In earliest society, the number of
jobs that were available to men and women were limited. They were also strictly
allocated on the basis of gender. Goods were allocated amongst a community
according to one’s position in the hierarchy. As society grows larger, this
structure of cooperation is difficult to maintain. Groups tend to divide at
Dunbar’s number, which lies somewhere between 150 and 300 persons. When groups
split in two, there will likely remain contact and cooperation between the
groups, but as groups grow more numerous they become more difficult to manage.
The structure of society must become more sophisticated if many parts are to
form a coherent whole.
In a world where resources are
scarce, humans must necessarily be value creating if they are to survive. At
its core, this value consists in the provision of goods that promote survival.
In pre-modern society, this may consist only of finding goods and shelter. As
society grows more complex, many agents are expected to acquire more skills and
means to augment their labor. One
person’s livelihood may depend on his Volkswagen van to deliver mail in rural
Nebraska. The van is a means to providing the income that maintains his life.
Others must develop specialized skills, a form of human capital, in order to
offer a service that generates income. Plumbers, lathe operators, auto
mechanics, programmers, and many other fall under this category. Blue collar
and white collar jobs typically fall within this domain.
Specialization requires the
development of technology and capital that embodies this technology. To move
from a society of hunter-gatherers to a society of farmers, the technology for
farming must be developed and spread. One cannot farm without knowledge of the seasons
and of planting. One must also have available means of protecting one’s crops
from hungry animal and thieves. All of this is technology that would otherwise
be unnecessary and relatively costly in a world where food is abundant. As
regions become more crowded, inhabitants face two options: move to regions with
fewer people or begin farming. Hunter-gathering groups cannot remain in these
areas. Herders are forced to the outskirts of this society as farmers develop
land for intensive cultivation. The movement from a life in transit to a
relatively sedentary existence enables the formation of a governing structure
that is also stable. This may not happen immediately, but it does not take
long. We will discuss this further in the next lecture.
Specialization and Technological Development
Specialization also
enables the development of technology and capital. Imagine two castaways
stranded one an island. We often use the story of Robinson Crusoe in this
manner. Crusoe, stranded on an island, must find the means to satisfy his
desire for food and shelter. He cannot work simultaneously to achieve both.
Thus, he must spend some portion of his time fishing or harvesting coconuts and
another portion to dedicated to building and maintain shelter. As long as
Robinson Crusoe is alone, it is difficult for him to develop means for either.
When Friday arrives on the island, he brings with him similar demand for food
and shelter. Yet, the economic problem becomes more complex and, therefore,
provides more possibilities. If Friday enjoys fishing, he can spend his time
gathering food in this manner while Robinson Crusoe concentrates his energies
on providing shelter. Perhaps Friday can catch enough fish for Robinson Crusoe
in 6 hours. If he likes, he can spend the rest of the day resting. However,
since Robinson Crusoe is working on the other side of the island, he may feel
an obligation to contribute to the team so as to leave everyone better off.
Suppose that Friday would like to be able to catch more fish in less time, so
he spends his free time trying to create a net. At first, this is a laborious
process as he lacks the knowledge for this, so he must spend time
experimenting. Perhaps Friday needs two months two develop a proper net. Once
he has discovered a successful strategy for building nets, he dedicate less time
to fishing. Further, the time taken to create a new net will be less as it will
not require the initial costs of discovery that Crusoe first faced. Now Crusoe
can spend his time searching for new food sources. Or if he would, he can work
with Robinson Crusoe to improve their shelter.
Once shelter is built,
Robinson Crusoe and Friday will need clothes to stay warm at night. If the
productive potential of both persons for each good is given, we can perform
some simple operations to understand how specialize improve outcomes in a world
of exchange. Imagine that, if Robinson Crusoe and Friday specialized, their
maximum production of either good is as follows.
Table 1
Production Possibilities
Frontier
|
||
|
||
RC
|
F
|
|
|
||
Clothing
|
20
|
20
|
Fish
|
10
|
30
|
|
If both Robinson Crusoe and Friday
split their productive energies evenly between the two goods, they will produce
the following amounts.
Table 2
Production absent
Specialization
and Trade
|
||
|
||
RC
|
F
|
|
|
||
Clothing
|
10
|
10
|
Fish
|
5
|
15
|
This is not the most efficient
outcome. Robinson Crusoe must sacrifice 2 units of clothing for every fish he
catches, while Friday sacrifices 2/3 units of clothing for every 1 fish he
catches. Inversely, he sacrifices 1.5 fish for every 1 unit of clothing he
creates. If they were to specialize, they would produce as follows
Table 3
Production
with Specialization
and Trade
|
||
|
||
RC
|
F
|
|
|
||
Clothing
|
20
|
0
|
Fish
|
0
|
30
|
Robinson Crusoe will be willing to
trade up to 2 pieces of clothing for 1 fish. Let’s assume that Friday is
willing to trade fish at a price of one piece of clothing, which he would
surely accept because the opportunity cost of producing one unit of clothing
himself is 1.5 fish. That represents a discount of 1/3 for Friday. In the final
allocation, Robinson Crusoe has 5 more fish than he could produce on his own.
Friday also has 5 more fish. As fish provide positive utility to both parties,
we observe a pure pareto improvement as a result of specialization and exchange.
Table 4
Final Quantities
with Specialization
and Trade
|
||
|
||
RC
|
F
|
|
|
||
Clothing
|
10
|
10
|
Fish
|
10
|
20
|
If both Robinson Crusoe
and Friday develop technology to improve their efficiency, we may see their
production possibilities frontier shift out. We could perform the same exercise
and see that, assuming that specialization enables the development of
technology, the situation of both parties will continue to improve so long as
technological advancement is possible.
Table 5
New Technology Shifts
Production Possibilities
Frontier
|
||
|
||
RC
|
F
|
|
|
||
Clothing
|
40
|
20
|
Fish
|
10
|
50
|
One change enables another. The
development of a more cost efficient form of production can support larger
populations and more complex societies. Before this change, it may be difficult
for metallurgists to survive. To the extent that one can develop and maintain a
social position for oneself with a specialization such as this, he can maintain
his well-being through production and exchange. Likewise, this change in
society opens the opportunity for carpenters who have specialized knowledge of
constructing and repairing buildings. Underlying this change is the fundamental
principle we identified early on: humans act to improve the state of the world
as they perceive it.
Decision to action occurs in light
of the costs and benefits that such action is expected to generate. Humans
rarely imagine radical change. Even that thought be radical is usually marginal
in light of the present state. Thomas Edison’s discovery of the light bulb,
while unexpected by many, required a combination of elements that were readily
available to him. This innovation required a search through the vast space of
possibility that exists at the fringes of existence. Once found it may enable
and encourage many other innovations that were not previously possible. The
development of the light bulb, for example, made valuable the provision of
electricity in cities. This further provision opened up many opportunities as
it allowed for technical development and specialization that would have
otherwise been impossible.
Comparative Advantage and Opportunity Cost
So far, we have been thinking of
action solely in terms of the exploitation and creation of profit
opportunities. If we also integrate the notion of the opportunity cost that
inherently exists as a result of living in a world of scarcity, we add another
dimension to specialization. Ricardo first spoke of this dimension as
comparative advantage. Consider the job of Stephen Curry who plays for the
Golden State Warriors. Stephen Curry is a phenomenal leader and basketball
player. He seems to make best use of his talents playing for the Golden State
Warriors. Curry is not just a talented player, his presence is a unifying force
that has helped move the team to win a championship and a heartbreaking miss
last season. The opportunity cost of Curry’s participation with the Golden
State Warriors is likely participation with another team. The value he creates
for the Golden State Warriors is substantial enough that the team has retained
him since his entrance in 2009. Although Curry would likely be valuable for any
team on which he plays, he has a comparative advantage playing for the Golden
State Warriors.
This becomes more obvious if Curry
were to change his occupation altogether. Curry may be a fantastic manager.
When he graduated from college, he could have entered a field that allowed him
to exploit his leadership ability through management. Even if Curry was one of
the best managers, it would be difficult for him to surpass his current pay and
other benefits he receives playing for the Warriors. This is to say that Curry
may have an absolute advantage in comparison to others both in his management
ability and his ability on the basketball court. Market prices, however, inform
Curry that the most valuable use of his skills will leave him playing for the
Warriors, even if he had an absolute advantage as a manager and as a basketball
player, he has a comparative advantage in playing basketball.
Comparative advantage allows us to
explore areas that may, at first glance, seem to be a source of waste or
laziness. Bill Gates, who is estimated to be the world’s wealthiest person in
2017, generates a tremendous amount of value with his time. It makes little
sense for Bill Gates to spend time preparing meals or cleaning his own home.
Every moment he spends engaged in this activity, he could be dedicating to
create more value elsewhere. Cleaning and cooking is especially costly for Bill
Gates. He is better served by purchasing cleaning and cooking services than by
performing these tasks himself. He may choose to do this simply out of
enjoyment of the activity or belief in the personal enrichment from such
activity. In terms of value as measured by money prices, he is incurring great
cost if he chooses to do so.
Development of specialization that
arises due to comparative advantage plays a significant role in the provision
of knowledge in society. Specialization itself allow individuals to develop
knowledge of a particular category of activity. Gold refining processes could
not be developed unless individuals were allowed to spend their time and
creative energies developing them. The same can be said of computer processors,
means of transportation, mass production, and so forth. The development of
cost-reducing technology that allowed much farmland to be tended by far fewer people
has allowed individuals to invest their labor in other ventures. It is no
coincidence that, within a century of this shift, we live in a world that is
dominated by technology. The pace of change appears only to increase as freedom
to develop technology and organization also increases.
(Table structure borrowed from Don Boudreaux's article on comparative advantage.)
(Table structure borrowed from Don Boudreaux's article on comparative advantage.)
No comments:
Post a Comment