Advertisement

Keynes’ Grandchildren and Easterlin’s Paradox: What Is Keeping Us from Reducing Our Working Hours?

  • Johannes HirataEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

In1930 Keynes famously predicted that 100 years later—i.e. in 2030—the “economic problem” would be solved and we would be living in an “age of leisure and of abundance” working only 3 h a day. In the same text, Keynes stated that there are absolute and relative needs (“in the sense that we feel them only if their satisfaction lifts us above, makes us feel superior to, our fellows”), but he thought that relative needs are of minor importance. Richard Easterlin’s work, on the other hand, suggests that relative needs are pervasive and that wellbeing depends much more on one’s relative income than Keynes once thought.

It will be argued in this text that Richard Easterlin’s findings, in spite of proving Keynes off the mark in his understatement of relative needs, strengthens the case for working time reductions: the larger the proportion of goods subject to the relative-income effect, the greater are the benefits of working fewer hours. Perhaps the main explanation for why we are still sticking to the 40-h work-week is that the Easterlin paradox has not been widely understood yet.

Keywords

Easterlin paradox Economic growth Relative-income effect Hedonic adaptation Labor supply Leisure 

References

  1. Alesina, A., Glaeser, E., & Sacerdote, B. (2006). Work and leisure in the United States and Europe: Why so different? NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2005, 20, 1–64.Google Scholar
  2. Ausubel, J. H., & Grübler, A. (1995). Working less and living longer: Long-term trends in working time and time budgets. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 50(3), 195–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker, G. S. (1976). The economic approach to human behavior (EPUB-edition) (Reprint 2013). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bell, L. A., & Freeman, R. B. (2001). The incentive for working hard: Explaining hours worked differences in the US and Germany. Labour Economics, 8(2), 181–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bielenski, H., Bosch, G., & Wagner, A. (2002). Wie die Europäer arbeiten wollen: Erwerbs- und Arbeitszeitwünsche in 16 Ländern. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
  6. Bolt, J., & Van Zanden, J. L. (2014). The Maddison Project: Collaborative research on historical national accounts. The Economic History Review, 67(3), 627–651.Google Scholar
  7. Bowles, S., & Park, Y. (2005). Emulation, inequality, and work hours: Was Thorsten Veblen right? The Economic Journal, 115(507), F397–F412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cantril, H. (1965). The pattern of human concerns. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  9. De Graaf, J., Wann, D., & Naylor, T. H. (2014). Affluenza: How overconsumption is killing us—and how to fight back. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Duesenberry, J. S. (1949). Income, saving and the theory of consumer behavior. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Easterlin, R. A. (1969). Towards a socio-economic theory of fertility. In S. J. Behrman, L. Corsa, & R. Freedman (Eds.), Fertility and family planning: A world view (pp. 127–156). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  12. Easterlin, R. A. (1973). Relative economic status and the American fertility swing. In E. B. Sheldon (Ed.), Family economic behavior: Problems and prospects (pp. 170–227). New York: Lippincott.Google Scholar
  13. Easterlin, R. A. (1974). Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence. In P. A. David & M. W. Reder (Eds.), Nations and households in economic growth: Essays in honour of Moses Abramovitz (pp. 89–125). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  14. Easterlin, R. A. (1996). Growth triumphant (Reprint 2009). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  15. Easterlin, R. A. (2001). Income and happiness: Towards a unified theory. The Economic Journal, 111(473), 465–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frank, R. H. (1989). Frames of reference and the quality of life. The American Economic Review, 79(2), 80–85.Google Scholar
  17. Frank, R. H. (1997). The frame of reference as a public good. The Economic Journal, 107(445), 1832–1847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frank, R. H. (1999). Luxury fever: Why money fails to satisfy in an era of excess. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Frank, R. H. (2010). Context is more important than Keynes realized. In L. Pecchi & G. Piga (Eds.), Revisiting Keynes. Economic possibilities for our grandchildren (pp. 143–150). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Frank, R. H. (2012). The Easterlin paradox revisited. Emotion, 12(6), 1188–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Frederick, S., & Loewenstein, G. (1999). Hedonic adaptation. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 302–329). New York: Russel Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  22. Glaeser, E. L., Sacerdote, B. I., & Scheinkman, J. A. (2003). The social multiplier. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(2–3), 345–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Golden, L., & Gebreselassie, T. (2007). Overemployment mismatches: The preference for fewer work hours. Monthly Labor Review, 130, 18.Google Scholar
  24. Golden, L. (2014). Measuring Long, Overtime, and Un-Preferred Hours of Work. Working Paper for the EINet Measurement Group, University of Chicago School of Social Service Administration.Google Scholar
  25. Grözinger, G., Matiaske, W., & Tobsch, V. (2008). Arbeitszeitwünsche, Arbeitslosigkeit und Arbeitszeitpolitik (No. 103). SOEP papers on multidisciplinary panel data research.Google Scholar
  26. Hallberg, D. (2003). Synchronous leisure, jointness and household labor supply. Labour Economics, 10(2), 185–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hamermesh, D. S. (1999). The timing of work over time. The Economic Journal, 109(452), 37–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hirata, J. (2011). Happiness, ethics, and economics. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Holst, E. & Bringmann, J. (2017). Arbeitszeitwünsche von Beschäftigten: eine Black Box? Zu Unschärfen der Ermittlung von Unter- und Überbeschäftigung. DIW. DIW Roundup 106.Google Scholar
  30. Jacobs, J. A., & Gerson, K. (2001). Overworked individuals or overworked families? Work and Occupations, 28(1), 40–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jenkins, S. P., & Osberg, L. (2004). Nobody to play with? In D. S. Hamermesh & G. A. Pfann (Eds.), The economics of time use (pp. 113–145). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jonsson, P. O. (1996). On meta-preferences and incomplete preference maps. International Advances in Economic Research, 2(2), 112–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Keynes, J. M. (1978). Economic possibilities for our grandchildren. In J. M. Keynes (Ed.), Collected writings vol. 9: Essays in persuasion (pp. 321–332). London: Royal Economic Society/Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
  34. Kimball, M. S., & Shapiro, M. D. (2008). Labor supply: Are the income and substitution effects both large or both small? (No. w14208). National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  35. Lichtenberg, J. (1996). Consuming because others consume. Social Theory & Practice, 22(3), 273–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Loewenstein, G., & Schkade, D. (1999). Wouldn’t it be nice? Predicting future feelings. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 85–105). New York: Russel Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  37. Messenger, J. C. (2011). Working time trends and developments in Europe. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 35(2), 295–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Neumark, D., & Postlewaite, A. (1998). Relative income concerns and the rise in married women’s employment. Journal of Public Economics, 70(1), 157–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pollak, R. A. (1978). Endogenous tastes in demand and welfare analysis. The American Economic Review, 68(2), 374–379.Google Scholar
  40. Sachs, J. D. (2017). Man and machine: The macroeconomics of the digital revolution. Mimeo from a conference organized by the Centre for Economic Performance and the International Growth Centre.Google Scholar
  41. Schneider, M. (2007). The nature, history and significance of the concept of positional goods. History of Economics Review, 45, 60–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schor, J. (2003). The (even more) overworked American. In J. de Graaf (Ed.), Take back your time. Fighting overwork and time poverty in America (pp. 6–11). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.Google Scholar
  43. Smith, A. (1776). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations (Reprint 1979). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Stiglitz, J. E. (2010). Toward a general theory of consumerism: Reflections on Keynes’s economic possibilities for our grandchildren. In L. Pecchi & G. Piga (Eds.), Revisiting Keynes. Economic possibilities for our grandchildren (pp. 41–85). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  45. The Maddison Project. (2013). The Maddison project database, version 2013. (cf. Bolt & van Zanden 2014). Groningen Growth and Development Centre. http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/maddison-project/home.htm
  46. UNEP. (2011). Decoupling natural resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth. A report of the working group on decoupling to the international resource panel. In M. Fischer-Kowalski, M. Swilling, E.U. von Weizsäcker & Y. Ren. Nairobi: UNEP.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hochschule Osnabrück, University of Applied SciencesOsnabrückGermany

Personalised recommendations