Between autonomy and control: Strategies of arbitrage in the “on-demand” economy
Abstract
The “on-demand” economy is built upon company strategies of arbitrage between worker autonomy and worker control. Using ethnographic and interview data, I show how these strategies undermine the economic theory that justifies the on-demand business model. The increased freedom and flexibility on offer to workers is countered by “softer” and less visible forms of workforce surveillance and control. These take hold through information asymmetries, which narrow workers’ decision-making capacities and thus undercut arguments for workers’ designation as independent contractors. However, I also show that these forms of control ultimately hinge on workers’ willingness to conform to the calculative rationalities that companies project onto them, and that workers’ motivations diverge from these company assumptions. I conclude by countering the notion of calculability with that of “qualculation,” an affective style of reasoning that workers employ in response to algorithmic workforce management and which highlights how on-the-job decisions are made within a shifting moral economy of work.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In many articles, 'on-demand work' can describe both crowd work and gig work.
“In many articles, ' on-demand work ' (Shapiro, 2018) can describe both crowd work and gig work.”
From Socio‐technical issues in the platform‐mediated gig economy: A systematic literature review: An Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST) paper (2024) · cites this paper as Shapiro, 2018
Since many work activities are mediated via platforms, gig work organizations can utilize soft forms of workforce surveillance and control to monitor how workers spend their time and where they are located.
“Since many work activities are mediated via platforms, gig work organizations can utilize “soft” forms of workforce surveillance and control to monitor how workers spend their time and where they are located (Duggan et al., 2019; Shapiro, 2018).”
From Algorithmic management in a work context (2021) · cites this paper as Shapiro, 2018
Current research highlights implicit and explicit power asymmetries between workers and service recipients, as well as between workers and platforms.
“Current research highlights implicit and explicit power asymmetries between the workers and service recipients, as well as between the workers and plat-forms (Newlands, 2020; Shapiro, 2018).”
From Algorithmic management in a work context (2021) · cites this paper as Shapiro, 2018
The use of advanced algorithms creates new opportunities for managers to exercise control over the workforce.
“However, the use of advanced algorithms cre-ates new opportunities for managers to exercise control over the workforce (Kellogg et al., 2020; Shapiro, 2018).”
From Algorithmic management in a work context (2021) · cites this paper as Shapiro, 2018
Recent research shows how gig work platforms withhold information about how algorithms operate to maintain soft control of the workforce.
“Indeed, recent research shows how gig work platforms withhold information about how algorithms operate to maintain soft control of the workforce (Shapiro, 2018).”
From Algorithmic management in a work context (2021) · cites this paper as Shapiro, 2018
Breaches of privacy touch on a fundamental human right and also represent a strong leverage tool for managers, with which they can exert control and undermine autonomy.
“Breaches of privacy touch on a fundamental human right, but they also represent a strong leverage tool for managers, with which they can exert control and undermine autonomy (Shapiro 2018).”
From Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences (2024) · cites this paper as Shapiro 2018
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 28 · Cited by 374
- Authors
- Shapiro, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Corresponding author
- Shapiro, Aaron
- ORCID
- Shapiro, Aaron
- Venue
- New Media & Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2017-11-10
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 2954-2971
- ISSN
- 1461-4448 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7315
- OpenAlex
- W2767579288
- Cited by
- 374
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2026: 48 · 2025: 53 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 58 · 2022: 72 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 6
- FWCI
- 35.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- New Media & Society (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Pennsylvania
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Economy and Work Transformation
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Industrial relations › Legal and Labor Studies
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Employment, Labor, and Gender Studies
- Keywords
- on-demand economy, employee autonomy, workers' control, arbitrage, independent contractors, information asymmetry, algorithmic management, calculative rationality, affective reasoning, gig economy, employee decision-making
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
