Precariat as a Phenomenon and Trend of the Evolution of Society in the Digital Age: Experience of Socioeconomic Analysis

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

The purpose of the article is to form a comprehensive presentation in the prism of the characteristics of its understanding, economic and social characteristics, as a dynamically evolving socio-economic phenomenon. Methods: analysis, synthesis, comparison, retrospective research, economic, sociological, legal. Results of the work: an in-depth study of the conceptual and phenomenological essence of the precariat was conducted, the main approaches (American, European, Russian) to the study and explanation of the precariat in real time were formulated, an economic and social characteristic of the modern precariat was given, a prognostic scenario for the further evolution of the precariat was proposed. Conclusions: 1) A single understanding of the precariat, as well as its clear class characteristics today, is absent; 2) In world social science, three major approaches to the study of the precariat have been formed – American, European, Russian; 3) In the foreseeable future, the main source of the precariat will be the digitalization of entire industries and the transfer of professions to AI; 4) The most likely scenario is a negative one, in which the precariat will progress both formally and substantively.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Andrey N. Kuriukin

Institute of Sociology – Branch of the Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Author for correspondence.
Email: kuriukin@inbox.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9572-3070
ResearcherId: I-4461-2018

Cand. Sci. (Polit.), senior researcher

Russian Federation, Moscow

References

  1. Golenkova Z.T., Goliusova Yu.V. The precariat as a new group of hired workers. The Standard of Living of the Population of the Regions of Russia. 2015. No. 1 (195). Pp. 47–57. (In Rus.)
  2. Demyanova A. Statistical measurement of the impact of digitalization of the economy on employment. Moscow: HSE University; ISSEK, 2021. P. 12. (In Rus.)
  3. Kuryukin A.N. Russia of the 2020s: Industry 4.0 and socio-political aspects of its integration in mass estimates of the population (based on sociological research). Sociopolitical Sciences. 2024. Vol. 14. No. 1. Pp. 41–52. (In Rus.). doi: 10.33693/2223-0092-2024-14-1-41-52. EDN: CIXIIF.
  4. Collective of authors. Precarious employment in the Russian Federation: Theory and methodology of identification, assessment and vector of reduction. Scientific monograph. V.N. Bobkov (ch. sci. ed.). Editorial board: I.V. Novikova (deputy ed.-in-ch.), V.G. Kvachev, I.B. Kolmakov et al. Moscow: KnoRus, 2018. 342 p.
  5. Labor force, employment and unemployment in Russia (based on the results of sample surveys of the labor force). Statistical collection. Moscow: Rosstat, 2024. 152 p.
  6. Russian statistical yearbook. Statistical collection. Moscow: Rosstat, 2024. 630 p.
  7. Toshchenko Zh.T. Precariat: From protocols to new class. Monograph. Moscow: Nauka, 2018. 350 p.
  8. Shkaratan O.I., Karacharovsky V.V., Gasyukova E.N. Precariat: Theory and empirical analysis (based on surveys in Russia, 1994–2013). Sociological Studies. 2015. No. 12. Pp. 99–110. (In Rus.)
  9. Adisson J. The Spectator magazine 01 march 1711. In: Cowan B. Cornelis E. Contributors to the Tatler, Spectator, and Guardian periodicals (Act. 1709–1714). In: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Issue 1. Oxford University Press. 2022. P. 49.
  10. Alberti G., Bessa I., Hardy K. et al. In against and Beyond Precarity: Work in insecure times. Work, Employment and Society. 2018. No. 32. Pp. 447–457.
  11. Anderson M., McClain C., Faverio M., Gelles-Watnick R. The state of GIG work in 2021. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center. 2021. P. 67.
  12. Arnold D., Bongiovi J.R. Precarious, informalizing, and flexible work: Transforming concepts and understandings. American Behavioral Scientist. 2013. No. 57 (3). Pp. 289–308.
  13. Beck J. Suffering Forces Us to Think beyond the Right-Left Barrier. In: Mechademia 5: Fanthropologies. University of Minnesota Press, 2010. Pp. 251–266.
  14. Day D. Poverty and precarity. The Catholic Worker. 1952. Vol. 18. No. 10. P. 8.
  15. Galgóczi B., Calvin A. (eds.) Self-employed and mobile workers. SEER – Journal for Labour and Social Affairs in Eastern Europe. 2023. Vol. 26. No. 01. Pp. 1–126.
  16. Gallie D., Paugam S. Social precarity and social integration. In: Eurobarometer 56.1. Brussels: Directorate-General Press, 2001. 186 p.
  17. Gauffin K. Precariousness on the Swedish labor market: A theoretical and empirical account. The Economic and Labor Relations Review. 2020 No. 31. Pp. 279–298.
  18. Leschke J. Unemployment insurance and non-standard employment. Brussels: ETUI, 2008. 262 p.
  19. Mai Q.D., Song L., Donnelly R. Precarious employment and well-being: Insights from the COVID-19 pandemic. Work and Occupations. 2022. No. 50. Pp. 3–21.
  20. Pantea S. Self-employment in the EU: Quality work, precarious work or both? Small Business Economics. 2020. No. 58. Pp. 403–418.
  21. Piasna A. Job quality in turbulent times: An update of the European Job Quality Index. Working Paper. 2023. No. 05. P. 49.
  22. Precarious work & the digital economy: Next phase of a new work paradigm. In: Parliamentary brief. B. Andersen (ed.). London, 2022. 39p.
  23. Standing G. A precariat charters. From denizens to citizens. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2014. 320 p.
  24. Standing G. The precariat: The new dangerous class. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2011. 349 p.
  25. Sutherland W., Jarrahi M.H., Dunn M., Nelson S.B. Work precarity and gig literacies in online freelancing. Work, Employment and Society. 2019. No. 34. Pp. 457–475.
  26. Vanhercke B., Spasova S., Ghailani D. et al. Non-standard workers and the self-employed in the EU. Brussels: ETUI, 2021. 51p.
  27. Wiengarten F., Pagell M., Durach C.F., Humphreys P. Exploring the performance implications of precarious work. Journal of Operations Management. 2021. No. 67.
  28. Wong V., Au-Yeung T.C. Autonomous precarity or precarious autonomy? Dilemmas of young workers in Hong Kong. The Economic and Labor Relations Review. 2019. No. 30. Pp. 241–261.
  29. Wood A.J., Lehdonvirta V. Antagonism beyond employment: How the “Subordinated Agency” of labor platforms generates conflict in the remote gig economy. Socio-Economic Review. 2021. No. 19. Pp. 1369–1396.
  30. Wright E. Olin understanding class. London: Verso, 2015. 274 р.
  31. Zwysen W. Non-standard and precarious work across Europe. Brussels: ETUI, 2025. Р. 86.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download
2. Fig. 1. Graph of the evolution of precarious types of employment in the United States for the period 1976–2024. Compiled by the author based on Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) (2024). Contingent and Alternative Employment Arrangements – July 2023. News Release (November 8). Government of the United States, as of April 7, 2025

Download (174KB)
Indexing metadata
3. Fig. 2. Share of Youths in Temporary and Part-Time Work in the United States for the period 2000–2024. Compiled by the author based on Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) (2024). Contingent and Alternative Employment Arrangements—July 2023. News Release (November 8). Government of the United States, as of April 7, 2025

Download (76KB)
Indexing metadata
4. Fig. 3. Share of Youths in Temporary and Part-Time Work in the United States for the period 2000–2024. Compiled by the author based on Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) (2024). Contingent and Alternative Employment Arrangements—July 2023. News Release (November 8). Government of the United States, as of April 7, 2025

Download (145KB)
Indexing metadata
5. Fig. 4. Summary data on the Russian precariat (under-employed, self-employed) in 2021–2023 [5: 119]

Download (202KB)
Indexing metadata
6. Fig. 5. Summary demographic data from the PEW Center’s National Survey of the precariat in the Gig Economy [11]: а – couriering; b – another forms; с – shopping of needful; d – car driving; е – assisting; f – delivery by app; g – total; 1 – adults US; 2 – men; 3 – women; 4 – Wight; 5 – African Americans; 6 – Latin Americans; 7 – Asian; 8 – 18–29; 9 – 30–49; 10 – 50–64; 11 – 65+; 12 – high; 13 – middle; 14 – low

Download (180KB)
Indexing metadata
7. Fig. 6. Personal assessment of gig employment during the calendar year prior to the survey [11]

Download (59KB)
Indexing metadata
8. Fig. 7. Economic and social reasons for person turning to gig employment [11]

Download (173KB)
Indexing metadata
9. Fig. 8. TOP 5 types of economic activity in which the least number of workers worked part-time in 2023 [6: 131]

Download (126KB)
Indexing metadata
10. Fig. 9. AntiTOP 5 types of economic activity in which the biggest number of workers worked part-time in 2023 [6: 131]

Download (149KB)
Indexing metadata
11. Fig. 10. TOP 5 types of economic activity in which the smallest number of workers were in the economic risk zone in 2023 [6: 72]

Download (135KB)
Indexing metadata
12. Fig. 11. AntiTOP 5 types of economic activity in which the biggest number of workers were in the economic risk zone in 2023 [6: 72]

Download (155KB)
Indexing metadata
13. Fig. 12. The spread of the precariat (precarious employment) in G20 countries according to ILO research (compiled by the author based on Informality and non-standard forms of employment. ILO. Geneva, 2018. 20 p.): 1 – India; 2 – Indonesia; 3 – G20; 4 – South Africa; 5 – Turkey; 6 – Russia; 7 – Brazil; 8 – Argentina; 9 – Mexico; 10 – China; 11 – G20; 12 – France; 13 – Germany; 14 – United Kingdom; 15 – USA; 16 – Japan; 17 – Italy; 18 – Republic of Korea; 19 – G20; 20 – G20 average

Download (173KB)
Indexing metadata
14. Fig. 13. Digital skills levels by country[2]: 1 – Island; 2 – Norway; 3 – Netherlands; 4 – Finland; 5 – Switzerland; 6 – United Kingdom; 7 – Denmark; 8 – Sweden; 9 – Germany; 10 – Austria; 11 – Malta; 12 – Eastland; 13 – Luxemburg; 14 – Spain; 15 – Croatia; 16 – Belgium; 17 – Ireland; 18 – Lithuania; 19 – Portugal; 20 – France; 21 – Slovenia; 22 – Slovakia; 23 – Czech Republic; 24 – Hungary; 25 – Cyprus; 26 – Latvia; 27 – Turkey; 28 – Greece; 29 – Italy; 30 – Poland; 31 – Serbia; 32 – ; 33 – Bulgaria; 34 – Romania

Download (518KB)
Indexing metadata
15. Fig. 14. Digital employment of Russians (2020) [2]

Download (310KB)
Indexing metadata
16. Fig. 15. Summary chart of the survey results on the impact of artificial intelligence on the precariat and the digital economy [22]

Download (85KB)
Indexing metadata
17. Fig. 16. A chart showing the results of experts’ assessments of the biggest benefits of AI in the workplace [22]

Download (86KB)
Indexing metadata
18. Fig. 17. A chart showing the results of experts’ assessments of the biggest benefits of AI in the workplace [22]

Download (80KB)
Indexing metadata

Copyright (c) 2025 Yur-VAK

License URL: https://www.urvak.ru/contacts/