Tilburg University, Department of Social and Cultural Studies /

OSA – Institute for Labour Studies

Conceptualization and Measurement of Flexicurity in a Comparative Perspective

Seminar Flexicurity Network Copenhagen, June 9, 2006

Ruud . J. A. Muffels & Ton Wilthagen

1. Job mobility and Work Security: Trade-Off or Double-Bind

2. Flexicurity in a life course perspective

Research focus in both projects

• Exploring the role and performance of welfare states /

policy regimes in maintaining flexibility and work and

income security using longitudinal data (paneldata;

lifecourse-data)

• Based on a dynamic approach: define flexicurity not in

a static way but in a lifecourse perspective

• Define a broad set of dynamic ‘outcome’ indicators on

both: flexibility and security. Not EPL but tenure or

job mobility should be used as indicators

Life course proofing of flexicurity arrangements

• Life-course proofing: long-term effects of working time arrangements such as part-time work, career breaks (care and educational leave schemes) and working in non-standard jobs.

• Short and long-term effects on future wages and income; on participation in employment; on occupational level of jobs (careers), on job quality, life satisfaction and health

• Main underlying question: Is there a ‘trade-off’ or a ‘double bind’ relationship between the aims of creating a flexible labor market and safeguarding employment security for all people over their life-time?

Dynamic indicatorsFlexibility:

– Job-to-job mobility (internal, external);

– Professional status mobility;

– Contractmobility

Work Security:

– Employment stability; unempl. spells;

– Exit and (Re)-Entry: w.r.t. employment; working hours;

quality of work

– Income security; well-being; quality of life; social

participation & integration (e.g. spells of low/high income,

well-being etc.);

Policy indicators: availability and use of policy measures

• Availability (opportunity set)

– EPL; Labour Market and Social Security Policies; Firm’s

HRM policies; Self-regulation (market; individual; civil

society)

• Usage/take-up

– Job tenure; usage of: LM/SS arangements; Working Time

Options; Vocational Training; Quality of Working Conditions

• Construction of policy index on availability and usage

• Outcomes/effects: assess differences across countries and changes

in policies over time; find homogenous clusters; use clusters in job

mobility and exit/re-entry analyses

  

  “Much security” (secure jobs, active LMP, generous UIB)

‘Little security’(insecure jobs, active LMP, low UIB benefits)

‘Much flexibility’(high job mobility, loose EPL etc.)

Social Democratic regime

Liberal regime

Transition countries

‘Little Flexibility’(low job mobility, tight EPL HRM etc.)

Corporatist Continental European regime

Traditionalist Southern European regime

Table 1: The ‘flexicurity’ combination of employment regulation and work/income security in different

employment regimes

Two contrasting perspectives

– Trade-off thesis: trade-off between flexibility and

security due to increased competition and a process

of skill-biased technological change

_ Flexicurity thesis: double bind between flexibility

and security: due to the ‘knowledge-based economy,

flexibility is required to be competitive and to afford

work/income security which on its turn is required

to sustain high levels of flexibility

Low work security(exit high / (re-)entry low)

High work security (exit low / (re-)entry high)

Low flexibility(low job mobility)

High flexibility(high job mobility)

II = Trade-off I = Flexicurity

III = Inflexicurity

IV = Trade-off

Fig. 1. The theoretical relationship between flexibility and security

Work security below EU-average

Work security above EU-average

Job Mobility below EU-average

Job Mobility above EU-average

II = Trade-off(tightly regulated LM,active LM policies)

I = Flexicurity(activating policies, high employability)

III = Inflexicurity(tightly regulated, segmented LM)

IV = Trade-off(no regulation, no active LM policies)

Social-democratic

Southern,traditionalist

Anglo-Saxon,Liberal

Corporatist, continental

Fig. 2: The contended location of the welfare regimes in the ‘flexicurity’ quadrant

Transition countries

Australian/antipodean

Measures using ECHP• Job Mobility (JM)

– Occupational mobility [JM] (based on occupational class [EGP] :

– Contract Mobility [CM] (mobility between employment contracts: flexible job; permanent job; self-employment)

• Work Security (WS)– Staying in employment – Moving into more secure employment

between t and t+1 for each of the pairs of years of observation

Add: Income security; Working conditions

Ten ‘flexicurity’ indicators

Flexibility • 1. Internal job-to-job mobility• 2. External job mobility• 3. Occupational class mobility• 4. Wage mobility (based on hourly real earnings)• 5. Contract mobility

Work and income security• 6. Working time flexibility• 7. Labour market stability and mobility • 8. Job quality. Maintaining or moving into a better job• 9. Social protection related mobility • 10. Work-life balance related mobility (caring; educaton)

Measure for Work Security changes

 

o=origin state; d=destination state; m=number of destination states

o,d: 1 = permanent job; 2 = flexible job; 3 = self-employment; 4 = out-of-work

= - 100% : nobody occupies a job because all people moved out into non-work during the observation period

= + 100% : nobody stayed not-working because everybody got a job during the observation period

od

m

do ood

m

do o ExitEntryWS

1;11;1

Fig. 3: Indices for job mobility (JM), contract mobility (CM) andwork security (WS) by country

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

DK NL FIN IRL UK BE GE FR AU GR SP IT POCountries

Per

cen

tag

e

Job Mobility (JM) Contract Mobility (CM) Work Security (WS)

Work Security

Job Mobility

EU-WS

EU-JM

Exit

Entry

Contract Mobility

EU-CM

Fig. 4: Indices for job mobility (JM), contract mobility (CM) andwork security (WS) by regime type

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

SocDem Liberal Corporatist SouthernRegimes

Per

cen

tag

e

Job Mobility (JM) Work Security (WS) Contract Mobility (CM)

Work Security

Job Mobility

Contract Mobility

EU-WS

EU-CM

EU-JM

SD

SOU

LIB

COR

DK

FR

GE

FIN

IT

NL

UK

IRL

BE

GRSP

PO

AU

Inflexicurity

Trade-off

Trade-off

Flexicurity

Work security above EU-average

Job Mobility above EU-average

Job Mobility below EU-average

Work security below EU-average

Fig. 5: The empirical derived location of twelve European countries and four regime types within the ‘flexicurity’ quadrant

Conclusions and discussion

• Define dynamic ‘outcome’ indicators for measuring the attained balance between flexibility and security

• Define a broad set of dimensions of the ‘flexicurity’ concept like the ten dimensions proposed here

• Shift the focus from short-term to long-term or life-course

indicators and measure the effects of particular life course events on future careers (using panel and LC data)

• Apply the measures on comparative data with a sufficient number of countries to find country clusters and to test whether policies matter and whether regimes change over time