Flexible Working in Europe: A Review of the Evidence

Introduction(1) The concept of flexible working practices(2), the extent of such practices and the implications for practitioners and policy makers in the area, have been much discussed. These are critical issues for employers, trade unions and governments. Recent opinions from the European Court of Justice have raised the political profile of the subject and the European Commission is committed to further action on this issue in 1997. This paper addresses these issues in a comparative European context. The paper presents evidence on developments in flexible working from organisations across Europe. Flexible working here covers only working time and contractual variations (temporary contracts, outsourcing etc.).(3) The paper summarise the debates on the topic; briefly outlines the research that was done; shows the extent and growth of flexibility; explores the reasons for the massive growth in flexible working in Europe and considers whether this is evidence of convergence of European markets. This is followed by a wide-ranging examination of the implications of the findings. Theories of Labour Flexibility The concept of labour remains, both in theoretical and practical terms, highly problematic. Despite the huge volume of literature devoted to the so-called debate (see bibliography in Brewster et al. 1996a), relatively little progress has been made in resolving many of the problems associated with the concept. In the literature, the term is applied to a series of quite distinct (if related) theories. There are those which have been labelled post-Fordist: a category which covers a range of variants, but is characterised by the work of Piore and Sabel (1984), Mathews (1989a, 1989b, 1990, 1992), Lash and Urry (1987), Katz (1985), Kern and Schumann (1987), Tolliday and Zeitlin (1986), and Streeck (1987). For these writers, who generally concentrate on manufacturing industry, new technology is the key to a more flexible form of production, more responsive to increasingly rapid changes in the market. Whilst such developments may depend for their success upon a more skilled, motivated, and flexible workforce, the focus of this stream of writing is on production systems rather than employment. A more critical, neo-Marxian (Clegg 1990) or neo-Fordist (Wood 1989b, p. 21) group of writers is also concerned with flexible production, though taking a more negative view of its likely effect on individuals and including discussion of the impact on markets (Bramble 1988; Bramble/Fieldes 1989, 1992; Harvey 1989, 1991). An alternative conception of flexibility is provided by researchers in the operational management area. There is also an important set of literature labelled by some as managerialist (Bagguley 1991, p. 164) or neomanagerialist (Clegg 1990, p. 210) and typified by the work of Atkinson (1984, 1985a, 1985b, 1986, 1987; Atkinson/Gregory 1986; Atkinson/Meager 1986). His work has been subjected to critiques which have attempted to demonstrate the limited utility and lack of theoretical robustness of his work or even, in the early debates, to deny that the market had changed substantially, rather than attempting to build upon the insights which it provides or to develop a more comprehensive theoretical framework based on it (see for example: Pollert 1988a, 1988b). Nonetheless, Atkinson's work has been extremely influential. His vision of flexibility has influenced policy debates internationally (OECD 1986a, 1989). These changes and the development of a more flexible market have been controversial. They are seen by some to have taken our societies back towards the early years of the industrial revolution, with the creation of a significant underclass of underprivileged and vulnerable workers. They are seen by others as evidence of an uncaring and irresponsible approach to employees by employers -- sometimes associated with a desire to de-unionise the workforce. …