The ‘Gig’ Economy and its Impact on Social Security
| DOI | 10.1177/1388262717745751 |
| Date | 01 December 2017 |
| Published date | 01 December 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
The ‘Gig’ Economy and its
Impact on Social Security:
The Spanish example
Borja Sua
´rez Corujo
Universidad Auto
´noma de Madrid, Spain
Abstract
This articleaims to shed light on one crucialaspect of the ‘gig’ economy: theextent to which the new
forms of work in this fieldundermine the pillars upon which traditional Bismarckiansystems of social
security havebeen built. Focusing on Spain,three main issues are analysed.First, after consideringthe
legal classification of this type of service provision and its implications, the scheme within the social
securitysystem that correspondsto the registrationof the service providersis identified.Second, how
registration and subsequent social security contributions affect the generosity of social benefits is
clarified.In particular, attentionis paid to both the risk of partial,or total, lack of, protection dueto the
absence of compulsory contributionsand the low-level of contributions made by the self-employed.
And third, the impactthe development of the platform economy may have on the financing of social
securityand its future sustainability – giventhe current difficultiesconfrontingthe Spanish economy– is
examined. Somerecommendations relatingto these three issues are outlinedas concluding remarks.
Keywords
social security, gig economy, work on demand, sustainability, adequacy, platform collaborator
1. Introduction
The economy is undergoing a major shift
1
caused by a process of great technology-driven trans-
formation. This ‘wave of digital disruption’ may not have led to a new ‘crowd-based capitalism,’
2
but it has already certainly opened the door to ‘business models where activities are facilitated by
collaborative platforms that crea te an open marketplace for the tempo rary usage of goods or
Corresponding author:
Borja Sua
´rez Corujo, School of Law, Universidad Auto
´noma de Madrid, Kelsen, 1. 28049 Madrid, Spain.
E-mail: borja.suarez@uam.es
1. Schwab (2016) refers to it as a ‘fourth industrial revolution’.
2. See Sundajarian (2016).
European Journal of Social Security
2017, Vol. 19(4) 293–312
ªThe Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1388262717745751
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejs
EJSS
EJSS
services often provided by private individuals’.
3
Described as the sharing economy – a common,
yet imprecise term – this growing phenomenon encompasses a wide range of economic activities
based on the use of online platforms.
Leaving aside those non-profit-seeking activities and other marketplace-like ones,
4
this article
analyses activities that exert a direct influence on the employer-employee relationship as new
(digital) forms of work.
5
While being conscious of the numerous and tricky issues raised by
crowdwork online,
6
my basic interest is in so-called work-on-demand via apps
7
since its offline
component makes it closest to the ‘typical’ (or more traditional) employment relationship.
8
In this
regard, the use of digital platforms is transforming how we formally define work and, probably
more relevant, the conditions in which such ‘work’ is carried out.
To date, most labour experts have concentrated their analyses on the effects that this ‘Uberisa-
tion’ of the economy has on employment regulation;
9
conceived of as a set of guarantees that have
historically balanced the relationship between labour and capital in Western Welfare States.
Attention has mainly focused on the ability of labour law to provide an adequate response to this
new type of service provision in which subordination, one of the defining features that shapes the
concept of the employee, is blurred, thus creating serious risks of precariousness, casualisation and
commodification of work.
Much less attention has been given until now to the critical consequences that this deep
transformation has for social protection. This is particularly relevant in Southern European
countries where public social security systems were originally designed to protect employees
working in the industrial and service sectors. Following the pattern of a continental social
insurance model, these compulsory schemes, based on pay-as-you-go financing, provide
earnings-related benefits that depend on previous contributions and the duration of affiliation
3. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee and the Committee of the Regions on ‘A European agenda for the collaborative econ-
omy’, Brussels, 2.6.2016, COM (2016) 356 final.
4. Following the taxonomy suggested by Terrase (2015: 15) who points at three distinctive elements characteristic of the
correspondant types of collaborative platforms: sharing actors (acteurs de l’e
´conomiedu partage), marketplaces (places
de marche
´) and on-demand service provision (services a
`la demande).
5. See ILO (2016: 39) and EUROFOUND (2015: 72).
6. This expression refers to those working activities that imply completing tasks (often ‘microtasks’) characterized as
follows: first, they are offered on a competitive base to a large number of people (crowd) through online platforms; and
second, they are paid to the crowdworker either by the ‘client’ (crowdsourcer) or by the platform itself depending on the
role of the platform in contractual terms (Suarez Corujo 2017a: 31).
7. ‘A form of work in which the execution of traditional working activities such as transport, cleaning and running errands,
but also forms of clerical work, is channeled through apps managed by firms that also intervene in setting minimum
quality standards of service and in the selection and management of the workforce’ (De Stefano 2016: 1).
8. The so-called ‘crowdsourcing offline’ shares with the ‘online’ version three key aspects: first, it is based on a just-in time
relationship where the ‘collaborator’ is in theory free to determine his/her time availability; second, it is channeled
through apps that are managed by firms that set minimum quality standards for the service provider and manage the
‘workforce’ with more or less strict criteria; and third, the performance is compensated on a ‘pay-as-you-go’ basis.
Beyond these features, the key difference is that tasks are physically delivered (crowdsourcing offline), limiting the
number of potential collaborators.
9. A good illustration is that among the numerous papers assigned to the thematic track on ‘gig / sharing / on-demand
economy’ at the LLRN conference in Toronto, none specifically dealt with social security issues. Likewise, a hallmark
initiative such as the European Commission’s Communication, ‘A European agenda for collaborative economy’ (COM
(2016) 356 final) pays very little attention to them. As an exception, the annual Conference organized by the European
Institute of Social Security in Oslo in September 2016 dealt with ‘Social Security’ and the changing concept of work.
294 European Journal of Social Security 19(4)
To continue reading
Request your trial