Centre d'études de l'emploi

Unknown User

Sujets

• Employabilité, métiers et formations

Informations

• Publié par: englue
• Nombre de lectures: 112
• Langue: Français
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 1 Mo

Extrait

  Centre détudes de lemploi                  



 

Temporary subsidised employment in the public and non-profit sector: a European comparative study

Jean-Claude Barbier Research Director (CNRS)    March 2001      This report draws extensively from the national reports written by: T. Bredgaard and H. Jorgensen at Carma (University of Aalborg, Denmark). L. Cachon, J. Aragon and F. Rocha (Universidad Complutense de Madrid et Fundacion 1 de Mayo, Spain) .D. Finn (University of Portsmouth, United Kingdom). M.L. Mirabile and F. Carrera (Ires, Rome, Italy).  The author thanks them all for their outstanding contribution to theMesanomproject. 

25/10/02, J.C. Barbier,Centre détudes de lemploi.

CONTENTS









     Introduction : Questions at the origin of the comparative study     Chapter I  Comparative framework     Chapter II  Global analysis of the four cases     Chapter III  Cross-national analysis     Conclusion : The "French model" in perspective    References     APPENDICES  





























































p. 3

p. 6

2

p. 19

p. 44

p. 52

p. 61

p. 65

25/10/02, J.C. Barbier,Centre détudes de l emploi. 

3

 Introduction : Questions at the origin of the comparative study  The evaluation committee assessingtemporary subsidised employment in the public and non-profit sector 1 , in the scope of theConseil national de l'évaluation 1999 (CNE) programme, expressed the wish that "national debates" on these measures may be "clarified by analysing a significant set of foreign experiences", mainly so that "France's specificity may be identified as a result ".  Cross-national questioning  Three main lines of questioning are highlighted in the relevant fact sheet of the evaluation committees terms of reference:  1  The combination of two objectives found in the French system (namely, promoting labour market participation or "social integration" (insertion 2 ) and promoting the development of activities beneficial for the community).  What is the nature of other European countries' objectives?  2  The logic underlying the implementation of programmes relating to activation strategies for employment expenditure known as passive, as well as the characteristics of participants (social insurance contributors, beneficiaries of welfare payments), as far as their status is concerned when they take part in measures (employee or welfare dependent) as well as their rights and obligations.  Among all these standpoints, can we identify differences in the activation logic of the other countries under review?  3  The connection existing, on the one hand, between the volume of programmes beneficiaries and, on the other hand, the cyclical evolution of unemployment, taking into account political arbitration.  Can we identify such relationships in the countries under review or are the evolutions observed linked to other factors?    Chapter III and the conclusion of this summary report are dedicated to the cross- national and global analysis of responses obtained to these queries. Chapter II provides an analysis of national coherence by country. The development of the analysis, its methods and its limitations will first have to be set out (Chapter I).   1  "Comparative analysis of the place and role of employment measures in the non-profit sectorSee fact sheet 5 in European countries' employment policies" (The evaluation committees terms of reference, p. 29-31, 8 March 2000). 2 The French term "insertion" covers social integration as well as integration on the job market and, for young people, transition from school to work.

25/10/02, J.C. Barbier,Centre détudes de lemploi.

4

 Methods and limitations  The length of time available to carry out an analysis was extremely short. The initial objective stated in the terms of reference had to be adjusted (fact sheet 5).  It was indeed agreed in July 2000 that, as the study had been delayed, one would identify within the network of correspondents of theCentre d'études de l'emploi some national experts familiar with international comparisons, readily mastering the information necessary to analyse their respective national situation, considering their competence in interpreting this information due to their position within their country's evaluation system for public employment policies as well as their publications in this field.  Four main countries in the European Union were chosen. It may be cursory said that they offer a satisfactory array of national cases.  An expert could quickly be identified (provisional agreement, early September 2000) in Italy, in the United Kingdom and in Spain but the short time available did not allow for a correspondent to be found in Germany. Taking into account the now well-known specificity of Scandinavian countries within the European Union (Sweden, Finland, Denmark) in matters of employment schemes, Denmark was also selected and an expert was appointed in this country.  It goes without saying that this should not be considered a representative sample of the various agreements (current or past and over the time span under review, namely from the mid-70s to the present days) implemented in all EU member States.  However, this sample has the advantage of including at least one member State representing each category ofwelfare regimes, according to the typology used in international comparative studies which may now be considered standard 3 : the type known as "liberal", the "corporative-conservative" or "continental" type and the "social democratic" type. It just so happened that one of the theoretical orientations of the terms of reference established by the study co-ordinator (see appendix I) was insisting on the link between national systems of social protection (NSSP) and employment policies, vocational training and labour market participation and social integration 4 , in the various countries. Theliberal typeis represented by the United Kingdom. Denmark represents thesocial democratic type. Thecontinental type  is to be found in Spain and Italy, which are "Southern varieties", in contrast with Germany which represents the typical case of this regime (Ferrera, 1996), France being generally also associated with this regime despite its hybrid nature (Barbier and Théret, 2000).  In accordance with the evaluation committee's terms of reference, the ambition of this report is not to carry out in-depth comparative research. However, it is based on the co-

 3 from the successive works of Titmuss, 1974, Flora, 1986 and Esping Andersen, 1990.This typology emerged See next section. 4 In France, a distinction is made between "employment policies", "vocational training policies", "insertion  policies" which are all part of "social policies" (on the subject, see the field covered by the book coordinated by M.T. Join-Lambert, 1994). For the purpose of comparison we have opted to group them together under this overall heading. "Insertionpolicies" are on the border between social welfare policies and employment policies.

25/10/02, J.C. Barbier,Centre détudes de lemploi.

5

ordinators research programme at theCentre d'études de l'emploi, which has been on-going for several years and has given rise to numerous publications 5 .  Its objective is therefore to analyse the empirical material gathered 6 , in the light of on- going research issues, with a view to more specifically addressing the three main lines of questioning referred to in the evaluation committees fact sheet 5.  

 5 In particular, see Barbier, 1997 ; Barbier and Gautié, 1998 ; Barbier, 1999a, 2000b. 6 As this study has been carried out as a matter of great urgency, the content of the synthesis presented in this document should be considered with caution; despite numerous "comings and goings" between the co-ordinator and national team authors, one cannot exclude the possibility of this report still containing errors due to misinterpretation or factual inaccuracies.

25/10/02, J.C. Barbier,Centre détudes de lemploi.

Chapter I A comparative framework 

6

      I - 1  Theoretical perspective    Apart from a few cases, for various reasons that will not be developed here 7 , international comparisons cannot be based on immediate "functional equivalents" of policies implemented in other countries. Therefore, a framework for comparison should first be elaborated. When considering the distribution of economic activities, institutions, etc, not only are names and categories different from one country to another but, in addition, the very policies can never be assumed to be functionally equivalent.  Let us consider one example only: the notion of "employment policy" 8 . Its meaning would be rather ambiguous in the context of present-day Germany (conflict between the double meaning of employment policy -Bsehcfäitolikgutispng labour market policies - and Arbeitsmarktpolitik). In contemporary Britain, public interventions which,assembled together, would be equivalent to French employment policies (politique de lemploi) in the public and non-profit sector, come under Employment (Department for Employment and Education) while being closely "supervised" by the Treasury, in charge of tax policies and budget as well as social security and welfare. In Britain, the national action plan for employment (NAPE) is signed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as well as by the minister in charge of employment issues. In Italy, Denmark and Spain, the distribution of competencies and the elaboration of intervention "sectors" shows yet other configurations.  The very notion ofactivation evidence, everywhere in Europe and beyond, of gives the current trend in representing public interventions as combining employment and social protection, employment and social policies or, as expressed in international English, "work"  and "welfare". We offered to defineactivationas "an increased and explicit dynamic linkage introduced in public policy between social, welfare, employment and labour market programmes, which implies critical redesigning of previous income support, assistance and social protection policies in terms of efficiency and equity, as well as enhancing the various social functions of paid work and labour force participation."  (Barbier, 2000b).  Also bearing witness are the fields of application of the "European Union social policy" and the European employment strategy co-ordination domain, after the Amsterdam Treaty and the following summits (particularly Lisbon in March 2000 and Nice in December 2000). In this respect, the Danish case represents the most striking example, as will be developed further, considering this country has generalised a logic ofactivation two in traditionally separate sectors: social welfare and employment policies. In addition, these institutional fields are constantly changing and have not been formed at the same time: thus  7 On this matter, refer to Barbier, 1990 ; 1999a ; Barbier and Gautié, 1998 ; Maurice, 1986 ; Maurice, Sellier and Sylvestre, 1982 ; Théret, 1995. 8 While the most usual French term is politique de lemploi, international literature tends to prefer labour market policy.

25/10/02, J.C. Barbier,Centre détudes de lemploi.

7

employment policies only emerged in Spain in the second half of the Eighties, whereas they have a much longer history in the United Kingdom, before beingde facto in the absorbed present "welfare reform".  Apart from standard categories of economic analysis, the same may be said for instance of the distinction between "profit" and "non-profit", the definition of "third sector" or "intermediate market", etc. Therefore, one ought first to construct the objects of comparison, through categories and notions which will have to be as "equivalent" as possible, bearing in mind that this operation can only remain imperfect.  The national system of social protection (Théret, 1995; Barbier and Gautié, 1998), which is sometimes, although less pertinently, called "welfare regime",represents for us an adequate notion to designate the overall set of institutions organising national labour markets and fundamentally influencing various rationales of public interventions in social and employment matters.  At some stage and in a defined country, a "societal coherence" (Maurice et alii, 1982) emerges which "explains" how this country is characterised by a certain "activity and employment regime" (Barbier and Gautié, 1998).  Within a specific national territory, anactivity and employment regime a represents given historical state of the distribution of employment and activity, among the potentially active population. This distribution is consistent with and facilitated by a specific system of social protection for non-workers and workers, the distribution being visible according to standard categories such as qualifications, gender, age, etc, and related to the responsibility for domestic activities. These constantly changing regimes (as shown, for instance, in the increase in female labour market participation after the war in industrialised countries) are nonetheless stable over relatively long periods of time within their own national framework 9 . As shown in tables 1 and 1b, activity and employment regimes of the five countries compared in this study vary significantly. 

 9 One should not underestimate the fact thatifnlna-nraioatregimes are also relevant, as shown for instance in the polarisation between South and Central-North Italy, or the case of Andalusia, in Spain (which, precisely, benefits from a special treatment in matters of public action and employment) and also the case of the new German Länderor, finally, the opposition between North and South in the United Kingdom, etc.