IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-01928079.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Is informality an individual choice? Evidence from the field using a contingent-valuation survey in Tunisia
[L’informalité est-elle un choix ? Éléments de preuve à partir d’une évaluation contingente pour l’assurance sociale en Tunisie]

Author

Listed:
  • Khaled Makhloufi
  • Christel Protière

    (Epidémiologie et Sciences Sociales Appliquées à l'Innovation Médicale - Université de la Méditerranée - Aix-Marseille 2 - INSERM - Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale)

  • Bruno Ventelou

    (ORS PACA, AMSE - Aix-Marseille Sciences Economiques - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - AMU - Aix Marseille Université - ECM - École Centrale de Marseille - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

In many developing countries and in the particular context of Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, the challenge of informality is regarded as a fatality. This leads a large fraction of the population being deprived of any social security system. Following an original approach, a cross-sectional contingent valuation study was conducted in Tunisia, between August and September 2013, dealing with willingness to take-up two mandatory health and pension insurance schemes currently run by two national funds: ‘Caisse Nationale d'Assurance Maladie' (CNAM) and ‘Caisse Nationale de Sécurité Sociale' (CNSS), respectively. The sample size covers 456 respondents, all non-covered by any social security scheme (health or pension scheme) and recruited in all parts of the country (North, Central and South). The Willingness-to-pay (WTPs) of respondents are elicited in two sampling points: the informal markets (known as Souks) characterized by the high presence of informal workers and the public squares (known as Al-mydan) where peaceful demonstrations of unemployed people were commonplace following the so-called ‘Arab Spring' that began in Tunisia at the end of 2010. Results support the hypotheses that the proposition of a voluntary affiliation to mandatory insurance schemes, referred to as social insurance schemes, can be accepted by the majority of non-covered and that the WTPs stated are substantial. Willingness-to-join the proposed schemes by informal workers and unemployed varies regarding the three health insurance plans described (the scheme run by the CNAM includes three plans) and risks covered (with an added pension scheme or not). The WTPs declared, for each insurance scheme, show preferences (utility) of Tunisian households to both mandatory health and pension insurance schemes. Accordingly, this suggests important implications for the Tunisian health insurance policy (with universal health coverage goal in mind) and the pension system. The message of this paper is to outline that informality is not an irrevocable choice and that control of social evasion in Tunisia is possible. Another strength of the paper is that it gives some data and information on a population generally difficult to reach, the demonstrators, although informal-workers (non-demonstrators) appear strongly interested by the insurance program.

Suggested Citation

  • Khaled Makhloufi & Christel Protière & Bruno Ventelou, 2017. "Is informality an individual choice? Evidence from the field using a contingent-valuation survey in Tunisia [L’informalité est-elle un choix ? Éléments de preuve à partir d’une évaluation contingen," Post-Print hal-01928079, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01928079
    DOI: 10.3917/jgem.174.0209
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01928079. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.