Wcms 110508

Coop Working Paper 01-1
Organizing workers in the informal sector
A strategy for trade union-cooperative action
by
Dr. Johnston Birchall
Cooperative Branch
International Labour Office

The Cooperative Branch
The ILO views cooperatives as important in improving the living and working conditions of women and
men globally, as well as making essential infrastructure and services available in areas neglected by the State
and investor-driven enterprises. Moreover, cooperatives have the potential to advance the concept of decent
work. This is because they:
n promote fundamental principles and rights at work by encouraging freedom of association and
workplace democracy;
n create greater opportunities for women and men to secure decent employment and income by enabling
their members to combine resources, skills and talents;
n enhance the coverage and effectiveness of social protection by providing the socially excluded with
basic social services;
n strengthen tripartism and social dialogue by defending the interests of the rural poor and unprotected
workers.
The work of the Cooperative Branch, based on ILO Recommendation No. 127 (1966) (under revision),
includes: providing policy advice to ILO member States; technical cooperation; organizing international
meetings; producing documentation and information to increase public awareness of cooperatives; and
promoting cooperative values and principles. The technical cooperation activities cover a wide range of
themes from cooperative legislation and human resource development to job creation, poverty alleviation and
local economic development.

Contents
Page
Foreword................................................................................................................................. iii
Executive summary.................................................................................................................. vii
Abbreviations .......................................................................................................................... ix
1. Short history of the relationship between cooperatives and trade unions ............................. 1
1.1. Common origins of cooperatives and trade unions ................................................... 1
1.2. Collaboration in the post-war period in developed countries..................................... 3
1.3. Collaboration in the post-war period in developing countries ................................... 5
2. Values, principles and strategies: The two movements compared....................................... 9
3. What is the informal sector?............................................................................................ 12
3.1. How should we value the informal sector?.............................................................. 14
3.2. Does the concept of the informal sector apply only to developing countries?............. 15
3.3. Conclusions from the debate on the informal sector ................................................. 16
4. The needs and problems of informal sector workers.......................................................... 18
5. Trade unions in the informal sector .................................................................................. 22
5.1. Current trade union attitudes .................................................................................. 22
5.2. Current trade union strategies................................................................................. 24
5.3. Strengths and weaknesses of current trade union strategies ...................................... 27
5.4. The implications of trade union attitudes and strategies for cooperatives................... 28
6. Cooperatives in the informal sector .................................................................................. 30
6.1. Current attitudes towards the informal sector .......................................................... 30
6.2. Current strategies in the informal sector.................................................................. 31
7. A trade union-cooperative strategy for organizing informal sector workers......................... 33
7.1. Joint action at the international level....................................................................... 33
7.2. Joint action at the national level ............................................................................. 33
7.3. Joint action at the local level.................................................................................. 34
7.4. The limits of trade union and cooperative action...................................................... 35
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................ 36
Working Papers/informal Sector WP1 v

vi Working Papers/informal Sector WP1

Executive summary
Section 1 describes the common origins of trade unions and cooperatives in the early
period of industrialization, when organizational boundaries were fluid and working people,
whose situation was not unlike those of informal sector workers today, designed local
associations with the purpose both of strengthening the market position of artisans and
providing them with essential consumer goods. Quite quickly the two strategies solidified
of trade unionism and consumer cooperation, and the growth of the two movements, led to
their having to be formally linked as “twin pillars” of the labour movement. The
broadening out of the cooperative movement to include credit, agricultural and worker
cooperatives complicated matters, as did the close alliance of unions with political parties,
but the International Co-operative Alliance managed to resist pressures from some of its
members for a strict definition of “political neutrality” and to continue to collaborate in an
ad hoc way with the International Federation of Trade Unions. During the post-war period
trading difficulties encountered by consumer cooperatives and then an intense debate about
the merits of worker takeovers of failing enterprises, dominated the agenda in developed
countries. In developing countries, both movements were well aware of the need to
collaborate on development issues, but neither had the organizational capacity to fulfil
their aspirations. By the 1980s this desire to collaborate began to be expressed in terms of
the informal sector and in virtually all countries some development of cooperatives among
informal sector workers by trade unions or the established cooperative movement had been
undertaken. However, in relation to the size of the problems informal sector workers face,
and the urgency of their needs, results so far have been modest.
Section 2 provides a brief analysis of the values and principles held by the two
movements. It identifies “first order” values in liberty, equality and solidarity, and second
order values in democracy, mutual help and mutual struggle, and shows how cooperatives
and trade unions share core values, but express them through different strategies. This
means that more emphasis is placed by unions on mutual struggle, by cooperatives on
mutual help, but that in their operating principles again they share a common heritage of
voluntary and open membership and a desire to share the results of their activities with
people as members rather than as contributors of capital. These similarities can be
overlooked when cooperatives themselves become large-scale employers of labour and
unions have to organize workers within them or, in the special case of workers’
cooperatives, when unions promote a completely different form of workers’ emancipation.
They each bring to the informal sector a set of strengths that are wide ranging and
complementary.
Section 3 asks what is the informal sector. It explores some of the strengths and
weaknesses of the concept and finds that it becomes more useful when we concentrate on
the workers and on the process of informalization, rather than on the attributes of a sector.
The key points are that its workers are unprotected and unorganized. The question is then
asked how we should value the informal sector and the paper notes widely differing
viewpoints that range from overly optimistic to pessimistic. It asks whether the concept is
as applicable in developed countries and concludes that, though informalization processes
are going on, they are not as pervasive as in developing countries and so a trade union
strategy to try to resist informalization and to reformalize enterprises is more feasible. The
conclusion is that, from their different points of view, unions and cooperatives have a duty
to work among informal sector workers and have particular affinities with them: the one
with the workers as exploited and unprotected; the other with the workers as entrepreneurs
dealing as best they can in a competitive market.
Section 4 investigates the needs and problems of informal sector workers, finding that
their classification into owners, own-account workers and dependent workers is most
useful. The situation they face can be described as the lack of a whole series of essentials
Working Papers/informal Sector WP1 vii

and the facing of a series of constraints. The situation of women is noted as being
particularly hard in all these respects. The common theme is vulnerability. The discussion
then focuses on the capacity of informal sector workers to overcome these lacks and
constraints through self-organization. The known strengths and weaknesses of their
associations are identified. The conclusion is that unions and cooperatives can bolster these
associations through community development techniques and that, while both can work
well together, unions might have advantages in organizing dependent workers and
cooperatives in developing associations of the self-employed.
Section 5 examines trade union attitudes to informal sector workers, showing that
while it is a major priority at the international level, at the national level attitudes are still
ambivalent and sometimes negative. When they have reservations, union activists point to
potential conflicts of interest between formal and informal sector workers and to the
operational difficulties in organizing in the informal sector. Current strategies at the
international level include the development of core labour standards and their enforcement,
pressure on national unions to develop strategies towards the sector and encouragement of
the replication of successful models of trade union organizing among homeworkers,
plantation workers and so on. The strengths of current strategies are shown by some
women’s trade unions that have managed to organize among homeworkers. However,
analysis of their record shows that as they grow these kinds of unions need to deal with
problems of managerial and organizational capacity and a need to ensure continuing
democratic accountability. The question is asked whether unions and cooperatives need to
be backed by a social movement such as nationalism or feminism, in order really to take
off into sustained growth.
Section 6 attempts to identify cooperative attitudes to the informal sector and finds
that the concept has not been much used. This is because the boundaries between formal
and informal are not as important to organizations that are used to dealing in the market
economy as a whole. There is a parallel concern with a “formal” cooperative sector that
is currently undergoing restructuring and retrenchment under the impact of structural
adjustment and progressive withdrawal of government involvement and an “informal”
sector of informal cooperatives and pre-cooperatives that show great vibrancy and
potential for growth. Strategies specifically for the informal sector still need to be
developed, but it is expected that at the international level the movement can respond
quickly to the need to develop a joint strategy with the trade union movement. The known
strengths and weaknesses of different types of cooperative are considered for their
relevance to such a strategy, and it is concluded that credit and insurance cooperatives and
trade-based supply and marketing cooperatives have the most potential.
Section 7 proposes a joint strategy. At the international level, there is a need for a
statement of common intent by the ICA and ICFTU. The linking of specialist organizations
of the ICA and the international trade secretariats of the ICFTU would enable an inventory
to be made of the specialist skills available. Regional seminars might then lead to a series
of local demonstration projects, organized by the regional offices of the ILO, ICA and
ICFTU, in conjunction with national-level federations. At the local level it is proposed that
up to four models be considered for joint working: a local resource centre staffed by
experts from both unions and cooperatives, a development agency working with
community groups, a similar agency working with associations of trades people and
specialized trade unions that can organize among distinct subsectors such as women
homeworkers, supported by teams of cooperative developers. Finally, the limits of joint
action are identified, in issues such as social security, health and safety and provision of
land rights and infrastructure, where unions and cooperatives can be pressure groups,
channels, facilitators, but where success depends on the coordinated efforts of a range of
other agencies such as local governments, health workers, employer organizations and
NGOs.
viii Working Papers/informal Sector WP1

Abbreviations
COPAC Committee for the Promotion and Advancement of Cooperatives
DANIDA Danish Agency for Development Assistance
DIGNITE Confédération des syndicats libres de Côte d’Ivoire
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization
FENALTHYS Federación Nacional de Trabajadores de las Industrias del Turismo-
Hotelero, de la Alimentación, las Bebidas y Similares de Colombia
FETRALCOS Federación Latinoamericana de Trabajadores del Comercio
ICA International Co-operative Alliance
ICEM International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General
Workers’ Unions
ICFTU International Confederation of Free Trade Unions
IFBWW International Federation of Building and Wood Workers
IFPAAW International Federation of Plantation, Agricultural and Allied Workers
IFTU International Federation of Trade Unions
ILO International Labour Organization
ITGLWF International Federation of Textile, Garment and Leather Workers’
Federation
IUF International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant,
Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations
LEAD-CO Labor Education for Assistance and Development-TUCP
NGO Non-governmental organization
SEWA Self-Employed Women’s Association
SEWU Self-Employed Women’s Union
SINTRAINAGRO Sindicato Nacional de la Industria Agropecuaria de Colombia
SNTUC Singapore National Trades Union Congress
SYNAFSI Syndicat National des Femmes du Secteur Informel
TUCP Trade Union Congress of the Philippines
UN United Nations
WCL World Confederation of Labour
WFTU World Federation of Trade Unions
Working Papers/informal Sector WP1 ix

1. Short history of the relationship between
cooperatives and trade unions
1.1. Common origins of cooperatives
and trade unions
Cooperatives and trade unions are modern institutions, the products of an industrial
revolution that radically altered the terms under whic h people laboured in order to earn
their subsistence and that necessitated new forms of self-protection for the emerging
working classes. 1 In Britain, where industrialization began earliest, they both trace their
origins to an earlier form of working class mutual aid, the friendly society, a simple mutual
insurance club invented to cope with the risks working people faced in an uncertain world
where the idea of state -sponsored social security still had to be invented. With hindsight,
we can say confidently that the first cooperative movement began in Brighton, England, in
1827, but when William Bryan and Dr. King set up their shop they could not have said
whether their new venture was a cooperative or a trade union; in fact, they would probably
not have understood the question. Their “Brighton Co-operative Trading Association” was
a cooperative, a term already being used to describe mutual trading, but it was also an
association of people who belonged to trade associations with names such as the “Boot and
Shoe Makers Society”, the “Society of Tailors” and the “Hearts of Oak Society of
Carpenters”. These trade societies were as much descendants of the medieval guilds as
they were the ancestors of the modern trade unions; skilled workers were still mainly self-employed,
working in small workshops and selling their services and products to a main
contractor or directly to a final customer.
At that time, the term “union” was used to describe “almost any sort of working class
movement animated by a socialist ideal; 2 there could be unions for cooperative
production, unions for political reform and “union shops”. The Brighton shop was one of
these, having the dual purpose of bulk purchasing of essentials such as flour, oatmeal and
candles and sale of goods made by its members. It was a blend of what we would call
consumer and worker cooperation. 3 At the same time, trade unionism of the sort we
recognize today was emerging in such trades as the building and the cotton industries, with
national-level unions being formed, such as the Grand General Union of Cotton Spinners.
Not long after the Brighton shop opened, Robert Owen was attempting to weld these into
one “Grand National Consolidated Union” that would use the general strike as a weapon to
achieve political rights.
By the time the Rochdale Pioneers opened their famous “Toad Lane” store in 1844,
they were conscious that there was a range of strategies for defending the living standards
of working people: local and general strikes to keep up wages, political agitation for the
vote, reform movements for labour protection, cooperative stores, worker co-production,
and so on. The weavers who met to decide what to do next when a recent strike had failed
might equally have set up their own workshop, or continued with their political organizing
for a democratic “charter”, but they chose to put their tiny resources into opening a store.
From then on, we can see how trade unionism and cooperation began to part company. The
1 Birchall (1994).
2 Cole (1994), p. 24.
3 Birchall (1994).
Working Papers/informal Sector WP1 1

success of the Rochdale model – its rapid replication by hundreds of other societies and
their entry into wholesaling and own-production – meant that cooperatives developed a
narrower vision of their mission and a distinct institutional identity. Trade unions remained
receptive to the idea of worker cooperatives, especially when their members were locked
out by employers or when trade was booming, but by the end of the century they had
narrowed their mission to the defence of waged employees and the promotion of their
interests via the Labour Party.
Consumer cooperatives became large-scale employers of labour and trade unions
began to find them relatively easy places in which to organize. Cooperatives demonstrated
that they were different from other employers by encouraging their employees to join
unions, setting exemplary wages and conditions and allowing some places on their boards
of directors for members who were also employees. There were occasional
misunderstandings, such as in the early stages of the General Strike in 1926, when trade
unionists were not sure whether to blockade cooperatives (even as they were delivering
supplies to trade unions) and there were even occasional strikes by cooperative
employees.4 But these were the exception to what was still a close working relationship;
the two streams of activity had consolidated as separate movements but along with the
Labour Party were considered pillars of the “labour movement”.
A similar story can be told in most other Western European countries, so that by 1910
the Congress of the Socialist International in Copenhagen could declare that there were
three wings of the “socialist movement” each remaining independent but mutually
supportive. The International Co-operative Congress was able to reply that cooperation’s
distinct purpose was “to protect the interests of labour by increasing the income from
labour and by strengthening the purchasing power of workers”. 5 This argument was
accepted by the founders of the International Labour Organization when, in 1920, they set
up a Cooperative Section, arguing that cooperatives could work alongside trade unions to
“improve workers’ living conditions”. 6
There were two major problems, though. First, most trade union movements
supported social democratic or socialist parties while consumer cooperatives were
supposed to be politically neutral. In reality, there were many political linkages. The most
overt was in Britain where a Co-operative Party, formed in 1917 to counter discrimination
against the movement experienced during the wartime, quite quickly entered into an
alliance with the Labour Party. In other countries unions promoted and provided
continuing support for cooperatives and there were strong cultural ties between the two
movements. Where the unions split along political or religious lines, the cooperatives
tended to do the same. Yet at the international level the International Co-operative Alliance
(ICA) declared its political neutrality at its first meeting in 1895 and thereafter distanced
itself from the equivalent international trade union bodies whenever members felt that this
neutrality was in danger. By 1924, in response to “Soviet propaganda among western
cooperative movements” the Gent Congress reminded members of the principle and asked
the secretary, Henry May, to prepare a memo setting out the implications of this for
relations with the International Federation of Trade Unions. The next year, the Central
Committee of the ICA unanimously endorsed May’s view that joint action was acceptable
if it was consistent with the aims of the ICA, but Congress showed continuing caution by
4 Lambert (1996) notes strikes in France in 1919 and 1920, in the English CWS in 1922, and in the
Woolwich Arsenal in 1925.
5 Rhodes (1995), p. 48.
6 ibid., p. 49.
2 Working Papers/informal Sector WP1

approving joint action only “in such specific matters as may arise from time to time, and
subject to each question being previously submitted to and approved by the Central
Committee”. During the inter-war period, then, the ICA and IFTU did manage to work
together on an “ad hoc” basis. 7
The second problem was that the cooperative movement did not just consist of
consumer cooperatives. In Germany, self-employed artisans and small traders in the towns,
and small farmers in the rural areas, established a different kind of cooperation, based on
credit banking. 8 In Denmark, farmers developed the agricultural cooperative for supply,
marketing and processing of farm products. In France and Italy, the workers’ cooperative
was promoted as a way of emancipating labour altogether from the employee-employer
relationship. All of these models spread, more or less rapidly, from country to country and
their relationship with the trade unions was much less close than that of the consumer
cooperatives. The Raiffeisen cooperative banking movement withdrew from membership
of the ICA in 1904 but other movements continued membership and, though the Alliance
was dominated by the consumer cooperatives, it had to represent the interests of other
cooperative movements that objected to being aligned too closely with the labour
movement.
1.2. Collaboration in the post-war period
in developed countries
After the Second World War and the onset of the “cold war”, political strains within
the ICA intensified and there was a continuous struggle to keep the Alliance from
fracturing. The trade union movement did divide into two – the International
Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and the World Federation of Trade Unions
(WFTU). The ICA managed to maintain relationships with both of them. National-level
organizations also met regularly, at least in Western European countries, but the judgement
of one commentator writing in the early 1960s was that “even where these contacts exist,
collaboration could be closer, more decisive and more constant”. 9
By this time, the consumer cooperative movements of most Western European
countries were beginning to encounter serious competition from multiple traders and began
a long and painful process of consolidation and centralization of their operations. The
atrophying of their democratic base of customer-members was both a cause of their
difficulties and a consequence of the attempts to restructure. For trade unionists the “Co-op”
became irrelevant, almost ceasing to exist in their consciousness as part of the labour
movement. At national level, unions continued to give support, sometimes becoming
embroiled in the financial affairs of the cooperatives: in Germany, the unions managed to
sell their shares in Co-op AG (which had converted to a shareholding company) before it
went bankrupt. Cooperatives declined fastest in those areas (such as Northern France)
7 Minutes of the Central Committee of the ICA, 6 Oct. 1925. Some Scandinavian members wanted
to keep the ICA to a much narrower role. May argued that article 4f of the ICA statutes on “s pecial
collaboration with other international organizations pursuing aims of importance to cooperation”,
licensed “neutral joint action” with the IFTU. He identified as acceptable subjects the prevention of
strikes among cooperative employees, promotion of universal peace, and evolution of international
fiscal policy.
8 Birchall (1997).
9 Lambert (1996), p. 199.

where they were most bound up with an industrial working class culture that was also
finding it hard to adapt to large-scale economic change. 10
Two exceptions to this picture were Israel, where cooperatives and trade unions
continued to maintain very close links and Denmark, where the unions had a long tradition
of financing workers’ productive enterprises. 11 Then, with the shock to the economic
system of the western economies caused by the 1973 oil price rise, trade unions in several
countries began to take an interest in worker rescues of firms threatened with closure.
Within a decade, around 1,000 worker takeovers had been achieved in Italy, 1,300 in Spain
and around 200 in Britain. In France, expansion in this area was initially delayed by trade
union attitudes and in West Germany again unions remained reluctant to support the new
workers’ cooperatives. It is worth identifying reasons why there was such suspicion among
some trade unionists, in case similar attitudes affect collaboration between the two
movements in the informal sector:
n there was suspicion that, in order to survive in the market, cooperatives might pay
low wages and worse terms and conditions;
n they might undercut prices in conventional firms, thus putting more jobs at risk;
n only some of the jobs threatened by firm closures would be saved;
n development of cooperatives was an unfamiliar strategy, demanding new skills of
trade unionists in business planning and marketing;
n cooperatives undermined collective bargaining, by taking workers out of the
employee-employer relationship;
n for Marxists they were a diversion from class struggle, splitting class interests. 12
Researchers at the time felt that this critique was overstated, though it pointed to some
genuine difficulties in the relationship that cooperatives had to be aware of and to
overcome. In Italy, there were no such reservations on the part of trade unionists.
Holmstrom reports that in the large cooperatives almost all members belonged to a union,
even those who as board members or managers had a different “class interest”. In the
Emilia-Romagna region there was a high concentration of both worker cooperatives and
union membership; both types of workers’ organization shared a common culture. They
were helped by the decentralization of collective bargaining in the 1970s when works
councils became part of the structure of the cooperatives. 13 Yet in the Mondragon
cooperatives in the Basque region of Spain the absence of unions was not felt as a
disadvantage, rather the cooperatives’ own structures were felt to be adequate in protecting
the interests of members.
Towards the end of the 1980s when, with more stable economic conditions, the rate
of cooperative rescues had slowed and the fall of communist regimes had taken much of
the ideological heat out of the debate, it began to be recognized that workers’ cooperatives
10 Brazda and Schediwy (1998).
11 For Denmark, see Stettner (1979).
12 Paton et al (1989).
13 Holmstrom.

and trade unions were simply different ways of emancipating labour. A “new unionism”
began to emerge that emphasized not only collective bargaining but services to members
and the Western European unions became interested in what is perhaps the most
complementary and easily organized of cooperatives for union members – credit unions.
These have become the fastest growing part of the cooperative movement and it is the
workplace-based credit unions that are the strongest.
1.3. Collaboration in the post-war period
in developing countries
In developing countries, meanwhile, there were calls from all sides for collaboration
between the two movements. In 1966, in Malaysia the first of many seminars was held on
trade unionism and cooperation, focusing on the potential synergy to be gained from their
collaborating in development. In the same year, the International Labour Office (ILO)
became involved, with an international labour conference on the role of cooperatives in
development that encouraged workers’ organizations to help in the implementation of
plans. The ILO continued with an interregional meeting to highlight the complementary
role of trade unions and cooperatives and this was followed by a series of regional and
national seminars in Nairobi, Singapore, Ankara and Guyana. In 1970 the ICFTU Round
Table on Trade Unions in Asia emphasized cooperative development within unions,
suggesting they promote credit unions, producer and consumer cooperatives on behalf of
union members. A panel of experts organized by the ICFTU recommended for rural India
the setting up of multi-purpose cooperatives functioning as both unions and cooperatives.
By 1971, the World Conference of the ICFTU was calling for the trade union movement to
broaden its base in rural areas by developing cooperatives and, when a Committee for the
Promotion and Advancement of Cooperatives was formed (COPAC), one of the ICFTU’s
sectoral organizations – the International Federation of Plantation, Agricultural and Allied
Workers – became a member, along with the ICA, the ILO, the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) and the Social Development Division of the United Nations.
In 1972 the 25th Congress of the ICA in Warsaw adopted a resolution on “Unified
action of cooperatives and trade union movements” proposed by members from Eastern
Europe and the USSR, which was agreed practically without discussion. It stated that the
two movements were “united by a unity of purpose which opens wide possibilities for a
comprehensive collaboration between them”, which was to be directed at improving the
standard of living of the “broad masses of the working people”. 14 Speaking to the ICA, the
General Secretary of the ICFTU put great stress on collaboration with the cooperative
movement, saying “there is clearly a need for an ever closer coordination of their efforts
and our own in the developing regions. 15
These top-level commitments were slow to translate into action on the ground. An
ICA report in 1975 found that “In no developing country have trade unions or cooperatives
as yet made a concerted effort to coordinate their activities”. 16 An expert report of the
same period found that there was little organized collaboration and the two movements
14 Rhodes (1995), p. 464.
15 ICA (1975), p. 4.
16 ICA (1975), p. 8. The exception cited was Colombia, where the national trade union council set
up a cooperative department as early as 1957.

were institutionally divorced. 17 It is worth pausing at this point to identify some of the
reasons why collaboration was proving so difficult:
n both movements were weak both financially and in political influence;
n they had to counter hostile government attitudes;
n laws prevented the use of trade union funds for the development of cooperatives;
n institutional memberships between the two types of organization were forbidden;
n trade unions mistrusted cooperatives because of the large amount of government
involvement in them;
n in some cases, cooperatives had a poor record as employers;
n cooperatives mistrusted the unions: workers’ cooperators saw them as unnecessary;
agricultural cooperators who were relatively well-off farmers viewed them with
suspicion; though consumer cooperators found them most compatible;
n where unions sponsored new cooperatives there was some tension between the new
and old “movements”, with the latter being suspicious that there was too much union
control;
n cooperatives mistrusted the unions because of their tendency to be aligned to political
parties;
n the unions had a “tripartite” mind set that tended to see the relationship between
workers, employers and government as being all important. 18
In so far as these problems still exist, they will have to be taken into account in our
consideration of a joint strategy towards the informal sector. Yet, at this time around the
mid-1970s an inventory of trade union and cooperative collaboration would include many
examples of successful projects. In India, the dockworkers, railway, postal and telegraph
unions had all established credit, consumer and housing cooperatives for their members.
One independent consumer cooperative that was not functioning well had been taken over
and run successfully by one of the largest trade union federations. Building unions had set
up construction cooperatives and a textile union had set up a store sellin g cloth from
cottage industries. In Indonesia the railway workers’ union had set up a consumer
cooperatives department. In the Philippines the Associated Labour Union was providing
consumer and medical services, while in Singapore the NTUC had set up dental and
insurance cooperatives for members and promoted a workers’ cooperative among self-employed
taxi and minibus drivers. In Sri Lanka, cooperative canteens, credit unions,
insurance and consumer cooperatives had been set up. In Turkey, the unions had sponsored
housing cooperatives. In Latin America and Africa the picture was similar: a scattering of
housing, consumer and credit cooperatives, with occasional organizing of self-employed
workers in transport and textiles into workers’ cooperatives.
Despite limited evidence of collaboration at national level, international organizations
continued to press for it. In a sense, they had no choice because there was no substitute for
17 Münkner (1976).
18 Points 1-8, made by the ICA report (1975), and points 9-10 by Münkner (1976).

such action, no obvious alternative strategy for each of the two movements if they wanted
to have an impact on the lives of the poor. As the ICA report put it:
Little has been attempted so far but, in view of the urgency of the problem
regarding the general economic situation in developing countries, such action
should not be delayed for too long. 19
Pressure was kept up by the trade union side. In 1983 the All India TUC called for
organizing the “unorganized” to be made a priority, complaining that there had been few
achievements on record. In 1988 the term “informal sector” began to be used. The World
Congress of the ICFTU noted the growth of this sector during the 1980s and called on
national centres to make it a priority. A report commissioned to follow this Congress found
that “the crucial task facing the labour movement” was “to reorientate the mode of
mobilization and to redefine the concept of worker”. 20 In reviewing trade union action in
the informal sector, it found that “grass-roots projects have the best chance of success
where a combination of trade union and cooperative activities is judiciously applied”. 21
Action does seem to have been slow in coming, for in 1989 a report from an eminent
Indian cooperator complained that close collaboration was still the exception and that,
despite continuing international seminars, there had been no real dia logue between the two
movements and even still some mistrust. 22 In that same year two important reports were
published, both recommending that collaboration be aimed particularly at the informal
sector, where the poor economic conditions and exploitation of labour were a challenge to
both movements. The reports recommended the following actions:
n the ICA and ICFTU should have a common strategic approach to working with the
ILO and other UN agencies;
n they should develop common policies in areas of joint concern such as the labour
movements of third world countries and in utilizing the expertise of the ICA’s
specialist organizations;
n there was a key role for COPAC in developing this new phase in cooperative and
trade union relations. 23
Work on the informal sector continued, with the ILO taking the lead in convening
subregional seminars and then in 1994 setting up an interdepartmental action-research
project that considerably expanded our knowledge of how to develop a comprehensive
strategy towards the informal sector. 24
What is surprising about this debate is the lack of any contribution from the
cooperative side. The ICFTU and the ILO have continued to push for action; yet since the
report in 1975 the ICA seems to have been preoccupie d with other issues. In the early
1980s it went through a painful restructuring process and then began to concentrate on the
19 ICA (1975), p. 23.
20 Mitter (1989), p. 7.
21 ibid., p. 35.
22 Sharma (1989).
23 Laub (1989) and ICFTU (1989).
24 ILO (1994 and 1995).

major task of updating cooperative values and principles, but it has also had a continuing
involvement with cooperative movements in developing countries. 25 It has been concerned
with the impact of structural adjustment, the drafting of new cooperative laws in Africa
and Eastern Europe, and with the development of informal or pre-cooperatives among
poorer people and particularly among women, but its concern seems not to have been
expressed in terms of the informal sector. This means that much work needs to be done in
putting the question of collaboration in this sector on the cooperative agenda.
However, the two movements have continued their “ad hoc” colla boration. In 1997
Eddy Laurijssen, the Assistant General Secretary of the ICFTU, addressed the World
Assembly of the ICA, noting that the underlying aims of the two movements were the
same, but suggesting that they still had to consider the coordination of strategies. The
backing of the trade unions within the ILO for the revision of Recommendation No. 127 on
cooperative development has been an important demonstration of solidarity and it should
lead to greater collaboration between the two movements in the process of its revision.
Likewise, the endorsement by the ICA Board in April 1999 of the ILO Declaration on
Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work is an important statement of intent and could
contribute significantly to the continued dialogue between the movements. However, one
cannot help hearing in Laurijssen’s words echoes of similar sentiments expressed many
times over the last few decades and there are still important questions to be asked about
how such collaboration can be sustained. A focus on the needs of workers in the informal
sector of developing countries may be one answer, though this raises a whole new set of
questions. Before we turn to these, however, it may be useful to examine in more depth the
values and principles on which each movement is based, in order to find out if there really
is an underlying solidarity on which collaborative strategies can be based.
25 Birchall (1997a), Ch. 2.

2. Values, principles and strategies:
The two movements compared
Values are deeply held beliefs about what is important. They give us the energy we
need in order to act, give direction to our work and help determine our priorities. If we
know what values people hold we can compare these with our own and determine whether
or not we can work together. What is true of individuals is also true of social movements;
values are held in common, help to provide a sense of common purpose and help to
distinguish one movement from another. There are two kinds of values. We might call
them “first order” and “second order” values, the distinction being between values that are
ends in themselves and those that are a means to an end. 1 The trilogy of liberty, equality
and fraternity (the last better referred to in non-sexist language as solidarity or community)
are generally considered to be ends; they are a means to the good life (what Aristotle called
“eudaemonic”), but in western liberal thought it is assumed that, because individuals do
not necessarily agree on what this good life consists of, we should stop short at specifying
any more closely what it might be and consider the various combinations of liberty,
equality and solidarity that provide the best conditions for it.
Political philosophers disagree over definitions of liberty and equality and tend to
value one higher than the other, recognizing that both cannot be maximized and that at
some point a trade-off has to be made between them. Solidarity is important because the
extent and nature of the ties that bind people to each other will tend to determine how
much inequality they will tolerate, how much liberty they are prepared to allow to others,
and so on. Second order values that are relevant to this discussion include democracy,
mutual help and mutual struggle . Democracy is a means of making decisions which allows
for formal equality (one person one vote, and all votes counting equally), as a
compensation for joint decision-making which inevitably takes away people’s liberty
through enforcement of majority decisions. Mutual help expresses the reality that people
who do not have enough resources to maximize their own liberty can work together to
create resources that they would not have been able to create on their own. Mutual struggle
expresses the reality that less advantaged people will experience opposition to their search
for the good life by restrictions put on their liberty by others who are more powerful than
they are and that again the only way to overcome this is through mutual cooperation.
Together, these values lead to operating principles expressed in the organizations
people create, principles such as voluntariness, fair-sharing in the results of joint action,
open membership, and so on.
Figure 1. Common values and principles
First order values Second order values Operating principles Change strategies
Liberty Democracy Voluntariness Economic
Equality Mutual help (C) Share in results Political (TU)
Solidarity Mutual struggle (TU) Membership-based; open recruitment Cultural (C)
We can see how, while they emphasize different aspects of this set of values and
principles, cooperatives and trade unions have much in common. They both emphasize the
need for equal access to basic resources in order for people to be free from want.
Cooperators emphasize equality of opportunity more than equality of condition but
1 Birchall (1997b).

acknowledge that without basic equality of condition people cannot begin to meet their
needs through mutual help. Trade unionists emphasize equality of condition and use the
language of rights rather than of opportunities but it is only a matter of emphasis; there is
no basic disagreement over core values. One maximizes liberty by mutual help in joint
trading, the other by mutual struggle against those who would appropriate the value
created by people’s labour. They use the same kind of associational principles in
fashioning their organization but they differ in the strategies they use to express their
values; unions, of necessity, use political as well as economic means to achieve their aims,
while cooperatives remain economic and cultural institutions. However, we have noted
from the brief historical review that these distinctions are not hard and fast; cooperative
movements can be politically active and unions can offer cooperative-type services to their
members. Both can unite to defend their common interests against forces that would
destroy their democratic rights to associate.
The differences in strategy are important. Cooperatives create value through joint
trading or working together, while trade unions create value through paid work and then
extract a proportion of it by negotiation with an employer. Cooperatives are enterprises;
unions are mechanisms for collective bargaining. Both want to put capital in its place.
Cooperatives acknowledge the need for capital in the creation of value but find ways of
rewarding it only as much as is absolutely necessary. Unions also accept the need for
capital but, because it is provided by private or public sector owners of capital whose
primary purpose is not the benefit of the workers, aim to extract as much of it as they can
in an inevitably antagonistic relationship. Cooperatives have a common economic interest
against other providers in the market but this is usually a more diffuse kind of antagonism.
The logical outcome of cooperative trading is eventually to overcome the antagonism in a
completely cooperative economy, while trade unions have no way of overcoming the
antagonisms; they have to live with them.
Cooperatives, as trading concerns, can be employers of labour and have to negotiate
with unions, while unions cannot, by definition, be employers (though they do employ
their own staff to a limited extent, who also bargain with their employers). Cooperative
members have a complex triple membership as co-owners, users and shareholders, which
makes governance of cooperatives challenging. Union members have a simpler
relationship to the union, but there are tensions between their affiliation to a trade and to a
workplace which also need careful management. Lastly, in most kinds of cooperatives,
expanding the membership tends to benefit existing members by lowering prices and trade
expenses so it pays them to be politically neutral. In unions, expansion of members is also
beneficial as it increases their bargaining power. It also pays them to be politically active
so as to win concessions and protection from governments, yet they must not alienate their
members in doing so.
In sum, the differences between the two movements are real and there are some
differences in kind but most are only a matter of degree. They do go some way to
explaining the limitations of joint action and help us to understand why collaboration has
been relatively weak. A common strategy has to identify areas of common interest and
base the relationship on an honest assessment of these interests. Where there is a common
commitment to meeting the needs of low-income groups, people who only have their
labour to sell (whether as wage earners, contractors or self-employed), they share a set of
fundamental core values as a basis for action. This is important when we consider the
needs of workers in the informal sector.
While the principles and strategies of each movement differ, they can be made
complementary. There is a great deal of potential synergy if the strengths of the two can be
brought together. Cooperatives have these strengths:

n entrepreneurial and managerial skills;
n access to capital;
n access to markets (on the enterprise side);
n an existing membership base;
n access to governments and NGOs;
n a track record of concern to alleviate poverty through enterprise.
Trade unions have these strengths:
n organizing and negotiating skills;
n access to labour and employers;
n access to governments (labour laws, regulation side);
n an existing membership base;
n access to a check-off system for member fees;
n a track record of concern for workers’ rights, health and safety.
If we define trade unions as organizations of workers (regardless of whether they are
wage earners) and if we define cooperatives as organizations of working people improving
their economic position in the market, we see that there is a great deal of potential synergy
in the two approaches. As we shall see below, this is demonstrated by new types of union
organization in the informal sector and by informal sector self-help groups which often
demonstrate the underlying values, the operating principles and the broad strategies of both
movements.

3. What is the informal sector?
When we define a concept, we are not engaged in a neutral activity. The definition
shows what we are interested in but excludes other aspects of a subject that might also turn
out to be interesting. In relation to people who are included in the definition, it shows who
we care about. It invites theorizing, and can lead to action but, if the theory is abstract or
pessimistic, it may also serve to block off action by telling us that something is not worth
doing. From the policy point of view, then, some definitions are more useful than others.
The term “informal sector” has been used by the ILO since the early 1970s and represents
a considerable intellectual investment in a concept that has been well used but also heavily
criticized. It has the virtue of refocusing attention away from the “urban poor” to an
economic sector in which poor people are finding ways to survive. In this respect it is a
positive concept. In other respects it has the weakness of being defined almost entirely in
negatives. The most uninteresting definition is “those activities which are not recorded in
the national income accounts of the majority of countries”; 1 the fact that much economic
activity is not recorded in the gross national product of many countries is a cause for some
concern, but mainly to government economists and statisticians. More interesting is the
idea that it is unregulated: “income-generation activities which take place outside of the
formal regulatory framework”. 2 This does not mean that it is illegal, just that it is
unregulated by the State. Since the boundaries of state regulation vary from one country to
another and the content of regulation is not specified, this is also relatively uninteresting.
The next step is to add together several traits that describe the sector, each of which is
contrasted with its opposite in the formal sector. Figure 2 summarizes the most commonly
cited traits:
This approach has been heavily criticized for lacking explanatory value,
oversimplifying the relationship with the formal sector, offering no positive criteria with
which an activity can be assigned to one sector or the other, being difficult to
operationalize, and so on. 3 As Connolly puts it, it is not a theoretical system but “an
indefinite agglomeration of partial causal relations referring to a wide variety of social
phenomena”. 4 Behind some of the criticisms is a Marxist preference for the term “petty
commodity production” which we will explore later when we come to ask how the
informal sector should be valued. A much more interesting definition is of “units engaged
in the production of goods or services with the primary objective of generating
employment and incomes to the persons concerned”. 5 This brings out the crucial point that
the informal sector exists mainly because people who do not have access to formal waged
employment find ways of surviving by dealing in local markets in whatever way they can.
Once we focus on the people who work in this sector, we find the subject becoming more
interesting and more intellectually coherent. Informal workers are people who are
“working class” in the sense that they have little capital and few fixed assets and live
mainly by selling their labour or the results of their labour. They differ from “organized
labour” because they do not work in a recognized enterprise for an identifiable employer
and so tend to be excluded from the protections gained through collective bargaining and
1 Thomas (1992), p. 1.
2 Sassen (1997), p. 2.
3 Roldan (1985); Connolly (1987), etc.
4 Connolly (1987), p. 57.
5 Maldonado (1995), p. 20.

labour laws. They are unprotected workers, in an unregulated sector. They may be self-employed,
employed casually without a contract, members of a family business, or
homeworkers employed on a piece-work basis, but their common characteristics are that
they are trying to sell their labour or the products of their labour in an unprotected labour
market.
Figure 2. Characteristics of the informal and formal sectors 6
Informal Formal
Ease of entry Difficult entry
Reliance on indigenous resources Reliance on overseas resources
Family ownership Corporate ownership
Small scale of operation Large scale
Labour-intensive production methods Capital intensive
Adapted technology Imported technology
Skills acquired outside formal school system Formally acquired skills, often expatriate
Unregulated, competitive markets Protected markets (tariffs, quotas, trade licenses)
We can then bring in a more dynamic concept not of a sector but of a process of
“informalization”, whose boundaries are shifting all the time. From the demand side,
informalization occurs for two reasons: the formal sector finds it convenient and profitable
to contract out work that used to be done by protected, waged workers; and the urban poor
need access to goods and services they can afford, which usually means locally produced
rather than imported. From the supply side, it occurs because people who used to work for
wages in the protected sector have been thrown out of work, or because they have not been
able to enter the protected sector in the first place. At this point, we could drop the idea of
formal and informal sectors and just talk about workers who are more or less protected.
After all, in most countries not all formal sector workers are unionized and not all informal
sector workers are unionized; a study in Lima in 1983, for instance, found that trade union
membership was 39 per cent in the formal sector, 1.33 per cent in the informal. There are
areas of the formal sector in which unionization is low or non-existent; in free trade zones,
for instance, which in other ways have all the traits of the formal sector. There are areas of
the informal sector in which, in admittedly rare instances, trade union membership is
comparatively high. Those who defend the idea of “informal sector workers” argue that
there is a very high correlation between a particular group of “employment situations” and
low income: absence of medical coverage and labour benefits; instability of employment;
absence of trade unions; lack of access to credit; and operation without legal sanction. On
the other hand, if we identify workers by these traits we find that around a third of them are
in the formal sector! It is a fallacy to identify inferior labour conditions with a particular
type of production relations. 7
Before we drop the idea of the informal sector completely, though, we ought to see
why it has been valued by so many researchers and policy analysts and ask if there are any
good theoretical substitutes for it.
6 Summarized by Thomas (1992), based on the ILO mission to Kenya in 1972.
7 Connolly (1987), p. 74.

3.1. How should we value the informal sector?
The starting point for debate must be a recognition that, whatever the theoretical
shortcomings of the concept, the term “informal sector” testifies to a growing phenomenon
in the economies of developing countries; outside of the state -regulated, legally
recognized, corporate sector there are a growing number of people who work as small-scale
producers and providers of services, mainly self-employed or casualized, a high
proportion of whom are women and migrants from rural areas. They are based in squatter
settlements and on the city streets and use mainly local technologies, using skills gained
outside the formal education system, drawing on family, friends and kinship networks in
highly informal employment relationships. Their enterprises are largely unrecognized by
governments; they tend to avoid most regulatory requirements, are not members of trade
unions and do not concern themselves with issues of health and safety. Whether or not the
people who work in this way are a “sector”, they are responsible for providing employment
for large proportions of the populations of many developing countries. Because of
structural adjustment programmes and the inequalities of world trade, the public sector and
the corporate private sectors are contracting and shedding labour. We need urgently to
learn how to value the “informal” parts of these economies.
It is possible to value the “informal sector” in a variety of ways. There is a “new
right” view that sees it as an example of entrepreneurship occurring precisely because of
the lack of regulation and state interference. In this view, the informality of the sector is its
attraction and trade union attempts to organize workers and to regulate and protect labour
would be seen as counter-productive. Cooperatives tend, in this view, to be seen as
unnecessary because entrepreneurs are motivated by individual incentives, though trade
associations that provide training and help with marketing would be welcomed. Needless
to say, this viewpoint overlooks the poverty, exploitation and economic marginality of
much of this sector. As Riddell points out, the African city seems to be vibrant because of
its informal sector but the energy that goes into street trading masks the deep effects of
structural adjustment policies that have reduced the formal economy. 8 However, if trade
unions were successfully to organize in the informal sector, it is from this libertarian
“Utopian” point of view that political opposition can be expected to come. There is an “old
left” view that the informal sector is really just “petty commodity production”, a sector that
is marginal and will gradually die out as the “modern” sector grows. It emphasizes the
underemployment and hidden unemployment within the sector as proof that its workers are
a “reserve army of labour”, which competes with and pulls down wages in the formal
sector. This viewpoint overlooks the fact that, while some trades such as homeworkers and
building subcontractors are linked to the formal sector, much of the informal sector
provides a quite separate set of goods and services that would not otherwise be provided. It
also overlooks the uncomfortable possibility that, rather than just being a reserve, these
workers are actually surplus to requirements; they are a “fourth world” which is simply
irrelevant to the workings of the global economy. 9 Nevertheless, to the extent that this
“old left” view is still held within trade unions, it may inhibit strategies to organize in the
informal sector.
There is a “new left” view that sees potential in informal workers as elements of an
urban social movement, organizing around neighbourhoods rather than the workplace and
campaigning as much for land rights and local government services as for wages and
conditions of work. In this view, trade unions and cooperatives are encouraged to work in
8 Riddel (1997).
9 The view of Castells, summarized by Hoogvelt (1997), p. 89.

the informal sector, but they tend to lose their distinctive contribution and are subsumed
under this wider strategy of a social movement. Then there is a feminist view that begins
from the insight that, in some informal sector occupations such as street vending and home
working, the majority of workers are women and that women are disproportionately
represented in the sector as a whole. This is explained by reference to the ways in which
patriarchal relations within the family interact with economic class doubly to disadvantage
women. It leads to a strategy of promoting women’s organizations that contain features of
both trade unions and cooperatives and that cuts across the informal and formal distinction
to organize women wherever they are exploited: as homeworkers, market traders, domestic
workers and workers in free enterprise zones. In India, and parts of Latin America,
feminists have been in the forefront of organizing in previously inaccessible parts of the
informal sector, around the particular needs of women.
At this point it should be possible to construct a theoretical viewpoint that is most
favourable to trade union and cooperative intervention in favour of informal sector
workers, a view that takes into account the insights of critics as well as supporters of the
concept “informal sector”. Before we do this, though, we have to answer a prior question
concerning whether the concept – and therefore trade union and cooperative strategies –
should apply to both developing and developed countries.
3.2. Does the concept of the informal sector
apply only to developing countries?
With the sudden increase in unemployment in Western European countries in the
1980s, and the cutbacks that were being threatened to state spending on welfare, academic
theorists began to be interested in the coping strategies of those without paid work. They
used the term “informal sector” but in quite a different way to that being used by the ILO
in developing countries. Instead of seeing the informal sector as an alternative economic
sector, they were more interested in illegal, undeclared work in the “black” or
“underground” economy, in household self-provisioning and in irregular work in which
people exchanged help in informal ways. 10 They also investigated the extent to which
mutual aid within neighbourhoods and volunteering in the voluntary sector might to some
extent complement or replace state welfare. Interest in the subject waned after Pahl found
in a study of unemployed people that it was people who were in regular, paid work who
also engaged in these other more informal forms of activity. The unemployed were
disadvantaged by not having the resources needed to give them access to informal work.
They remained inactive.
Interest in the concept has recently revived and academic researchers are beginning to
see if the conditions applying in developing countries are being replicated in the developed
economies. There is one large difference. In developing countries the surplus popula tion
have no choice but to find work wherever they can in the informal sector because there are
no welfare benefits to fall back on. However, in developed countries the availability of
welfare benefits means that they are kept in what Mingione calls a “frozen state” of
officially recognized unemployment. 11 Case studies of Naples and Sao Paulo have shown
that, given a choice, people who are used to work in the formal sector will rather be
unemployed than find work in an unprotected sector that they regard as “a reality of
10 Harding and Jenkins (1989).
11 Mingione (1987), p. 16.

backwardness and misery, experienced and rejected”. 12 It seems clear that, where there is
an uncontrolled influx of illegal immigrants, the conditions of developing countries will be
replicated in the developed world so that an informal sector will emerge – the cities of the
United States are already undergoing this process 13 – but that in European cities it is being
resisted, not least by a trade union movement that wants to defend its members against
unfair competition. Some commentators see the emergence of a new world “regime of
accumulation” in which workers are divided into a core and periphery. Because capital has
become “footloose” and can relocate to wherever in the world the labour market is most
advantageous, a new global system of class relations is emerging, in which the distinction
between developed, transitional and developing countries will become irrelevant.
Globalization is “a new social architecture of cross-border human interactions” that
replaces the old geographic boundaries. 14 The core and periphery appear in every country.
In what some have called an “imploding phase” of capitalism, there is an intensification of
trade and capital linkages within the core of the system and a gradual withdrawal from the
periphery. It is a scenario in which capital withdraws from involvement in whole countries
in Africa but also from parts of cities and marginal regions in the “developed” world.
At present, the most likely trade union strategy in Europe is to resist the process of
informalization. In the future, lessons learned from joint trade union and cooperative
strategies in developing countries might well become applicable in the developed world.
They may already be applicable in marginalized regions but it seems that the cushion of
unemployment benefits will, for the time being, prevent an informal sector emerging in the
way it has in developing countries.
3.3. Conclusions from the debate
on the informal sector
For trade unions, the important point is that here is a sector that is almost completely
non-unionized, unprotected, where labour exploitation takes place, but where the normal
conditions for trade union action do not apply. There are few identifiable employers,
enterprises are small and unregistered, people exploit themselves and their families, and
women in particular are exploited. Yet, with little access to capital, uncertain markets and
reliance on unequal exchanges with the formal sector, workers have little choice but to
continue with this cycle of labour and exploitation. They have developed some quasi-trade
union organizations, to defend themselves against exploitation, but these are mainly based
on residence rather than industry. The need is there but the conditions for organizing to
meet this need are problematic.
For cooperatives, this is a sector where people are entrepreneurial, make the most of
what capital they have – human, physical, financial – and are used to surviving by trading
in a highly competitive market. Much of their strength comes from informal cooperative
relationships between people, based on kinship, friendship and neighbourhood, and they
have developed some quasi-cooperative organizations based on individual trades and
neighbourhoods. The message is clear – trade unions have a duty to organize among these
people as workers and they have some defensive self-organizations on which to build.
Cooperatives have considerable affinity with them as entrepreneurs and have some
12 Pinnaro and Pugliese (1987), p. 230; Hu mphrey (1996).
13 Sassen (1997) argues that the informal sector is now “an integral part of the formal economy” but
bases this argument on the example of the United States.
14 Hoogvelt (1997), p. 67.

quasi-cooperative self-organizations on which to build. The question is – what particular
framework for trade union and cooperative collaboration will work best in practice?

4. The needs and problems of
informal sector workers
How should we describe informal sector workers? One simple way is to list them by
trade. A recent ILO report lists: hairdressers, beauticians, money changers, bidi workers,
rickshaw pullers, plumbers and mechanics, head load workers, garbage pickers, vegetable
sellers, kiosk operators, second-hand cloth dealers, tailors, textile settlers, open air garages,
wood carvers, watch repairers, furniture carpenters, charcoal dealers, domestic
servants, etc. 1
This gives some insight into the sheer variety of trades and occupations engaged in
and is a necessary background to any trade union attempt to organize people by trade.
However, the list varies from one country to the next and tells us little about the conditions
under which people have to work. More analytical is the division of workers into three
types:
Owners or employers of micro-enterprises: These people employ a few workers or
apprentices and so are in a modest way employers. As such, they cannot be a target
group for trade unions, though cooperatives of micro-enterprises might help them to
expand.
Own-account workers: These are people who work alone or with unpaid employees
such as apprentices or family members. They are the largest segment of the informal
sector and are mainly self-employed. Their needs are manifold: they lack credit for
small investments, technical skills, access to raw materials, facilities such as shelters,
water, electricity and access to markets. They have no control over the conditions of
their work – markets, prices or taxes – and they tend to be exploited by moneylenders
and to work in places that are temporary, with poor infrastructure and often hazardous
conditions. They represent the core of the workforce for whom cooperatives have
been seen as one way of meeting their needs.
Dependent workers These are people who work for others but without a proper
contract of employment. They include subcontractors, casual workers, regular
workers who do not have a contract, unpaid workers, homeworkers and paid domestic
workers. Those who are paid workers suffer from lack of access to benefits, harsh
working conditions, limited employment security and low wages determined by their
employers without benefit of collective negotiation. Unpaid workers include family
members and apprentices and unsurprisingly a high percentage of them are women
and children. Homeworkers form a distinctive subset; again the majority are women
and they work either as makers of goods to sell directly in local markets or for a
contractor who “puts out” work that eventually finds its way back to the formal sector
to be finished or sold. They tend to work under verbal agreements, they are not
covered by employment protection laws and so are overworked, underpaid and
dependent on the middleman. Paid domestic workers are another distinctive
subgroup; they have an identifiable employer but are not easily visible, work long
hours for low wages and, as they are almost all women, also have to contend with
sexual harassment.
This classification does not reflect the complexity of the situation, since there is high
mobility of workers between the formal and informal sectors and within the sector some
1 ILO (1999).

have two jobs; many work seasonally. Together, they make up what an ILO report calls
“multiple subsistence and survival strategies”. 2 Putting together the findings from several
surveys, we can list the working conditions of informal sector workers and the constraints
they face in dealing in the market:
n low incomes:
n lack of job security;
n frequent interruption of work;
n overwork;
n unsafe conditions leading to ill health;
n low level of skill;
n lack of legal protection;
n poor quality of tools and raw materials;
n poor quality premises and services;
n harassment from government officials.
The constraints they face include:
n lack of access to capital;
n lack of access to markets/demand for products/bigger orders;
n lack of access to workshops/premises;
n lack of access to raw materials/cheap inputs;
n lack of access to technology;
n lack of collective organization;
n lack of rights to land and property;
n lack of access to national social security schemes;
n lack of access to facilities, e.g. water, electricity;
n lack of information and advice on rights and opportunities;
n lack of access to training programmes and basic education;
n lack of a voice in policy-making/politics.
2 ILO (1999), 3.1.

Because women are in a higher proportion in the informal sector than they are in the
formal sector and because they tend to work at the jobs with the lowest incomes under the
worst conditions, their needs are particularly urgent and they face a particularly
concentrated set of constraints.
Reports resulting from the recent ILO Interdepartmental Project show that, whether
we take a comprehensive overview or see the sector from one particular angle, the result is
the same – a sense of the vulnerability of these workers. This has several aspects: their lack
of social security to see them through interruptions in work and the effects of the life cycle
of poverty; their susceptibility to ill health through malnourishment, overwork and poor
working conditions; their indebtedness to moneylenders, suppliers of raw materials and
equipment; their lack of legal protection, and in particular of rights to land; their uncertain
hold on their tiny share of the market.
Whether this all leads to a distinctive “culture of poverty” is a highly controversial
question. Certainly, it leads to survival strategies in which mutual help is expected between
family members, neighbours, friends and people within the same trade. Sometimes it leads
to self-organization based either on neighbourhood or trade community associations,
hawkers’, shoe shiners’, taxi drivers’ associations, and so on. Given the constraint
operating in people’s working lives these show considerable capacity for mutual trust and
cooperation and they have the character of both trade unions – campaigning for land rights,
facilities from local government and so on – and cooperatives – providing credit and
sometimes raw materials and tools of the trade. Their importance cannot be
underestimated. Study after study declares that, only by working with and through the self-help
groupings of the informal sector, workers can aid agencies, trade unions and
governments create sustainable improvements in the sector. Some of the advantages of
self-help groups are:
n they are economical to reach;
n it is relatively easy to develop a trust relationship ;
n they make it possible to address heterogeneous needs;
n they have a non-formal setting;
n they are sustainable in the long term.
They also tend to mirror at the collective level the sheer lack of resources that
individuals experience in the sector: lack of information, low level of education, fear of the
consequences of becoming visible to the authorities, and so on. They have problems with
the quality of leadership, low levels of membership and limited organizational capacity.
Those that are organized by trade tend to suffer from the heterogeneity of the labour
market. Only in the case of community-based or gender-based (women’s) organizations
has any kind of mass movement ever emerged, and then only after considerable input from
outside agencies. Most people in the informal sector remain outside of any organized
grouping; in Manila for instance, 93 per cent of people (and 96 per cent of women) are not
members. 3 They also tend to have a sceptical attitude towards them; again the Manila
study found that 54 per cent of those surveyed saw no advantage in self-help groups.
Leaving aside the extraordinary situation of some African countries, where fraudsters
have made money by collecting dues for new trade associations and then absconded with
3 Joshi (1997).

the money, why should informal sector workers be so sceptical? Community development
theory cites the low self-esteem and self-image of poor people, their lack of trust in anyone
but their near family and neighbours, their fatalism. Sometimes there is such an
expectation of failure that poor people find it hard to cope with success; they become
suspicious of the motives of their leaders and find uncomfortable the question of why they
did not help themselves before. While it is true that the self-organization of informal sector
workers is crucial to any strategy of trade union and cooperative action, it is also true that
such organization needs to be supported over a long period if it is to transcend the
limitations of its environment. This brings with it the problem of over-reliance on such
organizations. They are a bridge across which aid flows and as such can be overburdened;
Joshi’s study of the Apitong Neighbourhood Association points to the problem that too
much assistance provided too quickly can outpace the people’s capacity to cope with it. If
the organization grows too quickly, it can also be prone to lose touch with its members and
to become reliant on a small group of le aders and professionals.
What do the characteristics of informal sector workers tell us about the kind of
strategy that unions and cooperatives should employ? The crucial distinction is the one
based on type of employment. The nearer these workers are to paid employees, the more a
trade union strategy is appropriate: full-time domestic workers, homeworkers who deal
with one identifiable middleman, and so on. The nearer they are to a group of self-employed
workers, the more a cooperative strategy is appropr iate: street vendors, market
traders, homeworkers who work together and sell independently of a middleman, artisans
(tailors, shoemakers, craft workers) who share a workshop and sales outlets. The nearer
they are to the model of the individual entrepreneur who wishes to expand and formalize
the business, the more likely they are to benefit from help by employers’ associations.
From the point of view of an intervention strategy, these may be the most important
operational distinctions.

5. Trade unions in the informal sector
5.1. Current trade union attitudes
The need to reach out the informal sector has been accepted as a major priority area
for the international trade union movement. In contrast with some commentators’
optimism, the ICFTU believes informal work is growing because people have no choice;
informalization of formal sector, the impact of the debt crisis, the inability of governments
to tackle poverty, government corruption, continuing massive influxes of rural migrants to
urban areas, global trends towards dispersed production, have all played a part in reducing
the size of the formal sector and increasing reliance on the informal. The World
Confederation of Labour (WCL) also makes the informal sector one of its action priorities.
Federations representing particular employment sectors are also in agreement, though they
naturally have a particular viewpoint; the International Federation of Chemical, Energy,
Mine and General Workers Unions (ICEM) is concerned because their members have
suffered from the “flexibilizing” process, in which multinational companies have shed
waged labour and shifted to long production chains of contractors and subcontractors.
ICEM recognizes the need to strengthen organizing efforts in the informal sector and
believes “This requires a new form of organization and a profound reorientation of the
content of trade union action”. 1 We will be exploring what this means in a later section of
the report.
The International Federation of Building and Woodworkers (IFBWW), at its
20th World Congress in Harare in 1997, noted the decline in the percentage of its workers
who are organized in unions, also pointing to the process of flexible employment but
adding its own perspective on labour force migration; the construction industry has always
been project-based, with temporary work contracts, but now in Asia 95 per cent of
construction workers and 76 per cent of wood industry workers are not permanent. It
emphasized the importance of bringing them under the protection of international labour
standards, with a standard on contract labour. The International Textile, Garment and
Leather Workers Federation (ITGLWF) raised the problems faced by homeworkers in
1894 at its first congress. Its priorities are still geared to homework, with an action
programme adopted in 1996 to encourage affiliates to run campaigns to organize
homeworkers. It was active in the 1996 International Labour Conference adoption of a
Convention and Recommendation on the subject. The International Union of Food,
Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers Associations (IUF)
also raised the question of homeworkers at its Geneva Congress of 1985. It has supported
probably the most successful initiative to organize women homeworkers, the
Self-Employed Women’s Association of India (SEWA) and also formed part of the core
group on the ILO Convention and Recommendation. In 1994 it merged with the plantation
workers union (IFPAAW) and now includes waged agricultural members, plus small
farmers, campesino and non-waged rural workers’ organizations. It has links with
peasants’ organizations in Mexico and Brazil, raising an interesting question about whether
we can continue to see the informal sector as an exclusively urban phenomenon or whether
its definition should be broadened to include landless peasants, small farmers and
plantation workers. 2
1 ILO (1999).
2 In some early definitions of the informal sector, agricultural workers were included.

At the national level, trade union attitudes are more variable. In the view of a recent
report from the ILO Bureau for Workers’ Affairs, several national trade union centres
acknowledge that they have had a negative view and have neglected the unorganized. In a
number of countries perceptions have not changed; in Kenya, for instance, the Central
Organization of Trade Unions has remained focused on its traditional task of negotiating in
the formal sector. Why is there such scepticism in national centres? Four basic attitudes
can be identified:
n there is still a belief that the sector is a transitory phenomenon and not an enduring,
even growing element of the new economies;
n they believe that, since they face problems in maintaining and mobilizing
membership in the formal sector, they are not in a position to dedicate scarce
resources to the informal;
n they have difficulties in locating informal sector workers and come up against barriers
to organizing, so that they feel it is not an efficient use of resources;
n self-employed workers are seen as entrepreneurs and not potential trade union
members.
Any joint strategy for cooperatives and trade unions must take into account the
understandable reluctance to commit scarce resources; it must be seen to be cost-effective.
Somehow, sufficient synergy between the two movements must be generated to offset this
problem of the costs of organizing in the informal sector.
Further problems were identified from a study of Tanzania carried out as part of an
ICFTU subregional seminar in 1993:
n informal sector associations are not based on an industry but are more loose,
heterogeneous collections of trades, not relating to a particular employer, so they are
difficult to integrate into the established trade union movement;
n informal sector associations themselves have an ambivalent view of trade unions,
needing to be convinced that they are on their side;
n trade unionists see the associations as competing for potential trade union members,
reducing the size of the unionized workforce and losing them membership income;
n employers may use the informal sector as an excuse to deregulate and create more
flexible labour relations, weakening rights in the formal sector;
n the image of the sector itself contributes to its margina lization by the unions; it is
considered the antithesis of the “organized” sector, a symptom of underdevelopment.
When we compare this list of attitudes with that found in our historical survey in
section 3, we see that certain persistent prejudices remain. Contrast the Uganda study
carried out for the same seminar, which argues that unions are “losing membership by the
hour” and should fight for the rights of the informal sector. This acknowledges that the
sector has been seen as a threat, but that unions claim to represent working people as a
whole, and so “have to meet the challenges of organizing the workers head on”. 3
3 ILO (1999), pp. 42-43.

The negative attitudes echo the findings of a report published by Mitter in 1989. In
addition she cited an Indian example of direct conf lict of interest between regular workers
and contract workers in a factory; the organizing and regularizing of informal workers who
are hired casually by formal sector enterprises can, in the short run, be seen as competition
for scarce formal sector jobs. 4 One answer is to move away from enterprise-based unions
to a wider base in a trade or sector. Finally, we cannot avoid the issue of trade union
attitudes to women. One reason the informal sector is neglected is because in some
subsectors – notably home working, paid domestic work and market trading – women
predominate. Trade unions are beginning to get to grips with an inherently male -oriented
culture and are changing their structures, their democratic procedures and their wider
image to meet the criticisms of feminists; in this respect, their attitude to the informal
sector is also changing. Again, the example of SEWA and other trade unions dedicated to
organizing women is inspirational.
5.2. Current trade union strategies
At the international level, we can identify three types of strategy. First there is the
development of core labour standards for the informal sector and their enforcement
through international campaigns that challenge contractors and retailers along the
production chain to behave ethic ally. Second, there is pressure exerted on national-level
unions to do research on the informal sector and develop their own strategies towards
recruitment of the sector’s workers. Third, there is the encouragement given by the
international trade secretariats to the replication of the kinds of organizations that have
demonstrated how to recruit in subsectors such as homeworkers and plantation workers.
The ICFTU’s starting point is to press for the application of international labour
standards and for government action to formalize economic activity and promote
development of the informal sector. While the 1995 UN Social Summit in Copenhagen
recognized the importance of core labour standards, the ICFTU emphasizes the need to
press governments to implement these commitments. It is pressing to have core labour
standards included in the work of the World Trade Organization and other world financial
institutions. It campaigns to tackle violations of core standards in areas such as free
enterprise zones. The ICFTU also convened a subregional seminar in Africa, for which it
encouraged trade union movements in Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe
to make special studies of their informal sectors. The conclusions were that unions should
carry out research on the sector and set up some kind of workers representative structures
in the form of cooperatives or associations. They should campaign for reforms in labour
and social legislation and should extend their services in workers’ education and training to
promote skills development for the sector, literacy and health and safety programmes.
They should convince governments of the need to set up social security systems, pension
funds and savings schemes to which both informal and formal sector workers should
belong. 5
The WCL suggests its affiliates develop a two-pronged strategy to help the informal
sector set up trade union structures and production and sales cooperatives to raise their
working capacity and enable them to enter the formal sector. It believes that the application
of regulations should go together with improving the economic viability of enterprises and
envisages a long process of contact with workers through training and education work.
4 Mitter (1989).
5 ICFTU (1993).

Among the international trade secretariats, the IFBWW strategy is to broaden the
membership base to include part-timers, women, young people, self employed and flexible
workers, using campaign issues to attract members. The strategy is to identify groups for
recruitment campaigns, identify areas where contract labour is used, highlight the need for
effective international standards and national legal frameworks and discuss the role of
international development agencies such as the World Bank. The ITGLWF strategy is to
campaign among homeworkers, organize them and make employers conform to ILO
standards. It envisages an international campaign mainly, emphasizing corporate codes of
conduct and “SA8000”, the global system of social accountability standards, which can be
adopted by retailers to show that they are fair to the producers of their goods.
The IUF has a similar strategy, working to create several codes of conduct in the
agricultural sector and securing agreements with firms all along the food chain. SEWA is a
member of the IUF and a source of inspiration, because it shows that at national level trade
union-type organizations which engage in both campaigning and income-generation using
cooperatives can make an impact on a particular subsector. Affiliates also include SEWU,
a South African union modelled on SEWA, Colombian affiliates, FENALTHYS (which
organizes workers in the informal sector) and SINTRAINAGRO (which helps small
producers of platanos to organize). In Paraguay, the IUF federal organization includes
informal sector workers. The strategy is to rebuild the organizational strength of the trade
union movement at national level, through recruitment strategies and campaigns.
At the national level, the ICFTU has listed the kinds of strategies its affiliates should
engage in:
n to seek to extend union recognit ion and bargaining relationships to subcontractors and
homeworkers, where they are producing inputs for enterprises;
n to organize in communities where access to workplaces is denied, beginning with
survey and education work;
n to begin awareness-raising programmes for homeworkers;
n to organize programmes for women workers;
n to link union members with family members who are working in the informal sector;
n to maintain contact with union members who have been forced out of the formal
sector;
n to help informal sector workers to set up union-associated structures, help them to
seek permits and access to government services and to bargain for better incomes;
n to support the development of mutuals and cooperatives..
This is quite a strenuous set of strategie s and it is not surprising that an ILO-ICFTU
survey found about one-fifth of the unions surveyed, and a quarter of the national centres,
do not yet target any atypical workers in their mobilization efforts. Though several unions
have future plans, they are still not a high priority and they tend, unsurprisingly, to begin
with those workers who are located nearest to the traditional employment relationship:
temporary workers, trainees and apprentices, part-time workers, contract workers and
casual labourers come first. The survey also showed that unions prefer to help informal
workers set up their own autonomous organizations and forge alliances with them; a good
example from Senegal is the Informal and Rural Workers’ Federation. The problem is that
the dependent workers who have a quasi-employer are often more difficult to locate than
those who are self-employed or “own-account” workers. Because the sector is so

heterogeneous, a variety of strategies is needed. The focus is no longer even on the
workplace but on a variety of locations, such as the family, women in general and the
neighbourhood. According to a recent ILO study, considerable creativity is being shown
but activities and policies have tended to be “ad hoc” and fragmented. 6
Many WCL affiliates are also active in the informal sector. In the Cote d’Ivoire, in
1990 a National Union of Informal Sector Women (SYNAFSI) was created, at the
initiative of the national trade union centre DIGNITE. It grouped women according to their
type of activity and provided training and working machinery, as a first step to getting
them into buyers’ and sellers’ cooperatives. In Bangladesh a number of non-traditional
groups have been set up within the national federation and the women’s organizations have
set up cooperative structures for their members. In Latin America, within the regional
organization for WCL, the Federation of Latin American Workers in Commercial, Office
and Service Employees (FETRALCOS), has, since 1989, given increasing attention to the
sector, promoting access to credit, skills training, cooperatives.
Among affiliates of ICEM, the goal is to arrive at a single organization representing
workers in a production chain and defending different interests along the chain. For
instance, the Indian National Cement Workers Federation is organizing small groups; in
Africa unions are looking to amend their rulebooks to allow them to organize informal
workers. South Africa’s National Union of Mineworkers is unionizing small-scale family
mines and sponsors an agency to assist retrenched miners; and the South African
Self-Employed Women’s Union (SEWU) provides a wide variety of services to meet the
specific needs of women workers. In Benin, the cement workers union, SYNTRACIB,
works with women in rural areas and through a women’s association has organized women
in 33 villages into cooperatives. It provides training seminars to develop
income-generating skills and organizes a market.
It ought to be clear already from this brief survey that the most persistent and
successful strategies so far have been in the organization of women, either in one subsector
such as home working, or in the sector as a whole. In India, the WWF has 85,000
members, and SEWA has 120,000, women who are small scale vendors, home-based
producers and labourers selling services in plantations, cleaning, catering, and so on. Their
strategy is to offer an integrated plan for development that includes childcare, leadership
training and even their own banks. Informal cooperatives are used “to give greater strength
and bargaining power to (their) economically vulnerable members”. 7 In the Philippines, a
similar organization, Patamaba, was launched in 1989, funded by ILO-DANIDA. Again,
its strategy is two-sided, to gain economic strength and social protection for homeworkers.
It has set up a revolving fund, provides training in cooperatives and self-management,
technical training in non-traditional trades for women, has registered a credit cooperative
and provides insurance through a cooperative life insurance society.
Save the Children has set up a similar project in the Philippines, an Alliance of
Home-based Retazo workers in Metro Manila. It has two basic strategies: group-lending of
microfinance and a women’s micro-enterprise network. What is most interesting about it is
that, instead of just responding to the needs of their members, they have gone out and
researched their market situation. They have organized the bulk purchase of the raw
materials needed (clothing remnants from the garment industry), at a saving of 15 per cent
to their members and have tapped into new, more regular and secure markets among large
companies. By analysing the markets first, designing a set of interventions that are
6 ILO (1999).
7 Mitter (1989), p. 31.

Wcms 110508

More Related Content

Wcms 110508