Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-88psn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-17T09:35:47.550Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The institutional environment and gig platform transaction cost solutions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2024

Svetlana Golovanova ,
Eduardo Pontual Ribeiro Open the ORCID record for Eduardo Pontual Ribeiro [Opens in a new window] ,
Evgeny Styrin  and
Ivan Makarov Open the ORCID record for Ivan Makarov [Opens in a new window]
Svetlana Golovanova
Affiliation:
National Research University Higher School of Economics, Nizhny Novgorod, Russian Federation
Eduardo Pontual Ribeiro*
Affiliation:
Institute of Economics, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Evgeny Styrin
Affiliation:
Digital Transformation in Public Administration Laboratory, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russian Federation
Ivan Makarov
Affiliation:
Digital Transformation in Public Administration Laboratory, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russian Federation
*
Corresponding author: Eduardo Pontual Ribeiro; Email: eribeiro@ie.ufrj.br
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A growing number of labour market participants transact through gig platforms. This choice should reflect a reduction in transaction costs for platform users, compared to costs they meet when using alternative modes of governance. We exploit a unique cross-platform, cross-country data set of gig platform users to test the impact of the institutional environment in one of its dimensions – the strictness of labour market regulation (LMR) – on the ability of gig platforms to reduce users' transaction costs. According to our findings, the regulation indicator of both the user and platform countries influences transaction costs for platform users, even controlling for platform and user characteristics. The platform appears to reduce transaction costs most when users face stricter or weaker LMR, in a U-shaped effect. In the former case, the platform may provide an escape from labour regulations when hiring for tasks, while in the latter case, the platform can economize on the usual transaction costs of private contracting by administrating some types of users' activities.

Keywords

institutionslabour market regulationlabour platformstransaction costsD02J44M55

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 20 , 2024 , e12
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Millennium Economics Ltd.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Acharya, V.V., Baghai, R.P. and Subramanian, K.V. (2013). Labor laws and innovation. The Journal of Law and Economics 56(4), 997–1037. doi: 10.1086/674106Google Scholar
Akbar, Y.H. and Tracogna, A. (2022). The digital economy and the growth dynamics of sharing platforms: A transaction cost economics assessment. Journal of Digital Economy 1(3), 209–226. doi: 10.1016/j.jdec.2023.01.002Google Scholar
Bhaumik, S.K., Dimova, R., Kumbhakar, S.C. and Sun, K. (2018). Is tinkering with institutional quality a panacea for firm performance? Insights from a semiparametric approach to modeling firm performance. Review of Development Economics 22(1), 1–22. doi: 10.1111/rode.12311Google Scholar
Bogliacino, F., Codagnone, C., Cirillo, V. and Guarascio, D. (2020). Quantity and quality of work in the platform economy. In Zimmermann, K. (ed.), Handbook of Labor, Human Resources and Population Economics. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland, 1–28.Google Scholar
Coase, R.H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica 4(16), 386–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coase, R.H. (1960). The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics 3(1), 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuypers, I., Hennart, J.-F., Silverman, B.S. and Ertug, G. (2021). Transaction cost theory: Past progress, current challenges, and suggestions for the future. Academy of Management Annals 15(1), 111–150.Google Scholar
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 and Policy Journal 37(3), 471–485.Google Scholar
Elmer, M., Herr, B., Klaus, D. and Gegenhuber, T. (2019). Platform workers centre stage! Taking stock of current debates and approaches for improving the conditions of platform work in Europe. Hans Böckler Forschungsförderung Working Paper, 140.Google Scholar
Evans, D.S. and Schmalensee, R. (2017). Multi-sided platforms. In Vernengo, M., Perez Caldentey, E. and Rosser, B. Jr (eds), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1–9.Google Scholar
Filistrucchi, L., Geradin, D., van Damme, E. and Affeldt, P. (2014). Market definition in two-sided markets: Theory and practice. Journal of Competition Law and Economics 10(2), 293–339.Google Scholar
Horton, J., Kerr, W.R. and Stanton, C. (2018). Digital labor markets and global talent flows. In Hanson, G.H., Kerr, W.R. and Turner, S. (eds), High-Skilled Migration to the United States and its Economic Consequences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 71–108.Google Scholar
ILO (2021). World Employment and Social Outlook 2021: The Role of Digital Labour Platforms in Transforming the World of Work. Geneva: International Labour Office.Google Scholar
Koutsimpogiorgos, N., Frenken, K. and Herrmann, A.M. (2023). Platform adaptation to regulation: The case of domestic cleaning in Europe. Journal of Industrial Relations 65(2), 156–184.Google Scholar
Lobel, O. (2018). Coase and the platform economy. In Davidson, N.M., Finck, M. and Infranca, J.J. (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of the Law of the Sharing Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 67–77.Google Scholar
Ménard, C. (2004). The economics of hybrid organizations. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 160(3), 345–376.Google Scholar
Ménard, C. (2014). Embedding organizational arrangements: Towards a general model. Journal of Institutional Economics 10(4), 567–589.Google Scholar
Ménard, C. (2022). Hybrids: Where are we? Journal of Institutional Economics 18(2), 297–312.Google Scholar
Nagle, F., Seamans, R. and Tadelis, S. (2020). Transaction cost economics in the digital economy: A research agenda. Harvard Business School Strategy Unit Working Paper, 21-009.Google Scholar
Naraparaju, K. (2016). Impediments to contract enforcement in day labour markets: A perspective from India. Journal of Institutional Economics 12(3), 651–676.Google Scholar
North, D.C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
North, D.C. and Wallis, J.J. (1994). Integrating institutional change and technical change in economic history: A transaction cost approach. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 150(4), 609–624.Google Scholar
Oranburg, S.C. and Palagashvili, L. (2021). Transaction cost economics, labor law, and the gig economy. Journal of Legal Studies 50(S2), 219–237. doi: 10.1086/704893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oxley, J. (1999). Institutional environment and the mechanism of governance: The impact of intellectual property protection on the structure of inter-firm alliances. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 38(2), 283–309.Google Scholar
Rochet, J.C. and Tirole, J. (2003). Platform competition in two-sided markets. Journal of the European Economic Association 1(4), 990–1029.Google Scholar
Roe, M. (2005). The institutions of corporate governance. In Ménard, C. and Shirley, M. (eds), Handbook of New Institutional Economics. Boston: Springer US, 371–399.Google Scholar
Rysman, M. (2009). The economics of two-sided markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives 23(3), 125–143.Google Scholar
Traverso, S., Vatiero, M. and Zaninotto, E. (2023). Robots and labor regulation: A cross-country/cross-industry analysis. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 32(7), 977–999. doi: 10.1080/10438599.2022.2063122Google Scholar
Vallas, S. and Schor, J.B. (2020). What do platforms do? Understanding the gig economy. Annual Review of Sociology 46(1), 273–294. doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Slageren, J., Herrmann, A.M. and Frenken, K. (2022). Is the online gig economy beyond national reach? A European analysis. Socio-Economic Review 21(3), 1795–1821.Google Scholar
Williamson, O.E. (1979). Transaction-cost economics: The governance of contractual relations. Journal of Law and Economics 22(2), 233–261.Google Scholar
Williamson, O.E. (1985). The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting. New York: Free Press; London: Collier Macmillan.Google Scholar
Williamson, O.E. (1991). Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly 36(2), 269–296. doi: 10.2307/2393356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, O.E. (1996). The Mechanisms of Governance. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wooldridge, J. (2010). Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data, 2nd Edn. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wright, E.O. (2004). Beneficial constraints: Beneficial for whom? Socio-Economic Review 2(3), 407–414. doi: 10.1093/soceco/2.3.407Google Scholar