CRITICAL REVIEW OF LITERATURE - HWF

78):8B@?87B:=87D?@;@7?

AnnotationThis volume (“Critical Review of Literature and Discourses about Flexibility”) is the first publication in a series of research reportsbeing produced within the framework of a multinational research project “Households, Work and Flexibility”. Individual chaptersof the report (one chapter for every country in the project plus an international overview) summarize national debates overflexibility as well as relationship between home and work. In addition, the authors describe, where possible, the contemporarydiscourse about flexibility in each country. The countries covered are: three EU-members (United Kingdom, the Netherlands andSweden) and five pre-accession countries (Slovenia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania).AcknowledgementsThe contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the opinion or position of the European Commission.We would like to thank the sponsors of the project Directorate-General Research at the European Commission and especiallyMrs. Fadila Boughanemi for funding and supporting the project. We would also like to thank the Austrian Ministry for Science,Education and Art for additional support and the staff at the Bureau for International Research and Technology Co-operation fortheir helpful advice.We are also grateful to Wolfgang Weitlaner for his help with the layout and to Alexander Chvorostov for his energetic and carefulguidance.(C) the HWF Research ConsortiumHWF Project Co-ordinatorTeam leadersReproduction is authorized provided the source is acknowledgedProf. Claire Wallace (IHS, Austria)Cristine Cousins (United Kingdom)Yvonne Kops (the Netherlands)Thomas Boje (Sweden)Pavle Sicherl (Slovenia)Jiři Večernik (Czech Republic)Endre Sik (Hungary)Siyka Kovacheva (Bulgaria)Manuela Stanculescu (Romania)Contact detailsfor HWF Partners are provided on the third page of the coverISSN 1682-9131Published byPrinted and distributed byPublication managerTechnical layout bythe HWF Research Consortium the Institute for Advanced Studies / Institut für Höhere Studien (IHS),Stumpergasse 56, A-1060 Vienna, Austria Alexander ChvorostovWolfgang WeitlanerFirst published in April 2002Project funded byContract №Project №the European Community under the FP5 programme“Improving Human Research Potential & the Socio-economic Knowledge Base”HPSE-CT-1999-0030SERD-1999-00178

TABLE OF CONTENTSCHAPTER ONEOverview: Households, Work and Flexibility [5]CHAPTER TWOLiterature review: United Kingdom [27]CHAPTER THREELiterature review: the Netherlands [57]CHAPTER FOURLiterature review: Sweden [81]CHAPTER FIVELiterature review: Slovenia [105]CHAPTER SIXLiterature review: Czech Republic [123]CHAPTER SEVENLiterature review: Hungary [137]CHAPTER EIGHTLiterature review: Bulgaria [155]CHAPTER NINELiterature review: Romania [187]ANNEXAuthors | Publications | Order Form | Members of Consortium

Chapter OneHOUSEHOLDS, WORK AND FLEXIBILITYCritical Review of LiteratureOVERVIEW[ Claire Wallace, Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna ][ Contents ]INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................................71. THE FLEXIBILITY DEBATES................................................................................................................91.1. What is flexibility?...........................................................................................................................91.2. Pressures leading to flexibilisation...............................................................................................121.3. Conclusion: Different approaches to flexibility.............................................................................162. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HOME AND WORK ......................................................................172.1. Domestic work..............................................................................................................................182.2. Self-provisioning...........................................................................................................................182.3. The social economy .....................................................................................................................192.4. Final remarks regarding home and work .....................................................................................193. CROSS CUTTING FACTORS.............................................................................................................203.1. Gender .........................................................................................................................................203.2. Age...............................................................................................................................................203.3. Ethnicity/citizenship......................................................................................................................213.4. Life-cycle stage ............................................................................................................................213.5. Stratification of labour market ......................................................................................................213.6. Informalisation..............................................................................................................................213.7. Child care arrangements..............................................................................................................223.8. Regionalisation.............................................................................................................................22CONCLUSIONS ..........................................................................................................................................23REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................24© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter One. Overview 7INTRODUCTIONThis document is produced as the first deliverableof the project Households, Work and Flexibilityfunded by the European Commission under theFifth Framework Programme contract no. HPSE-1999-00030. The project extends from April 2000to April 2003. We are grateful to the Commissionfor their support of this work. Further informationcan be found on the homepage of the project:http://www.hwf.atThe project is designed to look at the relationshipbetween households and the kinds ofwork undertaken by households, including all thefamily members and using a broad definition ofwork to include both paid and unpaid labour. Theproject considers the role of flexibility in this contextand for this purpose we have defined flexibilityas that of time, place and conditions. That is,we are considering flexible hours of work, flexibleplace of work and various contractual conditions.The countries chosen were intended to be illustrativeof different policy approaches to flexibilisationand the work-family balance. However,we have also endeavoured to compare WesternEuropean EU countries with a range of EasternEuropean candidate countries in this analysis tounderstand the effect of such trends acrossEurope generally. Consequently, the countrieschosen were Sweden, the UK, the Netherlands,Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romaniaand Bulgaria. The research team represent a crossdisciplinarygroup of sociologists, economists,educationalists and social policy specialists.The main research instruments are a quantitativerepresentative sample survey in each countryand an analysis of policies and labour markettrends. The survey was carried out in the first halfof 2001 and involved a representative sample of atleast 1000 respondents in each country aged 18 to65 who were also asked about other householdmembers. The policy and labour market analysiswill be the subject of a report in 2002.The project is intended to look not just at thebehaviour of people in the labour market (takinginto account both domestic, informal and formalemployment) but also their attitudes and valuesin respect to it. In other words, what Glucksman(1995) has called the Total Social Organisation ofLabour. Thus, it explores ways in which peoplefeel that family and work should be combinedand whether their work impinges on family life.The project also considers the conflicts and tensionsthat this might generate within the household.Finally, the project will look at the extent towhich actors in the labour market are able to controltheir conditions of work and how they viewthem.At the start of the project, each partner wasasked to produce an overview of the debatesabout flexibility and also some discussion of thetrends in flexibility in their countries. The aim ofthis document is therefore not so much to documenttrends (this comes in a later research report)but to document debates and discourses. Whilstin the EU countries that we are covering (the UK,© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

8 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilitythe Netherlands, Sweden) flexibility has been atopic for considerable debate and often extensivepolicy interventions, in Eastern European Candidatecountries it has hardly been a topic for discussionat all at the time that we embarked on thestudy. Nevertheless, there are important ways inwhich flexibilisation is taking place in the Candidatecountries. Therefore, the following reportsvary considerably in the amount of coverage thatthey are able to provide. This first chapter of thereport is intended as an overview of the literaturereviews, highlighting some of the contrasts andsimilarities between them.In many respects, the pressures towardsflexibility, such as increased global competition,the introduction of just-in-time production, therestructuring of older formerly-dominant “Fordist”type industries, the flattening of hierarchies,the down-sizing and rationalisation of organisationsand the rise of the service sector coupledwith developments in new Information andCommunications Technologies (ICT) have impactedupon all the countries that we are considering.However, these pressures not necessarilyself-evident: they take place in an ideological environment,within economic policy discourse(Bradley et al. 2000, Dex and McCulloch 1997).They have impacted in different ways and theresponses in terms of policy have been very different.It is these differences in perceptions, responsesand discourses which we aim to explorein this report.For some time the debate about flexibilitywas derived mainly from US models of flexibilitywhere the trade off of low unemployment for lowwages and flexible work in a deregulated climatewas much admired elsewhere (Ganssman 2000).However, US social scientists also described thefamily stress, long hours culture and personalinsecurity caused by this experience (Sennet 1998,Hochschild 1997). To some extent these trendswere reflected in the UK too. Europe, by contrast,was seen as suffering from “Eurosclerosis” withan alternative trade off between high social protection,labour market rigidity and high unemployment.This rather stark contrast can no longerbe sustained. The innovative policy responses insome European countries to combine social protectionwith more flexibility are described in thisreport. The European Commission has also beenaiming to modernise the European Social Modelduring the 1990s in order to make it responsive tothese kinds of labour market changes. These initiativessuggest that there are alternative ways todeal with global economic pressures (see Employmentin Europe 2001). One of the incentivesto produce such strategies at a European level isto avoid “social dumping” whereby one countrycan undercut the costs of another by providingworse social protection and lower social costs.The success of these initiatives was illustrated inthe striking fall in unemployment and increase inthe number of jobs in some countries. This haslead to increasing interest in how to combineflexibility with economic growth in ways that suitboth employer and employee and maintain oreven improve the quality of working life.At the same time there has been a debateabout how to combine family with working lifeas increasing numbers of women enter the labourforce and the birth rates have fallen in Europeancountries, creating anxieties about the long termsustainability of the European Social Model.There have been a range of state and other initiativesto address this issue, described in the followingreports, and there are large variations acrossEurope in the extent to which work and familyare combined in different ways by different genders.The inclusion of Eastern European Candidatecountries into the project (Slovenia, the Czech Republic,Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania) adds awhole new dimension to the usual discussions offlexibility, because in these countries there hadbeen very secure and stable full time work forboth men and women until 1989. After that, soaringunemployment and the closure or rationalisationof many traditional industries along with thegrowth of the service sector, the introduction ofsmall, new firms and extensive privatisationmean that they have suffered many of the problemsof Western European countries, but more© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter One. Overview 11Hence, in the UK, the expectation of a life-long jobhas disappeared after 20 years of de-regulatorypolicies (Burchell et al. 1999, Quilgars and Abbott2000). In Slovenia, flexibility is concerned morewith flexibility of workplace since the privatisationof property discourages people from movingand encourages them to commute to work. Thisissue is also one which has emerged in the CzechRepublic. There flexibility is seen as a way inwhich work conditions are being eroded. In Hungary,there have been various rather progressiveattempts to introduce flexibility and researchshows that a flexible workforce exists alongside aregularly employed one, often through peoplemoonlighting, working in the black economy orbeing in practice employed in different ways.These are frequently the same people as who arealso working in the regular economy, so the discussionabout core and peripheral workers or socialexclusion takes on a different dimension. Thissituation of course exists in other countries too,but there is a well developed literature about therole of the informal economy in Hungary. In Romaniaand Bulgaria flexibility is not discussed atall, but has taken place very dramatically as a resultof the disappearance of full time regular jobsand their lack of replacement as well as the inadequacyof the social support system. Peoplebecome “self employed” or “casually employed”because unemployment is the only alternative.Hence, there are very different preoccupationsregarding flexibility in the different countries beingstudied and some focus more on time, someon place and some on conditions. The result isthat different national discourses have evolved.The debate about flexibilisation really beganin the 1980s in some Western countries with discussionabout flexibility in organisations (Pollert1988, Atkinson 1987) and grew out of the discussionsof de-industrialisation and the end of organisedcapitalism, being replaced with “disorganised”capitalism in a new phase of globalisation(Lash and Urry 1987, Offe 1985, Castells 1996) aswell as discussions of “postmodernisation” or“postindustrialisation” of the economy (Harvey1989). These debates emerged in the USA and theUK where the neo-liberal de-regulation of the labourmarket was first introduced. This has beenlater broadened to cover various kinds of work ingeneral that were not previously described as beingflexible or inflexible, but rather as marginal orprecarious forms of employment such as selfemployment,part time work and temporarywork. However, as these types of work increasedand became increasingly more typical rather thanatypical more attention was drawn towards them.Flexibility is normally discussed as though itwere a positive trend, as something dynamic andmodern or as something which should or “must”take place. Implicitly it is assumed: better to beflexible than to be rigid. In this way, it can be usedto make the development of casualised work, theerosion of social protection and job security, therationalisation of enterprises and the dismissal oflarge numbers of workers as well as the attack onlabour unions and forms of employee representation– which also coincide with neo-liberalistideas – seem positive and necessary. Some see thisas linked to the development of a new kind ofentrepreneurial, self-actualised, individualisedworker who holds a portfolio of jobs, who reskillshim or herself continually and who is also responsiveto change (Bridges 1996, Handy 1994,Leadbeater 1997, Rifkin 1995). This is illustratedin the Dutch report there is discussion of the developmentof an idea of “a la carte” work contractsin recent legislation: ideally, each employeecould arrange their own hours, although this remainsmore of an ideal than a reality at the moment.However, others see it more pessimisticallyas leading to the “Brazilianisation” of the labourmarket with a few well paid, well protectedworkers and a large mass of people living on casualwork with minimal protection (Beck 2000).Certainly, it will lead to new challenges forthe welfare state based traditionally on the fulltime male breadwinner to a greater or lesser extent(Behning and Feigl-Heihs 2001, Lewis 1992).It is also vision which is implicitly gendered, aswe shall see later.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

12 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibility1.2. Pressures leading to flexibilisationThe pressure towards flexible employment comesfrom different directions. On the one hand there isa need for firms, organisations and state servicesto cut costs and be responsive to global marketpressures. From the employer’s perspective,therefore, flexibility has a number of advantagesand they have been concerned to lobby for legislationto make this possible. From the employee’sside, flexbilisation is often seen negatively, as athreat to working conditions. Yet there are manyadvantages for employees too in flexibility, althoughthis depends upon their age and positionin the labour market. In this project we are thereforelooking at the situation from the bottom upwards,from the point of view of household andindividual strategies for combining work ratherthan from the point of view of employers or thelabour market in general (Wallace 2002). This canbe used as a useful way to understand the natureof post-fordist restructuring by observing whathappens in practice instead of just in theory(Mingione 1994). Therefore, we have broadenedthe notion of flexibility to include not just temporary,part time and some sorts of self-employedwork but a variety of different kinds of economicactivities, self-provisioning, informal and casualwork and its relation to household, communityand caring work. We have also included flexibilityof place as well as flexibility of time and conditions.1.2.1. Employer-lead flexibilisation(labour demand side)It is often argued that firms need to rationalisedue to global competition and they pass theserisks on to employees through creating expendableworkers. The Swedish and the UK reportsalso mention the increase in the immediacy andvariability of customer demand as a reason forincreased work flexibility. This applies not only inthe private sector; in the public sector there is alsoincreasing sub-contracting and cost cutting leadingto competitive tendering carried out by flexibleworkers. In Sweden and the Netherlands itwas particularly the economic crisis in the late1980s and early 1990s that encouraged these tendencies,as governments looked for ways to createnew jobs. In Britain it was the restructuring (deindustrialisation,privatisation, competitive tendering)carried out under conservative governmentsfrom 1980s and continued by New Labour.The restructuring of firms during the recession ofthe early 1980s and 1990s in the UK along withpolicies that aimed to diminish employmentprotection helped to increase flexibility under theconservative government.There were a number of academic debatesabout the rise of the flexible firm containing both“core” and “flexible” employees. Some have arguedthat this constitutes not just one but a rangeof segments with employees and employers indifferent kinds of secure or insecure employment(Atkinson 1987). There is a debate about just howextensive is flexibility and whether it has reallyreplaced older forms of work (Bradley et al. 2000).There seems to be a lot of variation according tocountries, sub-regions and according to employmentsectors (Perrons et al. 1998). This debate istaking place mostly in the context of WesternEurope.In Bulgaria by contrast, economic pressuressuch as privatisation and restructuring have alsolead in the direction of functional flexibility in thesense that people work longer hours on the samejob combining different tasks or take on additionaljobs to compensate for low wages and insecurityby combining both formal and informal,employed and self-employed work.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter One. Overview 131.2.2. Employee-lead flexibilisation(labour supply side).There have been a range of employment anddemographic trends which tend to create pressurestowards flexibility from the supply side aswell. In particular, we find a general trend towardsmore women working in the labour marketand continuing their careers in spite of family responsibilities,whilst more and more men are economicallyinactive. Also, falls in birth rates andthe postponement of family formation leads to atendency towards women spending longer periodsin the labour market. The single malebreadwinner family which was the dominantnorm for much of the twentieth century inWestern European countries is replaced by twoearnerfamily, which is becoming increasinglycommon in most countries. This can take the formof two full time earners, 1.5 earner families (withone full time and one part-time) as is increasinglycommon in the Netherlands or one regularworker and the other showing various flexiblecharacteristics as is more common in the UK.However, in the UK literature there is a debate:do women prefer part time work to fit with familyresponsibilities? Or are they simply forced to do itdue to lack of childcare facilities and otheropportunities? (see Hakim 1996, 2000). The dualearner family was the norm in ECE Candidatecountries until 1989 and is still something ofnormative model. However, the reality is thatmany men, but more often women, have lost theirjobs and been forced into flexible employment.High youth unemployment (in countriessuch as Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary) and increasinglynon-linear transitions into work in allcountries, whereby young people support themselveswith casual jobs through periods of studyor move in and out of the labour market andtherefore actually seek precarious, flexible jobshave helped to encourage flexibility (Kovatcheva2001). Even where youth unemployment is verylow, such as in Sweden or the Netherlands,changes in Higher Education funding mean thatstudents increasingly have to support themselvesthrough education and training by undertakingtemporary jobs. These people might actually prefertemporary and irregular jobs that they can fitwith their hours of study.Some studies have indicated that both menand women might opt for more flexible hours andmore flexibility of place in order to improve theirquality of life (Hörning; Gerhard, and Michailow1995). Such studies argue that it is time which isbecoming the scarce resource in affluent countriesand predict that conflicts over time will be ascendantin the future (Robinson and Godbey 1997).In the Eastern European Candidate countries,women worked full time since the 1950s, but unemploymentis new. In Eastern Europe, most prefersecure, full time traditional jobs rather thaninsecure flexible ones. This is still the dominantmodel both in behaviour and in attitudes for bothmen and women. There does not seem to be muchdemand for part time or flexible work even if it isavailable. In the Czech Republic indeed, flexibilitywas seen as a “poisonous cocktail” – a way ofthreatening working conditions. In Hungary,various progressive reforms to encourage flexibilitywere introduced during the last twelve years,but often these had unintended consequences (seeHungarian Report). In Bulgaria and Romania therise of flexible employment reflects the replacementof low paid regular jobs with even lowerpaid irregular ones. Paradoxically, high unemploymentand low wages in Bulgaria has lead tothe creation of “portfolio workers” – people combininga range of activities – as predicted by oneof the most optimistic prophets of the postindustrialsociety, Charles Handy. However, hereit is not a matter of higher modernisation so muchas a form of de-modernisation.However, flexibility from the employee sideis usually regarded as threatening. Many studieshave pointed out how work has become moreinsecure and more intensive in the last two decadesand that this leads to health problems andfamily tensions (Burchell et al. 1999). Flexibilisationin Sweden, the Netherlands, the UK andCzech Republic is usually portrayed as negativefor employees. Perrons and colleagues (1998) con-© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

14 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilitycludes that employees throughout the EU are usuallythe victims of flexibilisation.In Sweden functional flexibility was alreadywell developed as a result of pressure from labourunions and is not a new phenomenon. Althoughthe Swedish labour market may appear inflexiblein some respects, in fact discussions of what isnow called flexibility fit quite well with the traditionof supporting people's full participation inthe labour market through a variety of social policies.1.2.3. Family-friendly policiesThere is some evidence of family-friendly policiesbeing introduced by firms who see it as in theirinterest to retain personnel that way, howevertake up of such policies seems to be rather low(Hochschild 1997). However, in Europe most initiativescome from the state or from social partners.The Netherlands is an example of wherethese were initiated by the social partners. Sincefrom the early 1980s there was the introduction ofthe “Polder model”, which included agreementsover wage restraint, monetary stability, cuts inpublic expenditure, social security reforms andlowering taxes. These agreements were also extendedto finding ways to combine work and familylife. Visser (2000) sees three factors in theDutch “job intensive economic growth” as beingimportant: wage moderation, the shift to serviceeconomy, and working time reduction and jobredistribution. This has largely been successful.The growth in the volume of employment haslargely been achieved by flexiworkers and parttimers. As a result more and more women enteredthe labour force as part time workers in a countrywhere women had traditionally stayed at home asfull time carers. However, this was not matchedby a growth in public child care facilities andchild care was seen as part of an individualisedproblem. This brought to public attention therelationship between work and care. In the 1990sa unique attempt was made in the Netherlands toconsider how all kinds of work – paid and unpaid-come together. Hence in 1996 a “Task Force onthe Daily Timetable” was set up and also “TaskForce on Future Scenarios for the Redistributionof Unpaid Work”. Various scenarios were putforward of which the Dutch government favouredthe model of the “combination” of paid and unpaidwork shared between men and women. Itwill be interesting to see how these scenarios takeeffect in future.In Sweden, the state has been very active inhelping people to combine work and family sincethe 1960s and hence there is strong support (interms of childcare etc.) for working mothers.However, the normative model in Sweden is thatboth men and women should have full time careersactive in the labour market with public childcare rather than caring for their children mainly athome, as in the Netherlands.In the UK the family was traditionally seenas a private sphere and choices regarding workand family something for individuals and familiesto decide without state interference (Windebank2000). Hence, there is little public support forchildren of working mothers (as in France or inSweden) but families have to make their own arrangementsoften by using relatives and friendsor private childminders (Lewis 1992). This haschanged with the more pro-active policies of theNew Labour Government elected in 1997, however.In Slovenia a range of family friendly policiessurvived from the previous socialist selfmanagementgovernment giving women generouschild care leave and other forms of publicsupport if they have children. However, the assumptionis that women will work full time in thelabour market, and most of them do. It will beinteresting to see if this quasi-Swedish system willcontinue in future or whether such policies will becut as in other post-Communist countries. Somestudies have indicated that the strong protectionfor working mothers (for example the possibilityof re-entry into the same job after extended childcare leave) may actually disadvantage manywomen in the labour market as employers may bereluctant to employ them in the first place.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter One. Overview 15In the Czech Republic, Hungary, Bulgariaand Romania, family policies are a part of the legacyof the past and to some extent still part of socialexpectations. However, many are underthreat as the communist ideology of gender hasbeen under attack and the state has had to cutback on public resources. There is a legacy ofchild care facilities from the previous era. Most ofthem however, have been cut following the retrenchmentin public expenditure and the closureor rationalisation of many industries. This meansthat in these countries, families, have been forcedto use extended family self-help, somethingwhich also has strong continuities with the past.However, family policies take a low priority inthe current policy agenda.1.2.3. New technologyPrivatisation and computerisation has creatednew de-centralised work opportunities. Theminiaturisation of technologies such as PCs andmobile phones along with networking throughinternet has potentially quite radical implicationsfor working from home (Castells 1996). However,this seems to have only affected certain regionsand certain parts of the labour market. It has hadan important impact in the UK especially (for examplein the creation of call centres and teleworking).In Sweden and the Netherlands the incidenceof teleworking is also above the EU average,although this seems to mainly involve betterqualified professional and white collar workers.New technology as a way of introducing flexibilityhas had little impact in ECE countries exceptin specialised sectors – for example in bankingand science. We could say that this has helped tocreate a model of very uneven development withsome households using all manner of new technologyto change their work patterns and othersretreating into a kind of new peasant economy.Others have suggested that there has been adiversification of work forms with the introductionand dissemination of ICT technologies leadingto a blurring between public and privatespheres rather than a bifurcation between coreand marginal workers. They suggest that a “sociallysustainable flexibility” could best beachieved by negotiated management of workingtime, social rights granted independent of thestatus of the worker through the EU (that is as“citizens”), the modernisation of forms of employeerepresentation to encompass such types ofworkers, the better use of human resource managementand lifelong learning and the creativemanagement of ICT.1.2.4. Spatial flexibilitySpatial flexibility is not discussed as much asother kinds of flexibility, although it is also a wayof bringing people to jobs or jobs to people (seeexample of New Technology above, see alsoHuws 1996, Hochgerner 1998). In the Netherlandsthere seems to be a tradition of commuting towork and this has also become more common inSlovenia since 1989. In general however, therewas not much discussion of this kind of flexibility.However, there do seem to be trends that anincreasing number of people work at home orfrom home. Felstead (2001) and colleagues usingthe Labour Force Survey in Britain, found thatabout one quarter of all workers work sometimesat home, but only about 2.5% actually worked athome and 7% had no fixed place of work. In 3 outof 5 cases this was connected with New Technology.However, they distinguish between highpaid professionals working at home (discretionaryworkers) who get more money than theirequivalent colleagues in employment, who wereoften graduates and could control their work insome way and those who had little discretionover their employment and generally earned lessthan those in regular work.1.2.5. The erosion of the formal labour marketThe erosion of the formal labour market is themost important factor in Romania and Bulgariawhere the disappearance of formal jobs in thestate sector and the failure of the private sector tocompensate has lead to people being forced to© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

16 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityundertake a range of activities to survive and tocombine self-provisioning with formal work. Wemight call this “forced flexibilisation”. It is associatedwith the informalisation of large parts of theeconomy. In some ECE countries, such as theCzech Republic, however, the combination of lowpay and labour hoarding (not laying off workers)along with a relatively strong economy has meantthat pressures to flexibilise could be resisted for aslong as possible.1.2.6. Accession to the European UnionFor the countries of Western Europe, labour marketpolicies have become increasingly Europeanised,especially since 1997 with the introduction ofthe European Employment Strategy and the needfor EU states to report annually according to certaincriteria and bench marks. For the countries ofECE the debate about flexiblisation has often beenimposed from outside through international agencieswho have made it a condition of variousforms of aid (The World Bank, the IMF, the OECDetc.). Under these circumstances, flexibilisation isseen as a benchmark of “progress”. More recently,the process of accession to the European Unionhas meant that these countries have had to fulfilvarious criteria and become part of the EuropeanEmployment Strategy. Consequently, there hasbeen a rapid increase in various kinds of “atypical”work from a situation where it almost did notexist at all just 12 years ago. The fact that Bulgariaand Romania have suffered the most from thetransition from Communism and yet appear to bethe most flexible reflects a situation of increasingmarginalisation of parts of the workforce ratherthan the consequence of pro-active policies (seeEmployment in Europe 2001).1.3. Conclusion: Different approaches to flexibilityBased upon these factors and the regional differencesthat they embody, we could identify threemain approaches to flexibility: proactive approaches,de-active approaches and default approaches.In the pro-active approaches, there is a desireto embrace flexibility and to turn it into a tool forimproving the employability of the workforce andthe situation of the labour market. In Sweden thisimpetus came mainly from the state, in the Netherlands,from the social partners. In this system,the regulatory framework is very important forensuring protected employment conditions. Inpro-active countries, flexibility is combined withprosperity and modernisation of the labour market.The de-activating approaches involve mainlyrolling back the state and the regulatory frameworkby allowing the market to take priority inflexibilising work. The example is the UK. Hence,it was the newly privatised Telecommunicationsindustry that helped to initiate telework ratherthan the state. There is minimal state protectionfor employees: labour unions and other forms ofemployee representation play a negligible role. Inthese countries flexibility is associated with increasingsocial divisions.Finally there is default flexibilisation, wherethere are no real policies to encourage flexibility,and even resistance towards it (as in the CzechRepublic). Flexibilisation nevertheless takes placeleading to a division between the regularly employedbut low paid worker and the marginalflexible worker (who are sometimes the same personin different jobs). In Slovenia and the CzechRepublic, the worst of the transitional economicdepression was over by the mid-1990s and theirrelatively strong economic position with low orfalling unemployment meant that they were ableto avoid or resist flexibilisation. Hungary, however,probably more closely resembles a proactiveapproach.In Bulgaria and Romania, the transitioncountries still suffering a situation of crisis, therehas been widespread flexibilisation not due topolicy initiatives but due to strong retrenchment© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter One. Overview 17of the formal labour market. The disappearance ofstate employment, the lack of development ofprivate sector employment, rocketing unemployment(especially youth unemployment) lack ofadequate social policies and social protection forlarge parts of population means that people havebeen thrown back on their own resources to survive.The result is informalisation of large parts ofthe economy and the revival of household subsistenceproduction. Some have called it the “naturalisation”of the economy. For example, onequarter of people in Romania aged 26-45 are notin the formal labour market. The result is a retreatinto family-centred survival strategies, the declineof trust in public institutions and suspicion of policyinitiatives. This is assisted by very high privateownership of domestic homes (more than90% in Bulgaria and more than 80% in Romania).There is a debate suggested in the Bulgarian paper:is this an example of an historical continuitybriefly interrupted by socialism? Or is it really atransition crisis? If so, where is it leading? There issome mention of increasing regional diversification,especially between urban and rural locations.Social partnership is weak, not well organisedin the private sector and family friendly policiesare not on the political agenda under thesecircumstances.Hence, paradoxically, it seems as thoughthose ECE countries with the weakest economiesare the most flexible whilst those which arestronger, are in a better position to resist flexibilisation.Hence we have to be careful to distinguishthe rhetoric of flexibilisation, which could be saidto form a discourse in different national contexts,from the reality. This literature review is concernedwith documenting the former. Our lateranalysis should help to reveal the latter.2. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HOME AND WORKThe aim of this study is to look not just at jobs inthe formal labour market, but at all kinds of work.These we can define as household work (includingchild care), self-provisioning (that is productionof goods by the household for householdconsumption) and community and associationalwork.The distinction between “work rich” (multipleearner) families and “work poor” families firstcoined by Pahl (1984) is a good way to understandsocial exclusion (Purcell et al. 1999). However,this can depend upon the nature of the benefitssystem, which may discourage spouses of unemployedto not work and also according to thekinds of jobs available for different family membersin the local economy. This is a factor that canbe further explored in the project.Mingione (1994) rather sees this as the way inwhich the family is integrated into the local economy.For example, in the Northern parts of Italythe family has become part of the industrial system,whilst in Middle Italy it has helped to developsmall scale, flexible production which hasbrought great prosperity to those regions. InSouthern Italy, by contrast, where there is a combinationof informal economy, economic backwardnessand dependency on state patronage, thefamily becomes a form of self-support but onewhich precludes economic development. A similarpoint is made by Hareven with regard to historicalchanges (Hareven 2000) and Morris (1990,1997) also considers the dynamics of the householdas a way of understanding social change.However, there are also very different cultures ofthe family across Europe with an individualisedculture of autonomy for family members in theNorthern countries to a family dependent culturein the South (Gallie and Paugham 2000). We willalso seek to investigate differences between Eastand West in this respect.For these reasons, the role of the welfare stateand the way that it is organised in each country isimportant for understanding employment andwork-family relations (Cousins 1999, Lewis 1992).© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

18 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibility2.1. Domestic workThe studies of the relationship between householdand work throughout Europe and NorthAmerica tell a common story: women do most ofthe household work (Meissner 1975, Berk 1979,Horrell 1994) This seems to be the case whetherthey work traditionally full time as in the former-Communist countries of ECE (Corrin 1992 and seeCzech Report and also Slovenian Report) orwhether they work part time or not in the labourmarket at all.However, there are some variations in thispattern. For example, there are variations on theextent to which men take part in childcare whichseem to be cultural in nature (see Wallace 2002).Furthermore, men seem to do more and womenslightly less in households where women workfull time (Buck et al. 1994, Pahl 1984). This ismodified by the effects of social class – here therelative position of the women to the man in thehousehold is important (the higher her status relativeto his, the more likely that the man will domore household work) (Bond and Sales 2000) aswell as income (Baxter 1992). According to somearguments, this depends upon the relative incomepower of the wife.Although there are no signs of egalitarianismin the division of labour, many households subscribeto an ideology of work sharing (Hochschild1989, Haas 1998). Gershuny argues that it is morea matter of time for the domestic labour revolutionto take effect rather than that is it “stalled”(as claimed by Hochschild) (Gershuny et al. 1994).Furthermore there is some debate about as towhether employment and unemployment affectthis model. Some claim that the unemployment ofthe male partner would lead him to do more workin the home, whilst others claim that this has littleeffect. Nelson and Smith (1999) argue that in thehouseholds with bad (insecure) jobs, men werelikely to do less in the home and women more.Some would claim that the amount of externalsupport, for example in the degree of publiclyprovided childcare, would be important. Yet, onestudy recently found that in France, wherewomen had more public childcare support, menactually did less in the home than in Englandwhere there was little such support (Windebank2000). The message was that if men are forced toundertake childcare, due to lack of alternatives,they will do so. In those households, men andwomen sometimes arranged sequential shifts tocover child care. However, the availability of paiddomestic help can also affect the way in whichwork is divided (Gregson and Lowe 1994, Haas1998).This discourse of the division of householdlabour was one initiated by feminist scholars whoare critical of the extra burden of work that fallson women. It is thus a Western discourse whichoriginated in the USA and in Northern Europe. InEastern European countries the feminist movementhad no influence and was indeed discredited(Wallace 2000). Social policies helped workingmothers to fulfil their labour market obligationsand the family was regarded as a privatesphere, not the subject of scientific investigation.The problem of the equality between men andwomen was seen largely as having been solved bysocialism. This view still prevails to a great extent,even with the evidence of women's position in thelabour market weakening and their public tokenrepresentation having disappeared.2.2. Self-provisioningWhilst there has been much discussion of thisdomestic division of labour between the sexes,there are fewer discussions of other activities thatare also performed by or in the household. Thesewould include various kinds of self-provisioningsuch as building homes, providing resources producedin the home. Whilst in the USA this activityhas been found to be important in the sense ofbuilding and maintaining the family home (Nelsonand Smith 1999), in Russia, Clarke and his© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

20 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityhave greater importance in Eastern and CentralEurope. The communal economy has been exploredmostly from the point of view of its contributionto society rather than from the point ofview of households, at least in recent years. Therelationship between the household and the localor regional economy would seem to be a fruitfulway forward for future research, but has not beenmuch developed in comparative perspective.3. CROSS CUTTING FACTORSFactors that emerged as important in all of thesereviews, but of variable importance in differentcontexts are the following:3.1. GenderWomen are over-represented in flexible workthroughout the EU (Perrons et al. 1998). Flexibilisationwithout policy direction seems to lead toincreasing pressure on women and parents to findtheir own solutions for child care and to resort topart time work from which they are therefore disadvantaged.In the NL the attempt to raise thelabour market participation of women whilstleaving child care as a “private” problem (alongwith the rather traditional gender role expectationsthere) means that a gender bias is built intothe system of reform. Yet this is perhaps less unequalthan the traditional male-breadwinnermodel and more recent policy debates havestarted to challenge this bias. In Sweden, publicsupport for working mothers is intended to enablethem to participate as equal individuals inthe labour market. However, the effect of thekinds of employment that women do means thatgender inequalities are nevertheless reinforced(Esping Andersen 1990, 1997). The topic of participationof women in the labour force takes differentforms therefore in different national discourses.In the words of the Swedish report “Anew gender order based upon differential workingtime is being offered as an institutionalisedsolution for women combining paid and unpaidlabour. Although written in gender neutral language,these policies are predicated on the assumptionof a gendered division of labour“. However,whilst in Sweden (and perhaps now UK aswell) there is considerable attention devoted toimproving the quality of life through familyfriendlyflexible policies and in the Netherlandsthis takes the form of getting women into thelabour market, in the Candidate countries, thepriority is just to restructure the labour market inthe interests of economic efficiency. Indeed thefamily friendly policies (which were also seen aseconomically efficient) that helped to get womenin to the labour market under the former regimesare dissolving in most countries. The issue ofpromoting family friendly policies is not a policygoal. However, in these countries there may be acontinuity in such public support from the previousregimes (see Slovenian Report).3.2. AgeIt is very clear in all countries that the most radicalrestructuring has been in the opportunities foryoung people. Instead of going from school towork along well established tracks, young peoplehave longer and more indirect transitions goingfrom school to training, to education, to temporaryjobs and in and out of unemployment(Kovatcheva 2001). This means that much of theflexibility is displaced onto this age group. In theUK there is a discussion about how low paid andflexible work affects the ability of less skilledyoung men to establish a family and maintain© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter One. Overview 21families/households. In Bulgaria and Romaniavery large numbers (maybe most) young peopleare unemployed and are dependent upon thehome of origin. In all countries it is not clear inwhich circumstance this is simply a temporary“clearing” in career tracks and to what extent itmay just lead some young people into permanentlymarginalized positions. One factor whichbrings young people into the flexible labour marketin all countries is the changes in Higher andFurther Education funding such that many youngpeople have to work their way through by takingon occasional, casual jobs (Perrons et al. 1998,Batenburg and de Witte 2001). In Bulgaria, manyyoung people take on temporary work whilstthey are waiting for better opportunities in thelabour market to come up, ones which better suittheir educational level. They are therefore “deskilled”by this process.3.3. Ethnicity/citizenshipIn all countries, ethnic minorities and foreignersare doing much of the flexible work. In thosecountries with permanently settled ethnic minorities(UK, NL) cultural and discriminatory barriersin the labour market create a pool of low paid (oftenwomen) workers prepared to work for lessmoney and worse conditions than other workers(even illegally). In other countries foreigners ormigrant workers perform the same role. This isalso the case in Eastern European Accession countries(Wallace and Stola 2001). However, onestudy found that ethnic women, although theworst paid, were actually under-represented inhome working (Felstead et al. 2000).3.4. Life-cycle stageFor women especially, but also for men the stagein the life-cycle when they have children, the kindof work taken on is important. Men work morehours when they have families, women less (Gershunyet al. 1994). In Bulgaria it is mainly peopleat the beginning and the end of their life coursewho are flexible workers.3.5. Stratification of labour marketIn all countries it seems that flexible workers fallinto a number of categories. Some are low paidand disadvantaged. Some are highly educatedand highly paid. Contrast for example, the situationof a high paid consultant and a low paidAsian woman doing piece work (perhaps illegally)at home. Both are flexible workers. It seemsthat the labour market is increasingly segmentedbetween core and secondary labour markets onthe one hand, but also within in each sector accordingto pay, human capital and conditions(Felstead et al. 2000). In the Czech Republic, olderindustries provide lower paid, insecure jobswhilst newer ones in services provide high paidand better status jobs. This has reversed the formerstatus and wage hierarchy.3.6. InformalisationThe role of the informal economy is very variable.In the UK it is low due to de-regulation and exemptionof part time work from social insurancepayments. In Hungary, the Czech Republic andSlovenia it may have declined, although there issome dispute about this (see Hungarian Report).In Slovenia it would nevertheless account for almost10% of the work (see Slovenian Report). InRomania, Bulgaria its role has increased dramatically:one third of jobs in Bulgaria are estimated tobe informal. It is not clear if informal work is asubstitute for the lack of work in the formal econ-© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

22 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityomy or whether it simply supplements it (Wallaceand Haerpfer 2002). Nor is it clear if this contributestowards a work-rich versus work-poor divisionwith society. Thus, are informal jobs moreavailable to those already in work or are they analternative for those who are not in the formaleconomy? In the Netherlands, one of the advantagesof the expansion of flexible work has compressedthe need for informal work according toVisser (2000). On the other hand the “do it yourself”style of childcare arrangements creates amarket for various forms of informal response.These are subjects for further investigation.3.7. Child care arrangementsSince flexibility seems to impact upon workingmothers more than many other groups, a crucialissue is the extent to which child care arrangementscan be made. The extent of state or publicinvolvement in this is very varied, but we can alsoassume that at least to some extent child care arrangementsare culturally defined. Public childcarefacilities are preferred in some countries, privatecommercial or family arrangements in othersand sometimes it is shared between spousesthrough sequencing of work. In the Netherlands,the expansion of part time work has tends to takeplace in the context of the idea of “private” or “doit yourself” solutions for childcare. Thus, childcareper se is not the topic of discussion so muchas managing hours of work to fit in with privatearrangements on the implicit assumption thatwomen would be prepared to do this (although inprinciple, men could opt for this solution as well,the traditional gender ideology tends to mitigateagainst this). However, Perrons et al. (1998) in across country study of flexiblity in the EU foundthat child care was not usually available at thehours that flexible workers needed it. Furthermore,there were different arrangements in thedifferent parts of Europe. Whilst in France andSweden there were good public arrangements, inthe UK and in the Southern European countriespeople depended upon family support. In Greeceand Spain family support meant extended family,who often lived in the same building, whereas inthe UK “family” usually meant partners. In somecases children were simply not supervised. Thiswill also be a topic of investigation in the study.3.8. RegionalisationIt is clear from the above discussion that there aresome regional variations in family cultures, welfareregimes and economic developments (Gallieand Paugham 1999, Esping-Andersen 1997). TheNordic countries, represented here by Swedenrepresent a universal welfare regime with moreegalitarian gender policies. The Netherlandsrepresents a more conservative-traditional employmentregime with policies to get women intothe labour market (part time). The liberal or minimalwelfare state in the UK sees the family as astrictly private sphere and the labour market asself-regulating. The more successful economies ofEastern and Central Europe (Slovenia, Czech Republicand Hungary) are able to reinstitutionalisetheir welfare regimes and to resist some of thepressures of flexibilisation in the formal economyor even to embrace them. In these countries thereis still a strong Bismarckian based welfare state.However, those transition countries with weakereconomies exhibit very extensive forms of flexibilisationin terms of self employed and marginaljobs and are not able to sustain the welfare statewhich the communist regimes extended universally.They could be described as de-institutionalisingcountries. This description would fit Bulgariaand Romania.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter One. Overview 23CONCLUSIONSWhilst all countries have experienced similarpressures towards flexibilisation, the impact ofthis is very different. The differences derive fromthe social, cultural and economic circumstances ofthe different countries. But they also stem fromthe different policy responses and the differentdiscourses of flexibility affect the way that it isviewed. In the next phase of the project we willexplore the different policy responses and in thefinal phase of the project we hope to evaluatetheir impact.Several issues emerge from this comparativeoverview. First, it seems that there are importantdifferences between different kinds of flexibilisation,especially between structured and unstructured(or unpredictable) flexibilisation with thelatter imposing much worse conditions on workers.Secondly, the amount of control which aworker has over their time, their work and theirconditions would seem to be very important forthe quality of their work.Whilst flexibilisation is viewed positively bysome, negatively by others, the debates focusupon different issues in different countries: insome countries upon part time work in somecountries upon temporary work and in somecountries upon spatial flexibility. We have tried toindicate three different approaches to flexibility:pro-active, de-activating and default.It seems paradoxical that in the Westerncountries, prosperity and job-creation are seen asgoing with flexibilisation whilst in the EasternEuropean countries it is those countries with theweakest economies that exhibit the most flexibility,which therefore has different origins.Hence, we must be careful to distinguish thediscourse of flexibility, which can be heavily politicallyloaded, from the ways in which flexibilitytakes place in practice.Other discourses, such as that about the genderdivision of labour and self-provisioning alsohave an East-West dimension. Although in otherrespects it is the different approaches within Easternand Western Europe which are interesting.What is clear is that in most cases we arelacking comparative studies. Whilst certain researchareas are well documented in certain countries,they are missing altogether from others. Towhat extent arguments developed in one contextcould be applied in another is something that canbe explored using comparative research. Studieswhich can compare the different regions and differentcountries of Europe could help to clarifysome of the questions that we have raised here.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

24 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityREFERENCESAnderson, Micheal; Bechhofer, Frank, and Kendrick,Stephen. Individual and householdstrategies.Anderson, Micheal; Bechhofer, Frank, and Gershuny,Jonathan, Editors. The Social and PoliticalEconomy of the Household. Oxford:Oxford University Press; 1994; pp. 19-67.Atkinson, J. Flexibility or fragmentation? TheUnited Kingdom labour market in the eighties.Labour and Society. 1987; 12(1).Batenburg, Ronald and de Witte, Marco. Underemploymentin the Netherlands: how theDutch Poldermodel failed to close the Education-Jobsgap. Work, Employment and Society.2001; 15(21):73-95.Baxter, Janeen. Domestic labour and income inequality.Work, Employment and Society.1992; 6(2):229-249Beck, Ulrich. The Brave New World of Work.Cambridge: Polity Press; 2000.Behning, Ute and Feigl-Heihs. Europäisierungvon Wohlfahrtspolitik – Ihre Genese undableitbare Entwicklungstrends. SWS Rundschau.2001; (4):459-480.Berk, R. A. and Berk, S. F. Labour and Leisure atHome. London: Sage ; 1979.Bond, Sue and Sales, Jill. Household work in theUK: an analysis of the British HouseholdPanel Survey 1994. Work, Employment andSociety. 2001; 15(2):233-250.Bradley, Harriet; Erikson, Mark; Stephenson,Carol, and Williams, Stephen. Myths atWork. Oxford: Polity Press; 2000.Bridges, William. Job Shift. How to prosper in awork place without jobs. London: NicholasBrealy Publishing Ltd.; 1996.Buck, Nick; Gershuny, Jonathan; Rose, David, andScott, Jacqueline. Changing Households. TheBritish Household Panel Survey 1990-1992.Colchester, Essex: ESRC Research Centre forMicro-Social Change; 1994.Burchell, Brendan J.; Day, Diana; Hudson, Maria;Lapido, David; Makelow, Roy; Nolan, Jane P.Reed; Hannah; Wichert, Innes, and Wilkinson,Frank. Job insecurity and work intensification:flexibility and the changing boundariesofwork. Yorkshire: Joseph RowntreeMemorial Trust; 1999.Castells, Manuel. The Information Age: Economy,Society, Culture. Volume 1: the Rise of theNetwork Society. Oxford and Massecusetts:Blackwells; 1996.Clarke, Simon. New Forms of Employment andHousehold Survival Strategies in Russia. UK:DFID and Economic and Social ResearchCouncil; 1999.Corrin, Chris (editor) Superwomen and the DoubleBurden, London: Scarlet Press, 1992Cousins, Christine. Society, Work and Welfare inEurope. London: Macmillans; 1999.Dex, Shirley and McCulloch, Andrew. FlexibleEmployment: the future of Britain's Jobs. Basingstoke:Macmillan Press; 1997.Employment in Europe (2001) Directorate GeneralEmployment and Social Affairs, EuropeanCommission, BrusselsEsping-Andersen, Gosta. Social Foundations ofPost-industrial Economies. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press; 1999.---. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism.Cambridge: Polity Press; 1990.---, Editor. Welfare States in Transition. NationalAdaptations in Global Economies. London,NewDelhi, Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1997.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter One. Overview 25Felstead, Alan and Jewson, Nick and Phizaklea,Annie and Walton, Sally (2001) Working athome: statistical evidence for seven key hypothesesWork Employment and Society 15(2) : 215-232.Gallie, D. and Paugam S. eds., Editors. WelfareRegimes and the Experience of Unemploymentin Europe. New York and Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press 1999.Ganssman, Heiner. Labour market flexibility, socialprotection and unemployment. EuropeanSocieties. 2000; 2(3):243-269.Gershuny, Jonathon; Godwin, Micheal, and Jones,Sally. The domestic labour revolution: aprocess of lagged adaptation. Anderson,Micheal; Bechhofer, Frank, and Kendrick,Stephen, Editors. The Social and PoliticalEconomy of the Household. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press; 1994; pp. 151-197.Glucksman, Miriam A. Why “Work”? Gender andthe “Total Social Organisation of Labour”.Gender, Work and Organizations. 1995;2(2):63-75.Gregson, N. and Lowe, M. Waged domestic labourand the renegotiation of the domesticdivision of labour within dual career households.Sociology. 1994; 28(1):55-78.Haas, Barbara. Waged domestic help? Chancesand risks for whom? Equal Opportunities International.1998; 17(7):1-15.Hakim, Catherine. Key Issues in Women's Work.London: Athlone Press; 1996.---. Work-Lifestyle Choices in the 21st Century:Preference Theory. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress; 2000.Handy, Charles. The Empty Raincoat. UK:Hutchinson; 1994.Hareven, Tamara K. Families, History and SocialChange. Boulder, San Fransisco, Oxford:Westview Press; 1999.Harvey, David. The Condition of Postmodernity.Oxford: Blackwells; 1989.Hochgerner, Josef. Flexibilisierung durch Telearbeit.Zilian, H. G. and Flecker, J., Editors.Flexibilisierung - Problem oder Lösung? Berlin:Sigma; 1998; pp. 175-192.Hochschild, Arlie. The second shift. Working parentsand the revolution at home. New York:Viking Press; 1989Hochschild, Arlie Russell. The Time Bind. WhenWork becomes Home and Home becomesWork. New York: Henry Holt and Company;1997.Horrell, Sara. Household time allocation andwomen`s labour force participation. Anderson,Micheal; Bechhofer, Frank, and Gershuny,Jonathan, Editors. The Social and PoliticalEconomy of the Household. Oxford:Oxford University Presss; 1994; pp. 198-224.Huws, U. et. al. Teleworking and Gender. Sussex:IES Report; 1996; No. 317.Hörning, Karl H.; Gerhard, Anette, andMichailow, Matthias. Time Pioneers. Flexibleworking time and new life-styles. Frankfurt:Suhrkamp Verlag; 1995.Kovatcheva, Siyka. Flexible labour and householdstrategies in post-communist Bulgaria: Intergenerationaland gender dimensions.www.hwf.at: working paper; 2001.Lash, Scott and Urry, John. The End of OrganisedCapitalism. Cambridge: Polity; 1987.Lewis, Jane. Gender and the development of welfareregimes. Journal of European Social Policy.1992; 2(3):159-173.Meissner, Martin; Humphreys, Elizabeth; Meis,Scott M., and Scheu, William J. No Exit forWives. Canadian Review of Sociology andAnthropology. 1975; 12(4):424-439.Mingione, Enzo. Life strategies and social economiesin the postfordist age. InternationalJournal of Urban and Regional Research.1994; 18(1):24-45.---. Work and informal activities in urban SouthernItaly. Oxford: Blackwells; 1988.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

26 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityMorris, Lydia. Economic change and domesticlife. Brown, Richard K., Editor. The ChangingShape of Work. London: Macmillans;1997; pp. 125-149.---. The Workings of the Household. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press; 1990.Mozny, Ivo. The Czech Family in Transition: fromsocial to economic capital. Ringen, Stein andWallace, Claire, Editors. Social Reform in theCzech Republic. Prague: Central EuropeanUniversity; 1994.Nelson, Margaret K. and Smith, Joan. WorkingHard and Making Do. Surviving in SmallTown America. Berkely, Los Angeles, London:University of California Press; 1999.Offe, Claus. Disorganised Capitalism Cambridge:Polity Press, 1985Offe, Claus and Heinze, Rolf G. Beyond Employment:time, work and the informal economy(labour and social change). USA: TempleUniversity Press; 1992.Pahl, R. E. Employment, work and the domesticdivision of labour. International Journal ofUrban and Regional Research. 1980; 4(1):1-20.Pahl, R.E. Divisions of Labour, Oxford, Blackwells,1984Perrons, Diane. Flexible Working and the Reconciliationof Work and Family Life - a NewForm of Precariousness. European Commission:Directorate General Employment andSocial Affairs; 1998.Pollert, Anna. The “Flexible Firm”: Fixation orFact. Work, Employment and Society. 1988;2(3):281-316.Purcell, Kate; Hogarth, Terence, and Simm,Claire. Whose flexibility? The costs and benefitsof non-standard working arrangementsPutnam, Robert D. Bowling alone: America's decliningsocial capital. Journal of Democracy.1995; 6:65-78.Quilgars, Deborah and Abbott, David. Working ina risk society: families perceptions of, responsesto, flexible labour markets and therestructuring of welfare. Community, Workand Family. 2000; 3(1):15-36Rifkin, Jeremy. The End of Work. New York: Putnam;1995.Robinson, John P. and Godbey, Geoffrey. Time forLife. The Surprising Ways Americans UseTheir Time. USA: Penn State UniversityPress; 1997.Sennet, Richard. The Corrosion of Character: thepersonal consequences of work in the newcapitalism. London: W.W.Norton; 1998.Seyfang, Gill. Working for the Fenland Dollar: anevaluation of Local Exchange Trade Schemesas an informal employment strategy to tacklesocial exclusion. Work, Employment and Society.2001; 15(3):581-593.Spannring, Wallace and Haerpfer Patterns of civicparticipation among young people in Europein Helve, Helena and Wallace, Claire (editors)Youth, Citizenship and EmpowermentAshgate, Basingstoke, 2001.Visser, J. (2000) The first part-time economy in theworld: does it work? Amsterdam: AIAS,Amsterdam Institute for Advanced LabourStudies, University of Amsterdam. Draft.Wallace, Claire (2000) Misunderstandings andmisleading stereotypes: a western feministgoes East Soundings 16 Autum 2000: 144-167Wallace, Claire and Haerpfer, Christian (2002)The informal economy in Eastern and CentralEurope Österreichische Zeitschrift fürSoziologie forthcoming.Wallace, Claire and Stola, Dariusz, Editors. Patternsof Migration in Central Europe. Basingstoke:Palgrave; 2001.Wallace, Claire. Household strategies: their conceptualrelevance and analytical scope in socialresearch. Sociology. 2002; forthcoming.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter TwoHOUSEHOLDS, WORK AND FLEXIBILITYCritical Review of LiteratureTHE UNITED KINGDOM[ Christine Cousins and Ning Tang, University of Hertfordshire ][ Contents ]INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................291. THE DISCOURSE ON FLEXIBILITY IN THE UK................................................................................301.1. The Flexible Firm Thesis ...........................................................................................................301.2. The Insecure Workforce ............................................................................................................301.3. The Debate on Choice and Constraints ....................................................................................311.4. The Costs and Benefits of Flexible work...................................................................................321.6. Family friendly policies and working arrangements ..................................................................331.7. The difficulty of definition of flexible work..................................................................................332. FLEXIBILITY OF TIME, PLACE AND CONDITIONS OF WORK .......................................................342.1. Flexibility of time ........................................................................................................................342.2. Flexibility of place ......................................................................................................................362.3. Flexibility of conditions of work..................................................................................................363. INFORMAL, DOMESTIC AND ADDITIONAL WORK .........................................................................383.1. Informal Work ............................................................................................................................383.2. Domestic work ...........................................................................................................................404. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FAMILY AND WORK ....................................................................414.1. Changes in the nature and distribution of employment.............................................................414.2. Families and Parenting..............................................................................................................43CONCLUSIONS ..........................................................................................................................................44NOTES ........................................................................................................................................................45ANNEX ........................................................................................................................................................46REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................52© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

[ List of tables and figures ]Figure 1. Typology of Flexible Working.................................................................................................. 46Table 1. Benefits and Costs for Employers in Using Flexible Employment.......................................... 46Table 2. Benefits and Costs of Flexible Employment to Workers......................................................... 47Table 3. Average usual weekly hours of work in main job.................................................................... 47Table 4. Flexibility of time...................................................................................................................... 48Table 5. Percentages of establishments allowing employees flexible arrangements in the UK .......... 48Table 6. Flexibility of Place ................................................................................................................... 49Table 7. Flexibility of Conditions ........................................................................................................... 49Table 8. Provision of publicly-funded services for children in EU Member States ............................... 50Table 9. Characteristics of childcare in the UK..................................................................................... 51Table 10. Providers of childcare.............................................................................................................. 51

Chapter Two. Literature review: UK 29INTRODUCTIONThe pressure for increased flexibility at work inthe UK has been said to derive from increasedinternational competition, privatisation of publicsector organisations, the diffusion of new informationtechnologies and increases in the immediacyand variability of customer demand (Burchellet al. 1999). In addition, the restructuring of Britishfirms has occurred in the context of two majorrecessions in the early 1980s and 1990s. Debate onthe flexible labour market in the UK has also focusedon the nature of the regulatory frameworksurrounding the employment relationship andhere it is widely agreed that under Conservativeadministrations of the 1980s and 1990s employmentprotection has diminished faster in the UKthan other EU countries (for example, Cousins1999, Dickens and Hall 1995, Marullo 1995, Walsh1997). For many writers it has been the weakeningof the collective institutions of labour, the impactof changes in industrial relations legislation, thereduction in trade union members, and the reductionof those now covered by collective agreementswhich have had the most significant impacton the employment relationship (for example,Gregg and Machin 1994, Nolan 1994, Metcalf et al.2000).1 New Labour, in power since 1997, has alsobeen committed to a flexible labour market (see,for example, the White Paper Fairness at Work1998), although there have been important gainsin individual, collective and family-friendly employmentrights in recent legislation (discussed inthe Context Report (Workpackage 3).The commitment to and pursuit of a flexiblelabour market in the UK is in line with the OECDJobs Strategy (1994) and the more recent EU EmploymentGuidelines. One of the aims of flexiblelabour market policies has been to promote employmentgrowth or a wider distribution of employment.Many do see advantages in the directiontaken by the UK and claim that the countryhas gained competitive advantage with its higherlevel of labour market flexibility and lower wageand non-wage labour costs. Nevertheless as,O’Reilly (1996) reports the results of employmentcreation from increased ‘non-standard’ work haveoften been disappointing and in many cases generateundesired consequences such as the creationof ghettos of disadvantaged employment. Othershave pointed to the social costs which have beengenerated. One particularly damaging consequencehas been a social polarisation of the populationwith an increase in income inequality andpoverty. Since 1994 there has been falling unemploymentbut geographical concentrations oflong-term unemployment and inactivity persist,with an unequal distribution of jobs amonghouseholds.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

30 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibility1. THE DISCOURSE ON FLEXIBILITY IN THE UK1.1. The Flexible Firm ThesisEarlier debate on ‘non-standard’ work in the UKfocused on the flexible firm thesis, employers’labour strategies and the extent to which increasesin ‘non-standard’ work reflect new departures orare innovative. With respect to the flexible firmthesis Atkinson and Meager (1986) argued that inthe context of increased international competitionand the recession of the early 1980s, employerswere now pursuing a strategy of dividing theirworkforces into two distinct segments – a coreand a periphery – each regulated by very differentemployment conditions. Core workers are presentedwith an employment package of trainingand payment practices which elicit high labourefficiency and cultivate commitment. At the otherextreme, employers seek to obtain a relativelycheap and easily disposable workforce, eitherthrough sub-contracting, fixed contract or selfemploymenton specialist projects or by directemployment of workers who are denied careerstatus, for example, part-time, temporary casualworkers or trainees.Later studies refuted the strong version ofthe flexible firm thesis, that is, that employershave systematically organized their workforce interms of a core and periphery and have arguedthat traditional rationales for the use of ‘nonstandard’workers have remained important (forexample, Hunter et al. 1993, Heather et al. 1996).However, if a weaker version of employer’s strategyis used not as a ‘plan’ but as ‘patterns’ of decisionmaking (Proctor et al. (1994) changes in the1990s, including restructuring in the public sector,produces more evidence of changing strategies.Recent research by Purcell et al. (1999) found thatthat in most of their case study establishmentsthere was definite evidence of core-periphery employmentpractices and an awareness by employersof the advantages of segmented recruitmentand fragmentation of the less highly skills jobs.The authors conclude that where this can be donewithout damage to productive or service qualitythere is likely to be an increase in flexible workingand a decrease in job opportunities which providefor the full subsistence needs of incumbents.Evidence from the Workplace Employee RelationsSurvey (Cully et al. 1999) also indicateswidespread use of flexible employment, nine outof ten workplaces sub-contract activities, eight outof ten use part-timers (over a quarter with a majorityof part-timers), over half employ people onfixed-term contracts and over a quarter useagency workers. In their view a more fined-tunedapproach to flexibility was being used in whichthe use of non-standard forms of labour withinthe core workforce was identified. Other assessments,however, suggest that the model of thecore – periphery model is simplistic and misleading.Gallie et al. (1998) argue, for example, that itis far from clear that part-timers can meaningfullybe classified as part of a peripheral workforce althoughthose on short-term contracts come closeto the model (see Part 2 (a) and (b) below).1.2. The Insecure WorkforceA more recent debate which is emerging is that ofthe insecure workforce. This shifts the emphasisaway from an employer’s agenda and the extentto which both supply and the use of labour havebecome more flexible and places the interests ofemployees centre stage (Heery and Salmon 2000).The insecurity thesis asserts that economic risk isbeing transferred increasingly from employers toemployees, through shortened job tenure andcontingent employment and remuneration, thatinsecurity is damaging to long-term economicperformance, through its promotion of an employmentrelationship founded on opportunism,mistrust and low commitment, and that the emer-© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Two. Literature review: UK 31gence of an insecure workforce imposes severecosts on individuals, their families and the widersociety (Heery and Salmon 2000, Burchell et al.1999, Sennet 1998).Burchell et al. (1999) also found that it wasthe core workforce which took the primary responsibilityfor achieving flexibility. This occurredthrough an expansion of their workload,work intensification, increased variation in theirworking hours and location of work and the erosionof their traditional job demarcations. In manycases the increased organisational flexibility isachieved by reducing direct employment throughredundancies, by contracting out and by redesigningthe way work is carried out. There has,therefore, been a significant increase in functionalflexibility of workforces over recent years includingmulti-skilling, multi-tasking, multi-functioning,delayering and the erosion of job demarcations.In addition organisations have pursuedtemporal flexibility by changing working hoursregimes as well as locational flexibility.However, not all these forms of flexibleworking may benefit employers. Recent researchhas stressed the importance of the ‘pyschologicalcontract’, that is, the implicit commitments madebetween the employer and employees. The restructuringof work and an increase in the tenuouscommitment of employers may result in areduction of employees’ motivation, loyalty,commitment and performance, as well as highturnover rates, absenteeism and difficulties ofrecruitment (Guest 2000, Burchell et al. 1999, Purcellet al. 1999).1.3. The Debate on Choice and ConstraintsThe expansion of part-time work in the UK – from3.3 million in 1971 to 6.2 million in 2000 – has alsofuelled considerable controversy and debateabout the role and nature of part-time work in theBritish labour market. This debate can be consideredfrom the demand side or from the supplyside. Explanations which focus on the demandside posit that employers construct part-time jobsin particular ways, for example, to lower costs, tocover for variable customer demand or to increasecompetitiveness of the organisation (Rubery andTarling, 1988, Dex and McCulloch 1995, Purcell etal. 1999).On the other hand, those explanations fromthe supply side focus on lack of investment inhuman capital of those who take part-time employmentas well as the need for women to takepart-time jobs to reconcile domestic commitmentsand childcare with work. More recently womenpart-timers’ lack of commitment to employmentand the view that they give priority to family andhome making has been put forward by Hakim(1991, 1996). In Hakim’s view the growth of parttimework reflects women’s own preferencesabout working hours and a concern to find jobswhich enable them to reconcile work and familylife. She argues that there are two qualitativelydifferent types of working women, the committed‘self-made’ women who work full-time and arecareer-oriented, and the uncommitted ‘gratefulslaves’ who are satisfied with part-time work andgive priority to their domestic commitments.This is a view which resonates with populardiscourse, in that, part-time work in the UK iswidely viewed as ‘not proper work’. The term isoften used in a derogatory way to indicate a lackof commitment to work, for example, leavingwork early or arriving late at work. The term mayalso be used to refer to a secondary tier of supportjobs in an organisation for example, secretaries oradministrative support staff (Gregson et al. 1999).This discourse confirms the (mainly male) fulltimersidentity and position in contrast with theoverwhelmingly female part-timer’s less privilegedpositionCritiques of Hakim’s work have also notedthe negative and stereotypical image of part-timefemale workers embodied in her work (for example,Breugel 1996). While it is the case that thevast majority of female part-timers say that they© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

32 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityprefer to have a part-time rather than a full-timejob 2 critics of Hakim have pointed out that shedoes not take into account the structural constraintswhich surround their job choices. Theseconstraints include the presence of children andchildcare problems, the long-hours culture forthose in full-time work and the persistence of thetraditional domestic division of labour. The gendereddistribution of time also constrains the degreesof freedom that women have to makechoices about work and mothering (Scheibl 1999).Supply and demand factors, however, dooverlap. Employers have perceptions of whatkind of work is appropriate for women with domesticresponsibilities and have found that therestricted job choice of mothers who need hoursto fit in with domestic work and child care is aready source of recruitment for part-time hours(Beechey and Perkins, 1987).1.4. The Costs and Benefits of Flexible workTables 1 and 2 show a summary of costs andbenefits to employers and individual workerssynthesised from recent research (Burchell et al.1999, Purcell et al. 1999, Perrons 1999, White andForth 1998). However, it must be stressed that thecosts and benefits for employers depend on thesector, the nature of the product market and customerdemand, as well as the size of the firm andlocation. For individual workers, whether benefitsoutweigh costs depends on gender, age, familyresponsibilities, and other status (for example,student or retired) as well as occupation, degreeof skill and labour market power. For both employersand individual workers the costs andbenefits also depend on the type of flexible workingarrangement (Purcell et al. 1999).One important debate concerns the extent towhich flexible employment enables individuals toescape unemployment in an effective way. Whiteand Forth’s (1998) research found that flexibleemployment did indeed dominate the job marketfor a sample of unemployed people, constitutingthree quarters of all jobs obtained by them between1990 and 1995. However, there was littleevidence of these jobs providing pathways to improvedjobs, most part-timers and self-employedpeople remained in these forms of work over thefive year period. The conclusion reached by theauthors though is that if flexible work is not availablefor the unemployed there is a risk ofadministering a damaging shock to the Britishlabour market and raising long-term unemployment.A further debate relates to the extent towhich part-time work for women may assist inreconciling paid work with family life and mayprovide a bridge which facilitates entry into workand possibly a full-time job. This has been evidentin north European countries especially in Sweden(in the public sector) and the Netherlands wherepart-time employment has been the major engineof growth for women’s employment (Esping-Andersen 1990). As is well known the configurationsof Swedish employment and welfare statepolicies have enabled women to combine workand family, attain financial independence andcontinuous lifetime employment.Nevertheless, part-time work can also contributeto the segregation of women into lowwaged parts of the economy with less entitlementto unemployment benefits or pensions, less possibilityof promotion or training and wages whichdo not endow financial independence. One viewis that even if a common floor of employmentrights for full-time and part-time work exist as inthe current EU directive on part-time workingthese ‘will not compensate for the part-timeworker’s more limited earnings and career prospects’(Ostner and Lewis 1995:183). Further, flexiblework often does not provide an independentincome so that women remain dependent on themale breadwinner, with caring responsibilitiesand the gender division of labour within thehome largely unchanged (Perrons 1999). Finally,© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Two. Literature review: UK 33part-time work ‘is essentially a gender compromise’(Fagan and O’Reilly 1998:23). It has provideda ‘space’ for women to enter the labourmarket but it does not challenge the male-workmodel or the long-hours culture and does not disruptmen’s traditional breadwinner status at theworkplace or in the home.1.6. Family friendly policies and working arrangementsPolicies which aimed to promote the reconciliationof work and family life emerged as a mainstreamissue in the mid-1990s and have been akey feature of new Labour’s welfare to work policiesas well as the recent EU Employment Guidelines.More recently (under criticism that employeeswith family responsibilities were being privilegedin the workplace) the focus of the government’s‘family-friendly’ measures has changed tothat of a ‘work-life balance’ to include all peoplein work and not just those with family responsibilities.The arguments made are several; work isan important route out of poverty for worklessfamilies, especially lone parents, parents and carerscan more easily combine work with their caringresponsibilities and businesses can benefit asstress levels, sick leave, staff turnover and absenteeismare reduced. Employers who do have family-friendlypractices are also more likely to developa high-trust psychological contract withtheir employees, increasing motivation, loyaltyand productivity. In Part 2 we discuss the extentof family friendly policies in the UK at the end ofthe 1990s and the Context Report will examine inmore detail these and related policies.1.7. The difficulty of definition of flexible workForms of flexible work such as part-time, temporary,casual. or self-employment are often referredto as if they were homogeneous. Yet as the discussionin Part 2 reveals there are large differencesbetween them as in practice each term coversa range of different working arrangementsand degrees of job security and insecurity (seePurcell et al. 1999, Felstead and Jewson 1999 andGregory et al. 1999). Similarly, terms such as‘flexible’ work, ‘non-standard’ employment, ‘marginal’labour, ‘peripheral’ workforce, ‘contingent’employment and ‘atypical’ work are used in overlappingways and by many writers as if they weresynonymous. Figure 1 attempts to map the rangeof working arrangements available to employersaccording to our criteria of flexibility of time,place and conditions and whether these jobs aremore likely to be permanent or temporary. Althoughit is difficult to obtain statistical data onall these working arrangements, Figure 1 doesgive an indication of the complexity of flexibleemployment. In practice many of these workingarrangements may also overlap.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

34 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibility2. FLEXIBILITY OF TIME, PLACE AND CONDITIONS OF WORK2.1. Flexibility of timeHours of workMale full-time workers in the UK work the longesthours in Europe. Table 3 shows the averageusual weekly working hours of full-time maleworkers compared to the EU average. The ELFSalso shows that 40 per cent of UK male workersare working more than 46 hours a week comparedto an EU average of 15 per cent. For malemanual workers paid overtime is essential toboost low hourly rates although professional andmanagerial workers are much more likely to worklong unpaid overtime. For both men and womenhowever, there has been a dramatic increase inboth paid and unpaid overtime over the past decadeand for full-time workers the working weekhas clearly lengthened (Harkness 1999, see alsoTable 4). The UK, however, has one of the lowestaverage hours of female part-time working – 18.3hours per week compared to an average of 19.8hours for the EU (15) (Table 3). A high proportiona both men and women work unsocial hours (Table4), in the evenings, weekends and public holidays.According to a recent report almost a quarterof the workforce work between 6am and 6pmand 15 per cent work all night (Summerskill2000). New areas of work such as call centres,shops, garages and IT companies offer long openinghours together with the traditional industriessuch as hotels and restaurants, manufacturing,emergency services and health care.Part-time employmentPart-time work has continued to increase in the1990s and accounted for 40 per cent of the increasein the number of employees in the 1990s,half of this increase is attributable to men (DfEE2000). Women’s part-time work has therefore remainedstable during the 1990s at just over 44 percent of female employees, while that of men hasincreased from 6.9 in 1992 to 9 per cent in 1999.The Workplace Employee Relations Survey(Cully et al. 1999) also shows a high concentrationof part-time workers in certain sectors. For example,part-time workers were in the majority in 26per cent of all workplaces, notably, wholesale andretail, hotels and restaurants and education andhealth. Part-timers were also more prevalent inworkplaces belonging to large organisations andin private sector workplaces with no skilled labour.The use of a threshold for National Insurance(NI) contributions has been particularly related tothe high incidence of part-time work in the UK. In1998 more than a third of all female part-timeemployees earned less than the lower earninglimit for NI (this was £64 a week, 102 euros, in1998/99) (EOC 1998). In total, two and a half millionpeople, the vast majority women, earn belowthe NI lower earnings level. Both employers andemployees may collude to ensure that weeklyearnings do not exceed the lower earnings level,so that the NI is not deducted from pay packets.Those who do not pay the NI contributions, however,do not acquire rights to contribute to benefits,for example, unemployment insurance, maternityallowance, incapacity benefit, and the statepension. In addition eligibility for sick pay andmaternity pay is dependent on earnings being ator above the level. The long-term effects are ofparticular cause for concern as those earning belowthe level tend not to have personal or occupationalpensions and so have to rely on meanstestedsocial assistance in retirement. 3As discussed in Part 3 below the UK has oneof the lowest provisions of childcare facilities inEurope with the exception of higher paid womenwho can afford expensive private childcare. Thisis undoubtedly one of the reasons for high levelsof part-time work for mothers. The UK (togetherwith the Netherlands) has the highest maternalpart-time working in the EU (two-thirds of motherswith dependent children work part-time inboth countries) (Moss 1996).© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Two. Literature review: UK 35One robust finding in the substantial literaturein the UK is that part-timers are more disadvantagedthan full-timers in a range of labourmarket conditions. Part-timers are more likely tooccupy low-level and low skilled jobs, and be injobs that require no training. Part-timers are alsolikely to receive less training or promotion opportunitiesand occupy jobs that have less benefits,employment rights, fringe benefits such as holidaypay, and access to pensions (Dex andMcCulloch 1995, Gallie et al. 1998, Perrons andHurstfield 1998, Purcell 2000). Whist there hasbeen an improvement in the gender pay gap forfemale full-time workers in the 1990s, the genderpay gap has been declining for female part-timeworkers (Desai et al. 1999, Rubery et al. 1997). 4 AsDesai et al. note ‘In part-time work there is no rewardfor increased age and experience unlike infull-time jobs. The problem of low pay in parttimework is more a problem of the jobs themselves(1999:183).Gallie et al.’s (1998) analysis of the Employmentin Britain survey showed that part-timeworkers constitute a highly distinctive sector ofthe British labour market. The authors confirmthat they have relatively low skill levels, restrictedopportunities for skill improvements, low payand poor career opportunities. However, parttimerswere less likely to be flexible in the types ofwork they did (for example, functional flexibilityand pay and hours flexibility), nor did they sufferfrom chronic job instability characteristic of a ‘peripheral’workforce. In this sense this evidencedid not support the polarisation thesis embodiedin the model of the flexible firm. On the otherhand, research into part-time employment in theretail and finance sectors have shown that employersare now demanding intensified effort andincreasing flexibility of time in ways whichwomen with children are not in a position to offer(Dex and McCulloch 1995, Neathy and Hurstfield1995, Perrons and Hurstfield 1998).Call centresComputer telephony is the fastest growing occupationin the UK. Ten years ago computer telephonistsworking in call centres were virtuallynon-existent. Now there are about 7,000 call centresemploying over 200,000 people, about 1 percent of all employees and about half of the agentpositions in Europe. 5 There are now more computertelephonists than employees in vehicle production,steel and coal put together. Between 60and 70 per cent of jobs are estimated to be female(DfEE 2000, Fernie and Metcalf 1998, Perrons2000).Call centres are characterised by unsocialhours and limited promotion opportunities. Manycall centres operate on a 24 hour basis, althoughthis may be attractive to partnered parents astheir partners are available for free childcare.More and more companies, however, are makinguse of transatlantic call centres (remote processing)as a way of lowering costs and providing a 24hour service.Call centres are also characterised byscripted work which is electronically monitored(Perrons 2000). Indeed, as Fernie and Metcalf note‘the possibilities for monitoring behaviour andmeasuring output are amazing to behold – the“tyranny of the assembly line” is but a SundaySchool picnic compared to the control that managerscan exercise in computer telephony’(1998:2). As their research shows Bentham’s Panopticonwas truly a vision of the future.Family–friendly working arrangementsAs discussed in Part 1 policies which aim to reconcilework and family life have been promotedby both New Labour and the EU in the late 1990s.Tables 4 and 5 show the proportions of employeeswho have access to such arrangements (for example,jobsharing and flexitime) and the proportionof establishments allowing employees flexiblearrangements. 6 However, as Dex et al. (1999) remark,it is important to distinguish between policyand practice. Having a policy does not necessarilymean that employers promote the use of© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

36 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilitythese arrangements or that employees take them.The culture of an organisation may be such thatemployees fear their future career prospects ifthey do make use of them. The Workplace EmployeeRelations Survey 1998 found that in 25 percent of establishments with some family-friendlyarrangements, no employees had taken them up(Cully et al. 1999).2.2. Flexibility of placeHomeworkingSince 1992 the UK Labour Force Survey (LFS) hasasked respondents whether they work mainly,partially or sometimes at home. Table 6 shows theresults of an analysis of the Spring 1998 LFS (Felsteadet al. 2000). In total about a quarter of theUK workforce now carry out some of their workat home. Table 6 also shows that those who haveno fixed place to carry out work now account foraround 7 per cent of those in employment andthose who work in different places throughoutthe working week constitute 1.2 per cent of theworkforce (Felstead et al. 2000)Two stereotypical images of homeworkingpredominate; on the one hand, it can be exploitative,low paid work carried out by women seekingto combine work with childcare, on the otherhand, there is an optimistic scenario where peopleare able to work at home via the use of the Internet,mobile phone and computer. The Felstead etal. (2000) report finds supporting evidence forboth these images. Higher occupational groupspredominate among the mainly and sometimesworking at home groups. Overall non-manualoccupations accounted for around four-fifths ofthose who worked at home. Three out of five whowork at home at least one day a week are dependenton information and communicationtechnologies. However, for those who work inmanual occupations, of whom almost nine out often are women and almost half are non-white, theincidence of low pay is alarmingly high. In theFelstead et al. report three-quarters are low paidcompared to a fifth of those who work in conventionalworkplaces (this survey period was beforethe introduction of the minimum wage). 7Working from homeIn the LFS 1996 1.6 million workers describethemselves as working from home rather then athome. Many are labour only subcontractors suchas plumbers or carpenters (Sectec).HotdeskingHotdesking occurs where workers are not assignedtheir own private space but work atwhichever desk is available. Although there areno estimates of the extent of this working arrangementthe list of organisations using hotdeskingis now extensive, for example, AmericanExpress, Rank Xerox, IBM, Hertfordshire CountyCouncil, Surrey County Council, Ernst andYoung, Royal Mail, and the Benefits Agency (Sectec).2.3. Flexibility of conditions of workSub-contractingThe Workplace Employee Relations Survey foundthat 90 per cent of workplaces with 25 or moreemployees subcontract one or more service. Themost common were building maintenance, cleaning,transport, training or security (Cully et al.1998). As the authors of this report acknowledgethe distinction between sourcing externally fromthe market or producing internally to the firm hasbecome blurred. Many large organisations, includingthe public sector, have created internalquasi-markets making it harder to place boundariesaround the conceptual construct of a workplace.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Two. Literature review: UK 37Temporary workBetween 1992 and 1999 the number of temporaryworkers increased by a third although there hasbeen a slight fall since 1997 (DfEE 2000). Sevenper cent of employees are in temporary work (Table7), with half of these on fixed-term contracts,one-fifth as casual workers and 15 per cent asagency temps. Temporary working is highest inthe public sector at just over 10 per cent. However,there is quite widespread use of temporaryworkers, the Workplace Employee Relations Survey1998 found that 44 per cent of firms (72 percent in public sector workplaces) used fixed termcontracts, 28 per cent agency workers and 13 percent freelance workers (Cully et al. 1999).Gallie et al. (1998) distinguished betweencontract workers who were on contracts lastingbetween one to three years and short-term temporaryworkers who were on contracts lasting lessthan 12 months. They found that there was asharp divide between the two groups with contractworkers having a skill and career profilesimilar to that of permanent workers. Robinson(1999) also makes the point that ‘the typical temporaryworker in the UK is much more likely tobe a well-paid professional employed on a fixedtermcontract within the public sector’ (1999:89-90). Short-term temporary workers were far moredisadvantaged with limited opportunities for developingtheir skills, responsibilities and work ofintrinsic interest. They saw themselves trapped intheir labour market position and had high levelsof job insecurity.Large-scale restructuring in the public servicenow means that many public sector managersand professionals, teachers, lecturers, socialworkers and nurses now work on temporaryfixed-term contracts. For example, one fifth ofeducational professionals are now engaged intemporary work (Morgan et al. 2000). Conley’s(2000) research on temporary workers in the publicsector is critical of both Gallie et al. and Robinsonas she found that fixed-term contracts can beongoing over many years leading to chronic jobinsecurity and an inability to plan or take on financialcommitments. She also points out thatthat many temporary workers are also part-time.The imposition of compulsory competitivetendering in the public sector has also affectedmany of those in low-skilled manual jobs, for example,cleaning, catering and security. Accordingto Allen and Henry (1996) this has led to a growthin ‘precarious’ employment, that is, jobs whichare subject to repeated episodes of competitivetendering generating uncertainty about the futureemployment relationship and conditions of work.In the view of these authors then there is evidencethat insecure work is more characteristic of thepublic sector than the private sector and givescredence to the belief that the flexible firm thesishas most relevance to the public sector employment.Self employmentSelf-employment increased from 7.4 per cent in1979 to a peak of 13.5 per cent in 1990. By 1999self-employment had fallen back to less than 12per cent (DfEE 2000). As Table 7 shows selfemploymentis more important for men and alsofor some ethnic minority workers (rates of selfemploymentamong Pakistanis and Indians are 18and 15 per cent respectively, Labour MarketTrends, 2000). The increase in self-employment inhas been linked to sectoral changes, technologicaladvances, fragmentation of large firms, the economiccycle, demographic changes, start-up capitalincreases and government policies to promoteself employment. Push factors for an individualinclude redundancy, unemployment, having hada series of temporary, short-term jobs and discrimination(especially for ethnic minority workers)(Dex and McCulloch 1995).© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

38 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibility3. INFORMAL, DOMESTIC AND ADDITIONAL WORK3.1. Informal WorkInformal work is defined here as economic activitywhich is not recorded in official statistics andwhich operates in the absence of administrativemonitoring and control (Leonard 1998). Criminalactivities are excluded in the discussion below.The UK possibly has a smaller informal economythan other European countries because of the ‘legalisedderegulation’ of much irregular work,temporary, casual and part-time work. ‘Sincethose on low incomes are unlikely to reach the taxthreshold, many workers who would be classifiedas illegal in other European countries are good,law-abiding – but poor – citizens of the UK’ (Pahl1988:1).Four main areas of informal economic activityare discussed below, of which the first threecan be considered individual worker strategiesand the fourth household strategies (see Leonard1998).Tax evasion by regular workersPahl (1988) has argued that the informal economyin the UK is largely a product of tax policy and isnot employer-led, as is the case, for example, insouthern Europe. The main groups of people involvedare the self-employed and those who areemployed but take second or further jobs (about 5per cent of the workforce). Both groups may omitor under-declare part of their income for tax purposes.The self-employed may also informally payother people ‘off-the-books’ and pay in cash andthey may also use the unpaid labour of familyworkers.Williams (1995) suggests in her study that‘there was a high degree of tolerance to evasionand a reluctance to declare to the appropriate taxauthorities individuals providing personal services(1995: 15). Based on other studies, Williams(1995) also points out the characteristics of householdslikely to be participating in the hiddeneconomy. There were more households inyounger rather than older age ranges. The type ofperson participating was likely to be selfemployedor skilled or semi-skilled. Individualswere likely to work part-time and live in privatelyunfurnished accommodation. Her findings, whichsupports Pahl’s argument, indicate that ‘little evidencewas found to show that income tax or nationalinsurance was being evaded in main jobs’(1995: 20).Recently, however, there is evidence of noncomplianceexisting in companies operating at theedges of the legitimate labour market, and particularlyin the informal economy, according tothe second report of the Low Pay Commission(2000). Employees in this fringe economy includepeople dependent on benefits for their main income,those who are denied choice of work due tofamily commitments, lack of skills or high locallevels of unemployment, and also ethnic minoritygroups whose opportunities may be restricted bycultural barriers or outright discrimination.Undeclared income earning by those who unemployedThe sources of information on whether the unemployed‘get by’ by participating in informal workcomes from the accumulated evidence of localitystudies. Research in the Isle of Sheppey and Hartlepoolfound that the unemployed were far lesslikely to engage in informal economic activitythan those with a secure base in formal employment(Pahl 1984, Morris 1995). The reasons areseveral: lack of money to buy the necessary materialsand equipment, lack of skills, lack of socialnetworks as a source of such work, less opportunitiesin more deprived neighbourhoods and afear of being ‘shopped’ to the authorities. InPahl’s (1988a) view the concentration of opportunitiesin some households and absence of opportunitiesin others has lead to a polarisation between‘work-rich’ and ‘work poor’ households.However, other studies have shown thatclaiming unemployment benefits and working© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Two. Literature review: UK 39(often in low paid, short-term subcontractedwork) is a way of life for some and justified as anecessary strategy to make ends meet (Leonard1998). For employers one of the main ways toprovide the cheapest tender is to use a mixture offormal and informal workers. Where informalworkers are in receipt of benefits they are perceivedto be able to ‘afford’ to work for low ratesof pay (Leonard 1998). Williams and Windebank(1998) suggest that local variations on whether theunemployed ‘get by’ is dependent on the supplyof informal labour, the demand for informalgoods and services, the institutional structure ofthe locality including the structure of networkswhich can organise informal work and the extentof sanctions against informal work.Informal employment of ethnic minoritygroupsIn the clothing and textile industries changingsupply and demand factors created very favourableconditions for informal working in the 1970sand 1980s. Mitter (1986) and Phizacklea (1990)have shown how recession, redundancy and racialdiscrimination in employment forced an increasingnumber of ethnic minority men into entrepreneurshipin the clothing industry. Thesefactors together with the changed market forclothing production, with an emphasis on speedand flexibility, have led to a ‘flourishing smallfirmsector operating in a highly precarious competitivemarket’ (Phizacklea 1990:110). The competitiveadvantage of ethnic businessmen is thatthey are able to draw on the cheap labour of femalefamily or ethnic community labour, wherethe employment relationship is regarded as a traditionalobligatory relationship.In discussing the restructured UK clothingindustry since the early 1970s, Phizacklea alsopoints out why ethnic minority women often constitutean ethnically homogeneous labour force insmall clothing business dominated by ethnic minorityentrepreneurs. It is due to the fact that‘many of them are constrained from finding betterpaid work because of language difficulties, culturalrestrictions or pure racial discrimination’(1992: 109). In addition, the very lowest rung inthe clothing industry is occupied by home workersand the vast majority of them ‘are women confinedto the home because of domestic responsibilities’(Ibid.).There is a scarcity of research on the employmentof refugees and asylum seekers. Onerecent study found that refugees who were inemployment ‘were working almost exclusively insecondary sector jobs that are characterised bylow pay and poor terms and conditions of employment’(Bloch 2000: 80). Moreover, asylumseekersand undocumented workers tend to beconcentrated in unskilled and sporadic work.Unpaid economic activities carried out for thehousehold or for friends and relatives outsidethe household on a reciprocal basis.Studies have also shown that self-provisioningwithin the home requires access to formal employment,skills and the ability to purchase machineryand equipment (Leonard 1998, Pahl 1984).This is also the case for reciprocal exchanges betweenhouseholds. However, there is some evidencethat unemployed households also engagein reciprocal exchanges even though this ismainly between kin (Morris 1995).Recent studies though point to an alarmingconcentration of multiple deprivation and socialexclusion in some estate neighbourhoods in theUK. For example, one study of seven deprivedestate neighbourhoods in England found that! ‘there is severe deprivation in depth andbreadth: all aspects of life are affected! educational attainment, crime and safety,housing, jobs, skills, the! environment, incomes and health; benefitdependency is very high;! employment is low (Brennan et al. 2000:143).On these estates 40 per cent of households had anaverage income of less than £100 (159 euros) aweek, 63 per cent of heads of households wereunemployed or inactive and 37 per cent of householdsreceived 90 per cent or more of their income© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

40 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityfrom benefits. Worklessness is the norm ratherthan the exception (see also Part 4 (a) below). 8Two recent study of self-help activities insuch deprived neighbourhoods in Sheffield andSouthampton found that those households sufferingdeprivation could not undertake many essentialtasks within the home, and were less likely tosupply paid or unpaid community exchanges(Williams and Windebank 2000, Williams et al.1999). The reasons were the same as those identifiedby Pahl (1984) (discussed above), namely,lack of economic and social capital, lack of socialnetworks and fear of being reported to the authorities.A further factor was the perceived lackof trust, community and sense of well beingaround people, reflecting the nature of social disintegrationin many deprived neighbourhoods inthe UK.3.2. Domestic workDespite the high employment rates of women, UKstudies confirm that domestic and caring workremain a female responsibility, even though theirpartners may be doing more than in the recentpast. Gershuny et al.’s (1994) work is useful herein that although they also confirm that workingwomen bear a disproportionate ‘dual burden’ ofpaid and unpaid work, there is evidence of alagged or gradual adaptation. That is, domesticpractices may change gradually through an extendedperiod after a wife’s entry into paid work.Ferri and Smith’s (1996) cohort study also showedthat the more mothers were involved in paidwork the more fathers participated in parentingand household tasks even though these were stillvery unevenly shared. When fathers workedmore than 50 hours a week, however, their domesticcontribution was sharply reduced irrespectiveof their wives employment status. Highlyeducated fathers and those in professional andmanagerial positions showed relatively low involvementin childcare. Another study of fathers’family lives showed that they viewed their centralrole in the family as that of provider and that ‘fathering’was still constrained by a reluctance ofboth mothers and fathers to give up their traditionalparenting roles (Warin et al. 1999). In theviews of those men who were unemployed, disabled,sick or in low paid work, not being able toprovide for their families affected their ability tobe ‘good fathers’.As Table 8 shows the UK has one of the lowestprovisions of publicly funded childcare in theEuropean Union, especially compared with theScandinavian countries. The UK also offers thelowest maternity pay and leave and the poorestpackage of parental leave (to be discussed inWP3). The features of childcare provision in theUK are set out in Table 9. There are significantgaps in provision including the high cost, thequality of provision and the overall lack of provision.The evidence suggests that lack of affordablechildcare is a major obstacle to mothers being ableto take paid work (Dex et al. 1999). As Table 10shows partners, grandparents and other informalsources are the main providers of childcare forworking mothers. There has, however, been a recentincrease in the use of private nurseries andchildminders, although only 4 per cent of employeessay that they have access to a workplacenursery or childcare subsidy (Cully et al. 1999).Crompton (1999) drawing on 1994 data suggeststhat 24 per cent of mothers with children under 4use professional paid childcare, 23 per cent acombination of informal and professional butnearly half are dependent on informal care. Thereis also evidence of ‘shift parenting’ (see Table 9and Part 4(b)).© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Two. Literature review: UK 414. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FAMILY AND WORKAlongside the increased diversity in patterns ofemployment the UK has, as elsewhere in Europe,witnessed greater diversity in household formation.The trends over the past two decades whichhave affected household diversity have been increasedcohabitation (so that this is now the normfor those aged between 20-30), an increased numberof births outside marriage (now over 30 percent), high levels of divorce and repartnering, reducedrates of marriage and an increase in singleperson and lone parent households.4.1. Changes in the nature and distribution of employmentChanges in the nature and distribution of employmenthave affected households differentlyand unequally.An increase in male inactivity ratesFor some, especially less skilled men, there hasbeen a decline in employment opportunities andin their chances to earn wages on which familiescan be established or indeed prosper (McRae1999). Of importance here is the increase in maleinactivity rates associated with the large job lossesin manufacturing in the past two decades. Althoughmale unemployment rates have declinedsince the recession of the early 1990s, in 2000 therewere some 2.3 million men of working age, excludingstudents, who were economically inactive(Dickens et al. 2000). This is twice the number ofunemployed men. Twenty years ago just 400,000men were economically inactive. Male inactivityis also highly geographically concentrated in depressedlabour market areas, higher among lessskilled men and those living in social housing. 9While inactivity is high among those over 50(some 28 per cent of such men are inactive) it neverthelessis found in all working age groups. Suchhigh levels of inactivity for men represent amovement of unemployed people into otherstatuses, such as sickness and early retirement.For those who do work, there has been a shift inlow pay to older men. One in 6 male workers overthe age of 24 is now low paid compared to one in30 in 1968 (Stewart 1999).Young menThere has also been a deterioration in the positionof young men in the labour market, especiallythose who are low skilled and have low educationalqualifications. For young men enteringwork the stock of jobs now is very different to thatin the 1970s with full-time manufacturing jobsbeing replaced with part-time, service jobs. Manyyoung men do not want to take the low paid,part-time service sector jobs on offer and/or employersdo not see them as appropriate workersfor these jobs. Young men are, therefore, morelikely to enter the labour market as unemployedand the likelihood of experiencing subsequentunemployment has increased (see Stafford et al.1999). Wages in new jobs have declined becauseof the rise in the proportion of part-time jobs andbecause hourly wages are failing to grow at thesame pace as the rest of the economy (Gregg et al.1999a). The inability of those with limited educationalqualifications to obtain anything other thanlow paid work may, in turn reduce their prospectsof forming and supporting a family andmay be contributing to the rise in lone motherhood(Burghes et al. 1997, Kiernan 1995).Increased participation of women in the labourmarketOne of the most profound changes in employmentto impact on the household has been theincreasing participation of women in the labourmarket. Women’s employment grew almost continuouslythroughout the 1980s and 1990s and in1997 there were 20 per cent more women workingfull-time and 25 per cent more working part-timethan in 1984 (McRae 1999). Yeandle (1997) hasestimated that by 1995 approximately 30 per centof women workers were in relatively high statusjobs. The latter development, however, has con-© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

42 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilitytributed significantly to a growing polarisationbetween women workers, between those withcontinuous full-time jobs and those women withdiscontinuous careers and in lower paid part-timejobs (Dex and McCulloch 1997, Bruegel and Perrons1996).A ‘work-rich’-‘work-poor’ societyThere has also been a tendency for new jobs (especiallypart-time jobs) to be taken up by womenmarried to men who are already employed; forexample, 73 per cent of mothers with dependentchildren and whose partners are employed are inpaid work compared 32 per cent where the partneris not employed (DTI 2000). Dependants ofthe unemployed or the unemployed themselvesare effectively prevented from taking low paid orpart-time jobs work by loss of benefit or the ‘povertytrap’. It is precisely these groups which havebeen targeted by new Labour’s welfare to workpolicies, measures which aim to increase the returnsfrom paid work (to be discussed in WP3).The picture which emerges is therefore oneof polarisation between households in the distributionof jobs. The most common mode now isthat of dual income households at about 62 percent of households (Gregg et al. 1999). Not allsuch households are affluent, however, the dominantpattern is one full-time worker and one parttimefemale worker with female earnings essentialfor the household in the context of falling malewages. 10The proportion of no-earner working age householdswas 17 per cent in 1999, containing 4 millionadults and 2.6 million children (Dickens et al.2000) In 60 per cent of such households no adulthad worked in the last 3 years. As with male inactivityrates, there are high geographical concentrations,48 per cent of working age households insocial housing were workless in 1999 compared to8 per cent in owner–occupation (Dickens et al.2000). Compared to all other OECD countries theUK has disproportionately more workless householdsespecially those with children, despite arelatively high employment rate. There is particularconcern with the high proportion of childrenin poverty, and the effects of deprivation. In1997/8 one third of all children were living inhouseholds below half average income. Recentevidence suggests that childhood deprivation reduceseducational attainment and future earningsand increases the risks of youth unemploymentand teenage pregnancy (Gregg et al. 1999b).Increased earnings differentials and incomeinequalitiesThe pace of the increase in wage and income inequalityin the UK in the past twenty years hasbeen unique in Europe (Rowntree Foundation1995). The severe and prolonged decline of manufacturingjobs since the early 1980s, together withan increase in service sector jobs has meant therehas been an increase in both higher and lowerearning service jobs which has contributed togrowing income inequality. Other factors includea tendency for the earnings of the higher paid togrow more rapidly than those of the low paid andthe decline or abolition of labour market institutionssuch as trade unions or wages councils. Incomparison with other EU countries Britain is acountry with a high incidence of low pay for fulltimeand part-time workers (Gregory andSandoval 1994, Stewart 1999). 11 There is also evidenceof a low-pay – no-pay cycle, that is thosewho are low paid are more likely to leave employmentthan those higher up the pay distributionand those who enter work are more likely toenter low paying jobs (Dickens et al. 2000). In addition,these authors report a lack of upward mobilityfrom low paid work and an increase in thecosts of job loss with respect to future earnings.High dependency on means–tested benefitsInequalities between wage earners and those inreceipt of benefits have widened since benefit increaseshave been in line with prices rather wagelevels at a time when many of those in work haveseen their real wage increase. Fifteen per cent ofthe population were in households dependent onmeans-tested social assistance benefits in 1992, an© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Two. Literature review: UK 43increase of nearly 7 percentage points since 1980,the largest increase of the OECD countries(Gough et al. 1997). For those who are dependenton means-tested benefits, low waged and insecurejobs do not provide opportunities to re-enter employment.Lone parentsAs McRae (1999) has observed the UK now leadswestern Europe in at least three examples of familychange, a high proportion of teenage births, ahigh divorce rate and an increasing and high proportionof lone parents. Each of these family outcomesis associated with economic disadvantage.The UK has the highest number of lone motherfamilies in the EU, 22 per cent of all families withdependent children, a proportion that has morethan doubled since 1980 (Kilkey and Bradshaw1999). However, the UK also has one of the lowestemployment rates for lone mothers at 42 per centcompared with 63 per cent for all other mothers(only the Netherlands and Ireland have loweremployment rates). Not surprisingly, lone mothersin Britain are vulnerable to poverty, 66 percent and 28 per cent of lone mothers not in workand in work respectively live in poverty (that is,where their equivalent disposable income is lessthan 50 per cent of the average disposable income)(Kilkey and Bradshaw 1999). Again this isthe highest in the EU. One reason suggested forthe difficulties in gaining paid work is that manylone mothers have few chances of obtaining otherthan low paid work, because of lower qualifications.They, therefore, cannot earn sufficient topay for the high costs of childcare nor do theyhave a partner who can look after children whilethey are at work.4.2. Families and ParentingThere has been a shift in the recent researchagenda from a concern with women in the labourmarket and equal opportunities to one in whichthe family has come to the forefront as a researchissue, especially families’ relationship to the labourmarket (Dex et al. 1999). This researchagenda has also been stimulated by the policyagenda of new Labour with its commitment topromote family-friendly policies and extendchildcare provision. Recent research has, therefore,been concerned to investigate stress imposedon family life by the changing nature of work, theeffects of long and unsocial hours on family life,the difficulties of parenting, lack of child care andelderly care, the implications of a work-rich,work-poor society and the long-term consequencesfor those children who live in work–poorhouseholds.The majority of parents in the UK are in paidwork. In almost two-thirds (63 per cent) of workingage couples with dependent children bothadults worked, although in only a quarter of thesedid both partners work full-time (DTI 2000). In 22per cent of couple families with dependent childrenthe man was the sole earner. The employmentrate of mothers in couple families increasedfrom 50 per cent in 1990 to 68 per cent in 1997.However, the employment rate for lone mothershas only increased very slightly in the last fifteenyears. Employment has also grown more slowlyfor Afro-Caribbean women, mothers with olderchildren, or with three or more children and forwomen living with an unemployed or inactivepartner (Brannen 1998).Fathers with dependent children are morelikely than other men to work longer hours especiallyif they are a sole wage earner. For example,in households where the father was the onlybreadwinner, fathers worked on average 55 hoursper week in 1994 (Dex et al. 1999). In the Ferri andSmith (1996) cohort study two-thirds of fathersworked 40 hours or more, over a quarter 50 hoursor more and one in ten worked over 60 hours aweek. Burchell et al. (1999) found that more thanhalf of respondents in their sample claimed thattheir family life had suffered as a result of their© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

44 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityworking hours and work overload. Reasons givenincluded tiredness and irritability, not seeingenough of their partners and children and a restrictionof social life. Mothers with children inpartnered households, on the other hand, aremore likely to work evenings, early mornings orweekends so that their partners can look after thechildren (Ferri and Smith 1996). In one in fourfamilies with children at least one parent is workingin the evening which could have implicationsfor the quality of family life (Harkness 1999). Onerecent estimate is that 61 per cent of workingfamilies have parents away from home earlymornings, nights or weekends, with 34 per centworking at weekends (Summerskill 2000).CONCLUSIONSA recent TUC report challenges the view that weare witnessing the end of permanent employmentin the UK and suggests that the growth of flexibleemployment is overstated (TUC 2000). For example,this report points out that the share of permanentjobs (this excludes temporary and selfemployment) fell only 1 per cent between 1984and 1999 (that is, from 83 to 82 per cent). However,this perspective ignores the constant roundsof restructuring of internal labour markets withinorganisations, more aggressive employer tacticsto pass costs onto core employees together withevidence of increased use of numerical flexibilityin both public and private sectors (see, for example,Cully et al. 1999, Purcell et al. 1999, Burchell etal. 1999 and Walsh 1997). The aggregate statisticalso masks important features of the nature anddistribution of flexible employment in the UK andits differential impact on households. That is, asthis paper has shown, account must be taken ofthe uneven distribution of work, the importanceof part-time work and its gendered nature, theextent of low paid work, and the nature of entrylevel jobs.It can be argued that a part-time or temporaryjob is better than no job and the nature offlexible employment in the UK does provide apathway out of unemployment as well as enablingmost mothers to combine work and familylife. However, as we have seen, the nature of parttimework in the UK has a detrimental effect onlifetime earnings, career prospects, employmentprotection and financial independence. Such workdoes little to change the gender division of labourat work or in the home. For some (especially unskilledmen) the low paid flexible jobs on offerhave affected their ability to establish or maintaina household. For increasing numbers of lone parentsthere also remains strong barriers to paidemployment. The fact that low paid flexible workhas been taken by those with partners already inemployment has exacerbated the growing polarisationbetween households and their division intowork rich and work poor households.The high level of part-time working forwomen in the UK reflects the lack of support forparents, for example, maternity and parentalleave as well as child care provision are amongthe lowest in Europe. Where parents are in paidwork (and this is the majority of parents) there arenow concerns that long and unsocial hours andintensified workloads are beginning to impact onfamily life and especially parenting. At the otherend of the spectrum, the uneven distribution ofpaid work, the expansion of flexible employmentand dependence on benefits have restricted opportunitiesfor some to participate in paid work.As we have seen, this also limits their ability toengage in informal economic activities, self-helpwithin the household and community exchanges.A particular anxiety concerns the geographicalconcentration of deprivation and social exclusion,which means that many children will grow up inhouseholds and neighbourhoods in which paidwork is almost unknown.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Two. Literature review: UK 45NOTES1 Since 1979 there has been a halving of the coverage of collective bargaining together with the nearabandonment of industry-wide agreements in the private sector. Union membership has fallen fromaround 12million in 1979 to 7million in the late 1990s (around half of whom are public sector workersalthough they constitute only 18 per cent of the workforce). Only one quarter of employees areboth union members and covered by collective bargaining (Metcalf et al. 2000).2 In the Spring 1998 LFS, 78 per cent of women and over 90 per cent of mothers currently workingpart-time said that they did not want a full-time job (Thair and Risdon 1999).3 Most men earning below the lower earnings level are under 25 and typically single and a studentand very few men remain in low paid jobs for an extended period of time. However, one in sevenwomen aged 25-54 earns below the lower earnings level and a significant number remain in lowpaid jobs for an extended period (EOC 1998).4 The Low Pay Commission in its First Report (LPC 1998) found that part-timers constituted just overhalf of the low paid (defined here as earning less than £3.50 per hour, 5.6 euros). The Report alsoconfirms a decline in average real earnings of part-timers since 1979.5 It is estimated that 2.2 per cent of all employees will work in call centres by 2001 (Fernie and Metcalf2000).6 The data is from Workplace Employee Relations Survey (Cully et al.1999) and is the first to providestatistical information on family-friendly arrangements in enterprises of more than 25 employees.7 In 1997 the National Group on Homeworking found an average wage of £1.60 (2.5 euros) per houror £58 (90 euros) for a 36 hour week (LPC 1998). The follow up study of the impact of the introductionof the national minimum wage by the Low Pay Commission found, however, that 6 monthslater almost half of a sample of homeworkers were still not receiving the minimum wage (LPC2000).8 The Social Exclusion Unit (1998) suggests that there are several thousands of deprived neighbourhoodsin England alone and could be between 20 to 30 per cent of all wards (local electoral districts )in England.9 The rate of inactivity among men living in social housing is 30 per cent and only 54 per cent are inwork (Dickens et al. 2000).10 The proportion of households with one full-timer and one part-time earner at 35 per cent is muchhigher than the 20 per cent of households with two full-timer earners. (Crieghton 1999). At the sametime men’s contribution to family income has fallen from nearly 73 per cent in 1979-81 to 61 in 1989-91 and that of women rose from 15–21 per cent (Harkness et al. 1996).11 In 1997, around 1.5 million, one in every 14 workers earned below £3 (4.7 euros) an hour, 3 millionearned below £3.50 (5.6 euros) an hour, and 6 million, one in every four, earned below £4 (6.3 euros)an hour (Stewart 1999).© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

46 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityANNEXFigure 1. Typology of Flexible WorkingFlexibility of Time Flexibility of Place Flexibility of Conditionsp e r m a n e n t w o r k• annualised hours• term-time working• flexi-time• fixed shift• job-sharing• rotating shifts• variable shifts• split shifts• overtime• time - off in lieu• short-time working• part-time hours (fixed)• part-time hours (variable)• early morning/evening working• night working• weekend working• public holiday working• …• zero hours• hotdesking• teleworking• distance working• working mainly at home• working partially at home• working sometimes at home• working from home• working different places• no fixed place of work• rolling contracts• self employed• fixed-term contracts• casual (bank)• casual (seasonal)• agency - labour supply contract• agency ad hoc temps.f l e x i b l e w o r kAdapted from Fig. 1 Purcell et al (1999)Table 1. Benefits and Costs for Employers in Using Flexible EmploymentBenefits for employersThe ability to match labour supply with variations in customer demandTo reduce fixed costs of employment such as national insurancecontributions, pensions, fringe benefits, staff development or annualholidays with payTo meet periodic crisis in production or service provisionTo mange human resources more effectively - increase the commitmentand loyalty of their employees and attract and recruit highquality workersCosts for employersHigher labour turnoverIncreased absenteeismQuality levels not maintainedPoor labour relationsIncreased personnel costs e.g. recruitment and trainingErosion of the ‘psychological contract’,Sources: Burchell et al. (1999), Purcell et al. (1999), Perrons (1999), White and Forth (1998).© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Two. Literature review: UK 47Table 2. Benefits and Costs of Flexible Employment to WorkersBenefits of flexible working for individualsReconciliation of family responsibilities with workReconciliation of other interests (e.g. hobbies or other employment)or statuses (students or retired) with workOffers ways out of unemploymentCan provide a ‘bridge’ into full-time or permanent workCan supplement other sources of family incomeCosts of flexible working for individualsReduced employment protection which lead to a reduced level of jobsecurityLack of training and progressionLow earnings and reduced job mobility (a ‘trap’ rather than a ‘bridge’)Low levels of union membership reducing lack of protection againstdismissal and bargaining power in wage determinationLack of access to social security and fringe benefitsIncreased work intensificationIncursions into family timeCan impact negatively on family relationshipsMay not promote financial independenceDoes not change the gender division of labour at work or in the homeSources: Burchell et al. (1999), Purcell et al. (1999), Perrons (1999), White and Forth (1998).Table 3. Average usual weekly hours of work in main job for all in employmentin UK, Netherlands, Sweden and the EU (15), (% of all employees)UKFull-timePart-timeFemale 40.7 18.3Male 45.7 17.2NetherlandsFemale 38.5 18.6Male 39.2 18.9SwedenFemale 40.0 25.4Male 40.2 18.9EU (15) averageFemale 39.0 19.8Male 41.3 19.0Source: Eurostat Labour Force Survey 1998© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

48 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityTable 4. Flexibility of time (% of employees)Annualised hours 1 4.0All Men WomenTerm-time working 2 2.0 8.0Flexi-time 3 32.0 24.0 private sector37.0 public sector36.0 private sector /39.0 public sectorJob-sharing 3 16.0 6.0 private sector /23.0 public sector15.0 private sector /34.0 public sectorOvertime 4paidunpaid55.240.638.557.8Part-time hours 5 24.8 9.0 44.3Evening working 4 16.3 16.7 (full-time)25.3 (part-time)13.5 (full-time)17.9 (part-time)Night working 4 6.4 7.9 (full-time) 4.3 (full-time)Saturday working 4 21.9 24.2 (full-time) 18.4 (full-time)Sunday working 4 11.7 12.1 (full-time) 11.0 (full-time)Bank Holiday working 6 32.0Zero hours 3 5.0 (*)(*) –as % of workplacesSources: 1. EIRO December 19982. Dex and McColloch (1995) based on 1994 LFS3. Workplace Employee Relations Survey (Cully et al.1998)4. Harkness (1999) based on 1998 LFS5. Labour Market Trends Sept. 2000 based on LFS 19996. Labour Market trends August 2000 based on LFS Autumn 1999Table 5. Percentages of establishments (*) allowing employees flexible arrangements in the UKWERS 1 1998 (Non-managerial) %Parental Leave 55Working at/ or from home 14Job share 45Term-time only 19Change FT – PT 52Workplace nursery 5Financial help with childcare 6Flexitime 18(*) establishments with more than 25 employeesSource: 1. Dex et al. (1999) from WERS 1998© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Two. Literature review: UK 49Table 6. Flexibility of PlaceAll % of workforce % of Men % of WomenTeleworkers 1 about 3.5Working mainly at home 2.5 30.7 69.3Working partially at home 3.5 63.8 36.2Working sometimes at home 22.0 62.9 37.1Working different places during the week 1.2No fixed place of work 7.0Source: Felstead et al (2000) based on LFS Spring 19981. Estimate from Felstead et al 2000Table 7.Flexibility of ConditionsAll % of workforce Men % of workforce Women % of workforceSelf-employed 111.715.76.7(proportion with employees 26%) (proportion with employees 27%) (proportion with employees 23%)Temporary 2 7.1 6.3 8.01. Labour market Trends August 2000 based on LFS winter 1999/20002. Labour Market Trends September 2000 based on LFS 1999© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

50 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityTable 8. Provision of publicly-funded 1 services for children in EU Member StatesMember StateProvision in publicly-funded services for children aged (years):0-3 years 3-6 years 6-10 years*Austria 3% 75% 6%Belgium 30% 95%+ ??Denmark 48% 82% 62% + all 6 year olds in pre-primary educationFinland 21% 53% 5% + 60% of 6 year olds in welfare and education system servicesFrance 23% 99% ?30%Germany 2% (W) 78% (W) 5% (W)50% (O) 100% (O) 88% (O)Greece #3% #70% (a) ?

Chapter Two. Literature review: UK 51Table 9.Characteristics of childcare in the UKCharacteristics of childcareExamplesQuality of child care is highly variable 70% of childminders and 20% of pre-school workers are unqualified 1Cost of childcare is high and the highest in Europe 2Full-time childminding for under 5 costs between £50-£120 per week,full-time private day nursery costs between £70-180 per week. Anaverage income family with 2 young children could pay as much asone third of their income on childcare. 1Childcare is not readily available and provision is patchy especiallyin rural areas and inner cities.More mothers would work if child care availableThere are 830,000 registered child care places for 5.1 million childrenunder 8 in England. 14 out of 5 non-working mothers would work (55% part-time) if thechildcare of their choice was available. 1The majority of parents use informal childcare See Table 11Shift parenting is commonOf a sample of 33 year olds where fathers worked fulltime, 71% ofmothers worked between 6pm and 10pm. 2The proportion of workers stating that they have access to a workplacenursery or childcare subsidy is very4% of all employees stated this in the WERS 1998. 3smallSources: 1. DfEE 19982. Ferri and Smith (1996)3. Cully et al. (1999)Table 10. Providers 1 of childcare, 2 1994-1995, Great BritainPre-school age children (%)School age children interm-time (%)School age children inholidays (%)Female respondent 82 78 77Her partner 15 10 12Mother/ mother-in-law 11 7 12Registered childminder 6 2 2Other relative 3 2 5Private nursery/ crèche 2 - -Person employed in respondent’s home 1 2 3Friend/ neighbour unpaid 1 1 -Friend/ neighbour paid 1 2 1Day nursery/ crèche run by employer 1 - -They look after themselves - 5 2Child’s older siblings - 2 21 Percentage of dependent children cared for by each type of provider. More than one type of provider may be identified.2 Respondents were mothers aged 16 to 69Source: Dex et al. 1999 based on Family and Working Lives Survey 1994© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

52 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityREFERENCESAllen, J and Henry, N (1996) ‘Fragments of Industryand Employment: Contract Service Workand the Shift Towards Precarious Employment’in R.Crompton et al. Changing Forms ofEmployment: Organisations, Skills and GenderLondon: Routledge.Atkinson, J. and Meager, N. (1986) ChangingWorking Patterns: How Companies AchieveFlexibility to Meet New Needs, London: NationalEconomic Development Office.Beechey, V. and Perkins, T. (1987) A Matter ofHours, Cambridge; Polity Press.Bloch, A. (2000) ‘Refugee settlement in Britain: theimpact of policy on participation’, Journal ofEthnic and Migration Studies Vol. 26, No. 1:75-88, January 2000.Brannen, J. (1998) ‘Employment and Family Lives:Equalities and Inequalities’ in E. Drew, R.Emerek and E, Mahon (eds.) Women, Workand the Family in Europe London: Routledge.Brennan, A. et al. (2000) ‘The Nature of Local AreaSocial Exclusion in England and the Role ofthe Labour Market’ Oxford Review of EconomicPolicy 16, 1: 129-146.Bruegel, I (1996) ‘Whose Myths are They Anyway? British Journal of Sociology 47 (1):175-7.Bruegel, I and Perrons, D (1996) Deregulation andWomen’s Employment: The Diverse Experienceof Women in Britain Gender Institute, LondonSchool of Economics.Burchell, B. J. et al. (1999) Job Insecurity and WorkIntensification: Flexibility and the ChangingBoundaries of Work York: Joseph RowntreeFoundation.Burghes, L et al. (1997) Fathers and Fatherhood inBritain, London: Family Policy Studies Centre.Conley, H, (2000) Temporary Labour in the PublicSector: Employers’ Policies and Trade UnionResponses in Social Services and Schools,unpublished PhD, Department of Sociology,Warwick University.Cousins, C. (1999) ‘Changing Regulatory Frameworksand ‘Non-standard Employment inEurope’ in A. Felstead and N. Jewson (eds.)Global Trends in Flexible Labour London:Macmillan.Creighton, C. (1999) ‘The Rise and Decline of theMale Breadwinner Family in Britain’ CambridgeJournal of Economics, 23:519-541.Crompton, R. (1999) ‘Non-standard Employment,Social Exclusion and the Household: Evidencefrom Britain’, in J. Lind and I. Moller(eds.) Inclusion and Exclusion: Unemploymentand Non-standard Employment in Europe, Aldershot:Ashgate.Cully, M. et al. (1999) Britain at Work London:Routledge.Desai, T. et al. (1999) ‘Gender and the LabourMarket’ in P.Gregg and J.Wadsworth TheState of Working Britain, Manchester: ManchesterUniversity Press.Dex, S.(ed.) (1999) Families and the Labour Market:Trends, Pressures and Policies, London: FamilyPolicy Studies Centre.Dex, S. and McCulloch, A.(1995) Flexible Employmentin Britain: A Statistical Analysis, London:Equal Opportunities Commission.DfEE (1998) Meeting the childcare challenge : aframework and consultation document : presentedto Parliament by the Secretary of Statefor Education and Employment and the Secretaryof State for Social Security and Ministerfor Women London : Stationery Office.DfEE (2000) Labour Market and Skill Trends 2000Nottingham: DfEE Publications.Dickens, R., Gregg, P. and Wadsworth, J. (2000)‘New Labour and the Labour Market’ OxfordReview of Economic Policy 16, 1: 95-113.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Two. Literature review: UK 53Dickens, L and Hall, M (1995) ‘The State: LabourLaw and Industrial Relations’ in P. Edwards(ed.) Industrial Relations: Theory and Practice inBritain, Oxford: Blackwell.DTI (1998) White Paper on Fairness at Work, MayLondon:Department of Trade and IndustryDTI (2000) Parents and Workhttp://www.dti.gov.uk/er/review.htmEIRO (European Industrial Relations Observatory)December 1998 ‘Annualised HoursAgreements: Service Sector leads the Way’http://www.eiro.eurofound.ie/1998/12/features/uk9812165f.htmlEOC (1998) Low Pay and the National Insurance System:A Statistical Picture, Manchester: EqualOpportunities CommissionEOC (1999) Lower Earnings Limit in Practice, Manchester:Equal Opportunities CommissionEsping-Andersen, G. (1990) The Three Worlds ofWelfare Capitalism, Cambridge: Polity Press.European Commission (1999) The 1999 EmploymentGuidelines: Council Resolution of 22 February1999, Director General for Employment,Industrial Relations and Social Affairs,Brussels.Eurostat (1998) Labour Force Survey Luxembourg,Office for Official Publications of the EuropeanCommunities.Evans, S. L. and Bowlby, S. (2000) ‘CrossingBoundaries: Racialised Gendering and theLabour Market Experiences of Pakistani MigrantWomen in Britain’. Women’s Studies InternationalForum, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 461-474.Fagan, C. and O’Reilly, J. (1998) ‘ConceptualisingPart-time Work: the Value of an IntegratedComparative Perspective’ in J. O’Reilly, andC. Fagan (eds.) Part-time Prospects: An InternationalComparison of Part-time Work inEurope, North America and the Pacific Rim,London: Routledge.Felstead, A. and Jewson, N. (eds.) (1999) GlobalTrends in Flexible Labour London: Macmillan.Felstead et al. (2000) A Statistical Portrait of Workingat Home in the UK: Evidence From the LFS,ESRC Future of Work Working Paper No. 4,Centre for Labour Market Studies, Universityof Leicester.Fernie, S. and Metcalf, D. (1998) (Not) Hanging onto the Telephone: Payment Systems in the NewSweatshops, Discussion Paper No. 390, Centrefor Economic Performance, London: LondonSchool of Economics.Ferri, E. and Smith, K (1996) Parenting in the 1990s,London: Family Policy Studies Centre.Gallie, D et al. (1998) Restructuring the EmploymentRelationship Oxford: OUP.Gershuny et al. (1994) ‘The Domestic LabourRevolution: A Process of Lagged Adaptation’in M. Andersen et al. The Social and PoliticalEconomy of the Household Oxford: OUP.Gough, I. et al. (1997) ‘Social Assistance in OECDCountries’ Journal of European Social Policy 7(1): 17-43.Gregg, P. and Machin, S. (1994) ‘Is the UK Rise inInequality Different?’ in R.Barrell (ed.) TheUK Labour Market: Comparative and InstitutionalDevelopments, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Pres.Gregg, P. Hansen, K. and Wadsworth, J. (1999)‘The Rise of the Workless Household’ inP.Gregg and J.Wadsworth The State of WorkingBritain, Manchester: Manchester UniversityPress.Gregg, P. Knight, G. and Wadsworth, J. (1999a)‘The Cost of Job Loss’ in P.Gregg andJ.Wadsworth The State of Working Britain,Manchester: Manchester University Press.Gregg et al (1999b) ‘Poor Kids: Trends in ChildPoverty in Britain 1968-96’, Fiscal Studies 20(2).Gregson, N., Simonsen, K. and Vaiou, D. (1999)‘The Meaning of Work: Some Arguments forthe Importance of Culture within Formula-© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

54 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilitytions of Work in Europe’ European Urban andRegional Studies 6 (3): 197-214.Guest, D. (2000) ‘Management and the InsecureWorkforce: the Search for a New PsychologicalContract’, in E. Heery and J. Salmon(Eds.) The Insecure Workforce, London:Routledge.Hakim, C. (1991) ‘Grateful Salves and Self-MadeWomen: Fact and Fantasy in Women’s WorkOrientations’, European Sociological Review 7(2): 101-21.Hakim, C. (1996) Key Issues in Women’s Work: FemaleHeterogeneity and the Polarisation ofWomen’s Employment London: Athlone PressHarkness, S, Machin, S. and Waldfogel, J (1995)Evaluating the Pin Money Hypothesis: The RelationshipBetween Women’s Labour Market Activity,Family Income and Poverty in Britain, STI-CERD Welfare State programme DiscussionPaper WSP/108, London: London School ofEconomics.Harkness, S. (1999) ‘Working 9 to 5?’ in P.Greggand J.Wadsworth The State of Working Britain,Manchester: Manchester University Press.Heather, J, Rick, J, Atkinson, J and Morris, S(1996) Employers’ Use of Temporary Workers,Labour Market Trends, September: 403-411.Heery, E. and Salmon, J. (2000) ‘The InsecurityThesis’ in E. Heery and J. Salmon (Eds.) TheInsecure Workforce, London: Routledge.Hunter, L, McGregor, A, MacInnes, J and Sproull,A (1993) ‘The “Flexible Firm”: Strategy andSegmentation’, British Journal of Industrial Relations,31 (3): 383-407.Kiernan, K. (1995) ‘Social backgrounds and postbirthexperiences of young parents’,http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/social policy/SP80.htmKilhey, M. and Bradshaw, J. (1999) ‘Lone Mothers,Economic Well-being and Policies’ in Sainsbury,D. (ed.) Gender and Welfare State Regimes.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Leonard, M. (1998) Invisible Work, Invisible Workers:The Informal Economy in Europe and theUS, London: Macmillan.LPC (1998) The National Minimum Wage: First Reportof the Low Pay Commissionhttp://www.lowpay.gov.ukLPC (2000) The National Minimum Wage: The StorySo Far, Second Report of the Low Pay Commissionhttp://www.lowpay.gov.ukMarullo, S. (1995) Comparison of Regulations onPart-Time and Temporary Employment inEurope: A Briefing Paper, Research Series No.52, Sheffield: Employment Department.McRae, S. (1999) ‘Introduction: Family andHousehold Change in Britain’ in S. McRae(Ed.) Changing Britain: Families and Householdsin the 1990s, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Metcalf, D., Hansen, K. and Charlwood, A. (2000)Unions and the Sword of Justice: Unions andPay Systems, Pay Inequality, Pay Discriminationand Low Pay, Discussion Paper, Centrefor Economic Performance, London: LondonSchool of Economics.Michie, J. (1995) ‘Unemployment in Europe’ in A.Amin and J. Tomaney (eds.) Behind the Mythof the European Union: Prospects for Cohesion,London: Routledge.Mitter, S. (1986) ‘Industrial Restructuring andManufacturing Homework: ImmigrantWomen in the Clothing industry’ Capital andClass 27: 37-80.Morgan, P. et al. (2000) ‘Employment Security inthe Public Services’ in E. Heery and J.Salmon (Eds.) The Insecure Workforce, London:Routledge.Morris, L (1995) Social Divisions: Economic Declineand Social Structural Change, London: UCLPress.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Two. Literature review: UK 55Moss, P. (1996) Parental Employment in the EuropeanUnion 1985-1993, Labour Market Trends,December: 517-22.Neathy, F. and Hurstfield, J.(1995) Flexibility inPractice: Women’s Employment and Pay in Retailand Finance, Manchester, Equal OpportunitiesCommission.Nolan, P (1994) Labour Market Institutions, IndustrialRestructuring and Unemployment inEurope’ in J. Michie and J. G. Grieve Smith(eds.) Unemployment in Europe, London: AcademicPress.OECD ( 1994b) The OECD Jobs Study: Evidence andExplanations Parts 1 and 2 Paris: OECD.O’Reilly, J. (1996) ‘Labour Adjustments throughPart-time Work’ in G. Schmid and J.O’Reilly(eds.) International Handbook of Labour MarketPolicy and Evaluation, Cheltenham: EdwardElgar.Ostner, I. and Lewis, J. (1995) ‘Gender and theEvolution of European Social Policies’ in S.Leibfried and P. Pierson (eds.) European SocialPolicy: Between Fragmentation and IntegrationWashington D.C.: The Brookings Institution.Pahl, R. (1984) Divisions of Labour, Oxford: BasilBlackwell.Pahl, R. (1988) ‘The Black Economy in the UK’EEC Survey Underground Economy and IrregularForms of Employment Brussels: Final Report.Pahl, R. (1988a) ‘Some Remarks on InformalWork, Social Polarisation and the SocialStructure’ International Journal of Urban andRegional Research, 12: 247-67.Perrons, D. and Hurstfield, J. (1998) ‘UnitedKingdom’ in D. Perrons (ed.) Flexible Workingand the Reconciliation of Work and Family Life –A New Form of Precariousness, Final Report tothe Community Action Programme on EqualOpportunities for Women and Men (1996-2000) Brussels: European Commission.Perrons, D. (1999) ‘Flexible Working Patterns andEqual Opportunities in the European Union:Conflict or Compatibility ? The EuropeanJournal of Women’s Studies 6 (4): 391-418.Perrons, D. (2000) ‘Living with Risk: Labour MarketTransformation, Employment Policiesand Social Reproduction in the UK’, Economicand Industrial Democracy 21:283-310.Phizacklea, A. (1990) Unpacking the Fashion Industry:Gender, Racism and Class, London:Routledge.Phizacklea, A. (1992) ‘Jobs for the girls: the productionof women’s outerwear in the UK’, inM. Cross (ed.) Ethnic Minorities and IndustrialChange in Europe and North America. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.Procter, S. et al. (1994) Flexibility, Politics andStrategy: In Defence of the Model of theFlexible Firm, Work, Employment and Society 8(2): 221-242.Purcell, K et al. (1999) Whose Flexibility? The Costsand benefits of ‘Non-standard Working Arrangementsand Contractual Relations, York: JosephRowntree Foundation.Purcell, K. (2000) ‘Gendered Employment Insecurity?’in E. Heery and J. Salmon (eds.) The InsecureWorkforce, London: Routledge.Robinson, P. (1999) ‘Explaining the Relationshipbetween Flexible Employment and LabourMarket Regulation’ in A. Felstead and N.Jewson (eds.) Global Trends in Flexible LabourLondon: Macmillan.Rowntree Foundation (1995) Inquiry into Incomeand Wealth, Vols. 1 and 2, York: JosephRowntree Foundation.Rubery, J. and Tarling, R. (1988) ‘Women’s Employmentin Declining Britain’, in J. Rubery(ed.) Women and Recession, London:Routledge and Kegan Paul.Rubery, J., Bettio, F., Fagan, C., Maier, F., Quack,S. and Villa, P. (1997) ‘Payment Structuresand Gender Pay Differentials: Some Societal© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

56 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityEffects’ The International Journal of Human ResourceManagement 8 (3): 131-49.Scheibl, F. (1999) Theorising Commitment andConstraint in Women’s Post Childbirth Careers,unpublished PhD, University of Hertfordshire.Sectec (South east Cheshire TEC) (undated) NewWays of Working Using ICThttp://www.sectec.co.ukSennett, R. (1998) The Corrosion of Character: ThePersonal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism,London: W.W.Norton & Co.Social Exclusion Unit (1998) Bringing Britain Together:A National Strategy for NeighbourhoodRenewal The Cabinet Office, London, The StationaryOffice.Strafford, B. et al. (1999) ‘Young men’s experienceof the labour market’http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/social policy/069.htmSummerskill, B. (2000) ‘One in four Britons is nowworking nights’, Observer 10/9/2000.Thair, T. and Risdon, A. (1999) ‘Women in theLabour Market: Results from the Spring 1998LFS’ Labour Market Trends (March) : 103-14.TUC (2000) The Future of Work Marchhttp://webhost.tuc.org.uk/vbuilding/tuc/Walsh, J (1997) ‘Employment Systems in Transition?A Comparative Analysis of Britain andAustralia’, Work Employment and Society 11(1):1-25.Warin, J. et al. (1999) Fathers, Work and Family Life,Findings, Joseph Rowntree Foundation,http://www.jrf.org.uk/White, M and Forth, J. (1998) Pathways ThroughUnemployment: The Effects of a Flexible LabourMarket, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Williams, C. C. and Windebank, J. (1998) TheUnemployed and Informal Sector in Europe’sCities and Regions’ in P. Lawless et al.. (eds.)Unemployment and Social Exclusion: Landscapesof labour Inequality London: Jessica Kingsley.Williams, C. C. and Windebank, J. (2000) ‘HelpingPeople to Help Themselves: Policy Lessonsfrom a Study of Deprived Urban Neighboursin Southampton’, Journal of Social Policy, 29(3): 355-73.Williams, C. et al. (1999) Inclusion Through Participation,Working Paper Number 3 UK Report,TSER, Political Economy Research Centre,University of Sheffield.Williams, J. L. (1995) ‘The Economics of the BlackEconomy: A Survey of Surveys Undertakenin the USA and UK’. Working Paper, BusinessSchool, Liverpool John Moores University.Yeandle, S. (1997) ‘Non-Standard Working: Diversityand Change in European Countries’,Paper presented to the 15th Annual InternationalLabour Process Conference, April,Edinburgh University.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter ThreeHOUSEHOLDS, WORK AND FLEXIBILITYCritical Review of LiteratureTHE NETHERLANDS[ Annet Jager, STOAS ][ Contents ]1. INTRODUCTION: THE DISCOURSE ON FLEXIBILITY IN THE NETHERLANDS ......................... 592. THE DISCUSSION ABOUT FLEXIBILITY ........................................................................................ 593. A QUESTION OF DEFINITION ........................................................................................................604. SHIFTING ATTENTION FOR FLEXIBILITY ..................................................................................... 625. FLEXIBILITY IN FIGURES................................................................................................................ 636. FIGURES FROM OSA AND STATISTICS NETHERLANDS ........................................................... 657. PART-TIME WORK AND THE COMBINATION OF WORK AND CARE......................................... 698. THE DILEMMA OF COMBINING WORK AND CARE...................................................................... 749. FLEXIBILITY IN THE DUTCH FUTURE........................................................................................... 75NOTES ...................................................................................................................................................... 76REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 77© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

[ List of tables and figures ]Figure 1. Categories of forms of flexible work ...................................................................................... 62Table 1. Type of contract..................................................................................................................... 65Table 2. Flexible job characteristics according to the type of employment......................................... 66Table 3. Working population................................................................................................................ 67Table 4. Types of labour contracts in the working population............................................................. 67Table 5. Job duration and working hours of the working population................................................... 68Table 6. Flexible work times ................................................................................................................ 69Table 7. Part-time employment as a percentage of the total employment.......................................... 70Table 8. Percentages of part-time workers in the employment population......................................... 71Table 9. The share of single income-earners and double earners amongst couples......................... 72Table 10. Time spent on paid and unpaid work .................................................................................... 73Table 11. Hours of domestic help per week.......................................................................................... 74

Chapter Three. Literature review: The Netherlands 591. INTRODUCTION: THE DISCOURSE ON FLEXIBILITY IN THE NETHERLANDSThe debate on the increasing flexibility of work inthe Netherlands is a complex one. Not only do thearguments in the discussion differ greatly, theyalso overlap each other. The flexible approach inthe Netherlands can be viewed from various disciplines;from a business and economical view orfrom a more sociological view and aimed at thediscussions surrounding emancipation and thecombination of care and work (Remery et al,1999). Various publications have been issued inrecent years. Some studies are based on the diversityof employees’ flexible contracts, others look atthe flexibility of working procedures within companiesand yet others are more conceptual in originand target new divisions, typologies or formsof flexibility models. There is also a movementthat approaches the discussion from the normativeaspects such as the social consequences ofmore flexibility and the role of the government inthis (see Goudswaard and Batenburg, 2000).2. THE DISCUSSION ABOUT FLEXIBILITYFlexibility of work is high in the public interest atthe moment (Remery et al, 1999). Flexibility is a“buzz” word, one of the fashionable words in thepresent Dutch employment system and also thatof the last decennium (Ester and Vinken, 2000,Hofman, Van der Laan and Steijn, 1997, Fourageet al, 1998). Flexibility received a prominent rolein policy discussions as an answer to thecontinuing high unemployment in the lateeighties and early nineties. A combination ofnational and international factors prompted manyemployers to more flexibility in employment(Ester and Vinken, 2000, Fourage et al, 1998, Faberand Schippers, 1997, Remery et al, 1999). Faberand Schippers (1997) summarise the followingcauses of this large increase in work flexibility inthe Netherlands:! The increase in competition (this is linked tothe globalisation process) that drives companiesto continually improve quality, createinnovations and increase productivity and towhich forms of work flexibility cancontribute.! Fluctuations and uncertainties in the marketnecessitate a more flexible (numeric) mobilisationof personnel.! Technical modernisation imposes new andoften higher demands on current and newpersonnel (functional flexibility).! Employees are personally interested inflexible working for various reasons, forexample to better combine working andcaring.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

60 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibility! From the government’s point of view it isimportant that flexible work generates employmentgrowth possibilities.! A possible important explanation for theamount of flexiwork is the law on employmentprotection (Faber en Schippers, 1997).In the discussion about flexibility, varying valueis attached to a greater flexibility in the labourmarket. It is not immediately clear whether alarge degree of flexibility is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ for theeconomy in general, or for the employees concerned(Kleinknecht et al 1997). Muffels and Steijn(1998) state that work flexibility is often seen as aform of liberalisation of the labour market. Proponentsof work flexibility see advantages for thelabour market and job mobility and a growth inemployment. In the economic debate it is sometimesautomatically presumed that an increase inflexibility is therefore ‘good’. In addition, the necessityfor increased flexibility in society isstressed to prevent rigidity of the society (Hofman,Van der Laan and Steijn, 1997).At the same time the socio-economic debatesstress equally strongly that work flexibility willharm the employees’ prosperity. In particular, theweaker in the labour market would become thevictims of a greater work flexibility. The advantagesof work flexibility are uncertain andmust be balanced against the disadvantages in therights and the legal position of the employees.There is clearly tension here between flexibilityand security (Muffels and Steijn, 1998, Kleinknechtet al 1997).3. A QUESTION OF DEFINITIONThe debate over flexibility is also clouded becausevarious definitions are used. Work flexibility is arather broad and ambivalent concept that has becometo mean a great many different things (Muffelsand Steijn, 1998, Goudswaard and Batenburg,2000, Jonker, J. Hoof, A. van and H. Messchendorp,1998, Hofman, Van der Laan and Steijn,1997). The sometimes undifferentiated and poorlydefined use of the term often gives rise to confuseddiscussion. It can occur that people are inagreement about the principle of work flexibilitybut disagree about the practical application(Kleinknecht et al, 1997). Work flexibility can alsobe defined at different levels; for example at thelevel of the labour market, the organisation of labour,the conditions of employment or at the levelof the employees. (see Goudswaard en Batenburg,2000). Moreover, making labour relations moreflexible can then be regarded from varying motivationsand in several ways. On the one hand,work flexibility is necessary for many organisationsto survive. In other words, the degree towhich the organisation is capable of adapting theefforts of people and equipment to changed circumstances.On the other hand, the employeesmay have other intentions, they choose for workflexibility as a fitting solution for their preferences,for example to adjust their job content andworking hours to suit their personal (family)situation and ambitions (Hofman, Van der Laanand Steijn, 1997).For a better insight into Dutch workflexibility, I will look more closely at the varioustypes of work flexibility that occur in theNetherlands.In labour market literature (thinking flexibly)there is generally a distinction made between twoforms of flexibility: numeric flexibility andfunctional flexibility. Numeric flexibility isadjusting the quantity of the personnel, forexample employing temporary workers, stand-byemployees, outworkers and overtime. Functionalflexibility targets the possibility of using theavailable workforce at different points in theorganisation in response to the demand (seeAtkinson, 1984, Ester and Vinken, 2000, Zant et al2000, Fourage et al 1998, Remery et al, 1999,Steenbakkers 1994, Goudswaard et al, 2000,Kleinknecht, 1997, Jonker, J. Hoof, A. van and H.Messchendorp, 1998, Tijdens, 1998).© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Three. Literature review: The Netherlands 61In addition, when considering flexibility adistinction is made between internal and externalflexibility. Internal flexibility is the availablepossibilities that the employer has to use thepermanent employees flexibly within theorganisation. By external flexibility is meant, forexample temporary adjustments to the personnelwith employees that are not included in thepermanent personnel and who work on atemporary or ad hoc basis (De Jong en VanBolhuis, 1997, Kleinknecht, 1997, De Haan et al,1994).Furthermore other people use a definition ofquantitative and qualitative flexibility (Hofman,Van der Laan en Steijn, 1997, Ester en Vinken,2000, Faber en Schippers, 1997). By quantitativeflexibility, Hofman, Van der Laan and Steijn(1997) talk about wage flexibility as well asinternal and external mobility. External mobilityis when an employee changes employer, the stepfrom unemployment to employment or vice versaor a change in work location. Internal mobility isa change of function within one company(horizontal or vertical). From the attempts ofcompanies to better react to fast changes, animportant relationship is often made betweenwork flexibility and internal mobility; a flexiblecompany requires mobile personnel. Qualitativeflexibility is the question of how far thequalitative demands of the work meet the trainingof the labour available (Hofman, Van der Laanand Steijn, 1997).Hofman, Van der Laan and Steijn (1997) gavea summary of the various forms of workflexibility that occur:! Adaptation of the duration of the work required:Examples are overtime, working withstand-by and temporary employees andflexible annual contracts (in certain periodsmore hours will be worked).! Flexible employment contracts.! More flexibility in the job content. Thisapplies to the availability of employees invarying locations.! More flexibility in the conditions of employment.The traditional work relationships arereducing and making way for individualisationof employment contracts, forms of salarydifferentiation, performance rewards, flexiblesalary systems and profit sharing schemes.! Changes in the traditional workrelationships. A diversity of newempowerment, the manager as coach. Onecharacteristic is the room and freedom thatthe individual employee has to carry out hisfunction.To summarise, it is about the following fourdivisions (Ester and Vinken, 2000, Faber andSchippers, 1997).! Quantitative flexibility (flexibility of time).! Qualitative internal flexibility (functionalflexibility), management methods isapparent; for example self-directed.! Quantitative external flexibility (contractflexibility) and! Qualitative external flexibility.As a consequence of the arguments by Smuldersand Klein Hesseling (1997) and Remery et al(1999) I employ the following categories of thevarious forms of flexibility to explain the workflexibility in the Netherlands. Although it doesnot include all the above mentioned forms offlexibility, it gives a broad overview.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

62 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityFigure 1. Categories of forms of flexible workQuantitative/numericalQualitative/functionalInternalFlexibility of time (length of time)• Part-time work• Overtime• 2 nd jobFlexibility of time (point of time)• Weekend work• Shift work• Variable hours / flexitime• Career break• Flexible retirementFlexibility of function• Occasional employment• Employable in several workplaces• Task/function rotationExternalFlexibility of contract• Temporary work• Short-term contracts• Flexible or stand-by contracts• Borrowing and lending• Accepting work• Outwork• Labour poolFlexibility of knowledge• Hiring in/ Borrowing knowledge or employees• Contract work out• Secondment• Freelance work• AdvisingSource: Smulders & Klein Hesselink (1997) in: Remery et al, 19994. SHIFTING ATTENTION FOR FLEXIBILITYAfter the economic growth in the nineties and thelarge decrease in unemployment, internal formsof flexibility (flexibility of function, flexibility oftime) are receiving much more attention in theflexibility discussion. We also see that the (wishesof the) employees becoming more central.So the discussions about qualitative flexibilityin the Netherlands also take shape in the ‘employability’discussion. Employability is describedas the capacity of people to obtain a joband to keep it. (Ministry of Economic Affairs,1997). This adaptability and also the speed atwhich employees can react to the faster and fasterdevelopments in the workplace (such as fast internationalcompetition developments, globalisationof the economy, innovation pressure, the dynamicbroad applications of ICT, increasingly customerand market oriented, integral quality controland the necessity for long-term professionalism).Job security ‘lifetime employment’ has madeway for work security ‘lifetime employability’(Ministry of Economic Affairs, 1997, Derksen inFaber and Schippers, 1997). It is notable, however,that this discussion mainly takes place at themanagement and employers level. We see that inrecent years, gradually more is required from theindividual employee, a broad availability is demanded,whether this involves changing organisationcontexts, working times, work locations,organisation objectives or investment in keepingknowledge and skills up-to-date (Gaspersz, 1999,In: Ester and Vinken, 2000). We also see that employeesare gradually obtaining more flexibility intheir conditions of employment. The Dutch labourmarket has a great deal of movement and a labourshortage. Therefore, employees are critical andmake more demands on their employer and conditionsof work. Employers are obliged to offeradaptable conditions of work in which flexibilityand individuality are central (we can also see thatas a result, the government is slowly pulling outof social security so that the responsibility forconditions of work rests with the employers andthe employees). More and more we see the developmentof à la carte conditions of work or à lacarte collective labour agreements. The employer© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Three. Literature review: The Netherlands 63offers the employee a greater freedom in composinghis or her own package of work conditions(see Felderhoff n.d). There are also developmentsin the area of flexible rewards (such as specialbonuses in case of shortages of employees, moreflexible pensions and (care) leave).5. FLEXIBILITY IN FIGURESIn the Netherlands several sources illustrate thetrends in flexibility. In particular, StatisticsNetherlands with the Labour Force Survey andOSA (Institute for Labour Studies) with its supplyand demand panel, provide the possibility tofollow the trends in flexibility. These files containeither information about employees (LabourForce Survey and OSA labour supply panel; arepresentative sample of approx. 4500 peopleaged 15 to 64 and interviewed every two yearsfrom, first fielded in 1985) or employersinformation (labour demand panel OSA; abiannual survey first conducted in 1989, amongsome 2,500 firms and institutions, which is fieldedin rotation to the labour supply panel)(Goudswaard et al, 2000). Much Dutch researchuses these sources.Research in the Netherlands has providedmainly systematic information up to now aboutexternal flexibility (probably easier to measureand to trace through individual informationcompared to internal flexibility) (Remery et al,1999).Hofman, Van der Laan and Steijn (1997) discoveredthat the empirical data about flexibility inthe Dutch labour market in the nineties showed agradual increase in the number of external flexiblejobs. There was an increase in contracting out,temporary work and part-time work. Ester andVinken (2000) show, in addition, that especially inthe period 1993 –1997 the numerical flexibility inthe Netherlands took a relatively high leap upwards(see Houtman et al 1999 in Ester andVinken, 2000). This is in contrast to the motivesfor flexibility as the answer to high unemploymentyears in the eighties and early nineties. Remeryet al (1999) also concluded that the portionof employees with a flexible contract has increasedover the last ten years, although one cannotsay that there is a very dramatic growth inflexible jobs. A permanent position remains thenorm in general in the Netherlands (Remery et al,1999). According to Muffels and Steijn (1998) in1996, one in five jobs in the Netherlands was aflexible job (they take a broad definition of flexibilitywork even including small, permanentjobs). Between 1998 and 1996 the number of flexiblejobs increased by 40% while the total employmentonly grew by 15%.Even so the external mobility – the numberof people that change jobs – in the Dutch labourmarket is fairly considerable (Hofman et al, 1997).The research by Zant et al (2000) showed thatthe changes in the position in the labour marketare concentrated on people with short-term workand people without work who are seeking work.On average these people change jobs a factor of1.5 to 5 times more often than people who have apermanent job or are self-employed. The numberof changes is strongly linked to age, level ofeducation and type of appointments: youngpeople with a higher education and temporarycontracts change the most while older (married)people with less education and with a permanentcontract change jobs least often.Kleinknecht et al (1997) also found in theirresearch into patterns in flexibility, that individualsare more flexible in the labour market whenthey are younger and with a higher education.People with children are less flexible. The researchcarried out by Zant et al (2000) alsoshowed that changing from flexible to permanentand from looking for work to flexible are valuedpositively while changing from permanent toflexible is regarded as being negative. So a flexiblecontract is valued much less than a permanent© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

64 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityone. Self-employment gives the highest level ofjob satisfaction (Zant et al, 2000). Research fromKleinknecht et al (1997) showed the same results,that people who change their jobs generally increasetheir satisfaction.It is not the case that once a flexible contract,means always a flexible contract. Remery et al(1999) found that a relatively large number ofpeople with a flexible contract at a certain time(after two years) have a permanent contract later(although this proportion reduces over time).Flexible jobs do not always lead to permanentones (see Kleinknecht et al, (1997), Remery et al,(1999). The probability of changing from a shorttermcontract reduces in relation to age, althoughsubstantial fluctuations between age categories ontop of the trends towards reduction withincreasing age were observed (see Kleinknecht etal 1997, Zant et al, 2000).In general, more men have permanentpositions than do women, higher educated morethan lower educated and older rather thanyounger workers (Fourage et al 1998). They alsoascertained that jobs with flexible characteristicsoccur twice as often among women than amongmen. Young people also more often have a jobwith flexible characteristics (Fourage et al, 1998,compare with Muffels and Steijn 1998).A flexible job has a lower salary than apermanent one (see Remery et al, 1999,Kleinknecht et al, 1997). For example the grosshourly wage for flexiworkers in 1996 was 15%lower than for employees in permanent jobs(Remery et al, 1999). Research by Kleinknecht et al(1997) showed that if in a company there is a highpercentage of employees with temporarycontracts, then this is accompanied by loweraverage wages. People with temporary contractsearn less than people with permanent ones.(Kleinknecht et al, 1997)Research shows that indicators of flexibility(internal and external flexibility, job duration,dismissals and resignations) have a clear sectorialpattern (see Zant et al, 2000, Muffels and Steijn1998, Fourage et al, 1998). Zant et al (2000) concludethat commercial services and, to a slightlylesser extent, trade, transport and communicationservices are the most flexible sectors. The educationsector, on the other hand, has an extremelypoor record in terms of flexibility. Muffels andSteijn (1998) show that flexible jobs occur mostoften in the service industry, catering, trade andin the agriculture sectors. Fourage et al (1998)then concluded that the transport sector as well asthe banking and insurance world make a relativelyhigh use of temporary workers. The researchalso showed that the transport sector hasvery flexible work times and the employees inthis sector work the most overtime (Fourage et al,1998).In addition, commuting in the Netherlands ishigh. More than half of the working population inthe Netherlands works in a different municipalitythan where they live (see Van der Laan, Arissenand Schalke, 1995 in Hofman et al, 1997). Thepercentage of commuters is also increasing. Thesefigures are higher in the highly urban areas thanelsewhere in the country, but mobility is fairlyhigh in other areas (Central Statistical Office, 1993and Van der Laan 1995 in Hofman et al, 1997). 1Another form of mobility is migration.Hofman, Van der Laan and Steijn (1997)ascertained that finding a job, as against being inemployment, is not always accompanied bymoving house. It appears that the municipal areasare the major areas of residence for job finders.The number of flexible jobs in the large cities isgreater than elsewhere (SCP, 1996 in Hofman etal, 1997).Recent research by Van der Vlist (2001) intoresidential mobility, job mobility and commutingby households shows that the distance commutedplays a smaller part in the decision whether or notto move house than had previously been presumed.The composition of the household and theassociated living wishes are important factors thatplay a part. It appears that households adjusttheir living and working locations to each other invarying ways. Van der Vlist shows that someonewith a long working week is more prepared tomove house and a house owner is more likely tochange jobs. A notable result from the research is© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Three. Literature review: The Netherlands 65that households that live a great distance fromtheir work prefer to change job than to movehouse. An important subtle distinction is, accordingto Van der Vlist, that this is not because largecommuting distances are not important but thathouseholds can change their work location or adjustthe length of their working week. Althoughmore research is necessary, it appears that thedistance a household commutes reduces overtime, because the households gradually improvethe relationship between living and working locations,according to Van der Vlist (2001).One form of working that reduces commutingis telework (Kraan and Dhondt (2001); whenwork is carried out with the aid of informationand communication technology at a location otherthan that of the employee or client. Part of thework, aimed at input or using information in thebroadest sense is not dependant on face-to-facecontact and produces a measurable result that canbe planned so that it fits in with all the activities.Kraan and Dhondt (2001) ascertained that in theNetherlands 6% of employees telework as againstan average of 4.1% in the rest of Europe (seeMerllié and Paoli (2001) Third European survey onworking conditions European Foundation of the improvementof living and working conditions.). TheNetherlands is therefore one of the leaders (alongwith Great Britain) in (West) Europe. They concludedthat the percentages for the Netherlandsare lower than the actual number of teleworkers(according to discussions about what the actualfigures might be). Teleworking mainly takes placein the white-collar areas of employment in theNetherlands and hardly ever for blue-collar workers.In addition Kraan and Dhondt (2001)ascertained a clear link with the job level; teleworkingoccurs eight times more often by legislators,senior officials and managers than by administrativepersonnel (office workers). A possibleexplanation is that the first group are trustedmore – without limits – by the employer.6. FIGURES FROM OSA AND STATISTICS NETHERLANDSIt has already been stated that data from StatisticsNetherlands (CBS) and OSA illustrates the trendsin flexible working. Using the following data Iwill expand on the results described above (seeFourage et al 1998 Report on trends in the workforce 1999).Table 1 shows the development in the percentageof permanent and non-permanent jobsover the last ten years, based on the OSA labourforce panel.Table 1. Type of contract 1988-1998 (as percentage of the total salaried workforce)1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998Permanent 87.6 86.1 88.2 86.9 84.6 86.5Temporary with the prospect of becoming permanent 4.3 5.6 3.7 3.5 5.3 6.0Other 8.1 8.3 8.1 9.6 10.1 7.5Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0Source: OSA Report on trends in the work force, Fourage et al, 1998.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

66 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityTable 2. Flexible job characteristics according to the type of employment(as percentage of the total salaried workforce)PermanentTemporary withthe prospectof becomingpermanentTemporary Other TotalFlexible characteristics of which: 3.7 23.0 31.3 60.0 7.7- via employment agency 0.8 12.6 20.9 16.0 2.9- secondment/loan 2.4 5.2 4.3 1.3 2.6- stand-by worker/outworker 0.6 5.2 6.1 42.7 2.2No flexible characteristics 96.3 77.0 68.7 40.0 92.3Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0Source: OSA Report on trends in the work force, Fourage et al, 1998.Table 2 looks at whether the employment isflexible or not according to a number of jobcharacteristics. The definition of flexible work asdefined by Fourage et al (1998) includes workingfor an employment agency, secondment, on loan,outworking and as a stand-by worker. The tableshows that just fewer than 8% of all employeeshave jobs with flexible characteristics. Ifflexiworkers are defined as employees with atemporary or other type of flexible contract orwith one of the characteristics given above, thenthe percentage of flexiworkers in 1998 is 12%(Fourage et al, OSA, Report on trends in the workforce, 1998).The figures based on the Survey of the LabourForce (CBS, 1999) by Statistics Netherlands(CBS) show a different picture. Statistics Netherlandsuses another definition and samplingmethod. Statistics Netherlands figures are basedon employees who work for at least 12 hours perweek. Table 3 illustrates the difference. In addition,with temporary employment Statistics Netherlandsdifferentiates according to the length ofthe employment. Appointments for longer thanone year are considered to be permanent appointments.Appointments where the employee isnot employed for a fixed number of hours are definedby Statistics Netherlands as always beingflexible jobs (Fourage et al, OSA, Trend rapportaanbod van arbeid, 1998, CBS, 1999).Table 4 shows the position of men andwomen in the work sphere from 1995 to 1999. Thetable shows that in this period the number ofemployees with a permanent job has increased tojust over 5.5 million. The numbers of both menand women in permanent employment haveincreased. The portion of men with a permanentjob is greater than the portion of women. Also thenumber of employees with flexible forms ofemployment rose, although in 1999 there was areduction: in 1999 571,000 people had a flexiblejob. This pattern applies to both men and womenin flexible work. The number of women withflexible work is greater than the number of menwith flexible work. The total of self-employedrose up to 1998. After that it fell to 733,000 selfemployedin 1999. The number of female selfemployedactually rose.Table 5 presents figures about the jobduration and the working hours of the workingpopulation. Table 3 and 5 show that in generalwomen work shorter hours than do men. In 1999,almost 3.3 million employees had regularworking hours, a reduction with regard to theprevious year. The number of people workingirregular hours in the period 1995 to 1999increased. In 1999 nearly 3.5 million employeeshad some irregular working hours.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Three. Literature review: The Netherlands 67Table 3. Working population (according to sex and age)Total numberof employed peoplePeople working:< 12 hours per weekPeople working:≥ 12 hours per weekTotal 1995 6835 771 60631996 6971 784 61871997 7194 794 64001998 7398 789 66091999 7601 796 6805Men 1995 4047 233 38141996 4109 237 38721997 4194 244 39511998 4289 243 40471999 4361 239 4121Women 1995 2787 539 22491996 2862 547 23151997 3000 550 24501998 3109 547 25621999 3241 557 2684Numbers x1000, Employed people are all the people who have a paid job.Source: CBS, Working population, personal characteristics 1992 – 1999. Survey of the working population, 1999Table 4. Types of labour contracts in the working populationTotalemployeesEmployees withpermanent jobsTotal employeesflexible jobsEmployees with flexible jobsTemporaryworkersStand-byworkersStand inworkersOther flexibleworkSelfemployedTotal 1995 5357 4880 477 149 105 34 189 7061996 5459 4920 538 187 114 48 188 7281997 5644 5077 566 207 121 43 195 7571998 5874 5270 604 223 138 49 195 7341999 6072 5502 571 210 112 44 205 733Men 1995 3322 3103 219 89 33 7 89 4921996 3367 3120 248 105 34 16 93 5051997 3427 3175 252 113 35 13 91 5231998 3541 3275 266 123 41 13 89 5061999 3624 3369 255 103 39 12 101 497Women 1995 2035 1777 258 60 71 27 100 2131996 2092 1801 291 83 80 32 96 2231997 2216 1902 314 94 86 30 104 2331998 2333 1995 338 99 97 35 107 2291999 2449 2133 316 106 73 32 104 235Numbers x 1000 Employees with permanent jobs; The employment contract is not for a limited period and the employee is employed for anagreed number of hours. Employees with a flexible job; The employment contract is for a limited period and/or the employee is employed is fora variable number of hours.Source: CBS, Working population, personal characteristics 1992 – 1999. Survey of the working population, 1999© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

68 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityTable 5. Job duration and working hours of the working population12-19hours perweekJob duration20-34hours perweek35 or morehours perweekRegularworkinghoursTotal irregularwork timesIrregular working hoursEvening andnight shiftsEveningshiftWeekend dayshiftsTotal 1995 425 1263 4375 3143 2887 881 1011 9951996 422 1317 4448 3172 2998 896 1080 10221997 455 1396 4549 3272 3114 949 1152 10131998 526 1462 4621 3318 3271 977 1195 11001999 559 1534 4712 3292 3497 1048 1411 1037Men 1995 74 313 3428 1931 1860 604 603 6531996 71 326 3475 1934 1928 610 650 6681997 72 344 3535 1984 1960 638 677 6461998 90 365 3592 1976 2063 652 700 7111999 99 370 3653 1925 2190 703 822 665Women 1995 351 950 947 1213 1027 277 408 3421996 351 991 973 1238 1070 286 430 3541997 384 1052 1014 1289 1154 311 475 3671998 436 1097 1029 1343 1209 324 495 3891999 460 1164 1060 1367 1307 345 589 373Number x1000, Job duration The number of hours that a person works in a normal or average week.Source: CBS, Working population, personal characteristics 1992 – 1999. Survey of the working population, 1999The number of working hours is regulated invarious ways in the Netherlands. The maximumhours are set down in the Working Hours Act.The hours agreed are recorded in the CollectiveLabour Agreements (CAO’s) for each industrialsector or company. The hours can then bespecified in more detail for each company. Theworking hours are fixed in the contract for eachemployee. The actual working hours in any weekcan deviate from the contract because of, forexample, overtime, illness or holidays (seeTijdens, 1998). Since 1990 the average annualworking hours for full-time employees hasreduced from 1741 to 1709 hours (CBS websitehttp://www.CBS.nl, CBS Annual Statistics 2001).Tijdens (1998) names a second dimension ofworking hours as the ‘location of the time’. Amore usual differentiation is between regular(daytime) and irregular hours. Although thesemay differ per Collective Labour Agreement, StatisticsNetherlands (CBS) counts the hours between6 a.m. and 7 p.m. from Monday to Fridayas regular working hours. Anything outside thesehours is included in irregular hours (Tijdens,1998, CBS, 2000). Tijdens (1998) ascertained thatthe developments in the Collective LabourAgreements indicate that the patterns of workwill be more varied in the coming years. The daytimehours will be expanded and work will becarried out more often in hours adjoining the daytimehours.A third dimension of working hours Tijdens(1998) names, is regularity or variability. Thisincludes such things as shift work. In addition,flexible working hours can also be found whenthe employer determines the hours. Anotherexample is varying start and finish timesdetermined not by the employer, but by theemployee (Tijdens, 1998).Table 6 is a follow-on from table 5 and showsthe types of employment in paid employmentagainst a number of characteristics of flexibletimes. (Fourage et al, OSA Report on trends in thework force, 1998). The percentage of employeeswith irregular work times or shift work andchangeable shifts has decreased in the last ten© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Three. Literature review: The Netherlands 69years. However, the percentage of employees inpaid jobs that can determine their own startingand finishing times has risen slightly. This is alsoan example of time flexibility that is best suited tothe wishes of the employees. On average, thenumber of hours worked in overtime has increasedslightly over last few years (Fourage et al,OSA Report on trends in the work force, 1998).Table 6. Flexible work times (as a percentage of employees in paid jobs where this arises)PermanentType of employment:Temporary with theprospect of becomingpermanentTemporaryIrregular working hours (determined by the employer) 24.6 23.7 19.0 34.6 24.5Shift work / varying shifts 17.2 17.6 13.5 19.5 17.1Sunday work 22.6 22.7 19.6 33.3 22.7Saturday work 33.6 35.8 31.9 50.0 34.0Self-determined start and finish times 28.1 15.5 24.1 37.2 27.3% with unpaid overtime 29.8 20.2 14.1 5.3 27.8Average number of unpaid overtime hours per week 2.0 0.9 0.8 0.2 1.8% with paid overtime 26.6 34.0 16.6 10.5 26.1Average number of paid overtime hours per week 1.4 2.0 0.8 0.8 1.4Source: OSA Report on trends in the work force, 1999OthersTotal7. PART-TIME WORK AND THE COMBINATION OF WORK AND CAREThe tendency towards flexibility can be foundeverywhere in Western Europe, it is not unique tothe Netherlands (Faber en Schippers, 1997). Butthere is one specific form of flexibility that is farmore common in the Netherlands than elsewhere,namely part-time employment. However thisvariety of work in the Netherlands is not includedin concepts of the typical flexiwork. In theNetherlands most part-time workers are onpermanent employment contracts and as a rulethe number of hours worked by part-timeworkers are fixed. Hence, part-time workers donot face the uncertainty of continued or reducedearnings that temporary workers or workers withvariable hours contracts do. Part-time work is inno way comparable to short-time work or‘Kurzarbeit’. This does not mean that part-timeemployment does not also introduce anadditional element of flexibility (Visser, 2000).The discussion over part-time employment,particularly in the nineties has concentrated ontwo topics in the Netherlands: is there a right topart-time employment and is there equality oftreatment between full-time and part-time employees.Equality of treatment of part-time employeeswas arranged by law in 1996. Thereshould be no distinction between primary andsecondary conditions of employment based onworking hours. The right to part-time work remaineda topic of discussion until the end of thenineties. Although over the years more and morepeople worked part-time and the right to parttimework is included in an increasing number ofCollective Labour Agreements (CAO’s), the rightto part-time work was only regulated in 2000 inthe Law on the right to adapt working hours (WetRecht op aanpassing van de arbeidsduur, 1 July,2000). An employee can submit a request to workpart-time. The employer can only refuse it if there© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

70 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityare very strong arguments. This law will becomepart of the future Labour and Care Law (Wet Arbeiden Zorg) in which regulations will be includedthat should ease the combination of workand care, such as the right to ten days care leave,pregnancy leave and birth leave, adoption leaveand baby care leave.Part-time work is an accepted phenomenonin the Netherlands and a good third of the workingpopulation work part-time (see tables 7 and8). Nowhere else in Europe is there as much parttimework as in the Netherlands, both by men andby women (see Faber and Schippers, 1997, Remeryet al, 1999, Evans, Lippold, Marianna, 2001,Grift et al, 1999, Den Dulk, Van Doorne-Huiskesand Schippers, 2000, Euwals, 1999).Table 7. Part-time employment as a percentage of the total employment, 1990-1999 a1990 1996 1997 1998 1999Australia b,c 22.6 25.2 26.0 25.9 26.1Canada 17.0 18.9 19.1 18.9 18.5Czech Republic 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.4Finland b 7.5 8.4 9.4 9.6 9.9France 12.2 14.3 14.9 14.8 14.7Germany 13.4 14.9 15.8 16.6 17.1Iceland d 22.2 20.9 22.4 23.2 21.2Ireland 9.8 14.1 15.2 18.0 18.3Italy 8.8 10.5 11.3 11.2 11.8Japan b,e 19.2 21.8 23.3 23.6 24.1Korea b 4.5 4.4 5.1 6.8 7.8Mexico 14.9 15.9 15.0 13.8The Netherlands 28.2 29.3 29.1 30.0 30.4New Zealand 19.6 22.0 22.4 22.8 23.0Norway 21.8 21.6 21.0 20.8 20.7Portugal 6.8 9.2 10.2 9.9 9.3Spain 4.6 7.5 7.9 7.7 7.9Sweden 14.5 14.8 14.2 13.5 14.5Switzerland c 22.1 23.7 24.0 24.2 24.8United Kingdom 20.1 22.9 22.9 23.0 23.0United States f 13.8 14.0 13.6 13.4 13.3European Union g 13.3 15.2 15.7 15.9 16.4OECD Europe g 13.2 13.8 14.1 14.3 15.0Total OECD g 14.3 15.1 15.4 15.5 15.8a) Part-time employment refers to persons who usually work less than 30 hours a week in their main job. Data include only persons declaringusual hours.b) Data are based on actual hours worked.c) Part-time employment based on hours worked in all jobs.d) 1991 instead of 1990.e) Less than 35 hours per week.f) Estimates are for wage and salary workers only.g) For above countries only.Source: Table E, Statistical Annex, OECD Employment Outlook , 2000 In: Evans, J.M., Lippoldt, D.C. and P. Marianna (2001). LabourMarket and Social Policy – Occasional paper no.45. Trends in working hours in OECD countries. Directorate for Education,Employment, Labour and Social Affairs, OECD.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Three. Literature review: The Netherlands 71This form of work is not divided equally betweenmen and women. Part-time work by men is (still)an incidental, temporary phenomenon mainly atthe beginning or at the end of their career. Theparticipation of women in the labour market inthe Netherlands has increased over the last decennium,but it is still mostly women who workpart-time (measured in full-time jobs the Dutchwork participation is still below the EC average)(SCP, 2000, 2001, Breedveld, 2000, Den Dulk, VanDoorne-Huiskes and Schippers, 2000).Table 8. Percentages of part-time workers in the employment population, by sex (1996)Men Women TotalEUR 15 6 32 16Belgium 3 31 14Denmark 11 35 22Germany 4 34 17Greece 3 9 5Spain 3 17 8France 5 30 16Ireland 5 22 12Italy 3 13 7Luxembourg 2 18 8The Netherlands 17 69 38Austria 4 29 15Portugal 5 13 9Finland 8 16 12Sweden 9 42 25United Kingdom 8 45 25Source: Employment in Europe, 1997 in: Den Dulk, Van Doorne-Huiskes and Schippers (2000) 2Part-time work for women in the Netherlands isoften an opening to the labour market, a way ofcombining work and care. We see more and morethat couples delay the birth of their first child sothat both partners can build a career. When thechildren come along, women generally work parttimeso that they have enough time for their familyand domestic tasks. Amongst other things, thisis because many women believe that they shouldcare for the children and would be a bad motherif they were not there for the children. Therecontinues to be a strong ideology of care ofchildren by parents themselves in Dutch society.This is considered especially important forchildren up to the age of five (Remery et al, 2000).the age of five (Remery et al, 2000). Therefore,even in the period when children are small andthe care obligations extensive, people still participatein the labour market and combine paid workoutside the home with unpaid work in the home(SCP, 2001, Faber en Schippers, 1997).Table 9 shows that this type of earning bycouples (where the man works full-time and thewoman works part-time), the so called one-and-ahalfearner model unlike the traditional singleearner model (meaning usually that the manalone in full time work), is gradually developingto be the dominant pattern in the Netherlands.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

72 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityTable 9. The share of single income-earners and double earners amongst couples ( a), related to their participationin the labour market 1986-1998 (in percentages)1986 1990 1994 1998Single earner 53 49 42 34Man has job 50 46 36 30Woman has job 3 3 6 4Double earners 30 37 43 56One-and-a-half-earners with:- man in full-time work 16 21 26 36- woman in full-time work 1 1 1 1Half-and-half earners (both partners work part-time) 1 2 2 4Double earners (both partners work full-time) 11 13 14 14No income-earners 16 15 15 10Total 100 100 100 100a) Heterosexual couples in which both partners are aged between 15 and 65.Source:CBS (WBO’85/’86-’98) weighed results; SCP-calculationsAlthough part-time work gives women thepossibility to work, on the other hand this form ofwork tends to emphasise instead of underminingtraditional differences between men and women(Faber en Schippers, 1997, Nieborg, 2000).Table 10 shows that between 1975 and 1995women spent more time in paid work andproportionally less time in unpaid work and thatover the years men do more housework but thereis absolutely no question of an equal divisionbetween men and women (Breedveld, 2000, SCP/CBS, 2000, Nieborg, 2000, Tijdens, Van der Lippe,De Ruijter, 2000).Research shows that the reduction ininequality occurs much more in the life coursephase when there are no children (yet) or whenthe children have left home than in the phasewhen there are children to care for. The timespent on paid and on unpaid (care) work and thedistorted sharing of the tasks in the home areclosely linked to the presence of children (andtheir age) (Tijdens et al, 1994, SCP/CBS, 2000Tijdens, Van der Lippe, De Ruijter, 2000, Nieborg,2000).Although more and more Dutch would liketo combine work and care and to have a moreequal division of these tasks between men andwomen, it is not so apparent in practice. The traditionrole pattern still exists, even though it ismore in the shape of the one-and-a-half earnermodel. (Faber and Schippers, 1997, Grift et al,1999, Wieling, 2000, SCP, 2001, 2000, Tijdens et al,1994, Breedveld, 2000).An explanation for this typically Dutch solutionto combining work and care is probably becausein the Netherlands, a social infrastructurewith facilities to combine (full-time) work andcare is not yet adequately available. A conclusionfrom the discussion about combining work andcare that is often repeated, for example, is that thegovernment needs to play a bigger role in thefield of childcare facilities (Schippers, 2000, DenDulk, Van Doorne-Huiskes en Schippers, 2000).Given the shortage of childcare facilities, thevast majority of parents choose or feel forced tochoose to take care of their children themselves orto make use of one or more forms of informalchildcare. Furthermore, many parents who domake use of formal care, combine this form ofcare with informal childcare either for pedagogicalreasons or because they feel that the costs offormal care are (too) high (Remery et al, 2000).The use of formal childcare is strongly correlatedwith the educational level of employees (Tijdens,2000).© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Three. Literature review: The Netherlands 73Table 10. Time spent on paid and unpaid work by those over 25 according to sex 1975-1995(in hours per week)Women1975 1980 1985 1990 1995Unpaid work: 42.6 44.4 43.3 39.1 37.7Housekeeping and family tasks 40.9 42.5 41.0 36.7 35.4- Housekeeping tasks 30.6 30.2 28.8 26.1 25.3- Care for children and other family members 4.6 5.2 4.7 5.0 5.1- DIY work 5.7 7.1 7.5 5.6 5.0- Helping family and friends 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.1Voluntary work 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.2Paid work 3.9 4.4 5.9 7.7 9.3MenUnpaid work: 17.4 18.5 20.4 19.7 21.1Housekeeping and family tasks 15.3 16.2 17.7 17.0 18.3- Housekeeping tasks 8.5 8.8 10.3 10.0 11.1- Care for children and other family members 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.9- DIY work 4.9 5.5 5.6 5.2 5.2- Helping family and friends 0.7 0.7 1.2 0.9 1.2Voluntary work 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.8 1.7Paid work 27.3 25.6 25.1 27.3 28.6TotalUnpaid work: 30.3 31.8 32.1 29.5 29.7Housekeeping and family tasks 28.4 29.6 29.7 27.0 27.2- Housekeeping tasks 19.8 19.7 19.8 18.2 18.5- Care for children and other family members 3.3 3.6 3.3 3.5 3.6- DIY work 5.3 6.3 6.6 5.4 5.1- Helping family and friends 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.2Voluntary work 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.4Paid work 15.3 14.8 15.2 17.3 18.6Source: SCP (TBO’75-’95) in SCP/CBS, 2000Precise figures on the supply of informalchildcare in The Netherlands are difficult todetermine as research is mainly focused on formalchildcare. Suppliers of informal childcare areoften women (Remery et al, 2000). Remery et al(2000) concluded in their research that the mostcommon form of informal childcare is carried outby grandparents.The employment of domestic workers andcleaners in private households is practically/almostentirely within the informal circuit. 3Just as there is a lack of figures on informalchildcare, there is no recent Dutch research availableon the extent of employment in informaldomestic labour in general. Estimates on the matterdiverge a lot (Tijdens, 2000). Visser (2000)writes that given the low threshold of hours andthe rather encompassing regime of social security(every part-time job is covered), there is no reasonto believe that informal labour other than in ‘doit-yourself’and neighbour- and family help (includingcare for children and elderly people) isvery widespread in the Netherlands. Referring toan article of Delsen (1988) about part time employmentand informal economy, he writes that infact the high degree of flexibility tends to com-© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

74 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilitypress the need and the market for informal employment(Visser, 2000).Table 11 shows how many hours Dutchhouseholds make use of domestic help (howeverit is not clear if this is formal or informal). Initiallythe percentage of households with domestic helpdeclines (probably attributed to the economic crisisin the early eighties). Subsequently, the shareof households with domestic help rises up to 10%in 1995 (supposedly because of the rise of theamount of dual earners among households andthe changed allocation behaviour among theseshouseholds) (Tijdens, Van der Lippe and De Ruijter,2000).Table 11. Hours of domestic help per week of persons aged 18-65, 1975-1995 (in percents)Domestic help per week 1975 1980 1985 1990 19950 hour 91.9 93.0 94.2 92.0 89.61-4 hours 7.4 3.9 3.8 5.6 8.15-9 hours 0.7 1.9 1.5 1.3 1.9≥ 10 hours 0.7 0.6 1.0 0.4Source: SCP (TBO ‘75, ‘80, ‘85, ‘90 and ‘95) in: Tijdens, Van der Lippe and De Ruijter (2000).In addition, Dutch policy has stressed individualworking patterns and individual solutions for theproblem of the combination concerning the combinationof work and care. The solution for thecombination problem lies primarily at the level ofthe individual and is seen as a private arrangement.And although there are more and morework and care arrangements developed by employeesand included in Collective LabourAgreements, there are still large differences betweeneconomic sectors and types of organisations.A view of combining work and care withflexible working hours from the personnel managementside is not yet common to all the businessworld (Den Dulk, Van Doorne-Huiskes andSchippers, 2000, Ministry of Social Affairs andEmployment, 1996).Caring work in Dutch homes is thereforemainly a question of ‘do-it-yourself part-time’activity (Faber and Schippers, 1997, Schippers,2000, Plantenga and Schippers, in Ministry of SocialAffairs and Employment, 2000, Tijdens, VanDoorne-Huiskes, Willemsen, 1997).8. THE DILEMMA OF COMBINING WORK AND CAREFor further growth of the participation of womenin the labour force, a better division of care andthe harmony between work and private life areimportant conditions. The attention paid to creatingthe necessary facilities has increased in thelast few years. Not only has this been the casefrom the point of view of the government but alsofrom social partners and from individual employersand employees. Legislation, conditions of employmentagreements, the increasing role of workand care facilities as recruitment incentives andthe appointment of the Task Force on the DailyTimetable 4 (Commissie Dagindeling) are evidenceof this (Sociale Nota 2001, Ministerie van SocialeZaken en Werkgelegenheid, 2000, Grift et al, 1999,Commissie Dagindeling, 1998).Half way through the nineties, the questionof the (desirable) division of paid and unpaidwork and the division of this between men andwomen gradually received more attention (VanDoorne-Huiskes and Willemsen In Tijdens et alred., 1997). The Task Force on Future ScenariosRedistribution of Unpaid Work in the report“Unpaid Work Equally Shared” (1995), commis-© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Three. Literature review: The Netherlands 75sioned by the Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs andEmployment, presented four future scenarios relatingto the redistribution of unpaid caring in2010. These four scenarios differ in the degree inwhich caring (housekeeping and care tasks):1. is mainly performed unpaid and by women;2. is unpaid and shared equally by men andwomen;3. is a combined mix of paid and unpaid workand is shared by men and women (theCombination Scenario);4. is mainly paid and shared equally by menand women.The Task Force considers the CombinationScenario to be the most desirable; based on theconcept of a normal working week of 29 to 32hours, childcare as a basic facility,individualisation of the Social Welfare andTaxation systems, the legal right to part-timework and an expansion of professional homecare(Task Force on future Scenarios Redistribution ofUnpaid Work, 1995, Grift et al, 1997, Faber andSchippers, 1997, Grift et al, 1999).This is also the scenario which has receivedthe most support from the Dutch government andthe emancipation movement (even if the CombinationScenario as described in the more recentpolicy documents is actually a stripped down versionof the original Combination Scenario (SCP,2000)). (See Grift et al, 1999, Faber and Schipper,1997, Schippers, 2000, Breedveld, 2000).This scenario meets the preferences of theDutch people in several different ways (inc. Esterand Vinken, 2000, Schippers, 2000, Plantenga andSchippers In: Ministerie SZW, 2000, Grift et al,1999). As already noted, people in the Netherlandsare far from this ideal, many people are notable to realise their preferences in regard to paidwork and the combination of work and care(Schippers, 2000, Plantenga and Schippers In MinisterieSZW, 2000, Ester and Vinken, 2000). TheDutch Social and Cultural Planning Office (SCP)ascertained that the most popular form of tasksharing the mixed earners type (both partnerswork part-time) but in reality only 4% of all couplesactually achieve this (see table 9). Householdschoose their own form of combination thatbest fit their family situation, their job, the facilitiesavailable and their views, so giving rise to avery broad range of solutions for the combinationof work and care. Thus, simultaneously raisingquestions about many aspects of policy (SCP,2000).Visser (2000, following Plantenga, 1996)remarks that the stress (by women and policy)may no longer be on women to participate in thelabour market in a ‘male’ way, but rather thatmen should participate in the labour market in a‘female’ way by also participating in care tasks.Therefore he concludes his paper with theinteresting words: “The first part-time economyin the world. It works, but does it also care?”.9. FLEXIBILITY IN THE DUTCH FUTUREHow do the Dutch regard the flexible future? Thisquestion has hardly been researched. It was, however,a topic in the OSA Future of Work Survey(Ester and Vinken, 2000). The first Dutch studythat provides an encompassing and integrativeoverview of the future expectations of the Dutchpopulation in the domains of work, care and leisurefor the first twenty-five years of this new millennium.Two themes are central to this: futureexpectations about labour relations and job contractsand the expectations for the labour demandand pressure of work.Research shows that the Dutch recognise thetrend towards increasing flexibility and do notexpect that this will change much over the nexttwenty-five years. Quite the opposite. Theypredict a development:© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

76 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibility! towards more temporary jobs without theprospect of a permanent contract;! towards more individual conditions ofemployment;! towards a more flexible law governingdismissal;! towards a more frequent change ofoccupation during an individual’s career;! that the end of the classical permanent job isin sight.From the study it appears that the Dutch areconcerned about these developments towardsmore flexibility, people see the negative sideeffects of these trends and request that attentionbe paid to the social drawbacks (people havesocial pessimism but surprisingly not personalpessimism. A phenomenon not unknown insociology and psychology).The Dutch see the (also present day) socialproblem of pressure of work as one of the greatestdrawbacks of the trend to a greater flexibility andemployability. The Dutch population see this asissue in the future as a pressing, persistent and astructural characteristic of the employment system;the work rate increases further, the stressincreases proportionally, work in the weekendand in the evening will occur more often, absenteeismwill increase and the enjoyment of workwill decrease (Ester and Vinken, 2000).At the same time, this research shows thatthe Dutch look to the future with confidence, aslong as they are able to combine family, work andleisure, to be able to take holidays at certain timesand to keep their knowledge up-to-date. They arefairly optimistic about combining work and caretasks because they foresee an improvement inchildcare, paid care leave, outwork and a moreequal sharing of tasks between men and women.It is predicted that the line dividing work andleisure will become less clear and that the Dutchpeople will spend less time on housekeepingtasks, voluntary work, unpaid caring and spendmore time on paid work, leisure and parentalleave (Ester and Vinken, 2000).Altogether, this is a socially sombre butindividually exciting scenarios for Dutchflexibility in the future. Only time will tell howthe Dutch will fare…NOTES1 Randstad; the region of the four largest cities in the Netherlands: Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Utrechtand Den Haag (conurbation).2 Note the difference in figures in tables 7 and 8. Presumably use of other definitions and samplingmethods.3 We can make a difference between moonlighting (zwarte arbeid) and informal work (informelearbeid). Moonlighting is seen as work which is wrongly avoided from the obligation to register atthe treasury of the social insurance authorities. Informal work is seen as unpaid work or work ofwhich income is not reported at the treasury. Moreover, below a certain minimum income does notneed to be reported. This seems to be the case for most people employed in domestic work.4 The Task Force on the Daily Timetable was set up in 1996 by the Minister of Social Affairs andEmployment with the commission to develop new and creative ideas for the daily schedule in DutchSociety; a schedule that would give society more room to combine work and care and which has abetter coordination of (opening) times and locations of facilities.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Three. Literature review: The Netherlands 77REFERENCESBekkering, J.M. & R.M.A. Jansweijer (1998). Deverdeling van arbeid en zorg: prikkels enbelemmeringen. Den Haag: WetenschappelijkeRaad voor het Regeringsbeleid.Breedveld, K. (1999). 4+2=7 Arbeidsduurverkorting,taakcombinatie en opvang, opvoeding enonderwijs van 4 tot 12 jaar oude kinderen. Inopdracht van de Stuurgroep Dagindeling,Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.Breedveld, K. (2000) Van arbeids- naarcombinatieethos. Maatschappelijkeontwikkelingen op het snijvlak van economie encultuur. Den Haag: Sociaal en CultureelPlanbureau.Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (2000) EnquêteBeroepsbevolking 1999. Voorburg/ Heerlen:Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek.Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (2001)Statistisch Jaarboek 2001. Voorburg/Heerlen:Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek.Commissie Dagindeling (1998) Dagindeling, Tijdvoor arbeid en zorg Eindadvies. Den Haag:Ministerie van Sociale Zaken enWerkgelegenheid, Directie Coördinatie.Commissie Toekomstscenario’s HerverdelingOnbetaalde Arbeid (1995). ‘Gedeelde zorg’.Toekomstscenario’s voor herverdeling vanonbetaalde zorgarbeid. Publieksversie van hetRapport van de Commissie Toekomstscenario’sHerverdeling Onbetaalde Arbeid‘Onbetaalde zorg gelijk verdeeld’. ProjectgroepHerverdeling Onbetaalde Arbeid,Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid.Commissie Toekomstscenario’s HerverdelingOnbetaalde Arbeid (1995). Onbetaalde zorggelijk verdeeld. Toekomstscenario’s voorherverdeling van onbetaalde zorgarbeid. DenHaag: Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid.Dulk, L. den, A. van Doorne-Huiskes & J. Schippers(2000). Work-family arrangements inEurope. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.Ester, P & H. Vinken (2000). “Forever flexible?”Verwachtingen van Nederlanders overflexibiliteit van de arbeid in de 21 e eeuw.Bewerking en inkorting van publicatie “Vanlater zorg” Verwachtingen van Nederlandersover arbeid, zorg en vrije tijd in de 21 steeeuw. Het OSA Toekomst van de ArbeidSurvey. Tilburg: OSA.Euwals, R. (1999). Female Labour Supply, Flexibilityof Working Hours and Job Mobility in theNetherlands. Institute for the Study of labour(IZA), Bonn, Germany.Evans, J.M., D.C. Lippoldt & P. Marianna (2001).Trends in working hours in OECD countries.Labour Market and Social Policy –Occasional paper no.45. Directorate forEducation, Employment, Labour and SocialAffairs, OECD.Faber, G. & J. Schippers (red) (1997). Flexibiliseringvan arbeid. Bussum: Uitgeverij Couthino b.v.Felderhoff, A.F. (n.d.) Flexibilisering enindividualisering van arbeidsvoorwaarden.Publiced in Personeelsbeleid: officieel orgaanvan de Nederlandse Vereniging voorPersoneelbeleid. http://www.questoa.nlFourage, D., M. Kerkhofs, M. de Voogd. J.P. Vosse& C. de Wolff (1998) Trendrapport aanbod vanarbeid 1999. OSA-publicatie A169. Den Haag:Servicecentrum Uitgevers.Fruytier, B. (1998).Werknemersmacht in dearbeidsorganisatie: voorwaarde voor hetpoldermodel. Flexibilisering, individualisering enhet systeem van collectieve arbeidsverhoudingenin Nederland. IVA Tilburg. OSA-publicatieA164. Den Haag: Servicecentrum Uitgevers.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

78 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityGoudswaard, A., K.O. Kraan & S. Dhondt (2000)Flexibiliteit in balans. Flexibilisering en de gevolgenvoor werkgever en werknemer. Hoofddorp:TNO Arbeid.Goudwaard, A. en R.S. Batenburg (2000) Deflexibiliteit van Nederlandse bedrijven. In:Bedrijfskunde. Tijdschrift voor modern management.Special Arbeidsflexibilisering. Jaargang72, 2000 nr4, p. 10-19.Grift, Y.K., E.H.M. Mertens, J.J. Schippers & J.J.Siegers (1999). Arbeid, zorg en beleid; degedragsreacties van huishoudens. OSApublicatieA165. Den Haag: ServicecentrumUitgevers.Hartog, J. (1998) So, what’s so special about theDutch model? Or: the miraculous resurrectionsof a lame Dutch. Amsterdam : AIAS,Amsterdam Institute for Advanced LabourStudies, Universiteit van Amsterdam. Draft.Heuvel, N. van den (1999). De transitionelearbeidsmarkt. Contouren van een actiefarbeidsmarktbeleid. Tweede Vlaams-Nederlandse arbeidsmarktcongres: Detransitionele arbeidsmarkt. Contouren vaneen actief arbeidsmarktbeleid, Brussel, 2maart 2000.Hofman, W.H.A., L. van der Laan, A. J. Steijn(red) (1997). De flexibele arbeidsmarkt. Theorieen praktijk. Erasmus Centre for LabourMarket Analysis (ECLA), ErasmusUniversiteit Rotterdam.Jong, F. de, & M. van Bolhuis (1997) Flexibiliseringvan de arbeid. Een onderzoek naar aspecten van(interne)flexibilisering in bedrijven. Den Haag:Arbeidsinspectie, Ministerie van SocialeZaken en Werkgelegenheid.Jonker, J., A. van Hoof & H. Messchendorp (1998)Flexibiliteit. Het vermogen van organisaties enmensen om te veranderen. Assen: Van Gorcum& Comp. BV.Keuzenkamp S., E. Hooghiemstra (red), K. Breedveld& A. Merens (2000). De kunst van hetcombineren; taakverdeling onder partners. DenHaag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.Keuzenkamp, S. & K. Oudhof (2000) Emancipatiemonitor2000. Den Haag: Sociaal enCultureel Planbureau, Centraal Bureau voorde Statistiek.Kleinknecht, A.H., R.H, Oostendorp & M.P.Pradhan (1997). Patronen en economischeeffecten van flexibiliteit in de Nederlandsearbeidsverhouding Patronen en economischeeffecten van flexibiliteit in de Nederlandsearbeidsverhouding. Een exploratie op basis van deOSA vraag- en aanbodpanels.,Wetenschappelijke Raad voor hetRegeringsbeleid. Den Haag: SduUitgeverijen.Kraan, K.O. & S. Dhondt (2001). Telewerk in depraktijk: Grenzen aan tijd en vrijetijd? TNOArbeid. Voorpublicatie uit Hogenhuis, C(red). (te verschijnen oktober 2001), ‘Eennieuwe economie, een nieuwe tijd?’(werktitel).Machielse, C. & I.P. Meerts (1999).Domeinverkenning: Van Taak tot Zaak. Hetgebrek van tijd en ruimte door taakcombineerdersin 2010. In: Ministerie van Sociale Zaken enWerkgelegenheid, Directie CoordinatieEmancipatiebeleid (2000). Van vrouwenstrijdnaar vanzelfsprekendheid. Meerjarennotaemancipatiebeleid: achtergronddeel. Den Haag.Ministerie van Economische Zaken (1997).Employability. Verslag Employability congres8 Oktober 1997.Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid(1996). Dagindeling. Tijd voor arbeid en zorg.Een literatuurverkenning. WerkdocumentenNo. 31 (brochure), Den Haag: Ministerie vanSociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid. DirectieVoorlichting, Bibliotheek en Documentatie.Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid,Directie Coördinatie Emancipatiebeleid(2000). Van vrouwenstrijd naar vanzelfspre-© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Three. Literature review: The Netherlands 79kendheid. Meerjarennota emancipatiebeleid. DenHaag.Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid,Directie Coördinatie Emancipatiebeleid(2000). Meerjarenbeleidsplan Emancipatie. DenHaag.Muffels, R. & B. Steijn (eds.) (1998). Flexible andpermanent jobs on the Dutch labour market.Empirical analyses of labour market flows andemployment statuses using labour force surveysand panel data. Utrecht: Netherlands Schoolfor Social and Economic Policy Research(AWSB). Research paper.Nieborg, S. (2000). Gedeelde zorg: gedeeld werk.Onderzoek naar de verandering van dearbeidsverdeling in het gezin. Utrecht: VerweyJonker Instituut. Dissertatie.OECD (1998) Employment Outlook 1998 Paris:OECDOECD (2000) OECD Employment Outlook. Paris:OECD.Plantenga, J., & J. Schippers (1999).Domeinverkenning: Arbeid, zorg en inkomen. In:Ministerie van Sociale Zaken enWerkgelegenheid, Directie CoordinatieEmancipatiebeleid (2000). Van vrouwenstrijdnaar vanzelfsprekendheid. Meerjarennotaemancipatiebeleid: achtergronddeel. Den Haag.Remery, C., A. van Doorne-Huiskes, P. Dijkstraen J. Schippers (2000) En als oma nu ook eenbaan heeft? De toekomst van de informelekinderopvang in Nederland. Den Haag: Nidi.Remery, C., J. van Stigt, A. van Doorne-Huiskes &J. Schippers (1999). Flexibilisering van arbeidseninkomenspatronen: de verdeling van lasten enlusten. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.Riemsdijk, M.J. van & K.G. Tijdens (2000).Arbeidsflexibilisering: een proeve vanNederlandsonderzoek. In: Bedrijfskunde.Tijdschrift voor modern management.Special Arbeidsflexibilisering. Jaargang 72,2000 nr4, p. 4-9.Schippers, J. (2000). Het combinatiescenario en denoodzakelijke veranderingen in het emancipatiebeleid.Paper ten behoeve van het congres Detransitionele arbeidsmarkt. Contouren vaneen actief arbeidsmarktbeleid, Brussel, 2maart 2000.Schmid, G. (1997). The Dutch employment miracle?A comparison of employment systems in theNetherlands and Germany. WissenschaftszentrumBerlin für Sozialforschung, DiscussionpaperFS I 97-202.Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau (2000). Sociaal encultureel rapport 2000: Nederland in Europa.Rijswijk: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.Social and Cultural Planning Office (2001). TheNetherlands in a European Perspective. Social &Cultural Report 2000. The Hague: Social andCultural Planning Office.Steenbakkers, A.I.R. (1994). Flexibele arbeid eneffectiviteit van ondernemingen. Enschede:Universiteit Twente. Proefschrift.Tijdens, K. (1998). Zeggenschap over arbeidstijden.De samenhang tussen bedrijfstijden, arbeidstijdenen flexibilisering van de personeelsbezetting. DenHaag: Welboom.Tijdens, K.G. (2000) Vraag en aanbod vanhuishoudelijke diensten in Nederland.Amsterdam: AIAS, Amsterdam Institute foradvanced labour studies, Universiteit vanAmsterdam. Original English version:European Foundation for the Improvementof Living and Working Conditions, Dublin,2000.Tijdens, K, A. van Doorne-Huiskes, & T.Willemsen (eds.) (1997). Time allocation andgender. The relationship between paid labour andhousehold work. Tilburg University Press.Tijdens, K., H. Maassen van de Brink, M. Noom &W. Groot (1994). Arbeid en zorg.Maatschappelijke effecten van strategieën vanhuishoudens om betaalde arbeid en zorg tecombineren. OSA-werkdocument W124, DenHaag: Servicecentrum Uitgevers© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

80 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityTijdens, K., T. van der Lippe & E. de Ruijter(2000). Huishoudelijke arbeid en de zorg voorkinderen: herverdelen of uitbesteden? Den Haag:Elsevier bedrijfsinformatie BV.Vermeend, W.A.F.G., A.E. Verstand-Bogaert &J.F. Hoogervorst (2000) Sociale Nota 2001.Ministerie van Sociale Zaken enWerkgelegenheid. ‘s-Gravenhage: SDU.Visser, J. (2000) The first part-time economy in theworld : does it work? Amsterdam: AIAS,Amsterdam Institute for Advanced LabourStudies, Universiteit van Amsterdam.Workingpaper.Vlist, A.J. Van der (2001). Residential mobility andcommuting. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.Proefschrift.Wieling, M. Zorg en arbeid. Mannen werken enklussen vooral, vrouwen zorgen. In: Index.No. 5 Mei 2000. Centraal Bureau voor deStatistiek. p. 4-5.Zant, W., R. Alessie & R. Oostendorp (2000).Flexibiliteit op de Nederlandse arbeidsmarkt; eenempirisch onderzoek op basis van de OSA-vraagenaanbodpanels. Den Haag: ServicecentrumUitgevers (OSA-publicatie A175).© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter FourHOUSEHOLDS, WORK AND FLEXIBILITYCritical Review of LiteratureSWEDEN[ Mattias Strandh and Thomas Boje, University of Umea ][ Contents ]INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................831. FLEXIBILISATION IN SWEDEN – A BIG THING OR NOT? ..............................................................842. PREVALENCE OF NUMERIC AND FUNCTIONAL FLEXIBILITYON THE SWEDISH LABOUR MARKET .............................................................................................873. FLEXIBILISATION IN SWEDISH COMPANIES?................................................................................894. PENNOESS TO FLEXIBILISATION IN THE SWEDISH LABOUR MARKET .....................................905. CONDITIONS FOR PART-TIME AND TEMPORARY EMPLOYED IN SWEDEN..............................916. WORKING FOR MANPOWER LEASING COMPANIES ....................................................................927. EVALUATIONS OF WORKING-TIME FLEXIBILISATION PROJECTS..............................................948. GENDER ASPECTS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF FLEXIBLE EMPLOYMENT IN SWEDEN.........959. GENDER AND THE IMPLICATIONS OF FLEXIBLE EMPLOYMENT IN SWEDEN ..........................9710. HEALTH CONSEQUENCES OF FLEXIBLE WORK FORMS.............................................................99CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................................................100REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................................102© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

[ List of tables and figures ]Figure 1.The relationship between the organisational form of activity and thecontractual form between the organisation and the individual..............................................85

Chapter Four. Literature review: Sweden 83INTRODUCTIONIf one looks at what could be labelled the ‘discourseof flexibility’ in Sweden, it is fair to sayreal interest in the issue developed in conjunctionwith the harsh economic crisis that occurred at thebeginning of the 1990s. The debate during thiseconomically difficult period was very muchdriven by perceptions of the need for individualcompanies and the national economy to adjust toa rapidly changing financial environment. Thebasic conclusion emphasised again and again wasthat in a situation characterised by increasingglobal competition, new forms of technology andchanging consumer patterns, companies neededto be able to adapt quickly to changes in demand(Boje & Grönlund 2001). This need for rapid adaptationto market and consumer demand is describedin terms of leaving traditional productionconcepts in favour of producing the right productfor the right customer and delivering it ‘just intime’. Such a shift to a flexible production conceptalso impacted on how companies wanted to managetheir personnel. Flexible production also leadsto wanting to use a company’s workforce flexiblyso that only the personnel needed at any givenpoint in time are employed (Grönlund 1997).With this backdrop, the debate in Swedenthus to a large extent took the form of a classicconflict between capital and labour. The perceivedfinancial needs of companies for increasinglyflexible employees and labour laws wasadamantly formulated in a large number ofnewspaper articles with titles such as: “Flexibleemployees, an article in short supply” (SD 1992-08-17) or “Flexibility creates growth” (SyD 1996-09-27). On the other side, concerns were expressedabout the consequences of flexible formsof work for employees. Fears of worsening workingconditions, segmentation of the labour marketand flexibilisation as a shift of power in favour ofemployers was expressed in articles such as:“Rent, wear out, and throw away: the new flexiblework life” (Arbetsmiljö 1995:11) and “Undemocraticflexibility” (Arb 1999-06-16).It is clear that this debate was influenced to agreat degree by ideas about changes in corporateorganisations and strategies that were predictedand discussed in international research relating toflexibility. The seemingly contradictory Braverman’sideas (1974) on technological change andthe global economy routinising and dequalifyingwork (thus creating exchangeability) and Pioreand Sable’s (1984) ideas about the globalisation ofthe economy and the stiffer competition on marketsspelling the end of routinised work, fordismand exchangeable employees played a role. Butmost important was, without doubt, the modelpresented by Atkinson of both upgrading anddowngrading of the workforce at the same time,leading to a segmented labour market. Here itwas argued that the response of companies to anincreasing need of flexibility in relation to theirmarkets is characterised not by one personnelstrategy, but by two parallel strategies towardswhat could be labelled flexible specialisation. Onestrategy strives for increasingly numerically flexiblepersonnel, and one strives for increasinglyfunctionally flexible personnel. Numeric flexibilityis the aspiration of the company to be able to© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

84 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityadjust the number of employees and their worktime through, for instance, temporary employmentcontracts or employing people on a parttimebasis. Functional flexibility means personnelwith a broad range of expertise and widely definedwork tasks, making them flexible for differentiateduse (Atkinson 1987).Due to the limited ability of short term andatypically employed personnel to acquire thecompetence needed for functional flexibility, thereis somewhat of a contradiction between numericand functional flexibility. This is solved by companiesthrough segregating the employed in acore and a periphery, thus seeking different formsof flexibility from different employees. A core ofqualified employees with permanent full timecontracts and high wages on the one hand satisfiesthe need for functional flexibility. The needfor numeric flexibility is on the other hand satisfiedby a periphery of less qualified personnelmore loosely tied to the company doing simplertasks under worse conditions that can function asa buffer against shifts in market demand (Atkinson1987).Atkinson presents this picture of a segmentingflexibilisation process that is also evident inthe Swedish debate and that forms a basis forSwedish research interest. Given that Sweden is arelatively small country, it is hard to delineatesomething that could be labelled a coherent “discourseof flexibility” outside this basis. Quite a lotof research however has been done that hashelped to better elucidate the issues relating toflexibilisation in a Swedish context.1. FLEXIBILISATION IN SWEDEN – A BIG THING OR NOT?One Swedish attempt to apply and develop amodel for flexibilisation of the labour market on amore theoretical level has been made by Ekstedt.This attempt is in effect very similar to what Atkinsonhas done. Ekstedt’s starting point assumesan increase in the use of projects and temporaryorganisations in industries as well as in society atlarge, something which is argued to be related todemand for specially designed production in conjunctionwith the increased technical capabilityfor flexible production. Whether this in fact ishappening is not argued, but rather what thischange will mean for the individual and his/herorganisation, and whether an increasingly projectintense economy will contribute to a segmentationof the labour market. A simple four fieldmodel (see figure 1) of the relationship betweenthe organisational form of activity and the individual’scontractual situation is developed. Inquadrant “A”, the shrinking classic forms of organisingproduction in flow-process operationswith permanent employment for the productionof long series of goods and services is found. Inquadrant “B”, we find a combination of flowprocessoperations and temporary employmentthat is argued to be currently less common but tobe gaining ground.This combination consists of manpower leasingcompanies that have a broker function; theircustomers eliminate costly search processes torecruit staff for routine tasks that are only of shortduration. In quadrant “C”, the combination ofproject-type operations and permanent employmentis found. This is a combination which containscompanies that perform advanced industryrelatedservices on a project basis, a sector that isexpanding rapidly. Quadrant “D” combines thepossibility of project-type operations and temporaryemployment. This is where professionals orpractitioners with both good basic knowledge anda good reputation on the market for their servicescan be found.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Four. Literature review: Sweden 85Figure 1. The relationship between the organisational form of activity and the contractual formbetween the organisation and the individualFlow-Process OperationsFlow-Process OperationsFlow-processOperationsProject-typeOperationsProject-typeOperationsProject-typeOperationsPermanent employmentTemporary employmentA. Industrial Companies and Public Services B. Manpower-Leasing CompaniesAssembly line production, multilevel managerial decisions,bureaucracy, stationary real capitalStrong Permanent Organisation and weak TemporaryOrganisationLimited negotiation and search costs and great monitoringcostsAssembly line production, multilevel managerial decisions,bureaucracy, stationary real capitalStrong Permanent Organisation and weak TemporaryOrganisationLimited negotiation and search costs and great monitoringcostsFirms which hire and lease out staff for current activityduring periods of shortage of staff in client companies.Temporary assignment in A by individuals E.g. typing/officeservice, Putting Out Systems, gang leadersystemPermanent Organisation with broker function to reducecostsFirms which hire and lease out staff for current activityduring periods of shortage of staff in client companies.Temporary assignment in A by individuals E.g. typing/officeservice, Putting Out Systems, gang leadersystemPermanent Organisation with broker function to reducecostsA. Industrial companies and public services B. Manpower-leasing companiesAssembly line production, multilevel managerial decisions,bureaucracy, stationary real capitalStrong permanent organisation and weak temporaryorganisationLimited negotiation and search costs and great monitoringcostsFirms which hire and lease out staff for current activityduring periods of shortage of staff in client companies.Temporary assignment in A by individuals e.g. typing/officeservice, putting out systems, gang leadersystemPermanent organisation with broker function to reducecostsC. Commissioned companies D. Professionals/practitionersRecurring project operationsE.g. construction companies, technical/organisation/management/ITconsulting firmsWeak Permanent Organisation with broker function andstrong temporary organisationsGreat negotiating costs and limited monitoring costsRecurring project operationsE.g. construction companies, technical/organisation/management/ITconsulting firmsWeak Permanent Organisation with broker function andstrong temporary organisationsGreat negotiating costs and limited monitoring costsRecurring project operationsE.g. construction companies, technical/organisation/management/ITconsulting firmsWeak permanent organisation with broker function andstrong temporary organisationsGreat negotiating costs and limited monitoring costsIndividuals who are recruited to projects in A and C, orwho creates projects (“free agents”)E.g. free-lance writers/Journalists/artists, craftsmen,longshoremen, self-employed consultants, constructionworkersLacking Permanent organisationGreat investment costs to make a name for themselvesand keep updatedIndividuals who are recruited to projects in A and C, orwho creates projects (“free agents”)E.g. free-lance writers/Journalists/artists, craftsmen,longshoremen, self-employed consultants, constructionworkersLacking Permanent organisationGreat investment costs to make a name for themselvesand keep updatedIndividuals who are recruited to projects in A and C, orwho create projects (“free agents”)E.g. free-lance writers/journalists/artists, craftsmen,longshoremen, self-employed consultants, constructionworkersLacking permanent organisationGreat investment costs to make a name for themselvesand keep updatedSource: Ekstedt 1999© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

86 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityWhat implications are then drawn about the assumedflow from the “A” quadrant to the others?Ekstedt argues that the size of the “B” quadrant islimited because of these companies having problemspenetrating into knowledge intensive activities.In Sweden, however, it is assumed that thereis still considerable growth potential for thisquadrant. Due to the demands on those recruited,the barriers for employment in the “C” quadrantare very high and thus there will not be a largeflow from “A”. It is also argued that the “D”quadrant cannot receive very much flow from“A”. The net result of this reasoning is a divisionof the labour market in different segments. In themiddle there is a core group consisting of staffwith permanent contracts in parts of the organisations.Around this nucleus, there is a ring containingthe project employed in the “C” quadrant andthose who work as industrial subcontractors inthe “A” quadrant. The next ring is composed ofthose who find temporary employment in the “B”and “D” quadrants. The outer ring consists of theunemployed, which have not managed to overcomethe barriers to working life (Ekstedt 1999).This picture of a segmenting and unstoppableflexibilisation process has also been questioned.In the Swedish academic debate, a numberof issues have been raised that to some extentproblematise the scope of the flexibilisation processor its content as put forward in the public andacademic debate. Eriksson and Karlsson for instancequestion the picture of a complete shiftfrom one system to another, from fordist companiesto companies characterised by flexible specialisation.Fordism was never so widespread asthe theories characterise it; it has for instancenever been applied in large sectors of the labourmarket. In addition, they point out somethinginteresting regarding the idea that companiesstrive towards increased numeric flexibility is anew feature on the labour market. They arguethat one of the very purposes of Fordism was tocreate numeric flexibility and exchangeable employeesthrough simple monotonous work tasks(Eriksson & Karlsson 1995).Additional critique has been directed at theloop-sidedness of the public debate on flexibilisationmeasures. Boje and Grönlund argue thatmost political initiatives implemented to increaseflexibility in the labour market typically are concernedwith how to facilitate the need of employersto change the size and composition of the labourforce. They argue that the consequences offlexibility have to be seen from both parts of theindustrial relations, and it has a completely differentmeaning seen from the workers’ point ofview. Introducing a certain kind of flexibility mayfavour one side and hurt the other side (Boje &Grönlund 2001). It is not certain that flexibility,even in the form of functional flexibility, is a goodthing for the workers. Functional flexibility couldfor instance be achieved through rotation betweenseveral unqualified work tasks instead of throughupgrading. It could also mean that responsibilityand working speed increase, while wages remainunchanged (Eriksson & Karlsson 1995).That there is a wide-reaching flexibilisationprocess involving both numeric and functionalflexibilisation has also been questioned from aninstitutional perspective. It is possible that thesetting of the Swedish labour markets serves toconstrain the segmentation process. Le Grandnotes for instance that the theories to a large extentbuild on an American reality (Le Grand1991), and in Sweden labour laws, solidaric wagepolicy and a large public sector work to maintainstable and more equal employment conditionsthan in many other countries (Aronsson & Sjögren1994). Another factor pointed to is the scope of theinternal labour market in Sweden. Although theaverage Swede spends roughly half his or herworking life at the same employer, they do switchjobs within the company. The internal labourmarket in Sweden is not however a creation of theemployer, as is the case in the U.S. Instead, it is toa large extent the result of the efforts of organisedlabour and political pressure to counteract marketforces and improve the situation of weak groups.Groups that in other countries often tend to havemore insecure employment conditions (women,blue-collar workers, lower educated) often havelonger employment periods than others in Sweden(see for instance Le Grand 1991, 1993, Holmlund1995).© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Four. Literature review: Sweden 872. PREVALENCE OF NUMERIC AND FUNCTIONAL FLEXIBILITYON THE SWEDISH LABOUR MARKETOn the empirical side there is quite a lot of informationavailable that can be related to flexibilisationof the labour market and atypical forms ofemployment. Relatively good information existson the national aggregate level of the prevalenceand development in relation to numeric flexibilisationin the form of temporary employment,part-time employment, diversity of hours, overtimeand leased personnel. What is interestinghere is that the trends relating to these forms ofatypical work do not seem to unequivocally supportconclusions about an ongoing flexibilisationand segmentation on the Swedish labour market.Taking a shorter-term perspective, by themid-90s there were several indicators that seemedto support conclusions about an ongoing segmentationprocess. In conjunction with the Swedisheconomic crisis in the beginning of the 1990s,there had a for instance been a marked increase inthe proportion of temporary employed. The risewas also reflected in a rise of the kind of temporaryemployment conditions that characterisedthe most tenuous positions on the labour market.The same was the case with underemploymentand the short part-time positions (S0U 1995:56).This picture and the conclusions connected to itmight need to be somewhat revised when takinga somewhat longer time perspective, includingmore recent data and examining the actual prevalenceof different forms of numeric flexibility.There are signs that the levels of temporaryemployment are not very high and there does notseem to be a steady increase. In Sweden the trendseems to be changes more connected with thebusiness cycle than a steady increase. The levelsof temporary employment dropped from roughly12 percent of all employed in 1987 to roughly 10percent during the economic boom years of thelate 1980s and early 1990s. After the recession thatstarted in 1992, the proportion of temporary employedrose to roughly 13.5 percent by 1994(Holmlund 1995, OECD 1996). This cyclical prevalencein the proportion of temporary employmentin Sweden is also something that seems to be confirmedby recent figures. The number and proportionof newly employed with a permanent positionhas risen steadily since the low point of theSwedish 1990s recession (SCB 2001). In Sweden asin other OECD countries, temporary employmentis something that seems closely connected to age,with a majority of employed 16-19 year olds employedon temporary contracts. This level dropshowever drops rapidly with age, and between1987 and 1994 at no time were more than 10% ofthose over 25 years of age employed on a temporarybasis. Also worth noting is that the unevendistribution of temporary employment is connectednot only with age, but also gender. Theproportion of women in temporary employmentis consistently somewhat higher than the proportionof men (OECD 1996).There is a similar situation when it comes toworking hours on the Swedish labour market.While the long-term trend of a drop in averageannual hours worked has slowed in almost allOECD countries, some countries actually havehad an increase in hours. Sweden belongs to thesecountries with annual hours rising from roughly1450 to 1550 between 1980 and 1996; this washowever from the position of the country with theshortest annual working hours in 1980 (OECD1998). This rise is partly explained in the risingproportion of women part-timers in Sweden doingrelatively long hours and the sharp decreasein absenteeism after the beginning of the1990seconomic recession. It should be pointed out thatin Sweden, as in all EU countries, women workpart-time to a much greater extent than menthe1990ties economic recession (SCB 1992). Anotherexplanation for the somewhat divergentSwedish trend can be the fact that Sweden has nothad the same rise in part-time employment asexperienced in many other countries. In fact, theproportion of part-timers seems to have been relativelystable in Sweden since the 1970s. In 1979Sweden had among the highest proportion of© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

88 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilitypart-time employed at 23.6% of the population,while the same proportion of part-time employedin 1996 (23.6%) did not stand out in internationalcomparison. The stable level of part-times inSweden and the trend towards women parttimersworking longer hours probably explain therelatively small shift in the diversity of hours onthe Swedish labour market. Although the proportionof employees working 40 hour weeks hasdropped a little over time (from 63% in 1985 to58% in 1994), there have been remarkably stableproportions of employed working either shorthours (usually less than 20 hour a week) or longhours (usually more than 45 hours a week)(OECD1998).The measures regarding the two major formsof numeric flexibility do thus not support, and infact to some extent contradict the predicted ongoingflexibilisation process. This is especially obviouswhen examining national statistics and theproportion of the labour market they concern. Theincrease in the number of people employed inmanpower leasing companies and the use of overtimedo however lend support to this predictedprocess to some degree. Manpower leasing companieshave been a rapidly growing sector of theSwedish labour market. This growth has beenfrom an extremely low level, though, and theproportion employed in manpower leasing companiesis still both very small from a labour marketpoint of view and from an international perspective.In June 2000, manpower leasing companiesonly employed 33,000 people or 0.73% of theSwedish labour market. This is a proportionwhich is similar to the other Nordic countries, butroughly half of the EU average (approx. 1.5%)(http://www.spur.se/). Overtime is also somethingthat can be regarded as a form of atypicalwork related to numeric flexibility. Paid overtimeis something that has increased in Sweden. This isof course an effect of the business cycle for exportorientedindustry in the mid to late 1990s, but ison a much higher level than during similar phasesin the business cycle during the 1970s and the1980s (Agnarsson & Anxo 1996). At the sametime, unpaid overtime has also increased amongwhite-collar workers. Twelve percent of whitecollarworkers and 32% of university graduatesstated that they worked unpaid overtime in 1995;it was twice as common among men than amongwomen (Aronsson & Göransson 1997).If the trend on aggregate level does not seemto strongly support the notion of a flexibilisationprocess when it comes to the development of numericflexibility, there seems to be better supportfor the other side of the flexibilisation or segmentationprocess. Although good national and comparablestatistics on functional flexibility in Swedishcompanies perhaps not are so readily availableas information on temporary employment orpart-time employment, the information that isavailable does seem to indicate a high level offunctional flexibility in Swedish companies. Severalstudies have found that it was very commonfor Swedish companies to increase functionalflexibility through broadening work tasks (LeGrand 1993, Brewster & Hegewisch 1994). In internationalcomparisons Swedish companies appearto be at the forefront. This at least with thevariables used to that effect by OECD’s study ofworkplaces larger than 50 employees, the incidenceof job-rotation, team- team-working andmanagerial initiatives thereof are found to be particularlyhigh in Sweden and some other Nordiccountries. Similarly, the highest incidence of delegationof responsibility to lower level employeesis found in the Nordic countries and the Netherlands(OECD 1999).© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Four. Literature review: Sweden 893. FLEXIBILISATION IN SWEDISH COMPANIES?The empirical results on the prevalence of differentforms of numeric or functional flexibility inSweden are of course of importance for understandingthe level and trend in international comparison.Although possible flexibilisation of thelabour market is an issue that is of relevance onboth the national and global level, flexibilisationcan be understood as a process being driven andfunctioning through the actions and the needs ofindividual companies. To understand the existence,strength or direction of such a process, it isimportant to look at what actually is happening inthe companies.There are a number of studies investigatingthe proportion of companies applying differentnumeric or functional flexibility measures. In astudy by Mattson it is shown that numeric flexibilityin the form of temporary employment is stilla very uncommon strategy for companies. A majorityof the companies in the study stated thatthey did not wish to increase the proportion employedon a temporary basis. Instead, the companiesuse other strategies to achieve increasedflexibility. Ten percent of the companies use adjustedworking-hours based on demand and another20 percent plan to introduce it (Mattson1997). This general proportion might seem quitelow, but there are clear differences between differentbranches of the private sector. It was morecommon in the service sector than in the manufacturingsector. Twice as many service sector companieshad demand adjusted flexitime (NäringslivetsEkonomifakta 1996). Rented personnel is arising solution to the growing need of numericflexibility and is predicted to become more commonin the future. In 1997, 40 per cent of the companiesrented personnel, though at very low levels(Mattson 1997). Companies ambition for increasingflexibilisation is perhaps more clearwhen it comes to functional flexibilisation, somethingthat corresponds with the OECD findingson aggregate level. The Swedish Business DevelopmentAgency noted in a study that 27 per centof private companies that changed their organisationduring the 1990s have introduced a morefunctionally flexible organisation with decentraliseddecision making and organised competencedevelopment. The flexible companies are found tobe more productive and have lower personnelturnover and fewer sick days (NUTEK 1996).A couple of interesting studies have also attemptedto directly investigate the applicability ofAtkinson’s flexibilisation model on Swedish companiesand organisations. After investigating arandom sample of 2000 individuals and their employers,Karlsson came to the conclusion thatflexible organisations hardly exist in Sweden. Agreat number of the companies of course strivefor numeric flexibility (41% have at least somepersonnel employed on temporary contracts), andmany also fulfil some criteria for gaining functionalflexibility (for instance 54% have employerprovidedtraining). Karlsson however argues thatAtkinson’s model stipulates the use of numeric,functional and financial flexibility, such as in theform of incentive pay. With this definition, noSwedish companies could be regarded as flexible.Removing the criteria of incentive pay, only 9percent of companies could be regarded as flexible.The study however also shows, in accordancewith Atkinson, that differences in working conditionsare larger in flexible companies. Workingconditions in flexible companies are better foruniversity graduates, but not for blue-collarworkers (Karlsson 1997).In a critique of this, Håkansson and Isidorssonargue that Karlsson makes a much too strictinterpretation of Atkinson’s model. They show ina study of 17 (10 Swedish) manufacturing companiesthat the companies in fact work with differentmodels for increasing flexibility. The companiesoften combine different strategies (temporarycontracts, broadening of job tasks and demandadjusted work times), and these strategies functionat different levels of success for different jobs;temporary contracts function well for simplertasks, while flexible employment times were hard© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

90 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityto apply on simple regular tasks where longworkdays become very tiring.They find support for Atkinson’s model insofaras the companies’ strategies for increasedflexibility lead to uncrossed security for the alreadyemployed. But opposite to Atkinson’smodel, they do not find evidence of the temporaryemployed being a separate, peripheral groupat work places. The temporary employed are integratedin the ordinary personnel. This makes ithard to broaden the jobs in a functionally flexibleway. Interestingly enough, this was especially thecase for the foreign companies studied. The use oftemporary employed personnel led to work tasksbeing kept on a simple monotonous level. Thispoints to the dilemma that if the temporary employedare integrated in the normal personnel, theability for broad, developing work tasks is limitedalso for the permanently employed. If they on theother hand are segregated, there will be a core vs.periphery problem. This was however less of aproblem in Sweden. Temporary employed inSweden were well educated and multi-skilled anddid thus not provide the same obstacle to functionalflexibility (Håkansson & Isidorsson 1997).4. PENNOESS TO FLEXIBILISATION IN THE SWEDISH LABOUR MARKETAn issue related to the actions and strategies ofSwedish companies is the potential for flexibilisationon the Swedish labour market. There are assumptionsin the public debate about the inabilityof the Swedish labour market, which is politicallyregulated to a great degree, to facilitate companiesand organisational need for flexibility. Labourlaws, strong unions and active involvementin the labour market could function as constraintsfor the flexibilisation process. Whether the institutionalsetting in Sweden has such an effect ishowever not empirically clear. In a comparativestudy of Sweden, Denmark, Canada and the U.S.,Boje and Grönlund find that the labour markets inall three countries are flexible seen in an O.E.C.Dperspective. The levels of job turnover are highand, except for Sweden, the average tenure ofemployees is low. All countries experience agrowing diversity in working time patterns withmore workers employed on both short and longhours instead of ‘normal’ week hours (37-40hours), and finally more workers are employedon flexible work time schedules. Against thisbackdrop, Boje and Grönlund find only little evidenceof the highly politically regulated Scandinavianlabour markets being less flexible than themore open and market-regulated North American(Boje & Grönlund 2001).Another and more direct indicator of the potentialfor flexibility in different institutional contextsis the attitudes and acceptance of workersand unions of different flexible reorganisations ofthe workplace. A number of studies have beenconducted that compare the attitudes to and perceptionsof different flexibility issues amongSwedish and Canadian industry workers. Thesestudies have examined the differences in the levelof security that institutions in Canada and Swedenprovide, attitudes toward job security, labourrelations and flexibility differences between Canadaand Sweden. Looking at job security, the findingsshow that Swedes were less likely to acceptpay cuts and to worry about unemployment, weremore inclined to favour geographical mobility, atleast in principle. The interesting point was thatthis issue was on the attitudinal level and notcaused by actual differences in job security. Differencesin security lay rather in which industrythe labourers were employed rather than in whichcountry they worked. The source of confidenceamong the Swedish labourers must thus besought outside the actual employment relations.Swedish workers were concluded to be inflexiblein areas where the Swedish labour market modelprescribes inflexibility, i.e. wage cuts. Regardingfunctional flexibility, however, Swedish workershad a more positive attitude towards technologyand in practice also accepted more flexibility withrespect to job descriptions (Smith et al. 1997, Vanden Berg et al. 1998).© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Four. Literature review: Sweden 91In further analyses that try to explain thesedifferences in openness to functional flexibilitybetween Swedish and Canadian workers, threepossible perspectives on how workers adapt totechnological change in the workplace are applied.The adversial perspective argues that employmentsecurity produces resistant workers,and conversely that insecurity assures efficiencyin adapting a workforce to technological and organisationalchange. The institutional perspectiveargues the opposite, emphasising that secureworkers have little to fear from change. Finally, aneo-corporatist perspective that sees managersand powerful trade-union leaders as capable ofsuccessfully negotiating changes independentlyof rank and file preferences is presented. The resultof interviews with respondents at seventythreeplants in a three-industry, two-countrycomparison seems to contradict the strict adversialtheory. Data provides some evidence in favourof the institutionalist perspective, insofarthat some of the differences might be produced bythe greater sense of security among Swedishworkers. Neo-corporatist arguments are howeverhave found the most support. Swedish trade unionofficials were viewed by managers andviewed themselves as more positively disposed tochange than either their Canadian counterparts orworkers in either country (Van den Berg et al.2000).5. CONDITIONS FOR PART-TIME AND TEMPORARY EMPLOYED IN SWEDENAs has been shown previously in this paper, therehas been quite a lot of research on the scope, contentand even potential (and to some extent alsothe implications) of flexibilisation on a national orcompany level in Sweden. Another equally interestingaspect of the academic research and availableinformation are the studies that focus on theimplications of flexibilisation for the employee.There are many sources of information on theconditions for part-time employed and temporaryemployed workers. A starting point for this interestis of course the implications of downgradingand marginalisation that can be derived from forinstance Atkinson’s picture of the segmentingflexibilisation process.A strong argument has been made for notclassifying part-time work in Sweden as unstablework or a form of labour market marginalisation.Nätti, for instance, argues that part-time employmentto a high extent is self-imposed in the Nordiccountries. Part-time work is also often over along period, and the part-timers often have permanentpositions and full eligibility to job-relatedsocial benefits. In Sweden and Norway the differencesin pay between part and full time employeesalso tends to decrease. This Nätti arguespoints towards a normalisation of part-time employmentrather than a marginalisation (Nätti1993a, Nätti 1994). Supporting such conclusions isthe fact that many part-time workers work parttimeonly when their children are small and thengo back to full time (Sundström 1991, OECD1999). As women are highly over-representedamong part-time workers in Sweden, one can describepart-time work for many women a “selfchosen”transitional phase rather than a form oflabour market marginalisation. Similarly, thereare no signs of instability as there is no differencein tenure between part-time and full-time workersin Sweden, unlike in North America (Vejsiu 1997).The terms under which Swedish women workpart-time are thus argued to be completely differentthan for American women for instance. In theU.S., part-time work is often for a short period oftime, pay is bad and the level of unionisation isvery low. A lot of part-time work is also involuntaryand mixed with periods of unemployment(Sundström 1991, Petersen 1991). This is a situationthat better fits the label of labour marketmarginalisation.That part-time work in Sweden does not fitdescriptions of unstable or marginalised positionson the labour market does not mean, however,that there is no evidence of less advantageousemployment conditions for part-timers than fulltimers. Part-time work in the Nordic countries can© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

92 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilitybe a trap in terms of decreased career opportunities(Peterson 1993), and even if income differencesare lower in Sweden, differences regardingincomes, working conditions and employmentconditions remain. OECD statistics for 1997 indicatethat, though Sweden does belong to the countrieswith more equal earnings, the level of hourlyearnings in Sweden for part-time employees weresomewhat lower than the hourly earnings of fulltimeemployees (part-time workers earned an averageof 87.2% of full time employed). The picturewas the same with employer-provided trainingwith part-time employees receiving somewhatless than full-time employees, while the proportionof temporary contracts was much largeramong part-time employees. As many as 43% ofpart-time employed men and 21% of part-timeemployed women were on temporary contracts(OECD 1999).In terms of temporary employment, it is clearthat there are several negative aspects connectedto it in Sweden. Having a temporary job impliessubstantial financial insecurity, making it hard toplan life outside paid labour and in turn reducingthe propensity to point out risks in the work environment(Håkansson & Isidorsson 1997). Nättifinds that temporary employees in the Nordiccountries also have relatively insecure positionson the labour market. They switch jobs more oftenand suffer higher risks for unemployment. Thebackground of temporary employees varies, but alarge proportion is made up of women in the publicsector that have had extensive work experienceand several years of employment at the employer.It is concluded, however, that this is somewhatless problematic in the Nordic countries than inthe rest of the EU, due to among other things arelatively high degree of “own choice” (Nätti1993b). Nevertheless, temporary employmentdoes show signs of being a somewhat marginalisedposition on the labour market in Sweden.There is however also some evidence thattemporary jobs do serve as stepping-stones intomore secure positions on the labour market andthus do not represent truly marginalised positions.When following the same individuals in theSwedish labour force study 1994-1995, Holmlundfinds that every quarter almost ten percent oftemporary employed transition to a permanentcontract, often with the same employer. He concludesthat temporary employment thus seems tobe a stepping stone to some extent into a morestable position on the labour market (Holmlund1995). This however does not apply to all temporaryemployees. In a longitudinal study followingtemporary unemployed individuals over fouryears, Håkansson finds that characteristics suchas being a man, highly educated and being aSwedish citizen are connected to a high probabilityof entering permanent employment after beinga temporary employee. In these cases, temporaryemployment really seems to function as a steppingstone.For women, people with low educationand foreign citizens, however, temporaryemployment risks becoming a dead end (Håkansson2001).6. WORKING FOR MANPOWER LEASING COMPANIESThere has also been some research done on theexperiences of manpower leasing companies andtheir personnel. Although this form of numericflexibility is still very small in Sweden, as concludedabove, the rapid growth of the sector hasmade it an interesting field for worklife researchers.The research has primarily taken an interestin the experience and attitudinal side of agencyleased personnel, probably for two reasons.Firstly, it is a relatively new and growing phenomenonthat in a sense introduces several newfeatures to the labour market. The implications ofworking place mobility for the employee and arelationship not between two parts (company andemployee), but at least three parts (manpowercompany, company and employee) raises issuesof the motivation and experiences for the involvedparties. Secondly, the rapid growth and© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Four. Literature review: Sweden 93prevailing thoughts about an ongoing flexibilisationprocess lead to leased personnel being regardedas harbingers of the employees of the future.Understanding the motivation and experiencesof manpower leasing employees makes itpossible to understand the future worker and labourmarket, or indeed the future individual andsociety.Although leased labour makes up a smallpart of union membership, they are a growingpart and as such, their conditions have attractedsome attention from the unions to which theytypically belong. A study of members in the SalariedEmployees’ Union in manpower leasingcompanies painted a relatively negative picture ofemployment conditions in this employment form.They were found to have much poorer employmentconditions than other members in the union.Most were paid on an hourly basis and less than30 percent had a guaranteed income. Forty percentworked less than they wanted to and mostwould have preferred having a permanent job atone work place (HTF 1996).In an academic study, Isaksson and Bellaghinvestigated the satisfaction, social relations andaccess to social support among employees at alarge manpower leasing company. The findingsindicate that leased personnel are satisfied withtheir employment situation to a large extent, butthat a large proportion rather would rather workat a single workplace. Central for a positive attitudewas to have voluntarily chosen to work inthe personnel-leasing industry. The finding ofsuch positive attitudes to their work was a surprisegiven the very high personnel turnover inthe manpower leasing companies. Isaksson andBellagh explain this paradox as the manpowerleasing companies serving as a transit for the employees,where they are quite satisfied to work ontheir way to permanent employment at an individualcompany. The downside to working asleased labour was related to the access to socialsupport. Although the work was characterised bya lot of social encounters, there was a lack of continuityin social relations (Isaksson & Bellagh1999).Taking a somewhat different approach, Garstenuses Swedish and US interviews in order toinvestigate the implications of the liminal positionof manpower leasing employees. The position ofthe temp is suggested as being an ambiguous positioninvolving both risks and opportunities forthe individuals, staffing agencies and client organisations.There is a creative side where oldperspectives on work and subjectivity are contestedand new ones created. An attractive side ofit promises the individual freedom to transcendinstitutions of regular, full time employment andto create a personalised work biography. Thetransient mobile character of temporary employmenthowever carries however with it an awarenessof substitutability and a reflexive preoccupationwith manners, appearances, and competencies.The mobile and temporary character of assignmentsfurther leads to the development ofepisodic imagined communities at the workplace.Garsten’s conclusion is that the temporal and contractualflexibilisation of work challenges oldboundaries and suggests new ways of experiencingwork, as well as new ways of constructingorganisational subjectivity (Garsten 1999).In analyses concerning the cultural constructionof temporary agency workers, Garsten andTurtinen point towards an interesting paradox.While flexibilisation appears to mark a contrast torigidity, structure and standardisation, the individualisationof risk in the labour market goeshand in hand with a cultural construction of acategory of workers–the flexible temporaryworker–where procedures for being employed,assigned and evaluated involve new patterns ofregulation and governance. The discourse pointsat the versatility of temping, as a flexible way ofworking that allows you to tailor work to yourown needs and desires. At the same time as tempingthus craves adaptation, versatility, and reliability,the flexibility for a temp carries the potentialfor freedom. An interesting point however isthat this freedom is of a potential character ratherthan of a realised character. Few of the temps actuallymake use of the advantage. The explanationfor this is the fact that temps hardly dare use© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

94 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilitytheir freedom to turn down offers of assignments,since their refusal could jeopardise future opportunitiesof getting another assignment and thatthey need all the money they can earn.Additionally, it is interesting that in conjunctionwith the discourse that points to individualflexibility and control of manpower agency workers,Garsten and Turtinen find a striking lack ofawareness among temporary agency workers ofthe local, corporate and global organisationalstructures of which they are a part. The episodicand transient character of their involvement withother temps and with the agency makes for a localand individualised perspective, with very littleinterest in exploring the wider network they are apart of (Garsten & Turtinen 2000).7. EVALUATIONS OF WORKING-TIME FLEXIBILISATION PROJECTSAnother source of information on the more consequentialside of flexibilisation are the studiesthat evaluate working time flexibilisation projectswithin one or a few companies or organisations.A main purpose of these studies has been ofcourse to evaluate the effects of flexibilisation reformsfor the organisations. Quite interesting isthat they point at the differences in what working-timeflexibilisation projects imply within differentsectors of the Swedish labour market. Itseems as the motivation for reorganising workingtime and the way working times are made moreflexible are quite different in the public and in theprivate sector.Lundström finds that the motives and flexibilisationof companies in the private sector correspondclosely with the numeric flexibilisationchanges predicted for companies. The new workingtime models tested in the private sector werefound to have been of the employer-controlledtype of flexitime devoted to increasing adjustmentto shifts in demand experienced by companies(Lundström 1996). The models for flexibilisationof working-time in the private sector were thuscarefully designed to fit the demands of the productionand the customers, not the employees.This is however not to say that it resulted in negativeconsequences for employees. The change inworking time models of companies also includedincreased opportunities to adjust working time (inthe form of compensational leave) to individualneeds for workers. Another somewhat positiveaspect for employees was that the increasing employer-controlledflexibilisation of working timewas connected with drops in overall workingtime. This is probably because the opportunity forcompanies to introduce employer-controlled flexitimeincreased when work times were shorter aswell as with the ability (level of control) of employeesto decide when compensation leavescould be used. When flexitime was introduced,employees generally were compensated by reimbursementsin the form of money and/or shorteroverall work hours (Håkansson & Isidorsson1997).Working time flexibilisation models in thepublic sector were motivated and designed differently.In the public sector, care giving dominatedin the implementation of new working time models.The main reason for the changes were to findways to reduce sick leave and occupational injuries(Lundström 1996). Thus, the models werevery concerned with increasing the control employees,who are often women working part-time,have over their working times. The new models,for instance, increased employee control overworking time through increased general controlover scheduling or increased control over parts ofworking time in the form of time banks wherehours could be saved.Evaluations of the models showed that employeesgenerally appreciated the increased freedomof choice and that there was no conflict betweenthis and the demands for efficiency. Inmost studies, almost all affected personnelwanted to keep the new flexible working timemodels. The main reason for this was thatthrough increased control over working times,© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Four. Literature review: Sweden 95employees also gained increased control overnon-work related aspects of the life. Work wasthus more easily adjusted towards employees’social needs (Nilsson 1993, Bergstrand & Persson1995). Hedén notes that the most important aspectfor the relationship between work and spare timedoes not seemed to be when an employeeworked, but rather the degree of predictability(knowledge of schedule with enough lead time)and control over scheduling (Hedén 1997). Thepositive effects of increased flexibilisation alsohad a wider positive impact on the work situation.Employee view of the work time was foundto be a decisive factor for how the general worksituation was viewed. The ability to being able toinfluence the scheduling was the central factor inthis respect (SPRI 1995, SPRI 1996).The increase in employee controlled workingtime flexibility also had an additional bonus ofimportance for care giving in the Swedish publicsector, which is characterised by many part-timeemployees. Working-time flexibility that made iteasier to combine work with family life alsohelped to increase the number of hours workedfor part-time employees who wished to do so(Larsson 1997). In conjunction with one newworking time project studied, part-time employees,especially those working 50%, increased theirhours to 75% (Schönfeldt 1994). These findingsindicate the potential for employee controlledwork time flexibilisation to increase the generalworking time of primarily women, who combinework with the main responsibility for the household.There were also some negative aspects ofthese new working time models in the public sector,although they were considered to be of minorrelevance in the studies. Occasional difficulties ofcombining individual schedules and somewhatvarying levels of staffing were mentioned. Thiswas considered negative both for the staff and theorganisation (Nilsson 1993). Another negativeaspect mentioned, which is more interesting as itemphasises the potential problems for solidarityand workplace community of increasing individualwork time flexibilisation, was the individualisationof scheduling. This resulted in such consequencesas to reduced opportunities for spontaneoussocial time together at the workplace(Hedén 1997).8. GENDER ASPECTS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF FLEXIBLE EMPLOYMENT IN SWEDENEven if it is difficult to discern a truly coherent‘discourse’ on flexibilisation of working life inSweden, there is at least one perspective on differentaspects of flexibilisation that is recurrenteither explicitly or implicitly, and that is gender.As seen in previous chapter gender is used as akey variable both in international comparisonsand in the form of implicit assumptions on theeffects of different forms of flexibilisation. Genderis represented in comparisons of who is involvedin atypical employment (part-time employment isa central issue in Sweden due to the large genderdifferences) or, as in the case of evaluations offlexible working conditions where assumptionsare made about outcomes through gender-basedassumptions and realities. An example of this isthe reasoning behind the importance of increasedemployee controlled over working times for increasingfemale overall working hours. Theanalysis is based on the necessity of women towork part-time in order to manage their dual responsibilityfor both work and the household beingoffset by more employee control over workingtime. This is concluded for instance in a governmentinvestigation on the consequences of flexibilisation(SOU 1996:145). The correctness of thisconclusion is given the empirical evidence isprobably unquestionable. It is however evidentthat gender in such analyses is applied in a lessextensive way than is possible. With the analysistaking the uneven distribution of housework as agiven, and related the employee controlled flexibilisationof working hours to this as a solution© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

96 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityfor women, instead of taking the analysis furtherto the structures behind the original situation.There is some research that takes this muchbroader gender perspective in the analysis of differencesin labour market participation and workinghours differences between men and women.The debate in comparative research using institutionalexplanations for country differences anddevelopments in country differences in labourmarket equality is quite interesting. The high levelof female participation in paid labour is thesources of the traditional picture of the Swedishlabour market being favourable for women byenabling the combination of work and familythrough labour laws and family policies. This isexemplified in a study by Bailyn that comparesthe U.S., the British and Swedish response towomen’s ability to deal constructively with theneeds of work and family. The starting point isthat this ability is dependent upon the kind ofwork that they do, the organisation that employsthem, and the social, economic and national contextin which they live. The conclusion is that theefforts in the U.S. has been to allow women tomeet male work demands and in Britain the emphasishas been on providing flexible arrangementsfor mothers who work. Sweden stands outhere in so that additionally political efforts havealso been made to try to equalise gender roles relatingto the home sphere, making many aspectsof life easier for women. These efforts have howevernot solved the difficulties women have hadin reaching top positions or influenced the gender-segregationof the Swedish labour market(Bailyn 1992).This positive picture of female integration inthe Swedish labour market might however havechanged radically during the 1990s. This is arguedin the Gonäs study of employment changesduring the Swedish crisis years of the 1990s. Sheargues that through welfare state retraction andretrenchment in conjunction with the economiccrisis, essentially there was a shift in the labourmarket regime on both regional and national levelsthat has had severe implications on women’sability to attain financial independence. The 1990sessentially mean more equal employment ratesfor men and women in Sweden, but this changeswhen looking at stability and flexibility of employment.The gender differences are argued toactually have widened if looking at the prevalenceand content of flexible hours and contractforms. Women reduce their working time to a fargreater extent than men do when looking at theactual use of employers’ offers (regulated by thewelfare state) of flexibility. It is this that enablespeople to reconcile work and family life, but withclear gendering, it conflicts with the incomeequality of households. Regarding the contractualsituation, the trends appear to be similar for bothmen and women with a greater proportion onnon-permanent contracts. They are of quite differentnature, though, if one looks at the contentof these temporary positions. While men havehad an increase in contract work that can behighly paid, women have had an increase in temporarywork that is related to being substitutes orto being on-call in the public sector (Gonäs 1998).The same picture of actually increasing genderdifferences through flexibilisation of workingtime is painted in an evaluation in 1993 of howthe EU directive on the organisation of workingtime affected the gendering of work time. Thefocus is placed on the labour market regulationsand policies that enforce the difference betweenwomen and men as labourers. It was found thatdespite the cultural and institutional differencesbetween Germany, France and Sweden, similarpatterns of gendered working time are emerging.A new gender order based on differential workingtime is being offered as an institutionalisedsolution for women combining paid and unpaidlabour. The gendering of working time is reinforcedby public policies that promote part-timeemployment as the primary solution for womenbalancing paid employment with domestic labour.Although written in gender-neutral language,these policies are predicated on the assumptionof a gendered division of labour in thehousehold. They therefore cast women workers asdifferent from male workers (Figart & Mutari1998).© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Four. Literature review: Sweden 97It has however been questioned whetherthere has been such a fundamental shift in labourmarket equality in Sweden through the changesin working time and employment forms. Ellingsaetertakes such a contrary position, especially inrelation to part-time work among women. Takinga starting point in the Scandinavian countries’record of high employment rates for women, sheasks how robust women’s labour market integrationhas been during the growing external pressures.The study analyses continuity and changein gender divisions in employment, unemploymentand flexible work forms in Denmark, Norwayand Sweden during the 1990s. Ellingsaeterfinds that women’s labour market integration hasbeen a very robust feature of the Scandinavianmodels despite the turbulence of the 1990s, althoughScandinavia does not hold the supremeposition concerning women’s employment it usedto. The economic recession of the 1990s increasedsocio-economic polarisation in the labour market,but these processes were connected to educationallevel and not to gender. Although women werestill found in marginal employment relationshipsmore often than men, the Scandinavian countriesgenerally had the most integrated labour markets.The external pressures that the models were subjectedto have not generated radical change inwelfare state activity or employment regulation,the restructuring has been primarily of a quantitativenature and not of a qualitative nature. On thepositive side, there was a shared trend regardingpart-time work during the 1990s in the Scandinaviancountries, where a marked decline in parttimework among women (including mothers)had taken place. This shift is attributed to structuralshifts in the female labour force withincreasing educational levels associated withhigher rates of full-time employment. Anotherfactor is argued to be women’s increasinglycontinuos work patterns, which are usually associatedwith longer working hours (Ellingsaeter2000).9. GENDER AND THE IMPLICATIONS OF FLEXIBLE EMPLOYMENT IN SWEDENAnother part of the academic debate taking agender perspective on flexible employment hasfocused on the definition of these work forms asnew or atypical, and on the possibility that theconsequences of flexibilisation of the labour marketand the atypical work forms are gendered.Looking at the concept of atypical work, Nättifound that it bases itself on a standard, which impliespermanent full time employment at one andthe same employer. What becomes atypical isthus what deviates from this norm. The extent towhich this norm really has been the standard onthe labour market is however questionable, as itfor instance has been relatively untypical for femaleemployment (Nätti 1993). Men have servedas the norm on the labour market and deviationsto this norm were labelled atypical. Several researchershave pointed this out in relation to theSwedish flexibility debate about the existence andgrowth of atypical jobs in the form of temporarycontracts or part-time positions. Already in thebeginning of the 20 th century, it was common thatmarried women took temporary jobs as washwomen or cleaners in the same way female parttimeemployment was not something that cameinto being with the expansion of the Swedish publicsector during the 1970s (Petterson 1981, Wikander1995, Grönlund 1997).In the same way as flexible employmentforms and conditions perhaps never have beenatypical for women, it is quite possible that theydo imply different consequences for men andwomen. One obvious thing that has been touchedon previously is that women are over representedin flexible forms of employment. This is related totheir greater need to facilitate paid labour withresponsibility for the household. Gonäs findingson the aggregate level of women reducing orshifting their working time to a far greater extentthan men do when examining the actual use ofemployers’ offers of flexibility point to the genderedeffect of flexibilisation in today’s Sweden.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

98 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilitySimilarly, her findings of the general trend of increasingproportion with non-permanent employmentcontracts differing in nature for womenand men point towards quite serious genderedeffects of increasing flexibilisation of the labourmarket (Gonäs 1998). When examining whethertemporary employment serves as a stepping stoneonto the labour market, there have also been findingsthat indicate that its function differs betweenmen and women. When following people laid offfrom 17 different manufacturing industries,Gonäs and Westin find that women had a muchharder time getting new permanent employmentthan men. Many women entered a state wherethey rotated between unemployment, temporaryjobs and active labour market policy measures, asituation that is labelled ‘permanent temporariness’(Gonäs & Westin 1993).These negative conclusions about genderedeffects of numeric flexibilisation in Sweden howeverare somewhat put in perspective when comparingthe effects on the Swedish labour marketwith other labour markets. Besides the previouslynoted (and increasing) prevalence of longer parttimeemployment among Swedish women, thepart-time employment seems to fill transitionalfunctions in Sweden which are important forwomen’s longer term participation in paid labour.In a comparison between Sweden and the Netherlands,not surprisingly it was found to be clearthat the incidence of working time transitions ismuch higher for women and of a different naturein both countries. The difference between thecountries was however that Sweden had a muchhigher incidence of working time transitions andmuch lower levels of transitions out of the labourforce. The very plausible explanation for this patternwas that part-time work in Sweden is used asa way of combining paid labour with family responsibilitiesduring periods of women’s liveswhere demands are changing. As such, part-timework for women is an interlude to a great extentin an otherwise full-time career. This however didnot change the basic gendered pattern in Swedenand the Netherlands that women in part-timeemployment were significantly less likely to be infull time labour within a five year period as comparedto men (Anxo et al. 2000).Women’s dual responsibility for both homeand career thus play a central part for who orwhen part-time employment or flexible workingarrangements are used in Sweden. Elvin-Nowakpoints to this balancing act in a study of 17 workingmothers who had differing degrees of controlover their work times. She found that the worklifefor the mothers was very much balanced andevaluated in relation to responsibilities towardsthe children and that notions about gender divisionof labour were very important for theseevaluations. An interesting point made in thestudy is that the level of flexibility and controlover working times was of course positively relatedto being able to adjust to the demands of thehousehold, something that often is emphasised asa very positive thing. Elwin-Nowak found howeverthat a high degree of flexibility and controlover working times also was coupled with feelingsof guilt. This is because of increased individualresponsibility for the organisation of everydaylife in response to the demands of work and family(Elvin-Nowak 1998). The dual responsibilitythus becomes a difficult balancing act whereworking mothers gain greater responsibility forsatisfying both employer and family.In fact this balancing act could lead to verydifferent implications of flexible forms of employmentfor working conditions. Salmi finds forinstance that the current household division oflabour leads to gender specific ways of dealingwith working at home. In a study of both menand women, Salmi shows that men organise theirworkdays very much in the same linear ways thatpaid labour is normally organised. Women, however,arranged their workdays more freely andadapt them to fit their children’s schooldays.There were also interruptions of the work by childrenand other events outside paid labour to amuch larger extent for women than for men. Theflexibility that home-based work provided wasthus used by (and to some degree forced upon)the women to organise labour around the needsof other family members (Salmi 1997).© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Four. Literature review: Sweden 99Swedish research shows that there are genderedimplications of flexibilisation of time, employmentconditions and even place in Sweden.The findings are coherent and very much connectedto the differences in distribution and responsibilityfor housework. Regarding functionalflexibilisation, there has also been some interest inthe possible gendered implications of increasingdelegation of responsibility and broadening ofwork tasks. In a study of workplace-based projectsaimed at introducing work rotation andwork in independent teams, Blomqvist concludesthat it seems to have benefited the women morethan the men. The work of women has been madevisible and their abilities have been better appreciated(Blomqvist 1997). Functional flexibilisationthus seems to have the potential to increase theequality at the work place. Petterson’s study ofthe reorganisation of two industrial workplacesshows that this does not necessarily have to be thecase. Men who moved in to female-dominatedwork received more training/education andhigher wages than women, while women whomoved into male-dominated areas received theleast qualified work tasks, lower pay and educationthan men. In this way the changes resulted ina new segregation and continued dominance (Pettersson1996).10. HEALTH CONSEQUENCES OF FLEXIBLE WORK FORMSRelatively little Swedish research has looked atthe consequences of flexible employment outsideof actual working conditions or financial consequences.This is the case even though such effectsare often believed to be either possible or actuallypresent. Håkansson and Isidorsson argue for instancethat company efforts for increasing flexibilitycan mean increased health risks for the employed.In practice Flexible work time leads tolonger days, something that affects rest and sleep.Temporary jobs imply a major financial insecurity,making it hard to plan life outside paid labourand reducing the propensity to point outrisks in the work environment (Håkansson & Isidorsson1997).On the empirical side, there has been at leastsome empirical research that directly or indirectlytakes an interest in such potential negative healtheffects of companies working for numeric flexibility.Most importantly, there have been some studiesfrom the National Institute for Working LifeResearch directly targeted towards somatic andpsychological consequences of contingent workand work in manpower leasing companies. Thefindings have shown that there could be somaticand psychological effects and an increased risk ofworkplace accidents related to manpower leasingwork and contingent work. Decreased financialsecurity and declined working conditions throughserving as a relief in acute working situationsand/or receiving too little information related tothe work task, and less access to social supportwere some interrelated factors behind these effects.The worst effects were found to be for contingentlyemployed women in the public sectorand in service industries of the private sector.People employed with manpower leasing companiesdo have more secure sense of belongingthrough their manpower leasing company andfeel financially more secure, although they switchworkplaces often. But they also experience beingoutside the workplace community in the form ofnot being called to meetings and not taking partin work-related training (see for instance Aronsson1999, Isaksson 2001).Similar findings relating to the consequencesof psychological well-being in differential contractualsituations were also found in a study of individualsexiting unemployment. It was assumedthat the dualistic picture of mental well-being aspoor when unemployed and good when reemployedneeded to be modified in order to takeinto account the very different employment conditionsindividuals entered into. Focus was on theeffect on mental well-being of exit from unemploymentto three possible contractual situations,© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

100 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilitya permanent employment contract, a temporaryemployment contract and self-employment ascompared to remaining unemployed. While exitfrom unemployment to paid labour was found toincrease mental well-being in general, significantdifferences in impact were found depending onthe contractual situation the individuals entered.Entering a permanent employment contractmeant a larger increase in mental well-being thanentering temporary employment or selfemployment.These differences in well-beingwere not found to be the direct effect of differentialfinancial situations, although the financialchange caused by the entry into paid labour wasfound to be an important explanation for the improvementin mental well-being for all three contractconditions as compared to unemployment.Instead, the results were interpreted as beingcaused by of how the new status was manageddifferently to resolve the longer-term uncertaintyand lack of predictability about the future facedwhen unemployed (Strandh 2000).These three studies relate to what can be labelledhealth consequences of numeric flexibilityforms of employment. That this is the case dependsmainly on the greater implications for badworking conditions with this form of flexibilisation.It is however not sure that functional flexibilitywould imply no possible negative health effects.Håkansson and Isidorsson point out thatfunctional flexibility could also be perceived asnegative by employees, as it could mean that theyhave to take on more tasks and responsibility thanthey can handle. In the same way, having toswitch between work tasks on short notice whilealso having the length of the workday vary couldbe perceived as stressful (Håkansson & Isidorsson1997). Blomqvist’s findings of increased stresslevels in workplace-based projects aimed at introducingwork rotation and more independentteams at the workplace show that this could bethe case. An increased sensitivity to disturbanceswithin the organisation could also led, for instance,to sick leave being regarded as a majordisturbance, something that has clear health implications(Blomqvist 1997).CONCLUSIONSumming up the review on the academic ‘discourseof flexibility’ in Sweden we can concludethat there has indeed been considerable workdone which relates to the flexibilisation process orflexible work forms. Although this research doesnot form what could be labelled a coherent discourse,a large interest for these issues in Sweden,as well as a good base of knowledge relating tomany aspects of flexibilisation have developedthanks to the research on these different issues.The starting point for interest in flexibilisationamong Swedish worklife researchers is to a largedegree the same. This in the form of the publicand international academic debate relating tocompanies’ strive for increasing numeric andfunctional flexibilisation, which is assumed tolead to a segmented labour market. On the theoreticallevel the assumption of a flexibilisationprocess and the assumed content of it has howeverboth functioned as a starting point and as apoint of critique. The picture of a complete shiftfrom one labour market system, the fordist, toanother, flexible specialisation, has been questioned,as has the neglect of the possibility thatthe institutional context can be of importance forthe flexibilisation process and its consequences.On the empirical side Swedish research (aswell as international research involving Sweden)present a picture that fits relatively poorly with anongoing linear process relating to increasing numericflexibility. Although there has been someincrease in for instance manpower leasing, theproportion in such employment is still negligible,and neither the development of temporary employmentnor part time employment/divergenceof working hours fit a picture of an ongoing numericflexibilisation process in Sweden. The developmentof flexibility on the Swedish labour© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Four. Literature review: Sweden 101market does thus not conform to the predictedincrease in numeric flexibility. An explanation forthis that is often used in the public debate is thatthe politically regulated Swedish labour market isunable to facilitate companies’ and organisations’need for flexibility. Strict labour law, strong unionsand active involvement in the labour marketcould here function as constraints for the flexibilisationprocess. Given the actual level of flexiblework in Sweden, in comparison with less politicallyregulated markets, this does however notseem to be the case in Sweden. Instead of functioningas a constraint on flexibility there are findingsindicating that the Swedish labour marketmodel actually increases the potential for functionalflexibility and the acceptance for functionalflexibility among workers and organised labour.In line with this there was also slightly more supportfor a move towards increasing functionalflexibility in the Swedish workforce.The conditions of numeric and functionalflexibility in Sweden do not seem to fit the pictureof increasing segmentation of the labour marketand workplaces. Although there were some indicationsof worse pay and working conditions fortemporary and part time employed, it could beargued that, in international comparison, theseaspects were less severe. In particular the conditionsof part time employment does not fit thedescription of a marginalised position on the labourmarket, with part times leading to full eligibilityto job related social benefits and differencesbetween full and part time employed tending todecrease. In addition, there was no evidence oftemporary employed being a separate, peripheralgroup at the work place. Instead, they were foundto be integrated into the organisation as much asthe ordinary personnel. Regarding consequencesof flexible work forms outside the working life,findings for Sweden suggest that temporary employmentand work for manpower leasing companiesnegatively affect somatic and psychologicalhealth. On the other hand, there seems to bepotentially positive effects of part time employmentand ‘functional’ flexibilisation measures,such as increasing worker controlled schedulingflexibility. This kind of flexibilisation was in severalstudies found, or argued, to facilitate thecombination of employment with family demandsfor women.The relationship between control overscheduling or part time employment and increasedability for women to meet the demands offamily life points towards something that is importantto note. Flexible employment is genderedin Sweden, both in regard to prevalence, conditionsand consequences. In the case of temporaryemployment women were also somewhat overrepresented. It is interesting to note, however, thatwhen in temporary employment women tendedto be involved in those forms of temporary employmentwith the worst conditions; they werealso at a greater risk of getting stuck in nonpermanentemployment. Part time employment isin turn a form of flexible work that in Sweden isfemale. This can be seen as a result of the existingunequal gender division of labour in Swedish societywhere women, despite their role in worklifestill bear the main responsibility for the household.The dual responsibility of working womenwas in Swedish research also found to be of importancenot only for part time work, but also forthe implications of being in other forms of flexibleemployment. The balancing act between the responsibilityof employment and family was forinstance found to structure the workday of menand women working out of their home in differentways.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

102 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityREFERENCESAgnarson, S & Anxo, D (1996), Arbetstid och arbetsmarknadsekonomi,Rapport till 1995 årsarbetstidskommitté, Nationalekonomiska institutionen,Göteborgs Universitet.Anxo, D, Stancanelli, E & Storrie, D (2000), Transitionsbetween different working time arrangements:A comparison of Sweden andthe Netherlands, EALE/SOLE 2000 conference,June 22-25, Milan, Catholic Universityof the Sacred Hearth.Arb 1999-06-16, “Odemokratisk flexibilitet”.Arbetsmiljö 1995:11, “Hyr, slit och släng: det nyaflexibla arbetslivet”.Aronsson, G (1999), Contingent workers andhealth and safety at work, Work, Employmentand society, 13, 439-459.Aronsson, G & Göransson, S (1997), Mellan tidsochresultatskontrakt – en empirisk studie avobetalt övertidsarbete, Arbetsmarknad & Arbetsliv,3, 85-95.Aronsson, G & Sjögren, S (1994), Sammhällsomvandlingoch arbetsliv, omvärldsanalys inför2000-talet, Fakta från Arbetsmiljöinstitutet,SolnaAtkinson, J (1987), Flexibility or fragmentation?The United Kingdom labour market in theeighties, Labour and Society, 12, 1.Bailyn, l (1992), Issues of work and family in differentnational contexts - how the United-States, Britain, and Sweden respond, HumanResource Management, 31, 201-208.Bergstrand, K & Persson, T (1995), Projekt individuellaarbetstider vid ortopediska klinikencentrum rörelseorganens sjukdomar, MASUniversitetssjukhuset Malmö.Blomqvist, M (1997), Organisationer för kvinnor?,In Sandberg (ed.) Ledning för alla?, Stockholm:SNS förlag.Boje, T & Grönlund, A (2001) “Flexibility, Mobilityand Employment Insecurity”, in Boje &Furåker (eds.), Post industrial profiles. forthcoming.Braverman, H., 1974, Labor and Monopoly Capital,New York: Monthly Review Press.Brewster, C & Hegewisch A (eds.) (1994), Policyand practice in European Human Resource Management,The Price Waterhuse Survey, London:Routledge.Ekstedt, E (1999), Form of Employment in a ProjectIntensive Economy, American Journal ofIndustrial medicine Supplement, 1, 11-14.Ellingsaeter, AL (2000), Scandinavian transformations:Labour markets, politics and genderdivisions, Economic and Industrial Democracy,21, 335-359.Elvin-Nowak , Y (1998), Flexibilitetens baksida – Ombalans, kontroll och skuld i yrkesarbetandemödrars vardagsliv, Stockholms Universitet,rapport no 101.Eriksson, B & Karlsson, J (1995), Flexibla organisationeroch arbetsvillkor – en projektpresentation,Forskningsrapport 95:10 Samhällsvetenskap,Högskolan i Karlstad.Figart, DM & Mutari, E (1998) Degendering worktime in comparative perspective: Alternativepolicy frameworks, Review of Social Economy,56, 460-480.Garsten, C & Turtinen, J (2000), ‘Angels’ and‘Chameleons’: The cultural construction ofthe flexible temporary agency worker inSweden and Britain, in: After full employment.European discourses on work andflexibility, Brussels: Work & Society.Garsten, C (1999), Betwixt and between: Temporaryemployees as liminal subjects in flexibleorganizations, Organization Studies, 20, 601-617.Gonäs, L & Westin, H (1993), Industrial restructuringand gendered labor-market processes,© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Four. Literature review: Sweden 103Economic and Industrial Democracy, 14, 423-457.Gonäs,L, (1998),Has equality gone too far? Onchanging labour-market regimes and newemployment patterns in Sweden, EuropeanUrban and Regional Studies,5, 41-53.Grönlund, A (1997), “Ny flexibilitet och gamlakönsgränser – Personalstrategier på mansoch kvinnoarbetsplatser”, CD-uppsats sociologiskainstitutionen, Umeå Universitet.Hedén, A (1997),Utvärderig av timbanksmodellenIVA-UVA, MAS, Malmö.Holmlund, B (1995), Livstidsjobb och korta jobb,Arbetsmarknad & Arbetsliv,1, 149-155.HTF (1996), Undersökning av personaluthyrningsbranschen.Håkansson, K & Isidorsson, T (1997), Flexibla tider– en studie av arbetstidsflexibilitet och andra flexibiliseringsstrategierinom verkstadsindustrin,Internationella arbetslivsstudier, Göteborg.Håkansson, K (2001), Springbräda eller segmentering?En longitudinell studie av tidsbegränsatanställda, IFAU 2001:1.Isaksson, K & Bellagh, K (1999), Vem Stöttar Nisse?Socialt stöd bland uthyrd personal, Arbetsmarknad& Arbetsliv, 5, 247-258.Isaksson, K (2001), Att ofta byta arbvetsplats, Arbetslivsinstitutet,forthcomming.Karlsson, J (1997), Flexibilitet i praktiken, inSandberg (ed), Ledning för alla?, Stockholm:SNS förlag.Larsson, B (1997), En utvärdering av rörlig arbetstidvid akutmottagningen sjukhuset i Kristianstad,Nordöstra skånes sjukvårdsdistrikt,Kristianstad.Le Grand, C (1991), Karriär och utvecklingsmöjligheterpå de interna arbetsmarknaderna,In Le Grand, Szulkin & Thålin, Sverigesarbetsplatser – organisation, personalutveckling,styrning, SNS Förlag, Stockholm.Le Grand, C (1993), Rörlighet och stabilitet på denSvenska arbetsmarknaden, In Arbetskraft, arbetsmarknadoch produktivitet, Expertrapportno 4 till produktivitetsdelegationen, Stockholm.Lundström, S (1996), Nya arbetstidsmönster –erfarenheter av arbetstidsflexibilitet och arbetstidsförkortninginom privat och offentligsektor, in Arbetstid – längd förläggning och inflytande,Bilaga, SOU 1996:145.Mattson, A (1997), Anställningsformer, ArbetsmarknadsstyrelsenUra 1997:4, Stockholm.Nilsson, G (1993), Rörlig arbetstid – Utvärderingav projektet ‘rörlig’ arbetstid vid Länssjukhuseti Kalmar, Landstinget i Kalmar.NUTEK (1996), Towards flexible organisations,Stockholm, Nutek.Näringslivets Ekonomifakta (1996), Företagsledningaroch fack om konjunkturanpassadarbetstid och vinstdelning, Ekonomifakta, Stockholm.Nätti, J (1993a), Atypical employment in the Nordiccountries: Toward marginalisation ornormalisation?, In Boje & Hort (eds.) Scandinaviain a new Europe, Scandinavian UniversityPress: Oslo.Nätti, J (1993b), Temporary employment in theNordic countries - a trap or a bridge, WorkEmployment and Society, 7, 451-464.Nätti, J (1994), Part time employment in the Nordiccountries; a trap for women?, paper presentedat the 13 th World Congress of Sociology,Bielefeld, Germany.OECD 1996, Employment outlook, Paris: OECD.OECD 1998, Employment outlook, Paris: OECD.OECD 1999, Employment outlook, Paris: OECD.Peterson, J (1993), Part-time employment andwomen: a comment on Sundström, Journal ofEconomic Issues, 27, 909-913.Petterson, M (1981), Deltidsarbetet i Sverige –deltidsökningens orsaker, deltidsanställdas lev-© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

104 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilitynadsförhållanden, Rapport 23, Arbetslivscentrum,Stockholm.Pettersson, L (1996), Ny organisation, ny teknik –nya genusrelationer? En studie av omförhandlingav genuskontraktet på två industriarbetsplatser,Linköping studies in arts and science no 143,Linköping.Piore, M &. Sabel, C (1984), The Second IndustrialDivide: Possibilities for Prosperity, N.Y.: BasicBooks.S0U 1995:56, Hälften vore nog – om kvinnor och mänpå 90-talets arbetsmarknad.Salmi, M (1997), Home-based work, gender andeveryday life, in I virtually free? – Gender workand spatial choice, Stockholm: NUTEK.SCB (1992), Om kvinnor och män i Sverige och Eg,Fakta om jämstäldheten, Stockholm: SCB.SCB (2001), Short-term employment 4 th quarter of2000, Örebro: SCB.Schönfeldt, B (1994), Friare arbetstider och utveckladarbetsorganisation ökade tillfredsställelsenpå Geriatriken, Arbetslivsfondensfallrapport no 80.SD 1992-08-17, “Flexibel arbetskraft bristvara: högarbetslöshet och allt lägre kompetens ledertill allvarliga problem”.Smith, MR, Masi, AC, vandenBerg, A & SmuckerJ (1997), Insecurity, labour relations, andflexibility in two process industries: A Canada/Swedencomparison, Canadian Journal ofSociology-Cahiers Canadiens de Sociologie, 22,31-63.SOU 1996:145, Arbetstid – längd, förläggning ochinflytande.Spri (1995), Mot bättre tider – en utvärdering avvårdens arbetstidsmodeller, Spri rapport no408/95: Stockholm.Spri (1996), Arbetstider – valfrihet och flexibilitet ivården,, Spri rapport no 423/96: Stockholm.http://www.spur.se/ (2001-01-25).Strandh, M (2000), Different exit routes from unemploymentand their impact on mentalwell-being: The role of the economic situationand the predictability of the life course,Work Employment and Society, 14, 459-479.Sundström, M (1991), Part-time work in Sweden:Trends and equality effects, Journal of EconomicIssues, 25, 167-178.SyD 1996-09-27, “Flexibilitet skapar tillväxt”.van den Berg, A, Masi, AC, Smith, MR &Smucker, J (1998), To cut or not to cut - Across-national comparison of attitudes towardwage flexibility, Work and Occupations,25, 49-73.van den Berg, A, Masi, AC, Smucker, J & Smith,MR (2000), Manufacturing change: A twocountry,three-industry comparison, Acta Sociologica,43, 139-156.Vejsiu, A (1997) Job Stability in Sweden 1968-1991, manuscript, Department of Economics,Uppsala University.Wikander, U (1995), Kvinnorna i den tidiga industrialiseringen,In Kvinnohistoria, Utbildningsradion,Stockholm.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter FiveHOUSEHOLDS, WORK AND FLEXIBILITYCritical Review of LiteratureSLOVENIA[ Pavle Sicherl and Matija Remec ][ Contents ]INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................1071. THE DISCOURSE ON FLEXIBILITY IN SLOVENIA.........................................................................1081.1. Background: Ten years of transition .......................................................................................1082. FLEXIBILITY OF TIME, PLACE AND CONDITION OF WORK ........................................................1102.1. Quantitative dimensions and comparisons .............................................................................1102.2. Subjective attitudes .................................................................................................................1142.3. Policy orientation and regulations ...........................................................................................1162.4. The position of employers and labour unions .........................................................................1163. INFORMAL, DOMESTIC AND ADDITIONAL WORK .......................................................................1174. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FAMILY AND WORK ..................................................................118CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................120ABBREVIATIONS......................................................................................................................................121REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................................121© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

[ List of tables and figures ]Table 1. Active population in Slovenia by registered sources 1987-1998 ........................................... 109Table 2. Distribution of persons in employment by LFS ...................................................................... 110Table 3. Share of persons in employment with temporary job ............................................................. 111Table 4. Share of persons in employment working part time ............................................................... 112Table 5. Shift work of employed persons by sex, age and education .................................................. 113Table 6. Night work of employed persons by sex, age and education................................................. 113Table 7. Frequency of work on Saturdays and Sundays and overtime work....................................... 113Table 8. Preferences for part time work of persons employed for full time.......................................... 115Table 9. Preparedness for work on Saturdays and Sundays and night work ..................................... 115Table 10. Preparedness for commuting to work of employed persons.................................................. 115Table 11. Time use of employed persons .............................................................................................. 119

Chapter Five. Literature review: Slovenia 107INTRODUCTIONIn the preparation of the literature review for Sloveniaseveral issues emerged. First, statistical datashow that the quantitative importance of flexiblework is lower than in the EU countries participatingin the project. This means that for Slovenia itwill be of great interest to learn about other experiencesof flexibility, both positive and negative.Second, there is a major difference betweenthe relative stability of the institutional frameworkin the EU countries as against the transitionalcharacter of institutions and economictrends in the candidate countries. Third, the samekinds of flexibility can arise for very different reasons.For instance, in candidate countries someforms of flexibility are there because of the necessityfor individuals and households to surviveand do not come into being as the result of a deliberatechoice between family and work activities.Fourth, policy orientations and public opinionare not yet focused on the flexibility issue.Thus the discourse on flexibility is considerablyless developed than in other countries under considerationand our literature review will not be asextensive as in the participating EU countries.The review of the discourse on flexibility inSlovenia cannot be understood properly withoutknowing the background of the far-reachingchanges that have happened in the last decade. Inthis review, we begin by presenting an overviewof these changes as a background to the discoursesof flexibility presented in section 1. Wethen present statistical information and reviewthe debate about flexibility of conditions of work,time and place. Section 2 further deals with thefollowing issues: the subjective preference in relationto part time work and preparedness to workon Saturdays and Sundays; preparedness tocommute; some general points related to policyorientations and regulations, as well as the role ofsocial dialogue in the debates about changing patternsof work.Information about informal, domestic andadditional work (section 4) and on the relationshipbetween family and work (section 5) is muchscarcer. However, the time use survey by StatisticalOffice of Republic of Slovenia (SORS) in progressshould deliver important new informationon this issue. Section 5 provides a summary andgeneral conclusions.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

108 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibility1. THE DISCOURSE ON FLEXIBILITY IN SLOVENIA1.1. Background: Ten years of transitionSlovenia became an independent state in 1991 andhas endured the simultaneous shocks of economicand political transition and the disintegration ofthe former Yugoslavia rather well. Comparedwith other newly independent states and/or othertransition economies of the candidate countries ofthe EU, Slovenia has enjoyed some advantagesand has suffered from some handicaps. Amongthe detrimental factors which made its transitionmuch more difficult, are the consequences of thedisintegration of the former Yugoslavia, that is,loss of the Yugoslav market, problems of succession,consequences of fighting in the formerYugoslavia as well as the breakdown of transportand communication services to South-EasternEurope.Among the factors beneficial for progress intransition were earlier experience with the selfmanagementsystem, which was based on aquasi-market economy, and the fact that Yugoslaviawas from the mid-1960s exposed to influencesfrom democratic and market economies not onlyin trade, but also through the relatively free mobilityof people. A number of these migrants wereengaged in education or in temporary employmentin western countries, which apart from foreignexchange remittances, provided importantnew skills and new ways of thinking (Sicherl, Kukar,1996).Over the last decade there are three developmentsthat are most relevant for the discourseon flexibility. First, the high level of employmentand job security in the earlier system with predominantlysocial ownership of capital in businessactivities (with the exception of agriculture)has left a strong influence on public opinion as tothe rights of workers and expectation about thesecurity of employment. Second, the fall in productionand an even more drastic fall in employmentduring the transition depression havechanged the situation in the labour market dramatically.Adjustment to the new situation wasnot systematically helped by government policies.Active measures to support employment andfight unemployment were introduced rather lateand the legislation on flexible work options is stillrather rigid and still under discussion. Third, thenew impetus for further steps in this directioncomes from the effort to fulfill the conditions forEU entry in the soonest possible time.Over the last decade the situation with respectto employment opportunities has changedradically. After 1989, all transition economies experienceda drop in production. However, theseverity of the decline as well as the speed of therecovery was very variable. The decline in Sloveniawas less than 20 per cent at the trough of thetransition depression in 1992. The recovery wasreasonably successful and the GDP level of 1989was achieved again in 1997. However, thechanges in the labour market were much moreprofound. In 1987 the activity rate (persons inemployment as percentage of age group 15-64)from registered sources was 80.5% for men and63.4% for women (SORS in Pirher et al. (2000)).This activity rate was at that time higher only inDenmark – for all other EU12 countries the activityrate was lower than in Slovenia.The activity rate for men fell much more thenactivity rate for women. The former fell from80.5% in 1987 to 73.8% in 1993 and to 67.2% in1997. The activity rate for women fell from 63.4%in 1987 to 56.5% in 1993 and increased slightly to58.1% in 1997. The decline of 250,000 of employedpersons in companies and organizations in theperiod 1987-1997 was a great shock to a societythat was used to enjoying secure and permanentjobs as well as substantial social benefits. Thus,the loss of the Yugoslav market after the disintegrationof the former Yugoslavia and the dislocationsin the transition process dramaticallychanged the employment situation.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Five. Literature review: Slovenia 109Table 1. Active population in Slovenia by registered sources 1987-1998(yearly average in 000)Employment incompanies andorganisationsEmployed insmall privatesectorFarmersOther selfemployedpersonsPersons in employmentbyregisteredsourcesRegistered unemploymentActive populationby registeredsources1987 838 30 59 33 960 15 9761988 831 31 61 35 957 21 9791989 820 31 61 36 948 28 9771990 786 32 58 39 915 45 9591991 713 33 57 42 844 75 9201992 659 33 56 44 792 103 8941993 629 37 56 47 768 129 8971994 606 42 56 49 752 127 8791995 594 48 56 52 749 122 8711996 581 54 56 54 749 120 8651997 593 58 40 54 743 125 8691998 592 61 41 52 745 126 871Source: Statistical Office of the Republic Slovenia, ESS and Health Insurance Company of Slovenia, in Pirher, et al., (2000)Registered unemployment surged from below 2%in 1987 to above 14% in 1993 of the active population.According to ILO methodology, which excludesregistered unemployed that are counted aspersons in employment and registered unemployedthat are not actively searching for work,the unemployment rate in Slovenia of 7.5% in1998 was still below that of EU15 average. Generally,however, there are discrepancies between thetwo main sources of statistics on the labour market:registered sources and labour force surveys(LFS). Nevertheless, both show drastic changesover the period of a few years. Some workerswere able to take advantage of the possibility ofearly retirement and this helped them and theenterprises to overcome the transitional shock,but it meant an increase of about 140,000 additionalretired persons over the decade between1987 and 1997 and a tremendous long-term burdenfor the welfare state. There was also a withdrawalof many long-term unemployed from thelabour market who sought work in the informaleconomy or relied upon family support or uponsocial welfare assistance. The economic growth inthe recovery period after 1993 was able to helpSlovenia to attain the earlier levels of GDP by1997, but it mainly took the form of joblessgrowth. Only in the last three years has the trendin employment been upward, and even then it isslow.This is the background against which thediscourse and statistics on flexible work in Sloveniashould be understood. What we are witnessingis not a stable systematic effort towards moreflexible arrangements, but rather a reaction to rapidlychanging conditions as is explained in thenext section.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

110 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibility2. FLEXIBILITY OF TIME, PLACE AND CONDITION OF WORK2.1. Quantitative dimensions and comparisonsFlexible forms of work conditionsWith the increasing number of forms of flexibilityin the labour market there is no uniform standardfor the classification of different forms of flexibility.This means that national practices and legislationprovide categorisations, which are not internationallycomparable and sometimes similar labelsof categories mean different things in differentcountries. It is therefore difficult to make standardizedcomparisons cross nationally for thewhole analysed period and we have to drawupon nationally distinctive classifications. One ofthe distinctions that we can make between formsof work is the distribution between paid employment,employers, self-employed persons and unpaidfamily workers. This distribution has notchanged much in the period 1993-1999. As seen intable 1 the greatest fall in employment in companiesand organisations has occurred in the period1989-1993. In that period the relationship betweenpaid employment and the other two categories –employers/self employed and unpaid familyworkers – has changed considerably, but after1993 this share has more or less stabilised. Theshare of persons in paid employment is lowerthan it was before the transition. In order to distinguishdifferent forms of work conditions it is ofinterest to explore the trends in two main forms offlexible paid employment – temporary jobs andpart time jobs.Table 2. Distribution of persons in employment by LFS (per cent)1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Persons in paid employment 84.6 83.0 86.7 86.0 86.6 86.7 86.6Employers and self employed 12.2 12.3 12.8 12.9 12.9 13.0 12.7Unpaid family workers 3.2 5.4 4.9 4.4 7.7 6.9 5.6Source:SORS, Labour Market, Rapid Reports, various numbersTemporary jobsCompared with the EU countries participating inthe HWF project (the UK; the Netherlands andSweden), the share of those with temporary jobsin Slovenia is at about the same level as in Netherlandsand Sweden, and higher than in the UK. Inthe literature there are some other expressions forthese kinds of jobs, such as jobs of limited durationor fixed term employment. In this sectiondata from LFS are used for the comparison of Sloveniawith EU countries.The Employment Service of Slovenia preparedan analysis of the importance of temporaryjobs as one of the non-standard forms of employmentin 1999. In this study, temporary jobs areshown to have become the most significant formof new employment in Slovenia. On the one hand,temporary work brings about higher labour marketflexibility, but on the other hand, it reducesthe social security of employees. It has been reportedthat in last six years the demand for temporaryworkers has increased from 57.8% of allworkers in year 1993, to 72.8% in 1998. In thespring and the autumn months there is an increaseddemand for temporary jobs (mainly inseasonal work), along with a generally increaseddemand for labour. In terms of gender, the shareof women amounts to 52.2% of the total workersemployed in temporary jobs, while the share ofwomen in the total permanent employment is46.8% (Verša, 1999).© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Five. Literature review: Slovenia 111Table 3. Share of persons in employment with temporary job (contract of limited duration, per cent)Slovenia Netherlands Sweden UK1993 6.31994 7.11995 7.5 9.3 11.0 6.31996 8.4 10.0 10.8 6.51997 10.9 9.3 11.0 6.31998 11.5 10.0 10.8 6.51999 11.2Source:For Slovenia 1999: SORS, Rapid Reports, No 146, July 2000, for earlier years: SORS, in Pirher et. al. 2000; for EU Countries for1997, Eurostat, Labour Force Survey in Eurostat yearbook, A statistical eye on Europe, various yearsThe relationship between temporary work andpermanent work opportunities varies accordingto qualifications and occupations. The number oftemporary job openings is smaller for welleducatedor/and highly qualified people, since itis in the interest of employers to employ such personnelfor longer period of time so that their-onthe-jobtraining and experience can be fully utilised.In 1998, the demand for temporary jobs forworkers with lower levels of education was ratedup to 84%, while demand for workers with a universitydegree was just 55% (IMAD, 1999).The average duration of a temporary job decreasedfrom 8 months in 1996 to 7 in 1997 and1998, and it increased again in first half of 1999 to7.2 months. This seems to be the lowest acceptableduration for job seekers and optimal for employersfrom an economic and organisational point ofview. The most frequent duration of temporaryjobs are to be found in three groups: less than 3months (30.0% of the total), between 4 to 6months (30.2%), and between 10 to 12 months(29.6%). Temporary work is very important fortwo groups of people: the unemployed and thoseseeking their first employment. In 1998 80% ofunemployed persons and 88% of first time jobseekers found temporary jobs. This is due to thelack of experience of first time job seekers and forthe unemployed it is in most cases related to theirlack of appropriate education or their age. Manyof these workers after the end of their temporaryjob again become unemployed and move in andout of employment (Verša, 1996, 1999).Part time employmentThe statistics on part time employment depend onthe criteria used for the definition of part timeemployment. Data for Slovenia in the table comparingSlovenia with EU countries participatingin the project are based on the definition of theStatistical Office of Slovenia that in the LFS usesthe criteria for part time as working less than 36hours per week. This is not necessarily the samedefinition as in some other countries where thislimit is set at fewer hours. Therefore, the numberof persons with explicit contracts of employmentwith shorter working hours is considerably lowerthan that based on the criteria used by SORS(Kramberger, A., Ignjatovič, M. (2000)). Thus theconclusion that the share of persons in employmentworking part time in Slovenia is very muchbelow that of EU15, and even more below that ofthe three compared EU countries, is furtherstrengthened.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

112 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityTable 4. Share of persons in employment working part time (per cent)Slovenia EU15 Netherlands Sweden UK1991 13.7 32.6 21.91992 34.5 23.01993 5.3 14.7 35.0 23.31994 5.4 36.4 23.81995 5.7 16.0 37.3 25.0 24.01996 6.7 16.4 38.1 24.5 24.61997 7.2 16.9 38.0 24.5 24.91998 7.31999 6.1Source:SORS, Labour Force Surveys, Rapid Reports, various numbersFor EU Countries for 1997, Eurostat, Labour Force Survey, results 1997 in Eurostat yearbook, A statistical eye on Europe, edition98/99, p. 136-139 and SORS, Statistical yearbook, various years.One of the interesting features of the Sloveniansituation with regard to part time employment incomparison with the three EU countries underconsideration is the gender composition of thepart time employment. In Slovenia in 1999 theshare of part time employment for men was 5.2%and for women 7.2%. In EU15 the share of womenemployed part time as per cent of all employedwomen was 32.4%, in Netherlands 67.9%, in UK44.9% and in Sweden 41.4%. (Eurostat, 1999).Thus, in the EU countries analysed the gap betweenpart time employment of women and parttime employment of men is very large, while inSlovenia the difference is very small. This will bean interesting issue to study further in the project.It is clear that in Slovenia the labour marketchanges did not bring about many changes toflexible forms of work, and that also the potentialimportance of part time employment has not yetmaterialised. It seems that in Slovenia, part timeemployment manifests itself mostly as an individualstrategy of employment under exceptionalcircumstances. Thus, the most frequent reasonsfor part time employment are illness, handicapsand partial retirement. In many cases such personsget additional income from social securitysources (Verša, 1999). The regulations with respectto part time employment and retirementrights are rigid and do not stimulate either theemployers or the workers to make such arrangements.This is a serious obstacle for the use of parttime employment as a tool in general rather thanonly in the individual cases mentioned above.Flexibility of timeTables 5, 6 and 7 indicate the proportion of employedpersons that are involved in shift work,night work and Saturday, Sunday and overtimework. With respect to part time work, which wasdiscussed in section 2.1.1.2, it is of interest to explorea distinction between full time and part timework for all categories in Table 2. Kramberger andIgnjatovič (2000) analysed individual responsesfrom the LFS for the period 1991-1999. Theyfound that 68.9% of persons in employment wereemployed full time in permanent jobs, only 1.8%were employed in permanent jobs part time, and8.2% were employed full time in temporary jobs,with 0.4% employed part time in temporary jobsin 1999. The rest were employers, self employed,family workers and others. This means that thereis ample scope for introducing a range of flexibleforms of work time.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Five. Literature review: Slovenia 113Table 5. Shift work of employed persons by sex, age and education, %Never Sometimes Regularly TotalTotal 67.9 6.8 25.3 100by sexMen 68.3 7.1 24.6 100Women 67.4 6.6 26.0 100by educationElementary school or less 65.1 8.4 26.5 100Vocational school 58.8 7.8 33.4 100Upper secondary school 68.6 6.3 25.2 100College, university and more 88.0 3.9 8.1 100Source: SORS (1999)Table 6. Night work of employed persons by sex, age and education, %Never Sometimes Regularly TotalTotal 75.6 12.7 11.7 100by sexMen 69.2 17.5 13.3 100Women 82.4 7.5 10.1 100by educationElementary school or less 72.2 11.2 16.5 100Vocational school 74.2 12.9 13.0 100Upper secondary school 77.9 11.8 10.4 100College, university and more 78.8 15.8 5.3 100Source: SORS (1999)Table 7. Frequency of work on Saturdays and Sundays and overtime work, %Never Sometimes Regularly TotalSaturday work 34.6 42.2 23.2 100Sunday work 66.9 20.8 12.2 100Overtime work 41.3 44.2 14.5 100Source: SORS (1999)Flexible place of workThe distribution of work places has several dimensions.From the point of an individual it isimportant to consider the distance between theplace of work and his/her home, on the one hand,and the distribution of places of his/her workactivity (at home, in one place, in several places,etc.) on the other. From the point of view of local,regional or national development, it is relevant tostudy the spatial distribution of working places inrelation to places of residence.In Slovenia the population is residentiallyrather dispersed, while the working places aremuch more concentrated in towns. This means,© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

114 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilitythat there is substantial daily commuting to work.According to SORS at the end of 1999 there weredata for 722 890 employed persons, enabling acomparison between the municipality in whichthey work and the municipality in which theyreside. Of those 279 946 (38.7%) were employed indifferent municipalities than the municipality oftheir residence. Labour migration between municipalitiesis usually limited to short distances, soit takes place mostly with neighbouring municipalities.The municipality of Ljubljana is the onlyone that attracts a labour force from the wholeterritory of the region. Beside that, it extends itsgravitational pull to other regions, especially toGorenjska region. The gravitational area of themunicipality of Ljubljana comprises 30% of theterritory of Slovenia and 38% of the total population.There are only four other regional centers ofemployment (Maribor, Celje, Novo mesto andMurska Sobota), while all other municipalitieswith concentrations of jobs remain just local centers(Dolenc, 2000).Information on flexibility of place is veryscarce. In interviewing enterprises it has beenfound that teleworking can be performed in almostone half of enterprises, i.e. in the majority ofenterprises, which have access to the Internet.Approximately one half of these enterprises alreadyuse teleworking. Internet connects theiremployees to their enterprise and they work fromhome at least a few hours per month. However, inmost cases teleworking is restricted to one or twopersons in the enterprise (RIS, 1999).2.2. Subjective attitudesIn 1999 a survey was carried out on a sample of2000 persons, age 16 years and older, who wereeither employed or unemployed and activelyseeking work. It excluded self-employed persons,farmers, unpaid family workers and personsworking on contracts or doing casual work(SORS, 1999). In this survey several questionswere posed about attitudes to the increase or decreasein working time, shift work, night work,and work on Saturdays and Sundays. The shareof persons employed full time that indicated apreference for part time work was 16%: 14% ofmen and 19% of women. Age differences showedthat 40% of those aged 50 and over and 24% ofthose aged 16 to 29 expressed this preference.Also people with the highest qualifications aremore inclined to want part time employment thanothers. Preparedness to work on Saturdays, Sundaysand night work among those that are notalready sometimes or regularly working underthese arrangements is below 20%. It is of interestthat preparedness for commuting to work of employedpersons is high, 60% of them expressedreadiness to commute (67% of men and 51% ofwomen). The readiness to commute increasedwith the level of education and decreased withage. For 82% of employed persons, a commutingtime of between one and two hours was acceptable.Also, 28% of the employed persons indicatedthat they would prefer shorter working times atthe same monthly wage to the same working timewith an increased monthly wage (SORS, 1999).This means that there is substantial scope for increasedflexibility also from the point of view of alarge number of employed persons and that moreflexible institutional arrangements with appropriatesafeguards for workers rights would be of interestfor both employers and employees.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Five. Literature review: Slovenia 115Table 8. Preferences for part time work of persons employed for full time, %Part time employment Full time employment TotalTotal 16.0 84.0 100by sexMen 13.7 86.3 100Women 18.6 81.4 100by age16-29 years 24.0 76.0 10030-49 years 9.3 90.7 10050 years and over 39.5 60.5 100by educationElementary school or less 17.4 82.6 100Vocational school 17.1 82.9 100Upper secondary school 10.3 89.8 100College, university and more 22.0 78.0 100Source: SORS (1999)Table 9. Preparedness for work on Saturdays and Sundays and night work of employed persons, %YesNoAlready work(sometimes, regularly)Saturday work 17.2 17.4 65.4 100Sunday work 17.3 49.7 33.1 100Night work 20.0 54.9 24.4 100Source: SORS (1999)TotalTable 10. Preparedness for commuting to work of employed persons, %Yes No TotalTotal 60.4 39.6 100by sexMen 68.8 31.2 100Women 51.4 48.6 100by age16-29 years 67.9 32.1 10030-49 years 60.7 39.3 10050 years and over 43.4 56.6 100by educationElementary school or less 46.6 53.4 100Vocational school 65.7 34.3 100Upper secondary school 68.1 31.9 100College, university and more 72.5 27.5 100Source: SORS (1999)© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

116 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibility2.3. Policy orientation and regulationsThe importance of work flexibility is widely recognized.This is the case for employers, employees,family members, Government, and the academiccommunity. However, their focus and interestsvary very much. In general terms it is recognizedthat a more flexible situation on the labourmarket is of importance for safeguardingworking places and providing new employmentopportunities. Prešern (1998) mentions five elementsof European and Slovenian inflexibility:rigidity of wages, reluctance of the labour force,restrictive collective agreements, duration of workand worker qualifications in relation to the needsof the firms. Lipičnik (2000) points to variouskinds of flexibility that are connected with thework organisation of the firm and emphasises theimportance of flexible work for timely adjustmentsto the new situation on the product markets.Kajzer (1996) examines in more detail theimportance of labour market flexibility on unemployment.In discussions of economic policy attention iscalled to the fact that if and when Slovenia entersthe EMU, one of the alternative mechanisms foradjustment will be lost and the burden of adjustmentswill fall to a greater extent on the levels ofactivity, employment and wages. This means thatthe flexibility of the labour market and of the labourforce will be even more important than now(Lavrač, 1998). Whether Slovenia will be fullmember of the EU earlier or later has further repercussionsfor this issue. It is expected that anearlier full membership would, among otherthings, increase the flexibility of the labour market(Svetličič, 1999). The Government has been awareof the need to increase work flexibility, but untilnow no general consensus between employers,labour unions and Government on this issue hasbeen reached. Further discussions about suchprovisions in the new draft labour legislation areexpected to continue with the new Governmentand in the new Parliament that was elected in2000.The issues of work flexibility are muchbroader than the above mentioned flexibilisationwithin firms or in relation to the macroeconomicframework. On the one hand, they are related tothe terms and conditions of employment attachedto such jobs, and the status of the people involved.Working time is a complex economic andsociological phenomenon (Verša, 1994, Svetlik,1994). On the other hand, flexibility of work canhave both positive and negative effects on thefamily life and household strategies. On this issuethere is much more material in literature fromother countries; in Slovenia there is hardly anysystematic comprehensive treatment of this.2.4. The position of employers and labour unionsIt has been evident that most of the debates consideringflexibility and work from employers andlabour unions are related to two things: the processof entering the EU and the forthcoming LabourLaw. The first factor – entering the EU – focusesmainly on consistency with European labourlaws. In the second case, employers are lookingfor ways of liberalising employment regulationsand are critical of the forthcoming draft outlineof the new Labour Law in this respect. Theybelieve that the draft of the new law does notforesee new work forms, which are well establishedin Europe, and are a consequence of globalization:the need for a flexible labour market, theneed for segmentation of the market and the informationrevolution. On the other hand, labourunions are afraid that employers are interpretingwork flexibility too liberally, which may lead tonew ways of exploiting workers and will result ineven greater social and economic divisions.Back in 1997, when the 1997 draft of the LabourLaw was published, the first critical remarksfrom employers’ side emerged. Some of those remarkswere connected with flexibility of work.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Five. Literature review: Slovenia 117Some suggestions mentioned that the paragraphon fixed time work (temporary jobs) should beerased, since such contracts were limited to amaximum duration of 3 years. Employers suggestthat this could lead to even higher unemploymentand does not fit with demands for labour marketflexibility. There was also a suggestion that a cutof weekly working hours (from 42 to 40) for fixedtime jobs (temporary jobs) would be introduced inthe new law. A joint agreement at the roundtableof employers’ organizations was that the new lawdoes not take into account the need for additionalflexibility, which could lead to the creation of newemployment (Potočnik, 1997).The draft of the new Labour Law underpreparation in 2000 once again provoked commentsby employers suggesting that it raises labourcost and reduces flexibility of employment.In their opinion it would lead to decreasing competitivenessof companies and thus to a furtherreduction in job vacancies. The demand to harmonizethe new Labour Law with EU legislationwas getting even stronger. While employers arguethat jobs of limited duration are important in viewof uncertainty in the market, labour unions emphasisethat employers are sometimes misusingthis form of employment to reduce the rights ofthe workers. Nevertheless, all sides of the debatewere aware that a temporary job is an importantform of flexible employment.At the same time employers mention thatpart time jobs should be used more frequently asa work option. This would offer broader workoptions for those who are keen to telework andcan support the situation of young parents withfamily obligations (Mišič, 1999). Labour unionswere not convinced by these arguments. One exampleof the obstacles placed in the way of therecognition of part time work is that the currentlegislation does not allow part time workers to beallowed to apply for bank loans (ibid).In 2000 negotiations between Government,employers and labour unions continued throughoutthe summer, with no further progress. Employersare of the opinion that all crucial questionsare still open. Even though the preparationof new Labour Law is in the last phase, employersbelieve that the consensus has not been reachedyet on the following issues: flexibility of temporaryjob options and overtime work, and actualfull work time schedule (Kern, 2000).3. INFORMAL, DOMESTIC AND ADDITIONAL WORKWith regard to the informal economy, it is estimatedthat (Kukar et al., 1994) about 26.5 per centof the active population are active in hidden orinformal activities. Converted into the number offull-time employees (FTE) a figure of 80,000 persons(or 9.6 per cent of the labour force) was estimated.Altogether the scope of the hidden economy(unreported and untaxed incomes) mightrepresent 17 to 21 per cent of the registered GDPin Slovenia in 1993. However, the hidden activitiesare a bigger problem for tax authorities thanfor the statistical evidence (Sicherl, Kukar, 1996).It is obvious that the work in the informaleconomy is an important way of earning someincome for unemployed and discouraged personsin the transition depression. Under the circumstances,informal work represents a means of survivalwhen the opportunities for formal forms ofwork have declined substantially. It is very difficultto estimate the size of the informal work inthe economy, but it is no doubt substantial. Thereis also some tradition in helping friends and/orneighbours with maintenance, building and repairof dwellings and with agricultural work. Inthe countryside there are many instances wherepeople combine either formal or informal workoutside the household with agricultural work.Since the economic recovery there are more opportunitiesfor formal employment and the needfor informal work may be decreasing. In Sloveniathe informal work by illegal immigrants is unimportant.This type of mobility is probably influ-© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

118 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityencing the labour market situation in several EUcountries (as indicated by Verlič, 1999), but Sloveniais at present only under pressure from illegalmigrants using it as a transit route on theirway to EU countries.Table 11 gives some preliminary indicationof the distribution of paid work and domesticwork, although it is based on a very small sizedsample in 1996. For men, paid work accounted for41 hours each week and domestic work for 17hours. For women, the figures were 34 hours and30 hours respectively. While in the household thework of women is dominant, in Slovenia the positionof women in the labour market is relativelyclose to that of men as indicated by one of thehighest activity rates for women in comparisonwith EU countries (surpassed only by Scandinaviancountries). Women make up 47.4% of all personsin paid employment and the largest proportionof students and graduates at university level,which may help with their future position in thelabour market. Yet they continue to shoulder adouble burden of domestic as well as paid work.One additional motivation for informal workin Slovenia, both for employers and for the workersis the structure of the tax system. The negativefeature of the Slovenian tax system is that there isrelatively high personal income tax and high socialsecurity contributions as a percentage of labourcosts (Stanovnik, 2000). The high burden ofretirement payments in a situation of a substantiallychanged pensioners/employees ratio andexisting standards of health and educational servicesindirectly influence the amount of publicspending and is unlikely to reduce the incentivesto participate in the informal economy under thecurrent regulatory framework.4. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FAMILY AND WORKThe analysis of the relationship between familyand work is a very complex undertaking. It is influencedby conditions in the labour market onthe one hand, and by the objective circumstancesof the economic, social and demographic conditionsof the household along with the subjectivepreferences of the members of the household, onthe other hand. At this stage of the project onlyseparate aspects of this problem can be commentedupon.Time use studies are an important source ofinformation about the division of labour betweenmen and women and the revealed preferences fortime use as one of the aspects of a householdstrategy. The Statistical Office of the Republic ofSlovenia has been executing a time use survey,with a sample of more than 4000 persons, interviewingthe respective portions of the wholesample over 4 quarters. The last period of interviewswill be January 1–March 30, 2001. By theend of this year the results of the first quarter ofinterviews will be published by SORS, which willrepresent an important source of information inthis respect. At the moment some preliminaryresults of a pilot phase of 300 interviews in 1996are available. These results should not be consideredas representative for Slovenia as a whole, butthey can still serve as an indication of orders ofmagnitude.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Five. Literature review: Slovenia 119Table 11. Time use of employed persons (men and women) / Hours per weekPaid work 41 34Household and family together 17 30- Housekeeping 9 24- Maintenance, building and repairs 5 1- Taking care of children and adults 2 4- Shopping and services 1 1Sleeping 56 57Consumption of meals, personal hygiene 14 12Free time together 30 26- TV 14 10- Reading 3 3- Companionship 7 8- Sports activities and activities in nature 3 2- Other 3 3Travel time 10 9Total (hours) 168 168Source: SORS (1999a), results are based on a pilot survey of 300 households in 1996,which should not be considered representative for Slovenia as a whole.MenWomenThe greatest difference in the time allocation betweenmen and women is in housekeeping work,with 9 hours per week for men and 24 hours perweek for women. On the other hand, the differencein hours of paid work is much less pronounced:41 hours for men and 34 hours forwomen. A significant portion of time is allocatedalso for travel for both men and women. Bearingin mind the problems with this survey, two pointsstand out. First, women on average use nearly asmuch time for household and family related workas for paid work. Second, at the same time theinvolvement of women in paid employment issubstantial and the time they devote to paid workreaches more than 80% of the respective hours ofwork per week for men. As mentioned earlier,women represent 47.5% of persons in paid employment.While one should wait for more accurate assessmentsof the distribution of work outside andwithin the household from the time use survey inprogress, other statistics indicate that the positionof women in the labour market in Slovenia isclose to that of men. The conditions that promotesuch involvement of women stem predominantlyfrom the policy orientation of the former socialistself-management system. It placed great importanceupon the provision of facilities that wouldenable women to take part in paid employment.This included, among other things, building kindergartenfacilities, providing for extended supervisionof children in schools, organising mealsin enterprises, organisations and schools, andproviding a long period of paid maternal leave.These facilities have contributed to the fact thatwomen have not fared worse than men even duringthe period of transition depression. Furthermore,the activity rate for women aged 25 to 49 ispractically the same as for men of the same age,while a decade ago it was less. However, there arenow also some examples of firms having refrainedfrom hiring mothers with young childrenin order to avoid these regulations. A more flexibleand even-handed set of work regulations andan increased openness towards flexible employmentarrangements on the side of employers andemployees might help to overcome some of theseexisting problems. This would facilitate the reconciliationof paid work and domestic work bymembers of the household.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

120 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityCONCLUSIONSPublic opinion about flexibility has not yet crystallizedin Slovenia. Thus the discourse on workflexibility is mainly lacking and the old regulationsregarding employment tend to promote rigidityrather than flexibility. Nor has beenreached an agreement yet about flexibility in theprocess of social dialogue between employers andlabour unions, though the social dialogue is continuing.Like other transition countries, Slovenia isfacing a situation of rapid change in the labourmarket and in the institutions surrounding it. Despitebeing also faced with the disintegration ofYugoslavia, Slovenia has come through the transitionrelatively well and employment has pickedup since the deepest depression point in the early1990s.There are two main flexible forms of employmentin Slovenia: part time work and temporarywork. The share of temporary jobs is similarto that in EU countries, but the share of part timework is much lower. Flexibilisation has thereforemeant mainly the introduction of temporary workcontracts. These temporary work contracts aremore advantageous for some workers than forothers: for the unemployed and for beginningworkers they do not lead to permanent jobs in thesame way as for some other categories of workers.There is substantial involvement in the informaleconomy that reflects the survival responsesof people undergoing the stress of transitionwith the drop in employment and rise in unemployment.It is likely that that more flexibilityis found in this sector.However, flexibility of place is in some respectswell developed in Slovenia. There is substantialdaily commuting to work although it isusually limited to short distances. The municipalityof Ljubljana is the only one that attracts labourforce from a much larger area; its gravitationalarea comprises 30% of the territory of Sloveniaand 38% of total population. However, attitudinalsurveys indicate considerable willingness tocommute also longer distances.There would seem to be considerable potentialscope for flexibilisation to judge by attitudinalsurveys. Employees were favourably inclined towardsmore time flexibility. From the side of employersthere is also an interest in liberalizingemployment regulations to improve flexibility.Flexibility is therefore seen positively by a rangeof different stakeholders, although, they perhapssupport different kinds of flexibility.An interesting feature of the Slovenian situationis that of women in both public and privatespheres. Women form 47.4% of the labour forceand the largest proportion of University students.The share of women in employment is one of thehighest in the European Union and moreovermost of them work full time. However, they alsodo most of the domestic work according to timebudget surveys, putting in substantially morehours than men in the home. Their situation ishelped by the rather generous benefits, maternityleave, kindergartens and employment regulationsthat support working mothers. Unlike in otherformer socialist countries, these have not been cut.This perhaps explains why the differences betweenmen’s and women’s participation in parttime work found throughout the EU is not foundso much in Slovenia – their rates of participationare almost the same. It will be interesting to see ifSlovenia manages to maintain this high level ofwelfare decommodification in the process of furtherEuropeanisation and modernization of thelabour market.The accession of Slovenia into the EuropeanUnion along with the passing of new labour marketlegislation will likely bring new changes in theintroduction of flexibility.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Five. Literature review: Slovenia 121ABBREVIATIONSESS – Employment Service of SloveniaETF – European Training FoundationHWF – Household, Work and FlexibilityIMAD, ZMAR – Institute of MacroeconomicAnalysis and DevelopmentLFS – Labour Force SurveySICENTER – Socio-economic Indicators CenterSORS – Statistical Office of Republic of SloveniaREFERENCESDolenc, D. (2000), ‘Delovna migracija v RepublikiSloveniji’, Statistical days 2000, Radenci.Domadenik, I. (2000), ‘Plače: v primežu stroškovdela’, Glas gospodarstva, januar.Pirher, S., Kraigher, T., Geržina, S., Klužer, F.(2000), Employment and labour market inSlovenia, Working document, National VETObservatory Slovenia, Ljubljana; ETF, Turin.Eurostat (1999), Eurostat yearbook, A statisticaleye on Europe, edition 98/99.Felstead, A., Jewson, N. (1999), Global Trends inFlexible Labour, MacMillian Press, Houndmill.IMAD (1999), Ekonomsko ogledalo, julij.Kajzer, A. (1996), Trg dela in brezposelnost vSloveniji, doktorska dizertacija.Kajzer, A. (ed.) (1999), Slovenia: Analysis of economicdevelopments and target developmentalscenario by 2003 (1999 Spring report). Instituteof Macroeconomic Analysis and Development,Ljubljana.Kern, M., ‘Pogajanja o zakonu o delovnih razmerjih’,http://www.ozs.si/slo/revija/clanki/zdruzenje.htm.Kramberger, A., Ignjatovič, M. (2000), ‘Fleksibilnosttrga dela in statistika’, Statistical days2000, Radenci.Lavrač, V. (1998), ‘Priprave na vključevanjeSlovenije v evropsko ekonomsko in monetarnounijo’, zbornik: Slovenija protiZdruženi Evropi, Društvo 2000, Ljubljana.Lipičnik, B. (2000), ‘Fleksibilna zaposlitev – zgoljmožnost ali potreba?’, Eurobilten, št. 14,januar.MEA (2000), Benchmarking Slovenia, Ministry ofEconomic Affairs, Ljubljana.Mišič, P. (1999), ‘Toga delovna razmerja’, Glasgospodarstva, julij-avgust.Pirher. S., Svetlik, I. (1994), Zaposlovanje PribliževanjeEvropi, FDV, Ljubljana.Potočnik, M. (1997), ‘Večji stroški dela na račundelodajalcev’, Glas gospodarstva, september.Potočnik, M. (2000), ‘Posnemati primerljivedržave’, Glas gospodarstva, januar.Prešeren, N. (1998), ‘Lani ugodna gospodarskagibanja’, Glas gospodarstva, novemberdecember.Prešeren, N.in M. Šiško-Debeljak (1997), ‘Konjukturav Evropi’, Glas gospodarstva, januar.RIS (1999), RIS 98 Survey of Companies, Abstract,http://www.ris.org/news33.html.Sicherl P., Kukar S. (1996), Situation and prospectsof Slovenia, SICENTER, Ljubljana.SORS (1999), Labour Market, Rapid Reports, No337, November.SORS (1999a), Kaj je anketa o porabi časa (APČ).SORS (2000), Rapid Reports, No 146, July.SORS, Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Slovenia,various years.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

122 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityStanovnik, T. (2000), background paper for chapter4 in MEA (2000) Benchmarking Slovenia,Ljubljana.Stropnik, N. (1999), ‘Socialna varnost v lučivključitve Slovenije v EU’, ZMAR.Svetličič, M. (1998), ‘Staregija razvoja Slovenije:Implikacije hitre oziroma odložene vključitvev Evropsko unijo’, ZMAR.Svetlik, I. (1994), Fleksibilne oblike dela in zaposlitvev Sloveniji, in Pirher. S., Svetlik, I.(1994), Zaposlovanje Približevanje Evropi,FDV, Ljubljana.Svetlik, I. et. all (1988), Neformalno delo, Delavskaenotnost, Ljubljana.Verlič – Christensen, B. (1999), ‘Stanovanjskapolitika po vključitvi Slovenije v EvropskoUnijo’, ZMAR.Verša, D. (1999), ‘Povpraševanje po delovni sili inzaposlovanje za določen čas’ ZRSZ, Ljubljana.Verša, D. (1996), Zaposlitve s krajšim delovnimčasov v Sloveniji, Teorija in praksa, št.4/1996.Verša, D. (1994), Pogled na delovno aktivne skozidelovni čas, in Pirher. S., Svetlik, I. (1994),Zaposlovanje Približevanje Evropi, FDV,Ljubljana.Vinay, P. (1996), ‘From Informal Flexibility to theNew Organization of Time’ in Women of theEuropean Union, Routledge, London.Vuković, V. (2000), ‘Slovenski trg dela ni fleksibilen’,Finance, 28. junij.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter SixHOUSEHOLDS, WORK AND FLEXIBILITYCritical Review of LiteratureCZECH REPUBLIC[ Jiri Vecernik and Petra Stepankova ][ Contents ]INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................1251. LABOR MARKET...............................................................................................................................1251.1. Job transitions .........................................................................................................................1251.2. Determinants of job transition..................................................................................................1261.3. Regional mobility – flexibility in terms of place........................................................................1261.4. Flexibility of unemployed persons ...........................................................................................1262. SOCIAL REPORTING .......................................................................................................................1272.1. Flows and shifts on the labor market ......................................................................................1272.2. Attitudes towards jobs .............................................................................................................1272.3. Social mobility..........................................................................................................................1283. GENDER STUDIES...........................................................................................................................1293.1. Household work.......................................................................................................................1293.2. Women in paid employment....................................................................................................1293.3. Gender disparities ...................................................................................................................130CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................................................130MAIN SOURCES OF EMPIRICAL DATA..................................................................................................131REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................................134© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

[ List of tables and figures ]Table 1. Time and samples of EEA surveys ...................................................................................... 131Table 2. Time and samples of Czech ISSP surveys.......................................................................... 132

Chapter Six. Literature review: Czech Republic 125INTRODUCTIONAt the outset we have to admit that it is very difficultto find any literature concerning work andhousehold flexibility in the Czech Republic. Theexplanation for this may be twofold. On the onehand, appropriate data are lacking, and on theother, long-term policies aimed at improvingflexibility have not been perceived as urgentlyimportant by policymakers in the early years oftransition, when employment was high due togenerous state support of large firms.Currently the issue of work flexibility hasbeen perceived as adverse to the social and economicpolicies of the Social Democratic government.No attempts to examine time budgets orhousehold work patterns have been made by theCzech Statistical Office since 1989, and only standardvariables concerning work contracts are describedin Labor Force Surveys. Sociological surveys,however, can provide some deeper insight.Here we have collected scarce available informationwhich is indirectly provided by the feweconomic and sociological studies that deal withour themes. Concretely speaking, we are drawingon three different sources that are partially relatedto work and household flexibility: labor economicsliterature, social reporting and gender studies.This is only a brief review of studies and literature.Most of the relevant information is yet to becollected and our work will be resumed in ourLabor market and work flexibility in the Czech Republic:Trend overview (see Vecernik and Stepankova2001).1. LABOR MARKET1.1. Job transitionsMost analyses of labor market flexibility use aggregatedata and examine transitions betweenthree employment states (unemployment, employment,out of labor force) and job-to-jobmovements. In 1993-1996, annual flows beweenthese states increased to include up to 20 percentof the labor force. Over half of the movementsconsisted of mobility between employment andeconomic inactivity, one-third between employmentand unemployment, and over one-tenth betweeneconomic inactivity (early retirement anddisability retirement, study and maternal leave)and unemployment.Moreover, nearly 40 percent of the laborforce had moved voluntarily to another employerduring 1992-1997, mainly within the same sectors(Flek and Vecernik, 1999). Conversely, Gottvald(1999) uses Labor Force Survey (LFS) data andcalculates the one year gross transition probabilitiesfor 1993-1998. However, he did not find suchfrequent changes of employment using this dataset. Moreover, he stresses that the probabilities ofremaining unemployed, employed, and out of thelabor force are increasing in time, which impliesthat the magnitude of flows between states – animperfect measure of flexibility – is actually decreasing.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

126 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibility1.2. Determinants of job transitionAnother approach which gives more detailed informationin identifying determinants of employmenttransitions is the analysis of individualleveldata. Multinominal logit analysis was appliedto find determinants and obtain estimates ofprobabilities of transition for an individual withcertain characteristics. Vit Sorm and KatherineTerrell (2000) analyzed employees’ mobility during1994-1998 in this way. They found thatyounger people seem to be experiencing thegreatest mobility, and that they are also morelikely to change jobs or find a new one when theybecome unemployed. According to Sorm and Terrell,less-educated people are more likely tochange their jobs, but are also more likely to losethem or to leave the labor force.Also interesting in Sorm and Terrell’s studyis that they discovered that married men are themost likely to keep their jobs, and that there aremore job-to-job movements among single men,who are, however, also more likely to becomeunemployed. Unemployed married men find jobsmore easily than single men. The other finding oftheir research is that there is a high turnover ratein the pool of the unemployed, and relativelyhigh job-to-job flows. Therefore, they concludethat the Czech labor market demonstrates a greatdegree of flexibility. This confirms the results ofsociological surveys that refer to a great mobility,in contrast to what LFS statistics may imply.1.3. Regional mobility – flexibility in terms of placeThere are not many specific studies that examineflexibility in terms of place, time or contractualarrangement. One exception is a study byMichaela Erbenova (1995) which deals with thelocal mobility of Czech workers in the early yearsof transition. By examining the annual migrationdata collected by Czech Statistical Office (CSO)and 1991 Population Census, Erbenova arguesthat gross migrations flows across regions havebeen steadily decreasing and suggests the lack ofhousing as the main obstacle to increased migration.On the other hand, the magnitude of dailycommuting is quite high and involves one-thirdof the labor force.Erbenova applies both the human capitaltheory of labor mobility and the concept of jobmatchingto explain incentives for migration andcommuting. Specifically, she shows that mobilityis determined by regional characteristics and bythe pecuniary and non-pecuniary costs of moving(such as costs of breaking links with family andfriends), that are in her analysis captured by adistance variable. However, she concludes that abetter understanding of regional mobility incentivesrequires an analysis of individual-level data.No attempt to analyze the LFS data from thispoint of view has been realized, however.1.4. Flexibility of unemployed personsThe relatively richest sources of informationabout the flexibility of the Czech labor market arestudies concerning unemployment. Many sociologistsand economists tried to describe a favorablepattern of unemployment in the Czech Republicduring the early years of transition, andtherefore also examined the flexibility of the unemployedworkers. These papers focus on:! The impact of passive labor market policy onthe flexibility of the unemployed workers.Erbenova, Sorm and Terrell (1998) analyzeeffects of social assistance and unemploymentbenefits. Looking at the LFS data for1994-1995, they found that individuals comingfrom low-income families with morechildren tend to stay unemployed longer© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Six. Literature review: Czech Republic 127than those with relatively fewer dependants.This study suggests the existence of a link betweenhousehold characteristics and theflexibility of household labor supply.! The impact of active labor market policy(ALMP) on the flexibility of the labor marketand the potential of ALMP for improving it(Frydmanova and Zamrazilova, 1999a and1999b; Sirovatka, 1997).! The incidence of increasing long-term unemployment(Hirsl, 1999; Frydmanova and Zamrazilova,1999a) that reduces search efforts,and due to the depreciation of human capital,also decreases the employability of workers.2. SOCIAL REPORTINGLess quantitative and more qualitative assessmentof workers’ households’ flexibility is provided bysocial reports. An overview of social reporting isprovided by Vecernik, 2000. In the first Social Reportof the Czech Republic (Vecernik and Matejueds. 1999), the flexibility issue was indirectly tackledfrom three points of view: labor flows andshifts, attitudes toward job and work, and socialmobility.2.1. Flows and shifts on the labor marketDuring the long decades of the communist regimein the Czech Republic, the model of life-long employmentwas enforced and supported by statepolicy, as well as by firms and organizations. Atthe time, seniority was one of the main criteria foraccess to important positions and social advantages.Labor mobility was considered undesirableand employees who changed jobs without sufficientreasons were suspect. Residential mobilityhealth or serious family reasons were the onlylegitimate circumstances for a job change withinthe centralized labor system. Moreover, a homogenousand wage-equalized system offered noincentives to employees to move.During the transformation period, flows andshifts in the Czech Republic’s workforce increasedconsiderably in all forms: inter-company, industry,occupational, and territorially. Nevertheless,there is little tendency towards occupational mobilityand retraining, even though the demand forskilled labor has grown. As a consequence of theslow pace of modernization, low growth in laborproductivity, and the strategy of using cheap labor,there is little pressure to lay off workers fromless productive jobs.Likewise, there are also limited possibilitiesfor promote workers to highly-productive positionswhich demand high skill levels. Wage differencesstill do not fully reflect the skill level ofwork, although the education premium has increasedconsiderably. Important wage differencesendure between the public and private sectors(Vecernik, 2001). Since firms are still backwards intechnology and organization, so far there hasbeen no demand for more extensive retraining(Frydmanova et al., 1999).2.2. Attitudes towards jobsIn people’s minds, there is more desire for autonomythan there is willingness to act on this desire.According to the ISSP-1997 survey, 40 percent ofeconomically active respondents said they wouldhypothetically prefer to be self-employed or entrepreneurs,yet only 10 percent actually took theinitiative. On the other hand, nearly threequartersof those preferring a regular job respondedthat they would rather work for the statethan a private organization, which illustrates the© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

128 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityimportance of social security. Only minor differencesexist in how each group judges their ownwork effort: over half of each group concede thatthey work to the best of their abilities even incases where the job infringes on their personallife.In the assessment of factors influencing lifesuccess the ISSP results were rather predictable.Whereas the self-employed consider attainmentfactors (having ambitions, being gifted, and workinghard) to be the most important, wagedependentemployees tended to consider ascriptivefactors to be decisive (family wealth, welleducatedparents and one’s own education). It isquite common that when considered “from theinside”, better standing and wealth seem to behard-earned, while “from the outside”, they appearas unmerited and the results of outside influence.An international comparison reflects Czechattitudes towards work rather critically. Czechrespondents still show remarkably strong signs ofCommunist-era attitudes – that is, the need for jobsecurity combined with dissatisfaction in theircurrent jobs. Many Czechs are strongly dissatisfiedwith their jobs and are convinced that withsome effort they could find another. Czechs arethe least likely to show pride in their jobs and arethe most willing to change their present positionsshould a better opportunity arise (42 percent).Related to this is a weak loyalty towards theiremployers. Pride among Czechs in the companyor organization in which they work is the leastpronounced among all of the surveyed countries(Vecernik, 1999; see also Work values and perceivedconditions in CEE and EU countries Vecernik 2000).2.3. Social mobilityIn the first period of transformation, one of themost frequent causes of changes in social statuswas a significant decrease in the employmentrate. If we ignore the consequences of the drop inemployment, the growth in social mobility at thebeginning of transformation was not as great asexpected. The rather minor changes in employmentand occupational structures blocked a radicalgrowth in social mobility. Nonetheless, a newgroup of entrepreneurs and small businessmenwas born, and important transfers between certainbranches of the economy occurred, mostly inthe favor of the service sector. Such transfers betweenbranches, however, generally did not leadto social mobility, because in most cases they didnot involve any fundamental changes in the workbeing performed.Circulation mobility was also relatively limited,which means that no large-scale exchange ofpeople on the basis of skills or other criteria occurred.Analyses indicate that during the first periodof transformation, there was greater mobilityamong people who occupied positions that in thepast had been filled according to political criteria(the nomenklatura system). However, these analysesdo not indicate that this growth in mobilitywas accompanied by a strengthening of the role ofmeritocratic criteria.Subjective mobility was thus actually significantlygreater than objective mobility in terms ofclass and status. This implies that stability, fromthe standpoint of the placement of individuals inthe class structure, did not necessarily indicatestability in their life-chances, because those whoremained in the same jobs and positions also feltthese changes. This indicates the existence of arather substantial collective mobility, which hasevoked a feeling of changing life-chances amongentire social groups and classes. In this respect, itis very interesting to us how entrance into thegroup of the self-employed has had a much biggerimpact on the perception of change in lifechancesthan other types of mobility (Mateju,1999).© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Six. Literature review: Czech Republic 1293. GENDER STUDIESBesides the labor market studies and the socialreports, there is a gender-based literature that focuseson household characteristics and their impacton work flexibility, and compares the flexibilityof women as compared to men.3.1. Household workThe picture of a typical Czech household by theend of 1990s has the man still as the main breadwinnerand the woman working because her salaryis an important supplement to the householdincome. (Bartosova, 1994; Krizkova, 1999).Women also perform most of the householdchores. While the five most frequent tasks (washing,caring for the sick, minor repairs, shopping,cooking) cannot be labeled as only women’s ormen’s work, women in the Czech Republic oftendo some of the stereotypical men’s work.Women’s employment is influenced by theirimplicit or explicit “second shifts” in housework.Despite the increasing requirements employershave imposed on women, there has not been anysharp increase in the demand for external paid orunpaid services in carrying out household and –partly – family responsibilities. Only one percentof households take advantage of such a possibility(Krizkova, 1999).3.2. Women in paid employmentThe labor participation of women is quite high,and the decrease in working hours for motherscaring for children has been lower than expected(Bartosova, 1994). Part-time jobs are still rare.Cermakova (2000) reports that those women whorequest part-time jobs are usually not hired.Czech employers do not think in terms of the potentialpositive outcomes that would come ofmeeting the family needs of their employees. Onthe other hand, half of employers agree to modifythe working hours of women with children ofpreschool age.Paid work performed at home (over the telephoneor computer) is exceptional. This work arrangementrequires a substantial change in theattitudes of both employers and employees towardswork and employment. Moreover, PCs andinternet connections are far from standardequipment in Czech households. Therefore, itdoes not seem likely that work at home will becomepopular any time soon.Another form of employment that allowswomen a greater degree of flexibility in workinghours is private business. Data from the CzechRepublic display quite a high share of womenwho are self-employed, either with employees(2.2 percent) or without employees (6.6 percent)(Kucharova, 1999). At the same time, women tendto be entrepreneurs and managers less often thenmen, and fewer of them have a second job (Bartosova,1997). Also, many self-employment opportunitiesfor women are of low quality and offerpoor remuneration.Gender-based studies have also examinedseveral factors concerning women’s flexibilitywhen they leave or lose a job. Kucharova (1999)claims that women are more likely than men tostop working for personal or family reasons. Shealso points out specific problems which womenface in unemployment. For instance, the youngerand more educated generation of women has difficultiesin returning to work after a maternityleave, since their qualifications no longer fit therequirements of the labor market.Regarding mobility, women face both socially-determinedbarriers to promotion to highmanagement positions and barriers due to theirdual roles and associated breaks in their careers(Kucharova, 1999). Female graduates generallyhave a secondary position on the labor market.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

130 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityThe main underlying reasons for this are the nonexistenceof legal guarantees that would ensureequal opportunities, and the fact that the femalegraduates are often offered positions with lowerrequirements, mainly within the state sector. Employersdeclare that women are not willing to improvetheir qualifications, and therefore rate femalegraduates as less competent workers thantheir male counterparts (Cermakova, 2000).3.3. Gender disparitiesThe weak status of skilled labor, dominance ofpolitical criteria, and application of the “needsprinciple” under the communist regime resultedin a far greater prevalence of demographiccharacteristics of workers over economic ones indetermining the level of earnings. In the CzechRepublic in particular, gender was by far the mostsignificant explanatory variable in wage disparities.Age was also important because of the coincidenceof its generational and career meanings.The “founders of the communist regime” (youthof 1948) were treated preferentially for theirwhole lives. Together with this pattern, older ageserved as a “special qualification” for top management.As compared with gender and age, highskills and special job requirements had muchlower importance (Vecernik, 1991).Regression analyses of 1988 and 1996 datadocument extensive or even revolutionarychanges in the earnings structure. While in 1988,gender alone explained 30.5 percent of the varianceof earnings, its importance decreased to amere 12.6 percent in 1996. This obviously does notmean that the gender wage gap decreased thatdramatically, but suggests that the significance ofthis dimension has diminished in the context ofthe dramatically evolving earnings structure.Also, results of the SIALS survey support the hypothesisthat while with men characteristics ofeducation and experience function relativelyseparately and, therefore, one could be then replacedby the other, both job requirements have tobe met by women simultaneously (Vecernik,2001).CONCLUSIONThe main message of this literature survey is thatwork and household flexibility deserve more research.Specifically, the division of the labor supplybetween market and household activities,working time schedules and working conditionsin paid jobs, and legal arrangements between employersand employees are issues that have notbeen investigated so far. A better understandingof the factors that increase or reduce flexibilitywould be desirable for designing better policiesand increasing the efficiency of the labor market.This also concerns policies supporting harmonizationbetween family and working life, the divisionof tasks between men and women, and also careerand professional mobility.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Six. Literature review: Czech Republic 131MAIN SOURCES OF EMPIRICAL DATASociological surveysSocial Stratification in Eastern Europeafter 1989 (SSEE)The survey was conducted in 1993 in Bulgaria(N=4919), Czech Republic (4737 + 884 oversamplingin Prague), Hungary (4977), Russia(5002) and Slovakia (4920), and later in 1994 inPoland (3520). Donald J. Treiman and Ivan Szelenyconducted the international comparative researchproject from the University of California inLos Angeles. The questionnaires used in individualcountries included fully comparative questions,from which the international file was created.The Institute of Sociology of the Academy ofSciences prepared the survey in the Czech Republic.Data collection occurred in March and April of1993 and was carried out by the Czech StatisticalOffice, using a sub-sample of the Microcensus1992. One-third of households surveyed by Microcensus1992 was addressed by SSEE questionnaire.Within households, individuals over 18years of age were randomly selected. The samplewas intentionally increased in Prague for the purposeof urban geography.Economic Expectations and Attitudes (EEA)The surveys of the Czechoslovak and later onlyCzech population started in May 1990 and wereconducted biannually in 1990–1992 and later annually(1993–1998). Surveys were organised bythe team of socio-economics of the Institute ofSociology of the Academy of Sciences headed byJiri Vecernik. The samples include adults selectedby a two-step quota sampling procedure,whereby the region and size of the locality weredefined in the first step and gender, age and educationin the second. The data was collected bythe Center for Empirical Research STEM.Table 1. Time and samples of EEA surveysRank Collection Czech SlovakI. May, 1990 1107 544II. December, 1990 1160 584III. June, 1991 1092 597IV. December, 1991 1126 583V. July, 1992 1104 980VI. January, 1993 1142 829VII. November, 1993 1113 853VIII. November, 1994 1307 816IX. January, 1996 1459 -X. January, 1997 1421 -XI. April, 1998 1380 -© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

132 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityInternational Social Survey Program (ISSP)A long-term international research project, whichoriginated in 1983 and is based on internationaland inter-project co-operation in the areas of thesocial sciences. Since 1983, the number of participantshas grown continually, reaching 29 in 1998.Each year, research on one topic is conducted inall participating countries. These topics are thenprepared by all participants over several years,and are then processed at team meetings. Allquestionnaires are designed and prepared in BritishEnglish and their final versions are then translatedinto the other national languages of participatingcountries. The institutes of the participatingcountries are responsible for the collection,initial preparation, and documentation of data fortheir country. Since 1991, The Institute of Sociologyof the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republichas been the Czech member of ISSP.Table 2. Time and samples of Czech ISSP surveys:ISSP Topic Fieldwork agency Month of data collection Sample size1992 Social Inequality STEM October 11011993 Environment STEM November 10051994 Family and Gender Universitas September 10241995 National Identity Amasia November 11111996 Role of Government STEM October-December 11001997 Work Orientations STEM September-November 10141998 Religion SC&C June-July 1999 12231999 Social Inequality and JusticeSTEM January-February 1834(ISSP 1999 on Social Inequality)2000 Environment SC&C October 1244(Second) International Adult Literacy Survey(SIALS)A long-term international research project, whichoriginated in 1995 and is backed by StatisticsCanada and ETS at University Princeton. the surveyis focused on detailed surveying of so-calledfunctional literacy of adult persons based on testingtheir abilities to understand printed informationand use it in everyday life. Czech data werecollected by agency SC&C in December 1997 –April 1998 on 3132 respondents (from 5000 targeted).Ten Years of Societal TransformationSurvey on social structure and mobility was carriedon in the fourth quarter of 1999 on 4744 adultpersons 18-60 years of age. Fieldworks were conductedby the Institute of Sociology, Academy ofSciences of the Czech Republic under heading ofMilan Tucek. Samplig was based on stratifiedrandom sample of 8,000 addresses selected by theCzech Statistical Office. Completion of samplewas made by random walk.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Six. Literature review: Czech Republic 133Statistical surveysMicrocensusLarge income surveys started in 1958 as regularstatistical surveys conducted every 3–5 years on1–2 percent samples of households. Data onwages were notified by employers and pensionbenefits by post-offices. Here, we used the 1989Microcensus conducted by the CSO on a 2 percentrandom sample (N=69,912) in March 1989 includingyearly incomes in 1988, the 1992 Microcensus,conducted by the CSO on a 0.5 percent randomsample (N=16,234) in March 1993 and includingyearly incomes in 1992, and the 1996 Microcensus,conducted by the CSO on a 1 percent randomsample (N=28,148) in March 1997 and includingyearly incomes in 1996. In the two later surveys,incomes were not confirmed but data correctionswere made by the CSO.Family Expenditures Survey (FES)FES as a regular survey series was established in1958 as a quota-sample based survey of householdsof manual workers (working class), nonmanualworkers (employees) and cooperativefarmers, with pensioners (only households withouteconomically active members) added later.The survey is conducted on about a 0.1 percentsample and – unlike FES in other countries – it is apermanent survey based on daily records of allincomes and expenditures. After 1989, the categoryof self-employed was also included and aspecial sub-sample was added aiming to overrepresentthe number of households living belowor close to the legal living minimum. The size ofthe sample was slightly reduced in the 1990s andcovers a maximum of 3,500 households.Labour Force Surveys (LFS)LFS started in late 1992 as regular quaterly surveyamong households. Sampling and collectingmethod follows recommendations of the ILO andEUROSTAT. The sample rotates so that eachquarter one-fifth of households is exchanged. Infirst three years of survey, sample size was about23,000 apartments and has reached 26,500 apartmentslater, what is about 0.8 percent of apartments.In the, about 70,000 of all respondents issurveyed of which 59,000 over 15 years. Up to1997, quarters did not correspond to calendarquarters but were located one month earlier(aimed to provide decision makers by datasooner). In time series, this and other inconsistencieswere adjusted and data reweighted accordingto final demography by the CSO.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

134 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityREFERENCESBartosova, M. (1994) Contemporary WorkingWomen (in Czech). Pohledy No. 5, pp. 22-26.Bartosova, M. (1997) Differences in Employmentand Wages of Men and Women in the CzechRepublic (in Czech). Pohledy No. 1/2, pp. 18-23.Cermakova, M. (1999) Gender Differences AmongEconomically Active University Graduates.Czech Sociological Review 7 (2), pp. 127-144.Cermakova, M. et al. (1995) Women, Work and Society(in Czech). Working Papers No. 4. Prague:Institute of Sociology AS.Cermakova, M. et al. (2000) Relations and Changes ofGender Differences in the Czech Society in the90s. Prague: Institute of Sociology AS.Erbenova, M. (1995) The Regional UnemploymentDifferentials and Labor Mobility: A CaseStudy of the Czech Republic. Prague:CERGE/EI.Erbenova, M., Sorm, V. and Terrell. K. (1998)Work Incentives and Other Effects of SocialAssistance and Unemployment Benefit policyin the Czech Republic. Empirical Economics23 (1/2), pp. 87-120.Flek, V. and Vecernik, J. (1998) Employment andWage Structure in the Czech Republic. WPNo. 3, Prague: Czech National Bank.Frydmanova, M. et al. (1999) Labor Market andHuman Resources. In: Mateju and Vecernikeds. 1999.Frydmanova, M. and Zamrazilova, E. (1999a)Long-term Unemployment. A New Problemof Czech economy? (in Czech) Politicka ekonomie47(4), pp. 449-460Frydmanova, M. and Zamrazilova, E. (1999b) ActiveEmployment Policy: A Chance for CzechLabor Market. Prague Economic Papers 8, pp.349-358Gottvald, J. (1999) Czech Labor Market Flowsfrom 1993 to 1998. Technical University ofOstrava, Faculty of Economics (unpublishedmanuscript).Ham, J., Svejnar, J. and Terrell, K. (1998) Unemploymentand the Social Safety Net DuringTransition to a Market Economy: Evidencefrom the Czech and Slovak Republic. AmericanEconomic Review 88(5).Ham, J., Svejnar, J., Terrell, K. (1999) Women’sUnemployment During Transition: Evidencefrom the Czech and Slovak Micro-data. Economicsof Transition 7 (1).Hirsl, M. (1999) Long-term Unemployment in theCzech Republic and Its Structure (in Czech).Pohledy No. 2, pp. 1-4.Kozera, N. (1997) Czech Women in the Labor Market.Work and Family in a Transition Economy (inCzech). Working Papers No. 6. Prague: Instituteof Sociology AS.Krizkova, A. (1999) The Division of Labor in CzechHouseholds in the 1990s. Czech Sociological Review7 (2), pp. 205-214.Kucharova, V. (1999) Women and Employment. CzechSociological Review 7 (2), pp. 179-194.Leitmanova, I. (1998) Problems of Labor market InEU and the Czech Republic (in Czech). Politickaekonomie 46 (4), pp. 539-554.Mateju, P. (1999) Social Mobility and Changes inPerceived Life-chances. In: Mateju and Vecernikeds. 1999.Musilova, M. (1999) Equal Opportunity as a Matter ofPublic Interest. Czech Sociological Review 7 (2):95-204.Review of the Labor Market in the Czech Republic.Paris: OECD 1995.Sirovatka, T. (1996) On the Role and Perspectivesof the Labor Market Policy in the Czech Republic(in Czech). Politicka ekonomie 45, pp.25-36.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Six. Literature review: Czech Republic 135Sirovatka, T. (1997) Segmentation Tendencies onthe Labor Market in the Czech Republic. Politickaekonomie 46, pp. 804-816.Sorm V. and Terrell, K. (1999) Labor Market Policyand Unemployment in the Czech Republic.Journal of Comparative Economics 27 (1).Sorm, V. and Terrell, K. (2000) A comparativeLook at Labor Mobility in the Czech Republic:Where Have All the Workers Gone. WPNo. 2263, London: CEPR.Vecernik, J. (1991) Earnings distribution inCzechoslovakia: Intertemporal change andinternational comparison. European SociologicalReview, 6 (2):237-252.Vecernik, J. (1999). Capitalist Renewal: Privatizationand Business. In: Mateju and Vecernikeds. 1999.Vecernik, J. and Mateju, P. eds. (1999) Ten Years ofRebuilding Capitalism. Czech Society after 1989.Prague: Academia.Vecernik, J. (2000) Social reporting in the CzechRepublic since 1989: The present state of theart. Eureporting Working Paper No. 11. Seealso Czech Sociological Review, forthcoming.Vecernik, J. (2001) Earnings disparities in theCzech Republic: Evidence of the past decadeand cross-national comparison. The WilliamDavidson Institute Working Paper No. 373.See also Prague Economic Papers, forthcoming.Vecernik, J. (2000) Work Values and perceivedconditions in CEE and EU countries. Workingpaper for Fifth Framework ProgrammeProject “Households, Work and Flexibility”(http://www.hwf.at)Vecernik, J. and Stepankova, P. (2001) Labor marketand work flexibility in the Czech Republic:Trend overview Workpackage 3 of the FifthFramework Programme Project “Households,Work and Flexibility”(http://www.hwf.at)Zazvorkova, M. (1996) Analysis of Unemploymentform the Point of View of State andFlow Amounts (in Czech). Politicka ekonomie44, pp. 474-461.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter SevenHOUSEHOLDS, WORK AND FLEXIBILITYCritical Review of LiteratureHUNGARY[ Márton Medgyesi, TARKI ][ Contents ]INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................1391. NON-STANDARD WORK FORMS UNDER SOCIALISM.................................................................1391.1. The “dual” economy.................................................................................................................1391.2. Worker motivation and work behaviour in the dual economy .................................................1401.3. Family strategies in the dual economy....................................................................................1412. NON- STANDARD WORK AFTER TRANSITION.............................................................................1422.1. Changing institutional contexts and worker strategies............................................................1422.2. Self-employment......................................................................................................................1432.3. Work in the informal sector......................................................................................................1442.4. Flexibility of work time .............................................................................................................1452.5. Temporary employment ..........................................................................................................1462.6. New technologies and new types of flexibility .........................................................................1473. NON- STANDARD WORK AND EMPLOYMENT POLICY ...............................................................1473.1. Existing programmes for the promotion of non- standard work ..............................................1483.2. Directions for the future – The National Employment Action Plan ..........................................150CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................................................150NOTES ......................................................................................................................................................152REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................................153© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

[ List of tables and figures ]Table 1. Active population with extra work according to type of work and sex..................................... 142Table 2. Perception and importance of different job attributes . ........................................................... 151

Chapter Seven. Literature review: Hungary 139INTRODUCTIONIn this paper we try to characterise the peculiaritiesof non-standard work forms in Hungary andtheir role in household strategies by reviewing theliterature on the subject. 1 We have consciouslyadopted a very broad definition of non-standard,atypical employment as meaning any workingarrangements different from full-time, permanent,wage and salary employment. Our aim is to showthat this part of the labour market is very heterogeneousin itself and is also different from atypicalor flexible forms of employment found inwestern Europe countries in the last decade.Atypical work in Hungary has its roots in presecondworld war peasant society and in the socialist“second economy”, although significantlynew elements have been added to it during thetransition to a market economy. In addition, newforms of flexible working arrangements have alsoappeared recently, such as telework and homework.The outline of the paper is the following. Inthe first section we briefly describe the dual economyunder state socialism. In the socialist era,economic activity could be divided between theprimary, state-sector, and the secondary privatesector. In sections 1.2 and 1.3 we will describe thetypes of worker and family strategies that haddeveloped under these conditions. Section 2 dealswith atypical work after the transition fromsocialism. Next, we review how the changinginstitutional context has modified worker strategies,then we discuss the importance of differenttypes of non-standard work in Hungary. Section 3is devoted to employment policy regarding nonstandardwork.1. NON-STANDARD WORK FORMS UNDER SOCIALISM1.1. The “dual” economyBy the middle 1960s, as a consequence of politicalattacks against private forms of production duringthe previous decades, the socialist large-scaleenterprises and co-operatives became the onlyorganisations offering full time employment. Thesocialist economy has been described by JánosKornai (1980) as an “economy of shortage”, characterisedby chronic excess demand on both thecommodity and the labour market. Socialist companiesoffered secure jobs inside the enterprise inorder to cope with uncertainties resulting fromdelayed performance of suppliers, changing planobjectives and regulations. Unemployment wasnon-existent. Paradoxically it is also in the late1960s that the so-called “second economy” appeared.Legal barriers to workplace changes wereremoved just before the 1968 economic reformsand the reform brought about a certain liberalisationof the system of economic control. State paternalismdecreased in scope, and the freedom ofeconomic actors – including also labour marketactors – increased (Gábor 1991). This reformhelped to expand the role of the second economy.The second economy could be best defined as be-© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

140 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilitying a sector of the economy where the “individual… employs himself (or herself) through their ownwits and labour power...and sells only their ownproducts and services” (Juhász quoted by Kertesiand Sziráczki 1984). The main fields of activity inthe second economy were small-scale agriculturalproduction, private construction activity, smallscaleindustry, retail trading and repair activities.This second economy was different from the first,socialist sector, because unlike the latter, it wasdirected by hard budget constraints and financialincentives. On the other hand the second economyin the socialist era was different from “hidden”or “informal” sector activities which aretypical of market economies. The second economywas not brought about by attempts to escape stateregulation or tax burdens, but rather by shortagesin the supply of commodities on the one handand by the need for extra income in households,on the other. This coexistence of a socialist sectorand the second economy was characteristic of thetype of state-socialism that was found in Hungaryduring that period.1.2. Worker motivation and work behaviour in the dual economyKertesi and Sziráczki (1984, 1985) note that workers’choices were most often led by income maximisationmotives, which they characterised as anethos of “instrumental individualism”. Thismeans that workers are mostly interested in thematerial rewards of work and instead of cooperatingin the defence of their interests, theytried to profit on an individual level from theirmore or less favourable bargaining position.Kertesi and Sziráczki offer a typology of workerbehaviour in the context of the dual economy.One typical strategy for workers to achieve highpay was to accumulate firm-specific skills in orderto get promoted in the internal hierarchy of thefirm. Élite workers occupied fairly strong positionsin the wage-performance bargain, since theirexpertise was necessary to meet plan objectives. 2The majority of workers, however, did not makeit into élite positions; they were stuck in the middleor lower levels of the enterprise hierarchy. Asa result, they often followed the “dual job strategy”which meant that they combined secure butpoorly rewarded work at first job with risky buthighly rewarded participation in the secondeconomy. Full time, typical employment was appealingnot only because it provided career opportunitieson the internal labour market, but alsobecause it offered possibilities for participation inthe second economy: access to flexible workinghours, skills, materials, clients and social networks(Kalleberg and Stark 1993). A third way forworkers to raise their wages was to profit fromthe competition for labour among enterprises.Hence, a typical strategy for workers on the lowerlevels of the within- firm hierarchy was to changejobs frequently. This was known as “fluctuation”.These -often young – workers, who had neitherfirm-specific skills nor earning possibilities outsidethe firm, had two possibilities for increasingtheir wages. Either they started to accumulatefirm-specific capital and tried to profit from promotionpossibilities on the internal labour market,or they moved to an employer who offered somewhathigher wages. In the long run, their interestswould have would have been better served by thefirst option, but often they needed higher pay onthe short term (to buy a flat or establish a family)so many of them opted for changing jobs. Forthose who were for some reason not mobileenough to profit from higher wages offeredelsewhere, the only possibility for achievinghigher pay in the short run was through selfexploitationby frequent overtime 3 work.In the 1980s, small private businesses startedto flourish as well. Within only two years, between1981 and 1983, the number of people workingin the legal private sector had grown by 20percent (Galasi and Sziráczki 1985). A series of liberalisationmeasures helped this process in the beginningof the 1980s: first, the liberalisation of licensing,second the leasing of retail and catering© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Seven. Literature review: Hungary 141units to private individuals and thirdly the creationof new economic units. The most popularform of these new economic units was calledVGMK (Vállalati Gazdasági Munkaközösség),which stands for “enterprise business work partnerships”.These units were based on a contractbetween the enterprise and a group of its workersstating that they would produce certain qualityand quantity of goods or services after their officialworking hours using the enterprise’s equipment.The participants in these kinds of agreementswere at the same time both employees andsubcontractors of the same enterprise. This formof co-operation was beneficial to the enterprise aswell as the employee. The latter was very wellremunerated for these extra hours, while the enterprisewas able to counter wage-legislation andprovide sufficient financial incentives to retaintheir elite workers in the enterprise. In fact someauthors (e.g. Timár 1988) do not even considerthis as part of the second economy, since it isnothing other than a way of avoiding wage legislationin order to pay higher wages for overtimework. Overtime work increased steadily duringthe 1970s and 1980s. For example, in 1967 an employeeworked on average 37 hours overtime annually,while in 1985 this amounted to 128 hoursannual average (counting also hours worked inVGMK). Moreover the distribution of overtimehours was rather unequal among workers. Skilledmale workers, especially in the metallurgy andenergy industries and manual workers (mainly inmining) were over-represented.1.3. Family strategies in the dual economyKertesi and Sziráczki (1984) also characterisesome family features in the small farming activityin Hungarian second economy. They assert thattechnological innovation in small farms was morelikely if the household head (the male wageearner)had technical skills and if other householdmembers were willing to supply the extra labourneeded. The role of women seems rather importantin this latter aspect. Hungary was characterisedby high levels of female employment at thattime and households with two wage earners weretypical. This was a result of historical events suchas the forced industrialisation and collectivisationof the 1950s, but also because of low wages of the1960s. However, the authors suggest that a largenumber of working women were latecomers onthe labour market, in the sense that they joinedthe workforce only during the third wave of industrialisationin the 1960s. They were mainlyemployed in sectors as trade, catering or agriculturalco-operatives and were the first to leave thelabour market and to move back to the secondeconomy when this became possible. They becamefamily workers in small farms, which oftenbrought about a change in the role of these farmsfrom self-provisioning to market-oriented, entrepreneurialtype activity. In this way, “male andfemale wage-earner behaviour has a particularasymmetrical connection: the male wage-earnerregards his income from the enterprise as the family’sexistential basis and income maximisation isbased on the development of the small farm. Onthe other hand, however, the female wage-earnerregards work in the small farm as her basic activityand the more or less regular employment inthe socialist sector is only an additional source ofincome” (Kertesi and Szirácki 1984). Pulay (1989)also argues for the case of emerging “one and twohalf breadwinner” families consisting of the husbandhaving a full-time job along with extra workand the wife having income approximately equalto the husbands extra work income (though fromfull-time employment in most cases). Below is atable from Pulay (1989) showing the active populationwith extra work.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

142 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityTable 1. Active population with extra work according to type of work and sex, 1984MenWomen% %Active population 2 745 700 100.00 2 172 900 100.00Active population with extra work 425 950 15.51 200 000 9.20Working in:- Workshop associations 72 350 2.64 19 800 0.91- Working groups in cooperatives 4 850 0.18 2 500 0.12- Economic associations 10 700 0.39 2 050 0.09- Other working groups 4 150 0.15 1 300 0.06With a secondary or subsidiary job 54 700 1.99 23 950 1.10Self-employed 30 050 1.09 4 350 0.20Household plots in agriculture 234 050 8.52 138 600 6.38Other source of extra income 14 300 0.52 6 650 0.31Source: Pulay (1989)The second economy was growing throughout the1970s. It produced almost one fifth of GNP andtwo fifths of agricultural production by this time,encompassing a major proportion of the productionof basic comestibles such as milk, eggs andpotatoes. Despite it’s important economic rolehowever, the second economy remained mainlyan additional income source for workers in thesocialist sector: the number of those choosing thissector as a main job did not increase significantly.The second economy rarely became entrepreneurialin nature and little significant investment tookplace. It did contribute however, to a strange behaviouralpattern of Hungarian employees whobecame simultaneously self-preserving (in thesocialist sector) and self-exploiting (in the secondeconomy). Under socialism, work in the secondeconomy, overtime work at the main place of employment,and having a second job were the mainforms of non-standard work.2. NON- STANDARD WORK AFTER TRANSITION2.1. Changing institutional contexts and worker strategiesIn Kornai’s terminology, the first step in the transitionto capitalism consisted in the hardening ofbudget constraints for enterprises (Kornai 1993).State funds going to enterprises diminished from12,3per cent of the GDP in 1987 to 2,3per cent in1991. In the same time the number of bankruptcycases has grown by more than an order of ten between1986 and 1992. The “shortage economy”soon disappeared and both the commodity andthe labour market were characterised instead byexcess supply. The first years of transition werecharacterised by a restructuring and decline ofeconomic activity, which brought about a drasticfall in employment. Reductions in employmentexceeded even the rate of fall in GDP in the sameperiod. The decrease in employment manifesteditself partly in the increasing number of unemployed,but mostly in the increase in the percentageof the inactive population, which was thehighest among all the transition countries. Thesechanges also modified the institutional context ofworker behaviour and resulted in changes in thetypical strategies of workers.It was clearly not possible any more to profitfrom competition between companies for scarcelabour. 4 In fact Spéder (1997) states that the rapidand drastic fall in employment, along with highinflation, decreasing real incomes and widening© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Seven. Literature review: Hungary 143income differentials left many households in financialcrisis. Among other ways of coping withfinancial difficulties (such as using up savings,holding back consumption, lowering aspiration orrelying on the social safety net) he considers twostrategies related to work: becoming self-employedas a small entrepreneur or agriculturalself-provisioning, and taking on additional incomeearning activities, perhaps in the informalsector.The drastic fall in employment was accompaniedby the dismantling of internal labour marketsof socialist companies (Gábor 1997). Privatisationplayed a leading role in this process, whichresulted in an increase in the number of small enterprisesand a decrease in the number of largeones. This means that there has not only been agreat loss in the number of jobs in the formal sectorduring the transition, but within the remainingjobs, a much higher percentage are nowwithin small companies, that is in companies withless then 20 employees. This means that acquiringfirm-specific skills and getting promoted in theinternal hierarchy of a firm is possible strategy forfewer workers than during socialism. Employmentin small enterprises is more likely to beflexible and less secure. For example, it is commonamong small enterprises to hire employees(partly or entirely) not with labour contracts butas subcontractors, in order to economise on socialsecurity contributions and other labour costs andbecause such workers can be more easily laid off.Many workers were thus forced to become selfemployedor take out a small enterprise license inorder to continue the same work that they didbefore as employees.Important changes have occurred also inwork outside the formal sector. With the fall ofsocialism, the system-specific distinction betweenfirst and second economy can no longer be applied,and more neutral denominations such as„formal-informal” (Sik 1994), „organised-unorganised”economy (Vajda 1996) are used instead.These mean practically the same, namely that activities,transactions in the informal economy arenot subject to state regulations, they are invisiblefrom the point of view of tax or labour authoritiesand also in statistical records to a certain extent. 5A major difference between informal economyand socialist second economy in Hungary is thatwhile part-time involvement dominated in thesocialist era, informal economy is characterised byfull-time employment under capitalism (Sik 1994).Two factors lead to this change: first some peoplehave lost employment in the formal sector andcontinued doing their part-time (often casual)work in the informal sector, secondly activities(sometimes illegal activities) in the informal economyoffered high remuneration, but this requiredfull-time involvement.In the following sections we will discuss theimportance of various types of atypical employmentin post-transition Hungary. 6 We will beginwith self-employment and informal work, whichwere two important ways of surviving duringtransformational recession as described above.There then follows a discussion of other issuesrespecting non-standard work, such as flexibilityof working time, temporary employment and newtypes of flexible work arrangements made availableby technological progress.2.2. Self-employmentSelf-employment is probably the least problematicalform of atypical employment to measure. Entrepreneursin person and members of enterpriseswith no legal person are annually registered inthe Labour Force Survey. There is still a considerablenumber missing however, since those selfemployedin agriculture who don’t have an entrepreneuriallicence are not recorded. The definitionof self-employment used in the Labour ForceSurvey is somewhat different from that used bythe ILO, since it does not include members of cooperativesand casual workers who are better describedas having an employee-type relationship.Moreover the size and the legal status of the en-© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

144 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityterprise is not taken into account, but this shouldnot cause any major problems, since the typicalform for a self-employed enterprise is the smallenterprise (Laky et al. 1997). The number of selfemployedhas increased rapidly in the beginningof the 1990s, but unfortunately the Labour ForceSurvey was initiated only in 1992. Since then, theproportion of male workers for whom selfemployment(or “helping family member” status)was recorded as the main job shows a slight increasein the middle of the decade from 17per centto 19per cent out of all employed men. The correspondingfigure exhibits a decrease from around13per cent to 11per cent for women (Scharle 2000).This means that the percentage of self-employedoverall has stabilised at about 15per cent of thelabour force. The percentage of self-employed inagriculture is surprisingly low in the LabourForce Survey. Their number in 1992 was 69,500and 15per cent less (59,000) in 1996 (Laky et al.1997). This is even more surprising if we considerthat tax exemptions do not discourage the declarationof this activity. A great portion of smallentrepreneurs work without employees, but someof them are helped by family members, who regularlyparticipate in the activity of the enterprise.This is considered as a legal form of employmentand is subject to usual social security contributions,which is probably why entrepreneurs arereluctant to declare their helping family membersto the authorities. Their number also seems to beunderestimated by the Labour Force Survey,which recorded 49,300 helping family members in1992 (with some seasonal variation) and a figurethat effectively oscillates around 40,000 sincethen.A considerable number of self-employed arejust continuing their second economy activities.Vajda (2000) reports a survey result according towhich 20per cent of small entrepreneurs assertedthat they are continuing in the same private activityas before 1990. It can be misleading howeverto see self-employment solely as an escape routefor the newly unemployed. Diverging opinionscan be found regarding the question of whetherthe rapid increase in the number of self-employedreflects the effect of suddenly widening entrepreneurialpossibilities or is pushed up by shrinkingemployment opportunities. Laky (1995) andGábor (1997) seem to be asserting that a high proportionof newly self-employed are choosing thisway of working against their will. Scharle (2000),based on econometric analysis of the LabourForce Survey, concludes that threat of unemploymentwas probably not a general cause ofpeople becoming self-employed, it only seems toinfluence individual decisions in some particulargroups of the labour force – namely amongwomen and entrepreneurs in agriculture. She alsocontends that small family enterprises are mainlyprofit-oriented (thus not just subsistence enterprises)but are more frequent in labour-intensivesectors that do not require high capital investmentsuch as agriculture, commerce and catering. Familymembers are employed because they providereliable, sometimes cheaper labour.2.3. Work in the informal sectorTime budget surveys are probably the only meansby which we can gather some information aboutthe work of people in the informal sector. 7 Vajda(2000) considers four types of such kinds of activities:expenditure-minimising non-routine workaround the household (dwelling construction andmaintenance, agricultural work, repair); work inexchange for other households; income supplementarywork; and volunteer work on the behalfof organisations. Comparing time budget surveysof 1986 and 1993, Vajda asserts that contrary toexpectations, time used for work in the informalsector decreased in parallel with time in the formalsector. This can be the consequence of thereason cited above, that some people were continuingtheir second economy activity in the formalisedsector as self-employed with licence. Theratio of working time in the informal sector to thatin the formal sector remained constant at aroundone third. Small agricultural production still© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Seven. Literature review: Hungary 145played the leading role in working time used inthe informal sector, but its extent was decreasingtogether with construction and maintenance activities.Spéder (1997) provides a more detailedpicture of agricultural production, stating thatwhile production for self-provisioning increased,production for market purposes decreased between1992 and 1994. The only type of informalwork that increased was repair work. It seemsthat time-use decreased the most for those activitieswhere the formal counterpart was also in crisis.This suggests that as former second economyactivities were integrated into first economy activities,so the crisis in the latter also caused theformer to lose ground. Participants in informalwork are mainly older (with a high percentage ofpensioners), low skilled males living in villagesand other marginalized groups in the formal labourmarket. Some changes occurred in the compositionof the labour force in the informal sector:namely there emerged a growing percentage ofwomen and more skilled people.A study based upon in-depth interviewswith the unemployed suggested that work in theinformal sector is one way of maintaining minimalliving conditions (Simonyi 1995). Small-scaleagricultural production, child-caring, babysitting,repair activities, sewing and cleaning arethe kinds of activities that are widespread. Casualwork in the construction industry, catering, commerceis also possible in many instances, but peoplein this situation can rarely manage withoutextensive help from the family. Those who havesome resources and stable family help can end upas self-employed. For others, relying on SocialAssistance or doing casual work possibly in theinformal (illegal) sector remain as alternatives.2.4. Flexibility of work timePart-time employment is far less significant inHungary than in most countries of the EU (Lakyet al. 1997, Frey 2000, Labour Research Institute2000). This also has some historical roots: in thesocialist economy part-time work was only possiblefor working pensioners, and when at the beginningof the 1990s this group lost its position onthe labour market, so did part-time employment.In 1995 the Labour Force Survey reports only a5,4per cent of employees who regularly work lessthan 35 hours a week. 8 The percentage of parttimeworkers was higher among women (8,3percent) and only 3,1per cent among men. Parttimersare also more frequent among jobs requiringa university diploma and in the poorest qualifiedjobs. The percentage of part-time workers hassomewhat increased since then. In 1999 the percentageof those employees who regularlyworked less then 35 hours was around 5,9percent. (Frey 2000). Another 10per cent of the employedhad very variable working times, butthese might also be casual workers rather thanpart-timers (Labour Research Institute 2000). Parttimeemployment is not popular in Hungarymainly because social security contributions andtaxes are so high that it does not pay off for firmsto hire part-timers. Also, the lower pay associatedwith part-time work might simply not be enoughfor job-seekers to leave unemployment benefits orto make it worth working once travel costs havebeen deducted (Labour Research Institute 2000).Another popular form of flexible workingtime is overtime work. According to the LabourForce Survey data, 21per cent of employees reportedworking regularly more than 40 hours aweek. The main reason for this is overtime work(Frey 2000). Employees can also extend workinghours by having a second job. The percentage ofthose having a second job is surprisingly low: in1999 only 1,8per cent of the employees had a secondjob. Work time flexibility also results fromthe tendency of companies to extend activity overnights and weekends, in order to ensure the efficientutilisation of machinery, for example. Accordingto the Labour Force Survey results, 17percent of employees work regularly during the evening,and 9per cent during the night. Some 16percent or employees go to work on Saturdays and© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

146 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibility9per cent had to work also regularly on Sunday.These jobs are mainly concentrated in mining, thefood industry, transportation, commerce, healthcare and social services. One fifth of all employeeswork in double shifts. In 1998, 7per cent of employeesreport working flexible hours and 6percent said that they were free to determine theirworking hours (Frey 2000).2.5. Temporary employmentTemporary employment can also be discussedunder the heading of the flexibility of workingtime, but it is obviously a rather different type offlexibility than that discussed so far. In Hungary,employment based on fixed term contracts is mostpopular in sectors which have seasonal fluctuationsin work tasks, such as agriculture, tourism,the food industry, the production of conservesand the retail trade (Labour Research Institute2000). According to the Labour Force Survey, in1999 the yearly percentage of employees on fixedtermcontracts was 6per cent, and the 90per centof these had a contract that was less than oneyear. A large number of these workers said thatthey had no other choice than to accept a fixedtermcontract. Since the labour-hoarding practicesof socialist enterprises could not be continuedafter transition, the fluctuations in orders createdsome demand for temporary workers. An efficientsolution in order to decrease the time needed forsearching and hiring temporary workers is to hiremanpower from specialised agencies (Laky et al.1997). As multinationals entered the scene, theneed for temporary qualified workers also increased.In fact, workers from a variety of occupationsare available as temporary workers from thecirca 500 companies which specialise in hiring outlabour, ranging from unskilled workers to managerialassistants. This is profitable for the hiringenterprise because it is freed from all the administrativeand financial consequences of employingnew workers, so we might expect some increasein this kind of employment (as there has been inthe rest of Europe).Marginalized members of the Hungarianworkforce, such as low-skilled young and closeto-retirementage workers, often have access onlyto casual work. Casual work is needed during thehigh seasons of the agricultural and constructionindustries, but also repairs work, child-care forhouseholds, or occasional work in family enterprisesare offered in this way. In the latter case,activity is nearly never registered, since households,small entrepreneurs and casual workerscan perfectly well manage these kinds of transactionsamong themselves, avoiding the costly interferenceof authorities. Since such activity is mostfrequently unrecorded, the figures found in theLabour Force Survey can be assumed to significantlyunderestimate this type of employment.Annual averages of the survey estimates show anincreasing number of casual workers during the1990s. In 1992, only 8563 casual workers were recorded,while in 1998, 28524 were found. This is asubstantial growth of nearly 300per cent, butclearly the true number of casual workers shouldbe much higher in Hungary. In most of largetowns there are well-known markets for casualworkers as research among local government officershas demonstrated (Sik 2000). One such market,located in one of the most important publictransport centres of Budapest is described in Sik(1999). Studies among people who are seasonallyemployed in an area of tourism around the lakeBalaton, found that people with a “new workhabitus” (that is, taking risks, considering higherpay and qualified work being more importantthat secure employment) have a much higherchance of escaping from this situation by startingsmall business or finding full-time jobs (Farkasand Nemes 1997).© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Seven. Literature review: Hungary 1472.6. New technologies and new types of flexibilityTechnological progress, automation and the relocationof mass production to developing countrieshave changed and – according to some theorists(see Rimmler 1999) – will continue to change themeaning of work in developed societies. It isclaimed that these processes will enable a largerpart of the workforce to do much more creativework, requiring complex cognitive skills. In thisway, it is argued, work will again resemble that ofa craftsmen who is not simply carrying out routinetasks but follows the entire production processthrough. Creativity requires flexible work arrangementsand individual contracts that willbring about locational and organisational decentralisationand flexible working time as well asincreased independence and more personal responsibilityfor workers. Creative work could begreatly enhanced by global communication networks,such as the internet.One form of work where employee and employercommunication is mainly executed viaInternet is called telework. In 1997 a public company“Telework” was founded with the participationof the Hungarian Development Bank and theLabour Ministry to promote telework and to helpestablish contact between potential employersand employees. The target groups were thehandicapped and single mothers. This has notbeen a complete success story. Although potentialteleworkers did appear, and their numbers wereonly around 15, 000 in 1998, employers were notparticularly attracted by the possibility of employingteleworkers. In 1999 the company went bankruptand was acquired by MATAV the nationaltelephone company which continued the activitywith more or less unchanged objectives. Potentialteleworkers were mostly inactive members of thelabour market (students, pensioners) and thoseseeking additional income sources or a second job(Labour Research Institute 2000). According tocertain estimates some 25, 000 persons are nowworking in this way.3. NON- STANDARD WORK AND EMPLOYMENT POLICYThe massive decrease in employment was notcontinuous in the 1990s; three phases can be distinguishedduring the decade. Between 1990 and1994 there was a radical decrease in the numberof employed, while between 1994 and 1996 theprocess begin to slow down somewhat and in thefinal part of the decade, employment began torecover. Those making employment policy facedsome difficult decisions during this period oftransition. In the first phase, policy had to concentrateon how to handle unemployment. This wasmainly achieved by decreasing labour supply(through early retirement, maternity leave etc.)and the introduction of unemployment benefitand unemployment assistance.According to some analysts, the massive fallin employment in this first phase of transitioncould have been tempered by the increase of parttimeemployment, especially since part-time workwas very rare before transition (only workingpensioners were allowed to have part-time work).A 1993 survey demonstrated (Frey- Gere, 1994)that 20per cent of full time female employees and8per cent of full time male employees were willingto accept part-time employment, even if thismeant a proportional reduction in their salaries.This percentage would have been even higher incase of a partial compensation of income losses. Inparticular, the more vulnerable groups of workers,such as young mothers and older employees,manifested an interest in part- time work. However,employers were not interested in this formof employment because of the relatively high labourcosts, which was due to the fact that therewas a substantial fixed element in employer contributionsin the form of a health care tax payment(Laky, 2000). Another factor which counteractedpart-time employment was family policy, which© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

148 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityencouraged women to quit the labour market byoffering universal maternity benefits (Tímár,1998).Employment policy in first phase of transition,which encouraged people to leave the labourmarket, had the effect of also substantially increasingpublic spending. In the middle of thedecade and especially after the 1995, the prioritiesof the stabilization package of employment policieshad to be change. These changes were aimedat limiting public overspending by more severeentitlement criteria, by increasing the importanceof active labor market intervention and by focusingupon an improvement in the matching oftraining and employment (Pulay, 1996, Frey-Demkó, 2000). In the following section we discussthe few policy initiatives which aimed to promotenon- standard work. First, two active labour marketprogrammes will be discussed: subsidies forthe unemployed who wished to begin a small enterprise,and the reduced work time programme.We also discuss the attempt to lower the labourcosts of casual work. Then we go on to reviewhow different forms of non-standard work appearin the government’s employment strategy.3.1. Existing programmes for the promotion of non- standard workThere are only a few active labour market programmesand programmes of the National EmploymentFund promoting various forms of nonstandardwork. Active labour market programmeswere initiated by the 1991 Act No. IV.“On the promotion of employment and assistanceto the unemployed”. Below we describe the programmeswhich concern non-standard work.Subsidies for becoming self-employedAccording to the 1991 Act No.IV. those registeredunemployed who wish to become self-employedare entitled to a subsidy (Ministry of EconomicAffairs 1999). The unemployed can choose amongthe following forms of assistance:! financial aid equal to the amount of the unemploymentbenefit! reimbursement of up to 50per cent of consultingexpenses! reimbursement of up to 50per cent of trainingexpenses! if they took out a loan applicants were offeredfinancing for a maximum of 50per centof insurance fees, for a maximum of one yearIn 1997 only 1-2 per cent of the unemployed whowere eligible, participated in this programme(Frey 1995, 1998). Participants tend to be from the„elite” unemployed – that is, they are middle-agemen with skills or a high-school diploma. Theyare from families who are able to support therisks associated with entrepreneurial activity andthey live in neighbourhoods, which offer goodconditions for small enterprise. Small enterprisescreated by the unemployed are found mainly inthe service sector and in trade. These two sectorsmake up 60 per cent of these enterprises. Twothirds of these new entrepreneurs say that theyopted for this possibility because they did nothave any other chance to find work. Evidence onthe effectiveness of this programme is mixed.Nine months after their creation, 75-80 per cent ofthe enterprises were still functioning. On theother hand, studies show that the programme hasincreased employment by 14 per cent with respectto a control group of unemployed. There is alsosome evidence of the fact that a significant fractionof the participants of the programme wouldprobably have found a job even without the programme.It is also true however that 18 per cent ofthese new entrepreneurs hired one or more employees,half of whom were unemployed themselves.Casual workThe 1997 Act No. LXXIV introduced new regulationsfor casual work (Ministry of Economic Affairs1999, Laky 2000). The main objective of this© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Seven. Literature review: Hungary 149legislation was to enable the recipients of unemploymentassistance to become eligible again byworking for some time. The law also made it considerablyeasier for employers to hire casualworkers. According to the legislation casualworkers could take out an annual “Casual EmployeeBook” free of charge. The employer paysall employment charges by putting a stamp ofappropriate value (500-1500 HUF in 1997- accordingto the daily wage rate) in this booklet. In 1997,6405 of such “Casual Employee Books” weretaken out, while a year later the same number was21084. This was a considerable increase, but thefigures were still quite low. The largest group ofcasual workers were the unemployed whoneeded to testify a certain number of days workedin order to continue to receive unemploymentassistance. This programme was not a huge success,despite the fact that employers were entitledto subsidies in terms of a reduction in social securitycontributions if they hired one of the longtermunemployed.Part-time workThe 1991 Act No.IV. promised subsidies to companieswho were willing to resolve their transitorydifficulties by offering part-time employmentto their employees rather than by downsizing(Frey 1998). If the reduction in working time attainedone third of the original working time, theemployer was allowed to apply for a reimbursementof up to 50 per cent of the salary of his orher employees. In 1991 this programme proved tobe the most popular active labour market programmewith more than 30 000 participants,which was equal to 36.7per cent of the participantsin all active labour market programmes.However, the programme rapidly lost its popularity:by 1996 the number of participants was onesixth of what it had been in 1991 and the percentagein participants overall was reduced to 1.9 percent. In 1996 the modification of the 1991 Act No.IV. abolished the part-time work programme inits original form. From 1997, a new programmewas initiated, one which offered subsidies to employerswith transitory liquidity problems andwho had part-time employees belonging to thefollowing groups:! employees with small children (the youngestchild under 10)! employees a maximum 5 years before theirretirement age! employees with a 40per cent reduction intheir working capacityAs we have seen, this programme was not a verysuccessful attempt to fight increasing inactivity.Trade unions and employer organizations wereboth hostile to the plan and the government alsopreferred solutions that encouraged people toleave the labour market. Eventually, this programmewas abolished.Other active labour market programmes mayalso be seen as concerning atypical work. For example,the programme on public work promotesin a large number of cases fixed-term employment.Programmes of the National EmploymentFundThe National Employment Fund is a public fundof the Hungarian government, with the doubleaim of financing employment-enhancing projectsand developing new active employment policyprogrammes (Ministry of Economic Affairs 1999).Among the programmes financed under this fundwere projects in which the employer promised tocreate new part-time jobs or to hire unemployedpersons returning to the labour market from maternityleave or from other inactive periods (e.g.illness). If their projects were accepted, employerswere exempted from health contributions andfrom the travel and meal allowances they paid forthese employees. It was also possible to get reimbursedone half of the training expenses of thesenew employees. The fund also initiated a programmeto help small enterprises.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

150 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibility3.2. Directions for the future – The National Employment Action PlanThe National Employment Action Plan is a middle-termstrategy for employment policy by theHungarian government, which has been elaboratedaccording to European Union employmentpolicy objectives (Ministry of Economic Affairs2000). The principal objectives of labour marketpolicy are, in accordance with the European EmploymentStrategy, to achieve full employmentand fight against unemployment. The objectivesare to reverse the tendency towards increasinginactivity and to change the character of unemploymentfrom long-term to short-term. Additionalobjectives are to help increase the competitivenessand the capacity of enterprises to adaptand to decrease labour market discrimination.Following European Union standards the programmeconsists of four main chapters, whichfocus on the question of employability, strengtheningof entrepreneurial tendencies, improvingthe adaptability of firms and their employees, andfinally the equalization of opportunities. Two ofthese main chapters refer directly to atypical employment.The second chapter considers ways toreduce administrative obligations and costs associatedwith small enterprises and selfemployment.Some important improvementshave already been accomplished as a result. Forexample, there is a special fund to finance the investmentsof small entrepreneurs and taxadministrationhas become easier. These improvementsare to be continued in the future. Theprogramme plans to decrease the costs associatedwith employment (by cutting social security contributionsand taxes), to contribute to the financingof export-orientated enterprises, to promotelocal services and to provide a simple and efficientlegal environment. Helping unemployedpeople to become self-employed remains a priority.The third chapter encourages the modificationof collective contracts in order to incorporaterules governing new flexible types of employment,such as part-time work. The chapter alsostresses the importance of legal modifications inorder to regulate atypical work forms. The programmeputs special emphasis on the role of socialdialogue mechanisms in this process. Whilethis chapter seems to consider atypical employmentand flexibility as an important source ofemployment creation, it assigns the state a passiverole in the promotion of such work arrangements.The fourth chapter focusing on nondiscriminationissues underlines the importanceof reducing gender discrimination on the labormarket. In order to achieve this goal, the programmeemphasizes the importance of the accessto part-time and flexible employment as well aslow-cost and high-quality child-care services.CONCLUSIONUnder socialism the main forms of non-standardwork were work in the second economy, overtimework at the first job, and having a second job.Since the transition, the main form of nonstandardwork became self-employment, whilethe importance of having a second job has decreasedsubstantially. Part-time work, which is ofhigh importance in Western European countrieswas very rare before transition and did not reallygain importance during the transition to capitalism.There is also a small part of the workingpopulation which is employed on a fixed-termcontract basis or as casual workers. Based on statisticaldata, the total percentage of self-employed,part-time workers and temporary workers in theHungarian workforce is around 25per cent, a levelthat is much lower than recorded in EU countries(Laky 2000). We have seen however, that there areproblems of statistical measurement, especially indealing with small-scale agricultural production© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Seven. Literature review: Hungary 151and casual workers. As we stated above, atypicalforms of employment concern possibly manymore people than are found in the statistics. Inthis case, policy makers’ concern is for the creationof “typical” jobs. This is one reason why employmentpolicy initiatives to promote someforms of non-standard work were modest. Employmentpolicy was somewhat active in subsidizingself-employment by the unemployed, butit is fair to say that the promotion of part-timeemployment has not become a cornerstone of thefight against increasing inactivity. The largest policyeffect on part-time employment (at least of thestatistically measurable type) occurred as a sideeffect of the increase in the minimum wage at thebeginning of 2001. As a reaction to the considerableincrease in the minimum wage, some employersevaded rising labour costs by declaringemployees as part-time employees or even changingexisting labour contracts. There has been nosystematic analysis of this problem but HCSOLabor Force Survey data show that in the first sixmonths of 2001 the number of part-time employeesincreased by 21per cent with respect to thesame period a year before (Labor report, January-June 2001).Along with the employers’ lack of interestdue to substantial fixed costs, another reason foratypical employment not having a larger share isthat Hungarians still have a rather instrumentalway of thinking about work. Hungarians are notwealthy enough to be concerned with havingmore leisure or more creative work. The followingtable shows answers by employees to questionsabout the importance of work attributes. Highpay and job security is the most important foremployees while autonomy and flexible workhours have lesser and even decreasing importance.However, we can assume that despite lowlevels of interest in voluntary part-time work, thedemand for flexible working arrangements willincrease because enterprises are facing globalcompetition and wage differences between EUand Hungarian companies will presumably decreasewith accession to the European Union. As aconsequence, employers are expected to adopt allmeasures possible to make economies in labourcosts.Table 2. Perception and importance of different job attributes in 1989 and 1997.True of existing jobPerception as important1989 1997 1989 1997Job security 72.2% 47.4% 95.5% 96.5%High pay 9.7% 8.4% 92.9% 95.4%Work useful for society 85.5% 78.9% 89.3% 80.3%Interesting work 65.9% 63.4% 85.0% 87.0%Work helps others 77.8% 73.6% 77.8% 74.0%Autonomy at work 74.8% 70.1% 77.3% 77.7%Flexible work hours - - 70.9% 49.5%Promotion opportunities 9.1% 13.9% 66.8% 73.1%Note: N=601(1989), 626(1997)Source:Róbert and Medgyesi (1999). Data from ISSP Work Module.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

152 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityThe question about the evaluation of job with respectto flexibility of work hours has been askeddifferently, and this is why responses are notcomparable with responses regarding other jobattributes. Responses were coded on a five-pointscale. Here only the upper two categories (absolutelytrue, true and very important, important)are reported.NOTES1 The author is greatful to Endre Sik for very helpful comments. He has also benefited from help ofTeréz Laky, Mária Frey, Ágnes Simonyi, János Kutas, János Tímár and Veres Lászlóné during thepreparation of this paper. They aren’t, of course in any way responsible for remaining errors.2 Hungarian firms were characterised by selective wage bargaining in which informal groups, formedby workers with the most firm-specific skills and the best relations were in the best positions (Stark1986, Kalleberg and Stark 1993). Time spent at the enterprise, age and skills did influence the possibilityof individuals to become members of informal groups with stronger bargaining capabilitiesbut not on the basis of formalised mechanisms, as in Western firms. This is a crucial difference betweenWestern-type internal labour markets and those in socialist companies.3 These strategies are well described in the the functioning of a textile manufacturing plant by Köllő(1982).4 Because of increasing unemployment, fluctuation, that is frequent job changes are no longer a strategyfor achieving higher pay. Excess supply on the labour market, especially concerning occupationsfor which fluctuation was a fruitful alternative before, constrains the possibility of job changes.5 This of course does not mean that transactions in the informal economy are all illegal, althoughsome of them are.6 There are severe problems in the measurement of the extent of atypical employment in Hungary.There are two main factors at the origin of this problem: one is that legislation and consequently statisticalmeasurement is still mainly suitable for the “typical” job. Definitions were not adapted to fitthese new types of employment. The second difficulty stems from the fact that many activities whichtake the form of atypical work arrangements do not appear in statistical figures, simply because theyare part of the “informal” or “un-organized” part of the economy. Casual work is a paradigmaticcase for this kind of problem.7 These data however are not suitable for discussing illegal or black employment.8 There is some measurement error in these figures as well. Only an estimated 45per cent of those whodeclare less then 35 working hours are effectively workers whose total employment time fell intothis category. Others work less then 40 hours because of other reasons.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Seven. Literature review: Hungary 153REFERENCESFarkas Anna-Nemes Gusztáv (1997): Szezononkívül és belül avagy munkakeresés,munkavállalás és családi gazdálkodás együdülőövezetben. Esély pp.42.-73.Frey Mária, (1995): Munkanélküliből lett vállalkozók.Szociológiai Szemle 1995, no.2.Frey, Mária, (1998): Aktív munkaerőpiaci eszközöktípusai, résztvevői ás munkaerőpiacihatásai (1991-1997). Munkaügyi Kutató Intézet,Budapest 1998.Frey Mária (2000): Állapot felmérés a munkaidőrendszerek és a foglalkoztatási formák flexibilizálásánakhazai helyzetéről, manuscriptBudapest 2000.Frey, Mária- Demkó Olivér, (2000): A hazaimunkaerőpiac fejlődési trendjei. MunkaügyiSzemle 2000 vol. 44. no.2.Frey, Mária- Gere Ilona, (1994): Részmunkaidősfoglalkoztatás- a kihasználatlan lehetőség.Közgazdasági szemle 1994 vol. XLI. No. 9.Frey, Mária- Gere Ilona, (1996): Foglalkoztatáspolitikaifeladatok az államháztartási reformtükrében. In: Infotársadalomtudomány,No. 37. 1996 August.Gábor R. István (1991): Második gazdaságmodernitás-dualitás.Tegnapi jövőképeinkmai szemmel. Hozzászólás egy elmaradtvitához. Közgazdasági Szemle XXXVIII 199111 sz. 1041-1057Gábor R. István (1997): Belsõ versus foglalkozásimunkaerõpiac-a posztszocialista átalakuláselhanyagolt dimenziója (Internal vs. occupationallabour market-a neglected aspect ofpost-socialist transition). KözgazdaságiSzemle (Review of Economics) vol. XLIV.No. 6.Galasi Péter (ed.) (1982): A munkaerőpiacszerkezete és működése MagyarországonKJK BP.Galasi Péter and Sziráczki György (1985): Stateregulation, enterprise behavior and the labourmarket in Hungary, 1968-83 CambridgeJournal of Economics 1985, 9,203.-219.Horváth Tamás and Sziráczki György (eds.)(1989): Flexibilty and rigidity in the labormarket in Hungary International Institute forLabour Studie, Geneva Research Series 90,1989Kalleberg, Arne L. and David Stark (1993): Careerstrategies in capitalism and socialism: workvalues and job rewards in the United Statesand Hungary. Social Forces, Vol. 72.Kertesi Gábor and Sziráczki György (1984): Thesecond economy and workers behaviuor onthe labour market in Hungary. EconomiaLavoro Communicazioni pp.119-127 AnnoXVIII n.1.1984.Kertesi Gábor and Sziráczki György (1985):Worker behaviour and labour market.Galasi, Péter and Sziráczki György (eds.)1985. Labour Market and Second Economy inHungary. Frankfurt: Campus.Kornai János (1980): Economics of Shortage. Amsterdam,North Holland.Kornai János (1993): A pénzügyi fegyelemevolúciója a posztszocialista rendszerben(The evolution of fiscal discipline in the postsocialistsystem). Közgazdasági Szemle (Reviewof Economics) XL. vol. 5. szám.Köllő János (1982): A külső és a belső munkaerőpiackapcsolata egy pamutszövödében inGalasi (ed.).Labour Report, January- June 2001., HungarianCentral Statistical Office. Budapest 2001 september.Labour Research Institute (1997, 2000).Munkaerõpiaci helyzetjelentés (Yearly Reportof Labour Market). Struktúra-Munkaügyi Kiadó Kft., Budapest.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

154 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityLaky Teréz (1995): A magángazdaság kialakulásaés a foglalkoztatottság. KözgazdaságiSzemle, XLIII. évf., 7-8. szám.Laky Teréz – Borbély Szilvia – Nacsa Beáta – FreyMária – Lakatos Judit – Nádas Magdolna –Simonyi Ágnes Lindner Sándor – Plank Ferencné– Gere Ilona (1997): Az atipikusfoglalkoztatási formák. Európai TükörMűhelytanulmányok 25. IntegrációsStratégiai Munkacsoport.Laky, Teréz, (2000): Az atipikus foglalkoztatásról,mimeo. 2000.Ministry of Economic Affairs, (1999): Tájékoztatóa megyei (fővárosi) munkaügyi központokIgazgatói Értekezlete részére, Budapest, 1999April.Ministry of Economic Affairs, (2000): The NationalEmployment Action Plan, Budapest2000.Pulay Dr., Gyula, (1996): Fogalakoztatáspolitika agazdasági stabilizáció időszakában.Munkaügyi Szemle 1996 vol. 40. no.2.Pulay Dr., Gyula (1989) Womens labour force participationpaterns: Changes in the division onlabour within society and family in Horváth-Sziráczki (eds.).Rimler Judit (1999): A munka jövője. Új fogalmak,feltételek, forgatókönyvek. KözgazdaságiSzemle. 1999 September pp.772.-788.Róbert Péter and Medgyesi Márton (1999):Changing attitudes, expectations and satisfactionin work relations: comparison between1989 and 1997, paper presented atLeuven january, 1999.Scharle Ágota (2000): Önfoglalkoztatás, munkanélküliségés családi vállalkozások Magyarországon.Közgazdasági Szemle 2000 Marchpp. 250.-274.Sik Endre (1994): From the Multicolored to theBlack and White Economy: The HungarianSecond Economy and the Transformation. InternationalJournal of Urban and RegionalResearch, Vol. 18, 46-70. old.Simonyi Ágnes (1995): Munka nélkül: családi alkalmazkodásistratégiák és hiányuk. SzociológiaiSzemle 1995/1.Stark, David (1986) Rethinking internal labourmarkets: new insights from a comparativeperspective. American Sociological Review51: 492-504.Sziráczki György (1989): Changes in the labourmarket and employment policy (1973-87) inHorváth-Sziráczki (eds.)Tímár János (1988): Idő és munkaidő. KJK Budapest.Tímár János, 1998: Tévedés vagy félreértés arészmunkaidõ megítélése? Népszabadság,1998. 56. évf. 297. számVajda Ágnes (1996): A szervezett munkaerőpiaconkívüli munkavégzés, 1980-1990 StatisztikaiSzemle 1996/4, pp. 304-331.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter EightHOUSEHOLDS, WORK AND FLEXIBILITYCritical Review of LiteratureBULGARIA[ Siyka Kovacheva, University of Plovdiv ][ Contents ]INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................1571. FLEXIBILITY AS A POLICY MODEL.................................................................................................1581.1. Flexibility as a way for encouraging employment....................................................................1581.2. The flexible company as a model for Bulgaria’s new businesses...........................................1591.3. Flexibility as a New Form of Human Resources Management...............................................1602. FLEXIBILITY OF WORK IN THE ECONOMIC RESTRUCTURING IN BULGARIA .........................1612.1. Flexibility as Non-Standard Employment in the Post-Communist Labour Market ..................1612.2. Flexibility in Self-Employment and Entrepreneurship..............................................................1632.3. Flexibility as Additional Work...................................................................................................1652.4. Flexibility as Job Changes in One’s Career ............................................................................1663. FLEXIBILITY IN THE INFORMAL (SHADOW) ECONOMY..............................................................1674. FLEXIBILITY AS A TYPE OF HOUSEHOLD STRATEGIES ............................................................1684.1. The Flexibility of Active Income Earning Strategies ................................................................1684.2. The Impoverishment of Bulgarian Households as a Barrier to Flexibility ...............................1714.3. Home Production – A Flexible Strategy Out of Poverty ..........................................................1744.4. Back to the Land – Flexible Strategy for Survival ...................................................................1764.5. Flexibility in Gender and Age Division of Labour in the Household ........................................178CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................180REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................................181© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

[ List of tables and figures ]Table 1. Flexible Forms of Employment.............................................................................................. 159Table 2. Employed for Less than 40 hours a week............................................................................. 163Table 3. Extra Income Work in Bulgaria.............................................................................................. 165Table 4. Types of Economies.............................................................................................................. 167Table 5. Family Types according to Their Expectations ..................................................................... 169Table 6. Types of Income Earning Strategies..................................................................................... 169Table 7. Dominant Values................................................................................................................... 170Table 8. Types of Households according to the Ratio of Their Income and Expenditure .................. 172Table 9. Household Situation Now and Before the Transition ........................................................... 172Table 10. Children’s Access to Personal Computers in Bulgaria ......................................................... 180Figure 1. The Source of Greatest Support in Unemployment.............................................................. 170Figure 2. Types of Economic Behaviour .............................................................................................. 173

Chapter Eight. Literature review: Bulgaria 157INTRODUCTIONThe context in which flexibility of work is to beidentified in Bulgaria is the profound social transformationfrom a centrally planned to a marketregulated economy. In a way, the reforms areleading to a flexibilisation of all former socialstructural patterns and especially those in thefield of work. Thus during the one party regimework patterns were highly standardised, strictlyregulated, full-time, permanent and secure. Selfemployment,free-lancing, home-working, fixedterm contracts and other ‘non-standard’ jobs andcareers were very limited in number for the fourdecades of communist rule. There were no reallabour markets, as the state allocated school anduniversity graduates to places in the state ownedcompanies where they could stay till retirement.Proclaimed to be The basic human right, the rightto work was also an obligation to work and couldonly be exercised as a full time occupation.Changing jobs between workplaces was stronglydiscouraged as undesired ‘fluidity’ of the labourforce while combining jobs was sanctioned as alack of full devotion to the goal of ‘work selfrealisation’of the personality.In the 1990s the social reforms toward liberalisationof the economy and of social life in generalresulted in less formal regulation, less control,more insecurity and greater diversity ofwork. The developing market economy provideda wider scope of opportunities to work in differentsectors of the economy: state, privatised,newly founded private, foreign implants, mixed.They offered varying conditions of work withvarying arrangements of working time and place.At first seen as a solution to the inefficiency oflabour in the centrally planned economy, massunemployment persisted during the decade oftransition, staying at two-digit levels. The suddencollapse of the system of full employment andlife-long jobs under the conditions of a fiftypercentdrop in economic output for the first fiveyears of reforms created segmented and fracturedlabour markets. The wide-scale de-structuring ofthe former regulators in economy, politics, education,health care and other social spheres forcedindividuals and households to invent flexiblestrategies to adapt to the new situation.Flexibility of work, however, is not a hottopic in social sciences’ debate in Bulgaria. Otherissues have been extensively studied and widelydiscussed after the start of the reforms in 1989,such as poverty, unemployment, homelessness,middle class formation, entrepreneurship, genderinequalities, to mention just a few from the topicsof the thematic volumes of ‘Sociological Problems’,the only one specialised sociological journalin the country since 1993. Flexibility of labour hasnot been the focus of any of the scientific conferencesin the sociological community in the country,which are rare events anyway in the 1990s.Publications in the field of social policy, industrialrelations, human resource management, macroand microeconomics have scarcely touched thetopic usually as an illustration of world trendsrather than as an examination of the situation inBulgarian economy. Analysis of work changes inthe course of transition has concentrated on privatisation,mass unemployment, active labour marketpolicies, and self-employment.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

158 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityNevertheless, these deliberations have highlightedvarious aspects of flexibility in terms ofwork conditions, place and time variations, andadaptability of household strategies. ‘Underemployment’,‘inferior employment’, ‘part-timework’, ‘temporary work’, ‘informal work regulations’,‘de-standardisation of work’, ‘atypical employment’,‘work in the shadow economy’ are allconcepts used to study and explain the new processescomprising the growth of flexible labourunder post-communism. This diversity of termsin Bulgarian literature is not only a lack oftheoretical precision. It reflects the differentmeanings and political judgements of the authorsin the same way as Felstead and Jenson (1999)have discovered in their survey of the debate inWestern and (Far) Eastern literature. To nowand (Far) Eastern literature. To now social sciencesin Bulgaria have been concerned more withthe policy implications of flexible labour, givingthem either optimistic or pessimistic interpretationsrather than with data collection, trendanalysis, scrutiny of everyday practices, legalregulations, individual and group identities.This paper starts with a review of the publicationsin Bulgaria which make flexibility of worktheir major focus and then proceeds with the examinationof closely related topics such as nonstandardemployment, labour market, self-employment,informal economy, household strategies.It ends with setting an agenda for future researchon the topic.1. FLEXIBILITY AS A POLICY MODELThe term flexibility appears in the titles of onlythree articles in Bulgarian literature, all publishedin Problems of Labour, the journal of the Ministry ofLabour and Social Policy. Two of them, publishedin 1996 and 1997, were un-authored compilations,translated from English. Both of them presentWestern (EU) policies toward greater flexibility inthe labour market. The third one (Atanasova,1998) also discusses foreign models, this time offlexible management strategies inside the company.What all three publications have in commonis the perception of flexibility of work as themost advanced mechanism for enhancing employmentand improving compatibility under thepressure of globalisation.1.1. Flexibility as a way for encouraging employmentThe 1996 publication (Problems of Labour, 1996)describes the greater flexibility of legal and institutionalregulations of the labour market as a responseto and a way out of the crisis in employmentin Western countries, recommended by G-7,OECD and the European Commission. The articleexamines the forms of flexibility concerning workerremuneration, working time, and employmentprotection.! In the sphere of worker remuneration thereare various ways of increasing flexibility. Thearticle claims that the most efficacious policyis the one directed towards reducing thebenefits above the salary and increasing thedifferentiation of salaries and the elasticity ofthe structure of payments.! The policy towards flexibilisation of workingtime should encompass the reduction ofworking hours and the expansion of parttimejobs. A model example of the latter isthe Netherlands where the growth in parttimejobs in the 80s has led to a significantrise in employment.! The third direction of changes, discussed inthe article, is the lowering of job protectionproviding more freedom for employers inhiring and firing and in choosing among awider scope of the forms of labour contracts:fixed-term, sub-contracting, franchising andother non-standard forms.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Eight. Literature review: Bulgaria 159As a synonym to flexibility the article uses theterm ‘atypical forms of employment’. It ends upwith the conclusion that although flexibilityshould not be an absolute solution at any price, itis an imperative transformation of the employmentsystem in Bulgaria in view of the rising internationalcompetition.The same positive evaluation to the flexibilityof the EU labour market is given in the 1997 article.It starts with the assumption that the need ofgreater flexibility is not and should not be disputedat all, the real question concerns ‘how it canbe achieved and whether it is the sufficient conditionfor employment growth’ (Problems of Labour,1997:75).The article maintains that a major route towardgreater flexibility is the investment in training.It requires two essential changes:! on the part of the workforce to raise theiradaptability to changes in working conditionsthrough education and trainingthroughout the life span.The article determines that flexibility is not incongruouswith labour market security and Denmarkis cited as a model for matching active labourmarket policy with high levels of social protection.The anonymous author declares that theconcept of work security should be reformulatedby laying the stress more upon the security of labourmarket and less on the security of the individualjob. Unlike the first article, this one providessome (limited) statistics on flexibility in EUcountries. The data concern only part-time employmentand its variations according to gender,age and education of the employees.! on the part of companies to provide opportunitiesfor life-long learning for the employees,and1.2. The flexible company as a model for Bulgaria’s new businessesIn the third article Atanasova (1998) analysesflexibility from the perspective of company management.It is discussed within the concept of theinternal labour market (Doeringer and Piore,1971; Atkinson and Meager, 1986). Atanasovaunderlines several specific features of the internallabour market in a flexible company: flexibility inthe number of personnel, functional flexibility,financial flexibility and relocation (distancing) ofsome of the company’s activities to be performedby outside persons (subcontracting). According tothe author, a flexible firm uses various forms offlexible employment in varying degrees of intensity,which are summed up in a table, followingArmstrong (1992):Table 1. Flexible Forms of Employmenttypes of flexibilityFlexibility based on labour contractsFlexibility based on working timeFlexibility based on positionsFlexibility based on skillsFlexibility based on remunerationconditions of workNew forms of work contracts – free lancing, part-time jobsChanges in working time, flexible time patternsChanges in work assignments and job positionsChanges in the scope of knowledge and skills of the employedFlexible remuneration systemsSource: Armstrong (1992)Atanasova further explores the structure of theflexible firm, asserting that it develops a flexibleorganisation with a core and periphery internallabour market. The development of the flexiblefirm has advantages and disadvantages which aretaken into consideration in the management’s at-© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

160 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilitytempts to motivate the employees in such a firm.She briefly describes Western concepts of workmotivation which exist in theories of human resourcemanagement and all the examples sheprovides for successful strategies are from Western(British, German, American) companies.Various other books and articles also use theterm ‘flexible work’ in their discussions of theways in which labour market policy should develop.The journal Problems of Labour (1999) haspublished another article in which it presents theAmsterdam Treaty as a strategy for raising theflexibility and adaptability of the labour force andgetting it highly qualified and ready for retraining.Keremidchieva (1998: 21) also studies newdirections in labour market policies. She introducesthe term ‘flexible workers’, that is workerswho are constantly moving between employmentand unemployment. She also speaks about a‘flexible harmonisation of interests’, pointing atthe need of public consensus concerning flexibilityand the normative basis of the institutionalisedlabour market. She distinguishes between threeapproaches in policies, which encourage employment(p.30):! stimuli for the business for recruiting moreemployees! development of new activities meeting newdemands (e.g. services)! changes in the distribution of working time –that is flexible forms of employment.When analysing the third approach, Keremidchieva(1998) asserts that the reduced workingtime is a form of solidarity toward the unemployed.Usually the reduction of working time ismatched with a reorganisation of the time budgetin the companies. On the author’s opinion, thiscannot be done by law uniformly for all companies.The reduction of working time should be aresult of negotiations. It helps the unemployedbut reduces the income and social security benefits.She points at the fact that a third of all employmentin the West is in flexible forms andgives the example of the UK, which has adopted agovernment programme of ‘Labour Redistribution’.In the judgement of the author, despitesome possible negative effects, flexibilisation is areality and the labour market policy should encouragethe adaptability of the companies and oftheir employees.Beleva et al (1996: 92-93) insist that the strategyfor encouraging employment in Bulgariashould be the use of flexible forms of labour. Thelatter are defined as part-time work and homeworking. According to the authors the diversity offorms widens the opportunities for choice and isespecially suitable for women – mothers of youngchildren, women who still study.In a more recent publication Beleva (1999:42)holds that part-time employment is an indicatorfor the level of flexibility of the labour market. Itcreates opportunities for the labour force to findthe most suitable forms of labour supply. Additionally,part-time employment is a factor for raisingthe general level of employment. Kirova(1994) also argues that part-time employment is aform of social protection against unemploymentand considers that encouraging this form of workis a form of encouraging women’s employment inparticular.1.3. Flexibility as a New Form of Human Resources ManagementFlexibility of labour is heralded as the effectivestrategy of human resources management particularlyunder conditions of economic restructuringin Todorova et al (1997). It is seen as a way toraise innovation and labour productivity. The authorsassociate flexibility with:! change of occupation! change of job! change of the place of living(in search of a job)! additional employment! training and re-training© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Eight. Literature review: Bulgaria 161! work under the conditions of a flexible workingtime(Todorova et al, 1997:25).Perhaps because this publication is intended as atextbook for students in human resource management,the two pages comprising the chapter‘Flexibility of Work’ does not contain any empiricaldata on the phenomenon either in a Bulgariancontext or on world trends. Nor does it offer anydoubts about the probability of negative effects offlexibilisation. The authors’ thesis is simple: flexibilisationof work is a global trend, including theeconomies in transition. The conclusion is alsoplain: the best employment policy is to raise ‘thework force readiness for change of work as ananswer to changes in economic life’ (Todorova etal, 1997:26).Shopov (1997) also approaches the problemof flexibility of work from the perspective of humanresources management. He argues that theflexible business organisation, which is brought tolife by the modern technological development,requires a balanced usage of the opportunities ofthe internal and external labour market. In hiscalculations (1997:21), a significant proportion ofthe labour force in Bulgaria are ‘not fully employed’.He claims that employed on part-timecontracts (1-39 hours a week) were 7.7% of thelabour force in 1995 while longer than the normaltime work 7.9% of all employees in the country. Ina more recent (and longer) publication named‘Labour Economics’ (1999) Shopov et al havedropped out the term ‘flexibility’ and speak aboutelasticity of labour. Elasticity is the dynamic balancebetween labour demand and remunerationlevel.While Genova (1998) is concerned more withthe flexibility of the motivation strategy of company’smanagement, Varbanova (1997:43) mentionsflexibility in association with organisation oflabour inside the company. She perceives theflexible working time and the work in the homeas mechanisms to raise the quality of work. Thesehave advantages both for the company and forthe employees. The non-standard forms of employmentare particularly suited for parents ofsmall children, disabled, those still in education,and older people.A common feature of these publications discussingflexibility from the perspective of humanresources management is their optimistic vision offlexibility and lack of supporting empirical datafrom the economy or the broader social context inpost-communist Bulgaria. Flexibility is a characteristicof the advanced market societies and thesocieties in transition have to quickly follow inthis route. The goal of accession to the EuropeanUnion makes flexibilisation of the labour marketand the business management a policy imperativefor Bulgaria. In this discussion there is no mentionof any specifics in the forms of flexible workwhen post-communist economic and social realitiesare taken into consideration.2. FLEXIBILITY OF WORK IN THE ECONOMIC RESTRUCTURING IN BULGARIAThe rise in flexible employment in Bulgaria is notonly a policy led trend but has its routes in theeconomic restructuring underway in the 1990s.Empirical research in Bulgaria has studied numerousprocesses that serve as pressure from thelabour demand side. It reveals various new andolder tendencies of de-standardisation of employmentcontracts, working time arrangements,self-employment, job sharing and job changing.2.1. Flexibility as Non-Standard Employment in the Post-Communist Labour MarketUnlike the policy oriented papers, greater precisionand more concern for empirical facts arefound in labour market research. The publicationson employment and labour market trends fromthe perspectives of sociology and economics arenumerous. They address a great variety of types© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

162 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityof work and employment relations such as ‘underemployment’(Dimitrova, 1995), ‘new forms ofemployment contracts’ (Beleva et al, 1997), ‘insecurejobs’ (Vladimirov et al, 1998), ‘job sharing’ or‘polyvalent employment’ (Yossifov, 1993). Theseterms are sometimes used interchangeably with‘flexible employment’. This plethora of termshowever not only reflects a kind of uncertaintybut also contains a critical (or at least a more balanced)vision of the processes under way in postcommunistlabour markets. Both the general descriptionand the concrete analyses of labourmarket trends in the country offer negative interpretationsof current situation.Beleva (1999:44-45) considers inflexibility asthe most prominent feature of the employment inthe first half of the 1990s. Her publication discussesthe following characteristics of the newlyformed labour market under post-communism:! permanent misbalance between labour demandand supply! high level and duration of unemployment! underprivileged position of young people inthe labour market! under-development of self-employment andentrepreneurship! inflexible functioning of the labour market! bad targeting of employment programmesand measures! lack of transparency of the processes in thelabour market! high share of informal, unregistered or partlyregistered employment.In this publication the author does not providestatistical data for a more detailed analysis. However,her own research contradicts this totallynegative vision. A study of 309 companies in Bulgaria(Beleva et al, 1997) reveals a general predispositionamong the employers towards a diversificationof labour contracts: 72.2% expressingpreference toward fixed term contracts, 27.8% –subcontracting, 16.8% – part-time, 15.8% – seasonalemployment. The authors define this as amove toward flexible employment relations and aprerequisite of a rational usage of the workforce.However, their data present respondents’ preferencesand intentions rather than real practices, sowe do not know how many of them are really usingthese forms of contracts.Statistical analysis of the distribution of thenew forms of employment in Bulgarian economyis to be found in Dimitrova (1995). For the author,the new forms of employment typical for labourmarkets in an unstable economic situation can beplaced under the broad title of ‘inferior employment’or what in specialised international literatureis referred to as ‘underemployment’. She alsouses the term ‘flexible forms of employment’ as asynonym but prefers inferior employment asmore accurate.Inferior employment is typical for peoplewho:! are forced to work less hours or less daysthan the law for a given occupation in agiven country! are in a forced unpaid leave! work seasonally! work on a full-time basis but would like towork additionally! are highly qualified but hold a low-qualifiedjob! work on a full-time basis but with long stays(demurrages), low productivity and low pay! are self-employed but with irregular workloads! are unpaid family workers.Following Hussmans et al (1992) Dimitrova distinguishesbetween manifest and hidden forms ofinferior employment and states that it is the manifestforms that are accessible for statistical analysis.Under the Labour Law in Bulgaria the lowerlimit for full time employment is 40 hours a week.According to this definition underemployed inBulgaria were 10.3% of all employed in 1994 andthe structure of this group was as follows:© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Eight. Literature review: Bulgaria 163Table 2. Employed for Less than 40 hours a week (per cent, June 1994)Structure Less than 40 hours 1-9 hours 10-19 hours 20-29 hours 30-39 hoursTotal 100 1.8 9.0 31.5 57.7Men 100 2.4 10.4 30.8 56.4Women 100 1.3 7.9 32.0 58.8State sector 100 1.1 4.4 26.2 68.3Private sector 100 2.8 15.9 39.3 42.0Source: Hussmans et al (1992)Bulgarian women are more often found amongthe underemployed than men. Women workingfor less than 40 hours a week were 12.4% of allemployed women, while underemployed menconstituted 8.5% of all employed men. The underemployedwere concentrated in the private sector– their share there was twice higher than in thestate sector. It was the private sector as wellwhere the share of those working longer hourswas the highest. Among those employed in theprivate sector 28.9% worked 60 and more hours aweek. This research suggests that the newly establishedprivate sector allows a greater flexibility oflabour.In the same publication Dimitrova (1995) arguesthat the development of underemploymentin Bulgaria has both economic and social reasonswhich are embedded in the transition to a marketeconomy. When she considers its consequences,they are all negative: de-qualification of people,disproportions in the labour market, higher competitionamong the unemployed, impetus for illegal,non-regulated employment.The non-standard forms of employment underpost communism are often seen as negativetendencies leading to high social costs of the transition.Lukanova (1996: 38) argue that part-timeemployment, together with long-tern unemployment,is among the causes for poverty. Underemploymentand development of a black labourmarket come as consequences of the high massunemployment (Dimitrova, 1994). The end of lifelongjobs causes stress not only among the unemployedbut also among those still having jobs.Dimitrova’ study (1994) established that a half ofthose employed feared that they might be dismissed.Four years later, about 60% of the respondentsin Vladimirov’s survey (1998) declaredthat they felt insecurity and fear for their workplace.The concern about the possible job lost wasnot influenced significantly by the dwelling place,education, age and gender, it was a widely sharedattitude.2.2. Flexibility in Self-Employment and EntrepreneurshipSelf-employment is a new, non-standard form oflabour for Bulgarian economy. During the previousregime less than one per cent of the workforce were involved in activities not associatedwith the two dominant forms of property – stateand co-operative. The large-scale national survey‘The Town and the Village’ estimated that 0.61%of the economically active population were selfemployedand a further 0.34% belonged to thecategory ‘others’, including free-lancers and missingdata (Michailov, 1986). By mid 1990s the selfemployedand private employers have overpassed10% (NSI, 1997).Flexibility is one of the essential characteristicsof Shumpeter’s definition of the entrepreneur,widely accepted by Bulgarian sociologists (Todorovaet al, 1997:27; Manolov, 1995:13; Rakadzijska,1998:71). Here flexibility is associated withinnovation, new combinations of organisationalelements, a creative response to market dynamics.Manolov (1995: 26) argues that a risky behaviourand flexibility are the typical features of the entrepreneur.In his study of entrepreneurs in Bul-© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

164 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilitygaria he found that the leading type of motivationin all groups was economic, followed by the strifefor professional development, to get power, etc.His respondents employed three types of strategies:high quality of goods, accessible prices, goodorganisation of work in the firm. Manolov linksflexibility mainly with prices, with their constant‘actualisation’ (p.56) and does not analyse the organisationof the company, nor the types of workingcontract used by the employers.Stoilova (1999) sees the specificity of selfemploymentin the lack of outside reglamentation,a greater degree of autonomy in the work,and direct economic dependence upon the results.She argues that in this field there is a process offormation of a personality type with greater flexibility,adaptability and mobility. The flexible personalitytype includes a sense for the empty marketniches, inclination to risk and readiness toadapt your economic activity to the changing requirementsof the clients. Dimitrov (1997: 148)also underlines the role of flexibility in the ‘dynamicmotivational structure’ of entrepreneurs inBulgaria.Flexibility was also referred to as a personalcharacteristics of the self-employed in a comparativestudy of self-employed youth in four EastCentral European countries, including Bulgaria(Roberts et al, 2000). This research found a muchhigher readiness to change their field of activitiesamong self-employed youth than that of the unemployedyouth and to start business in fieldsdifferent from their qualifications received atschool. Analysing results from the same studyKovacheva (1998:266) defined flexibility as ‘abilitiesto adapt to the changing economic situation’.The greater success in business was relatedamong other indicators to ‘flexibility as foresightand planning’ (Roberts and Fagan, 1998:134).While the successful businessmen were the mostlikely to have planned to become self-employedwhen they were still at school, their career planshave often changed. The parallel samples ofyoung unemployed were more likely than theself-employed to have stuck to their initial careerplans despite that it was unlikely for them to besoon realised. This study established that selfemploymentwas associated with longer workinghours – three fourths of the respondents workedover 40 hours a week and more than a third –over 60 hours. The share of those over-workingwas the highest in Bulgaria in comparison withthe other three countries. The greatest resourcewas their industriousness matched with flexibilityand workaholism.Survey data from the first years of market reformsin Bulgaria (Chavdarova, 1993) revealed ahigh degree of flexibility in the entrepreneur’sactivities. A common practice among the selfemployedwas to register their firms with a verybroad scope of activity, which was subsequentlylimited. The owners frequently changed theirmain activity or added activities for the time beingto react to the economic situation. Often thecompany was engaged in one type of activity inthe informal economy while officially the ownerwas reporting quite another. All this was possibleby the practice of double entry. Chavdarova (p.166) considers that ‘the most characteristic featureof the independent entrepreneur’s activities in thetransition period is that, even if registered, theseactivities are actually very difficult to control’.Kostova (1998) also studied this social group,highlighting their ability to change and adapt tothe new situation. She examined the work historiesof representatives of the economic elite instate and private companies in Bulgaria andfound that they tended to be male (in a ratio of 5to 1), in the age group of 40-60, with higher educationand that 80% of them currently were orpreviously had been members of the BulgarianCommunist (now Socialist) Party (p. 191).Most of the papers presented by Bulgarianauthors at the international conference on themiddle class, held in Sofia in 1998 and subsequentlypublished in a volume (See Tilkidziev,1998) discussed the new role of the entrepreneurin theoretical terms in the concern to judgewhether middle class as a category or rather ideologywas relevant in Bulgaria. There was verylittle empirical consideration about the conditionsof their work. Not so preoccupied with the theo-© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Eight. Literature review: Bulgaria 165retical classifications were the presentations at thenational conference ‘Social Sciences and the SocialChange in Bulgaria’, held two years earlier (SeeBaytchinska, 1998). Here Pavlova (1998) presentedresults from a study of the types of economicorganisation based on different forms ofcontracts, following Williamson (1991). From thisperspective, the hybrid organisation was betweenthe market type and the hierarchical type and wastypical for societies in transition. According to theauthor, these organisational forms were moreflexible, informal, open for entrepreneurship anddemonstrated better adaptive capabilities. Characteristicsof the hybrids in Bulgaria was theirmixed type form of ownership, limited autonomy,semi-legal regime of functioning. In Bulgaria theywere born by the liberated enterprising spirit andthe unstable institutional milieu. In the same volumeManolov (1998) argues on the basis of anempirical research that the principle of innovationis an essential characteristics of the entrepreneursin Bulgaria with which they increase the adaptabilityof their companies to the changing marketmilieu. They compensate the insufficiency ofknowledge about the market situation with agrowing flexibility in their behaviour.2.3. Flexibility as Additional WorkAnother practice that is associated with flexiblelabour is holding a second job. Data on this arerarely provided as the large scale labour marketstudies usually register one dominant employmentstatus. Incidents of working in differentcompanies or combining employment and selfemployment,work and study, unemploymentand agricultural work creates confusion in otherwiseorderly economics statistics (See Lekov,2000:92). However, the phenomenon has attractedthe attention of many sociologists.Tilkidziev (1998a) uses the term ‘additional work’and stresses that this includes both formal andinformal arrangements of work. His study establishedthat a third of the respondents were engagedin such work. An earlier survey conductedby NAPOC (National Public Opinion Centre) in1991 found that 12% of the sample earned moneyfrom a second job. Chavdarova (1993) providesinformation not only about the incidence of earningmoney from a second job, but also about thedistribution of this practice among various socialgroups (See Table 3.). The category ‘other’ includesemployed women currently on maternityleave, disabled people on invalidity allowances,etc (p. 165).Table 3. Extra Income Work in Bulgaria (1991, per cent)Social categories National Distribution Sample DistributionExtra income workerswithin the categoryRegularly employed 49.0 50.4 14.3Retired 28.8 36.2 8.4Unemployed 5.9 7.7 10.3Students 2.3 1.7 14.1Housewives n.a. 1.9 17.4Other 14.0 2.1 22.2Source: Chavdarova (1993)© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

166 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityChavdarova argues that the actual incidenceshould be higher than the shares reported. Shealso discusses the distribution according to theeconomic sector in which the second job is performed.The results are the following (p. 165):! state sector – 9.2%! self-employment – 57.8%! private sector – 18.2%! co-operative sector – 14.8%The labour force in extra-income work is predominantlymale, having specialised secondaryeducation, in skilled manual occupations as firstjobs, and their second jobs are concentrated in theservice sector. Most of them declare low level ofwork efficiency on the main job and frequent incidenceof breaks when they are forced to takeunpaid leaves or stay formally on work receivingonly the minimum wage. Chavdarova considersthat a lot of the irregular activity, especially thesecond jobs in the private sector and on a selfemployedbasis are done off the record, that is inthe hidden economy.Yossifov (1993: 56) speaks about ‘polyvalent’employment featuring the practice of holdingmore than one job: the engineer is driving a taxi inhis free evenings, the computer specialist has asmall trading company, the politician is a memberof the board of a state or private business company.This effort to combine appointments (andincomes) is a reply to the economic pressure andrepresents a shift from a lifelong binding to anoccupation to a ‘dynamic universalism’, accordingto the author (p. 58). However, he does notprovide data about the share of the populationinvolved in this multiple employment and mixestogether in one category the flexible work strategiestaken by some individuals with political corruption.2.4. Flexibility as Job Changes in One’s CareerLinked with the practice of holding more than onejob simultaneously is another type of flexibility –changing jobs in one’s own career. The individualoccupational mobility might be interpreted as anaspect of flexibility. There are not many studies inBulgaria that have focused on this new tendencysupposedly typical for the free market and itswealth of chances.Dimitrova (1994:67) has established a lowdegree of occupational mobility – 22.4% of theeconomically active population have changedtheir place of work since 1989, 14,4% havechanged their occupation and only 6.5% – theirliving place.Minev et al (1995: 132) provide similar datafrom another study – one fourth of their respondentshave changed their workplace in the 1990s.However, the authors evaluate this as ‘overmobility’among the employed, a lack of professionalismand serious attitude to work. In thesame publication (Minev et al, 1995) they arguethat there has been a significant decline in thenormative regulation of labour relations manifestedin the rapid decrease of the share of thoseemployed with a formal contract (particularlywithout a fixed term) and the rise of the share ofthose working without a contract.The changes of the working place as well asof the occupational field, often at the expense of amismatch between one’s qualifications and the jobperformed, are a result of the slow and distorteddevelopment of the new labour markets underpost-communism. The contraction of the formalemployment in the state and the co-operative sectors,the failure of the private business to providea sufficient number of quality jobs have led to agrowing informalisation of work arrangements inBulgaria. The informal employment with its lackof official control and ‘fluid’ set-up of workingtime, place and conditions has become the mosttypical form of flexible labour under postcommunismin Bulgaria.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Eight. Literature review: Bulgaria 1673. FLEXIBILITY IN THE INFORMAL (SHADOW) ECONOMYThe informal economy is a widely discussed issuein Bulgarian sociology (See Tilkidziev, 1998a). It isnot a completely new phenomenon – during socialismkinship economic exchanges of preservedfruits and vegetables, meat, etc. were a mass practicein the society of permanent deficit (Smollet,1986, Creed, 1998). While this was expected tosubside in the course of the transition to a marketeconomy, the reality proved sociologists wrong.Vladimirov et al (1998) found that preservation offood had widened its scope and in the 1990s andeven those living in big cities were involved. Only20% of their respondents did not use home preservedfood.Following Ferman et al (1987) Chavdarova(1993) defines the irregular economic activity asthose that avoid monitoring and paying taxes. Soin this understanding it is closer to hidden orshadow economy. Irregular economic activity canbe full time or part time, stable or casual, wagelabour or self-employment. It can be a work offthe books for a verbally agreed remuneration or awritten contract based on the minimal wage (onwhich social security payments are calculated)while the actual remuneration is higher. In a laterarticle Chavdarova (1996) discusses other closelyrelated terms, such as ‘parallel economy’, ‘blackeconomy’, ‘criminalised economy’, ‘informal economy’.She accepts the typology offered by Henry(1981).Table 4. Types of EconomiesLegalIllegalOfficial Unofficial AlternativeRegular(official employment)Criminal(prostitution, drug trafficking)Informal(bribes, volunteer labourHidden(thefts from work, amateur trading)Social(home production, exchange and mutual support)Black(irregular work, moonlighting)Source: Henry (1981)The last one is best suited to reflect the ‘processes ofinformalisation of Bulgarian economy’ (p. 50, Italicsof the author). Her research has shown that theshare of informal economy depends mostly on theways in which the formal sector is protected bythe state, of the flexibility of the labour relationsin the official economy. She argues that thegreater flexibility of the formal sector the less incentivesto develop the informal sector as its advantagesdecline.In a more recent study (Chavdarova, 1996:20)the same author presents more arguments for theprocess of informalisation of Bulgarian economy:a further decline of the share of job pay in householdincomes and a growth of the share of incomefrom natural production, a rise of the work in theblack economy and the appearance of newsources for such labour.Stanchev (1996:35) contends that the informaleconomy is a mass phenomenon in Bulgaria andis linked to the parallel functioning of differentmarkets of labour, natural resources, capital andentrepreneurship. The role of parallel labour marketsis significant – when workers cannot findjobs in the legal labour market they offer theirlabour for a lower pay in the non-regulated labourmarket to private employers. In the study ofVladimirov et al (1998) two thirds of the unemployedexpressed readiness to work without awritten labour contract and with no social security.One fifth (17%) of those employed were alreadyworking under such conditions. The authorsargue that this is an indicator of an ‘anomicconsciousness’ (p. 26).A 1996 survey of the Institute for MarketEconomy (UNDP, 1997:45) reveals the vast scaleof this type of flexible labour. One third of theemployed in the country work in the black or greyeconomy. Every tenth legally employed personreceives additional remuneration from the em-© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

168 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityployer that both sides conceal. Close to 80% of allemployers hide parts of their income. The share ofthe officially registered as unemployed who haveworked during the weak preceding the survey,have been 13%. They have done this mostly withoutany written contract and for a limited period –up to a month. A particular form of the shadoweconomy is the so-called ‘suit-case trade’ – smallscalesmuggling in which between a third and aquarter of all those employed in the private sectorare involved (Todorov et al, 2000).Dimitrova (1999) publishes data from an internationalresearch project in which the Bulgarianpartner is the National Statistical Institute. Itmeasured that in 1996 the share of hidden economyin the GDP was 22% in Bulgaria, 15% in theCzech Republic, 20.4% in Estonia, 9% in Hungary,12% in Latvia, 20.8% in Lithuania. Other studiesusing different methods estimate this share as39.13% and 45%.A common assumption in the discussionabout the informal economy in Bulgaria is that itis a form of survival strategy of Bulgarian households,an exit from poverty and/or unemployment(Chavdarova, 1993; Tilkidziev, 1998; Kovacheva,1999; Raychev, 2000).4. FLEXIBILITY AS A TYPE OF HOUSEHOLD STRATEGIESThe studies of household strategies in Bulgariahave several common features:! Usually they discuss individual behaviourrather than joint household goals and activities(Georgieva, 1995; Daskalova et al, 1996;Vladimirov et al, 1998). Whenever genderand age differences are discussed, this isdone on the level of society as a whole andnot inside the household.! The studies of household strategies commonlyreach the conclusion that the populationas a whole is unprepared to adapt to thenew economic conditions. The most commontype is the passive strategy. Active and flexiblepeople are a minority (Rakadzijska, 1994;Atanasov et al, 1995; Georgieva et al, 1997;Mirchev, 1998).! Flexibility is perceived as a desired personaltrait in the transition to a market economyand a factor for economic success (Daskalovaet al, 1996; Vladimirov et al, 1998).! The relationship between work and family israrely explicated, as is the link between informal,domestic and additional work. InBulgarian social sciences research of householdstrategies is closely linked to studies ofsocial stratification, most often of povertyand unemployment, also on topics such ashome production, agricultural work, readinessfor business start.4.1. The Flexibility of Active Income Earning StrategiesResearch into household strategies usually startsfrom the economic situation of the householdmeasured usually on the basis of two subjectiveindicators:! the self-evaluation of the living standard ofthe household (usually given by one respondentwithin the household)! the expectations about the future standard ofthe household.In a study of the Institute of Sociology (Georgieva,1995) ‘the life strategies of the Bulgarian family inthe period of transition’ are studied by comparingthe self-evaluation of their economic situation andtheir income strategies.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Eight. Literature review: Bulgaria 169Table 5. Family Types according to Their ExpectationsFamily types Statements Approval (%)Declining We expect to slide down further. 43.5Surviving We will manage to keep our present status. 33.3Marginal I don’t think about this – everything will fall into its place. 15.3Improving I and my family will advance and prosper. 7.8Source: Georgieva, 1995However, the analysis inside the types followsindividual characteristics and not group features.Within the first type of family strategy Georgivafinds there are more women than men, moreolder rather than younger people, individualswith low incomes, unemployed and retired. Onequarter of all those holding a second job and onetenth of company owners also belong to thisgroup.The second indicator measuring householdstrategies in this study (Georgieva, 1995) is thequestion: ‘How do you intend to manage yourfinancial situation next year?’ Georgieva constructsthe following types of strategy (again onthe individual level and not of the household) onthe basis of its answers (Table 6).Table 6. Types of Income Earning Strategies (percent of households falling into each type)Without PerspectiveDo not rely on anything in particularDo not knowPassivea. AchievedRely on pensions onlyRely on income from landRely on income from restitution of propertyWill sell to liveb. DependentRely on state supportRely on welfare paymentsActiveAdditional workSelf-employmentRe-qualificationIndefiniteSource: Georgieva, 199531.621.610.031.124.94.90.70.61.61.531.117.58.15.53.1The author concludes that there is a strong correlationbetween the type of expectations about thefamily and the type of income earning strategy(Georgieva, 1995: 77-78) but does not explicatewhether high expectations encourage activestrategies or vice versa, active strategy gives assurancefor high expectations. One of the recommendationsfrom this study is directed toward theemployers who seek labour – they should provideopportunities for ‘flexible employment’ (offeringno interpretations).A simpler typology of household strategies isused by Rakadzijska (1994, 1995) and Zheljazkova(1995). They distinguish between:! survival strategy! stabilisation strategy! expansion strategyTheir study (conducted in 1993 and then again in1994) shows that the choice of strategy is stronglyinfluenced by the type of living place – the shareof households following an expansion strategy isdeclining when we move from the capital,through a big and a small town to a village andcorrespondingly the share of survival strategy isgrowing in the same direction. The article doesnot comment what factors from the locality influencethe strategies: is it the local labour market,the economic situation in general, out-migration,demographic structure or anything else. Rakadzijska(1994: 122) – a passive attitude of waiting,reliance upon a support coming from somewherealthough you do not know where.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

170 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityWhat is interesting in this study is that it offersinformation about the process of decision takingin the family. Zheljazkova (1995: 287) presents atypology of the families along this criterion:! integrative model – common decision making! authoritative model – one member decides! diffusive model – everybody decides for him/herself.This typology is based on one self-evaluationquestion. The author does not provide data on thedistribution of answers. However, she argues that‘the unification of efforts and the relative closurewithin the families act as a factor compensatingfor the objective conditions born by the crisis’ (p.288). This conclusion is confirmed by another indicatorin the study: ‘Whom would your householdturn to if you needed help?’. Over half of therespondents would ask relatives for help. Friendsare placed second, while the state is mentioned byless than 3 per cent of the respondents.The same reliance upon the close informalcircle was found in a situation of unemploymentand when starting one’s own business (Kovacheva,1997). Rather than relying upon the newinstitutions such as the state labour offices, thestate or private banks, the non-governmental sectorand their programmes, the young unemployedand the young self-employed received thegreatest support in the form of money, advice,information and contacts from their family, closerelatives and friends (See Figure 1). Especiallyduring unemployment it was the parents’ supportoffered as long as needed that allowed the youngto wait for better jobs for an indefinite period oftime.Figure 1. The Source of Greatest Supportin UnemploymentFriends10%State6%Other4%Source: Kovacheva, 1997Family80%A study of Dimitrov (1998) on attitudes towardthe system of social security has shown a widespread distrust toward all forms of health, propertyand pension security schemes and a manifestedinclination to seek greater reliance upon thefamily, close group of friends and co-workers.Many surveys have measured the tendency of risein the importance of the family. In the currentcurve of Bulgaria’s modernisation (Dimitrov,1995) the value of the family far overpasses othersocial goods. A study conducted by NOEMA(1993) has shown that the family unquestionablytakes the first place in a list of values (See Table7).Table 7. Dominant Values (per cent of respondents)Very important Important Not so important Not important at allFamily and children 92.4 4.5 1.9 1.3Work, career 68.6 14.0 6.5 10.9Friends 65.6 18.6 8.4 7.3Relatives 61.4 20.8 9.0 8.9Leisure 49.3 24.7 12.5 13.5Religion, church 22.1 14.0 16.0 47.9Politics 13.0 18.5 17.7 50.9Source: NOEMA, 1993© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Eight. Literature review: Bulgaria 171The above study reveals a high degree of economicsolidarity among generations. About 70%of the respondents are involved in the intergenerationalexchange of money, food, houseworkand house repairs, child rearing, and care for theelderly. Only 7% have said that there is a totalbreak in theOnly 7% have said that there is a totalbreak in the relations between parents and children.Vladimirov et al (1998) also argue that thefamily is the most important social institution forsocial integration. In the transition to a marketeconomy it has started to play a very importanteconomic function – the house production whichis an indispensable means for survival in the difficulteconomic situation.The retreat into the private family life is accompaniedwith a decline in social trust and ingeneral, by reducing the social capital in society.The Centre for Liberal Strategies and Sova-5(UNDP, 2000:69) have done a study of the socialcapital in Bulgaria. It has measured a low level ofsocial capital in the country – the Bulgarians arenot inclined toward trust and co-operation, ortoward long-term strategic thinking. The studyshowed that a high concentration of social capitalin a given segment of society did not always leadto the development of the wider community. Examplesfor such negative concentration were theclosed criminal circles who used their high socialcapital against society as a whole and the closedvillage households who limited their support insidethe family.It is this lack of diffusion of social capitalfrom the particular segment toward a wider circlethat limits human development in Bulgaria. Theauthors contend that the traditional models ofbehaviour in the patriarchal families contradictand prevent the development of the modern culturein which most important values are participation,engagement, and civic involvement.The turn toward a closed family life is astrategy that was common for communist Bulgariaboth for political and economic reasons. Thefamily was a non-political niche, a (relatively) freeplace from state interference and Party mobilisation.Kinship relations helped households andfamilies survive under the conditions of permanentshortages of goods and services. What is newfor the transition to a market economy is that thisreliance upon the family is realised in a situationcharacterised by a decrease in the numerical andgenerational composition of the family. Nuclearfamilies comprise 53% of the families in Bulgariaand one-parent families are 10% (Spassovska,1998: 106). There is a high concern for the negativedemographic trends in the country, and forthe decline in the rate of marriages (Vladimirov etal, 1998: 57).4.2. The Impoverishment of Bulgarian Households as a Barrier to FlexibilityOne of the most common findings of all studieson households in Bulgaria is the mass scale of impoverishment.For the five years of the transitionthe real income of the average Bulgarian householdwas reduced by 50% (Stoyanova, 1996: 48).She calculates that the share of households livingbelow the existence-minimum has risen from 24%in 1989 to 47% in 1995 and those living below thesocial minimum – from 41% to 62%. The authorprovides an interesting indicator of the financialsituation of the households – their differentiationaccording to whether their income equals, fallsbelow and rises above their expenditures (p. 63):(See Table 8.)© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

172 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityTable 8. Types of Households according to the Ratio of Their Income and Expenditure(Shares of Households per cent)Years Income equals Expenditure Income higher than Expenditure Income lower than Expenditure1989 34.5 47.3 18.21992 53.3 27.7 19.01993 50.6 30.8 18.61994 54.0 23.5 22.51995 55.0 22.0 23.0Source: Stoyanova, 1996: 48While the share of the households whose incomesare higher than their expenditures (meaning theysave money) decreases from a half to a fifth of thewhole, the share of those spending more than theincome they receive has risen to a quarter of allhouseholds. In their study Stoyanova (1996: 90)and her colleagues from the Institute of Economicshave found that the social policy has preservedits ‘paternalistic character’ and does not provideincentives for individual mobilisation.The fall of living standards strongly affectspeople’s self-evaluation. Vladimirov et al (1998)have measured that 78% of the respondents considerthat their household is worse off than 10years ago (before the start of the transition), 16%do not see a significant difference and only 6%declare that they are better off now than before.When they compare themselves with the rest ofthe population, the majority of the respondentsfeel that they have moved down the social ladder(Vladimirov, 1998: 27)..Table 9. Household Situation Now and Beforethe TransitionHow would you evaluate the income of your household in comparisonwith the rest in our country now and before 1989?Now Before 1989Lowest 23.3 2.4Low 37.4 11.5Middle 31.8 49.4High 6.6 30.2Highest 0.8 6.5Source: Vladimirov, 1998: 27Raychev et al (2000) conducted a study on povertycommissioned by the World Bank. Theyfound that two thirds of the population believedthat they had belonged to the middle layers ofsociety before 1989. At present only one fourthclaims the same. In the country the cultural modelof poverty has already been formed with the specificfeelings for powerlessness, pessimism, apathy,passivity, hopelessness, living from day today. Studies of the economic situation of thehouseholds commonly reveal a mass feeling ofimpoverishment. Rakadzijska (1998: 80) presentsdata from a study about poverty in 1995: only 3%of Bulgarian households declare their financialsituation as very good. Another 32% consider itpassable, 41% – very bad and 17% say they canhardly manage to make both ends meet. Rakadzijskaargues that for the Bulgarian context the mostsignificant problem is not so much poverty itselfas the process of impoverishment, which leads tomarginalisation. In an earlier study (Rakadzijska(1996) she finds that even 30% of the householdsin the highest income consider themselves poor.Yossifov and Naumov (1998) make an attemptto create a typology of the cultural modelsof poverty in Bulgaria. They distinguish between‘normal’, ‘ideological’, ‘fatal’, ‘pauper’, and‘pseudo-poverty’. These categories remain rathertheoretical and separated from the empirical data,which the two authors provide in their article.Although they did not reveal the link between‘the models of poverty’ and the types of economicbehaviour, the data on the latter are interesting inthemselves:© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Eight. Literature review: Bulgaria 173Figure 2. Types of Economic Behaviour (per cent, March 1998)0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Will work on the land we have36,4Expect the state to support us33,2Will find another job28,50Will spend our savingsWill start our own (family business)Will go to work abroadCan do nothingWill enroll in retraining courses20,217,916,615,714,9Will become business partnerWill live on rents and leases, etc.9,18,7Will move to another town for a better jobWill sell property76,4Won't do anything because don't have to3,5Source: Yossifov and Naumov (1998)Nedelcheva (1994:44) argues that poverty goeshand in hand with reducing social activity. Threequarters of those who regard themselves as poorwhile only a fifth of those who do not definethemselves as poor consider themselves unable tochange anything and improve their situation. Resignationis the dominant attitude not only amongthe poor but also among those with middle levelof income.Research conducted by the polling agencyASSA-M has shown that passive strategies dominateamong the population in the country. Lessthan a half or the respondents rely on their labourfor improving their situation and are future oriented.Mirchev (1998:212) argues that there is an‘amazing passivity, lack of enterprising spirit,resignation to the threats of poverty, preferring tostretch out a begging hand instead of ensuringincomes through hard work and flexibility’. Studiesdone from a psychological perspective alsofind a predominance of the passive against theactive attitude (Georgieva et al, 1997:186).Other authors also consider that poverty is abarrier in front of flexibility as a strategy appropriateto the quickly changing situation. Atanasovet al (1995) have established a low adaptability ofthe population in the face of the new social risks:high crime rate, organised crime, unemployment,mass impoverishment, drug abuse. They havefound the following groups concentrating riskyfactors in the course of the transition: the young,the children, the unemployed, and the poor. Thedominant strategy is that of survival – passiveexpectations for the things to improve and thestate to restore order and material well being ofthe population.Quite in contrast with the above mentionedstudies, Vojnova (1998) presents a study of povertyin which she discovers a growing inclinationamong the population toward flexible household© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

174 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilitystrategies: holding several jobs at the same time,work in the shadow economy and increasing inkind(barter-driven) activities and relations. Hercalculations show that 85% of the officially employedproduce food for their own private needs.Close to two thirds of the self-employed do thesame.4.3. Home Production – A Flexible Strategy Out of PovertyThe informal economy was already referred to inthis article as a form of flexible labour. It was examinedas an individual response to unemployment.Here it is necessary to once more discuss itbecause social research has defined it as a flexiblestrategy of the household in search of an exit frompoverty. From this perspective home productionis seen as a survival strategy under the conditionsof economic hardship for the households.The first most common indicator for thegrowth of home production is the decline of theshare of market exchange in the structure of incomesand expenditures of the household. Manystudies have pointed at the growth in the real volumeand share of the income from the homeeconomy in money and goods (See Stoyanova,1996: 48). Vladimirov et al (1998: 100) examine thetendency of ‘naturalisation’ of incomes – a quarterof the respondents claim that all food staffs intheir household are produced by themselves. Fora further quarter more than a half of the ediblesare home production.Zeljazkova (1998) also finds a ‘clear tendencytoward de-marketization in the economic strategiesof the households in Bulgaria. She disclosesthree dimensions of de-marketization:! the salary has been reported to form only38% of the incomes;! a significant growth of home economy and! naturalisation of consumption.This, together with the high percentage of involvementin the second economy (through unregisteredactivities and parallel forms of labour)have proved to be the most successful ways ofpoverty alleviation. Zeljazkova criticises statepolicies as encouraging this strategy of the households:the untaxed minimum income is 35 USD,most surely below the poverty line while the importof new cars has been freed from taxationwhile it benefits a tiny layer of the population. Inher survey only 0.4% of respondents have reportedbuying a new car in the past three years. Inher publication for the XIX World Congress ofSociology she also mentions the term ‘flexibility oflabour’ defining it as a negative tendency in theWestern labour market. Citing a lecture of RobertCastel at Sofia University in December 1997, sheconsiders that part-time jobs undermine socialsolidarity and give birth to anomie.Raychev et al (2000:99) also speak about ‘thenaturalistic economy’ and consider that the homeproduction of food is the main buffer in this situation.Half of the households are leaving or havealready left the market and do not exchange labouror capital with the rest of society. The turntowards home production results in a very lowterritorial mobility. Many indicators confirm thistendency (Raychev et al, 2000: 65-66):! 56% have not travelled outside their town orvillage in the past year! 500-800 villages in the country are excludedfrom the system of public transport! 8% have not been abroad at all in the past 10years! a great part of the older generation (no exactdata) have moved permanently to villages orsmall towns and work low qualified work,usually agricultural – this saves their consumptionand that of their children still livingin the cities.The authors (Raychev et al, 2000:75) evaluate thistendency as a binding (enslaving) of the labourforce in their lining place. The decision for the© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Eight. Literature review: Bulgaria 175young is out-migration, semi-criminal or criminalbusiness.Low territorial mobility was confirmed in theresearch conducted by Vladimirov et al (1998) –87% of the respondents have lived in their townor village for over 20 years. The authors see thisas a precondition for closeness, solidarity and mutualhelp (p. 30). The reliance upon the family andfriends is a guarantee against the drastic fall inincomes. The authors argue that it is the mutualsupport floating down the channels of kinshiprelations that provide households with additionalincome and security. A greater flexibility understoodas a greater propensity for territorial mobilitywas found among the highly educated(Stoilova, 1993:41). Those with higher educationare more mobile and more willing to change theirplace of living in search of a better job.The intergenerational social mobility is quitelow according Vladimirov et al (1998) The authorsmeasure it by the self-evaluation of the respondents– two thirds of them consider that they areon the same place on the social ladder as theirparents. A third consider that they live worsethan their parents did when they had been at thesame age as the respondents. This is not a veryprecise account for a society, which has been subjectto a speeded industrialisation for the 40 yearsof communist rule. The parents of the respondentshave belonged to different generations –that who have lived in the period of the numerouswars in the Balkan peninsular in the beginning ofthe century which have been very destructive forthe country, the generation who have lived betweenthe two world wars at the times of slowand inconsistent modernisation and those whohave been the ‘brigadiers’ (unpaid labourers) inthe forced construction of socialism.Kovacheva’s research (1999) of the youngunemployed in Bulgaria has shown that unemploymentin the country has not yet become afamily destiny stretching over generations. Theyoung unemployed had parents whose presentsituation and past career did not differ significantlyfrom those of the parents of a sample ofyoung self-employed. However, the high incidenceof unemployment has started to affect thehouseholds notably – Vladimirov et al (1998) havefound that every fourth household has a memberwho seeks and cannot find a job and half of thesehouseholds have two or more unemployed members.The hardest hit are those with low qualifications,the young, citizens in small towns, Romaand other ethnic minorities.The greatest social mobility in Bulgarian societyhas been established in terms of educationaldegrees. Over a third of the respondents in Vladimirov’sstudy (1998) have a higher educationthan their parents. However, most of them considerthat this has not helped them to find a betterpaid job. The turn of households toward homeproduction has resulted in a low propensity toflexibility in other spheres. The same study(Vladimirov et al, 1998) has established that readyto change their occupation are 30% of the respondents,while for 60% this is out of question. Avery high proportion – 85% – have not had theopportunity or willingness to ever try entrepreneurship.The majority (78%) prefer low rewardand low risk. A quarter are ready to emigrateabroad in search of a better job. When asked howthey would manage if economic difficulties increased,the respondents pointed at economising(cutting expenses) at the first place (55% of theanswers), followed by harder work (41%). Theauthors conclude that the strategies for survivaldominate over the strategies striving for success.Similar are the results of Daskalova’s research(1996). In it the main indicator for an activesurvival strategy of the household is the declaredintentions of the respondents to manage animaginary situation of a redundancy. If they losetheir job only 7% were ready to search for a newone in another place of living and 9% would consideremigration abroad. Only 29% were ready tochange their qualifications or start selfemployment.Most of the respondents chose ‘passiveoptions’ such as registering in a Labour officeand waiting for a job in the same field of activityand in the same living place.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

176 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibility4.4. Back to the Land – Flexible Strategy for SurvivalClosely related to home production is work on theland. For Bulgarians, as in fact for many otherpeoples in the world, in their history the land hasbeen a major source of income and a basic strategyfor survival and prosperity. In Bulgaria’stransition to democracy there were high expectationsencouraged by government’s declarationsthat the return to private ownership of the landwould provide maintenance for many householdsand wealth for a significant proportion of them.Dobreva’s research (1997) starts with thisperception – that the land and agricultural workis a great resource for Bulgarians. Their own agriculturalland possess 84% of households living invillages and almost a half of those living in townsand cities. However, what the study has shown isthat in almost all cases these are small plots ofland – up to 40 decars. Over 80% of the urban andover 60% of the village households work on plotsup to 5 decars. This reflects the nature of agriculturalproduction – family farming whose produceis for the family and relatives in the cities ratherthan for the market. Dobreva’s survey found that88% of the village and 75% of the urban householdsdid not plan to sell or buy land. (1997:22-23). Two thirds of the village households and 82%of the urban households who owned were only1% of the urban and 3% of the agricultural households.Raising livestock was also popular – it concerns89% of the village households and 27% ofthe town households. It was again done for familyconsumption mainly, although it might bringmoney income as well. Cases of concentration ofstock rearing and market orientation were veryrare.Agricultural work was predominantly seenas a means for survival (family maintenance) andnot as a resource for wealth (Dobreva, 1997: 154).The respondents perceived the agricultural produceas a source to help with the family budget, asource for additional work, psychological necessity(self-confidence, creative work, stress relief)(p.42). This acts a continuation of the traditionfrom communism when villagers were allowed tohave ‘personal subsidiary farms’.If the villagers do not sell at the market, thenwhere do they find means to maintain the familyfarms? Dobreva (1997:103) found that for 91.4% ofthe village households and for 94.6% of the urbanones the main source for investment is moneyincome not associated with farming: salaries, pensions,social benefits.Lekov (2000) found that agricultural workwas common especially for people who have losttheir jobs in the state industry. Among the registeredunemployed in Bulgaria there is a largegroup of people farming a few decars of land,raising a few animals or selling at an open air stall– their income is not enough to provide for themselvesand their families but they are not trulyunemployed. All this created difficulties for researchinto social stratification in present day Bulgaria.Studies on social stratification in Bulgaria(Tilkidziev, 1999; Raychev et al, 2000) have alwaysfound difficulties in defining the respondent’sstatus as a result of their work (and income)in family farming – it is very common forthose who define themselves as pensioners or unemployedbut also for people employed officiallyin state of private companies.Dobreva (1999:23) criticises the stratificationresearch in Bulgaria which define the propertyand financial status of the individual only on thebasis of his/her individual income and property,while these are characteristics of the household.She talks about the return of the economic functionof the household.In her latest research (Dobreva, 1999) classifiesvillage households into four groups: prospering,stabilising, surviving, and impoverishing.The prospering households have a great variety ofsources of money income (three or more), highactivity rate, usually consist of several generationsand many members. Typical for the poor householdsis having one source of income and selflimitationin consumption (economising). She© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Eight. Literature review: Bulgaria 177finds that different generations have their ownsphere of activities: the pensioners – in the familyfarming, the adults in paid employment in stateor private companies, the young – into familybusiness or paid employment.Koleva (1999) studies the trends in employmentin the village: rising levels of youth and femaleunemployment. Many of them have workedin industrial enterprises in the nearby towns andwhen these closed or reduced their staff, youthand women were dismissed disproportionallyhigh and had to return in the village. The proportionof those working outside the village dropssignificantly. For them work in the family farm istemporary employment, work for survival andnot a strategy for permanent work realisation.Another trend is the rising proportion of thoseworking part-time, seasonal jobs, or occasionalself-employment. Full-time employment on apermanent basis declines from 48% to 31%. Parttimersrise from 0.4 to 0.7%. Close to 22% of villagersemployed officially have an additionalwork, usually in the family farm. Full-time orpart-time employment differentiate people notonly according to income but also according towork status (permanent or unstable), prestige,self-confidence.In their study Raychev et al (2000) tried toapply the ESOMAR classification of 8 social stratato the situation in Bulgaria. What they found wasthat in group A (well educated top managers andspecialists) 15 per cent grew their own vegetables.The same group owned less PCs than group 3(well-educated administrators, lower level managers,small business owners). For the authors thisis a mismatch between statuses and consumption,dis-concordance between status (class) indicators.Citing Peter Mitev’s phrase ‘In the Bulgarian transitionto capitalism people ate the sheep’ (unlikein the initial phase of capitalism in the UK where‘the sheep ate the people’), they argue that thedying of Bulgarian industry is realised in a urbanisedand modern society which results in a drasticreduction of consumption of wide circles of thepopulation and this begins to exert serious pressureover their social statuses (p. 59). The dramaof Bulgarian society at the end of the XXth centuryis the struggle between the pressure comingfrom the declining consumption and people’s effortsto keep (hold) their social statuses gainedunder the previous social order. Bulgarians aretrying hard to preserve their property statuses –93% of the households own a flat or a house, twothirds own land, telephonisation is 70%. The peoplehave developed norms of educational, cultural,health and material consumption. Comparethis with other indicators of consumption:! 9% eat only food which they had producedthemselves,! 45% rely mostly on home produced food! 50% of the respondents eat only potatoesproduced in the home (or by their parents)! 35% eat only chicken meet which they or(their parents) have produced! 46% themselves or their parents produce allthe fruits and vegetables which they consume.! 28% themselves (their parents) produce allthe yoghurt they eat! 24% themselves (their parents) produce allthe cheese they eat.The authors agree that this is a survival strategybut that it is not without price. It leads to a processof de-qualification of the employees, a form ofde-capitalisation of the labour force. After the decapitalisationof the economy comes the decapitalisationof the labour force – the doctor growspotatoes instead of reading journals, the engineerpaints his flat, the turner milks cows while waitinghis factory to pay the salaries delayed for severalmonths…© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

178 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibility4.5. Flexibility in Gender and Age Division of Labour in the HouseholdIn Bulgarian social science literature gender andage division of labour is usually discussed withinsociety as a whole – in the labour market, in politics,etc., rather than within the household. Evenrarer the combination between age and genderinequalities has been an object of research (See forexceptions Aadnanes, 1999; Kovacheva, 2000).On the individual level flexibility is foundmost often in the strategies of women. Dimitrova(1997) argues that self-employed women seek inself-employment and entrepreneurship flexibilitythat allows them to combine paid labour and familycare, as well as to raise the family living standards.While other studies have found a low levelof women’s mobility in terms of readiness for retraining,working place and place of living (Todorova,1994: 46), this one reveals a high psychologicalflexibility among businesswomen. Almosthalf of them have changed their occupation whenthey left their jobs in the state or private sectorand have started self-employment. Close to athird of self-employed women work long hours -over 10 hours a day.In a comparative study of economic elite inBulgaria and Hungary in 1994 (Kostova, 1994) theBulgarian elite was found to be older and maledominated. Women comprised 38% of Hungarianeconomic leaders while only 17% of those in Bulgaria.In her study of women entrepreneurs inBulgaria Nikolova (1994) argues that businesswomen concentrated on the lower layers of themiddle class under formation while the top layerswere dominated by men.When studying women’s employment in theprivate sector of the economy, Nikolova (1997:31)points at their lower share than that of men andattributes it to women’s lower inclination to riskand higher attachment to greater stability andsecurity in work. Women are less willing to leavethe state sector. Among employed women theyounger group (15-24) is most often found in theprivate sector. Among self-employed women theyoungest group is with the lowest share, the highestis the share of those aged 55-64 and 65 andand over. The author finishes with a suggestionthe state to support women in their business start.In a later publication Nikolova (1998) comparesthe incomes of women employed in the privatesector and finds a significant age difference –women in the lowest and highest age groups havethe lowest incomes. Her research also found thatwomen working in the private sector had to copewith bad conditions of work – over 50% saidstress was a permanent state for them, 30%worked on two shifts, for 20% the working timewas not regulated and they had often to worklonger hours. Many women had been employedon the condition that they would not have children– if they got pregnant they had to leavethemselves.Women’s pay is only 74% of men’s (UNDP,1996:48). Dimitrova (1997) maintains that womenin Bulgarian economy are over-representedamong the low paid, low quality and low securityjobs in the private sector, as well as in the shadoweconomy where they work with no labour contract.Women are twice as many as men amongthe unpaid family workers. Twice more womenthan men are ready to take any job available whenunemployed. When discussing the social policymeasures which can improve women’s situationin the labour market, Dimitrova (1997:195) underlinesthe need of ‘securing flexibility in the conditionsof employment.’ According to the author,this will give more choice to employed womenand to employers, will alleviate unemploymentand provide an adequate answer to women’s individualneeds.Kirova (1998) also argues in favour of statepolicy supporting women in their business start.Self-employment is particularly relevant forwomen (although they are under represented init) as a lot of it might be realised in the home andallow the women to combine work with familyresponsibilities. Kirova (1998) suggests that ourlabour laws should be changed to allow greaterflexibility in terms of time and place for women.She points at the USA and Germany as successful© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Eight. Literature review: Bulgaria 179practices for flexible forms of employment. InBulgaria only 8.7% of employed women workpart-time. Mothers can have long paid leaves butcannot combine child rearing and paid work dueto ‘the lack of flexibility in the reglamentation ofworking time’ (p. 59).A flexible system of working time has manyadvantages:! reduction of the number of unemployedwomen! contribution to the family budget and a risein the family living standard! against losing working skills! more free time to use for professional qualification! less expenses paid to others to care for thechildren! more rational combination between workand family functionsKirova (1998) sees also negative aspects of flexibilisationconcerning women: it reduces the unemploymentbenefits and influences pensions to decline,but she considers that they are much lessimportant than the advantages.Who works and what is the division of labourwithin the households? Dobreva (1997:123)claims that the norm is that all family membersparticipate in food production. However, themost active part is taken by the adults (30-60 yearolds), then pensioners - over 60%, then thoseyounger than 30. Children and students participatevery rarely, especially the boys (p.66). Theexpected return of young enterprising people inthe village who could not find work in the townsdid not happen. Employed labour is used veryrarely, the villagers pay to outsiders only forsome operations done by machines. Family memberswho have left the household (e.g. marrieddaughters and their families) often help whennecessary. Such work is usually not paid in cashbut with products from the farm (p. 66). Agriculturalwork was the only activity for a half of therespondents living in the village. The other halfcomprised of industrial workers (20%), clerks(5%), employees in other private farms (5%), etc.(p.67). In Bulgaria the liquidation of the cooperativeswas done so abruptly that with it collapsedthe whole agriculture – unlike Hungaryand the Czech Republic where the restructuringwas done gradually.In their study of the social protection systemin Bulgaria Gocheva and Stoyanova (1994) foundthat households with children most often fall belowthe existence-minimum. In addition, thegreater the number of children in the household,the greater the gap between the actual consumptionand the existence-minimum and this differencereaches two and a half times (p. 49). Theyhave also found that the share of state pensions isdeclining in the incomes of households of pensioners.For two years since 1992 this has droppedfrom 79% to 49%, while the share of home productionhas grown from 8% to 37%.Stoilova (1993) argues for a rise in the conflictsbetween generations within the family in the1990s. In a study of the young unemployed inBulgaria over a half could not point at any positiveexamples in their parents’ experiences. Hersurvey has revealed a significant value shift betweengenerations. The parents of a half of theunemployed had advised them to rely upon hardlabour for success in life. Only a quarter of theyoung themselves shared this conviction. Themost important factors for success among theyoung were the readiness to risk, intelligence,professionalism.Zlatanova and Georgieva (1993) have founda readiness among the young employed to changetheir job, involve in training courses or start entrepreneurship– this was common for about athird of their respondents. They argue (See alsoMitev, 1996; Stoilova, 1993; UNDP, 1996) that theyoung are more inclined to risk and establishtheir own business. Zlatanova and Georgieva(1993) recommend the state to provide a programmesupporting the business start of theyoung. This is quite the opposite of what Robertset al (1999) have concluded on the basis of theirstudy in Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia.According to Roberts et al (1999) there is a greaterneed of state support for small businesses to de-© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

180 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityvelop into medium sized quality firms that areable to offer quality jobs rather than for encouragingonly the business start. It is the low qualityjobs that the present private and state sectors inthe post communist societies offer to the youngwhich make them unwilling to get stuck into suchjobs and ready to wait for indefinite periods (relyingupon the family) for new opportunities.Studying the social milieu of the unemployed,Kotseva (1993) finds out that dominantare the supportive attitudes of the family: morethan two thirds of the unemployed respondentsdeclared a lack of conflicts or critical approach byother family members. In a similar study Todorova(1993:78) also detects a wide spreadreadiness of the family to support the unemployedmembers, providing material help andpsychological relief.How is it that the profound value change betweengenerations in Bulgaria does not diminishthe intergenerational support and does not lead toyouth revolts as in Germany in 1968? A possibleanswer is found in Raychev et al (2000:87). Analysingthe relations between the generations in thecountry, the authors denote ‘a traumatic consciousnessof the parents’ – they have failed toachieve economic success and they understandthe lack of legitimacy to provide models of behaviouror advice to their children. The childrenthemselves notice this consciousness and are tolerantfor their parents’ incapability.Another aspect of the intergenerational relationsthat this research (Raychev et al, 2000) hasaddressed is the transfer of poverty and exclusionfrom the parents to the children. In the three lowestdecile groups according to their income fall60% of the children in the country. For the younggeneration in these families computer literacy andlanguage skills are impossible to achieve.Bulgaria has 1.23 Internet links to 1000 personsof the population – for comparison in Hungarythis number is 9.4, in Poland – 3.37, in Croatia– 2,12. The phone network is quite dense inBulgaria – 38% posts per 100 persons but it variesa lot between the regions. In Sofia it is 52%, inHaskovo – 21% (UNDP, 2000:70). The access toInternet is about 5-6% of the population and theprofile is highly educated, aged 31-40 with incomeabove the average. About 90% of all usersare from cities and 50% of all alive in the capitalSofia.Table 10. Children’s Access to Personal Computersin Bulgaria (%)At school 23At home 5At an Internet Club 9No access 63Source: UNDP, 2000:70Data from this research clearly indicate that thedecline of status despite all family support andactive survival strategies to home production andagricultural work affects the household as awhole and will be reproduced and deepened inthe next generations.CONCLUSIONSIn Bulgarian context flexibility is most commonlyunderstood in a positive way as a feature (andadvantage) of the advanced late modern marketeconomies. In social policy studies it is undoubtedlydeclared as a strategy for active labour marketpolicy and a solution to the problem of highrates of general unemployment, women’s unemployment,youth unemployment, and long-termunemployment. It is a policy recommendation ofsupra-national bodies as the EU, OECD, WorldBank, etc. The flexible firm is advocated as an effectiveresolution of problems in company efficiencyin studies of human resource management.Flexible business organisation is the undisputedadvantage in self-employment as it increases itsadaptability to the quickly changing economic© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Eight. Literature review: Bulgaria 181situation in modern societies and especially indeveloping post-communist societies.Despite the ‘positive’ expectations from theflexible regulations in the labour market and incompany management, research into the currentprocesses shaping the social fabric of the Bulgariansociety provide a much more complex view offlexible labour. Under the conditions of a transitionfrom a centrally planned economy to a marketeconomy and a deep and persistent economiccrisis, the global trend to flexibility results in anunregulated work in the grey or black economy, anaturalisation of production and consumptionand a marginalisation of a growing share of thepopulation in the country. In labour market studiespart-time work is most often perceived as inferiorwork leading to concentration of social disadvantagesin those who are denied the right offull time jobs.The home as a new venue for paid labour hasbeen neglected in social research, so flexibility interms of place has not attracted research attention.Flexibility in terms of time and conditions of workhas been most often examined on the individuallevel while its implications on the relationshipbetween work and family have not been truly researchedand discussed. Age and gender relationshave been presented in the broad picture of societyas a whole but not studied in detail on thelevel of the individual household. Research ofhousehold strategies have concentrated on thebalance of expenditures and incomes, selfevaluationsand future intentions but less on thefragile harmony between formal and informal,domestic and additional work.Having been concerned more with the policyimplications of the probable growth of flexiblelabour, social research in Bulgaria have not producedenough information and understanding offlexible workers, their social backgrounds, experiencesand life expectations. We know littlewhether these working arrangements have been adesired or a forced option for them and theirhouseholds. We lack enough knowledge aboutfamily strategies and how these have been influencedby the non-standard work patterns ofhousehold members. And last but not least, we donot know how the relationships between gendersand generations within the household have affecteddecisions about standard and non-standardworking arrangements and whether they in turnhave resulted in changes in family relations. Allthese questions have to be duly addressed andstudied if we are to understand the nature andcourse of the current social transformation in Bulgaria.REFERENCESAadnanes, M. 2001 ‘Youth and Gender in Post-Communist Bulgaria’, Journal of Youth Studies,Vol. 4(1), pp. 25-40.Armstrong, M. 1992 HMR Strategy and Action.London: Keagan Pall.Atanasov, A; S. Todorova and V. Zlatanova 1995‘Socially Vulnerable Groups in the Period ofTransition to a Market Economy’, SociologicalProblems, Vol. 4, pp. 133-148.Atanasova, M. 1998 ‘Internal labour market andthe employees’ motivation in the flexiblecompany’, Problems of Labour, Vol. 10, pp. 3-24.Atkinson, J. and N. Meager 1986 Changing Patternsof Work: How Companies Introduce Flexibilityto Meet Changing Needs. Sussex: IMS.Baytchinska, K. (ed.) 1998 ‘Social Sciences and SocialChange in Bulgaria’, Sofia: ‘Prof. MarinDimov’Academic Publishing House.Beleva, I. 1999 ‘The Creation of a Unified EuropeanLabour Market and Bulgaria’s Accesssion’,Economical thought, Vol. 2, pp. 37-55.Beleva, I; P. Dobrev; I. Zareva and V. Tzanov 1996The Labour Market in Bulgaria: A Reflection ofthe Contradictory Economic Realities, Sofia:GOREX Press.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

182 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityBeleva, I.; V. Tzanov and I. Zareva 1997 The LabourMarket in Bulgaria. Svishtov: BusinessAcademy ‘D.A. Tsenov’.Chavdarova, T. 1993 Irregular Economic Activities:The Bulgarian Case of Hidden Privatisation.In: Ringen, S. and C. Wallace (eds.) Societiesin Transition: East-Central Europe Today.Prague Papers on Social Responses to Transformation.Prague: Central European University.Chavdarova, T. 1996 ‘Informal Economies: ATheoretical Approach’, Sociological Problems,Vol. 4, pp. 48-61.Creed, G. 1998 Domesticating Revolution. From SocialistReform to Ambivalent Transition in a BulgarianVillage. University Park, PA: The PennsylvaniaState University.Daskalova, N; T. Michajlova; K. Ribarova 1996‘Survival Strategies in the Transition to aMarket Economy’, Problems of Labour, Vol. 5,pp. 45-60.Dimitrov, G 1995 Bulgaria in the Orbits of Modernisation.Sofia: St. Kliment Ohridski UniversityPress.Dimitrov, D. 1997 ‘Entrepreneurship – A Factorfor the Success of Structural Reform’. In: Genov,N. (ed.) Bulgaria Today and Tomorrow.Sofia: Friedrich Ebert Foundation, pp. 145-154.Dimitrova, D. 1994 ‘The World of Work in Transition’,In: Genov, N. (ed.) Sociology in a Societyin Transition. Sofia: BSA.Dimitrova, E. 1995 ‘Inferior Employment of theWorkforce’, Problems of Labour, Vol. 8, pp.187-196.Dimitrova, E. 1997 ‘The Economic Reform andWomen’s Work’, In: Genov, N. (ed.) BulgariaToday and Tomorrow. Sofia: Friedrich EbertFoundation, pp. 187-196.Dimitrova, P. 1999 ‘Methods for Measurement ofthe Hidden Economy’, Economic Thought,Vol. 2, pp. 18-36.Dobreva, S. 1997 The Land – The Bulgarians’Wealth? The Village, Land and Agricultural Labour– Anxieties and Hopes at the End of theTwentieth Century. Sofia: Alja.Dobreva, S. 1999 ‘The New Rural Stratification inBulgaria. The Perspective of Rural Households’,Sociological Problems, Vol. 1-2, pp. 22-33.Doeringer, P. and M. Piore 1971 Internal LabourMarkets and Manpower Analysis. Lexington.Felstead, A. and N. Jewson 1999 ‘Flexible Labourand Non-Standard Employment: An Agendaof Issues’, In: Felstead, A. and N. Jewson(eds.) Global Trends in Flexible Labour. London:Macmillan, pp. 1-20.Ferman, L.; S. Henry and M. Hoyman 1987 ‘Issuesand Prospects for the Study of InformalEconomies: Concepts, Research Strategiesand Policy’, The Annals of the American Academyof Political and Social Sciences, Vol. 493,September.Genova, Z. 1998 Motivation, Motivational Mechanismsfor Human Resources Management.Plovdiv: Plovdiv University Press.Georgieva, B 1995 ‘Life Strategies of the BulgarianFamily in the Period of Transition’, Problemsof Labour, Vol. 8, pp. 67-80.Georgieva, R; K. Baytchinska; N. Bavro 1997 ‘Copingwith the Psychological Stress in Early Post-Socialist Society’, Sofia: Academic PublishingHouse ‘Prof. Marin Drinov’.Gocheva, R. and K. Stoyanova 1994 Social Protectionof the Poor, Unemployed and Buyers in theTransition toward a Market Economy. Sofia:Jusautor.Henry, S. 1981 Informal Institutions. New York: St.Martin Press.Hussmanns, R.; F. Mehran and V. Verba 1992Surveys of Economically Active Population, Employment,Unemployment and Underemployment.ILO.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Eight. Literature review: Bulgaria 183Keremidchieva, M. 1998 ‘Labour Market Policies’,Problems of Labour, Vol. 5, pp. 21-35.Kirova, K. 1994 ‘Protection of the Old WorkPlaces and Creation of New Ones’, In:Gocheva, R. and K. Stoyanova (eds.) SocialProtection of the Poor, Unemployed and Buyersin the Transition to a Market Economy. Sofia:Jusautor, pp. 81-88.Kirova, K. 1998 ‘Woman’s Employment and ItsInfluence over the Family’, Problems of Labour,Vol. 1, pp. 48-67.Koleva, G. 1999 Rural Inequalities: EmploymentRates and Forms of Economic Activity’, SociologicalProblems, Vol. 1-2, pp. 51-60.Kostova, D. 1994 ‘The Economic Elite in Post-Totalitarian Bulgaria. A Comparative Study’,Sociological Problems, Vol. 4, pp. 46-58.Kostova, D. 1998 ‘The Economic Elite in the transitionPeriod’, In: Tilkidziev, N. (ed.) SocialStratification and Inequality. Sofia: M-8M.Kotseva, T. 1993 ‘The Social Encirclement of theUnemployed’, Sociological Problems, Vol. 3,pp. 59-65.Kovacheva, S. 1997 ‘The Young Unemployed andSelf -employed and the Sources of Their Supportin East Central Europe’, In: L. Machacek andK. Roberts (ed.) Youth Unemployment andSelfemployment in East-Central Europe, Bratislava:Slovak Academy of Sciences.Kovacheva, S. 1998 ‘Becoming a ‘Businessman’ inPost-communist Europe – Life Careers of theYoung Self-employed in Bulgaria, Poland,Slovakia and Hungary’, In: Tilkidziev, N.(ed.) The Middle Class as a Precondition of aSustainable Society. Sofia: AMCD.Kovacheva, S. 1999 Youth Unemployment in Bulgariain a Comparative Perspective – The Problemand Its Solutions. Plovdiv: GeorgiVanchev.Kovacheva, S. 2000 ‘The „Old Red Woman”Against the „Young Blue Hooligan”: GenderStereotyping of Economic and political Processesin Post-Communist Bulgaria’, In: V.Goddard (ed.) Gender, Agency and SocialChange. Anthropological Perspectives. London:Routledge.Lekov, K. 2000 Social Protection in Unemployment.Blagoevgrad: Neophit Rilski UniversityPress.Manolov, K. 1995 The New Bulgarian Entrepreneurs.Sofia: ‘Prof. Marin Drinov’ AcademicPublishing House.Manolov, K. 1998 ‘The Aggregate Entrepreneur,In: Baytchinska, K. (ed.) Social Sciences andSocial Change in Bulgaria. Sofia: ‘Prof. MarinDrinov’ Academic Publishing House.Michailov, S. 1986 Empirical Sociological Study ‘TheTown and the Village - 86’. Sofia: Central StatisticalBureau.Minev, D.; M. Zeljazkova and P. Kabakchieva(eds.) 1995 Poverty Level and Fragmentation ofBulgarian Society. The Role of NGOs for the Enhancementof Social integration. Sofia: Bogeta.Mirchev, M 1998 ‘Dynamics of the Social Structurein the 1999s in the Light of the Impoverishmentand Poverty in Bulgaria’, In: Mitev, P.-E. (ed.)‘The Bulgarian Transition: Challenges and Cognition’Sofia: BSA, pp. 201-215.Mitev, P.-E. 1996 Bulgarian Youth in Time of Transition.Sofia: Committee on Youth and Children.Nedelcheva, M 1994 ‘Entrepreneurship and theMiddle Class’, Sociological Problems Vol. 4, pp.59-66.Nikolova, M. 1997 ‘Women’s Employment in thePrivate Sector during the years of Transition’,Problems of Labour, Vol. 6, pp. 28-39.Nikolova, M 1998 The Income of Women Employedin the Private Sector – An Indicator ofTheir Socio-Economic Status’, Problems of Labour,Vol. 3, pp. 9-23.NOEMA 1993 ‘Monitoring of Public Opinion’, Sofia:NOEMA Research Report.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

184 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityNSI (National Statistical Institute) 1997 Employmentand Unemployment. Sofia: NSI.Pavlova, L. 1998 ‘Post-Socialist Hybrids as an OrganisationalForm of the Transition’, In:Baytchinska, K. (ed.) Social Sciences and SocialChange in Bulgaria. Sofia: ‘Prof. Marin Drinov’Academic Publishing House.Problems of Labour 1996 ‘The Greater Flexibility inthe Labour Market and the Problems of Unemployment.A shortened and edited translationfrom English’, Vol. 11, pp. 76-84.Problems of Labour 1997 ‘Flexibility and Security inthe Labour Market. A shortened and editedtranslation from English’, Vol. 7, pp. 75-77.Problems of Labour 1999 ‘The Amsterdam Treaty: ANew Approach to Employment and SocialProblems’, Vol. 3, pp. 63-72.Rakadzijska, T. 1994 ‘Economic Strategies of BulgarianHouseholds’, Sociological Problems,Vol. 3, pp. 115-123.Rakadzijska, T. 1995 ‘Strategies for Economic Activityof Bulgarian Households as a Factorfor Their Survival’, In: The Family and theChanging World. Sofia: NSI.Rakadzijska, T. 1996 ‘Bulgarians’ Perceptions ofPoverty’, Minev, D.; M. Zeljazkova and P.Kabakchieva (eds.) Poverty Level and Fragmentationof Bulgarian Society. The Role of NGOs forthe Enhancement of Social integration. Sofia:Bogeta.Rakadzijska, T. 1998 ‘Marginalisation of theTransforming Elites – A Barrier Before SocialSustainable Development’, Sociological Problems,Vol. 1-2, pp. 73-82.Raychev, A.; K. Kolev; A. Bundzulov and L. Dimova2000 Social Stratification in Bulgaria.Sofia: LIK.Roberts, K. and C. Fagan 1998 ‘Who Succeeds inBusiness in the New Market Economies?’, In:Tilkidziev, N. (ed.) The Middle Class as a Preconditionof a Sustainable Society. Sofia:AMCD.Roberts, K.; C. Fagan; K. Foti; B. Jung; S. Kovachevaand L. Machacek 1999 ‘Tackling YouthUnemployment in East-Central Europe’,Journal for East European Management Studies,Vol. 4 (3), pp. 238-251.Shopov, D. 1997 The Labour Market. Sofia: BusinessUniversity Press.Shopov, D.;L. Dulevski; L. Stefanov and M. Paunov1999 Labour Economics. Sofia: Trakia-M.Smollet, E. 1986 ‘Jar Economy. Kinship Relationsin Bulgaria’, Sociological Problems, Vol. 6, pp.96-108.Spassovska, L. 1998 ‘Matrimonial Relations in theContext of Social Changes in Bulgaria. In:Baytchinska, K. (ed.) ‘Social Sciences and SocialChange in Bulgaria’, Sofia: ‘Prof. Marin Dimov’AcademicPublishing House.Stanchev, K. 1996 ‘Uncontrolled Sources of Income’,In: Minev, D.; M. Zeljazkova and P.Kabakchieva (eds.) Poverty Level and Fragmentationof Bulgarian Society. The Role of NGOs forthe Enhancement of Social integration. Sofia:Bogeta.Stoilova, R. 1993 ‘Life Plans of Young People andPersonality Strategies for Their Realisation’,Sociological Problems, Vol. 3, pp. 36-45.Stoilova, R. 1999 ‘Self-employment as a Subject ofSociology’, Sociological Problems, Vol. 1-2, pp.164-185.Stoyanova, K. (ed.) 1996 The Social Reform. Sofia:SIELA.Tilkidziev, N. (ed.) 1998 The Middle Class as aPrecondition of a Sustainable Society. Sofia:AMCD.Tilkidziev, N. 1999 ‘Stratification Dissection of aSeparate Village’, Sociological Problems, Vol. 1-2, pp. 7-21.Todorov, B.; O. Shentov and A. Stoyanov 2000Corruption and Trafficking: Monitoring and Prevention.Sofia: Centre for the Study of Democracy.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Eight. Literature review: Bulgaria 185Todorova, I. 1993 ‘Personality and Social Resourcesfor Coping with the UnemploymentStress’, Sociological Problems, Vol. 3, pp. 66-79.Todorova, S.; Z. Toneva and T. Rakadzijska 1997Sociology of Labour. Plovdiv: Plovdiv UniversityPress.UNDP (United Nations Development Project)1996 Bulgaria 1996. Human Development Report.Sofia: UNDP.UNDP (United Nations Development Project)1997 Bulgaria 1997. Human Development Report.Sofia: UNDP.UNDP (United Nations Development Project)2000 Bulgaria 2000. Human Development Report.The Mosaic of Local Communities. Sofia:UNDP.Varbanova, L. 1997 Theoretical Basis of Human ResourcesManagement. Plovdiv: Plovdiv UniversityPress.Vladimirov, Z.; I. Katzarski, V. Todorov and M.Badzakov 1998 Bulgaria in the Circles ofAnomy. Sofia: Sophilos.Vojnova, E. 1998 ‘Poverty in Bulgaria’, In: Mitev,P.-E. (ed.) The Bulgarian Transition. Challengiesand Cognition. Sofia: BSA, pp. 230-237.Williamson, E. 1991 ‘Comparative Economic Organisation:The Analysis of Discrete StructuralAlternatives’, Journal of AdministrativeScience Quarterly, Vol. 36, pp. 269-296.Yossifov, A. 1993 ‘Is Contemporary Work MotivationChanging?’ Sociological Problems, Vol. 3,pp. 54-58.Yossifov, A. and I. Naumov 1998 ‘Poverty – CulturalModels and Mass Attitudes’, In: Mitev,P.-E. (ed.) The Bulgarian Transition. Challengesand Cognition. Sofia: BSA, pp. 191-200.Zheljazkova, M. 1995 ‘Strategies of the Family asan Economic Community in the Period ofTransition to a Market Economy’, In: TheFamily and the Changing World. Sofia: NSI, pp.286-289.Zheljazkova, M. 1998 ‘Poverty and Integration.The Diverging Roles of a Society in Transition.The Case of Bulgaria’, In: Mitev, P.-E.(ed.) The Bulgarian Transition. Challenges andCognition. Sofia: BSA, pp. 216-229.Zlatanova, V. and B. Georgieva 1993 The Role ofState Agencies for Solving the Problems ofYouth Unemployment’’ Sociological Problems,Vol. 3, pp. 28-35.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter NineHOUSEHOLDS, WORK AND FLEXIBILITYCritical Review of LiteratureROMANIA[ Manuela Sofia Stănculescu, Ionica Berevoescu ][ Contents ]INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................1891. DISCOURSE ON FLEXIBILITY: THE CASE OF ROMANIA ............................................................1891.1. Main economic transformations in transitional Romania ................................................1891.2. Poverty ...........................................................................................................................1911.3. The Discourse on flexibility and available data...............................................................1932. DIMENSIONS OF FLEXIBILITY IN ROMANIA.................................................................................1962.1. Working time ..................................................................................................................1962.2. Part-time work ................................................................................................................1972.3. Underemployment ..........................................................................................................1972.4. Career Flexibility / Occupational mobility........................................................................1972.5. Self-employment in agriculture.......................................................................................1992.6. Entrepreneurs.................................................................................................................2012.7. Informal work..................................................................................................................2042.8. Household strategies......................................................................................................2062.9. Migration.........................................................................................................................2082.10. Temporary work abroad and international migration ......................................................2092.11. Commuting .....................................................................................................................2103. FLEXIBILIZATION POLICIES ..........................................................................................................2113.1. Policies related to work ..................................................................................................2113.2. Policies related to family and child .................................................................................2123.3. Policies towards flexibilization ........................................................................................215CONCLUSION: ROMANIAN FLEXIBILIZATION DILEMMA ....................................................................218NOTE .......................................................................................................................................................219REFERENCES.........................................................................................................................................220© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

[ List of tables and figures ]Table 1. Annual GDP growth rates in some CEECs ............................................................................190Table 2. Poverty Rate in Romania........................................................................................................191Table 3. Trends in social transfers .......................................................................................................192Table 4. Poverty profile in Romania .....................................................................................................192Table 5. The occupational situation of Romanian population...............................................................199Table 6. Land Fragmentation in Romania ............................................................................................200Table 7. Land and Labour Resources in Rural Romania ....................................................................200Table 8. Entrepreneurship by type of residence in Romania................................................................203Table 9. Share of households active in informal economies ................................................................205Table 10. Household strategies in two Romanian villages .....................................................................208Table 11. Rural-urban commuting by size of the nearest town ..............................................................210Table 12. Wage policies in Romania, 1990-1999...................................................................................212Text box 1. Screening of the national legislation from the perspective of European Directiveson Equal Opportunities...........................................................................................................216© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Nine. Literature review: Romania 189INTRODUCTIONWork flexibility in Romania needs to be understoodin the larger context of social and economictransformations, which have taken place since1989. How the society has changed after the turningpoint of 1989 and how it should be changed tobetter enable the development of democracy anda market economy represent the main concerns ofsocial scientists. ‘Flexibility’ and ‘flexible’ arementioned fairly frequently both in academic papersand political discourses, but most often assomething desirable, something that institutionsand individuals need to achieve.No ‘Romanian’ theory related to flexibility orflexibilization has been developed by the Romaniansocial scientists. Neither political debates noremployment policies focus on flexibilization as apath to development to be pursued. On the contrary,the forms of spontaneous flexibilization thatemerged after 1989 are seen as ‘problematic’ sincethey mainly relate to poverty, massive layoffs,labour force precariousness, the informal economyand other phenomenon hindering both socialcohesion and economic development.The next pages present in a synthetic formthe main body of literature related to flexibility onfew dimensions:- discourse on flexibility and available data(2.1. to 2.3.)- work flexibility as atypical forms of work:time flexibility (3.1. to 3.3.), institutional conditionsof work (3.5. to 3.7.), place flexibility(3.9. to 3.11.)- work flexibility as career flexibility and highoccupational mobility (3.4.)- economic household strategies and the workfamilyrelations (3.8.)- employment and family related policies (4.1.to 4.3.).1. DISCOURSE ON FLEXIBILITY: THE CASE OF ROMANIA1.1. Main economic transformations in transitional RomaniaVarious UNDP (National Human DevelopmentReports and Early Warning Reports), World Bank,UNICEF (Social Trends) reports and an abundanceof academic descriptive studies havepointed to the main changes in the economic environmentduring the twelve years of transition,which we present below.As Dăianu (2001) showed, Romania has experienceda boom and bust dynamic during thelast decade. The first transformation recession(1990 – 1992) was followed by fluctuating and unsustainablegrowth during 1993 – 1996. The secondtransformation recession took place between1997 and 1999 when a cleaning up of banking sectorwas undertaken and the balance of paymentwas adjusted. Recovery started in 2000, when theGDP rose by 1.6 percent, and it speeded up in2001 (4.9 percent). Compared to other countries inthe region, Romania is not one of the most successfulin its economic performance (see Table 1).© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

190 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityTable 1. Annual GDP growth rates in some CEECs, % on previous yearCountry1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001Bulgaria- 9.10 - 8.40 - 7.25 - 1.48 1.82 2.86 - 10.14 - 6.94 3.50 2.51 5.80 5.00Czech - 1.22 - 11.49 - 3.29 0.57 3.21 6.36 3.91 0.98 - 2.50 - 0.21 3.10 3.50Hungary- 3.50 - 11.90 - 3.06 - 0.58 2.95 1.5 1.34 4.57 5.07 4.27 5.20 3.80Romania- 5.58 - 12.92 - 8.77 1.53 3.93 7.14 3.95 - 6.07 - 5.43 - 3.19 1.60 4.90SloveniaN.A. - 9.00 - 5.00 2.80 5.30 4.10 3.50 4.50 4.00 4.80 4.60 3.00Source:Dăianu (2001); Estimations based on Economic Survey of Europe, 2000, vol.2, UN-ECE, Geneva;WIIW Research Report 283/2002.In the unbalanced structure of the economical environmentwith a zigzaging evolution, employmenthad a continuously descending tendency.The number of inactive and unemployed peoplefor every 1,000 employed increased from 1,140 in1990 to 1,408 in 1996, and 1,552 in 1998.The structure of employment experiencedtwo main shifts, one from industry to agriculture,and the second from the state to the private sector.Employment in industry has substantially declined(from about 40 percent in 1990 to 23 percentin 2000), while the share of the population workingin agriculture massively increased from 29percent in 1990 to over 40 percent in 2000. However,there are great disparities between urbanand rural areas – while in cities 47.8 percent of thepopulation work in services and the other 45.7percent in industry, in rural areas 70 percent ofthe population work in agriculture and only 14percent in services (Chirca and Teşliuc, 1999).The state sector continuously diminishedduring transition, especially since 1996, losing itsprevalent position at the macroeconomic level.Higher contributions to GDP have been recordedfor agricultural production, construction andtrade, sectors which have the highest percentageof privatised enterprises (over 70 percent). In2000, the Romanian Labour Force Survey (RLFS)shows that of the total urban employment 39 percentwas in the state sector, while in the rural areas,only 13 percent of employment was found instate-owned enterprises. The private sector providesfor the balance of jobs and in the rural areas,the private sector refers almost exclusively to subsistencefarming.In addition, the demographic ageing ofworkforce is ongoing, more accentuated in ruralareas and in the primary sector. The share of theyoung population decreased (mainly due to increasedparticipation in higher education) whilethe share of older people increased (mainly due totheir work in agriculture).Registered unemployment in Romania islower than in other countries in transition (e.g.Hungary, Poland, Slovenia). Nevertheless, longtermunemployment as well as the youth unemploymentis substantial. The average duration ofunemployment has increased in the last four yearsfrom 16.3 months in 1995 to 18 months in 2000.Women of the age group 35-49 have the longestduration of unemployment (23.3 months in 2000).Young people (15-24 year olds) are discouragedfrom entering the labour market and youth unemploymentrate is constantly higher than thetotal unemployment rate. Youth hold the largestshare in the total unemployment.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Nine. Literature review: Romania 1911.2. PovertyThe Romanian transition is associated with anevolving process of impoverishment that affectsthe society on all its levels, a process that is not a‘new’ one – it started in the 1980s – but during theprocess of economic reform it has developed, bothin extent and intensity. International comparisonsbased on purchasing power parity equivalents,show that Romania has one of the highest povertyrates in the region, only surpassed by Moldova,Albania and Russia (Teşliuc, Pop, Teşliuc, 2001).Table 2. Poverty Rate in Romania, 1995 – 20001995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000Persons in severe poverty (%) 8.0 5.1 9.5 11.7 16.6Persons in poverty (%) 25.3 19.9 30.8 33.8 41.2 44.0Sources: National Institute for Statistics, UNDP (1999), for 1995 – 1997; .Chirca and Teşliuc (1999), for 1998; Teşliuc,.Pop, Teşliuc (2001),for 1999 – 2000Until 1994, poverty was a politically ‘taboo’ issuein Romania. Nevertheless, several research institutesdeveloped research programs to define andassess poverty in Romania (e.g. the Institute forthe Study of the Quality of Life, the National Institutefor Economic Research, the National Institutefor Statistics, etc.). Since 1994, when the first bookon poverty was published (IQL, edited by Zamfir,Dimensions of Poverty, 1994) a large literature hasbeen developed. The World Bank and the UNDPfinanced various poverty alleviation programsthat included research both at the household andcommunity level. Various methods of povertyassessment have been applied (normativemethod, relative and relative-country-adjustedmethod, ‘fuzzy’ method, the World Bank structuralmethod, the subjective method) and a numberof studies were published: Wagner et al 1998,Sandu 1999, UNDP 1999, Chirca and Teşliuc 1999,Teşliuc and Pop 1999, Sandu 2000,Teşliuc, Pop,Teşliuc 2001. Large debates and polemics havebeen carried out in the Romanian academic communityover the most appropriate methodologyand the ‘true’ incidence of poverty. However,these later studies (1998 – 2001) used a similarmethodology for poverty measurement andhelped to build a ‘national expert consensus’.Among the Romanian scientists involved inpoverty assessments there is a consensus that thetransition to the market economy lead to a processof impoverishment – a general deterioration ofliving standards, with more and more people exposedto the risk of poverty. The poverty ‘produced’by the Romanian transition has a highelasticity to macro-economic evolutions. The increaseof GDP by 3.9 percent in 1996, rescued 1.2million people from poverty, and reduced thepoverty rate from 25.3 percent in 1995 to 19.9 percentin 1996. Subsequently, the decrease in GDPby 6.6 percent in 1997 pushed 2.5 million personsinto poverty, and increased the poverty rate to30.8 percent in 1997. During the course of transition,poverty turned from being what was at firsta marginal phenomenon into a social problem –from less than 900 thousands poor persons in 1989to over 7.5 million poor persons (33.8 percent ofthe overall population) in 1998, of which 2.6 millionliving in severe poverty and 420 thousandsbeing malnourished (below the threshold of US$ 1PPC). (Chirca and Teşliuc, 1999)The increase in poverty has been further aggravatedby decreasing state support for the poor.The severe decline of resources available for socialprotection (due to the decline in the number ofemployees, who are the main tax-payers) has beenaccompanied by an increase in the demand forsocial benefits (for example, from pensioners, unemployed,poor people, etc.)© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

192 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityTable 3. Trends in social transfers (1989 = 100), Romania 1989 – 20001989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000Child allowance 100.0 97.8 59.1 38.4 29.0 25.0 28.6 28.6 42.2 36.7 25.2 18.7Social insurance pensions(excluding farmers)100.0 107.3 83.2 70.0 60.8 58.2 63.1 65.5 51.6 * * *Social insurance pensionsfor farmers100.0 180.7 74.4 40.2 48.0 64.2 65.2 74.2 77.4 * * *Unemployment benefits 100.0 60.0 47.3 60.7 57.6 61.8 63.5 * * ** Not estimatedSource:Zamfir (coord), (2001) Poverty in Romania, Institute for the Study of the Quality of Life and UNDPAn analysis of poverty dynamics from 1995 to1997 (Teşliuc and Pop, 1999) revealed the natureof poverty in Romania: 60.7 percent is temporarypoverty, that is poor families who managed to getout of poverty when the economy went well(1996), becoming again poor in 1997, when theeconomy functioned poorly. Permanent povertyrepresents 17.9 percent and comprises householdswho remained captive in a state of poverty irrespectiveof the state of economy, most of thembeing farmers, self-employed and unemployedpersons. Furthermore, the authors showed thatpoverty in Romania is shallow since most of thepoor are clustered not far below the poverty line.These data support the hypothesis that in Romania,poverty is better described as impoverishment,since most types of household swing betweenpoverty and non-poverty according to theperformance of economy. However, the data alsosuggest that the stabilization of poverty is alreadyin progress. Those most exposed to this processare mainly the social categories in an unfavourableposition in terms of access to goods and servicesthat require monetary spending.Table 4. Poverty profile in Romania, 1998Poverty rate by occupation of the head of householdPoverty rate by number of childrenEmployee 29.7 No children 23.5Retired 25.6 1 child 35.0Farmer 57.4 2 children 43.6Entrepreneur 10.1 3 children 64.6Self-employed 53.9 4 children or more 83.6Unemployed 59.8Poverty rate by educational level of the head of householdPoverty rate by ageNo schooling/ primary school 42.0 Under 7 years 37.7Secondary school 41.0 7 – 15 years 48.7Vocational training 40.0 16 – 25 years 45.5High school 22.0 26 – 35 years 31.0College 19.0 36 – 45 years 36.1University 6.0 46 – 55 years 32.356 – 65 years 21.0Over 65 years 11.4Source:Teşliuc, Pop, Teşliuc (2001), based on Household Integrated Survey© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Nine. Literature review: Romania 193Even social groups with a lower risk of povertyare well represented among those living in poverty.In 1998, members of households headed byemployees and pensioners represented altogether65 percent of the poor in Romania.Unemployed persons, the self-employed andfarmers have been the social groups with thehighest risk of poverty; 60 percent of unemployed,57 percent of farmers and 54 percent of selfemployedin non-agricultural activities live inpoverty. Unemployed persons no longer eligiblefor the unemployment benefit and those who neitherfind a job on the black market nor have landto work are in the worst situation.Over 50 percent of the households with morethan four members, and over 80 percent of thosewith four children or more live in poverty. Mostof the Romanian children live in householdsheaded by unemployed or self-employed peoplein non-agricultural activities, and also in largehouseholds. While these represent the householdswith the lowest income, most of the children under15 grow up in a poverty situation. For instance,according to RIQL estimations, in 1993,72.9 percent of the children belonged to householdsin poverty compared with 56.5 percent ofthe adults (Zamfir , 1994)Other studies focus on the social definition ofpoverty. Subjective evaluations and definitionsprovided by Romanians are consistent with theresults of sociological assessments.“How would you characterize in one wordthe present situation of the country?” In June1998, 12 percent of the Romanian population answered“poor”, and another 56 percent used negativelabels such as: disaster, chaos, instability, corruption,inefficiency or wickedness. Poverty isperceived as a product of the Romanian transition.Answering to the question “Why are therepoor people in our society?”, in May 1999, morethan a half of the population selected “because ofthe society we live in”, while in 1993, only 35 percentblamed society and 33.5 percent chose “becausethey are lazy and lack the will to do somethingabout it”. (Sources: Public Opinion Barometerof the Open Society Foundation, 1998, 1999,and Basic Democratic Values, 1993, coordinatorZamfir, RIQL)“When would you say that a person ispoor?” was an open question used in eight communitystudies (Stănculescu and Berevoescu,UNDP 1999) carried out in four villages and foururban workers’ neighbourhoods. There are twomain categories of poverty markers used by 86.5percent of the subjects. The first group of indicatorsused to identify a “poor person” refer to thenon-satisfaction of basic human needs. Altogether,65.5 percent of the subjects felt that thepoor lack clothes, “do not have bread in thehouse”, do not meet a subsistence minimum, arehomeless or have a house which is very poorlyendowed. For another 21 percent of the people,the poor are those without money or with moneythat is only enough to live from one day to thenext.However, one study (Stănculescu, 1998)showed that there are discrepancies between povertydefinitions based on thresholds, be they normativeor relative, and self-identification as poor.Only about 36 percent of people that the expertsassessed as poor identify themselves as such. Atthe same time, 30 percent of non-poor, accordingto the experts’ threshold, define themselves aspoor.1.3. The Discourse on flexibility and available dataThe sociological studies have been focused onpoverty, development and social structure whileeconomists were interested mainly in the macroeconomicevolution of the economy in transition.They explained the unemployment and its dynamic,or studied the labour market at the aggregatelevel related to the trends in job destructionand job creation with little interest in nonstandardforms of employment. Although thereare available data regarding non-standard forms© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

194 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityof employment, none of these were analysed fromthe flexibility perspective. The main data source isthe Romanian Labour Force Survey (AMIGO) carriedour since March 1994 by the Romanian NationalInstitute for Statistics (NIS).Between 1991 and 1994 the economists fromthe Economy of Human Resources departmentwith the National Institute for Economic Researchpublished a series of four volumes on labour marketsin transition. The most elaborated one is thebook Labour Market in Romania: Employment, Flexibility,Human Development (Perţ et al, 1994), whichrepresents the analysis of flexibility and flexibilizationin Romania in the first years of transition.The authors distinguished four main types offlexibility:1. Numeric or quantitative flexibility refers toadjustment of the quantity of work force accordingthe demand on the labour market.Numeric flexibility has two sub-types, externaland internal, according the manner inwhich the adjustment takes place. Externalnumeric flexibility mainly refers to lay-offswhile the internal sub-type comprises variousmodalities of adjusting the time of work(flexi-year, part time, temporary work, etc.),and the volume of work without modifyingthe number of work places.2. Externalization of a part of the firm activity(e.g. subcontracting).3. Functional flexibility represents a qualitativeform of flexibility, which responds also to theworkers’ needs and aspirations. In relation tothis topic, investment in human capital andtraining/retraining programs are also discussed.4. Wage flexibility represents a modalitythrough which the conjuncture of developmentsin the market and the costs are transferredto the wages.Taking into consideration these four types offlexibility, some authors (Perţ et al 1994) showthat Romanian situation (between 1989 and 1994)falls under the ‘East-European model’, characterizedby:- ‘forced’/artificial protection of employment,- legislative and institutional legacy from theplanned economy,- strong attachment to traditional long-life jobs- lack of wage flexibility,- low functional flexibility,- low internal numeric flexibility- a growing trend towards external numericflexibility.Each type of flexibility is treated separatelyanalysing the trends on the labour market as wellas the policies in Romania. As Perţ (1994, 1995)shows, in Romania the labour market is rigid andcharacterized by sharp decline in employment,chronic unemployment and increasing work insecurity.Most of the atypical forms of employmentthat emerged in Romania during the 90s are expressionsof the distortions and blockages presenton the labour market and not of the newlyemerged market institutions and structures. Thus,the work becomes more and more precariousthrough various channels:- employees of many enterprises, by turn, takeunpaid leave of absence lasting a few monthsduring which they are still employed withzero work hours and no salary, usually endingin unemployment.- replacement of a work contract with temporarycivil contracts- informal casual work without a work contractIn accordance with Guy Standing (1991), thesame author emphasizes that in the Romaniancontext the atypical forms of employment representan alternative to unemployment and not achoice, a continuously growing number of peoplebeing entrapped in unemployment, poverty orunder-employment.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Nine. Literature review: Romania 195As in all the other Central and Eastern Europeancountries, marketisation resulted in greaterdiversity of work and income sources. New occupationalcategories emerged: employers, selfemployed,and unpaid family workers. The authorpointed out three trends relevant for the natureof flexibilization in Romania in 1993, continuedafter 1993:- An increase of employers’ number and sharein the total employment; after 1993, the trendreversed and employers’ share decreasedfrom about 6 percent to 1.1 percent in 2000.- An increase in self-employment, a trend thathas continued after 1993. In 2000, the selfemploymentrepresented about a quarter ofthe employment and included mainly peopledoing subsistence agriculture on their ownplot.- A sharp increase in the share and number ofunpaid family workers, mostly women workingin subsistence agriculture. Between 1993and 2000, it has increased significantly from5.6 percent to 20.5 percent of employment.Thus, the development of new occupationalcategories is reflected in the sharp increase ofatypical forms of precarious work. Two otherfacts should be taken into account. First, the unemploymentalthough not very high is mainlylong term and it is concentrated among youngpeople. Secondly, the Romanian labour market issegmented and distorted (monopolists and highlyunionised branches are advantaged in terms ofsalaries and work conditions and highly protectedirrespective of their profitability) (see also Ciupagea,2000). Under these circumstances, the authorsconclude that ‘Romanian flexibilization’ increasesthe risk of social exclusion.Professional training /retraining is consideredby this team of authors to be the most effectivemechanism of flexibilization in the East-European context. However, based on a survey insix enterprises located in Buzau County, comprisinga quarter of the county employment, and ananalysis of the labour market policies, the authorsconcluded that the professional training mechanismwas not really functional in Romania, atleast not in 1993:- at the national level, there were neitherstrategies nor active labour market policiesencouraging functional flexibility;- at the firm level, the employers applied shortterm strategies, firing people and hiringtrained unemployed;- the trade unions opposed the introduction ofthe requirements of participation in training/retrainingcourses in the collective workcontracts, being afraid that this clause wouldjustify new lay-offs;- at the individual level, attending trainingcourses represented a matter of personalchoice, which was better utilised by those alreadyhighly qualified and in managementpositions.According to an analysis done in 2001 by adifferent team of authors (co-ordinated by Zamfir,RIQL) the situation regarding functional flexibilityhas not changed after 1993. Although, theoretically,the importance of job creation policies wasrecognized from the beginning, they were minimallyfinanced and ineffective during the entireperiod of transition. The support for the unemployedwas mainly done through cash benefits(passive protection), which accounted for between60 percent and 90 percent of the expendituresfrom the Unemployment Fund compared to theactive measures (training/retraining courses andcredits for the creation of income-generating activities),which never exceeded 3 percent.Undoubtedly, flexibilization represents animperative transformation of the employmentsystem in Romania in view of globalisation, risinginternational competition as well as sustainableeconomic and human development. The realquestion concerns the types of flexibility to be developedand how to accomplish it. In this respect,authors consider functional flexibility and internal© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

196 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityquantitative flexibility the major changes thatneed to be accomplished and these require focuson training and on the legal and institutionalframework favouring new flexible work and worktime arrangements. Flexibility is not a panacea.“Although important, flexibility is only an elementamong other elements of the managementmechanism of the labour market. Unless it meetsthe social consensus and it is integrated within acoherent policy flexibilization does not manifestits good sides. Flexibility is a sine qua non conditionfor efficient employment as long as it is notachieved by sacrificing the labour force.” (Perţ,1994: 37)2. DIMENSIONS OF FLEXIBILITY IN ROMANIA2.1. Working timeAccording to the Romanian legislation the standardworking week includes 40 hours. The atypicalforms of employment are not yet well regulatedin Romania.After 1990, the time of work related legislationhas been modified, mainly as result of tradeunions pressure, including:- The number of working hours per week diminishedfrom about 46 to 40 hours- The average number of days of paid leaveincreased from 15 to 21 days per year- The number of paid holidays increased- The retirement age was reduced both forwomen and for men (early retirement hasbeen an alternative to the lay-offs).Overall, the number of working days peryear diminished from 276 in 1998 to about 230days and the fund of maximum available workingtime became one of the lowest in Europe. In addition,the effective working time has shown a negativetrend (one of the most accentuated in Europe;from over 44 hours per week in 1989 to some 36hours in the last years), while the practice of overtimekeeps a value close to that of the year 1989.Remarkably, as Vasile (1993) showed, the reductionof working time is associated neither withincrease of newly created jobs nor with the rise inproductivity. Neither is it correlated with a reductionof corresponding payment. Therefore, althoughit indicates an increase in internal flexibility,its effects over the functioning of the labourmarket are equivocal. The same author identifiedtwo main effects of the reduction of working time(both legislative and effective), namely a declineof the productive capacity of private firms andcompetitiveness losses determined by the fact thatthe reduction in working time has been fullycompensated through wages. (Vasile, in Perţ et al,1993)Răboacă (2000) showed that two oppositetendencies concerning time of work have characterizedthe Romanian labour market: underemploymentas work less than 40 hours (33.2 percentof employment in 1998) and overemploymentas work over 40 hours (17.2 percentof employment in 1998). The underemployed aremainly women, part-time employed and peoplefrom the rural areas, while the over-employed aremainly men, self-employed and employers. Thefemale under-employment relates to women’sefforts to harmonise work and family since theyare the main people responsible for domesticwork and childcare. However, most underemployedtook up the option for this type of employmentdue to the fact that they were not offeredany other alternative. Consequently, thelarge share of underemployment and its increasingtrend are seen by this author as a tendencytowards greater precariousness in employment(and not flexible).© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Nine. Literature review: Romania 1972.2. Part-time workThe RLFS data indicate that the share of part-timeemployed persons has slightly but constantly increasedfrom 13 percent in 1994 to 16.3 percent in2000. As in the European pattern, more than halfof the part-timers are women. Nearly all are ruralresidents, self-employed or unpaid family workers,and looking for a permanent job. Thus, parttimework represents in Romania an alternative tounemployment and is not a choice. As the economistMihăescu (2001: 197) put it, “this atypicalform of employment (part-time work) does notrepresent in Romania a sign of maturity of thelabour force, but a result of market dysfunctions”.Based on a comparative analysis, Răboacă(2000) presented some distinctive characteristicsof the part-time work in Romania in 1997:• The total number (men and women) in parttimework was considerably higher comparedto the other Central and Eastern countriesin transition.• Men in part-time work represented 12.2 percentof total employment, a share substantiallyhigher than in the OECD countries.• Female part-time work was 17.6 percent oftotal employment, which is significantlyhigher than in the CEE countries (e.g. 0.5 percentin Bulgaria) but much lower than in theWestern countries.• The female share in part-time employmenthas had a slightly diminishing tendency between1990 and 1997 (from 60.1 to 54.7 percent)unlike in the other CEE countries (exceptfor Bulgaria).2.3. UnderemploymentThe Romanian Labour Force Survey provides informationon the ‘under-employed population’considered in the literature partly as ‘hidden unemployed’(‘technical unemployed’, those on unpaidholidays, compulsory holidays, etc.) andpartly as potential unemployment (under hardbudget constraints imposed on companies). The‘under-employed’ include three categories: a)part-time employees looking for full-time employmentor for a second job; b) part-time employees,not looking for a new job, but availablefor a supplementary one; c) full-time employeeswho involuntarily worked less than normal working-hours,and who are looking for a new job orare available for a supplementary one.Out of the total employment, the share ofunderemployed persons increased from 2 percentin 1994 to 3,5 percent in 1998 and subsequentlydecreased to 0.5 percent in 2000. The number ofunderemployed has diminished from some 262thousands in 1998 to 54 thousands in 2000. Mostof the underemployed are men, either 15 – 34years old in rural areas (which predominate) or35-49 years old urban dwellers.Oprescu (1999) described the sharp changesin underemployment that took place between1995 and 1998. While in 1995, the underemployedwere mainly full-time employees (consistent withmassive overstaffing) and people over 50 yearsold, in 1998, younger rural people and part-timeemployees that were not looking for a new jobwere dominant. In addition, the ratio underemployedto unemployed changed from 1 in 1995to ½ in 1998, which shows a significant fall inhidden (potential) unemployment.2.4. Career Flexibility / Occupational mobilityStudies from the 70s and 80s stressed the stabilityof the labour force, consistent with the ideologyand the policy promoted by the communist regime.Life-long jobs as well as life-long residency© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

198 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityor life-long dwellings were state control mechanismsdisguised as social desirability. However,younger people, with less experience, those notsatisfied with the schedule of work, particularlywomen who did not get enough help with householdwork, or commuters, were more likely tochange either the place of work or the work itself(Mărginean, 1975).Some occupational mobility existed alreadyin Romania, despite the rigidity of the plannedeconomy, but it was lower than in developedcountries. After 1990, in the context of economictransformation the labour mobility in Romaniaconsiderably increased. In fact, the dynamic ofemployment by sectors (a marked decline in industryand a marked increase in agriculture) indicatesthat a process of massive re-allocation oflabour has taken place.After 1989, firms inherited from the centralplanning system in Romania were usually overstaffedas compared to similar companies evenfrom the other former socialist countries. Thepressure to restructure firms led to a lowering oflabour costs. Layoffs and the voluntary early retirementhave been most frequently used for controllingthe labour costs. From 1989 and 1992 theemployment in state industries declined by 23.6percent. Large labour adjustments occurred intextiles, machinery, equipment, instrument andfurniture manufacturing while industries receivingsubsidies and those in which regii autonomes(such as coal mining, petroleum, natural gas, andutilities) are more present were less likely to adjust(Negulescu, 1999). The former AgriculturalCooperatives were closed down already in 1990,and the land restitution was ratified by law in1991. Consequently, from the first years of thetransition a large part of the work force had tochange their occupation, or their former workplaces.Abraham’s (2000) analysis focused onchanges in the occupational structure and theemerging social structure of Romania. In the firstten years of transition (1989 – 1999) over 40 percentof those in employment changed either theplace of work (20 percent once and 8 percent atleast twice) or their occupation (22 percent onceand 5 percent at least twice) or both. Out of thoseemployed in 1990, one in every four experienced asituation of unemployment at least once, one inevery ten were made redundant and furthereleven percent chose early retirement, especiallythose willing to change their residency (most oftenfrom urban to rural areas), one in every hundredpersons faced all three forms of ‘marginalized’experiences. Occupational mobility as wellas the ‘marginalization’ process has been considerablymore accentuated (almost double) in theurban areas.The same author emphasises the fact thatcompared to the long period of communist socialhomogenisation, employment changed dramaticallyin a very short period. Between 1989 and1999, about 90 percent of the employees changedoccupation, were “social marginalized” or“adapted to the market economy” in the followingways:- For about 40 percent the changes meant verticalor horizontal mobility.- For another 40 percent, particularly industrialworkers, the changes brought unemploymentor uncertain positions on the labourmarket closely linked to poverty.- Only ten percent of the employment adaptedto the market economy either by starting uptheir own businesses or by improving theirqualifications.According to another analysis (Stănculescu,2000), the population over 18 years old is dividedin four categories: 1) persons who were employedwith an official work contract since before 1989(55 percent); 2) persons retired before 1989 (16percent); 3) persons who entered the labour marketafter 1990 (11 percent), and 4) persons whonever worked with an official work contract (17percent). In each of the four mentioned categories,25 to 35 percent of the total group accumulatedbetween 2 and 4 occupational statuses at the timeof the survey.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Nine. Literature review: Romania 199Table 5. The occupational situation of Romanian population over 18 years old, May 2000Persons ...retired before1989never officiallyemployedentered theofficial labourmarketafter 1990FarmerPermanentwork contractTemporarywork contractCasualworkerEmployerSelfemployedUnemployed25% - - 4% 0.4% 0.4% - 5.3%24% - 6% 10% - 6% 10% 33%17.9% 62% 11% 8.5% 1.5% 3% 3.5% 9.5%HouseholdworkerSource:Stănculescu (2000). Data: Romanian Public Opinion Barometer OSF, May 2000. Occupational status such as retired, pupil, studentand other were not included. The sum of the percentages on each row may exceed 100%.Out of all those in employment in1989, 27.5 percent lost their job due to enterprise reorganization, due to closure of the enterprise or due to the abolition of theformer agricultural cooperatives. Only a third of them subsequently found a new job with an official work contract, half in the statesector, half in the private sector. The rest, which did not manage to re-enter official labour market, perform agricultural activities intheir own households (29 percent), work occasionally (11 percent), are temporary workers (8 percent), retired when became ofage (16 percent), are self-employed (5.5 percent), only three of them (1 percent) successfully started a business and 20 percentare unemployed.2.5. Self-employment in agricultureAgriculture is a far more important sector in Romaniathan in neighbouring countries. The 35 percentof the active labour force employed in agricultureis significantly higher than in Poland (26percent), in Bulgaria (24 percent) or in Hungary (8percent) (Nash and Csaki, 1998, cited by Teşliuc,1999).Romania’s rural sector is dominated by agricultureto a much greater extent as well. Over 70percent of rural Romanians are employed in agriculturecompared to only 33 percent in Polandand Hungary. The concentration of economic activitiesfrom the rural areas in agriculture is associatedwith an employment structure in which 35percent are self-employed, and 32 percent are unpaidfamily workers, in contrast to urban employmentwhere 90 percent are employees (WBand NCS, 1999).Teşliuc (1999) pointed out that the large portionof non-marketed agricultural output, mirroredby the large share of self-consumption inhousehold consumption is specific to Romania.The average family consumes a half of its foodfrom its own production. For the farmer-headedhouseholds, this figure reaches 80 percent.The considerable small-scale subsistence farmsector accounts for about 60 percent of the totalagriculture land and country’s livestock, as well.This sector is almost totally disconnected frommarkets. However, the private small-scale farmsector has been the main rural sector in terms ofland ownership, employment, income-generationand contribution to the gross domestic product.Small-scale farming has an important role in alleviatingrural poverty but it is not a source ofprosperity, nor does it serve as an engine of economicgrowth. Private, small household agriculturehas to cope with four major problems, accordingto Teşliuc (1999):1. Excessive land fragmentation: Most of theagricultural land was restored to its formerowners who were forced to join the socialistagricultural cooperatives between 1948 and1962, or to their heirs. Thus, by design, theland reform (ratified by law in 1991) transferredtwo thirds of the land to elderly farmers,and only one third to the rural youth.Since most of the former landowners whohad died had several children who claimed© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

200 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityownership rights, at the end of the reform theland ownership structure was more fragmentedthan before the start of forced socialistcollectivisation.In 1992, more than four million landownerswith holdings averaging two hectares dividedin several plots had taken the place ofthe five thousand or so socialist agriculturalcooperatives.Table 6. Land Fragmentation in Romania,1948 - 1998Share of farms (%) 1948 1998Under 1 hectare 36 451-2 hectares 27 24Over 2 hectares 36 31Total 100 100Source: Chirca and Teşliuc (1999)2. The mismatch between access to land andaccess to labour: Most of the land was reinstatedto an elderly class of people, lackingadequate labour resources.Table 7. Land and Labour Resources in Rural Romania,1997Type of householdPensionerhouseholdsEmployeehouseholdsFarmer householdsThe rest of ruralhouseholds% oflandownedSource: Chirca and Teşliuc (1999)% oflandworked% ofpopulationHectares/Adult41.2 65.3 62.9 0.9330.8 15.8 14.7 0.1218.9 16.8 18.6 0.639.1 2.2 3.8 0.313. The shortage of agricultural machinery andequipment: Most rural households have littleor no productive farm equipment. Hence, theoverwhelming majority of rural householdshave no choice but to turn to animal-drawnequipment and a small number hires mechanicalservices.4. The vicious circle of subsistence farming: Thepoorly developed input and output marketingsystem adds to the problems alreadymentioned. Thus, the new class of farmers,poorly equipped with physical agriculturalresources, lacking modern agronomic knowledgeand cash-constrained have ‘chosen’ alow-risk / low-return production strategy,switched their production mix away frommodern toward traditional crop / technologies,and reduced their transactions to aminimum in favour of an autarchic productionsystem.During transition, agriculture and farming becamean occupational buffer. It absorbed partlythe rural unemployed or returning migrants. Italso absorbed those that did not otherwise findformal employment. As a consequence, farmingabsorbed too much labour, which led to severeunder-employment. Teşliuc (1999) empiricallytested the hypothesis of underemployment in agricultureand showed that a reduction of labourforce in agriculture would not result in a declinein levels of production.The same author discussed the agriculturalreforms and policies implemented in Romania. Heargues that Romania’s rural areas still bear theburden of industrialization policies of the socialistregime. The adjustments that took place in agricultureare incomplete and highly vulnerable. Agriculturalreforms both before 1997 (‘heavy handof the state’ type of policies) and after 1997 (‘hesitant’type of policies) gave little attention to thesmall farms’ sector. This sector was isolated fromthe commercial one. Its production patterns helpowners to escape extreme poverty, but fail to triggeradequate income or output growth.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Nine. Literature review: Romania 201The rise in the number of entrepreneurs inCentral and Eastern Europe is often interpreted asa temporary response to the transformational recession:during the hard times many peoplestarted a business temporarily and ‘unwillingly’because it was difficult to find waged work. In1999, the hypothesis that entrepreneurs are really‘disguised unemployed’ has been refuted for theHungarian case but proved true for the Romanianself-employment in agriculture. Romanian agricultureabsorbed a substantial proportion of thepotential unemployed. Research on Romania byKollo and Vincze (1999) for the period 1993 – 1996and Ciupagea (2000) for 1993 and 1998 revealedlarger flows into self-employment, subsistencefarming and the black market in regions hit hardestby the transition shock. At the same time, nonet flows from self-employment back to paidwork have been observed in the few Romanianregions where the demand for labour was rising.The agricultural self-employed did not behavelike a pool of unemployed workers normallydoes, probably because the ‘transformational recession’is not over in Romania. Subsistence farmingensures only minimum living standards but,on the positive side, it erodes one’s ‘employability’less than does unemployment. “The experienceof CEE countries modernizing their economiesfaster than Romania suggests no or a veryslow rise in paid employment during the recovery.If the millions who now make their livingfrom cultivating small pieces of land have to goon for years, or decades, then the social burdenfrom ‘disguised unemployment’ may finallyprove heavier than it appears today.” (Kollo andVincze 1999: 37)2.6. EntrepreneursThe Romanian economists have studied the economicreform based on the dichotomy betweentop-down, government driven reform centred onprivatisation of the ‘dinosaurs’ inherited from socialism,versus a bottom-up approach based ongenuine entrepreneurs that perform the reformand carry out their own transition. Romania is notamong the most successful transition countriesbut “more important is the fact that the currentshare of the private sector is not the outcome ofthe privatisation process, but the result of the activityof hundred of thousands of new firms, mostof them small and medium-sized. And this is aremarkable achievement, considering that Romanianauthorities have focused on privatisation andthe starting conditions were not very favourable.”(Dochia, 1999). Thus, in the case of entrepreneurship,flexibilization is by individual choice and itis usually spontaneous.Regarding the entrepreneurs running largebusiness, shaping the functioning of the economicsystem and influencing its evolution, early studies(Costariol, 1993) noticed the basic differences betweenRomanian entrepreneurs and typical WestEuropean entrepreneurs. “The typical private entrepreneurin Romania is a first-generation person,middle aged, mainly with previous experiencein a managerial position with large scalestate-owned companies or, if he is young, usuallywith a University education. (…) Informationconcerning strategic factors like the market, clients,suppliers of raw materials, financial tools,and asset availability, accompanied by low salariesin their declining companies, give formermanagers a better chance to start their own privateand often profitable business. This is especiallytrue in a rapidly changing and very troubledsystem, where a good rapport with a client isof greater use than any technical ability.” (Costariol,1993: 24)The consequences deriving from the structuralfeatures of the entrepreneurial class in Romania(only the influential ones running largebusiness) have been listed by Dochia (1999):© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

202 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibility- On the whole, the Romanian entrepreneurshave a higher educational level when comparedto the other European countries, buttheir experience in real industrial work, andtheir manual and technical abilities are ratherpoor.- Because of their higher social class origins,Romanian entrepreneurs are somewhat insensitiveto the issue of mutual solidarity andreluctant to associate with one another.- Most private businessmen perceive theirbusiness environment as absolute competitionand act as though every other enterprisewas a dangerous adversary, rather than a potentialpartner.- Due to their managerial origins, Romanianentrepreneurs have ‘special relations’ withthe state and state companies. Many privatefirms were from the start conceived to gravitatearound a state company. The relation isnot limited to state companies but is spillingover to all state institutions – “Romaniancapitalists are a product of the RomanianState and, as such, they are an annex of thestate.” (Boari, 1999) When the political dimensionis added to the lists of ‘special relations’between the private sector and thestate, the resulting picture is of so-called‘crony capitalism’, deeply related to ‘kinshipsocialism’ (Palade, 1999). In addition, Romanianentrepreneurs have an ambiguous attitudetowards the state and state companies.“The state is to be blamed for almost all badthings that happen to the business, but it isthe state they turn to when looking for solutions.And the solutions demanded are not ofliberal type as one might expect from privateentrepreneurs (the ‘minimal state perspective’),but are strongly interventionist.” (Dochia,1999) “Against a background of absenceof an anti-state spirit, we do find an activismdedicated to promoting and concluding‘deals’ with the state to reap privileges, favours,protectionism and rents.” (Munteanu,1999)Therefore, concludes the author, in Romaniathe ‘state capitalism’ system dominates the economiclife, which makes it very hard for manyother entrepreneurs (smaller and less influential)and self-employed who are not ‘part of the system’to survive and prosper and for free marketsto function properly.Although small entrepreneurs are less influentialat the national level, those shaping the localeconomies appear to share the structural featuresdescribed above, as Keil and Andreescu (1998: 16)in their study on ‘family enterprise’ argued: “Weknow little about who first entrepreneurs wereand how they managed to create their business. It,however, is very likely that many of these earlybusiness people, including those that started enterprises,were closely connected to the old nomenklatura,were themselves former nomenklaturawho lost their positions when the communistregime collapsed, were persons who continued toplay key roles in one or more of the various stateorgans, and/or, in some cases were individuals orfamilies who had accumulated sufficient capitalthrough the secondary economy to open a business.”Taking into consideration the discouragingenvironment, the entrepreneurial orientation ofthe population should be seen from a larger perspective.The propensity to adopt the entrepreneurialstrategy becomes more visible when ‘soft’or ‘invisible’ types of entrepreneurs are also considered:entrepreneurs ‘by intention’ (that intendto open a firm in the near future) or ‘desire’ (desireto have their own business) (Sandu, 1999) aswell as the ‘informal entrepreneurs’ that run anunrecorded business (Stănculescu in Dăianu,2001).© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Nine. Literature review: Romania 203Table 8. Entrepreneurship by type of residence in Romania, 2000Entrepreneurial orientation Urban Rural TotalThe respondent or another member of the household runs a private business officially recorded(official entrepreneurs) 8.6% 4.5% 6.7%The household agricultural assets exceed the national rural average either regarding land or livestock andare market oriented selling at least a quarter of their production. These agricultural businesses are notofficially recorded (informal rural entrepreneurs) 2.2% 15.7% 8.4%The respondent intends to open a business and do not have one either official or informal(entrepreneurs “by intention”) 14.4% 8.0% 11.5%The respondent would open a business if getting a large amount of money and does not have or does notintend to have one (entrepreneurs “by desire”) 8.7% 4.8% 6.9%No entrepreneurial behaviour, intention or desire 66.1% 67.0% 66.5%Total % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%N 1936 1635 3571Source: Stănculescu (in Dăianu, 2001). Data: OSF Public Opinion Barometer, Social Structure and Ways of Life 2000.In Romania, rural entrepreneurship appears to bestrongly linked with individual and communitysocial capital. Lăzăroiu (1999) defined social capitalas social networks and came up with the hypothesisthat rural entrepreneurs have “strong,double checked, social contacts” because they tryto cover a trust deficit.Using a more complex definition of socialcapital (diffuse trust and cooperation, trust in institutions,network capital) Sandu (1999) conceivesentrepreneurship and social capital as lifestrategies that support each other. The key explanatoryblocks of variables for entrepreneurshipare personal and community human capital, materialresources, and urban accessibility. Entrepreneurialorientations are favoured more by networkcapital of the person or of the householdthan by pro-social values (trust, tolerance and cooperation)or by community social capital. Intransitional societies, uncertainty is a key characteristicof the business environment so being cautiousin relations with the others is rather the“normal life strategy”. Consequently, the ruralentrepreneurs are “without trust but with connections”.In Romanian rural areas Lăzăroiu (1999)identified four dominant types of entrepreneurs:1. “The new and old entrepreneur” whose businessoriginated before 1989, such as shepherds; 2.“The network entrepreneur” who used to hold aleading position in a state-owned enterprise andstarted a business immediately after 1989, in thesame area of activity he had been in until then; 3.“The merchant” is a trader running a small-scalebusiness, with a small margin for profit, but theeasiest to start (it requires low initial capital); 4.“The agricultural entrepreneur”. Other authors(Sandu et al, 1999) also mentioned the “craftsmen”type, the owner of little workshops (smallfurniture workshops, carpentry, mechanical services,miller, tailor, etc.). In remote and poorervillages a few traders and one/two craftsmen representthe norm due to poor infrastructure andlow demand.In the rural social environment based on traditionalvalues, even in communities in whichlocal entrepreneurs are active and supportive forcommunity actions, the public image of the entrepreneurpersists as mainly a negative one. Keiland Andreescu (1998: 19) pointed out that “whilefamilies in Eastern and Central Europe, includingRomania, have the structural solidarity and themoral integration that would facilitate widespreaddevelopment of family enterprises in theregion, at the same time, (…) few families have ahistory or culture of entrepreneurship that hasbeen passed on from one generation to generation.Indeed, family cultures steer members awayfrom business, believing it to be a marginal, if notcompletely unsavoury activity”.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

204 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityWelsch and Pistrui (1996) studied women entrepreneurs.Female-owned business had a strongrelationship with the family. They used more familymembers as part time employees. They reliedmore on family savings and the spouse for financing.Overall, female entrepreneurs’ activity wasbased on the desire for family security, greaterfreedom and a personal sense of accomplishment.Women were not merely driven by the desire toearn more. They worked “in order to better providefor the immediate family”. With a “do whateverit takes” attitude they were intensely committedbut they were also less willing than men togive up quality time particularly with the family.2.7. Informal workLiterature on the informal economy in Romania isextensive and many studies have addressed issuesrelate to work flexibility and flexibilization. Thefirst study on the informal economy (PHAREfinanced)was carried out in 1995 by an internationalteam together with the National Institutefor Statistics (coordinated by Gerard Duchene andPhilip Adaire). The target of the study was theelaboration of a methodology to be used in adjustingthe Romanian National Accounts. Othereconomists (e.g. Ivan-Ungureanu in 1996, Dobrescuin 1997, Albu et al in 1998, Ciupagea in2000, Dăianu et al in 2001) have evaluated the sizeof the informal sector using various methodologiesat the aggregate level. From a sociologicalperspective, a project (VW-financed) focused onthe social determinants and effects of the informaleconomy, has been carried out by a team (coordinatedby Rainer Neef) formed of social scientistsfrom the University of Goettingen (Germany) andthe Institute for the Study of the Quality of Life(Bucharest, Romania) between 1998 and 2001.According to the NIS definition, ‘grey economy’includes legal productive activities, whichare not recorded in the National Accounts. TheNIS and National Bank of Romania estimated thatthe weight of the gross product added overall ofthe ‘grey’ activities increased from 6.7 percent in1992 to 19 percent in 1997. Informal activities aremore extensive in fields such as trade, construction,transportation, car repairing, household repairs,hotels and restaurants, real estate transactions,education, health, and cottage industry(HDR 1998: 21). In addition, all sorts of illegal activities,such as contraband, drug trafficking, corruptionor tax evasion, raise the size of the informaleconomy to about 40 percent of the GDP, accordingto the Romanian Service of Information –SRI, evaluation close to the one of US Treasuryissued to the Romanian press in 1999.Based on the series formed of experts’ estimationsand official statistics Ciupagea (2002)proved that the level and growth rate of GDP,inflation, the burden of social duties, the share ofnon-wage labour and, to some extent, the rate oflong-term unemployment are the main drivingforces of the informal economy in Romania.The inverse correlation between informaleconomy and formal economy is described byWallace and Haerpfer, based on 1991 to 1998panel data in eleven CEEC and CIS countries,among which Romania. In the ‘re-institutionalising’countries (e.g. Czech Republic, Hungary,Slovenia) in which more and more aspects of welfareand economic activity have been incorporatedinto the formal economy, the good performancesof the formal economy have been accompaniedby decline in the informal economy. In contrast,the ‘de-institutionalising countries’ in whichthe institutional forms of welfare and economicactivity have been declining the poor performancesof the formal economy have been mirroredin growing poverty and informal economy. Suchcountries are Ukraine, Romania and Bulgaria.Various authors (Neef, Wallace and Haerpfer,Stănculescu, and Ilie) have argued that informalsector in Romania is closely related both topoverty and entrepreneurial dynamism. Based on1998 data, Stănculescu (2002) showed to what extentinformality is synonymous with each of thetwo, in Romania. For half of all Romanian households,informality equals poverty, buffering the© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Nine. Literature review: Romania 205social costs of transformation by compensating forcontinuously falling wages and low social transfers.For these households, which are in a dependentor precarious economic situation, atypicalforms of work without an official contract (e.g.casual work, day labour, and black work) are amust, because they enable households to survive.For a third of the households, the informal activitiesprovide improvements that the underdevelopmentof the market cannot produce. Thus,households in fortified economic situations increasetheir monetary incomes and consolidate aninsecure portfolio through informal activities. InRomania, informality is similar to entrepreneurialdynamism for less than a fifth of the households,namely those in a stable or improving situation.Only within households in a stable economicsituation do people perform informal activities forpleasure and as part of personal developmentprojects.The informal sector in Romania is as discriminatoryas the formal economy towards theunskilled and poor lacking basic assets (e.g. land,qualifications, work seniority, social networks).Furthermore, informal income deepens the incomeinequality. In the informal sector: the richbecome richer, while the poor manage only tosurvive. (Stănculescu and Ilie, 2001)Table 9. Share of households active in informal economies, by economic standard of the householdin Romania, 1998HouseholdsInformal cashincomeSubsistence farmingInformal cash +agricultureWithout informalincomeIn severe poverty 10.5 31.6 13.2 44.7 100In poverty 6.6 45.0 11.3 37.1 100Non-poor 5.0 47.6 15.3 32.1 100The richest 20% 7.0 44.8 23.9 24.3 100Sample 6.2 45.1 16.3 32.4 100TotalSource:Stănculescu (2000). Data: Social Problems, Living Standard and Informal Economy, Institute for the Study of the Quality of Life,1998. N=1,150 cases and 27 missing.In estimating poverty, the National Institute for Statistics methodology based on Integrated Household Survey Data (UNDP, 1999)was followed.Severe Poverty = total income of the household per capita is below the 40% poverty threshold per capita, established at the nationallevel and updated in October 1998. Its value is about US$ 25.Poverty = total income of the household per capita is below the 60% poverty threshold per capita, established at the national leveland updated in October 1998. Its value is about US$ 40.Informal cash income = income from properties (rents, dividends, etc.) + trade with agricultural products + self-employed + activities‘on the side’ + casual incomes.The informal sector contains a large diversity ofactivities, which have been classified in variousways by different authors. For Romania, Neef(2002) proposed four types of informal economiesaccording to the working forms and situations: (1)Unofficial small entrepreneurs and formal smallentrepreneurs practicing fiscal fraud. (2) ‘Unofficialemployees’ including highly flexible subgroups.On the one hand, there are the agriculturalday-labourers, construction workers andtraders, found in a precarious situation. At theother extreme, are those providing administrativeand specialist services to firms or carrying outmanagerial tasks according to their professionalskills and qualifications. (3) ‘Firm-related activities’are embedded in and use resources from theofficial work place. Employees of state plants,partly outside their enterprises, develop most ofthese. (4) ‘Autonomous’ activities are secondaryjobs, independently performed besides a formaljob or receiving a pension. Through the combinationof informal and formal income levels, three© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

206 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilitygroups are identified. The first group, consideredwith great autonomy and potential, has good informaland median formal incomes. Informal‘sidelines’ characterise the second group whichhas moderate both informal and formal incomes.The third one, with ‘restricted autonomy’, has lowformal and low informal incomes.Using the ‘household strategy’/’householdincome portfolio’ approach, Wallace and Haerpfer(2002) in their international comparison identifiedthe household economy (mostly agrarian selfproducing),the social economy (informal exchangeand voluntary work within social networks),and the black economy (non-regulatedcash incomes). Following a similar logic, Stănculescu(2002) distinguished between the householdeconomy (subsistence production andfood/products received through social networks)and the cash informal economy (non-regulatedatypical forms of work).Mungiu Pippidi, Ioniţă and Mândruţă (2000)studied the informal economy as an alternative‘survival strategy’ for the urban unemployed,based on a sample of registered and assisted unemployedselected from the richest (Bucharest)and the poorest (Moldavia) regions of the country.The authors showed that about a half of the urbanunemployed performed at least one informal activity,such as domestic services of all kind, daylabour, small trade and craft-work. They overwhelminglywork without contract, on a lessthan-permanentbasis. Gender, the occupationalbackground and the nature of income are predictorsof work in the informal sector.1. Unemployed men are more likely than unemployedwomen to work in the informaleconomy. On the one hand, private employersare less willing to hire women due to themore physical nature of occasional jobs. Onthe other hand, women are more occupied inthe household.2. The more flexible the unemployed (thosewho changed jobs more often) the more likelythey are to work without contract in the informalsector.3. Unemployed people who rely on some fixedincome, such as a pension or a wage of somefamily member in the household, are lesslikely to work in the informal sector.4. The longer the history on the dole, the greaterthe chances are that the individual will becomeengaged in informal economy.The majority of unemployed that work withoutcontract actually prefer to work with contract,even for less money, when they are given thechoice. Thus, the authors define the present situationof unemployed as ‘a model of individualchoice when there is no choice’.2.8. Household strategiesA combinatory economic strategy is the individuals’response to the erosion of all types of incomes.Empirical studies (Rose 1996, UNDP 1999, Stănculescu2000/2002, Wallace and Haerpfer 2002and others) made evident that Romanian peoplecombine the non-monetary income from agriculturewith the wage, various social transfers andinformal sources and build an economic “portfolio”within the household. This strategy was identifiedamong Romanian households either rich,medium or poor, from both villages and urbanneighbourhoods, situated all over country.However, the household responses to Romania’seconomic crisis differ from one communityto another, and from one occupational group toanother, as Kideckel and colleagues (2000) demonstrates.These authors compare two groups thathave many similarities including a monoindustrialprofile, high unemployment, and extensivelabour activism, namely the miners from JiuValley and the chemical workers from Fagarasregion. Nevertheless, the study shows that thespecific way by which the workers are incorporatedinto regional labour systems and the par-© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Nine. Literature review: Romania 207ticularities of regional production result in highlyvariable responses to crisis both at the professionalcommunity and the household level.- In the Jiu Valley, mining is the sole livelihood.The mine dominates the regional mentalitiesso it shapes polarized relations betweenminers and superiors, between activeand unemployed miners, and also householdrelations. Translated to household level thework crisis has produced an increase in theincidence of divorce, intra-familial conflict,particularly violence and abuse. Some familieshave begun to dissolve while others wiltunder health problems. “Work shaped theessential male identity. This was where aman expressed his true self. As a man’s powerswaned over time miners often engaged indangerous and difficult feats, often requiringhard physical labour, to show their youngercolleagues their ardour and skill. Drinkingtoo is articulated with essential male groupidentities. Unlike their husbands, miners’wives were consumers. They valorised themselvesby maintaining family standards ofconsumption, encouraging children’s schooling,and representing the family appearancein public spheres, instead of through their externallabour. Miners brought in income andtheir wives budgeted and spent it.” (Kideckelet al 2000: 151) These role expectations arerocked by the changing economic context.Neither husband nor wives are able to liveup to these former standards. Therefore, theimages of themselves and each others arechallenged and their relationships put understress.- In the Fagaras region, the chemical plant wasthe chief regional employer but people havealso had greater access to village occupationsand resources and other alternatives, includingemigration. This contributes to more stabledomestic relationships (at least on thesurface) but greater interpersonal jealousy.Hard times make people stick together, at thehousehold level, since the household remainsthe institution most capable of organizing individualsin their access labour and incomeresources. “Women, in particular, are pressuredin the current economic conditions andmany in the regions suggest problems ofdomestic abuse, mental and physical illness,and the entire range of social problems thatcomes with never-ending stress. Women whocontinue to work in the factories also now oftenspeak of how they are criticised by menfor retaining their jobs.” (Kideckel et al 2000:157)Regarding the same mining areas that wereseverely affected by redundancies, Jiu Valley,Boboc (2000) showed that mass unemployment(45 percents registered unemployed in 1998 and40 in 1999) correlates with poverty and results inincreasing juvenile delinquency and the rise incrime in all categories. In mono-industrial miningareas, the lack of policies encouraging vocationalretraining or geographical mobility, and moregenerally, the incoherent restructuring reform ofthe mining sector have not provided solutions butstressed the poverty trap (Dobrescu, Rughiniş,and Zamfir, 2000). Conversely, unemployed minersdeveloped “coping strategies” includingsearching for another job and informal work (64percent), working abroad (9.5 percent), work inagriculture (17 percent) and moving to othertowns in search of a new job (5.5 percent)(Larionescu, Rughiniş and Rădulescu, 1999).The strategic choices of peasants confrontedwith their retrieved status of landowners hadbeen studied by Mihăilescu (1996) for four years(1992-1995) in two socially and ecologically differentvillages in Romania. Two dominant strategictypes, developed by the two communities, arecontrasted along a dimension similar in manypoints to the classical Gemeinschaft-Gesellschaftdistinction.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

208 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityTable 10. Household strategies in two Romanian villagesCrăsaniDemographic ageing and feminisation of the population High LowCommunity economic resources related to agriculture(land, modern machines etc.)Community cultural resources(agronomic skills and professional knowledge)ValuesLowLowCollectivismDependenceEgalitarianismLow social cohesionVoineştiHighHighIndividualismIndependenceEquityHigh social cohesionDominant household strategy ‘Diffuse mixed household’ ‘Individual household’Source: Mihăilescu, 1996Households respond in different ways accordingto the community environment in which they operate.In the poor and collectivist community,households handled the difficulties of the transitionby adopting a rather egalitarian, conformistattitudes, avoiding responsibility but expendingitself to include the relatives sprawled all over thecountry. Thus, the ‘diffuse mixed family’ is a network-householdwith no clear boundaries and hasthe redistribution of resources as the main function.In contrast, in a more developed and friendlyenvironment, households adopt individualisttypestrategies. ‘Individual households’ are moreautonomous, have entrepreneurial spirit and tendto limit their actions to the nuclear family.Whereas nearly all households pursue economicstrategies in adjusting their assets (property,qualifications, working experience) to marketconditions about half of them master the turbulenceof social and economic transformationseither by adopting a deliberate strategy of cohabitationor by taking up traditional forms of livingtogether (Stănculescu, 2002). A study focused onyoung people (Ghebrea, 1996), carried out in 1994,revealed that only about a third of them affordedto leave the parents’ household. Less than a fifthof unmarried young and only two thirds of themarried young set up their own households. Theshare of young people living with their parentsand/or other relatives has continuously increasedover the last years. Thus, the new Romanianmodel of the family differs from the West Europeanone but also from the former socialist modelwhen young people that graduated from schoolwere given a job and a dwelling (especially aftermarriage). As the author showed, most youngpeople consider family as the most importantvalue and conceive the ‘ideal family’ as a nuclearone that is a couple plus two children. Nevertheless,during the social and economic transformationsyoung people have adjusted their behaviour.They still marry young compared to people in theWestern countries, but there is a tendency topostpone marriage and the second (not the first)child. The reasons mentioned by the majority includelack of separate dwelling (particularlyyoung men, unemployed, belonging to poorhouseholds, and urban residents), small incomesand job insecurity (mainly by those who arepoorly educated).2.9. MigrationMost of the studies (Stahl et al 1970, Trebici et al1977, Sandu 1984,) published before 1990 refer tointernal migration in relationship with urbanizationand communist policy for territorial “systematisation”of localities and “rational” territorialplanning. The theoretical framework is mainlybased on “push-pull” theory. People are pushedby the lower offer of jobs and poorer life conditionsin their origin localities (mainly rural areas)and they are attracted to cities and better devel-© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Nine. Literature review: Romania 209oped areas because of job offers and services provided.The same logic is applied for migrationamong the regions of Romania: people move fromless developed to better developed areas in thecountry. Culture is mentioned – but not frequently– as a factor restricting migration insidethe same historical regions. Studies published after1990 have not brought any significant changein the theoretical framework. However, two newresearch areas have captured interest: the changeof migration structure by flows and external migration.Ianoş (1999) shows that internal flows and intensityof migration after 1990 relate to the economicpolicies promoted. For instance, in 1990,when the large towns were ‘open’ (abrogation ofthe restrictive communist law) and the economicpolicy favoured the increase of employment in bigindustrial units, an influx of people to the largetowns was recorded. In contrast, the period 1991to 1993, witnessed a reverse trend, namely fromtown to village, as the process of privatisation inagriculture gained momentum and the number ofjobs in the industry was reduced.Other authors (Hirschausen, 1997, citedby.Rey and al., 1999) pointed out that the newtrend in migration from urban to rural is notcomparable to people moving from urban areas tosprawling suburban areas, which post-industrialcountries have experienced. Nor is it a return tothe ‘ruralism’ of the 1930s in Romania. In fact, it isa phenomenon which appears as the repercussionfrom the previous period, during which the wholeRomanian society had withdrawn to a hiddensystem based on village life in order to resist allforms of difficulty and hardship.2.10. Temporary work abroad and international migrationThe studies on definitive international migrationare mainly descriptive, focusing on the numbersand characteristics of the emigrants (sex, age, nationality).Their main concern is the brain-drainphenomenon. Temporary international migrationcaptured the interest of researchers only after 1995and the few studies that have been done, at thelocality level, have been based mainly on qualitativemethods. The exception is the micro-censusdone by Organization for International Migration,Ministry of Public Information and Ministry ofInternal Affaires in 2001.As the general situation worsens, the propensityto go abroad to work temporarily has increased,particularly young and medium to highlyeducated people. While in 1995 one third of theyoung under 30 years were willing to workabroad on a temporarily basis, the share exceeded50 percent in 1999 (Political Poll, 1999). Sociologicalstudies as well as newspaper articles offer insightinto the process from various regions of thecountry (Diminescu, 1996; Sandu and Stănculescu,2000; Şerban and Grigoras, 2000).Rey and colleagues (1999) differentiate betweentwo types of migrants: city dwellers elitesand unskilled workers. The departure of citydwellers, generally young executives, probablydoes weaken towns and cities, although closelinks are maintained, from which the whole countrybenefits indirectly. Moreover, there are otherforms of temporary medium-length migrationundertaken for the purpose of acquiring worktraining,which already gives some benefit to thecountry. The second type of migrants is to a certainextent of rural origin, and certain regionsprovide more of them than others, according notonly to the surplus of local workers but also toregional traditions of work mobility. These migrantsleave home to earn some money and bringit “back home”, without any intention of settlingdown elsewhere. For the moment, the moneybrought back home has no net effect on the localeconomy. People set up a small business, shop orinvest in building something ostentatious of theirown. So, things remain the same in what seems tobe a model of traditional society.Diminescu (1996) provided a vivid illustrationof an extreme case, a Romanian rural communitywhere 60-75 percent of population seasonallymigrates either inside Romania or abroad,© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

210 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityespecially to France. Most of the migrants are men(16-60 years). If in the first waves of migrantswomen and teenagers were poorly represented, inthe last years their share increased. Money earnedis used for building houses (usually), buying cars,furniture or carpets, sometimes for agriculturalwork (but people use the money less and less forthat). Only a few people buy land in zones withmore fertile land or buy forestry land. Conversely,more and more people put the money into bankaccounts – mainly for the future of their children.When the money runs out, people migrate again.Every four or six weeks, the approximately 800migrants send to their village overall remittancesof 150,000-200,000 DM. The average amount ofmoney per person per season in France (usuallynot more than 8 months) is 10,000 DM.Sandu analysed the above mentioned microcensusdata (November-December 2001) on temporaryexternal migration in Romania. In 12,300out of the 12,700 villages and in the towns withless than 20 thousand inhabitants, local expertsfilled in a questionnaire. The main findings arepresented below:• 194,114 temporary migrants outside Romaniaand 116,167 migrants who came back werecounted. The rural temporary migration ratewas 19‰, and in small towns it was estimatedas 25 ‰. Seven percent of the ruralhouseholds were estimated to have temporaryinternational migrants. The author considersthat these are relatively underestimatedvalues.• Temporary migration has a high level ofcommunity concentration. Almost 60 percentin the total return migration, and less than 20percent of temporary departures are concentratedin around 530 villages. Those villageshave an average size of over 2000 inhabitants(compared to the national average of 800 inhabitantsper village).• Almost 59 percent of rural temporary migrantsabroad came back at least once, 37percent at least twice, and only 18 percent ofmigrants did not yet come back. Externalmigration is associated with young men (lessthan 30 years). Temporary migrants over 30years are rather residents of small towns thanvillagers.2.11. CommutingFigures about commuting from villages to townsin the years 1990 and 2001 were collected in thesame micro-census coordinated by Sandu (2001).The results show that rural-urban commuting decreasedtwo thirds between 1990 and 2001, with alarger decline for villages to nearby small towns.Table 11. Rural-urban commuting by size of the nearest townSize of the nearest townUnder 50 thousand51-99 thousand Over 100 thousandRural-urban commuters in 1990 257,090 311,173 615,998 1,184,261 (123.0 ‰)Rural-urban commuters in 2001 71,848 100,469 242,925 415,24 (43.1 ‰)TotalSource:D.Sandu (2001). Note: For both 1990 and 2001 students and pupils were included.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Nine. Literature review: Romania 2113. FLEXIBILIZATION POLICIES3.1. Policies related to workThe Wage Law (14/1991), joined by the laws regardingthe collective labour contract (13/1991),the settlement of the collective labour contracts(15/1991), the trades unions (54/1991) as well asby other government decrees aiming to differentaspects of the wage policy (minimum wage pereconomy, compensation-indexation of wages dependingon the evolution of the general consumptionprices index, the wage negotiations, the temperingof the wage increase, the support concerningthe employment of youth graduates, the settingup of some tripartite institutions, etc.) establishthe global coordinates of the wage reform, thegeneral framework of the relations between socialpartners and bring forth new institutions of thelabour market (Vasile 1997).The wage law passed in 1991 formally decentralizedthe wage determination. Firms irrespectiveof their ownership could determine theirwage structure autonomously through collectiveand individual negotiations. The Government hasimposed wage regulations and wage control onlyover state owned companies, regies autonomes, andbudgetary institutions. In addition, the Governmentwas empowered to pass indexation andcompensation regulations for avoiding substantialdecline in real wages. In the specific economicenvironment of the beginning of transition dominatedby state ownership and lax financial constraintswage control represented a key element ofthe stabilization programs in Romania as in otherCEEs countries. However, wage controls havedetermined various distortions in employment.Analysing the specific type of wage controlsapplied in Romania, Oprescu (1999) emphasisedthat “almost all the existing systems have beenapplied” and he identified several correspondingstages (see Table 12):Based on the analysis synthetically presentedabove, the author concluded that the manychanges of the wage policy in Romania representevidence of a lack of efficiency of wage controlsdue to the environment characterized by a poorfinancial discipline and uncertainty about futureownership.The same author (1999) elaborated a comparativeanalysis of the employment policiespromoted during transition in the CEEs countries,presented below. He argues that policies for flexibilizationhave been little used and they were notparticularly efficient in Romania.1. Policies to diminish the labour supply: Initially,such policies target elderly employees,whose participation rate, however remainshigher in transition countries than in developedones. Romania passed a couple of earlyretirement regulations during 1990 – 1991.Another regulation allowing the early retirementof women was passed by the Governmentin 1997. Additionally, part-time employment,shortening of the working week,measures discouraging people from accumulatingtwo or more jobs, all led to a decline inthe labour supply.2. Services for the unemployed: In Romania, asin the entire region of Eastern Europe, the ratioof number of Labour Offices to 10,000 employeesis between 1 and 2 compared withvalues of 7 to 14 in the developed countries.3. Training and retraining: Due to the restructuring,people lose not only jobs, but alsoskills since there is no demand for their currentskills. Data for Romania indicate poor efficiencyin training and re-training programmes.Although the financing of suchprograms increased spectacularly in 1997(from ROL 1.5 billion in 1995 to ROL 2.9 billionin 1996 and ROL 14 billion in 1997) lessthan 7 percent of the unemployed participatedand only 9 – 15 percent of those involved(which represent about 1 percent ofthe total unemployed) succeeded subsequentlyin finding a job.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

212 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibility4. Subsidies for employment: There are severaltypes, but in Romania only two have beenprovided. The first refers to wage subsidiesfor new graduates – companies hiring newgraduates receive a subsidy covering 60 to 70percent of the minimum wage for a period of9 months. Ten-to-fifteen percent of the totalnumber of new graduates benefited from thisprogramme. The second type comprises subsidizedcredits, financed from the UnemploymentFund, for SMEs hiring unemployedpersons.Table 12. Wage policies in Romania, 1990-1999Period Wage policy Target Changes in employmentFirst halfof 1990sSecond halfof 1990sNo wage control. Many characteristics of thecommunist wage system have been abolished.Thus, promotion has been allowed,working hours per week have been reducedwithout any change in the monthly wage, andthe link with the economic performance of thefirm (the so-called ‘global accord’) has vanished.Wage freeze- Employment increased, many promotions,less working hoursState owned companies, includingregies autonomes, andbudgetary institutions1991 Specific ceilings for individual wages State owned companies, includingregies autonomes, andbudgetary institutions1992 Wage bill ceilings (also used in Czech R. andHungary)State owned companies, includingregies autonomes, andbudgetary institutions1993-1995 Average wage ceilings State owned companies, includingregies autonomes, andbudgetary institutions1996 No official wage policy (election year)1997-1998 Average wage ceilings Regies autonomes, state companiesregistering losses1999 Total wage bill, which is limited to 4 times thewage bill registered in the fourth quarter ofthe previous year.Source: Gh. Oprescu, 1999Regies autonomes, budgetaryinstitutions, national companies,24 of the largest loss-makingfirms-Promotions and reclassifying workersas means to avoid the wage controlSubstantial decline in employment inindustry, rise in unemployment andincreased flexibility in the relativewagesRelative stability in unemployment,companies with profitable opportunitieshired more labour, but mainlyunskilled workers, whose wageswere under the admitted averagelevel.3.2. Policies related to family and childThe welfare state approached in Romania bothunder the socialist regime and in transition receivedattention from a large number of sociologists(e.g. C. Zamfir et al 1992 / 1994 / 1995 /1997 / 1999 / 2001, Mărgineanu 1994, E. Zamfiret al 1995 / 2000, C. Zamfir 1997 / 1998, Pop 1998/2000, Teşliuc et al 2001, UNICEF Reports 1995 /2001, UNICEF Regional Monitoring Reports1993/ 1995 / 1999). Many studies are simply descriptive,but comprehensive comparative analysiseither between different periods or betweenRomania and other countries have been developed.Consequently, the body of literature on thetopic is quite extensive.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Nine. Literature review: Romania 213Socialist policy fostered a mixture of a workforceand a welfare state, argued Zamfir (1997).This meant that, while work was considered aright and a duty, social welfare measures wereeither universal, or work related. During the socialistregime all citizens of working age wereguaranteed a job, draconian laws against peoplewho did not have a job being in place. Initially,the reasons behind such policy was to provide thelabour necessary for extensive industrialisationaccompanied by the political intention to integratethe whole population into the socialist economyand to discourage self-employment. When thedemand for labour was exhausted, the socialistregime artificially preserved full employment anddid not officially recognize unemployment. At thebeginning of transition, most of the former communist/ socialist countries faced hidden unemployment(overstaffing in enterprises, sometimesunderpaid or forced to go on unpaid vacations)and real unemployment, but unrecognised andwithout any state support.Socialist states had comprehensive social insurancesystems: the vast majority of elderly receivedpension either directly or indirectly (aswidows of pensioners); social insurance coverednumerous risk situations, including accidents,sickness, parental death and childbirth. High statesupport to families with children was also promoted:child allowance, free pre-school childcareinstitutions, scholarships for many students, freeor heavily subsidized holiday camps, free textbooks,free cultural and sport facilities, generousmaternity leaves. A special policy of housing providedby the state, dependent on the family size,at a highly subsidized rent was added. On thewhole, most of social benefits were work-related,enterprises having an important role in providingsupport from dwellings to childcare facilities, andvarious cash or in-kind benefits. Consequently, inthe beginning of transition, ‘exaggerated dependenceon social protection’ characterized the populationall over Central and Eastern Europe as wellas the former Soviet Union (Zamfir, 1997).After 1989 when the socialist system collapsed,the ‘hidden’ social problems combinedwith the ‘new’ ones (e.g. unemployment and poverty).Thus, the emerging welfare system has hadto counteract the social costs of the economictransformations. As Zamfir (1997) pointed out,each former socialist country tried to accommodatein a specific manner the Western model ofthe welfare state with two main functions: supportof the transition process and minimizing theassociated social costs. However, the author highlightedlarge differences between the ways CEECand the CIS countries reacted to the transition.Based on an analysis of the first years of the transition(1989-1993), Zamfir identified four mainpatterns of economic performance and social protection:- ‘The richer are becoming richer and better’ –includes countries with a good initial standardof living, with a relatively good economy,with a lower economic decline duringthe first years of transition, therefore withlower social problems, but, however, they increasedtheir social expenditures which werealready high. Such countries are Poland,Hungary, Slovenia, and the Czech Republic.- ‘The imprudently ambitious could die heroically,but some of them could succeed’ – includecountries such as Albania, Ukraine,and Estonia.- ‘The too prudent ones could loose muchmore than they gained’. In this category Romaniaand Bulgaria are found, characterizedby a low starting point, considerable economicproblems, and sharp economic declinein the first years of transition, therefore withhigh social problems. However, they had aprudent attitude, namely they promotedslow economic reforms and only slightly increasedtheir social expenditures.- ‘Those who lost hope and will probably behopeless’ – include countries with poor economicperformance and low social expendi-© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

214 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilitytures, and with huge social problems, such asBelarus.After 1993, the divergence process has accentuated.In countries such as Czech Republic, Hungaryand Slovenia the economic recovery has beenaccompanied by substantial social protection. Atthe opposite extreme, the economic fall combinedwith low social protection, which compensated ina very small extent the social costs of the transition.According to this author, the political will,the initial situation and the pace of the economicreforms have been the main factors of the divergenceprocess.For the whole transition period, Romaniawas an exception to the general pattern, since itdid not choose to make an enhanced effort forsocial protection, but allowed protection to stagnateor decline in the face of increased need, failingthus to make the efforts visible in other countries.If in the first two years of social transformationRomania had a reparatory-type of social policy,and later a “stingy” social policy, which hasentailed a continuous lowering of the social protectiontransfers has accompanied the economicdecline. Starting from 1998, the share of publicexpenditures in GDP increased, but this slightincrease for social programmes was in fact nullifiedby the decline of social policy funding in realterms (Zamfir, 2001).The state support for families with childrensignificantly dropped in Romania as in all CEECand CIS countries. The generous socialist subsidiesand services as well as gratuities addressedto families with children were abolished. The lifetimebenefit for mothers with 3 and more childrenwas frozen at its 1989 level: 450 lei a month. Mostsocial expenditure is accounted for by the employmentrelated contributory benefits, the mostimportant being healthcare, pensions, and the unemploymentbenefit. Education is provided freeby the state. Regarding non-contributory benefits,there has been a shift from universal to meanstesting.The only large universal benefit, which isstill in place, is child allowance. The means-testedincome support was introduced in 1995.Recently, the guaranteed minimum incomewas introduced in 2002. This system is designedto bridge the gap between the guaranteed minimumand the actual income of the family, othersocial benefits included. To this end, the minimumincome integrates income support, burialsupport and emergency relief, funded from thelocal budgets and child allowance, and allowancefor the wives of conscripts, funded from the centralbudget. Additionally, there is a supplementaryheating allowance for income support beneficiariesand other goods and services may be included.Thus, it combines cash benefits with inkindbenefits and special measures for high-risksocial groups (e.g. Roma). Also, due to the highpoverty rate of children, the Government considerablyincreased the child allowance. On thistopic, there are debates regarding the replacementof the universal benefit with a means-tested aid.This provisioning includes safeguardsagainst the disincentives to work. Able bodiedrecipients are required to perform up to 72 hoursof community work per month, and those legallyemployed receive a 15 percent higher incomesupport. The Ministry of Labour and Social Solidarityestimates the number of those who shouldbenefit from the guaranteed minimum income at600,000 – 750,000 families. The Government expectsthe income support to amount 0.4 percent ofGDP, which represents an eightfold increasecompared to 1997.The social policy choices to be undertaken inthe future by Romania are a matter of public andpolitical controversy. Authors like Zamfir consider“an active maximalist welfare strongly workrelated as opposed to a passive minimalist helpfor poor welfare” as “the real alternative” for Romania.An accentuated social protection is vitalfor future development and for overcoming thepresent economic crisis. His approach emphasizedthe need to combine the individual initiativeand responsibility in a more globalized market© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Nine. Literature review: Romania 215economy with social solidarity that provides supplementarymechanisms to face risks and needs.Other authors, mainly economists, discussthe social policy choices in relation to economicpolicy. In their case, “the pathological gradualism”of the Romanian economic reforms shapedby an “exaggerated populism in favour of the industrialworking class” is a disguised social policywhich results in mismanagement of the allocationand redistribution of national resources. From thisperspective, Şerbanescu (1999) reviews the overwhelmingatypical problems present in Romania.“Economically speaking, Romania is generallyconfronted with the problems of the underdevelopedcountries, while demographically itmust face the problems of the industrial developedcountries. The almost irreconcilable typologyof these problems, and the opposite nature ofthe measures needed to fight against them, canlead to major economic or social schisms, forwhich there are almost no preventative strategies.Objectively, due to its underdeveloped economy,Romania does not have the financial resources tosimultaneously ensure the stimulation of the birthrate, the economic protection of mother and childand the protection of elderly population” (Şerbanescu,1999: 578). The budget constraints,caught in a vicious cycle of low income and highneeds/expectations, add to the atypical problemsof the Romanian economy. While the Governmentenjoys only the resources that an underdevelopedeconomy can offer, the Romanian political actorswish to practice the social protection of a developedcountry. The effect is that insufficient resourcesare left to be allocated for development,which tightens the vicious circle. Consequently, inthe author’s opinion Romania should renouncethe social protection model practiced by developedcountries and should limit its social protection“to meet its real capabilities, by focusing exclusivelyon the most affected members of the society”(Şerbanescu, 1999: 581).Anyway, taking into account the AmsterdamTreaty and other EU documents, it is expectedRomania will be ‘forced’ to increase its social expendituresconsiderably as it moves toward EUaccession.3.3. Policies towards flexibilizationFrom the four pillars of the European EmploymentStrategy, employability, entrepreneurship,adaptability, and equal opportunity, regardingthe latest an assessment of the main differencesbetween the Romanian legal framework and theEuropean one has been elaborated with the NationalReport on Equal Opportunities for Women andMen in the European Union Accession Process (NetworkWomen’s Program of the Open Society Instituteand Women’s Program of the Open SocietyFoundation Romania, 2001). Similar reports havebeen elaborated also for Bulgaria, Czech Republic,Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia.The preoccupation for the principle of equalopportunities and treatment – as this principle isapproached, conceptually and in legislation,within the European Union – has represented anobjective for Romania since 1995, the year whenthe Agreement for the Partnership of Romania tothe European Communities entered into force andthe Platform for Action and the Beijing Statementwere concluded by the Romanian Government(4 th World Conference on The Situation ofWomen, September 1995, Beijing).The Romanian Governance Program for theperiod 2001 – 2004 places the issue of equal opportunityand treatment under the Chapter V, Theimprovement of the state of health of population, childprotection, sub-chapter on Family Policies. The institutionalarrangement in place functions with theMinistry of Labour and Social Solidarity. Throughthe opening of the negotiation chapter 13, on Employmentand Social Affaires, including subchapter03, Equality of Treatment for Women and Men, theprocess on harmonization with the acquis communautairehas been accelerated.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

216 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityText box 1.Screening of the national legislation from the perspectiveof European Directives on Equal Opportunities1. Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975: Principle of equal pay for men and womenThe principle ‘equal pay for equal work’ for women and men in Romania is stipulated by Constitution, the Code of Labour, theWage Law, and the National Collective Work Contract. Additionally, Romanian authorities ratified several international instrumentsincluding the ILO convention No. 100/1951. Thus, from the legal point of view, the principle is fully regulated. The observanceof this principle is compulsory, from the legal point of view, both for the public and for the private sector.Inspection of Labour upholds the law in this field. Representatives of trade unions should also control the application ofthis principle.The minimum wage per economy is established through Government Decision and the National Collective WorkAgreement and it is obligatory both for the public and private sector, without any gender discrimination.In the anthologies of judicial practice 1990 – 1999, there is not quoted any case of violation of this principle. So, eitherthe principle is fully observed in practice or the difficulties of a process in the matter are discouraging.2. Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976: Equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment,vocational training and promotion, and working conditionsThe national legislation includes general provisions regarding the principle of equality of rights among citizens. The LabourCode stipulates the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards to employment, vocational training, promotionand working conditions. These provisions apply both to the public and private sector.The concept of discrimination based on sex is not defined within a special law, but it is explicitly defined in a more generalcontext, with the exception of ‘indirect discrimination’.National Council for the Prevention of Discrimination, specialized institution of the central public administration system,has recently been set up. The Work Inspection Authority upholds the regulations related to the work security and work relations.The National Agency for Employment is the body of the central public administration is also in place.Provisions forbidding night work in industrial enterprises, with some exceptions (women in managerial positions or workingin jobs with technical character, in sanitary and social assistance services, etc.). However, the night-work for pregnantwomen starting only the sixth (Labour Code) / fifth (Collective Work Agreement) month of pregnancy as well as for breastfeedingwomen is forbidden.Regarding working conditions, the Labour Code provides that the employees must be ensured proper working conditions,with the mention that women and young people are entitled to special protection measures, among which opportunitiesfor flexible work arrangements. However, the implementation of these measures depends on the interaction of several decisivefactors, including economic development, women’s attitude, taxation, etc. For instance, the Collective Work Agreementregulates the possibility of using flexible hours that would allow the parents to divide the time used to care for their children.Although this option has been in force since 1992, it has not been accompanied by an increase in the number of women/mothers employed, mainly due to the rigidities of the labour market in Romania. On the other hand, the resources allotted tosystem of childcare facilities and kindergartens are limited: the tax-free related regulation do not encourage employers to participateto the Social Fund (from which the childcare facilities are financed); the upper limit that an employer can set up taxfreecannot exceed 2.5% of the profit.3. Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992: Measures to encourage improvements in the health and safetyat work of pregnant workers, those who have recently given birth or those breastfeedingThe Romanian legislation does not define the concepts of ‘pregnant worker’, ‘worker who has given birth’ and ‘breastfeedingworkers’. Nevertheless, there is a legal assumption that mothers breastfeed their babies until they reach 9 months (LabourCode), so that once giving birth was proved through a medical certificate, there is no need to produce further evidence untilthe child reaches the age of nine months. Extension of the breastfeeding period after 9 months is allowed on the basis of amedical certificate and only in the case of babies with special needs.“Pregnant and breastfeeding women cannot work in workplaces with harmful, hard or dangerous conditions that are forbiddenby the medical doctor so they will be transferred to other workplaces, without any decrease in their pay.” (LabourCode) However, there is no obligation of the employer to improve the working conditions or the working hours for pregnant© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Nine. Literature review: Romania 217and breastfeeding women. Neither there is stipulated legal obligation of the employer to evaluate the working conditions andto inform the pregnant and breastfeeding worker and the worker who has recently given birth. If the adjustment of workingconditions and/or hours is not feasible, the law does not provide for the possibility of a leave other than the maternity leave,during the entire period considered necessary to ensure the protection of the worker’s health and safety.The maternity leave is regulated by law and it is of 126 calendar days (18 weeks in all), that is 63 days before deliveryand 63 after delivery of the child. The two periods can be compensated between them. Make use of the maternity leave is awoman’s right and not an obligation. The maternity leave is paid from the state social security budget and it represents 85percent of the average of the monthly incomes during the last six months before the leave, provided that social contributionswere paid for at least six months during the last 12 months prior to the leave. However, this average may not exceed threetimes the national average gross monthly income.If the mother with child under two years returns to work she may reduce her normal hours to six instead of eight and shewould receive the wage corresponding to the full time norm.The employer has the obligation to pay the mother at birth an allowance equal to a regular wage. If the mother does notwork this allowance is paid to the father.After the end of the maternity leave, any of the parents can be granted a pay leave for childcare until the age of two.The law provides as well the right to a paid medical leave for the care of the sick child until the age of seven (or 18 for thedisabled children) of maximum 14 days a year. The payment of this leave observes the same rules as the payment for thematernity leave. In addition, the collective work agreement stipulates that the mother can be granted an unpaid leave in orderto care for her children aged 2 and 3.There is no provision stipulating the proportional increase according to the inflation rate of the payment during the maternityleave and the leave for childcare until two years.The Labour Code provides that the work agreement cannot be cancelled at the employer’s initiative during a medicalleave, pregnancy, maternity leave, and during breastfeeding, while caring for a sick child until the age of three, as well aswhile the husband is performing his compulsory military service. If the institutions are reorganized, which entails cut back ofpersonnel, the Collective Work Agreement stipulates that dismissals affect ‘as a last resort women who bring up children’(art.79, par.2).4. Council Directive 97/81/EEC of 15 December 1997: Framework agreement on part-time workIn the national legislation, there is no legal or contractual definition in terminis of the concept of part-time worker, but the NationalCollective Work Agreement for 2000 – 2001 provides “for certain activities, positions and categories of personnel, providedin the collective work contracts for the units, part-time programs may be established, corresponding to fractions of thenorm, with a duration of working time of 6, 4 or 2 hours per day.” (art. 11, par. 1) In addition, “part-time workers shall be employedwith a full-time norm, if there are vacant positions and if they meet the conditions for occupying these positions.” (art.11, par. 2)The normal working program, full-time norm, is of 170 hours per month. In case of workers whose working conditionsare hard or detrimental to health, the full-time norm is smaller, their daily working time may not exceed 6 hours.The rights of part-time workers are the same with the rights of which full-time workers benefit, but they are grantedbased on the principle of proportionality with the time worked (Collective Work Agreement, art. 11, par. 1) For instance, if thesalary (or vacation allowance) for a position is 100 for a full-time norm, it reduces to 50 for half the norm of that position. Similarlythe social insurance/allowance observes the same principle of proportionality since all allowances are reported to incomesearned.Women having in their care children aged 0 to 6 years old may benefit of half a norm working time, if they do not benefitof a crèche or kindergarten. The period of their appointment in these working conditions is considered, at the calculation ofyears of service, as a full-time norm.Source: Network Women’s Program of the Open Society Institute and Women’s Program of the Open Society Foundation Romania (2001)National Report on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men in the European Union Accession ProcessThe report concludes with a few critical points.First, there are rather critical points of technical/legalnature. There are no specific measures toensure that provisions contrary to equal opportunityprinciples (in collective or individual workcontract and in wages grids) shall or may be declarednull. There is a weak control system, a relativelack of sanctions explicitly regulated for the© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

218 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityviolation of the various principles. Related to thistopic, the law does not provide special protectionfor dismissal for the employee who lodges a complaintagainst the employer. Employers do nothave the obligation to bring to the attention of theemployees the legal provisions. The second groupof comments refer to the poor awareness. On theone hand most of the population is not informedof the present regulation and there is little practiceof exercising their rights in this field. On the otherhand, there is a relative lack of expertise both withinstitutions (Governmental or non-Governmental)and academia. Thus, the findings of the reportcome close to the European Commission evaluation:“In the field of equal opportunities, the national(Romanian) legislation covers the provisionsof the Community legislation relative tonon-discrimination on account of gender” but itlacks the specific provisions that guarantee theobservance of the principles involved (EuropeanCommission, Agenda 2000).At present (2002), the Ministry of Labour and SocialSolidarity is in course of elaboration of a newLabour Code. The draft of the new Labour Code ispublicly debated in 2002. As the Romanian AcademicSociety (2002) showed, the draft contains anumber of controversial provisions. While thetrade unions have applauded it, the employers’associations have been rather critical due to the“too much social responsibility / expenditures”put on their shoulders. One hot issue relates toflexibility and flexibilization, namely the decisionto unify the tax treatment of part-time (conventiicivile) and full-time labour contracts by levyingfull social contributions on both. The employersclaim this measure will both increase unemploymentand push jobs into the black market, sincethe part-time employees despite having to pay thefull rate of pension contribution, the years workwill not be fully counted to make them qualify forold age pension in a similar manner to full timeworkers.On the other hand, part-time contracts playan important role in the plans of the government,which relate to the marked decline in the numberof full-time employees correlated with the sharpincrease in the number of pensioners (in 2001,there were 6,365,000 pensioners in total, as opposedto 4,505,000 full-time employees), but alsowith an increasing number of ‘missing employees’that have resorted to less taxed part-time contracts.Thus, for now, the Romanian governmentconceives the flexible work contract neither as aninstrument for job creation nor as an opportunitythat would allow women and men to reconcilework and family or to continue their studies or toprepare for retirement. The government focuses,instead, on the enlargement of the tax basis in orderbalance the Pension Fund and the HealthFund trough the taxes which will be levied onpart-time employees.CONCLUSION: ROMANIAN FLEXIBILIZATION DILEMMAWe have already pointed out that the words‘flexible’ and ‘flexibility’ are rather frequent attributesin political discourses, as they are in theGovernment’s official documents, but most assomething desirable, something that institutionsand individuals need to achieve. However, flexibilizationis declared as a strategic objective onlyas part of the regional development policy.Thus, the Romanian National Development Plan ioperates with the concept of “flexibilization of theterritory” defined as a shift from state to community(zone/region) based actions, expected to createnew flexible economic activities capable adaptingto market forces and to development. Accordingly,flexibilization of the territory is linked towork flexibility, since it aims at the developmentof the community innovative milieu, entrepreneurship,and the stimulation of the competitivecapacities of the regions/zones.Nevertheless, Pascariu and colleagues (2002)showed that the National Development Plan overlooksthe spontaneously occurring flexibilization(self-employment in agriculture, working poorpushed to make a living in the informal sector,© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Nine. Literature review: Romania 219atypical forms of employment), which is ratherforced and not enhanced by an adequate and securelegal framework as in the Western countries.On the other hand, tourism and the export of medicinalherbs/ forest fruits have been identified asthe only two flexible economic activities with realdevelopment chances in the European market. Asa reaction, leaders of important trade union confederationshave already argued that the flexiblealternative envisaged by the Romanian Governmentto industrial redundancy (“highly trainedpeople that worked in industry all their lifes andfor decades were called the pride of this country”)is mushroom collecting or agro-tourism for thosefrom the countryside.The authors concluded that in an environmentshaped by the belief that “the more oneclaims, the more one gets”, on one hand, and onthe other, the policy oriented towards socialpeace, the issue of flexibilization of work andspace takes on a pejorative meaning and becomesan element of social/political dispute. The risk ofthe Government’s approach is to compromise theflexibilization idea.In contrast to the Government’s approach,economic and sociological studies have focusedon the forms of spontaneous flexibilization thatemerged after 1989, which have been seen as‘problematic’. Most of the atypical forms of employmentthat emerged in Romania during the 90sare expressions of the distortions and blockagespresent on the labour market and not of the newlyemerged market institutions and structures. The‘Romanian flexibilization’ predominantly appearslinked to industrial redundancy, the informaleconomy, agriculture, and poverty therefore itincreases the risk of social exclusion.NOTE1 National Development Plan (2000-2002 and 2002-2005) is the programming document in the accessionprocess in the European Union. It includes the regional development policy, the main sectoral strategiesin the field of infrastructure, environment, and human resources, which might be future Operational Programmesof the Cohesion and Structural Funds.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

220 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityREFERENCESAbraham, D. (2000) ‘Atlasul sociologic alschimbării sociale din Româniapostcomunistă. Studii preliminare’ (SociologicalAtlas of Social Changes in PostcommunistRomania. Preliminary Studies),Sociologie Românească, Serie noua 1/2000, 5 –43, Romanian Sociological Association, Bucharest.Albu,L., Dăianu, D., Păuna, C.,Pavelescu, F. (1998) Endogenous Cycles andUnderground Economy in Europe, CEEES,University of Leicester Discussion Paper,Leicester, UK, 20-21 June 1998.Boari, M. (1999) ‘Economia închisă a capitalismuluietatist’ (Close Economy of the StateCapitalism), in Curentul, 18 August 1999.Boboc, I. (2000) The Social Costs of Restructuringthe Coal Mining Industry in Romania. A caseStudy of the Jiu Valley, IWM Policy ProjectSOCO, Project Paper no. 72, Vienna.Chelcea, S. (1973) ‘Navetismul şi adaptarea lamunca industrială’ (Commuting and Adjustmentto Industrial Work), Viitorul Social,2-1973, Bucharest.Chirca, Ct. and Teşliuc, E. (1999) From Rural Povertyto Rural Development, National Institutefor Statistics and the World Bank, Bucharest.Ciupagea, Ct. (2000) ‘Rigidities of the LabourMarket in a Transition Economy: The Caseof Romania’, Romanian Journal of EconomicForecasting, 3-4/2000, 29 – 57, RomanianAcademy, National Institute of EconomicResearch, Institute of Economic Forecasting,Expert Publishing House, Bucharest.Ciupagea, Ct. (2000) Economic Functions of InformalActivities in Romania, Paper presented atthe Marburg Working Conference –Shadow Economy and Social Resources inEastern and South Eastern Europe – Germany,24-25 June 2000.Ciupagea, Ct. (2002) ‘Economic Functions of InformalActivities in Romania’, in R. Neefand M.Stănculescu (eds.) The Social Impact ofInformal Economies in Eastern Europe, AshgatePublishing House, Forthcoming.Costariol, M. (1993) The Development of the SMESector in Romania (1991 – 1992), CAN Veneto& Euro-In-Library, VeniceDăianu, D., Albu L., Croitoru, L. and Ivan-Ungureanu, C. (2001) The UndergroundEconomy in Romania, Romanian Centre forEconomic Policies, Bucharest.Dăianu, D. (coord.) (2001) Winners and Losers inthe Process of European Integration. A Look atRomania, Romanian Centre for EconomicPolicies / WP no. 31 / Bucharest,http://www.cerope.ro.Dăianu, D. (2001) ‘Is Economic ConvergencePossible in Europe? The Case of Romania’,in A. Mungiu Pippidi (ed.) Annual EarlyWarning Report: Romania After 2000, Threatsand Challenges, UNDP and SAR, Ed. Polirom,Bucharest.Dhanji, F., Pop L., Teşliuc C., Teşliuc E. 1999)Romania: Social Protection and The Poor,World Bank Report, Bucharest.Dobrescu, A., Rughiniş C. and Zamfir C. (2000)Coping Strategies in Three Regions of RomaniaAffected by Mass Redundancies, IWM PolicyProject SOCO, Project Paper no. 82, Vienna.Dobrescu, E. (1998) Macromodels of the RomanianTransition Economy (second ed.), ExpertPublishing House, Bucharest.Diminescu, D. (1996) ‘Deplasările oşenilor instrăinătate, un nou model de migraţie” (TheDepartures of Oas-people Abroad, a NewMigration Model), in Revista de Cercetari Sociale,2/1997, Bucharest.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Nine. Literature review: Romania 221Dochia, A. (1999) ‘New Private Firms Contributionsto Structural Change in the RomanianEconomy’, in C. Ruhl and D. Dăianu (eds.)Economic Transition in Romania: Past, Presentand Future, 337 – 374, The World Bank andthe Romanian Center for Economic Policies,Arta Grafica, Bucharest.Earle, S. J. and Păuna, C. (1998) Long-term Unemployment,Social Assistance and Labor MarketPolicies in Romania, Empirical Economics.Ghebrea, G. (1996) ‘Familia tânără’ (Young Family),in I. Mărgineanu (coord.) TineretulDeceniului Unu. Provocările anilor ‘90 (Youthof the First Decade. The Challenges of the ‘90s),161 – 186, Expert Publishing House, Bucharest.Ianoş, I. (1998) ‘The Influence of Economic andRegional Policies on Migration in Romania’,in W. Heller (ed.), Romania: Migration, SocioeconomicTransformation and Perspectives ofRegional Development, Sudosteuropa-Gesellschaft, Munchen.Ilie, S. (2002) ‘Formal and informal incomes ofthe Romanian households’, in R. Neef andM. Stănculescu (eds.), The Social Impact ofInformal Economies in Eastern Europe, AshgatePublishing House, Forthcoming.Ionete, Ct. and Wagner, P. (coords.) (1997) RomanianHuman Development Report UNDP,Bucharest.Ionete, Ct. and Chircă, Ct. (coords.) (1998) RomanianHuman Development Report UNDP,Bucharest.Ionete, Ct. and Dinculescu, V. (coords.) (1999)Romanian Human Development ReportUNDP, Bucharest.Keil, J. and Andreescu, V. (1998) ‘Reconstructingthe Private Sector in Post-Communist Romania:What Role has the Family Business?’,in Romanian Journal of Sociology,1/1998, Bucharest.Kideckel, A. D., Botea, B., Nahorniac, R., Şoflâu,V. (2000) ‘A New ‘Cult of Labor’: Stress andCrisis Among Romanian Workers’, SociologieRomânească, Serie noua 1/2000, 142 –152, Romanian Sociological Association,Bucharest.Kollo, J., and Vincze, M. (1999) ‘Self-Employment and Unemployment: Lessonsfrom Regional Data in Hungary and Romania’,Romanian Economic Research Observer,No.5/1999, Romanian Academy, NationalInstitute of Economic Research, Centre forEconomic Information and Documentation,Bucharest.Larionescu, M., Rughiniş C., and Rădulescu S.(1999) Cu ochii minerului. Reforma minerituluiîn România (With Miners’ eyes. Reform ofthe Mining Sector in Romania), Ed. Gnosis,Bucharest.Lăzăroiu, S. (1999) ‘Reţele de capital social şiantreprenori în Comişani’ (Social CapitalNetworks and Entrepreneurship inComisani), Sociologie Românească (RomanianSociology), Serie noua 2/1999, 31 – 56,Romanian Sociological Association,Bucharest.Mărginean, I. (1975) ‘Stabilitatea forţei de muncăfeminine’ (Stability of Female LabourForce)”, Viitorul Social, 4/1975, Bucharest.Mărginean, I. (1994), Social policy and marketeconomy in Romania, Romanian Academy,National Institute of Economic Research,Centre for Economic Information andDocumentation, Bucharest.Mihăescu, C. (2001) Populatie si ocupare. Trecut,prezent si viitor (Population and Employment:Past, Present, and Future), EdituraEconomica, Bucharest.Mihăilescu, V. (1996) ‘Două sate în tranziţie.Tipuri strategice dominante în lumearurală’ (Two Villages in Transition.Dominant Strategic Types in Rural Areas),© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

222 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilityRevista de Cercetari Sociale, 3/1996,Bucharest.Munteanu, C. (1999) ‘Dedublarea etatistă’ (TheDual State), in Ziarul Financiar, 31 August1999.NIS (1997 - 2000) The Labour Force Survey(AMIGO), Bucharest.NIS and UNICEF (2001) Social Trends, Bucharest.Neef, R. (2002) ‘Aspects of the Informal Economyin a Transforming Country: the Caseof Romania’, International Journal of Urbanand Regional Research, Volume 26.2, June2002, 299-322, Blackwell Publishing.Negulescu, A. S. (1999) ‘Old and RestructuredFirms’, in C. Ruhl and D. Dăianu (eds.) EconomicTransition in Romania: Past, Presentand Future, 317 – 336, The World Bank andthe Romanian Centre for Economic Policies,Arta Grafica, Bucharest.Network Women’s Program of the Open SocietyInstitute and Women’s Program of theOpen Society Foundation Romania (2001)National Report on Equal Opportunities forWomen and Men in the European Union AccessionProcess, www.eonet.ro.Oprescu, Gh. (1999) ‘The Labour Market in Romania’,in C. Ruhl and D. Dăianu (eds.)Economic Transition in Romania: Past, Presentand Future, 143 – 172, The World Bank andthe Romanian Centre for Economic Policies,Arta Grafica, Bucharest.Palade, B. (1999) ‘Avaturile economiei de clan’,in Curentul, 1 September 1999.Pascariu G. (coord.), Stănculescu M., Jula D.,Luţaş M. and Lhomel E. (2002) The EU SocialCohesion Policy Impact Upon Romania’sRegional Economic and Social Development,PHARE project RO 9907-02-01, PreaccessionImpact Studies, Bucharest.Păuna, C. and Păuna, B. (1999) Output Declineand Labour Reallocation in TransitionalEconomies; Where Does Romania Stand?, Paperprepared for the World Bank Conference“Romania, ten years of transition”,Bucharest.Perţ, S. (coord.), Mihăescu, C., Roşu, D., Vasile,V., Pavelescu, F. (1993) ‘Potenţialul uman alunor ţări din spaţiul est şi sud-est European’(The Human Potential of The Easternand South-Eastern European Countries)Studii şi Cercetări Economice, No.8-9/1993,Romanian Academy, National Institute ofEconomic Research, Centre for EconomicInformation and Documentation, Bucharest.Perţ, S., Ciutacu, Ct., Pavelescu, F., Roşu, D., Vasile,V., Chivu, L. (1994) Piaţa Muncii înRomânia: ocupare, flexibilitate, dezvoltareumană (Labour Market in Romania: Employment,Flexibility, Human Development),Romanian Academy, National Instituteof Economic Research, Centre for EconomicInformation and Documentation,Bucharest.Perţ, S. (1995) ‘Aderarea României la UniuneaEuropeană din perspectiva liberalizării şifuncţionării pieţei muncii’ (The Accessionof Romania to the European Union fromthe Perspective of Labour Market Liberalizationand Functioning), Studii şi CercetăriEconomice, No.12/1995, Romanian Academy,National Institute of Economic Research,Centre for Economic Informationand Documentation, Bucharest.Pippidi, Mungiu A., Ioniţă S. and Mândruţă D.(2000) ‘In the Shadows. Informal Economyand the Survival Strategies of the Unemployedin the Romanian Transition’, SAR,Romanian Centre for Public Policy, WorkingPapers in Public Policy, No.18, Bucharest.Pop, L.M. (1995) ‘Sistemul de asistenţă socialăbazat pe testarea mijloacelor’ (Means-Tested Social Assistance System), in Zamfir,E. and Zamfir C. (coord.) Social Policies, Romaniain European Context, Ed. Alternative,Bucharest.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Nine. Literature review: Romania 223Pop, L.M. (2000) Evaluation Project of the Means-Tested Income Transfers Mechanisms in Romania,Romanian Academy, National Instituteof Economic Research, Centre for EconomicInformation and Documentation, Bucharest.Răboacă, Gh. (2000) ‘Oferta de forţă de muncă.Dimensiuni, surse şi factori determinanţi’(The Supply of Labour Force. Dimensions,Sources and Factors), Studii şi CercetăriEconomice, No.7/2000, Romanian Academy,National Institute of Economic Research,Centre for Economic Information andDocumentation, Bucharest.Răboacă, Gh. (2000) ‘Procese şi tendinţe în sferaocupării şi şomajului. Analize comparative’(Processes and Trends of Employment andUnemployment. Comparative Analysis),Studii şi Cercetări Economice, No.10-11-12/2000, Romanian Academy, National Instituteof Economic Research, Centre forEconomic Information and Documentation,Bucharest.Rey, V., Groza, O. and Muntele, I. (1998) ‘Migrationsand the Main Protagonists of Transition:A Stake in the Development of Romania”,in W. Heller Romania: Migration, SocioeconomicTransformation and Perspectives ofRegional Development, Sudosteuropa-Gesellschaft, Munchen.Romanian Academic Society (SAR) (2002) EarlyWarning Report: Romania, No. 4/2002,UNDP Programme, Bucharest.Rose, R. (1996) ‘Who needs social protection inEast Europe? A constrained empiricalanalysis of Romania’, in Societies in Transition.East-Central Europe Today, AVEBURY,England.Rotariu, T. and Mezei, E. (1999) ‘Asupra unoraspecte ale migraţiei interne recente dinRomânia’ (Aspects of Recent MigrationTrends in Romania), in Sociologie Romaneasca,3/1999, Bucharest.Sandu, D. (1984) Fluxurile de migraţie in Romania(Migration Flows in Romania), EdituraAcademiei, Bucharest.Sandu, D. and De Jong, G. (1996) ‘Migration inmarket and democracy transition: Migrationintentions and behaviour in Romania’,in Population Research and Policy Review 15,437-457.Sandu, D. (1998) ‘Migraţia internă sub şocultranziţiei’ (Internal Migration under theTransition Shock), Populatie si Societate,2(8)/1998, Bucharest.Sandu, D. (1999) ‘Drumul antreprenorial: fărăîncredere dar cu relaţii’ (The EntrepreneurialWay: Without Trust but With Connections),Sociologie Românească, Serie noua2/1999, 123 – 142, Romanian SociologicalAssociation, Bucharest.Sandu, D. (1999) ‘Community and RegionalPoverty in Rural Romania’, Romanian Journalof Sociology, X, 1-2/1999, Association ofRomanian Sociologists and Institute of Sociology,Ed. Universitatii, Bucharest.Sandu, D. (coord.), Berevoescu, I., Lăzăroiu, S.,Lăzăroiu, A., Pop, L., Rughinis, C., Stănculescu,M. (1999) Social Capital and Entrepreneurshipin Romanian Rural Communities,World Bank Report, Bucharest.Sandu D. and Stănculescu M.S. (1999) RebuildingCommunity Space, World Bank Report, Bucharest.Sandu, D. (coord.), Stănculescu, M., Berevoescu,I. and Tufiş, C. (2000) Romanian Village: Development,Poverty and Social Capital, WorldBank Report, Bucharest.Sandu, D. (2000) ‘Migraţia circulatorie ca strategiede viaţă’ (Circulatory Migration as LifeStrategy), in Sociologie Romaneasca, no. 2,Bucharest.Sandu, D. (2000) ‘Migraţia transnaţională aromânilor din perspectiva unui recensământcomunitar’ (Transnational Roma-© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

224 Report #1: Critical review of literature and discourses about flexibilitynian Migrants in Community Micro-Census”), in Sociologie Romaneasca, 3-4/2000, Bucharest.Stănculescu M. (1998) ‘Între sărăcie absolută şibunăstare’ (Between Absolute Poverty andWelfare), Social Research Review, 2/1998, 15-51, Bucharest.Stănculescu M. (2000): Romanian Households BetweenState, Market and Informal Economies,Paper presented at the Marburg WorkingConference on Shadow Economy and SocialResources in Eastern and South EasternEurope, June 2000.Stănculescu, M. and Ilie, S. (2001) Informal Sectorin Romania, UNDP and RIQL, Bucharest,http://www.undp.ro/news.htm.Stănculescu, M. (2002) ‘Romanian householdsbetween State, market and informaleconomies’, in R. Neef and M.Stănculescu(eds.) The Social Impact of Informal Economiesin Eastern Europe, Ashgate PublishingHouse, Forthcoming.Stahl, H., and Constantinescu, M. (eds.) (1970)Procesul de urbanizare in R.S. Romania. ZonaSlatina-Olt (Urbanization in SocialistRomania. Slatina-Olt zone), EdituraAcademiei Republicii Socialiste Romania,Bucharest.Şerban, M. and Grigoras, V. (2000) ‘Dogenii dinTeleorman în ţară şi în străinătate’(“Dogeni”-people in Romania and abroad),in Sociologie Romaneasca, 2/2000, Bucharest.Şerbănescu, I. (1999) ‘Can the Vicious Cycle beBroken?’, in C. Ruhl and D. Dăianu (eds.)Economic Transition in Romania: Past, Presentand Future, 573 – 588, The World Bank andthe Romanian Centre for Economic Policies,Arta Grafica, Bucharest.Teşliuc, E. (1999) ‘Agriculture Policy: Achievementsand Challenges’, in C. Ruhl and D.Dăianu (eds.) Economic Transition in Romania:Past, Present and Future, 91 – 142, TheWorld Bank and the Romanian Centre forEconomic Policies, Arta Grafica, Bucharest.Teşliuc, C. and Pop L. (1999) Poverty, Inequalityand Social Protection, World Bank Report,Bucharest.Teşliuc, C., Pop, L. and Teşliuc, E. (2001) Sărăciaşi sistemul de protecţie socială (Poverty andSocial Protection System), Ed. Polirom, Bucharest.Trebici, V. (1975) ‘Law and the social status ofwomen’, in Kirk, M., Bacci, M. L. and Szabady,E., Law and fertility in Europe.UNDP (1999), Stănculescu, M. (ed.) Sărăcia înRomânia 1995-1998 (Poverty in Romania1995 – 1998), Vol. I. Coordonate, dimensiunişi factori (Coordinates, Dimensions andFactors), Bucharest.UNDP and NIS (2000) Femeile si barbatii in Romania(Women and Men in Romania), Bucharest.UNICEF (2001) Social Assistance in Romania andGreat Britain, Bucharest.UNICEF (2001) One Decade of Transition. Status ofChildren and Families, Bucharest.Vasile, V. (1997) ‘The Romanian Labour Marketin Transition. Evolution and Outlooks’, inRomanian Economic Research ObserverNo.11/1997, Romanian Academy, NationalInstitute of Economic Research, Centre forEconomic Information and Documentation,Bucharest.Wagner, P., Chirca, Ct., Zamfir, C., Molnar, M.and Pârciog, S. (coords.) (1998) Metode şitehnici de evaluare a sărăciei (Methods forthe Estimation of Poverty), UNDP PovertyAlleviation Project, Bucharest.Wallace, C. and Haerpfer, C. (2000) The InformalEconomy in East-Central Europe 1991-1998,Paper prepared for the European Bank forReconstruction and Development, London.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

Chapter Nine. Literature review: Romania 225Wallace, C. and Haerpfer, C. (2002) ‘Patterns ofparticipation in the Informal Economy inEast-Central Europe, 1991 – 1998’, in R.Neef and M.Stănculescu (eds.) The SocialImpact of Informal Economies in EasternEurope, Ashgate Publishing House, Forthcoming.Welsch, H. P. and Pistrui. D. (1996) ‘Women entrepreneursand enterprise formation intransforming economies – a Romanian perspective’,in Romanian Journal of Sociology,1/1996, Bucharest.Zamfir, C. and Rebedeu I. (coord.) (1989) Stiluride viaţă. Dinamica lor in societatea contemporană(Life Styles and their Dynamic in theContemporary Society), Editura AcademieiRepublicii Socialiste Romania, Bucharest.Zamfir, C., Pop M.A., Zamfir, E. (1994) Romania‘89 – ‘93. Dynamics of welfare and social protection,RIQL Bucharest, ICCD Florence,UNICEF.Zamfir, C. and Vlăsceanu L. (1995) Social Policiesin Romania. Assessment of Current Status,Romanian Academy, National Institute ofEconomic Research, Centre for EconomicInformation and Documentation, Bucharest.Zamfir, C. (coord.) (1997) Pentru o societate centratăpe copil (For a Child-centred Society),Ed. Alternative, Bucharest.Zamfir, C. (1997) ‘Social insurance and socialassistance in countries in transition’, in RomanianJournal of Sociology, 2/1997, Bucharest.Zamfir, C. (coord.) (1999) Social Policies in Romania,1990-1998, Expert Publishing House,Bucharest.Zamfir, C. and Stănculescu, M. (2001) ‘CountryReport – ROMANIA-1998’, in Szelenyi I.and Emigh R., Poverty, Ethnicity and Genderin Central and Southern Europe during Transition,Greenwood Publishing.Zamfir, C. (coord.) (2001) Poverty in Romania,RIQL and UNDP, Bucharest,http://www.undp.ro/news.htm.Zamfir, E. and Zamfir C. (coord.) (1995) SocialPolicies, Romania in European Context, Ed.Alternative, Bucharest.Zamfir, E. (coord.) (2000) Anti-Poverty Strategiesand Community Development, Expert PublishingHousing, Bucharest.Zamfir, E., Bădescu I. and Zamfir C. (coord.)(2000) Status of Romanian Society after 10Years of Transition, Expert Publishing Housing,Bucharest.*** Romanian Public Opinion Barometer, OSF,Bucharest, 1998, 1999 and 2000.© Project „Households, Work and Flexibility”. Research report #1

.Annex

BRIEF INFORMATION ABOUT THE AUTHORSin order of appearance in the bookClaire Wallace(IHS, Austria)Christine Cousins(University ofHertfordshire, UK)Ning Tang(University ofHertfordshire, UK)Annet Jager(STOAS, the Netherlands)Mattias Strandh(University of Umea,Sweden)Thomas Boje(University of Umea,Sweden)Pavle Sicherl(SICENTER, Slovenia)Prof. Claire Wallace is co-ordinator of the HWF project. She is Head ofthe Department of Sociology at the Institute for Advanced Studies (IHS)in Vienna, Austria. Claire Wallace is also visiting professor at the GlasgowCaledonian University, UK and has been undertaking work ontransformations in Eastern and Central Europe for the last decade. Shi iscurrently editor of the journal European Societies.Christine Cousins is the UK team leader for the HWF project. She is aPrincipal Lecturer in Sociology at the University of Hertfordshire. Herresearch and publications have been concerned with flexible employment,women in the labour market, women and social policy and socialexclusion.Dr Ning Tang is currently a post-doctoral research fellow in the Departmentof HRMST, University of Hertfordshire, UK. In addition to theHWF project, she has also undertaken comparative studies on China andthe UK.Since 1998 Annet Jager works as a researcher at Stoas Research inWageningen. Her research projects are in the field of (the interface between)employment and education, learning and training. Stoas Researchis member of the Stoas Group based in the Netherlands.Dr. Mattias Strandh is Lecturer at the department of Sociology, UmeåUniversity and currently guest scholar at International Institute of AppliedSystems Analysis (IIASA) in Vienna, Austria.Prof. Thomas P. Boje is the Swedish team leader for the HWF project andis Professor of Sociology at Umeå University in Sweden and professor inWelfare Policy and Labour Market at Roskilde University, Denmark. Hehas published extensively in labour market, welfare state, social citizenship.Prof. Boje had previously been head of the team for the BETWIXTproject on social precarity and urban segregation. He has been editor inchief for the journal European Societies.Prof. Pavle Sicherl is Director of SICENTER and Professor of Economicsat University of Ljubljana. He was also consultant to the World Bank,OECD, UN, ILO, UNIDO, INSTRAW, UNRISD, and Harvard Institutefor International Development.I

Matija Remec(SICENTER, Slovenia)Jiri Vecernik(Institute of Sociology,Czech Republik)Petra Stepankova(Institute of Sociology,Czech Republik)Marton Medgyesi(TRAKI, Hungary)Siyka Kovacheva(University of Plovdiv,Bulgaria)Manuela Stanculescu(Institute of Quality of Life,Romania)Matija Remec is research assistant at the SICENTER. He was also involvedwith the Research of Internet in Slovenia project at the Centre ofMethodology and Informatics of the Faculty of Social Sciences in Ljubljana.Prof. Jiri Vecernik leads the team of Social Economics at the Institute ofSociology, Czech Academy of Sciences. He focuses on labour market andsocial policies and income inequality. He cooperates with local ministries,Trade Unions, ILO, OECD, UNICEF, World Bank and others. In thepast he has worked as an editor of the Czech Sociological Review andchaired the Foundation START for research on social transformation. Heis a member of the LIS executive committee.Petra Stepankova holds MA degrees in Social Sciences and Economicsfrom the, Charles University (Prague) and the Central European University.She is a Ph.D. student in Economics at the CERGE/EI (Prague).Since October 2000 she is a junior research fellow at the Institute of Sociology,Czech Academy of Sciences.Marton Medgyesi is a researcher at the Social Research Centre (TARKI)in Budapest and a PhD. student at the Budapest University of EconomicSciences.Dr. Siyka Kovacheva is the co-ordinator for Bulgaria of the HWF project.She works as a lecturer in sociology at the University of Plovdiv, Bulgaria.She has done research on youth transitions in Europe and on thesocial, economic and political change in Eastern Europe after the fall ofcommunism.Manuela Stanculescu is the co-ordinator for Romania of the HWF project.She is senior researcher at the Institute for the Study of the Qualityof Life and associate lecturer at the University of Bucharest, Faculty ofSociology.II

RELATED PUBLICATIONS *of members of the HWF Research ConsortiumSCIENTIFIC ARTICLES AND BOOKS BY MEMBERS OF HWF TEAMSCousins, Christine (UK), Sept. 2001, Organising and analysing small-scale qualitative studies of families.In L. Hantrais (ed.) Family and Welfare from an International Comparative Perspective’ Brussels:Directorate Technology Foresight and Socio-economic Research, European Communities.Kovacheva, Siyka (BG), 2001 Flexibilisation of youth transitions in Central and Eastern Europe, inYOUNG, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 41-60.Nagy, Ildikó (HU), 2002, The institution of the head of family – gender roles in the family, In: Nagy,Ildiko – Pongracz, Tiborne – Toth, Istvan György (ed.): Changing Roles, Report on the Situation ofMen and Women in 2001, TÁRKI – Ministry of Social and Family Affairs, Budapest, Febr. 2002, pp.155-175.Nagy, Ildikó – Sik, Endre (HU), 2002, Flexible shift, flexible family?, In: Kolosi, Tamás – Tóth, GyörgyIstván – Vukovich, György: Social Riport 2002, TÁRKI, Budapest (forthcoming)Vecernik, Jiri (CZ), 2000, Social problems and policies in the Czech Republic: costs of transition andsocio-economic structure. Politicka ekonomie 48(2000):529-546. (in Czech)Vecernik, Jiri (CZ), 2001, From needs to the market: the changing inequality of household income in theCzech transition , European Societies, 3 (2001):pp. 191-212 (in English).Vecernik, Jiri (CZ), 2001, Earnings disparities in the Czech Republic: Evidence of the past decade andcross-national comparison. Prague Economic Papers 10 (2001): pp. 201-222 (in English).Vecernik, Jiri (CZ), 2001, Earnings disparities in the Czech Republic: Evidence of the past decade andcross-national comparison. Finance a uver 9 (2001): 450-471(in Czech).Wallace, Calire (IHS) and Cousins, Christine (UK), Sept. 2001, Households, Work and Flexibility : AnOverview, In L. Hantrais (ed.) Family and Welfare from an International Comparative Perspective’Brussels: Directorate Technology Foresight and Socio-economic Research, European Communities.* Please contact authors or the team leaders if you wish to request a copy of the published matters.Contact information for teams is provided on the third page of the cover to this report.Selected publications are also available on the HWF home page III

WORKING PAPERS PRODUCED BY MEMBERS OF HWF TEAMSCousins, Christine and Tang, Ning (UK), 2002, Households, Work and Flexibility in the UK. Universityof Hertfordshire, Business School, Employment Studies Unit, Working Paper Series, forthcoming.Raiser, Martin, Haerpfer, Christian, Nowotny, Thomas and Wallace Claire (IHS), 2001, Social capital intransition: a first look at the evidence, Working paper nr. 61, European Bank for Reconstruction andDevelopment, London.Sicherl, Pavle (Slovenia), 2000, A new dynamic approach to growth and the inequality issue. Workingpaper, SICENTER, Ljubljana.Sicherl, Pavle (Slovenia), 2001, New analytical and policy insights on the severity of the gap betweenUSA, Japan and EU in research and development provided by time distance (S-distance) methodology,Working paper, SICENTER, Ljubljana.Sicherl, Pavle (Slovenia), 2001, Distance in Time Between Slovenia and the European Union, Workingpaper, SICENTER, for country background.Sicherl, Pavle (Slovenia), 2001, Distance in Time Between Slovenia and the European Union, (An exampleof possible visualisation of time distance results), Working paper, SICENTER, Ljubljana.Sicherl, Pavle (Slovenia), 2001, Comments on two crosscutting issues: methods for comparative analysisand strategy for the European Research Area, Working paper, SICENTER, Ljubljana, presented atthe Belgian Presidency Socio-economic Conference: Unit and diversity, The contribution of the socialsciences and the humanities to the ERA, Bruges.Stanculescu, Manuela and Ilie, Simona, 2001, Informal economy in Romania, UNDP and RIQL, Bucharest,2001.Vecernik, Jiri (CZ), 2000, Work values and perceived conditions in CEE and EU countries, comparativepaper based upon ISSP survey 1997 “Work orientations”.Vecernik, Jiri (CZ), 2000, Work values and perceived work conditions in CEE and EU countries. Studybased on comparative ISSP survey. Not yet published.Vecernik, Jiri (CZ), 2001, Wage and income distribution in the Czech Republic during transition. Studybased on income and labor force surveys. Working Papers of the Institute of Sociology AS #5. (inCzech).Vecernik, Jiri (CZ), 2001, From needs to the market: the changing inequality of household income in theCzech transition. The William Davidson Institute Working Paper Series No. 370.Vecernik, Jiri (CZ), 2001, Earnings disparities in the Czech Republic: Evidence of the past decade andcross-national comparison. The William Davidson Institute Working Paper Series No. 373.Vecernik, Jiri (CZ), 2001, Social problems and policies in the Czech Republic: costs of transition andsocio-economic structure, The William Davidson Institute Working Paper Series, # 404 (in English).Vecernik, Jiri (CZ), 2001, Social policies and social structures: frictions and traps in the Czech Republicafter 1989. The William Davidson Institute Working Paper Series).IV

JOURNALISM AND POPULAR ARTICLES PRODUCED BY MEMBERS OF HWF TEAMSNagy, Ildikó (HU), 3 September 2001, Women Still Do Most of the Housework. Magyar Hírlap(Hungarian newspaper).Nagy, Ildikó (HU), 21 August 2001, Reconciling Work and Private Life is the Most Difficult. Magyar Hírlap(Hungarian newspaper).Nagy, Ildikó (HU), 24 July 2001, Families Argue Most about Time Spent Together. Magyar Hírlap (Hungariannewspaper).Remec, Matija (Slovenia), 13 th Sep. 2001, Approach to phenomena of information society in Slovenia (inSlovenian), Telecommunications 01Sik, Endre (HU), 17 December 2001, Several woman are employed part-time, Magyar Hírlap (Hungariannewspaper)Sik, Endre (HU), 21 December 2001, Many people work in the evening at night and over week-ends,Stepankova, Petra and Vecernik, Jiri (CZ), 18.1.01, Debate on unemployment, Radio channel RadiojournalStepankova, Petra (CZ), 27.8.01, Flexible forms of work, EURO No. 35.Stepankova, Petra (CZ), Working hours of Czech employees. Czech Business and Trade. Forthcoming.Vecernik, Jiri (CZ), 19.2.01, Overstated self-evaluation, EURO No. 8.Vecernik, Jiri (CZ), 9.7.01, Show your flexibility, Respekt No. 28.V

Institut für Höhere Studien (IHS), WienInstitute for Advanced Studies, ViennaO R D E R F O R Mfor a series of publications of the HWF Research Consortium / ISSN 1682-9131Stumpergasse 56, A-1060 Viennapublisher HWF Research Consortiumphone: +431 599 91 237fax: +431 599 91 555coordinator Institute for Advanced Studiesemail: library@ihs.ac.at distributor Institute for Advanced Studies, LibraryPlease provide details of your order and return the form per fax or mail to the above address:NameInstitutionMailing address forsending the booksInvoicing addressMember of the HWF Research Consortium ! (tick the box if applies)Not member of the HWF Research Consortium ! (tick the box if applies)HWF ResearchReport #TitleNumber of copies1 Critical Review of literature and discourses about flexibility2Country contextual reports.[Demographic trends, labour market and social policies]3 HWF Survey report by countries4 (1) HWF Survey comparative report (volume one)4 (2) HWF Survey comparative report (volume two)5Comparative contextual report.[Demographic trends, labour market and social policies]total amount of copiesprice per copy €TOTAL PRICE €Pricing rulesNOT members of the HWF Consortiumprice per copy € 30subscription to the whole series(six volumes)€ 150 (€ 25 per copy)MEMBERS of the HWF Consortiumprice per copy € 10Prices include normal postal chargesDate, signature: