Understanding Conflict over Regulation of Platform Work: a Critical Literature Review on the Role of Institutions, Networks and Frames in Policy-Making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".