@article{ART001910323},
author={Cho, Donmoon},
title={Two Types of the Flexicurity Model: A Comparative Study of the Flexicurity Model of Denmark and Netherlands},
journal={Journal of the Scandinavian Society of Korea},
issn={1229-8646},
year={2014},
number={15},
pages={31-61}
TY - JOUR
AU - Cho, Donmoon
TI - Two Types of the Flexicurity Model: A Comparative Study of the Flexicurity Model of Denmark and Netherlands
JO - Journal of the Scandinavian Society of Korea
PY - 2014
VL - null
IS - 15
PB - The Scandinavian Society of Korea
SP - 31
EP - 61
SN - 1229-8646
AB - As an alternative to the flexibilization strategy of the liberal market economy model, the EU presents the flexicurity model which implements capitalists' demand for flexible labor utilization and workers' demand for income and employment security at the same time. Referring Denmark and the Netherlands, the EU has established its flexicurity model on the basis of the Dutch golden triangle. This study aims to analyze the flexicurity model with a special reference to the Danish case, and to identify two different types of the flexicurity model by comparing the Danish model and the Dutch model with each other.
While both Denmark and the Netherlands offer earnings and employment security through a significant scale of labor market expenditures, they diverge from each other regarding flexibility. Denmark allows flexibility for the entire labor force including regular and non-regular workers, whereas the Netherlands allows flexibility mainly for non-regular workers.
In the formation process of the flexicurity model, the Danish model has gone through a long historical process of conflict and dialogue, while the Dutch model introduced was introduced deliberately with a specific policy objective. Despite this difference, both models share the existence of mutual trust and social dialogue between labor and capital.
The flexicurity model in Denmark and the Netherlands brings about low unemployment rates and high employment rates. In the midst of the negative impact of the global economic crisis, Denmark and the Netherlands have fared well in maintaining their relative superiority in terms of labor market efficiency. Thus it is appropriate to define the Danish model and the Dutch model as two types of the flexicurity model, because it is too early to judge which one is better than the other.
KW - flexicurity;flexibility;security;Denmark;Netherlands;European Union;golden triangle;labor contract;social security system;active labor market policy
DO -
UR -
ER -
Cho, Donmoon. (2014). Two Types of the Flexicurity Model: A Comparative Study of the Flexicurity Model of Denmark and Netherlands. Journal of the Scandinavian Society of Korea, 15, 31-61.
Cho, Donmoon. 2014, "Two Types of the Flexicurity Model: A Comparative Study of the Flexicurity Model of Denmark and Netherlands", Journal of the Scandinavian Society of Korea, no.15, pp.31-61.
Cho, Donmoon "Two Types of the Flexicurity Model: A Comparative Study of the Flexicurity Model of Denmark and Netherlands" Journal of the Scandinavian Society of Korea 15 pp.31-61 (2014) : 31.
Cho, Donmoon. Two Types of the Flexicurity Model: A Comparative Study of the Flexicurity Model of Denmark and Netherlands. 2014; 15 : 31-61.
Cho, Donmoon. "Two Types of the Flexicurity Model: A Comparative Study of the Flexicurity Model of Denmark and Netherlands" Journal of the Scandinavian Society of Korea no.15(2014) : 31-61.
Cho, Donmoon. Two Types of the Flexicurity Model: A Comparative Study of the Flexicurity Model of Denmark and Netherlands. Journal of the Scandinavian Society of Korea, 15, 31-61.
Cho, Donmoon. Two Types of the Flexicurity Model: A Comparative Study of the Flexicurity Model of Denmark and Netherlands. Journal of the Scandinavian Society of Korea. 2014; 15 31-61.
Cho, Donmoon. Two Types of the Flexicurity Model: A Comparative Study of the Flexicurity Model of Denmark and Netherlands. 2014; 15 : 31-61.
Cho, Donmoon. "Two Types of the Flexicurity Model: A Comparative Study of the Flexicurity Model of Denmark and Netherlands" Journal of the Scandinavian Society of Korea no.15(2014) : 31-61.