Against a background of growing international competition and of pervasive uncertainty and fluidity, flexicurity policies
are being actively promoted in the EU policy agenda as a useful policy tool to address the needs of business to respond to
rapid changes, while providing workers with a safety net. On one hand, businesses need to be able to adjust to new challenges
and improve their competitiveness. On the other, the European social model needs to be reinforced and provide workers with
protection, but also opportunities, in a volatile and threatening environment. The flexicurity model seems to provide the
link between these seemingly incompatible goals.
However, some critical questions arise as to the universal relevance
of this model:
1.Is the flexicurity model the only way forward to achieve ecoomic efficiency for business and
adequate protection or workers? What is the cost of not introducing flexicurity measures in an economy that struggles to remain
2.Can flexicurity policies (however broad their scope) be adjusted to fit in with the idiosyncrasies of widely
varied national and institutional backgrounds, whilst retaining their main characteristics?
3.Does the flexicurity trade-off
by definition always lead to a "win-win situation" for all the actors involved, regardless of the national context?
aim of this work is to address the above questions, as well as to shed some light on four particular aspects of the flexicurity
agenda and the concurrent debate:
1.The flexicurity policy agenda is based on an asymmetrical relationship,
as it involves a trade-off between unequal partners, with winners and losers both across, as well as within the ranks of the
2.The flexicurity model is not a "one-size-fits-all" model, as there exist huge national differences that
need to be taken into consideration in the process of policy implementation;
3.The importance of institutional and cultural
factors (for example, the institutional background, the consensus culture, the level of trust, indiidual and collective expectations
from the future) in the implementation of flexicurity policies are often over-shadowed by economic and political considerations;
policy agendas need to be established that are more tailored to the needs and the idiosyncrasies of particular national contexts.
attention in this paper is devoted to the question whether flexicurity policies can be successfully promoted in a national
context characterised by segmented labour markets and widespread atypical and often unregulated employment, sub-protective
welfare systems, a weak social consultation tradition, and the defensive responses of business to the challenges of globalisation.
To this end, a considerable part of the work compares the experience of adopting flexibility and security measures in 4 EU
countries (chosen on the basis of their distinct employment and welfare regimes and their vastly different degree of endorsement
of flexicurity policies in their national policy agendas): 2 success stories - Denmark and the Netherlands- on one hand, and
2 reluctant supporters- Spain and Greece- on the other. The purpose of this comparative approach is to highlight the importance
of institutional factors, as well as the (often under-estimated) key role of social attitudes and norms, in determining the
direction and outcome of particular welfare and labour market initiatives.
The first 5 sections of this work provide
an overview of the main components of the flexicurity policy agenda, as spelled out in detail by the EU documents and as implemented
on the terrain in the two success stories, Denmark and the Netherlands. Sections 6, 7 and 8 attempt a comparative analysis
of the impact of the national context (economic, social, institutional and cultural) on the outcome of the flexicurity agenda
in the 4 countries under consideration. Finally, section 9 discusses the main findings of the report and questions the relevance
of the flexicurity agenda in times of growing uncertainty and global economic crisis.