It is often suggested that platform workers readily adopt the narratives of self-reliance and meritocracy promoted by platform companies, seemingly rejecting collective approaches to mitigate their job insecurity. Our recently published research, however, challenges this prevailing assumption. Contrary to the dominant narrative, platform workers are actively demanding improved access to and provision of social benefits and services.
Platform-based work has expanded rapidly over recent decades, a trend significantly accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. As a greater number of individuals come to depend on these roles, concerns regarding job insecurity and worker vulnerability have grown increasingly prominent. The precarious nature of platform employment manifests in two primary ways. Firstly, income is highly unpredictable, subject to fluctuating demand and abrupt shifts caused by algorithmic changes or arbitrary dismissals. Secondly, platform workers frequently fall outside the scope of traditional social protection systems and institutions, limiting their access to essential social benefits and services.
The insecurity inherent in platform labour has captured the attention of national governments and the European Union, prompting major policy initiatives such as the Platform Work Directive. Among its objectives, the directive seeks to grant employee status to platform workers under specific conditions. Recognising platform workers as employees would afford them greater access to social insurance schemes and labour rights comparable to those enjoyed by workers in more traditional employment.
Despite vigorous political debate, a persistent belief endures: that platform workers themselves do not desire these protections. The dominant narrative posits that most platform workers perceive themselves as self-reliant entrepreneurs who value flexibility and independence above all, thereby dismissing the necessity for social benefits or job security. This perception has been reinforced by the rhetoric of platform companies, which emphasise the unique nature of platform work and contend that regulation would undermine their business models. Such discourse not only shapes public opinion but may also influence the attitudes of some workers, who fear that increased regulation could jeopardise their livelihoods, leading them to prefer precarious work over the risk of unemployment.
Furthermore, academic research has often highlighted the prevalence of what is termed “neoliberal subjectivity” among platform workers. It is frequently assumed that individuals choosing platform labour are less inclined towards collective solutions. Moreover, operating within a digital marketplace, platform workers are thought to view their peers primarily as competitors rather than colleagues. Whether through self-selection or socialisation processes, many are believed to internalise the ideals of self-reliance and meritocracy championed by platform companies, consequently rejecting collective responses to their own precarity.
In stark contrast, our research refutes this common narrative. Utilising data from the OECD Risks that Matter Survey, encompassing 26 OECD countries, our findings demonstrate that the portrayal of platform workers as uninterested in social protection and welfare state services is inaccurate. Platform workers actively demand better access to, and provision of, active labour market policies, such as adult training programmes – indeed, even more so than regular employees and other atypical workers not engaged in platform work. Crucially, this support for collective solutions extends across diverse groups of platform workers, irrespective of their educational background.
Platform workers lacking tertiary education, moreover, express a notably stronger desire for improved access to unemployment benefits compared to both regular workers and other atypical workers outside the platform economy who possess similar educational qualifications. This indicates that platform workers are not merely passive subjects of precarious conditions; they are actively seeking enhanced social protections.
Our findings carry significant implications for both politics and policy. Platform workers should not be viewed as isolated entrepreneurs indifferent to social protections, but rather as a workforce actively demanding support from the welfare state to enhance their social security and well-being. Consequently, the mobilisation of platform workers ought not to be dismissed as isolated incidents confined to specific occupations, but recognised as part of a broader demand for protection that resonates throughout the platform economy.
Moreover, while the expansion of the platform economy is often perceived as a threat to established welfare state structures, our analysis suggests this growth may, in fact, cultivate new welfare constituencies. These are groups of workers actively demanding integration into existing social policy frameworks and advocating for the expansion of these protections. Indeed, far from eroding welfare systems, digital transformations may instead fuel demands for a “social investment turn” within the welfare state. As platform work becomes increasingly prevalent, so too does the political momentum for policies that prioritise social protection, skills development, and economic security.
Marius Busemeyer is Professor of Political Science at the University of Konstanz, specialising in comparative welfare-state research, political economy, welfare-state attitudes, and inequality.
