SEN, DEVELOPMENT AS FREEDOM – RESPONSE PAPER – KARTHIK TAYUR

Sen's book is about an argument requiring the definition of development as: "Development is
the process of expanding real freedoms that people enjoy." His definition of freedom is
conceptually, capacity to influence the world1 - the greater the capacity of individuals to
influence the world, greater their freedom. The basic challenge of Sen's work seems to 5
reconcile the conflict between development, an aggregate (usually national) metric, with
aggregate objectives, and freedom an individual evaluation of agency, subjective to each and
every individual. Sen seeks to interlink both, and argues one is inconceivable with the other,
while arguing for synergistic resonance between distinct freedoms2.
First, development is a continuous, continuing process coextensive with human advancement. 10
Second, development for actualization (effectiveness) depends on fredom, alongside the
evaluation of such actualization (evaluation). Third, development normatively requires "an
integrated process of expansion of substantive freedoms with each other" – Sen argues for
inclusive appraisal of all factors, political, economic and social. He argues for two facets to
freedom: process (civil and political rights), outcomes (socio-economic rights), chastizing 15
both consequentialists and libertarians for excluding mutually the other factor. Sen suggests
"functional democracy", with a combination of both, is conducive to such realization,
discussing the example of Singapore ("Lee thesis"), with the example of famines and
authoritarianism (public feedback problem).
First, The notion of development being a continuous, continuing process raises the challenge 20
of agency and individual indepedendence. What if people do not want to progress/develop?
What if people are opposed to the socio-economic changes economic development produces?
Sen's framing of this problem is unsatisfactory, using the conflict with tradition:
"1) the basic value that the people must be allowed to decide freely what traditions they wish
or not wish to follow; and 25
2) the insistence that established traditions be followed (no matter what), or, alternatively,
people must obey the decisions by religious or secular authorities who enforce traditions-real
or imagined."
This framing misses the important question – what of conflicts between 'peoples'? The
problem is never conflict 'within people', a simple matter of limiting violent norm 30
enforcement by private persons. A "functional democracy", "integrated approaches" etc
simply can't resolve the conflict between different peoples – with Sen having specified
1
Specifically: "It should be clear from the preceding discussion that the view of freedom that is being taken
here involves both the processes that allow freedom of actions and decisions, and the actual opportunities
that people have, given their personal and social circumstances. Unfreedom can arise either through
inadequate processes (such as the violation of voting privileges or other political or civil rights) or through
inadequate opportunities that some people have for achieving what they minimally would like to achieve
(including the absence of such elementary opportunities as the capability to escape premature mor tality or
preventable morbidity or involuntary starvation)." p. 17
2
"Five distinct types of freedom, seen in an "instrumental" perspective, are particularly investigated in the
empirical studies that follow. These include (I} political freedoms, (2) economic facilities, ( 3) social
opportunities, (4) transparency guarantees and {5) protective security. Each of these distinct types of rights
and opportunities helps to advance the general capability of a person. They may also serve to complement
each other. Public policy to foster human capabilities and substantive freedoms in general can work through
the promotion of these distinct but interrelated instrumental freedoms." p. 10

16 November 2020 Page 1 of 2

development without any limits, without conflicts, internal inconsistencies there is no method
for reconciling conflicts, except for legislative determination. Perhaps, the legislative
determination being deliberative – civil society participation, exchaustive discussion of
alternatives, consensus measures etc – the process aspect of freedom Sen emphasizes? The
second effectiveness-evaluation criteria precludes deliberation as we shall see. 5
If freedom is an open set of capacities, how may individuals prioritize which capacity
(effectiveness aspect), and how may they within such prioritization, evaluate development
therein. Sen's book emphasizes empirical research, while alongside Martha Nussbaum, he has
also specified priority of capacities (the book mentions five instrumental
capacities/freedoms). Since agency is paramount, Sen cannot dictate his preferences, and 10
neither can any single individual. Not even what is the set of capacities that are minimal, nor
the quantitative thresholds when such capacities may be met. A first principle of deliberation
is to limit the range of available issues – Anyone who promises everything, may be relied on
to deliver nothing. Both effectiveness – which freedom to realize, and how to evaluate such
realization are contested – multiply this constestation for each and every right, further each 15
and every specific entitlement within such right.
The result therefore is that, on paper, Sen may talk about consensual development, while in
practice what we see is coerced expropriation. A conclusion anti-thetical to Sen's own stated
aspirations. The third element of conflict between outcomes (socio-economic) and process
(civil-political) encapsulates this problem in practical terms. For an illustration, the aspiration 20
of tribal regions to preserve their tribal character with the individual aspiration of monetizing
land resources – who is represented as the voice of tribals is a an extremely contentious issue
across the world. In India, the conflict includes active suppression of speech, both of tribal
leaderships, and individuals, depending on particular circumstances – the configurations of
problems which arise are simply absent in Sen's neat abstract formulation. 25
There is equally the problem that both problems – specifying priorities of freedoms and their
inter-relationships – what freedom to render effective and evaluating the extent of
effectiveness of such freedom are both heavily elite-centred. If the original economic
configuration produces inequalities – such initial inequality, compounded by governmental
investigation furnishes fertile ground for active suppression of deliberation. As empirical data 30
is resource intensive, compared to deontological claims, the vulnerability of Sen's
deliberative, integrated approach appears fatal.
Sen's vision of development is to ensure "real and sustainable agency 3" runs the risk of being
an uncontrollable, closed loop of central planning. His example of Kader Mia's death pushes
us to think of circular dependencies between comprehensive government dictation, the fear of 35
which (Hindu Rule) was the nucleus of the partition violence ending in his death. An open
ended, unceasing closed, circular loop of governmental dictation of priorities, all
incomprehensible to the ordinary citizen is the risk of Sen's development as freedom.
Whatever it may be, those who coordinate this process of development have nothing to lose.

3
"I am using the term "agent" not in this sense, but in its older-and "grander"-sense as someone who acts and
brings about change, and whose achievements can be judged in terms of her own values and objectives,
whether or not we assess them in terms of some external criteria as well. This work is particularly concerned
with the agency role of the individual as a member of the public and as a participant in economic, social and
political actions (varying from taking part in the market to being involved, directly or indirectly, in
individual or joint activities in political and other spheres)." p. 19

16 November 2020 Page 2 of 2