What is Informality?
The study of ‘informality’ dates back to 1953, where J.H. Boeke used the term to describe the ‘formal Indonesian economy’ – institutionalised, transparent, rule based and market driven – alongside the informal economy – whereby economic practice was governed not by institutionalised practice but a huge array of local contexts. Since then, study of the field has proliferated, with two fields of study emerging: economic studies of informality and socio-political studies of informality (Guha-Khasnbois et al, 2005). Notable examples of the former include Williams (2013) and Round (2010), whereby Smith and Stenning (2006) and Misztal (2000) have examined the cultural and political remits.
As a result of the complex and contested nature, informality is somewhat easy to wrap into a sound bite but begins to unravel once further caveats are made. ‘The Global Encyclopedia of Informality’ provides one such soundbite, defining informality as ‘ways of getting things done’. This demonstrates the importance of informality – without reference to rules, history or culture, it simply pertains to how things are actually done. Yet it’s evidently limited, we’re provided with no framework for our analysis, or understanding how these practices are shaped. This may not be problematic. Ledeneva argues we should define informality residually, rather than constitutively, effectively meaning we understand what is informal without being able to clearly delineate the limits of the term. This allows a freer approach to understanding informality, but perhaps with the risk that structural explanations – if a comprehensive structural explanation can be provided – become more difficult to provide.
Beyond ‘getting things done’ outside the remit of formal rules, we haven’t actually considered what informality is. The United Kingdom’s ‘old boys’ network (Ledeneva, 1998), for example, represents an informal social group of men who went to a limited number of schools. A seemingly innocuous example, ‘old boys’ comfortably make up the majority of British Prime Ministers, and the accents, unique vocabulary and sports constitute how social capital is gained, guarded and reproduced in the upper echelons of UK society. China’s ‘guanxi’ is increasingly being recognised as a central phenomena to doing business in China. Loosely translated as either ‘connections’ or ‘relationships’, it constitutes the social, political and economic relationships between you and your network that likely shape how seriously, and favourably, you’re treated. However, it’d be wrong to assume that informal practices are necessarily ‘bad’. In times of shortage, informal practices may amount to the only means of securing necessary goods and resources (Misztal, 2000). Alternatively, they may simply be of acts of altruism between friends or family members. The result is a term which defies value laden judgements, informality is neither good nor bad in the same way that formality is neither good nor bad.
​
(Morris & Polese, 2013)
Central Asia
Understanding informality to be patterns of behaviour, unwritten rules and social contracts, invariably a region’s history, ethnicities and geography (to name but a few factors) will shape how informality is manifested. With this in mind, we have selected Central Asia as a case study of how modernity and informality are intertwining. The area has an incredibly rich history – once the lifeblood of the silk road, and the route through which Islam reached Europe, India and China, it became part of the Russian Empire, and then the Soviet Union from the mid 19th century to the end of the 20th. There is a rich body of literature exploring the cultural and political legacy of the USSR and communism, with Kitschelt’s (1999: 21-8) categorisation of patrimonial communism, national-accommodative communism and bureaucratic-authoritarian types of communism providing a valuable analytical framework for understanding trajectories post-Communism. The Post-Soviet states, defined as ‘extreme cases’ patrimonial communism, are shaped by ‘hierarchical chains of personal dependence between leaders in the apparatus and their entourage, buttressed by extensive patronage and clientelistic networks’ (Kitschelt, 1995; 453). We would thus expect Central Asia to have a rich selection of informal practices for analysis.
Clan Networks and Informality
As defined by Collins, clans are ‘informal identity networks based on kin or fictive kin bonds’ (Collins, 2004, pp. 224). These networks have been a key part of informality in Central Asia since long before the Soviet era, often coexisting with the feudal rulers that sought to impose their leadership on the region.
At least in Western scholarship, the importance of “clans” faded from view after the collapse of the Soviet Union, replaced by a focus on the transition to democracy. However, as the subsequent years have shown, their role should not be ignored. Indeed, there is a strong argument for the view that clans are “critical to explaining” the region’s politics (Collins, 2004, pp. 226).
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, these ties have become key forms of self-identification (Bolponova, 2015), with the failure of the state to provide social services creating a void for clans to fill (Collins, 2004). Linking both elites and non-elites (Collins, 2006), clan networks have become entangled in the distribution of resources within Central Asian states. Practices of patronage and corruption are carried out along clan lines, with those in power supporting their kinsmen.
The effects of the dominance of such networks have been felt across the region. Clan loyalties continue to conflict with the model of a “modern bureaucratic state”, with elites seizing assets and directing them towards their own networks (Collins, 2004, pp. 244). As occurred under the rule of Askar Akayev, Kyrgyzstan’s first president, this can see the state lose legitimacy (Collins, 2004). However, clans are also one of the few reliable forms of social organization in Central Asia, providing a means for individuals to get by and progress in modern society.
Conclusion
Aliyev (2015) argues that these unique factors mean that informality in the post-Soviet space should be understood as conceptually different from other forms of informality, an argument that we have concluded is beyond reasonable doubt, given the factors discussed above and the case studies discussed throughout the project. However, our project doesn’t focus on traditional examples of Central Asian informality, of which there are many, but how informality and modernity, globalisation, financialization and the expansion of international institutions interact. We have selected case studies that we believe show-case these trends, examining the role links between the globalised elite, the use of modern financial instruments to hide wealth and complex trade networks all are used to reinforce informaility. We believe understanding the cultural and economic practices that shape these practices is vital for understanding Central Asia’s position in the world.
​
Bibliography
​
Boeke, H (1953) Economics and Economic Policy of Dual Societies as Exemplified by Indonesia (Harlem: Tjeenk Willnik)
​
Bolponova, A. (2015). Political Clans of Kyrgyzstan: Past and Present. Central Asia & the Caucasus, 16, pp.50-62.
​
Collins, K. (2004). The Logic of Clan Politics: Evidence from the Central Asian Trajectories. World Politics, 56(2), pp.224-261.
​
Collins, K. (2006). Clan Politics and Regime Transition in Central Asia. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp.1-22.
​
Guha-Khasnbois, B,. Kanbur, R. & Ostrom, E (2011) 'Civil Society in Post Communist Europe: Perceptions and Use of Contexts" Journal of Civil Society 7
​
Kitschelt, H (1995) 'Formation of Party Cleavages in Post-Communist Democracies. Theoretical Propositions', Party Politics, 1
​
Ledeneva, A (1999) Russia's Economy of Favours: Blat, Networking, and Informal Exchange (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
​
Misztal, B (2000) Informality. Social Theory and Contemporary Practice (London: Routledge)
Morris, J & Polese, A (2013) The Informal Post-Socialist Economy: Embedded Practices and Livelihoods (London: Routledge)
​
Smith, A & Stenning, A (2006) 'Beyond Household Economies: Articulations and Spaces of Economic Practice in Postsocialism' Progress in Human Geography 30
​
Williams, C (2013) The Role of Informal Economies in the Post-Soviet World. The End of Transition?' London: Routledge
​
​
​
​
​
​