The Economic Value of Leisure Activity

In an article about economics, the author briefly mentioned hobbies, sports, and other leisure activities and dismissed them abruptly as having no significance to economics.   I disagree, and wish to elaborate on the reasons, hence this note.  The author didn't elaborate on the statement, so I can't be sure of what he truly intended - just tossed it out there as if it were an incontrovertible truth - but my sense is that he dismissed leisure activity from the economic world because it has no effect on the market.   But I would argue that it does.


Economics is Not (Just) About Money

First, and this is likely a bit esoteric but nonetheless important, economics is not about money.   Many laymen make the error of thinking so, but economics is about the manner in which human needs and desires are satisfied and money is merely a tool by which people obtain the goods and services that satisfy their needs and desires.   Even in a market in which there is no money and people barter for goods, that constitutes economic activity - and I sense this frustrates economists because they are unable to reduce the activity to readily-digested number, so rather than admit their embarrassing impotence, they want to dismiss any non-quantifiable activity from the world of economics.

I would go further to assert that economics is not even about trade.   Trading your products (or labor, for most) with others to get things that you desire more is one way of satisfying your needs.   If you choose to catch your own fish rather than purchasing one at a supermarket, you are still acting in a way that satisfies your needs.   It is true that your activity means you do not have to trade, but it would be a misleading distortion to therefore exclude it from economic activity.   It decreases trade because you have done something for yourself, but it has not decreased economic activity because it is, by definition, an economic activity.


Economics is about the Satisfaction of Need

Second, consider a different part of the definition of economics - that it is a way to satisfy both needs and desires.   The separation of need from desire is tenuous at best because it is generally accepted that there are psychological needs that constitute a very fuzzy borderline between needed and desired.   In more concrete terms, leisure activities satisfy a need (or desire) for mental stimulation and entertainment - and as such it fits the definition of economic activity because it is action in pursuit of satisfaction of need.

As such, a person who is engaging in an activity for his own entertainment (or mental stimulation, which is a form of entertainment).   In concrete terms, some people fish just to enjoy the activity of fishing - they release rather than consume the fish that they catch.   But this is not wasteful activity because it is a form of entertainment.   This further decreases trade because such a person does not amuse himself by engaging in trade - rather than purchasing a ticket to a play, he spends a leisurely afternoon entertaining himself by fishing.   And again, while this decreases trade it is still an economic activity.


Leisure Activities Influence Trade

Third, it's also worth mentioning that leisure activity does in fact have a positive impact on trade - entertainment alone constitutes billions of dollars in trade, as does the trade required to engage in a leisure activity.   There are some activities that require no goods or servicers to undertake, but I would suggest that such activities are very rare - for the most part, leisure activity necessitates trade.

Going back to the example of the fisherman: even if he consumes the fish he catches, they were not "free" by any means.   He still had to purchase a rod and reel, tackle, bait, equipment, supplies, and other things necessary to the activity - and he may even have taken a fishing vacation and hired a boat or rented a cabin for the purpose.   In this manner, leisure activities actually creates trade as well as economic activity.  Moreover, I would also estimate that when it comes to leisure interest, much more is often spent on the activity than would be spent in purchasing a finished item - the cost of the fisherman's tackle and equipment are more than he would have spent just buying a fish.  And so, it is likely that leisure activities increase the amount of trade in a market.

There is the matter of the fisherman's "labor" - and one might argue that his time might have been better spent doing more productive things.   In the material and monetary sense, that may be true.  But again, the fisherman produces entertainment for himself - and given that many material goods are purchased for the purpose of having entertainment (you do not purchase a concert ticket to have a scrap of paper), then the time that such a man spends at fishing are entirely productive.

***

Perhaps this argument seems a bit finicky, but I have the strong sense that money is a tool of trade and trade is only a subset of economics - such that dismissing anything that is not readily fungible or quantifiable is a serious mistake that makes economics less accurate and less useful than it ought to be.