Survival without shame: Gig workers’ coping strategies during crisis in India
This blog post is part of the Finthropology series Digital Human Finance. We present qualitative research to showcase the kind of insights that can come from deeper, human-focused studies and how they can be used to build new sustainable financial solutions. We focus on the story and its potential in each presented publication.
So far in this series we have written about research on people’s everyday financial practices under normal circumstances. But what about times of crisis? How do people cope financially if there is an unusual event, such as a recession, earthquake, political unrest, or pandemic? Who do they turn to for practical and financial assistance, and what shapes these choices?
In the journal article we are discussing today, Rajorshi Ray and Jillet Sarah Sam report on ethnographic research they did with male gig workers in India during the Covid-19 pandemic. They examined how the pandemic disrupted gig work, particularly for ride-hailing and food-delivery workers, due to lockdowns, reduced demand, and local containment measures.
Ray and Sam were already carrying out ethnographic research with gig workers when the pandemic started, including hanging out with gig workers in their homes and public, doing face-to-face interviews, and shadowing them as they went about their work. During the 68-day national lockdown they had to change their methods, shifting to online interviews and conversations. Continuing the research during Covid-19 allowed the researchers to understand the struggles gig workers faced as they unfolded in real time.
Many gig workers relied on savings at first, but faced pressure as the lockdown continued, especially to pay back their car loans. Although the government put a 3-month moratorium on loan repayments during Covid, gig workers were worried about whether missing payments would just create more stress for them after the moratorium was lifted.
In order to survive—and attempt to make car loan repayments—they turned to their social networks for help. Ray and Sam explain how emotions such as shame shaped who gig workers turned to for assistance, and what kind of assistance they asked for. Gig workers turned to four different kinds of contacts: household members, dispersed kinship ties, neighbourhood networks and work-related ties. Of course, not all gig workers had access to the same resources.
Immediate family members were the first line of defense. Ray and Sam note that as gig workers’ savings dwindled, they often turned to their parents’ pensions, sibling’s incomes, and wives’ savings (in cash or gold) to meet basic needs. They note that this adversely impacted women, whose autonomy in making financial decisions dwindled during the pandemic. Incidentally, the other types of capital (particularly social) that women had (such as work contacts) became quite salient for the household to tide over the crisis.
Gig workers’ second line of defense were relatives who did not live in the same household, including parents-in-law. Ray and Sam note that gig workers were reluctant to ask such contacts for monetary gifts or loans as this would incur shame and cause them to ‘lose face’. Instead, they relied upon such contacts for non-monetary assistance, such as help finding a job, access to vaccinations and masks, and more.
The third line of defense was neighbourhood connections. These included taking loans from informal money lenders or borrowing money from friends at no interest. Gig workers were only able to borrow from a money lender if both they and their family had a good reputation. Where possible, gig workers would generally only borrow from a money lender belonging to the same caste as them or a higher one, as borrowing from a lower caste person would also incur a loss of face. However, they would take interest-free loans from people of a lower caste, especially if the person was a neighbour or they had a shared history of migration. Ray and Sam report that the person lending would see this as a reflection of their growing socioeconomic mobility.
The fourth and final line of defense was co-workers. Ray and Sam report that gig workers helped each other substantially, such as through sharing vehicles and food (though rarely loans). Indeed, they often resided with each other and would cover each other’s food and rent.
It is striking that these defenses are all informal. They include advice, support, sharing resources (money/savings) and assets (like the use of a bike) as well as loans. They do not, however, involve any kind of formal financial services, whether from banks or microfinance organizations. Neither do the platforms provide their gig workers with any kind of safety net to tide them over during crises.
What, then, can we learn about coping with crises from this article and other anthropological research?
Broadly speaking, Ray and Sam’s findings illustrate the ways in which gig workers make decisions about asking for assistance based on the nature of their relationships with people and the emotional and social implications of their requests. When asking for help they turn first to immediate family, rather than, for example, in-laws. They also try to observe cultural norms when asking for credit - and prefer informal lenders rather than seeking loans from relations where this might be considered unethical or a failure. This is similar to findings in previous literature.
In terms of credit, sometimes it may be psychologically easier to incur debt and pay interest rather than ask for financial help and risk damaging a relationship. Sibel Kusimba has noted how some Kenyan people prefer to take a mobile money loan than ask a relative for one, especially for fear of "tapping out" or exhausting their social ties. And as anthropologists have observed for at least a century, receiving assistance of any kind puts you in debt to the giver, and thus increases their power over you.
David Graeber’s (2014) observation that “credit is good, debt is bad” indicates how not all credit is morally equal. Some kinds of loans bring social stigma (such as borrowing from a friend when you are broke), whereas others can improve your social status (such as getting a mortgage or car loan).
In a time of broad crisis, there are likely to be fewer people to ask for help, and the difficulties of asking for help are compounded. Loans for coping with crises may well fall into the category of ‘bad’ debt, given that many people will be struggling to cope. Nonetheless, people within communities that are struck the hardest do what they can to help each other, sharing resources to give everyone a better chance of survival.
Ray, R. and Sam, J.S., 2023. Off-platform social networks and gig work during the Covid-19 pandemic in India. Journal of South Asian Development, 18(3), pp.359-382.
