Recoge: 1. The challenges and opportunities of globalisation and change - 2. An integrated flexicurity approach - 3. Flexicurity policies - 4. Flexicurity and social dialogue - 5. Developing common principles of flexicurity - 6. Flexicurity pathways - 7. The financial dimension of flexicurity - 8. Next steps: flexicurity and the Lisbon Strategy for growth and jobs - 9. Annex.

Contains analysis of, critical remarks on, and constructive suggestions to Towards common principles of Flexicurity of the European Commission (2007).

Flexicurity is a European policy agenda seeking to increase both flexibility and security in the labour-market. This book argues that it needs a revision: Although flexicurity is set out to change the way Europeans work and live, and even though it is being justified by workers’ needs, flexicurity lacks of a clear and democratically justified vision of society. Flexicurity is confronted here with Amartya Sen’s capability-approach, a paradigm of well-being evaluation. How is flexicurity related to a concept of employment as part of a way of life which people have reason to value? How capability-friendly are established flexicurity-indicators? It is thus shown how the capability-approach can be used in the field of labour-market and social policy.

The European Commissions Lisbon Agenda aims to enhance both flexibility and security in the labour markets in order to reconcile competitiveness and sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion (COM(2007)359). The pursuit of a balance between flexibility and security addresses simultaneously -the flexibility of labour markets, work organization and labour relations, and -security, including employment and social security for weaker groups in and out of the labour market. This is the concept of flexicurity whereby flexibilisation of employment and labour markets is advocated to support productivity, competitiveness and growth, while security is advocated from a social policy perspective emphasising the importance of preserving social cohesion within society (Wilthagen, 1998). The approach of flexicurity implies that the policies for more and better jobs are developed in coordination with social partners from both sides, i.e.^employees and employers, through public or private partnership and are aimed to ensure security to workers in and out of the labour market reducing risks of social exclusion (Wilthagen and Tros, 2004). Moreover, flexicurity also concerns progress of workers into better jobs, development of talent and support of transitions during life course, e.g. from school to work, from job to job, between unemployment and employment and from work to retirement. Therefore, security implies equipping people with the skills that enable them to progress in their working lives, and helping them find a new job rapidly when unemployed. It is also about adequate unemployment benefits to facilitate transitions towards new jobs. Finally, it encompasses training opportunities for all workers, especially weaker groups such as the low skilled and older workers.^This paper has been developed in this framework and presents the findings of a research project carried out by the Joint Research Centre- (Unit G09-Econometrics and Applied Statistics) and DG Employment (Unit D1 Employment Analysis) of the European Commission . The project aimed to develop statistical tools to measure flexicurity achievements of EU Member States through a set of four composite indicators corresponding to the four dimensions of flexicurity identified by the Commission (COM(2007)359) Lifelong Learning (LLL), Active Labour Market Policies (ALMP), Modern Social Security Systems (MSS) and Flexible and Reliable Contractual Arrangements (FCA).^This project represents a significant step forward with respect to previous analyses of flexicurity, in many respects: Comprehensiveness, Soundness and transparency of statistical methodology used, Solid theoretical framework on flexicurity, Policy relevance: possibility to replicate the exercise for policy monitoring, Robustness of results is extensively assessed.