I was taken by surprise today as I reviewed a couple of links I’d bookmarked to return to after my manuscript revision was complete. In the first, blogged on The Prepaid Economy blog, I suddenly found myself noticing that the work done over the past 20 years on the informal economy was, in fact, a means to ‘dismantle the monolith’. Here, the monolith is clearly that of an undifferentiated and unsegmented mass of peoples lumped together under easy-to-use labels such as “informal sector” or “bottom of the pyramid” which collapse all diversity, heterogeneity, and plurality into the convenience of one single lens by which to call them all. Four (4) billion peoples live on “$2 a day” and lost all other distinction not to mention individuality when they became “the BoP”. The informal economy does not even get this discretionary cash flow as a distinguishing factor. All of it around the world is relegated to the shadows, outside the lines clearly drawn for “formality”. It struck me then, as I pointed out how this most recent research (by the OECD) is the first I’ve seen which explicitly states what we’ve been saying for 20 years: One size does not fit all. In order to dismantle this monolithic view predicated on grand challenge scales (“the next billion” as the target “user” for planning design actions), one must unpack the patterns of financial behaviour at the level of first principles in order to construct models to segment that which cannot be predicted.
I’ll come back to this later, here I want to move on to the second link I reviewed this morning, one on community environmental behaviour observed during a South African research study in a rural community. Empirical data contradicts dominant narratives which assume financial incentives will be required for the poor to involve themselves with sustainability. Interestingly however, what they found was community actions on climate change adaptations were motivated by ‘ubuntu’, the Southern African philosophy predicated on kinship and relationality.
A long-standing idea in environmental research is that people are more likely to care about the environment, and do something to prevent environmental damage, once they earn enough to stop worrying about paying their bills. But what happens in rural communities with high levels of poverty, where money is scarce and environmental changes directly affect people’s livelihoods? We are economists who wanted to find out what explained environmental action best: income levels, or the strength of people’s connections to their fellow community members (Kirsten & Biyase 2026)
A relational viewpoint is revealed by the link between actions taken and the ‘strength of people’s connections” (Kirsten & Biyase 2026). The stronger the relationality, the more likely the community would take actions which would benefit all and future generations. The ‘long-standing idea’ which Kirsten & Biyase (2026) overturn with empirical evidence is an assumption in their line of work which can be problematized, as they have done. It is the result of taking a ‘rational’ viewpoint which rooted in positivism and the scientific method. Recognizing this, too, I now realize, is part of ‘dismantling the monolith’ since relational viewpoints, such as those illuminated by Kirsten & Biyase (2026) are closely identified with indigenous research paradigms, underpinning the relational axiology of indigenous knowledge systems (Chilisa 2019). There is much more to be said here but I will stake a step back instead to consider both the links and my response to them.
I can see clearly a nuanced shift in my interpretation and understanding. It is also clear that it results from the work done over these past 6 or 7 months on constructing a (meta) theoretical and conceptual frame for my doctoral research. Here now, I will pause reflexive analysis and pick it up again once I have materials to share in public. Suffice to say, I did not expect this. And must ponder its implications.
