This paper examines the flexibility debate with reference to an empirical study conducted in the retail banking sector in Britain and France. The first part of this paper discusses the theoretical context within which this research was conducted and argues that the dichotomous categories formulated in previous debates are too simplistic to explain the diversity of employer rationales for developing flexibility. The second half examines the use of functional flexibility, temporary work, subcontracting and part-time work on the basis of evidence collected from the case studies in each country. The paper concludes that in order to examine employers' strategies and the comparative organization of work a wider perspective is required which not only takes account of business needs and developments, such as product market competition and new technology, but which also looks at the social and regulatory factors which affect the terms in which different labour arrangements can be used by employers in different countries.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jacqueline O’Reilly (1992) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: