Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T16:37:52.429Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Insiders under pressure: Flexibilization at the margins and wage inequality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 September 2020

DAVID WEISSTANNER Open the ORCID record for DAVID WEISSTANNER [Opens in a new window]
DAVID WEISSTANNER*
Affiliation:
Department of Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford Email: david.weisstanner@spi.ox.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The rise of flexible employment in advanced democracies has been predominantly studied in the insider-outsider framework of the dualization literature. However, against the background of rising income inequality, it seems questionable to assume that all labor market insiders are equally affected by flexibilization. This paper explores whether flexibilization increases wage inequality among labor market insiders. I argue that flexibilization exposes insiders to a set of wage risks that are concentrated among low- and middle-income insiders, creating downward wage pressure on those insiders. The empirical analysis, covering 22 democracies between 1985 and 2016, finds that the deregulation of non-standard employment is associated with declining wage shares of low-income and middle-income earners, while top earners benefit. These major distributional shifts imply an important qualification of the dualization literature: rather than pitting insiders against outsiders, flexibilization ‘at the margins’ seems to exacerbate divides among insiders.

Keywords

flexibilizationwage inequalitydualizationlabor market policyinsidersoutsiders
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 50 , Issue 4 , October 2021 , pp. 725 - 744
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Armingeon, K., Wenger, V., Wiedemeier, F., Isler, C., Knöpfel, L., Weisstanner, D. and Engler, S. (2018), Comparative Political Data Set 1960-2016, 2018: Institute of Political Science, University of Bern.Google Scholar
Beck, N. and Katz, J.N. (2011), ‘Modeling Dynamics in Time-Series–Cross-Section Political Economy Data’, Annual Review of Political Science, 14:1, 331-352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellani, D. and Bosio, G. (2019), ‘Knockin’ on heaven’s door? Reframing the debate on temporary employment and wages: evidence from Europe’, Socio-Economic Review.Google Scholar
Benassi, C. and Dorigatti, L. (2015), ‘Straight to the Core — Explaining Union Responses to the Casualization of Work: The IG Metall Campaign for Agency Workers’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 53:3, 533-555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benassi, C. (2016), ‘Liberalization Only at the Margins? Analysing the Growth of Temporary Work in German Core Manufacturing Sectors’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 54:3, 597-622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benassi, C. and Vlandas, T. (2016), ‘Union inclusiveness and temporary agency workers: The role of power resources and union ideology’, European Journal of Industrial Relations, 22:1, 5-22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beramendi, P., Häusermann, S., Kitschelt, H. and Kriesi, H. (2015), ‘Introduction: The Politics of Advanced Capitalism’, in Beramendi, P., Häusermann, S., Kitschelt, H. and Kriesi, H. (eds.), The Politics of Advanced Capitalism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeri, T. (2011), ‘Institutional Reforms and Dualism in European Labor Markets’, in Ashenfelter, O. and Card, D. (eds.), Handbook of Labor Economics, Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Booth, A.L., Francesconi, M. and Frank, J. (2002), ‘Temporary jobs: Stepping stones or dead ends?’, The Economic Journal, 112:480, F189-F213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornschier, S. and Kriesi, H. (2013), ‘The Populist Right, the Working Class, and the Changing Face of Class Politics’, in Rydgren, J. (ed.), Class Politics and the Radical Right, Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bosch, G. (2018), ‘The making of the German minimum wage: a case study of institutional change’, Industrial Relations Journal, 49:1, 19-33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bürgisser, R. and Kurer, T. (2019), ‘Insider–outsider representation and social democratic labor market policy’, Socio-Economic Review.Google Scholar
Burgoon, B. and Dekker, F. (2010), ‘Flexible employment, economic insecurity and social policy preferences in Europe’, Journal of European Social Policy, 20:2, 126-141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busemeyer, M. and Kemmerling, A. (2020), ‘Dualization, stratification, liberalization, or what? An attempt to clarify the conceptual underpinnings of the dualization debate’, Political Science Research and Methods, 8:2, 375-379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damiani, M., Pompei, F. and Ricci, A. (2018), ‘Labour shares, employment protection and unions in European economies’, Socio-Economic Review, online first, mwy025.Google Scholar
De Boef, S. and Keele, L. (2008), ‘Taking Time Seriously’, American Journal of Political Science, 52:1, 184-200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deakin, S., Malmberg, J. and Sarkar, P. (2014), ‘How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970–2010’, International Labour Review, 153:1, 1-27.Google Scholar
Eichhorst, W. and Marx, P. (2011), ‘Reforming German labour market institutions: A dual path to flexibility’, Journal of European Social Policy, 21:1, 73-87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eichhorst, W. and Marx, P. (2015), ‘Introduction: An Occupational Perspective on Non-standard Employment’, in Eichhorst, W. and Marx, P. (eds.), Non-Standard Employment in Post-Industrial Labour Markets. An Occupational Perspective, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Emmenegger, P. (2009), ‘Specificity versus replaceability: the relationship between skills and preferences for job security regulations’, Socio-Economic Review, 7:3, 407-430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmenegger, P., Häusermann, S., Palier, B. and Seeleib-Kaiser, M. (2012), ‘How We Grow Unequal’, in Emmenegger, P., Häusermann, S., Palier, B. and Seeleib-Kaiser, M. (eds.), The Age of Dualization: The Changing Face of Inequality in Deindustrializing Societies, New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldthorpe, J. H. (2000), On Sociology. Numbers, Narratives, and the Integration of Research and Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Häusermann, S., Kurer, T. and Schwander, H. (2015), ‘High-skilled outsiders? Labor market vulnerability, education and welfare state preferences’, Socio-Economic Review, 13:2, 235-258.Google Scholar
Häusermann, S. (2020), ‘Dualization and Electoral Realignment’, Political Science Research and Methods, 8:2, 380-385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Häusermann, S., Kemmerling, A. and Rueda, D. (2020), ‘How Labor Market Inequality Transforms Mass Politics’, Political Science Research and Methods, 8:2, 344-355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, D. and Rueda, D. (2008), ‘Cheap Labor: The New Politics of “Bread and Roses” in Industrial Democracies’, Perspectives on Politics, 6:2, 279-297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LIS (2019), Luxembourg Income Study Database, Luxembourg: LIS, available at www.lisdatacenter.org (multiple countries, assessed on 2019-04-04).Google Scholar
Lupu, N. and Pontusson, J. (2011), ‘The Structure of Inequality and the Politics of Redistribution’, American Political Science Review, 105:2, 316-336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marx, P. (2015), The Political Behaviour of Temporary Workers, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marx, P. and Picot, G. (2020), ‘Three approaches to labor-market vulnerability and political preferences’, Political Science Research and Methods, 8:2, 356-361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mau, S., Mewes, J. and Schöneck, N.M. (2012), ‘What determines subjective socio-economic insecurity? Context and class in comparative perspective’, Socio-Economic Review, 10:4, 655-682.Google Scholar
Morel, N., Palier, B. and Palme, J. (2012), Towards a Social Investment Welfare State? Ideas, Policies and Challenges, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
OECD (2015), In It Together: Why Less Inequality Benefits All, Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
OECD (2017), OECD Employment Protection Database. Annual time-series data: www.oecd.org/els/emp/EPL-timeseries.xlsx (accessed 2017-06-28).Google Scholar
Palier, B. and Thelen, K. (2010), ‘Institutionalizing Dualism: Complementarities and Change in France and Germany’, Politics & Society, 38:1, 119-148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Picot, G. and Menéndez, I. (2017), ‘Political parties and non-standard employment: an analysis of France, Germany, Italy and Spain’, Socio-Economic Review.Google Scholar
Polavieja, J. G. (2003), ‘Temporary Contracts and Labour Market Segmentation in Spain: An Employment-Rent Approach’, European Sociological Review, 19:5, 501-517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pontusson, J. (2013), ‘Unionization, Inequality and Redistribution’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 51:4, 797-825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pontusson, J. and Weisstanner, D. (2018), ‘Macroeconomic conditions, inequality shocks and the politics of redistribution, 1990–2013’, Journal of European Public Policy, 25:1, 31-58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rebien, M. and Kettner, A. (2011), Die Konzessionsbereitschaft von Bewerbern und Beschäftigten nach den Hartz-Reformen, WSI Mitteilungen 5/2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehm, P., Hacker, J.S. and Schlesinger, M. (2012), ‘Insecure Alliances: Risk, Inequality, and Support for the Welfare State’, American Political Science Review, 106:2, 386-406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehm, P. (2020), ‘The Future of Welfare State Politics’, Political Science Research and Methods, 8:2, 386-390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rovny, A.E. and Rovny, J. (2017), ‘Outsiders at the ballot box: operationalizations and political consequences of the insider–outsider dualism’, Socio-Economic Review, 15:1, 161-185.Google Scholar
Rueda, D. (2005), ‘Insider–Outsider Politics in Industrialized Democracies: The Challenge to Social Democratic Parties’, American Political Science Review, 99:1, 61-74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rueda, D. (2007), Social Democracy Inside Out. Partisanship and Labor Market Policy in Industrialized Democracies, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherer, S. (2004), ‘Stepping-Stones or Traps? The Consequences of Labour Market Entry Positions on Future Careers in West Germany, Great Britain and Italy’, Work, employment and society, 18:2, 369-394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwander, H. and Häusermann, S. (2013), ‘Who is in and who is out? A risk-based conceptualization of insiders and outsiders’, Journal of European Social Policy, 23:3, 248-269.Google Scholar
Schwander, H. (2020), ‘Labor market insecurity among the middle class: a cross-pressured group’, Political Science Research and Methods, 8:2, 369-374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streeck, W. (2010), ‘The fiscal crisis continues: From liberalization to consolidation’, Comparative European Politics, 8:4, 505-514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thelen, K. (2019), ‘The American Precariat: U.S. Capitalism in Comparative Perspective’, Perspectives on Politics, 17:1, 5-27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, J. (2015), ICTWSS Database, Version 5.0, Amsterdam: AIAS.Google Scholar
Vlandas, T. (2013), ‘The Politics of Temporary Work Deregulation in Europe: Solving the French Puzzle’, Politics & Society, 41:3, 425-460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vlandas, T. (2018), ‘Coordination, inclusiveness and wage inequality between median- and bottom-income workers’, Comparative European Politics, 16:3, 482-510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vlandas, T. (2020), ‘The Political Consequences of Labor Market Dualization: Labor Market Status, Occupational Unemployment and Policy Preferences’, Political Science Research and Methods, 8:2, 362-368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Weisstanner supplementary material

Weisstanner supplementary material

Download Weisstanner supplementary material(File)
File 26.5 KB