UTILITY GOODS

Korero (AEWS), Volume 2, Issue 14, 17 July 1944, Page 20

UTILITY GOODS

A KORERO Report

In itself the most wasteful of human activities, war usually brings about the strictest economy on the home front. This war in particular has seen a host of laws and regulations designed to keep civilian consumption of essential goods and services down to a minimum, and prices within reasonable limits. Rationing of certain foodstuffs, clothing, and other necessities, to give everybody enough at controlled prices, has been the most obvious method, and one common to most belligerent countries. Price-fixing on its own has been found to be easily evaded, but, combined with rationing, it has been fairly successful in preventing disastrous rises in the cost to the consumer. Human nature —of consumers as well as suppliers —has, as usual, been the main stumbling-block, and no doubt “ black ” markets will continue to operate in the best regulated communities, but the position would undoubtedly have been far worse without regulation. Price-fixing has been found inadequate, however, where it stops at the cost to the consumer, for if the cost to the retailer goes up then a rise must be sanctioned in the final price. Britain, being a manufacturing country, has found it more effective to control costs at every stage of manufacture and distribution, and thus to control to a certain degree what is being produced as well as its price. In this scheme —called the “ utility scheme ” —the Board of Trade exercises the control, and is using a variety of means to ensure the required supply of what have come to be called " utility goods.” The scheme in Britain covers a wide range of articles, particularly in clothing

and furniture, and the Board of Trade has laid down, at each stage of manufacture, minimum specifications and designs of the articles produced, including the nature or quality of material—or method of construction — the same time fixing a maximum margin of profit, or maximum selling-price, for the manufacturer. Thus the eventual price to the consumer is governed more effectively, and at the same time the most economical use is ensured of the material and labour available. An adequate supply of certified goods is made available to the public, but at the same time manufacturers are allowed a certain latitude in producing “ luxury lines ” and non-utility goods. If no such rein were imposed, the public would find itself paying indirectly for. nonessential goods and non-essential types of necessity lines, but under direct Board of Trade control of production or supply both the public and the manufacturer are protected against the disadvantages of multiplicity. Longer production runs are possible, and prices kept down during a time of general economic stress. The Board of Trade permits manufacturers to devote only a fraction of their output to non-utility goods ; where it has not direct control over production or supply the Board places a quota restriction on non-utility goods, or uses raw material or labour concessions as inducements to manufacturers to adopt the scheme. Moreover, utility goods are exempt from sales tax. At present more than 80 per cent, of the aggregate clothing output and 100 per cent, of the furniture - production in Britain is “ utility,” with consequent saving in

labour and material, reasonable control of prices, rapid replacement and refurnishing of “ blitzed ” homes, and, to a certain extent, the education of the public in good taste and design. Little has so far been accomplished in New Zealand, in comparison with Great Britain, but since the Standards Institute was established as a Government activity about seven years ago a good deal of legislative has been prepared to permit the issue of standard specifications for a large number of the items in the average household budget. Difficulty with Imports The standards of many staple foodstuffs have already been specified, but in clothing so far only footwear has been covered, fifteen utility specifications being already in existence. Several difficulties have been met in the inclusion of other items of clothing, not the least being that much of the material is imported, and standard specifications cannot be established for these materials without the concurrence of overseas interests. A good deal of work has, however, been done in standardizing the basic measurements and size designations of garments, and so increasing their utility and service life. The remaining problems are being

tackled by the Ministry of Industries and Commerce, through the Standards Institute, and progress is hoped for in the near future. . New Zealand can claim to be the first country in the world to produce national standard specifications for footwear, containing minimum requirements for materials, workmanship, and component parts. These specifications were prepared by a committee of technical experts, representative manufacturers, retailers and repairers, and consumer 1 representatives nominated by women’s organizations, the School of Home Science, and the Federation of Labour. In the spirit of the utility

scheme the aim is to do away as fa<r as possible with superfluous types, sizes, and variations, and to produce a sound and inexpensive article suited to the requirements and purchasing power of the general public. Housing, which is estimated to account for 23.3 per cent, of the average cost-of-living budget, is already covered by a Standard Building Code and related standard specifications for building materials. These embody minimum requirements to ensure that houses are properly designed, will have a reasonable life, with low maintenance charges, and will afford proper living-conditions. Even the paint required for the protective coating of a house —a matter of the utmost importance to the householder — is covered by the code. The Standard Mark A number of other miscellaneous items, including fuel and light, soap, brushware, and school stationery, are covered by standards for the protection of the consumer, and there are as well about four hundred technical standards indirectly benefiting the community through reduced production, distribution, and maintenance costs. It has been estimated

that a saving of from 25 per cent, to 33 per cent, has already been effected by the use of such standard specifications, and the increasing use of the Standard Mark, available to traders under license from the Minister of Industries and Commerce, should see a considerable over-all saving not only to the individual consumer, but to the community as a whole. The Standard Mark is registered in New Zealand in the name of His Majesty the King, and its use is permitted only on commodities which comply with NewZealand Standard Specifications as determined by competent opinion representative of producers, distributors, and consumer interests. Its use, therefore, is based on the procedure and precedent of the King’s Hallmark, used on gold and silver ware during the last five centuries. As for commodities for which no standard specification exists as a basis for the use of the Standard Mark, one may be developed upon request, with the co-operation of the affected trading and consumer interests. These standard specifications do not remain static, but are a statement of the soundest trade practice known at a given time, which incorporates later advances as they are attained. They do not curb inventive genius or fetter the expression of aesthetic values in style or design, or in any other way. On the other hand, the use of the Standard Mark is intended to eliminate the loss and waste that arise from the production of a variety of models and types —different only in unimportant details—which mean shorter production runs and increased overhead costs.

Utility, not Austerity This utility scheme, such as it is in New Zealand at present, is a long-range plan, for expansion in peacetime, when, with the gradual disappearance of austerity regulations, the true meaning and value of utility goods will be appreciated. Trousers without turn-ups, teacups without handles, tumblers of beerbottle glass, and other signs of wartime are austerity goods, not utility, and they will fade from the scene as soon as the necessary material resources and labour

can be switched back to civilian uses. The cheapness of utility goods will come from more economical means of production and distribution rather than from the use of inferior materials or over-simplified design. A handle is a useful part of a —particularly when the tea is as hot as it should be—but the embarrassment of weird and bizarre designs hitherto evident in cups, as in many other household articles, is based on effect rather than usefulness, and makes for increased costs and decreased supply. Household furniture also offers great scope for the utility scheme, with many examples of the advantages of simplicity as well as soundness of materials. Simple designs are in better taste, easier to produce— therefore cheaper—make cleaning easier, and matching of suites less difficult. In Britain the Council of Clothing Trade Associations, in a recent report, suggested the adoption after the war of a “ system whereby certain cloths in great demand are made to a standard specification by every manufacturer in great quantities, and therefore at very economical prices.” Whether applied to clothing or to other commodities,

such a scheme would not imply enforced standardization, and would leave manufacturers free to produce all the varieties they like outside the scheme. It would, however, ensure that the community has the choice of buying simple designs of certified quality at fair prices. A Lesson from the Army Here is seen the most valuable lesson of war, as applied to peacetime economy. Little as it may be appreciated, the most efficient Army is the most economically maintained and supplied. At first sight a modern Army has a bewildering array of equipment, particularly in armament and transport, but actually types are kept down to the strictest minimum, and standardized as far as possible to make for more efficient training, replenish-

ment, and actual use in warfare. Types and sizes of trucks, for instance, are kept down in variety, and truck bodies are standardized for all makes of chassis. The soldier’s uniform —not to mention his underclothing—is the very epitome of standardization, and consequent efficiency and economy. Because of this standardization — and the guaranteed demand—the cost of any item of military equipment, whether it be a jeep, a battledress, a tin of bully beef or a tommy-gun, is a mere fraction of what an article of similar certified quality would cost a civilian in peacetime. While it would be undesirable to go to such extremes on “ Civvy Street,” the lesson is clear : Simplicity, at no sacrifice of quality or usefulness, means greater security to producer and consumer alike.