Conference on The Future of Work, Employment and Social Protection
Annecy, January 18-19, 2001
Meetings on work, employment and social protection in a global economy
a France/International Labour Organisation initiative for a renewal of international debates and reflections on the challenges of social and employment policies
1. Objectives
On the occasion of the signing of the first technical cooperation agreement between France and the ILO in May 1999, and
subsequently during the International Labour Conference in June 1999, Martine Aubry, the French Minister of
Employment and Solidarity, and Juan Somavia, Director-General of the International Labour Office, decided to launch a
major initiative aimed at renewing exchanges and reflections on the new social issues facing the world today.
The aim is two-fold:
1) To provide French support to the ILO in strengthening its analysis and reflection capabilities.
The Report of the Director-General produced for the International Labour Conference in June 1999 emphasised the need to
give the ILO a far greater presence in debates on the social aspects of globalization, in particular - although not
exclusively - by enhancing its economic analysis capabilities.
This is reflected very clearly in the commitment set out in the technical cooperation agreement: "France will give its
support to strengthening the Organization's economic analysis capabilities with a view to ensuring that it can play a
decisive part in the economic and social debates of concern to many international organizations with an economic
dimension".
2) To contribute to this process of reflection, particularly with regard to the new social problems of the
industrialised countries.
Martine Aubry put forward this idea during talks with Juan Somavia and reaffirmed it during the International Labour
Conference: "The ILO must provide that open venue for reflection on new social problems which is currently lacking.
remain an open and proper venue for reflection on the new social problems which confront us today. What new forms of
security are available to workers in view of the flexibility needed for enterprises to be competitive? What are the jobs of
tomorrow? And what should be the place of work in the society we are trying to build? I do not think we should leave it to
the experts of economic institutions to dictate our future". Juan Somavia also took up the idea in his general reply to the
observations on his report.
Three major objectives were defined:
- Initiate a process of reflection at the international level on the new problems of employment and work, and especially
on the role of work as a source of economic security and social cohesion. This in-depth work should allow greater
participation by academic specialists (economists, jurists, sociologists, etc.) in the work of the ILO on a multidisciplinary
basis.
- Identify new practices that are emerging in response to the major changes occurring in this area, especially in the
developed countries, and examine their scope - innovative or not, whether beneficial or risky.
- Help to develop international strategies which integrate the economic and social aspects of development to a greater
degree than is currently the case.
It was therefore decided that a series of major discussions should be organized based on the general topic of "What social
institutions for the new global economy"?
Based on the general subject area of the general trends in economic and social transformations during recent decades and
on certain specific questions (see below), three discussion and research topics were outlined in order to provide structure to
this multidisciplinary reflection process.
This working framework has been discussed refined and expanded at the Meeting on 6 March in Paris which was chaired
by Martine Aubry and Juan Somavia in the presence of international experts. Below is the changed framework paper,
which will be an important input for the coming discussion series.
2. General problems
Twenty five years of economic, social and technological change have made it necessary to re-examine the terms of debate
on work, employment and the social protection system in industrialized countries. The role of work as a source of
economic security and social cohesion needs to be re-defined and be put in the broader framework of economic, political
and social changes.
Major changes are under way in this area and are transforming production systems, which are becoming increasingly
global, more flexible, more service-oriented, and now highly dependent on fluctuations in the international market and
financial system.
The implications of all this for the labour market are only partially known (fragmentation of types of employment, lack of
continuity in working life, the emergence of new types of employment resulting often in flexibility at the price of
insecurity, etc.). This trend will most probably continue, but given the uncertainty of developments forecasts of future
developments are also needed.
What is more, we must assess the effects of developments in the world of work on the kind of security which in the
developed countries is still guaranteed by social protection systems, and we must reflect on the direction which those
developments are likely to take in the future.
But it is not only economic and technological factors that are involved. The huge increase in the number of working
women and the higher level of education of younger generations, engender new aspirations concerning employment and
the content of work, how it is organized and how daily activities are structured. At the same time, the persistence of
pockets of unemployment or employment difficulties which particularly affect people with few or no qualifications
accentuates the contrast between two major groups: on the one hand, those with the knowledge and "know-how" needed in
today's world and offering the flexibility demanded by new forms of production, who are fully integrated in society; and
on the other hand, those whose cumulative disadvantages can in the long term constitute a major obstacle to labour market
success.
This division becomes a threat to social cohesion as the "outsiders"are increasingly relegated to minimum income and a
basic assistance system, while the "insiders" enjoy all the institutional advantages of advanced welfare states such as
access to knowledge and qualifications, to systems of representation and protection, and to social networks which enable
them to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the economic, political and social system.
However, the speed of change within the New (and global) Economy is such that the threat of becoming an outsider is
rather pervasive and the pressures on the political system to deliver solutions to the problems of employment, income and
social security become vital even for the survival of governments. Rising insecurity poses a threat to democracy. Therefore
"change management" resulting in reducing uncertainty is not only an economic imperative but a pre-eminent political
question. While globalization and technological change seem to be irreversible, institutions and policies can be altered in
order to allow economic prosperity, flexibility and security in economic adjustments and a degree of equality which
ensures social cohesion.
The discussions proposed by Martine Aubry and Juan Somavia should seek to identify the various changes that have been
taking place, and to forecast likely future trends and result in proposals for political solutions to ensure integration of social
and economic concerns resulting in an optimum of social cohesion..
These retrospective and prospective analyses must take into account all aspects of work: not only social protection and
income security, but also the quality of integration into the labour market and into society. This is what the ILO means by
the term - difficult to render in French - "decent work", which seeks to encompass the various dimensions of work - its
quality, the rights pertaining to it, protection, representation, economic security, and so forth.
A feeling of participation for the maximum of people in the benefits of the new global economy rather than a feeling of
exclusion from its fruits is at stake. The key question is how the social and economic downside of increasing inequalities
accompanying economic development in the new global economy can be coped with. The political and social question of
new securities , in particular through the participation in "decent work", are topics of the future, even if they are often
regarded as peripheral concerns: Seattle and Davos have proven that unbalanced economic development is increasingly
questioned and awaits a political answer on many levels. The answer cannot be only economical but has to be political. It
has to include a renewed thinking on the role of the state and of public policies as well as the role of the social partners and
the social dialogue. The adequate levels of political intervention have to be determined: interventions are possible at the
supra-national, the national, regional and local levels. The new responsibilities of the social actors, from supra national
"governants" such as the European Commission, national, regional and local governments as well as employer and worker
associations, NGOs and individuals have also to be discussed. The political governance of economic processes, or more
general, democracy in the market economy, is central for any attempt to integrate social and economic concerns. Contrary
to the developments of the last 15 years, which saw the pre-eminence of economics over politics, a new equilibrium
between both is clearly needed for sustained and balanced growth.
Another aim is to identify nascent new forms of "regulation" in the area of work and employment, whether these emerge
spontaneously or through the establishment of new ground rules, and to analyse their implications, beneficial or otherwise,
for both the developed and the developing countries.
The question of the adequate social institutions and policies for work and employment in the new global economy is thus
the underlying theme. It is a multidisciplinary theme. It requires not only high-level economic knowledge and research but
needs to draw on the disciplines of engineering and sociology (in order to assess the impact of technological advances or
changes in management techniques), law (precarious work, the changing nature of the employment contract), as well as
social history and philosophy (work and the sense of belonging). And last, but not least, it calls on political science in order
to provide a broader political framework for both the assessment of developments as well as the search for solutions in
order to allow for "change management" resulting in a marriage of democracy and the market. It is a theme which calls
for a close link to be made between the analysis of work and employment and the social constructs associated with
them, in terms of employment law and organization of work, representation and security as well as the politics of work
and employment..
3. Some major issues
The Meeting on 6 March has helped to identify issues of relevance to the ILO:
- in the realm of knowledge and the advancement of knowledge;
- in the realm of public policy and the development of "alternative" programmes to those promoted in recent years by
the international financial institutions.
On the basis of this meeting and the preliminary work done by the "orientation and organizing committee", the main
themes for future annual discussions between France and the ILO will be decided. The cycle will begin next autumn and
three topics are proposed here to stimulate discussion: the changing patterns of work, their consequences for workers,
companies and society and the responses of the key social players to these transformations..
a) Changing patterns of work and their consequences Changing patterns of work and their consequences
What are the main changes in work patterns?
- Changes in the types of security associated with work (status of work, types of contract, social protection);
- Changes relating to work content and organization (autonomous vs. prescribed work, recognition of skills and
qualifications, customer pressure and deadlines; the growing importance of involvement, etc.);
- Economic changes (precarious employment, wage levels, more workers in poverty as a result of part-time work);
- Other changes?
Is it possible to identify the causative factors behind these changes and assess their relative importance?
- New technologies, the new economy, ;
- New forms of enterprises (intermediairies, contract labour, etc,)
- Changes in the system of production (the end of the "Fordist model", the search for quality, "just-in-time" and "lean"
production);
- Impact of increasing role of financial institutions (management standards demanded by shareholders and institutional
investors, the demand for increased return on investment);
- The shift towards the tertiary sector;
- Trade liberalization;
- Rising participation of women in employment;
- Decentralization and Individualization of workforce management (the weakening of trade unions, greater tailoring of
working hours and pay to individual needs; development of a system of competencies which increasingly takes the
place of collectively validated qualifications reflected in pay scales, deregulation of labour law).
Are these changes similar across countries in the developed world or do they contribute to diversity and cross country
inequalities ? In other words are they driving convergency or divergency between countries ?
b) What is the current and likely future impact of these changes ?
- On individuals (on the positive side: empowerment through individual bargaining, more flexibility in working life;
on the negative side: insecurity in income and status, feeling of exclusion, occupational health problems, low
commitment to companies even for the highly skilled) ?
- On enterprise (on the positive side: lower labour costs, more flexibility to adjust production and employment, on the
negative side: increased competition with increased insecurities also for firms, hostile take-overs, demotivated
workforce with high employment turn-over and low commitment to invest in training,) ? or
- On societies (on the positive side: more economic prosperity and employment creation, on the negative side social
costs rising because of exacerbation of inequalities, increasing polarisation between skilled and unskilled jobs,
unemployment and various forms of under-employment, increased segmentation, endangered social cohesion, crime,
ingovernability ) ?
c)
How do the key players in different countries (the state, the social partners, enterprises, politics) react to these
transformations in terms of the management of change?
- Adaptations in social protection(e.g. extension of coverage, shifting of location - from the company to society or
from society to companies-privatization of social security)
- Changes in employment law and collective bargaining arrangements? (deregulation, re-regulation)
- Reshaping employment policies (Policies of activation, development of intermediary organizations, transitional
labour markets)
Are these the adequate responses to the changed patterns of work and employment ? And along what lines should efficient
social and income protection policies be developed in response to the changes in patterns of work?
This will obviously depend on our assessment of changes in the system of production and their impact on work and
employment and the views we have on social protection.
The following questions are based on broader reflections on the very purpose of production and work . They are of
relevance for answering question on how to allow and support economic and labour market adjustments needed to respond
to globalization and technological change, but in a framework of new securities for workers which implies the building of
new (or the reform of old) labour market and social security institutions.
a) First, we must consider whether it is feasible and beneficial in the long term to pursue the current policies associated
with globalization (product differentiation, tailoring of services to individual requirements, better adaptation to the needs
or wishes of the "customer"). How far should this go? Can one go on differentiating ever more, reducing deadlines, putting
the customer at the centre of an ever wider process of refining goods and services?
At the "micro" and "macro" levels, can we form an idea of the relative costs and benefits of a society based on the notion
of customer service, the idea that "the customer is king", and twenty four hour services? Since no one places any value on
time already spent or public investment already made in the past, how do we weigh the increased added value made
possible by ever greater rationalization and sophistication in the production process against the cost of negative
externalities created by these developments, such as the cost of precarious employment, of unemployment and of
worsening working conditions (working "unsocial" hours, break-down of traditional occupational categories, etc.)? Don't
we sacrifice the producer for the consumer ? And does extreme "customerization" exacerbate the polarization of the planet
and contribute to growing inequalities?
b) Assuming that the continuous flow of new products and their differentiation (individualization of mass production) is to
be regarded as unavoidable should we not give more thought to the linkage between flexibility and diversity in products
and in the production system,the organization of work and the conditions of employment, work and social protection? In
other words, what changes are needed to ensure that production which is organized in a flexible way yields also decent
work?
Is it possible to design systems, individual and collective, for organizing work and employment in conjunction with social
protection which improve flexibility while also reducing uncertainty for employees? Or is there a fundamental opposition
between flexibility and security ?
c) How to avoid that social policies are only considered as costs and not also as benefits? How to establish, that"social
protection as a productive factor", does not remain a pure slogan ? Research on this topic could be eminently useful, as it
could result in providing us with the economic rationale of social policies. How are we to think of merging economic and
social goals, at the level of the individual enterprise and at the level of society as a whole? Health care, education and
training, income stability and a sense of security are not only to be considered as costs but it has to be demonstrated that
they are important factors in ensuring efficiency and high performance. And if so, does this hold for the micro and macro
level alike ?
d) Can this consideration be integrated in standard measurements of economic development. For example, can we define
and implement policy driving indicators along the lines of the UNDP methodology for gauging national wealth - measured
not only in terms of GDP but also in terms of income distribution, quality of health care for the entire population, standards
of education and training, gender equality, etc. Can they be applied toto enterprises, and if so, how? Can we create the
conditions that not only economic but integrated economic and social indicators are used by the international community,
shareholders, investors and costumers as a sign of real performance, a performance which is centered on the wealth of
human beings. Can we apply theories of endogenous growth, especially those developed in the field of education, to the
entire area of social protection?
e) What specific mechanisms must be put in place to ensure that the costs of greater flexibility in the production system -
which is regarded as unavoidable - are not borne solely by employees? Can one match the requirements of flexibility of
individuals in different phases of their working life with the flexibility required in the production of goods and services ?
What institutional networks are required to ensure "flexicurity" ? What are the different responsibilities of companies, the
state or social security agencies run by the social partners, by individuals, private insurance companies to organize the
security network around the flexible labour markets of firms ? In this context, the question of how much flexibility firms
can bear has to be posed also, as there is a need for a stable and motivated workforce in efficient firms.
f) Do we need "social drawing rights", which individuals can use in different phases of their working lifes ? How does the
activation of employment policies interfere with the search for new instituions for the global economy ? If firms are less
willing or less able to provide security, are Pooling schemes (by employers' groups, intermediary organizations,) an
answer? If we admit the idea that there are more transitions (between jobs, between jobs and training, between jobs and
family responsibilities, etc.) in an average working life than before, can new institutions be designed to help with these
transitions ?
g) How are we to establish new collective rules in order to merge social and economic concerns? (by law, by collective
bargaining, social pacts, at what level and on what issues ?)
h) How to ensure that time budgets are balanced, for example between working time and time for families and leisure ,
and, in more general terms, between life at work and social life? Is it possible to design mechanisms by which enterprises
-together with institutions- would be willing to take into account the other roles which workers have to play (as a citizen,
parent, etc.) and which might enable us to achieve a more effective balance between working life, family life, social life
and personal life?
This raises questions about the very status of work and the links between work, activity, employment and leisure. What in
more general terms should be our conception of the place occupied by work in society? Access to appropriate ("decent")
work for all but at the same time access to a normal family and social life.
4. A topic for the first "entretien"
On the basis of the general themes outlined above , the orientation and organizing committee has drafted a program for the
first of the series of meetings planned.
The conference on the "Future of Work, Employment and Social Protection" to be held in Annecy on the 18 and 19
January 2001 will discuss the following topics (see also preliminary program enclosed):
What are the sources of changes (e.g. globalization, new technologies, deregulation, demographic factors, value changes)
and what are their effects on jobs and on social protection? What does it mean to be a worker in the New Global
Economy? What are the new Insecurities? What is the effect on companies? What does it mean to be a company in the
New Global Economy? What are the new insecurities for companies? And how do we see the link between the insecurities
of companies and the insecurities of their workers?
What are the effects on politics and the response of politics (as represented by democratic bodies) of the transformation of
work and employment? Is -and how is- the issue presented to the constituencies and what solutions are proposed? Does it
and how does it affect democracy?
What kind of regulations and institutions are required to tap the economic potential of the New Global Economy, while
ensuring "decent work" and efficient social protection. What type of social security is required and how can it be a
protective and a productive factor?
What are the actors (international organizations, governments, social partners, the NGOs)and what is their role in
negotiating and setting up new regulations. At what level(international, national, regional and local) are new (or reformed)
institutions required ?
|
Background Document