Comparative Evaluation of Gig Worker and Conventional Worker Welfare to Improve Quality Employment and Encourage Entrepreneurship Using the Propensity Score Matching Approach

Shobikin Shobikin; Damarsari Ratnasahara Elisabeth; Teguh Setiawan Wibowo; Mochamad Fatchurrohman

doi:10.55681/sentri.v4i11.4657

Authors

Shobikin Shobikin Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Ekonomi Mahardhika
Damarsari Ratnasahara Elisabeth Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Ekonomi Mahardhika
Teguh Setiawan Wibowo Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Ekonomi Mahardhika
Mochamad Fatchurrohman Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Ekonomi Mahardhika

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55681/sentri.v4i11.4657

Keywords:

conventional workers, entrepreneurship, gig economy, propensity score matching, worker welfare

Abstract

The development of the digital economy has driven the emergence of gig workers, who are increasingly dominating the labor market. Despite offering flexibility, gig workers continue to face uncertainty regarding welfare conditions, which differ from those of conventional workers. Comparing the welfare of these two groups is essential to provide insights into job quality and its implications for entrepreneurship and inclusive economic development. This study aims to conduct a comparative evaluation of the welfare of gig and conventional workers. Specifically, it seeks to identify the key welfare dimensions that distinguish the two groups and to provide an empirical basis for formulating policies aimed at improving job quality. The research was conducted in the regions of Surabaya, Sidoarjo, Gresik, and Mojokerto, involving 400 respondents, consisting of 200 gig workers and 200 conventional workers. The Propensity Score Matching (PSM) method was employed to ensure comparability of respondents’ characteristics based on age, gender, education level, geographic location, and employment sector, thereby enabling a more valid and reliable comparison of welfare outcomes. The findings reveal that conventional workers enjoy more stable welfare, particularly in terms of income, access to social security, and job security. In contrast, gig workers demonstrate advantages in time flexibility and opportunities to generate additional income. Thus, a trade off emerges between stability and flexibility that differentiates the two types of workers. These results highlight the need for more adaptive labor policies, such as the expansion of social security coverage for gig workers, stronger legal protection, and tailored entrepreneurship development programs. Such measures are expected to enhance multidimensional welfare while fostering the creation of quality jobs in the digital economy era.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Alauddin, F. D. A., Aman, A., Ghazali, M. F., & Daud, S. (2024). The influence of digital platforms on gig workers: A systematic literature review. Heliyon, 11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e41491

Au‐Yeung, T., Chan, C. K.-C., Ming, C. K. K., & Tsui, W. Y. A. (2024). The gig economy, platform work, and social policy: food delivery workers’ occupational welfare dilemma in Hong Kong. Journal of Social Policy. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047279423000673

Autin, K., Herdt, M., Garcia, R., & Ezema, G. (2021). Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction, Autonomous Motivation, and Meaningful Work: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective. Journal of Career Assessment, 30, 78–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/10690727211018647

Ayu, R. (2024). Role of Gig Economy Participation in Shaping Worker Economic Security in Indonesia. International Journal of Sociology. https://doi.org/10.47604/ijs.2830

Barney, Jay. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108

Battaglio, R., Bellé, N., & Cantarelli, P. (2021). Self-determination theory goes public: experimental evidence on the causal relationship between psychological needs and job satisfaction. Public Management Review, 24, 1411–1428. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1900351

Boruchowicz, C. (2024). Leaving the Shadows Behind? Effects of Domestic Workers Reform on Mothers’ Formal Employment. The World Bank Economic Review. https://doi.org/10.1093/wber/lhae045

Caza, B., Reid, E., Ashford, S., & Granger, S. (2021). Working on my own: Measuring the challenges of gig work. Human Relations, 75, 2122–2159. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267211030098

Cropanzano, R., Keplinger, K., Lambert, B., Caza, B., & Ashford, S. (2022). The organizational psychology of gig work: An integrative conceptual review. The Journal of Applied Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001029

Daniere, André. (1965). GARY S. BECKER. Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education. Pp. xvi, 187. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1964. $5.00. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 360(1), 208–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/000271626536000153

Graham, M., & Anwar, M. A. (2019). The global gig economy: Towards a planetary labour market? First Monday, 24. https://doi.org/10.5210/FM.V24I4.9913

Guseva, T., & Klepalova, J. (2022). Harnessing the Power of Labour Law and Social Security Law to Achieve the Goal of Formalizing Labour Markets in the BRICS Countries. BRICS Law Journal. https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2022-9-2-94-120

Healy, J., Pekarek, A., & Vromen, A. (2020). Sceptics or Supporters? Consumers’ Views of Work in the Gig Economy. Wiley-Blackwell: New Technology. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12157

Kincaid, R., & Reynolds, J. (2023). Unconventional Work, Conventional Problems: Gig Microtask Work, Inequality, and the Flexibility Mystique. The Sociological Quarterly, 65, 246–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380253.2023.2268679

Kinder, E., Jarrahi, M., & Sutherland, W. (2019). Gig Platforms, Tensions, Alliances and Ecosystems. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359314

Kurian, J. S., & Madhavi, B. (2024). Navigating the gig economy: exploring challenges and motivations for the wellbeing of Gen Y and Gen Z gig workers. Cogent Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2024.2357458

Li, J. (2024). Research on the impact of digital economy on labor resource allocation: Evidence from China. PLOS ONE, 19. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297449

MacDonald, R., & Giazitzoglu, A. (2019). Youth, enterprise and precarity: or, what is, and what is wrong with, the ‘gig economy’? Journal of Sociology, 55, 724–740. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783319837604

Maffie, M. (2023). Adversaries or Cross-Organization Co-workers? Exploring the Relationship between Gig Workers and Conventional Employees. ILR Review, 77, 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/00197939231194254

Maury, O. (2023). The Fragmented Labor Power Composition of Gig Workers: Entrepreneurial Tendency and the Heterogeneous Production of Difference. Critical Sociology, 50, 1167–1182. https://doi.org/10.1177/08969205231216418

Myhill, K., Richards, J., & Sang, K. (2021). Job quality, fair work and gig work: the lived experience of gig workers. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 32, 4110–4135. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2020.1867612

Pankaj, A., & Jha, M. (2024). Gig workers in precarious life: The trajectory of exploitation, insecurity, and resistance. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12563

Peng, K.-L., Peng, K., Au, W., & Baum, T. (2022). Labor market transformation in the hospitality gig economy in a post pandemic era: impacts of institutional governance. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-12-2021-1531

Piore, M. J. (2018). The dual labor market: theory and implications. In Social stratification (pp. 629–640). Routledge.

Putri, T. E., Darmawan, P., & Heeks, R. (2023). What is fair? The experience of Indonesian gig workers. Digital Geography and Society. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diggeo.2023.100072

Reynolds, J., Aguilar, J., & Kincaid, R. (2024). More than a side-hustle: Satisfaction with conventional and microtask work and the association with life satisfaction. Social Science Research, 122, 103055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2024.103055

Salerno, V., & Freni-Sterrantino, A. (2021). A Plea for the Need to Investigate the Health Effects of Gig-Economy. Frontiers in Public Health, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.638767

Samad, K. A., Rahman, N. H. A., Ismail, S., & Marmaya, N. (2023). Is the well-being of gig workers in Malaysia better? The reality of pain and gain. International Review of Applied Economics, 37, 518–531. https://doi.org/10.1080/02692171.2023.2240243

Taneja, S. (2024). Understanding the Landscape of Gig Workers’ Well-Being: A Bibliometric Analysis. International Journal of Community Well-Being. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42413-024-00226-z

Van Den Broeck, A., Howard, J., Van Vaerenbergh, Y., Leroy, H., & Gagné, M. (2021). Beyond intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis on self-determination theory’s multidimensional conceptualization of work motivation. Organizational Psychology Review, 11, 240–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866211006173

Van Doorn, N., Ferrari, F., & Graham, M. (2020). Migration and Migrant Labour in the Gig Economy: An Intervention. Work, Employment & Society, 37, 1099–1111. https://doi.org/10.1177/09500170221096581

Wang, J., Tian, Z., & Sun, Y. (2024). Digital Economy, Employment Structure and Labor Share. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16219584

Watson, G., Kistler, L., Graham, B., & Sinclair, R. (2021). Looking at the Gig Picture: Defining Gig Work and Explaining Profile Differences in Gig Workers’ Job Demands and Resources. Group & Organization Management, 46, 327–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601121996548

Wu, D., & Huang, J. (2024). Gig work and gig workers: An integrative review and agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2775

Yasih, D. W. P. (2022). Normalizing and Resisting the New Precarity: A Case Study of the Indonesian Gig Economy. Critical Sociology, 49, 847–863. https://doi.org/10.1177/08969205221087130