Editing Division of labour (section)

== Modern theories ==

=== William Petty ===
[[File:Sir William Petty.jpg|thumb|Sir William Petty|163x163px]]
[[File:Petty - Economic writings, 1899 - 5179309.tif|thumb|Petty - Economic Writings, 1899|195x195px]]

Sir [[William Petty]] was the first modern writer to take note of the division of labour, showing its has worth in existence and usefulness in Dutch [[shipyard]]s. Classically, the workers in a [[shipyard]] would build ships as units, finishing one before starting another. But the Dutch had it organised with several teams each doing the same tasks for successive ships. People with a particular task to do must have discovered new methods that were only later observed and justified by writers on [[political economy]].

Petty also applied the principle to his survey of [[Ireland]]. His breakthrough was to divide up the work so that large parts of it could be done by people with no extensive training.

=== Bernard de Mandeville ===
[[File:The Fable of the Bees, by Bernard Mandeville (title page).jpg|thumb|''Fable of the Bees'' by Bernard Mandeville|141x141px]]

[[Bernard Mandeville|Bernard de Mandeville]] discussed the matter in the second volume of ''[[The Fable of the Bees]]'' (1714). This elaborates many matters raised by the original poem about a 'Grumbling Hive'. He says:
{{blockquote|But if one will wholly apply himself to the making of Bows and Arrows, whilst another provides Food, a third builds Huts, a fourth makes Garments, and a fifth Utensils, they not only become useful to one another, but the Callings and Employments themselves will in the same Number of Years receive much greater Improvements, than if all had been promiscuously followed by every one of the Five.}}

=== David Hume ===
{{blockquote|When every individual person labors apart, and only for himself, his force is too small to execute any considerable work; his labor being employed in supplying all his different necessities, he never attains a perfection in any particular art; and as his force and success are not at all times equal, the least failure in either of these particulars must be attended with inevitable ruin and misery. Society provides a remedy for these three inconveniences. By the conjunction of forces, our power is augmented: By the partition of employments, our ability increases: And by mutual succor we are less exposed to fortune and accidents. 'Tis by this additional force, ability, and security, that society becomes advantageous.}} - David Hume, [[A Treatise on Human Nature]]

=== Henri-Louis Duhamel du Monceau ===
[[File:Duhamel.jpg|thumb|143x143px|[[Facsimile]] of the first page of du Monceau's introduction to ''Art de l'Épinglier'', with "division de ce travail" highlighted]]
In his introduction to ''The Art of the Pin-Maker'' (''Art de l'Épinglier'', 1761),<ref name=":1">[[Henri-Louis Duhamel du Monceau|du Monceau, Henri-Louis Duhamel]]. 1761. "[[:File:Duhamel.jpg|Introduction]]." In ''Art de l'Épinglier'', by R. Réaumur, and A. de Ferchault. Paris: Saillant et Nyon.</ref> [[Henri-Louis Duhamel du Monceau]] writes about the "division of this work":<ref name=":1" />

{{blockquote|There is nobody who isn't surprised of the small price of [[pin]]s; but we shall be even more surprised, when we know how many different operations, most of them very delicate, are mandatory to make a good pin. We are going to go through these operations in a few words to stimulate the curiosity to know their detail; this enumeration will supply as many articles which will make the division of this work.… The first operation is to have brass go through the drawing plate to calibrate it.…|title=|source=}}

By "division of this work," du Monceau is referring to the subdivisions of 
the text describing the various trades involved in the pin making activity; this can also be described as a division of labour.

=== Adam Smith ===
[[File:Adam Smith The Muir portrait.jpg|thumb|Adam Smith portrait]]

In the first sentence of ''[[The Wealth of Nations|An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations]]'' (1776), [[Adam Smith]] foresaw the essence of industrialism by determining that division of labour represents a substantial increase in productivity. Like du Monceau, his example was the making of pins.

Unlike [[Plato]], Smith famously argued that the difference between a street porter and a philosopher was as much a consequence of the division of labour as its cause. Therefore, while for Plato the level of specialisation determined by the division of labour was externally determined, for Smith it was the dynamic engine of economic progress. However, in a further chapter of the same book, Smith criticised the division of labour, saying that it makes man "as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become" and that it can lead to "the almost entire corruption and degeneracy of the great body of the people.…unless government takes some pains to prevent it."<ref>{{Cite book |last=Smith |first=Adam |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=HTy_yAEACAAJ |title=An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations |date=1976 |publisher=[[University of Chicago Press]] |isbn=978-0-226-76374-3 |editor-last=Cannan |editor-first=Edwin |edition= |volume= |publication-place=Chicago |pages=ii.302–303 |language=en |quote=In the progress of the division of labour, the employment of the far greater part of those who live by labour, that is, of the great body of people, comes to be confined to a few very simple operations, frequently one or two. But the understandings of the greater part of men are necessarily formed by their ordinary employments. The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects too are, perhaps, always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding, or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. |orig-date=1904}}{{Comment|Curiously, this edition's Index carries no reference to this instance of usage of the phrase 'division of labour.'}}</ref> The contradiction has led to some debate over Smith's opinion of the division of labour.<ref>{{cite web|last=Rothbard|first=Murray|title=The Celebrated Adam Smith|url=https://mises.org/page/1430|website=An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought|publisher=Mises Institute|access-date=2012-05-05|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120612015921/http://mises.org/page/1430|archive-date=12 June 2012}}</ref> [[Alexis de Tocqueville]] agreed with Smith: "Nothing tends to materialize man, and to deprive his work of the faintest trace of mind, more than extreme division of labor."<ref>{{cite book |last= Tocqueville |first= Alexis de |year= 1841 |title= Democracy in America: Volume I |location= New York, NY |publisher= J.&nbsp;& H.&nbsp;G. Langley |page= [https://books.google.com/books?id=s0MWjdGhJyoC&pg=PA460&dq=%22nothing+tends+to%22 460] }}</ref> [[Adam Ferguson]] shared similar views to Smith, though was generally more negative.<ref>{{Cite journal |last= Hill |first= Lisa |year= 2004 |title= Adam Smith, Adam Ferguson and the Division of Labor |url= http://www.adelaide.edu.au/apsa/docs_papers/Others/Hill.pdf |access-date= 1 July 2012 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20130728014052/http://www.adelaide.edu.au/apsa/docs_papers/Others/Hill.pdf |archive-date= 28 July 2013 |url-status= dead}}</ref>

The specialisation and concentration of the workers on their single [[subtasks]] often leads to greater skill and greater productivity on their particular subtasks than would be achieved by the same number of workers each carrying out the original broad task, in part due to increased quality of production, but more importantly because of increased efficiency of production, leading to a higher nominal output of units produced per time unit.<ref>{{cite book |last1=O'Rourke |first1=P.J. |title=On the Wealth of Nations |date=2008 |publisher=Atlantic Books |location=London |isbn=9781843543893 |url=https://atlantic-books.co.uk/book/on-the-wealth-of-nations-3/}}</ref> Smith uses the example of a production capability of an individual pin maker compared to a manufacturing business that employed 10 men:<ref>{{Cite web|title=An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith|url=https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3300/3300-h/3300-h.htm#chap36|access-date=2020-04-22|website=www.gutenberg.org}}</ref><blockquote>One man draws out the wire; another straights it; a third cuts it; a fourth points it; a fifth grinds it at the top for receiving the head; to make the head requires two or three distinct operations; to put it on is a peculiar business; to whiten the pins is another; it is even a trade by itself to put them into the paper; and the important business of making a pin is, in this manner, divided into about eighteen distinct operations, which, in some manufactories, are all performed by distinct hands, though in others the same man will sometimes perform two or three of them. I have seen a small manufactory of this kind, where ten men only were employed, and where some of them consequently performed two or three distinct operations. But though they were very poor, and therefore but indifferently accommodated with the necessary machinery, they could, when they exerted themselves, make among them about twelve pounds of pins in a day. There are in a pound upwards of four thousand pins of a middling size. Those ten persons, therefore, could make among them upwards of forty-eight thousand pins in a day. Each person, therefore, making a tenth part of forty-eight thousand pins, might be considered as making four thousand eight hundred pins in a day. But if they had all wrought separately and independently, and without any of them having been educated to this peculiar business, they certainly could not each of them have made twenty, perhaps not one pin in a day.</blockquote>Smith saw the importance of matching skills with equipment—usually in the context of an [[organization|organisation]]. For example, pin makers were organised with one making the head, another the body, each using different equipment. Similarly, he emphasised a large number of skills, used in cooperation and with suitable equipment, were required to build a ship.

In modern economic discussion, the term ''[[human capital]]'' would be used. Smith's insight suggests that the huge increases in productivity obtainable from [[technology]] or technological progress are possible because human and physical capital are matched, usually in an organisation. See also a short discussion of Adam Smith's theory in the context of [[Pin Factory|business processes]]. [[Charles Babbage|Babbage]] wrote a seminal work "On the Economy of Machinery and Manufactures" analysing perhaps for the first time the division of labour in factories.<ref>{{cite web|last=Rosenberg|first=Nathan|title=Babbage: pioneer economist by Nathan Rosenberg|url=http://projects.exeter.ac.uk/babbage/rosenb.html|access-date=28 March 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304053748/http://projects.exeter.ac.uk/babbage/rosenb.html|archive-date=4 March 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref>

=== Immanuel Kant ===
[[File:Immanuel Kant - Gemaelde 1.jpg|thumb|Kant]]

In the ''[[Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals|Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals]]'' (1785), [[Immanuel Kant]] notes the value of the division of labour:<ref>{{Cite book|title=Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals by Immanuel Kant - Free Ebook|url=https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5682|access-date=2019-04-25|via=Project Gutenberg}}</ref><blockquote>All crafts, trades and arts have profited from the division of labour; for when each worker sticks to one particular kind of work that needs to be handled differently from all the others, he can do it better and more easily than when one person does everything. Where work is not thus differentiated and divided, where everyone is a jack-of-all-trades, the crafts remain at an utterly primitive level.</blockquote>

=== Karl Marx ===
{{Marxism sidebar|expanded=economics}}
Marx argued that increasing the specialisation may also lead to workers with poorer overall skills and a lack of enthusiasm for their work. He described the process as [[Marx's theory of alienation|alienation]]: workers become more and more specialised and work becomes repetitive, eventually leading to complete alienation from the process of production. The worker then becomes "depressed spiritually and physically to the condition of a machine."<ref>Marx, Karl. [1844] 1963. "[[Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844|Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844]]." In ''Karl Marx Early Writings'', edited by [[T. B. Bottomore]]. London: [[Charles Albert Watts|C.A. Watts and Co]]. § First Manuscript, p.&nbsp;72.</ref>

Additionally, Marx argued that the division of labour creates less-skilled workers. As the work becomes more specialised, less training is needed for each specific job, and the workforce, overall, is less skilled than if one worker did one job entirely.<ref>Marx, Karl. 1849. "[[Wage Labour and Capital|Wage Labor & Capital]]."</ref>

Among Marx's theoretical contributions is his sharp distinction between the economic and the [[social division of labour]].<ref>[[Marx, Karl]]. [1867] 1977. ''[[Capital, Volume I|Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1]].'' New York: [[Vintage Books]]. pp. 781–94.</ref> That is, some forms of labour co-operation are purely due to "technical necessity", but others are a result of a "social control" function related to a class and status hierarchy. If these two divisions are conflated, it might appear as though the existing division of labour is technically inevitable and immutable, rather than (in good part) socially constructed and influenced by [[Power (sociology)|power]] relationships. He also argues that in a [[communism|communist]] society, the division of labour is transcended, meaning that balanced human development occurs where people fully express their nature in the variety of creative work that they do.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Rattansi |first=Ali |url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-349-16829-3 |title=Marx and the Division of Labour |date=1982 |publisher=Macmillan Education UK |isbn=978-0-333-28556-5 |location=London |language=en |doi=10.1007/978-1-349-16829-3}}</ref>

=== Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson ===
[[Henry David Thoreau]] criticised the division of labour in ''[[Walden]]'' (1854), on the basis that it removes people from a sense of connectedness with society and with the world at large, including nature. He claimed that the average man in a civilised society is less wealthy, in practice, than one in a "savage" society. The answer he gave was that [[self-sufficiency]] was enough to cover one's basic needs.<ref name=":2" />

Thoreau's friend and mentor, [[Ralph Waldo Emerson]], criticised the division of labour in his "[[The American Scholar]]" speech: a widely informed, [[Holism|holistic]] citizenry is vital for the spiritual and physical health of the country.<ref name=":2">{{Cite book|title=Scientific management : a management idea to reach a mass audience|last=Khurana|first=A.|date=2009|publisher=Global India Pub|isbn=978-93-80228-01-3|location=New Delhi|oclc=495418951}}</ref>

=== Émile Durkheim ===
In his seminal work, ''[[The Division of Labor in Society]]'', [[Émile Durkheim]]<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Alpert|first1=Harry|year=1959|title=Emile Durkheim: A Perspective and Appreciation|journal=American Sociological Review|volume=24|issue=4|pages=462–65|doi=10.2307/2089532|jstor=2089532}} A founding father of sociology, [[Émile Durkheim]], best known for his 1893 seminal work, ''[[The Division of Labour in Society|De La Division Du Travail Social]]'' [''The Division of Labor in Society''], "dedicated himself to the establishment of sociology as a legitimate and respected science and as an instrument of rational social action."</ref> observes that the division of labour appears in all societies and positively correlates with societal advancement because it increases as a society progresses.

Durkheim arrived at the same conclusion regarding the positive effects of the division of labour as his theoretical predecessor, [[Adam Smith]]. In ''The Wealth of Nations'', Smith observes the division of labour results in "a proportionable increase of the productive powers of labor."<ref>{{Cite book |last=Smith |first=Adam |title=The Wealth of Nations |date=2012-01-23 |publisher=Simon & Brown |isbn=978-1-61382-931-8 |language=English}}</ref> While they shared this belief, Durkheim believed the division of labour applied to all "biological organisms generally," while Smith believed this law applied "only to human societies."<ref name="JonesRobert">{{Cite book |last=Jones |first=Robert Alun |title=Emile Durkheim: an introduction to four major works |date=1992 |publisher=Sage Publ |isbn=978-0-8039-2333-1 |edition=4 |series=Masters of social theory |location=Newbury Park, California}}</ref> This difference may result from the influence of [[Charles Darwin]]'s ''[[On the Origin of Species]]'' on Durkheim's writings.<ref name="JonesRobert" /> For example, Durkheim observed an apparent relationship between "the functional specialisation of the parts of an organism" and "the extent of that organism's evolutionary development," which he believed "extended the scope of the division of labour so as to make its origins contemporaneous with the origins of life itself…implying that its conditions must be found in the essential properties of all organised matter."<ref name="JonesRobert" />

Since Durkheim's division of labour applied to all organisms, he considered it a "[[natural law]]" and worked to determine whether it should be embraced or resisted by first analysing its functions.<ref name="JonesRobert" /> Durkheim hypothesised that the division of labour fosters [[social solidarity]], yielding "a wholly moral phenomenon" that ensures "mutual relationships" among individuals.<ref name="Durkheim Emile">Durkheim, Emile. [1893] 1997. ''[[The Division of Labour in Society|The Division of Labor in Society]].'' New York: [[Free Press (publisher)|The Free Press]]. Print.</ref>
[[File:Émile Durkheim.jpg|thumb|Émile Durkheim]]
As social solidarity cannot be directly quantified, Durkheim indirectly studies solidarity by "classify[ing] the different types of law to find...the different [[Mechanical and organic solidarity|types of social solidarity]] which correspond to it."<ref name="Durkheim Emile" /> Durkheim categorises:<ref name="Anderson Margaret">[[Margaret L. Anderson|Anderson, Margaret L.]] and [[Howard F. Taylor]]. 2008. ''Sociology: Understanding a Diverse Society.'' Belmont, CA: [[Thomson Wadsworth]]. Print.</ref>

* [[criminal law]]s and their respective punishments as promoting '''mechanical solidarity''', a sense of unity resulting from individuals engaging in similar work who hold shared backgrounds, traditions, and values; and
* [[Civil law (legal system)|civil laws]] as promoting '''organic solidarity''', a society in which individuals engage in different kinds of work that benefit society and other individuals.

Durkheim believes that [[organic solidarity]] prevails in more advanced societies, while mechanical solidarity typifies less developed societies.<ref>Moody, James. n.d. ''Sociology 138: Theory and Society.'' [[Duke University]], Department of Sociology. Web. Retrieved 16 November 2012.</ref> He explains that in societies with more mechanical solidarity, the diversity and division of labour is much less, so individuals have a similar worldview.<ref name="Merton Robert">{{cite journal | last1 = Merton | first1 = Robert K | year = 1994 | title = Durkheim's Division of Labor in Society | journal = Sociological Forum | volume = 9 | issue = 1| pages = 17–25 | doi=10.1007/bf01507702| s2cid = 144951894 }}</ref> Similarly, Durkheim opines that in societies with more organic solidarity, the diversity of occupations is greater, and individuals depend on each other more, resulting in greater benefits to society as a whole.<ref name="Merton Robert" /> Durkheim's work enabled [[social science]] to progress more efficiently "in…the understanding of human social behavior."<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Alpert | first1 = Harry | year = 1959 | title = Emile Durkheim: A Perspective and Appreciation | journal = American Sociological Review | volume = 24 | issue = 4| pages = 462–65 | doi=10.2307/2089532| jstor = 2089532 }}</ref>

=== Ludwig von Mises ===
[[File:Ludwig von Mises.jpg|thumb|Ludwig von Mises|219x219px]]
Marx's theories, including his negative claims regarding the division of labour, have been criticised by the [[Austrian economists]], notably [[Ludwig von Mises]]. The primary argument is that the economic gains accruing from the division of labour far outweigh the costs, thus developing on the thesis that division of labour leads to cost efficiencies. It is argued that it is fully possible to achieve balanced human development within [[capitalism]] and [[Marx's theory of alienation|alienation]] is downplayed as mere romantic fiction.

According to [[Ludwig von Mises|Mises]], the idea has led to the concept of [[mechanisation]] in which a specific task is performed by a mechanical device, instead of an individual labourer. This method of production is significantly more effective in both yield and [[Cost-effectiveness analysis|cost-effectiveness]], and utilises the division of labour to the fullest extent possible. [[Ludwig von Mises|Mises]] saw the very idea of a task being performed by a specialised mechanical device as being the greatest achievement of division of labour.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Mises|first=Ludwig|title=Human Action: A Treatise on Economics|year=1949|pages=164}}</ref>

=== Friedrich A. Hayek ===
In "[[The Use of Knowledge in Society]]", [[Friedrich A. Hayek]] states:<ref>[[Friedrich A. Hayek|Hayek, Friedrich A.]] 1945. "[[The Use of Knowledge in Society]]." ''[[The American Economic Review|American Economic Review]]'' 35(4):519–30.</ref>
[[File:Friedrich Hayek portrait.jpg|thumb|Friedrich Hayek portrait|200x200px]]

{{blockquote|The price system is just one of those formations which man has learned to use (though he is still very far from having learned to make the best use of it) after he had stumbled upon it without understanding it. Through it not only a division of labour but also a coordinated utilisation of resources based on an equally divided knowledge has become possible. The people who like to deride any suggestion that this may so usually distort the argument by insinuating that it asserts that by some miracle just that sort of system has spontaneously grown up which is best suited to modern civilisation. It is the other way round: man has been able to develop that division of labour on which our civilisation is based because he happened to stumble upon a method which made it possible. Had he not done so, he might still have developed some other, altogether different, type of civilisation, something like the "state" of the termite ants, or some other altogether unimaginable type.|title=|source=}}