sen - m_____.... __._ __ else 20 Goods and People 5‘7...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–24. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 4
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 6
Background image of page 7

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 8
Background image of page 9

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 10
Background image of page 11

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 12
Background image of page 13

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 14
Background image of page 15

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 16
Background image of page 17

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 18
Background image of page 19

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 20
Background image of page 21

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 22
Background image of page 23

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 24
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: m_____.... __._ __ else 20 Goods and People 5‘7 Aid/larlyfi SQ” 1 Introduction Hugh MacDiarmid, the Scottish poet, wrote in his Lament for Great Music: The struggle for material existence is over. It has been won. The need for repressions and disciplines have passed. The struggle for truth and that indescribable necessity, Beauty, begins now, hampered by none of the lower needs. No one now needs live less or be less than his utmost.1 While the necessity ‘to live less or be less than his utmost’ may indeed be over~in some Special sense, the tragic fact remains that the lives of most people of the world fall very far short of that ideal. In contrast with the expectation of life at birth of around the middle seventies in the rich countries, more than two—thirds of the ‘low— income’ countries have life expectancy below 50 years.2 The majority of people of the world do not have access to regular medical and hOSpital services, or to the security of safe water. Literacy rates are _ still shockingly low in most low-income countries. Even in the rich countries the relatively impoverished have to live a very constrained life in many respects.3 For a large part of the population of this globe there is, no escape from the need to ‘live less or be less’ — a great deal less -— than their ‘utmost’. This paper is concerned with some foundational issues in develop- ment analysis. It is argued here that the process of economic develop— 1. Hugh MacDiaImid, Collected Poems (London: MacGibbon & Kee, 1967). 2. World Development Report 1982, Table 21. The ‘low-income’ countries are defined as those with GNP per head less than US$410. See also Singer and Ansari (1977), Grant (1978) and Morris (1979). 3. See, for example, Jencks (1972), Atkinson (1975), Beckerman (1979), Townsend (1979). ' Paper presented at the opening Plenary Session of the Seventh World Congress of the International Economic Association, Madrid, 1983. 509 510 , .Goons AND WELL-BEING ' : ment is best seen as an expansion of peOple’s ‘capabilities’. This approach focuses on what people can do or can be, and development is seen as a process of emancipation from the enforced necessity to ‘live less or be less”. The/capabilities/approachrelates-torbutwfunda-m \mehtail‘wiffers from, charaEtei/‘izing developmentnasiciJZh—eLU) - _ Jam—Eam_m—————:_-fi——E "war-Aft" u o u - «expanswn of goods and servzces, 0r Tfiaaat‘gasgfimduidlfléia-QI- (3) rfi‘ki’ \Wifineedsifhese contrasts atgjakeniupiirstr-in—the next -xthr%eeseetiofisT‘——"*W - Another foundational issue concerns understanding the process of economic expansion and structural change through which capabilities can be expanded. This involves focusing on the ‘entitlements’ of peeple, representing the command of households over commodity bundles. These issues are briefly discussed in Sections 5 and 6. That question also requires us- to look into the use of entitlements and the factors governing it, e.g. division of commodities within the family, use of commodities to generate capabilities. The conversion of entitlements into capabilities raises many difficult economic and social problems, a few of which are taken up in Section 7. In Section 8 the so-called fworld food problem’ is discussed in the light of the approach of capabilities, and related to it, entitlements and conversion. The paper ends with some concluding remarks (Section 9). “ 2 Commodities and Capabilities It is not uncommon to think of economic development as expansion of the availability of goods and services in the country in question. The focus on the growth of GNP per head is an especially simple version of that general approach. There are some obvious merits in taking that approach. It is, for example, a good antidote to the temptation to build castles in the air — overlooking the commodity basis of prOSperity. But while goods and services are valuable, they are not valuable in themselves. Their value rests on what they can do for people, or rather, what people can do with these goods and services.4 This question is an important one to emphasize because ‘commodity fetishism’ — to borrow an expression from Marx (1887) — is such a wideSpread phenomenon, and the important role that the exchange l of commodities plays in modern society tends to sustain that fetishism. 4 4. Arguments for focusing on ‘capabilities’ in analysing well-being, equality, living standard and positive freedom have been presented in Sen (1979a, 1980, 1982a, 1983b). The capabilities approach can be traced back at least to Adam Smith and Marx, as is discussed in Sen (1983a, 1983b). GOODS AND PEOPLE 5 l 1 If the capabilities of each person were uniquely (and positively) related to the national availability of goods and services, then there would have been perhaps no great harm in focusing on the total supply of goods and services. But that assumption is a non—starter. There is not only the problem of the division of the national output between families and individuals,5 but also the fact that the conver— sion of commodities into capabilities varies enormously with a number of parameters, e.g. age, sex, health, social relations, class background, education, ideology, and a variety of other interrelated factors. Take the case of food and nutrition. The nutrition of people depends not merely on the availability of food per head in the community, but also on distribution considerations, on the one hand, and on the other on such factors as (i) the person’s age and sex (and if -a woman, whether pregnant or lactating); (ii) metabolic rates and body size; (iii) activity levels; (iv) medical conditions (including presence or absence of stomach parasites); (v) climatic conditions; (vi) the social needs of entertainment and communal relations (including offering and partaking of food); (vii) education in general, and in particular, knowledge of nutritional and health matters; (viii) access to medical services and the ability to use them, and so on. The capability of a person to be well nourished cannot be identified or linked in a straightforward way with the national supply of food, or even with his or her own individual access to food. The object of the exercise in dealing with the ‘food problem’ is to expand the ability to be well nourished and also to expand other related capabilities such as eliminating hunger, enjoying food and social intercourse, and so on. To focus on food as such without looking beyond would be a mistake. The same applies to commodities in general. Development is not a matter, ultimately, of expanding supplies of commodities, but of enhancing the capabilities of people. The former has importance only in an instrumental and strongly contingent way, traceable to the real importance of the latter. 3 Capabilities and Utilities It might be tempting to think that the above line of reasoning must lead to focusing on utilities as the standard of value, which is what 5. The distributional question raises interesting problems in the characterization of real national income; see Sen (1967a, 1976b). Mwm’w....«u. _.._r..-.-A,._-i_‘ WW... 5 12 GOODS AND WELL-BEING traditional welfare econOmics tends to do. But confining attention to utilities amounts to seeing people in a highly limited way. Happiness or desire—fulfilment represents only one aspect of human existence. It can be argued that capabilities are valued ultimately because they reflect freedom, including, inter alia, the freedom to achieve happiness. It is a question of the command that people have over their lives.6 Hunger, starvation and famines are awful social phenomena not just because they cause disutility. An elementary failure of freedom is involved in this, and we do not judge the seriousness of the situation by the precise extent of the unhappiness, or dissatisfaction. It is inevitable that on a fundamental subject like this there would be differences of approach. It is not my purpose in this essay to present detailed arguments as to why the utilitarian basis of traditional welfare economics is fundamentally flawed. I have discussed this question more extensively elsewhere] and will not further pursue the debate here. But there is a practical issue related to this question that has not been much discussed in the literature and which happens to be very important in evaluating and assessing development and structural change. Judging importance by the mental metric of happiness or desire—fulfilment can take a deeply biased form due to the fact that the mental reactions often reflect defeatist compromises with harsh reality“ induced by hopelessness. The insecure sharecropper, the exploited landless labourer, the overworked domestic servant, the subordinate housewife, may all come to terms with their respective predicaments in such a way that grievance and discontent are sub- merged in cheerful endurance by the necessity of uneventful survival.8 The hopeless underdog loses the courage to desire a better deal and learns to take pleasure in small mercies. The deprivations appear muffled and muted in the metric of utilities. _ In such situations discontent and disutility, instead of being tragic outcomes (as in utilitarian assessment), would have constituted a positive assertion of creative potentiality. Since economic develop ment has much to do with making structural changes to conquer the inequities and exploitations that characterize the world, the import- ance of questioning the utilitarian method of accounting cannot be overemphasized. 6. The roots of this approach go back at least to Smith (177 6) and Marx (1887). 7. See Sen (1970, 1979a, 1979b, 1982b). See also Rawls (1971), Williams (1973) and Sen and Williams (1982). For defences of the utility-based approach, see Ng (1981) and the papers by Hare, Harsanyi and Mirrlees in Sen and Williams (1982), in which see also the anti-utilitarian arguments presented by Dasgupta, Elster, Hahn, Hammond, Hampshire, Rawls, Scanlon, Taylor and others. 8. See Sen (1981b, 1982c), and Essay 13 in this volume, and Elster (1982). GOODS AND PEOPLE 5 13 The ability to achieve happiness, is, of course, of importance on its own, and it can certainly be seen as one of many capabilities of relevance to development. The difference with utilitarianism arises in the insistence of the latter that everything —— including all other capabilities — be judged exclusively in the metric of utilities. Judging the importance of anything is thus identified with measuring the utilities associated with it. Removal of starvation, poverty, inequity, exploitation, illiteracy, and other deprivations, is seen as unimportant in itself and rendered important only if — and to the extent that —+~ there is a net utility gain through that removal. It is this utility-based narrow vision of traditional welfare economics that is fundamentally inadequate as a basis for evaluating action and policy, in general, and , development and structural change, in particular. 4 Capabilities and Basic Needs The approach of meeting ‘basic needs’,9 which has played an important part in the recent literature on economic deveIOpment, has some similarities with the capabilities approach. As Paul Streeten (1981) has pointed out, ‘the basic needs concept is a reminder that the objective of the development effort is to provide all human beings with the-opportunity for a full life’ (p. 21). It involves the rejection of both utility—based welfare economics and commodity-based growth calculus. These characteristics are shared by the basic needs approach with the capabilities approach, and more specifically the focus on ‘nutrition, health, shelter, waterrand‘sahitation, education, and other essentials’ in the basic needs approach makes it directly concerned with a number of important capabilities. There are, however, significant differences as well. First, the ‘basic needs’ are defined in terms of commodities (in Streeten’s (1981) words, ‘particular goods and services required to achieve certain results’), even though attention is paid to differences in the commodities needed by different persons to satisfy the same human requirements. Thus the focus remains on commodities even though the contingent nature of commodity requirements is fully acknow— ledged. But often commodity requirements may not be at all derivable from a specified set of capabilities, since the relation between com- modity bundles and capability bundles may quite plausibly be a many—one correspondence, with the same capabilities being achievable 9. See Pant (1962), Haq (1976), Herrera et at. (1976), ILO (1976), Ghai er a1. (1977), Griffin (1978), Streeten and Burki (1 97 8), Chichilnisky (1980), Streeten (1981), for various ways of characterizing basic needs. 5 14 ' GOODS AND WELL-BEING by more than one particular bundle of goods and services. (For example, different combinations of food and health services may produce the same level of nutrition.) Operating on the commodity space rather than directly on the space of capabilities involves additional problems. Second, the commodity requirements for specific capabilities may not be independently decidable for each person, due to social inter- dependence. For example, such capabilities as the ability to appear in public without shame (discussed by Adam Smith, 1776), or taking part in the life of the community (discussed by Peter Townsend, 1979), depends on the consumption of others. This has not merely the consequence that absolute deprivation in capabilities may take the form of relative deprivation in terms of commodities and incomes (see Sen, 1983a), but also that the needs of commodities may not be absolutely specifiable at all. Third, basic needs are ‘interpreted in terms of minimum specified quantities’ of particular commodities, and the implicit framework is that of reaching a minimum level of capabilities (see Streeten, 1981, pp. 25 -6). The capability approach, in contrast, is not confined to that use only, and indeed can be used for judging individual ‘advantage’ at any level.“3 In this sense the basic needs approach involves one particular application of the capabilities framework. The capabilities approach is applicable in judging advantage and deprivation in rich countries as well as poor ones (Sen, 1983a), and it can also be used for such other purposes as judging the real extent of inequality (Sen, 1980). Fourth, ‘needs’ is a more passive concept than ‘capability’, and it is arguable that the perspective of positive freedom links naturally with capabilities (what can the person do?) rather than with the fulfilment of their needs (what can be done for the person?) The perspective of fulfilling needs has some obvious advantages in dealing with dependents (e.g. children), but for responsible adults the format of capabilities may be much more suitable in seeing what is involved and in linking it with the issue of freedom. This distinction is really a matter of outlook and emphasis, but it can be quite important in analysing general objectives of development. The controversies on the use of the basic needs approach has tended to be concerned with strategic issues rather than with foundational 10. This can be done through vector comparisons (yielding a partial order) or through weighting and indexing (leading to a more complete ordering). The underlying technical issues as well as some empirical problems are discussed in my forthcoming monograph Com- modities and Capabilities, Hennipman Lecture, Sen (1983b). GOODS AND PEOPLE - S 15 ones. It has, for example, been argued that concentrating on basic needs may interfere with building a soiid material basis of economic prosperity. However, economic prosperity is not sought for its own sake, and the concern with it can be seen to be based ultimately on worry about capabilities in the future, which might not be achievable in the absence of economic expansion. The debate can thus be cast in terms of the conflicts between immediately enhancing capabilities now (reflected in meeting basic needs) and long—term expansion of capabilities in the future (through economic prosperity). Thus analysed, the debate can be seen to be of the traditional form — familiar in the literature on planning11 — of capabilities now versus a bigger expansion of capabilities in the future. Though the object of value is changed here from the traditional concentration on utilities (utilities now versus more utilities later), the intertemporal conflict must be seen to be of the familiar type. Another criticism of the basic needs approach arises from the. worry that a concentration on just the minimum requirements may lead to a softening of the opposition to inequality in general. ‘Mini— mum needs and no more’is a familiar - and unfair —~ caricature. But if the basic needs approach is seen as just one application of the capabilities approach, it would be clear that other issues related to capabilities (including that of the equality of capabilities, see Sen, 1980), is not prejudiced by the special concern with basic needs at a certain stage of development. What is needed is to take the basic needs approach out of the arbitrarily narrow box into which it seems to have got confined. To see it as just one part of the capabilities approach — to which it is motivationally linked — would do just that. All the standard issues of efficiency, equality, etc. can be seen as arising within the capabili- ties approach.12 (The contribution of that approach is mainly to make the metric of advantage and achievement avoid both the fetishism of the commodity focus and the subjectivism of the utility focus, rather than to lead to undue concentration on minimality or immediacy.) The basic needs approach would cease to appear one— sided and distracting if it is seen to be a part of .a more general approach and if that recognition is allowed to have its due impact in policy formulation. 1 1. See Chakravarty (1970), Heal (1 97 3), Dasgupta (1982). 12. This includes problems of incentives and the conflicts between efficiency and- equality. How important these conflicts are is an empirical question that is both important and complex and this question has to be faced just as much within the capabilities approach as under the more traditional approaches. 7 5 16 GOODS AND WELL—BEING 5 Entitlements, Famines and Hunger The capabilities of persons depend, among other things, on the bundles of commodities over which they can establish command. In each society there are rules that govern who can have the use of what, and people pursue their respective objectives subject to these rules. For example, in a private ownership economy, use depends on ownership and exchange. The set of all bundles of commodities from which a person can choose one bundle can be called the person’s ‘entitlement’.13 To illustrate, suppose person i owns initially 20 units of commodity 1 and 30 units of commodity 2. This can be called his endowment vector. He can stick to that bundle if he so chooses, but he can also exchange that bundle into another through trade or production. Any other bundle of goods that would cost no more than what 20 units of commodity 1 and 30 units of commodity 2 would fetch in the market is included in his entitlement set. So is every other bundle within that budget constraint. And so are other bundles that he can acquire through production (‘exchange with nature’), or a mixture of production and trade. The trade and production possibilities are sum- marized by an ‘exchange entitlement mapping’, which specifies, for each endowment bundle, all the different bundles any one of which he can command (e.g. through the use of trade or production)?4 A person’s endowment vector and the exchange entitlement mapping together determine his over-all entitlement, representing the actual opportunity of acquiring commodity bundles in his particular situation. ' The entitlement of a person also includes what can be obtained through claims against the state, e.g. the entitlement to unemploy- ment benefit (if the person fails to find a job), or to social subsidy (if his income falls below a certain minimum figure). In many: economies these entitlements are substantial enough to provide a person with a good deal of security, but in others they are tiny or just absent. In situations of distress, e.g. a slump, the existence of such claims against the state might well be vital for survival. 13. The concept of entitlements has been more fully presented, explored and used for analysis in Sen (1977b, 19813.). See also Arrow (1982). 14. Formally, if x is a person’s endowment vector and f (-) a set-valued function speci- fying for each endowment vector a set of vectors over which he can establish command, then f (x) is the person’s endowment set. The characteristic of the exchange entitlement mapping f (v) in different economic systems and circumstances have been explored in Appendices A and B in Sen (1981a). GOODS AND PEOPLE 5 17 The entitlement approach concentrates on relating a person’s or a household’s actual command over goods and services to the rules of entitlement in that system and the person’s or household’s actual position in the system (e.g. the initial ownership or endowment). This way of approaching the issue contrasts with approaches that avoid the question of command by making some general assumption about the over-all availability of goods for distribution among the population. This includes theories (such as Malthusian population theory) that concentrate on average food output per head as the key indicator determining famines and other disasters,15 as well as those that explicitly assume a given unequal pattern of distribution with- out going into the causation of that distribution. Since these distri-' butions have been known to change sharply over a short period (and not only over the longer run), the case for a causal analysis of the type demanded by the entitlement approach seems to be strong. Whether a person is able to establish command over, say, enough food to avoid starvation depends on the nature of the entitlement system operating in the economy in question and on the person’s own position in that society. Even when the over-all ratio of food to population is high, particular occupation groups can perish because of their inability to establish command over enough food. To see the food problem in terms of, say, the Malthusian focus on food output or supply per head can be a deadly mistake — literally so.16 To illustrate this point, I shall make brief references to a number of particular experiences of hunger and famine in the modern world, based on some of the detailed case studies that I have presented else- where (Sen, 1981a; see also Essay 18 in this volume). (1) In the Great Bengal Famine of 1943, in which about 3 million peeple died, food availability per unit of population was not particu- larly low and was, in fact, about 9 per cent higher than in 1941 when there was no famine. The famine victims (e.g. landless rural labourers, fishermen) suffered a drastic decline in their market entitlements due to their wages and money earnings not keeping up with the rise in food prices, resulting from demand—fed inflationary pressure in a war-boom economy (with urban expansion being supplemented by exclusively urban food rationing at controlled prices, largely insulating 15. Malthus (1978). However, see also Malthus (1800), in which he outlines an entitle- ment system, albeit in a rudimentary form; on this see Sen (1981a), pp. 174-9. 16. On related issues, see Aziz (1975, 1982), Taylor (1975), Lipton (1977), Griffin (1978), Sinha and Drabek (1978), Ghose (1979), Parikh and Rabar (1982), Oughton (1982), Srinivasan (1982), Ravallion (1983). 7" fimmmwwuwmawmmwwvamp-0L: (finds/"1'?:‘wh‘nn-eI'J: “as. - . 518 GOODS AND WELL-BEING urban purchasers from the rise in food prices in the rest of the economy)” (2) During the Ethiopian famine in Wollo of 1972, the food availability per head in Ethiopia as a whole was normal. Though the food output in Wollo itself was much lower due to drought, food did not move much into Wollo from elsewhere in the country, and some food actuain moved out of Wollo, which experienced a famine with largely stationary prices (since the ability of the Wollo population to buy food had fallen along with the decline of agricultural output).18 (3) In the Ethiopian famine in Harerghe in 1974, the most-affected victim-group, viz. the pastoralists, were hit not merely by the loss of animals due to drought, but also — quantitatively more importantly — by the change in the relative prices of animals and animal products vis-a-Vis foodgrains, which affected their basis of subsistence in the form of selling animals and animal products to buy normally cheaper calories in foodgrains. The market mechanism played a decirnating role in this famine, through the general fall in incomes (agricultural and pastoral) making consumers shift from richer animal products to basic f oodgrains, driving up the relative price of the latter.” (4) In the Bangladesh famine in 1974 the food availability per head was higher than in any other year during 1971—75. Rural labourers were affected by the loss of employment due to floods, which later affected output to be harvested, but which had an immediate and devastating impact on the entitlement of the wage labourers. Rise in rice prices due to general inflationary pressure also made the market entitlements go down.20 The cases of famines bring out dramatically the importance of variations of entitlements in matters of life and death —— a role that cannot be taken over by such variables as the index of food avail- 17. See Sen (1981a, Chapter 6). There were other factors supplementing this picture, e.g. powerful speculative rises in food prices partly engineered by a few traders, and totally inept government policy adding to panic rather than providing relief. 18. See Sen (1981a, Chapter 7). Food ‘counter-movement’, i.e. food moving out of the famine areas, has also been observed in other famines, e.g. the Irish famines of 18403 and the Bangladesh famine of 1974. It is.characteristic of certain types of famines in which the effective demand falls more than the supply of food (Sen, 1981a, pp. 160—2). 19. See Sen (1981a, Chapter 7). The market-oriented development of commercial agriculture also contributed to the decline by affecting the availability of good grazing grounds for the Ethiopian pastoralists to use. 20. See Sen (1981a, Chapter 9). See also Alamgir (1980); also Islam (1977). Afurther adverse development was the decision of the United States government to discontinue food aid to Bangladesh (because of her trade with Cuba) precisely when it was most needed — with a famine threatening and food stocks in the public distribution system being very low (on this see McHenry and Bird, 1977, and Sobhan, 1979). The introduction of public‘relief, creating entitlements against the state, was delayed crucially as a result. GOODS AND PEOPLE 5 19 ability or of food output per head. The relevance of entitlements is, however, much more pervasive than might appear from these examples. For example, in determining the causation of endemic malnutrition in many developing economies, such as India, the entitlement system provides a helpful format for analysing the mechanism of the failure to establish command over an adequate bundle of food on the part of many occupation groups. For example, for landless labourers the only endowment worth the name is labour power, and their fortunes depend crucially on the working of the labour market. For sharecroppers, in contrast, there is also the issue of the right to cultivate the land in question, and the substance of entitlements related to it depends on the legal and practical status of that right and the economic circumstances governing them. 6 Incomes and Entitlements Since food is bought and sold in the market in a straightforward way, and since much of the income of the very poor is expended on food, it may be helpful to see the'entitlement to food in terms of incomes. Indeed, it has become quite widely recognized in recent years that hunger is very often caused by shortage of incomes rather than by the over-all shortage of food. This rather simple way of seeing the entitlement problem is a bit incomplete since income has to be earned and the causes of the inability to earn enough income would have to be studied, investigating endowments (including labour power) and exchange possibilities (including employment and wages). Nevertheless the level of income is a crucial variable in under- standing the entitlement to food and can be treated as such without losing the essentials of a more complete approach. _ The commanding power of incomes depends, naturally, on prices, and as such we have to look at some notion of ‘real income’ (that is, corrected for prices). The real income is, of course, a weight~based index, and much depends on what weights are chosen. In dealing with food command in distress situations it may be appropriate to put a greater weight on food, and indeed in some contexts it is useful to get a straightforward estimate of the total amount of food com- mand if all income were expended on food.21 Since the weight of food is in any case very high in the budget of the poor in the developing countries, the issue of weighting is not. such a complex 21. See Sen (1981a, pp. 63—70, 104—11, 145-50). 5 20 GOODS AND WELL-BEING one in dealing specifically with the entitlement to food in that context. However, for other goods and services (e.g. education, health services, transport), real income may provide quite a distant way of viewing entitlement. The expenditure on these commodities may not be a_ large part of the total budget so that their weight on the price index may be relatively small. A change in the price or availability of these goods and services may not thus be strongly reflected in the real income index. Further the existence of quantity‘restric'tions make the income-based view very opaque. If there is no hospital in the neighbourhood or no school within easy reach — or if there are hospitals and schools but with highly limited capacity — the income of the would-be purchaser may not give much of an idea as to whether the person can or cannOt acquire these commodities. Entitlements have to be studied in a more elaborate way in these cases and the short—cut of making do with an income—based picture will give little clue as to what people can or cannot acquire. In examining the enormous differences in the access to health services, medicine, education, etc., in different poor countries, the approach of entitlement has to be more fully applied (see Sen, 1983c). _ This problem may not be very serious for the entitlement to food, but it can be nevertheless extremely serious for the capability to be well nourished, which —— as was discussed'earlier —— is the real concern in being interested in the entitlement to food. The capability to be well nourished depends, among other things, on the medical condi- tion of the people (e.g. the presence or absence ,of parasitic diseases in the stomach),22 and it depends also on nutritional education and knowledge. The entitlements to these other goods and services (e.g. health and educational services) are not well approximated by over- all indices of real income. Thus when it comes to the capability to be well nourished, income ceases to be an adequate parameter of analysis, and considerations of food entitlement have to be supple- mented by those of entitlements to complementary goods and services. This is an irnportant qualification to bear in mind while applauding the fact that in recent years the importance of income shortage in hunger has ~— rightly — come to be widely recognized. 7 Mira—family Distribution and Capabilities Capability to be nourished, as was argued in the last section, is not a matter of entitlement to food only, but depends also on entitlements 22. See, for example, Scrimshaw (1977). GOODS AND PEOPLE 5 21 to other goods and services such as health services, medicine and education. In fact, even when the entitlements to all these commodi~ ties have been fully taken into account, there remain other sources of variation of the capability to be nourished, as was discussed in Section 2. One issue concerns the distribution of food and other commodities within the family. While we have been talking of entitlements of persons, the usual procedures of production and exchange apply to households only, with the distribution within the household being determined by other procedures.23 It is the entitlements of house— holds that have to be then translated into actual consumption of members of the household. There is a good deal of evidence that in poor countries in different parts of the world, food is often distri- buted very unequally within the family (see, for example, the surveys by den Hartog (1973) and Schofield (1975)). An important difficulty in studying this problem arises from the fact that the relationship between consumption of food and capability to be well nourished varies with age, sex, activity level, pregnancy, lactation and other variables. For example, an observed lower intake of food by women vis-arvis men has often not been taken as evidence of sex bias, on the ground that the calorie requirements of men are also higher. However, the so-called calorie requirements specified by the FAQ/WHO Expert Committee (1973) are extremely arbitrary both in general methodology (relying simply on body size and activity level) and in the particular way activity levels are specified (especially underestimating the energy use in home-based work)?“ The fact that the lower food intake of women may appear to be more than counterbalanced by the lower ‘requirements’ of women is thus not as definitive evidence of the absence of anti-female bias in household allocation as it has sometimes been taken to be. In fact, as was argued in the context of discussing the ‘basic needs’ approach (Section 4), the idea of commodity ‘requirements’ for particular ‘capabilities’ is itself unsustainable. There are possi- bilities of ‘multiple equilibria’ of energy and work, and also con- siderable variations in these relations between one person and another.”5 There are ‘many—one’ correspondences between com- modity bundles (food, health, education, etc.) and nutritional levels. 23. The theory that argues that non-market transactions can be fruitfully seen in terms of as if market exchanges has a long way to go to be convincing either in theory or in. empirical application, even though it has provided some useful insights on some particular issues (see Becker, 1981). 24. See Chen, Huq and D'Souza (1980) and Sen (19810), among others. 25. See Sukhatme (1977), Davidson, Passmore, Brook and Truswell (1979), and Srinivasan (1982). __.____WMWW“M,mmwmrw~W'mtmu-_wmwwwa a a: WW1‘nfifn-W‘luls ; W; . 5 22 GOODS AND WELL-BEING The simple formulae of ‘requirements’ are less scientific than they might look, and they have sometimes simply helped to justify systematic biases in the treatment of different groups, such as men and women. In judging the well-being of different groups and the deal they get in the society, it would be more sensible to go directly towards observing achievements rather than commodity consumption. For example, it is more, sensible to look for medical signs of under- nourishment and nutrition—related morbidity and mortality, than to estimate, first, personal food intake, and then, see how that relates to the assumed ‘requirements’. In terms of the capabilities approach, observing morbidity or undernourishment is clearly the right direction to go, since our ultimate concern is not with who eats how much, but largely with the capabilities of nourishment that the persons in question enjoy. Two objections can, however, be raised. First, the capabilities can be difficult to measure, and it can be argued that they are not as straight- forward as intakes of food. This is, up to a point, a sustainable objec- tion. However, observational problems in ascertaining who eats how much are also very serious.‘ To get accurate data on the intake of calories and other nutrients of each member of the family, it would be necessary not only to see who is eating how much in a family meal, but also to weigh exactly all the food items consumed by each, and it is a little difficult to assume that the eating activities would be unaffected by such interference. Ascertaining nutritional charac- teristics and getting morbidity and mortality data may be a relatively simpler operation.26 _ The second objection takes the form of pointing out that observ- ing nutritional characteristics may not tell us much about inequalities in the distribution of food. That is indeed so, but since ultimately interest in food consumption largely rests in its effects on nutrition and its consequences, the loss may not be very great.” The essence of the capabilities approach is to see commodity consumption as no more than a means to generating capabilities, and if the capabilities 26. It should, however, be emphasized that assessing capability, which represents a set of possibilities, is not identical with assessing the actual use that is made of the capabilities, reflected in the particular outcome. In the case of avoiding serious undernourishment or high morbidity or mortality, the problem may be less difficult than it is in other cases. On this general question, see Sen (1 9831)). 27. Note, however, the ability to enjoy consuming food or using it for various social purposes can also be quite an important capability, and this cannot be identified with nutrition. See Douglas and Isherwood (1979). But nor is the quantity of food consumed in itself a good indicator of these functional uses of food. A more sophisticated analysis of capabilities is called for. ' mm...— GOODS AND PEOPLE 5 23 and their use can be directly ascertained, the absence of detailed information on commodity consumption may not be much regretted. It should be conceded that when dealing with less elementary capabilities than the ability to be well nourished, the observational problems may be more serious. Indeed, it will sometimes be the case that commodity inputs may be much easier to observe than capabilities and their use, and there may then be some practical advantage in using adjusted commodity data as ‘proxy’ for capabilities (see Sen, 1983b). However, that is a tactical issue and does not overturn the basic fact that it is capabilities that we are interested in, and even in these cases, observing commodity consumption would be moti- vated by treating it as a possibly convenient indicator of capabilities. _ The importanceof entitlements rests in the role they play in the determination of capabilities. From the point of view of policy this role can he sometimes crucial, and in dealing with such extreme problems as famines, an almost exclusive concentration on entitle— ments and their variations may sometimes make sense. On the other hand, in dealing with less extreme problems, e.g. endemic malnutri- tion, high morbidity and mortality, it is very important to remember that entitlements constitute no more than one part of the story. It is, to be sure, a part that undoubtedly deserves serious attention, especi— ally in dealing With policy issues related to land reform, employment policy, social security, food for work programmes, etc., but the incompleteness of the entitlement picture has to be kept in view for a more comprehensive attack on deprivation (and on the enforced necessity of people to ‘live less or be less’ than what society can Organize). 8 Remarks on the Food Problem Malthusian pessimism has had a great revival in recent decades, and the so-called "world food problem’ has become a subject of great concern. Model—based reasoning has outlined various scenarios of collapse of ‘material existence’ on this planet,” and the prospect of worldwide starvation has been forcefully portrayed. These analyses have had a great impact on the way the food problem and the future of the world are viewed by the general public, fed by hair-raising reports in the media, blowing up and distorting the pronouncements of specialist experts. As I write this paper, The Times of Friday 28. See, for example, Forrester (1971), Meadows er al. (1972), Mesarovic and Pastel (1974), Brown and Eckhoim (1974). 524 GOODS AND WELL-BEING 17 June 1983, reports under the eye~catching heading, ‘Starvation Threat to 65 Nations’: ‘More than half of the world’s developing nations will be unable to feed their people by the end of this century, according to a United Nations survey, published today.’ We are told: ‘Data about soils and climate in 117 lands was fed into a complex computer programme to produce the “grim conclusion”, according to the UN Fund for Population Activities which sponsored the survey in collaboration with the UN Food and Agriculture Organisa- tion’ (p. 5). , It is right that worries about the economic future of the world should engage serious attention. However, serious attention has not typically confirmed the pessimism. Models of collapse are not, of course, difficult to construct (with or Without ‘a complex computer programme’l). But most of the serious studies of long-run prognosti- cation (including the FAO report allegedly summarized by The Times) have not prophesied such a coming doom, and have indicated much greater scope for decisive policy response.” There are obvious scopes for disagreement on various assumptions used in these models, but the case for Malthusian pessimism looks far from plausible. The neo-Malthusian resurgence does, in fact, seriously misguide economic thinking in two important ways. First, by focusing on such misleading variables as food output per unit of population, the Malthusian approach profoundly misspecifies the problems facing the poor in the world, as was discussed in Section 5 above. The question of entitlements in general and food entitlements in particular get submerged in the crude picture of supply and availability. It is often overlooked that what may be called ‘Malthusian optimism’ has actually killed millions of people. Focusing attention on the Mal- thusian variable of food output per head, the food situation has often appeared to be comfortable even when there have been good economic grounds for expecting terrible troubles for particular occupation groups, and in such circumstances public policy based on smugness (related to food output per head) has tended to permit the development of a widespread famine when it could have been easily averted. ” Second, by concentrating attention on the alleged long-run decline in the future, neo-Malthusianism distracts attention from the already existing sufferings and miseries in the world. The need for a positive advance gets overshadowed by an imagined need for countering a hypothetical future decline. The real problem is not that the world 29. See Parikh and Rabat (1981), and also Leontief er al. (1977), Herrera er al. (1977), Interfutures (1979), Linnemann (1981). See also Aziz (1975, 1982), Taylor (1975), Griffin (1978), Sinha and Drabek (1978), Swaminathan (1983). GOODS AND PEOPLE 525 will turn beastly, but that it is beastly already; and it has been so throughout history, with human life being nasty, brutish and short. Food output per head has been steadily rising in the world as a whole. It has, however, been falling in particular countries, most of them in parts of Africa. In itself this is not a pointer to disaster. Not every country has to grow all the food it eats -— many of the rich ones (e.g. Britain) do not. The real problem is that the decline in food output per head in many of these countries is going hand in hand with a decline in real income per head, and the entitlement to food is also slipping for many of the occupation groups in these countries. Such an occurrence can and does take place in many countries through the decline of other economic variables such as non-food crops, industrial output and employment, and mining activities. What is really worrying about the so—called ‘African food problem’ is this decline in economic power to command goods and services, especially food.'The fact that in many of these countries this economic decline is associated with a decline in food output per head is not in itself of overwhelming significance. This way of looking at the problem in terms of entitlements also suggests that in deciding on policy response there is no a priori reason to pursue expansion of food output only, and it is rather a matter of decidii'igwhat type of economic expansion would lead to a steady rise of real income in general and that for poor and vulner- able groups in particular. The seriousness of the problem of survival and nutrition should not turn us all into Physiocrats. The question of food output is, however, of importance in itself in two particular respects, within the entitlement approach. First, the relative prices of food will depend on the supply, and if there is a decline in the world food output this would be reflected in prices being higher than what would have otherwise been the case. But this line of reasoning points not to the. necessity that every country should grow its own food, but that the world supply should keep in line with world demand, which is a very different type of require— ment. Indeed, given the fact that incomes are rising in many poor countries leading to an increase in food consumption per head, the issue of demand and supply calls for a substantially faster rate of expansion of food output in the world than the growth of population. The second direct role of food output as such relates to the fact that given inefficiencies and the uncertainties of the market mecha- nism, particular occupation groups may be safer by growing their own food than by depending on income from other sources.30 This 30. See Chapters 7, 8 and 10 in Sen (1981a). S 26 GOODS AND WELL-BEING is a matter of economic judgement, and the issue once again is not the size of food output as such but the minimum food command that vulnerable groups might be able to secure.31 . The question of food entitlements represents one side of the food problem, and in this, food production has an important, though contingent, role. But as was argued earlier, the capability to be Well nourished does not depend on food entitlement only. There is also the question of entitlement to complementary goods and services such as health services and education, and furthermore the problem of distribution of food within the family. The success of some countries in eliminating endemic malnutrition and the related morbi- dities and mortality (e.g. China, Sri Lanka) has been based on a policy package in which a more equal access to food has been supple- mented by widespread access to health services and elementary education. Policies of free or subsidized food distribution have been supplemented by an active public policy of health and education. I have discussed these questions elsewhere (Sen, 1981c, 1983c), and here I shall only note that on the basis of these policies China and Sri Lanka have been able to achieve levels of health and longevity that are very much higher than in countries with comparable GNP per head (such as Pakistan or India), and at least as high as many countries that are many times richer in terms of GNP per head (such as Brazil or Mexico). The part of the food policy that is most difficult to deal with concerns the issue of distribution of food within the family. Evidence of a systematic bias against women, and even against girls vis-a-vis boys, is quite strong in many developing countries, especially in Asia.32 This appiies to observed differences in capability failure with respect to nutrition,33 and seems also to relate to the fact that despite the biological advantages of the female in survival, in many of these countries women have lower longevity (and higher mortality at most ages). The problem is particularly acute in Asia. It is interesting to note that while the ratio of female to male population is 1.02 in Africa and 1.05 in Europe and North America, that ratio is 0.99 in Latin America, 0.96 in East Asia (including China), 0.96 in Southwest Asia, and 0.93 in South Asia (including India).34 There are a number 31. See Sinha and Drabek (1978) and Aziz (1982). 32. See, for example, . Bardhan (1974), den Hartog (1973), Schoi‘ield (1975), Chen, Huq and D’Souza (1980), Mitra (1980), Sen (1981), Kynch and Sen (1982). 33. See Kynch and Sen (1982) and Sen and Sengupta (1983). - 34. See United Nations, Demographic Year book 1981 (New York: UN, 1982). The latest Chinese Census seems to suggest an even lower female—male ratio for China, just over 0.94. GOODS AND PEOPLE S 27 of complex causal factors in this contrast, but the relative neglect of the female in intr‘a-family distribution (involving both food and health services) is possibly an important influence.35 Just as there might be a special ‘African food problem’, with persistent production problems, there might even be a peculiarly ‘Asian food problem’, involving intra—family biases in the distribution of food (and of complementary goods and services).36 The policy issues related to this ‘Asian food problem’ are very complex, since changing the modes of family behaviour is no mean task. The role of education, especially political education, is important in the long-run solution of the problem, as is the question of female employment and economic power.” In the short run there might be considerable scope for reducing the extent of the discrimination against little girls through supplementary feeding of children in direct nutritional intervention (through school meals and other programmes of public feeding of children). There is, in fact, some evidence that such intervention might reduce the excess female undernourishment and morbidity, aside from reducing undernourish— ment in general.38 . _ There is no one ‘world food problem’. There are many distinct — though interrelated — problems of food entitlement and the capability to be nourishedfThe policy issues include, among others: (1) generating and guaranteeing entitlement to food of households in different occupation groups (involving not merely issues of food production, but also of income security, employment policy, public distribution, land reform, and related structural changes in the economy); (2) generating and guaranteeing entitlement to complementary goods and services (especially health services and education, possibly through public policy); (3) working towards the elimination of biases against women and children where they exist (involving long-run economic, political and social change, and in the short-run possibly various types of feeding programmes, especially of children). 35. See Kynch and Sen (1982). 36. It should be mentioned, however, that'nutritional sex bias seems to be less present in Southeast Asia. Also, the female-male ratio in Southeast Asia is, in fact, around 1.01 -— much higher than in the rest of Asia. 37. See Sen (1983d, 1984). 38. See Sen and Sengupta (1933), for a case study. S 28 GOODS AND WELL-BEING 9 Concluding Remarks In this paper there has been an attempt to discuss the case for, and the implications of, seeing development as expansion of capabilities of people. This perspective differs from taking a commodity-centred view, of which concentration on GNP and its growth rate is an especially simple case (Section 2). It also involves the rejection of a utility-based View, common in welfare economics (Section 3). Further, it differs from the ‘basic needs’ approach, though it facili- tates seeing that approach in a wider perspective (Section 4). It is important to go into these foundational issues for understanding and analysing the requirements of development, including the nature of the structural changes that are called for. The generation of capabilities relates to entitlements, in the form of command over goods and Services. Economic analyses based on such gross variables as food availability per head, or GNP per head, can be very misleading in understanding starvation and hunger, and deprivation in general. Entitlement systems and the positions of particular occupation groups in such systems deserve careful analysis (Section 5). H While income is a good intermediate variable in studying food entitlement, it often provides an unhelpful perspective in dealing with entitlements to other goods and services, including those complementary to food. It can also be very misleading as a basis for causal analysis of nutritional differences (Section 6). The problem of distribution of food within the household raises a particularly complex set of questions. Given the firm evidence of sex bias in some parts of the world, especially in much of Asia, the policy issues can be particularly serious. Sex bias is best analysed in terms of differences of capabilities and nutritional achievements rather than in terms of differences in consumption (including food intake). The former relates better to the ultimate objectives and it also avoids the absurdly difficult problem of observing individual consumption in a joint family meal (Section 7). While the ‘world food problem’ has attracted, in recent decades, a lot of attention, the nature of the difficulties has often been mis- specified. There are several distinct ‘food problems’ which require separate, but not independent, analysis. Some remarks have been made on these problems (Section 8), including that of food entitle— ments, entitlements of complementary goods and services (such as health services, medicine and education), and conversion of house— GOODS AND PEOPLE 529 hold entitlements into personal capabilities. (including the important problem of distribution within the family). The process of development is not primarily one of expanding the supply of goods and services but of enhancing the capabilities of ‘ people. Focusing on capabilities forces us to see the theoretical questions and policy issues in a particular light. There is a need to pay specific attention to the generation and security of entitlements and their conversion into capabilities. Some of the underlying policy issues are as complex as the basic approach is simple. That, of course, is not unusual in economics. References Alamgir, M. (1980): Famine in South Asia —— Political Economy of Mass Starva- tion in Bangladesh (Cambridge, Mass.: Oelgeschlager, Gunn and Haiti). Arrow, K. J. (1982): ‘Why People Go Hungry’, New York Review of Books, 29 (l 5 July). Atkinson, A. B. (1975): The Economics 0' f Inequality (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Aziz, S. (ed.) (1975): Hunger, Politics and Markets: The Real Issues in the Food Crisis (New York: NYU Press). . —-—(ed.) (1982)“? ‘The Fight Against World Hunger’, Special number of Development, 4. Bardhan, P. (1974): ‘On Life and Death Questions’, Economic and Political Weekly (4 September). Becker, G. (1981): A Treatise on the Family (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univer- sity Press). Beckerman, W. (1979): The Impact of Income Maintenance Programmes on Poverty in Four Developing Countries (Geneva: ILO). Brown, L. R. and Eckholm, E. P. (1974): By Bread Alone (Oxford: Pergamon Press). Chakravarty, S. (1969): Capital and Development Planning (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press). Chen, L. C., Huq, E. and D’Souza, S. (1980): ‘A Study of Sex-Biased Behaviour in the Intra-family Allocation of Food and the Utilization of Health Care Services in Rural Bangladesh’ (Harvard School of Public Health). Chichilnisky, G. (1980): ‘Basic Needs and Global Models: Resources, Trade and Distribution’, Alternatives, VI. Dasgupta, P. (1982): The Control of Resources (Oxford: Blackwell). Davidson, 8., Passmore, R., Brock, J. F. and Truswell, A. S. (1979): Human Nutrition and Dietectics (Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone). den Hartog, A. P. (1973): ‘Unequal Distribution of Food within the Household’, FAONewsletter, 10 (4) (October-December). Douglas, M. and Isherwood, B. (1979): The World of Goods (New York: Basic Books). 5 30 GOODS AND WELL-BEING Elster, I. (1982): ‘The Sour Grapeis’, in Sen and Williams (1982). FAQ/WHO Expert Committee (1973): Energy and Protein Requirements (Rome: FAO). _ Forrester, J. W. (1971): World Dynamics (Cambridge, Mass.: Wright-Allen). Ghai, D., Khan, A. R., Lee, E. and Alfthan, T. A. (1977): The Basic Needs Approach to Development (Geneva: ILO). Ghose, A. (1979): Short Term Changes in Income Distribution in Poor Agrarian Economies (Geneva: ILO). ‘ Gorman, W. M. (1956): "The Demand for Related Goods’, Journal Paper J3129, Iowa Experimental Station, Ames, Iowa. Grant, J. P. (1978): Disparity Reduction Rates in Social Indicators (Washington, DC: Overseas Development Council). Griffin, K. (1978): International Inequality and National Poverty (London: Macmillan). —~—— and Khan, A. R. (1977): Poverty and Landlessness in Rural Asia (Geneva: ILO). Haq, Mahbubul (1976): Yhe Poverty Curtain (New York: Columbia University Press). Heal, G. M. (1973): The Theon of Economic Planning (Amsterdam: North Holland). Herrera, A. O. et al. (1976): Catastrophe or New Society? A Latin American World Model (Ottawa: IDRC). ILO (1976): Employment, Growth and Basic Needs: A One—World Problem (Geneva: ILO). “ I Islam, N. (1977): Development Planning in Bangladesh: A Study in Political Economy (London: Hurst). 7 Interfutures (1979): Facing the Future (Paris: OECD). Jencks, C. (1972): Inequality (New York: Basic Books). Kynch, J. and Sen, A. (1982): ‘Indian Women: Well-being and Survival’, mimeo~ graphed. Forthcoming in Cambridge Journal of Economics. Lancaster, K. J. (1966): ‘A New Approach to Consumer Theory”, Journal of Political Economy, 74. . Leontief, W. et al. (1977): The Future of the World Economy (New York: Oxford University Press). ' Linnemann, H. (1981): MOIRA: A Model of International Relations in Agri- culture (Amsterdam: North-Holland). Lipton, M. (1977): Why Poor People Stay Poor (London: Temple Smith). McHenry, D. F. and Bird, K. (1977): ‘Food Bungle in Bangladesh’, Foreign Policy, No. 27 (Summer). McNicoll, G. and Nag, M. (1982): ‘Population Growth: Current Issues and Strategies’, Population and Development Review, 8. Malthus, T. R. (l 798): Essay on the Principle of Population (London). —~—- (1800): An Investigation of the Cause of the HesentHigh Price ofProvisions. Marx, K. (1887): Capital: A critical Analysis of Capitalist Production. Translated by S. Moore and E. Aveling; F. Engels (ed.) (London: Sonnenschein). m (1977): Karl Marx: Selected Writings, D. McLellan (ed.) (Oxford: Oxford University Press). GOODS AND PEOPLE 53 1 Meadows, D. N. et al. (1972): Ihe Limits to Growth (Washington, DC: Potomac). Mesarovic, M. D. and Pestel,‘ E.‘ (1974): Mankind at Turning Point (New York: Dutton). Mitra, A. (1980): Implications of Declining Sex-Ratio in India’s Population (Bombay: Allied Publishers). Morris, M. D. (1979): Measuring the Conditions of the World ’s Poor: The Physical Quality of Life Index (Oxford: Pergamon Press). Ng, K. (1981): ‘Welfarism: A Defence Against Sen’s Attack’, Economic Journal, 91. Oughton, E. (1982): ‘The Maharashtra Drought of 1970—73: An Analysis of Scarcity’, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 44. Pant, P. et al. (1962): ‘Perspective of Development: 1961—1976, Implications of Planning for a Minimum Level of Living’, Perspective Planning Division, Planning Commission of India, New Delhi. Parikh, K. and Rabat, F. (eds) (1981): Food For All in a Sustainable World (Laxenberg: IIASA). Rao, V. K. R. V. (1982): Food, Nutrition and Poverty in India (Brighton: Harvester Press). Ravallion, M. (1983): ‘The Performance of Rice Markets in Bangladesh during the 1974 Famine’, mimeographed, Oxford University. Rawls, J. (1971): A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press). - Schofield, S. (1975): Village Nutrition Studies: An Annotated Bibliography (Brighton: lDSfiJniversity of Sussex). Scrimshaw, N. S. (1977): ‘Effect of Infection on Nutrient Requirements’, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 30. Sen, A. K. (.1970), Collective Choice and Social Welfare (San Francisco: Holden- Day; Amsterdam: North-Holland). ——(1976a). ‘Real National Income’, Review of Economic Studies, 43 [re- printed in Sen (1982a)]. —-—— (1976b): ‘Poverty: An Ordinal Approach to Measurements’, Econometrica, 44 [reprinted in Sen (198221)] . ’ —-— (1977a): ‘On Weights and Measures: Informational Constraints in Social Welfare Analysis’,Econometrica, 45 [reprinted in Sen (1982a)]. ——(1 9771)): ‘Starvation and Exchange Entitlement: A General Approach. and Its Application to the Great Bengal Famine’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1. —-—— (1979a): ‘Personal Utilities and Public Judgment: Or What’s Wrong with Welfare Economics?’, Economic Journal, 89 [reprinted in Sen (l982a)] . —— (1979b): ‘Utilitarianism and Welfarism’, Journal of Philosophy, 76. —— (1980): ‘Equality of What?’, in S. McMurrin (ed), Tanner Lectures on Human Values, vol. I (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) [reprinted in Sen (1982a)]. . m— (1981a): Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation (Oxford: Clarendon Press). ~—— (i981b): ‘Family and Food: Sex—Bias in Poverty?’, mimeographed, 1981 [Essay 15 in this volume]. Maximum-MW - Mm. MW...“ “McM- 5 32 GOODS AND WELL-BEING —— (19810): ‘Public Action and the Quality of Life in Developing Countries’, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 43. — (1982a): Choice, Welfare and Measurement (Oxford: Blackwell; and Cam- bridge, Mass.: MIT Press). —« (1982b): ‘Rights and Agency’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 11. ——~- (19820): ‘Food Battles: Conflicts in the Access to Food’, Coromandel Lecture, 12 December; reprinted in Mainstream (8 January 1983). —~ (1983a). ‘Poor, Relatively Speaking’, Oxford Economic Papers, 35. [Essay 14 in this volume] .. -‘ «~— (1983b): Commodities and Capabilities, Hennipman Lecture 1982 (to be published by North-Holland, Amsterdam). ~— (1983c): ‘DeveIOpment: Which Way Now?’ Economic Journal, 93 [Essay 19 in this volume]. -—'(1983d): ‘Economics and the Family’, Asian Development Review, 1 [Essay 16 in this volume]. —— (1984): ‘Women, Technology and Sexual Divisions’, Working Paper, Tech— nology Division, UNCTAD, Geneva. —— and Sengupta, S. (1983): ‘Malnutrition of Rural Children and the Sex Bias’, mirneographed. Forthcoming Economic and Political Weekly. — and Williams, B. (eds) (1982): Utilitarianism and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). _ Sinha, R. and Drabek, A. G. (1978): The World Food Problem: Consensus and Conflict (Oxford: Pergamon Press). - Singer, H. and Ansari, J. (1977): Rich and Poor Countries (London: Allen & Unwin). Smith, Adam (1776): An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Sobhan, R. (1979): ‘Politics of Food and Famine in Bangladesh’, Economic and Political Weekly, 14. Srinivasan, T. N. (1982): ‘Hunger: Defining It, Estimating Its Global Incidence and Alleviating It’, mimeographed. To be published in D. Gale Johnson and E. Schuh (eds), Role of Markets in the World Food Economy. Streeten, P. (1981): With 8. J. Burki', Mahbub ul Haq, N. Hicks and F. Stewart, First Things First: Meeting Basic Needs in Developing Countries (New York: Oxford University Press). —— and Burki, S. (1978): ‘Basic Needs: Some Issues’, World Development, 6. Sukhatme, P. V. (1977): Nutrition and Poverty (New Delhi: Indian Agricultural Research Institute). Swaminathan, M. S. (1983): ‘Agricultural Progress: Key to Third World Pros- perity’, Third World Lecture, Third World Foundation. Taylor, L. (1975): ‘The Misconstrued Crisis: Lester Brown and World Food’, World Development, 3. Townsend, P. (1979): Poverty in the United Kingdom (Harmondsworth: Penguin). Williams, B. (1973): ‘A Critique of Utilitarianism’, in J. Smart and B. Williams, Utilitartanism: For and Against (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 04/09/2012 for the course PHIL 330 taught by Professor Staff during the Spring '08 term at Texas A&M.

Page1 / 24

sen - m_____.... __._ __ else 20 Goods and People 5‘7...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 24. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online