Introduction
The 12th and 13th centuries experienced growing population. The more
people, the more likely it is that some will become specialized in an
activity where they enjoy a comparative advantage (see Adam Smith).
Persson has estimated that this led to a 0.1 to 0.25 yearly increase of
productivity per caput in England over two centuries (i.e. between 22
and 62% for the whole period). But to what extend the periods
productivity gains are attributable to specialization?
Adam Smith before Adam Smith
One sign of increasing specialization was the development of new occupations requiring high levels of acquired skills (1).
Older jobs also acquired new skills (eg construction industry). Most
importantly, urban growth created an improved commercial environment
for entrepreneurs (2). These new activities often translated
into occupational surnames (Smith, Drapper) even in small towns.
Correlatively, occupational surnames were much less prevalent in the
countryside (35%) than in town (59%). This specialization was
reinforced by the concentration of workers by trade in the same streets
and boroughs (3). Rural workers too got more specialized as the
estates got wider (eg ploughmen, shepherd). These positions required
stable workers (famuli) indeed the employee needed to be trusted
as he may be taking care of fragile and valuable properties with little
monitoring (animals).
These elements thus suggest a form of specialization of a part of
the medieval workforce both in the countryside and more clearly in
the urban centres. It is likely that the poll of specialized workers
increased over the period (4). The question is how relevant these elements are?
Limits of the virtuous cycle
True enough the proportion of urban population rose from maybe 10 to
maybe 20%, but most of this growth was fuelled by rural emigrants who
were likely to be unskilled. An evidence of this comes from the fact
the percentage of occupational surnames in towns did not increase
significantly over the period. Similarly, it is estates did not get
significantly bigger nor more specialized from the 12th to the 14th
century (5). The prevalence of these big estates may have
increased but it is unclear by which margin. Moreover, occupational
surnames are not necessarily pointing at full-time specialization, but
can merely describe the most distinctive of the part-time occupations a
worker had (falconer). Similarly, most of the large estates employees
seems to have been non-specialist and when an increase in the workforce
did happen it seldom led to an increase of the specialized workforce.
Most of the records historians have come from these large manors which
are also the most likely to employ a large proportion of specialized
workers, hence they are better know than the lesser, less known and
less specialized estates (6).
It is estimated that 60% of the rural population was working its own
land on family farms with little more specialization than the one
traditionally liked to the gender division of labour. Most of the
remaining 40% were journeymen and had no precise specialty as their
tasks changed with the seasons (7).
Feeling unsafe
The number of specialized occupation did increase from 1100 to 1300;
but long-term specialization requires a reliable level of employment
that the highly seasonal and volatile medieval economy could seldom
guarantee. Such an unpredictable labour market selects for adaptability
rather than specialization. Thus, skilled workers were better off if
they specialized in several niches and not a single one (8). As
a result, the economic situation of the skilled workers was quite weak
and many of them were qualified as poor by the urban administrations.
This necessary opportunism appears as destitute craftsmen were often
recorded in employment roll totally different from their original
specialty. Vagrancy and crime were options often used by artisans
having run out of luck (9).
Secondary occupation
Considering the large proportion of rural population with too little
land to live out from (but many of them had some land) it is like that
they squeezed out a living from intensification of labour and
by-employment; the very opposite of specialization (11). Even a
larger percentage of townsmen seems as well to have agriculture-related
sources of income along with their craft specialty even in time of
plenty, suggesting that secondary professional activities were not a
second best but a way of life (12). It seems that choice and
necessity led to a mixed collection of employment. Many amongst the
well-off cumulated rewarding urban specialty and wealthy agricultural
properties (13).
Conclusion
It may of course be argued that these possessions in the
countryside specially at the top of the social scale were little
more than safe investment and securities necessary due to volatile food
prices. However, it remains that commercial growth during the 12th and
13th century did not lead directly to specialization and that the high
level of insecurity forced most people to have a backup plan. Hence the
author, favours the expression of differentiation rather than straight
specialization, it also implies a movement away from self-consumption
routine due to commercialization but it stops short from the
all-embracing structural change implied by specialization.