White Paper

This study takes a closer look at platform-based digital business models and their implications for the economy and for society. While digital platforms have come to play a role in many branches of the economy, the present publication is focussed on the socio-politically most contested ones, namely digital labour platforms. These new platforms are increasingly beset by criticism. Usually they rely on a workforce of independent contractors, who work on their own account and at their own risk, for low wages and without social security. Neither the platform providers nor their clients take on the role and responsibilities of an employer. Labour laws, worker protection, health and safety regulations, quality of work and social security contributions mostly fall to the responsibility of the independent contractors alone, who are also not entitled to the kind of workers' participation common in other sectors. The clients of the platforms essentially gain access to an on-demand workforce, while the independent contractors who provide the labour are subject to precarious working conditions. The study explains the basic mechanisms of three-sided digital labour markets and compares its variants and subcategories. It also explains the specific features and challenges of the different categories and proposes starting points for political measures. The study defines six basic types of digital labour platform. Under the category of cloud work (web-based digital labour) there are freelance marketplaces, micro tasking crowd work and context-based creative crowd work. The category of gig work (location-based digital labour) encompasses accommodation, transportation and delivery services (gig work), and household services and personal services (gig work).

Many economists contend that technology is the primary driver of the increase in wage inequality since the late 1970s, as technology-induced job skill requirements have outpaced the growing education levels of the workforce. The influential “skill-biased technological change” (SBTC) explanation claims that technology raises demand for educated workers, thus allowing them to command higher wages—which in turn increases wage inequality. A more recent SBTC explanation focuses on computerization’s role in increasing employment in both higher-wage and lower-wage occupations, resulting in “job polarization.” This paper contends that current SBTC models—such as the education-focused “canonical model” and the more recent “tasks framework” or “job polarization” approach mentioned above—do not adequately account for key wage patterns (namely, rising wage inequality) over the last three decades.

This document presents data on: (i) current number of workers in the entire global health protection supply chains involving the health economies of 185 countries; (ii) employment potential created by addressing health workforce shortages and producing universal health coverage (UHC); (iii) ratio of jobs in health and non-health occupations needed to achieve health objectives; (iv) number of decent jobs required to allow family care workers filling in for workforce shortages to remain in the labour market. The paper calls for significantly increasing investments in decent jobs for the production of UHC, sustainable development and inclusive growth.

Every month, more than one million job seekers enter India’s labour market. However, despite being an investors’ darling, India’s employment generation track record has been disappointing. In the medium term, the revolt against globalisation threatens the access to Western export markets. Converging manufacturing costs work to discourage offshoring, while ever faster consumer product markets encourage the reshoring of production closer to the home market. The global window for export- and manufacturing- led development is, hence closing. Where will the jobs of tomorrow be created? Can India leapfrog into a service-led economy? Will the green economy keep its promise to create green jobs? Can the blue economy boost employment in coastal areas? How can the millions toiling in the care economy be better remunerated? Creating a human economy is more than a technical task. To move up the global value chain, major investment into human capital is needed. To generate the necessary resources for the provision of full capabilities, a social democratic compromise is needed which lays the social foundation for solidarity between all members of society

Over the past 10 years, the World Economic Forum has brought together a community of influential leaders committed to addressing the global gender gap with a focus on the economic aspects of gender parity. We have benchmarked national, regional and industry gender gaps and gathered best practices adopted by leading companies in all regions of the world. To accelerate the closing of the global gender gap in employment, companies and governments can benefit from a platform to learn from each other’s experience and be inspired by possibilities for further action. To that end, the World Economic Forum has been fostering communities through which leaders can exchange knowledge, discuss adapting models to local circumstances and celebrate impact. The principles showcased in this toolkit highlight several approaches taken to closing gender gaps in companies across the globe. Each of these practices has a potentially transformative role but is most effective within a consistent company-wide strategy, resting on a strong foundation of labour standards, including health and safety. For such an approach to work, leaders must commit for the long-term and manage some of the short-term barriers and trade-offs. There is an urgent need to accelerate progress towards gender parity, particularly as labour markets face both technological disruption and talent shortages. We hope that the principles for action outlined herein will serve to deepen existing commitments, inspire fresh, impact-focused initiatives to promote gender parity, and further work with geographical and sectoral focus.

Human skills—like leadership, communication, and problem solving—are among the most in-demand skills in the labor market. Human skills are applied differently across career fields. To be effective, liberal arts grads must adapt their skills to the job at hand. Liberal art grads should add technical skills. There is considerable demand for workers who complement their human skills with basic technical skills like data analysis and digital fluency. Human+ skills are at work in a variety of fields. Human skills help liberal arts grads thrive in many career areas, including marketing, public relations, technology, and sales.

Do robots raise or lower economic well-being? On the one hand, they raise output and bring more goods and services into reach. On the other hand, they eliminate jobs, shift investments away from machines that complement labor, lower wages, and immiserize workers who cannot compete. The net effect of these offsetting forces is unclear. This paper seeks to clarify how economic outcomes, positive or negative, depend both on specific parameters of the economy and public policy. We find that a rise in robotic productivity is more likely to lower the welfare of young workers and future generations when the saving rate is low, automatable and non-automatable goods are more substitutable in consumption, and when traditional capital is a more important complement to labor. In some parameterizations the relationship of utility to robotic productivity follows a “noisy U” as large innovations are long-run welfare improving even though small innovations are immiserizing. Policies that redistribute income across generations can ensure that a rise in robotic productivity benefits all generations.

Are smarter machines our children's friends? Or can they bring about a transfer from our relatively unskilled children to ourselves that leaves our children and, indeed, all our descendants - worse off?

We welcome the Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry into the STEM skills gap. Individuals with STEM skills are major contributors to the prosperity of the UK and the provision of these skills leads to significant economic growth, improvements in quality of life and greater innovation. A training in STEM at a Russell Group university endows graduates and postgraduates with the skills needed to become the high-quality labour force and leaders required for the future development of the UK’s economy and society. Our universities train the vast majority of the UK’s doctors and dentists and a disproportionately high number of scientists, mathematicians and engineers. They invest significant resource in ensuring students on STEM courses are prepared for the workplace and many design their courses with input from business – helping to ensure the UK has the talent pool to meet the future needs of employers. Despite these efforts, the UK’s pipeline of STEM graduates is at risk as a result of continued underfunding from government. STEM subjects are inherently expensive to deliver and without appropriate funding they could become financially unsustainable – especially if the government wishes to increase the number of students studying these subjects. In order to underpin future growth and close the STEM skills gap, increased funding per student is required for universities teaching STEM subjects.