A/HRC/34/57 aggravated the precariousness of work with little evidence of improved employment performance. 83 This is in line with the broader finding that an “increased intensity of structural adjustment lending” by IMF and the World Bank does not appear to be associated with increased growth per capita and that repeated adjustment lending has not been related to a reduction in severe macroeconomic distortions. 84 53. The economic effects of the austerity measures taken recently in the context of the eurozone crisis appear to be similarly weak. Overall, research suggests that the European Union countries that performed relatively better during the economic crisis of 2007 to 2011 were those that had less flexible labour markets.85 An ILO study found that there was no clear link between employment protection legislation and employment levels, 86 while another ILO report suggested that the combination of labour market deregulation and fiscal austerity was likely to “have affected employment while failing to arrest the deterioration in fiscal deficits”. 87 Labour market reform undertaken in response to the debt crisis in the eurozone appears to have had “little positive impact on national labour markets”, including youth unemployment. 88 The reduced income of large parts of the population owing to deregulatory labour law reforms has rather led to a decline in demand, which can further exacerbate the crisis.89 54. Overall, there is little evidence that labour market deregulation furthers recovery in the context of financial and economic crises, while the negative impact on economic and social rights is substantial. This also highlights the potential relevance of other factors behind deregulatory reforms that undermine labour standards, such as ideological bias and non-explicit retrogressive distributional agendas. V. Conclusion 55. Many States with unsustainable levels of debt or experiencing a financial crisis have implemented austerity policies and labour market reforms with a strong deregulatory impetus, either on their own initiative or at the behest of external 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 18 Adriana Marshall, “Weakening employment protection in Latin America: incentive to employment creation or to increasing instability?”, International Contributions to Labour Studies, vol. 6, No. 1 (1996), p. 46. William Easterly, “What did structural adjustment adjust? The association of policies and growth with repeated IMF and World Bank adjustment loans”, Journal of Development Economics, vol. 76, No. 1 (2005), p. 20. Pasquale Tridico, “The impact of the economic crisis on EU labour markets: a comparative perspective”, International Labour Review, vol.152 No. 2 (2013). See International Institute for Labour Studies (IILS)/ILO, World of Work Report 2012: Better Jobs for a Better Economy, p. 36. According to this study, “from low levels of employment protection regulation to an average level of regulation, employment levels tend to be positively associated with more stringent regulations. Beyond that, badly designed regulations may adversely affect employment”. IILS/ILO, Eurozone Job Crisis: Trends and Policy Responses, Studies on Growth with Equity (Geneva, 2012), p. 30. See Jason Heyes and Paul Lewis, “Relied upon for the heavy lifting: can employment protection legislation reforms lead the EU out of the jobs crisis?”, Industrial Relations Journal, vol. 46, No. 2 (2015), p. 90; on Portugal, see also ILO, Portugal: Tackling the Jobs Crisis in Portugal, Studies on Growth with Equity (Geneva, 2013), p. 61. Christoph Hermann, “Die Finanzkrise und ihre Auswirkungen auf Sozialstaaten und Arbeitsbeziehungen“, WISO vol. 36, No. 1 (2013), p. 48; Susan Horton, Ravi Kanbur and Dipak Mazumdar, Labour markets in an era of adjustment: evidence from 12 developing countries”, International Labour Review, vol. 130, No. 5-6 (1991), p. 557, focusing on real wage decreases.