Skip to Content
Last modified by Helena on 2025/07/31 14:17
Show last authors
1 {{box title="**Contents**"}}
2 {{toc/}}
3 {{/box}}
4
5 {{info}}
6 This chapter reviews existing sources and metrics to measure digital platform employment, limited to online and location-based services mediated by digital labour platforms. The objectives of this chapter are to:
7 i) review what measurement initiatives on digital platform employment have been undertaken so far; ii) identify the lessons learnt from these initiatives; iii) understand the pros and cons of the various statistical vehicles for answering to different policy issues. A key research question in this area has been to estimate the number of digital platform workers. Initial attempts made use of existing data sources, combined with strong assumptions. A number of surveys conducted by researchers and private agencies followed, with government agencies having sponsored some of the research. Since then, official statistical agencies of OECD Members have begun to introduce questions on digital platform workers into Labour Force Surveys (LFSs) and Internet Usage Surveys. Lastly, big data or administrative data, such as social security or tax data, have been used to estimate the number of digital platform workers.
8 {{/info}}
9
10 == Introduction ==
11
12 This chapter is a review of existing sources and metrics to measure [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]], limited to online and location-based services mediated by digital labour platforms. It therefore generally excludes digital platforms whose objective is selling or renting goods and assets, unless differently specified. The measurement of internal [[digital platforms employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]] (i.e. platform workers who are engaged by the digital platform as [[employees>>doc:working:Glossary.Employees.WebHome]]) is also generally outside the scope of this review.{{footnote}}This chapter is mainly based on OECD (2019[24]).{{/footnote}}
13
14 Due to the lack of internationally agreed definition of digital platform (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) and [[employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Employment.WebHome]], the terminology used in the reviewed papers is not harmonised. When discussing the findings from the reviewed sources, the current chapter reports for completeness also the original terms used, either in the main text or in footnotes. Information in the tables is also based on the original terminology.
15
16 The objective of this chapter is to: i) review what measurement initiatives on [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]] have been undertaken so far{{footnote}}The chapter includes studies whose aim is to estimate the size of digital platform employment drawing on quantitative methods, published by October 2020 in English (with the exception of a few studies in national languages). Although the chapter aimed at including as many available studies as possible, the evidence considered has to be intended as illustrative, rather than exhaustive.{{/footnote}}; ii) identify the lessons learnt from these initiatives; iii) understand the pros and cons of the various statistical vehicles for answering to different policy issues.
17
18 Since the emergence of [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]], there have been several attempts to estimate the number of digital platform workers. Initial attempts made use of existing data sources, combined with strong assumptions. A number of surveys conducted by both researchers and private agencies followed, with government agencies having sponsored some of the research. Since then, official statistical agencies of OECD Members have begun to introduce questions on digital platform workers into [[Labour Force>>doc:working:Glossary.Labour Force.WebHome]] Surveys (LFSs) and Internet Usage Surveys. Lastly, big data or administrative data, such as social security or tax data, have been used to estimate the number of digital platform workers.
19
20 The chapter looks at the attempts to measure [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]] by private agencies and official statistical agencies through surveys; highlights innovative uses of data; and concludes by discussing advantages and disadvantages associated with the different measurement methods.
21
22 == Estimating the number of digital platform workers through surveys ==
23
24 Researchers have commonly used surveys to estimate the number of digital platform workers, though with wide variation in estimates. Surveys carried out by non-official organisations are presented first (summarised in Table 4.1), as chronologically have preceded surveys carried out by national statistical agencies (summarised in Table 4.2).
25
26 === Non-official surveys ===
27
28 In the United States, (Katz and Krueger, 2016,,[1],,) aimed to meet the lack of official statistics by conducting a version of the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) Contingent Workers Survey (CWS) and found that 0.5% of the workforce identified customers through an online intermediary{{footnote}}This result was confirmed in (Katz and Krueger, 2019[60]), after the authors re-examined their results based on data from the CWS survey carried out in 2017, the RAND CWS 2015 survey and administrative tax data from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for 2000 to 2016. In line with (Farrell, Greig and Hamoudi, 2018[55]), they estimate that “only 0.5 percent to 1.5 percent of the workforce was engaged in online work for sample periods covering late 2015 to the end of 2017”.{{/footnote}}. In line with existing labour market statistics, the survey referred to (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) done in the past week, although they used a different sampling method. In contrast, the Pew Research Centre used a broader definition of digital platform worker (including those who engage in [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]] as a secondary [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]]) and a longer reference period (looking at those who engaged in [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]] in previous 12 months) and found that 8% of US [[working age>>doc:working:Glossary.Working Age.WebHome]] adults were digital platform workers (Pew Research Center, 2016,,[2],,). Several attempts have also been made to estimate the number of digital platform workers in Europe.
29
30 For the United Kingdom, the CIPD (a representative body for British Human Resource professionals) used an online survey and concluded that 4% of British adults had engaged in [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]] in the past 12 months in 2016 (CIPD, 2017,,[3],,). Despite using a broader definition (of gigs, including (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) found using a digital platform), a slightly lower prevalence was provided by the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce, for the share of British adults who tried gig (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) of some form, 3.1% (Balaram, Warden and Wallace-Stephens, 2017,,[4],,). Using a definition of “gig economy” limited to including digital labour platforms only, both as main and secondary source of income, an online survey in Great Britain (Lepanjuuri K., 2018,,[5],,) found that 4.4% of the population had “(% style="color:#e74c3c" %)worked(%%) in the gig economy” in the 12 months previous to the survey. To correct for potential selection bias due to carrying out the survey online, the panel also included members responding by telephone. Huws et al. (2019,,[6],,) found that 5.2% of the population in the United Kingdom had (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)worked(%%) at least once a week for digital platforms in 2016, and that this share doubled to 9.4% in 2019.
31
32 In Germany, Bonin and Rinne (2017,,[7],,) used a telephone survey to estimate that 2.9% of adults at some point in the past had engaged in [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]]. Evidence from this survey showed that respondents often misunderstand the definition of [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]], and tend to classify online activities, such as [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]] search websites, as [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]]. As a high number of respondents could not name the digital platform they were (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)working(%%) for, or named platforms not related to labour platforms, the researchers corrected the share of real digital platform workers (“crowd workers”) to 0.85% of adults.
33
34 In France, Le Ludec et al. (2019,,[8],,) used a combination of three methods to estimate that about 320 000 workers (about 0.8% of the (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)working(%%) population) are registered in digital platforms mediating offer and demand of “micro-(% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%)”. The latter is a specific subset of [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]], where workers are engaged to carry out “micro-tasks”, i.e. small independent units of larger tasks which are to be carried out independently, often remunerated with small amounts of money (ILO, 2018,,[9],,). The authors selected the main micro-(% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) platforms operating in France and used the results of Digital Platform Labour (DipLab) survey to apply a specific “capture-recapture” method.{{footnote}}Capture-recapture is a method commonly used in ecology to estimate an animal population's size where it is impractical to count every individual. A portion of the population is captured, marked, and released. Later, another portion will be captured and the number of marked individuals within the sample is counted. Since the number of marked individuals within the second sample should be proportional to the number of marked individuals in the whole population, an estimate of the total population size can be obtained by dividing the number of marked individuals by the proportion of marked individuals in the second sample (Wikipedia, 2020[61]).{{/footnote}}
35
36 Two Scandinavian surveys highlight the importance of choice of question (see Annex A2). In a telephone survey, Alsos et al., (2017,,[10],,) found that 0.5% to 1% of Norwegian [[working age>>doc:working:Glossary.Working Age.WebHome]] adults have used a digital platform (including also platforms for renting accommodation, such as AirBnb) to earn income in the past 12 months. They found that questions asked over the phone gave more accurate responses than online surveys, as does mentioning specific digital platforms. An earlier survey carried out in the country among 1,525 Norwegian adults had found higher estimates: 10% of respondents indicated they had done (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) for a platform at some point and 2% said they performed platform (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) on a weekly basis (Jesnes et al., 2016,,[11],,). The importance of specifying whether an individual provided, or merely offered a service, is highlighted in a report for Government of Sweden, which found that although 4% of Swedish [[working age>>doc:working:Glossary.Working Age.WebHome]] adults searched for (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) via a digital platform, only 2.5% were successful (SOU, 2017,,[12],,).
37
38 There have been several cross-country studies of digital platform workers. McKinsey Global Institute conducted an online survey of 8 000 workers across six countries (the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, France, and Spain) and found approximately 1.5% of respondents have earned income via digital labour platforms in the pooled sample (Manyika et al., 2016,,[13],,).
39
40 Huws et al. (2019,,[6],,) estimated the share of digital platform workers based on online surveys carried out in 13 European countries{{footnote}}Austria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.{{/footnote}} between 2016 and 2019, either as an addition to an existing omnibus survey or as a stand-alone survey. Data collected through samples of about 2 000 respondents in each country led to estimates of the number of regular (at least weekly) digital platform workers ranging from 4.9% of the (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)working(%%) population in Sweden and the Netherlands in 2016 to 28.5% in the Czech Republic in 2019. However, differences in the age ranges in the samples limit cross-country comparability of this study. Estimates of the prevalence of [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]] from this survey are higher than those found in other surveys. This may derive from selection bias and overrepresentation of online workers among the respondents, particularly those used to perform micro-task (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%), such as filling online surveys. In addition, the effect of paying the respondents to answer the survey may add a bias. To assess potential selection biases in online surveys, the authors carried out companion offline surveys in two countries: a face-to-face survey in the United Kingdom and a telephone survey in Switzerland. Although the two UK surveys returned similar results, those carried out in Switzerland by telephone yielded lower estimates of digital platform workers (1.6% of total population aged 15 to 89 years) than those measured through the online survey by the authors.
41
42 In Europe, cross-country surveys have been undertaken by Eurobarometer and the European Commission. A Eurobarometer poll estimates the number of adults who provided a service using a digital platform in 2016 (and updated in 2018), including digital labour platforms, car sharing and digital platforms to rent accommodation. This survey highlighted wide variation across countries in the number of workers having offered their services through a digital platform at least once, ranging from 16% in France to less than 1% in Malta in 2016.{{footnote}}The French estimate fell to 11% in 2018, suggesting that understanding of the question by respondents changed over time.{{/footnote}} The study also highlighted the importance of choosing an appropriate reference time, as those who regularly supply a service are a small fraction of those who do so occasionally (Eurobarometer, 2016,,[14],,; Eurobarometer, 2018,,[15],,).
43
44 Findings from the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre Collaborative Economy and [[Employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Employment.WebHome]] (COLLEEM) pilot survey conducted in 2017 in 14 EU Member States and repeated in 2018 across 16 EU Member States{{footnote}}Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.{{/footnote}} (both fielded by the Public Policy and Management Institute) are described in Chapter 1 of this Handbook. According to COLLEEM, the share of adults who provided services via online platforms monthly (digital labour platforms only) was 11% in the 16 countries surveyed in 2018, slightly higher than in 2017 (9.5%). Estimates from COLLEEM are affected by some methodological limits. The survey was conducted online among frequent Internet users, thus leading to potential self-selection bias, particularly of those providing professional services online. Potential self-selection bias was corrected for by using weights for education, [[employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Employment.WebHome]] status, and frequency of Internet use (based on Eurostat’s LFS and ICT survey) when reporting results for the adult population as a whole. However, bias in this survey may remain (Pesole et al., 2018,,[16],,); (Urzì Brancati, Pesole and Fernández-Macías, 2020,,[17],,); (Piasna and Drahokoupil, 2019,,[18],,).
45
46 To overcome potential biases of paid, opt-in online surveys, Piasna and Drahokoupil (2019,,[18],,), collected data on digital platform workers in five central and eastern European countries (Bulgaria, Hungary, Latvia, Poland and Slovakia) through the ETUI Internet and Platform (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)Work(%%) Survey, using stratified random sampling of the entire population and face-to-face interviews. The respondents were not remunerated for their participation in the survey. Based on more than 4 700 respondents, they found that a lower share of adults engaged in monthly [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]]{{footnote}}“Platform work” in the original study.{{/footnote}} than previous estimates, with proportion of 0.4% in Poland, 0.8% in Latvia,1.1% in Slovakia, 1.% in Bulgaria and 3% in Hungary. More regular [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]] (at least weekly) ranges from 0.4% in Poland and Slovakia and 0.5% in Latvia, to 0.8% in Bulgaria and 1.9% in Hungary.
47
48 The reviewed studies show the importance of choice of the survey mode and its impact on survey’s results (Box 4.1). These considerations are also applicable to surveys carried out by official organisations.
49
50 {{box}}
51 **Box 4.1. Observations on survey mode**
52
53 Evidence shows that even with very similar definitions, survey results can vary rather substantially when data are collected face-to-face, online or by telephone. This can be attributed to factors related to coverage (which may introduce sampling biases), and to respondents’ behaviour (which may introduce measurement biases).
54
55 **Different survey modes vary in their capability of covering relevant target groups**
56
57 Although it could be argued that an online survey is an appropriate tool to target platform workers, as they need to have Internet access due to the nature of this employment form, there is some indication that online platform workers are better represented in online surveys than on-location platform workers who realise their tasks in the physical sphere. Furthermore, these respondents are likely to be more familiar with digital platforms than those members of the target population that have no Internet. Results may therefore be not representative of the general population. Adjusting the sample distribution through quotas or (post-stratification) weighting cannot correct for this bias, unless Internet access is provided to respondents as part of the survey design (Eurofound, 2019[19]).
58 Telephone surveys are not only limited to people who have a phone, but this number also needs to be recorded in an official register. It is likely that some population groups tend to register less than others. This could for example result in a situation in which platform workers with migration background or highly specialised online platform workers are less well covered in a survey. Related to that, national registers of mobile phones might turn out to be problematic as nowadays there not necessarily is a direct link anymore between the phone suffix for a certain country and the respondents’ actual place of living and working. This, again, might result in biased results as regards, for example, migrants or higher-educated (cross-border) mobile workers who (also) engage in platform work.
59
60 While the previously raised concerns (Eurofound, 2019[19]) as regards certain population groups (such as the institutionalised) being excluded from face-to-face surveys might be less relevant for digital platform employment surveys, at the time of writing (mid-2021) it remains to be seen whether and how the ‘new normal’ after the COVID-19 pandemic affects face-to-face surveys. It can, for example, be expected that people affected by ill health remain cautious in the medium or even long run as regards allowing interviewers to their private home where physical distancing might be difficult to realise. This can result in sample bias as for some people their health situation is a motivation to engage in online platform work, and they might be structurally omitted.
61
62 Other groups of digital platform workers might be difficult to cover in face-to-face household surveys as they are difficult to reach at home. Examples are on-location digital platform workers who, for example, do food delivery or ride-hailing in the evening or on weekends to generate additional income to a fulltime employment during core working hours on weekdays.
63
64 **Measurement orientation and expected bias should be considered when deciding upon the survey mode**
65
66 It is generally argued that self-administered survey modes (like online surveys) encourage respondents to provide more honest answers compared to interviewer-guided survey modes like face-to-face or phone. There is no reason to assume that this is different for digital platform employment surveys. However, the big advantage of interviewer-guided survey modes is that the interviewer can clarify questions and probe in case of inconsistent answer behaviour of the respondent. Given the challenge of demarcation of the concept of digital platform employment, this might result in better survey quality.
67
68 The survey mode also influences the length of the survey. In face-to-face surveys, more questions can be asked than in online surveys (which are widely recommended to be limited to a maximum of 15 minutes). Accordingly, if a more comprehensive or in-depth coverage of topics is the intention of the survey, face-to-face is the better option compared to an online survey.
69 Related to that, response behaviour might differ between online surveys filled on a PC or laptop compared to on a mobile phone. Attention spans on the latter might be shorter, open-ended questions even less answered and longer answer batteries or unfavourable designs might trigger higher nonresponse and break-up rates which influence the survey quality. This may be even more so in the case of on-location digital platform workers who might use waiting times between assignments to fill questionnaires on the app, but then interrupt or even stop fully if they receive an order on short-notice.
70 {{/box}}
71
72 ==== Surveys also provide information on the working conditions of digital platform workers ====
73
74 Beyond estimating the prevalence of digital platform workers, (Urzì Brancati, Pesole and FernándezMacías, 2020,,[17],,) also included questions aimed at better understanding their (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)working(%%) conditions. There is a growing body of literature focusing on specific aspects of [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]], such as legal (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) arrangements. While these studies do not provide information on the size of [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]], they could allow improving questions in surveys administered for measurement purposes.
75
76 ILO (2018,,[9],,) provides one of the first comparative studies of (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)working(%%) conditions of micro-task workers around the world. It is based on an ILO survey covering 3 500 workers in 75 countries and (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)working(%%) on five major globally operating micro-task platforms. This was supplemented with in-depth, follow-up interviews with a random sample of workers. The report analyses the (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)working(%%) conditions on these micro-task platforms, including pay rates, (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) availability and intensity, social protection coverage and (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%)–life balance. Drawing on surveys and interviews with about 12 000 workers and representatives of 85 businesses, ILO (2021,,[20],,) examines (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)working(%%) conditions, patterns of (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) and income, access to social protection, association and collective bargaining rights of digital platform workers operating in online webbased and location-based platforms around the world.
77
78 In Belgium, the food delivery platform Deliveroo employed workers through an intermediary company in 2016-2018 (SMart). Based on the administrative data provided by SMart, Drahokoupil and Piasna (2019,,[21],,) analysed data on riders active from September 2016 to April 2017 and administered a survey to these riders. They analysed workers’ characteristics, patterns of (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) and pay, motivation for engaging in [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]], as well as their perceived benefits and disadvantages of cessation of the DeliverooSMart contractual agreement.
79
80 **Table 4.1. Main features of non-official surveys measuring digital platform employment**
81
82 |(% style="width:96px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)**Country**|(% style="width:106px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)**Time when
83 the survey
84 was conducted**|(% style="width:85px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)**Reference
85 period**|(% style="width:102px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)**Reference**|(% style="width:112px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)**Type(s) of
86 digital
87 platform in
88 scope**|(% style="width:150px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)**Question
89 wording**|(%%)(% style="font-size:14px" %)**Selection
90 into
91 sample**|(% style="width:113px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)**Sample size**|(% style="width:113px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)**Survey
92 method**|(% style="width:109px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)**Definition of
93 digital
94 platform
95 employment
96 provided?**|(% style="width:93px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)**Examples
97 of digital
98 platform
99 named?**|(% style="width:91px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)**Reference
100 to earned
101 income?**|(% style="width:162px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)**Estimate of the
102 prevalence of
103 digital platform
104 employment ~(%)**
105 |(% style="width:96px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)**Norway**|(% style="width:106px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Sept. 2016
106 to|(% style="width:85px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)In the
107 past 12
108 months|(% style="width:102px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)(Alsos et al., 2017[10])|(% style="width:112px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Digital labour
109 platforms and
110 digital
111 platforms for
112 assets rental
113 (AirBnb)|(% style="width:150px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Done any
114 assignments
115 or paid [[employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Employment.WebHome]]
116 through companies
117 that use apps and websites to convey (% style="color:#e74c3c; font-size:14px" %)work(% style="font-size:14px" %) and services|(%%)(% style="color:#e74c3c; font-size:14px" %)Working(%%)
118 (% style="font-size:14px" %)age
119 population|(% style="width:113px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Survey of(%%)
120 (% style="color:#e74c3c; font-size:14px" %)work(% style="font-size:14px" %) providers:
121 1 000 respondents|(% style="width:113px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Pilot surveys
122 were online,
123 actual survey was via telephone|(% style="width:109px" %) |(% style="width:93px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Yes|(% style="width:91px" %) |(% style="width:162px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)0.5% of (% style="color:#e74c3c; font-size:14px" %)working(%%)
124 (% style="font-size:14px" %)age population
125 |(% style="width:96px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)**Great
126 Britain**|(% style="width:106px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)11 Nov.
127 2016 to 10|(% style="width:85px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Ever|(% style="width:102px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)(Balaram,
128 Warden and
129 Wallace-
130 Stephens,
131 2017[4])|(% style="width:112px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Digital labour
132 platforms|(% style="width:150px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Personally
133 carried out
134 paid (% style="color:#e74c3c; font-size:14px" %)work(%%)
135 (% style="font-size:14px" %)using a
136 website or
137 mobile
138 phone
139 application|(%%)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Residents
140 aged 15
141 and up|(% style="width:113px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)7 656
142 respondents|(% style="width:113px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Face-toface|(% style="width:109px" %) |(% style="width:93px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Yes|(% style="width:91px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Yes|(% style="width:162px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)3.2% of respondents have previously carried out gig (% style="color:#e74c3c; font-size:14px" %)work(% style="font-size:14px" %), 2.2%
143 currently do
144 |(% style="width:96px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)**Italy, the
145 United
146 States, and
147 the United
148 Kingdom**|(% style="width:106px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)ITA: 8-15
149 May 2018
150 GBR: 5
151 Feb. and 2
152 Mar. 2018
153 USA: 24-
154 27 Apr.
155 2017|(% style="width:85px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Last
156 year?
157 (Unknow
158 n)|(% style="width:102px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)(Boeri et al.,
159 2018[22])|(% style="width:112px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)“Gig
160 economy”
161 (Digital labour
162 platforms and
163 digital
164 platforms for
165 assets rental,
166 i.e. AirBnB)|(% style="width:150px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)[[Jobs>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]] organised
167 via online platforms|(%%)(% style="color:#e74c3c; font-size:14px" %)Working(%%)
168 (% style="font-size:14px" %)age population
169 (the US
170 survey
171 sampled
172 using
173 online ads
174 and social
175 media)|(% style="width:113px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)15 000 for
176 Italy and
177 20 000 for the
178 United 
179 Kingdom, and
180 10 368 for the
181 United States|(% style="width:113px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Online|(% style="width:109px" %) |(% style="width:93px" %) |(% style="width:91px" %) |(% style="width:162px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)2.6% in Italy, 3.0% for the United Kingdom. No estimate for the US
182 |(% style="width:96px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)**Germany**|(% style="width:106px" %) |(% style="width:85px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Ever|(% style="width:102px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)(Bonin and
183 Rinne, 2017[7])|(% style="width:112px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Digital labour
184 platforms|(% style="width:150px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Performing
185 paid (% style="color:#e74c3c; font-size:14px" %)work(%%)
186 (% style="font-size:14px" %)assignments
187 obtained via
188 platforms or
189 apps| |(% style="width:113px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)10 000
190 interviews|(% style="width:113px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Telephone|(% style="width:109px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)No|(% style="width:93px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)No|(% style="width:91px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Yes|(% style="width:162px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)3.1% currently,
191 an additional 2.9% had previously
192 |(% style="width:96px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)**United
193 Kingdom**|(% style="width:106px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)2 to 15
194 Dec. 2016|(% style="width:85px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)In the last
195 12 months|(% style="width:102px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)(CIPD,
196 2017[3])|(% style="width:112px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Digital labour
197 platforms,
198 digital
199 platforms for
200 selling goods
201 and digital
202 platform for
203 renting assets|(% style="width:150px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Individuals
204 who have
205 used an
206 online
207 platform at
208 least once to:
209 1) provide
210 transport, 2)
211 rent their
212 own vehicle,
213 3) deliver
214 food or
215 goods, 4)
216 perform
217 short-term
218 [[jobs>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]], or 5) do
219 other (% style="color:#e74c3c; font-size:14px" %)work|(%%)(% style="font-size:14px" %)A nationally
220 represent
221 ative sample of UK adults
222 aged 18 to
223 70.|(% style="width:113px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)5019
224 respondents|(% style="width:113px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Online|(% style="width:109px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)No|(% style="width:93px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Yes|(% style="width:91px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Yes|(% style="width:162px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)4% of employed
225 adults
226 |(% style="width:96px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)**14 EU
227 countries:
228 GBR, ESP,
229 DEU, NLD,
230 PRT, ITA,
231 LTU, ROM,
232 FRA, SWE,
233 HUN, HRV,
234 SVK, FIN**|(% style="width:106px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Second
235 half of
236 June 2017|(% style="width:85px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Ever|(% style="width:102px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)COLLEEM
237 (Pesole
238 et al.,
239 2018[16])|(% style="width:112px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Digital labour
240 platforms|(% style="width:150px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Individuals
241 providing
242 services via
243 online platforms
244 where either
245 1) both (% style="color:#e74c3c; font-size:14px" %)work(%%)
246 (% style="font-size:14px" %)and payment
247 is digital, or
248 2) payment is
249 digital but the(%%)
250 (% style="color:#e74c3c; font-size:14px" %)work(% style="font-size:14px" %) is
251 performed
252 on-location.|(%%)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Internet users aged 16 to 74|(% style="width:113px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)32 389
253 observations
254 (approximatel
255 y 2 300 per
256 country)|(% style="width:113px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Online|(% style="width:109px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Yes|(% style="width:93px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Yes|(% style="width:91px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Yes|(% style="width:162px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)On average
257 9.7% of the
258 adult population
259 ever provided
260 labour to an
261 online platform
262 |(% style="width:96px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)**16 EU
263 countries:
264 CZE, GBR,
265 ESP, DEU,
266 NLD, PRT,
267 IRL, ITA,
268 LTU, ROM,
269 FRA, SWE, HUN, HRV, SVK, FIN**|(% style="width:106px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Sept. and
270 Nov. 2018|(% style="width:85px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Ever|(% style="width:102px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)COLLEEM
271 II (Urzì
272 Brancati,
273 Pesole and
274 Fernández-
275 Macías,
276 2020[17])|(% style="width:112px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Digital labour
277 platforms|(% style="width:150px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)See
278 COLLEEM| |(% style="width:113px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)38 878
279 observations|(% style="width:113px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Online|(% style="width:109px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Yes|(% style="width:93px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Yes|(% style="width:91px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Yes|(% style="width:162px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)On average
280 11% of the adult
281 population ever provided labour to an online platform
282 |(% style="width:96px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)**EU-28
283 countries**|(% style="width:106px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)March
284 2016|(% style="width:85px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Ever|(% style="width:102px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)(Eurobarom
285 eter,
286 2018[15])|(% style="width:112px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)“Collaborative
287 platform”
288 (Digital labour
289 platforms and
290 other digital
291 services
292 platforms)|(% style="width:150px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Provided
293 services on
294 collaborative
295 platforms. A
296 collaborative
297 platform is an
298 internet
299 based tool
300 that enables
301 transactions
302 between
303 people
304 providing
305 and using a
306 service|(%%)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Residents
307 aged 15
308 years and
309 over|(% style="width:113px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Around 500
310 interviews per
311 country|(% style="width:113px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Telephone
312 interview|(% style="width:109px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Yes|(% style="width:93px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)No|(% style="width:91px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)No|(% style="width:162px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)32% of
313 respondents
314 have visited
315 collaborative
316 platforms, of
317 which another
318 32% have offered  services
319 |(% style="width:96px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)**United
320 Kingdom,
321 Sweden,
322 Germany,
323 Austria,
324 and the
325 Netherlands**|(% style="width:106px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)GBR (Jan.
326 2016)
327 SWE
328 (Mar.
329 2016)
330 AUS DEU
331 NLD (Apr.
332 2016)|(% style="width:85px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Unknown|(% style="width:102px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)(Huws,
333 Spencer
334 and Joyce,
335 2016[23])|(% style="width:112px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Digital labour
336 platforms|(% style="width:150px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Engaged in
337 paid (% style="color:#e74c3c; font-size:14px" %)work(%%)
338 (% style="font-size:14px" %)organised
339 via an online
340 platform|(%%)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Responde
341 nts to
342 Ipsos-
343 MORI
344 iOmnibus
345 online
346 survey(%%)
347 (% style="color:#e74c3c; font-size:14px" %)Working(%%)
348 (% style="font-size:14px" %)age population
349 (age ranges
350 between
351 16-65 and
352 16-75)|(% style="width:113px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)GBR-2 238
353 SWE-2 146
354 AUS-1 969
355 DEU-2 180
356 NLD-2 126|(% style="width:113px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Online|(% style="width:109px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)No|(% style="width:93px" %) |(% style="width:91px" %) |(% style="width:162px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Between 9 and 19% of respondents engaged in crowd (% style="color:#e74c3c; font-size:14px" %)work
357 |(% style="width:96px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)**13 EU
358 countries:
359 GBR, SWE,
360 NLD, DEU,
361 AUT, CHE,
362 ITA, EST,
363 FIN, ESP,
364 SVN, CZE,
365 FRA**|(% style="width:106px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)2016 to
366 2019|(% style="width:85px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)At least
367 weekly /
368 monthly|(% style="width:102px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)(Huws et al.,
369 2019[6])|(% style="width:112px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Digital labour
370 platforms|(% style="width:150px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Engaged in paid (% style="color:#e74c3c; font-size:14px" %)work(% style="font-size:14px" %) organised
371 via an online platform|(%%)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Responde
372 nts to
373 Ipsos-
374 MORI
375 iOmnibus
376 online
377 survey(%%)
378 (% style="color:#e74c3c; font-size:14px" %)Working(%%)
379 (% style="font-size:14px" %)age
380 population
381 (age ranges
382 between
383 18-55 and
384 16-75)|(% style="width:113px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)GBR-2 235
385 SWE-2 146
386 AUT-1 969
387 DEU-2 180
388 NLD-2 125
389 CHE-2 001
390 ITA-2 199
391 EST-2 000
392 FIN-2 000
393 ESP-2 182
394 SVN-2 001
395 CZE-2 000
396 FRA-2 159|(% style="width:113px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Online|(% style="width:109px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)No|(% style="width:93px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)No|(% style="width:91px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Yes|(% style="width:162px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Between 9% (NLD, 2016) and 44% (CZE, 2019) of respondents engaged in crowd (% style="color:#e74c3c; font-size:14px" %)work
397 |(% style="width:96px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)**United
398 States,
399 Germany,
400 France,
401 Sweden,
402 Spain**|(% style="width:106px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)June and
403 July 2016|(% style="width:85px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)In the
404 past 12
405 months|(% style="width:102px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)(Manyika
406 et al.,
407 2016[13])|(% style="width:112px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Digital labour
408 platforms,
409 digital platforms for
410 selling goods
411 and digital
412 platform for
413 renting assets|(% style="width:150px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Classified independent workers according to a decision tree.|(%%)(% style="color:#e74c3c; font-size:14px" %)Working(%%)
414 (% style="font-size:14px" %)age
415 responde
416 nts|(% style="width:113px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)8 131
417 responses
418 (minimum
419 1 200 responses
420 per country)|(% style="width:113px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Administer
421 ed electronically|(% style="width:109px" %) |(% style="width:93px" %) |(% style="width:91px" %) |(% style="width:162px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)1,5%
422 |(% style="width:96px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)**United
423 Kingdom**|(% style="width:106px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)6 July to 6
424 August
425 2017|(% style="width:85px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)In the
426 past 12
427 months|(% style="width:102px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)(Lepanjuuri
428 K., 2018[5])|(% style="width:112px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Digital labour
429 platforms|(% style="width:150px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Gig economy
430 (involves exchange of labour for money
431 between individuals or companies via digital platforms
432 that actively facilitate
433 matching between
434 providers and customers, on a  shortterm and  payment by task  basis)|(%%)(% style="font-size:14px" %)All GB
435 adults
436 (aged
437 18+)|(% style="width:113px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)NatCen Panel
438 (2 184
439 interviews) +
440 YouGov
441 Omnibus nonprobability
442 online panel
443 (11 354 people 
444 surveyed)|(% style="width:113px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Online|(% style="width:109px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Yes|(% style="width:93px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Yes|(% style="width:91px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Yes|(% style="width:162px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)4.4% of the surveyed
445 population (including
446 Amazon Mechanical
447 Turk, CrowdFlower,
448 Clickworker, Microworkers and Prolific) (% style="color:#e74c3c; font-size:14px" %)worked(% style="font-size:14px" %) via
449 platforms during the previous 12 months
450 |(% style="width:96px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)**France**|(% style="width:106px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Website of
451 the platforms
452 visited in
453 Sept. 2018|(% style="width:85px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Unknown|(% style="width:102px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)(Le Ludec,
454 Tubaro and
455 Casilli,
456 2019[8])|(% style="width:112px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Digital labour
457 platforms|(% style="width:150px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Estimates of
458 the individuals
459 microworking
460 in France,
461 based on the
462 results of the
463 survey "Digital Platform
464 Labour"
465 (DiPLab).|(% colspan="3" rowspan="1" style="width:350px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Estimates are based on a selection of seven micro-(% style="color:#e74c3c; font-size:14px" %)working(% style="font-size:14px" %) platforms operating in France. The authors use a combination of 3 methods (declaration, capture-recapture, panel), adjusted by taking into account the multi-homing (multi-activity of microworkers on multiple platforms) to estimate the number of micro-workers in France.
466 This is also combined with a distributed
467 questionnaire in the form of a paid task (997 responses obtained).|(% style="width:109px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Yes|(% style="width:93px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Yes|(% style="width:91px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)No|(% style="width:162px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)The estimated
468 number of French people registered for micro-(% style="color:#e74c3c; font-size:14px" %)work(% style="font-size:14px" %) platforms on the seven platforms
469 is nearing 320 000. Among them, 4.7% are micro-(% style="color:#e74c3c; font-size:14px" %)working(% style="font-size:14px" %) at least once a week, and  16.4% less than once a month.
470 |(% style="width:96px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)**United
471 States**|(% style="width:106px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)12 July to
472 8 August
473 2016|(% style="width:85px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)In the past year|(% style="width:102px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)(Pew
474 Research
475 Center,
476 2016[2])|(% style="width:112px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Digital labour
477 platforms|(% style="width:150px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Earned money by taking [[jobs>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]] (including filling surveys) through a website that required a
478 user profile|(%%)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Responde
479 nts of the
480 American
481 Trends
482 Panel who
483 self-identify
484 as internet
485 users.|(% style="width:113px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)4 579
486 respondents
487 (4 165 online,
488 414 via mail)|(% style="width:113px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Online and
489 via mail|(% style="width:109px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Yes|(% style="width:93px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Yes|(% style="width:91px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Yes|(% style="width:162px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)8% of all adults engaged in gig (% style="color:#e74c3c; font-size:14px" %)work
490 |(% style="width:96px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)**Sweden**|(% style="width:106px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Autumn
491 2016|(% style="width:85px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)In the
492 past 12
493 months|(% style="width:102px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)(SOU,
494 2017[12])|(% style="width:112px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Digital labour
495 platforms|(% style="width:150px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Attempted to get a [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]] through an online platform|(%%)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Aged 16-
496 64|(% style="width:113px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)7 069 respondents|(% style="width:113px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Web panel,
497 recruited by telephone|(% style="width:109px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Yes|(% style="width:93px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Yes|(% style="width:91px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Yes|(% style="width:162px" %)(% style="font-size:14px" %)Around 4% have been
498 trying, while around 2.5% of (% style="color:#e74c3c; font-size:14px" %)working(% style="font-size:14px" %) age
499 population has been successful
500
501 Source: Adapted from OECD (2019[24]), Measuring platform mediated workers, OECD Digital Economy Papers No.282, OECD Publishing, [[https:~~/~~/doi.org/10.1787/170a14d9-en>>https://doi.org/10.1787/170a14d9-en]].
502
503 === Surveys of national statistical offices ===
504
505 ==== Labour force surveys ====
506
507 Existing labour statistics, such as those produced by LFSs, have difficulties in tracking digital platform workers. Such surveys focus on a worker’s primary [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]] and can be unreliable in their coverage of secondary [[jobs>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]] and self-[[employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Employment.WebHome]], and do not capture the diversity of [[employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Employment.WebHome]] contracts (Bernhardt and Thomason, 2017,,[25],,); (Abraham et al., 2018,,[26],,). This causes difficulties if digital platform workers already have a stable [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]] and use [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]] to complement their income. Therefore, it is necessary to develop new questions for surveys. Recently, questions have been included in LFSs in Canada, Denmark, Finland, Singapore, Switzerland and the United States (Table 4.2). Italy also included a specific module on “gig workers” in its LFS in 2021 (ISTAT, 2021,,[27],,).
508
509 In the United States, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reinstated in 2017 the Contingent (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)Work(%%) Survey (CWS) – a supplement to the nation’s monthly LFS -, which had been discontinued in 2005. In 2017, the BLS introduced two new questions on “electronically-mediated (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%)”, with a view of measuring participation in the platform economy. The interviews were conducted by telephone and used a ‘last week’ reference period. While 3.3% of respondents (out of 46 000 people interviewed) answered positively to the situations described as electronically-mediated (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%), a number of false positive answers were detected and in the recoded data; overall, only 1% the workforce was classified as (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)working(%%) through an online intermediary.
510
511 Finland introduced in 2017 a question in the LFS to estimate the number of people aged 15 to 74 who had earned an income through digital platforms in the previous year (Finland, 2017,,[28],,). Results from about 43 000 respondents showed that 0.3% of adults had earned more than 25% of their income from digital platforms. The question refers to a limited number of specific digital platforms, including some non-labour digital platforms, such as AirBnb and national digital platforms for selling second-hand goods. Pilot tests before the running of the survey had shown that respondents lacked understanding of what should be considered within the scope of [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]] and income (Sutela, 2018,,[29],,).
512
513 Denmark also included specific examples of digital labour platforms and digital platforms for renting accommodation in three questions on digital platforms added to the 2017 LFS. The large-scale survey involved 18 000 randomly selected Danish citizens aged 15–74 years, interviewed using a combination of web survey and phone interviews. The survey concluded that only 1% of the workforce had earned income from platform mediated (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) in the last 12 months (Ilsøe and Larsen, 2020,,[30],,).
514
515 The specific module on “Internet-mediated platform (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%)” added to the 2019 LFS in Switzerland (Swiss Federal Statistical Office (SFSO), 2020,,[31],,) also showed the importance of addressing cognitive biases when formulating the questions. Implementation of this module showed that plausibility checks are very important; these checks were based on hours (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)worked(%%), income, named platforms and interviewer’s additional comments, in order to control for false positive. Results from about 11 500 respondents showed that 1.6% of the population aged 15 to 89 provide platform services in Switzerland including renting out accommodation and sale of goods (without these two, [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]] amounts to 0.4% of total population).
516
517 As an annual supplement to its LFS, Singapore also included questions to capture the prevalence of own account workers who engaged in [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]]. This referred to digital platforms that serve as intermediaries to connect buyers with workers who take up piecemeal or assignment-based (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%). Results showed that in 2020, 3.6% of the workforce were regular own account workers who took up (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) via online matching platforms, either as their main [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]] or on the side, over a one-year reference period. With the growth of ride-hailing and item delivery apps, most of the workers who utilised such digital platforms were providing services related to the transportation of goods and passengers.
518
519 ==== ICT Surveys ====
520
521 Several national statistical offices of OECD Member States have conducted pilot surveys to measure the number of consumers and workers using digital labour platforms (Table 4.2). Initial attempts focused on use of digital platforms by consumers and were included in ICT usage surveys (such as those of Eurostat). More recently, questions asking whether participants have engaged in [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]] have been included in Internet use surveys in Canada, the United States, and in an EU-wide survey ran in 2018 and 2019. While the available estimates are not comparable across countries, they show a variety of approaches to dealing with the issues of providing definitions to questionnaire respondents, and setting appropriate reference periods. In addition to cross-country differences, there are also substantial differences with surveys done by private organisations (see above). Some of the differences in estimates of platform use are due to differences in methodologies and definitions between countries and over time.
522
523 The Canada Internet Use Survey included a detailed module on online (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) in 2018 and in 2020. The 2018 results show that, among Internet users, 8% use Internet to earn income. Among them, 14.1% earned income using online freelancing, and 6.1% through platform-based peer-to-peer services.
524
525 The US Computer and Internet Use Supplement (CIUS), which is compiled as a supplement to the CPS, includes a question on online (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%), asking about own services offered for sale via the Internet. Estimates referring to November 2019 show a prevalence of 7.6% among Internet users, up from 6% in November 2017.
526
527 Eurostat inserted two questions in the Community Survey on ICT Usage in Households and by Individuals in 2018 and 2019. At the European level, results were not published as considered not reliable due to the small sample size and to limited respondents’ understanding of the concept of [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]]. However, Slovenia and Switzerland published some results, which confirm that only a tiny share of the population obtained paid (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) by using an intermediary website or apps. For example, in 2019, the share was 2.1% in Switzerland (among individuals aged 15 and more) and 0.5% in Slovenia 2019 (among individuals aged 16 to 74). An accurate measurement of [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]] through the ICT survey would require a small ad-hoc module with several questions, so that respondents can have an appropriate understanding. The Eurostat ICT survey currently does not have this space, as it is aimed of surveying a number of other topics. Furthermore, estimates show that a small number of digital platform workers are likely to be included in each sample, making it difficult to gain high-quality statistics of digital platform workers via this type of official survey.
528
529 ==== Other surveys ====
530
531 In Australia, (McDonald et al., 2019,,[32],,) carried out for the Victorian government an online survey of more than 14 000 adults to enquire about the extent and nature of [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]]{{footnote}}“Platform mediated work” in the study.{{/footnote}} across the country. The survey found that 7.1% of survey respondents (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)worked(%%) through a digital platform or had done so in the previous year.{{footnote}}The sample was constructed to be nationally representative according to gender, age and State/Territory and was administered by the Online Research Unit (ORU), an Australian-based online research panel provider.{{/footnote}} Based on the findings from the survey, the Victorian government released a report on the “on-demand workforce” – of which platform (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) is considered a subset – (The State of Victoria, 2020,,[33],,) highlighting digital platform workers’ conditions and offering recommendations for improvement.
532
533 In France, the National Institute for Statistics INSEE (Richet Damien, 2020,,[34],,) surveyed individual entrepreneurs who had newly registered as “micro-entrepreneurs” in 2018. The Information system on new enterprises-survey of micro-entrepreneurs (//Système d’information sur les nouvelles entreprises (Sine) – enquête Micro-entrepreneurs//) allows to survey at regular intervals 56 000 new micro-entrepreneurs in France, to follow the developments for a new generation of enterprises. The survey found that one in six (16%) of them (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)worked(%%) via a digital platform, with this percentage as high as two-thirds for microentrepreneurs in the transport sector. About one-third of new micro-entrepreneurs (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)working(%%) through a digital platform – more than half of those in the transport sector – declared having created the enterprise specifically to this end. The Information system on new enterprises-survey (Sine) still asks this question in the following surveys (2019, 2021, 2022) and extended the scope, not only aiming at “micro-entrepreneurs”// //but also all newly created enterprises.
534
535 In Italy, the National Institute of Public Policy Analysis Innovation (INAPP), added a module on the gig economy to its 2018 survey (Participation, Labour, [[Unemployment>>doc:working:Glossary.Unemployment.WebHome]], Survey, INAPP-PLUS). The survey, covering 45 000 adults and administered by telephone, found that 0.45% of Italians (about 213 000 people) offered services through labour-mediating digital platforms in the year before the survey (Cirillo, Guarascio and Scicchitano, 2019,,[35],,). An earlier web-based survey, based on a sample of 15 000 respondents, estimated that a higher share of the population engaged in [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]]{{footnote}}“Gig-economy work” in the study.{{/footnote}} (2.6% of the (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)working(%%) population) (Boeri et al., 2018,,[22],,), although it used a different reference period (the week before the survey).
536
537 Other official agencies have considered digital platform workers as a subset of the broader category of “informal workers”. In the United States, the Federal Reserve's 2019 Survey of Household Economics and Decision-making (SHED), included a section on Gig Economy, including childcare, house cleaning and ride sharing. The survey – which counted on over 12 200 responses from a representative sample of the adult population – found that overall 17% of adults engaged in some form of gig (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) in the previous month, although only 13% of them found customers and received payments through an app or digital platform (Board, 2020,,[36],,). In Canada, a study based on the Bank of Canada’s Canadian Survey of Consumer Expectations (Kostyshyna and Luu, 2019,,[37],,) estimated that 18% of respondents had carried out informal (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%), with about 35% of them using websites and/or mobile platforms in the course of doing this (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%). However, the small sample limited the representativeness of this study (Sung-Hee, Liu and Ostrovsky, 2019,,[38],,).
538
539 === Lessons learnt from official surveys ===
540
541 ==== Different approaches used to help respondents understand digital platform employment ====
542
543 When asking whether a person is a digital platform worker it is necessary that respondents have the same understanding of [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]], and that the definition captures the wide variety of activities that can be done through digital platforms, while setting the boundaries with those that should not be considered within it. The United Kingdom’s ONS explicitly referred to finding (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) on a ‘digital platform’ in its pilot survey, but many respondents poorly understood the term. Other statistical agencies have taken the approach of providing a definition of [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]], giving examples of digital platforms, or restricting their questions to a narrow range of digital platforms, such as ride-hailing (Annex 4.A). In addition, both the ordering of questions and use of probing questions can affect results (Abraham and Amaya, 2018,,[39],,).
544
545 Both the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (in the 2017 CWS) and McDonald et al. (2019,,[32],,) (in the survey carried out in Australia) included a detailed description of [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]]. While such detailed description is appropriate for an occasional survey focusing specifically on contingent workers, it is likely to be cumbersome if included in a regular survey, such as monthly or quarterly LFSs.
546
547 Although the CWS does not explicitly mention digital platforms, its question refers to finding (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) (performed in-person) “through companies that connect [workers] directly with customers using a website or mobile app”. Therefore, the description is robust to whether or not respondents consider themselves to be self-employed or an [[employee>>doc:working:Glossary.Employees.WebHome]] of the platform. In addition, the description states that the app or website coordinates payment for the service. The description aims to reduce the possibility that respondents, when answering this question, could include capital-intensive services (such as providing accommodation) by referring to “short tasks or [[jobs>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]]”, although respondents may differ in their understanding of what is considered a short duration of time, and may exclude freelancing. Finally, the CWS description gives the example of providing transport, household chores or online (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%), but does not refer to specific digital platforms. However, many respondents poorly understood the definition, answering “yes” even if they merely made use of a computer or mobile app in their [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]]. After recoding the data (e.g. by removing obviously incorrect responses, including hairstylists that said they (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)worked(%%) entirely online), the estimated number of digital platform workers was reduced from 3.3% to 1% (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018,,[40],,).
548
549 Far shorter questions have been included in other surveys, such as the LFS of Denmark, though it is questionable whether they convey to respondents a clear understanding of [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]]. The Danish survey asks whether respondents earned money by “performing (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) done through websites or apps” (Ilsøe and Madsen, 2017,,[41],,). In the 2018 Eurostat ICT Usage in Households and by Individuals Survey, Eurostat referred to “intermediary” websites or apps. However, it is questionable whether all respondents would have the same understanding of the term intermediary. Although Eurostat does not say the (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) must be performed through the app or website, the survey explicitly excludes [[employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Employment.WebHome]] agencies. However, robustness checks (such as asking participants to name the digital platform which they (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) with) have shown that respondents poorly understood the question, which led Eurostat to decide not to publish the results.
550
551 Several surveys offer greater clarity by asking separate questions for digital platforms offering goods and services and for those mediating labour. The Canadian Internet Use Survey mentions six categories of digital platforms from which respondents can choose. The US Federal Reserve’s Survey of Households Economics and Decision-making (SHED) similarly offers six categories of activities. While the category “driving or ride-sharing” also mentions examples of digital platforms mediating this [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]], for the category “other paid personal tasks, such as deliveries” it is ambiguous whether a respondent would include services mediated by a digital platform. Likewise, a respondent may not include physically delivered services, such as handiwork, within the category “paid tasks online”. The Swiss LFS in 2019 had four filter questions for respondents to choose between renting out accommodation, providing taxi services, selling goods, or providing other services. The Danish LFS asks a separate question to those who earned money ‘performing (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%)’ and those who rented property, while the Canadian LFS refers specifically to ride services and private accommodation services (to the exclusion of all other digital platforms). Both the United States CIUS Supplement and Statistics Finland do not distinguish between digital platforms renting accommodation and those mediating labour.
552
553 As discussed in Chapter 2, a number of different policy objectives and user needs might call for measurement of digital platform (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) and [[employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Employment.WebHome]]. In order to meet the range of different objectives, flexibility is needed to adjust the conceptual boundaries depending on the specific area of interest.
554
555 Most official surveys name specific examples of digital platforms to aid respondents understand what digital platforms are. The most common example of a digital platform mentioned by LFS is Uber, which is mentioned by the Canadian, Danish, Finnish and Swiss surveys. Among the surveys that do not offer an example, the French LFS combines both platforms and businesses that direct customers to the worker (“intermediary”, including digital platforms) (Insee, 2018,,[42],,) while the US Bureau of Labor Statistics offers a detailed description.
556
557 ==== Cross-country comparability requires consistent question wording, concepts and reference periods ====
558
559 There are also several minor differences in question wording between surveys; experience from Sweden’s State Public Reports (SOU) suggests that this can have a large effect on the estimated number of digital platform workers (SOU, 2017,,[12],,). These include asking if the respondent offered, or provided, a service; whether the question is broad enough to include those who engage in occasional [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]] for secondary income; and the chosen reference period.
560
561 Almost all surveys ask whether the worker provided a service, implying the worker completed a commercial transaction. However, the US CIUS asks whether a service was offered for sale (rather than provided), without specifying whether a transaction was completed or not. Similarly, the Canadian LFS asks whether the respondent ‘offered’ a service (and not necessarily ‘provided’ it) and does not mention the [[earning>>doc:working:Glossary.Earnings.WebHome]] of income, meaning the survey could include those who offered a service for charitable reasons, and did not complete a commercial transaction.
562
563 [[Labour force>>doc:working:Glossary.Labour Force.WebHome]] statistics have traditionally focused on a worker’s main [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]]. However, [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]] offers workers the flexibility to earn additional income, without becoming the respondent’s ‘main [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]]’. Only the French LFS excludes those who engage in [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]] as a secondary [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]] (by means of a series of filter questions). In contrast the US Fed only include secondary income, while the US Bureau of Labour Statistics, the 2018 Canadian Internet Use Survey, and the 2018 Eurostat ICT Usage Survey asks the respondent to specify whether the (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) done was as a workers main [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]], or to gain additional income. Likewise, the Swiss LFS ad-hoc module asks to specify whether the service provided was as part of the main, second or an additional [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]].
564
565 A related problem in comparing estimates of the number of digital platform workers with other categories of [[employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Employment.WebHome]] is the reference period used. LFSs typically ask for a respondent [[employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Employment.WebHome]] status in the past reference week. However, only the Bureau of Labor Statistics (CWS) asks whether the respondent performed [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]] in the last week. In contrast, surveys such as the Canadian, Danish, and Finnish LFSs refer to the past 12 months. The use of a longer reference period can greatly increase the estimated number of digital platform workers. Using a longer reference period also increases the share of occasional digital platform workers among all digital platform workers. Therefore, asking whether a respondent engaged in [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]] in the past 12 months as filter question, and then whether they engaged in [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]] in the past week can ensure comparability with the LFS [[employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Employment.WebHome]] count, and capture the larger number of irregular digital platform workers. This approach is taken in the Swiss LFS ad-hoc module. However, it can also be argued that the number of hours is more relevant than the frequency someone (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)works(%%) on a digital platform (Pesole et al., 2018,,[16],,).
566
567 **Table 4.2. Main features of official surveys measuring digital platform employment**
568
569 |(% style="width:96px" %)**Country**|(% style="width:95px" %)**Time when
570 the survey
571 was conducted**|(% style="width:107px" %)**Reference
572 period**|**Name of the survey**|**Type(s) of digital
573 platform in
574 scope1**|**Question wording**|(% style="width:148px" %)**Sample size**|(% style="width:118px" %)**Definition of
575 digital
576 platform
577 employment
578 provided?**|(% style="width:96px" %)**Examples
579 of digital
580 platforms
581 named?**|**Reference
582 to earned
583 income?**|**Estimates of the prevalence of
584 digital platform employment ~(%)**
585 |(% style="width:96px" %)**Australia**|(% style="width:95px" %)21 Mar. to
586 21 Apr.
587 2019|(% style="width:107px" %)In the past
588 12 months
589 / ever
590 (before
591 the 12
592 past
593 months)|Digi(% style="font-size:16px" %)tal Platform(%%)
594 (% style="color:#e74c3c; font-size:16px" %)Work(% style="font-size:16px" %) in Australia - Prevale(%%)nce,
595 Nature and Impact|Digital labour
596 platforms, digital platforms for selling goods and digital platform for renting assets|[[Earning>>doc:working:Glossary.Earnings.WebHome]] income
597 through digital platforms; renting, leasing, selling or licensing through platforms|(% style="width:148px" %)Approximately
598 15 000
599 individuals|(% style="width:118px" %)Yes|(% style="width:96px" %)Yes|Yes|7.1% currently or in the last 12 months have earned an income
600 (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)working(%%) or offering services through a platform, and 6% previous the last 12 months
601 |(% style="width:96px" %)**Canada**|(% style="width:95px" %)Nov. 2015
602 to Oct. 2016|(% style="width:107px" %)In the past
603 12 months|LFS Fast Track
604 Module –October
605 2016 collection|Digital labour
606 platforms
607 (location-based)2|Offered ride
608 services|(% style="width:148px" %)Approximately
609 100 000
610 individuals|(% style="width:118px" %)No|(% style="width:96px" %)Yes|No|0.2% (P2P Ride services only)
611 |(% style="width:96px" %)**Canada**|(% style="width:95px" %)2018|(% style="width:107px" %)In the past
612 12 months|Canada Internet
613 Use survey|Digital labour
614 platforms, digital
615 platforms for
616 selling goods and
617 digital platform for
618 renting assets|Provided
619 platform-based
620 peer-to-peer
621 services or online
622 freelancing|(% style="width:148px" %)Approximately
623 26 000
624 individuals|(% style="width:118px" %)No|(% style="width:96px" %)Yes|Yes|8% of prevalence of Internet use to earn income Among income earners using Internet: 6.1% via platformbased
625 peer-to-peer services
626 and 14.1% via online
627 freelancing
628 |(% style="width:96px" %)**Canada**|(% style="width:95px" %)2018|(% style="width:107px" %)In the past
629 12 months|Canada Internet
630 Use survey|Digital labour
631 platforms, digital
632 platforms for selling goods and
633 digital platform for
634 renting assets|Provided
635 platform-based
636 peer-to-peer
637 services or online
638 freelancing|(% style="width:148px" %)Approximately
639 26 000
640 individuals|(% style="width:118px" %)No|(% style="width:96px" %)Yes|Yes|8% of prevalence of Internet use to earn income Among income earners using Internet: 6.1% via platformbased peer-to-peer services and 14.1% via online
641 freelancing
642 |(% style="width:96px" %)**Canada**|(% style="width:95px" %)2018
643 (Regular
644 CSCE
645 questions
646 and special
647 questions
648 included in
649 the CSCE
650 from 2018 Q2 to
651 2018 Q4|(% style="width:107px" %)Unknown|The Size and
652 Characteristics
653 Informal (“Gig”)
654 (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)Work(%%) in Canada|Digital labour
655 platforms|The question
656 refers to "informal
657 (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%)", not to
658 "platform (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%)",
659 and provides a list of activities|(% style="width:148px" %)2 000
660 individuals
661 Canadian
662 Survey of
663 Consumer
664 Expectations
665 (CSCE), from
666 the Bank of
667 Canada|(% style="width:118px" %)No|(% style="width:96px" %)Yes|Yes|Informal (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) as a share of the [[labour force>>doc:working:Glossary.Labour Force.WebHome]] is 3.5% (measured in full-time equivalents, average 2018Q3–2018Q4). About 35% of respondents engaging in informal activities used
668 websites and/or mobile
669 platforms in the course of doing this (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work
670 |(% style="width:96px" %)**Denmark**|(% style="width:95px" %)Jan. 2017 to
671 Mar. 2017|(% style="width:107px" %)In the past
672 12 months|Denmark's
673 [[Labour Force>>doc:working:Glossary.Labour Force.WebHome]]
674 Survey|Digital labour
675 platforms3|Performed (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%)
676 through websites
677 or apps (e.g.
678 Uber)|(% style="width:148px" %)Representative
679 sample of 18 000 Danes|(% style="width:118px" %)No|(% style="width:96px" %)Yes|Yes|1.0% (have earned money by performing (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) found through
680 websites or apps).
681 |(% style="width:96px" %)**EU Member
682 states**|(% style="width:95px" %)2018 and
683 2019|(% style="width:107px" %)In the last
684 12 month|Eurostat
685 Community
686 Survey on ICT
687 Usage and ecommerce
688 in Households and
689 by Individuals|Digital labour
690 platforms|Obtained paid
691 (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) by using an
692 intermediary
693 website or apps|(% style="width:148px" %) |(% style="width:118px" %)No|(% style="width:96px" %)Yes|Yes|Results have not been
694 published due to lack of reliability
695 |(% style="width:96px" %)**Finland**|(% style="width:95px" %)During the
696 year 2017|(% style="width:107px" %)In the past
697 12 months|Finland's Labour
698 Force Survey
699 2017|Digital labour
700 platforms, digital
701 platforms for
702 selling goods and
703 digital platform for
704 renting assets|Earned income
705 through capital or
706 labour platforms|(% style="width:148px" %)12 000 persons
707 every month.
708 Sub-sample for
709 platform [[jobs>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]]
710 was 43 000
711 persons|(% style="width:118px" %)No|(% style="width:96px" %)Yes|Yes|7% (have earned income through capital or labour platforms
712 |(% style="width:96px" %)**France**|(% style="width:95px" %)During the
713 year 2017|(% style="width:107px" %)In the
714 reference
715 week|Ad-Hoc module
716 of the European
717 LFS (6th wave
718 sample)|“Intermediaries”
719 (it includes digital
720 platforms without
721 specifications)|Self-employed in main [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]] that
722 contact clients
723 through a platform or a third party business|(% style="width:148px" %)3 700
724 independents
725 (sample of the
726 6th wave of the
727 LFS “Enquête
728 Emploi”)|(% style="width:118px" %)No|(% style="width:96px" %)No|Yes|about 7% of independents and
729 0.8% of the “actifs occupés” (employed people) are using - either exclusively or not - a platform
730 |(% style="width:96px" %)**France**|(% style="width:95px" %)Nov. 2018
731 and Nov.
732 2021|(% style="width:107px" %)Unknown|(Richet Damien,
733 2020[34]), based
734 on Survey SINE
735 Novembre 2018
736 and beyond|Digital labour
737 platforms|(%%)(% style="color:#e74c3c" %)Worked(%%) via a
738 digital platform|(% style="width:148px" %)Microentrepreneurs
739 registered
740 during the first
741 semester 2018
742 (56 000)|(% style="width:118px" %)No|(% style="width:96px" %)No|No|16% of micro-entrepreneurs are (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)working(%%) via a digital platform. For 12% this is the main source of income, for 4% this is the annex source of income
743 |(% style="width:96px" %)**Italy**|(% style="width:95px" %)2018|(% style="width:107px" %)In the last
744 12 months|INAPP-PLUS|Digital labour
745 platforms|Provision of
746 (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)works(%%) and services through
747 platforms that
748 intermediate (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work|(% style="width:148px" %)45 000 persons
749 (residents aged
750 between 18 and
751 74 years)|(% style="width:118px" %)Yes|(% style="width:96px" %)Yes|Yes|213 000 individuals (0.49% of the population) are labour
752 platform workers
753 |(% style="width:96px" %)**Singapore**|(% style="width:95px" %)2020|(% style="width:107px" %)In the last
754 12 months|[[Labour Force>>doc:working:Glossary.Labour Force.WebHome]]
755 Supplementary
756 Survey on Own
757 Account Workers|Digital labour
758 platforms|Used online
759 matching
760 platforms to
761 obtain (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work|(% style="width:148px" %)Approximately
762 4 200 persons
763 aged 15 years
764 and over|(% style="width:118px" %)No|(% style="width:96px" %)Yes|Yes|3.6% of the workforce were regular own account workers who took up (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) via online  matching platforms
765 |(% style="width:96px" %)**Switzerland**|(% style="width:95px" %)2019|(% style="width:107px" %)In the last
766 12 months
767 and last
768 week|Internet-mediated
769 platform (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%)
770 (Swiss LFS)|Digital labour
771 platforms, digital
772 platforms for
773 selling goods and
774 digital platform for
775 renting assets|Four filter
776 questions on:Renting out
777 accommodation /
778 Taxi services /
779 Sale of goods /
780 Provision of other services.|(% style="width:148px" %)11 500 persons
781 aged between
782 15 and 89 years|(% style="width:118px" %)Yes|(% style="width:96px" %)Yes|Yes|The platform (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) refers to “taxi” and “other”, which gives 0.4% of total  population. When
783 adding sale of goods and renting out  ccommodation, the
784 total of platform services, the total of platform services  amounts 1.6% of total
785 population
786 |(% style="width:96px" %)**United
787 Kingdom**|(% style="width:95px" %) |(% style="width:107px" %)In the past
788 12 months|UK ONS (cognitive/qualitative pilot of questions for
789 digital platform)|Digital labour
790 platforms|Used an online
791 platform to find
792 (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work|(% style="width:148px" %)n/a|(% style="width:118px" %)No|(% style="width:96px" %)No|Yes|n/a
793 |(% style="width:96px" %)**United
794 States**|(% style="width:95px" %)May 2017|(% style="width:107px" %)In the
795 reference
796 week|Bureau of Labour
797 Statistics
798 Contingent
799 Worker
800 Supplement|Digital labour
801 platforms|Use a platform for
802 digitally or
803 physically
804 delivered tasks|(% style="width:148px" %)60 000
805 households|(% style="width:118px" %)Yes|(% style="width:96px" %)No|Yes|1% following recoding (3.3% based on survey responses)
806 |(% style="width:96px" %)**United
807 States**|(% style="width:95px" %)Nov. 2017
808 and 2019|(% style="width:107px" %)In the past
809 6 months|US CPS
810 Computer and
811 Internet Use
812 Supplement|Digital labour
813 platforms and
814 digital platforms
815 for renting assets|Offered services
816 via the Internet|(% style="width:148px" %)Approximately
817 106 000 persons 15 years old and
818 over|(% style="width:118px" %)No|(% style="width:96px" %)Yes|No|6% (offering capital or labour services for sale via Internet) in 2017, 7.6% in 2019
819 |(% style="width:96px" %)**United
820 States**|(% style="width:95px" %)Nov. and
821 Dec. 2017|(% style="width:107px" %)In the past
822 month|FED Report on
823 the Economic
824 Well-Being of
825 U.S. Households
826 in 2017. Survey of Households
827 Economics and
828 Decision-making
829 (SHED)|Digital labour
830 platforms, digital
831 platforms for selling goods and digital platform for renting goods and assets|Secondary
832 income from
833 online tasks or
834 ride sharing|(% style="width:148px" %)12 246 panel
835 members|(% style="width:118px" %)No|(% style="width:96px" %)Yes|Yes|4% (paid for completing online tasks) / 2% (driving using a ridesharing app)
836 |(% style="width:96px" %)United
837 States|(% style="width:95px" %)Oct. 2019|(% style="width:107px" %)In the past
838 month|Well-Being of
839 U.S. Households
840 in 2018. Survey of Households
841 Economics and
842 Decision-making
843 (SHED)|Digital labour
844 platforms|Secondary
845 income from
846 online tasks or
847 ride sharing|(% style="width:148px" %)11 316 panel
848 members|(% style="width:118px" %)No|(% style="width:96px" %)Yes|Yes|3% (paid for completing online tasks) / 2% (driving using a ridesharing app)
849 |(% style="width:96px" %)**United
850 States**|(% style="width:95px" %)May 2020|(% style="width:107px" %)In the past
851 month|Well-Being of
852 U.S. Households
853 in 2019. Survey of Households Economics and
854 Decision-making
855 (SHED)|Digital labour
856 platforms|Secondary
857 income from
858 online tasks or
859 ride sharing|(% style="width:148px" %)12 173 panel
860 members|(% style="width:118px" %)No|(% style="width:96px" %)Yes|Yes|2% (paid for completing online tasks) / 3% (driving using a ridesharing app)
861
862 Source: Adapted from (OECD, 2019[24]), Measuring platform mediated workers, OECD Digital Economy Papers No.282, OECD Publishing, [[https:~~/~~/doi.org/10.1787/170a14d9-en>>https://doi.org/10.1787/170a14d9-en]].
863
864 == Use of alternative data sources ==
865
866 Although official surveys are likely to be the best tool to estimate the total number of digital platform workers and their characteristics, the relatively small overall number of digital platform workers means that sample sizes are too small to provide quality information and to allow analysis at a more detailed level (e.g. by socio-demographic variables). In addition, such surveys cannot provide information on past trends in [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]]. Alternative sources, such as administrative data or data provided by digital platforms may usefully complement the information gained from official surveys.
867
868 === Administrative data ===
869
870 Administrative data can overcome the problem of small sample size, reduce the burden on data providers and the cost of data collection. However, as administrative data are not collected for statistical purposes, they may have problems of timeliness, relevance, and accuracy (Office for National Statistics (UK), 2016,,[43],,). In addition, due to a lack of definition and to ambiguities in the regulation of digital labour platforms, they may be omitted from some datasets. For example, ride-hailing apps blur the lines between street hailing of a cab and pre-booking a chauffeur, and many apps take advantage of loopholes in existing labour market regulation (Broecke, 2018,,[44],,). The tendency of digital platforms to locate in such blurred regulatory boundaries creates obstacles to the use of administrative data. For example, in Italy digital platform workers often lack formal contractual agreements (Cirillo, Guarascio and Scicchitano, 2019,,[35],,) and almost half of the digital platforms are not formally registered at the National Institute for Social Security (INPS, 2018,,[45],,). In addition, the source of income may not be identifiable (if for instance is reported from self-employed activity without further breakdown), or workers may not provide information on this type of activity, if they engage in [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]] as a secondary [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]] or as a hobby. The cross-border nature of digital platforms further increases challenges to capture this type of [[employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Employment.WebHome]], as workers may not report (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) done for a digital platform located in another country. Lastly, as systems of administration differ across countries, comparability is limited.
871
872 Administrative data have offered insights into contingent workers (such as [[employees>>doc:working:Glossary.Employees.WebHome]] who occasionally perform secondary (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) to earn additional income), though only a few studies distinguish digital platform workers from the broader group of non-standard workers.
873
874 In the United States, Collins et al. (2019,,[46],,) used micro administrative tax data from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to explore the role of gig (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) mediated by digital platforms. In particular, they looked at tax data filed by self-employed individuals (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)working(%%) for firms or performing independent contract (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) intermediated by firms. They refer to these arrangements - a subset of the broader gig economy - as the "online platform economy" for labour (labour OPE). They found that the share of workers with OPE income was approximately 1% of the workforce in 2016. Consistently with other sources, the results show that [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]] is mainly a secondary [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]] to provide for a complementary income. Collins et al. (2019,,[46],,) also included data on the number of digital platform workers by State in 2016. Moe, Parrott and Rochford (2020,,[47],,) updated the data for New York State, by relating the annual growth in the number of these workers to the growth in the average number of for-hire vehicle trips in New York City, mainly supplied by drivers (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)working(%%) for Uber and Lyft. The study estimated that there are about 150 000 digital platform workers in New York, representing about 1.6% of the State’s workforce.
875
876 In Canada, Sung-Hee, Liu and Ostrovsky (2019,,[38],,) introduced a definition of gig (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) specific to the way (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) arrangements are reported in the Canadian tax system and estimated the size of the gig economy using various Canadian administrative sources. They also examined the characteristics of gig workers by linking administrative data to 2016 Census of Population microdata. The study found that, from 2005 to 2016, the percentage of gig workers in Canada rose from 5.5% to 8.2%. However, their definition of gig workers is not limited to individuals (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)working(%%) through digital platforms.
877
878 Partnerships with digital platforms have the potential to improve administrative data sources. For example, the Estonian Tax and Customs Board (ETCB) has reached an agreement with two ride-sharing platforms to share their data with the ETCB. However, drivers must first give consent to share their data, which can lead to selection bias. Denmark is developing a digital solution for declaring income arising from the sharing economy. The Mexican Tax Administration (SAT) has reached an agreement whereby drivers must be officially certified before registering with a platform (OECD, 2018,,[48],,). In France, since 2019 digital platforms are obliged to report the annual gross income an individual earns on the platform to the tax authorities, while in Belgium platforms are obliged to both withhold taxes and report information to the tax authorities (HM Revenue and Customs, 2018,,[49],,; European Commission, 2017,,[50],,). As countries are developing reporting systems to obtain income data from platforms, there may be benefits to harmonise reporting systems at EU level, so to reduce the reporting burden for platforms that operate cross-jurisdictionally and increase compliance (Ogembo and Lehdonvirta, 2020,,[51],,). An additional aspect that should be considered is that legislation may apply only to digital platforms formally registered in the country. While digital platform providing in-person services most of the times are registered in the local business register, the same doesn’t apply for those mediating fully digital services.
879
880 === Big data and web-scraping ===
881
882 The use of some alternative large datasets can also provide useful insights into the characteristics of platform workers. Harris and Krueger (2015,,[52],,) estimated the number of US platform workers to be 0.4% of total [[employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Employment.WebHome]] by using data on the number of Uber drivers, and scaling this by the total number of Google searches for a list of 26 labour platforms (relative to the number of Google searches for Uber). The same method was used to estimate that as few as 0.05% of EU [[employees>>doc:working:Glossary.Employees.WebHome]] were active platform workers at the end of 2015 (Groen and Maselli, 2016,,[53],,).
883
884 Using data from the bank accounts of those who received payments from digital platforms, economists at JP Morgan Chase investigated the characteristics of digital platform workers using data on 39 million Chase checking accounts (Farrell and Greig, 2016,,[54],,; Farrell, Greig and Hamoudi, 2018,,[55],,). In line with other studies, they found that approximately 1% of workers (twice the level of early 2016) used a digital platform, [[earning>>doc:working:Glossary.Earnings.WebHome]] an average of under USD 800 per month, with the [[earnings>>doc:working:Glossary.Earnings.WebHome]] of those using transportation apps having fallen by half since 2013. There is also a high rate of workers entering and leaving the sector. Such high churn highlights the need for an appropriate reference period when comparing the numbers of digital platform workers with other [[employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Employment.WebHome]] sectors. Koustas (2019,,[56],,) used a transaction-level dataset from a large financial aggregator and bill-paying application to analyse how household balance sheets evolve when starting a “gig economy [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]]”. Based on data for about 25 000 workers from 10 popular digital platforms, the study found that entry into gig (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) is generally preceded by a decline in non-gig income.
885
886 The use of web-scraping can also be used to assess trends in parts of the digital platform labour market. The Online Labour Index (OLI) measures the utilisation of digital platforms mediating online labour over time across countries and occupations; although it does not give an estimate of the absolute number of digital platform workers, it does capture trends. The index is based on tracking all projects and tasks posted on a sample of platforms, using an application-programming interface (API) and web-scrapping. The index is limited to platforms through which buyers and sellers of labour or services transact fully digitally: the worker and employer are matched digitally, the payment is conducted digitally via the platform, and the result of the (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) is delivered digitally. The samples include the top five platforms for which it was possible to collect data over time and which accounted for at least 70% of all traffic to online labour platforms (according to Alexa’s figures) (Kässi and Lehdonvirta, 2018,,[57],,). The current sample is limited to Englishlanguage platforms.
887
888 However, data provided by platforms can have similar problems to administrative data (as the number of registered users could be higher than the number of actual users) (Office for National Statistics (UK), 2016,,[43],,). Additionally, methods like web scraping raise some concerns regarding data protection and statistical/research ethics. Therefore, such data can only complement rather than replace surveys.
889
890 === Data from platforms can give insights into general labour market problems ===
891
892 The rich data on [[earnings>>doc:working:Glossary.Earnings.WebHome]] and hours (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)worked(%%) by digital platforms can also serve as a resource to look at general labour market issues, beyond estimating the size of [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]]. This is highlighted by the study of (Cook et al., 2018,,[58],,) who used data on over a million drivers to examine the gender wagegap and decomposed it into its main components, such as women being less willing to (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) anti-social hours (perhaps due to home duties or a lack of safety in picking up passengers late at night).
893
894 == Wrapping up: consistencies and differences ==
895
896 To date several methods have been used to measure the number and characteristics of digital platform workers, although differences in definitions and methodologies limit their comparability. These methods serve different purposes and each of them has its own strengths and weaknesses (see Table 4.3 for a summary). The choice of method depends on the research objectives, the resources available, and the trade-offs faced by statistical agencies or researchers.
897
898 A first overarching observation is that measuring the same concept of [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]] across national and international surveys is key for internal and international comparisons. As shown in this review, the terminology and the definitions are not harmonised across countries.
899
900 For surveys, a key problem is how to ensure that respondents understand the meaning of [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]]. To gain consistent statistics over time it is necessary that respondents to questionnaires have a similar understanding of the question in each period. Although giving named examples of digital platforms to respondents is an easy way to convey the meaning of [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]], this can be problematic as different digital platforms enter or exit the market. Providing a clear definition of digital platform along with examples is important to ensure that respondents understand the question. However, this should not lead to overly long introductory text, as this would increase the propensity of respondent to ignore this text (Montagnier, P.; Ek, I., 2021,,[59],,).
901
902 The overall importance of the topic of digital platform workers to a survey affects the appropriate amount of space devoted to formulating an easily understandable question. However, rather than give a detailed definition of digital platform workers, consideration should be given to asking a series of short questions concerning different elements of [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]], with the interviewer or subsequent analysis then determining whether the respondent should be considered as a digital platform worker or not. Filter questions can also be used to determine the nature of the (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) conducted, such as whether the service was provided online or delivered physically. This approach has the advantage of ensuring the survey is robust to changes in traditional [[employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Employment.WebHome]], such as firms using apps to roster workers’ hours.
903
904 Next to the definition and clarification of the survey object, attention should also be devoted to the survey mode, as it can affect results by introducing coverage and measurement biases (see Box 4.1). While online surveys may be suitable to measure digital platform workers, they may not be representative of the overall population. Telephone or face-to-face surveys, however, may not be able to reach out to those digital platform workers who are not in national phone registers, or who are not available at the times that surveys are carried out. While evidence suggests that respondents are more honest when answering selfadministered questionnaires, interviewer-administered surveys may yield higher quality results, as interviewers can correct inconsistencies in respondents’ answers. Cost and time are also relevant factors to consider. Face-to-face surveys tend to be more costly and take a longer time horizon to be realised than online surveys. Accordingly, if budgets are limited or results are required quickly, the online mode might be the preferred one.
905
906 Overall, it can be concluded that there is no perfect or ideal survey mode for [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]] surveys. All currently existing modes have specific advantages and disadvantages, and it needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis which mode is likely to result in the best outcome, that is which shortcomings are acceptable against the specific information needs.
907
908 The choice of reference period will affect the type of workers captured by the survey. For researchers mainly interested in those who regularly engage in [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]], asking whether someone performed such (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) in the reference week is appropriate. However, for those also wishing to capture occasional [[platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]] a longer time horizon is needed. Therefore, asking an additional question as to whether someone engaged in [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]] in the last 12 months may be appropriate, and would allow greater consistency with previous surveys.
909
910 When the objective is to ensure consistency with existing labour statistics, it is necessary to include questions on [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]] in the LFSs of national statistical offices, which ensures identical sampling frames and the same reference week (rather than a longer time horizon). This is likely, however, to give a lower quality estimate, as those who only perform this type of (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) occasionally are less likely to be captured.
911
912 The heterogeneity of labour services provided is a distinctive characteristic of [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]], not normally found in traditional forms of labour provision. Therefore, careful consideration should also be given to the ordering and filtering of questions to ensure that it is clear about which episode of [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]] respondents are referring to when answering subsequent questions about the nature of the (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) or tasks they performed.
913
914 For researchers who are only interested in the use of a digital platform by a specific category of worker (such as the self-employed) it can be possible to use filter questions to identify the target group, and then phrase the question specific to that group (such as by asking the self-employed how they interact with customers). However, this approach comes at the cost of limiting data comparability with other surveys.
915
916 For researchers wishing to ensure cross-country comparability, the use of named digital platforms in survey questions may be problematic, as not all digital platforms may operate (or be equally known) in each country. The use of some existing big-data sources, such as used by Farrell et al. (2018,,[55],,), can allow researchers to refine their research question as new digital platforms enter the market. Methodologies which rely on web-scraping may have problems of consistency over time as digital platforms are added, or dropped, from the list of the ones that are monitored. These methods also raise some ethical issues. In addition, the potential use of administrative data is likely to be limited due to differences in administrative systems across countries. Therefore, the use of surveys is likely to be the best approach to gaining crosscountry statistics.
917
918 Although LFSs may be the best option for those wishing to learn about the overall prevalence of [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]], ICT Usage Surveys can be a better option for assessing technology usage and online behaviours. However, attempts to date have shown that this tool may not be the best vehicle to gain descriptive statistics, due to the small number of workers included in the sample. Time Use Surveys (TUSs) have the advantage of being able to capture platform (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) done for short period and as a secondary occupation, but to date they have not included questions to investigate this topic, and they also have the disadvantage of being conducted very unfrequently. Finally, income surveys are appropriate to examine whether individuals have earned a significant portion of their income from [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]]. Both types of surveys would require inclusion of additional questions in order to capture this phenomenon.
919
920 In conclusion, while the use of official surveys such as LFSs may give more accurate estimates on the overall prevalence of [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]], problems of sample size reduce their suitability for gaining insights into the characteristics of digital platform workers. Even though the sample sizes of LFSs are typically very large, they will nevertheless lack statistical precision about characteristics of potentially small groups in the population such as digital platform workers. This is all the more true for ICT Usage Surveys, which have a smaller sample size than LFSs. Also, the nature of [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]] (task approach) is not that well compatible with the concepts underlying LFS. Therefore, other sources (such as ad-hoc surveys, administrative datasets or big data) provide a useful complement. At present, the possibilities of using administrative data are limited, but these may increase as tax authorities develop data-sharing agreements with digital platforms. In addition, the use of online surveys can reduce costs (though possibly at the expense of reduced accuracy and sampling bias), allowing researchers to reach out to a larger number of respondents. Such approaches can complement official surveys, which can be used to test the overall accuracy of other approaches and to calibrate their results.
921
922 Based on this review, potential next steps should include the formulation of questions to be included in a range of official surveys (e.g. regular LFSs and ad-hoc modules within LFSs). It is also necessary to decide upon the most appropriate tool (and frequency) for addressing different facets of the phenomenon: for example, a short list of questions in core (monthly or quarterly) LFS questionnaires may be appropriate to monitor the evolution of [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]] over time. A longer list of questions in less frequent survey supplements (e.g. ad-hoc modules in LFS, or TUSs or income survey supplements) on the other hand may be more appropriate to illustrate the variety and regularity of tasks performed by workers in [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]] and their characteristics and sources of income. Finally, more experimentation in terms of ordering of questions and use of prompting questions may be necessary before such questions are included in surveys. These points and additional methodological recommendations are further developed and discussed in Chapter 5.
923
924 The nature of (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) and its use of digital platforms are evolving rapidly. The frontiers between the various (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)working(%%) arrangements and their legal status are blurring, and so are the workers’ perceptions of their occupations. This makes it difficult to accurately measure the evolution of [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]]. Although no optimal approach currently exists, this chapter suggests that a mixed approach, combining several measurement instruments (general population surveys, ad-hoc surveys, administrative data, web scraping, etc.), is needed.
925
926 **Table 4.3. Overview of sources and methods to estimate size and characteristics of [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]]**
927
928 |**Method/
929 source**|(% style="width:214px" %)**Purpose/
930 Best suited for**|(% style="width:399px" %)**Example of
931 indicators***|(% style="width:289px" %)**Advantages**|**Disadvantages**|**Further comments**
932 |(% colspan="6" %)**Official surveys**
933 |[[Labour Force>>doc:working:Glossary.Labour Force.WebHome]] Survey|(% style="width:214px" %)(((
934 * Estimate the share of the  workforce engaged in digital [[platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]] and monitor evolution over time
935 )))|(% style="width:399px" %)(((
936 * Share of workforce engaged in electronically mediated (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work
937 * Share of workforce that earned income from platform mediated (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work
938 * Share of own account workers engaged in digital platform [[employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Employment.WebHome]]
939 )))|(% style="width:289px" %)(((
940 * Same sampling frame as general statistics on labour market, which may ensure comparability with overall data on labour market and may provide accurate estimates on the overall prevalence of  digital platform [[employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Employment.WebHome]]
941 )))|(((
942 * Difficulties in tracking digital platform workers as the focus is on a worker’s primary [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]].
943 * Could be unreliable in coverage of secondary [[jobs>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]] and selfemployment and not capture the diversity of [[employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Employment.WebHome]] contracts
944 * The nature of digital platform  [[employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Employment.WebHome]] (task-based) may not be fully compatible with concepts underlining the [[labour force>>doc:working:Glossary.Labour Force.WebHome]] surveys ([[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]]/occupation comprising several tasks)
945 * The small absolute number of digital platform workers may hinder further analysis of workers’ characteristics
946 * Using the past week as reference period is not suitable to capture occasional digital platform workers
947 * Difficulties and divergences in understanding the question may lead to unreliable results or overestimates
948 * Small differences in question wording may have a large effect on the estimated number of digital platform workers
949 )))|(((
950 * Need to harmonise definition and scope to ensure comparability
951 * Respondents need to have the same understanding of digital [[platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]]
952 * Naming specific digital platforms helps but may limit comparability across time and countries, and result in  conservative  stimates
953 * Providing a detailed description of [[digital platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]] helps but may be  cumbersome for a regular survey
954 * Filtering questions could be used to determine whether it is a digital platform worker or not
955 * Question wording should be consistent (to offer for sale/provide a  service), and broad so to capture also secondary [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]]
956 )))
957 |ICT Usage Survey|(% style="width:214px" %)(((
958 * Estimate the share of Internet users engaged in digital platform [[employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Employment.WebHome]]
959 * Technology use and online behaviours
960 )))|(% style="width:399px" %)(((
961 * Share of Internet users using Internet to offer own services/obtain paid (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%)/earn income
962 )))|(% style="width:289px" %)(((
963 * Same sampling frame as for statistics on ICT, which may ensure comparability with other aspects of online activities and the digital economy
964 )))|(((
965 * Small sample size, which associated with the small absolute number of platform workers reduces reliability of findings
966 * Difficulties and divergences in understanding the question may lead to unreliable results or overestimates
967 )))|
968 |Income Survey|(% style="width:214px" %)(((
969 * Share of income earned through digital platform [[employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Employment.WebHome]]
970 )))|(% style="width:399px" %) |(% style="width:289px" %) | |(((
971 * A specific module on income earned  through digital platforms should be developed
972 )))
973 |Time Use Survey|(% style="width:214px" %)(((
974 * Identify share of time spent in activities related to digital platform (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) and [[employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Employment.WebHome]] (as secondary activity
975 )))|(% style="width:399px" %) |(% style="width:289px" %) |(((
976 * Not very frequent
977 )))|(((
978 * A specific module on time devoted to relevant online activities should be developed
979 )))
980 |(% colspan="6" %)**Surveys by non-official organisations**
981 |Ad-hoc Survey|(% style="width:214px" %)(((
982 * Provide information on workers’ characteristics and [[employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Employment.WebHome]]/(% style="color:#e74c3c" %)working(%%) conditions
983 * Estimate the share of the population engaging in digital platform [[employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Employment.WebHome]]
984 )))|(% style="width:399px" %)(((
985 * Share and characteristics of adult population providing services via digital platforms
986 )))|(% style="width:289px" %)(((
987 * Higher flexibility compared to official surveys, it could include a higher number of questions to explore a wider spectrum of issues on digital [[platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]] (both quantitative and qualitative)
988 * Lower cost of online surveys
989 )))|(((
990 * Potential selection and sampling biases (overrepresentation of online workers among respondents)
991 * Potential measurement bias linked to survey method used (face-toface/CATI/online/paper form)
992 * Monetary incentives given to respondents may bias the results
993 * The above biases reduce comparability
994 )))|(((
995 * High heterogeneity of methodologies, little comparability among studies
996 )))
997 |(% colspan="6" %)**Alternative data sources**
998 |Administrative data (tax data)|(% style="width:214px" %)(((
999 * Estimate the number of digital platform workers and income from digital platform [[employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Employment.WebHome]]
1000 * Examine specific aspects related to digital platform [[employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Employment.WebHome]] (e.g. gender pay differential)
1001 )))|(% style="width:399px" %)(((
1002 * Share of workers with income from digital platform [[employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Employment.WebHome]]
1003 )))|(% style="width:289px" %)(((
1004 * No issues related to sample size and techniques
1005 * Lower burden on data providers
1006 * Lower cost of data collection
1007 )))|(((
1008 * Data originally collected for different purposes, they may have problems of timeliness, relevance and accuracy
1009 * There is often no distinction of digital [[platform employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Platform Employment.WebHome]] from the broader nonstandard (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) (i.e. may include gig (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) performed outside digital platforms)
1010 * Differences in administrative systems across countries
1011 * Potential underestimation due to
1012 * blurred regulatory boundaries, crossborder nature of digital platforms, underreporting by workers and if the source of income is not identifiable
1013 )))|
1014 |Big data|(% style="width:214px" %)(((
1015 * Infer number of digital platform workers through  e.g. bank account data
1016 )))|(% style="width:399px" %)(((
1017 * Share of  workers using a digital
1018 * platform and related [[earnings>>doc:working:Glossary.Earnings.WebHome]]
1019 )))|(% style="width:289px" %)(((
1020 * Reliable results
1021 )))|(((
1022 * Results are not representative
1023 * No access to underlining (privately-owned) data
1024 )))|
1025 |Web-scraping|(% style="width:214px" %)(((
1026 * Specific purposes, e.g.:
1027 * Monitor trends in supply and demand of online freelance labour
1028 )))|(% style="width:399px" %)(((
1029 * Number of open, completed and new vacancies posted across (selected) digital platforms
1030 )))|(% style="width:289px" %)(((
1031 * Real-time updates
1032 * Comparability across time
1033 )))|(((
1034 * May be difficult to extend (e.g. from
1035 * English platforms to platforms in other languages)
1036 * May provide trends but not absolute numbers
1037 * Ethical issues (as data is used for other purposes than those consent was given to)
1038 )))|
1039
1040 Note: *It includes illustrative examples based on the reviewed studies. Source: OECD STI elaboration.
1041
1042 = Annex 4.A. Questions posed in surveys =
1043
1044 **Annex Table 4.A.1. Questions posed in surveys of private agencies**
1045
1046 (% style="width:1010.45px" %)
1047 |(% style="width:395px" %)**Survey and countries covered**|(% style="width:505px" %)**Questions (or selection method)**
1048 |(% style="width:395px" %)(((
1049 Alsos et al. (2017)
1050 Norway
1051 )))|(% style="width:505px" %)(((
1052 **Pilot Question:**
1053 Recently, there has been a lot of attention around companies that use apps and websites to convey (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) and services. This is usually called the sharing economy.
1054
1055 Below are a list of such companies. Have you done any assignments or paid [[employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Employment.WebHome]] through one or more of the following companies in the last 12 months?
1056
1057 1. Uber
1058 1. Foodora
1059 1. weClean
1060 1. Upwork
1061 1. Konsus
1062 1. Haxi
1063 1. FINN småjobber
1064 1. Other 
1065 1. No
1066
1067 **Round 3 Question: **
1068
1069 Recently, there has been a lot of attention around companies that use apps and websites to convey (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) and services. This is usually called the sharing economy.
1070
1071 During the last 12 months, you have done some of the following ...
1072
1073 1. Did you (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) as a bicycle courier for Foodora?
1074 1. (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)Worked(%%) as a cleaner for WeClean?
1075 1. (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)Worked(%%) for Upwork or Konsus?
1076 1. (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)Worked(%%) as a driver for Haxi?
1077 1. Did a [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]] you found on FINN småjobber?
1078 1. Did you do a [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]] on Mitt anbud.no?
1079 1. Rented a home on AirBnb?
1080 1. Done assignments you have found on other apps or websites
1081
1082 _
1083
1084 9. None of the aforementioned
1085 )))
1086 |(% style="width:395px" %)Bonin & Rinne (2017) Germany|(% style="width:505px" %)Even if you are not doing it now, have you ever done (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) in exchange for money, for orders that you received over the Internet or an app?
1087 |(% style="width:395px" %)(((
1088 CIPD (2017)
1089 United Kingdom
1090
1091
1092 )))|(% style="width:505px" %)(((
1093 Thinking about the LAST 12 MONTHS, which, if any, of the following have you done via an online platform (i.e. website) or app (i.e. mobile device application) to earn money? (Please tick all that apply)
1094 Provided transport using my vehicle (e.g. Uber, BlaBlaCar etc)
1095 Rented out my vehicle (e.g. EasyCar, Zipcar etc)
1096 Rented/shared my accommodation (e.g. AirBnB, tripping, HomeAway etc)
1097 Delivered food or goods (e.g. Deliveroo, City Sprint)
1098 Performed short-term [[jobs>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]] via online platforms that connect people looking for services (e.g. TaskRabbit, Upwork, PeoplePerHour etc)
1099 Sold things I have created via online platforms (e.g. Etsy)
1100 Other (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) arranged through an online platform (open)
1101 Still thinking about the LAST 12 MONTHS, what contribution did the following type of (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) make towards the total income you received from paid (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) over the past year?
1102 Provided transport using my vehicle (e.g. Uber, BlaBlaCar etc)
1103 Rented out my vehicle (e.g. EasyCar, Zipcar etc)
1104 Delivered food or goods (e.g. Deliveroo, City Sprint)
1105 Performed short-term [[jobs>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]] via online platforms that connect people looking for services (e.g. TaskRabbit, Upwork, PeoplePerHour etc)
1106 Other (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) arranged through an online platform
1107 )))
1108 |(% style="width:395px" %)(((
1109 Eurobarometer (2016)
1110 European (Eurostat related) countries
1111 )))|(% style="width:505px" %)(((
1112 A collaborative platform is an internet-based tool that enables transactions between people providing and using a service. They can be used for a wide range of services, from renting accommodation and car sharing to small household [[jobs>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]].
1113 Have you ever provided services on these platforms?
1114 No, you haven’t. 1
1115 You have offered a service on one or more of these platforms once 2
1116 You offer services via these platforms occasionally (once every few months) 3
1117 You offer services via these platforms regularly (every month) 4 Other 5
1118 None 6
1119 DK/NA 7
1120 )))
1121 |(% style="width:395px" %)Farrell, D. and F. Greig (2016), Paychecks, Paydays, and the Online Platform Economy - Big Data on Income Volatility.|(% style="width:505px" %)No questions. Based directly on income flows originating from a selection of platforms. In 2016, 42 platforms were selected.
1122 |(% style="width:395px" %)Farrell, D. and F. Greig (2018), The Online Platform Economy in 2018, Drivers, Workers, Sellers, and Lessons. https:~/~/www.jpmorganchase.com/content/dam/jpmc/jpmorganchase-and-co/institute/pdf/institute-ope-2018.pdf
1123 United States|(% style="width:505px" %)128 platforms were selected, based on 3 key criteria: platforms i/ connect independent suppliers directly with demanders, ii/ mediate payment, and iii/ empower participants to enter and leave the market whenever they want.
1124 |(% style="width:395px" %)Huws, U., N. Spencer and S. Joyce (2016), Crowd (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)Work(%%) in Europe: Preliminary results from a survey in the UK, Sweden, Germany, Austria and the Netherlands.|(% style="width:505px" %)No questionnaire in the report published.
1125 |(% style="width:395px" %)(Huws et al., 2019,,[6],,) 13 European countries|(% style="width:505px" %)No questionnaire in the report published.
1126 |(% style="width:395px" %)Katz L. and Krueger A. (2016), The Rise and Nature of Alternative (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)Work(%%) Arrangements in the United States, 1995-2015|(% style="width:505px" %)(((
1127 Do you do direct selling to customers on your main [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]] or a secondary [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]], or both?
1128 Does your direct selling involve goods or services?
1129 Do you (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) with an intermediary, such as Avon or Uber, in your direct selling activity?
1130 Do you (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) with an online intermediary to find customers, such as Uber or TaskRabbit?
1131 )))
1132 |(% style="width:395px" %)(Le Ludec, Tubaro and Casilli, 2019,,[8],,)
1133 France|(% style="width:505px" %)No questionnaire in the report published.
1134 |(% style="width:395px" %)(Lepanjuuri K., 2018,,[5],,)
1135 United Kingdom|(% style="width:505px" %)Detailed questionnaire not provided.
1136 |(% style="width:395px" %)Manyika, J. et al. (2016), Independent (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%): Choice, necessity, and the gig economy
1137 United States and EU-15 countries|(% style="width:505px" %)Detailed questionnaire not provided.
1138 |(% style="width:395px" %)Pesole, A. et al. (2018), Platform Workers in Europe, Publications Office of the European Union|(% style="width:505px" %)(((
1139 Has the respondent ever gained income from:
1140 providing services via online platforms, where you and the client are matched digitally, payment is conducted digitally via the platform and the (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) is location-independent, web-based; or providing services via online platforms, where you and the client are matched digitally, and the payment is conducted digitally via the platform, but (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) is performed on-location
1141 )))
1142 |(% style="width:395px" %)(((
1143 Pew Research Center (2016), //Gig (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)Work(%%), Online Selling and Home Sharing//.
1144 United States
1145 )))|(% style="width:505px" %)(((
1146 Some people find paid [[jobs>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]] or tasks by connecting directly with people who want to hire them using a particular type of website or mobile app. These sites require workers to create a user profile in order to find and accept assignments, and they also coordinate payment once the (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) is complete.
1147 In the last year, have you earned money by taking on [[jobs>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]] through this type of website or mobile app (for example, by driving someone from one place to another, cleaning someone’s home, or doing online tasks)? (Y/N)
1148 What sorts of [[jobs>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]] or tasks have you performed in the last year using these services?
1149 Driving for a ride-hailing app (such as Uber or Lyft)6
1150 Shopping for or delivering household items
1151 Performing tasks online (like completing surveys or doing data entry)
1152 Cleaning someone’s home or doing laundry Something else
1153 )))
1154 |(% style="width:395px" %)SOU (2017) Sweden|(% style="width:505px" %)(((
1155 In which, if any, of the following ways have you ever personally carried out paid (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) using a website or mobile phone application? 1. Providing a driving or taxi service, for a fee, by finding passengers through a website or app such as Uber or BlaBlaCar 2. Providing professional (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%), such as consultancy, legal advice, accounting services, through a website or app such as UpWork, PeoplePerHour or Freelancer
1156
1157 1. Providing creative or IT (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%), such as writing, graphic design, or web development, through a website or app such as UpWork, Freelancer, PeoplePerHour, Fiverr or Toptal
1158 1. Providing administrative (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%), such as data entry or ‘click (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%)’, through a website or app such as Clickworker, PeoplePerHour or Freelancer
1159 1. Providing skilled manual (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%), such as plumbing, building, electrical maintenance and carpentry, through a website or app such as Rated People, MyBuilder or TaskRabbit
1160 1. Providing personal services, such as cleaning, moving, or DIY tasks, through a website or app such as TaskRabbit, Hassle or Handy
1161 1. Providing delivery or courier services, through a website or app such as Deliveroo, UberEATS or Just Eat
1162 )))
1163
1164 Source: OECD STI elaboration.
1165
1166 **Annex Table 4.A.2. Questions posed in official surveys**
1167
1168 (% style="width:1013.45px" %)
1169 |(% style="width:397px" %)**Survey**|(% style="width:614px" %)**Questions**
1170 |(% style="width:397px" %)(((
1171 Australians and the Gig Economy Survey, Prevalence and characteristics of digital platform (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) in Australia (2019)
1172 )))|(% style="width:614px" %)(((
1173 Questions relate to [[earning>>doc:working:Glossary.Earnings.WebHome]] income through digital platforms; Renting, Leasing, Selling or Licensing through Platforms; experience with platform (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) (e.g. period, frequency, hours per week, perceived importance of the income, reasons to (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) or offer services through digital platforms); details related to the main digital platform used (name, type of (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) or service offered, methods of payment, amount paid per hour, hours spend per week and share of time spent on unpaid tasks, etc.); details on functions and regulation characteristics of the platform (e.g. subscription fees, insurance, rating by clients, dispute settlement process, etc.).
1174 Detailed questionnaire provided pp.85 to 97 of the publication.
1175 )))
1176 |(% style="width:397px" %)Canada LFS (LFS Fast Track Module – October 2016 collection)|(% style="width:614px" %)In the past 12 months, did you offer ride services such as Uber, Lyft, etc.?
1177 In the past 12 months, did you offer private accommodation services such as AirBnb, Flipkey, etc.?
1178 |(% style="width:397px" %)Canada Internet Use Survey (2018 survey)|(% style="width:614px" %)(((
1179 **//Online (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work//(%%)**
1180
1181 During the past 12 months have you used the Internet to earn income? (Y/N) //Include money made through online bulletin boards// If Yes:
1182 What type of income was this?
1183 Was it a: Main source of income / Additional source of income
1184 Through what method did you earn this income during the past 12 months?
1185 //Select all that apply.//
1186 Was it through:
1187 Online bulletin board for physical goods (e.g., Etsy, Kijiji, Ebay) / Online bulletin board for services (e.g., Kijiji, Craigslist) / Platform-based peer-topeer services (e.g., Uber, AirBnb, AskforTask) / Online freelancing (e.g., Upwork, Freelancer, Catalant, Proz, Fiverr) / Crowd-based microwork (e.g., Amazon Mechanical Turk, Cloudflower) / Advertisement-based income (e.g., income earned through YouTube or personal blogs) / Other
1188 What is your best estimate of the total income you earned through the Internet during the past 12 months?
1189 Would you say: Less than USD 200 / USD 200 to less than USD 1 000/
1190 USD 1 000 to less than USD 10 000 /USD 10 000 to less than USD 20 000 /
1191 USD 20 000 to less than USD 50 000 / USD 50 000 or more
1192 )))
1193 |(% style="width:397px" %)(((
1194 Canada Internet Use Survey (2020 survey, forthcoming)
1195
1196
1197 )))|(% style="width:614px" %)(((
1198 **//Online (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work//(%%)**
1199 The next questions ask about the [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]] or business you usually (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)worked(%%) the most hours, if you had more than one [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]].
1200 Which of the following best describes your usual place of (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) at your main [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]] or business? Do you:
1201 //1: (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)Work(%%) at a fixed location outside the home
1202 2: (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)Work(%%) outside the home with no fixed location (e.g., driving, making sales calls)
1203 3: (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)Work(%%) at home (Include (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) done at the same address as your home, but on a different part of your property.)//
1204 Excluding overtime, do you (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) any of your scheduled hours at home? (Y/N) During the past 12 months, have you done any telework from any of the following locations? Was it from:
1205
1206 Home (Y/N)
1207 Co-(% style="color:#e74c3c" %)working(%%) spaces (Y/N)
1208 Other locations (Y/N)
1209
1210 Did not do any teleworking in past 12 months (Y/N)
1211 During the past 12 months, have you used an Internet-connected device at home that was provided by your employer? (Y/N)
1212 During the past 12 months, was there an expectation from your employer that you use the Internet to stay connected outside of your regular (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) hours? (Y/N)
1213 The following question is about money that you personally earned online in the past 12 months. //Please remember that your answers will be kept strictly confidential. //During the past 12 months, how much did you personally earn by doing the following activities online?
1214 (Min = 0; Max = 99999999)
1215
1216 //Selling physical goods online that you built or created
1217 Selling services via online bulletin boards
1218 Providing platform-based peer-to-peer accommodation services
1219 Providing platform-based peer-to-peer ride and delivery services
1220 Providing other platform-based peer-to-peer services
1221 Online freelancing
1222 Crowd-based microwork
1223 [[Earning>>doc:working:Glossary.Earnings.WebHome]] income through online advertisements and sponsored content Other activities//
1224 )))
1225 |(% style="width:398px" %)Denmark LFS|(% style="width:614px" %)(((
1226 Have you earned money in the past 12 months by performing (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) done through websites or apps - for example, via Uber? (Y/N)
1227 In the past 12 months, have you earned money by renting your property or your property through websites or apps for example via Airbnb? (Y/N)
1228 )))
1229 |(% style="width:398px" %)Eurostat, Community Survey on ICT Usage and e-commerce in Households and by Individuals, 2018|(% style="width:614px" %)(((
1230 B8. Have you obtained paid (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) by using an intermediary website or apps (e.g. Upwork, TaskRabbit, Freelancer, Amazon Mechanical Turk) in the last 12 months?
1231 Websites of [[employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Employment.WebHome]] agency are excluded
1232
1233 //If YES to B8 go to B8.1, otherwise C1//
1234
1235 B8.1. If Yes to B8: Could you please specify if the income of this (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) is: a) the main source of your income
1236
1237 b) an additional source of income
1238 )))
1239 |(% style="width:398px" %)Finland LFS|(% style="width:614px" %)(((
1240 Have you during the past 12 months (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)worked(%%) or otherwise earned income through the following platforms: 1. Airbnb, 2. Uber, 3. Tori.fi/Huuto.net, 4.
1241
1242 Solved, 5. Some other, 6. None of the above.
1243 )))
1244 |(% style="width:398px" %)France LFS (Ad Hoc Module 2017)|(% style="width:614px" %)(((
1245 How do you mainly get in touch with your clients? //Many answers possible (if the respondent can't choose)// //Don't read item 5.//
1246
1247 ~1. Clients come into the shop or contact you directly (phone, mail, Internet etc.) 2. Clients go through a platform or through a third party business that redirect them to you.
1248 3. You're directly looking for clients / contact yourself the clients.
1249 4. Other
1250 5. Not meaningful
1251 )))
1252 |(% style="width:398px" %)France Dispositif SINE, Interrogations 2018 et suivantes|(% style="width:614px" %)(((
1253 //31. Travaillez-vous par l’intermédiaire d’une ou plusieurs plates-formes numériques de mise en relation (exemples : VTC, livraison à domicile, services à la personne, services ou conseil aux entreprises, …) ? UNE SEULE//
1254
1255 //RÉPONSE//
1256
1257 //Oui, c’est ma principale source de chiffre d’affaires........... 1
1258 Oui, mais c’est une activité annexe.................................... 2
1259 Non..................................................................................... 3//
1260 )))
1261 |(% style="width:398px" %)Italy (INAPP-PLUS 2018)|(% style="width:614px" %)(((
1262 ~1. In the last year, have you earned money by accepting [[jobs>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]] through this type of site or mobile app, e.g., driving someone from one place to another, delivering meals on wheels, cleaning someone's house, or performing tasks (Hit) online? (Yes/No/No answer)
1263
1264 2. What types of (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) or activities have you performed in the last year using these services?
1265 Driving for a travel application (such as Uber or Lyft) / Purchase or delivery of household items / Delivery meals/Performing online activities (such as completing surveys or entering data)/Cleaning someone's house or doing laundry/Something else (specify) /No answer
1266
1267 3. Can you tell us the net income you earned in 2017 from this [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]]?
1268
1269 4. In relation to the income you earn from this (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%), which of the following statements best describes it?
1270 It is essential to meet my basic needs / It is an important component of my budget, but not essential / It's convenient for me to have it, but I could easily live without it. / No answer
1271
1272 5. How are you contractually framed when you provide these services?
1273 Coordinated and continuous collaboration (Co.Co.) / Occasional collaboration (withholding tax) / Business owner / Entrepreneur / Own business (VAT umber) / Franchising / Ancillary (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) / Cooperative or company member / Familial Adjuvant / Informal agreements (No formalised contract) / I do not know or do not remember the contractual form.
1274 )))
1275 |(% style="width:397px" %)Singapore [[Labour Force>>doc:working:Glossary.Labour Force.WebHome]] Supplementary Survey on Own Account Workers|(% style="width:614px" %)(((
1276 Please indicate the online matching platform(s) used to take up (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) as an own account worker in the past 12 months (e.g. ride-hailing platforms, food delivery platforms, etc.)
1277 )))
1278 |(% style="width:397px" %)Switzerland – ad-hoc LFS module (2019) on “Internet-mediated platform (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%)”|(% style="width:614px" %)(((
1279 Finally, we would like to ask you a few questions on new [[forms of work>>doc:working:Glossary.Forms of Work.WebHome]]. Internet platforms and apps make new income opportunities possible today. You are put in contact with the client and generally paid directly via the platform. Have you rented a room, apartment or a house to somebody via an internet platform or app such as Airbnb or Flipkey in the past 12 months?
1280
1281 Have you provided taxi services via an internet platform or app such as for example Uber or Lyft in the past 12 months?
1282
1283 Have you sold goods via an internet platform or app such as Ricardo or Ebay in the past 12 months? Please only answer “yes” if you previously collected, bought or produced the goods with the specific aim of reselling them.
1284
1285 Have you provided other services via an internet platform or app such as cleaning, handiwork, delivery services or online programming in the past 12 months?
1286
1287 In what activity area do you provide these paid services? Cleaning; Food delivery; Goods transport and delivery; Handiwork; Programming/online support; Translation; Data / text entry; Web / graphic design; Other activity area; Don't know; No answer
1288
1289 Have you provided one of these paid services in the past week via an internet platform or app?
1290
1291 How many hours have you spent (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)working(%%) on this service or these services in the past week? number of hours/ don't know/No answer
1292
1293 Did you provide these paid services via an internet platform or app as part of your main [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]] or was this an additional [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]]? (Interviewer: several answers possible): Main [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]]/Additional [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]]/don't know/No answer
1294
1295 Did you provide these paid services via an internet platform or app as part of your main [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]] or second [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]] or was this an additional [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]]? (Interviewer: several answers possible): Main [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]]/Second [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]]/Additional [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]]/Don't know/No answer. Why did you choose this [[form of work>>doc:working:Glossary.Forms of Work.WebHome]]? additional income opportunity/most suited to one's own qualifications/did not find a traditional [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]]/ flexible (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)working(%%) hours (day/night, at the weekend,...)/flexible workplace (home office, (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) on the go,...)/reconciliation with family life/ reconciliation with studies/other reason:…/don't know / no answer
1296
1297 How long have you been providing paid services via an internet platform or app? - for less than 1 year/for 1 to less than 2 years/for 2 to less than 5 years/for 5 years and more/don't know/no answer
1298
1299 How often do you provide these paid services via an internet platform or app? almost every week/almost every month/sporadically, i.e. several times a year/one-off activity /don't know /no answer
1300
1301 On average, how many hours per week have you spent (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)working(%%) in the past 12 months on these paid services? Number of hours /don't know /no answer On average, how many hours per month have you spent (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)working(%%) in the past
1302
1303 12 months on these paid services? Number of hours /don't know /no answer
1304
1305 Please estimate how many hours you have spent (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)working(%%) in total in the past 12 months on these paid services: Number of hours /don't know /no answer What percentage of your income from your main [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]] comes from the income from these paid services provided via an internet platform or app? Share as a %/don't know/no answer
1306
1307 What percentage of your income from your second [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]] comes from the income from these paid services provided via an internet platform or app? Share as a %/don't know/no answer
1308
1309 Could you tell me your monthly gross income from these paid services provided via an internet platform or app? INCOME/don't know/no answer Could you estimate your monthly gross income from these paid services? Up to CHF 250 / CHF 251 – 500 / CHF 501 – 1000 / CHF 1001 – 2000 /  CHF 2001 – 3000 / CHF 3001 - 4000 /  CHF 4001 – 5000 / More than CHF 5000 / don't know / no answer
1310
1311 Could you tell me your annual gross income from these paid services provided via an internet platform or app? INCOME/don't know/no answer
1312
1313 Could you estimate your annual gross income from these paid services? Up to CHF 3000 / CHF 3001 - 6000 / CHF 6001 - 12000 / CHF 12000 - 24000 / CHF 24001 – 36000 / CHF 36001 – 48000 / CHF 48001 - 60000 / More than CHF 60000 / don't know / no answer
1314
1315 What is the name of the internet platform or app that you use to provide the paid services? Airbnb/Flipkey/Uber/Lyft/Ebay/Ricardo/other internet platform/app:…/don't know/no answer.
1316 )))
1317 |(% style="width:398px" %)Switzerland, ICT usage survey 2017 and 2019, Enquêtes OMNIBUS TIC 2017 and 2019|(% style="width:614px" %)(((
1318 In 2017:
1319 In the past 12 months, have you done paid (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) using any internet platform or application as an intermediary, e.g. TaskRabbit, Mechanical Turk, Freelance, etc. ? //READ IF NECESSARY: Do not consider [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]] posting sites but only sites where (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) is done and paid by task or mandate.//
1320 1) Yes, as main [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]]
1321 2) Yes, as a secondary or casual [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]]
1322 3)  No
1323 _
1324 9) Don't know / No answer
1325
1326 In 2019:
1327 //The next question is about paid (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) obtained through a site or application. These may be physical tasks or services transmitted over the Internet, carried out for individuals or for companies. Any (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) that is paid by task or mandate should be considered, not just self-[[employment>>doc:working:Glossary.Employment.WebHome]].//
1328 1) In the past 12 months, have you gotten paid (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) through any site or app, for example TaskRabbit, Mechanical Turk, Freelancer, Upwork, Batmaid, Uber, etc. ?
1329
1330 //Be careful, do not consider [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]] posting sites and placement agencies.//
1331 2) Was the income from this (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) your main source of income?
1332 )))
1333 |(% style="width:398px" %)US CPS Computer and Internet Use Supplement (2017 and 2019)|(% style="width:614px" %)Have you offered own services for sale via the Internet (Examples include offering rentals on Airbnb and driving for Uber or Lyft. Do not include any goods or possessions sold online, such as clothing, shoes, or crafts.)
1334 |(% style="width:398px" %)US Federal Reserve (2018), Survey of Households Economics and Decision-making (SHED).|(% style="width:614px" %)(((
1335 In the past month, have you been paid for each of the following online occasional [[work activities>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]] or side [[jobs>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]]?
1336
1337 //Please do not include activities that you only do as part of your main [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]]//
1338
1339 a. Completing paid online tasks, such as on Amazon Services, Mechanical Turk, Fiverr, Task Rabbit, or YouTube. (Y/N)
1340 b. Renting out property online, such as your car, your place of residence, etc. (Y/N)
1341 c. Selling goods online through eBay, Craigslist, or other websites (Y/N)
1342 d. Driving using a ride-sharing app such as Uber or Lyft. (Y/N)
1343 e. Other online paid activities (do not include taking GfK Surveys). (Y/N)
1344 )))
1345 |(% style="width:398px" %)US Federal Reserve (2019 and 2020), Survey of Households Economics and Decision-making (SHED)|(% style="width:614px" %)(((
1346 In the past month, have you been paid for each of the following activities? Childcare or eldercare services/Dog walking, feeding pets, or house sitting/House cleaning, yard (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%), or other property maintenance (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%)/Driving or ride-sharing, such as with Uber or Lyft/Paid tasks online/Other paid personal tasks, such as deliveries, running errands, or helping people move
1347
1348 //Note: the Gig Economy section includes additional questions not reported here//
1349 )))
1350 |(% style="width:398px" %)Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2017 Contigent Worker Supplement|(% style="width:614px" %)(((
1351 Some people find short, IN-PERSON tasks or [[jobs>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]] through companies that connect them directly with customers using a website or mobile app. These companies also coordinate payment for the service through the app or website. For example, using your own car to drive people from one place to another, delivering something, or doing someone’s household tasks or errands. Does this describe ANY (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) you did LAST WEEK? Y/N
1352
1353 Was that for your main [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]], your second [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]], or other additional (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) for pay? Main [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]]
1354
1355 Second [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]]
1356
1357 Additional (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) for pay
1358 )))
1359 |(% style="width:398px" %) |(% style="width:614px" %)(((
1360 Some people select short, ONLINE tasks or projects through companies that maintain lists that are accessed through an app or a website. These tasks are done entirely online and the companies coordinate payment for the (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%). For example, data entry, translating text, web or software development, or graphic design. Does this describe ANY (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) you did LAST WEEK? Y/N
1361 Was that for your main [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]], your second [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]], or other additional (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) for pay? Main [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]]
1362 Second [[job>>doc:working:Glossary.Job.WebHome]]
1363 Additional (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) for pay
1364 )))
1365 |(% style="width:398px" %)(((
1366 UK ONS
1367 (cognitive/qualitative pilot of questions for digital platform)
1368 )))|(% style="width:614px" %)(((
1369 In the last 12 months have you used a digital platform to find (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) on a short term, payment by task basis?
1370 Does the (% style="color:#e74c3c" %)work(%%) you found on a digital platform provide your main source of [[earnings>>doc:working:Glossary.Earnings.WebHome]] over the past three months?
1371 )))
1372
1373 Source: OECD STI elaboration.
1374
1375 == References ==
1376
1377 (% style="width:1380.45px" %)
1378 |(% style="width:1279px" %)A. StrømmenBakhtiar, &. (ed.) (2020), //Digital platforms at work. Champagne or cocktail of risks?//, Routledge, https:~/~/doi.org/10.4324/9780429293207.|(% style="width:97px" %)[30]
1379 |(% style="width:1279px" %)Abraham, K. and A. Amaya (2018), “Probing for Informal Work Activity”, //NBER Working Paper// 24880, https:~/~/www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w24880/w24880.pdf.|(% style="width:97px" %)[39]
1380 |(% style="width:1279px" %)Abraham, K. et al. (2018), “Measuring the Gig Economy: Current Knowledge and Open Issues”, //NBER Working Paper// 24950, https:~/~/www.nber.org/papers/w24950.|(% style="width:97px" %)[26]
1381 |(% style="width:1279px" %)Alsos, K. et al. (2017), “Når sjefen er en app”, //Fafo-rapport//, Vol. 2017/41, https:~/~/www.fafo.no/images/pub/2017/20649.pdf.|(% style="width:97px" %)[10]
1382 |(% style="width:1279px" %)Balaram, B., J. Warden and F. Wallace-Stephens (2017), //Good Gigs: A fairer future for the UK’s gig economy//, https:~/~/www.thersa.org/globalassets/pdfs/reports/rsa_good-gigs-fairer-gigeconomy-report.pdf.|(% style="width:97px" %)[4]
1383 |(% style="width:1279px" %)Bernhardt, A. and S. Thomason (2017), //What Do We Know About Gig Work in California? An Analysis of Independent Contracting//, https:~/~/laborcenter.berkeley.edu/what-do-we-knowabout-gig-work-in-california/.|(% style="width:97px" %)[25]
1384 |(% style="width:1279px" %)Board, F. (2020), //Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2019, Featuring Supplemental Data from April 2020//, https:~/~/www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2019report-economic-well-being-us-households-202005.pdf.|(% style="width:97px" %)[36]
1385 |(% style="width:1279px" %)Boeri et al. (2018), //Social Protection for Independent Workers in the Digital Age//, http:~/~/www.frdb.org/be/file/_scheda/files/01_Stephen_Machin.pdf.|(% style="width:97px" %)[22]
1386 |(% style="width:1279px" %)Bonin, H. and U. Rinne (2017), “Omnibusbefragung zur Verbesserung der Datenlage neuer Beschäftigungsformen”, //IZA Research Report// 80, http:~/~/ftp.iza.org/report_pdfs/iza_report_80.pdf.|(% style="width:97px" %)[7]
1387 |(% style="width:1279px" %)Broecke, S. (2018), //Protecting workers from low pay in the future world of work: Are piece rate minimum wages part of the answer//.|(% style="width:97px" %)[44]
1388 |(% style="width:1279px" %)Bureau of Labor Statistics (2018), “Electronically mediated work: new questions in the Contingent Worker Supplement”, //Monthly Labor Review//, https:~/~/www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2018/article/electronically-mediated-work-new-questions-in-thecontingent-worker-supplement.htm (accessed on 2018).|(% style="width:97px" %)[40]
1389 |(% style="width:1279px" %)CIPD (2017), //To gig or not to gig? Stories from the modern economy//, https:~/~/www.cipd.co.uk/Images/to-gig-or-not-to-gig_2017-stories-from-the-moderneconomy_tcm18-18955.pdf.|(% style="width:97px" %)[3]
1390 |(% style="width:1279px" %)Cirillo, V., D. Guarascio and S. Scicchitano (2019), //Platform workers in Italy: an empirical exploration on worker-level data//, http:~/~/oa.inapp.org/xmlui/handle/123456789/516?show=full.|(% style="width:97px" %)[35]
1391 |(% style="width:1279px" %)Collins et al. (2019), //Is Gig Work Replacing Traditional Employment? Evidence from Two Decades of Tax Returns//, https:~/~/www.irs.gov/pub/irssoi/19rpgigworkreplacingtraditionalemployment.pdf.|(% style="width:97px" %)[46]
1392 |(% style="width:1279px" %)Cook, C. et al. (2018), //The Gender Earnings Gap in the Gig Economy: Evidence from over a Million Rideshare Drivers//, https:~/~/www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w24732/w24732.pdf.|(% style="width:97px" %)[58]
1393 |(% style="width:1279px" %)Drahokoupil, J. and A. Piasna (2019), //Work in the Platform Economy: Deliveroo Riders in Belgium and the SMart Arrangement//, https:~/~/www.etui.org/publications/working-papers/workin-the-platform-economy-deliveroo-riders-in-belgium-and-the-smart-arrangement.|(% style="width:97px" %)[21]
1394 |(% style="width:1279px" %)Eurobarometer (2018), “The use of the collaborative economy”, //Flash Eurobarometer// 467.|(% style="width:97px" %)[15]
1395 |(% style="width:1279px" %)Eurobarometer (2016), “The use of Collaborative Platforms”, //Flash Eurobarometer// 438, http:~/~/ec.europa.eu/COMMFrontOffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/ResultDoc/download/Documen tKy/72885.|(% style="width:97px" %)[14]
1396 |(% style="width:1279px" %)Eurofound (2019), //Mapping the contours of the platform economy//, https:~/~/www.eurofound.europa.eu/data/platform-economy/records/mapping-the-contours-ofthe-platform-economy.|(% style="width:97px" %)[19]
1397 |(% style="width:1279px" %)European Commission (2017), //Europe’s Digital Progress Report (EDPR) 2017 Country Profile Belgium//.|(% style="width:97px" %)[50]
1398 |(% style="width:1279px" %)Farrell, D. and F. Greig (2016), //Paychecks, Paydays, and the Online Platform Economy - Big Data on Income Volatility//, https:~/~/www.jpmorganchase.com/content/dam/jpmc/jpmorganchase-and-co/institute/pdf/jpmc-institute-volatility-2-report.pdf.|(% style="width:97px" %)[54]
1399 |(% style="width:1279px" %)Farrell, D., F. Greig and A. Hamoudi (2018), //The Online Platform Economy in 2018: Drivers, Workers, Sellers, and Lessors//, https:~/~/www.jpmorganchase.com/content/dam/jpmc/jpmorganchase-and-co/institute/pdf/institute-ope-2018.pdf.|(% style="width:97px" %)[55]
1400 |(% style="width:1279px" %)Finland, S. (2017), //Labour force survey 2017: platform jobs//, https:~/~/www.stat.fi/til/tyti/2017/14/tyti_2017_14_2018-04-17_en.pdf.|(% style="width:97px" %)[28]
1401 |(% style="width:1279px" %)Groen, W. and I. Maselli (2016), “The Impact of the Collaborative Economy on the Labour Market”, //CEPS Special Report// 138, https:~/~/www.ceps.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2016/06/SR138CollaborativeEconomy_0.pdf.|(% style="width:97px" %)[53]
1402 |(% style="width:1279px" %)(((
1403 Harris, S. and A. Krueger (2015), “A Proposal for Modernizing Labor Laws for Twenty-First-
1404
1405 Century Work: The “Independent Worker”, //Hamilton Project Discussion Paper//, Vol. 2015/10.
1406 )))|(% style="width:97px" %)[52]
1407 |(% style="width:1279px" %)HM Revenue and Customs (2018), //The role of online platforms in ensuring tax compliance by their users//, https:~/~/assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_dat a/file/754206/The_role_of_online_platforms_summary_of_responses.pdf.|(% style="width:97px" %)[49]
1408 |(% style="width:1279px" %)(((
1409 Huws, U. et al. (2019), //The Platformisation of Work in Europe. Results from research in 13//
1410
1411 //European countries.//, Foundation for European Progressive Studies, UNI Global Union and University of Hertfordshire, https:~/~/www.fepseurope.eu/attachments/publications/the%20platformisation%20of%20work%20in%20europe %20-%20final%20corrected.pdf.
1412 )))|(% style="width:97px" %)[6]
1413 |(% style="width:1279px" %)Huws, U., N. Spencer and S. Joyce (2016), //Crowd Work in Europe: Preliminary resultsfrom a survey in the UK, Sweden, Germany, Austria and the Netherlands//, http:~/~/researchprofiles.herts.ac.uk/portal/files/10749125/crowd_work_in_europe_draft_report_l ast_version.pdf|(% style="width:97px" %)[23]
1414 |(% style="width:1285px" %)ILO (2021), //World Employment and Social Outlook 2021: The role of digital labour platforms in transforming the world of work//, International Labour Organization, https:~/~/www.ilo.org/global/research/global-reports/weso/2021/WCMS_771749/lang-en/index.htm.|(% style="width:92px" %)[20]
1415 |(% style="width:1285px" %)ILO (2018), //Digital labour platforms and the future of work: Towards decent work in the online world//, International Labour Office, https:~/~/www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/~-~--dgreports/~-~-dcomm/~-~--publ/documents/publication/wcms_645337.pdf.|(% style="width:92px" %)[9]
1416 |(% style="width:1285px" %)Ilsøe, A. and L. Madsen (2017), “Digital af arbejdsmark: Danskernes erfaring med digital automatisering og digitale [Digitalization of the labour market - digital automation and digital platforms in Denmark]”, //FAOS Forskningsnotat// 157, https:~/~/faos.ku.dk/publikationer/forskningsnotater/fnotater-2017/Fnotat_157~_~_Digitalisering_af_arbejdsmarkedet.pdf.|(% style="width:92px" %)[41]
1417 |(% style="width:1285px" %)INPS (2018), //XVII Rapporto Annuale//, https:~/~/www.inps.it/dati-ricerche-e-bilanci/rapportiannuali/xvii-rapporto-annuale.|(% style="width:92px" %)[45]
1418 |(% style="width:1285px" %)Insee (2018), //Emploi, chômage, revenus du travail//, Insee, https:~/~/www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/fichier/3573876/ecrt18.pdf.|(% style="width:92px" %)[42]
1419 |(% style="width:1285px" %)ISTAT (2021), //Rilevazione sulle forze lavoro - Questionario 2021//, ISTAT, https:~/~/www.istat.it/it/files~/~/2021/02/Questionario_FdL_2021.pdf.|(% style="width:92px" %)[27]
1420 |(% style="width:1285px" %)Jesnes, K. et al. (2016), //Aktører og arbeid I delingsøkonomien//.|(% style="width:92px" %)[11]
1421 |(% style="width:1285px" %)Kässi, O. and V. Lehdonvirta (2018), “Online Labour Index: Measuring the Online Gig Economy for Policy and Research”, //Technological Forecasting and Social Change//, https:~/~/ilabour.oii.ox.ac.uk/new-publication-online-labour-index-measuring-the-online-gigeconomy-for-policy-and-research/.|(% style="width:92px" %)[57]
1422 |(% style="width:1285px" %)Katz, L. and A. Krueger (2019), “The Rise and Nature of Alternative Work Arrangements in the United States, 1995-2015”, //ILR Review//, Vol. 72/2, pp. 382-416.|(% style="width:92px" %)[60]
1423 |(% style="width:1285px" %)Katz, L. and A. Krueger (2016), “The rise and nature of alternative work arrangements in the United States, 1995-2015”, //Working paper//, Vol. 226, https:~/~/scholar.harvard.edu/files/lkatz/files/katz_krueger_cws_resubmit_clean.pdf.|(% style="width:92px" %)[1]
1424 |(% style="width:1285px" %)Kostyshyna, O. and C. Luu (2019), //The Size and Characteristics of Informal (“Gig”) Work in Canada//, https:~/~/www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/san2019-6.pdf.|(% style="width:92px" %)[37]
1425 |(% style="width:1285px" %)Koustas, D. (2019), “What do big data tell us about why people take gig economy jobs?”, https:~/~/www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pandp.20191041.|(% style="width:92px" %)[56]
1426 |(% style="width:1285px" %)(((
1427 Le Ludec, C., T. Tubaro and A. Casilli (2019), //Combien de personnes microtravaillent en France//
1428
1429 //? Estimer l’ampleur d’une nouvelle forme de travail//, http:~/~/diplab.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2019/02/WPi3-19-SES-02-LeLudec-Tubaro-Casilli.pdf. (accessed on November 2020).
1430 )))|(% style="width:92px" %)[8]
1431 |(% style="width:1285px" %)Lepanjuuri K., W. (2018), //The characteristics of those in the gig economy//, United Kingdom Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, London., https:~/~/assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_dat a/file/687553/The_characteristics_of_those_in_the_gig_economy.pdf (accessed on November 2020).|(% style="width:92px" %)[5]
1432 |(% style="width:1285px" %)Manyika, J. et al. (2016), //Independent work: Choice, necessity, and the gig economy//, https:~/~/www.mckinsey.com/~~/media/McKinsey/Featured%20Insights/Employment%20and%2 0Growth/Independent%20work%20Choice%20necessity%20and%20the%20gig%20econom y/Independent-Work-Choice-necessity-and-the-gig-economy-Full-report.ashx.|(% style="width:95px" %)[13]
1433 |(% style="width:1285px" %)McDonald et al. (2019), //Digital Platform Work in Australia: Prevalence, Nature and Impact//, https:~/~/s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/hdp.au.prod.app.vicengage.files/7315/9254/1260/Digital_Platform_Work_in_Australia~_~_Prevalence_Nature_and_Impact_-_November_2019.pdf.|(% style="width:95px" %)[32]
1434 |(% style="width:1285px" %)Moe, L., J. Parrott and J. Rochford (2020), //The Magnitude of Low-Paid Gig and Independent Contract Work in New York State//, https:~/~/static1.squarespace.com/static/53ee4f0be4b015b9c3690d84/t/5e424affd767af4f34c0d 9a9/1581402883035/Feb112020_GigReport.pdf.|(% style="width:95px" %)[47]
1435 |(% style="width:1285px" %)Montagnier, P.; Ek, I. (2021), “AI measurement in ICT usage surveys: a review”, //Digital Economy Papers// No. 308, https:~/~/doi.org/10.1787/72cce754-en.|(% style="width:95px" %)[59]
1436 |(% style="width:1285px" %)OECD (2019), “Measuring platform mediated workers”, //OECD Digital Economy Papers// No. 282, https:~/~/doi.org/10.1787/170a14d9-en.|(% style="width:95px" %)[24]
1437 |(% style="width:1285px" %)OECD (2018), //Tax Challenges Arising from Digitalisation – Interim Report 2018: Inclusive Framework on BEPS//, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, OECD Publishing, Paris, https:~/~/doi.org/10.1787/9789264293083-en.|(% style="width:95px" %)[48]
1438 |(% style="width:1285px" %)Office for National Statistics (UK) (2016), //The feasibility of measuring the sharing economy//, https:~/~/www.ons.gov.uk/economy/economicoutputandproductivity/output/articles/thefeasibility ofmeasuringthesharingeconomy/2016-04-05.|(% style="width:95px" %)[43]
1439 |(% style="width:1285px" %)Ogembo, D. and V. Lehdonvirta (2020), “Taxing Earnings from the Platform Economy: An EU Digital Single Window for Income Data?”, //British Tax Review//, Vol. 1, pp. 82-101, https:~/~/eu2020-reader.bmas.de/en/new-work-human-centric-work/taxing-earnings-from-theplatform-economy-an-eu-digital-single-window-for-income-data%E2%80%8A1/.|(% style="width:95px" %)[51]
1440 |(% style="width:1285px" %)Pesole, A. et al. (2018), //Platform Workers in Europe//, Publications Office of the European Union, http:~/~/publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC112157/jrc112157_pubsy_platfor m_workers_in_europe_science_for_policy.pdf.|(% style="width:95px" %)[16]
1441 |(% style="width:1285px" %)Pew Research Center (2016), //Gig Work, Online Selling and Home Sharing//, http:~/~/www.pewinternet.org/2016/11/17/gig-work-online-selling-and-home-sharing/.|(% style="width:95px" %)[2]
1442 |(% style="width:1285px" %)Piasna, A. and J. Drahokoupil (2019), //Digital labour in central and eastern Europe: evidence from the ETUI Internet and Platform Work Survey//, European Trade Union Institute, https:~/~/www.etui.org/node/31491.|(% style="width:95px" %)[18]
1443 |(% style="width:1285px" %)Richet Damien, B. (2020), //Micro-entrepreneurs immatriculés en 2018: dans les transports, deux sur trois travaillent via une plateforme numérique//, INSEE, https:~/~/www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/fichier/version-html/4799082/IP1821.pdf.|(% style="width:95px" %)[34]
1444 |(% style="width:1285px" %)SOU (2017), //Ett arbetsliv i förändring – hur påverkas ansvaret för arbetsmiljön?//, https:~/~/www.regeringen.se/496173/contentassets/93df7ab18b704a8ab655080cb498dfd1/ettarbetsliv-i-forandring~-~-hur-paverkas-ansvaret-for-arbetsmiljon-sou-201724.|(% style="width:95px" %)[12]
1445 |(% style="width:1285px" %)Sung-Hee, J., H. Liu and Y. Ostrovsky (2019), //Measuring the Gig Economy in Canada Using Administrative Data//, Statistics Canada, https:~/~/www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11f0019m/11f0019m2019025-eng.htm.|(% style="width:95px" %)// //[38]
1446 |(% style="width:1285px" %)Sutela, A. (2018), //Platform jobs are here to stay – how to measure them?//,^^ ^^http:~/~/www.stat.fi/tietotrendit/blogit/2018/platform-jobs-are-here-to-stay-how-to-measure-them/ (accessed on 11 December 2020).|(% style="width:95px" %)[29]
1447 |(% style="width:1285px" %)Swiss Federal Statistical Office (SFSO) (2020), //Internet-mediated platform work is not very common in Switzerland//, https:~/~/www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/workincome/employment-working-hours/employed-persons/working-conditions/internet-platform-s.|(% style="width:95px" %)[31]
1448 |(% style="width:1287px" %)(((
1449 The State of Victoria (2020), //Report of the Inquiry into the Victorian On-Demand Workforce//, https:~/~/s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/hdp.au.prod.app.vic-engage.files/4915/9469/1146/Report_of_the_Inquiry_into_the_Victorian_OnDemand_Workforce-reduced_size.pdf.
1450 )))|(% style="width:93px" %)[33]
1451 |(% style="width:1287px" %)Urzì Brancati, C., A. Pesole and E. Fernández-Macías (2020), //New evidence on platform workers in Europe. Results from the second COLLEEM survey//, Publications Office of the European Union, https:~/~/doi.org/10.2760/459278.|(% style="width:93px" %)[17]
1452 |(% style="width:1287px" %)Wikipedia (2020), //Mark and recapture//.|(% style="width:93px" %)[61]
1453
1454 == Notes ==
1455
1456 {{putFootnotes/}}