Dr. Harilal Bhaskar argues that platform growth must be measured not only by scale, adoption and access, but also by its impact on livelihoods, dignity and long-term participation.
By Dr. Harilal Bhaskar
There is a quiet misjudgement shaping our present moment. We have come to assume that if a system functions, it is inherently good. If it expands, it is successful. If it allows open entry, it is fair. Yet, the lived reality tells a more complex story. A driver on platforms like Uber or Ola is no longer simply working—he is navigating an increasingly saturated ecosystem, often competing with individuals who entered not by choice, but by necessity. A delivery partner on Swiggy or Zomato spends more time waiting than moving, as supply has outpaced demand.
A small retailer sees customers migrate toward Amazon or Flipkart—not due to lack of effort, but because the system privileges scale over survival. These are not isolated experiences. They are early indicators. Indicators that access, when left unstructured, creates imbalance.
The Illusion of Open Opportunity
We celebrate the idea that “anyone can participate.” It sounds inclusive. It appears democratic. But when participation is entirely unrestricted, protection disappears. Earnings begin to erode. Stability weakens. Dignity becomes uncertain. The system may continue to perform efficiently. But the individuals within it begin to absorb the strain.
What Data Will Not Capture
Dashboards will continue to reflect growth. Graphs will signal adoption. Reports will highlight expansion.
But they will not capture:
- a driver switching off his engine at a traffic signal—not to wait, but to conserve fuel for one more ride,
- a delivery partner pausing before accepting an order, weighing whether the trip will justify the effort,
- a shopkeeper watching a customer compare prices online while standing in the store—and recognising the outcome before it unfolds.
These are not anomalies. They are becoming the norm. And they remain invisible to most systems of measurement.
From Open Access to Responsible Design
The issue is not with platforms themselves. It lies in the absence of structure. If a system enables entry, it must also define responsibility. If additional drivers are onboarded, how are earnings protected? If more delivery partners are added, how is equitable distribution ensured? If local businesses are disrupted, how are they integrated—rather than displaced? These are not regulatory constraints. They are design imperatives.
A Practical Direction: Protecting Livelihoods
Participation within modern platforms is not uniform—and systems must recognise this explicitly. A structured approach can bring clarity: a Primary–Secondary participation framework, supported by a formal licensing architecture at the policy level. This is not a new idea. We already recognise differentiated participation in sectors such as transport, where licensing determines eligibility, accountability, and protection. A similar approach can be extended to platform-based work.
Consider ride-hailing:
A driver who depends entirely on platforms like Uber or Ola for livelihood—someone who may have transitioned from formal employment into full-time driving—can be recognised as a Primary (Professional) Driver, supported through a designated licence category issued or validated by authorities such as the Regional Transport Office or an equivalent state/central regulatory framework.
This category can enable:
- priority allocation of rides,
- defined minimum earning assurance bands,
- access to insurance, social security, and welfare mechanisms,
- formal recognition as a livelihood-dependent worker within the platform economy.
At the same time, a software professional logging in after work hours, or an individual using the platform as interim support, can operate under a Secondary (Flexible) Licence Category, with:
- calibrated access during peak demand periods,
- no prioritisation over full-time drivers,
- flexibility without displacing livelihood-dependent participants.
This is not an exclusion. It is structured inclusion backed by policy.
Crucially, such a system does not require heavy-handed regulation. It requires intelligent alignment between platform design and public policy—where licensing is not merely a compliance instrument, but a tool for economic balance and livelihood protection. The same principle can extend beyond mobility—into delivery ecosystems, local retail networks, and other service sectors where Platformization is reshaping participation.
Because when systems remain completely open, supply expands faster than demand, earnings decline silently, and those with no fallback absorb the first and deepest impact. A licensing-backed participation model ensures that opportunity remains open—but livelihoods are not left unprotected.
The Leadership Shift That Matters
The need is not for fewer platforms. It is for better-designed systems.
The shift is both necessary and clear:
- From maximum onboarding → to balanced onboarding
- From open access → to accountable access
- From scale at any cost → to sustainability with dignity
Scaling is relatively straightforward. Designing for balance requires intent.
The future will not belong to those who expand the fastest. It will belong to those who sustain participation the longest.
The Question That Endures
Technology will evolve. Platforms will transform. But one question will persist: When you had the ability to design systems—did you safeguard the people within them? Because, ultimately, leadership is not defined by how many entered a system. It is defined by how many were able to remain—with dignity.
About the Author
Dr. Harilal Bhaskar, Chief Operating Officer (COO) and National Coordinator at I-STEM (Indian Science, Technology and Engineering Facilities Map), under the Office of the Principal Scientific Adviser (PSA), Government of India.
