Employment and Citizenship in Britain and France

Catherine Hakim (London School of Economics, London, UK)

International Journal of Manpower

ISSN: 0143-7720

Article publication date: 1 August 2002

140

Citation

Hakim, C. (2002), "Employment and Citizenship in Britain and France", International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 496-498. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijm.2002.23.5.496.2

Publisher

:

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2002, MCB UP Limited


At first sight, this seems to be a report on studies of labour market flexibility in Britain and France. In reality, it never addresses the topic. The book consists of papers presented at a conference in Aix‐en‐Provence in September 1998, the second in a series for a “policy transferability programme”. Apparently the first conference, in 1997, did address employment flexibility, and generated a good deal of consensus on the nature and value of increased flexibility while suggesting different effects in Britain and France. Unfortunately, I could find no reference to the report on this important precursor to the present volume anywhere in the book, not even in the editor’s introduction. There is no evidence that the contributors to this second volume had access to it, as essential background information. Moreover, there is no central theme or focus to the essays in this book, as so often happens with conference proceedings. The authors of the 13 essays are a disparate mixture of economists, political scientists, sociologists and social policy specialists. Added to that are the very different approaches of the French and English contributors, although, paradoxically, some of the French contributors are specialists in British society and culture. Most of the essays report political and public debates, or else explore the authors’ personal views on issues. Some of the chapters address moral arguments around employment flexibility, and the associated insecurity – at this point we are a long way from the social scientific study of policies to support employment flexibility.

The editors say the purpose of the conference was to examine cultural, social, economic and linguistic factors which might facilitate the transfer of policy ideas and policies between Britain and France. However they insist that there was no interest in comparative analyses of policies between the two countries, and very few papers are explicitly comparative – apart from the occasional aside. The editors also conclude that national perspectives on employment flexibility are so different in the two countries that common policies are ruled out anyway. An alternative view is that in 1997 the European Union finally accepted the arguments in favour of greater labour market flexibility in Europe long advanced by British governments, so that “flexibility” was finally adopted as a positive strategy at the 1997 European Employment Summit. What is certain is that Britain is ahead of the game in this policy area, and should be examined for both positive and negative lessons by more dirigiste European polities.

Whatever the reason, the book is a failure. The 13 essays are too disparate in focus and presentation, too poorly informed on current developments in employment flexibility and on employees’ responses to the new contractual arrangements, and too little concerned with the nature of the policy‐making culture to offer any useful addition to social scientific knowledge on policies to support employment flexibility. Academics can no longer rely on their intellectual status alone for Luddite criticisms of new developments and social change to carry weight. Policies designed around “standard” full‐time permanent jobs will of course be ill‐adjusted to other types of career. It requires imagination to see how policies can be revised to accommodate the more complex work histories that are now emerging. Pensions are an obvious example, but the contributors here simply reiterate the well‐known problems.

Part‐time work is another example. France recently introduced legislation to legalise and promote part‐time jobs. Despite the vehement opposition of feminists, social scientists and trade unionists, this produced an increase in part‐time working; and although France has a higher percentage of involuntary part‐time workers than in other EU countries, the great majority of people working part‐time in France do so voluntarily, despite repeated claims to the contrary (Blossfeld and Hakim, 1997, pp. 37, 140‐42). Conflicting perspectives on part‐time work in Britain and France might have made an excellent topic for this book, but it is never addressed, even though part‐time work is by far the most important type of employment flexibility, with the fastest growth rates. Pension problems also derive from the popularity of part‐time work among women: they work part‐time or not at all while their children are young then later expect a full pension anyway. However in Holland women receive a full pension irrespective of their work history – thus overcoming the problem at a stroke. None of the contributors ever mentions this (old) policy which facilitates and supports the expansion of flexible employment.

The most interesting chapter is a case study of people working in the arts, culture and entertainment industry, where short‐term and insecure employment, and self‐employment, have long been the norm. This might have prompted a discussion of the differences between occupational labour markets and careers (where self‐employment is common) versus internal labour markets and employer‐based careers, and how national policies support these two systems – but again, the paper goes nowhere. It does, however, provide some interesting information on the rapid growth of this industry in Britain and France, suggesting that the growth of employment flexibility may be specific to industries where it already occurs and is accepted.

Perhaps the greatest weakness of this volume is that it displays no awareness of the rich research‐based literature on all forms of flexible employment, covering both employer and worker perspectives – as illustrated by Purcell’s (2000) excellent collection. It is no longer necessary to speculate on workers’ reactions, there are numerous studies available. But even the most informed essays in this book seem unaware of relevant research and use superficial data. For example, Hancock and McCreadie’s chapter provides a useful review of pension provision in Britain, with analyses of General Household Survey data. However, even they are unaware of the research on trends in job tenure which show little change over the past 20‐30 years in Britain. Similarly they seem to be unaware of two major national surveys of retirement decisions and retirement incomes in Britain, in 1988 and 1994, which have undoubtedly informed policy thinking on pensions. I do not see how academics can discuss social and cultural factors affecting reactions to policy unless they have first taken account of the factual evidence that underpins policy development.

References

Blossfeld, H.‐P. and Hakim, C. (Eds) (1997), Between Equalization and Marginalization: Women Working Part‐Time in Europe and the USA, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Purcell, K. (Ed.) (2000), Changing Boundaries in Employment, Bristol Academic Press, Bristol.

Related articles