What is Development?
The process of expanding the freedoms that people enjoy. Examples of this can include: facilities for education, health care, political/civil rights, or even the liberty to participate in public discussion and scrutiny. Even industrialization, technical progress, or social modernization can be characterized as expanding human freedom, thus development. With development also comes the requirement of removing the sources of unfreedoms, which can be characterized as tyranny, poor economic opportunities, etc.
Is this an expansive or narrower view of development?
I think that this reading is definitely an expansive view of development. A narrow view of development would be simply stating, that in order to develop, all we need would be to pump money into impoverished countries. However, Amartya Sen says that development is much more than that, it is expansion of freedoms. An example of how money is not the only solution is the example he gives of Gabon, South Africa, Namibia, and Brazil. He explains that in terms of per capita GNP, these countries are much richer than the citizens of Sri Lanka or China. However, these quote unquote richer nations in GNP have lower life expectancies that Sri Lanka/China/Kerala. I think he uses this GNP comparison to show that, just because a nation is thriving because of its exports/imports does not mean that their citizens are well-developed with high-life expectancies. Amartya Sen touches on every aspect of development possible: economic markets, health care, public education, etc.
What are some of the sources of unfreedoms that development requires being removed?
As stated by Amartya Sen, he states that development requires the removal of major sources of unfreedom which includes: poverty, tyranny, poor economic opportunities, systematic social deprivation, neglect of public facilities as well as intolerance or overactivity of repressive states. He says that lack of some substantiative freedoms relates directly to the lack of freedom to satisfy other means, such as hunger or to obtain remedies for illness. The sad story of Kader Mia being stabbed because of him going to work was an example of one of the unfreedoms he was trying to escape: poverty. He needed to provide for his family with the job, but it ended up costing him his life.
Why is free and sustainable agency a major engine of development?
Amartya Sen states that this freedom-centered understanding of economics paired with the process of development is an agent-oriented view. He explains that adequate social opportunities can help individuals shape their destiny and better those around them. Not only is free agency itself a “constitutive” part of development, but it also contributes to strengthening of free agencies of other kinds. I think that Amartya Sen is trying to explain that free agency is like a wheel, “what goes around comes around”. The relation between individual freedoms and the achievement of social development as a whole goes beyond the constitutive connection. Institutional arrangements such as good health, basic education, political liberties, etc. are also influenced by people exercising these freedoms.
What was the story of Kader Mia? What was the penalty of his economic unfreedom?
Kader Mia is the story of a man who had been stabbed and bled profusely in front of Amartya Sen’s yard. He was a Muslim daily laborer who had come for work during the period of portioning of India and Pakistan. On his way from leaving work after receiving his compensation, he was knifed by communal thugs in a largely Hindu area. As he was rushed to the hospital, Mia exclaimed that his wife told him not to go to the hostile area for work, but he had to in order to feed his family. The penalty of his economic unfreedom turned out to be death, where he died at the hospital due to fatal stabbing wounds. His hand was forced to go into the hostile area in order to provide for his family.
Who were Condorcet and Malthus? What were their primary arguments regarding development and fertility?
Condorcet was a French rationalist who expected that fertility rates would come down with “the progress of reason”. He said that with greater security, more education, and more freedom of reflected decisions would hinder population growth. Malthus, however argued “there is no reason whatever to suppose that anything beside the difficulty of procuring in adequate plenty the necessaries of life should either indispose this greater number of persons to marry early or disable them from rearing in health the largest families.” This controversy is an example of the debate between pro-freedom and antifreedom approaches to development.