Markets and Division of Labor - Essay Example

?Running Head: Markets and Division of Labor Markets and Division of Labor [Institute’s Markets and Division of Labor Social cohesion and division of labour market are the two aspects that have come under association that dates back to several decades. From the olden times to the modern times, the ideas and notion about the market and division of labor whether encourage or discourage has come under numerous discussions and various opinions. Social cohesion comes under classification when the people within a society work in collaboration with each other for a common goal that includes the people coming from cultural diversity. Besides, dedication, acquaintance, and creation of a community are the pivotal aspects that form the social cohesion. Here the people have a shared approach as a single unit surrounded by a committed system, so that the strategies and guiding principles incorporating the economic, social, health and educational assist and support to the society and its members (Wood, 1984). While the other aspect of the report exhibit the division of labour, which is no new concept as it has its origination back to late eighteen century. Although various thinkers and philosophers considered it as a significant principle, but history reveals the fact that Adam Smith was one of the initial people who made an effort to undertake a theory of it. However, this phenomenon in the contemporary time of today has come under vast development that everybody is very much aware of this trend. The division of the labour refers to the area of interest that defines the productive output of the labor that aids in improving the economical growth. This comes under implementation from breaking the bigger activities into smaller chunks that the labor can perform as his expertise that can increase his productivity (Zupi and Puertas, 2010). Historical and authentic substantiation indicates that the few countries of European region initiated an experiment with a core purpose to make its economy liberated from other aspects of life including the social and political control that administered the economic conditions, in order to free the socially rooted markets that subsisted for a very long time. Therefore, the development of the free market came into institution by splitting up the markets that has the origins on social factors. As consequence, a new type of economy came into emergence that did not considered the impacts on society and modified and transformed value of several components including the goods price and labor (Wood, 1984). The Adam’s idea of division of labour articulates that the larger jobs must be divided and break down into small components that can come under relation to the specialized workforce. This makes each worker and labour a proficient and specialist for the areas of production, and hence the efficiency and output of the labour boosts. Nevertheless, this idea of division of labour also hoards quite a few resources including capital and time, as the labours being an expert in a particular component would not have to make exchange tasks and responsibilities. However, this also leads to an unanticipated issue that the propensity increases that a worker may become ignorant and disappointed from the work because the technological advancements would lead and induce the individuals to perform mundane and repetitious tasks (Reisman, 1976). Smith also states that in order to have a productive labour, they must be assigned the tasks that best fit their capabilities and abilities. This is for the reason that this assignment of labour according to their expertise would lead them to produce substantial and surplus products that can come under reinvestment into the production process. Adam Smith also has a leading concern towards the origins of the value, which has come under recognition in two different forms: use value and exchange value, and concluded that labour is the primary source of value (Reisman, 1976). The data and records provide clear evidences that the division of labour is not only distinct and endemic to the economic world, but has also persuaded in several other field of the society in the current times. The political, administrative, scientific, and judicial functions are few of the aspects that practice the division of the labour to large extent, since all arenas are getting more specialized with the passage of time (Reisman, 1976). Adam Smith is one of the philosophers who deemed and believed that trade and exchange is the core focal point for having a wealthy and affluent society. Furthermore, he also believed that division of labour also contributes to social cohesion along with the prosperity of the society. This is because when the labour comes under division, they are more likely to improve their productivity, which generate capital. Furthermore, the market ethics, moral values, and ideology are the key aspects that can make the social order in the most appropriate manner. However, another aspect that has come under consideration with respect to Smith’s conviction that government interference and intrusion should not come under performance in the economic activities as it would lead to intervention of duties or tax with free trading (Zupi and Puertas, 2010). Adam Smith also had accepted as true that the division of labour is the foundation stone on which a society stands. In fact, the market is the key place of harmonizing and synchronizing the labour distribution and division. Therefore, this entire process of coordination of the market with the labour division is not an artificial phenomenon; rather, this practice is a natural event and trend that occurs on various bases (Zupi and Puertas, 2010). Adam Smith describes that the division of labour comes under association with various economic advantages, which links and brings the individuals on a single platform. These individuals work in alliance in order to augment the production process of the economic goods by having different individuals performing different tasks at the same time. The working of different individuals at the same time is potential as the people have an innate inclination to exchange things with one another (Bianchi and Labory, 2011). Adam Smith believed and thought that division of labour is one of the most dominant and authoritative aspect that can lead to increased and decreased productivity. In addition, Adam Smith states that the aspect of productivity greatly depends upon two essential elements. The improved and augmented aptitude, ability, and expertise of the labour are the first aspect that adds to the output of the workforce. However, efficiency is also deeply reliant upon the technological advancements and innovations that not only alleviate the work of the labour but also allow one individual to perform the work that could have performed by several (Zupi and Puertas, 2010). The division of labour is one of the imperative aspects that encourage the social cohesion, according to the faith and principles of Adam Smith. Smith strongly claimed and asserted that the economic dependencies of the members of the society upon one another have a powerful connection to the division of labour. These social connections, relations, teamwork, and collaboration lay the underpinning for social cohesion as well as for economic orders, as shared common benefit serves as origins of social cooperation (Bianchi and Labory, 2011). The extent of the market or power of exchanging has hold on to degree of this division of labor constantly, since the division of labor is attributable to the supremacy and influence of exchanging. The social status (that is belonging to the upper or lower class) of an individual can come under measurement from the extent of how much one can afford and take leverage form their necessities, conveniences and pleasure of life. Nevertheless, the division of labour alters the process of rich or poor and the quantity of the labour becomes the significant aspects (Bianchi and Labory, 2011). While looking at the other side of the spectrum, philosophers and social theorists in comparison to Adam Smith have a much different idea and notion towards the social cohesion with respect to division of market. These theorists allege and assume that exploitation is the most accurate term that can come under articulation for the labour market. This is due to the reason that these social theorists believe that labour would never be able to get the complete worth of the produced goods in a society that practice competition and money is the prime aspect. Indeed, they consider that society must have its basis on cooperation as it leads to escalated economic competence and effectiveness (Bianchi and Labory, 2011). The principal notion of Smith's believes lay key emphasis on the thought that individuals can only have collaboration with each other when every person seeks to maximize their personal economic benefits. However, this basic principal of Smith came under revitalization by a number of modern and influential economists and thinkers somewhere in the twentieth century. According to these thinkers, the social order and social cohesion could have their roots on the free attempt of private economic interest (Furze, Savy, Brym, and Lie, 2011). Moreover, these neo-classical thinkers provide with three chief suppositions that has a profound impact on to the social solidity. When the people identify and realize that a certain or particular benefit would provide gain to all on a shared basis, the cooperation is indispensable amongst all, which means that cooperation can come under guarantee when everybody thinks on a common advantage. Nonetheless, natural identity of interest is another prevalent aspect that defines that teamwork would instinctively occur amongst the people who intend to have their own wellbeing and benefit on ad further basis. As an outcome of it, the most favorable economic establishment would come under exercise (Furze, Savy, Brym, and Lie, 2011). Some schools of thoughts also consider that the supply of the goods is directly proportionate to its demand; hence, the probability of increase in demand is essential that could match with the supplies when the labours get their full compensations and fair exchanges. This fair treatment and candid employment would also lead to elimination of poverty within the country and civilization, where all people would leverage equal rights. This upright and virtuous means of management depicts that labour is above the factor of money when standard values come under consideration (Wood, 1998). It has also come under deep notice that few dominating, industrialized, and economically stable countries of the world have experienced the incident of social collapse, due to the free markets. In addition, facts also brings to limelight that free markets in few of the nations have also become prime reasons for deteriorating and abating the institutions that caused social cohesions on a widespread basis. However, the global free market refers to the globalization of the economy that interlinks the economies of the world on a single raised arena (Wood, 1998). Few of the theorists also postulated and argued that mutual economic benefit and division of labour does not completely serve as the solitary cornerstone that can keep the society on a single platform. Rather, an array of shared values, principals, ethics, and devotion to collective goals are the fundamental aspects that attribute to not only developing and increasing social cohesion but contribute to its sustainability (Wood, 1998). According to quite a few theorists, the division of labour exhibits the piece of information that the shared functional correlation becomes the new practice that the division of labor creates, instead of collective scruples and ethics. This happens when the societies have a transformation into the post-automated and industrialized communities that were initially pre-industrial societies. The characteristics of pre-industrialized communities portray that they have consistent and uniform subdivisions but in a quite scattered way. The strict rules and regulations are the key source on which the divisions of the community come under amalgamation. This mechanical cohesion reinforces and balances the social solidarity to that of the intensity of the collective values (Wood, 1998). However, with the bygone eras, evolution took place in the industrialized world, which separated and made the community more distinguished than ever before. Indeed, consistency and interconnectedness became the core aspects of this society. Additionally, the specialized functional interdependencies gave rise gradually to the characteristic of individualism and distinctiveness, and thus this feature became the dominant element, which undermined and weakened not only the collective conscience but also the collective values and beliefs in volume and strength. As an outcome, the post-industrialized materialized the new form of solidarity that is organic cohesion, where the functional interdependencies formed and shaped by division of labour became the fundamental component (Bianchi and Labory, 2011). Economists and thinkers even believe that division of labour has brought great benefits to the societies on a global basis. According to these thinkers, the global integration became the core aspect in the today’s world due to market and division of labour. The major breakthroughs of the global integration include the economies of scale and the technological innovations that every nation is reaching at a very rapid pace (Bianchi and Labory, 2011). Although a range of benefits has come under connection with the global integration, yet a number of limitations pursue it, and all the issue has interconnectivity with each other. This takes account of the unbalanced sharing of benefits, the values, and social cohesion, instability of the economic and financial systems and few others. Since the social cohesion on a universal platform means that, the shared values must come under reflection by all the markets, however, the global community has their own and unique set of customs, traditions, religions and many other aspects that cannot lead all the markets to follow the common values. This is because the markets alone cannot hand round the shared values alone. Therefore, it is creating a hindrance between the social cohesion with the free market trade created by the division of labour (Furze, Savy, Brym, and Lie, 2011). Economists even consider the fact that division of market has also ascended the subject matter of income inequality amongst the division of labours. The current economic conditions of various nations also provide with evidences that the factor of income inequality has risen in the recent years, which is intensifying the levels of household indebtedness. This division of labour and markets have declined and weakened not only the social cohesion but also the economic instability and insecurity within the nations (Furze, Savy, Brym, and Lie, 2011). From the above analysis, it can come under strong notice that Adam Smith was economist who had a vision of making the nation a capitalist and industrial economy where the division of the labour and market can leverage the people with honesty, discipline, cooperation that can lead to social cohesion, as this was the key to happiness. Additionally, he also wanted the society not to have an uncontrolled self-interest that can prevent them from the social cohesion. The social cohesion has come under different meanings in the past and in the modern societies. Therefore, the evidences recapitulated in this paper reflect the idea that the changes witnessed in the markets and the division of labour with reference to the concept provided by Adam Smith has leading potentials to destabilize and damage the social cohesion. Therefore, Adam Smith provided with sufficient factors that encouraged the social cohesion. In contrast, other philosophers argued that the operational interdependencies that came under development by the division of labor in industrial societies compensated to the decline in the social solidarity to large extent. Consequently, arguments and disputes have surrounded the subject matter, as every thinker and philosopher has their own and distinctive theories and concepts pertaining to the labour division and market. References Bianchi, P. and Labory, S. 2011. Industrial Policy after the Crisis: Seizing the Future. Edward Elgar Publishing. Furze, B., Savy, P., Brym, R. and Lie, J. 2011. Sociology in Today's World. Cengage Learning. Reisman, D. A. 1976. Adam Smith's sociological economics. Taylor and Francis. Wood, J. C. 1984. Adam Smith: critical assessments, Volume 1. Croom Helm. Wood, J. C. 1998. Karl Marx's economics: critical assessments, Volumes 1-4. Routledge. Zupi, M. and Peurtas, E. E. 2010. Challenges of Social Cohesion in Times of Crisis. Editorial Complutense. Read More