Work Europe 96 Va

Importance and Meaning of Work in Europe:
a French Singularity
LUCIE DAVOINE
Lucie.davoine@malix.univ-paris1.fr
Centre dtudes de lemploi et Ecole dconomie de Paris
DOMINIQUE MEDA
dominique.meda@mail.enpc.fr
Centre dtudes de lemploi, TEPP (FR n 3126, CNRS)
DOCUMENT DE TRAVAIL
N96-2
fvrier 2008
ISSN 1629-7997
ISBN 978-2-11-097666-6

Importance and Meaning of Work in Europe:
a French Singularity
Lucie Davoine, Dominique Mda
Abstract
International and European data shows the singularity of the French peoples relation to
work. More than other Europeans, the French people declare that work is very important in
their life, and, in the mean time, that they wish to see the importance of work diminishing in
the society. How can we explain this paradox? Understanding the diversity of work values in
Europe and, in particular the peculiar situation of France is the main objective of this
article. The originality of this work relies in particular in the comparison of the results from
different international and national surveys that have been little disseminated or scattered
separately.
In a first section, we disentangle the many meanings of work importance. Two hypotheses
can explain the French situation: on the one hand, high unemployment rate and a strong
feeling of job insecurity makes work an essential concern. On the other hand, French people
distinguish themselves by higher expectations regarding the intrinsic interest of work and the
possibility of self-fulfilling through work. The second section suggests hypotheses to explain
why French wish to see the importance of work diminishing in the society. This whish is
partly the results of the dysfunctions of French labour market and work organisations: bad
social relations, dissatisfaction with working and employment conditions. This whish also
reveals a more positive desire of spending more time with family and reconciling work and
personal life. Besides, more than others, the French people declare that they suffer from
tensions between the different spheres of life. Throughout the article, we emphasized not only
differences between countries, but also the differences inside countries, according to the
family status and the occupation.
Key words: importance of work in life and in identity, preferences and expectations towards work
and employment, satisfaction with job, dynamics of values, reconciliation between work and other
spheres of life, European comparisons.

PLACE ET SENS DU TRAVAIL EN EUROPE :
UNE SINGULARIT FRANAISE ?

RSUM
Lexamen des donnes franaises et europennes montre que les Franais entretiennent un
rapport singulier au travail. Plus encore que les autres europens, les Franais dclarent en
effet que le travail est trs important dans leur vie, mais plus que les autres, ils souhaitent que
le travail prenne moins de place dans leur vie. Comment expliquer ce paradoxe ? Lobjectif
premier de ce travail est de comprendre la diversit des perceptions en Europe et de proposer
des interprtations qui permettraient davancer dans la rsolution de ce paradoxe.
Loriginalit de ce travail provient en partie de la confrontation des rsultats des diverses
enqutes franaises et internationales sur ces questions, qui restent aujourdhui pars et peu
diffuss.
Dans un premier temps, nous analysons les dterminants de limportance accorde au travail
et les sens que peut revtir cette notion. Deux hypothses sont mobilises pour expliquer les
rponses des Franais : dune part, le taux de chmage lev, la prgnance de lemploi
prcaire et un fort sentiment dinscurit de lemploi ; dautre part, les attentes plus fortes
lgard de lintrt du travail. Les Franais, se distinguent en effet par des attentes de
ralisation dans le travail plus intenses que celles de leurs voisins europens. Dans une
seconde partie nous tentons de comprendre pourquoi les Franais considrent que ce serait
une bonne chose que le travail occupe une place moins grande dans leur vie. Cette situation
peut sexpliquer par la moindre qualit des relations sociales en France, ou par des conditions
de travail et demploi dgrades, mais aussi par le souci des individus de consacrer plus de
temps leur vie personnelle et surtout de mieux concilier leur vie professionnelle et leur vie
familiale. Les Franais sont dailleurs ceux qui dclarent le plus souvent prouver des
difficults de conciliation, et des tensions entre les deux sphres. Nous soulignons galement,
tout au long de larticle, que les rponses moyennes des pays ne doivent pas occulter la
grande diversit des opinions, lies notamment la catgorie socioprofessionnelle et la
situation familiale.
Mots-clefs : comparaisons europennes, place du travail dans la vie et dans l'identit, attentes
l'gard du travail et de l'emploi, satisfaction vis--vis du travail et de l'emploi, volution des valeurs,
conciliation entre le travail et les autres sphres.

INTRODUCTION
1
Ever since they began, European surveys on values have shown that the French attach great
importance to work but also that more of them would also want to see work occupy a less
important place in their life. How can this paradox be explained? First of all, we will try to
understand the logic which may explain the diversity of perceptions in Europe and Frances
specific position. In order to do so, we will try to make sense of the various meanings
attributed to the importance of work by referring to various theories and analysing the
various items developed in surveys. Secondly, we will try to understand why, despite these
scores, the French consider that it would be a good thing for work to occupy a less important
place in their life. We will be proposing four non-exclusive explanatory hypotheses.
Although the primary aim of this work is to put forward interpretations to enable this paradox
to be solved, the second is no less important: to list the principal results of French and
international surveys which remain today not widely circulated and to make them available.
The originality of this work is therefore to be found in the comparison of the results of
various surveys. This article is mainly based on three international surveys: the European
Values Surveys (EVS), the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) and the European
Social Survey (ESS). The specific features of these three surveys are shown in Box n1. More
selectively, analyses will refer to the results of Eurobarometers, the European Community
Household Panel and the European Survey on living and working conditions, as well as
national surveys: Travail et mode de vie, done in 1997 (Baudelot and Gollac, 2002), the
survey by the Observatoire sociologique du changement entitled emploi salari et
conditions de vie, which took place in 1995 (Paugam, 2000); the survey on Histoire de vie
Construction des identits that took place in 2003 (Garner, Mda and Senik, 2006). More
commercial surveys are rarely accessible to researchers. We will however selectively refer in
particular to two surveys done by Ipsos under the aegis of the Institut Chronopost in 2003
(Mda, 2004; Vendramin, 2004) and in 2004 (Delay, 2005) and a survey done in 2007
(Solom, 2007).
The validity of international survey is sometimes discussed. Some biases can interfere at
different stages of the surveys construction (see Heath et al., 2005). The international
surveys face some linguistic tricks, when the words connotations are different (cf. the
examples of Braun and Scott [1998] and Crompton and Lyonette [2006], when acquirement
bias are stronger in some countries (see, for example, Smith [2004] or Johnson et al. [2005]).
More and more vigilant, the teams responsible for the survey use recognised procedures to
limit the risk of bad translation or misunderstanding. The procedure of back translation is
now used in many international surveys (Harkness, 1998; Smith, 2004). More fundamentally,
the notion of linguistic bias should be discussed: the surveys just retranscribe differences in
expression and communication way. They do not construct artificially these differences.
When gathering the date, the different traditions of sampling and population covered can also
introduce biases. However, the central teams responsible for the international surveys impose
stricter and stricter requirements (Jowell, 1998).

1
This article has been written within the framework of the European project SPREW (Social Patterns of Relation to
Work) coordinated by the Fondation Travail-Universit of Namur : http://www.ftu-namur.org/sprew/fr-index.html. The
authors would like to thank Batrice Delay, Anne NDiaye, Danile Trancart, Patricia Vendramin and Aurlie Bur for
their constructive remarks.

Documents de travail du Centre dtudes de lemploi
To sum up, these international surveys may be fragile, but some real progresses have been
made to improve the validity of comparisons: the European Social Survey, the youngest
international survey, meets strict requirements (random sample, face-to-face interviews,
rigorous procedure of translation). Furthermore, the increase in number of results and their
comparisons allow proposing assured conclusions. Following Roger Jowell (1998) advice,
we have to stay vigilant, but interpretation of data is now possible. Vigilance and comparison
of results constitutes our research strategy to explore work preferences, values and
expectations in Europe.
The results cover the 27 members of the European Union, but, when analysing the long-term
trend, the analysis focuses on the 15 members.

Box n1: available European and international surveys
Eurobarometer
Eurobarometer has been undertaken uninterruptedly every six months since 1974. It is
administered by the European Commission and is intended firstly to answer questions from
the Directorates General. It involved from its beginnings academics such as Ronald Inglehart
whose theory is partly based on this survey. It contains numerous questions on European
feelings and on how European construction is seen but also, more selectively, questions on
poverty, unemployment or even, which is of more interest to us, precariousness, life-long
training, satisfaction or professional mobility. In the following analyses, we have particularly
used the results of the special Eurobarometer survey European Social Reality done as a
backup to the Bureau of European Policy Advisers report (European Commission, 2007;
Lerais and Liddle, 2007).
European Values Surveys (EVS)
The European Values Survey (then hereafter EVS) started in 1981 thanks to a group of
researchers led by Jan Kerhofs of Louvain University and Ruud de Moor of Tilburg
University (Brchon, 2002). During the first wave, nine European countries were involved in
the survey. Almost twenty years later there are thirty-four (annex 1.1). The survey now
comprises three waves: 1981, 1990 and 1999. The EVS questionnaire, a large part of which
does not vary from wave to wave, addresses, inter alia, the place of major values such as
work, the family or religion but also religious practices, political opinions as well as the
importance attributed to each facet of work (wages, security, personal fulfillment, etc.). The
interview, which lasts almost an hour, therefore covers numerous subjects and only a few
questions are of real relevance for our research.
Shortly after the launch of the EVS, Ronald Inglehart, a researcher at the University of
Michigan, took the initiative of extending the survey to other continents which gave rise to
the World Values Survey (WVS). The questionnaire of the WVS is similar to the EVS one,
and there is a small time-lag between the waves of EVS and WVS.
6
The International Social Survey Programme (ISSP)
The International Social Survey Programme (ISSP), the first wave of which took place in
1985, arose out of cooperation between researchers from four countries, Germany, the UK,
the USA and Australia, where there already was a tradition of surveys on attitudes, but the
number of participants increased substantially in the 90s to reach 38 countries at the present
moment (annex 1.2) Compared with the EVS that focus on values, the ISSP places greater
importance on attitudes and behaviour. This survey takes place every year on a different
theme every time. Each module is linked to a national survey and the interview lasts about a
quarter of an hour if socio-demographic variables are not taken into account. A survey on the
meaning of work was undertaken in 1989 (but France did not participate), in 1997 and in
2005. These three waves undoubtedly constitute one of the most complete bases on the
relationship to work.
The European surveys on working conditions
The European survey on living and working conditions is undertaken every 5 years by the
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, based in
Dublin. The number of countries involved has grown as the European Union has enlarged.
The first edition contained some twenty questions and the last about a hundred. The
questionnaire does not really cover preferences with regard to employment but conditions of
work in its broadest sense: working times, working organisation, income, physical difficulty,
stress, possibility of conciliation, the nature of jobs done, feelings of discrimination
2
. It
nonetheless contains several questions on satisfaction with working conditions, income and
promotion possibilities.
The European Community Household Panel (ECHP)
The European Community Household Panel (ECHP hereafter) is monitored and harmonized
by Eurostat. As its name implies, it is a panel comprising eight waves from 1994 to 2001
except for a few countries which joined the European Union at a later date. The aim of the
ECHP is to be able to obtain comparable statistics on living standards of households and
individuals and on employment. The questionnaire contains one question on satisfaction vis-
-vis the job or the main activity and six questions on satisfaction with regard to one aspect
of employment (wages, security, hours, shifts, type of work, conditions of work, distance
between the place of work and home). The social, demographic and economic data available
for each individual are very complete: there are almost 140 variables at household level and
320 variables at individual level. The sample is important, because almost 10,000 individuals
are interviewed. The ECHP, stopped in 2001, is gradually being replaced by a new EU-SILC
panel (European Statistics on Income and Living Conditions).

2
See the Dublin Foundation site for further information:
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/surveys/index.htm. The reports on each survey are available on this site.
7
The European Social Survey (ESS)
In this scenario, the European Social Survey is the most recent survey. The first wave took
place in the autumn of 2002, the second in 2004 and the third at the end of 2006. It covered
22 countries in the first wave (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway,
Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK). Estonia, Slovakia,
Iceland and the Ukraine took part in the following wave, and the last wave will also contain
data on Bulgaria, Cyprus, Latvia, Romania and Russia. The interview lasts a whole hour.
Half the questionnaire does not change, the other half, the rotating part, addresses two
subjects which are chosen from amongst proposals put forward by scientific teams. For the
2002 wave, the modules selected covered citizenship on the one hand and immigration on the
other. The 2004 wave contained a module on health and care on the one hand, and on the
family, work and well-being on the other. We find questions relevant to our work in the latter
module. The third wave covers well-being and the perception of the life cycle.

1. MEANING AND IMPORTANCE OF WORK: THE SINGULAR POSITION
OF THE FRENCH IN EUROPE
Regardless of the surveys considered or the years of the questionnaires, two notable facts can
clearly be seen from the European surveys considered: work is seen as important or very important
by a majority of Europeans. The French systematically form part of those who affirm most
strongly that work is important. To understand why, we outline the various theoretical explanations
likely to be referred to and we analyse the various dimensions of the importance attributed to work.
1.1 The importance of work: explanatory framework and dimensions of work
Work occupies a central position in the life of Europeans: only a minority of persons
interviewed less than 20% in almost all countries said that work was not very important
or not important at all in their life (cf. graph 1).
The similarities in Europe nonetheless become apparent as soon as a distinction is made in
the degree of importance attributed to work. A majority of the population says that work is
very important in the majority of countries, with the exception of Denmark, the UK and the
Netherlands: only 40% of Danes and Britons say that work is very important. This
proportion is close to 50% in Germany, Sweden or Finland, but also in the Czech Republic
and Estonia. It is much higher in a few continental countries (Belgium, France, Austria), in
two countries in the South (Spain and Italy) and in a few new member countries (Poland,
Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia). France occupies a special position in this graph: it differs from
the continental and Mediterranean countries by a much higher proportion of inhabitants for
whom work is very important: this proportion is 77% in France whereas it does not exceed
65% in Belgium, Spain or Austria. France thus finds itself amongst the group of the poorest
countries in Europe (Romania, Poland). More than 30 points separate it from the UK and
Denmark. This very special position is even more visible if only the Europe of 15 is considered
(graph 2).

8
Graph 1: The place of work in the life of Europeans
How important is work in your life?
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
G
r
e
a
t
B
r
i
t
a
i
n
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
E
s
t
o
n
i
a
C
z
e
c
h

R
e
p
.
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
S
w
e
d
e
n
H
u
n
g
a
r
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
G
r
e
e
c
e
L
i
t
u
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
I
t
a
l
y
S
l
o
v
a
k
i
a
B
u
l
g
a
r
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
r
a
n
c
e
L
a
t
v
i
a
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
M
a
l
t
a
P
o
l
a
n
d
Very important
Quite important
Not important
Not at all important

Source: EVS 1999.

Graph 2: The importance of work in 1990 and 1999
Percentage of people declaring that work is " very important" in 1990 and 1990 in the EU 15
39,5
40,1
47,4
49,8
50,3 50,7
54,5
58,0
59,2
61,7
63,0
63,9
64,8
69,7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
it
a
in
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
la
n
d
s
I
r
e
la
n
d
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
F
in
la
n
d
S
w
e
d
e
n
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
t
a
ly
S
p
a
in
A
u
s
t
r
ia
B
e
lg
iu
m
F
r
a
n
c
e
1990
1999

Source: EVS 1990 and 1999.

9
1.1.1 The explanatory frameworks: composition, culture, context
How can such differences within the European Union be explained? How, in particular, can
Frances special position be understood? We have several hypotheses to choose from. These
differences could be due to a simple effect of composition. The population structure per age
group, the proportion of the working population, or even the level of qualification and the
profession are effectively sources of similarity. For example, women at home and people
who have undertaken higher studies state less often that their work is very important. Conversely,
employers, the unemployed and the self-employed attribute more importance to work (see
annex 2). Yet, these categories are to be found very unequally in the European countries: education
levels are for example higher in the Nordic countries, and women participate less frequently in
employment in the Southern countries (Davoine and Erhel, 2007). However, even taking the
different effects of the composition of the population into account, differences from country to
country remain significant. France, in particular, continues to differ substantially, attributing
greater importance to work (see annex 2).
Consequently, how can differences between countries be interpreted? Are they cultural
differences which could be linked, for example, to the predominance of Catholicism or
Protestantism? Literature even refers to other cultural traits to explain the relationship to work.
In psychology and management in particular, the cultural dimensions highlighted by Geert
Hofstede are systematically used to try to explain the relationship to work (see for example
Parboteeah & Cullen, 2003). In his later works, Geert Hofstede proposes summarizing cultural
differences in five dimensions: the degree of acceptance of an inegalitarian distribution of
power, the degree of stress vis--vis uncertainty and ambiguity, the degree of individualism,
the development of insurance and competition or, on the contrary, of modesty and self-help,
the orientation towards the long or short-term (Hofstede, 2001). For each of these
dimensions, differences are clearly perceptible within Europe. For example, French and
Belgian people are more likely to accept a power distance, whereas the closeness with the
hierarchy is appreciated in Denmark, Sweden, Austria, and Finland. Concerning the second
axis, the workers in France and on the Southern countries are more likely to suffer from
uncertainty which do not frighten Nordic people. The dimension called individualism
distinguishes Europe from the rest of the world, which is less individualistic. On the fourth
dimension, Europe is more diverse: for example, the propensity for modesty and help is
higher in Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Finland and Portugal. On the last dimension, the
Asiatic countries show a high score for long-term orientation, compared to the rest of the
World, including Europe. According to Geert Hofstede, the constructing cultures are still
accurate, and can explain some actual differences in attitudes and behaviours. However, he
recognizes that cultures can evolve and that some differences in attitudes can be explained by
institutional and economic context, rather the cultural roots.
Is this culture-based hypothesis backed up by the surveys considered? The stability of
differences between countries over time can be a sign of the cultural nature of the present
work orientations. Regardless of the year, work is considered to be less important in the UK,
Denmark and the Netherlands than in France for example
3
(cf. graph 2). The special

3
It should be noted that the French interviewed in 1990 seem to attribute less importance to work than in 1999, which
could be explained by a slight modification in the French language questionnaire. In 1990, the questionnaire explained
the meaning of each phrase:
- Very important (the core of your life)
- quite important (an essential part of your life)
10
Eurobarometer ordered by the European Commission on the occasion of the Bureau of
European Policy Advisers analysis on European social reality (European Commission 2007)
confirms that the French attribute more importance to work than the majority of their
neighbours: 92% of them said that work is important, for an average of 84% in the EU25.
A split between protestant and catholic countries seems to be taking shape: contrary to what
Max Weber teaches us, work seems less important in many protestant countries (Denmark,
UK, Netherlands, Germany, Finland) and more important in catholic countries (France,
Belgium, Spain, Italy, Austria), with the exception however of Ireland. But the effect of the
individual practice of a religion must be clearly distinguished in the work relationship from
the effect of belonging to a country or a group to a given religion. At individual level,
religion clearly has an impact on the relationship to work (cf. annex 2): compared with
atheists, interviewees who said they were christian or muslim attribute more importance to
work and within this category protestants are amongst those who attribute the greatest
importance to work. We find here certain elements of Max Webers analyses. He showed in
The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism how the fact of considering that duty is
accomplished in temporal affairs and constitutes the highest moral activity of Man in this
world, is a product of the Reform and how protestant asceticism created the only norm
which was decisive for its efficacy: the psychological motivation by which work as a
vocation constitutes the best, if not the only, means of ensuring a state of grace
4
.
At the general level however, countries with a protestant tradition are not those where work
is considered to be the most important confirming once more Webers analyses: All-
conquering capitalism does not need this support since it is built on a mechanical basis ()
In the United States, at its very birthplace, the pursuit of riches, stripped of its ethical and
religious meaning, tends today to be associated with purely agonistic passions which
frequently confers on it the character of a sport
5
. Other phenomena seem to enter into account,
as we will see below: wealth and secularization. Countries with a protestant tradition are
effectively the wealthiest and are those in which religious beliefs are less significant.
The sign that other explanations are required in order to understand European heterogeneity,
in particular the level of development of countries measured by their GDP or its variation, is
the fact that there are significant variations in opinions relating to work between several
waves of survey in one and the same country: hence work was considered to be less important
in 1999 in Scandinavian countries, the UK and in Ireland than in 1990. Between the two dates,
economic conditions improved substantially in these countries. The importance of work would
not therefore appear to be unrelated to the economic context or its variations.
This is the hypothesis put forward by Ronald Inglehart (1990), whose name is associated with
the theory of post-materialism developed just after May 68 based on perceptible generational
differences in European countries (Inglehart, 1971). Although Inglehart recognises Max
Webers contribution and the persistence of old cultural divisions in modern societies partly

- not very important (your main preoccupations are elsewhere)
- not important at all
The meaning of the first phrase (very important) may seem stronger when it is stated that it would be the core of ones
life. In the English-language questionnaire (in 1990 and 1999) and in the French-language questionnaire in 1999, the
wording in brackets was missing and the meaning of the phrases therefore weaker.
4
P. 220.
5
P. 221.
11
based on religious differences, he adopts an implicitly evolutionist and, to a large degree,
materialist perspective. In the tradition of Marx, he considers that economic development has
systematic and to a large degree foreseeable consequences (p. 20) on a countrys culture
and its values (Inglehart and Baker, 2000). Borrowing certain concepts from Daniel Bell, he
detects three stages of evolution for society: in the agrarian society men have to struggle
against nature, in the industrial society the competition against nature involves techniques
and the organisation of work and lastly in the post-industrial society survival is no longer a
concern.
More precisely, in more recent works, Ronald Inglehart and Wayne Baker proposed to classify
countries by using two axes or two dimensions: a first dimension, which marks the passage of
a pre-industrial society to an industrial society, contrasts traditional and religious values with
lay and rational values. The second dimension contrasts preoccupations of survival with those
of individual expression and the quality of life. It corresponds to a transition towards a post-
industrial society. The use of the World Value Survey, via an ACP, allows them to find both of
these axes, which sum up 70% of the difference between the average replies of each country,
and to draw up a cultural map showing 65 countries. The vertical axis (traditional/secular-
rational values) contrasts countries depending on the importance attributed to respect for
authority, religious faith and national pride. It distinguishes, on the one hand, Africa and Latin
America from the western world, the former countries of the soviet block and that part of
Asia which is most developed on the other. The horizontal axis (survival/self-expression
values) contrasts on the one side countries of the former soviet block and southern Asia and
on the other protestant Europe (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland) and the Anglo-Saxon
countries (New Zealand, the UK, Canada, Australia, USA and Ireland). The inhabitants of
countries in transition and the countries of southern Asia give priority to economic and
physical security compared with personal fulfillment and the quality of life favoured by the
inhabitants of Anglo-Saxon or protestant countries. On both axes, catholic Europe (Belgium,
France, Austria, Italy, Spain and Portugal) occupies a median position. France, Belgium,
Italy and Austria are however closer to protestant Europe. Conversely, the USA is relatively
distant from it; it shares with protestant Europe post-materialistic (or self-expression) values
but differentiates itself from them by more traditionalist, less lay values. A regression on
aggregate data confirms that economic (GDP, share of agriculture, industry and services) and
historical (language, religion) factors both explain the value differences observed between
countries. These analyses have been widely published and often serve as an analytical
framework for the study of values in more specific areas (work, family, political opinions), at
least in political sciences.
For our purposes, if we follow Ronald Inglehart, economic evolution would tend to modify
the meaning given to work and three stages could then be distinguished. Firstly, that of the
tradition, work comes within the scope of a system of belief and respect for authority. Work
then corresponds to an ethic of duty, an obligation vis--vis society. The second stage
corresponds to the development of individualistic and rational values: work then has an
instrumental value and it is sought for the security and the income it provides. This is also the
working hypothesis of John Galbraith which he tested via a survey done between 1962 and
1964. Serge Paugam recalls the results of this survey which highlighted the fact that the
affluent worker was characterised by a very instrumental relationship to work: What counts
above all for him is recompense for his work and not its intrinsic value (). Work then
corresponds to an ordinary task to be accomplished, not for self-fulfillment in doing it but in
order to attain aims concerning consumption and well-being.
12
The wealthiest countries would be characterised by post-materialistic values, economic
security no longer being a priority with the quality of life and subjective well-being
becoming major values. In this perspective, work should above all enable individuals to
fulfill themselves. The end of the XXth century could thus be marked by the rise of post-
materialistic hopes: the individual no longer hid behind the group, his fulfillment became a
central value (Inglehart, 1990; Beck, 1984; Giddens). This tendency, which affects the most
diverse fields of society, could also be found in the work sphere, as argued by Hlne
Riffault, who saw the rise of a more personal concept of work: Although the exercise of
work has for long been a sign of social adherence as well as a moral duty, it seems that today
Europeans tend to consider it above all as a means of expressing their potentiality and as a
way of personal fulfillment. Although this vision of work is not new it tends to override all
other aspects of work and in particular the more social aspects, like the norms relating to the
obligation to work (). The establishment of this view of work goes hand in hand with
economic development. This leads the individual to relativize material satisfactions, insofar
as they are largely acquired, and to look at all areas of his/her life, including work, for
possibilities of self-expression such as the liberation of creative capacities, the assumption of
responsibility or the exercise of the right to free speech. Work today tends to be filled more
with expectations relating to personal fulfillment and less felt as a social norm than was the
case 20 years ago.
This interpretation, which highlights the role of the economic context, remains of course
simplistic and mono-causal. It will form a framework for analysis which will need to be
tested and qualified. In other words, and to use an image that Inglehart proposes in
conclusion, economic development pushes societies in the same direction but they follow
parallel trajectories, marked by history, in the framework of a phenomenon of pathway
dependence. Ronald Inglehart underlines in this way the persistence of religious and
historical divisions. Furthermore, the path to modernisation is not linear since U-turns are
possible, as proven by the trajectory of countries in the former soviet block which went back
to traditional values. Other factors enter into account in order to structure values.
In particular, the most stimulating critique of Ronald Ingleharts scheme covers, we think, the
need to place values in their institutional context (Haller, 2002). This context can also shape
expectations and preferences: for example, will social protection not lessen the importance of
work? In this perspective, preferences and values are endogenous, they are shaped by the
institutional context. To understand the diversity of work preferences in Europe, we shall
look at the typologies of institutional model, in particular the work on the different Worlds of
Welfare State (Esping-Andersen, 1990) and the work on the diversity of capitalism (Amable,
2003) is again
6
.
Furthermore, the effect of the level of national wealth remains uncertain, in particular on
materialistic expectations. Some writers have underlined the fact that the capitalist system
created and maintained a constantly renewed need for consumer goods (Haller, 2002). One
may want high wages and a safe job because one is concerned by questions of security,
survival or in order to finance conspicuous consumption. It is not certain that contemporary
European societies will in future be less materialistic. Conversely, does the intrinsic interest in
work not constitute a need, even in societies where questions of survival have not been completely
resolved? Maslows typology remains a subject of discussion in organisational psychology.

6
For a detailed presentation of the universalist, culturalist and institutionalist school, as weel as the convergence between
these research traditions, see Davoine, 2007.
13
Finally, the development of post-materialistic values can have contrary effects on the
importance attributed to work in life. Once the needs for security have been satisfied, work
can of course assume less importance and leave individuals the choice of fulfilling
themselves in other spheres (leisure, politics or family). However, in searching for fulfillment
in the work sphere, individuals who place greater importance on post-materialistic values
may attribute a higher value to work since the latter is not only and simply a source of
income. In other words, in already industrialised societies, economic growth may have a dual
impact: work is less important, or it remains important but for different reasons. By looking
at these controversial issues and questions, we may perhaps be able to understand the French
peculiarity.
1.1.2 The various dimensions of work
This historical sequence whose virtues are also heuristic (because they provide an analytical
schedule making it possible to analyse the position of different countries on an evolutionary
scale of meanings) is not fundamentally far removed from other theoretical developments, of
a philosophical or sociological nature, which have been put forward these last few years in
order to understand changes and differences of meaning attached to the term work. We
outline three in particular which have the advantage of highlighting the various constituent
dimensions of the concept of work the effect of which could possibly be isolated in surveys.
Work as a duty
Max Webers work, as we have said, has particularly highlighted the dimension of task or
duty acquired by work over the last few centuries. Weber showed how the Reform radically
changed the western way of viewing work and how Luthers translations firstly (and then the
theoretical elaborations of the Calvinists) made it possible to interpret work as mans most
important task on earth by following several stages. At the start of his reformist activities,
writes Weber, Luther thought that secular work - although required by God - was part of
mankinds nature. But work would take on more and more importance for Luther (). Not
only did monastic life lack value in his eyes as a means of justifying oneself before God but
it shielded man from the duties of this world and thus appeared to Luther to be the product of
the egoism and hardness of the heart. On the other hand, the exercise of professional work
was for him the external expression of love for ones neighbour
7
. But this justification
would itself soon disappear: it would leave in its place the affirmation, repeated with growing
fervour, that in all circumstances doing ones temporal duties was the only way of living
which pleased God. Accomplishing these duties, and it alone, is Gods will and
consequently all lawful work has absolutely the same value in Gods eyes. The more Luther
was to become involved in worldly affairs, continues Weber, the more he would emphasize
the significance of professional work: which led him to consider more and more
professional work as a special order from God to the individual to fulfill the concrete task
assigned by Providence. But for Luther, the concept of Beruf remained traditionalistic:
Man must accept his task as being given to him by divine decree and he must live with it.
Orthodox Lutheranism went much further and defended the idea that professional activity
was a task, even more, the task assigned by God. Ascetic Protestantism would take this idea
even further: what had remained a purely intellectual hypothetical suggestion became for the

7
P. 91.
14
Calvinists a characteristic element of their ethical system: love for ones neighbour was
expressed firstly in the accomplishment of professional tasks given by lex naturae. Work, in
the service of impersonal social utility, was thus recognised as exalting the glory of God.
Lalive dEpinay (1994), commenting in particular on the way in which translators have
radically changed the initial meaning of texts
8
, defends the idea that at the start of the 20
th

century work continued to be perceived essentially as a duty and an effort. At the start of the
20
th
century, the revolution produced its effects, leading to the generalization of the labour
market, the expansion of the wage-earning class and the development of the working class.
The industrial society established itself and was organised around economic activity which
made the people, for better or for worse, industrious. This was when Weber wrote the lines in
his celebrated essay The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism: the puritan wanted
to be industrious and we are forced to be so (). The idea of accomplishing ones duty via
work now haunts our lives, like the specter of religious beliefs long since gone. From
Northern Italy to Scandinavia, from Czechoslovakia to the USA, a work and duty ethic now
reigns which is a veritable vision of man and the world. Let us propose a summary:
- the human being is defined ontologically speaking as a being governed by duty; work
i.e. mercantile work is the first of the duties, a means par excellence for the proper
accomplishment of other duties;
- the concept of duty is closely associated with the principle of individual responsibility
(or freedom), vis--vis oneself and ones family in the present and in future;
- individual responsibility leads to the adoption of rational behaviour, i.e. effort, work,
anticipation, savings;
- hence the individuals fulfillment consists of finding his/her proper place in society, it
involves assuming a precise function and social roles.
According to this vision of the world, the community is a superior principle to the individual
of which it is the finality. The individual is above all defined by duties, the only fundamental
right being the right to work. Society on the other hand has rights vis--vis individuals. The
subordination of the individual to society, the sacrifice of oneself to the community is justified by
the fact that society ensures the individuals security and above all by the idea that, transformed
into one gigantic factory, society is in the process of producing tomorrows prosperity
9
.
Jean Paule Willaime (2003), commenting on Webers idea that work value would be
secularized (since all-conquering capitalism no longer needs this support as it is built on a
mechanical basis) and in wondering how religious motivations had been replaced, gave this
reply: work is always considered as an important duty, even as a vocation. There has indeed

8
Psalm 90 tells of the vanity of life for whosoever exile separates from God: the days of our years are threescore years
and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet it is their strength labour and sorrow. What was
rendered by the translator Osterwald correctly as sorrow was translated by Luther as work (and yet that which was
precious was but pain and work). Although the Reformers translation is, at a pinch, acceptable, it translates a word with
a strong negative connotation by a neutral, weak term. The Reformers translation became the accepted one but, over the
course of time, this verse has become removed from its scriptural context and transformed into a sentence worded as
follows: what is most precious. In a long life, it is effort and work. The alchemy has succeeded; the mistranslation is
sealed. This formalization was made possible by the theoretical re-working which began with Saint Augustine (it
became possible to compare the divine opus with the work of monks) and ended in a veritable about turn with the
Reform, and more particularly with Calvinism whose effects have been clearly shown by Weber. As Lalive dEpinay,
echoing Weber, recalls by showing the re-interpretations of Psalm 90, the translations of Luthers Bible would result for
the concept of work in a complete change of meaning.
9
Lalive dEpinay, Significations et valeurs du travail, de la socit industrielle nos jours in Trait de sociologie du
Travail, M. De Coster and F. Pichault, De Boeck University, 1998.
15
been secularization but it remained internal to the work value. It is the latter which moved us
on from the concept of work as a religious duty to a vision of work as secular duty.
Although work was considered at one time and certainly is still considered so by some
individuals, more or less intensely in certain countries, as a duty, other dimensions may also
be more or less present. Investigations of a philosophical or sociological nature make it
possible to distinguish different meanings in the concept of work which co-exist today and
which help individuals to envisage their relationship with work.
From work as a production factor to work as the essence of man and to work
as a system for distributing income, rights and protection
In Le Travail. Une valeur en voie de disparition, Mda (1995) proposed distinguishing
three stages or three periods in the construction of the concept of work, each having
witnessed the introduction of a new layer of interpretation or meaning which had in a way
become sedimented over the previous centuries. The XVIII
th
century saw the success and the
formalization of the first dimension, particularly in the works of Smith, after several
centuries of theoretical preparation in which work, until then scorned, was recognised as
having a value. Work was then defined as that which creates wealth. This is our actual
production factor. It nonetheless continues to be considered as a punishment, a sacrifice,
economists would say a disutility.
With the XIX
th
century a second period began during which a second layer of meaning,
radically different from the first, was added on to the first (but did not replace it): work was
considered as the creative freeing of man, the transformational and negative power of man
enabling him both to obliterate nature and make the world in his image and thus express and
transform himself. First expressed in Hegels philosophy, this concept finally found form in
Marxs The Manuscripts of 1844, where work appears as the human activity par excellence,
that which allows man to express himself best both in his genre and in his singularity: let us
suppose, writes Marx, that we are productive as human beings: each one of us could assert
himself doubly in his production, himself and the other. 1. In my production, I would realise
my individuality, my particularity; I would experience, in working, the pleasure of an
individual manifestation of my life and in contemplating the object, I would have the
individual joy of recognising my personality as a real power, concretely perceptible and
exempt from any doubt () 3. I would be conscious of serving as a mediator between you
and humankind, of being recognised and felt by you as complementary to your own being
and as a necessary part of yourself, of being accepted in your spirit as in your love(
10
). Work
is not a disutility: to consider work simply as a sacrifice, therefore a source of value, as a
price paid by things and attributing a price to things depending on whether they involve more
or less work, is to adhere to a purely negative definition (). Work is a positive, creative
activity (
11
). Once it is no longer alienated, work will become the primary vital need.
The XX
th
century is the one which saw the development of a third layer of meaning with the
establishment of the wage-earning society: the various rights set up to protect workers would
be centered on the link with wages (the very one which would have to be abolished if work
was to be liberated): right to work, right to social protection. Of course, as Habermas wrote,

10
.. Marx (1844), Economy and Philosophy, Lecture Notes, 22, in uvres, conomie, tome II, p. 33, La Pliade,
Gallimard, 1979.
11
. Marx, Work as Sacrifice and as Free Labour in Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, outline 1857-
1858, uvres, conomie, tome II, pp. 290-292, La Pliade, Gallimard, 1979.
16
the citizen receives compensation in the shape of rights in his role as a user of the
bureaucracies established by the Welfare State and by purchasing power in his role as a
consumer of goods. The lever for pacifying class antagonism is therefore the neutralisation of
the conflictual material still to be found in the status of salaried employment
12
, but work is
therefore transformed into employment and it is therefore appreciated not only for the
income or the expression of self it provides but also for the rights to which it gives access.
This genealogy, which sees in our current concept of work the result of many theoretical re-
workings and the co-existence of a plurality of meanings, provides a pattern for attempting to
untangle the various dimensions covered by the notion of importance attributed to work.
When people say that work is important, are they referring to the instrumental dimension of
work (work as the activity providing an income and increasing national production, the
work as a production factor), to the expressive dimension of work (I express myself and I
change the world in which I am, this is the work as the essence of man dimension) or work
as a job (work is important because it gives me access to social rights, this is work as the
system of distribution of income, rights and protection)?
Homo oeconomicus, homo faber, homo sociologicus
Sociology has produced three very similar typologies whose heuristic vocation is identical,
for example that which Paugam (2000) proposes in Le salari de la prcarit
13
by
distinguishing three paradigms: homo faber, homo oeconomicus and homo sociologicus.
Homo faber refers of course to the act of work itself and the fulfillment it provides for the
person doing it, in that it enables him/her to assert him/herself in a precise task (). Homo
oeconomicus implies a more instrumental attitude to work. Satisfaction depends then on
his/her remuneration according to a market (). Homo sociologicus postulates that all work
is done in a social framework: the quality of the relationships between men and the
recognition they obtain from it constitute an essential factor of satisfaction.
These theoretical remarks make it possible to understand why, as Paugam writes, wage-
earners are so attached to their employment, sometimes to the point of accepting inferior
working conditions and wages. Employment provides them in reality with more than a wage.
It gives them social rights and a position in the hierarchy of status derived from the Welfare
State and therefore a social identity
14
.
This theoretical framework gives us an initial analytical scale which enables us to understand
better the concept of the importance of work. To say that work is important without going
into more detail means nothing: when people say that work is very important, do they mean
that it is essential in order to live as a provider of income, as a supplier of income (economic
dimension of work as a production factor where it is reduced to this best effort dimension
with a view to something else), do they on the contrary wish to signify that work is a duty
that must be accomplished or that via work I express and fulfill myself and that it constitutes
a fundamental dimension of my humanity (work as the essence of man and the mark of my
singularity which must therefore be exercised not with a view to something else obtaining

12
J. Habermas, La technique et la science comme idologie, in La technique et la science comme idologie, Denol,
1973, p. 65.
13
S. Paugam, op.cit.
14
P. 62.
17
an income but by virtue of the satisfaction which the activity itself gives). Consequently, all
the dimensions of expression and relationship permitted by work become essential. Lastly, to
declare that work is important may be interpreted as agreeing with the current norm which is
that without work participation in social life is diminished and that having a job is having a
place in society as well a series of rights.
As explained by Lallement: The most worrying fact is perhaps that, as we look at the the
surveys in more detail, certitudes weaken to the point that it scarcely seems relevant to try to
decide one way or another in favour of a conclusion which is as simple as it is unilateral. The
main reason is due to an ongoing misunderstanding arising out of the extensive use of the
word "work". In the Value surveys referred to previously, the variety of terms proposed to
assess work is remarkable to such an extent that it is difficult to reach a simple interpretation
of results which are too global" (Lallement, 2001).
In the following sections, we try on the one hand to see whether the results of the surveys
confirm the explanatory hypotheses referred to above and on the other to highlight the most
important dimensions of work in the French case. Can the fact that work is considered to be
more important in France than in other countries be explained by the fact that the ethic of
duty is more developed there or should we see the effect of a particularly poor employment
situation compared with other European countries, in particular with regard to the rate of
unemployment and worries linked to job insecurity? Or, a third hypothesis, must one
interpret these results as the sign that expectations centered on work are particularly strong in
France, marked especially by the hope that work becomes a place where one can express
oneself, enabling social links to be created and therefore by post-materialistic dimensions?
We will be looking successively at these three hypotheses.
1.2. What is the significance of the importance attributed by the French to
work?
According to the surveys, it seems that France occupies a median position with regard to the
work ethic. Part of its singularity can be explained by its high rates of unemployment and the
related concerns for the future. France is about average with regard to having an instrumental
relationship to work. Most of the French singularity seems to be related to the strength of the
post-materialistic expectations centered on work.
1.2.1 The ethic of duty : France about average
We saw previously that although the ethic of duty has profoundly marked western societies
over the course of the last few centuries certain authors say that the XX
th
century would rather
seem to be the epoch of its decline. Work was considered less a duty to be accomplished than
a means of obtaining a wage enabling the individual to fulfill him/herself and being a condition
for full integration into society. What trends can we see when we read the surveys available?
What is happening in Europe? Does France occupy a special position in this scenario?
Graphs 3 to 5 show the results of a series of questions in EVS 1999 on the work ethic as a duty
15
:
countries are shown in the light of the proportion of people who were in full agreement with
the phrase proposed in the questionnaire.

15
These questions are unfortunately not available in the previous waves of the EVS.
18
Graph 3: Work and duty
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
" Work is a duty towards society" .
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
G
r
e
a
t
B
r
i
t
a
i
n
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
L
i
t
u
a
n
i
a
S
w
e
d
e
n
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
S
p
a
i
n
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
E
s
t
o
n
i
a
L
a
t
v
i
a
C
z
e
c
h
R
e
p
.
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
I
t
a
l
y
F
r
a
n
c
e
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
M
a
l
t
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
i
a
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
H
u
n
g
a
r
y
P
o
l
a
n
d
B
u
l
g
a
r
i
a
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
Disagree strongly
Disagree
Neither agree, nor disagree
Agree
Agree strongly

Source: EVS 1999.

The feeling that work is a duty to be accomplished is still largely held and shared by more
than half of all Europeans (cf. graph 3). In Portugal and Denmark, more people agree that
work is a duty vis--vis society. This seems to echo the idea that Danes are particularly
civic (Algan and Cahuc, 2006). They become involved in their work (Svallfors et al., 2001;
Hult and Svallfors, 2002). Taken overall, the French population seems no more sensitive to
the work ethic than its Anglo-Saxon neighbours for example. If one takes account of the
percentage of people simply agreeing with this idea, France is close to the UK. Furthermore,
a quit high proportion of French also accept that people should not be obliged to work if
they do not want to (graph 5) and that it is not humiliating to receive money without having
worked for it (graph 4). The feeling of helping others or of being useful to society also does
not seem to be particularly important for the French: less than 20% consider that the possibility
of helping others by working is important in a job whereas this proportion is almost 40% in
Portugal, Ireland and Spain. In other words, the work ethic as a duty vis--vis society is not
particularly prevalent in France.
However, a minority of the population states very firmly its sensitiveness to the work ethic.
With regard to the concept of work as a duty vis--vis society, the French effectively differ
with a relatively high percentage of people totally in agreement with this idea (graph 3).
This French specificity disappears when taking into account the percentage of people in
agreement. Likewise, a relatively substantial proportion (more than 20%) of the French are
totally in agreement with the idea that it would be humiliating to receive money without
working (cf. graph 4). This proportion is lower in the other countries of the EU15 (with the
exception of Italy) and in particular in the Netherlands, the UK, Denmark and Sweden but
the French specificity is attenuated if the proportion of people in agreement with this idea
is included. In other words, the work ethic is still well and truly present and substantially
confirmed by a relatively large minority of the French population although this result can in no
way suffice to explain the importance which work has for a large majority of French people.
19
Graph 4: Receiving money without working
"It is humiliating to receive money without having to work for it".
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
G
r
e
a
t
B
r
i
t
a
i
n
I
s
l
a
n
d
e
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
C
z
e
c
h

R
e
p
.
E
s
t
o
n
i
a
L
a
t
v
i
a
M
a
l
t
a
G
r
e
e
c
e
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
F
r
a
n
c
e
H
u
n
g
a
r
y
S
l
o
v
a
k
i
a
L
i
t
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
P
o
l
a
n
d
I
t
a
l
y
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
B
u
l
g
a
r
i
a
Disagree strongly
Disagree
Agree
Agree strongly

Source: EVS 1999.

Graph 5 : Not having to work if you do not want to
" People should not have to work if they don't want to" .
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
S
w
e
d
e
n
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
L
a
t
v
i
a
G
r
e
a
t
B
r
i
t
a
i
n
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
S
p
a
i
n
I
t
a
l
y
C
z
e
c
h

R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
M
a
l
t
a
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
E
s
t
o
n
i
a
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
S
l
o
v
a
k
i
a
H
u
n
g
a
r
y
B
u
l
g
a
r
i
a
L
i
t
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
r
a
n
c
e
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
P
o
l
a
n
d
Disagree strongly
Disagree
Agree
Agree strongly

Source: EVS 1999.
20
Graph 6: The importance of the social link with work
% of people dclaring that the possibility of helping other people is " very important" in a job
16,0
18,7
20,7
21,1
22,0
26,2
23,7
29,4
37,5
38,6
40,2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
F
in
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
F
la
n
d
e
r
s
G
e
r
m
a
n
y

(
W
e
s
t
)
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
it
a
i
n
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
I
t
a
ly
S
w
e
d
e
n
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
G
e
r
m
a
n
y

(
E
a
s
t
)
A
u
s
t
r
ia
S
p
a
in
I
r
e
la
n
d
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
1989
1997
2005

Source: ISSP 1989, 1997, 2005.

Graph 7: The importance of being useful to society
% of people declaring that being useful to society is " very important" in a job
12,4
15,1
18,4
19,5
21,2 21,4 21,5
28,1
40,0
40,5
45,2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
F
in
l
a
n
d
S
w
e
d
e
n
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
F
la
n
d
e
r
s
G
e
r
m
a
n
y

(
W
e
s
t
)
F
r
a
n
c
e
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
it
a
i
n
I
t
a
ly
G
e
r
m
a
n
y

(
E
a
s
t
)
A
u
s
t
r
ia
S
p
a
in
I
r
e
la
n
d
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
1989
1997
2005

Source: ISSP 1989, 1997, 2005.

21
1.2.2 French society worried by unemployment: a hypothesis which does not fully
explain the French singularity
Is the special position of France a manifestation of the stronger weight of unemployment? In
this perspective, the economic context measured by indicators such as GDP per inhabitant or
the level of unemployment would partly explain the French position.
If we refer to the replies given in the two waves of EVS, there is a correlation between the
level of GDP and the importance attributed to work. Graph 8 shows that the poorest countries
(like Ireland in 1990, Italy in 1990 and Spain in 1999) attribute more importance to work
than the wealthiest countries (Germany in 1999 or Denmark in 1999). One can thus trace a
straight line showing this correlation. This relationship cannot however explain the French
situation. Without being in the group of the most prosperous countries, France in 1999 was
relatively wealthy. It can therefore be found in the right-hand part of graph 3, but it is very
far from the straight line which symbolises the correlation between the degree of importance
attributed to work and GDP. The importance which the French attribute to work does not
therefore seem to be explained by its level of wealth in 1999.
What about the link with unemployment? The correlation between importance attributed to
work and the unemployment rate is clear at European level: in those countries affected by
mass unemployment, the inhabitants more often than not consider work to be very
important (cf. graph 9). In countries with a high rate of unemployment, the prospect of
losing their job or of not finding another one seems to worry the inhabitants more and for
them work then becomes a priority. In 1999, the date for which the ECHP and the EVS are
available, a correlation can furthermore be established between dissatisfaction vis--vis job
security and the importance attributed to work in a country (cf. graph 10).
Graph 8: Importance of work and level of national wealth

Source: EVS 1989, 1990, 1999 and Eurostat for GDP/inhabitant (expressed in inflation-adjusted prices and in euros).

22
Graph 9: Importance of work and unemployment

Source: EVS 1990, 1999 and Eurostat for the unemployment rate.

Graph 10: Importance of work and job insecurity

Source: EVS 1999 for the importance of work and ECHP, wave 6 for satisfaction vis--vis job security.

The correlations highlighted in graphs 8 and 9 are still valid when the structure of the population
is taken into account (levels of qualification, professions, status of activity). The effects of the
unemployment rate and GDP are both significant (cf. annex 3). Work will be considered all the
23
more important when it is lacking and greater importance attributed to the balance between
various activities when one has a stable job and an assured income.
The French survey on Travail et Modes de vie
16
(Baudelot and Gollac, 2002) gives such a
result. In response to the question: What is more important for you in order to be happy?,
46% of respondents said health, 31% the family, 27% work, 25% friends and 20% money.
Slightly more than one quarter of respondents therefore referred to work (or the job: having
work, a job, being in employment), but the categories facing the most difficult working
conditions, the lowest wages and the highest risk of unemployment made work one of the
essential conditions of happiness. The word work or one of its synonyms was quoted by
43% of blue-collar workers compared with 20% of heads of enterprises, executives and those
in the liberal professions. For men, the social situation as measured by the socio-professional
category (blue or white-collar worker) is decisive. The status of the job is just as decisive: the
unemployed (43%) and temporary workers (45%) put forward work much more often as a
condition for happiness than the holders of a stable job (31%). For those who have nothing,
work is the minimum, the first step which they aspire to take: in order to be happy, you have
firstly to have: to have work, employment, a job. On the contrary, the more benefits of all sorts
one has (income, family, children, gratifying work) the greater the sources of happiness on
earth. This is why blue-collar workers, white-collar workers and the unemployed associate
happiness and work more, and more directly, than executives (Baudelot and Gollac, 2002).
These results partially clarify Frances special position on graph 1. The French rate of
unemployment and the insecurity felt by the French could explain the importance which work
has in their eyes. On graphs 4 and 5, France however remains relatively distant from the
regression straight lines. In other words, the replies of the French cannot fully be explained by
the rate of unemployment and job market insecurity. The Travail et mode de vie survey
confirms furthermore that this explanation only holds true for part of the French population.
1.2.3 An instrumental relationship with work comparable to that in other countries
The French do not seem to attribute particular importance to wages or job security. They
follow the European average whether the question is asked in the framework of the ISSP
(graphs 11 and 13) or the ESS (graphs 12, 14 and 15). According to these two surveys, wages
and job security (which illustrate the instrumental dimension of work) are much more
important in the Mediterranean countries than in the Nordic countries.
Two ISSP questions make it possible to measure the instrumental value of work. For almost
30% of the French, work is just a means of earning a living, which puts them above the
Danes and the Swedes but below all the others. 60% of the French would continue to work
even if they did not need the money. The French once again are in line with the European
average (graphs 16 and 17). The instrumental value of work is neither more nor less developed
than in comparable countries like Germany.

16
The survey Travail et mode de vie is complementary to the survey Permanente Conditions de Vie des mnages. It
was undertaken by Insee in January 1997 using a representative sample of about 6,000 of the French population in
partnership with Dares and the ENS (Ecole normale suprieure). The survey was undertaken at the respondents domicile.
24
Graph 11: The importance of income according to the ISSP
% of people declaring that income is " very important" in a job
9,6
15,4
15,9
16,7
17,7
19,6
22,4
24,9
41,9
61,1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
it
a
i
n
F
la
n
d
e
r
s
S
w
e
d
e
n
F
in
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
I
r
e
la
n
d
I
t
a
ly
A
u
s
t
r
ia
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
S
p
a
in
1989
1997
2005

Source: ISSP 1989, 1997, 2005 (cf. annex 4 for the detailed results in 1997 and 2005).

Graph 12: The importance of income according to the ESS
For you personally, how important do you think a high income would be if you were choosing a
job?
44,3
41,4
56,0
61,7
61,5
52,9
62,1 60,1
54,1
56,0
52,6
42,5
36,1
25,9
5,1
7,3 7,5
9,0
13,5
15,3 16,2 16,8
21,4
24,4
31,2
51,0
54,8
69,5
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
S
w
e
d
e
n
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
i
t
a
i
n
F
r
a
n
c
e
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
S
p
a
i
n
G
r
e
e
c
e
Very important
Important
Neither important, nor unimportant
Not important
Not important at all

Source: ESS 2002.

25
Graph 13: The importance of job security according to the ISSP
% of people declaring that job security is " very important" in a job
31,9
50,9
53,6 53,9
55,2
57,9
61,1
62,9
64,8
69,4
74,1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
it
a
i
n
F
la
n
d
e
r
s
F
in
l
a
n
d
I
r
e
la
n
d
S
w
e
d
e
n
F
r
a
n
c
e
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
G
e
r
m
a
n
y

(
W
e
s
t
)
S
p
a
in
I
t
a
ly
A
u
s
t
r
ia
G
e
r
m
a
n
y

(
E
a
s
t
)
1989
1997
2005

Source: ISSP 1989, 1997, 2005 (cf. annex 4 for the detailed results in 1997 and 2005).

Graph 14: The importance of job security according to the ESS
For you personally, how important do you think a secure job would be if you were choosing a job?
54,5
58,8
55,5
56,1
47,5
45,0
47,6
43,0
37,9
37,2
36,8
35,0
28,6
18,3
16,0
21,4
31,1
34,8
40,2
43,2
44,8
46,3
50,8
56,9
58,5 58,7
64,0
76,0
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
S
w
e
d
e
n
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
i
t
a
i
n
F
r
a
n
c
e
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
S
p
a
i
n
G
r
e
e
c
e
Very important
Important
Not important

Source: ESS 2002.

26
Graph 15 : The importance of promotion according to the ESS
For you personally, how important do you think a job with good promotions opportunities would be
if you were choosing a job?
28,3
42,4
35,2
42,7
44,1
46,2
50,5
63,6
40,7
55,6
56,8
44,6
38,3
39,7
26,0
4,5
6,2 6,9 7,8
12,3
15,6 16,6
19,3
22,5
23,9 25,1
30,5
45,7 45,9
64,1
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
S
w
e
d
e
n
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
i
t
a
i
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
r
a
n
c
e
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
S
p
a
i
n
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
G
r
e
e
c
e
Very important
Important
Not important

Source: ESS 2002.

Graph 16: An instrumental relationship?
% of people agreeing the following phrase:
" job is just a way of earning money - no more"
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1989 1997 2005
Germany (West)
Germany (East)
Great Britain
Italy
Ireland
The Netherlands
Sweden
Spain
France
Portugal
Denmark
Flanders
Finland
Austria

Source: ISSP 1989, 1997, 2005.

27
Graph 17: Work and wages
% of people agreeing the following statement.
" I would enjoy having a paid job even if I did not need the money"
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1989 1997 2005
Germany (West)
Germany (East)
Great Britain
Italy
Ireland
The Netherlands
Sweden
Spain
France
Portugal
Denmark
Flanders
Finland
Austria

Source: ISSP 1989, 1997, 2005.

The replies of the French to this series of questions on the importance of the extrinsic aspects
of work (wages, job security, promotion) correspond broadly to those that one might expect
given the economic and institutional situation of France or the composition of its population.
This is what tends to be shown by the logistical regression shown in annex and the following
graphs.
All things being equal, less qualified people attribute more importance to wages and job
security. According to this modeling, country effects remain significant and are, to some
degree, a residue not explained by our model which was intended to take the effects of
composition into account. We therefore compare the country effects and macro-economic
indicators via graphs to estimate the effects of the economic and institutional context. The
level of income per inhabitant thus seems to affect preferences vis--vis wages: wages are
less important in the wealthier societies once the level of education or the structure per
profession is taken into account in our previous model (cf. graph 18)
17
. This result confirms
Maslow and Ingleharts theses and relativizes the thesis whereby money is still very important
for conspicuous consumption in contemporary societies which remain materialistic. Furthermore,
job security is more important in countries where the rate of unemployment is high which seem
to be relatively intuitive (graph 19). The institutional context also plays a role, as suggested by
Max Haller when he criticized Ronald Inglehart (2002). High unemployment benefits reassure
workers who are less worried about job security since the institutional context enables them to
be sure of a certain continuity of income (cf. graph 20).

17
It should be recalled that we have not introduced the effect of individual income because it is expressed in national
currency for each country.
28
Graph 18: National wealth and importance of wages

Source: ISSP 1989, 1997, 2005 and Eurostat for GDP.

Graph 19: Rate of unemployment and importance of job security


Generous social protection via a redistribution of wealth could also diminish the importance
of wages and promotion in the wage-earning hierarchy. This hypothesis is partly validated
(cf. graphs 21 and 22): in countries where expenditure for the welfare state is high (Denmark,
France, Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany), workers attach less importance to wage and
promotions than in countries where social protection is low. Therefore, the value attributed to
29
the instrumental aspects of work is linked to the institutions of the labour market and of
social protection.
Graph 20: Unemployment benefits and importance of job security

Source: ISSP 1989, 1997, 2005 and OECD for replacement rate.

Graph 21: Spending on social protection and importance of wages

Source: ISSP 1989, 1997, 2005 and Eurostat for social protection spending (as % of GDP).

30
Graph 22: Spending on social protection and importance of promotion

Source: ISSP 1989, 1997, 2005 and Eurostat for social protection spending (as % of GDP).

The diversity of preferences in Europe is partly the reflection of the heterogeneousness of
economic and institutional contexts. On the plans shown here, France can be found very
close to the straight line which symbolises the correlation: in other words, preferences of a
materialistic nature which can be found in France correspond in full to its economic and
institutional situation compared with other countries. Similarly, the relative disinterest shown
by Danes in wages, which could pass as a cultural trait, can in reality be explained by a relatively
high level of wealth compared with the rest of Europe and generous social protection. Furthermore,
the lesser importance which Danish wage-earners attach to security could be explained in
large part by generous social protection.
It should be clarified straight away that a generous system of social protection, which is
sometimes accused of encouraging laziness, does not seem to bring into question the
importance of work. Spending on social protection is not really related to the percentage of
people considering work to be very important (cf. graph 23). In reality, it is less the level of
spending which counts than its structure and the principles which govern the Welfare State.
The importance attributed to work in each country very often echoes Esping-Andersens
classifications (1990). In countries with a Beveridgian tradition, where social rights are not
allocated to workers but directly to the citizens, work is less often cited as very important in
life. In countries with a Bismarckian tradition, where social protection is closely associated
with employment, job stability is on the contrary of crucial importance since it gives access to
social rights. In more liberal countries, it is less job stability which is sought and more high
wages which makes it possible to take out private insurance (Paugam, 2000). The principles of
social protection can thus give structure to expectations vis--vis employment, even though
they are not the sole explanatory factor: Germany with its Bismarckian tradition thus
attributes much less importance to work than France although the latter is classed in the same
category as corporatist-conservative countries (Esping-Andersen, 1990; Amable, 2005).
31
Graph 23: Importance of work and spending on social protection

Source: EVS 1990, 1999 and Eurostat for social protection spending as a % of GDP.

Certain national differences seem therefore to refer to a more or less favourable economic
situation but the economic and institutional context cannot entirely account for the French
specificity concerning the importance attributed to work. A final hypothesis needs to be looked
at: does the development of post-materialistic expectations translate, in France more than
elsewhere, as the wish to fulfill oneself at work?
1.2.4 The desire for fulfillment at work: a French pecularity?
A few researchers have attempted to test the idea of a decline in the importance attributed to
instrumental values and a sharp rise in values based on personal work fulfillment by
analysing the result of the EVS or the WVS (De Witte, Halman and Gelissen, 2004; Ester,
Braun and Vinken, 2006; Riffault and Tchernia, 2002; Tchernia, 2005) or the WVS (Huang
and Vliert, 2003). The theoretical framework elaborated by Maslow and addressed in a
comparative context by Inglehart (Inglehart and Baker, 2000) constitutes their main
analytical perspective. They distinguish the extrinsic or materialistic orientations (workers
attach more importance to wages, to prestige or to job security) from intrinsic or post-
materialistic orientations (workers put greater value on personal fulfillment at work, etc).
According to the results of the WVS which cover about fifty countries on all continents, the
intrinsic characteristics of work are more important in more individualistic and more
economically developed countries whose level of social protection is higher (Huang and Vliert,
2003). At European level, Ingleharts theory whereby the wealthiest societies place more value
on personal fulfillment, is not validated by the previous research based on the EVS (De Witte,
Halman and Gelissen, 2004; Ester, Braun and Vinken, 2006). Can we confirm these results?
How has Europe developed in the last 15 years? Can we see common trends? Has there been
a sharp rise in expectations in terms of self-realisation and fulfillment as societies became
wealthier? In this scenario, where is France?
32
The importance attributed to the intrinsic interest in work seems relatively stable over the last
fifteen years (graph 24), as well as the importance attributed to autonomy (graphs 27 and 28).
The French are noticeable by the importance they attribute to the intrinsic interest in work
according to the ISSP: almost 65% of the population said this aspect was very important in
1997 and again in 2005. This proportion is lower in most other European countries. There are
also more French than Swedes or Britons who estimate that the development of their abilities
involves work according to the EVS. More than half the French are fully in agreement with
the idea that work is necessary in order to fully develop ones abilities (graph 25): this is the
highest score in Europe. Less than 20% share this opinion in the UK, Sweden and Finland.
Similarly, in France, almost 25% of the population agrees with the idea that people who do
not work become lazy. This figure is less than 10% in the UK and in Sweden (graph 26),
and this gap persists when the proportion of people who are in agreement is taken into
account. For the French, work appears as very important, i.e. as necessary in order to be able
to lead a normal life, to develop and to fulfill oneself. This result confirms the idea that work
occupies quite a special place in France whereas the Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian
countries do not set such store by it.

Graph 24: The importance of the intrinsic interest in work according to the ISSP
% of people declaring that an interesting job is " very important"
42,7
46,7
48,9 49,1
49,6 49,8
51,0
51,8
54,8
58,8
68,1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
F
la
n
d
e
r
s
G
e
r
m
a
n
y

(
W
e
s
t
)
S
p
a
in
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
G
e
r
m
a
n
y

(
E
a
s
t
)
F
in
l
a
n
d
I
t
a
ly
S
w
e
d
e
n
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
it
a
i
n
I
r
e
la
n
d
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
A
u
s
t
r
ia
F
r
a
n
c
e
1989
1997
2005

Source: ISSP 1989, 1997, 2005 (cf. annex 4 for detailed results in 1997 and 2005).

33
Graph 25: Does personal development involve work?
"To fully develop your talents, you need to have a job"
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
M
a
l
t
a
S
w
e
d
e
n
G
r
e
a
t
B
r
i
t
a
i
n
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
S
p
a
i
n
I
t
a
l
y
L
i
t
u
a
n
i
a
L
a
t
v
i
a
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
G
r
e
e
c
e
S
l
o
v
a
k
i
a
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
E
s
t
o
n
i
a
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
C
z
e
c
h

R
e
p
.
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
H
u
n
g
a
r
y
B
u
l
g
a
r
i
a
P
o
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
Disagree strongly
Disagree
Agree
Agree strongly

Source: EVS 1999.

Graph 26: Work or idleness?
" People who don't work turn lazy" .
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
S
w
e
d
e
n
G
r
e
a
t
B
r
i
t
a
i
n
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
L
i
t
u
a
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
G
r
e
e
c
e
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
E
s
t
o
n
i
a
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
M
a
l
t
a
L
a
t
v
i
a
F
r
a
n
c
e
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
B
u
l
g
a
r
i
a
C
z
e
c
h

R
e
p
.
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
I
t
a
l
y
P
o
l
a
n
d
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
H
u
n
g
a
r
y
S
l
o
v
a
k
i
a
Disagree strongly
Disagree
Agree
Agree strongly

Source: EVS 1999.

34
Graph 27: The importance of autonomy according to the ISSP
% of people declaring that being independant is " very important" in a job
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1989 1997 2005
Germany (West)
Germany (East)
Great Britain
Austria
Italy
Ireland
The Netherlands
Sweden
Spain
France
Portugal
Denmark
Flanders
Finland

Source: ISSP 1989, 1997, 2005.

Graph 28: Importance of autonomy according to the ESS
For you personally, how important do you think a job enabled you to use own initiative would be if
you were choosing a job?
63,3
65,9
57,6
59,7
62,2
56,8
59,9
61,8
48,7
56,2
49,8
42,2 39,3
32,5
21,5 21,5
23,6
25,0 25,6
27,0 27,0
30,4
33,1 33,3
40,0
43,1
44,6
49,0
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
i
t
a
i
n
F
r
a
n
c
e
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
S
w
e
d
e
n
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
S
p
a
i
n
G
r
e
e
c
e
Very important
Important
Not important

Source: ESS 2002.
35
Graph 29: National wealth and importance of the intrinsic interest in work


What are the explanations? Firstly, once again, the composition of the population plays a
role, which we model via a probit (cf. annexes 5 and 7). The intrinsic interest in work is of
greater importance to young people according to annex 5. Rainer Zoll showed (1999) how
much young Germans sought pleasure not "in work" but "at work" (Spahaben bei der
Arbeit). French surveys confirm this inter-generational difference. According to the
Chronopost Ipsos (Delay, 2005) survey, young members of the working population want to
invest their energy in work which gives them pleasure in the short term and has value in
their eyes. This interpretative hypothesis is confirmed by the fact that the interest in and
content of work on the one hand, and the possibilities of continuing to learn and enrich ones
know-how on the other, played a part in the choice of their actual job, a role deemed
respectively by 89 and 87% of young people to be very or quite important. Similarly, once in
a job, young people more than their elders promote interest in and content of work to the rank
of essential criteria (45% of young people and 35% of older people), as well as the quality
of relationships with the hierarchy (41% of young people and 34% of older people) and with
colleagues (50% of young people and 43% of older people). Regardless of age, the categories
on the bottom rung of the social ladder - less than the classes above them represent work as
a vector for personal fulfillment. The interest in work is furthermore a more broadly
highlighted concern by those with higher education particularly amongst young people: it
concerns 27% of those with fewer qualifications aged under 30 and 67% of those with higher
qualifications in the same age category.
At European level, the intrinsic interest in work is also more important for those people at the
top of the income scale
18
and those who are more highly qualified (cf. annex 5). The more

18
This is individual income. For socio-economic characteristics such as income, the ISSP is based on a national survey.
For many countries, income is declared as such, which enables us to calculate the quartiles. For other countries, we have
bands of income which we have regrouped in four bands which each regroups almost a quarter of the national population.
36
highly qualified also attribute more importance to autonomy, to the possibility of being
useful to society and to the possibility of helping others. They are less concerned with wages
and job security. These results fully confirm the idea that qualifications protect against the
risk of having a bad job and give birth to other ambitions more targeted at the intrinsic aspect
of work. Preferences also vary from one profession to another. The intellectual professions
favour the intrinsic interest in work, autonomy, the possibility of helping others and of being
useful to society. Blue-collar workers attribute less importance to these aspects.
This individual heterogeneousness could clarify the differences between countries which we
saw at the start of this section. For example, the importance of the intrinsic interest in work in
Denmark could be explained by the structure of the population, more qualified than in the
rest of Europe. Although the effects of composition undoubtedly exist, they can in no way
explain all the European differences. According to our results, living in one country rather
than in another significantly influences preferences. The country effects in our model
remain significant in the majority of cases (annex 5). Regardless of whether the country
effects estimated in our model or the percentage of people stating that each item is important
is taken into account differences between countries remain. This is particularly so for the
intrinsic interest in work. Here we find a result similar to that of Duncan Gallie (2007).
The importance of intrinsic aspects is much less correlated with the level of national wealth
(graph 29) than the importance of wages. This conclusion makes it possible to clarify the
disappointing results in the literature which sought to test Ingleharts theory. To date, the
literature has not find significant effect of national wealth on the importance attributed to
intrinsic or extrinsic aspects: it must be said that this literature was based on a composite
index contrasting intrinsic aspects with extrinsic aspects (De Witte et al., 2004). As we have
seen, the level of national wealth does not have such a net effect on the importance of
intrinsic aspects. Its impact on preferences vis--vis wages was more difficult to see via a
composite index. Ingleharts theory is partly verified. Our results underline the fact that the
desire to fulfill oneself at work is relatively developed in Europe and is not related to the
level of wealth. They confirm Maslows critiques which were developed in the 1960s in
industrial psychology, for example, in order to underline the fact that the need for fulfillment
and meaning existed even though the need for security was not entirely addressed.
Similarly, with regard to the idea whereby you need a job to fully develop your abilities,
the structure of the population plays a role. The older age groups, men, employers, the self-
employed, unionized workers and people with low income are more in agreement with this
idea (cf. annex 7). Even taking into account composition effects, the French particularity
remains significant. Countries are not classified depending on national wealth. It should also
be noted that the usual groupings, in terms of Welfare States for example (Esping-Andersen,
1990) are not systematically found. There are as many Danes as Italians who say that you
need a job to fully develop your abilities. Similarly, Spaniards do not find it more humiliating
to receive money than Britons or Danes.
More cultural specificities can explain the differences between preferences, especially
preferences vis--vis the intrinsic aspects of employment. Firstly, differences in language
should not be excluded. The Dutch seem to be somewhat reticent in recognising that an
aspect is very important since The Netherlands have a negative and significant coefficient
in all analyses based on the ISSP with one exception (cf. annex 5). The Portuguese and the
Spanish are on the other hand more inclined to accept that a characteristic is very important.
The results of the ESS confirm this angle: the Dutch rarely say that a characteristic is very
important in the framework of this survey and the inhabitants of the Iberian Peninsula chose
this wording much more often than the majority of other Europeans. The UK often has a
37
negative sign, but Britons said more frequently that job security and promotion possibilities
are very important in 1997 and this difference is quite significant. For the majority of other
countries, the results are more complicated and a systematic biais seems excluded: they can
be attributed a negative or positive sign.
Consequently, it must be recognised that the French attribute specific importance to the
interest in work, which cannot be explained by the characteristics of the working population
or by the effects of the context or by a linguistic biais. France is effectively far from the
straight line of regression in trying to explain the importance of intrinsic aspects by the level
of wealth (graph 29). The importance of intrinsic aspects has to be placed in a more general
context concerning the place of work. Work is more frequently an emotional investment in
France, which is also highlighted in the IPSOS and Sofres surveys (Solom, 2006; TNS
Sofres, 2007). 42% of the French think that they fulfill themselves often by working, for a
European average of 30% (Solom, 2006). Conversely, the Sofres surveys show that English
wage-earners have a mercantile, utilitarian, even mercenary vision of their work we
use here the words brought out by TNS Sofres (2007).
We now have a series of indices to qualify this interpretation of the relationship to work by
the English. The British obviously say a little more often that work is just a means of
earning a living (graph 16). However, according to the ESS and the ISSP, they rarely say
that wages are very important, drawing closer to the Nordic countries (graphs 11 and 12).
Our model proves this singularity: compared with the structure of its population, the UK
differs by attributing less importance to wages (annex 5). These results cannot be understood
without reference here to the place of work: the British are, with the Danes, the people who
attribute the least place to work in their life (graph 1). In other words, a gap is created from
the world of work which cannot be interpreted as a mercantile or utilitarian vision but
rather a more distant, more pragmatic and less emotional relationship with work.
The IPSOS survey supports this idea: when Europeans are asked what does work mean for
you? almost 40% of the English say routine, whereas the French prefer the notion of
accomplishment or pride (Solom, 2006). This refers to the approach that a one-dimensional
analysis of the relationship to work, marked by opposition between intrinsic and
extrinsic aspects does not fully encompass reality where it neglects the place attributed to
work in life. Finally, the national specificities that we have shown can be interpreted as
cultural effects even if religion has already been taken into account. They may also come
from institutional specificities which change little over time and which we can not show via
the indicators we have used for the context, the only ones which were available for a large
number of countries and over a long period. It may be, for example, that policies promoting
the quality of life at work developed in the 70s in Scandinavia have reinforced the interest
which workers may feel in their work (Gallie, 2007). This explanation does not seem to hold
true for France where Taylorism is widespread and where, more recently, just in time
production has been relatively successful (Lorenz and Valeyre, 2005).
Although the opposition between expectations vis--vis the intrinsic aspects of work
(interest, autonomy) and the extrinsic aspects of work (wages, security) has a heuristic virtue,
it can in no way cover all of the facets which may be appreciated in work. From this point of
view, EVS and ISSP questionnaires are an opportunity to envisage other considerations. If
we follow the EVS, workers appreciate and put a value on a good working atmosphere:
amongst the aspects which are quoted as important, the work atmosphere is in second place
(cf. graph 30). On this question, the preferences of the French do not seem to differ from
those of Europeans: for 68% of the Europeans, a good working atmosphere is an important
aspect; this figure is 65% in France.
38
Graph 30: The importance of the different facets: the results of the EVS
Which aspects you personnally think are important in a job?
Percentage of people choosing each aspect
28,1
31,8
36,4
40,0
41,0
46,8
47,2
49,0
50,1
56,3
56,5
62,3
64,6
72,0
73,9
19,9
11,4
30,7
30,2
26,3
36,0
49,4
43,7
43,2
50,4
50,5
46,4
65,8
65,0
68,5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Generous holidays
Not too much pressure
Good chances for promotion
A useful job for society
A job respected by people in general
To have time off at the week-ends
A responsible job
Meeting people
An opportunity to use initiative
A job that meets one's abilities
A job in which you feel you can achieve something
Goof job security
A job that is interesting
Pleasant people to work with
Good pay
France
Europe 15

Source: EVS 1999, EU15.

Graph 31: The importance of the possibilities of conciliation
For you personally, how important do you think a job allowed you to combine work/family would be
if you were choosing a job?
49,8
55,4
57,0
59,5
60,7
52,4
52,2
55,7
51,0
38,6
43,0
38,8
40,3
25,7
15,6
18,8
20,6
25,8 26,8
28,4
30,2
33,6
36,8
44,8 45,5
48,6
52,6
66,9
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
S
w
e
d
e
n
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
i
t
a
i
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
S
p
a
i
n
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
G
r
e
e
c
e
Very important
Important
Not important

Source: ESS 2002.

39
When workers are interviewed about the possibility of conciliation, which ESS has done, this
aspect of their work is important (cf. graph 31). It is even very important for almost half
the inhabitants of countries in the South, Ireland and Austria. The proportions are smaller in
Nordic countries and in France, but how should these replies be interpreted? Reconciling
work and family is perhaps very important in the Scandinavian countries and in France but
conditions of employment are not perceived as the primary factor encouraging conciliation,
this role belonging to public policies. We shall refer to this subject in the next part.
The first part attempted to test explanatory hypotheses which might emerge from simply
noting European similarities, in particular with regard to importance of work and the
meaning which societies give to it (is it a means of earning a living? a duty vis--vis society
or a source of fulfillment?). This analysis has enabled us to unravel the effects of
composition, effects specific to the economic and institutional context as well as the
remaining specificities. It demonstrates that the variety of preferences in Europe is partly due
to structural differences (levels of education for example), the economic and social situations
and policies (economic growth, social protection) and not only to a culture specific to each
country. It thus confirms the thesis whereby preferences are formed by the economic and
institutional context. Following on from Ingleharts intuitions, we have been able to
demonstrate that material preoccupations (here wages) are less prevalent in the wealthiest
societies. On the other hand, post-material preoccupations, to use his terms (here the intrinsic
interest in work) seem just as developed in poorer societies once the level of education,
which plays an important role, is taken into account. Over and above the economic level, a
variable favoured by Ronald Inglehart, the institutional context is a second important
dimension in analysing values and preferences (Haller, 2002). The social protection system
may thus reassure workers who are less concerned by job security.
In this list of values, France, as we have said, occupies a special position. It is one of the
countries attributing most importance to work. Amongst the three hypotheses put forward to
explain this, the last two seem the most relevant. In point of fact, the majority of the French
do not seem to favour an ethic of duty. On the other hand, they remain concerned by their
purchasing power and their job security. The material preoccupations of the French are partly
due to the concerns caused by unemployment. The importance which the French accord to
the interest in work and the conviction with which they consider that work is a source of
necessary fulfillment are on the other hand a national singularity.
1.2.5 The French diversity in the relationship to work
International surveys show the divided feelings of the French who attribute more importance
to the interest in work but who remain concerned by wages or job security. We have seen
from the results of the Travail et Modes de vie survey that some of the French, those furthest
removed from employment or those who have precarious employment, highlight more than
the others the importance attributed to work. The less work there is, the more it is considered
to be important. Those who have a job considered to be stable express a more balanced
relationship to work. This same difference can be found in the CFDT survey Le Travail en
questions undertaken vis--vis 50,000 people in 2001. The survey effectively answers the
question of whether work is mainly perceived as a means of surviving or one of the places
where one can achieve self-fulfillment: for you work is 1) an obligation endured to earn a
living, 2) an obligation and also a means for self-fulfillment, 3) of being useful, of
participating in life in society, 4) of realising a project or a passion. A third of people
40
interviewed defined work as an obligation, 42% as both an obligation and a means for self-
fulfillment, 20% answered that it was useful and 5% for realising a project or a passion.
Replies varied not only according to the categories of wage-earners but also depending on the
sector: in particular there was a sharp difference between the private sector (definitions 1 and
2) and the public sector (3 and 4); furthermore, blue-collar workers and employees in the
private sector, whether qualified or not, principally defined work as an obligation to be
endured. Two other important results: the further away the work was from a social finality
the less it involved direct relationships with people, clients or users, the more it was defined
as an obligation to be endured. On the other hand, those for whom work is a means of self-
fulfillment or a way of being useful to society are teachers, social workers, hospital workers,
the health professions: work then appears to be more like a vocation and its usefulness is
clear.
The survey entitled Histoire de Vie-Construction des Identits confirms this diversity
(Garner, Mda, Senik, 2005). This survey, intended to identify certain processes via which
individuals find a place in social life enabling them to integrate and affirm their individuality,
highlighted the fact that work is more often cited as one of the elements of identity by
executives, heads of undertakings and the higher intellectual professions than by other
categories and in particular relatively poorly qualified blue-collar workers and employees
who on the contrary find themselves in a different situation. It is also more often said by
people without children. Similarly, the probability of stating that work is less important than
other things (family life, social life or personal life) is greater if one belongs to categories of
employees and blue-collar workers and if one is a woman with children. On the contrary, it
can be seen that three professional criteria are associated with considering ones work as
important:
- exercising a profession making it possible to express oneself (the professions dealing with
the media, arts and show business are by far those where people say that work is most
important or very important), confirming Mengers theories (2003) on the link between
creative work and the importance attributed to work;
- working long hours, work which occupies most of the time (the fact of having non-standard
hours is always positively related to the importance attributed to work; this involves
administrative and commercial executives in companies, shopkeepers, trades people,
farmers);
- being independent and therefore often the owner of ones working tool.
The survey therefore highlights the fact that the importance attributed to work is strongly
dependent on the socio-professional categories (SPC) and conditions of employment on the
one hand and, on the other, that there is serious competition between work and family for
women who are principally concerned by domestic and family tasks.
The last two hypotheses that we have advanced (1.3 and 1.4) go towards explaining the
French singularity: in France, because of the high rate of unemployment, the prevalence of
precarious employment, lower job security than on average in Europe and a substantial
feeling of job insecurity on the one hand, also because of more substantial expectations vis--
vis the interest in work, work appears to be very important. But the average replies of
countries should not mask the great diversity of opinions, linked in particular to the socio-
professional category and to the family situation. We will look in more detail at this in the
second part.
41
2. IMPORTANCE ATTRIBUTED TO WORK AND WISH TO REDUCE
THE POSITION OCCUPIED BY WORK: HOW CAN THE FRENCH
PARADOX BE EXPLAINED?
Unlike the preceding questions which help understand the characteristics of work to which
the people interviewed are attached and which they value in work, those which follow take
into consideration the position occupied by work in life as a whole and invite people to talk
about the time and the space occupied by work in relation to other activities. The French
paradox can clearly be seen here: although many French state that work is important or very
important, there are also more of them who wish to see work occupy less of a place. Nearly
half of the British, the Belgians and the Swedes would like work to take up less time in their
life. This figure is 65% in France (graph 32). Compared with their neighbours in the EU15,
the French are those who attribute most importance to work (graph 1) but they are also the
first to want to see the place of work become less substantial in society. Geert Hofstede had
already noticed this French singularity (Hofstede, 2001). The UK is just as special: the
British say more rarely that work is very important in their life but a large majority of them
also hopes to decrease the importance of work in society. These two polarised cases
underline the complexity of the phenomena studied.
Graph 32: The position of work in the society in question
Is decreasing work importance in life a good or a bad thing?
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
S
lo
v
a
k
ia
L
a
t
v
i
a
C
z
e
c
h

R
e
p
u
b
lic
E
s
t
o
n
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
ia
P
o
l
a
n
d
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
H
u
n
g
a
r
y
S
lo
v
e
n
i
a
I
t
a
ly
F
in
l
a
n
d
G
r
e
e
c
e
M
a
l
t
a
A
u
s
t
r
ia
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
C
r
o
a
t
ia
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
I
r
e
la
n
d
B
u
l
g
a
r
i
a
N
e
t
h
e
r
la
n
d
s
S
p
a
in
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
B
e
l
g
iu
m
S
w
e
d
e
n
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
it
a
i
n
F
r
a
n
c
e
Bad thing
Don't mind
Good thing

Source: EVS 1999.

42
Graph 33: A smaller place for work: development of opinion over two decades
Percentage of people thinking that decreasing work importance is a " good thing"
19,2
24,6
26,5
29,5
31,1
33,5
36,0 36,0
38,1
41,5
48,3
50,1
50,5
54,3
65,8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
I
t
a
ly
F
in
l
a
n
d
G
r
e
e
c
e
A
u
s
t
r
ia
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
I
r
e
la
n
d
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
S
p
a
in
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
B
e
l
g
iu
m
S
w
e
d
e
n
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
it
a
i
n
F
r
a
n
c
e
1981
1990
1999

Source: EVS 1981, 1990, 1999.

The last two decades have been marked by a rise in the number of people wishing to see
work take a less important place in many countries, in particular in Ireland, The Netherlands,
Belgium, Sweden and the UK (cf. graph 33). In 1981 and 1999, there were more French who
wanted to see the importance of work diminish. There were far fewer French expressing such
a view in 1990 according to the EVS. This result may be explained by the periods adopted: in
1981 and 1999 the majorities in power made reducing working hours a political objective and
the public debate relayed this idea. It should also be noted that the rate of non-response is
higher in 1990, which could cast doubt about the 1990s results.
How can these results, and in particular the French paradox, be explained? Several
explanations can be put forward and we will be looking at each of them in detail. Firstly, it is
possible that it is less of a paradox than an effect magnified in the public debates of the
period. 1999, the date of these results, is the year in which the debate on reducing working
hours was at its height in France. The surveys show a strong desire by the majority of the
French to see working hours reduced. More recent surveys available, for example the ISSP
2005 specifically devoted to work, show that a substantial proportion of the French continue,
despite a change of epoch and mode vis--vis working hours, to want to reduce the time
devoted to work (37%), even though a small proportion of them also wants to increase the
amount of time devoted to it (17%) (cf. graph 34). When the question of arbitrating between
work (and therefore income) and free time is asked more explicitly, the percentage of people
wanting to work longer to earn more rose in 2005 (compared with 1997), without however
constituting a majority of the population: 32% of the French were for this idea in 2006,
against 20% in 1997 (cf. graph 35).
43
Graph 34: Working more?
Suppose you can change the way you spend your time, spending more time on some things and
less time on others.
Would you like to spend less time, same time as now or more time in a paid job?
6,3
3,7
6,7
22,1
8,7
2,4
6,7
14,4
7,4
3,6
11,4
7,1
9,7
15,1
13,1
7,9
10,2
18,0
13,4
11,3
35,7
35,8
38,7
41,0
42,7
43,6
46,2
47,1
59,3
60,6
30,4
38,5
33,6
14,9
24,1
36,7
27,8
14,6 13,5
18,4
16,2
15,0
11,3
7,0
11,4
9,5 9,0
6,0 6,4 6,2
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Finland Sweden Great
Britain
Germany
(East)
Ireland Denmark France Germany
(West)
Portugal Spain
Much less time
A bit less time
Same time as now
A bit more time
Much more time

Source: ISSP 2005.
Graph 35:Working more to earn more?
% of people wanting to work longer hours and earn more money
9,9
15,3
18,2
19,1
20,3 20,5
25,7
30,1
32,9
49,3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
in
l
a
n
d
S
w
e
d
e
n
F
la
n
d
e
r
s
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
I
r
e
la
n
d
A
u
s
t
r
ia
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
it
a
i
n
S
p
a
in
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
F
r
a
n
c
e
I
t
a
ly
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
1989
1997
2005

Source: ISSP 1989, 1997, 2005.

44
The French situation thus seems to be paradoxical: the French attribute most importance to
work and want to fulfill themselves at work but they also want to devote less time to it, and
some of the French do not put work at the heart of their identity. Four explanations might,
from our point of view, explain this paradox. The first two stress dysfunctions specific to the
work sphere: individuals, with very high expectations vis--vis work, could be disappointed
because of the inability of the work sphere to fulfill them:
- The first is illustrated by Philippon (2007) among others: there is no work crisis in
France but the expression of a deep unease at work. Social relations in France are so bad that
wage-earners are driven to despair about work and to a certain degree are distancing
themselves from it: the desire to reduce the place taken up by work is the result of the
impossibility of changing work and the expression of the difficulties felt in the world of
work;
- the second is not far removed in its principle: if wage-earners want to reduce the
importance of work, this can be explained by the fact that it is in reality not a means of
expression and self-fulfillment but also, for part of the population, an activity generating
unease and stress because of the intensification of work, new organisation of work, the
worsening of conditions of employment and the feeling of anxiety vis--vis the capacity to
retain ones job Material gratifications (income, security, etc.) do not form, far from it, a
sufficient counterweight to dissipate the unease, and a feeling of general dissatisfaction
develops.
The following two explanations involve the other spheres of fulfillment or self-expression,
the other sources of identity. The resolution of the paradox would be less explained (or as
much), by the dissatisfaction arising out of the work sphere than by the top heavy ascendancy
of work and its encroachment on other spheres deemed important, by the amount of space-
time deemed too little left by work for these other activities and by the defective modalities
of articulation between the different spheres.
- The third explanation is therefore part of a radically different logic where the desire to
reduce the place of work would correspond to a need, an aspiration to consecrate more time
to other spheres, other domains of life and in particular to the family (Mda, 2001);
- In logical continuation, the fourth explanation stresses the poor articulation between two
professional and personal spheres (family life, social life).
2.1 The poor quality of social relations and work organisation: a French
malaise?
Relations with management or colleagues are considered to be satisfactory in the majority of
EU15 countries (graphs 37 and 38), but in very different proportions from one country to
another. France has the worst relations with management according to the three ISSP waves
which concurs with Thomas Philippons observations (2007): 52% of French wage-earners
consider that their relationship with management is good, whereas this figure reaches more
than 60% in all other EU15 countries and almost 80% in Germany, Ireland and Portugal.
45
Graph 36: Hierarchical relations la Franaise: conflictual relations?
Percentage of people describing the relation between management and employees at the workplace
as " quite good" or " very good"
51,8
63,4
65,9 66,0
70,3 70,7
74,2
80,6
84,0
85,3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
F
r
a
n
c
e
F
la
n
d
e
r
s
I
t
a
ly
S
w
e
d
e
n
S
p
a
in
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
F
in
l
a
n
d
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
it
a
i
n
A
u
s
t
r
ia
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
I
r
e
la
n
d
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
1989
1997
2005

Source: ISSP 1989, 1997, 2005.

Graph 37: Relations with colleagues
Percentage of people describing the relations between colleagues at the workplace as " quite good"
or " very good"
79,9 80,4
83,1
83,9
85,9
86,8 87,0
89,8
91,7
95,6
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
F
r
a
n
c
e
S
p
a
in
I
t
a
ly
F
in
l
a
n
d
F
la
n
d
e
r
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
S
w
e
d
e
n
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
A
u
s
t
r
ia
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
it
a
i
n
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
I
r
e
la
n
d
1989
1997
2005

Source: ISSP 1989, 1997, 2005.

46
Graph 38: Autonomy: Does France lag behind?
" I can work independantly" : percentage of people agreeing this statement
51,07
62,08
67
76,42
78,15
79,07
80,08
80,58
85,82
93,42
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
S
p
a
in
I
t
a
ly
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
F
r
a
n
c
e
I
r
e
la
n
d
F
la
n
d
e
r
s
S
w
e
d
e
n
F
in
l
a
n
d
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
it
a
i
n
A
u
s
t
r
ia
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
1989
1997
2005

Source: ISSP 1989, 1997, 2005.

Philippon attributes the origin of this distrust to the concentration of decision-making power
at high hierarchical levels without consultation of the people mostly concerned. Hence, only
43% of French people consider that they are consulted in the event of a reorganisation at
work according to the European survey on conditions of work, for a European average of
47% (Parent-Thirion et al., 2007 and Duval, 2008). Similarly, less than 50% of the French
said they could work independently in 1997, proof that the hierarchy did not trust them
completely. This figure was 80% in Germany, Denmark, The Netherlands and Sweden. In
2005, autonomy seemed to have made progress since it concerned 67% of the French, but it
is still one of the lowest proportions in Europe, with Spain and Portugal (cf. graph 38). This
observation echoes the surveys on the organisation of work which highlight the fact that
Taylorism is more widespread in the south of Europe and in France compared in particular with
Germany and the Nordic countries (Lorenz and Valeyre, 2005) which favoured autonomy and
team work.
Relations with colleagues seem better in France since 80% of the French consider them to be
good, which is however also the lowest percentage of the EU15 (cf. graph 37).
Furthermore, although these relations are good, the organisation of work does not seem to
facilitate assistance in a fairly large number of companies: 51% of the French said they could
obtain help from a colleague compared with 66% on average in the EU15 (Duval, 2008).
2.2 Work and employment conditions: one of the causes of dissatisfaction
vis--vis work
France looks badly placed in Europe from the point of view of the perception by wage-
earners of their working conditions, job security and the material aspects of their work. The
47
result is strong dissatisfaction which could be the reason, for part of the population, for a
degree of distance from the work sphere.
2.2.1 Conditions of work
In all the EU15 countries, a majority of wage-earners considers that their work is
interesting (graph 39), that it enables help to be given to other people and to be useful to
society (graph 40). 75% of French wage-earners say their work is interesting and are thus
amongst the European average (cf. graph 39). For two thirds of the French, work seems to
make sense, insofar as it is useful for society (41). Work is more frequently an emotional
investment in France, as we have said. These results tend to enrich the interpretative
perspective of French workers unease proposed by Thomas Philippon (2007). This unease
comes undoubtedly from an erosion of social relations but also results from very high levels
of expectation and investment.
The interest which the French have in work seems to have as the other side of the coin a
degree of stress and an exhausting investment. The results of the ISSP thus show another
French particularity. France is distinguished by having a proportion of wage-earners subject
to stress which is greater than elsewhere (graph 41). The French feel exhausted more often
after work (graph 42)
19
. Furthermore, France has not been spared the rise in the intensity of
work which affects most European countries (Green, 2006). More than half wage-earners are
concerned if one accepts the European survey on working conditions (Parent-Thirion et al.,
2007). This is largely responsible for the unease and dissatisfaction at work of many
European workers (Green, 2006). A feeling of frustration can thus arise: work is judged to be
interesting, but the organisation in force makes it difficult, tiring and too intense.

19
The results of the fourth European survey on working conditions do not match those of the ISSP on stress and difficulty,
which was done at the same time: according to the Dublin Foundations survey, stress is less widespread in France (18%)
than in the EU15 (20% on average). Slightly more people say they are tired (20% for an EU average of 18%) and anxious
(11% for an EU15 average of 8%). But the difference remains minimal (2 or 3 points) and the levels much lower than in the
ISSP. These results can mostly be explained by the structure of the Dublin questionnaire. The question is only asked of those
who earlier said that work affected their health. Part of the population can regularly feel stressed without considering
however that their health is in danger. Furthermore, once past this first filter, the interviewee is asked to mention any health
problems at work: stress is one of 16 items, some of which can seem much more serious (breathing difficulties for example)
and other stress synonyms (anxiety for example) are proposed in the list. For all these reasons, the Dublin Foundations
survey could downgrade stress at work. The result of the Eurobarometer on new European social realities (European
Commission, 2007) also seems to contradict the ISSP: 37% of the French consider that their work is too demanding and
stressful, for an average of 41% in the EU15 and much higher figures in other countries (54% in Sweden for example). But
the wording of the question, which mixed stress with demands, probably affected the results. In other countries the word
demands refers perhaps to the concept of pace or intensity of work. In France, the question could be understood as a
demand for the work post compared with the level of qualification. On this subject, the French generally answer that their
qualification should enable them to undertake more demanding tasks (cf. graph 44). They did not entirely agree with the idea
whereby their work could be both too demanding and too stressful.
48
Graph 39: An interesting job for everybody?
" My job is interesting" : percentage of people agreeing this statement
55,2
73,3
73,9 74,4 74,6 74,7
76,7
82,9
83,5
85,3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
S
p
a
in
I
t
a
ly
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
it
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
F
in
l
a
n
d
F
la
n
d
e
r
s
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
F
r
a
n
c
e
A
u
s
t
r
ia
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
I
r
e
la
n
d
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
1989
1997
2005

Source: ISSP 1989, 1997, 2005.

Graph 40: Making sense of work?
" My job is useful to society" : percentage of people agreeing this statement
58,0
62,0
63,2
63,9
66,1
67,2
69,7
73,7
78,9
79,9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
I
t
a
ly
F
la
n
d
e
r
s
F
in
l
a
n
d
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
it
a
i
n
S
p
a
in
S
w
e
d
e
n
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
A
u
s
t
r
ia
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
I
r
e
la
n
d
1989
1997
2005

Source: ISSP 1989, 1997, 2005.

49
Graph 41: Work more stressful in France than elsewhere
Percentage of people finding their work " always" or " often" stressful
26,9
32,3
32,6
33,3 33,5
35,5
37,9
39,3
41,8
47,0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
I
r
e
la
n
d
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
F
in
l
a
n
d
F
la
n
d
e
r
s
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
it
a
i
n
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
S
p
a
in
A
u
s
t
r
ia
I
t
a
ly
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
S
w
e
d
e
n
F
r
a
n
c
e
1989
1997
2005

Source: ISSP 1989, 1997, 2005.

Graph 42: Exhausting work
Percentage of people coming home from work " always" or " often" exhausted
26,6
30,2
35,1
37,5
40,2
40,5
41,2 41,3
46,1
49,1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
F
la
n
d
e
r
s
F
in
l
a
n
d
A
u
s
t
r
ia
S
w
e
d
e
n
I
r
e
la
n
d
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
S
p
a
in
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
it
a
i
n
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
F
r
a
n
c
e
I
t
a
ly
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
1989
1997
2005

Source: ISSP 1989, 1997, 2005.

50
Graph 43: Failed hopes
Which of the following alternatives would best describe your skills in your own work?
22,3
24,4
27,3 27,7
27,7
27,8 28,2
33,3 33,4
35,2
37,4
41,2
43,0 43,8
45,6
62,6
46,8
62,5
50,6
50,6
57,9
60,7
52,9
56,4
57,6
48,4
52,7
50,1
47,4 44,0
15,0
28,9
10,2
21,8
14,1 14,3
11,0
13,8
10,2
7,6
14,2
6,1 6,9
8,8
10,5
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
F
in
l
a
n
d
A
u
s
t
r
ia
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
t
a
ly
B
e
l
g
iu
m
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
S
p
a
in
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
it
e
d

K
in
g
d
o
m
I
r
e
la
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
I need further training to cope well
with my duties
My duties correspond well to my
present skills
I have the skills to cope with more
demanding duties

Source: European survey on working conditions, 2005.

Furthermore, the youngest French generations although they are investing in work today
have also massively invested in education and training even before integrating the labour
market, with amongst other hopes, that of getting an interesting job. These hopes today seem
to be unfulfilled: France effectively is distinguished by a feeling of a drop in status much
stronger than in other countries: more than 4 French in 10 consider that their qualifications
should enable them to do a more demanding job (graph 43) (Forgeot and Gauti, 1997;
Nauze-Fichet and Tomasini, 2002).
Faced with this erosion in working conditions, which strained relations with the hierarchy
cannot improve, the French could adopt an attitude of withdrawal and retreat, attributing a
smaller place to work in their life whereas the interest in work remains very important for
them. It should be noted furthermore that the French singularity is not significant if working
and employment conditions and qualification levels are taken into account: the regression
shown in annex 8 underlines the fact that people whose work is stressful and tiring do not
wish to work more and would like on the contrary to reduce their time at work. Working
conditions, as measured here, thus explain in part the French singularity. Of course, these
different explanations do not apply in the same way to the different social classes or to men
and women and we shall revert to this later.
2.2.2 A dissatisfaction with wage and job security?
Although French wage-earners complain of stress and the poor quality of social relations,
they also say they are unhappy with their wages according to the ISSP: only 15% considers
that their income is high which puts France at the bottom with Portugal (cf. graph 44).
51
Graph 44: The French do not think that their wages are high
" My income is high" : percentage of people agreeing this statement
16,0 16,2
19,4
20,5
21,9
23,2
25,8
28,4
30,4
40,9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
F
r
a
n
c
e
S
w
e
d
e
n
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
it
a
i
n
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
F
la
n
d
e
r
s
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
I
t
a
ly
S
p
a
in
F
in
l
a
n
d
A
u
s
t
r
ia
I
r
e
la
n
d
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
1989
1997
2005

Source: ISSP 1989, 1997, 2005.

Graph 45: Satisfaction vis--vis wages: is the glass half full?
How satisfied are you with your present job in terms of earning?
17,8
13,3
9,1
15,1
16,1
7,5 7,2
3,3
5,9
5,8
6,6
35,0
34,6
23,0
30,1
27,4
18,1 18,3
10,3
12,3 14,0
14,8
31,7
39,7
33,8
31,1
27,7
35,2 33,7
30,5
30,1 28,5
27,4
10,5
7,3
25,2
14,6
17,0
29,0
29,1
42,0
33,4
33,5
29,5
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
G
r
e
e
c
e
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
F
r
a
n
c
e
I
t
a
l
y
S
p
a
i
n
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
Fully satisfied
5
4
3
2
Not satisfied

Source: ECHP, 2001 (wave n8).

52
Graph 46: Poor chances of promotion in France
" My opportunities for advancement are high" : percentage of people agreeing this statement
14,0
19,7
20,8
21,6
23,1
24,0
25,3 25,5
34,6
35,4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
F
r
a
n
c
e
F
in
l
a
n
d
S
w
e
d
e
n
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
I
t
a
ly
S
p
a
in
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
it
a
i
n
F
la
n
d
e
r
s
A
u
s
t
r
ia
I
r
e
la
n
d
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
1989
1997
2005

Source: ISSP 1989, 1997, 2005.

When the question is put differently, replies seem more optimistic: hence, according to the
ECHP, 60% of the French population is satisfied with its wages. With 40% dissatisfied,
France is however situated between the Mediterranean countries on the one hand and
continental and Nordic countries on the other (cf. graph 45). The special Eurobarometer on
social reality confirms this result. The French are much less satisfied with what they earn
than the inhabitants of countries just as developed as France. Their satisfaction is similar to
that of the Poles and the Portuguese: 76% whereas this figure is more than 90% in Nordic or
Anglo-Saxon countries (European Commission, 2007, p. 9). The situation is all the more
hopeless for the French in that they have very little belief in promotion prospects. France is the
country where the subjective chances of promotion are the lowest (cf. graph 46 and Duval,
2008).
With regard to job security, one can see a split between the Nordic countries on the one hand
and continental and Mediterranean countries including France. In this second group, workers
are less satisfied with their job security (graphs 48 and 49). They are worried about the
prospect of losing their job (graph 49). They also consider that it would be difficult for them
to find a similar job with another employer (graph 50). On this series of questions, France is
in an average position. The special Eurobarometer on social reality confirms this split
(European Commission, 2007): the French are amongst the most worried. In reply to the
question of whether they are confident in their ability to keep their job over the next few
months, there are more French who say they are not really confident, with Poland,
Lithuania, Hungary and Slovakia They are equal first with Hungary in saying that they are
not at all confident. Similarly, in reply to the question if you were to be sacked, how
would you assess your chances of finding a job requiring the same competence and the same
experience in the next six months: France is one of the most pessimistic countries, very far
53
from the two Nordic (Denmark, Finland, Sweden) and liberal (the United Kingdom, Ireland)
poles which are well above the average.
French dissatisfaction with job security and income confirms our hypothesis: the leading place
attributed to work is partly due to fears about employment and the level of unemployment. The
more work is uncertain, the more it acquires importance: our regression showed furthermore
that work was very important for the unemployed, and, one can imagine this, indirectly, for
all those who are worried about their job. The rate of unemployment in a country is a factor
which encourages the feeling of job insecurity (Postel-Vinay and Saint-Martin, 2005), a
feeling which goes towards making work an important element in life, which is demonstrated
by our first correlation (cf. section 1). In order to expand this debate, a method of going
further into this subject was proposed in a recent working paper using the ESS and in
particular a question on how security was perceived by the worker (Erlinghagen, 2007). The
author introduces, in a multi-level model, cultural variables measured at individual level by
religiosity, the importance given to job security and the confidence attributed to others as
well as socio-economic variables at the second level, the national level: average seniority in
the job, employment protection legislation (EPL), social security spending, the GDP growth
rate and the rate of long-term unemployment. According to this model, the rate of long-term
unemployment has a very clear effect on the feeling of job security whereas the other macro-
social variables have no impact. Confidence attributed to others at individual level is also
important which would presuppose that the effects of legislation in protecting jobs and
spending on social protection, highlighted in numerous articles (Postel-Vinay and Saint-
Martin, 2005), are in actual fact cultural effects which have not been taken into account in
previous studies.
Graph 47 : Satisfaction vis--vis job security
How satisfied are you with your present job in terms of job security?
4,3
13,2
5,0
9,1 9,3
5,4
5,5
3,2
4,4 4,4
2,5
14,1
25,4
10,2
18,8
14,8
11,4
10,7
6,4
7,4 8,7
4,8
52,3
28,7
25,1
23,7
21,8
20,1 20,3
16,2
15,3
16,5
14,7
23,1
18,8
41,3
25,1
29,4
35,6 33,4
37,1 33,1 29,2
35,4
5,2
10,4
14,1
17,9
19,8
24,6
26,1
34,7
36,7
38,3
40,9
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
i
t
a
i
n
F
r
a
n
c
e
I
t
a
l
y
S
p
a
i
n
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
Fully satisfied
5
4
3
2
Not satisfied

Source: ECHP, wave 8.

54
Graph 48: Is your job secure?
" Mon job is secure" : percentage of people agreeing this statement
54,2
59,5
62,8
64,1
64,9 65,2
68,3 68,7
73,8
75,2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
F
r
a
n
c
e
F
in
l
a
n
d
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
S
w
e
d
e
n
I
t
a
ly
F
la
n
d
e
r
s
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
it
a
i
n
S
p
a
in
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
I
r
e
la
n
d
A
u
s
t
r
ia
1989
1997
2005

Source: ISSP 1989, 1997, 2005.

Graph 49: Worry about losing a job
To what extent, if at all, do you worry about the possibility of losing your job?
12,0
14,8
12,4
8,0
11,4
4,7 4,9
2,6
4,3
1,8
33,5
20,1
29,0
21,8
13,6
16,6
11,6
8,5
6,2
9,4
30,6
41,0
34,2
32,6
32,6
31,3
25,1
29,5
28,4
22,4
23,9 24,2 24,4
37,6
42,4
47,4
58,4
59,4
61,2
66,4
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Spain Portugal Germany
(East)
Germany
(West)
France Great
Britain
Sweden Denmark Finland Ireland
I dont worry at all
I worry a little
I worry to some extent
I worry a great deal

Source: ISSP 1997 and 2005.

55
Graph 50: And the chances of finding another one
How difficult or easy would it be for you to get a similar or better job with another employer if you
wanted to?
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
la
n
d
s
U
n
i
t
e
d

K
in
g
d
o
m
S
w
e
d
e
n
F
in
la
n
d
I
r
e
la
n
d
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
I
t
a
ly
F
r
a
n
c
e
S
p
a
in
B
e
lg
iu
m
C
z
e
c
h

r
e
p
.
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
A
u
s
t
r
ia
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
H
u
n
g
a
r
y
P
o
la
n
d
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
G
r
e
e
c
e
Extremely easy
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Extremely difficult

Source: ESS 2002.

2.2.3 Global satisfaction: a synthetic indicator
The feelings of the French concerning their work are open-ended depending on the dimension
considered: although the intrinsic interest in work seems to satisfy many of them, fewer
appreciate the organisation of work, the quality of social relations or even job security and
the chances of promotion. How are the various elements weighted when a subjective and
global evaluation of the quality of work and employment is requested?
Europeans globally say they are satisfied with their work according to the majority of surveys
(EVS, ECHP, ISSP, Eurobarometer), but significant differences appear between countries: to
take but one example, almost 55% of Danes said they were very satisfied or completely
satisfied whereas less than 30% of French people were in this situation in 2005 according to
the ISSP. Although differences may appear from one survey to another, they do not bring
into question the contrast between the inhabitants of the Nordic countries, very satisfied, and
the inhabitants of Mediterranean and continental countries, less satisfied. The French are to
be found amongst the countries of the South according to the EVS, the ECHP and the special
Eurobarometer on social reality (cf. graphs 52 and 53 and European Commission, 2007).
The French are much more dissatisfied than the nationals of other EU15 countries according
to the ISSP. According to the various surveys, the French are most dissatisfied, and even
among the most dissatisfied, with the countries of the South.
56
Graph 51: Satisfaction at work according to the EVS
Percentage of workers declaring that they are satisfied with work
65,4
66,1
69,0
70,9
71,9 71,9
73,2 73,7
74,9
76,7
78,7
80,6 81,0 81,3
82,8
83,4
84,1 84,2
84,9
86,1
87,4 87,7
90,5 90,6 90,7
92,9
94,6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
P
o
l
a
n
d
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
L
a
t
v
i
a
H
u
n
g
a
r
y
E
s
t
o
n
i
a
S
lo
v
a
k
ia
C
r
o
a
t
ie
L
i
t
u
a
n
ia
B
u
l
g
a
r
i
a
G
r
e
e
c
e
S
lo
v
e
n
i
a
C
z
e
c
h

R
e
p
.
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
it
a
i
n
F
r
a
n
c
e
S
p
a
in
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
I
t
a
ly
S
w
e
d
e
n
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
A
u
s
t
r
ia
I
r
e
la
n
d
B
e
l
g
iu
m
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
in
l
a
n
d
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
M
a
l
t
a

Source: EVS 1999.

Graph 52: Satisfaction at work according to the ECHP
Satisfaction with work or main activity
5,1
8,7
11,3
5,3
7,4
4,5
2,5
0,9
5,2
3,8
2,4 1,6
8,3
14,1
13,0
3,9
8,6
7,0
3,3
2,0
4,1
4,6
2,7
2,3
20,6
28,1
20,5
9,0
16,2
7,7
9,2
6,8
11,6
11,3
5,1
6,0
46,8
26,1
24,7
25,5
23,6
22,2
24,9
24,0
21,8
22,6
19,6
16,4
14,2
16,1
20,9
44,8
30,8
45,0
41,0
47,1
33,8
30,8
37,8
37,3
5,1
6,9
9,6
11,6
13,5 13,7
19,1 19,2
23,5
26,9
32,4
36,4
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
t
a
ly
F
r
a
n
c
e
S
p
a
in
U
n
it
e
d

K
in
g
d
o
m
F
in
l
a
n
d
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
B
e
l
g
iu
m
I
r
e
la
n
d
A
u
s
t
r
ia
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
Fully satisfied
5
4
3
2
Not satisfied

Source: ECHP, wave 8.

57
Graph 53: Satisfaction at work according to the ISSP
Percentage of people declaring that they are " completely" or " very satisfied" with their job
29,7
35,3
38,2
41,7
42,8 43,0 43,0
48,4
55,6
59,2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
F
r
a
n
c
e
F
la
n
d
e
r
s
I
t
a
ly
S
w
e
d
e
n
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
S
p
a
in
F
in
l
a
n
d
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
it
a
i
n
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
A
u
s
t
r
ia
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
I
r
e
la
n
d
1989
1997
2005

Source: ISSP 1989, 1997, 2005.

Taking global satisfaction and satisfaction vis--vis the different facets of employment no
doubt helps to better understand where the French paradox comes from and to evaluate the
relevance of each explanation. Preferences and expectations run up against reality and evolve
in the light of it. In other words, and to use Anglo-Saxon vocabulary from economic
sciences, preferences are adaptive. They cannot be analysed outside the context in which they
are formed or outside the concrete situations with which they conflict. But all preferences are
not adaptive. According to recent literature on the economy of happiness, one can for example
adapt very quickly to a standard of living (Layard, 2005, inter alia). It is the subjective chances
of social promotion which count (Senik, 2006). Furthermore, although adaptation phenomena
are widely studied in current literature, other mechanisms may be envisaged. For example,
poor living conditions or social isolation remain a source of long-lasting dissatisfaction.
These hypotheses are fully confirmed by the analysis of job satisfaction. The link between
wages and job satisfaction, which is continually questioned by economists, is at the very least
complicated, involving adaptation phenomena, reference to the past and envy of and
comparison to the reference group (Clark, 1999). On the other hand, good social relations
and interesting work make wage-earners happy on a long-lasting basis. Regressions
explaining job satisfaction and referring to ISSP 1997 help understand this issue: good social
relations at work come first with the most important and most significant coefficient. Then
come work content and promotion opportunities followed by income, job security and
adequacy of preferences concerning working hours (Clark, 2005). Using the same data base,
Alfonso and Andrs Sousa-Poza also demonstrate that good relations and interesting work
are the two principal sources of satisfaction. In addition, they underline that good relations
with management have a more important effect than good relations with colleagues (Sousa-
Poza and Sousa-Poza, 2000). In this perspective, poor social relations at work, degraded
58
conditions of work and the absence of the hope of promotion explain persistent frustration for
a large part of the French workforce.
Importance of work and SPC
In %
Media, art and show business professions 59
Shopkeepers 42
Administrative and commercial company executives 42
Craftsmen 39
Qualified craft-type workers 39
Liberal professions 37
Civil service executives 37
Farmers 34
Professors, scientific professions 34
Non-qualified craft-type workers 29
Heads of companies with +10 workers 27
Chauffeurs 27
Non-qualified industrial-type workers 25
Agricultural labourers 24
Personnel in direct to client services 21
Shop workers 20
Company administrative employees 17
Reading: Proportion of people stating that work is as or more important than other things within each SPC.
Scope: employed working population. Source: Histoire de vie-Construction des identities survey, Insee 2003.

The French therefore particularly demanding regarding the intrinsic interest in work and
seem relatively satisfied from this point of view. On the other hand, working conditions,
work organisation and the resulting payment (wages, security, prospects of promotion) are, if
one follows the opinion of the workers, more mediocre in France than in other European
countries. In other words, although the wish to work remains very strong, the conditions
which surround it have caused a degree of frustration amongst the French who thus want to
reduce the importance of work in their life.
The categories of the population most concerned with poor conditions of work and
employment are those who express the greatest reticence vis--vis work: in the survey
entitled Histoire de vie/construction des identits, as we saw above, although the professions
which allow the greatest self-expression put work highest in their identity, say more
frequently that work is what defines them best and consider that work is just as important as
other aspects of their life, employees and blue-collar workers make little mention of work
and consider other aspects of their life to be more important (Garner, Mda, Senik, 2005;
Amoss, Chardon, 2005).
2.3 The importance attributed to other spheres of life, in particular the family
The explanations given above were principally negative: the desire of the French to see
work occupy less of a place in their life appeared to be the result of disillusionment, the
expression of frustration due to poor social relations within the company or to poor
conditions of work or employment. But taking into consideration the expectations which
Europeans, and even more the French, have for other areas or spheres of life than work
59
shows that it is necessary to leave room for more positive explanations. What all the
European and French surveys have effectively shown over the last few years is the strength
of expectations, often unsatisfied, placed in the family. Far from appearing only as a refuge
or as a value or an activity all the more appreciated if work is disappointing, the family
appears on the contrary to be an extremely attractive domain of emotional investment and
self-fulfillment, likely not only to be affected by what happens within the working sphere but
also to affect life at work, and as an activity which consumes a lot of time and which is in
direct competition to work, especially for women.
2.3.1 The place of the family amongst the values
What can these other activities be (often summarized as personal life, sometimes entitled
leisure) in whose name Europeans and the French in particular, wish to see work take up
less of a place? In fact, a large variety of spheres and expectations are covered by the concept
of personal life. Although the family is chosen, friends and leisure are everywhere
considered to be important. European countries place the family at the very top of the list of
areas of life which they feel are important: the family appears more frequently and is more
uniformly mentioned in the different European countries than work (which can be partly
explained by an effect of structure, the population interviewed also comprising students,
pensioners and people at home). Work on the other hand is more important than friends,
religion or politics (with the exception of a few countries, in particular Denmark where leisure is
more important than work). Comparing graph 1 and the graphs below is in this respect revealing
(cf. graphs 55 to 59). For the French interviewed in the EVS, the family was mentioned as being
very important by 88% of the interviewees (compared with 66% for work)

Graph 54: The importance of the family
How important is family in your life?
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
L
i
t
u
a
n
i
a
E
s
t
o
n
i
a
L
a
t
v
i
a
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
G
r
e
e
c
e
B
u
l
g
a
r
i
a
C
z
e
c
h

R
e
p
.
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
S
l
o
v
a
k
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
r
a
n
c
e
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
S
w
e
d
e
n
H
u
n
g
a
r
y
I
t
a
l
y
G
r
e
a
t
B
r
i
t
a
i
n
P
o
l
a
n
d
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
M
a
l
t
a
Not important
Quite important
Very important

Source: EVS 1999.

60
Graph 55: The importance of friends
How important is friends and acquaintances in your life?
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
L
i
t
u
a
n
i
a
L
a
t
v
i
a
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
C
z
e
c
h

R
e
p
.
E
s
t
o
n
i
a
P
o
l
a
n
d
M
a
l
t
a
H
u
n
g
a
r
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
S
l
o
v
a
k
i
a
I
t
a
l
y
B
u
l
g
a
r
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
G
r
e
e
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
F
r
a
n
c
e
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
G
r
e
a
t
B
r
i
t
a
i
n
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
S
w
e
d
e
n
Not important
Quite important
Very important

Source: EVS 1999.

Graph 56: The importance of leisure
How important is leisure in your life?
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
L
i
t
u
a
n
i
a
L
a
t
v
i
a
R
u
s
s
i
e
E
s
t
o
n
i
a
C
z
e
c
h

R
e
p
.
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
B
u
l
g
a
r
i
a
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
P
o
l
a
n
d
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
I
t
a
l
y
S
p
a
i
n
H
u
n
g
a
r
y
S
l
o
v
a
k
i
a
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
F
r
a
n
c
e
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
G
r
e
e
c
e
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
G
r
e
a
t
B
r
i
t
a
i
n
M
a
l
t
a
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
S
w
e
d
e
n
Not important
Quite important
Very important

Source: EVS 1999.
61
Graph 57: The importance of politics
How is politics important in your life?
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
E
s
t
o
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
S
p
a
i
n
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
i
a
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
G
r
e
a
t
B
r
i
t
a
i
n
H
u
n
g
a
r
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
u
a
n
i
a
P
o
l
a
n
d
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
C
z
e
c
h

R
e
p
.
F
r
a
n
c
e
I
t
a
l
y
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
B
u
l
g
a
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
U
k
r
a
i
n
e
S
w
e
d
e
n
M
a
l
t
a
Not important
Quite important
Very important

Source: EVS 1999.

Graph 58: The importance of religion
How important is religion in your life?
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
E
s
t
o
n
i
a
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
C
z
e
c
h

R
e
p
.
F
r
a
n
c
e
L
a
t
v
i
a
S
w
e
d
e
n
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
L
i
t
u
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
G
r
e
a
t
B
r
i
t
a
i
n
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
S
p
a
i
n
B
u
l
g
a
r
i
a
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
H
u
n
g
a
r
y
I
s
l
a
n
d
e
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
i
a
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
t
a
l
y
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
P
o
l
a
n
d
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
M
a
l
t
a
Not important
Quite important
Very important

Source: EVS 1999.

62
This choice can certainly be taken to be the expression of the substantial changes which have
affected the family over the last twenty years, fully explained by Beck (2001), Giddens
(1992) or De Singly (1993): the family is now considered as a democratic place where
contractual relationships are established between autonomous individuals and as a support
for anchoring utopian energies as strong as work, the child having become in our societies
the last bastion against solitude: with the child, we cultivate and celebrate an anachronistic
social experience which has become at one and the same time improbable and desirable
during the process of individualisation (Beck, 2001). The child now occupies a central
position and the modern family is based around the child, its life being merged with the
more sentimental relationships of parents and children, the sentimental family appears:
we tend to give a new value to the affection of parents and children, doubtless as old as the
world, since we make family reality depend on it (Aris, 1960). The definition of the family
through its form or structure, i.e. via those visible elements simplest to describe statistically,
could eliminate this attention to relationships which is however the most important element
from a theoretical point of view. (). This is why, less as an institution than as a space for
emotional, personal and (relatively) long-lasting relationships, the contemporary family is at
the centre of individualised identity (De Singly, 1993).
France occupies a special position in this picture. It seems to attribute, even more than other
countries, a central importance to the family. In the last special Eurobarometer devoted to
social reality in Europe (European Commission, 2007), in 27 European countries the family
was in second place behind health and well ahead of work. Specifically French surveys
confirm these results: in Travail et modes de vie, the family is mentioned more than work
when interviewees are asked what for them is most important to be happy. And although
work is often mentioned when it is lacking (to have a job, to have a good job, for my
son to find work), the family appears on the contrary in all circumstances as a central
place, a sphere of identification and fulfilment, a sphere where exchanges and relationships
are positively sought. The survey on Histoire de Vie-Construction des Identits highlighted
the choice of which the family was the object, as a source of identities, as that which best
enables individuals to say who they are, which best defines them, well ahead of work.
The identification most relevant to the family
% of people mentioning the subject at least once
Your family 86,7
Your job, your professional situation, your studies 40,8
Your friends 36,0
A hobby or a leisure activity 28,5
The places to which you are attached 28,3
Your geographic origins 9,0
A health problem, a handicap 7,6
Your political or religious opinions or your commitments 5,4
Your physique or your appearance 5,1
Note: 3 subjects could be chosen.

63
The individuals interviewed chose the family which is seen as the pillar of identities
(Houseaux, 2003). It is so for all age groups and all social classes regardless of status, unlike
work which occupies a primordial place principally for executives, scientific professions, the
self-employed and people without children who put work first and indicate that it is above all
that which best enables them to say what they are.
2.3.2 The relative importance attributed to work and to other spheres of life
It is important to take into consideration other spheres of activity which, like work, are places
where social links are created and fulfillment found, in order to understand the French
paradox. In wanting to reduce the place which work occupies in their lives, the French are
not signaling a disinvestment in work but the desire that the place it occupies enables them to
ensure their other investments in time-consuming activities like the family. What is the
relative importance attributed by individuals to work and to other activities, such as the
family or leisure? A question in the EVS shows that only a minority of Europeans consider
that work should always take first place. More of them attribute an unconditional priority to
work in Germany and to a lesser degree in Spain, Italy and Denmark (graph 59). The French,
like the British, the Dutch and the Swedes are most opposed to this view: only 30% agree
with this idea.
Graph 59: Work an unconditional priority?
" Work should always come first, even if it means less spare time"
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
G
r
e
a
t
B
r
i
t
a
i
n
I
s
l
a
n
d
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
S
w
e
d
e
n
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
M
a
l
t
a
E
s
t
o
n
i
a
L
a
t
v
i
a
C
z
e
c
h

R
e
p
.
F
r
a
n
c
e
S
p
a
i
n
G
r
e
e
c
e
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
I
t
a
l
y
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
L
i
t
u
a
n
i
a
B
u
l
g
a
r
i
a
P
o
l
a
n
d
S
l
o
v
a
k
i
a
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
H
u
n
g
a
r
y
Disagree strongly
Disagree
Agree
Agree strongly

Source: EVS 1999.

French surveys confirm this idea and underline the fact that investing in work can in no way
be exclusive. The Ipsos Chronopost survey shows this trend at work in particular amongst the
youngest groups: making the work value positive in no way stops the working population
from attributing to it a place certainly important but not exclusive or even predominant. This
64
place seems rather to be appreciated against the yardstick of other spaces of investment
which are the object of a variable, symbolic and temporal implication depending on where on
the biographical course they stand. The commitment to work is not, far from it, exclusive of
investment in other spheres. This tends to demonstrate that the working population does not
have a unipolar conceptions of biographical experience structured uniquely around the
professional or personal sphere. It seems therefore that the search for equilibrium between
professional and personal spheres translates for the young not only by the refusal to make
oneself extensively available for the company, and a critical discourse against amalgamated
methods of investment, but also by paying particular attention to the control and management
of time. The latter tend to become for this part of the working population a major parameter
in evaluating the value of a job (Delay, 2005).
The survey entitled Histoire de vie-Construction des Identits shows that when people are
asked to say whether work is more or less important than other activities or ways of
living, in particular family life, social life and personal life, 66% of the active working
population says that work is quite important but less than other things and 25% very
important but just as important as other things. The fact of having children (above all for
women), of exercising an intermediate profession, employee or blue-collar worker, increases
the probability of attributing less relative importance to ones work than to other areas of life.
A dual effect can be seen in the way in which the place attributed to work is relativized
compared with other activities or in the competition with work: on the one hand the existence
of family responsibilities or of a family constituted as a pole of interest, investment and
responsibilities principally for women, on the other the SPC (Garner, Senik, Mda, 2005).
We refer furthermore to both these types of hypothesis: the effect of conditions of work and
employment on the one hand and questions of conciliation on the other, in order to better
understand the special French situation.
If the effect of family responsibilities is looked at more particularly, it can be seen that this
effect is principally felt by women with young children. For them, and insofar as the gap
between the sexes regarding tasks and roles still remains very wide in our society, the
family can be seen at one and the same time as a burden affecting working life and which
could impinge on it and as an autonomous sphere of fulfillment likely to compete with work
as the medium for fulfillment and self-expression.
Work is not therefore the only activity likely to provide identity, pleasure and pain to
individuals, the family does so just as much. Work, especially for women with young
children, competes with the responsibilities, obligations and emotional investments which
family life represents. Individuals want more time and less work not in the name of leisure
but principally in the name of the family. The responsibilities and the potential for substantial
relationships represented by the family are the reason for the lack of time felt by some
individuals and which takes the form of difficulties in conciliation even, in certain cases, of
abnegation.
This effect is confirmed by many other surveys in particular an IPSOS survey on conciliating
social time (Mda, 2004), which shows that the importance attributed to work decreases for
couples and where there are children. Asked whether they had the impression of being
obliged to choose between professional and personal life: 1. yes and you choose your
personal life; 2. yes and you choose your professional life; 3. you do not have the impression
of being obliged to choose, 24% of wage-earners interviewed felt they were obliged to
choose and did so in favour of their personal life. Although sex does not appear to be a factor
differentiating replies, age on the other hand is very decisive: it is 15 to 24-year olds and 35
to 45-year olds who most frequently choose this reply. The presence of children especially
65
and particularly young children compels workers to opt for their personal life: without
children, 21% of men and 14% of women said they opted in favour of their personal life
whereas 36% of parents of at least one young child, men and women, chose their personal
life to the detriment of their professional life.
Asked what the effect of the arrival of a child had on the importance attributed to work, 45%
of wage-earners interviewed said that this decreased at the time whereas it only rose for 22%.
This average covers substantial differences, especially between men and women: 11% of
women say that the importance attributed to their work rose against 34% for men and 57% of
women said it decreased compared with 32% for men. Although women belonging to
different age groups said, with very similar percentages, that the importance they attributed
to work at the birth of a child decreased, this was not the case for men many more of whom
than their elders said so when they were in the 25 to 34 age group. Young men today would
seem therefore much more sensitive to the impact of the arrival of a child than men from
older generations. Furthermore, although the effect of the child on the importance attributed
to work is greater amongst women employees than amongst women executives or those in
liberal professions, the reverse is true for men. Executives, people with high incomes and
highly qualified wage-earners are more numerous than all others in declaring that the arrival
of a child has a strong impact on the importance attributed to work.
2.4 A poor link between the different spheres of life
Although the family is a sphere of life from which individuals expect as much satisfaction as
from work and although they consider it, like work, to be a place allowing for fulfillment and the
development of strong links, it is important for individuals to be able to consecrate the necessary
time to each time which furthermore is more limited and more rigid in the presence of young
children and in particular that the work sphere does not encroach on the family sphere. The
desire to reduce the place of work may thus be interpreted as the sign that individuals consider
that reconciling professional and family life is today a cause of dysfunctions.
2.4.1 No time for the family
The fact that the family constitutes not only a refuge for those disappointed by work or a
responsibility but also a positive sphere of fulfillment is also confirmed by the fact that
people interviewed want more and more time to devote to their family. Asked in European
and French surveys about the activities to which they would like to devote more time
Europeans, and even more the French here again, chose the family.
In the version of the International Social Survey Programme which looked at work, people
were asked if they would like to devote more, less or as much time to a certain number of
items (work, leisure, family). In Europe, the family is mentioned most: more than 60% of
people would like to devote more time to it (whereas only 20% would like to devote more
time to work
20
). These surveys, and even more as we will see the next one, all have in
common the ability to show a desire for more family, more time to devote to the family, even
though their desires can sometimes seem contradictory since a fairly substantial number of
individuals would like to devote more time both to the family and to work. This feeling is

20
These are 2005 results, in the 1997 wave, there were fewer people wanting to devote more time to work and there were
also more people wanting to devote more time to the family.
66
particularly strong in France since 75% of the French would like to devote more time to their
family (cf. graph 60). This need, although lower in other European countries, has nonetheless
increased over the last two decades (especially in Germany, the UK and Denmark).
Graph 60: More time for the family?
Percentage of people whishing to spend more time in family
46,4
51,9
50,1
39,4
63,8
48,7
46,1
56,5
66,8
56,5
72,7
66,7
53,9
59,1 59,3
59,9
64,8
65,8 66,0
69,1
72,6
74,4
39,2
74,1
67,4
51,3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
A
u
s
t
r
ia
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
I
t
a
ly
S
p
a
in
F
in
l
a
n
d
G
e
r
m
a
n
y

(
W
e
s
t
)
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
I
r
e
la
n
d
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
G
e
r
m
a
n
y

(
E
a
s
t
)

S
w
e
d
e
n
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
it
a
i
n
F
r
a
n
c
e
1989
1997
2005

Source: ISSP 1989, 1997, 2005.

French surveys confirm this situation. In the survey called RTT et modes de vie, which was
intended to analyse the effects of reducing working hours on ways of life and in particular on
the time devoted to family activities, people who worked full-time were asked if they had the
impression, before RTT, that they lacked time: Did you have the impression before working
hours were reduced, that you did not have enough time (for your family, your extra-curricula
activities, your household tasks, your leisure, etc.) Would you say that you do not have
enough time: still, often, sometimes, never?. Although 39% of wage-earners in the sample
said they had the impression of not having enough time still or often before RTT, 48% of
women said so compared with 36% of men. More than a quarter of men (28%) were never
short of time compared with 18% of women. Lack of time was more marked for women, for
male and female executives and for people with young children: women with young children
were those who lacked most time and the presence of young children particularly increased
for women working full-time the feeling of not having enough time
21
:

21
This survey was prepared by MA Estrade, R. Orain and myself during 2000 within Dares, and processed by us. See in
particular D. Mda, R. Orain, Travail et hors-travail: la construction du jugement des salaris sur les trente cinq heures,
Travail et emploi, April 2002.
67
Would you say you do not have enough time? always and often
in %
Results rounded up to 0.5% All Women Men
All 39.5 48 35.7
Executive 60 74.5 56
Intermediate profession 44 57 34
Non-qualified blue and white collar 31 33.5 28.5
With small children 39.5 57 45.5
With children under 12 44.4 56.5 40.5
Couples without children 36.6 42.3 33.2
Source: RTT/modes de vie survey, Dares
Scope: wage-earners concerned by the survey (1618 full-time wage-earners).

The interviewees were asked furthermore if they had thought about what they would do with
more time and if so, the activities chosen from a dozen items. 63% of the people who had
thought about what they would do with more time available mentioned the family, which came
well ahead of the house, oneself, travel, associative activities, union activities,
political or religious activities. People with young children were more numerous in
indicating that they had given thought to the use of this time and who said they would devote it
to the family. The survey therefore provided two types of information: people working full
time, with young children, men and women but even more women considered that they did
not have enough time (because of their work) for their family. What does the family cover?
The answer is both young children because people with small children are over-represented in
this category (89% for women with children under twelve and 78% for men in the same
situation). But also the spouse or other members of the family because a high proportion of men
and women in couples without children also said they would like to devote this time to the family
(60 and 67%). We will see this paradox in another survey where difficulties of conciliation are also
substantially reported by people not living in a couple and without children
22
.
At European level, the wish to see the importance of work in life decrease and to work less
also depends on the genre and the family situation: the presence of children in the household
seriously raises the possibility of wishing to work less (cf. annexes 1 and 8). The fact of
being a woman also plays a role in the same way. Questions of reconciling work and other
spheres are thus seen as an essential factor in understanding preferences vis--vis working
hours and the place which work should occupy in ones life.
Here once again, over and above the effects of composition, the economic, institutional and
social context may enter into play which is demonstrated by the ISSP 1997 analysis based in
particular on the two questions to which we referred at the start of this section (Stier and
Lewin-Epstein, 2003): the first concerns the wish to work more to earn more. The second
is addressed not simply to workers but to the population as a whole: would you want to
spend more time in remunerated employment? The two authors use a multi-level model to
explain the replies to the two questions for men and women separately in twenty-two

22
Garner H., Mda D., Senik C., Conciliation entre travail et famille, les leons des enqutes auprs des mnages,
Travail et emploi, n 102, April-June 2005.
68
countries, including fifteen European countries. Amongst the explicative variables at
individual level, we find the status of the job, job satisfaction, the feeling of job security, the
level of education, wages, age and matrimonial status. At national level, the two authors add,
as explicative variables, GDP per inhabitant, the Gini coefficient, the rate of participation by
women in the labour market, social spending, the average level of education and the average
importance attributed to work as a cultural determinant. With the exception of this latter
variable whose effect is not significant, the effect of contextual variables conforms to the
authors hypotheses. In countries where the rate of participation by women is higher, the
majority of the population wants to spend less time at work. The familys standard of living
would seem sufficiently high for workers to want to substitute free time to work whether this is
devoted to the family, to friends or to leisure (Stier and Lewin-Epstein, 2003). Furthermore, in
high-income countries with few inequalities and substantial social spending, workers more
often express a preference for reducing time at work. Economic security thus allows them to
envisage substituting free time for work. It should be noted finally that the effect of the level
of education is more important when there are many inequalities: workers on the bottom rung
of the social ladder more frequently wish to work more when the gap between their standard
of living and that of wealthier persons is wider. This analysis convincingly demonstrates the
effect of the social context on the choice between work and free time.
2.4.2 The difficulties of conciliation
This competition between work and family, which is particularly felt by women because of
the responsibilities they assume in family matters, may be translated by interruptions of activity
but also by difficulties of conciliation, tensions between both spheres and a degree of
dissatisfaction vis--vis the number of hours and the timetables worked.
Graph 61: Satisfaction vis--vis working hours according to the ECHP
How satisfied are you with your present job in terms of number of working hours?
3,1
11,9
6,1
12,5
10,7
10,9
6,6 6,2
2,9
3,4
4,6
3,4
15,7
27,4
13,9
20,1
24,3
10,1
13,0 12,6
10,6 8,1
7,2
7,9
61,1
34,4
29,0
26,7 30,0
23,9
24,8
27,2
24,1
20,5
16,6 17,3
16,8
19,4
41,9
25,6 22,4
37,4
35,1
32,6
38,6
36,4
35,1
33,7
2,6
5,3 5,6
8,7 9,8
12,9
18,1 18,8
23,0
30,4
34,9
36,1
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
G
r
e
e
c
e
F
r
a
n
c
e
S
p
a
i
n
I
t
a
l
y
U
n
i
t
e
d

K
i
n
g
d
o
m
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
Source: ECHP, vague 8
Fully satisfied
5
4
3
2
Not satisfied

69
Graph 62 : Satisfaction vis--vis timetables
How satisfied are you with you present job in terms of working times
(day time, night time, shifts, etc.)?
2,7
12,8
5,1
9,6
8,8
4,8 6,2
2,2
3,1
2,6
2,7
11,1
26,0
12,7
21,6
16,2
10,7 10,2
6,8
6,5
4,9
5,0
62,7
33,3
28,5
29,2
25,0
21,8
18,7
18,4
14,6
15,0 12,8
19,5
20,0
43,3
25,2
31,4
35,3
34,6
41,4
34,9
35,0
34,6
3,4
5,9 7,0
11,4
14,0
24,3
28,1
30,4
39,5
41,5
43,5
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
G
r
e
e
c
e
F
r
a
n
c
e
I
t
a
l
y
S
p
a
i
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
Source: ECHP, vague 8
Fully satisfied
5
4
3
2
Not satisfied

Graph 63: Flexibility of hours for personal or family reasons
How difficult would it be for you to take an hour or two off during working hours, to take care of
personal or family matters?
18,2 18,5 18,8 19,2
22,0
24,6
26,1
27,6
28,7
34,1 34,9
36,4
38,7 38,8
41,4
44,6
47,3
23,9
32,8
30,7
32,6 26,2
28,9 26,2
33,3
36,5
31,5
26,2
36,8
33,9
29,9
37,2
33,0
28,6
26,5
30,6
24,7
28,4
24,3
34,2
28,9
21,1
18,6
19,7
20,9
16,2 16,8
21,8
12,8
13,7
13,6
31,4
18,1
25,7
19,8
27,5
12,4
18,8 18,0
16,1
14,8
18,1
10,6 10,6
9,6 8,6 8,7
10,5
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
B
u
l
g
a
r
i
a
L
a
t
v
i
a
F
la
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
G
e
r
m
a
n
y

(
E
a
s
t
)
S
p
a
in
C
z
e
c
h

R
e
p
.
G
e
r
m
a
n
y

(
W
e
s
t
)
F
r
a
n
c
e
S
lo
v
e
n
i
a
H
u
n
g
a
r
y
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
it
a
i
n
F
in
l
a
n
d
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
S
w
e
d
e
n
I
r
e
la
n
d
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
Very difficult
Somewhat difficult
Not too difficult
Not difficult at all

Source: ISSP 2005.

70
Satisfaction concerning the number of hours and the timetables remains relatively high in
Europe according to the ECHP. France is however amongst the Mediterranean countries
where a higher number of workers said they were dissatisfied with the number of hours
worked (graph 61) or the timetables (graph 62). It is in addition more difficult in France and
in the Mediterranean countries to obtain leave for family reasons (graph 63). The organisation of
work, less flexible in Mediterranean countries, complicates reconciliation between different
spheres.
In Germany, France and the UK, one quarter of workers recognises that their job stops them
devoting to their family the time they would like (cf. graph 64). These results underline the
fact that European workers are not entirely satisfied with the current share-out of time
between family and professional life.
Over and above the quantitative equilibrium (in terms of time), work and professional
worry can adversely affect the quality of life outside work. In order to understand the
complicated interactions between the professional and the family sphere, ESS 2002 offers a
number of quite revealing questions: one quarter of Europeans often or always worries
about professional problems outside work. These problems are especially marked in France
since 44% of workers say they often or always worry about professional problems
outside work (graph 65). There are also many French people who consider that they are too
tired when they come home from work to appreciate the things they would like to do in the
home (graph 66). Conversely, family responsibilities do not seem to stop Europeans and the
French first and foremost, from concentrating on the place of work (graph 67). The problems
of conciliation and overlap of time seem therefore to be resolved to the detriment of the
family sphere.
Graph 64: Time at work and time devoted to the family
How often do you find that your job prevents you from giving the time you want to your partner or
family?
3,5
2,2
0,5
1,8 2,1 2,3
4,2
5,6
2,4
5,1 4,7
2,3 2,9
4,9
7,0
8,5
14,4
15,6 16,0 16,1
19,5
19,4
22,8
21,1 21,7
24,4 24,0
23,0
27,0
31,1
40,7
33,4
40,4
34,9
30,9
30,6
36,2
25,4
33,0
45,3
34,3
29,3
29,1
28,7
26,9
27,0
24,7
28,5 26,7
20,6
19,7
21,1
20,7
20,1
23,0
14,4
33,4
29,5
17,5
22,3
16,8
18,2 18,7
23,8
18,9
27,3
20,0
7,8
16,0
28,5
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
I
r
e
la
n
d
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
S
w
e
d
e
n
A
u
s
t
r
ia
G
r
e
e
c
e
S
p
a
in
B
e
l
g
iu
m
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
it
a
i
n
F
in
l
a
n
d
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
F
r
a
n
c
e
Never
Hardly ever
Sometimes
Often
Always

Source: ESS 2002.
71
Graph 65: Work and quality of life outside work
How often do you keep worrying about work problems when you are not working?
2,5 2,3
1,1
2,3
4,2 4,1
5,4
2,2
7,6 7,5
4,9
6,1
8,7
13,2 8,5
10,0
13,9
18,0
17,4 18,0
17,2
21,5
17,4
19,7
22,8
24,8
28,3
31,1
27,1
29,0
38,4
33,6 31,3
39,8
31,8
41,0
27,1
29,2
35,7
32,1
33,0
29,9
26,3
28,3
27,1 26,8
26,7
24,4
19,2
21,8
19,3
22,7
22,4
15,7
12,5
7,8
35,6
30,3
19,4 19,3
20,5
13,7
26,4
13,5
28,6
20,9
14,2
21,3
17,5 18,0
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
I
r
e
la
n
d
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
S
w
e
d
e
n
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
A
u
s
t
r
ia
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
it
a
i
n
F
in
l
a
n
d
S
p
a
in
G
r
e
e
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
B
e
l
g
iu
m
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
F
r
a
n
c
e
Never
Hardly ever
Sometimes
Often
Always

Source: ESS 2002.

Graph 66: Work and quality outside work (2)
How often do you feel too tired after work to enjoy the things you would like to do at home?
2,8 2,9
1,8 2,3 1,4
3,0 3,1 3,0
4,7
2,6
5,9
4,2 5,0
6,3
12,3
13,2 14,7
16,8
21,6
20,9
22,5 22,9
22,0
24,8
22,9 25,9
26,6
25,6
39,6
41,6
44,4
52,2 43,6
44,3
48,9
41,8 40,7
45,1
37,5
40,1 36,8
41,3
23,8
23,4
27,6
23,3
24,5 21,2
19,9
20,1
18,8
20,7
16,2
14,9
20,1
14,5
21,5
18,8
11,5
5,4
9,0
10,6
5,6
12,2
13,8
6,8
17,5
15,0
11,5 12,3
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
I
r
e
la
n
d
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
F
in
l
a
n
d
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
A
u
s
t
r
ia
S
w
e
d
e
n
B
e
l
g
iu
m
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
S
p
a
in
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
r
e
e
c
e
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
it
a
i
n
Never
Hardly ever
Sometimes
Often
Always

Source: ESS 2002.
72
Graph 67: Family responsibilities and working hours
How often do you find it difficult to concentrate on work because of your family responsibilities?
26,3
29,7
31,7
33,2
35,5 36,4
39,6 39,7 40,1
41,7 42,2
43,6
45,5 46,1 46,3 46,4 47,0 47,8
50,2 50,5
51,6 52,5
53,7
59,9
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
F
in
l
a
n
d
C
z
e
c
h

R
e
p
.
I
s
la
n
d
e
S
lo
v
a
k
ia
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
it
a
i
n
N
o
r
v
g
e
P
o
l
a
n
d
S
p
a
in
T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
E
s
t
o
n
i
a
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
k
r
a
in
e
G
r
e
e
c
e
B
e
l
g
iu
m
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
A
u
s
t
r
ia
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
I
r
e
la
n
d
H
u
n
g
a
r
y
S
lo
v
e
n
i
a
S
u
i
s
s
e
F
r
a
n
c
e
Always
Often
Sometimes
Hardly ever
Never

Source: ESS 2002.

French surveys confirm these difficulties: in the survey entitled Histoire de vie-Construction
des identities (Garner, Mda and Senik, 2005), nearly 39% of the employed working
population replied positively to the question: Do you find that your work (hours, place and
organisation) makes organising your family life difficult? Difficulties rise with the number
of children, 45% of men and women finding conciliation difficult when there are three
children. For men, it is the arrival of the first child which is the most difficult hurdle to
overcome; women report more difficulties when there are two children. These difficulties, on the
other hand, slightly decrease with the age of the children. They vary substantially depending on
the employment status: less in the public sector, they are particularly significant for the self-
employed. Conciliation in certain professions is considered more difficult than in others: this
is the case for craftsmen, shopkeepers, heads of undertakings, the liberal professions,
intermediate health and social labour professions and staff in direct face to face services for men;
female shopkeepers, administrative and commercial executives in companies, technicians and
trade employees for women. The fact that more self-employed and executives report
problems of conciliation, like a certain number of particular professions such as staff in direct
face to face services or trade employees, can be principally explained by the atypical hours
of these people (and by the combination of several types of atypical hours: long daily hours,
Saturday or Sunday working, night work, travelling).
Working at night causes the working population most difficulties with regard to arranging
their lives: 62% working at least once a week at night say that conciliation is difficult. 43%
of the workforce travelling at least once a week considers that conciliation is difficult. Travel
is more often seen as prejudicial to reconciling family/professional life by women with
children. Working on Sundays and bank holidays reinforces the difficulties of conciliation
when there are children. Women choosing to work part-time on permanent contracts report
73
less conciliation difficulties than others. On the other hand, when wage-earners have no
choice but to work part-time, i.e. they would like to work more, difficulties of conciliation
are greater than the average for men and women.
A recent Ined survey looking at conciliation confirmed how the arrival of a child led to
women reducing their activity (Pailh and Solaz, 2006), following other studies which
highlighted the fact that conciliation difficulties could lead to the interruption of activity for a
number of women (Mda, Simon, Wierink, 2003). The fact that employment rates for women
with children differ from those for men or for women without children (which are now the
same) (Chardon, Daguet, 2008) and the substantial proportion of women with young children
working part-time or not working is a sign that our society has not yet found how to reconcile
professional and family life for men and women and has not managed to implement the two
incomes equals two care providers model which should enable fathers and mothers to share
family and professional responsibilities. Once women manifest the desire to work and have,
like men, access to employment under the same conditions as men, society should have
radically changed because the entire social body was built around the male breadwinner and
women as fillers-in of time. It is because society has not fully accepted genuine change in
the specialisation of the roles and revised its norms, its institutions and its policies that we
see today substantial inequalities between men and women, more interruptions of activity for
women and difficulties of conciliation.
The massive arrival of women on the labour market occurred in effect with no adaptation of
the environment: the norm of full-time work has not changed. As women, including those
with young children, have begun to work these institutions have proved themselves to be
more and more unsuitable. Gaps have had to be plugged, some tinkering done but overall our
institutions were not rethought and reorganised around this new work reality where women
are the norm, with as the ultimate goal, professional equality with men. The most important
thing in all this is that the task of coordinating different times continues to be based on the
individual, and in this particular case, women, whereas this compatibility should, if the aim
was really for them to work with the same chances as men (of acceding to employment and
to the same jobs), be collectively organised. Family policies, whose aims were openly and
still are partly to promote births, have been guided by several objectives but not as a priority
by that of enabling men and women to genuinely reconcile professional and family life.
Consequently, the chances for women of having access to employment and even more to
quality employment are lower than for men. Because they have to assume responsibility for
the family and because this responsibility is also an object of affection and care, women
are restricted by a very binding choice (Mda, Simon, Wierink, 2003). As clearly shown by
Sen, both sexes do not have the same real liberty for transforming their available resources
into results matching their expectations: for many reasons (traditional representations,
balance of power, non-sharing of family responsibilities), the real freedom which women
have to change the resources available to them into life-style projects is not the same as for
men (Sen, 1999, 2002).
Countries in which social hours are better structured (the Nordic countries in particular), i.e.
where the major collective schedules are more organised (working hours encroach less on
family life and public systems contribute to resolving the question of conciliation thanks to
flexible parental leave and better developed child-care arrangements, see Mda, Privier,
2007) but also those in which companies are more attentive to questions of conciliation and
implement flexible provisions enabling workers to have a minimum of autonomy to realise
their goals, are those in which wage-earners report fewer difficulties or overlaps between
professional and family life. The workers now estimates that the firms are partly responsible
74
for these questions, but stay deaf to the daily difficulties of reconciliation between family and
work life. For the moment, a majority of French declares themselves as dissatisfied with the
policy of their enterprise in this area. Thus, according to the barometer Accor Services of
IPSOS, 63% of wage-earners (and 70% of those who work in a big firm) estimates that their
enterprise does not pay enough attention to their difficulties in the organisation of life
outside work (Solom, 2007). Thus, the difficulties of reconciliation, the overlapping of
times devoted to family and work is a source of tensions for French workers (Lefvre et Al.,
2007). On the contrary, in the Nordic societies, public policies and work organisation
facilitate the conciliation: they allow to compartmentalise the different spheres for those who
want, to avoid a disturbance of family life by work problems. The string compartmentalisation of
the different activities would be a factor of psychological balance (Solom, 2006).
Further investigations should look at the relationships between work and reconciling
different activities. This could confirm what as yet still appears to be a hypothesis: that the
relationship to work depends mainly not only on the socio-professional category but also on
the family situation and that the more qualified section of the population undertakes to
commit to both the working sphere and the family sphere and to find therein two major
sources of fulfillment. Consequently, as recent research on the quality of employment has
shown (Davoine, Ehrel, 2007), one of the important dimensions of employment is its
capacity to allow proper conciliation with other spheres of fulfillment (Mda, 2001). In a
recent survey done by Reims Management School (Beaujolin-Bellet et al., 2007), undertaken
vis--vis 500 young, old, male or female graduates from this school, 70% of them, when
asked to choose the three main items of an ideal job said that an ideal job would be one
which enabled professional and family life to be reconciled.
CONCLUSION
We have shown that the French have a singular relationship with work and, given the
different explanations put forward, have shown that two of these explanations merit special
consideration: the high rate of unemployment and the feeling of job insecurity which mean
that work is all the more desired on the one hand and that the rise in expectations of
fulfillment at work is particularly intense in France and amongst young people. What people
want from work is not only an income, a means of integrating themselves, but a means of
realising their goals, developing their capacities, whether these expectations are reasonable or
not. To such a point that in future, dream jobs, or those in which individuals most seem to
achieve fulfillment, are those considered today as being furthest removed from work: show
business. Does the intensity of such expectations - partly linked to the rise in levels of
education and disappointing for some young people because of the difficult conditions of
entry into working life - not go some way to explain the high levels of French dissatisfaction?
We have also shown the very substantial differences in the perception of work depending on
the socio-professional categories and the family situation, thus illustrating the words of
Galbraith in The lies of the economy: truths for our time, which are still highly topical: in
this work, Galbraith was indignant, not for the first time, at how the very word work was
used to designate both the activity of those who do routine, repetitive and poorly paid tasks
and the activity of those who fulfill themselves in their professional sphere: The paradox is
there. The word work applies simultaneously to those people for whom work is exhausting,
fastidious and disagreeable and to those who manifestly take pleasure from it and feel no
stress from it, with a gratifying sense of their personal importance, perhaps, or the visible
75
superiority they feel in placing others under their orders. Work designates both the obligation
imposed on some people and the source of prestige and substantial remuneration which
others ardently desire and which they enjoy. Using the same word for both situations is
already an obvious sign of a swindle. But that is not all. Individuals who take pleasure in
work this can never be sufficiently underlined are almost universally the highest paid.
That is a fact.
In trying to understand why the French at one and the same time attribute most importance to
work yet most wish to see the place of work reduced in their life, we have proposed four
different explanations which all seem to contribute to resolving this paradox. We have shown
that the wish to see work occupy less place is in no way the sign of a desire for leisure or a
lack of appetite for work but the mark of a dysfunction in the sphere of work quite specific to
France (erosion of working conditions and feeling of job insecurity) as well as the expression
of a positive desire to better reconcile professional and family life in a context of
uninterrupted growth in female activity and inadequacy of public and company policies
enabling individuals also to engage in the different spheres of life to which they attach
importance and which constitute for them so many different ways of achieving them.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ALGAN Y. & CAHUC P. (2006), Civic Attitudes and the Design of Labor Market Institutions: Which
Countries Can Implement the Danish Flexicurity Model? , IZA Discussion Paper, n1928, January.
ALGAN Y. & CAHUC P. (2007), La socit de dfiance : comment le modle sociale franais sauto-dtruit,
CEPREMAP, Editions de la rue dUlm.
AMABLE B. (2005), Les cinq capitalismes. Paris: Seuil.
AMOSSE T. & CHARDON O. (2006), Les travailleurs non qualifis, une nouvelle classe sociale ? ;
Economie et statistique, n393-394.
ANXO D. & ERHEL C. (2006), Irreversibility of time, reversibility of choices? The Life-Course foundations
of the Transitional Labour Markets approach , Cahiers de la MSE, 2006.58.
ARIES PH. (1960), Lenfant et la vie familiale sous lancien rgime, Plon, Paris.
PARBOTEEAH K. P. & CULLEN J. B. (2003), Social Institutions and Work Centrality: Explorations Beyond
National Culture , Organization Science, vol.14, n2, March-April, pp.137-148.
BAUDELOT C. ET GOLLAC M. (2003), Travailler pour tre heureux? Le bonheur et le travail en France. Paris:
Fayard.
BEAUJOLIN-BELLET R., GALOPIN L. avec laide de ANNE C., BINNINGER A.S. & ROBERT I., (2007), Etude sur
les reprsentations du travail des diplmes de Sup de Co Reims, Reims Management Scholl, 211 p., July.
BECK U. (1984), Perspektiven einer kulturellen Evolution der Arbeit , Mitteilungen a.d. Arbeitsmarkt und
Berufsforschung, 17.
BECK.U (2001) La socit du risque, Aubier.
BECK U. & BECK-GERNSHEIM E. (1990), Das ganz normale Chaos der Liebe, Suhrkampf.
BRAUN M. & SCOTT J. (1998), Multidimensional Scaling and Equivalence: Is having a job the same as
working? . in J. A. Harkness (Ed.), Cross-Cultural Survey Equivalence (Vol. 3). Mannheim: ZUMA.
BRECHON P. (2002), Les grandes enqutes internationales (Eurobaromtres, Valeurs, ISSP): apports et
limites , L'Anne sociologique, vol.52, n1, pp.105-130.
76
CHARDON O. & DAGUET F. (2008), L'activit des femmes est toujours sensible au nombre d'enfants , Insee
premire, n 1171, janvier.
CLARK A. (2005), Your Money or Your Life: Changing Job Quality in OECD Countries , British Journal
of Industrial Relations, vol.43, n3, pp.377-400.
CLARK A. (1999), Are wages habit-forming? Evidence from micro data , Journal of Economic Behavior &
Organization, vol.39, pp.179-200.
CLARK A. & SENIK C, La croissance rend-elle heureux ? La rponse des donnes subjectives, in
Economiques 1, Albin Michel, paratre.
CLARK A., FRIJTERS P. & SHIELDS M. Relative Income, Happiness and Utility: An Explanation for the
Easterlin Paradox and Other Puzzles, Journal of Economic Literature, (to be published).
COMMISSION EUROPEENNE (2007), La ralit sociale europenne, Rapport sur lEurobaromtre spcial
273/Vague 66.3.
CROMPTON R. & LYONETTE C. (2006), Some issues in cross-national comparative research methods: a
comparison of attitudes to promotion, and women's employment, in Britain and Portugal , Work,
employment and society, vol.20, n2, June, pp.403-414.
D'IRIBARNE P. (1989), La logique de l'honneur. Gestion des entreprises et traditions nationales. Paris: Seuil.
D'IRIBARNE P. (1991), Culture et effet socital , Revue Franaise de Sociologie, vol.32, n4, pp.599-614.
D'IRIBARNE P. (2006), Ltranget franaise, Paris : Seuil.
DAVOINE L. (2007), La qualit de lemploi : une perspective europenne, thse, Universit Paris 1 Panthon-
Sorbonne, 29 novembre.
DAVOINE L. & ERHEL C. (2007), La qualit de lemploi en Europe : une approche comparative et
dynamique , Document de travail du Centre dtudes de lemploi n86, Noisy-le-Grand : CEE.
DAYAN J.-L. & ERHEL C. (2005), Temps de travail: de nouveaux enjeux? , Connaissance de l'emploi, n21.
DELAY B. (2005), Une approche compare sur la place et le sens attribus au travail le mythe de
lopposition entre les actifs jeunes et gs , in Temps de la vieJeunes et seniors face au travail,
Tempos N4, juin.
DE SINGLY F. (1993), Sociologie de la famille contemporaine, Nathan.
DE WITTE H., HALMAN L. & GELISSEN J. (2004), European work orientations at the end of the twentieth
century . in W. Arts & L. Halman (Eds.), European Values at the Turn of the Millennium (Vol. 7).
Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.
DUVAL G. (2008), Sommes-nous des paresseux et 30 autres questions sur la France et les Franais, Paris :
Seuil.
ERLINGHAGEN M. (2007), Self-Perceived Job Insecurity and Social Context , Discussion Paper DIW
Berlin, n688, April.
ESPING-ANDERSEN G. (1990), The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
ESTER P., BRAUN M. & VINKEN H. (2006), Eroding Work Values? . in P. Ester & M. Braun & P. Mohler
(Eds.), Globalization, Value Change and Generations. A Cross-National and Intergenerational
Perspective (pp. 89-113). Leiden, Boston: Brill Academic Publishers.
FORGEOT G., GAUTIE J., (1997), Insertion professionnelle des jeunes et processus de dclassement in :
Economie et Statistique, N 304-305.
GALBRAITH J. K (2004), Les mensonges de lconomie. Vrit pour notre temps, Grasset, Paris.
GALLIE D. (2007), Welfare Regimes, Employment Systems and Job Preference Orientations , European
Sociological Review, vol.23, n3, pp.279-293.
77
GARNER H., MEDA D. & SENIK C. (2006), La place du travail dans les identits , Economie et statistique,
n393-394, pp.21-39.
GARNER H., MEDA D. & SENIK C. (2005), Conciliation entre vie professionnelle et vie familiale, les leons
des enqutes auprs des mnages , Travail et emploi, n102, avril-juin, pp.57-67.
GIDDENS A. (1992), The transformation of Intimacy. Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies,
Polity Press.
GREEN F. (2006), Demanding Work. The paradox of job quality in the affluent economy. Princeton and
Oxford: Princeton University Press.
HABERMAS J. (1973), La technique et la science comme idologie , in La technique et la science comme
idologie, Denol.
HALLER M. (2002), Theory and Method in the Comparative Study of Values. Critique and Alternative to
Inglehart , European Sociological Review, vol.18, n2, pp.139-158.
HARKNESS J. A. (1998), Cross-Cultural Survey Equivalence (Vol. 3). Mannheim.
HEATH A., FISHER S. & SMITH S. (2005), The Globalization of Public Opinion Research, Annual Review of
Political Science, vol. 8, n6, pp. 297-333.
HOFSTEDE G. (2001), Culture Consequences. Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations
Across Nations (second ed.): Sage Publications.
HOFSTEDE G. (2002), Dimensions do not exist: A reply to Brendan McSweeney , Human Relations, vol.55,
n11, November, pp.1355-1361.
HOUSEAUX F. (2003), La famille, pilier des identits , Insee Premire, n937, dcembre.
HUANG X. & VLIERT E. V. D. (2003), Where intrinsic job satisfaction fail to work: national moderators of
intrinsic motivation , Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol.24, pp.159-179.
HULT C. & SVALLFORS S. (2002), Production Regimes and Work Orientations: A Comparison of Six
Western Countries , European Sociological Review, vol.18, n3, pp.315-331.
INGLEHART R. (1990), Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
INGLEHART R. (1971), The Silent Revolution in Europe: Intergenerational Change in Post-Industrial
Societies , The American Political Science Review, vol.65, n4, December, pp.991-1017.
INGLEHART R. & BAKER W. E. (2000), Modernization, Cultural Change, and the Persistence of Traditional
Values , American Sociological Review, vol.65, n1, pp.19-51.
JOHNSON T., KULESA P., CHO Y. I. & SHAVITT S. (2005), The relation between culture and response styles
, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol.36, n2, March, pp.264-277.
JOWELL R. (1998), How Comparative is Comparative Research? , American Behavioural Scientist, vol.42,
n2, pp.168-177.
LALLEMENT M. (2001), Daedalus laborans , in Travailler est-il (bien) naturel, Revue du MAUSS, 2001/2
LALLEMENT M. (2007) Le Travail. Une sociologie contemporaine, Folio Essais.
LALIVE DEPINAY C. (1994), Significations et valeurs du travail, de la socit industrielle nos jours, in M.
De Coster et F. Pichault (dir.), Trait de sociologie du travail, Bruxelles : De Boeck, 55-82.
LAYARD R. (2005), Happiness. Lessons from a new science. London: Penguin Books.
LEFEVRE C., PAILHE A., SOLAZ A., 2007, Comment les employeurs aident-ils leurs salaris concilier travail
et famille ?, Population et socits, n440, dcembre.
LERAIS F. & LIDDLE R. (2007), La ralit sociale de lEurope, document consultatif du bureau des conseillers
de politique europenne.
78
LORENZ E. & VALEYRE A. (2005), Organisational Innovation, Human Resource Management and Labour
Market Structure: A Comparison of the EU-15 , The Journal of Industrial Relations, vol.47, n4,
Decembre, pp.424-442.
MARX K. (1979), uvres, conomie, tome II, La Pliade, Gallimard.
MEDA D. (1995), Le travail, une valeur en voie de disparition. Paris: Alto-Aubier, rd. Champs-Flammarion,
1998.
MEDA D. (2001), Le temps des femmes. Pour un nouveau partage des rles. Paris : Flammarion, rd.
Champs-Flammarion, 2002.
MEDA D. (2004), La place du travail dans la vie des salaris , Tempos, n1, janvier.
MEDA D. & ORAIN R. (2002), Transformations du travail et du hors travail: le jugement des salaris ,
Travail et emploi, n90, avril, pp.23-38.
MEDA D. & PERIVIER H. (2007), Le Deuxime ge de lmancipation, La Rpublique des Ides, Seuil.
MEDA D., SIMON MO. & WIERINK M (2003), Pourquoi certaines femmes sarrtent-elles de travailler la
naissance dun enfant ? , Premires Synthses, Dares, juin.
MENGER P.-M. (2003), Portrait de lartiste en travailleur, Paris, Le Seuil.
MERCURE D. & SPURK J. (2003), Le Travail dans lhistoire de la pense occidentale,
NAUZE-FICHET E., TOMASINI M., (2002), Diplme et insertion sur le march du travail : approches socio-
professionnelle et salariale du dclassement , Economie et Statistique, N354.
PAILHE A. & SOLAZ A. (2006), La charge de la conciliation repose essentiellement sur les femmes,
Population et socit, Ined, n 426.
PARENT-THIRION A., MACIAS E. F., HURLEY J. & VERMEYLEN G. (2007). Fourth European Working
Conditions Survey. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working
Conditions.
PAUGAM S. (2000), Le salari de la prcarit, PUF.
PHILIPPON T. (2007), Le capitalisme d'hritiers. La crise franaise du travail. Paris: Seuil.
POSTEL-VINAY F. & SAINT-MARTIN A. (2005), Comment les salaris peroivent-ils la protection de
l'emploi? , Economie et statistique, vol.372, n41-59.
RIFFAULT H. & TCHERNIA J.-F. (2002), Les Europens et le travail: un rapport plus personnel , Futuribles,
n277, juillet-aot.
SOLOM A. (2006), Salaris et entreprises: vers une relation "transactionnelle"? , IPSOS Ideas, mars.
SOLOM A. (2007), Juillet 2007 : les salaris franais au cur dune quation impossible , La newsletter
dIpsos Loyalty ERM, disponible sur ipsosloyalty.com/fr/
SOUSA-POZA A. & SOUSA-POZA A. A. (2000), Well-being at work: a cross-national analysis of the levels
and determinants of job satisfaction , Journal of Socio-Economics, vol.29, pp.517-538.
SEN A (2002), Quelle galit ? , in Ethique et conomie, Paris, PUF.
SEN A. (1999), Commodities and capabilities, Oxford University Press.
SENIK C (2006), La perception du revenu d'autrui dans la vieille Europe, la nouvelle Europe, et les Etats-
Unis : ambition et jalousie in Revue conomique, Vol. 57 : n 3 (mai), p. 645-653.
SMITH P. B. (2004), Acquiescent Response Bias as an Aspect of Cultural Communication Style , Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol.35, n1, January, pp.50-61.
STIER H. & LEWIN-EPSTEIN N. (2003), Time to Work: A Comparative Analysis of Preferences for Working
Hours , Work and Occupations, vol.30, n3, August, pp.302-326.
79
SVALLFORS S., HALVORSEN K. & ANDERSEN J. G. (2001), Work Orientation in Scandinavia: Employment
Commitment and Organizational Commitment in Denmark, Norway and Sweden , Acta Sociologica,
vol.44, pp.139-156.
TCHERNIA J.-F. (2005), Les jeunes Europens, leur rapport au travail . in O. Galland & B. Roudet (Eds.),
Les jeunes Europens et leurs valeurs: Europe occidentale, Europe centrale et orientale. Paris: Injep,
La Dcouverte.
VENDRAMIN P. (2004) "Le travail au singulier, le lien social lpreuve de lindividualisation", co-dition
Acadmia-Bruylant, LHarmattan, Collection Sciences et enjeux, Louvain-la-Neuve.
VENDRAMIN P. (2005), Les cls de la satisfaction au travail, Tempos, n 4, Temps de la vie. Jeunes et seniors
face au travail.
VOICU M. (2004), Work and family life in Europe: Value patterns and policy making . in W. Arts & L.
Halman (Eds.), European Values at the Turn of the Millennium (Vol. 7). Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.
WEBER M. (1989(1905)), L'thique protestante et l'esprit du capitalisme. Paris: Pocket.
WILLAIME J.P (2003), Les rformes protestantes et la valorisation religieuse du travail , in Le travail dans
lhistoire de la pense occidentale, D. Mercure et J. Spurk (dir.)
ZOLL R. (1999), Mutation des orientations des jeunes par rapport au travail , in Travail-activit-emploi.
Une comparaison France-Allemagne, Paris, La Documentation franaise, cahier Travail et emploi ,
p. 9-14.
80

Annex 1- Some details on the basic samples used
Annex 1.1
Countries concerned and number of interviews for the three EVS waves
1981 1990 1999
European Union
Germany* 1305 2101+1336 2036
Austria - 1460 1522
Belgium 1348 2792 1912
Denmark 1305 1030 1023
Spain 2303 4147 1200
Finland 1003 588 1038
France 1200 1002 1821
UK 1231 1484 1000
Greece - - 1142
Ireland 1217 1000 1012
Northern Ireland 312 304 1000
Italy 1348 2010 2000
Luxembourg - - 1211
Netherlands 1221 1017 1003
Portugal - 1185 1000
Sweden 954 1047 1015
Estonia - 1008 1005
Hungary 1464 999 1000
Latvia - 903 1013
Lithuania - 1000 1018
Malta - - 1002
Poland - 938 1095
Slovakia** - (1396) 1331
Slovenia - 1035 1006
Czech Rep.** - (1396) 1908
Bulgaria - 1034 1000
Romania - 1103 1146
European Economic Area
Iceland 927 702 968
Norway 1246 1239 -
Switzerland - 1400 -
Candidate countries and rest of Europe
Belarus - 1015 1000
Croatia - - 1000
Russia - 1961 2500
Ukraine - - 1195
Turkey - 1030 1206
*In Germany, the survey was only done in the West in 1981, then in the East in 1990 (with two different
samples) and with a single sample in 1999.
**In 1990, a single survey was done in Czechoslovakia.
Source: Brchon and Tchernia, 2002

Annex 1.2
Countries concerned and number of interviews
for the three ISSP waves on job preferences
1989 1997 2006
European Union
Germany (East) 531 587
Germany (West) 1575 1215 1114
Austria 1997
Bulgaria 1004 1121
Cyprus 1002 1000
Denmark 1034 1598
Spain 1211 1203
Finland 1345
Flanders (Belgium) 1338
France 1011 1620
UK 1297 1088 913
Hungary 1000 1496 1012
Ireland 972 1001
Northern Ireland 780
Italy 1028 1017
Latvia 1067
Netherlands 1690 2267
Czech Rep. 1080 1226
Poland 1200
Portugal 1637 1837
Slovenia 1005 1002
Sweden 1353 1371
European Economic Area
Norway 1848 2199 1322
Switzerland 2518 1078
Rest of world
South Africa 2884
Australia
Bangladesh 2000 1988
Canada 949 933
South Korea 1613
USA 1453 1228 1518
Israel 1133 1533 1184
Japan 1226 921
Mexico 1401
New Zealand 1198 1309
Philippines 1200 1200
Dominican Rep. 1958
Russia 1698 1605
Taiwan 2171
Source: ISSP site: http://www.issp.org/

82

Annex 2 - The real and desired importance of work:
an explanatory model

The importance of work
in life
Wanting to see less
importance attributed to
work
Coefficient
Standard
deviation Coefficient SD
Woman -0,042
***
(0,009) -0,004

(0,008)
Less than bac (ref.: > to baccalaurat) 0,008

(0,013) -0,014

(0,011)
Baccalaurat 0,030
*
(0,017) -0,020

(0,015)
With child(children) 0,053
***
(0,010) -0,048
***
(0,009)
Young people (<30) (ref.: seniors) -0,027
*
(0,016) 0,038
***
(0,013)
30-50 -0,025
**
(0,012) 0,060
***
(0,010)
Student (ref.: full-time wage-earner) 0,026

(0,053) 0,037

(0,040)
Unemployed 0,079
**
(0,036) 0,089
***
(0,031)
Housewife -0,118
***
(0,029) -0,027

(0,025)
Pensioner -0,301
***
(0,025) -0,141
***
(0,022)
Other -0,139
**
(0,058) 0,067

(0,060)
Self-employed 0,198
***
(0,034) -0,060
**
(0,030)
Part-time wage-earner (<30 hours/week) 0,017

(0,027) 0,032

(0,025)
Employer with more than 10 employees 0,255
***
(0,056) -0,062

(0,053)
Employer with less than 10 employees 0,121
***
(0,034) -0,065
**
(0,030)
Liberal profession or senior executive 0,023

(0,028) 0,009

(0,026)
Intermediate profession -0,081
***
(0,023) 0,029

(0,021)
Employee -0,026

(0,021) 0,034
*
(0,019)
Supervisor 0,011

(0,043) -0,049

(0,039)
Qualified worker -0,026

(0,023) 0,024

(0,020)
Specialised worker -0,074
***
(0,027) 0,074
***
(0,024)
Unskilled worker -0,043

(0,026) 0,084
***
(0,023)
Farmer 0,055

(0,039) -0,044

(0,036)
Farm labourer -0,162
***
(0,059) 0,016

(0,055)
Serviceman (ref.: no profession) -0,031

(0,085) -0,044

(0,073)
Catholic (ref.: no religion) 0,044

(0,054) -0,022

(0,046)
Protestant 0,075

(0,056) 0,011

(0,048)
Jewish 0,043

(0,198) -0,005

(0,105)
Muslim 0,133

(0,136) -0,022

(0,125)
Hindu -0,024

(0,267) -0,179

(0,245)
Buddhist -0,129

(0,215) 0,153

(0,192)
Non-conformist -0,096

(0,072) -0,054

(0,067)
Other 0,020

(0,071) -0,029

(0,065)
1st quintile (ref. last quintile) -0,015

(0,017) 0,004

(0,014)
2
nd
quintile 0,017

(0,014) -0,012

(0,013)
3
rd
quintile 0,017

(0,015) -0,019

(0,013)
4
th
quintile -0,027

(0,017) 0,020

(0,014)
Notes: ***=significant to 1%; **=significant to 5%; *=significant to 10%. We have modelled the ordered probits with four
modalities for the importance of work (very important, important, not important, not at all important) and three
modalities for the wish to see less importance attributed to work (it would be a good thing, indifferent, a bad thing). In the
first column, a plus sign reads like a higher probability of declaring a higher degree of importance. In the second column, a plus
sign means a higher probability of declaring that it would be a good thing if work was less important, or not disapproving this
idea. The quintiles correspond to household and not personal income. Source: EVS 1980, 1990, 1999
Continued on next page


Previous table cont.

The importance of work
in life
Wanting to see less
importance attributed to
work
Coefficient SD Coefficient SD
1981 nd -0,094 *** (0,013)
1990 -0,020 ** (0,009) -0,063 *** (0,010)
Austria (ref.: Sweden) 0,213 *** (0,028) -0,231 *** (0,028)
Belgium 0,171 *** (0,025) 0,305 *** (0,022)
Denmark -0,288 *** (0,034) -0,217 *** (0,031)
Finland -0,063 (0,042) -0,445 *** (0,043)
France 0,287 *** (0,030) 0,613 *** (0,025)
Germany -0,387 *** (0,023) 0,015 (0,021)
UK -0,355 *** (0,030) 0,204 *** (0,031)
Greece 0,142 ** (0,070) -0,259 *** (0,070)
Ireland 0,061 * (0,033) -0,249 *** (0,028)
Italy 0,228 *** (0,028) -0,236 *** (0,025)
Netherlands -0,051 (0,032) 0,091 *** (0,027)
Portugal -0,275 *** (0,037) 0,081 ** (0,038)
Spain 0,256 *** (0,026) 0,352 *** (0,021)
N of observations 24898 32534

Notes: *** =significant to 1%; ** significant to 5%; * significant to 10%; ND = not available.
EXPLANATORY TEXT SAME AS ABOVE

84

Annex 3 - Importance of work and socio-economic context
Estimated coefficient SD
Woman -0,071 *** 0,015
Man .
Less than bac 0,012 0,019
Baccalaurat 0,041 * 0,023
More than bac .
With child(children) 0,118 *** 0,019
Without children .
Young people (<30) -0,076 *** 0,025
30-50 -0,082 *** 0,019
Seniors (>50) .
Student -0,230 *** 0,062
Unemployed -0,176 *** 0,038
Housewife -0,363 *** 0,036
Pensioner -0,575 *** 0,023
Other -0,333 *** 0,070
Self-employed -0,058 * 0,034
Part-time wage-earner (<30 hours/week) -0,203 *** 0,027
Full-time wage-earner (>30 hours/week) .
Employer with more than 10 employees 0,324 *** 0,066
Employer with less than 10 employees 0,116 ** 0,050
Liberal profession or senior executive 0,014 0,045
Intermediate profession (technician, etc,) -0,055 0,043
Employee 0,008 0,042
Supervisor 0,084 0,054
Qualified worker 0,014 0,042
Specialised worker -0,048 0,044
Unskilled worker -0,036 0,043
Farmer 0,065 0,056
Farm labourer -0,163 *** 0,059
Serviceman (professional) -0,015 0,086
Never had wage-earning activity .
Catholic 0,136 *** 0,019
Protestant 0,114 *** 0,027
Jewish 0,112 0,195
Muslim 0,334 *** 0,103
Hindu 0,142 0,285
Buddhist -0,024 0,234
Non-conformist -0,059 0,051
Other 0,072 * 0,042
No religion .


1
st
quintile 0,017 0,027
2
nd
3
rd
4
th
quintile -0,015 0,025
5
th
quintile .
90 -0,014 0,028
99 .
GDP per inhabitant (/1000) 0,012 ** 0,054
Rate of unemployment 0,017 *** 0,006
Threshold 1 0,373 ** 0,138
Threshold 2 1,610 *** 0,138
Threshold 3 2,138 *** 0,138
Notes: ***=significant to 1%; **=significant to 5%; *=significant to 10%.
Countries used for the analysis: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Rep., Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, France, Germany, UK, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg,
Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden,
Turkey
Source: EVS 99 and 90

86

Annex 4 - The importance of the different facets
according to the ISSP 1997 and the ISSP 2005
Importance of job security
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
S
w
e
d
e
n
S
p
a
i
n
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
i
t
a
i
n
F
r
a
n
c
e
I
t
a
l
y
W
e
s
t

G
e
r
m
a
n
y
E
a
s
t

G
e
r
m
a
n
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
Very important
Important
Not important

Source: ISSP 1997.

Importance of wage
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
S
w
e
d
e
n
W
e
s
t

G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
i
t
a
i
n
F
r
a
n
c
e
E
a
s
t

G
e
r
m
a
n
y
I
t
a
l
y
S
p
a
i
n
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
Very important
Important
Not important

Source: ISSP 1997.

Importance of promotion opportunities
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
S
w
e
d
e
n
E
a
s
t

G
e
r
m
a
n
y
W
e
s
t

G
e
r
m
a
n
y
F
r
a
n
c
e
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
i
t
a
i
n
I
t
a
l
y
S
p
a
i
n
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
Very important
Important
Not important

Source: ISSP 1997.

Importance of an interesting job
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
S
p
a
i
n
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
E
a
s
t

G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
i
t
a
i
n
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
I
t
a
l
y
S
w
e
d
e
n
W
e
s
t

G
e
r
m
a
n
y
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
r
a
n
c
e
Very important
Important
Not important

Source: ISSP 1997.

88
Importance of a job that allows someone to work independently
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
i
t
a
i
n
F
r
a
n
c
e
S
p
a
i
n
I
t
a
l
y
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
S
w
e
d
e
n
E
a
s
t

G
e
r
m
a
n
y
W
e
s
t

G
e
r
m
a
n
y
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
Very important
Important
Not important

Source: ISSP 1997.

Importance of a job that allows someone to help other people
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
W
e
s
t

G
e
r
m
a
n
y
F
r
a
n
c
e
S
w
e
d
e
n
E
a
s
t

G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
i
t
a
i
n
I
t
a
l
y
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
S
p
a
i
n
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
Very important
Important
Not important

Source: ISSP 1997.

89
Importance of a job that is useful to society
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
W
e
s
t

G
e
r
m
a
n
y
E
a
s
t

G
e
r
m
a
n
y
S
w
e
d
e
n
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
i
t
a
i
n
I
t
a
l
y
P
o
l
a
n
d
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
S
p
a
i
n
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
Very important
Important
Not important

Source: ISSP 1997.

Importance of a job that allows someone to decide their times or day of working
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
G
r
e
a
t

B
r
it
a
i
n
E
a
s
t

G
e
r
m
a
n
y
W
e
s
t

G
e
r
m
a
n
y
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
N
e
t
h
e
r
la
n
d
s
S
w
e
d
e
n
S
p
a
in
F
r
a
n
c
e
I
t
a
ly
Very important
Important
Not important

Source: ISSP 1997.

90
Importance of job security
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Denmark Great
Britain
Finland Ireland Sweden France Portugal West
Germany
Spain East
Germany
Very important
Important
Not important

Source: ISSP 2005.

Importance of wage
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Denmark West
Germany
Great
Britain
Sweden Finland France Ireland East
Germany
Portugal Spain
Very important
Important
Not important

Source: ISSP 2005.

91
Importance of promotion opportunities
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Denmark Finland Sweden West
Germany
East
Germany
France Great
Britain
Ireland Spain Portugal
Very important
Important
Not important

Source: ISSP 2005.

Importance of an interesting job
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
West
Germany
Spain Portugal East
Germany
Finland Sweden Great
Britain
Ireland Denmark France
Very important
Important
Not important

Source: ISSP 2005.

92
Importance of a job that allows someone to work independently
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Great
Britain
France Finland Sweden Ireland Portugal West
Germany
Spain East
Germany
Denmark
Very important
Important
Not important

Source: ISSP 2005.

Importance of a job that allows someone to help other people
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Finland France West
Germany
Great
Britain
Sweden Denmark East
Germany
Spain Ireland Portugal
Very important
Important
Not important

Source: ISSP 2005.

93
Importance of a job that is useful to society
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Finland Sweden West
Germany
France Denmark Great
Britain
East
Germany
Spain Ireland Portugal
Very important
Important
Not important

Source: ISSP 2005.

Importance of a job that allows someone to decide their times or day of working
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Great
Britain
East
Germany
West
Germany
Denmark Finland Sweden France Portugal Ireland Spain
Very important
Important
Not important

Source: ISSP 2005.

94

Annex 5 - The importance of the different facets:
an explanatory model

Intrinsic interest in
work High wages Job security
Coefficient SD Coefficient SD Coefficient SD
Women 0,001 (0,010) -0,055 *** (0,010) 0,013 (0,009)
Married, marital status -0,022 ** (0,010) -0,004 (0,010) 0,034 *** (0,009)
<30 0,087 *** (0,017) 0,081 *** (0,017) 0,061 *** (0,016)
Between 30 and 50 (ref: >50) -0,011 (0,013) 0,007 (0,013) -0,031 *** (0,012)
Catholic (ref: no religion) 0,068 ** (0,030) -0,067 (0,053) 0,115 ** (0,049)
Jewish -0,213 (0,155) -0,030 (0,230) -0,297 (0,210)
Muslim -0,196 * (0,115) 0,316 *** (0,104) 0,179 * (0,103)
Protestant 0,092 *** (0,032) -0,135 ** (0,054) 0,060 (0,049)
Other 0,116 ** (0,051) -0,068 (0,063) -0,085 (0,058)
Level of studies > to bac 0,162 *** (0,016) -0,110 *** (0,017) -0,146 *** (0,015)
Bac -0,023 (0,017) -0,032 * (0,018) 0,004 (0,015)
No personal income 0,059 *** (0,020) 0,000 (0,019) -0,008 (0,017)
1
st
quartile -0,090 *** (0,021) -0,007 (0,020) -0,051 *** (0,018)
2
nd
quartile -0,078 *** (0,018) 0,011 (0,019) 0,060 *** (0,017)
3rd quartile (ref.: 4
th
) -0,010 (0,018) 0,007 (0,019) 0,080 *** (0,018)
Half-time (ref.: full-time -0,029 (0,033) -0,003 (0,037) -0,054 * (0,032)
Very part-time 0,024 (0,064) -0,179 ** (0,075) -0,024 (0,058)
Helps the family -0,170 (0,114) 0,028 (0,125) -0,193 * (0,116)
Unemployed 0,043 (0,048) 0,111 *** (0,040) 0,096 ** (0,038)
Student 0,235 *** (0,063) -0,055 (0,047) -0,047 (0,042)
Pensioner -0,021 (0,033) -0,077 ** (0,032) 0,068 ** (0,028)
Housewives/men at home -0,042 (0,034) 0,044 (0,031) -0,021 (0,028)
Other, not working -0,076 (0,086) -0,027 (0,072) 0,021 (0,064)
Handicapped 0,045 (0,081) 0,113 (0,085) 0,135 * (0,078)
No profession 0,043 (0,034) 0,013 (0,031) 0,021 (0,027)
Senior executives and managers 0,142 *** (0,040) 0,087 ** (0,044) -0,121 *** (0,040)
Intellectual professions 0,172 *** (0,035) -0,086 ** (0,041) -0,006 (0,034)
Intermediate professions 0,095 *** (0,030) -0,028 (0,035) -0,002 (0,030)
Administrative-type employees -0,061 * (0,035) -0,072 * (0,041) 0,044 (0,036)
Services personnel and sales staff 0,061 ** (0,031) 0,037 (0,034) 0,097 *** (0,031)
Farmers and fishermen -0,059 (0,063) -0,173 ** (0,073) -0,166 *** (0,064)
Craftsmen -0,090 *** (0,034) 0,029 (0,037) 0,047 (0,035)
Assembly workers, drivers -0,210 *** (0,040) 0,085 ** (0,043) 0,037 (0,041)
Source: ISSP 1989, 1997, 2005.
Table continues next page



Intrinsic interest in
work High wages Job security
Austria 89 0,343 *** (0,052) 0,268 *** (0,037) 0,284 *** (0,037)
Germany 05 -0,052 (0,037) -0,118 *** (0,039) 0,202 *** (0,035)
Germany 97 -0,038 (0,043) -0,328 *** (0,040) 0,285 *** (0,034)
Germany 89 0,046 (0,045) 0,052 (0,045) -0,110 *** (0,042)
Denmark 05 0,078 * (0,041) -0,427 *** (0,051) -0,604 *** (0,040)
Denmark 97 0,179 *** (0,056) -0,446 *** (0,058) -0,524 *** (0,045)
Spain 05 0,001 (0,048) 0,985 *** (0,041) 0,195 *** (0,041)
Spain 97 -0,341 *** (0,065) 0,245 *** (0,042) -0,015 (0,040)
Finland 05 -0,140 *** (0,043) 0,004 (0,047) -0,067 (0,041)
France 05 0,375 *** (0,046) 0,033 (0,038) 0,120 *** (0,035)
France 97 0,311 *** (0,057) -0,093 * (0,054) 0,284 *** (0,047)
UK 05 -0,016 (0,050) -0,217 *** (0,056) -0,176 *** (0,047)
UK 97 -0,083 * (0,045) -0,254 *** (0,050) 0,162 *** (0,043)
UK 89 -0,109 ** (0,047) -0,100 * (0,051) -0,002 (0,045)
Ireland 05 0,092 * (0,048) 0,131 *** (0,049) -0,077 * (0,044)
Ireland 89 -0,196 *** (0,057) 0,202 *** (0,057) 0,147 *** (0,055)
Italy 97 0,093 (0,060) 0,177 *** (0,045) 0,147 *** (0,043)
Italy 89 0,068 (0,065) 0,174 *** (0,053 0,311 *** (0,054)
Netherlands 97 -0,310 *** (0,042) -0,641 *** (0,047) -0,462 *** (0,036)
Netherlands 89 -0,382 *** (0,044) -0,470 *** (0,048) -0,549 *** (0,040)
Portugal 05 0,040 (0,040) 0,506 *** (0,037) -0,006 (0,035)
Portugal 97 0,097 ** (0,047) 0,440 *** (0,039) 0,489 *** (0,041)
N of observations 27207 27919 27992
Source: ISSP 1989, 1997, 2005.

96

Promotion
opportunities Autonomy Helping others
Women -0,037 *** (0,009) -0,047 *** (0,009) 0,094 *** (0,009)
Married, marital status -0,017 * (0,010) -0,015 (0,010) -0,004 (0,010)
<30 0,157 *** (0,017) -0,040 ** (0,016) 0,004 (0,017)
Between 30 and 50 (ref: >50) -0,055 *** (0,013) 0,036 *** (0,012) -0,024 * (0,013)
Catholic (ref: no religion) -0,033 (0,054) 0,047 (0,054) -0,012 (0,057)
Jewish -0,087 (0,235) -0,175 (0,238) -0,286 (0,252)
Muslim 0,387 *** (0,105) -0,165 (0,112) 0,161 (0,109)
Protestant -0,077 (0,055) 0,095 * (0,055) 0,051 (0,057)
Other -0,118 * (0,064) 0,055 (0,063) 0,081 (0,066)
Level of studies > to bac -0,003 (0,016) 0,077 *** (0,015) 0,033 ** (0,016)
Bac 0,001 (0,017) -0,032 ** (0,016) -0,050 *** (0,016)
No personal income 0,077 *** (0,018) 0,027 (0,018) 0,027 (0,019)
1
st
quartile -0,052 *** (0,020) -0,031 * (0,019) -0,026 (0,019)
2
nd
quartile -0,051 *** (0,019) -0,076 *** (0,017) 0,022 (0,018)
th
) -0,023 (0,019) -0,010 (0,018) 0,017 (0,019)
Half-time (ref.: full time) -0,060 * (0,036) 0,046 (0,033) 0,038 (0,034)
Very part-time -0,193 *** (0,070) -0,063 (0,060) 0,117 * (0,060)
Helps the family 0,026 (0,130) 0,044 (0,117) -0,150 (0,127)
Unemployed 0,036 (0,041) -0,020 (0,039) -0,063 (0,040)
Student 0,099 ** (0,046) -0,058 (0,043) 0,089 ** (0,044)
Pensioner 0,062 * (0,032) -0,105 *** (0,029) -0,001 (0,030)
Housewives/men at home 0,023 (0,031) -0,030 (0,029) -0,025 (0,030)
Other, not working -0,007 (0,071) 0,084 (0,065) 0,064 (0,068)
Handicapped 0,001 (0,090) 0,018 (0,081) -0,064 (0,084)
No profession 0,061 * (0,031) 0,043 (0,028) 0,013 (0,029)
Senior executives and managers 0,140 *** (0,045) 0,127 *** (0,041) -0,055 (0,045)
Intellectual professions 0,067 * (0,040) 0,088 *** (0,034) 0,098 *** (0,036)
Intermediate professions 0,039 (0,036) 0,020 (0,031) 0,171 *** (0,032)
Administrative-type employees 0,057 (0,041) -0,067 * (0,037) -0,104 *** (0,039)
Services personnel and sales staff 0,035 (0,035) -0,034 (0,032) 0,271 *** (0,031)
Farmers and fishermen -0,213 *** (0,078) 0,074 (0,065) -0,179 ** (0,073)
Craftsmen -0,105 *** (0,040) -0,109 *** (0,035) -0,081 ** (0,038)
Assembly workers, drivers -0,037 (0,046) -0,123 *** (0,042) -0,106 ** (0,045)
Source: ISSP 1989, 1997, 2005.
Table continues on next page

97


Promotion opportunities
Autonomy

Helping others
Austria 89 0,487 *** (0,036) 0,719 *** (0,036) 0,312 *** (0,037)
Germany 05 -0,215 *** (0,040) 0,241 *** (0,035) -0,064 * (0,037)
Germany 97 0,022 (0,045) 0,202 *** (0,033) -0,238 *** (0,048)
Germany 89 -0,333 *** (0,040) 0,236 *** (0,042) -0,255 *** (0,039)
Denmark 05 -0,773 *** (0,056) 0,294 *** (0,039) -0,025 (0,042)
Denmark 97 -0,647 *** (0,060) 0,433 *** (0,044) 0,242 *** (0,046)
Spain 05 0,526 *** (0,041) 0,265 *** (0,041) 0,390 *** (0,041)
Spain 97 0,200 *** (0,042) -0,057 (0,042) 0,153 *** (0,043)
Finland 05 -0,597 *** (0,054) -0,319 *** (0,045) -0,407 *** (0,048)
France 05 -0,079 ** (0,038) -0,312 *** (0,038) -0,257 *** (0,040)
France 97 -0,229 *** (0,053) -0,270 *** (0,050) -0,246 *** (0,054)
UK 05 -0,018 (0,053) -0,359 *** (0,053) -0,165 *** (0,052)
UK 97 0,171 *** (0,047) -0,447 *** (0,048) -0,311 *** (0,052)
UK 89 -0,022 (0,046) -0,416 *** (0,050) -0,152 *** (0,047)
Ireland 05 0,360 *** (0,047) 0,044 (0,046) 0,378 *** (0,046)
Ireland 89 0,345 *** (0,055) -0,268 *** (0,058) -0,113 * (0,061)
Italy 97 0,244 *** (0,053) -0,029 (0,044) -0,038 (0,056)
Italy 89 0,014 (0,045) 0,040 (0,052) -0,002 (0,046)
Netherlands 97 0,080 * (0,042) -0,043 (0,037) -0,099 ** (0,043)
Netherlands 89 -0,080 ** (0,040) -0,067 * (0,040) -0,035 (0,039)
Portugal 05 0,575 *** (0,037) 0,118 *** (0,036) 0,439 *** (0,036)
Portugal 97 0,423 *** (0,039) 0,019 (0,039) 0,644 *** (0,038)
N of observations 27733 27883 27766
Source: ISSP 1989, 1997, 2005.

98

Helping society
Being able to choose
working hours
Women 0,049 *** (0,009) 0,034 *** (0,010)
Married, marital status -0,011 (0,010) 0,000 (0,011)
<30 -0,049 *** (0,017) -0,056 *** (0,018)
Between 30 and 50 (ref: >50) -0,027 ** (0,013) 0,079 *** (0,014)
Catholic (ref: no religion) -0,043 (0,055) -0,150 *** (0,052)
Jewish -0,183 (0,242) 0,283 (0,219)
Muslim 0,224 ** (0,107) -0,011 (0,114)
Protestant -0,012 (0,056) -0,060 (0,053)
Other 0,017 (0,065) -0,044 (0,062)
Level of studies > to bac 0,070 *** (0,016) 0,019 (0,017)
Bac -0,064 *** (0,017) 0,003 (0,017)
No personal income 0,019 (0,019) 0,090 *** (0,020)
1
st
quartile -0,038 * (0,019) 0,021 (0,020)
2
nd
quartile -0,015 (0,018) -0,028 (0,019)
th
) 0,033 * (0,019) -0,031 (0,020)
Half-time (ref.: full time) 0,014 (0,035) 0,085 ** (0,035)
Very part-time -0,034 (0,065) 0,053 (0,065)
Helps the family -0,093 (0,131) 0,052 (0,130)
Unemployed -0,055 (0,041) -0,004 (0,042)
Student 0,068 (0,046) -0,063 (0,048)
Pensioner 0,047 (0,031) -0,177 *** (0,033)
Housewives/men at home -0,008 (0,031) -0,054 * (0,032)
Other, not working 0,051 (0,070) 0,097 (0,071)
Handicapped 0,015 (0,084) -0,007 (0,088)
No profession 0,045 (0,030) 0,002 (0,031)
Senior executives and managers -0,047 (0,044) 0,023 (0,045)
Intellectual professions 0,132 *** (0,037) 0,063 * (0,038)
Intermediate professions 0,074 ** (0,033) 0,008 (0,034)
Administrative-type employees -0,084 ** (0,040) -0,033 (0,040)
Services personnel and sales staff 0,186 *** (0,033) 0,012 (0,034)
Farmers and fishermen -0,189 ** (0,074) -0,032 (0,074)
Craftsmen -0,073 * (0,039) -0,066 * (0,040)
Assembly workers, drivers -0,026 (0,045) 0,031 (0,045)
Source: ISSP 1989, 1997, 2005.
Table continues on next page

99

Helping society
Being able to choose working
hours
Austria 89 0,235 *** (0,037) 0,303 *** (0,039)
Germany 05 -0,082 ** (0,038) -0,176 *** (0,042)
Germany 97 -0,149 *** (0,047) -0,114 ** (0,050)
Germany 89 -0,389 *** (0,041) -0,308 *** (0,043)
Denmark 05 -0,130 *** (0,044) -0,085 * (0,045)
Denmark 97 0,076 (0,047) -0,134 ** (0,053)
Spain 05 0,484 *** (0,041) 0,611 *** (0,042)
Spain 97 0,194 *** (0,042) 0,089 * (0,046)
Finland 05 -0,506 *** (0,051) 0,064 (0,047)
France 05 -0,139 *** (0,039) 0,072 * (0,039)
France 97 -0,201 *** (0,053) 0,078 (0,053)
UK 05 -0,149 *** (0,053) -0,295 *** (0,058)
UK 97 -0,176 *** (0,051) -0,253 *** (0,054)
UK 89 -0,172 *** (0,047) -0,430 *** (0,055)
Ireland 05 0,463 *** (0,046) 0,222 *** (0,049)
Ireland 89 -0,051 (0,059) 0,016 (0,062)
Italy 97 0,111 ** (0,054) 0,159 *** (0,057)
Italy 89 -0,044 (0,047) 0,385 *** (0,045)
Netherlands 97 -0,121 *** (0,043) -0,404 *** (0,050)
Netherlands 89 -0,199 *** (0,041) -0,112 *** (0,042)
Portugal 05 0,600 *** (0,036) 0,239 *** (0,039)
Portugal 97 0,751 *** (0,038) 0,036 (0,044)
N of observations 27698 27641
Source: ISSP 1989, 1997, 2005.

100

Annex 7 - Who wants a job to fully develop their abilities?
Variables and modalities Estimated coefficient SD
Woman with child(children) -0,040 * 0,023
Woman without child -0,111 *** 0,033
Man with child(children) (ref. man without
child/children)
0,143 *** 0,023
<30 -0,070 *** 0,027
30-50 (ref. >50) -0,101 *** 0,019
Part-time wage earner (<30 hours) 0,014 0,078
Self-employed 0,271 *** 0,086
Housewife -0,263 * 0,136
Pensioner 0,241 *** 0,075
Student -0,492 0,384
Unemployed 0,064 0,098
Other (ref. full time wage-earner) -0,033 0,213
Less than bac 0,015 0,021
Baccalaurat (ref >Bac) -0,002 0,023
No profession -0,170 0,109
Employer/manager +10 people 0,279 *** 0,080
Employer/manager -10 people 0,180 *** 0,058
Liberal profession or senior executive 0,139 *** 0,038
Intermediate profession -0,005 0,037
Employee 0,099 ** 0,039
Farmer 0,063 0,086
Farm labourer -0,564 *** 0,071
Serviceman 0,172 0,115
Supervisor 0,093 0,058
Qualified worker 0,000 0,035
Specialised worker (ref. unqualified worker) -0,160 *** 0,041
Union member 0,041 ** 0,017
1
st
quintile 0,058 ** 0,029
2
nd
3
rd
quintile 0,057 ** 0,024
4th quintile (ref. 5
th
) -0,063 ** 0,027


Malta -0,786 *** 0,092
Luxembourg 0,416 *** 0,098
Slovenia 0,123 0,077
Belgium -0,580 *** 0,054
Bulgaria 0,686 *** 0,078
Czech Republic 0,385 *** 0,052
Denmark 0,078 0,069
Estonia 0,280 *** 0,070
Finland -0,653 *** 0,075
France 0,897 *** 0,061
Germany 0,406 *** 0,059
UK -0,732 *** 0,083
Greece 0,408 *** 0,081
Hungary 0,662 *** 0,066
Iceland -1,535 *** 0,069
Ireland -0,310 *** 0,081
Italy 0,040 0,058
Latvia 0,223 *** 0,071
Lithuania 0,159 ** 0,076
Netherlands -1,538 *** 0,075
Poland 0,839 *** 0,062
Romania 0,485 *** 0,137
Slovakia 0,059 0,059
Spain (ref. Sweden) 0,209 ** 0,086
1 -1,062 *** 0,071
2 0,817 *** 0,071
3 1,684 *** 0,072
4 3,647 *** 0,081
Source: ISSP 1989, 1997, 2005.

102

Annex 8 - Who wants to work more?
Explanation of the desire to work more
Variable Modality Estimated coefficient SD
Sex Women -0,075 *** 0,019
Conjugal status As a couple -0,035 * 0,019
<30 0,130 *** 0,032 Age (>50)
between 30 and 50 0,035 0,024
Presence of children in the home -0,068 *** 0,019
Catholic -0,122 0,078
Jewish 0,372 0,295
Muslim 0,397 ** 0,183
Protestant -0,210 *** 0,079
Religion (ref. no
religion)
Other -0,150 0,114
More than bac -0,050 * 0,029 Level of education
(ref.<Bac)
Bac 0,020 0,031
1
st
quartile 0,330 *** 0,051
2
nd
quartile 0,039 0,030
Income
3rd quartile -0,138 *** 0,029
Half-time 0,096 0,062 Working hours
(ref. full time)
Part-time less than half-time 0,270 ** 0,108
Senior executives and managers -0,057 0,058
Intellectual professions -0,048 0,049
Intermediate professions -0,127 *** 0,042
Administrative-type employees 0,000 0,051
Services personnel and sales staff 0,048 0,046
Farmers and fishermen 0,009 0,125
Craftsmen -0,071 0,051
SPC (ref.
unqualified
worker)
Assembly workers, drivers 0,089 0,058
Full agreement -0,122 *** 0,034
Agreement -0,093 *** 0,029
Neither one nor the other 0,008 0,040
I have job security
No agreement (ref. Absolutely no
agreement) 0,028 0,042
Full agreement -0,003 0,067
Agreement -0,031 0,037
Neither one nor the other 0,081 ** 0,033
My wages are high
agreement) -0,036 0,034
Full agreement 0,104 0,072
Agreement 0,043 0,037
My chances of
promotion are high
No agreement (ref. absolutely no
agreement) -0,049 0,035

Full agreement 0,145 *** 0,051
Agreement 0,111 *** 0,040
My job is
interesting
agreement) -0,117 * 0,061
I can work
independently
Full agreement -0,120 *** 0,045
In my job I can
help others
agreement) -0,032 0,050
My job is useful to
society
agreement) -0,155 *** 0,055
Full agreement 0,109 ** 0,045
Agreement -0,024 0,035
Neither one nor the other -0,041 0,039
My job gives me
the chance to
improve my
competence
Always -0,249 *** 0,058
Often -0,115 *** 0,037
Sometimes 0,076 ** 0,034
Do you go home
after work
exhausted?
Rarely (ref. never) 0,185 *** 0,048
Always -0,184 *** 0,055
Often -0,052 0,035
Sometimes 0,059 * 0,031
Is your job
stressful?
Rarely (ref. never) 0,106 ** 0,044
Very good 0,032 0,047
Quite good 0,030 0,037
Neither good nor bad -0,027 0,042
Relations with the
hierarchy
Quite bad (ref. very bad) 0,072 0,058
Very good -0,183 ** 0,075
Quite good -0,177 ** 0,072
Neither good nor bad -0,138 * 0,079
Relations with
colleagues
Quite bad (ref. very bad) -0,033 0,113
104

Entirely satisfied 0,341 *** 0,067
Very satisfied 0,222 *** 0,054
Quite satisfied 0,062 0,049
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 0,018 0,061
Quite dissatisfied -0,303 *** 0,077
Satisfaction
Very dissatisfied -0,222 0,136
East Germany 0,438 *** 0,084
West Germany 0,444 *** 0,062
Denmark -0,185 *** 0,055
Spain 0,204 *** 0,067
Finland -0,334 *** 0,057
France -0,012 0,050
UK -0,385 *** 0,059
Ireland -0,107 * 0,064
Country (ref.
Sweden)
Portugal 0,448 *** 0,056
Source: ISSP 1989, 1997, 2005.

105

DERNIERS NUMROS PARUS :
tlchargeables partir du site http://www.cee-recherche.fr

N 96-1 Place et sens du travail en Europe : une singularit franaise ?
LUCIE DAVOINE, DOMINIQUE MEDA
fvrier 2008

N 95 Recours aux aides professionnelles et mobilisation familiale. La prise en charge des personnes
souffrant de troubles du comportement et de la mmoire repose-t-elle sur des configurations d'aide
spcifiques ?
OLIVIER BAGUELIN, AGNES GRAMAIN
janvier 2008

N 94 Diversit des modes de conciliation entre vie professionnelle et vie familiale pour les mres
de jeunes enfants
CORINNE PERRAUDIN, MURIEL PUCCI
dcembre 2007

N 93 Intensit du travail et trajectoire professionnelle : le travail intense est-il soutenable ?
THOMAS AMOSSE, MICHEL GOLLAC
septembre 2007

N 92 Male-Female Wage Gap and Vertical Occupational Segregation: the Role of Motivation for
Work and Effort
OLIVIER BAGUELIN
septembre 2007

N 91 Construire un modle de profilage des demandeurs demploi : dfi statistique ou dfi
politique ?
ETIENNE DEBAUCHE, NATHALIE GEORGES
aot 2007

N 90 chaque march du travail ses propres modes de recherche demploi
EMMANUELLE MARCHAL, DELPHINE REMILLON
juillet 2007

N 89 Lusage des canaux de recrutement par les entreprises
CHRISTIAN BESSY, EMMANUELLE MARCHAL
juillet 2007

N 88 The Effect of Working Time Reduction on Short-Time Compensation: a French Empirical
Analysis
OANA CALAVREZO, RICHARD DUHAUTOIS, EMMANUELLE WALKOWIAK
juin 2007

N 87 Les concubins et limpt sur le revenu en France
FRANOIS LEGENDRE, FLORENCE THIBAULT
mai 2007

Work Europe 96 Va

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Work Europe 96 Va

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Importance and Meaning of Work in Europe:

You might also like