Danish flexicurity: preconditions and future prospects

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/irj.12176
• Author: Per H. Jensen
• Published date: 01 May 2017
• Date: 01 May 2017

Danish flexicurity: preconditions and future

prospects

Per H. Jensen

ABSTRACT

This article argues that Danish flexicurity is preconditioned by craft unionism that

has historically been predominant in the Danish trade union movement. It is

furthermore argued that flexicurity was on the verge to disappear when it became

famous in the early 2000s, although yet not completely dead.

1 INTRODUCTION

1

Over the last 10–15 years, the Danish flexicurity model has received considerable

attention, not only among researchers but also among policy makers throughout

Europe. Danish flexicurity has thus become a central reference point in EU’s

employment strategies over the last decade and, more recently, in the EU’s 2020

strategy, which is the EU’s agenda for growth and jobs for the current decade and

until 2020. Danish flexicurity allegedly represents a specific configuration of labour

market institutions allowing for the combination of social justice (high levels of social

protection) and economic efficiency (flexible labour markets). Danish flexicurity thus

ties in with the notion of the European Social Model, which refers to a combination of

economic growth, high standard of living and good work conditions, which is

supposedly an alternative to the US liberal market economy.

The Danish flexicurity model is described relatively well in the literature. However,

there is a huge research gap regarding its origins and preconditions. Arguably, some

studies contend that Danish flexicurity is preconditioned by corporatist structures, a

social dialogue and mutual trust among the social partners, the Danish collective

bargaining system, and that the Danish economy has been dominated by small-sized

and medium-sized enterprises (Bredgaard, 2013; Jensen, 2012, 2016; Madsen, 2006,

2008). That said, there is some measure of disagreement as to the point in time when

flexicurity ‘floated to the surface’. Some have argued that the origins of flexicurity as a

premeditated choice were introduced by the Danish Social Democratic government in

1993 (e.g. Viebrock and Clasen, 2009), while others claim that flexicurity is the

outcome of a lengthy historical development and that it was established without

any preconceived, overall plan (Berg, 2008; Madsen, 2008).

The aim of this article is to contribute to a better understanding of the origins and

preconditions of Danish flexicurity. Special focus is on the social actors involved in

❒Per H. Jensen, Center for Comparative Welfare Studies (CCWS), Aalborg University, Aalborg,

Denmark. Correspondence should be addressed to Per H. Jensen, Center for Comparative Welfare

Studies (CCWS), Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark; email: perh@dps.aau.dk

1

An earlier version of this article was published in G. Olofsson and S. Hort (2016).

Industrial Relations Journal 48:3, 218–230

ISSN 0019-8692

© 2017 Brian Towers (BRITOW) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd