Understanding the Informal Sector/Economy – A Case of Petty Commodity Production
2.4 Formalisation and In-formalisation
2.4.2 Understanding In-formalisation
2.4.2.1 In-formalisation from Above
Slavnic (2010:4) argues that “in-formalisation from above includes corporate strategies of downsizing, outsourcing and subcontracting, as well as the coping strategies of the welfare state, both of which contain dynamic forces of in-formalisation in economies and labour markets”. As mentioned above, if in-formalisation is considered as a process whereby economic activities take place increasingly outside the scope of standard forms of regulation, and whereby the state distances itself from directly regulating labour, then for instance externalisation of the employment contract has the effect of in-formalising the formal economy. Externalised workers employed by temporary employment agencies or labour brokers, and who are engaged in formal workplaces, are supposedly employees to whom labour legislation applies. But labour legislation is regularly ineffectual in protecting the employment security or collective bargaining rights of these workers (Theron, 2005). The result of this in-formalisation from above is that, proportionally, there are ever fewer workers in standard employment relationships, even in the primary and secondary sectors. The shift from standard employment relationships to all sorts of different non-standard employment relationships (including casualisation of the workforce) hence can be seen as a shift towards in-formalising of the formal economy.
This in-formalisation of the formal economy, underpinned by a broader restructuring of the workplace, has been experienced in South Africa and elsewhere in recent years. The process of restructuring in South Africa in fact can be seen as an attempt, endorsed by the new democratic government, to ‘modernise’ the economy and integrate it more fully into the global economy. Again, this is not unique to South Africa. Thus Laha (2008:6) argues that
“informalisation is interwoven in the process of the progressive integration of the different parts of the world into one global economy whereby multinational production processes can be successfully decentralized across (and within) national boundaries”. The transition from domestically-oriented economies to more globally-integrated ones has been accompanied by
29
processes of corporate and workplace restructuring (Von Holdt and Webster, 2005:4). The restructuring of work involves nation-states in developing macroeconomic neoliberal policies and in creating new labour regimes, modes of work organization, managerial control systems, employment relationships and collective bargaining systems. Central to the shift in economic policies and labour regimes is the process of restructuring capital through deregulation. With regard to employment relationships, for example, “just as mines have implemented large- scale retrenchments, so too have they relied more heavily on subcontracted labour as a response to the crisis” (Webster and Omar, 2003:13). The state (as the central regulator of society) has been central to this process, which is regularly referred to as de-regulation but is a process of re-regulation.
Neo-liberal globalization is defined as the growing interconnectedness of the world, with global capitalism, free markets, privatization and de-regulation (Nyamnjoh, 2006:1). It has arisen in the context of “the struggle for the control of the labour process between capital and labour to increase their share of the production value in profit and wages respectively”
and, along with other factors such as “changing market demand, technology, globalization and trade liberalization”, it is “accountable for the changes in the nature of work, or work organization in capitalism” Omomowo (2010:1). In the case of South Africa, and despite the introduction of more inclusive labour legislation since the end of apartheid, this process has resulted in a shift towards labour ‘flexibility’, in combination with high systemic unemployment and the legacy of racially-segmented labour markets under apartheid. The labour market increasingly consists of a growing number of marginalized casual workers
‘beneath’ a 'core' workforce, with the latter itself subject to threats of work insecurity and de- regulated forms of employment. As Theron argues (2005:1256) “work is not what it used to be”.
The restructuring of work in South Africa has involved a range of flexibility moves, including technological flexibility and labour market flexibility. Appiah-Mfodwa et al.
(2000:97) claim that “labour market flexibility is a term that has been used to describe many forms of non-standard or atypical employment arrangements”. What then is flexibility?
According to Standing, Sender and Weeks (1996:6) “flexibility typically means something different for employers and for workers and something different for government policy- makers, for whom flexibility may be the degree to which variation from a norm is allowed or encouraged”. In practice, this means that employers have the right and capacity to make changes, at their discretion, speedily and at relatively less costs. The argument for labour market flexibility in South Africa, from the perspective of employers, is based on the notion
30
that a rigid labour market constrains employers’ decisions, and the rights and benefits given to workers in the workplace by current labour relations legislation are seen as hugely problematic.
This ‘restructuring’ of the labour market towards flexibility demonstrates the shift from a form of Fordist/Keynesian regulation to a form of post-Fordist or post- Keynesian/neoliberal regulation (Purcell, 2002:285). Serious doubt exists about any shift in the case of South Africa from Fordism to post-Fordism; nevertheless, labour flexibility – or at least efforts by employers to restructure labour relations along these lines – is clearly evident, as employers prefer flexibility of non-standard work arrangements around which they can organize production processes more efficiently and economically (Edgell, 2006: 127). Formal businesses often bypass labour laws, because it is claimed that they are too rigid. In this way, businesses are increasingly prepared to adopt informal economic strategies to secure their economic survival. In the case of South Africa, the state continues to maintain labour regulations to allow for some sort of protection of workers, resulting in what is sometimes called ‘regulated flexibility’ (Cheadle, 2006:668; Burrows, Gilbert and Pollert, 1992:4) There seems to be then a tension between new economic trends focusing on flexibility and old-style regulatory frameworks to which the South African state still adheres.
While this restructuring within the formal economy takes places, attempts to offer more standard forms of employment within the informal economies (and thereby to formalise these economies in relation to labour) invariably meet roadblocks. Obstacles inhibiting governments from taking appropriate steps for example to extend social security amongst informal sector employees include resistance from employers on grounds of financial and compliance costs. This is understandable in an increasingly competitive global economy, especially when the existence of systemic surplus labour (or high unemployment) lessens the imperative to retain particular employees (Lindell, 2010). Moreover, informal economy employees may also feel that, despite indecent wages and working conditions, current and immediate survival requirements take precedence over insuring against future risks arising for instance from loss of employment because of a further downturn in the economy. It is also worthwhile noting that the possibility of neo-liberal labour restructuring in the formal economy, as described above, has been heightened by the existence of a surplus pool of labourers who eke out a living in informal economies.
In speaking about in-formalisation from above in the context of neo-liberal restructuring, I recognise that I am using the term in an expansive form and in a way which, broadly speaking, goes contrary to the prevailing literature on labour restructuring. In doing
31
so, though, I am seeking to emphasise that the forms of employment existing in the formal sector are increasingly taking on the characteristics of the forms in the informal sector; and hence a clear distinction between these two sectors is dubious. There is thus “a clear tendency towards the so-called ‘flexploitation’, which includes different anti-worker aspects of the labour market that aim partly to reduce the labour rights of those who are employed, and partly to increase the demands on those who are looking for work” (Gray 1998, 2004 in Slavnic, 2010:13). Indecent work therefore becomes situated in both the formal and informal economies.
The prevailing literature on the changing nature of employment relations focuses on the ongoing rise of flexible and unprotected work which has been facilitated by casualisation, externalization, and informalisation (Von Holdt and Webster, 2005). Casualisation refers to the reduction of permanent, full-time staff, and the simultaneous increase in part-time, temporary and casual employees who are not entitled to the benefits of permanent, full-time employees. Externalization is taking place through subcontracting or outsourcing of work to a contractor, such that the contractor employs workers, enters into business contracts with employers and then provides a labour service to employers; no employment contract exists between the employer and employee. In-formalisation effectively is an undocumented process in which the employer-employee relationship takes place ‘under the counter’ and hence is effectively illegal; and, on this basis, it is said that these relations are like relations existing in the informal economy.
Theron (2005:1256) argues that “casualisation, externalization and informalisation, in short, represent a trinity of interlocking processes”. For the purposes of the thesis, I broaden the notion of in-formalisation to encompass all three processes to highlight the fact that they are underpinned by a process of state de-regulation. The neo-liberal state still sets broad conditions for employment but it not intervene significantly and does not micro-regulate employment relations as the Keynesian state did in the past. I am thus claiming that any definition of in-formalisation should not only consider illegal activities or operations, but should also take into account of transformation of work towards more flexible arrangements which decentralise the underpinnings of labour relations.