Daylight Saving Time: Is It Worth the Disruption?
Since its inception, daylight saving time (DST) has been controversial. President-elect Donald Trump stepped into the debate on platform X stating that the Republican Party would “use its best efforts to eliminate [the practice]… [It] is inconvenient, and very costly to our nation.” Economists remind us that every action undertaken entails a cost, but how costly is DST? To answer this question, we must first explore the history of DST and its evolution over time.
DST was first proposed by the British builder William Willett in 1907. Willett’s campaign to effectuate DST argued that adjusting clocks artificially could reduce crime rates, save energy, and provide more opportunities for outdoor recreation. However, the impetus to implement DST didn’t arise until World War I. In 1916, Germany became the first nation to adopt DST, using it as a method to conserve fuel and redirect these saved resources toward the war effort.
The U.S. made DST mandatory in 1918, but the policy was repealed the following year due to widespread public opposition. Later, during World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt reinstated DST, but after the war ended, he allowed local authorities to decide whether to follow it. This decentralized approach led to what historians refer to as the "Confusion Era," marked by conflicting and inconsistent schedules across the country. The chaos ended in 1966 when Congress passed the Uniform Time Act, which successfully standardized DST nationwide.
Over the years adjustments to DST have been made, and the most common justification for keeping it is the alleged savings on electricity. With over 50 years of data available, we can now assess whether this claim holds up against the facts. The verdict? It does not. Environmental economist Matthew J. Kotchen’s research revealed that in the state of Indiana DST modestly increased residential energy demand. Cooler mornings during the spring and fall led to greater heating usage, while warmer evenings in the summer increased air-conditioning demand, effectively canceling out any savings from reduced lighting. As a result, household electricity costs rose by an estimated $9 million annually. Furthermore, the environmental impact was significant, with increased pollution emissions costing society between $1.7 and $5.5 million per year.
Unfortunately, the unintended consequences of DST also include detrimental side effects for our health. In short, the human body operates on a biological clock, or circadian rhythm, which modulates sleep, wakefulness, and mood by aligning with natural light cues, particularly sunlight. Over the course of the year, as the Earth's position relative to the sun changes, this biological clock naturally adjusts to seasonal variations in daylight. However, when the social clock is artificially altered in both fall and spring, it creates a misalignment between our internal circadian rhythms and the external environment. Such misalignments are associated with various health problems, most notably during spring, that include an increase in stroke risk, a 4.4% rise in heart attack incidence, and more mood disturbances. It is no coincidence that hospital admissions for atrial fibrillation increased by 18.66%, along with a rise in the production of inflammatory markers.
Another side effect of transitioning into DST is the sleep debt it creates. This sleep imbalance temporarily impairs cognitive function and increases anxiety across the population. Research by Barnes and Wagner shows that workplace injuries (and their severity) increase on the Monday following the transition. Similarly, investors allocate their money to safer investments, which depresses stock market prices and produces returns 200-500% worse than ordinary weekends. Also, economist Austin C. Smith estimates that DST contributes to an additional 30 fatalities annually from car crashes in the United States during the first six days after the change. Most of these occur in the morning, as the reallocation of light from morning to evening shifts crash risk patterns rather than reducing fatalities. Thus, children and adolescents commuting to school face an increased risk of being harmed by sleep-deprived drivers.
Given that the primary rationale for DST has been thoroughly discredited, it begs the question: does DST do anything good? Well, there’s some evidence it reduces crime... in Uruguay. The crime reduction observed in Uruguay can be explained using the Beckerian model of criminal activity. According to this model, criminals weigh the costs (likelihood of being caught) against the benefits (value of the crime). Adding an extra hour of light in the evening increases the chances of being caught, while also increasing the number of potential victims, as more people tend to take advantage of the extended daylight. The fact that crime rates drop during DST indicates that the increased risk outweighs the potential reward, discouraging potential offenders. However, this effect is more pronounced in poorly lit areas, where the added light makes a bigger difference. In well-lit areas, the benefits of DST are negligible, and the crime reduction might not be substantial enough to offset the many other downsides of DST already discussed.
The scanty evidence supporting DST, coupled with its numerous unintended consequences, should be enough reason to abolish it once and for all. The best part is that Americans wouldn’t revolt over its removal. According to the latest YouGov poll, 62% of the population wants the government to scrap DST entirely. While the poll shows that many people favor a Permanent Daylight Saving Time schedule, the more sensible option is Permanent Standard Time. It better aligns with the orbit of the sun—and our bodies will thank us for it.
Luis Báez | Research Assistant | lmbaez@miner.utep.edu
The views represented here are those of the author and do not represent the position of The University of Texas at El Paso or the Center for Free Enterprise.
