4 conceptualizing the survival sector in madagascar

Conceptualizing the Survival Sectorin Madagascar

Stefan GosslingSchool of Business and Economics, Linnaeus University and Department of

Service Management, Lund University, Sweden;[email protected]

Kim Philip SchumacherInstitute for Spatial Analysis and Planning in Areas of Intensive Agriculture,

University of Vechta, Germany;[email protected]

Abstract: This article calls for the recognition of a subsector of the informal economy,which is conceptualized as the “survival sector”. Based on empirical evidence fromAntananarivo, Madagascar it is suggested that beggars, street children and othermarginalized people constitute a separate, non-productive subsector of the economy,which is also distinguishable from formal and informal economies because of other aspects,such as the character of its social and economic networks, survival strategies, patterns ofsocial and physical mobility, and the social and public spaces occupied. Given the vastnumber of marginalized people in the world, it seems useful to consider a survival sectorof its own that is, despite interlinkages, fundamentally different from other componentsof the informal economy.

Keywords: beggars, marginalized people, informal economy, Madagascar, streetchildren

IntroductionThe informal sector has received considerable attention as a research field sincethe early 1970s when the distinction between formal and informal sectors wasfirst suggested by Hart (1973), and subsequently adopted by the InternationalLabour Office (ILO) (Portes and Schauffler 1993; Sethuraman 1976). Focusing onthe urban economy of Ghana’s capital Accra, Hart, a social anthropologist, sought todescribe “the economic activities of the low-income section of the urban labor force”(Hart 1973:61), concluding that the formal economic sector, characterized by wageemployment, should be seen in juxtaposition to an informal sector, characterized byself-employment. In subsequent publications, the informal sector has usually beendefined in contrast to businesses in the formal sector, which are licensed, pay taxes,and are eligible for state funding (eg Chen 2006; Wahnschafft 1982). Consequently,it has come to be understood as inversely mirroring the formal sector in terms ofbeing unregulated, unregistered and untaxed, that is, as being outside the “moderneconomy” (Tokman 1989; see also Daniels 2004). Timothy and Wall (1997) added tothis that formal and informal activities may have other distinguishing characteristics.Formal economies have higher barriers of entry, may be organized as corporations,

Antipode Vol. 44 No. 2 2012 ISSN 0066-4812, pp 321–342 doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00838.xC© 2011 The Authors Antipode C© 2011 Editorial Board of Antipode.

322 Antipode

operate at comparably larger scales, are capital-intensive and based on formallyacquired skills. Informal economies, on the other hand, are easy to enter and“rely on indigenous resources, family ownership, small-scale of operation, laborintensiveness, skills acquired outside the formal school system, part time labor,locally-based ventures, and unregulated and competitive markets” (Timothy andWall 1997:320).

More recently, the informal economy has seen renewed interest by labourorganizations, academics and politicians, acknowledging the role of employmentstatus and gender in social security and vulnerability structures (eg Chen,Vanek and Heintz 2006; Lloyd-Evans 2008; see also Tokman 2007). Specifically,this has included a focus on employment relationships rather than enterprisestructures, considering segmentation based on location of work, productionsystem and employment status (Chen and Carr 2002; Lloyd-Evans 2008). Notably,“employment status” distinguishes “skilled entrepreneurs, own-account workers,industrial outworkers and home-based producers, unpaid family labour and a widerange of casual and wage employees who have no formal contracts, benefits orsocial protection” (Lloyd-Evans 2008:1892–1893; see also Chen, Vanek and Heintz2006). Of importance in the context of this article, these employment categorieswould not seem to comprise a considerable share of people such as beggars orstreet children, however.

As Chen (2006) observes, “formal” and “informal” are points in a continuum ofeconomic relations (see also Etzold et al 2009), but attempts have been made overthe past 35 years to frame and differentiate these relations out of political, economicand social perspectives. Gerxhani (2004) provides an overview of criteria used todefine the informal sector in studies in developed and less developed countries(Table 1). With regard to social aspects, it is noteworthy that most studies includea survival criterion, even though this criterion seems only prevalent in studies indeveloping countries; it is missing or explicitly excluded in studies of the informalsector in developed countries. For Gerxhani (2004:284), “survival” is a crucialelement of participation in the informal sector: “because the informal sector ismainly a survival sector, it is labor intensive and yields little accumulation” (see alsoILO 2002a; Sindzingre 2006). Overall, most authors discussing informal economiesappear to base their definitions on a selection of several of the criteria presentedin Table 1, often including the survival criterion. However, “survival” is a complexcondition that deserves further discussion (see also Gonzales de la Rocha 2007),in particular with regard to “employment status”. As will be argued, the notion of“survival” eventually justifies the characterization of a survival sector as a subsector ofits own within the continuum of the informal economy. This relationship is visualizedin Figure 1 above.

Turning back to the early writers on the informal sector, it is of interest to notethat Hart (1973:69) distinguished formal and informal income opportunities, butfurther divided informal activities into “legitimate” and “illegitimate” ones. Formalincome opportunities include public and private sector wages, as well as pensions orunemployment benefits. Legitimate informal income opportunities include: primaryand secondary activities (eg farmers, tailors); tertiary enterprises with relativelylarge capital input (eg housing, transport, commodity speculation); small-scale

C© 2011 The Authors Antipode C© 2011 Editorial Board of Antipode.

Conceptualizing the Survival Sector in Madagascar 323

Tab

le1

:C

riter

iaus

edto

defin

eth

ein

form

alse

ctor

,les

sde

velo

ped

coun

trie

s

Econ

omic

Polit

ical

(lega

l)La

bour

Act

ivity

’sPr

ofes

sion

alSo

cial

mar

ket

orTa

xsi

zest

atus

(sel

f-A

ctiv

ity’s

Nat

iona

lst

atus

ofev

asio

nor

(sm

all-

emp

loye

dor

regu

latio

nN

atio

nal

Aut

onom

yG

over

nmen

tIll

egal

stat

istic

sla

bour

unre

por

ted

scal

efa

mily

orst

atis

tics

and

Aut

hors

Regi

onre

gula

tions

activ

ities

(GN

P)un

regu

late

din

com

eop

erat

ion)

base

d)re

gist

ratio

n(G

NP)

Net

wor

ksfle

xibi

lity

Surv

ival

Har

t(1

970,

Gha

naX

XX

1973

)IL

O(1

972)

Keny

aX

XX

XX

XX

Gro

ssm

ann

USS

RX

XX

XX

(198

2)Ba

nerje

e(1

982)

“Thi

rdw

orld

”X

XX

XX

Bene

ria(1

989)

Mex

ico

XX

XX

XX

XRe

nooy

(199

0)no

case

stud

yX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

Swam

inat

han

noca

sest

udy

XX

XX

XX

XX

(199

1)St

offe

rs(1

994)

Paki

stan

XX

XX

XX

Kauf

man

nan

dPo

st-s

ocia

list

XKa

liber

daco

untr

ies

XX

XX

XX

X(1

996)

Com

man

der

and

Cou

ntrie

sin

XTo

lsto

pia

nten

kotr

ansi

tion

XX

XX

X(1

997)

And

erso

nM

ongo

liaX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X(1

998)

Lour

enco

-G

uine

a-Bi

ssau

XX

XX

XX

XLi

ndel

l(20

04)

Sour

ce:m

odifi

edan

dup

date

dfr

omG

erxh

ani(

2004

).


324 Antipode

Figure 1: Overview of formal/informal sector attributes

distribution (eg petty traders, carriers); other services (eg musicians, shoe shiners);and private transfer payments (eg gifts and similar flows of money and goodsbetween persons, begging). Illegitimate income opportunities include services(eg prostitution, smuggling), and transfers (petty theft, larceny, gambling). Thisindicates that begging (legitimate) and crime (illegitimate) have been understoodby Hart (1973) to be parts of the informal sector, even though they can be seenas non-productive economic activities, in that they are not contributing directly tothe production of goods or services (cf ILO 1983). Again, this does not includeor address the role of illegally produced goods such as marijuana, which may beproductive in an economic sense, as recently outlined by ILO (2002a:12):

The informal economy should not be confused or conflated with the criminal economy.While production or employment arrangements in the informal economy are often semi-legal or illegal, the informal economy produces and distributes legal goods and services.In contrast, the criminal economy deals in illegal goods and services.

Consequently, the role of begging and crime such as theft appears to have neverbeen discussed in studies of the informal economy, even though both could clearlybe considered as being “different” from other activities in the informal economyprecisely because they are non-productive and because they would not appear tobe comprised in “employment status” categories. This is illustrated in Figure 1,distinguishing between formal and informal economy, legal and illegal, as well asproductive versus non-productive activities.

With regard to beggars, few studies appear to exist, even though their numbersare large in many countries. For instance, a study by the University of Delhi (reportedin The Economist 14 June 2007) counted more than 58,500 beggars in Delhi,India. One third of adult beggars were found to be disabled, 88% reported tohave no skills, and almost all had turned to begging because they could not findwork. In this context, a study on work-disabling illness in the slums of Dhaka,Bangladesh also found that illness led to begging, reflecting collapsed livelihoodsin the respective households (Pryer, Rogers and Rahman 2005). Even though notnecessarily representative, these two studies would thus indicate that beggingmay be a no-choice reality for many people in the developing world, that is,one that is usually only taken up when all other options for regular work havebeen exhausted. In addition, beggars may largely be uneducated and physically



or mentally disabled people, making it difficult for them to carry out productivework in the informal or formal economy (cf Hart 1973; Kassah 2008). Regardingstreet children, another vulnerable group in many countries, UNICEF reported asfar back as in 1992 that there were 100 million street children worldwide (UNICEF1992, cited in Epstein 1996), a number that may not have declined in the past15 years. In fact, given the reasons for children living on the street, includingpoverty as a result of inflation, economic recession, rural–urban migration, loss ofparents through disease, war, violent conflict or family separation, or physical and/ormental abuse (Birch 2000; Jones 1997; Jones and Nelson 1999; Mann 2002; Minujin,Vandemoortele and Delamonica 2002; Mufune 2000), street children numbers mayrather have increased. The fact that no newer global official figures on street childrenappear to be available also attests to the marginality of the problem in the perceptionof policy makers.

Schneider and Enste (2003) reported that the informal economy accounted for44% of the GNP in Africa, 39% in Latin America and 35% in Asia in the early1990s, with up to 65% of the GNP in countries like Nigeria, Egypt or Thailand (seealso Tokman 2007 for an update on Latin America). In the case of Madagascar,the informal economy employs 57.5% (corresponding to 3.9 million people) ofthe official labor force in 1995, accounting for 27% of the official GNP (InstitutNational de la Statistique de Madagascar 1995). Given this substantial size ofinformal economies in developing countries and Madagascar in particular, as wellas the difficulties faced by governments in dealing with the informal economy (cfOwusu 2007; see also UN Millennium Goals, UN 2010), the question arises ofwhether a “productive” and “non-productive” segment of the informal economyshould be distinguished, or even a “survival” subsector. This latter term would moreadequately seem to capture the share of people living in the informal economy ona day-to-day survival basis, that is, in a “state of continuing to live or exist” (OxfordDictionary 1987), and could help to address the socio-economic problems of peopleliving in this sector more strategically. Moreover, such a distinction could help tocapture those people seemingly not comprised in “employment status” definitionsas currently used by the ILO and others (cf Chen, Vanek and Heintz 2006; Lloyd-Evans 2008). In the following, evidence from Antananarivo, Madagascar is presentedin support of this proposition.

MethodsQualitative fieldwork in Antananarivo involving a convenience sample of participantsin the informal economy was carried out in May 2003, focusing on people active inthe informal economy. In total, 20 interviews were conducted with street childrenof up to 14 years of age, 10 interviews with adult beggars, and another 10interviews with street vendors, the most prominent group of people working in theinformal economy in Antananarivo. Interviews included approximately even sharesof male and female respondents. Interviews were semi-structured and focused onsurvival strategies, income levels, social and economic networks, movements, andhousing situation. Interviewees were approached with the help of a local translator,who made the first contact and explained the purpose of the interview (“livingconditions”). Interviews lasted between 30 and 60 min. Interview content was


326 Antipode

recorded as field notes. All interviews were carried out in public places, such asmarkets, plazas, or in front of hotels and restaurants.

“Adult beggars” are easily identified in Madagascar, due to their raggedappearance and conspicuous presence in public spaces. Beggars in Antananarivoconsist almost entirely of handicapped or crippled people, as well as mentallydisabled people. An exception are mothers of small children living on the street, whohave no income opportunities and send their children to beg, while occasionallytrying to beg from passing tourists themselves. No official data on total beggarnumbers in Antananarivo or other Malagasy cities are available, but we estimatethat there are several hundred people living and sleeping on the street in the centreof Antananarivo. This is only the visible portion of the survival sector in the centre ofAntananarivo, and does not include those conceivably living in slum areas, or thoseliving in other cities.

Another distinct group interviewed consisted of street children. Street childrenin Antananarivo are not organized in groups, and their interaction could ratherbe described in terms of a loose, unhierarchical social organization. Accordingto Medecins Sans Frontieres there were 873 children sleeping on the streets ofAntananarivo in 1999, and another 160 living in simple shelters (Belanger 2000).The United States Department of Labor (2009) reported that an estimated 430,000children, that is, 23% of Madagascar’s children aged 6–14, are engaged in the worstforms of child labour, including, in urban areas, commercial sexual exploitation andforced labour in vending, prostitution and domestic services. The main activityof street children, particularly those living and sleeping on the street, is begging.Sometimes street children make attempts to sell items such as postcards, or to carrygoods, and they may also engage in pick-pocketing. Children in the city centrebeg mainly from tourists, while children in the market areas focus on locals. Streetchildren may also get occasional jobs from local salesmen to carry away garbage,to fetch drinking water, or to run errands. The survey focused on street childrenbetween 5 and 14 years, as teenagers were rarely observed begging: success ratesdecline rapidly for older children due to the non-acceptance of begging in Malagasysociety (Gossling et al 2004; Morelle 2007).

With regard to data collection and analysis, a modified grounded theory approachwas used, that is, the comparative analysis of data to derive theory (Glaser andStrauss 1967). Interview content was evaluated to distinguish further themes thatwould support differentiation of a “survival” subsector of the informal economy,using a theoretical saturation approach (Strauss and Corbin 1998:143). This pointwas reached after 20 interviews with street children and 10 interviews with adultbeggars, at which eight distinguishing themes for a survival sector had beenidentified. Interviews with street vendors were conducted to gain an understandingof the informal economy more generally. The following sections discuss themescorroborating the existence of a survival sector.

Distinguishing Categories of the Survival SectorAnalysis reveals several aspects supporting a distinction of formal and informaleconomies, and the survival sector as a distinctive subsector of the informal economy(Table 2). The salient themes emerging from the empirical data can be discussed



Table 2: Differences between formal and informal economies and survival sector,Madagascar

Formal economy Informal economy Survival sector

Formal socio-economicnetworks

Informal socio-economicnetworks

Informal socio-economicnetworks, but more focusedon family

Social security systems,economically resilient

Informal social securitysystems, some degree ofvulnerability

Strategies to reducevulnerability, but generallyhighly vulnerable

Productive, employmentstatus

Productive, employmentstatus

Economically non-productive,no employment status

Work outside home Work at home/outside home No physical homeWork in corporate, private or

public environmentsOften work in public spaces Work and live in public

spaces, often day and nightHome–work movement Often considerable

movements betweenvarious places

No or short daily movements

Moderate to substantialaccumulation of materialwealth, public sector ormarket dependence

Minor to moderateaccumulation of materialwealth, market dependence

No accumulation of materialwealth, dependence onprivate payment transfers(donations from tourists)

Social mobility: change intoinformal or survival sectorpossible

Change into formal economypossible

Change into formal economygenerally not possible, buteventually into informalsector

“Core” of society At the margins of society At the margins or “outside”society

Examples Examples ExamplesTeacher Street vendors (retail) Beggars∗

Shop ownerTour guide

Musicians, guards,prostitutes (services)

Street children

∗Primarily including very old, handicapped or crippled people, mentally disabled, mothers of streetchildren.Source: own fieldwork.

under the inter-related categories of: economic aspects and vulnerability structures;social and public spaces and their use and functions; and social mobility.

Economic Aspects and Vulnerability StructuresThere is arguably a considerable difference between begging and other activitiesin the informal sector, in that begging is not contributing to the production ofgoods or services. Clearly, this is a definition of productivity in relation to theformal economy, and does not reflect broader sociological or anthropologicaldimensions of the concept (for a discussion, see eg Brennan 2006). Some authorssuch as Owusu (2007:452) have pointed out that there is an “active productiverole even of poor people” in the informal economy. Likewise, Schneider and Enste(2003:11) have shown that small firms in the informal economy produce a largeshare of the economic added value in developing countries (see also Daniels 2004;Meagher 1995). However, beggars asking for money will not usually make such


328 Antipode

a contribution, unless one considers the purchases made with donations as acontribution to economic growth—even in this case, productivity would ratherrelate to the donor than the beggar. Productivity versus non-productivity may thusbe one of the most central criteria justifying the conceptualization of a survival sector.Begging can, from an economic point of view, rather be seen as an occupation thanemployment, and certainly not as a strategy for employment (Escher 1999:659). AsChen, Vanek and Heintz (2006:2134) outline, employment status is a criterion of theinformal economy, in line with definitions developed during the International LabourConference in 2002 and the International Conference of Labour Statisticians in 2003,and including informal enterprises hiring, among others, unprotected employees,own account workers, casual labourers, or unpaid family workers. Those in thesurvival sector would however not seem to fall into these employment categories(sensu ILO 2002b).

Healthy begging adults are perceived as “lazy and irresponsible people” inMalagasy society (Gossling et al 2004:143), and consequently only very old,handicapped, crippled, blind, or mentally disabled people can be observed beggingin Antananarivo, that is, people who generally have no other options to accessmoney (as noted earlier, mothers of small children are an exception). Even thoughtheir work is not productive in an economic sense, beggars themselves considerbegging equivalent to carrying out work (cf Kassah 2008). For instance, one crippledbeggar with paralyzed legs pointed out that he had to work in order to provide foodfor his family, a young woman and their baby. Earning money by moving on hishands between cars on the main road, in the midst of thick exhaust fumes, the manreported to work 6 days per week from morning to evening to provide enoughfood for the family, a situation he seemed to perceive as normal. As many beggarsreported long begging hours, this activity may be seen as a work-like, economicallynon-productive occupation (though productive in the sense of raising children andproviding sustenance to the family).

While beggars are tolerated in Malagasy society as long as they are severelyimpeded from carrying out economically productive work, the attitude is differentwith regard to street children. Residents see children rather as victims of misguidedpolicies or the failure of parents to provide food and shelter (Gossling et al 2004).As children are treated with great respect in Malagasy society, with one nationalidiom being “l’enfant est le roi” (“the child is king”), there is considerably greaterunderstanding and acceptance of their begging. Even more so, it is often feltthat children deserve help. People working in the informal economy, in particular,reported a considerable level of solidarity and support.

There are various linkages between the informal economy and the survivalsector. For instance, a crippled beggar was observed sending a street child to buycigarettes. This would be an example of the interaction between non-productivework in the survival sector (begging) contributing to productive work in theinformal economy (services/retail). Such linkages between the survival sector andthe rest of the informal economy can also be observed in other domains, forinstance when beggars buy food from small stalls. Beggars may even interactwith the formal economy, for instance when buying items from a shop, eventhough this was not observed or reported during fieldwork. Beggars primarily ask



for money, but in cases where financial donations are denied, they will also askfor clothes and/or medicines—items that will subsequently be sold again. A fewbeggars may also try to be occasionally active in the informal economy by sellinggoods and offering services, and thus combine productive and non-productiveactivities. This appears to be rare, however. In conclusion, there are interconnectionsbetween the sectors, but the economically non-productive character of work inthe survival sector, as well as the lack of an employment status (cf Chen, Vanekand Heintz 2006) would differentiate the latter from the formal and informaleconomies.

With regard to income, the formal economy does not necessarily allow for higherincome than the informal economy in Madagascar (see also Castells and Portes1989). For instance, one vendor selling fried bananas reported that she earnedmore with this job than with her employment in the formal economy, where sheworked as a teacher. Differences in income levels appear more distinct between theinformal economy and the survival sector. For instance, street children and beggarsreported income levels of €8–13 and €35–45 per month respectively, comparedwith income levels in other subsectors of the informal economy of €45–145 permonth. Importantly, income levels do not involve identical working times. Whilepeople in the formal economy usually work 5 days per week (with the right of anannual holiday), this may sometimes be 5, usually 6 and sometimes 7 days per weekin the informal economy, and usually 7 days (sometimes 6 days) per week in thesurvival sector (without holiday).

Income in the survival sector also fluctuates. Single donations to beggars or streetchildren can be high, as in one case where a street child was observed being givenFMG (Franc Malgache) 25,000 (€ 3.68) by a tourist, an extremely high sum inMadagascar. This needs to be seen as a rare exception, though. Living costs are alsocomparably high. A rice-only meal on the street costs for instance FMG 500 (€0.07),or FMG 1500 (€0.22) with some vegetables, meat and sauce. Daily average incomeof street children, in comparison, is FMG 2000–3000 (€0.29–0.44), and there aredays when the children receive no donations at all. Furthermore, children have touse public toilets at FMG 100–250 (€0.01–0.04), while washing takes place in publicfountains, as taking a shower or washing clothes in public places designed for thispurpose is costly at FMG 500 (€0.07).

The results indicate that people may earn an income in both the formal andinformal economy and that income levels in the informal economy can be higherthan in the formal economy. In contrast, the survival sector is characterized by verylow incomes with high volatility. On average, these incomes may be sufficient tosurvive, but they are not sufficient for the accumulation of even modest levels ofmaterial wealth.

Another difference concerns monetary flows. Without exception, all interviewedstreet vendors reported occasionally giving small amounts of money to streetchildren. Often this may be because they have been street children themselvesearlier in their lives, as reported by several respondents, or as a reflection of a moregeneral informal economy ethic of mutual support. As one street vendor put it,“the rich are supposed to help the poor”, an ethic that appears to be commonlyaccepted among those working in the informal economy, as similar viewpoints


330 Antipode

were expressed by several respondents. Consequently, there is a flow of economicsupport from the informal to the survival sector, but not vice versa.

With regard to the sources of income, many street children and beggarsreported receiving money from tourists. Respondents stated that tourists andlocal residents would donate equally often, but tourists give substantially highersums. Beggars and children also beg for food and clothes, and children mayalso ask for sweets and other donations. Non-monetary donations such as clothesmay often be sold again, and add to the income of children and beggars.Such non-monetary donations are almost entirely made by tourists. Overall, thesurvival sector in Antananarivo can thus be said to be largely dependent ontourism (cf Gossling et al 2004), while the rest of the informal economy isnot.

Yet another distinction concerns socio-economic networks. It is generally acceptedthat informal economies are characterized by various forms of cooperation to reducerisks imposed by free markets. For instance, Schneider (1999:663–664, authors’translation) suggests that “As the absence of legislation [addressing social securityin the informal economy] is a continuous threat . . . various culturally specific socialnetworks, structures and mechanisms have developed, which aim at reducing andlimiting destructive market forces.” Socio-economic networks are widespread in theinformal economy, as exemplified by various co-operations. For instance, rubberstamp makers in the centre of Antananarivo reported to work in small groups withtwo to three members, guarding their respective locations and sharing the moneyearned. Likewise, beggars often have share systems, which however are usuallyrestricted to the family, and often individuals, such as brothers or sisters. In onecase, a street child reported not to share money with her brothers, who, standingclose by and listening, confirmed this, calling her an “egoist”, indicating that suchbehaviour is unusual and not accepted. Share systems can also include larger groups.For instance, some women reported that they shared the income from begging andselling postcards with other women in a group of about 20 participants, that is,a combined system of two income strategies. Overall, this indicates similaritiesin the structure of socio-economic networks in the informal economy and thesurvival subsector. However, these networks appear more narrowly focused onfamily members in the survival sector, even though further studies need to confirmthe importance of kinship relations.

The survival sector is generally characterized by a high degree of vulnerability.Low incomes are only sufficient for day-to-day survival, and the need for healthcare is a permanent threat. Occasionally, beggars will go hungry, even thoughprovisions with basic foods appeared stable for most beggars at the time of thestudy. While the French organization Medecins Sans Frontieres provided emergencyhealth care for children at no cost (up to 2005, when the organization closedits operations in Madagascar; Medecins Sans Frontieres 2005), adults had to paymoderate prices for treatment, which can nevertheless be substantial for people inthe survival sector. Several beggars were encountered with toothache, but given thecost of tooth extraction (FMG 10,000, corresponding to €1.45), they had to livewith the pain, sometimes turning to cheap painkillers. There is no population-widehealth insurance in Madagascar, even though health care programs exist for certain



classes of state and private employees. There are also private insurance companies,but insurance does not usually exist in the informal economy, where private savingshave to be used in case of illness. Government-subsidized clinics also provide a formof health care, but people in the survival sector may often have to refer to NGOsbecause of difficulties to accumulate even modest amounts of money. Health careis thus a key vulnerability issue in the survival sector.

Given the daily struggle to provide for basic needs, the survival sector ischaracterized by complex strategies to reduce vulnerability. For instance, a familyliving under a bridge not far from the city centre reported that they combinedincome from begging activities (children) and work in the informal economy(adults), focusing on the collection and sale of tin cans found in garbage dumps(strategy 1: economic diversification). Children went begging only once a week,however, and attended school during the rest of the week (strategy 2: capacitybuilding). The family also reported sharing food with other families (strategy 3:spreading the risk of food insecurity among the larger group), even though moneywas only shared within the family. When the family was able to accumulate smallamounts of money, these were saved and used to buy food in times when theirincome was low (strategy 4: financial savings). This strategy was combined withexcess money being invested in “value items”, such as an additional cooking potor a blanket. In times of hardship, the cooking pot or blanket would be sold againto free resources for purchases of food (strategy 5: non-monetary savings). Whenthe situation was getting more difficult, the family would extend begging timesto the late evening (strategy 6: extended begging times). Finally, when all of thesestrategies would not guarantee sustenance, discarded food would be collected fromgarbage piles (strategy 7: food scavenging). This final strategy needs to be seen asthe last resort, as it is a trade-off, that is, the risk of starvation needs to be weighedagain the risk of food poisoning, as the consumption of food found in garbagedumps can lead to serious illness and disease. While strategies 1–5 may also befound in the informal economy, strategies 6 and 7 appear to be characteristic of thesurvival sector.

Street children were observed to have various strategies to increase their beggingsuccess. For instance, small children (5–6 years) were observed to carry youngersisters and brothers, knowing that the image of two such small, ragged and dirtyhuman beings is a heartbreaking sight for many tourists. Other children presentedthemselves as orphans, even though they lived with their mother. More generally,small children are the most vulnerable. When mothers are no longer physicallyor psychologically able to care for their children, they may sometimes leave themoutside other poor people’s homes. In one case, a begging woman reported thatshe had taken care of a baby whose mother was unknown. The benefit is in thiscase mutual, as the baby, hardly able to walk, helps to arouse the pity of tourists,and thus increases the begging success. In yet another similar case, a street child(13 years old, taking care of her younger sister, 3 years old) reported that she knowsher parents, also meeting them, even though she lives her own life and is entirelyon her own financially, also taking care of her sister. Even in this case, the smallchild can help to increase her begging success. Another woman selling postcardsexplained that she had found a child outside her door, whom she believed to be


332 Antipode

2 years old. She said that she would take care of the child until it was old enough tobeg. Again, such relationships and patterns of taking care of each other would seemcharacteristic of the survival sector, but not the informal economy more generally.

The examples also indicate that people in the survival sector are more vulnerablethan those in the informal and formal economies. Strategies to reduce risk includesocio-economic networks, multiple income sources on the household level (beggingand informal work), inter-family or inter-group co-operation, savings mechanisms,strategies to arouse pity, and emergency strategies, such as begging into the night atnew locations or using food from garbage dumps. Risk-minimizing strategies in theinformal economy are common even in rural areas in Madagascar (eg Gezon 2002),but they appear to be more complex in the survival sector than in the informaleconomy.

Social and Public Spaces and their Use and FunctionsSocial space has been defined as to represent “a distinctive (and more or lessbounded) type of space which is defined by (and constructed in terms of) the livedexperience of people. As such, places can be seen as fundamental in expressing asense of belonging for those who live in them, and providing a locus for identity . . .”(Hubbard 1987:43). The social spaces of beggars and street children are open publicspaces. There may be several reasons for this. First of all, begging activities have tobe performed in public places to reach donors, but public places are also “safe”social spaces, as they offer protection against abuse. While people in the informaleconomy will be able to retreat to a form of physical shelter, often located in theoutskirts of town, people in the survival sector seem drawn to open public spacesin the city centre, because any form of “privacy”, such as a dark corner behind ahouse, increases their vulnerability. In interviews, some children and beggars werealso asked about their “biggest dream”. Virtually all mentioned “a house”, indicatingthat public spaces are occupied out of necessity, and in the absence of other optionsto stay. Several respondents also mentioned that they had at some stage in theirlife lived in some kind of physical shelter, but became for various reasons homeless(for instance lack of money to pay rent). In contrast, all respondents in the informaleconomy reported having a home, which they either owned or for which a rent waspaid.

Public spaces are also economic spaces, on which vendors, beggars and streetchildren are dependent for survival. In Antananarivo, these include specific publiclocations “owned” by actors in the informal and survival economies. Others cannottake these spots, which are often strategically located, that is, customers knowthat a certain street vendor can be found in a certain location, securing returningcustomers (note that informal payments may have to be made to the police),while beggars guard strategic positions, such as those outside hotels or restaurants.Begging children will also follow people asking for money, but only to a certaingeographical boundary, beyond which they will not continue. As one beggingmother explains, ‘everyone has his/her area’. Conflicts may arise when begging failsto provide any income or food and beggars extend begging into the night, forinstance by asking for donations outside discotheques, which means intruding into



Figure 2: Daily movements in the survival and informal sector

the areas regularly occupied by other beggars. Public spaces can be of higher orlower economic value, as income is primarily related to the flow of tourists.

The use of public spaces is restricted for various reasons. For instance, beggarsand street children have to use public pay toilets, which puts considerable strainon their economic budgets. Access to public spaces may also be restricted at times,with one beggar reporting that there had been attempts by government to removemarginalized people from public spaces, a continuation of at least a decade of effortsto “clean up” Antananarivo that commenced with the Jeux de la Francophonie, aninternational sporting event between French-speaking countries in 1997 (Razafy1999), and continued when Marc Ravalomanana became Antananarivo’s mayor in1999 (ISN ETH Zurich 2009). The exclusion from public places or tourist areas ishowever a major threat to survival strategies, particularly for those in the survivalsector. Overall, there is a clear difference in the social and public spaces occupiedby people in the informal economy and those in the survival sector, as well as theiruse and functions.

Mobility patterns are another distinctive criterion. People in the formal economywill usually have a physical home as well as a job in a given locality, and daily mobilitywill largely consist of travel between home and place of work (Figure 2a). In theinformal economy in Antananarivo, mobility is generally following more complexpatterns. Even though many people working in the informal economy will have afixed location, which they occupy in the morning and leave towards the evening,mobility patterns appear to be more complex for the majority of them. For instance,movements can involve several fixed locations, which are occupied during variousperiods of the day [for example, sales of flowers (predominantly to locals) or spices(predominantly to tourists); Figure 2b]. At least some of the ambulant vendors offlowers or fruit are constantly mobile, moving after a comparably short period oftime from one location, for instance a plaza, to another location, for instance acrowded street, and then on to yet another location without ever stopping in anylocation for a longer period of time (Figure 2c). This may also be a strategy to avoidharassment by the police, with vendors reporting occasional seizures of all goods


334 Antipode

by policemen. In the survival sector, movements appear to be more limited. Forinstance, street children were observed to always remain close to the place wherethey sleep, which is usually no more than a piece of cardboard at the side of the roadin a public place. This allows them to attend to their belongings—with even a pieceof cardboard having value to protect against cold in the night—while simultaneouslybeing able to beg for money, clothes or food (Figure 2d). As Strassman (1987)points out, partial “immobility” may exist in the informal economy when work iscarried out at home, such as baking or the production of handicrafts, which arethen sold in public places (see also Chen, Vanek and Heintz 2006; Lloyd-Evans2008). The character of this “immobility” appears, however, to be fundamentallydifferent from the survival sector, and movement patterns could thus be consideredas another criterion distinguishing informal economy and survival sector.

Social MobilityIt seems generally difficult for beggars to leave the survival sector, mostly becausethey are physically and mentally unfit to join the informal economy. The lack of start-up capital or education may also be important, however, particularly for women.For instance, several begging women with small children reported that they did nothave the money to buy goods for retail, even though they hoped to quit beggingat some stage and to enter the informal economy. In another case, three womenworked as successful vendors of spices, after having been given the start-up money[FMG 250,000 (€37.86) each] by a tourist, who told them he would be back to seewhat they had done with the money (the tourist came back after 1 year and thewomen proudly presented their business to him). In yet another case, an 11-year-oldgirl explained that she could not work in the informal economy, “because for thisone has to be able to count and calculate properly”. People in the survival sectortherefore cannot generally be seen as a labour reserve for the formal economy,as suggested by Gerxhani (2004:280) for the informal economy. This is becausethey cannot carry out economically productive work due to their age, illiteracy, oroccupation with very small children, or physical or mental disabilities. An exceptionmay be a share of women forced by other circumstances to live as beggars on thestreet, who, provided with the start-up money, may be able to join the informaleconomy.

Street children appear to generally have better options to leave the survival sector,and may at some stage even be forced to earn money, that is, when they becometoo old for begging, while they would still not have small children of their own.For instance, a woman selling postcards reported that she used to be a street child.This would indicate a potential social mobility between the survival sector and theinformal economy. However, the permanency of some people’s situation becameevident in interviews with representatives of one group of six families. These familieshad lived under the same bridge for 20 years, with one respondent stating that hisparents had already lived under the same bridge.

Findings thus indicate differences with regard to social mobility between theinformal economy and the survival sector. These include the impossibility of joiningthe informal economy for adult male beggars in general, as well as various obstacles



for begging women with small children more specifically. Street children mayeventually join the informal economy, as their begging success will decline withincreasing age. It remains unclear, however, how obstacles such as their illiteracy areovercome, and which positions they subsequently occupy in the informal economy.

Begging is only accepted in Malagasy society if the beggar is unable to performany kind of economically productive work. This limits the number of beggars, butalso places them socially at the margins of society, where they have to live withdifferent forms of hardship. For instance, beggars sleeping outside the railway stationreported waiting until 2:00 am in the morning before going to sleep, because bythen the police had made a last control visit (the police would otherwise chase themaway). As discussed earlier, beggars also have to pay for using public toilets, whichputs considerable strain on the little money they have, as they appear truly afraidof the consequences of being seen by the police using other places, and forcingmany to go to the toilet just once a day. The police also harass people in the survivalsector, with one begging woman reporting that she was taken to jail once, whereshe was held for 3 days. In another case, the police reportedly took clothes anda cooking pot with rice from a mother on the street. Occasionally, this may alsohappen in the informal economy, with one vendor of fruits reporting that the policehad taken all of his fruit twice within one year, while several other vendors reportedthat they had to pay bribes to policemen in order to keep their sales spots.

In particular, female beggars and street children may thus be seen at the marginsof society, or even outside society, as there is little political interest in their situation:their labour force is not needed, and they do not play a significant role as consumersor producers. Social marginalization may thus be another criterion distinguishingthe informal economy and the survival sector.

New Perspectives on Poverty StructuresThe review of the literature on the informal economy has indicated that there aremany definitions and perspectives, which are usually adapted with a view to aspecific situation and with a focus on enterprise structures rather than employmentrelationships. However, neither studies seeking to distinguish formal and informaleconomies, nor those analysing employment situations, seem to adequately capturea share of the population that is characterized by specific survival strategies and ahigher degree of vulnerability and associated poverty risks (sensu Chen, Vanek andHeintz 2006). This population may live in what could be termed the “survival sector”,notwithstanding the empirical specificity of this case study.

One of the survival sector’s most distinguishing criteria is its non-productivenature in an economic sense, and its dependence on productive work in theformal and informal economies (Table 2; note that the survival sector is highlyproductive from a social point of view). Furthermore, the results indicate a higherdegree of vulnerability in the survival sector and specific strategies to deal withrisk, which are fundamentally different from formal and informal social securitysystems. Specifically, this relates to the incapability of people in the survival sectorto accumulate significant financial resources or to access health care systems.Other distinguishing criteria pertain to distinctions of “home”, with those in the


336 Antipode

survival sector not having a physical home (rented or owned), as well as workingenvironments predominantly located in public spaces, and working times that areconsiderably longer than in the formal and informal economies. Results also indicatedifferences with regard to social mobility, social spaces, and social status.

These findings would be relevant with regard to current perspectives on povertyrisks and the formulation of labour policies, because the survival sector appearsto be an urban phenomenon involving considerable numbers of human beings.This is supported by other studies (cf The Economist 14 June 2007; UNICEF 1992cited in Epstein 1996). As Nelson (1999) points out, large capital cities in Africahave grown by 7–8% per annum between 1960 and 1990, and possibly asmuch in recent decades, making it impossible to provide low-income housing,urban services, or employment for a rapidly growing number of human beings.Modernization processes, on the other hand, which may have been initiated bystructural adjustment programs, have resulted in cuts in social welfare programs,with concomitant negative effects on marginalized population groups (Dieke 2000).

In Malagasy cities such as Antananarivo, Antsirabe, Fianarantosa and Tamatave,the presence of street children can be explained out of developments withinterrelated and interacting economic, political and social dimensions, includingeconomic recession, population growth, food insecurity and rural poverty, leading torural–urban migration (Zeller et al 1999). Since the 1970s, there has been a slow, butcontinuous decline of living standards in Madagascar, reinforced by political crisesaffecting the country in 1972, 1991, 2002, 2008 and 2009, causing a substantialpart of the population to live in absolute poverty. Madagascar is now one of thepoorest countries of the world with a per capita GDP of US$923 in 2005 (US$purchasing power parities), and ranking 143 in the Human Development Index ofthe United Nations (of 177 nations; UNDP 2008). Waltisperger and Mesle (2005)outline that GDP per capita has declined by 45% between 1971 and 1996; and whilethe population almost doubled in the period from 1960 to 2000, food productiononly rose by 38%, leading to growing pressure on food resources. In the early1990s, more than two thirds of the Malagasy population consumed fewer caloriesper day than the minimum considered necessary to support a normal life (Dostie,Haggblade and Randriamamonjy 2002). As seasonal variations in food prices in thisperiod were three times as high in rural areas (2002:495), food availability andaffordability is likely to be an important factor leading to rural–urban migration,a situation facilitated by dissolving community relations caused by an increasinglydifficult economic situation: “the root cause of the decline in Malagasy communitylife is economic hardship. People do not associate with one another because they aretoo busy trying to eat” (Marcus 2008:86). In line with these findings, Minten andBarrett (2008:818) identified agricultural productivity as a key factor in addressingpoverty: “The empirical evidence strongly favors support for improved agriculturalproduction as an important part of any strategy to reduce the high poverty andfood insecurity rates currently prevalent in rural Madagascar.”

These insights can be discussed in the context of recent plans to lease 1.3 millionhectares of arable land to South Korean company Daewoo on a 99-year basis for corn(pig feed) and palm oil (biofuel) production (Engelhardt 2009). The deal, comprisingmore than half of Madagascar’s arable land, was planned with the explicit goal



of ensuring South Korea’s food security (Jung-a, Oliver and Burgis 2008). Agreedupon by former president Marc Ravalomanana, it was cancelled in March 2009 bynew president Andry Rajoelina (Burgis and Blas 2009). The situation neverthelessillustrates the global neoliberal conditions now affecting food production andavailability in some of the poorest countries, as well as their consequences forpoverty structures. Women and children in particular are victims of such processes(eg Chant and Pedwell 2008; Chen, Vanek and Heintz 2006), and their situation canbe exacerbated, for instance, in situations where teenage Malagasy women livingon the street become pregnant, or choose to prostitute themselves because of a lackof work (Stoebenau 2009; UNICEF 2000). Discrimination against women is anothercomplex and multi-faceted phenomenon in Madagascar, with women largely beingexcluded from political decision-making (UNICEF 2000).

The size of the survival sector seems dependent on the overall economicdevelopment of a country or region. Economic and political crises, decliningfood production or availability, natural hazards or (civil) wars leaving displacedand crippled human beings behind will lead to growing numbers of beggarsand street children. As this survey has shown, living in the survival sector ischaracterized by extreme hardship, that is, situations where social relationshipsare uprooted, where children go hungry at times, where basic health care is notguaranteed, and where harassment by authorities is a norm. A characterization ofthe survival sector may thus help to more specifically develop policies to improvethe living conditions of these marginalized people, also because they do notseem to be adequately captured in employment status categories. For instance,Chen, Vanek and Heintz (2006) developed income and poverty risk “pyramids”(or “icebergs”), showing that the informal economy is differentiated by incomelevel as well as the formality of income, which are gendered social and economichierarchies (see also Chant and Pedwell 2008; Kabeer 2008). Chen, Vanek andHeintz (2006) concluded that poverty risk is highest in households with onlyinformal income sources as well as in those cases where casual informal wageemployment and domestic work are the primary source of income. Vulnerabilitiesare thus greatest for these groups and, within these groups, women are morevulnerable than men. Research presented in this article suggests that the survivalsector constitutes, in terms of hierarchies of risk and vulnerability, yet another level—the bottom level—of Chen, Vanek and Heintz’s (2006) poverty risk pyramids. This isbecause income in the survival sector is dependent on the performance of theformal and informal economy, and because there are generally no choices foralternative economic activities. A distinction of a survival sector would thus alsobe useful in terms of enterprise versus work-centred perspectives, and in particularwith regard to the situation of what Lloyd-Evans (2008:1895) calls “subsistenceworkers”.

To improve the situation of those living and working in the survival sector,three aspects appear to be of particular relevance: the external conditions (politicalstability, food production) affecting work, income and food availability in the formaland informal economy; health care access as the most important vulnerability issue;and the implementation of mechanisms for empowerment, addressing issues suchas illiteracy or the lack of micro-credits to initiate entrepreneurial activities (see also


338 Antipode

Benerıa 1992; Olufemi 2000). Considering the characteristic poverty structures inthe survival sector as presented in this article could thus help to better address thesituation of marginalized people in regulatory and policy frameworks, by focusing onthe key vulnerability issue in the survival sector (health care), the need of strategiesto address the specific situation of street children (see Gossling et al 2004; Morelle2007), and the considerable potential to empower women in the survival sector;but also accepting the need of social security systems for those unable to engage ineconomically productive work.

The findings also open up for new research demands. Generally, the situationof marginalized people such as beggars is poorly understood in the context ofdeveloping countries (Abebe 2008; Kassah 2005; Lu 2005), and further insights inthis part of the survival sector could be gained from studies in other cultural orgeographical contexts. Importantly, the role and situation of women in the survivalsector would deserve further study, because there is considerable debate regardingtheir marginalisation (eg Chant and Pedwell 2008), and clear evidence that femaleworkers constitute the larger part of informal employment relations. According toLloyd-Evans (2008) women make up a growing percentage of the global labourforce but are concentrated in the informal end of the labour market where workingconditions are least secure. Evidence of the marginalisation of women—and streetchildren—is also clearly visible in Madagascar (cf Stoebenau 2009; United StatesDepartment of Labor 2009), even though a better understanding of their situationis warranted in the light of the research findings presented in this article. Finally, therole of criminal activities in the informal economy and the survival sector deservesfurther study, as it has potentially important repercussions for social security, moneyflows, and poverty risk more generally.

AcknowledgementsWe would like to express our sincere gratitude to David Weaver for invaluable discussions ofthe topic and manuscript, as well as Philipp Weckenbrock for comments on an earlier versionof the paper.

ReferencesAbebe T (2008) Earning a living on the margins: Begging, street work and the socio-spatial

experiences of children in Addis Ababa. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography90:271–284

Anderson J H (1998) The size, origins and character of Mongolia’s informal sectorduring the transition. Policy Research Working Paper 1916, Development ResearchGroup, World Bank, Washington DC, USA, http://www.wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/W3P/1998/05/000009265 3980625102825/Rendwed/PDF/multi_page.pdf (last accessed 19 January 2011)

Banerjee N (1982) Survival of the poor. In HI Safa (ed) Towards a Political Economy ofUrbanization in Third World Countries (pp 175–188). Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Belanger F (2000) Evaluation du Programme Enfant en Situation Difficile (ESD) a Antananarivo,Madagascar [Evaluation of the Child in a Difficult Situation Programme in Antananarivo,Madagascar]. Madagascar: Medecins Sans Frontieres

Beneria L (1989) Subcontracting and employment dynamics in Mexico City. In A Portes, MCastells and LA Benton (eds) The Informal Economy: Studies in Advanced and Less DevelopedCountries (pp 173–189). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press

Benerıa L (1992) Accounting for women’s work: The progress of two decades. WorldDevelopment 20:1547–1560



Birch A (2000) Guatemala’s street children: forging survival paths. Development 43(1):55–59Brennan D M (2006) Defending the indefensible? Culture’s role in the

productive/unproductive dichotomy. Feminist Economics 12:403–425Burgis T and Blas J (2009) Madagascar scraps Daewoo farm deal. Financial Times 18

March, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7e133310-13ba-11de-9e32-0000779fd2ac.html (lastaccessed 19 April 2010)

Castells M and Portes A (1989) World underneath: The origins, dynamics, and effects of theinformal economy. In A Portes, M Castells and L A Benton (eds) The Informal Economy.Studies in Advanced and Less Developed Countries (pp 11–37). Baltimore: The Johns HopkinsUniversity Press

Chant S and Pedwell C (2008) Women, Gender and the Informal Economy: AnAssessment of ILO Research and Suggested Ways Forward. Geneva: InternationalLabour Organisation, http://www.ilo.org/global/What_we_do/Publications/WorkingPaper/lang-en/docName-WCMS_091228/index.htm (last accessed 23 June 2008)

Chen M (2006) Rethinking the informal economy: Linkages with the formal economyand the formal regulatory environment. In B Guba-Khasnobis, R Kanbur andE Ostrom (eds) Linking the Formal and Informal Economy: Concepts and Policies(pp 75–92). Oxford: Oxford University Press

Chen M and Carr M (2002) Globalisation and the Informal Economy: How Global Trade andInvestment Impact on the Working Poor. Geneva: International Labour Organisation

Chen M, Vanek J and Heintz J (2006) Informality, gender and poverty. Economic and PoliticalWeekly 41(21):2131–2139

Commander S and Tolstopiatenlco A (1997) A model of the informal economy in transitioneconomies. WP 122, The William Davison Institute, Ann Arbor, USA: University of Michigan,http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/39512 (last accessed 19 January 2011)

Daniels P W (2004) Urban challenges: The formal and informal economies in mega-cities.Cities 21:501–511

Dieke P U C (ed) (2000) The Political Economy of Tourism Development in Africa.New York: Cognizant Communication Corporation

Dostie B, Haggblade S and Randriamamonjy J (2002) Seasonal poverty in Madagascar:Magnitude and solutions. Food Policy 27:493–518

Engelhardt M (2009) Koreaner scheitern mit Land-Leasing-Projekt [Korean land-lease projectfails]. Das Parlament 48:23 November

Epstein I (1996) Educating street children: Some cross-cultural perspectives. ComparativeEducation 32:289–302

Escher A (1999) Der informelle Sektor in der dritten Welt [The informal sector in the thirdworld]. Geographische Rundschau 51:658–661

Etzold B, Bohle H-G, Keck M and Zingel W-P (2009) Informality as agency—negotiating foodsecurity in Dhaka. Die Erde 140(1):3–24

Gerxhani K (2004) The informal sector in developed and less developed countries: A literaturesurvey. Public Choice 120:267–300

Gezon L L (2002) Marriage, kin, and compensation: A socio-political ecology of gender inAnkarana, Madagascar. Anthropological Quarterly 75(4):675–706

Glaser B G and Strauss A L (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for QualitativeResearch. New York: Aldine de Gruyter

Gonzales de la Rocha M (2007): The construction of the myth of survival. Development andChange 38(1):45–66

Gossling S, Schumacher K, Morelle M, Berger R and Heck N (2004) Tourism and streetchildren in Antananarivo, Madagascar. Hospitality & Tourism Research 5:131–149

Grossman G (1982) The “second economy”of the USSR. In V Tanzi (ed) The undergroundeconomy in the United States and abroad (pp 245–269). Lexington: Lexington Books

Hart K (1970) Small scale entrepreneurs in Ghana and development planning. Journal ofDevelopment Studies 6:104–120

Hart K (1973) Informal income opportunities and urban employment in Ghana. The Journalof Modern African Studies 11:61–89


340 Antipode

Hubbard P (1987) Social place. In B Godall (ed) The Facts on File Dictionary of Human Geography(pp 43–56). New York: Facts on File Inc

Institut National de la Statistique de Madagascar (1995) L’emploi, le chomageet les conditions d’activite dans l’agglomeration d’Antananarivo [Employment,unemployment and labour force pasticipation in the urban agglomeration Antananarivo],http://www.instat.mg/pdf/9506e.pdf (last accessed 9 November 2009)

International Labour Office (ILO) (1972) Employment, Income and Equality: A strategy forIncreasing Productivity in Kenya. Geneva: ILO

International Labour Organization (ILO) (1983) Thirteenth International Conference of LabourStatisticians, 1982: Report of the Conference. Geneva: ILO

International Labour Office (ILO) (2002a) Women and Men in the Informal Economy: A StatisticalPicture. Geneva: ILO

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

International Relations and Security Network (ISN) Eidgenossische TechnischeHochschule Zurich (ETH Zurich) (2009) Madagascar: Seizure of power, http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/Security-Watch/Detail/?ots591=0C54E3B3-1E9C-BE1E-2C24-A6A8C7060233&lng=en&id=99686 (last accessed 8 November 2009)

Jones G A (1997) Junto con los ninos: Street children in Mexico. Development in Practice7(1):39–49

Jones S and Nelson N (eds) (1999) Urban Poverty in Africa. From Understanding to Alleviation.London: Intermediate Technology Publications

Jung-a S, Oliver C and Burgis T (2008) Daewoo to cultivate Madagascar land for free.Financial Times 19 November, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6e894c6a-b65c-11dd-89dd-0000779fd18c.html (last accessed 19 April 2010)

Kabeer N (2008) Mainstreaming Gender in Social Protection for the Informal Economy. London:Commonwealth Secretariat

Kassah A K (2005) Begging as a Way of Life. Baltimore: PublishamericaKassah A K (2008) Begging as work: A study of people with mobility difficulties in Accra,

Ghana. Disability & Society 23:163–170Kaufmann D and Kaliberda A (1996) Integrating the Unofficial Economy into the

Dynamics of Post-Socialist Economies: A Framework of Analysis and Evidence.Policy Research Working Paper 1691, Europe and Central Asia Country-Department IV, World Bank, Washington, DC, USA http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/1996/12/01/000009265 3970625091330/Rendered/PDF/multi page.pdf (last accessed 19 January 2011)

Lloyd-Evans S (2008) Geographies of the contemporary informal sector in the global south:Gender, employment relationships and social protection. Geography Compass 2(6):1885–1906

Lourenco-Lindell I (2004) Trade and informalization in Bissau, Guinea-Bissau. In K T Hansenand M Vaa (eds) Reconsidering Informality: Perspectives from Urban Africa (pp 84–98).Uppsala: Nordisk Africainstitutet

Lu H (2005) Street Criers: A Cultural History of Chinese Beggars. Stanford, CA: Stanford UniversityPress

Mann G (2002) “Wakimbizi, wakimbizi”: Congolese refugee boys’ and girls’ perspectives onlife in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Environment & Urbanization 14(2):115–122

Marcus R R (2008) Tokana: The collapse of the rural malagasy community. African StudiesReview 51(1):85–104

Meagher K (1995) Crisis, informalization and the urban informal sector in sub-Saharan Africa.Development and Change 26:259–284

Medecins Sans Frontieres (2005) Madagascar: MSF closes project for street children.http://www.msf.org/msfinternational/invoke.cfm?component=article&objectid=F798EEB5-E018-0C72-0943E16E95AD507C&method=full_html (last accessed8 November 2009)

Minten B and Barrett C B (2008) Agricultural technology, productivity, and poverty inMadagascar. World Development 36(5):797–822



Minujin A, Vandemoortele J and Delamonica E (2002) Economic growth, poverty andchildren. Environment and Urbanization 14:23–43

Morelle M (2007) La Rue des Enfants, les Enfants des Rues: Yaounde et Antananarivo [Thechildren’s street and the children of the streets: Yaounde and Antananarivo]. Paris: CNRSEditions

Mufune P (2000) Street youth in southern Africa. International Social Science Journal 52:233–243

Nelson N (1999) Urban poverty in Africa: A historical perspective. In S Jones and NNelson (eds) Urban Poverty in Africa: From Understanding to Alleviation (pp 1–8). London:Intermediate Technology Publications

Olufemi O (2000) Feminisation of poverty among the street homeless women in South Africa.Development Southern Africa 17:221–234

Owusu F (2007) Conceptualizing livelihood strategies in African cities: Planning anddevelopment implications of multiple livelihood strategies. Journal of Planning Educationand Research 26:450–465

Oxford Dictionary (1987) Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English. Oxford:Oxford University Press

Portes A and Schauffler R (1993) Competing perspectives on the Latin American InformalSector. Population and Development Review 19:33–60

Pryer J, Rogers S and Rahman A (2005) Work-disabling illness as a shock for livelihoods andpoverty in Dhaka Slums, Bangladesh. International Planning Studies 10:69–80

Razafy A (1999) Madagascar’s undaunted street children, http://www.unesco.org/courier/1999_06/uk/dici/txt1.htm (last accessed 8 November 2009)

Renooy PH (1990) The Informal Economy: Meaning, Measurement and Social Significance.Amsterdam: Koninklijk Nederlands Aardrijkskundig Genootschap

Schneider F and Enste D H (2003) The Shadow Economy: An International Survey. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press

Schneider H (1999) Soziale Strategien der Risikominimierung im informellen Sektor [Socialstrategies to minimise risk in the informal sector]. Geographische Rundschau 51:662–667

Sethuraman S V (1976) The urban informal sector: Concepts, measurement and policies.International Labour Review 114:69–81

Sindzingre A (2006) The relevance of the concepts of formality and informality: A theoreticalappraisal. In B Guba-Khasnobis, R Kanbur and E Ostrom (eds) Linking the Formal and InformalEconomy: Concepts and Policies (pp 58–74). Oxford: Oxford University Press

Stoebenau K (2009) Symbolic capital and health: The case of women’s sex work inAntananarivo, Madagascar. Social Science and Medicine 68:2045–2052

Stoffers W (1994) Measuring the urban informal sector in Pakistan. In A Broekhuis and OVerkoren (eds) No Easy Way Out: Essays on Third World Development in Honour of JanHinderink (pp 277–285). Utrecht: Nederlands Geographical Studies

Strassman W P (1987) Home-based enterprises in cities of developing countries. EconomicDevelopment and Cultural Change 36:121–145

Strauss A and Corbin J (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research. Techniques and Procedures forDeveloping Grounded Theory. London: Sage

Swaminathan M (1991) Understanding the Informal Sector: A Survey. WIDER WP95,World Institute for Development Economic Research, United Nations University,http://www.wider.uou.edu/publication/working-paper/previous/en GB/wp-95/files/82530831151534374/default/WP95.pdf (last accessed 19 January 2011)

The Economist (2007) Street life: Dehli’s beggars. 14 June, http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9339955 (last accessed 19 April2008)

Timothy D J and Wall G (1997) Selling to tourists—Indonesian street vendors. Annals ofTourism Research 24:322–340

Tokman V E (1989) Policies for a heterogeneous informal sector in Latin America. WorldDevelopment 17:1067–1076

Tokman V E (2007) The informal economy, insecurity and social cohesion in Latin America.International Labour Review 146(1–2):81–160


342 Antipode

UNICEF (2000) Situation des enfants et des femmes a Madagascar [The situation of childrenand women in Madagascar]. In UNICEF (ed) La Republique de Madagascar (pp 1–135).Antananarivo: UNICEF

United Nations (2010) The Millennium Development Goals Report. New Yorkhttp://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/MDG%20Report%202010%20En%2015%20 low%20res%2020100615%20-.pdf (accessed 19 January 2011)

United States Department of Labor (2009) 2008 Findings on the worst forms of childlabor—Madagascar, http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4aba3ed3c.html (last accessed8 November 2009)

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2008) http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/ (last accessed 19 April 2008)

Wahnschafft R (1982) Formal and informal tourism sectors: A case of Pattaya, Thailand. Annalsof Tourism Research 9:429–451

Waltisperger D and Mesle F (2005) Economic crisis and mortality: The case of Antananarivo,1976–2000. Population 60(3):199–229

Zeller M, Lapenu C, Minten B, Ralison E, Randrianaivo D and Randranarisoa C (1999) Pathwaysof rural development in Madagascar: An empirical investigation of the critical trianglebetween environmental sustainability, economic growth and poverty alleviation. QuarterlyJournal of International Agriculture 2:105–127


4 conceptualizing the survival sector in madagascar

Documents