On average, temporary jobs are far less stable than permanent jobs. This higher instability could potentially lower workers’ incentives to relocate towards the workplace, thereby resulting in longer commutes. However, surprisingly few studies have investigated the link between temporary employment and commuting length. Building on the notion that individuals strive to optimize their utility when deciding where to work and live, we develop and test a theoretical framework that predicts commuting outcomes for different types of temporary workers – fixed-term, casual and temporary agency workers – and in different institutional contexts. We estimate fixed-effects regression models using 17 waves of data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey and the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP). As expected, the results show that the link between temporary employment and commuting length varies by employment type and institutional context. Agency work is associated with longer commutes than permanent work in both countries, whereas this applies to fixed-term contracts for Germany only. For casual work, the findings suggest no commuting length differential to permanent employment. In terms of policy, our findings suggest lengthy commuting can be a side effect of flexible labour markets, with potentially negative implications for worker well-being, transportation management and the environment.

平均而言，临时工作远不如长期工作稳定。这种更高的不稳定性可能会降低工人搬迁到工作场所的积极性，从而导致通勤时间更长。然而，令人惊讶的是，很少有研究调查临时就业和通勤时间之间的联系。基于个人在决定在哪里工作和生活时努力优化其效用的概念，我们开发并测试了一个理论框架，该框架预测不同类型的临时工（固定期限、临时工和临时代理工）的通勤结果，以及在不同的地方体制背景。我们使用来自澳大利亚家庭、收入和劳动力动态 (HILDA) 调查和德国社会经济小组 (SOEP) 的 17 波数据来估计固定效应回归模型。不出所料，结果表明，临时就业与通勤时长之间的联系因就业类型和制度背景而异。在这两个国家，代理工作与长期工作相比通勤时间更长，而这仅适用于德国的定期合同。对于临时工作，调查结果表明通勤时间与长期工作没有差异。在政策方面，我们的研究结果表明，通勤时间长可能是灵活劳动力市场的副作用，可能对工人福祉、交通管理和环境产生负面影响。对于临时工作，调查结果表明通勤时间与长期工作没有差异。在政策方面，我们的研究结果表明，通勤时间长可能是灵活劳动力市场的副作用，可能对工人福祉、交通管理和环境产生负面影响。对于临时工作，调查结果表明通勤时间与长期工作没有差异。在政策方面，我们的研究结果表明，通勤时间长可能是灵活劳动力市场的副作用，可能对工人福祉、交通管理和环境产生负面影响。