“Friday off”: Reducing Working Hours in Europe

Article, Other literature type English OPEN
Kallis, Giorgos ; Kalush, Michael ; O.'Flynn, Hugh ; Rossiter, Jack ; Ashford, Nicholas A. (2013)
  • Publisher: MDPI AG
  • Journal: volume 5, issue 4 4, pages 1-23 (issn: 2071-1050)
  • Related identifiers: doi: 10.3390/su5041545
  • Subject: TD194-195 | Renewable energy sources | binary economics | 4-day workweek | working hours; Europe; 4-day workweek; environmental sustainability; quality of life; productivity; productiveness; unemployment; binary economics | TJ807-830 | environmental sustainability | productivity | working hours | GE1-350 | unemployment | productiveness | Environmental sciences | quality of life | Environmental effects of industries and plants | Europe
    • jel: jel:Q2 | jel:Q3 | jel:Q0 | jel:Q | jel:Q5 | jel:Q56 | jel:O13

This article explores the pros and cons for reducing working hours in Europe. To arrive to an informed judgment we review critically the theoretical and empirical literature, mostly from economics, concerning the relation between working hours on the one hand, and productivity, employment, quality of life, and the environment, on the other. We adopt a binary economics distinction between capital and labor productiveness, and are concerned with how working hours may be reduced without harming the earning capacity of workers. There are reasons to believe that reducing working hours may absorb some unemployment, especially in the short-run, even if less than what is advocated by proponents of the proposal. Further, there may well be strong benefits for the quality of peoples’ lives. Environmental benefits are likely but depend crucially on complementary policies or social conditions that will ensure that the time liberated will not be directed to resource-intensive or environmentally harmful consumption. It is questionable whether reduced working hours are sustainable in the long-term given resource limits and climate change. We conclude that while the results of reducing working hours are uncertain, this may be a risk worth taking, especially as an interim measure that may relieve unemployment while other necessary structural changes are instituted.
  • References (63)
    63 references, page 1 of 7

    1. Friedlingstein, P.; Houghton, R.A.; Marland, G.; Hackler, J.; Boden, T.A.; Conway, T.J.; Canadell, J.G.; Raupach, M.R.; Ciais, P.; Le Quéré, C. Update on CO2 emissions. Nat. Geosci. 2010, 3, 811-812.

    2. Jackson, T. Prosperity without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet; Routledge: London, UK, 2012.

    3. Victor, P.A. Growth, degrowth and climate change: A scenario analysis. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 84, 206-212.

    4. Ashford, N.; Hall, R.P.; Ashford, R. The crisis in unemployment and consumer demand: Reconciliation with environmental sustainability. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 2012, 2, 1-22.

    5. Victor, P. Questioning economic growth. Nature 2010, 468, 370-371.

    6. Coote, A.; Franklin, J.; Simms, A. 21 Hours; NEF, The New Economics Foundation: London, UK, 2011.

    7. Ashford, R.; Hall, R.P.; Ashford, N.A. Broadening capital acquisition with the earnings of capital as a means of sustainable growth and environmental sustainability. Eur. Financ. Rev. 2012, OctoberNovember, 70-74.

    8. As used in this article, ―capital‖ includes land, animals, structures, and machines - anything capable of being owned and employed in production. It does not include ―financial capital,‖ which is a claim on, or ownership interest in, real capital.

    9. Kelly, M. Owning Our Future: The Emerging Ownership Revolution; Barrett-Koehler: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2012.

    10. Rosen, C.; Case, J.; Staubus, M. Equity: Why Employee Ownership Is Good for America; Harvard Business Review Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2005.

  • Metrics
    No metrics available
Share - Bookmark