Digital Commitment Devices and Labor Allocation Decisions in Gig Work Ecosystems
Keywords:
gig economy, commitment devices, labor allocation, digital platforms, algorithmic management, socio-technical systems, platform governance, fairnessAbstract
The rapid expansion of digital labor platforms has transformed how work is organized, compensated, and governed, with algorithmic management playing an increasingly central role in shaping the allocation of human effort. Among the behavioral design mechanisms introduced by these platforms, digital commitment devices—technologically mediated tools that encourage workers to set and adhere to predefined performance targets—have emerged as influential instruments for steering labor supply and work intensity. This paper provides a system-level examination of digital commitment devices within gig work ecosystems, analyzing their architectural embedding, structural trade-offs, governance dynamics, and implications for fairness and sustainability. Moving beyond individual-level incentive studies, the discussion conceptualizes commitment devices as socio-technical control loops that integrate data capture, predictive modeling, and personalized nudging into the platform core. It interrogates how such architectures reconfigure labor allocation decisions across temporal, spatial, and cross-platform dimensions, often producing tensions between worker autonomy and platform optimization objectives. Governance challenges, including algorithmic opacity, information asymmetry, and the erosion of worker bargaining power, are explored alongside issues of differential impact on marginalized worker populations. The paper further assesses infrastructure robustness, the risks of cascading failures in tightly coupled commitment systems, and the environmental externalities of labor intensification. Policy implications are delineated, encompassing algorithmic transparency mandates, participatory design of commitment parameters, and regulatory frameworks that extend beyond employment classification to encompass the procedural entitlements of digitally managed workers. By integrating perspectives from platform studies, behavioral economics, labor sociology, and systems engineering, the paper articulates a cross-disciplinary research agenda for the design of equitable, resilient, and sustainable commitment architectures in future work ecosystems.
References
1. Kalleberg, A. L. (2009). Precarious work, insecure workers: Employment relations in transition. American Sociological Review, 74(1), 1–22.
2. Bryan, G., Karlan, D., & Nelson, S. (2010). Commitment devices. Annual Review of Economics, 2(1), 671–698.
3. Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A. (2020). Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 366–410.
4. Constantinides, P., Henfridsson, O., & Parker, G. G. (2018). Platforms and infrastructures in the digital age. Information Systems Research, 29(2), 381–400.
5. Min, X., Chi, W., Hu, X., & Ye, Q. (2024). Set a goal for yourself? A model and field experiment with gig workers. Production and Operations Management, 33(1), 205-224.
6. Chen, M. K., Chevalier, J. A., Rossi, P. E., & Oehlsen, E. (2019). The value of flexible work: Evidence from Uber drivers. Journal of Political Economy, 127(6), 2735–2794.
7. Prassl, J. (2018). Humans as a service: The promise and perils of work in the gig economy. Oxford University Press.
8. Edelman, B., Luca, M., & Svirsky, D. (2017). Racial discrimination in the sharing economy: Evidence from a field experiment. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 9(2), 1–22.
9. Ananny, M., & Crawford, K. (2018). Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media & Society, 20(3), 973–989.
10. Scholz, T. (2016). Platform cooperativism: Challenging the corporate sharing economy. Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung.
11. Lehdonvirta, V. (2018). Flexibility in the gig economy: Managing time on three online piecework platforms. New Technology, Work and Employment, 33(1), 13–29.
12. Jarrahi, M. H., & Sutherland, W. (2019). Algorithmic management and platform-mediated work: A socio-technical view. Big Data & Society, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719874205
13. van Doorn, N. (2017). Platform labor: On the gendered and racialized exploitation of low-income service work in the ‘on-demand’ economy. Information, Communication & Society, 20(6), 898–914.
14. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717.
15. Wood, A. J., Graham, M., Lehdonvirta, V., & Hjorth, I. (2019). Good gig, bad gig: Autonomy and algorithmic control in the global gig economy. Work, Employment and Society, 33(1), 56–75.
16. Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: Surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30(1), 75–89.
17. Aloisi, A. (2016). Commoditized workers: Case study research on labor law issues arising from a set of on-demand/gig economy platforms. Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal, 37(3), 653–690.
18. Cachon, G. P., Daniels, K. M., & Lobel, R. (2017). The role of surge pricing on a service platform with self-scheduling capacity. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 19(3), 368–384.
19. Perrow, C. (1999). Normal accidents: Living with high-risk technologies. Princeton University Press.
20. Rosenblat, A., & Stark, L. (2016). Algorithmic labor and information asymmetries: A case study of Uber’s drivers. International Journal of Communication, 10, 3758–3784.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 International Journal of Artificial Intelligence Engineering and Systems
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
