Households: a systematic unit of analysis through history

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to extend and apply the systems model of the household proposed by Dixon, his colleagues, and his students to situations in which vulnerable consumers are not able to follow the purely rational models of economics. The case of homeless families is examined.Design/methodology/approachThe paper presents a literature review, an introduction of Baker et al.'s concepts of consumer normalcy and consumer vulnerability, and an application of expanded model to consumer studies of homeless persons published by Ronald Hill and his colleagues.FindingsThe same household systems models might be used to unfold the complex problems that can undermine the functioning in a household, causing it to be unproductive and potentially fail. Applications of the concepts of “consumer normalcy” and “consumer vulnerability” provide a useful platform to develop public policy recommendations, the example of homeless persons will be considered as an illustration.Research limitations/implicationsThe extension and application is limited in that it is applied to analyze data collected approximately 20 years ago. The research should be extended to actual homeless households in the present day, and to additional “types” of households who are likely to encounter vulnerabilities as consumers (e.g. persons with disabilities).Practical implicationsThe four levels of household processes (employment, purchasing, home‐production, and consumption) provide a useful framework for examining households in which vulnerabilities occur. This approach is useful in identifying the gaps in the household processes that can slow down productivity and instead introduce confusion and demoralization, plus continue the spiral of economic deprivation.Social implicationsFor over 50 years, the work of Goffman has played an important role in identifying individuals and households that did not fit societal norms, resulting in their possibly experiencing conditions of stigmatization. Examining specific household types in terms of the functionality or dysfunctionality of their use of inputs may allow researchers to recommend various types of support, training, or assistance related to the household as a system, rather than focusing on the individual without considering the household dynamics.Originality/valueThis paper takes a general systems approach in applying the concepts of consumer normalcy and consumer vulnerability, both based in behavioral theories in the social sciences, to the economic approach to the household emphasizing rational decision making and orderly production functions.

Pioneering consumer economist: Elizabeth Ellis Hoyt (1893‐1980)

“…Becker worked alongside Kyrk, and latterly Reid at Chicago. This association with Chicago may be why Kyrk and Reid are more often cited in association with the “new home economics” than Hoyt, who is sometimes missed out of accounts altogether (see for example Kaufman‐Scarborough, 2009). It was a critical mass of female scholars in the 1960s at Columbia and Chicago that really pushed ahead work on the new household economy (Grossbard‐Schechtman, 2001).…”

Household Purchasing Productivity: Concept and Consequences

“…Several independent sub-consumption processes were proposed by Alderson (1965) and Linder (1970); then integrated into four sets of activities linked to marketing by Dixon (1979). Using Downs (1961) and Benders’ (1964) consumer-purchaser productivity conceptualizations as a foundation, four input-output processes were formalized in a systems model of the household by Shaw and Pirog (1997) and analytically applied by Kaufman-Scarborough (2011). In the model, the household is viewed as a system that operates as a small factory adding value through a sequence of input-output processes to ultimately generate satisfaction.…”

Marketing history from below: towards a paradigm shift in marketing historical research

“…Very few papers that have appeared in this journal so far have explicitly taken this voice of the consumer as a vantage point of their historical research. While the term "consumer" appears in the keywords of exactly 23 out of the 120 or so research articles that have appeared so far in this journal, maybe five of these really engage with how consumer actually shopped, what they read, how they shared goods, how they co-produced product innovations, how and why they rejected corporate marketing activities and so on (Richmond, 2010;Kaufman-Scarborough, 2011;Toplis, 2010;Clark, 2014;Minowa and Witkowski, 2012;Stobbart, 2010;Logemann, 2013;Davis, 2010). This bias of marketing historical research towards managerial activities, academic thought and legislative processes is not at all untypical for the field as such.…”