A critical evaluation of competing representations of the relationship between formal and informal work

Abstract

Analysing the extensive literature on informal work reveals multiple, often contradictory, views regarding its relationship with formal work. The aim of this paper is to evaluate critically these competing claims. Evaluating in turn the predominant views of informal work as a residue, by-product, complement and/or alternative to formal work, reveals that universal generalizations are not possible and that all of these articulations only apply in specific contexts. However, rather than simply conclude that these contrasting readings of the relationship between informal and formal work are therefore context-bound generalizations, two features common to all these perspectives are identified that necessitate a more fundamental rethinking of the relationship between formal and informal work. These relate to the way in which all firstly, simplistically attribute one form of work with positive features (e.g. modernization, virtue and progress) and the other with negative attributes (e.g. tradition, backwardness, exploitation) and, secondly, delineate formal and informal work as discrete and separate entities. The paper concludes by setting out a research agenda to not only highlight the political values underpinning each of these representations but also achieve a fuller and finer-grained understanding of the relations between informal and formal work.Keywords: informal economy; binary hierarchy; dualism; future of work L'analyse de la gamme de littérature importante concernant le travail informel démontre les perspectives multiples et souvent contradictoires qui existent à l'égard de ses rapports au travail formel. Le but de cet article est d'évaluer de façon critique ces opinions diverses. Considérant tour à tour les représentations principales du travail informel, on découvre que des généralisations universelles ne sont pas possible et que toutes ces différents articulations s'appliquent seulement dans des contextes spécifiques. Pourtant, one ne conclut pas que ces interprétations variées du rappel entre le travail formel et informel sont ainsi déterminées par leur contexte. On identifie plutô t deux caractéristiques qui sont communes a toutes ces perspectives ce qui nécessite une réinterprétation fondamentale du rapport entre le travail formel et informel. Celles-ci se retient a la façon dont on attribue de manière simpliste des modalités positives a une de ces formes de travail et des modalités négatives a l'autre en premier lieu et en deuxième lieu, la façon dont on regarde le travail formel et informel comme des unîtes séparées. Cet article en tire la conclusion qu'il faut non seulement mettre en lumière les valeurs politiques qui soutendent chacune de ces interprétations mais

Exploring the division of household labor outside the family context: utilizing resources for doing gender

“…Although the unique setting of shift workers in homes for autistic residents is useful and revealing, generalizations from this context to the familial context are not straightforward. In particular, the study builds on the premise that when unpaid, informal household labor becomes formal work (Williams, 2008), the practice of childcare and housework remains the same. However, when performed as a formal work, household labor may be attributed more positive features and higher status than when performed as informal work (Williams, 2008).…”

“…In particular, the study builds on the premise that when unpaid, informal household labor becomes formal work (Williams, 2008), the practice of childcare and housework remains the same. However, when performed as a formal work, household labor may be attributed more positive features and higher status than when performed as informal work (Williams, 2008). Paid workers thus differ considerably from married couples in both their relationships and their motivations for performing household labor.…”

The Chinese “Togetherness-Separation” Paradox: An Analytical Approach to Understanding Chinese People’s Behavior and Its Implication to International Cooperation

“…Chinese people should use quick thinking regarding the use of their resources and strategic relationships to succeed. In the early stages of Chinese society, and perhaps at present, they arrange life following a peasant-style wisdom, which supports that people should remain free of outside control by owning and managing a variety of resources, and free of debt by running a self-supporting household (Williams, 2008). As capitalism increases in China, peasant wisdom as a practice of life has almost vanished in most of its developed cities such as Shanghai and Beijing, but the mentality of controlling own resources may still dwell deep in people's mind, which may explain why most Chinese people are interested in becoming business owners.…”

Effects of Foreign Direct Investment and Quality of Informal Institution on the Size of the Shadow Economy: Application to Vietnam

“…It reflects the national institution's quality. Empirical studies show that there are six leading causes to the existence and development of the shadow economic activities: (1) Burdens of taxes and social security contributions (Loayza, 1997;Torgler & Schneider, 2009;Schneider, 2010); (2) Intensity of Regulations (Loayza, 1997;Johnson et al 1998;Friedman, Johnson, Kaufmann, & Zoido-Labton, 2000;Schneider, Buehn, & Montenegro, 2010); (3) Corruption (Hindriks, Muthoo, & Keen, 1999;Dreher & Schneider, 2010); (4) Changes from the labor market (Boeri & Garibaldi, 2002;Dell'Anno, 2007); (5) Institutional quality/public sector services (Johnson et al, 1998;Friedman et al, 2000;Fugazza & Jacques, 2003;Torgler & Schneider, 2009;Dreher, Kotsogiannis, & McCorriston, 2009;Dreher & Schneider, 2010;Razmi et al, 2013); and (6) Development of the formal economy (La Porta & Shleifer, 2014;Williams, 2008;Elgin & Oztunali, 2014).…”

“…First, FDI helps improve institutional quality (Larrain & Tavares, 2004;Kwok & Tadesse, 2006;Dang, 2013;Long, Ngoc, & My, 2018), and better institutional quality, in turn, reduces shadow economy (Johnson et al, 1998;Friedman et al, 2000;Fugazza & Jacques, 2003;Torgler & Schneider, 2009;Dreher et al, 2009;Dreher & Schneider, 2010;Razmi et al, 2013). Second, FDI has a positive effect on the growth of the formal economy (Romer, 1994;Choe, 2003;Li & Liu, 2005;Long et al, 2018;Mustafa, 2019;Nantharath & Kang, 2019), so that it reduces the size of the shadow economy (La Porta & Shleifer, 2014;Williams, 2008). Third, FDI creates employment (Lall, 1995;Blomström, Fors, & Lipsey, 1997), raises wages (Heyman, Sjholm, & Tingvall, 2007), and improves labor productivity (Le, Duy, & Ngoc, 2019), thus reducing the size of the shadow economy (Boeri & Garibaldi, 2002;Dell'Anno & Solomon, 2008).…”