e-journal
Beyond competing theories of the hidden economy Some lessons from Moscow
Purpose – This paper aims to evaluate critically the validity of rival theorisations of the hidden
economy that variously read this sphere as a leftover from a previous era, a by-product of a new
emergent form of capitalism, a complement to formal employment or an alternative to the formal
economy. Until now, the common tendency among economic theorists has been to either universally
privilege one theorisation over others, or to represent each theory as valid in different places.
Design/methodology/approach – To evaluate their validity to the city of Moscow, a survey is
reported involving 313 face-to-face interviews with inhabitants conducted during 2005/2006.
Findings – The finding is that, although each theory is a valid representation of particular types of
hidden work in Moscow, no one theory fully captures the diverse nature of the hidden economy in this
city, and that only by combining all of them can a finer-grained understanding of the multifarious
character of the hidden economy in this city be achieved. How these theories can be synthesised in
order to develop this fuller and more nuanced understanding of the hidden economy is then outlined.
Research limitations/implications – This study reveals that all these theories are needed to more
fully understand the hidden economy of Moscow. Whether this is similarly the case elsewhere now
needs to be investigated.
Practical implications – The recognition of multifarious types of hidden work, each with different
economic implications, reveals that different policy approaches are perhaps required towards various
forms of hidden work.
Originality/value – The paper re-theorises the hidden economy as a sphere composed of
heterogeneous types of work.
Keywords Economics, Taxes, Russia, Economic sectors, Economic theory
Tidak ada salinan data
Tidak tersedia versi lain