Division of labor
From Free net encyclopedia
Division of labour is generally speaking the specialization of cooperative labour in specific, circumscribed tasks and roles, intended to increase efficiency of output. Historically the growth of a more and more complex division of labour is closely associated with the rise of capitalism, the growth of trade and complexity of industrialization processes. Later, the division of labor reached the level of a scientifically-based management practice with the time and motion studies associated with Taylorism.
In the history of the human species, the first division of labour was between men and women, but it became ever more sophisticated since the invention of agriculture and the dawn of civilization. Some other social animals also exhibit a division of labour.
What appeared to some as the idyllic "wholeness" of pre-civilized life in humans was thought to be due first and foremost to people not being differentiated into specialized roles and functions. That interpretation is countered by the primitive, survivalist habitus of prehistoric man who spent much of his time foraging. Anarcho-primitivism and Primitive Communism are two other theories which explore the politics of these primitivist economic states.
Contents |
Plato
In Plato's Republic we are instructed that the origin of the state lies in that "natural" inequality of humanity that is embodied in the division of labour.
"Well then, how will our state supply these needs? It will need a farmer, a builder, and a weaver, and also, I think, a shoemaker and one or two others to provide for our bodily needs. So that the minimum state would consist of four or five men...." (The Republic, Page 103, Penguin Classics edition.)
Xenophon
Xenophon, writing in the fourth century BC makes a passing reference to division of labour in his 'Cyropaedia' or Education Of Cyrus "Just as the various trades are most highly developed in large cities, in the same way food at the palace is prepared in a far superior manner. In small towns the same man makes couches, doors, ploughs and tables, and often he even builds houses, and still he is thankful if only he can find enough work to support himself. And it is impossible for a man of many trades to do all of them well. In large cities, however, because many make demands on each trade, one alone is enough to support a man, and often less than one: for instance one man makes shoes for men, another for women, there are places even where one man earns a living just by mending shoes, another by cutting them out, another just by sewing the uppers together, while there is another who performs none of these operations but assembles the parts, Of necessity, he who pursues a very specialised task will do it best." (Cited in The Ancient Economy by M. I. Finley. Penguin books 1992, p 135.)
Sir William Petty
Sir William Petty was the first modern writer to take note of division of labour, showing its existence and usefulness in Dutch shipyards. 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. (The ethics of doing this is another matter.)
Adam Smith
In the first sentence of 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 qualitative increase in productivity. His original example was the making of pins. Unlike Plato, Smith did not regard the division of labour as a consequence of human inequality but 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 specialization 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 criticises the division of labour saying it leads to a 'mental mutilation' in workers; they become ignorant and insular as their working lives are confined to a single repetitive task. This contradiction has led to some debate over Smith's opinion of the division of labour.
The specialization 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.
Worker skill is the chief source of productivity gain in Smith's thinking. In modern economic theory, that role has been taken over by overall technological progress and the concept of human capital.
Karl Marx
Increasing specialization may also lead to workers with poorer overall skills and a lack of enthusiasm for their work. This viewpoint was extended and refined by Karl Marx. He described the process as alienation; workers become more and more specialized and work repetitious which eventually leads to complete alienation. Marx wrote that "with this division of labour", the worker is "depressed spiritually and physically to the condition of a machine". He believed that the fullness of production is essential to human liberation and accepted the idea of a strict division of labour only as a temporary necessary evil.
Marx's most important theoretical contribution was his sharp distinction between the social division and the technical or economic division of labour. That is, some forms of labor cooperation are due purely to technical necessity, but others are purely 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 relationships.
It may be, for example, that it is technically necessary that both pleasant and unpleasant jobs must be done by a group of people. But from that fact alone, it does not follow that any particular person must do any particular (pleasant or unpleasant) job. If particular people get to do the unpleasant jobs and others the pleasant jobs, this cannot be explained by technical necessity; it is a socially made decision, which could be made using a variety of different criteria. The tasks could be rotated, or a person could be assigned to a task permanently, and so on.
Marx also suggests that the capitalist division of labour will evolve over time such that the maximum amount of labour is productive labour, where productive labour is defined as labour which creates surplus value.
However, time use surveys suggest that commercially performed labour always depends on, and goes together with, the performance of a very large amount of voluntary labour. To the extent that state subsidies are cut and privatisation increases, more work often devolves on people who must do that work without pay.
In Marx's communist utopia, 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.
Durkheim
Émile Durkheim wrote about a fractionated, unequal world by divining it along the lines of "human solidarity," its essential moral value is division of labour. In 1893 he published "The Division of Labor in Society", his fundamental statement of the nature of human society and its social development. According to Franz Borkenau it was a great increase in division of labour occurring in the 1600s after the Industrial Revolution that introduced the abstract category of work, which may be said to underlie, in turn, the whole modern, Cartesian notion that our bodily existence is merely an object of our (abstract) consciousness.
Von Mises, and globalisation
On the other hand, Marx's theories, including the negative claims regarding the division of labour have been criticized by the Austrian economists, such as Ludwig von Mises.
The main argument here is that the gains accruing from the division of labour by far outweigh the costs; that it is fully possible to achieve balanced human development within capitalism, and that alienation is more a romantic fiction. After all, work is not all there is; there is also leisure time.
The issue reaches its broadest scope in the controversies about globalisation, which is often interpreted as a euphemism for the expansion of world trade based on comparative advantage. This would mean that countries specialise in the work they can do best. Critics however allege that international specialization cannot be explained very well in terms of "the work nations do best", rather this specialization is guided more by commercial criteria, which favour some countries over others.
The OECD recently advised (28 June 2005) that:
"Efficient policies to encourage employment and combat unemployment are essential if countries are to reap the full benefits of globalisation and avoid a backlash against open trade... Job losses in some sectors, along with new job opportunities in other sectors, are an inevitable accompaniment of the process of globalisation... The challenge is to ensure that the adjustment process involved in matching available workers with new job openings works as smoothly as possible/."
Modern debates
In the modern world, those specialists most preoccupied in their work with theorising about the division of labour are those involved in management and organisation. In view of the global extremities of the division of labour, the question is often raised about what division of labour would be most ideal, beautiful, efficient and just.
Labour hierarchy is to a great extent inevitable, simply because no one can do all tasks at once; but of course the way these hierarchies are structured can be influenced by a variety of different factors. The question to ask is what the hierarchy is a hierarchy of.
An important Western concept in this regard is the concept of meritocracy, which could alternately be read as an explanation or as a justification of why a division of labour is the way it is. But it is often agreed that the most equitable principle in allocating people within hierarchies is that of true (or proven) competency or ability.
US 2002 estimates for the division of labor
Statistics may help to reveal some of the dimensions of the division of labour. This example concerns the USA.
First, we can derive the basic employment categories in the USA in 2002 in approximate figures from BLS data, as follows (working our way down from the total population):
- American total resident population 288 million
- population (16+) 224 million
- economically active population 218 million
- total civilian non-institutional population (16+) 215 million
- population 16-65 years old 188 million
- civilian labour force 145 million
- employed civilian labour force 137 million
- Unpaid family workers 0.03 million
- employers 10 million (4.9 million distinct firms, 7 million establishments)
- self-employed (farm) 1 million
- self-employed (non-farm) 9 million
- wage & salary earners 136 million
- employees 127 million
- government employees 20 million
- private sector workforce 105 million
- Parttime workers non-farm 27 million
- Parttime workers farm 0.5 million
- private sector waged employees 95 million
- unionised wage earners 18 million
We can then look at the proportions of what the total American population actually did in 2002, in approximate figures and broad categories:
- Children (under 16, not working for pay) 64 million
- Retired (over 65, not in the labour force) 28 million
- Fulltime housewives, house-husbands and idle not working for pay 22 million
- Industrial production workers 26.2 million
- Managers and executives 15.8 million
- Clerical and administrative workers 15.3 million
- Sales workers 15 million
- Reserve army of unemployed 13 million
- Engineers, architects, technicians, programmers and scientists 10.5 million
- Employers of workers, all kinds 9.8 million
- Supervisors of workers, all kinds 9.1 million
- Teachers, professional childcare workers and paid childcare assistants 8 million
- Transport workers 5 million
- Unskilled labourers, handlers and helpers 4.8 million
- Aides, ushers, guides, orderlies, and attendants 4.8 million
- Personal care, health and medical workers 4.3 million
- Cleaners, janitors, private cooks, maids & housekeepers 3.7 million
- Accountants, auditors, underwriters, and financial officers 2.6 million
- Adults in institutional care n.e.c. 2.5 million
- Specialists & consultants in human resources, PR and labour relations 2.1 million
- Prison & jail inmates 2 million
- Artists, entertainers & designers, photographers, professional athletes, recreational services 1.6 million
- Nursing home residents 1.6 million
- Fulltime criminals and lumpenised, not in corrective institutions 1.5 million
- Lawyers, judges and legal assistants 1.3 million
- Therapists, counselors, social workers and welfare service aides 1.2 million
- Police, detective, and law enforcement officers 1.2 million
- Medical doctors, dentists, vetinarians, optometrists, and podiatrists 1.1 million
- Military personnel, domestic 1.1 million
- Groundskeepers, gardeners, animal caretakers (non-farm) 1.1 million
- Security guards 1 million
- Farmers 1 million
- Prostitutes 1 million
- Working children (under 16) 1 million
- Inspectors (construction, production and compliance) 0.9 million
- Editors, writers, reporters, proofreaders, librarians, archivists, and curators 0.6 million
- Adult hospital patients 0.5 million
- Religious clergy, and employees of religious institutions 0.4 million
- Corrective institution & prison officers 0.3 million
- Firefighting, fire prevention and pest control workers 0.3 million
- Water, sewage and electricity workers 0.2 million
- Hospice inpatients 0.1 million
- Adult psychiatric patients 0.2 million
Finally, we can look at the occupational structure of the employed labour force (including salaried and self-employed) in the USA in 2002, in broad categories, as follows:
- Managers and executives 15,800,000
- Supervisors 9,100,000
- Teaching staff, all kinds 6,600,000
- Machine operating and assembly workers 6,400,000
- Food & beverage preparing and service workers 6,100,000
- Administrative support clerks n.e.c. 5,800,000
- Construction trade workers 5,300,000
- Aides, ushers, guides, orderlies, and attendants 4,800,000
- Mechanics and repairs workers 4,500,000
- Technicians 4,300,000
- Cleaners, janitors, private cooks, maids & housekeepers 3,700,000
- Retail sales workers 3,400,000
- Truck drivers 3,200,000
- Secretaries, stenographers, and typists 3,000,000
- Scientists 3,000,000
- Sales representatives in finance and business services 2,900,000
- Cashiers 2,900,000
- Accountants, auditors, underwriters, and other financial officers 2,600,000
- Engineers, architects, and surveyors 2,600,000
- Freight & stock handlers, baggers & packers, machine feeders 2,400,000
- Labourers & helpers 2,400,000
- Registered nurses 2,300,000
- Financial records processing clerks 2,200,000
- Management analysts, specialists & consultants in human resources, PR and labour relations 2,100,000
- Materials recording, scheduling, and distributing clerks 1,900,000
- Sales representatives in mining, manufacturing, and wholesale 1,500,000
- Childcare workers and childcare assistants 1,400,000
- Lawyers, judges and legal assistants 1,300,000
- Barbers, hairdressers, cosmeticians, pharmacists, dietitians 1,300,000
- Therapists, counselors, social workers and welfare service aides 1,200,000
- Artists, entertainers & designers 1,200,000
- Police, detective, and law enforcement officers 1,200,000
- Military personnel 1,100,000
- Medical doctors, dentists, vetinarians, optometrists, and podiatrists 1,100,000
- Receptionists 1,000,000
- Security guards 1,000,000
- Working children under 16 1,000,000
- Prostitutes 1,000,000
- Farmers 968,000
- Non-financial records processing clerks, 995,000
- Inspectors (construction, production and compliance) 955,000
- Groundskeepers and gardeners (non-farm) 940,000
- Earthmoving equipment, crane, industrial truck, forklift, lorry and tractor operators 898,000
- Metal workers 826,000
- Farm workers 726,000
- Computer programmers 605,000
- Bus drivers 605,000
- Bank tellers 477,000
- Postal delivery workers, messengers & couriers 468,000
- Editors, writers, reporters and proofreaders 417,000
- Religious clergy, and employees of religious institutions 393,000
- Personal services n.e.c. 348,000
- Taxi drivers and chauffeurs 340,000
- Street and door-to-door sales workers 334,000
- Corrective institution & prison officers 328,000
- Doctor's and dental assistants 318,000
- Firefighting and fire prevention workers 262,000
- Electrical and electronic equipment assemblers 237,000
- Librarians, archivists, and curators 231,000
- Butchers and meat cutters 229,000
- Dressmakers, tailors and shoe repairers 189,000
- Professional photographers 178,000
- Animal caretakers (non-farm) 170,000
- Interviewers 169,000
- Airplane pilots, airplane staff, air traffic controllers 152,000
- Bakers and baking workers 148,000
- Recreational services workers 129,000
- Telephone operators 119,000
- Oil & mining extraction workers 115,000
- Railway workers 111,000
- Cabinet makers, furniture & wood finishers, and other woodworkers 104,000
- Newspaper vendors 103,000
- Ship captains, sailors, mates & deckhands, fishermen 98,000
- Professional athletes 95,000
- Social welfare eligibility clerks 86,000
- Sales demonstrators, promoters, and models 77,000
- Water and sewage treatment plant operators 77,000
- Forestry & logging workers 77,000
- Optical goods workers 72,000
- Other precision production workers n.e.c 72,000
- Pest control workers 63,000
- Food batchmakers 54,000
- Other plant & system operators 45,000
- Electric power plant operators 35,000
- Bookbinding workers 35,000
- Nursery workers 33,000
- Hand molders & shapers 21,000
- Patternmakers, layout workers, & cutters 12,000
- Bridge, lock, & lighthouse tenders 3,000
- Hunters & trappers 2,000
These 2002 figures are just intended to provide a modest indication or illustration; of course, the way the division of labour is viewed depends greatly on the identification, classification and aggregation principles applied. A portion of migrant labour typically fails to be captured in the data.
It should be emphasized that the ways in which the division of labour may be viewed are potentially infinite. This give rise to a never-ending stream of management literature.
Normally, statisticians focus on the main occupational activity or employment status of members of the population; but of course individuals may also divide their time between different activities which are still not adequately captured in survey data.
Consequently, it is always important in making generalisations about the division of labour to be very clear about the assumptions being made about how people differ and what they have in common.
The global division of labor
There exist as yet few comprehensive studies of the global division of labour (an intellectual challenge for researchers), although the ILO and national statistical offices can provide plenty data on request for those game to try.
In one study, Deon Filmer estimated that 2,474 million people participated in the global non-domestic labour force in the mid-1990s. Of these,
- around 15%, or 379 million people, worked in industry,
- a third, or 800 million worked in services, and
- over 40%, or 1,074 million, in agriculture.
The majority of workers in industry and services were wage & salary earners - 58 percent of the industrial workforce and 65 percent of the services workforce. But a big portion were self-employed or involved in family labour. Filmer suggests the total of employees worldwide in the 1990s was about 880 million, compared with around a billion working on own account on the land (mainly peasants), and some 480 million working on own account in industry and services.
Some useful sociological references
- Stephanie Coontz & Peta Henderson, Women's Work, Men's Property: The Origins of Gender and Class. hg
- Ali Rattansi, Marx and the Division of Labour.
- Emile Durkheim, The Division of Labour in Society.
- Harry Braverman, Labor and Monopoly Capital; The Degradation of Labor in the 20th Century
- André Gorz, The Division of Labour: The Labour Process and Class Struggle in Modern Capitalism.
- Bertell Ollman, Sexual and social revolution.
- Herbert Gintis, Samuel Bowles, Robert T. Boyd and Ernst Fehr, Moral Sentiments and Material Interests: The Foundations of Cooperation in Economic Life.
- F. Froebel, F., J. Heinrichs and O. Krey, The New International Division of Labour. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- James Heartfield, "The Economy of Time" [1]
- Richard Florida, The rise of the creative class.
- Richard Florida, The flight of the creative class.
- US Bureau of Labor Statistics [2]
- Deon Filmer, Estimating the World at Work, a background report for World Bank's World Development Report 1995 (Washington DC, 1995).
See also
External links
de:Arbeitsteilung fr:Division du travail fi:Työnjako pl:Podział pracy