The Division of Labor in America: An Ecological Analysis

The impact of population size, physical density, social density, and age of 600 communities upon the extent of their industrial diversification was analyzed. Hypotheses concerning each independent variable were generated from the theory of the development of the division of labor proposed by Durkheim and subsequently adopted by human ecologists. Regression analysis was employed to test the hypotheses. The standardized partial regression coefficients indicated that only social density exerts a significant impact upon industrial diversification. In addition, it was discovered that the combined influence of the independent variables fails to account for the bulk of the variation in industrial diversification. Factors which may be responsible for these results, as well as directions for future research, are presented and discussed. One of the areas in human ecology where the gap between theory and research is most apparent is in the study of the division of labor. Although the concept itself has received relatively extensive treatment at the theoretical level (Durkheim, 1933; Hawley, 1950; Simmel, 1959:52-62; Smith, 1963:3-17; Spencer, 1921; Stigler, 1951), attempts at operationalization have been rare (Gibbs and Martin, 1962:669). The few studies which have attempted to delineate empirical components of the "division of labor" (e.g., Olsen, 1968:703) generally employ ad hoc operational definitions whose utility is limited to the specific research problem under consideration. One exception to this trend is a series of studies by Gibbs and Martin (1962), Labovitz and Gibbs (1964), Gibbs and Browning (1966), and Browning and Gibbs (1971), endeavoring to measure the division of labor at the national or international level. Unfortunately, beyond these efforts virtually no work has been done to formulate an empirically based theory of functional differentiation. This article attempts to further the development of a grounded theory of the division of labor by testing a series of hypotheses derived from the conceptual scheme proposed by Durkheim (1933) and subsequently adopted by human ecologists. We are cognizant of the many difficulties involved in attempting to provide empirical linkage to the theoretical work of someone like Durkheim (Land, 1970:262; Merton, 1934). Because of the level of generality of Durkheim's explanation it is impossible to give attention to all possible meanings of all constructs and all their implications. What must be done is to extract a logically consistent piece from the more global scheme and empirically examine that statement. Perhaps Land (1970:262) best states the nature of this epistemological problem as well as a possible resolution: "The modern social theorist... can rarely claim to have captured the 'complete' meaning of a classic in his more rigorous restatements of classical social theory. At best, he can choose the goals of his formalization and attempt to show how the classic implies his restatement...." THEORETICAL STATEMENT While a variety of theorists have attempted to delineate the factors involved in the development of the division of labor, the explanation that is most generally accepted today was first proposed by Durkheim (1933) in 1893. Ac[ 176 ] * Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Sociological Society, New Orleans, 1972. We are indebted to John Stoeckel and two unidentified readers for their helpful comments on an earlier version. This content downloaded from 207.46.13.101 on Thu, 21 Apr 2016 05:49:15 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Division of Labor / 177 cording to this approach, functional heterogeneity is the consequence of increased physical and social density. With an increase in population size and social interaction, the struggle for existence becomes acute. This intensification of competition stimulates the development of the division of labor. For, with the rise of functional differentiation, homogeneity of demands upon the sustenance supply is minimized and competition is more or less resolved (Lampard, 1955:91; see also Simmel, 1959:53). In explaining the role of competition in stimulating the development of the division of labor, Durkheim drew many of his ideas from the work of Darwin (1958:84-86). Consequently, much of his presentation is exemplified through organic analogies (e.g., 1933: 266). From Durkheim's discussion, however, Hawlcy (1950:202-203) has outlined four general stages that competition follows in the formation of community structure: (1) the demand for sustenance exceeds the supply, (2) there is an increasing degree of homogeneity among competitors, (3) the weakest competitors are eliminated, and (4) organization occurs since competition differentiates and multiplies functions. Hawley's statement lays the groundwork for referring to one of Durkheim's (1933:262) major propositions: The division of labor develops, as there are more individuals in contact to . . . act and react upon one another . . . the division of labor is in direct ratio to moral or dynamic density . . . and, if it progresses in a continuous manner in the course of social development, it is because societies regularly become denser and more voluminous. That the general constellation of variables within which Durkheim worked is essentially the same as that employed by human ecologists (e.g., Hawley, 1950: 192-203; Park, 1936) has been demonstrated by Schnore (1958). In addition, this overlap extends to the more specific conception of the development of the division of labor since Durkheim's propositions have, for the most part, found uncritical acceptance within the theory of ecological organization (Gibbs and Martin, 1962:669). Independent Variables In his discussion of the development of the division of labor Durkheim (1933:262) delineates three major determining factors-population size, physical density, and social density. Because he sets his argument in an evolutionary perspective, a fourth factor-time-can also be said to possess causal implications. While the impact of these four variables has been frequently discussed (Coste, 1899:95-103; McKenzie, 1933:316; Spencer, 1921:471; Stigler, 1951:185; Thompson, 1965:147), it has not been empirically verified although several studies (Keyes, 1958; Marden, 1966; Rogers, 1957) have found a direct association between size and the number of different services or industries extant in a population. And in regard to size, Clemente and Sturgis (1971) discovered a moderate correlation between city population size and one dimension of industrial diversification. Although there has been little other empirical research in the area, on the basis of the theoretical explanations proposed by Durkheim and subsequent human ecologists the following general conceptual hypothesis can