A Informalidade e a Lei do Microempreendedor Individual sob a ótica dos microempreendedores informais: o sentido da escolha,

Abstract

Among the changes that occurred in the history of work, informality is one of the consequences of this productive reorganization. According to the literature, two main reasons lead to informality: the need, reflected by unemployment and lack of opportunity, and the choice of informality as an option for life. With the speech of trying to reduce the impacts of this precariousness of work, in 2008 the government instituted the Individual Microentrepreneur Program with the intention of attracting to the formality this contingent of workers without social protection. However, the program did not achieve the desired membership. In this context, this study aimed to understand the meaning of the choice of informal microentrepreneurs in maintaining informality, without joining the Individual Microentrepreneur Program, as well as verify the knowledge of these entrepreneurs about the MEI Law. The analysis of the perception of microentrepreneurs was made through the determination of profiles, in order to identify patterns of reasons that led microentrepreneurs to opt for permanence in informality. The definition of the profiles was carried out through the content analysis, making a categorization, based and guided by the theory, whose primary question was the reason for the choice of informality. As secondary issues, the fact that the informal microentrepreneur has or not another source of income and whether or not to make social security contributioness. Once the categorization was carried out, four profiles of microentrepreneurs were defined, each composed of a set of characteristics that distinguish them from the others. It was verified the lack of full knowledge by the interviewees about the MEI Law, which, after being informed of the existence of this legislation, were shown to be prone to formalization. Thus, from the point of view of the sample and in line with the results of other studies, the MEI Program did not reach the number of accessions due to the disinformation of the potential participants or the fact that they did not perceive that the benefits offered would be sufficient for the decision to formalize.