Informal economy, informal state: the case of Uzbekistan

Abstract

PurposeIn the Soviet Union, the official command structure for economic production and distribution gave rise to, and depended upon, what has been described as a “shadow” economy. In the post‐socialist context, the unregulated, often extra‐legal activities of production and exchange, encompassing the survival strategies of the poor, the emergence of post‐socialist “Mafias”, and much entrepreneurial activity, has been described using the concept of the “informal economy”.Design/methodology/approachThe paper is based on long‐term participatory research over a period of three years.FindingsThe paper argues that what we might think of as informal economic activity in Uzbekistan cannot be understood in relation to a formal economy, but is rather an expression of a more general informalisation of lifeworlds following the end of the Soviet Union. Unlike the situation in the Soviet Union, the informal does not emerge from and exist in relation to formal political and economic structures. The state itself is experienced in personalised terms, as a “Mafia”, and the informal is all that there is.Originality/valueThis article provides an original perspective on the informal economy and informalised lifeworlds in Uzbekistan.

Living law, legal pluralism, and corruption in post-Soviet Uzbekistan

“…Thus, the way the driver distinguishes between 'good' and 'bad' bribery indicates the existence of dual morality in bribery and reveals the multifaceted meaning and morality of informal transactions in Uzbekistan. A similar situation has also been described in Rasanayagam's (2011) study in which he, through an ethnographic case study of a local teacher in Uzbekistan, showed the clashes between social norms and law where the local teacher believed that a 'little corruption' does not hurt anyone.…”

“…Anthropological studies have demonstrated the existence of local perceptions of moral codes and values of informal transactions that significantly differ from Western morality and standards (Abramson 2000;Werner 2000;Kurkchiyan 2000;Humphrey 2002Humphrey , 2012Wanner 2005;Sneath 2006;Markowitz 2008;Polese 2008;Ledeneva 2009;Rasanayagam 2011;Urinboyev 2011b;Urinboyev and Svensson 2013). This literature is based upon a theoretical understanding of money, gifts, and the morality of exchange (Mauss 1924;Parry and Bloch 1989;Thomas 1991), as well as empirical studies concerned with different kinds of transactions between citizens and state officials.…”

“…Werner 2000;Polese 2008;Rasanayagam 2011). These studies focus on the 'blurred boundary between gifts and bribes in Kazakhstan' (Werner 2000), illustrate the existence of local morality in Uzbekistan 'little corruption does not hurt anyone' (Rasanayagam 2011), and suggest the local definition of corruption in Ukraine: 'If I receive it, it is a gift, if I demand it, then it is a bribe' (Polese 2008). One possible inference from these studies is that the Western-centric perspective needs to be re-contextualized when talking about corruption in non-Western societies.…”

“…Also, much of the scholarly literature, especially anthropological accounts, demonstrates that the laws and symbols of the state are virtually absent in everyday life, while 'informality' is quite an omnipresent phenomenon in both 'state' and 'non-state' arenas (e.g. Wegerich 2006;Ilkhamov 2007;Kandiyoti 2007;Trevisani 2007;Markowitz 2008;Rasanayagam 2011). The anecdote thus begs questions of whether there is a 'living law' in Uzbekistan, and if so, how it works, how it is interpreted by the local population, and what implications it has for understanding corruption in the local context.…”

Informal payments and connections in post-Soviet Kazakhstan

“…In other words, such incomes and other rents associated with a post are collected as returns from an 'investment' in public office (Engvall 2014(Engvall , 2015. It is within this system of public posts for sale that exploitive activities of officials occur (Humphery and Sneath 2004;Rasanayagam 2011).…”