Economics Professor Sparks Public Fury
Zhang Dandan, a prominent economics professor at Peking University’s National School of Development, ignited a firestorm across Chinese social media this week. During an appearance on the financial program Let’s Talk, Zhang characterized gig work as a form of welfare. She argued that the flexibility inherent in on-demand labor functions as a benefit for workers, despite the absence of traditional employment protections like pensions or health insurance. The statement drew immediate condemnation from millions of users who view such comments as out of touch with the current economic climate.
The backlash reflects a significant shift in public sentiment regarding labor rights. While Zhang intended to frame the discussion through the lens of labor economics, the audience perceived her remarks as an attempt to sanitize the precarious nature of gig employment. Critics highlighted the severe pressure faced by millions of delivery drivers, couriers, and freelance workers who operate under the strict control of platform algorithms. For many, gig work is not a choice made for the sake of flexible hours but a last-resort survival mechanism during a period of diminished full-time job availability.
The Scale of China’s Gig Economy
The controversy underscores the sheer volume of workers trapped in this labor category. Data from the China New Employment Forms Research Center indicates that the number of flexible workers will climb to 320 million this year. This figure represents roughly 44 percent of the entire urban workforce in China. To provide context, this population exceeds the entire resident count of the United States. With such a massive portion of the labor market lacking permanent contracts or mandatory employer-funded insurance contributions, the long-term viability of the national pension system faces mounting pressure.
Zhang is not a newcomer to this field of study. Her previous academic work tracked the struggles of on-demand laborers, particularly in the manufacturing sector. She noted last year that these workers accounted for approximately 31 percent of manufacturing labor, a figure that can skyrocket to 80 percent at massive factories during peak seasons. Even with this academic track record, her attempt to classify flexibility as a form of social welfare failed to resonate with a public struggling to find financial stability. The disconnect between academic theory and the daily physical toil of laborers remains a central point of tension.
Expert Reactions and Public Discontent
Even influential figures weighed in on the controversy. Hu Xijin, a well-known nationalist commentator and former editor at the Global Times, publicly labeled Zhang’s remarks as shocking and unacceptable. Hu suggested that Zhang should issue an apology to repair her damaged reputation. While Zhang has remained silent regarding the backlash, the event serves as a warning for other academics and policy advisors who discuss the labor market in abstract terms.
What happens next depends on how the state and the platforms respond to these mounting calls for better protections. The current reality for a significant percentage of the Chinese workforce involves racing against algorithms without a safety net. As the economy remains in a cooling phase, the divide between professional economic assessments and the lived experience of laborers continues to widen. The broader significance here is that the public is no longer accepting top-down definitions of their work. They are calling for structural change rather than academic re-labeling of their lack of security. Observers should watch for potential policy shifts as the government manages the friction between platform-driven growth and worker stability.