Voss, Justin

English

University of New Mexico

Volume 8 
Issue 3 Resources of the Sea 
Summer 1968 
Megalopolization and Leisure: A Comment 
Justin Voss 
Recommended Citation 
Justin Voss, Megalopolization and Leisure: A Comment, 8 Nat. Resources J. 510 (1968). 
Available at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nrj/vol8/iss3/8 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UNM Digital Repository. It has been 
accepted for inclusion in Natural Resources Journal by an authorized editor of UNM Digital Repository. For more 
information, please contact amywinter@unm.edu, lsloane@salud.unm.edu, sarahrk@unm.edu. 
MEGALOPOLIZATION AND LEISURE:
A COMMENT'
JUSTIN VOSS*
In a recent issue of this Journal2 J. J. Spengler examines the rela-
tionship of megalopilization to resource availability. In light of his
objective, "to indicate issues in need of careful analysis," Spengler's
insights regarding the time resource deserve expansion and comment.
The theoretical analysis of the time resource is in an embryonic
state. Professor Spengler's article makes two points essential to the
surfacing of a rigorous analytic approach. First, he acknowledges
that discretionary time (leisure) has been subject to a variety of
definitions. Since a common definition of terms is basic to any scien-
tific investigation he foreshadows the vortex of problems that arise
as to the validity and comparability of predictive estimates if such
definitions are not forthcoming. Second, he distinguishes clearly be-
tween a leisure-time activity and leisure per se. The latter is by def-
inition discretionary time and a resource, whereas the former refers
to the particular use to which the leisure resource is put. This distinc-
tion is crucial since it is frequently a source of confusion in questions
involving leisure.
A weak point in Professor Spengler's analysis is his argument
that "time and space are both superior as well as complementary
goods," thus leaving the firm impression that the relationship is
complementary. Yet, in various footnotes he alludes to the choice
between "spacious living" and "easy access" to the city, finally con-
ceding that "in a sense, time is substituted for space. ' 4 In other
words, the relationship between time and space is not altogether cer-
tain in theoretical grounds. The relationship may or may not be
complementary depending upon whether or not the consumer's pat-
tern of leisure-time activity requires more or less space. This, as
Spengler himself points out, must be answered empirically and hence
lies beyond the scope of his paper. Nonetheless, at the initial stages
of theorizing, taxonomical pronouncements stressing the privacy of
* Lecturer in Economics, George Washington University Center for Natural Re-
sources Policy Studies.
1. I wish to thank Jack Knetsch for his helpful criticisms of this paper.
2. J. Spengler, Megalopolis: Resource Conserver or Resource Waster?, 7 Natural
Resources J. 377 (1967).
3. Id. at 384.
4. Id., note 53 at 391.
MEGALOPOLIZATION AND LEISURE:
one relationship at the expense of another can often bypass more
fundamental issues. Here this appears to be the case.
Professor Spengler's analysis of time and space centers primarily
on demand. However, the cause-effect relationship on the supply
side appears more relevant in assessing the availability of the time
resource within the megalopolis. By Spengler's definition megalop-
olization means a reduction in urban space per capita. As the supply
of space declines, general congestion increases and creates what I
will refer to as an aggravation efect.5 This effect is manifest in an
acute and wide-spread queuing problem. Here the familiar problem
of urban traffic congestion is generalized to include the waiting in-
volved in all activities. In the megalopolis, because increasing num-
bers of people are making the same independent decisions to utilize
relatively fixed facilities, each activity an individual undertakes that
is external to his living space requires larger expenditures of the
time resource. Since time, in Spengler's own words, is "the most
nonstorable of all resources," an increase in nondiscretionary time,
given a fixed workweek, must, ceterus paribus, mean a reduction in
the quantity of discretionary time. This loss of discretionary time
due to the aggravation efect represents a diseconomy external to
the individual (given his preference function), yet internal to the
megalopolis, and hence an upward shift in a marginal and average
time costs per activity, or alternatively a reduction in utility per dol-
lar expenditure.
The time costs imposed by the aggravation effect are not wholly
unforeseen by Professor Spengler when he discusses the length of
the journey to and from work and states "that workers will not look
with favor upon arrangements that result in what amounts to taxes
upon time that would otherwise be discretionary."'7 Nevertheless,
by failing to generalize the argument Spengler misses the major
cause-effect relationship influencing resource availability within the
megalopolis-a decrease in the availability of space leads to a de-
crease in the availability of discretionary time. This oversight stems
primarily from the problem of definition touched earlier. Professor
Spengler defines discretionary time residually. His definition arbi-
trarily categorizes nondiscretionary time according to various activi-
5. The term aggravation effect is employed intentionally to convey both its literal
and colloquial meaning, for unless waiting is a utility-producing segment of a given
activity it is cost in terms of utility foregone. As such congestion can be both "more
troublesome" and "annoying".
6. J. Spengler, supra note 2 at 380.
7. Id. at 391, 384.
JULY 1968"1
NATURAL RESOURCES JOURNAL
ties. Why the time journeying to and from work and the time spent
in the "performance of necessary household functions ' 8 are any
more nondiscretionary than queuing at the theater, for a stop light,
or an elevator, Spengler fails to indicate. Clearly there is no analytic
justification for his particular definition; nevertheless, the narrow
boundaries of his categories limit his scope causing him to exclude
the important social and legal obligations megalopolization imposes
upon the individual. Consequently, Spengler misses the major impact
of megalopolization on resource availability.'
Once the correct cause-effect relationship between time and space
has been established new vistas are opened to the social sciences
and the individual and social responses to the increasing time costs
imposed by the megalopolis provide important new problem areas
for the economic theorist. These responses appear, at least to this
author, to be the major "issues in need of careful analysis" that
Professor Spengler is seeking. Whether or not the megalopolis
proves to be a resource waster or resource conserver depends pri-
marily upon whether the responses to the aggravation effect are
moving society toward or away from an optimal use of resources.
Quite obviously, if the costs (time and other) of megalopolization
are outrunning the benefits ("multiplicity of choice") 10 then a ra-
tional society at some future date may demand alternative patterns
of social and economic organization. The popularity of suburban
shopping centers at the expense of the central city and the rapid
growth of convenience stores in suburban areas, for example, may
be harbingers of a latent demand for discretionary time. Indeed, if
the present trend toward megalopolization continues it is not un-
realistic to foresee the time resource achieving the theoretical status
of the other economic resources. At present, however, the time re-
source is sadly neglected.
8. Id. at 383.
9. For an attempt to build the necessary analytic foundation from which a scientific
approach to the time resource can proceed, see my The Definition of Leisure, 1 Jour-
nal of Economic Issues No. 1 & 2 (June, 1967). Here leisure and discretionary time
are examined and found to be identical.
10. According to Spengler, one of the two purposes for which cities "are primarily
established." J. Spengler, supra note 2 at 390.
[VOL. 8


Megalopolization and Leisure: A Comment

https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3630&amp;context=nrj

Megalopolization and Leisure: A Comment

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of New Mexico