Why Do People Choose Freelance Work Arrangements? Evidence from NYC Taxi and App-Based Drivers

Last registered on February 20, 2025

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Why Do People Choose Freelance Work Arrangements? Evidence from NYC Taxi and App-Based Drivers
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0015408
Initial registration date
February 19, 2025

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
February 20, 2025, 6:09 AM EST

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

Region

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
University of Chicago

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
Heinz College, Carnegie Mellon University

Additional Trial Information

Status
On going
Start date
2025-02-07
End date
2026-02-28
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
The so-called “gig” economy has exploded in recent years due to new work mediated by rideshare and delivery platforms. Gig workers are self-employed independent contractors, which has important ramifications for workers. Unlike employees, independent contractors are not protected by labor law and are not eligible for social insurance programs administered through employers such as workers compensation and unemployment insurance. Further, contractors are often responsible for covering their own expenses, fees, and some taxes usually paid by employers, so that the true take-home earnings from independent contract work may be lower than appears initially. On the other hand, it is often the case that independent contract jobs offer greater flexibility and control over one’s work that is desirable to many participants. A key question for policy debates is whether freelance contractors generally have a good grasp of the tradeoffs involved in contract work and voluntarily choose such arrangements because they value the amenities, or if such arrangements might instead exploit workers’ lack of awareness of the tradeoffs involved to reduce compensation without workers’ awareness. We study tradeoffs between contract type and flexibility using a survey experiment design that nests a discrete choice experiment within a randomized information intervention that allows us to disentangle the role of beliefs and salience about the tradeoffs involved in contract work from underlying (and potentially heterogeneous) preferences over amenities like flexibility, as well as their direct tastes for inherent features of employment (such as legal protections and tax withholding).

External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Garin, Andrew and Dmitri Koustas. 2025. "Why Do People Choose Freelance Work Arrangements? Evidence from NYC Taxi and App-Based Drivers." AEA RCT Registry. February 20. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.15408-1.0
Sponsors & Partners

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Intervention (Hidden)
Intervention Start Date
2025-02-07
Intervention End Date
2025-02-28

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
propensity to choose traditional employment; Willingness to pay for traditional employment instead of independent contract work; willingness to pay for schedule flexibility.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
See full analysis plan.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Beliefs about net pay relative to gross pay; beliefs about W-2 v 1099 jobs; reported expenses; pay and working conditions
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
We study tradeoffs between contract type and flexibility using a survey experiment design that nests a discrete choice experiment within a randomized information intervention that allows us to disentangle the role of beliefs and salience about the tradeoffs involved in contract work from underlying (and potentially heterogeneous) preferences over amenities like flexibility, as well as their direct tastes for inherent features of employment (such as legal protections and tax withholding).
Experimental Design Details
We have two main outcomes: the willingness to pay (WTP) to be a traditional employee rather than a self-employed freelancer, and WTP for flexible schedules. WTP will be estimated from a discrete-choice experiment conducted in one of two experimental environments.

We will have respondents choose between 5 sequential pairs of jobs. Key to our design is that in each comparison, one job is always a freelance independent contractor job and the other is a traditional employment job. Each job is additionally characterized by a pay amount (discussed further below), and control over schedule—these are varied in each set of options in order to estimate one’s willingness to pay for each job feature separately from a willingness to pay for a W-2 job per se (holding other attributes constant). To fix comparisons, we state that neither job offers health insurance or retirement benefits. Pay levels are anchored to average pay levels of drivers. The schedule choices are modeled after the current schedule environment being faced by drivers, as well as a hypothetical schedule modeled after other low wage jobs. In particular, the wording presented is as follows:

Schedule flexibility:
• Work whenever I want, as much as I want
• Schedule set by company in advance. You can work your desired number hours up to 40 hours per week guaranteed. You will only be assigned late nights or weekend hours if you choose.
• You can choose to drive as many hours as you want only so long as the company determines there are enough trips. You may be unable to log on if there aren't enough trips.

Our RCT randomly assigns respondents into one of two experimental conditions that vary what information is provided about the nature of independent contract arrangements.

A. In a control group, jobs options are described as either 1099 independent contractor jobs or as W-2 employment jobs. 2 job opportunities are first presented in terms of gross pay, before presenting three options in terms of net pay. To avoid anchoring, we ask questions about expenses only after data collection in the discrete choice experiment has concluded.

B. In a treatment condition, we ask the same questions about expenses but do so before beginning the pairwise comparisons. We then explicitly highlight key differences in how the law treats employees and contractors (i.e. social insurance, tax responsibility, and legal protections). After conducting a knowledge check, we then direct respondents to make the same 5 job comparisons, except presenting the three net pay options first.
Randomization Method
Randomization done within Qualtrics.
Randomization Unit
Individual.
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
~2000 individuals
Sample size: planned number of observations
~2000 individuals
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
1/3 in control, 2/3 in treatment arm
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
University of Chicago Social & Behavioral Sciences Institutional Review Board (IRB)
IRB Approval Date
2021-06-01
IRB Approval Number
IRB21-0174
Analysis Plan

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Post-Trial

Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Intervention

Is the intervention completed?
No
Data Collection Complete
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
No

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials