reconceptualizing women's and men's undeclared work: some results from a european union...

Reconceptualizing Women’s andMen’s Undeclared Work: SomeResults from a European UnionSurveygwao_466 415..437

Colin Williams*

Recognizing that the current conceptualizations of men’s and women’sundeclared work derive almost entirely from a limited range of small-scalestudies of specific localities, sectors and occupations, this article begins toresolve this dearth of evidence by reporting the findings of an extensivecross-national survey of undeclared work conducted in 2007 across 27European Union (EU) nations. The outcome is fresh and extensive EU-wideevidence that extends existing conceptualizations of the gender differencesin terms of participation, sector, contract type and pay. However, therecognition that undeclared work is conducted for closer social relationsand sometimes for motives other than financial gain, is shown to apply notonly to women, as previously contended, but to men as well and to con-stitute most of the undeclared work in the EU. The result is a call for afundamental reconceptualization of the nature of undeclared work thatrecognizes the heterogeneous work relations involved.

Keywords: informal employment, underground economy, gender divisions oflabour, Europe

Introduction

Over the past few decades a host of small-scale studies of specific locali-ties, sectors and occupations have contributed to understanding the

nature of men’s and women’s undeclared work (Barthe, 1985; Fortin et al.,1996; Gilman et al., 2002; Hellberger and Schwarze, 1986; Howe, 1988; Jensenand Slack, 2009; Lemieux et al., 1994; Leonard, 1994, 1998; McInnis-Dittrich,1995; Nelson and Smith, 1999, 2009; Pahl, 1984; Ram et al., 2002; Warde, 1990;

Address for correspondence: *University of Sheffield, Management School, 9 Mappin Street,Sheffield, S1 4DT, UK, e-mail: [email protected]

Gender, Work and Organization. Vol. 18 No. 4 July 2011doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2009.00466.x

© 2009 The Author(s)Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Williams and Windebank, 2003, 2006). Whether their findings are of widerrelevance has been difficult to know. The aim of this article is to begin toanswer this by reporting an extensive cross-national survey of undeclaredwork conducted during 2007 in 27 European Union (EU) member states.

Firstly, a review will be provided of current conceptualizations of thegender variations in the nature of undeclared work along with the weak-nesses of the evidence base on which such depictions are founded. Revealinghow most existing ideas derive from small-scale studies of specific localities,sectors or occupations, the second section will start to fill a significant gap inthe evidence base by presenting the methodology underpinning a cross-national survey of undeclared work across 27 EU countries. The third sectionthen reports the results of the 26,659 face-to-face interviews conducted. Thiswill identify new EU-wide evidence that extends previously identified con-ceptualizations of the gender differences in undeclared work in terms ofparticipation, sector, contract type and pay. However, the depiction of unde-clared work as conducted for closer work relations and for motives other thanfinancial gain is not found to be largely confined to women, as purported inthe only previous study conducted in deprived neighbourhoods in the UK(Williams and Windebank, 2003), but to men as well and to constitute most ofthe undeclared work. The article thus concludes by calling for a re-reading ofthe multifarious work relations within which men and women conduct unde-clared work and, therefore, of the character of undeclared work itself.

At the outset, however, it is necessary to define undeclared work, or whathas been variously called the shadow, cash-in-hand, underground, black orinformal sector/economy (Williams, 2004a; Williams and Windebank, 1998).Despite this array of terms, the strong consensus is that undeclared work canbe defined as remunerated work that is legal in all respects besides the factthat it is unregistered by, or hidden from the state, for tax and social securitypurposes (European Commission, 1998, 2007; Grabiner, 2000; OECD, 2002;Renooy et al., 2004; Sepulveda and Syrett, 2007; Williams, 2004a; Williams andWindebank, 1998). Hence, there is only one difference between declared andundeclared work, which is that the remuneration is not declared to the statefor tax and social security purposes. If other differences prevail, such as thatit is unpaid or that the goods and services are themselves illegal (such as drugtrafficking), then such activity is not defined as undeclared work but rather asunpaid work or wider criminal activity.

The nature of undeclared work: gender variations

For most of the 20th century little attention was paid to undeclared work.Viewed as a residue or leftover from an earlier era of production (Lewis, 1959)and therefore as ‘the mere vestige of a disappearing past [or as] transitoryor provisional’ (Latouche, 1993, p. 49), few deemed such work worthy of

416 GENDER, WORK AND ORGANIZATION

Volume 18 Number 4 July 2011 © 2009 The Author(s)Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

attention. Over the past two decades or so, however, the recognition that suchwork was not declining but growing has resulted in a reconceptualization of,and renewed interest in, undeclared work (ILO, 2002a, 2002b; OECD, 2002;Schneider and Enste, 2002).

Much of the literature since the 1980s has concentrated on measuring thesize rather than character of undeclared work. However, a range of studieshave begun to unravel the heterogeneous nature of undeclared work (Jensenand Slack, 2009; Leonard, 1998; Nelson and Smith, 1999, 2009; Williams,2004a, 2004b, 2005; Williams and Windebank, 1998) and gender variations inthe character of undeclared work. These have revealed four key findings.Firstly, they have shown that men in most places are slightly more likely toparticipate in undeclared work than women (Fortin et al., 1996; Lemieux et al.,1994; MacDonald, 1994; McInnis-Dittrich, 1995; Mingione, 1991; Pahl, 1984;Renooy, 1990); secondly, that women are lower paid than men (Fortin et al.,1996; Hellberger and Schwarze, 1986; ILO, 2002b; Lemieux et al., 1994;McInnis-Dittrich, 1995); thirdly, that women’s undeclared work is moreregular but part-time while that of men is more infrequent but full-time(Leonard, 1994, 1998; McInnis-Dittrich, 1995) and fourth and finally; that theundeclared work of women and men is confined to similar sectors andoccupations to those that they occupy in the declared labour market (Lobo,1990a, 1990b; McInnis-Dittrich, 1995). Women engage in service activitiessuch as commercial cleaning, domestic help, child-care and cooking whenthey conduct undeclared work. Men, on the other hand, are argued toconduct largely what are conventionally seen as masculine tasks such asbuilding and repair work (Fortin et al., 1996; Jensen et al., 1995; Leonard, 1994;McInnis-Dittrich, 1995; Mingione, 1991; Pahl, 1984). Thus, not only is unde-clared work characterized by the same sector divisions as declared employ-ment but also the part-time and full-time dichotomy and wage rates prevalentin formal employment appear to be replicated in the undeclared sphere.

For many years, moreover, the assumption was that undeclared work isconducted under anonymous market-like work relations and primarily forthe purpose of financial gain. Even if men used the money earned as sparecash to finance social activities and to differentiate themselves from thedomestic realm while women used the money to provide for the everydayneeds of the household (Howe, 1988; Jordan et al., 1992; Leonard, 1994;MacDonald, 1994; Morris, 1987, 1995; Rowlingson et al., 1997), undeclaredwork for both genders was viewed as embedded in profit-motivated,market-orientated economic relations (Van Eck and Kazemeier, 1985; Fortinet al., 1996; Lemieux et al., 1994; MacDonald, 1994; McInnis-Dittrich, 1995;Mingione, 1991; Mogensen, 1990; Pahl, 1984; Renooy, 1990; Vinay, 1987).Since the turn of the millennium, however, this has started to change.

An impetus for this re-theorizing has been the broader literature on mon-etary exchange. This has evaluated critically the thin reading of monetarytransactions as always market-like and motivated by personal financial gain.

CONCEPTUALIZING WOMEN’S AND MEN’S UNDECLARED WORK 417

© 2009 The Author(s) Volume 18 Number 4 July 2011Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

This thin reading has prevailed across the full range of economistic dis-courses from the neoliberal varieties that celebrate such a view through toMarxian perspectives that depict the hegemony of profit-motivated marketexchange as a rallying call for radical change (Ciscel and Heath, 2001;Harvey, 1989). It is also prevalent in the formalist tradition in economicanthropology that reads monetary exchange in contemporary societies asless embedded, thinner, less loaded with social meaning and less symbolicthan in pre-industrial societies (see Mauss, 1966). Recently, however, theview that monetary exchange always involves that ubiquitous, self-interested, rational economic actor, homo œconomicus, has come undergreater critical scrutiny (Bourdieu, 2001; Carrier 1997; Davies 1992; Gibson-Graham, 1996; Granovetter, 1985, 1990; Lee 2000; Slater and Tonkiss, 2001;Zelizer, 1994). Arguing that ‘such market-based models ... do not conveythe richness and messiness of the exchange experience’ (Crewe andGregson, 1998, p. 41), thicker portrayals of monetary transactions haveemerged which view exchange as ‘embedded in ongoing and multiplexnetworks of interpersonal relationships, rather than being carried out bynarrowly rational, atomized actors’ (Peck, 2003, p. 7).

Mirroring this broader re-theorization of monetary exchange in the field ofundeclared work is a stream of literature that similarly questions whether thisapparent exemplar of market-like work is always conducted under anony-mous business-like work relations and for profit-motivated purposes. Thiswas first raised as an issue during the 1980s in a study by Cornuel and Duriez(1985) who revealed that undeclared work in the French new towns theystudied was mostly composed of exchanges between neighbours seeking toforge or cement fledgling networks of material and social support. Few at thetime, however, paid much attention to this finding and its potentially impor-tant theoretical implications. Recently, nevertheless, this has started to changeas other small-scale studies have shown that besides profit-motivated,business-like, undeclared work there is undeclared work conducted for andby kin, neighbours, friends and acquaintances, as well as for not-for-profitmotives (Cornuel and Duriez, 1985; Jensen and Slack, 2009; Nelson andSmith, 2009; Persson and Malmer, 2006; Williams, 2004a).

In a 2005 survey in Sweden, Persson and Malmer (2006, p. 64) find thatover half of undeclared work performed for households was conducted bykin and neighbours. If one adds work colleagues and acquaintances, thefigure rises to over 80 per cent. Only 10 per cent of the work is done by peoplewho have no close connection with members of the household. Similarly, inhalf the cases of undeclared waged work conducted for businesses it is amatter of knowing the company owner in a private capacity or being related.Williams (2004a) similarly identifies in a survey of undeclared work inEnglish localities that 37 per cent of such work was conducted by kin, 33 percent by friends or neighbours and just 30 per cent by people previouslyunknown to the customer.



Contrary to the assumption that consumers and suppliers are rationaleconomic actors engaging in such work to save or make money, Williams(2004a) finds that saving money was the primary reason in just 31 per cent ofcases. Instead, consumers chiefly engaged in it either to maintain or cementsocial networks or to help others out. It was similarly the case when thesuppliers’ motives are analysed. Just 50 per cent of such work was foundto be conducted in order to make money. Some 22 per cent was conductedprimarily to help the customer and 28 per cent to cement or build socialcapital. This finding was further reinforced by a follow-up survey in northNottinghamshire (Williams, 2004b). In non-metropolitan Pennsylvania,Jensen and Slack (2009) similarly find that in nearly two-thirds (61 per cent)of cases, undeclared work was conducted primarily to help out neighbours;a finding that is further reinforced by Nelson and Smith (2009) in their studyof small town North America.

Until now, however, few have explored whether and how the work rela-tions and motives are gendered. One exception is a study of deprivedneighbourhoods in the UK which reveals that, while much of women’sundeclared work is conducted either for kin, friends or neighbours and forrationales other than economic gain, men’s undeclared work is both morelikely to be conducted under anonymous market-like relations and also formore profit-motivated reasons (Williams and Windebank, 2003, 2006). This,however, was based on only a small sample concentrated in a particulartype of locality, namely deprived urban neighbourhoods in England. In con-sequence, attention here turns towards evaluating critically on an EU-widescale not only the previous findings regarding participation, sector, wagerates and work contracts but also the tentative prior findings regarding thework relations and the motives of men and women engaged in undeclaredwork.

Methodology

Given that previous direct surveys have been small-scale studies of particularlocalities, sectors and population groups, the wider applicability of theirfindings has remained unknown. Recognizing this, in 2005 the EuropeanCommission funded a team, which included the author, to design a surveyto collect cross-nationally comparative primary data on undeclared work(European Commission, 2005). Following its design (TNS Infratest et al.,2006), this survey was then implemented in May and June 2007 as SpecialEurobarometer No. 284 (‘Undeclared work in the European Union’), as partof Wave 67.3 of Eurobarometer, in all 27 EU member states. An overview ofthis survey’s main findings has been published (Eurobarometer, 2007). This,however, pays little attention to the gender variations in undeclared work.Indeed, the only time gender variations were mentioned was when reporting



the percentage of women and men supplying and consuming undeclaredwork in the EU 27. Beyond this, the report is largely gender-blind. Here,therefore, and for the first time, the gender variations identified in this exten-sive survey are analysed.

Using the same sampling method as Eurobarometer surveys in general,26,659 face-to-face interviews were conducted in the EU 27, ranging fromsome 500 in smaller member states to 1,500+ interviews in larger EU coun-tries. In all nations a multi-stage random (probability) sampling method wasapplied. A number of sampling points were drawn with a probability pro-portional to population size for the total coverage of the country, and topopulation density according to the Eurostats NUTS II or equivalent, and thedistribution of the resident population in terms of metropolitan, urban andrural areas. In each selected sampling unit a starting address was then drawnat random. Further addresses (every nth address) were subsequently selectedby standard random route procedures from the initial address. In each house-hold, meanwhile, the respondent was drawn at random (following the closestbirthday rule’). All interviews were conducted face-to-face in people’s homesand in the appropriate national language with adults aged 15 years and over.A computer assisted personal interview was used in those countries where itwas available to collate the data.

To analyse the result, a national weighting procedure was employed thatused marginal and intercellular weighting by comparing the sample with theuniverse description taken from Eurostat population data and national statis-tical offices. This ensured that the gender, age, region and locality size of thesample were proportionate to the universe in each nation. All results beloware the weighted results not only for each nation but also for the EU 27 as awhole. It should be noted, however, that caution is necessary. Their accuracy,everything being equal, rests upon the sample size and upon the observedpercentage. With samples of about 1,000 interviews, therefore, the real per-centages will differ within the confidence limits detailed in Table 1. Thisneeds to be taken into account when reading the results.

Table 1: Confidence limits of the observed percentages in thesurvey

Observedpercentages (%)

Confidencelimits

10 or 90 �1.9 points20 or 80 �2.5 points30 or 70 �2.7 points40 or 60 �3.0 points50 �3.1 points



The face-to-face interview schedule covered a wide array of questions onboth the supply of, and demand for, undeclared work. Its structure, adoptinga gradual approach to the more sensitive questions, firstly asked questionsabout the respondents’ attitudes towards undeclared work and, after havingestablished some rapport, the second section then analysed their purchase ofgoods and services on an undeclared basis in the last 12 months along withtheir reasons for doing so. Finally, questions were asked regarding theirsupply of undeclared work, including whether they participated, what theydid, whether they were paid or not, how much they received and whatmotives underpinned their engagement in work.

Before reporting the results, a brief note is required on the reliability of thefindings. It is sometimes argued that respondents will not respond honestlyto interviewers about their undeclared work. Such a criticism has beenrefuted many times (Bàculo, 2006; Fortin et al., 1996; Jones et al., 2004;Leonard, 1994; MacDonald, 1994; Ram et al., 2002; Williams, 2004a). Justbecause it is hidden from or unregistered by the state does not mean thatcitizens hide it from each other or even from academic researchers. In thisEU-wide survey similar conclusions were reached. In 88 per cent of theinterviews, good or excellent co-operation was reported by the interviewers.In only 2 per cent of cases was co-operation deemed to be bad. Even if hiddenfrom the state, therefore, it appears to be very much openly discussed so faras researchers and the wider population are concerned. Although, and as willbe discussed later, this survey doubtless misses some undeclared work, suchas business-to-business transactions and probably under-reports the partici-pation of groups such as migrant workers and benefit recipients, on thewhole, lack of co-operation was not a major issue.

Gender variations in undeclared work in the EU 27

To analyse the gender variations in undeclared work in the EU 27, firstly, whoparticipates in such work will be evaluated and secondly, the nature of unde-clared work conducted by men and women in terms of the sectors in whichthey work, their regularity of participation, wage rates, work relations andmotives.

Participation rates: gender variations

Who acquires and supplies undeclared work? Table 2 reveals that althoughall population groups purchase and supply undeclared work some are morelikely to do so than others. Groups who are proportionately more likely toacquire undeclared goods and services include men, citizens aged 25–39 andthose spending more years in education and professional groups with aboveaverage incomes (such as managers and other white collar workers). The



supply of undeclared work, meanwhile, is higher among men, youngerpeople and the unemployed, manual workers, self-employed and students.That more people purchase than supply undeclared work does not indicatethe differential honesty of respondents as consumer and suppliers. Rather, itperhaps intimates that one person often supplies many consumers, althoughit is important to note that this survey does not explicitly display that this isthe case.

Are women more likely to engage in undeclared work than men? Thissurvey reinforces both on an EU-wide and national basis the finding of

Table 2: Socio-demographic characteristics of people acquiring and supplying unde-clared work, EU 27

Numberinterviewed

Populationsurveyed(%)

Acquiringgoods/serviceson anundeclaredbasis in thelast 12months (%)

Supplyinggoods/serviceson anundeclaredbasis in thelast 12months (%)

EU 27 (totals) 26,658 100 100 100Gender

Men 12,850 48 59 62Women 13,808 52 41 38

Age15–24 4,118 15 20 3125–39 6,900 26 35 3540–54 6,807 26 25 2255+ 8,834 33 20 12

Education (end of)15 6,641 25 14 1416–19 10,787 42 42 4120+ 6,047 23 31 25Still studying 2,605 10 13 20

OccupationSelf-employed 1,848 7 11 12Managers 2,668 10 13 7Other white collar 3,152 12 16 10Manual worker 5,769 22 21 28House person 2,398 9 7 5Unemployed 1,507 6 6 11Retired 6,715 25 13 8Student 2,606 10 13 19

Source: Eurobarometer (2007).



small-scale studies that women participate less than men (Fortin et al., 1996;Lemieux et al., 1994; MacDonald, 1994; McInnis-Dittrich, 1995; Mingione,1991; Mogensen, 1985; Pahl, 1984; Renooy, 1990; Vinay, 1987; Williams 2004a).As Table 3 reveals, although some 5 per cent of the surveyed EU populationhad engaged in undeclared work during the past 12 months, 7 per cent ofmen compared with just 3 per cent of women did so. Indeed, men constitutejust under two-thirds (62 per cent) of the undeclared labour force in the EU.Across all 27 countries surveyed (with the exception of Italy), men rather thanwomen are more likely to conduct undeclared work. This is very clear in mostcountries. The exceptions are Italy, where men constitute just 35 per cent of

Table 3: Men’s and women’s participation in undeclared work in past 12 months(by country)

CountryNumbersurveyed

Populationsurveyedconductingundeclaredwork in last12 months (%)

Menconductingundeclaredwork in past12 months (%)

Womenconductingundeclaredwork in past12 months (%)

Men as %of totalundeclaredlabour force

EU 27 26,659 5 7 3 62Denmark 1,007 18 23 13 62Latvia 1,010 15 20 11 60The Netherlands 1,001 13 17 10 62Estonia 1,004 11 20 6 71Sweden 1,001 10 14 7 69Austria 1,009 7 10 3 73Czech Republic 1,024 7 11 3 79Hungary 1,000 7 10 4 69Lithuania 1,017 7 12 2 83Belgium 1,040 6 8 4 65France 1,039 6 7 6 53Slovakia 1,075 6 9 3 71Bulgaria 1,000 5 8 3 74Luxembourg 510 5 5 3 80Poland 1,000 5 6 4 59Slovenia 1,037 5 9 2 83Finland 1,026 4 6 3 69Greece 1,000 4 5 2 71Ireland 1,003 4 6 1 86Romania 1,004 4 7 2 78Germany 1,510 3 4 2 63Italy 1,017 3 2 3 35Portugal 1,002 3 3 2 64Spain 1,007 3 3 2 54Malta 500 2 3 <1 80UK 1,313 2 3 1 80Cyprus 503 1 1 <1 80




the undeclared labour force, France, where men are 53 per cent of undeclaredworkers and Spain, where men make up 54 per cent of the undeclaredworkforce. Not all men and women, however, are equally likely to participate.Among both men and women, the self-employed are most likely to engage inundeclared work (11 per cent of self-employed men and 5 per cent of self-employed women, respectively), followed by employees in employment (8per cent and 4 per cent, respectively) while those outside the declared labourmarket participate least in undeclared work (6 per cent and 3 per cent).

These findings, however, are based on fairly small numbers. Just 1,185undeclared workers were identified across all 27 nations surveyed. For thisreason, caution is urged when interpreting the results. It is particularly diffi-cult with such small numbers to conduct any cross-national comparison.Some might nevertheless assert that the cross-national variations identifiedraise questions about the validity of the results. That is, although Eastern andCentral European nations are found to have relatively high participation rates(such as Latvia and Estonia), some of the highest rates of participation are innations such as Denmark (18 per cent), The Netherlands (13 per cent) andSweden (10 per cent) rather than southern EU nations, where previousindirect measurements using statistical proxies (for example, electricity con-sumption and the number of high denomination notes in circulation) portraysuch work as extensive (Williams, 2004a). Even if this survey identifieslower participation rates in southern EU nations, however, it finds that thehours they spend doing undeclared work is higher; 350 hours per annumfor southern EU undeclared workers compared with 200 hours for all EUundeclared workers. The resultant cross-national variations in the level ofundeclared work, in consequence, are similar to previous cross-nationalcomparisons using indirect measurement methods (Schneider and Enste,2002).

Nevertheless, and not least due to the small numbers involved, caution isurged. This is particularly the case when considering gender variations sincethe results will be more about women and men in some nations than others,given the marked variations in participation identified in Table 3. For this, andother reasons highlighted in the conclusion below, great care is requiredwhen interpreting these results.

Turning to demand, Table 4 reveals much the same pattern in terms ofparticipation rates as the supply side, with countries such as Denmark, TheNetherlands, Latvia and Sweden at the top of the table. Again, however, theresults vary considerably between countries, from 2 per cent acquiring goodsor services in Cyprus to 27 per cent in Denmark and The Netherlands. Theoutcome is that the gender differences in the acquisition of undeclared goodsand services are more about the behaviour of women and men in some EUnations than others. Although in the EU as a whole the acquisition of unde-clared goods and services is fairly evenly distributed between men andwomen (with 55 per cent purchased by men), there are differences with



women acquiring more than men in Greece and France, and men participat-ing much more heavily than women in purchasing undeclared goods andservices in Finland, Malta, Portugal and Poland.

Nature of undeclared work: gender variations

Just as men and women work in different sectors in the declared labourmarket with women heavily concentrated in service sector jobs (Townsend,

Table 4: Men’s and women’s purchase of undeclared goods and services in past 12month by country

Country

Totalnumbersurveyed

Percentagewho believethey havepurchasedundeclaredgoods orservices inthe last12 months

Percentagepopulationwho believethey havepurchasedundeclaredservices in thelast 12 months

Percentagepopulationwho believethey havepurchasedundeclaredgoods in thelast 12 months

Percentage ofall undeclaredgoods andservicespurchasedby men

EU 27 26,659 11 6 9 55Denmark 1,007 27 14 24 54The Netherlands 1,001 27 7 24 52Latvia 1,010 24 17 21 50Sweden 1,001 23 11 18 54Belgium 1,040 18 8 15 58Greece 1,000 17 7 14 46Malta 500 17 10 15 66Austria 1,009 17 6 15 59Slovenia 1,037 17 10 14 58Slovakia 1,075 15 9 12 50Czech Republic 1,024 15 9 11 51Estonia 1,004 14 8 12 62Bulgaria 1,000 14 11 10 50Luxembourg 510 14 5 12 50Lithuania 1,017 12 8 10 50Hungary 1,000 12 6 11 55Italy 1,017 12 9 11 50Finland 1,026 11 4 10 61Romania 1,004 11 9 9 58France 1,039 10 6 7 49UK 1,313 9 5 7 68Poland 1,000 8 5 5 65Ireland 1,003 8 2 7 60Portugal 1,002 7 6 6 66Germany 1,510 6 3 5 50Spain 1,007 6 2 5 54Cyprus 503 2 1 1 50




1997), the same is found in the undeclared sphere. As Hellberger andSchwarze (1986) observe in Germany, while overall 12 per cent of undeclaredworkers are in the primary sector, 36 per cent in manufacturing and 52 percent in services, these figures are 6 per cent, 12 per cent and 82 per cent forwomen (and 16 per cent, 49 per cent and 35 per cent for men). Similar findingsare identified in other locality studies. Women engage in service activitiessuch as commercial cleaning, domestic help, child-care and cooking whenthey conduct undeclared work. Men, on the other hand, largely conduct whatare conventionally seen as masculine tasks such as building and repair work(Fortin et al., 1996; Jensen et al., 1995; Leonard, 1994; Mingione, 1991; Pahl,1984).

Table 5 identifies similar findings at the EU level. Women’s undeclaredwork is much more concentrated than men’s in the personal services sector(such as hairdressing) as well as household services, including the provisionof domestic cleaning services and caring for children or the elderly. Men’sundeclared work, on the other hand, is more concentrated in the constructionsector.

Undeclared work is not just gendered according to the sectors in which menand women work. Their working arrangements also differ. Previous empiricalstudies reveal that men’s participation is more infrequent but full-time whilewomen work on a more regular but part-time basis (Leonard, 1994; McInnis-Dittrich, 1995). As Leonard (1994, p. 162) discovers in west Belfast,

While the women were usually in constant undeclared employment com-pared to the men, whose employment was more casual, nonetheless ... thewomen tended to work part-time while the men tended to work full time.

Table 5: Sector distribution of undeclared work: by gender

Percentage working in Men Women

Construction 30 7Industry 4 7Household services 10 26Transport 9 1Personal services 8 22Retail 3 7Repair services 10 2Hotel, restaurant, café 3 8Agriculture 6 4Others 17 17




McInnis-Dittrich (1995) arrives at the same conclusion in rural Appalachia.This 27-nation survey reaffirms this tendency at an EU level. As Table 6shows, women are more likely than men to engage in undeclared work on aregular and continuous basis but to work a lower number of hours eachweek. Men, meanwhile, conduct undeclared work more infrequently butwork a larger number of hours per week. Although this therefore consoli-dates the earlier picture that men work infrequently but full-time whilewomen work on a more regular but part-time basis, it nevertheless alsoreveals that this is not quite so clear-cut as perhaps previously intimated inthe above locality studies.

Is it also the case that men earn more than women in the undeclaredrealm? Most previous studies assert that women generally earn lower unde-clared wages than men (Fortin et al., 1996; Hellberger and Schwarze, 1986;McInnis-Dittrich, 1995). Although some emphasise that there are women inthe higher-paid strata and men in the lower-paid echelons (Cappechi, 1989;Hellberger and Schwarze, 1986; Vinay, 1987), none refute that women areconcentrated in the lower-income segments of the undeclared labourmarket. Table 7 reinforces this finding at the EU level. Although two-thirds(65 per cent) of the undeclared workers surveyed earn less than €11 perhour, some three-quarters (74 per cent) of women undeclared workers do

Table 6: Levels of participation in undeclared work: by gender

All Men Women

Regularity of participation in undeclared work in past 12 monthsJust once 16 18 15A few times 50 52 40With certain regularity 32 30 45

No. of weeks did undeclared work in past 12 months1 20 24 142 14 15 133 7 7 84 9 8 115–12 27 29 2313+ 22 17 30

Hours per week on average spent on undeclared work1–5 29 25 356–10 24 25 22

11–20 16 17 1621+ 31 33 27




so, compared with just 60 per cent of men. At the top end of the wage ratespectrum, conversely, just under one in six (15 per cent) men earn but onlyaround one in 17 (6 per cent) women undeclared workers over €26 perhour. Consequently, women are unevenly distributed at the lower wagedend of the undeclared labour market while men are clustered more at thehigher paid end.

There are, however, differences across various groups of men and womenwith regard to their wage rates. As Table 7 shows, formal employment statushas a marked impact on undeclared pay rates. Nearly half (49 per cent) ofself-employed men who engage in undeclared work earn an average of €23per hour or more. Men who are declared employees earn relatively less perhour while those not in a declared job earn least. This is similarly the case forwomen, except that self-employed women are clustered at the lower end ofthe hourly wage earning spectrum.

Conventionally, women’s lower wages has been taken to signify that theirundeclared work is generally exploitative market-like work and conductedout of necessity when no other opportunities are available, primarily to makemoney so as to help the household get by (Howe, 1988; Jordan et al., 1992;Leonard, 1994; MacDonald, 1994; Morris, 1987, 1995; Rowlingson et al., 1997).This reading has been strongly reinforced by studies of specific forms ofundeclared work, such as domestic service employment (Anderson, 2001;Boris and Prügl, 1996; Dagg, 1996; Hondagneu-Sotelo, 2001; Salmi, 1996). Inrecent years, however, this portrayal has started to be questioned.

Table 7: Undeclared hourly wage rate: by gender and employment status

Group

% earning an undeclared hourly wage rate of:

€1.00–5.99

€6.00–10.99

€11.00–15.99

€16.00–20.99

€21.00–25.99 €26+

All 34 31 13 7 4 12Men 31 29 14 8 4 15Women 40 34 13 5 3 6

MenSelf-employed 17 7 10 10 6 49Employed 24 35 15 7 4 15Not working 36 34 16 3 11 10

WomenSelf-employed 33 67 0 0 0 0Employed 27 38 20 6 2 7Not working 43 39 4 3 4 6




The first clue that undeclared work might not always be embedded inanonymous business-like work relations and motivated purely by financialgain is a study which showed that the undeclared work of women indeprived neighbourhoods in England is frequently conducted for kin, friendsor neighbours and for rationales other than purely the profit motive(Williams, 2004a, 2004b, 2005; Williams and Windebank, 2003, 2006). This EU27 survey reinforces the need to move towards more socially embeddedreadings of undeclared work. As Table 8 reveals, some 57 per cent of theundeclared work identified across the EU is conducted for and by kin, neigh-bours, friends, colleagues and acquaintances, with 9 per cent of the unde-clared work conducted for kin, 7 per cent for neighbours and 41 per cent forfriends, colleagues and acquaintances.

Unlike the much smaller survey of deprived neighbourhoods in England,however, this EU 27 survey reveals that both women and men conduct workfor closer social relations, rather than just women. Indeed, men undertakehigher amounts of undeclared work for kin, friends and neighbours; some 62per cent of men’s compared with 51 per cent of women’s undeclared work isconducted for closer social relations.

Neither is undeclared work conducted purely as a last resort when noother options are available for securing a livelihood. Examining the motivesof undeclared workers, Table 9 reveals that just 16 per cent of undeclaredworkers do so because they cannot find a regular job. However, this rationale

Table 8: For whom suppliers undertook undeclared work: by gender and employ-ment status of supplier

Friends,colleagues,acquaintance Kin Neighbours

Other privatepersons orhouseholds

Firms orbusinesses

All 41 9 7 22 21Men 45 8 9 17 21Women 34 11 6 27 22

MenSelf-employed 48 3 10 27 11Employed 49 7 8 11 25Not working 37 11 11 21 19

WomenSelf-employed 58 17 8 17 0Employed 39 10 2 27 22Not working 28 11 8 28 24




is more prevalent among some population groups than others. Nearly one-quarter (22 per cent) of women engaged in undeclared work for this reasonand such a rationale is more applicable in southern Europe and East andCentral Europe, where around a quarter of the undeclared work identified isconducted for such a rationale.

Instead, other reasons exist for engaging in undeclared work beyond thelack of availability of formal employment. These range from governmentalconstraints: such as the bureaucracy and red tape is too complicated (8 percent of men and 7 per cent of women); and that taxes and social contributionsare too high (15 per cent and 10 per cent, respectively); to cultural and societaltax morality issues: such as disagreeing with how the state uses the taxes thathave been collected (6 per cent and 5 per cent) and because working unde-clared is common in the sector or region (15 per cent and 17 per cent); tovoluntary motives: such as they were able to ask for a higher fee (7 per centand 3 per cent) and the belief that both parties benefited (52 per cent and 38per cent). Unfortunately, this survey did not ask suppliers whether theyconduct undeclared work for not-for-profit reasons such as to help somebodyout. Although the original survey design included these questions, they weresubsequently cut prior to its implementation. Future surveys will thereforeneed to investigate whether suppliers possess such not-for-profit rationales.

Nor do employers and purchasers always use undeclared work purelybecause it is cheaper, although paying a lower price was a reason in two-thirds of cases. However, one-third of undeclared work was conducted for

Table 9: What were the reasons for doing the activity undeclared? (Multiple answerspossible)

Percentage of suppliers stating that they engaged inundeclared work because: All Men Women

you could not find a regular job 16 12 22the person who acquired it insisted on non-declaration 12 13 9bureaucracy/red tape to carry out a regular activity is

too complicated8 8 7

you were able to ask for a higher fee for your work 5 7 3both parties benefited from it 47 52 38taxes and/or social security contributions are too high 13 15 10it is just seasonal work and it is not worth declaring it 23 23 22working undeclared is common in your region/sector

so there is no real alternative16 15 17

the state does not do anything for you so why shouldyou pay taxes

5 6 5




entirely other reasons, and a lower price was also often only one of severalrationales. What, in consequence, are the other reasons for purchasing goodsand services on an undeclared basis if it is not purely because they arecheaper? Table 10 reports the results.

Some 14 per cent of undeclared exchanges were a favour amongst friends,kin or colleagues and a further 11 per cent to help out somebody in need ofmoney. In other words, purchasers displayed reciprocal or redistributivemotives. Other undeclared purchases were due to the poor availability (some10 per cent of the undeclared work identified), reliability (21 per cent) andquality (8 per cent) of formal goods and services. As such, not all undeclaredwork is conducted solely because it is cheaper.

There are also gender differences in purchasers’ rationales. Although theeconomic rationale of a lower price is more predominant among men thanwomen, as are reasons associated with the poor availability, reliability andquality of formal sector provision, more social rationales such as helping outsomeone in need of money or doing a favour for a close social relation ishighest among women purchasers. These motives of men and women asconsumers and suppliers of undeclared work now need to be further inves-tigated. Even if this extensive survey reveals that saving money is not alwaysthe sole rationale, this type of survey with its closed-ended questions cannotunravel the complex and multifarious rationales of participants. Follow-upqualitative research is now required in order to further understand men’s andwomen’s rationales for purchasing and supplying undeclared work.

Conclusions

Until now, conceptualizations of the gender variations in undeclaredwork have been derived from small-scale studies of particular localities,

Table 10: Motives for purchasing undeclared goods and services: by gender

Percentage of purchasers using undeclaredwork because: All Men Women

lower price 66 69 61faster services 21 22 19better quality good and/or service 8 8 8good/service hardly/not available on regular market 10 11 10to help someone who is in need of money 11 10 14favour amongst friends, colleagues, acquaintances 14 14 14




occupations or sectors. Here the results of an extensive cross-national surveyhave been reported that collected nationally representative data on men’s andwomen’s undeclared work. Before summarizing its findings, however, it isimportant to briefly review the limitations of this survey.

A range of problems need to be acknowledged. Firstly, not all forms ofundeclared work were investigated. Although individuals working unde-clared for individuals or private households were covered from both a supplyand demand perspective, firms working undeclared for individuals werecovered from a demand perspective and individuals working undeclaredwork for firms covered from a supply perspective, this survey did not analyseundeclared business-to-business transactions. Whether this would alter thegender variations in undeclared work is unknown. A second limitation is thatthis survey might under-report the participation of some groups such asmigrant workers and benefit recipients. As such, it cannot claim to havecaptured the whole undeclared economy. For example, those in receipt ofbenefits might be less likely to admit to working undeclared than those informal jobs, because benefit fraud is widely deemed to be morally moreunacceptable than tax fraud. The former is perceived as taking someone else’smoney whilst the latter is viewed more as keeping your own money (Cook,1989, 1997). A third limitation of the survey is that although undeclaredwork was explicitly defined for respondents as ‘activities that circumventdeclaration to tax authorities or social security institutions, but which areotherwise legal’, some of the undeclared work reported might not be subjectto tax payments even if it was declared. As such, some work counted asundeclared might not carry any tax liabilities. At present, whether this variesby gender is unknown.

The overall findings on this sensitive subject, in consequence, must beread in the context of this warning concerning the problems and limitationsof the data. Nevertheless, the results of this first extensive EU-wide surveyextend many of the previous findings on the gender variations in unde-clared work with regard to participation, sector, contract type and pay, evenif the findings identified here are not perhaps as clear-cut as is often pre-viously suggested. However, this survey does not reinforce the previousdepiction in deprived neighbourhoods in England that undeclared workconducted for closer social relations, and for motives other than financialgain, is largely confined to women (Williams and Windebank, 2003, 2006).Here, it has been shown that men as well as women conduct undeclaredwork for closer social relations. Indeed, nearly two-thirds (62 per cent) ofmen’s undeclared work is conducted for closer social relations comparedwith just over one half (51 per cent) of women’s undeclared work. It alsoreveals that both men and women source goods and services on an unde-clared basis for reciprocal and redistributive reasons and that saving ormaking money is not always the sole rationale for engaging in undeclaredtransactions.



The resultant outcome is that this article reveals that the work relations andmotives are not quite so gendered as previously found in deprived neigh-bourhoods in England where women largely conducted undeclared work forcloser social relations and for not-for-profit motives and men conductedanonymous market-like, profit-motivated undeclared work. Instead, thisEU-wide survey reveals that a fundamental re-reading of the nature of unde-clared work of both men and women is required. Finding that some 55 percent of the undeclared work identified is conducted for friends, neighbours,kin and acquaintances and that the rationales underpinning participation arefar more complex and multifarious than previously considered, it is clear thatthere is a need to move towards thicker readings of the diverse work relationsand motives involved in undeclared work. If this article facilitates this, then itwill have achieved its objective. What is certain, moreover, is that it is nolonger appropriate to depict women’s or men’s undeclared work as alwaysanonymous business-like transactions conducted by rational economic actorspurely seeking to make or save money.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the Employment Analysis division of DGEmployment & Social Affairs for funding the EU survey design and enablingaccess to the resultant Special Eurobarometer No. 284/Wave 67.3 SPSS data-base. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightfulcomments on an earlier version of this article. As always, however, thenormal disclaimers apply.

References

Anderson, B. (2001) Why madam has so many bathrobes: demand for migrant domes-tic workers in the EU. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 92,1, 18–26.

Bàculo, L. (2006) Tackling informal employment: the case of southern Italy. Interna-tional Journal of Manpower, 27,6, 552–71.

Barthe, M.A. (1985) Chômage, travail au noir et entraide familial. Consommation, 3,1,23–42.

Boris, E. and Prügl, E. (1996) Introduction. In Boris, E. and Prügl, E. (eds) Homeworkersin Global Perspective: Invisible No More, pp. 3–18. London: Routledge.

Bourdieu, P. (2001) The forms of capital. In Woolsey Biggart, N. (ed.) Readings inEconomic Sociology, pp. 280–91. Oxford: Blackwell.

Cappechi, V. (1989) The informal economy and the development of flexible speciali-sation in Emilia Romagna. In Portes, A., Castells, M. and Benton, L.A. (eds) TheInformal Economy: Studies in Advanced and Less Developing Countries, pp. 189–215.Baltimore, NJ: John Hopkins University Press.

Carrier, J.G. (ed.) (1997) Meanings of the Market: the Free Market in Western Culture.Oxford: Berg.



Ciscel, D.H. and Heath, J.A. (2001) To market, to market: imperial capitalism’s destruc-tion of social capital and the family. Review of Radical Political Economics, 33,4,401–14.

Cook, D. (1989) Rich Law, Poor Law: different responses to tax and supplementary benefitfraud. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Cook, D. (1997) Poverty, Crime and Punishment. London: Child Poverty Action Group.Cornuel, D. and Duriez, B. (1985) Local exchange and state intervention. In Redclift, N.

and Mingione, E. (eds.) Beyond Employment: Household, Gender and Subsistence,pp. 165–88. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Crewe, L. and Gregson, N. (1998) Tales of the unexpected: exploring car boot sales asmarginal spaces of contemporary consumption. Transactions off the Institute ofBritish Geographers, 23,1, 39–54.

Dagg, A. (1996) Organizing homeworkers into unions: the Homeworkers Associationof Toronto, Canada. In Boris, E. and Prügl, E. (eds) Homeworkers in Global Perspec-tive: Invisible No More, pp. 239–58. London: Routledge.

Davies, J. (1992) Exchange. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Eurobarometer (2007) Undeclared Work in the European Union, Special Eurobarometer

284/Wave 67.3, Brussels: European Commission.European Commission (1998) On Undeclared Work COM (1998) 219. Brussels: Com-

mission of the European Communities.European Commission (2005) Feasibility of a Direct Survey and Pilot Study of Undeclared

Work in the European Union. Brussels: European Commission.European Commission (2007) Stepping up the Fight against Undeclared Work. Brussels:

European Commission.Fortin, B., Garneau, G., Lacroix, G., Lemieux, T. and Montmarquette, C. (1996)

L’ Economie Souterraine au Quebec: mythes et realites. Laval: Presses de l’UniversiteLaval.

Gibson-Graham, J.K. (1996) The End of Capitalism as We Knew It?: A Feminist Critique ofPolitical Economy. Oxford: Blackwell.

Gilman, M., Edwards, P., Ram, M. and Arrowsmith, J. (2002) Pay determination insmall firms in the UK: the case of the national minimum wage. Industrial RelationsJournal, 33,1, 52–67.

Grabiner, Lord (2000) The Informal Economy. London: HM Treasury.Granovetter, M. (1985) Economic action and social structure: the problem of

embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91,3, 481–510.Granovetter, M. (1990) The old and new economic sociology: a history and an agenda.

In Friedland, R. and Robertson, A.F. (eds) Beyond the Marketplace: RethinkingEconomy and Society, pp. 89–112. New York: Aldine de Gryter.

Harvey, D. (1989) The Condition of Post-Modernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cul-tural Change. Oxford: Blackwell.

Hellberger, C. and Schwarze J. (1986) Umfang und struktur der nebenerwerbstatigkeit inder Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Berlin: Mitteilungen aus der Arbeits-market- undBerufsforschung.

Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. (2001) Domestica: Immigrant Workers Cleaning and Caring inthe Shadows of Affluence. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of CaliforniaPress.

Howe, L. (1988) Unemployment, doing the double and local labour marketsin Belfast. In Cartin, C. and Wilson, T. (eds) Ireland from Below: Social Changeand Local Communities in Modern Ireland, pp. 141–64. Dublin: Gill andMacmillan.

International Labour Office (ILO) (2002a) Decent Work and the Informal Economy.Geneva: International Labour Office.



International Labour Office (ILO) (2002b) Women and Men in the informal economy.Geneva: International Labour Office.

Jensen, L., Cornwell, G.T. and Findeis, J.L. (1995) Informal work in nonmetropolitanPennsylvania. Rural Sociology, 60,1, 91–107.

Jensen, L. and Slack, T. (2009) Informal work in rural America. In Marcelli, E.A.,Williams, C.C. and Joassart, P. (eds) Informal Work in Developed Nations, pp. 163–91.London: Routledge.

Jones, T., Ram, M. and Edwards, P. (2004) Illegal immigrants and the informaleconomy: worker and employer experiences in the Asian underground economy.International Journal of Economic Development, 6,1, 92–106.

Jordan, B., James, S., Kay, H. and Redley, M. (1992) Trapped in Poverty? Labour-marketDecision in Low-income Households. London: Routledge.

Latouche, S. (1993) In the Wake of the Affluent Society; an Exploration of Post-development.London: Zed.

Lee, R. (2000) Shelter from the storm? Geographies of regard in the worlds of horti-cultural consumption and production. Geoforum, 31,2, 137–57.

Lemieux, T., Fortin, B. and Frechette, P. (1994) The effect of taxes on labor supply in theunderground economy. American Economic Review, 84,1, 231–54.

Leonard, M. (1994) Informal Economic Activity in Belfast. Aldershot: Avebury.Leonard, M. (1998) Invisible Work, Invisible Workers: the informal economy in Europe and

the US. London: Macmillan.Lewis, A. (1959) The Theory of Economic Growth. London: Allen and Unwin.Lobo, F.M. (1990a) Irregular work in Spain. In Barthelemy, P., Miguelez, F., Mingioni,

E., Pahl, R. and Wenig, A. (eds) Underground Economy and Irregular Forms of Employ-ment. Final Synthesis Report. Brussels: Office for Official Publications of theEuropean Communities. Available online at http://www.lex.unict.it/eurolabor/ricerca/dossier/dossier7/cap2/underground/spain.pdf Last consulted 2 July2009.

Lobo, F.M. (1990b) Irregular work in Portugal. In Barthelemy, P., Miguelez, F.,Mingioni, E., Pahl, R. and Wenig, A. (eds) Underground Economy and Irregular Formsof Employment, Final Synthesis Report. Brussels: Office for Official Publications of theEuropean Communities. Available online at http://www.lex.unict.it/eurolabor/ricerca/dossier/dossier7/cap2/underground/portugal.pdf Last consulted 2 July2009.

MacDonald, R. (1994) Fiddly jobs, undeclared working and the something for nothingsociety. Work, Employment & Society, 8,4, 507–30.

Mauss, M. (1966) The Gift. London: Cohen and West.McInnis-Dittrich, K. (1995) Women of the shadows: Appalachian women’s partici-

pation in the informal economy. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 10,4,398–412.

Mingione, E. (1991) Fragmented Societies: A Sociology of Economic Life Beyond the MarketParadigm. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Mogensen, G.V. (1985) Sort Arbejde i Danmark, Copenhagen: Institut forNationalokonomi.

Mogensen, G.V. (1990) Black markets and welfare in Scandinavia: some methodologi-cal and empirical issues. In Estellie Smith, M. (ed.) Perspectives on the InformalEconomy, pp. 72–93. New York: University Press of America.

Morris, L. (1987) Constraints on gender: the family wage, social security and thelabour market: reflections on research in Hartlepool. Work, Employment & Society,1,1, 85–106.

Morris, L. (1995) Social Divisions: Economic Decline and Social Structural Change.London: University College of London Press.



Nelson, M.K. and Smith, J. (1999) Working Hard and Making Do: Surviving in SmallTown America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Nelson, M. and Smith, J. (2009) Informal work in small town America. In Marcelli,E.A., Williams, C.C. and Joassart, P. (eds) Informal Work in Developed Nations,pp. 192–220. London: Routledge.

OECD (2002) Measuring the Non-observed Economy. Paris: OECD.Pahl, R.E. (1984) Divisions of Labour. Oxford: Blackwell.Peck, J. (2003) Economic sociologies in space. Paper presented to the workshop, A

Dialogue with Economic Geography and Economic Sociology: Post-DisciplinaryReflections, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, 30 April.

Persson, A. and Malmer, H. (2006) Purchasing and performing undeclared work in Sweden:part 1: results from various studies. Malmo: Skatteverket.

Ram, M., Jones, T., Abbas, T. and Sanghera, B. (2002) Ethnic minority enterprise in itsurban context: South Asian restaurants in Birmingham. International Journal ofUrban and Regional Research, 26,1, 24–40.

Renooy, P., Ivarsson, S., van der Wusten-Gritsai, O. and Meijer, R. (2004) UndeclaredWork in an Enlarged Union: An Analysis of Shadow Work — An In-depth Study ofSpecific Items. Brussels: European Commission.

Renooy, P.H. (1990) The Informal Economy: Meaning, Measurement and Social Signifi-cance. Amsterdam: Netherlands Geographical Studies.

Rowlingson, K., Whyley, C., Newburn, T. and Berthoud, R. (1997) Social Security Fraud.DSS Research Report no. 64. London: HMSO.

Salmi, A-M. (1996) Finland is another world: the gendered time of homework. InBoris, E. and Prügl, E. (eds) Homeworkers in Global Perspective: Invisible No More,pp. 143–66. London: Routledge.

Schneider, F. and Enste, D.H. (2002) The Shadow Economy: An International Survey.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sepulveda, L. and Syrett, S. (2007) Out of the shadows? Formalisation approaches toinformal economic activity. Policy and Politics, 35,1, 87–104.

Slater, D. and Tonkiss, F. (2001) Market Society: Markets and Modern Social Theory.Cambridge: Polity.

TNS Infratest, Rockwool Foundation and Regioplan (2006) Feasibility Study on a DirectSurvey about Undeclared Work. VC/2005/0276. Brussels: Directorate General ofEmployment and Social Affairs, European Commission.

Townsend, A.R. (1997) Making a Living in Europe: Human Geographies of EconomicChange. London: Routledge.

Van Eck, R. and Kazemeier B. (1985) Swarte Inkomsten uit Arbeid: resultaten van in 1983gehouden experimentele. The Hague: CBS–Statistische Katernen No 3, Central Bureauof Statistics.

Vinay, P. (1987) Women, family and work: symptoms of crisis in the informal economyof Central Italy, Society for Advanced Mediterranean Studies 3rd International SeminarProceedings. Thessaloniki: University of Thessaloniki.

Warde, A. (1990) Household work strategies and forms of labour: conceptual andempirical issues. Work, Employment & Society, 4,4, 495–515.

Williams, C.C. (2004a) Cash-in-Hand Work: the underground sector and the hidden economyof favours. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Williams, C.C. (2004b) Cash-in-hand work: unravelling informal employment fromthe moral economy of favours. Sociological Research Online, 9,1, 1–18.

Williams, C.C. (2005) Unraveling the meanings of underground work. Review of SocialEconomy, 63,1, 1–18.

Williams, C.C. and Windebank, J. (1998) Informal Employment in the Advanced Econo-mies: Implications for Work and Welfare. London: Routledge.



Williams, C.C. and Windebank, J. (2003) Reconceptualising women’s paid informalwork: some lessons from lower-income urban neighbourhoods. Gender, Work &Organization, 10,3, 281–300.

Williams, C.C. and Windebank, J. (2006) Re-reading undeclared work: a genderedanalysis. Community, Work and Family, 9,2, 181–96.

Zelizer, V.A. (1994) The Social Meaning of Money. New York: Basic Books.



reconceptualizing women's and men's undeclared work: some results from a european union...

Documents