تقسیم کار نیاز به تخصصی سازی منطقه ای ندارد

The division of labor can be envisaged at the individual, social and spatial levels (Scott, 1986). The first refers to individuals specializing in different tasks within a firm, while in the second case specialization occurs between independent firms. Finally, the spatial level refers to firms specializing in the production of the same type of commodities or services at different geographical scales. The spatial division of labor is thus akin to regional economic specialization and is viewed as a preferable outcome, whether through spontaneous market processes or deliberate public policy planning, by analysts and policy makers who invoke either the efficient geographical allocation of scarce resources through trade or, in the case of dense networks of related firms (such as Silicon Valley), a self-reinforcing setting for innovative behavior (Johansson and Forslund, 2008).

Our goal in this paper was to examine critically the arguments traditionally used to make the case for the regional specialization of economic activities through the consistent application of the principle of methodological individualism. Cast in this light, comparative advantage was found problematic when regions are viewed as consisting of heterogeneous individuals. Indeed, if individuals differ in terms of opportunity costs, a consistent application of the principle of comparative advantage reveals that regional specialization becomes inefficient. Gains from specialization or the division of labor are reaped when all individuals in a society specialize in things they do best (in a comparative sense), not when everyone specializes in doing the same thing. It is specialization according to individual, not regional, comparative advantages which guarantees efficiency.