The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Bill, 2012
ƒ
ƒ The Bill shall not be applicable to land owned or
controlled by the Railways under the Railways Act, 1989.
ƒ The Bill requires every street vendor to be registered with
the Town Vending Committee. The Bill states that the
minimum age of a street vendor has to be 14 years.
ƒ Street Vendors have been defined to include ‘any person
engaged in vending of articles, goods, food etc or offering
services to the general public in a street lane, side walk,
footpath, pavement, public park, or any other public or
private area. It includes hawkers, peddlers, and squatters.
ƒ The Bill provides that no person can undertake any street
vending activity without obtaining the required vending
certificate. Every registered street vendor shall be issued
an identity card.
ƒ The Bill states that a vending certificate shall be issued to
(a) stationary vendors; or (b) mobile vendors; or (any
other category of vendor recognised by the appropriate
government.
ƒ The Bill requires every local authority to frame a street
vending plan. The plan has to be reframed every five
years. The plan shall determine the vending zones as (a)
restriction-free vending zones; (b) restricted vending
zones; and (c) no-vending zones. The plan should also
take into account that the areas available for street
vending is reasonable, does not lead to overcrowding and
is consistent with natural markets.
ƒ The Bill defines natural markets as “a market where
sellers and buyers have traditionally congregated for more
than a specified period for the sale and purchase of
specific products or services and has been determined as
such by the local authority.”
ƒ The appropriate government shall frame a street vending
scheme. The scheme shall include amongst others: (a) the
manner of applying for registration, (b) the period within
which the decision has to be made and, (c) any other
condition to be imposed on the vending certificate.
ƒ The Bill empowers the local authority to relocate street
vendors. The authority may do so, of the street vendors
are causing a public nuisance or obstructing the
movement of the public. A registered street vendor who
has been relocated shall be entitled to new site for
vending.
ƒ The local authority is also empowered to confiscate the
goods of the vendors in the manner specified in the street
vending scheme.
ƒ The Bill empowers the Town Vending Committee to
cancel or suspend the vending certificate. This may be
done if the vendor has breached the conditions of street
vending either under the Bill or under the street vending
scheme.
ƒ An appeal can be made to the local authority against the
decision of the Town Vending Committee. The appeal
shall be with respect to (a) decision regarding the grant of
registration; or (b) cancellation/suspension of the vending
certificate.
ƒ The local authority shall constitute a grievance redress
committee. The committee shall consist of one sub
judge/judicial magistrate / executive magistrate and other
persons experienced in street vending. Appeal against the
decision of Committee shall lie with the local authority.
ƒ The Bill defines the duties of the local authority to include
amongst others; (a) monitoring and supervising the street
vendor scheme; (b) monitoring the effectiveness of the
Town Vending Committee; and (c) deciding appeals.
ƒ A penalty may be imposed on the street vendors if the
vendor :(a) does not have a vending certificate; or (b)
vends beyond the designated zone or specified timings; or
(c) contravenes the vending certificate. A maximum
penalty of Rs 2000 may be imposed on the street vendor.
ƒ The appropriate government may provide for credit,
insurance and other welfare schemes for the street
vendors
Highlights of the Bill
The Bill aims to protect the livelihood rights of street vendors as well
as regulate street vending through demarcation of vending zones,
conditions for and restrictions on street vending.
Any person intending to undertake street vending needs to register
with the Town Vending Committee (TVC). He may then apply for a
vending certificate that will be issued based on various criteria.
The state government shall frame a scheme for street vendors. The
local authority shall, in consultation with the planning authority,
frame a street vending plan once every five years.
The TVC comprises of the municipal commissioner, representatives of
street vendors, local authority, planning authority, local police,
resident welfare association and other traders associations.
This Bill shall not apply to Railways land, premises and trains.
Key Issues and Analysis
Currently, street vending is regulated under municipal laws enacted
by state legislatures. Parliament’s competence to legislate on this issue
depends on whether the Bill is interpreted as substantively addressing
rights and obligations of street vendors (Concurrent List) or relating to
municipal zoning (State List).
The Bill does not specify principles to be followed by governments in
issuing vending certificates, allocating vending zones and the number
of vendors per zone. Absence of such norms could defeat the purpose
of enacting a law to ensure uniformity in the legal framework.
The Bill does not require the stakeholders to be consulted in the
formulation of the street vending plan. This could lead to a lack of
safeguards in ensuring that the plan is determined in a fair manner.
The central law will have an overriding effect on state laws that are
inconsistent with the Bill. Current state laws differ with the Bill in
terms of powers of the TVC, and mechanism for dispute resolution.
The Standing Committee suggests making the Bill applicable to the
Railways, incorporating specific provisions of the scheme in the Bill,
and consultation with the TVC on the vending plan.
PART A: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE BILL1
Context
Street vendors are persons who offer goods or services for sale to the public from a temporary static structure or
mobile stall. Typically, street vendors fall under the purview of two authorities – the traffic police who deal with
flow and regulation of traffic and the Municipal Corporation which regulates the use of pavements and trade
conducted on them. In 1989, the Supreme Court held that street vendors have a fundamental right to carry on their
trade or business subject to regulation and reasonable restrictions.2
In 2004, the central government formulated the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors to recognise the
constitutional right of street vendors to practice any profession (street vending) without causing overcrowded
public spaces.3
In 2009, the Policy was revised and accompanied by a model law on street vending which could
be adopted by state governments, with modifications suited to their geographical and local conditions.4
In October 2010, the Supreme Court directed the government (central/state) to enact a law by June 2011 to
recognise the livelihood rights of street vendors and regulate vending activities.5
In 2011, the National Advisory
Council (NAC) recommended enacting a central law.6
Several states including Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Madhya
Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Orissa have enacted laws and policies on street vending.7
On September 6, 2012,
the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Bill, 2012 was introduced in the
Lok Sabha to create a uniform law for regulating street vending across states and union territories. The Standing
Committee on Urban Development submitted its report on the Bill on March 13, 2013.
Key Features
The Bill aims to protect the livelihood rights of street vendors as well as regulate street vending in urban areas
across the country. It does not apply to land, premises and trains owned or controlled by the Railways under the
Railways Act, 1989.
Registration and issue of vending certificate to Street Vendors
• Any person (above the age of 14 years) intending to undertake any street vending activity may register with the
Town Vending Committee (TVC) which may be constituted in each local authority.
• Any registered person may apply to the TVC for a vending certificate. The criteria on the basis of which
vending certificates will be issued shall be specified in the street vending scheme developed by the state
government. The criteria may include preference for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), Other
Backward Classes (OBCs), minorities, women and disabled persons. The TVC may charge a vending fee.
• Only those persons with a vending certificate are permitted to work as street vendors. Every street vendor has
the right to undertake vending activities in the vending zone specified in the certificate. A street vendor shall
not be prevented from exercising this right by any person, police or any authority under any other law.
• The certificate can be issued to a stationary, mobile or any other vendor and will specify the vending zone,
time period for carrying on the vending activities, and other conditions and restrictions on street vending.
• Individuals who have been issued a vending certificate before the commencement of this Act, will continue to
be street vendors for the period specified in the certificate.
Role of the state government and the local authority
• Every local authority shall in consultation with the planning authority prepare a street vending plan once in
every five years. The plan shall determine spatial vending zones as restriction-free, restricted and no-vending
zones as well as other changes required for accommodating existing and future street vendors.
• Some of the parameters to be considered in the plan are: the area available for street vending is reasonable,
does not lead to overcrowding, and is consistent with existing natural markets (i.e. a market where buyers and
sellers have traditionally congregated for sale and purchase of specific goods for more than a specified period
of time).
• The state government shall frame a street vending scheme specifying: (a) criteria and process for registration
and issue of vending certificate; (b) eviction and relocation of street vendors and manner of confiscation of
goods; (c) process for and disposal of appeals; (d) principles for determining vending zones.
Town Vending Committee
• One or more TVCs may be constituted in each local authority, zone or ward. The TVC will specify the time
limit for issue and renewal of registration and vending certificate. It will also keep records of street vendors
including the stall allotted for vending, category of vending and the business carried out.
• The TVC shall comprise of (a) the municipal commissioner; (b) representatives of street vendors (at least 40
per cent of the TVC, of which one-third are women); and (c) representatives of the local authority, planning
authority, local police, traffic police, resident welfare associations, banks, and other traders associations. The
Bill also requires the representation of SCs, STs, OBCs, minorities and disabled persons in the TVC.
Eviction and Relocation of Street Vendors and Penalty
• The local authority may evict the street vendor, if he consistently fails to comply with the provisions of the
Bill. The goods of the vendors may also be confiscated in the manner specified in the street vending scheme.
• The local authority can relocate the street vendors for: (a) creating public nuisance; (b) obstructing public
movement; or (c) any other public purpose. The street vendor shall be entitled to a new vending site.
• The local authority shall give seven days notice to the street vendor before relocating or evicting him.
• A maximum penalty of Rs 2000 may be imposed on a street vendor if he:(a) vends without a vending
certificate, beyond the designated zone or specified timings; or (b) violates the terms of the vending certificate
or any other provisions of the Bill. The penalty will be decided by the local authority.
Grievance Redressal Mechanism
• Street vendors who have a grievance can appeal to a dispute redressal committee constituted by the local
authority. The committee shall consist of one sub judge/judicial magistrate or an executive magistrate and
other persons experienced in street vending and natural markets. The committee has to redress the grievance
within the time period specified in the scheme.
• An appeal against the decision of the committee shall lie with the local authority.
• The TVC may cancel or suspend a street vendor’s vending certificate for breach of provisions of the Bill,
vending certificate or scheme. An appeal against the decision of the TVC shall lie with the local authority.
PART B: KEY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Jurisdiction of Parliament to frame a central law on street vending
Currently, some states such as Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan have passed laws empowering urban
local authorities or municipalities to regulate street vending.7
State governments derive power to legislate on the
issue from Item 5 of the State List that covers local government and municipal corporations. The question is
whether Parliament has the jurisdiction to frame such a law. In 2006, in response to a question during Question
Hour in the Lok Sabha, the government had stated “street vending is a state subject. Central government does not
have the mandate to enact legislation on street vending”.8
A similar position was reiterated in 2009 during
Question Hour in the Lok Sabha where the government stated that street vending being a state subject, the central
government had drafted a Model Bill to help states formulate their laws.9
The NAC when recommending a central
law acknowledged that “since the subject matter relates to municipal laws and other entries pertaining to the State
List of the Constitution, the law on street vending should be enacted by states. The Centre’s responsibility is
confined to recommending a Model Bill”.6
However, the NAC justified a central law by considering street
vending as an issue of livelihood and employment and not just municipal regulation.6
The Standing Committee report on the Bill states that in the opinion of the Ministry of Law and the Attorney
General, a central law could be framed if the pith and substance of this Bill covers entries 20, 23 and 24 of the
Concurrent List, i.e., economic and social planning; social security, social insurance, employment; and, welfare of
labour including conditions of work.10 The question is whether the substance of this Bill is that of the rights and
obligations (and regulation) of street vendors, or whether it is a municipal zoning issue. In the former case, it will
fall under the Concurrent List, in the latter case it will be in the State List.
Balancing objectives of the Bill: livelihood rights vs urban planning needs
In regulating urban street vending activities, the Bill aims to balance three key objectives: securing the right to
livelihood of street vendors, ensuring congestion free public spaces and streets, and convenience of vending
services for customers. The Bill provides a broad framework for registration of street vendors, grounds for
relocation, eviction and confiscation of goods, functions of the local authority and Town Vending Committee, and
a grievance redressal mechanism.
The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill says the law is proposed for “ensuring uniformity in the legal
framework across states and union territories”. However, the Bill leaves several aspects of the regulation of street
vending to the street vending scheme that is to be formulated by state governments and implemented by local
authorities. The Bill does not specify the principles to be considered by local authorities in issuing vending
certificates, allocating vending zones and determining the number of vendors per zone, or the public purpose for
which vendors may be relocated. Absence of such norms to address competing objectives of the Bill could defeat
the purpose of enacting a law to ensure uniformity in the legal framework.
Clause 40
and Third
Schedule
Lack of consultation with stakeholders and conflict with state laws
The Bill requires the street vending plan to be framed by the local authority in consultation with the planning
authority. The street vending plan determines: (a) zones where street vending can be undertaken, (b) the zones are
consistent with existing natural markets, and (c) other changes needed to accommodate existing and future street
vendors in vending areas. The Bill does not require the TVC to be consulted when framing this plan. This could
present two issues.
Lack of consultation with stakeholders in formulating the street vending plan
In addition to representatives of the local and planning authority, the TVC includes representatives from various
stakeholders including the traffic police, local police, street vendors associations, traders and market associations.
The local authority and the planning authority may not have such stakeholder representation. With the TVC not
being consulted while framing the street vending plan, it is not clear whether there are adequate safeguards in
ensuring that the plan is effective and that vending zones are decided in a fair and transparent manner. The
National Policy on Urban Street Vendors, 2009 and the Model Bill 2009 required that vending zones be identified
in consultation with the TVC. The Standing Committee has recommended that the Bill be amended to include that
the local authority will consult the TVC in formulating the street vending plan, determining vending zones, and
deciding eviction and relocation of street vendors.
Clause 21,
27(2), 3(1)
and 6(1)
Conflict with state laws
The Bill states that the central law will override any other state law in case there is conflict between the two laws.
Under the Bill, the TVC has a limited role involving the issue and renewal of registration and vending certificates
and keeping records of street vendors such as the stall allotted for vending, category of vending and the business
carried out. However, in some states such as Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan the laws on street vending (and the
Odisha street vendors policy) give the TVC the power to identify and designate vending zones and determine the
vending capacity of each zone. 11
Clause 35
proviso
The current Bill also differs with state laws on the mechanism for dispute resolution. Under the Bill the local
authority will constitute a dispute redressal committee that will consist of a sub judge/judicial magistrate or an
executive magistrate and other persons experienced in street vending and natural markets. However in states such
as Rajasthan and Odisha the TVC is empowered to resolve disputes between street vendors. Under the Bill, if the
state law differs from the central law, the central law will prevail. This implies that the powers of the TVC as
specified in the Bill will replace the powers of the TVC envisioned in state laws.
Clause 20
A comparison of the provisions of various state laws on street vending with the Model Bill 2009 and the Street
Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Bill, 2012 is given in the Appendix.
Key Recommendations of the Standing Committee
The Standing Committee examining the Bill submitted its report on March 13, 2013. 10
The key recommendations
are:
• The Bill should be made applicable to railways.
• The time limit for the issue of the vending certificate should be one month and it should be renewed every
three years.
• Decisions on eviction and relocation of street vendors should be taken by the local authority only after
consulting with the TVC. The notice period for eviction and relocation should be increased to 30 days and
relocation should be done in a manner that allows street vendors to carry on their old business.
• The tenure of all TVC members should be fixed at five years. Specific provisions on regulation of street
vending that are proposed in the street vending scheme should be incorporated in the Bill.
• The permanent committee set up on under the Bill for redressal of grievances should include only judicial
officers and no executive magistrate. The Bill should specify a time frame within which the committee will
give decisions on disputes.
• Under the Bill a maximum penalty of Rs 2000 can be imposed on a street vendor for violating provisions of the
Bill. The Committee recommended that for the first violation a reasonable fine should be imposed and
thereafter a penalty of Rs 2000.
• Within six months of the passing of the Act, state governments and local authorities should implement
provisions of the Bil
The Street Vendors Bill
Opportunities and Challenges
The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Bill, 2013 (hereafter SVB) was passed by the Lok Sabha on 6 September 2013 and by the Rajya Sabha on 19 February 2014. The bill which is awaiting assent of the president to be an Act,1 is being treated as a milestone in progressive policy response to unemployment and economic displacement of the urban poor. However it appears that in seeking to protect street vendors from mistreatment by the civic agencies and the police, the SVB opens floodgates of a new set of problems. While the need for regulation of street vending is imperative, equally important is the need to view and review it critically with the objective of arriving at the best possible practice. This article examines some of the key features of the SVB with insights provided from interviews with 60 street vendors in Delhi.
Introduction
Street vendors are too prominent to be ignored in Indian cities. The 55th round of the National Sample Survey Office survey (1999-2000) records the number of street vendors in the range of 17 to 25 lakh. The National Policy on Urban Street Vendors estimates the number of street vendors in a city as 2% of its population (Twenty Third Report, Standing Committee on Urban Development 2012-13). The street vendors routinely carry out petty transactions in cities unmindful of vehicular congestion and pedestrian rush. Public sympathies oscillate between periods of tolerance to anguish and intolerance. The government is seized with the responsibility of providing opportunities of employment and entrepreneurship, ensuring accessibility of goods and services widely; and at the same time, protecting people from various forms of disorder. The ruling of the Supreme Court (SC) in Sodan Singh and Others versus NDMC case in 1989 is pertinent:
If properly regulated according to the exigency of the circumstances, the small traders on the sidewalks can considerably add to the comfort and convenience of the general public, by making available ordinary articles of everyday use for a comparatively lesser price. An ordinary person not very affluent, while hurrying towards his home after a day’s work, can pick up these articles without going out of his way to find a regular market. The right to carry on trade or business mentioned in Article 19 (1) of the Constitution, on street pavements, if properly regulated, cannot be denied on the ground that the streets are meant exclusively for passing or re-passing and no other use (ibid).
The ruling of the SC marked a shift in the perception about street vendors as a nuisance disturbing public order to one in which they are accepted as contributors to the economic situation and as providers of goods and services to the people at their convenience. Selling on the streets is a compulsion for some and choice for others. What irks most of them, however, is the high-handed treatment of the police and civic authorities. The SVB provides a sense of victory to the vendors as it marks a watershed moment in their prolonged struggle to secure dignity and freedom from harassment at the hands of civic authorities and the police. The Congress Party, which steered the bill, hopes to secure the support of street vendors at this electorally crucial time. All-in-all, it seems to be a win-win situation for both the ruling party and the street vendors.
Critical Highlights
The SVB is preceded by the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors, 2009 which aimed at creating a social and economic environment that is conducive to the pursuance of street vendors’ livelihood. While the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors, 2009 handed out the responsibility for its implementation and appropriate legislation to the states, the SVB is a response to a long-felt need for central legislation that would recognise the contribution of street vendors and provide uniformity in legal framework across the country. This was also a demand of street vendors, both at an individual and the collective level through the National Association of Street Vendors in India (NASVI).
The SVB provides for setting up a town vending committee (hereafter TVC) in each local authority.2 The TVC would be chaired by the municipal commissioner or the chief executive officer. Street vendors will comprise at least 40% of the members elected from among themselves.3 The SVB states that the number of other members, as may be prescribed, would be nominated by the government representing the medical officer of the local authority, the local authority, the planning authority, traffic police, association of street vendors, market associations, traders associations, non-governmental organisations, community-based organisations, resident welfare associations, banks and such other interests as it deems proper.4
The TVC will be entrusted with tasks of (i) maintaining updated records of registered street vendors, publishing street vendors’ charter, and carrying out social audit of its activities; (ii) conducting survey of all street vendors once in five years; and (iii) issuing certificates of vending and identity cards to all street vendors with preference to scheduled castes (SCS), scheduled tribes (STS), Other Backward Classes (OBCS), women, persons with disabilities, minorities, etc. The certificate of vending would specify the category of vending, vending zone, days and timings allotted to a street vendor for carrying out his/her vending activities. The number of street vendors accommodated in each vending zone would be 2.5% of the population of the ward, zone, town or city. In case the number of applicants exceeds the holding capacity of a vending zone, the TVC would call for a draw of lots for issue of certificates. Remaining applicants could be accommodated in an adjoining vending zone.
The Other Side
The SVB in its present form is well intended, particularly in its provision of allocating space to street vendors so that they are not asked to move away from a congested area and then await an opportunity to get back. Many of them have had the experience of hastily wrapping up their goods and running away for the fear of being persecuted by the staff of the municipal corporation or the police for selling on busy streets or venturing into zones in which street vending is prohibited. The SVB’s mandate of having at least 40% of the TVC members elected from among the street vendors seems to be a democratic arrangement, yet it is possible that given the low level of organisation among them, only a select few contest elections, come to dominate and are co-opted by the State. There are no provisions to impede capture of the SVBs by vested interests even as concerns of the common vendor on the street are neglected or diluted by the SVBs.
Policies and laws that touch upon the lives of the masses should be obtained, if they are to be successful in improving their conditions, from an understanding derived from close interaction with the very people they target. As Bromley (2000: 17) puts it, “Regulating street vendors, or offering promotion and support, requires interactions between dozens of local officials and thousands of vendors, with enormous potential for misunderstandings, avoidance and deception.” In the absence of such a rigorous exercise, attempts at regulating street vending may not end up benefiting vendors much. The SVB, in fact, may well have put the cart before the horse in pressing for periodical surveys of street vendors after the Act comes into force when surveys and studies on street vendors should have informed the SVB in the first instance; drawing up a baseline for further studies and action. Subsequent surveys and studies would then serve the purpose of assessing the impact of, and the pitfalls in, the SVB.
The heterogeneity of street vendors as an occupational group in terms of scale of operation, and nature and scope of street vending activity hurls a challenge at the twin processes of framing and executing countrywide, monolithic law(s). While for some, street vending is a part-time activity which they pursue only for a few hours in a day, for others it is a day-long activity, and yet others engage with street vending occasionally. While there are street vendors who have been selling at the same place for a long time and in that sense are stationary, there are also those who are on the move most of the time following a single route or changing it occasionally or frequently, as the desire or need to. Additionally, there are a number of them who sell at one place for a few hours in the day and move around colonies in the remaining working hours (they are both stationary and mobile). The interchange between being stationary and mobile by a street vendor is common.
Following the SVB, the issue of certificate of vending under categories of a stationary vendor, a mobile vendor or any other category specified in the scheme laying down the timings and place of vending category is likely to curtail the freedom of street vendors. It will foreclose the opportunity of switching from one way of operating to another and changing place of selling according to one’s own will, situation, circumstances and/or business acumen. These may well create various opportunities for harassment
of street vendors by civic authorities and the police similar to what they face now. There is every possibility that the gains from this much-hyped law will be outweighed by the restrictions in it, hitting street vendors hard in the near future.
of street vendors by civic authorities and the police similar to what they face now. There is every possibility that the gains from this much-hyped law will be outweighed by the restrictions in it, hitting street vendors hard in the near future.
Additionally, the restrictions imposed by specifying the holding capacity of vending zone may have two interrelated fallouts. The first is that many street vendors will be forced to abandon their best-suited selling spaces because they could not make it in the draw of lots. Of them, a few might find that business at their newly assigned places limit their earnings, forcing them to look for other, more rewarding, alternatives and thus again opening the door for abuse by civic authorities and the police. This could also render many of them unemployed and create an army of surplus labour, particularly when one keeps in mind that street vending is one of the main absorbers of the urban unemployed – old and young, illiterate and literate.
As Bandopadhyay (2011) mentions in the context of the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors in India 2009, the state does not have a ready-made plan to deal with the surplus labour in the country, much less in this sector. He suggests that the National Policy should be linked with a larger employment generation scheme led by the state, failing which the implementation of spatial restrictions and the registration mechanism, will make local lobbies and government functionaries extremely powerful and exploitative. Concerns regarding loss of income and the rise of powerful lobbies that will determine future policies with regard to street vendors are however not addressed in the SVB. The second fallout is the rent-seeking behaviour of interest groups comprising powerful lobbies and local-level regime functionaries. Licences and permits for street vending spaces could, despite legal prohibitions, be lent for a tariff or sold at a premium. Since interest groups tend to control allocation of benefits and resource, they could well invest their will in furthering means of appropriating the rent-generating component of the SVB. This is not surprising since corruption is known to loom large when power is concentrated in the hands of a few elites.
Conclusions
Street markets have given gainful employment to the urban poor with low skill sets and to the displaced (Bhowmik 2010), and in doing so has helped them emerge as important nodes of economic growth. What makes street markets a viable place to carry out transactions is the informality of work and working conditions that broadly allow individual street vendors to sell at places of their own choice and schedules of selling. The SVB tends to overthrow the benefits of informality as it makes street vending a kind of formal enterprise by way of regulating it in ways that are detrimental to the vendor. Cross (2000) mentions that such endeavours entangle informal enterprises in formal rules that they are ill-equipped to deal with. This amounts to undermining the very factors that make informal enterprises successful and lucrative for those who are unable to secure a place in the formal sector. More specifically (ibid: 45),
From engaging in a flexible and evolving economic activity focused on family subsistence needs (and often involving the avoidance of control by authorities), they are sucked into a rigid set of rules that they can barely understand and even less likely to be able to challenge or manipulate. While their businesses would be more ‘accountable’ they may in fact be less successful.
This does not make a case for a total rejection of the present regulation of street vending. What it calls for, however, is a revisit of the rules that make corruption a more lucrative enterprise than profitability in the business enterprise and a sense of confidence in the policy/law and the officials handling it. In operational terms, the SVB will benefit largely from loosening the nature and extent of regulation in order to accommodate vendors’ own choice of the means of carrying out business at their own pace.
No comments:
Post a Comment