ANNOUNCEMENTS
This dissertation investigates the rapidly evolving world of platform-based gig work in India, with a concentrated focus on delivery partners operating within the quick commerce and food delivery sectors. As technology reshapes the contours of urban labor, mobile applications and algorithmic platforms such as Zomato, Swiggy, and Blinkit are redefining the boundaries between employer and worker, autonomy and control, flexibility and precarity. This research asks fundamental questions about the nature of work, worker well-being, and policy responsibility in a digital labor economy that is growing in visibility, scale, and consequence.
While platform work is popularly characterized by policymakers, corporations, and media narratives as an opportunity-laden and entrepreneurial choice—offering freedom, flexibility, and income generation—the lived realities of those performing this work often diverge sharply. This study highlights the contradictory nature of such labor arrangements: on one hand offering income without formal entry barriers, and on the other reinforcing uncertainty, emotional fatigue, and digital forms of exploitation. Through a mixed-methods approach that integrates qualitative interviews and quantitative survey analysis, the study offers a comprehensive, worker-centered examination of how this new form of employment is experienced on the ground.
Primary data collection included over five focus group discussions (FGDs) involving more than 70 active delivery partners across North Indian urban centers (Delhi, Noida, Gurugram), combined with findings from a well-being survey involving over 4,000 delivery partners across major Indian cities. FGDs were used to probe deeper into worker narratives on autonomy, income, algorithmic control, identity, and respect. Simultaneously, the survey assessed multiple dimensions of gig worker well-being, including physical and mental health, financial inclusion, payout transparency, access to safety nets, grievance redressal mechanisms, and social dignity.
The study finds that most delivery partners do not treat platform work as a temporary or supplementary “gig,” but as a full-time livelihood. Over 85% of respondents reported working more than 8 hours a day, and many reported exceeding 12 hours daily, particularly during peak demand seasons. Despite this commitment, workers often earn modest, volatile incomes, with limited predictability or stability. The narrative of “choosing one’s schedule” is undercut by economic necessity, incentive-based algorithmic manipulation, and the fear of ID deactivation. Workers routinely reported pressure to remain logged in for long hours, accept every assigned order (regardless of location, safety, or feasibility), and maintain high customer ratings, often without adequate support or clear communication from the platform.
A major theme that emerges across both qualitative and quantitative findings is the erosion of worker agency due to algorithmic management. Delivery partners express confusion and frustration over how orders are assigned, how incentives change, and how ratings impact their visibility or access to future orders. Many participants described the app as “watching them,” with even short breaks or refusals triggering a drop in rating or reduced work availability. This sense of being constantly monitored without recourse has been termed “algorithmic anxiety” in recent literature—and is confirmed here as a pervasive condition among gig workers.
Another recurring finding relates to income insecurity and payout opacity. While platforms regularly adjust incentive structures and delivery fees, these changes are not always transparently communicated to workers. Several workers in the FGDs reported receiving reduced payouts for identical tasks without explanation. Others described having to follow up repeatedly with customer support for missing earnings or tips. Cash on delivery (COD) transactions posed particular challenges—workers occasionally reported being harassed by customers, sent to unsafe neighborhoods, or made to wait indefinitely for payments that were later canceled or refused. In such cases, workers bore the cost of time and fuel, with little or no compensation from the platform.
Physical and emotional well-being were major areas of concern. Delivery partners commonly reported long hours in extreme weather, lack of access to restrooms or clean drinking water, and inadequate rest breaks. These conditions were particularly harsh for workers who operated late-night shifts or covered large urban distances without any fixed zones. FGDs surfaced experiences of burnout, back pain, injuries, and feelings of social alienation. Emotional fatigue was compounded by disrespect from customers and platform indifference to worker grievances. Many workers felt that they were invisible in the system—not just structurally, but socially—receiving little acknowledgment for the essential service they provide.
The research also probes the question of professional identity. Workers described a complex relationship with their jobs—grateful for the income and flexibility, yet resentful of how society, customers, and even their families perceived them. The term “delivery boy,” commonly used even for older men, was mentioned frequently as a source of disrespect. Many participants revealed that their families disapproved of the job, considering it low-status and unstable. This disconnect between their economic necessity and social recognition underscores the precarious dignity that characterizes platform labor. Even as gig workers keep cities running, their labor remains undervalued in public narratives and policy frameworks.
On the regulatory front, the study critiques the absence of meaningful safeguards for gig workers. While reports such as those by NITI Aayog (2022) acknowledge the potential of platform work to generate employment, they also note the lack of social security provisions and labor protections. Yet, government action has been slow and inconsistent. As of mid-2025, only one Indian state (Rajasthan) has enacted a dedicated law to protect platform workers. National-level reforms remain aspirational. The study finds that in the absence of enforceable policies, most platforms adopt a self-regulatory posture—offering voluntary insurance, mental health support, or helplines. However, these initiatives are often poorly implemented, with low worker awareness and limited efficacy.
One example analyzed in the study is Zomato’s Delivery Partner Well-being Framework 2.0 (2023), which outlines nine pillars of partner welfare, including safety, financial literacy, grievance redressal, and upskilling. While theoretically comprehensive, the framework suffers from weak implementation. Workers were often unaware of the offerings, unsure of how to access them, or reported that they were non-functional. Such findings highlight a recurring pattern: platforms design social responsibility tools more as compliance optics or brand strategies rather than as actionable protections for workers.
The dissertation argues that the platform economy in India is simultaneously a space of opportunity and exclusion. While many workers value the ability to work without a boss, respond to immediate financial needs, and operate outside rigid formal structures, these benefits are short-term. Over time, the lack of upward mobility, health security, stable income, and legal protection leaves workers exposed to burnout, poverty traps, and social alienation. For many, platform work is not a stepping-stone, but a treadmill—offering movement without progress.
To address these challenges, the study proposes a multi-pronged approach. First, there is a need for regulatory clarity: gig workers must be recognized under formal labor law, with minimum wages, social security, insurance, and protection from arbitrary deactivation. Second, algorithmic governance must be made transparent—including clear order allocation rules, predictable incentives, and access to data rights. Third, platforms must be held accountable through mandatory reporting of labor standards, third-party audits, and participatory grievance systems. Fourth, public-private partnerships should be developed to offer upskilling, career mobility, and educational opportunities for gig workers seeking long-term security.
Finally, the study suggests that society at large—including consumers, policymakers, urban planners, and employers—must reimagine the value of gig work. These workers are not disposable service providers but integral participants in the digital urban economy. They embody a new frontier of labor that blends physical mobility with digital surveillance, personal risk with economic convenience. Any future model of sustainable urban development must include their voices, needs, and rights.
In centering the stories of gig workers, this research challenges dominant portrayals of platform labor as a frictionless innovation. Instead, it presents a grounded, evidence-based picture of a fragmented, under-regulated labor system that trades security for convenience. It underscores the urgency of designing employment frameworks that align with human dignity, equity, and democratic accountability in the age of algorithms.
By combining rich qualitative insights with sector-wide survey data and international policy analysis, the dissertation contributes to a growing body of critical scholarship on labor in the digital age. It fills a gap in Indian academic literature where most gig economy discussions remain either corporate strategy–driven or limited to legal classifications. Here, the worker is not an afterthought but the center of the inquiry. In doing so, the dissertation offers not just critique but a roadmap—toward an economy where technology serves people, not the other way around.
