Economics of Leisure - Essay Example

Economics of leisure Introduction It is sometimes argued that leisure activity is relatively immune to economic factors, such as price and income, and is instead determined mainly by schooling, upbringing and social class. This is relative to which side of the argument one sands. To begin with, the term leisure is often confused with the term recreation. However, leisure has several distinct yet closely related meanings. Godbey (1985) defines leisure as living in freedom from compulsive forces of the outside such as culture and the physical environment so as to enable one to act in internal love in ways that please him and provide a basis for faith. Leisure is defined as time spent when one is not working. This means that time that is compensating for work. Other authors simply define leisure as the opportunity to express ones creativity and master new things so that they feel satisfied and a degree of self-accomplishment. Leisure activities can include resting at home, sleeping, watching movies, engaging in sport activities among others. These activities are essential in an individual’s life because they give satisfaction, pleasure, and enjoyment (Kate & Rickards, 2002). They also enhance an individual’s self-esteem as well as promote the general quality of life. Kenneth Roberts (1999) argues that the role of leisure is to instill certain values such as teamwork, leadership, and fair play. He also holds that leisure consolidates the social system and compensates people for the unsatisfying and unrewarding aspects of life. For him, all individuals are free to choose the leisure activities they wish. Taking part in leisure activities may be beneficial or otherwise depending on the activities concerned. Some art, sport and recreation activities have beneficial impacts both socially, economically and heath wise. Allocation of time It is impossible to look at the determinants of leisure without reviewing the allocation of time for work. From time immemorial, the amount of time spent at work has never equaled the amount of time spent away from work. Most people spend almost all their time in the office or at work in general (Kate & Rickards, 2002). The craze and passion with which economic development is pursued in the world today does not allow for involvement in secular activities as much. This means that the allocation of non-working time and its efficiency are important for the economic welfare of a country. In 1965, almost everyone had similar amounts of spare time notwithstanding their socioeconomic status. However, this has changed with time given that leisure time just like income has increased across the board (Aguiar and Hurst, 2006: 19). Secondly, it is now apparent that the biggest winners in the allocation of leisure time are at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. This is to mean that today the poor seem to have more leisure time than the rich do. This goes a long way to prove that leisure activities are not immune to economic life. A substantial increase in the quantity of leisure time in the United States between the years 1965 to 2003 according to research has been experienced. Research has it that, the number of hours away from work has increased by six to eight hours for men. That of women has increased by four to eight hours. The less educated individuals experienced the largest increase. The researches have also exposed the emerging inequality in leisure with regard to the growing inequality in income and expenditure. There were adjustments that necessitated the increase in leisure time. For men, it was due to the allocation of less time to the market sector while for women it was due to the decline for time allotted for home production (dcms, 2010). There was also change in leisure time according to the educational qualification of individuals in society. It emerged that while there was uniform increase across the educational status, the less educated had more leisure time as compared to their educated counterparts. The fact that the least educated enjoy “advantage” in the allocation of leisure poses a puzzle (Pascal, 2003:119). In the recent past, economists have argued that the time available to students in the education system translates into forgone income for the students. The increased awareness over this forgone income has led to several attempts to economize students’ time. Many economists have criticized the educationalists over this wastage of time and lack of investment in human capital. Economists, therefore, front for the inclusion of college and high school students in the economic activities. This is to reduce on the time that they spend away from economically productive activities since they have overrated leisure time (Kate & Rickards, 2002). Income and leisure According to neoclassical economics, individuals concentrate on exogenous preferences in their efforts to realize maximum utility, thus; make a critical choice between income and leisure (Cameron, 2011:38). Though some people consider employment as a voluntary choice of leisure as opposed to income they get from the employment, the price mechanism is a critical aspect when such decisions are arrived at. As Trigg states, the wage an individual gets from work is a clear representation of the price of leisure (Cameron, 2011:38). This means therefore that rising incomes induce greater leisure although recent researches are proving that higher income correspond with lower levels of leisure. This confirms the fact that leisure is closely related to the income levels of individuals. It is henceforth erroneous to speculate that leisure exists independently from economic activities and their corresponding valuation. Low-income earners may have to participate in cheap leisure activities in order to stay in touch with the economic situation at hand. According to the traditional labor-leisure approach, the availability of income alone does not suffice. What matters again is the income tax. An increase in the income tax leads to substitution effect away from work and towards leisure. This is to mean that if the rise in income tax is accompanied by excise on goods or subsidy on common commodities for that matter, there needs to be no substitution away from work. However, when increase in tax exists in isolation, then there is a substitution (Kolb, 1997: 10). Still, a pure rise in earnings will not reduce the working hours. As such, these and other economic factors that have a direct effect on wage will impact on the choice of leisure time and activities. It is also incumbent upon those individuals that earn high income to put in more working hours than others. This is to mean they have to cut on their leisure time. This is because of the increasing value for monetary wealth among individuals in society. Technology and leisure The recent technological advancement has seen a great boost on leisure activities. This has seen a spontaneous increase in the amount of allocated to leisure from the mid of the 19th century. Though some scholars are for the opinion that ubiquitous technological devises kill of leisure time, others are opposed to this idea. In opposition to this assertion, televisions and internet, part of technology, have grown fast in the recent past. As Frey et al (2007) states, watching TV plays a key role in human activity. It is for the reason that many people prefer watching TV to pursing of other engaging activities. Arguably, the time occupied by TV is more less equal to that work occupies. As a voluntary activity, is more enjoyed hence more satisfied when in such a freely chosen activity. The standard neoclassical theory supports this assertion as individuals understand best what provides more utility and freely chosen hence a revealed preference theory. This is the same case with internet. People can make a choice to spend more of their time in surfing the internet. As such, it follows, from revealed preference that individuals spend much of their time on TV and the internet hence providing to them considerable utility (Frey et al, 2007:284). The pie chart below confirm that a large percentage of people watch TV as a leisure activity Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/tus/charts/chart9.gif Social standing and leisure As the economic theory of the leisure class proposes, the economic lives of individuals are driven by social stratification rather than economic utility. As such, there is conspicuous consumption and conspicuous leisure. In these two attributes, individuals participate in leisure activities in order to display their social status (dcms, 2010). Here, there are clear distinctions between the higher class and the lower classes. Conspicuous leisure, therefore, revolves around the amount of time that an individual will devote to pleasurable activities and the social status acquired thereafter. Therefore, individuals who take part in intellectual economic activities have a higher social standing as opposed to those who provide the manual labor. This glorifies the argument that leisure activities depend on the social class of the individual. For instance, a poor person cannot choose to play golf as a pastime activity since it is too costly for him. For that reason, golf is a preserve of the rich classes. Hence, this theory recognizes the businessmen as the leisure class since they do not directly produce. They simply shift them within the market to produce their gains. Similarly, people with a high social standing tend to enjoy a better quality leisure time as compared to people from the lower social class since they have the purchasing power for basic leisure commodities from the available leisure industries. Upbringing and leisure Time spent in rearing of children is normally recorded as time spent in other activities. There has been a considerable augment in the time used up in child upbringing. Time spent in primary childcare increased by 1.7 hours. Primary childcare includes meeting the basic need of the child. Individuals who are brought up under certain conditions have similar discrimination for leisure activities. Those who are brought up in a high social class will most likely go for leisure activities that suit their social standing. With the same accord, parents bringing up young children may be confined to certain leisure activities even as they continue to perform their parental duties (Aguiar and Hurst, 2006:63) Given that the number of children declined within the forty years of study, the time spent per adult on raising a child has reduced significantly. This is to mean that adults have had the opportunity to choose from leisure activities that do not necessarily involve the child. According to the survey, men without children experience an increase in their leisure time by one hour per week while those with children had a decline of their leisure time by 1.4 hours a week. Women with and without children exhibited almost the same trends. This means that time allocated for child rearing also determines the individual’s leisure time and activities. Leisure and marital status According to reports, married men work more in the market than single men. This implies a difference in leisure between them that could translate to between six to nine hours (Aguiar & Hurst, 2006:65). Married men have experienced an increase in leisure unconditionally of five hours per week in the last forty years. This is true since married men may require creating more income to sustain their families than single men. As such, they have to squeeze on some of their leisure times. The increase in leisure time for the single men may be due to the fact that they have fewer responsibilities and commitments. Conclusion A wide range of theories has come up to enhance understanding on the leisure experience and its corresponding determinants. All these theories acknowledge certain facts about leisure. Leisure activities vary in intensity and quality hence the choice of these leisure activities will depend on these two variables among others. It also undisputable that economic standing has a bearing on the variety of leisure activities that are open to individuals. With the same accord, the inequalities that warrant the different forms and sources of leisure include to some extent the upbringing and social status of an individual. Bibliography Aguiar, M. & Hurst, E. 2006. Measuring Trends in Leisure: The Allocation of Time over Five Decades. Federal Researve Bank of Boston, Vol 6, p.61. Baumol, W.J. & Bowen, W.G. 1966. Performing Arts- The Economic Dilemma. Cameron, S. 2011. Handbook on the Economics of Leisure. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Pub. http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=807374. dcms, 2010.Taking Part: The National Survey of Culture, Leisure and Sport. Adult and Child report 2009/10. Frey, S. B. Benesch, C. & Stutzer, A. 2007. Does Watching TV make us happy? Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 28, pp. 283-313. Gary, S. B. A Theory of the Allocation of Time. The Economic Journal, Vol. 75, No. 299, pp. 493-517. Kate, F. & Rickards, L. 2002. Sport and Leisure. Sport and leisure General Household Survey. Kolb, 1997. Pricing as the key to attracting students to the performing arts. Journal of Cultural Economics, Vol. 21. Iss. 2. Pascal, C. (2003). Some Economics of Ticket Resale. Journal of Economic Perspectives Spring, Vol. 17, Iss. 2, pp. 151-163 Read More