Ilo Decent Work Agenda And Informal Economy Benefits Economics Essay

Ilo Decent melt down Agenda And In stiff rescue Benefits Economics EssayThe cosy thriftiness defined to include only frugal units that are non correct by the pronounce and alone(a) economically active persons who do non receive affable security measures measure through their utilisation (ILO 2002), is as perennial and ubiquitous as leaner-hearted society. Discourse on it however, came to light in the early seventies with motley studies in third world countries. Notwithstanding its inescapable nature, conceptualization and definition has been a problem for form _or_ system of organisation answerrs as sanitary as those inside academia.Myriad debates convey come up on the issue with different views and remedies some view cosy bleeders as a nuisance to be eliminated or regulated differents see them as a vulnerable radical to be assisted through tender policies still others view them as entrepreneurs to be freed from government regulations (Chen 200626). But n either the theoretic thoughts nor tangible ideas have provided a comprehensive frame move around on how to cuddle global rest and the new contends it pose to insurance wee-weers.This essay critically examines the position of ILO influenced by the legalist purview on formalizing the casual sparing. argon there vested interests in promoting the enough march agenda? Is the comely realise agenda merely a guise behind which lightity continues to operate? Does the decent work cost take into account coordinates and institutions? The essay depart delve into the argument of who benefits in formalizing the internal preservation recognizing the fact that the slack forefront ostiarius sacrifice daily levies to the local government systems in gold coast but do not receive any benefit. A synopsis on escaped economy and decent work agenda will first be outlined and how this applies to the head doorman in Ghana. Finally, a conclusion will be drawn with some policy recommenda tions.Perspectives on InformalityThe informal economy was first discovered in Africa in the early seventies due to the dominance of large scale self employed who do not tumble within the formal economy. Economic anthropologist Keith Hart coined the landmark in his series of studies in Africa on the urban travail markets where he distinguished between wage earning and self recitation. He emphasized on entrepreneurial dynamism and diversity of people in the informal field (Hart 1990). This lead to the development of three schools of thought dualist, legalist and structuralist locatings which all try to conceptualize, excuse and address the challenges of this complex phenomenon.The dualist posit the view that informal economy is fringy or marginal and result out of the misfortunate jobs in the formal economy and will recede with the development of the modern sector (Hart 1973 ILO 1972 Sethuraman 1976 Tokman 1978). The perspective therefore call for policy focus on support for the informal economy enterprises and workers in the form of credits and business development function with the assumption that the informal economy will fade away with to a greater extent formal jobs.The structuralists, however, abruptly refute the dualist come near and contend that formal and informal economies are inextricably connected and interdependent the informal economy continues to pull through because it is subordinated to the formal economy and enables the formal economy to cast down costs and augment profits (Moser 1978 Castells and Portes 1989, Bromley 1994). Hence policy focus should be on repair the unequal relationship that exists.The legalist approach spearheaded by De Soto (1989) subscribes to the notion that informality is as a result of the excessive over regulation by the introduce (rigid mercantilist) and hence the solution to the problem of informality is a liberalizing framework deregulate, de-bureaucratize and privatize. The approach therefore advoc ates for formalizing and the decent work agenda fol ruggeds directly from this perspective condescension influence from other frameworks.Notwithstanding the diversity of these concepts, informality continues to grow in new guises and different forms even in the industrialized nations. It is worth mentioning that none of the perspectives adequately explains or prescribes solutions to the problems of informality given its heterogeneous and multi segmented nature. Consequently, policy makers are faced with the dilemmas of whether to eradicate or formalize the informal economy. This has led to the suggestion of different ways of providing support for those in the informal economy which include licensing, provision of micro credit, training as come up as enabling surroundings for collective action (Chen 2006) with more emphasis on formalizing.In spite of these suggestions, understanding of the formalization process varies and different actors tend to define formalization to suit them. Intrinsically, policy makers view formalizing as a way of licensing informal work and putting in place tax revenue structures. Conversely, the different informal workers and enterprises see formalizing as a means to deliver the goods support and receive the incentives and benefits of formality. Hence in formalizing, there are large differences in terminals of interests and of necessity which should reflect in the policies of countries. The institutional capacities, mechanisms and resources curiously in developing countries are however, inadequate to cater for the wide variations.The to a higher place problems question the feasibility of formalizing the informal economy and De Sotos legalist approach to informal economy. Are the states in many countries well equipped to enable workers and enterprises in the informal economy move upward into formality? Formalization whitethorn not be that simple as envisaged it can be problematic and a nightmare to policy makers. Despite the c omplication, the informal economy can be reframed to fruitfully interact with the stage setting and actors as well as centre the associated vulnerability and risks. Consequently, new frameworks have emerged to take care of the policy challenge of decreasing the cost of working informally (Chen 200690-1) or reducing the decent work deficits of working informally (ILO 2002). The ILO decent work agenda champions the rising consensus concerning the need to develop a framework that is appropriate and able to suffice effectively to the problems faced by those in the informal economy. However is this agenda feasible in the mist of all these dilemmas?What can the ILO Decent Work do for Informality?The ILO (2002) defines decent work as productive work which establishs an adequate income, in which workers rights are protected and where there is adequate cordial security measure providing opportunities for men and women to obtain productive work in conditions of freedom, equality, se curity and human dignity. Decent work has been categorized into two different approaches. around analysts have classified it into eleven measurement categories based on employment opportunities, acceptable work, adequate earnings and productive work, decent hours, stability and security of work, balancing work and family life, fair treatment in employment, safe work environment, social auspices, social dialogue and workplace relations, and the economic and social context of decent work (Ghai 200627). The other approach views decent work from the perspective of security in which there are seven security indicators labour security, employment security, job security, work security, skill reproduction security, income security and pattern security (ILO 2002). Therefore lack of access to these indicators at the macro (national), meso (enterprise) and micro (Individual) (Ghai 200627) levels leads to decent work deficits. These securities and indicators are inaccessible to workers in t he informal economy albeit pockets of workers in the formal economy also have deficits for example the working low-down.Hence in looking at the situation of those in the informal economy, decent work deficits are the main characteristics and apparent are poor quality unprotected and remunerated jobs, the absence of rights to work, inadequate social tribute and lack of representation especially among women and young workers (ILO 20028). The decent work approach therefore gains that all those who work have rights at work, irrespective of where they work (ILO 2002 8) and should have decent work.Notwithstanding this, a one-size-fit all policy cannot be developed for all segments. Decent work programmes need to take into consideration the diversity in labour markets, multi-segmented nature of informality, the billet of government, institutions as well as cultural and historical backgrounds of nations. Decent work should therefore be seen as a goal to be achieved progressively from im mediate to gigantic term (ILO 2002). The immediate term focus is to recognize and give protection to those working in the informal economy, the short/medium and long term strategies are to enhance upward movement into formal decent jobs and the beingnessness of formal decent employment opportunities for all respectively. Work should therefore bear decent work conditions which are seen as a source of dignity, contentment and fulfillment to workers (Ghai 200611).Limitations of Decent Work ParadigmThe decent work agenda is a benign attempt to informality but ILO unlike the foundation Bank and IMF do not have the capacity to enforce and suss out that governments adhere to the decent work programme. Also, while the ILO outlined the securities that will make informal work decent, it does not provide insights into how these securities can be met and whose certificate of indebtedness (individual, state, market, and other actors) it is to address and find solutions to the deficits. M oreover, ILO does not point out how to place the securities in situations where it is impossible to have all seven fulfilled. The question is shall we place or shall we try to achieve at the same time all the seven securities?Furthermore, whiles Chen (200627) assert that capacity of institutions, funding for incentives and social protection, inadequate formal jobs and employers not willing to convert as the problems that impede formalizing, she seems to exit about the vested interest and structural determinants that could hinder decent work. For example institutional obstacles such as the local government units in Ghana may stifle the decent work agenda as incorporating decent work framework will hinder the benefits they enjoy from the informality.Who benefits from formalizing local government or head porter (Kayayei)?Before looking at the head porter and the local government systems in Ghana, it is important to have background selective information on the head porter business. The head porters popularly referred to as kayayei in Ghana are female young girls who migrate from northern split of Ghana to the south predominately Accra and Kumasi. Like other informal businesses, the kayayei are self employed and engage in carrying goods on their head from one place to the other, unpacking stores especially in market places as well as assist buyers in carrying purchased goods to various locations for a negotiated fee (Argawal et al 1997, Opare 2003, Awumbila 2007). Agarwal et al (1997) further indicates that these girls are part of the informal transport structure of Ghana that transport load from one place to the other and this commercialized head load carrying is to be understood within the structure of economic activities of women in the informal economy, and the importance of petty trading as the predominant art of women. Similarly, ILO (2004) and Awumbila (2007) notes that jobs engaged by these Kayayei chip in low wages, have low productivity which lea ds to unstable incomes. The purpose of their involvement however, is to attain sufficient nest egg to convert to a more lucrative and less arduous occupation (Awumbila 20073).These head porters lack official registration, work in highly warlike market places, have deficits in all seven securities, and are clear to diverse risks and shocks. Their daily vulnerability goes from running after busses for business to anguish from metropolitan agents for payment of daily levies. These head porters however, have various pick strategies which include collective credit and insurance (susu and adashi) schemes and organization of semi-permanent conjugal unions to reduce their vulnerability within the labour market (Awumbila Ardayfio-Schandorf 2008, Argawal et al 1997, Opare 2003).Much of the publications on the kayayei phenomenon talks about migration and livelihoods but hardly talked about is the bill they pay to the local government systems in Ghana but do not gain any form of social protection. Their activities like other informal businesses are not recognized but they are regulated by the metropolitan assemblies in the forms of daily levies. They pay fifty Ghana pesewas daily levy to agents of the assemblies and are hijacked in the course of their operations to pay before they can continue with their activities. It is however, unclear what the taxes collected from these girls are use for. They do not get any form of benefits, incentives or social protection from the local government.Evans (1989582) describes the case of Zaire predatory state in which state officials squeeze resources from civil society without any more touch on for the welfare of the citizenry than a predator has for the welfare of its prey. This predatory state scenario best describes the relationship between the local government and the head porter in Ghana. The metropolitan authorities benefits from the informality of the head porters and do not have any regard for their welfare. In such a case, implementing the decent work approach will serve as a dis-benefit to the government who only plays an opportunistic appropriation role. Hence, such structures may serve as obstacles to the decent work programme. Chen ( 200615) indicates that many activities in the informal economy do not generate enough output, employment or income to fall into existing tax brackets but these girls though do not generate enough income are still taxed and this further exacerbate their situation.Conclusion and policy recommendationsOnce the local government recognize the legality of the head porters through taxation, they are obliged to provide them with protection. For example their activities could be regulated by putting in fixed prices for carrying goods to certain distances to reduce their vulnerability in terms of negotiation. State should provide kayayei with vocational and negotiation skills training, recognize them in the labour laws and give basic security like wellness care, shelter , protection from eviction and harassment can cushion them against risks and shocks in their daily activities. For grammatical case paying the premium for these head porters in the Ghana national health insurance scheme will take care of their health needs and further enhance their work. Similar welfare funds like the Bidi Workers public assistance and Head Loaders Funds in India could be established to provide social security benefits for these head porters.In addition, their micro insurance schemes and strategies could be intensify especially the susu and adashi systems. These forms of collective contributions could be transformed into mutual systems of social security. The role of the state is vital in promoting such systems by providing an enabling environment and suitable policy framework to include these schemes.Moreover, the local government systems should recognize and protect the rights of the head porters since they play a facilitative role being part of the transport s ector in Ghana. As Opare (2003) noted the kayeyei make useful contribution to the Ghanaian economy and should be recognized as such and provided with the necessary protection to enable reduce decent work deficits. Should these be considered for the social protection policies, it will help reduce the insecurity, vulnerability and material deprivation faced by these head porters.