IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/hal-02012731.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How many people microwork in France? Estimating the size of a new labor force

Author

Listed:
  • Clément Le Ludec

    (MSH Paris-Saclay - Maison des Sciences de l'Homme - Paris Saclay - UVSQ - Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines - UP11 - Université Paris-Sud - Paris 11 - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - ENS Paris Saclay - Ecole Normale Supérieure Paris-Saclay)

  • Paola Tubaro

    (TAU - TAckling the Underspecified - LRI - Laboratoire de Recherche en Informatique - UP11 - Université Paris-Sud - Paris 11 - CentraleSupélec - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - Inria Saclay - Ile de France - Inria - Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique)

  • Antonio A. Casilli

    (I3 SES - Institut interdisciplinaire de l’innovation de Telecom Paris - Télécom Paris - IMT - Institut Mines-Télécom [Paris] - IP Paris - Institut Polytechnique de Paris - I3 - Institut interdisciplinaire de l’innovation - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

Microwork platforms allocate fragmented tasks to crowds of providers with remunerations as low as few cents. Instrumental to the development of today's artificial intelligence, these micro-tasks push to the extreme the logic of casualization already observed in "uberized" workers. The present article uses the results of the DiPLab study to estimate the number of people who microwork in France. We distinguish three categories of microworkers, corresponding to different modes of engagement: a group of 14,903 "very active" microworkers, most of whom are present on these platforms at least once a week; a second featuring 52,337 "routine" microworkers, more selective and present at least once a month; a third circle of 266,126 "casual" microworkers, more heterogeneous and who alternate inactivity and various levels of work practice. Our results show that microwork is comparable to, and even larger than, the workforce of ride-sharing and delivery platforms in France. It is therefore not an anecdotal phenomenon and deserves great attention from researchers, unions and policy-makers.

Suggested Citation

  • Clément Le Ludec & Paola Tubaro & Antonio A. Casilli, 2019. "How many people microwork in France? Estimating the size of a new labor force," Working Papers hal-02012731, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-02012731
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-02012731v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-02012731v1/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Neil Stewart & Christoph Ungemach & Adam J. L. Harris & Daniel M. Bartels & Ben R. Newell & Gabriele Paolacci & Jesse Chandler, "undated". "The Average Laboratory Samples a Population of 7,300 Amazon Mechanical Turk Workers," Mathematica Policy Research Reports f97b669c7b3e4c2ab95c9f805, Mathematica Policy Research.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:5:p:479-491 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Paola Tubaro & Antonio A. Casilli, 2019. "Micro-work, artificial intelligence and the automotive industry," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 46(3), pages 333-345, September.
    2. Karen Gregory, 2021. "‘My Life Is More Valuable Than This’: Understanding Risk among On-Demand Food Couriers in Edinburgh," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 35(2), pages 316-331, April.

    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. Cloos, Janis & Greiff, Matthias & Rusch, Hannes, 2020. "Geographical Concentration and Editorial Favoritism within the Field of Laboratory Experimental Economics (RM/19/029-revised-)," Research Memorandum 014, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    2. Roman Lukyanenko & Andrea Wiggins & Holly K. Rosser, 0. "Citizen Science: An Information Quality Research Frontier," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-23.
    3. Austin M Strange & Ryan D Enos & Mark Hill & Amy Lakeman, 2019. "Online volunteer laboratories for human subjects research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-13, August.
    4. Cloos, Janis & Greiff, Matthias & Rusch, Hannes, 2019. "Geographical Concentration and Editorial Favoritism within the Field of Laboratory Experimental Economics," Research Memorandum 029, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    5. David Ronayne & Daniel Sgroi, 2018. "On the motivations for the dual-use of electronic and traditional cigarettes," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(12), pages 830-834, July.
    6. Christ, Margaret H. & Vance, Thomas W., 2018. "Cascading controls: The effects of managers’ incentives on subordinate effort to help or harm," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 20-32.
    7. Antonio A. Arechar & Simon Gächter & Lucas Molleman, 2018. "Conducting interactive experiments online," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(1), pages 99-131, March.
    8. Kevin C Elliott & Aaron M McCright & Summer Allen & Thomas Dietz, 2017. "Values in environmental research: Citizens’ views of scientists who acknowledge values," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-18, October.
    9. Palan, Stefan & Schitter, Christian, 2018. "Prolific.ac—A subject pool for online experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 22-27.
    10. Clément Le Ludec & Paola Tubaro & Antonio A. Casilli, 2019. "Combien de personnes micro-travaillent en France ? Estimer l'ampleur d'une nouvelle forme de travail," Working Papers hal-02021525, HAL.
    11. Sergio Alessandro Castagnetti & Sebastiano Massaro & Eugenio Proto, 2021. "The Influence of Anger on Strategic Cooperative Interactions," Working Papers 2021_05, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow.
    12. Logan S. Casey & Jesse Chandler & Adam Seth Levine & Andrew Proctor & Dara Z. Strolovitch, 2017. "Intertemporal Differences Among MTurk Workers: Time-Based Sample Variations and Implications for Online Data Collection," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(2), pages 21582440177, June.
    13. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:1:p:99-113 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Keela S. Thomson & Daniel M. Oppenheimer, 2016. "Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(1), pages 99-113, January.
    15. Capraro, Valerio & Schulz, Jonathan & Rand, David G., 2019. "Time pressure and honesty in a deception game," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 93-99.
    16. Tom Meyvis & Stijn M J Van Osselaer & Dahl DarrenEditor & Eileen FischerEditor & Gita JoharEditor & Vicki MorwitzEditor, 2018. "Increasing the Power of Your Study by Increasing the Effect Size," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 44(5), pages 1157-1173.
    17. Stevenson, Regan M. & Josefy, Matthew, 2019. "Knocking at the gate: The path to publication for entrepreneurship experiments through the lens of gatekeeping theory," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 242-260.
    18. Anthony M. Evans & Joachim I. Krueger, 2017. "Ambiguity and expectation-neglect in dilemmas of interpersonal trust," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(6), pages 584-595, November.
    19. Roman Lukyanenko & Andrea Wiggins & Holly K. Rosser, 2020. "Citizen Science: An Information Quality Research Frontier," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 961-983, August.
    20. Brian P. Meier & Amanda J. Dillard & Eric Osorio & Courtney M. Lappas, 2019. "A Behavioral Confirmation and Reduction of the Natural versus Synthetic Drug Bias," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(4), pages 360-370, May.
    21. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:6:p:584-595 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Summer Allen & Aaron M. McCright & Thomas Dietz, 2017. "A Social Movement Identity Instrument for Integrating Survey Methods Into Social Movements Research," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(2), pages 21582440177, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Micro-work; digital transformation; digital labor; algorithms; digital platforms;
    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:hal:wpaper:hal-02012731. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.