Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

The informal economy is defined as all work that is not “formal employment,” by which is meant paid work registered with the state for tax, social security, and labor law purposes. This defining of the informal economy in terms of what it is not accurately displays the centrality of formal employment in contemporary society. The consequence is that the informal economy is a residual catchall umbrella category into which all work that is not formal employment is cast. The result is that multifarious forms of work are brought together under this heading of the informal economy. To differentiate the heterogeneous types of work practice grouped together in this leftover, or residual, category, three broad types of informal work are commonly distinguished. First, there is self-provisioning, which is the unpaid household work undertaken by household members for themselves or for other members of their household. Second, there is unpaid community work, which is unpaid work conducted by household members by and for the extended family, social, or neighborhood networks and more formal voluntary and community groups. Third and finally, there is paid informal work, which is monetized exchange unregistered by or hidden from the state for tax, social security, and/or labor law purposes but which is legal in all other respects. The value of this concept to consumer culture and consumption is that it reveals that the production is not confined to the workplace and consumption to the home but is much more complex and nuanced in contemporary consumer culture.

Historical Depictions of the Informal Economy

Throughout much of the twentieth century, the informal economy was nearly universally depicted as a dwindling sphere that was rapidly disappearing from view. The trajectory of economic development was widely believed to be one in which there was a natural, inevitable, and unstoppable shift of work from the informal into the formal economy. The informal economy was consequently viewed as a residue, or leftover, from precapitalism, and its continuing presence a sign of “underdevelopment,” “traditionalism,” and “backwardness.” The formal economy, meanwhile, was viewed as representing “progress,” “development,” “modernity,” and “advancement.”

From this classical perspective that has been variously referred to as the “formalization,” “dual economy,” “modernization,” “leftover,” or “residue” thesis, the formal and informal economies were portrayed as stable, bounded, and constituted via negation, with the “superordinate” formal economy endowed with positive attributes and impacts and the subservient “other”—the informal economy—with negativity. In consequence, the formal and informal economies were both temporally and hierarchically sequenced. They were temporally sequenced in that the formal economy was portrayed as in the ascendancy and replacing the informal economy that was read as “the mere vestige of a disappearing past [or as] transitory or provisional” (Latouche, 1993, 49). Indeed, this was seen as a natural, organic, inevitable, immutable, and unstoppable process. They were hierarchically sequenced, meanwhile, in that the informal economy was normatively deemed “regressive” and the formal economy “progressive,” as clearly depicted in “modernization” thinking, which hierarchically (and temporally) convenes differences between countries by placing first world nations at the front of the “development” queue while those nations in the second and third worlds are positioned behind them due to their slower progression toward formalization (Massey, 2005).

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading