IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ipt/laedte/201901.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How to quantify what is not seen? Two proposals for measuring platform work

Author

Abstract

Digital labour platforms are defined as digital networks that coordinate labour services in an algorithmic way. The rise of digital labour platforms can reshape work organisation and tasks distribution across the workforce, posing new policy challenges. A crucial problem for the design of an adequate policy response is the lack of clear estimates of the prevalence of platform workers. This paper proposes two approaches for measuring platform work. The first approach attempts to measure platform work as individual participation in the labour force through surveys, similarly to what is done by the Labour Force Survey (LFS) for traditional employment. Given the structural differences between traditional employment and platform work, the identification of the latter through surveys should include measures that assess also the regularity, intensity and significance of platform work, with a specific focus on the task performed. The second approach aims at deriving estimates of platform work as labour input. In other words, instead of asking workers if they provide services via platform, the data can be collected from the platform itself. The vast amount of information platforms collect could be used to estimate the number of hours worked via platforms and gather more detailed evidence on wages. However, the mixed use of platforms and the ambiguous identification criteria of individuals on platforms could raise issue of double counting when measuring employment using this second approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Annarosa Pesole & Enrique Fernandez-Macias & Cesira Urzi Brancati & Estrella Gomez Herrera, 2019. "How to quantify what is not seen? Two proposals for measuring platform work," JRC Working Papers on Labour, Education and Technology 2019-01, Joint Research Centre.
  • Handle: RePEc:ipt:laedte:201901
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC117168
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lawrence F. Katz & Alan B. Krueger, 2016. "The Rise and Nature of Alternative Work Arrangements in the United States, 1995-2015," NBER Working Papers 22667, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Berg, Janine., 2016. "Income security in the on-demand economy : findings and policy lessons from a survey of crowdworkers," ILO Working Papers 994906483402676, International Labour Organization.
    3. Jonathan V. Hall & Alan B. Krueger, 2015. "An Analysis of the Labor Market for Uber's Driver-Partners in the United States," Working Papers 587, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    4. De Groen, Willem Pieter & Maselli, Ilaria, 2016. "The Impact of the Collaborative Economy on the Labour Market," CEPS Papers 11625, Centre for European Policy Studies.
    5. Judd Cramer & Alan B. Krueger, 2016. "Disruptive Change in the Taxi Business: The Case of Uber," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(5), pages 177-182, May.
    6. Görlich, Dennis, 2010. "Complementary tasks and the limits to the division of labour," Kiel Working Papers 1670, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    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. Csaba Mako & Miklos Illessy & Jozsef Pap & Saeed Nosratabadi, 2021. "Emerging Platform Work in the Context of the Regulatory Loophole (The Uber Fiasco in Hungary)," Papers 2105.05651, arXiv.org.
    2. 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.
    3. Makó, Csaba & Illéssy, Miklós & Pap, József, 2020. "Munkavégzés a platformalapú gazdaságban. A foglalkoztatás egy lehetséges modellje? [Work on the digital platform economy. Towards a new employment model for the future?]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(11), pages 1112-1129.

    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. Maria Cesira Urzi Brancati & Annarosa Pesole & Enrique Fernandez Macias, 2019. "Digital Labour Platforms in Europe: Numbers, Profiles, and Employment Status of Platform Workers," JRC Research Reports JRC117330, Joint Research Centre.
    2. Francesco Bogliacino & Valeria Cirillo & Cristiano Codagnone & Marta Fana & Francisco Lupanez-Villanueva & Giuseppe A Veltri, 2019. "Shaping individual preferences for social protection: the case of platform workers," LEM Papers Series 2019/21, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    3. Gérard P. Cachon & Kaitlin M. Daniels & Ruben Lobel, 2017. "The Role of Surge Pricing on a Service Platform with Self-Scheduling Capacity," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 19(3), pages 368-384, July.
    4. Sunyu Chai & Maureen A. Scully, 2019. "It’s About Distributing Rather than Sharing: Using Labor Process Theory to Probe the “Sharing” Economy," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 159(4), pages 943-960, November.
    5. Cristiano Codagnone & Fabienne Abadie & Federico Biagi, 2016. "The Future of Work in the ‘Sharing Economy’. Market Efficiency and Equitable Opportunities or Unfair Precarisation?," JRC Research Reports JRC101280, Joint Research Centre.
    6. Werner Eichhorst & Ulf Rinne, 2017. "Digital Challenges for the Welfare State," CESifo Forum, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 18(04), pages 03-08, December.
    7. Berger, Thor & Chen, Chinchih & Frey, Carl Benedikt, 2018. "Drivers of disruption? Estimating the Uber effect," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 197-210.
    8. Sutirtha Bagchi, 2018. "A Tale of Two Cities: An Examination of Medallion Prices in New York and Chicago," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 53(2), pages 295-319, September.
    9. Yang, Zhuo & Franz, Mark L. & Zhu, Shanjiang & Mahmoudi, Jina & Nasri, Arefeh & Zhang, Lei, 2018. "Analysis of Washington, DC taxi demand using GPS and land-use data," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 35-44.
    10. Chau, Terence & Artecona, Raquel, 2017. "Labour issues in the digital economy," Studies and Perspectives – ECLAC Office in Washington 42046, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    11. Lars Hornuf & Daniel Vrankar, 2022. "Hourly Wages in Crowdworking: A Meta-Analysis," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 64(5), pages 553-573, October.
    12. Michele Cantarella & Chiara Strozzi, 2018. "Labour market effects of crowdwork in US and EU: an empirical investigation," Department of Economics 0139, University of Modena and Reggio E., Faculty of Economics "Marco Biagi".
    13. Mayo Fuster Morell & Ricard Espelt, 2019. "A Framework to Assess the Sustainability of Platform Economy: The Case of Barcelona Ecosystem," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-20, November.
    14. Heiland, Heiner, 2020. "Workers' Voice in platform labour: An Overview," WSI Studies 21, The Institute of Economic and Social Research (WSI), Hans Böckler Foundation.
    15. Berde, Éva, 2018. "Uber és taxi egymás mellett - új piaci modellek hagyományos árdiszkriminációval [Uber and taxi firms side by side. The Ublyft" business model with traditional price discrimination]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(6), pages 650-666.
    16. 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.
    17. Brian Fabo & Jovana Karanovic & Katerina Dukova, 2017. "In search of an adequate European policy response to the platform economy," Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, , vol. 23(2), pages 163-175, May.
    18. Jonathan V. Hall & Alan B. Krueger, 2015. "An Analysis of the Labor Market for Uber's Driver-Partners in the United States," Working Papers 587, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    19. Borchert, Kathrin & Hirth, Matthias & Kummer, Michael E. & Laitenberger, Ulrich & Slivko, Olga & Viete, Steffen, 2018. "Unemployment and online labor," ZEW Discussion Papers 18-023, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    20. Serpil ÇİĞDEM, 2019. "Endüstri 4.0 ve Dijital Emek Platformlarının İnsana Yakışır İş Bağlamında Değerlendirilmesi," Journal of Social Policy Conferences, Istanbul University, Faculty of Economics, vol. 0(77), pages 157-199, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Digital labour platform; gig workers; technological change; work organisation; employment indicators;
    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:ipt:laedte:201901. 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: Publication Officer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipjrces.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.