri Ostrovsky

Abstract

A rapidly growing literature on informal work increasingly turns to administrative data to document changes in the size of informal economy and to learn more about the characteristics of freelancers, on‐demand/platform workers and similar types of workers commonly referred to as “gig workers.” These studies have established a conceptual link between the work arrangements of gig workers and how these are reported in tax data. We contribute to this literature by introducing a method of identifying gig workers specific to the way work arrangements are reported in the Canadian tax system and estimating the size of the gig economy in Canada using administrative data. Based on our definition, the share of gig workers among all workers rose from 5.5% in 2005 to 8.2% in 2016. Some of this increase coincided with the introduction and proliferation of online platforms. Our analysis highlights gender differences in the trends and characteristics of gig workers. By linking administrative data to 2016 census microdata, we are also able to examine educational and occupational differences in the prevalence of gig workers. Mesurer l'économie à la demande au Canada au moyen des données administratives. Une littérature en pleine expansion sur le travail informel s'appuie de plus en plus sur des données administratives pour estimer l'évolution de cette économie et en apprendre davantage sur ce qui caractérise les pigistes, travailleurs de plateformes et autres types de travailleurs communément appelés « travailleurs à la demande ». Ces études établissent un lien conceptuel entre les conditions de travail de ces travailleurs à la demande et la façon dont celles‐ci sont déclarées dans les données fiscales. Nous apportons notre contribution à cette littérature en présentant une méthode nous permettant dans un premier temps de distinguer ce type de travailleurs à partir de la façon dont leurs conditions de travail sont déclarées dans le système fiscal canadien et, dans un deuxième temps, d'évaluer la taille de l'économie à la demande au Canada au moyen de données administratives. En nous appuyant sur notre définition, la part des travailleurs à la demande parmi l'ensemble des travailleurs est passée de 5,5 % en 2005 à 8,2 % en 2016. Une partie de cette hausse coïncide avec l'introduction et la multiplication des plateformes en ligne. Notre analyse fait ressortir les différences entre les sexes en ce qui concerne les tendances et les caractéristiques des travailleurs à la demande. En couplant les données administratives aux microdonnées issues du Recensement de 2016, nous sommes également en mesure d'examiner les différences dans la prévalence des travailleurs à la demande sur les plans éducationnel et professionnel.

Suggested Citation

  • Sung‐Hee Jeon & Huju Liu & Yuri Ostrovsky, 2021. "Measuring the gig economy in Canada using administrative data," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(4), pages 1638-1666, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:canjec:v:54:y:2021:i:4:p:1638-1666
    DOI: 10.1111/caje.12558
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/caje.12558
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/caje.12558?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Abraham, Katharine G. & Hershbein, Brad & Houseman, Susan N., 2021. "Contract work at older ages," Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 426-447, July.
    2. Emmanuel Saez, 2010. "Do Taxpayers Bunch at Kink Points?," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 2(3), pages 180-212, August.
    3. Katharine G. Abraham & John C. Haltiwanger & Kristin Sandusky & James R. Spletzer, 2017. "Measuring the Gig Economy: Current Knowledge and Open Issues," NBER Chapters, in: Measuring and Accounting for Innovation in the Twenty-First Century, pages 257-298, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Dmitri K. Koustas, 2019. "What Do Big Data Tell Us about Why People Take Gig Economy Jobs?," AEA Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, vol. 109, pages 367-371, May.
    5. Katharine G. Abraham & Susan N. Houseman, 2019. "Making Ends Meet: The Role of Informal Work in Supplementing Americans’ Income," Upjohn Working Papers 19-315, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
    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. Cameron, Anna & Tedds, Lindsay M., 2021. "Gender-Based Violence, Economic Security, and the Potential of Basic Income: A Discussion Paper," MPRA Paper 107478, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Dmitri Koustas, 2020. "Insights from New Tax-Based Measures of Gig Work in the United States," CESifo Forum, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 21(03), pages 5-9, September.
    3. Phil Lord, 2020. "The social perils and promoise of remote work," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 4(S), pages 63-67, June.
    4. Paul Glavin, 2020. "Multiple jobs? The prevalence, intensity and determinants of multiple jobholding in Canada," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 31(3), pages 383-402, September.

    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. Dmitri Koustas, 2020. "Insights from New Tax-Based Measures of Gig Work in the United States," CESifo Forum, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 21(03), pages 5-9, September.
    2. Joshua D. Gottlieb & Avi Zenilman, 2020. "When Workers Travel: Nursing Supply During COVID-19 Surges," NBER Working Papers 28240, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Katharine G. Abraham & Brad Hershbein & Susan N. Houseman & Beth C. Truesdale, 2024. "The Independent Contractor Workforce: New Evidence on Its Size and Composition and Ways to Improve Its Measurement in Household Surveys," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 77(3), pages 336-365, May.
    4. 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.
    5. Alexandre Mas & Amanda Pallais, 2020. "Alternative Work Arrangements," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 12(1), pages 631-658, August.
    6. KURODA Sachiko & ONISHI Koichiro, 2023. "Exploring the Gig Economy in Japan: A bank data-driven analysis of food delivery gig workers," Discussion papers 23025, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    7. Abraham, Katharine G. & Hershbein, Brad & Houseman, Susan N., 2021. "Contract work at older ages," Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 426-447, July.
    8. Maciej Berk{e}sewicz & Dagmara Nikulin & Marcin Szymkowiak & Kamil Wilak, 2021. "The gig economy in Poland: evidence based on mobile big data," Papers 2106.12827, arXiv.org.
    9. Cheryl Carleton & Mary T. Kelly, 2022. "Happy at Work - Possible at Any Age?," Villanova School of Business Department of Economics and Statistics Working Paper Series 51, Villanova School of Business Department of Economics and Statistics.
    10. Oliver Alexander & Jeff Borland & Andrew Charlton & Amit Singh, 2021. "Uber down under: The labour market for drivers in Australia," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2021n18, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    11. Bas Scheer & Wiljan van den Berge & Maarten Goos & Alan Manning & Anna Salomons, 2022. "Alternative Work Arrangements and Worker Outcomes: Evidence from Payrolling," CPB Discussion Paper 435, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    12. Andreas R. Kostøl & Andreas S. Myhre, 2021. "Labor Supply Responses to Learning the Tax and Benefit Schedule," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(11), pages 3733-3766, November.
    13. Vincent Dekker & Karsten Schweikert, 2021. "A Comparison of Different Data-driven Procedures to Determine the Bunching Window," Public Finance Review, , vol. 49(2), pages 262-293, March.
    14. Philippe Aghion & Ufuk Akcigit & Matthieu Lequien & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2017. "Tax simplicity and heterogeneous learning," CEP Discussion Papers dp1516, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    15. Jose Asturias & Emin Dinlersoz & John Haltiwanger & Rebecca Hutchinson, 2021. "Business Applications as Economic Indicators," Working Papers 21-09, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    16. Paul E. Carrillo & M. Shahe Emran & Anita Rivadeneira, 2011. "Do Cheaters Bunch Together? Profit Taxes, Withholding Rates and Tax Evasion," Working Papers 2011-03, The George Washington University, Institute for International Economic Policy.
    17. Junyi Zhu, 2014. "Bracket Creep Revisited - with and without r > g: Evidence from Germany," Journal of Income Distribution, Ad libros publications inc., vol. 23(3), pages 106-158, November.
    18. Niels Johannesen & Thomas Tørsløv & Ludvig Wier, 2016. "Are less developed countries more exposed to multinational tax avoidance? Method and evidence from micro-data," WIDER Working Paper Series 010, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    19. Simon Halphen Boserup & Wojciech Kopczuk & Claus Thustrup Kreiner, 2018. "Born with a Silver Spoon? Danish Evidence on Wealth Inequality in Childhood," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 128(612), pages 514-544, July.
    20. Annette Alstadsæter & Wojciech Kopczuk & Kjetil Telle, 2019. "Social networks and tax avoidance: evidence from a well-defined Norwegian tax shelter," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 26(6), pages 1291-1328, December.

    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:wly:canjec:v:54:y:2021:i:4:p:1638-1666. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5982 .

    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.