On Defining and Measuring the Informal Sector

Andrew Henley, G. Arabsheibani, F. Carneiro
{"title":"On Defining and Measuring the Informal Sector","authors":"Andrew Henley, G. Arabsheibani, F. Carneiro","doi":"10.1596/1813-9450-3866","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A range of alternative empirical definitions of informal activity have been employed in the literature. Choice of definition is often dictated by data availability. Different definitions may imply very different conceptual understandings of informality. In this paper the authors investigate the degree of congruence between three definitions of informality based on employment contract registration, social security protection, and the characteristics of the employer and employment using Brazilian household survey data for the period 1992 to 2001. The authors present evidence showing that 64 percent of the economically active population are informal according to at least one definition, but only 40 percent are informal according to all three. Steady compositional changes have been taking place among informal workers, conditional on definition. The econometric analysis reveals that the conditional impact of particular factors (demographic, educational attainment, and family circumstances) on the likelihood of informality varies considerably from one definition to another. The results suggest growing heterogeneity within the informal sector. Therefore, the authors argue that informal activity may be as much associated with entrepreneurial dynamism as with any desire to avoid costly contract registration and social protection. However, the authors confirm there is no a priori reason for entrepreneurial activity to be unprotected. Consequently definitions of informality based on occupation and employer size seem the most arbitrary in practice even if conceptually well-founded.","PeriodicalId":357008,"journal":{"name":"Employment Law eJournal","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"79","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Employment Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-3866","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 79

Abstract

A range of alternative empirical definitions of informal activity have been employed in the literature. Choice of definition is often dictated by data availability. Different definitions may imply very different conceptual understandings of informality. In this paper the authors investigate the degree of congruence between three definitions of informality based on employment contract registration, social security protection, and the characteristics of the employer and employment using Brazilian household survey data for the period 1992 to 2001. The authors present evidence showing that 64 percent of the economically active population are informal according to at least one definition, but only 40 percent are informal according to all three. Steady compositional changes have been taking place among informal workers, conditional on definition. The econometric analysis reveals that the conditional impact of particular factors (demographic, educational attainment, and family circumstances) on the likelihood of informality varies considerably from one definition to another. The results suggest growing heterogeneity within the informal sector. Therefore, the authors argue that informal activity may be as much associated with entrepreneurial dynamism as with any desire to avoid costly contract registration and social protection. However, the authors confirm there is no a priori reason for entrepreneurial activity to be unprotected. Consequently definitions of informality based on occupation and employer size seem the most arbitrary in practice even if conceptually well-founded.
非正式部门的定义与衡量
文献中采用了一系列可供选择的非正式活动的经验定义。定义的选择通常取决于数据的可用性。不同的定义可能意味着对非正式性的不同概念理解。本文利用1992年至2001年巴西家庭调查数据,基于劳动合同登记、社会保障保护、雇主和就业特征,研究了非正式性三种定义之间的一致性程度。作者提供的证据表明,根据至少一种定义,64%的经济活动人口是非正式的,但根据所有三种定义,只有40%是非正式的。非正式工人的构成正在发生稳定的变化,这取决于定义。计量经济学分析表明,特定因素(人口统计、教育程度和家庭环境)对非正式性可能性的条件影响在不同的定义中差异很大。结果表明,非正规部门内部的异质性日益增强。因此,作者认为,非正式活动可能与企业活力密切相关,也可能与避免昂贵的合同登记和社会保护的愿望密切相关。然而,作者确认,没有先验的理由使创业活动不受保护。因此,基于职业和雇主规模的非正式定义在实践中似乎是最武断的,即使在概念上是有根据的。
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