Analysis of the global expansion of digital platforms has led to growing debate. Often under the heading of platform capitalism, the focus has been on how platforms are rapidly advancing across sectors, centralizing power within Big Tech and leading to new forms of value capture and labor precarity across the globe.
In these debates, the attention has mainly been on the ‘platform’ element of platform capitalism and the mechanisms by which platforms are operating. But more can be said about the “capitalism” side. We know that platforms are typically capitalist enterprises but how are platforms altering how capitalism is developing, and its future directions?
A typical narrative of global platform expansion is to represent it as the next stage of capitalism and globalization– a sort of ‘hyper-capitalism’. The now familiar story is that the technologies of platforms drive extreme monopolies and further deregulation across the globe. Ultimately, when all is said and done, platform capitalism is likely to lead to uneven and dependent economic relationships between the Global North and South. The picture painted is of a bleak future with lead platform firms shaping vast swathes of global economies and largely detached from any local demands or regulations.
What happens as platforms expand into regions where economies operate under very different terms? What are the consequences of these patterns for how we see capitalism in the present day?
But is this narrative too limiting? Of course, it would be unwise to deny the evidence of centralizing power and exploitation connected to platforms. But are blanket expansions of platforms as smooth as they seem? What happens as platforms expand into regions where economies operate under very different terms? What are the consequences of these patterns for how we see capitalism in the present day?
In answering these questions, I suggest we need to think more seriously about variation. Intuitively, the idea of variation might indicate some sort of local context or minutiae within specific sectors. In a hyper-capitalist narrative of platforms, variation then might be overlooked – it is a local condition that powerful global platforms will be able to avoid in favor of generic and remote global operations.
In an interconnected capitalist system, variations are often reused and may shape the direction of how platform capitalism further expands.
I want to argue this assumption is problematic. Variation is not only an important element of how platforms expand but by focusing on variations globally, we can begin to build alternative narratives of how platform capitalism is being contested and evolving over time.
To put this more practically: for globalized platforms with their global brands and identical apps, it is easy to fall into the trap of considering them as operating universally. But when digging deeper, platforms are not standardized in the way we often assume and include important shifts in structure, relationships, operation, and power. These variations emerge from local tensions, politics, and fixes. These are more than just local exceptions. In an interconnected capitalist system, variations are often reused and may shape the direction of how platform capitalism further expands. More optimistically, these variations can also highlight resistances that platform firms experience as they expand globally, with the potential to highlight key regulations and struggles against the worst aspects of platform expansion.
Questioning ‘Over-Globalized’ Narratives
The story of the global expansion of digital platforms, and their unique patterns is now well sketched out. This includes the rapid ‘winner-takes-all’ dynamics of those platforms that overcome initial barriers and rapidly expand to dominate markets. They can then leverage their size, financing, captive consumers and data to gain share across the economy.
Examining platforms in terms of global perspectives, these patterns of dominance are said to reproduce, and indeed heighten uneven development. Platforms, through their use of digital technologies, provide tech firms with flexibility in operating more remotely than previously. They can operate as dominant firms whilst being structured to avoid local rules– such as labor law, tax and sectoral regulations. It is these types of narratives that paint the picture of platforms as hyper-capitalist. They are enhancing the global power of tech firms and supporting a narrative of platform capitalism as centralized and characterized by uneven power.
However, taking what might be called ‘over-globalized’ narratives to their ultimate conclusion would suggest limitations. Sweeping over-globalized accounts risks underplaying the variations that occur that are essential to how platforms operate and expand. As researchers from US organization Data & Society put it this leads to problematic narratives of platforms where “platform companies ‘appear’ in a given sector and reform it in their image with little to no resistance…even work that is critical of platforms may reinforce narratives about those companies’ near-mystical power”.
Cases have begun to emerge that highlight the limits of such narratives. A good example of this is comparative studies of Uber, arguably the pioneer firm in building and applying platform models. Uber branding, operations and apps remain fixed globally, but examining operations across the US, Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa has highlighted key corporate, business model, policy, and political variations across different nations. For example, major variations in operation have emerged recently as labor laws, employment rules, and labor court cases have been contested. In these cases, the Uber model did not collapse. It adapted in the face of regulations. This has occurred not through unchanging standardization but by the way it incorporated different variations in response to these actions.
Rejecting the “over-globalized” narrative in platforms also aligns with the growing calls to “de-westernize” our ideas around platforms.
Rejecting the “over-globalized” narrative in platforms also aligns with the growing calls to “de-westernize” our ideas around platforms. This call has emerged with the observation that most of the early knowledge on platforms originated from the US and European studies (often looking to very specific advanced technology cases such as online app stores). As academics Mark Davis & Jian Xiao suggest, when these forms of knowledge become embedded in wider models, they “…universalize Western platform capitalism and the ideological and cultural forces that underpin its development”. The recent expansion of Chinese platforms illustrates this limitation. Details of the diverging histories and practices of these platforms may poorly fit with common knowledge. Even if there remain some parallels to Western platform examples, one might more provocatively suggest that we need to go back to the drawing board and reconsider even core ideas of platform monopolies, platform owners, and economic value in such cases.
Forms of Variety in Platforms
So, evidence suggests a case can be made to push back against ‘over-globalized’ narratives around platforms. There are then several ways that platforms might make a better account of variation. Although there are fewer discussions about platforms directly on this topic, we can see some emerging evidence that provides insights into alternative narratives.
Perhaps the most developed ideas of variation come from observations of significant national variations of platforms. This particularly originates from the expansion of Chinese-origin platforms, mentioned earlier. Studies of the emergence of the Chinese “platform business group”, for example, highlight a very different form of lead organization in China. The subsequent patterns of how these platform groups then leverage their power across newly emerging industries in China also highlight important differences. The origins and structures of these platform business groups are also significantly diverging from the typical narratives which, for example, more readily incorporate the role of the Chinese state. Differences in Chinese platforms are then important to consider the tensions and politics as these platforms expand to compete with US platforms in countries of the Global South.
As the Chinese platform example shows, evolving forms of national capitalism can help to consider how platforms evolve. They also highlight how global platform models can come into tension with certain political and institutional factors in some countries.
Looking towards such national variations in platforms resembles what political economists have labelled ‘varieties of capitalism’. Rather than see capitalism as a singular process which is identical globally, one can start to examine the different ‘flavors’ of national capitalism in different countries. This is connected to the different institutions and norms that countries might have (e.g. within rules, national industrial relations, education systems etc.). Examples of such national varieties of capitalism might include more liberal market categorizations (resembling the UK/US), coordinated market economies (resembling Germany/Japan) or hierarchical capitalist economies (resembling some countries in Latin America). As the Chinese platform example shows, evolving forms of national capitalism can help to consider how platforms evolve. They also highlight how global platform models can come into tension with certain political and institutional factors in some countries. All these aspects will have broader repercussions for how platform capitalism will look in different nations.
Other cases of platforms, however, suggest that a solely national picture may provide a skewed picture of contemporary platform capitalism. For example, the expansion of transportation and gig economy platforms Grab and Gojek have attracted attention in Asia. Here, strong sectoral histories of collective action as well as local ownership of key transportation platforms lead to more politicized and collective varieties of platform labor. In another Asian case looking at e-commerce marketplace platforms such as Lazada and Shopee, a major variation of platforms also comes at a continental scale since platforms draw on regional financing and take advantage of regional trade rules and infrastructure to operate “cross-border platforms”. This makes these regional operations unique and with different political responses to elsewhere in the world.
Contemporary capitalism is a more complex and evolving beast than solely being about nations.
These additional examples move away somewhat from national variety and align more closely with ideas centered on a broader concept called “variegation”. Contemporary capitalism is a more complex and evolving beast than solely being about nations. This is a relatively intuitive idea – we are familiar with a modern world where other scales such as cities, global production networks and continental can be more powerful than nation-states in shaping capitalism. So, taking these ideas we should consider variation in platforms at multiple scales. With continental, regional and sectoral connections important, variations in platforms capitalism are likely to emerge as much in these other scales as it is at a national level.
Perhaps more importantly, ideas of variegation have also been useful for discussing capitalism as an unstable process.
Perhaps more importantly, ideas of variegation have also been useful for discussing capitalism as an unstable process. As many of us will have experienced, contemporary capitalism is not stable but undergoes moments of financial crunches, market failures and geopolitical fights amongst others. Such crises, which are all the more regular, do not lead to an end of capitalism but its evolution. For example, after the global financial crisis of 2007-2008, capitalism did not die but is argued to have evolved with new forms of global finance, labor exploitation, and globalization as a result of the crisis. This crisis deeply affected the major forms of platform capitalism that have emerged with their major business models and financing. As platforms become more established, variegation studies tell us we should look beyond platform capitalism being stable, towards considering the “decisive moments of economic transformation and institutional restructuring” as well as “analysis of regulatory projects and experiments in the organization of production” that are likely to be significant.
Towards Variation in Platform Capitalism
In summary, it is very easy given the global financing and reach of platform firms, their generic marketing and identical apps to fall into “over-globalized” narratives of platform capitalism. This would consider platform capitalism as characterized by the expansion of firms across different parts of the world with relatively generic outcomes in terms of labor, deregulation, economic development and unequal power.
Here, I have sought to contrast this with an alternative narrative that considers variation more prominently. This is not to deny that platforms can sometimes avoid local regulations nor that platforms sometimes organize new forms of centralized power or exploitation. Rather it seeks to provide a more nuanced idea of platform capitalism. This is characterized by variations, fixes and tensions in business models, forms of labor and economic impact. By bringing together a more grounded consideration of platforms, it can also provide a step toward concerns about the westernization of knowledge production around platforms.
As the examples that have been discussed around Uber, Chinese platforms and Southeast Asian marketplace platforms show, a discussion of variation can be productive in seeing platform capitalism as an unfolding rather than an inevitable process. It can be useful to highlight the tensions and politics that arise as platform ideas expand globally, and how these evolve to reproduce and extend norms of capitalism. It can also highlight pockets of effective regulation, agency and technology appropriation that may move us beyond these capitalist paradigms in the future.
This work summarises a recent academic article entitled ‘Conceptualizing variety in platform capitalism: the dynamics of variegated capitalism in Thai digital marketplace platforms’ in the journal Globalizations.
