Method Précis: Functional Time Use Analysis
Lisa Ringhofer and Marina Fischer-Kowalski
With functional time use (FTU), we follow the same systemic logic as with material
and energy metabolism while largely complying with the generally established
classifications used by survey-based time use studies (e.g., Robinson and Godbey
1997). We treat human time as a key resource of social systems. Although each
individual has 24 h per day at his or her disposal, the stock of available time in
a social system (e.g., a village) is ‘created’ by population size, reproduction (the
birth of new individuals) and the average number of years its members stay in the
community. Concerning the flows of human time, one fraction of daily time use
is expended on certain metabolic functions (such as sleeping or eating) necessary
for an individual’s basic reproduction, whereas the remainder is used according
to sociocultural norms, economic necessities or simply individual preferences.
We distinguish among flows serving four functional subsystems, each of which
requires time for reproduction: the person system, the household system, the economic
system and the community system (for a discussion on methodology, see
Singh et al. 2010).
Such a systemic analysis offers a perspective on how much human time is
available and what it is used for in the whole social system, thereby helping us to
understand the specific opportunities and constraints a society faces in its interaction
with the natural environment. At the same time, because the lifetime/labor
time ratio is calculated for all the age/sex groups in this system, FTU sheds light
on the ‘labor burden’ or ‘time poverty’ some of these groups bear with regard to
important aspects of social inequality.
Classifications and Methods
The person system functionally serves personal reproduction and includes all those
activities that cannot be delegated or ‘outsourced’ to others. It holds all the physiologically
necessary functions for a person’s self-reproduction, such as sleeping
and eating, and it encompasses functions for extended reproduction, such as studying,
leisure activities and idling. Breaking it down into single activities, the person
system comprises sleeping, eating, hygiene, rest and idleness, leisure activities and
study and education.
The household system involves those personal reproduction functions of its
members that need or allow for collaboration and a division of labor The household
system is typically organized as an exchange of unpaid labor according to the
social norms regulating age and gender roles in the local system. Time use for the
household system contains the following sub-activities: care for dependents, food
preparation, house building, repair/maintenance work and domestic chores.
The time invested in reproducing the economic system is what we usually refer
to as ‘labor time’. The economic system implies and relies upon a social division
of labor and, at least in market-based societies, usually involves monetary transactions.
In subsistence societies, economic activities may simply be an additional
willi.haas@aau.at
520 L. Ringhofer and M. Fischer-Kowalski
function of households or communities. The economic system entails the following
activities: agriculture, hunting, fishing, gathering, trading, wage work, kitchen
work, gardening, manufacture of handicraft and animal husbandry.
The community system is the reference system for activities contributing to
the reproduction of services on the community level, reciprocal relationships,
social cohesion, politics and religion. It subsumes public sports and games, visiting
friends and relatives, ceremonies and festivals, communal work and political
participation.
FTU data collection in the field may use various methods. In some case studies,
‘time-frame’ analysis was applied, focusing only on certain activities (such
as building a house or repairing a boat) of functional importance. The duration of
these activities and their participants (in terms of gender and age) were recorded
and subsequently weighted according to their annual frequency. This method is
practical for understanding the importance of specific focal activities, but it hardly
allows for constructing a comprehensive time budget on the system’s level. In
more recent empirical studies, time use data were collected more systematically,
with samples of people and households observed for days during waking hours.
In addition to these samples, spot checks by direct observation (who does what at
a certain time) allow the creation of independent statistical estimates that can—in
combination with household interviews—be used for cross-checking. Optimally,
people have to be ‘shadowed’ at different times of the year, thus covering seasonal
differences. The reliability of these measurements as well as the annual estimates
that need to take into account the variability of the number of people present in the
system (because of some leaving for seasonal work, for example) and the variability
of seasonal tasks (such as sowing or harvesting) still requires some improvement.
However, repeated application and refinement of these methods across
various case studies seems to produce increasingly robust results, which we illustrate
for one of our latest case studies below.
Empirical findings from Campo Bello (see Ringhofer 2010, 2013), an indigenous
subsistence community in the Bolivian Amazon, provide insights into the
share of labor of each age/sex group from a system-level perspective (Table 26.3).
The economic system predominantly draws on male labor; however, 38 % of all
working hours are supplied by women. For household work, the share of female
labor amounts to three-quarters of overall time investment in this system. Taken
together, the female share in labor hours exceeds the share of the female population
(55 % of labor hours relative to a 46 % share in population).
Children of both sexes (6–15 years) contribute quite significantly to labor activities
within the economic system, accounting for nearly one-third. The same is true
for the ‘household economy’. One-third of all the labor invested in the upkeep of
the household system is provided by children. Clearly, children perform lighter
work and may perform it less efficiently than adults, but these results lend support
to the argument that in agricultural communities, children have high use value in
terms of labor contribution.
willi.haas@aau.at
521Method Précis: Functional Time Use Analysis
In effect, the labor demand on women of all age groups competes with the time
to spend on personal reproduction activities, such as sleeping, eating, studying, leisure
and idleness (Fig. 26.5).
Thus, FTU also serves as a tool for assessing the gender impact of development
innovations. In the case of Campo Bello, the use of labor-efficient rice seeders, a
technology initially introduced as part of a larger development program (and that
has since turned into a highly solicited agricultural tool), does not particularly benefit
women. Rice seeders only increase the efficiency of rice planting, an activity
that is largely undertaken by men. Other labor-intensive crop management tasks
such as weeding and harvesting largely remain in the hands of women—with no
particular labor-saving devices introduced. A similar conclusion applies to the
innovation of nylon fishing nets. These labor-saving devices are only used by men;
women still use traditional fishing armory, such as hooks and lines and machetes.
However, the mending of the fishing nets is assigned to women, thereby adding to
their labor burden rather than reducing it.
Table 26.3 Daily labor time invested by age/sex groups in Campo Bello (Bolivia) as observed in 2004 and
2006
Boys
6–15
Male
adults
16–60
Male
adults > 60
Girls
6–15
Female
adults
16–60
Female
adults > 60
Total
hours
per day
Share of
children
Share of
females
Population
Numbers (n)
37 41 6 27 38 6 3720 41.3 % 45.8 %
Household
System
(hours/day)
%
66.6 45.1 13.2 78.3 258.4 30 491.6
13.5 % 9.2 % 2.7 % 15.9 % 52.6 % 6.1 % 13.2 % 29.5 % 74.6 %
Economic
System
(hours/day)
%
96.2 237.8 15 70.2 133 13.8 566
17.0 % 42.0 % 2.7 % 12.4 % 23.5 % 2.4 % 15.2 % 29.4 % 38.3 %
Total Daily
Working
Time %
162.8 282.9 28.2 148.5 391.4 43.8 1057.6
15.4 % 26.7 % 2.7 % 14.0 % 37.0 % 4.1 % 28.4 % 29.4 % 55.2 %
Fig. 26.5 Age/sex group segregation in time use, Campo Bello 2004 and 2006
willi.haas@aau.at
522
References
Fischer-Kowalski, M., Singh, S. J., Ringhofer, L., Grünbühel, C. M., Lauk, C., Remesch, A.
(2010) Sociometabolic regimes in indigenous communities and the crucial role of working
time: A comparison of case studies. Social Ecology Working Paper 121
Ringhofer, L. (2010). Fishing, foraging and farming in the Bolivian Amazon: On a local society
in transition. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer Science + Business
Media B.V.
Ringhofer, L. (2013) Introducing functional time use (FTU) analysis: A gender-sensitive
approach to labor time in Gendered Perspectives on International Development, GPID
Working Paper 302. (http://gencen.isp.msu.edu/documents/Working_Papers/WP302.pdf)
Robinson, J. P., & Godbey, G. (1997). Time for life: The surprising ways Americans use their
time. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Singh, S. J., Ringhofer, L., Haas, W., Krausmann, F., Fischer-Kowalski, M. (2010). Local studies
manual: a researcher’s guide for investigating the social metabolism of local rural systems.
Social Ecology Working Paper 120 (http://www.uni-klu.ac.at/socec/downloads/WP120_Web.
pdf)
Other uses of this methodology allow for structural comparisons between
different social systems and sociometabolic regimes. Examples that continue in
the tradition of Ester Boserup’s work include the analysis of the energy intensity
of working hours, labor investment per unit area or per unit harvest and the impact
of increasing fossil fuel use in changing these relationships (see, for example,
Fischer-Kowalski et al. 2010), thus enhancing our understanding of the impact of
development trajectories in both social and natural systems.
L. Ringhofer and M. Fischer-Kowalski
willi.haas@aau.at