Mass production is the name given to the method of producing goods in large quantities at relatively low cost per unit. The mass production process itself is characterized by high volume, a highly organized flow of materials through various stages of manufacturing, careful supervision of quality standards, and precise division of labour. Mass production cannot exist without mass consumption. Before the expansion of retailing, the only large-scale demand for standardized, uniform products came from military organizations. As a result, the experiments that led to mass production were first performed under the aegis of the military.

Advances in mass production could not be made without the development of the machine-tool industry—that is, the fabrication of machinery that could make machines. Though some basic devices such as the woodworking lathe had existed for centuries, their evolution into industrial machine tools capable of cutting and shaping hard metals to precise tolerances was brought about by a series of 19th-century innovators, first in Britain and later in the United States. With precision equipment, large numbers of identical parts could be produced by a small workforce at low costs.

The system of manufacture involving production of many identical parts and their assembly into finished products came to be called the American System, because it achieved its fullest maturity in the United States. Although Eli Whitney was credited with this development, his ideas had appeared earlier in Sweden, France, and Britain and were being practiced in arms factories in the United States. During the years 1802–08, for example, the French engineer Marc Brunel, while working for the British Admiralty in the Portsmouth Dockyard, devised an efficient process for producing wooden pulley blocks. Ten men, in place of 110 needed previously, were able to make 160,000 pulley blocks per year. British manufacturers, however, ignored Brunel’s ideas, and it was not until London’s Crystal Palace exhibition of 1851 that British engineers, viewing exhibits of machines used in the United States to produce interchangeable parts, began to apply the system. By the third quarter of the 19th century, the American System was employed in making small arms, clocks, textile machinery, sewing machines, and a host of other industrial products.

Though prototypes of the assembly line can be traced to antiquity, the true ancestor of this industrial technique could be found in the 19th-century meat-processing industry in Cincinnati, Ohio, and in Chicago, where overhead trolleys conveyed carcasses from worker to worker. When these trolleys were connected with chains and power was used to move the carcasses past the workers at a steady pace, they formed a true assembly line (or, in effect, a “disassembly” line in the case of meat cutting). Stationary workers concentrated on one task and performed it at a pace dictated by the machine, thereby minimizing unnecessary movement and dramatically increasing productivity.

Drawing upon examples from the meatpacking industry, the American automobile manufacturer Henry Ford designed an assembly line that began operation in 1913. This innovation reduced manufacturing time for magneto flywheels from 20 minutes to 5 minutes. Ford next applied the technique to chassis assembly. Under the old system, by which parts were carried to a stationary assembly point, 12 1 2 man-hours were required for each chassis. Using a rope to pull the chassis past stockpiles of components, Ford cut labour time to 6 man-hours. With improvements—a chain drive to power assembly-line movement, stationary locations for the workmen, and workstations designed for convenience and comfort—chassis assembly time fell to 93 man-minutes by the end of April 1914. Ford’s methods drastically reduced the price of a private automobile, bringing it within the reach of the growing middle class in the United States.

Ford’s accomplishments forced both his competitors and his parts suppliers to imitate his technique. As the assembly line spread through American industry, it brought dramatic productivity gains but also caused skilled workers to be replaced with low-cost unskilled labour. The pace of the assembly line was dictated by machines, meaning that plant owners were tempted to accelerate the machines, forcing the workers to keep up. Such speedups became a serious point of contention between labour and management. Furthermore, the dull, repetitive nature of many assembly-line jobs bored employees, reducing their output.

The development of mass production transformed the organization of work in three important ways. First, tasks were minutely subdivided and performed by unskilled or semiskilled workers, because much of the skill was built into the machine. Second, growth in the size of manufacturing concerns necessitated the formation of a hierarchy of supervisors and managers. Third, the increasing complexity of operations encouraged employment of managerial-level employees who specialized in such areas as accounting, engineering, research and development, human resources, information technology, distribution, marketing, and sales.

Mass production also heightened the trend toward an international division of labour. The large scale of the new factories often made it economical to import raw materials from one country and produce them in another. At the same time, the saturation of domestic markets led to a search for customers overseas. Thus, some countries became exporters of raw materials and importers of finished goods, while others did the reverse. In the 1950s and ’60s some predominantly agricultural countries (particularly in Asia and South America) began to manufacture goods. Because of the low skill levels required for assembly-line tasks, residents of any background could work in the new manufacturing sector. Standards of living in developing countries were so low that wages could be kept below those of the industrialized countries. This made the entire production process less expensive. Many large manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere therefore began outsourcing—that is, having parts made or whole products assembled in developing countries. Consequently, developments in these countries have changed the face of the world economic community. (See maquiladora.)

The tasks involved in running a farm change with the cyclical nature of the cultivation and harvest seasons. The tasks vary greatly for different crops and depend also upon the degree of mechanization. Starting in the 19th century, agricultural work underwent a transformation comparable to the change from handicraft to industrial mass production. At the beginning of that century, farming was primarily a family enterprise that rested upon age-old techniques and organization of work. Despite some technological innovations, such as the plow and seed drill, output was relatively small. In the late 19th and especially in the 20th century, output per farmer increased rapidly until, in the most technologically advanced countries, a small minority of farmers supplied entire populations with food. These changes stemmed from a series of advances such as improved power sources, mechanical devices such as the reaper and combine, a scientific approach to plant and animal breeding, better food processing and preservation, more-effective fertilizers and pesticides, and application of industrial management techniques to agriculture.

One of the more-comprehensive examples of agricultural “factory” production is seen in the poultry industry in the United States. A computerized feed bin mixes the feed and delivers it automatically to the cages. Water is delivered automatically, and waste is removed by mechanical means. When a chicken reaches the correct weight for processing, the slaughtering and packaging are performed on an assembly-line basis. Application of these techniques has sharply reduced the cost per pound of chicken, and a form of protein that was once a luxury has become a staple item of diet. Similar methods are used to raise veal calves and other meat-producing animals. Capital investment in such factory farms is high, meaning that production is backed by giant companies.

The industrialization of agriculture meant that the small farm was being replaced by larger units, and this had profound consequences for agricultural labour. In the small-scale enterprise that had prevailed since antiquity, the farm family with perhaps a few hired hands had done all the work of planting, tending, and harvesting the crop, with neighbours helping each other during peak periods such as the harvest. But the advent of industrialization drew workers from the farms to the cities, and the increase in mechanization required fewer farm labourers on a year-round basis. There was still need, however, for many hands during planting and harvesting, especially for fruit and vegetable crops that matured at the same time and still required hand harvesting.

Further, mechanization of agricultural processes has reduced some demand for migrant labour. In the United States, for instance, the harvesting of wheat and cotton, which required the work of many migrants before World War II, is now largely mechanized and easily handled by regular farm employees. In mature economies migrant labour contributes little to total agricultural output and only a negligible amount to nonagricultural output. Nevertheless, the availability of migrant workers at the right time and place can be crucial, because, without them, large crop losses may occur.

In the United States the need for seasonal farm workers has been met by migrant workers, largely from Mexico and Latin American and Caribbean countries, although some native-born Americans continue to follow the harvesting season as it moves from south to north. The employment of these seasonal workers raises a number of social, political, and economic problems. Migrants are typically paid low wages with no fringe benefits. Their living and working conditions remain far below standard. In spite of this, they often look to migrant farm labour as a means of escaping the worse conditions of their native countries.

Agricultural mass production takes many forms. In the former Soviet Union sovkhozy, or state agricultural farms, were owned collectively (that is, by the government). Farmers were, in effect, state employees, but the organization of work resembled that of the West. Soviet collective farms were in theory cooperative associations of farmers who combined their land and capital, sharing proceeds in common. Each family on a collective farm, however, was permitted to own a small plot of land, so that modern and traditional work organization existed side by side.

Although the Soviets at first prided themselves on their communal organization of agriculture, it became evident that the system was not meeting productivity goals. Despite its fertile soil, the Soviet Union was forced to import agricultural staples such as wheat from countries whose agricultural systems were based on capitalism. Most of the fruits and vegetables consumed in the U.S.S.R. came from the small private plots of collective farmers, who, being allowed to grow produce for their own profit, had greater incentives to bring more foodstuffs to the market. By comparison, the government-set prices and production quotas on the collective farms diminished such incentives.

Acknowledging the productive capacity of private initiative, the Soviet government in the 1980s began to loosen the constraints of collective agriculture. In 1989, individual farmers were given the opportunity to lease land and equipment for 50 years and more. The lessee could decide what to produce and at what price to sell it, and, upon his decease, his children could “inherit” the leased property. With the demise of the Soviet Union in 1989, agriculture in Russia and in the former Soviet states became increasingly privatized. Because so much of Russia’s agricultural land is still held collectively, agricultural productivity is far below the standards of most other countries.

The situation in the People’s Republic of China initially paralleled that in the Soviet Union. Mass collectivization took place during Mao’s Great Leap Forward of 1958–60. The resulting disorganization of the agricultural system led to a famine that is thought to have caused the deaths of 20–30 million people. Productivity surged during the 1980s and ’90s, when peasants were allowed to own or lease land and to market their own agricultural products. This contributed to a rise in the standard of living in rural areas.

For most of recorded history, the vast majority of the world’s population was engaged in farming. Beginning in the 19th century, industrial employment took primacy over agricultural work in many countries. By the 21st century the service sector had come to represent the fastest-growing area of the workforce in the world’s most-advanced economies. In the United States, for example, the number of people engaged in service occupations in the 1950s already exceeded the number of those employed in industry, and the proportion increased thereafter.

Work in the service sector is marked by diversity. Jobs run the gamut from fast-food waiters to maîtres d’hôtel, from office clerks to advertising executives, from kindergarten teachers to university professors, and from nurses’ aides to surgeons. Also representing the service industry are janitors, business consultants, truck drivers, financiers, and government employees ranging from street sweepers and garbage collectors to legislators and heads of government.

Employment trends and job conditions changed for service workers throughout the 20th century. For example, the number of domestic servants declined drastically, with full-time live-in domestic help almost disappearing. On the other hand, the number of government employees grew dramatically as government entities, from local to regional to national, took on new tasks.

American industrial engineer Frederick W. Taylor (1856–1915) led the development of an entirely new discipline—that of industrial engineering or scientific management. In this approach, the managerial functions of planning and coordination were applied throughout the productive process.

Taylor believed that a factory manager’s primary goals were to determine the best way for the worker to do the job, to provide the proper tools and training, and to provide incentives for good performance. Taylor broke down each job into its constituent motions, analyzed these motions to determine which were essential, and timed the workers with a stopwatch. With superfluous motion eliminated, the worker, following a machinelike routine, became much more productive. In some cases Taylor recommended a further division of labour, delegating some tasks, such as sharpening tools, to specialists. (See time-and-motion study.)

These studies were complemented by two of Taylor’s contemporaries in the United States, Frank B. Gilbreth and Lillian E. Gilbreth, whom many management engineers credit with the invention of motion studies. In 1909 the Gilbreths, studying the task of bricklaying, concluded that motion was wasted each time a worker reached down to pick up a brick. They devised an adjustable scaffold that eliminated stooping and sped the bricklaying process from 120 bricks per hour to 350. Industrial engineering was eventually applied to all elements of factory operation—layout, materials handling, and product design, as well as labour operations.

Taylor regarded his movement as “scientific” because of the scientific principles and measurement he applied to the work process. Previously, advances in manufacturing had been made by applying scientific principles to machines. This scientific approach, however, neglected the human element, so that Taylor in effect conceptualized the work process not as a relationship between worker and machine but as a relationship between two machines.

Scientific management theorists assumed that workers desired to be used efficiently, to perform their work with a minimum of effort, and to receive more money. They also took for granted that workers would submit to the standardization of physical movements and thought processes. The procedures developed through scientific management, however, ignored human feelings and motivations, leaving the worker dissatisfied with the job. Furthermore, some employers used the time-and-motion studies as a means of speeding up the production line and raising productivity levels while still keeping wages down.

Unions became the mouthpiece for those who opposed some of the consequences of scientific management. This was especially true in the decade after 1910, when the principles of scientific management were being applied wholesale in the United States. Though the unions approved of more-efficient production arising from better machinery and management, they condemned the speedup practice and complained in particular that Taylorism deprived workers of a voice regarding the conditions and functions of their work. Complaints were also made that the system caused irritability and fatigue along with physiological and neurological damage among workers. Quality and productivity suffered. Industrial engineers then faced the problem of motivating the worker so that the combination of human labour and machine technology would achieve its fullest potential. A partial solution came from the social sciences through the development of industrial psychology.

The major premise of this new discipline was that mass production methods affect the worker both in the immediate job environment and in relations with fellow workers and supervisors. The first important discoveries in the social context of mass production technology resulted from experiments made by the American social scientist Elton Mayo between 1927 and 1932 at the Hawthorne plant of the Western Electric Company, in Cicero, Ill. Mayo, who earlier had studied problems of physical fatigue among textile workers in a Philadelphia plant, was called in to the Hawthorne works, where industrial engineers were testing the possibility that changes in lighting could affect productivity. The investigators chose two groups of employees working under similar conditions to produce the same part; the intensity of the light would vary for the test group but would be kept constant for the control group. To Mayo’s surprise, the output of both groups rose. Even when the researchers told one group that the light was going to be changed and then did not change it, the workers expressed satisfaction, saying that they liked the “increased” illumination, and productivity continued to rise.

Mayo saw that the significant variable was not physiological but psychological. Productivity rose when more attention was paid to the workers. A second series of experiments involved the assembly of telephone relays. Test and control groups were subjected to changes in wages, rest periods, workweeks, temperature, humidity, and other factors. Again output continued to increase no matter how physical conditions were varied; even when conditions were returned to what they had been before, productivity remained 25 percent higher than its original value. Mayo concluded that the reason for this lay in the attitudes of the workers toward their jobs and toward the company. By asking their cooperation in the test, the investigators had stimulated a new attitude among the employees, who now felt themselves part of an important group whose help and advice were being sought by the company. This phenomenon came to be known as the Hawthorne effect.

Following Mayo’s findings, industrial engineers and sociologists have recommended other means of improving motivation and productivity. These include job alternation (to relieve boredom), job enlargement (arranging for workers to perform several tasks rather than a single operation), and job enrichment (redesigning the job to make it more challenging).

Mayo’s work broadened scientific management by drawing the new behavioral sciences, such as social psychology, into questions concerning work and labour-management relationships. It encouraged the development of human-factors engineering and ergonomics, disciplines that attempt to design “user-friendly” equipment. For example, the new engineers try to accommodate human physiology by designing equipment that can be operated at a comfortable work level, with minimum strain and with controls that are easy to reach, see, and manipulate.

In its ideal form, automation implies the elimination of all manual labour through the use of automatic controls that ensure accuracy and quality. Although perfect automation has never been achieved, in its more-limited form it has caused alterations in the patterns of employment.

Coined in the 1940s at the Ford Motor Company, the term automation was applied to the automatic handling of parts in metalworking processes. The concept acquired broader meaning with the development of cybernetics by American mathematician Norbert Wiener. Through cybernetics, Wiener anticipated the application of computers to manufacturing situations. He caused alarm during the 1950s and ’60s by suggesting, erroneously, that automatic machinery would lead to mass unemployment. But automation was not introduced as rapidly as foreseen, and other economic factors have created new opportunities in the labour market.

Automation evolved from three interrelated trends in technology: the development of powered machinery for production operations, the introduction of powered equipment to move materials and workpieces during the manufacturing process, and the perfecting of control systems to regulate production, handling, and distribution.

Devices to move materials from one workstation to the next included conveyor-belt systems, monorail trolleys, and various pulley arrangements. The transfer machine, a landmark in progress toward full automation, moves the workpieces to the next workstation and accurately positions them for the next machine tool. It cuts labour costs and improves quality by ensuring uniformity and precision. The first known transfer machine was built by an American firm, the Waltham Watch Company, in 1888; it fed parts to several lathes mounted on a single base. By the mid-20th century, transfer machines were widely employed in the automotive industry, appliance manufacturing, electrical-parts production, and many other metalworking industries.

Automatic controls revolutionized all aspects of the production process. Starting in the 19th century, the simple cam could automatically adjust the position of a lever or machine element. But cam devices were limited in speed, size, and sensitivity. True automatic control can occur only when the machine is sensitive enough to adjust to unpredictably varying conditions. This requirement demands instant responses to feedback—something a computer can perform in a fraction of a second.

Whereas industrialization made possible the mass production of identical parts for mass markets, the computer allowed for custom-made small-batch production. During the 1980s and ’90s, American firms made significant investments in information-processing equipment. These developments allowed American manufacturers to concentrate on “niche” production—that is, supplying a limited segment of the market with a specialized product and responding speedily to changes in market demand. On the automobile assembly line, niche production enables many cars containing different options to be fabricated on the same assembly line, with computers monitoring a system that ensures the proper items will go into each separate car.

Further developments in automation created two new fields: computer-aided design (CAD) and computer-aided manufacturing (CAM), often linked as codisciplines under the title CAD/CAM. In a sense, CAD/CAM allows the mass production system to manufacture customized “handmade” articles. The machinery can be adapted to a particular product through computer programming, enabling work on small batches to achieve many of the economies previously available only through mass production of identical objects. Computer-aided design itself makes possible the testing of production methods and the design of the product by running tests (of such factors as ability to withstand stress, for example) through the computer. After testing, the product design or the process can be modified without going to the expense and time required for building actual prototype models.See economy of scale.

Automation not only gives flexibility to production but also can cut down costly lead times confronted when changing from one production model to another, and it can control inventories to provide a continuous flow of materials without expensive storage requirements or investment in spare parts. Such efficiencies lower production costs and help explain the growing strength in world markets of the Japanese, who first introduced the practice. Automation has also fostered the development of systems engineering, operations research, and linear programming.

Automation has not yet reached the level of completely robotized production. The first generation of industrial robots could perform only simple tasks, such as welding, for they became confused by slight differences in the objects on which they worked. To overcome that difficulty, computer scientists and engineers began developing robots with keener sensitivity, thereby enlarging their capabilities. Although progress has been made, it is clear that human beings must be available to back up the robots and maintain their productivity.

Robotic machines can perform certain unpleasant and dangerous jobs such as welding or painting. They can handle loads of up to a ton or more and work efficiently in temperatures ranging from near freezing to uncomfortably hot. In many cases automation has eliminated physical and mental drudgery from human labour and has allowed the worker to change from a machine operator to a machine supervisor.

Automation also boosts productivity (as measured in output per man-hour), even as it reduces the number of workers required for certain tasks. In the 1950s and ’60s, for example, productivity increased while employment decreased in the chemical, steel, meatpacking, and other industries in developed countries. Except in the rust belt regions (older industrial areas in Britain and the United States), no mass unemployment has ever materialized. Instead, as certain jobs and skills became obsolete, automation and other new technologies created new jobs that call for different skills.

Automation has brought about changes in the worker’s relationship to the job. Here the differences between labour practices in different countries prove instructive. The scientific management principle of breaking work down into small, repetitive tasks was based perhaps upon the notion that the worker does not think on the job. For example, when American factories became mechanized, the workers were not permitted to stop the assembly line if anything went amiss; that was the task of supervisory personnel. This led to low productivity and poor quality control. By comparison, workers in Japanese factories were allowed to stop the process when something went wrong. Workers were assigned to “quality circles,” groups that could give workers a say in the performance of their tasks and in the process of problem solving. This approach represents an application of Mayo’s Hawthorne effect—something Japanese managers had learned from American management consultants such as W. Edwards Deming. By encouraging workers to participate in the quality control efforts, the management approach improved both productivity and quality.

A similar way of enhancing quality and work performance is what is known as group assembly, which started in Swedish automobile plants and was also adopted by the Japanese and then by the Americans. With this system a group of workers is responsible for the entire product (as opposed to individual workers who perform only one small task). If something goes wrong on an assembly line, any worker can push a button and hold things in place until the problem is resolved.

As this approach is increasingly employed throughout the world, it brings major changes to the labour force and to labour-management relations. First, it allows smaller numbers of more highly skilled workers, operating sophisticated computer-controlled equipment, to replace thousands of unskilled workers in assembly-line plants. As a consequence, the highly skilled worker, whose talents had been lost on the old-fashioned assembly line, has again become indispensable. The proliferation of automated machinery and control systems has increased the demand for skilled labourers and knowledgeable technicians who can operate the newer devices. As a result, automation may be seen as improving efficiency and expanding production while relieving drudgery and increasing earnings—precisely the aims of Frederick W. Taylor at the turn of the 20th century.

Office automation represents a further mechanization of office work, a process that began with the introduction of the typewriter and the adding machine in the 19th century. The introduction of computers also affected the organization of work in the information sector of the economy. Just as automated machinery has done away with the jobs of many machine operators, integrated information-processing systems have eliminated many clerical tasks. For the production operation, automation provides an exact control over the inventory of raw materials, parts, and finished goods. Applied to billing operations in the office, it often can drastically reduce accounting costs.

The combination of computers and telecommunications led some to believe that office workers would perform their required functions without leaving their homes, as the computer terminal would take the place of their usual paperwork. Such predictions for “telecommuting” generally have not materialized, however. Social psychologists explain this by pointing out the social aspect of the work process, in the office as well as on the assembly line. Workers are, after all, social beings who benefit from interactions with their fellow employees.

Nevertheless, office automation affects worker-manager relationships in a number of ways. It allows middle-level employees a means of providing company executives with reports of production, costs, and inventory. This removes the dependence on a few subordinates who had traditionally supplied such information. Automation also creates ways to monitor each office worker’s efficiency: through computerized information, managers can, for example, count the number of times per hour that a typist strikes a letter on the keyboard. Managers can also ascertain the number, times, and nature of a worker’s telephone calls, monitor e-mail, or track the number and nature of Web sites an employee accesses.

For most of written history, agriculture was the chief human occupation, and heavy physical labour was not confined to men. Women performed physically demanding chores such as grinding grain by hand in a stone quern, drawing and carrying water, gathering wood, and churning milk to make butter. Generally, any respite from these tasks would occur only when a woman gave birth.

The Industrial Revolution changed the work situation for both men and women. Whereas the hearth and home had been the centre of production and family life, industrialization changed the locus of work from home to factory. The role of women in the family workforce did not change overnight, however, for at first many families worked together in factories as teams.

Not until the mid-19th century did the role of the male as the “good provider” emerge, with women taking over most household and domestic tasks. This transition may have stemmed from a growing humanitarian protest against the harsh treatment of women and children in the early factory system. Legislation—most notably in Britain—raised the minimum age for child labour in factories, set limits on the working hours of women and children, and barred them from certain dangerous and heavy occupations. Thus, women engaged primarily in domestic tasks such as child care while the men went out to work. Being the sole wage earner in the family reinforced the man’s traditional position as the head of the family.

The traditional role of the housewife (whose chief pursuits were motherhood and domesticity) persisted throughout the 19th century and well into the 20th. The advent of electric power near the close of the 19th century brought labour-saving devices such as washing machines and vacuum cleaners into the home. Although they freed the housewife from some drudgery, these innovations did little to lessen the amount of time she spent on household duties.

Social and economic developments were the critical agents that changed the nature of women’s work. For example, the growth of public education increased the demand for more teachers, and growing industrial and commercial enterprises required more office workers and salespeople. Whereas men had previously performed teaching and clerical tasks, employers found they could hire women for these occupations—at lower salaries. Differences in pay between the sexes were based largely on the assumption that men had to be paid enough to support a family. Moreover, most women who entered the workforce in the United States before World War II were single and did not have families to support; hence, they could be paid lower wages. This inequality in men’s and women’s pay scales, even for equal work, still exists.

Many working women performed tasks closely related to their traditional household work. When clothes were less often made at home but purchased ready-made at stores, for example, women were hired as seamstresses in the clothing industry. Even after national emergencies such as the World Wars, during which women were encouraged to take manufacturing jobs to replace the men who were in military service, women returned to housekeeping or to traditionally female occupations such as office work and nursing.

In the 1970s married women began entering the labour force in great numbers, and the strict segregation of women into certain occupations began to lessen somewhat as new opportunities arose for female workers in traditionally male occupations. New technology has meant that many tasks that once required heavy physical exertion, and hence were restricted to men, can now be performed simply by pushing buttons. Operating a bulldozer, for instance, does not need muscle power so much as alertness, judgment, and coordination—qualities as plentiful in women as in men. Nevertheless, the entrance of women into occupations formerly the province of men proved to be slower than expected. This persistent occupational segregation by sex is largely responsible for sizable differences in rates of pay that still exist. It would appear that, although rapid technological progress has enabled women in highly industrialized countries to cast off certain traditional roles, technological determinism—or technological rationality—does not always prevail over cultural views and social practices inherited from the past.

With the onset of the Industrial Revolution and the development of powered machinery during the 18th and 19th centuries, much onerous physical effort was gradually removed from work in factories and fields. Work was still regarded, however, as something separate from pleasure. The dichotomy between work and play persists even in today’s highly industrialized society.

Most recently, the development of automated work devices and processes, the prevalence of computers, and the growth of the service industry have led some to speak of a “postindustrial society.” This vision has not prevailed. In fact, industrial production has spread to developing countries, meaning that economic and political questions of working-class and managerial relationships have altered on an international front, affecting political relationships on a global scale. (See globalization.) Furthermore, new demands have been placed on educational systems in the developing countries as they attempt to train their workers for industrial production. Similarly, new demands have been placed on the educational systems of the developed countries as the older methods of organizing production, such as the assembly line, are being taken over by “smart” machines.

Émile Durkheim, The Division of Labor in Society, trans. by W.D. Halls (1984, reissued 1997; originally published in French, 1893), started serious consideration of the organization of work in society. Melvin Kranzberg and Joseph Gies, By the Sweat of Thy Brow: Work in the Western World (1975, reprinted 1986), is a later popular survey.

For the organization of work from prehistoric to Classical times, see Robert J. Braidwood, Prehistoric Men, 8th ed. (1975); Ahmed Fakhry, The Pyramids, 2nd ed. (1969, reissued 1974); Carl Roebuck (ed.), The Muses at Work: Arts, Crafts, and Professions in Ancient Greece and Rome (1969); and J.G. Landels, Engineering in the Ancient World (1978, reissued 1998).

Medieval and early modern developments in the Western world are treated in Jean Gimpel, The Medieval Machine: The Industrial Revolution of the Middle Ages, 2nd ed. (1988, reissued 1992; originally published in French, 1975); and, most fully, in Fernand Braudel, Civilization and Capitalism, 15th–18th Century, 3 vol. (1981–84, reprinted 1992; originally published in French, 1979). Changes in the organization of work with the development of the factory system are covered in Paul Mantoux, The Industrial Revolution in the Eighteenth Century: An Outline of the Beginnings of the Modern Factory System in England, rev. ed. (1961, reissued 1983; originally published in French, 1905). The Industrial Revolution itself is the subject of many studies, the most notable in relation to the organization of work being E.P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class, new ed. (1968, reprinted 1991); William H. Sewell, Jr., Work and Revolution in France: The Language of Labor from the Old Regime to 1848 (1980); David A. Hounshell, From the American System to Mass Production, 1800–1932: The Development of Manufacturing Technology in the United States (1984, reprinted 1991); and Georges Friedmann, The Anatomy of Work: Labor, Leisure, and the Implications of Automation (1962, reissued 1992; originally published in French, 1956).

For scientific management, see Frederick Winslow Taylor, The Principles of Scientific Management (1911, reissued 1998); and Daniel Nelson, Frederick W. Taylor and the Rise of Scientific Management (1980). Elton Mayo, The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization, 2nd ed. (1946), and The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization (1945, reprinted 1988), are two major summations by a pioneer industrial sociologist. Other major accounts of the factory system before the advent of automation are W. Lloyd Warner and J.O. Low, The Social System of the Modern Factory: The Strike: A Social Analysis (1947, reprinted 1976); and Charles R. Walker and Robert H. Guest, The Man on the Assembly Line (1952, reprinted 1979).

The development of automation and its effect on the organization of work are treated in David F. Noble, Forces of Production: A Social History of Industrial Automation (1984); Marvin Minsky (ed.), Robotics (1985); Harley Shaiken, Work Transformed: Automation and Labor in the Computer Age (1985); Daniel B. Cornfield (ed.), Workers, Managers, and Technological Change: Emerging Patterns of Labor Relations (1987); Eli Ginzberg, Thierry J. Noyelle, and Thomas M. Stanback, Jr., Technology and Employment: Concepts and Clarifications (1986); Tom Forester (ed.), The Microelectronics Revolution: The Complete Guide to the New Technology and Its Impact on Society (1980); E. Fossum (ed.), Computerization of Working Life, trans. from Norwegian (1983); and Shoshana Zuboff, In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power (1988).

Most notable among the growing number of studies of the working role of women are Barbara A. Hanawalt (ed.), Women and Work in Preindustrial Europe (1986); Lindsey Charles and Lorna Duffin (eds.), Women and Work in Pre-industrial England (1985); Alice Kessler-Harris, Out to Work: A History of Wage-Earning Women in the United States (1982); Claudia Goldin, Understanding the Gender Gap: An Economic History of American Women (1990); and Barbara F. Reskin and Irene Padavic, Women and Men at Work (1994).

Migrant workers are discussed in Jan Lucassen, Migrant Labour in Europe, 1600–1900: The Drift to the North Sea (1987; originally published in Dutch, 1984); Robin Cohen, The New Helots: Migrants in the International Division of Labour (1987); and Philip L. Martin, Harvest of Confusion: Migrant Workers in U.S. Agriculture (1988).