Aliki Mouriki
the future) in the implementation of flexicurity policies are often over-shadowed by econom-
ic and political considerations;
iv) Alternative policy agendas need to be established that are more tailored to the needs and the
idiosyncrasies of particular national contexts.
Special attention in this paper is devoted to the question whether flexicurity policies can be suc-
cessfully promoted in a national context characterised by segmented labour markets and widespread
atypical and often unregulated employment, sub-protective welfare systems, a weak social consulta-
tion tradition, and the defensive responses of business to the challenges of globalisation. To this end,
a considerable part of the work compares the experience of adopting flexibility and security meas-
ures in 4 EU countries (chosen on the basis of their distinct employment and welfare regimes and
their vastly different degree of endorsement of flexicurity policies in their national policy agendas): 2
success stories — Denmark and the Netherlands- on one hand, and 2 reluctant supporters- Spain and
Greece- on the other. The purpose of this comparative approach is to highlight the importance of
institutional factors, as well as the (often under-estimated) key role of social attitudes and norms, in
determining the direction and outcome of particular welfare and labour market initiatives.
The first 5 sections of this work provide an overview of the main components of the flexicurity
policy agenda, as spelled out in detail by the EU documents and as implemented on the terrain in the
two success stories, Denmark and the Netherlands. Sections 6, 7 and 8 attempt a comparative analysis
of the impact of the national context (economic, social, institutional and cultural) on the outcome
of the flexicurity agenda in the 4 countries under consideration. Finally, section 9 discusses the main
findings of the report and questions the relevance of the flexicurity agenda in times of growing un-
certainty and global economic crisis.
Page • 6