Putting the Record Straight: Adam Smith, Allyn Young and the Division of Labour

Roy Grieve, Ramesh Chandra

Research output: Working paperDiscussion paper

Abstract

A comparison has recently, and indeed repeatedly, been made of the thinking of Adam Smith (1776) and Allyn Young (1928) on the subject of the division of labour. It is alleged that Smith’s understanding of the concept was only at the most elementary level, and that it was Young rather than Smith who extended the basic notion of craft specialisation to comprehend industrial specialisation, who recognised that the degree of industrial specialisation increased with economic development and that it was he who perceived that an increased degree of specialisation in one sector of the economy, by inducing further developments elsewhere, could promote a cumulative process of expansion. The purpose of this note is to demonstrate that that interpretation, in greatly exaggerating Young’s contribution relative to that of Smith, seriously misrepresents the latter’s depth of insight into the nature and implications of the division of labour.
LanguageEnglish
Place of PublicationGlasgow
PublisherUniversity of Strathclyde
Pages1-29
Number of pages30
Volume06
Publication statusPublished - 2006

Fingerprint

Adam Smith
Division of labor
Nature
Economic development

Keywords

  • Adam Smith
  • Allyn Young
  • craft specialisation
  • industrial specialisation
  • division of labour

Cite this

Grieve, R., & Chandra, R. (2006). Putting the Record Straight: Adam Smith, Allyn Young and the Division of Labour. (03 ed.) (pp. 1-29). Glasgow: University of Strathclyde.
Grieve, Roy ; Chandra, Ramesh. / Putting the Record Straight : Adam Smith, Allyn Young and the Division of Labour. 03. ed. Glasgow : University of Strathclyde, 2006. pp. 1-29
@techreport{43ece93ce9964fa0be45ccda1affd64c,
title = "Putting the Record Straight: Adam Smith, Allyn Young and the Division of Labour",
abstract = "A comparison has recently, and indeed repeatedly, been made of the thinking of Adam Smith (1776) and Allyn Young (1928) on the subject of the division of labour. It is alleged that Smith’s understanding of the concept was only at the most elementary level, and that it was Young rather than Smith who extended the basic notion of craft specialisation to comprehend industrial specialisation, who recognised that the degree of industrial specialisation increased with economic development and that it was he who perceived that an increased degree of specialisation in one sector of the economy, by inducing further developments elsewhere, could promote a cumulative process of expansion. The purpose of this note is to demonstrate that that interpretation, in greatly exaggerating Young’s contribution relative to that of Smith, seriously misrepresents the latter’s depth of insight into the nature and implications of the division of labour.",
keywords = "Adam Smith, Allyn Young, craft specialisation, industrial specialisation, division of labour",
author = "Roy Grieve and Ramesh Chandra",
note = "Discussion paper.",
year = "2006",
language = "English",
volume = "06",
pages = "1--29",
publisher = "University of Strathclyde",
edition = "03",
type = "WorkingPaper",
institution = "University of Strathclyde",

}

Grieve, R & Chandra, R 2006 'Putting the Record Straight: Adam Smith, Allyn Young and the Division of Labour' 03 edn, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, pp. 1-29.

Putting the Record Straight : Adam Smith, Allyn Young and the Division of Labour. / Grieve, Roy; Chandra, Ramesh.

03. ed. Glasgow : University of Strathclyde, 2006. p. 1-29.

Research output: Working paperDiscussion paper

TY - UNPB

T1 - Putting the Record Straight

T2 - Adam Smith, Allyn Young and the Division of Labour

AU - Grieve, Roy

AU - Chandra, Ramesh

N1 - Discussion paper.

PY - 2006

Y1 - 2006

N2 - A comparison has recently, and indeed repeatedly, been made of the thinking of Adam Smith (1776) and Allyn Young (1928) on the subject of the division of labour. It is alleged that Smith’s understanding of the concept was only at the most elementary level, and that it was Young rather than Smith who extended the basic notion of craft specialisation to comprehend industrial specialisation, who recognised that the degree of industrial specialisation increased with economic development and that it was he who perceived that an increased degree of specialisation in one sector of the economy, by inducing further developments elsewhere, could promote a cumulative process of expansion. The purpose of this note is to demonstrate that that interpretation, in greatly exaggerating Young’s contribution relative to that of Smith, seriously misrepresents the latter’s depth of insight into the nature and implications of the division of labour.

AB - A comparison has recently, and indeed repeatedly, been made of the thinking of Adam Smith (1776) and Allyn Young (1928) on the subject of the division of labour. It is alleged that Smith’s understanding of the concept was only at the most elementary level, and that it was Young rather than Smith who extended the basic notion of craft specialisation to comprehend industrial specialisation, who recognised that the degree of industrial specialisation increased with economic development and that it was he who perceived that an increased degree of specialisation in one sector of the economy, by inducing further developments elsewhere, could promote a cumulative process of expansion. The purpose of this note is to demonstrate that that interpretation, in greatly exaggerating Young’s contribution relative to that of Smith, seriously misrepresents the latter’s depth of insight into the nature and implications of the division of labour.

KW - Adam Smith

KW - Allyn Young

KW - craft specialisation

KW - industrial specialisation

KW - division of labour

M3 - Discussion paper

VL - 06

SP - 1

EP - 29

BT - Putting the Record Straight

PB - University of Strathclyde

CY - Glasgow

ER -

Grieve R, Chandra R. Putting the Record Straight: Adam Smith, Allyn Young and the Division of Labour. 03 ed. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde. 2006, p. 1-29.