Stuck in a Spinning Cycle: Post-socialist Labour Policy and a New Variety of Neoliberalism


Ivanka Knezevic, University of Toronto

Building on author’s previous work on policy formation networks in post-socialist Serbia, this paper focuses on content and – particularly – effects of labour policies in this country. This case study is presented in the context of broad international developments: changes in capitalist production system, rise of neoliberal ideology, and unfolding globalisation.  Labour policies are considered from the standpoint of a social right “to work and to just, safe, and healthy working conditions and fair remuneration” ( European Social Charter. 1996) In the current state of East- and Central-European post-socialist countries, social rights – including labour rights – are routinely eroded. Contemporary capitalism is increasingly intolerant of social rights, with intolerance greatest in poor countries and toward poor citizens everywhere. It gradually spreads from peripheral countries to semi-peripheral and central, developed ones. Post-socialist countries should, in my opinion, be considered not as semi-peripheral ones (as the past structure of their economies indicates), but as peripheral, caught in dependence on core countries (in case of Serbia, core European Union countries). In terms of Esping-Andersen’s typology of welfare regimes – that mechanism for provision of social rights – post-socialist Hungary, Poland, and Serbia are considered as cases of “incongruent post-transitional regime.” They exhibit consistently low social-rights expenditures as percentage of the GDP and low average living standard, as well as inconsistent welfare regimes with fragmentary and unstable social-rights components, shaped more by changes in economic policy and isolated - politically expedient - changes, than by any consistent commitment to ideals of “social Europe.”  Like other welfare regimes, post-socialist ones have been undergoing changes toward increasing individual responsibility for one’s welfare, and decreasing importance of state (public) provision and collective solidarity. Giddens’s (1998) notion of the “project of the self” and Taylor-Gooby’s (2009) observation of “active social citizenship” are now an accepted norm. State intervention moves correspondingly away from “passive social policy,” whose goal is to maintain socially acceptable income levels and reduce inequalities, toward “active policy,” which tends toward building individual workers’ capacities, responsibility, and motivation. In general terms, post-socialist transformation (or “transition”) of Serbian society has led to a decreased level of economic activity, lowering standard, and increase in both unemployment and poverty. While this was typical of all post-socialist countries in the early years of transformation to capitalism, it continues in Serbia to this day.  In labour terms, Serbia is notable for: (1) high proportion of the unemployed and those who are no longer looking for work, (2) a significant number of the employed whose wages are insufficient for theirs and their families’ needs, (3) low level of support to those who lose their jobs, and (4) consequently, increasing relative size of lower socio-economic strata, whose chances of upward social mobility are much lower than that of their parents. It should be noted that socialist Serbia had relatively high and sustained rates of upward social mobility. With post-socialist transformation, mobility from the working toward the middle class has decreased. Fluctuations in the level of economic activity since return to capitalism have all been “jobless.” Fairly consistent growth until 2008, crisis 2008-2012, and stagnation ever since have left Serbia now with half a million fewer employed than there were in 2000.  Secondary labour market has, predictably, become more significant, while the primary one is limited to public sector, business services, and a small number of large, now foreign-owned, privatized firms. In the past few years, around one-third of the employed have been in what the International Labour Organisation defines as “vulnerable employment status.” 62% of the population at risk of poverty are self-employed. Existing institutions for protection of workers’ rights, such as labour inspection, are nearly non-functional. Situation is not much better when it comes to policies for protection of the unemployed. Both passive (benefits for those who have had employment insurance while employed) and active (measures meant to improve employability of the unemployed) policies exist, but their scope is very small: in 2022, only 7% of registered unemployed received unemployment benefits. The paper will combine data from the author’s previous analysis of Serbian policy formation networks with document analysis (of labour regulation and related policies) in an effort to develop a causal and processual explanation of the situation of Serbian labour described here.

This paper will be presented at the following session: