Abstract
Abstract Flexicurity is the combination of more flexibility for employers and more security for workers. It is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that lacks a well-developed monitoring framework or a statistically consistent grouping of the indicators. First, this paper proposes a conceptual framework by building upon the Wilthagen and Tros (2004) flexicurity matrix and the Danish Golden Triangle. It constructs flexicurity “drivers” by pooling together variables that are conceptually related to each other and a specific type of flexibility or security. Then, it obtains statistically consistent aggregate measures for each driver and selects three drivers that represent the three corners of the Danish “golden triangle”: external numerical flexibility, employment security, and income security. It conducts an empirical analysis on the evolution of the selected flexicurity drivers over time and across European Union (EU) countries and on the relationship between selected flexicurity drivers and social outcomes from the Social Scoreboard of the European Pillar of Social Rights. It finds evidence of convergence on external numerical flexibility and polarization on employment and income security across the EU. It finds that higher flexibility at the onset of the crisis contributed to a reduction in the unemployment rates after the crisis, while a more generous welfare system contributed to reducing poverty. Employment security, however, appears to be linked to the presence of higher levels of income inequality after the crisis.
Highlights
The concept of flexicurity was originally coined in the Netherlands in the mid-1990s
In the early 2000s, the concept was adopted by Danish policymakers and academics to describe an internal labor market characterized by three elements: liberal dismissal protection, relatively generous unemployment benefit system, and active labor market policies (ALMPs)—or the “golden triangle” of flexicurity (Madsen, 1999, 2004)
Many of the win–win beliefs underpinning flexicurity proposals have not been sufficiently substantiated by empirical analyses shedding light on the actual positive or negative outcomes of flexicurity policies (Keune and Serrano, 2014)
Summary
The concept of flexicurity was originally coined in the Netherlands in the mid-1990s. According to previous statistical assessments (Nardo and Rossetti, 2013; Domínguez-Torreiro and Casubolo, 2017), the correlation structure among the variables included in each of these four groups is neither sound nor robust These results do not support the use of composite indicators to summarize the four principles outlined above. Very often in the existing literature, methodological choices relating to the definition of flexicurity indicator frameworks are subjective or insufficiently explained (Maselli, 2010) These methodological choices include the selection of the variables populating the indicator framework, the interpretation of their positive or negative impact on flexibility and security dimensions, and the calculation of aggregate measures.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
