A Critique on Amartya Sen’s Development: Which Way Now?

I. Introduction
Development economics has no central role in the conquest of underdeveloped and economic backwardness. This is the very notion that prompted author Amartya Sen, with the aid of Hirsch, to prove this as null in major points.

II. Contents
Development Economics and the LDCs
Development economics has two major ideas, namely (1) rural development, which speaks of the utilization of underemployed manpower and capital accumulation and (2) late industrialization, which calls for an activist state and planning. In the same vein, development economics then has four specific strategic themes: (1) industrialization, (2) rapid capital accumulation, (3) mobilization of underemployed manpower, and (4) planning and economically active state.

These themes, however, are connected to popular criticisms of neoclassical economics “rejecting monoeconomics” (sic) in relation to its application in developing countries (LCDs). Among others is the criticism against state activism and planning saying that enterprise, not capital, is the holdup point to capital accumulation and surplus creation. Another will be against industrialization contending that misallocation of resources brought about by the resurgences of industrial expansion provides exploitative relations with core countries and causes internal effects in economic inequality and social distortion.

In the process, Hirsch, Sen’s anchor, says that he does not endorse such criticism against the policy strategies of traditional development economics, instead he provides that these are arguments worth looking into in order for it to be used in LDCs. However, Hirsch contends that probably development economics for LDCs is too “contemptuous”—that LDCs’ interests precede passions. Then again, this time by Sen, contemptuous and simplistic of development economics cause non-rejection to its origins as a means to address common LDC problems.

Traditional development economics has not been particularly unsuccessful in identifying the factors that lead to economic growth in developing countries (Sen).

Growth and Development in Recent Experiences
Economic growth is not the same with economic development. They are not absolutely proportional as what traditional development economics tries to contend. In fact, growth depends in the “appropriateness” of the strategic themes in light of recent experiences.

In The World Development Report 1982, the growth performances between low-income and middle-income economies vary in a great deal. In the said growth data, Sen compares the two economies in the vein of the four strategic theses of traditional development economics. Traditionally, growth performance is in GNP per capita. In terms of capital accumulation and industrialization, cases of successes and failures of both low-income and middle-income economies are correlated in light of the traditional wisdom of development economics. In underemployment and role of labor mobilization, disguised unemployment is apparent. Planning and state activism concerns the systematic involvement of the state in the economic sphere, and the pursuit of planned economic development.

In the examination of the main theses of traditional development economics, the climate of opinion and the overall factual situation prevailing at the time should be considered.

The point of policy interest is that the performances of different countries are highly divergent. The broad strategic themes of traditional development economics are still relevant. The strategies need to be adaptive to the current conditions and the intermestic (international and domestic) circumstances.

Hence, in the field of causation of growth, there is much life left in traditional analysis (Sen).

Growth as an End
The real limits of traditional development economics are from the insufficient recognition that economic growth is no more than a means to some other objectives. Then what really is growth? Certainly, it is an end but not the means.
Traditional development economics has been less successful in characterizing economic development, which involves expansion of people’s capabilities.

Economic growth, in Sen’s classical samples like China and Sri Lanka, proves to be an achievement when the LDC governments choose the road less traveled: A detour. Remote alternative indicators should be priorities rather than direct public policies and social changes toward economic growth.

Entitlements and Complexities
A major failing of traditional development economics has been its tendency to concentrate on macroeconomic indicators rather than on “entitlements” of people and the “capabilities” these entitlements generate.

Entitlement refers to the set of alternative commodity bundles that a person command in society to the society using the totality of rights and opportunities that he or she faces (Sen). In simple terms, economic development relies on what people can or cannot do, which in turn links directly with their entitlements rather than overall supplies and outputs in the economy.

Because of close links between entitlements and capabilities, focusing on entitlements provides a helpful format for characterizing economic development. Income distributional information is quite inadequate to meet the challenge of developmental analysis (Sen).

Basically, entitlements operate through ownership and exchange of the market processes. In socialist economies, it operates in the “replacing the domination of circumstances and chance over individuals by the domination of individuals over chance and circumstances” (Marx). In non-socialist types, it all depends on social security.

The shift from concentrating on growth to supplementing that with an account of alternative and relative macroeconomic indicators is basically a scarce response to the political complexity of entitlement relations. This is apparent in lieu differences of the types of government. Political complexities should address the remote needs of the people.

A study on entitlements has to go beyond purely economic factors and take into account political arrangements that affect people’s actual ability to command commodities, including food. These influences may be very complex and may also involve apparently perplexing contrasts. Whether the disparate advantages of the contrasting systems can be effectively combined is a challenging issue of political economy that requires concentration (Sen).

III. Conclusions/Comments
There are significant differences between economic growth and economic development. "Economic growth" refers to the increase (or growth) of a specific measure in macroeconomics such as real national income, gross domestic product, or per capita income. When the GDP of a nation rises, economists refer to it as economic growth.

Economic development, on the other hand, implies much more. It typically refers to improvements in a variety of microeconomic alternative indicators such as literacy rates, life expectancy, and poverty rates. GDP is a specific measure of economic welfare that does not take into account important aspects such as leisure time, environmental quality, freedom, or social justice. Economic growth of any specific measure is not a sufficient definition of economic development.

In its broadest sense, traditional development economics should encompass three major areas:
1. Rural underemployment and
2. Late industrialization

Traditional development economics gives emphasis on economic entitlement—what people can or cannot do. Insofar as the process of economic development increases the income and wealth of a country, they are reflected in corresponding enhancement of economic entitlements of the population. It should be obvious that in the relation between national income and wealth, on the one hand, and the economic entitlements of individuals (or families), on the other, distributional considerations should be taken into account, in addition to aggressive ones. How the additional incomes generated are distributed will clearly make a difference or else, developing countries might end up like metropolitan countries that manifest misallocations of resources.