Poverty and Philosophy

What struck me most about Amartya Sen’s analysis on the workings of poverty and its subsequent relationship with freedom, is that he looks beyond the role of wealth and income as indicators of status and prosperity in developing countries. While no one can deny that these two areas of study are no doubt important, Sen strives to analyze the driving factors behind why people are poor and why there is inequality. His ultimate thesis, that people’s capabilities and their relative economic, political and social freedom are what truly drive poverty, was both a refreshing and substantive statement. Too many times the compelling reasons of why a problem is occurring in a country are overlooked and ignored in favor for a swift and immediate solution. It is interesting to note that Sen’s analysis seems one of the first examples (at least that I have read) proposing that the solution to a problem of poverty starts at the source. We cannot simply expect poverty to disappear based on wealth alone, and this distinction is an important factor that defines Sen’s work. He states this best when he writes, “Economic growth cannot be sensibly treated as a end in itself. Development has to be more concerned with enhancing the lives we lead and the freedoms we enjoy”(14).

Sen’s discussion of developmental problems represents one analysis of poverty interpreted through the lens of economics, and bolstered with distinctive moral and philosophical tones. For example, I thought that his inclusion of the many aspects of utilitarianism and liberalism strengthened his argument and provided and more analytical look into the personal side of poverty. The two different types of outlooks gave balance to his piece and also further added conflict to the idea of the “informational bases”. After reading this, I was struck by how much of the information we acquire about economics and poverty is very much generalized yet limited. There is so much information out there about what contributes and leads to poverty; however, from where is all this information originate, and on what facts are these conclusions being drawn? I thought this idea, as well as Sen’s notion as “poverty as capability depravation” could particularly be applied to the current state of Haiti after the recent earthquakes. The ideas proposed within the book can be clearly exemplified in light of the recent devastation, and the widespread poverty, lack of inequality and “unfreedom” within the country have all contributed to the break down of the state after the disaster. When applying Sen’s ideas to the situation in Haiti, the interplay of low income, political instability, and civil rights all prove to strengthen his idea that freedom truly is the building block of a fashioning a productive and more stable society. While there is no way that the author could have included the recent disaster in his writing, my one critique concerns that no overreaching example of his theory applied to a specific country. While many smaller examples were given, perhaps about a certain aspect he strove to emphasize, no one study was cited to act as the book’s empirical basis, which would have been useful when emphasizing a thought.