Inclusion: Can women and other marginalized groups pursue this livelihood? Did participants report that platform livelihoods are available to everyone, or were there identifiable barriers preventing individuals from pursuing them? Some laud low barriers to entry and opportunities for youth. In freelancing and microwork, the fact that markets were global was seen a plus. Some suggested platform livelihoods welcomed the marginalized, particularly women. But this narrative was often offset by a litany of barriers, including having the physical assets to pursue the work, the knowledge and awareness of the work, structural barriers like driving licenses. Entrenched forms of discrimination by country and by gender were often reported.

Find references for this section at the bottom of this page or see the PDF for in-text citations.

As is to be expected in the development literature, the element of inclusion and exclusion receives a great deal of attention. The crux here is a focus on whether these livelihoods are available to everyone, or whether there are identifiable barriers preventing individuals from pursuing them.

Several studies offered some optimism, for example lauding the opportunities for youth in ride hailing, logistics, and labor (Kibe 2020), the low barriers to entry to being a boda-boda (motorcycle taxi) driver in Kenya (Zollmann and Wanjala 2020), a driver in India (Surie and Koduganti 2016), the relative ease of finding work on a freelancing site vs. without a platform (Wood and Lehdonvirta 2019), or the idea that anyone, regardless of age or gender, could pursue microwork and freelancing (Graham, Hjorth, and Lehdonvirta 2017; Malik et al. 2020). Indeed, there was a clear international element. This undercurrent of accessibility was often framed as a form of globalization and export markets open to all (Crosby and Cahaya 2017; Panteli, Rapti, and Scholarios 2020), even when the service was domestic, but offered to international travelers and clientele (Garcia et al. 2020).

Some went further, focusing specifically on how some platform livelihoods welcomed the marginalized; for example, microtasking was accessible to people with disabilities (Rani and Furrer 2019) or to rural residents (Gray and Suri 2019) and migrants (Anwar and Graham 2019). As Grey and Suri (2019, xxx) put it, “The anonymity and remote access of on-demand platforms also made it easier for those marginalized informal employment—because of where they lived, at perceived disability, or their belonging to a stigmatized minority—to earn an income.”

Opportunities for women were often mentioned in this affirmative lens to inclusion, including on women driving for Gojek in Indonesia (Budiman 2020) and freelancing and microwork opportunities for women in sub-Saharan Africa (Anwar and Graham 2019). For example, McAdam, Crowley, and Harrison (2020) describe digital entrepreneurship (social commerce) in Saudi Arabia, suggesting that “The general sentiment among the respondents was that digital working was considered as a place where women felt comfortable and could flourish. This provision of a safe space appeared particularly relevant for the Saudi Arabian context which forbids the direct interaction with men.” 

But this narrative was offset, often in the same studies, by observations of a litany of barriers erected that prevented many from pursuing these platform livelihoods.

The most clear-cut of these barriers is the physical assets to pursue the work. In ride hailing, it’s the bike (Budiman 2020), the car (Kibe 2020), or the kind of car allowed by the service that could leave people renting instead of owning (Geitung 2017). In local services, it can be the cost of the device on which to join and browse the platforms (Hunt et al. 2019); in microwork and freelancing, it can be the cost of the device on which to do the work (N. Gupta et al. 2014; Anwar and Graham 2020; 2019; Wood et al. 2019; Onkokame, Schoentgen, and Gillwald 2018), which, in some cases, better a costly PC than a simple phone (Newlands and Lutz 2020). The software (Gray and Suri 2019), the Wi-Fi (Anwar and Graham 2019; Wood et al. 2019; Onkokame, Schoentgen, and Gillwald 2018), and even the electricity come with costs (Malik, Nicholson, and Heeks 2018). In some contexts, would-be platform workers need a hefty balance in their electronic wallet before they are authorized to begin work (Budiman 2020; Malik, Nicholson, and Heeks 2018). In others, they must find a way to acquire the inventory they wish to sell, a significant barrier to youth entrepreneurship (Zollmann and Wanjala 2020).

Another set of barriers involves knowledge and awareness. Some frame this as digital literacy (Anwar and Graham 2020; Genesis Analytics 2019), for example, in acquiring skills to navigate ride-hailing apps in Bangladesh especially for women (Kumar, Jafarinaimi, and Bin Morshed 2018), or the basic digital literacy to engage in microwork (Khanna et al. 2010). Others move beyond basic literacy into knowhow, experience, or skills (Margaryan 2016; Malik, Nicholson, and Heeks 2018). Perhaps this is why there is an observed (and surprising) concentration of higher-educated people engaged in freelancing and microwork (Berg 2016; Melia 2020; Gray and Suri 2019). In some cases, the knowhow can be quite tacit and hard to acquire, like English skills in Indian microwork (Khanna et al. 2010), the international exposure that gives some a leg up in Cambodian social commerce (Jack, Chen, and Jackson 2017), and in the Chinese E-commerce cross-border personal shopping daigou (Zhao 2020)

Structural barriers like driving licenses for ride hailing in India (Kumar, Jafarinaimi, and Bin Morshed 2018), China (Chen 2018), and Indonesia (Budiman 2020) keep some would-be drivers away, as do a scarcity of referrals among those without good connections to established drivers in Bangladesh (Kumar, Jafarinaimi, and Bin Morshed 2018).

A more pernicious structural barrier is akin to algorithmic redlining. For example, on Amazon Mechanical Turk, payments to workers only flowed to bank accounts in the US and India (Lehdonvirta 2016; Gray and Suri 2019), although it had expanded to 25 countries in 2019. More broadly, in microtasking (Martin et al. 2016) and freelancing (Graham et al. 2017; D’Cruz and Noronha 2016; Muhindi 2019; D’Cruz 2017), buyers can still select by country, which enables individual level discrimination as easy as a drop-down menu (Anwar and Graham 2020). Thus, it remains the case that workers in the Global South earn less than their peers in the Global North. For example, Rani and Furrer (2019) found that Indian workers earned $2.48 per hour, while American workers earned $6.90, and that some premium tasks, such as content creation and editing, were only given to American workers. In response, some freelancers hide their locations through VPNs, or use pictures and aliases of people from the Global North to route around the challenge (Partnership for Finance in a Digital Africa 2019; Genesis Analytics 2019)

Unfortunately, many people have told many researchers about instances of gender discrimination in accessing platform livelihoods. Berg (2016) notes that most microworkers are men. Female respondents told Zollmann and Wanjala (2020) about a lack of access to dorms where freelancers could stay. Gupta (2020) described difficulties faced by Indian women in microwork for lack of social capital and restricted agency in patriarchal social structures, discouraging interaction with those beyond immediate family (see also Malik, Nicholson, and Heeks 2018; Aneja and Sridhar 2019; Onkokame, Schoentgen, and Gillwald 2018; Kiarie, Singh, and Obiko 2020). Lack of awareness was a significant barrier to women working online, with 21% vs. 31% awareness of freelancing opportunities among women and men in India and Sri Lanka (Bandaranayake et al. 2020).

In sum, these barriers to participation may be compounding and intersectional in ways that literature is only beginning to document, and it is important to note how they present bigger risks and more prospects for discrimination, manipulation, and withholding among those from poor disadvantaged backgrounds (Anwar and Graham 2020). Also, its important to stress that the challenges women face in platform livelihoods expand beyond this one element of inclusion; hey come up in nearly every element of the experience. For this reason, we also address gender as a holistic, cross-cutting issue later in the review. 


Aneja, Urvashi, and Aishwarya Sridhar. 2019. “Show Me the Money! Worker Well­Being on Labor Platforms in India.” Delhi: IT for Change.

Anwar, Mohammad Amir, and Mark Graham. 2019. “Hidden Transcripts of the Gig Economy: Labour Agency and the New Art of Resistance among African Gig Workers:” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, December.

———. 2020. “Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Freedom, Flexibility, Precarity and Vulnerability in the Gig Economy in Africa.” Competition & Change, April, 102452942091447.

Bandaranayake, Ramathi, Tahini Iqbal, Helani Galpaya, Laleema Senanayake, and Suthaharan Perampalam. 2020. “‘Now We Are Independent’: Female Online Freelancers in India and Sri Lanka – ProQuest.” Colombo: LIRNEasia.

Berg, Janine. 2016. “Income Security in the On-Demand Economy: Findings and Policy Lessons from a Survey of Crowdworkers.” ILO Working Paper 74. Conditions of Work and Employment Series. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Organization.—ed_protect/—protrav/—travail/documents/publication/wcms_479693.pdf.

Budiman, Bido. 2020. “Ride-Hailing: Stories from Gojek and Grab Drivers in Indonesia.” CGAP Background Documents.

Chen, Julie Yujie. 2018. “Thrown under the Bus and Outrunning It! The Logic of Didi and Taxi Drivers’ Labour and Activism in the on-Demand Economy.” New Media & Society 20 (8): 1–21.

Crosby, A. L., and R. Cahaya. 2017. “The Lure of the City, the Possibilities of the Village: Crowdsourcing Graphic Designers in Indonesia.” In , 255–59. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Design Institute and Cumulus International Association of Universities and Colleges of Art, Design and Media.

D’Cruz, Premilla. 2017. “Partially Empowering but Not Decent? The Contradictions of Online Labour Markets.” In Critical Perspectives on Work and Employment in Globalizing India, edited by Ernesto Noronha and Premilla D’Cruz, 173–95. Singapore: Springer.

D’Cruz, Premilla, and Ernesto Noronha. 2016. “Positives Outweighing Negatives: The Experiences of Indian Crowdsourced Workers.” Work Organisation, Labour & Globalisation 10 (1): 44–63.

Garcia, Liza, Teresita Barrameda, Jessamine Pacis, and Arlen Sandino Barrameda. 2020. “Digitization and Domestic Work: The Policy Environment in the Philippines.” Bengaluru, India: IT for Change.

Geitung, Ine. 2017. “Uber Drivers in Cape Town: Working Conditions and Worker Agency in the Sharing Economy.” MA Thesis, University of Oslo.

Genesis Analytics. 2019. “Towards a Digital Workforce: Understanding the Building Blocks of Kenya’s Gig Economy.” Mercy Corps Youth Impact Labs.

Graham, Mark, Isis Hjorth, and Vili Lehdonvirta. 2017. “Digital Labour and Development: Impacts of Global Digital Labour Platforms and the Gig Economy on Worker Livelihoods.” Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research 23 (2): 135–62.

Graham, Mark, Vili Lehdonvirta, Alex Wood, Helena Barnard, Isis Hjorth, and David Peter Simon. 2017. “The Risks and Rewards of Online Gig Work At the Global Margins.” Oxford, UK: Oxford Internet Institute.

Gray, Mary L, and Siddharth Suri. 2019. Ghost Work: How to Stop Silicon Valley from Building a New Global Underclass. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Gupta, Neha, David Martin, Benjamin V. Hanrahan, and Jacki O’Neill. 2014. “Turk-Life in India.” In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Supporting Group Work – GROUP ’14, 1–11. Sanibel Island, Florida, USA: ACM Press.

Gupta, Shruti. 2020. “Gendered Gigs: Understanding the Gig Economy in New Delhi from a Gendered Perspective.” In Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development, 1–10. ICTD2020. New York, NY: ACM.

Hunt, Abigail, Emma Samman, Sherry Tapfuma, Grace Mwaura, Rhoda Omenya, Kay Kim, Sara Stevano, and Aida Roumer. 2019. “Women in the Gig Economy: Paid Work, Care and Flexibility in Kenya and South Africa.” London, UK: Overseas Development Institute.

Jack, Margaret, Jay Chen, and Steven J. Jackson. 2017. “Infrastructure as Creative Action: Online Buying, Selling, and Delivery in Phnom Penh.” In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 6511–6522. CHI ’17. Denver, Colorado, USA: Association for Computing Machinery.

Khanna, Shashank, Aishwarya Ratan, James Davis, and William Thies. 2010. “Evaluating and Improving the Usability of Mechanical Turk for Low-Income Workers in India.” In Proceedings of the First ACM Symposium on Computing for Development, 1–10. ACM DEV ’10. London, United Kingdom: Association for Computing Machinery.

Kiarie, Nancy, Anup Singh, and Edward Obiko. 2020. “Same Problems, Same Inequalities: Women in the Digital Gig Economy.” Microsave Blog (blog). March 11, 2020.

Kibe, Josephine. 2020. “How Are Kenya’s Youth Experiencing the Gig Economy?” May 28, 2020.

Kumar, Neha, Nassim Jafarinaimi, and Mehrab Bin Morshed. 2018. “Uber in Bangladesh: The Tangled Web of Mobility and Justice.” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2 (CSCW): 1–21.

Lehdonvirta, Vili. 2016. “Algorithms That Divide and Unite: Delocalization, Identity, and Collective Action in ‘Microwork.’” In Space, Place and Global Digital Work, edited by J. Flecker, 53–81. London: Palgrave-Macmillan.

Malik, Fareesa, Richard Heeks, Silvia Masiero, and Brian Nicholson. 2020. “Digital Platform Labour in Pakistan: Institutional Voids and Solidarity Networks,” June. Institutional_voids_and_solidarity_networks/12520100.

Malik, Fareesa, Brian Nicholson, and Richard Heeks. 2018. “Understanding the Development Implications of Online Outsourcing: A Study of Digital Labour Platforms in Pakistan.” Development Informatics Working Paper 73. Manchester, UK: Global Development Institute, SEED.

Margaryan, Anoush. 2016. “Understanding Crowdworkers’ Learning Practices.” In . Oxford.

Martin, David, Jacki O’Neill, Neha Gupta, and Benjamin V. Hanrahan. 2016. “Turking in a Global Labour Market.” Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 25 (1): 39–77.

McAdam, Maura, Caren Crowley, and Richard T. Harrison. 2020. “Digital Girl: Cyberfeminism and the Emancipatory Potential of Digital Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies.” Small Business Economics 55 (2): 349–62.

Melia, Elvis. 2020. “African Jobs in the Digital Era: Export Options with a Focus on Online Labour.” Discussion Paper.

Muhindi, Abas Ben. 2019. “Towards Decent Work On Online Labour Platforms: Implications Of Working Conditions In Online Freelance Work On The Well Being Of Youths In Nairobi County.” MA thesis, University of Nairobi.

Newlands, Gemma, and Christoph Lutz. 2020. “Crowdwork and the Mobile Underclass: Barriers to Participation in India and the United States.” New Media & Society, January, 146144482090184.

Onkokame, Mothobi, Aude Schoentgen, and Alison Gillwald. 2018. “What Is the State of Microwork in Africa? A View from Seven Countries.” Cape Town, South Africa: Research ICT Africa.

Panteli, Niki, Andriana Rapti, and Dora Scholarios. 2020. “‘If He Just Knew Who We Were’: Microworkers’ Emerging Bonds of Attachment in a Fragmented Employment Relationship.” Work, Employment and Society 34 (3).

Partnership for Finance in a Digital Africa. 2019. “Micro-Entrepeneurs in a Platform Era.” Farnham, Surrey, UK.

Rani, Uma, and Marianne Furrer. 2019. “On-Demand Digital Economy: Can Experience Ensure Work and Income Security for Microtask Workers?” Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher Fuer Nationaloekonomie Und Statistik) 239 (3): 565–97.

Surie, Aditi, and Jyothi Koduganti. 2016. “The Emerging Nature of Work in Platform Economy Companies in Bengaluru, India: The Case of Uber and Ola Cab Drivers.” E-Journal of International and Comparative Labour Studies 5 (3).

Wood, Alex J, Mark Graham, Vili Lehdonvirta, and Isis Hjorth. 2019. “Networked but Commodified: The (Dis)Embeddedness of Digital Labour in the Gig Economy.” Sociology 53 (5): 931–50.

Wood, Alex J., and Vili Lehdonvirta. 2019. “Platform Labour and Structured Antagonism: Understanding the Origins of Protest in the Gig Economy.” SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3357804. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.

Zhao, Xinyu. 2020. “Digital Labour in Transnational Mobility: Chinese International Students’ Online Boundary Work in Daigou.” New Media & Society, June.

Zollmann, Julie, and Catherine Wanjala. 2020. “What Is Good Work? Perspectives of Young Workers in Nairobi.” Text report and accompanying slides. Nairobi, Kenya: The Mastercard Foundation.