Same algorithm, different country
A comparative essay putting China's platform-labour arrangements next to Australia's Closing Loopholes reforms and the EU's Platform Work Directive
Due: 4 October 2027 · Weight: 20%
The brief#
Pick one specific problem — worker classification, minimum pay, or algorithmic transparency — and show how China, Australia and the EU have each answered it differently, and why.
Weeks 7–10 gave you the raw material: China’s reliance on layered subcontracting and individual-business-owner registration to avoid an employment finding; Australia’s 2024 “employee-like worker” minimum standards under the Fair Work Commission; the EU’s Platform Work Directive and its presumption-of-employment mechanism. A weak essay lists all three. A strong essay picks one axis of comparison and uses it to explain something that listing them separately wouldn’t show — for instance, why a mechanism that works in one legal tradition doesn’t transplant cleanly into another.
Avoid treating any one regime as simply “ahead” of the others. Each is answering a slightly different question, under different constraints; the mark rewards showing you understand the constraints, not picking a winner.
What you submit#
A 1200–1600 word essay, sources linked inline (a government determination, directive text, or reporting is fine — this isn’t asking for a literature review). State your comparison axis in the opening paragraph.
The spec
The brief poses the problem and leaves room for a response. The spec is the fixed part: what a marker checks. Some lines can be checked mechanically; the rest call for judgement.
- names a specific mechanism in at least two of the three regimes (China, Australia, EU) rather than describing them in general terms
- the comparison identifies why the mechanisms differ, not just that they differ
- includes a mandatory 100–150 word paragraph naming the weakest or least certain claim in your own comparison
- 1200–1600 words, with sources linked or cited
How it is marked
Judged as a whole rather than against a fixed rubric: whether the essay names a specific mechanism in at least two regimes, whether the comparison explains why the mechanisms differ rather than just listing them, and whether the mandatory self-review paragraph honestly names the weakest part of your own argument rather than restating its strongest point. An accurate comparison that declines to say where it might be wrong is judged incomplete, not merely modest.