Time Use,Gender and Disadvantage in Australia: Conventional Income and ‘Full Income’ Approaches to Estimation

Abstract

Conventional poverty and inequality measures, based only on comparisons of financial resources, may underestimate gender differences in living standards. The value of time spent in household work by oneself and partner, and the value of leisure are key elements that need to be considered in measures of living standards. This article develops a method for measuring wellbeing at the level of the individual, rather than the household. Following the tradition of Australian models of ‘full income’, the final measure of wellbeing includes the value of time in leisure and unpaid work along with individual income, the benefits accruing from the social wage and the welfare gains from the ownership and use of assets. The article then compares the conventional income distribution and the ‘full income’ distribution to identify population subgroups disadvantaged on each of these measures. The results show that gender inequalities in living standards may be underestimated by conventional income measures, and that inequalities in personal income and time use contribute most substantially to gender inequality in the full income distribution.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aslaksen

Koren

(1996) ‘Unpaid household work and the distribution of extended income’, Feminist Economics, 2(3), pp. 65–80.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (1998a) How Australians Use Their Time 1997, Catalogue No. 4153.0, ABS, Canberra.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (1998b) Time Use Survey Users' Guide 1997, Catalogue No. 4150.0, ABS, Canberra.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2000) Household Expenditure Survey: Users' Guide 1998–99, Catalogue. No. 6527.0, ABS, Canberra.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2005) Family, Household and Income Unit Variables, 2005, Catalogue No. 1286.0, ABS, Canberra.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2008) How Australians Use Their Time, 2006, Datacubes, ABS, Canberra.

Becker

G. S.

(1965) ‘A theory of the allocation of time’, The Economic Journal, LXXX, pp. 493–517.

Becker

G. S.

(1981), A Treatise on the Family, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Berk

R. A.

Berk

S. A.

(1983) ‘Supply-side sociology of the family: The challenge of the new home economics', Annual Review of Sociology, 9, pp. 375–395.

10.

Bianchi

S. M.

Milkie

M. A.

Sayer

L. C.

Robinson

J. P.

(2000) ‘Is anyone doing the housework? Trends in the gender division of household labor’, Social Forces, 79, pp. 191–228.

11.

Bittman

Wajcman

(2000) ‘The rush hour: The character of leisure time and gender equity’, Social Forces, 79, pp. 165–189.

12.

Bojer

(2004) Economic capability and the time cost of children, paper presented at the 28^th General Conference for the International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, Cork, Ireland, 22–28 August.

13.

Chadeau

(1985) ‘Measuring household activities: Some international comparisons', Review of Income and Wealth, 31, pp. 237–253.

14.

Craig

Bittman

(2008) ‘The incremental time costs of children: An analysis of children's impact on adult time use in Australia’, Feminist Economics, 14(4), pp. 59–88.

15.

Daly

(2000), The Gender Division of Welfare: The Impact of the British and German Welfare States, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

16.

Fitzpatrick

(2004) ‘Time social justice and UK welfare reform’, Economy and Society, 33(3), pp. 335–358.

17.

Folbre

(2004a) ‘A theory of the misallocation of time’ in Folbre

Bittman

(eds) Family Time: The Social Organization of Care, Routledge, London and New York, pp. 7–24.

18.

Folbre

(2004b) Valuing parental time: Total expenditures on children in the United States in 2000, paper presented at the workshop, Supporting Children: English-Speaking Countries in International Context, Princeton University, 7–9 January.

19.

Hill

(2005) Valuing time for a ‘full income’ measure, paper presented at the International Association for Feminist Economics (IAFFE) Conference on Economics, Washington D.C., 17–19 June.

20.

Himmelweit

(2002) ‘Making visible the hidden economy: The case for gender-impact analysis of economic policy’, Feminist Economics, 8(1), pp. 49–70.

21.

Ironmonger

(2000) ‘Household production and the household economy’, Research paper, Department of Economics, University of Melbourne.

22.

Lewis

Guillari

(2005) ‘The adult worker model, gender equality and care: The search for new policy principles and the possibilities and problems of a capabilities approach’, Economy and Society, 34(1), pp. 76–104.

23.

Lundberg

(2005) ‘Men and islands: Dealing with the family in empirical labor economics', Labour Economics, 12(4), pp. 591–612.

24.

Mattingly

M. J.

Bianchi

S. M.

(2003) ‘Gender differences in the quantity and quality of free time: The U.S. experience’, Social Forces, 81(1), pp. 999–1030.

25.

Millar

Glendinning

(1989) ‘Gender and poverty’, Journal of Social Policy 18 (3), pp. 363–381.

26.

Nelson

(1993) ‘Household equivalence scales: Theory versus policy’, Journal of Labor Economics, 11(3), pp. 471–493.

27.

Phipps

S. A.

Burton

P. S.

(1995) ‘Sharing within families: Implications for the measurement of poverty among individuals in Canada’, Canadian Journal of Economics, XXVIII, pp. 177–204.

28.

Reid

M. G.

(1934), Economics of Household Production, John Riley and Sons, Inc., New York.

29.

Ruspini

(1998) ‘Women and poverty dynamics: The case of Germany and Britain’, Journal of European Social Policy, 8, pp. 291–316.

30.

Sen

(1985), The Standard of Living: The Tanner Lectures, Cambridge University, Cambridge.

31.

Travers

Richardson

(1993), Living Decently: Material Wellbeing In Australia, Oxford University Press, Oxford.