Flexibility and security: an asymmetrical relationship?
1. Definition of concepts and typology
of flexicurity
1.1. What does “flexicurity” mean and what it does not
mean
The EU inspired neologism flexicurity -like the first of its two composing terms, flexibility- is
vague enough to encompass a number of different versions. This is the reason why it is quite often
mistakenly regarded as a euphemism for pure and simple greater labour market deregulation. Howev-
er, labour market flexibility and flexicurity policies should not be confused and used interchangeably.
The main difference between “flexibility” and “flexicurity” policies lies in the role of policy interven-
tions to ensure that —in the pursuit of greater labour market flexibility- the needs and concerns of the
workforce will also be taken into account.
Depending on the perspective, the content of flexicurity is perceived quite differently. From
the business perspective, flexicurity means a greater degree of flexibility, especially with regards to 4
major fields:
a) hiring and firing procedures: this implies a relaxation of the employment protection legisla-
tion, in order to reduce the cost of firing, whilst lifting the barriers to lay-offs;
b) adjusting the number of workers and of hours worked to the fluctuations of demand: this
implies wider use of fixed-term contracts, of temporary agency workers and of outsourc-
ing. It also means the possibility to vary the working hours of the stable workforce, through
flexible working arrangements, part-time work, annualisation of working hours, etc;
c) improving the use of human capital within the firm: this can be achieved by enhancing multi-
skilling, team working, job rotation and the redeployment of the workforce; and
d) greater wage flexibility, i.e. performance-related pay, free wage fluctuation according to re-
sults, opting out of collective agreements, etc.
Page • 9