1. Introduction

The gig economy, commonly defined as the platform-mediated labor market characterized by temporary, casual, or non-permanent work arrangements (Woodcock & Graham, 2020), stands as a crucial domain wherein the social implications of platform capitalism stand out in the context of the digital transformation of labor markets (Kessler, 2019). While the gig economy has unlocked a spectrum of opportunities for facilitating employment, it has concurrently reshaped conventional perceptions of labor in the digital era (Prassl, 2018).

The confrontation between digital platforms acting as technological disruptors, traditional labor sectors, and established legal frameworks has manifested across different geographical regions and sectors of the economy (Woodcock, 2021). This clash has extended from remote forms of gig work, such as microtasking and cloudwork, to geographically tethered models encompassing domestic and care labor, delivery services, and ride-hailing (Ravenelle, 2019).

Conflicts related to platform capitalism (Srnicek, 2016) have manifested themselves in struggles to improve working conditions in the digital sphere, in the search for regulations that balance contracts and labor relations, and in competition between traditional and emerging industries worldwide (Umney et al., 2023). Despite recent advances in understanding the expansion and trends of digital platforms and labor concerns in different parts of the world, it is essential to highlight that each of these regulatory struggles and debates highlights local particularities, especially in the models of the gig economy focused on specific geographic locations (Tucker, 2020).

In urban transportation, ride-hailing platforms commercialized by diverse well-known Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) worldwide, such as Uber, Lyft, DiDi, Bolt, and Cabify, have also generated discussions beyond labor issues. These debates have covered political issues related to consumer safety, fair competition in the taxi market, public aspects such as environmental and urban impacts, development, and possibilities for social compensation concerning this business model (Collier et al., 2018).

This article seeks to put the former concerns into context through the lens of platform governance. We focus on how research about TNCs has developed across different academic fields and geographic settings in recent years. Additionally, we make a theoretical contribution by bridging the gap between the literature concerning the regulation of social media platforms and the realm of urban mobility. We pay special attention to three key dimensions: ideas, interests, and institutions. To achieve this, we employ a narrative literature review methodology to comprehensively synthesize research findings within this specific area of study (Block & Fisch, 2020).

In sum, the analysis presented in this article offers a unique perspective that, thus far, has yet to be thoroughly explored in the realm of TNC governance. We examine trends and challenges at the crossroads of new media studies and other disciplines, such as political science.

The paper's structure consists of two main sections. The first section delves into the implications of the platform economy in the political and governance sphere, analyzing the challenges faced by local regulatory frameworks and the power dynamics between the various actors involved in these processes. The second section addresses the three dimensions of platform governance explored in the specialized literature, all seen from the political economy perspective. Finally, the article summarizes the key ideas of the discussion. It proposes a research agenda that considers the interaction between States, civil society organizations, and the influence of platform firms on regulation.

2. Studying the Platform Society Beyond Social Media

Platforms are often defined as those new data infrastructures that have revolutionized how firms, users, and developers interact in today's globalized economy due to the advancement of the Internet. It also has allowed sophistication in the extraction of browsing data and consumption patterns, the complexity of its processing through algorithms, and the ability to take profit in this platform business model (Poell et al., 2019).

This technological evolution has reconfigured power dynamics at a global level. A few big tech companies have come to dominate multiple industries and sectors, including advertising, social media, cultural production, mobile communications, retail, housing, and urban transportation (van Dijck et al., 2018). This corporate domain has created an ecosystem of digital platforms with specific governance systems and distinct approaches to understanding the role of goods and services as consumers, suppliers, and regulators (Hein et al., 2020). In recent decades, technological and economic changes have driven new Internet-based business models (Rahman and Thelen, 2019). In this context, social sciences have paid attention to platformization, a process in which platforms and their principles have infiltrated the economy, government structure, and multiple areas of society (Helmond, 2015).

In this context, essential concerns arise about public values and the reconfiguration of discourses on democratic governance, accountability, and growing inequalities (van Dijck et al., 2018). Furthermore, digitalization and platformization processes are not limited to developed countries, affecting consolidated democracies and authoritarian regimes alike (Chan & Kwok, 2021).

Platformization has also brought to light the global challenges governments confront, by struggling with anticipating, addressing, and effectively managing the far-reaching implications of the emergence of gig economy platforms. These platforms impact established and emergent economic sectors, catalyzing ongoing debates concerning regulatory frameworks poorly adapted to the flexibility, relocation, and quick exchanges through internet flows (Cartwright, 2021).

Expanding upon Flew's seminal work (2021), which traces the transition from the early 1990s era of the open internet to the contemporary discourses of the 21st century concerning the platformized internet, the current landscape points to the emergence of a third phase characterized by intensified internet regulation. Flew (2019) also observes that the contemporary platformized internet landscape markedly diverges from the libertarian paradigms of the 1990s and early 2000s, which dictated minimal state intervention in the so-called network society (Comunello & Mulargia, 2023).

As a result, the process of platformization has guided the trajectory of Internet Studies into a "regulatory turn", with a focus on public concerns such as privacy, online security, datafication, algorithmic influence, disinformation, hate speech, and issues related to labor and politics (Flew, 2021). The gig economy has also impacted the governance of sectors crucial to the development of a nation, such as the labor market (Snellen & de Hollander, 2017).

These diverse issues distinctly reposition scholarly focus onto the state's central role in managing societal repercussions arising from platform-mediated activities spanning various economic sectors (Haggart et al., 2021). Platforms have demonstrated their political and social influence in recent years (Gillespie, 2010), leading to increased attention to gig economy platforms in terms of intermediation and capital accumulation on a global level.

Currently, scholars are delving into the dynamics between governments, platform firms, civil society, and political change, exploring the interplay of competing ideas, interests, and institutional arrangements at local, national, and cross-national levels (Flew & Gillett, 2021; Winseck, 2020). Therefore, a critical area of research is emerging around the intersection between digital platforms, labor markets, and political-economic considerations around regulatory frameworks (Malik et al., 2021). Concerns regarding the influence of platform firms and their role as political entities have gained prominence in recent years (Culpepper & Thelen, 2020; Popiel, 2020) as they progressively engage in the policy-making processes associated with the regulation of their market across diverse contexts (Borkholder et al., 2018).

3. Platform Governance: Rethinking the Impact of Platformization on Politics and Institutions

Recent revelations by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) published as "The Uber Files" (2022) disclosed compelling evidence regarding "the lobbying Machine" employed by the Silicon Valley company within governments. Spanning both the Northern and Global South regions, this practice is documented as far back as 2013. Such corporate practices underscore that "political factors also play a significant role, as influential platforms have wielded their influence over state legislatures, enacting preemption laws that prohibit cities from regulating app-based services" (Vallas & Schor, 2020, p. 278). Hence, the current discourse surrounding the platform economy strongly advocates a multifaceted approach transcending the traditional realms of work sociology and labor relations (Tucker, 2020).

Following Hall's classification (1997), which delves into inquiries concerning the voices exerting influence over political processes and the adequate representation within decision-making structures that mold policies, we posit that a political economy perspective offers a comprehensive framework for analyzing the regulation of the gig economy platforms. This theoretical approach is also grounded in the premise that policy responses result from the interactions among diverse stakeholders characterized by varying interests, modes of action, and narratives within specific institutional frameworks (Aguilera et al., 2021). Within this context, we examine these relationships through the lens of platform governance.

Platform governance is the subject of various theoretical discussions rooted in a decentralized approach to regulation, garnering substantial attention in the context of platforms to transcend state-centric perspectives, involving diverse entities frequently perceived as influential actors within complex social and market ecosystems, in other words, understood as interactive “constellations of public and private stakeholders” (Leerssen, 2021, para. 1). Furthermore, this framework is fueled by the emerging governance theory known as regulatory governance, which explores how a burgeoning economy generates transaction costs at the local level due to the absence of legal coordination grounded in diversity and competition (Bilbil, 2019).

Compared to conventional political economy paradigms, platform governance furnishes a comprehensive understanding of how platforms' actions, policies, and influence intersect with politics. Furthermore, it also sets forth an interdisciplinary research agenda that aims to unravel the complex web of governance relationships shaping interactions among different stakeholders in today's platform-driven society (Gorwa, 2019a), involving states, governments or regulatory agencies, civil society, and grassroots organizations (unions, NGOs, consumer advocacy groups) and platform firms.

Drawing from Gorwa's (2019b) and Flew’s (2021) proposals for studying social media platforms, we state that a similar triangular configuration is a valuable framework for drawing a governance approach to TNCs. Figure 1 summarizes our theoretical understanding by highlighting the multistakeholder regulatory arena, emphasizing the pivotal role in grasping the intricacies of policy change in the gig economy.

Figure 1.“The Three Is” in the Platform Governance Triangle Source: Author based on Gorwa (2019b), Hall (1997), and Flew (2021).

This approach enhances our comprehension of the intricate interactions and negotiations among stakeholders when technological innovations, such as TNCs, are introduced within local contexts. Ongoing debates on platform regulation are incorporating analytical frameworks from diverse disciplines to elucidate the pivotal role of platform firms, conceiving them as "institutional entrepreneurs" endowed with substantial influence (Baron, 2018). Furthermore, other conceptual paradigms are being explored, including examining grassroots organizations' influence on regulatory processes and their potential to engender institutional change in a complementary fashion (Wood & Lehdonvirta, 2021).

While the notion that platform firms wield a central role in institutional change is a prevailing concern in scholarly literature, the constatation that the regulation of the platform economy can exhibit variations contingent upon local contexts and dynamics is gaining momentum as a novel approach to advancing comparative research (Valdez, 2022).

4. Between Ideas, Interests, and Institutions: Current Approaches to Regulation and Institutional Change in the Ride-hailing Market

In examining platform capitalism, information, and communication technologies (ICT) have assumed considerable significance in unveiling transformations within sectors such as transportation and mobility (Snellen and de Hollander, 2017). Specifically, research concerning policy responses and institutional changes within the gig economy has grown substantially over the past decade. Scholars have illuminated pivotal factors in regulatory processes on a global scale by concentrating on the ride-hailing industry. Their work has unveiled the intrinsic interconnection of ideas, interests, and institutions in terms of analysis and methodology. These three dimensions constitute fundamental elements in comparative political economy, facilitating the comprehension of how diverse variables and contexts influence policy responses and regulatory alterations.

Considering the increasing significance of the gig economy and its profound effects on various aspects of the political economy and contemporary societal changes (Ness, 2023), we aim to provide a condensed overview of the scholarly trends within a political economy framework. To accomplish this, we utilize a narrative literature review methodology, allowing us to amalgamate research findings within this field of study and present the critical insights related to TNCs impact on platform governance and policy change. Although the purpose here is not to conduct a systematic or meta-analytical examination, we hope to shed light on the multifaceted nature of the gig economy and its far-reaching implications from the following three analytical approaches.

5. Platform Governance as an Integrative Framework for Understanding Policy Change in the Gig Economy

As we developed, the former three dimensions provide a structured framework for understanding the multifaceted nature of platform regulation. It helps scholars and policymakers identify and analyze the key factors and dynamics that shape regulatory outcomes within the gig economy. By considering these dimensions, researchers can conduct comprehensive analyses that consider the economic aspects of platform regulation and the sociopolitical and discursive elements. It underscores the field's interdisciplinary nature, where insights from political science, economics, communication studies, and law converge to provide a holistic understanding of platform governance (Figure 2).

Figure 2.Framing A Platform Governance Approach to TNCs in the Gig Economy Source: Author.

At the same time, the tripartite categorization underscores the necessity of a contingent or multifactorial approach to thoroughly investigate how regulatory narratives, actor interests, and institutional contexts intersect and mold policy responses and regulatory transformations in the evolution of the gig economy (Stein and Head, 2020). Hence, in alignment with Hall's (1997) approach, it is crucial to acknowledge that numerous academic works in comparative political economy frequently integrate multiple dimensions, mainly when fusing explanatory models encompassing two or three analytical methodologies.

For instance, in their comparative study of platform firms' institutional actions in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Egypt, Uzunca et al. (2018) considered both the level of institutionalization in these countries and stakeholders' responses to corporate influence strategies. Meanwhile, Zanatta and Kira (2018) and Li and Ma (2019) introduced a model that integrates an interest-based approach with institutional factors. Factors such as pressure from incumbent industries and the state of public transport development played significant roles in understanding the diverse contexts they studied. Benli-Trichet and Kübler (2022) extended this approach further, incorporating grassroots organizations' mobilization, platform-related issues, and the institutional agenda.

On the other hand, Chan and Kwok (2022) delved into how platforms wield power through discursive and political strategies. Their study gains relevance by comparing two sectoral platforms, DiDi and Uber, and elucidating their distinct relationships with various stakeholders, categorizing them as confrontational or collaborative models based on each platform's approach.

By adopting this approach, we can better navigate platform governance's complex and dynamic landscape. By acknowledging the multifaceted nature of regulatory challenges in the platform economy, we equip ourselves with a more robust analytical toolkit to address the evolving policy needs of our digital age (Wen, 2023). In essence, we move closer to crafting policies responsive to the challenges posed by platforms and adaptive to the ever-changing socio-political and economic contexts in which they operate.

6. Conclusions

This article has sought to delve deeper into the intricate landscape of platform governance, shedding light on how the introduction of platforms has triggered complex political and governance challenges for national and local regulatory frameworks. In analyzing the governance of the gig economy, we have examined three critical political economy dimensions illuminating the field of study concerning TNC regulation.

Crucially, our analysis has dissected the dimensions of platform governance, focusing on three key facets: ideas, interests, and institutions. We have uncovered the pivotal role of ideas, discourses, and narratives in molding the regulatory response to platforms, emphasizing how these elements significantly shape the discourse and policy outcomes surrounding platform regulation. Additionally, we have scrutinized the competing interests of various stakeholders, including platform firms, workers, consumers, labor unions, and governments, illustrating how these interests spark contention and negotiation in the regulatory arena. Lastly, we have delved into the role of pre-existing institutional frameworks, laws, regulations, and government structures within countries, showcasing how these existing institutional contexts can either facilitate or hinder the development and implementation of platform-related regulations.

A limitation of this study lies in its primary objective, which is to establish a theoretical framework. For this reason, a systematic literature review has not been pursued. However, future research should consider this approach, with the goal of analytically and geographically mapping the growing body of scholarly work. Consequently, the literature we have explored consistently emphasizes a recurring concern: the imperative need for a comparative perspective to enhance our understanding of the forces that drive or impede platform regulation. This overarching conclusion underscores the significance of expanding our analytical horizons beyond single-case studies or isolated examinations of platform governance.

Despite the compelling rationale for comparative analysis, we must acknowledge a conspicuous gap in the current body of research: the need for more studies from the Global South (Carby-Hall & Mella, 2020). While scholarly inquiry has made substantial strides in investigating platform regulation, a significant underrepresentation of voices and perspectives from regions outside the Global North still needs to be addressed. This perspective would help reveal the asymmetric conditions between TNCs and developing states, which often face conditions that make the relationship with platform firms different from those in European countries or the United States (Bizberge et al., 2023).

In conclusion, the interplay between States, civil society, and the influence of TNCs in policy change is a dynamic and evolving field ripe for further exploration. Our framework calls for a robust research agenda that not only continues to dissect the multifaceted dimensions of platform governance but also considers the broader societal implications. By probing deeper into these intricate relationships and their evolving dynamics, scholars and policymakers can better navigate the challenging terrain of platform regulation in more sectoral fields beyond urban transportation (van Dijck, 2021), ensuring that it aligns with the ever-evolving needs in the platform society.