Division of labor, commodity production and market relations. History of the development of theoretical knowledge about the division of labor Activities that emerged as a result of the division of labor
Division of labor- an economic phenomenon in which professional specialization occurs, narrowing and sometimes deepening the functions of an individual specialist. The overall production process is divided into extremely simple operations, each of which is performed by a separate person or mechanism.
It is the reason for increasing the overall labor productivity of an organized group of specialists (synergetic effect) due to:
Developing skills and automaticity in performing simple repetitive operations
Reducing the time spent moving between different operations
Identify the social division of labor- distribution in society social functions between people - and the international division of labor.
The division of labor has led in the modern world to the presence of a huge variety of different professions and industries. Previously (in ancient times), people were forced to almost completely provide themselves with everything they needed; this was extremely inefficient, which led to a primitive life and comfort. Almost all achievements of evolution and scientific and technological progress can be explained by the continuous introduction of the division of labor. Thanks to the exchange of the results of labor, that is, trade, the division of labor becomes possible in society.
Division of labor is the first link of the entire system of labor organization . Division of labor- this is the separation of various types of labor activity and the division of the labor process into parts, each of which is performed by a specific group of workers, united according to common functional, professional or qualification characteristics.
Division of labor, qualitative differentiation of labor activity in the process of development of society, leading to the isolation and coexistence of its various types. Industrial production exists in different forms, corresponding to the level of development of the productive forces and the nature of production relations. A manifestation of R. t. is the exchange of activities.
There is R. t. within society and within an enterprise. These two main types of R. t. are interconnected and interdependent. Separation social production K. Marx called its large types of production (such as agriculture, industry, etc.) general industrial production, the division of these types of production into types and subtypes (for example, industry into separate branches) - private industrial production, and, finally, , R. t. within the enterprise - single R. t. General, specific and individual R. t. are inseparable from professional R. t., specialization of workers. The term "R. t." is also used to denote the specialization of production within one country and between countries - territorial and international R. t.
As a result of the fragmentation of labor, its transformation into private labor and appearance private property opposition to the economic interests of individuals and social inequality arose; society developed in conditions of spontaneity. It entered an antagonistic period in its history. People began to become assigned to certain tools and various types increasingly differentiated activities against their will and consciousness, due to the blind need for the development of production. This main feature of antagonistic R. t. is not an eternal state, as if inherent in the very nature of people, but a historically transitory phenomenon.
Division of labor – This is a historical process of isolation, consolidation, modification of individual types of activity, which occurs in social forms of differentiation and implementation of various types of labor activity. The division of labor in society is constantly changing, and the system of various types of labor activity itself is becoming more and more complex, as the labor process itself becomes more complex and deepening. Division of labor(or specialization) is the principle of organizing production in an economy, according to which an individual is engaged in the production of a separate good. Thanks to the action of this principle, with a limited amount of resources, people can receive much more benefits than if everyone provided themselves with everything they need.
There is also a distinction between the division of labor in the broad and narrow sense (according to K. Marx). Broadly speaking, the division of labor- this is a system of types of labor, production functions, occupations in general or their combinations that are different in their characteristics and simultaneously interact with each other, as well as a system of social relations between them. The empirical diversity of occupations is considered by economic statistics, labor economics, branch economic sciences, demography, etc. The territorial, including international, division of labor is described by economic geography. To determine the relationship between various production functions from the point of view of their material result, K. Marx preferred to use the term “distribution of labor.” In the narrow sense, division of labor- this is the social division of labor as human activity in its social essence, which, in contrast to specialization, is a historically transitory social relationship. Specialization of labor is the division of types of labor by subject, which directly expresses the progress of the productive forces and contributes to it. The diversity of such species corresponds to the degree of human exploration of nature and grows with its development. However, in class formations, specialization is not carried out as a specialization of integral activities, since it itself is influenced by the social division of labor. The latter divides human activity into such partial functions and operations, each of which in itself no longer has the nature of activity and does not act as a way for a person to reproduce his social relations, his culture, his spiritual wealth and himself as an individual. These partial functions are devoid of their own meaning and logic; their necessity appears only as demands placed on them from the outside by the system of division of labor. This is the division of material and spiritual (mental and physical), executive and managerial labor, practical and ideological functions, etc.
An expression of the social division of labor is the selection as separate spheres of material production, science, art, etc., as well as the dismemberment of them themselves. The division of labor historically inevitably grows into a class division. Due to the fact that members of society began to specialize in the production of certain goods, professions appeared in society - separate types of activities related to the production of any good. Degree of division of labor But the division of labor does not mean that in our imaginary society one person will be engaged in one type of production. It may turn out that several people will have to engage in a particular type of production, or so that one person will be engaged in the production of several goods. Why? It's all about the relationship between the size of the population's need for a particular good and the labor productivity of a particular profession. If one fisherman can catch just enough fish in a day to satisfy all members of society, then there will be just one fisherman in this household. But if one hunter from the mentioned tribe cannot shoot quails for everyone and his work is not enough to satisfy the needs of all members of the household for quails, then several people will go hunting at once. Or, for example, if one potter can produce so many pots that society cannot consume, then he will have extra time which he can use to produce some other good, such as spoons or plates. Thus, the degree of "division" of labor depends on the size of the society. For a certain population size (that is, for a certain composition and size of needs), there is its own optimal structure of occupations, in which the product produced by different producers will be just enough for all members, and all products will be produced at the lowest possible cost. With an increase in population, this optimal structure of occupations will change, the number of producers of those goods that were already produced by an individual will increase, and those types of production that were previously entrusted to one person will be entrusted to different people. In the history of the economy, the process of division of labor has gone through several stages, differing in the degree of specialization of individual members of society in the production of one or another good.
Types of division of labor. The division of labor is usually divided into several types depending on the characteristics by which it is carried out. vNatural division of labor : the process of separating types of labor activity by gender and age. vTechnical division of labor: determined by the nature of the means of production used, primarily equipment and technology. vSocial division of labor: natural and technical division of labor, taken in their interaction and in unity with economic factors, under the influence of which the separation and differentiation of various types of labor activity occurs.
In addition, the social division of labor includes 2 more subspecies : sectoral and territorial. Sectoral division of labor is predetermined by the production conditions, the nature of the raw materials used, technology, equipment and the manufactured product. Territorial division of labor is the spatial arrangement of various types of work activities. Its development is determined both by differences in natural and climatic conditions and by economic factors. Under geographical division labor we understand the spatial form of the social division of labor. A necessary condition for the geographical division of labor is that different countries (or regions) work for each other, that the result of labor is transported from one place to another, so that there is thus a gap between the place of production and the place of consumption. In a commodity society, geographical division of labor necessarily presupposes the transfer of products from farm to farm, i.e. exchange, trade, but exchange in these conditions is only a sign for “recognizing” the presence of a geographical division of labor, but not its “essence”.
There are 3 forms of social division of labor :
General division of labor characterized by the isolation of large types (spheres) of activity, which differ from each other in the form of the product.
Private division of labor- This is the process of separating individual industries within large types of production.
Unit division of labor characterizes the separation of the production of individual components of finished products, as well as the separation of individual technological operations. Forms of manifestation of division of labor. Differentiation consists in the process of isolating individual industries, determined by the specifics of the means of production, technology and labor used. Specialization is based on differentiation, but it develops on the basis of concentrating efforts on a narrow range of products. Universalization represents the antithesis of specialization. It is based on the production and sale of a wide range of goods and services. Diversification– this is an expansion of the range of products.A. Smith on the division of labor. The first and main statement that A. Smith puts forward, which defines the greatest progress in the development of the productive power of labor and a significant share of the art, skill and intelligence with which it (progress) is directed and applied, is a consequence of the division of labor. The division of labor is the most important and unacceptable condition for the progress of the development of productive forces, the development of the economy of any state, any society. A. Smith gives the simplest example of the division of labor in small and large enterprises (manufacture in contemporary society) - the elementary production of pins. A worker who is not trained in this production and does not know how to handle the machines used in it (the impetus for the invention of machines was given precisely by the division of labor) can hardly make one pin a day. When an organization exists in such production, it is necessary to divide the profession into a number of specialties, each of which is a separate occupation. One worker pulls the wire, another straightens it, the third cuts it, the fourth sharpens the end, the fifth grinds it to attach the head, the manufacture of which requires two or three more independent operations, in addition to fitting it, polishing the pin itself, and packaging the finished product. Thus, labor in the production of pins is divided into a multi-stage series of operations, and depending on the organization of production and the size of the enterprise, they can be performed each separately (one worker - one operation), or combined into 2 - 3 (one worker - 2 - 3 operations ). Using this simple example, A. Smith asserts the undoubted priority of such a division of labor over the work of a single worker. 10 workers produced 48,000 pins per day, while one could produce 20 pins at high voltage. The division of labor in any craft, no matter how large it is introduced, causes an increase in labor productivity. The further development (up to the present day) of production in any sector of the economy was the clearest confirmation of A. Smith’s “discovery”.
From the history of the division of labor Strictly speaking, the division of labor in human societies could always be found. After all, people have never existed alone, and cases of the emergence of a society and economy consisting of one person (such as Robinson Crusoe’s economy) were quite rare exceptions. People have always lived as at least a family or a tribe. But The development of the division of labor in the economy of any society goes through several successive stages from a primitive state to an extremely complex scheme of distribution of responsibilities. This evolution can be schematically represented as follows.
First stage. This is the natural division of labor within primitive society. In such a society there was always some distribution of responsibilities, determined partly by the nature of each person, partly by customs, and partly by the economies of scale you know. As a rule, men were engaged in hunting and war, and women looked after the hearth and nursed children. In addition, in almost any tribe one could find such “professions” as leader and priest (shaman, sorcerer, etc.).
Second stage. As the number of members of society grows, the need for each good increases and it becomes possible for individuals to concentrate on the production of individual goods. Therefore, various professions appear in societies (artisans, farmers, cattle breeders, etc.). The process of identifying professions begins, of course, with the production of tools. Even in the Stone Age (!) there were craftsmen engaged in hewing and polishing stone tools. With the discovery of iron, one of the most common professions in the past, blacksmith, appears. A characteristic feature of this stage is that the manufacturer produces all (or almost all) possible products associated with his profession (usually the processing of some type of raw material). For example, a blacksmith makes everything from nails and horseshoes to plows and swords, a carpenter makes everything from stools to cabinets, etc. At this stage of division of labor, part of the artisan's family members or even the whole family helps him in production by performing certain operations. For example, a blacksmith or carpenter can be helped by his sons and brothers, and a weaver or baker can be helped by his wife and daughters.
Third stage. With an increase in population and, accordingly, the size of demand for individual products, artisans begin to concentrate on the production of any one good. Some blacksmiths make horseshoes, others only knives and scissors, others only nails of different sizes, others only weapons, etc. In Ancient Rus', for example, there were the following names for wood craftsmen: woodworkers, shipbuilders, bridge builders, woodworkers, builders, town workers ( fortification of cities), vicious (production of battering guns), archers, crossmen, barrel-makers, sleigh riders, wheelwrights, etc. Labor cooperation. An important factor influencing labor productivity is labor cooperation. The deeper the division of labor and the narrower the specialization of production becomes, the more producers become interdependent, the more necessary is consistency and coordination of actions between different industries. To operate in conditions of interdependence, labor cooperation is necessary, both in the conditions of the enterprise and in the conditions of the whole society. Labor Cooperation Economic Theory; B) Formational theories; C) Institutional theories; D) Economic theories; E) Theory marginalism. 293. ...
Economic theory subject, method, main stages of development
Test >> EconomicsResources. Social economic theory. Institutional economic theory. A special place in E.T. history occupies economic theories. THIS. – ...including participation in international separation labor And economic integration, degree of openness of the economy...
Chapter II "On the cause of the division of labor"
The division of labor which leads to such advantages is by no means the result of any one's wisdom, which foresaw and realized the general welfare which would be generated by it: it is the consequence - although very slowly and gradually developing - of a certain tendency of human nature, which by no means had in view of such a useful goal, namely the tendency to barter, trade, to exchange one item for another.
It is not our task at present to examine whether this tendency is one of those fundamental properties of human nature for which no further explanation can be given, or, what seems more likely, it is a necessary consequence of the power of reasoning and the gift of speech. This tendency is common to all people and, on the other hand, is not observed in any other species of animals, to which, apparently, this type of agreement, like all others, is completely unknown. When two hounds are chasing the same hare, it sometimes seems as if they are acting under some kind of agreement. Each of them drives him towards the other or tries to intercept him when the other drives him towards her. However, this is by no means the result of any agreement, but a manifestation of the accidental coincidence of their passions aimed at this moment towards the same object. No one has ever seen a dog deliberately exchange a bone with another dog. No one has ever seen any animal gesture or scream to another: this is mine, that is yours, I will give you one in exchange for the other. When an animal wants to receive something from a person or another animal, it does not know any other means of persuasion than to gain the favor of those from whom it expects handouts. A puppy cuddles up to its mother, and a lap dog uses countless tricks to attract the attention of its dining owner when it wants him to feed it. A man sometimes resorts to the same tricks with his neighbors, and if he has no other means of inducing them to act in accordance with his desires, he tries to gain their favor by servility and all kinds of flattery. However, he would not have enough time to act this way in all cases. In a civilized society he constantly needs the assistance and cooperation of many people, while throughout his life he barely has time to acquire the friendship of several people. In almost all other species of animals, each individual, having reached maturity, becomes completely independent and in its natural state does not need the help of other living beings; Meanwhile, a person constantly needs the help of his neighbors, and it will be in vain that he expects it only from their disposition. He is more likely to achieve his goal if he appeals to their egoism and is able to show them that it is in their own interests to do for him what he requires of them. Anyone who offers another a transaction of any kind is offering to do just that. Give me what I need, and you will get what you need - this is the meaning of any such proposal. It is in this way that we obtain from each other much of the service we need. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their observance of their own interests. We appeal not to their humanity, but to their selfishness, and never tell them about our needs, but about their benefits. No one but a beggar wants to depend chiefly on the goodwill of his fellow citizens. Even a beggar is not entirely dependent on him. Mercy good people supplies him, however, with the means necessary for existence. But, although this source ultimately provides him with everything necessary for life, it does not and cannot directly supply him with the necessaries of life at the moment when the beggar needs them. Most of his needs are satisfied in the same way as the needs of Other people, namely through agreement, exchange, purchase. With the money that the beggar receives from other people, he buys food. He exchanges the old dress that is given to him for another, more suitable for him, or for housing, food, and finally, for money with which he can buy food, clothes, rent a room, depending on his needs.
Just as through contract, barter and purchase we acquire from each other most of the mutual services we need, so this very tendency to exchange initially gave rise to the division of labor. In a hunting or herding tribe, one person makes, for example, bows and arrows with greater speed and dexterity than anyone else. He often exchanges them with his fellow tribesmen for cattle or game; in the end he sees that he can get more livestock and game this way than if he hunts himself. Considering his own benefit, he makes the making of bows and arrows his main occupation and thus becomes a kind of gunsmith. Another stands out for his ability to build and roof small huts or huts. He gets used to helping his neighbors in this work, who reward him in the same way - with livestock and game, until, finally, he recognizes it as beneficial for himself to devote himself entirely to this occupation and become a kind of carpenter. In the same way, the third becomes a blacksmith or coppersmith, the fourth becomes a tanner or tanner of hides and skins, the main parts of the clothing of savages. And thus the confidence in the possibility of exchanging all that surplus of the product of his labor, which exceeds his own consumption, for that part of the product of the labor of other people which he may need, encourages each person to devote himself to a certain special occupation and to develop to perfection his natural talents in this special area.
Different people differ from each other in their natural abilities much less than we suppose, and the very difference in abilities that distinguish people in their mature years is in many cases not so much a cause as a consequence of the division of labor. The difference between the most dissimilar characters, between a scientist and a simple street porter, for example, is created, apparently, not so much by nature as by habit, practice and education. At the time of their birth and during the first six or eight years of their lives they were very similar to each other, and neither their parents nor their peers could notice any noticeable difference between them. At this age or a little later, they begin to be accustomed to various activities. And then the difference in abilities becomes noticeable, which becomes gradually greater, until, finally, the vanity of the scientist refuses to recognize even a shadow of similarity between them. But without the inclination to bargain and exchange, each person would have to obtain for himself everything he needs for life. Everyone would have to perform the same duties and produce the same work, and there would not then be such a variety of occupations, which alone could give rise to significant differences in abilities.
This tendency to exchange not only creates the difference of ability so noticeable among people of different professions, it also makes this difference useful. Many breeds of animals, recognized as belonging to the same species, differ from nature by a much more pronounced dissimilarity of abilities than is apparently observed in humans, so long as they remain free from the influence of habit and education. A scientist, in his intelligence and abilities, is not half as different from a street porter as a yard dog is from a hound, or a hound from a lapdog, or the latter from a shepherd dog. However, these different breeds of animals, although all belonging to the same species, are almost useless to each other. The strength of a yard dog is not in the slightest degree complemented by the speed of a hound, or the intelligence of a lapdog, or the obedience of a shepherd dog. All these various abilities and properties, due to the lack of ability or inclination for exchange and bargaining, cannot be used for general purposes and do not in any way contribute to the better adaptation and convenience of the whole species. Each animal is forced to care for and defend itself separately and independently of others and receives absolutely no benefit from the various abilities with which nature has endowed animals like itself. On the contrary, among people the most dissimilar talents are useful to one another; Their various products, thanks to their tendency to bargain and exchange, are collected, as it were, into one common mass, from which each person can buy for himself any number of other people’s products that he needs.
From the book Prison Encyclopedia author Kuchinsky Alexander VladimirovichDivision: castes, suits, ranks In places of deprivation of liberty, prisoners are divided into several rather closed groups. These are thieves, men, goats and untouchables, pariahs of prisons and zones - roosters (combed, piven, crackling, drooping, offended), feathered, roosters, etc. And
From the book The World's Largest and Most Sustainable Fortunes author Soloviev AlexanderThe Great Division of Nations The well-fed man does not understand the hungry. Russian proverb Back in the days when mammoths lived on our Earth, the then relatively small community of people was once and for all divided into two categories: the rich (there were relatively few of them) and everyone
From the book The World after the Crisis. Global trends - 2025: a changing world. US National Intelligence Council Report author author unknownChapter 7 Power Sharing in a Multipolar World Over the next 15–20 years, the United States will have more influence on the development of international relations than any other actor, but in a multipolar world it will lose the power it has enjoyed over the past
From the book The Truth about Military Rzhev. Documents and Facts author Fedorov Evgeniy StepanovichLABOR EXCHANGE The situation with industry was no better. Although, to resume production, a labor exchange was created in November 1941. The exchange existed until December 27, 1941. It was located on the street. of the 3rd International near the Reimag. It was headed by a German lieutenant,
From the book Theory of Military Art (collection) by Cairns WilliamXXVIII. Separation of Forces at Night On the eve of a battle no forces should be separated, because during the night the situation may change either due to the retreat of the enemy, or due to the arrival of large reinforcements, which will enable him to resume the offensive and counteract
From book Short story Freemasonry author Gould Robert FrickTHE GREAT DIVISION IN ENGLISH FREEMASONRY The long-standing rivalry between the Grand Lodges of England was accompanied by such violent attacks that some researchers even called this time the “Great Schism.” Henry Sadler's research in the archives of the Grand Lodge proves that
From the book Home Anti-Russian Meanness author Mukhin Yuri IgnatievichDividing prisoners into three categories. In “The Katyn Detective” I drew attention to the crime scene in Katyn as the handwriting of the Germans, but since the writing of that book, Goebbels’s brigade has dug up (including in the full sense of the word) a lot of other data, and the place
From the book My Master is Time author Tsvetaeva MarinaHero of Labor For the first time - in the magazine “Will of Russia” (Prague. 1925. No. 9/10, 11). On October 9, 1924, V. Ya. Bryusov died in Moscow. In August of the following year, Tsvetaeva completed her notes on the poet - her last duty to the deceased. “The dead are defenseless,” said Tsvetaeva. Her notes about
From the book Consumer Revolt author Panyushkin ValerySeparation of powers In 1998, ten years after the start of perestroika, having experienced the collapse of the country, the change of one president, four parliaments and three governments, no one, nevertheless, seriously assumed that it was possible to argue with the authorities. Probably hundreds of years in Russia with power
From the book Russian literature of the first third of the 20th century author Bogomolov Nikolay Alekseevich From the book Far Eastern Neighbors author Ovchinnikov Vsevolod VladimirovichPearls of Labor Imagine a mountain range that has boldly wedged itself into the ocean, as if becoming related to the water element. Wooded slopes rise directly from the blue sea. Everywhere you look there are secluded bays, quiet bays that look like mountain lakes. Here you understand why the Japanese have
From the book Fuchs, Commiltons, Philistines... Essays on student corporations in Latvia author Ryzhakova Svetlana Igorevna6.1. Separation of statuses: fuchs, commiltons, philistres Relationships, rights or obligations, transitions from status to status (training, initiation rituals). Exclusion from corporations. Relationships between representatives of different corporations. Relationships between
From the book US National Security Council Directive 20/1 of August 18, 1948 by Etzold Thomas H4. DIVISION OR NATIONAL UNITY First of all, is it desirable in this case for the present territories of the Soviet Union to remain united under one regime, or is it desirable to separate them? And if it is desirable to leave them unified, at least to a large extent
From the book Reasons for increasing labor productivity by Smith AdamChapter I "On the Division of Labor" The greatest progress in the development of the productive power of labor and a significant share of the art, skill and intelligence with which it is directed and applied, were apparently a consequence of the division of labor. Results of the division of labor for
From the author's bookChapter III “The division of labor is limited by the size of the market” Since the possibility of exchange leads to the division of labor, the extent of the latter must always be limited by the limits of this possibility of exchange, or, in other words, by the size of the market. When the market is small, neither
From the author's bookChapter X "About wages and profits from various uses of labor and capital" The totality of the benefits and disadvantages of various uses of labor and capital in the same area should be exactly the same or constantly tend to be equal. If in a given
Ancient Greek philosophers actively defended the idea of the natural nature of the division between mental and physical labor. Thus, Plato, when creating the principles for constructing an ideal state, proposed to consider the division of labor as a natural phenomenon. Considering the state as a community of people generated by nature itself, he substantiated the inherent inequality of people and the inevitability of dividing the state into rich and poor. Plato associated the need for exchange with the natural division of labor. He saw the division of labor as the main reason for the hierarchical structure of society and the basis for the identification of different classes depending on the types of labor performed.
Another Greek thinker, Xenophon (c. 430 BC - c. 355 BC), discusses society’s attitude to physical labor, in particular to craft activities. The philosopher notes that engaging in “low crafts” (i.e., heavy physical labor) destroys the body of those who engage in them, which means their soul becomes weaker. In a work entitled “Domostroy,” he sets out his views on the rules and principles of the slave economy and was one of the first to pay great attention to the analysis of the division of labor as a natural phenomenon, as well as an important condition for increasing the use value of things. Xenophon came close to understanding the principle of manufacturing division and was the first to point out the relationship between the development of the division of labor and the market.
Discussing the division of labor, Aristotle noted that in a state, worthy citizens should not lead a life like that of artisans or merchants. The philosopher, like other thinkers of his era, realized the need spiritual development man, which in an era of low labor productivity was greatly hampered by physical or craft activities. Exploring the laws public life and mechanisms that promote the integrity of society, Aristotle comes to the conclusion about the natural nature of inequality and justifies the division of people into slaves and freemen. Thus, the philosopher associated slavery with the division of labor, which was based on natural differences in human abilities.
The Roman philosopher Lucius Seneca (4 BC - 65 AD) believed that all activities of everyday craft work designed to satisfy the needs of life are insignificant and utilitarian. We must be content with little, with what nature provides. Everything that crafts supply as a product of their labor is superfluous, since “all these crafts, the noise of which excites the city, work for the needs of the body, which was previously given as much as a slave, and now they offer everything as if it were an owner. Therefore, in that workshop they weave , in this forge, in that they brew perfume, here they teach pampered body movements, there - pampered, relaxed melodies. The natural measure that limits desires to the necessary has been lost; now to desire as much as you need means to be considered a hillbilly or a beggar.
Representatives of medieval thought did not make much progress compared to the views of ancient philosophers on the nature of the division of labor. In particular, Thomas Aquinas characterized the latter in the spirit of ancient thought as natural a natural phenomenon and believed that it is precisely this that underlies the division of society into classes. In his opinion, people are born different by nature: peasants are created for physical labor, and the privileged classes must devote themselves to spiritual activities.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), who can be called one of the main denouncers of civilization, puts forward as an argument against modern civilization the thesis that the consequence of the division of labor is the transformation of people into one-sided individuals. Friedrich Schiller (1759-1805) criticized the capitalist division of labor for its deep contradictions. K. A. Saint-Simon spoke about the need to organize a labor system that would coordinate its parts, their closer connection and dependence on the whole. Charles Fourier (1772-1837), in order to overcome the negative consequences of the division of labor, put forward the idea of a change in activity, which would help maintain interest in work.
Representatives of classical political economy, David Ricardo (1772-1823), William Petty (1623-1687) and especially A. Smith, were the first to begin to consider the division of labor from the standpoint of production efficiency and progress in the development of productive forces.
Important to remember!
The first to discover and substantiate the law of division of labor from a scientific (economic) point of view was A. Smith. He also owns the term “separation of the pile.”
In economics, since the time of A. Smith, the division of labor has been considered as a process of increasing the efficiency of social production. He saw in the division of labor a miraculous force of social nature, an irreplaceable source of surplus value.
Classic opinion.
This is how A. Smith describes the production of pins in his book “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations”: “One man draws out a wire, another straightens it, a third cuts it, a fourth sharpens it, a fifth flattens its top to make a cap; in order to make a cap , two or three separate operations are required; putting it on is the next operation, whitening the pins is another; a whole craft is wrapping them in paper; thus the important business of making pins is divided into about eighteen separate operations, which in some manufactories are performed by different workmen, and in others, two or three of them may be performed by the same person."
From the middle of the 19th century. Western social thought is characterized by an apology (defense) of the division of labor. O. Comte and Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) consider the latter in the context of social progress, noting its beneficial effects. However, external influences have a distorting effect, which manifests itself as negative consequences or costs of the division of labor.
Most of all, K. Marx and F. Engels were engaged in the analysis of the division of labor as a process and law in various socio-economic formations. The division of labor in societies other than primitive ones, according to the terminology of K. Marx, is called the social division of labor. Understanding the process of transition from the natural division of labor to the social one and its characteristic features is fundamental to clarifying not only the essence of the social division of labor, but also its fate in the future. According to the neo-Marxist G. Braverman, “each individual cannot himself “produce in accordance with a standard of any kind” and invent standards unknown to any animal, but the entire human race is able to accomplish this partly through the social division of labor. Thus, social division labor obviously becomes characteristic feature labor performed by the human race - as soon as this labor becomes social, i.e. labor performed in and through society."
In this sense, K. Marx identified three types of division of labor: general, private And single, but attributed only the first two types to social division. The general and private division of labor is characterized by a consistent process of separation of large spheres of activity, which differ from each other in the form of the product. In this case, we are talking about the emergence of agriculture, industry, trade, etc., and then the emergence of industries. For example, within industry there are extractive industries, mechanical engineering, metallurgy, etc. IN modern society The service sector and scientific production emerged and became a separate large type of activity. Private division of labor is the process of separating individual industries within large types of production. A single division of labor occurs within the manufacture and can be called in another way an operational division of labor.
1 The origins of the social division of labor lie within society (clan, community). F. Engels, dwelling on the emergence of the social division of labor, writes: “At earlier stages of development, only random exchange could take place; special art in the manufacture of weapons and tools could lead to a temporary division of labor. For example, in many places undoubted remains were found workshops for the manufacture of stone tools of the late Stone Age; the craftsmen who developed their art here probably worked at the expense and benefit of their collective, as permanent artisans of tribal communities in India still do. At this stage of development, exchange could only arise within the tribe , and even here he remained an exceptional phenomenon."
According to K. Marx, division of labor and private property are historical categories. The division of labor first had a physiological basis, and with the emergence of private property it acquired public character and specific features in individual socio-economic formations (in class formations it has a class character). K. Marx came to the conclusion that the social division of labor is a condition for commodity production.
The division of labor has its own specific characteristics in various socio-economic formations. Under capitalism, the development of technology and the division of labor become more and more ramified, leading to the “fragmentation” of labor and workers. However, K. Marx did not identify the social division of labor and the individual division of labor that exists in the manufacture, or the operational one: “Despite the significant similarity and interconnection of these phenomena, the division of labor within society and the division of labor within the workshop differ not only in scale, but also in quality.”
The division of labor impoverishes the humanity of the worker to the point that labor no longer contributes to the development of his personality, but is only a means of satisfying his basic life needs. However, division is not only a source of dehumanization of labor; along with the increase in the division of labor, the worker becomes more and more dependent only on the work and cannot give it another direction. The universal consequences of the division of labor are not limited to workers. The division of labor also has positive results under capitalism, associated primarily with the development of productive forces.
E. Durkheim is one of the most famous sociologists who worked on the division of labor. Among his main works, the work “On the Division of Social Labor” stands out.
E. Durkheim's main goal is to study the division of labor not as an economic process, but from the point of view of its social functions and causes, to show that the division of labor is based on the social division of people. The division of labor has become dominant in modern society:
and in industry, and in agriculture, and in trade. In addition, it invades science, art, politics; the morality of society approves of the division of labor, supporting professionalism and condemning amateurism. According to E. Durkheim, economic science was unable to consider the causes and consequences of the division of labor. It is usually believed that the division of labor increases the productivity of the latter, thereby creating benefits for society in the form of increased welfare, variety and quality of goods, etc. The reasons for the division of labor are seen in the natural inclinations of a person towards one or another type of labor. However, in reality the causes and consequences of the division of labor go deeper.
Social function of the division of labor, according to E. Durkheim, is to create solidarity, i.e. a more closely interconnected society. The feeling of solidarity can be defined as “three mutual feelings of interconnectedness, interdependence and mutual interest of people in society, which leads to a feeling of its integrity. The question arises of how one can study the change in solidarity in society. For E. Durkheim, an accurate and strict indicator of solidarity was needed , and he found it in the facts of law. In the history of civilization, two fundamentally different types of law can be distinguished: repressive law (criminal), distinguished on the basis of punishment, and restitutive (.economic, negotiable, administrative, civil), defined as a sign of restoration of broken relationships or order.
Repressive law existed for a long time in primitive societies where there was no division of labor. It, in the form of custom or tradition, presupposed, on the one hand, general norms of behavior and responsibilities, and, on the other, sanctions for violating these norms and responsibilities. Law itself usually had religious legitimacy, and punishment acted as an appeal to God. Punishment was usually aimed at causing suffering to the offender (corporal punishment) or at restricting freedom or taking life. However, its main significance was to instill fear and law-abidingness in respectable citizens. Repressive law punishes a person for his differences from others, for his individuality, and fosters the sameness and similarity of people’s behavior. This type of law reflects deeper social relationships - the same behavior and thinking of members social group. E. Durkheim calls these relations mechanical solidarity. The latter was the only means of integrating society, a guarantee of its stability in the face of various external shocks. Thus, mechanical solidarity corresponds to repressive law; this type of society (primitive tribes, hordes, clans) is based on the sameness of consciousness and behavior and strict sanctions for difference and individuality.
In societies where the division of labor is highly developed, the restitutive type of law usually dominates. This right does not have a redemptive nature and is aimed at restoring general order without restricting the freedom of activity of subjects of law. It not only does not restrain the individuality of the subjects’ actions, but, on the contrary, presupposes various types of activities and their regulation. This type of law arises when there is differentiation of labor, and therefore of people, when people differ from each other in their way of life, when society does not absorb individuality, but assumes personal characteristics activities.
Important to remember!
E. Durkheim calls this type of social relations organic solidarity, and it corresponds to restitutive law.
Organic solidarity is much stronger than mechanical solidarity; with the latter, the community is divided without compromising its basic functions. A typical example of the emergence of organic solidarity is a medieval city.
It is important to know!
The social function of the economic process of division of labor is to create a new type of interaction in society - organic (or natural) solidarity.
The next problem posed by E. Durkheim was to determine reasons emergence of division of labor. Typically, economists, starting with A. Smith, associated the division of labor with a person’s natural inclinations towards various types of activity. The division of labor, in their opinion, depends on the division of people according to individual abilities. People themselves realize the benefits of the division of labor and follow it in their economic life. Another option, almost repeating the first, is associated with the idea of the inherent desire for well-being and happiness in a person.
These explanations of the division of labor as a social phenomenon do not suit E. Durkheim from a methodological point of view, since they come down to the individual characteristics of a person - his needs, motives, values. Social phenomena can only be explained by social causes, individual life itself is subject to social reality.
E. Durkheim believed that hereditary inclinations can cause the division of labor in the most general form. People are born with only the most general inclinations (for the exact sciences, music or drawing), but there is no innate inclination towards one profession or another. The greater the specialization of types of activity, the less the influence of heredity. In this regard, this factor does not explain the emergence of the division of labor.
Thus, the main reason for the emergence of the division of labor, according to E. Durkheim, was the collapse of the segmental structure of primitive society.
It is important to know!
Gradually, over time, in a primitive society consisting of a number of clans and tribes not connected with each other, where within each clan the people are approximately the same, an increase in physical and moral density begins to occur. Physical density means that the population increases in volume while the territory of residence remains unchanged, and moral density associated with an increase in the number of human interactions or communication in connection with the transition from a nomadic to a sedentary lifestyle, from village to city, with the development of means of communication - language, roads, mail, etc. This is how differentiation of people and types of economic activity arises.
Under changed conditions, the segmentary structure of society would lead to interpersonal and social conflicts, since in a limited territory homogeneous objects come into a state of conflict.
In addition to the identified main reason division of labor E. Durkheim names other accompanying social reasons. First, the transition from polytheism to monotheism weakens the influence of collective consciousness. Monotheism gives freedom to everyone to understand God in their own way, the idea of God as a whole, which allows individual thinking to develop. Secondly, during the transition from a rural to an urban way of life, tradition in society weakens. In an urban gathering of a large number of people, a person is free from public opinion and may not follow the everyday traditional way of life and economic activity.
E. Durkheim, in his theory of the division of labor, proves the thesis about the increasing solidarity of society with the course of economic development. The normal function of the division of labor is to create solidarity, but there is also a pathology - social contradictions that arise as a result of anomie, i.e. lack of organizational forms of these relations.
Thus, E. Durkheim showed that economic progress is associated with the creation of a new type of society based on organic solidarity. The division of labor means for a society based on organic solidarity an increase in differentiation and integration; the reasons for the division of labor lie in the objective process of increasing the physical and moral density of the population; the abnormal social consequences of the division of labor can be overcome provided that the anomic nature of these relations is destroyed.
In conclusion, it should be noted that of the sociologists of the 20th century. Division of labor issues were dealt with mainly by neo-Marxists, in particular, Harry Braverman (1920-1976), who considered the issues of division of labor in an enterprise, the content of labor functions and control over the labor process. G. Braverman criticized the contemporary organization of labor in the field of labor relations, both in capital countries and in socialist countries. In his opinion, we can even talk about the general law of the capitalist division of labor, which manifests itself not only in industry, but in any other activity.
Scientist's opinion.
In a modern hierarchical production organization, all labor processes are strictly polarized, as a result labor process is isolated from real labor skills, and decision-making from executive actions.
As a result, a “partial worker” arises, possessing the “scarce skills” necessary in production, otherwise, the qualifications that are needed by the capitalist mode of production. This happens to the detriment of the possession of diversified skills: “The capitalist mode of production systematically destroys diversified skills where they exist, and generates skills and abilities corresponding to its needs. From now on, technical abilities are distributed on a rigid basis.” necessary knowledge" The generalized distribution of knowledge between all participants in the productive process becomes from this moment not just “not necessary,” but truly impeding the functioning of the capitalist mode of production.”
In the second half of the 20th century. sociologists were also interested in the problem of the division of labor in modern society, but more indirectly. Thus, if in earlier concepts scientists made attempts to understand the nature of social changes, then recent research is associated with attempts to understand the modern social order and trends in the development of society. Thus, Shmuel Eisenstadt (1923-2010) conducts a comparative study of civilizations and proposes a civilizational structure in which complex contradictions in the social and spiritual organization of society are resolved. In particular, he notes the inadequacy of the organization of the social division of labor in modern society, which gives rise to uncertainty regarding public trust and solidarity, doubts about the role of power, a feeling of exploitation and, at the same time, the need to form a social order that would be supported by the existing division of labor, and other mechanisms.
A well-known economist, now an academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, director of the Institute of Water Problems.
He has long since moved away from economics, which, in my opinion, is worthy of every regret.
At the theoretical seminar, which was organized by Viktor Ivanovich Danilov-Danilyan and the late Albert Anatolyevich Ryvkin, the focus was on a problem that has not lost its relevance to this day.
Today everyone is talking about the dependence of the Russian economy on raw materials and how to get rid of it. But it [the resource curse] did not begin in the nineties of the 20th century. Raw material dependence was noticed back in the late seventies - in the eighties.
At that time there was state planning, there was a centralized system for the distribution of capital investments. And the following was observed: an increasingly large share of capital investment was directed to the oil and gas sector. At the same time, it was already obvious that, firstly, the remaining share of investments that are directed to the rest of the economy is declining, and secondly, this causes extremely negative phenomena in the rest of the economy. In other words, the economy outside the oil and gas complex has degraded. Everything was leading to the fact that soon there would only be one oil and gas sector left in the Soviet Union, and all other sectors would die out, since due to lack of investment the normal reproduction cycle in them was disrupted.
10.08.2013 New industrialization: breakthrough or road to nowhere? Anna Kuzmina.
How were investment decisions made in the USSR? Based effectiveness methods capital investments. The basis for the methodology for the efficiency of capital investments even then in the Soviet Union was based on cost-benefit approach, in some ways simulating decision making in a market economy.
It was clear that the degradation of the rest of the economy was dictated to us precisely by market principles: investments were directed to where they brought the greatest income. When perestroika came and everyone started talking about how we would now move straight to the market, our group [economists, headed by V.I. Danilov-Danilyan] I was horrified by this. If during the planned economy there were vague hopes that the existing trends could somehow be changed, then during the transition to a market economy, when decisions will definitely be made on market principles without any restrictions, what happened in the end will turn out.
So, the application of market principles - we observed and calculated this - led to such consequences. However, the same market principles operated in the West and under approximately the same conditions. At the time in question, America was not, like us, an oil country (although it is partly becoming one now). But decades before that, it was the world's leading oil-producing power.
Why didn't market principles lead to the United States becoming someone's raw materials appendage? Why there - decisions made on the basis of market principles led to the development of not only the oil sector, but also other industries, and quite rapidly, which allowed the United States to reduce oil production and switch to its purchases in exchange for higher technological products level?
This problem could be TWO answers:
Of course, this is a kind of conspiracy theory. It is known that in the West there are various think tanks - think tanks. One could assume that they are thinking about something strategic that goes beyond the current market conditions, developing recommendations that the government follows. after all, it can make decisions based on some other, non-market principles. There are many examples of such non-market solutions in the United States of America and European countries; we have carefully analyzed them.
Then, when perestroika ended, I worked in the civil service for quite a long time, and these questions for me turned from theoretical to practical: in the nineties state power There were heated discussions on this topic and different options were tried. After all, the danger of becoming a raw material appendage was always recognized, and the majority of people in the nineties (including parliament, which was then still a “place for discussion”) believed that it was necessary to move in some other direction. Various attempts were made to search for another direction, all of them ended unsuccessfully, this was recorded and at the same time required theoretical understanding.
But there is another version of the answer.
We considered not only the experience of developed Western countries, but also the most diverse experience of developing countries, many of which tried different ways overcome their dependence on raw materials (create industry, etc.). Some experiments of this kind were still ongoing in the eighties, but those that ended largely ended in failure. And therefore, those experiments that were still underway would most likely also end in failure. And so it happened: the Mexican, Argentine, and Brazilian experiments did not lead to anything (the Brazilian one has now been restarted, and we’ll see where it leads - I think that nothing good should be expected now).
That's why second answer to the question(he was bold, but as a hypothesis it could be put forward), why market principles in some cases give such results, and in other cases give different results, was that economies different. Not from the point of view of the institutional structure, but from the point of view of some other, let’s call them, factors. |
There are some factors that are not visible to us, but which make it possible that in some economies market principles lead to one result, and in other economies the same market principles lead to completely different results. |
It was challenge to traditional economics, which tells us that all economies are the same.
It is traditionally believed that nothing prevents the conventional “Romania”, except the laziness and greed of it (and, perhaps, the common people, which is masked by the politically correct “mentality”), from reaching the level of development of the conventional “USA”. The entire theory of modernization (on which thousands of volumes have been written) asserts that, from the point of view [Neoclassical economic theory in the sense of science -] economy, except for obstacles emanating from the population and authorities of developing countries, no others exist. The economic theory we are dealing with says that all economies are structured the same. Of course, there are some differences that may affect the dynamics differently. but a high level of well-being is always achievable. Therefore, if it doesn’t work out, then the Romanians, Argentines, Mexicans, Indonesians (the list goes on) are to blame, and soon the Chinese will also be to blame. Look at the press: the collapse of the Chinese economy is approaching, and the Western media are already preparing an explanation in advance that the Chinese, of course, are themselves to blame, and nothing else could be expected. It's all their own fault. |
A detailed presentation of the models can be found in the extensive work Economic Growth, written by Robert Joseph Barro and Xavier Sala-i-Martin. Without dwelling in detail on the analysis of this direction of modern economic thought, let us only note that some of the models being developed are aimed at identifying the internal structural factors of economies that predetermine the difference in their opportunities to achieve success.
I thought about this for a long time. And so, in September 2002, during one of the usual meetings on the development of the construction complex in Russia, it occurred to me, what factor should we take to understand how economies differ. It sounds very simple. Let's write it down so that it is before our eyes, because the entire lecture, and indeed the entire course, will be about this:
LEVEL OF DIVISION OF LABOR |
[At the same time] It’s not really a matter of division of labor, it’s a kind of marker pointing to a large integral structure, its designation. This design (taking into account what I started working on in the eighties) instantly highlighted everything at once: [If degree of division of labor taken as a FACTOR, it was discovered that] there is an answer to this problem, to this problem there is also an answer, to this one it is not yet clear, but what and where to look for is already clear.
Since we are talking about the division of labor, several problems immediately arise:It turned out like a detective story: I racked my brain for 20 years, and then suddenly it turned out that all the numerous facts that I was thinking about fit into a very simple diagram; It’s immediately clear who the killer is. And just like in a good hermetic detective story, when the detective says: here is the killer, here is the system of evidence, you begin to wonder how you didn’t guess it before, it was all on the surface.
First
At first there was fear: maybe [someone BEFORE me - already considered RT as a factor, and it turned out that after someone] I "invented a bicycle"?
Since this is all so clear, since all the numerous facts fit into a fairly simple scheme (later I realized that the scheme is not so simple). I experienced real horror. Now, of course, he has already left, I once again became thoroughly acquainted with. But then I thought: what if everyone knows about this?! In the civil service, you can’t dive deeply into science; you don’t read everything, maybe you missed something. But it turned out that no, he didn’t miss it.
Yes, there have been individual attempts, sometimes very striking, to do something in the same direction. I'll talk about them as we go. But they all remained episodes in .
Second
The fear did not go away for another reason. If I brought some new factor, a new term, a new word, but no!
Wake up any economist at night and ask, he will answer: “I know, . Russia must find its place in the international division of labor." Everything is banal, everyone talks about it.
It took eight years to answer this question. It turned out like this. It seems that there is a new approach, there are results that can be talked about. There are forecasts that come true. But the basis on which we make predictions and achieve results was for a long time only a vague image.
We have a different [economic] object, one to which . We're in another lecture, but I'll give you an idea of what we're talking about, already today. If a new object or even a system of objects has appeared, then a new stage has begun in the development of economic science. Of course it deserves a new name. Well, without further ado, I called it “”.
Therefore, what you will now listen to is a neoconomics course.
When we changed the object, this was followed by a whole chain reaction of revisions of everything that was said in economic theory; it took us a long time to get to the depths and this process is still far from complete. Nevertheless general outlines approach is already clear. You are the first to listen to this in such a volume that can already be considered holistic.
Now about the structure of the course: how it is built. |
The first understanding (distinction), why I understand in one way and everyone else in a different way, was formulated almost immediately; it was part of big picture, which was revealed to me from the very beginning. In fact, we call two different phenomena one division of labor (although they are sometimes very similar and interrelated): and.
We all know well about the natural division of labor from a standard economics textbook: furs are produced in the north, grapes are produced in the south, furs are exchanged for wine. is a division of labor caused by natural advantage or disadvantage. Some people have some natural (usually natural) advantage, others have a natural disadvantage. Within the framework of this system of advantages and disadvantages, exchange and trade are carried out, and this is where the story about the economy usually begins.
When they say that a country should integrate into the international division of labor, what is meant is the natural division of labor. Usually added: to use your natural advantages in a particular area. Moreover, the list of natural benefits is far from being limited to natural ones, they just don’t write down there, and we will deal with this later.
Let's return to Adam Smith, where does he begin the story? From a pin factory.
The work is divided into eighteen operations. There are 10 people working, so some of them perform several operations. No natural benefits are required for each of these operations. All that is required is care in performing a fairly simple operation.
In the natural division of labor the natural advantages of the individual develop, [for example] the blacksmith becomes more and more muscular [for affinity with the profession, and not only] more and more skillful. [probably until then] Until he gets sick. [By analogy] Anyone who embroiders must train his eyes to distinguish colors. And from the point of view of the natural division of labor, women are better colorists than men. There are also gender and age advantages; animals have them too. Young people do one thing, old people do another, women do something else, men do something else. Everyone plays to their natural strengths.
But in a pin factory there are no natural advantages.
The main idea of the technological division of labor is its maximum development: a person is a creature capable of performing [only] two functions: monitoring instrument readings and pressing buttons in time.
Almost any [without any natural benefits] can handle it. Most types of today's [work] activities are approximately this. Even in trading on the stock exchange today, people are being replaced by an automatic machine: an automatic machine can also monitor instrument readings and press a button in time, and it does this much better and faster than a human. Of course, machines regularly malfunction, but people do too.
We are told [from childhood] that we need to learn a profession, but in principle [in real life] the whole profession boils down to the fact that a person [stupidly] monitors instrument readings and presses a button at the right time. Therefore, unlike the natural division of labor, technological division of labor leads to simplification and elimination of differences between people .
Marx considered this his most important discovery. And at the same time - he praised Ricardo for being more closely involved than Smith did, associated the division of labor with a natural factor, that is, with specific labor for the production of specific things.
But [if] Marx still held both types of division of labor in his head, [while] subsequent generations of economists found this difficult, and they decided that one was enough.
Let us remember: all the time when we talk about the division of labor, we must understand what exactly we are talking about. All the time, when I’m not specifically emphasizing, I talk about.
Within a natural economy, of course, he produces what he considers most useful for himself, but the idea of usefulness is located exclusively inside his head. And this happens:
When making decisions - here usefulness doesn't matter. [Because] Utility is predetermined [those. the product is needed in any case]. We know why we are doing all this. This decision is made based only on the comparison of labor costs.
[It’s as if a calculation takes place in a person’s head that in the presence of another manufacturer] now we we can spend less labor to obtain the same utility (Or increase the utility received with the same amount of working time).
This is the basis of the theory of value. This is the situation considered by the labor theory of value.
And the theory of exchange [the theory of marginal utility], based on utility, does not provide for any labor costs. I have a thing: no one knows where it came from. It just is. You have a thing: it is also unknown where it came from. We are not going to produce or reproduce them, we don’t even think about it.
There is a term used in Marxist literature: “flea market economics” (or “rentier economics,” Nikolai Bukharin wrote such a book). I got something from somewhere - from my grandmother, from my dad, I just found it in the attic, on the street. It's not very useful to me - so I went and exchanged it for something more useful. In this situation, the comparison is based on utility.
There is no regular production here, only one-time deals, and this is a serious objection to the "utility theory of exchange."
Of course, everything is not as stupid as I just described to you. Although I have met people who received higher education economic Education who did not understand such things.
It is assumed that the undertaker (who has resources - labor, materials, etc.) every time, almost every second or at the beginning of each new production cycle, that is, when he begins manufacturing his product, always considers alternative possibilities. It’s kind of like “shouldn’t I start baking buns?”
Let us consider the factors that determine the scale of the technological division of labor. Adam Smith already described them quite clearly, and Marx detailed, specified and outlined them point by point.
We can remain within the framework of Adam Smith; a lot of interesting, one might say brilliant, fit into him; including where he did not even bring the thinking to the end, but left important guesses and gave correct examples. The only thing that ruins it all is the confusion of unbridled fantasy on the topic of exchange.
What is necessary for the division of labor?
(1) People are needed to divide labor . Smith looked at the economy and saw in it many professions that must be in some kind of relationship with each other, he understood that the system of division of labor in which he lived involved two or three million people. He thought in terms of national economics [18th century Britain], and within this framework, these three million had to be physical.
If we return to the example of Romania and the United States, Romania cannot build such a system of division of labor as the United States could hypothetically build for itself. There are 20 million people in Romania and 315 million in the US. Romania can build a system of division of labor for only 20 million people, taking into account the necessary proportions (as discussed below). Moreover, actually American system, of course, does not include 315 million, but perhaps a billion or 2 billion people. Romania is very far from this.
(2) Another important factor is population density. . The population of the Soviet Union at its peak was 270 million. More than the United States of America at that time. But this population lived over such a large area that transactions between people were difficult.
Adam Smith constantly compares: the city, in which a high level of division of labor can be built, and the countryside. It doesn't matter what the population is in rural areas. It can be 10 times more than in the city. But in rural areas the level of division of labor will be lower than in the city, where the population density higher.
(3) One thing worth paying attention to important point, fashionable today theme of clusters. What they write and say about this today, frankly, depresses me.
To understand the role and significance of clusters, it is necessary to take into account that from the point of view of the division of labor, not only population density is important, but also activity density.
If someone sees this link, they can take it and outsource it. Then this operation will become specialized, and the one who has done this will take advantage of all the benefits of the division of labor, all the effects of specialization. In this case, it will be possible to normalize the workload so that everyone here will be employed full time, there will be no downtime, and for the same salary we will get an increase in productivity.
But if we have many such enterprises that will now begin to use the services of a specialized company, what will happen next? It may turn out that this operation should be divided into several others, within this operation a division of labor should be carried out and its efficiency increased. The level of division of labor in the cluster will increase, and its efficiency will increase.
Isolation of a specialized company providing veterinary services
And now the veterinary business has become a separate company (Fig. 2)
There may already be different people. Moreover, the one who, for example, takes tests and analyzes may not have the qualifications of a veterinarian; he can be paid less. And the veterinarian will now be responsible only for what his qualifications require. Therefore, the division of labor can be increased here, and due to this factor, the entire system receives a synergistic effect.
This is where synergy comes from in clusters. First of all, from the division of labor. Cluster efficiency is due to the fact that it provides a higher level of division of labor than the industry average in the surrounding economic environment. Everything else is nothing more than fantasy and coincidence - It is impossible to select industries in a cluster in advance and say: this is where the maximum synergistic effect will be . This process cannot be done consciously, it must be done unconsciously. And - but more on this in the next lectures - when a number of external conditions are met.
Who creates this specialized company? Most likely, someone who works here and has an entrepreneurial spirit, who saw everything from the inside, felt it firsthand, and looked for how to do everything better. There is not just one such event, but many.
Why do they have to be in one place? Firstly, the market is visible, everything is visible, you can see narrow places. Secondly, logistics costs are minimal. If firms were scattered over long distances, outsourcing one of the operations might be ineffective due to transportation costs, and then there would be no question of further division of labor. And if they are in one place, then all this is visible, all this is easier to calculate. Porter sometimes comes very close to understanding how this works. But his imagination, alas, always outweighs him.
(1) The compensating factor for low activity density is infrastructure. We cannot increase the density to infinity and concentrate all production and consumption at one point.
Adam Smith places infrastructure development at the forefront of a number of factors contributing to the development of the division of labor. Smith calls for the construction of roads, canals, and the main thing he calls for development is maritime transport. When he [in the book The Wealth of Nations] goes to the country that he calls Tartary, and we call Russia, then he says: here's a good one, rich country, but she was terribly unlucky. If there are rivers, they flow in the wrong direction, they freeze, there are no convenient exits to the sea: nothing will work out there.
But England is an island, everything is wonderful here!
When we talk about the technological division of labor, we must take into account market size.
The technological division of labor presupposes the presence of strict proportions in the economic system it covers.
Following condition of division of labor according to Adam Smith - market sizes. This has been a stumbling block for me for a very long time, because this question is related to the issue to which the term “division of labor” is applicable and which for a long time I could not correctly define. Smith clearly formulated this condition; the chapter is called: “ The development of the division of labor is limited by the size of the market
Let's compare the results of the work of 10 artisans and a factory with 10 workers (Table 1).
This example shows say the orthodox, that market expansion is required, because 10 artisans will produce 10 tables per unit of time, and a factory - 15. In order to realize the additional income associated with the division of labor, the market must grow by 50%.
However, 50% is the maximum, because in principle, even if they sell 11 tables, they will still get some effect.
Why is the market expanding? Because they can reduce the cost of the table and those who were already buying tables will buy more tables. Well, those who haven’t bought them before will start doing so. Somewhere there is an equilibrium point at which table manufacturers can both reduce the price and make a profit due to the expansion of the market. Everything seems to be logical and corresponds to the words of A. Smith.
But it was always clear to me: what is here one, and here 10 - it matters; and the meaning exactly 10 times, and not by 50%, as in the orthodox example.
So let's look at it now same example a little differently (Fig. 3).
One artisan sells his tables to someone. He can exist as long as there are, say, 10 farmers who regularly hit the tables with their fists, the tables break, and with some frequency they run to him to order them again, and at the ordered tables they feed the artisan with various tasty and healthy foods.
- One artisan exists as long as there are 10 farmers.
- And the factory requires from 100 to 150 farmers; if there are at least 99 of them, then the factory will not exist, since it will be unprofitable. The world will live, artisans will exist, but there will be no factories.
What do we mean by market here? These are not just buyers. This is a whole closed exchange system. Farmers produce something, which means they exchange with each other, and they exchange with the artisan, that is, this is a whole production system.
- In a production system in which the table is manufactured in a factory, the minimum 110 people (including 10 factory workers).
- And for a production system in which a craftsman exists, it is enough 11 Human .
I'll now show you what Adam Smith was really thinking about when he talked about market size. He wrote this, but didn’t finish the thought a little.
Second example:
Case about a day laborer's jacket
At the end of the first chapter [Wealth of Nations books] Smith's goes big enough [in which Smith is surprised that even a worker whose income is minimal can afford a wool jacket of excellent quality, since he does not have a regular income, because he is periodically hired for only one day]. Since it [the text] is a little unfinished, it is not very clear why it was written.
You can ask questions about the book. will from time to time answer the most interesting questions and post video answers to them.
2. Observing for several decades a clear discrepancy between theoretical principles and observed processes, a large group of Western economists attempted to develop a class of fundamentally new economic growth models. An interesting overview of the results achieved is given in the book by R. Lucas “ Lectures on economic growth».
5. Orthodox economic theory usually assumes that this is true.
6. If we have less than 11 people, then there will be no artisan, and farmers will be forced to make their own tables in their free time from other activities. And they will probably take more care of them - they will bang their fists less, and they will have less strength for this. Can serve as a useful guide to his book “The Age of Growth”, as Oleg Vadimovich briefly outlines the history of neoconomics and its logic.
The following videos show that Oleg Vadimovich not only predicted the crisis, as Mikhail Khazin ascribes to himself, but already at the turn of the 2000s had a scientific basis for his theories, according to which the real crisis is not a periodic crisis at all, but the beginning of a contraction of the entire world economy, if if you want, you can even call it - end of capitalism.
3 Dec. 2011 Oleg Grigoriev in M. Delyagin’s program “THIS IS RELEVANT”. Causes and consequences of the crisis.
Neuromir Aug 15 2012 Economist Oleg Grigoriev about the coming financial crisis. Financial crisis. What is the root of Evil? and who ate the Future?
A. Smith's research begins with a definition of the subject of economic science. Subject study, according to Smith, is the economic development of society and increasing its well-being. As N. Kondratiev noted, “Smith’s entire classic work on the wealth of nations was written from the point of view of what conditions and how lead to the greatest prosperity, as he understood it.” Thus, A. Smith explores the nature of wealth and the conditions for its increase .
At the heart of the entire system economic views A. Smith is based on the idea that the wealth of society is created by labor in the production process. The very first words with which the book begins: “The annual labor of every people is the initial fund, which provides it with all the products necessary for existence and the convenience of life,” make it possible to understand that according to Smith, it is the economy, as it develops, that increases the wealth of the people, and this wealth acts not in the form of money, but in the form of material (physical) goods. Thus, unlike the mercantilists, under wealth Smith understands not money, but material wealth created by labor. Accordingly, true source of wealth is the activity of people who annually create a mass of goods they consume.
A. Smith writes that the natural forces of nature without human activity would remain sterile and useless. From this he concludes that since wealth is generated by labor in general, and not just land, then productive there will be not the labor of any one class (as with the physiocrats), but the labor of all classes, of the entire nation as a whole. Hence, primary sphere where wealth is created is not the sphere of circulation, as with the mercantilists, but production sector , without highlighting any industries (unlike the physiocrats).
Having established the content and source of creation of society's wealth, A. Smith considers conditions for its growth . A. Smith says that the “wealth” of a society, that is, the volume of production and consumption of products, depends on two factors: 1) from the share of the population engaged in productive labor and 2) on the level of labor productivity. He considered the first factor less important, pointing out that there are many peoples who are numerous but poor. The second factor is of incomparably greater importance.
According to A. Smith, the growth of social labor productivity is determined by division of labor . Smith writes that the wealth created in a country in a year is the product total labor all workers. Wealth comes from their collaboration and cooperation, which is the result of the division of labor in society. Attaching the greatest importance to the division of labor as a condition for the growth of wealth, Smith turned it into starting point of your research. Beginning his book with the division of labor, A. Smith depicts it as main factor growth of social labor productivity. Indeed, at the manufacturing stage of capitalism, when machines were still rare and manual labor predominated, it was the division of labor that was the main factor in the growth of its productivity, since the most productive is the performance of simple operations.
A. Smith considers the division of labor of two kinds - the division of labor in manufacture and the social division of labor. A. Smith begins his consideration of the issue with division of labor in manufacture. A. Smith gives his famous example of the pin factory, where the specialization of workers and the division of operations between them allows workers, even when they are “not very well provided with the necessary machines,” to increase production hundreds of times. A. Smith believed that the division of labor in manufacturing increases productivity in three ways: by increasing the dexterity of each worker; saving time when moving from one type of activity to another; stimulating the invention and production of machines that facilitate and reduce human labor.
The division of labor in manufacturing, where workers specialize in different operations and jointly produce the finished product, contributes to an enormous increase in labor productivity. The same result brings economy-wide division of labor . Society seems to A. Smith to be a huge workshop where there is a division between different types of labor that create social wealth. The division of labor in society, establishing the cooperation of all to satisfy the needs of each individual, is the true source of progress and growth of wealth.
In the same time origin of division of labor at the micro- and macroeconomic level it is different. If in manufacturing the specialization of jobs is created by the manager, then in the national economy division of labor arises naturally .
The division of labor is a consequence of the general human nature sharing instinct . This instinct is an innate human quality. It develops spontaneously under the influence of the simultaneous action of the personal interest of everyone. “The division of labor... is by no means the result of someone’s wisdom, which foresaw and realized the general well-being that would be generated by it: it is a consequence of a certain inclination of human nature, namely the inclination to exchange, trade.” “... The confidence to exchange all that surplus of the product of his labor, which exceeds his own consumption, for that part of the product of other people that he may need, motivates each person to devote himself to a certain special occupation.”
Thanks to division of labor And exchange man manages to increase his productivity and his well-being many times over, and the progress of national wealth consists in increasing the entire mass of various objects placed at the disposal of consumers.
How to make the division of labor widespread? A. Smith considers the most important condition to be the use of machines. Each expanding firm must introduce more machines to increase the productivity of its workers. The use of machines, in turn, makes it possible to further specialize labor operations and increase labor productivity. We can say that A. Smith, in the concept of division of labor, outlined the doctrine technical progress as the main means of increasing the wealth of the nation.
Adam Smith considered the dependence of the division of labor from market development. An extensive market, he argued, creates favorable conditions for the division of labor and specialization of production. On this basis, high labor productivity and growth in the wealth of society are achieved. When the market is narrow, the possibilities for division of labor are limited, and the growth of labor productivity is difficult.
Although certain provisions of the doctrine of the division of labor were formulated by predecessors, in A. Smith’s interpretation they received a completely new meaning. He convincingly proved that labor is the source of society’s wealth, and division of labor, which has a natural development in a market economy, is the most important factor in increasing labor productivity and increasing social wealth.