IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cambje/v44y2020i1p1-16..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why only humans and social insects have a division of labour

Author

Listed:
  • Ugo Pagano

Abstract

Humans and social insects are located at extreme points of the set of possible evolutionary paths. However, they share a complex division of labour and comprise a large proportion of the earth’s biomass. These observations prompt two questions: If there are evident evolutionary advantages of cooperation and specialisation, why have only few species been able to increase their fitness in this way? Why have these characteristics emerged as such extremely different forms of life? In order to answer these two questions, we will focus on possible ‘transition societies’ in the evolutionary paths towards social species. We will argue that, in both the human and social insect cases, sexual selection had a crucial role in the development of the division of labour and entailed that the division of labour required either minimum or maximum unitary investments in the offspring. The species located in between these two extremes could not exploit the advantages of specialisation.

Suggested Citation

  • Ugo Pagano, 2020. "Why only humans and social insects have a division of labour," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 44(1), pages 1-16.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:44:y:2020:i:1:p:1-16.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cje/bez026
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lopes, Tiago Camarinha, 2022. "Humans, technology and control: An essay based on the metalanguage of economic calculation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 631-642.
    2. Polowczyk Jan, 2021. "A synthesis of evolutionary and behavioural economics," Economics and Business Review, Sciendo, vol. 7(3), pages 16-34, September.
    3. Ünveren, Burak & Donduran, Murat & Barokas, Guy, 2023. "On self- and other-regarding cooperation: Kant versus Berge," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 1-20.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:44:y:2020:i:1:p:1-16.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cje .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.