Do societies become wealthier because people work longer hours, or because they manage to achieve more in the same amount of time? New Eurostat data show that the average working week in the European Union stood at 35.9 hours in 2025, while in Serbia it reached 40.6 hours. At first glance, a difference of almost five hours per week may not seem significant, but over the course of a year it amounts to more than an extra month of work.
More interestingly, the countries with the shortest working weeks are generally among the most developed and productive economies in Europe. The Netherlands, Denmark and Germany all record fewer working hours than the European average (31.9 hours per week in the Netherlands and 33.9 hours in both Denmark and Germany), while some of the longest working weeks are found in countries in southern and eastern Europe. These figures challenge the widespread assumption that longer working hours automatically lead to higher productivity or faster economic growth.
While some European countries are experimenting with a four-day work week and companies around the world seek a balance between productivity and employee wellbeing, Serbia remains among the countries whose citizens work considerably longer than the EU average. What actually determines the number of hours we spend at work, and what might work look like ten years from now?
How did wealthy countries shorten the work week?
The history of labour shows that reducing working hours has been a process spanning more than a century. During the early industrial era, working days often lasted 10 to 12 hours and the work week extended across six days before decades of trade union struggles and legislative reforms gradually established the eight-hour working day as the standard.
Throughout the second half of the twentieth century, most developed Western economies continued to reduce working hours gradually. The reason was not merely rising living standards but, above all, sustained productivity growth. Technological progress, automation of production and the development of modern service industries made it possible to complete the same amount of work in less time. As the value created during a single working hour increased, part of that gain could be converted into additional leisure time for employees.
As the share of heavy industry declined and the importance of information technology, finance, professional services and creative industries grew, an increasing proportion of economic activity came to depend on expertise, innovation and efficiency rather than simply the number of hours spent at work. Under such circumstances, employers often find it more profitable to retain satisfied and motivated employees than to extend working hours.
Demographic changes have also played a significant role. Population ageing and increasingly severe labour shortages across many European countries have forced employers to offer more flexible working arrangements in order to attract and retain staff. Remote working, flexible hours and shorter work weeks have become part of a broader strategy for competing for workers rather than merely a social policy measure.
The four-day work week – Fad or future?
The idea of employees working four days instead of five once seemed confined to academic debates and futuristic forecasts. However, over the past few years the four-day work week has become the subject of practical trials in dozens of countries, from Iceland and the United Kingdom to Japan, New Zealand and Belgium.
One of the most widely cited examples comes from Iceland, where extensive public-sector pilot programmes were conducted between 2015 and 2019. Thousands of employees moved to shorter work weeks without any reduction in pay, and the results showed that productivity generally remained unchanged or even increased slightly. At the same time, employees reported lower stress levels, improved mental health and a better work-life balance.
Similar conclusions have been reached in the United Kingdom, where dozens of companies have participated in four-day-week experiments. Most employers involved in the pilot programmes chose to retain the new working model after the trials ended. They cited higher employee satisfaction, fewer sick days and improved staff retention amid increasingly intense competition in the labour market.
The United States largely maintains the traditional model of approximately 40 working hours per week, although some companies are experimenting with shorter weeks to improve employee satisfaction and reduce staff turnover. Trends in Asia differ considerably. In countries such as Japan, South Korea and China, long working hours remain deeply embedded in business culture, although governments and employers have recently sought to curb excessive working hours because of their impact on employee health and demographic trends.
Advocates of the four-day working week frequently emphasise that the objective is not for employees to do less work, but to complete the same amount of work in less time. In practice, this means more efficient meetings, fewer administrative procedures, better work organisation and greater use of digital tools. In other words, the success of this model depends on higher productivity rather than simply reducing the number of hours worked.
However, there are limitations. Sectors such as healthcare, transport, retail, manufacturing and hospitality cannot easily operate under the same model as office-based professions. In industries that require continuous staff presence, a shorter work week often necessitates additional recruitment or shift reorganisation, potentially increasing operating costs. As a result, many experts believe there is no universal model that could be applied across the entire economy.
Economist Miloš Miljković, Executive Secretary of the United Branch Trade Unions Nezavisnost, told NIN that a modest trend towards shorter average work weeks is visible across the European Union.
“According to available data, the average number of working hours declined from around 36.9 hours in 2015 to 35.9 hours in 2025. A similar, although somewhat weaker, trend can also be observed in Serbia, where the average work week fell from approximately 41 hours in 2024 to around 40.6 hours in 2025. However, it is important to emphasise that this trend cannot be viewed in isolation. In some European countries, reductions in working hours are occurring simultaneously with increases in the retirement age. In this way, the structure of working life is changing: people work fewer hours per week but remain active in the labour market for longer. This raises the question of whether these changes genuinely benefit workers or merely redistribute work across the life cycle without producing a clear overall reduction in workload,” says Miljković.
A recent debate emerged in Germany after the newspaper Bild reported that a federal government commission on pensions wanted to raise the retirement age to 70 and reduce pension levels. Although the report was quickly denied, it triggered considerable public controversy.
Why do differences exist between countries?
Although full-time employment in most European countries formally ranges between 35 and 40 hours per week, the actual number of hours employees spend working often differs. According to Eurostat and OECD data, these differences depend not only on legal frameworks but also on broader economic and social factors.
One of the key factors is the level of economic development. OECD analyses of labour markets and productivity indicate that more developed economies possess greater capital resources and more advanced technologies, enabling them to create higher value in less time. This is why countries such as Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands have shorter average work weeks despite being among Europe’s most productive economies.
Miljković points out that the legal framework governing working time should be considered first.
“In Serbia, full-time employment is defined as 40 hours per week, although employers may provide for shorter full-time working hours through collective agreements or internal regulations, provided these do not fall below 36 hours per week. Unfortunately, within the Nezavisnost trade union, we have very few examples where collective bargaining has successfully secured a shorter work week,” says Miljković.
In addition to legislation, he adds, productivity, the structure of the economy and the level of economic development significantly influence working hours.
“In theory, higher productivity should make it possible to reduce working hours while maintaining the same or even a higher level of output. However, Serbia represents something of a paradox because we have a longer average work week than some European countries while simultaneously recording lower productivity. This demonstrates that longer working hours do not automatically lead to higher productivity. The structure of the economy is also important. A significant share of Serbian employees work in sectors such as agriculture, construction, retail and transport, where work weeks are often longer and include substantial overtime. Finally, the prevalence of part-time work also plays an important role. In many developed European countries, a large proportion of employees work part-time, which lowers the average number of working hours. In Serbia, this form of employment remains relatively uncommon, meaning that most employees continue to work full-time schedules of 40 hours per week,” says Miljković.
What might work look like in 2035?
Although it is difficult to predict precisely what the labour market will look like in less than a decade, clear trends point towards the direction of future change. Working time is unlikely to disappear as a concept in most developed economies, but it could become significantly more flexible and less standardised than it is today.
Under the most likely scenario, the traditional five-day work week may lose its dominant role, while flexible working arrangements become the norm rather than the exception. This does not necessarily mean that everyone will work four days per week. Rather, the number of hours worked is likely to depend increasingly on the sector, the nature of the job and the degree of automation, and less on a single universal legal standard.
At the same time, continued advances in artificial intelligence and digital technologies could further widen the gap between highly productive sectors and labour-intensive industries. In some sectors, working days may become shorter and more concentrated, while others may continue to require standard or even extended hours due to the nature of the work.
Miljković notes that artificial intelligence and automation will almost certainly reduce employment in certain sectors, particularly those where a significant proportion of tasks can be automated.
“Such trends are already visible across Europe. At the same time, working hours are expected to decline further and labour arrangements are likely to become increasingly flexible. However, if these changes are not properly regulated, there is a risk of expanding precarious forms of employment, weakening labour rights and increasing insecurity for workers in the labour market. For this reason, it is important that technological progress be accompanied by appropriate social policies and strong social dialogue,” Miljković concludes.
(NIN, 05.06.2026)
https://www.nin.rs/drustvo/vesti/114635/sta-odreduje-koliko-vremena-provodimo-na-poslu