Promoting flexicurity in France: a gender perspective

1. Anne Eydoux, CRESS-Lessor, Rennes 2 University & Center for employment studies Second ASPEN/ETUI-REHS conference - Activation and security March 20-21 2009, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic Promoting flexicurity in France: a gender perspective

2. Introduction

3. Recent propositions about flexicurity in France hardly mention the issue of gender equality • This paper aims at questioning these propositions in a gender perspective • How are entitlements to social rights defined ? • On what principles of justice ? • How is gender taken into account in recent propositions for flexicurity in France ? • Transitional labour markets, « droits de tirages sociaux » Flexicurity, social rights and gender

4. 1. Social rights and gender equality: real versus formal equality • 2. The French social right regime and the male-breadwinner model • 3. Social rights in France, new risks and current challenges Plan

5. Defining social rights and questioning their links to gender equality is crucial • Several ways to promote gender equality • Formal (procedural) equality differs from real (substantive) equality 1. Social rights and gender equality: real versus formal equality

6. Four entitlements principles (Sainsbury 1996)‏ • Family maintenance (rights for family providers and dependants)‏ • Care activities (rights for carers)‏ • Labour market participation (rights for workers)‏ • Citizenship (nationality or residence criteria)‏ • Different emancipatory or regulatory potential for women Access to social rights in a gender perspective

7. Lawyers distinguish (Borgetto 1999)‏ • Formal equality (equal treatment)‏ • Real equality (reducing existing inequalities)‏ • The example of the “free choice allowance (APE / PAJE-CLCA) illustrates it • Allowance for caring fathers or mothers (formal eq.)‏ • Only 2,5% of the recipients are fathers • This allowance reflects inequalities • Gendered social and family roles • Labour market segmentation (gendered and among women themselves)‏ “Real” versus “formal” equality

8. How to define social rights that favour real equality ? • Sen's approach (1990)‏ is interesting • Links gender inequalities to the differentiation of social and family roles • Invite to attach social rights to the individuals rather than to the household • Family decision and bargaining processes do not reflect “free choice” but social norms and constraints • Increasing women's capabilities goes through the economic action of women (participation to employment) Equality and capabilities

9. Social rights regimes more or less favour gender equality in Europe • Comparative researches distinguish • The social-democratic/individual model • The conservative/male-breadwinner model • The French regime still reinforces existing gender relations 2. The French social right regime and the male-breadwinner model

10. Northern countries, in particular Danemark • Universal social rights linked to citizenship • Generous system relying on high employment rates • Individual responsibility and public solidarities • Individual rights (dual-breadwinner model)‏ • Individual rights (rather than deriving from the status of dependent)‏ • Individualised/Separate taxation system • De-commodification and de-familialisation • Formal equality and real equality The social-democratic regime: individualized rights and activation

11. Continental countries (France, Germany)‏ • Social rights based on employment & family • Rights for dependants (widow pensions, etc.)‏ • Rights for carers (“free choice” allowance)‏ • Rights for citizens/residents (Minimum integration income, RMI)‏ • Promoting both work and family solidarities • Ambiguous family policy • Social rights & taxation favour “households equity”, not gender equality and women's employment • Equality: formal rather than real France: the male-breadwinner model reinforces inequalities

12. In terms of gender equality, the French social rights regime appears imbalanced • The transformation of employment and family • that found social rights • make it vulnerable 3. Promoting income and job security in France: new risks and new challenges

13. Slow erosion of social rights based on employment • Rights based on citizenship have developed (RMI)‏ • But activation measures are insufficient • Social rights based on the family still promote the “free choice” principle (family choice)‏ • It does not correspond to family transformations • and exposes some women/families to poverty • Social rights hardly secure professional transitions New risks : family breaks and professional discontinuities

14. These difficulties constitute a challenge for public employment and social policies • Several propositions defend a French flexicurity • « droits de tirage sociaux »/ rights to training periods for workers (Supiot 1999)‏ • Individual right to training, DIF, 2004 • « transitional labour markets » (Schmid 1995, Gazier 2007)‏ • Pb: the design of the free choice allowance (CLCA)‏ • The risk is to reproduce gender inequalities • For professional and training entitlements as well as for caring entitlements Reshaping social rights: the risk to reproduce gender inequalities

15. Conclusion

16. The promotion of flexicurity in a gender perspective still faces to challenges in France • Social rights linked to the household/family • Existing “free choice” and “households equity” principles in the name of family solidarities • The framing of social rights is crucial • Individualised rights • Rights to care services • Reshaping transitions to favour gender equality • Parental leaves • remuneration linked to wages • father's quota Promoting flexicurity and gender equality in France