Le développement de l'économie souterraine et l'avenir des sociétés industrielles

2004

Policy Studies

The aim of this article is to advance understanding on how to tackle undeclared work in advanced economies by synthesising the available empirical evidence on the character of such work and then exploring the implications of these findings for public policy. Conventionally, undeclared work has been depicted as concentrated amongst the marginalised and an exploitative organised form of employment that is a hindrance to development. In this article, each tenet in this portrait of the undeclared sphere is evaluated critically. This reveals that empirical studies have increasingly found undeclared work to be: concentrated in affluent populations; conducted on an autonomous or self-employed basis as well as on an organised basis; undertaken under social relations more akin to unpaid mutual aid as well as under employment-like relations; and composed of positive as well as negative consequences so far as its contributions to economic and social development are concerned. Given this re-reading of the nature of undeclared work, the article then evaluates the consequences for public policy. The outcome is a call for the currently dominant deterrence approach towards undeclared work to be supplemented with an enabling approach that seeks to facilitate its transfer into the legitimate realm. How this might be achieved in the light of the multifarious character of undeclared work is then outlined.

Section: The Character Of Undeclared Work In Advanced Economiesmentioning

confidence: 96%

Tackling undeclared work in advanced economies

2004

Policy Studies

“…In this perspective where the growth of informal work is a direct byproduct of the new post-Fordist regime of accumulation, a 'marginality thesis' prevails that views informal work as concentrated in marginalized populations who engage in such work as a survival strategy (e.g. Button, 1984;Rosanvallon, 1980;Sassen, 1989). The resultant policy stance is that these marginalized populations need to be facilitated to re-enter the formal economy and failing that, to be provided with formal welfare provision.…”

Section: Informal Work As a Residuementioning

confidence: 98%

A critical evaluation of competing representations of the relationship between formal and informal work

Community, Work & Family

2008

Analysing the extensive literature on informal work reveals multiple, often contradictory, views regarding its relationship with formal work. The aim of this paper is to evaluate critically these competing claims. Evaluating in turn the predominant views of informal work as a residue, by-product, complement and/or alternative to formal work, reveals that universal generalizations are not possible and that all of these articulations only apply in specific contexts. However, rather than simply conclude that these contrasting readings of the relationship between informal and formal work are therefore context-bound generalizations, two features common to all these perspectives are identified that necessitate a more fundamental rethinking of the relationship between formal and informal work. These relate to the way in which all firstly, simplistically attribute one form of work with positive features (e.g. modernization, virtue and progress) and the other with negative attributes (e.g. tradition, backwardness, exploitation) and, secondly, delineate formal and informal work as discrete and separate entities. The paper concludes by setting out a research agenda to not only highlight the political values underpinning each of these representations but also achieve a fuller and finer-grained understanding of the relations between informal and formal work.Keywords: informal economy; binary hierarchy; dualism; future of work L'analyse de la gamme de littérature importante concernant le travail informel démontre les perspectives multiples et souvent contradictoires qui existent à l'égard de ses rapports au travail formel. Le but de cet article est d'évaluer de façon critique ces opinions diverses. Considérant tour à tour les représentations principales du travail informel, on découvre que des généralisations universelles ne sont pas possible et que toutes ces différents articulations s'appliquent seulement dans des contextes spécifiques. Pourtant, one ne conclut pas que ces interprétations variées du rappel entre le travail formel et informel sont ainsi déterminées par leur contexte. On identifie plutô t deux caractéristiques qui sont communes a toutes ces perspectives ce qui nécessite une réinterprétation fondamentale du rapport entre le travail formel et informel. Celles-ci se retient a la façon dont on attribue de manière simpliste des modalités positives a une de ces formes de travail et des modalités négatives a l'autre en premier lieu et en deuxième lieu, la façon dont on regarde le travail formel et informel comme des unîtes séparées. Cet article en tire la conclusion qu'il faut non seulement mettre en lumière les valeurs politiques qui soutendent chacune de ces interprétations mais

“…Such a representation, however, has been on the whole an a priori assumption rather than a finding resulting from empirical investigation. The widely held belief, known as the 'marginality thesis', has been that off-the-books work is concentrated amongst 'marginalised' populations who engage in such work out of economic necessity and as a last resort when no other options are open to them (Castells and Portes 1989;De Soto 1989;ILO 2002;Lagos 1995;Maldonado 1995;Rosanvallon 1980). Viewed as a form of work engaged in due to a lack of choice rather than as a matter of choice, the assumption has been that all off-the-books workers are necessity-driven.…”

Section: Motives Of Off-the-books Entrepreneurs and The Necessity Vermentioning

confidence: 99%

The motives of off-the-books entrepreneurs: necessity- or opportunity-driven?

2008

Int Entrep Manag J

115

In recent years, it has become common to represent entrepreneurs as either necessity-or opportunity-driven. Drawing upon face-to-face interviews in England with 70 entrepreneurs trading wholly or partially off-the-books, this paper evaluates critically this dichotomous representation. The finding is that squeezing the motives of off-the-books entrepreneurs into one side or the other of this dichotomy not only over-simplifies their rationales since both necessity and opportunity motives are often involved but also obfuscates how their motives change over time. The outcome is a call to replace this either/or depiction with a richer and more nuanced both/and understanding of off-the-books entrepreneurs that recognises their diverse and dynamic motives.