IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/uct/uconnp/2002-20.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Cognitive Comparative Advantage and the Organization of Work: Lessons from Herbert Simon's Vision of the Future

Author

Listed:
  • Richard N. Langlois

    (University of Connecticut)

Abstract

In a marvelous but somewhat neglected paper, 'The Corporation: Will It Be Managed by Machines?' Herbert Simon articulated from the perspective of 1960 his vision of what we now call the New Economy the machine-aided system of production and management of the late twentieth century. Simon's analysis sprang from what I term the principle of cognitive comparative advantage: one has to understand the quite different cognitive structures of humans and machines (including computers) in order to explain and predict the tasks to which each will be most suited. Perhaps unlike Simon's better-known predictions about progress in artificial intelligence research, the predictions of this 1960 article hold up remarkably well and continue to offer important insights. In what follows I attempt to tell a coherent story about the evolution of machines and the division of labor between humans and machines. Although inspired by Simon's 1960 paper, I weave many other strands into the tapestry, from classical discussions of the division of labor to present-day evolutionary psychology. The basic conclusion is that, with growth in the extent of the market, we should see humans 'crowded into' tasks that call for the kinds of cognition for which humans have been equipped by biological evolution. These human cognitive abilities range from the exercise of judgment in situations of ambiguity and surprise to more mundane abilities in spatio-temporal perception and locomotion. Conversely, we should see machines 'crowded into' tasks with a well-defined structure. This conclusion is not based (merely) on a claim that machines, including computers, are specialized idiots-savants today because of the limits (whether temporary or permanent) of artificial intelligence; rather, it rests on a claim that, for what are broadly 'economic' reasons, it will continue to make economic sense to create machines that are idiots-savants.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard N. Langlois, 2002. "Cognitive Comparative Advantage and the Organization of Work: Lessons from Herbert Simon's Vision of the Future," Working papers 2002-20, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:uct:uconnp:2002-20
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://media.economics.uconn.edu/working/2002-20.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul L. Robertson & Lee J. Alston, 1992. "Technological choice and the organization of work in capitalist firms," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 45(2), pages 330-349, May.
    2. Langlois, Richard N., 1983. "Internal Organization In a Dynamic Context: Some Theoretical Considerations," Working Papers 83-04, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
    3. Cosmides, Leda & Tooby, John, 1994. "Better than Rational: Evolutionary Psychology and the Invisible Hand," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(2), pages 327-332, May.
    4. Pratten, Clifford F, 1980. "The Manufacture of Pins," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 18(1), pages 93-96, March.
    5. Young, Allyn A., 1928. "Increasing Returns and Economic Progress," History of Economic Thought Articles, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, vol. 38, pages 527-542.
    6. Babbage, Charles, 1832. "Economy of Machinery and Manufactures," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, number babbage1832.
    7. Langlois, Richard N & Cosgel, Metin M, 1993. "Frank Knight on Risk, Uncertainty, and the Firm: A New Interpretation," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 31(3), pages 456-465, July.
    8. Richard N. Langlois & Metin M. Cosgel, 1996. "The Organization of Consumption," Working papers 1996-07, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    9. Nelson, Katherine & Nelson, Richard R., 2002. "On the nature and evolution of human know-how," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 719-733, July.
    10. Nelson, Katherine & Nelson, Richard R., 2002. "Erratum to "On the nature and evolution of human know-how" [Research Policy 31 (2002) 719-733]," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1510-1510, December.
    11. Shelia C. Dow & Peter E. Earl (ed.), 1999. "Economic Organization and Economic Knowledge," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1401.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Davide Consoli & Francesco Vona & Francesco Rentocchini, 2016. "That was then, this is now: skills and routinization in the 2000s," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 25(5), pages 847-866.
    2. Richard Langlois, 2013. "The Institutional Revolution: A review essay," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 26(4), pages 383-395, December.
    3. Arthur M. Diamond Jr., 2020. "Robots and Computers Enhance Us More Than They Replace Us," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 65(1), pages 4-10, March.
    4. Cordes, Christian & Richerson, Peter J. & McElreath, Richard & Strimling, Pontus, 2008. "A naturalistic approach to the theory of the firm: The role of cooperation and cultural evolution," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 125-139, October.
    5. Estrada, Fernando, 2010. "Economics and Rationality of organizations: an approach to the work of Herbert A. Simon," MPRA Paper 21811, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Garzarelli, Giampaolo & Limam, Yasmina Reem & Thomassen, Bjørn, 2007. "Open Source Software and Economic Growth: A Classical Division of Labor Perspective," MPRA Paper 3849, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Jackie Krafft & Francesco Quatraro & Pier Saviotti, 2014. "Knowledge characteristics and the dynamics of technological alliances in pharmaceuticals: empirical evidence from Europe, US and Japan," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 587-622, July.
    8. David Harper, 2008. "A bioeconomic study of numeracy and economic calculation," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 101-126, August.
    9. Christian Cordes, 2019. "The promises of a naturalistic approach: how cultural evolution theory can inform (evolutionary) economics," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 29(4), pages 1241-1262, September.
    10. Delmar, Frédéric & McKelvie, Alexander & Wennberg, Karl, 2013. "Untangling the relationships among growth, profitability and survival in new firms," Ratio Working Papers 205, The Ratio Institute.
    11. Christian Cordes, 2014. "There are several ways to incorporate evolutionary concepts into economic thinking," Papers on Economics and Evolution 2014-02, Philipps University Marburg, Department of Geography.
    12. Florencia Jaccoud & Fabien Petit & Tommaso Ciarli & Maria Savona, 2024. "Automation and Employment over the Technology Life Cycle: Evidence from European Regions," CEPEO Working Paper Series 24-02, UCL Centre for Education Policy and Equalising Opportunities, revised Feb 2024.
    13. Estrada, Fernando, 2010. "Los mercados de opinión pública [The markets of public opinion]," MPRA Paper 20161, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Stracca, Livio, 2004. "Behavioral finance and asset prices: Where do we stand?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 373-405, June.
    15. Sarah Bankins & Paul Formosa, 2023. "The Ethical Implications of Artificial Intelligence (AI) For Meaningful Work," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 185(4), pages 725-740, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rogers, Mark Llewellyn, 2008. "Directly unproductive schooling: How country characteristics affect the impact of schooling on growth," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 356-385, February.
    2. John Finch, 2000. "Is post-Marshallian economics an evolutionary research tradition?," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(3), pages 377-406.
    3. Yang, Dan & Liu, Zimin, 2012. "Does farmer economic organization and agricultural specialization improve rural income? Evidence from China," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 990-993.
    4. David Simpson, 2013. "The Rediscovery of Classical Economics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 15080.
    5. Robert P. Gilles, 2018. "The Core of an Economy with an Endogenous Social Division of Labour," Papers 1809.01470, arXiv.org.
    6. Nelson, Richard R., 2008. "Bounded rationality, cognitive maps, and trial and error learning," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 78-89, July.
    7. Nelson, Richard R., 2003. "On the uneven evolution of human know-how," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 909-922, June.
    8. Paul L. Robertson & Tony F. Yu, 2001. "Firm strategy, innovation and consumer demand: a market process approach," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(4-5), pages 183-199.
    9. Garzarelli, Giampaolo & Limam, Yasmina Reem & Thomassen, Bjørn, 2007. "Open Source Software and Economic Growth: A Classical Division of Labor Perspective," MPRA Paper 3849, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Esben Sloth Andersen, 1998. "The Dynamics of the Organisation of Industry," DRUID Working Papers 98-13, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    11. Dosi, Giovanni & Nelson, Richard R., 2010. "Technical Change and Industrial Dynamics as Evolutionary Processes," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 51-127, Elsevier.
    12. Mauro Caminati, 2004. "Variety, Consumption and Growth," Department of Economics University of Siena 431, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    13. John Finch & Nicola Dinnei, 2001. "Capturing Knightian Advantages of Large Business Organisations Through Group Decision-making Processes," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(3), pages 379-403.
    14. Richard R. Nelson, 2016. "Behavior and cognition of economic actors in evolutionary economics," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 737-751, October.
    15. Morroni, Mario, 2014. "Production of commodities by means of processes," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 5-18.
    16. Bozeman, Barry & Corley, Elizabeth, 2004. "Scientists' collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and technical human capital," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 599-616, May.
    17. Gianluigi Giustiziero, 2021. "Is the division of labor limited by the extent of the market? Opportunity cost theory with evidence from the real estate brokerage industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(7), pages 1344-1378, July.
    18. Yao-Su Hu, 2019. "The Impact of Increasing Returns on Knowledge and Big Data: From Adam Smith and Allyn Young to the Age of Machine Learning and Digital Platforms," SPRU Working Paper Series 2019-14, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    19. Loasby, Brian J., 2002. "The evolution of knowledge: beyond the biological model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1227-1239, December.
    20. Nightingale, Paul, 2004. "Technological capabilities, invisible infrastructure and the un-social construction of predictability: the overlooked fixed costs of useful research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1259-1284, November.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:uct:uconnp:2002-20. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Mark McConnel (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deuctus.html .

    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.