Вестник Института экономики № 6/2025. Экономика и управление.  

Ядрищенская Ксения Юрьевна

аспирант Московского государственного университета имени М.В. Ломоносова, Москва, Россия

ORCID: 0009-0009-8009-1216

ДОСУГ В ОЦЕНКЕ ИНДИВИДУАЛЬНОГО БЛАГОПОЛУЧИЯ ЛИЦ ТРУДОСПОСОБНОГО ВОЗРАСТА

 109-132   

 12   

 339.08 KB   

 Текст статьи

В статье представлен новый метод оценки уровня благополучия, основанный на анализе распределения времени на досуг среди индивидов трудоспособного возраста. Для формирования ненаблюдаемой переменной благополучия использованы показатели человеческого капитала (здоровье, образование) и материальная составляющая (доход). Построение MIMIC-модели на данных Выборочного наблюдения использования суточного фонда времени населением (N = 52,177) позволило выявить устойчивую связь между ненаблюдаемой переменной благополучия и решениями о распределении времени на досуг. Проведенный анализ позволил классифицировать досуговые занятия на положительно, отрицательно и нелинейно связанные с уровнем благополучия, а также выявить различия в факторах, определяющих благополучие мужчин и женщин в рабочие и выходные дни. Полученные результаты могут быть использованы при разработке мер, направленных на повышение качества жизни и благополучия населения.

Ключевые слова: бюджеты времени, распределение времени, благополучие, досуг.

УДК: 314.06, 331.1

EDN: YBMXBH

DOI: https://doi.org/10.52180/2073-6487_2026_1_109_132

Литература

1. Калабихина И. E., Шамсутдинова В.Ш. Дважды бедные: кто испытывает дефицит времени и денег // Журнал исследований социальной политики. 2023. № 21 (4). С. 629–646. DOI: 10.17323/727-0634-2023-21-4-629-646.
2. Álvarez B., Miles-Touya D. Time Allocation and Women’s Life Satisfaction: Evidence from Spain // Social Indicators Research. 2016. Vol. 129. Pp. 1207–1230. DOI: 10.1007/s11205-015-1159-3.
3. Aguiar M., Hurst E. Measuring Trends in Leisure: The Allocation of Time over Five Decades // The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2007. Vol. 122. No. 3. Pp. 969–1006. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25098866.
4. Bashkirova K. Determinants of health of Russia’s population based on daily time allocation data // Population and Economics. 2024. Vol. 8. No. 2. Pp. 1–18. DOI: 10.3897/popecon.8.e116960.
5. Berset M., et al. Work Characteristics as Predictors of Physiological Recovery on Weekends // Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health. 2009. Vol. 35. No. 3. Pp. 188–192. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40967776.
6. Böhnke P. First European Quality of Life Survey: Life satisfaction, happiness and sense of belonging. Social Science Research Centre (WZB). Berlin. 2005. https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/en/publications/2005/first-european-quality-life-survey-lifesatisfaction-happiness-and-sense-0.
7. Chang C., et al. Comparing multiple statistical software for multiple-indicator, multiplecause modeling: an application of gender disparity in adult cognitive functioning using MIDUS II dataset // BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2020. Vol. 20. No. 275. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-020-01150-4.
8. Dahm P.C., et al. Work-family conflict and self-discrepant time allocation at work // Journal of Applied Psychology. 2015. Vol. 100. No. 3. Pp. 767–792. DOI: 10.1037/a0038542.
9. Fritz C., et al. The Weekend Matters: Relationships between Stress Recovery and Affective Experiences // Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2010. Vol. 31. No. 8. Pp. 1137–1162. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41683967.
10. Gershuny J. Time-Use Surveys and the Measurement of National Well-Being. Swansea: Centre for Time Use Research, University of Oxford. 2011.
11. Gimenez-Nadal J.I., Sevilla A. Trends in time allocation: A cross-country analysis // European Economic Review. 2012. Vol. 56. No. 6. Pp. 1338–1359. DOI: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2012.02.011.
12. Jöreskog K. G., Goldberger A. S. Estimation of a Model with Multiple Indicators and Multiple Causes of a Single Latent Variable // Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1975. Vol. 70. No. 351a. Pp. 631–639. DOI: 10.1080/01621459.1975.10482485.
13. Kalil A., et al. Education gradients in parental time investment and subjective wellbeing // Review of Economics of the Household. 2024. Vol. 23. Pp. 661–706. DOI: 10.1007/s11150-024-09734-5.
14. Kasser T., Sheldon K.M. Time Affluence as a Path toward Personal Happiness and Ethical Business Practice: Empirical Evidence from Four Studies // Journal of Business Ethics. 2009. Vol. 84 (2). Pp. 243–255. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-008-9696-1.
15. Kekäläinen T., et al. Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Associations between Leisure Time Physical Activity, Mental Well-Being and Subjective Health in Middle Adulthood // Applied Research in Quality of Life. 2020. Vol. 15. Pp. 1099–1116. DOI: 10.1007/s11482-019-09721-4.
16. Knabe A., et al. Dissatisfied with Life but Having a Good Day: Time-use and Well-being of the Unemployed // The Economic Journal. 2010. Vol. 120. Pp. 867–889. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2009.02347.x.
17. Krueger A., et al. National Time Accounting: The Currency of Life. Measuring the Subjective Well-Being of Nations: National Accounts of Time Use and Well-Being // National Bureau of Economic Research. 2009.
18. Kwarciński T., Ulman P., Wdowin J. Measuring Subjective Well-being Capability: A Multi-Country Empirical Analysis in Europe // Applied Research in Quality of Life. 2024. DOI: 10.1007/s11482-024-10334-9.
19. Livingston V., Jackson-Nevels B., Reddy V. Social, Cultural, and Economic Determinants of Well-Being // Encyclopedia. 2022. Vol. 2. Pp. 1183–1199. DOI: 10.3390/encyclopedia2030079.
20. Martinez Mendiola A., Cortina C. Leisure time and parenting in Europe: a more difficult equation for mothers? // Family Relations. 2024. Vol. 73. No. 4. Pp. 2823–2845. DOI: 10.1111/fare.13017.
21. Martinetti E.C. A multidimensional assessment of well-being based on sen’s functioning approach // Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali. 2000. Vol. 108. No. 2. Pp. 207–239. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41634742.
22. Merz J. Time and Economic Well–Being—A Panel Analysis of Desired versus Actual Working Hours // Review of Income and Wealth. 2002. Vol. 48. Pp. 317–346. DOI: 10.1111/1475-4991.00057.
23. Nikolaev B. Does Higher Education Increase Hedonic and Eudaimonic Happiness? // Journal of Happiness Studies. 2018. Vol. 19. Pp. 483–504. DOI: 10.1007/s10902-016-9833-y.
24. Nilsson A., Hellryd E., Kjell O. Doing well-being: Self-reported activities are related to subjective well-being // PLOS ONE. 2022. Vol. 17. No. e0270503. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270503.
25. How’s Life?: Measuring Well-being // Paris: OECD Publishing. 2011. DOI: 10.1787/9789264121164-en.
26. Okun M., et al. The Social Activity/Subjective Well-Being Relation: A Quantitative Synthesis // Research on Aging. 1984. Vol. 6. No. 1. Pp. 45–65. DOI: 10.1177/0164027584006001003.
27. Orehek E., Inagaki T. On the Benefits of Giving Social Support: When, Why, and How Support Providers Gain by Caring for Others // Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2017. Vol. 26. Pp. 109–113.
28. Rosseel Y. lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling // Journal of Statistical Software. 2012. Vol. 48. No. 2. Pp. 1–36. DOI: 10.18637/jss.v048.i02.
29. Ruggeri K., et al. Well-Being Is More Than Happiness and Life Satisfaction: A Multidimensional Analysis of 21 Countries // Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2020. Vol. 18. Pp. 192. DOI: 10.1186/s12955-020-01423-y.
30. Rutskiy V. et al. Modeling the Well-Being of the Population and Its Factors Using the Well-Being Index // Networks and Systems in Cybernetics (CSOC 2023). Cham: Springer. 2023. Pp. 55. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-35317-8_55.
31. Shao Q. Does less working time improve life satisfaction? Evidence from European Social Survey // Health Economics Review. 2022. Vol. 12. No. 50. DOI: 10.1186/s13561-022-00396-6.
32. Stiglitz J., Sen A., Fitoussi J.-P. Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. 2009.
33. Stutzer A., Frey B. S. Recent Developments in the Economics of Happiness: A Selective Overview // IZA Discussion Papers. 2012. No. 7078. Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn.
34. Suleiman A.O., et al. Worker perspectives on the impact of non-standard workdays on worker and family well-being: A qualitative study // BMC Public Health. 2021. Vol. 21. No. 2230. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-021-12265-8.
35. Wajcman J., Bittman M. The Rush Hour: The Character of Leisure Time and Gender Equity // Social Forces. 2000. Vol. 79. DOI: 10.2307/2675568.
36. Wang P., et al. The Impact of Residents’ Leisure Time Allocation Mode on Individual Subjective Well-being: The Case of China // Applied Research in Quality of Life. 2022. Vol. 17. Pp. 1831–1866. DOI: 10.1007/s11482-021-10003-1.
37. Weston G., et al. Work hours, weekend working, nonstandard work schedules and sleep quantity and quality: findings from the UK household longitudinal study // BMC Public Health. 2024. Vol. 24. No. 309. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-024-17762-0.
38. World Bank. World Development Report 1980. New York: Oxford University Press. 1980.
39. Yamaguchi S., Oshima H. Analysis of the Relationship Between Residential Environment and Multifaceted Well-Being // International Journal of Community Well-Being. 2024. Vol. 7. Pp. 467–489. DOI: 10.1007/s42413-024-00219-y.
40. Zwierzchowski J., Panek T. Measurement of Subjective Well-Being Under Capability Approach in Poland // Polish Sociological Review. 2020. Vol. 210. Pp. 157–178. DOI: 10.26412/psr210.02.

Дата поступления рукописи: 28.07.2025 г.

Дата принятия к публикации: 24.02.2026 г.

Для цитирования:

Ядрищенская К.Ю. Досуг в оценке индивидуального благополучия лиц трудоспособного возраста // Вестник Института экономики Российской академии наук. 2026. № 1. С. 109-132. https://doi.org/10.52180/2073-6487_2026_1_109_132 EDN: YBMXBH

  Лицензия Creative Commons 4.0