The name is absent

Flexibility and security: an asymmetrical relationship?

and prosperity and with the more developed European countries in mind, appears like wishful think-
ing when “Rome is burning”, if not the cause of all evil. Can it still deliver its promises regarding
enhanced competitiveness, job creation, and social cohesion, at a time when firms are closing down
and laying off workers at an unprecedented scale, and the foundations of the European Social Model
are shaking? Could it be perhaps already outdated as we are caught amidst a transition period with an
uncertain outcome that might even force upon the developed world a paradigm shift?

A new policy agenda is undoubtedly needed for the EU countries to remain competitive and for
the European Social Model to survive the multiple pressures (demographic ageing, growing inequali-
ties and economic stagnation), especially more so as in the (not so) long run, the cost of maintain-
ing the welfare state is expected to outrun the wealth produced. Given the significant cross-country
divergences, this agenda must be tailored to the needs of each country. In this sense, the flexicurity
agenda and the European Employment Strategy can serve as a benchmark for the countries lagging
behind, but not as a straightjacket, condemning them to the status of a “pariah” of the European
integration process.

9.3. Pre-requisites for a successful policy agenda

Even in the context of an increasingly flexible and global economy, there are margins of autono-
my by which social reform may lead to greater solidarity in terms of employment integration. If the
flexicurity policy agenda -or any other alternative policy strategy- is to have any chances of success,
a number of pre-conditions must be met:

1) A shared awareness of the real issues at stake and a potential for synthesis of the different
perceptions of reality, through a genuine deliberation involving all interested parties. The
process of social consultation, however, involves overcoming a number of critical hurdles:
a) the definition of employment and welfare rights on one hand, and of economic efficiency
on the other;

b) the low or disputed representativeness of the employers’ and workers’ organizations;

c) the establishment of implementation and monitoring mechanisms;

d) the lack of confidence in adhering to the terms of the eventual agreement;

Page • 109

<<   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   >>

More intriguing information