What is it about?
This paper evaluates critically the validity of the competing conceptualizations of informal employment that variously read such work as a leftover of a previous mode of production, a by-product of, alternative or complement to formal employment. Until now, the common tendency has been for commentators to universally privilege one conceptualization over the others.
Why is it important?
Reporting data collected through 861 face-to-face interviews in 11 deprived and affluent urban and rural English localities, the finding is that each conceptualization is a valid portrayal of particular types of informal employment, and that only by combining and using them all is it possible to achieve a finer-grained and comprehensive understanding of the complex and diverse nature of informal employment as a whole. The paper concludes by discussing the implications for both the way in which informal employment is conceptualized as well as how it is tackled by governments.
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: A Critical Evaluation of Competing Conceptualizations of Informal Employment: Some Lessons from England, Review of Social Economy, June 2011, Taylor & Francis, DOI: 10.1080/00346764.2010.502829.
You can read the full text:
The following have contributed to this page