Conceptualizing Household Consumption Informality in the South Texas Borderlands

Abstract

In this paper we introduce a conceptual model and corresponding research propositions for consumption informality, utilizing households as the unit of analysis and the South Texas borderlands as our geographic exemplar. The model connects demographic and facilitation mechanisms as the primary determinants of consumption informality. In an initial and exploratory appraisal of the model, we fijind that a majority of households engage in informal consumption, when modeled, utilizing household work substitution services; and hence, we offfer preliminary support for the conceptual model.

Cross‐Border Consumption of Informal and Underground Goods: A Case Study of Alternative Consumerism in South Texas

“…Pisani and Sepulveda (), using the data set reported in this article, constructed a conceptual model of consumption informality in South Texas. In this model, the authors suggest that identifiable consumer demographics (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity, residence, education level, citizenship, cultural assimilation, civil status, English‐language ability, household size, and income) are directly related to participation in the informal marketplace.…”

“…Following the conceptual model proposed by Pisani and Sepulveda (), I undertook a series of multivariate analyses to potentially uncover the determinants of cross‐border consumption of informal and underground goods. The dependent variable is the consumption of cross‐border goods: “Yes” or “No” (with “Yes” = 1).…”

“…In this model, the authors suggest that identifiable consumer demographics (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity, residence, education level, citizenship, cultural assimilation, civil status, English‐language ability, household size, and income) are directly related to participation in the informal marketplace. Pisani and Sepulveda () also suggest that participation in the marketplace for informal consumption is moderated by procedural (payment in cash, lack of receiving a sales receipt, and the omission of sales tax) and behavioral (morality of buying informal goods) facilitation mechanisms. The authors find robust support for their conceptual model.…”