The division of labor described by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations is the product of individual self-interest. This is representative of Smith's individualistic methodological interpretations of human nature. Adam Smith infers that the division of labor is beneficial to the individual, because it is in one's own interest to work less while still engaging in tasks that fall within one's own specialty. Highly specialized work is beneficial to the economic growth of nations while allowing individuals to further pursue their own rational interests. To further explain the concepts proposed by Smith, I will first explain what rational self-interest is in relation to human nature and how the division of labor emerges from self-interest. Second, with this idea in mind, Smith analyzes the emergence of the division of labor as a self-serving means of making work easier. These separations result in an advantage for the “increase of the productive powers of labor.” Smith asserts that the division of labor allows for increased dexterity of the worker, saving of time, and innovation of inventions. This increase in production allows nations to excel in manufacturing, thereby allowing national wealth to flourish and benefit as much or more than the individual. The division of labor is “the greatest improvement in the productive powers of the individual.” work.' To further increase this productivity, individuals must specialize in their work; do the work best suited to their needs, their talents and “with respect for their own interests”, thus facilitating the work of all those involved in the economic market and in the workforce. As each worker specializes in more specialized roles, the less work each worker must do, but more work can be done more quickly, increasing efficiency. According to this short-sighted personal interest, it gradually transformed, over time, into a long-term benefit for society: "This division of labor, from which so many advantages arise, is not at the origin the effect of some human wisdom, which foresees and desires this general opulence. to which it gives rise. It is the necessary consequence, although very slow and gradual, of a certain propensity of human nature which does not have such extensive utility in view; the propensity to carry, barter and exchange one thing for another. Smith's logic here is also relevant with respect to human nature, concluding that each individual's natural tendency to work to meet their own needs will also unintentionally benefit society. There is a caveat to this rule, however Smith states that "the division of labor is limited by the extent of the exchange of power" and by "the extent of the market". Simply put, rural areas cannot benefit from the division of labor because these individuals do not exist within an urban economic market that needs specialized labor to further develop. Individuals in rural areas are generally agrarian and yet it is necessary for them to have an affinity for all types of work to ensure that their needs are met. Specialization is therefore not in their rational framework.