Division of labor
the term division of labor is developed from the allocation of the work of productive humans (work divide). Today the term is more generally used (national economy, company, family, organism, symbiosis). A task is to be fulfilled and many parts contributes to it. Division of laboris to be understood in the connection. A part is evenly (more functionally) a part of an entire one, an overall system. Division of labor causes dependence (loss of the independence) and requires a coordination.
By division of labor one understands each form of the allocation of social production in the social sciences aboutGoods (goods and services) into different subprocesses, which are then implemented by different restaurant units (producer, manufacturing plants, regions). Each form of the division of labor presupposes an appropriate form of the work combination, i.e. the social organization of the unification of the different subprocesses.
forms of the division of labor
essentially following Karl books (the emergence of the national economy) being able different, however usually overlaying, forms thatDivision of labor distinctive become. In particular
- the sexual division of labor, i.e. the allocation of different work between man and woman; the work combination takes place for example over reciprocity in the family; in Wildbeutergesellschaften rather regular collecting is incumbent on often the women and children), the intermittent chase and fishingthe men; in an industrialized society however it concerns roughly the division between reproduktiven tasks , those the women is assigned itself here and productive tasks, which are given to the men;
- the vocational training, i.e. the specialization of producers and manufacturing plants on the production of certain kindsof goods and services. To the oldest occupations and sound ones might have belonged Schmiede here; the work combination takes place for example by moving trade, later on markets over exchange;
- the occupation splitting, i.e. the large specialization within existing branches of industry or occupation on subspeciesof goods and services; Schmiede e.g. become. to rough grobschmieden, coppersmiths, Schwertfegern etc.; the work combination takes place for example on markets over exchange;
- the work dismantling, i.e. the allocation of an individual production process into different subprocesses, which are noticed within an individual manufacturing plant of specialized workers (see. Manufaktur; the work combination takes place over the operational (fiscal, business) expiration operational sequence;
- the production division, i.e. the allocation of a production process into different subprocesses, which take place in different (economically independent or dependent) manufacturing plants; the work combination finds over the operational expiration operational sequence (see. Oikos) or market exchange instead of;
- the regional division of labor, i.e. the specialization of individual regions on the production of certain goods and services; the work combination takes place for example over far from trade ;
- the international division of labor, i.e. the specialization of individual nations on the production of certain goodsand services; the work combination e.g. takes place over the foreign trade. Obligation trade (see. Colonialism) or free trade to be can.
Further there are the following partitionings:
- social division of labor, between humans, development of individual occupations - see also social differentiation
- operational division of labor, after operational functional areas
- economical division of labor, in primary sector, secondary sector and tertiary sector (see sector of the economy)
- international division of labor, in the world - see. Globalization, world economy.
term of the division of labor in the political economy
the term of the division of labor has obviously Berne pool of broadcasting corporations Mandeville in its “bee fable” for the first timeused (division OF labour).
The division of labor increases the productivity of the work after Adam Smith. This has among other things three reasons:
- Specialization and thus promotion of the “larger skill of each individual worker”
- saving of time
- technical progress
the specialization cause that itself participants (humans, enterprise, countries) on thatPart the entire production process concentrates, with which they have komparative advantages. Each participant knows the time and work expended, which he had to spend on other partial activities, now alone for those partial activities begin, in which he is particularly productive. This applies to national as to international division of labor(see. the theory of komparativer cost advantages after David Ricardo).
Saving of time are explained with the famous pin example: An individual unskilled worker can manufacture few pins on one day only. The work divided into several handles (wire to pull, pinch off, to intensify head above drauf, a packing,…),so for example five workers can manufacture thousands of pins on one day.
The technical progress comes by the fact to conditions that individual parts of a production procedure can be more easily improved. In addition, after today's view already are the organization of production and that changed by the division of laborthus productivity gain already obtained “technical progress”.
Division of labor requires a co-ordination of the economic activities. The individual branches of production are strongly from each other dependent and must coordinate their production plans. In a free-market economy price-steered markets fulfill this function of the co-ordination.
See also: Taylorismus
borders and dangers thatSpecialization
Karl Marx likewise practiced criticism at the partitioning into work procedures ever more specialized. The worker is alienated from no human being-worthy conditions of work from the product of his work and is thus more suspended. In addition set the increased necessity for unskilled work the meaning of theindividual worker down. In the earlier production method of the independent craftsmen due to its over years trained abilities a special meaning came to each worker. This disappears during increasing specialization. The individual worker is only a small Rädchen generally speaking system - or an organ. That Capital owner can gain by lowered labor costs more profit by his product. The increase in value of the product steige, which sinks power of the worker, the exploitation steige. Alienation from the production process and exploitation are therefore the main points of criticism, which Marx at this system practices.
After Adam Smith is specialization limited by the “extent of the market”. This expression can be referred both to the inquiring and offer side. Demand-laterally a large specialization may not be necessary in small markets, since additional output cannot be set off anyway. Offer-laterally specialization can by the number of workers a border set its.
Smith sees beyond that also the dangers of the division of labor. Humans hebetate, if they exercise only an individual handle continuously. The vocational satisfaction by a comprehensive activity is given no more by simple and monotonous handles. AsCounter measure demands it improved training. It represents also the problems during mental specialization, with which for example a philosopher can become so practice substantial that he recognizes no more similarity with a carrier.
Gary Becker and Kevin M. Murphy
after Gary Becker and Kevin M. Murphy (1992) accompanies increasing specialization with a superproportional rise of the co-ordination costs. Thus borders are set to the specialization, which result from the controlling of the activities of specialized workers. This reason may be quite more important in many connections as the “extent of the market”.The beginning offers also an explanation contribution for the organization of companies and industries: if market co-ordination is cheaper, then specialization of companies on certain tasks takes place. In the contrary case workers within a company would specialize. There transport costs a large portion of the co-ordination costs between companiesto have it can, explains this beginning for example why in larger cities more are to be found specialized companies and/or. concentrate why certain industries at the same places.
term of the division of labor in the sociology
the term of the division of labor was in the sociology 19.Century the subject of an argument over the co-operation of the society.
harsh ore Spencer
harsh ore Spencer analyzed the division of labor in the paper Specialisation OF of transmitting ion and division OF labour from the work “Principles OF Sociology” (starting from 1877) as natural result of social evolution and regional differences.
Émile Durkheim “reacted” in argument with the Utilitarismus in De la to division you travail social (1893) and explained the division of labor as the important basis for the “organic solidarity “of highly developed societies.
contemporaneous, but not in more directArgument busy itself George Simmel into over sociale differentiation (1890) with the topic of the division of labor.
All three works the substantial goal is common of dissolving the contradiction between increasing individualizing and collective co-operation of the society. Beyond that each author puts a thought model of the division to reason,with that a homogeneous whole during one period to a heterogeneous collection of individual parts develops, which forms however for their part (higher) whole. The differences set already when allocating this simple model: So this can do whole one the quantity of possible activities for society preservation(Spencer), the quantity of all existing activities (Durkheim) or the quantity of the interests and conceptions of an individual (Simmel) its.
the object of the division
on the basis of all authors the common division thought in the consequence the individual aspects of this division are regarded, over upthis way the different facets of the examined terms division OF labour, specialisation OF of transmitting ion (Spencer), differentiation, to work division of labor (Simmel) and division you travail social (Durkheim) out.
The clearest statement for the object of the division is to be found with Spencer. Specialisation OF of transmitting ion refers, those necessary for continuing a society or important are on all activities or their parts (these are the activities of government, military, religiousness, administration and industry).Division OF labour Spencer in accordance with the general view of its time on the part specialisation of the OF of transmitting ion, which serves directly or indirectly the fulfilment of material desires or the production of material aids to the fulfilment of mental desires. To the division OF labour belong beyond that still the one production process adjusting mental work. Also the division of labor George Simmels, those seems aligned to activities rarelyUse finds. It has a similar or identical designation with differentiation of the work. It divides related tasks of a vocational activity, covers themselves thus at the most with specialisation the OF of transmitting ion, if one wants to regard the occupation as contribution for continuing a society, and the taskin the sense from activity taking place in the near future understands.
Differentiation continues to seize meanwhile clearly beyond this range and means first inequality, so that division of labor is finally a possible Konkretion of differentiation. Like that the object of the differentiation is indefinite. Social differentiation is clear to thatDevelopment process of a homogeneous group from humans to a heterogeneous bind, in addition, it describes directly only one variability here. Finally a kind division is found in the differentiation of the personality, that accompanies with the social differentiation, but. Because this can meaningful be only interpretedas the variability of the interests of a person and thus the fragmentation, the division of the interest of a person into different parts. These parts are the associatednesses of this person to different groups (circles), which with a multiplicity of existing circles the personality as singular intersection of this multiplicity describes.
Émile Durkheim refers his division you travail social once to work and once to function. Since the division of labor is however “a result of the life fight”, the activities standing for arrangement are directed on achieving of limited goods and/or toward such, those by many human competitorsbecame scarce. Since these goods can be both mental and material, is possible a comparison with specialisation the OF of transmitting ion and the division of labor. A difference to the first lies in such activities, which are necessary for continuing the society, but none (at least not aufwändigdesigned) limited goods constituted.
Examples of these activities are selecting a party, itself informing by the media or (moral) the exchange with its fellow men. These activities satisfy needs of the action, are available however unrestrictedly, in particular independently of it, like many other humansthe same activity exercise. However a society without election turnout or communication over the social requests could probably hardly continue (also in the sense Durkheims). If one wants to bind “vocational activities” less to a “appointment” and more strongly to a Lohnarbeit, then division of labor is to a certain extent the 'smallest commonNenner' of the terms discussed here.
the Komplementarität of the division
a substantial point of criticism Durkheims at the work harsh ore Spencers is the neglect of the arrangement and thus the before necessary moral volume between the persons, who divide a work among themselves. Basis of this criticism is the “nature” of the division you travail social to divide “the function into two plementäre functions” requires. This is an excessive restriction of the division term, wants one the remarks Spencers to become fair, because this regards likewise from each other an independent “division” (if one her then still assuch to designate wants), how she would be possible between different regions for example, and itself a mutually supporting division similarly a symbiosis, which can contain both laps and completely different parts. So, in order to make these differences more plastic by examples, a farmer knows his farm workdivide into sowing and harvesting complementary. In addition, it can co-operate with a neighbour, operate in particular agriculture and limit its cattle breeding strongly, while its neighbour behaves in reverse, which would come equal an overlapping division. Finally Fischer and Bauer without her could do connecting trade or mutualExist to knowledge next to each other, so that, based on the conceivable possibilities of the food supply of a society, a completely independent division is to be determined. The criticism Durkheims is load-carrying only in case of a complementary division. It is a considerable difference between “division you travail social” and specialisation OF of transmitting ionto determine and/or division OF labour.
The differentiation of the personality can do, takes we as basis the division object stated in the previous chapter, all three of the division forms sketched above to assume. The division of labor however appears by the strong reference to Lohnarbeit frequently as of a direction planned andis often complementary put on therefore, in addition, appears overlaying. Importantly Simmel is however the straight connection between the individual fields of activity, so that an independent division cannot be excluded by the formulations, but at least hardly one considers by it. By this connection comethe consequences of the division of labor to conditions, more interesting for it: That humans have another humans with equivalent occupation, but other interests (or in reverse), and so the material connections from the schematic equalnesses to to differentiate learn and over it the abstraktere common recognize.
The concerning of the division
the evenly addressed consequence of the division of labor with Simmel is to be only found, if two different persons or groups implement the separate parts of the work, which Teilarbeiten can be thus parallel implemented. For similar reason is also the form of the division,with the one activity only spatially and/or temporally one divides and nevertheless by a person or a group (without specialization of its members) one accomplishes, for Durkheim uninteresting and one does not consider. Because in this case the emergence of solidarity between different persons cannot concludedbecome. Thus this possibility receives (explicit) a mention only with Spencer at least for the serial division OF labour of an individual.
The question about the exchangeability of the involved ones of the division remains unconsidered with Spencer in the treated chapters, because this seems parallel with the generalTo rise division development. It treats the liberties of the wage employer-employee relationship, but the thought that a Aufsplitterung of more complex activities does not only make area possible for a specialization of the persons taken part in the division, but in reverse also the remaining parts so simple to make can that in principle each humanswithout special qualifications to implement knows, is these partial activities with Spencer not.
Also Durkheim does not concern itself with this range of topics. Thus a characterisation of the 'segment eras 'is, thus in Durkheims classification primitive, to few developed society of the following kind in the secondary literature: “Of thatmost individuals expected that they can fulfill each task, it to have, which concerns the working order fulfilment, to be nearly exchangeable, and possess in this sense from social perspective no “individuality”.” The latter results with Durkheim straight from the division you travail social, which however such a specializationthe work offerer presupposes that they are evenly clearly less exchangeable for their part than before (this development is caused after Durkheim also by the competition of the work offerers). If one regards however at least the part of the division of labor, which for the increase of the productivity by work-giving is consciously planned, then are many of these Teilarbeiten so impersonally and unqualified that the employees are to a considerable degree exchangeable humans and no or hardly special qualities can show. Then it is however not observable why solidarity between these persons should develop, there everyone could take over their tasks and thusnone on them is dependent. Also this aspect is not to be placed as anomaly against the edge, since even in one only on freiwilliger occupation choice and naturally grown division you result travail social being based society always unqualified and thus personnel exchangeable work. These become thennot from interest, assessment or abilities accepted, but from lack of other possibilities for employment.
Simmel deals clearly with this point, although in more general form. It does not see the objectification of the social relations in agreement with a rising individual liberty growing, there the obligations any longeropposite a concrete person, but only in relation to a position exist. This development has its borders, since the others are felt “to be first nevertheless there and [to have], so that they can unimportant one. [...] The cause like the effect of such objective dependence, with those thatSubject as such is free, lies in the replaceability of the persons: in the freiwilligen or by the structure of the relationship changes of the subjects caused reveal themselves that indifference of the subjective moment of the dependence, which carries the feeling of the liberty. “Related to the division of labor that would mean,that only the positions or post, the parts of the work are assigned to which are from each other dependent, not however these possessing individuals. Now the consciousness of the individuals creates the feeling over dependence of their posts to be on all other individuals dependent there potentially everyoneother one such a post received could, and thus an indirect dependence would be present. Is however, and to that extent my criticism expressed above applies also to Simmel, not the different degree of the exchangeability, dependent on the activity and the qualifications, considered, necessary for it, that evenlynot a dependence of the particular on all equally, but a dependence rising with the qualification of the post produces.
A further point is the question whether a person can be taken part in several division processes. Thus it seems to be natural for Spencer that each person onlyan activity part or an occupation to exercise knows. That contradicts Simmel, which determines straight in that variety of the circles, in which the same person is involved, a substantial development (it becomes clear in examples that also different activities and occupations connected with the membership in such circlesto be can). The remarks Durkheims permit both possibilities. Differently than Simmel Durkheim does not consider however possibly the conflicts developing from several activities with a person.
by division of labor develop on the one hand problems with the co-ordination, about problems with the search orSupply, on the other hand problems with the motivation, about problems of specificity and dependence or measurement and evaluation.
Further problems result,if division of labor appears as a form of discriminating hierarchy.
By toolistic side was criticized here for instance the sexual division of labor, which specifies women on the household and to relatively systematic Ausgrenzung from other vocational fields introduces - an inequality, also today still into many societiesProblem represents.
Also racistic discriminations , which lead to it, are pointed out to immigrants and colored one the entrance too more highly paid, to better qualified jobs are blocked.
From globalization-critical view also the international division of labor represents a problem, there the one-sided definition of many developing countries on the supply ofcheap worker and raw material production and a Vermehrung of the prosperity prevents their industrialization.