Do ‘flexicurity’ Policies Work for People With Low Education and Health Problems? A Comparison of Labour Market Policies and Employment Rates in Denmark,The Netherlands,Sweden,and the United Kingdom 1990–2010
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online October, 2015
Do ‘flexicurity’ Policies Work for People With Low Education and Health Problems? A Comparison of Labour Market Policies and Employment Rates in Denmark,The Netherlands,Sweden,and the United Kingdom 1990–2010
People with limiting longstanding illness and low education may experience problems in the labor market. Reduced employment protection that maintains economic security for the individual, known as “flexicurity,” has been proposed as a way to increase overall employment. We compared the development of labor market policies and employment rates from 1990 to 2010 in Denmark and the Netherlands (representing flexicurity), the United Kingdom, and Sweden. Employment rates in all countries were much lower in the target group than for other groups over the study period. However, “flexicurity” as practiced in Denmark, far from being a “magic bullet,” appeared to fail low-educated people with longstanding illness in particular. The Swedish policy, on the other hand, with higher employment protection and higher economic security, particularly earlier in the study period, led to higher employment rates in this group. Findings also revealed that economic security policies in all countries were eroding and shifting toward individual responsibility. Finally, results showed that active labor market policies need to be subcategorized to better understand which types are best suited for the target group. Increasing employment among the target group could reduce adverse health consequences and contribute to decreasing inequalities in health.
Fritzell J, Lundberg O, eds. Health Inequalities and Welfare Resources: Continuity and Change in Sweden. Bristol, England: The Policy Press; 2007.
2.
GallieDThe quality of working life in welfare strategy. In: Esping-AndersenG (ed). Why We Need a New Welfare State, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2002, pp. 96–129.
3.
Esping-AndersenG. Why We Need a New Welfare State, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2002.
4.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Transforming Disability into Ability: Policies to Promote Work and Income Security for Disabled People, Paris, France: OECD, 2003.
5.
BambraC. Going beyond the three worlds of welfare capitalism: regime theory and public health research. J Epidemiol Community Health2007; 61(12): 1098–1102.
6.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ed. Sickness, Disability and Work: Keeping on Track in the Economic Downturn. Background Paper; 2009; Stockholm: High-Level Forum.
7.
BambraCWhiteheadMHamiltonV. Does ‘welfare-to-work’work? A systematic review of the effectiveness of the UK’s welfare-to-work programmes for people with a disability or chronic illness. Soc Sci Med2005; 60(9): 1905–1918.
8.
European Commission. Towards Common Principles of Flexicurity: More and Better Jobs Through Flexibility and Security, Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2007.
9.
YinRK. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE publications, 2014.
10.
MarttilaA. Managing Adversity: Qualitative Studies of Long-Term Social Assistance Recipiency in Sweden in a Resilience Perspective [PhD thesis], Stockholm, Sweden: Karolinska Institute, 2012.
11.
BackhansMWhat is the impact of ‘flexicurity’ on the social differentials of entry into employment for people with activity limitations due to health problems? A comparison of EU countries using Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA). In: BurströmBBackhansMNylénLMcAllisterABlomqvistS (eds). Economic Change and Social Protection: Unemployment Reduction: Labour Market Policies Which Help to Increase Employment Among Persons With a Chronic Illness, Stockholm, Sweden: Karolinska Institute, 2014, pp. 44–63.
12.
ClaytonSBarrBNylenL. Effectiveness of return-to-work interventions for disabled people: a systematic review of government initiatives focused on changing the behaviour of employers. Eur J Public Health2012; 22(3): 434–439.
13.
BarrBClaytonSWhiteheadM. To what extent have relaxed eligibility requirements and increased generosity of disability benefits acted as disincentives for employment? A systematic review of evidence from countries with well-developed welfare systems. J Epidemiol Community Health2010; 64(12): 1106–1114.
14.
BurstromBNylenLClaytonSWhiteheadM. How equitable is vocational rehabilitation in Sweden? A review of evidence on the implementation of a national policy framework. Disabil Rehabil2011; 33(6): 453–466.
15.
MilesMBHubermanAM. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publication, 2003.
16.
EisenhardtKM. Building theories from case study research. Acad Manage Rev1989; 14(4): 532–550.
17.
MadsenPK. The Danish model of ‘flexicurity’: experiences and lessons. Eur Rev Labour Res2004; 10(2): 187–207.
18.
EichhorstWKonle-SeidlR. The interaction of labor market regulation and labor market policies in welfare state reform. Comp Labor Law Policy2006; 28(1): 1–43.
19.
KananenJ. Nordic paths from welfare to workfare: Danish, Swedish and Finnish labour market reforms in comparison. Local Econ2012; 27(5–6): 1–19.
20.
HøgelundJ. In Search of Effective Disability Policy: Comparing the Developments and Outcomes of Dutch and Danish Disability Policies, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2003.
21.
Schubert K, Hegelich S, Bazant U, eds. The Handbook of European Welfare Systems. New York, NY: Routledge; 2009.
22.
GuptaNDLarsenM. Evaluating Labour Market Effects of Wage Subsidies for the Disabled–The Danish Flexjob Scheme, Aarhus: The Danish National Centre for Social Research, 2010.
23.
European Commission. Mutual Information System on Social Protection, Brussels: European Commission, 2013.
24.
HemerijckAVisserJ. Change and immobility: three decades of policy adjustment in the Netherlands and Belgium. West Eur Polit2000; 23(2): 229–256.
25.
Van OorschotW. Balancing work and welfare: activation and flexicurity policies in The Netherlands, 1980–2000. Int J Soc Welfare2004; 13(1): 15–27.
26.
ViebrockEClasenJ. Flexicurity and welfare reform: a review. Socio-Econ Rev2009; 7(2): 305–331.
27.
Kluve J, Card D, Fertig M, Góra M, Jacobi L, Jensen P, et al. Study on the effectiveness of ALMPs, report prepared for the European Commission. Essen: DG Employment; 2005.
28.
Eurofound. Employment and Disability: Back to Work Strategies, Brussels: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 2004.
TangianA. Monitoring Flexicurity Policies in Europe from Three Different Viewpoints, Kiel: WSI-Diskussionspapiere, 2006. Report No.: 145.
31.
VossEDornelasA. Social Partners and Flexicurity in Contemporary Labour Markets: A Synthesis Report, Brussels: European Social Partners and the European Commission, 2011.
32.
KjellbergA. The decline in Swedish union density since 2007. Nord J Work Life Studies2011; 2(4): 67–93.
33.
SOU. Långtidsutredningen 2011 [The Long-term Commission of 2011], Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish Official Reports, 2011.
34.
SOU. Fokus på åtgärder: En plan för effektiv rehabilitering i arbetslivet: betänkande [Attention towards measures – a plan to effective measures], Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish Government Official Reports, 2006.
35.
DelanderLNybergE. Effektutvärdering av arbetslivsfonden [Effect evaluation of the working life fund]. Stockholm, Sweden: Arbetslivsfonden, 1995.
36.
StrandbergULindholmCSundbladI. Åtta år med Dagmar. Utvärdering av Dagmarsatsningen i Stockholms län åren 1991–1998. [Eight years with Dagmar. Evaluation of the Dagmar initiative in Stockholm County 1991–1998], Stockholm: Hälso- och sjukvårdsnämnden, 1999.
37.
Swedish Social Insurance Agency. Förändringar in socialförsäkrings- och bidragsområdena. [Changes in the social insurance and benefit system], Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish Social Insurance Agency, 2011.
38.
SOU. Sveriges socialförsäkringar i jämförande perspektiv. En institutionell analys av sjuk-, arbetsskade- och arbetslöshetsförsäkringarna i 18 OECD-länder 1930 till 2010. Stockholm Parlamentariska socialförsäkringsutredningen; 2010.
39.
HägglundP. Do time limits in the sickness insurance system increase return to work?Empirical Econ2013; 45(1): 567–582.
40.
JunestavM. Socialförsäkringssystemet och arbetsmarknaden - politiska idéer, sociala normer och institutionell förändring - en historik. [The Social Insurance System and the Labour Market - Political ideas, Social Norms and Institutional Change - the history], Uppsala: The Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy, 2007.
41.
FalkJBruceDBurströmBThielenKWhiteheadMNylénL. Trends in poverty risks among people with and without limiting-longstanding illness by employment status in Sweden, Denmark, and the United Kingdom during the current economic recession: A comparative study. BMC Public Health2013; 13(1): 925–933.
42.
RuedaD. Social democracy and active labour-market policies: insiders, outsiders and the politics of employment promotion. Br J Political Sci2006; 36(3): 385–406.
43.
BurstromBWhiteheadMLindholmCDiderichsenF. Inequality in the social consequences of illness: how well do people with long-term illness fare in the British and Swedish labor markets. Int J Health Serv2000; 30(3): 435–451.
44.
EtheringtonDIngoldJ. Welfare to work and the inclusive labour market: a comparative study of activation policies for disability and long-term sickness benefit claimants in the UK and Denmark. J Eur Social Policy2012; 22(1): 30–44.
45.
GreenbergDDavisA. Evaluation of the New Deal for Diasbled People: The Cost and Cost-Benefit Analyses, London, UK: Department of Work and Pension, 2007. Report No.: 1847122124.
46.
StaffordBCordenAMeahASainsburyRThortonP. New Deal for Disabled People: Third Synthesis Report–Key Findings From the Evaluation, Leeds, UK: Department for Work and Pensions, 2007. Report No.: 1847122116.
47.
UK Government. Equality Act 2010: Guidance. London, UK: Government Equalities Office and Department for Culture, Media & Sport. 2013. https://www.gov.uk/equality-act-2010-guidance. Accessed July 31, 2015.
48.
Department for Work and Pensions. Support to incapacity benefits claimants through pathways to work. In: Pensions DFWA, ed. London, UK: Department for Work and Pensions; 2010.
49.
European Union. Employment and Social Developments in Europe 2013, Luxemburg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014.
