Ridesharing gained popularity as a flexible and readily available job option. However, limited research has focused on the gendered impacts of this new model on a large scale. In theory, ridesharing could disproportionately attract women, as they often take flexible work to balance family responsibilities. However, the driver occupation is historically male-dominated, and women need to overcome cultural barriers to join ridesharing. This article leverages the staggered entry of Uber in Brazilian cities to examine gender variations in responses to ridesharing. Overall, the results identify important gender nuances. There was a noticeable increase in the number of female drivers, although men still dominate the occupation. Gender differences in hours of work and earnings have decreased, mainly due to reductions experienced by men. The presence of children in the household is a key determinant of which women become drivers but has less impact on men. For instance, mothers of young children (aged 0–6) were not significantly attracted to ridesharing, but mothers of older children and childless women were. Safety concerns remain a significant barrier to women, and the level of gender violence in cities is negatively associated with women's probability of being a driver.
AbilioLC (2019) Uberization: From entrepreneurship to subordinated self-management. Psicoperspectivas18(3): 1–11.
2.
AyentimiDTAbadiHABurgessJ (2023) Decent gig work in Sub-Sahara Africa?Journal of Industrial Relations65(1): 112–125.
3.
BarretoYSilveira NetoRCarazzaL (2021) Uber and traffic safety: Evidence from Brazilian cities. Journal of Urban Economics123: 103347.
4.
BergerTChenCFreyCB (2018) Drivers of disruption? Estimating the Uber effect. European Economic Review110: 197–210.
5.
BergmannBR (2005) The Economic Emergence of Women. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US.
6.
BergmannBR (2011) Sex segregation in the blue-collar occupations: Women’s choices or unremedied discrimination?Gender & Society25(1): 88–93.
7.
BertrandMGoldinCKatzLF (2010) Dynamics of the gender gap for young professionals in the financial and corporate sectors. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics2: 228–255.
8.
BodenRJ (1999) Flexible working hours, family responsibilities, and female self-employment. American Journal of Economics and Sociology58(1): 71–83.
9.
BudigMJMisraJBoeckmannI (2012) The motherhood penalty in cross-national perspective: The importance of work-family policies and cultural attitudes. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society19(2): 163–193.
10.
ButtlerDSierminskaE (2020) Career or flexible work arrangements? Gender differences in self-employment in a young market economy. Journal of Family and Economic Issues41(1): 70–95.
11.
ChaY (2013) Overwork and the persistence of gender segregation in occupations. Gender & Society27(2): 158–184.
12.
ChenMKChevalierJARossiPE, et al. (2019) The value of flexible work: Evidence from Uber drivers. Journal of Political Economy127(6): 2735–2794.
13.
ChurchillBCraigL (2019) Gender in the gig economy: Men and women using digital platforms to secure work in Australia. Journal of Sociology55(4): 741–761.
14.
CiulliFSaka-HelmhoutA (2024) The governance of gig platform organizations in developing countries. Long Range Planning57(1): 102394.
15.
CookCDiamondRHall JV, et al. (2021) The gender earnings gap in the gig economy: Evidence from over a million rideshare drivers. Review of Economic Studies88(5): 2210–2238.
16.
CorrellSJBenardSPaikI (2007) Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty?American Journal of Sociology112(5): 1297–1339.
17.
CramerJKruegerAB (2016) Disruptive change in the taxi business: The case of Uber. American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings106(5): 177–182.
18.
DavisGFSinhaA (2021) Varieties of uberization: How technology and institutions change the organization(s) of late capitalism. Organization Theory2(1): 1–17.
19.
De StefanoV (2016) The Rise of the ‘Just-in-Time Workforce’: On-demand Work, Crowdwork and Labour Protection in the ‘Gig-Economy’. Conditions of Work and Employment Series 71, Geneva.
20.
EaglyAHWoodW (2016) Social role theory of sex differences. In: The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Gender and Sexuality Studies. London, UK, 1380–1383.
21.
EisenmeierSR (2018) Ride-sharing Platforms in Developing Countries: Effects and Implications in Mexico City. Background Paper Series 3. Oxford.
22.
ElliottK (2016) Caring masculinities: Theorizing and emerging concept. Men and Masculinities19(3): 240–259.
23.
FarrellDGreigFHamoudiA (2018) The Online Platform in 2018: Drivers, Workers, Sellers, and Lessors.
24.
FilebornBCamaEYoungA (2022) Perceptions of safety among taxi and rideshare service patrons: Gender, safekeeping and responsibilisation. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy11(1): 50–55.
25.
FlanaganF (2019) Theorising the gig economy and home-based service work. Journal of Industrial Relations61(1): 57–78.
26.
FoleyMBairdMCooperR, et al. (2018) Is independence really an opportunity? The experience of entrepreneur-mothers. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development25(2): 313–329.
27.
FoleyMWilliamsonSMosseriS (2020) Women, work and industrial relations in Australia in 2019. Journal of Industrial Relations62(3): 365–379.
28.
FullerSHirshCE (2019) “Family-Friendly” jobs and motherhood pay penalties: The impact of flexible work arrangements across the educational spectrum. Work and Occupations46(1): 3–44.
29.
GoldinC (2013) A pollution theory of discrimination: Male and female differences in occupations and earnings. In: Boustan LP, Frydman C and Marg RA (eds) Human Capital and History: The American Record. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 313–348.
30.
GoldinC (2014) A grand gender convergence: Its last chapter. American Economic Review104(4): 1091–1119.
31.
GulesserianLA (2022) Rideshare Fathers, Flexible Work and Gender Roles. Sydney, Australia: University of Sydney.
32.
HallJVKruegerAB (2018) An analysis of the labor market for Uber’s driver-partners in the United States. Industrial and Labor Relations Review71(3): 705–732.
33.
HarrisSDKruegerAB (2015) A Proposal for Modernizing Labor Laws for Twenty-First-Century Work: The Independent Worker. Washington, DC: Brookings.
34.
HodgesMJBudigMJ (2010) Who gets the daddy bonus?Gender & Society24(6): 717–745.
35.
HoltumPJIrannezhadEMarstonG, et al. (2022) Business or pleasure? A comparison of migrant and non-migrant Uber drivers in Australia. Work, Employment and Society36(2): 290–309.
36.
HunterSCRiggsDWAugoustinosM (2017) Hegemonic masculinity versus a caring masculinity: Implications for understanding primary caregiving fathers. Social and Personality Psychology Compass11(3).
37.
ILOSTAT (2021) Statistics on the informal economy: Share of informal employment by country (in percent).
38.
Institute for Applied Economic Research - IPEA (2023) Atlas da Violência v.2.7.
39.
International Finance Corporation, Accenture and Uber (2018) Driving toward equality: women, ride-hailing, and the sharing economy.
40.
JacksonELooneyARamnathS (2017) The Rise of Alternative Work Arrangements: Evidence and Implications for Tax Filing and Benefit Coverage. Office of Tax Analysis.
41.
KahnJRGarcía-ManglanoJBianchiSM (2014) The motherhood penalty at midlife: Long-term effects of children on women’s careers. Journal of Marriage and Family76(1): 56–72.
42.
KallebergALDunnM (2016) Good jobs, bad jobs in the gig economy. In Perspectives on Work 20. https://michael-dunn.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ALK-MD.-JQ-in-Gig-Economy.pdf
43.
KootiFDjuricNGrbovicM, et al. (2017) Analyzing Uber’s ride-sharing economy. In: 26th International world wide web conference2017, 574–582. Perth, Australia April 3–7, 2017.
44.
MasAPallaisA (2017) Valuing alternative work arrangements. American Economic Review107(12): 3722–3759.
45.
MatsuoM (2020) Carpooling and drivers without household vehicles: Gender disparity in automobility among Hispanics and non-Hispanics in the U.S. Transportation47(4): 1631–1663.
46.
MilkmanRElliott-NegriLGriesbachK, et al. (2021) Gender, class, and the gig economy: The case of platform-based food delivery. Critical Sociology47(3): 357–372.
47.
NazarenoL (2024) The impacts of ridesharing on drivers and job quality: evidence from Brazil.
48.
NeufeldD (2024) Who owns the most vehicles per capita, by country? Visual capitalist, 21 February.
49.
NianTZhuYGurbaxaniV (2021) The impact of the sharing economy on household bankruptcy. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems45(3): 1213–1248.
50.
PanJ (2015) Gender segregation in occupations: The role of tipping and social interactions. Journal of Labor Economics33(2): 365–408.
51.
RavenelleAJ (2019) Hustle and Gig : Struggling and Surviving in the Sharing Economy.Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
52.
ResendeGMde LimaRCA (2018) Competition Effects of the Sharing Economy in Brazil: Has Uber’s Entry Affected the Cab-Hailing App Market from 2014 to 2016? 001/2018.
53.
RizkNSalemNWehebaN (2018) A gendered analysis of ridesharing: Perspectives from Cairo, Egypt. In: Urban Transport in the Sharing Economy Era: Collaborative Cities. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Center for the Implementation of Public Policies Promoting Equity and Growth - CIPPEC, 32–61.
54.
RuberyJHebsonG (2018) Applying a gender lens to employment relations: Revitalisation, resistance and risks. Journal of Industrial Relations60(3): 414–436.
55.
SakaiTMiyazatoN (2014) Who values the family-friendly aspects of a job?Evidence from the Japanese Labour Market. Japanese Economic Review65(3): 397–413.
56.
SchorJB (2020) After the Gig: How the Sharing Economy Got Hijacked and How to Win It Back. 1st edCalifornia, USA: University of California Press.
57.
SchorJBAttwood-CharlesWCansoyM, et al. (2020) Dependence and precarity in the platform economy. Theory and Society49: 833–861.
58.
SehrawatUSawhneyNYeleswarapuT, et al. (2021) The everyday HCI of Uber drivers in India: A developing country perspective. In: Nichols J (ed.) Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5(CSCW2), 1–22.
WarrenT (2021) Work-life balance and gig work: ‘Where are we now’ and ‘where to next’ with the work-life balance agenda?Journal of Industrial Relations63(4): 522–545.
YuWHaraY (2021) Motherhood penalties and fatherhood premiums: Effects of parenthood on earnings growth within and across firms. Demography58(1): 247–272.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
