A Systematic Literature Review of the Gig Economy: Insights into Worker Experiences, Policy Implications, and the Impact of Digitalization

A Systematic Literature Review of the Gig Economy: Insights into Worker Experiences, Policy Implications, and the Impact of Digitalization

^*Norhayati Omar, Rossilah Jamil

Azman Hashim International Business School, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

*Corresponding Author

        DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.9020170

Received: 30 January 2025; Accepted: 06 February 2025; Published: 08 March 2025

ABSTRACT

The gig economy has fundamentally altered the labor landscape around the world, creating opportunities but also challenges. With adherence to the PRISMA guidelines, this systematic literature review synthesizes results from 31 studies retrieved from the Scopus and Web of Science databases. It explores three areas of focus: worker well-being, legal and policy aspects, and how digitalization reshapes job structures and skills. The analysis found that gig workers suffer from job insecurity, lack of social protections and mental health issues, often exacerbated by algorithm-based management. This lack of regulation, notably in the Global South, leads to misclassification of workers and inconsistent labor rights. Additionally, although digitalization improves both recognition of and access to skills, it widens knowledge gaps and income inequality. The review highlights the importance of targeted interventions, including training, mentorship, and inclusive governance, to balance flexibility with worker protections. This research synthesizes  insights from several disciplines to offer a framework that can guide future research and policymaking in the developing gig economy.

Keywords:  gig Economy, worker experiences, policy implications, digitalization

INTRODUCTION

The emergence of the digital economy has drastically altered conventional employment systems, introducing non-traditional work structures defined by adaptability and the integration of advanced technology. The gig economy, powered by digital platforms such as Upwork, Fiverr, and Uber, has become a prominent component of this transformation. These platforms facilitate connections between workers and clients, enabling millions to engage in on-demand, self-directed employment across diverse sectors, including creative industries, transportation, and technology (Green et al., 2021; Ma & Yang, 2018; Rosenblat, 2016). Gig workers and freelancers now constitute a critical component of this evolving workforce, with their contributions spanning diverse sectors (Bunders et al., 2022; ÇİĞDEM, 2022; Ludwig et al., 2022; Wood & Lehdonvirta, 2023). However, despite their growing economic significance, the career development pathways of gig workers and freelancers remain underexplored, particularly in terms of their long-term sustainability and professional growth.

The gig economy operates through digital platforms that link workers directly with clients or customers, circumventing conventional job frameworks. Services like Upwork, Fiverr, and Uber have expanded access to work opportunities, granting individuals the freedom and flexibility to select tasks (Alvarez De La Vega et al., 2023; Jarrahi et al., 2020). However, this flexibility often comes with trade-offs, including a lack of job stability, inadequate social protections, and limited access to career advancement tools. For many individuals engaged in gig work, managing their careers involves addressing systemic hurdles such as unstable employment, financial unpredictability, and the absence of formal training or mentorship programs (Asfahani et al., 2023). These realities prompt important discussions about whether gig work can serve as a sustainable career path over time.

Existing research highlights both the opportunities and constraints faced by gig workers in building sustainable careers. Studies by De Stefano (2019) and  Wood et al. (2019) emphasize the autonomy and flexibility offered by gig work and suggest that these qualities attract workers seeking alternatives to traditional employment. In comparison, other scholars, such as (Gandini, 2019) critique the algorithmic management systems employed by digital platforms and argue that such approaches can limit workers’ control over job availability and career advancement. To date, theoretical frameworks, including Protean Career Theory and Boundaryless Career Theory, have been applied to understand how gig workers navigate their careers in the absence of organizational support (Haenggli et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2022, 2023). While these theories emphasize self-direction and adaptability, they do not fully address the systemic barriers that gig workers face, such as income volatility and limited upward mobility (Hewapathirana & Almasri, 2021; Inkson et al., 2012).

Despite a growing body of research on the gig economy, significant gaps remain in understanding the career development trajectories of gig workers, particularly across diverse demographic and geographic contexts. This is because existing literature generally focuses on immediate work conditions rather than long-term professional growth or sustainability. Additionally, the role of digital platforms as both enablers and barriers to career development warrants further exploration.

This paper seeks to bridge these deficiencies by conducting a structured review of existing research on career progression within the gig economy. Specifically, it investigates how gig workers and freelancers navigate their careers, examines the role of digital platforms and policy frameworks, and identifies strategies for promoting sustainable career development. This analysis combines worker experiences with regulatory factors and digital innovation effects to develop fair and sustainable career models within the gig economy.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The gig economy has dramatically reshaped employment landscapes, presenting workers with both advantages and obstacles in an increasingly interconnected and technology-driven world. By leveraging technological advancements, digital platforms have emerged as critical platforms of this transformation, offering new career pathways that are significantly different from those of their contemporary counterpart. However, due to the flexibility of this type of work, the instability of income streams, and the demands for specialized digital skills to remain competitive, the workers in the gig economy face unique experiences that have never been seen two decades ago (Nemeskéri et al., 2016). Moreover, as the digital economy grows, individuals must adapt their career trajectories and continuously enhance their digital competencies to stay relevant (Afanasyeva, 2018).

Digital platforms such as Uber, TaskRabbit, and Fiverr have democratized access to work opportunities since they allow individuals from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds to connect with employers and clients with no to fewer restrictions. These platforms empower workers by facilitating personal branding through digital portfolios, such as LinkedIn profiles, which are critical in competitive environments. For gig workers, such tools provide a means to build professional identities and secure contracts, albeit often at the cost of job stability and long-term career progression (Afanasyeva, 2018; De Reuver et al., 2018). While digital platforms foster inclusivity by enabling flexible work arrangements, they simultaneously raise concerns about worker rights, including fair wages, opportunities to enjoy contemporary advantages, and maintaining stable employment conditions (Kristia, 2023; Pulignano et al., 2022).

The difficulties and complexities tied to regulating and managing the rapidly evolving gig economy have received increasing attention as governments and organizations try to balance technological innovation with the need to protect workers’ rights. Flexible work arrangements in the gig economy often conflict with traditional labor regulations, leaving many workers without crucial provisions like medical coverage, pension schemes, and compensated time off. Moreover, addressing these issues through policies such as minimum wage enforcement, platform accountability, and portable benefits systems is essential to fostering fairness and stability within this sector (Lord et al., 2023; Tan et al., 2021) Additionally, emerging economies face unique challenges, including inadequate digital infrastructure and mismatched skills, which require tailored policy solutions to ensure workers are not excluded from global opportunities (Elsafty & Yehia, 2023; Manana & Mawela, 2022).

In order to cope with the ever-growing needs of the digital labor market, being capable of learning throughout one’s lifespan is an important quality. Continuous skill enhancement, especially in digital literacy and interdisciplinary collaboration capacity, enhances the individual’s competitiveness. As automation replaces routine tasks, the emphasis on higher-order skills such as creativity, emotional intelligence, and complex problem-solving has increased (Liubarets et al., 2024).

Additionally, lifelong learning guarantees that workers can adjust their careers according to technological needs as they happen, which helps build adaptability and resilience. Research also shows how education systems and professional training programs need to combine digital and entrepreneurial competencies in order to create a workforce that is ready for the challenges presented by automation and digitalization (Labanauskaitė et al., 2021). For instance, interdisciplinary frameworks that combine soft skills, technical competencies, and global awareness are increasingly crucial for sustainable career development (Schislyaeva & Saychenko, 2022).

The global nature of the digital labor market offers diverse opportunities and challenges. Among the key barriers to overcome in emerging economies are the problem of skill mismatches, limited access to advanced technologies, and lack of digital infrastructure. As such, to tackle these challenges, suitable policies and interventions specific to digital readiness are needed to bridge the current gaps. One recommended approach is to invest in digital education and training programs, which can benefit these economies by equipping their workforce with the digital skills needed to compete in the global labor market (Chatzichristou & Arulmani, 2014). In contrast, advanced economies face challenges such as shifting demographics, shrinking labor supplies, and the integration of diverse and dispersed populations into the workforce. As developed countries grapple with aging populations, they must not only attract and retain younger talent but also ensure that older generations are included in the digitalization process (Kim, 2024). Furthermore, the platform economy has redefined career structures, emphasizing gig work and freelance opportunities. However, while this model allows for flexibility, it is also associated with challenges such as job stability and equitable compensation (Atamaniuk, 2023).

The psychological implications of digitalization are gaining prominence as digital careers often blur the boundaries between work and personal life. This integration raises concerns about burnout, mental health, and overall well-being. Therefore, organizations must adopt strategies to address these issues by promoting digital well-being and fostering workplace cultures that value work-life balance. Several recommendations to achieve these goals include implementing flexible work hours, mental health support programs, and policies that encourage disconnection from work during personal time (Kim, 2024). Additionally, even though the use of automation and artificial intelligence enhances efficiency, they also require workers to develop complementary skills that cannot be automated. These include empathy, strategic thinking, and the ability to manage human-technology interactions effectively. Due to this reason, it is important for educational institutions and organizations to collaborate with one another to ensure that training programs address these evolving needs and produce workers who are adept in both technical and soft skills (Liubarets et al., 2024).

The advancement of digitalization underscores the need for equitable access to resources and resilience against economic disruptions (Turin et al., 2022). Efforts to support professional growth should focus on fairness and sustainability to ensure that individuals and organizations can effectively navigate the challenges of an ever-evolving landscape. For example, public programs that invest in strengthening digital infrastructure and provide financial support for digital education are crucial in addressing and preventing the widening of digital inequalities (Atamaniuk, 2023). Other than that, inclusivity must also address workforce diversity across gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic backgrounds to promote equal access to opportunities in the digital economy. In addition, initiatives that empower women in technology, provide mentorship to underrepresented groups, and create pathways for non-traditional learners are essential to fostering a workforce that is both inclusive and diverse.

Research Question

Research questions (RQs) play a crucial role in systematic literature reviews (SLRs) as they serve as the cornerstone and guide the entire methodology. They also determine the scope and primary objectives of the review, influencing decisions on the selection and exclusion of studies to ensure relevance and focus. This strict regulation makes sure that the review stays closely aligned with the topic and remains relevant and specific to the subject of interest. Additionally, clearly defined RQs improve the literature search by making it exhaustive and methodical. The method helps the search to cover all relevant studies that address the key dimensions of the topic. As a result, this approach minimizes bias and provides a complete and reliable summary of existing evidence. Furthermore, RQs act as the basis for structuring and organizing information gathered from selected studies. Specifically, they provide a systematic framework for the researcher to analyze and synthesize data while preventing confusion. In other words, this review stays focused on specific aspects, making the conclusions more practical and meaningful. Moreover, precise RQs are essential for maintaining the clarity and transparency of the review process, as they allow others to replicate the methodology, validate the outcomes, or expand the exploration into related areas. Furthermore, RQs provide a coherent structure that keeps the review focused on the overall objectives of the study. In other words, they act as a guiding framework throughout the process. Whether the goal is to uncover gaps in the existing literature, evaluate the impact of certain interventions, or investigate emerging patterns in a specific field, RQs form the foundation of a systematic literature review that is both thorough and meaningful.

Developing RQs is a crucial step in the initial phases of planning, as it lays the groundwork for any SLR by shaping and directing the overall approach to the study (Kitchenham, 2007). Moreover, as this SLR aims to investigate and evaluate the latest developments in the field, the PICo framework was adopted. This mnemonic device, proposed by Lockwood et al. (2015), is particularly useful for formulating RQs in qualitative research. Additionally, the acronym PICo highlights three essential components: Population, Interest, and Context, with each aspect explained in detail below:

1. Population (P): This denotes the individuals, groups, or subjects that the research seeks to examine. It outlines the primary target of the investigation, which may include certain age brackets, medical conditions, social categories, or other defined collectives of interest.
2. Interest (I): This highlights the central subject or key area the research aims to delve into. It pertains to a particular phenomenon, action, treatment, or concern that the study endeavors to investigate or shed light on.
3. Context (Co): This defines the context and sets the framework, circumstances, or backdrop in which the study’s population and focus are embedded. It encompasses aspects like physical locations, cultural dynamics, societal frameworks, or other situational factors relevant to the research.

Through the use of the PICo framework, RQs were organized and communicated in a way that is both systematic and easy to follow. This is important as the main aspects of the study are divided into three distinct components. Moreover, this method helps maintain a focused approach to research while defining the questions in a precise manner, making it simpler to locate relevant literature or design a study. To surmise, this study addressed the following RQs:

How do gig workers’ lived experiences and well-being vary across different sectors of the global gig economy?

What are the legal and policy frameworks shaping gig work, and how do they impact the social and economic inclusion of gig workers?

How do digital tools and skill development influence the productivity and career progression of gig workers in the technology-driven gig economy?

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The PRISMA methodology, introduced by Page et al. (2021), is widely regarded as a trusted standard for systematic literature reviews because the approach fosters clarity, thoroughness, and consistency in the research process. Moreover, adhering to PRISMA guidelines enhances the reliability and strength of research outcomes by offering clear and structured steps to identify, evaluate, and select relevant studies for review. Additionally, the framework emphasizes the value of randomized studies, a procedure that is particularly effective in reducing bias and providing robust evidence that can strengthen the credibility of the findings. For this study, Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus were chosen as the primary databases due to their comprehensive scope and proven reliability.

The PRISMA framework is structured around four main stages: identification, screening, eligibility, and data extraction. During the identification phase, comprehensive searches were carried out across databases to gather all potentially relevant studies. Subsequently, the screening phase was done to assess these studies against predefined criteria in order to filter out those that were irrelevant or of low quality. Next was the eligibility stage, where the shortlisted studies were meticulously reviewed to confirm they aligned with the inclusion requirements. Finally, the data extraction phase was conducted to systematically gather and synthesize information from the selected studies to produce meaningful and credible conclusions. This structured process promotes accuracy and integrity in systematic reviews that deliver reliable results to guide future research and practical applications.

Identification

A carefully structured review methodology facilitated the collection of a comprehensive body of literature. The process commenced with identifying core terms, which were then refined and expanded using resources such as prior research, encyclopedias, dictionaries, and thesauri. Furthermore, all relevant terms were systematically integrated, resulting in the development of multiple search strings tailored for use in the WoS and Scopus databases (as outlined in Table I). This initial phase of the review yielded a total of 1,922 publications from both databases, all directly aligned with the research topic.

Table I. List of Strings

Screening 

During the screening stage, research materials relevant to the defined RQs were meticulously assessed for suitability. This evaluation utilized strict inclusion and exclusion benchmarks to refine the gathered studies and discard unrelated ones. Initially, 1,922 entries were sourced from Scopus and WoS. Following the preliminary screening, 1,782 records were removed based on specific conditions: non-English publications, works dated prior to 2022, topics unrelated to Social Sciences (e.g., natural sciences, engineering, or medical fields), formats other than standard articles (e.g., conference proceedings, editorials, book chapters, or reviews), and articles labeled as “In Press.” After this process, 140 entries remained (123 from Scopus and 17 from WoS) for detailed examination.

Table II The Selection Criterion to Collect Relevant Articles

Eligibility

In the third phase, known as the eligibility stage, 131 documents were subjected to a thorough evaluation. This phase involved a detailed examination of the titles, abstracts, and main content to confirm their relevance to the study’s objectives and compliance with predefined selection criteria. As a result of this assessment, 100 documents were excluded due to various reasons, including being unrelated to the study’s scope, having vague or misleading titles, presenting abstracts that did not align with the research focus, or lacking access to the full text. After this rigorous process, 31 documents qualified and were chosen for qualitative examination in the analysis.

Data Abstraction and Analysis

The current research used an integrative approach as its primary technique of analysis to enable researchers to analyze multiple research designs in a collective manner (quantitative research methods). The primary research objective at this point was to discover general topics along with more detailed subtopics. It is important to note that data collection and organization formed the basis for subsequent theme development in the study. This is the reason why, in this analysis, the authors performed detailed evaluations of 31 chosen publications to extract statements and content that aligned with the research objectives, as shown in Figure 2. The study team assessed both research methods and outcomes from major gig economy publications. After this step, the lead author worked closely with the co-authors to identify and develop themes derived from the gathered evidence. During the analysis phase, researchers maintained a log to document their observations, thoughts, and questions about data interpretation. The research team conducted comparisons of their findings to determine any possible discrepancies in how themes were developed throughout the study. The researchers resolved their conceptual disagreements by engaging in open discussions.

Table III Number and Details of Primary Studies Database

Quality of Appraisal

According to the methodology outlined by Kitchenham and Charters (Kitchenham, 2007), once foundational studies are identified, such as key research papers or essential documents serving as primary evidence, it becomes crucial to thoroughly assess the reliability and rigor of the research presented. Moreover, it is necessary to perform numerical analyses to enable meaningful comparisons. Additionally, this study adopts the quality assessment framework proposed by Abouzahra et al. (2020), which includes six question answers (Qas) specifically tailored for our SLR. Additionally, the scoring process for each criterion follows a straightforward structure: a score of 1 for “Yes” (Y) when the criterion is fully met, 0.5 for “Partly” (P) when some gaps are present, and 0 for “No” (N) when the criterion is completely unmet.

• QA1. Does the study explicitly outline its purpose?
• QA2. Is the significance and practical value of the research effectively communicated?
• QA3. Is the methodology of the study clearly articulated?
• QA4. Are the approach’s concepts properly explained and well-defined?
• QA5. Is the research adequately compared and evaluated against similar studies?
• QA6. Are the study’s limitations explicitly discussed and acknowledged?

The table illustrates a method for assessing the quality of a study (QA) by applying a set of predefined standards. In this procedure, three reviewers independently evaluate the study, judging each standard and assigning one of three possible ratings: “Yes” (Y) for full compliance, “Partly” (P) for partial fulfillment, or “No” (N) for non-compliance. The following provides a comprehensive description of the process:

Does the study explicitly outline its purpose?

This question examines whether the goals of the study are precisely outlined and effectively communicated. A clearly defined purpose offers a clear understanding of the research’s focus and boundaries.

Is the significance and practical value of the research effectively communicated?

This criterion determines if the importance and possible contributions of the research are effectively described. It examines how well the study conveys its value and potential influence.

Is the methodology of the study clearly articulated?

This examines whether the research approach is clearly outlined and suitably designed to meet the objectives of the study. A well-defined methodology is essential to maintain the study’s credibility and allow others to replicate it.

Are the approach’s concepts properly explained and well-defined?

This evaluates whether the foundational concepts and theoretical framework are thoroughly explained. Precise definitions are vital for understanding the study’s methodology clearly.

Is the research adequately compared and evaluated against similar studies?

This criterion examines if the study has been compared to prior research. Such comparisons are important for placing the work within the larger academic landscape and emphasizing its unique contributions.

Are the study’s limitations explicitly discussed and acknowledged?

Every expert reviewed the study separately using these criteria, and the individual scores were later added together to calculate the final rating. In order for a study to qualify for the next stage, the combined score, which is the sum of the evaluations from all three experts, must be greater than three. This requirement serves to remove any articles that do not meet the necessary quality level and allows only the more reliable ones to progress further.

Fig 1. Flow diagram of the search process of the study

RESULT AND FINDING

Overview of the selected articles: Table III provides a detailed summary of the quality evaluation results for the selected primary studies and highlights their overall performance in the assessment.

The review of academic publications related to the gig economy underscores their meaningful contributions to examining this dynamic labor sector, where many studies received strong evaluations due to well-defined objectives, reliable methods, and practical applicability. Prominent examples, such as “Platform Work in Europe” and “Skill Specificity on High-Skill Online Gig Platforms,” gained recognition for their in-depth analyses and careful discussion of their constraints.

A common drawback identified in numerous studies was the absence of comparative analysis, which weakened the contextual foundation of their results. For instance, although research like “Caring in the Gig Economy” offered important perspectives, it could have been improved by incorporating a more thorough engagement with previous work.

The studies collectively provide valuable perspectives on worker experiences, technological impacts, and policy considerations within the gig economy. However, future investigations should prioritize the development of more robust comparative frameworks to enhance understanding and expand the relevance of results across varied settings. This direction would support further progress in gig economy research. Table IV shows the quality assessment table that summarizes the evaluation made for the selected papers.

Table IV Quality Assessment of Selected Studies in the Gig Economy Review

The themes generated during the analysis were refined to maintain consistency throughout the process. The analysis selection was performed jointly by the authors and co-authors to ensure the identified issues were accurate and reliable. During the expert review stage, each subtheme was assessed for clarity, relevance, and suitability to confirm domain validity. Any disagreements or inconsistencies in the development of themes were resolved through discussions among the authors. If conflicting perspectives arose, they were addressed collectively. To further validate the findings, two specialists, one with expertise in oncology and the other in biomedical science, reviewed the results. Feedback and comments from the experts were then incorporated at the author’s discretion to make sure that the subthemes were adequately revised for clarity and accuracy.

Worker Experiences and Well-being

The gig economy has introduced a new dynamic to labor markets globally. Since its inception, it has influenced the well-being of workers engaged in platform-based roles. Migrant workers, often drawn to app-based gig work for better opportunities, face significant challenges related to job insecurity and precarious working conditions. Abkhezr and McMahon (2024) emphasized that access to stable and fair employment is essential for facilitating migrant integration and career advancement in the global north. The authors also note that irregular and precarious job opportunities frequently hinder these objectives. Similarly, Newlands (2024) mentioned that gig work serves as a temporary entry point for migrants in Norway and Sweden. Nonetheless, due to the lack of social protections and perceived discrimination in labor markets, their perceived employability has been further constrained.

The way gig workers engage with others and the nature of their relationships significantly impact their overall experiences in the gig economy. Khan et al. (2024) employed an ethics-of-care framework to illustrate how mutual responsiveness, reciprocity, and solidarity influence the relational aspects of platform-mediated work in domestic care. These findings highlight the importance of fostering meaningful relationships to balance care responsibilities for self and others, an act that is often overlooked in many discussions. Additionally, Alacovska et al. (2024) extended this relational perspective to examine creative workers who use digital labor platforms. The study argues that to achieve sustainability, emotional investments in client relations are essential for mitigating the commodification of labor and navigating algorithmic norms.

Despite the various benefits of the gig economy, precarity and mental health concerns emerge as significant issues for gig workers. For example, Glavin and Schieman (2022) identified a direct correlation between platform dependence and psychological distress. In addition, the study mentions that these challenges can be exacerbated because of financial strain. In bri(Lang et al., 2023)ef, the findings implied that there is a need for structural interventions to alleviate mental health penalties associated with precarious platform work. Similarly, Ķešāne and Spurina (2024) explored the precariousness of food delivery work in Latvia, identifying a typology of gig workers based on their motivations and engagement levels. Their analysis reveals that emotional satisfaction and perceived opportunities can temporarily offset the adverse effects of short-term, insecure employment.

The role of digital platforms in shaping worker well-being is also evident. Popan (2024) analyzed food delivery couriers in the UK and showed how algorithmic management leads to conflicting attitudes among workers. To make the analysis more comprehensive, the author combines a focus on entrepreneurship with a sense of solidarity. These attitudes, even though they enable the adaptation to platform demands, often mask the underlying precarity associated with such roles. (Lang et al., 2023) examined the living conditions of migrant gig workers in China and highlighted social protection, job satisfaction, and family traits as the main factors affecting their overall well-being. Their findings suggest that enhancing social protections and fostering inclusive mechanisms can significantly improve the quality of life for these workers.

Lastly, the unique contexts of specific gig work domains, such as music and food delivery, provide valuable insights into worker experiences. Cloonan and Williamson (2023) highlight how musicians navigate the gig economy, emphasizing that their experiences offer lessons on flexibility and resilience, though often at the cost of job security. Similarly, the precarious conditions of food delivery workers examined by Ķešāne and Spurina (2024) align with broader trends of limited legal protections and autonomy.

Fig 2.Worker Experience and Well-being

Policy, Legal, and Social Implications

The gig economy presents profound implications for labor policies, legal frameworks, and social structures, especially because its appearance has disrupted traditional employment models. Researchers across diverse geographical and social contexts have highlighted challenges in regulating gig work to address worker vulnerability and ensure equitable labor conditions.

Aloisi (2022) evaluated the evolution of legal instruments in the European Union and discussed how new directives and domestic initiatives that have been implemented aim to safeguard platform workers. The paper emphasizes the importance of algorithmic transparency and cross-border legal coherence in reclassifying workers and enhancing collective bargaining rights. Similarly, Mutengwe et al. (2024) analyzed South Africa’s Uber Digital Labour Platform (DLP) and highlighted the misclassification of drivers as independent contractors and their consequent exclusion from labor protections. The study made an important argument about the need to update the current labor laws to balance flexibility with fundamental rights. In response, Hickson (2024) complements this finding by critiquing the discourse of “freedom” in gig work and demonstrating how this narrative obscures the domination and precarity encountered by employees as a result of their unclear legal standing.

In the context of the Global South, Arriagada et al. (2023) examined the related work platforms in Chile. The analysis revealed the dual role of the platform in providing employment opportunities while transferring risks of precarity to workers. This discovery resembles those of Putri et al. (2023), who apply the Fairwork framework to evaluate transportation gig work in Indonesia and note the existence of below-minimum-wage earnings and inadequate social protection. Overall, both studies call for stronger policy interventions to mitigate the aforementioned challenges. In Malaysia, Abdullah et al. (2024) investigated the regulatory gaps in the gig economy and emphasized the absence of clear definitions and protections for gig workers. The study advocates for comprehensive governance to address the fragmented institutional framework and improve enforcement mechanisms.

Cameron (2024) presented a unique perspective of algorithmic management in the ride-hailing sector. In this view, the association between algorithmic management and manufacturing workplace consent through restricted choices and algorithmic nudges was made. It was determined that although some workers perceive autonomy, the structural inequities and surveillance embedded in these systems remain unaddressed. Dorschel (2022) expanded the discussion by integrating high-paid tech workers into the broader digital labor debate to illustrate the interconnectedness of class and organizational dynamics in digital capitalism. This broader perspective suggests the necessity of inclusive policies that cover different worker experiences within the gig economy.

The intersection of aging populations and digitalization is another critical dimension. Zlatanović and Jovanović (2023) analyzed how automation and digital transformation affect workforce skills and employment prospects. From the findings, the authors proposed age-responsible policy interventions to promote decent work. Their study aligns with broader calls for sustainable and inclusive workplace practices that address demographic shifts. Across these discussions, the recurring theme is the necessity of robust policy frameworks that prioritize worker rights, equitable pay, and social protections while accommodating the special circumstances of this new and thriving economy.

Digitalization and Skills in the Gig Economy

The rapid advancements of the gig economy due to digitalization have introduced significant transformations in employment structures, skill acquisition, and labor market dynamics. After analyzing multiple studies, several critical insights were discovered concerning how digitalization influences gig workers’ skills, income levels, and market participation.

Nowadays, digital platforms have fundamentally reshaped traditional employment, where workers can now showcase their competencies without formal educational credentials. Van Slageren and Herrmann (2024) revealed that when platform mechanisms such as rating systems and reviews replaced traditional qualifications, workers were able to overcome institutional constraints in their home labor markets. This finding aligns with Ren et al. (2023), who identified that country of residence, platform tenure, and ratings significantly influence hiring probabilities on freelance platforms. Together, these studies highlight the transformative role of digital platforms in redefining skill recognition and labor mobility.

Despite these advancements, digitalization has also widened knowledge gaps among gig workers, particularly those engaged in knowledge-intensive tasks. Wilkins et al. (2022) found disparities in how freelancers access and utilize knowledge compared to traditional employees. The reason for such differences is the structural limitations that affect the gig worker’s overall productivity due to the difficulty in creating ties with organizations and legitimizing their work. Blaising and Dabbish (2022) extended this discussion by emphasizing the need for mentorship and socialization support to bridge gaps in access to resources and information. These studies highlight the challenges of integrating gig workers into organizational structures without formal support systems.

Skill acquisition and training represent additional critical dimensions. Zheng et al. (2024) investigated how platform-based training programs and experiential learning influence the earnings of gig economy workers. The study found that learning through action positively correlates with income levels, while platform training has a negligible or even adverse effect. This highlights the importance of practical, hands-on learning approaches in enhancing gig workers’ earning potential. Similarly, Yang and Panyagometh (2024) utilized the self-determination theory to explore the factors influencing gig workers’ job satisfaction. The findings suggest that intrinsic motivation and social capital play significant roles in fostering job commitment and satisfaction.

Gender and demographic disparities in the digital gig economy are also critical issues. James (2024) discussed the unique challenges encountered by women who work on these platforms and examined the approach in which they balance work and family responsibilities. It was postulated, through algorithmic management, that the absence of formal workplace structures exacerbates the challenges and further complicates the work-life balance for women. Wiesböck et al. (2023) expanded this discussion by exploring the experiences of female domestic cleaners in the gig economy, revealing power imbalances and heightened vulnerabilities in informal labor markets.

In conclusion, even though digitalization within the gig economy has facilitated new opportunities for skill acquisition and labor mobility, it has also introduced significant challenges related to knowledge gaps, income disparities, and worker vulnerabilities. Therefore, future policies must focus on enhancing access to practical training, mentorship, and formal support systems to address demographic disparities and ensure an inclusive and equitable digital labor market.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The gig economy has transformed labor markets, providing numerous opportunities for work. However, at the same time, it poses major challenges, particularly for platform-based workers. Most migrants take up gig work in search of better opportunities, only to find job insecurity, little social protection, and limited career progression. These challenges restrict sustainable growth and progress. In fact, in many regions, gig work is considered a temporary option, not a serious career. As a result of this uncertainty, discriminatory practices, and inadequate safety nets, employment opportunities are restricted, and the quality of life of the workers is lowered.

The social dynamics of gig work significantly influence workers’ experiences. For example, supportive relationships can help them to navigate work and personal demands. Specifically, creative gig workers can resist both the commodification of labor and algorithmic shifts in power by constructing strong relationships with their clients. In turn, these relationships become emotional and financial coping mechanisms for them to thrive. Despite its importance, these relational dynamics are rarely considered in policy conversations, leaving individuals to deal with the growing challenge on their own.

Mental health can be negatively affected by gig work due to the unstable nature of the economy. This stress generally originates from financial uncertainty and over-reliance on certain platforms. On the one hand, some like the flexibility offered by the gig economy; however, insecurity often prevails. Gig work also takes away much of the autonomy, which makes the job even more stressful. For the sake of the workers, stronger social protections, job satisfaction, and support are needed. Additionally, expanding social security and making labor rights better can improve the worker’s quality of life. Compared to others, gig workers in music and food delivery have little control and few legal protections. This highlights the need for policies that ensure both flexibility and security.

As gig work reshapes labor markets, legal frameworks must adapt to protect workers. Recently, the EU has taken steps to enhance rights by focusing on algorithmic transparency and cross-border protections. In contrast, South Africa’s classification of gig workers as independent contractors excludes them from essential benefits. The promise of “freedom” in gig work often masks instability, shifting risks onto workers, especially in the Global South, where opportunities come with little security. To ensure fairness, policies must set wage standards, expand social protections, and improve governance. In Malaysia, regulatory fragmentation emphasizes the need for comprehensive labor laws to create a fairer gig economy.

Algorithmic management reduces worker autonomy by appearing flexible while solidifying inequalities and surveillance. By bringing together differing worker experiences, from highly paid tech professionals down to cleaning personnel, labor discussions can be broader and be made more inclusive. In addition, demographic changes and workplace transitions create tension between labor market dynamics and digitalization, suggesting the need for a new set of policy adjustments.

An effective framework should pay fair wages, protect workers’ rights, provide social protections, and adapt to the distinct challenges of gig work. Nowadays, digitalization has transformed the gig economy by making it easier for workers to demonstrate their skills through ratings and reviews rather than formal credentials. Even though this has increased labor mobility, it has further entrenched inequalities and made it harder for freelancers to get recognized for their work.

Apart from that, mentorship programs, social support, and hands-on learning have been proven to be more effective than platform training in increasing income. It has also been determined that job satisfaction is influenced by social connections and personal motivation, demonstrating the need for policies that view workers as individuals rather than as economic contributors alone.

Despite much advancement, gender disparities persist, where women continue to struggle to balance work and family responsibilities while navigating algorithmic biases and experiencing job insecurity. In other words, the power imbalance of informal workers, such as domestic cleaners, reflects the deeper link between gender, class, and labor conditions. To address these issues, policies that ensure digital labor markets are fair and promote equal opportunities are needed.

In conclusion, digitalization has opened doors for more people to the workforce, but it has also widened the knowledge and income gaps. Hence, in the future, efforts must be directed towards inclusive policies, practical training, mentorship, and strong support systems to build a gig economy for all.

REFERENCES

1. Abdullah, N., Ismail, M. M., Murad, M. S. H., Jusoff, K., Kurniawan, F., & Salah, M. (2024). Critical Insights into Gig Economy: A Peninsular Malaysia Case Study. Jambe Law Journal, 7(2), 395–427. https://doi.org/10.22437/home.v7i2.460
2. Abkhezr, P., & McMahon, M. (2024). The Intersections of Migration, App-Based Gig Work, and Career Development: Implications For Career Practice and Research. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 24(1), 39–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10775-022-09556-w
3. Abouzahra, A., Sabraoui, A., & Afdel, K. (2020). Model Composition in Model Driven Engineering: A Systematic Literature Review. Information and Software Technology, 125, 106316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2020.106316
4. Afanasyeva, O. (2018). Key Elements of a Successful Digital Career Portfolio for Building a Strong Personal Image in the Competitive Labor Market. https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:amk-2018061113474
5. Alacovska, A., Bucher, E., & Fieseler, C. (2024). A Relational Work Perspective on the Gig Economy: Doing Creative Work on Digital Labour Platforms. Work, Employment and Society, 38(1), 161–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/09500170221103146
6. Aloisi, A. (2022). Platform Work in Europe: Lessons Learned, Legal Developments and Challenges Ahead. European Labour Law Journal, 13(1), 4-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525211062557
7. Alvarez De La Vega, J. C., Cecchinato, M. E., Rooksby, J., & Newbold, J. (2023). Understanding Platform Mediated Work-Life: A Diary Study with Gig Economy Freelancers. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 7(CSCW1), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1145/3579539
8. Anwar, M. A., Schafer, S., & Golusin, S. (2024). Work Futures: Globalization, Planetary Markets, and Uneven Developments in the Gig Economy. Globalizations, 21(4), 571-589. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2023.2236876
9. Arriagada, A., Bonhomme, M., Ibáñez, F., & Leyton, J. (2023). The Gig Economy in Chile: Examining Labor Conditions and The Nature of Gig Work in A Global South Country. Digital Geography and Society, 5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diggeo.2023.100063
10. Asfahani, A. M., Alsobahi, G., & Dahlan, D. A. (2023). Navigating the Saudi Gig Economy: The Role of Human Resource Practices in Enhancing Job Satisfaction and Career Sustainability. Sustainability (Switzerland), 15(23), 16406. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152316406
11. Atamaniuk, R. (2023). Development of the Digital Ecosystem of the Labour Market. Innovative Economy, 4. https://doi.org/10.37332/2309-1533.2023.4.16
12. Blaising, A., & Dabbish, L. (2022). Managing the Transition to Online Freelance Platforms: Self-Directed Socialization. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3555201
13. Political Studies Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929920925664
14. Bunders, D. J., Arets, M., Frenken, K., & De Moor, T. (2022). The Feasibility of Platform Cooperatives in The Gig Economy. Journal of Co-Operative Organization and Management, 10(1), 100167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcom.2022.100167
15. Cameron, L. D. (2024). The Making of the “Good Bad” Job: How Algorithmic Management Manufactures Consent Through Constant and Confined Choices. Administrative Science Quarterly, 69(2), 458–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392241236163
16. Chatzichristou, S., & Arulmani, G. (2014). Labor Market and Career Development in the 21st Century. In: Arulmani, G., Bakshi, A., Leong, F., Watts, A. (eds) Handbook of Career Development. International and Cultural Psychology. Springer, New York, NY. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9460-713
17. Chen, T., Song, W., Song, J., Ren, Y., Dong, Y., Yang, J., & Zhang, S. (2022). Measuring Well-Being of Migrant Gig Workers: Exampled as Hangzhou City in China. Behavioral Sciences, 12(10), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12100365
18. ÇİĞDEM, S. (2022). Motivation of Freelance Employees in the Gig Economy in Turkey. Ege Akademik Bakis (Ege Academic Review), 22(4), 502-520. https://doi.org/10.21121/eab.933203
19. Clifton, N., Fuzi, A., & Loudon, G. (2022). Coworking in the Digital Economy: Context, Motivations and Outcomes. Futures, 135, 102439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2019.102439
20. Cloonan, M., & Williamson, J. (2023). Musicians as Workers and the Gig Economy. Popular Music and Society, 46(4), 354–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/03007766.2023.2231266
21. Crocker, T., Whitlow, C., Cooper, H., Patrick, C., Padilla, A., Jammal, A., & Ince, R. (2022). An Exploratory Study of Digital Inequities and Work in the Redevelopment of a Southeastern American City. Social Sciences, 11(10), 442. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11100442
22. De Reuver, M., Sørensen, C., & Basole, R. C. (2018). The digital platform: A research agenda. Journal of Information Technology, 33(2),124-135. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41265-016-0033-3
23. De Stefano, V. (2019). The Gig Economy and Labour Regulation: An International and Comparative Approach. Revista Direito Das Relações Sociais e Trabalhistas, 4(2), 68-79. https://doi.org/10.26843/mestradodireito.v4i2.158
24. Dorschel, R. (2022). Reconsidering digital labour: Bringing tech workers into the debate. New Technology, Work and Employment, 37(2), 288–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12225
25. Elsafty, A., & Yehia, A. (2023). Digital Transformation Challenges for Government Sector. Business and Management Studies, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.11114/bms.v9i1.6160
26. Gandini, A. (2019). Labour process theory and the gig economy. Human Relations. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718790002
27. Glavin, P., & Schieman, S. (2022). Dependency and Hardship in the Gig Economy: The Mental Health Consequences of Platform Work. Socius, 8. https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231221082414
28. Green, D. D., Polk, X., O’Donnell, H., Doughty, K., Carr, M., & Costa-Cargill, D. (2021). The Gig Economy: A Case Study Analysis of Freelancer.com. Management and Economics Research Journal, 7(2), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.18639/merj.2021.1413412
29. Haenggli, M., Hirschi, A., Rudolph, C. W., & Peiró, J. M. (2021). Exploring The Dynamics of Protean Career Orientation, Career Management Behaviors, and Subjective Career Success: An Action Regulation Theory Approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 131, 103650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2021.103650
30. Hewapathirana, G. I., & Almasri, F. (2021). Talent Development Challenges and Opportunities in the 4th Industrial Revolution: A Boundaryless Career Theory Perspectives. In Fourth Industrial Revolution and Business Dynamics: Issues and Implications, 287-320. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-3250-115
31. Hickson, J. (2024). Freedom, Domination and The Gig Economy. New Political Economy, 29(2), 321–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2023.2254712
32. Inkson, K., Gunz, H., Ganesh, S., & Roper, J. (2012). Boundaryless Careers: Bringing Back Boundaries. Organization Studies, 33(3), 323-340. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840611435600
33. James, A. (2024). Platform Work-Lives in the Gig Economy: Recentering Work–Family Research. Gender, Work and Organization, 31(2), 513–534. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.13087
34. Jarrahi, M. H., Sutherland, W., Nelson, S. B., & Sawyer, S. (2020). Platformic Management, Boundary Resources for Gig Work, and Worker Autonomy. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: CSCW: An International Journal, 29, 153-189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-019-09368-7
35. Ķešāne, I., & Spurina, M. (2024). Sociological Types of Precarity Among Gig Workers: Lived Experiences of Food Delivery Workers in Riga. Social Inclusion, 12. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.7696
36. Khan, M. H., Williams, J., Williams, P., & Mayes, R. (2024). Caring in the Gig Economy: A Relational Perspective of Decent Work. Work, Employment and Society, 38(4), 1107–1127. https://doi.org/10.1177/09500170231173586
37. Kim, S., Creed, P. A., Hood, M., & Bath, D. (2023). Protean Career Processes in Young Adults: Relationships with Perceived Future Employability, Educational Performance, and Commitment. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 24, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10775-023-09584-0
38. Kim, S., Hood, M., Creed, P., & Bath, D. (2022). “New Career” Profiles for Young Adults Incorporating Traditional and Protean Career Orientations and Competencies. Career Development International, 27(5), 493-510. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-10-2021-0256
39. Kim, T. (2024). International Labor Market and Social And Labor Relations in the Conditions of Digitalization of the Economy. Economic Scope, 191, 374-378. https://doi.org/10.32782/2224-6282/191-63
40. Kitchenham, B. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Technical Report, Ver. 2.3 EBSE Technical Report. EBSE.
41. (2023). Connecting with Future Talent: A Review of Employer Value Propositions and Digital Media Channels for Sustainable Companies Targeting Generations Y and Z. Jurnal Manajemen Teori Dan Terapan | Journal of Theory and Applied Management, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.20473/jmtt.v16i2.45126
42. Lang, J. J., Yang, L. F., Cheng, C., Cheng, X. Y., & Chen, F. Y. (2023). Are algorithmically controlled gig workers deeply burned out? An empirical study on employee work engagement. BMC Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01402-0.
43. Labanauskaitė, D., Župerkienė, E., Kumpf, A., Šimanskienė, L., & Koller, S. (2021). Development of Digital and Entrepreneurial Competences for the Future Labour Market Needs. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 8, 565-581. https://doi.org/10.9770/JESI.2021.8.3(35)
44. Liubarets, V., Kashyna, G., Kachan, Y., Brezetskyi, S., & Ostrovershenko, A. (2024). Adapting Professional Development to the Digital Transformation of Today’s Job Market. Multidisciplinary Science Journal. https://doi.org/10.31893/multiscience.2024ss0713
45. Lockwood, C., Munn, Z., & Porritt, K. (2015). Qualitative Research Synthesis: Methodological Guidance For Systematic Reviewers Utilizing Meta-aggregation. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13(3), 179–187. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000062
46. Lord, C., Bates, O., Friday, A., McLeod, F., Cherrett, T., Martinez-Sykora, A., & Oakey, A. (2023). The Sustainability of the Gig Economy Food Delivery System (Deliveroo, UberEATS and Just-Eat): Histories and Futures of Rebound, Lock-In and Path Dependency. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 17(5), 490-502. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2022.2066583
47. Ludwig, S., Herhausen, D., Grewal, D., Bove, L., Benoit, S., de Ruyter, K., & Urwin, P. (2022). Communication in the Gig Economy: Buying and Selling in Online Freelance Marketplaces. Journal of Marketing, 86(4), 141-161. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429211030841
48. Ma, X., & Yang, S. (2018). Airtasker and the Australian Freelance Workers: The Reflections on The Gig Economy. International Journal of Advanced And Applied Sciences, 5(7), 35-45. https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2018.07.005
49. Manana, T., & Mawela, T. (2022). Digital Skills of Public Sector Employees for Digital Transformation. 2022 International Conference on Innovation and Intelligence for Informatics, Computing, and Technologies, 3ICT 2022, 144-150. https://doi.org/10.1109/3ICT56508.2022.9990765
50. Mutengwe, W. N., Mazenda, A., & Simawu, M. (2024). Uber’s Digital Labour Platform and Labour Relations in South Africa. Development Policy Review, 42(1), e12735. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12735
51. Nemeskéri, Z., Szello, J., Zádori, I., & Barakonyi, E. (2016). Digital competencies and career orientation in the 21st century. Romanian Statistical Review Supplement, 64, 117-131. https://consensus.app/papers/digital-competencies-and-career-orientation-in-the-21st-nemeskéri-szello/60a6c208ea6e5efdadc71dc03b3a0684/?utm_source=chatgpt
52. Newlands, G. (2024). ‘This isn’t forever for me’: Perceived Employability and Migrant Gig Work in Norway and Sweden. Environment and Planning A, 56(4), 1262–1279. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X221083021
53. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The prisma 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Medicina Fluminensis, 57(4), 444–465. https://doi.org/10.21860/medflum2021_264903
54. Plotnikov, A., Vorobets, T., & Urasova, A. (2022). An analysis of factors influencing the development of self-employment digitalization based on fuzzy logic. Journal of Applied Engineering Science, 20(3), 808-820. https://doi.org/10.5937/jaes0-37543
55. Popan, C. (2024). Embodied Precariat and Digital Control in the “Gig Economy”: The Mobile Labor of Food Delivery Workers. Journal of Urban Technology, 31(1), 109–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2021.2001714
56. Pulignano, V., Piasna, A., Domecka, M., Muszyński, K., & Vermeerbergen, L. (2022). Does it Pay to Work? Unpaid Labour in the Platform Economy. ETUI Research Paper – Policy Briefs 2021.15. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4013358
57. Putri, T. E., Darmawan, P., & Heeks, R. (2023). What is fair? The experience of Indonesian gig workers. Digital Geography and Society, 5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diggeo.2023.100072
58. Ren, J., Raghupathi, V., & Raghupathi, W. (2023). Exploring Influential Factors in Hiring Freelancers in Online Labor Platforms: An Empirical Study. Economies, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/economies11030080
59. Rosenblat, A. (2016). What Motivates Gig Economy Workers. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2016/11/what-motivates-gig-economy-workers
60. Schislyaeva, E., & Saychenko O. (2022). Labor Market Soft Skills in the Context of Digitalization of the Economy. Social Sciences. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11030091
61. Tan, Z. M., Aggarwal, N., Cowls, J., Morley, J., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2021). The Ethical Debate About the Gig Economy: A Review and Critical Analysis. Technology in Society, 65, 101594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101594
62. Turin, T. C., Subroto, S., Raihan, M. M. H., Koch, K., Wiles, R., Ruttan, E., Nesset, M., & Chowdhury, N. (2022). Identifying Challenges, Enabling Practices, and Reviewing Existing Policies Regarding Digital Equity and Digital Divide Toward Smart and Healthy Cities: Protocol for an Integrative Review. JMIR Research Protocols, 11(12). https://doi.org/10.2196/40068
63. Van H. L., Ngoc, T. N., Thu, P. P. T., & Thi D. N. (2022). Intention to Provide Ridesharing Services: Determinants From The Perspective of Driver-Partners in A Gig Economy.Problems and Perspectives in Management, 20(4), 320-331. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.20(4).2022.24
64. Van Slageren, J., & Herrmann, A. M. (2024). Skill Specificity on High-Skill Online Gig Platforms: Same as in Traditional Labour Markets? Social Forces, 102(4), 1332–1351. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soad153
65. Wiesböck, L., Radlherr, J., & Vo, M. L. A. (2023). Domestic Cleaners in the Informal Labour Market: New Working Realities Shaped by the Gig Economy? Social Inclusion, 11(4), 262–273. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v11i4.7119
66. Wilkins, D. J., Hulikal Muralidhar, S., Meijer, M., Lascau, L., & Lindley, S. (2022). Gigified Knowledge Work: Understanding Knowledge Gaps When Knowledge Work and On-Demand Work Intersect. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 6(CSCW1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3512940
67. Wood, A. J., Graham, M., Lehdonvirta, V., & Hjorth, I. (2019). Good Gig, Bad Gig: Autonomy and Algorithmic Control in the Global Gig Economy. Work, Employment and Society, 33(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017018785616
68. Wood, A. J., & Lehdonvirta, V. (2023). Platforms Disrupting Reputation: Precarity and Recognition Struggles in the Remote Gig Economy. Sociology, 57(5), 999-1016. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380385221126804
69. Yang, L., & Panyagometh, A. (2024). Factors Influencing Gig Workers’ Satisfaction and Commitment in the Knowledge Service Providing Platforms Based on the Self-Determination Theory: The Case Study in China. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 45(1), 289–298. https://doi.org/10.34044/j.kjss.2024.45.1.29
70. Zheng, Q., Zhan, J., & Xu, X. Y. (2024). Platform Training and Learning by Doing and Gig Workers’ Incomes: Empirical Evidence From China’s Food Delivery Riders. Sage Open, 14(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241284555
71. Zlatanović, S. S., & Jovanović, P. (2023). Workforce Aging and Decent Work in the Era of the Digital Economy – Towards A Holistic Public Policy Approach. Stanovnistvo, 61(1), 53–68. https://doi.org/10.2298/STNV 230220001S