Contemporary Capitalism and Labour Precarity in India

In this article, an attempt has been made to understand labour precarity in India as a structural product of contemporary capitalism rather than as a transient disruption caused by technological advancement. It conceives contemporary capitalism as a large-scale system of accumulation characterised by financialisation, flexible labour use, asset concentration and digital infrastructures. In this context, platform capitalism is conceived as a particular institutional form. The article tries to offer a theoretical paradigm linking accumulation, technological upheaval, institutional facilitation and experiential insecurity. It employs Marxian political economy, Schumpeterian innovation theory, the Regulation School, Guy Standing’s view on the precariat and Breman’s analysis of casual work. The precarity of labour is defined by four interrelated dimensions: employment stability and autonomy, income adequacy and reliability, social safety, and meaningful representation or legal recourse. This framework distinguishes an individual’s formal employment status, whether employed or self-employed, from the conditions that make work precarious. Precarity, therefore, arises not from employment status alone, but also from the extent to which workers experience dependence, income insecurity, inadequate social protection, and limited bargaining or remedial power. In addition to this, the article also analyses the data from the Periodic Labour Force Survey for policy assessments of gig employment, migrants and informal workers and current studies on income and wealth distribution. The analysis finds that an increase in participation and self-employment does not inevitably bring about an increase in regular employment. In India, platform intermediation worsens pre-existing informal arrangements by shifting costs and risks onto workers, privatising certain labour-market governance and centralising control over data and market access. The article suggests that mobile social insurance, pragmatic assessments of dependence on the workplace, collective advocacy, algorithmic responsibility and redistributive policies are crucial in preventing labour-market flexibility from becoming institutionalised as a persistent source of social and economic insecurity. JEL Codes: J21, J46, J81, O33