Capital Conversion and the Formal–Informal Divide: Structural Poverty in Dutch Cities

This article investigates how structurally poor urban residents in the Netherlands endeavour to convert limited economic, social and cultural capital into labour-market positions, and why formal routes fail while informal ones partially succeed. Drawing on Bourdieu’s concepts of capital, field, conversion and symbolic violence, we analyse 216 qualitative interviews from Amsterdam-Noord, Rotterdam-Delfshaven and Amsterdam-Bijlmermeer (1997–1999). An abductive thematic coding reveals that, in the formal field, participants encounter multiple barriers: insufficient finances preclude investment in education; welfare regulations penalise training; and low-paid “subsidised” jobs carry heavy stigma and minimal financial gain. In contrast, the informal economy permits partial “conversion” of under-utilised capital via trust-based networks and norms of reciprocity. Acquaintance ties enable odd jobs and self-provisioning, yielding predictable (unreported) incomes while preserving benefits. Yet informal work is illegal, precarious—subject to sanctions and irregular hours—and morally contested by some respondents. Crucially, even precarious informal work sustains dignity and self-worth, whereas formal options are either inaccessible or perceived as demeaning. We theorise these dynamics through Bourdieu’s notion of conversion capacity—the field-specific ability to transform one form of capital into another—and demonstrate that structural inequalities operate through symbolic misrecognition and field-specific logics. Formal fields impose conversion barriers and symbolic violence, devaluing the poor, while informal fields allow limited capital exchange on moral terms. Policy implications include the need to reconceive conversion capacity as relational and field-specific, shifting attention from individual deficits to structural constraints.