Platform workers in Italy:

Platform workers in Italy:

an empirical exploration on worker-level data

Valeria Cirillo, Dario Guarascio, Sergio Scicchitano

INAPP, Istituto Nazionale per l’Analisi delle Politiche Pubbliche First workshop MOSPI

Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, 7 ottobre 2019

Outline

 Digital Labour markets

 Platform workers

 The INAPP-PLUS survey

 Empirical evidences

 Results

 Conclusions

Digital Labour markets

 Digital labour platforms (Codagnone et al., 2019)

(1) digital marketplaces for non-standard and contingent work

(2) where services of various nature are produced using preponderantly the labour factor (as opposed to selling goods or renting property or a car)

(3) where labour (i.e. the produced services) is exchanged for money

(4) where the matching is digitally mediated and administered although performance and delivery of labour can be electronically transmitted or physical

 Platforms as «two-sided» or «multi-sided» markets (Hagiu & Wright, 2015) (i) enabling of direct interactions between two or more distinct sides

(ii) affiliation of both sides with the platform

(iii) affiliation generates cross-group network effects

(iv) the intermediary (platform) can extract rents from the generated data

Digital Labour markets

Heterogeneous models:

(global market) Online Labour Markets (OLMs) vs. (local market) Mobile Labour Markets (MLMs)

Exchange of heterogeneous services:

«micro-tasks» exchanged virtually or

physically vs. complex tasks

Platform workers

 2% of the adult population earning more than the 50% of their income being connected to the platform (for more than 20 hours per week) (COLLEEM - Pesole et al., 2018)

 0.5% of the active population (Eurofound, 2018)

 1.59%-2.03% of population 18-74 years old in Italy (Fondazione Debenedetti)

 High heterogeneity across countries (Codagnone et al., 2019)

 Concerns due to the social and economic risks and lack of an adequate regulation in terms of social protection (Bogliacino et al. 2019)

 ‘Ambiguous’ legal status of platform workers - i.e. platform workers are often identified as

‘partners’ or, more broadly, autonomous workers (Eurofound, 2019)

 ‘Digital workers’ not entitled to benefit of almost all existing social protection schemes (Collier et al. 2017)

 In Italy low awareness of social protection schemes by digital workers and strong preference for

pension schemes (Fondazione Debenedetti - INPS)

Research questions

1. How large is the share of those working for a digital platform?

2. Which is the distribution of platform work in terms of gender, age and educational status?

3. Are platforms a main income source (i.e. main job) or rather a way to integrate main incomes?

4. Can we observe a “pension gap” between platform workers and non-platform

workers in terms of years of contributions?

The INAPP-PLUS survey

 INAPP-PLUS (Participation, Labour, Unemployment, Survey) is a survey performed relying on CATI (Computer-assisted telephone interviewing)

 VIII edition (PLUS 2018)  sample of 45,000 individuals (residents aged between 18 and 74 years)

 Sample design: strata are defined by region (20 administrative Regions), type of city (metropolitan/nonmetropolitan), age (five classes), sex and the employment status of the individual (employed, unemployed, student, retired, other inactive)

 PLUS 2018  Ad-hoc module «GIG ECONOMY»

 Three specific economic activities (carried out for profit) are considered:

i) the online sale of goods;

ii) the provision of works and services through platforms that intermediate work;

iii) the lucrative sharing (leasing) of real estate (so called capital platform).

How large is the share of those working for a digital platform?

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Selling on

line Capital

platforms Labour platforms

2088

413

213

Number of individuals (thousands)

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5%

Selling on line Capital platforms Labour platforms

4.80%

0.95%

0.49%

Share on the population

(adults 18-74 years old)

What is the age distribution of platform workers?

17.0%

27.0%

21.0% 22.5%

9.5%

1.9%

20.2%

14.7%

24.2%

21.7% 15.0%

41.9%

9.6% 7.4%

16.7%

21.8%

29.6%

14.9%

18-24 25-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65-74

Labour Platform Platform Total PLUS

What is the gender distribution of platform workers?

54.4%

45.6%

65.0%

35.0%

48% 51%

MEN WOMEN

Labour Platform Platform Total PLUS

Platform workers by household types

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Other types of households Single adult with children Couple without children Couple with children Single adult without children

Labour Platform Total PLUS

What is the educational distribution of platform workers?

2.8%

34.7%

46.8%

15.8%

9.7%

25.8%

53.5%

19.8%

4.6%

38.0% 41.1%

16.3%

PRIMARY SECONDARY HIGH SCHOOL TERTIARY

Labour platforms Platforms Total PLUS

Is platform work the main source of income (i.e. main job)?

39.3%

23.8%

1.8%

17.9%

17.1%

59.2%

14.2%

4.1%

10.1%

12.3%

52.82%

10.57%

13.36%

17.22%

6.04%

EMPLOYED LOOKING FOR A

JOB

RETIRED FROM WORK

INACTIVE STUDENT

Total PLUS Platforms Labour Platforms

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Other contactual arrangements Informal agreement Atypical job (a chiamata, occasionale) Autonomous worker

Fixed-term contract Permanent job

How important is the income earned

by platform?

28 22.8

49.2

6.5 10.3

83.2

18.4

28.6

53

0 20 40 60 80 100

Crucial Important Useful

Labour platform Selling on line Capital platform

77.2%

64.5%

83.1% 77.7%

22.8% 35.5%

16.9% 22.3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Total PLUS Gig workers Capital platform Online selling

No Yes

Inability to deal with

unexpected expenses (%)

2.9%

19.2%

4.4%

4.9%

6.9%

0.8%

4.3%

42.1%

14.4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Coordinated and continuous collaboration

Occasional collaboration Entrepreneur Self-employer Accessory work Cooperative Family worker Informal agreement (No

formal contract) Do not know

Type of contract (%)

Socio-occupational characteristics of Platform workers:

evidence from PLUS (marginal effects from Probit models)

cleta6_1==Da 18 a 24 anni cleta6_1==Da 25 a 29 anni cleta6_1==Da 30 a 39 anni cleta6_1==Da 40 a 49 anni cleta6_1==Da 50 a 64 anni staciv_new==Celibe\Nubile staciv_new==Coniugato staciv_new==Separato/Divorziato educ==Elementare educ==Media inferiore

educ==Diploma educ==Laurea donna minori disabili italiano condiz==Occupato condiz==In cerca di lavoro condiz==Pensionato da lavoro condiz==Altro inattivo area_g3==Nord area_g3==Centro spese_imprev pessima_salute padreistat_new==High Professions padreistat_new==Mid Prof padreistat_new==Low Professions padreistat_new==Forze armate madreistat_new==High Professions madreistat_new==Mid Prof madreistat_new==Low Professions

-.1 -.05 0 .05 .1

Platform workers and pension contributions:

evidence from PLUS (OLS estimations)

Platforms cleta6_1==Da 18 a 24 anni cleta6_1==Da 25 a 29 anni cleta6_1==Da 30 a 39 anni cleta6_1==Da 40 a 49 anni cleta6_1==Da 50 a 64 anni staciv_new==Celibe\Nubile staciv_new==Coniugato staciv_new==Separato/Divorziato educ==Nessun titolo educ==Elementare educ==Media inferiore educ==Diploma educ==Laurea donna minori disabili italiano area_g3==Nord area_g3==Centro spese_imprev pessima_salute padreistat_new==High Professions padreistat_new==Mid Prof padreistat_new==Low Professions

padreistat_new==Forze armate madreistat_new==High Professions madreistat_new==Mid Prof madreistat_new==Low Professions

madreistat_new==Forze armate

Platforms Labour Platforms

Key findings

 There is a higher probability of working for a platform for younger individuals, more often males, with a high education and living in Northern Italy

 Platform workers tend to belong to ‘fragile households’: households unable to deal with unexpected expenses (i.e. families exposed to relatively higher socio- economic risks or characterized by a stronger social fragility vis a vis the rest of the population)

 According to preliminary estimates on INAPP-PLUS, those working for digital

platforms as an additional job do not show any pension gap in terms of years of

contributions

Concluding remarks

 Measurement issues (phenomenon hard to be properly traced and measured)  Almost 40% of platform workers do not have a formal agreement (INAPP-PLUS) / 44%

of companies is not even registered in the INPS archives (Rapporto INPS 2018)

Heterogeneous organizational models (Guarascio e Sacchi, 2018)

 Collaborazioni coordinate e continuative (atypical contracts)

 Prestazioni di lavoro autonomo occasionale (occasional short-term arrangements) (only registered if above 5000 euro per year)

 Freelance of crowdwork  few information

 Partite IVA (registered at Gestione Separata but unkwon details about the companies they work for)

 Platforms contributed to push further the process of production fragmentation and task externalization (Cirillo and Zayas Molero, 2019 and Tubaro and Casilli, 2019;

Drahokoupil and Piasna, 2017)

 Risk of social exclusion for platform workers due to the potential lack of: appropriate contractual status, social protection and adequate income levels

 78% of platform workers willing to pay to improve social protection for illness – (INPS 2018)

References

Bogliacino, F., Cirillo, V., Codagnone, C., Fana, M., Lupanez-Villanueva, Veltri, G. (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.

Bogliacino, F., Cirillo, V., Codagnone, C., Guarascio, D. (2019) Quantity and quality of work in the platform economy, Handbook of Labor, Human Resources and Population Economics, edited by Klaus F. Zimmermann, Springer.

Cirillo, V. (2019) Lavoratori Non-Standard e Sistemi di Protezione Sociale: il caso dei lavoratori delle piattaforme digitali. Menabò n. 106 di Etica&Economia.

Cirillo, V. and Molero, J.Z. (2019) Digitalizing industry? Labor, technology and work organization: an introduction to the Forum. Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, September 2019, Volume 46, Issue 3, pp 313–321.

Codagnone, C., Lupiáñez-Villanueva, F., Tornese, P., Gaskell, G., Cirillo, V., Fana, M. (2018). Behavioural study on the effects of an extension of access to social protection for People in all forms of employment. Brussels: European Commission, DG Employment Social Affairs and Inclusion.

Collier, R. B., Dubal, V. B., & Carter, C. (2017). Labor platforms and gig work: the failure to regulate.

Drahokoupil, J., & Piasna, A. (2017). Work in the platform economy: beyond lower transaction costs. Intereconomics, 52(6), 335-340.

Eurofound (2019). Mapping the contours of the platform economy. Working paper WPEF19060.

Guarascio, D., Sacchi, S. (2018). Digital platform in Italy. An analysis of economic and employment trends. INAPP policy brief Hagiu, A. and Wright, J., (2015),Multi-sided platforms, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 43, issue C, p. 162-174.

INPS (2018) XVII RAPPORTO ANNUALE.

Pesole et al. (2018) Platform Workers in Europe: Evidence from the COLLEEM Survey.

Tubaro, P., Casilli, A. A. (2019). Micro-work, artificial intelligence and the automotive industry. Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, pp. 1-13.