As usual, an interesting comparative study from the famous Danish Centre for Labour Market Research at Aalborg University (CARMA), where Thomas Bredgaard (assistant professor, ph.d.) and Flemming Larsen (associate professor) are comparing two types of labour markets, in Denmark and in Japan. A good opportunity to develop your knowledge on the japanese labour market, which will surprise you.

1. Introduction
Flexicurity – the contraction of the English words; Flexibility and Security – is currently the mostpopular concept for employment and labour market reforms in the European Union. This is clearly testified in the March 2006 Presidency conclusions of the European Union that calls for the memberstates to pursue reforms in labour market and social policies under an integrated flexicurity approach,and commits the European Commission to establish a common set of principles on flexicurity.
According to the European Council the benefits of such a flexicurity approach are improved adaptability of workers and enterprises, more open and responsive labour markets, more productive workplaces, and positive interdependencies of competitiveness, employment and social security (Council of the European Union, Brussels, 18 may 2006; p. 13).
In recent years, Denmark has become the prime example of a real-life flexicurity labour market. The Danish case of flexicurity is a combination a flexible labour market with liberal hiring-and firing procedures on the one hand, and relatively generous social security and active labour market policies on the other hand. In general terms, Denmark has succeeded in combining a universal, generous and redistributive welfare state with a competitive labour market and productive labour force.

The recent international academic and political interest in this “happy marriage” of flexibility and security – or the “golden triangle” as it is sometimes labelled – coincides with relatively good macro-economic and labour market performance (Madsen 1999, 2002, 2003, 2006; Bredgaard et al 2005, 2006). The most important implication of Danish flexicurity is a shift from job security towards employment security (Wilthagen 1998; Wilthagen & Tros 2004), i.e. protecting transitions on the labour market rather than protecting jobs.
In this report we will compare what seem to be two completely different cases of flexicurity; the Danish and the Japanese case. Traditionally, the Japanese labour market model has been characterised by the practice of life-time employment for the regular workforce, consensual labourmanagement relations, and high working-time and functional flexibility within large internal labourmarkets (Kato 2001; Passet 2003). In the 1980s, the Japanese production and employment system was held up as a ‘best practice’ and model which the European community could learn from, particularly by combining job security with a high degree of (internal) flexibility. However, the burst of the so-called “bubble economy” in the 1990s, and the recession and stagflation following in its wake, has put Japan under pressure for employment reforms (Passet 2003).
Despite improvements in recent years, the employment situation is still considered as being difficult (JILPT 2006). The Japanese problem definition focuses on unemployment (especially among young people) and the increase in the number of non-regular workers creating disparities in economic opportunities.
During an economic crisis there are also strong pressures for increasing flexibilities within internal labour markets (like working time reductions, wage cuts, and changes of task andduties within the organisation) and the (internal) social security system comes under pressure. This is indicated by a high feeling of job-insecurity even among people in regular employment (Passet 2003, Boyer 2006). On top of this Japan has to deal with the problems of an ageing society, which
create a need for a higher employment-rate (especially for women) and a higher involvement of the high proportion of young people outside regular employment.
The main question of this report is whether a new balance between flexibility and security could be a viable solution for reforming the Japanese employment system. Especially contrasted to the Danish flexicurity-model with external numerical flexibility, external (public) social security and less employment protection legislation (EPL).
In the next section we will define and discuss our analytical framework; the concept of flexicurity (section 2). Then we proceed by describing the Danish case of flexicurity, and its social and institutional preconditions (section 3). Then we provide a fresh account of the Japanese employment system and labour market model by applying the main concepts from the flexicurity literature (section4). In section 5 we conclude on the relevance of contrasting the Danish model of flexicurity to the Japanese labour market, and describe the possible policy implications.

The full report here