From economic integration to socioeconomic inclusion: day labor worker centers as social intermediaries

ABSTRACT

Day labor worker centers have emerged as an important mode of regulatory action in the informal economy of major US cities. Research suggests that these organizations are beneficial in improving employment outcomes experienced by migrant workers engaged in this labor market sector. Yet, the extent to which these organizations impact the social integration of this working population remains relatively undeveloped in the literature. Using data from the National Day Labor Survey, we examine the impact of day labor worker centers on the level of social inclusion experienced by migrant day laborers. We find that worker centers have a modest, but statistically significant, impact on the levels of social integration experienced by this working population and that this varies from city to city. Ultimately we argue that the social intermediary role of these organizations may offer a type of counter mobilization necessary to promote the socioeconomic integration of this working population, but that issues of capacity remain.

KEYWORDS:

• Social inclusion
• informal economy
• migrants
• urban labor markets

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. While there remains no concise and agreed upon definition of the informal economy within the academic literature, the goal of this article is not to engage in the debates on the definition of the informal economy. Rather, we use the term informal economy to refer to all forms of informal employment. This includes “all remunerative work, both self-employment and wage employment that is not recognized, regulated, or protected by existing legal or regulatory frameworks and non-remunerative work undertaken in an income producing enterprise” (International Labour Office [ILO], 2002, p. 12). This definition includes multiple types of labor, capital, and production operation such as: micro-enterprises, family businesses, and own account operations that operate within the formal economy but are not formally registered, do not comply with formal tax statues and/or do not operate under formal regulations such as wage compensation and workplace safety. Following Visser (2016), we also use the term to reference employment arrangements that occur in formal enterprises, businesses, and large corporations that comply with formal statues to varying degrees such as contingent and precarious work arrangements.

2. The use of the term “social inclusion” as done here refers to the ability of the organizations of interest to influence and promote the participation of migrant workers in “mainstream” social and political networks and structures. While social inclusion also encompasses economic aspects, we are simply calling attention to those noneconomic aspects of inclusion. Together “social inclusion” and “economic inclusion” are used interchangeably with the term socioeconomic inclusion (which we identify to mean participation and integration of migrant workers in mainstream political, economic, and social structures).

3. For the detailed sampling plan for the NDLS see Valenzuela et al. (2005).

4. Refer to Brandolini and D’Alessio (1998) for more details about the use of equal weights and alternative weighting structures when estimating social inclusion.