Suchergebnisse

PurposeContrary to the view that the subsistence economy is some minor residue persisting in only a few peripheral enclaves of modern economies, the purpose of this paper is to begin to chart the importance and prevalence of subsistence work across the contemporary economic landscape and the reasons underpinning engagement in this form of non‐commodified labour.Design/methodology/approachTo do so, the extent of, and reasons for, subsistence production amongst those living in contemporary Moscow is evaluated using face‐to‐face interviews with 313 households in affluent, mixed and deprived districts.FindingsIt was found that subsistence work is a ubiquitous phenomenon which is relied on heavily by Muscovite households. Until now, those participating in such subsistence work have been portrayed either as rational economic actors, dupes, seekers of self‐identity, or simply doing so out of necessity or choice. Rather than depict one as correct and the others as invalid, this survey inductively generates a theoretically‐integrative approach which differentiates between "willing" (rational economic actors, choice, identity seeking) and "reluctant" (economic and market necessity, dupes) participants in subsistence production.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper examines only one city. Further research is now required into the extent of, and reasons for, subsistence production in the rest of Central and Eastern Europe, as well as beyond.Originality/valueThis is one of the first papers to identify and explain the ubiquitous persistence of subsistence work in contemporary economies.

International audience ; Purpose-The purpose of this paper is to offer a conceptual interpretation of the role business families play in the institutional context of sub-Saharan Africa, characterised by voids within the formal institutional setting. Responding to calls to take a holistic perspective of the institutional environment, we develop a conceptual model, showcasing the emergence of relational familial logics within business families that enable these enterprising organisations to navigate the political, economic and socio-cultural terrain of this institutional context. Design/methodology/approach-The authors undertake a review of extant literature on institutional theory, institutional voids, family business and business families and examine the relevance of these theoretical constructs in relation to the institutional environment of Sub-Saharan Africa. The authors offer tentative propositions within our conceptualisation, which the authors discuss in an inductive fashion. Findings-The review underlines the relevance of informal political, economic and socio-cultural institutions within the sub-Saharan context, within which the family as an institution drives business families engagement in institutional entrepreneurship. In doing so, the authors argue business families are best positioned to navigate the existing Sub-Saharan African institutional context. The authors underline the critical relevance of the embeddedness of social relationships that underpin relational familial logic within the sub-Saharan African collectivist socio-cultural system. Originality/value-By challenging the assumptions that institutional voids are empty spaces devoid of institutions, the authors offer an alternative view that institutional voids are spaces where there exists a misalignment of formal and informal institutions. The authors argue that in such contexts within Sub-Saharan Africa, business families are best placed to harness their embeddedness within extended family and community for entrepreneurial activity. The authors argue that family and business logics may complement each other rather than compete. The discussions and propositions have implications for future research on business families and more inclusive forms of family organisations.

PurposeThis paper represents an editorial for this special issue on "Surviving post‐socialism", with a particular geographical focus on countries located in the former Soviet Union (FSU) and in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). In total, six articles are included in this special issue, which seeks to contribute to the existing body of literature on surviving post‐socialism in general and in particular, across all the papers included, paying particular attention to the role of informal economic relations and practices, as fundamental parts of wider economic relations across the FSU and CEE regions. Whilst the papers included in this special issue demonstrate the richness of empirical data which can be generated, also they demonstrate how authors, located in different academic traditions – sociology, political economy and anthropology – can clearly contribute to debates regarding the role of informal economic relations in a number of theoretical and conceptual ways.Design/methodology/approachThis paper attempts to synthesise the main contributions of the six papers within the special issue and in particular seeks to engage with core questions relating to how the empirical findings in these papers contribute to relevant wider theoretical and conceptual debates.FindingsThis paper finds that there is a high degree of linkages between the six papers, in particular relating to the issue of the intermeshing of formal and informal economic spheres.Originality/valueThe value of this paper is that it provides an introduction, overview and clear and concise summary of the remaining six papers in this special issue on "Surviving post‐socialism", outlining the special issue's core aims and contributions.

Based on extensive ethnographic and quantitative research, conducted in Ukraine and Russia between 2004 and 2012, this book's central argument is that for many people the informal economy, such as cash in hand work, subsistence production and the use of social networks, is of great importance to everyday life. Formal work is both a facilitator of such processes and is often supported by them, as people can only afford to undertake low paid formal work as a result of their informal incomes. By looking at the informal nature of formal work and practices, informal practices, gift giving, volun

This article examines the development of civil society in Russia. We argue that cultural and societal norms, which developed during the Soviet period, have continued to shape civil society arrangements in the post-Soviet period. We examine how parallel to recent changes in Russia's economic, political and legal environment, shifts in Russia's contemporary civil society arrangements have occurred. We argue that, similar to a Russian-style democracy and market economy, Russian-style civil society arrangements are clearly emerging. These changes are explained by the cultural–historic legacies of both the Soviet Union and the subsequent peculiarities of Russia's economic, social and political transformations since the collapse of the Soviet Union. In this Russian variant of civil society, its agents have developed and continue to maintain strong and dependent relationships on the state.

To understand entrepreneurs' motivations, it has become increasingly common to distinguish between those driven by necessity (or pushed) and those driven by opportunity (or pulled) into entrepreneurship. Until now, entrepreneurs operating wholly or partially in the informal economy have been widely assumed to be necessity-driven, pushed into this enterprise as a survival strategy in the absence of alternatives. To evaluate whether this is indeed the case, this paper reports one of the first surveys of informal entrepreneurs' motives. Reporting face-to-face interviews conducted in Ukraine during 2005–06 with 298 informal entrepreneurs, the finding is although most identified themselves as necessity entrepreneurs when initially asked whether they were either pushed or pulled, subsequent questions reveal in the vast majority of cases, there were not only both push and pull factors driving their original decision to start-up informal enterprises, but also a clear shift among these entrepreneurs as their business became established away from necessity-oriented motivations and toward more opportunity-oriented motivations. The outcome is a call for a transcendence of a static either/or approach and the adoption of a dynamic both/and approach that recognizes the coexistence of necessity- and opportunity-drivers as well as the fluidity of entrepreneurs' motivations.