Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Precarios forms of employment: nature and evidence


The article describes the approaches to the study of employment non-standard forms, especially precarios forms. The essence of the concept «precariat» is revealed. The author explained positive and negative consequences of the proliferation precarios forms of employment at the individual, societal and state level.

It is proven that precarious forms of employment are not strictly marginalized by the working activity of the least competitive population segments. The choice of precarious economic models was caused by the modern globalization trends and labor market flexibility and is distinctive for the representatives of the economically active population from the innovative core of the company. Modern labour market requires specialists in the area of information technology, specialists in the creation and implementation of innovative ideas and products, which entails change in the nature of work – term projects instead of stable work within one company, apart from physical places of work. In the modern social reality the following life strategies become actual: downshifting, digital nomading.

With this in mind, precarity can be a conscious choice of the individual as the desire to develop a private and family life or as the opportunity to get rid of the career claims, which are costly, considering the time and emotional stress. Despite the fact that precarity includes variety of groups of the economically active population (e.g. freelancers, creative design staff, representatives of the IT industry, self-employed, seasonal workers), they all share general uncertainties about the future, financial security, and social guarantees.

Due to that this group has the protest potential, which can be used to increase public discontent.

  1. Heyets, V.M., Grytsenko, A.A. (Eds.). (2013). The institutions of employment and unemployment: current trends and challenges for Ukraine: scient. report. Kyiv: Institute for Economics and Forecasting,  National Academy of Science of Ukraine [in Ukrainian].

  2. Guk, L.P. (2010). Freelancers in the labour market of Ukraine: the flexible model of employment. Formuvannia rynkovoi ekonomiky. Sotsialno-trudovi vidnosyny: teoriia ta praktyka – Formation of market economy. Social labor relations: theory and practice, 3, 492-500 [in Ukrainian].

  3. Guk, L.P. (2015). State regulation of non-standard employment. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].

  4. Anderson, B. (2007). Battles in time: the relation between global and labour mobilities. Working Paper, 55.

  5. Butler, J. (2004). Precarious life: the powers of mourning and violence. London: Verso.

  6. Tsianos, V., Papadopoulos, D. (2006). Precarity: a savage journey to the heart of embodied capitalism. URL:

  7. Stending, G. (2014). Precariat: a new dangerous class. Moscow: Ad Marginem.

  8. Waite, L. (2009). A Place and Space for a Critical Geography of Precarity?

  9. Kalleberg, A.L. (2000). Nonstandard Employment Relations: Part-time, Temporary and Contract Work. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 342.

  10. Golovakha, Ie., Gorbachik, A. (2010). Trends of social changes in Ukraine and Europe: according to the results of the “European social survey” 2005–2007–2009. Kyiv: Institute of Sociology, NAS of Ukraine [in Ukrainian].

  11. Vlasenko, S. (). Work on the road: how to become digital civil servant and to earn while traveling. URL: [in Ukrainian].

  12. The study “Assessment of demand for professions that are in demand on the labour market” prepared in the framework of the project “Economic and social recovery of Donbass”. URL: [in Ukrainian].

Full text