Does the European Commission Definition of
Flexicurity Favour Flexibility over Security?
CICERO FOUNDATION
PARIS SEMINAR 11 October 2007
Maria Jepsen
European Trade Union Institute for Research, Education and Health and Safety
http://www.etui-rehs.org
The rise of ‘flexicurity’ in Europe

‘This concept of "flexicurity" is a way of ensuring that
employers and workers feel they have the flexibility, but also the
security they need.’
José Manuel Barroso

‘Je pense enfin à la nécessité de créer de nouvelles formes de
flexibilité et de sécurité – ce que l'on appelle la "flexicurité".’
Vladimír Špidla (Employment Commissioner)

Renewed Lisbon strategy, Employment in Europe report, Green
paper on labour law, common principles, etc.

Informal summits, Social Summit, conferences etc.
The concept of flexicurity

About positive and balanced combinations between different
types of flexibility and different types of security

Win-win approach: catering to workers and employers

‘Open’ concept: many ways to combine flexibility and security

Not a new way of thinking:

Gösta Rehn (WWII)

Sorge and Streek : Diversified quality production
Why promote flexicurity (2)

Flexicurity falls into the realm of the European Employment
strategy = > first direct mention in 2006

Main reasons for adopting flexicurity concept :
 Disseminator
 Broker
of knowledge and ‘best practice’
of interest
 Lisbon,
European Capitalism and the European Social Model
The COM as disseminator of knowledge and ‘best
practice’

Main objectives of EES : policy-learning and policy transfer via
Open Method of Coordination

Focus on employment rates :


Highest rates : NL (73.2%) and DK (75.9%)

Average EU25 : 63.8%
Flexicurity countries are NL and DK, each their own way.
The COM as broker of interest

Commission has role as broker between economic interest and
national (political) interests.

Involvement of social partners.

Reconcile different cognitive and normative frameworks.

Call for balance between flexibility and security has always
been part of the EES.
The COM as broker of interest

Actors do not understand the functioning of the labour market in the
same manner and they might not have the same final goal
Flexicurity
Guaranteed rights
and high job and
income security

Market-driven allocation
of employment will
provide the necessary
security
Impacts on choice of policies and way of reasoning : with change of
economic climate and ideology of government the concept is
understood differently.
Lisbon, European capitalism and the European
Social Model

Commitment to the ESM and that social and economic progress
should go hand in hand

Apparent consensus around providing health care, education
and social cohesion

Advocating modernisation of the ESM in order to face the
challenges of globalisation, technological changes and
demographics.

Flexicurity translates these ideas and presents it in one word.
The interpretation (1)

“The main thrust of the EU recommendation on flexicurity is to
encourage a shift from job security to employment security”

Need for transitions and deal with segmented labour markets

Flexibility:



Flexible and reliable contractual arrangements (fixed-term, temp agency
work, …)

Less employment protection (‘protecting people instead of jobs’)

Any job is better than unemployment
Security:

From protection against risk to increasing capacity to adapt

Life-long learning fostering employability

Active labour market policies

Modernization of social security systems: social security support during
periods without employment; reinforcing incentives to take up jobs.
Emphasis on flexibility, not win-win approach
The interpretation (2)

Main idea : go from job protection towards employment
protection.

Why : transitions inevitable and segmented labour markets.

How : Decrease ELP (employment protection legislation) and
provide LLL and activation.

Translation : Can no longer protect against risk but need to
adapt to risk = > big change for many countries.
The interpretation (3)

Focus on dismissal protection : Level of EPL rather than
construction of EPL.

LLL : done it for 10 years and little results

Activation : focus on work-fare rather than learn-fare (job
search coursed and job clubs)

Modernisation of social protection : give more incentives to
work. “Social policies aimed at the underprivileged and those
furthest away from the labour market”

Finances : “sustainable budgetary policies”
The interpretation (4) : Indicators

A : flexible contractual arrangements



B Comprehensive LLL strategies



Expenditure on active and passive labour market policies (%GDP)
Expenditure per unemployed person
D. Modern social security systems





Numbers and not quality
C. Effective active labour market policies


EPL
Diversity of contractual + working arrangements
Net replacement ratios
Unemployment traps
Number of participants in active labour market policies
Share of people not having been offered a job or activation measure.
E. Labour market outcomes






Employment rates
Youth unemployment ratio
LT unemployment rate
Growth in labour productivity
Quality in work
At risk of poverty rates
Balanced ?

Not balanced and hardly new.

Emphasis on economic goals instead of social goals

Social goals : capacity to change and competitive solidarity.

The discourse and broader theoretical approach is ready.

Flexibility side well developed however the security side remains
blurry.
What about employment creation? Real employment security follows from

high levels of employment. Flexicurity does not create employment.

Are these the right elements in order to guarantee employment
security and de-segmented labour markets??

Little scope for grand trade-offs
Conclusions

Steer the flexicurity debate away from its present focus on
reducing job protection and increasing the use of flexible
contracts

Focus more on upgrading and creating positive conditions for
mobility without reducing rights

Bring employment creation back into the debate