Adam Smith on Division of Labour

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Division of Labour
Limitations
Conclusion
References

Introduction

In a world where resources are scarce and populations are ever-increasing, optimization of production is paramount as nations seek to create more wealth to increase the felicity of their citizens. Division of labor has been championed as one of the ways to achieve this optimization; it is an economic concept that proposes splitting the production processes into tasks that can be handled by different individuals. Improved efficiency hinges on the belief that when a worker is able to focus on fewer tasks, they will become good at those tasks. As a result, the aggregate output of production through a division of labor process usually exceeds the alternative where a single worker handles the production from the start to the end.

Division of labor has been observed in many civilizations throughout history. Scholars and philosophers throughout history have talked about the concept or at the very least a semblance of it. Plato, William Petty, Bernard de Mandeville, and David Hume are some of the scholars that have explored the idea (Durkheim et al., 2014). In this paper, I will show that division of labor increases productivity using the pin factory example from Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations.

Division of Labour

The Pin Factory Example

Perhaps the most iconic illustration of the division of labor concept and the most referenced one is the pin factory example from the book. The author noted that the pin production process in a factory could be broken down into 18 tasks which would then be assigned to each worker (Smith, 1776). These processes included drawing the wire, straightening the wire, cutting it, and grinding it on the head. Even making the head could be split into three more operations, after which the pins still needed to be whitened in another step. Smith (1776), noted that even placing the pins in a box was a task by itself.

He had also noted that in some factories, each of these tasks was handled by an individual while in others, some two or three tasks could be handled by one person. In one example, Smith (1776) mentions that he had observed a factory where the pin production process was handled by ten men who would produce two pounds per day between themselves. The ten pounds had amounted to 48000 pins per day; divided between them, this amounted to 4 thousand pins per person (Smith, 1776). According to the author, if the workers had each produced pins from start to finish, they could hardly have achieved 20 pins per day each.

Smith saw the need to match skills with equipment as an organizing tactic. In this way, the makers of pins were systematically organized with one straightening the wire, the other working on the body of the pin, another working on the head, and another packing the pins into the box. According to Smith (1776), division of labor aided in increasing productivity in 3 ways. Firstly, the worker tends to increase their dexterity and focus with fewer processes. The second benefit is that division of labor saves time that would be spent moving from one task to another. Lastly, division of labor is said to encourage mechanization and invention.

Fewer people have dedicated as much effort to discussing the division of labor, as did Adam Smith. It was the foundation of his work on the theory of economic growth. Smith places a lot of emphasis on the concept with such vehemence that one can conclude that he deems division of labor as imperative for industrialization and the eventual creation of wealth that results from increased production. The increased output from specialization leads to increased profits with the ability to finance fixed and circulating capital precipitating increases in wage funds, and higher wages for work provided the demand for labor outpaces the supply of it.

Limitations

As would be expected from such an insightful scholar, Adam Smith explores some weaknesses of the division of labor in Book five of the Wealth of Nations. He opines that while the division of labor has merits in increasing efficiency and increased output, it takes a toll on the worker transforming them into a robot where they become deficient in other facets of life (Hearn, 2018). It is a sacrifice of sorts to specialize in a certain skill. There is also reduced motivation and increased possibility of boredom due to repeatedly performing a mundane task over and over.

Conclusion

Adam Smith is one of the greatest English scholars to emerge out of the Age of Enlightenment. His iconic book Wealth of Nations is a masterpiece rich in coherence and insight. For a scholar who wrote before industrialization, it is remarkable that he could predict the class system witnessed in the modern industrialized civilization.

Division of labor emerges as the core theme of the book where Smith postulates that a production process broken down into tasks that different workers handle produces more aggregate value than a scenario where each worker would handle the entire production process. Smith uses the pin factory example to illustrate the concept of division of labor. Division of labor makes sense, increases production, and creates wealth, which is the raison d’etre for many.

References

Durkheim, E., Lukes, S., & Halls, W. D. (2014). The division of labor in society. Free Press.

Hearn, J. (2018). How to read the wealth of nations (Or why the division of labor is more important than competition in Adam Smith). Sociological Theory, 36(2), 162-184.

Smith, A. (1976). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. University of Chicago Press.

Click Here To Order Now!

Adam Smith on Division of Labour

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)