trends in work-life balance: evidence from the multinational time use study (mtus) jonathan gershuny...
TRANSCRIPT
Trends in Work-life Balance: Evidence from the Multinational
Time Use Study (MTUS)
Jonathan Gershuny
Revised 22/5/2008
For Centre for Time Use Research (CTUR)
www.timeuse.org
Introduction
• Academic motivation» Running out of time?» Women’s dual burden?» A harried leisure class?
• Introduction to the MTUS
• Work/life imbalance» Puzzles of the work/leisure triangle» Work gets less gendered» The superordinate working class
> 1 century of leisure growth
• Marx 1866: exploitation rate=time dominance
• Veblen 1908 “the leisure class”
• Dumazadier 1960 “the leisure society”
• Linder 1970 “harried leisure class”
• Vanek 1974, “counterintuitive technology”
• Meissner et al 1975, “dual burden”
• Schor 1990 vs Robinson&Godbey 1999
• Esping Andersen 1999, Jacobs&Gerson 2004
Multinational Time Use StudyN of days 1961-69 1970-75 1976-84 1985-89 1990-94 1995-99 2000-04
Canada 2138 2682 9618 8936 10726 ()
Denmark 4069 (2389) ()
France (2898) (4633) () 15318
Neth’lands 1292 2727 3263 3158 3227 1649
Norway 6516 6068 6129 7675
UK 9292 17507 18060 1906 19400
USA 2021 7010 4935 9386 1151 20340
Finland 11908 15219 10076
Italy (2116) 37764 ()
Australia 3181 13806 14071 ()
Sweden 7065 7747
Germany (3687) 25775 ()
Austria 25162
S. Africa 14217
Slovenia 12273
Belgium, Hungary, Czech, Yugoslavia, Israel, Spain, Portugal etc N = 457,135
The virtuous triangle 0: paid and unpaid work and leisure balances in six countries
.5 paid work .833 paid work
All Leisure
All Unpaid Work
.167 paid work
All Paid Work
.00
.10
.20
.30
.40
.50
.60
.70
.80
.90
1.00
.00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90 1.00
unpaid work <-------------------------> paid work
wo
rk <
----
----
----
----
----
----
-> l
eis
ure
The virtuous triangle 1: paid and unpaid work and leisure balances in six countries
.5 paid work .833 paid work
All Leisure
All Unpaid Work
.167 paid work
All Paid Work
.00
.10
.20
.30
.40
.50
.60
.70
.80
.90
1.00
.00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90 1.00
unpaid work <-------------------------> paid work
wo
rk <
----
----
----
----
----
----
-> l
eis
ure
The virtuous triangle 2 (part): women's paid and unpaid work and leisure balances
1965 US women
2003 US women
1971 Norway women
2001 Norway women
1975 Netherlands women
2000 Netherlands women
.333 paid work .5 paid work
.30
.35
.40
.45
.50
.55
.30 .35 .40 .45 .50 .55
unpaid work <-------------------------> paid work
wo
rk <
----
----
----
----
----
----
-> l
eis
ure
The virtuous triangle 2: women's paid and unpaid work and leisure balances
1961 UK women2001 UK women
1965 US women
2003 US women
1971 Norway women
2001 Norway women
1975 Netherlands women
2000 Netherlands women
1979 Finnish women
1999 Finnish women
1971 Canada women
1998 Canada women
.333 paid work .5 paid work
.30
.35
.40
.45
.50
.55
.30 .35 .40 .45 .50 .55
unpaid work <-------------------------> paid work
wo
rk <
----
----
----
----
----
----
-> l
eis
ure
The virtuous triangle 3 (part): men's paid and unpaid work and leisure balances
1961 UK men
2000 UK men
1965 US men
1971 Norway men
2001 Norway men
.667 paid work .833 paid work
2003 US men
.30
.35
.40
.45
.50
.55
.55 .57 .59 .61 .63 .65 .67 .69 .71 .73 .75
unpaid work <-------------------------> paid work
wo
rk <
----
----
----
----
----
----
-> l
eis
ure
The virtuous triangle 3: men's paid and unpaid work and leisure balances
1961 UK men
2000 UK men
1965 US men
1999 Finnish men
1975 Netherlands men
2000 Netherlands men1971 Norway men
2001 Norway men
1998 Canada men
.667 paid work .833 paid work
2003 US men
1979 Finnish men
.30
.35
.40
.45
.50
.55
.55 .57 .59 .61 .63 .65 .67 .69 .71 .73 .75
unpaid work <-------------------------> paid work
wo
rk <
----
----
----
----
----
----
-> l
eis
ure
The virtuous triangle 4: paid and unpaid work and leisure balances in six countries
1961 UK men
2000 UK men
1965 US men
1999 Finnish men
1975 Netherlands men
2000 Netherlands men1971 Norway men
2001 Norway men
1998 Canada men
1961 UK women2001 UK women
1965 US women
2003 US women
1971 Norway women
2001 Norway women
1975 Netherlands women
2000 Netherlands women
1979 Finnish women
1999 Finnish women
1971 Canada women
1998 Canada women
.333 paid work .5 paid work .667 paid work .833 paid work
2003 US men
1979 Finnish men
.33
.35
.37
.39
.41
.43
.45
.47
.49
.51
.31 .36 .41 .46 .51 .56 .61 .66 .71
unpaid work <-------------------------> paid work
wo
rk
<--
----
----
----
----
----
--->
le
isu
re
Veblen: Theory of the Leisure Class• Leisure as the “badge of honour”
– “Conspicuous leisure” denoting superordinate social status.
– “imperative…the requirement of abstention from productive work.” (p36)
• The principle of emulation:– Each rank of society seeks to emulate the pattern of
life of that rank immediately above it in terms of prestige.
• Empirical implication: – positive leisure/status gradient
The superordinate working class• The centrality of knowledge in post-
industrial society (Daniel Bell 1975) – “knowledge elites” and the “technocracy”– Post-materialism…. or Gordon Gecko?
• Economic primacy of human capital– Population ageing hum cap formation as key
means of intergenerational status transmission– Income from human capital during working life,
from wealth in retirement.– Highest incomes from work not wealth.
work as the new “badge of honour”
leisure gradients:all men
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
1963 1973 1981 1986 1992 2001
pai
d w
ork
tim
e d
iffe
ren
ce:
low
er -
hig
her
ed
uca
ted
Canada
Netherl
Norway
UK
USA
Finland
Sweden
leisure gradient: all women
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
1963 1973 1981 1986 1992 2001
wo
rk t
ime,
low
er-h
igh
er e
du
cate
d
Canada
Netherl
Norway
UK
USA
Finland
Sweden
The virtuous triangle 1: paid and unpaid work and leisure balances in six countries
.5 paid work .833 paid work
All Leisure
All Unpaid Work
.167 paid work
All Paid Work
.00
.10
.20
.30
.40
.50
.60
.70
.80
.90
1.00
.00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90 1.00
unpaid work <-------------------------> paid work
wo
rk <
----
----
----
----
----
----
-> l
eis
ure
Conclusions
– Academic issues:– Running out of time?– Women’s dual burden?– A harried leisure class?
– Work/life imbalance?– Work gets less gendered– The superordinate working class– Continued puzzles of the work/leisure
triangle.
– The new release of the MTUS….