Collective capabilities, culture, and Amartya Sen’sDevelopment as Freedom
- 2.5k Downloads
Sen showed his usual wisdom and astute judgement in keeping his argument carefully focused and, therefore, elegant and compelling. Nonetheless, the understanding and pursuit of “development as freedom” must go beyond the arguments he lays out. As the global political economy moves with ever greater determination toward the implantation of more thoroughly marketized economic relations, analysts must correspondingly focus more closely on how to prevent market-based power inequalities from undermining “development as freedom.” Centralization of power over the cultural flows that shape preferences is a more subtle form of “unfreedom” than those which Sen highlights, but no less powerful for being subtle. Institutional strategies for facilitating collective capabilities are as important to the expansion of freedom as sustaining formal electoral institutions. Indeed, without possibilities for collective mobilization formal elections too easily become a hollow farce. Sen’s capability approach provides an invaluable analytical and philosophical foundation for those interested in pursuing development as freedom, but it is a foundation that must be built on, not just admired.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Arrow, Kenneth, 1951.Social Choice and Individual Values. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- —. 1963.Social Choice and Individual Values, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Heller, Patrick. 1999.The Labor of Development: Workers and the Transformation of Capitalism in Kerala, India. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
- Pollock, Robert L. 1998. “The Wrong Economist Won.”Wall Street Journal, 15 October (Editorial).Google Scholar
- Sen, Amartya. 1995. “Rationality and Social Choice.”American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings 85: 1–24. [Presidential Address].Google Scholar
- —. 1999.Development as Freedom New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
- Srinivasan, T. N. 1994. “Human Development: A New Paradigm or Reinvention of the Wheel.”American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings 84: 238–243.Google Scholar