" This article examines the strengths and weaknesses of the concept of 'flexicurity', calling into question the tendency of the contemporary cultural imagination to regard flexibility as a framework for the expression of individual freedom. It then describes a range of possible policy options, in relation to the market, in the perspective of combining flexibility of labour and security of persons. Three major options emerge: the 'procedural', the 'neo-substantive' and the 'partnership' options. As a conclusion, this article comes out in favour of a different policy which would alter the framework for public intervention. It especially underlines the need for a 'flexible' and 'decentred' Welfare State, capable of supporting and encompassing forms of regulation emanating from civil society, in particular - but not exclusively - from the social partners. "

Support: Paper