Abstract
This dissertation examines the coping strategies employed by gig economy workers to manage income volatility arising from algorithmic scheduling and dynamic pay structures. Through a systematic literature synthesis, the study evaluates the effectiveness of worker-level tactics including financial management practices, multi-platform engagement, extended working hours, and algorithm-compliance behaviours. The analysis reveals that no single worker-level strategy reliably stabilises earnings when algorithmic systems and demand patterns fluctuate unpredictably. Financial management tools, particularly fintech solutions offering real-time wage access and automated micro-savings, demonstrate moderate effectiveness in reducing the impact of income shocks, with evidence showing reductions in high-interest borrowing by 43% and overdraft fees by 37%. However, strategies attempting to influence algorithmic outcomes primarily preserve platform access rather than stabilise income, whilst simultaneously increasing worker stress and precarity. The findings indicate that meaningful income stabilisation requires a combination of robust personal financial practices, supportive technological tools, and crucially, structural reforms at platform and policy levels. This research contributes to ongoing debates regarding employment regulation in the digital economy and highlights the limitations of individualised solutions to systemic labour market challenges.
Introduction
The gig economy has fundamentally transformed contemporary labour markets, creating new forms of work characterised by task-based engagement, digital mediation, and algorithmic management. Platform-based companies such as Uber, Deliveroo, and TaskRabbit have established business models that classify workers as independent contractors whilst exercising considerable control over work allocation, pricing, and performance evaluation through sophisticated algorithmic systems. This transformation has generated significant academic, policy, and public interest regarding the implications for worker welfare, income security, and employment rights.
Algorithmic management represents a distinctive feature of platform-mediated work, wherein computational systems make decisions traditionally reserved for human supervisors. These algorithms determine task allocation, set dynamic prices, evaluate worker performance, and can ultimately terminate worker access to platforms without traditional employment protections. The opacity of these systems creates profound uncertainty for workers, who often cannot predict their earnings or understand the criteria by which work is distributed.
Income volatility constitutes one of the most significant challenges facing gig workers. Unlike traditional employment arrangements with predictable wages, gig workers experience substantial fluctuations in their earnings, often ranging between 30% and 50% on a month-to-month basis (Sun, 2025; Kumar, 2024). This volatility stems from multiple sources: algorithmic dynamic pricing that adjusts rates according to demand; opaque dispatch systems that allocate tasks according to undisclosed criteria; seasonal and temporal demand fluctuations; and competition among workers for available tasks.
The academic significance of this topic lies in its intersection of multiple disciplinary concerns. Labour economists examine how platform work affects wage determination and income distribution. Organisational scholars investigate the implications of algorithmic management for worker autonomy and wellbeing. Sociologists explore how digital platforms restructure employment relationships and social protections. Legal scholars debate the classification of gig workers and the adequacy of existing regulatory frameworks. This multidisciplinary interest reflects the profound implications of platform-mediated work for contemporary society.
The social and practical importance of understanding income volatility coping strategies cannot be overstated. Globally, millions of workers depend partially or entirely on gig economy earnings. In the United Kingdom, the number of gig economy workers has grown substantially, with estimates suggesting several million people undertake platform-mediated work. Income instability affects workers’ ability to meet financial obligations, plan for the future, access credit, and maintain psychological wellbeing. Understanding which coping strategies actually prove effective has immediate practical implications for workers, policymakers, platform designers, and support organisations.
This dissertation addresses a critical gap in the literature by systematically evaluating the evidence regarding which coping strategies actually stabilise income for gig workers. Whilst considerable research documents the challenges of gig work and describes various worker responses, less attention has been devoted to rigorous assessment of strategy effectiveness. By synthesising existing evidence, this study aims to distinguish between strategies that genuinely reduce volatility and those that merely help workers manage its consequences.
Aim and objectives
The primary aim of this dissertation is to critically evaluate the effectiveness of various coping strategies employed by gig workers to stabilise income in the context of algorithmic scheduling and pay volatility.
To achieve this aim, the following objectives have been established:
1. To examine the structural causes of income volatility in platform-mediated gig work, with particular attention to algorithmic scheduling and dynamic pricing mechanisms.
2. To identify and categorise the coping strategies that gig workers employ to manage income instability, including financial management practices, platform engagement strategies, and behavioural adaptations.
3. To evaluate the evidence regarding the effectiveness of each category of coping strategy in actually stabilising worker income, distinguishing between volatility reduction and volatility management.
4. To assess the role of financial technology tools in supporting gig worker income stability, examining both current applications and potential developments.
5. To analyse the relationship between individual coping strategies and structural or policy-level interventions, determining the relative contribution of each to income stabilisation.
6. To provide evidence-based recommendations for workers, platforms, policymakers, and support organisations regarding effective approaches to addressing gig economy income volatility.
Methodology
This dissertation employs a systematic literature synthesis methodology to address the research aim and objectives. Literature synthesis represents an appropriate methodological approach when the research goal involves consolidating and critically evaluating existing evidence across multiple studies to draw broader conclusions than individual studies permit.
The literature search strategy encompassed multiple academic databases including Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and specialist repositories for employment and labour research. Search terms included combinations of “gig economy,” “platform work,” “algorithmic management,” “income volatility,” “pay instability,” “coping strategies,” “financial resilience,” and related terminology. The search prioritised peer-reviewed journal articles published within the past decade, reflecting the relatively recent emergence of platform-mediated gig work as a significant labour market phenomenon.
Inclusion criteria specified that sources must address coping strategies or responses to income volatility among gig or platform workers, present empirical evidence or systematic theoretical analysis, and meet standards of academic rigour appropriate for peer-reviewed publication. Sources were excluded if they addressed gig work without attention to income stability, lacked methodological transparency, or represented non-scholarly commentary.
The synthesis process involved systematic extraction of findings regarding strategy types, effectiveness measures, and contextual factors affecting outcomes. Studies were grouped according to the type of coping strategy examined, enabling comparative analysis across different approaches. Where studies employed different methodological approaches or examined different platforms or geographic contexts, these variations were noted and considered in interpreting findings.
Quality assessment of included sources considered factors including sample size and representativeness, methodological rigour, transparency in reporting, and appropriateness of analytical techniques. Studies employing robust quantitative methods, rigorous qualitative approaches, or systematic mixed-methods designs received greater weight in the synthesis.
The synthesis incorporated both quantitative findings, where studies reported statistical measures of strategy effectiveness, and qualitative insights regarding worker experiences and perceptions. This integration enabled a comprehensive understanding of both measurable outcomes and the lived reality of coping with income volatility.
Limitations of this methodological approach include reliance on existing published research, which may reflect publication bias toward significant findings or particular geographic contexts. The rapid evolution of the gig economy means that some findings may reflect platform configurations or market conditions that have subsequently changed. Additionally, the heterogeneity of gig work contexts complicates generalisation across different platforms, task types, and national settings.
Literature review
### Structural drivers of income volatility in gig work
Understanding the coping strategies gig workers employ requires first establishing the structural mechanisms generating income volatility. Research consistently identifies several interconnected factors operating at platform, market, and regulatory levels.
Dynamic pricing algorithms represent a primary volatility driver. Platform companies implement surge pricing and demand-responsive rate adjustments that cause earnings per task to fluctuate substantially, often without worker knowledge of the underlying logic. Sun (2025) demonstrates through mathematical and statistical analysis that these pricing mechanisms create inherent instability in worker earnings regardless of worker effort or strategy. Similarly, Kumar (2024) identifies dynamic pricing as central to the wage inequality characterising platform work.
Opaque dispatch algorithms compound pricing volatility by creating unpredictability in work availability. Workers cannot observe or predict how algorithms allocate tasks, making it impossible to reliably anticipate income. Kadolkar, Kepes and Subramony (2024) provide a systematic review demonstrating how algorithmic management creates information asymmetries that fundamentally disadvantage workers. The algorithms may incorporate factors including worker ratings, location, historical acceptance rates, and undisclosed criteria, yet workers receive minimal transparency regarding these processes.
Task-based pay structures eliminate the income smoothing provided by hourly or salaried arrangements. Each completed task represents a discrete earnings opportunity, and workers bear the full risk of demand fluctuations, task cancellations, and time between assignments. Singh and Awasthi (2025) examine how this task-based structure positions gig workers as unorganised labour lacking the protections afforded to formal employees.
Market-level demand fluctuations interact with algorithmic systems to create compounded volatility. Seasonal patterns, weather conditions, local events, and macroeconomic conditions all affect demand for gig services. Pathiranage (2024) analyses how these fluctuations contribute to the precarious employment conditions experienced by gig workers, characterising many as “employed poor” despite active labour market participation.
### Financial management and budgeting strategies
The most commonly documented worker response to income volatility involves enhanced financial management practices. Gig workers frequently adopt tight budgeting, systematic expense tracking, and deliberate emergency savings accumulation to manage irregular income flows.
Casalhay, Guevarra and Bragas (2025) provide detailed documentation of these practices among freelance workers, finding widespread use of spreadsheets, budgeting applications, and systematic financial monitoring. Workers develop sophisticated approaches to managing cash flow across periods of high and low earnings, often maintaining multiple accounts to separate operational funds from savings.
However, the same research identifies critical limitations of these strategies. While financial management practices improve short-term cash-flow control, they prove “insufficient to provide long-term financial security” under conditions of high volatility. Workers may successfully smooth consumption across weeks or months whilst remaining fundamentally insecure over longer time horizons.
Daud et al. (2024) examine determinants of financial resilience among gig workers, finding that financial management practices contribute to resilience but cannot compensate for structural income instability. Their research suggests that financial literacy and management skills represent necessary but insufficient conditions for stability.
Yusof et al. (2024) investigate relationships between task management, social support, income, and work-life balance among gig workers. Their findings indicate that effective financial management correlates with improved work-life balance, potentially through reduced anxiety and enhanced perceived control. However, the evidence remains correlational and does not demonstrate that these practices substantially reduce income volatility itself.
### Financial technology tools and innovations
Recent research examines whether financial technology applications specifically designed for irregular earners can improve income stability outcomes. These tools go beyond basic budgeting to provide structural support for managing volatile earnings.
Pahuja (2025) presents compelling evidence regarding fintech integration with gig work. Applications offering real-time wage access allow workers to receive earned income immediately rather than waiting for standard payment cycles, providing liquidity during low-income periods without resorting to high-cost borrowing. Automatic micro-savings features enable workers to accumulate emergency funds during high-earning periods.
The quantitative outcomes reported are substantial: workers using these integrated fintech tools demonstrated 43% reductions in high-interest borrowing, 37% decreases in overdraft fees, and emergency fund accumulation rates 3.7 times faster than comparison groups. These findings suggest that appropriately designed financial tools can meaningfully reduce the effective impact of income shocks, even if they do not address underlying volatility.
The mechanism through which fintech tools operate differs from traditional financial management. Rather than requiring workers to predict income and budget accordingly—a task made nearly impossible by algorithmic opacity—these tools adapt automatically to actual earnings patterns. Predictive budgeting features use historical data to anticipate likely income, while automated transfers ensure savings accumulation occurs without requiring active worker decisions during earnings periods.
### Platform engagement and working time strategies
Many gig workers attempt to address income volatility through platform engagement strategies, including working longer hours, engaging with multiple platforms simultaneously, and timing work to maximise earnings opportunities.
The evidence regarding these strategies reveals limited effectiveness. Sun (2025) documents that even workers investing substantially more hours continue to experience income swings of 30% to 50% month-to-month. Extended working hours may increase gross income but do not fundamentally alter the volatility ratio.
Chau and Teixeira (2025) examine whether gig workers are “thriving or just surviving,” finding that increased platform engagement often comes at significant personal cost. Workers pursuing stability through extended hours frequently experience burnout, compromised health, and reduced quality of life, questioning whether higher but still volatile income represents genuine improvement.
Reynolds and Kincaid (2022) provide valuable evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic period, when many workers increased reliance on gig platforms. Their research finds that increasing hours on microtask platforms “only marginally improved financial outcomes,” particularly for workers already substantially dependent on gig income. The pandemic context revealed that demand-side factors overwhelm worker-side strategies when market conditions shift dramatically.
Multi-platform strategies involve working across multiple gig platforms simultaneously or sequentially to diversify income sources. This approach theoretically reduces dependence on any single platform’s algorithmic decisions. However, research indicates that correlated demand patterns across platforms limit diversification benefits, whilst managing multiple platform relationships creates additional complexity and potential rating penalties for divided attention.
### Algorithm compliance and resistance behaviours
A distinctive literature examines how workers respond specifically to algorithmic management systems, developing tactics to maintain platform access and work availability. These behaviours merit separate consideration because they respond to algorithmic control rather than to income volatility directly.
Bucher, Schou and Waldkirch (2020) introduce the concept of “anticipatory compliance” to describe how workers attempt to satisfy perceived algorithmic preferences. This includes accepting undesirable assignments to maintain acceptance rates, avoiding behaviours that might trigger algorithmic penalties, and generally staying “under the radar” to prevent negative algorithmic attention. Workers develop folk theories about algorithmic operation and adjust behaviour accordingly, despite limited knowledge of actual algorithmic criteria.
Wood et al. (2018) examine algorithmic control in the global gig economy, documenting how workers in various contexts adapt to algorithmic management. Their research reveals that workers often undervalue their labour and accept disadvantageous terms to maintain algorithmic favour, perceiving that resistance would result in reduced work allocation or platform exclusion.
Duggan et al. (2019) outline a research agenda for employment relations and human resource management scholarship on algorithmic management, highlighting how platform algorithms function as de facto managers whilst lacking the human judgment, flexibility, and accountability associated with traditional supervision.
Critically, research consistently demonstrates that algorithm-compliance behaviours primarily preserve platform access rather than stabilise income. Workers successfully maintaining high ratings and acceptance rates still experience income volatility because these behaviours do not affect pricing algorithms, demand patterns, or work allocation volumes. Moreover, compliance behaviours often increase stress and overwork, generating costs that offset any access-preservation benefits (Kadolkar, Kepes and Subramony, 2024).
### Platform and policy-level interventions
Whilst this dissertation focuses on worker-level coping strategies, the literature consistently indicates that meaningful income stabilisation requires structural interventions beyond individual worker capacity to implement.
Sun (2025) presents modelling work demonstrating that platform design choices substantially affect income stability outcomes. Transparent and auditable dispatch systems would enable workers to make informed decisions about work timing and platform engagement. Minimum income floors could establish baseline earnings guarantees during low-demand periods.
Kumar (2024) advocates for portable benefits systems enabling workers to accumulate social protections regardless of their engagement with specific platforms. This approach addresses the fundamental challenge that gig workers lack access to employer-provided benefits whilst bearing full income volatility risk.
Kadolkar, Kepes and Subramony (2024) emphasise the importance of fairer algorithm design, suggesting that platforms could implement algorithmic systems prioritising income stability alongside efficiency. Such reforms would require regulatory pressure or voluntary platform commitment, as current competitive dynamics provide little incentive for platforms to reduce worker volatility.
Discussion
### Evaluating strategy effectiveness against objectives
The evidence synthesis reveals important distinctions between strategies that help workers manage the consequences of income volatility and those that actually reduce volatility itself. This distinction proves crucial for understanding what coping approaches genuinely “work” and for whom.
Financial management strategies, including budgeting and emergency savings, demonstrably improve workers’ ability to maintain consumption smoothing across fluctuating income periods. Workers employing these strategies report better perceived financial control and reduced anxiety. However, these strategies operate entirely downstream of volatility—they help workers cope with instability rather than reducing instability itself. A worker with excellent budgeting skills experiencing 40% monthly income swings remains fundamentally insecure; effective budgeting merely reduces the immediate consequences of each swing.
Fintech tools represent an intermediate category. They do not affect underlying volatility but substantially reduce its effective impact by eliminating the need for high-cost borrowing during low-income periods and automating savings during high-income periods. The documented outcomes—43% reduction in high-interest borrowing, 37% reduction in overdraft fees, 3.7-fold increase in emergency fund accumulation—represent meaningful improvements in worker welfare even without affecting income volatility directly. These tools essentially shift workers toward the resilience outcomes that financial management strategies aim for, but achieve these outcomes more reliably through automated systems adapted to irregular income patterns.
Platform engagement strategies, including extended hours and multi-platform work, show the weakest evidence of effectiveness. Workers pursuing these strategies continue experiencing substantial volatility whilst incurring significant costs in terms of time, health, and wellbeing. The logic underlying these strategies—that more work equals more stable income—fails because volatility represents a proportional characteristic of gig earnings rather than an absolute quantity that additional income can overwhelm.
Algorithm compliance behaviours present perhaps the most troubling pattern. Workers invest considerable effort in maintaining algorithmic favour, yet these behaviours address a different problem—platform access risk—rather than income volatility. The conflation of access preservation with income stability represents an understandable worker response to platform opacity, but the evidence clearly demonstrates that maintaining platform access provides no protection against earnings fluctuation. Meanwhile, compliance behaviours generate their own costs in terms of worker autonomy, wellbeing, and the tacit acceptance of disadvantageous terms.
### Implications for theoretical understanding
These findings have implications for theoretical frameworks addressing gig economy labour relations. Accounts emphasising worker agency and entrepreneurial flexibility must contend with evidence that worker strategies show limited effectiveness against structural volatility drivers. Workers demonstrating considerable resourcefulness in developing coping strategies nonetheless remain unable to substantially stabilise their earnings through individual action.
Conversely, purely structural accounts focusing on platform power and algorithmic control must acknowledge that worker responses, whilst not addressing underlying volatility, do affect welfare outcomes. The difference between workers with and without effective financial management strategies, or access to appropriate fintech tools, matters considerably for their lived experience, even if both groups face similar volatility levels.
A synthesised perspective recognises that gig economy income stability operates at multiple levels. Worker-level strategies can affect resilience to volatility—the ability to absorb and recover from income shocks—without affecting volatility itself. Tool-level interventions, particularly fintech applications, can enhance resilience by reducing the costs workers incur when responding to volatility. However, only platform-level and policy-level interventions can address volatility at its source.
This multi-level framework suggests that debates framing worker strategies versus structural reforms as competing approaches misunderstand the problem. Both types of intervention can improve worker welfare, but they operate on different mechanisms and have different theoretical ceilings on their effectiveness.
### Limitations and contextual factors
Several important limitations qualify these findings. First, much existing research examines specific platform types—ride-hailing, food delivery, microtask work—that may differ substantially in their volatility patterns and the effectiveness of various coping strategies. A strategy effective for delivery workers may prove ineffective for remote microtask workers, or vice versa.
Second, geographic and regulatory context shapes both volatility levels and coping strategy effectiveness. Research conducted in jurisdictions with strong social safety nets may understate the challenges facing workers in contexts lacking such supports. Conversely, research from weakly regulated environments may not capture the potential effectiveness of policy interventions.
Third, temporal factors limit generalisability. The gig economy evolves rapidly, with platforms introducing new algorithmic systems, adjusting pricing mechanisms, and entering new markets. Research findings may reflect conditions that have subsequently changed, and emerging platforms may present different volatility profiles than established ones.
Fourth, selection effects complicate interpretation. Workers who remain in gig work long enough to develop and implement coping strategies may differ systematically from those who exit quickly. Observed strategy effectiveness may partially reflect the characteristics of workers who adopt particular strategies rather than strategy effects themselves.
### Practical implications
Despite these limitations, the evidence synthesis supports several practical recommendations. For workers, the findings suggest prioritising financial management practices and fintech tools that enhance resilience, whilst maintaining realistic expectations about the ability of any individual strategy to address structural volatility. Pursuing extended hours or multiple platforms may increase gross income but is unlikely to produce stability and may compromise wellbeing.
For platforms, the evidence regarding algorithm compliance behaviours raises ethical concerns. Workers invest considerable effort responding to perceived algorithmic preferences, often to their own detriment. Greater algorithmic transparency would enable workers to make informed decisions and reduce wasteful compliance behaviours. Platforms implementing minimum income guarantees, income smoothing tools, or more predictable task allocation would address volatility at its source.
For policymakers, the findings support regulatory attention to gig economy income stability. Worker-level strategies prove insufficient to address structural challenges, suggesting that reliance on market mechanisms and individual adaptation cannot adequately protect gig workers. Potential policy approaches include mandating algorithmic transparency, establishing minimum earnings guarantees, creating portable benefits systems, and clarifying employment classification to extend existing protections to gig workers.
For financial technology developers, the evidence suggests considerable potential for tools specifically designed for irregular earners. Applications combining real-time wage access, predictive budgeting, and automated savings demonstrate meaningful welfare improvements. Further innovation in this space could address additional challenges facing gig workers.
Conclusions
This dissertation set out to evaluate which coping strategies actually stabilise income for gig workers facing algorithmic scheduling and pay volatility. Through systematic literature synthesis, the research has addressed its stated objectives and generated findings with significant implications for workers, platforms, policymakers, and researchers.
Regarding the first objective—examining structural causes of income volatility—the evidence clearly identifies dynamic pricing algorithms, opaque dispatch systems, and task-based pay structures as primary volatility drivers. These mechanisms create inherent instability that operates independently of worker characteristics or behaviours.
The second objective—identifying and categorising worker coping strategies—revealed four main strategy types: financial management practices, fintech tool utilisation, platform engagement strategies, and algorithm compliance behaviours. Workers demonstrate considerable creativity and effort in developing these responses to income instability.
The third objective—evaluating strategy effectiveness—constitutes the dissertation’s primary contribution. The evidence demonstrates that no single worker-level tactic reliably stabilises algorithm-driven pay. Financial management and fintech tools improve resilience to volatility without reducing volatility itself. Extended hours and multi-platform engagement fail to produce stability whilst generating significant costs. Algorithm compliance primarily preserves platform access rather than addressing income fluctuation.
Regarding the fourth objective—assessing fintech tool roles—the evidence supports cautious optimism. Tools providing real-time wage access, predictive budgeting, and automated savings demonstrate meaningful improvements in worker financial outcomes. These tools represent the most effective worker-accessible intervention currently documented, though they address volatility consequences rather than sources.
The fifth objective—analysing relationships between individual and structural interventions—reveals complementary rather than competitive dynamics. Worker strategies and supportive tools can improve resilience within constraints set by platform and policy environments. However, only structural changes can address volatility at its source, suggesting that individual-level approaches face inherent limitations.
The sixth objective—providing evidence-based recommendations—has been addressed through the discussion section’s practical implications for workers, platforms, policymakers, and technologists.
The overarching conclusion is that meaningful income stabilisation for gig workers requires combining robust personal financial practices with supportive technological tools and, crucially, platform and policy reforms that directly reduce volatility at its source. Individual coping strategies, however sophisticated, cannot substitute for structural changes that address the fundamental asymmetries characterising platform-mediated work.
Future research should examine the effectiveness of specific policy interventions as jurisdictions implement gig economy regulations. Longitudinal studies tracking workers over extended periods could illuminate how coping strategy effectiveness changes with experience and market conditions. Comparative research across platform types and national contexts would help identify contextual factors moderating strategy effectiveness. Finally, research examining platform incentives and design choices could inform approaches encouraging voluntary platform reforms.
The growth of gig economy work makes these questions increasingly urgent. Millions of workers worldwide depend on platform-mediated earnings, and their wellbeing depends on developing effective approaches to the income volatility characterising this work. This dissertation contributes to that effort by clarifying what individual strategies can and cannot accomplish, whilst highlighting the essential role of structural reforms in achieving genuine income stability.
References
Bucher, E., Schou, P. and Waldkirch, M., 2020. Pacifying the algorithm – Anticipatory compliance in the face of algorithmic management in the gig economy. *Organization*, 28(1), pp. 44-67. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508420961531
Casalhay, S., Guevarra, C. and Bragas, C., 2025. The Gig Economy: Financial Challenges and Opportunities Faced by Freelancers. *International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews*. https://doi.org/10.55248/gengpi.6.0525.1716
Chau, F. and Teixeira, F., 2025. Flexibility’s Price: Are Workers in the Gig Economy Thriving or Just Surviving? *European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship*. https://doi.org/10.34190/ecie.20.1.3668
Daud, S., Osman, Z., Samsudin, S. and Ing, P., 2024. Adapting to the Gig Economy: Determinants of Financial Resilience among “Giggers”. *Economic Analysis and Policy*. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2024.01.002
Duggan, J., Sherman, U., Carbery, R. and McDonnell, A., 2019. Algorithmic management and app-work in the gig economy: A research agenda for employment relations and HRM. *Human Resource Management Journal*. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12258
Kadolkar, I., Kepes, S. and Subramony, M., 2024. Algorithmic management in the gig economy: A systematic review and research integration. *Journal of Organizational Behavior*. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2831
Kumar, R., 2024. Precarious Prosperity: The Gig Economy’s Role in Employment Growth and Wage Inequality. *International Journal of Advanced Research in Commerce, Management & Social Science*. https://doi.org/10.62823/ijarcmss/7.4(i).7184
Pahuja, H., 2025. The Integration of Human Capital Management and Financial Technology in the Gig Economy: Addressing Financial Instability Among Freelance Workers. *European Modern Studies Journal*. https://doi.org/10.59573/emsj.9(4).2025.57
Pathiranage, H., 2024. Precarious Employment in the Gig Economy: Understanding the Roles of Employed Poor. *Open Journal of Business and Management*. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojbm.2024.124117
Reynolds, J. and Kincaid, R., 2022. Gig Work and the Pandemic: Looking for Good Pay from Bad Jobs During the COVID-19 Crisis. *Work and Occupations*, 50(1), pp. 60-96. https://doi.org/10.1177/07308884221128511
Singh, R. and Awasthi, S., 2025. The Status of Unorganized Workers in Digital Platforms (Gig Economy): Opportunities and Challenges. *Journal of Informatics Education and Research*. https://doi.org/10.52783/jier.v5i2.2625
Sun, Y., 2025. Mathematical and Statistical Analysis of Gig Work in the Platform Economy. *Advances in Economics, Management and Political Sciences*. https://doi.org/10.54254/2754-1169/2025.cau27208
Wood, A., Graham, M., Lehdonvirta, V. and Hjorth, I., 2018. Good Gig, Bad Gig: Autonomy and Algorithmic Control in the Global Gig Economy. *Work, Employment & Society*, 33(1), pp. 56-75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017018785616
Yusof, N., Ismail, N., Rashid, A., Khan, H. and Yusof, M., 2024. The Impact of Task Management, Social Support and Income on Work-Life Balance among Gig Workers. *Information Management and Business Review*. https://doi.org/10.22610/imbr.v16i3(i)s.3944
