I. INTRODUCTION
The significance of consumption is undeniable. Although it has always been integral to household life, social theorists began studying it only in the 1880s. Consumption was of little interest to American economists until the late nineteenth century (Graeber Reference Graeber2011, p. 489; Philippy Reference Philippy2022, p. 133). Although production had moved beyond the family, consumption remained firmly located within families who guarded their privacy (Mitchell, Reference Mitchell1912, p. 271). Consumption itself was resistant to rationalization because of the privacy demands of families (Bankovsky Reference Bankovsky2020, p. 991), which is why economists overlooked consumption. In the United States, factory production commenced in the first quarter of the twentieth century; therefore, certain types of household production were replaced by extra-familial industrial production. The twentieth century also ushered in industries geared to the mass production of consumer articles (Bankovsky, Reference Bankovsky2020, p. 985). At the beginning of the twentieth century, consumption began to serve the interests of manufacturers pursuing higher profits, while citizens became passive victims of advertisers (MacKay, Reference MacKay1997, p. 3). Since then, to avoid being swayed by consumerism, it has been crucial for consumers to make informed choices. The family, the fundamental consumer entity in the market, plays a pivotal role in highlighting the significance of prudent consumption.
From the 1920s to the 1950s, the leading US economists working on consumer household behavior were Hazel Kyrk, Elizabeth Hoyt, and Margaret Reid (Le Tollec, Reference Le Tollec2020, p. 3). Kyrk’s A Theory of Consumption (1923) addressed the nature and scope of consumption studies (Yi Reference Yi1996, p. 18; Gomez Betancourt Reference Gomez Betancourt and Betancourt2024, p. 5; Todorova Reference Todorova and Betancourt2024, p. 28). Kyrk used empirical studies and contributed to an analytical shift that occurred in economics in the first quarter of the twentieth century (Bankovsky, Reference Bankovsky and Betancourt2024, p. 96), and offered new theoretical bases for understanding the socio-anthropological dimensions of consumption (Alberti & Asso, Reference Alberti and Asso2024, p. 2). Hoyt analyzed consumption from a social and anthropological perspective in Consumption in Our Society (Reference Hoyt1938) (Yi Reference Yi1996, p. 18). Reid’s contributions include advancing the theories of the value of time and time allocation and developing the permanent income hypothesis (Yi Reference Yi1996, p. 17; Forget Reference Forget1996, p. 4; Forget Reference Forget, Dimand, Dimand and Forget2018, p. 357). Franco Modigliani cited Reid’s contributions to the life cycle model in his 1985 Nobel lecture (Forget, Reference Forget, Dimand, Dimand and Forget2018, p. 358). Additionally, Reid’s Consumers and the Market ([1938] Reference Reid1945) heightened consumer awareness of issues such as advertising, labeling, credit, legal protection, and the state’s responsibility to ensure consumer protection (Yi Reference Yi1996, p. 18; Forget Reference Forget, Dimand, Dimand and Forget2018, pp. 358–359). In the mid-1960s, Gary Becker applied microeconomic methods to analyze household affairs. This groundbreaking work laid the foundation for what is now recognized as New Home Economics (Pollak, Reference Pollak2003, p. 112).
In the 1920s, household consumer economics began in Japan at the same time as in the United States. In Japan, families were mostly self-sufficient in the family economic model until the twentieth century. Influenced by the global trend toward industrialization coupled with the fact that after the Meiji Restoration, Japanese society was ready for modern industrial civilization (Ikeo, Reference Ikeo, Madden and Dimand2020, p. 90), Japanese society began the process of industrialization in the early twentieth century. Industrialization led to early urbanization and the invasion of rural areas with urban handicraft products, making rural households less self-sufficient (Ito Reference Ito1969, p. 4). Industrialized crafts led to the separation of production from households and the differentiation of production and consumption within households. Economists began studying household consumption during this period.Footnote 1
As household economics emerged in Japan, a female economist named Tomoko Matsudaira (1894–1969) began to study it. Matsudaira was the first woman in Japan to participate in economics research and education professionally (Matsunoo, Reference Matsunoo, Kurita, Matsunoo and Ikegaki2016, p. 89). Matsudaira’s active period in academia almost overlaps with that of Kyrk, Hoyt, and Reid. Although Matsudaira is still to be discovered in the English-speaking world, she occupies an essential place in the history of women in economic thought. Like her contemporaries in the United States, her active involvement in household economics earned her a place in academia among Japanese women. Matsudaira was also an active voice supporting women’s changing roles within the household. Like household consumer economists in the United States, Matsudaira demonstrated a keen interest in household consumption, stressing the importance of wise consumption in domestic environments.
This paper’s primary focus is on the theme of wise consumption within Matsudaira’s expenditure theory. This is the first detailed investigation into the theme of wise consumption in Matsudaira’s household economics, filling a gap in the literature on Matsudaira’s consumption theory in English. This paper relies on Matsudaira’s debut work, Household Economics: Economic Study of Domestic Life (Reference Matsudaira1925a),Footnote 2 as the primary research source but also references her later work to discern whether Matsudaira’s perspectives on wise consumption changed or developed over her more than forty years of research in household economics.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section II introduces Matsudaira’s biography and reviews the literature on her household economics. Section III describes Matsudaira’s understanding of wise consumption, and section IV presents the conclusions and discusses the perspectives on Matsudaira’s wise consumption.
II. TOMOKO MATSUDAIRA ON HOUSEHOLD ECONOMICS
Who Was Tomoko Matsudaira?
Matsudaira was born in Tokyo,Footnote 3 and, after she graduated from Tokyo Metropolitan Takehaya Senior High School in 1913, her academic pursuits led her to the Second Department of Literature at Tokyo Women’s Higher Normal School,Footnote 4 where she graduated in 1917. In 1918, she continued her studies as a research student at the same institution. From September 1919 to March 1922, Matsudaira immersed herself in economic research as a commissioned studentFootnote 5 of the Department of Economics at the Imperial University of Tokyo.Footnote 6 In 1922, she returned to Tokyo Women’s Higher Normal School and assumed the role of a teacher, offering courses in household economics within the domestic affairs department. This pivotal moment marked the beginning of women’s involvement in economics research and education within higher education in Japan (Matsunoo, Reference Matsunoo, Kurita, Matsunoo and Ikegaki2016, p. 89).
Matsudaira achieved this milestone by publishing her debut book, Household Economics, in 1925. This work was significantly influenced by the advanced textbook of her former supervisor,Footnote 7 Susumu Kawazu (Reference Kawazu1924), and an introductory textbook written by the eminent economist of that era, Tokuzo Fukuda (Reference Fukuda1911). Notably, Kawazu’s Economics (Reference Kawazu1924) represented a deliberate departure from Fukuda’s A Study of Economics (Reference Fukuda1920), an important research monograph on the German Historical School in Japan. In this transformation, Kawazu effectively de-Germanized or de-Europeanized Fukuda’s work, which had meticulously explored German history and institutions, and rendered it more abstract and tailored to Japanese students. As a result, Matsudaira’s Household Economics (Reference Matsudaira1925a) can be seen as a synthesis of contemporary Japanese and Western economic literature (Ikeo, Reference Ikeo, Madden and Dimand2020, p. 100). It has emerged as a more comprehensive and integrated contribution, drawing from a diverse array of perspectives, thereby enriching the field.
What Was Matsudaira’s Household Economics?
In Matsudaira’s debut work, she expressed distinctive insights into household economics. These insights laid the groundwork for her research and permeated her subsequent studies. Matsudaira believed that household economics is a field of study that examines various phenomena associated with the economic life of families from the personal perspective of the household. According to Matsudaira (Reference Matsudaira1925a), the family is the most primitive, natural, yet stable organization of human life. Household economics aimed to improve families’ well-being from a material perspective. Matsudaira believed that household economics has two missions. On one hand, it is theoretical, and has the mission of elucidating the essence of various phenomena related to family economic life and explaining their causal relationships. On the other hand, it is practical, and has the mission of improving family economic well-being by applying theoretical research to real-world situations. Matsudaira thought household economics is a study of economics in the broad sense of the present economy as the object of study.Footnote 8 According to Matsudaira, “home economics” encompasses the entire scope of family phenomena, while “household economics” focuses on the family economics phenomena, which are a part of it. At the time, household economics was not yet treated as an independent science and was being attempted only as a part of home economics in a practical form (Matsudaira Reference Matsudaira1925a, p. 111). The relationship between the two is that of a whole and its parts, and research into them is closely interconnected (Matsudaira Reference Matsudaira1925a, p. 117).
Matsudaira’s research on household economics can be broadly categorized into four key areas: income theory, expenditure theory, accounting theory, and saving theory. Her work also interwove her insights and explanations, as a female economist, regarding the evolving roles of women within the household and labor market. These aspects contributed to a comprehensive perspective in Matsudaira’s thoughts on household economics. Among these four theories, Matsudaira meticulously delved into the role of consumption in the expenditure theory, which is one of the methods used to achieve expenditure.
How Did Matsudaira Do Economics?
When Matsudaira discussed the research methodology of household economics, she pointed out that there are only two methods: inductive and deductive. The inductive method is particularly important (Matsudaira Reference Matsudaira1925a, p. 118). In terms of research methodology, Matsudaira was deeply influenced by her supervisor, Kawazu, and by Fukuda, a prominent economist of the time. Kawazu and Fukuda, in turn, were influenced by the German Historical School and the New Historical School. Theoretical expositions were prevalent in German economics books imported to Japan. These books influenced this theoretical presentation and took the middle road of ideas between the Marginal Utility School and the New Historical School. In this regard, Matsudaira was no different from other scholars, and bore an imprint of this influence (Matsunoo, Reference Matsunoo, Kurita, Matsunoo and Ikegaki2016, p. 94). Matsudaira drew on the distinctions in the types of desires made by Wilhelm Roscher, the founder of the Historical School, and Adolf Wagner, a representative figure of the New Historical School.Footnote 9 When discussing the significance of value, Matsudaira also referred to the theories of the Marginal Utility School.Footnote 10
Unlike the empirical research of Kyrk, Hoyt, and Reid, Matsudaira mainly analyzed the macroeconomic phenomena presented in authoritative data published by governments and bureaus and, based on the economic phenomena, offered her own insights (and sometimes specific approaches). Matsudaira did not collect and organize the data. Her research relied primarily on concrete historical contexts and empirical facts, rather than abstract theoretical models or universal economic laws, for example, by studying price trends in expenditure theory, in which the price indices of Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States were compared to show that consumers have an obligation to regulate prices in the face of increasing prices in Japan.
How Is Matsudaira’s Household Economics Viewed?
Hiroshi Matsunoo believes that Matsudaira’s research possessed significant theoretical depth. Even in the practical section of the second volume of her work Household Economics (Reference Matsudaira1925a), in which she delved into household accounting forms, Matsudaira diligently pursued theoretical precision (Matsunoo, Reference Matsunoo, Kurita, Matsunoo and Ikegaki2016, p. 94). Most studies have been limited to exploring the theoretical dimensions of Matsudaira’s household economics. A thorough review of the extensive body of prior literature on Matsudaira’s perspectives regarding household economics showed that research on Matsudaira can be predominantly categorized into two primary facets: research concerning the general theory of household economics, including income theory, expenditure theory, accounting theory, and savings theory; and research on women in the household.
General Theory
Research in general theory chiefly centers on Matsudaira’s explanation of household economics. Some researchers, such as Matsunoo (Reference Matsunoo, Kurita, Matsunoo and Ikegaki2016) and Aiko Ikeo (Reference Ikeo, Madden and Dimand2020), provide introductory summaries and reconstruct the concepts and representations of household economics as described by Matsudaira. These researchers also highlight the importance of household economics as a subject by examining Matsudaira’s work.
When Matsudaira developed the concept of household economics, the family image she had in mind primarily represented small, urban-dwelling families composed of married couples and unmarried children (Matsudaira Reference Matsudaira1925a, pp. 99–102). According to Matsunoo, the image of the family was the foundation for Matsudaira’s argument concerning a modern, individualistic economic society (Matsunoo Reference Matsunoo, Kurita, Matsunoo and Ikegaki2016, pp. 107–108).
In discussing the reasons for household economics, Hiroko Amano mentions that although Matsudaira did not seem to possess a clear nationalist consciousness, she sought to unify household economics with the nation. Household economics was a response to the will and expectations of the nation (Amano, Reference Amano1974, p. 24). Amano criticizes Matsudaira’s view of household economics in this light, contending that household economics, which existed to meet the nation’s expectations, was ill-equipped to address complex real-world issues. In other words, the academic mission of household economics is to align real-life experiences with national expectations, and the existence of intricate real-life situations that do not conform to these national expectations cannot be adequately explained. This represented the relinquishment of a scientific attitude (Amano Reference Amano1974, pp. 24–26).
Matsudaira said that although the family economy is the main focus of household economics, everyone must remember the national and common economies. People are not only members of a family but also members of the nation (Matsudaira, Reference Matsudaira1925a, p. 109). This suggests that Matsudaira sought the unity of household economics and the nation. However, it is unreasonable to consider household economics solely in relation to the nation’s needs. Matsudaira believed that household economics could meet the country’s needs, but it did not exist exclusively for the nation’s needs; its primary purpose was to promote the family’s material well-being (Matsudaira, Reference Matsudaira1925a, p. 110).
Among previous studies, only Matsunoo (Reference Matsunoo, Kurita, Matsunoo and Ikegaki2016) has described the four specific theories (income theory, expenditure theory, accounting theory, and savings theory) of Matsudaira’s household economics. However, the nature of his descriptions of the four specific theories of Matsudaira’s household economics is more like an introduction, with no explicit presentation of his own opinions. Therefore, although comprehensive, his descriptions remain superficial and require more critical analysis. In addition, Matsunoo’s research focused only on Household Economics, Matsudaira’s first work.
Women
Matsudaira pointed out that the two most challenging social issues within modern economic structures were the conflict between workers and capitalists, and the issue of women versus men (Matsudaira Reference Matsudaira1925a, pp. 151–152).
Matsudaira contended that the upheaval within the economic foundations of the existing family system liberated women from traditional family constraints. The patriarchy within the family lost its grip on economic power and practical effectiveness as women sought to pursue “sacred and independent” vocations (Matsudaira Reference Matsudaira1925a, pp. 389–390). However, far from the existence of equal pay for equal work, a significant wage disparity persisted between men and women. Because many women lack independent financial standing, they often accept lower wages, even when employed. Another factor is the hesitance of many women to engage with society proactively, stemming from years of family protection (Matsudaira Reference Matsudaira1925a, pp. 401–402). Consequently, Matsudaira encouraged women to recognize the importance of gainful employment (Matsudaira, Reference Matsudaira1925a, p. 403). This is because, in the event of family support being eroded, they might find themselves in a highly unfavorable situation. Returning men to the family was a solution to balancing women’s family and professional lives. People should not view authoritarian family life centered on men and the extreme division of labor between men and women as set in stone. Family life should be created through cooperation between men and women (Matsunoo Reference Matsunoo, Kurita, Matsunoo and Ikegaki2016, pp. 99–101).
Ikeo acknowledges Matsudaira’s focus on women’s roles in household economics. Matsudaira encouraged women to introduce technological advancements in their households to enhance their quality of life (Ikeo, Reference Ikeo, Madden and Dimand2020, p. 101).
Nevertheless, some researchers have dissenting views regarding the depiction of women in Matsudaira’s household economics. Amano contends that the “housewife” in “Household Economy” (Matsudaira Reference Matsudaira, Matsudaira, Kuwata, Maekawa and Santo1967) resembles the ideals of the exemplary wife and mother promoted in previous eras, which demanded unwavering loyalty and devotion to the family. This portrayal of the housewife compelled individuals toward unceasing self-sacrifice (Amano Reference Amano1974, pp. 29–30). However, the book Household Operation was co-authored by Matsudaira, Momoyo Kuwata, Masako Maekawa, and Sumiko Santo. Its portrayal of housewives was not within Matsudaira’s scope of responsibility for the book. While it is not possible to ascertain Matsudaira’s stance on the portrayal of female figures by the other co-authors, based on the depiction of women in Matsudaira’s works, it is evident that she did not entirely endorse the image of women as “virtuous wives and good mothers” within the household.
Hiroko Sasanouchi criticizes the image of women created by Matsudaira in Principles of Matsudaira Home Economics (Matsudaira Reference Matsudaira1968). Sasanouchi believes that Matsudaira set the lifestyle of housewives and those with the potential to become housewives as “family people” and tried to guide them closer to this image one-sidedly. This attitude ignores the individual needs and possibilities of modern women, just as feudal societies sought to stabilize society by depriving women of their life freedoms (Sasanouchi Reference Sasanouchi1972, pp. 35–36).
Matsudaira believed that women bear a more significant proportion of housework than men in the family, since the objective reality is that the division of labor is different because of the different physiological structures of men and women (Matsudaira Reference Matsudaira1925a, pp. 387–388). Matsudaira acknowledged that women needed to shoulder the family task of childbirth, but she did not unilaterally believe that raising children was a family task for women alone (Matsudaira, Reference Matsudaira1925a, p. 393). In addition, she emphasized the importance of “working women”Footnote 11 in her writing. Matsudaira did not ignore the individual needs or possibilities of women. On the contrary, she encouraged housewives to change their identities and become working women (Matsudaira, Reference Matsudaira1925a, p. 396).
I consider Matsudaira to be a paradoxical thinker, both radical and conservative. Kyrk’s Reference Kyrk1923 book on consumption was still characterized by current male-biased language (women were described as “natural” heads of modern households) (Alberti and Asso Reference Alberti and Asso2024, p. 26). Unlike early US household economists, Matsudaira questioned the gender organization of her time, beginning with her first book, and consistently strove for changes in women’s status from a female perspective. This can be viewed as the radical aspect of her thought. However, when analyzing the reasons for changes in women’s status, she attributed it to changes in the family structure caused by shifts in the external economic environment, thus leading to changes in women’s roles within the household. She overlooked the internal demands of women themselves seeking change. This reflects the conservative aspect of her thought, unable to escape the limitations of her era.
III. TOMOKO MATSUDAIRA ON WISE CONSUMPTION
Consumption and Wise Consumption within the Household
Matsudaira’s dedication to the study of consumption persisted throughout her research career, beginning with her debut book. The author delineates the portrayals of consumption-related contentFootnote 12 in her publications using a table, highlighting the significance of this aspect across her body of work, as detailed in Table 1.
The Aggregate of Consumption-Related Content in Matsudaira’s Publications
Matsudaira’s definition of “consumption” in the first volume of Household Economics (Reference Matsudaira1925a), her first publication, is as follows. She consistently employed this definition in subsequent studies.
We use goods to satisfy our desires, and consumption refers to the disappearance, either partially or wholly, of the utility of the goods for this purpose. In other words, consumption is giving purpose to goods, fulfilling the intended goal for which they were produced. Therefore, consumption is the ultimate cause and the completion of all economic processes, such as production, exchange, distribution, and others. (Matsudaira, Reference Matsudaira1925a, p. 440)Footnote 14
Essentially, production serves as a means and not as the ultimate objective. We engage in production not to consume, but, rather, we consume to prompt production. Ultimately, all economic processes culminate in fulfilling human desires, marking the definitive consumption of goods. Everything preceding this moment represents a stage in the production process.
The household economy operates as a consumption unit responsible for sustaining a family’s life and fostering its happiness, necessitating the consumption of essential goods to fulfill this role. It is accurate to state that a considerable majority of goods within society are fundamentally generated, exchanged, and distributed to meet the consumption requirements of family economies (Matsudaira Reference Matsudaira1925a, pp. 442–443).
Matsudaira delineated the historical evolution of the gender-based division of labor in production and consumption within the family.
Traditionally, men took charge of producing and consuming animal-based necessities, while women handled producing and consuming plant-based goods. With the advancement of agriculture and the Industrial Revolution, men increasingly focused on production.Footnote 15 Subsequently, men predominantly managed the production of animal and plant-based items, transitioning from household responsibilities to a unified enterprise overseen by men. Meanwhile, women exclusively worked the consumption of externally acquired animal or plant-based goods within the household. This evolution resulted in women assuming the guiding role in consumption within this division of labor (Matsudaira Reference Matsudaira1927, pp. 39–40).Footnote 16
Based on the above description of the division of labor in the family, Matsudaira drew a diagram (shown in Figure 1) to further visualize it.
The Division of Labor between Men and Women within the Household
Source: Household Economics (Reference Matsudaira1925a, p. 104).
Some of our desires, such as food, drink, and warmth, require the consumption and treatment of items such as food and fuel to fulfill them. In other words, these goods satisfy their utility entirely by satisfying a single desire. Fortunately, however, many goods such as houses, gardens, furniture, artwork, and currency gradually diminish in utility with their use. Nevertheless, they can be utilized multiple times to satisfy human desires (Matsudaira Reference Matsudaira1925a, pp. 440–441). Matsudaira contended that during the consumption process, while people’s desires are fulfilled by utilizing the utility of goods, there is an inherent occurrence of wastage and loss of utility. Maximizing the utility of goods by exercising wise consumption is a crucial aspect of household economics.
Many people believe that progress in consumption means an increase in the quantity of goods consumed in one’s domain or by an individual. However, upon closer examination, the ability to consume more items implies the necessity for these items to exist before consumption. Without items available for consumption, there can be no consumption. Therefore, the ability to consume a lot does not necessarily signify progress in consumption; instead, it might indicate progress in production. Hence, even if the quantity of consumable goods increases, it might not be considered progress in consumption. Among those regarded as moralists, some define progress in consumption as minimizing expenditure and gradually reducing material desires. This ideology is particularly emphasized in Chinese Confucianism. However, many economists today have yet to delve into this theory. Our work aims to satisfy our mental or material desires. Human activity ceases without desires, and it is through our diligent efforts that the production of goods occurs. Moreover, our dedicated efforts drive progress in various aspects of life. (Matsudaira Reference Matsudaira1927, pp. 47–48)
Therefore, neither increasing nor decreasing consumption can be considered a benchmark for progress in consumption. Unlike Kyrk, Matsudaira was a proponent of the marginal utility theory (Matsudaira Reference Matsudaira1925a, pp. 27–29). Matsudaira believed that, in the process of consumption, it was wise to maximize the utility of items and minimize the loss of utility. She argued that consumption arose from desire and, to consume wisely, consumers had to ensure that their desires were appropriate. What constitutes appropriate desires? According to Matsudaira, the correct desires were those that ensured wise consumption, meaning that desires were aligned with maximizing the utility of items.
Criteria of Wise Consumption
Matsudaira emphasized that consumption fulfills desires, maintains life, promotes health, and facilitates mental and physical enhancement. However, desires are inherently indiscriminate, incapable of distinguishing between good and bad objectives that are often entrenched in habitual patterns. Thus, three essential conditions must be considered to attain wise consumption, thus maximizing the satisfaction of legitimate desires (Matsudaira, Reference Matsudaira1925a, p. 640).
To advance consumption as a primary condition, it is crucial to discern whether the desires arising within us before consuming goods are correct or incorrect, rejecting entirely inappropriate ones. In other words, the foremost condition for enhancing consumption is rationalizing desires and making choices among them. Therefore, what exactly constitutes inappropriate desires in discerning the correctness of desires and excluding the inappropriate ones? In broad terms, they refer to those indulging in luxury and waste. (Matsudaira Reference Matsudaira1927, pp. 53–54)
Before delving into the first criterion for wise consumption, Matsudaira expressed her stance on luxury and waste, adopting an entirely negative perspective toward them: “Wealth increases through savings, income grows through wealth, and purchasing power expands through income. Therefore, the sound development of economic life and luxury or waste are incompatible” (Matsudaira Reference Matsudaira1925b, pp. 45–46).
Matsudaira did not condemn the act of consumption to fulfill desires; on the contrary, she believed that both the rich and poor have the qualifications, and are suitable, to consume according to their desires. However, Matsudaira also acknowledged that individual incomes are limited, as are the existing goods in society. In such circumstances, while desires may not inherently warrant rejection in any way, they must be condemned if their fulfillment leads to adverse economic or spiritual effects on society or individuals (Matsudaira, Reference Matsudaira1925b, p. 47): “Luxury is not inherent to desire itself, but rather the question of whether satisfying such desires [i.e., consumption] is reasonable concerning each individual’s status and position within society and the era” (Matsudaira, Reference Matsudaira1925b, p. 48).
“Waste” refers to the satisfaction of desires that harm one’s physical and mental well-being or the futile and pointless depletion of the utility of goods without productive use (Matsudaira, Reference Matsudaira1925b, p. 50). Matsudaira believed that waste results in the aimless disappearance of a commodity’s utility, thus considering waste to be devoid of value (Matsudaira Reference Matsudaira1925a, pp. 474–475).
Revisiting the first criterion of wise consumption—rejecting luxury and waste, Matsudaira highlighted three additional reasons. First, most people in contemporary society, especially those in the lower socio-economic strata, work daily but earn incomes that barely sustain their lives and that prohibit financial freedom. In contrast, the affluent fulfill excessive desires through significant purchasing power, often disregarding societal impacts and neglecting their responsibility for social solidarity. Second, fluctuating prices, influenced by supply-and-demand dynamics, inevitably escalate when demand surges or diminishes. Consequently, luxury items contribute significantly to price inflation amid increased demand. In addition, considering specific times and locations, all three production factors are limited. Channeling these resources toward luxury goods decreases the availability of essential products, thus fostering the escalation of everyday commodity prices. Third, a nation’s social and business development relies on personal savings as indispensable capital. Those with savings naturally shoulder the responsibility of refraining from extravagance, accruing a surplus, and contributing capital to society (Matsudaira Reference Matsudaira1925b, pp. 48–50).
According to Matsudaira, the second criterion for wise consumption involves the selection of appropriate goods. Desires lack inherent knowledge of what best satisfies them. Thus, choices should be grounded in reason. Matsudaira elucidated four principles for making rational choices.
Firstly, choosing items that can be used collectively becomes a criterion for selecting goods. Secondly, to ensure suitable choices, minimize personal preferences, and accept all consumable items. Additionally, emphasis should be placed on selecting items with a broad supply range when making choices. This prioritizes flexibility in consumption when selecting goods. Lastly, since actual or market prices do not necessarily correlate with their utility, it is advisable to opt for items with lower actual prices when dealing with limited income. (Matsudaira Reference Matsudaira1927, pp. 68–72)
Even with excellent choices, it becomes impossible to fully satisfy desires if the choices are not used correctly. Therefore, according to Matsudaira, the third criterion for wise consumption is using items appropriately, necessitating the application of acquired knowledge in practice (Matsudaira, Reference Matsudaira1927, p. 72). When Matsudaira discussed wise consumption in expenditure theory, she did not detail the theoretical knowledge of how to use items rationally. However, she wrote detailed theoretical tutorialsFootnote 17 to teach family members how to use items to promote wise household consumption.
Matsudaira strongly emphasized the role of women in wise consumption within households. Women played a pivotal role in household economics, managing all domestic affairs, and were responsible for spending three-quarters of the average household income (Matsudaira, Reference Matsudaira1925a, p. 653). Women’s progress, in tandem with consumption, closely aligns with the rationalization of economic life. Despite significant progress in production over the past century through the adoption of knowledge and technology from modern science, household consumption continues to sustain an immature, outdated state. In this context, women should strive to embrace an understanding of contemporary science. They should engage in systematic life studies, acquire applied skills based on this knowledge, and be responsible for genuinely enhancing and developing their households (Matsudaira, Reference Matsudaira1925a, p. 654).
An Organization Guides Households to Consume Wisely: Consumer Cooperative
The inaugural documented consumer cooperative, Fenwick Weavers’ Association, was founded in 1769 (Fairbairn, Reference Fairbairn1994, p. 6). Subsequently, numerous cooperatives emerged in the following decades. In 1844, the pioneering and successful cooperative Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers was established in the United Kingdom (Thompson, Reference Thompson1994). Similar associations have been consistently established in the United Kingdom and worldwide owing to their outstanding success.
In the 1870s, Japan enthusiastically adopted the British cooperative movement. Rochdale was visited by two former samurai in 1872, which marked an intriguing encounter. Japanese intellectuals and students dedicated themselves to an in-depth study of the theory and practice of British cooperatives, diligently documenting their insights in various books, magazines, and newspapers. This scholarly endeavor laid the groundwork for Tokyo’s pioneering Rochdale-inspired cooperative, Kyoritsu-shousha (Co-established trading company), which was established in 1879. Subsequently, Tokyo, Osaka, and Kobe witnessed the rise of similar cooperatives initiated by individuals from the educated upper classes rather than the working class (Sugimoto Reference Sugimoto2007, p. 53; Saito Reference Saito and Suzuki2010, p. 9).
Despite the vibrant global consumer cooperative movements and the participation of active Japanese consumer cooperatives in the early twentieth century, Matsudaira more objectively analyzed the current situation of consumer cooperatives in Japan.
Looking at the current situation of consumer cooperatives in Japan, purely in terms of their existence, there were merely ninety in the Taisho ten [1921]. These cooperatives’ total members amounted to just over 426,000, with an annual purchase of goods totaling just over 6.97 million yen. Furthermore, these cooperatives were primarily concentrated in Tokyo and Osaka, with only two or three other major cities included. The average household size in Japan was revealed to be five individuals according to the Taisho nine [1920] national census,Footnote 18 resulting in over 12.2 million households. By estimation, those affiliated with consumer cooperatives in Japan accounted for just about 0.3% of the population. In terms of facing difficulties in life, Japan, which is inferior to other countries, should consider it entirely meaningful to develop these consumer cooperatives nationwide. (Matsudaira Reference Matsudaira1925a, pp. 574–575)
This shows that Matsudaira supported the promotion of consumer cooperatives in Japan based on the economic conditions of Japanese society and households in the early 1920s. She also defined consumer cooperatives.
The consumer cooperative, also called a consumer life cooperative, is established by individuals from diverse households who pool their resources together. Within this cooperative, funds contributed by members, occasionally supplemented by external loans, are utilized to procure various goods in bulk, including staples like rice, wheat, meat, seafood, vegetables, dry goods, canned products, clothing such as shirts and socks, footwear, and other essential daily items sourced from wholesalers or distributors. On occasion, the cooperative also involves itself in production processes. The primary goal of distributing or selling these goods to its members is to fortify and enhance household economies, fostering stability and advancement. It operates as a consumer-driven organization. (Matsudaira, [1953] Reference Matsudaira1966, p. 98)
In reviewing Matsudaira’s body of work on household economics, it becomes evident that her aim in advocating for consumer cooperatives in Japan can be divided into three purposes corresponding to her definition of consumer cooperatives. The first objective was to reduce individual households’ expenditure without reducing savings or the quantity and quality of consumables (Matsudaira, Reference Matsudaira1925a, p. 573). The second was to achieve a more rational distribution among families within cooperatives. This rationalization aimed to guarantee the basic subsistence of the members of each family within the cooperative (Matsudaira Reference Matsudaira1925b, pp. 62–64). The third purpose was to assist producers and consumers to help each other, both in terms of production and consumption, and make it easier for goods to leave the hands of producers and reach consumers—that is, to make it easier for consumers to access the goods produced by producers (Matsudaira Reference Matsudaira1926, pp. 141–142).Footnote 19
From Matsudaira’s perspective on consumer cooperatives and based on her definition or articulated purposes, she aimed to lead consumers toward wise consumption by establishing an organization. Specifically, this meant guiding individuals from diverse families within the organization to make wise consumption choices. Matsudaira believed that wise consumption could fulfill consumers’ physical and mental health aspirations by addressing their daily needs through equitable distribution within the cooperative. This, in turn, would foster a sense of physical and psychological well-being among its members. Consequently, she vigorously advocated for the widespread promotion of consumer cooperatives in Japan at the time, viewing them as instrumental in enabling families to make wise purchases. However, Matsudaira did not elaborate on the purpose that she hoped to achieve for society or the market through each family’s wise consumption. I speculate that her positive stance on consumer cooperatives might have been to bridge consumption disparities among cooperative families by steering their consumption behaviors toward wisdom, ultimately striving for collective prosperity. This can also be seen as an incomplete point in Matsudaira’s household economics; that is, it does not elaborate on the ultimate goal that society hopes to achieve through the household economics that she describes.
Consumption Environment and Consumer Awareness
It is said that internal factors hold the key, while external factors set the stage. Wise consumer spending is not solely reliant on individual behavior but is also significantly shaped by the external consumer environment, which has a crucial influence on consumer spending behavior. Matsudaira presented various external factors that significantly affect household consumption when discussing the influence of the external consumption environment on consumer behavior.
To begin with, Matsudaira believed that the market at that time was imperfect competition, and commodity buying and selling prices were determined by more than purely economic laws of supply and demand (Reference Matsudaira1949, pp. 9–10). In a competitive market environment, firms continuously try to improve the quality of their products and innovations to win consumer favor. However, a lack of competition in the market may reduce firms’ incentives to improve the quality of their products and services, which may mean that consumers lack variety and higher-quality choices for their products and services. When there are no choices available, the quest for satisfaction with their products and services is naturally reduced. It is clear that Matsudaira believed that the market should be in a state of competition in which consumers can be influenced to spend wisely. However, does this attitude contradict the criteria for choosing consumer goods according to her proposed criteria for wise consumption? I believe that Matsudaira’s view that the market should be fully competitive is from the producer’s point of view and that producers should be responsible for improving the quality of products and innovations so that consumers can have more room to make wise choices. The choice of consumer goods according to the wise consumption criterion is viewed from the consumer’s perspective, who should try to choose goods that can be used in common and that are excellent and inexpensive, given their reasonable desires. Whether from the production or consumption point of view, the aim is to enable consumers to consume wisely; thus, there is no contradiction between the two points.
Insufficient competition in a market usually leads to the formation of a monopoly. Monopolies are the most common way in which consumers are harmed in terms of price and limited choice. Compared with production under competition, production under a monopoly harms consumers in two ways: it provides goods that do not fully satisfy consumer needs, and it imposes high prices on goods that are not available in sufficient quantities (Matsudaira, Reference Matsudaira1949, p. 10). Consumers who engage in consumer activities in a monopolized market cannot consume wisely.
Furthermore, wise consumption by consumers can face obstacles owing to merchants’ sales tactics and other influences. The motivation behind a consumer’s choice to buy a specific product is intricate and does not rely solely on a precise, comparative calculation of fulfillment gained through the purchase. Instead, consumers are influenced by suggestions, advertising, chance occurrences, and numerous other factors. Ideally, advertising should benefit consumers. Without proper advertising, consumers may not recognize the genuine value of a new product over an extended period owing to unawareness and inertia. Consequently, they might need to pay more attention to familiar products and their perceived life improvement than to new products. Elevating standards becomes implausible. Thus, dishonest advertising is detrimental to consumers. The money allocated to advertising not only inflates distribution costs and retail prices, burdening consumers unnecessarily, but also exerts adverse effects on society, resulting in wastefulness (Matsudaira Reference Matsudaira1949, pp. 11–12).
Free competition would provide the necessary protection for consumers if perfect knowledge and absolute freedom existed, despite the selfish motives of producers and the potentially low moral standards of merchants. This would shield consumers from inferior quality, harmful goods, unfair pricing, and false quantities, ensuring that the market offers consumers the most desired goods. The realization of completely free competition underscores the role that the state should play. This involves prohibiting corporate monopolies through laws or other means; restricting the sale of substandard items such as alcohol, milk, meat, and pharmaceuticals; and regulating unsanitary housing. It is for this reason that many nations intervene to safeguard consumer interests (Matsudaira Reference Matsudaira1949, pp. 12–13). The government’s consumer protection policies should include ensuring an adequate supply of goods for consumers, limiting prices, controlling counterfeit goods, discouraging harmful goods, and encouraging wise consumption (Matsudaira Reference Matsudaira1925a, pp. 478–479). However, the state’s consumer protection is inherently limited because of the inability to shield consumers from their poor judgments. Although it is true that consumers currently face various disadvantages in terms of distribution, the responsibility for this plight lies with producers and merchants. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that consumer ignorance, incompetence, and/or indifference contribute to these issues.
Matsudaira emphasized that consumer ignorance primarily stems from a lack of understanding of market mechanisms. These include modern production and distribution functions, overarching trends, inherent regulations within competition, barriers to competition, and fair pricing. In addition to consumers’ limited knowledge, their shopping struggles can also be traced back to the intricate nature of contemporary rationing systems. Over time, individual households gradually shifted away from relying solely on home-produced goods to sustain their economic livelihoods. Instead, they increasingly turned to the market for most of their daily necessities. Simultaneously, as living standards improved, exclusive products became accessible to ordinary families (Matsudaira Reference Matsudaira1949, pp. 13–14).
Consequently, although households now consumed a more comprehensive array of products, the market response was significantly amplified, continually introducing new products. With the gradual decline in home production and the reliance on mass-produced goods for most daily needs, consumers’ ability to discern product quality weakened. When faced with many choices and limited shopping time, consumers may find it challenging to compete with adept merchants who possess specialized training and extensive experience in navigating this complex marketplace.
However, this situation should be viewed as something other than consumers’ purchasing ignorance. With the increasing array of products and the complexity of sales systems, consumers must acquire essential knowledge to select products and familiarize themselves with market structures. Currently, consumers receive education from various sources. Explanations and advertisements from businesses, governmental and other publications, impartial expert advice, and public and private exhibitions serve as crucial sources of economic knowledge for consumers. The most significant aspect is the guidance and education provided by various schools, particularly in home economics and household sciences. Matsudaira believed that those responsible for teaching home economics should keep this in mind and ensure comprehensive consumer information (Matsudaira, Reference Matsudaira1949, p. 15).Footnote 20
Owing to inherent limitations in individuals’ personal capacity, obtaining knowledge about all products independently is challenging. Additionally, individual efforts often yield temporary, indirect, and inadequate protective social effects on consumer interests. Recognizing this, consumers, in collective unity, establish research and investigative institutions to deepen their knowledge. They create, administer, and oversee organizations dedicated to safeguarding their interests. An illustrative example of this is the “Housewife Store (Shufu no Mise)” movement.Footnote 21
IV. CONCLUSION
Matsudaira was the first Japanese female economist to study household economics as an academic discipline. One of Matsudaira’s contributions to household economics was her analysis of wise consumption within households, a pioneering exploration in an era marked by profound social and economic transformations. This paper explores Matsudaira’s theory of wise consumption by focusing on three key aspects: the criteria of wise consumption, consumer cooperatives, and the consumption environment and consumer awareness. Most of Matsudaira’s works were published approximately one century ago. Although her theory of wise consumption was progressive and ahead of its period, it still had its historical limitations.
In early twentieth-century Japan, when women’s right to higher education was not yet fully established and they faced discrimination in the labor market, Matsudaira’s recognition of the crucial role women played in managing household economics, particularly in practicing wise consumption, was remarkable and ahead of her time. She emphasized that women should learn and apply scientific knowledge to realize wise consumption, which can be seen as her advocacy for women’s right to education. Furthermore, Matsudaira promoted government regulations on the external consumption environment and encouraged consumers to enhance their awareness, both of which were progressive ideas that placed her ahead of her era.
Matsudaira held negative views on luxury and wastefulness, advocating thrift and frugality. However, her opposition to luxury consumption failed to acknowledge the economic role of luxury goods in stimulating domestic demand. While she recognized the existence of human desires, she accepted only those “correct desires” that contributed to both individual well-being and societal interests. Furthermore, she was mainly concerned with the lower-income class (the lower-income household) and sought to narrow social class disparities through wise consumption (the consumer cooperative). Nevertheless, her perspective entirely disregarded the needs of the affluent and she expected them to assist the lower-income class. Did this also constitute a form of exploitation and oppression of the wealthy? These were historical limitations of her own.
The rise of household consumer economics in Japan, represented by Matsudaira, emerged in the early twentieth century, almost simultaneously with the developments in the United States, led by Kyrk. Kyrk’s first book was published in 1923 and Matsudaira’s first book was published in 1925. Both female economists expressed their views on wise consumption in their debut works. A comparative study of the perspectives of these two highly influential female economists on wise consumption is a subject for future research.
Matsudaira’s research career spanned more than forty years and encompassed the challenges of the Great Depression and World War II. It is natural to assume that Matsudaira’s perspectives on household economics might have changed because of the evolving socio-economic landscape; however, I found no shift in Matsudaira’s idea of wise consumption after examining her works on the economics of domesticity from various periods. While her views on wise consumption remained consistent throughout her writing, this does not imply that there were no changes or developments in her income, savings, and accounting theories, especially in light of the changing roles of women in the household and the labor markets. Whether Matsudaira’s understanding of household economics changed or evolved in response to societal shifts remains an essential and unresolved topic for future research in Matsudaira’s household economics.
COMPETING INTERESTS
The author declares no competing interests exist.
