Dekompozicija prekarnog rada u Hrvatskoj

The dissertation analyses the extent of precarious work in Croatia, its structural characteristics, and the substantive aspects of insecurity inherent to precarious work, as examined through the experiences of workers. Insight into the scale and characteristics of precarious work is obtained by combining data from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and estimates based on data from the Croatian Pension Insurance Institute (HZMO) for the period from 2007/2008 to 2024. The analysis of almost two decades reveals a relative stability in the overall share of precarious work, with minor fluctuations, alongside pronounced changes in its structure, particularly in the proportions of temporary employment, solo self-employment, and migrant labour. Up to 2013, the shares of temporary employment and solo self-employment were approximately equal. In the post-crisis period, temporary work increased and became the dominant form of precarious work, while from 2022 onwards a sharp rise in migrant labour can be observed. This increase compensates for the declining shares of temporary employment among the domestic population and solo self-employment, thereby maintaining continuity in the overall level of precarity. An analysis of precarious work as a whole enables the identification of patterns that are not visible when examining its individual segments separately. Among these is the relatively high prevalence of precarious work among the older population in the earlier period, which would have remained unrecognised without the inclusion of solo self-employment. The gender structure indicates that precarious work in Croatia is more widespread among men than among women. Although these differences were not pronounced for much of the observed period, recent years have seen a decline in the share of precarious work among women, while no comparable trend is evident among men. These patterns are partly the result of structural changes within precarious work: solo self-employment played a significant role in the earlier period, while migrant labour has become increasingly important more recently, with both categories being strongly gendered through the dominance of men. Precarious work is present across all sectors of economic activity; however, construction stands out as the only sector recording an increase in precarious employment, driven primarily by migrant workers, who constitute the largest subgroup of precariously employed workers in that sector. The qualitative research, conducted on a sample of workers with experience of precarious work (N = 44), focuses on analysing the mechanisms and levels of precarity across different forms of work: seasonal, platform-based, project-based, substitutions for temporarily absent workers, agency work, and casual work. The analysis is structured around the dimensions of precarious work: employment continuity, regulatory effectiveness, control over the labour process, and the adequacy of income package. The findings point to the existence of distinct regimes of insecurity that differ in terms of the levels and configurations of the dimensions of precarity present. Specific mechanisms of insecurity within forms of precarious work indicate the presence of exploitation, commodification, and exclusion as interpretative patterns, which manifest to varying degrees across different dimensions and forms of work. The initial assumption regarding the existence of distinct precarious regimes is confirmed, demonstrating that forms of precarious work produce a heterogeneous yet structured landscape of insecurity. Considered collectively, the findings of the qualitative research highlight several key features of precarity: (1) pronounced temporariness and instability of work, reflected in diverse contractual arrangements and short-term engagements that fail to ensure employment continuity, as well as in poor job quality that encourages exit from work; (2) a lack of regulatory effectiveness, ranging from weak enforcement of existing regulations to a complete absence of labour-law protection, whereby certain forms of formal employment assume characteristics of undeclared work; (3) limited control over the labour process, resulting in high work intensity, long working hours, and other forms of labour pressure; and (4) insufficient adequacy of income packages, which varies across forms of precarious work but is assessed as inadequate in all cases. Among the analysed forms of work, project-based work stands out regarding employment continuity, as it is characterised by uninterrupted fixed-term contracts of relatively long duration, especially in comparison with other analysed forms of work. All other forms of work receive unfavourable assessments across most dimensions of precarity. Platform work is particularly prominent as highly precarious across all dimensions and, according to participants’ accounts, in some cases assumes characteristics of undeclared work. Similarly, casual forms of work are characterised by the absence of an institutional framework of labour law protection, despite the fact that the tasks performed may exhibit characteristics of an employment relationship. The findings of this research demonstrate that precarious work in Croatia is characterised by continuity in overall prevalence alongside structural variability, whereby insecurity is not reduced but rather transformed and redistributed across different groups of workers and sectors. Precarious work in Croatia is therefore not a temporary or marginal phenomenon, but a structurally embedded and institutionally reproduced feature of contemporary work.