Author:
Webster Natasha A.,Zhang Qian
Abstract
AbstractPlatform-based services are rapidly transforming urban work, lives and spaces around the world. The rise of platforms dependent on largely expendable labour relations, with significant migrant involvement, must be seen as connected, and as replicating larger social processes rather than merely technological changes. This perspective paper urgently calls for an intersectional perspective to better understand social-technical relations crossing the digital-urban interface of platform urbanism in contemporary European cities. Critics of platforms and gig work, to date, have mainly focused on algorithms-based social control, degraded working conditions, problematic employment relations and precariousness of gig work. The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic has both disrupted and amplified these issues, intensifying the vulnerability of gig workers. For example, in Sweden, migrant groups and gig workers were separately identified as being hardest hit by Covid, but with little attention to the interconnectivity between these categories, nor to how these groups are co-positioned vis-a-vis larger socio-economic inequalities. Thus, we argue for a deeper understanding of the social processes underlying platforms and for active investigation of how inequalities are being produced and/or maintained in/by these processes. Urban planners, designers and policy makers will need to actively address the hybrid (digital and physical) urban spaces produced in platform urbanism in order to prevent spatial and economic inequalities. We argue for a stronger recognition of interrelated and overlapping social categories such as gender and migrant status as central to the construction of mutually constitutive systems of oppression and discrimination produced in and through the platform urbanism.
Funder
Svenska Forskningsrådet Formas
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference38 articles.
1. Aloisi A. Commoditized workers: case study research on labour law issues arising from a set of ‘on-demand/gig economy’ platforms. Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal. 2016;37(3):653–90. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2637485.
2. Andersson EK, Malmberg B, Costa R, Sleutjes B, Stonawski MJ, de Valk HAG. A comparative study of segregation patterns in Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden: Neighbourhood concentration and representation of non-European migrants. Eur J Popul. 2018;34(2):251–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-018-9481-5.
3. Barns S. Negotiating the platform pivot: from participatory digital ecosystems to infrastructures of everyday life. Geogr Compass. 2019;13(9) https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12464.
4. Barns S. Platform urbanism: Negotiating platform ecosystems in connected cities. Springer Nature; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9725-8.
5. Berg J, Furrer M, Harmon E, Rani U, Silberman MS. Digital labour platforms and the future of work: towards decent work in the online world. 2018. p. 136. ILO. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/%2D%2D-dgreports/%2D%2D-dcomm/%2D%2D-publ/documents/publication/wcms_645337.pdf.
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献