English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The aim of this paper is to evaluate four competing theoretical perspectives that explain cross-national variations in the level of informal sector entrepreneurship. Scholarship has until now argued that informal entrepreneurship is a result of either: economic under-development and a lack of modernization of governance (modernization theory); high taxes and state over-interference (neo-liberal theory); inadequate state intervention to protect workers from poverty (political economy theory) or the asymmetry between the laws and regulations of formal institutions and the unwritten socially shared rules of informal institutions (institutional theory). Reporting the World Bank Enterprise Survey (WBES) on the varying prevalence of informal entrepreneurship across 142 countries, the finding is that neo-liberal theory is refuted but the tenets of the modernization, political economy and institutional theories are confirmed. Informal entrepreneurship is found to be significantly higher when there is economic under-development, a lack of modernization of governance, inadequate state intervention to protect workers from poverty and greater asymmetry between the formal and informal institutions. The paper concludes by discussing the theoretical and policy implications of these findings.

EXPLAINING CROSS-NATIONAL VARIATIONS IN THE PREVALENCE OF INFORMAL SECTOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP: LESSONS FROM A SURVEY OF 142 COUNTRIES