Atypical Employment and Flexicurity

Abstract

Hitherto, discussion of flexicurity has focused on normal employment (Normalarbeitsverhaltnis), with atypical work receiving only cursory attention. This paper attempts to remedy this conceptual oversight by identifying strategies for reducing the social risks. We begin by analysing the two components that make up flexicurity. Therefore, we draw on the conceptual framework of forms of flexibilization. As far as social security is concerned, we propose a set of criteria that take into account short-term and long-term effects. We then describe the different forms of atypical work and their development since the 1980s. It is necessary to establish which individuals are particularly affected. Then we discuss the extent to which the individual forms are not just atypical but also precarious. Finally, we offer further reflections on the concept of flexicurity. Key words: Atypical Emplyoment, Flexicurity, Flexibilization, Flexibility, Normalsarbeitsverhaltnis 1. Introduction: Setting the Scene In the past, the question of atypical work has featured in the debate on deregulation largely only in terms of employment policy aspects and the controversy surrounding the reforms. The assumption is that flexibilization will lead to the creation of more jobs (Bericht der Kommission 2002; Bundesrat 2003). In contrast, longer-term social security and employability issues have been somewhat overlooked. This imbalance in the emphasis placed on flexibility and social security is also evident in the first and second of the so-called Hartz Laws for Modern Services on the Labour Market (Moderne Dienstleistungen am Arbeitsmarkt) that provide for an expansion in atypical forms of employment in the short term while failing to adopt measures to guard against the long-term risks implicit in this type of work. The concept of flexicurity offers an alternative to this one-sided approach by attempting to attach equal importance to both aspects (for a summary, see Transfer 2004). In addition to taking into account the different interests of the various labour market players, a fair balance of flexibility and social security can in the long term contribute to improving labour market efficiency (OECD 2004a). Hitherto, discussion of flexicurity has focused primarily on normal employment (Normalarbeitsverhaltnis), with atypical work receiving only cursory attention. This paper will attempt to remedy this conceptual oversight by identifying strategies for reducing the social risks associated with flexible forms of employment. Regulation, either in the shape of legislation or collective agreements, is one such option. We begin by analysing the two components that make up flexicurity. In order to evaluate the importance of atypical forms of employment in companies' flexibility strategies, we draw on the conceptual framework of different forms of flexibilization developed by the OECD (1986, 1989). As far as social security is concerned, we propose a set of criteria that take into account both short-term and long-term effects (ILO 2004). We then move on to describe the different forms of atypical work and their development. There has been an overall increase in this type of work since the 1980s, although the different forms have not all increased at the same rate. Furthermore, it is clear that atypical work is set to become increasingly important, especially if the deregulation measures continue to be implemented. It is therefore also necessary to establish which individuals are particularly affected by the different forms. Having done this, we discuss the extent to which the individual forms can be considered to be not just atypical but also precarious. Finally, we offer some further reflections on the concept of flexicurity. 2. Aspects of Flexicurity Before examining the two aspects of flexibility and social security, it is necessary to define the different types of atypical employment. 2. …