View source for Informality as the dumping ground of social sciences (theory)

==Informality as the dumping ground of social sciences (theory) ''Reflections about what informality is… and is not.''==
=== <big>By Abel Polese, Dublin City University, School of Law and Governance</big> ===


'''Everyone seems to know what informality is not'''

“...and, in that neighbourhood, many illegal things happen, people are poor... there’s a lot of dodgy... kinda... informal stuff”

This was part of a colleague’s presentation, and that’s when I thought, “Informality is indeed the dumping ground of social sciences.” If you do not know how to explain a social dynamic, throw in the magic word and you can’t go wrong.

Lately, a paper I reviewed read: “we use the word informality as an equivalent to corruption”. My question was, “Why don’t you just say corruption then?”

My guess: a) because using informality is fashionable and it is such an intuitive and flexible concept that nobody (well, except a few of us) will tell you that you’re using it in the wrong way; b) because the authors possibly felt that there was something beyond corruption that they were not able to grasp, but they hadn’t bothered reading anything about informality so they used it in a way I could use a term at a pub with my friends.

That’s no more or less than when I visit a place and someone tells me, “You are in the right country to study informality, we have a lot”. Well, I guess I am in the right country also to study food studies since you need to eat every day, or for gender studies since around half of your population are classified as women.

Living in a place with many cats and sporadically caring for them does not make you a vet. Acknowledging informality and understanding it are two separate things.


'''A love for food does not make you a good chef, it makes you a food lover and that’s all. Debunking informality myths (and misconceptions).'''

I sometimes miss the times when it was just five of us studying informality. Yes, everyone asked, “What is that odd thing you’re studying?”, but at least we did not get generalisations, we did not get people feeling as though they had expertise in informality because “there’s a lot of informality where I come from” or “I’ve not studied informality but I’ve seen a lot during my fieldwork so I am not an expert…but, you know, I guess I have something to contribute to scientific debates.”

So, here’s a first catch. Being born (or bred, or residing) in a place where a practice, any practice, is (visibly) widespread does not make you an expert on that practice. At best, it makes you an informant with a subjective viewpoint on the practice.

For now, think of food. Food is our everyday. Everybody needs to eat so we all know a bit about food. But the mere fact of eating does not make you an expert in food studies. You need to understand positionality, theories and abstract from your subjective lenses.

You were born somewhere, bred somewhere, have your comfort and native foods and you know how they should taste. However, not everyone who knows how these foods should taste can act as an advisor or a cooking expert. 

If asked “what’s the most popular food in your country,” our response is likely to be subjective, linked to our own experience. An “objective” answer should take into account consumer preferences, statistics, surveys and production, among other things. It is one thing to understand something intuitively, another thing to produce knowledge about it (or taste). Informality is the same: it’s not because you’ve seen it or you’ve made a gift to access a service that you’re able to talk scientifically about it.


'''Native vs informal'''
'''Are you native in informality language?'''

Juxtaposing your experience as making you knowledgeable about informality in relation to those who are born in “non-informal countries” is inaccurate and a pleonastic romanticisation of informality.

In a Central Asian panel, a speaker suggested: “When entering the Uzbek market after liberalisation, Turkish entrepreneurs were the best placed to understand informality because, opposed to – say – the Swedish, they also had lots of informality in their country.”

I frowned. Let’s hold on for a moment. Can we claim this is even remotely scientific? Are we really suggesting that in Sweden, or elsewhere, everything is written down and people act by the book all the time? That parents and children sign a contract on how they have to behave? That the state regulates (e.g. formalises) all the possible aspects of social life? That if your line manager hates you, your promotion will not be hindered? That if you're a woman, you're not at risk of a salary gap? This risk is lower in Sweden, but still widely [https://www.mi.se/app/uploads/Gender_pay_gap_2024.pdf inexplicable]. Or that you don’t mind working with either A or B regardless of gossip or their reputation in the business environment?

Is it humanly possible that some places have no informality? And even if you do not want to define informality, can we stop and think then what formality (without the in-) is?

I agree that, intuitively, one would say “People in these countries tend to respect formal rules”. But, does this equate to a lack of informality? Formal rules are there exactly to overrule informality; they are an attempt to create processes that can be controlled formally by a regulating entity – replacing what before was regulated through interpersonal relations on the basis of unwritten but widely accepted rules. They usually appear because that kind of relationship is no longer viable (i.e. when relations become impersonal and there’s a need to standardise, to objectify and to explain to newcomers how things should work), or to prompt behavioural change. They are there to regulate what before was agreed using common sense, or unwritten rules but cannot, in any way, liquidate informality totally.

In places often perceived as having low levels of informality, informal (widespread and somehow socially accepted) practices do not often openly and overtly conflict with formal state rules. Yet, a lack of tension (or conflict) between the two realms, a somehow harmonious, and complementary relationship between the formal and the informal in no way means that there is no informality. 

Both the Faroe Islands and Denmark score very low in the corruption index - that’s not informality, but it gives you a proxy for the quality of governance. But when Danish experts went to the Faroe Islands to help manage the COVID pandemic, there was a (peaceful) clash of civilisations between the Danes, used to a centralised management (and stricter sanitary rules), and the Faroese governance mechanisms that many have reported to me as quite informal, where word of mouth was sufficient to enforce sanitary measures. Using formal channels would be less effective, and probably slower, than using local message-conveying technology. The Danish colleague would then have to learn “the Faroe way” and tell trusted “information hubs” and key persons what needs to be achieved. Isn’t that the very essence of informality?

[[File:Abel1.png|thumb|300px|left|These images of informal bicycle parking in Japan show signs that say “Bicycle parking is forbidden here. In case of violations, we will alert the police.” Beside the sign, bicycles are parked in a tidy and regular fashion, with the chain taken down to allow more bikes to park. . Source: Abel Polese. © Abel Polese.]]
[[File:Abel1.png|thumb|300px|left|There is a formal rule, but a tacit understanding that it will not be respected, and a social rule requesting you to park your bike (illegally) in a tidy and proper manner. . Source: Abel Polese. © Abel Polese.]]

'''Natural vs normal?'''
'''Informal is the natural condition of social structures.'''

Informality is like the ocean: it occupies 70 percent of the earth, but some insist on seeing it as something out of our normality (life on dry surface), as the “not us” area.

Let’s debunk a further myth. Informality is not the opposite of formality. It’s the formal that is the opposite, the domestication, of the informal. In a common anthropocentric deception one would say “the sea is infested by sharks” (yeah, and the earth is infested by humans, where else would they live?) or that there are “wild” animals as opposed to domesticated (quite the opposite, the natural condition for an animal is wildness, then we’ve created exceptions).

What is wrong here is not the existence of opposite categories. It’s the claim that there is a “normal”, a “natural” condition, which usually overlaps with our understanding of the world, and that the rest is “abnormal”, unnatural.

The formal and the informal do not always collude. Sometimes they overlap, usually they co-exist, compete and complement one another in an asymmetric relationship. The informal is the green of forests. It is there until a house is constructed on top of it. And if left neglected, the green will return to the house and merge with it, like plants in holes in the wall or moss on the roof.

The informal is the natural condition of a society, the formal may take over but end up ineffective. And then the informal “returns”. If not in every single aspect, then at least in any aspect that the formal does not manage to regulate successfully.

But then, for some unknown reason, the attention given to the formal has gone as far as to claim that that’s the only thing worth studying. Well, I understand it’s easier to measure the formal, but that’s only the minority of human interactions.


'''Human vs informal'''
'''Human interactions are born informal. Only when it’s needed do they become regulated.'''

There are many unregulated (read: informal) relationships in our daily life, but we barely notice them because they are so embedded that they have become invisible. We breathe informality by the day, the hour, the minute, and we do not realise it.

Every human interaction is born informal, unregulated. You don’t write a contract with your friends about friendship; you don’t publish a booklet on brother to sister relations. You rely on understanding, guessing, on common sense. Ehm, common sense... what is it, if not the hope that people will guess the (informal) rules regulating a certain environment?

When informal relations fail, when too many people play dumb or ignorant (‘oops, I did not know that I could not take my neighbour’s lunch if I was hungry or beat up my coworker if they upset me’) then you need to regulate, to formalise.

So, we write down the rules of the game, we suggest how to measure, how much is too much. And those spaces become a no-brainer. There is no longer a need to think. Just like when you’re speaking your native language in a comfortable environment.


'''Language vs articulation'''
'''You are both native and foreign in informality language'''

Informality is a language. You learn the one of the environment where you were born. It looks natural to you. You know what your native people expect in a given situation. You anticipate their reaction if you do something aerodynamic, or reactionary to that environment. If you move to an environment where the informal rules are similar (usually where cultures and languages are close), you do not even reflect so it’s easier to understand a kind of informality that has a lot in common with your “native informality”. Like learning Spanish as a French speaker or Thai as a Lao speaker.

But informality without self-reflection is difficult to explain. You might understand better than non-natives, but can’t always explain your native informality, as some non-professional language teachers are unable to explain the “why” of some grammar rules.

Learning a foreign language exposes you to questions and prompts to question your own assumptions, idioms, sentences, grammar. Asking (or being asked) “stupid questions” becomes an opportunity for self-reflection for a native speaker of a given informality; “yes, I know if I do this the people in my hometown will react that or that way.” But why?

Once you compare your native reactions with other people’s reactions and are critical enough not to overlap otherness and wrong (those people do it “the wrong way”, because it’s different from my way), then you become even more aware of your own culture (and native informality).

Likewise, someone learning a foreign mode of informality will be amazed, flabbergasted, fascinated, and might notice nuances that a native informality speaker takes for granted. Both viewpoints are equally valuable, and neither of the two is objective. They are, though, parts of the same reality and can be complementary.


'''Ignorance is no longer ignorable
'''There’s theory, there’s a growing literature, read and engage!'''

So, I guess I am becoming less tolerant of the whataboutist use of “informality”. Like any other social theory concept, it will be abused by some politicians, journalists, or anyone who does not get acquainted with the literature and it will be understood by some others. But it’s a tool. As a scientist, if you use it, you should know what it’s about.

You take a pen, a book, a pan. They can have many alternative uses. The book can be used to prop up an unstable kitchen table; a pan can be used for self-defence or as a musical instrument. But you know, in theory, their primary purpose.

The mere fact that informality can be defined as the area beyond the formal does not mean you understand informality (or formality). It means that there are two realms in competition and that, to be able to say something scientifically meaningful about either, you need to base your reflections on theoretical foundations generated so far.

There is no need to study both the formal and the informal, but you need to be aware of the existence of both. Just as different doctors may train in different specialisations. A heart specialist does not need to know what knee surgery looks like but needs to know that their knowledge has limited applicability beyond their specialised domain, and that there’s a world beyond their world.

So, I understand it less and less every day when someone tries to publish a paper merely stating “look! There’s informality out there”. As if identifying an understudied practice automatically meant “discovering informality”.

Well, (un)fortunately, the times when one could claim to have discovered informality are long gone. You can say that this or that practice are unique to the country, or case, you are studying, and by force of this uniqueness your research is worth attention. Yet, such an argument was valid 20-30 years ago, but now that we have Volumes [https://uclpress.co.uk/book/the-global-encyclopaedia-of-informality-volume-1/ I], [https://uclpress.co.uk/book/the-global-encyclopaedia-of-informality-volume-2/ II] and [https://uclpress.co.uk/book/the-global-encyclopaedia-of-informality-volume-3/ III] of the Encyclopaedia of Informality, as well as the [[Global_Informality_Project|Global Informality Project]], with hundreds of entries and growing, the question to ask is not “is there informality” or “where is informality” but tackle the “so what” question: “what is the social meaning of that particular type of informality?”. How can informality engage in dialogue with major theories, from domination to structure-agency debate, from social stratification to conflict theory?

And yet, I encounter almost daily someone who, whenever they do not know how to explain something, just use the magic word to imply “it’s a bit illegal, a bit bad, but not as bad as criminal.”

Informality still remains, in many people’s perception, an intuitive and mouldable concept that somehow implies “there’s something I do not really understand, I am making a note that I will have to study it later, now I have no time, but for now I just flag it as informality, then we’ll see”.

When this happens, informality is treated as a residual category that is ignored until it finally can’t be ignored anymore. It is treated like a leftover of whatever is not fully understood or explainable, at least to some.

It’s like you feel you’re observing something beyond your scientific understanding (but intuitively graspable) and if you can’t be bothered to go deeper or simply do not have the time to do so. Just say “informality”, and you can’t go wrong. It is a way to signpost that there’s something, out there, in-between, something under-researched, under-explored, under-explained, under-conceptualised.

In such a case, with the informality project, we could produce an informality post-it that could be stuck to any sentence where there’s a concept, or a practice, that you would like to highlight but cannot explain, don’t bother studying, and postpone to later.

Well, not quite. There’s now a large literature on informality that is slowly converging into some kind of theory. The only “under” that applies here is under-reflected upon.


'''If informality is everywhere, how can we understand it?'''
'''Suggestions for engagement with informality debates'''

So, please, don’t treat informality as your dumping ground. Don’t assume you know about it because you’ve seen a lot or experienced a lot on your skin. To make sure you use it properly, here you have my humble advice for new users:

1. Demoralise it: it is not because people are not abiding the law that they are bad. First, a law can be “bad” as well. There have been, and there are, formal laws discriminating against some segments of the society or simply ignoring their needs. People then have a choice: either they go against themselves or they ignore the law. Offering extra money to a doctor who saved your life because you know the state is underpaying them is formally illegal, but is it absolutely and objectively bad? I’ve argued that it’s a primitive attempt of healthcare privatisation since the practice exists also in some “less informal” countries. It’s just better regulated.

2. Use it as a proxy for the quality of governance. If rules are fair and they are constructed taking into account cultural settings and do not prompt any further imbalance or gap, then there is less need to resort to informal practices in a given environment. This is because the formal practices were actually constructed on a successful case of informal practices and then crystallised into rules. In some cases, therefore, informality is not about endangering the state or its social order but repossessing the societal harmony that applied before some ineffective rule was introduced.

3. This is not always the case everywhere. I am not asking you to romanticise informality. I am asking you to start from a “zero point” (not positive, not negative) and consider the pluses and minuses, the costs and benefits of an informal practice beyond what the authorities say. We are scientists, our job is to think and to advise the authorities, but this can be done only if we critically reflect on their work (and do not automatically abide by their description of morality, fairness, justice).

4. “Informality was there, there were attempts to wipe it out and they failed”: that’s a good topic for research in any direction. If a category is behind, protected or enhanced by a new rule, my question would be whether there’s anyone else losing from it. And, if so, what the long-term damage and the broad picture is. If you do this, informality is not necessarily a theory but an approach, a methodological and epistemological tool to approach knowledge from more than one angle and consider several options before jumping to solid conclusions.


'''Statements'''
The piece has been conceived as a provocative essay. As such, the author has chosen not to use any references to keep the reading fluid and let the reader finish it in one breath. 

The article received support by the European Research Executive Agency (MSCA-SE PRELAB, GA: 101129940; MSCA-SE ORCA, GA: 101182752; MSCA-SE CARSI, GA: 101086415). The piece was initially conceived during the workshop Urban Politics and Negotiated Stateness organized by Jennifer Robinson (to whom the author is grateful for the invitation and the discussions that ignited the discussion here presented). Further discussions at Tohoku University, University of Tsukuba, Chulalonghorn University and the University of Bucharest helped fine tuning the ideas so that the author wishes to thank Hiroki Takakura, Timur Dadabaev, Rodica Ianole, Jirayudh Sinthuphan and Alena Ledeneva for their help in reflecting upon and better formulating some of the concepts expressed here.

==If you want to learn more about informality and the sources that inspired this piece,  you can refer to the Global Informality Project and the Global Encyclopedia of informality as well as to the following resources==

Scientific articles (open access)

1.	Polese, A. and J. Helou (2025) “Everyday Informality and governance dynamics in crisis situations, and beyond”, Third World Quarterly 45(17-18): 2323-2333

2.	Polese, A. (2024) “Alternative currencies, community support and social cohesion: why the Okinawan [[moai]] (模合) is closer to an informal social policy mechanism than to a standard ROSCA”, Kulturni Studia / Cultural Studies 22(1): 135-156

3.	Polese, A. (2023) “[[What is informality?]] (Mapping) “the art of bypassing the state” in Eurasian spaces – and beyond”, Eurasian Geography and Economics 64(3): 322-364 	

4.	Polese, A., G. Moise, T. Tokyzhanova, T. Aguzzi, T. Kerikmae, A. Sagynbaeva, A. Sauka, O. Seliverstova (2023) “Informality vs shadow economy: Reflecting on the first results of a managers survey in Kyrgyzstan”, Central Asian Survey 42(1): 149-170 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02634937.2022.2093328 			

5.	Polese, A., G. M. Moise, O. Lysa, T. Kerikmae, A. Sauka, O. Seliverstova (2021) “Presenting the results of the shadow economy survey in Ukraine while reflecting on the future(s) of informality studies” Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe 30(1): 101-123

6.	Polese, A. (2014) “Informal Payments in Ukrainian Hospitals: on the Boundary between Informal Payments, Gifts and Bribes”, Anthropological Forum 24(4): 381-395 
				 	
7.	Polese, A. (2009) “‘If I Receive it, it is a Gift; if I Demand it, then it is a Bribe’ on the Local Meaning of Economic Transactions in Post-soviet Ukraine” Anthropology in Action 15(3): 47-60 
		
Short articles
1.	Polese, A. (2019) “Informality in Ukraine and beyond: one name, different flavours...with a cheer for the Global Encyclopaedia of Informality”, In-formality Wiki 

2.	Polese, A. and T. Stepurko (2016) “Informality and Corruption in Ukrainian Universities”, Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso, 28 November

Books (check if available on my academia profile, if not, email me to get a copy) 
1.	Helou, J. and A. Polese, (2025) Informal Governance and Crisis: How Invisible, Everyday Tactics of Survival Affect, Reshape and Redesign Policymaking and Governance. London and New York: Routledge
https://www.routledge.com/Informal-Governance-and-Crisis-How-Invisible-Everyday-Tactics-of-Survival-Affect-Reshape-and-Redesign-Policymaking-and-Governance/Helou-Polese/p/book/9781041086567 

2.	Polese, A., (ed.) (2022) Labour mobility and precariousness: why informality ends up replacing and supplementing the state for the invisible and the vulnerable. London: Palgrave
https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9783030824983

3.	Polese, A., A. Russo and F. Strazzari (eds.) (2019) Governance Beyond The Law: The Immoral, The Illegal, The Criminal. London: Palgrave 

4.	Polese, A., C. Williams, I. Ursachi and P. Bejakovic (eds.) (2017) The Informal Economy in Global Perspective: Varieties of Governance, London: Palgrave 

5.	Polese, A. (2016) Limits of a Post-Soviet State: How Informality Replaces, Renegotiates and Reshapes Governance in Post-Soviet Ukraine, Stuttgart: Ibidem Verlag/Columbia University Press 

6.	Morris, J. and Polese, A. (eds.) (2015) Informal Economies in Post-Socialist Spaces: Practices, Institutions and Networks, London: Palgrave  

7.	Morris, J. and Polese, A. (eds.) (2014) The Informal Post-Socialist Economy: Embedded Practices and Livelihoods. London and New York: Routledge