Lutfun Nahar Lata

The rise of the 'gig', 'sharing' or 'platform' economy has recently gained increasing scholarly attention due to the large-scale entry of labour into platform-based gig activities. Platform-mediated gig work has infiltrated many economic sectors, provoking scholarly inquiries about the question of whether digital casual labour is further exacerbating precarity; whether platforms are producing new modes of regulation, as well as labour movements and resistance to regulation. Within this context, this entry discusses the notions of precarity and agency as the starting point to pursue the two lines of inquiry: how do the gig activities on e-platforms deepen gig workers' precarity and vulnerability due to algorithmic control and lack of regulation, and how do the workers apply their agency to resist the algorithmic management?

This paper explores the relationship between platform-mediated labour on Uber, Pathao, UberEats and DoorDash, and the public infrastructures of two cities – Dhaka and Melbourne. Due to geographical location and economic difference, the provision of public amenities varies greatly between Dhaka and Melbourne. However, our research shows that there are some similarities in how labour platforms make use of public amenities in each city. In this paper, we argue that digital labour platforms rely on cities’ existing public infrastructures to run their businesses and that this causes various challenges for both gig workers and cities. Our paper contributes to infrastructure studies, platform studies, and labour studies by demonstrating that digital labour platforms operate like parasites. Just as parasites benefit at the expense of the other, or the ‘host’, digital labour platforms rely on cities’ existing public infrastructure without investing to that infrastructure. Following this argument, we conclude that there is a need for platforms to provide more amenities whether they recognise platform workers as ‘employees’ or not.

Equity is a core social value that is widely debated in its conceptualisation and inclusion into policymaking and service delivery. Policymakers and street-level actors often disagree about or have limited interest in defining (in)equity, leading to a lack of consensus about how to make measurable and long-lasting impact for populations and communities experiencing disadvantage. Within this context, this paper draws on governance concepts such as hierarchy, market dimensions, and network dimensions to analyse key insights from in-depth stakeholder interviews (N = 25) with government and non-government actors in Queensland, Australia. The paper (1) examines the extent barriers to equity are created, reinforced, or reduced by centralised and street-level public governance approaches and (2) determines what (and where) the opportunities are to address these barriers and build a systemic approach to achieve equity. The paper highlights important tensions for actors tackling issues of inequity, including centralised or distant policymakers and government and non-government street-level practitioners operating within disjointed systems for policy, delivery, and funding. Notwithstanding the increasingly prevalent 'partnership' narrative, the foundations remain anchored in policy and management practices that have been built on longstanding neo-liberal market mechanisms or the 'contract state'. A more integrated and adaptive approach that aligns high-level policymaking with street-level practitioners and local communities should be an important pillar in navigating these competing priorities and challenges.

Points for practitioners

Equity is debated both conceptually and in policymaking and practice, leading to a lack of consensus about how to design and implement effective solutions.

Many universal policies and programs are designed and implemented in rigid silos, are not joined-up, and have limited impact on the economic and social policy drivers of inequity and entrenched disadvantage.

A more adaptive and collaborative approach that aligns high-level governance and policymaking with street-level practitioners and local voices is possible but challenging to sustain.