The political conflict structure in labour market policy in six West European countries compared

In the present contribution I will make the argument that the political space in labour market policy is characterized by two distinct conflict dimensions. The first dualism is related to the “traditional social risks” and opposes generous, universalistic and state interventionist labour market policies, to preferences for market-near solutions instead, which by tendency disagrees with redistributive welfare state benefits, as well as high levels of state intervention in the market. This traditional labour-capital conflict is complemented by a second conflict dealing with the “new social risks” encountered by the labour market force in the context of tertiarized, feminized and internationalized labour markets (Iversen and Wren 1998; Esping-Andersen 1990) and opposes preferences for human capital and for work-first activation efforts (Barbier and Ludwig-Mayerhofer 2004). In fact, the type of activation measures and the degree to which the different countries invest in these social investment policies is pivotal in defining the specific reform mixes and hence the political conflicts in labour market policy.

In a second step I will claim that in different countries the second axis of the political conflict can take different specifications, depending on the labour market regime type, which characterizes a country (see Thelen 2012, Esping-Anderson 1996; Taylor-Gooby 2005). The empirical analyses show that the countries included in this study can be differentiated into three types of labour market ideal-types: a Flexicurity (DK and CH), a Deregulation (UK) and a Dualization (F, D, I) model. The fourth ideal-type (Re-allocation) is not present in the sample, however, it can be conceptualized as representing the guidelines proposed by the European Employment Strategies (EES) and will be especially relevant to analyse the political stakeholders’ preferences at country level.

The differences between the three labour market regimes in our sample, originate from the specific composition of the activation dualism, which is the locus of the currently salient policy reform debates. In detail, while in so-called “Flexicurtity” countries, activation measures focus on the development of human capital, in dualized countries (D, I and F), in the light of the dramatic insider-outsider problem the focus is instead set on the necessity to re-integrate the precarious and unemployed work-force. Finally, in the deregulation countries (UK) the focus is laid on work-first activation strategies which are deemed effective in reducing state effort, while increasing market-friendly and self-reliant policy solutions, according to the liberal heritage of this labour market regime.