1 / 39

Cross-national Comparisons of change in the Structure of Everyday Life: Evidence from the Multinational Time Use Study

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

harva
Download Presentation

Cross-national Comparisons of change in the Structure of Everyday Life: Evidence from the Multinational Time Use Study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. 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

  2. Centre for Time Use Research Activities: • Research • Information and Resources: • Access to time use data • Produce MTUS • Maintain AHTUS www.timeuse.org

  3. 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”

  4. 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 “notoverworked”.

  5. Academic motivation 1 • Marx 1866: exploitation rate=timedominance • 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 “notoverworked”.

  6. 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

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. A Time-use Diary (HETUS)

  10. 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)

  11. Multinational Time Use Study

  12. 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

  13. The importance of gender d.o.l. • Gendered work specialisation within households not inherently inequitable if: • Consumption fairly shared within households • 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.

  14. 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

  15. 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”

  16. 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).

  17. 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.

  18. 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 post-industrial society, Oxford University Press 2000. • J Jacobs and K Gerson 2004 The Time Divide: work, family and gender inequality. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press.

More Related