ABSTRACT Economists,as well as anthropologists have seriously questioned,the empirical validity of the dual economy paradigm. Indeed, the evidence is overwhelming that while formal and informal sector enterprises may be differentiate d in terms of their capitalization, organization, labor processes, market penetration, and the like, it is generally the case that these differentiated enterprises are structurally articulated within a centralized political economy. Accordingly, three macrotheories have,been ,offered ,to explain ,the ,structural ,articulation ,of formal ,and ,informal ,sector developments. One theory, that of modernization , suggests that informal sector developments are a temporary,by-product of migratory flows of unskilled labor that have,been,set in motion by rapid urban industrialization. The other two theories, both Marxist or neo-Marxist in conception, consider,informal,sector,developments,to be primarily the result of economizing,production strategies. According to one of these theories, firms in the formal sector seek to depress wages by maintaining a reserve of surplus labor and, thus, they force into the informal sector large numbers of unemployed or underemployedworkers. In the alternative view, firms in the formal