Aliki Mouriki
because it offers a way to restore a positive link between competitiveness and social protection (...)
Finding new ways to combine social protection and economic flexibility is fundamental to more
and higher-productivity jobs.” (M. Stocker, advisor to Business Europe, in Euro Activ, September
2007, mentioned in Auer, 2008).” Both peak-level European business organisations, BusinessEurope
(former UNICE) representing the large firms and UEAPME, representing the interests of SMEs,
have endorsed the flexicurity agenda.
At the national policy level, one can distinguish largely between three groups of countries: the
first group consists of the countries that have already gone a long way in promoting flexicurity poli-
cies, even without the incitation of the EU (Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland and Austria)
23; the second group consists of countries that follow their own idiosyncratic path to address their
economic and labour market problems like France 24, or that have to a varying degree been more or
less consistently pursuing policies balancing the flexibility needs of businesses to the security needs
of the workforce (Germany, Belgium); and the third group comprises the countries that are reluc-
tantly complying with the objectives of the Social Agenda, the European Employment Strategy and,
above all, the renewed Lisbon targets and are doing the minimum that is required from them in order
to avoid the sanctions imposed by the EU (Greece, Portugal, Spain —until recently-25 and Italy, as well
as some of the new member states). These countries - either owing to a lack of political consensus
or/and their traditional socio-economic and institutional structures- are unable to pursue a coherent
policy to address the urgent economic and labour market challenges, and are simply trying to buy
time in order to delay painful reforms and difficult decisions.
The diversity of national responses to the EU flexicurity policy agenda is best illustrated in Auer’s
representation of the clustering of flexicurity countries (see Diagram 8). His clustering is based on 8
variables that are used as proxies for flexibility and security: working time flexibility, work organiza-
tion, average employment tenure, EPL for regular and temporary jobs, labour market expenditure
23 One could also include in this group the UK, with one of the most lightly regulated labour markets among the
OECD countries; however, its flexicurity approach draws many criticisms, as it puts significantly more emphasis on
the flexibility aspect rather than the security one, thus increasing social inequalities and job dissatisfaction. The same
comment applies, to a lesser degree, to Ireland.
24 Auer mentions the recent French agreement on “the modernisation of the labour market”, the French response to the
flexicurity agenda that contains both aspects of national idiosyncrasy and policy measures of a more general stance
like portability and individual rights (Auer, 2008).
25 Spain has recently introduced a number of initiatives that enhance the rights of atypical workers and increase employ-
ability (see Diagram 6 above).
Page • 46