Algorithmic domination in the gig economy
| Published date | 01 October 2023 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/14748851221082078 |
| Author | James Muldoon,Paul Raekstad |
| Date | 01 October 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Algorithmic domination in
the gig economy
James Muldoon
Department of Politics, University of Exeter, UK
Paul Raekstad
Political Science, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
Abstract
Digital platforms and application software have changed how people work in a range of
industries. Empirical studies of the gig economy have raised concerns about new systems
of algorithmic management exercised over workers and how these alter the structural
conditions of their work. Drawing on the republican literature, we offer a theoretical
account of algorithmic domination and a framework for understanding how it can be
applied to ride hail and food delivery services in the on-demand economy. We argue
that certain algorithms can facilitate new relationships of domination by sustaining a
socio-technical system in which the owners and managers of a company dominate work-
ers. This analysis has implications for the growing use of algorithms throughout the gig
economy and broader labor market.
Keywords
freedom, domination, republicanism, gig economy, algorithmic domination
Algorithmic decision-making is increasingly deployed in a variety of important contexts
from criminal justice and policing to credit scoring and healthcare (Kitchin, 2017). The
proliferation of algorithms throughout society has led to the growth of a large body of
literature in science and technology studies, legal studies, computer science, sociology,
geography and media studies, among others (Beer, 2017; Striphas, 2015; Ziewitz,
Corresponding author:
James Muldoon, Department of Politics, University of Exeter, Treliever Road, Penryn, Exeter, UK.
Email: j.muldoon@exeter.a.c.uk
Article
European Journal of Political Theory
2023, Vol. 22(4) 587–607
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/14748851221082078
journals.sagepub.com/home/ept
2016). Corresponding to this growth in the use of algorithms has been an explosion of
app-mediated platform labor (Graham et al., 2017). In the UK, the number of adults
who undertook tasks obtained through a digital platform doubled from 2016 to 2019
(Huws 2020: 4). This has also resulted in the rapid spread of digital management practices
throughout different parts of the workforce.
Algorithms are employed because they promise to make processes more efficient,
accurate, and unbiased. However, an emerging critical literature has called into question
the idea that algorithms can evade human bias in decision making. There is a range of
evidence suggesting that algorithms can often reproduce and exacerbate structural
inequalities, injustices, and forms of unfreedom, rather than alleviate them (Benjamin,
2019; Noble, 2018; O’Neil, 2016). Recent discussions of algorithmic injustice have con-
tributed to calls for greater attention to questions of fairness and accountability including
issues of procedural fairness and more substantive approaches focused on interventions
into decision outcomes and their social impact (Janssen and Kuk, 2016; Pasquale,
2015; Zimmerman et al., 2020).
While questions of algorithmic injustice have received widespread consideration, pol-
itical philosophers have so far paid less attention to the question of how algorithms
impact our freedom. In this article, we develop the concept of algorithmic domination
to address these concerns and provide an account of the dominating effects of algorithms
used as tools of worker control. Algorithmic domination can occur in a variety of differ-
ent domains, but we focus here on the role of algorithms as a tool by companies to
manage contract workers involved in app-work in the gig economy (Duggan et al., 2020).
Consider the following examples. Amazon warehouse employees report working
under constant surveillance with timed toilet breaks and just nine seconds to process a
package (Selby, 2017). Uber drivers must work during peak periods to chase ‘surge
pricing,’often earning less than the minimum wage. A hidden army of ‘microworkers’
labor on platforms such as Amazon Mechanical Turk and Clickworker, receiving as
little as US$2–3 an hour for monotonous piece-rate tasks with no employment benefits
or protections (Jones, 2021). What these examples have begun to point to is the potential
negative impact of the deployment of algorithms in the gig economy and other sectors
impacted by the introduction of digital technology (Rosenblat and Stark, 2016).
For contractors of companies such as Uber and Deliveroo, the tasks, time to complete,
rate of pay, and delivery route can all be automatically assigned through the protocols of
the company’s software. Within such socio-technical systems, it can appear as if workers
are no longer instructed by a human manager but by an automated computer algorithm.
This raises the question of whether certain precarious workers could be said to be governed –
and perhaps even dominated –by a non-human computer system. Does a company’s ability
to nudge, incentivize, manipulate, and control workers’behavior through algorithmic man-
agement constitute an objectionable form of uncontrolled power?
We argue that algorithmic domination occurs when an individual is subjected to an
uncontrolled power, the operations of which are determined by an algorithm. The particu-
lar case study we focus on in this article is gig workers in the food delivery and ride hail
sectors, but the concept of algorithmic domination can, in principle, be applied much
more broadly to other workers in the gig economy and in standard employment contracts
588 European Journal of Political Theory 22(4)
To continue reading
Request your trial