@article{Kanbur:48926,
      recid = {48926},
      author = {Kanbur, Ravi},
      title = {Conceptualizing Informality: Regulation and Enforcement},
      address = {2009-02},
      number = {642-2016-43918},
      series = {Working paper},
      pages = {15},
      year = {2009},
      abstract = {The informality discourse is large, vibrant and expanding  fast. But there is a certain
conceptual incoherence to the  literature. New definitions of informality compete with old  definitions leading to a plethora of alternative  conceptualisations. While some individual studies may apply  a tight definition consistently, the literature as a whole  is in a mess. This paper proposes that informality and  formality should be seen in direct relation to economic  activity in the presence of specified regulation(s).  Relative to the regulation(s), four
conceptual categories  that can help frame the analysis are: (A) regulation  applicable and compliant, (B) regulation applicable and  non-compliant, (C) regulation non-applicable after  adjustment of activity and (D) regulation non-applicable to  the activity. Rather than use the generic labels  informal/formal, it would be preferable if the analysis  focused on these four
categories (or even more  disaggregated as appropriate). A central determining factor  in the impacts of regulation on economic activity across  these four categories is the nature and intensity of  enforcement. While lack of enforcement is well documented,  understanding of its determinants—why and to what extent a  government would not enforce a regulation that is has  itself passed, and why non-enforcement varies from one  context to another, is relatively neglected in the  literature. Thus specificity on regulation and on  enforcement is the key to achieving conceptual clarity in  the analytical literature and in the policy
discourse on  informality.},
      url = {http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/48926},
      doi = {https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.48926},
}