...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of European Industrial Training: A Journal for HRD Specialists >The impact of the institutional context on the politics of flexibility: comparison Belgium-the Netherlands
【24h】

The impact of the institutional context on the politics of flexibility: comparison Belgium-the Netherlands

机译：制度背景对弹性政治的影响：比利时与荷兰比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

In this paper we evaluate the impact of the institutional context on the politics of flexibility. We examine whether differences in institutional embedding lead to differences in the way in which companies seek to achieve flexibility. Belgium and The Netherlands were selected for comparison on the reasons for their different flexibility mix. The conclusions are based on both a macroeconomic analysis of national statistics and a micro-economic analysis of organisations in both countries. The main conclusion is that the institutional frameworks of Belgium and The Netherlands have been built up along different lines. Dutch legislation encourages contractual flexibility. The Belgian institutional context focuses more on temporal flexibility. A competition for the greatest flexibility has little point given these observations. It is not a question of more or less, but of different flexibility. A wider significance of the comparison is that it clearly demonstrates that evaluations fail if the different components of the institutional framework and flexibility are not studied in their close mutual interrelationship.
机译：在本文中，我们评估了制度背景对灵活性政治的影响。我们研究机构嵌入的差异是否导致公司寻求实现灵活性的方式的差异。选择比利时和荷兰进行比较是因为它们的灵活性组合不同。结论是基于对国家统计数据的宏观经济分析和对两国组织的微观经济分析。主要结论是比利时和荷兰的体制框架是沿着不同的路线建立的。荷兰立法鼓励合同灵活性。比利时的制度背景更多地关注时间灵活性。鉴于这些观察，最大灵活性的竞争毫无意义。这不是一个或多或少的问题，而是不同的灵活性。比较的更广泛的意义是，它清楚地表明，如果不研究制度框架和灵活性的不同组成部分之间紧密的相互关系，评估就会失败。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号