透過您的圖書館登入
IP:18.119.131.178
  • 學位論文

美國青少年時間利用與閒置問題之研究

The analysis of time use and economic idleness of American Adolescent

指導教授 : 黃芳玫

摘要


相對於青少年失業問題,近年來政府單位以及經濟學者更著重於那些具有同時未就學、持續長時間未就業以及未尋找工作等青少年閒置問題。根據美國勞工統計局 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) 調查資料顯示2005年美國16-24歲青少年之閒置比率高達11%。此高閒置現象是否與其時間利用有密切關連性,過去未有文獻探討,故本研究之研究目的在探討美國青少年就學與就業狀態與其時間利用之關聯性,特別著重在閒置青少年時間利用上。 本研究使用American Time Use Surveys(ATUS)資料庫中2003年與2011年,15-26歲之青少年為樣本。利用相似無關迴歸模型(seemingly unrelated regression,SUR)分別探討並比較2003年與2011年美國15-18歲與19-26歲青少年之就學與就業狀態對其時間利用之影響。 實證結果顯示:除了睡眠時間外,純就學青少年之時間利用,2003年以就學時間以及做功課、課外活動時間為主。但2011年則是以就學時間為主。同時就學與就業青少年以及純就業青少年花最多時間在就學、做功課課外活動以及工作上。具有閒置問題之青少年則花最多時間在做家事上,而看電視以及參與組織性質與社會交際活動也佔閒置青少年大多數時間。進一步可以發現,2011年相對2003年,15-18歲青少年中,同時就學與就業青少年增加其做功課、課外活動時間以及睡眠時間;純就業青少年增加其做家事時間與購物時間,但減少其睡眠時間與電腦時間;具有閒置問題之青少年則是增加其電腦時間、購物時間以及組織性質、社會交際時間,但減少其做家事時間。19-26歲青少年中,同時就學與就業青少年增加其睡眠時間、做家事時間以及組織性質、社會交際時間。純就業青少年增加其睡眠時間,但減少其電腦時間。具有閒置問題之青少年增加其睡眠時間與電腦時間,但減少其電視時間。

並列摘要


According to survey of U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2005, the idleness rate of adolescents aged between 16 and 24 was as high as 11%. Whether the phenomenon of the high idleness rate had close relation with their time use was not discussed in any literature in the past. Therefore, this study aimed to discuss the relation of school enrollment and employment of American adolescents with their time use, especially focusing on the time use of idle adolescents. The samples of the study were adolescents aged between 15 and 26 which were from the databases of American Time Use Surveys (ATUS) in 2003 and 2011. The seemingly unrelated regression (SUR) was adopted to discuss and compare the influence of school enrollment and employment of adolescents between 15 and 18 of age and between 19 and 26 of age on their time use in 2003 and 2011 respectively. The results of the study showed that in addition to their sleeping time, the time use of adolescents who were simply enrolled at school in 2003 was mainly for school, homework and extracurricular activities. However, in 2011, their time was mainly spent on school enrollment. Adolescents who were both enrolled at school and employed spent most of their time at work, at school, on their homework and extracurricular activities. Adolescents who were simply employed spent most of their time at work. However, adolescents with economic idleness spent their time on housework the most, and watching TV and participating in organizational and social activities also accounted for most time of the idle adolescents. It could be further discovered that comparing with 2003, adolescents between 15 and 18 years old in 2011 who were enrolled at school and employed at the same time spent more time doing homework, participating in extracurricular activities and sleeping. Those who were simply employed spent more time on housework and shopping, but spent less time on sleeping and computer. However, adolescents with economic idleness spent more time on computer, shopping and participating in organizational and social activities, but spent less time on housework. Adolescents aged between 19 and 26 who were enrolled at school and employed at the same time spent more time on sleeping, housework and participating in organizational and social activities.Those who were simply employed spent more time on sleeping, but spent less time on computer. However, adolescents with economic idleness spent more time on sleeping and computer, but less time on watching TV. Keywords: Economic idleness,Time use,Seemingly unrelated regression (SUR), School enrollment,Employment

參考文獻


Aguiar,Mark and Erik Hurst (2007).“Measuring Leisure: The Allocation of Time over Five Decades.” Quarterly Journal of Economics,122(3): 969-1006.
Becker,Gary S. (1965).“A Theory of the Allocation of Time.”Economic Journal,75(299): 493-517.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity, youth, and crisis. New York: Norton.
Frazis, Harley and Jay Stewart (2004).“What can time-use data tell us about hours of work?” Monthly Labor Review,127(12):3-9.
Frazis, Harley and Jay Stewart (2011).“How does household production affect measured income inequality?” Journal of Population Economics,24(1):3-22.

延伸閱讀