![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
About the Authors
David A. Clark is an Affiliated Lecturer and Teaching Associate at the Centre of Development Studies, University of Cambridge, UK.
Shailaja Fennell is University Lecturer in Development Studies and Fellow of Jesus College, University of Cambridge, UK.
Notes
1. Near the beginning of the book, Drèze and Sen recall Bhimrao R. Ambedkar's plea for India “to pursue, rather than lose faith in, the power to ‘educate, agitate and organize'” (Citation2013, 5 and 16).
2. Angus Deaton's (Citation2013) book review contrasts India's accomplishments (the “glory”) with some of the more frustrating disappointments (the “uncertainty”).
3. It is possible that Drèze and Sen may disagree with some aspects of our defence or may wish to offer an alternative. Professor Sen's own views regarding “harsh” authoritarian regimes and the “priority of liberty” are well known (for example, Sen Citation1999, 15–17 and 64–65). He has even been credited with “trying to (re)claim the concept of freedom for the democratic left … ” (Crocker Citation1995, 182). In a longer paper we would have liked to consider other possible misconceptions, including the argument that Sen's “brand of liberalism leaves him poorly equipped to deal with questions of entrenched power and the politics of conflict or social mobilization” (Corbridge Citation2002, 203). Much of the discussion in the current book (including the critique of corporate power, commercial interests, the political and legal system, and apathy in the media), address these kinds of concerns. A. K. Shiva Kumar (in this volume) dispels the myths that Drèze and Sen are anti-growth or are largely concerned with inequality and income distribution. We would add that Drèze and Sen's book is ultimately concerned with poverty (the fact that so many people are “underprivileged” and lack basic capabilities) and the structural causes of poverty (which includes many forms of inequality) (see especially Citation2013, xi, 90, 218 and 264ff).
4. Robert Sugden (Citation1993) suggests that the capability approach is less respectful of negative freedom than rival normative theories, including Rawls's theory of justice (see especially pp. 1948, 1955–1957, 1961). In other well-known critiques, G. A. Cohen (Citation1994) questions the proposition that collectives can expand freedom by exercising power and control over others, and Ian Carter (Citation1996) argues in favour of the “independent value” of freedom.
5. This is a recurring theme throughout their respective writings. Consider, for example, the following passage from The Argumentative Indian: “It is sometimes asserted that the use of dialectics is largely confined to the more affluent and more literate, and is thus of no value to the common people. The elitism that is rampant in such beliefs is not only extraordinary, it is made more exasperating through the political cynicism and impassivity it tends to encourage. The critical voice is the traditional ally of the aggrieved, and participation in arguments is a general opportunity, not a particularly specialized skill (like composing sonnets or performing trapeze acts)” (Sen Citation2006, xiii).
6. Their book is motivated by the “necessity for the lives, needs, rights and demands of underprivileged people to command greater attention in public discussion and policy making, and in democratic politics” (Citation2013, xi).
7. It is also possible that some of the evidence presented in the book could be read as suggesting that preferences and behaviour can be rapidly reviewed if new options or information become available.
8. See Clark (Citation2012) for an overview of related literature on adaptation.
9. The relevant passage from John Stuart Mill's On Liberty includes the following subtext: “He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise … ” (Citation1859, 14).
10. Neff (Citation2012, 144) does report that “a fifth of respondents in the lowest two expenditure quintile groups are satisfied despite being poor.” While this may be interpreted as evidence of adaptation, it is worth noting that being poor and satisfied does not necessarily imply distorted preferences. Møller (Citation1996) and Clark (Citation2002) have both shown that exploited and deprived South Africans (who often claim to be “happy” or “satisfied”) are more than capable of articulating—and demanding—a substantially better life.
11. The international evidence is that vouchers only work in educational systems with a good institutional structure, and there are only two definitive cases of such—those of Colombia and Chile in South America. It is not clear whether this model can be used effectively in poorer countries with very poor educational institutions and severely lacking in infrastructure. On this, see Thapa and Mahendra (Citation2010).
12. It would also help to reconcile any conflict between personal liberties and economic freedom, on the one hand, with social measures intended to enhance the greater good on the other.