Correlation between currency consciousness
among participants of community currency and its circulation
Shigeto KOBAYASHI1, Takashi HASHIMOTO1, Ken-ichi KURITA2 and Makoto NISHIBE3<s-kobaya@jaist.ac.jp, hash@jaist.ac.jp, kuririne@nifty.com, nishibe@econ.hokudai.ac.jp>
Abstract:
This study investigated correlations between circulation state of community currency and people’s money
consciousness based on the concept of micro-meso-macro loop. Money consciousness is an attitude towardcurrency system. We surveyed people’s money consciousness by a questionnaire consisting of 27 questions. A
factor analysis of the questionnaire yielded three factors: “currency diversity” (F1), “fairness” (F2),and “profit orientation” (F3). From analysis of the results of our questionnaire, we found the followings: 1)
The operators of community currencies tended to put more importance on “currency diversity” and “fairness”
than the members of financial organizations. 2) The users of community currency with high circulation had
higher “diversity” and “fairness” than those with low circulation. 3) The users of better understanding ofcommunity currency placed a high value on “currency diversity”. We concluded that accepting “currency
diversity” by many residents was important for circulation of community currency.
Keywords: Community currency, Money consciousness, Micro-meso-macro loop, Institutional ecology,
Institutional design
1. Introduction
The 3418 local projects for community currencies are found in 23 countries, across 6 countries (Seyfang& Longhurst, 2013). Unfortunately, few community currencies succeed in circulation maintaining a certain
economic scale over a prolonged period. A systematic schema for circulating community currency, even if it issettled beforehand, does not always work. We should consider not only the systematic schema but also
people’s thinking about money in order for community currency to be accepted in an area as a useful currency.
We suppose, as an important underling structure of the currency system, there exists money consciousness
which forms not only a standard for decision making in a given money system but also a standard of values
for various currency systems.
We consider that the formation, establishment and change of social institution such as community
currency are characterized by interaction loops among micro, meso, and macro levels. A micro-level consistsof individuals’ behavior and cognition. A macro-level consists of social consequence of such behavior andcognition. We think of social institution as lying in-between the micro and macro levels and mediating the twolevels. This structural relation is called “micro-meso-macro loop” (Nishibe, 2012). Institutions not only
regulate individuals’ cognition and behavior but also are formed, maintained, changed, and disappeared byindividuals’ cognition and behavior. Further, the accumulation of people’s cognition and behavior bring out
social consequences and the social consequences affect the institutions. Namely, the mutually determining
loops exist not only between social institutions and individuals’ cognition and behavior, but also between
institutions and social consequences.
Institutions regulate cognition and behavior of individuals at the micro-level by including influencesfrom the macro-level, as well as depend on them. Institutions provide social consequences at the macro-levelby including influences from the micro-level, as well as depend on the social consequences. Institutions also
work as a field bringing interactions between the micro and macro levels. Thus, we place social institutions at
the meso-level. They exist completely neither at the micro nor the macro levels, but present at the meso-level
mediating interactions between the micro and macro levels.
While people at the micro-level possess values and norms individually, individuals’ values and norms
and institutions must affect mutually due to the interaction between the micro individuals and the meso

1

School of Knowledge Science, Japan Advanced Institute of Technology, Japan

2

Keio Research Institute at SFC, Japan

3

Graduate School of Economics and Business Administration, Hokkaido University, Japan

1

institutions. When a particular value consciousness is common in a society, the value consciousness is also
thought of as an institution. Although people’s value consciousness is neither an explicit law nor rule, it
governs people’s thought and behavior. If we consider explicit law and rule as “external rule”, we can callvalues and norms “internal rules” that individuals hold (Nishibe, 2012). Therefore, the value consciousness isthought of as belonging to the meso-level and influences indirectly and mutually the external rules at themeso-level and consequences at the macro-level, which govern cognition and behavior of the micro actors.
This complex interaction loop of “micro-meso-macro loop” is schematically shown in Figure 1.
Social Consequence(Macro-level)

Social Institution(Meso-level)
Shared Value
Consciousness

Individual’s Behavior
and Cognition(Micro-level)

Figure 1

Micro-Meso-Macro loop including shared value consciousness

The community currency system is an instance of such social institution. A community currency system
works because rules and value consciousness supporting community currency are accepted by many
individuals and organizations at the micro-level. Individuals and organizations can buy or sell goods andservices with community currency. Economic performance and pattern as social consequences at themacro-level emerge through “community currency” system and shared value consciousness at the meso-levelfrom transactions at the micro-level. Emerged social consequence affects individual’s behavior, cognition andvalue consciousness. If introduction of community currency leads to a positive social consequence, people use
more community currency and appreciate currency diversity.
In a society, various institutions, such as a nation state, laws, currency, and markets, coexist at the sametime. These institutions form competitive and/or complementary relationships as results of interactions amongpeople’s cognition and behavior, and change their ranges and scales of influences and operations. Such asystem that several institutions coexist and develop or disappear through interactions among institutions iscalled “institutional ecology” (Hashimoto & Nishibe, 2005; 2012). Traditional views of institutions havefocused exclusively on external rules in an attempt to understand institutions. Therefore, the existence androles of internal rules have been ignored. However, as stated above, within the conceptualization of
micro-meso-macro loop, understanding the interaction dynamics between external and internal rules is critical.
There are many external rules such as laws and regulations, as well as internal rules such as customs, practices,and values that are shared among a relatively large number of individuals. In institutional ecology, relative
frequency of people’s value consciousness produces a diversity of institutions. Two types of institutions,which interact within each type and also between two types, mutually support and induce changes one
another.
Community currency is formed based on a variety of values and norms. Kobayashi & Nishibe (2010)
pointed out that currency system can be an institutional ecology by referring to an example of the currency
system in Argentina. Argentine peso collapsed due to government’s default in 2001, and then people’s
consciousness about the credit of the currency and currency system changed in Argentina. Three large flows
occurred as a transformation of the currency system by the Argentine peso shortage. 1) Argentine peso →2

US dollar (key currency), 2) Argentine peso → Patacón or LECOP (bonds issued by government ofprovince), 3) Argentine peso → Crédito (community currency issued by Global Exchange Network, RGT).
After the default, alternative currency to Argentine peso had been developed for several years in Argentina.
Four different currencies, key currency, national currency, bond currency and community currency, circulated
in Argentina at the same time. Once a mutually complementary currencies system development, network
externality by the single currency system did not work and then transaction cost by using different currencies
in a market increased. Therefore, such situation that multiple currencies coexist cannot be explained byeconomic rationality such as convenience and efficiency. Supposing that a currency system reflects people’svalue consciousness that has diversity may be more reasonable.
However, in actual society, various and sustainable institutions corresponding to the diversity of value
consciousness do not always exist. Kobayashi, Nishibe, et al (2010) proposed the following three reasons forsuch diversified social institutions are not continuously observed: 1) A society is locked in a dominant value
such as economic efficiency, although people are aware of the diversity of value consciousness. 2) People are
not fully conscious of the diversity of their own values. 3) There is no diversity of values. Thus, establishing asocial institution implies that a particular value consciousness is shared by the most of the people and isapparent in the society. In understanding the formation and change of institutions, we should consider not only
the relationships between the micro individual values and economic consequences at the macro-level but also
the relationships between shared value consciousness at the meso-level and the micro and macro levels. We
need to take the latter relationship into consideration when we think of the sustainability and change ofcommunity currency systems.
Money consciousness is one of such value consciousness placed at the meso-level and a standard ofvalue for decision making in a currency system. Although micro individuals have various values
consciousness related to money, a collective value consciousness related to money and shared among people
is taken as “money consciousness” in this study. We aim at clarifying how money consciousness works for thecommunity currency systems.
This paper is organized as follows. In section 2 research methods, money consciousness questionnaire isreported. Our hypotheses to be tested are also given. Two results of analysis of questionnaire survey are
explained in section 3. One is the difference of money consciousness between community currency
participants and financial organization participants. The other is the difference of money consciousness indifferent currency systems. We discuss these results in section 4 from the viewpoint of micro-meso-macro
loop in the circulation test of community currencies. Finally our conclusion is delivered in section 5.
2.

Research method
We investigated correlations between the circulation state of community currency and the money
consciousness among participants of community currency. We developed a new questionnaire about people’s
attitude toward money and use it in areas where community currencies are introduced. Existing money
attitude scales were developed to examine mainly people’s attitude toward the intended use of the money(Yamauchi & Templer, 1982; Furnham, 1984). Our questionnaire consisting of 27 questions asks broader andlatent value consciousness such as criteria to select an institution from plural options of currency systems,
purposes and current status of issuing, steering, and distribution of currency, as well as the way to use moneyor what is possible by money (see appendix 1 for details). Our questionnaire contained a different response
scale: a five-point Likert scale. We have conducted the questionnaire survey in Japan, Argentina, Brazil, andItaly. More than 500 people answered this questionnaire.
To achieve the purpose, we set two hypotheses to be tested:
1. There is a difference of money consciousness between participants of community currency and others.
2. There is a correlation between resident’s money consciousness and circulation status of community
currency.
To test the first hypothesis, we investigated correlations between social activities and money
consciousness in the participants of community currencies and the members of financial organizations. The
reason why we focused on these two types of people is the following. The participants of community currency

3

belong to a reciprocal community where they develop collaborative relationships. On the other hand, themember of financial organizations belongs to communities that pursue interests every day in a roughcompetitive environment. In our survey, 76.9% of community currency participants were collected in Buenos
Aires, Argentina. They were users or operators of “Crédito”, a community currency in Buenos Aires. The
members of financial organizations were Japanese and worked at a commercial bank or a security firm.
Characteristics of the sample are reported in Table 1. “Working people” belong to neither the group ofcommunity currencies nor the group of financial organizations. In this analysis, we treat “working people”,“undergraduate students” and “graduate students” as one group, named “others”.
Table 1Social activity of samples

Sex
Group
Male
Female Non-response
Working people
17110Participants of CCs
18
7
1
Members of financial organization
12
14
1
Undergraduate students34
50
Graduate students
22
12
0
Sum
103
49
2

Sum
28
26
27
39
34
154

To test the second hypothesis, we examined the difference of money consciousness among three areas inJapan, Brazil and Italy under each different currency system. Table 2 shows respondents to the survey. The
first group is residents in Musashino-chuo area, Tokyo, Japan (n=85). Community currency “Mu-chu” 4 wasissued in Musashino-chuo area. The community currency was mainly used for compensation paid-volunteer.
The area is a wealthy quarter in Japan, the average income of the residents was about $50,000. The second
group is the users and the operators of Banco Palmas5, in Palmeira, Fortaleza, Brazil (n=32). Banco Palmas
operates a microcredit system by community currency “Palma” which has been used to purchase commodities
in Palmeira. Finally, the third group is people who live in Turin or Milan, Italy (n=28). Italy is an eurozone
nation, and the people had no idea of a community currency. Each sample in two tests is independent.
Table 2Area
Musashino-chuo
Palmeira
North Italy
Sum

Sample Characteristics among 3 areas

Male
15
13
10
38

Sex
FemaleNon-response
67
3
18
1
16
2
101
6

3.

Sum
85
32
28
145

Results
3.1. Community Currency Participants VS Financial Organization Participants
A factor analysis was performed on the twenty seven items. The scree plot suggested a three-factor
solution, included eighteen items and explained 45.5% of the variance in the data with eigenvalues greaterthan 1.0, and factor loadings greater than 0.35. A three-factor solution was attempted using Promax rotation.
The first factor had an eigenvalue of 3.72, accounted for 23.2% of the variance and consisted of eight items.
The second factor had an eigenvalue of 1.91, accounted for 12.0% of variance and consisted of seven items.
The third factor had an eigenvalue of 1.75, accounted for 10.9% of variance and consisted of three items.
Factor pattern after Promax rotation was reported in Table 3. Items with a high loading of the first factor
represented the people’s demand for diversity of money. Items with a high loading of the second factor relate
to the equitable distribution of money. Items with a high loading of the third factor represented the worship of
4
5

For further details of “Mu-chu”, the reader should refer to (Kurita et al., 2012).
For further details of “Banco Palmas”, the reader should refer to (Jayo et al., 2009).

4money. The three factors were named: Currency Diversity ― F1, Fairness ― F2, and Profit Orientation ― F3.
Reliability analysis was conducted to test the reliability and internal consistency of each factor. The results
showed that the Alpha coefficients of F1 and F2 were 0.80 and 0.67, respectively, well above the minimum
value of 0.50 that is considered acceptable as an indication of reliability for basic research. However, Alphacoefficient of F3 was 0.47 that had the low internal consistency.
Table 4 shows correlation among the three factors. The results only indicated a significant correlation
between F1 and F2. Table 5 shows the correlation among three subscale scores with participants ofcommunity currency and the members of financial organizations. Scores of participants of community
currency indicated a significant inverse correlation between F1 and F2 while score of the members offinancial organizations showed a significant correlation between F1 and F2. The participants of community
currency considered “currency diversity” and “profit orientation” as having opposite direction, while themembers of financial organizations relate “currency diversity” closely to “profit orientation”. Both have little
apparent connection between “currency diversity” and “fairness”.
Table 3

Factor analysis of money consciousness survey (factor pattern after Promax rotation )

F1

F2

F3

22) Do you think it is good that we have different moneys from national currencies to live with?

.72

-.05

.04

4) Do you think it is good that money can be created or issued freely by people?

.71

.11

.00

25) Do you think it is good that money can be issued or created not only by the central bank orcommercial banks, but also by people or communities?

.67

.12

-.11

23) Do you think it is good for money to be single?

-.64

.40

.14

8) Do you think it is good that money can be issued or created not only by the central bank orcommercial banks, but also by the government?

.54

.14

.14

11) Do you think it is good that money can be something that mutually connects people?

.51

.02

.26

17) Do you think it is good that we can choose favorite ones out of different moneys?

.48

.17

.20

2) Do you think it is natural for money to be interest-bearing?

-.40

-.17

.24

.14

.60

-.05

.15

.53

.02

.10

.49

-.17

10) Do you think the government should provide every adult beyond a certain age with basic
income for their minimum standard of living?
19) Do you think it is good that we accommodate each other with money?
13) Do you think moneylenders should not be in such financial institutions as commercial banks,
but the government?
18) Do you think money should not concentrate in a tiny fraction of people, but disperse amongthem?
27) Do you think it is good for money to be able to be passable at any place and area?

.05

.47

-.22

-.05

.45

.43

21) Do you think it is good for money to be stable in its value?

-.21

.42

.01

20) Do you think it is good to lend your friend your money when they are in a financial need?

-.03

.39

-.06

7) Do you think it's good for the money to be able to buy anything you want?

.07

-.15

.63

12) Do you think it is good that money can be created or issued for the purpose of profit?

.26

-.19

.48

15) Do you think it is better to earn more money?

-.03

.00

.42

5

Table 4

Factor correlation, mean, and SD of subscale scores

Currency diversity
Currency diversity―
Fairness
Profit orientaion**

Fairness**.30―

Profit orientation Mean SD
-.02
2.78
.83
-.09
3.47
.69
―
2.91
.90

p <.01
Table 5 Factor correlation of subscale scores（The participants of CC and the members of financial organization）

Currency Diversity Fairness Profit orientation
Participants of community currency(n=26)
Currency diversity
Fairness
Profit orientaion
Currency diversity
Fairness
Profit orientaion** p <.01 * p <.05
Table 6――
Members of financial organization(n=27)
―

.40 *
-.15

.02
―
―

ANOVA among 3 groups

Members offinancial3.41(1.15)
2.14(.50)
4.28(.45)
3.06(.58)
2.72(1.14)
2.80(.82)

Participants of CCs
Currency Diversity
Fairness
Profit orientaion
Mean(SD)-.53 **
-.31

-.08
―

Others2.76(.57)
3.37(.60)
2.98(.84)

p -value
.00
.00
.33

We classified samples into 3 groups on such affiliation (the participants of community currency, themembers of financial organizations and others). ANOVA was conducted as dependent variables which arescores of the three factors. A number of the community currency participants were 26, number of the membersof financial organizations and number of others was 101. The results show significant differences in “currency
diversity” and “fairness” (F (2, 150) = 22.49, p <.01；F (2, 150）= 34.23, p <.01). When the ANOVA wassignificant, differences among scores of three factors were determined using Turkey’s test. The result showedsignificantly different between all gropes in “currency diversity” and “fairness”.
Table 6 shows the participants of community currency tend to put more importance on “currency
diversity” than the members of financial organizations do. The participants of community currency are likely
to consider that government and peers should ensure stable livelihoods of poor people. We think that 3 groups
do not place value on “profit orientation” because each average subscale score of profit orientation were lessthan 3.0 that is middle point.
3.2. Differences of money consciousness by currency systems
ANOVA was conducted by three factors as dependent variables, which were found from the previous
analysis (Table 7). The result shows significant differences in all factors. Table 8 indicates average scores of
items belonging to “currency diversity”. Since the first item “Do you think it is good for money to be single?”
is an inverse item for “currency diversity”, a higher score in this item means not to appreciate the currency

6

diversity. Most residents in Musashino-chuo area did not want to use other currency than the Yen because thescores except for the first item are less than the middle point, 3.0. In Palmira area, the items about
denationalization of money were higher than the other items. Conversely, people in north Italy did not
appreciate issue of currency by community organization and approve a single currency in the area.
Table 7

Currency diversity
Fairness
Profit orientaion
Mean(SD)
Table 8AVOVA of subscale score in the three areas

Musashino-chuo
2.53(.54)
3.10(.55)
2.41(.72)

Palmeira North Italy p -value
3.26(.55) 2.65(.63).00
3.91(.60) 3.86(.58).00
3.45(1.03) 2.45(.98).00

Average score of the items in “Currency Diversity”

Do you think it is good for money to be single?
Do you think it is good that money can be issued or created
not only by the central bank or commercial banks, but also
by people or communities?

Musashino-chuo Palmeira North Italy
3.26
2.78
4.11
2.14

4.00

1.89

Do you think it is good that we have different moneys fromnational currencies to live with?

2.76

3.38

2.29

Do you think it is good that we can choose favorite ones outof different moneys?

2.3

3.28

2.61

Table 9 shows the average scores of items in “fairness”. Most of mean scores in “fairness” were morethan 3.0 in the three areas. The score of Fairness in Palmira area was more than in Musashino-chuo area andNorth Italy. The main reason of high fairness in Palmeira area is that Banco Palmas has conducted microcredit
using community currency in order to develop solidarity economy.
Table 9Average score of the items in “Fairness”

Musashino-chuo

Palmeira North Italy

Do you think the government should provide
welfare payment for poverty class?

3.39

4.09

4.46

Do you think money should not concentrate in atiny fraction of people, but disperse among them?

3.42

4.41

4.61

How does people's money consciousness change by introducing a new currency system? To examine theinfluence from money consciousness at the meso-level to individual’s cognition at the micro-level, we
conducted a questionnaire survey before and after a CC circulation experiment in Musashino-chuo area.
Differences in the scores of three factors between before and after the experiment were tested by paired t tests(Table 10). Differences with P < 0.05 were considered not significant in all cases, currency diversity (t(73)=－
6.51，n.s.)，fairness(t(73)= －0.34，n.s.)，profit orientation(t(75)=1.07，n.s.). We could not confirm significant
differences of money consciousness before and after the circulation experiment. What is the relationshipbetween money consciousness and understanding of community currency? Peoples’ money consciousness
may change if they understand the purpose and basic philosophy of community currency. Table 11 shows thedegree of residents’ understanding of community currency before and after the experiment. To compare thechange of understanding of community currency, the statistical difference was determined by McNemar’s test7

(χ2(5)=22.60，p＜.001). Many people who answered “I have heard community currency, but I have little
understanding of it” before the experiment answered “I understand a little about community currency” or “I
understand community currency well” after the experiment. Residents’ understanding of community currency
increased after the experiment. 85% of the respondents answered “I understand a little” or “I understand well”
after the experiment (Table 12). From the results of the change of understanding and the distribution, degreeof understanding of community currency improved and many respondents became to understand wellcommunity currency.
Table 10

Before-experiment
Mean
SD
2.53
.54
3.10
.55
2.41
.72

Currency diversity
Fairness
Profit orientation
Table 11Degree of understand of CC before
the experiment
I don't understand CC at all
I heard CC, but I understand CC little
I understand CC a little
I understand CC welln =84

Subscale scores in the before-after experiment

After-experiment
Mean
SD
2.58
.55
3.10
.57
2.32
.67

t- value
-6.51
-0.34
1.07

Understanding of CC in the before-after experiment

Degree of understanding of CC after the experiment
I don't understand I heard CC, but I
I understand CC I understand CC
CC at allunderstand CC little a little
well
1
3
3
0
0
4
14
2
0
5
30
13
0
0
1
8

Table 12McNemar test
p -value.00

Degree of understanding of CC after the experimentDistribution of degree of understanding of CC after the experimentFrequence（Proportion）
n =85 * p <.001

I don't understand CC I heard CC, but I
I understand CC a little I understand CC well χ2（df =3）
at allunderstand CC little.

p- value

59.71*

0.00

1(1%)

12(14%)

49(58%)

23(27%)The respondents were divided into no-improved and improved groups according to understanding of CC
in the before-after experiment (Table 11). We examined significant differences between two groups.. The
no-improved group did not change understanding of CC between before and after experiment (red line box inTable 11). The improved grope got a better understanding of CC than before experiment (blue line box inTable 11). Table 13 shows the change of subscale scores of two groups in the three factors. The scores in“fairness” and “profit orientation” did not differ significantly among two groups. However, the score of
improved group in “currency diversity” was higher significantly than no-improved group (t(31)=－2.01，p
＜.1).

8

Table 13

Subscale score according to understanding CC in the before-after experiment

Degree of understanding of Before-experiment After-experiment
Deviation p- value
CC
Mean
Mean
No-improved group (n =37)
2.68
2.6
-0.08
.37
Currency diversity
Improved group (n =31)
2.34
2.56
0.22
.05 *
No-improved group (n =37)
3.18
3.18
0
1.00
Fairness
Improved group (n =32)
2.9
2.92
0.02
.78
No-improved group (n =37)
2.36
2.36
0
1.00
Profit orientaion
Improved group (n =33)
2.42
2.29
-0.13
.30
* p<.1
4．Discussion
People engaging in activities related to the management of community currency gave emphasis to“currency diversity” (Table 6), while residents of areas where community currencies are introduced did not
put necessarily emphasis on “currency diversity” (Table 7 & 8). We think that degree of “currency diversity”
may be different how people concern with community currency. Understanding of community currency is oneof the keys to enhance “currency diversity”. If a community currency circulates effectively in an area, orresidents have a better understanding of community currency, it is possible that people’s consciousness on
currency diversity is improved and then the understanding of community currency helps to circulate
community currency effectively.
We redraw the flow of micro-meso-macro loop discussed in the first chapter with the results of ourinvestigations (Figure 2). The introduction of community currency affected behavior and cognition of theresidents, that is, the micro actors. This is not a change of internal rule (cognitive frame, value consciousness)
which determines residents’ behavior and cognition. Internal rule of micro actors was changed by
improvement of understanding of community currency, and the micro actors strengthen the tendency toapprove currency diversity at the meso-level (3). We suppose that if currency diversity is accepted by many
people, the consciousness of currency diversity is transmitted from meso-level to other micro actors (4). It
may form a positive feedback between meso-level and micro-level such as reviewing a rule (5). Moreover,actions from micro-level to macro-level or from meso-level to macro-level may occur. If we can observe theseflow, we can show that micro-meso-macro loop functions in social economic.
Social consequence（macro-level）

Social institution(1) Introductionof CCs(3) Approving
currency
diversity

Figure 2(Meso-level)
Shared money
consciousness
Individuals behavior
and cognition（Micro-level）(5) Reviewing thesystem(4) Effect of currency
diversity(2) Improvementof understandingof CCsFlow of micro-meso-macro loop in the circulation experiment of CC

9The relationship between micro and meso was only drawn in Figure 2 because we has not examined
whether the introduction of community currency has any effect on macro level such as an economic
revitalization. Figure 2 illustrates the relationship between the change of the money consciousness and changeof the institution, if community currency is considered to have an insignificant effect on the macro-level. If theinstitution is reviewed, as indicated by (5) in Figure 2, we can reason the institutional change without
considering the loop including a change at the macro level. For designing a community currency includingchange of people’s consciousness, we can consider using the framework of micro-meso-macro loop what kindof effect on what level in the community the introduction of community currency has. When we think ofinstitutional design causing endogenous macroeconomic changes by the introduction of community currency,
we will be possible to explain how the effect on the micro-level influences the macro-level through themeso-level. We think that it is important not only to circulate community currency but also to raise residents’
understanding of it.
5. Conclusion
In this paper, we considered that how change of shared money consciousness at meso-level emerged andhow shared money consciousness affected micro-level or macro-level based on the concept of
micro-meso-macro loop. From the analysis of the questionnaires about money consciousness at three areas inJapan, Brazil, and Italy, we found the following 2 points.
First, the operators of community currencies tend to put more importance on “currency diversity” and“fairness” than others do. Their money consciousness is quite a contrast to that of members of financialorganizations. Members of financial organizations place less significance on “currency diversity” and“fairness” than ordinary people do.
Second, the users of community currency with high circulation have higher “currency diversity” and“fairness” than the users of community currency with low circulation. Users of community currency (Palmas)
that Banco Palmas issues have higher “currency diversity” and “fairness” than the user of community
currencies with low circulation in Japan. However, this fact does not mean that introduction of community
currency at the meso-level enhanced “currency diversity” and “fairness” of the users at the micro-level. In an
experiment of community currency circulation conducted in the Musashino-chuo area in Japan, no significant
differences were found in the three factors between before and after the circulation experiment. However, theusers of better understanding of community currency become to place a high value on “currency diversity”.
This indicates that individual’s behavior and cognition may act on shared money consciousness at themeso-level.
By analyzing shared money consciousness in terms of the three factors, we conclude that the participantsof community currencies with high circulation have the characteristic money consciousness that is higher“currency diversity” and “fairness” than that of the participants of community currencies with low circulation.
We also claim that the framework of micro-meso-macro loop is a useful tool for analyzing interaction between
micro-level and macro-level though community currency and shared money consciousness at meso-level, andalso a suitable tool for institutional design. Our next task is to offer actual suggestions about the introduction
and promotion of community currency from cognitive aspect such as users’ money consciousness and levelsof understanding of community currency.

References
Furnham, A. (1984). “Many sides of the coin: the psychology of money usage”, Personality and Individual
Differences, Vol. 5, No. 5, pp. 501-509.
Jayo, M., Pozzebon, M., & Diniz, E. H. (2009). Microcredit and Innovative Local Development in Fortaleza,
Brazil: the Case of Banco Palmas. Canadian Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 16, No. 1, 115.
Kobayashi, S.*, Nishibe, M.*, Kurita, K, & Hashimoto, T. (2010) “Difference of Money Consciousness by
Social Activities － Community Currency Participants VS Financial Organization Participants － (inJapanese)”, Kigyo Kenkyu, The Institute of Business Research Chuo University, Vol. 17, pp. 73-91. (*equal
contribution)

10

Kurita, K., Miyazaki, Y. & Nishibe, M. (2012). “CC Coupon Circulation and Shopkeepers’ Behaviour: A Case
Study of the City of Musashino, Tokyo, Japan”, International Journal of Community Currency Research,
Vol. 16 (D), pp. 136-145.
Nishibe, M. (2012). “Community Currencies as Integrative Communication Media for Evolutionist
Institutional Design” International Journal of Community Currency Research, Vol.16 (D), pp. 36-48.
Hashimoto, T. & Nishibe, M. (2012). “Institutional Ecology: A Theoretical Model and Its Economic
Implication (in Japanese)” , Economic Studies, Hokkaido University, Vol. 61, No. 4, pp. 131-151.
Hashimoto, T. & Nishibe, M. (2005). “Rule ecology dynamics for studying dynamical and interactional natureof social institutions”, In M. Sugisaka & H. Tanaka (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth International
Symposium on Artificial Life and Robotics (AROB05) , CD-ROM.
Seyfang, G., & Longhurst, N. (2013). “Growing green money? Mapping community currencies for sustainable
development”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 86, pp. 65-77.
Yamauchi, K. T., & Templer, D. L. (1982). “The development of a money attitude scale”, Journal of
Personality Assessment, Vol. 46, pp. 522-528.

Address of the author
Name: Shigeto KOBAYASHI
Title: Correlation between currency consciousness among participants of community currency and its circulation
Institution: School of Knowledge Science, Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
Address: 1-1 Asahidai, Nomi, Ishikawa 923-1292 Japan
E-mail：s-kobaya@jaist.ac.jp

Appendix 1[Instruction]
Please answer to the following questions, by circling one of five distracters, intuitively in this order without
thinking too much or taking too long (within 20 seconds).
The Questions Start From Here

1) Do you think the government should provide welfare payment for poverty class?
a) Strongly affirmative, b) Weakly affirmative, c) Neutral, d) Weakly negative, e) Strongly negative
2) Do you think it is natural for money to be interest-bearing?
3) Do you think it is good that we have free time even without a lot of money?
4) Do you think it is good that money can be created or issued freely by people?
5) Do you think it is good for money to be created or issued by a credible group or organization?
6) Do you think money is not as important as health?
7) Do you think it's good for the money to be able to buy anything you want?
8) Do you think it is good that money can be issued or created not only by the central bank or commercial
banks, but also by the government?
9) Do you think money can’t buy love and friendship?

1110) Do you think the government should provide every adult beyond a certain age with basic income for theirminimum standard of living?
11) Do you think it is good that money can be something that mutually connects people?
12) Do you think it is good that money can be created or issued for the purpose of profit?
13) Do you think moneylenders should not be in such financial institutions as commercial banks, but the
government?
14) Do you think we need no extra money while we can get along?
15) Do you think it is better to earn more money?
16) Do you think it is good to do volunteer works or make donations without compensation?
17) Do you think it is good that we can choose favorite ones out of different moneys?
18) Do you think money should not concentrate in a tiny fraction of people, but disperse among them?
19) Do you think it is good that we accommodate each other with money?
20) Do you think it is good to lend your friend your money when they are in a financial need?
21) Do you think it is good for money to be stable in its value?
22) Do you think it is good that we have different moneys from national currencies to live with?
23) Do you think it is good for money to be single?
24) Do you think it is good that we have a special money for paying for volunteer work?
25) Do you think it is good that money can be issued or created not only by the central bank or commercial
banks, but also by people or communities?
26) Do you think money transactions should be anonymous?
27) Do you think it is good for money to be able to be passable at any place and area?

12