摘要： 随着数智时代的来临，以“企业—员工”到“平台—个人”为根本特征的零工经济，悄然带来一场工作的革命：《中华人民共和国职业分类大典》从2015年新增“快递小哥”到2020年2月新增“外卖小哥”；7月初，人力资源和社会保障部联合国家市场监管总局、统计局又官宣以“直播带货”为鲜明特征的互联网营销师这一新职业的诞生。新型工作形式在中国社会的普及，不仅释放着零工经济的巨大能量，而且日渐构成民众生活不可或缺的元素，已然成为社会变革的引擎。尤其在突袭而来的新冠肺炎疫情背景下，当常态化经济和正规就业遭遇前所未有的挑战，数字产业与地摊经济却在危中存机。为探讨这场工作的革命的发展脉络与内在逻辑，特别是其对于宏观经济、社会治理、万众创新的挑战，《探索与争鸣》编辑部与上海汇智经济学与管理学发展基金会特邀相关领域专家，举办了“零工经济与数字产业：后疫情社会的新动能”圆桌会议，几经酝酿，集结成文，以飨读者。
邱泽奇教授认为，零工经济是一种古老且主流的经济形式。机器对岗位工作的替代，意味着智能时代的工作革命已经到来，更重要的是，这场革命使人的工作走出局部，被推向更大的范围乃至全世界。数字刻画的零工经济和零工雇佣支撑着差异化创新。诸大建教授认为，从中国的实际情况出发，国外的零工经济概念存在理论误读。中国零工经济的主流是低技能的体力工作者，对于当前的发展起到“就业蓄水池”的作用。增强零工经济吸引力的关键是，使“U盘化就业”走向“正规化”和“主流化”。张军教授认为，零工经济与技术发展对于宏观经济学构成三大理论挑战，挑战传统的货币政策、发展经济学、国民经济核算，因此传统的宏观经济学教科书需要重写。王宁教授认为，不同类型的零工的不同体验，取决于互连性以及劳动者三种不可替代性条件。高技能零工和低技能零工分别利用技能门槛条件的不可替代性和在场服务条件下的不可替代性，弥补各自在制度保护条件下的不可替代性的缺失。汪德华研究员认为，零工经济在劳动关系方面发生的变化，给传统社会保险体系的正常运转带来了冲击。就业关系相对松散的零工经济从业人员参加社会保险的逆向选择问题和纳入工伤保险问题是两大难题。未来可以考虑用“社保增值税”的模式重构现行养老和医疗保险体系加以解决。董保华教授认为，疫情发展与业态变化带来零工经济的法律命题。其中，共享经济促成了增量用工的法律变局，共享员工推动了存量用工的法律变局。当多种用工形式冲突加大，社会成本驱动利益重组，社会流动呼唤僵化观念的调整。刘文静教授认为，零工经济的数字特点，使其面临不特定第三方纠纷与不公平竞争的风险，需要厘清基础和派生法律关系及其相应的法律责任。对零工特别是低技能、低收入零工的保护，应当优先于对平台企业的保护。王星教授认为，对于零工经济的劳动者来说，究竟是“自由赋予”还是“自由剥夺”，不可一概而论。零工经济模式无助于低技能零工摆脱“束缚与剥削”的状态，也无助于技能的形成，因此需要国家适时出台政策，构建零工技能形成的多元化成本分担渠道。
——主持人　李梅

Abstract:

With the advent of the digital intelligence era, the gig economy has quietly brought about a revolution in work. The popularity of new forms of work not only releases huge energy, but also constitutes an indispensable element of people’s life, and has become the engine of social change. Especially after the emergence of the novel coronavirus, the normalization economy and formal employment are facing unprecedented challenges. Opportunities and risks coexist in the digital industry and the stall economy. 　　

Professor Qiu Zeqi believes that the substitution of machines for work means that the work revolution in the intelligence era has come. More importantly, this revolution makes people’s work go out of the local areas, and pushes to a larger scope, even the whole world. Professor Zhu Dajian believes that the mainstream of China’s gig economy is low skilled manual workers, which plays a role of “employment pool” for the current development. Professor Zhang Jun believes that the development of gig economy and technology poses three theoretical challenges to macroeconomics, namely, the traditional monetary policy, development economics and national economic accounting. Professor Wang Ning believes that the different experiences of different types of casual jobs depend on the interconnection and the three irreplaceable conditions of workers. High skilled casual workers and low skilled casual workers respectively make use of the non substitutability of skill threshold conditions and on-site service conditions to make up for their lack of irreplaceable under the system protection conditions. Professor Wang Ning believes that high skilled casual workers and low skilled casual workers make up for the lack of institutional protection by taking advantage of the skill threshold and the non substitutability of on-site service conditions. Researcher Wang Dehua believes that the changes in the labor relations of the gig economy have brought impact on the normal operation of the traditional social insurance system. In the future, we can consider reconstructing the current pension and medical insurance system with the mode of “social security value-added tax” . Professor Dong Baohua believes that the development of epidemic situation and the change of business format bring about the legal proposition of gig economy. The sharing economy promotes the legal change of incremental employment, and the sharing employee promotes the legal change of existing employment. Professor Liu Wenjing believes that it is necessary to clarify the basic and derivative legal relations and their corresponding legal liabilities. The protection of gig jobs, especially those with low skills and low income, should take precedence over the protection of platform enterprises. Professor Wang Xing believes that the economic model of odd jobs is not conducive to getting rid of the “bondage and exploitation” state of low skilled casual workers, nor is it conducive to the formation of skills. Therefore, it is necessary for the state to timely issue policies and build diversi?ed cost sharing channels.