Development as Freedom

Sen's argument raises two immediate questions: first, if development is defined as the freedom of the average citizen, to what extent can there be a limit to this freedom and therefore to growth? Particularly in regards to Oliver Wendell Holmes' traditional argument in this country, we can see that ideal society is not completely free: in fact, a restriction on liberty can serve to protect citizens. The controversy inherent in this claim yields a much more complicated measurement of development, and more importantly for this course, of underdevelopment. Is a country with less political freedom than the United States by definition a less developed society, or are there distinct advantages inherent in a nation whose government is uninhibited by challenge from the population? Sen even cites Adam Smith's free market (p. 6) as justification for his argument, yet no modern capitalist society has as limited a role of government as outlined in "Duties of the Sovereign" in Wealth of Nations, suggesting the downsides of unrestricted freedom. And even in this topic, there is intense debate. The definition of ideal freedom in institutions as specific of the marketplace become considerably more important the interconnected nature of liberty in a society. when one considers Measuring development by GDP has the distinct advantage of being not only universally applicable (across the globe, a higher GDP is better) but also can keep rising infinitely. The second question is rooted in Sen's second rationale for development on freedom as outlined on page 4, "The effectiveness reason: achievement of development is thoroughly dependent on the free agency of people." What about the impact of foreign aid in development? As Sen puts it, "the free and sustainable agency emerges as a major engine of development." At the same time, we have seen from past readings that the role of West, for instance, on the growth of underdeveloped countries is integral to development. At what point must the "engine" of Europe and the U.S. switch over to that of the people of a country? The freedom to education or proper health care, key constituent components of development for Sen, can be fostered by the West, as demonstrated in countless examples of NGO's across the globe. This turning point is a critical question for designing development models.

The role of wealth in freedom is equally interesting. I was intrigued by Sen's analysis of the extent to which our material wealth can enable and foster other freedoms, particularly his statement that the relationship is neither exclusive or uniform (14). I found this issue particularly interesting because of the connection to this country: our economic situations directly impact our ability to educate our children or take care of our health. How does our definition of underdevelopment change when we consider this link?

ul Haq raises the interesting point of the top-down nature of economic growth and the focus on the rulers of a nation versus the individual. I was interested in the question of choices as it relates to this idea: as ul Haq says on 29, development is the "enlargement of choices." Is this enlargement more dependent on the will of the individual or the society? Which of these has a bigger influence on the range of choices and the ability of the citizen to access these choices? The emphasis he places on the role of the people in his proposed development paradigm shift reflects that ul Haq favors the individual, yet I am not as convinced.