This is one of a series of posts that will ask what the most pertinent question raised by a prominent influencer of political economy might have been, and what the relevance of that question might be today. There is a list of all posts in the series at the end of each entry. The origin of this series is noted here.
After the first two posts in this series, the topics have been chosen by me, and this is one of those. This series has been produced using what I describe as directed AI searches to establish positions with which I agree, followed by final editing before publication.
Amartya Sen's inclusion in the series follows naturally from my reading of his book A Idea of Justice, in which he built on the work of John Rawls and advanced it for the sake of society at large. Few political economists leave a legacy as significant as that. Sen has been awarded the Nobel Prize in economics, but that is not a reason to be here: he is here because he helped shape my thinking about the world we should live in by presenting a coherent philosophy of economics and of life itself that explains how we can help people live fulfilled lives. For me, that is what political economy is about.
Amartya Sen's work is one of the quiet revolutions in modern political economy. At the very moment when mainstream economics had reduced almost everything to income, prices, and what neoclassical economists call utility, Sen asked a much older and much more human set of questions. What does it mean to live well? What does it mean to avoid needless suffering? What does it mean to be genuinely free, not just on paper, but in the texture of everyday life?
His answer was as simple as it was subversive. We cannot judge a society by what it produces, or even by what it pays, but only by what people are actually able to do and be. He called these real possibilities capabilities, and with that one move, he exposed how shallow and how morally evasive so much of modern economics had become.
Hence, the Amartya Sen Question: If freedom is the capability to live a full human life, why do we still run economies that deny so many people the means to be free?
Income is not life
Sen's work begins from an obvious truth that economics has learned to ignore. Two people with the same income may live utterly different lives. One may be healthy, secure, literate, and politically included; the other may be ill, excluded, or constantly afraid. Raise national income and you may not improve any of those things.
Deprivation, he argued, is not just a matter of low money income. It is the loss of the freedom to avoid preventable illness, to learn, to participate in society, and to exercise agency over one's own life. A country can grow richer in the aggregate while large parts of its population become less free in any meaningful sense. Once that is understood, it becomes impossible to pretend that GDP, or even average household income, can stand in as measures of well-being.
Capabilities and real freedom
For Sen, freedom is not simply being left alone, whether by the state or the market. Freedom is having genuine options, backed by real resources, to choose and pursue a life one has reason to value. A person without access to healthcare is not free to be healthy. A child without schooling is not free to develop their potential. A carer without income security is not free to say no to exploitation.
Capabilities are, in that sense, the real content of liberty. They describe what people can actually achieve in the circumstances in which they find themselves. Sen's move from income to capability is therefore a move from abstraction to reality. It insists that the language of “choice” and “opportunity” is empty if people lack the material, social, and institutional support that makes those choices real.
Why democracies prevent catastrophe
Perhaps Sen's best-known empirical claim is that famines do not happen in functioning democracies. That is not because democracies are magically richer or more efficient, but because they provide people with political capabilities. A free press can report hunger. Opposition parties can raise it in parliament. Citizens can organise, protest, and vote governments out of office.
In authoritarian systems, by contrast, those capabilities do not exist. People may starve while official statistics show surpluses. Here, Sen's framework shows its political edge. Starvation, premature death, and extreme insecurity are not just misfortunes; they are failures of public responsibility. They reflect a lack of accountability and participation — a lack of capability in the political sphere. That is why he insisted that development is inseparable from democracy, and that deprivation is always, in part, a political fact.
The poverty of mainstream economics
By the time Sen's work on capabilities became widely known, mainstream economics had largely retreated into a narrow concern with preferences, prices, and growth rates. Welfare was equated with utility and measured by consumption. Policy success was read off from movements in GDP or productivity.
Sen's work quietly dismantles this entire edifice. People need far more than consumption to live decent lives: they need public health, education, safety, social recognition, environmental stability, and time to care. None of these appear in standard models. An economy that expands output while undermining these foundations may look successful on paper, but it is failing in terms of capabilities. Sen, in effect, accuses the profession of having confused what is easy to count with what actually counts.
Power and the production of capability
Sen is often presented as gentle and technocratic, but his analysis has a hard edge. People lack capabilities for reasons that are deeply structural. Low pay, insecure work, unaffordable housing, underfunded services, discrimination, and deliberate austerity all constrain what lives people can live.
To talk about capability is to talk, inevitably, about power. Who decides how resources are allocated? Whose needs are recognised? Which voices shape policy? A capability perspective makes it impossible to treat poverty as individual failure or inequality as a natural outcome of talent. It reveals them instead as the predictable result of institutions designed around profit and so-called sound finance rather than human flourishing.
Ecology and future freedoms
Although Sen did not frame his work primarily in environmental terms, the implications are clear. Capabilities are not only those of the present; they also belong to future generations. A society that degrades its soil, water, air, and climate is destroying the capabilities of those who come after it.
Environmental damage does not show up straightforwardly in income statistics, but it does, inexorably, reduce the real freedoms future people will have — to avoid disease, to find secure shelter, to grow food, and to live without chronic disaster. An economic system that treats ecological limits as an afterthought is therefore one that is trading away freedom for short-term gain. Sen's framework makes that trade-off morally explicit.
What answering the Amartya Sen question requires
Seen from Sen's perspective, the usual language of “freedom” in economic debate looks threadbare. To answer the Sen Question would require us to redesign our priorities. That would mean, at the very least:
-
Reframing policy goals so that success is judged by the expansion of people's capabilities on issues such as health, education, security, and participation, rather than by the size of GDP.
-
Rebuilding public services, requiring that healthcare, education, housing, social care, and income security be the core infrastructures of freedom, not as costs to be cut.
-
Redistributing power and resources, meaning that taxes, regulations, and labour and democratic rights be reformed to ensure that no group's capabilities are systematically sacrificed to others' wealth.
-
Embedding ecological limits, which would require recognition that sustaining the capabilities of future generations requires deliberate restraint on forms of production and consumption that destroy the conditions of life.
These are not technocratic adjustments. They represent a wholesale change in what we think economies are for.
Inference
The Sen Question goes to the heart of our contemporary confusion. We insist that we value freedom, but we organise our economies in ways that deny millions the real means to live freely. We celebrate choice while eroding the public systems that make meaningful choice possible. We measure growth while capabilities stagnate or decline.
Sen offers a way out of that confusion. He gives us a language in which to say, plainly, that freedom without capability is an illusion, and that an economic system which cannot deliver the basic conditions for a fulfilled human life is, in the end, a failure, whatever the national accounts may say.
Answering his question would mean abandoning the comforting fictions of neoliberalism and accepting a much more demanding standard: that the purpose of the economy is to expand what people can actually be and do. Until we are willing to make that shift, our talk of freedom will remain just that.
Previous posts in this series
- The economic questions
- Economic questions: The Henry Ford Question
- Economic questions: The Mark Carney Question
- Economics questions: The Keynes question
- Economics questions: The Karl Marx question
- Economics questions: the Milton Friedman question
- Economic questions: The Hayek question
- Economic questions: The James Buchanan question
- Economic questions: The J K Galbraith question
- Economic questions: the Hyman Minsky question
- Economic questions: the Joseph Schumpeter question
- Economic questions: The E F Schumacher question
- Economics questions: the John Rawls question
- Economic questions: the Thomas Piketty question
- Economic questions: the Gary Becker question
- Economics questions: The Greg Mankiw question
- Economic questions: The Paul Krugman
- Economic question: the Tony Judt question
- Economic questions: The Nancy MacLean question
- Economic questions: The David Graeber question
Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
In one phrase, you / Sen have summed up what is wrong with our current political / economic environment, i.e., confusing, probably deliberately, ” …what is easy to count with what actually counts.” Brilliant!
Thanks
A Wright, I agree – knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. I love this series, thank you RJM.
This makes me think there should be a simple slogan. Best I have so far is “The poor are people, and so are you”. Please can someone do better?
I like that.
Any others?
Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Matthew 25:40
Even if Starmer didn’t read Amartya Sen you’d have thought he might have paid attention to world world’s happiest countries assessments:-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr72xep44kdo
Hello Richard.
As others have said before me, this series is great. One of your best.
As has also been said, there’s definitely a book in there somewhere. I think it would work on different levels – from giving an overview that economics is not one dimensional, to a list of books to go and read, to understanding that solutions exist. I keep thinking of Ha Joon Chang’s excellent ‘23 things they don’t tell you about capitalism’, maybe because both are sort of ‘lists’.
I think even if I have heard of some of the people you cover in your series, or read a bit, I come away from this with further understanding.
I wonder if there are any current thinkers, who you feel should be on the list, but who’s work is so new, that it hasn’t really had the impact yet that it shall?
I have at least as many to do as are done so far…
I think Brad DeLong’s work on 20th century capital is rather good. It is the first economics book I would recommend to someone who has never read economics before. Actually Brad DeLong has got me interested in branches of economic history which I thought was ‘history’. He breaks through the skeptic barriers.
I am not sure I have ever read him….I will have to explore.
Thank you for this – I never really got my head around Sen to be honest – his point seemed to be adding to the critique of Neo-liberalism but I was never sure to what extent, when other writers seemed to land their punches more heavily.
Reading your post then, my interpretation (if I may, and this is for myself to be honest) is that Sen reifies the dreamy nature at the heart of Neo-liberalism. He does this by assessing the real gross effects/outcomes for society over time and comparing it with the original intent or sales pitch.
The motor of the intent is freedom apparently. Securing our/everyone’s economic security through hard work, rational choices based on self interest etc., will work its magic for everyone.
What emerges then is that Neo-liberalism aspires – it is ‘aspirational’ (a strange unnatural word in my opinion) – to do something for society but never seems to deliver at the gross levels it promised.
So, Neo-liberalism really is a process – a struggle – sold to us to achieve individual security and that is all it is – a never ending perpetual process of aspiration because many of us are victims of the consequences of capital’s rational self interests, in achieving ITS freedom – such as buying out and asset stripping competitors etc., and being in a position in the markets to impose rents.
Sen says to me that Neo-liberalism simply locks the majority of people in a never ending process of trying to be secure, but denies the majority of the result or objective. It is a perpetual dream that is actually a bit of a nightmare and of course delivers nothing at the scale it promised. Because at the heart of it Neo-liberalism is the economics of monopoly, of the singular, of the individual – not society.
We are merely slaves to a Neo-lib dream of perpetual self-realization. In reality it is no better than the society of Orwell’s 1984. For a while it was better presented, looked nicer, but now it is effectively crumbling all around us as the logic of taking, taking and taking to self realize leads us to the end of history. Alas, how else can it end?
I think he is much more radical and condemnatory than you imply. He says that neoliberalism deliberately and quite knowingly denies choice to most to achieve their capabilities and those with the power to share opportunity do not do so for their own, supposed, advantage. I see his work as a much stronger criticism than you suggest, but he is gentle in its presentation. His, though, is a silk glove covering an iron fist.
I’m not damning Sen with faint praise – you’ve done 19 of these already and ALL of them are radical in some way and I’ve read the work of quite a few of them. They all raise the same issues in some way or other (crossover each other) and this 20th post depicting the work of Sen means he rightly belongs to the fine canon of work emerging against Neo-liberalism (but whose impact is still obstructed even now).
Up to this post I did not really know how he fitted in and you have helped me to see how whether you agree with my summary or not.
But then again, that is because people like Stephanie Kelton whose work on government sovereignty and money is really key; the work of Abby Innes who confirms our suspicion that neo-liberalism and soviet style rule are just the flip sides of the same coin and the work done by Clara Mattei on austerity – well they just happen to have captured my imagination more than Sen, that is all, the points they made to me are really salient.
I mean, if you want to get on down and dirty about international development, read Ha-Joon Chang – he’s my go-to on that issue – a very sharp mind indeed for shifting through bullshit. Oh, and lets not forget Christine Desan whose fine history of central banking is the finest rebuke to Thatcherism and what Rachel Reeves is doing – or rather not doing – I can think of. These women have for me at least changed the landscape of what I am interested in. And now, I can place Sen in there someplace. It’s all good Richard.
I have to say that having read and reread Sen and heard him speak that does not sound the remotest bit like what Sen has written.
In Development as Freedom Sen reclaims the idea of freedom from the charlatan libertarians on the Right. He is at one with Beveridge in arguing that its the provision of the essential basics of life that provide the freedom for people to live and thrive. He was mostly writing about developing countries but it is justas relevant here. As Beveridge and Attlee showed in practice. Much to the resentment of the libertarian Right who have been fighting back ever since
His autobiography is worth a read as it shows his humanity and how his views were forged through his upbringing in Bengal and experience of partition.
Robin
Sen understood we and those in developing countries are all the same, which is hardly susprising given our common humanity, even if many seek to deny it.
Richard
Precisely Richard
Having lived worked and travelled in such countries, and worked with NGOs, i wholly identify with that view. And the corrupt autocrats in those countries are little different to autocrats in so called developed countries, East and West. Driven by the same lusts for power and wealth
The claim that famines do not happen in functioning democracies though does not stand up empirically. It is rather like the neoliberal economists’ assumption that economic actors have perfect information. The UK has had a kind of democracy throughout the Irish, Bengal, Gaza, etc, famines. Of course these did not directly affect the voting constituencies, were partially concealed by media bias, etc… but recognising this also requires unpacking what we mean by ‘functioning’ ‘democracy’.
Hang on! None of those were famines. All were genocide. And if you can say there was a democracy in Ireland in 1848 or in the Israeli assaults on Gaza you are pushing boundaries beyond limits. That’s true of Bengal, too. You are grossly misrepresenting the idea in Sen’s work. He was talking about actual democracies.
I don’t agree. The UK was effectively ruling Ireland and Bengal at the time, had a kind of democracy, and actively propagated these famines (which are, in fact generally designated famines, not genocides, by historians). Gaza is different, granted, but many believe the UK and other ‘western democracies’ share responsibility for it. My point is that the attribution of an inherent functionality, such as avoiding famine, to ‘democracy’ as such, when in fact it doesn’t avoid famine in all the places controlled or influenced by a ‘democratic’ government, ought to lead us to ask whether that kind of democracy is really functioning as it should.
You can argue, or course, that the UK didn’t have much of a franchise in the 1840s – but that merely reinforces my point: that there are many forms and degrees of ‘democracy’, so we should beware of attributing inherent properties to all democracies, however flawed.
I have to be blunt here: you are very, very wrong.
The Irish famine might be descrbed as such by the English who imposed it. The Irish knew it was a starvation, or genocide. It was wholly unnecessary: there was enough food in Ireland for everyone, and it was exported from the country whilst millions died or had to flee.
Much the same was true in Bengal.
Your comments are those of an imperlialst believer in English exceptionalism. I don’t give a damn about your framing this in the context of the supposed demcracy of the nineteenth century – utterly ineffective as it was, as Sen well knew. You just reveal your ignorace of what Sen said as a result, and your failure to find out I take as confirmation of that exceptionalism.
And if you suggest Gaza is not a genoide, that is unforgiveable.
If you offer a full apology for your offensive claims I might tolerate your continued comments here. Without, forget it: you will be banned wthout any reservations on my part. I am deeply offended by your suggestions.
But you’ve entirely misunderstood my suggestions. To clarify:
You are correct that in both the Irish and Bengal famines the British exported food while people were starving – I’m not excusing this imperialism/exceptionalism – just the opposite, I’m condemning it. But it evidences, surely, that British ‘democracy’ at the time did not prevent the famines.
I also agree that Gaza constitutes a genocide – but note that Israel effectively controls it, and that Israel too claims to be a democracy.
Of course these famines only affected the disenfranchised within the controlled lands – but then there are always disenfranchised people – in the US last year, for example, there were 174 million registered voters, but a population of over 340 million. But I think perhaps the media is an even more important factor. You and I know that Israel is responsible for genocide in Gaza – but how many people in Israel, or the US, know this ?
I’m frankly baffled by your offense at these points, as I think they are shared by both of us. When you write of ‘the supposed democracy of the nineteenth century’, you might just as easily say ‘the supposed democracy of Israel’ – or indeed, now, perhaps, the US. My post was simply an appeal to recognise this complexity in what is meant by the term ‘democracy’ – to recognise that attributing any inherent efficacy to ‘democracy’ also implies the need to unpack what we mean by that term.
So, you’re guilty of two things.
One is lousy drafting – I had others check my interpretation before posting my comment. They read you as I did. My offence was shared.
And the other is your continuing pretence that we had democracy when we had nothing like it. That is a ridiculous claim one your part. You are directly contradicting Sen.
You can stay, but I will have major reservations about your comments now. Sorry to say it, but clarity matters.
Hi Richard, after I completed my Business Studies with Economics degree with the OU, Sen, along with Nancy Folbre, were the only people whose works I continued to read post degree. Their works were also part of my final project I had to take to complete my degree, so I have much to thank them for .
The economics of care, and in particular caring, are greatly overlooked. Thank you for bringing Sen’s work to light, particularly to those who follow you on Bluesky and You Tube.
Thanks Bernie.
This has just solved my wife’s dilemma of my Christmas present! I’d never heard of Sen until now, but the clarity of his humanity and thinking and Richard’s summarisation of it have struck a chord with me. Right at the centre of the matter sits the NHS – a classic symbol of Sen’s thinking and a classic target for attack and demolition by corrupt politicians and big business’ avarice. Once the NHS has been demolished and privatised it could never be adequately replaced, so it’s a stark wake-up call for all.
Likewise Sen’s thinking illuminates the dilemma of the creative community: they contribute so much to human happiness and yet the vast majority of them need other low-paying day jobs just to survive. How many full-time professional poets can make a decent living? That goes for all creatives: actors, musicians, sculptors, authors, artists etc A few at the top of their professions might earn enough to survive the down times, but the vast majority have to scuffle to survive. It’s not that their work isn’t enjoyed by the public, it’s more to do with national attitudes to income and wealth. In Britain that has been focussed on big business. I remember going to Brazil in 1970 and discovering that musicians there were paid vastly more for the same kind of gig I’d been playing back home in Glasgow, yet the social inequalities in Brazil were so obviously greater than back home. I guess it’s societal/national attitude: there, musicians were better appreciated and rewarded than here and their whole, broad cultural scene was, in turn, more vibrant.
I digress; thanks Richard for a stimulating essay and I’m looking forward to reading ‘An Idea of Justice’ sometime soon.
It will keep you going for a while: I found it readable, though.
This is excellent – thank you. The crucial importance of ‘freedom to’, not merely ‘freedom from’.
Agreed
Reading about Sen’s ideas of striving for freedom led me to think about Maslow’s hierarchy of needs with the apex being ‘self- actualisation’. Obviously, this will mean different things to different people, yet it does suggest some ‘catching of happiness’. The hierarchy also suggests lower level needs have to be met, otherwise happiness is out of reach. I think Sen would agree with this. Any system of gov should deliver this for citizens, especially democracies. It raises many other questions in my mind about whether pursuit of wealth at the expense of others is immoral or can it be genuine if philanthropy is the aim? Much to ponder on. Maybe your next subject will have a view? Keep them coming.
There is another tomorrow. I was scribing tonight.
I used to be his postman. Not relevant, but true
My claim to fame is that I once found myself in the same lift as Prof. Sen.
[…] The economic questions: the Amartya Sen question […]
[…] The economic questions: the Amartya Sen question […]