Invisible inequalities: Gender, safety, and income disparities in India’s platform economy
Keywords:
Gig Economy, Platform Labour, Gender Wage Gap, Labor Market Segmentation, Algorithmic Governance, Occupational Segregation, Social Security PolicyAbstract
Purpose: This study investigates the contemporary transformation of urban labour markets via digital platform mediation, focusing specifically on the gendered structural frameworks governing participation, monthly compensation structures, occupational environments, and operational satisfaction metrics within Mumbai's expanding gig economy. Methodology: Utilizing an explanatory sequential mixed-methods framework, the empirical architecture evaluates primary data compiled from a stratified convenience sample of 200 active digital platform laborers (120 male, 80 female) across key operational segments including ride-hailing, logistical fulfillment, domestic services, and on-demand personal beauty services. The quantitative configuration evaluates systematic dependencies through multivariate OLS linear regressions, Pearson product-moment correlations, and non-parametric Chi-square test frameworks, coupled with descriptive contextual validations. Key Findings: OLS econometric estimations establish that independent of aggregated weekly labor allocations, explicit institutional disparities and implicit gender structures persist. Women workers encounter compressed monthly compensation thresholds (Mean = ₹15,300) relative to male counterparts (Mean = ₹24,800), compounded by a restricted capacity to leverage incremental working hours (β = 350, p < 0.01). Furthermore, non-parametric assessments identify a significant structural covariance between gender categories and operational satisfaction indices, heavily depressed by critical safety exposures, systemic domestic care burdens, and implicit algorithmic task-allocation asymmetries.
Downloads
References
Bansal, V., & De, R. (2024). Gender inequality and digital labour platforms in India: Examining earnings, flexibility, and precarity in gig work. Indian Journal of Labour Economics, 67(1), 45–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41027-024-00421-7
Berg, J., Furrer, M., Harmon, E., Rani, U., & Silberman, M. S. (2018). Digital labour platforms and the future of work: Towards decent work in the online world. International Labour Organization.
Bhattacharya, R., & Saha, B. (2022). Gig economy in India: Opportunities and challenges. Indian Journal of Labour Economics, 65(2), 345–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41027-022-00375-2
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
De Stefano, V. (2016). The rise of the 'just-in-time workforce': On-demand work, crowdwork, and labor protection in the gig economy. Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal, 37(3), 471–504.
Elson, D. (1999). Labor markets as gendered institutions: Equality, efficiency and empowerment issues. World Development, 27(3), 611–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(98)00147-8
Folbre, N. (2006). Measuring care: Gender, empowerment, and the care economy. Journal of Human Development, 7(2), 183–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649880600768512
Ghosh, P., Saha, D., & Roy, S. (2022). Platform economy and women workers in urban India: Emerging patterns of inequality and labour precarity. Economic and Political Weekly, 57(18), 52–60.
Hunt, A., & Samman, E. (2019). Gender and the gig economy: Critical steps for evidence-based policy. Overseas Development Institute.
International Labour Organization. (2021). World employment and social outlook 2021: The role of digital labour platforms in transforming the world of work. International Labour Office.
Kalleberg, A. L. (2018). Precarious lives: Job insecurity and well-being in rich democracies. Polity Press.
Leela, R., Menon, A., & Krishnan, P. (2025). Gendered experiences and occupational challenges in India’s platform economy: Evidence from metropolitan cities. Journal of South Asian Development, 20(1), 88–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/09731741251234567
Li, J. (2019). Precarious work and labor market segmentation: A comparative study on mainland China and Hong Kong. The Journal of Chinese Sociology, 6(1), Article 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40711-019-0105-1
Mehrotra, S., & Parida, J. K. (2019). Why is the labour force participation of women declining in India?
World Development, 98, 360–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.05.003 Ministry of abour and Employment. (2020). Code on Social Security, 2020. Government of India. NITI Aayog. (2022). India’s booming gig and platform economy. Government of India.
Rani, U., & Furrer, M. (2021). Digital labour platforms and new forms of flexible work in developing countries. International Labour Review, 160(2), 213–235. https://doi.org/10.1111/ilr.12181
Rosenblat, A., & Stark, L. (2016). Algorithmic labor and information asymmetries: A case study of Uber drivers. International Journal of Communication, 10, 3758–3784.
Schor, J. B., & Attwood-Charles, W. (2017). The 'sharing' economy: Labor, inequality, and social connection on for-profit platforms. Sociology Compass, 11(8), e12493. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12493
Seguino, S. (2010). Gender, distribution, and balance of payments constrained growth. Review of Political Economy, 22(3), 373–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/09538259.2010.491305
Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Polity Press.
Standing, G. (2016). The precariat: The new dangerous class. Bloomsbury Academic.
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), 56–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017018785616
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 The International tax journal

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.


