ABSTRACT
‘Flexicurity’, the flagship of the European Employment Strategy, lacks conceptual rigour. It often invites cheap talk, opportunistic use for various political interests, the mistake that flexibility is only in the interest of employers and security only in the interest of employees, or considering ‘good practices’ as a menu à la carte. Although these weaknesses may be considered a strength (conceptual openness inviting debates and different adaptations), their potential damaging effects pervade. The concept lacks especially a normative background that enables to assess or to properly guide the so-called balance of flexibility and security; a sound empirical background to evaluate the reasons for an alleged increasing demand of flexibility and the related insecurities for people affected by ‘flexible’ employment relationships; an explicit governance framework that guides the potential win-win game of ‘flexicurity’; and, finally, a theory of the interrelationship between various forms of flexibility and security.
