We analyse the emphasis in informal-sector and informal-economy policy, highlighting who runs the risk of being missed. We then interrogate assumptions on which policy objectives are based – notably that the informal sector acts as a ‘shock absorber’ in times of recession and, given the emphasis on the township economy, the spatial dimensions of informal-sector employment. We argue that policy makers should pay attention to harmful regulations, the infrastructure needed and where informal activities fit in value chains.
The debate on unemployment is fragmented into at least three sub-discourses, i.e. those of macroeconomists, labour economists and poverty analysts. This results in inconclusive analyses and narrow, flawed proposals to address the problem. This fragmentation feeds into the policy field. Sustainable and consistent remedies for unemployment and poverty will require an integrated analysis that covers the formal sector, the informal economy and survivalist activities – and especially linkages and barriers between these segments.