ABSTRACT
Given the importance of informal ways of getting things done in Russia and the role informal practices played in the post-Soviet transition more generally, research into the field of informality has been slow to develop. Some of the reasons are of a pragmatic nature. In studying informal institutions, networks, and practices, the researcher often encounters methodological challenges and pressures to work cross-discipline, as well as unwelcoming attitudes of respondents. But there are also conceptual puzzles of integrating the informal dimension into disciplinary research, as well as moral resistance to find out inconvenient facts about the functionality of grey areas for politics, economy, and society. In certain contexts, it is wrong to assume that the formal rules are universally applied, clear, enforceable and fundamentally beneficial, and that the informal ways of getting things done are always detrimental. Indeed, how do we relate to “improper forms of behaviour”, defined as corruption by outsiders, that are common and considered a norm by insiders? Does it make sense to describe informality as corruption, if such deviant ways of getting things done become a norm? If not grasped by existing categories, how can we tackle the situation of widespread informality analytically?
