Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 128, Issue 3, pp 1121–1146 | Cite as

A Regional Account of Flexibilization Across the EU: The ‘Flexible Contractual Arrangements’ Composite Index and the Impact of Recession

  • Stelios Gialis
  • Michael Taylor
Article

Abstract

The aim of the paper is to present a comparative analysis of the diffusion of ‘flexible contractual arrangements’ (FCA) across the EU. The homonymous FCA Composite Index (CI) is calculated for all 200 NUTS II-level regions of France, Germany, the UK, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Bulgaria and Romania. The CI is calculated for 2005, 2008 and 2011 to present a clear picture of causal effects leading up to, and arising from, the 2008 financial crisis and ensuing recession. The findings suggest that the crisis had more intense consequences in certain regions than in others, and thus its effects upon regional labour markets were spatially uneven. Such an unevenness runs along, and cuts across, a variety of scales, namely the global, the EU and the intra-EU ones. All regions that are at the top of the FCA CI ranking are either regions that lack advanced economic and social or welfare structures, while at the same time facing important pressures from international and EU competitors, or regions of highly tertiarized service economies. The paper discusses the relation between this regional hierarchy, and the official policies of EU and national authorities which seek to re-regulate employment protection and security norms according to new accumulation priorities. Furthermore, it outlines several flexibilizing mechanisms that had contributed to the de-stabilization of modes of social reproduction across different regions, and reinforced each other, even many years before the current crisis occurred. The paper ends with some comments on the validity and social relevance of CIs when not be considered as a goal per se.

Keywords

Flexibilization Composite indicators Recession Regional unevenness EU regions 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research project is implemented within the framework of the Action ‘Supporting Postdoctoral Researchers’ of the Operational Program ‘Education and Lifelong Learning’ (Action’s Beneficiary: General Secretariat for Research and Technology), and is co-financed by the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Greek State (Funding Decision: 11409/31-8-2012). The project is named “The Southern EU flexicurity project,” and it has been awarded to the first author for 2012-2015. The authors are very grateful to Anastasia Christodoulou, Rural and Surveyor Engineer (Dipl) and GIS Specialist (M.Sc.) for designing the maps; Akis Kanelleas, GIS Specialist (M.Sc.) who has provided the geographical data and supported the design of the maps in various ways; Mrs Vicky Katsina for her administrative support throughout the whole project; and Valeria Paul Carril for his strong support during the case-studies conducted.

References

  1. Berg, J., & Cazes, S. (2007). The Doing Business indicators: Measurement issues and political implications. International Labour Office. http://www.oit.org/public/english/employment/download/elm/elm07-6.pdf.
  2. Bezzina, E. (2012). In 2010, 17 % of employees in the EU were low-wage earners—Eurostat: Statistics in Focus, Issue 48/2012. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu.
  3. Boarini, R., & d’Ercole, M. M. (2006). Measures of material deprivation in OECD Countries (No. 37). OECD Publishing. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/.
  4. Buzar, S. (2008). Towards a critical geography of flexibility: Facets of adaptability in society and space. Geography Compass, 2(4), 1075–1094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clauwaert, S., & Schömann, I. (2013). The crisis and national labour law reforms—a mapping exercise. Transfer European Review of Labour and Research, 19(1), 121–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cremers, J. (2010). Non-standard employment relations or the erosion of workers’ rights. Amsterdams Instituut voor ArbeidsStudies (AIAS), Briefing Paper #23. http://dare.uva.nl/record/1/351459.
  7. Danermark, B. (Ed.). (2002). Explaining society: Critical realism in the social sciences. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  8. Eichhorst, W., & Marx, P. (2011). Reforming German labour market institutions: A dual path to flexibility. Journal of European Social Policy, 21(1), 73–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Esty, D. C., Levy, M., Srebotnjak, T., & de Sherbinin, A. (2005). Environmental sustainability index: Benchmarking national environmental stewardship. New Haven: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy.Google Scholar
  10. European Commission. (2007). Working time, work organisation, and internal flexibilityflexicurity models in the EU. In Employment in Europe, DG Employment, European Commission, Brussels.Google Scholar
  11. European Commission. (2012). Open, dynamic and inclusive labour markets. Commission Staff Working Document, SWD(2012) 97 final, Strasbourg. http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=89&langId=el&newsId=1270&moreDocuments=yes&tableName=news.
  12. Fleetwood, S. (2001). Conceptualising unemployment in a period of atypical employment: A critical realist analysis. Review of Social Economy, 59(1), 45–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Floridi, M., Pagni, S., Falorni, S., & Luzzati, T. (2011). An exercise in composite indicators construction: Assessing the sustainability of Italian regions. Ecological Economics, 70(8), 1440–1447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gialis, S. (2011). Restructuring strategies, firms’ size and atypical employment in the local productive system of Thessaloniki, Greece. Industrial Relations Journal, 42(5), 412–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gialis, S. (2014). Recession and atypical employment: A focus on contemporary Greek metropolitan regions. In S. Mavroudeas (Ed.), Greek capitalism in crisis: Marxist analyses. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Gialis, S., & Leontidou, L. (2014). Antinomies of flexibilization and atypical employment in Mediterranean Europe: Regions of Greece, Italy and Spain during the crisis. European Urban and Regional Studies. doi: 10.1177/0969776414538983.Google Scholar
  17. Greek Ministry of Finance. (2014). The national reforms programme. http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/csr2014/nrp2014_greece_en.pdf.
  18. Hadjimichalis, C., & Hudson, R. (2014). Contemporary crisis across Europe and the crisis of regional development theories. Regional Studies, 48(1), 208–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hancké, B., Rhodes, M., & Thatcher, M. (2008). Beyond varieties of capitalism: Conflict, contradictions, and complementarities in the European economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Harvey, D. (2006). Neo-liberalism as creative destruction. Geografiska Annaler: Human Geography, 88(2), 145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hevenstone, D. (2010). National context and atypical employment. International Sociology, 25(3), 315–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hoskins, B., & Mascherini, M. (2009). Measuring active citizenship through the development of a composite indicator. Social Indicators Research, 90, 459–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hudrlikova, L., & Fischer Jakub, C. Z. (2011). Composite indicators and weighting scheme: The case of Europe 2020 indicators. Journal of Applied Mathematics, 4(3), 291–298.Google Scholar
  24. Hudson, R. (2002). Changing industrial production systems and regional development in the New Europe. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 27(3), 262–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jurado, A., & Perez-Mayo, J. (2012). Construction and evolution of a multidimensional well-being index for the Spanish regions. Social Indicators Research, 107(2), 259–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kalleberg, A. (2003). Flexible firms and labor market segmentation: Effects of workplace restructuring on jobs and workers. Work and Occupations, 30(2), 154–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Keune, M., & Jepsen, M. (2007). Not balanced and hardly new: The European Commission’s quest for flexicurity. European Trade Union Institute WP 2007/01. http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/gurn/00281.pdf.
  28. Lawn, P. A. (2003). A theoretical foundation to support the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW), Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), and other related indexes. Ecological Economics, 44(1), 105–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ledoux, L., Lock, G., Wolff, P., & Hauschild, W. (2007). Measuring progress towards a more sustainable Europe2007 monitoring of the EU sustainable development strategy.Google Scholar
  30. Leontidou, L. (1995). Repolarization in the mediterranean: Spanish and Greek cities in neoliberal Europe. European Planning Studies, 3(2), 155–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leontidou, L. (2006). The mediterranean city in transition (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Manca, A. R., Governatori, M., & Mascherini, M. (2010). Towards a set of composite indicators on flexicurity: The indicator on flexible and reliable contractual arrangement. JRC-Publication Office of the EU, Luxembourg. doi: 10.2788/84920.
  33. Markusen, A. (1996). Sticky places in slippery space: A typology of industrial districts. Economic Geography, 72(3), 293–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Massey, D. (1996). Spatial divisions of labour: Social structures and the geography of production. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  35. McGrath, S., Herod, A., & Rainnie, A. (2010). Handbook of employment and society: Working space. Massachusetts: E. Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., & Tarantola, S., Hoffman, A., & Giovannini, E. (2005). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide. OECD Statistics Working Papers, 2005/03. OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/533411815016.
  37. Nešporová, A., & Cazes, S. (2006). Combining flexibility and security for employment and decent work in the western Balkans. South-East Europe Review for Labour and Social Affairs, (02), 7–23.Google Scholar
  38. Nolan, B., & Whelan, C. T. (2010). Using non-monetary indicators to analyse poverty and social exclusion: Lessons from Europe? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(2), 305–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Osborne, D. B., & Difei, H. (2010). Technical note on re-calculating the HDI, United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report Office. http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr_2013_en_technotes.pdf.
  40. Redefining Progress. (1995). Gross production vs genuine progress. Excerpt from the Genuine Progress Indicator. Redefining Progress, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  41. Sagar, A. D., & Najam, A. (1998). The human development index: A critical review. Ecological Economics, 25(3), 249–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Salourou, R. (2015). Crisis brought to front two distinct levels of employment relations in Europe’s North and South, Kathimerini, 7/6/2015. www.kathimerini.gr.
  43. Saltelli, A. (2007). Composite indicators between analysis and advocacy. Social Indicators Research, 81(1), 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stockhammer, E. (2013). Rising inequality as a cause of the present crisis. Cambridge Journal of Economics. doi: 10.1093/cje/bet052.Google Scholar
  45. Tangian, A. (2008). Is Europe ready for flexicurity? Empirical evidence, critical remarks and a reform proposal. Intereconomics, 43(2), 99–111.Google Scholar
  46. Taylor, M., Perakakis, P., Trachana, V., & Gialis, S. (2014). Rankings are the sorcerer’s new apprentice. Ethics in Science & Environmental Politics, Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 13, 73–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. United Nations Development Programme. (1990). Human development report 1990concept and measurement of human development, New York.Google Scholar
  48. Venn, D. (2009). Legislation, collective bargaining and enforcement: Updating the OECD employment protection indicators. Paris: OECD. http://www.oecd.org/employment/emp/43116624.pdf.
  49. Viebrock, E., & Clasen, J. (2009). Flexicurity and welfare reform: A review. Socioeconomic Review, 7, 305–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vliet, O. V., & Nijboer, H. (2012). Flexicurity in the European Union: Flexibility for outsiders, security for insiders. University Library of Munich, Germany. http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/37012/.
  51. Williams, C. C., & Padmore, J. (2013). Evaluating the prevalence and distribution of quasi-formal employment in Europe. Industrial Relations, 68(1), 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wilthagen, T., & Tros, F. (2004). Flexicurity. European Review of Labour Research, 10, 98–116.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of European CivilizationHellenic Open UniversityPatrasGreece
  2. 2.Department of GeographyUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  3. 3.University of AegeanLesbosGreece
  4. 4.Institute for Environmental Research and Sustainable DevelopmentNational Observatory of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations