In analyzing the productivity of nations worldwide the difficulties countries face in growing economically derive from a sector that is unmeasured and unknown, the underground economy. This informal sector has tangible and noticeable effects on the actual economy of a nation. The challenge to economists today is figuring out how to measure the effects of an entity that is inherently overlooked and disregarded. In “Does the Informal Sector Thrive under Democracy or Autocracy? The Case of Nepal” there is a focus on how politics affect the growth in the informal sector. In this text, the authors, Solomon and Shrestha, make the implication that the more political freedom there is in a state the smaller the informal sector becomes. Invisible, Outlawed, and Untaxed by Harry I. Greenfield emphasizes the different components that allows us to identify and quantify the underground economy more so than examining the effects of other entities on the underground economy. Moreover, in the VICE article “Slangin’ Dope at Art Basel” one receives an informal first-hand account of the underground economy by someone who is a part of its productivity. In the assessment of all three texts we find that both scholarly texts share a level of formality and complexity that is not present in the VICE article. However, the two scholarly pieces differ in that Solomon and Shrestha’s work relies more on the use of inductive reasoning while Greenfield uses deductive reasoning to grow his logic. An indicator of how Greenfield’s work takes a conceptual approach to the topic of underground economics, while Solomon and Shrestha take a more empirical one.
Examining the diction and word choices in both of the scholarly pieces, Invisible, Outlawed, and Untaxed and “Does the Informal Sector Thrive under Democracy or Autocracy? The Case of Nepal”, we find evident similarities between these two scholarly texts. The tone of these two works is sophisticated and academic via the presence of conventions as complex vocabulary and well-developed syntax. For example, take this passage, “There can be no quarrel with those who take that point of view as long as what is included in the scope of underground activities is made explicit” (Greenfield 5). Words like “explicit”, “quarrel”, and “scope” are all words that can be replaced with simpler versions that retain the same meaning, but are purposely included to add an intellectual tone to the piece. This purposeful inclusion of academic diction is also noticeable in the work of Solomon and Shrestha where they us words and terms such as “irregularities”, “null hypothesis”, and “calibration” (Solomon and Shrestha 246). This style of diction, evident in both pieces, points towards the target audience and context of the works. In that these pieces are situated in the context of academic writing meaning an audience that is well educated enough to understand and appreciate the level of complexity shown in the texts holds them to certain expectation of writing.
Furthermore, the texts’ use of economic terms also contributes to the assessment of their target audiences. In reading the pieces there are words and terms that tug at a well-rounded understanding of economics. To exemplify take the following passage, “The size of the informal sector is estimated using the Multiple Indicator Multiple Cause (MIMIC) model . . . the MIMIC’s model estimates of the informal sector in Nepal as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)” (Solomon and Shrestha 247). Terms like “GDP”, “MIMIC”, and “informal sector” make the text harder to understand and assure that an understanding of economics is needed to grasp fully the concepts expressed in the article. The use of economic terms hints at scholars that specify within the field of economics that fully understand the terminology in the text.
In contrast to these two text is an article from the magazine VICE entitled “Slangin’ Dope at Art Basel”. This text is neither academic nor scholarly and is instead informal and casual. In analyzing the writing conventions in this text the diction is noticeably nonchalant. The title contains words like “slangin” and “dope” these words are informal in that terms like these are usually used in casual settings such as a conversation with friends. “Once a year, thousands of rich assholes flock to South Beach to buy artistic shit like papier-mâché balls at Art Basel… After rich people finish buying garbage, they like to let their hair down and party with copious amounts of cocaine, as white people are wont to do” (Im). The informality of these words gives the article a cool and trendy tone that suggests an audience of young adults who can relate the most with this type of language.
Furthermore, there is also a distinct difference on the treatment of sources between the VICE article and two academic texts. In Im’s article, his only source is an interview with an active participant of the underground economy, a drug dealer. He presents this interview, in his piece, untouched and without any sort of analysis. This is contrary to the two academic pieces in which sources are thoroughly evaluated and used to construct ideas regarding economics. The purpose of the article, however, is not to provide analysis on the economic implications of the source, but to just report it and provide sensationalism.
While the audience, purpose, and context for the scholarly texts share striking similarities, the approach they use to engage with the subject matter differs. Invisible, Outlawed, and Untaxed handles the topic of underground economies in a theoretical manner and one can get a sense of this approach through its use of sources. The text uses sources that are for the most part conceptual in nature and serve as reference points that bring a sense of legitimacy to its own arguments, “In the rise of currency J.R.S. Revell of the OECD stated that . . . in view of all these reasons for not holding cash, as well as some others to be discussed shortly, why then do we find the persistent and seemingly perverse growth in currency held by the public” (Greenfield 20). Greenfield uses his sources to catalyze further lines of logic that can be supported and expanded by more sources. Deductive reasoning is apparent in his work and in his use of sources in which he places the quote or idea of a supporting scholar before he begins his own reasoning. Furthermore, he uses sources to move his discussion along and expand his reasoning. This use of sources as supportive tools for further analysis gives the text a sense of intellectual exploration.
“Does the Informal Sector Thrive under Democracy or Autocracy? The Case of Nepal” approaches the topic of underground economies in a style that resembles scientific papers and uses more inductive reasoning than the previous work. Throughout the work, we see an analysis resembling inductive reasoning in which concepts are drawn from data pertaining to specific circumstances, “Table 1 shows that between 2006 and 2010, Nepal experienced an improvement in the level of democracy but no further improvement since 2010. The reason for this stagnation may be linked to the fact that people in Nepal have yet to experience the sense of empowerment, ownership and responsibility that comes with democracy” (Solomon and Shrestha 246). Furthermore, the work includes an abstract that directly states the aims and objectives of the paper. The works states, “Our paper investigates the size and development of the informal sector in Nepal using aggregate data over the period 1991 to 2009” (Solomon and Shrestha 245). This simple statement describes the purpose for this article to be more empirical than conceptual.
Taking a close look at the sources in both texts, and how they are used, supports the notion that the texts employ a practical and theoretical approach. For example, most of the evidence used in Solomon and Shrestha’s piece comes from experiments done by credited economists like Fredrick Schneider and data centers like the Democracy Index and STATA. While Greenfield uses conceptual works from scholars like Thieβen who also approach economics theoretically. Solomon and Shrestha’s sources provide mostly statistical and raw data that they than evaluate and interpret for the reader. They procedurally take data, analyze it, and, via inductive reasoning, generate concepts that are relevant to the subject of underground economies. This is different from the theoretical and deductive approach we saw in Greenfield’s work where his sources provide concepts that he then uses to support and develop his own ideas. This serves to show that the field of economics is not purely a theoretical one or empirical one. That in economics there is a blend between conceptual and empirical analysis, and a combination of deductive and inductive reasoning. In which concepts are generated through a practical analysis of data and then developed via a philosophical process.
Solomon and Shrestha’s work empirical approach to the subject of underground economies adds a level of statistical analysis to the text that may dismay beginners in the subject. The reading can be cumbersome at points due to the constant insertion of charts, graphs, and tables that split the text a part. Furthermore, the inclusion of abstract data and mathematical equations increases the level of complexity in the text that requires a slightly greater knowledge of economics to grasp. Greenfield’s piece appeals more to disciplinary novice due to its theoretical approach to the discipline. The flow of the text is one that encourages understanding and learning because each new concept adds on or connects to the previous one making the work easier to follow. One can see college level students reading this to get a good basis on underground economies because while it is complex it still can be dissected and appreciated with time.
These three works give a broad sense of the variety of pieces that can be written on the topic of underground economies. While there are intellectual and academic tones in the two academic pieces, a more relax and casual style presides in VICE article. Further analysis reveals that Solomon and Shrestha’s work has an empirical tone that focuses more on inductive reasoning to form new concepts from raw data. While Greenfield has a different approach, in which he uses deductive reasoning to build upon the concepts and ideas of other scholars to arrive at his own theoretical conclusions.
