Budgets of Russian households: In which consumption domains do time and money substitute for or complement each other?

The article presents the results of a study examining the relationship between time and monetary expenditures among Russian households across different spheres of consumption. Drawing on data from a nationwide population survey combining questionnaire-based information with time-use diaries, the study demonstrates that, depending on the specific sphere of consumption, time and money may function either as complements or as substitutes. An example of complementarity is investment in children, where adult household members predominantly report both financial expenditures and time spent with children. By contrast, charitable activities represent a case of substitution, as the share of respondents reporting monetary contributions substantially exceeds the share indicating time expenditures. At the same time, variations in the relationship between time and money are determined not only by the sphere of expenditure itself, but also by the material well-being of households. More affluent Russians possess broader opportunities to substitute monetary expenditures for time expenditures, however, they do not resort to such substitution uniformly across all domains. The analysis of the scale of time and monetary expenditures suggests that the population is differentiated not only by material status. An equally important factor shaping these differences is the stage of the individual and family life cycle, which influences not only the principal directions of expenditure, but also the extent to which time and money function as complementary or substitutive resources.

1. Kotelnikova Z. V. (2024). The evolution of sociological approaches towards conceptualizing consumption in Western sociology. Sociological Journal, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 8—32. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.19181/socjour.2024.30.2.1

2. Pishnyak A. I., Khalina N. V., Nazarbaeva E. A. (2025). The consumer standards in Russia: Key features and the limits. Economic Sociology, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 53—81. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17323/1726-3247-2025-2-53-81

3. Aguiar M., Hurst E. (2007). Life-cycle prices and production. American Economic Review, Vol. 97, No. 5, pp. 1533—1559. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.97.5.1533

4. Bekkers R. (2002). Giving time and/or money: Trade­off or spill­over. Paper presented at 31st Annual ARNOVA Conference, Montreal, Canada.

5. Bronnenberg B. J., Klein T. J., Xu Y. (2024). Consumer time budgets and grocery shopping behavior. Management Science, Vol. 70, No. 3, pp. 1596—1612. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.4763

6. Douthitt R. A., Fedyk J. M. (1990). Family composition, parental time, and market goods: Life cycle trade-offs. Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 110—133. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.1990.tb00261.x

7. Gershuny J., Sullivan O. (2019). What we really do all day: Insights from the centre for time use research. London: Penguin.

8. Han J., Meyer B. D., Sullivan J. X. (2020). Inequality in the joint distribution of consumption and time use. Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 191, article 104106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2019.104106

9. Has S., Anders J., Shure N. (2020). Monetary and time investments in children’s education: Нow do they differ in workless households? CEPEO Working Paper Series, No. 20-10, UCL Centre for Education Policy and Equalising Opportunities.

10. Kappal S. (2021). Data normalization using median and median absolute deviation MMAD based Z-score for robust predictions vs. min—max normalization. London Journal of Research in Science: Natural and Formal, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 39—44.

11. Karonen E., Niemelä M. (2022). Necessity-rich, leisure-poor: Тhe long-term relationship between income cohorts and consumption through age-period-cohort analysis.

12. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Vol. 43, pp. 599—620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-021-09781-5

13. Kim D., Park J., Park B. J. (2024). How do leisure activities impact leisure domain and life domain satisfaction and subjective well-being? International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. e2618. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2618

14. Kozyreva P. M., Zhu D., Smirnov A. I. (2025). Comparative analysis of the structural transformation of consumption in Russia and China. RUDN Journal of Sociology, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 565—579. https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2272-2025-25-3-565-579

15. Lindskog H., Brege S., Senejko A., Los Z. (2016). Market segmentation for e-marketing based on time & money resources and attitudes towards globalization. Comparison between Sweden and Poland. In: Proceedings of the 19th Toulon­Verona International Conference University of Huelva: Excellence in Services. University of Huelva, Huelva, Spain, pp. 261—276.

16. Lindskog H., Brege S. (2002). Time-rich and time-poor consumer behavior: Тhe importance of time in market segmentation. In: J. Owsinski (ed.). MODEST 2002: Transition and Transformation: Problems and Models. Warsaw: Polish Academy of Systems Research Institute.

17. Milligan G. W., Cooper M. C. (1988). A study of standardization of variables in cluster analysis. Journal of Classification, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 181—204. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01897163

18. Nasir H., Fatima A., Zahid G. R. (2023). Time allocation pattern for household and expenditure saving market activities by using economic value of time: A genderbased analysis in Pakistan. Business Review, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 24—47. https://doi.org/10.54784/1990-6587.1499

19. Suri R., Monroe K. B. (2003). The effects of time constraints on consumers’ judgments of prices and products. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 92—104. https://doi.org/10.1086/374696

20. Whillans A. V., Dunn E. W., Smeets P., Bekkers R., Norton M. I. (2017). Buying time promotes happiness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 114, No. 32, pp. 8523—8527. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1706541114

21. Williams J. R., Masuda Y. J., Tallis H. (2016). A measure whose time has come: Formalizing time poverty. Social Indicators Research, Vol. 128, No. 1, pp. 265—283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-1029-z