The ‘New’ Self-Employed: An Issue for Social Policy?
| Published date | 01 September 2012 |
| Date | 01 September 2012 |
| DOI | 10.1177/138826271201400301 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
156 Intersentia
THE ‘NEW’ SELFEMPLOYED:
AN ISSUE FOR SOCIAL POLICY?
M W*
Abstract
In this article, an attempt is m ade to advance the thinking about the ‘new’ self-emplo yed
(NSE). is is done by describing four cases which can be considered representative
for the purposes of demonstrating the ambiguous attitude of social policy makers
towards NSE. In the end four conclusions are drawn. e target group is too varied for
statements about desirable legisl ation or social policy architecture, but a substantial
proportion does deserve the quali cation ‘precarious’ and, consequently, the attention
of social policy. e solution lies in categor ical arrangements which address the need
for protection in speci c sectors. e time is ripe for this. Research has shown that
the proposition that many NSE are concerned about their vu lnerability as workers is
untrue. ey see that they are no longer protected by c ollective arrangements, and they
know from experience th at the market can resolve only a limited proportion of their
problems. eir concerns can provide the foundation for a collective commitment
to mandatory solidarity as long as the target group is closely related. And nally,
the complexity surrounding NSE is especially challenging for the labour unions, but
they could also approach the entry of NSE as an opportunity to regroup around the
interests of all workers, no mat ter what their labour law status.
Keywords: long-term disabil ity; own account self-employed; precarious work; unfair
competition; workers’ representation; work pricing
‘Self-employed workers are not protected under employment law and are unprotected by
the employer’s compulsory insurance against industrial injuries. You will generally be an
employee, and not self- employed, if the economic reality of your relat ionship is that you are
not in business on your ow n account, or in ordinary language, “Are you your own boss?”’
(Workers’ Rights 2012).
* Mie s West erv eld i s Pro fess or of Soc ial I nsu ran ce L aw at t he Un iver sit y of A mst erda m. A ddre ss: L aw
Facu lt y, Uni vers ity o f Am ster dam , Oud ema nhu ispo ort 4–6 , 1012 CN Am ste rda m; te l: +31 (0 )20 52 5
3318 / 3400; e-mail: M.Westerveld @uva.nl. e aut hor wishes to thank L inde Gonggrijp (FN V-SE),
Mieke Van Westing (PZO) and Joha n Marrink (ZZP Nede rland) for their valuable i nput.
e ‘New’ Self-Employe d: An Issue for Social Pol icy?
European Jour nal of Social Secu rity, Volume 14 (2012), No. 3 157
1. INTRODUCTION
e 1999 Supiot Report highl ighted the emergence of a ‘new’ group of self-employed
workers in various EU Member States and ident i ed t his development as problematic
for two reasons: rst, employers consider using self-employment as a means to evade
their obligations as employers, and second, younger well-educated workers choose
entrepreneurship as a means of evadi ng participation in employee bene t schemes. At
the same time, the Report also mentions a positive side to the phenomenon of ‘new’
self-employment. Self-employment can o er those who are genuinely autonomous
the opportunity to ma ke use of their capabilities, and may therefore contribute to an
increase in the quality of work as well as innovation in the organisation of work. In
relation to this, the Report distinguishes a bright, quality enhancing side as well as
a dark side to the ‘new’ self-employment (Supiot et al.1999). Ten years later, Supiot
himself refers to the ‘paradoxical fate’ of the Report as a whole. On the one hand, it
help ed to f ree deb ates o n employ ment p olicy from t he oss i cation of neo-liberalism of
the 1990 s. O n th e oth er ha nd, Euro pea n in stit uti ons f ail ed to tak e up w hat h e ca lls ‘th e
simple idea it embodied: that there is no wea lth other than human beings and t hat an
economy that ill-treats them has no f uture’ (Fudge 2010, with reference to Padis 2009).
is ‘paradoxical fate’ is particularly relevant to the category that is referred to
here as the ‘new’ self-employed (NSE). e quali cation, ‘new’, is problematic for
several reasons. In addition to being somewhat relative with regard to the time in
which it is used,1 the designation ‘new’ says very little with respect to content. In
this article, I attempt to advance thinking about NSE by elaborating on the manner
in which this type of labour can be approached from the perspective of labour law,
and particularly from within my own eld, social insurance law. To this end, I set
the stage by presenting some gures that provide an indication of the scope of self-
employment, both ‘classical ’ and ‘new’. I then consider some problems associated with
this phenomenon, thus placing it with in a social or legal context. I present cases from
the Netherlands as examples, as they are the most familiar to me, although I also
attempt to position the topic in a more global perspective. e subject lends itself
well to such a perspective, as many welfare states are being confronted by the NSE
phenomenon, which is raising simi lar problems for social policy-makers and labour-
law experts. e central question of this article speaks from its title: are the NSE
an issue for social policy? is question keeps policy makers as well as academics
divided, one side claiming the target group is predominantly self-supporting as in
‘self-employed’, the other side emphasising its dependent status, as in ‘employed’.
Consequently, the rst quest ion which must be addressed, is one about identity: Who
or what are the NSE?
1 As noted by Aerts, t he term freelancer is derived from the ‘free la nces’ of the Midd le Ages,
entrepreneurs who hi red themselves out, complete wit h horse and lance, to the lord who ma de the
highest o er, Aert s (2007).
To continue reading
Request your trial