Justificación de las tecnologías a utilizar

The development discourse on formality and informality has a history of more than half a century (Guha-Khasnobis et al., 2007). In the 1940s, Julius Herman Boeke, a Dutch anthropologist, identified a developing economy as a “dual economy”, which, as he views, comprises an urban market economy with a capitalist nature and a rural subsistence economy with static

agriculture system of production (Boeke, 1943, 1953).

As the rebirth of the development economics in the early post-World War II period coincided with the revival of development theories focusing on the workings of the market and the role of the state (Ranis, 2004), a number of economists too have explored the formal and informal nature and

characteristics of the dual economy. For example, in the 1950s, the Nobel laureate Arthur W. Lewis – in his theory of unlimited supply of labour from agriculture to industry jobs – discussed labour market dualism, in which one sector is capitalist, modern, industrial or urban (formal) and the other is subsistence, traditional, agricultural or rural (informal) (Lewis, 1954). Similarly, in the 1970s, two development economists – John R. Harris and Michael P. Todaro – conceptualised the dual economy into a simple equilibrium model that consists of an urban and a rural sector (Harris & Todaro, 1970). Then, Keith Hart, professor of economic anthropology, made an important contribution to the discourse of formality and informality (Hart, 1973, 1985). In fact, Hart is also considered the first person to bring the term “informal sector” into research and policy focus from a Third World context (Guha-Khasnobis et al., 2006). He described the informal sector as an urban labour force that works outside the formal labour market (Hart, 1973).

In addition to Hart, the initiatives of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) are also considered to have played a pivotal role in understanding the dichotomy between formal and informal sectors (Bangasser, 2000;

Gerxhani, 2004; Guha-Khasnobis et al., 2007). The ILO has, in particular, contributed to build further the concept of informality, initially based on the

report of the ILO mission to Kenya11 _{and later through negotiations for and}

resolutions on the need to recognise the role and contribution of the informal sector.

Since the concept of informality has come into the research and policy focus, there is a growing interest to explain the informal sector as well as analyse the dichotomy between formality and informality. Over time, analyses of the nature of and trends in formality and informality have not remained confined to an examination of economic dualism or employment and unemployment trends in labour markets. The study of the presence, nature, size and type of the informal sector is also visible in other fields such as criminology, finance, law, political science, public policy, sociology, statistics and trade. Studies on informality are not, however, uniform and have used a variety of contexts and criteria of informality. This is also a reason behind divergent views about how to define, measure, classify, and respond to the informal sector (Hussmanns, 2004).

In addition, the literature on informality is not consistent in using the term itself and has explained it with a plethora of appellations including hidden, grey, shadow, clandestine, underground, illegal, irregular, unorganised, unofficial, unobserved, unreported, unrecorded, unmeasured, untaxed, non- structured, petty production, subterranean, cash economy, second, parallel, and black market (Feige, 1990; Sindzingre, 2006). While such appellations may give a negative meaning to what the informal economy or sector is, there are two main reasons for informality to remain important in

development discourse, process and planning.

First, though there were assumptions that it would disappear in the course of economic development (Porta & Shleifer, 2014), the informal sector is increasingly becoming normal. It has emerged in new contexts and guises, and is prevalent in many unexpected places, not only in developing but also in developed countries. Second, support for the informal sector has been

11 _{The report was on employment, incomes and equality in Kenya. In the report, “the 'informal}

sector' consists of things 'done in a certain way'-a way characterized by ease of entry into the activity concerned, reliance on indigenous resources, family ownership, smallness of scale, labour intensiveness and 'adapted technology', skills acquired outside the formal school system and unregulated and competitive markets” (Leys, 1973, p. 425).

32

growing with the recognition that it contributes to promote growth and reduce poverty (Chen, 2005).

For example, the ILO has argued, recognising the informal economy is a critical aspect of growth and development processes though it remains outside the social protection and tax system. According to a 2002 ILO resolution concerning decent work and the informal economy, the term informal economy refers to:

“all economic activities by workers and economic units that are – in law or in practice – not covered or insufficiently covered by formal

arrangements. Their activities are not included in the law, which means that they are operating outside the formal reach of the law; or they are not covered in practice, which means that – although they are operating within the formal reach of the law, the law is not applied or not

enforced; or the law discourages compliance because it is inappropriate, burdensome, or imposes excessive costs”12_.

Since formality is about the formal reach of the law, according to North (1992), it is ensured through codified and written rules, directives and contracts that are outlined, for example, in constitutions, articles of the law, company directives, working contracts, etc. In contrast, as North (1992) mentions, informal institutions operate through (often unexpressed) cultural norms, taboos and values, conventions, customs and practices that are reproduced by all members of the society (Cited from, Etzold et al., 2009).