ABSTRACT
The origins of the concept of flexicurity, which emerged in the mid 1990s, have to be seen in a historical context of labour market and welfare state developments. In many Western welfare states, the job and social security systems were developed after the Second World War, reaching a stage of ‘completion’ in the late 1960s and 1970s. The 1980s, however, can be typified as an era where deregulation and privatization appeared as the dominant political responses to economic and state budget crises. In the early 1990s, policy scientists started to notice that the ‘deregulation versus regulation’ or ‘flexibility versus security’ debates might be positioned and conceptualized too narrowly. Certain settings and forms of (re)regulation were considered conducive to economic performance (Streeck, 1992). Social policy was increasingly seen as a ‘production factor’ and social institutions were either perceived as ‘harmless’ with regard to economic growth, or thought to matter in a positive sense (Auer, 2001). Besides this regulation-deregulation nexus, the scientific debate observed a flexibility-security nexus (Wilthagen and Rogowski, 2002). The quest for a new (dynamic) equilibrium, facilitating and enhancing the adaptability and
capacity to deal with change of both individuals and companies has come to be labelled ‘flexicurity’. Flexicurity is defined as ‘a policy strategy to enhance, at the same time and in a deliberate way, the flexibility of labour markets, the work organization and employment relations on the one hand, and security-employment security and social security – notably for weaker groups in and outside the labour market – on the other hand’ (Wilthagen and Tros, 2004). From a theoretical point of view this concept can be considered as a post-deregulation strategy (Keller and Seifert, 2000, p. 293) and can be characterized as a form of integration and synchronization of economic and social policy (Wynn, 2000, p. 501). The concept further has some common characteristics with the approach of ‘transitional labour markets’, as it is strongly connected to promoting and analysing transitions in the labour market and between the labour market and non-paid life domains (Schmid and Gazier, 2002). European politics quickly picked up ‘flexicurity’ as a normative concept within the European
Employment Strategy (EES) to strive for both economic adaptability and social cohesion (Bekker, 2011). Policy makers were inspired by the good economic performances – especially the high employment participation – in the 1990s of countries that were presented as
‘flexicurity-countries’, notably Denmark and the Netherlands. Besides acclaim, the concept has also met with criticism (see below). Nevertheless, the European Union (EU) has adopted ‘flexicurity’ as a key policy concept within the European Employment Strategy, as documented by the adaptation of ‘Common Principles on Flexicurity’ by the European Council on 6 December 2007; the report and resolutions on flexicurity from the European Parliament on 29 November; the joint labour market and flexicurity analysis presented by the European social partners on 18 October 2007; the Communication on flexicurity by the European Commission dated 27 June 2007; and the much debated Green Paper on the Modernization of Labour Law issued 22 November 2006. The concept has become a European flagship policy that has been re-confirmed within the EU’s 2020 strategy and, most recently, the Euro Plus Pact. The European Commission has mapped out ‘flexicurity pathways’ that can be designed and
implemented across the following four policy components:
Flexible and reliable contractual arrangements Efficient active labour market policies to strengthen transition security Systematic and responsive lifelong learning Modern social security provisions that also contribute to good mobility in the labour market.
The first pathway addresses the issue of flexibility at the margin of the labour market. It suggests reducing asymmetries between standard and non-standard work by promoting upward transitions in the labour market and by integrating non-standard contracts fully into labour law, collective agreements, social security, and lifelong learning systems. The second pathway emphasizes safe and productive job-to-job transitions either within the
company (especially to enhance the employability and skills of workers) or outside the company once the necessity arises. The third pathway recommends the access to learning and good transitions for all, notably
groups in the labour market that risk exclusion. It recommends strengthening investments in skills and research and development to enhance productivity and employment. The fourth pathway starts from the urgent need to increase the employment opportunities of
persons who are on social security benefits or working in the informal sector. Active labour market policies and social security should offer sufficient opportunities and incentives to return to work and to facilitate this transition. Long-term welfare dependence could thus be prevented. By formalizing informal economic activities, increased financial resources can be raised for building up a more comprehensive social security system. For a clear understanding, it has to be stressed here that these policy concepts are principles and not necessarily practices in Europe (see also Chapter 12 about ALMPs). The EU respects the autonomy of each Member State regarding labour market and social
policies – and differences in country traditions and conditions – and therefore does not promote a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach.
