The name is absent

Flexibility and security: an asymmetrical relationship?

gration (48.3%) and the lowest low quality insecure integration (13.9%), whilst the Southern regime
displays an inverse picture: the lowest percentage of the former and the highest percentage of the
latter. Hence, Paugam & Zhou conclude that there are almost twice as many chances for a worker
living in a Southern European country to be caught in an insecure and low quality job than there is
for a worker in a Nordic country, despite the fact that in Southern Europe 1 in 3 jobs are low quality
but secure. ⁷⁸

How many people are considered to be vulnerable in the 4 countries under consideration, and to
what extent? A report by the European Foundation (Eurofound, 2008e) offers us a useful insight in
this respect: (see Box)

There seems to be a trade-off between the number of vulnerable people (and their proportion to
the total population) and the extent of their vulnerability, that takes different forms in each of the 4
countries, depending on the welfare regime in place. Overall, workers are less vulnerable in countries
with a higher “decommodifying” and more generous welfare system, as in the Nordic countries (Eu-
rofound, 2008e). However, even in countries where social protection is inadequate (as is the case of
Southern Europe), the family and other informal networks can alleviate —as providers of welfare- the
negative effects associated with vulnerability.

7.3. Economic efficiency

Last but not least, a measure of success of the implementation of the flexicurity agenda is the
policy outcome in 3 important areas of economic efficiency:

a) the overall economic performance of the country, especially regarding its public finances and
budgetary policies (see section 6.1.);

b) the ability of companies and organizations to survive and prosper in a highly competitive (and
volatile) international context; and

78 Probably owing to a higher EPL index there.

Page • 99

<<   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   >>

More intriguing information