Some Today Approach of the Household in the Economic Literature

The household is likely to base on one family structure – i.e. two spouses, sometimes together with a number of children. The latest are also likely to grow up, fulfill the age of majority, but sometimes stay further home, in the same old household with their parents while though they get some jobs around and earn some money in the labour market, as well as their parents. Other kinds of human relationships than legal family might equally make it. And households of one or another kind are found to work similarly, as economically. Besides, household is unanimously admitted among economic entities – i.e. it is autonomous in its economic functions, never subordinated to anyone else, and enough influenced by its environment. The literature exposed below will see the household making its own: (i) production, (ii) consumption and (iii) time reserve allowing. The below paper will then search for some insights in this particular economic area.


Introduction
Actually there is to talk about two parts of the economic literature debating about the household, i.e. the 'old' and the contemporary ones. The previous might be called as such due to both its bibliographical age and the age of the household here pointed. Actually, authors are referring to two concepts, i.e. the natural economy and macroeconomics, as its genesis. Karl Marx, the first classic of socialism-communism, with his Grundrisse or Capital (Marx 1975a, p.896;898) and Lenin (1970), continuing and developing the same ideology, equally were both referring to that household of the early and so long time roughly between Neolithic and early Middle Ages in Europe fully opposite to the rest of economy aroundi.e. pretty similarly to contemporary market economy circumstances.
The latter part of the literature does refer to an author and scholar of comparable size, i.e. John Maynard Keynes (1936), with his(also) proper 'capital' paper. His so called 'Macromodel' sees households i.e. contrary to Marxism --skiping all ‚confrontation' with the rest of the economy, but part of the latest, as a whole. Interesting is equally that households(i.e. no one else) receive the whole current gross national income, all money that firms, banks, Government and rest of the world (the international economy) are betting in the aftermath within same short term. Households viewed here consume, save money, pay taxes and even access the consumption part of imports.
Then, this paper below will see the contemporary household approaching literature and just one of these possible approaches. This might be called conceptual approache.g. while one of its alternative could be, let us say, modeling approach.

Method 2.1 Theory of the Individual Consumer
This ‚old' theory is viewed in the literature as the starting point of all later and contemporary neoclassic developings in thinking. Its primary theoretical assumption is the individual utility maximisinge.g. corroborated with the subsequent one of the consumer fully informed (Matilla-Wiro, 1999, p.33). Utility, as one of basic economic functions i , does benefit from a quasi unanimously accepted definition that sees it as the individual consumer's satisfaction provided by good's consumption (Eastwood 1985, p.48) ii . Utilit iii y comes out of good consumed and that immediately, automatically and as the consumption function iv . Consumer is so seen as rational in his/her good picked from a range of goods to (better) satisfy his/her utility expected.
Time v isn't part of the utility function vi , e.g. price does not change during the consumer's corresponding goods/utilities option done. On the contrary, price changing induces changes to the individual's options as correspondinglyi.e. see the utility function, once moreand this with direct impact on aferrent policies influencial in the same area. Or, consumer's income changing is expected with similar effects (Varian 1990) Shortly, consumption optimizing -in the consumer's theorykeeps the exogenous of (1) individual preferences, (2) price level and (3) consumer's income. The consumer's decision draws the demand or demand function basing on these factors, then this function might see itself affected by goods' price and consumer's income (Matilla-Wiro 1999, p.9). Utility sees itself shaped by individual preferencese.g. high utility for preferences at the same. There is no common utility measurement since the plural utility functioni.e. as well as utility measured in terms of the quantity of good. In practice such a measuring identifies/reduces to comparing, by the consumer subject, diverse goods packages (Estola 1996).
In a critical view, there could be striking limits for consumer's rationality, as assumed by this given theorye.g. a number of authors doubt on both the full information about goods to be consumed and utility maximizing. Actually, utility maximizes and stabilizes itself along the indifference curve viii (Matilla-Wiro 1999, pp.7-8). The theory skips uncertainties related to goods' market and technical evolving effects i.e. and both these always stay strongly influencial factors for all consumer's options and for their changing during time (Gravelle & Rees 1981). As for the household, in particulari.e. apart from general economics and corresponding judgmentsother specific utilities are appropriate, plus, unlike the rest of economy, these household utilities might not devolve directly from resources allowance, e.g. leisurerecreation, friendships(Matilla-Wiro 1999, p.8). The same utilities ix are to be noticed as being even able to make consumption and production connect between. Individual utility maximizing is admitted by the literature to be the household's imperative (Matilla-Wiro 1999, p.33). The utility function of the household is seen as the algebraic sum of individual utilities of the same household's members (Sen 1966 andAlderman andco.1995), so neoclassics feel nearly forced to admit or notice the uneven welfare distribution within the household (Matilla-Wiro 1999, pp.7-8).
Similarly to cumulating individual utilities within household for the latest's proper utility accounted, the household's welfare refers to the one shared by its members eitheri.e. and that in the efficiency related environment. Alderman and co.(1995) do not here excludei.e. they really considerefficiency when uneven welfare within the household and Hannad&Kanbur (1990) do criticize those rigid policy decisions that ignore such circumstances, here and there dealing with some kind of traditions in the Third World. Though, these last authors also finally accuse welfare distribution within householdi.e. actually, its dysfunctions --as responsible for the whole society's created needs of corresponding economic policy repairs. Browning and co.(1994), in their turn, broadly admit that the consumer theory meats empirical verifying for the household cases, except for household behaving like one single individual. And this in the middle of critics' 'cross fire' -e.g. classics are criticized for limiting the household's needs to the acquiring goods' corresponding resources (Becker 1993). Hawrylyshyn(1977) argues that, despite the consumer theory's incomplete analysis or could be, on the contrary, just for such reason its appropriate reply was going to come up from not so far, namely from the(same) neoclassic thinking campi.e. the Gary Becker's and Kelvin Lancaster's distinct contribution models are seen by the literature as somehow shaping the 'Becker-Lancaster model' of the household.
In context, Lancaster(1975, p.9) adds assumptions to both individual and household. The individual is viewed as: (A) traditional -i.e. goods are distinct parts ranking in the consumer's preferences systemand (B) in the system of characteristicsi.e. each presumable item of the latest is actually assumed to belong to several goods. Then, when household, in its turn, is taken like the individual, it is assumed that: (1) the individual stays efficient when the number of characteristics is lower than the one of goods (R<M) and so goods chosen will automatically be fewer than their total available number; (2) substitution predominates for the consumption demand, together with corresponding budget constraint, and so two further alternatives get equivalent: (a) Slutsky matrix x , as symmetrical and negative semi-definite; (b) both the strong and weak axioms of revealed preference, as satisfied (Lancaster 1975, p.7).
In such a view, anyway and any-time the household: (i) is a number xi of individuals that is (ii) low enough and (iii) these individuals are 'close-knit'. The aggregate consumption vector in the household does result by cumulating the corresponding individual vectors of the household's members. The household's aggregate consumption vector is further assumed to correlate with the complementary one of aggregate income and this with the economy's goods' prices vector the way the above (1) and (2) assumptions would be satisfied and concomitantly the household is assumed to act like one single individual (Lancaster 1975, pp.7 and the following).

The household's production function
The household is assumed as rational economic entityi.e. a unique objectives/goals set aferrent to all members(Ellis 1988) and as such it is supposed to become a production unit, as all (production) firms working in the competitive market area. So, household is here assumed to have a proper productions frontier xii type function(Matilla-Wiro 1999, pp. 5 and the following). The same for labour division between household memberse.g. sex basedup to specializinge.g. similarly to acting as nations, in the international trade area(Matilla-Wiro 1999, p.14), the example in which international arrangements are supposed to come out (Krugman 1991, p.11).
This household-international market topics comparison extends, in its turn, backwards in time to the early 19 th century, when David Ricardo xiii found the comparative advantage xiv , together with its basics leading to labour productivity(Matilla-Wiro1999, p.14) xv . Specializing, for household works as such on labour distribution first between market and household, according to the comparative advantage rule, and when so household is chosen by the individual, its labour division is to be equally considered. Reservations to come on admitting such economic communication fully working between household and its outside market economy (Matilla-Wiro 1999, p.34). Plus, in the same contest of facts the ‚old' sex based labour division might even be some disadvantage for household members(Matilla-Wiro 1999, pp. 14-15).
The same as the above Lancaster's contribution to household on the consumption-consumer side, Gary Becker comes on this production function one. Simply, this production means acquiring market goods and combining them basing on the household's time resource to make specific household goodse.g.
children, healthcare, watching shows, other diverse pleasures and leisure (Bergstrom 1997). And this is a set of items that Manser&Brown (1980) do enrich by others that aren't material, like love and understandingi.e. these last are supposed to be produced inside the household, where previously brought in by marriage and lastly made for strengthening the whole set of preferences.
The Gary Becker's theory-model on the household, that is called the 'new theory', is actually seen as achieving what previously had been the individual consumer theory and this through a new thinking phase -i.e. this new thinking phase doesn't aim any true reply to the old thinking in the area. The scholar uses an economic research tools approach to the household's behavioural understandingi.e. assuming: (1) maximizing behaviour, (2) market equilibrium and (3) stable preferences. Besides, there is to talk once again about this above mentioned production function of the household that is rather similar to the one of the firm working in competition area, but concomitantly both basic and non-material goods(new examples: sleeping, children etc.) are produced by household. Ironmonger(2001, p.3) is the one who makes it explicit that specific household goods xvi are done by household members for their own consumption and this using the household's proper capital and labour resource that isn't rewardedi.e. unlike the market economy specific circumstancesand once more market goods acquired, as intermediary goods, are here used to produce these final household goods.
At the next page the author deepens the household's specific productions classifying: (1) subsistence (part of) productione.g. hunting, fishing, seeding, farming --, (2) volunteer productioni.e. unrewarded, as wellto the help of other households, (3) public productione.g. army, healthcare, education, justice, road building (Ironmonger 2001, pp.4-5). And going on this into a sort of Marxian 'qualitative leap', the author suggests a Leontief(1941) type table (Ironmonger 2001, p.7) afferent to household internal activities(productions or industries)i.e. even here using one of his own previous studies (Ironmonger 1989), associated to Eisner(1989), with an idea of national accounts extending, concretely for a study on Australian households. As effectively, the approach result was an input-output table with satellite accounts proper to household and containing six industries (i.e. common to the household and the whole economy): accommodation, food production, clothing, transportation, leisure, care, whereas shopping and cleaning account apart, for subsequent activities.
And about here Eisner(1989), once more, draws attention about the opposite idea to that the household made goods would be basically specific and quite 'different from market goods'i.e. there are equally those household made goods that are quite the same as market goods, e.g. food meals, as in restaurants and related places, transportation, like by common transport means, healthcare, like by special care centers. So, the author touches on the debate on 'purely' household, versus 'purely' market goods, together with the alternative of 'mixed' goods, as between these two (Ironmonger 2001, p.11, also citing Eisner 1989. Moreover, Eisner(1989) equally adds his proposal for gross households product (GHP), as cumulating value added of all households and so, once more, households' production would be underlined as the result of its 'specific' factors: (i) labour (i.e. not rewarded) and (ii) capitale.g. technical means, time, supermarket and other market goods sources accessed. All these, compulsorily related to the national economic structure.
Back to Ironmonger(2001, p.6) xvii , where this author goes as far backwards into the literature's history as citing Margaret Reid(1934, p.11), he actually also goes on deepening the household production definition through the production-consumption dichotomy, e.g. the third person criterioni.e. there is accepted as productive, in the household, that activity which is unpaid when made by members, but able to be assigned to somebody else from outside the household, as paid. Another criterion here in the same debate is the so called market alternativei.e. an activity is taken as productive, in the household(as well), when it is able, as well as outside, in the economy, to hire labour and/or capital for its same productive aim (Ironmonger 2001, p.6).
Last, but not least, the author gets preoccupied by measuring/estimating the households' productioni.e. naturally, such a preoccupation comes to be shared by other scholars, as well (ibidem, pp. 9-11). It is actually for long time already that statistics stay likely to keep pretty off households' production(s) interest (Nordhaus &Tobin 1973 andWeinrub 1974). But there were also exceptions to be highlighted here and there --i.e. it was before the last World War that some national statistics were providing such estimations, e.g. of Denmark, Norway and Sweden. In Norway, for instance, it started in 1912 and stopped in 1950, after the War, at the UN's suggestions for methodology to be changed (Aslaksen & Koren 1996). There is equally a third group of studies to talk about in context. Boulding (1972) was estimating household purchases at about 60% of GNP, plus most of the whole economy's subsidies. Morgan&Baewaldt(1971) were seeing intra-household transfers, the year of publication, about three time higher than the US Government's charity(similar) transfers. Burns(1975, p.8) highlighted that such intrahousehold transfersi.e. that usually are as unpaid as works done and labour used in the household -might be higher value than similar transfers within the neighbouring market economyi.e. those, of course, are paid. Waring (1988a,b) adds to these a different view point, the one of the unrewarded female activity that is supposed to contribute not only to the economy and economic life.
The same household production measuring as methodologies, the last's primary attempts were made just by multiplying costs of hiring individual servant by agricultural profile household with the number of such existing households (Hawrylyshyn 1976). Vanek (1975) and Szalai (1972) were further highlighting a real turning point of such methodologies in the sixties, once more, together with using the time resource method xviii --i.e. this was coming to be in the very favour of international comparisons in such a way, e.g. see first a study of this type on 12 countries funded at that time by UNESCO and the Council of the International Institute for Social Studies, then the 'Szalai method' was coming to be extended on studies about other OECD member countries at least for time data collecting and households samples done. Later on, Goldsmidt-Clermont & Pagnossin-Aligisakis(1995) found in statistics of 12 OECD member countries on the 1985-1992 year interval an average household work time(i.e. unpaid work) of about 24-26 hours a week per adult individual.
And back to Ironmonger(2001, p.10), for the last time in this paragraph, he proposes, in his turn, other two alternative methods for households production estimating: (a) unearned wage/salary of the household member on the neighbouring labour market; (b) reward to craftsman of outside the household hired for some household activities. Even the author finds that both these might be criticized xix .
Not to end this paragraph without a reference representative for the opposite skepticism against the household's production functionsee Ruuskanen(1994) xx arguing that studying the household's production function rather makes things more complicate for market economy traditional analysis, than really helping economic policies, as so much expected.

The household's time factor
We are back to time, above considered, that in the household's case is atributted to Gary Becker (1993)'s contribution on both of the equally above described functions that are production and consumption (Matilla-Wiro 1999, pp. 11, 33-34). In such an order the household time breaks down into: (A) work timei.e. production, that is out of household --and (B)consumption timei.e. that is inside the household. But, as the result it remains difficult to identify that part of extra-timei.e. off the work timethat exactly matches the household consumption time.
One of consumption time assessment methods in the household could be its income that is ‚forgone' or actually lost (Matilla-Wiro 1999, p.13). Or, might be just this way that the fundamental idea comes upi.e. according to Ruuskanen (1994) time finds its equivalent in market goods. But not onlyi.e. when 'time is income in the household' the same time actually becomes that(single) limited resource which is for household what the whole basic natural resources portfolio is for the 'great' economy. Also notice that market goodsi.e. when statutorily compared with timeare never limited fund. Moreover, time may see its value rising inside the household (Becker 1993)e.g. when leisure-recreation time in the household lowers, this might increase the household's access to market goods and services; on the contrary, the household time rise might equalize some ‚forgone' income, resource and utility (Matilla-Wiro 1999, p.12). Such an idea comes to re-confirm the above theoretical option for the time equivalence into market goods since also observing concomitance of enlarging household time with real wage diminition.
Last, but not least, Becker further considers technological progress and improvements able to rise ‚consumption time productivity' in the householde.g. new access to supermarkets, to telecommunications xxi .

Result
Look at which might be the most significant conclusions of Matilla-Wiro (1999, pp. 32 and the following). The Finish author finds that, despite its importance, even the household termi.e. here in the center of debate --isn't unanimously viewed by today literature and theories-models, be they all the same neoclassic matter. Ironmonger (1996) introduces the household's good/service of care and here accuses the feminist literature's responsibility for the care's novelty in studying and new inclusion in the household specific theories-models --i.e. they here see a sort of maintenance for the human capital and, of course, care would be equally viewed as a good produced with the help of the household's labouri.e. unpaid, once more -and capitali.e. viewed in all means and spaces detained by. More deeply viewed, care would be of two kinds: (a) physicale.g. exercises, healthcare, sleeping, food providing and feedingand (b) psychologicale.g. education, recreation, dialogue.

Discussion: others on the household
What is 'humane human capital' and even counteracts the old(just) 'human capital' concepti.e. that, of course, isn't any about capital, but on the contrary, about its opposite labouris finally something that belongs to the household onlyi.e. and never to the economy beyond. Or, this is also why the neoclassic thinking perceives it as really 'strange' stuff. For both theory and practice humane human capital contains what all 'purely economic' approach won't ever be able to comprisei.e. and this while the same concept stays undeniable source/factor of performance and productivity for the household. What is more than human capital in the 'humane human' capital includes linkages and all interactions among peoplee.g. real networks shaped as such --, together with promoting these, plus ideas that so move around between people and always regard either economic substrate, unhindered decisions, here including about maximizing utility, or comparative advantage and so on (Matilla-Wiro 1999, p.17;19). Even earlier Mattila(1992) was here giving the example of Tanzania, where women were shaping such kind of relationship networks, primarily with relatives, but further on also with other people, as extensively and this was even helping the labour market, besides households, with capabilities renewed. Humane human capital, despite its undeniable support to both the households' production function and market economy, never meets any market equivalent, not even for labour market (Matilla-Wiro 1999, p.19).
In another development let us recall that the unequal welfare distribution within the household is a reality recognized by all theories-models in the area -i.e. it is nearly about a kind of 'universal household rule' (Bourguignon et co. 1993). The authors so get preocupied of finding all rules with this kind of influence and impacti.e. such an approach comes up the same as above, namely in favour of policy makinge.g. fiscal and direct transfers policies. Unfortunately, such examples are yet here expected.