The scale of the phenomenon is considerable. India is the region’s largest hub, with a gig workforce of roughly 7.7 million that the government think tank NITI Aayog projects will reach 23.5 million by 2029–30. Bangladesh holds the second-largest gig workforce in South Asia, while in Sri Lanka platform work functions mainly as a supplementary income source within the informal economy. Pakistan’s online gig work accounts for 2.9 percent of total employment, and the overwhelming majority of those workers, 97.1 percent, are engaged in physical, platform-based activities rather than remote digital tasks. According to a 2025 report by the International Labour Organization, India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan together account for nearly half of the world’s platform workers. These figures place South Asia at the centre of a global transformation in how work is organised, mediated, and remunerated.

The economics of platform labour reveal a sharp asymmetry between corporate revenue and worker earnings. The review notes that Zomato alone earned Rs 2,604 crores, about 27.2 million US dollars, in the 2019–20 financial year, and that both Zomato and Swiggy roughly doubled their turnover between 2018–19 and 2019–20. Yet after deducting fuel costs, vehicle loan instalments, and other fixed expenses, food delivery partners in India net approximately Rs 275, or about 2.86 US dollars, per day for eight hours of work. Platforms describe themselves as intermediaries or passive matchmakers and classify workers as independent contractors or partners, a terminology the authors identify as a deliberate strategy to negate the employer–employee relationship and thereby avoid the application of labour law. In practice, platforms retain control over terms and conditions, wages, and performance monitoring, exercising the authority of an employer without bearing its legal obligations.

At the technical heart of this control lies algorithmic management. Customer satisfaction metrics, delivery pace, and service quality are continuously monitored by software systems that rank workers, and those rankings are then used to justify dismissing those labelled as underperforming. Researchers cited in the review describe Uber’s reliance on two forms of algorithmic control: gatekeeping, which screens and monitors who may work, and guiding, which directs how drivers perform their tasks. Algorithmic pay determination, surge pricing, and performance rewards generate pronounced income volatility, forcing workers into contingent, task-based remuneration arrangements. Identification deactivation has become a recurrent disciplinary tool across the region, often applied through opaque and discretionary processes that workers find difficult to understand or contest. The platform design encourages competition and isolation among workers, producing what some scholars call a digital cage that discourages solidarity and collective action, even as workers may perceive themselves as free and self-directed entrepreneurs.

The human costs are severe and increasingly visible. In early January 2026, a Zepto delivery worker in Hyderabad died while rushing to pick up an order under the pressure of ten-minute food and grocery delivery promises. The review records that this was neither the first such death nor likely the last, as workers speed to meet deadlines that directly affect their ratings and efficiency. In Pakistan, the Fairwork assessment of seven platforms spanning ride-hailing, food delivery, e-commerce delivery, and personal care highlights risks ranging from road safety to crime and violence. In Bangladesh, a female worker on the hellotask platform reported that despite relatively better salary and flexibility, access to basic facilities such as sanitation during menstruation, meals, medicines, and childcare depended on maintaining a good relationship with the customer. Nepali gig workers, particularly women, cite flexibility as their main reason for entering the sector, yet the country lacks any legal definition of gig workers, leaving their employment status ambiguous. Sri Lankan workers face intense surveillance, harsh climatic conditions, and the absence of social security provisions.

The theoretical framework of precarity gives these observations analytical coherence. The concept originates with Pierre Bourdieu, who described an existence with no regular timetable, no fixed place of work, and a whole life lived under the sign of the provisional. Judith Butler extended the idea, defining precarity as politically induced conditions in which certain populations suffer from failing social and economic networks of support and become differentially exposed to injury, violence, and death. The authors argue that gig work exemplifies this politically induced character: the insecurity is not merely a by-product of individual platforms but a structural outcome of neoliberal labour restructuring, in which states have curtailed welfare provisions and normalised casual, short-term, and intermittent labour. Crucially, the review finds that technologically mediated precarity overlaps with and intensifies pre-existing social hierarchies of caste, gender, poverty, and religion, positioning platforms as new digital gatekeepers of inequality.

Against these odds, gig workers have organised. In India, unions such as the United Food Delivery Partners’ Union, the Indian Federation of App-based Transport Workers, and the All India Gig Workers Union have staged protests and collective actions against wage cuts, rising fuel prices, and declining incentives. In Pakistan, groups including the United Platform Workers of Sindh and the Informal Workers Coalition advocate for safety, social security, wage transparency, and an end to algorithmic surveillance. In Bangladesh, traditional unions have supported the Dhaka Ride-sharing Driver Union in demanding an end to police harassment, recognition of app-based riders as workers, a commission reduction from 25 to 10 percent, and tax exemptions. Digital tools are central to this mobilisation: WhatsApp groups, Telegram channels, and social media campaigns coordinate strikes, share grievances, and connect workers across geographies. In Hyderabad, personal care workers on the Urban Company platform have built WhatsApp networks that function as whisper networks, warning one another about abusive customers and circulating information about company policies, an informal justice mechanism foregrounding caste, class, and customer–worker power dynamics.

These struggles have begun to yield policy results, though unevenly. India’s Code on Social Security 2020 was the first law in the region to officially recognise gig workers as a distinct category eligible for social security benefits, though critics point to uncertainties in its implementation. At the sub-national level, the Telangana Gig and Platform Workers Bill of 2024 aims to institutionalise registration and welfare mechanisms, while the Tamil Nadu Platform Based Gig Workers’ Welfare Board, established in 2023, has subsidised e-scooter purchases for 2,000 registered workers and created an insurance programme offering up to Rs 5 lakh for accidental death or total disability, funded by an annual premium of just Rs 105 per worker. The Karnataka Platform-based Gig Workers Bill of 2025 goes further, proposing a 1 to 5 percent welfare fee on aggregators and a dedicated welfare board covering more than four lakh workers across ride-sharing, delivery, logistics, healthcare, and hospitality. In Pakistan, the Centre for Labour Research, working with the Fairwork project, has drafted a Platform Workers Protection Bill seeking to extend enforceable labour protections beyond the independent contractor classification. Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka still lack dedicated legislation for gig workers.

The review also draws attention to gendered dimensions of exclusion. India has approximately 4.75 million domestic workers on official records, most of them economically vulnerable women, yet no comprehensive national legislation protects them, despite state-level efforts in Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Delhi. Women in gig work face distinct challenges balancing unpredictable schedules with childcare and caregiving responsibilities, and the president of the Gig and Platform Service Workers Union reported facing exploitation, threats of police action, and legal notices after raising complaints. Nevertheless, women workers have actively led mobilisations, including nationwide protests demanding fair wages and social security. The authors conclude that collective worker voice, even in constrained institutional environments, can shape regulatory discourse and public accountability, and they call for reframing the legal category of employee to include gig workers, or creating an expanded worker category with a basic range of workplace rights.

The broader significance of the study lies in its demonstration that platform-mediated precarity reproduces cycles of income volatility, debt exposure, and structural dependency that existing labour law was never designed to address. The authors argue that effective legislative reform must be coupled with institutional oversight and accountability mechanisms, portable social security entitlements, and statutorily enforceable labour standards. They note that platforms consistently resist standardised wages and protections by claiming such measures would undermine flexibility, yet their absence entrenches informality and regulatory arbitrage. While platform cooperatives have been proposed as an alternative model, the authors observe that operational costs and technical constraints limit their viability, and that workers are primarily fighting not for a share of the platforms but for rights, recognition, fair treatment, algorithmic transparency, and welfare policy. For South Asia’s rapidly expanding digital workforce, the trajectory from informal exclusion to formal protection, the review suggests, will depend on whether states match the organising energy of workers with substantive law and rigorous enforcement.

Subject of Research: Precarity, informality, and social security policy for gig and platform workers in South Asia

Article Title: Social (in)security and social policy for gig workers in South Asia

Article References: Social (in)security and social policy for gig workers in South Asia. (n.d.). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44282-026-00579-0

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s44282-026-00579-0

Keywords: gig economy, platform workers, South Asia, precarity, algorithmic management, social security, informal labour, labour rights, India, unionisation, social policy, digital labour

The stakes of this question are considerable. Disability insurance programs in the United States provide a financial lifeline to millions of workers whose medical conditions prevent them from maintaining substantial employment. An allowance decision can determine whether an individual has access to monthly cash benefits, health insurance coverage through Medicare after a qualifying waiting period, and a measure of economic security during what is often the most vulnerable period of their working life. Because these decisions carry such weight, any systematic difference in how applicants from different racial and ethnic groups fare in the process would raise serious concerns about fairness and equal treatment under the law. That is precisely why researchers have repeatedly examined allowance rates by race and ethnicity, and why unadjusted statistics showing gaps between groups have drawn attention from policymakers and analysts alike.

The methodological approach taken in the study is central to its contribution. Rather than relying on aggregate approval statistics alone, the investigators combined data from the American Community Survey, one of the largest and most detailed ongoing household surveys in the United States, with Social Security administrative records. This linkage allowed the researchers to observe not just whether an applicant was allowed or denied, but a rich set of characteristics describing who that applicant was before the determination was made: their marital status, their health conditions, their earnings history prior to disability, and a range of other demographic and socioeconomic attributes. This kind of linked administrative-survey infrastructure is relatively rare and highly valued in social science research, because it permits analysts to move beyond simple comparisons of group averages and toward a more complete accounting of the factors that actually drive outcomes.

The central analytical question is one that economists describe as a problem of composition versus process. Raw, unadjusted data showed differences in allowance rates across racial and ethnic groups. But a raw gap of that kind can arise in two very different ways. It could indicate that the determination process treats similarly situated applicants differently, which would suggest a disparity within the system. Alternatively, it could reflect the fact that applicants from different groups arrive at the process with different characteristics on average, such as different distributions of impairments, different work histories, different ages, or different household circumstances, and that those differences in applicant composition produce different outcomes even if the process itself is applied uniformly. Distinguishing between these two explanations requires statistical adjustment, and that is exactly what the study provides.

When the researchers accounted for socioeconomic, health, and demographic factors, the picture changed substantially. Most of the observed differences in approval rates became much smaller, and many were no longer statistically distinguishable from zero. In other words, once the researchers compared applicants who were similar in terms of the characteristics that matter for disability determinations, the residual differences associated with race and ethnicity themselves largely disappeared. The authors summarized their finding directly, writing that the differences in allowance rates by race and ethnicity in the raw, unadjusted data are mainly due to compositional differences between groups. This conclusion points away from the determination process as the primary source of the observed gaps and toward the underlying circumstances that shape who applies and with what profile of conditions and resources.

Among the factors the study identifies as associated with allowance outcomes are marital status, health conditions, and pre-disability earnings. Each of these has a plausible connection to how disability claims unfold. Health conditions are, of course, at the heart of any disability determination, since the severity and nature of impairments are what adjudicators assess. Pre-disability earnings matter because they relate to insured status and to the earnings requirements that govern eligibility for disability benefits, as well as to the kinds of work an applicant can realistically be expected to perform in the residual functional capacity framework used in evaluations. Marital status can influence household resources and the support structures available to applicants as they navigate a lengthy and often demanding application process. Differences across racial and ethnic groups in the distributions of these characteristics can therefore translate into differences in approval rates even in the absence of differential treatment within the process itself.

The findings carry important implications for how the raw statistics should be interpreted. A gap in unadjusted allowance rates is often read, in public discussion, as evidence of bias in the system. The study does not support that reading as the primary explanation. At the same time, the results should not be taken to mean that the underlying disparities are unimportant or that no policy concern remains. If applicants from different groups arrive with systematically different health conditions, earnings histories, and household circumstances, those compositional differences themselves reflect broader inequalities in American society, including differences in access to healthcare, in occupational structures, and in economic resources. The study’s contribution is to locate the source of the allowance-rate gaps in these upstream factors rather than in the determination process, which redirects attention toward the social and economic conditions that produce different applicant pools in the first place.

For policymakers, the research offers a more precise map of where intervention might be most effective. If the determination process were the main driver of the gaps, reforms would focus on adjudication standards, training, and oversight of decision-makers. Because the study finds that compositional differences dominate, the more relevant levers may lie in addressing the health and economic disparities that shape disability incidence and application behavior across communities. The findings also illustrate the value of linked administrative data for evaluating social insurance programs. Without the ability to connect survey-based measures of applicant circumstances to actual determination outcomes, analysts would be left with unadjusted statistics that invite misinterpretation. The study demonstrates how such data infrastructure can sharpen the evidence base on which fair and effective policy depends.

The study, published in Contemporary Economic Policy, a journal that has since 1982 provided a forum for scholarly analysis of important policy issues accessible to both economists and policymakers, adds a rigorous and carefully controlled data point to a debate that is often conducted with incomplete evidence. Its central message is methodological as much as substantive: raw differences between groups are not the same as disparities produced by a process, and distinguishing between the two requires data that capture the full circumstances of the people moving through the system. In the case of US disability insurance, the researchers find that when those circumstances are measured and held constant, race and ethnicity themselves largely fall out of the story, leaving marital status, health conditions, and pre-disability earnings as the factors that travel with applicants into the determination process and shape the outcomes they receive.

Subject of Research: Racial and ethnic differences in US disability insurance allowance rates and their socioeconomic and health-related explanations

Article Title: Why are there differences in US disability insurance allowance rates by race and ethnicity?

Article References: Why are there differences in US disability insurance allowance rates by race and ethnicity?. (n.d.). Original publication

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: Not provided

Keywords: disability insurance, Social Security, allowance rates, race and ethnicity, American Community Survey, administrative data, health conditions, pre-disability earnings, marital status, Contemporary Economic Policy, social insurance policy, statistical adjustment

The scale of the program alone signals how broad and fast-moving the field has become. Organizers have assembled nearly 600 scientific sessions, a lineup that the society describes as featuring experts sharing research that has never been presented before. That emphasis on new data matters for reporters and for scientists tracking the field, because gerontology is inherently interdisciplinary: a single meeting can move from the molecular mechanisms of cellular senescence to the design of long-term care systems, from demographic projections that reshape Social Security debates to wearable technologies that monitor health in real time. The meeting website offers a searchable program, allowing attendees to map their own route through sessions on innovative technologies, Social Security and retirement, long-term care, human longevity, and related topics.

The theme chosen for 2026 is “Reinforcing Resilience in Aging Science, Research and Education,” a phrase that captures a significant conceptual shift in how researchers think about growing older. For decades, much of aging research focused on decline, cataloguing the losses in muscle mass, bone density, cognition, and immune function that accumulate over a lifetime. Resilience, by contrast, asks a different question: why do some individuals withstand physiological stress, recover from illness, and maintain function deep into old age while others with similar histories do not? Framing an entire conference around resilience places that question at the center of the agenda, encouraging presentations that examine not only what breaks down with age but what protects, buffers, and restores.

One of the headline attractions is the keynote address, to be delivered by former National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, in the President’s Opening Plenary Session on Wednesday, November 4. Collins occupies a singular place in modern biomedical science. A physician and geneticist, he is known for landmark discoveries of disease genes, work that helped identify the genetic roots of conditions such as cystic fibrosis and Huntington’s disease. He is equally known for leading the Human Genome Project, the international effort that read out the complete sequence of human DNA and, in doing so, transformed the infrastructure of biology itself. His twelve years as NIH director made him one of the longest-serving leaders of the world’s largest biomedical research agency, and he has also become a prominent public voice on the harmony of science and faith, a theme he has explored in books and lectures.

Collins’s appearance at an aging conference is fitting in more than one way. The genomic tools he helped build now underpin much of the current research into longevity and age-related disease. Genome-wide association studies, whole-genome sequencing, and gene-editing technologies all trace their lineage to the Human Genome Project, and each has been applied to questions of why organisms age and how age-related diseases such as Alzheimer’s, cardiovascular disease, and cancer can be delayed or prevented. A keynote from someone who helped construct that scientific foundation offers attendees a vantage point on how far the field has traveled and where it may go next.

Beyond the plenary stage, the meeting is placing a deliberate emphasis on technology through its dedicated AgeTech Track. The society describes this programming as exploring timely, forward-thinking session topics that spotlight the latest innovations, emerging trends, and transformative technologies advancing the aging experience. The term AgeTech has come to encompass a wide range of products and services: sensor-based systems that detect falls in the home, artificial intelligence tools that support caregivers, telehealth platforms that extend clinical reach into rural communities, robotics designed for companionship and assistance, and software that helps older adults manage medications, finances, and social connection. As populations age across the developed world, the market and the science behind these tools are expanding rapidly, and the GSA track is designed to bring researchers, entrepreneurs, and clinicians into the same conversation about what actually works for older adults.

Complementing the AgeTech Track, the Exhibit Hall will feature an Innovation Theater, a stage for hands-on demonstrations, live presentations, and conversations showcasing breakthroughs and emerging technologies. For attendees, this is the tactile counterpart to the lecture hall, a place to see and test devices rather than simply hear about them. For journalists, it is often where the most visually compelling stories of a meeting emerge, because a demonstration of an assistive robot or a remote monitoring system communicates more instantly than any slide deck. The society’s framing suggests the theater will function as a showcase for the commercial and engineering side of gerontology, a dimension of the field that has grown dramatically as startups and established companies alike target the needs of an aging population.

The meeting also carries substantial weight on the policy side of aging. Sessions touching on Social Security, retirement, and long-term care arrive at a moment when demographic arithmetic is reshaping public debate in the United States and beyond. The society is home to the National Academy on an Aging Society, a nonpartisan public policy institute, and to the National Center to Reframe Aging, an initiative focused on changing how the public and policymakers talk about growing older. Those institutional commitments mean the conference is not purely a scientific exchange; it is also a venue where research evidence is translated into policy arguments, and where the language used to describe aging is itself treated as a subject of study and advocacy.

For members of the press, the society has structured the meeting to be unusually accessible. Qualified media representatives may register free of charge, and the complimentary registration grants access to all scientific sessions and the Exhibit Hall. A Press Room will serve as a base of operations for reporters, providing a venue for discussion about emerging issues on the aging beat, and a reception for reporters is planned for the evening of Friday, November 6. The society explicitly frames the meeting as a source of story ideas, offering direct access to leading authorities and new discoveries in gerontology. In practice, that access is one of the meeting’s chief values: rather than chasing individual researchers by email, journalists can hear findings presented, question the scientists directly, and compare perspectives across subfields in the space of a few days.

The organization behind the meeting brings a long institutional history to the task. Founded in 1945, the Gerontological Society of America is the oldest and largest interdisciplinary organization focused on aging, serving more than 6,000 members in over 50 countries. Its stated vision, meaningful lives as we age, is supported by a mission to foster excellence, innovation, and collaboration to advance aging research, education, practice, and policy. That mission is visible in the architecture of the 2026 meeting itself, which deliberately mixes basic science with applied technology, clinical practice with policy analysis, and education with public engagement. As the November dates approach, the gathering in National Harbor promises a comprehensive snapshot of a field confronting one of the defining demographic realities of the century: populations that are living longer, and a scientific community working to ensure those additional years are healthy, connected, and meaningful.

Subject of Research: The Gerontological Society of America's 2026 Annual Scientific Meeting on aging research, resilience, and AgeTech innovation

Article Title: Join GSA in National Harbor for the nation’s premier aging conference!

Article References: Join GSA in National Harbor for the nation’s premier aging conference!. (n.d.). Original publication

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: Not provided

Keywords: Gerontological Society of America, aging research, gerontology, resilience, Francis Collins, Human Genome Project, AgeTech, longevity, long-term care, Social Security, National Harbor, scientific conference