Amartya Sen is absolutely right in saying "Freedoms are not only the primary ends of development, they are also among its principal means" (10), referring to the circular process in which the academic, social, economic, and sexual freedom of a nation's citizens enables them to contribute to the development of their society. However, Sen does not necessarily address whether or not it is absolutely necessary for a society to be relatively free in order to advance, so that is my question. Perhaps it is possible for a hypothetical country under communist rule, whose primary purpose is the production of exported goods, to be successful economically and to have happy citizens. However, would a lack of freedom to create and innovate be detrimental to that societies overall progression? If they continually purchased emerging technologies from other nations and kept up their high production and export rates, would they be able to develop in any sense of the word?