Book I, Chapter I, 1

Of the Causes of Improvement in the Productive Powers of Labor, and of the Order According to Which Its Produce Is Naturally Distributed Among the Different Ranks of the People.

Of the Division of Labor.

The greatest improvements in the productive powers of labor, and most of the skill, dexterity, and judgment with which it is anywhere directed or applied, seem to have resulted from the division of labor. Its effects in the general business of society are easier to understand if we consider how it works in particular manufactures. It is commonly supposed to be carried furthest in some very minor ones—not, perhaps, because the division actually goes further in them than in more important manufactures, but because in those minor trades that supply the small needs of a small number of people, the total number of workers must be small. Those employed in each different branch of the work can often be gathered into one workshop and brought all at once within the observer’s view.

By contrast, in the great manufactures that supply the great needs of the great body of the people, each branch employs so many workers that it is impossible to gather them all into one workshop. We can seldom see more than those employed in a single branch at any one time. Thus, although the work in these manufactures may actually be divided into many more parts than in less important ones, its division is far less obvious and has accordingly drawn much less notice.

Let us therefore take an example from a very minor manufacture in which the division of labor has often been observed: pin-making. A worker untrained in this business, which the division of labor has made a separate trade, and unfamiliar with the machinery it uses, whose invention the same division has probably prompted, could scarcely make one pin a day with his utmost industry, and certainly could not make twenty. But as the business is now conducted, not only is the whole work a specialized trade; it is divided into a number of branches, most of which are themselves specialized trades. One man draws out the wire, another straightens it, a third cuts it, a fourth points it, and a fifth grinds its top to receive the head. Making the head requires two or three separate operations; putting it on is a distinct business; whitening the pins is another; even putting them into the paper is a trade in itself. Thus the important business of making a pin is divided into about eighteen distinct operations. In some factories these are all done by different hands; in others, one man sometimes performs two or three of them. I have seen a small factory of this kind employing only ten men, some of whom consequently performed two or three different operations. Although they were very poor and therefore only poorly supplied with the necessary machinery, they could, when they exerted themselves, make about twelve pounds of pins among them in a day. A pound contains upwards of four thousand pins of middling size. Those ten people, therefore, could together make upwards of forty-eight thousand pins a day. Each, making a tenth of forty-eight thousand pins, might thus be considered to make four thousand eight hundred pins a day. But if all had worked separately and independently, none having been trained in this particular business, each certainly could not have made twenty, and perhaps could not have made even one pin a day. That is certainly not a two hundred and fortieth, and perhaps not a four thousand eight hundredth, part of what a proper division and combination of their different operations now enables them to produce.

In every other art and manufacture the effects of the division of labor resemble those in this very minor one, though in many of them the labor can neither be subdivided so far nor reduced to operations so simple. Yet, so far as it can be introduced, the division of labor produces a proportionate increase in the productive powers of labor in every art. The separation of different trades and employments appears to have arisen from this advantage. It is generally carried furthest, too, in the countries enjoying the highest degree of industry and improvement. What one person does in an undeveloped society generally becomes the work of several in an improved one. In every improved society the farmer is generally only a farmer, the manufacturer only a manufacturer. The labor needed to produce any one finished manufactured article is also almost always divided among many hands. Consider how many different trades take part in each branch of linen and woolen manufacture, from the growers of flax and wool to the bleachers and smoothers of linen, or the dyers and finishers of cloth! Agriculture, indeed, cannot by its nature admit so many subdivisions of labor or so complete a separation of one occupation from another as manufacture can. The work of the grazier cannot be separated as entirely from that of the grain farmer as the carpenter’s trade is commonly separated from the smith’s. The spinner is nearly always distinct from the weaver, but the plowman, the harrower, the sower of seed, and the reaper of grain are often the same person. Because the need for these different sorts of work returns with the different seasons, no one person can be employed constantly in any one of them. This impossibility of completely separating all the branches of agricultural labor may explain why improvement in its productive powers does not always keep pace with improvement in manufactures. The wealthiest nations generally surpass all their neighbors in agriculture as well as in manufactures, but their superiority is commonly more marked in the latter than the former. Their land is generally better cultivated and, with more labor and expense devoted to it, produces more in proportion to its area and natural fertility. But this superiority in produce seldom exceeds by much the superiority in labor and expense. In agriculture, the labor of a rich country is not always much more productive than that of a poor one, or at least never so much more productive as it commonly is in manufactures. The grain of the rich country, therefore, will not always reach market more cheaply than that of the poor country when both are of the same quality. Polish grain is as cheap as French grain of the same quality, despite France’s superior wealth and improvement. In the grain-producing provinces, French grain is fully as good as English grain and costs nearly the same in most years, though France is perhaps inferior to England in wealth and improvement. England’s grainlands, however, are better cultivated than France’s, and France’s are said to be much better cultivated than Poland’s. Yet although the poor country can, despite inferior cultivation, rival the rich to some extent in the price and quality of its grain, it cannot claim any comparable rivalry in manufactures, at least when the manufactures suit the rich country’s soil, climate, and situation. French silks are better and cheaper than English silks because silk-making, at least under the present high duties on imports of raw silk, suits the climate of France better than that of England. But English hardware and coarse woolens are incomparably better than their French counterparts, and much cheaper at the same quality. In Poland there are said to be hardly any manufactures at all apart from a few of the coarser household kinds without which no country can well survive.

This great increase in the quantity of work that the same number of people can perform through the division of labor arises from three different circumstances: first, greater dexterity in each particular worker; second, the saving of time commonly lost in moving from one sort of work to another; and last, the invention of numerous machines that make labor easier and shorter and allow one person to do the work of many.

First, improved dexterity in a worker necessarily increases the quantity of work he can perform. By reducing each person’s business to one simple operation and making that operation his lifelong occupation, the division of labor necessarily increases his dexterity greatly. An ordinary smith who is used to handling a hammer but has never made nails, if required on a particular occasion to try, could scarcely make more than two or three hundred nails in a day, I am told, and those very poor ones. A smith accustomed to making nails, but who does not make them as his sole or principal business, can seldom make more than eight hundred or a thousand nails a day even with his utmost diligence. I have seen several boys under twenty years of age who had never practiced any trade other than nail-making and who, when they exerted themselves, could each make upwards of two thousand three hundred nails a day. Yet making a nail is by no means one of the simplest operations. The same person works the bellows, stirs or tends the fire as necessary, heats the iron, and forges every part of the nail; to forge the head he must also change tools. The separate operations into which pin-making or metal-button-making is divided are all much simpler, and the dexterity of a person who has spent his life performing them alone is usually much greater. The speed with which some operations in these manufactures are performed surpasses what anyone who has never seen them would suppose the human hand capable of acquiring.

On the Causes of Improvement in Labor's Productive Power, and How Its Products Are Naturally Distributed Among the Different Ranks of the People.

On the Division of Labor.

The greatest gains in how much labor can produce seem to come from the division of labor. So does most of the skill, dexterity, and judgment used to direct labor anywhere. To understand its effects across society, it helps to see how it works in particular kinds of manufacturing. People often think the division of labor goes furthest in manufacturing very minor goods. This may not actually be true compared with more important goods. But a small industry serving the limited needs of a small group employs relatively few workers. People doing its different tasks can often gather in one workshop, where an observer can see them all at once.

Large industries, by contrast, serve the major needs of most people. Each separate task employs so many workers that they cannot all gather in one workshop. We can rarely see more than one branch at a time. So even if their labor is divided into many more tasks than labor in smaller industries, that division is less visible and has attracted less attention.

Consider a small industry in which people have often noticed the division of labor: making pins. A worker not trained in this trade, which the division of labor has made a trade of its own, and not familiar with its machinery, which the same division probably led people to invent, could hardly make one pin in a day despite working as hard as possible. Certainly he could not make twenty. But in the way the industry operates now, not only is making pins a specialized trade, it also has many branches. Most of those branches are specialized trades too. One person draws out the wire; another straightens it; a third cuts it; a fourth sharpens it; a fifth grinds its upper end so a head can be attached. Making the head takes two or three separate steps. Attaching it is a task of its own, as is whitening the pins. Even putting them into paper is a separate trade. The important work of making a pin is thus divided into about eighteen separate operations. In some workshops each is done by a different person; in others, one person may do two or three. I have seen a small pin workshop employing only ten men, so some did two or three operations. They were very poor and had only inadequate machinery. Yet when they made an effort they could produce about twelve pounds of pins together in one day. A pound contains upwards of four thousand medium-sized pins. So the ten people could make upwards of forty-eight thousand pins in a day, or four thousand eight hundred pins per person if each is credited with a tenth of the output. Had they all worked alone, without training in this particular trade, each certainly could not have made twenty pins, and perhaps could not have made even one in a day. That is certainly less than the two hundred and fortieth part, and perhaps less than the four thousand eight hundredth part, of what they can now produce by properly dividing and combining their tasks.

The division of labor has similar effects in every other craft and industry, though in many the work cannot be split into so many simple tasks. Wherever it can be used, the division of labor increases labor's productive power in proportion to its extent. This advantage seems to explain why separate trades and jobs have developed. They are usually most separate in countries where industry is most advanced. Work done by one person in an undeveloped society is generally done by several in a developed one. In every developed society the farmer generally does only farm work and the manufacturer only manufacturing. The labor needed to finish one manufactured product is almost always shared among many people. Think of all the trades involved in making linen and woolen goods: people grow flax and raise sheep for wool, while others bleach and smooth linen, or dye and finish cloth, with many jobs in between. Farming, however, cannot divide labor into as many parts or separate jobs as completely as manufacturing can. A livestock farmer's work cannot be separated from a grain farmer's as thoroughly as a carpenter's is usually separated from a smith's. A spinner and a weaver are almost always different people, but the same person often plows, harrows, sows seed, and harvests grain. Those jobs come around in different seasons, so one person cannot work at any one of them constantly. Perhaps this inability to separate farming tasks completely is why gains in farming productivity do not always keep pace with those in manufacturing. The richest nations generally do better than their neighbors in both farming and manufacturing, but usually stand out more in manufacturing. Their land is generally cultivated better. With more labor and expense devoted to it, it produces more relative to its area and natural fertility. But its greater output is seldom much greater than the additional labor and expense would explain. In farming, labor in a rich country is not always much more productive than labor in a poor one, or at least the difference is never as large as it usually is in manufacturing. Grain from a rich country, then, will not always reach the market more cheaply than equally good grain from a poor one. Grain from Poland is as cheap as equally good grain from France, despite France's greater wealth and development. In France's grain-producing provinces, grain is just as good as grain in England and costs nearly the same in most years, though France may be poorer and less developed than England. England's grain fields, however, are better cultivated than France's, and France's are said to be much better cultivated than Poland's. So although a poor country can partly compete with a rich one on the price and quality of grain despite less advanced cultivation, it cannot compete in the same way in manufacturing. That is, it cannot if the rich country's industries suit its soil, climate, and location. French silks are better and cheaper than English silks because silk production, at least with the current high duties on imported raw silk, does not suit England's climate as well as France's. But English hardware and coarse woolens are incomparably better than French goods of those kinds, and much cheaper at the same quality. Poland is said to have almost no manufacturing of any sort beyond a few coarse household industries that every country needs in order to survive.

The division of labor lets the same number of people produce so much more for three reasons. First, each worker becomes more skillful at a particular job. Second, workers save time they would otherwise lose changing from one kind of work to another. Third, many machines are invented that make work easier and quicker, allowing one person to do the work of many.

First, becoming more skillful necessarily increases how much a worker can produce. The division of labor gives each person one simple operation to do throughout working life and therefore greatly increases that skill. I am told that an ordinary smith, familiar with a hammer but not with making nails, can hardly make more than two or three hundred nails in a day if required to try, and those will be very poor nails. A smith familiar with making nails, but who does not make them as his main or only job, can rarely make more than eight hundred or a thousand nails a day even with his greatest effort. I have seen several boys under twenty years old who had never worked at anything but making nails. When they worked hard, each could make upwards of two thousand three hundred nails in a day. Yet making a nail is by no means one of the simplest jobs. One person works the bellows, tends the fire as needed, heats the iron, and forges each part of the nail. To forge its head, he even has to change tools. The separate operations in making a pin or a metal button are much simpler. A person who spends his life doing one of them usually acquires far greater skill. Someone who has never seen these operations would not believe the speed the human hand can reach in some of them.