The Historic Design of the Demand Law and Its Reconstruction

  • Yuji Aruka
Part of the Evolutionary Economics and Social Complexity Science book series (EESCS, volume 1)


The historical development of economic theories suggests that the most essential constituents of economics are the demand law, the utility function, the production function, and general equilibrium. These issues were argued professionally from the 1930s to the 1950s, mainly by mathematicians and physicists. The most fundamental of these seems to be the demand law. Many economists have been unable to find a consistently self-contained model either by any kind of individual utility formulation or the revealed preference axiom. This problem was solved by Hildenbrand (Market demand, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1994), taking into account macroscopic order. Even the consumer theory was too restrictive to encompass many important aspects of consumption activities. In this sense, the traditionally narrow interest may be dangerous because other decisive factors contributing to consumption activities may be missed. There are many aspects to consider, including the inter-connected factors between different income classes and household demands. Household demand includes some items that are so indispensable that demand for them is unaffected by price. Ignoring price levels, people would choose items to meet their desire for both luxury and sophistication. This chapter argues a particular scenario where different forces may apply to consumption activities in different income classes. By focusing on a self-organizing pattern of consumption, we analyze a new facet of interactive correlations among heterogeneous consumers. This may lead us to observe another hidden force driving consumption. Before discussing the detail, I consider the basic structure of traditional theories of static and random preference.


Utility Function Income Effect Choice Probability Random Matrix Theory Social Utility 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Anderson SP, de Palma A, Thisse J-F (1992) Discrete choice theory of product differentiation. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Aruka Y (2004a) Exploring the limitations of utilitarian epistemology to economic science in view of interacting heterogeneity. Ann Jpn Assoc Philos Sci 13(1):27–44. Reprinted in Aruka (2011, Chap.7)Google Scholar
  3. Aruka Y (2004b) Mathematical method to evolutionary economics (in Japanese). Kyoritsu Shuppan, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  4. Aruka Y (2007) The moral science of heterogeneous economic interaction in the face of complexity. In: Leiber T (Hg) Dynamisches Denken und Handeln Philosophie und Wissenschaft in einer komplexen Welt Festschrift fuer Klaus Mainzer zum 60. Geburtstag S. Hirzel Verlag, Stuttgart, pp 171–183. Reprinted in Aruka(2011, Chap. 8)Google Scholar
  5. Aruka Y (2011) Complexities of production and interacting human behaviour. Physica Verlag, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aruka Y, Kichikawa Y, Iyetomi Y (2013) A macroscopic order of consumer demand due to heterogenous consumer behaviors on Japanese household demand tested by the random matrix theory. In: Abergel F, Aoyama H, Chakrabarti BK, Chakraborti A,Ghosh A (eds) Econophysics of agent-based models, 2014, Chapter 10. New economic windows series. Springer Verlag, Milan, pp. 187–201Google Scholar
  7. Ben-Akiva M, Lerman S (1985) Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Durlauf SN (1997) Statistical mechanics approaches to socioeconomic behavior. In: Arthur WB, Durlauf SN, Lane DA (eds) The economy as an evolving complex system II. Addison-Wesley, Reading, pp 81–104Google Scholar
  9. Hildenbrand W (1994) Market demand. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  10. Iyetomi H et al (2011a) What causes business cycles? Analysis of the Japanese industrial production data. J Jpn Int Econ 25:246–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Iyetomi H et al (2011b) Fluctuation-dissipation theory of input-output interindustrial correlations. Phys Rev E 83:12. 016103Google Scholar
  12. Kitagawa G, Gersch W (1984) A smoothness priors-state space approach to the modeling of time series with trend and seasonality. J Am Stat Assoc 79(386):378–389.
  13. Koppelman FS, Bhat S (2006) A self instructing course in mode choice modeling: multinomial and nested logit models.
  14. Lewbel A (1994) An examination of Werner Hildenbrand’s market demand. J Econ Lit 32: 1832–1841Google Scholar
  15. Luce R (1959) Individual choice behavior: a theoretical analysis. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. McFadden DL (1984) Econometric analysis of qualitative response models. Handbook of Econometrics, vol II, Chap. 24. Elsevier Science Publishers BV, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  17. Mizuno T, Watanabe T (2010) A statistical analysis of product prices in online market. Eur Phys J B 76:501–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mizuno T, Nirei M, Watanabe T (2010) Closely competing firms and price adjustment: some findings from an online marketplace? Scand J Econ 112(4):673–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications of Japan (2013a) Monthly Expenditure per Household (MEH).
  20. Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications of Japan (2013b) The report on family income and expenditure.
  21. United States Census Bureau (2013) X-13ARIMA-SEATS seasonal adjustment program.
  22. Wald A (1933–34) Über die Eindeutig Positive Löbarkeit der Neuen Produktionsgleichungen. Ergebnisse eines Mathematischen Kolloquiums 6:12–20Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yuji Aruka
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of CommerceChuo UniversityHachioijiJapan

Personalised recommendations