Digital platforms have fundamentally reshaped labor relations across various sectors, including courier services in Indonesia. This study examines how both formal (standard employment) and non-standard (informal employment) models contribute to what we term “super-exploitation.” On one hand, workers nominally classified as employees do not receive adequate protection despite their formal status (informalized formal work), while on the other hand, workers designated as “partners” or independent contractors face similarly precarious conditions (bogus partnership). By integrating a political economy perspective, this research reveals that the mere reclassification of labor from formal to informal conceals the reality that labels do not automatically translate into improved working conditions. Data were collected through a qualitative approach involving a survey of 270 couriers, 24 in-depth interviews, and online participant observation conducted between July 2022 and July 2023. The findings contribute to the ongoing debate on precarious work by demonstrating that the conventional dichotomy of formal versus informal employment fails to capture the underlying ideological and political economic forces shaping Indonesia’s labor regime.
AnwarMAGrahamM (2021) Between a rock and a hard place: freedom, flexibility, precarity and vulnerability in the gig economy in Africa. Competition & Change25(2): 237–258.
2.
BarrattTGoodsCVeenA (2023) Australia: labour and the gig economy. In: NessIOvetzRRoqueI, et al. (eds) The Routledge Handbook of the Gig Economy. Routledge, pp.347–358.
3.
BernsteinH (2007) Capital and labour from centre to margins. In: Living on the Margins Conference, Cape Town, South Africa, 26–28 March 2007.
4.
BertoliniAGrahamMNeerukondaM, et al. (2023) Platformizing informality, one gig at a time. In: SurieAHuwsU (eds) Platformization and Informality: Pathways of Change, Alteration, and Transformation. Springer International Publishing, pp.13–45.
5.
BettiE (2018) Historicizing precarious work: forty years of research in the social sciences and humanities. International Review of Social History63(2): 273–319.
6.
BremanJ (2013a) A bogus concept? [Review of: Standing G (2011) The precariat: the new dangerous class]. New Left Review84: 130–138.
7.
BremanJ (2013b) At Work in the Informal Economy of India: A Perspective from the Bottom Up. Oxford University Press.
8.
BremanJVan der LindenM (2014) Informalizing the economy: The return of the social question at a global level. Development and Change45(5): 920–940.
9.
BuckleyJ (2022) Formalising and informalising labour in Vietnam. Journal of Contemporary Asia53(2): 1–26.
10.
CarawayTL (2010) Labor standards and labor market flexibility in East Asia. Studies in Comparative International Development45: 225–249.
11.
CNBC Indonesia (2022) Bantah lakukan PHK massal, begini penjelasan SiCepat [Denies Mass Layoffs, Here’s SiCepat’s Explanation]. CNBC Indonesia, 23March.
12.
DuránGNarbonaK (2021) Precarising formality: Understanding current labour developments in Chile. Global Labour Journal12(3): 1–21.
13.
FergusonJLiTM (2018) Beyond the “proper job”: political-economic analysis after the century of labouring man. Working paper 51. Cape Town: PLAAS, UWC.
14.
FlemingP (2017) The human capital hoax: work, debt and insecurity in the era of Uberization. Organization Studies38(5): 691–709.
15.
FordMHonanV (2017) The Go-Jek effect. In: JurriënsETapsellR (eds) Digital Indonesia: Connectivity and Divergence. ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute.
GrahamMLehdonvirtaVWoodA, et al. (2017) The Risks and Rewards of Online Gig Work at the Global Margins. Oxford Internet Institute.
18.
HammerANessI (2021) Informal and precarious work: insights from the global south. Journal of Labor and Society24(1): 1–15.
19.
HaufF (2016) Beyond Decent Work: The Cultural Political Economy of Labour Struggles in Indonesia. Campus Verlag.
20.
HeeksR (2017) Decent work and the digital gig economy: a developing country perspective on employment impacts and standards in online outsourcing, crowdwork, etc. Development informatics, Working paper no. 71. Manchester: University of Manchester.
21.
HernawanANoviantoAWulansariAD (2024) Kemitraan Semu dalam Ekonomi Gig di Indonesia: Analisis Terhadap Kondisi Pekerja Berstatus Mitra. IGPA Press.
22.
HuwsUSpencerNHSyrdalDS (2018) Online, on call: The spread of digitally organised just-in-time working and its implications for standard employment models. New Technology, Work and Employment33(2): 113–129.
23.
International Labour Organization (ILO) (2013) Decent Work Indicators. ILO Publications.
24.
JessopB (1994) The transition to post-Fordism and the Schumpeterian workfare state. In: BurrowsRLoaderB (eds) Towards a Post-Fordist Welfare State?Routledge, pp.13–37.
25.
JinHW (2018) Restructuring parcel delivery network by considering dynamic customer demand. E+M Ekonomie a Management21(2): 83–96.
26.
JuliawanBH (2010) Extracting labor from its owner: private employment agencies and labor market flexibility in Indonesia. Critical Asian Studies42(1): 25–52.
KallebergALHewisonKShinKY (2021) Precarious Asia: Global Capitalism and Work in Japan, South Korea, and Indonesia. Stanford University Press.
29.
LatimerA (2021) Super-exploitation, the race to the bottom, and the missing international. In: NessICopeZ (eds) The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Imperialism and Anti-Imperialism. Springer International Publishing, pp.2546–2561.
30.
MarxK (1990). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume I. Penguin Books. (Original work published 1867.)
31.
MehrotraS (2019) Informal employment trends in the Indian economy: persistent informality, but growing positive development. Working paper. Geneva: International Labour Organization (ILO).
32.
MezzadriA (2017) The Sweatshop Regime: Labouring Bodies, Exploitation, and Garments Made in India. Cambridge University Press.
33.
MezzadriA (2021) A value theory of inclusion: informal labour, the homeworker, and the social reproduction of value. Antipode53(4): 1186–1205.
34.
MonteithWVicolDO (eds) (2021) Beyond the Wage: Ordinary Work in Diverse Economies. Policy Press.
35.
NeilsonBRossiterN (2008) Precarity as a political concept, or, Fordism as exception. Theory, Culture & Society25(7–8): 51–72.
36.
NieblerVPirinaGSecchiM, et al. (2023) Towards ‘bogus employment?’ The contradictory outcomes of ride-hailing regulation in Berlin, Lisbon and Paris. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society16(2): 289–301.
37.
NoviantoA (2024) Gamification from below as a form of resistance: Algorithm control, precarity, and resistance dynamic of Indonesian gig workers. New Technology, Work and Employment. Epub ahead of print 16 December 2024. DOI: 10.1111/ntwe.12324.
38.
NoviantoAWulansariADKebanYT (2023a) Searching for a better job: Indonesian gig workers and the limits of decent work agendas. Work Organisation, Labour and Globalisation17(2): 71–90.
39.
NoviantoAWulansariADKebanYT, et al. (2023b) Essential workers without job protection: workers’ power and the impact of Covid-19 pandemic on Indonesian gig workers. Asia-Pacific Social Science Review23(3): 26–39.
40.
PeckJ (2018) Pluralizing labor geography. In: ClarkGLFeldmanMPGertlerMS, et al. (eds) The New Oxford Handbook of Economic Geography. Oxford University Press, pp.465–484.
41.
RosenblatA (2018) Uberland: How Algorithms are Rewriting the Rules of Work. University of California Press.
42.
RosenblatAStarkL (2016) Algorithmic labor and information asymmetries: A case study of Uber’s drivers. International Journal of Communication10(27): 3758–3784.
43.
SchorJBAttwood-CharlesWCansoyM, et al. (2020) Dependence and precarity in the platform economy. Theory and Society49(5–6): 833–861.
44.
ScullyB (2016) Precarity north and south: A southern critique of Guy Standing. Global Labour Journal7(2): 151–164.
45.
SmithJ (2016) Imperialism in the Twenty-First Century: Globalization, Super-Exploitation, and Capitalism’s Final Crisis. NYU Press.
46.
StandingG (2008) The ILO: An agency for globalization?Development and Change39(3): 355–384.
47.
StandingG (2011) The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class. Bloomsbury academic.
48.
SundararajanA (2017) The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of Crowd-Based Capitalism. MIT Press.
49.
SurieAHuwsU (2023) Platformization and informality: pathways of change, alteration, and transformation. In: SurieAHuwsU (eds) Platformization and Informality: Pathways of Change, Alteration, and Transformation. Springer International Publishing, pp.1–12.
50.
TjandraningsihI (2013) State-sponsored precarious work in Indonesia. American Behavioral Scientist57(4): 403–419.
51.
TuckerE (2018) Uber and the Unmaking and Remaking of Taxi Capitalisms: Technology, Law, and Resistance in Historical Perspective. Ottawa University Press.
52.
ValenciaAS (2016) The Future of Work: Super-Exploitation and Social Precariousness in the 21st Century. Brill.
53.
VoskoLF (2002) ‘Decent work’: the shifting role of the ILO and the struggle for global social justice. Global Social Policy2(1): 19–46.
54.
WangIL (2008) Distribution of small packages in metropolitan area by motorcycle courier services. International Journal of Integrated Supply Management4(1): 88–101.
55.
WilliamsC (2014) The informal economy and poverty: evidence and policy review. Report prepared for Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York.
56.
WoodcockJGrahamM (2019) The Gig Economy: A Critical Introduction. Polity Press.
57.
WuQZhangHLiZ, et al. (2019) Labor control in the gig economy: evidence from Uber in China. Journal of Industrial Relations61(4): 574–596.
58.
WulansariADNoviantoAKebanYT, et al. (2024) Hiding behind the platform: the myth of flexibility for gig workers in Indonesia. South East Asia Research32(1): 22–40.
