https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1082-0080
![Sample our Sports and Leisure journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5949/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Sports-Leisure.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Current campaigns for a four-day, 32-hour standard working week to replace the five-day, 40-hour model have attracted the attention of employers, trade unions, political parties, governments and the communications media but, seemingly, not of leisure scholars. This is in contrast to the leisure society concept of the 1960s/1970s, some versions of which anticipated a 30-hour working week. This paper examines the 4-day work-week proposition from a leisure point of view. It summarises: some of the antecedent twentieth century calls for shorter working weeks; the twenty-first-century advocacy literature for the 4-day week; and the growing list of live trials of the concept. An analysis is offered of the goals of the 4-day week proposition and its proponents’ response to anticipated opposition. It is concluded that, in the interests of social relevance, there is a role for leisure scholars to play in critically evaluating the 4-day work-week proposition, in general and in regard to its implications for leisure.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1. However, in 2020 there was a move among some Conservative members of Parliament to adopt the 4-day week as policy (Ryle, Citation2020).
2. Curiously, one economist, Hammermesh (Citation2019, p. 187), dismisses a 32-hour week on the grounds of lost GDP, while ignoring both productivity change and the ‘lump of labour’ fallacy, but he is an exception.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
A.J. Veal
A.J. (Tony) Veal is Adjunct Professor in the Business School, University of Technology Sydney. He previously worked at the University of Birmingham and the Polytechnic of North London. His most recent book is Whatever Happened to the Leisure Society? (Routledge, 2019).