Marginalisation and participation in the informal economy in Central and Eastern European nations

Abstract

To evaluate the 'marginalisation thesis' which holds that marginalised populations are more likely to participate in the informal economy, this paper reports a 2013 special Eurobarometer survey conducted in 11 Central and Eastern European countries. Using multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression analysis, the finding is that although some marginalised populations (i.e., the unemployed, those having difficulties paying their household bills, younger age groups) are significantly more likely to participate in the informal economy, others are not (e.g., those in poorer nations, living in rural areas, with less formal education). Yet others (e.g., women) are significantly less likely to participate in the informal economy. The outcome is a call for a more nuanced understanding of the marginalisation thesis as valid for some marginalised populations but not others. The paper concludes by discussing the implications for theory and policy of this more variegated assessment of the marginalisation thesis.

Drivers behind widespread informal payments in the Romanian public health care system: From tolerance to corruption to socio‐economic and spatial patterns

“…We investigated the extra payments and valuable gifts distribution across some socio‐economic, spatial, and corruption awareness independent variables. The independent variables selected, according to previous studies concerning participation in informal economy, are socio‐economic characteristics (gender, age, marital status, occupation, difficulties paying bills), spatial characteristics (area, Romanian region), and corruption awareness characteristics (corruption extent in country—respondent's perception regarding how widespread corruption is in Romania; corruption reporting—respondents who know where to report a case of corruption, or not).…”

Explaining participation in undeclared work in France: lessons for policy evaluation

“…Drawing upon previous studies evaluating participation in undeclared work from either the supply- and/or demand-side (Williams and Horodnic, 2015a, b), the control variables selected are: Gender: a dummy variable with value 0 for females and 1 for males. Age: a continuous variable indicating the exact age of a respondent. Occupation: a categorical variable grouping respondents by their occupation with value 1 for self-employed, value 2 for employed and value 3 for not working. People 15+ years in own household: a categorical variable for people 15+ years in respondent’s household (including the respondent) with value 1 for one person, value 2 for two persons value 3 for three persons or more. Children: a dummy variable for the presence of children up to 14 years old in the household with value 0 for individuals with no children and value 1 for those having children. Difficulties in paying bills: a categorical variable for the respondent difficulties in paying bills with value 1 for having difficulties most of the time, value 2 for occasionally and value 3 for almost never/never. Area: a categorical variable for the area where the respondent lives with value 1 for rural area or village, value 2 for small- or middle-sized town and value 3 for large town.…”

Setting the Scene for Researching Within the Educational Margins: Selecting Strategies for Communicating and Articulating Voices in Education Research Projects

“…At the same time, there is a recognition of the potential risks associated with these kinds of definitions. One such risk is that of homogenising, and accordingly of eliding the differences among, individuals and groups who exhibit possibly marginalising characteristics, prompting Williams and Horodnic (2015) to endorse "a more nuanced understanding" and a "more variegated assessment" (p. 153) of marginalisation. This "more nuanced" and "more variegated" approach was exemplified by Scharr's (2014) study of young people participating in social enterprises, whose "core foundational definition of the young people's lack of participation in education and employment" (p. 12) was augmented by acknowledging that they "dealt with multifaceted issues such as offending history, lack of social support, limited work experience and early school leaving" (pp.…”