IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Paid Work and Unpaid Work: Diary Information Versus Questionnaire Information

  • Jens Bonke


Time-use information is preferably obtained from diaries, as this method is considered more reliable than information from questionnaires. Data from the Danish Time Use Survey 2001 thus indicate differences in the level of unpaid work, whereas only minor differences appear for paid work. That is: people reporting many hours of paid work tend to over-report the actual number of hours worked, while those reporting a small number of hours tend to underreport their contribution. For unpaid work, the same pattern appears. Moreover, men are found to be more unreliable than women in evaluating their amount of work on the labour market, while the opposite is the case for the unpaid/household work, with women underreporting their contribution more than men. The implication is that labour supplystudies based on questionnaire-information, i.e. Labour Force Surveys, are less accurate than studies based on diary-information. Copyright Springer 2005

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Springer in its journal Social Indicators Research.

Volume (Year): 70 (2005)
Issue (Month): 3 (02)
Pages: 349-368

in new window

Handle: RePEc:spr:soinre:v:70:y:2005:i:3:p:349-368
Contact details of provider: Web page:

Order Information: Web:

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:soinre:v:70:y:2005:i:3:p:349-368. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Guenther Eichhorn)

or (Christopher F Baum)

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.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.