IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Beyond competing theories of the hidden economy: Some lessons from Moscow


  • Colin C. Williams
  • John Round


Purpose - This paper aims to evaluate critically the validity of rival theorisations of the hidden economy that variously read this sphere as a leftover from a previous era, a by-product of a new emergent form of capitalism, a complement to formal employment or an alternative to the formal economy. Until now, the common tendency among economic theorists has been to either universally privilege one theorisation over others, or to represent each theory as valid in different places. Design/methodology/approach - To evaluate their validity to the city of Moscow, a survey is reported involving 313 face-to-face interviews with inhabitants conducted during 2005/2006. Findings - The finding is that, although each theory is a valid representation of particular types of hidden work in Moscow, no one theory fully captures the diverse nature of the hidden economy in this city, and that only by combining all of them can a finer-grained understanding of the multifarious character of the hidden economy in this city be achieved. How these theories can be synthesised in order to develop this fuller and more nuanced understanding of the hidden economy is then outlined. Research limitations/implications - This study reveals that all these theories are needed to more fully understand the hidden economy of Moscow. Whether this is similarly the case elsewhere now needs to be investigated. Practical implications - The recognition of multifarious types of hidden work, each with different economic implications, reveals that different policy approaches are perhaps required towards various forms of hidden work. Originality/value - The paper re-theorises the hidden economy as a sphere composed of heterogeneous types of work.

Suggested Citation

  • Colin C. Williams & John Round, 2011. "Beyond competing theories of the hidden economy: Some lessons from Moscow," Journal of Economic Studies, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 38(2), pages 171-185, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:jespps:v:38:y:2011:i:2:p:171-185

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Dollar, David & Kraay, Aart, 2002. "Growth Is Good for the Poor," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 195-225, September.
    2. Pedroni, Peter, 2004. "Panel Cointegration: Asymptotic And Finite Sample Properties Of Pooled Time Series Tests With An Application To The Ppp Hypothesis," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(03), pages 597-625, June.
    3. Kaddour Hadri, 2000. "Testing for stationarity in heterogeneous panel data," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 3(2), pages 148-161.
    4. Fisman, Raymond & Gatti, Roberta, 2002. "Decentralization and Corruption: Evidence from U.S. Federal Transfer Programs," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 113(1-2), pages 25-35, October.
    5. Dincer, Oguzhan C., 2008. "Ethnic and religious diversity and corruption," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 99(1), pages 98-102, April.
    6. Glaeser, Edward L. & Saks, Raven E., 2006. "Corruption in America," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(6-7), pages 1053-1072, August.
    7. Peter Pedroni, 2000. "Fully Modified OLS for Heterogeneous Cointegrated Panels," Department of Economics Working Papers 2000-03, Department of Economics, Williams College.
    8. Im, Kyung So & Pesaran, M. Hashem & Shin, Yongcheol, 2003. "Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 53-74, July.
    9. Kalwij, Adriaan & Verschoor, Arjan, 2007. "Not by growth alone: The role of the distribution of income in regional diversity in poverty reduction," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(4), pages 805-829, May.
    10. Pedroni, Peter, 1999. " Critical Values for Cointegration Tests in Heterogeneous Panels with Multiple Regressors," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 61(0), pages 653-670, Special I.
    11. Fredriksson, Per G. & List, John A. & Millimet, Daniel L., 2003. "Bureaucratic corruption, environmental policy and inbound US FDI: theory and evidence," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(7-8), pages 1407-1430, August.
    12. Nicholas Apergis & Oguzhan Dincer & James Payne, 2010. "The relationship between corruption and income inequality in U.S. states: evidence from a panel cointegration and error correction model," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 145(1), pages 125-135, October.
    13. Timothy Besley & Robin Burgess, 2003. "Halving Global Poverty," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 17(3), pages 3-22, Summer.
    14. Engle, Robert & Granger, Clive, 2015. "Co-integration and error correction: Representation, estimation, and testing," Applied Econometrics, Publishing House "SINERGIA PRESS", vol. 39(3), pages 106-135.
    15. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, 1986. "Testing for Individual Effects in Dynamic Models Using Panel Data," NBER Technical Working Papers 0057, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Choi, In, 2001. "Unit root tests for panel data," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 249-272, April.
    17. Rajeev Goel & Daniel Rich, 1989. "On the economic incentives for taking bribes," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 61(3), pages 269-275, June.
    18. Josep Lluís Carrion-i-Silvestre & Tomás del Barrio-Castro & Enrique López-Bazo, 2005. "Breaking the panels: An application to the GDP per capita," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 8(2), pages 159-175, July.
    19. Levin, Andrew & Lin, Chien-Fu & James Chu, Chia-Shang, 2002. "Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 1-24, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Edward Nissan & Shahdad Naghshpour, 2013. "Connecting corruption to ethnic polarization and religious fractionalization," Journal of Economic Studies, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 40(6), pages 763 - 774, November.


    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:eme:jespps:v:38:y:2011:i:2:p:171-185. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Virginia Chapman). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.