Development as Freedom (2 page)

Expansion of freedom is viewed, in this approach, both as the primary end and as the principal means of development. Development consists of the removal of various types of unfreedoms that leave people with little choice and little opportunity of exercising their reasoned agency. The removal of substantial unfreedoms, it is argued here, is
constitutive
of development. However, for a fuller understanding of the connection between development and freedom we have to go beyond that basic recognition (crucial as it is). The intrinsic importance of human freedom, in general, as the preeminent objective of development is strongly supplemented by the instrumental effectiveness of freedoms of particular kinds to promote freedoms of other kinds. The linkages between different types of freedoms are empirical and causal, rather than constitutive and compositional. For example, there is strong evidence that economic and political freedoms help to reinforce one another, rather than being hostile to one another (as they are sometimes taken to be). Similarly, social opportunities of education and health care, which may require public action, complement individual opportunities of economic and political participation and also help to foster our own initiatives in overcoming our respective deprivations. If the point of departure of the approach lies in the identification of freedom as the main object of development, the reach of the policy analysis lies in establishing the empirical linkages that make the viewpoint of freedom coherent and cogent as the guiding perspective of the process of development.

This work outlines the need for an integrated analysis of economic, social and political activities, involving a variety of institutions and many interactive agencies. It concentrates particularly on the roles and interconnections between certain crucial instrumental freedoms, including
economic opportunities, political freedoms, social facilities, transparency guarantees
, and
protective security
. Societal arrangements, involving many institutions (the state, the market, the legal system, political parties, the media, public interest groups and public discussion forums, among others) are investigated in terms of their contribution to enhancing and guaranteeing the substantive freedoms of individuals, seen as active agents of change, rather than as passive recipients of dispensed benefits.

The book is based on five lectures I gave as a Presidential Fellow at the World Bank during the fall of 1996. There was also one follow-up lecture in November 1997 dealing with the overall approach and its implications. I appreciated the opportunity and the challenge involved in this task, and I was particularly happy that this happened at the invitation of President James Wolfensohn, whose vision, skill and humanity I much admire. I was privileged to work closely with him earlier as a Trustee of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, and more recently, I have also watched with great interest the constructive impact of Wolfensohn’s leadership on the Bank.

The World Bank has not invariably been my favorite organization. The power to do good goes almost always with the possibility to do the opposite, and as a professional economist, I have had occasions in the past to wonder whether the Bank could not have done very much better. These reservations and criticisms are in print, so I need not make a “confession” of harboring skeptical thoughts. All this made it particularly welcome to have the opportunity to present at the Bank my own views on development and on the making of public policy.

This book, however, is not intended primarily for people working at or for the Bank, or other international organizations. Nor is it just for policy makers and planners of national governments. Rather, it is a general work on development and the practical reasons underlying it, aimed particularly at public discussion. I have rearranged the six lectures into twelve chapters, both for clarity and to make the written version more accessible to nonspecialist readers. Indeed, I have tried to make the discussion as nontechnical as possible, and have referred to the more formal literature—for those inclined in that direction—only in endnotes. I have also commented on recent economic experiences that occurred after my lectures were given (in 1996), such as the Asian economic crisis (which confirmed some of the worst fears I had expressed in those lectures).

In line with the importance I attach to the role of public discussion as a vehicle of social change and economic progress (as the text will make clear), this work is presented mainly for open deliberation and critical scrutiny. I have, throughout my life, avoided giving advice to the “authorities.” Indeed, I have never counseled any government, preferring to place my suggestions and critiques—for what they are worth—in the public domain. Since I have been fortunate in living in three democracies with largely unimpeded media (India, Britain, and the United States), I have not had reason to complain about any lack of opportunity of public presentation. If my arguments arouse any interest, and lead to more public discussion of these vital issues, I would have reason to feel well rewarded.

In doing the research on which this book draws, I had support from John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, in a joint project with Angus Deaton. That investigation followed some work I had done earlier for the Helsinki-based World Institute of Development Economics Research, directed then by Lal Jayawardena. It also links closely with my advisory role for the
Human Development Reports
of the United Nations Development Programme, under the remarkable stewardship of Mahbub ul Haq of Pakistan (a close friend from my undergraduate days whose sudden death in 1998 is a blow from which I have not yet fully recovered). Harvard University, where I taught until early 1998, has been marvelously supportive of my research work for many years. I have also drawn on logistic support respectively from the Harvard Institute of International Development, the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, and the Centre for History and Economics at King’s College, Cambridge University.

I have been very fortunate in having wonderful collaborators. I have had the great opportunity of working for many years with Jean Drèze and of publishing several books jointly with him, which have influenced the present work (collaboration with Jean has the agreeable feature that he does most of the work while making sure that you get most of the credit). It was also wonderful for me to have the chance to do joint work with Sudhir Anand, on subjects closely related to this book. I have also had very fruitful working relations with Angus Deaton, Meghnad Desai, James Foster and Siddiq Osmani. My collaboration with Martha Nussbaum during 1987–89 was of great importance in investigating the concepts of capability and quality of life, used extensively in this book.

In helping with
Human Development Reports
, I have fruitfully interacted with, in addition to Mahbub ul Haq, Sakiko Fukuda-Parr, Selim Jahan, Meghnad Desai and Paul Streeten, and later on with Richard Jolly, who succeeded Mahbub. Other collaborators, advisors and critics on whose help I have relied include Tony Atkinson (on whose ideas I have often drawn), and also Kaushik Basu, Alok Bhargava, David Bloom, Anne Case, Lincoln Chen, Martha Chen, Stanley Fischer, Caren Grown, S. Guhan, Stephan Klasen, A. K. Shiva Kumar, Robert Nozick, Christina Paxson, Ben Polak, Jeffrey Sachs, Tim (Thomas) Scanlon, Joe Stiglitz, Kotaro Suzumura and Jong-il You. I have received helpful comments on the basic ideas and on various versions of the manuscript from Sudhir Anand, Amiya Bagchi, Pranab Bardhan, Ashim Dasgupta, Angus Deaton, Peter Dimock, Jean Drèze, James Foster, Siddiq Osmani, Ingrid Robeyns and Adele Simmons.

I have also benefited from very efficient research assistance from Arun Abraham over a long period, and also from Ingrid Robeyns and Tanni Mukhopadhyay, more recently. Anna Marie Svedrofsky has played a most helpful coordinating role with the logistic arrangements.

As mentioned in the Preface, these lectures were given at the invitation of James Wolfensohn, President of the World Bank, and I have greatly benefited from many discussions with him. The lectures at the Bank were chaired respectively by James Wolfensohn, Caio Kochweser, Ismail Serageldin, Callisto Madavo and Sven Sandstrom, and they each made significant observations on the problems I tried to address. I was, furthermore, very stimulated by the questions that were asked and the remarks that were made in the discussions following my lectures. I also benefited from the opportunity to interact with the staff of the Bank, arranged with impeccable efficiency by Tariq Hussain, who was generally in charge of those lectures.

Finally, my wife, Emma Rothschild, has had to read different versions of disparate arguments at various times, and her advice has always been extremely valuable. Her own work on Adam Smith has been a good source of ideas, since this book draws a great deal on Smith’s analyses. I had a close relationship with Adam Smith even before I knew Emma (as those familiar with my earlier writings will know). Under her influence, the plot has thickened. This has been important for the work.

DEVELOPMENT AS FREEDOM

Development can be seen, it is argued here, as a process of expanding the real freedoms that people enjoy. Focusing on human freedoms contrasts with narrower views of development, such as identifying development with the growth of gross national product, or with the rise in personal incomes, or with industrialization, or with technological advance, or with social modernization. Growth of GNP or of individual incomes can, of course, be very important as
means
to expanding the freedoms enjoyed by the members of the society. But freedoms depend also on other determinants, such as social and economic arrangements (for example, facilities for education and health care) as well as political and civil rights (for example, the liberty to participate in public discussion and scrutiny). Similarly, industrialization or technological progress or social modernization can substantially contribute to expanding human freedom, but freedom depends on other influences as well. If freedom is what development advances, then there is a major argument for concentrating on that overarching objective, rather than on some particular means, or some specially chosen list of instruments. Viewing development in terms of expanding substantive freedoms directs attention to the ends that make development important, rather than merely to some of the means that, inter alia, play a prominent part in the process.

Development requires the removal of major sources of unfreedom: poverty as well as tyranny, poor economic opportunities as well as systematic social deprivation, neglect of public facilities as well as intolerance or overactivity of repressive states. Despite unprecedented increases in overall opulence, the contemporary world denies
elementary freedoms to vast numbers—perhaps even the majority—of people. Sometimes the lack of substantive freedoms relates directly to economic poverty, which robs people of the freedom to satisfy hunger, or to achieve sufficient nutrition, or to obtain remedies for treatable illnesses, or the opportunity to be adequately clothed or sheltered, or to enjoy clean water or sanitary facilities. In other cases, the unfreedom links closely to the lack of public facilities and social care, such as the absence of epidemiological programs, or of organized arrangements for health care or educational facilities, or of effective institutions for the maintenance of local peace and order. In still other cases, the violation of freedom results directly from a denial of political and civil liberties by authoritarian regimes and from imposed restrictions on the freedom to participate in the social, political and economic life of the community.

EFFECTIVENESS AND INTERCONNECTIONS

Freedom is central to the process of development for two distinct reasons.