Cross-national Comparisons of
change in the Structure of
Everyday Life:
Evidence from the Multinational
Time Use Study (MTUS)
Jonathan Gershuny
Centre for Time Use Research
Department of Sociology,
University of Oxford
Centre for Time Use Research
Activities:
–Research
–Information and Resources:
»Access to time use data
»Produce MTUS
»Maintain AHTUS
www.timeuse.org
Introduction
• Academic motivation
» Running out of time?
» Women’s dual burden?
» A harried leisure class?
• Introduction to the MTUS
» Time diary studies
» International comparisons
• Work/life imbalance?
» Time, interests, social structure
» Time-use Keynesianism
» The new “badge of honour”
Academic motivation 1
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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 “overworked American”
Robinson and Godbey 1999 “not overworked”.
Academic motivation 1
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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 “overworked American”
Robinson and Godbey 1999 “not overworked”.
Academic motivation 2
• Jacobs and Gerson 2004 “Time Divide”:
Changing balance of paid, unpaid work, leisure:
 gendered differences in human capital
 work-rich time-poor / time-rich work-poor
life-course effects eg fertility strikes
• Esping Andersen 1999 “Social Foundations”
Post-industrial welfare, childcare, etc. regimes:
• Outcomes reflect choices within households
• Household choices reflect regime provisions
CTUR investigations:
• More inclusive national accounts, of
production in and out of “the economy”.
• Modelling diverse interests: Who does
what? Who gets what?
• Cross-national and historical differences
and similarities in activity patterns.
• Explanations of these in terms of history,
culture, technology and public regulation.
CTUR investigations:
• More inclusive national accounts, of
production in and out of “the economy”
• Modelling diverse interests: Who does
what? Who gets what?
• Cross-national and historical differences
and similarities in activity patterns.
• Explanations of these in terms of history,
culture, technology and public regulation.
A Time-use Diary (HETUS)
Large scale time diary collections
•
•
•
•
•
Strumilin 1921
Sorokin and Berger 1937
BBC Audience Research 1938—1975
Szalai Multinational Study 1965
Harmonised European Time Use Study
1998-2003 (“HETUS”)
• American Time Use Study 2003– (CPS)
• Multinational Time Use Study (MTUS)
Multinational Time Use Study
N of days 1961-69
Canada
Denmark
France
1970-75 1976-84 1985-89 1990-94 1995-99 2000-04
2138
2682
4069
(2898)
9618
2727
Norway
6516
6068
3263
9292
17507
18060
USA
2021
7010
4935
Finland
11908
15219
Italy
(2116)
37764
Germany
3181
Austria
(3687)
15318
3158
3227
6129
UK
()
()
()
(4633)
1292
Sweden
10726
(2389)
Neth’lands
Australia
8936
9386
1649
7675
1906
19400
1151
20340
10076
()
13806
14071
()
7065
7747
25775
()
25162
S. Africa
14217
Slovenia
12273
Belgium, Hungary, Czech, Yugoslavia, Israel, Spain, Portugal etc
N = 457,135
Evolution of MTUS
• WORLD5.0 (2000)
– Represents populations aged 20-60
– 40 aggregated time-use activity categories
– 15 socio-demographic classifiers
• WORLD5.5 (2007)
– Represents full age range (above 10)
– 40 aggregated time-use activity categories
– 30 socio-demographic classifiers
• WORLD6.0 (now under discussion)
– Revised (more detailed) activity classification
– full activity sequence data
The virtuous triangle 0:
paid and unpaid work and leisure balances in six countries
All Leisure
1.00
.90
work <-------------------------> leisure
.80
.70
.60
.50
.40
.167 paid work
.5 paid work
.833 paid work
.30
.20
.10
All Unpaid
.00
Work
.00
.10
.20
.30
.40
.50
.60
.70
unpaid work <-------------------------> paid work
.80
.90
All Paid
Work
1.00
The virtuous triangle 1:
paid and unpaid work and leisure balances in six countries
All Leisure
1.00
.90
work <-------------------------> leisure
.80
.70
.60
.50
.40
.167 paid work
.5 paid work
.833 paid work
.30
.20
.10
All Unpaid
.00
Work
.00
.10
.20
.30
.40
.50
.60
.70
unpaid work <-------------------------> paid work
.80
.90
All Paid
Work
1.00
The virtuous triangle 2 (part):
women's paid and unpaid work and leisure balances
.55
work <-------------------------> leisure
.50
1975 Netherlands women
.45
1971 Norway women
2000 Netherlands women
2001 Norway women
.40
2003 US women
1965 US women
.35
.333 paid work
.5 paid work
.30
.30
.35
.40
.45
unpaid work <-------------------------> paid work
.50
.55
The virtuous triangle 2:
women's paid and unpaid work and leisure balances
.55
work <-------------------------> leisure
.50
1975 Netherlands women
.45
1971 Norway women
2000 Netherlands women 1999 Finnish women
2001 Norway women
1971 Canada women
1979 Finnish women
1961 UK women
.40
2001 UK women
1998 Canada women
2003 US women
1965 US women
.35
.333 paid work
.5 paid work
.30
.30
.35
.40
.45
unpaid work <-------------------------> paid work
.50
.55
The virtuous triangle 3 (part):
men's paid and unpaid work and leisure balances
.55
work <-------------------------> leisure
.50
2001 Norway men
2000 UK men
.45
1971 Norway men
2003 US men
1961 UK men
.40
1965 US men
.35
.667 paid work
.833 paid work
.30
.55
.57
.59
.61
.63
.65
.67
.69
unpaid work <-------------------------> paid work
.71
.73
.75
The virtuous triangle 3:
men's paid and unpaid work and leisure balances
.55
1975 Netherlands men
work <-------------------------> leisure
.50
1999 Finnish men
1979 Finnish men
2001 Norway men
2000 UK men
.45
2000 Netherlands men
1971 Norway men
1998 Canada men
2003 US men
1961 UK men
.40
1965 US men
.35
.667 paid work
.833 paid work
.30
.55
.57
.59
.61
.63
.65
.67
.69
unpaid work <-------------------------> paid work
.71
.73
.75
The virtuous triangle 4:
paid and unpaid work and leisure balances in six countries
.51
1975 Netherlands men
.49
work <-------------------------> leisure
1975 Netherlands women
1999 Finnish men
.47
1979 Finnish men
2001 Norway men
2000 UK men
.45
1971 Norway women
1999 Finnish women
2000 Netherlands women
.43
1971 Canada women
2000 Netherlands men
1971 Norway men
2001 Norway women
1998 Canada men
1979 Finnish women
2001 UK women
1961 UK women
.41
2003 US men
1961 UK men
1998 Canada women
.39
2003 US women
.37
1965 US men
1965 US women
.35
.333 paid work
.5 paid work
.667 paid work
.833 paid work
.33
.31
.36
.41
.46
.51
.56
.61
unpaid work <-------------------------> paid work
.66
.71
The importance of gender d.o.l.
•
Gendered work specialisation within
households not inherently inequitable if:
1. Consumption fairly shared within households
2. Household membership persists throughout
life-course.
•
•
But human capital formation uniquely
associated with participation in paid work.
Hence growing family instability must be
associated with reduction in gendering of
unpaid work.
the gender balance in cooking and cleaning at home
0.95
0.90
women as a proportion of all
0.85
0.80
Canada
Netherl
0.75
Norway
UK
0.70
USA
Finland
0.65
Sweden
0.60
0.55
0.50
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
women aged 20-60, core domestic work
300
250
200
Canada
mins/day
Netherlands
Norw ay
150
UK
USA
Finland
Sw eden
100
50
0
1961-69 1970-75 1976-84 1985-89 1990-94 1995-99 2000-04
period
women 20-60, core domestic work, constant employment
300
250
200
Canada
period
Netherlands
Norw ay
150
UK
USA
Finland
100
Sw eden
50
0
1961-69 1970-75 1976-84 1985-89 1990-94 1995-99 2000-04
m ins/day
the gender balance in all unpaid work
0.85
women as a proportion of all
0.80
0.75
Canada
Netherl
0.70
Norway
UK
USA
0.65
Finland
Sweden
0.60
0.55
0.50
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
gender balance of paid work
0.45
women and a proportion of all
0.40
Canada
0.35
Netherl
Norway
0.30
UK
USA
Finland
0.25
Sweden
0.20
0.15
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
the gender balance in paid plus unpaid work
0.70
women as a proportion of all
0.65
0.60
Canada
0.55
Netherl
Norway
0.50
UK
USA
Finland
0.45
Sweden
0.40
0.35
0.30
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
women's share of work in eleven countries
0.800
Entire Population
0.700
Canada
women's share
France
Netherlands
Norway
0.600
UK
USA
Finland
0.500
Sweden
South Africa
Slovenia
0.400
0.300
coredom
unpaid
paid
allwork
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
leisure gradients:all men
20
paid worktime difference: lower - higher educated
15
10
Canada
5
Netherl
Norway
0
UK
1963
-5
-10
-15
-20
1973
1981
1986
1992
2001
USA
Finland
Sweden
leisure gradient: all women
20
0
work time, lower-higher educated
1963
1973
1981
1986
1992
2001
-20
Canada
Netherl
-40
Norway
UK
-60
USA
Finland
Sweden
-80
-100
-120
The superordinate working class
• The centrality of knowledge in postindustrial 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”
The Leisure Paradox.
• Staffan Linder harrying the leisured:
– Rational to equalise marginal returns on different
sorts of time, but this implies that…
– …productivity growth must be matched by
growth in intensity of consumption.
• Time-use Keynesianism:
– Need to redistribute time available for
consumption, since…
– more leisure (for some) means more work (for others).
Time, Interests, Social Structure
• New conflicts of interest:
– Between men and women.
– Between young and old.
– Between human capital-rich and human
capital-poor (meritocracy vs citizenship).
• Fought out in the arena of the society’s
Great Day, the 24 hours that represent the
one irresolvable social scarcity.
The virtuous triangle 1:
paid and unpaid work and leisure balances in six countries
All Leisure
1.00
.90
work <-------------------------> leisure
.80
.70
.60
.50
.40
.167 paid work
.5 paid work
.833 paid work
.30
.20
.10
All Unpaid
.00
Work
.00
.10
.20
.30
.40
.50
.60
.70
unpaid work <-------------------------> paid work
.80
.90
All Paid
Work
1.00
Some time-use references.
• A Szalai The Use of Time, The Hague: Mouton 1974.
• J Vanek ‘Housework still takes time’ Scientific American, 231,
1974 pp. 116–120.
• M Meissner, EW Humpreys, SM Meis and WJ Scheu, ‘No Exit
for Wives: sexual division of labour and the cumulation of
household demands’ Canadian Review of Sociology and
Anthropology 12, 1975, pp 424-39.
• J Schor, The Overworked American: the unexpected decline
of leisure, New York: Basic Books.
• J Robinson and J Godbey Time for Life: the surprising ways
Americans use time 1999
• J Gershuny, Changing Times: work and leisure in postindustrial society, Oxford University Press 2000.
• J Jacobs and K Gerson 2004 The Time Divide: work, family
and gender inequality. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University
Press.