Advertisement

Do Urban Time Policies Have a Real Impact on Quality of Life? And Which Methods Are Apt to Evaluate Them?

  • Ulrich MückenbergerEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Urban and Landscape Perspectives book series (URBANLAND, volume 15)

Abstract

Time-policy measures, under current ‘industrial relations’, regularly focus on the workplace-limited time interests of employees. In service societies, however, these time interests frequently conflict with time interests of other stakeholders – e.g. of users, of services and of citizens. The contribution discusses, both theoretically and empirically, how such ‘time conflicts’ can be solved, and are actually solved, in a fair manner. Case studies of time measures in childcare and other service institutions investigate three issues: Do these time measures take into account the ‘time stakes’ of both users and providers of services? Do they have a real impact on quality of life of both groups? Do gains in quality of life of users go at the cost of quality of life of employees (or vice versa)? This chapter concludes that mindful time policies lead to gains in quality of life and ‘win-win constellations’ between users and providers of services. It underlines the conditions of fair solutions of time conflicts. It thus outlines ‘work relations’ (as opposed to ‘industrial relations’) which are adequate to service societies.

Keywords

Urban time policies Evaluation Working-time policies Implementation Impacts Comparative study Time policies 

References

  1. Bonfiglioli S, Mareggi M (eds) (1997) Il tempo e la città fra natura e storia. Collana dell’Istituto Nazionale di Urbanistica, RomaGoogle Scholar
  2. Boulin J-Y, Mückenberger U (1999) Times in the city and quality of life. European studies on time, 1. DublinGoogle Scholar
  3. Eberling M, Henckel D (1998) Kommunale Zeitpolitik. Veränderungen von Zeitstrukturen – Handlungsoptionen der Kommunen. Ed. sigma, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  4. Goodin RE, Rice JM, Parppo A, Eriksson L (2008) Discretionary time. A new measure of freedom. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Läpple D, Mückenberger U, Oßenbrügge J (eds) (2010) Räume und Zeiten der Stadt. B. Budrich, OpladenGoogle Scholar
  6. Mönig-Raane M (ed) (2005) Zeitfragen sind Streitfragen. Ein zeitpolitisches Projekt setzt Zeichen für die Praxis. VSA, HamburgGoogle Scholar
  7. Mückenberger U (2004) Metronome des Alltags. Sigma, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  8. Mückenberger U (2010) Zeitpolitische Regulierung in der Dienstleistungsgesellschaft. In: Groß H, Seifert H (eds) Zeitkonflikte. Renaissance der Arbeitszeitpolitik. Sigma, Berlin, pp 263–288Google Scholar
  9. Mückenberger U (2011a) Time abstraction, temporal policy and the right to one’s own time. KronoScope 11(1):67–98Google Scholar
  10. Mückenberger U (2011b) Times policies in Europe. Scientific opinion for the Council of Europe. Time Soc 20(2):243–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mückenberger U (2011c) Régulation temporelle dans la société de service. In: Schömann I (ed) Mélanges à la mémoire de Yota Kravaritou. ETUI, Bruxelles, pp 381–410Google Scholar
  12. Mückenberger U (2012) Lebensqualität durch Zeitpolitik- wie Zeitkonflikte gelöst werden können. Sigma, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  13. Nussbaum MC (1999) Gerechtigkeit oder Das gute Leben. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/MainGoogle Scholar
  14. Sen A (1999) Development as freedom. OUP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Sen A (2000) Der Lebensstandard. Rotbuch, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  16. Sen A, Nussbaum MC (1993) Quality of life. OUP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Stiglitz J, Sen A, Fitoussi J-P (2009) Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. Paris (manuscript)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre of European Law and PoliticsUniversität BremenBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations