Important Philosophical Questions - Assignment Example

? *for you to complete, please SECTION ONE Question Two David S. Landes in his essay, “What Do Bosses Really Do?” writes in direct response to the work of Stephen A. Marglin, with particular focus on the claims Marglin makes in his work: “What Do Bosses Do?: The Origins and Functions of Hierarchy in Capitalist production”. Landes proposes that Marglin misinterprets history, and creates a theory which is “ideological” (Landes, 1986: 585) rather than factually correct. In the mind of Landes, Marglin’s premise rests on firstly the ideas that the employee used specialization of tasks to divide labor and this impose himself as “boss”. This position of control is not a productive one – it “guarantees the owner a part in the process of production” (Marglin, 1974: 62) and ensures that the owner can accumulate wealth. Secondly, the factory system, Landes summarizes Marglin, was a disciplinary system only geared toward discipline, control and supervision of workers. Marglin goes further to argue that this was the primary focus of the factory: to ensure the power of the capitalist, rather than to maximize the economic or technological efficiency of the production process (Marglin, 1974: 84). To some degree, the arguments Marglin presents do present an approach diametrically opposed to those of Landes, and indeed seem to be largely ideological in their aim. He claims, for example, that factory work is necessarily alienating, because the producer must take orders from the capitalist in the factory system (ibid. at: 61). This alienation of the producer form his work also fits into the traditional social hierarchies of society, ensuring that only a “very few at the top of the pyramid” (ibid. at: 60) are able to attain self-expression in their work. Additionally, Marglin equates the wage-advance system to a kind of diabolical plan. The capitalist binds the worker legally to his “master” (ibid. at: 79) through wage advances, and because the labor has been specialized, the worker has no choice but to continue to produce, so that the entire system does continue to move toward the production of the marketable item – controlled, of course, by the capitalist (ibid. at: 73, 79, 84). The alternative view of situations described by Marglin is presented by Landes. He quotes particularly the work of Adam Smith, “The Wealth of Nations” in his argument to support reasons contrasting those of Marglin to explain the development of division of labor through specialization and the development of the factory system. Specialization may have been a necessity to ensure that the worker increased dexterity and efficiency in the execution of the job. Time was saved, as the producer would not have to set up the process, or re-set up the new task. With simplified tasks, the worker’s techniques could improve, to increase the efficiency of production (Landes, 1986: 587, 591). This argument is extended to explain the surge in new industrial invention: the repetitive tasks workers were completing suggested the invention of machines able to perform the same tasks. In factory setups, cheaper labor could be hired to perform more menial tasks, machines could supplement output and perform repetitive task, and the capitalist would benefit because the specialized worker’s output would consequently be greater (ibid. at: 604). The advantage for producers was that they would not have the energy, materials, space, tools and machinery or security and environmental costs related to industrial production (ibid. at: 604). The producer was also able to focus time and energy on the product manufacture only (ibid. at: 597, 598, and 604). It is evident, hence, that Landes proposes that the capitalist is integral to the process of production, not just an accumulative figure unrelated to the production process (ibid. at: 585). The employer organizes the process toward the production of a marketable product, ensures the sale and distribution of that product, and provides conditions – factory space, machinery and additional labor – enabling the specialist worker to derive benefit from production. A further advantage is noted by Landes: the specialization of labor also provides conditions in which instruction and training can take place (ibid. at: 591). The chief and overarching criticism of Marglin’s proposals given by Landes is that there is an evident tension between theoretical economics, as proposed by the former, and history, Landes’ perspective. He accuses Marglin of an attempt to create a Utopian ideal, in which producers are in control of their production, and are able to actively succeed in markets by their own efforts exclusively. The reality is far removed from this (ibid. at: 520). References Landes, David S. (1986) What Do Bosses Really Do? In The Journal of Economic History Vol. 46 No. 3 (Sep. 1986) pp. 585-623. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Economic History Association Marglin, Stephen A. (1974) What Do Bosses Do?: The Origins and Functions of Hierarchy in Capitalist Production. In Review of Radical Political Economics 1974; Vol. 6 pp. 60-113 doi: 10.1177/048661347400600206 Question Three Two distinct views emerge from a superficial review of the literature available in economic history regarding the Industrial revolution in England. These views have been termed the “optimistic”, and the “pessimistic” views. Each has proponents and each its detractors. There is a degree of consensus that the progress of a continual, steady growth from the early to the late period of the Industrial Revolution cannot be charted, but the points of view of each group are certainly distinct. The optimists would suggest that the period is characterized by material gain measured before and after the period. This material gain includes aspects of health and environmental factors. The pessimists would focus in the areas of rising social and economic inequality and steadily worsening social disorder (Lindert & Williamson, 1983: 2). In order to substantiate either point of view, a number of factors are considered. Voth, (1998: 30, 51, 56) for example calculates that annual labor input in England increased from 3000 to more than 400 hours annually per adult male, from 1750-1800. A rise in per capita consumption during the same period is estimated to have been 12%. This argument that the rising input of labor and abstention from leisure has given rise to a proposal that this was an “Industrious” rather than an Industrial Revolution. The improvement in living standards in the years 1750-1800 is not in too much dispute, however – it is largely acknowledged that this period was one of growth and improvement in economic output and consumption. The optimistic view is that even before 1850, there was a significant increase in living standards. The pessimistic view is twofold: either living standard actually declined in this period; or merely remained constant (Mokyr, 1988: 69.70). Living standards, though, varied considerably in the earlier years of the Industrial revolution, and even in the period mentioned above. By focusing on adult male employees, and wage trends among them, it is clear that any worker was better off in “any decade after 1830 than he had been in any decade before 1820” (Lindert & Williamson, 1983: 12). Unemployment, too, was at lower rates – 9.41% in the 1840s and 1850s (ibid. at: 16). Mean heights of men, measured from samples of army recruits and soldiers between the years 1792 and 1850, indicate improvements in living standards. For men born between 1792 and 1944, between 24 and 29 years of age, mean heights increased by 2 inches. After 1800, these mean measurements increased by up to 4 inches (Nicholas & Steckel, 1991: 939). This suggests fairly significant improvements in the conditions in Industrial revolution England. Among urban workers, though, mean height fell consistently in the years between 1780 and 1802 (ibid. at: 949). Cases for both the optimistic and the pessimistic view can be derived from such evidence. Wage trends for women and for children follow approximately the same trends as those for unskilled men. The suggestion is that from 1750-1850 wages for women remained constant, or rose marginally. For children under 15 years, there appears to have been a marginal reduction (Lindert & Williamson, 1983: 17). While this could be seen as negative, with pessimists able to argue that the gains made by men in wages was at the expense of women and children’s wages, Lindert and Williamson (ibid. at: 19) argue, providing their calculations as evidence, that this decline in wages for women and children was due more to the improving living standards – these groups were not longer required to work for family survival. A widely accepted measure of improving standards of living is longevity. And there is evidence that cities were centers of poor health in this period. Engels is cited by Lindert and Williamson in his claim that working class longevity declined as the Industrial Revolution progressed (ibid. at: 20). After 1800, however, the evidence shows that longevity increased steadily from 1800 onwards. Once more, though, pessimists are able to refer to the exceptions: this trend was not seen in Liverpool and Manchester. If measured against the steady improvement in real income across England, and the general trend of reductions in mortality (ibid. at: 24) this pessimistic view is too narrowly focused. It is only in the areas of social disorder and injustice that the pessimistic viewpoint appears to be able to continue to formulate its approach. The pattern of improving living standards, measured against widely accepted criteria indicates strongly that the optimists are correct. The Industrial Revolution did give rise to an improvement in living standards in England. References Lindert, Peter H. & Williamson, Jeffrey, G. (1983) Living Standards during the Industrial Revolution: A New Look. In The Economic History Review, New Series Vol. 36 No.1 (Feb. 1983) pp. 1-25 Blackwell: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Economic History Association Mokyr, Joel (1988) Is There Still Life in the Pessimist Case? Consumption during the Industrial Revolution, 1790-1850. In The Journal of Economic History Vol.8 No. 1 (Mar. 1988) pp. 69-92 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Economic History Association Nicholas, Stephen & Steckel, Richard H. (1991) Heights and Living Standards of English Workers During the Early Years of Industrialization, 1770-1815. In The Journal of Economic History Vol. 51 No.4 (Dec. 1991) pp. 937-957 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Economic History Association Voth, Hans-Joachim (1998) Time and Work in Eighteenth-Century London. In The Journal of Economic History Vol. 58 No. 1 (Mar. 1998) pp. 29-58 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Economic History Association SECTION TWO Question 5 One of the defining features of the Industrial Revolution is the establishment of factories. Although there is some evidence that workers did work collectively in one location, as if in a factory, before the Industrial Revolution, workers were able to control their own pace of work, hours of work and their conduct at work (Clark, 1994: 129). The change then was fundamentally that Industrial revolution factories imposed discipline on workers. An employer or owner would regulate the hours of work, the type of work, the pace of work and the behaviors at work of the producer. Two theories are proposed by Clark (1994: 129) to explain possible reasons for the establishment of discipline in factories. The first he names “Coercion Theory” where workers are forced by capitalists to work harder and longer, so as to extract the most possible work for wages earned. The second – “The Cooperation Theory” – argues that discipline resulted from the need to ensure safety, maximum output and efficient use of energy and machine-time. Workers had to be regulated to prevent undisciplined behavior threatening machine operation and their own safety. Whichever theory applies, the work rate in factories after disciplined systems were introduced, increased by about 33% in the Nineteenth Century (ibid. at: 160). It can also be claimed, though, that certain earlier systems – for example the charge and rent system – yielded higher outputs than the disciplined factory. Additionally, higher outputs are not only linked to the discipline system – other factors such as technological improvement did influence outputs (ibid. at: 133). Perhaps the discipline system in factories was, and is, only a means for capitalists to exploit workers more efficiently. References Clark, Gregory (1994) Factory Discipline. In The Journal of Economic History Vol. 54 No.1 (Mar. 1994) pp. 128-163 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Economic History Association Question 6 “Abstention seems to have been more important than invention … abstention from leisure … at the core of economic growth” (De Vries in Voth, 1998: 56). This statement seems to outline the essential perspective from which a claim that a new interpretation of the advances and improvement in the traditional period of the Industrial Revolution is possible. There is some speculation nonetheless as to the actual increases in working time of people during the period (De Vries, 1994: 31). If a more specified focus on the family unit is employed, it seems that traditional views of the Industrial Revolution can be revised to some degree. It is thus that an “Industrious Revolution” can be proposed. In this theory, it is suggested that the demand for goods offered in the marketplace grew within families (Voth, 1998: 255, 256). This demand from within families grew simultaneously with the increases in the supply of commodities in the marketplace, and the increases in labor which traditionally characterize this period. Prices of goods were being adjusted down in relative terms; more desirable commodities were available; money’s value to buy was improved – and families were allocating their time and resources differently to adjust to this (ibid. at: 255-257). While men worked more and earned more – see Section 1 Question 2 – more money was available to purchase goods and services being marketed by the growing industries. Women and children, too, were selling their labor and the evidence of the exploitation of this labor source is widespread. As the family unit changed social ills increased, and literacy rates stagnated throughout the Eighteenth Century (ibid. at: 261). While is true that growth during the period was due to technological and market change, a theory of Industrious revolution having an effect on that growth is certainly viable. References De Vries, Jan (1994) The Industrial Revolution and the Industrious Revolution (1994). In The Journal of Economic History Vol. 54 No. 2: Papers Presented at the Fifty-Third Annual Meeting of the Economic History Association (Jun. 1994) pp. 249-270 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Economic History Association Voth, Hans-Joachim (1998) Time and Work in Eighteenth-Century London. In The Journal of Economic History Vol. 58 No. 1 (Mar. 1998) pp. 29-58 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Economic History Association Question 8 The common perception of Empire is that it is a political and economic organization that benefits the home country unequivocally in terms of finance, prestige and power. To some degree, the British Empire, if analyzed more pointedly, dispels this perception. “The majority of the English people cheerfully and even proudly shouldered a tax bill for an empire from which the derived very little in the form of tangible pecuniary gains” (O’Brien in Davis & Huttenback, 1982: 215). In one area particularly the cost of Empire was immense. Similarly to the pattern in modern alliances and trans-national formations, the cost of defense was prohibitive: “large wealthy allies would shoulder the burdens of the smaller allies, therefore giving the latter a free or easy ride” (Hansen et al in Davis & Huttenback, 1982: 229). While this description applies to NATO today, it could equally be applied to the British Empire, with the colonies – both self-governing and dependent – draining the home country of inestimable value in the area of defense. Although some return for military investment did accrue to the home country – raw materials, human resource from the colonies during war, alliances with former colonies during war – the overall pattern was one where the colonies contributed very little financially to the British economy directly. Private investors, however, thrived from their investment in colonial territories in the Late Victorian and Early Edwardian eras (Davis & Huttenback: 1982: 236). In the mid-1860s, Empire firms returned notably more than domestic firms in returns on investment right up to the 1870s (Avner, 1993: 123) but by the mid-1880s, this trend had reversed entirely. It may be that, as Avner (1993: 130) has proposed: all the Empire managed was to transfer wealth from the taxpayers of Britain to the Upper Classes. References Davis, Lance E. & Huttenback, Robert, A. (1982) The Political Economy of British Imperialism: Measure of Benefits and Support. In The Journal of Economic History Vol. 42 No.1: The Tasks of Economic History (Mar. 1982) pp. 119-130 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Economic History Association Offer, Avner (1993) The British Empire, 1870-1914: A Waste of Money? In The Economic History Review, New Series Vol. 46 No.2 (May 1993) pp. 215-238 Blackwell: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Economic History Association SECTION THREE Question 9 FALSE Bismarck certainly implemented social reform, but this was aimed centrally at lessening the power of the Roman Catholic Church in Germany, and uniting Germany. Certainly, his actions also aimed at eradication of the socialists, but the National Liberals were, at least for a while his allies. Khoudour-Casteeas, David (2008) Welfare State and Labor Mobility: The Impact of Bismarck’s Social Legislation on German Emigration before World War I” in Journal of Economic History Vol. 61 No. 1 (2008) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Economic History Association Question 10 TRUE Question 11 TRUE (Particularly southern Italians had the business experience and adaptability to continue to succeed in this period) Question 13 FALSE State debt was indeed high, as were interest rates, but the ongoing and sometimes botched attempts at reforming the monetary policies (and banking policies) in Britain contributed significantly to the lack of investment in Britain. Additionally, the better returns from colonial investments, during periods within this era, may also have prevented some investment domestically. McCaffrey, Matt (Date Unknown) The Banking School vs. The Currency School available at www.mises.com © 2010 Copyright Ludwig von Mises. Accessed June 23, 2011 Question 14 FALSE Not all the Balkan states were necessarily anti-progression in technology and growth – rather they did not have the economic knowledge and skills required to ensure growth (the Ottoman Empire descendant, Turkey), or were geared to protect the rights and incomes of an agricultural peasantry (Greece and Serbia). Land reforms were short-term solutions and did not lead to industrial expansion. Twenty-Five Lectures on Modern Balkan History (The Balkans in the Age of Nationalism) available at http://staff.lib.msu.edu/sowards/balkan/lect09.htm. Accessed June 23, 2011 Question 12 FALSE Some contemporary argument claims that the peasantry was engaged in both industrial and agricultural pursuits, and that they were uniquely positioned to as pig iron merchants and farmers. Some did manage to become wealthy; some ended up being in debt to the point of bankruptcy. Their moral desire to farm in the woodlands was less important it seems. Karlsson, Lionel (Date Unknown) “The mining peasant's circumstances provide more in-depth knowledge about industrialization (Sweden)” University of Gothenburg: University Press Question 13 FALSE Greece was beset by post World War One strife, including the return of a royalist form of government, the need to integrate peoples newly located in Greece by the war and a continued agricultural focus in the economy. Twenty-Five Lectures on Modern Balkan History (The Balkans in the Age of Nationalism) available at http://staff.lib.msu.edu/sowards/balkan/lect09.htm. Accessed June 23, 2011 Question 14 FALSE The cultural movement to recover the Catalan Language, combined with the Catalan region becoming a centre for Spain’s industrialization meant that the real restrictions were the shortage of energy resources, and the competition from foreign products. Only protectionist policies served to speed up the process of industrialization. It must be noted though that evidence does exist to show that Spanish industrialization and urbanization were not sufficiently intense or widespread to generate significant ruptures in traditional temporary migration. Thus it was not a lack of response due to low wages – rather to lack of opportunities. Silvestre, Javier (Date Unknown) Temporary Internal Migrations in Spain 1860-1930 available at http://ssh.dukejournals.org/cgi/reprint/31/4/539.pdf. Accessed June 20, 2011 Read More