Varieties of buffers against precarity mediating the consequences of flexibility for worker's wellbeing: A comparative study of worker experiences
Lead Research Organisation:
University of Manchester
Department Name: Alliance Manchester Business School
Abstract
1. Overview
Study of the ways variations in labour market flexibility, and access to individual and collective buffers against precarity, affect workers' wellbeing. Comparative empirical research in 2 phases: mapping the contrasting institutional and policy landscapes of 2 European welfare states and conducting interviews with workers.
Research questions:
1. In what ways do variations in labour market flexibility affect workers' material and immaterial wellbeing?
2. To what extent does this depend on varying access to buffers against precarity?
3. Are worker experiences of flexibility more striking in their commonality or variety?
2. Context
2.1 Varieties of flexibility
Atkinson's (1984) schema distinguishes 4 types of flexibility present depending on the ease with which: employees can be hired and fired; or worker's hours, job role, or wages be varied.
2.2 Material and immaterial wellbeing of flexible workers
Flexibility may have positive or negative, material or immaterial consequences for wellbeing.
Potential negatives can be explored using 2 concepts: precarity of income and precarity of self-understanding.
Drawing on Crouch's (2015, p.8) work on the effects of insecure employment on consumer
confidence, 2 elements to precarity of income can be distinguished: uncertainty vs. actual insufficiency of workers' income to meet basic needs.
Precarity of self-understanding draws primarily on the work of Sennett (1998) to describe (i) an inability to form a narrative about one's own life that is coherent and satisfying, and (ii) an inability to both settle on and practice character traits which require long-term and stable employment and personal relations.
Expected to be found in instances of worker-oriented flexibility, concepts relating to potential
positive consequences for wellbeing will be developed.
2.3 Buffers against negative consequences for wellbeing
Buffers against precarity (Clement et. al 2009, p.242) are features of worker's lives which
prevent them bearing (all) the consequences of precarious employment that may result from
employer-side flexibility. Buffers may be material or immaterial (see Figure 2).
3. Methodology
3.1 Dimensions of comparative analysis: country, sector, unionisation, job level, private
circumstance
An initial literature review will recognise the extent of variation in transfers and services (T&S) and labour market regulation (LMR) between European welfare states. 2 contrasting countries will be studied in detail. As an indication, the UK is likely to be chosen as an economically liberal case, for its limited LMR, and the low level and high conditionality of its T&S. A second case is likely to be either Germany or the Netherlands. The former for its tighter LMR, institutionalised industrial relations, and its variously generous T&S. The latter as a hybrid 'flexicurity' case combining flexible labour markets with (fairly) universal and generous T&S.
3.2 Interview strategy
Interviewing allows the investigation of both the material and immaterial consequences of flexibility for worker's wellbeing. To explore immaterial wellbeing, of self-understanding, it is necessary to find out how workers understand their own lives. Filtering questions will identify which varieties of flexibility a worker is subject to, and which collective and individual buffers they have access to. Flexible workers will be interviewed in the 2 selected countries: in a range of sectors, degrees of unionisation, job levels, and private circumstances, alongside a small control group in the standard employment relationship.
4. Impact
4.1 Academic
Worker experiences will be brought to the front and centre of the analysis. Theoretically, the findings will have relevance for the dominant approaches to comparative research.
4.2 Policy
Policy influence will be sought by producing a policy framework on flexibility, which takes worker's experience and institutional context seriously.
Study of the ways variations in labour market flexibility, and access to individual and collective buffers against precarity, affect workers' wellbeing. Comparative empirical research in 2 phases: mapping the contrasting institutional and policy landscapes of 2 European welfare states and conducting interviews with workers.
Research questions:
1. In what ways do variations in labour market flexibility affect workers' material and immaterial wellbeing?
2. To what extent does this depend on varying access to buffers against precarity?
3. Are worker experiences of flexibility more striking in their commonality or variety?
2. Context
2.1 Varieties of flexibility
Atkinson's (1984) schema distinguishes 4 types of flexibility present depending on the ease with which: employees can be hired and fired; or worker's hours, job role, or wages be varied.
2.2 Material and immaterial wellbeing of flexible workers
Flexibility may have positive or negative, material or immaterial consequences for wellbeing.
Potential negatives can be explored using 2 concepts: precarity of income and precarity of self-understanding.
Drawing on Crouch's (2015, p.8) work on the effects of insecure employment on consumer
confidence, 2 elements to precarity of income can be distinguished: uncertainty vs. actual insufficiency of workers' income to meet basic needs.
Precarity of self-understanding draws primarily on the work of Sennett (1998) to describe (i) an inability to form a narrative about one's own life that is coherent and satisfying, and (ii) an inability to both settle on and practice character traits which require long-term and stable employment and personal relations.
Expected to be found in instances of worker-oriented flexibility, concepts relating to potential
positive consequences for wellbeing will be developed.
2.3 Buffers against negative consequences for wellbeing
Buffers against precarity (Clement et. al 2009, p.242) are features of worker's lives which
prevent them bearing (all) the consequences of precarious employment that may result from
employer-side flexibility. Buffers may be material or immaterial (see Figure 2).
3. Methodology
3.1 Dimensions of comparative analysis: country, sector, unionisation, job level, private
circumstance
An initial literature review will recognise the extent of variation in transfers and services (T&S) and labour market regulation (LMR) between European welfare states. 2 contrasting countries will be studied in detail. As an indication, the UK is likely to be chosen as an economically liberal case, for its limited LMR, and the low level and high conditionality of its T&S. A second case is likely to be either Germany or the Netherlands. The former for its tighter LMR, institutionalised industrial relations, and its variously generous T&S. The latter as a hybrid 'flexicurity' case combining flexible labour markets with (fairly) universal and generous T&S.
3.2 Interview strategy
Interviewing allows the investigation of both the material and immaterial consequences of flexibility for worker's wellbeing. To explore immaterial wellbeing, of self-understanding, it is necessary to find out how workers understand their own lives. Filtering questions will identify which varieties of flexibility a worker is subject to, and which collective and individual buffers they have access to. Flexible workers will be interviewed in the 2 selected countries: in a range of sectors, degrees of unionisation, job levels, and private circumstances, alongside a small control group in the standard employment relationship.
4. Impact
4.1 Academic
Worker experiences will be brought to the front and centre of the analysis. Theoretically, the findings will have relevance for the dominant approaches to comparative research.
4.2 Policy
Policy influence will be sought by producing a policy framework on flexibility, which takes worker's experience and institutional context seriously.
Organisations
People |
ORCID iD |
| Arjan Keizer (Primary Supervisor) | |
| Jacob Boult (Student) |