IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/oxecpp/v73y2021i3p1099-1121..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Time well spent versus a life considered: changing subjective Well-Being in China

Author

Listed:
  • Shu CaiBy
  • Albert Park
  • Winnie Yip

Abstract

Using unique longitudinal survey data that employed the Day Reconstruction Method to measure experienced utility (EU) in rural China, this study reveals striking differences in the trends for life satisfaction and EU. We find that reported life satisfaction changed little over the period from 2006 to 2009. However, EU increased significantly during the same period. The improvement in EU is mainly due to more positive feelings about specific activities rather than changes in the time spent on different activities. These findings are consistent with the predictions of aspiration adaptation theory.

Suggested Citation

  • Shu CaiBy & Albert Park & Winnie Yip, 2021. "Time well spent versus a life considered: changing subjective Well-Being in China," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 73(3), pages 1099-1121.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:oxecpp:v:73:y:2021:i:3:p:1099-1121.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/oep/gpaa051
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • I31 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - General Welfare, Well-Being
    • J22 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Time Allocation and Labor Supply

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:oxecpp:v:73:y:2021:i:3:p:1099-1121.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/oep .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.