What do you think?
Rate this book
Development as Freedom
By the winner of the 1998 Nobel Prize in Economics, an essential and paradigm-altering framework for understanding economic development—for both rich and poor—in the twenty-first century.
Freedom, Sen argues, is both the end and most efficient means of sustaining economic life and the key to securing the general welfare of the world's entire population. Releasing the idea of individual freedom from association with any particular historical, intellectual, political, or religious tradition, Sen clearly demonstrates its current applicability and possibilities. In the new global economy, where, despite unprecedented increases in overall opulence, the contemporary world denies elementary freedoms to vast numbers—perhaps even the majority of people—he concludes, it is still possible to practically and optimistically regain a sense of social accountability. Development as Freedom is essential reading.
Freedom, Sen argues, is both the end and most efficient means of sustaining economic life and the key to securing the general welfare of the world's entire population. Releasing the idea of individual freedom from association with any particular historical, intellectual, political, or religious tradition, Sen clearly demonstrates its current applicability and possibilities. In the new global economy, where, despite unprecedented increases in overall opulence, the contemporary world denies elementary freedoms to vast numbers—perhaps even the majority of people—he concludes, it is still possible to practically and optimistically regain a sense of social accountability. Development as Freedom is essential reading.
366 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1999
About the author
Amartya Sen
189 books1,344 followersAmartya Kumar Sen is an Indian economist who was awarded the 1998 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences for his contributions to welfare economics and social choice theory, and for his interest in the problems of society’s poorest members.
Sen was best known for his work on the causes of famine, which led to the development of practical solutions for preventing or limiting the effects of real or perceived shortages of food. He is currently the Thomas W. Lamont University Professor and Professor of Economics and Philosophy at Harvard University. He is also a senior fellow at the Harvard Society of Fellows and a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, where he previously served as Master from the years 1998 to 2004. He is the first Asian and the first Indian academic to head an Oxbridge college.
Amartya Sen's books have been translated into more than thirty languages. He is a trustee of Economists for Peace and Security. In 2006, Time magazine listed him under "60 years of Asian Heroes" and in 2010 included him in their "100 most influential persons in the world".
Sen was best known for his work on the causes of famine, which led to the development of practical solutions for preventing or limiting the effects of real or perceived shortages of food. He is currently the Thomas W. Lamont University Professor and Professor of Economics and Philosophy at Harvard University. He is also a senior fellow at the Harvard Society of Fellows and a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, where he previously served as Master from the years 1998 to 2004. He is the first Asian and the first Indian academic to head an Oxbridge college.
Amartya Sen's books have been translated into more than thirty languages. He is a trustee of Economists for Peace and Security. In 2006, Time magazine listed him under "60 years of Asian Heroes" and in 2010 included him in their "100 most influential persons in the world".
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 313 reviews
November 1, 2023
Let me rank those who research "Development Economics":
1st Tier: Critical (geo)political economists, i.e. seriously consider global historical context/power relations, social costs (not just "economic growth") and alternatives: ex. Utsa Patnaik, Prabhat Patnaik, Michael Hudson, Radhika Desai, Amiya Kumar Bagchi (who had me fooled by writing some essays on Sen, but Bagchi's father did supervise Sen...)
2nd Tier: Heterodox political economists, i.e. seriously consider other schools of economic thought, not just (Global North) Neoclassical ("Mainstream Economics"): ex. Ha-Joon Chang
3rd Tier: Reformist economists with good writing styles: ex. Joseph E. Stiglitz, Partha Dasgupta
4th Tier: Reformist economists with mediocre writing styles: ex. Sen
5th Tier: Reactionary economists: economists Sen cites
...Everything beneath the top tier has a strong bias towards "capitalism"/(economic) "liberalism". Let's unpack these big labels and how they affect Sen:
The Bad:
1) Classical liberal contradictions:
--A revealing way to cut through the noise and reveal the essence of "capitalism" and "liberalism" is to unpack the contradictions of "Classical economics" godfather Adam Smith's legacy:
...This gets lumped together with the "Invisible Hand" quote: "By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, [the merchant] intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention."
[2] Smith's conveniently-forgotten book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, sets out how society requires many more moral values than just self-interest; of course vulgar economists erase the fact that Smith was a moral philosopher!
[3] The stock market is a key capitalist market. Markets for goods (real commodities, i.e. Smith's butches/bakers/brewers) have long existed before capitalism. Capitalism innovated peculiar markets: labour/land/money, which feature "fictitious commodities" (humans/nature/purchasing power are not "produced" like real commodities just for buying/selling on markets): Talking to My Daughter About the Economy: or, How Capitalism Works—and How It Fails
2) Classical liberal biases:
--Even worse for "Development economics" is the Classical liberal paradigm is built on convenient thought-experiments by ivory-tower thinkers in colonizer/Global North nations ("Classical economics" was based in Britain, i.e. Adam Smith/David Ricardo). This becomes a disaster for the colonized/Global South seeking alternatives from "Development economics"!
--Take the "free trade" myth: Smith, with a certain national loyalty to the British Empire, recommended to its settler colonies like the United States to keep exporting raw materials (theorized as "comparative advantage") rather than pursue long-term development planning for industrialization (do-as-we-say, not-as-we-do).
...The US eventually rejected this (America's Protectionist Takeoff 1815-1914), climbed the productivity ladder, then once on top repeated the myth to those below, i.e. "kicking away the ladder": Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism.
3) Neoclassical liberal delusions:
--Even worse, modern mainstream economics ("Neoclassical") has further vulgarized "Classical" economics; in retaliation to Marx pushing Classical concepts (classes, social change/crises, "labour theory of value" focusing on the cost of production and recognizing economic rent) to their breaking point, Neoclassical threw all this out to instead focus taking micro grains of sand (individual utility-maximizing consumer) to build elaborate sand castles (supply/demand equilibrium).
--While Sen considers some historical context when analyzing Smith, he fails to do so for the other "economists"; in particular, Friedrich A. Hayek, whose rhetoric alone can hide the reactionary force behind his arguments (The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Donald Trump).
4) The missing tidal waves of Geopolitical economy:
--Mainstream economics' sand castles may be defenseless to the tidal waves of reality on many levels, but there's always more sand (more money) to keep rebuilding the myths.
--Meanwhile, in the real world, you had non-capitalist centers of market production in India and China, where Europe sustained trade by the gold/silver loot from pillaging the Americas. Europe did not achieve market dominance through some "free market" competition; they had to smash Indian and Chinese markets into colonial wastelands, to the point where colonial India was selling opium to China, for the profit of British business (Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World) and building "modern mass poverty" (Capital and Imperialism: Theory, History, and the Present).
--The colonizers had more competitive violence, which was perfected through divide-and-rule strategies (bringing the worst out of peoples) and economic abstractions (see: Debt: The First 5,000 Years).
--There are obvious warning signs with Sen, starting with the "Nobel" (actually Swedish bank) Prize in Economics. Peak liberalism. Taking geopolitical economy, abstracting away the "geo" (global) and "political" (i.e. power relations/struggles/alternatives/qualitative values), and forcing it into a (dismal) "science" ("economics")...of course your prize winners are intellectual giants at naturalizing the status quo!
--Sen toils through the grains of sand to consider vapid notions of "capability", where even the low-hanging fruits were picked in a tedious manner.
--To revive geopolitical economy:
1) Accessible overview: The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions
2) Accessible history: Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism
3) Intro to theory: The Agrarian Question in the Neoliberal Era: Primitive Accumulation and the Peasantry
4) Dive into theory:
-Capital and Imperialism: Theory, History, and the Present
-The Global Minotaur: America, the True Origins of the Financial Crisis and the Future of the World Economy
-Super Imperialism: The Origin and Fundamentals of U.S. World Dominance
5) Dive into history:
-The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World
-Perilous Passage: Mankind and the Global Ascendancy of Capital
The Good:
--Elsewhere (co-authored Hunger and Public Action), Sen does leave vague abstractions to critically consider the real world, in particular comparing post-revolution Communist China vs. post-independence liberal India. Perhaps thanks to his Global South context, Sen shows that he did not let his liberal ideology completely cloud his findings on the benefits of Communist social support/decolonization, and he helps put Global South famine deaths in perspective (both massive agrarian transitions after colonial famines: Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World):
1) China’s dramatic rise in life expectancy occurred prior to its 1979 market liberalization’s economic growth:
2) China’s focus on social support (i.e. social needs, i.e. socialist policies):
3) Despite China’s Great Famine, how do life-expectancies compare?
1st Tier: Critical (geo)political economists, i.e. seriously consider global historical context/power relations, social costs (not just "economic growth") and alternatives: ex. Utsa Patnaik, Prabhat Patnaik, Michael Hudson, Radhika Desai, Amiya Kumar Bagchi (who had me fooled by writing some essays on Sen, but Bagchi's father did supervise Sen...)
2nd Tier: Heterodox political economists, i.e. seriously consider other schools of economic thought, not just (Global North) Neoclassical ("Mainstream Economics"): ex. Ha-Joon Chang
3rd Tier: Reformist economists with good writing styles: ex. Joseph E. Stiglitz, Partha Dasgupta
4th Tier: Reformist economists with mediocre writing styles: ex. Sen
5th Tier: Reactionary economists: economists Sen cites
...Everything beneath the top tier has a strong bias towards "capitalism"/(economic) "liberalism". Let's unpack these big labels and how they affect Sen:
The Bad:
1) Classical liberal contradictions:
--A revealing way to cut through the noise and reveal the essence of "capitalism" and "liberalism" is to unpack the contradictions of "Classical economics" godfather Adam Smith's legacy:
Liberalism’s fatal hypocrisy [...] was to rejoice in the virtuous Jills and Jacks, the neighbourhood butchers, bakers and brewers [1], so as to defend the vile East India Companies, the Facebooks and the Amazons, which know no neighbours, have no partners, respect no moral sentiments [2] and stop at nothing to destroy their competitors. By replacing partnerships with anonymous shareholders [3], we created Leviathans that end up undermining and defying all the values that liberals [...] claim to cherish.[1] Smith's celebrated quote from An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations on self-interest producing social good: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
-Another Now: Dispatches from an Alternative Present, emphases added
...This gets lumped together with the "Invisible Hand" quote: "By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, [the merchant] intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention."
[2] Smith's conveniently-forgotten book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, sets out how society requires many more moral values than just self-interest; of course vulgar economists erase the fact that Smith was a moral philosopher!
[3] The stock market is a key capitalist market. Markets for goods (real commodities, i.e. Smith's butches/bakers/brewers) have long existed before capitalism. Capitalism innovated peculiar markets: labour/land/money, which feature "fictitious commodities" (humans/nature/purchasing power are not "produced" like real commodities just for buying/selling on markets): Talking to My Daughter About the Economy: or, How Capitalism Works—and How It Fails
2) Classical liberal biases:
--Even worse for "Development economics" is the Classical liberal paradigm is built on convenient thought-experiments by ivory-tower thinkers in colonizer/Global North nations ("Classical economics" was based in Britain, i.e. Adam Smith/David Ricardo). This becomes a disaster for the colonized/Global South seeking alternatives from "Development economics"!
--Take the "free trade" myth: Smith, with a certain national loyalty to the British Empire, recommended to its settler colonies like the United States to keep exporting raw materials (theorized as "comparative advantage") rather than pursue long-term development planning for industrialization (do-as-we-say, not-as-we-do).
...The US eventually rejected this (America's Protectionist Takeoff 1815-1914), climbed the productivity ladder, then once on top repeated the myth to those below, i.e. "kicking away the ladder": Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism.
3) Neoclassical liberal delusions:
--Even worse, modern mainstream economics ("Neoclassical") has further vulgarized "Classical" economics; in retaliation to Marx pushing Classical concepts (classes, social change/crises, "labour theory of value" focusing on the cost of production and recognizing economic rent) to their breaking point, Neoclassical threw all this out to instead focus taking micro grains of sand (individual utility-maximizing consumer) to build elaborate sand castles (supply/demand equilibrium).
--While Sen considers some historical context when analyzing Smith, he fails to do so for the other "economists"; in particular, Friedrich A. Hayek, whose rhetoric alone can hide the reactionary force behind his arguments (The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Donald Trump).
4) The missing tidal waves of Geopolitical economy:
--Mainstream economics' sand castles may be defenseless to the tidal waves of reality on many levels, but there's always more sand (more money) to keep rebuilding the myths.
--Meanwhile, in the real world, you had non-capitalist centers of market production in India and China, where Europe sustained trade by the gold/silver loot from pillaging the Americas. Europe did not achieve market dominance through some "free market" competition; they had to smash Indian and Chinese markets into colonial wastelands, to the point where colonial India was selling opium to China, for the profit of British business (Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World) and building "modern mass poverty" (Capital and Imperialism: Theory, History, and the Present).
--The colonizers had more competitive violence, which was perfected through divide-and-rule strategies (bringing the worst out of peoples) and economic abstractions (see: Debt: The First 5,000 Years).
--There are obvious warning signs with Sen, starting with the "Nobel" (actually Swedish bank) Prize in Economics. Peak liberalism. Taking geopolitical economy, abstracting away the "geo" (global) and "political" (i.e. power relations/struggles/alternatives/qualitative values), and forcing it into a (dismal) "science" ("economics")...of course your prize winners are intellectual giants at naturalizing the status quo!
--Sen toils through the grains of sand to consider vapid notions of "capability", where even the low-hanging fruits were picked in a tedious manner.
--To revive geopolitical economy:
1) Accessible overview: The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions
2) Accessible history: Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism
3) Intro to theory: The Agrarian Question in the Neoliberal Era: Primitive Accumulation and the Peasantry
4) Dive into theory:
-Capital and Imperialism: Theory, History, and the Present
-The Global Minotaur: America, the True Origins of the Financial Crisis and the Future of the World Economy
-Super Imperialism: The Origin and Fundamentals of U.S. World Dominance
5) Dive into history:
-The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World
-Perilous Passage: Mankind and the Global Ascendancy of Capital
The Good:
--Elsewhere (co-authored Hunger and Public Action), Sen does leave vague abstractions to critically consider the real world, in particular comparing post-revolution Communist China vs. post-independence liberal India. Perhaps thanks to his Global South context, Sen shows that he did not let his liberal ideology completely cloud his findings on the benefits of Communist social support/decolonization, and he helps put Global South famine deaths in perspective (both massive agrarian transitions after colonial famines: Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World):
1) China’s dramatic rise in life expectancy occurred prior to its 1979 market liberalization’s economic growth:
In fact, it seems fairly clear that the Chinese growth rate was not radically higher than that of India before the economic reforms of 1979, by which time the tremendous surge ahead in health and longevity had already taken place. In the pre-reform period, agricultural expansion in particular was sluggish in China, as it was in India, and the dramatic reduction in hunger and undernourishment and expansion of life expectancy in China were not ushered in by any spectacular rise in rural incomes or of food availability per head. […]
This is indeed the crucial point. The Chinese level of average opulence judged in terms of GNP per head, or total consumption per capita, or food consumption per person, did not radically increase during the period in which China managed to take a gigantic step forward in matters of life and death, moving from a life expectancy at birth in the low 40s (like the poorest countries today) to one in the high 60s (getting within hitting distance of Europe and North America). [p.208]
2) China’s focus on social support (i.e. social needs, i.e. socialist policies):
As far as support-led security is concerned, the Chinese efforts have been quite spectacular. The network of health services introduced in post-revolutionary China in a radical departure from the past—involving cooperative medical systems, commune clinics, barefoot doctors, and widespread public health measures—has been remarkably extensive. The contrast with India in this respect is striking enough. It is not only that China has more than twice as many doctors and nearly three times as many nurses per unit of population as India has. But also these and other medical resources are distributed more evenly across the country (even between urban and rural areas), with greater popular access to them than India has been able to organize.
Similar contrasts hold in the distribution of food through public channels and rationing systems, which have had an extensive coverage in China (except in periods of economic and political chaos, as during the famine of 1958-61, on which more presently). In India public distribution of food to the people, when it exists, is confined to the urban sector (except in a few areas such as the state of Kerala where the rural population also benefits from it, on which, too, more presently). Food distribution is, in fact, a part of a far-reaching programme of social security that distinguishes China from India. The impact of these programmes on protecting and promoting entitlements to food and basic necessities, including medical care, is reflected in the relatively low mortality and morbidity rates in China. [p.209]
3) Despite China’s Great Famine, how do life-expectancies compare?
Finally, it is important to note that despite the gigantic size of excess mortality in the Chinese famine, the extra mortality in India from regular deprivation in normal times vastly overshadows the former. Comparing India's death rate of 12 per thousand with China's of 7 per thousand, and applying that difference to the Indian population of 781 million in 1986, we get an estimate of excess normal mortality in India of 3.9 million per year. This implies that every eight years or so more people die in India because of its higher regular death rate than died in China in the gigantic famine of 1958-61. India seems to manage to fill its cupboard with more skeletons every eight years than China put there in its years of shame. [p.214-215]...Note: furthermore, Utsa Patnaik (whom I ranked in the 1st Tier) disputes the famine death methodologies used for China (Great Leap Forward) famine cited by the liberal authors, which I unpack in reviewing Hunger and Public Action.
June 22, 2019
Development as Freedom, Amartya Sen
Development as Freedom is a 1999 book about international development by the economist Amartya Sen. Amartya Sen was the winner of the 1998 Nobel Prize in Economics. His book argues that economic development entails a set of linked freedoms: Political freedoms and transparency in relations between people. Freedom of opportunity, including freedom to access credit; and Economic protection from abject poverty, including through income supplements and unemployment relief.
تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز بیست و دوم ماه ژوئن سال 2007 میلادی
عنوان: توسعه به مثابه آزادی؛ نویسنده: آمارتیا سن؛ مترجم : وحید محمودی؛ ناشر: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران؛ سال چاپ: 1394؛ نوبت چاپ: چهارم؛ شابک: 96460201718؛
عنوان: توسعه یعنی آزادی؛ نویسنده: آمارتیا سن؛ مترجم: محمدسعید نوری نائینی؛ تهران، دانشگاه تهران، 1394، در 542 ص؛
فهرست مطالب: مقدمه – توسعه به مثابه آزادی؛ فصل اول – چشم انداز آزادی؛ فصل دوم – هدف و ابزارهای توسعه؛ فصل سوم – آزادی و پایه های عدالت اجتماعی؛ فصل چهارم – فقر به مثابه محرومیت از قابلیت؛ فصل پنجم – بازار، دولت و فرصت های اجتماعی؛ فصل ششم – اهمیت مردم سالاری؛ فصل هفتم – گرسنگی و دیگر بحرانها؛ فصل هشتم – نقش فاعلی زنان و تغییرات اجتماعی؛ فصل نهم – جمعیت، غذا و آزادی؛ فصل دهم – فرهنگ و حقوق بشر؛ فصل یازدهم – انتخاب اجتماعی و رفتار فردی؛ فصل دوازدهم – آزادی فردی به مثابه مسئولیت اجتماعی؛
توسعه به مثابه آزادی کتابی نوشته «آمارتیا سن» اقتصاددان برنده ی جایزه ی نوبل است که در سال 1999 میلادی منتشر شد. موضوع این کتاب توسعه بینالمللی است. این کتاب در ایران توسط دانشگاه تهران در سال 1394 هجری خورشیدی به چاپ رسیده است. «آمارتیا سن» برنده ی جایزه نوبل در اقتصاد در سال 1998 میلادی است. این کتاب استدلال میکند، که توسعه ی اقتصادی مستلزم مجموعه ای از آزادیهاست، که به یکدیگر مرتبط هستند: آزادیهای سیاسی و شفافیت در روابط بین مردم؛ آزادی برخورداری از فرصتها از جمله آزادی برای دسترسی به اعتبار مالی؛ حفاظت مردم از فقر، از طریق درآمد مکمل، و کمک هزینه های بیکاری. در این کتاب فقدان حداقل یکی از شکلهای آزادی به عنوان فقر محسوب میشود. «سن» نتیجه میگیرد که توسعهٔ واقعی، تنها به معنای افزایش پایه ی درآمد، یا افزایش میانگین درآمد سرانه نیست. «سن» بازار آزاد را، به عنوان یک روش ضروری، برای دستیابی به آزادی میداند. این مسئله مورد انتقاد افرادی است، که ادعا میکنند سرمایه داری، و به ویژه سرمایه داری «نئو-لیبرال» تقویت کننده ی فقدان آزادی است. ا. شربیانی
Development as Freedom is a 1999 book about international development by the economist Amartya Sen. Amartya Sen was the winner of the 1998 Nobel Prize in Economics. His book argues that economic development entails a set of linked freedoms: Political freedoms and transparency in relations between people. Freedom of opportunity, including freedom to access credit; and Economic protection from abject poverty, including through income supplements and unemployment relief.
تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز بیست و دوم ماه ژوئن سال 2007 میلادی
عنوان: توسعه به مثابه آزادی؛ نویسنده: آمارتیا سن؛ مترجم : وحید محمودی؛ ناشر: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران؛ سال چاپ: 1394؛ نوبت چاپ: چهارم؛ شابک: 96460201718؛
عنوان: توسعه یعنی آزادی؛ نویسنده: آمارتیا سن؛ مترجم: محمدسعید نوری نائینی؛ تهران، دانشگاه تهران، 1394، در 542 ص؛
فهرست مطالب: مقدمه – توسعه به مثابه آزادی؛ فصل اول – چشم انداز آزادی؛ فصل دوم – هدف و ابزارهای توسعه؛ فصل سوم – آزادی و پایه های عدالت اجتماعی؛ فصل چهارم – فقر به مثابه محرومیت از قابلیت؛ فصل پنجم – بازار، دولت و فرصت های اجتماعی؛ فصل ششم – اهمیت مردم سالاری؛ فصل هفتم – گرسنگی و دیگر بحرانها؛ فصل هشتم – نقش فاعلی زنان و تغییرات اجتماعی؛ فصل نهم – جمعیت، غذا و آزادی؛ فصل دهم – فرهنگ و حقوق بشر؛ فصل یازدهم – انتخاب اجتماعی و رفتار فردی؛ فصل دوازدهم – آزادی فردی به مثابه مسئولیت اجتماعی؛
توسعه به مثابه آزادی کتابی نوشته «آمارتیا سن» اقتصاددان برنده ی جایزه ی نوبل است که در سال 1999 میلادی منتشر شد. موضوع این کتاب توسعه بینالمللی است. این کتاب در ایران توسط دانشگاه تهران در سال 1394 هجری خورشیدی به چاپ رسیده است. «آمارتیا سن» برنده ی جایزه نوبل در اقتصاد در سال 1998 میلادی است. این کتاب استدلال میکند، که توسعه ی اقتصادی مستلزم مجموعه ای از آزادیهاست، که به یکدیگر مرتبط هستند: آزادیهای سیاسی و شفافیت در روابط بین مردم؛ آزادی برخورداری از فرصتها از جمله آزادی برای دسترسی به اعتبار مالی؛ حفاظت مردم از فقر، از طریق درآمد مکمل، و کمک هزینه های بیکاری. در این کتاب فقدان حداقل یکی از شکلهای آزادی به عنوان فقر محسوب میشود. «سن» نتیجه میگیرد که توسعهٔ واقعی، تنها به معنای افزایش پایه ی درآمد، یا افزایش میانگین درآمد سرانه نیست. «سن» بازار آزاد را، به عنوان یک روش ضروری، برای دستیابی به آزادی میداند. این مسئله مورد انتقاد افرادی است، که ادعا میکنند سرمایه داری، و به ویژه سرمایه داری «نئو-لیبرال» تقویت کننده ی فقدان آزادی است. ا. شربیانی
April 28, 2007
The first thing you realize from reading Amartya Sen is what a fundamentally nice human being he must be. I'm serious. Waves of decency and kindness just eminate from the page. And what's more, he seems to believe that for the most part, other people are just as nice as he is. It's such a relief to read someone who's brilliant but not cynical.
The other thing i really liked about this book was that it provides the ideal meeting place for my University of Chicago-steeped intellect and my bleeding-heart liberal soul. Sen's perspective on economics really adresses a lot of the things i liked least about the econ i learned at the UofC: overemphasis on the profit motive, the equating of rational choice with narrow self-interest, a narrow reading of Adam Smith in particular and of the market in general...
It would be absolutely wonderful if the world were to create policy based on Sen's definition of development as the expansion of liberties, rather than as simply the growth of revenues. I'm going to go ahead and take a cue from Sen and believe that it's possible.
The other thing i really liked about this book was that it provides the ideal meeting place for my University of Chicago-steeped intellect and my bleeding-heart liberal soul. Sen's perspective on economics really adresses a lot of the things i liked least about the econ i learned at the UofC: overemphasis on the profit motive, the equating of rational choice with narrow self-interest, a narrow reading of Adam Smith in particular and of the market in general...
It would be absolutely wonderful if the world were to create policy based on Sen's definition of development as the expansion of liberties, rather than as simply the growth of revenues. I'm going to go ahead and take a cue from Sen and believe that it's possible.
April 1, 2015
Don't be dazzled by the Nobel prize, this is a tedious and ultimately vapid book. See reviews by E and Andy that pretty much nail it.
-----
And I'd just like to add, Sen has an unfailing eye for a punchy quotation that is (amazingly) more boring than his own text, and that - like his own text - makes either no point or a self-evident one.
"John Hicks, one of the leading economists of this century who himself was far more utility-oriented than freedom-oriented, did put the issue with admirable clarity in a passage on this subject:
The liberal, or non-interference, principles of the classical (Smithian or Ricardian) economists were not, in the first place, economic principles; they were an application to economics of principles that were thought to apply to a much wider field. The contention that economic freedom made for economic efficiency was no more than a secondary support... What I do question is whether we are justified in forgetting, as completely as most of us have done, the other side of the argument. " pp28 [ellipsis by Sen]
That is to say - I think - that political economy is both political and economic. Admirable clarity indeed.
-----
And I'd just like to add, Sen has an unfailing eye for a punchy quotation that is (amazingly) more boring than his own text, and that - like his own text - makes either no point or a self-evident one.
"John Hicks, one of the leading economists of this century who himself was far more utility-oriented than freedom-oriented, did put the issue with admirable clarity in a passage on this subject:
The liberal, or non-interference, principles of the classical (Smithian or Ricardian) economists were not, in the first place, economic principles; they were an application to economics of principles that were thought to apply to a much wider field. The contention that economic freedom made for economic efficiency was no more than a secondary support... What I do question is whether we are justified in forgetting, as completely as most of us have done, the other side of the argument. " pp28 [ellipsis by Sen]
That is to say - I think - that political economy is both political and economic. Admirable clarity indeed.
January 20, 2008
There's a nice 40 page essay in here about the importance of considerations other than GDP in developing countries. Unfortunately it is buried by 260 pages of poor writing in which Sen:
- repeats himself
- repeats himself
- distinguishes his arguments or perspectives into type A, type B, and type C, when in reality A, B, and C are not all that different, or their distinction does not seriously enhance understanding of the subject being discussed
- stretches his points to tautological limits - think something is important? just refer to it as a "freedom"
- phrases even simple ideas in excessively complicated ways
- did I mention he repeats himself?
It was disappointing that such a prominent author and economist (a Nobel laureate) expounding on a political/economic perspective with which I fundamentally agree could end up writing something so lame. I can't really recommend this book to anyone.
- repeats himself
- repeats himself
- distinguishes his arguments or perspectives into type A, type B, and type C, when in reality A, B, and C are not all that different, or their distinction does not seriously enhance understanding of the subject being discussed
- stretches his points to tautological limits - think something is important? just refer to it as a "freedom"
- phrases even simple ideas in excessively complicated ways
- did I mention he repeats himself?
It was disappointing that such a prominent author and economist (a Nobel laureate) expounding on a political/economic perspective with which I fundamentally agree could end up writing something so lame. I can't really recommend this book to anyone.
October 11, 2015
I picked up this book not knowing the exact thesis (hint to past self: it's the title) but hoping to get an analysis of ideas of development with a depth that your typical 25-page academic paper doesn't have space for. What I got instead of the desired depth, was huge breadth instead. My chief complaint about this book is that I felt it would formulate a sensitive and productive viewpoint on an issue and then promptly fail to engage with that viewpoint on a contemporary timescale. Oftentimes, instead of a detailed, relevant example Sen would either provide a) a modern, but sparse anecdote that nicely illustrated the process but ultimately remained surface-level, or b) an ancient example.
A prime example is in chapter 10, which discusses culture and human rights. Sen brings up the difficult question of whether human rights can be universal despite the radically different cultures of our world. I was hoping to see some discussion on the relationship between countries where women lack fundamental political/social rights that are governed using interpretations of Islam, in other words, a situation where human rights and culture are denied in the name of culture. So you can imagine my disappointment when in the section titled "Islamic Tolerance," Sen talks about nothing more recent than the year 1605 and fails to touch upon ANY modern tensions between human rights and culture. He instead practically denies these clashes exist, depending on ancient Eastern philosophers and rulers who preached religious tolerance, instead of discussing what is denied to millions in the name of cultural norms today. Very disappointing.
This anchoring in the distant past is also seen in discussion of development literature: Sen engages far more with 18th and 19th century debates than contemporary scholars! I didn't find this appropriate seeing that approaches to development and freedoms are constantly evolving, and the debates alive today are essential to include in any book that hopes to influence in the short-to-medium-term. Maybe he was going for timelessness, I don't know. Anyway, in skirting conversation with today's scholars, Sen leaves out the language common to today's economy as well as the proper role of the market versus the state in correcting unfreedoms. He offers convictions, but won't go so far as to say whose responsibility they are besides "society's." In doing so, whether deliberately or accidentally, he distances himself from debates concerning responsibility for development, and questions of implementation.
Finally, as others mentioned, the book is extremely repetitive. As a consequence it often takes on a very simplistic tone, saying (and repeating) in three paragraphs what could have been said in three sentences with as much depth. Small things like overuse of the phrases "inter alia" and "to wit" made me roll my eyes. I also felt that in some cases Sen introduced terms (without giving his own definition for clarity) that elevated the level of the discussion into the totally abstract, when he oversimplified in other cases, making the tone a bit unbalanced.
Despite these criticisms, the book is important especially for its time in the sense that in the wake of the 80s and 90s, somebody really needed to question the legitimacy of driving at growth and heightened GDP per capita as developmental strategies. The influence of this school of thought on an international scale is obvious when looking at the formulation of, say, the recently adopted UN Sustainable Development Goals (the follow up plan to the Millennial Development Goals) which encourage a very broad range of freedom objectives that are mutually reinforcing in promoting advancement in developing countries. The focus on a country-specific approach, taking into account local deficiencies and assets, is also broadly accepted today by international institutions like the World Bank and the UN, and this is attention to local conditions is indeed a strength of Sen's (when he kindly deigns to give modern examples) in his frequent references to inter-state differences in types of development/their consequences in India. Ultimately, reading this 16 years after its publication you get the sense that you already knew these arguments intrinsically from witnessing such approaches this past decade and a half, but examining their foundations and counterarguments in this maddeningly broad format is a valuable exercise for anyone hoping to productively criticize or promote policies formulated in search of greater development.
A prime example is in chapter 10, which discusses culture and human rights. Sen brings up the difficult question of whether human rights can be universal despite the radically different cultures of our world. I was hoping to see some discussion on the relationship between countries where women lack fundamental political/social rights that are governed using interpretations of Islam, in other words, a situation where human rights and culture are denied in the name of culture. So you can imagine my disappointment when in the section titled "Islamic Tolerance," Sen talks about nothing more recent than the year 1605 and fails to touch upon ANY modern tensions between human rights and culture. He instead practically denies these clashes exist, depending on ancient Eastern philosophers and rulers who preached religious tolerance, instead of discussing what is denied to millions in the name of cultural norms today. Very disappointing.
This anchoring in the distant past is also seen in discussion of development literature: Sen engages far more with 18th and 19th century debates than contemporary scholars! I didn't find this appropriate seeing that approaches to development and freedoms are constantly evolving, and the debates alive today are essential to include in any book that hopes to influence in the short-to-medium-term. Maybe he was going for timelessness, I don't know. Anyway, in skirting conversation with today's scholars, Sen leaves out the language common to today's economy as well as the proper role of the market versus the state in correcting unfreedoms. He offers convictions, but won't go so far as to say whose responsibility they are besides "society's." In doing so, whether deliberately or accidentally, he distances himself from debates concerning responsibility for development, and questions of implementation.
Finally, as others mentioned, the book is extremely repetitive. As a consequence it often takes on a very simplistic tone, saying (and repeating) in three paragraphs what could have been said in three sentences with as much depth. Small things like overuse of the phrases "inter alia" and "to wit" made me roll my eyes. I also felt that in some cases Sen introduced terms (without giving his own definition for clarity) that elevated the level of the discussion into the totally abstract, when he oversimplified in other cases, making the tone a bit unbalanced.
Despite these criticisms, the book is important especially for its time in the sense that in the wake of the 80s and 90s, somebody really needed to question the legitimacy of driving at growth and heightened GDP per capita as developmental strategies. The influence of this school of thought on an international scale is obvious when looking at the formulation of, say, the recently adopted UN Sustainable Development Goals (the follow up plan to the Millennial Development Goals) which encourage a very broad range of freedom objectives that are mutually reinforcing in promoting advancement in developing countries. The focus on a country-specific approach, taking into account local deficiencies and assets, is also broadly accepted today by international institutions like the World Bank and the UN, and this is attention to local conditions is indeed a strength of Sen's (when he kindly deigns to give modern examples) in his frequent references to inter-state differences in types of development/their consequences in India. Ultimately, reading this 16 years after its publication you get the sense that you already knew these arguments intrinsically from witnessing such approaches this past decade and a half, but examining their foundations and counterarguments in this maddeningly broad format is a valuable exercise for anyone hoping to productively criticize or promote policies formulated in search of greater development.
January 7, 2013
I misunderstood the title, believing Sen's thesis was that economic development leads to greater freedom--"hey, now that we're so rich, look at all the things we can do"--which would have been a very short and shallow book. Instead, I think the idea of the title is that increasing individuals' freedoms will lead to economic development. Not freedom like how a libertarian would define it (which we all know is simply freedom from government regulation and taxes--sorry libertarians, but that about sums it all up quite nicely). Sen's freedom is the power to vote, the promise of healthcare and social safety nets, the opportunity to get job training, to get funding for a good education, and for women specifically to be able to make choices about how many children they wish to have and to be able to rise and succeed in the male-dominated workforce.
The freedom Sen defines is geared towards actions which, if individuals take, lead to positive outcomes for both themselves and for society and the economy as a whole.
With pleasure, I think it's safe for me to put Sen firmly in the Progressive's camp.
I wouldn't recommend this book to someone not highly interested in the subject, or who doesn't have a decent college-level background in social history and economic thought. Sen frequently relies heavily on historical economic and social figures as a medium for communication, and also as a way to strengthen his own arguments.
In other words, he writes in a heavy-handed way, using all sorts of Latin, along with English words buried so deep that my poor Kindle dictionary felt ill-equipped...if a Kindle can feel anything at all. And I'm pretty sure Sen made up some words along the way. Instead of attempting to edit down a particular idea into the simplest sentence possible, Sen simple lets his elevated mind use whatever refined tools are at his disposal to spit out the most complex sets of thought all into one long Latin paragraph. In any case, this was not written for the people he is trying to save.
The book took me a very long time to read. I frequently had to take days off to relax the brain by watching a few hour's worth of 24 with my hero Jack Bauer. Many parts of Sen's book went over my head and will remain there forevermore.
I found myself agreeing with the author every step of the way, and I'm sure to think on this book for many years to come.
The freedom Sen defines is geared towards actions which, if individuals take, lead to positive outcomes for both themselves and for society and the economy as a whole.
With pleasure, I think it's safe for me to put Sen firmly in the Progressive's camp.
I wouldn't recommend this book to someone not highly interested in the subject, or who doesn't have a decent college-level background in social history and economic thought. Sen frequently relies heavily on historical economic and social figures as a medium for communication, and also as a way to strengthen his own arguments.
In other words, he writes in a heavy-handed way, using all sorts of Latin, along with English words buried so deep that my poor Kindle dictionary felt ill-equipped...if a Kindle can feel anything at all. And I'm pretty sure Sen made up some words along the way. Instead of attempting to edit down a particular idea into the simplest sentence possible, Sen simple lets his elevated mind use whatever refined tools are at his disposal to spit out the most complex sets of thought all into one long Latin paragraph. In any case, this was not written for the people he is trying to save.
The book took me a very long time to read. I frequently had to take days off to relax the brain by watching a few hour's worth of 24 with my hero Jack Bauer. Many parts of Sen's book went over my head and will remain there forevermore.
I found myself agreeing with the author every step of the way, and I'm sure to think on this book for many years to come.
December 16, 2015
I agree with those who found this book boring. It really is a boring boring book.
Esentially this is a book about political philosophy and ethics etc which I really find boring topics as I don't understand why people have to discuss ethics and morals of some subjects. For ex: Its wrong to kill innocent people. The end. I don't need to analyse the ethics of murder to know and understant its wrong. I think its called to have "Empathy".
Ironically Sen is talking a lot about people who don't have free will and freedom, and Why I read this book? Because it was obligatory for a class at my university. It was not by free will. I felt very upset about my free will being violated like this.! Lets talk about the ethics about this matter^^
Esentially this is a book about political philosophy and ethics etc which I really find boring topics as I don't understand why people have to discuss ethics and morals of some subjects. For ex: Its wrong to kill innocent people. The end. I don't need to analyse the ethics of murder to know and understant its wrong. I think its called to have "Empathy".
Ironically Sen is talking a lot about people who don't have free will and freedom, and Why I read this book? Because it was obligatory for a class at my university. It was not by free will. I felt very upset about my free will being violated like this.! Lets talk about the ethics about this matter^^
April 27, 2013
Had I known that this book was compiled based off a series of lectures that Sen did for the World Bank, I wouldn't have been so surprised by the neoliberal free market cheerleading. As it was, I was expecting a book about development focused on strategies and frameworks that have and might actually reduce "unfreedoms" in the world. See "E"s review, which explains all this much better than I could do here.
February 7, 2009
Meh. Not my cup of tea but required for my philosophy class "The Individual and Society." I will say I have a fledgling understanding of his premise that the development of society frees them from the prison of poverty.
February 1, 2019
Sen’s writing is engaging but the conspicuous absence of any meaningful discussion of class domination ultimately lets his thinking down.
April 21, 2021
مضمون کتاب را دوست دارم و خوشحالم که خواندمش، اما دو نکتهی آزاردهنده دربارهی آن وجود دارد: اول این که نویسنده خیلی دچار تکرار میشود و این گاه کتاب را خستهکننده میکند. شاید کتاب میتوانست خلاصهتر و مفیدتر عرضه شود. دوم این که ترجمهی فارسی کتاب چندان چنگی به دل نمیزند. گاه از معادلهای نامناسبی استفاده شده و گاه جملات آسانفهم نیستند.
September 4, 2013
This is a treatise on the importance of individual freedom, both as an end in itself and as the best means of economic development. It is based on a series of lectures Sen gave in 1996-7, which netted him a Nobel Prize in Economic Science. Nearly two decades later, all of his points seem obvious, but I bet they were revolutionary at the time. His writing is an odd mixture of turgid institutional-ese with occasional hilarious sarcastic asides or brilliantly lucid and forthright sentences. Here's an example of the prose you get upon opening this book: "[To base our choices on reason] we need an appropriate evaluative framework; we also need institutions that work to promote our goals and valuational commitments, and furthermore we need behavioral norms and reasoning that allow us to achieve what we try to achieve."
Sen credits the "fast economic progress" of East Asian and Southeast Asian economies to social reforms; he claims that in addition to social reforms having positive economic consequences, "lack of social development can quite severely hold up the reach of economic development." He references studies done in India which showed increased economic growth and overall life expectancy and decreased infant mortality and fertility rate after initiatives to improve female literacy and out-of-the-home employment. Additionally, contrasting states within India, or India vs China, show that providing agency and education to women is more effective at reducing fertility and infant mortality than coercive birth control methods. All of this is a delight to read--it's like being told one can have one's cake and eat it too.
Increased freedom and individual agency also prevents some disasters. Sen notes that expending less than 3% of the GNP, or 4-5% of national food consumption, will end a famine, so long as the arrangements are made "in good time." They can be prevented entirely through countervailing government expenditure, particularly in (temporary) job creation. He goes on to say that "Famines are, in fact, so easy to prevent that it is amazing that they are allowed to occur at all. The sens of distance between the ruler and the ruled--between 'us' and 'them'--is a crucial feature of famines."
By far my least favorite section was entitled "Social Choice and Individual Behavior," which consists of dismantling several strawmen (It is impossible to rationally derive social choices from individual preferences! All actions have unintended consequences, so trying to do good will lead to evil, while self-interested behavior will lead to good unintended results!) and a tangled mess of Adam Smith quotes to prove that capitalism does too have ethics. Basically, Sen claims that because capitalism requires mutual trust and norms in order to function, institutional structures and common behavioral codes are created and maintained. This in turn means "the developing countries have to pay attention not only to the virtues of prudential behavior, but also to the role of complementary values, such as the making and sustaining of trust, avoiding the temptations of pervasive corruption, and making assurance a workable substitute for punitive legal enforcement." Personally, I don't understand what makes capitalism so special in this regard--people have to trust each other and set up methods by which they can keep each other in check for *any* system to work. But Sen seems convinced.
The basic message I took away from this was that instead of measuring development through gains in output, income, or consumption, we should focus on how decisions are made within the society, and what opportunities and freedoms people have. Even if development organizations are only concerned with economic growth, they should keep in mind that if people lack rights (such as the right to education or reproductive control of one's own body) and freedom, economic growth will be stalled.
Sen credits the "fast economic progress" of East Asian and Southeast Asian economies to social reforms; he claims that in addition to social reforms having positive economic consequences, "lack of social development can quite severely hold up the reach of economic development." He references studies done in India which showed increased economic growth and overall life expectancy and decreased infant mortality and fertility rate after initiatives to improve female literacy and out-of-the-home employment. Additionally, contrasting states within India, or India vs China, show that providing agency and education to women is more effective at reducing fertility and infant mortality than coercive birth control methods. All of this is a delight to read--it's like being told one can have one's cake and eat it too.
Increased freedom and individual agency also prevents some disasters. Sen notes that expending less than 3% of the GNP, or 4-5% of national food consumption, will end a famine, so long as the arrangements are made "in good time." They can be prevented entirely through countervailing government expenditure, particularly in (temporary) job creation. He goes on to say that "Famines are, in fact, so easy to prevent that it is amazing that they are allowed to occur at all. The sens of distance between the ruler and the ruled--between 'us' and 'them'--is a crucial feature of famines."
By far my least favorite section was entitled "Social Choice and Individual Behavior," which consists of dismantling several strawmen (It is impossible to rationally derive social choices from individual preferences! All actions have unintended consequences, so trying to do good will lead to evil, while self-interested behavior will lead to good unintended results!) and a tangled mess of Adam Smith quotes to prove that capitalism does too have ethics. Basically, Sen claims that because capitalism requires mutual trust and norms in order to function, institutional structures and common behavioral codes are created and maintained. This in turn means "the developing countries have to pay attention not only to the virtues of prudential behavior, but also to the role of complementary values, such as the making and sustaining of trust, avoiding the temptations of pervasive corruption, and making assurance a workable substitute for punitive legal enforcement." Personally, I don't understand what makes capitalism so special in this regard--people have to trust each other and set up methods by which they can keep each other in check for *any* system to work. But Sen seems convinced.
The basic message I took away from this was that instead of measuring development through gains in output, income, or consumption, we should focus on how decisions are made within the society, and what opportunities and freedoms people have. Even if development organizations are only concerned with economic growth, they should keep in mind that if people lack rights (such as the right to education or reproductive control of one's own body) and freedom, economic growth will be stalled.
October 17, 2023
Readable, yet disappointing in many ways, particularly if you know anything about the field already or believe that history/context is important. I wouldn't even say it is a good development book that has not aged well. Far from pushing the envelope, Sen timidly advances the idea that development isn't just GDP like some inoffensive champion of limp liberal economics. I do think there is a worthwhile essay here, perhaps summarizing the first 4 chapters about capabilities. I liked his framing of poverty as capability deprivation and, in particular, his discussion of how targeting of social programs is, in fact, an attempt, not a result. Sadly, we still have not managed to articulate or use a holistic approach to measuring development and his freedom/capabilities approach holds promise. But after a promising start he barely advances his ideas further. Even if you felt the later chapters had value, Sen really could have used a good editor as ~20% of the book is repetition. Later, we get to hear about the "ethics of capitalism" that “richly contributed to its redoubtable achievements" and how because there are ethics where there is capitalism that capitalism is ethical? Or at least ethics are not antithetical to capitalism? I can't exactly tell what he is trying to conflate here.
Most disappointing was the chapter on "women's agency." Instead of applying the concept of the book to women or exploring his most favoured method of advancing freedoms (democratic social debate about values), he briefly gives a nod to the instrumental value of women's education, in that it leads to reduced fertility rates. No mention of how it might be of importance that 50% of the population is involved in deciding on those values and engaging in the democratic political process that he loves so dearly. He later informs us (again) that women's "empowerment," which he understands nearly exclusively as employment opportunities and education arrangements, can "give women more freedom to influence a variety of matters such as intrafamily decision of health care, food and other commodities, and work arrangements as well as fertility rates...", summing up the realms that he understands women's involvement: distribution of goods and labour in the family, and their wombs. I kept wanting to think that this was just on par for his time but this was written in 1999.
Most disappointing was the chapter on "women's agency." Instead of applying the concept of the book to women or exploring his most favoured method of advancing freedoms (democratic social debate about values), he briefly gives a nod to the instrumental value of women's education, in that it leads to reduced fertility rates. No mention of how it might be of importance that 50% of the population is involved in deciding on those values and engaging in the democratic political process that he loves so dearly. He later informs us (again) that women's "empowerment," which he understands nearly exclusively as employment opportunities and education arrangements, can "give women more freedom to influence a variety of matters such as intrafamily decision of health care, food and other commodities, and work arrangements as well as fertility rates...", summing up the realms that he understands women's involvement: distribution of goods and labour in the family, and their wombs. I kept wanting to think that this was just on par for his time but this was written in 1999.
July 28, 2008
Very dry writing which both dumbs down and yet doesn't quite explain global economic concepts. Sen has powerful theories which re-emphasize the duality of human rights laws - the need for both the end to hunger and political freedom. The interrelationships of human needs and the ability to reforge all efforts towards political and economic freedoms into an argument towards "western" development. It is a complicated and complex argument - both flawed and profound - and is deeply embedded in his relationship to both the WTO and the UN. Worth reading but definitely worth critiquing.
September 4, 2022
Very important and good content but also extremely long windedly written which makes it tough to stay focused. 3.5
September 6, 2021
Re-read (skimmed) this book which was a text from grad school just to refresh my memory. It continues to be such a solid contribution to the world of international development, even if I am a different, far more progressive person reading it now than I was ten years ago.
Sen's primary assertion, that human freedom is both a means and a goal to development, is what distinguishes and recommends this text. Complemented by one of the more compassionate readings of Adam Smith (and one with which I whole-heartedly agree since Smith's primary goal was to alleviate poverty by suggesting that the poor have equal access to markets in order to sustain themselves through commerce) and a sprinkling of Marx, Sen has the ability to win over both the hardened economist and the open-minded casual reader.
Reading this several years later I realize there is some capacity for critique. For example his idyllic lauding of the Japanese model of capitalism can be thoroughly criticized by its well-documented toxic work culture, high rates of mental illness and suicide, not to mention the extreme isolation forced by a societal pressure to work non-stop. So maybe some sections of it are dated and need close revision. But overall it's a solid read and the basic premise is still one I firmly adhere to: rights first, rights always, development as you go.
Sen's primary assertion, that human freedom is both a means and a goal to development, is what distinguishes and recommends this text. Complemented by one of the more compassionate readings of Adam Smith (and one with which I whole-heartedly agree since Smith's primary goal was to alleviate poverty by suggesting that the poor have equal access to markets in order to sustain themselves through commerce) and a sprinkling of Marx, Sen has the ability to win over both the hardened economist and the open-minded casual reader.
Reading this several years later I realize there is some capacity for critique. For example his idyllic lauding of the Japanese model of capitalism can be thoroughly criticized by its well-documented toxic work culture, high rates of mental illness and suicide, not to mention the extreme isolation forced by a societal pressure to work non-stop. So maybe some sections of it are dated and need close revision. But overall it's a solid read and the basic premise is still one I firmly adhere to: rights first, rights always, development as you go.
Read
September 15, 2018The best book on agency you will read...
February 16, 2014
In one of the last notes written by Gandhi, he said:
I will give you a Talisman. Whenever you are in doubt or when the self becomes too much with you, apply the following test: Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man whom you may have seen and ask yourself if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him. Will he gain anything by it? Will it restore him to control over his own life and destiny? In other words, will it lead to Swaraj for hungry and spiritually starving millions? Then you will find your doubts and yourself melting away.
"Development as Freedom" echoes Gandhi's idea of swaraj - or self rule. Higher income or consumption is an important component of development but it is not the end of it. Political freedom, freedom of speech, gender equality - these are things humans cherish for their own sake. A Saudi woman may have luxurious cars, take expensive vacations, own valuable jewelry but is not entitled to basic rights most of the world takes for granted like driving and leaving the house without a male relative. Would not the Saudi woman be better off if she had more rights even if it came at the cost of lower income? That is the basic thesis of Sen's book - development should be measured not only in terms of income but also in terms of capability of people to fully function and flourish as any sentient human being would like to. It is about increasing the agency of people - their capacity to think and act and choose in the manner they believe to be most meaningful.
At times, the prose and the philosophy gets quite dense and repetitive but that does not undermine the important message of the book. Sen's thought has had a profound effect on the theory and practice of development with the Human Development Index being the most visible example.
When people find out that I'm a development economist, they often ask if I've read Development as Freedom. Now I can finally answer in the affirmative!
I will give you a Talisman. Whenever you are in doubt or when the self becomes too much with you, apply the following test: Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man whom you may have seen and ask yourself if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him. Will he gain anything by it? Will it restore him to control over his own life and destiny? In other words, will it lead to Swaraj for hungry and spiritually starving millions? Then you will find your doubts and yourself melting away.
"Development as Freedom" echoes Gandhi's idea of swaraj - or self rule. Higher income or consumption is an important component of development but it is not the end of it. Political freedom, freedom of speech, gender equality - these are things humans cherish for their own sake. A Saudi woman may have luxurious cars, take expensive vacations, own valuable jewelry but is not entitled to basic rights most of the world takes for granted like driving and leaving the house without a male relative. Would not the Saudi woman be better off if she had more rights even if it came at the cost of lower income? That is the basic thesis of Sen's book - development should be measured not only in terms of income but also in terms of capability of people to fully function and flourish as any sentient human being would like to. It is about increasing the agency of people - their capacity to think and act and choose in the manner they believe to be most meaningful.
At times, the prose and the philosophy gets quite dense and repetitive but that does not undermine the important message of the book. Sen's thought has had a profound effect on the theory and practice of development with the Human Development Index being the most visible example.
When people find out that I'm a development economist, they often ask if I've read Development as Freedom. Now I can finally answer in the affirmative!
January 27, 2014
"...But the honey collectors also have to escape the tigers. In a good year, only about fifty or so honey gatherers are killed by tigers, but that number can be very much higher when things don't go so well. While the tigers are protected, nothing protects the miserable human beings who try to make a living by working in those woods, which are deep and lovely - and quite perilous...
...If poverty drives human beings to take such terrible risks - and perhaps to die terrible deaths - for a dollar or two of honey, it might well be odd to concentrate on their liberty and political freedoms...
...What should come first - removing poverty and misery, or guaranteeing political liberty and civil rights, for which poor people have little use anyway?...
...Is this a sensible way of approaching the problems of economic needs and political freedoms - in terms of a basic dichotomy that appears to undermine the relevance of political freedoms because the economic needs are so urgent? I would argue no, this is altogether the wrong way to see the force of economic needs, or to understand the salience of political freedoms. The real issues that have to be addressed lie elsewhere, and they involve taking note of extensive interconnections between political freedoms and the understanding and fulfillment of economic needs. The connections are not only instrumental (political freedoms can have a major role in providing incentives and information in the solution of acute economic needs), but also constructive. Our conceptualization of economic needs depends crucially on open public debates and discussions, the guaranteeing of which requires insistence on basic political liberty and civil rights."
I just can't quote the whole thing, can I?
...If poverty drives human beings to take such terrible risks - and perhaps to die terrible deaths - for a dollar or two of honey, it might well be odd to concentrate on their liberty and political freedoms...
...What should come first - removing poverty and misery, or guaranteeing political liberty and civil rights, for which poor people have little use anyway?...
...Is this a sensible way of approaching the problems of economic needs and political freedoms - in terms of a basic dichotomy that appears to undermine the relevance of political freedoms because the economic needs are so urgent? I would argue no, this is altogether the wrong way to see the force of economic needs, or to understand the salience of political freedoms. The real issues that have to be addressed lie elsewhere, and they involve taking note of extensive interconnections between political freedoms and the understanding and fulfillment of economic needs. The connections are not only instrumental (political freedoms can have a major role in providing incentives and information in the solution of acute economic needs), but also constructive. Our conceptualization of economic needs depends crucially on open public debates and discussions, the guaranteeing of which requires insistence on basic political liberty and civil rights."
I just can't quote the whole thing, can I?
January 27, 2014
This was the first book I bought after returning home from two years overseas in 2004. It has traveled with us until now. It's probably best that I didn't read it until recently since I have a much better appreciation of the arguments.
Sen is a Nobel prize winning economist (1998), and one of my grad school teacher's teacher's teacher. He combines economic analysis with moral philosophy. His point (I think) is that freedom is both and ends and a means of development, and we should analyze policies' effects on freedom.
He delves into the philosophical problems of development. For example, material well-being can't be the best measure of economic development because American slaves had higher incomes and life expectancy than certain people in the third world today-- yet they had no freedom. We need a measure of freedom, which requires its own understandings and definitions.
Sen compares the thinking of the Scottish Enlightenment to libertarianism to Rawlsian thinking. So, there are some deep philosophical weeds to wade through. Chapter 4 is the best, dealing with issues of statism vs. markets.
Sen bases his thinking mostly on Adam Smith, and he fleshes out many of the lesser-known aspects of Smith's writings. But he also brings Eastern thought to the table in an attempt to humble Western assumptions of moral/philosophical tolerance. He debunks the idea of "Asian values" being culpable for Chinese statism but roundly points out the progress of the Chinese economically while dealing with their restrictions on freedom.
It's not a book for the non-philosophically or economically inclined. But it was good to read at this stage in my career. I'm more interested in some of his other thinking and works on development.
2.5 stars out of 5.
Sen is a Nobel prize winning economist (1998), and one of my grad school teacher's teacher's teacher. He combines economic analysis with moral philosophy. His point (I think) is that freedom is both and ends and a means of development, and we should analyze policies' effects on freedom.
He delves into the philosophical problems of development. For example, material well-being can't be the best measure of economic development because American slaves had higher incomes and life expectancy than certain people in the third world today-- yet they had no freedom. We need a measure of freedom, which requires its own understandings and definitions.
Sen compares the thinking of the Scottish Enlightenment to libertarianism to Rawlsian thinking. So, there are some deep philosophical weeds to wade through. Chapter 4 is the best, dealing with issues of statism vs. markets.
Sen bases his thinking mostly on Adam Smith, and he fleshes out many of the lesser-known aspects of Smith's writings. But he also brings Eastern thought to the table in an attempt to humble Western assumptions of moral/philosophical tolerance. He debunks the idea of "Asian values" being culpable for Chinese statism but roundly points out the progress of the Chinese economically while dealing with their restrictions on freedom.
It's not a book for the non-philosophically or economically inclined. But it was good to read at this stage in my career. I'm more interested in some of his other thinking and works on development.
2.5 stars out of 5.
July 3, 2019
To be fair, I can't give a rating to this. I skimmed through large portions in the book - it was essentially the same thing and obvious facts dressed up. However, I am aware that these facts seem obvious now only due to the popularity of his work and were probably fresh when he first wrote them. For now, they seem outdated and limited.
Especially in the current context, much of the book kinda seems obsolete. The idea of development as freedom seems to be the promotion of western style consumption everywhere. First, the word freedom itself has been ruined for me (when used in policy and governance) by the Grand Old Party. I am not saying it's rational. Second, we need to find a new radical definition of development that looks at societal and community levels rather than an individualistic approach which is just bot suitable for our depleting resources.
In conclusion, I just don't know if the earth can afford 7 billion humans to live in developed communities if development means to live like USA. Yeah they have freedom and cities like new york. But if every human on earth is to have the lifestyle of a murican, we need 17 earths (it's an actual stat). So yeah, I am not sure how I feel about this book.
Especially in the current context, much of the book kinda seems obsolete. The idea of development as freedom seems to be the promotion of western style consumption everywhere. First, the word freedom itself has been ruined for me (when used in policy and governance) by the Grand Old Party. I am not saying it's rational. Second, we need to find a new radical definition of development that looks at societal and community levels rather than an individualistic approach which is just bot suitable for our depleting resources.
In conclusion, I just don't know if the earth can afford 7 billion humans to live in developed communities if development means to live like USA. Yeah they have freedom and cities like new york. But if every human on earth is to have the lifestyle of a murican, we need 17 earths (it's an actual stat). So yeah, I am not sure how I feel about this book.
Want to read
June 13, 2022Citado en el artículo de Pugno en Capabilities and Happiness.
Sen has proposed that we should move on from primary goods to “capabilities,” defining social justice in terms of the opportunities open to people according to their functioning. The capability approach differs from Rawls’s approach in two respects. It focuses on what goods can do for people in their particular circumstances, taking into consideration, for example, that people with disabilities may have higher travel-to-work costs than able-bodied people. It is concerned not just with the achieved out-comes, but also with the range of opportunities, which Sen regards as an essential element of personal freedom (hence the title of Sen’s book, Development as Freedom).
Inequality Pág.13-14
Sen has proposed that we should move on from primary goods to “capabilities,” defining social justice in terms of the opportunities open to people according to their functioning. The capability approach differs from Rawls’s approach in two respects. It focuses on what goods can do for people in their particular circumstances, taking into consideration, for example, that people with disabilities may have higher travel-to-work costs than able-bodied people. It is concerned not just with the achieved out-comes, but also with the range of opportunities, which Sen regards as an essential element of personal freedom (hence the title of Sen’s book, Development as Freedom).
Inequality Pág.13-14
June 13, 2021
As someone who leans right when it comes to the economy, the not-so-good review may reek of partisanship. However, this by no means implies that the idea discussed in the book didn't appeal to me.
Sen in his book explains how and why development should be seen as an enhancer of freedom at its core. He has present compelling arguments to put forward his case. Like by the end of the book, you will know, for sure, and I mean like really sure, that no famine has ever occurred in a democratic country.
Therein lies the problem I had with the book. Sen could have used a better editor. Practically the same point is beaten to death. Arguments are same. Terms change. Context change. This could very well be because I was already exposed to a lot of Sen's ideas before I finally this book which came way back in 1998.
To sum it up, I found the ideas worth discussing, but the book could have been a lot more concise.
Sen in his book explains how and why development should be seen as an enhancer of freedom at its core. He has present compelling arguments to put forward his case. Like by the end of the book, you will know, for sure, and I mean like really sure, that no famine has ever occurred in a democratic country.
Therein lies the problem I had with the book. Sen could have used a better editor. Practically the same point is beaten to death. Arguments are same. Terms change. Context change. This could very well be because I was already exposed to a lot of Sen's ideas before I finally this book which came way back in 1998.
To sum it up, I found the ideas worth discussing, but the book could have been a lot more concise.
June 6, 2015
Though this book was incredibly dry, it did challenge my thinking a bit. It made me think more about the big picture; for example thinking about the causal factors of famines, rather than a famine simply being a lack of food. He even points out the famines can occur during times of increased food production.
He also challenges some conventional wisdoms (or, at least, commonly held beliefs) such as people who are poor don't care about democracy, Adam Smith was an advocate of a market system which took into account humanitarian values, and human development can occur before economic development.
Overall, it was a good book, with some interesting points, but it could have used some more concrete examples for the less, um, academically-inclined reader.
He also challenges some conventional wisdoms (or, at least, commonly held beliefs) such as people who are poor don't care about democracy, Adam Smith was an advocate of a market system which took into account humanitarian values, and human development can occur before economic development.
Overall, it was a good book, with some interesting points, but it could have used some more concrete examples for the less, um, academically-inclined reader.
Read
January 29, 2018I don't know what to make of this. On the one hand, Sen's notion of increasing capabilities and the removing of "unfreedoms" strikes me as a very noble idea. On the other hand, Sen's approach is quite often absolutely fucked in practice (hey there, microcredit!).
Look, I guarantee that Amartya Sen is a profoundly compassionate person who really does care about bringing the world's poor up, but like many of his fellow travelers in the Clinton-ish and Gates Foundation-esque world of nice people trying to do nice things, there is no questioning of the neoliberal program, notions of economic and civil liberties are conflated, you get the idea. And as for his sociocultural observations... most of them were things I either learned or arrived at myself years ago.
Look, I guarantee that Amartya Sen is a profoundly compassionate person who really does care about bringing the world's poor up, but like many of his fellow travelers in the Clinton-ish and Gates Foundation-esque world of nice people trying to do nice things, there is no questioning of the neoliberal program, notions of economic and civil liberties are conflated, you get the idea. And as for his sociocultural observations... most of them were things I either learned or arrived at myself years ago.
June 28, 2018
Sen is truly one of the greatest development scholars of our time. Although the book does not give straightforward answers to development problems and sometimes I felt it could be inapplicable in complex settings, it lays out a different understanding of "development" which is important to consider whenever solutions are being created. The holistic perception of underdevelopment-as not being merely about poverty- has really helped me think critically about mainstream solutions to development problems and think of more effective alternatives.
March 24, 2019
Interessante teoria da justiça de Sen considerando o contexto de países subdesenvolvidos. As liberdades substantivas apresentadas pelo autor apontam para a necessidade de aspectos mínimos de uma democracia para que haja um efetivo desenvolvimento. Faria bem aos liberais à brasileira considerar alguns argumentos do autor.
July 26, 2019
Heinously dry and redundant. And I like dry, usually.
For added (or any) fun, take a shot every time you read the phrase "vis-à-vis"
For added (or any) fun, take a shot every time you read the phrase "vis-à-vis"
Displaying 1 - 30 of 313 reviews