2011•European Journal of Industrial RelationsRequires access

Flexicurity: A conceptual critique

Luigi Burroni, Maarten Keune

Open publisher page 121 citations

Abstract

‘Flexicurity’ has become an influential concept in academic and political discourse, in particular since the European Commission placed it at the core of the European Employment Strategy. However, the concept is underdeveloped and suffers from a number of serious shortcomings. In this article we discuss a number of its problematic features. In particular, we focus on four aspects: its ambiguity and openness to political capture; its failure to problematize the creation of institutional complementarities; its lack of attention to conflicts of interest and to the heterogeneity of the labour market; and its reductionist view of the sources of flexibility and security. We illustrate this discussion with a series of empirical examples. Finally, we conclude that the flexicurity approach should either be abandoned, or be substantially improved.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

‘Flexicurity’ has become an influential concept in academic and political discourse, in particular since the European Commission placed it at the core of the European Employment Strategy. However, the concept is underdeveloped and suffers from a number of serious shortcomings. In this article we discuss a number of its problematic features. In particular, we focus on four aspects: its ambiguity and openness to political capture; its failure to problematize the creation of institutional complementarities; its lack of attention to conflicts of interest and to the heterogeneity of the labour market; and its reductionist view of the sources of flexibility and security. We illustrate this discussion with a series of empirical examples. Finally, we conclude that the flexicurity approach should either be abandoned, or be substantially improved.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 121 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

‘Flexicurity’ has become an influential concept in academic and political discourse, in particular since the European Commission placed it at the core of the European Employment Strategy. However, the concept is underdeveloped and suffers from a number of serious shortcomings. In this article we discuss a number of its problematic features. In particular, we focus on four aspects: its ambiguity and openness to political capture; its failure to problematize the creation of institutional complementarities; its lack of attention to conflicts of interest and to the heterogeneity of the labour market; and its reductionist view of the sources of flexibility and security. We illustrate this discussion with a series of empirical examples. Finally, we conclude that the flexicurity approach should either be abandoned, or be substantially improved.

Key concepts: Flexicurity, Ambiguity, Openness to experience, Politics, Flexibility (engineering), European commission, Focus (optics), Positive economics

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Flexicurity: A conceptual critique — Research Paper | ScholarLens