Stephen Jenkins and Lars Osberg Monday June 30, 2003 The Guardian
American workers spend an average of almost 10 hours longer in the office each week than their French or German counterparts. Our research suggests that one reason for this may be that they are more likely to have "nobody to play with" - because other Americans are also working more hours. As a result, everyone may be worse off.
Many of the things that people want to do outside work involve other people and are distinctly more enjoyable if done with others. Even growing roses or watching television is usually more pleasurable if done with a companion.
But the problem in wanting to have a social life is that one cannot decide on it unilaterally. Simply to list these activities is to underscore the variety of people's leisure tastes. To have a satisfying social life one has both to locate somebody with compatible tastes and to schedule simultaneous free time.
The implication is that, the more that other people work, the harder it is for each individual to schedule and match their own leisure time.
If bird-watching clubs close because everybody is too busy to organise outings and chess clubs fold because people don't go anymore, then the satisfaction that bird watchers and chess players get from their leisure time will decline.
When there is "nobody to play with" many people may then decide to work even more hours. Since both formal organised activities (like darts leagues) and informal matching (such as the chances of picking up a singles game at the tennis club) depend on how many other like-minded people have free time, at the same time, the value of each person's leisure time depends on how many hours other people are working, and at what times.
The British Household Panel Survey provides evidence that the likelihood of engaging in "associational activity" for people in a given age group depends on how many people in other age groups also engage in that activity.
Our research reveals the extent to which an individual's engagement in associational activity depends on the working time and leisure activity decisions of others, inside and outside the household.
We find that when other people increase their hours of paid work, the probability of a feasible and desirable leisure match also falls, which decreases the personal value of non-work time. In addition, greater mismatch between the timing of hours of work will reduce the probability of a leisure time match being feasible - which also lowers the value of non-work time.
Both effects imply an increase in desired hours of paid work, since leisure has become less enjoyable. So, in general, the desired labour supply of each person will depend on their expectations of the labour supply decisions of others.
We suggest that societies that are better able to coordinate the level and timing of paid working hours may be better off because they enable their citizens to enjoy more satisfying social lives.
Our analysis also draws a link between decreasing social contacts and rising hours of work. If authors such as Robert Putnam are correct in stressing the dependence of social capital on associational life and the importance of social capital for social and economic development, the costs of a high-work/low-social life outcome may be substantial.
Paper available from http://www.iza.org (link to Events/IZA Conferences/Past Conferences)