Are Marginalised Populations More Likely to Engage in Undeclared Work in the Nordic Countries?

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to evaluate the validity of the ‘marginalisation thesis’, which holds that marginalised populations are more likely to participate in the undeclared economy, in relation to Nordic societies. To do this, a 2013 special Eurobarometer survey is reported on who engages in undeclared work conducted in three Nordic nations, namely Denmark, Finland and Sweden involving 3,013 face-to-face interviews. Using multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression analysis, the finding is that the marginalisation thesis is valid in relation to some marginalised populations, namely those having difficulties paying their household bills, younger age groups, those defining themselves as working class and those who hold non-conformist norms, values and beliefs on tax compliance. Other marginalised populations however, including the unemployed, those living in rural areas and with less formal education, are revealed to be no more likely to engage in undeclared work than the employed, those in urban areas and with more years in education. Yet others marginalised populations, including women and people living in less affluent Nordic nations, are significantly less likely to participate in the undeclared economy than men and those living in more affluent Nordic countries, thus supporting the reinforcement thesis that undeclared work reinforces, rather than reduces, the disparities produced by the declared economy. The outcome is a call for a more nuanced understanding of the marginalisation thesis as valid for some marginalised populations but not others. The paper concludes by discussing the implications for theory and policy of this more variegated assessment of the marginalisation thesis.

The Effects of Immigration on Labour Tax Avoidance: An Empirical Spatial Analysis

“…Our findings are robust to several additional analyses, including instrumental variable estimations to account for any endogeneity that may arise from reverse causality or correlated omitted variable bias. Hence, our results may provide empirical support to previous structuralist or marginalization theories (Cappelen & Muriaas, 2018;Taiwo, 2013;Williams & Horodnic, 2015a), holding that spatially and socio-economically marginalized groups, such as non-EU immigrants, are more likely to be involved in UDW and/or other labour exploitation practices, which could underlie our LTAV outcomes. Furthermore, our findings may suggest that labour market competition, caused by increased immigration, may negatively affect working conditions and enhance LTAV also for low skilled/paid national workers, mostly employed in agriculture and construction industries.…”

Illicit economies: customary illegality, moral economies and circulation

“…Illustrative here are studies in Scandinavia, to choose somewhere less associated with informal economies. They reveal which groups (marginal or privileged) might engage in, or utilise, undeclared work (Williams and Horodnic ) and highlight practices of svart arbete (undeclared work) that avoid taxation yet are widely tolerated, and rationalised as normal, by consumers (Larsen b).…”

What do we really know about the drivers of undeclared work? An evaluation of the current state of affairs using machine learning

“…; 9: business proprietor; 10: employed professional (doctor, etc. ); 11: general management; 12: middle management; 13: employed position, et desk; 14: employed position, travelling; 15: employed position, service job; 16: supervisor; 17: skilled manual worker; 18: unskilled manual worker 0 Franic and Cichocki ( 2021 ), Gregorio and Giordano ( 2016 ), Kayaoglu and Williams ( 2017 ), Strielkowski and Čábelková ( 2015 ), Williams et al ( 2015a ), Windebank and Horodnic ( 2017 ) Size of the company Categorical 0: not working or self-employed without workers; 1: 1–4 employees; 2: 5–9 employees; 3: 10–19 employees; 4: 20–49 employees; 5: 50–99 employees; 6: 100–499 employees; 7: 500 + employees 772 Elek and Köllő ( 2019 ), Franic and Cichocki ( 2021 ), Popescu et al ( 2016 ), Vallanti and Gianfreda ( 2020 ), Williams et al ( 2015a ) Financial difficulties Categorical 1: most of the time; 2: from time to time; 3: almost never/never 388 Arendt et al ( 2020 ), Boone et al ( 2013 ), Hofmann et al ( 2017 ), Popescu et al ( 2016 ), Williams and Efendic ( 2021 ), Williams and Horodnic ( 2015a , b ), Williams et al ( 2015a , b ) Social class (self-assessed) Categorical 1: working class; 2: lower middle class; 3: middle class; 4: upper-middle class; 5: higher class 868 Williams et al ( 2015a , b ), Williams and Horodnic ( 2015a ), Williams and Horodnic ( 2017b ) Perceptions and attitudes Perceived detection risk Categorical 1: very high; 2: fairly high; 3...…”