Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Adam smith's contributions
Adam smith's contributions
Adam smith's contributions
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In The Great Transformation Karl Polanyi analyzes the conditions under the historical and revolutionizing period in time in which market societies suddenly developed. The process of change is seen as a combination of certain gains and losses to the evolution of a civilization. Both Adam Smith and Karl Marx can be said to have had the world’s interest at heart when it comes to the prosperity and progression of the human race. Adam Smith begins his analysis of the market society with a look at the division of labor. He elaborates on the idea that the division of labor is essential for the growth of a civilization. Smith explains how for example, the production of pins can be done more efficiently with the breaking down and deconstruction of
the job itself (the duty of making the pins) “a system of peculiar trades” said in page 18, Book One of the Wealth of Nations. Now thousands of pins can be made and 18 different operations suddenly emerge. Within these operations there is even more potential for growth. Someone who is constantly performing the same task can potentially create an efficient way to do that task. This creates new ideas and technological innovation within the workforce that can spread nationwide and even globally. Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations during a time of mercantilism which he did not approve of and
In the Humanistic Tradition the author, Gloria Fiero introduces Adam smith as a Scottish moral philosopher, pioneer of political economy, and a key figure in the Scottish Enlightenment. Smith also known as the Father of Political economy, is best known for one of his two classic works An Inquiry into the nature and causes of the Wealth of Nations. Fiero looks at Smith’s work because the division of labor is important. One thing Smith thinks is even more important for creating a wealthy nation, is to interact and have open trade with different countries. Fiero states,“It is necessary, though very slow and gradual, consequence of a certain propensity in human nature which has in view no such extensive utility; the propensity to truck, barter,
Correspondingly, each also argued that labor markets are historically unique to capitalism and that an understanding of the process of their creation is crucial to an explanation of the dynamics at play in market economies. To Marx, a constant condition of capitalist production is that producers have more laborers available to them then they have need of at any given time, allowing them to respond flexibly to ebbs and flows in demand for their products ([1867]1978:375). The existence of an excess urban population available for work in factories was made possible by revolutionary improvements in agricultural productivity, enabling a much smaller number of individuals to produce enough food to meet the needs of the population ([1867]1978:416). This process critically weakened the feudal system, giving the former peasants control over their own labor and making it necessary that they sell it to capitalists in order to make a wage ([1867]1978:337). Similarly, Polanyi held that the final step in the development of a market economy, that is a for a self-regulating market to become the dominant economic institution in a society, labor must be made available for purchase by factory owners. Labor, however, can never be a real commodity because it cannot actually be produced for sale on the market through
The era that marked the end of civil war and the beginning of the twentieth century in the united states of America was coupled with enormous economic and industrial developments that attracted diverse views and different arguments on what exactly acquisition of wealth implied on the social classes in the society. It was during this time that the Marxist and those who embraced his ideologies came out strongly to argue their position on what industrial revolution should imply in an economic world like America. In fact, there was a rapid rise in the gross national product of the United States between 1874 and 1883. This actually sparked remarkable consequences on the political, social and economic impacts. In fact, the social rejoinder to industrialization had extensive consequences on the American society. This led to the emergence of social reform movements to discourse on the needs of the industrialized society. Various theories were developed to rationalize the widening gap between the rich and the poor. Various reformers like Andrew Carnegie, Henry George and William Graham Sumner perceived the view on the obligation of the wealthy differently. This paper seeks to address on the different views held by these prominent people during this time of historical transformations.
The conditions described and analyzed by both thinkers are very similar and are focused on the rapid development of global trade and global economic cooperation. Marx mentions in the beginning of his “Communist Manifesto” that the “the discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie” (para13). In other words, the extension of the world market with the discovery of the lands rich with resources and new types of products allowed the rich people to widen their scale of operation and shift to the new markets in order to make more pro...
Basically, in 1850 people's labor skills were being wasted because they were stuck in a factory doing a simple task. "Work sessions must be varied about eight times a day because a man cannot remain enthusiastic about his job " ( 117). This statement was a suggestion made by Charles Fourier, who wanted work to become better. This statement talks about division of labor. Division of labor was a direct result of industrial capitalism, and it created alienation of labor.
The emergence of market society is what Polanyi refers to as “the great transformation” (Polanyi, 1957). This great transformation is significant when discussing market society, as it is a transformation of all society. It brought forth change in the organization of the market system, and therefore society due to its efficiency in production, distribution and commodification of labour, land and money. Many changes took place with the emergence of market society, especially in relation to labour, or the work of people.
Smith’s text in his book seems to be characterized by fact-heavy tangents, tables and supplementary material that combine hard research with generalities, showing his commitment to give proof for what seem like never-ending observations about the natural way of economics. Smith’s Wealth of Nations Books I and II focus on the idea of the development of division of labor, and describe how each division adds to the fortune of a given society by creating large surpluses, which can be traded or exchanged amongst the members of Labor. The division of labor also fuels technological innovation, by giving a lot of focus to specific tasks, and allowing workers to brainstorm ways to make these tasks quicker or more efficient, increasing maximum output. This, again, adds to efficiency and increases surpluses so that the surplus items may be traded or re-invested somewhere else. Near the end of the case, technologies are likely to improve, foreshadowing them to become even greater efficient.
The market today has become so important that society takes it as completely natural. From “The Economic Problem” Heilbroner describes three main solutions, with the market being one. Furthermore into the market, Polanyis book “The great Transformation” gives insight on how much society actually allows the market to dominate. To Polanyi a market society is seen as social relations embedded in the economy instead of the economy being embedded in social relations. Examining both of these books gives a great understanding on how life was without the market and how it came to be. Taking note of Rineharts work as well on how the workplace has drastically been changed by the market is key to analyzing the transformation as a whole. As a result of the transformation, not only has human labour been altered, but another author known as Weber states that certain peoples view on the world have also be affected. This essay will establish how “the great transformation” (Polanyi) from a traditional society to one based on a market economy has vastly impacted societal workplaces, and societal beliefs around faith of idealogical conditions.
The pivotal second chapter of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, "Of the Principle which gives occasion to the Division of Labour," opens with the oft-cited claim that the foundation of modern political economy is the human "propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another."1 This formulation plays both an analytical and normative role. It offers an anthropological microfoundation for Smith's understanding of how modern commercial societies function as social organizations, which, in turn, provide a venue for the expression and operation of these human proclivities. Together with the equally famous concept of the invisible hand, this sentence defines the central axis of a new science of political economy designed to come to terms with the emergence of a novel object of investigation: economic production and exchange as a distinct, separate, independent sphere of human action. Moreover, it is this domain, the source of wealth, which had become the main organizational principle of modern societies, displacing the once-ascendant positions of theology, morality, and political philosophy.
In The Wealth of Nations Smith proposes the concept of economic growth, that it is imbedded in the increasing division of labour. This idea is basically about the specialization of the labour force, actually breaking down each large job into many tiny parts. As a worker spends more time working at one particular job, his efficiency increases. The fact that these workers do not have to switch their tasks during the day not only saves them money but also precious time. This is still being used today as a person who is working in a car repair shop there will be only one specific person fixing the cars and another sweeping/ cleaning up. Thus, separating the jobs to make each individual more efficient and great at their job. Not only does this save time, but it also saves money as they do not have to spend so much time in their jobs as they are more efficient, so it saves the capital. It also promotes full employment, so the economy will also grow. An economist whose theories do not apply in the modern world is Milton Friedman, who argued that the government involvement worsened economy and government should replace welfare programs with guaranteed income. Guaranteed
...bundance of the society. This means that the standard of living is raised even for the most poor. Like Durkheim, Smith felt that it led to an interconnectedness of the laborers and society overall. However unlike Durkheim that saw the division of labor to be a great thing that is needed in order for a nation to grow, prosper, and be merry. Adam Smith viewed the division more as a negative thing. He understood that with the separation it meant that time was spent more productively but he felt that it lead to a “mental mutilation” of the workers because all the did was the same thing. Because they kept doing the same piece of labor multiple times he sensed that over time the worker would grow tired of it and falter in doing the one job they were placed with. He understood that a person who does well in one task should use their best qualities and stay with that task.
The division of labour described by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations is a product of individual self-interest. This is representative of Smith’s methodological, individualist interpretations of human nature. Adam Smith deduces that the division of labour is beneficial to the individual, as it is in one’s own interest to work less whilst still engaging in tasks that are to their own specialities. Highly specialized work is beneficial for nations to grow economically whilst allowing individuals to further pursue their own rational self-interest. To further explain the concepts that Smith proposes, I will first explain what rational self-interest is in regards to human nature and how the division of labour emerges from self-interest.
Written from the left, it deserves the widest discussion and scrutiny on the Left. Such discussion must start by looking at Berman’s key terms ‘modernization’ and ‘modernism’, and then at the linkage between them through the two-headed notion of ‘development’. [3] If we do this, the first thing that must strike one is that while Berman has grasped with unequalled force of imagination one critical dimension of Marx’s vision of history in The Communist Manifesto, he omits or overlooks another dimension that is no less critical for Marx, and complementary to it. Capital accumulation, for Marx, and the ceaseless expansion of the commodity form through the market, is indeed a universal dissolvent of the old social world, and can legitimately be presented as a process of ‘constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance, everlasting uncertainty and agitation’, in Marx’s words. Note the three adjectives: constant, uninterrupted, everlasting. They denote a homogeneous historical time, in which each moment is perpetually different from every other by virtue of being next, but—by the same token—is eternally the same as an interchangeable unit in a process of infinite recurrence. Extrapolated from the totality of Marx’s theory of capitalist development, this emphasis very quickly and easily yields the paradigm of modernization proper—an anti-Marxist theory, of course, politically. For our
The Sociological Contribution of Karl Marx to an Understanding of Contemporary Society. This essay will discuss how the Karl Marx contributed his knowledge to the understanding of contemporary society. Karl Marx is often referred to. as the ‘intellectual father of modern day Marxist economics’.
For the division in the factory, Marx would count all of Smith’s arguments about the rationality of this mode as increases in efficiency, and thus (usually) of ‘relative surplus value’.