4. Re-mapping personal work relations and the personal work nexus.
The foregoing analysis is perhaps best understood as a map of the domain of personal work relations and of the different kinds of personal work nexus which may exist within that domain. I have annexed to this paper my attempt at drawing that map. It depicts the different types of personal work relations which have been identified and discussed earlier in this paper. It also seeks to show the dynamics of movement between and from those different types of work relations as I have described them in the previous section. Finally, it illustrates the zones of application of the classical types of personal work nexus which are constructed by employment law systems as the legal expression of those relations, namely those of the contract of employment and the (personal) contract for services.

I hope that this diagram may help to give a graphic reality to the domain of personal work relations which I have sought to identify, and also to convey the sense of the variety of types of personal work nexus which may arise within that domain. The map seeks to show how the different types of personal work relations overlap and connect with each other. Although the map shows how all the other types of personal work relation and of personal work nexus interconnect with 'standard employee' work relations and with the contract of employment, it also seeks to demonstrate that the other types should not be regarded as a mere periphery to that particular work relation and work nexus, still less a uniform periphery entirely occupied by individual entrepreneurial work relations and the personal contract for services. In order to heighten the emphasis upon that crucial point, the diagram depicts the respective spheres of the contract of employment and of the personal contract for services, showing that they do not between them occupy the whole domain of personal work relations, and that the interface between them is a complex but limited one.

The diagram also, I hope, gives further illustration and support to the arguments which I have presented by showing the dynamics of movement between the different types of work relation and work nexus. This depiction challenges an accepted or traditional conception by showing how the dynamics of movement do not consist simply of centrifugal movements away from or centri-petal movements towards 'standard employee' work relations, nor for that matter simply of two movement between the legal forms of the contract of employment and the personal contract for services. The movements are shown instead to be complex inter-sectoral ones, sometimes indeed extending beyond the domain of personal work relations into the sphere of commercial or non-personal business relations in which the prevalent legal form is the non-personal services contract, or moving out to the zone where marginal work relations shade off into the relations of the informal economy.

5. Conclusion - a contribution to several discussions? #p#分页标题#e#
I conclude by noting very briefly the several discussions to which I believe or hope that the arguments in this paper might contribute. Firstly there is of course the discussion about the personal scope of labour law and of particular items or aspects of employment legislation. The starting point of this paper was to seek to elaborate that discussion, I hope enriching it rather than obfuscating it. But I am not confident of being able to make that claim, and, as I indicated at the outset, that is probably not the main aim of the arguments which I have advanced. Instead, rather ambitiously, I point to towards two rather different evolving discussions in which I think these arguments might possibly figure, one of them within the wider province of employment law, the other outside it.

The discussion which lies within the wider province of employment law, or perhaps one should say within the realm of social law, is one which seeks to look at labour or employment law very broadly in terms of labour market regulation, that is to say at the functioning of labour or employment law as one of the means by which states or legal systems can shape and direct the ways in which their labour markets operate. One very important aspect of that discussion consists of the bringing of labour law into a discourse in which it is connected up with social security law and also with the law and practice of employment policy, that is to say normative activity designed to maximise levels of employment, and the 'employability' of actual and potential members of the workforce. In one of its most ambitious or provocative forms, as famously developed in the so-called 'Supiot Report'3, this discussion is deliberately and consciously extended beyond the traditional sphere of labour or employment law, even beyond the wider domain of personal work relations which I have envisaged in this paper, to embrace a consideration of the rights and expectations of those engaged in any aspect of work in society, including for instance domestic work in one's own household. That particular line of discussion, for all its undoubted importance, is apt to seem a rather abstract and speculative one. I hope that further analysis of personal work relations and the personal work nexus of the kind in which I have engaged in this paper might in some way help to connect that discussion more fully with the practicalities of personal work relations and their legal regulation.

Finally I venture a concluding word about a very different kind of discussion which, so far from ambitiously expanding the frontiers of labour or employment law, offers to curtail them. This is the current discussion directed towards the formulation or advancement of European Contract Law, that is to say the articulation of general principles of contract law on the European plane or on a Europe-wide basis. That is therefore or in fact a discussion about the universalisation across Europe of some of the major aspects of private and commercial law. An important part of this discussion concerns a large sub-set of contracts which are gathered together under the heading of 'services contracts' - this refers essentially to contracts which are concerned with the provision of services, primarily on a commercial basis. It seems to me that such discussions might, almost unintentionally, extend from their primary territory - that which has figured in this paper as the zone of 'non-personal contracts for services' - into the sphere of 'personal contracts for services' as they have been styled in the present paper. While not in any way wishing to present any recalcitrant obstruction to that extension of the discussion of European contract law, I should like to draw attention to the risk that independent entrepreneurial work relations might thus be drawn away from the sphere of employment law. I hope this paper may have provided a slight counter-check to that particular evolution. #p#分页标题#e#

Questionnaire
This Questionnaire seeks evidence about the applicability and utility in employment law systems, especially those of European countries, of the six-part typology of personal work relations which has been presented in this paper, that is to say:

(1) 'standard employee' work relations;
(2) the personal work relations of 'public officials';
(3) the personal work relations of those engaged in 'liberal professions';
(4) the personal work relations of individual entrepreneurial workers, such as 'freelance workers' and 'consultants';
(5) the personal work relations of marginal workers such as 'casual', 'temporary', 'part-time' workers and 'volunteers'; and
(6) the personal work relations of labour market entrants, such as 'trainees' or 'apprentices'.

Readers are asked to answer the following questions in relation to any one or more of the above six types. Answers in relation to all six types are very welcome, but those responding should not feel obliged to comment on all of them.

1. Does this six-part scheme for typifying and grouping personal work relations provide a coherent basis for the analysis of the legal regimes which apply to those relations?

2. How far is each of the six categories recognisable as a distinct one in the legal system for which you are commenting?

3. In the legal system for which you are commenting, where does each of the six types fall as between the two legal categories of
(A) the contract of employment, and
(B) the personal contract for services?

Please communicate responses either by posting them on the discussion forum of the Oxford Comparative Law Forum, or by sending them by e-mail to mark.freedland@sjc.ox.ac.uk.

Endnotes
* Professor of Employment Law in the University of Oxford, FBA. I wish very gratefully to acknowledge that the carrying out of the research project, of which the work reflected in this article forms a part, is made possible by the Leverhulme Major Research Fellowship, awarded by the Leverhulme Trust, which I currently hold.

1 This paper was first given to a meeting of the Association of Labour Law Journals in Paris in September 2006. The final version is due to be published in the International Labour Review in the course of 2007; the Editors have kindly given permission for me to publish the present version in the present place as 'work in progress'. In developing this paper for publication in its present form I have been very greatly assisted by discussions with Dr Nicola Countouris of the Law Faculty of the University of Reading.

2 (2006) 35 ILJ 1.

3 Alain Supiot (ed) Au-delà de l'emploi: Transformations du travail et l'avenir du droit du travail en Europe. Rapport pour la Commission Européenne (Flammarion, Paris, 1999), republished in English as Alain Supiot with Pamela Meadows, Beyond Employment - Changes in Work and the Future of Labour Law in Europe (OUP, Oxford, 2001). #p#分页标题#e#