Development is a concept and multi-facetted phenomena.

Although its history goes back to

the antiquities, development exceptionally preoccupied states after the Second World War in
the late 1940s. These have since then been efforts for social, political and economic progress
all over the world facilitated by the quick technological evolution. There are numerous
definitions of development. Different authors have advanced more or less the same
arguments pertaining to this rather wide concept. The paper discuses differences on Amatya
Sens definition of development from the growth tailored concept of development. In the same
paper. In the same vein, choice of social work that the author can make to strive to bring
about positive change and development.

This essay discusses the concept of development. It is not hard to see why the concept of
development is so essential to social work in general. Economic problems involve logistic
issues, and a lot of it is undoubtedly “engineering” of one kind or another. On the other hand,
the success of all this has to be judged ultimately in terms of what it does to the lives of
human beings. The enhancement of living conditions must clearly be an essential, if not the
essential object of the entire economic exercise and that enhancement is an integral part of
the concept of development. Even though the logistic and engineering problems involved in
enhancing living conditions in the poor, developing countries might well be very different
from those in the rich, developed ones, there is much in common in the respective exercises
on the two sides of the divide. The close link between economic development and economic
growth is simultaneously a matter of importance as well as a source of considerable
confusion. The importance of “growth” must depend on the nature of the variable the
expansion of which is considered and seen as “growth.”

The paper discusses a number of different sources of contrast that have to be clearly
distinguished from each other, while drawing a distinction between development and growth.
The well-being of a person can be seen as an evaluation of the functioning’s achieved by that
person.

Amartya Sen's concept of Development as Freedom (1999) is highly acclaimed. He argues

that human development is about the expansion of citizen’s capabilities. For Sen, freedom
means increasing citizen’s access and opportunities to the things they have reason to value.
For Sen, freedom means increasing citizen’s access and opportunities to the things they have
reason to value. Sen challenges the mainstream concept of measuring development by
economic growth (Evans 2002).

1
Sen does acknowledge that increases in poor people’s incomes do contribute to the expansion
of their freedoms. However, he recognises that increase of income alone “has at best uneven
and at worst has detrimental impacts on the majority of a country’s population, and radical
redistributive measures are necessary for the poor to benefit from growth” (Selwyn 2011:69).

Sen alerts the reader that poverty, unfulfilled elementary needs, the occurrence of famines,
the violation of political freedoms and neglect of the agency of women remain today despite
‘unpredented opulence’ (1999). He makes it clear that previous strategies to reduce these
catastrophes are erroneous. His approach focuses on human flourishing as the entry point to
the problem of poverty and global inequality rather than economic growth (Reid-Henry
2012). Sen (1999) contends that all human beings are equally entitled to enjoy a life that they
value.

If pursuing freedom-for-all is about expanding citizens’ capabilities, the focus should not be
exclusively on making up for what people lack (Reid-Henry 2012). “Development consists
of the removal of various types of unfreedoms that leave people with little choice and little
opportunity of exercising their reasoned agency” (Sen 1999:xii). Sen defines the major
factors that limit freedom as ‘poverty as well as tyranny, poor economic opportunities as well
as systematic social deprivation, neglect of public facilities as well as intolerance or over
activity of repressive states” (Sen 1999:1).

He argues for the removal of these major factors. Sen focuses on crucial instrumental
freedoms: economic opportunities, political freedoms, social facilities, transparency
guarantees and protective security. These, he argues, need to be interconnected. Social
facilities involve institutions such as the state and the market. Sen asserts societal
arrangements should be 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” (Sen 1999:xii). Social facilities should aim
to provide opportunities that increase the well-being of the population.

Sen’s work (1999) had a huge influence on the establishment of a new paradigm in the early
2000s. Development was “redefined in terms that include human rights as a constitutive part:
all worthwhile processes of social change are simultaneously rights-based and economically
grounded, and should be conceived of in those terms” (Uvin 2010:168). Sen’s capability
approach challenges the world-view of elites. He manages to convince skeptical economists
that social choice and public discussion is both possible and necessary. He contends that

2
choices about growth strategies should be democratic (Evans 2012). “Sen has focused on the
well-being of those at the bottom of society, not the efficiency of those at the top”
(Longworth 1999). He influences the ideas and decisions made by other development actors.
The Millennium Development Goals are guided by Sen’s ideas. The United Nations
Secretary-General Kofi Annan, spoke about freedom and the rights of the poor in his report
named ‘In Larger Freedom’ (2005).

“A world of interdependence cannot be safe or just unless people everywhere are freed from
want and fear and are able to live in dignity. Today, as never before, the rights of the poor are
as fundamental as those of the rich, and a broad understanding of them is as important to the
security of the developed world as it is to that of the developing world” (Annan 2005).

When discussing the Human Development Index, Paul Streeten concludes “the approach that
sees nutrition, education and health as ends in themselves… will argue for projects… that
enhance these ends, even when conventionally measured rates of return on these investments
turn out to be zero”( Streeten 2009:234) and this approach “leads inevitably to the call for
freedom by the people” (Streeten 2009:236).

Sen’s capability approach is viewed by most development practitioners as an invaluable

analytical and philosophical foundation. However it is argued that this foundation should not
just be admired but built upon (Evans 2012). Selwyn argues that Sen’s view of freedom in
capitalist markets is myopic as the market is an institutionalized unfreedom. He asserts that
Sen complies with Adam Smith’s understanding of the market as an arena of choice and
“does not propose radical, distributive, developmental policies and practices” (Selwyn
2011:75). Although Sen’s approach seems radical in many ways, in terms of markets it does
not challenge the status quo, overlooking the detrimental exploitative affect that the market
can have on the poor. Moreover, as Evans (2012) argues, in the current context market-based
power inequalities need to be prevented, Sen overlooks this. By using both Smith and Marx
to support his case, Sen’s work has many contradictions. His work on famines is at variance
with his liberal conception of the capitalist markets (Selwyn 2011).

Uvin (2010) contends that Sen’s ideas on democracy and participation were not new. He
quotes a Statement written five years before Sen wrote Development as Freedom. The
statement is from the UN Secretary-General’s agenda for development.

3
“Democracy and development are linked in fundamental ways… They are linked because
democracy is a fundamental human right, the advancement which is itself an important
measure of development. They are linked because people’s participation in the decision
making processes which affect their lives is a basic tenet of development” (United Nations
1994, para 120).

Uvin argues that we ought to ask why these ideas have not been acted on before, since they
have been around along time in the development field. “This is where we encounter the limits
of Amartya Sen’s major contribution to development. There is no politically grounded
analysis for what stands in the way of his approach” (Uvin 2010:168). “By signing up to
Sen’s vision, [agencies] remain committed to little more that improved discourse – in this
case in a well-appreciated economic-sounding form” (Uvin 2010:169). Sen had a radical
impact on development debates and policy but what is happening in practice? Are
development actors questioning their own behaviour? The human-rights objectives “are to be
implemented out there, in the Third World. Without the agencies requiring a critical look at
oneself” (Uvin 2010:169).

Growth as a centred tailored means that development is a broad term which should not be
limited to mean economic development, economic welfare or material wellbeing.
Development in general includes improvements in economic, social and political aspects of
whole society like security, culture, social activities and political institutions.

Sen falls under people’s centred development. Growth centred development is a strategy in
development that regards economic growth as the most important goal of development. More
attention, therefore, is focused on the objectives of the economy because the well-being of the
society is dependent on it.

On the other hand, People centred development places people at the centre of the
development process. This strategy empowers people and strengthens their capacity to sustain
themselves.

According to Todaro (1981:56) refers to development as a multi-dimensional process

involving the reorganization and reorientation of the entire economic and social systems. He
continues to argue that development is a physical reality and a state of mind in which society
has, through some combinations of social, economic and political process secured the way of
obtaining better life. Similar to the one given by Tayebwa, Todaro’s definition is applauded

4
for its wider view of the development concept as related to social, economic as well as
political changes in the society.

Nevertheless, a careful analysis reveals that each level, a country can have different
definitions of development. Just because development is a multi-dimensional process
involving qualitative and quantitative changes in social, political and economic domains of
society and it is undertaken essentially to lead to a better state of life.

According to PERROUX (1978:65), defines development as "the combination of mental and

social changes among the population which decide to increase its real and global products,
cumulatively and in sustainable manner."

ROGERS (1990:30) adds "development is a long participatory process of social change in the
society whose objective is the material and social progress for the majority of population
through a better understanding of their environment"

Conclusion

The concept of development is by no means of unproblematic. The different problem

underlying the concept has become clearer on the basis of conceptual discussions. In practice
of social work both concepts are important and we must link people with good policies so
that social and economic development can flourish. Development is a narrow term, according
to Sen Definition, development it’s not growth or the growth in Gross National Product or
rise in personal income or industrialization or technological advance. Development is real
freedom. Development is an enhancement of freedom, it removes non freedom from man’s
life. Non freedom is the blockade of human capability and hindrance into development.
Growth oriented development talks of infrastructure development, rise in income, people
living in good houses. All these are important for social work practice and must be applauded
for real development to be realised in both developing countries such as Zambia.

5
 Bibliography

Annan, K. (2005). “In Larger Freedom”: Decision Time at the UN. Foreign Affairs.
Available at: http://www.unis.unvienna.org/pdf/freedom_annan.pdf. Accessed 26th
March 2013

Evans, P. (2002). Collective Capabilities, Culture, and Amartya Sen’s Development as

Freedom. Studies in Comparative International Development. 37:2. pp 54-60.

Longworth, R. (1999). Amartya Sen. Nobel Prize winning economist. The Chicago Tribune.
[Online] 28th March 1999. Available at:http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1999-03
28/news/9903280117_1_inequality-economy-amartya-sen. Accessed:27th March 2013

Reid-Henry, S. (2012). Amartya Sen: economist, philosopher, human development doyen.

The Guardian [Online] 22nd November 2012. Available at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2012/nov/22/amartya-senhuman-
development-doyen. Accessed 26th March 2013

Selwyn, B. (2011). Liberty Limited? A sympathetic re-engagement with Amartya Sen’s

Development as freedom. Economic and Political weekly. XLVI:37. Sep 10

Selwyn, B. (2013). Capitalism vs. Development. Not yet published.

Sen, A. (1999. Development As Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Uvin, P. (2010). From the right to development to the rights-based approach: how human
rights entered development. In Cornwall and Eade(eds). Deconstructing Development
Discourse. Buzzwords and Fuzzwords. Oxford:Practical Action Publishing Ltd.