Achieving low unemployment in an environment of weak growth is a major policy challenge; a more egalitarian distribution of
hours worked could be the key to solving it. Whether work-sharing actually increases employment, however, has been debated
controversially. In this article we present stylised facts on the distribution of hours worked and discuss the role of work-sharing
for a sustainable economy. Building on recent developments in labour market theory we review the determinants of working long
hours and its effect on well-being. Finally, we survey work-sharing reforms in the past. While there seems to be a consensus
that worksharing in the Great Depression in the USA and in the Great Recession in Europe was successful in reducing employment
losses, perceptions of the work-sharing reforms implemented between the 1980ies and early 2000ies are more ambivalent. However,
even the most critical evaluations of these reforms provide no credible evidence of negative employment effects; instead,
the overall success of the policy seems to depend on the economic and institutional setting, as well as the specific details
of its implementation.
Questioning GDP as dominant indicator for economic performance has become commonplace. For economists economic policy always
aims for a broader array of goals (like income, employment, price stability, trade balance) alongside income, with income
being the priority objective. The Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Commission argued for extending and adapting key variables of macroeconomic
analysis. International organisations such as the EC, OECD, Eurostat and UNO have proposed extended arrays of macroeconomic
indicators (see "Beyond GDP", "Compendium of Wellbeing Indicators", "GDP and Beyond", "Green Economy", "Green Growth", "Measuring
Progress of Societies"). Despite these high profile efforts, few wellbeing and environmental variables are in use in macroeconomic
models. The reasons for the low uptake of socio-ecological indicators in macroeconomic models range from path dependencies
in modelling, technical limitations, indicator lists being long and unworkable, choices of indicators appearing ad hoc and
poor data availability. In this paper we review key approaches and identify a limited list of candidate variables and – as
much as possible – offer data sources.
Ardjan Gazheli, Miklós Antal (UAB), Ben Drake, Tim Jackson (University of Surrey), Sigrid Stagl (WU Wien), Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh (UAB), Manuel Wäckerle (WU Wien)
This short paper considers all possible stakeholders in different stages of a sustainability transition and matches their
behavioural features and diversity to policies. This will involve an assessment of potential or expected responses of stakeholders
to a range of policy instruments. Following the Multi-Level Perspective framework to conceptualise sustainability transitions,
we classify the various transition policies at niche, regime and landscape levels. Next, we offer a complementary classification
of policies based on a distinction between social preferences and bounded rationality. The paper identifies many barriers
to making a sustainability transition and how to respond to them. In addition, lessons are drawn from the case of Denmark.
The detailed framework and associated literature for the analysis was discussed in Milestone 31 of the WWWforEurope project.
This milestone presents a pool of available indicators and indicator systems which go beyond the narrow concepts of national
economic accounts as well as a structuring of the indicators and indices according to central areas of well-being. The milestone
builds the basis for Task 202.2, where a subset of indicators will be selected based on different theoretical frameworks,
e.g., services or functionings and needs. Some of the indicators will be included in the macroeconomic 3 models in order to
account for key dimensions of sustainability.