EUROPE’S LABOUR MOBILITY PROBLEM: CAN FLEXICURITY BE SOLUTION?

Abstract

Debate about the concept of flexicurity has focused on the European employment strategy which has attracted attention in the number of European countries. Especially, the process of improving labour market flexibility has stimulated a renew interest in the issue of European Social Model. As employment prospect is one of the determinants of labour flows, the flexicurity model may be applicable to workers’ movement situation in the EU. This derives from the fact that level of mobility in the European Union (EU) is low, despite the right to live and work in another member state contained in Articles 39-42 of EC Treaty. The EU has introduced a number of measures to make it easier for citizens to move from one member state to another, but within the EU system no concrete instruments or guidlines as to how to achieve higher mobility is yet to be materialised. Although the flexicurity model has introduced mechanisms to rectify problems in the social policies of the member states, under the prevailing conditions, the existing problems may become more intense. The basic quesion is whether the flexicurity model will enchance policy dimension of mobility, since the member states have their own national social models. This article aims to explore the significance of flexicurity for movement of labour in the EU

Keywords

• J Labour and Demographic Economics

References

1. Cohen, J. and Sabel, C. (2009), Flexicurity, Marta Sutton Weeks, pp. 10-14.
2. El-Agraa, A. M. (2001), The European Union Economics and Policies, Pearson Education.
3. EurActive. (2009), An EU ‘Blue Card’ for High-skilled Immigrants, EU News, Policy Positions &
4. U Actors Online, 13 October, http://www.eurative.com/en/socialeurope/eu-blue-card-high-skilled- immigrants/article. European Commission. (2006), Europeans and Mobility, First Results of an EU-wide Survey,
5. Eurobarometer Survey on Geographic and Labour Market Mobility, European Year of Workers’. Eurostat Yearbook. http://register.consilium.europa.eu/ (2009),
6. Labour Market, the European Commission, Gerhards, J. (2008), Free to Move? The Acceptance of Free Movement of Labour and Non
7. Discrimination Among Citizens of Europe, European Studies, 10:1, pp. 121-140. Hans-Werner, S. and Wolfgang, O. (2003), Social Union, Convergence and Migration, Blackwell
8. Publishing Ltd, JCMS, Volume 41. Number 5. pp. 869-896. ILO. (2009), Facts on Flexicurity, 8th European Regional Meeting, Switzerland.

9. Kaim-Caudle, P. (1993), The Unintended Effects of Social Policy Measures, Policy Studies
10. Review, Spring/Summer, 12:1/2, pp. 102-125. Madsen, Per K. (2006), Flexicurity, A New Perspective on Labour Markets and Welfare States in
11. Europe, CARMA Centre for Labour Market Research, Aalborg University, 18 May, www.carma.au.dk. Moraes, C. (2003), The Politics of European Union Migration Policy, The Political Quarterly
12. Publishing Co, Ltd, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp. 127-135. Paas, T., Eamets, R., Masso, J, and Room, M. (2003), Labour Market Flexibility and Migration in the Baltic States, University of Tartu.
13. Tassinopoulos, A. and Werner, H. (1999), To Move or Not to Move, Migration of Labour in the European Union, IAB Labour Research Topics 35.
14. Vaughan-Wheathead, D. C. (2003), EU Enlargement Versus Social Europe, Edward Elgar.
15. Vignon, J. (2006), Drawing the Lessons from the European Year for Workers Mobility, Director for Social Protection and Integration, European Commission, 24 September.