Informality and Development

R. La Porta, Andrei Shleifer
{"title":"Informality and Development","authors":"R. La Porta, Andrei Shleifer","doi":"10.1257/JEP.28.3.109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In developing countries, informal firms account for up to half of economic activity. They provide livelihood for billions of people. Yet their role in economic development remains controversial. Some, like Hernando De Soto (1989, 2000), see informal firms as an untapped reservoir of entrepreneurial energy, held back by government regulations. In this view, unleashing this energy by reducing entry regulations or improving property rights would fuel growth and development. Others, like Levy (2008), take a more cynical view, stressing the advantages enjoyed by informal firms and workers from avoiding taxes and regulations. A report from the McKinsey Global Institute describes informal firms as parasites competing unfairly with law-abiding formal firms (Farrell 2004). In this view, informality should be suppressed, not unleashed. Still others follow the development tradition of Lewis (1954), Harris and Todaro (1970), and more recently Rauch (1991) and see informality as a byproduct of poverty. From this dual perspective, formal and informal firms are fundamentally different. Productive formal entrepreneurs pay taxes and bear the cost of government regulation to reach new customers, raise capital, and access public goods. These entrepreneurs are often educated and find it more profitable to run bigger formal firms rather than the smaller informal ones. In contrast, informal entrepreneurs are typically uneducated and unproductive, and they run small businesses producing low-quality products for low-income customers using little capital and","PeriodicalId":276603,"journal":{"name":"Kauffman: Conferences & Seminars (Topic)","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"983","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kauffman: Conferences & Seminars (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1257/JEP.28.3.109","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 983

Abstract

In developing countries, informal firms account for up to half of economic activity. They provide livelihood for billions of people. Yet their role in economic development remains controversial. Some, like Hernando De Soto (1989, 2000), see informal firms as an untapped reservoir of entrepreneurial energy, held back by government regulations. In this view, unleashing this energy by reducing entry regulations or improving property rights would fuel growth and development. Others, like Levy (2008), take a more cynical view, stressing the advantages enjoyed by informal firms and workers from avoiding taxes and regulations. A report from the McKinsey Global Institute describes informal firms as parasites competing unfairly with law-abiding formal firms (Farrell 2004). In this view, informality should be suppressed, not unleashed. Still others follow the development tradition of Lewis (1954), Harris and Todaro (1970), and more recently Rauch (1991) and see informality as a byproduct of poverty. From this dual perspective, formal and informal firms are fundamentally different. Productive formal entrepreneurs pay taxes and bear the cost of government regulation to reach new customers, raise capital, and access public goods. These entrepreneurs are often educated and find it more profitable to run bigger formal firms rather than the smaller informal ones. In contrast, informal entrepreneurs are typically uneducated and unproductive, and they run small businesses producing low-quality products for low-income customers using little capital and
非正式与发展
在发展中国家,非正规企业占经济活动的一半。它们为数十亿人提供生计。然而,它们在经济发展中的作用仍然存在争议。有些人,如Hernando De Soto(1989,2000),将非正式企业视为未开发的创业能量储备,受到政府法规的限制。按照这种观点,通过减少准入规定或改善产权来释放这种能量,将促进增长和发展。其他人,如Levy(2008),采取了更愤世嫉俗的观点,强调非正规企业和工人从避税和监管中享有的优势。麦肯锡全球研究所的一份报告将非正规企业描述为寄生虫,与守法的正规企业进行不公平竞争(Farrell 2004)。按照这种观点,非正式行为应该被压制,而不是被释放。还有一些人遵循Lewis(1954)、Harris和Todaro(1970)以及最近的Rauch(1991)的发展传统,将非正式性视为贫困的副产品。从这一双重视角看,正式企业和非正式企业有着根本的区别。生产性正规企业家纳税并承担政府监管成本,以接触新客户、筹集资金和获得公共产品。这些企业家通常受过良好的教育,他们发现经营规模较大的正规企业比经营规模较小的非正规企业更有利可图。相比之下,非正规企业家通常没有受过教育,生产力低下,他们经营的小企业为低收入客户生产低质量的产品,使用的资金很少
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信