The nature of work and employment has changed. From the perspective of economic development practitioners and individuals committed to advancing workforce development, the shift away from traditional employment toward precarious, or gig, labor has implications for capital investment, public policy, and local tax bases. Although this book and its laser-like focus on the terms of employment may not seem to be a natural fit for this journal, the thesis is a familiar one for most communities. That is, neoliberalism is increasingly and effectively shifting risk from firms and corporation shareholders to communities and individuals. This process has been ongoing as employers move away from standard traditional employment structures toward temporary, more flexible staffing and has accelerated over time to include contracted temporary relationships that, in a growing number of industries, have devolved into the so-called “gig economy” where employees become entrepreneurial actors. Yet, as Crouch notes, the euphemisms of the gig and employee as entrepreneur are problematic, as most jobs aren’t gigs per se (p. 3). While the author believes the standard employment structures will persist, he demonstrates that gigging undermines the scale and scope of benefits available to all employees and is most impactful on the work lives of individuals working at the margins of the economy, entry level positions (i.e., minimum wage), and persons below the median. And his analysis at the nation-state scale (Chapters 3 and 4) is evidence how this trend impacts individuals and labor markets, as well as alters the scale and scope of public policy (social insurance frameworks). As a result, Crouch makes a compelling case that policy and legal frameworks need to evolve and respond to the unintended consequences of the hypermarketization of everyday life. Yet, in some industries (notably information technology), I believe it should be acknowledged that stacking multiple gigs does enable a truly entrepreneurial individual to accelerate their careers (i.e., experience) and incomes. Likewise, Crouch and others should recognize that some labor needs are inherently short term, and the bundle of benefits should, arguably, be distinct from standard employment. Finally, the career arc of most individuals, personal life cycles, and the shifting preferences of Generation Z and Millennials may benefit from an expanded collection of employment arrangements (traditional, temporary, contract, and gig). So, the assertion that gig work is, by definition, precarious may not fully recognize that contemporary conditions mandate a broader range of employer-employee relationships is necessary to ensure competitiveness and access to talent. So how might this contribution inform local economic development? Given my geographic context and prior empirical research, it is reasonable to argue that multiple labor regimes and differentiated labor markets within single industries (as well as across all sectors) are most effectively deployed in urban areas and at the firm level. Simply put, shifting labor contracts place rural communities at a disadvantage and reduce the competitiveness of organizations committed (philosophically and legislatively) to standard employment relationships. For example, try hailing an Uber or Lyft in Sullivan, IL, Clarksburg, WV, or Gaylord, MI, or endeavor to hire an information technology professional in state or local government who telecommutes. While Crouch may not be concerned about these two examples, the absence of ride sharing makes rural communities less competitive. Likewise, state and local regulations prevent rural communities and (in my experience) rurally located public universities from being competitive. So, the author’s appeal to restructure incentives and reduce asymmetries may have the potential to benefit nonurban regions.

中文翻译：

---

书评：零工经济会占上风吗？通过科林克劳奇

工作和就业的性质发生了变化。从致力于促进劳动力发展的经济发展从业者和个人的角度来看，从传统就业向不稳定或零工劳动力的转变对资本投资、公共政策和地方税基都有影响。尽管这本书及其对就业条款的激光式关注似乎并不适合这本期刊，但该论文对于大多数社区来说都是熟悉的。也就是说，新自由主义越来越有效地将风险从公司和公司股东转移到社区和个人身上。随着雇主从标准的传统雇佣结构转向临时的、更灵活的人员配置，这一过程一直在进行，并且随着时间的推移加速了包括临时合同关系，在越来越多的行业中，已经转移到所谓的“零工经济”中，员工成为企业家。然而，正如克劳奇所指出的，将演出和雇员作为企业家的委婉说法是有问题的，因为大多数工作本身并不是演出（第 3 页）。虽然作者认为标准的就业结构将继续存在，但他表明，演出破坏了所有员工可获得的福利的规模和范围，并且对在经济边缘工作的个人的工作生活影响最大，入门级职位（即，最低工资）和低于中位数的人。他在民族国家层面的分析（第 3 章和第 4 章）证明了这一趋势如何影响个人和劳动力市场，以及改变公共政策（社会保险框架）的规模和范围。因此，克劳奇提出了一个令人信服的案例，即政策和法律框架需要发展并应对日常生活过度市场化的意外后果。然而，在某些行业（尤其是信息技术），我认为应该承认叠加多个工作确实可以让真正的创业者加速他们的职业生涯（即经验）和收入。同样，克劳奇和其他人应该认识到，一些劳动力需求本质上是短期的，而且可以说，这一系列福利应该不同于标准就业。最后，大多数人的职业生涯曲线、个人生命周期以及 Z 世代和千禧一代不断变化的偏好可能会受益于更多的就业安排（传统、临时、合同和零工）。所以，关于演出工作的断言是，根据定义，不稳定可能没有完全认识到当代条件要求更广泛的雇主-雇员关系对于确保竞争力和获得人才是必要的。那么，这种贡献如何为当地经济发展提供信息呢？鉴于我的地理背景和先前的实证研究，有理由认为单一行业（以及所有部门）内的多种劳动制度和差异化的劳动力市场最有效地部署在城市地区和企业层面。简而言之，改变劳动合同使农村社区处于不利地位，并降低了致力于（在哲学和立法上）标准雇佣关系的组织的竞争力。例如，尝试在伊利诺伊州沙利文、西弗吉尼亚州克拉克斯堡或密歇根州盖洛德招呼 Uber 或 Lyft，或努力在州或地方政府聘请远程办公的信息技术专业人员。虽然克劳奇可能不关心这两个例子，但没有拼车服务会降低农村社区的竞争力。同样，州和地方法规阻止农村社区和（以我的经验）位于农村的公立大学具有竞争力。因此，作者对重组激励措施和减少不对称的呼吁可能有可能使非城市地区受益。州和地方法规阻止农村社区和（以我的经验）位于农村的公立大学具有竞争力。因此，作者对重组激励措施和减少不对称的呼吁可能有可能使非城市地区受益。州和地方法规阻止农村社区和（以我的经验）位于农村的公立大学具有竞争力。因此，作者对重组激励措施和减少不对称的呼吁可能有可能使非城市地区受益。