In a paper consisting of five pages Adam Smith's theory that specialization results in increased productivity is discussed and a determination of whether this can be regarded as a true theory is also explored. There are two sources cited in the bibliography.
Name of Research Paper File: D0_MTadasmi.rtf
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
of the United States. The belief that one person (or a group of people) who could do it all, Smith felt, was erroneous and could lead to a huge delay
in getting the product to market. In many respects, Smith had a very good point in his specialist vs. generalist theory. But as with many theories, there were likely to
be trade-offs, and Smiths theories were no exception. Quite simply, Smiths contention is that the story behind economic growth lies with the
increasing division of labor (Dhamee, 2002). This, according to Smith, is the breaking down of large jobs into smaller components in which each worker becomes an expert in a specific,
yet isolated, area of production (Dhamee, 2002). According to Smith, this tends to increase efficiency, as laborers and workers dont have to switch tasks during the day (which saves time
and money) (Dhamee, 2002). It is Smiths concept of division of labor, in fact, that led to the development of the
industrial age in Great Britain (Dhamee, 2002) as well as the United States. Mass production depended on assembly line work; and assembly line work required that the worker be responsible
for only one small part of the production process. The worker concentrating his or her full effort on being the best that he or she could be on that one
process meant expertise, no necessity in retraining and not having to shut down production lines in order to switch tasks and to switch workers positions on the lines.
Smiths theories could also be classified as an early forerunner of teamwork: workers who concentrate on their own tasks fit in smoothly with their