Challenging Digital Colonialism: How Can Governments Capture the Value of Data Labor?
4 November 2019
ABOUT THIS Perspective
Dr. Bama Athreya, Research Fellow at the Open Society Foundations, considers what's at stake in the commoditization of data and how governments can intervene to protect their citizens' digital rights.
The French government recently made a move to tax giant digital platform companies like Google, Facebook and Amazon. In retaliation, the Trump Administration signalled its intent to impose yet more tariffs on goods from France. This is not an appropriate use of trade sanctions and sends the wrong signal to sovereign nations everywhere regarding the question of whose rights govern an important new commodity: data.
Data as Currency
The European Union has been making the case for the need to tax platform companies for years. Even the World Bank, in its report The Changing Nature of Work, noted that the tech companies that profit most are paying least, and sometimes nothing at all. Indeed in an uncharacteristically blunt statement, the World Bank noted that “the increasingly digital nature of business only creates more opportunities for tax avoidance.” The European Commission’s Taxation and Customs Union has sensibly noted that the old rules don’t make sense in a new digital economy. On average, platform companies pay less than half the tax of traditional companies. This is, in part, because their biggest asset is unbooked.
Data is the new currency. Companies like Facebook bank billions on the trade in personal user data. The fact that a very small handful of global firms have monopolized this resource represents a 21st century tragedy of the commons. People are the producers of this important resource in every single online transaction they undertake, and this brings to light a new question: who owns their data? Do individuals own it? If they are citizens of sovereign nations, do those nations have some right to capture the wealth produced by their citizens?
Data as Labor
There are two very important market failures that need to be addressed. The first is the failure to pay for data labor. As Jaron Lanier and others have pointed out, producing data is a form of labor that has been broken into such minuscule pieces that all of us who do anything online are providing minute bits of labor to fuel the digital economy. When a reader ‘likes’ this post, s/he has created something of value in the digital economy. Advocates for digital rights have put forward several innovative proposals for how to ensure that ‘data labor’ can be fairly compensated. Some have made the case for piece rates, but this individualistic approach won’t go nearly as far as compensation at the aggregate national level. What’s needed is taxation based on the value of what citizens on aggregate generate in each country.
That is exactly the policy France has just adopted. In June, the country created rules to tax companies for the revenue all this user data is generating. Other governments are considering similar measures to capture and give back to citizens a fair share of the enormous profit that companies enjoy through the sale of data. This is not just happening in Europe. Emerging economies with an abundance of people’s data are also taking action. India is considering a draft e-commerce policy that recognizes ‘community data’ and ‘national data.’ The draft policy takes a clear stance: “The data that is generated in India belongs to Indians.” Brazil’s General Data Protection Law, which will come into effect in 2020, does not go quite as far but will at least lay groundwork for assessing the value of data produced by its citizens.
Data as National Commodity
A second market failure has to do with how the resource itself is used. Data is a renewable resource, but companies do not reinvest it in societies from which it is extracted. This means that potential benefits from the data itself- such as enabling research to protect public health, reduce crime, or improve mobility – are left on the table. Parminder Singh of IT for Change has recently documented efforts even including small LDCs such as Rwanda, which has put in place strong policies to manage publicly-collected data, and attempt to oversee privately collected data through a National Data Office. [1]
The US government’s opposition to any attempt to tax “digital services” is consistent with its opposition to digital sovereignty generally, as Deborah James has noted. Like colonialists of old, the US government hopes to enable its companies to continue vacuuming up this valuable resource from developing countries at no cost – and selling it back not only to commercial enterprises, but to political enterprises as well that increasingly use it to systematically target and shape voter behavior.
Lately, legislators in US Congress have woken up to the ways in which the platform giants may be undermining healthy political systems, not just in the US but around the world. They would do well to consider the long term economic implications of digital colonialism, as well. A better approach to the problem would be for the US to lead the way in collecting a fair share of the resource itself. Consider the possibility of a ‘data tax’: we might insist that the tech giants provide governments with large sets of anonymized data for research purposes. Countries including the US could easily create a ‘data commons’ managed by entities with strict ethical protocols in place, such as the US National Institutes of Health or National Science Foundation, and make it accessible to entities proposing legitimate research for the public good. In fact, the idea of a citizen-controlled data commons is already getting tested in Europe. Expanding this idea could be a golden opportunity to harness an important new commodity to enrich economies and benefit societies.
In this article by The Indian Express, India’s young consumers are shown powering demand, tracking credit scores and fuelling a surge in borrowing, even as millions of graduates remain locked out of stable jobs. This widening disconnect, as research from JustJobs Network suggests, raises larger questions about whether the country’s demographic advantage can translate into durable economic gains.
India’s Gender Budget has grown steadily, yet implementation challenges persist. Drawing on fieldwork in Odisha, JJN’s researcher Kripa Krishna examines in her piece for Ideas for India on how weak local capacity, limited accountability, and gaps in last-mile delivery undermine welfare outcomes. It argues that without strengthening public systems and evaluating existing schemes, increased allocations risk falling short of translating into meaningful improvements in women’s economic empowerment.
A workday shouldn’t hinge on finding a usable toilet, yet for many women in India, it does.
In her article for The Policy Edge, Kaushiki Sanyal, Fellow, JustJobs Network, argues that the focus on menstrual leave in India's policy debates misses a more immediate and pervasive constraint: the absence of functional sanitation. She contends that without addressing this everyday barrier, efforts to improve women’s workforce participation will remain incomplete.
Urban women’s participation in India’s labour market remains limited despite rising overall female labour force participation. This article examines whether platform work can enable women’s economic empowerment. It finds that platforms often reproduce inequalities through unpaid care burdens, unsafe mobility, and weak protections. Without improved infrastructure, childcare, safety, and labour protections, it risks becoming digitised informality rather than a pathway to mobility.
India's welfare state is held together by over five million women, namely the ASHA workers, Anganwadi workers, and mid-day meal workers & helpers, who deliver essential public services daily, yet remain classified as 'volunteers', denied fair wages, formal contracts, and basic protections. This is no accident: with women already spending nearly twice as much time on caregiving as men, the state has long relied on deeply entrenched gender norms to keep care work cheap and informal. In this piece Renjini Rajagopalan makes the case for why it's time to move beyond the honorary label and recognise care work for what it truly is: work.
The DDU-GKY scheDespite schemes like DDU-GKY, formal skilling remains limited for rural youth, with only about 3.9 % accessing structured training compared with 7.1 % in urban areas. Persistent barriers such as low awareness, uneven outreach, mobility constraints, and social norms, particularly affect women’s participation. JJN’s research highlights that addressing these structural and social challenges is crucial to making skill training inclusive and effective for rural youth.me was designed to bridge skilling and formal jobs for rural youth. However, low awareness, distant placements, social factors, and curriculum gaps hinder uptake.
JustJobs Network's Aditya Prem Kumar examines why technical skills alone are no longer enough to ensure meaningful employment for India's youth — and what it will take to close the employability gap.
At the AICESIS panel in Curaçao, Sabina Dewan highlighted how AI is accelerating inequalities and emphasised that without human-centric regulation, social protection, and renewed social dialogue, AI’s disruptions risk undermining workers and economies—particularly in the Global South.
India's rapid transition toward electric vehicles (EVs) is reshaping the country's industrial landscape and workforce dynamics. Yet we know surprisingly little about the broader impact of this shift on labour markets. JustJobs Network is seeking to address this knowledge gap through its leadership of the FutureWORKS Collective, an initiative funded by the International Development Research Centre. Our first project under the banner of decarbonization and jobs examines how this transition will affect regional economies and labour markets.
In a landmark shift, the Supreme Court's 2025 ruling in Dharam Singh & Anr. v. State of UP & Anr. declared that "perennial work deserves perennial posts". Breaking from decades of judicial precedent, the court held that long-serving daily wage workers in government service performing essential, continuous functions must be regularised, with full employment benefits. The judgment directly challenges past rulings that treated temporary government employment as inherently non-regularisable, instead emphasizing the nature and continuity of the work as central to constitutional fairness.
HSBC's Quality of Life report reveals a shift among Gen Z from traditional wealth accumulation to seeking balance, fulfilment, and purpose, with "multi retirements" emerging as a trend. But Sabina Dewan highlights this perspective reflects the privileged few. In India and other developing countries, most young people continue to struggle with low earnings and lack of social security and even well-paying jobs can feel isolating and purposeless.
Despite high education levels, Kerala faces alarmingly high rates of youth who are Not in Education, Employment, or Training (NEET). This disconnect between education and labour force participation signals a deep socioeconomic challenge. Based on qualitative interviews with a range of stakeholders in the state, JustJobs Network's Isha Gupta unpacks this paradox, pointing to a mismatch between youth aspirations and available opportunities.