McKenzie Wark on Wed, 9 May 2001 13:46:55 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> Amartya Sen: Development as Freedom |
[Good profile of one of the more nuanced thinkers on economic development and globalisation.-- Ken Wark] Amartya Sen: Development as Freedom Jonathan Steele Amartya Sen is an economist of ambition: to end world poverty, for starters. On the eve of his Australian tour, the Nobel prize winner talks to Jonathan Steele about freedom, globalisation and everything. Amartya Sen went to a school in Bengal which promoted curiosity rather than exam results, and he has never forgotten how one of his teachers summed up a classmate: "She is quite a serious thinker even though her grades are very good." In Sen's own case, the epigram needs rephrasing. Even though he is high up in the world league of serious thinkers a Nobel laureate in economics who might also have won the prize for philosophy if the committee recognised the subject he has achieved something. Sen is a rare example of an intellectual who has had a major effect on politics. His work on the causes of famine changed public perceptions by showing why thousands might starve even when a country's food production has not diminished, and his analysis of poverty has been enormously influential. Arguing that simple measures of GNP were not enough to assess the standard of living, he helped to create the United Nations' Human Development Index, which has become the most authoritative source of welfare comparisons between countries. As Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, Sen is also deeply immersed in the debate over globalisation, which he will be discussing at the upcoming Federation Festival in Melbourne. He has given lectures to senior executives of the World Bank but has also shown his commitment to reform from below by becoming honorary president of Oxfam. He has also courted controversy in Britain by criticising a recent report on multi-ethnicity for saying that Britain should be seen as a loose federation of cultures held together by common bonds of interest. Though this was meant to be a modern liberal vision, Sen feels it devalues individual identity, risks lumping people into "communities" they may not want to be part of, and interferes with a person's freedom to make her own choices. (Among his many contributions to development economics, Sen has produced pioneering studies of gender inequality, so he always writes "her" rather than "his" when referring to an abstract person). He also jumped into the debate over human rights and "Asian values", taking strong issue with Singapore's former prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew, for claiming that liberalism was a Western export unsuited to Asia. Sen's line was not the conventional view that individual liberty is a Western invention which needs to have universal application. Rather, he argued that "the championing of democracy and political freedom in the modern sense cannot be found in the pre-Enlightenment tradition in any part of the world, west or east". However, separate components of this progressive idea from religious tolerance to egalitarianism and support for a climate of debate have come and gone in many different cultures at various historical times. The strongest features of his work, joining his economics and philosophy together, are ethics and a sense of common humanity. "He's very concerned about justice, " says Sudhir Anand, professor of economics at Oxford. "He's made major contributions not only in measuring poverty but understanding it. To him, poverty is the lack of capability to function, so reducing it is related to positive freedom. What's important to people is to be able to do and be." Sen's fellow economists love the way he has given the subject a friendlier image, yet he was not awarded the Nobel prize for his more accessible work in development economics, but for "social choice theory", the philosophical foundation backed by mathematics which supports all his writings. The only surprise with his Nobel prize was that it came so late. "It was only political reasons which prevented him getting it earlier," says his old friend, the historian Eric Hobsbawm. "Ever since the mid-'70s the Swedish committee has been strongly committed to free-market theory, until it took a real punch in the midriff in '97-'98 with the Asian crisis." Though he has strong political views, Sen has avoided public political statements. He is primarily an academic who wants his ideas to cascade through the institutions by virtue of their intellectual force, and then flow into general circulation as the new wisdom. "He's peculiarly shy about talking politics publicly. It's a kind of self-denial," says Meghnad Desai, director of the centre for the study of global governance at the London School of Economics. "It's also a generational thing. Good economists, when he started out, didn't get into politics. So he prefers to be subversive in a technical way." In his native India, Sen is a star. When he won the Nobel prize in 1998 he was dubbed the Mother Teresa of Economics as crowds followed him around "wanting to touch his fountain pen", in Hobsbawm's words. Among academics Sen's reputation is almost unrivalled. He has served as a full-time or visiting professor at a dozen of the world's most prestigious universities, and must hold the record for the highest number of honorary degrees (53 according to his CV). "Sen has made fundamental contributions to at least four fields: social choice theory, welfare economics, economic measurement, and development economics," says Sudhir Anand. "The pre-eminence that he has achieved in each of these different fields is remarkable for any scholar: that he has achieved pre-eminence in so many is utterly extraordinary. He is held in enormously high respect by theoretical, empirical and policy economists alike to say nothing of philosophers and political theorists." Sen has spent almost his entire adult life on various university campuses, and was even born on one. His father taught chemistry at Dhaka University (now in Bangladesh) but Amartya came into the world in 1933 at Santiniketan, just north of Calcutta, on the campus of a small, progressive co-ed school and college founded by the writer, philosopher and poet Rabindranath Tagore. Tagore, who was the only Nobel laureate (for literature) from India before Sen, was a close friend of Sen's maternal grandfather, who taught Sanskrit at Santiniketan. Tagore helped to choose the baby's name, which means "immortal" in Sanskrit. Sen's mother was a writer who performed in many of the dance-dramas which Tagore wrote. She still edits a literary magazine in Bengal. "Tagore founded Santiniketan with the idea of creating something different from the English-language Raj kind of school," says Sen. "It also differed from the Indian nationalist school. The teaching language was Bengali, and the place was very self-consciously international, with a sense of global culture. The existence of a Europe outside Britain was more easily conceded in Santiniketan than happened in the rest of the Raj." But the school was not for the poor, and when Sen was still only nine, he underwent a profound experience. "One day a chap came wandering in, very obviously deranged. Some of the nastier boys were being unpleasant to him and some of us felt we had to do something to help. I got chatting to the man and it became quite clear he hadn't eaten for about 40 days. But then, one, 10, it seemed like about 100,000 people came walking through the campus on the way to Calcutta to find some charities which might help them." Until this shock Sen was blissfully unaware of suffering. No-one in his family, which he calls lower middle-class, nor any of his friends' families, were affected by the famine. "I was upset by what I saw. My grandfather gave me a small cigarette tin and said I could fill it with rice and give it to the starving, but only one tinful per family." The famine was clearly class-dependent. Only people on the lowest rung of the economic ladder, such as landless rural labourers, were hungry and the memory stayed with Sen, prompting him several decades later to do his study of that famine and several others in the Sahel, Ethiopia and China. The opening lines of his study are typical of his lapidary style: "Starvation is the characteristic of some people not having enough food to eat. It is not the characteristic of there being not enough food to eat." After examining the records, he found that overall food output in Bengal in 1943 was not lower than in 1941, when there was no famine. The real problem was that the wages paid to farm labourers in 1942 had not kept up with the rising price of food caused by inflation in Calcutta, which was going through a boom as the Raj put money into war production. This resulted in what Sen called a shift in "entitlements" labourers had suffered a reduction in their ability to command power over food. As he was entering his teens, Sen had what he calls another "devastating" political experience. The "idea of India", with its rich cultural heterogeneity, which he had learned at Santiniketan, collapsed into a welter of sectarian identities when people started to define themselves as Hindus, Muslims or Sikhs, and went on killing sprees. One afternoon at the family home in Dhaka a man rushed through the gate, screaming and bleeding. Sen's father took him to hospital. The man was a Muslim labourer who had been set upon by Hindu thugs after looking for work in a Hindu area because his family was short of food. The episode turned him against the idea of prioritising communal identity, and gave him another graphic lesson in the way economic unfreedom can make people prey to serious violations of their rights. By then Sen was already bent on an academic career, though his interests wavered. "I seriously flirted in turn with Sanskrit, mathematics and physics, before settling on the eccentric charms of economics." He went to the Presidency College in Calcutta and was soon thrown into the hotbed of political coffee-house debate. His family belonged to the Bengali intellectual elite, and Bengal itself was the most vibrant and politically active city in India. Most of its luminaries were well to the left of Mahatma Gandhi and Nehru. Although Sen eagerly joined in the arguments, he says: "I could not develop enough enthusiasm to join any political party." It was an early sign of his detachment from collective action as well as the pragmatic caution which have stayed with him, in spite of his moral engagement and intellectual boldness. In the early '60s, when he was at Trinity as director of studies, his then wife, Nabaneeta Dev, went on the ban-the-bomb marches led by Bertrand Russell. Sen did not. It was partly pressure of work, he says, but "I had also developed more scepticism of what could be achieved by activism without necessarily weakening on the importance of the cause". Sen still calls himself a person of the Left, but he says he felt something disturbing about the standard left-wing politics of his student days. Most of his friends were Stalinists. He liked their egalitarian commitment but felt they were not open to political pluralism and that they even saw political tolerance as a "weakness of will". "I thought it was a major defect of the Stalinist Left not to recognise that establishing democracy in India had been an enormous step forward. There was a temptation to call this sham or bourgeois democracy. The Left didn't take seriously enough the disastrous lack of democracy in communist countries." This point was to stay with him in his famine studies, when he enunciated the view that no famine has ever occurred in a country with a free press and regular elections. He compared China and India. Although by most indicators, from life expectancy to literacy, Mao's China was ahead of Nehru's India, China had had a catastrophic famine between 1958 and 1961 in which some 30 million people starved to death. There was no free press or alternative political parties to give early warning. In democratic India, free of the Raj, that could not have happened. But Sen did not go overboard in his praise of democracy. He pointed out in his 1984 book, Resources, Values, and Democracy, that while there was no famine in India, a third of the population went to bed hungry every night. "The quiet presence of non-acute, endemic hunger leads to no newspaper turmoil, no political agitation, no riots in the Indian parliament. The system takes it in his stride." When Sen arrived in Cambridge at the age of 19 to study economics, he found the college "a bit of an oasis". The big debates in political economy in the university were raging between neo-classicists and followers of Keynes. Sen found that this suited his style. He has always rejected any simplistic labelling of people, and his work is constantly peppered with references to earlier economists whom he respects for their views, regardless of the ideological camps which form around them. He takes examples from Adam Smith, as well as Marx, without being a Smithian or a Marxist. In 1970, his book, Collective Choice and Social Welfare, attempted to rescue welfare economics from the pessimism of free-marketeers, who argued that there was no point in government intervention, and that individuals should be left to choose whatever the market made available in response to their choices, and statists, who concluded that authoritarian choices had to be made by governments on other people's behalf. Sen argued that perfection in social decision-making is unnecessary. Partial comparisons between people can help and majority decisions do carry weight, as long as the interests of the less assertive citizens are not ignored. His own life, meanwhile, had its periods of turmoil and tragedy. While an undergraduate, he developed cancer of the mouth. Radiation therapy whittled away his palate and could have proved fatal: he was unable to eat solid food for three months and doctors said he had only a 15 per cent chance of survival. In 1971 there were fears that the cancer had recurred but, after a while, the diagnosis proved wrong. That same year, Sen left his wife, Dev, with whom he has two daughters. He later married Eva Colorni, an Italian economist, who died of cancer in 1985, leaving Sen with a 10-year-old daughter, Indrani, and eight-year-old son, Kabir. Moving with the two children to Harvard, he renewed contact with an old student friend, the brilliant Pakistani economist Mahbub ul Haq, who persuaded him to join in elaborating the Human Development Index as a rival to the World Bank's system of ranking countries by classical macro-economic criteria such as savings rates and GNP. Sen's empirical work has occasionally been criticised on points of detail, or for not going far enough. Alex de Waal, the author of Famine Crimes, a book which looked at how democracy prevents famine, says the mere fact of democracy is not enough. He also says the main cause of famine is epidemic disease rather than starvation. But he describes Sen's work as "seminal". An article Sen wrote in the British Medical Journal, which then appeared in The New York Review of Books with the headline, "More than a Hundred Million Women are Missing", was picked apart by some demographers. Sen had examined the disturbing fact that while female mortality is generally lower than male mortality at all age groups in most cultures, this is not the case in India. Because of massive gender inequality, girls have less food and are taken to doctors less often than boys. Sen accepts that the criticism of his "ballpark figure" was legitimate, but says his main point about inequality cannot be challenged. More substantial criticisms revolve round his role in the current globalisation debate. Meghnad Desai sees a double problem. One is the issue of accessibility. Desai cites Sen's latest book, Development as Freedom, which is based on a set of lectures he gave the World Bank in 1996. It views the enhancement of human freedom as both the principal end and the most effective means of achieving development. Desai, however, describes it as written for the converted, as well as being too dense. He also feels Sen has failed to come clean on a major change of mind. "He used to be anti-market and very sympathetic to the Nehru line. Then he found a clever way round it. During the past 20 years he's finally made his peace with the market, though on his own terms and without going all-out for a free market. It's a higher form of reconciliation." Sen gets quite heated by the suggestion that he has changed his line on the market. "Nothing I've ever written was anti-market. Being against the market is like being against conversation. It's a form of exchange. But I was just as hostile in the past to giving any privileges to the market as I am now. Besides, those who are great advocates of the market don't always make it easier for people to have access to the market through basic education, credit or whatever." He is also stung by the charge that he is middle of the road. "That depends on how you define the road. There is a road which you can define in which I am in the middle, but part of my problem is to argue that people should be on a different road. I'm really trying to change the road. My frustration is that I have not been very successful in changing the focus of the debate." Even in trying to change the road, Sen's line on globalisation is relatively soft. "Opponents may see globalisation as a new folly, but it is neither particularly new nor a folly," he says. He supports the "themes" raised by anti-capitalist and environmental protesters at Quebec, Seattle, Prague and Melbourne, but not their "theses", which he finds too simple. The problem is not free trade, but the inequality of global power. He welcomes the rise of the NGO movement, which combines with media coverage to produce the beginning of some "countervailing power" to the larger corporations and the traditional policies of First World governments. But he also blames many Third World governments for not undertaking domestic reform. He believes the UN has to be saved from insolvency and given a greater leadership role which escapes from the asymmetry caused by the veto power of the five richest and/or largest countries. "There needs to be a watchdog institution which is concerned with inequality and fair trade, asks why the US and Europe are so restrictive to products from the Third World, and raises questions about the pricing policy of the drug companies." For the past 10 years, Sen has been married to the economic historian, Emma Rothschild. Asked how he relaxes, he replies: "I read a lot and like arguing with people." Dr Amartya Sen is giving an Alfred Deakin Lecture titled "Global doubts as global certainties" in Melbourne on May 15. It will be broadcast on ABC Radio National at 8.30pm on May 16. Jonathan Steele is a journalist with The Guardian. # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net