Politics of deservedness: the case of on-demand food delivery couriers: Interview with Meng-Hsuan Chou (Nanyang Technological University)

We are in an age in which food delivery couriers are a common feature in large cities. We can see how they zoom through roads and sidewalks to deliver, sometimes or often against the flow of traffic. Speed and risk define their mobility. If we are those dodging food delivery couriers, we may feel concerned about how their speed could compromise our safety. If we are those waiting for food delivery couriers at home, at the office, or at the park, we understand and may even appreciate how quickly they arrive. Regardless of our positions, we do not usually consider the additional costs of this speed and convenience for our societies. Afterall, as consumers we pay for the delivery service and expect a corresponding return. But there is a growing body of research that tells us about the discrimination food delivery couriers experience as part of their daily work. This discrimination is costly for our societies, and it is important that we address it.

This discrimination appears in different ways. It is useful to begin with an important distinction: most food delivery couriers around the world are considered contract workers. Other terms used to describe their employment status include temporary workers, part-time workers, and freelancers. By not being categorised as employees, food delivery couriers do not have access to the benefits and protection commonly offered to employees. The common reason for categorising food delivery couriers as non-employees is that they do not work full-time and therefore are assumed to have the flexibility that employees do not. Existing research has shown that this assumption does not reflect the reality of contemporary food delivery couriers, who often work full-time and under precarious working conditions.

The second way that food delivery couriers experience discrimination is unique to our age: it is algorithmic. Observers and scholars have coined various terms to describe the relationship between delivery apps and couriers: “algorithmic management”, “algorithmic control”, and “new sweatshops”. What these terms attempt to describe is an exploitative relationship between the employers and food delivery couriers. This occurs in multiple simultaneous ways including, for instance, information asymmetry, gamification, and automated notifications. It is easy to become a food delivery courier, but it is difficult to determine one’s earnings on a regular basis because companies design algorithms to prioritise or minimise certain factors in real time. Similar performance (e.g., in terms of hours, distance, deliveries) may not generate similar earnings. Indeed, in a study of food delivery couriers in Brazil, it was found that couriers earned less during the COVID-19 pandemic despite working on average 9-12 hours per day.

Other ways that food delivery couriers face discrimination can be identified when we look at the profiles of those who work as couriers. We know from existing research that food delivery couriers tend to be young males who are migrants, international students, or new citizens. What these individuals have in common is their general reluctance to seek redress for their working conditions, even when they are exploited. This could be due to a variety of reasons. For instance, couriers may have comparatively poorer linguistic skills of the host country and are consequently unwilling to speak out. Food delivery couriers, especially new international students, may be unaware of the host country’s law or road safety that are meant to protect everyone. Couriers may lack the appropriate work authorisation and want to avoid drawing attention to their status. They may want to earn money immediately. There may also be a gender dimension here that accounts for couriers’ overall reticence to publicise the discrimination they face. These contributing factors are very interesting, because they explain how these individuals are effectively silenced. 

The context within which food delivery couriers work today hence contains familiar features such as systemic discrimination, as well as new elements based on algorithmic governance. My research is interested in how these features interact to reinforce or undermine discriminatory practices.

Policies fail for various reasons, and different analytical perspectives offer distinct explanations. My research is guided by the design approach in policy sciences. A policy design perspective orientates the researcher to focus on the relationship between the processes of selecting the policy instruments and the effects of their implementation. According to the theory of social construction and policy design, how policymakers determine the policy’s target population matters in how politics unfold and democracy evolves. This happens in the following ways: by determining the policy’s target population, policymakers also divide them into those who receive the “benefits” from implementing the policy, and those who get the “burdens” of policy implementation. In doing so, policymakers also establish the “deservedness” of those in the target population. Here, people who benefit from policy implementation are considered to be “deserving”, and those who receive the burdens are deemed to be “undeserving”.

I find the notion of “deservedness” fascinating because it carries with it positive and negative connotations about an individual. But an individual is not governed only by one policy; in fact, we are subjected to multiple policies on any given day. So what happens when an individual is constructed as “deserving” by multiple policies? Does this individual become more deserving of many policy benefits? Is this individual a member of the “haves”? Conversely, could we say that an individual who is negatively constructed by several policies belongs to the “have nots”? What happens when positive and negative connotations from different policies intersect? Does this intersection neutralise the effects of the respective policy implementation? Or does this intersection lead to policy reforms, and, if so, how?

These questions may sound theoretical, but I found them very relevant in guiding my research on food delivery couriers. They encourage us to look at the different policies that affect the construction of on-demand food delivery couriers. As mentioned earlier, published research tells us that couriers tend to be migrants, international students, or new citizens. This led me to examine how migration policies construct economic migrants, and how higher education policies construct international students. I am now exploring how these social constructions interact with the construction of on-demand food delivery couriers in the labour market. So far, I found that the negative constructions of economic migrants and international students reinforce the negative construction of food delivery couriers in some countries. Put simply, in major cities in these countries, couriers are considered as “undeserving” of policy benefits and are given a disproportionate share of burdens. However, in other global cities such as Singapore, the clash between negative and positive constructions of food delivery couriers has led to reform debates.

The flourishing of exploitative working conditions that food delivery couriers face may thus be the accumulated results of multiple policy failures. For instance, the failure of labour market policies to monitor their working conditions because couriers (categorised as part-time workers) are constructed as deserving of policy burdens. Or the failure of higher education policies that push universities to prioritise the recruitment of international students for fee-paying purposes, which may in turn contribute to these students being negatively constructed as lowering classroom standards. Or the failure of migration policies that respond to popular sentiments by negatively constructing economic migrants as disposable labour, undeserving of policy benefits. Together, these failures enable exploitative working conditions to thrive.

The ways in which food delivery couriers face discrimination are multiple, and policies to combat algorithmic governance should also be diverse and encompassing. But there are some ways in which we can move forward. 

To start, it is important to rethink the employee vs. contract worker divide currently governing much of our labour market policies. To what extent can this divide be maintained given the changing patterns of work? Are we all to become employees, or are we all simply people who work (producing goods, providing services)? What then is the social contract between employers, workers, and the state? How can we recalibrate existing practices to uphold our obligations to one another if our societal goals are to improve collectively? These are some basic questions we must address jointly since policy decisions affect everyone.

Secondly, we need to move away from the “myth of tech exceptionalism”, which amplifies the belief that technology can solve complex social problems. This is a myth that tech companies have perpetuated to evade regulation. Many scholars and policy observers have revealed that this is simply not true in a variety of sectors, including in military conflicts. In the case of food delivery couriers, my research supports the observation that algorithms underpinning delivery apps have simply reinforced and accentuated existing class hierarchies between the “haves” and “have nots”. What is alarming is that the numbers of “have nots” may be growing while this divide is increasingly entrenched. It has been asserted that algorithms are proprietary and are at the heart of companies’ market competitiveness, but we should approach this framing as part of the broader “myth of tech exceptionalism” discourse, dissuading us to see the harmful impact of technology on society. 

Additionally, it is useful to see that the multiple negative construction of food delivery couriers across policy sectors could be enabling exploitative working conditions to flourish. We need to ask questions that reflect the complexity of interacting policy implementation effects. Should reforms be introduced in one policy sector or multiple policy sectors? Which reforms are feasible? What is the role of politics and public sentiments in ushering in or blocking policy reforms? What are the implications of introducing nationality requirements for those who can work in the food delivery sector? There are many questions we can ask, and I believe that a broader conversation could illuminate the actual costs of food delivered. 

LIEPP is a fantastic place for scholarly interaction. I was warmly welcomed by LIEPP colleagues and visitors from around the world. I especially appreciate the interdisciplinarity at LIEPP: we have diverse research agenda, but we are united by our interest in the role of policy in social life. In our contemporary world increasingly defined by differences, having a shared interest is refreshing. I am thankful to have had this experience at LIEPP.