Too Good to Be True? A Comment on Hall and Krueger’s Analysis of the Labor Market for Uber’s Driver-Partners
Fuente:
Organización Internacional del Trabajo (OIT)
Salvato in:
| Autori principali: | , |
|---|---|
| Natura: | Artículo científico |
| Pubblicazione: |
International Labour Organization
2019
|
| Accesso online: | |
| Tags: |
Aggiungi Tag
Nessun Tag, puoi essere il primo ad aggiungerne!!
|
| _version_ | 1874524889664192517 |
|---|---|
| author | Janine Berg Hannah Johnston |
| author_facet | Janine Berg Hannah Johnston Janine Berg Hannah Johnston |
| contents | Too Good to Be True? A Comment on Hall and Krueger’s Analysis of the Labor Market for Uber’s Driver-Partners Janine Berg Hannah Johnston In their comment on the article on Uber driver-partners by Jonathan Hall and Alan Krueger, the authors analyze the article’s methodological problems, including sample bias, leading questions, selective reporting of findings, and an overestimation of driver earnings, which do not account for the full range of job-related expenses and is based on outdated data. The authors also argue that Hall and Krueger make unsubstantiated claims that extend beyond the scope of their research and ignore a rapidly growing literature that is critical of the Uber model as well as the broader for-hire vehicle industry in which Uber operates. As policymakers grapple with how to respond to transport network companies, the authors argue that a fuller understanding of the costs and benefits of services such as Uber is critical for making informed policies. 10.1177/0019793918798593 DOI https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793918798593 publication.journalArticle |
| format | Artículo científico |
| id | ilo_995269742602676 |
| institution | Organización Internacional del Trabajo (OIT) |
| publishDate | 2019 |
| publisher | International Labour Organization |
| spellingShingle | Too Good to Be True? A Comment on Hall and Krueger’s Analysis of the Labor Market for Uber’s Driver-Partners Janine Berg Hannah Johnston Too Good to Be True? A Comment on Hall and Krueger’s Analysis of the Labor Market for Uber’s Driver-Partners Janine Berg Hannah Johnston In their comment on the article on Uber driver-partners by Jonathan Hall and Alan Krueger, the authors analyze the article’s methodological problems, including sample bias, leading questions, selective reporting of findings, and an overestimation of driver earnings, which do not account for the full range of job-related expenses and is based on outdated data. The authors also argue that Hall and Krueger make unsubstantiated claims that extend beyond the scope of their research and ignore a rapidly growing literature that is critical of the Uber model as well as the broader for-hire vehicle industry in which Uber operates. As policymakers grapple with how to respond to transport network companies, the authors argue that a fuller understanding of the costs and benefits of services such as Uber is critical for making informed policies. 10.1177/0019793918798593 DOI https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793918798593 publication.journalArticle |
| title | Too Good to Be True? A Comment on Hall and Krueger’s Analysis of the Labor Market for Uber’s Driver-Partners |
| url | https://researchrepository.ilo.org/esploro/outputs/journalArticle/Too-Good-to-Be-True-A/995269742602676 |