Anne Eydoux, CRESS-Lessor, Rennes 2 University & Center for Employment Studies (CEE) ‏

1. Anne Eydoux, CRESS-Lessor, Rennes 2 University & Center for Employment Studies (CEE)‏ Mathieu Béraud, GREE-2L2S, Nancy 2 University Second ASPEN/ETUI-REHS conference - Activation and security March 20-21 2009, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic Activating the unemployed and modernizing Public employment servicesCurrent challenges regarding security and flexibility

2. Introduction • Purpose: question French current employment policies aiming at • activating the unemployed • modernising Public employment services • promoting flex-security • Focus on 2 questions • How does the activation strategy influence the labour market segmentation? • Does it contribute to a reconciliation of flexibility and security?

3. Methodology and overview • Methodology • Theoretical / policy survey • Empirical inquiries in 30 labour market operators (public, private in the profit/non profit sector)‏ • 6 researchers, 3 University teams (Paris 1, Rennes 2, Nancy 2)‏ • Overview • 1. The French activation regime in a comparative perspective • 2. Recent institutional change in France • 3. Recent reforms and current challenges regarding the LM segmentation and flex-security

4. 1. The French activation regime in a comparative perspective • Different activation models in Europe • The promotion of an « active social state » at the european level • What kind of activation in France ?

5. Activation models in Europe • Comparative researches underline the diversity of welfare regimes and activations models • A dual representation of activation models (Barbier 2002)‏ • liberal (confidence in market forces / UK)‏ • universal (social welfare through public policies / Dk)‏ • 2 approaches of activation (Barbier 2006)‏ • « generous » versus « punitive » • How to characterise continental countries / Fr?

6. Toward an active social State • «  Active social State »: a new interpretative framework that • Aims at reconciling social welfare and activation (the promotion of a fully active society)‏ • Insists in the need of a new balance between flexibility and security, rights and duties • promoting individual responsibility, work values and financial incentives • Defending State's responsibility regarding employment • A compromise between a liberal and a social democratic approach of activation

7. What kind of activation in France? • Shift in the French activation strategy (early 2000's)‏ • Generalisation of personalized job search support • SMP: Monthly personaliseed support since 2006 • Changing rights and duties for the unemployed • Reinforcement of control and sanctions, « adequate / reasonable job offer » • New « policy for employment » (L'Horty 2004) • « making work pay » strategy for the assisted / unemployed • Ex: RSA (Active solidarity income)‏

8. What about flex-security? • A strategy to reconcile flexibility and security ? • Activation policies promote flexible employment contracts • for instance the New recruitment contract, CNE in 2005 • And the law for modernizing labour market in 2008 • Some measures tend to secure transitions • by improving the level or duration of unemployment compensation • A strategy to secure labour market transitions ? • ... versus a making work pay strategy? • Who is responsible for employment? • The individual / the State ?

9. 2. Institutional change in France: between rationalisation and inconsistency • Institutional changes (in PES) have been associated to the shift in activation strategy • To make the PES more rational and efficient • These change reshape the labour market segmentation (LMS) in an inconsistent way • Reproducing the existing LMS and statutory inequalities

10. Restructuring the Public employment services (PES)‏ • The complexity & resulting inefficiencies of French PES are underlined in official reports • Marimbert 2004, Balmary 2004, Cahuc & Kramartz 2005, CERC 2005, etc. • Recent changes reflect these preoccupations • Law for social cohesion (2005)‏ • end of the ANPE's monopoly & extension of PES (3 circles)‏ • ‏Fusion between the ANPE and the Unedic (2008)‏ • creation of the Employment Counter • Joint responsibility for employment (State + PES)‏ • But governance & coordination problems remain

11. The fusion of ANPE and Unedic: current challenges • Creation of the Employment Counter (Dec)‏ • As shown by experiments in Employment houses, it poses • Technical problems (availability of the electronic file DUDE)‏, practical problems (ANPE and Unedic employees have to do the same work...)‏ • Remaining statutory differences: equal pay for equal work? • It also creates conflicts (and strikes)‏ • An improvement of the efficiency of PES?

12. Remaining coordination/ governance problems • Competition rather than coordination • ANPE / Pôle emploi: 4000 subcontractors • Adecco: a diversification strategy • Subontracts with the ANPE for competencies assessment • Since 2006: coaching, job-search support • Contracts with local authorities for the assisted • Retravailler: a threatened position • A traditional non-profit actor • Challenged by private actors • Institutional complexity remains

13. 3rd CIRCLE Public and private organisations 2nd CIRCLE Local actors FIRST CIRCLE Employment Counter (ANPE + Unedic)‏ AFPA Ex : Missions locales, Municipalities Ex : Associations, temporary agencies The 3 circles of French PES

14. 3. Recent reforms and current challenges regarding the LM segmentation and flex-security • Redesigning unemployment benefits • Reducing the labour market segmentation and the statutory segmentation • Reconciling flexibility and security

15. Redesigning unemployment benefits • A dual / segmented compensation system • Insurance / solidarity • Assistance is a «third floor» • That produces LMS for the unemployed • Differenciated treatment reflecting the LMS • More benefits & subsidies for the insured • A new compromise (2001) soon contradicted • More generous allowances / reinforced duties • 2003/2006: diminishing allowances • The reform of Dec 23, 2008 maintains the statutory segmentation

16. The insurance/solidarity schemes and social aid

17. Reducing the labour market segmentation ? • How do recent changes impact the LMS? • Reinforcement of the segmented treatment of the unemployed? • Private actors dealing with the unemployed having the highest employability • While public or non profit actors care for the other unemployed • The reforms of 2008 • Maintains the segmentation of unemployment benefits (insurance/ solidarity/ assistance)‏ • But aims at reducing statutory segmentation for activation measures

18. Reconciling flexibility and security? • Security, the undelivered goods • Recent reforms aim at promoting a French flex-security • The Individual right to training (DIF), 2004 • The New recruitment contract (CNE), 2005 • The law for the modernization of labour market, 2008 • Not a success story • these reforms hardly promote income and LM transitions' security for precarious workers • Making work pay versus securing transitions and incomes

19. Conclusion • French activation strategy • Remains midway between a liberal and social-democratic model • Includes major institutional reforms • Recent institutional changes and policy reforms remain insufficient • To reduce the complexity of French PES • To cope with the statutory segmentation of the unemployed / assisted • To secure labour market transitions • These problems still constitute the current challenges of the French strategy