Understanding Conflict over Regulation of Platform Work: a Critical Literature Review on the Role of Institutions, Networks and Frames in Policy-Making
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The expansion of platform work has disrupted and reordered employment regulation. The literature has contributed to this subject from different angles, although often in a fragmented way and without clearly explaining why and how regulatory conflict arises over platform work. Using Beckert's (2010) framework for study of how fields change, the author conducted a critical literature review on: 1) the roles of institutions, networks and frames in regulating platform work; 2) the regulatory power these structures provide to actors and organizations; and 3) the possible interrelationships between these structures. The results show the existence of a substantial literature on the scope of institutional regulation and the regulatory power of networks, but much less on the broader role of the state in this field, and the framing processes that guide the actors’ preferences for regulation. Future lines of research are discussed. Summary In this article, a critical review of the literature identifies which state and non-state actors and organizations influence and shape regulatory conflict over platform work, and which resources enable them to intervene. These questions are addressed by examining the different forms of embeddedness that interact and shape the regulatory process. Drawing on the framework that Beckert (2010) proposed to explain changes in market fields, this literature review identifies three dimensions of research that emphasize the roles of institutions, social networks and cognitive frames, respectively. It also discusses to what extent the literature on platform work has developed an integrated perspective on regulation and how the field of industrial relations can benefit from the incorporation of different dimensions of research. The literature search was conducted using the main available databases and grouped into the three main dimensions of the framework. Influential policy reports and grey literature in the field of study were also included. In total, 149 documents were reviewed in depth. The literature has primarily focused on discussing the scope and applicability of existing labour regulatory frameworks and the increasingly important role of strategic litigation. There has also been a remarkable research strand on the regulatory power of platform firms and on new forms of governance. There has been much less critical research on the state's role in the expansion of the platform economy and on how different actors legitimize the regulatory process. This paper applies a three-dimensional framework to the literature to facilitate dialogue on three social structures that influence platform work regulation, the aim being to explain the emergence of regulatory conflict in this area. The framework captures both formal and informal forms of regulation, making it useful for the industrial relations literature as well.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».