What is it about?
This paper evaluates critically competing explanations for participation in undeclared work that either read engagement through a structuralist lens as driven by ‘exclusion’ from state benefits and the circuits of the modern economy or through a neo-liberal and/or post-structuralist lens as driven by the voluntary ‘exit’ of workers out of formal institutions.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
Reporting a 2005/6 household work practices survey involving 313 faceto- face interviews in contemporary Moscow, the finding is that there is no single unique logic underpinning undeclared work in this post-Soviet city; such work is neither universally driven by exclusion nor exit. Different mixtures of the two prevail across different populations and forms of undeclared work. The outcome is a call for greater appreciation of the multifarious character of undeclared work and a move beyond simplistic explanations and policy responses.
Perspectives
This paper evaluates competing ways of explaining the undeclared economy using evidence from Moscow.
Professor Colin C Williams
University of Sheffield
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: EXPLAINING PARTICIPATION IN UNDECLARED WORK, European Societies, July 2010, Taylor & Francis,
DOI: 10.1080/14616691003716910.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
