Labor, Division of

W. Littek , in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001

2 Divisions of Labor

2.1 Concepts: Economic Division of Labor vs. Social Division of Labor

All empirical evidence shows that labor or work always entails some specialization. Division of labor refers to separation of activities and the specialized allocation to different individuals. It is a universal trait of human existence. This does not, however, imply that it is caused by natural differences (biological differences between women and men, for example). Division of labor is always human-made, its forms are socially shaped.

Any definition of division of labor basically must start with the recognition of two different connotations. In its narrow and simple sense, the concept is used in an economic context. It describes the splitting up of a complex productive task into a number of specialized, simpler tasks. The most renowned example is that of Adam Smith (1776) for pin needle production. The increase in productivity is exactly the ultimate reason for the separation and specialization of tasks in manufacturing.

This form is known as detailed or technical division of labor. It made its appearance on the stage of human history with all-pervasive force only three hundred years ago in Europe with the establishment of conditions not in use previously: that is manufacturing and the 'invention' of capitalist principles of production.

In a broad sense, division of labor is a pre-condition for conceptualizing society, as used in a social or sociological context. Reference to the social division of labor implies divisions at different levels of society which comprise its complex structure. Here the attention is on social differentiation such as class, gender, or ethnicity; on the role of power; on forces of social cohesion and disintegration; and on the importance of solidarity and morale. All the major institutions of a modern complex society play a part in the social division of labor: in the economic system with its elements like the market, competition, capital, contract law, labor market, even differences between (paid) employment and non-paid labor; in the political system with its various specialized institutions of the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary; in the cultural system with its various socializing institutions for the creation of skills, value orientations, and spiritual meaning.

In a schematic form the concepts may be listed this way:

economic division of labor social division of labor

detailed division of labor division of labor

(e.g., technical division of labor)(e.g., by gender, occupations)

2.2 Levels

It is clear from the above that division of labor is a complex concept and can refer to different levels of human activity. It extends from the household or family on the micro level, through work organizations like enterprises on the meso (intermediate) level, divisions in society at large on the macro level, to the entire world on the global level. Examples of divisions of labor on the various levels are the domestic division of labor, the organizational division of labor, the occupational division of labor, or the international division of labor.

Here is an overview on the levels in schematic form:

Micro-level: e.g., domestic or familial division of labor

Meso- (intermediate) level: e.g., organizational division of labor

Macro-level: e.g., occupational division of labor

Global level: e.g., international division of labor

2.3 Dimensions

It is necessary to trace division of labor in various different dimensions. The most obvious dimension is a broad division of labor between women and men, which all known societies exhibit in some manner or other. This sexual (or gendered) division of labor is obviously important in the area of work, but it also reaches beyond that to social, political, cultural, and religious functions.

Any analysis of the social structure of a society, or a comparative study of different societies, must certainly consider the distinction between these varying dimensions. In addition, some dimensions are relevant at more than one level. The sexual division of labor, for example, is of tremendous importance at the domestic or family level, but it also plays an important role in the economic realm. It is inseparably connected with opportunities and status in employment on the societal level, and is in evidence even on the international level. (When, for example, the work of British or German male textile workers is nowadays performed by possibly lower paid women in developing countries).

An overview of the more important dimensions of the division of labor in schematic form:

division of labor by sex (or gender)

division of labor by age

division of labor by occupations

division of labor by skill

division of labor by hierarchy

division of labor by space

division of labor by time.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0080430767019082

Intensification and Specialization, Archaeology of

K.D. Morrison , in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001

3.1 The Concept of Specialization

Specialization may be defined as the channelling of resources and/or labor into restricted ends, a definition focusing on the products and process of specialization. Other definitions stress the role of specialization in setting apart people, technologies, and production locales, both physically and socioeconomically. Most literature on specialization in archaeology focuses on craft production; such studies have been dominated by a concern for technological process, interest in the organization of production, and, more recently, an expanded interest in the social relations of production, including issues such as identity and meaning. Specialization implies exchange on some level and as such, is not intelligible outside larger political/economic contexts.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0080430767020593

Overview of the Research into GPNs

Cui Fengru , Liu Guitang , in Global Value Chains and Production Networks, 2019

1.2.1 Traditional Division of Labor Theories

The division of labor is the soul of classical economics. It is deemed to be the source of efficiency and productivity or the logical starting point of economic analysis. The issue of GPNs boils down to the division of labor. Traditional division of labor and specialization theories laid the foundation for the GPN framework and its major precursors. The economic efficiency achieved through division of labor is what GPNs are created for. Despite their limitations in explaining practical problems, traditional division of labor theories laid a solid foundation for the GPN research system.

1.

Traditional division of labor theories:

Classical economics, Marxist political economy, 2 and neoclassical economics all recognized the role of division of labor in enhancing labor productivity and driving economic growth. Classical economics is a school of thought in economics that emerged in the transition from agriculture-centered to industry-centered economy and the discussion is centered on the division of labor is the specialization brought by the division of labor. The most representative economist in this regard is Adam Smith. Marxist political economy focuses on the determination of social development by the division of labor and the representative economist is Karl Marx (1867). Neoclassical economics replaces the labor theory of value in classical economics with the marginal utility theory, the discussion is centered on the allocation of resources, and there are analytical concepts about the division of labor and increasing returns to scale. The typical representatives of this school are Alfred Marshall (1890) and Allyn Young (1928).

2.

Traditional international division of labor theories:

Since the division of labor may occur domestically and internationally, there are also many international division of labor theories. The international division of labor has close ties with international trade, which are two inseparable aspects of one process. The international division of labor evolves in the same direction as international trade theories develop. The two are interdependent and promote each other. The international division of labor always holds the attention of economists. Various theories have been proposed, analyzing the causes and benefits of the international division of labor. These theories provide an important basis for the GPN framework and its major precursors as well as good economic interpretation of GPN formation. According to traditional international economics, the two basic types of international trade are interindustry trade and intraindustry trade. Correspondingly, there are also interindustry specialization and intraindustry specialization. 3

It is universally agreed that the theories explaining interindustry specialization and interindustry trade are classical and neoclassical trade theories. Typical classical trade theories include the theory of absolute advantage proposed by Adam Smith (1776) and the theory of comparative advantage by David Ricardo (1817). Such theories build on assumptions such as perfectly competitive market and explain interindustry specialization and international trade from the perspective of labor productivity differentials. A typical neoclassical trade theory is the factor endowment theory proposed by E.F. Heckscher and B. Ohlin (Heckscher and Ohlin, 1991). Neoclassical trade theories also build on assumptions such as perfectly competitive market but they address interindustry specialization and international trade from the perspective of factor endowment differences.

The theories explaining intraindustry specialization and intraindustry trade are intraindustry trade theories. A typical example is Raymond Vernon's international product life cycle theory that dynamizes the theory of comparative advantage and the resource endowment theory and combines the product life cycle theory in marketing studies with technological advances in discussing the pattern in international relocation of industries and explaining intraindustry specialization and trade from the perspective of technology differentials. The "new" new trade theory 4 developed by Paul Krugman et al. (Helpman and Krugman, 1985) breaks with traditional assumptions and introduces increasing returns to scale and imperfect competition in explaining intraindustry specialization and trade from the perspectives of horizontal differentiation and homogeneity. The new-factor proportion approach proposed by R.E. Falvey (1981) makes adjustments to the assumptions of H–O model and establishes relationships between various combinations of product features and basic factors such as labor and capital in explaining the causes of intraindustry trade and describing intraindustry specialization and trade from the perspective of vertical differentiation. Of these intraindustry trade theories, the new trade theory of Paul Krugman et al. is the most influential.

3.

Limitations of traditional international division of labor theories:

Since the 1980s, global trade and production have witnessed fast development and the implications of the international division of labor and trade have changed significantly. The most important change is that more and more countries use their factor endowment and technology to engage in a production process of certain product through international vertical specialization, 5 resulting in the so-called intraproduct international specialization, and then intermediate trade on a large scale (intraproduct international trade). The global division of labor system is undergoing profound changes, featuring the coexistence of interindustry specialization, intraindustry specialization, and intraproduct specialization. Moreover, intraproduct international specialization and trade grows rapidly and its influence is also growing.

Standard trade theories mostly focus on the specialization and exchange of final products (Arndt, 1997). With nonsubdivisible products as the implicated premise, these theories lack due attention to intraproduct international specialization and have limitations in explaining modern business operation and management and economic development. Many scholars have studied international vertical specialization within the framework of traditional international trade theories. For example, Sanyal and Jones (1982), Hummels (1999), and Deardorff (2001) used the Ricardian model to explain the causes and models of international vertical specialization and trade. Feenstra and Hanson (1996), Arndt (1997), and Deardorff (2001) analyzed international vertical specialization using the H–O model of factor endowment theory. Jones and Kierzkowski (1990, 2001) and Krugman (1991) explained international vertical specialization based on the new trade theory. However, traditional international division of labor theories have failed to systematically address the issue of intraproduct trade, which stands in stark contrast to the importance of intraproduct international trade to the economy.

Since the 1990s, many economists have attempted to establish a new theoretical system and research framework. A typical example is the concept of intraproduct specialization proposed by Prof. Lu Feng at China Center for Economic Research (CCER) in 2004 in Intra-Product Specialization. He discussed the new form of division of labor on basic levels, examined the causes, determinants and driving forces of intraproduct specialization, and described the features of products and production processes in the international division of labor today. However, the new theories are yet to be fully developed. There is no sufficient proof of their accuracy or value, no concepts are widely accepted, and the studies based on different notions have different focuses. Therefore, the new theories including intraproduct specialization are yet to become the mainstream of international economics.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128148471000014

Theoretical Basis of Microcosmic GPN Studies

Cui Fengru , Liu Guitang , in Global Value Chains and Production Networks, 2019

2.2.1 New Classical Economics

The division of labor and the economies of scale have been hot topics to economists. The division of labor is the soul of classical economics. It is considered the source of efficiency and productivity, and used by some economists as the logical starting point. Advocated by Dixit, Stiglitz, and Krugman, the economies of scale became a mainstream concept in the field of international economics after the 1970s. However, the theory based on this concept faces some dilemmas: first, the prediction that economic growth and other phenomena will occur if and only if the average size of firms increases is a departure from reality; second, the model adopts a black box approach to firms and fails to address why firms exit and the economic implications of the enterprise system itself so it has difficulty in explaining many modern economic issues; and third, transaction costs do not have substantive meanings in this model since no transaction costs are involved in the increase of firm size and other phenomena.

After the 1980s, economists represented by Rosen, Becker, Yang, Borland, and Ng used inframarginal analysis to turn brilliant ideas about division of labor and specialization in classical economics into decision-making and equilibrium models for explaining all economic activities. This broke down the barriers between traditional macroeconomic and microeconomic models, and started the trend of using modern analytical tools to revive classical economics. They used the endogenous decision-making model for personal choice of specialization level developed based on inframarginal analysis to examine how the market and pricing determine the level of division of labor across all sectors. They interpreted Adam Smith's division of labor theory and views on the causes of international trade based on the personal decision-making for specialization level and changes in the equilibrium level of division of labor. This new school of thought, known as "new classical economics," is advocated by economists like Yang Xiaokai. Studies in this regard, proceeding from the evolution of the division of labor, are intended to find the micromechanism of economic growth and establish the microeconomic model of macroeconomic growth. By formalizing the thoughts on division of labor and specialization in classical economics, they change the subject matter of economic research from the optimal allocation of resources under a given structure of economic organizations to the interactions between technology and economic organizations and how such interactions evolve.

New classical economics has the following characteristics:

First, every decision-maker is both a consumer and a producer and there is no absolute separation between pure consumers and firms. The separation between the two means that the theoretical basis of domestic trade differs from that of international trade. In the case of domestic trade, pure consumers would starve without trading because they do not produce things; in the case of international trade, however, every country is both a consumer and a producer so there are comparative advantages, economies of scale, and preference differences. The assumption that every decision-maker is both a consumer and a producer, according to new classical economics, is closer to the reality and means that the optimal decision representing self-interested behavior is always the corner solution. Within the framework of consumer–producer unity, the model of new classical economics introduces endogenous division of labor, specialization level, and market integration. It is believed that the emergence of firms is endogenous rather than exogenously given and can explain why domestic trade is expanded to international trade. This is a model of endogenous trade.

Second, every person favors diversity as a consumer and achieves the economies of specialization as a producer. The economies of specialization have something to do with the scope of a person's production activities; they are not the economic effect of an increase in firm size. All people's economies of specialization combined are the economies of division of labor, which is the effect of social networks. New classical economics replaces the economies of scale with the economies of specialization and introduces the concept of transaction costs, thus resulting in the dilemma between the economies of specialization and transaction costs. To be specific, on the one hand, specialization enhances productivity and gives decision-makers greater production capacity; on the other hand, due to the diversity in consumer preferences, specialization also means that every decision-maker needs to buy more goods from other specialized decision-makers, which incurs higher transaction costs. Specialization and trade are the basic components of the economy and a main thread that runs through the course of economic development is the dilemma and trade-off between specialization and transaction costs.

Third, the analysis of supply and demand is based on corner solution while the marginal analysis based on corner solution is not used. New classical economists still adopt a mathematical method to describe their theory so that the abovementioned views are more scientific. The method they use is inframarginal analysis, that is, to make a marginal analysis of every corner and a cost–benefit analysis between corners to find an optimal approach to decision-making. The marginal analysis of every corner is to address the issue of resource allocation with a given division of labor structure and it determines the structure of relative demand for and supply of different products when the total demand is given. The cost–benefit analysis between corners determines the specialization level and model (structure of economic organizations) and all people's decision-making in this regard determines the level of division of labor that determines market capacity and total demand.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128148471000026

Assessing EU Smart Specialization Policy in a Comparative Perspective

Slavo Radosevic , in Advances in the Theory and Practice of Smart Specialization, 2017

Inward Orientation and Weak Transnationalization of SS

SS strategies are too often inward-oriented. Given the dominance of global value chains in the growth and modernization of less developed regions, it is of the utmost importance to take this dimension of SS much more explicitly on board. Finally, the major tension that we observe today is among the place-based supporting activities, such as clusters and the GVC as levers of modernization (Baldwin, 2016).

SS strategies should be the key to technology upgrading, but the issue is how can the local production stage of GVC become its building block? (Radosevic and Stancova, 2015). One view is that GVCs are the key to technology upgrading. The argument is that in a globalized context, it does not make much sense to build local clusters; instead, being plugged into a GVC is sufficient. An alternative view is that a country or region should link up only when they can benefit from the linkages. Therefore, regions should first build endogenous technological capability and only then link up. These are mutually exclusive views, both with significant trade-offs.

The successful examples of the coupling between GVC and local industry and technology capacities are rare. Often cited examples are the Irish National Linkages Program (NLP) and the Singaporean local industry-upgrading program (Chapter 10). Beside these high-profile success stories, there are a variety of programs with different degrees of success. For example, Crespi et al. (2014) describes a Malaysian program as an example of both failure and success (pp. 270–271). Benacek (2010) also describes the case of CzechInvest, the strategic promotion agency in Czech industrial restructuring.

For now, we are unable to offer a policy toolbox to decision makers. This dimension has been ignored in the SS Handbook, and there have been recent attempts to further develop it (Primi, 2014; Radosevic and Stancova, 2015; Chapter 11). Moreover, UNIDO and the German Society for International Cooperation (GIZ) have integrated an analysis of GVCs as part of an evidence-based industry policy analysis (http://www.equip-project.org/).

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128041376000012

Smart Specialization as an Innovation-Driven Strategy for Economic Diversification: Examples From Scandinavian Regions

Bjørn Asheim , ... Michaela Trippl , in Advances in the Theory and Practice of Smart Specialization, 2017

Introduction: smart specialization—presentation and clarification

Smart specialization is probably the single largest attempt ever of an orchestrated, supranational innovation strategy to boost economic growth through economic diversification. It has been launched by the European Commission, and is a strategic approach to an industrial policy for national and regional economic development, pursuing a high road strategy of innovation-based competition as the sustainable alternative to a downward spiral of cost competition (i.e., the low road strategy), which dominates in the majority of regions in Southern and Eastern Europe (Milberg and Houston, 2005). As such, smart specialization represents a new industrial policy that aims to promote new path development and economic diversification, going beyond "just" a regional innovation strategy more narrowly defined (Chapter 1). Furthermore, for the first time in the EU, smart specialization provides a policy framework or platform for promoting and implementing a broad-based innovation policy. This is of critical and strategic importance given the failure of the linear, research and development (R&D)-based innovation policy in the EU following the Lisbon Declaration 2000 that set a goal of allocating 3% of GDP to R&D. The rationale was that this should transform the EU into the most competitive region in the world, but the outcome was very different. Thus, it is of great importance that smart specialization is fully and correctly understood, not the least because the choice of key words (i.e., "specialization" and "entrepreneurial discovery") may lead policy makers and practitioners to make false interpretations and draw wrong conclusions (Asheim, 2014).

Smart specialization is not about "specialization" as known from previous regional development strategies, that is, a Porter-like cluster strategy, but about diversified specialization. What this means is that countries should identify areas or "domains" as the smart specialization literature prefers to call it—of existing and/or potential competitive advantage, where they can specialize in a different way compared to other countries and regions. A smart specialization strategy implies maximizing the knowledge-based development potential of any country or region, with a strong or weak R&I system or with a high-tech or low-tech industrial structure. Countries and regions should diversify their economies primarily based on existing strengths and capabilities by moving into related or unrelated sectors.

"Smart" in the smart specialization approach refers to the way these domains of competitive advantage should be identified, which is through what is called "entrepreneurial discovery." However, the emphasis here is not on the role of traditional entrepreneurs, resulting in a policy focus only on firm formation as an individual entrepreneurial project. As underlined in the writings on smart specialization, "entrepreneurial" should be understood broadly to encompass all actors (including individual entrepreneurs), organizations (including firms and universities through intrapreneurship, knowledge-based entrepreneurship, and spin-offs), and agencies (technology transfer offices and public development agencies) that have the capacity to discover domains for securing existing and future competitiveness. Perhaps, Van der Ven et al. (1999) describes "the entrepreneur" as one type of leadership along the "innovation journey" comes close to what is meant by entrepreneurial discovery in the smart specialization approach. The authors talk about the entrepreneur as a role likely to be played by a core network of interacting actors from the national innovation system, comprising a limited number of firms, universities, public research organizations, and government institutions (Van der Ven et al., 1999), which should also include, especially in small countries, nonlocal actors in cooperating transnationally and interregionally. Such a broad interpretation of "entrepreneurial discovery" avoids the pitfall of ignoring the systemic nature of innovation. The systems approach to innovation policies also highlights the role of government in driving innovation, as well as the balance between exploration and exploitation (Asheim and Gertler, 2005; Asheim et al., 2011b, 2016).

In the following section, the theoretical framework of the smart specialization approach for economic diversification is laid out; emphasizing how new path development can be pursued within the framework of a broad-based innovation policy. This builds on the knowledge base approach, which was key to the constructing regional advantage (CRA) strategy (Asheim et al., 2006, 2011a). The knowledge-based approach argues that economic diversification and innovation-based competition can be achieved in all industries or sectors yet in different ways, depending on industry-specific modes of innovation and knowledge bases. Section, "The Cases: Scandinavian Regions" illustrates how smart specialization strategies have been designed and implemented in three Scandinavian regions, using the theoretical framework to inform the analysis. Section, "Conclusions: Comparative Perspectives on Smart Specialization Strategies in Scandinavian Regions" offers some comparative conclusions discussing whether the strategies will result in diversified specialization, and whether one can corroborate the relevance of the theoretical framework to guide the design and implementation of a smart specialization strategy for economic diversification.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128041376000048

Natural Extinctions (not Human Influenced)

Christopher N. Johnson , in Encyclopedia of Biodiversity (Second Edition), 2001

Interactions

Specialization is taken a step further in species that have evolved a close dependence on one or a small number of other species. For example, many herbivorous insects feed on only one species of plant, and many predators attack only one or a small number among many possible species of prey. Of particular interest are mutualistic interactions, in which species provide benefits to one another. Figs, for example, rely on fig wasps for pollination, and fig wasps in turn lay their eggs only in the flowers of figs. This interaction tends to be highly species specific, with each species of fig visited by only one species of fig wasp and each partner in the interaction completely dependent on the other for reproduction. Such tight species specificity results from coevolution, in which each species in the interaction evolves special characteristics in response to evolutionary changes in the other to increase its benefit from the interaction.

Specialization of this kind is classically regarded as an extinction trap because the specialist will inevitably go extinct if the species that it depends on goes extinct or becomes very rare. This view is probably an oversimplification. Careful study of some species-specific interactions has revealed more flexibility and greater potential for rapid evolutionary response to changes in the abundance of interacting species, including the ability to switch to new partners, than was previously assumed (Thompson, 1994). Also, mutualistic interactions have the general effect of increasing the geographic range and abundance, and stabilizing the population dynamics, of both partners in the interaction. These ecological benefits may at least partly compensate for the vulnerability caused by dependence on another species.

Because interactions between species are not revealed in detail in the fossil record, there is little direct information on rates of secondary extinction. It is sometimes possible, however, to evaluate the risks of secondary extinction from study of living communities. Many plants cannot set seed without cross-pollination and rely on animals to transfer pollen. Such plants should be vulnerable to reproductive failure, and possibly extinction, if their pollinators decline, and species that have only one or a small number of pollinators are likely to be especially vulnerable. This vulnerability can be reduced by traits such as the ability to propagate vegetatively that reduce demographic dependence on seeds. Bond (1995) showed that in some plant communities there are no species that have both a high dependence on animal pollinators for seed set and a high demographic dependence on seeds, despite wide variation among species in both sets of characteristics (Figure 3). One explanation for this pattern is that such species are unusual because their high dependence on other species means that they are very likely to go extinct.

Figure 3. The relationship between an index of dependence on animal pollinators for seed set and dependence on seeds for regeneration for species of spring flowering herbs in a temperate deciduous forest. Any species that was both dependent on pollinators for seed set and dependent on seeds to regenerate would be considered at high risk of extinction due to pollinator failure. (Redrawn with permission from Bond WJ (1995) Assessing the risk of extinction due to pollinator and disperser failure. In: Lawton JH and May RM (eds.) Extinction Rates, pp. 131–147. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.)

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123847195000976

General Strategies and Specific Strategies for Libraries

Masanori Koizumi , in Inherent Strategies in Library Management, 2017

5.3.1 Subject Specialisation

Subject specialisation provides reference services, public services, and technical services based on highly divided subject-based organisation. It is unrealistic to expect one librarian to become an expert on multiple subjects. Instead, by creating separate divisions for each subject or for a range of related subjects, librarians can focus on developing a deep understanding of just one or a few specialisations.

Because each division requires several librarians, an abundant workforce and budget are needed to implement this strategy. Subject specialisation was characteristic of large public libraries and academic libraries in times of prosperity, when they were blessed with ample budgets. Furthermore, in response to budgetary conditions, libraries should consider fragmenting only those specialty subjects in high demand by users. For example, upon entering the 21st century, both the Harvard University Library and Boston Public Library have decreased their numbers of subdivided subjects. This was one way of countering a difficult budgetary situation.

One instance of public libraries undergoing diverse subject specialisation is the Boston Public Library in the 1960s, which created numerous sections to provide users with subject-specific services. There were specialised sections for as many as 15 subjects, each of which were amply staffed.

In addition, the library administrator should simultaneously consider structural subdivision as well as arrangements for lateral coordination of the organisation. For example, in the 2000s, the Columbia University Libraries utilised information technology in the form of chat reference software to allow subject librarians to communicate with each other. They utilised this software to redirect subject-specific questions from users to the appropriate subject librarian.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780081012772000054

Professional Issues

Tommy T. Stigall , in Comprehensive Clinical Psychology, 1998

2.19.2 New Specialties and Proficiencies

Specialization can be thought of either as the division of human labor for increased efficiency, or in terms of the organization of knowledge. Both concepts are relevant to an understanding of specialties and proficiencies, as these terms are employed by the CRSPPP, and both are embedded in the following definition, which is incorporated in the APA policy document Principles for the Recognition of Specialties in Professional Psychology (American Psychological Association, 1995a):

A specialty is a defined area of psychological practice which requires advanced knowledge and skills acquired through an organized sequence of education and training. The advanced knowledge and skill specific to a specialty are obtained subsequent to the acquisition of core scientific and professional foundations in psychology. (p. 2)

In addition to the concepts of an organized body of knowledge and the application of this knowledge to practice, the definition emphasizes that the knowledge and skill for specialty practice must be at an advanced level and that it must be acquired in an organized sequence of education and training. A specialty rests on and grows out of the core knowledge and skills of the discipline. It does not supplant or supersede it, but it is distinctive and different from the generic core.

The principles specify 12 criteria that apply in the evaluation of petitions seeking APA recognition of new specialties. Among other things, the criteria stipulate that there must be an identifiable public need for the specialty and that the new specialty must be distinctive, though not necessarily unique, with regard to the three parameters of specialty practice: populations served, problems addressed, and procedures and techniques utilized. For a positive recommendation to be made by the CRSPPP, the petition and supporting documents must be complete and must provide evidence to satisfy all the criteria.

2.19.2.1 Clinical Neuropsychology

In August 1996, the Council of Representatives voted for the first time to recognize a new specialty on the basis of a petition submitted by the APA Division of Clinical Neuropsychology (Division 40). Clinical neuropsychology thus became the fifth specialty in professional psychology officially recognized by the APA (DeLeon, 1997, p. 856). Central to the recognition process is the requirement for a clear and concise definition of the practice of any approved specialty or proficiency. The definition is maintained as a part of the archival record and serves as the basis for communication with the public about the specialized professional services offered by psychologists who are associated with the specialty or proficiency in question. For this purpose, the following definition of clinical neuropsychology was adopted:

Clinical Neuropsychology is a specialty that applies principles of assessment and intervention based upon the scientific study of human behavior as it relates to normal and abnormal functioning of the central nervous system. The specialty is dedicated to enhancing the understanding of brain-behavior relationships and the application of such knowledge to human problems. (American Psychological Association, 1996, p. 155)

2.19.2.2 Clinical Health Psychology

One year later, in August 1997, the specialty of clinical health psychology was officially recognized by the Council, based on a petition review and favorable recommendation by the CRSPPP. The petition had been prepared by the APA Division of Health Psychology (Division 38). In approving clinical health psychology as the sixth officially recognized specialty in professional psychology, the Council accepted the following definition of this specialty:

The specialty of Clinical Health Psychology applies scientific knowledge of the interrelationships among behavioral, emotional, cognitive, social and biological components in health and disease to the promotion and maintenance of health; the prevention, treatment and rehabilitation of illness and disability; and the improvement of the health care system. The distinct focus of Clinical Health Psychology is on physical health problems. The specialty is dedicated to the development of high quality services to individuals, families, and health care systems. (American Psychological Association, 1997, p. 158)

In the deliberations of the Council, a controversy arose about the use of the modifier "clinical" in the title of emerging specialties and proficiencies. Proponents argued that the use of "clinical" is necessary to differentiate training programs preparing psychologists for practice from training programs preparing clinical scientists. An opposing point of view held that psychologists who had not neen trained specifically in a clinical psychology program (e.g., counseling psychologists or school psychologists) would be disadvantaged by such terminology. While approving "Clinical Health Psychology" as the title of the new specialty, the Council imposed a moratorium on the recognition of future specialties and proficiencies incorporating "clinical" in the title until "the confusing and problematic meanings surrounding the generic use of the term "clinical" have been addressed and resolved by the APA to the satisfaction of Council" (Council of Representatives, 1997). A special task force was to be appointed by the APA President to address the complex issues involved and report its recommendations to the Council. The task force was to coordinate its activities with the CRSPPP.

2.19.2.3 Biofeedback: Applied Psychophysiology

Biofeedback: Applied Psychophysiology was recognized as a proficiency in professional psychology also at the August 1997 meeting of the Council. But, unlike the petitions for clinical neuropsychology and health psychology, both of which had come from APA divisions, the petition for this new proficiency was submitted from an interdisciplinary organization, The Biofeedback Certification Institute of America. Since 1981, the Institute has certified individual practitioners from various disciplines as proficient in biofeedback. The CRSPPP assumes that proficiencies are not necessarily subsumed by any particular specialty of psychology and they may, in fact, be shared with other disciplines.

A proficiency is a circumscribed activity in the general practice of professional psychology or one or more of its specialties. The relationship between a body of knowledge and a set of skills related to the parameters of practice … represents the most critical aspect of the definition of a proficiency. (American Psychological Association, 1995b)

Unlike specialties, which must demonstrate their saliency with respect to all three of the essential parameters of practice, proficiencies are required to show that they are distinctive in at least one of the parameters. Emphasis on the procedural and technical aspects of the proficiency can be seen in the official definition of biofeedback: applied psychophysiology:

Biofeedback refers to a group of therapeutic procedures that use electronic instruments to record and display to the patient information about the ongoing activity of various body processes of which the person is usually unaware. The goal of biofeedback therapy is to help the patient achieve voluntary control over body processes that are normally involuntary or that have become involuntary through accident or disease. Biofeedback is used in the treatment of many medical and psychological disorders. (American Psychological Association, 1997, p. 160)

It is expected that the petition review process will lead to other recommendations for recognition of new specialties and proficiencies. Strong interest has been shown on the part of clinical, counseling, and school psychology in an early submission of petitions for continued recognition on the basis of a formal review by the CRSPPP. Not all petitions reviewed are recommended for recognition. Those that are incomplete or fail to satisfy all the required criteria are returned to the petitioning organization with an explanation of the identified deficiencies. It is left to the petitioning organization whether to revise and resubmit the petition at a later date.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0080427073002728

Vertical specialization and strengthening indigenous innovation

Wang Wei , in Achieving Inclusive Growth in China Through Vertical Specialization, 2016

7.1 Introduction

Vertical specialization has become a dominant feature of Chinese trade and economy, reflecting the increasing fragmentation and sophistication of production. An implication of vertical specialization is that imports and exports by processing trade in China have been steadily growing over the past three decades.

It is recognized that productivity is a major source of increasing income and that technology innovation is a driver of inclusive growth. Therefore, indigenous innovation is a key element of achieving inclusive growth in China. China has increased its outlays on research and development (R&D) with the deliberate aim of narrowing the gap in productivity and income in relation to leading countries. China's intramural expenditure on R&D increased from 0.5% of the GDP in 1994 to 1.98% in 2012. Therefore, what are the drivers of technology innovation and inclusive growth in China? To what extent can China successfully build its own national innovation system through technology acquisition via vertically specialized trade? What are the roles of imports and exports by processing trade? What is the relationship between vertical specialization and indigenous innovation in an increasingly integrated global value chain, and how does this interaction change to respond to the specific characteristics of China?

Impressively rapid vertically specialized trade growth in China has important implications for developing countries, not only in terms of its economic impact but also in terms of its experiences in guiding and promoting the inclusive growth process. China has opened up to international trade and investment with inclusive growth strategies, and at the same time it has put an increasing emphasis on indigenous knowledge creation and innovation. Experiences in China may provide valuable lessons for other developing countries with regard to industrial, technology, and trade policies.

Globalization and vertical specialization in the global production value chain require examination of innovation input factors in an international context, especially when foreign-invested enterprises already have built a strong existence, often in the form of international joint ventures in China. Policymakers need to explore success factors for innovation input to remain competitive. A better understanding of the relationship between environmental constraints and indigenous innovation in various local contexts becomes one of the most important sources of productivity and inclusive growth. Identifying factors that influence product innovation in the international context thus becomes crucially important to researchers and managers.

Section 7.2 provides institutional background and Section 7.3 discusses the interactions between vertical specialization and indigenous innovation in the context of the exchange of intermediate goods and services. Section 7.4 concludes with an evaluation of the evidence and discusses policy implications.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780081006276000072