The Need and Capacity for Resilience in European Labour Markets: An Inequalities in Resilience Framework

Resilience has become a prominent concept in EU social and economic policy, positioned as a response to megatrends such as technological change, labour market deregulation and demographic shifts. This article critically reflects on how resilience is often conceptualised, and argues that its applications in EU policy insufficiently account for structural inequalities in individuals’ and families’ capacities to adapt to risks. Building on cumulative inequality theory and the prevalences and penalties framework, we propose an ‘inequalities in resilience’ framework that distinguishes between the need for resilience—measured by exposure to labour market risks—and the capacity for resilience—measured by the ability to avoid poverty when risks materialise. Using EU-SILC data for 30 countries, 2010–2020, encompassing 3,103,097 individuals, we find that groups with greater need for resilience, particularly those with lower educational attainment and single-parent households, show lower capacity for resilience. This pattern shows a high degree of consistency across different risks and poverty indicators, and national contexts. The framework we have presented is a diagnostic tool that can help academics and policymakers in mapping out, understanding and intervening on inequalities in resilience across social groups.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spol.70098

Background: The concept of resilience in familial and social contexts has gained prominence in academic and policy discussions. However, the interplay between family life and social inequalities, and how these relate to each other in the resilience literature, has yet to be documented.

Objective: This scoping review addresses this gap by analysing 250 articles published between 1998 and 2023. We compare the concept of resilience as applied in family and social resilience studies through four constitutive elements: (1) the unit of analysis, (2) definitions, (3) types, and (4) the risks, outcomes, and explanatory factors that are examined empirically.

Results: While both perspectives study individuals’ resilience, the emphasis in family resilience is on families, whereas social resilience studies focus more on communities and societies. Both perspectives emphasize the centrality of risks in defining resilience, yet family resilience scholarship seeks solutions within the family, while social resilience highlights community dynamics. Additionally, family resilience studies explore topics related to family-specific risks and resources, while social resilience studies examine external risks and resources.

Conclusions: The family resilience scholarship follows the clinical tradition in the resilience literature, viewing families as a separate entity that is resourceful and agentic. Socioeconomic risks are recurrent themes in social resilience literature, but not in family resilience.

Contribution: Understanding resilience through the lens of family inequalities in socioeconomic contexts can bridge these two perspectives. Incorporating factors such as labour market dynamics, family transitions, and educational attainment into definitions of risks, outcomes, and explanatory factors of resilience can enhance this integration.