ETUI-REHS Research / Employment and Economi... / Projects /

Flexicurity

04/2005 -> 03/2006

Description

The pursuit of such a new balance between flexibility and security has become a key strategy in European policy-making. It is clearly documented in the EU policy discourse since 1993, starting with the 1993 White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and the "Green Paper - Partnership for a New Organisation of Work" in 1997, states that "the key issue for employees, management, the social partners and policy makers alike is to strike the right balance between flexibility and security". The same topic has been reinforced within the European employment policy (pillar on adaptability) and several other papers of the European Commission, as in the Council Decision on the revision of the Employment Guidelines where it is stated that "Providing the right balance between flexibility and security will help support the competitiveness of firms, increase quality and productivity at work and facilitate the adaptation of firms and workers to economic change."

Flexibility seems not only to be the monopoly of employers since employees and their representatives also show a need for a more flexible organisation of work in order to meet employees' individual preferences and circumstances, e.g. in combining work and private duties and responsibilities on a life-long basis. Moreover, employers realise that they have an interest in stable employment relations and in securing employees' commitment to their companies. In the European Commission's overview of industrial relations in Europe for the year 2000, it is contended that "all member states have tried to improve flexibility in the labour market by launching active employment and vocational training policies. Modernising the way in which the labour market operates means finding a new balance between flexibility and security. This is reflected at community level in the framework agreement on part-time work, concluded by the social partners' (European Commission, 2000:83).

This notwithstanding, some recent studies are fairly pessimistic regarding new trade-offs regarding flexibility bargaining. In de Nanteuil-Miribel (2003), it is clearly demonstrated that the flexibilisation of the labour market has led to a significant erosion of workers' rights in fundamentally important areas such as employment and income security. Furthermore, even recent social security reforms seem to more focused on cost reduction than on easing flexibility. The issue is complex as on the one hand the question is how social security systems and labour law can minimise the undesired and problematic outcomes of flexibilisation, on the other hand it has to be asked what social security and labour law regulations could actively support the flexibility needed.

Several questions need to be raised and clarified within the flexicurity paradigm. Given the new nexus policy makers, legislators, trade unions and employers' organisations not only have a strong need for new theory-inspired policy models and concepts that promise to reconcile these allegedly incompatible goals of enhancing both flexibility and security, they also need a valuation of labour market and employment strategies, and policies such as flexicurity strategies is - at the end of the day - an empirical matter and should be subject to empirical, preferably multidisciplinary research.

A detailed analysis is required of the political economy of the flexibility-security nexus and its implications for industrial relations theory. Such a study should include a critical assessment of the origins, developments, key actors and their interests with respect to EU and national discourses on the interrelationship and compatibility of labour market flexibility and security. The main argument behind this is that flexicurity should not be considered a substitute for traditional social or employment policy, but can make up for the growing flaws of the established social protection systems. The main thrust of the argument is that more flexibility needs more not less security

A key-issue is the translation of the political discourse into practical policy making. Although, we are observing a convergence of the political discourse on flexicurity, at least at the European level, the actual implementation of the concept into national policies might be very diverging. Flexibility can be obtained in various manners (internal, external, etc.) and so can security (job security, employment security, income security). Hence, although the political discourse tends to be similar across Europe the actual national policy making can take different forms, hence it is important to investigate the functional equivalence. This implies that empirical and particularly comparative studies of new trade-offs between flexibility and security are required. These studies should not only have a special focus on the (current and changing) roles and playing fields of the social partners, as they are assumed to play a key role, they should also pin-point the exact effects of the trade-offs. Who benefits and who loses? In these questions it is vital to incorporate the gender-dimension. Longitudinal research and datasets on actual labour market mobility and transitions can be used to map out the consequences for individual workers and employers.

Hence the aim of this research project will be twofold. On the one hand it will investigate the origins, developments, key actors and their interests with respect to EU and national discourses on the interrelationship and compatibility of labour market flexibility and security, with a special emphasis on the EU discourse. On the other hand it will try to identify the impact of the trade-off between flexibility and security on individuals as well as focus on the role of the social partners. The question is what are the conditions, if they exist, to reach the right balance?

Results from this project will be fed by and feed into the project on the European Social Model, where flexicurity is a key-issue.

It is proposed to set up the project in three phases. The first phase will flesh-out the full matter of issues to examine and identify the 15 members that will form the expert network; some will originate from the Transfer issue under preparation. The network will have a meeting in first half of 2004 to launch the research. The second phase will be used to research the empirical issues and a first workshop end-2004 will be used to present the first draft of the papers. The third phase will concentrate on the publication of the results and is foreseen in 2006.

Researchers

Publications