Sen argues that freedoms are a central process of development and development is a process which expands people’s freedoms. Freedom plays a large role in the process of development due to the evaluative reason and the effectiveness reason. She says that it is important to looks at a number of different determinants to see how freedoms can be expanded, including the narrower view of development as the growth of GNP as well as social and economic arrangements, political and civil rights, technological progress, and social modernization. We can also look at unfreedoms, such as economic poverty, which prevents people from fulfilling their freedom to satisfy hunger. These two previous statements are representative of the evaluative reason, as the “assessment of progress has to be done primarily in terms of whether the freedoms that people have are enhanced” (Sen 4). For effectiveness reason, Sen states that we must look at the connections between different freedoms to see how free and sustainable agency can emerge from these interconnections.
Sen argues that when looking only at the narrower views of development in terms of GNP growth, we miss that substantive freedoms, like the liberty of political participation or the opportunity to receive basic education or health care, which are “among the constituent components of development” (Sen 5). In fact, these substantive freedoms contribute to economic progress, a connection to which Sen pays great attention. Sen also looks at the relationship between income and the freedom of individuals to live long and well. She looks at African Americans in the United States who are in general poorer compared to American whites, but richer than those in third world countries. However, they have a lower chance of living as long people in third world societies like China or Sri Lanka which have “different arrangements of health care, education and community relations” (Sen 6).
Sen states that the role of markets need to be looked at as more than just something which contributes to economic growth. The market mechanism is also an example of freedom of exchange and basic liberties, such as the “freedom to exchange words, or goods, or gifts” (Sen 6). The ability to enter a market and having the freedom to participate in economic interchange, is an example and contribution to development, whether or not the market mechanism leads to economic growth. Sen ends her list of illustrations by demonstrating the connections between freedoms (or unfreedoms), stating “economic unfreedom can breed social unfreedom, just as social or political unfreedom can also foster economic unfreedom” (Sen 8).
Sen sets out to look at the development process by integrating economic, social and political considerations. By looking at the development process in inclusive terms, she can look at the vital roles of different institutions and role of social values and prevailing mores. We need to not think of development only in terms of economic growth. Development is much more complex and encompasses many more freedoms. Freedoms play a role in the means of development and are also the primary ends of development (Sen 10).
Sen brings up very good points. We live in a world where we equate material wealth with success, so it is no surprise that we often equate economic growth with development. Sen’s example of many African Americans in the United States not being able to live as long as people in Sri Lanka because Sri Lanka might have a better healthcare system, is a perfect example of why we need to include other substantive freedoms into our concept of development. It is impossible to study development without taking into consideration the economic, social, and political aspects of a country. They are all connected and have an effect on each other. My question is then, because we must take so many freedoms into consideration, how then we do label a country’s development? Third World countries are defined as underdeveloped usually in terms of their economy. What if economic growth is very high yet there are no political freedoms? Or vice versa?
I agree with much of your summary interpretation. A brief part of Sen that I also think we should emphasize more is the relationship between freedom and markets.
When we construe development away from macro-economic terms of GDP growth, and recast them in terms of freedoms as the ultimate goal, we invert the relationship between market policies and freedom, so that market and public policy is instrumental for freedom, and not the other way around. This approach is considerably more inclusive and takes us away from the dichotomous argument of whether markets are good or bad. Rather, they treat the market as one avenue in which greater overall freedoms can be gained, while still allowing us to pay attention to the importance of particular social, material, and cultural conditions, and the way that all of these interconnect and mutually reinforce one another to promote human freedom.
Your point goes along with Robin’s summary of Enloe’s article when she says, “economic growth (such as the shoe companies) isn’t always for the best of the people that are laboring and can inhibit their freedoms.” I felt vey disheartened while reading Enloe’s chapter. Large American companies like Nike take advantage of authoritarian regimes and their oppressive nature (specifically towards women) in order to make a profit. As human beings, we need to take responsibility for the lives of other human beings. Nike and other shoe companies take the least responsibility possible leaving working conditions and health standards up to male managers in countries like Korea. Even when Rebok said they adopted its own human rights production standards, they did not follow through. In Robin’s analysis of the articles, she said that social interactions are crucial to the dynamic relationship of socioeconomics and freedoms. I think it is important to emphasize the necessity for the women discussed in Enloe’s article to build “links among workers in countries targeted for ‘development’ by multinational corporations” (49). The only way to stop the large corporations from picking up and moving to a different country where they will be able to exploit more women is to build global networks. More freedoms and protection of human and women’s rights can be gained by building these links. With the advance of technology today, as Young writes in her article, it is easier for women to unite to protect their freedoms.
An interesting point made by Sen was, “…development required the removal of major sources of unfreedom: poverty as well as tyranny, poor economic opportunities as well as systematic social deprivation, neglect of public facilities as well as intolerance or overactivity of repressive states. Despite increases in overall opulence, the contemporary world denies elementary freedoms to vast numbers—perhaps even the majority of people” (Sen 3-4). Further, the lack of freedoms can be related to economic poverty or lack of social care which potentially rob people of arrangements for health care or educational facilities or denial of political and civil liberties. These are all according to Sen “violations of freedom.”
What I question is how much freedoms are “denied” versus simply unable to be provided? I also ponder where the line is drawn between “freedoms” and “country benefits?” I think this is a question of government involvement in a country. Or, is that incorrect because all of the “freedoms” mentioned should be undeniably provided by a state? I would argue that a country that cannot provide certain programs for a country is not “violating freedoms.” This is because the country is not denying the freedoms they just cannot provide the freedom. There are many examples of countries actually denying freedoms in particular political freedoms. I think it is important to distinguish between instances where a country denies freedoms and instances where a country cannot economically provide certain freedoms like access to health care and other “social freedoms.”
That being said I agree with Sen that freedoms such as political participation and social freedoms are, “among the constituent components of development” (Sen 5). And that such freedoms help contribute to economic progress. Throughout this course I have realized that human capital is very important to countries. Many countries that are struggling economically do not have infrastructure in place to develop human capital. Meaning many countries lack educational freedoms and social freedoms to keep their citizens healthy and educated so that they can further their country. Thus, without developing human capital which can be done via basic freedoms a country will not be reaching their full potential for development.
I think that the relationship between freedom and development is an interesting link. I be lieve that freedom and development are usually interrelated. Countries that have high levels of development, usually have high levels of freedom. Sen seems to be arguing that freedom is more than just GDP. This is the opposite of many neoliberals who believe that development leads to freedom. The US policy has been top export free market capitalism to the world. The US believes that exporting market capitalism will lead to more freedoms like freedom of the press and better quality of life. This has not always been the case because some countires like China and Russia are very economical developed, but have high levelsl of inequality and restricted freedoms.
I think that Lauren is correct when she says that we need to distinguish between a state not providing the enabling conditions that will support freedom and the state being unable to do so. I think however, the deeper question should always be why the state is unable to provide the enabling conditions. It seems to me that we need to move beyond the state level, because oftentimes political power within a state is hijacked by capitalists, and this is responsible for the inequality we see within and between nations.
I think that David Schweikart is onto something when he proposes democratizing the workplace, which he believes will lead to far more just economic outcomes and will preclude agglutination of power in fewer hands. When he asks “why are
we allowed to elect the president, governors, mayors, congressmen–but not our bosses?” is this because liberal democracies are set up to provide the appearance of power of by the people for the people when in fact the real power is with those who own capital? http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/2000/2000-January/000033.html
I like Lauren’s point about distinguishing between “freedoms” and “country benefits (I would call them country privileges).” I think a lot of countries are able to provide these things for their people, but their social and political agendas minimize any kind of collective effort to do so (I think this is what Farhana was saying as well).
The U.S. may be a horrible example to use in illustrating my point, but I feel like I should talk about it because I am actually living in it. The two party system in the U.S. has largely been split down the center on what are freedoms and country privileges. Spending billions of dollars to rescue these greedy corporate moguls is a prime example of bad allocation of resources and energy. Why not spend the money on guaranteeing more people jobs and health care?