The case for nuance in the gig economy debate

The recent strike by delivery partners of quick-commerce platforms has once again thrust India’s gig economy into the spotlight.

- Lloyd Mathias

What began asa dispute over incentives, payouts and algorithmic transparency has quickly escalated into a larger moral and economic debate: Are digital platforms exploiting workers by transferring all risks onto them, or are critics demanding employment standards that are unrealistic for businesses that are still struggling to become profitable?

As with most polarised debates, the truth lies somewhere in between. And is made more uncomfortable by the contradictions we, as consumers and citizens, often choose to ignore.

On one side are critics who argue that food delivery and e-commerce platforms operate through opaque algorithms that dictate pay, routes, ratings and penalties, leaving delivery workers with little bargaining power. Gig workers bear the costs of fuel, vehicle maintenance, health risks and idle time, while platforms retain flexibility and scale without assuming traditional employer responsibilities. A labour surplus market like India accentuates the power imbalance. In this view, the gig economy is not innovation but a clever reclassification of labour to evade social security obligations.

On the other side are platforms that point out an inconvenient but important fact: Most of India’s gig platforms are still unprofitable. They operate in hyper-competitive markets with thin margins, price-sensitive consumers and relentless investor scrutiny. Expecting them to offer permanent employment, provident fund contributions, health insurance, paid leave and guaranteed minimum hours, while simultaneously demanding ever-lower prices and faster delivery, ignores economic reality. Startups are not legacy public sector undertakings or century-old conglomerates; they are fragile experiments still searching for sustainable business models.

Lost in this shouting match is a third party —the consumer — whose role deserves closer examination.