Dualization and subjective insecurity

What is it about?

This paper aims to see how different institutional contexts divide or converges feelings of insecurity between different groups of workers - i.e., the insiders of the labour market and the outsiders. Here the insiders are defined as those with permanent (open ended) contracts, and outsiders are those with temporary/fixed term contracts. I find that countries that have been recognised as key dualized labour markets - i.e., countries with stronger unions and where corporatism is likely to have developed - are those where insiders and outsiders are most divided in their feelings of insecurity. However, this is only because here insiders are better protected here compared to other countries, while the outsiders are no worse nor better off.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

This paper is important since it provides a critique towards the dualization literature, which could be seen to criticize unions in their role in increasing dualization; i.e., in protecting insiders while exposing outsiders to labour market vulnerabilities. This paper argues that rather than exposing outsiders, we should really focus on the role strong and centralised unions had in protecting the insiders of the labour market from feelings of insecurity. Given that feelings of insecurity can lead to negative outcomes for the individual (health, family relations etc.), the company (issues with productivity, absenteeism, etc.) as well as society (support for the welfare state), the role unions had was imperative to the protection of workers.