The name is absent

Flexibility and security: an asymmetrical relationship?

5. Not a “one-size-fits all” model

The markedly different starting points of the EU countries, and the huge divergences in their so-
cio-economic, institutional and cultural backgrounds, explain the great variety of national approaches
to flexicurity. As a recent Eurofound document puts it:¹⁹

The choice of a particular form of flexicurity is linked primarily to the historical development

of labour markets, collective agreements and the role of the government in these, as well as
to basic considerations of public policy in the employment and social protection areas.

This section briefly examines the different approaches to flexicurity within the EU countries and
questions the transferability of national experiences.

5.1. An “ideal type” of a flexicurity system: the Danish
model

Ideally, a successful flexicurity strategy would approximate OECD’s concept as a set of policy
measures with the following characteristics:

• a moderate Employment Protection Legislation

• a high rate of participation of the workforce in lifelong learning programmes

• high government spending on active and passive labour market policies

• generous unemployment benefit systems balancing rights and duties of the workers

• broad coverage of the social security systems (an adequate safety net)

• and a high rate of trade union density.

Madsen (2006) outlines the common principles that should underlie all flexicurity arrangements:

a) the principle of integrating flexibility and security, so that some form of flexibility is combined
with some form of security, thus providing a safety net. This implies the accommodation of
conflicting interests through compensating mechanisms, the use of well defined arrangements
and instruments, and clearly spelled out distributional aspects;

19 See Eurofound, 2007

Page • 37

<<   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   >>

More intriguing information