Poverty remains a primary public policy issue, and a large literature has discussed the limitations of an income poverty measure. Using income as an indicator of poverty is a helpful simplification designed to capture ability to meet consumption needs. We argue that time is a basic economic resource allocated to create well-being along with income. Time is a scarce resource that individuals and households must allocate to produce goods, obtain services, and pursue rest and relaxation. Time poverty has been proposed as a complement to income poverty, yet it remains a relatively unknown measure in both policy and research spheres. The many ways time poverty is conceptualized and measured across studies has limited its adoption. To help familiarize readers with time poverty, we apply basic tenets of income poverty measurement to time. We conduct a survey of the theoretical and empirical literature discussing similarities, differences, and the pros and cons of different approaches to time poverty. In particular, inconsistent definition and categorization of necessary and discretionary time has been a barrier to the transparent application of time poverty in the literature, and we outline guidance on defining necessary and discretionary time for future studies. Finally, we outline future research directions for time poverty.
This is a preview of subscription content,to check access.
Access this article
Similar content being viewed by others
It also ignores capital gains and “in-kind transfers such as food stamps and housing subsidies, child care subsidies, or the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), all of which increase the economic well-being of the family; nor does the money income concept account for work expenses or taxes paid, which reduce well-being” (Meyer and Wallace 2009, p. 37). Further, by officially defining families as consisting of related or married household members, it is insensitive to the current reality of varied household structures, most importantly the increasing prevalence of unmarried partners.
Douthitt (2000) ascribes this assertion to Vickery, but note that Vickery's time constraint, itself based on the inclusion of “necessary leisure”, was 81.4 h per week.
Aguiar, M., & Hurst, E. (2008). The increase in leisure inequality (pp. 1–62). Cambridge, MA. http://www.nber.org/papers/w13837. Accessed 15 Aug 2014.
Ås, D. (1978). Studies of time-use: Problems and prospects. Acta Sociologica, 21(2), 125–141.
Bane, M. J., & Ellwood, D. T. (1986). Slipping into and out of poverty: The dynamics of spells. Journal of Human Resources, 21, 1–23.
Bardasi, E., & Wodon, Q. (2010). Working long hours and having no choice: Time poverty in Guinea. Feminist Economics, 16(3), 37–41.
Becker, G. (1965). The allocation of time. Economic Journal, 75, 493–517.
Bertrand, M., & Schanzenbach, D. W. (2009). Time use and food consumption. American Economic Review, 99, 170–176.
Bittman, M. (2002). Social participation and family welfare: The money and time costs of leisure in Australia. Social Policy and Administration, 36(4), 408–425.
Blank, R. M. (2008). Presidential address: How to improve poverty measurement in the United States. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27, 233–254.
Bremner, R. H. (1992). The discovery of poverty in the United States (Rev. ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publisher.
Brownson, R. C., Boehmer, T. K., & Luke, D. A. (2005). Declining rates of physical activity in the United States: What are the contributors? Annual Review of Public Health, 26, 421–443.
Burchardt, T. (2008). Time and income poverty. Centre for Analysis of social exclusion reprot 57. London. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/28341/1/CASEreport57.pdf. Accessed 17 Sept 2014.
Caprio, S., Daniels, S. R., Drewnowski, A., Kaufman, F. R., Palinkas, L. A., Rosenbloom, A. L., & Schwimmer, J. B. (2008). Influence of race, ethnicity, and culture on childhood obesity: Implications for prevention and treatment: A consensus statement of Shaping America’s Health and the Obesity Society. Diabetes Care, 31, 2211–2221.
Citro, C. F., & Michael, R. T. (Eds.). (1995). Measuring poverty: A new approach. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Cook, J., Masuda, Y., Fortmann, L., Smith-Nilson, M., & Gugerty, M. K. (2012). Measuring the impact of convenient water supply on household time use in rural ethiopia. Baltimore, MD: 2012 APPAM fall research conference. https://appam.confex.com/appam/2012/webprogram/Paper3810.html. Accessed 25 June 2015.
Cutler, D. M., Glaeser, E. L., & Shapiro, J. M. (2003). Why have Americans become more obese? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17, 93–118.
Douthitt, R. A. (2000). “Time to do the chores?” Factoring home-production needs into measures of poverty. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 21(1), 7–22.
Etkin, J., Evangelidis, I., & Aaker, J. (2015). Pressed for time? Goal conflict shapes how time is perceived, spent, and valued. Journal of Marketing Research, 52, 394–406.
Folbre, N. (2009). Time use and living standards. Social Indicators Research, 93(1), 77–83.
Foster, J., Greer, J., & Thorbecke, E. (1984). A class of decomposable poverty measure. Econometrica, 52, 761–766.
Gershuny, J. (2011). Time-use surveys and the measurement of national well-being. Oxford: Centre for Time Use Research, University of Oxford.
Goodin, R. E., Rice, J. M., Bittman, M., & Saunders, P. (2005). The time-pressure illusion: Discretionary time vs. free time. Social Indicators Research, 73, 43–70.
Goodin, R. E., Rice, J. M., Parpo, A., & Eriksson, L. (2008). Discretionary time: A new measure of freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hamermesh, D. S. (2010). Incentives, time use and BMI: The roles of eating, grazing and goods. Economics and Human Biology, 8, 2–15.
Hamermesh, D. S. (2014). U.S. workers take on too many hours, benefit little from it. Houston Chronicle (online). Retrieved 18 Sept 2014 from http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Hamermesh-U-S-workers-take-on-too-many-hours-5723908.php.
Harvey, A. S., & Mukhopadhyay, A. K. (2007). When twenty-four hours is not enough: Time poverty of working parents. Social Indicators Research, 82(1), 57–77. doi:10.1007/s11205-006-9002-5.
Haveman, R. (2009). What does it nean to be poor in a rich society? In M. Cancian & S. Danziger (Eds.), Changing poverty, changing policies (pp. 387–408). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Hobbes, M., de Groot, W. T., van der Voet, E., & Sarkhel, S. (2011). Freely disposable time: A time and money integrated measure of poverty and freedom. World Development, 39(12), 2055–2068.
Jastran, M. M., Bisogni, C. A., Sobal, J., Blake, C., & Devine, C. M. (2009). Eating routines. Embedded, value based, modifiable, and reflective. Appetite, 52(1), 127–136.
Kalenkoski, C. M., & Hamrick, K. S. (2013). How does time poverty affect behavior? a look at eating and physical activity. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 35(1), 89–105. doi:10.1093/aepp/pps034.
Kalenkoski, C. M., Hamrick, K. S., & Andrews, M. (2011). Time poverty thresholds and rates for the U.S. population. Social Indicators Research, 104(1), 129–155.
Knutson, K. L., & van Cauter, E. (2008). Associations between sleep loss and increased risk of obesity and diabetes. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1129, 287–304.
Krueger, A. B., Kahneman, D., Schkade, D., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. A. (2009). National time accounting: The currency of life. In A. B. Krueger (Ed.), Measuring the subjective well-being of nations: National accounts of time use and well-being (Vol. I). Chicago: National Bureau of Economic Research/University of Chicago Press.
Lam, B. (2014). Americans won’t relax, even late at night or on the weekend. The Atlantic (online). Retrieved 18 Sept 2014 from http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/09/americans-wont-relax-even-late-at-night-or-on-the-weekend/380146/.
Mani, A., Mullainathan, S., Shafir, E., & Zhao, J. (2013). Poverty impedes cognitive function. Science, 341(6149), 976–980.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.
Masuda, Y. J., Fortmann, L., Gugerty, M. K., Smith-Nilson, M., & Cook, J. (2014). Pictorial approaches for measuring time use in rural Ethiopia. Social Indicators Research, 115, 467–482.
Meltzer, D. O., & Jena, A. B. (2010). The economics of intense exercise. Journal of Health Economics, 29, 347–352.
Meyer, D. R., & Wallace, G. L. (2009). Poverty levels and trends in comparative perspective. In M. Cancian & S. Danziger (Eds.), Changing poverty, changing policies (pp. 35–62). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2013). Scarcity: Why having too little means so much. New York: Henry Holt.
Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI). (2012). Measuring multidimensional deprivations and living conditions based on survey data. (Brief). Oxford: University of Oxford Dept of International Development.
Plotnick, R. D. (2012). The alleviation of poverty: How far have we come? In P. N. Jefferson (Ed.), The oxford handbook of the economics of poverty (pp. 15–47). New York: Oxford University Press.
Reisch, L. A. (2001). Time and wealth: The role of time and temporalities for sustainable patterns of consumption. Time & Society, 10(2–3), 367–385. http://tas.sagepub.com/content/10/2-3/367.short. Accessed 18 Dec 2014.
Rose, D. (2003). Food stamps, the Thrifty Food Plan, and meal preparation: The importance of the time dimension for US nutrition policy. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 39, 226–232.
Sandoval, D. A., Rank, M. R., & Hirschl, T. A. (2009). The increasing risk of poverty across the American life course. Demography, 46, 717–737.
Smith, A. (1937). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. New York: Modern Library.
Spinney, J., & Millward, H. (2010). Time and money: A new look at poverty and the barriers to physical activity in Canada. Social Indicators Research, 99(2), 341–356.
Strazdins, L., Griffin, A. L., Broom, D. H., Banwell, C., Korda, R., Dixon, J., et al. (2011). Time scarcity: Another health inequality? Environment and Planning A, 43(3), 545–559.
Vickery, C. (1977). The time-poor: A new look at poverty. Journal of Human Resources, 12(1), 27–48.
Zacharias, A. (2011). The measurement of time and income poverty. Levy economics institute of Bard college working paper no. 690. Annandale-on-Hudson, NY.
Appendix: A Brief Discussion of Multidimensional Poverty
Appendix: A Brief Discussion of Multidimensional Poverty
One theme in the poverty literature focuses on so-called multi-dimensional poverty (e.g., Oxford Poverty and Human Development Index), which essentially steps back to consider a broader view of resources. These measures may account for psychosocial factors, such as quality of work, engagement in political activities, social connectedness, and psychological well-being, physical health and wellness, and access to basic needs. Haveman (2009) notes the importance of such considerations, arguing that individuals may be socially poor (e.g., socially isolated), house poor (e.g., living in squalid conditions), and health poor (e.g., unhealthy). By moving beyond income, researchers and policymakers hope to capture a more complete view of hardship and move towards a deeper understanding of the human condition. The multi-dimensional poverty literature, however, has yet to reach consensus on what to measure.
Multidimensional poverty measures are largely motivated by the idea that less well-off people tend to experience deprivation as more than just money. In participatory research exercises, OPHI (2012) found supporting evidence for defining poverty beyond just income, with participants describing ill-being as a function of “unemployment, low income, poor health, nutrition, lack of adequate sanitation and clean water, social exclusion, low education, bad housing conditions, violence, shame, disempowerment and so on” (p. 1). A marginal increase in income will amend these deprivations to varying degrees, depending on time and access to markets. Money income is a better indicator of consumption in the context of complete and functioning formal markets, less so in areas where home production and barter predominate.
There is growing support for constructing multi-dimensional measures of poverty, even as promoters argue about which dimensions to include.
While the Western nations were well served by an income poverty measure a half-century ago, today a variety of additional considerations—including the level of cognitive and noncognitive skills, access to important social institutions (for example, the labor market), the ability to attain minimum standards of food and shelter, and having sufficient time for home production and child care—need to be taken into account (Haveman 2009, pp. 397–398).
An advantage of a multi-dimensional poverty measure is that it is likely to be more sensitive to policy interventions. For example, if a society changes policy in order to increase school attendance, this will have little effect on income for years, but will have a more immediate effect on measures of schooling (OPHI 2012) or cognitive and noncognitive skills. Further, the long-term effects of increased education go beyond income. For example, education is positively correlated with health behaviors and outcomes, such as smoking and mortality, and measuring only income can severely underestimate the positive impacts of the policy.
As we stated in the main text, however, multidimensional poverty measures are not without their critics. There are often restrictive data requirements, and cross-country comparisons may be difficult if multidimensional poverty measures are context specific. Few have been repeated, further hindering the ability of policymakers to interpret an index value and gauge relative progress.
About this article
Cite this article
Williams, J.R., Masuda, Y.J. & Tallis, H. A Measure Whose Time has Come: Formalizing Time Poverty. Soc Indic Res 128, 265–283 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-1029-z