From the beginning of the industrial revolution, development has been seen as the accumulation of capital. Several economists have tried to expand it, considering this definition to be simplistic and harsh. Until the sixties, the "human factor" was included in the concept of productive capital, disrupting the concepts that were previously established. Precisely in his book, Development as Freedom", Amartya Sen (Nobel Prize winner in Economics in 1998) has continued this line of thought. According to the author, "our world is characterized by an incredibly high level of deprivation and all kinds of misery and oppression. Overcoming these disadvantages is a central spot for development. "
Indeed, Sen argues in his introduction that "development can be seen - it is the thesis of this book - as a process of expanding the real freedoms that people enjoy." In this way, Sen rejects the notion of development as "growth of gross national product, income growth, industrialization, technological and social modernization." Economic growth is certainly not the only factor to take into account. We must therefore look ahead.
With this new approach, the Indian economist and philosopher was able to develop the concept of the HDI (Human Development Index), the UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) and this was recognized instantly. Commonly used today, Sen's work has a value beyond doubt. But what exactly are the main contributions of Amartya Sen in the concept of development? What changes are implemented in the process of development? After studying the possible criticism of this approach, it is precisely to answer these questions we analyze the main pillars of the new theory by Amartya Sen.
[...] Amartya Sen said that: "developing and ensuring the vitality of a democratic system is an essential part of the development process", and he is not interested in giving guides, parameters for governments to follow. If it is understandable to develop a magic formula for development, some lineaments would certainly be useful. A few things to reconsider Throughout his analysis, Sen appears not to give sufficient weight to the influence of society on the individual. Although Sen's development theory gives a certain social impregnation, the author considers the ability of individuals to deny this influence and therefore be free to choose the social class of their preference. [...]
[...] In addition, Amartya Sen says that this doctrine, a total disregard of the rights, freedoms and other issues that are not related to the utility and that demonstrates a clear flaw in reasoning”. Finally, the author argues that the concept of "welfare" is too variable since it is conditioned by the environment where each individual lives. Moreover, libertarianism could easily be defined as the antithesis of utilitarianism. Advocating rights and freedoms, this is a real galaxy of freedom, being on the welfare side. [...]
[...] Due to gaps in its reasoning, such as lack ofdetermination and delimitation of capacity or lack of consideration of human malevolence, it is obvious that Amartya Sen's theory could be expanded. A new economic model: Development, Justice and Freedom.Amartya Sen on page 55. A new economic model: Development, Justice and Freedom.Amartya Sen on page 56. A new economic model: Development, Justice and Freedom.Amartya Sen on page 15. A new economic model: Development, Justice and Freedom.Amartya Sen on page 16. Doctrine that focuses on analyzing just freedoms, without examining whether individuals can use them.The well-being remains in a second plane with respect to the freedoms and laws. [...]
[...] The freedom and justice Considering information as a fundamental element in the conception of justice, Sen refers to the three main theories of ethics and social justice, that is to say, "utilitarianism, the doctrine and theory of libertarian libertarianism and the theory of justice of John Rawls'” . First, we find that the utilitarian doctrine is used as the basis of information of the total utility. However, Sen criticizes this concept, saying that by adding value of each person, utilitarianism is not concerned with the distribution of this total utility." The classical utilitarian formula considers any election by the sum of utilities it generates. [...]
[...] "Most of the approaches lead to criticism: not because they are unaware of the inequality, but because of the border in a very narrow field: that of inequality by income" .The authors mention the limitation in the field of vision, and the deprivation of the economic perspective. In this way, they ignore the hardships that may occur in the field of education, health, social integration, etc. Sen distinguishes between six different "spaces" that triggers inequalities, namely: the space of libertarian rights, property, income, wealth, welfare and capacity. [...]
Online readingwith our online reader
Content validatedby our reading committee