Hubbry Logo
Informal economyInformal economyMain
Open search
Informal economy
Community hub
Informal economy
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Informal economy
Informal economy
from Wikipedia
Black market sellers offer watches for sale to US soldiers in Baghdad in 2004.
Informal economy: Haircut on a sidewalk in Vietnam.

An informal economy (informal sector or grey economy)[1][2] is the part of any economy that is neither taxed nor monitored by any form of government.[3] Although the informal sector makes up a significant portion of the economies in developing countries, it is sometimes stigmatized as troublesome and unmanageable. However, the informal sector provides critical economic opportunities for the poor[4][5] and has been expanding rapidly since the 1960s.[6] Integrating the informal economy into the formal sector is an important policy challenge.[4]

In many cases, unlike the formal economy, activities of the informal economy are not included in a country's gross national product (GNP) or gross domestic product (GDP).[4] However, Italy has included estimates of informal activity in their GDP calculations since 1987, which swells their GDP by an estimated 18%[7] and in 2014, a number of European countries formally changed their GDP calculations to include prostitution and narcotics sales in their official GDP statistics, in line with international accounting standards, prompting an increase between 3-7%.[8] The informal sector can be described as a grey market in labour. Other concepts that can be characterized as informal sector can include the black market (shadow economy, underground economy), agorism, and System D. Associated idioms include "under the table", "off the books", and "working for cash".

Definition

[edit]
Ice cream street vendor in Mexico

The original use of the term 'informal sector' is attributed to the economic development model put forward in 1955 by W. Arthur Lewis, used to describe employment or livelihood generation primarily within the developing world. It was used to describe a type of employment that was viewed as falling outside of the modern industrial sector.[9] An alternative definition from 2007 uses job security as the measure of formality, defining participants in the informal economy as those "who do not have employment security, work security and social security".[10] While both of these definitions imply a lack of choice or agency in involvement with the informal economy, participation may also be driven by a wish to avoid regulation or taxation. This may manifest as unreported employment, hidden from the state for tax, social security or labour law purposes, but legal in all other aspects.[11] In 2016 Edgar L. Feige proposed a taxonomy for describing unobserved economies including the informal economy as being characterized by some form of "non-compliant behavior with an institutional set of rules".[12] He argues that circumvention of labor market regulations specifying minimum wages, working conditions, social security, unemployment and disability benefits gives rise to an informal economy, which deprives some workers of deserved benefits while conveying undeserved benefits to others.

The term is also useful in describing and accounting for forms of shelter or living arrangements that are similarly unlawful, unregulated, or not afforded protection of the state. 'Informal economy' is increasingly[when?] replacing 'informal sector' as the preferred descriptor for this activity.[4]

Informality, both in housing and livelihood generation has historically been seen as a social ill, and described either in terms of what participant's lack, or wish to avoid. In 2009, the Dutch sociologist Saskia Sassen viewed the new 'informal' sector as the product and driver of advanced capitalism and the site of the most entrepreneurial aspects of the urban economy, led by creative professionals such as artists, architects, designers and software developers.[13] While this manifestation of the informal sector remains largely a feature of developed countries, increasingly systems are emerging to facilitate similarly qualified people in developing countries to participate.[14]

History

[edit]

Governments have tried to regulate aspects of their economies for as long as surplus wealth has existed which is at least as early as Sumer. Yet no such regulation has ever been wholly enforceable.[citation needed]

Daily life of the informal economy in the streets of Bolivia

Archaeological and anthropological evidence strongly suggests that people of all societies regularly adjust their activity within economic systems in attempt to evade regulations.[citation needed] Therefore, if informal economic activity is that which goes unregulated in an otherwise regulated system then informal economies are as old as their formal counterparts, if not older.[citation needed] The term itself, however, is much more recent.[citation needed]

The optimism of the modernization theory school of development had led people in the 1950s and 1960s to believe that traditional forms of work and production would disappear as a result of economic progress in developing countries.[citation needed] As this optimism proved to be unfounded, scholars turned to study more closely what was then called the traditional sector and found that the sector had not only persisted, but in fact expanded to encompass new developments.[citation needed] In accepting that these forms of productions were there to stay, scholars and some international organizations quickly took up the term informal sector (later known as the informal economy or just informality). The term Informal income opportunities is credited to the British anthropologist Keith Hart in a 1971 study on Ghana published in 1973,[15] and was coined by the International Labour Organization in a widely read study on Kenya in 1972.[citation needed]

In his 1989 book The Underground Economies: Tax Evasion and Information Distortion, Edgar L. Feige examined the economic implications of a shift of economic activity from the observed to the non-observed sector of the economy. Such a shift not only reduces the government's ability to collect revenues, it can also bias the nation's information systems and therefore lead to misguided policy decisions. The book examines alternative means of estimating the size of various unobserved economies and examines their consequences in both socialist and market oriented economies.[16] Feige goes on to develop a taxonomic framework that clarifies the distinctions between informal, illegal, unreported and unrecorded economies, and identifies their conceptual and empirical linkages and the alternative means of measuring their size and trends.[17] Since then, the informal sector has become an increasingly popular subject of investigation in economics, sociology, anthropology and urban planning. With the turn towards so called post-fordist modes of production in the advanced developing countries, many workers were forced out of their formal sector work and into informal employment. In a 2005 collection of articles, The Informal Economy. Studies in Advanced and Less Developed Countries, the existence of an informal economy in all countries was demonstrated with case studies ranging from New York City and Madrid to Uruguay and Colombia.[18]

Black market in Shinbashi, Japan, 1946

An influential book on the informal economy is Hernando de Soto's El otro sendero (1986),[19] which was published in English in 1989 as The Other Path with a preface by Peruvian writer Mario Vargas Llosa.[20] De Soto and his team argued that excessive regulation in the Peruvian and other Latin American economies forced a large part of the economy into informality and thus prevented economic development. While accusing the ruling class of 20th century mercantilism, de Soto admired the entrepreneurial spirit of the informal economy. In a widely cited experiment, his team tried to legally register a small garment factory in Lima. This took more than 100 administrative steps and almost a year of full-time work. Feige's review of the Other Path places the work in the context of the informal economy literature.[21] Whereas de Soto's work is popular with policymakers and champions of free market policies like The Economist, some scholars of the informal economy have criticized it both for methodological flaws and normative bias.[22]

In the second half of the 1990s many scholars started to consciously use the term "informal economy" instead of "informal sector" to refer to a broader concept which includes enterprises as well as employment in developing, transition, and advanced industrialized economies.[citation needed]

Among the surveys about the size and development of the shadow economy (mostly expressed in percent of official GDP) are those by Feige (1989), and Schneider and Enste (2000) with an intensive discussion about the various estimation procedures of the size of the shadow economy as well as a critical evaluation of the size of the shadow economy and the consequences of the shadow economy on the official one.[23][24] Feige's most recent survey paper on the subject from 2016 reviewed the meaning and measurement of unobserved economies and is particularly critical of estimates of the size of the so-called shadow economy which employ Multiple Indicator multiple cause methods, which treat the shadow economy as a latent variable.[25]

Characteristics

[edit]
Waste picker in Indonesia
Street vendor in Colombia
Street vendor in India

The informal sector is largely characterized by several qualities: skills gained outside of a formal education, easy entry (meaning anyone who wishes to join the sector can find some sort of work which will result in cash earnings), a lack of stable employer-employee relationships,[26] and a small scale of operations.[4] Workers who participate in the informal economy are typically classified as employed. The type of work that makes up the informal economy is diverse, particularly in terms of capital invested, technology used, and income generated.[4][26]

The spectrum ranges from self-employment or unpaid family labor[26] to street vendors, shoe shiners, and junk collectors.[4] On the higher end of the spectrum are upper-tier informal activities such as small-scale service or manufacturing businesses, which have more limited entry.[4][26] The upper-tier informal activities have higher set-up costs, which might include complicated licensing regulations, and irregular hours of operation.[26] However, most workers in the informal sector, even those are self-employed or wage workers, do not have access to secure work, benefits, welfare protection, or representation.[5] These features differ from businesses and employees in the formal sector which have regular hours of operation, a regular location and other structured benefits.[26]

According to a 2018 study on informality in Brazil, there are three views to explain the causes of informality. The first view argues that the informal sector is a reservoir of potentially productive entrepreneurs who are kept out of formality by high regulatory costs, most notably entry regulation. The second sees informal forms as "parasitic forms" which are productive enough to survive in the formal sector but choose to remain informal to earn higher profits from the cost advantages of not complying with taxes and regulations. The third argues that informality is a survival strategy for low-skill individuals, who are too unproductive to ever become formal. According to the study the first view corresponds to 9.3 percent of all informal forms, while the second corresponds to 41.9 percent. The remaining forms correspond to low-skill entrepreneurs who are too unproductive to ever become formal. The author suggests that informal forms are to a large extent "parasitic" and therefore eradicating them (e.g., through tighter enforcement) could produce positive effects on the economy. [27]

The most prevalent types of work in the informal economy are home-based workers and street vendors. Home-based workers are more numerous while street vendors are more visible. Combined, the two fields make up about 10–15% of the non-agricultural workforce in developing countries and over 5% of the workforce in developed countries.[5]

While participation in the informal sector can be stigmatized, many workers engage in informal ventures by choice, for either economic or non-economic reasons. Economic motivations include the ability to evade taxes, the freedom to circumvent regulations and licensing requirements, and the capacity to maintain certain government benefits.[28] A study of informal workers in Costa Rica illustrated other economic reasons for staying in the informal sector, as well as non-economic factors. First, they felt they would earn more money through their informal sector work than at a job in the formal economy. Second, even if workers made less money, working in the informal sector offered them more independence, the chance to select their own hours, the opportunity to work outside and near friends, etc. While jobs in the formal economy might bring more security and regularity, or even pay better, the combination of monetary and psychological rewards from working in the informal sector proves appealing for many workers.[29]

The informal sector was historically recognized as an opposition to formal economy, meaning it included all income earning activities beyond legally regulated enterprises. However, this understanding is too inclusive and vague, and certain activities that could be included by that definition are not considered part of the informal economy. As the International Labour Organization defined the informal sector in 2002, the informal sector does not include the criminal economy. While production or employment arrangements in the informal economy may not be strictly legal, the sector produces and distributes legal goods and services. The criminal economy produces illegal goods and services.[5] The informal economy also does not include the reproductive or care economy, which is made up of unpaid domestic work and care activities. The informal economy is part of the market economy, meaning it produces goods and services for sale and profit. Unpaid domestic work and care activities do not contribute to that, and as a result, are not a part of the informal economy.[5]

Statistics

[edit]
The Narantuul Market in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, colloquially also called Khar Zakh (Black Market)

The informal economy under any governing system is diverse and includes small-scaled, occasional members (often street vendors and garbage recyclers) as well as larger, regular enterprises (including transit systems such as that of La Paz, Bolivia). Informal economies include garment workers working from their homes, as well as informally employed personnel of formal enterprises. Employees working in the informal sector can be classified as wage workers, non-wage workers, or a combination of both.[6]

Statistics on the informal economy are unreliable by virtue of the subject, yet they can provide a tentative picture of its relevance. For example, informal employment makes up 58.7% of non-agricultural employment in Middle East – North Africa, 64.6% in Latin America, 79.4% in Asia, and 80.4% in sub-Saharan Africa.[30] If agricultural employment is included, the percentages rise, in some countries like India and many sub-Saharan African countries beyond 90%. Estimates for developed countries are around 15%.[5] In recent surveys, the informal economy in many regions has declined over the past 20 years to 2014. In Africa, the share of the informal economy has decreased to an estimate of around 40% of the economy.[31]

In developing countries, the largest part of informal work, around 70%, is self-employed. Wage employment predominates. The majority of informal economy workers are women. Policies and developments affecting the informal economy have thus a distinctly gendered effect.

Estimated size of countries' informal economy

[edit]

To estimate the size and development of any underground or shadow economy is quite a challenging task since participants in such economies attempt to hide their behaviors. One must also be very careful to distinguish whether one is attempting to measure the unreported economy, normally associated with tax evasion,[32] or the unrecorded or non-observed economy,[33] associated with the amount of income that is readily excluded from national income and produce accounts due to the difficulty of measurement. There are numerous estimates of tax noncompliance as measured by tax gaps produced by audit methods or by "top down" methods.[34] Friedrich Schneider and several co-authors[35] claim to have estimated the size and trend of what they call the "shadow economy" worldwide by a currency demand /MIMIC model approach that treats the "shadow economy" as a latent variable. Trevor S. Breusch has critiqued the work and warned the profession that the literature applying this model to the underground economy abounds with alarming Procrustean tendencies. Various kinds of sliding and scaling of the results are carried out in the name of "benchmarking", although these operations are not always clearly documented. The data are typically transformed in ways that are not only undeclared but have the unfortunate effect of making the results of the study sensitive to the units in which the variables are measured.

The complexity of the estimation procedure, together with its deficient documentation, leave the reader unaware of how these results have been shorted to fit the bed of prior belief. There are many other results in circulation for various countries, for which the data cannot be identified and which are given no more documentation than "own calculations by the MIMIC method". Readers are advised to adjust their valuation of these estimates accordingly.[36]

Edgar L. Feige[37] finds that Schneider's shadow economy "estimates suffer from conceptual flaws, apparent manipulation of results and insufficient documentation for replication, questioning their place in the academic, policy and popular literature".

Comparison of shadow economies in EU countries

[edit]
German shadow economy 1975–2015, Friedrich Schneider University Linz[38]

As of 2013, the total EU shadow economy had been growing to about 1.9 trillion € in preparation of the EURO[39] driven by the motor of the European shadow economy, Germany, which had been generating approx. 350 bn € per year[38] since the establishment of the Single Market in Maastricht 1993, (see diagram on the right). Hence, the EU financial economy had developed an efficient tax haven bank system to protect and manage its growing shadow economy. As per the Financial Secrecy Index (FSI 2013)[40] Germany and some neighbouring countries, ranked among the world's top tax haven countries.

The diagram below shows that national informal economies per capita vary only moderately in most EU countries. This is because market sectors with a high proportion of informal economy (above 45%)[41] like the construction sector or agriculture are rather homogeneously distributed across countries, whereas sectors with a low proportion of informal economy (below 30%)[41] like the finance and business sector (e.g. in Switzerland, Luxembourg), the public service and personal Service Sector (as in Scandinavian countries) as well as the retail industry, wholesale and repair sector are dominant in countries with extremely high GDP per capita i.e. industrially highly developed countries. The diagram also shows that in absolute numbers the shadow economy per capita is related to the wealth of a society (GDP). Generally spoken, the higher the GDP the higher the shadow economy, albeit non-proportional.

There is a direct relationship between high self-employment of a country to its above average shadow economy.[42] In highly industrialized countries where shadow economy (per capita) is high and the huge private sector is shared by an extremely small elite of entrepreneurs a considerable part of tax evasion is practised by a much smaller number of (elite) people. As an example German shadow economy in 2013 was €4.400 per capita, which was the 9th highest place in EU, whereas according to OECD only 11.2% of employed people were self-employed (place 18).[43] On the other hand, Greece's shadow economy was only €3.900 p.c (place 13) but self-employment was 36.9% (place 1).

An extreme example of shadow economy camouflaged by the financial market is Luxembourg where the relative annual shadow economy is only 8% of the GDP which is the second lowest percentage (2013) of all EU countries whereas its absolute size (€6.800 per capita) is the highest.

Map of the national shadow economies per capita in EU countries. The red scale represents the numbers displayed by the red bars of the diagram on the left.

The total national GDP of EU countries, and its formal and informal (shadow economy) component per capita[39][44]

Social and political implications and issues

[edit]
Share of employed in informal employment by gender

According to development and transition theories, workers in the informal sector typically earn less income, have unstable income, and do not have access to basic protections and services.[45][46] The informal economy is also much larger than most people realize, with women playing a huge role. The working poor, particularly women, are concentrated in the informal economy, and most low-income households rely on the sector to provide for them.[5] However, informal businesses can also lack the potential for growth, trapping employees in menial jobs indefinitely. On the other hand, the informal sector can allow a large proportion of the population to escape extreme poverty and earn an income that is satisfactory for survival.[47] Also, in developed countries, some people who are formally employed may choose to perform part of their work outside of the formal economy, exactly because it delivers them more advantages. This is called 'moonlighting'. They derive social protection, pension and child benefits and the like, from their formal employment, and at the same time have tax and other advantages from working on the side.

From the viewpoint of governments, the informal sector can create a vicious cycle. Being unable to collect taxes from the informal sector, the government may be hindered in financing public services, which in turn makes the sector more attractive. Conversely, some governments view informality as a benefit, enabling excess labor to be absorbed, and mitigating unemployment issues.[47] Recognizing that the informal economy can produce significant goods and services, create necessary jobs, and contribute to imports and exports is critical for governments.[5]

As the work in informal sector is not monitored or registered with the state, its workers are not entitled to social security, and they face unique challenges when affiliated in or creating trade unions.[48] Informal economy workers are more likely to work long hours than workers in the formal economy who are protected by employment laws and regulations. A landmark study conducted by the World Health Organization and the International Labour Organization found that exposure to long working hours caused an estimated 745,000 fatalities from ischemic heart disease and stroke events in 2016.[49] A systematic review and meta-analysis of health services use and health outcomes among informal economy workers, when compared with formal economy workers, found that these workers are less likely to use health services and more likely to have depression, highlighting their substantial health disadvantage.[50]

Gender

[edit]
A group of Indian women making bamboo products they intend to sell in Dumka, Jharkhand
A girl selling plastic containers for carrying Ganges water, Haridwar, India

In developing countries, most of the female non-agricultural labor force is in the informal sector.[51] Female representation in the informal sector is attributed to a variety of factors. One such factor is that employment in the informal sector is the source of employment that is most readily available to women.[52] A 2011 study of poverty in Bangladesh noted that cultural norms, religious seclusion, and illiteracy among women in many developing countries, along with a greater commitment to family responsibilities, prevent women from entering the formal sector.[53]

Major occupations in the informal sector include home-based workers (such as dependent subcontract workers, independent own account producers, and unpaid workers in family businesses) and street vendors, which both are classified in the informal sector.[52] Women tend to make up the greatest portion of the informal sector, often ending up in the most erratic and corrupt segments of the sector.[45] In India, women working in the informal sector often work as ragpickers, domestic workers, coolies, vendors, beauticians, construction laborers, and garment workers.

According to a 2002 study commissioned by the ILO, the connection between employment in the informal economy and being poor is stronger for women than men.[6] While men tend to be over-represented in the top segment of the informal sector, women overpopulate the bottom segment.[6][45] Men are more likely to have larger-scale operations and deal in non-perishable items while few women are employers who hire others.[6] Instead, women are more likely to be involved in smaller-scale operations and trade food items.[6] Women are under-represented in higher-income employment positions in the informal economy and over-represented in lower-income statuses.[6] As a result, the gender gap in terms of wage is higher in the informal sector than the formal sector.[6] Labor markets, household decisions, and states all propagate this gender inequality.[45]

Political power of agents

[edit]

Workers in the informal economy lack a significant voice in government policy.[28] Not only is the political power of informal workers limited, but the existence of the informal economy creates challenges for other politically influential actors. For example, the trade unions struggle to organize the informal economy and often formal workers organized in unions have no immediate interest in improving the status of informal workers due to fears of status loss. Yet the informal economy negatively affects membership and investment in the trade unions. Laborers who might be formally employed and join a union for protection may choose to branch out on their own instead. While this hostile attitude is not always the case, the nature of informal employment - low and irregular income that is not enough to pay union dues, fast-changing decentralized work locations and a self-perception of informal workers as self-employed pose barriers to informal economy trade union organizing.[54] As a result, trade unions are inclined to oppose the informal sector, highlighting the costs and disadvantages of the system. Producers in the formal sector can similarly feel threatened by the informal economy. The flexibility of production, low labor and production costs, and bureaucratic freedom of the informal economy can be seen as consequential competition for formal producers, leading them to challenge and object to that sector. Last, the nature of the informal economy is largely anti-regulation and free of standard taxes, which diminishes the material and political power of government agents. Whatever the significance of these concerns are, the informal sector can shift political power and energies.[28]

Poverty

[edit]
Informal vendors in Uttar Pradesh

The relationship between the informal sectors and poverty certainly is not simple nor does a clear, causal relationship exist. An inverse relationship between an increased informal sector and slower economic growth has been observed though.[45] Average incomes are substantially lower in the informal economy and there is a higher preponderance of impoverished employees working in the informal sector.[55] In addition, workers in the informal economy are less likely to benefit from employment benefits and social protection programs.[5] For instance, a survey in Europe shows that the respondents who have difficulties to pay their household bills have worked informally more often in the past year than those that do not (10% versus 3% of the respondents).[56]

Children and child labour

[edit]
A girl weaving a rug in Egypt

Children work in the informal economy in many parts of the world. They often work as scavengers (collecting recyclables from the streets and dump sites), day laborers, cleaners, construction workers, vendors, in seasonal activities, domestic workers, and in small workshops; and often work under hazardous and exploitative conditions. [57][58] It is common for children to work as domestic servants in parts of Latin America and parts of Asia. Such children are very vulnerable to exploitation: often they are not allowed to take breaks or are required to work long hours; many suffer from a lack of access to education, which can contribute to social isolation and a lack of future opportunity. UNICEF considers domestic work to be among the lowest status, and reports that most child domestic workers are live-in workers and are under the round-the-clock control of their employers.[59] Some estimates suggest that among girls, domestic work is the most common form of employment.[60]

During times of economic crisis many families experience unemployment and job loss, thus compelling adolescents to supplement their parents’ income by selling goods or services to contribute to the family economy. At the core, youth must compromise their social activities with other youth, and instead prioritize their participation in the informal economy, thus manufacturing a labor class of adolescents who must take on an adult role within the family. Although it revolves around a negative stigma of deviance, for a majority of individuals, mostly people of color, the informal economy is not an ideal choice but a necessity for survival. Participating in the informal economy is becoming normalized due to the lack of resources available in low-income and marginalized communities, and no matter how hard they have to work, will not advance in the economic hierarchy. When a parent is either unemployed or their job is on low demand, they are compelled to find other methods to provide for themselves but most importantly their children. Yet, due to all the limitations and the lack of jobs, children eventually cooperate with their parent/s and also work for their family's economic well-being. By having to assist in providing for the family, children miss out on their childhood because instead of engaging in activities other youth their age participate in, they are obligated to take on an adult role, put the family first and contribute to the family's well-being.

The participation of adolescents in the informal economy, is a contentious issue due to the restrictions and laws in place for youth have to work. One of the main dilemmas that arise when children engage in this type of work, is that privileged adults, denounce children participation as forced labor. Due to the participant being young, the adults are viewed as “bad” parents because first they cannot provide for their children, second they are stripping the child from a “normal” childhood, and third, child labor is frowned upon. Furthermore, certain people believe that children should not be working because children do not know the risks and the pressure of working and having so much responsibility, but the reality is that for most families, the children are not being forced to work, rather they choose to help sustain their family's income. The youth become forced by their circumstances, meaning that because of their conditions, they do not have much of a choice. Youth have the capability to acknowledge their family's financial limitations and many feel that it is their moral obligation to contribute to the family income. Thus, they end up working without asking for an allowance or wage, because kids recognize that their parents cannot bring home enough income alone, thus their contribution is necessary and their involvement becomes instrumental for their family's economic survival.[61]

Emir Estrada and Pierrette Hondagneu-Sotelo have gone to predominantly Latino communities of Los Angeles, CA. to observe the daily actions of street vendors. They analyze why adults participate in the informal economy. Although it revolves around a negative stigma of deviance, for a majority of individuals, the informal economy is not an ideal choice but an action necessary for survival. While witnessing the constant struggle of Latino individuals to make ends meet and trying to earn money to put food on the table, they witnessed how the participation of children either benefits the family or even hurt it. Through field notes derived from their participation, Estrada states, “children are not the ‘baggage’ that adult immigrants simply bring along. In the case of street vendors, we see that they are also contributors to family processes”.[62] Estrada's findings demonstrate that children are working in order to help contribute to their household income, but most importantly, they play a vital role when it comes to language barriers. The kids are not simply workers, they achieve an understanding of how to manage a business and commerce.

Expansion and growth

[edit]

The division of the economy into formal and informal sectors has a long heritage. Arthur Lewis in his seminal work Economic Development with Unlimited Supply of Labour, published in the 1950s, was the celebrated paradigm of development for the newly independent countries in the 1950s and 1960s. The model assumed that the unorganized sector with the surplus labour will gradually disappear as the surplus labour gets absorbed in the organised sector. The Lewis model is drawn from the experience of capitalist countries in which the share of agriculture and unorganized sector showed a spectacular decline, but it didn't prove to be true in many developing countries, including India. On the other hand, probabilistic migration models developed by Harris and Todaro in the 1970s envisaged the phenomenon of the informal sector as a transitional phase through which migrants move to the urban centers before shifting to formal sector employment. Hence it is not a surprise to see policy invisibility in the informal sector. Curiously, the informal sector does not find a permanent place in the Marxian theory since they anticipate the destruction of the pre-capitalist structure as a result of the aggressive growth of capitalism. To them, in the course of development, 'the small fish is being eaten by the big fish'. Therefore, neither in the Marxian theory nor in the classical economic theory, the unorganized sector holds a permanent place in the economic literature.[63]

The informal sector has been expanding as more economies have started to liberalize.[45] This pattern of expansion began in the 1960s when a lot of developing countries didn't create enough formal jobs in their economic development plans, which led to the formation of an informal sector that didn't solely include marginal work and actually contained profitable opportunities.[6] In the 1980s, the sector grew alongside formal industrial sectors. In the 1990s, an increase in global communication and competition led to a restructuring of production and distribution, often relying more heavily on the informal sector.[6]

Over the past decade, the informal economy is said to account for more than half of the newly created jobs in Latin America. In Africa it accounts for around eighty percent.[6] Many explanations exist as to why the informal sector has been expanding in the developing world throughout the past few decades. It is possible that the kind of development that has been occurring has failed to support the increased labor force in a formal manner. Expansion can also be explained by the increased subcontracting due to globalization and economic liberalization. Finally, employers could be turning toward the informal sector to lower costs and cope with increased competition.

Such extreme competition between industrial countries occurred after the expansion of the EC to markets of the then new member countries Greece, Spain and Portugal, and particularly after the establishment of the Single European Market (1993, Treaty of Maastricht). Mainly for French and German corporations it led to systematic increase of their informal sectors under liberalized tax laws, thus fostering their mutual competitiveness and against small local competitors. The continuous systematic increase of the German informal sector was stopped only after the establishment of the EURO and the execution of the Summer Olympic Games 2004,[38] which has been the first and (up to now) only in the Single Market. Since then the German informal sector stabilized on the achieved 350 bn € level which signifies an extremely high tax evasion for a country with 90% salary-employment.

According to the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA), the key drivers for the growth of the informal economy in the twenty-first century include:[4]

  • limited absorption of labour, particularly in countries with high rates of population or urbanisation
  • excessive cost and regulatory barriers of entry into the formal economy, often motivated by corruption
  • weak institutions, limiting education and training opportunities as well as infrastructure development
  • increasing demand for low-cost goods and services
  • migration motivated by economic hardship and poverty
  • difficulties faced by women in gaining formal employment

Historically, development theories have asserted that as economies mature and develop, economic activity will shift from the informal to the formal sphere. In fact, much of the economic development discourse is centered around the notion that formalization indicates how developed a country's economy is; for more on this discussion see the page on fiscal capacity.[64] However, evidence suggests that the progression from informal to formal sectors is not universally applicable. While the characteristics of a formalized economy – full employment and an extensive welfare system – have served as effective methods of organizing work and welfare for some nations, such a structure is not necessarily inevitable or ideal. Indeed, development appears to be heterogeneous in different localities, regions, and nations, as well as the type of work practiced.[4][64] For example, at one end of the spectrum of the type of work practiced in the informal economy are small-scale businesses and manufacturing; on the other "street vendors, shoe shiners, junk collectors and domestic servants."[4] Regardless of how the informal economy develops, its continued growth that it cannot be considered a temporary phenomenon.[4]

Policy suggestions

[edit]
Informal beverage vendor in Guatemala City

As it has been historically stigmatized, policy perspectives viewed the informal sector as disruptive to the national economy and a hindrance to development.[65] The justifications for such criticisms include viewing the informal economy as a fraudulent activity that results in a loss of revenue from taxes, weakens unions, creates unfair competition, leads to a loss of regulatory control on the government's part, reduces observance of health and safety standards, and reduces the availability of employment benefits and rights. These characteristics have led to many nations pursuing a policy of deterrence with strict regulation and punitive procedures.[65]

In a 2004 report, the Department for Infrastructure and Economic Cooperation under SIDA explained three perspectives on the role of government and policy in relation to the informal economy.[4]

  • Markets function efficiently on their own; government interference would only lead to inefficiency and dysfunction.
  • The informal economy functions outside of government control, largely because those who participate wish to avoid regulation and taxation.
  • The informal economy is enduring; suitable regulation and policies are required.

As informal economy has significant job creation and income generation potential, as well as the capacity to meet the needs of poor consumers by providing cheaper and more accessible goods and services, many stakeholders subscribe to the third perspective and support government intervention and accommodation.[4][66] Embedded in the third perspective is the significant expectation that governments will revise policies that have favored the formal sphere at the expense of the informal sector.[4]

Theories of how to accommodate the informal economy argue for government policies that, recognizing the value and importance of the informal sector, regulate and restrict when necessary but generally work to improve working conditions and increase efficiency and production.[4]

The challenge for policy interventions is that so many different types of informal work exist; a solution would have to provide for a diverse range of circumstances.[45] A possible strategy would be to provide better protections and benefits to informal sector players. However, such programs could lead to a disconnect between the labor market and protections, which would not actually improve informal employment conditions.[45] In a 2014 report monitoring street vending, WIEGO suggested urban planners and local economic development strategists study the carrying capacity of areas regularly used by informal workers and deliver the urban infrastructure necessary to support the informal economy, including running water and toilets, street lights and regular electricity, and adequate shelter and storage facilities.[66] That study also called for basic legal rights and protections for informal workers, such as appropriate licensing and permit practices.[66]

An ongoing policy debate considers the value of government tax breaks for household services such as cleaning, babysitting and home maintenance, with an aim to reduce the shadow economy's impact. There are currently systems in place in Sweden[67] and France[68] which offer 50 percent tax breaks for home cleaning services. There has also been debate in the UK about introducing a similar scheme, with potentially large savings for middle-class families and greater incentive for women to return to work after having children.[69] The European Union has used political measures to try to curb the shadow economy. Although no definitive solution has been established, the EU council has led dialogue on a platform that would combat undeclared work.[70]

The World Bank's 2019 World Development Report on The Changing Nature of Work[71] discusses the extension of social assistance and insurance schemes to informal workers given that, in 2018, 8 in 10 people in developing countries still receive no social assistance and 6 in 10 work informally.

Asia-Pacific

[edit]

The International Labour Organization mentioned that in most developing nations located in the Asia-Pacific,[72] the informal sector comprises a significant and vital percentage of the labor force. This sector constitutes around 60 percent of the labor force. Informal economy[73] includes economic activities of laborers (legally and in practice) which are not or inadequately covered by official employment contracts or agreements. Informal employment means payment of wagers may not be guaranteed and retrenchment can be implemented without prior notice or compensation from employers. There are generally substandard health and safety conditions as well as nonexistence of social benefits which include sick pay, pension, and health coverage.[74] The informal economy absorbs a larger part of the ever-growing workforce in urban hubs. In 2015, urban populations of Asian countries[75] started to grow while the service sector also continued to increase. These developments contributed to the extensive expansion of urban informal economy in practically all of Asia.[74]

In India, the country's informal sector accounted for over 80 percent of the non-agricultural industry during the last 20 years. Inadequate employment denotes the option for majority of India's citizens is to find work in the informal sector which continues to grow because of the contract system and outsourcing of production.[76] An article in First Post (June 2018) said approximately 1.3 billion people or more than 68 percent of employed persons in the Asia-Pacific earn through the informal economy. It is prevalent in the countryside (around 85 percent) and almost 48 percent in urban locations. 2 billion of the global population (61 percent) works in the informal sector.[77] According to an article published in Eco-Business in June 2018, the informal sector has emerged as an essential component of the economic environment of cities in this region. Henceforth, the importance of contribution of informal workers deserves recognition.[78] For a more detailed overview focused on informal employment in South Asian countries, see Informal economy of South Asia.

Iconography

[edit]

The triptych La familia informal (The Informal Family, 1992)[79] by painter Herman Braun-Vega, held in the permanent collection of the Ralli Museum in Marbella, explores the theme of the informal economy.[80] Created as part of a series of sixteen paintings on syncretism and mestizaje (racial and cultural mixing) for a retrospective exhibition in Madrid in 1992 during the celebrations of the fifth centenary of the Encounter of Two Worlds, this triptych associates the informal economy in developing countries – defined by the artist as "an economic system linked to survival, autonomous from the State and escaping taxation" – with a reflection on mestizaje and social integration.[81]

Drawing inspiration from the architectural structure of Velázquez's Las Meninas, Braun-Vega depicts "popular characters from the informal economy" alongside members of his family and artistic and literary figures, constituting what he calls an "informal family".[81] The work was used in an educational program by the French Ministry of Education, Culture and Francophonie during the 1994-1995 school year, where it was presented in thirteen schools as educational material on subsistence economies and cultural exchange between peoples.[82]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
The informal economy comprises economic activities that generate market value but evade formal , taxation, and recording in official statistics, encompassing unregistered enterprises, casual wage labor, and own-account work without legal protections. Globally prevalent, it accounts for approximately 58% of total , affecting around 2 billion workers, with higher shares in low- and middle-income where formal job opportunities are scarce. This sector sustains livelihoods amid regulatory burdens and institutional weaknesses but typically features low productivity, vulnerability to shocks, and exclusion from social safety nets, thereby perpetuating cycles of despite contributing substantially to GDP—estimated at one-third worldwide. Key characteristics include reliance on personal networks over contracts, limited access to and , and synchronization with formal economic cycles rather than acting as a buffer, challenging simplistic views of informality as mere evasion or . Policy debates center on formalization efforts, which risk job displacement without addressing root causes like excessive , versus strategies for gradual integration that preserve its adaptive role in resource-constrained environments.

Conceptual Foundations

Definition and Scope

The informal economy consists of economic activities by workers and economic units that are—in law or practice—not covered by formal arrangements, encompassing unregistered enterprises, undeclared , and production outside official regulatory oversight, yet involving legal with . According to the (ILO), this includes all informal productive activities, such as own-account work in unincorporated household enterprises, contributing family labor, and casual jobs lacking contracts or , distinguishing it from the narrower "informal sector," which focuses on unregistered production units for the market. Its scope extends beyond mere evasion of taxes or regulations to include subsistence-level operations in low-income settings, where formal entry barriers like registration costs or compliance requirements exclude participants, often comprising micro- and small enterprises that generate income but evade GDP capture due to lack of recording. Globally, the informal economy accounts for a substantial share of output and labor, with modeled ILO estimates indicating it employed approximately 58% of the total workforce in 2019, equivalent to over 2 billion workers, predominantly in , , and services in developing regions. Rates vary markedly by geography: exceeding 80% of non-agricultural in and as of recent World Bank data, compared to under 20% in high-income economies, reflecting structural factors like weak institutions and limited formal job creation rather than voluntary choice alone. This breadth underscores the informal economy's role in employment generation and poverty alleviation where formal sectors falter, though it excludes outright illegal activities like , focusing instead on unregulated but licit production that could contribute to and if formalized. challenges arise from its hidden nature, relying on surveys of time use, expenditure discrepancies, or multiple indicator models, yet consistent findings affirm its persistence as a parallel system intertwined with formal economies via input supplies and labor flows.

Distinctions from Formal and Illegal Economies

The formal economy consists of registered enterprises and employment arrangements that comply with legal requirements for business operation, labor standards, taxation, and social protection, enabling systematic recording in official statistics and contribution to gross domestic product (GDP) measurements. In 2022, formal sector employment globally accounted for approximately 58% of total employment in non-agricultural sectors, with formal workers typically benefiting from contracts, pensions, and health coverage mandated by law. By contrast, the informal economy involves legal economic activities—such as unregistered street vending, casual day labor, or small-scale home-based production—that evade formal registration and regulatory compliance due to barriers like high compliance costs, bureaucratic hurdles, or lack of access to credit, yet these activities produce licit goods and services intended for market exchange. This distinction underscores a regulatory divide rather than an inherent illegality: informal operators often operate in plain sight and integrate with formal supply chains, but without the institutional safeguards that formal entities provide, leading to vulnerabilities like income instability and exclusion from public services.
AspectFormal EconomyInformal Economy
Legality of Goods/Services
Regulation & RegistrationRequired and enforcedAbsent or insufficient
TaxationPaid and recordedEvaded, often due to underreporting
Labor ProtectionsProvided (e.g., contracts, benefits)Lacking for most workers
GDP ContributionFully captured in Underestimated or omitted
Distinguishing the informal economy from the illegal economy hinges on the nature of the activities: informal operations produce and exchange legal commodities without formal oversight, whereas the illegal economy—encompassing black markets for prohibited substances, , or goods—involves transactions that violate irrespective of regulatory status. The (ILO) explicitly excludes illicit production from informal economy definitions, estimating that illegal activities represent a minor fraction of unregulated output, often overstated in broader "shadow economy" aggregates that conflate the two. For instance, while informal waste pickers legally collect recyclables for resale, illegal counterparts might traffic stolen goods through similar unregulated channels, but the former's legitimacy allows potential pathways to formalization, unlike inherently criminal endeavors that evade detection through secrecy rather than mere informality. This separation is critical for , as informal activities can foster in resource-constrained environments, whereas illegal ones erode and public trust.
AspectInformal EconomyIllegal Economy
Legality of Goods/ServicesLegal, but unregulatedInherently illegal
VisibilityOften public and observableConcealed to avoid prosecution
Policy IntegrationAmenable to gradual formalizationTargeted for suppression
Economic ImpactSupplements formal marketsDistorts markets, funds crime
Scholars note occasional overlaps, such as informal workers unwittingly handling gray-area goods, but standard frameworks prioritize empirical separation to avoid inflating informal estimates with criminal elements, which could skew development interventions.

Measurement Methodologies and Challenges

Direct measurement approaches rely on surveys to capture informal activities explicitly, including household-based labor force surveys that inquire about unregistered and enterprise surveys targeting informal businesses. The (ILO) recommends mixed surveys, such as Informal Sector Mixed Surveys (ISMS), which integrate household and establishment data to estimate informal production and , as implemented in various developing countries since the 1990s. These methods provide micro-level details but require careful sampling to include hard-to-reach informal units, with the World Bank adapting for informal firms starting in 2017 to improve coverage in low-income settings. Indirect estimation techniques infer informal economy size from macroeconomic discrepancies or models, avoiding direct questioning to mitigate underreporting. The Multiple Indicators Multiple Causes (MIMIC) model, a structural approach, uses observable indicators like velocity, electricity usage, and tax rates as proxies for a latent informal variable, yielding relative size estimates calibrated against other methods; for instance, it has estimated shadow economies at 10-30% of GDP in countries during the . Complementary approaches include the demand method, which attributes excess cash holdings to untaxed transactions, and discrepancy analysis between expenditure surveys and , though these assume stable relationships that may falter amid digital payments. The IMF advocates integrating these into GDP compilation frameworks for consistency, as outlined in its 2021 paper. Challenges in measurement stem from definitional ambiguities and behavioral responses, with informal activities often evading detection due to respondents' incentives to conceal income amid enforcement risks, leading to underestimation by 20-50% in survey-based data from developing economies. Cross-country comparability suffers from varying thresholds for "informal," such as firm size or registration status, compounded by and digitalization that blur boundaries—e.g., online gig work may appear formal yet lack protections. Data gaps persist in rural and seasonal sectors, where administrative records are sparse, and indirect models like MIMIC face criticism for sensitivity to indicator selection and inability to distinguish productive informality from pure evasion without absolute benchmarks. Recent ILO standards adopted in October 2023 aim to standardize informal metrics but highlight ongoing hurdles in real-time tracking amid economic shocks.

Historical Evolution

Origins and Early Observations

The modern concept of the informal economy emerged in the early 1970s as a framework to describe unregulated economic activities in urban areas of developing countries, particularly where formal employment failed to absorb growing populations of rural migrants. Anthropologist Keith Hart coined the term "informal sector" during his fieldwork in , , in the late , observing that urban poor sustained themselves through small-scale, self-employed activities such as street vending, casual labor, and petty trading, which operated outside state oversight and formal labor markets. This insight challenged prevailing modernization theories, which predicted that industrialization would generate sufficient formal jobs to integrate migrants into wage labor; instead, Hart documented how these informal pursuits provided essential livelihoods amid rapid and limited industrial growth. Early empirical observations highlighted the informal economy's prevalence in post-colonial African cities, where colonial legacies of uneven development left large segments of the population excluded from regulated markets. In , Hart estimated that informal activities accounted for a significant portion of urban income—up to 30-40% in some estimates—driven by factors like low , reliance on personal networks, and adaptability to local demands, contrasting with the bureaucratic rigidity of formal sectors. Similar patterns were noted in other developing regions, such as and , where anthropologists and economists observed informal work filling gaps left by state-led import-substitution policies that prioritized capital-intensive industries over labor absorption. These findings gained traction through the International Labour Organization's (ILO) 1972 World Employment Mission to , which extended Hart's ideas to , emphasizing informal as a rational response to rather than a residual or backward phenomenon. While the analytical category of the informal economy is a product of mid-20th-century development discourse, the underlying activities—unregulated , artisanal production, and —trace roots to pre-modern societies lacking centralized fiscal or regulatory apparatuses. In agrarian and mercantile economies prior to the 19th-century rise of nation-states and industrial capitalism, most transactions occurred through informal kinship-based or market-driven exchanges without formal registration or taxation, as evidenced in historical records of medieval European guilds or pre-colonial African trading networks. However, the post-1970s conceptualization distinguished these from illegal economies and framed them as adaptive strategies in modern contexts, influencing policy debates on employment generation in the Global South.

Expansion in the 20th Century

The informal economy underwent substantial expansion during the , particularly in the decades following , as rapid in developing regions outstripped the capacity of formal sectors to generate . In , for instance, rural-to-urban migration accelerated post-colonial independence, leading to a proliferation of unregistered small-scale trading, artisanal production, and service activities in cities like and , where formal industrial jobs failed to absorb the influx of workers. Anthropologist Keith Hart's 1973 study of urban in highlighted how these activities sustained a significant portion of the low-income population, estimating that informal income opportunities accounted for up to one-third of urban earnings in such contexts. This pattern was not isolated; the International Labour Organization's 1972 Employment Mission to formalized the recognition of the informal sector, documenting it as employing over 60% of the non-agricultural urban workforce through activities like street vending and repair services, which evaded formal regulation but filled gaps left by state-centric development policies. In , the second half of the century saw informal expansion tied to demographic booms and import-substitution industrialization, which prioritized capital-intensive over labor absorption. From the 1950s onward, countries like and experienced annual urban rates exceeding 4%, fostering sprawling informal settlements and markets where migrants engaged in , food hawking, and informal to meet basic needs. By the 1970s, informal activities comprised 40-50% of urban employment in major cities such as and , driven by structural rigidities in formal labor markets, including high minimum wages and bureaucratic barriers that excluded low-skilled workers. This growth reflected a causal dynamic where state-led formalization efforts inadvertently amplified informality by displacing rural livelihoods without viable alternatives, as evidenced in regional economic histories linking exclusionary policies to persistent unregistered work. In and , wartime disruptions earlier in the century spurred temporary surges in unregulated activities, though these were often conflated with illegal black markets rather than the broader informal sector. During and the interwar , shortages and unemployment pushed individuals into unlicensed trading and , with estimates suggesting shadow activities reached 10-20% of GDP in affected economies like by the 1930s. rationing systems further expanded black markets for goods such as meat and fuel, involving up to 5-10% of transactions in the U.S. and U.K., as created incentives for evasion outside formal channels. However, post-1945 reconstruction and expansions in the West contracted the informal share relative to developing regions, underscoring how institutional formalization suppressed but did not eliminate such dynamics, with residual informal work persisting in and domestic services amid economic booms. Overall, the century's expansion was uneven, propelled by failures in formal job creation and regulatory overreach, establishing the informal economy as a resilient response to structural mismatches in global development trajectories.

Post-1980s Globalization Effects

The post-1980s wave of , characterized by reductions, removal of non- barriers, and increased , prompted a notable expansion of the informal economy in many developing countries, as formal sectors struggled to absorb surplus labor amid import competition and structural adjustments. In , for instance, drastic cuts during the and early 1990s correlated with a sharp rise in informal manufacturing employment shares, as firms in import-competing industries contracted or outsourced to unregulated informal units to cut costs. Empirical analyses of Mexico's trade opening under NAFTA in 1994 revealed that while input liberalization occasionally facilitated transitions from informal to formal wage work by boosting productivity in linked formal firms, overall exposure to global competition displaced formal jobs, driving workers into informal or casual labor with lower wages and protections. In , India's economic liberalization starting in 1991 amplified informal sector growth; during the 1990s boom in exports and GDP, informal employment's share surged beyond 47 percent of total non-agricultural jobs, outpacing formal job creation despite overall , as global integration favored capital-intensive formal exports while labor-intensive activities remained informal to evade regulations. Similar patterns emerged in , where programs tied to in the 1980s-1990s fostered informal sector expansion as a buffer against formal job losses from import surges and retrenchment, though this often entailed deteriorating conditions like wage stagnation and precarious subcontracting into global value chains. Cross-country studies confirm that trade openness and financial integration metrics—such as export diversification and capital inflows—positively correlate with informal employment shares in low-income economies, where weak institutions fail to enforce formalization incentives. However, outcomes varied by income level and policy context; data indicate that deeper global integration reduced informal employment in upper-middle-income countries through skill-upgrading and formal job growth, but amplified it in low-income settings lacking complementary reforms like labor market flexibility or . In and , informal firms sometimes gained from via backward linkages to export-oriented formal industries, enabling modest productivity gains post-liberalization, yet these benefits were uneven, often reinforcing dualism where informal workers faced heightened competition from cheap imports without productivity-enhancing technology transfers. Overall, while spurred aggregate growth, it frequently entrenched informality as a residual absorber of labor displaced by trade shocks, with underscoring the role of institutional rigidities in perpetuating this dynamic rather than enabling broad formalization.

Core Characteristics

Types of Activities

The informal economy comprises legal economic activities that are not registered or regulated by authorities, encompassing a range of , micro-enterprises, and casual labor across sectors such as , services, , and . These activities typically involve low-capital, labor-intensive operations that prioritize survival and income generation over formal compliance, distinguishing them from illegal enterprises like drug trafficking or . In trade and retail, informal activities center on street vending, market hawking, and unregulated stalls selling goods like food, clothing, and household items, often in urban areas of developing countries where formal retail barriers such as licensing fees deter entry. These operations rely on daily cash transactions and portable setups, enabling quick adaptation to local demand but exposing participants to eviction risks and competition. Services constitute another major category, including domestic work, personal repairs (e.g., shoe shining or appliance fixing), informal transport like unregistered taxis or rickshaws, and casual caregiving, where workers operate without contracts, social security, or protections. In labor-intensive service sectors, these activities absorb surplus labor from rural migration, providing flexible but often perpetuating low and vulnerability to economic shocks. Small-scale and artisanal production involve home-based workshops producing items like textiles, furniture, or processed foods without industrial standards or registration, frequently using labor or apprenticeships. In rural settings, informal dominates through subsistence farming, unregistered livestock rearing, and agro-processing, where outputs are sold informally to evade taxes or land-use regulations. Casual wage employment bridges and formal ties, featuring day laborers in , harvesting, or loading/unloading, hired verbally without benefits; this type prevails in regions with weak labor enforcement, comprising informal jobs within otherwise formal sectors. Across these categories, activities exhibit heterogeneity, with urban informal emphasizing mobility and rural ones focusing on resource extraction, yet all share evasion of regulatory costs as a core driver.

Workforce Composition

The informal economy's workforce primarily consists of own-account workers, employers operating unregistered enterprises, contributing family workers, and employees in informal firms, all lacking formal contracts, social security, or legal protections. Globally, informal employment accounts for 58% of total employment, encompassing approximately 2 billion workers as of recent estimates. This composition reflects a predominance of self-employment and micro-enterprises, with workers often engaged in low-capital activities such as street vending, small-scale manufacturing, and casual services. Demographically, informal workers skew toward lower levels and younger ages, with informality rates exceeding 80% among aged 15-24 in many developing regions due to barriers in formal job access. Men comprise a slightly higher share of informal workers globally at 60%, compared to 55% for women, though women are disproportionately represented in vulnerable informal roles like unpaid family labor. In urban areas, informal workers often migrate from rural regions, filling gaps in services and with skills acquired through apprenticeships rather than formal . Regional variations highlight compositional differences: in , 85% of employment is informal, dominated by agricultural and trade activities involving rural-to-urban migrants; in and the Pacific, 68% involves urban service sectors with high female participation in home-based work. Informal workers generally earn lower wages and face higher risks than formal counterparts, stemming from the absence of and productivity-enhancing investments.
RegionInformal Employment Share (%)Key Workforce Traits
85High rural-agricultural, youth-heavy
68Urban services, female home-based
37 (approx.)Urban trade, migrant labor
Global Average58Self-employed, low-education

Operational Dynamics

The informal economy operates predominantly through cash-based transactions, which enable participants to avoid formal recording, taxation, and regulatory oversight by leaving minimal traceable evidence. These exchanges often occur in direct, face-to-face settings, such as street vending or home-based services, where buyers and sellers negotiate prices verbally without contracts or receipts. In regions like , up to 60% of informal transactions involve kin, neighbors, or acquaintances, leveraging personal relationships to build trust and reduce risks of default or dispute. Social networks serve as the primary mechanism for coordination, access, and market information, substituting for formal institutions like banks or legal enforcement. Participants frequently rely on community ties, rotating savings and associations (ROSCAs), or informal favors to operations and secure suppliers, particularly in low-income settings where formal is inaccessible due to lack of collateral or records. This network-driven approach fosters resilience but limits , as firms remain small—often employing fewer than five workers—and prioritize survival over expansion to evade detection. Operations exhibit high flexibility, with workers adapting quickly to demand fluctuations through mobile setups or opportunistic labor, though this exposes them to exogenous shocks like or raids without recourse to or legal protections. Interactions with the formal economy occur via supply chains, where informal producers provide low-cost inputs or labor to registered firms, often under verbal subcontracts that blur boundaries but maintain the informal sector's under-the-table dynamics. For instance, home-based workers in , numbering over 260 million, manufacture goods for formal exporters using unregulated methods to cut costs. Enforcement evasion strategies include operating in unregulated public spaces or dispersing activities across multiple locations, sustaining the sector's persistence despite regulatory pressures. These dynamics reinforce low productivity, as investments in or are deterred by the absence of property rights and fear of formalization costs.

Quantitative Assessment

Global and Regional Shares

Globally, the informal economy constitutes approximately 60% of total employment, affecting around 2 billion workers as of recent modeled estimates. These figures, primarily drawn from International Labour Organization (ILO) data, reflect contributions from own-account workers, employers in unregistered enterprises, and contributing family members without formal protections. In terms of economic output, the informal sector is estimated to represent about one-third of global GDP, though measurement challenges arise from indirect estimation methods like multiple indicators or MIMIC models. Regional disparities in informal employment shares are pronounced, driven by differences in , regulatory enforcement, and labor market structures. Sub-Saharan Africa exhibits the highest prevalence, with informal activities dominating due to limited formal job opportunities and weak institutional frameworks. In contrast, advanced economies in and show much lower shares, bolstered by stronger labor regulations and social safety nets. The following table summarizes average informal employment shares by major regions, based on ILO-harmonized data aggregated through 2020 with projections indicating persistence into the 2020s:
RegionInformal Employment Share (%)
World58.2
84.3
and the Pacific65.9
(as part of )36.5
Arab States54.0
and 25.4
Within regions, variations persist; for instance, in , country-level informality exceeds 80% in and approaches 70% in , contrasting with lower rates in around 25%. These shares have remained relatively stable post-COVID-19, with informal sectors demonstrating resilience but also highlighting vulnerabilities to shocks absent formal protections. Data reliability depends on national surveys and modeling, with underreporting common in high-informality areas due to stigma or evasion.

Country-Level Variations

The informal economy's scale varies widely across countries, primarily aligned with income levels and institutional quality, with low-income nations featuring the largest shares relative to GDP and employment. In high-income countries, such as the (5.0% of GDP in 2023) and (5.1%), the informal sector remains small due to robust regulatory enforcement and formal job opportunities. Germany's shadow economy is estimated at 6.8% of GDP, while Japan's stands at 6.7%. Middle-income countries show intermediate levels, though with notable dispersion. China's informal economy constitutes 20.3% of GDP, Brazil's 20.6%, and India's approximately 27.1%. In low-income settings, the sector dominates: Nigeria's shadow economy reaches 30.0% of GDP, Bolivia's 32.1%, and Zimbabwe's 44.7%. Employment metrics reveal even starker contrasts, as informal jobs often absorb the majority of the in developing economies. Low-income countries average 88.5% informal in 2024, while globally it accounts for 58% of total based on 2019 updated in 2023. In , informal engages around 80% of workers, underscoring the sector's role in absorbing labor amid limited formal opportunities. These variations reflect differences in burdens, , and economic structures, with weaker institutions correlating to larger informal sectors; for instance, sub-Saharan African countries often exceed 30% of GDP in shadow activity. Estimates derive from multiple methods, including the dynamic general equilibrium (DGE) model, which yielded a global average of 28.16% for 2020 across 156 countries.
Country/RegionShadow Economy (% GDP, ~2023)Informal Employment (%)
5.0<10 (estimated low)
5.1Low
27.1~80
30.0High (~85 regional)
Global Average~11.8-19.358
Global estimates of the shadow economy, often measured as a share of official GDP, have trended downward over the past two decades, reflecting formalization driven by , regulatory improvements, and technological monitoring in various countries. Recent calculations place the global shadow economy at 11.8% of GDP in 2023, a reduction from 17.7% in 2000, with similar declines observed across and developing economies due to factors like lower tax burdens and stronger institutions in select regions. Informal employment shares have shown slower and uneven declines globally, remaining dominant in labor markets of developing regions. The International Labour Organization's modeled estimates indicate that 60% of the world's workers—approximately 2 billion people—were engaged in informal employment as of recent data through 2023, down modestly from peaks exceeding 70% in many low- and middle-income countries two decades prior. In specific developing areas, such as parts of and , the share dropped from 72.7% in 2004 to 66% by 2023, though it persists above 80% in and Southern Asia, absorbing most new labor entrants amid limited formal job creation. The disrupted these trends, causing formal sector layoffs that temporarily increased reliance on informal work for survival, particularly in urban services and agriculture-heavy economies. Post-2021 recovery data from the ILO's World Employment and Social Outlook reveal stabilization rather than acceleration of formalization, with informal employment rates holding steady at high levels in low-income countries through 2024, underscoring resilience but also structural barriers to transition. World Bank analyses up to 2020 confirm that while aggregate informal economy measures (including multiple proxies like electricity usage discrepancies) declined in upper-middle-income nations, lower-income states saw persistent or slight upticks tied to weak and economic shocks. Regional data highlight divergent paths: In , policy interventions like simplified taxation yielded informal employment reductions from over 50% in the early to around 47% by mid-2024 in some areas, whereas in emerging Asian markets, digital platforms have blurred lines but not substantially shrunk overall informality. These trends align with broader evidence from multiple estimation methods, including MIMIC models, which attribute declines to causal factors like rising rather than measurement artifacts.

Causal Factors

Regulatory and Tax Burdens

High regulatory compliance costs and rates incentivize economic agents to evade formality, as the benefits of legal operation—such as access to or contracts—are often outweighed by administrative burdens and fiscal extraction, particularly in contexts of weak . Labor regulations, including rigid hiring/firing rules and mandatory benefits, combined with complex licensing and reporting requirements, elevate operational expenses for small enterprises, prompting them to remain unregistered or underreport activities. Similarly, elevated wedges—encompassing taxes, value-added taxes, and social security contributions—reduce net returns from formal work, leading workers to prefer untaxed informal labor. Economic models posit that informality arises when governments impose and extraction that exceed voluntary compliance thresholds, as formalized in de Soto's framework of dead capital from overregulation. Empirical cross-country analyses confirm a robust positive between these burdens and informal economy size. Schneider and Enste (2000) estimated that in countries from 1970–1997, a 10 increase in the tax and social security burden as a share of GDP was associated with a shadow economy expansion of 3–5 s of GDP, based on MIMIC model estimations incorporating multiple indicators like currency demand. Updating this, Schneider (2011) found similar elasticities globally, with regulatory quality inversely linked to informality; countries with higher burdens of labor market regulation exhibited shadow economies averaging 20–30% of GDP in developing regions versus under 15% in more deregulated economies. IMF studies reinforce this, showing that system complexity and enforcement gaps amplify the effect, where a 1% rise in the effective correlates with 0.1–0.3% growth in undeclared activity. Reducing such burdens has demonstrably contracted informality in targeted reforms. For instance, post-2000 tax simplifications and rate cuts in , including flat tax introductions in (2000) and (2004), halved shadow economy shares from over 30% to around 15% of GDP by 2015, per Schneider's estimates, by improving compliance without proportional loss. Conversely, hikes in social contributions during the 2008–2012 Eurozone crisis expanded informal sectors in and by 5–10 percentage points, underscoring via time-series data. These patterns hold across datasets, though endogeneity concerns—such as reverse causation from informality eroding bases—are mitigated in instrumental variable approaches using historical regulatory legacies. World Bank enterprise surveys in (2010–2020) further quantify that firms citing regulatory obstacles as primary barriers to formality are 20–40% more likely to operate informally, with rates above 30% of profits tipping the balance for microenterprises.

Institutional and Governance Weaknesses

Weak enforcement of regulations and laws in many developing economies fosters the persistence of informal activities, as governments lack the capacity or incentive to monitor and penalize non-compliance effectively. For instance, in regions with limited administrative resources, small-scale enterprises often operate unregistered to evade oversight, contributing to informal sector shares exceeding 50% of GDP in parts of as of 2020. This institutional shortfall is exacerbated by inconsistent application of rules, where formalization requires navigating protracted bureaucratic processes that deter entry into the official . Corruption within governance structures significantly amplifies informality by substituting informal payments for legal compliance, thereby undermining trust in formal institutions. Empirical analyses across 23 Sub-Saharan African countries indicate that higher levels correlate with larger informal economies, as firms opt for bribes to officials rather than adhering to transparent regulations, with one study estimating a 1% increase in raising informal activity by up to 0.5% of GDP. In such environments, weak mechanisms allow public officials to extract rents, discouraging in formal operations and perpetuating a cycle where informal sectors absorb labor displaced by failures. Deficient and property rights protection further drive economic agents toward informality, as unreliable judicial systems fail to enforce contracts or secure assets, making formal riskier than unregulated alternatives. Cross-country regressions covering 140 nations from 1990 to 2020 reveal that improvements in institutional quality—measured by indices of voice, , and regulatory effectiveness—reduce informal shares by 10-15 percentage points, highlighting as a primary causal factor over mere regulatory stringency. In low-trust settings, this leads to undercapitalized informal units that cannot scale, as lack of credible prevents access to formal or partnerships. Bureaucratic inefficiencies and policy unpredictability compound these weaknesses, where frequent regulatory changes or overlapping jurisdictions create compliance costs that disproportionately burden smaller firms. World Bank assessments link pervasive informality to governance indicators, noting that countries scoring below the 25th on government effectiveness exhibit informal economies 20-30% larger than high-performing peers, as measured in 2018-2020 data. Such institutional voids not only sustain informality but also erode fiscal capacity, limiting resources for public goods that could incentivize formalization.

Economic and Cultural Drivers

Economic pressures, including insufficient formal sector job creation relative to labor supply, drive widespread participation in the informal economy, especially in developing countries where structural transformations lag. In low-income economies, rapid population growth and limited industrialization result in excess labor that formal markets cannot absorb, compelling individuals into informal self-employment or casual work to meet basic needs. For instance, informal firms often arise due to barriers like restricted access to finance, which stifles productivity and formalization, as informal enterprises lack collateral or credit history required by banks. Macroeconomic instability, such as volatile growth and high underemployment rates, further exacerbates this exclusion, with informal activities serving as a residual employment reservoir. Cultural drivers encompass entrenched social norms and values that normalize informal work, often rooted in historical practices of communal exchange and family-based enterprises. In many societies, particularly in rural or ethnic minority communities, networks and community ties provide the necessary for informal operations, reducing reliance on formal institutions perceived as distant or unreliable. Empirical studies highlight how cultural emphasis on and resilience fosters preference for informal flexibility over rigid formal structures, even amid availability of alternatives. For example, in regions with traditions of artisanal or market-based livelihoods, such as parts of and , intergenerational transmission of informal skills perpetuates sector participation. Additionally, lower tax morality and tolerance for informal practices in certain cultural contexts lower entry barriers, though this interacts with economic necessity rather than acting in isolation.

Positive Contributions

Employment and Livelihood Provision


The informal economy functions as a critical reservoir of opportunities, particularly in developing regions where formal sector job creation lags behind labor force growth. It absorbs surplus labor, offering immediate income sources through and casual work that formal markets often fail to provide. According to the (ILO), informal encompasses approximately 58% of the , equating to nearly 2 billion workers who rely on it for their primary livelihoods.
In low- and middle-income countries, the informal sector dominates landscapes, with shares exceeding 70% in many cases. For instance, in , informal jobs account for over 85% of total , serving as the main avenue for livelihood among rural migrants and unskilled workers entering urban areas. within the informal economy, such as street vending and small-scale trading, constitutes about 45% of informal positions globally, enabling individuals to generate income without capital-intensive barriers typical of formal enterprises. This structure particularly benefits vulnerable populations, including women—who comprise 55% of informal workers worldwide—and youth facing high rates in formal sectors. By providing accessible entry points into economic activity, the informal economy mitigates acute and supports household consumption in contexts of regulatory hurdles and . Empirical data from the ILO indicates that informal workers often sustain families through diverse activities like artisanal production and service provision, contributing to alleviation where social safety nets are limited. In regions like Southern Asia, where informal reaches around 80%, it underpins daily survival strategies amid insufficient formal job growth. Despite vulnerabilities, this provision fosters resilience, allowing workers to adapt to local market demands and seasonal fluctuations without reliance on state intervention.

Innovation and Market Efficiency

The informal economy facilitates innovation by lowering , enabling entrepreneurs to experiment with low-cost, adaptive solutions tailored to local needs without the constraints of formal regulations or enforcement. In developing countries, informal firms often engage in necessity-driven innovation, such as frugal adaptations of existing technologies or processes, which formal sectors may overlook due to profitability thresholds. For instance, a analysis highlights how informal actors contribute to incremental innovations in , including makeshift repairs, customized products, and R&D that address underserved markets. Similarly, from firm-level surveys in regions like and shows informal enterprises introducing product modifications at rates comparable to or exceeding small formal firms in adaptive contexts, driven by direct feedback loops with consumers. This innovative capacity stems from the informal sector's flexibility, where minimal overhead allows and iteration, contrasting with formal bureaucracies that delay market entry. Studies of Kenyan firms indicate that initial informal operations, while potentially limiting long-term technological sophistication, enable survival and iterative improvements through trial-and-error, fostering process innovations like efficient hacks in resource-scarce environments. In global South contexts, thematic reviews of reveal informal innovations often prioritize practicality over , such as mobile repair services or localized techniques, which enhance resilience and fill gaps left by formal supply chains. Regarding market efficiency, informal economies promote in niche or high-risk segments by enabling swift and unhindered by licensing delays or compliance costs. Unregulated street markets and small-scale trading networks transmit real-time demand signals, allowing resources to flow toward viable uses faster than in overburdened formal systems, particularly in economies with weak institutions. Empirical firm data from World Bank Enterprise Surveys across multiple developing nations demonstrate that informal pressures prices downward and spurs gains, such as lean , though these benefits are most pronounced in labor-intensive sectors where formal entry is prohibitive. However, such is context-dependent, thriving where formal markets fail to serve low-income consumers, thereby expanding overall economic output through previously untapped transactions.

Crisis Resilience

The informal economy frequently exhibits resilience during economic crises by serving as a flexible buffer that absorbs displaced workers and sustains basic economic activity when formal sectors contract sharply. Empirical analyses of financial crises from 1970 to 2011 across 143 countries indicate that informal economic activity typically expands in response to shocks such as banking panics or currency crises, providing alternative livelihoods for those laid off from formal employment. For instance, during the 2008 global financial crisis, informal sector employment grew significantly, with estimates showing over 200 million additional informal workers worldwide by 2009 as formal job losses mounted, thereby mitigating steeper rises in open unemployment in labor-abundant developing economies. This expansion stems from low entry barriers, minimal capital requirements, and the ability to operate outside rigid regulatory frameworks, allowing rapid adaptation to demand shifts. In the , which triggered unprecedented disruptions through lockdowns and breakdowns, the informal economy demonstrated adaptive resilience despite acute vulnerabilities. A synthesis of 42 peer-reviewed studies highlights how informal workers, comprising about 62% of global employment, employed coping strategies such as pivoting to like or home-based production, enabling continuity in low-income households where formal aid was limited. World Bank assessments note that in earlier crises, the informal sector facilitated faster job restoration compared to formal economies, a pattern partially observed post-2020 as informal activities rebounded through neighborhood-based networks and reduced overheads, buffering against the 81 million global labor force exits reported by the ILO. However, this resilience is causal to the sector's decentralized structure, which evades the compliance costs that paralyze formal operations during shocks, though it relies on unverified local demand rather than institutional support. Regional variations underscore this dynamic: in and , where informal shares exceed 70-80% of total employment, crisis-induced formal contractions led to informal inflows that stabilized household incomes, contrasting with more rigid advanced economies experiencing prolonged . Studies on street vendors during reveal specific mechanisms, including diversified income streams and community solidarity, which sustained operations amid formal retail closures. Overall, while not immune to downturns—evidenced by initial income drops of up to 19% for informal versus formal workers—the informal economy's causal role in crisis absorption arises from its responsiveness to immediate needs, fostering economic continuity absent in over-regulated systems.

Negative Consequences

Workers in the informal economy typically operate without coverage under national labor laws, depriving them of entitlements such as guarantees, limits on working hours, paid leave, and protections against arbitrary dismissal. This exclusion extends to the absence of enforceable contracts, leaving disputes over wages or conditions unresolved through formal channels like labor courts. Globally, informal accounts for approximately 61% of the , or about 2 billion individuals, the majority of whom lack these basic legal safeguards. In low- and middle-income countries, where informality rates often exceed 70%, such as in and , this systemic gap amplifies vulnerability, as evidenced by surveys showing informal workers receive irregular pay without recourse. The lack of social security coverage further compounds risks, with informal workers generally ineligible for , maternity leave, or old-age pensions, heightening exposure to economic shocks. and occupational safety standards are routinely ignored, resulting in higher incidences of workplace injuries and illnesses; for instance, empirical studies in link informal to poorer self-perceived outcomes due to unmitigated hazards like inadequate equipment or exposure to contaminants. In and sub-sectors of the informal economy, fatality rates can be 2-3 times higher than in formal equivalents, as regulatory inspections and compensation mechanisms are absent. During events like the , this absence manifested in disproportionate job losses and impacts, with informal workers facing barriers to care and support unavailable to formal employees. Employers in the informal sector also forgo legal obligations, such as contributions to funds, which perpetuates a cycle of precariousness but evades fiscal burdens. While some argue this flexibility aids survival in weak institutional environments, data from the indicate that the predominant outcome is heightened exploitation, with women and youth disproportionately affected due to limited and no anti-discrimination enforcement. Empirical analyses confirm that without legal protections, informal workers experience stagnant and intergenerational transmission, as skills development and risk mitigation remain underdeveloped.

Association with Crime and Corruption

The informal economy's evasion of formal regulatory oversight often facilitates criminal activities by reducing visibility and accountability, enabling phenomena such as , , and . In environments with partial , this lack of monitoring expands informal markets, which in turn support illegal trades like narcotics and increase crimes targeting businesses, as perpetrators exploit unregulated transactions to avoid detection. Empirical analyses confirm that informal work correlates with elevated risks of expressive crimes, such as or , independent of formal employment status. Corruption exacerbates this nexus by serving as a mechanism for informal operators to bureaucratic hurdles through bribes, while simultaneously eroding institutional and incentivizing further informality as a survival strategy. Cross-country evidence demonstrates that higher levels drive firms toward informal operations, with nonlinear effects where moderate corruption thresholds amplify this shift by making formal compliance costlier relative to illicit payoffs. In , panel data from 20 states reveal that a one-standard-deviation increase in raises informal sector by approximately 5-7 percentage points, as officials demand rents for licensing or inspections, perpetuating a cycle where informal activities fund corrupt networks. Sub-Saharan similarly identify as a primary institutional driver enlarging the informal economy, with indicators showing that weaker controls correlate with informal shares exceeding 40% of GDP in high-corruption nations like and as of 2015-2020 data. Organized crime groups frequently infiltrate informal economies to launder proceeds and expand operations, blurring lines between unregulated legal activities and outright illicit ones; for instance, street vending networks in and have been documented channeling funds into and arms smuggling. , encompassing elements intertwined with informal trade, generated an estimated $870 billion in —equivalent to 1.5% of global GDP—through activities like counterfeiting and drug distribution that leverage informal supply chains for distribution and evasion. In regions with large informal sectors, such as parts of and , state-level data indicate positive correlations between informal employment rates (often 30-50% of total workforce) and prevalence, including , as informal actors provide disposable labor or fronts for rackets. While not all informal activities are criminal, the structural opacity of the sector undermines deterrence, as evidenced by models showing that foreign capital inflows into informal and criminal segments—facilitated by —displace formal investment and sustain underground economies, with simulations indicating up to 15-20% GDP leakage in affected small open economies. Efforts to quantify this link, such as the Global Index, highlight that countries with informal economies comprising over 25% of activity (e.g., many in and ) score higher on criminality metrics, averaging 5.0-6.0 out of 10, reflecting entrenched networks rather than isolated incidents. This association persists despite some countervailing effects, where informal work may absorb potential offenders, though aggregate evidence prioritizes the enabling role of informality in perpetuating and graft.

Macroeconomic Distortions

The informal economy contributes to the underestimation of official (GDP) figures, as a significant portion of economic activity remains unrecorded in . For instance, efforts to incorporate informal sector data into have revealed substantial upward adjustments to GDP estimates, with some analyses indicating underestimations exceeding 10-20% in developing economies where informality prevails. This distortion arises because informal transactions evade standard statistical surveys, leading policymakers to base decisions on incomplete data that misrepresent the true scale of production and consumption. Fiscal policy is undermined by the informal economy's erosion of the tax base, resulting in lower revenues and potential budget deficits. Estimates suggest that shadow economies, often comprising 20-40% of GDP in low- and middle-income countries, generate annual losses equivalent to several percentage points of GDP, constraining public spending on and services. This revenue shortfall can necessitate higher es or borrowing in the formal sector, exacerbating distortions and potentially crowding out private investment, while also complicating the calibration of fiscal multipliers as informal activities respond differently to stimuli. Monetary policy transmission is weakened in economies with large informal sectors, as these activities are less sensitive to changes and conditions, reducing overall effectiveness in controlling or stimulating . Informal labor markets alter dynamics by decoupling pressures from official rates, often leading to biased estimates where informal masks true slack in the economy. Additionally, statistics are distorted, with informal work understating official joblessness; for example, incorporating informal earnings into labor metrics in certain contexts adjusts functional downward by less than 1%, highlighting persistent rather than absorption of idle labor.

Societal and Political Ramifications

Impacts on Poverty and Inequality

The informal economy often functions as a safety net for marginalized populations, providing essential and that prevent deeper in contexts of limited formal sector access. In developing countries, where formal jobs are scarce for low-skilled workers, informal activities such as street vending and small-scale trade employ a majority of the workforce, contributing significantly to household incomes and averting extreme deprivation. For instance, empirical analysis in using household survey data indicates that informal sector participation correlates with , as it offers entry-level opportunities that formal barriers exclude. Similarly, cross-country reviews highlight how informal earnings supplement formal wages or serve as sole livelihoods, aiding short-term poverty alleviation in regions like and . Despite this role, informal is associated with persistently higher incidence compared to formal work, due to low , volatile earnings, and lack of risk mitigation. data reveal that rates among informal workers exceed those in formal sectors by substantial margins, with informal participants facing elevated vulnerability to shocks like illness or market fluctuations absent social protections. In , from 2018-2019 show rising informality paralleling increased rates, particularly among the , as informal jobs trap workers in subsistence cycles without upward mobility. World Bank assessments further underscore that while informality buffers acute , its prevalence correlates with slower long-term declines, as low capital investment and mismatches hinder growth. Regarding inequality, the informal sector's effects are empirically contested, with evidence pointing to both equalizing and exacerbating dynamics depending on context. In transition and emerging economies, informal can narrow disparities by absorbing low- workers excluded from formal markets, potentially lowering Gini coefficients through broader access for the unskilled. Studies in and , however, find that informal wages lag formal ones by 20-50%, widening gaps as informal expansion reinforces dual labor markets with limited inter-sector mobility. A of BRICS countries from 2000-2018 reveals a positive link, where a 1% informal economy increase raises the Gini coefficient by approximately 3.24%, driven by unequal returns and concentration among vulnerable groups. In the of Congo, informal heterogeneity—spanning survivalist micro-enterprises to semi-formal operations—shows survivalist segments entrenching inequality, while no robust evidence links informality to redistributionary gains. Overall, while informality mitigates absolute thresholds for millions—estimated at over 2 billion informal workers globally per ILO figures—its structural constraints, including regulatory evasion and exclusion, sustain relative inequality by segregating workers into low-growth trajectories. Causal analyses, controlling for confounders like and , suggest that without productivity-enhancing reforms, informality's poverty-alleviating function diminishes over time, potentially amplifying Gini levels in high-informality economies above 40%. This duality underscores the sector's role as a symptom of underlying market failures rather than a sustainable equalizer.

Gender and Family Dynamics

![A girl selling plastic containers for carrying Ganges water, Haridwar.jpg][float-right] In many developing countries, women constitute a majority of the informal , often exceeding 60 percent of globally and reaching over 90 percent in low-income nations, driven by barriers to formal sector entry such as limited and childcare responsibilities. This participation provides flexibility for balancing unpaid domestic labor, allowing mothers to manage duties alongside income generation through home-based or street vending activities. However, women in the informal sector earn less than men, with wage gaps as high as 28 percent in regions like , compounded by lower productivity in female-owned informal enterprises, which average 15.6 percent less labor productivity than male-owned ones. The informal economy's structure reinforces traditional roles within , as frequently integrates with household production, such as micro-enterprises involving family members, which sustains livelihoods but limits individual and . For instance, the flexibility that attracts women often comes at the expense of formal protections, perpetuating dependency on spousal support or familial networks for . In family-run informal units, this dynamic can extend to children, where parental informal employment correlates with increased child involvement in household chores or labor, substituting for formal and exacerbating intergenerational cycles. Child labor remains prevalent in informal family enterprises, particularly during economic stresses, as downturns prompt families to rely on children's contributions to supplement incomes, with family dynamics prioritizing survival over schooling. Informal workers often bring children to worksites due to absent childcare, addressing immediate needs but failing to resolve broader work-family conflicts and exposing to hazards without regulatory oversight. Empirical data from international labor reports indicate that such practices hinder children's development, with girls disproportionately affected in domestic-support roles that mirror adult divisions.

Political Influence and Power Structures

The informal economy diminishes state political capacity by eroding the tax base essential for coercive, extractive, and administrative functions. In developing countries, where informal activities often dominate and subsistence sectors, governments collect significantly less revenue than potential, as evidenced by models incorporating agricultural informality showing reduced state effectiveness in cases like , where informal estimates exceeded 80% of GDP in 2015. This fiscal constraint limits investments in public goods and , fostering dependency on alternative power sources such as networks rather than formal institutions. Informal workers exhibit lower levels of conventional political engagement compared to formal sector employees, including reduced , party membership, and protest participation, as observed across Middle Eastern and North African countries where informality correlates with outsider status and resource constraints. In , meta-analyses of electoral data from multiple countries indicate that while informal workers are not uniformly less participatory than assumed, their preferences lean toward risk-mitigating policies over ideological ones. This detachment from formal stems from exclusion from state protections, yet their sheer numbers—comprising over 60% of in many low-income economies—grant them latent influence as a pivotal . Clientelistic power structures thrive in informal-heavy contexts, where politicians exchange targeted benefits like protection from or access to utilities for electoral loyalty, particularly in urban slums. Surveys from 223 Indian slums reveal that informal workers, facing volatility without social nets, demand such personalized aid over universal programs, reinforcing machine-style and perpetuating . exacerbates this dynamic, acting as both a driver and outcome of informality; higher indices correlate with larger shadow economies, as officials misuse authority to extract rents, deterring formalization. In less developed countries, this interplay sustains fragmented power, with informal networks challenging centralized authority and enabling violence-prone . The informal sector indirectly shapes by compelling governments to balance enforcement with economic realities; aggressive taxation or expands informality, as seen in political cycles where from increases shadow activity by up to 10-15% in affected economies. Efforts to organize informal workers into unions or associations aim to amplify their voice, but success remains limited, with global informal at approximately 50% of the workforce hindering cohesive . Overall, these structures prioritize short-term over systemic , entrenching inequality in political influence.

Policy Debates and Approaches

Formalization Strategies and Their Outcomes

Countries achieve low levels of informal employment through sustained economic development and high productivity creating quality formal jobs; strong labor institutions with strict regulations, rigorous inspections, high fines for evasion, and powerful unions; universal social protection systems offering attractive benefits like pensions, health care, unemployment insurance, and paid leave tied to formal employment; flexible labor markets with clear rules and enforcement; progressive taxation and anti-evasion measures including digitalization and data cross-checking; and in some cases, vocational education systems or cultural norms promoting formal work. Formalization strategies encompass a range of policy measures designed to integrate informal economic activities into the formal sector, primarily through regulatory simplification, fiscal incentives, and enhanced access to services. These include streamlining registration processes, reducing rates and compliance burdens, offering subsidies or amnesties for initial formalization, improving access to and markets, and linking formal status to social protections such as pensions or . In emerging markets and developing economies (EMDEs), such reforms have often been bundled with broader improvements in and labor market flexibility, with simplification—such as cutting corporate rates by an average of 33% between the and 2019—aimed at lowering . Empirical evidence indicates that these strategies have contributed to measurable declines in informality over time, though outcomes vary by context and intervention type. Across EMDEs, informal output as a share of GDP fell by approximately 7 percentage points to 32% between 1990 and 2018, coinciding with widespread adoption of value-added taxes in 71 countries and reductions in time required for tax payments by about 33% from 2006 to 2020. Quantitative analyses using Bayesian model averaging on data from 67 EMDEs (1998–2018) attribute reductions of 1–2% of GDP in informality to improvements in governance, , and ; for instance, a 10% decrease in corporate rates correlates with a 0.1% GDP drop in output informality over two years, while enhanced hiring/firing flexibility yields a 0.5% reduction over five years. Access to also plays a role, with an additional 10 bank branches per 100,000 adults linked to 0.1–0.3% GDP declines in informality over one to five years. Case studies highlight targeted successes alongside limitations. In , a 2012 payroll tax cut reduced informality by 7% in metropolitan areas, while Costa Rica's 2009 digitized registration lowered informal by 4% and output informality by 2% of GDP. Georgia's and tax reforms drove informal output down from 66% to 57% of GDP between 1996 and 2016, and informality fell by 8% from 2004 to 2011; similarly, Turkey's 2004–2005 subsidies increased registered jobs. In , labor inspections boosted formalization and wages, and training programs in Côte d’Ivoire and raised incomes and revenues for participants. Regional patterns reinforce this, with output informality declining from 40% to 35% of GDP in , and from 38% to 29% in over the same period, often tied to simplified tax and skill upgrades. However, meta-analyses of targeted interventions reveal more modest and inconsistent outcomes, particularly on firm and . A review of 842 estimates from 27 studies found no robust evidence that cost reductions, benefit enhancements, or alone significantly increase formalization rates among informal firms, with limited indications that post-formalization benefits might help but requiring further piloting. Similarly, formalization shows no statistically significant effects on measures of firm , such as or , suggesting that while registration may rise, it does not reliably translate to broader economic gains without addressing underlying barriers like skills gaps or . focused on the extensive margin—bringing new firms into the system—appears more effective than intensifying taxes on existing informal operations, per theoretical and empirical models. These findings underscore the need for integrated approaches, as isolated formalization efforts can fail to sustain transitions amid persistent regulatory complexities or weak institutions.

Deregulation and Incentive Reforms

in the context of the informal economy involves easing regulatory burdens on formal businesses, such as simplifying licensing, reducing bureaucratic entry barriers, and liberalizing labor and product markets, to diminish the appeal of informality driven by high compliance costs. Empirical analyses indicate that excessive regulation in these areas correlates with larger informal sectors, as it elevates operational costs for formal entities, prompting workers and firms to evade oversight. For instance, cross-country studies demonstrate that improvements in regulatory quality—through streamlined procedures—reduce informality by fostering and in formal markets. Incentive reforms complement by offering targeted benefits to encourage transitions from informal to formal status, including holidays, simplified registration processes, and access to credit or public services upon formalization. A of 27 studies encompassing 842 estimates found that such interventions significantly boost firm formalization rates, particularly when paired with reduced administrative hurdles, though effects vary by context and enforcement. In , for example, providing informal firms with business registration support alongside incentives increased formalization by up to 20% among micro-enterprises, as measured in randomized evaluations. Similarly, reforms lowering compliance costs, such as one-stop registration shops, have promoted informal-to-formal shifts in low-income settings by addressing perceived rather than actual regulatory burdens. Case studies highlight mixed yet instructive outcomes. India's 1991 , which dismantled much of the "License Raj" by reducing industrial licensing requirements from over 1,000 items to fewer than 100, spurred formal sector growth and GDP acceleration to 6-7% annually in the subsequent decade, but informal persisted at around 90% of the due to rigid labor laws insulating formal jobs and insufficient complementary reforms. In contrast, Argentina's deregulation under President , initiated in late 2023, eliminated thousands of and bureaucratic mandates by August 2025—averaging two deregulations daily—and facilitated the repatriation of over $32 billion in previously undeclared funds through amnesty incentives, correlating with a drop in from 53% in early 2024 to 31.6% by mid-2025 and reduced fiscal deficits that indirectly diminished informality incentives. These reforms underscore that deregulation's efficacy against informality hinges on sequencing with fiscal discipline and enforcement, as standalone efforts may fail if high taxes or weak property rights persist. Critics of heavy-handed formalization incentives argue they can distort markets without addressing root causes like overregulation, potentially leading to short-term formalization followed by reversion if benefits expire. Nonetheless, macroeconomic models suggest that combined labor and deregulations yield long-term reductions in informal shares—up to 5-10 percentage points in simulated open economies—by enhancing formal and job creation. Such approaches prioritize causal mechanisms over coercive enforcement, aligning with evidence that voluntary incentives outperform punitive measures in sustaining formalization.

Empirical Evidence on Interventions

A review of randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies indicates that interventions aimed at reducing informality, such as simplifying registration processes, providing tax incentives, offering financial subsidies, and enhancing enforcement, yield modest and often short-lived increases in formalization rates, with limited spillover effects on firm performance. Across 157 impact estimates from 32 studies in low- and middle-income countries, approximately 46% showed statistically significant positive effects, with firm registration increasing by an average of 11.8 percentage points and worker registration by 3.7 percentage points, though scale matters—nationwide policies outperform localized programs. Simplification efforts, including reduced paperwork and cost reimbursements, have inconsistent results; for instance, free registration combined with assistance meetings in raised formalization by 5.5 percentage points initially, but effects dissipated within a year, while information campaigns alone in , , , and produced no detectable increase. In , in-person assistance without incentives boosted formalization by 9.6 percentage points among microenterprises, rising to 16.3 percentage points with added training, banking support, and tax mediation, primarily benefiting larger informal firms resembling formal operations. A of 27 studies covering 842 estimates found no overall evidence that such formalization-targeted interventions increase firm registration rates, attributing this to insufficient post-formalization benefits outweighing compliance costs. Tax incentives and financial subsidies demonstrate somewhat stronger effects; cash grants equivalent to 0.5–2 months' profits in induced 20–50% formalization among informal firms, though subsequent profit gains were negligible. Supplementary services like facilitation in increased formalization by 12%, with formalized firms reporting 20% higher profits, but similar packages in and showed no sustained improvements in sales, employment, or survival rates. Empirical analysis in reveals near-zero elasticity of formality to and social security contribution reductions (estimated at -1.32 × 10^{-16}), implying that lowering these burdens alone fails to substantially curb informality and may strain fiscal revenues without addressing broader barriers like procedural complexity and perceived low returns to formality. Enforcement measures, such as labor inspections, yield small gains; stricter enforcement in increased business registration by 2–4 percentage points (a 44–52% relative rise), mainly among higher-revenue firms, while in , only larger informal businesses responded to audits. However, these interventions often fail to generate net economic benefits, as formalized firms rarely expand operations or access credit meaningfully, suggesting that persistent informality stems from high ongoing regulatory costs, weak enforcement credibility, and inadequate incentives rather than entry barriers alone. dynamics exacerbate challenges, with women-led firms in and formalizing less due to norms and liquidity constraints, underscoring the need for targeted support beyond generic reforms. Overall, while select combinations of assistance and incentives can nudge marginal formalization, points to limited and efficacy without deeper institutional changes to make formality causally advantageous for small operators.

Regional Perspectives

Sub-Saharan Africa

In , the informal economy encompasses a dominant share of and economic activity, with 87.3 percent of the employed engaged in informal work as of 2022, according to estimates derived from household surveys across the region. This figure reflects both urban and rural dynamics, where informal activities range from and street vending to unregistered trade and services, often characterized by low productivity, , and minimal capital investment. In urban areas, informal workers constitute 56 to 65 percent of the labor force, with over half being self-employed, and women disproportionately represented due to barriers in formal sector access. The sector's contribution to GDP varies by country, typically spanning 25 to 65 percent, though it has shown gradual decline in some nations amid and policy efforts, yet remains a primary absorber of labor amid formal job scarcity. Structural factors drive the persistence of informality, including slow formal job creation relative to —particularly among entering the annually—and high regulatory barriers such as complex business registration, taxation, and labor laws that deter formalization. Weak enforcement of regulations, coupled with and inadequate , further incentivizes informal operations as a survival mechanism rather than a transitional phase, trapping workers in low-wage cycles with limited skills upgrading. dominates rural informality, employing the majority in unregistered smallholder farming, while urban informality thrives in petty trade and services, often evading taxes and social protections, which exacerbates fiscal shortfalls for public services. The informal economy's impacts are dual-edged: it provides essential livelihoods for millions, mitigating immediate in contexts of high , but its low constrains overall by substituting higher-value formal activities and reducing tax revenues needed for and investment. Larger informal shares correlate with elevated and income inequality, as informal workers face deficits, including vulnerability to shocks like commodity price fluctuations or climate events, without access to or . Empirical analyses indicate that while informality absorbs labor during growth slowdowns, it hinders inclusive development by perpetuating skill mismatches and limiting , with policy formalization efforts yielding mixed results due to challenges and worker resistance stemming from perceived formal sector exploitation.

Latin America and Caribbean

Informal constitutes approximately 50% of total non-agricultural in , a figure that has remained stable over the past two decades despite economic fluctuations. In 2023-2024 data, rates vary significantly by country, with exhibiting the highest informality at nearly 85% of employed population, at 72%, and lower in nations like around 25-30%. economies show pervasive informality, often exceeding 40-50% of economic activity, closely tied to small-scale , services, and . This sector encompasses unregistered workers, own-account operators, and micro-enterprises lacking social protections or tax compliance. Empirical analyses attribute the persistence of informality to burdensome regulations, high rates, and labor market rigidities that raise formal sector entry costs, prompting workers and firms to operate outside official channels. Studies confirm that stricter systems, , dominance of low-productivity , and weak institutional correlate positively with informal sector size, while better reduces it. In the region, survival motives amid high and drive entry, but policy-induced barriers—such as complex compliance rules and minimum floors exceeding marginal —exacerbate the divide, as evidenced by cross-country regressions showing informality's negative response to quality and positive to regulatory stringency. The informal economy impedes overall productivity and by allocating labor to low-efficiency activities and evading taxes, which diminishes public revenues needed for and services—potentially requiring higher rates on formal entities to compensate. It correlates with heightened vulnerability, as informal workers lack access to , training, and safety nets, leading to income instability; during the 2020 , informal earnings in the region plummeted by up to 80%, amplifying inequality. Yet, it absorbs excess labor in contexts of , providing essential goods at lower costs, though long-term entrapment in low-wage cycles hinders accumulation and broad-based development.

Asia-Pacific

The informal economy in the region encompasses a diverse array of unregistered economic activities, including street vending, small-scale , , and , which dominate in developing economies across , Southeast, and . In Southern Asia, informal constitutes approximately 80-90% of total non-agricultural , driven by low , limited formal job opportunities, and high densities that necessitate rapid labor absorption. Southeast Asian countries like and the exhibit similar patterns, with informal sectors accounting for 60-70% of , often concentrated in urban informal settlements and rural subsistence farming. In contrast, economies such as show declining but still significant informality at around 50% of as of 2020, reflecting partial formalization through urban migration and state-led industrialization, though labor in formal firms increasingly blurs lines. These activities contribute 20-50% to GDP in many countries, providing essential income for low-skilled workers but evading taxation and regulation. Empirical evidence highlights the informal economy's role in mitigating in labor-surplus contexts, where formal sectors cannot absorb surplus workers due to skill mismatches and capital constraints; for instance, in , it sustained livelihoods for over 400 million workers as of 2019, preventing deeper amid slow formal job growth averaging 1-2% annually. However, remains low—often 20-30% below formal counterparts—due to limited access to , , and markets, perpetuating income inequality as informal workers earn 40-60% less on average than formal employees. Vulnerability to external shocks is pronounced; during the , informal workers in faced income drops of up to 70% from lockdowns, lacking social safety nets available to formal employees. Regional variations underscore causal factors like regulatory burdens and enforcement; in Pacific Island nations, informality hovers at 30-50% of , lower due to smaller scales and tourism-driven formalization, but still challenged by geographic isolation limiting scale-up. Benefits include entrepreneurial flexibility, enabling quick adaptation to local demands—such as mobile vending in densely populated cities—but empirical studies show intergenerational transmission, with children of informal workers 20-30% more likely to enter informality due to inadequate and networks. Overall, while the sector fosters resilience in high-unemployment environments, its persistence signals underlying structural rigidities in labor markets and institutions, with formalization efforts yielding mixed results absent complementary reforms in skills and finance access.

Europe and North America

In , the informal , often measured as the shadow economy excluding illegal activities, averages approximately 16% of official GDP across EU member states, with estimates ranging from 9.5% to 40% depending on and country. Advanced Western European economies typically exhibit lower shares of 15-20% of GDP, while southern and eastern regions report higher prevalence due to weaker enforcement and economic pressures. Undeclared work constitutes a primary form, particularly in , domestic services, and small-scale retail, driven by high labor taxes, social security contributions averaging 30-40% of wages, and bureaucratic hurdles to formal registration. Informal employment rates in remain low compared to global averages, at around 25% in Europe and , with showing even lower figures due to robust labor inspections and social safety nets. The sector expanded temporarily during the , with countries' shadow economy rising from 15.0% in 2019 to 16.5% in 2020 amid lockdowns and fiscal support gaps, before stabilizing. Estimates from economists like Friedrich Schneider, derived from multiple-indicators models including currency demand and electricity usage, highlight systemic underreporting, though critics note potential overestimation from assuming uniform motives across diverse economies. In , the informal economy is significantly smaller, reflecting stronger institutional frameworks and lower regulatory barriers. Canada's underground economy, encompassing unreported legal production, equated to 2.5% of GDP or $72.4 billion in 2023, concentrated in retail, , and accommodation sectors. Informal across stands at about 9.8%, primarily involving own-account workers and casual labor without contracts or benefits. In the United States, shadow economy estimates hover around 7-10% of GDP based on gap analyses and MIMIC models, fueled by transactions in services and gig work, though federal reporting requirements and digital tracking mitigate scale. High compliance rates stem from relatively lower marginal rates (effective federal under 20% for most) and entrepreneurial incentives, contrasting Europe's heavier burdens.

Digital and Gig Economy Integration

The integration of digital platforms and the with the informal sector has enabled unregistered workers in developing countries to access broader markets and generate income through task-based labor, often without transitioning to formal employment structures. Platforms such as , Grab, and freelance sites like facilitate connections between informal suppliers—such as drivers, delivery personnel, and micro-entrepreneurs—and consumers, bypassing traditional intermediaries and leveraging mobile technology for matching and payments. This dynamic is particularly pronounced in urban areas of and , where low-capital digital gigs like ride-hailing and absorb surplus informal labor, providing flexible earnings amid high . Empirical estimates indicate that online gig work overlaps significantly with informal employment, accounting for 4.4% to 12.5% of the global labor force, with higher penetration in low-income regions where it offers opportunities for , women, and rural migrants excluded from formal jobs. In surveyed developing economies, gig participation rates among working range from 8.1% to higher, often supplementing informal activities like street vending or artisanal services. World Bank analysis highlights the inclusivity of these platforms compared to traditional informal sectors, as they lower entry barriers via app-based onboarding, yet workers typically remain without benefits like or pensions, perpetuating akin to offline informality. While digital integration boosts productivity by enabling direct consumer access and scalable task fulfillment—such as data annotation or reselling for informal traders—evidence suggests mixed outcomes on formalization. Some platforms impose algorithmic oversight that mimics formal controls without legal protections, potentially trapping workers in low-wage cycles, as seen in Indonesian and African cases where informal vendors adopt apps but face competition eroding margins. Conversely, platforms can serve as stepping stones, with earnings reinvested into business registration; however, regulatory gaps in developing contexts often hinder this, leaving 61% of global workers—predominantly informal—vulnerable to economic shocks without safety nets. analyses emphasize that without targeted interventions like portable social protections, gig expansion risks entrenching informality rather than alleviating it.

Technological Disruptions

Digital platforms have integrated segments of the informal economy by enabling low-barrier entry for workers in transport, delivery, and services, often bridging informal labor with formal payment systems. In developing countries, platforms aggregate supply and demand data to match tasks with informal workers in real time, reducing search frictions and expanding market access for micro-enterprises. However, this integration frequently perpetuates precarity, as platform algorithms prioritize flexibility over stability, leaving workers without social protections and exposed to demand fluctuations, particularly in informal-heavy sectors like ride-hailing. In urban areas of Asia and Africa, such platforms have absorbed informal vendors and drivers but have not consistently led to full formalization, with earnings variability mirroring pre-platform informal conditions. Mobile money services represent a key technological vector for disrupting cash-dependent informal transactions, particularly in , where they facilitate for informal operators. Kenya's , launched in 2007, has expanded to handle remittances and micro-payments, significantly boosting deposit and access for informal enterprises by 2021, with cumulative economic impacts reaching $190 billion continent-wide by 2023. These systems reduce reliance on physical , enabling informal traders to formalize payments and access , though adoption barriers like limit broader formalization effects. In , mobile money uptake has correlated with modest increases in business registration among micro-enterprises, suggesting technology's role in easing entry to formal financial rails without fully displacing informal practices. Automation and pose displacement risks to informal in labor-intensive sectors prevalent in developing economies, where low-skill tasks like manual assembly or vending are vulnerable. Empirical studies indicate limited net job loss from industrial robots in hubs of developing countries as of 2020, with holding steady due to offsetting task reallocation, though future AI adoption could exacerbate this in informal settings lacking reskilling. In , generative AI is projected to transform up to 40% of informal jobs by automating routine cognitive tasks, potentially widening inequality without policy interventions for digital access. Informal workers in high-exposure roles, such as street trading, face heightened from AI-driven efficiencies in supply chains, underscoring technology's dual capacity to streamline formal operations at the informal sector's expense. Blockchain-based cryptocurrencies have disrupted informal economies by providing pseudonymous transaction channels that evade regulatory oversight, fostering new black market dynamics. In regions with unstable fiat currencies, such as , grassroots cryptocurrency adoption surged amid 2020-2023 inflation, enabling informal traders to conduct cross-border payments outside traditional banking. Privacy coins like facilitate underground exchanges, substituting for cash in illicit informal activities and complicating tax enforcement. In Africa's largest informal settlements, circular economies emerged by 2020, allowing residents to bypass capital controls, though this entrenches evasion rather than formal integration. Such technologies amplify informal resilience against state controls but risk amplifying volatility and illicit flows, with speculative holdings correlating positively with underground sector size across countries.

Projections for 2030 and Beyond

The informal economy is anticipated to persist as a dominant feature of labor markets in developing regions through 2030, driven by demographic pressures and insufficient formal job creation. In , where half of global labor force entrants are expected by 2030, up to 15 million new jobs will be required annually, with the informal sector likely absorbing a substantial portion due to barriers in , , and regulatory capacity. Globally, informal currently accounts for about 60% of total , and without accelerated formalization policies, this share may remain elevated in low-income countries, where it exceeds 80%. Projections for the shadow economy—encompassing unreported income and activities—indicate a gradual decline in its ratio to GDP, potentially extending from 23% in 2011 to around 21% by 2025 and further with sustained enforcement of tax compliance and digital tracking. However, this trend assumes effective policy interventions; in regions like , the informal economy's absolute size is forecasted to expand amid and agricultural displacement, serving as a resilience mechanism against formal sector volatility. Beyond 2030, digital platforms and may reshape the informal economy by enabling scalable gig work while facilitating regulatory oversight through data analytics, potentially reducing its opacity but increasing precarious . The anticipates slower global growth displacing 1.6 million jobs by 2030 due to these shifts, with informal adaptation varying by region—formalization accelerating in middle-income economies but lagging in fragile states. Climate-induced migrations and disruptions could further entrench informality as a buffer, underscoring the need for targeted reforms to harness productivity gains without exacerbating vulnerabilities.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.