Development As Freedom: The Ideal Conception Of Development

There is a variety of theorists who debate about what the ideal conception of development is. In the book Development as Freedom, Amartya Sen argues development is the “expansion of… basic freedoms” and the removal of “deprivations such as starvation… and undernourishment” (36). He lists out the five types of freedom: political freedom, economic facilities, social opportunities, transparency guarantees, and protective security (Sen 38). These five are interrelated and affect one another. For example, having political freedom gives citizens a voice, which allows them to vote for parties in favor of their demographics and allow for social opportunities. Because freedom is used to measure development for Sen, he argues that rich nations are not
Rist argues humans favor economic gains over protection of the environment. Meanwhile, development should be making economic gains while also preserving the environment and cultural diversity. Participation in the global economy should be a tool to create a better society, so we must not accidentally think of economic gains as the end goal. Development should also be characterized by the freedoms Sen describes, and this is far from what Rist describes development as today. There is major inequality in our society, such as in wealth and gender. Those affected are deprived of economic and protective freedoms. They lack economic freedom because they are unable to use resources to invest in their futures, and they lack protective freedom because they may not receive aid from the government to help cover unemployment costs. There is no agency, which is “the ability to act on what they value,” nor are there any opportunities (Sen). Therefore, the ideal development of achieving freedom and preservation of cultures and nature is extremely different from the current societal
There are several models proposed by theorists worth exploring because they stray away from the typical instruction of codified knowledge. In Goals of Universal Basic and Secondary Education, John Dewey argues the education model should constantly be shifting to adapt to what society needs at the moment (Cohen & Malin 17). He says problems that “the widest groups share are the essentials,” and the “needs of specialized groups… are secondary” (Cohen & Malin 17). The problems of society are prioritized based on whether they affect the whole or the individuals, so school curriculums should address these problems accordingly. I agree with this because it is important to not bind institutions to one goal. This is similar to Joseph Lample’s explanation that having more than one goal provides more flexibility and diverts attention away from only earning money. The future goals for tomorrow’s society are also addressed in Goals of Universal Basic and Secondary Education, and these goals are centered around the economy and technology. Beryl Levinger argues for using education to lift people out of poverty, claiming that “education must enable poor children… to integrate into the world economy” in order to “surpass the full range of limitations imposed by the circumstances of their birth” (Cohen & Malin 28). Although this goal is valid in that education should break those limitations, constructing an education model