Quão heterogêneo é o setor informal brasileiro? Uma proposta de classificação de atividades baseada na Ecinf

Abstract

O objetivo deste texto é apresentar uma classificação para a economia brasileira de setores de atividade segundo graus de precariedade na forma de organização da produção. O texto propõe critérios e uma classificação de atividades econômicas segundo três níveis de informalidade: alta, média e baixa. Nossa hipótese de trabalho é assumir que, assim como a fronteira entre o trabalho formal e o informal não é bem demarcada, dentro do setor informal também podemos identificar um continuum de situações em que os pressupostos de um trabalho decente estão mais ou menos presentes. Conclui-se que políticas públicas que visem a combater a informalidade devem buscar o crescimento econômico e atuar sobre as diferentes características das atividades informais.

Discussing the Notion of Decent Work: Senses of Working for a Group of Brazilian Workers without College Education

“…P1 points out (man, 45 years): “One day they needed a person for a 3-day job in a bar and I accepted. I ended up reconciling the two jobs, one formally registered and the other not,” as well as P6 (woman, 38 years): “when I am not formally employed in companies, I do the weekly cleaning at houses in the city where I live.” P2 (man, 35 years) stated that: “This thing with formal and informal, I’ve never understood it very well, because there are good and bad things to any job,” as well as P1 (man, 45 years) who said that: “We had to win in life … success is the ability to pay all expenses without getting unemployed,” and P4 (man, 36 years) who explained that: “without a job, then there’s a problem, but when I don’t have a job, I turn to acquaintances and they help rapidly.” These quotes align the informal support network for working with the idea argued by Feijó et al (2009), Nouroudine (2011), and Sato (2013) that the main problem with informality is the lack of social protection it affords and that the promotion of decent work depends on the elimination of the negative aspects of informality (Trebilcock, 2005). …”

“…Success and security are perceived as the ability to continue working, whether formally or informally, distinctions that do not seem to be as clearly divided as the literature proposes. Indeed, the participants’ experiences support the idea of a continuum from extreme lack of protection and precariousness to extreme protection with intermediary levels, creating degrees of formality and informality, as stated by International Labour Office [ILO] (2002, 2004), Feijó et al (2009), Spink (2009), and Mocelin (2011).…”

“…Feijó et al (2009), Nouroudine (2011), and Sato (2013) propose focusing on the positive aspects of these informal working modalities, which can offer elements to set up the social protection that is missing. The core problem of informal working is not the lack of formalization, as informal working has organization modes, agreements and rules, but the lack of social protection.…”

“…Alves and Tavares (2006), Rosenfield (2011), Proni (2013), and Tavares (2015) point out the two sides of informal working, marked by autonomy or precariousness, and often mixed up with the individualist discourse of entrepreneurism (Appay, 2005; Rosenfield, 2011) that produces undue tolerance for several forms of precariousness (Feijó et al, 2009). Castel (2009) argues that a smaller part of the population would be able to exercise modern individualism in the construction of their lives, that is, to be independent and take an individualist stand due to too many subjective investments and self-assertion (entrepreneur notion), while most of the population practices negative individualism due to disaggregation and lack of collective references of support with a consequent lack of social protection (characteristic of informality).…”

“…Hence, International Labour Office [ILO] (2002, 2004), Feijó et al (2009), Spink (2009), and Mocelin (2011) acknowledge that there exists no clear border between formal and informal working, but a continuum ranging from extreme lack of protection and precariousness to extreme protection with intermediary levels, producing degrees of formality and informality. “Our working hypothesis is to assume that, just like the border between formal and informal working is not well drawn, in the informal sector, one can also identify a continuum of situations in which the premises of decent work are more or less present” (Feijó et al, 2009, p. 331).…”