Барсукова Светлана Юрьевна, профессор факультета социальных наук, заместитель заведующего Лабораторей экономико-социологических исследований (Москва)

PROF.BARSUKOVA AND THE LITERATURE ON INFORMALITY
Prof.Barsukova’s work represents a quite unique genre in the Russian literature on informality. On one side this is in other cases a review of actual trends in monographs. Naturally this is an established form of the literature as a chapter, but in the Russian case not as a separated book. However the major specificity of Barsukova’s work is a special guided tour approach to the books, selected to review. In the sociological research this is not very common method, but well known in art history, in descriptions of museums, large exhibitions. The academic review tries to present general contacts in literature, common lines between authors and theories. Barsukova acts in different forms, she pays more attention to them, as single products, comparable, or non-comparable.
The literature is marked by considerable disagreement over the conceptual definition of informal work. The dispute in the Russian case, as in the international mainstream is often fueled by different academic disciplines. Economists sought to estimate the total size of informal economy. On the other hand, anthropologists and sociologist often were more broadly concerned with the informal economy’s role as a household economic strategy or as a source of community cohesion.

The wide variety of workers in the informal economy –and the wide variety of researchers looking at them [economists, sociologists, anthropologist to the single texts ass] –leads to a broad range of policy recommendation. In sum, these recommendations seek to address, how economic actors and governmental bodies can promote the positive aspects associated with the informal economy and repress the negative ones. Related to this are a second set that specifically suggests way to help individual firms transition from informal status to a formal one. In the post-Soviet academic literature the second cluster is less developed. The majority of texts discussed by Barsukova believe in the naturalness of informality, without a “normal path” to legally controlled and taxed business life.
The amount of attention researchers pay to this question depends upon the extent to which they see the informal economy as a seedbed of dynamic economic growth that can be harnessed and nurtures for the benefit of individual actors as well as the larger economy. Some researchers in Barsukova’s sample believe, that a few local Russian “informal economies of growth” are “relatives” of systems represented by central Italy and Hong Kong and from the 1990ies created real and strong economic impacts for individuals and might be replicated in other settings. While each appears to have unique features that are not easily adopted, the Russian cases do suggest that local social environments have key roles to play in supporting the entrepreneurial spirit, especially in the first decade of the transit.
Other researchers argue that the governments [local and regional] need to factor in the existence of informal staff when estimating the demand for key social services. Finally, other experts have called for positive tax incentives for micro and small-scale businesses in areas of high poverty and unemployment, especially in cities with destroyed or dismantled Soviet industrial setting prevails.
Texts have also observed differences in the definitions applied to what constitutes an employer-employee relationship and to differences in the actions taken by different governmental bodies. Finally, already some researchers on the role that informal small scale enterprises play in economic development and help them to move in the mainstream.
But for me the major positive element of the book will be its style. The content is absolute serious , but the text is itself informal, funny, subjective, easily readable. The Russian academic literature is German by its cultural roots, the text of Barsukova is more Anglo [naturally it remains Russian in it culture and topics], but tries to apply essayistic forms in a literature, where it's a real experiment.
This is a pioneer work and should be celebrated as “lushshaja kniga” first of all in this respect.


Prof.Pal Tamas
Institute of Sociology, Hungarian Academy of Sciences
Budapest I. Orszaghaz utca 30.
+36309649292 tamas@socio.mta.hu

Поддерживаю кандидатуру Светланы Юрьевны! Книга «Неформальная экономика: экономико-социологический анализ» многогранна, как и сам автор. В работе есть над чем поразмышлять и социологу, и экономисту, и вообще любому человеку, задумывающемуся над тем, как устроены взаимодействия в российском обществе.
Светлана Юрьевна умеет «заразить» аудиторию своей увлеченностью к исследуемому предмету. Желаю ей заслуженной победы и дальнейших работ, которые мы с удовольствием будем перечитывать и обсуждать!